Board logo

OO Universe's homage to the next President of the USoA
merc - 11-26-2015 at 01:24 AM

Seems like we should start intelligent discussions around candidates who can change the world. Here's my long shot favorite.






http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-25/vermin-supreme-us-presidential-candidate-promises-free-ponies/6972628

He filed today.





[Edited on 11-26-2015 by merc]

[Edited on 11-22-2016 by merc]


Paddlefoot - 11-26-2015 at 02:18 AM

From a Canadian perspective NYC Pizza Rat and Deeze Nuts would make the best POTUS. The actual real candidates are all such uniform pieces of shit that a win by any of them would be a disappointment. Or, in the case of Carson or Trump, something that would move the hands on the nuclear war doomsday clock to about 30 seconds from eternal midnight.


merc - 1-27-2016 at 02:13 AM

Ok, I vote primary in less than a month. THE RICK ranted in today's Raw recap about the evil right wing.

Here's who's leading the lying former First Lady in my State on the other side.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511

Radicalism on either side is problematic. Sadly, the left has offered no centrists and the right's offerings are being out yelled by extremists.

EDIT: To clarify "lying First Lady". Simply put Hillary used a visit to the Middle East to claim bravery...taking a lesson from John Kerry. While I'm not an NRA supported and thinks this gentleman leans a little towards crazy his point is spot on and documented. I struggle to understand why anyone could see her as Leader of the free world...if the United States can still lay claim to that title.

https://youtu.be/kmClWHVU82g


[Edited on 1-27-2016 by merc]


OOMike - 1-27-2016 at 01:37 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
Ok, I vote primary in less than a month. THE RICK ranted in today's Raw recap about the evil right wing.

Here's who's leading the lying former First Lady in my State on the other side.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511

Radicalism on either side is problematic. Sadly, the left has offered no centrists and the right's offerings are being out yelled by extremists.

EDIT: To clarify "lying First Lady". Simply put Hillary used a visit to the Middle East to claim bravery...taking a lesson from John Kerry. While I'm not an NRA supported and thinks this gentleman leans a little towards crazy his point is spot on and documented. I struggle to understand why anyone could see her as Leader of the free world...if the United States can still lay claim to that title.

https://youtu.be/kmClWHVU82g


[Edited on 1-27-2016 by merc]


Hillary is the most centrist candidate of the top four. That says so much about the state of current politics


denverpunk - 1-27-2016 at 05:00 PM

Bernie's the only one who has talked mainly about the economy rather than other issues to rile up people, so that attracts me. At the same time, I have trouble imagining him as president.

Hillary probably has the best chance to win, but has a LOT of skeletons in that closet. Already has huge opposition from Republicans, so I question if she could actually get anything done as president.

Trump just wants to win, at anything. I don't think he believes half the things he says - riling up the far right is his chance to win, so that's what he's doing shamelessly (and in my opinion, harmfully). If he actually won, I'm not sure he would really want to be president.

Ted Cruz can go die.

[Edited on 1-27-2016 by denverpunk]


Cherokee Jack - 1-27-2016 at 07:48 PM

Yeah, the only way Hillary could POSSIBLY be considered "radical left" is relative to the right wing of the Republican Party and the clown car they've sent up to the stage this year. Over the last several decades the American political spectrum has been dragged so far to the right that what was once liberal is now centrist, and what was once centrist is now "moderately conservative."

Hell, just look at the patron saint of the Republicans, Ronald Reagan. GOP candidates love to talk about how great he was and how they're just like him. If Ronald Reagan was running for president right now, and ran on a platform of the things he actually did as president, he'd be polling at 0.2% and getting laughed/booed off the stage.


bigfatgoalie - 1-27-2016 at 07:56 PM

quote:
Originally posted by denverpunk
Bernie's the only one who has talked mainly about the economy rather than other issues to rile up people, so that attracts me. At the same time, I have trouble imagining him as president.

Hillary probably has the best chance to win, but has a LOT of skeletons in that closet. Already has huge opposition from Republicans, so I question if she could actually get anything done as president.




That's the huge issue facing America at the moment. It's hard for ANY president on the left to get anything done. A lot of power lies with congress, which is historically controlled by the right. And they made it their goal, and stated clearly, that their main goal was to cause trouble for Obama. And these people STILL have lots of support.

As for Bernie vs Hillary...one is a known liar, one is a liar in a friendly grandpa costume. And the idea of "if Bernie doesn't get nominated, I'm not voting" that is coming up a lot is...absurd. But as pointed out many times, this election cycle is fully embracing the radicals, focusing on a few things, and ignoring things that don't help your cause.

It'd be super funny if it wasn't important.


merc - 1-27-2016 at 11:51 PM

Bernie talking economy is like an arsonist talking fires. He wants it bigger in a bad way.

There was an interesting article on Walmart this week and the impact of their VOLUNTARY increase of their entry wage. I was shocked to see the net profit margin is 3.3%. If I were a shareholder, I would sell. Labor is a retailers second biggest cost. The increase will likely eat up .75-1.2% of expense, or cut earnings by 30%.

OOMike, my Ohio friend, you present a tallest midget statement for comfort? Is it that bad...

I'm a Libertarion at heart. Smaller government, more personal freedom. The big 4 ( and Rubio) all scare me.


OORick - 1-28-2016 at 04:00 AM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
Ok, I vote primary in less than a month. THE RICK ranted in today's Raw recap about the evil right wing.


I actually tried to avoid any overt vitriol towards reasonably mainstream republicanism. I was trying to do my best to decimate the very stupid, not the right.

It's not my fault if the very stupid just tend to lean that way. ZING~!

Kidding. More seriously, I did try to limit my focus for a reason: in addition to brain-bending fact that some horrible human beings actually saw those endorsement by Duck Dynasty and Palin, AND THOUGHT THEY WERE GOOD THINGS, I saw something else happen in the previous week that caught me by surprise.... the fact that, out of nowhere, Trump and Cruz started getting lambasted by their own. Not just the behind-the-scenes grumbling that I know has existed since late last summer, but full on smear pieces by the carefully orchestrated conservative media outlets.

I thought that if I framed my (legitimate) outrage the way I did, I might tease out some kind of response from the non-Tea-Party crowd who now seem to share much of my confusion and terror over what the hell is happening. I was genuinely curious to see what might come of some debate and discourse, because I'd like to know just how far "centrist" this might actually push "mainstream republicans," or if it's just an intellectually dishonest ploy to say, "Hey, look at us, we're TOTALLY normal and like you, because we're not racist and don't want to commit murder on the streets of New York City just to prove we can get away with it. See: JUST LIKE YOU, it's OK to vote for us," (when, in reality, they're still pretty much stuck on all the same policies that have driven the entire party so far to the right of center that they'll always have a hard time winning a national election).

Unfortunately, even my carefully framed rant only got me about 3 emails about the non-wrestling parts of the recap. One in full support, one telling me to shut the hell up because I'm just part of the liberal intellectual elite, and one that just claimed to feel sorry for me and promised to pray for my eternal soul since I'm clearly a hate-filled godless heathen. Whee.

FWIW, I actually consider libertarianism and what Bernie Sanders is bringing to the table to be the opposite sides of the same coin. In a perfect world, where all else is equal and there are no other concerns or considerations that require our attention, they are two noble ideals to which government could aspire. If everybody is truly equal and comfortably well-to-do, with no outside/international forces at work, no biases with regards to gender/race/lifestyle, and all that..... then hell, yeah, you can have the debate over libertarianism (everything's fair and great, so everybody should just get to take care of themselves) or a modified democratic/western socialism (everything's great, but if we all pay equally into the system, then we can all have even nicer things).

Sadly, all things are not equal and our society is far from ideal, so we have tons of real-life concerns and considerations that make both those extremes untenable if they were put into practice.



Rick


janerd75 - 1-28-2016 at 07:23 AM

If we "all" pay "equally" into "the system". What mean "we" KimOOsabe? Lulz. I ain't takin' no CommieNazi advice from that shifty hardcore leftist The Rick for one very explicit reason he mentioned in his profile. How some of you sheeplemmings missed his Bill Ayers worship/Saul Alinsky Rules For Radicalz/toss all Tea Partiers-Repubs-Conservatives into FEMA camps and then torch the fuckers morsel of hatred I shall never guess. Perhaps some of you mooks can pick out the relevant error in the Monday RAW recap exposing his subversive leanings that I, as clearly the most reasonable member of this bOOard, have provided for your perusal before he memory holes the damn thing deeper than Hillary's server or Bill's cigar. Behold, The Rick's undoing!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------
OO RAW RECAP January 25, 2016

Backstage: Joey Jo Jo Shabadoo Jr. catches up to Roman Reigns, and actually recites some of Vince's "WHAT?"-induced drivel from earlier (it was bad and stilted the first time, it was no better the second time around), and asks for Roman's thoughts about how he's supposedly "broken." Predictably, Roman disagrees with Vince's theory, and says he'll be proving his point later tonight. Whee.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------

Tell me you all see that, right? Hiding in plain sight, for all the wOOrld to see amongst his Patriot-bashing hate speech, is a slight of hand ever so subtly and artfully obscured within a reference to the wrecked angle with Roman Reigns and yet is so diabolical it boggles the mind as to why none of you have yet called him out on it to answer for his crimes. And now, the damning evidence:



Do you know what subversive means, The Rick? Well, I still don't but I'm almost certain it has to do with dudes that are sexually attracted to submarines, though I did hear it in reference to 'The Simpsons' a bunch of times. Ultimately, I think it has to do with Homer either misunderstanding a situation or mispronouncing something and that usually contrasts with what is normally heard, understood, or expected by others, thus causing what I like to call "Comedic Friction Subverting Expected Social Norms For The Sake of High Comedy". Now, in the video yOOu all can clearly hear Homer say, "Joey Joe Joe Junior....Shabadoo, which is absolutely critical in the execution of the joke, moreso than the billions-to-one chance that the actual Joey is sitting across from him. The humor clearly lies in Homer's attempt at a made up name that is all the more ridiculous given that in his attempt to pass a fake name off to Moe, he disregards the standard order in which Western names are generally assigned. In willfully and maliciously changing the naming order, Mr. The Rick subtly attempts to interject his own form of submarine lovin' and foist his own distorted views on the rest of us. What's next, Scaia? A black Gunslinger?

Ahhhh, threadshitting. One of my favorite hobbies of everyone's. Okay all you "No, it's that side what done it.", "No, it's THAT side what done it!", listen up. This is why we can't have nice things. Shit's hitting and it's aboot to rain really hard on the just and unjust alike. Decades upon decades of social engineering and the brilliance of "our" education system have left large swaths of the greedy stupid roaming the earth. Ain't just here, but since we're the Awesomest, we get the stink eye from the rest of the envious herd because we banged the cheerleader, her hot slightly underage sister, their Mom, all while eating the fattiest foods available and we just won't shut up about it. Fine, comeuppance is upon us soon world, so don't worry. Until you need someone to bail you out, that is.

Regardless, my recommendation to y'alls is to quit bitchin' and get in the kitchen. No, seriously, that's where you can learn to can food or talk to your family about emergency preparedness. Even if I'm wrong (which I am not) it won't hurt to be "ready". So get yourself some books on dollar hyperinflation and home gardening. Maybe buy some cheap (for now) long term storage food, maybe some cheap (for now) metals, maybe just maybe don't fixate or rely on some fuckstick politician magically healing the earth once they're in office. And for Christ's Holy sake, will the lot of you stop being a bunch of pearl clutching dandies about ZOMG! guns and at least go pick yourself up a shotgun or do I need to risk me and mine to shout it from the rooftops from a megaphone where the black helicopters will have me scoped and dialed in? Unless, of course, you actually believe "it'll never happen to me" or a politician has yours and society's best interests at heart when it comes to "gun control". Just go do it and you'll thank Janerd later...provided the grid is still up, of course. Self-sufficiency is the name of the game, kiddos. And no, you're not allowed to get in stand-offs at your compound with local and state P.D. or the Feds. Bonus Advice: You ever hear one of them yell, "STOP RESISTING!" in your general direction, immediately locate the section of ass on your person near your butthole you'd like to give a farewell kiss to.

TL;DR Janerd: Yanking The Rick's Nutz and Giving You a Reason Not to Worry About the Election Because It's Too Far Gone. All of It.

In conclusion:



For Your Troubles and 'Nerd Bless America:





"Modified democratic/western socialism" LOLZ!!! So wait, you're a Donald Trump Guy?


OOMike - 1-28-2016 at 01:46 PM

I will repost this site www.isidewith.com

They ask you questions and match up which candidate is closest to your views.

I am a little concerned that I got a 43% match with Donald Trump, to be honest I felt a little dirty.


merc - 1-28-2016 at 05:13 PM

Bernie & Libertarians are exact opposites. Here, in language we all appreciate, BEER!, is my simple perspective on economics:

=========================
THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7..
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do..


The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from every body's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"



"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!


merc - 1-28-2016 at 06:27 PM

quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
I will repost this site www.isidewith.com

They ask you questions and match up which candidate is closest to your views.

I am a little concerned that I got a 43% match with Donald Trump, to be honest I felt a little dirty.


Interesting site. I think there is some bias in how the questions are presented, but overall pretty thorough.
Carley Fiorina 83%
Jeb Bush 78%

Seems about right to me.

[Edited on 1-28-2016 by merc]


Paddlefoot - 1-28-2016 at 06:59 PM

If Bernie's domestic policy is a hodge podge of things that will never happen then his foreign policy is even worse. It mainly consists of things like trying to get Iran and Saudi Arabia to be friends because apparently America has a big magic wand that will somehow wipe away about a thousand years of sheer hatred between Shiites and Sunnis. I rightly detest the Tea Party but if Sanders ever won I'll be glad they're around to put the brakes on him in Congress.


janerd75 - 1-28-2016 at 07:10 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
I will repost this site www.isidewith.com

They ask you questions and match up which candidate is closest to your views.

I am a little concerned that I got a 43% match with Donald Trump, to be honest I felt a little dirty.


Interesting site. I think there is some bias in how the questions are presented, but overall pretty thorough.
Carley Fiorina 83%
Jeb Bush 78%

Seems about right to me.



I got 85% Rand Paul, which seems about right in the ballpark for me given the nature of the questions and the algorithm set up to pick your guy (or gal). Though, to Canadian hubby's dismay, Ted the Head came in at 83%. Surprisingly, I was at 51% with Bernie and that was all on immigration issues. (Note for future test takers: they give a breakdown of how close you are to any particular candidate in various categories after you complete the test.)

The only concern I have regarding the accuracy to the test was my 24% for Hillary, which is an approximately Eleventy-billion X Infinity +1 greater percentage than I would have thought.


OOMike - 1-28-2016 at 07:44 PM

See my 43% match to Trump....


merc - 1-28-2016 at 09:23 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
If Bernie's domestic policy is a hodge podge of things that will never happen then his foreign policy is even worse. It mainly consists of things like trying to get Iran and Saudi Arabia to be friends because apparently America has a big magic wand that will somehow wipe away about a thousand years of sheer hatred between Shiites and Sunnis. I rightly detest the Tea Party but if Sanders ever won I'll be glad they're around to put the brakes on him in Congress.


I'm not sure where the Tea Party hate comes in. Here's the foundation of the movement, from Wiki, but as I have understood it

"The Tea Party movement is an American political movement known for its conservative positions and its role in the Republican Party. Members of the movement have called for a reduction of the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit by reducing government spending, and for lower taxes. The movement opposes government-sponsored universal healthcare and has been described as a mixture of libertarian, populist, and conservative activists. It has sponsored multiple protests and supported various political candidates since 2009.
The movement began following Barack Obama's first presidential inauguration (in January 2009) when his administration announced plans to give financial aid to bankrupt homeowners. Following calls by Rick Santelli for a "tea party" by Chicago bond-dealers, conservative groups coalesced around the idea of protesting against Obama's agenda and a series of protests took place, including the 2009 Taxpayer March on Washington. Supporters of the movement subsequently had a major impact on the internal politics of the Republican Party.
The movement's name refers to the Boston Tea Party of December 16, 1773, a watershed moment in the American struggle for independence from Great Britain. The original Tea Party protesters demonstrated against taxation by the British without political representation for the American colonists, and references to the Boston Tea Party occurred in Tax Day protests held in the 1990s …
…The Tea Party has generally sought to avoid placing too much emphasis on traditional conservative social issues. National Tea Party organizations, such as the Tea Party Patriots and FreedomWorks, have expressed concern that engaging in social issues would be divisive. Instead, they have sought to have activists focus their efforts away from social issues and focus on economic and limited government issues."

emphasis added by me. Those on either side of the aisle that have been ineffective (R) in controlling spending or (D) in favor of bigger government thru regulations &/or programs or just socialists have sought to marginalize and demonize the original efforts. Also impacting the original focus are those that jumped on board and then brought forth their social agenda as part of the movement.. Fuck them. You won't find consistency in social agendas in Tea Party folks.

Those that paint with a broad brush, not knowing the true "Tea Party" goals, do unintentional damage to the effort. Hopefully, this helps those that are here refocus their animosity.

Or you just want more debt for future generations and higher taxes today.


Quentil - 1-28-2016 at 10:15 PM

The Tea Party is a movement that started in an attempt to split moderate voters away from the Democrat party. Funded by billionaire Republican establishment icons, it uses fear and ignorance, coupled with a plethora of outright lies in order to scare white, middle class Americans with the threat of women and minorities taking their jobs and selling them to China. In pretending to be a third party of a sort, and with the backing of mostly high school dropouts who feel they should have to pay no taxes and who are against welfare (even though they tend to already pay no taxes and collect far more government subsidy dollars than the "blue states"), the Tea Party has brought back the racism and hatred that was mostly dormant in the Republican party.

Using gerrymandered districts, newly restrictive voting requirements that target the liberal minorities, and the threat and fear of anyone pointing out their shameless tactics and lies as simply being part of the "liberal establishment", these poor/middle-class white folks are being duped into giving the richest 1% everything they could ever want. In destroying hopes for green energy, universal health care, and diplomacy over war, they push for the rights to openly carry machine guns in church, to outlaw equal rights for people who aren't white Christians, and to roll back everything the government has done since the Civil War.

An America under the Tea Party would be dirty, polluted, and full of minorities in prison (even moreso than already exists), with the standards of education, the environment, and overall happiness and living declining for everyone who isn't a coal billionaire, or the brother of one.

In using hate, lies, and outright Hitleresque tactics, the Tea Party has become the biggest threat to American way of life in the modern era. While I've plenty of issues with the fringe left as well, at least the Bernie Sanders types seemingly mean well. The Tea Party folks are simply tools for bigots who want to bring back slavery and carpet bomb as many brown people as possible in the name of freedom.

An America under Donald Trump would created trillions in debt, shoot unemployment through the roof, roll back efforts to reduce spending, and essentially hand over national parks to big businesses to cut up and sell off as they saw fit. It would alienate our allies, created discord at home with open persecution of non-white males, and all the while those same gun-toting ignorant assholes would still be blaming the "liberal establishment" even as mountains of evidence said otherwise.

Imagine how terrible things were under the last Bush. Then multiply it by a thousand. Do you really want that America? If you say "yes" then you're part of the problem. The Tea Party should be seen as the fascist hate-mongers that they are. Hateful, rascist, intolerant middle-aged white folks who want to believe they can go back to controlling everything for the benefit of a couple rich folks.


[Edited on 1-28-2016 by Quentil]


Columbo - 1-29-2016 at 02:08 AM

I got 96% Bernie Sanders I'm a filthy hippie.


chretienbabacool - 1-29-2016 at 04:38 AM

Libertarianism is a support of abdication of any personal responsibility of how our actions affect other people around us. It is only for "personal freedom" if we all lived in plastic bubbles where everything we did only affected us and in my mind it is the least intellectually honest of all the ideologies in the US. At least people like Huckabee tell you how much they hate anyone different. Libertarians will tell you they support everyone having an equal opportunity to make it because "freedom" while pointedly not telling you it's all a crock full of crap and very real barriers that are not your doing which have nothing to do with the government prevent that from happening.

Government run health care in basically every western country in the world works very well and far, far better than the capitalist crap the US conservatives have tried to push down our throats all while spending less money on health care. Libertarians don't tell you how much reduction of government actually costs people in very real ways. They don't tell you that other countries have a much more productive work force all while having more government regulations of the work day.

Single payer health care would end up saving people a crap ton of money but of course it will never get done here because intellectually dishonest people backed by a lazy media point to initial costs while refusing to focus on all the savings that happen in the long term when an organized individual entity is allowed to negotiate with all the various insurance companies as opposed to the absolute disorganized disaster that we have allowed in this country. I have actual experience with the French health care system and it is basically a beacon of light compared to the monstrosity in this country. But libertarians under the guise of personal freedom want the majority of people to have to fight on their own to get any semblance of fairness against multiple faceless organizations that could care less about the individual.


merc - 1-29-2016 at 04:38 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
The Tea Party is a movement that started in an attempt to split moderate voters away from the Democrat party. Funded by billionaire Republican establishment icons, it uses fear and ignorance, coupled with a plethora of outright lies in order to scare white, middle class Americans with the threat of women and minorities taking their jobs and selling them to China. In pretending to be a third party of a sort, and with the backing of mostly high school dropouts who feel they should have to pay no taxes and who are against welfare (even though they tend to already pay no taxes and collect far more government subsidy dollars than the "blue states"), the Tea Party has brought back the racism and hatred that was mostly dormant in the Republican party.

Using gerrymandered districts, newly restrictive voting requirements that target the liberal minorities, and the threat and fear of anyone pointing out their shameless tactics and lies as simply being part of the "liberal establishment", these poor/middle-class white folks are being duped into giving the richest 1% everything they could ever want. In destroying hopes for green energy, universal health care, and diplomacy over war, they push for the rights to openly carry machine guns in church, to outlaw equal rights for people who aren't white Christians, and to roll back everything the government has done since the Civil War.

An America under the Tea Party would be dirty, polluted, and full of minorities in prison (even moreso than already exists), with the standards of education, the environment, and overall happiness and living declining for everyone who isn't a coal billionaire, or the brother of one.

In using hate, lies, and outright Hitleresque tactics, the Tea Party has become the biggest threat to American way of life in the modern era. While I've plenty of issues with the fringe left as well, at least the Bernie Sanders types seemingly mean well. The Tea Party folks are simply tools for bigots who want to bring back slavery and carpet bomb as many brown people as possible in the name of freedom.

An America under Donald Trump would created trillions in debt, shoot unemployment through the roof, roll back efforts to reduce spending, and essentially hand over national parks to big businesses to cut up and sell off as they saw fit. It would alienate our allies, created discord at home with open persecution of non-white males, and all the while those same gun-toting ignorant assholes would still be blaming the "liberal establishment" even as mountains of evidence said otherwise.

Imagine how terrible things were under the last Bush. Then multiply it by a thousand. Do you really want that America? If you say "yes" then you're part of the problem. The Tea Party should be seen as the fascist hate-mongers that they are. Hateful, rascist, intolerant middle-aged white folks who want to believe they can go back to controlling everything for the benefit of a couple rich folks.


[Edited on 1-28-2016 by Quentil]


Funny, I thought I knew the origins of the Tea Party...
I hadn't really considered myself hateful, racist or a fascist. I am disappointed to learn I'm a tool for future slave owners and carpet bombers. I'm really bummed out that I want a planet more polluted and dirty...and I have to go buy an assault rifle before Sunday morning..and I have no relatives in the coal business...and I don't even know what ...never mind.

Dude..really?

I'll give you this. I am very guilty of being a "middle aged white folk" but in my defense, I am in constant denial on aging.


OORick - 1-29-2016 at 05:22 AM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
Bernie & Libertarians are exact opposites.


Just to make sure we're all clear on what I said: they are philosophically opposite in terms of ideology.... but pragmatically, they inhabit the same basic space as "ideas that could really work if everything else is peachy keen, but which would be horrible here in the real world."

As recently as 8 years ago, I periodically threw myself in with libertarians... this was when I had voted for three different parties in my three elections as an adult. After turning 18, my first vote was for Perot in '96, then I went for W in 2000, and after he shat the bed, I had no choice but to go for Kerry in '04. I was a total free agent in '08, and with McCain pulling ahead, I wasn't exactly sure what I would do, since I wasn't a total lefto pinko commie, nor could I remotely defend the republicans record under Bush. "Libertarian" sounded like a nice way to say "I'm kinda in the middle."

But then McCain went hard right, and stopped being the reasonable human being he had been over the past 8 years. He became a puppet/ideologue, indistinguishable from the worst of the Bush White House. He made it worse by adding Palin to his ticket. That forced me to rethink my position before November, and as I looked into what I was, I realized that I could no longer use the label "libertarian" without feeling every bit as guilty as I would being a republican.

CBBC does a nice job of laying out why libertarianism is just not a practical system.... it may not be as outright evil as many republicans are, as they twist the legal and tax systems in their favor... but I realized libertarianism is still very much a "I got mine, Jack" philosophy, with no regard for how all the pieces of a society interact. And the reason why I spent so much time going along with a libertarian label is because I'm a white, male, upper-middle class dude. To me, OF COURSE it would be fine if you just left me alone.

In reality, this represents about 15-20% of Americans, to say nothing of the trainwreck that would happen with regard to foreign policy if a hardcore libertarian was making the choices.

Basically, I got old and wise enough to realize just how terrible libertarianism is, and why anybody over the age of 22 who still thinks Ayn Rand is A Thing should probably get a punch in the face. It's fun to think that way when you're in that bubble; but you have no excuse for choosing to live inside the bubble much past college.

The flip side of that is, after my introspection of '08, I'm also way to old and wise to bother trying to defend Sanders.... most of his wackier stuff is in the same pile as any tea party/libertarian agenda: the "that'd be interesting to talk about, if only there weren't a thousand other, more pressing matters that need to be dealt with before we got implementing your noble idealistic plans" pile.

RE: isidewith.com, I did that a while back, and wasn't a great match with anyone. I was just under 70% with Hillary. For second place, I had Bernie and Kasich in a virtual dead heat around 45%, which pretty much proves that I am truly impervious to your labels!!!

RE: modified western/democratic socialism... I honestly can't remember what it is Bernie calls himself, but I thought if I threw enough modifying adjectives in there, I'd mask the Hitler-y-ness of it. Point is, whatever Bernie is, it is NOT real socialist (although he is a guy who wants to over-apply socialist principles to a system that would remain essentially a capitalist democracy), which just makes all the fucktards who ever called Obama a socialist that much more stupider for doing so. Also, janerd, I thought OO had designated Saturday's as the proper night for Drunk Posting?


merc - 1-29-2016 at 06:21 AM

Wow...

It's amazing how perspective corrupts. I'm also surprised at the under current of anger attached to thoughts.

First off, because things like facts matter. The most recent G7 report on productivity has the US at or near the top of measurements. Here's a link :
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/icp/international-comparisons-of-productivity/2014---first-estimates/rftxl-icp0915.xls

Happy to look at data showing our underperformance.

Second because apparently personal experience matters: I've spent extensive time in the UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Canada & the USA- all private sector work.- so no military health care options. Except for Germany, I'm flying home for medical care. The only reason I exempt Germany is none of my family (wife, kids) had any real medical problems whilst we were living there, so no real experience. So, US healthcare is better than everywhere else I've lived because well ME.

Finally, perspective. "Single payer healthcare" = Government healthcare be clear, don't hide it.

The reason I oppose it is simple. it is forcing consolidation of companies who provide insurance and care. Less competition means higher prices and waning quality of care. "Forcing" (my word bias) from a free enterprise perspective, merge or liquidate are the choices and liquidate is B.A.D.

A Liberatarian would suggest deregulate, let companies compete across State borders (stupid regulation) and watch what happens to prices. They will fall thru competition. Learn from history- look at the airline industry.

As niche & smaller companies get squeezed out, larger corporations set pricing without fear of competition. That is what is currently happening across the country. ( I read that the number of insurers in my State have gone from low teens to five. ) But those with a different perspective blame "corporate greed". ( btw, That greed ultimately fuels pension plans and 401ks, but I digress.)

There's nothing "personal" in that thinking. I don't want anyone to struggle and have zero desire to wish someone to fuck off and die. To suggest otherwise is further establishing the acidity of society that then becomes a class or racial rift.

So I am admittedly dismissive of both posters who assault Liiberatarian views at the individual level, and ask them to consider the philosophy at a macro level. Let the free market do what it does better than every government/politico can. Set prices that the population can bear and deliver at a level a little better than the competition. That's a Liberatarian view at a macro level that I have been unable to find a better alternative to.

Ok, That's what smaller government means. And as for personal liberties, please let Janerd buy dope, hire hookers, binge watch llama dick porn without fear of government intervention. If I want to carry an assault weapon into 10:00 Mass why can't I? (Not that I would, but someone threw that up as an example of bad. I'd think it's stupid, socially awkward and ripe for ridicule; but not inherently evil).

At the individual level there are douche bags in every political alignment. You don't have to look hard to find them. They usually yell louder, make the most outrageous statements, disregard facts and hurl insults.

Me, I'm going back to fantasy booking, much more fun.


janerd75 - 1-29-2016 at 08:10 AM

quote:
Originally posted by OORick
Also, janerd, I thought OO had designated Saturday's as the proper night for Drunk Posting?


Shabba-dabba-do, boss.

quote:
Originally posted by merc
And as for personal liberties, please let Janerd buy dope, hire hookers, binge watch llama dick porn without fear of government intervention.


Finally, someone who gets me!

We probably won't solve the world's ills here, dudes. Nor will your or my particular guy once he officially gets the nuclear launch codes. But we all do seem to like heroic archetypes and good triumphing over evil in this silly fake sport that's brought us here. Janerd's advice? Take care of you and yours, be good to you and yours, and do your best to enjoy as much as you can out of life before it's all over because Reigns is going over at Wrestlemaina and there's not a goddamned thing any of us can do about it.


OOMike - 1-29-2016 at 02:13 PM

The problem comparing Health Care to any other business (airlines) is that Health Care is not something that you can decide to do without, or most of the time choose your provider.

You want to go on a trip, you can pick your date, method of travel, and which company you want to use.

You get sick, it happens when it happens, you have to go to the hospital, and you usually go to the closest.

quote:

Back in 1970s, the United States looked a lot like other countries when it came to health care spending. In 1980, we spent $1,110 per person on health care, which worked out to about 9.2 percent of Gross Domestic Product. But in the 1980s, health-care costs in the United States began growing much faster than in other countries, rising to $8,402 per person in 2010. That amounts to a total of $2.54 billion spent on health care, or 17.9 percent of our total economy. (Source: Kaiser Family Foundation)


What happened in the 80's? Reagan deregulation.... prices quickly began to outpace inflation.

The problem that people need to understand is that Capitalism is not humane. Capitalism is similar to Libertarianism except instead of leaving the other guy alone, it is screw over the other guy so I can get ahead.

ETA: and let me add that some of those regulations are good, for example I have two sons with Cystic Fibrosis and without the state provided insurance they would have been dead, because no insurance company would cover them to the point that the insurance agent (twenty years ago) told my wife to save the money on health insurance for the funeral. Plus my wife has Type II diabetes and I would not have been able to add her to my insurance due to pre-existing conditions when she left her previous insurance.

[Edited on 1-29-2016 by OOMike]


Columbo - 1-29-2016 at 03:52 PM

quote:
Originally posted by janerd75

Reigns is going over at Wrestlemaina and there's not a goddamned thing any of us can do about it.


Stop being so obtuse.


Quentil - 1-29-2016 at 05:18 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc

Funny, I thought I knew the origins of the Tea Party...
I hadn't really considered myself hateful, racist or a fascist. I am disappointed to learn I'm a tool for future slave owners and carpet bombers. I'm really bummed out that I want a planet more polluted and dirty...and I have to go buy an assault rifle before Sunday morning..and I have no relatives in the coal business...and I don't even know what ...never mind.

Dude..really?

I'll give you this. I am very guilty of being a "middle aged white folk" but in my defense, I am in constant denial on aging.




Guess you didn't know the origins of the Tea Party. Also, if you can't tell I used hyperbole for effect, then you are silly. Although unlike the tea party, I told truth, and actually can back it up with sources that aren't Republican blogs.

You are doing a good job of trying to deflect the truth while making yourself look like a victim though. So you probably ARE a tea party supporter. It's okay to have an opinion. You just have an opinion that's hurtful to the nation as a whole, and that is simply a billionaire coal tycoon brothers' attempt to use white middle-aged males to further enrich themselves. The party you ascribe to supports anti-constitutional methods, engages in openly lying about easily-proven facts, and which does not advocate equality for anyone other than white Christian males. Sorry to have to break it to you, although I know my words will have no effect on you continuing to believe bigoted-driven dogma.

History will show your beliefs to be on the wrong side of progress. Assuming you allow it to sweep your hateful bias away into the annals of history and don't continue to try to destroy the system in order to stay on top of it.

Also, Libertarians are about as logical as Anarchists. It's a nice philosophy to talk about while smoking weed in high school, but the realities are that neither system has any real basis in logic. But hey, enjoy using those government-paved roads, the education the government paid for for you, and in posting things on the government-sponsored and subsidized internet. Keep saying how you're oppressed and how screwing the poor to give tax breaks to the rich to pollute and destroy our environment with less regulations will somehow improve things for everyone.

Have fun showing how patriotic you are by bringing your machine gun to church as you talk about how minorities and non-Christians are to blame for everything.

[Edited on 1-29-2016 by Quentil]


janerd75 - 1-30-2016 at 02:04 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Columbo
quote:
Originally posted by janerd75

Reigns is going over at Wrestlemaina and there's not a goddamned thing any of us can do about it.


Stop being so obtuse.




Lulz, callbacks.

Okay, so I'll jump in with a bit of seriousness. With absolute respect to Quentil and OOMike's positions, I'll kinda offer a combo question that I hope doesn't come across as baiting, because I'm not. But, given that government doesn't make anything nor does it provide a product we the people can choose to accept or deny, how did it find the means to stick their tax-y little fingers in every money pie without capitalism? From agrarian societies to the Industrial Revolution, which has and continues to lift millions (annnnnnd millions) of people out of poverty every day, what has the government ever done but get in the way of private individuals essentially meeting on their own terms and determining what value to set on products they make? Certainly, and I hope you can see, the "freer" the government, i.e., less intervention, the more beneficial it is to society as a whole, Koch Brothers or not. The evidence is easy to see in reviewing the history of the 20TH Century in comparing and contrasting the relatively freer countries of the West with places like China and Russia, the latter two being two of the most rights abusing countries that have ever existed...that is until now since they have both, at least nominally, moved towards free market capitalism, and especially with China. The China example is clear as evidenced by the vast amount of consumer goods from there we buy here. And no, eeeeeeeeevil fatcat corporations, y'know the type of places that made the car you drive, the medicine you take, and even the computer you are using right now, didn't flee over there to "soak the poor" and avoid their "tax responsibility" here. Much like electricity finds the shortest path to ground, so too must a business find the easiest way to operate and produce goods and/or services lest their competition do it for them. Another way for a business to "own goal" is to stick with higher operating costs that must necessarily be passed onto the consumer, i.e. you.

Perhaps I am being obtuse and government should be allowed to run amok to tend to our needs from cradle to grave. Or "the less fortunate", whomever they are and whatever being in that category entails, should be absolved or any personal responsibility whatsoever for their station in life. But I grew to learn that the best, most economical and efficient form of government is one that respects the inherent rights of its citizens, i.e. it protects them rather than grants them, and that entails protecting citizens from force or fraud (courts) and from threats both foreign (military) and domestic (police). Perhaps I'm mistaken and it's pie in the sky thinking believing people to be self-responsible so as to not need to rely on government assistance. And I absolutely understand better than most Shit Happens to good folks where bills can't be paid and devastating medical emergencies can arise out of nowhere. But wouldn't those people be better served by having more of their own money to plan as they see fit rather than confiscatory taxation carving up their paychecks to go god knows where? I tend to believe we are a generous society that would help their fellow citizen had they more of their own money to assist rather than a DMV level efficient, extremely powerful Federal government controlling it all. Heck, the evidence for that can be seen in things like GoFundMe or Kickstarters where one can state their case as to why they require more funding for XYZ. And even though I'm a devout atheist, I do have to give props to lots of church groups for doing just what I'm talking about, even thought there is no doubt a piggybacking of proselytizing to go with it. But to bring my point full circle with that last sentence, of course churches are going to tout their way of doing things if they're paying the bills. As will the government when they pay all of yours, so be careful what you wish for.

And to Mike's family health concerns, I am very sorry to hear that. That way of life can be very frustrating and exhausting. I hope you and yours are doing well regardless. I know in my situation, it's not the easiest dealing with medical-type stuff as I'm currently watching my dad die to death from Michael J. Foxinson's and my mom can barely walk due to back issues so I and Medicare Social Security are on the hook for taking care of them. And no my mom's back isn't because of my dad, even though you'd figure that'd be great for her when he went off his meds, but he's 75 and she's 69 so get your head out of the gutter, creeps. Sorry, too many serious words with no jokes. Back on track, yes, Medicare and Social Security, but they both worked all of their lives to put money into a system they had no choice but to enter. And the Deep Brain Stimulators my dad had implanted in his head weren't designed by government scientists, Comrade, but by private corporations that had to drive to work on roads the government contracted out to other private companies to make.

How all this relates to which candidate to vote for I couldn't tell you because I don't particularly care for many of them. Of the side I would consider myself on, the top two candidates are either way too religious or nationalist/populist insane for my tastes. But I don't know that writing in somebody like Gary Johnson or voting for Rand or Vermin Supreme will do any good either. I know hope is a dangerous thing and can drive a man insane, but I can only hope the sense of life is alive enough in this country that we figure out the best way forward that benefits the most. I hope the gifs are as clear as they are in my dreams. I hope...


denverpunk - 1-31-2016 at 12:29 AM

quote:
Originally posted by janerd75
Or "the less fortunate", whomever they are and whatever being in that category entails, should be absolved or any personal responsibility whatsoever for their station in life.


Are you saying that's not a real situation people are in? I'm not speaking for anybody else, but if I was raised in an environment where drugs, prostitution, violence, and a general lack of safety is a part of everyday life, then I can pretty much guarantee my journey would have been a lot different than it has been.

The rest is an 'agree to disagree' opinion from me. I respect your views and the even-handed way you presented them.


bigfatgoalie - 1-31-2016 at 01:31 AM

quote:
Originally posted by janerd75
Okay, so I'll jump in with a bit of seriousness. With absolute respect to Quentil and OOMike's positions, I'll kinda offer a combo question that I hope doesn't come across as baiting, because I'm not. But, given that government doesn't make anything nor does it provide a product we the people can choose to accept or deny, how did it find the means to stick their tax-y little fingers in every money pie without capitalism.


The government doesn't make anything? A properly run government makes a well educated population through public education. The also make and maintain infrastructure that is vital to the public and to corporations.

As for services....police, fire, military, education, health, etc...which of these services would you opt out of?

Health care? Because single payer health care is such a better alternative that I'm baffled that anybody who can use a keyboard would be against it.

It sounds like you are suggesting that government and taxes are evil. They are not. They are vital to the continued quality of life made available to most North Americans.

Oh and I'll post this here...want to know how hypocritical most folks leaning libertarian are? Put them someplace that gets 3 feet of snow in a day and see how quickly they complain that the government needs more snowplows out asap.


Paddlefoot - 1-31-2016 at 01:56 AM

The main (and only) reason libertarianism is doomed to be a hypothetical, if not an outright fraud, is simply because if you take the government out of the economic cycle then the cycle will collapse completely. Remove the buying power of the government from the economy, in the case of the United States, with an end to all government purchases ranging from fleet vehicle sales to millions of military contracts, and the economy would fall into a mega-depression that would make the last two hundred years worth of recessions and other depressions combined look a boom market in comparison. It's that simple. Libertarians might not like it but the purchasing power of government, from mundane things like office supplies through to multi-billion dollar single items like aircraft carriers, is the single greatest engine that allows the economy to thrive. If libertarianism is ever correct about anything (it isn't) then why is it that when any jurisdiction in the world that engages in a period of austerity finds itself economically stagnating? It happens practically all the time when the government is partially removed from the equation. Reduce certain red-tape and regulation so small and medium sized businesses can thrive? Reduce taxes in certain ways so businesses can hire more workers? Absolutely yes to both. Get rid of the government altogether from the basic economic equation, not just as a regulator but also as a customer for services and finished products? Congratulations geniuses, you just killed off your economy for at least a generation.

There's this too to consider, when the DIY types and the every-man-is-an-island clowns start spouting off GOP boilerplate about cutbacks, more privatization, or smaller government.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/319235_The_Bundy_Militia_and_The_Secr

These shitheads, like the ones who made asses of themselves over the last month at the Bird Sanctuary Putsch, are only capable of living the mythological Old West every-man-for-himself lifestyle because it was the US government that made it possible by building dams and highways. If it hadn't been for the government then the American West today would be as desolate and lightly populated as it was long before the railroads arrived and before the US Cavalry wiped out the Natives. Know what they found out about most of the goons that followed Ammon Bundy to the bird sanctuary takeover? Most of them are personally or professional receiving some form of government subsidy, either for personal things like disability or for business things to keep their ranches going. That $150 per month fee they have to pay for open range rights, the fascist hand of Big Government that set the Bundy twats off in the first place, is one of the most anti-free market favours and artificial discounts the government does for ANY businesses operating in the US. That fucking idiot LaVoy Finicum, aka The Tarp Man that got shot the other day, had his foster kids removed from his ranch back in Arizona because he was using them for labour and he collected the welfare cheques the state was sending him to cover their food and lodging to go directly into his own bank accounts. These guys, and any other anti-government clown that spouts the same nonsense, is absolutely 100% full of shit.

[Edited on 1/31/2016 by Paddlefoot]


OOMike - 1-31-2016 at 08:57 PM

Government doesn't provide a product? Correct, of course many companies don't provide products, they provide services, like Doctors, Lawyers, Teachers.

The Federal government employs around 4 million people (including military).
I found a number that I was unable to confirm that total government employees number around 22 million (Federal, State, Local) so without providing a product, the government employees around 10% of the work force. That does not include contractors that provide products and services for the government, aforementioned construction crews and office supply suppliers.

Look I agree that in a perfect world, people will take care of each other, but this is not a perfect world. People suck.

Capitalism is basically make a much money as you can, not do what is best for society. Why are health care costs out pacing inflation? Because we as a society will pay whatever it takes to receive medicine. The asshole who bought the company and raised the price of a pill 7500% (or whatever) never was charged with anything until he stole from his investors. Why? Because "stealing" (over charging your customers if that is such a thing in capitalism) is not illegal, it is expected, hell it is cheered behind closed doors. That is why I said that capitalism is not humane, because the capitalists worry about profit not people (generally, there are exceptions).

But can you blame them? Given a choice between receiving $100 yourself or giving $50 to two other people, hell, I will go with giving 10 other people $100 most people would take the $100 for themselves. That is why executive and CEO pay has so greatly outpaced wages and production in the last 30 years. Because the majority of people feel that they have to get theirs and everyone else fuck off.

Now times are changing because there is more transparency than there ever has been before, but it is a scratch on the surface. I work at L Brands (Bath and Body Works and Victoria's Secret mainly) auditing both imports and factories that produce our product both domestically and oversees. I know for a fact that there are several countries that we do not source from because even though it would be cheaper, the environment is horrible for the workers (sweatshops, unsafe conditions, poor pay, excessive overtime, etc.) But those countries are still setting records of exports to the US and Europe because many companies do not care about anything but profit. I read the reports from around the world where factory fires happen and tens to hundreds of people died because the factory owners did not pay for extinguishers, or locked the exits to keep the workers working all in the name of keeping the costs down and getting more orders. We may hear about large disasters like Rana Plaza, but like mass shootings that make headlines, it is only a small sample of the problem, and there are still thousands of deaths throughout the year that go unreported.

Wow did I get off track and lost my point.

Anyway, socialism or capitalism, like many -isms is great if we can eliminate the human desire to be better than their neighbor.

Tl;dr Mike rambles...


bopol - 1-31-2016 at 10:46 PM

quote:
Originally posted by janerd75
na. The China example is clear as evidenced by the vast amount of consumer goods from there we buy here. And no, eeeeeeeeevil fatcat corporations, y'know the type of places that made the car you drive, the medicine you take, and even the computer you are using right now, didn't flee over there to "soak the poor" and avoid their "tax responsibility" here. Much like electricity finds the shortest path to ground, so too must a business find the easiest way to operate and produce goods and/or services lest their competition do it for them. Another way for a business to "own goal" is to stick with higher operating costs that must necessarily be passed onto the consumer, i.e. you.


I hate to tell you this, but the Chinese government is basically driving the industrial revolution by manipulating its currency and deciding what industries to go into. Why do you think your TV is so cheap? Because the Chinese government decided to go into the industry and fronted a bunch of companies that are flooding the market with product.

In my opinion, the US government makes a huge mistake by not requiring all products they buy to be built entirely in the US.


Quentil - 2-1-2016 at 07:03 AM

quote:
Originally posted by bopol
I hate to tell you this, but the Chinese government is basically driving the industrial revolution by manipulating its currency and deciding what industries to go into. Why do you think your TV is so cheap? Because the Chinese government decided to go into the industry and fronted a bunch of companies that are flooding the market with product.

In my opinion, the US government makes a huge mistake by not requiring all products they buy to be built entirely in the US.


I hate to tell you this, but the Chinese economy is a house of cards on the verge of economic collapse. It's entirely dependent on the US to buy their cheap crap, while the US can easily choose to buy cheap crap from anywhere else in the developing world. The Chinese economy is failing. Why do you think they buy American debt? It's because they want and utterly depend on Americans to continue buying their goods.

The US is so in the drivers seat in regards to Chinese-American relations, and yet so many people seem to think that somehow China has leverage on the US.


bopol - 2-1-2016 at 02:12 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
quote:
Originally posted by bopol
I hate to tell you this, but the Chinese government is basically driving the industrial revolution by manipulating its currency and deciding what industries to go into. Why do you think your TV is so cheap? Because the Chinese government decided to go into the industry and fronted a bunch of companies that are flooding the market with product.

In my opinion, the US government makes a huge mistake by not requiring all products they buy to be built entirely in the US.


I hate to tell you this, but the Chinese economy is a house of cards on the verge of economic collapse. It's entirely dependent on the US to buy their cheap crap, while the US can easily choose to buy cheap crap from anywhere else in the developing world. The Chinese economy is failing. Why do you think they buy American debt? It's because they want and utterly depend on Americans to continue buying their goods.

The US is so in the drivers seat in regards to Chinese-American relations, and yet so many people seem to think that somehow China has leverage on the US.


I think that's why the Chinese government is targeting certain industries to enter (like LCD displays and solar panels), so they move up the food chain. Whether or not it works, I don't know. They are changing so fast that I don't think anyone can confidentially say what the end result will be.


BBMN - 2-2-2016 at 12:48 AM

GUYS! IMPORTANT STUFF HERE!


Paddlefoot - 2-2-2016 at 12:53 AM

That's not his real family. That's the fake family he uses for the campaign trail, like the one featuring Michael Caine that Mr. Burns hired to convince Bart that the real Simpsons didn't love him anymore.


bopol - 2-2-2016 at 01:35 AM

quote:
Originally posted by BBMN
GUYS! IMPORTANT STUFF HERE!




Shouldn't that kid be in school?


BBMN - 2-4-2016 at 04:40 PM

Skip to about 1:15 if you're impatient.


merc - 2-5-2016 at 01:39 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
The US is so in the drivers seat in regards to Chinese-American relations, and yet so many people seem to think that somehow China has leverage on the US.


Let's say I agree with this...lord knows this thread needs more agreement.

How can we explain how our President went to Paris two months ago for a global warming summit and agree to almost immediate mandates on US businesses, whilst allowing China, the global polution monster, 15 years to get ready to comply with the same mandate...

In addition to cheaper wages, they now are positioned for cheaper operating expenses. Suddenly, I feel the leverage will shift.

OOMike, it would be nice to believe Lex & his team were altruistic on profit, but that exactly the reason they opt of of slave shop environments today. Remeber he built his empire on stealing fashion ideas and putting it into production faster and cheaper that anyone else could. Where do you think that happened 20-40 years ago?

LBrands decisions has more to do with The Gap's nasty public backlash from the "slave labor" uproar of 15 years ago or so. (Wow am I getting old!) There were other companies doing exactly the same thing, but The Gap took the brunt of it. I'm not sure they ever recovered market share.

That said, I am glad the public reaction forced not just LBrands, but most of retail to change how they do business. That's an example of no need for the government to step in - the marketplace took care of things.

Finally, 5 days to vote and I'm still undecided. More on that when I have some time.


OOMike - 2-5-2016 at 01:39 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc

That said, I am glad the public reaction forced not just LBrands, but most of retail to change how they do business. That's an example of no need for the government to step in - the marketplace took care of things.



It is funny that you think that most of retail has changed. There are more businesses that only care about the price point from their factories than they care about the workers in those factories.

Countries like Bangladesh are gigantic pits of abuse and death and one of the biggest exporters of apparel to the US and EU.


merc - 2-9-2016 at 06:17 AM

I'll defer to your expertise OOMike on Bangladesh. I just read the annual reports. 😉

Ok, for me Election Day is Today. Time to make a decision. But first a note to anyone who's read through this entire thread. Just because something is typed in the internet doesn't mean it's true. Do some research if you are curious about ant statement(s) you've read.

To those that have brought name calling, wild assertions and broad sweeping (inaccurate) statements, the first time you say something wrong it's Okay, you are ill informed. Continuing to do so without doing any homework is intellectually dishonest. Don't be afraid to learn something about "the enemy". You might find you like some of their stuff. Your choice.

Now on to my decision...that frankly has surprised me.

Living in God's Country (New Hampshire) we have a chance to meet any candidate we want, if you put the effort in. I've met all but 4- none of whom I would vote for, so no sense wasting time. I've asked questions of 5. Finally, I've read almost all of the candidates website media/propaganda. Yeah, I take this stuff seriously, part of the reason I love living where I do, except for Iowa, access to candidate is unequalled.

I eliminated Hillary, Donald, Ted and Marco because they have a habit of being dishonest when they speak. I've had enough of that from politicians.

Sorry Ben Carson, but I want details, not broad (off target) generalizations.

Carley! Damn, you started out really interesting, but you have to evolve. You can't still be talking about "press 1 for yes and 2 for no." Non politicians have to provide opinions early and often so we can trust their beliefs. For whatever reason you didn't. I hope you don't disappear.

Bernie... I can't get a calculator or spreadsheet to make your math work. I like the human side you bring, but the financial (unintended) consequences and your failure to acknowledge the impact is a fatal flaw. Ultimately the government is not the engine of growth we need.

So I'm left with three governors.

Kasich who was warm and personable in small settings as recently as three weeks ago.

Bush who has surprised me both times I saw him. Positively.

Christie who is what he is in person or as seen on TV. I want to have a beer or 12 with him.

I believe Jeb has all of the intellect and knowledge to be a successful president. His command of issues is second to none. I might not agree with all of his opinions, but can't argue with the depth he brings. I thoroughly enjoyed his interaction with protesters, as he heard them out and engaged them in discussions. Frankly, he was far more tolerant than I would have been. That speaks to the kind of leader he was in Florida and could be in DC.

Kasich has some DC experience to go along with his Ohio leadership. I lived in Ohio about 10 years ago and don't remember him at all. That speaks to his persona. Compelling in small groups, but he has gotten lost on stage in debates. I'm not sure what is missing, but I just don't see him as electable even as he mini surges.

Then there were two.

Christie did a nice job in NJ taking a tough economic forecast and making significant changes to how business was done, both public sector and private. He can be...gruff...bombastic...inflammatory... His economic/entitlement program reform proposals will personally cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars.

(Quick aside. When drinking age went from 18-21, It was phased in over 3 years with monthly increments. I was 3 months behind the curve all the way to 21... Christie's increasing the retirement age does the same friggin thing to me, only I'll be 15 months behind the curve. Instead of costing me hang overs, it'll be real dollars. Ok back to presidential candidates.)

I don't like how he has pitted neighbor against neighbor on the Atlantic dunes wall issue. He is the anti-Bush when it comes to "in the moment" responding...although he has shown the ability to reach across the divide and find common ground.

Ultimately the deciding factor between these two is who can beat Hillary or Bernie(PLEASE GOD Let it be him!).

I don't know if Jeb can. He has the "monarchy" / brother weight to overcome. In this sound bite media cycle, I don't think he'll get the airing his presentation style needs to connect. I am a little sad when I say I think the best person for the job has less of a chance to get elected.

Christie has shown that ability already. He has won campaigns while being outspent 3-1. He showed he could clean someone's clock (sorry Marco) without coming off mean spirited In a debate.

Damn...

Ok, you've got to get to the championship and then worry about winning it. Going Bush. WWW.JEB2016.com read his thoughts; YA might be surprised at how he's gonna tax the crap outta me.

Actually, they both have plans that will whack the heck out of my generation financially, it is needed to right the financial hole we are on.


{I'm merc and I authorize this post because it's 100% my opinion. No GIFs or memes were made to clutter the interweb.}


BBMN - 2-9-2016 at 10:49 PM

I don't believe for a minute that Christie was ignorant of his appointees closing lanes on George Washington Bridge.


BBMN - 2-9-2016 at 10:50 PM


CCharger - 2-10-2016 at 12:12 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Columbo


Stop being so obtuse.


GODDAMMIT STOP STEALING MY LINES


Paddlefoot - 2-10-2016 at 12:19 AM

Here's hoping that John Kasich scores well tonight because he's the only one of the GOP'ers that still sort of resembles a human being.


janerd75 - 2-10-2016 at 01:56 AM

The only thing good aboot the upcoming NORK/Iranian EMP will be the abundance of young dumb white meat available in the aftermath. Dibs on chubs front and center.



Fuck it, I'm going with this guy for the sheer entertainment value.



And here we have a nice compare and contrast...


BBMN - 2-10-2016 at 03:55 PM

I fucking love that Conan did this with Triumph.

Here's the Daily Show fighting back against political correctness idiocy too.



It's fucked up, but we need high profile people to fight this dumb shit. The whole part where Triumph reads what you're supposed to say instead of the word poor made my head hurt...

And by the end I think a few of the kids understood the failed logic of it all, but I'm positive the blonde on the right didn't get it. Because she can't think on her own. And I loved Triumph doing a politically correct roast joke. It's like these sheltered privileged kids have skin made of tissue paper. They're softer than Charmin, and less useful too.


merc - 2-11-2016 at 06:34 AM

quote:
Originally posted by BBMN
I don't believe for a minute that Christie was ignorant of his appointees closing lanes on George Washington Bridge.


You know that there was a federal investigation, wasting taxpayer dollars, that cleared him.

Pad, I'm surprised and not unhappy on how Kasich did. The way I see it 40% of the viable republicans are decent choices.

On the Dem side, Vermin Supreme (see original post) finished 4th... I think he's out of gas at this point.

And finally, I share this not to be political, but because it's fuckin funny...sad actually but I laughed out loud twice.

http://youtu.be/-dY77j6uBHI


BBMN - 2-11-2016 at 08:12 PM

Yea, it's been shown Chris lied about the nature of the emails being sent back and forth.

http://media.nbcbayarea.com/documents/Wildstein+documents.pdf

And the main appointee, Wildstein, of his in the whole debacle "resigned" and plead the 5th.

NOTHING GOING ON HERE. NOTHING AT ALL. Seriously, the first email is simply, "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee."

Oh Jesus... I hate utilizing Occam's Razor, but Jesus. WHY DID WILDSTEIN CLOSE THE BRIDGE? WHY DID CHRIS LIE ABOUT THE EMAILS? WHY DID WILDSTEIN PLEAD THE FIFTH?


Just a wild and crazy mess up, I swear... nothing to see here. - Christie

[Wildstein tapes his mouth shut and runs away]

[Edited on 2-11-2016 by BBMN]


merc - 2-12-2016 at 03:52 AM

I read all 22 pages. Thank you for providing them.

Your presentation distorts what's included with what appears to be either fiction or sarcasm by you.

There are zero emails to/from Christie.
There is nothing attributable to Christie.

The only reference that could possibly be tied to him occurred on 9/13 @ 6:46am when it indicated "he asked about the test. He asked why he wasn't told." The emails are so redacted, that I'm not sure that is about Christie, it could be about some other exec.

For those that want a concise report here is the NY times (not exactly a conservative think tank) flowchart/ report, last updated May 14, 2015:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/08/nyregion/chris-christie-and-bridgegate-guide.html?ref=Liveblog.

I'll simply point out that after 16 months a Democrat, US Attorney, Paul Fishman ended the investigation with no allegation, charge or hint of guilt by Christie. Nothing has happened in the ensuing months.

In the end, all that means is there was not enough evidence to indict. US attorneys thru Grand Juries are frequently sited as being able to indict a ham sandwich if they want to.

My conclusion is there is no link or smoking gun no matter how hard people want to believe otherwise.


BBMN - 2-12-2016 at 03:57 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc

Your presentation distorts what's included with what appears to be either fiction or sarcasm by you.


It's not my presentation. I summarized NBC New York's timeline (into a couple points.) Again, not my work. Journalists' work.

It appears to be the same timeline here:

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/05/christie_bridge_scandal_a_timeline_of_events_1.html

And here:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/02/04/nyregion/Timeline-George-Washington-Bridge-Scandal.html?_r=0#/#time302_8379

"Jan. 8, 2014: The emails between Kelly and Wildstein are obtained by NBC 4 New York and other media outlets. The messages contradict for the first time publicly Christie's assertion that his administration was not involved."

And here:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-01/a-timeline-of-christie-proclaiming-innocence-in-bridgegate-for-16-months

Somebody here is full of shit, and it looks like Christie or his appointees. Well it doesn't even look like it. It is true. Christie had denied any involvement of his people, which is blatantly false.

quote:
The only reference that could possibly be tied to him occurred on 9/13 @ 6:46am when it indicated "he asked about the test. He asked why he wasn't told." The emails are so redacted, that I'm not sure that is about Christie, it could be about some other exec.




It appears you're not getting what I'm saying.


quote:
For those that want a concise report here is the NY times (not exactly a conservative think tank) flowchart/ report, last updated May 14, 2015:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/08/nyregion/chris-christie-and-bridgegate-guide.html?ref=Liveblog. .


Yea. I did eeny meeny miny moe when I went with the timeline I initially posted instead of this one. You read it, right? Again....

"Jan. 8, 2014: The emails between Kelly and Wildstein are obtained by NBC 4 New York and other media outlets. The messages contradict for the first time publicly Christie's assertion that his administration was not involved."


quote:
I'll simply point out that after 16 months a Democrat, US Attorney, Paul Fishman ended the investigation with no allegation, charge or hint of guilt by Christie. Nothing has happened in the ensuing months.

In the end, all that means is there was not enough evidence to indict. US attorneys thru Grand Juries are frequently sited as being able to indict a ham sandwich if they want to.

My conclusion is there is no link or smoking gun no matter how hard people want to believe otherwise.


Again, I feel there is a real disconnect between us. I never said there was a smoking gun or that Christie had been proven guilty. Hence I mentioned Occam's Razor. You know what that is?

If you can look at all this and say "Gee, he seems swell!" than more power to you I guess. I would implore one to use a little bit of critical thinking. And then hopefully say, "Wow. Either Chris sat down and told these pieces of shit to do this in person, or they did on their own. At any rate, either he's a piece of shit, or the people he surrounds himself are pieces of shit. Probably not the type of person we would want leading the most powerful nation on Earth.... how about the whole lot of 'em stay in Jersey...."


p.s.

"Feb. 1: Christie is booed at Super Bowl event with other dignitaries."

LOL. This happens when you or your people fuck over every motorist in sight.


edit;

And for the record, I have no personal feelings for the man. I recall thinking he was one of the more stand up guys on the Right when he worked hand in hand with Obama to help speed up the storm recovery in NJ. Aside from that I have no real opinion of the man. Well that is until this unfolded.

You can defend him all you want, but you're the one with the dog in this race, so you're the one most likely to have your judgement clouded. If you can honestly look at him lying about his people having a hand in this, and his boy pleading the 5th, and feel in your heart that he's 100% clean, then congratulations on your unwavering belief in a some guy you want to get drunk with. I'd like to get hammered with Bill Burr, but I don't think I want him running the country.

[Edited on 2-12-2016 by BBMN]


Paddlefoot - 2-12-2016 at 07:23 PM

Kind of the odd thing about Christie was that he was kind of a neo-Nixon on a state level. There was a lot of potential with him, possibly even some deep intelligence that could have made a major positive difference for New Jersey, but his inability to control his urges to be an overwhelming & petty bully pretty much entirely nuked any good he would have been able to to do.


janerd75 - 2-12-2016 at 10:58 PM

Yeah, yeah, yeah I know, but just try to enjoy this for what it is rather than where it came from.




merc - 2-12-2016 at 11:29 PM

IPAD 2 and editing quotes = too much work.

Please accept these thoughts as responses where they belong.

As I recalled Occum, is is a simplistic theory that basically says, " the solution with the fewest assumptions should be chosen." You link data with an assumption, I don't. 1>0. I WIN!!!!

{I did go back to check my memory, I found this nasty tidbit "In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic " so I rescind my win even though it was your game. }

My lack of faith in Superbowl crowd's intellect was greatly diminished when they boo'd the greatest quarterback of all time this year. A stadium full of more compelling dullards had never been seen that far west of the Mississippi.
If the assumption on Super Bowl crowds is the proximity to NY is the boo driver, then I would simply point to the fact that the same people cheer the NY Yankees and we really don't want to opine on their intellectual capabilities.

I would rather have a beer with Christie, but he did not make it as "my dog". Who am I kidding, there is no such thing as "a beer" and for me to present that as proof is just stupid. BTW, I'd rather have several beers with those on these forums than any politician {except Vanja Hadzovic}.

In all seriousness, I'm always inclined not to convict someone unless the DNA is conclusive...{no blue dress pun intended however it does fit nicely}. In this case here I would agree the circumstantial evidence is enough for a civil court, but fails in criminal court.

As to his fitness to become president based off of all of this...meh. Did you look at the 13 minutes of Hillary lying? Watch Rubio or Cruz change positions on Illegals, then deny doing so when confronted on live TV? Hear anything Bernie or Donald are saying? My God man! The only politician on a national level held accountable for lying since I was born is Richard M. Nixon...although there was a republican speaker of the house who stepped down a decade or two ago...so maybe two.

Pad, I also agree his may have been a politician wasted; although time heals all wounds and he is fairly young.


Paddlefoot - 2-12-2016 at 11:50 PM

quote:
Originally posted by janerd75
Yeah, yeah, yeah I know, but just try to enjoy this for what it is rather than where it came from.


Tried to, but he's just too huge a menace to basic decency to ignore. Good use of pop culture regardless, which something 99.9999% of Republicans just can't do. Satire? What's that? Better stick to Bill Clinton blowjob jokes for the drones from Sector 7G.

And back to the usual toolbaggery:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/45596_Ted_Cruz_Lies_Again-_Supreme_Court_Might_Strike_Down_the_2nd_Amendment_if_Democrats_Win

Truly the Kobayashi Maru scenario of an election. There is no winning formula because no matter which one of these pieces of shit wins everyone else on the outside of the machine looking in loses.


nOOb - 2-13-2016 at 12:03 AM

So if Donald Trump wins, does that mean we're not getting Machete Kills in Space since the main villain role would be too much like the president?


Cherokee Jack - 2-14-2016 at 09:53 PM

Surprised no one's popped in to mention Scalia yet.

The fuck that is this election season is about to get 200% more clustered.


Paddlefoot - 2-14-2016 at 10:14 PM

Scalia's death will turn the election from the burning garbage fire it's already been into a complete Category 5 shitticane, with poo being flung everywhere. That eruption at the day-care toddler fight they tried to past off as a debate last night in SC, where the audience booed the moderator for asking the candidates to stick to facts, was just the opening salvo. It can only get worse from now on in. I heard that Obama's already got a serious list of moderates and centrist judges with impeccable legal credentials to present but apparently Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell have already decided on *Martin Shkreli as Scalia's replacement, and they're going filibuster/hold their breath until they pass out if he isn't confirmed.

* just kidding, their short list of candidates is Michele Bachmann, Christine O'Donnell, Sharon Angle, Sarah Palin, and Ann Coulter. who said that these guys weren't feminists at heart?


bopol - 2-15-2016 at 01:48 AM

It has occurred to me that the Republicans will have not selected their candidate for the Presidency when their convention starts in Cleveland in July. Right now, there are five guys that I think still have a very good chance of getting the nominee (Trump, Kasich, Rubio, Cruz and Bush). No one will want to drop out because they think Trump will eventually melt down. In the meantime, Trump will continue to pull in 25-40% of the vote and the rest will get split up so no one will get a majority. Chaos will ensue at the convention.

Meanwhile, I expect that the Senate will refuse to act on any Obama nominee for the Supreme Court. How this affects the election, well, my take is that everything will get even more polarized, but it is entirely possible that we'll end up with both a Democratic president and a Democratic Senate from this and then you'll end up with a flaming liberal 37-year-old justice.


janerd75 - 2-15-2016 at 08:55 AM

Bipartisanshit!


G. Jonah Jameson - 2-15-2016 at 01:29 PM

quote:
Originally posted by bopol
It has occurred to me that the Republicans will have not selected their candidate for the Presidency when their convention starts in Cleveland in July. Right now, there are five guys that I think still have a very good chance of getting the nominee (Trump, Kasich, Rubio, Cruz and Bush). No one will want to drop out because they think Trump will eventually melt down. In the meantime, Trump will continue to pull in 25-40% of the vote and the rest will get split up so no one will get a majority. Chaos will ensue at the convention.



No one will want to drop out, but a lot of them won't have the cash to make it all the way to July. Donald Trump, unless he has an enormous meltdown, won't have any trouble making it that far, and Jeb Bush can basically afford to stay in the race as long as he wants. But John Kasich can't afford to stay in it that long unless all the not-Trump money coalesces behind him soon. I wonder about Marco Rubio, too, if he can't recover from his Milli Vanilli moment at the pre-New Hampshire debate.


BBMN - 2-15-2016 at 03:28 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
"In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic "


Again, I've never said he's been proven guilty. And again, this is where our disconnect seems to be stemming from... To you, it appears that there are essentially two options - Chris is totally 100% clean in this, or Chris is 100% guilty. I am saying there is a third option - He hasn't been proven guilty, but that in no fucking way means he might not have had a hand in the bridge closing. There's quite a bit of doubt to the notion that his appointees just up and decided to do this on their own, coupled with the fact that one refuses to go into why this happened. So there's a reason, and he's refusing to to spell it out. If this doesn't give one pause as to the idea that the reason might be "my boss told me to" than I am at a loss.

And again, even if one can show that Christie was 100% not involved, you still end up with the very true and non-deniable fact that he put these fucks in power. They're his men. If his judgement is so bad that the end result is his people fucking over thousands of motorists for petty reasons, do you honestly want him in the White House? Seriously? Him and his people can't even manage to not fuck up a bridge? A fucking bridge. Jesus. Now let's extrapolate that out to the federal level.

quote:
As to his fitness to become president based off of all of this...meh. Did you look at the 13 minutes of Hillary lying? Watch Rubio or Cruz change positions on Illegals, then deny doing so when confronted on live TV? Hear anything Bernie or Donald are saying? My God man! The only politician on a national level held accountable for lying since I was born is Richard M. Nixon...although there was a republican speaker of the house who stepped down a decade or two ago...so maybe two.


I honestly don't care about any of those people in the context of judging Christie's character or judgement.



[Edited on 2-15-2016 by BBMN]


BBMN - 2-15-2016 at 03:45 PM



I can't even make fun of this. The crowd literally boos facts.

I've never heard of anything like this outside of dystopian novels.


OOMike - 2-15-2016 at 06:02 PM

I almost want to get HBO just so I can watch his show... Jump to around 10:30 for the best part.



Edit to embed

[Edited on 2-15-2016 by OOMike]


bopol - 2-15-2016 at 09:36 PM

quote:
Originally posted by G. Jonah Jameson
quote:
Originally posted by bopol
It has occurred to me that the Republicans will have not selected their candidate for the Presidency when their convention starts in Cleveland in July. Right now, there are five guys that I think still have a very good chance of getting the nominee (Trump, Kasich, Rubio, Cruz and Bush). No one will want to drop out because they think Trump will eventually melt down. In the meantime, Trump will continue to pull in 25-40% of the vote and the rest will get split up so no one will get a majority. Chaos will ensue at the convention.



No one will want to drop out, but a lot of them won't have the cash to make it all the way to July. Donald Trump, unless he has an enormous meltdown, won't have any trouble making it that far, and Jeb Bush can basically afford to stay in the race as long as he wants. But John Kasich can't afford to stay in it that long unless all the not-Trump money coalesces behind him soon. I wonder about Marco Rubio, too, if he can't recover from his Milli Vanilli moment at the pre-New Hampshire debate.


I wouldn't be surprised if Kasich can find a sugar daddy to take care of him in the hope of having the appropriate influence of a president. Ditto: Rubio & Cruz. Bush and Trump are loaded. No one's going anywhere unless Kasich or Rubio start bombing.


BBMN - 2-16-2016 at 11:44 PM


janerd75 - 2-19-2016 at 11:45 AM

'Murcanada 2016!!!


Count Zero - 2-20-2016 at 07:31 AM

quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
I almost want to get HBO just so I can watch his show... Jump to around 10:30 for the best part.

[John Oliver Was Here]

[Edited on 2-15-2016 by OOMike]
I can say with complete honesty, his show is the ONLY thing I watch on HBO, and I think it's entirely worth every penny. He is my personal hero.

And I encourage you all to Vote For Canada. We'll at least apologize when we fuck up some foreign leader's name, or bang some intern, or get caught smoking weed pre-legalization.

[Edited on 2-20-2016 by Count Zero]


Cherokee Jack - 2-21-2016 at 08:31 PM

Interesting little nugget about a week ago that I wonder if it isn't some kind of foreshadowing...

Remember when Donald Trump finally signed that RNC pledge to support whoever the nominee might be and not run as a third-party candidate? Remember how they all breathed a sigh of relief?

Well, he released a statement a little while back, mostly the usual Trump stuff about suing Cruz, accusing him of dirty tactics, dipping back into the birther pool, etc. It's a lot of illogical shit (if you really think that he's ineligible to run [he is], just challenge it), but here was the more interesting passage to me:

quote:
One of the ways I can fight back is to bring a lawsuit against him relative to the fact that he was born in Canada and therefore cannot be President. If he doesn’t take down his false ads and retract his lies, I will do so immediately. Additionally, the RNC should intervene and if they don’t they are in default of their pledge to me.
So Trump is going out of his way to note that the *RNC* is breaking a pledge to *him*.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I could definitely see this as the seeds being planted for if Cruz wins (or it goes to a brokered convention and the party takes someone other than Trump), Trump to give them the finger, say "you didn't honor your pledge, why should I honor mine?", run as an independent and hand the election to the Democrats.

[Edited on 2-21-2016 by Cherokee Jack]


G. Jonah Jameson - 2-21-2016 at 08:48 PM

I don't think Trump would actually run as an independent. That statement is a combination of bluffing and trying to get his supporters riled up. Still, though, for maximum insanity, imagine a world in which, not only does Trump run as an independent, but Bloomberg does, too.


Paddlefoot - 2-21-2016 at 08:53 PM

After last night Cruz looks to be dead in the water after finishing third behind dumb-bot Rubio is a bible-thump state that he was expected to finish really strong in. If Cruz doesn't runaway in Texas he's toast. Which is a good thing because he represents a strain inside conservatism that's even nuttier than Trump is. The last hope for sane Republicans is if the establishment GOP has enough stroke remaining that they can force Trump to take on John Kasich as his VP running mate. This would give Ohio to the GOP. Kasich's Tea Party-lite with a lot of dumb ideas himself, and too big a focus on austerity, but would still be able to keep the state out of Clinton's hands. It also gives some stability to the situation Gerry Ford-style because when President Trump is inevitably impeached Kasich will be there and is still semi-responsible enough to keep everything from collapsing completely.

Regardless of all that I'm now pulling for Trump because:

1) he'll sign off on Keystone XL
2) he's insane
3) I'm insane
4) looking forward to the gong show that erupts when he does something so crooked, which is inevitable because he's a filthy Manhattan realtor for fucks sake, that it looks like a combination of Watergate x IranContra x Saddam's WMD's x 2008 market meltdown x one million and it ends with him being led out of the White House in handcuffs by no later than 2019

At this stage in the cosmic depravity of this particular giggle show there's no sane option left except to just laugh and laugh and laugh, like you just saw Nyarlathotep's real visage and not one of his avatars. Or, as an extreme escape option. ......

ETA that this is what Trump's upcoming triangulation on the Rubio dumb-bot it going to look like, except even more cold-blooded and chilling. It's like he's that German sharpshooter from Inglorious Basterds just picking them off one by one by one......



[Edited on 2/21/2016 by Paddlefoot]


bopol - 2-21-2016 at 11:53 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
After last night Cruz looks to be dead in the water after finishing third behind dumb-bot Rubio is a bible-thump state that he was expected to finish really strong in. If Cruz doesn't runaway in Texas he's toast. Which is a good thing because he represents a strain inside conservatism that's even nuttier than Trump is. The last hope for sane Republicans is if the establishment GOP has enough stroke remaining that they can force Trump to take on John Kasich as his VP running mate. This would give Ohio to the GOP. Kasich's Tea Party-lite with a lot of dumb ideas himself, and too big a focus on austerity, but would still be able to keep the state out of Clinton's hands. It also gives some stability to the situation Gerry Ford-style because when President Trump is inevitably impeached Kasich will be there and is still semi-responsible enough to keep everything from collapsing completely.

Regardless of all that I'm now pulling for Trump because:

1) he'll sign off on Keystone XL
2) he's insane
3) I'm insane
4) looking forward to the gong show that erupts when he does something so crooked, which is inevitable because he's a filthy Manhattan realtor for fucks sake, that it looks like a combination of Watergate x IranContra x Saddam's WMD's x 2008 market meltdown x one million and it ends with him being led out of the White House in handcuffs by no later than 2019

At this stage in the cosmic depravity of this particular giggle show there's no sane option left except to just laugh and laugh and laugh, like you just saw Nyarlathotep's real visage and not one of his avatars. Or, as an extreme escape option. ......

ETA that this is what Trump's upcoming triangulation on the Rubio dumb-bot it going to look like, except even more cold-blooded and chilling. It's like he's that German sharpshooter from Inglorious Basterds just picking them off one by one by one......

[Edited on 2/21/2016 by Paddlefoot]


You know, we're going to have to live in this world. It's not like it's a video game.

A few thoughts:
* I'm not sure that Governor Kasich is popular enough in Ohio to push the state to the Republicans as a VP candidate. He won the governorship in the 2010 Republican landslide and held it in 2014 against a very weak candidate.

* Why can't the Canadians build their own refinery for that dirty oil?

* Not buying that Cruz is dead. It was 33/22/22. I don't think anyone can rule out any of the three at this point. As you said Rubio is a bit of a bot, but he'll get 'establishment' support, but Cruz will draw well among the diehard conservatives.

This is far from over.


Flash - 2-22-2016 at 02:25 AM

I hope Trump doesn't win....

Obama in a lot of ways was like an olive branch to the rest of world saying see, we're not so bad... all that nasty stuff you've said about us isn't all true.

To vote Trump in would be like America saying "Ha Ha, tricked you."

As for why Canada doesn't refine it's own oil.... it's complicated, but it's a combination of being late to the game (ie something we should have jumped on a long time ago), massive start up costs versus the future of oil, and what we use versus what we export (ie it was better for the economy to play nice with big American oil business because we sold far more than we used).

Canada building up it's own refineries isn't entirely off the table, but it's something we'll either have to really get behind or let go of once and for all.

It probably doesn't matter... once Trump is elected he'll probably lay the groundwork for an invasion of Canada to steal our water... and then sue us for publicly complaining about him.


Paddlefoot - 2-22-2016 at 04:43 AM

quote:
Originally posted by bopol
* Why can't the Canadians build their own refinery for that dirty oil?


Because, despite all the talk Canadians say to each other to make us feel smarter than everyone else, we're actually as big a pack of short-sighted idiots as anyone anywhere else on the rest of the planet. That and because most of the big oil companies up here are American owned anyway and don't want to build a $10 billion refinery when it's easier to build a $6 billion pipeline to Texas or Illinois instead. Hence the bottleneck and no one seeing the job potential possible in doing as much upgrading and refining on the northern side of the border.


Paddlefoot - 2-24-2016 at 07:00 AM

Trump wins the Nevada caucuses by 43%, "smart" media celebrates the Rubio dumb-bot's "impressive" 25% second place finish.

When Trump gets sworn in next January he's gonna walk to the podium like this:



The look on his face as he does his victory speech will, from start to finish, be like this:



Anyone still sane in America by this time next year will be reacting to it all like this:



Like Wee Hughie said to Billy Butcher when Terror the bulldog raped a yappy little Yorkie, this entire election is the maddest thing I've ever seen.

ETA, as seen on Twatter tonight:

congratulations @Mobute@CahnEmily #Nevadacaucus pic.twitter.com/BkccNodcb4

— darth!™ (@darth) February 24, 2016



[Edited on 2/24/2016 by Paddlefoot]


merc - 2-24-2016 at 08:53 PM

I believe that ballot has been altered. I don't see Canada on it.


janerd75 - 2-26-2016 at 06:28 AM

I L'ed, but not too much OL. Whatevs.

Dear God. First Cruz is accused of being the Zodiac killer and now they say Ben Carson killed Nicole Brown Simpson. pic.twitter.com/HehpJ08LXx

— jimgeraghty (@jimgeraghty) February 26, 2016



"We will take them out one by one, Logan." pic.twitter.com/73z8D81ebs

— jimgeraghty (@jimgeraghty) February 26, 2016



Hopefully Trump will still allow a Canadian comedian guest worker program.

The menace that Trump's plan ignores: pic.twitter.com/R47mJTwSkx

— jimgeraghty (@jimgeraghty) February 26, 2016


chretienbabacool - 2-29-2016 at 05:46 PM

John Oliver just completely takes down Trump here. God bless that man. Also I can't find the right code to embed video:

http://youtu.be/DnpO_RTSNmQ


Paddlefoot - 2-29-2016 at 06:07 PM

Our good friend Jeb, clearly not any sort of Trump supporter, kind of hit it on the head as to the WHY of Trump and it's not as easy as the pundits than simply dismissing his supporters as a bunch of morons. It's a bunch of people who've gotten royally ripped off over the last several decades, especially since Dubya's first term, so they're lining up behind an outsider who (despite all his own kookiness) isn't one of the bastards that fucked them over. Add in people like a lot of union members who do not walk in lockstep with their leader's endorsements of Clinton and, when Sanders inevitably is knocked out of the race, are just as likely to flock to Trump on his pledges of bringing jobs back to America. Trump's not a fascist either, despite the panic-stricken liberals who think he is. He's just a nationalist who gets really mouthy about the off-whites when he's had a few too many wobbly-pops at the 19th Hole after nearly paring the course.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/24/donald-trump-victory-nevada-caucus-voter-anger

quote:
Donald Trump’s victory in the Nevada Republican caucus wasn’t even a close one; he reportedly led in practically every demographic (and listed them in his victory speech). Evangelicals, young, old, Hispanics, the highly educated and “the poorly educated” they all loved him on Tuesday night.

Hispanics? Yes, even Hispanics, even after that line about “drugs and rapists”.

And though establishment toffs like to issue signifying snorts about Trump voters being predominantly “poorly educated”, in the minutes after the caucus even CNN started to come around to the most elusive explanation: Trump’s popularity isn’t about his supporters’ education, their religion or the policies they’d like to see enacted. Trump is popular because of his supporters’ anger.

Anger isn’t something that Beltway pundits recognize, let alone understand because everyone employed in media or in politics in and around Washington DC is pretty well off. Even ink-stained wretches pull down five-figures – and, unlike everywhere else in America, since journalism is built on documenting nonsense, there’s some real job security in documenting Washington. Television people fare even better, because TV money is stupid money. Thinktank malefactors reap great sums from the aggrieved heartland or from industries looking to build a canon of falsified data, and Congress and the attendant lobbying is a helluva racket.

Anger is pretty easy to miss when it’s something pretty difficult to feel. When you sit at the center of the world and are unlikely to ever lack for the basic materials of self-sufficiency, the idea of blind, gnawing resentment – let alone of feeding that resentment even with irrational aims – is ineluctably beyond your ken.

It’s harder still to understand that there are millions of people in America whose ambitions for a life of steadily improving conditions cratered sometime around nine years ago and have never recovered.
If you can hardly imagine that you could follow the Horatio Alger script to the letter and still find yourself sinking in quicksand, you’re never going to understand why someone would be so contemptuous of the pieties of a system that only pays attention to you when doing soft-focus interviews in search of a journalism award or a campaign ad.

And anger isn’t something so easily ratiocinated. When your job is explaining world events, irrational phenomena lie fundamentally outside your brief. Explaining things with, “Well, people are angry!” is like surrender; it’s explaining badly resolved story lines in a TV show with, “A wizard did it.” Journalists learn to see the world in terms of the push/pull of conflicting ideologies and the necessary stratagems within a needlessly complicated governmental system; they’re necessarily going seek their explanations for seeming irrationality in the more elegant realms of philosophy and economics and political science.

Doing so fails them all the time. Look at the Tea Party, which the Beltway (at various points) tried desperately to explain as populist resentment of Business As Usual, or a new libertarian moment. Only recently has the media madding crowd come around to some kind of consensus about it just being racist as hell.

That wasn’t a difficult conclusion to reach, and it didn’t need to take seven years; all they had to do was look at their damn signage – all those placards of Obama as “Curious George” the monkey and signs like “OBAMA’S PLAN = WHITE SLAVERY” were kind of unambiguous.

Which brings us back to Trump’s victory speech in Nevada, which was his usual gallimaufry of disconnected thoughts. They aren’t traditional political speeches as much as they are The Donald emceeing his own Dean Martin roast for everyone and everything he hates, with interruptions for what he loves. He burns his enemies to a crisp, tells America it’s wonderful and drops in random praise. “Florida, we love Florida.”

Hey, Florida, baby, you’re beautiful. You’re wonderful. I tell ya, I love ya. You’re aces. Here’s $100 for the tables. I know you’re going to be lucky tonight because I can feel it.

There’s a great temptation to fume at the emptiness and banality of Trump’s statements and at the absence of traditional policy plans; it’s almost irresistible to seek some grander explanation for his success than that people like him.

But you don’t need some grand overarching political science theory. There are millions of miserable people in America who know exactly who engineered the shattering of their worlds, and Trump isn’t one of those people – and, with the exception of Bernie Sanders, everyone else in the field is running on the basis of their experience being one of those people.

When you are abused and bullied enough, anyone willing to beat up or burn down whomever put you in that position is your friend. Even a bully can be a hero if he targets others bullies – and that is, more or less, what Trump has done since day one.

Trump’s nativism is horrifying and nauseating, as is his delight in talking about beating up protesters and intimidating anyone who hassles him. People are right to fear the way he has turned movement conservatism’s loathing of protest, the media and non-white foreigners up to 11 and ripped the knob off.

But that disgusting behavior gets paired with the sight of Trump humiliating establishment empty suits like Scott Walker, stuffed shirts like Jeb Bush, party pets like Marco Rubio and habitual liars like Ted Cruz. The fact that Trump himself is frequently lying doesn’t matter to those that see themselves as the establishment’s victims if he’s lying in service of exposing another government predator.

As tacky and thuggish as it might be, Trump plays the hero to people that the wise warriors of the system have abandoned. He’s the ultimate Gary Stu character: a billionaire beholden to no one and able to abuse every disingenuous and pettifogging remora latched headfirst on the nation and sucking upward.

And as long as people can enjoy the elbow-throwing wish-fulfillment of watching him in action, most of the rest doesn’t matter to them – not the bombast, not the war-mongering, not the unfeasibility of even his signature promises and certainly not the consequences if he keeps them. If the system is already so broken that it abandoned you, its preservation is not your concern. Hell, burning it down might be what you want most.

Anger has a clarity all its own. It renders most detail extraneous, and it animates like nothing else. It is not to be underestimated, and, at this point, we will probably have to wait until November to find out if it truly has been.






[Edited on 2/29/2016 by Paddlefoot]


chretienbabacool - 3-1-2016 at 01:04 AM

Yes there's a lot of anger. I don't think anyone is ignoring that and I myself am pretty angry by a lot of things going on but anger doesn't absolve you of being a moron. As witnessed by Oliver's shredding of Trump all the things his supporters claim they like in him are complete bull. He's a phony tough guy, he's arguably not a good businessmen who has left a trail of failed endeavors behind him which have cost many people their jobs, he either straight out lies or is too dumb to remember all the things he has said, he straight up said he would kill the families of terrorists which is a war crime, he threatens to sue everyone who hurts his feelings when not tweeting illogical things at them at 2 AM when I bet many of his supporters claim to hate lawyers.

He is a complete and utter sham in every way and will do irrerereperable harm to this country if he is elected and embracing the fact that his supporters are angry won't change that. That anger is covered all the time. His supporters are still adults who if they don't want to be called morons are responsible for doing the modicum of research and realizing that all he is is a sociopath who literally will say anything to get a reaction and further put the trump name out there no matter how much it can be proven wrong or how much it contradicts previous things he has said.


[Edited on 3-1-2016 by chretienbabacool]


janerd75 - 3-2-2016 at 06:58 AM

Apocalypse Frau vs. Trumpollini. Neat.

Though there are always alternatives.



Soooo, is Canada, like, cold in the winter or do you think maybe a light jacket or a sweater will suffice?


Paddlefoot - 3-2-2016 at 07:21 AM

Keep the woolies handy because you'll need them eventually. The cold on a Winnipeg street corner in January can really harsh the buzz off even the best late night bath salt bender.


Paddlefoot - 3-2-2016 at 07:34 AM

quote:
Originally posted by chretienbabacool
Yes there's a lot of anger. I don't think anyone is ignoring that and I myself am pretty angry by a lot of things going on but anger doesn't absolve you of being a moron. As witnessed by Oliver's shredding of Trump all the things his supporters claim they like in him are complete bull. He's a phony tough guy, he's arguably not a good businessmen who has left a trail of failed endeavors behind him which have cost many people their jobs, he either straight out lies or is too dumb to remember all the things he has said, he straight up said he would kill the families of terrorists which is a war crime, he threatens to sue everyone who hurts his feelings when not tweeting illogical things at them at 2 AM when I bet many of his supporters claim to hate lawyers.

He is a complete and utter sham in every way and will do irrerereperable harm to this country if he is elected and embracing the fact that his supporters are angry won't change that. That anger is covered all the time. His supporters are still adults who if they don't want to be called morons are responsible for doing the modicum of research and realizing that all he is is a sociopath who literally will say anything to get a reaction and further put the trump name out there no matter how much it can be proven wrong or how much it contradicts previous things he has said.


I don't like it either. I doubt anyone thought the long overdue appearance of an American Robespierre to overturn the last forty years of systemic bullshit would ever be filled by Donald Trump. Maybe the only positive to come out of his victory will be the end, at last, of the Reaganite GOP. I'm not much of a liberal in general but there's not much doubt that the worst of what's afflicted the US, especially economically, over the last three decades began with Reagan's win in 1980. The forces of pure greed were unleashed with the banking deregulations that happened and they've been strip-mining America ever since. Can Trump overturn this? Probably not, and it's also probably that he wouldn't anyway because he runs with that pack of jackyls too. But if he won, as some kind of independent GOP that's going to have a clear line of division between him and the Republican establishment, it would be the first time that a POTUS has been elected that wasn't fully owned by the financial sector. You certainly can't say that about Hillary Clinton.

I have no illusions that Trump as Prez won't be a farce. Maybe he's what's needed though as the starting point when a candidate, even the most bozo of all billionaires, proves himself electable without a million puppet strings from Wall Street and the corporate sector being tied to him. Probably too much to hope for but it's hard to find any positives at all to come out of this election year.


janerd75 - 3-2-2016 at 08:47 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
Keep the woolies handy because you'll need them eventually. The cold on a Winnipeg street corner in January can really harsh the buzz off even the best late night bath salt bender.


Mmmm, wool handies... And I so can't wait to taste my first Molson-infused, syrup-dipped facsicle.


BBMN - 3-3-2016 at 11:18 PM

Local theater is showing tonight's Republican debate on the big screen.

I'm going to be disappointed if I don't go and Trump ends up punching a Mexian baby. But can I stand to watch his and Cruz's ugly mugs blown up to larger than life size for a couple hours? Sounds more punishing than 24 hours of nothing but Groundhog Day.


merc - 3-4-2016 at 02:51 AM

quote:
Originally posted by BBMN
Local theater is showing tonight's Republican debate on the big screen.

I'm going to be disappointed if I don't go and Trump ends up punching a Mexian baby. But can I stand to watch his and Cruz's ugly mugs blown up to larger than life size for a couple hours? Sounds more punishing than 24 hours of nothing but Groundhog Day.


Dude! Are you seriously not going? How awesome is it that a DEBATE has grown that big!! You might not like the peeps or their positions, but you have to respect the energy in your community. Good for them!

The press could get unfiltered reaction, hopefully the satelite trucks are lining the parking lot.


janerd75 - 3-4-2016 at 03:00 AM

Yeah, man, you gotta go. I hear the new trailer for the next X-Men movie is attached.


Paddlefoot - 3-4-2016 at 06:19 AM

Another successful GOP debate completed!


BBMN - 3-4-2016 at 02:11 PM

I didn't go to the debate.... I missed the FIRST EVER PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE DICK COMMENT.

http://gawker.com/donald-trump-just-assured-america-he-has-a-big-dick-1762790326

My girl had to wake up extra early so we decided to skip it :l


Paddlefoot - 3-4-2016 at 04:02 PM

They call them fingers but I've never seen them fing. Oh, wait, there they go......


merc - 3-4-2016 at 05:56 PM

I don't understand why liberals want gun control. It prevents republicans from target practice at their debates.



[Edited on 3-4-2016 by merc]


Paddlefoot - 3-4-2016 at 06:25 PM

This year's slate of candidates has been as good an argument as any for bringing back the all-American tradition of shooting at politicians every once in a while.


punkerhardcore - 3-4-2016 at 06:47 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
This year's slate of candidates has been as good an argument as any for bringing back the all-American tradition of shooting at politicians every once in a while.


Outside of that, I'd say Trump is all but a lock to win this November.

Which is depressing as all hell, but won't be a surprise whatsoever. This kind of sea change is the trend anymore-- after eight years of one party, people show up in droves to vote for the other. It's just unfortunate that this time, it isn't a legit politician who has any real ideas... just some fucking clown who has no clue what he'll be doing once he's in office.

At this point, it's probably best to go numb and accept this is going to happen.


Paddlefoot - 3-4-2016 at 07:15 PM

Maybe things have to reach their bottom depth under Prez Trump before they finally start getting better, or smarter. He'll probably get impeached by his third year anyway so maybe the damage he causes won't be that widespread.


Columbo - 3-4-2016 at 08:30 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
Maybe things have to reach their bottom depth under Prez Trump before they finally start getting better, or smarter. He'll probably get impeached by his third year anyway so maybe the damage he causes won't be that widespread.


I'm almost at the point where I want Trump to win just for the trainwreck

[Edited on 3-4-2016 by Columbo]


Paddlefoot - 3-8-2016 at 03:27 AM

He's evil as shit but fucking LOL regardless.


Paddlefoot - 3-8-2016 at 11:43 PM

LOL again. John Cena for Prez!

http://adequateman.deadspin.com/should-john-cena-run-for-president-1763496873



quote:
If John Cena had the best training available over the next four years on hot-topic political subjects, how well could he do in presidential debates? I’ve got to think he’d have a Trump-like chance at winning the presidency. Nobody can work the mic like him, and I think if he had the right preparation, he could make other candidates look silly at the podium. And he’d KILL it with the male college demographic eligible to vote for the first time. Am I crazy?

You are not crazy. John Cena could be president. We’ve already had one professional wrestler (and legitimately crazy person) run an entire state, and that was with virtually no political training of any sort. And there’s a reason that we’ve elected actors to higher office. ACTORS! The most inane people on fucking Earth. Fred Thompson won a Senate seat simply because he played a politician on TV so many times that people assumed he was a real one! We’ve elected actors to be president, and on more than one occasion!

Because what is a president but an actor, a figurehead? Your job is 90 percent presentation. You have policy wonks and handlers to analyze the nitty-gritty of actual government operation and then offer recommendations. A president’s job is to SELL those recommendations, and make fancy speeches, and pretend to enjoy the Chancellor of Malta’s company at state dinners.

When you vote for a president, you’re really voting for whatever shadowy apparatus is propping that fucker up, and the better the candidate is at hiding that apparatus, the better he or she polls. So, in theory, anyone good with a mic could excel with enough support behind him or her. Now that the news media has amplified the election cycle to the point where news coverage is the primary driver of campaign promotion, mic skills are the dominant factor in electability. If you can’t talk, you’re done.

John Cena could pull it off. Load him up with the names of foreign leaders and some cool stats, and he could easily win people over. Like me! Do you know how gullible I am? If I watch any presidential debate, there are moments when I will forget everything bad about any candidate because they said something I agree with. So, like, if Donald Trump says, “We gotta have wider parking spaces, folks. Believe me, when I am president, you’re gonna be able to park an aircraft carrier in any space,” I’m temporarily sold. It takes nothing to turn me. Cena could have moments of clarity like that.

In fact, he should run now. This election already has a heel. It needs a face for balance. Trump has shown us the way all elections will be conducted in the future: nothing but trash-talking and sick burns for months on end. This isn’t an anomaly. We’re gonna have even CRAZIER candidates moving forward, so I think Cena should jump in now. He could run a third party campaign funded by GNC and BIG VITAMIN and go to fucking work on everyone. I will support him and his jort welfare programs.


williamssl - 3-9-2016 at 12:14 AM

I can just see him making an address at the United Nations, and a chunk of ally delegates chime in with "Let's Go Cena" and Syria Iran et al respond with "Cena Sucks"


In different languages of course so that it's unintelligible.


"Chants of something broke out today when President Cena addressed the UN. There were either two factions involved, or it was some of the best choreography we've seen and suggestive that the UN can actually work together to accomplish something, although what that something is remains to be seen"


Paddlefoot - 3-9-2016 at 12:26 AM

President Cena was today accused by China of glass-ceiling them just like he did to CM Punk. As for Mr. Punk he's reportedly holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in Paris with a hoard of decrypted documents he claims "will explode like a pipe-bomb at the heart of the Cena Administration. No one's going to sleep this time!".


Thom - 3-9-2016 at 03:20 PM

I don't know, man. "Cena sucks" is pretty universal, no?


janerd75 - 3-10-2016 at 05:11 AM

For Tex, even though I guess this means the Ryback rape is back on. Or in. *siiiiiiiigh* I guess I'll go start stretching now.


williamssl - 3-10-2016 at 06:53 AM






BBMN - 3-11-2016 at 09:41 PM

I've gotten to the point with this election, that I can barely even take it at this point. I enjoy reading it here ten times more than the NON-STOP discussion (I use this word in the loosest sense) that is my Facebook feed. On top of that, I agree with 90% of what I'm seeing on Facebook. There's simply just too much crazy in the 2016 election for me to handle.

I've pretty much been broken by it all at this point... my views at this point can be best summed up in six second clips of stupidity that reflect the dystopian shitshow before me...




























Great Job, GOP. This is what 8 years of unfettered rage and stupidity has got us. Fucking fuck.

[Edited on 3-11-2016 by BBMN]


janerd75 - 3-12-2016 at 08:35 PM

So that's what The Rick does with his spare time.


bopol - 3-12-2016 at 08:53 PM

I feel like we're entering a time similar to the late 60s when race was a huge issue and the country seemed to be collectively losing their minds.

After months of Trump's supporters assaulting protestors at Trump rallies, we have the total meltdown yesterday that resulted in the cancellation of a Chicago event. I guess that there were too many protestors to safely count on the supportive crowd to beat them up, so the event had to be cancelled. The story around police telling him unsafe don't seem to be backed up by the actual police. Now the Dayton thing.

There is news today that the CEOs of tech companies are getting together with Republican senators saying they can't support Trump. The rich don't support Trump. The social conservatives are freaking over Trump because they don't really believe he's pro-life (hint: he's not pro-life) and I got a YouTube ad saying the Log Cabin Republicans are cool with him because he's not going to challenge gay marriage. So who exactly is supporting him and why?


Paddlefoot - 3-12-2016 at 09:14 PM

Could be that the truest answer is the 1960's never ended, and all the chaos and hatred from then is still alive and dangerous, that it never went away but periodically pops up every once in a while when things get too tense. Election season makes everything worse anyway, especially in a winner-take-all system that encourages bad behaviour in order to win. For all anyone knows is that Trump could have got boosted an extra 5% from angry/pissed off Middle America white people who general detest the shenanigans of protesters at the best of times.


bopol - 3-12-2016 at 09:29 PM

Everyone hates the protestors unless they are the ones doing the protesting. That seems to be the theme. Personally, I have no trouble with protestors, but I also think that the disruption of a candidate speaking should be kept to a minimum. Make yourself seen, but not heard as much. And there's no place for violence. Period.


Paddlefoot - 3-12-2016 at 09:34 PM

I'm getting a kick out of the ones who support the Tea Party and the likes of Ted Cruz who are suddenly saying that Donald Trump is too extreme. Yeah, popping a BLM protester in the mouth at a Trump rally is unacceptable. Encouraging someone to shoot up a Planned Parenthood clinic though, or at least implicitly condoning with silence or a half-assed "condemnation" when it happens? No, Jesus says that's still OK.


merc - 3-12-2016 at 10:05 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
I'm getting a kick out of the ones who support the Tea Party and the likes of Ted Cruz who are suddenly saying that Donald Trump is too extreme. Yeah, popping a BLM protester in the mouth at a Trump rally is unacceptable. Encouraging someone to shoot up a Planned Parenthood clinic though, or at least implicitly condoning with silence or a half-assed "condemnation" when it happens? No, Jesus says that's still OK.


Not sure comparing a punch with shooting people makes any sense. Both are wrong, but in different degrees. Kind of like how the law would see them.

And once againTea Party and shooting PP have as much in common as chicken wings and choking. Most of the time, they aren't related but when it happens every vegan wants to shout about it.

And Ted Cruz is Canadian or something


BBMN - 3-13-2016 at 03:50 PM



(God, she sucks. Clinton, not Kate here....)


Matte - 3-13-2016 at 07:23 PM

Donald Trump Says He May Pay Legal Fees of Accused Attacker From Rally

quote:
Donald J. Trump said on Sunday that he would look into paying the legal fees of a man who was accused of sucker-punching a protester at one of Mr. Trump’s rallies last week, directly contradicting his claim that he does not condone violence by his backers.

The man, John McGraw of Linden, N.C., was arrested on Thursday and charged with assault, battery and disorderly conduct. After the incident in Fayetteville, N.C., Mr. McGraw said that next time he might kill the protester, who he said was not acting like an American.

Mr. Trump, the leading Republican presidential candidate, defended Mr. McGraw in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program on Sunday, claiming that the protester was taunting him and making crude gestures. While he said he did not want to see violence at his events, Mr. Trump said that the man who threw the punch might have gotten carried away but that he “obviously loves the country.”

Mr. Trump has regularly said at his rallies that his supporters should actively silence protesters, and he has promised to pay their legal fees if they become too aggressive. Asked if he planned to keep that promise for Mr. McGraw, Mr. Trump said that he did.

“I’ve actually instructed my people to look into it, yes,” Mr. Trump said.

quote:
Anger has been boiling over at Mr. Trump’s rallies over the last week. On Saturday, a protester jumped over a barrier and rushed the stage where Mr. Trump was speaking. The man was tackled by Secret Service agents and taken away.

Later on Saturday, Mr. Trump posted a tweet with a video, set to Arabic music, showing someone who appeared to be the stage-rusher dragging an American flag. Mr. Trump accused the man of having ties to the Islamic State, also known as ISIS.

The video was apparently fake, but Mr. Trump insisted on Sunday that it raised questions about the protester.

“Supposedly, there was chatter about ISIS,” Mr. Trump said. “All I know is what’s on the internet.”


All he knows is what's on the internet.


chretienbabacool - 3-14-2016 at 04:38 PM

This reminds me a lot of Trump

http://youtu.be/tNfGyIW7aHM


[Edited on 3-14-2016 by chretienbabacool]


BBMN - 3-14-2016 at 05:11 PM

I want to spend a night chillin with Trump at his home.


"Feel free to make yourself at home... Would you like a drink? I have the best drinks. Fantastic drinks. Really good stuff. I have the best beer and the best wine. Fantastic stuff really...Feel free to have a seat and on turn on the television. The sofa is made with the best leather. It really is something. So great. And would you like to watch a movie? I have the best movies. All the best movies ever made. Just fantastic movies. I have Jaws. Have you seen this movie? There's a shark. A 'uuge shark and it's just so amazing. And I have Ghostbusters. Have you ever seen such a movie? It has the best actors. All the best actors. Bill Murray, Sigourney Weaver, Dan Aykroyd.... Dan is the best. Well so is Bill and Miss Weaver too. And there's ghosts. The best ghosts you've ever seen. Speaking of ghosts, we can watch Ghost if you want? Ghost is the best movie about ghosts since Ghostbusters! Fantastic stuff. Really top notch. It's such a shame that the ghost guy died of cancer... really sad stuff. I am working on a cure for cancer... It will cure all the cancers. Fantastic stuff my research team is working on. Oh they are the best researchers, and we will defeat cancers, as well as ISIS. ISIS is the worst, the absolute worst, so I am going to defeat them and cancer, and America will be great again. I'm so glad you're here. So would you like a Guinness beer? It's just the best American beer I tell ya. Fantastic stuff."

[Edited on 3-15-2016 by BBMN]


nOOb - 3-15-2016 at 12:43 AM

Apparently the Klan is now switching their support from Trump to Hillary. I don't know if this means Hillary is going to get less black votes or more or they'll stay the same or if Trump will now get more black votes or less or three. We know about as much about voter tendencies in this election as we do the Ass Crack Bandit...


bigfatgoalie - 3-19-2016 at 06:53 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sanders-is-wrong-about-the-lawsuit-we-filed-after-our-son-was-murdered-in-newtown/2016/03/18/d5892e2a-ebbb-11e 5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html

Anybody else come across this? It's an issue I still can't believe doesn't come up more.


Cherokee Jack - 3-30-2016 at 02:54 PM

From a while back...

quote:
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I could definitely see this as the seeds being planted for if Cruz wins (or it goes to a brokered convention and the party takes someone other than Trump), Trump to give them the finger, say "you didn't honor your pledge, why should I honor mine?", run as an independent and hand the election to the Democrats.


D& #039;oh!

quote:
Trump said he had been treated "unfairly" by the Republican National Committee and the GOP establishment. He said he was unsure whether the Republican establishment was plotting to take the nomination away from him during the convention in Cleveland.

He also said he didn't need Ted Cruz to promise to support him should Trump win the nomination. "I’m not asking for his support," Trump said.

"I don't want his support; I don't need his support; I want him to be comfortable," Trump said, taunting Cruz for dancing around the issue of whether he would support Trump if Trump were the nominee.


[Edited on 3-30-2016 by Cherokee Jack]


Flash - 5-4-2016 at 02:54 AM

Sooooo, apparently according to Trump and the National Enquirer (which has endorsed Trump); Ted Cruz's dad Raphael apparently was involved in the Kennedy assassination?

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/05/03/trump-repeats-unsubstantiated-claim-cruzs-dad-had-links-to-jfk-assassin.html


Paddlefoot - 5-4-2016 at 04:45 AM

My god.....



janerd75 - 5-4-2016 at 05:09 AM




Flash - 5-4-2016 at 11:57 AM

So Ted Cruz is now the Zodiac killer Pad'?

Man, I try not to put down American politics not being from the country and all, but I really feel bad for our Southern neighbours right now...

Hillary, who's not entirely free from scandals, just doesn't seem all that likeable.... fine, not the end of the world for a politician; but seeing the various comments around that seem aimed at her mostly for being a woman, just makes that Grand Canyon sized divide between the two parties seem like it's just going to get even bigger and more nonsensical to the outside world. She's qualified for the job, but doesn't seem to have that bit of likeability that you want in a leader...

Trump.... ugh... this seriously looks like he threw his name out there for some publicity and it's now snowballed into some kind of nightmarish circus. I know Hitler comparisons on the internet generally equal fail; but some of the shit he spouts make the comparison fair.

It's a shame; while Obama maybe tried to play too nice to win over the republicans at times, I think he brought a lot of warm feelings from the world back onto America after Bush's terms.... Hillary probably wouldn't rock the boat in regards to that too much, but man.... Reagan acting alongside a monkey, Bush Sr. vomiting on the Japanese PM, and Bush Jr's various bumbling quotes are all about to seem like old lol news if Trump gets in.

Maybe George Clooney is right; the real fight should be for the senate.


merc - 5-4-2016 at 01:18 PM

Flash,
I'm beginning to think that NEXUS is Democratically controlled and the only way "news" makes it up there is thru that line.

Things have gone to hell since Brador went away...


BBMN - 5-4-2016 at 04:19 PM

quote:
seeing the various comments around that seem aimed at her mostly for being a woman, just makes that Grand Canyon sized divide between the two parties seem like it's just going to get even bigger and more nonsensical to the outside world.


It's nonsensical to most of us here in the States. Simply by virtue of being here we have to take part on some level, but most people I know see this election as a shit show.

The other night on The Late Show, Colbert said something along the lines of, "It's looking more and more like the election will be Trump versus Hillary, the matchup Americans did something to deserve." He's a bit of an outlier in the late show scene, with his overt politics, but he really pulled no punches with that, and the joke went over so well because it's so accurate.

I've talked to conservatives that are like "Trump is awful. Cruz is awful." And most liberals I know are not behind Hillary.


As for the tone of it all, it's just a mirror of the larger growing divide here. Not everyone is super into politics or social issues, but the ones that are have become very passionate and often times equally stupid. I'm a left-leaning guy that has become more moderate over the years. This is because I try not to only look at the policies of the Right, but try to also understand the mentality that came up with them.

The opposite of this mindset is the next generation coming up, as well as all the 3rd wave feminists, that REFUSE to look at any issue from any outside vantage point. The very notion of not towing the line at all times is outrageous to them. There's been a real breakdown of logic on the Left, and it's getting us nowhere. All of this has become amplified because of hashtag warriors that enter every comment section and either praise you for being "woke" or hate your soul if you aren't.

As for the Right, well things aren't much better with older conservatives that live in the Fox echo chamber and kneejerk scream BENGHAZI or TRUMP at anyone that presses their ability to think about anything.

It's a fucking shit show here, where the majority of non-crazy Americans are surrounded by idiots screaming over them that they need to pick a side. Honestly, I think we as a country have jumped the shark. We are no longer compatible with each other on this scale. It was a great experiment for 200 years, but we aren't mature enough for it to work on this scale. I mean that. I say we divide it all up into three nations, one for the Left, one for the Right, and a centrist one. The Right can have states like New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Alabama, Georgia. The Left gets California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and some of the middle states, and the Centrists get the Midwest, and everything above North Carolina.

We can call the Right's nation, New Texas. The Left's nation, Safe Space. The Centrist's, Middle America.

Florida gets nuked.


edit - Meant Safe Space, not Safe Place....

[Edited on 5-4-2016 by BBMN]


denverpunk - 5-4-2016 at 05:03 PM

Please nuke Florida, but at least wait until I can move my parents out. Then nuke away.


Paddlefoot - 5-4-2016 at 05:27 PM

Here, play with this for a while:

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

If you set the controls for Miami/airburst/100 megaton Tsar Bomba you can really have a lot of fun in Florida. Icing on the cake too if you set the target for the Football Player/Rapist Hall of Fame in Tallahassee, the Impact Zone in Orlando, and the COHF circuit in Tampa Bay. Sorry, janny and Jeb and all other OO'ers trapped in FloridaMan-Land, but sacrifices for the greater good sometimes have to be made.


williamssl - 5-4-2016 at 06:28 PM

quote:
Originally posted by BBMN
I say we divide it all up into three nations, one for the Left, one for the Right, and a centrist one. The Right can have states like New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Alabama, Georgia. The Left gets California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and some of the middle states, and the Centrists get the Midwest, and everything above North Carolina.

We can call the Right's nation, New Texas. The Left's nation, Safe Place. The Centrist's, Middle America.




WARNING: overthinking about to occur

Short term solution that would more-rapidly-than-one-would-expect devolve into geographically smaller versions of what we have today in the Right- and Left nations. "Extremes" is, generally, a relative term based on what you're comparing it to. Take the typical frequency distribution we all learned in statistics. Representation:



Look on either end past that big lump in the middle. There you go.

What we have today in the US is no longer that "normal" frequency distribution, but one where the ends go up instead of tailing off. Couldn't find a chart that illustrated it and too lazy to go create one in excel and go through the troubles of saving chart as picture, saving, uploading, etc.

I guarantee you that a few years after this initial "totally makes sense" separation, that extremes within the former left/right sides that included the extremes would form, or rather become more discernible because now you're comparing them against a different baseline. And soon enough we'd be splitting the Right- and Left nations into further subsets to accomplish effectively what the first splitting did within those.


Lastly and separately, I wouldn't call the Left nation "safe place", as the far left seems to be taking a page from their other-extreme counterparts and getting out of control. Last-week's anti-Trump protests in northern CA. The annual May Day anti-capitalism "protests" in Seattle that have participants bringing (and using) wonderfully peaceful household items like Molotov cocktails, what we saw earlier this week/weekend in Indiana with children dropping F-bombs as part of a rally against Trump.....not to mention what's going on on college campuses when "dissenting opinions" are expressed. I'm by no means saying that the left " owns inappropriate actions and reactions to to things they disagree with - the right has too long and rich a history of that. But they are by no means innocent and trending in the wrong direction to be deserving of a "Safe" moniker.


merc - 5-4-2016 at 06:58 PM

quote:
Originally posted by BBMN
It's a fucking shit show here, where the majority of non-crazy Americans are surrounded by idiots screaming over them that they need to pick a side. Honestly, I think we as a country have jumped the shark.

Florida gets nuked.

[Edited on 5-4-2016 by BBMN]


Well said. I think the breaking point came with Political Action Committees. Haven't spent a ton of time on it, but it seems that when the super wealthy on both extremes could create marketing to lure innocents to their web, we got fucked.

I'm not so sure we are done with each other, but the middle needs to find a voice. Until that happens both radicalized ends will fuck us up.

I think that's what garnered Trump support initially- he's really more centrist than uber conservative- although he has had to portray one during some of these primaries.

With that said, I'm not thrilled to vote for him...


BBMN - 5-4-2016 at 07:37 PM

Yea, William, I understand that the new nations would probably divide further down, but we gotta start somewhere. I expect that 3rd Wavers on the Left would make everyone declare their support for them, and those that didn't would be sent to the newly created ShitLord Territory.

As for their nation being called Safe Space - I fully get it. It's not safe at all. But that wouldn't deter them from using the name. I just like the image of several of them in a van driving towards New Texas and being all, "Oh my.... oh my god.... I'm being triggered! Can we please just head back to the Safe Place, Debbie!?"

That said, what would you name it?

[Edited on 5-4-2016 by BBMN]


williamssl - 5-4-2016 at 07:58 PM

I'm the wrong person to ask, since I default to this stereotype as my view of the left:




As such, I would call it Hippieville which coincides with my current profile location referring to my Seattle home, which, earns the moniker and then some


Paddlefoot - 5-4-2016 at 08:18 PM

Headline from the American future:

Shortage of paper bags in Leftistan caused by sudden hyperventilating epidemic; series of patriarchal New Confederacy microagressions along the border seen as cause of mass-triggering event

In Sports: special Everybody Wins! ribbons handed out to players from all teams at end of revised World Series


merc - 5-4-2016 at 08:25 PM

quote:
Originally posted by williamssl
As such, I would call it Hippieville which coincides with my current profile location referring to my Seattle home, which, earns the moniker and then some


Tex (which autocorrects to "ted"),
I forgot you were out there. How in the hell did those paid anarchists get away with wrecking downtown with you on the scene...

Very disappointing


BBMN - 5-4-2016 at 08:31 PM

The Somewhat United Districts of The Motherland (Smash the Patriarchy)

Candidates would be selected by a committee of middle aged upper-middle class white women. Those with the highest degree of marginalization are put in power.


First president would be an elderly albino pansexual Korean American dwarf with no formal education, that communicates only via Tumblr.


williamssl - 5-4-2016 at 08:43 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
quote:
Originally posted by williamssl
As such, I would call it Hippieville which coincides with my current profile location referring to my Seattle home, which, earns the moniker and then some


Tex (which autocorrects to "ted"),
I forgot you were out there. How in the hell did those paid anarchists get away with wrecking downtown with you on the scene...

Very disappointing




[rant]


I honestly don't get it. It happens every fucking year. It's not like it's "oh hey a planned peaceful demonstration had unexpected violence erupt" Every. Fucking. Year.

The police have gotten better at their response - this year herding these people to the southern part of downtown where, unless there's something sports going on, is pretty empty in the evening, which contained and reduced the damages and no doubt frustrated the stupid protesters.

And it's not like this is just Seattle people doing it - folks from afar come in to participate in this annual "event". People come to this looking for trouble and to be a part of the trouble. Anyone who looks at this and says "oh hey it's just a few bad apples in the group" hasn't followed the history or has their leftie-hat on way too tight that it's cutting off circulation to the brain (serious question - what type of hats do or would lefties wear that could clearly and cleanly be attributed to them?). I saw a segment on Fox where Juan Williams said that it started as a peaceful protest and then a few folks went bad. There were two planned and organized events that day and every year: the peaceful My Day rally, and then the early-evening "anti-Capitalism" march which is where things go south every year.

However...there is precious little done to dissuade this from happening to begin with...to send strong-but-legal signals that this type of behavior won't be tolerated.... which I would attribute to our far-left-of-center city- and county-level leadership and that being too far out of their playbook to entertain. All it would take is a 1-2 years of no-nonsense reaction to this - communicating clearly up front what types of actions were going to result in punishment, actually following through with arrests when those things happen (not just a subset or the more egregious offenses), and then throwing the book at those getting arrested (or at least going with the midpoint of the range of $ and time served dimensions) to send a clear message that Seattle is not the place for this shit.

Outcomes would be:
The bad shit goes away. Win for everybody.
The whole thing goes away. Win....but first amendment people would get all butthurt and bitch...
The bad behavior intensifies....in which case lather rinse repeat. My money would be on the side of the law.



Sorry for longer than expected response. This shit PISSES ME OFF to no end. I get that there are peaceful folks in the group, but when it's known for the bad behavior which manifests itself every single fucking year....you stop your pussy-ass tolerating it and do something.


[/end rant]



EDIT: to put quote up front


Also, BBMN & paddlefoot - that shit is hilarious. In kind of a sick and sad way because it's probably more true than not... This thread could win ALL OF THE BOOARDIES if we keep that line of posting going.



[Edited on 5-4-2016 by williamssl]


Paddlefoot - 5-4-2016 at 08:53 PM

The more interesting meta here is the accusations of deliberately triggering "fascist" violence being leveled at Trump, when someone at one of his rallies pops an interloper. Between the yearly bullshit on campuses, the nonsense that happens on picket lines, and the black-bloc violence at May Day events, the political violence that gets caused by the left wildly outweighs that done by the right. The San Bernardino shooters claimed more casualties in ten minutes than the militia/racist right has in the last five years, yet the media and the supposed smart folk keep going on with the crap that armed American conservatives are more dangerous than Islamic terrorism. No one died at the Bundy ranch or at the Malheur range, except the Tarpman and that was a result of his own stupidity more than anything else. Compare that to an average weekend in Chicago or New Orleans and the realization begins to dawn that something ain't right in the way the story's being told.

Kind of realizing lately how badly we've been lied to by the masters of the ongoing narrative. And the resulting destruction of faith has been deeply disturbing. Still not on the side of the tin-hatters but the cynicism has gone from moderate in size to wearing 6XL shirts in a fairly short space of time.


chretienbabacool - 5-5-2016 at 01:09 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
The more interesting meta here is the accusations of deliberately triggering "fascist" violence being leveled at Trump, when someone at one of his rallies pops an interloper. Between the yearly bullshit on campuses, the nonsense that happens on picket lines, and the black-bloc violence at May Day events, the political violence that gets caused by the left wildly outweighs that done by the right. The San Bernardino shooters claimed more casualties in ten minutes than the militia/racist right has in the last five years, yet the media and the supposed smart folk keep going on with the crap that armed American conservatives are more dangerous than Islamic terrorism. No one died at the Bundy ranch or at the Malheur range, except the Tarpman and that was a result of his own stupidity more than anything else. Compare that to an average weekend in Chicago or New Orleans and the realization begins to dawn that something ain't right in the way the story's being told.

Kind of realizing lately how badly we've been lied to by the masters of the ongoing narrative. And the resulting destruction of faith has been deeply disturbing. Still not on the side of the tin-hatters but the cynicism has gone from moderate in size to wearing 6XL shirts in a fairly short space of time.


Anarchists are on the left are without a doubt a stain that I have dealt with many times in my past political work and they create violence but:

a) There are also without a doubt right wingers who pretend to be participating in left wing marches and start violence to cast a shadow on the message and this is far more common than anyone wants to say and

b) Right wingers have caused many more deaths and damage with their political policies than Muslim terrorists could ever hope to cause. While I have no love for Islam (or any religion) and hope the terrorists in particular die painful deaths it is pathetic that we hold up terrorists as murderers and ignore the far more overwhelming death and destruction caused by right wing, capitalistic policy as acceptable causalities of the drive for a few people to make more money. Chicago murders (which I don't think many on the left are somehow excusing) will have nothing on what global warming is going to bring to this world or asthma or poor health care have already brought and the latter leave people just as dead or damaged as the former.

[Edited on 5-5-2016 by chretienbabacool]


janerd75 - 5-5-2016 at 03:53 AM

quote:
Originally posted by williamssl
(serious question - what type of hats do or would lefties wear that could clearly and cleanly be attributed to them?)





No, no, this is a serious answer. This has always been the endgame for them. (To be clear, Leftists, not necessarily Liberals as far as terminology goes. The latter, born out of the root word liberty, are the true legacy of Jefferson. The former are dangerous Commie agitprop performance artists that feel entitled to shit in your mouth and then get pissy and violent when you don't cough up some dough for the unwanted encounter. Fuck 'em.

I can handle the Jesus people on the Right fine, just fine. Weed, fetus evictions, and legal mano y mano buttsecks ain't going anywhere any time soon. The evangelical candidate just got his ass handed to him and is out. Trump and Bernie, the only guys available that want the job unfortunately, are just knee-jerk reactions to how "well" everything has been going for the past 16 years. (Yes, 16. Turducken Bush up Barry's ass and you wouldn't be able to taste any difference in the flavour of the meat, if you catch my meaning) But the Left, they make me a' skeer'd y'alls. 'Cause they're insane. I can deal with people that want to fuck me up with some turn the other cheek action from a magical hippie. Shiiiit, I've seen Heston in the Ten Commandments a couple of times and read the literature back in the day so I "get" it. Ain't for me, but I get it. But what I want to know is what playbook are the Lefties using?*





quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
Here, play with this for a while:

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

If you set the controls for Miami/airburst/100 megaton Tsar Bomba you can really have a lot of fun in Florida. Icing on the cake too if you set the target for the Football Player/Rapist Hall of Fame in Tallahassee, the Impact Zone in Orlando, and the COHF circuit in Tampa Bay. Sorry, janny and Jeb and all other OO'ers trapped in FloridaMan-Land, but sacrifices for the greater good sometimes have to be made.


If anyone's interested, I can get precise coordinates for all major cities in Florida just so long as you promise you'll wait until I get to Tallahassee before the eagles fly. At that point I will request several Tsar Bombas dropped on my position in the middle of campus or the Capitol building, whatevs, just so I can go out with a smile on my face.





*Rhetorical question, because I already know. From each according to their need something something...

BONUS PARANOID DELUSION HOW TO FIX THE PROBLEM FOOTAGE!!!


merc - 5-5-2016 at 03:59 AM

quote:
Originally posted by chretienbabacool
a) There are also without a doubt right wingers who pretend to be participating in left wing marches and start violence to cast a shadow on the message and this is far more common than anyone wants to say and


Yes there is a doubt. That's an asshole thought with zero substantiation. Specific to Seattle, paid demonstrators are brought in, they have been since the G4 meetings in 2000. Seattle Government so fucked it up that the City became one of the most lucrative areas for the Anarchists to garner support. (That's why they always have issues Tex)

quote:
Originally posted by chretienbabacool
b) Right wingers have caused many more deaths and damage with their political policies than Muslim terrorists could ever hope to cause.
[Edited on 5-5-2016 by chretienbabacool]


CONGRATULATIONS! you win the "STUPIDEST THING EVER TYPED ON THE INTERNET ANYWHERE IN THE HISTORY OF STUPID THINGS". award.

Muslim terrorist want to kill everyone who isn't a Muslim.

It's either ignorance or mental deficiency. I'd ask which, but I don't want you to hurt yourself trying to figure it out.

I try really hard to be understanding, but you are an idiot who deserves zero respect.

Jan,
I'm sorry to say ol Twig goes to school in my home state, and is traveling about 90 minutes to my School. I am doubley humiliated.

[Edited on 5-5-2016 by merc]


chretienbabacool - 5-5-2016 at 04:17 AM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
Yes there is a doubt. That's an asshole thought with zero substantiation. Specific to Seattle, paid demonstrators are brought in, they have been since the G4 meetings in 2000. Seattle Government so fucked it up that the City became one of the most lucrative areas for the Anarchists to garner support. (That's why they always have issues Tex)


This doesn't disprove that right wingers also come in to intentionally start crap. We caught a few and they have been caught in other demonstrations around the country.

quote:
Originally posted by chretienbabacool
It's either ignorance or mental deficiency. I'd ask which, but I don't want you to hurt yourself trying to figure it out.

I try really hard to be understanding, but you are an idiot who deserves zero respect.



That's ok I think the same thing about libertarians and specifically basically everything you write on these boards. You hide a complete lack of intelligence behind a whole lot of words.

Libertarian defense of capitalism is predicated on the belief that the death of a whole swathe of the world's population and destruction of people's homes and livelihoods are ok and a by product of the ability for others to make more money and that is all somehow morally ok. It is a bankrupt ideology and again global warming will do far more damage and death to the world than muslim terrorists could hope to cause and anyone seeking to defend libertarianism is by far the biggest idiot. So again attempt to hide your complete lack of ability to form an intelligent thought behind more words and images.


BBMN - 5-5-2016 at 05:19 AM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
Yes there is a doubt. That's an asshole thought with zero substantiation

It's late. I'm tired. But there is a record of Right leaning people being brought into protests pretending to be Left, and starting shit.

There's quite a bit of it really. I'd prefer to just go to bed... If you reply, I will post tomorrow. Not sure what this has to do with the election, but I can partake if need be. (You don't want me to.)

edit - I mean, you surely have heard of agent provocateur.

[Edited on 5-5-2016 by BBMN]


merc - 5-5-2016 at 12:57 PM

quote:
Originally posted by BBMN
quote:
Originally posted by merc
Yes there is a doubt. That's an asshole thought with zero substantiation

It's late. I'm tired. But there is a record of Right leaning people being brought into protests pretending to be Left, and starting shit.

There's quite a bit of it really. I'd prefer to just go to bed... If you reply, I will post tomorrow. Not sure what this has to do with the election, but I can partake if need be. (You don't want me to.)

edit - I mean, you surely have heard of agent provocateur.

[Edited on 5-5-2016 by BBMN]


Morning,
No need to reply, It was the ignorant context I was responding to.


williamssl - 5-5-2016 at 05:56 PM

quote:
Originally posted by chretienbabacool
quote:
Originally posted by chretienbabacool
It's either ignorance or mental deficiency. I'd ask which, but I don't want you to hurt yourself trying to figure it out.

I try really hard to be understanding, but you are an idiot who deserves zero respect.



That's ok I think the same thing about libertarians and specifically basically everything you write on these boards. You hide a complete lack of intelligence behind a whole lot of words.




My favorite part of all of this was CBBC actually quoting merc, attributing the quote to himself, and then seemingly flaming himself in his response. CBBC vs CBBC for feud of the year, and flame of the year!


Paddlefoot - 5-5-2016 at 06:09 PM

quote:
Originally posted by janerd75

...stuff and thangs, Coral.......




This pisses me off because it pushes me towards a place I don't particularly enjoy, like being on the same side as the frat boys. I cheered when Crowder got popped by that union guy for being too obnoxious a few years back but, man, was he fucking on point with this rant at the same Milo event that freak bitch was going batshit at.



I try to be polite in real life to pretty much everyone but the way things are going I'm definitely veering solidly towards "FUCK your feelings!".


bigfatgoalie - 5-5-2016 at 09:24 PM

So something that has really made me smh lately...multiple articles on how Bernie should get the Dem nomination either from a) Super Delegates voting for Bernie b) Clinton dropping out. The reasoning for both? To make sure Trump doesn't win. This bothers me on multiple levels.

Now let's not get in to how difficult it will be for ANY Republican to win a general election this year. Bernie or Hillary will be the next president. Sorry not sorry Republicans.

What bothers me first is the "I won't be forced in to voting for Hillary" / "The possibility of Trump winning won't make me vote for Hillary" group is ok with using that logic to force Clinton out and make Sanders the man.

Also disturbing? These are the people the say Clinton's leads in polls don't matter. So why should Polls that support The Bern?

Another issue is the same folks bitching about how the DNC is corrupt wants the DNC to use Super Delegates to void Clinton's lead in pledged delegates AND the popular vote.

Really? REALLY???

But my biggest issue...the folks who have placed a halo on a career politician, a man who runs on PEOPLE POWER...have no issue with Sanders stating the DNC convention will be protested and that a pledged delegate and popular vote lead for Clinton shouldn't matter.

An election should be a time for National and local discourse on serious issues. The DNC should be focusing on gaining control of the senate and winning as many down ballot votes as possible.

Nope.

Viva La Revolution. #FeelTheBern. #BernieOrBust...that's what matters.


BBMN - 5-5-2016 at 09:36 PM

There's a real feeling of momentum that he's riding, and it's built on the idea that he's the first honest candidate we've had (that wasn't totally nuts.... Trump, Rand Paul) in a long long long time.

People desperately want an honest politician. Hence Trump's rise. Sure he's a shitty business man and is a bit of a liar about it, but when he says he wants a wall or whatever crazy shit he says, he seems to be telling the truth. People want that and that's why they're gravitating towards guys like Trump and Sanders.

People are so into both guys that not much else matters to them.


denverpunk - 5-10-2016 at 08:14 PM

quote:
Originally posted by BBMN
There's a real feeling of momentum that he's riding, and it's built on the idea that he's the first honest candidate we've had (that wasn't totally nuts.... Trump, Rand Paul) in a long long long time.

People desperately want an honest politician. Hence Trump's rise. Sure he's a shitty business man and is a bit of a liar about it, but when he says he wants a wall or whatever crazy shit he says, he seems to be telling the truth. People want that and that's why they're gravitating towards guys like Trump and Sanders.

People are so into both guys that not much else matters to them.


I'm not sure Trump is honest about anything other than his desire to win. He's flip flipped on issues so many times that it confirms what I have thought about him from the beginning: That he'll say anything to any audience to get support. A big reason why he's been ranting like a stupid redneck about women and Mexicans is because that's the only population that will carry him to the White House.


BBMN - 5-10-2016 at 08:29 PM

Well it at least seems like he's being honest, because nobody usually says so many bat shit crazy things so overtly. There's a lot of folks on the Right that are tired of their (and all) politicians, so when he comes in starts yelling crazy shit, they think he's at least being level with them instead of politicking like usual.

It's kinda funny seeing him take the hard Right's message, dialing it up to eleven, and then seeing blokes like Glenn Beck recoil in horror.
And Trump is all, "I LEARNED IT FROM WATCHING YOU!"


merc - 5-10-2016 at 08:45 PM

quote:
Originally posted by denverpunk

I'm not sure Trump is honest about anything other than his desire to win. He's flip flipped on issues so many times that it confirms what I have thought about him from the beginning: That he'll say anything to any audience to get support. A big reason why he's been ranting like a stupid redneck about women and Mexicans is because that's the only population that will carry him to the White House.


I'm not even sure he wanted to win originally.

But please, enough with the stereo types. I'm not a "redneck" (i'll stay neutral on the stupid part) but will hold my nose and vote for him as a believe a significant number of American citizens will because the other option is ... ...

...


...

not a viable one for me. (OK I edited myself. )

I'll compare and contrast this way. With Trump I have no clue when he is lying, but am pretty sure it happens far more often than I would like. With the one who will remain nameless I can tell she is lying because her lips are moving.


denverpunk - 5-10-2016 at 09:32 PM

Fair enough. Would you not agree that population has thrown in behind Trump pretty hard, though?


merc - 5-11-2016 at 03:04 AM

quote:
Originally posted by denverpunk
Fair enough. Would you not agree that population has thrown in behind Trump pretty hard, though?


I would. And there is no joy in mercville


OOMike - 6-1-2016 at 03:00 PM

After talking with a Bernie or bust supporter on facebook one of the things she mentioned that the most important issue this election cycle (for most people, her words) is TPP and free trade deals in general.

Personally, my most important issue is the opening on the Supreme Court.

I am wondering what is the most important issue to you?


Paddlefoot - 6-1-2016 at 03:38 PM

No further expansion of the Middle East wars. No more foolish interference in places like Syria and Libya, when reliably awful dictators were replaced by the lunatics of ISIS or having those places ruined, which further led to the refugee invasion of Europe. No more of the US being led around by the nose by Binyamin Netanyahu who, if he gets his way with his neo-cons and Likud bagmen in Congress, would like to see the entire American military neck deep in Iran in the same way that happened in Iraq for eight agonizing years.

This is what's most important to me. It's been over seventy years of a devil's bargain with the Arab world, when the US first got into bed with them in order to keep the oil supplies out of the hands of the Nazis and then the Communists. It has to end someday because it's led to a situation that's turning out to be worse than the Cold War was.


BBMN - 6-1-2016 at 07:07 PM

The Middle East is pretty much the worst shit ever right now. We've had a hand in fucking it up, but I imagine it wouldn't be too much better if we simply pulled out right now. Kinda have the tiger by its tail. I just look at what is happening and feel deeply sad and angry. Their religion and their leaders and their sects have failed them completely in every possible way.

Fun fact - With the climate slowly (really not slowly at all) warming up, we will absolutely see mass migrations out of some of these ares. They're simply too fucking hot to be used by humans. A couple weeks ago everyone in Cairo was like WTF? when temps hit like 113F. Israel was like 105F. You know shit is not right when people accustomed to a desert climate suddenly freak out over temperatures in May. Just fast forward this shit another 50 years. Yea, millions of people will migrate. Think there's a clash of culture and ideology and ethnic tensions now, just wait.

Sometimes I want to move to Mars. Help me, Mr. Musk!


denverpunk - 6-3-2016 at 08:11 PM

quote:
Originally posted by BBMN

Fun fact - With the climate slowly (really not slowly at all) warming up, we will absolutely see mass migrations out of some of these ares. They're simply too fucking hot to be used by humans. A couple weeks ago everyone in Cairo was like WTF? when temps hit like 113F. Israel was like 105F. You know shit is not right when people accustomed to a desert climate suddenly freak out over temperatures in May. Just fast forward this shit another 50 years. Yea, millions of people will migrate. Think there's a clash of culture and ideology and ethnic tensions now, just wait.

Sometimes I want to move to Mars. Help me, Mr. Musk!


Add in fresh water becoming scarcer, and the world's population continually increasing, and we have some real dystopian shit to look forward to.


merc - 6-4-2016 at 01:00 AM

An old friend is working hard on the water issue. Encouraging stuff since Coke got involved.

http://www.slingshotdoc.com


OOMike - 6-9-2016 at 05:49 PM

Spoke with my brother yesterday and he is going to vote for Trump come November (voted for Bernie in Primary) because....


He wants the system to blow up so spectacularly that it is forced to change.




In other news, Canada is looking better and better....


salmonjunkie - 6-9-2016 at 05:52 PM

Your avatar is apt.


janerd75 - 6-9-2016 at 08:11 PM












Paddlefoot - 6-9-2016 at 09:13 PM

Too many filthy commies and various other pieces of shit in control of things here these days. Taxes everywhere in Canada are going up massively too lately. Plus you're obligated to be nice and law-abiding and let the nice criminal murder you while you wait for the cops to arrive instead of being "allowed" to defend yourself. Most Americans, except for the most demented liberal ones, probably wouldn't like it here very much. Your country is fucked but ours is too, just in different ways. Not sure anymore what gramps fought in the war for but it sure as fuck wasn't this.


denverpunk - 6-9-2016 at 09:56 PM

I know very little about Canada, so I ask this seriously: Is there a serious violence problem there? I've read a little about the Inuit situation, but I'm curious about the general culture compared to ours regarding violence.


merc - 6-9-2016 at 10:13 PM

I saw this on the Facebook this morning. I've always found those from Quebec to be a little more...entrenched... in protecting their culture. I'm not endorsing or denouncing the message, just providing it as info for OOMike to make an informed decision.



Let's hear it for this Quebec mayor.

The MAYOR REFUSES TO REMOVE PORK FROM the SCHOOL CAFETERIA MENU and EXPLAINS WHY:

Muslim parents demanded the abolition of pork in all the school canteens of a Montreal suburb.

The mayor of the Montreal suburb of Dorval has refused, and the town clerk sent a note to all parents to explain why.

"Muslims must understand that they have to adapt to Canada and Quebec, its customs, its traditions, and its way of life, because that's where they chose to immigrate to.

"Muslims must understand that they have to integrate and learn to live in Quebec.
"They must understand that it is for them to change their lifestyle, not the Canadians who, so generously, welcomed them.

"Muslims must understand that Canadians are neither racist nor xenophobic. Canada accepted many immigrants before Muslims showed up (whereas the reverse is not true,
in that Muslim states do not accept non-Muslim immigrants)."

"Just like other nations, Canadians are not willing to give up their identity or their culture.

"And, if Canada is a land of welcome, it's not the Mayor of Dorval who welcomes oreigners,
but the Canadian-Quebecois people as a whole.

"Finally, they must understand that in Canada ( Quebec ) with its Judeo-Christian roots,
Christmas trees, churches and religious festivals, religion must remain in the private domain."

The municipality of Dorval was right to refuse any concessions to Islam and Sharia.

"For Muslims who disagree with secularism and do not feel comfortable in Canada,
there are 57 beautiful Muslim countries in the world, most of them under-populated
and ready to receive them with open halal arms in accordance with Sharia.

"If you left your country for Canada, and not for other Muslim countries, it is because you have considered that life is better in Canada than elsewhere. We will not let you drag Canada down to the level of those 57 countries.

"Ask yourself this question - just once:
"Why is it better here in Canada than where you come from?"
"A canteen with pork on the menu is part of the answer."

If you came to Canada with the idea that you will displace us with your prolific propagation
and eventually take over the country, you should pack up and go back to the country you came from. We have no room here for you and your ideology.

If you feel the same, forward it on. If not, hit the delete, and prepare to be displaced.

Live Simply, Speak Kindly, Care Deeply, Love Generously and Leave the Rest to God.


janerd75 - 6-9-2016 at 11:28 PM

Je me souviens!!! (Or for dumdum 'Merkins whut don't speak frog) Jamie Souvens!!! Way to go Quebec! I knew I tolerated your shitty driving and rude, entitled attitu...att......ahhhh fuck. 'Tis but a ruse. Looks like rape's still on the menu, fellas. Peace be upon you all.

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/dorval-mayor-refuses-remove-pork-school-canteens.shtml

http://www.ville.dorval.qc.ca/en/article/the-city-of-dorval-denounces-false-news-circulating-on-the-internet

ETA:











[Edited on 6-9-2016 by janerd75]


Paddlefoot - 6-10-2016 at 12:08 AM

quote:
Originally posted by denverpunk
I know very little about Canada, so I ask this seriously: Is there a serious violence problem there? I've read a little about the Inuit situation, but I'm curious about the general culture compared to ours regarding violence.


Not really, at least it's not comparable to the US because we don't have the same problems with inner city rot or any of the other various legacies from Jim Crow. We don't even have the same problems they do in Europe with too many unassimilable immigrants or refugees. Compared to most other places we're like on another planet. Just the way it is for various reasons.

I don't know why I was ranting, other than I'm old, pissed off, and scared most of the time now. All I can say is that anyone coming to Canada won't feel the same they do in the US. High taxes are the start of the differences, then it works it's way down to small silly things like not being able to buy beer at the grocery store or 711. The biggest political/cultural difference would be that in Canada we're ridden with regional divisiveness. The politicians at both the federal and provincial levels really like fucking over other parts of the country for their own benefit at home, even if it ends up damaging the nation overall. In the US you have your problems in between parties and ideologies. You don't generally have things like happen, for example, California trying to fuck over the job market in Kansas or something for no other reason than it plays good in the state house in Sacramento. In Canada though it happens far too often, with the most recent example being the mayors of Montreal and Vancouver joining forces with radical environmentalists to stop oil pipelines from Alberta being built to those cities in order to boost our export market. To put it bluntly Canadians play the polite game very well but when it comes down to fucking each other over for petty reasons we're as vicious to each other as anyone else out there.


janerd75 - 6-10-2016 at 12:30 AM

A helpful infographic for future ex-pats.


Paddlefoot - 6-10-2016 at 01:48 AM

A presidential campaign fought entirely in tweets and emoticons? Christ, it's practically Babylonian in it's.......whatever it is. Audacity? Shittiness? Alcoholism inducing?




ETA: trying to figure out a theme song for Trump when he ascends the podium to be inaugurated. All the old commies like Queen and Springsteen don't want him using their songs. As such we should offer our input. Just because it would scare the shit out of the evangelicals who voted for him here's Suggested Trump Victory Song #1:



and STVS #2, from the world of pro wrasslin' :







[Edited on 6/10/2016 by Paddlefoot]


janerd75 - 6-10-2016 at 02:12 AM

My two faves thusfar...




Paddlefoot - 6-10-2016 at 02:17 AM

This one used at rallies should get the vote of the Jared Loughner demographic solidly behind Trump. There aren't enough suicide emojis to even come close to covering it.


janerd75 - 6-10-2016 at 02:36 AM

Hillary Über Alles du dummer kanadischehund!




bigfatgoalie - 6-10-2016 at 03:58 AM

So now that we know who the nominees for the two parties are...any chance we go back to actual discussion?


Count Zero - 6-10-2016 at 05:03 AM

quote:
Originally posted by janerd75
A helpful infographic for future ex-pats.


So there =is= a reason I talk funny. I'll be damned. Nature vs Nurture: resolved.


janerd75 - 6-10-2016 at 06:27 AM

quote:
Originally posted by bigfatgoalie
So now that we know who the nominees for the two parties are...any chance we go back to actual discussion?


Once we know who the actual nominees are, I would be delighted to do so. However, we ain't to the conventions yet. Hillary's toxically radioactive as a candidate and never underestimate the butthurt duplicitousness of the Establishment GOP. Keep an eye on Liz Warren for the Dems, the GOP dumping Trump before the convention or, god forbid, if a Bernoid or some such other useful idiot revolutionary manages to hurt Trump. If the latter happens, things are going to burn a lot faster than they're eventually going to anyway. I'm not advocating that, by the way, just my opinion.

TL;DR "Crazy" Janerd: Hold on to your butts, shit's about to get rough.

ETA: Correction w/elaboration - I believe the only thing Warren could do is get on the ticket as VP. Technically, I think the only people that could replace Hillary are O'Malley, Sanders, and Webb as they are the only ones that filed before the deadline to get on the ballot in all 50 states for the Dems. I'd take Webb in a heartbeat were that the case.

[Edited on 6-10-2016 by janerd75]


Quentil - 6-10-2016 at 08:55 PM

Wait, is this a troll? It's a troll. Right?


janerd75 - 6-10-2016 at 09:01 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
Wait, is this a troll? It's a troll. Right?


Uh, which part? I'm more troll now than man, twisted and evil, so I'm not even sure anymore.


Quentil - 6-10-2016 at 09:19 PM

The whole bit about how it might be Cruz vs Webb or whatever. And not Clinton vs Trump.


janerd75 - 6-10-2016 at 09:58 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
The whole bit about how it might be Cruz vs Webb or whatever. And not Clinton vs Trump.


I admit many grains of salt should be taken with anything I post, but I was playing it straight with that one. To wit: Despite all protestations to the contrary, the FBI is still hot on Clinton's tail regarding the the loose e-mail/server issue.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/22/grassley-fbi-could-leak-clinton-email-investigation/83385362/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0YV2P3

Could be something. Could be nothing. Might amount to nothing more than idle speculation or wishful thinking on my part. But then again, there's the whole 'Clinton Cash' and 'Crisis of Character' book bombs going off.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3634502/Hillary-Clinton-desperate-hold-advance-copy-Secret-Service-agent-s-tell-book.html

As for Trump, the Establishment GOP flat out hates the guy. Not 'conservative' enough, too 'liberal'. Perhaps from their point of view that's true, but fuck 'em. They're about as much of an opposition party as Dollar Store toilet paper is to a violent Chipotle dump. I'm not particularly for Trump, mind you, but I see tings, man, I see tings.

And I'm not necessarily saying it won't be Trump vs. Hillary, but the way political events and revelations move lightening fast these days I'd hold off until either of them, who both carry a ridiculous amount of negative baggage as presidential candidates for their parties, are at the podiums at their respective conventions being formally nominated to say for sure. We live in strange times, my friend.

However, it's nice to see that The Lightbringer has finally come out and endorsed a fellow Person of Color™ for POTUS. (Should, uh, should I put the troll emoticon here or is my name kinda synonymous with that now? )




merc - 6-11-2016 at 12:53 AM

I am saddened by the choices it appears we have. How the system have become so fucked to say these are the best options for my kids future is beyond my comprehension.


Paddlefoot - 6-11-2016 at 04:13 AM

quote:
Originally posted by janerd75Should, uh, should I put the troll emoticon here or is my name kinda synonymous with that now?


(((janerd75))) - it's true, it's damn true


Quentil - 6-11-2016 at 12:58 PM

The choices are the fault of the voters believing all the rhetoric of hatred spoonfed to them by liars known as fox news. And the huff post, too. This is what happens when you spit enough hatred into people to further your own agenda. Trump especially is the liar, racist, sexist piece of shit that ignorant people have been taught to love by conservative news outlets. Of course, those same outlets figured they could control their programmed racists for their own ends. Then Trump came along and cashed in on their hard work. Much to their annoyance.


merc - 6-11-2016 at 01:44 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
The choices are the fault of the voters believing all the rhetoric of hatred spoonfed to them by liars known as fox news. And the huff post, too. This is what happens when you spit enough hatred into people to further your own agenda. Trump especially is the liar, racist, sexist piece of shit that ignorant people have been taught to love by conservative news outlets. Of course, those same outlets figured they could control their programmed racists for their own ends. Then Trump came along and cashed in on their hard work. Much to their annoyance.


Let's not pretend that one option is worse than the other. You know Hillary is lying because her lips move.

http://youtu.be/-dY77j6uBHI

And let's not forget her callous protect the power attitude towards Gennifer, Paula et. al. No conscience in that mud. Further, if you want to chase far winged thoughts, Google a who killed Vince a Foster site or two.

They are both fuckin horrid choices.

I'd agree the media's agenda on either side combined with extremist money has put us in this mess...and I'm not sure what the exit strategy is.

[Edited on 6-11-2016 by merc]


BBMN - 6-11-2016 at 03:32 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
...and I'm not sure what the exit strategy is.


At the risk of derailing this thread and getting eye rolls, I think the answer is obvious, yet almost impossible to achieve. We should just finally admit that we had a good run and it was decent experiment for a couple centuries, but we as a people are too big and too diverse to call ourselves a singular nation. I said it before as a joke, but there's no way for us to all be one big happy family.

Europe is 50 countries over 3.9 million sq miles. We are 50 states over 3.8 million sq miles. We're too big, and it's not working anymore.Texas wants to secede first? Fine. I don't even take issue. Hell, they have their own electrical grid so the jump wouldn't even be that hard from an infrastructure stand point. Not even remotely joking.

We come from apes. We're supposed to be in a groups of maybe 100. Now we are trying to pretend 300+ million of us are cool with each other? We can't even decide who goes to which bathroom. We're a hot mess.


[Edited on 6-11-2016 by BBMN]


merc - 6-11-2016 at 05:07 PM

You were doing so good until the Ape part ( http://www.livescience.com/32503-why-havent-all-primates-evolved-into-humans.html ).

I've enjoyed using women's rest rooms the last several weeks. They are cleaner and I definitely identify with that.

Based on recent info Janerd provided, I'm researching Ukrainine islands for purchase.

http://www.viviun.com/Real_Estate/Ukraine/Islands/



[Edited on 6-11-2016 by merc]


punkerhardcore - 6-11-2016 at 05:46 PM

Some blog with five short paragraphs with no facts or sources cited? Well I'm convinced.


The funny part about.Trump is that he could be the greatest politician and president in United States history... but nobody would ever know it, since he hasn't said a single fucking thing of any substance since he launched his bid for office. Presidential elections sure would have been different if all these men in the past realized they didn't have to say a single word about policies or anything like that... they could just get to the debate and say their opponent looks like a faggot and ride that to their party's nomination.


bigfatgoalie - 6-11-2016 at 06:38 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
Let's not pretend that one option is worse than the other.


The dumb is strong here.

Let's disregard Trump's lack of human decency towards women, minorities, Muslims, or LGBTQ folks.

Let's talk taxes and there impact over a 10 year period.

Under Clinton's plan: revenue goes up $1.1 trillion. Where does the tax come from? Capital gains taxes, the Buffet Rule, and raises on other non-income taxes.

Under Trump: revenue goes DOWN $9.5 trillion. Who gets the most of that? Folks with high income.

That's right...the guy who knows how to get things done, the self made* billionaire*...would kinda cripple the US government JUST with his fucked up tax plan.

Hillary is a greedy bitch. Yup. She likes money. And by all accounts, she is a bitch. But she's light years better than Trump.


Paddlefoot - 6-11-2016 at 07:09 PM

quote:
Originally posted by BBMN
quote:
Originally posted by merc
...and I'm not sure what the exit strategy is.


At the risk of derailing this thread and getting eye rolls, I think the answer is obvious, yet almost impossible to achieve. We should just finally admit that we had a good run and it was decent experiment for a couple centuries, but we as a people are too big and too diverse to call ourselves a singular nation. I said it before as a joke, but there's no way for us to all be one big happy family.

Europe is 50 countries over 3.9 million sq miles. We are 50 states over 3.8 million sq miles. We're too big, and it's not working anymore.Texas wants to secede first? Fine. I don't even take issue. Hell, they have their own electrical grid so the jump wouldn't even be that hard from an infrastructure stand point. Not even remotely joking.

We come from apes. We're supposed to be in a groups of maybe 100. Now we are trying to pretend 300+ million of us are cool with each other? We can't even decide who goes to which bathroom. We're a hot mess.


There's another option and that's to just not participate anymore. If you're not involved you're not morally or ethically obligated to take any of the blame. "Hey, I didn't vote for any of the fuckers so it's not my fault".



I'm not even kidding about this. Not participating in an obvious con is the moral thing to do. I didn't vote, for a variety of reasons, in the last Canadian federal election. At this stage in my life it finally became obvious that no one represents me. No one gives a shit what happens to me, not the pigfuckers on the right who are lapdogs for the wealthy, not the sacks of shit on the left who only look at me as something to tax to death and who have wrecked society from top to bottom with every bogus social engineering theory their demented brains came up with. I feel zero shame at all over it either. I'm still aware and conscious but I just refuse to take part anymore. And the guilt trip they try to lay on you all the time? "People died in wars for your right to vote!". Well, thanks and all that, but I'm pretty sure gramps didn't die fighting the krauts for this pile of shit the Western democracies have all turned into. If there's anyone who owes an apology to the war generation then maybe it's the ones that kept voting the turds back into office over and over again, and not the ones who dropped out of the system altogether.

Fuck it. Just give me an honest bloodthirsty king to live under that doesn't bother to disguise what he is inside. Like the man said,

"If voting made a difference it would be illegal"
- Mark Twain


janerd75 - 6-11-2016 at 10:04 PM

quote:
Originally posted by bigfatgoalie
quote:
Originally posted by merc
Let's not pretend that one option is worse than the other.


1) The dumb is strong here.

2) Let's disregard Trump's lack of human decency towards women, minorities, Muslims, or LGBTQ folks.

3) Let's talk taxes and there impact over a 10 year period.

4) Under Clinton's plan: revenue goes up $1.1 trillion. Where does the tax come from? Capital gains taxes, the Buffet Rule, and raises on other non-income taxes.

5) Under Trump: revenue goes DOWN $9.5 trillion. Who gets the most of that? Folks with high income.

6) That's right...the guy who knows how to get things done, the self made* billionaire*...would kinda cripple the US government JUST with his fucked up tax plan.

7) Hillary is a greedy bitch. Yup. She likes money. And by all accounts, she is a bitch. But she's light years better than Trump.


I numbered yours for clarity, but suffice it to say your #1 isn't a very nice way to start a reasonable conversation. Perhaps not going so hard in the paint with the apparently sacrosanct and self-evident (to you) but not the rest of us rubes and a bit more facts and figures? I assure you I will do the same if you're an honest broker. Coming from a shitlord like me I think that's a fair deal.

2) Please explain all the things you mentioned in as much detail as you wish, but please provide the evidence you clearly have to make such a claim. He's an occasionally shady businessman (is that what bothers you the most perhaps?) that's still employed a lot more people in the "real world" than Hillary Clinton ever has. He's loud, brash, and obnoxious to be sure, but please show me the information directly correlating to a lack of human decency towards, women, minorities, Muslims, LGBTQ folks. If your confirmation biases can tolerate it, I will gladly counter with Hillary's notoriously heinous behavior towards women (certainly as far as her husband is concerned), minorities (look at the video I recently posted of her shucking and jiving in a black church), Muslims (perhaps you've heard of a place called the Middle East?) or LGBTQ folks (well, she is quite cozy with Huma so perhaps I'll float you that one) The point is, we have ample evidence of the actual heinous shit she's done over her career as a politician as opposed to the potential of businessbro Trump. Note: He's not "My Guy", but fair is fair. Facts are what they immutably are. Act accordingly.

3) See below

4) You say that as though it's a good thing. Perhaps you aren't hip to Econ or Capitalism 101, but one needs capitol to invest in business to generate an economy that rests on solid ground. A government that relies largely on higher taxation rates for increasing 'revenues' and wealth transfers/confiscation/redistribution eventually turns into places like Weimar Germany, or if you want to get closer on the timeline, Venezuela burning right now. Or shall I go on to discuss the effectiveness of such champion ideas such as endless bailouts, Enron, Solyndra, etc? Or better yet, a fiat currency system designed to gather votes from the Free Shit Army in order to maintain the status quo of power and enrich the bank accounts of R's and D's going back generations? A currency untethered to anything tangible other than the good word and confidence and faith in the U.S. government? And may I also remind you it's the world's reserve currency. When it goes, so does everything else. Except for those nations holding that ol' shiny yellow barbarous relic from ye olden days that was used for 5000 years of relative financial stability because you can't print the shit. Funny the West has been dumping the stuff hand over fist to the Indians, Russians, and Chinese. And in the case of the latter two countries, savage as they may be, they are not stupid. Not by a stretch.

5) You say that as though it's a bad thing. Why is any given individual that works hard for their money supposed to smile and kumbaya we're-all-in-it-together back into a system that is fundamentally broken by its inability to live within its means due to the aforementioned fiat currency status? Police, sure. That's the government's most important function. Keep Mr. Victor Charlie outta my back yard so I can get to work and go live my life. Courts, sure. Anything much beyond that is not the proper function of a rights respecting government. And before the inevitable, "But what aboot firefighters, public schools, safety nets, paved roads, who gonna pay for my kids, etc." To that I'd reply, what aboot the free market? What of entrepreneurship? What about the accountability, flawed though it may be at times, that comes to the private sector, but never ever seems to make a dent in the public sector that is a cesspool of inefficient bureaucracies and .gov workers with a profound sense of entitlement and the taxpayer funded pensions to go with them?

More money in private citizens hands, be they genius innovators or simply the proverbial 'man on the street' that simply wants to keep what he worked for, could go a long way towards eliminating wasteful government largesse. Private charities exist. Let them be enriched by private citizens. That's where your safety net is. And if you think that people would just hoard their cash and withhold giving out their 'fair share', then you don't know Americans, pal. At least not the ones I associate with. To be clear, I am not anti-government. I am anti a confiscatory, unaccountable, just-throw-money-at-the-problem government.

The proper role of a rights respecting government, especially in a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, it to protect its citizens so they can go do the whole 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness' thing. It was never meant to be, nor can it sustain itself now as a quasi-charitable organization. The government takes, it don't make. And if it does, it ain't gonna be good. The aforementioned Russia and China, and pretty much any other Commie/Socialist shithole are absolute proof of that over the courses of their respective histories. China didn't even begin to move away from being an agrarian society, after they killed tens of millions of their own of course, until they embraced teh eeeeeeeeevil Capitalismz. And before you pop off aboot eeeeeevil corporations, unless you whittled your computer case from grassfed organic plastic trees or mined the copper ore yourself, an eeeeeeevil corporation (the majority of which are small business owners in this country) that's done far more for you than you ever will for them made the machine you're using to decry the very tax increases that would shunt innovation and cause businesses to shutter their doors. Also, the U.S. is fucking broke. Please explain how we can throttle up on eeeeeeevil corporations and rich fat cats whose sum total of wealth wouldn't so much as put a dent in the national debt even at a 100% tax rate.

6) Agayn, Hillary and her cabal of lefty tyrants are known commodities for money-grubbing fuckery. Trump isn't like your typical Republican or conservative, because he really isn't one. I'll wait and see who he surrounds himself with before I make my final assessment. Besides, I want him staring down Xi Jinpeng and Vlad Putin and offering a firm handshake and a backbone to the proceedings that have been missing from Limpwrist Bicycle Helmet Fauntleroy's tenure thusfar. No, he can't run on bluster or deal his way out of world events or constitutional processes like LBHF has done with aplomb, but if you think Hillary's prepared for such a task I have a burned out mission in Libya to sell you. Yes, yes, I know, it was all because of a video. [insert eyroll gif here]

7) That started off quite well, but then dovetails back into #2. They've both been public figures for quite some time. Please afford side by side evidence of how Trump, the non-politician not partial to State secrets, is objectively worse than Hillary, the politician who, well, I don't think The Rick has the server size for me to go into it all.

TL;DR Confirmation biases can lead to all sorts of faulty conclusions. I am not excluded from that, BTW. Convince and persuade, but consider maybe not calling people morons for disagreeing, especially when you live in the relative safety of North America Prime's hat region and are only as populous as California, which given that states leanings and failings is irony enough for one day.

So, switching gears a bit [insert Yoda no, there is another gif here], what about this knuckelhead?

https://garyjohnson2016.com/

He has aboot as much a chance of getting elected as I do, but I like a lot of what he has to say, at least in a compare and contrast with Trump and Clinton. BTW, elect Janerd 2016 and I promise I'll reduce the nuclear stockpile by at least a quarter on day one in office!


“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” - Ben Franklin


merc - 6-12-2016 at 04:19 AM

Wow, I'm not gonna bother to read all of Janerd's novel, but thanks for #1.

BFG what you fail to understand is if it comes from Hillary it is factually inaccurate. I'm over doing math to disprove her. It's gotten boring. I'm also disgusted with Trump; so let's do this:

How bout you fix Canada so I have a place to move to. Cut overall taxes below 50%, fix that public healthcare so I don't have to wait 3-4 months to see a specialist, fix that elitist province that requires duel language inefficiencies, work on that minority diversity (kinda embarrassing to be so white as a nation) and tighten those borders so bad guys aren't getting into our neighbor's to the south.

Then I'll be right up.


nOOb - 6-12-2016 at 02:03 PM

Didn't they announce a third party candidate that's actually available to vote for in all 50 states? I know Fox is pure Republican, MSNBC is pure Democrat, and CNN is pure two days late to the party, but parts of both parties have to realize their candidates both suck, so maybe give some attention to the third guy?

Or we could just go find Ross Perot and see if he wants to give it another go.


Quentil - 6-12-2016 at 02:50 PM

Oh, I get it. Janerd is in denial. He's not trolling. Fair enough.

It's okay, we all get stuck in denial from time to time. Some accept it like rational adults, while others go into the realm of "elections were rigged" and/or "Benghazi!!!!!!" or other delusional conspiracy theories.

That said, no amount of what you think any candidate did makes the actions of another somehow "better." Or even "as bad." Claiming that person 'A' is not to be held accountable because you don't like person 'B' or believe person 'B' did something wrong isn't logically valid. And I mean this for all parties. But hey, I'll answer your comments out of politeness. I will use all facts, easily verifiable. And those that support Donald Trump still won't care and will make excuses to deny that their guy is the biggest piece of shit ever.

But, since Benghazi has been outed as purely a Republican witch hunt and a committee of mostly Republicans exonerated Hillary Clinton, then I refuse to see Benghazi as anything more than bullshit.

Also, since Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice also used the same exact server set up as Hillary Clinton when they were Secretary of State, and there was no uproar or accusations of treason then, I do have to wonder what all the hysteria is over now. Again, it's pretty obvious to anyone who is paying any attention at all that you shouldn't see the mail server thing as anything other than the bullshit it really is.

Talking about 40yr old land deals also is bullshit. The Clintons had yet another political circus put against them then, also by the Republican party done in an attempt to hurt election chances (seriously, it's not like these guys use a different playbook--ever) The Clintons were never charged with any crime. Thus, it doesn't matter.

Monica Lewinsky and all that shit? Seriously, if most of America didn't give that much of a shit in 1997, why do you think they will give any shits about it now?

That said, is Hillary Clinton a corporate shill with some shady looking economics at times? Yup. Did she vote for that pointless Iraq War that was a mistake to anyone with a clue from the start? Yup. I'm sure there's lots of others stuff that can be proved and hung on her. But the biggest ammo used against her are all essentially lies created by the Republican party and Fox News. And this can all be proven, with real and legitimate sources, quite easily.

Hillary Clinton is a Centrist in general. She'd keep free trade and globalization pacts in effect, and would push for moderate social movement to the left. Her presidency would maintain the existing status quo globally, and keep the US on top of the economic and military systems.

Now, Donald Trump? He's been bailed out four times financially, is refusing to turn over tax records, has been documented a slew of times hiring the very illegals he wanted to ban, has been married three times, and has publicly stated that he would bang his daughter. He wants to violate the Constitution in destroying the impartiality of the legal system, removing the right of free speech from media sources he personally does not like, and in banning whole religions in the country.

Trump wants to give the richest folks in the country the biggest tax cut in recent history, dismantle the Department of Education and EPA, roll back all environmental laws and progress on energy and double-down in oil and coal. He wants to gut all social programs and start an arms race with the entire world, all while abandoning our allies to our enemies in places like South Korea, Japan, and Europe. Oh, and he only believes in climate change when he can profit from it, I guess. And he wants to build a 14th century wall that costs upwards of 30 billion dollars and another several billion a year to maintain. That will work, until they invent things that can float or fly or people willing to smuggle others through the checkpoints. Wait, that already happens? Oh. Well, I guess it'll help China's failing steel industry once we start giving them billions for the metal to build this pointless wall.

And let's look at violence at the rallies. Trump has gone on record of telling his protesters to hit people, beat people, and if they get charged, he'll pay their legal fees. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton keeps telling all protesters that violence isn't the way, and that they should put their energies into positive change. So one side encourages the violence, to use bully tactics against their opposition. The other condemns it.

Trump also ran a alleged con job in Trump University, and has been sued thousands of times (and lost plenty of these cases) for refusing to pay people at fair rates, or at all. And a lot of his own party hates his guts. I will state opinion here, and not 100% fact, but I believe it's not because Trump is a threat to their power so much as Trump is going to destroy the whole party and mark it as the party of bigots and racists for a generation to come. Donald Trump would fundamentally turn the United States into a 21st century pseudo-fascist system if he were to get his way. He'd weaken the US financially, politically, militarily, and socially. And he's an obvious sexist as well. Everything he's run, from casinos to the USFL, has failed.

So yes, I do think that it's very valid to state that Donald Trump is a whole level worse in every way than Hillary Clinton. And this is just looking at the actual facts. So even though the people saying that "B" is fine because "A" is also not perfect are using logical fallacy in claiming this...Even their invalid argument can easily be shot down with the simple truth.

But again, No Trump fan (or Hillary Hater) is going to admit to any of this. They will go back to calling Hillary Clinton names, or denying all these video clips and media interviews of Trump doing all of these things even exist. Because they gave up on the truth a long time ago in the hope that they can take out their life failures on some minority instead of accept responsibility for their own bad choices.

Edits: Various typo fixes.

[Edited on 6-12-2016 by Quentil]


merc - 6-12-2016 at 08:42 PM

Quent,

You have a slant on things. We all do.

I was NEVER more embarrassed to be an American than during the Clinton scandals. I travel abroad a lot. That's all every -pick a nation- resident wanted to talk about...even our friends north of us, It sucked. Many Americacans will not forget that, nor allow Hillary to disassociate from it.

(I may be able to edit the NEVER as this election cycle is pretty bad)

Hillary is not a centrist, she just appears to be in your mind.

The global trade pacts are B.A.D. for the United States of America, they greatly beef it the rest of the world. NAFTA may have been the single most destructive thing our (I am assuming you are American...lots of Canadians weighing in here) economy experienced.

Here's a political neutral statement. Manufacturing jobs pay better than service industry jobs.

Now I will try not to be political as I move forward( it's hard)
Inherent in a higher pay scale is a better quality of life for that individual or family along with a more robust economy as the better compensated tend to spend more on entertainment and material things. (They might also save more, but I have not seen a study that is definitive.). By spending on entertainment they provide sustainable jobs for the service industry mentioned earlier. However now instead of service being a jobs driver, it is a contributor. Important because it is expanding workforce capacity.

Buying "stuff" drives more manufacturing...which today includes software development. As noted manufacturing pays better, so this is a healthy thing.

But free trade pacts distort the playing field. As our average wage is higher than...say Mexico...those economic driving jobs naturally shift out of our economy (BAD!) to a lower cost environment. So what politicians (and depending on what NAFTA life cycle you read about both sides jumped in) spin is only the good, not the destructive side.

Move down the economic cycle a bit. The manufacturing occurs outside of the USA. The corporate profits do as well- so we miss the bite at that tax Apple. Not only are jobs (and that tax base) gone but so is the ability to tax the company that makes the widget.

OK I think I stayed apolitical.

Currently I am pro:
-Tighten economic borders. Done strategically this will improve the USA job market.
-Pick a corporate tax number to repatriate the TRILLIONS of corporate profits sitting in foreign banks. (Trump has claimed he could do this deal in a day of negotiating HA! But at least it's on his radar- free money at this point).
-Find a fed policy that will raise interest rates. What has happened over the last 15 years is stupid. In a growth cycle rates MUST rise to provide the ability to cushion a downturn. There ain't any padding in that cushion now, unless negative interest rates interests anyone? Didn't think so. We should be sitting +5% TODAY. BTW, retirees LOVE that number, it allows them to preserve wealth and live a respectable retirement - assuming they saved.

No other positions are relevant to me. Everything else is an ideolog or extremist distraction to fixing the good ol' US of A.

I'm oversimplifying, but those three things would provide an economic ramp up that:
would fuel social programs and let people who have needs beyond their control find help,
Improve government controlled infrastructure (more good paying jobs!)
Provide long term stability to corporations to better define investment strategies (dare I say more jobs?)

But with each of those three simple things there are contrarian thoughts that, when siloed, sound compelling. Sadly, as a sound bite society, that prevents traction. I believe Democrats tend to rally against more often than not, but Republicans are guilty as well. Gone are the days of Tip O'Neil & Ronald Reagan finding the good in a process and getting there. Hillary and Donald are both too polarizing. I am unhappy with Donald and loathe what Hillary represents.

Still looking for that Ukrainian Island

Edited because I suck at typing

[Edited on 6-12-2016 by merc]


Paddlefoot - 6-12-2016 at 09:00 PM

Pretty sure by now that no matter who wins things will still keep getting worse. This is where the Trump = fascist nonsense is such a ridiculous distraction. The US isn't going to become fascist, not in the old European sense of it anyway, if Trump wins. It didn't become fascist under LBJ, Nixon, or Reagan either, no matter how much the lefties back than said that it was. What's going to happen if either Trump OR Clinton win is that the US is going to continue it's long slow slide into some kind of corporate plutocracy where the entire economy and government system works solely for the benefit of the uber-wealthy. This has been going on since 1980. And just because it's happened in slo-mo since Reagan doesn't mean it hasn't caused as much damage, if not more, to the American way of life than any real fascist ruler can or would.

The sell out of the American political system to those who can pay the most for it continues uninterrupted no matter who wins the elections. Until you can figure out how to reverse it, and get the corporate and financial sectors under a powerful government regulatory boot-heel where their mischief and criminality can be contained and controlled, there will be no change to the current situation and every probability that it will get even sleazier and more corrupt with every passing year.


Quentil - 6-12-2016 at 09:41 PM

First off, I don't think anyone means 1930s European fascism then they use the word. They are usually meaning (at least in my experience) a system in which personal rights are controlled more tightly by the government, and enforced by a police apparatus which openly sides with said government. They don't think Hitler. Although it's easy to mix the idea up, sure.

I'm not going to really reply in detail to each of your thoguhts, because after awhile, it just because repeating the same things over and over. I'll simply state my own political leanings, and list my overall education in backing them in a discussion:

I have a BA in Public Affairs, with a concentration in International Affairs
I have an associates degree in Computer Information Systems. Originally, it was supposed to be a BA, with a minor in Psych. But I got lazy. Took the required minor classes for psychology, though.
I have lived in Australia, have visited (Eastern) Canada more times than I can honestly count, and Mexico a handful of times as well. I've criss-crossed the US a half dozen times, and have been to somewhere in the high 30s/low 40s of states. I dunno how this might relate, but hey, whatever.

1) I am pro-choice. I'm fine with restricting abortion in non-retarded ways. But I believe in the right for a woman to have one.
2) I am pro marijuana legalization. But hey, most people are these days, so whatever.
3) I am pro guns, with restrictions. I don't think any civilian should have the right to own a minigun that fires a billion rounds a second. I think drawing the allowance line at semi-automatic AR-15 style weapons is fine. Anything more than that should be heavily restricted. Waiting periods should be longer, and people with violent felonies shouldn't be able to own a firearm.
4) I am pro-trade agreements. I see creating free trade pacts as securing American hegemony through financial empire. I have read and studied many of these pacts, and have seen the actual details have generally tended to favor the United States as much or more than the other nations. The TPP is a great thing, especially, as it would put China into an economic corner in the region, and give the US far more leverage in policy as a result.
5) I am a strong believer in Globalization. The US doesn't need a certain element of the shittiest jobs, and foreign markets allow us to open up investment while at the same time bettering their lives. And I know how strong the actual existing US industrial sector really is, and know that it's getting stronger since the Fracking boom. So all the chicken little stuff on that is a bit lackluster to me.
6) I am pro-balanced budget, within reason. We certainly should lower our overall debt, but most people don't understand the idea of debt or get the hilariously low percentages we get to borrow at. We literally borrow trillions of dollars at 1% interest. We get way with this because the US economy is the engine that drives the world, and the US dollar is the de facto world currency. At this point, so long as we work on slowly evening out the books, our borrowing doesn't hurt us one bit. I know it might not seem that way, but it's really true.
7) I'm all for social programs like the ACA and EBT. That said, I'm never against cutting such programs when it's viable to do so without affecting the standard of living of the people who are on them. I was all for welfare reform in the 90s, as an example. Programs like welfare, EBT, and others have a ridiculous success rate. The fraud in them is nonexistent on any real level that matters, and they have helped millions of people survive until they could improve their lot in life.
8) I don't see the need for totally free college education. Or an annulment of existing student loans. I am certainly a supporter of PELL grants and the like. But students should take responsibility for their educations too.
9) A strong military is vital, but not at 600 billion dollars a year. But whatever, while we could trim a hundred billion off of it, I'd say it's not a priority. We shouldn't spend much more than what we currently are, though.
10) Taxing the rich is fine by me. They pay pretty much the lowest taxes ever, and a rate far below most of the rest of the western world. The richest 1% can easy have their rates go up 10%, and have their estate taxes on estates worth over 10mil double and I'm perfectly fine with that. None of that 90% tax bullshit though idiots try to say is workable. Rich people deserve to be rich.
11) I'm fully in support of an Apollo project sort of push in regard to green energy and vehicles. Subsidizing the shit out of such for a decade to put infrastructure in place would pay huge dividends in the future in countless ways.
12) Climate change is real. Whether it's people or nature, it doesn't matter and doesn't mean we can't stop pumping poisons into everything, either. We should be doing that any-fucking-how.
13) Don't give a shit about gays, transgenders, or whatever in regards to anything. Let's just do unisex bathrooms and allow everyone to fight and marry and all the rest and stop bitching about such a stupid thing.
14) Immigration is fine, and should be encouraged. It's the lifeblood of American innovation.

The biggest threats to the US today in my opinion?

1) Infrastructure decline
2) Too much of a focus on social issues
3) Money in politics
4) Donald Trump

It's certainly not immigration, terrorism, or gay marriage.

[Edited on 6-12-2016 by Quentil]

[Edited on 6-12-2016 by Quentil]


merc - 6-13-2016 at 04:19 AM

Hey! We align on 1-3, 7 thru end for the most part!

I think you underestimate the impact of globalization of our economy and overestimate the value of fracking. A couple of things to consider.

Check out 2016 North Dakota economic data. the state went from Fat dumb and happy to HOLY SHIT! We got an issue here in about 11 months. All due to oil being cheap - something I think is fueling our current economy. fracking costs money and with oil under $55 a barrel it is useless (maybe $45 depending on existing infrastructure) no one is doing it. Last report I saw had almost 3700 wells shut down across The USA and the ensuing payroll and manufacturing needs are gone. BAD!

TPP consider the 12 countries: the US, Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Brunei, Australia, New Zealand, Canada.

Australia & NZ , as populations are ripped over concerns that private companies could force policy changes on government for things like education & health care. I think they get a farming bump and become exporters of farm products. Not sure on this legal quagmire thing, but it was a pretty hot issue down under.

The small Asian countries are happy as shit, because it excludes China, Sri Lanka and India from competitive textile production, ZERO protective tariffs on imports for Uncle Sam. BOO!
..that's that cheap labor displacing North American production. Oh yea not a lot of focus on minimum wage or work conditions. Ask OOMike about third world unregulated manufacturing.

Japan gets to hang a "closed" sign on Motown...and Indiana, SC and Tennessee get a "whatdafuckhappened" But the Japanese economy has been fucked for like 20 years so why not toss them a bone.

And Canada...well...based on this board are too worried about US politics to have a position.

It isnt as destructive as NAFTA was, but with TTIP (Europe) heading down the same path a few years later don't invest in industrial real estate. SELL! SELL! SELL!

You haven't proposed it, but combine this economic down pressure environment with $15 minimum wage and our population teetering on +50% being takers of aid and well... Greece.


Quentil - 6-13-2016 at 06:53 AM

Not at all. I'm sorry, but the moment you said the US was one economic change away from being Greece, I have to roll my eyes a bit. The US is not Greece in any way, shape or form. The amount of money the US borrows could easily double or triple, and the interest rates would still stay at 1-2% because the T-Bill is considered the safest investment out there in some ways. The US dollar is tied to the global oil market, and Wall Street is the economic capital of the world. The US also has a billion things going for it that Greece doesn't, and in general a more productive and better educated workforce.

I tend to see economic policy as yet another weapon to be used against my nation's enemies. Trade pacts tie countries together and foster peace through everyone being too entangled economically to want to risk a war.

As far as Globalization goes, I studied the fuck out of it when last in college. It's not always a positive thing, but in general, Globalization is a success, and it also serves to open up new markets to American culture, music, and ideas. This is another powerful weapon to be used on the global scene.

I think I'd be a very paranoid president. Heh. But yeah, these are just my own thoughts. You can easily see the same data and draw a different conclusion and that's perfectly okay.


OOMike - 6-13-2016 at 02:40 PM

Since I was mentioned, let me add my personal experience with trade deals, since I am a customs auditor and look at imports from third world countries both with and without duty-free status and exports to Canada and other non-trade deal countries. Add in the visits to factories both domestic and foreign and looking at their payroll and benefits for the employees.

First the thought that returning to duties on imports will return manufacturing to the US is a myth that is impossible. I know textiles and apparel, which is one of the biggest categories of imports into the US, and their is no way, with current minimum wages and benefits, the US can manufacture the clothing and other inexpensive goods at a lower cost than Asia, Central America and the Middle East. Even with transportation cost figured in, the payroll cost is unbelievably low in those countries. Now those jobs in those countries are badly desired because even though they are low paying compared to the US, they are considered good jobs with good pay and benefits in those countries.

Second, the US is one of the biggest growers of cotton and producers of thread and fabric for the global textile industry. Part of the trade agreements that does not get mentioned is that it is required that all raw materials and production has to occur in countries that are a part of the agreement. For example a cotton shirt made in Mexico for import to the US under NAFTA requires that the cotton (US) spun into thread (US) knitted or woven into fabric (US), cut and sewn into shirts (MX) with buttons or zippers or other trim (US or MX, usually US) and that is sent into the US duty free instead of a duty rate of 16%-32%. The same thing will happen under TPP. The factories in Vietnam that are getting their fabric and thread from China or India now, will have to source it from US or Australia.


Quentil - 6-13-2016 at 06:15 PM

An interesting thing about cotton is that it's also one of the most heavily subsidized and government-protected industries in the United States. it's argued in a study that I forget the name of that for every job the cotton subsidies protect, two jobs are lost that would have been created in off-shoot fields like innovation and R&D. Protectionism loses arguably more jobs than free trade.

But because of the system set up in these pacts, our government-protected industry can compete on the free market and gain unfair advantage over cheaper sources.

Another example was the US and Mexico recently having a dispute over Mexico allegedly 'dumping sugar' into the market in a way that was against NAFTA's rules. They weren't really breaking the rules, and argued in a valid way the American subsidies of corn syrup and beet sugar were unfair. But the US managed to get a slew of concessions from Mexico anyhow. For the record, the US pays far more for sugar than the rest of the world because of our protectionist attitude towards it.

These are the little things about these treaties that you don't hear much about in the news because they aren't "shock and awe" soundbites. But those free trade agreements most certainly aren't the evil job killers a certain element claims they are. They serve as a way to expand American influence while also securing markets for our goods.

[Edited on 6-13-2016 by Quentil]


merc - 6-27-2016 at 09:36 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
7) I'm all for social programs like the ACA and EBT. That said, I'm never against cutting such programs when it's viable to do so without affecting the standard of living of the people who are on them. I was all for welfare reform in the 90s, as an example. Programs like welfare, EBT, and others have a ridiculous success rate. The fraud in them is nonexistent on any real level that matters, and they have helped millions of people survive until they could improve their lot in life.

[Edited on 6-12-2016 by Quentil]


I'm posting this link to educate not troll. I was stunned at the amount of fraud in a single city.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/health/hundreds-arrested-for-900-million-worth-of-health-care-fraud


Quentil - 6-28-2016 at 02:32 AM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
7) I'm all for social programs like the ACA and EBT. That said, I'm never against cutting such programs when it's viable to do so without affecting the standard of living of the people who are on them. I was all for welfare reform in the 90s, as an example. Programs like welfare, EBT, and others have a ridiculous success rate. The fraud in them is nonexistent on any real level that matters, and they have helped millions of people survive until they could improve their lot in life.

[Edited on 6-12-2016 by Quentil]


I'm posting this link to educate not troll. I was stunned at the amount of fraud in a single city.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/health/hundreds-arrested-for-900-million-worth-of-health-care-fraud


This isn't from a single city. It's from 301 people from 'around the country' according to the article you linked to. All of which were clinics and doctors, not the patients.

And let's look at the claims in the article a bit more deeply:

"The strike force, part of a joint initiative between the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Service, was formed in 2007. To date it has carried out takedowns resulting in more than 1,000 people being charged with committing over $3.5 billion in health care fraud."

Okay, $3.5 billion is solid over nine years. Good job, folks. But now let's look at what the government spent on insurance and other subsidies:

"Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and marketplace subsidies: Four health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace subsidies — together accounted for 25 percent of the budget in 2015, or $938 billion." (Source: http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go)

So what does this tell us? The 900 million (Let's just up it to a billion to make the math easier) in fraud is .1% of the overall expenses in the fiscal year 2015. That's one tenth of one percent. When put into that context, it's not really that much. The average fast food place probably has hundred times that amount of fraud.

That said, i'm happy they recovered that billion. And I think a different take on prescription drugs could trim billions in subsidy and think we should do it. I think a bigger push on both debt collection and forgiveness would trim billions more.

Do you want to hear a personal anecdote on the silliness of medicine costs in the US? My father had a stroke in January and after he got out of the hospital, I moved him into my house and take care of his basic needs. One of the things I do is take care of all his medical appointments and pills and scripts. He has both Medicare (he's retired) and Empire Blue Cross insurance (through a pension from previous employment).

One of the things he has is a cream that is available over the counter for $4 a tube, and with his insurance, he pays a whopping sixty-five cents. That's great, right? The weird thing is that if he were to fill that prescription without insurance, it would cost $19.50 for a tube containing the identical stuff in the same exact amount. So that means his insurance is charged $19.50, and covers $18.85 of it. But the same thing is available over the counter for $4. So yeah, what the fuck? Ya know?

Another is a food thickener powder he needs to have added to all of his drinks for safer swallowing. Prescription cost? $45. Over the counter? $20. For what it's worth, Medicare doesn't cover it. But it's still interesting to see what the real profit is in the pharmaceutical business in some ways.

I won't even go into how cheap most basic meds are in some other countries, because of laws that limit the profit of things like antibiotics. I find it hilarious that my father pays $15 for an antibiotic with his insurance that would cost $150 without coverage. But in plenty of other countries, one of which borders us to the north, and another of which borders us to the south, you can buy it for less than ten bucks without insurance.

Sorry, I tend to ramble. But yeah, there's a shitload of cash to be saved in this. And it's not like it's a state secret. It's just that politics....Well, all that needs to be said is exactly that. "Politics."

Edit: Oh, as an aside/perhaps slightly related thing? The ACA (Obamacare) allows all of my father's doctors to instantly check his insurance (via tablets or laptops) against potential meds they will prescribe. It enables them to tailor said scripts to best deal with each individual's financial ability. It allows them the ability to cross-check everything against his allergies (even the ones he no longer remembers having) and entire life of medical history. Also, paper prescriptions are essentially a thing of the past.

All of these things lower the cost of insurance and medical costs in general. I understand that those laptops and networks and such cost a bunch to set up, but think about all of the steps and potential fraud they remove. And also accidental drug interactions due to allergies and such. It saves god knows how many man hours both personally and professional that used to have to be done with faxes and physical transport of documents. Side effects include less lawsuits for drug interactions, and increased savings to the individual. Unlike Reaganomics, this is trickle down that actually works.

[Edited on 6-28-2016 by Quentil]


BBMN - 6-29-2016 at 09:45 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil


And let's look at the claims in the article a bit more deeply:

"The strike force, part of a joint initiative between the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Service, was formed in 2007. To date it has carried out takedowns resulting in more than 1,000 people being charged with committing over $3.5 billion in health care fraud."

Okay, $3.5 billion is solid over nine years. Good job, folks. But now let's look at what the government spent on insurance and other subsidies:

"Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and marketplace subsidies: Four health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace subsidies — together accounted for 25 percent of the budget in 2015, or $938 billion." (Source: http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go)

So what does this tell us? The 900 million (Let's just up it to a billion to make the math easier) in fraud is .1% of the overall expenses in the fiscal year 2015. That's one tenth of one percent. When put into that context, it's not really that much. The average fast food place probably has hundred times that amount of fraud.


You math'd the fucking math outta that shit. Good on you. Reminds me of me when I still tried to read every post here.

And yea, that's a pretty tiny number all things considered.


merc - 6-30-2016 at 04:42 PM

Damn... Good effort, but a garbage in/garbage out formula. The assumption that this single investigation represents all fraud is a bad one. It also ignores the cost of investigation/resolution.

Looking just at Medicaide related costs the number is $88,700,000,000.00 (rounded), no enforcement or tracking numbers included.

Sadly the figure can't be broken down between fraud and errant payments. I found a post on the White House blog from Jeff Zients claiming about $650,000,000 in recovered mis payments for 2010, and a similar number for 2009. So being generous we are looking at 85B dollars in unrecoverable payments.

I grew up learning to mind pennies and the dollars followed, so I'm less dismissive of the $900m we originally focused on, This is a fixable issue with technology with a couple of months ROI. It is criminal that the existing system is allowed to flow fraud through it.


If you want to play around, and get ill, www.paymentaccuracy.gov (my source for numbers) is reporting about a 95.6% accuracy rate or a4.4% loss rate (Budgeted @3%). It sickening because great detail is provided for all areas except the Medicare area with totals almost 5x all other departments combined.

BTW, A quick search found retail loss at about 1.4% of sales, I'd defer to OOMike on how accurate that number is as he is a retail guy. The government performance against fraud looks horrendous.

ETA source

[Edited on 6-30-2016 by merc]


Quentil - 6-30-2016 at 05:56 PM

Where did I say that there isn't other fraud going on? I didn't. I simply used the numbers from the article you cited, and put them against overall spending. Let's say that the main fraud group catches only 10% of the overall fraud. It's probably more, but again, to keep the math easier, etc. Even then the fraud rate would only be 1%.

You said this was fraud 'from a single city' when the article stated directly that it was from around the entire country.

The numbers I used support the claim that the fraud amount is within acceptable limits. You can say that one part of the program only costs 88 billion, but that doesn't change any of my points. You can say that you read in a blog that some other number is stated for something not quite related, but it doesn't really invalidate my original points, either.

You seem to be seeing fraud where there is no indication of any, using the fact that you grew up 'watching your pennies' to suggest that somehow you understand that all of this fraud that the own fraud groups cannot see, and that the numbers don't support as actually happening. I never stated that 900 million was a tiny number. I said it was tiny compared to the overall expenses. Which is a completely valid claim that is entirely relevant to the discussion. 900 million dollars is an insignificant number when put up against 938 billion dollars. When the amount of fraud is put against the overall amount spent, it's well within acceptable limits, and really isn't an issue that some groups seem to claim it to be.

If you are going to ignore the actual numbers involved and imply they are wrong, then there's not really much point in continuing the discussion.

The fraud in government programs is insignificant. People trying to suggest otherwise are doing it for political purposes. Nothing more, nothing less. There's always going to be some graft, some fraud, some thieves. But they aren't an amount that matters. Saying that they are is factually incorrect, and easily shown to be so. So yeah, it goes back to just being a political statement used to scare and anger people into voting. At least, imo.

Edit: Typos.


[Edited on 6-30-2016 by Quentil]


BBMN - 6-30-2016 at 06:14 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
Where did I say that there isn't other fraud going on? I didn't. I simply used the numbers from the article you cited, and put them against overall spending. Let's say that the main fraud group catches only 10% of the overall fraud. It's probably more, but again, to keep the math easier, etc. Even then the fraud rate would only be 1%.


Came here to post this. Even if was twenty times higher, it would only 2%.

Now I'm having flashbacks to the 2012 election. There was something that was constantly brought up as a talking point about spending and waste. What the hell was that...? Conservatives were really all about it for a couple months. But when you looked at it, it made up like 2% of whatever it was tied to. Fuck! What was this... was it related to medical costs? Tort reform? I think that was it. Yea, that was it.... I love when people get really tied to morally and economically just issues, that simply have a tiny impact on real life. "We must end this injustice!" It's a fun rallying cry with no real consequences attached. Populism in it's purest form.

[Edited on 6-30-2016 by BBMN]


Paddlefoot - 6-30-2016 at 06:37 PM

What did the US lose in Iraq, in some spectacularly cockamamie scheme cooked up by L. Paul Bremer and some Washington DC neo-con think-tank to "boost small business development" among the benighted locals, something like $3 billion in cash? Seriously, entire pallets of cash literally were handed out to a bunch of Ahmed Chalabi's "good guys" and disappeared into the background of the Iraqi civil war, most likely into the hands of gangsters and jihadists, that erupted from the idiotic decision to topple Saddam Hussein. At the time the Bush Admin did their usual "aw-shucks, these things happen, it's an imperfect world, out intentions were good" and the chickenshit national media forgot all about it.

I guess it's all relative. Small percentage or not writing off a few billion in welfare fraud really isn't acceptable either. It just seems odd to worry more about one loss than another when the worry is entirely dependent on one's own personal political leanings.


merc - 6-30-2016 at 07:30 PM

Gentlemen,

I provided the source, the US government. Here's the screenshot from today's data, it's 90B in improper payments on a nut of $940b or ALMOST 10%. "Improper" is defined on the government website, in such a convoluted manner that I am unable to figure out what chunk is fraud. If you want to say it's only 2%, cool, I'll be dubious. The only "reclaimed" (where they get back the improper payment). figures I found were for 2010/2009 and they were about 650m.

So I'll hold firm to the governments figure of 4.4% as an "errant payment" number for ALL GOVERNMENT. The Medicare component is significantly higher, just cruise the website my government provides.

There isn't a political bias here, it's a business profit bias. Not many private sector businesses can absorb 5% losses, especially when a large chunk is preventable.

Of course if the data doesn't support your political bias, talk about the waste in Germany that Ike incurred.


merc - 6-30-2016 at 07:37 PM

Here's one breakdown of several Medicare breakouts. You just can't run a business with 12% error rate. The site is loaded with data.


Quentil - 6-30-2016 at 08:44 PM

You don't really look at that site much, do you? The site goes into some detail, almost all of which counters your claims rather nicely. They state that there's a government-wide improper payment rate of $4.39% (Which is actually down over the year before, and a full percentage point less than what was the case under the Bush presidency.

This is how it's presented on the site:

“Improper payments” can be:

Incorrect amounts paid to eligible recipients,
Payments made to ineligible recipients,
Payments for goods or services not received,
Duplicate payments, or
Payments for which insufficient or no documentation was found.
Although not all improper payments are fraud, and not all improper payments represent a loss to the government, all improper payments degrade the integrity of government programs and compromise citizens’ trust in government. In fiscal year (FY) 2015, federal agencies reported a government-wide improper payment rate of 4.39%, a decrease from the high-water mark of 5.42% reported in FY 2009. Improper payments totaled approximately $137 billion in FY 2015

...

Are All Improper Payments Fraud?

No. Contrary to common perception, not all improper payments are fraud (i.e., an intentional misuse of funds). In fact, the vast majority of improper payments are due to unintentional errors. For example, an error may occur because a program does not have documentation to support a beneficiary’s eligibility for a benefit, or an eligible beneficiary receives a payment that is too high—or too low—due to a data entry mistake.

Also, many of the overpayments are payments that may have been proper, but were labeled improper due to a lack of documentation confirming payment accuracy. We believe that if agencies had this documentation, it would show that many of these overpayments were actually proper and the amount of improper payments actually lost by the government would be even lower than the estimated net loss discussed above.


Thus, it can be fairly reasonably argued that the Obama administration has cut all improper payments and fraud since taking power. Although I'm sure Republicans will say that's a lie, despite all of the data and numbers being posted for all to see.) Anyhow, "improper payments" includes all spending errors, of which only a small percentage is fraud. Most of the overpayments and underpayments are typos and accidental duplicate claims that are discovered and corrected. They are still listed on the site as 'improper payments', but the site goes into detail explaining how the money isn't lost, and how actual fraud is a tiny amount of this overall 4% figure.

Medicaid does have a listed improper rate of 12.1%, with most of that being duplicate claims that were resolved with no issue. Meanwhile, social security disability, which is something I constantly hear conservatives complain about saying that lazy people steal billions...it has an improper payment rate of .6%. Meaning the actual fraud is a fraction of that. Meaning every single person that claims that disability is 'bankrupting the government from fraud' is honestly ignorant, a fucking idiot, or flat-out lying.

If you had read any of this (most of which is linked from the main page of the site), you'd see that your arguments are actually pretty invalid. Maybe you just misunderstood 'improper payments' to mean 'fraud.' It's possible. Or maybe you are trying hard to cherry-pick data to substantiate your incorrect economic theories.


[Edited on 6-30-2016 by Quentil]

[Edited on 6-30-2016 by Quentil]


Quentil - 6-30-2016 at 09:08 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
What did the US lose in Iraq, in some spectacularly cockamamie scheme cooked up by L. Paul Bremer and some Washington DC neo-con think-tank to "boost small business development" among the benighted locals, something like $3 billion in cash? Seriously, entire pallets of cash literally were handed out to a bunch of Ahmed Chalabi's "good guys" and disappeared into the background of the Iraqi civil war, most likely into the hands of gangsters and jihadists, that erupted from the idiotic decision to topple Saddam Hussein. At the time the Bush Admin did their usual "aw-shucks, these things happen, it's an imperfect world, out intentions were good" and the chickenshit national media forgot all about it.

I guess it's all relative. Small percentage or not writing off a few billion in welfare fraud really isn't acceptable either. It just seems odd to worry more about one loss than another when the worry is entirely dependent on one's own personal political leanings.


To answer your first part:

Government auditors say some $61 billion was spent on reconstruction projects in Iraq from 2003 to 2012. At least 10 percent of the money cannot be accounted for. Some 15 percent of the money spent, or roughly $8 billion, was wasted.

(Source: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/06/19/How-US-Lost-Billions-Over-9-Years-Iraq)

As far as the second part goes, that's correct. Fraud and wasteful spending should be zero if at all possible. But people can be scumbags, and mistake happen. The key is to keep them within an acceptable amount. Whether you view a number as acceptable or not depends entirely on your political beliefs. No matter how many times a correct number is stated, if you refuse to want to accept that as a correct value, it's never going to matter.

It's why explaining something to a Trump supporter is nigh impossible. They are proud that Donald Trump is a pathological liar, and see it as a strength. It makes zero sense at all, but oh well.


OOMike - 7-1-2016 at 02:09 PM

I think we can all agree that fraud is bad.... it should be stopped.... it can never be completely stopped.

However the disagreement seems to lie on whom is conducting the fraud, and I think we can agree that the vast majority of fraud is conducted by the medical providers and not the individuals that are given the benefit of welfare/medicare.


Quentil - 7-1-2016 at 03:07 PM

quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
I think we can all agree that fraud is bad.... it should be stopped.... it can never be completely stopped.

However the disagreement seems to lie on whom is conducting the fraud, and I think we can agree that the vast majority of fraud is conducted by the medical providers and not the individuals that are given the benefit of welfare/medicare.


I agree. I actually said as much in an earlier post. All of the 900 million in fraud from around the country the task force uncovered was in the form of the providers and doctors, and not from the individual recipiants of insurance and other programs.

The concept of widespread "Fraud" is a fairly big lie used by political folks to scare people into voting a desired way. The whole idea of "those immigrants are taking your welfare!" has been debunked a bunch of times, but the sad reality is that no matter how many times you can debunk something, some people just refuse (or are unable) to change their delusional beliefs. Conservatives, especially, use these tactics of fear and manipulation to get voters. Although the Democrats are hardly innocent on this. Especially the growing fringe left SJW sorts, who use the same exact tactics in regards to GMO foods and gender issues.

[Edited on 7-1-2016 by Quentil]


BBMN - 7-1-2016 at 09:13 PM

quote:
... if the data doesn't support your political bias...

Of course one can use data to back their preferred ideology, but I don't think that's what's happening here (in relation to Quentil explaining the math.) I see money and waste and whatnot brought up as talking points, specifically to push an agenda, when in fact, an in depth look at the issue would likely serve to explain why the numbers aren't really that significant.


Do you remember the tort reform craze from a few years back? Every white haired conservative that could get in front of a camera at a political rally was completely up in arms over "TORT!", but whenever pressed on the overall numbers in relation to their numbers, they were fucking speechless. This is the "... if the data doesn't support your political bias..." that you speak of. This is what we get when people use data to push non-issues as if they're imperative subjects. There's something so painfully terrifying about educated upper-class people frothing at the mouth of what amounts to a sliver of the pie....






And it works too. That's why see it happen so much. Bush won a race on Texas on Tort Reform. Amazing.



Shoot me.


Quentil - 7-3-2016 at 10:29 PM

In the end, things wouldn't really be that hard to fix if everyone were willing to compromise even a little bit on the issues. I think that's what pisses off me the most. Everyone could have most of what they wanted, and we'd be set as far as growth and protecting freedoms.

But nobody believes they need to compromise anymore. At least it feels that way to me.


Paddlefoot - 7-3-2016 at 10:51 PM

The lack of good will on all sides these days is astounding. And appalling.


janerd75 - 7-3-2016 at 11:12 PM

If any of you were ever were interested in knowing where it all went bad and why people can't seem to "compromise"...

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



Fokken roight, Tommy. Shoulda listen'd aboot zee Germans yaself, Turkish.


bopol - 7-4-2016 at 03:27 AM

I think the lack of compromise comes from the media now being specialized to serve a particular faction. You could say it started with the dropping of the fairness doctrine under Reagan that brought in right-wing talk radio and Rush Limbaugh, but 30 years later, you will get your news from sources that share your political ideology. If you're on the right, you're probably using Fox News, Rush, Michael Savage, et al to get your news. If you're on the left, you're probably getting your news from Rachel Maddow or dailykos.com.

The thing is it has wiped out balance and perspective. The ideas that used to occupy the editorial pages of newspaper are now out there for everyone and frankly, dumbed down for their audience's consumption. Everyone on the other side is a bad guy and that leave no room for compromise (after all, would you compromise with Hitler or Stalin).

Personally, I don't think the current political strife will last once the baby boomers, a generation that seems particularly ill-equipped for the adult world, begins to die off. Sorry, that's nasty, but I think the millennials, who has spent their life overexposed to this crap won't take it as seriously and we return to a cynical normal where compromise can happen.


Paddlefoot - 7-4-2016 at 04:57 AM

I dunno man. From what I've seen of the current crop of SJW's the millenials are as fucking ideological and intolerant of dissent from their perceived enemies as any other generation has ever been. At the same age the baby boomers seemed to want to make sure everyone had a good time, as opposed to way too many of the millenials who try their hardest to make sure no one at all has any fun at all unless it's been approved by the central committee.

[Edited on 7/4/2016 by Paddlefoot]


janerd75 - 7-4-2016 at 06:01 AM

Hater.


merc - 7-4-2016 at 02:44 PM

Hey!
Sorry I disappeared from the discussion; took the boy to where cell phone & interwebs don't work for a few days.

Quent, please don't call me a Trump supporter. ever. As Tex would say, I will find you!

I'm a little late on follow up, so I'll ignore all of the misrepresentations of my words. The intent of the fraud posting was to show the ineptness of the USoA's government- I suspect career employees with minimal party allegiance.

Here's a simple example;

Let's say we are in business together. We'll do 10m in receivables this year with a healthy net margin of 8%. Not too shabby. Then I come to you and say, "Hey Dude, just a little FYI, we'll have an errant payables system of somewhere around 11% might be less, could be more. Now I'm not talking fraud, but fraud will be in there somewhere...but the number is an absolute, so there will be mis refunds offsetting mispayments and likely some transfer issues as well. Don't worry about it though because I'm letting you know about it now."

That the way you want to run your business? (If you say yes, I give up)

There are scores of companies that provide audit or exception software. To accept a SWAG on errors and fraud is unacceptable in the business world. The fact that any leadership not only allows the result, but provides "transparency" into it is incompetence and the leadership should be replaced.

Finally to catch up:
I think I agree with OOMike(& some of Quent) that the larger opportunity for fraud lies with the service providers, not individuals...although I'd put collusion between the two pretty high.

Only "some of Quent" because I don't like this issue to immigration at all. That's a leap

and

I agree with Pad, I think those that are coming of age now has more extremist views than those that came before. In our little microcosm think about who throws around nasty generalizations and links it to hate mongering. Not the baby boomers of the OO Universe.

and

BO, I'd offer the internet and speed and brevity of message has been the primary fuel. Sound bites cause visceral reactions and people tend to lean with those. Thus the success of someone like Trump...

[Edited on 7-4-2016 by merc]


Quentil - 7-4-2016 at 03:07 PM

I"m simply going to say that the data as presented by all sources doesn't seem to back your gut feelings on the matter, and leave it at that. I think we've reached "dead horse" status on it and should start strip-mining the layers off something else.

[Edited on 7-4-2016 by Quentil]


bopol - 7-4-2016 at 07:51 PM

Pad,

Right now, a lot of the millennials are under the influence of the Baby Boomers and Gen X. I think, with time, they will forge their own paths and be quite independent of the influence.

The biggest problem I see is that the 2-party system will demand certain realignments of their coalitions to go forward. The Republican coalition of social conservatives linking up with middle class white people and Wall Street types is probably ending. It'll hold together for a little while as the preachers to pimp themselves out for Trump saying he's come to Christ (BAHAHAHAHAHA), because older Christians have become so confused in their faith that they believe that Republican values equal Christian values, but the younger Christians will see through this crap. Republicans will be forced (and that's the only way this group is moving) to shift their positions with time.

The Democrats are in better shape because they can shift their message to incorporate many of the complaints of the Sanders type voters and I think that Wall Street has come to see that Democrats just aren't bad for business (on a corporate level or for the executives individually). The trouble is power brings corruption and as someone who lives in Illinois can attest to, one party rule of a state for too long is a bad thing.

The trick is how long with this realignment take. The Republican party that I could support died right around Sept. 11th, 2001 with the wars of aggression. 15 years later and they can't recouncile themselves to the Bush Presidency being horrible and they stand for nothing except for opposing Obama and the Democrats. There is a serious intellectual sinkhole in the party and I'm hard-pressed to come up with a leader that has a clear vision. Certainly, I don't think there was one out of the 16 Republicans that ran for President. A good politician would realize that combining the grizzled, disgruntled Trump supporters with the idealistic disgruntled Sanders supporter is a natural coalition that is a bridge to the future for the Rs, but none exists.


Quentil - 7-5-2016 at 06:38 PM

So no charges against Hillary Clinton. Not really a shocker, tbh. And I mean that because it was pretty obvious she wasn't guilty enough to be charged months ago.

Now, Hillary Clinton isn't exactly brilliant for her actions. But can we please just drop this now that the FBI has come out with their findings? Oh wait, of course that's not going to happen. I mean, she was absolved of guilt in about a dozen Benghazi committees and findings and statements and whatever, but I still see that being touted as a 'smoking gun' by Fox News and similar outlets. So yeah, I imagine this inanity isn't going to end, either.


janerd75 - 7-5-2016 at 07:23 PM

Some helpful definitions and links.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/take+at+face+value

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7177/fbi-yes-queen-hillary-broke-law-no-she-wont-be-ben-shapiro?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=news&ut m_campaign=twitterbenshapiro

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a- personal-e-mail-system

Much like certain big banks, I guess some politicians are just too big to fail. Oh well. I guess all I can say is be careful what you wish for for when it comes to supporting criminals that disregard the rule of law.


Paddlefoot - 7-5-2016 at 08:00 PM

Logically speaking though except for Bush the Elder, who was careful enough to do everything by the book, all of your presidents since Reagan should have been imprisoned for something. To wit:

Reagan - Iran/Contra
Clinton - Whitewater, probable rapist
Dumbya - invasion of Iraq under completely false manufacture pretenses
Obama - Fast & Furious debacle

It's an imperfect system. Garbage in, garbage out. The position of POTUS itself probably encourages the bad behaviour too. Take Nixon for example. He was arguably one of the most intelligent men to ever occupy the post. Even his enemies credit him for being one of the most detail-oriented presidents the US has ever had, and he had a genuine long-term vision for the future that (going by his overtures to the Soviets & Chinese and his desire to bring in a national healthcare program for all Americans) would have been beneficial and produced long-term positive legacies. The power of the position though aggravated the worst aspects of his personality, such as the paranoia and genuine mean streak, and it all culminated in the Watergate disaster. I can only imagine what kind of impulses the power of POTUS would stoke up in someone like Trump. Overall, on the campaign trail he's given every indication that it's some kind of magic wand that will literally let him do anything he wants anytime he wants. And let's not make the mistake of falling for this Crooked Hillary crap they're pushing. Yes, she's an awful person but she's not the only current candidate who probably deserves to be prosecuted for something. The orange-skinned nightmare deserves it too for that scam he ran at Trump "University" as well as his other ventures that went bust at the expense of far too many investors that fell for his schtick. Or for his mob connections on his construction projects in New York and New Jersey. Or for his habit of not paying contractors for their work on his projects and then exhausting them in court when they ran out of money trying to sue him. Trump's as dirty as they come and everyone knows it.

Might be time for Americans to finally admit that the nature of politics attracts the worst far more than it does the best and to give up on this imagination-land crap about innocence and goodness having any place in the process. All is is when it gets boiled down to it's rawest state is each tribe saying "they're assholes but they're OUR assholes". In reality politics is something that always belonged to the bad guys and saying otherwise is just more juvenile myth-making that any adult really shouldn't believe in.

[Edited on 7/5/2016 by Paddlefoot]


bopol - 7-5-2016 at 08:05 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
So no charges against Hillary Clinton. Not really a shocker, tbh. And I mean that because it was pretty obvious she wasn't guilty enough to be charged months ago.

Now, Hillary Clinton isn't exactly brilliant for her actions. But can we please just drop this now that the FBI has come out with their findings? Oh wait, of course that's not going to happen. I mean, she was absolved of guilt in about a dozen Benghazi committees and findings and statements and whatever, but I still see that being touted as a 'smoking gun' by Fox News and similar outlets. So yeah, I imagine this inanity isn't going to end, either.


This is why the current batch of Republican leaders are soooo stupid. They build their entire argument around she is really, really bad and then choose minor scandals to pin on her.

Benghazi...a diplomat get killed by scumballs and the Republicans make it seem like she ignored his personal pleas for help.

Email scandal ... no different than what's happened in the past going back to diplomats being sloppy with memos typed out back before the World Wide Web.

This has been going on for 25 years and while I certainly think that Clinton is scummy, possibly even by the incredibly low standards of politicians, the Republicans should be able to put together a compelling argument to vote for them (they haven't in 15 years) and find a national candidate that articulates this argument (spoiler: it ain't Trump). I remember listening to Limbaugh 20 years ago explain that Dole lost to Clinton because the Republican didn't give voters a reason to vote for them (just against Clinton). I hope he has that one saved in the archives because he can save himself a day's work by just playing that on the day after the election.


Paddlefoot - 7-5-2016 at 08:19 PM

A choice between someone who's going to run a sleazier presidency, worse even than the one her husband did, vs. a genuinely malicious vulgar undignified baby with a decades-long business record of graft, fraud, and all sorts of other hijinks? Yup, worst election ever.


bopol - 7-5-2016 at 08:55 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
A choice between someone who's going to run a sleazier presidency, worse even than the one her husband did, vs. a genuinely malicious vulgar undignified baby with a decades-long business record of graft, fraud, and all sorts of other hijinks? Yup, worst election ever.


Probably. I tend to agree with you that American politics tends to bring out the worst instead of the best, but that's true in Corporate America, too. Too much bluster and heat and too little actual substance.


merc - 7-5-2016 at 11:08 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
worst election ever.


Amen


Paddlefoot - 7-7-2016 at 04:27 AM

What a world, what a world....



janerd75 - 7-7-2016 at 06:29 AM

Stop that, you. Señor Benjamin, prepare the battlefield...for massacre!




Paddlefoot - 7-10-2016 at 05:56 AM

Canadians watching American politics these days.


Paddlefoot - 7-21-2016 at 12:01 AM

Achievement unlocked! Apparently members of the KKK, BLM, and Westboro Baptist were throwing urine at each other out in the street outside the RNC convention hall.

[Edited on 7/20/2016 by Paddlefoot]


janerd75 - 7-21-2016 at 12:06 AM

Bark Labia Approves!!!


Paddlefoot - 7-21-2016 at 04:00 AM

You'd think some kind of small business job creator would be able to take advantage of this situation.


Paddlefoot - 7-22-2016 at 01:47 AM

Holy fuck. I'd never vote for him, if I were a Texican, but now I have to respect the hell out of Cruz for going in front of a massively hostile crowd and basically giving them all one massive

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/07/21/lucifer-is-back-ted-cruz-refuses-to-endorse-trump-after-personal-attacks-on-wife-dad

quote:
Cruz refused and sought to portray his stance as a matter of principle. But he also made clear it was intensely personal after a brutal primary campaign where Trump dismissed him as "Lyin' Ted," mocked Cruz's wife's looks and linked Cruz's father to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

"I'm not going to get into criticizing or attacking Donald Trump, but I'll give you this response: I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father," Cruz said, adding that those attacks had undone his pledge to back the eventual GOP nominee.

"That pledge was not a blanket commitment that, if you go and slander and attack Heidi, that I'm going to nonetheless come like a servile puppy dog and say, 'thank you very much for maligning my wife and my father,'" Cruz said.

The Texan argued that the "politically easy option" would be to back the nominee no matter who it might be, but insisted: "This is not a game, it is not politics. Right and wrong matters."


Too bad that almost everything Cruz believes in is batshit insane because, consequences or not, he showed he's got one severe case of testicular fortitude going. Family uber alles for the win!


Paddlefoot - 7-22-2016 at 06:36 AM

Jeb! (Lund)



merc - 7-22-2016 at 10:22 PM

Third party candidate time?

http://www.johnsonweld.com/issues

Bill Weld was a republican Gov. In Massachusetts when Ted (I killed a woman and was still elected senator over and over) Kennedy was still relevant. Not an easy feat. I was living in MA then and happily voted for him and thought he did a fine job picking up the mess left by M. Stanley Dukakis.

I hate the two offered up by the traditional parties (one significantly more) and wonder if this is the year to consider backing a third party...


Quentil - 7-23-2016 at 12:00 AM

I looked at Johnson's platforms. Some of them weren't bad, but I couldn't back his tax/earnings plan. He refuses to ever think about raising any taxes, ever. Even if there's a natural disaster or a war. Also, he wants to revoke the income tax, and just have a higher flat sales tax. What this does is help the rich far more than the poor or middle class.

His offer to give vouchers to the poor "up til the poverty line" essentially is saying he's going to lock in the poor at a specific point, and not help them beyond it. Couple this with his plans to dismantle most of the social services system, and you'll wind up with a larger number of poor who lack the intelligence or upward mobility to do anything but be unskilled labor.

The rich will no longer be paying income tax, which enables them to easily offset a slightly higher sales tax. The poor and middle class, who weren't paying taxes that much before, still won't. Only now they will have to spend more of their income on higher sales tax. The net effect is the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Add to this that the rich will still be able to afford higher education, and you also see them furthering their rule on top of the pyramid.

Also, with no more government subsidies of any industrial R&D, he'd create a serious brake on American innovation. Which is the one thing we still really have a firm lead on in the world over others.

I mean, he's no Donald Trump. So yeah, if I were a Conservative in this election, I'd certainly look at Gary Johnson. But his fiscal policies are horrible to the poor, and would create instability on all levels.

[Edited on 7-22-2016 by Quentil]


merc - 7-23-2016 at 12:37 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
Couple this with his plans to dismantle most of the social services system, and you'll wind up with a larger number of poor who lack the intelligence or upward mobility to do anything but be unskilled labor.
[Edited on 7-22-2016 by Quentil]


Quent, we'll likely not agree ever on how to best fix the economy, that's OK by me. I am curious about the above. Here's why, I see what you have laid out as chicken or egg discussion.

Is someone too stupid to advance thus they are poor, or are they too poor to put themselves in a situation to learn enough to advance? I think I could argue either side of that question with equal gusto and be dead wrong.

My perspective is we need people who develop lasers to save life, but we also need fries with our burgers. Not everyone gets a trophy in life. (measured in this case by money).

For chuckles two quick semi related facts as I don't want this to be an acrimonious discussion.

I was too stupid to get a nuclear engineering degree, although that was my initial goal in my pursuit of a public education. A very proud Differential Equations professor explained my stupidity to me in the kindest of terms; "son, your bulb isn't bright enough to go into a reactor."

In National Parks it is illegal to feed the animals because they become dependent on those feedings and fail to learn to survive on their own. They have to post signs saying so the stupid humans don't feed them.


[Edited on 7-22-2016 by merc]


Quentil - 7-23-2016 at 05:51 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
Couple this with his plans to dismantle most of the social services system, and you'll wind up with a larger number of poor who lack the intelligence or upward mobility to do anything but be unskilled labor.
[Edited on 7-22-2016 by Quentil]


Quent, we'll likely not agree ever on how to best fix the economy, that's OK by me. I am curious about the above. Here's why, I see what you have laid out as chicken or egg discussion.

Is someone too stupid to advance thus they are poor, or are they too poor to put themselves in a situation to learn enough to advance? I think I could argue either side of that question with equal gusto and be dead wrong.



Okay, first off, your question is a loaded one so I'll avoid answering it in a way to walk into your prepared defense. People of low/average intelligence still have good ideas. Those idea can still be made into things that reward you. Certainly you see the exceptions to the rule of a high-school dropout with 7th grade reading ability marketing a new thing like truck nuts or an app that catches on and makes a fortune as a result.

That said, history, countless studies, and actual overwhelming numbers of other success stories show the above example to indeed be the exception to the overall rule. Because government-subsidized education has been shown to make a general workforce far more efficient, adaptable, and innovative. When you have the focus given to you by learning to be able to better identify an idea and develop it, and you have a non-private system in place that helps finance an idea into a reality, you see a general improvement for the greater good of the greater number of people. It allows a general advancement on all fronts and a better society for everyone.

Look, I understand the Libertarian theoretical ideal. It's to reward those that work the hardest and most efficient with the most toys and everyone else is obviously not working hard enough. The problem is that this system depends on the status quo. You can't have upward mobility as easily if you are in the bottom bracket. With no money, no help with education or basic health and human services (IE food), and locked at the poverty level due to government policy, your chances to "not be poor" diminish with each year under such a system. It calcifies the top 1% into being the best educated, best connected, and it has their rights protected by a government purposefully locking in a caste system on the overwhelming majority.


quote:

My perspective is we need people who develop lasers to save life, but we also need fries with our burgers. Not everyone gets a trophy in life. (measured in this case by money).



Essentially you are taking the stance that some people should remain purposefully uneducated and left with limited means so they can make your fries? That's quite selfish of you. Especially in an age where automation can do the vast majority of that for you now. There's no need for the sort of giant unskilled labor caste that you seem to want. I think we should give everyone the tools to be able to earn a trophy. Not leave some out in the cold who might be far better suited to lead, develop, and grow society than the tiny privileged elite that you seem to think is best.

It's up to the people themselves as to whether they want to use those tools or not. Those that do not can still go dig ditches and wash dishes. But everyone should have the option and tools in place for them to use should they choose to do so.


quote:

For chuckles two quick semi related facts as I don't want this to be an acrimonious discussion.

I was too stupid to get a nuclear engineering degree, although that was my initial goal in my pursuit of a public education. A very proud Differential Equations professor explained my stupidity to me in the kindest of terms; "son, your bulb isn't bright enough to go into a reactor."

In National Parks it is illegal to feed the animals because they become dependent on those feedings and fail to learn to survive on their own. They have to post signs saying so the stupid humans don't feed them.



Okay, first off, these aren't facts. Perhaps your thinking they are is part of the confusion. The first is a personal anecdote using the opinion of a single professor. It might be a fact that this conversation happened, but it's most certainly not a fact that you couldn't have been a nuclear engineer on the opinion of one teacher. So it really doesn't pertain to the conversation in any way that I can see.

The second is a gross misinterpretation. Some purpose for not feeding animals is to not attract them to populated areas. Easy food can do that, yes. So in one element, you aren't wrong. However, there's a slew of other, more important reasons that you seemingly neglect to mention. They involve safety for both the animals and humans, an attempt to not introduce foreign substances into an ecosystem, and to give animals a basic right to exist without humans poking them with sticks.

I get what you are trying to show in the second comment, however. You are taking the stance that by giving "animals" (nee: poor people) "food" (education, health services, basic rights) that you are making them lazy and dependent and worthless. And the only way for them to survive is by allowing them to starve to death or find help elsewhere.

First off, your opinion in this is so misguided. I think that's the nicest way of saying it. Because humanity feeds the animals of the wild in countless ways without individual tourists having to do so. In restocking streams, in putting up feeders and building nests, by creating water breaks and natural habitats where none existed, the forest and game people are constantly helping the animals in an ecosystem out. They aren't giving them direct handouts of food all the time (although they do that too), but they are supplying them a leg up in giving them the tools and habitats for which to thrive. Social programs do the same for those without the resources to do it themselves.

Essentially, your second example is incorrect to use as an argument to cut social services to poor people. Because with every beaver dam or coral reef we create, with every nest we build, and with every stream we manage, it further shows your example to be lacking support, and far more simplified than the reality of the situation.


merc - 7-23-2016 at 07:09 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
Couple this with his plans to dismantle most of the social services system, and you'll wind up with a larger number of poor who lack the intelligence or upward mobility to do anything but be unskilled labor.


quote:
Originally posted by merc
Quent, we'll likely not agree ever on how to best fix the economy, that's OK by me. I am curious about the above. Here's why, I see what you have laid out as chicken or egg discussion.

Is someone too stupid to advance thus they are poor, or are they too poor to put themselves in a situation to learn enough to advance? I think I could argue either side of that question with equal gusto and be dead wrong.


quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
Okay, first off, your question is a loaded one so I'll avoid answering it in a way to walk into your prepared defense.

I have no prepared defense, I was/am genuinely curious to understand different perspectives. Honest.

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
You can't have upward mobility as easily if you are in the bottom bracket.

I'm editing out a lot, not to be dismissive, but to try to find strong yes or no points. This is a strong agree point.


quote:
Originally posted by QuentilWith no money, no help with education or basic health and human services (IE food), and locked at the poverty level due to government policy, your chances to "not be poor" diminish with each year under such a system. It calcifies the top 1% into being the best educated, best connected, and it has their rights protected by a government purposefully locking in a caste system on the overwhelming majority.

I am uncomfortable with how you transitioned from gray statements to black &white. Im not sure how to be concise & clear but when you transition your words to the "top 1%" they become more definitive, less opportunity to look at things slightly different. Hope that makes sense.
I disagree with the government locking in a caste system. I'll point out that for a brief period of my childhood I was sleeping on patio furniture in a city. I think it was Denver that pointed to family unit being the driving factor for climbing out of that future, not government. In reflecting on his thinking, I agree that that was the primary reason for not continuing down a poverty level path. Government wasn't a driving factor in suppressing, nor uplifting.
quote:


quote:
Originally posted by merc
My perspective is we need people who develop lasers to save life, but we also need fries with our burgers. Not everyone gets a trophy in life. (measured in this case by money).


quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
Essentially you are taking the stance that some people should remain purposefully uneducated and left with limited means so they can make your fries? That's quite selfish of you. Especially in an age where automation can do the vast majority of that for you now. There's no need for the sort of giant unskilled labor caste that you seem to want. I think we should give everyone the tools to be able to earn a trophy. Not leave some out in the cold who might be far better suited to lead, develop, and grow society than the tiny privileged elite that you seem to think is best.


"Purposefully uneducated" is bad interpretation of my thought. I would use the term "capacity" not everyone's DNA allows the same thought capacity.

Automation is interesting thought; but I think left in the vacuum incomplete. "Automation" can eliminate a lot of low level jobs. In doing so more people will be unemployed. You know Business (and Government) are structured as human pyramids. There is only one (usually) CEO and many widget makers. Once the widget makers are unnecessary, there are not more middle managers added...in fact there are less middle managers needed...and the cycle continues up the corporate ladder.

Automation (and simplification) are not good for the working class. That's a part of the reason Detroit is in the shape its in. (failing to understand competition, consumer needs, NAFTA, inability to integrate technology into space and unions are among other reasons)

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
It's up to the people themselves as to whether they want to use those tools or not. Those that do not can still go dig ditches and wash dishes. But everyone should have the option and tools in place for them to use should they choose to do so.


I'm with you!


quote:
Originally posted by merc
For chuckles two quick semi related facts as I don't want this to be an acrimonious discussion.

I was too stupid to get a nuclear engineering degree, although that was my initial goal in my pursuit of a public education. A very proud Differential Equations professor explained my stupidity to me in the kindest of terms; "son, your bulb isn't bright enough to go into a reactor."

In National Parks it is illegal to feed the animals because they become dependent on those feedings and fail to learn to survive on their own. They have to post signs saying so the stupid humans don't feed them.



quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
Okay, first off, these aren't facts. Perhaps your thinking they are is part of the confusion. The first is a personal anecdote using the opinion of a single professor. It might be a fact that this conversation happened, but it's most certainly not a fact that you couldn't have been a nuclear engineer on the opinion of one teacher. So it really doesn't pertain to the conversation in any way that I can see.


It wasn't intended to be instructive, but it is a fact. After two dismal failures at DiffyQ's it was a cold hard fact that NE was not something I should pursue. I'll leave cynicism and sarcasm from completing my thought. I really sucked...couldn't master concepts that could have ultimately killed people. Keep merc away from reactors, regardless os size.

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
The second is a gross misinterpretation.


there you go again with overstating something. "gross misinterpretation" come on man, just because someone says something that doesn't compy with your thinking, don't distort it and dismiss it.

As to the specific statement:
In National Parks it is illegal to feed the animals because they become dependent on those feedings and fail to learn to survive on their own. They have to post signs saying so the stupid humans don't feed them.
Here is the National Parks Service position. I have highlighted what is relevant to the original posting.

Do not feed wildlife

Feeding wild animals disrupts their lives, and is dangerous for people. Many things we eat are toxic to animals. When animals become used to being fed, they become habituated and no long act naturally. They often become aggressive and will attack people to take food. NPS staff finds it heartbreaking when they are forced to euthanize animals whose aggressive behaviors were caused by being fed by well-meaning people. Animals that are fed from cars congregate near roads, and are at a high risk of being killed by a car collision. Animals that are fed often become dependent on food handouts and lose the ability to feed themselves naturally.

I don't want the meat of the discussion lost on animals ( or the Detroit aside). The reason I engage on these boards is to try to get some insight into different thinking...most of the time. There was a lot of stuff you have typed that I just outright deleted, you really took a simple thought and ran way out of what I was thinking and whether I agree or disagree with what you said, you are arguing against yourself. Animals aren't my cause and trying to tie animals to people doesn't work for me. Both of those "facts" really were just for chuckles.

This quote-requote thing is a pain in the ass. Thanks for taking the time to break it out!

[Edited on 7-23-2016 by merc]


Paddlefoot - 7-23-2016 at 08:36 PM

Re: the libertarian option, I think you can use the debacle of private prisons in the United States, that have regularly shown themselves to be an extra-legal nightmare that makes the state prisons look kind and gentle in comparison, as the best example of how more libertarian privatization makes things worse. This should have been learned already by the continent-wide debacle that occurred with the privatization of electrical and heating utilities but apparently the trend now is to make things even more horrid, learn absolutely nothing from it, and continue along with the ideology as if nothing negative happened. That's the main thing with ideologies, to have dogma uber alles, as if the bodies piling up as a result aren't even worth being discussed.

I'm a Soviet Canuckistani and you can dismiss what I'm saying as some kind of weeny socialism if you want but the reality is that, even in a profit-driven society, some things don't have to be done or maintained with the profit motive as the most important aspect of why things should be done. Some things should just stay under government control, it's absolutely essential for the overall social good that they stay under government control. This is what privatization has done in my lifetime alone:

- destroyed the utilities and gouged uncounted billions of dollars from customers in blatantly unfair price schemes
- left tens of millions of people in the United States to live in pain and die prematurely because they can't afford the private medical insurance that would allow them to live a life with some kind of quality of health
- privatized prisons, with regular nightmare stories emerging from them that rival what occurs in third-world countries
- privatized military contractors, outside of the control of regular military authorities, that are essentially uncontrollable mercenaries answerable only to whatever shadowy figures give them their paycheques
- the explosive growth of for-profit education, that has led to the next fiscal bubble that's ready to explode when an entire generation of college graduates begin to default on student loans that they're never going to be able to pay off

Utopian libertarianism is exactly like utopian communism. When any of it's ideas are applied in real life the end result is abysmal failure. There's no getting around that because it's the obvious truth to anyone who wants to shut off what they well-paid think tanks are saying and take a look at what's going on in reality. For-profit adventuring in fields that normally, and correctly, are operated by the government invariably turn out to be absolute debacles. Even if one is willing to not care about the basic human cost of libertarianism applications onto public goods then look at it this way. Every single time something gets privatized and turned over to the for-profit sector the cost-savings that are promised never materialize. In each and every instance of privatization the costs to the general public and to the governments that allow it to happen do nothing but increase, and increase in a way that wildly exceeds the costs that occur due to standard government sloppiness or inefficiency.

It's all a lie, and one of the biggest lies currently making the rounds. It's provably too after even a cursory examination of what happens after privatization occurs. That it's still alive as a concept and still being promoted as the best alternative, after so many deep and damaging failures, is actually quite astounding.

[Edited on 7/23/2016 by Paddlefoot]


Quentil - 7-23-2016 at 08:49 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc

{Snip}

[Edited on 7-23-2016 by merc]


It frustrates me that you repeat the same debunked things over and over as fact, no matter how often evidence to the contrary is presented. It also frustrates me how you ignore whole elements of text spent on disproving your thought by simply deleting it from your reply. And then you go on and repeat the same thing all the stuff you edited out discussed.

I fear you only let yourself view the world from a very filtered perspective, and that it limits your ability to see where some of your points are weaker than others. I think you may overestimate your understanding of the people and things around you because of this filtered perspective. I'm not that worried about it, either way. I just wish people weren't so skittish to believe that doom is right around the corner when it really isn't.

Either way, I enjoy the conversations more often than not. So by all means, carry on to the next topic, my friend.


BBMN - 7-24-2016 at 03:46 AM

Every couple years a couple different guys bring up flat tax policies and it always gets a ton of support, despite being complete fucking snake oil. But hey, it sounds so nice and swell. It's fair. Who doesn't like fair? And it's flat? Who doesn't like simple math, instead of hard confusing math?

But it's completely setup to be a regressive tax wet dream.

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/bartlett_fair_tax.pdf

And even if I was wrong, and Gary was the fucking man on every issue, he can't get the GOP nod because he's not an embarrassment to civilization. A normal guy with a decent record and respectable personality? Get outta here!


GodEatGod - 7-24-2016 at 04:30 AM

quote:
Originally posted by BBMN
Every couple years a couple different guys bring up flat tax policies and it always gets a ton of support, despite being complete fucking snake oil. But hey, it sounds so nice and swell. It's fair. Who doesn't like fair? And it's flat? Who doesn't like simple math, instead of hard confusing math?

But it's completely setup to be a regressive tax wet dream.

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/bartlett_fair_tax.pdf

And even if I was wrong, and Gary was the fucking man on every issue, he can't get the GOP nod because he's not an embarrassment to civilization. A normal guy with a decent record and respectable personality? Get outta here!


I saw Johnson on Samantha Bee's show. While I wouldn't vote for him in a million years and think his economic policies are insane, he seemed like a really good guy who means well. He was also stoned as fuck in that interview and kept giggling (although he said he'd taken a vow not to smoke weed while he was President). He fully admitted that many libertarians are total whackjobs, too.

I mean, of all the candidates, he's definitely the one I'd wanna hang out with.


merc - 7-24-2016 at 01:27 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
quote:
Originally posted by merc

{Snip}

[Edited on 7-23-2016 by merc]


It frustrates me that you repeat the same debunked things over and over as fact, no matter how often evidence to the contrary is presented. It also frustrates me how you ignore whole elements of text spent on disproving your thought by simply deleting it from your reply. And then you go on and repeat the same thing all the stuff you edited out discussed.

I fear you only let yourself view the world from a very filtered perspective, and that it limits your ability to see where some of your points are weaker than others. I think you may overestimate your understanding of the people and things around you because of this filtered perspective. I'm not that worried about it, either way. I just wish people weren't so skittish to believe that doom is right around the corner when it really isn't.

Either way, I enjoy the conversations more often than not. So by all means, carry on to the next topic, my friend.


I laughed out loud at the snip, well played!

I ignore irrelevant rants that have little to do with what is being discussed. in quantity don't make a debater right. Ironic in your post is if I spent the time to think about you as a person I might have typed the same thing...except the part about doom around the corner it's not clear what your meaning is on that line. I try ignore personality, unless FK Asshole screams from every letter, and stay on the message. Simplistic but it tends to work for me.

fun fact (cause I know you love those). Sometimes when I want ice cream, I have no idea what flavor I want but I do want ice cream.

On to other thoughts:
Flat sales tax BAD idea. Flat income tax. Intriguing idea but the overall impact must be part of the discussion- think job displacement it would be significant.

My conservative friends dismiss Johnson as a joke. Last night I learned my Sanders supporting friends struggle with his support of TPP.

I find him lacking in a lot of ways but a seemingly decent human being...something I struggle to find in the D or R candidate. At the end of the day that matters to me somewhat. I'll wait for someone to post video of him beating his wife with his girlfriends baby now...


Paddlefoot - 7-26-2016 at 04:57 AM

Jeb!s twatter feed leads to all sorts of interesting places.



mr_mysterious2 - 7-26-2016 at 07:08 PM

Any chance you American voters can get a YES! movement going for Jill Stein?

Leaders aren't going to save us, this is going to have to be about the people.


salmonjunkie - 7-26-2016 at 07:49 PM

NO! NO! NO!


OOMike - 7-27-2016 at 05:01 AM

With all this talk of Stein or Johnson, I decided to go to their websites and read up on their positions on the issues..... and um... besides legalizing pot, why are Bernie supporters flocking toward Johnson?

As for Stein, when I read that she opposes mandatory vaccinations and her fiscal policy is um.... unique, I decided that the supposed non-evil alternatives are not that non-evil.


bopol - 7-27-2016 at 05:35 AM

But voting for Johnson or Stein would be a protest vote. Not a "I like this person's policies and want them to be President" but more a "neither one of the major party candidates represent me and I want to make that point.

This was true for Ross Perot who ran on a single issue (deficit) and won enough of the vote that both parties focused on reducing the deficit to a surplus by the end of Clinton's 2nd term. Then GW Bush happened.

I could see some people (especially old school Republicans) who are gagging themselves that a con man was just chosen as their party's nominee voting for Johnson. I could see some hard-core Bernie types voting for Stein, but, in the end, I'd be surprised if Johnson gets more than 5% of the vote and Stein 1%.


merc - 7-27-2016 at 12:09 PM

I think I agree with your thinking bo. I don't know what's worse having a "con man" fanagle his way to the nomination, or a con woman manipulate the party leaders to secure the nomination.

Shitty year for an election.

[Edited on 7-27-2016 by merc]


OOMike - 7-27-2016 at 01:01 PM

Why do so many conservatives add the word "only" when liberals are talking?

#blacklivesmatter becomes ONLY Black lives matter

Slaves built the White House becomes ONLY slaves built the White House


Also apparently the idea that the slaves were paid by the government means they weren't slaves, so the next argument about the Civil War won't be that it was about State's rights, but how that since the Slave Owners provided them with shelter and food, it was like they were paying them, so I guess there weren't any slaves....


Quentil - 7-27-2016 at 02:11 PM

quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
With all this talk of Stein or Johnson, I decided to go to their websites and read up on their positions on the issues..... and um... besides legalizing pot, why are Bernie supporters flocking toward Johnson?

As for Stein, when I read that she opposes mandatory vaccinations and her fiscal policy is um.... unique, I decided that the supposed non-evil alternatives are not that non-evil.


I've already talked about why I think Johnson is a bad choice. His plan for the income and sales tax is one based in Ayn Rand masturbatory fantasies and on little else, and it would lock the poor into a poverty-level caste system made to feed resources, labor, and money to the richest 1% of society.

That said? Jill Stein is probably as scary. She is an anti-vaxxer who also claims GMO foods are government-organized evil plots to keep corporations in charge. She wants to restrict men from applying to certain numbers of jobs to give them to women, and to give all women in the home a weekly paycheck for their services. But surprisingly, not necessarily men in the same position. She also wants to pass government legislation blaming "male society" for poverty throughout the centuries. Finally, she wants to charge NATO with "Crimes against humanity" and eliminate almost the entire American military and all American nuclear weapons, starting on "Day 1."

So if you're a pothead, unemployed woman who claims that sand and dog milk can cure cancer and that Gluten is big pharma plot to poison society, Jill Stein is your candidate!


merc - 7-27-2016 at 06:07 PM

quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
Why do so many conservatives add the word "only" when liberals are talking?

#blacklivesmatter becomes ONLY Black lives matter

Slaves built the White House becomes ONLY slaves built the White House


Also apparently the idea that the slaves were paid by the government means they weren't slaves, so the next argument about the Civil War won't be that it was about State's rights, but how that since the Slave Owners provided them with shelter and food, it was like they were paying them, so I guess there weren't any slaves....


Context? I missed the slave discussion....


OOMike - 7-27-2016 at 06:18 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
With all this talk of Stein or Johnson, I decided to go to their websites and read up on their positions on the issues..... and um... besides legalizing pot, why are Bernie supporters flocking toward Johnson?

As for Stein, when I read that she opposes mandatory vaccinations and her fiscal policy is um.... unique, I decided that the supposed non-evil alternatives are not that non-evil.


I've already talked about why I think Johnson is a bad choice. His plan for the income and sales tax is one based in Ayn Rand masturbatory fantasies and on little else, and it would lock the poor into a poverty-level caste system made to feed resources, labor, and money to the richest 1% of society.

That said? Jill Stein is probably as scary. She is an anti-vaxxer who also claims GMO foods are government-organized evil plots to keep corporations in charge. She wants to restrict men from applying to certain numbers of jobs to give them to women, and to give all women in the home a weekly paycheck for their services. But surprisingly, not necessarily men in the same position. She also wants to pass government legislation blaming "male society" for poverty throughout the centuries. Finally, she wants to charge NATO with "Crimes against humanity" and eliminate almost the entire American military and all American nuclear weapons, starting on "Day 1."

So if you're a pothead, unemployed woman who claims that sand and dog milk can cure cancer and that Gluten is big pharma plot to poison society, Jill Stein is your candidate!


Do you have a source for that about Stein? I would be interested in sharing this with some people.


quote:
Originally posted by merc
quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
Why do so many conservatives add the word "only" when liberals are talking?

#blacklivesmatter becomes ONLY Black lives matter

Slaves built the White House becomes ONLY slaves built the White House


Also apparently the idea that the slaves were paid by the government means they weren't slaves, so the next argument about the Civil War won't be that it was about State's rights, but how that since the Slave Owners provided them with shelter and food, it was like they were paying them, so I guess there weren't any slaves....


Context? I missed the slave discussion....


In Michelle Obama's speech at the Convention she mentioned that she said, "I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves..." and I have seen O'Reilly and others counter that either they were not just slaves, but white men as well, or they were paid and well fed so you can't really call them slaves.

[Edited on 7-27-2016 by OOMike]


merc - 7-27-2016 at 06:39 PM

Thanks. I pay little attention to conservative (or liberal) talking heads.


Cherokee Jack - 7-27-2016 at 06:41 PM

quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
Why do so many conservatives add the word "only" when liberals are talking?

#blacklivesmatter becomes ONLY Black lives matter

Slaves built the White House becomes ONLY slaves built the White House
Insecurity? Feels like it'd come from the same place that makes people want to see White History Month or Straight Pride Parades.

Or perhaps because it makes for an easy strawman argument that they know they can use to whip up fury along the base. That too.

And my phone autocorrected "strawman" to "Strowman." Because it hates me.


Quentil - 7-27-2016 at 07:19 PM

quote:
Originally posted by OOMike

Do you have a source for that about Stein? I would be interested in sharing this with some people.



The first couple are blogs, but have good links. The rest is Green Party/Stein platform stuff. There's others, but I couldn't find them all and was too lazy to check history. Still, Google something like "Jill Stein platform" or "Green Party payments to housewives" and it all pops up.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/07/jill-stein-promotes-homeopathy-panders-on-vaccines/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2016/03/if-the-green-party-wants-leftist-support-it-must-change-anti-science-positions/
https://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php
http://www.jill2016.com/plan
http://www.jill2016.com/on_tax_day_stein_calls_for_massive_miliatary_cut
http://www.jill2016.com/stein_says_president_obama_should_apologize_during_his_trip_to_hiroshima


Paddlefoot - 7-27-2016 at 07:49 PM

Christ, she's left-wing wackadoodle enough that she could have been perfect as Bernie's VP if he'd gotten the nomination. It would have been America's first NDP* government!

* Canadian context, you fellas really don't know how existentially dumb it can get up here thanks to these kinds of people

[Edited on 7/27/2016 by Paddlefoot]


Quentil - 7-27-2016 at 09:24 PM

In other news, Donald Trump just invited the Russians to hack both US government computers and his political rivals. Isn't that arguably close to treason, right there?


Paddlefoot - 7-27-2016 at 09:31 PM

In a sane world, yes, it would be treason. If a Dem had said the same thing about a former GOP Sec of State the GOP/Limpbaugh/FOX and the rest of the clown car would be shitting themselves to death over it. Sanity left the building a long time ago though, sometime in September 2001 if I remember history correctly, and probably isn't returning any time soon.

Mike Pence tried to do some damage control after the fact with a press release saying that anyone who hacked a US government agency would face severe consequences. Trump though decided to double-down on his little "joke" instead because of political correctness, or Pocahontas, or whatever the fuck is rattling around inside his head today. Pence, for all his own flaws or wacky policy beliefs, is probably feeling really lonely about now by being the only adult in the room for that campaign.


merc - 7-27-2016 at 10:40 PM

Do you guys find it odd that the DNC head communicated strategy with a single candidate?
I do.

I also find it disturbing that the same DNC Head resigns and finds gainful employment from the same candidate.

But most concerning is the US based mainstream media has spent less time "investigating" and reporting on it than they did on a candidate's wife's plagerism.

You tell me which story is more relevant to the qualifications of the next president. Maybe I'm off base, but Trump is proof that soundbites work.

I fear the media driving US politics


Cherokee Jack - 7-28-2016 at 01:50 AM

I haven't compared volume of stories or anything, but are you suggesting that "the media" hasn't covered the DNC thing? Because I think that would be very very wrong.

At the same time, the Trump wife plagiarism thing was pretty much over after 24 hours.

Not excusing the DNC thing...it sucks and kinda spits in the face of what I think most people want in electoral politics, but it's hardly shocking. I kinda figured all along that they were trying to prevent another Obama-in-08 type of upset just based on the debate schedule. Seemed like all but one or two were scheduled on nights when they expected no one to watch. They scheduled one against the goddamn college football national championship game!

Anyway, I'm digressing. The DNC thing sucks, but even as a Bernie supporter all it really does is confirm what I sort of knew all along. It feels like US party politics as usual (except that now we're seeing behind the curtain), which is essentially what I figure we're in for under a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Now Donald Trump is openly condoning the idea of other countries' espionage against the United States. Argue semantics and wording all you want, he's made it clear that he's fine with the idea of Russia hacking into US systems if it helps lead him to power. That is way, way worse in my mind than a US political party favoring one of their candidates over another.


merc - 7-28-2016 at 02:27 AM

What I'm saying is there are more legs to the DNC -Clinton thing. Clinton has now hired the head of the DNC for her campaign. There are so many bads in that action. I have seen little on it. Corrupt then hire the person? No thank you. But that is typical of the family. Engage in something that is ethically gray at best, deny its a problem then ignore the facts and move on. Im not down for that in a President (again).

Im also saying, having just returned from Philly tonight (and spent 2 hours on a tarmack- Thanks Joe Biden!), that the DNC has shut down the city. I lived in Philly and worked in center City during the RNC in 2000 and the city functioned perfectly fine, except when protesters ran thru Center City. That was a brief interuption, nothing more. Today, you can't get near the convention center- and the protesters are a considerable way outside of the area.

IN both cases the reporting has been underwhelming. Granted I spent the first couple of days this week drinking on a S. Florida beach, so I may have missed the "protester" reporting, but based on what I have seen the last two days, it's significant and not a peep.

Hidden behind a curtain is a good analogy to a point, once the curtain is pulled back she ignores the issue and carries on. The mainstream (ABC, NBC, CBS) just don't seem to have any interest in pulling back the curtain, so its become easier and easier for her to say FUCK YOU to whomever the offender is.

Trump is an ass and irrelevant to the Clinton issue. It sucks that that is the mainstream alternative. Just not a good time to be a voter in the USoA


bopol - 7-28-2016 at 04:26 AM

I think the DNC-Clinton thing got a fair bit of coverage. People are aware of it and I'm sure that they will decide how important it is in the scheme of who to vote for. As far as protestors/conventions shutting down a city, well, that's the modern convention. Cleveland was no different last week. City basically shut down.

Big picture: if you don't like Clinton, you expect these scandals to have more legs. But she is constantly under fire for the scandal of the week. After all, Benghazi was her fault personally and charges were imminent of the email server for the last six months according to the right wing media. The former wasn't true and the latter didn't happen. You've got the boy who cried wolf problem - she been accused of so many things (most of which didn't stick) that she is borderline bulletproof.

It doesn't help that the Republican nominee is anything but clean and honest, so there isn't a contradiction between them.


Quentil - 7-28-2016 at 04:45 AM

I think it boils down to "two wrongs don't make a right" in this case. But one wrong is more wrong than the other. The DNC shit was all over (and still is) the media, and it's party politics done to try to minimize the minority after it was seemingly no point to let them continue to stonewall things. The Trump people did the same thing before and during their own convention. In each case, it's a sign of how inbred party politics really is.

That said, the DNC thing isn't anything compared to a presidential candidate openly inviting one of our biggest enemies to hack government systems in order to hurt his political rival. That shit is just sick and disgusting on so many more levels than the DNC thing.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Pointing out one wrong does not absolve the other side of their own. But yeah, treason is a far worse thing for a potential president over the usual party politics that takes place every election cycle, locking people out in many unfair ways.

That's my take on it, at least.

[Edited on 7-28-2016 by Quentil]


OOMike - 7-28-2016 at 01:11 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
Do you guys find it odd that the DNC head communicated strategy with a single candidate?
I do.

I also find it disturbing that the same DNC Head resigns and finds gainful employment from the same candidate.




I think her new position with the Clinton campaign is overblown...
quote:

Being an honorary chair of a campaign—a position that involves no responsibilities, no employees, no budget, and no duties—is not a promotion from being chair of the DNC.

Being an honorary chair does not mean that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is “in charge of” Hillary Clinton’s campaign. It doesn’t mean anything. That is, unless you think President Obama’s 2012 campaign was run by actress Eva Longoria; or former Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee; or high school guidance counselor Loretta Harper—all of whom were among 24 people who served as honorary co-chairs of Obama’s 2012 campaign.

Being an honorary chair is not a job. It’s a courtesy. It’s the associate producer of politics. It’s an empty title handed out to help ease Debbie Wasserman Schultz out of her chair and make it slightly more palatable for her to leave a job she’d done (badly) for five years without putting up a fuss.



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/07/25/1551930/-Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz-did-not-get-promoted-and-she-s-not-running-Hillary-s-campaign


Cherokee Jack - 7-28-2016 at 02:07 PM

Right, this never felt like a real scandal, just the reality of American politics coming to light. If the same thing happened to the RNC, I'd be shocked if there weren't a load of "holy shit what is happening and how do we stop this" type emails going around when Trump started picking up steam.

But the GOP has been trying to pin some kind of major scandal, any scandal at all, on Hillary for the last decade plus, ever since she started holding offices and it looked like she had her eye on running for president. And with every passing non-scandal, it makes all but the true believers all the more likely to just roll their eyes and go "jesus, here we go again" when they come out with the next big Clinton "bombshell."

But as long as there are still people who will believe anything they read on facebook memes, that shit'll have an audience.


Quentil - 7-28-2016 at 03:21 PM

Have you noticed whenever you point out any criticism of Trump and the Republican Party for anything, their instant reply is "EVIL HILLARY CLINTON!!!!!!!!!" It shows you how morally bankrupt the entire establishment for the Conservatives is, and how much of their declining voting base are simply ignorant haters with no actual ideas anymore. It's all about fear and manipulation of numbers to make things seem far worse than they really are, with whatever white power anti-gay Christian right crap is left in the Bible Belt and in the hinterlands of places like Idaho filling it out. Nothing against Idaho, mind you. I'm sure it's a wonderful place.

Slamming the other party doesn't somehow make your own party better. Whether you love or hate Hillary Clinton, she's put out a slew of papers and writeups on what she wants her policies to be, with lots of numbers and cross-checked data to support it. Whether you agree with her policies or not is most certainly a matter of opinion. But she's put them out for all to see.

Donald Trump has done nothing like that. He's flip-flopped on everything, his team stole from Michelle Obama, he's stoking the fires of racism and sexism, all while telling people it's okay to let the Russians spy on the US, so long as they are doing it to people he doesn't like. He's told our allies we aren't going to defend them unless they give us money, and he's wiping his ass with the Constitution in the matter of freedom of expression, the press, and religion. None of that stuff is a presidential policy. It's all just hate and spite and fear being used to convince uneducated white folks that the brown-skins and gays are the reason they never made a million dollars and fucked a supermodel.

There's a real tangible difference there between the two. For me, at least. I don't really like some of what Hillary wants to do, but at least I see numbers and precedents in her plans enough to be able to gauge the economic and political effects of her actions. At worst, we'd wind up with the status quo for four years. Four more years of slow economic growth, coupled with increased progressiveness in social circles and the same exact polices of Obama economically.

While I would prefer progress more than spinning our wheels, the alternate choice is a century or more of regression on the military, political, economic, and social fronts. Which is what Trump seemingly seems to be offering. A promise that we can pretend like it's 1890 again and the world will let us. And when that doesn't happen, there's no actual policy of substance on Trump's ticket other than, "Cut taxes on the rich, cut welfare for the poor. Build a wall, and kill all the brown people. Let Russia roll over Europe, unless Europe pays us protection money."

When put in that basic context, it's not much of a choice. It's a sleazy career politician vs a complete piece of shit of a person. Sleazy politician wins.

[Edited on 7-28-2016 by Quentil]


OOMike - 7-28-2016 at 05:27 PM

I (unfortunately) have several friends on Facebook that are Trump supporters, and I have been conducting a little experiment every time they post "Make America Great Again" and asking them, when was America great before? What time do you want to go back to? (The Daily Show has since stolen my idea and I am now awaiting royalty checks). Now my wife, who was firmly in the #NeverHillary camp, who is starting to realize that would mean a #ForeverTrump is getting in on the questions. She asked a friend of ours why she supports Trump and beside the usual "I don't like Hillary" or "She lies" she finished with; we have had politicians screw things up for so long, maybe a businessman can come in and clean things up. Now ignoring the fact that our government should never be run like a business, and his history as a businessman has some questions, it was the first time anyone actually gave an answer that wasn't just "He isn't her." so I can respect that answer without agreeing with it.

BTW the only person who responded to my question said the early 1800's pre-Civil War when the government was smaller. I just walked away.


Paddlefoot - 7-28-2016 at 11:00 PM

I like to counter the "government should be run like a business" types with the harsh truth of "you've obviously never been in business because most businesses are run like absolute shit". Too many businesses and bosses are either lunatics or crooks, or a sick combination of both, and their businesses reflect it. Anyone who's ever worked a day in their life should know this all too well.


merc - 7-29-2016 at 02:59 AM

Q you have it exactly backwards. I asked a question about Hillary's campaign and someone ended their post with EVIL TRUMP.

I'll never pick sleazy politician, I hated the feeling I had in my gut when it became clear Bill Clinton had lied about Lewinsky- that was the first time in my adult life that a prez had been cleanly IDed as a liar. I was naive. By cleanly I mean there was no room for, nor need to interpret. DNA is conclusive.

I'd say WW2 was when America was last great. Sacrificing thousands of lives for others freedom is pretty hard to beat. Companies ceasing production to help facilitate the war effort, yes to a profit, Isn't likely to happen again.

Having walked the American cemetery in Normandy, there are no words that can describe the feelings it stirs. My kids & I had different but similar reactions. The American family's sacrifices were truly great.

Making what the political parties offer today even more discouraging.

Late edit to add:

Someone mentioned "progressive" and although I have heard the term, and find it genius branding, I wasn't sure where on the political spectrum a progressive would lay. So for shots & giggles I went to the Huffington Post. I had the chance to meet Ariana Huffington about a decade ago and found her very doable. Her politics...not so much, but even though the site has been sold, I try to hit it for the other perspective:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-betw_b_9140.html

Then I found this graph, not sure of the site's political leanings...first the visual...damn can't add a picture to an edit. See below





[Edited on 7-29-2016 by merc]


merc - 7-29-2016 at 03:24 AM

I'm shocked where they line up Liberatarians, as I thought they'd be between a liberal (socially) and conservative (fiscally). Now I have no clue how to describe my political leanings...and how is a moderate more right than a republican...WTF?

[Edited on 7-29-2016 by merc]


bigfatgoalie - 7-29-2016 at 06:04 AM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
I'd say WW2 was when America was last great. Sacrificing thousands of lives for others freedom is pretty hard to beat. Companies ceasing production to help facilitate the war effort, yes to a profit, Isn't likely to happen again.



Minus segregation...right?

And overlooking the internment of Japanese Americans...right?

Seriously...others all ready pointed out how stupid it is to list a time when America WAS great. It, like every country has always had major issues.


Paddlefoot - 7-29-2016 at 07:04 AM

Ahem....

At the same time as the Americans were doing it Canada also interred Japanese-Canadians in camps in World War Two. We also did things like the residential schools for the Natives, where their kids were basically kidnapped by the government and handed over to the churches where they were beaten, tortured, and sexually assaulted. This lasted for decades, from the 1920's thru to the 1990's, and out of all the things that was done to the Natives the schools stand out as the main and worst reason so many of their communities are still shattered today, and will probably never be repaired.

I know it's been a lot of fun for liberal Canadians, especially since the elder Trudeau, to sneer at the US and engage in near-delusional self-contratulations about "how good we are. make sure everyone sees how good we are". We aren't. We might not be as bad as some of the others on the planet are but we're no where near as wonderful as the incessant propaganda from our governments and political parties (especially the left-wing ones) wants us, and the rest of the world too, to believe.

Another thing too about the sneering at the Americans. It got really bad as a characteristic of the Canadian personality, and still exists today, in the same time period that Canada began to live comfortably and safely under the umbrella provided over North America by the American military, especially by nuclear weapons. Co-incidentally during this time Canada began to badly neglect it's own military, where they really can't even contribute significantly anymore to overseas missions much less be seen as a credible national defense force. That alone is because of the American umbrella we live in smug safety underneath. It allowed us to do things like spend on a national health care system because the money that normally would have gone to national defense got redirected towards social programs. Enjoy your social programs in Canada? Well, go hug an American for doing the heavy lifting and providing the defense system that allowed us to spend on it because we've been wildly irresponsible on our own military duties since at least the early 1960's.

[Edited on 7/29/2016 by Paddlefoot]


merc - 7-29-2016 at 01:33 PM

Ah y a, for WW2 and the other option I'm going to give every country that fought a pass on generational norms. We stayed at a B& B a block off of Juno Beach, that ultimately became a Canadian CP. Based on the pock marks in the buildings and walls in the area, and the Canadian cemetery, you Canucks got nothing to be ashamed of.

On a side note, the French allowed the Germans to establish and maintain a cemetery there. Considering the times, a very gracious move. But I digress!

Back to who sucks more....


Quentil - 7-29-2016 at 02:20 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
Q you have it exactly backwards. I asked a question about Hillary's campaign and someone ended their post with EVIL TRUMP.


You have the right to your opinion. It's the wrong opinion, but you have the right to it.

quote:
I'll never pick sleazy politician


That's a lie. Every time you've voted, I'm sure you've picked at least one.

[snipped pointless and off-topic Bill Clinton personal anecdote]

Look, I get it. You've been successfully programmed to hate everything Clinton. That's a dangerous thing, but there's nothing I can do for you to show you how you've been manipulated that you will believe. So whatever.

quote:


I'd say WW2 was when America was last great.


America is still great. That's the big con that you're buying into. The economy is supreme, the military is supreme, our innovation is supreme. The society, even with shootings and the like, is still the best mixed-heritage on the planet. Crime is down, income is up, unemployment is down, the deficit can easily be rectified.

America never stopped being great. You just stopped believing it.


merc - 7-29-2016 at 02:47 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
quote:
Originally posted by merc
Q you have it exactly backwards. I asked a question about Hillary's campaign and someone ended their post with EVIL TRUMP.


You have the right to your opinion. It's the wrong opinion, but you have the right to it.




Q, this simple posts shows why debating things with you is so frustrating. You are so closed minded to not read and accept a simple truth. So I'll spell it out for you:

First my original post- not replying to anything...just me being random.

quote:
Originally posted by merc
Do you guys find it odd that the DNC head communicated strategy with a single candidate?
I do.

I also find it disturbing that the same DNC Head resigns and finds gainful employment from the same candidate.

But most concerning is the US based mainstream media has spent less time "investigating" and reporting on it than they did on a candidate's wife's plagerism.

You tell me which story is more relevant to the qualifications of the next president. Maybe I'm off base, but Trump is proof that soundbites work.

I fear the media driving US politics


Then Jack's response. Please take note of his final paragraph.

quote:
Originally posted by Cherokee Jack
I haven't compared volume of stories or anything, but are you suggesting that "the media" hasn't covered the DNC thing? Because I think that would be very very wrong.

At the same time, the Trump wife plagiarism thing was pretty much over after 24 hours.

Not excusing the DNC thing...it sucks and kinda spits in the face of what I think most people want in electoral politics, but it's hardly shocking. I kinda figured all along that they were trying to prevent another Obama-in-08 type of upset just based on the debate schedule. Seemed like all but one or two were scheduled on nights when they expected no one to watch. They scheduled one against the goddamn college football national championship game!

Anyway, I'm digressing. The DNC thing sucks, but even as a Bernie supporter all it really does is confirm what I sort of knew all along. It feels like US party politics as usual (except that now we're seeing behind the curtain), which is essentially what I figure we're in for under a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Now Donald Trump is openly condoning the idea of other countries' espionage against the United States. Argue semantics and wording all you want, he's made it clear that he's fine with the idea of Russia hacking into US systems if it helps lead him to power. That is way, way worse in my mind than a US political party favoring one of their candidates over another.


You have just read he responds nicely to my thoughts...then plays the Trump is worse card. EXACTLY what you accuse the other side of doing. Then you write it off to my opinion is wrong? Come on man!

Not sure how we can continue to engage if you approach everything with a closed mind, or worse contort others words to make up an argument with someone about something they weren't talking about.

I enjoy the back & forth but am not a big fan of slamming my head into a wall.

See it hurts!

ETA typo

[Edited on 7-29-2016 by merc]


Cherokee Jack - 7-29-2016 at 04:51 PM

Except that you led off with a "which is worse" (or "which is more relevant," whatever) scenario between two pretty inconsequential things, and were wrong in your assessment of them to boot (suggesting that a bigger deal was made over the Melania speech than DWS and the DNC emails).

Then you state that Trump proves that "soundbites work." I offered up a recent (at the time the most recent?) example of a Trump soundbite that isn't just distasteful to me politically, but fucking scary and dangerous for one of the two people that might be president in six months to be saying. That is both worse *and* more relevant than any of the continued parade of Hillary Clinton non-scandals.

Perhaps it could've been worded differently, but I guess you could say my post could be summed up as "No one really gave that much of a shit about Melania's speech. That DNC thing that you're painting as a big deal really isn't, and here's why. Meanwhile, while you're concerned about how 'the media' is treating two non-issues (and even getting that analysis wrong), here's a soundbite from the guy who makes soundbites work that is much more relevant, and yes, worse than any of that shit."


OOMike - 7-29-2016 at 05:31 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
Q you have it exactly backwards. I asked a question about Hillary's campaign and someone ended their post with EVIL TRUMP.




I will share why I am voting for Hillary and I hope you will respond with your reasons for vote for Trump.

I support the rights of gays to marry, have full parental rights, and basically be treated the same as every other American.
I support universal background checks of all firearms
I do not support abortion (but understand it is necessary on occasion), but I am in favor of not making that decision for every woman in the country
I do not support singling out a religious group for persecution
I am better off now than I was 8 years ago, and would like to see the path we are on continue
I have two children with terminal medical conditions and a wife with a preexisting medical condition and I support the advantages that ACA has provided them
I would like to see the student loan crisis in this country addressed, not necessarily free college, but something needs to be done about the cost of school
Climate change is real, humans have impacted it, we need to take steps to stop
Refugees should be allowed to come to the US after the current vetting process clears them
Radical Islam is not the biggest threat to this country, Radicals are.
Citizens United needs to be overturned

That is what I got off the top of my head.


merc - 7-29-2016 at 06:20 PM

Jack,
My reference to Trump & soundbites was a criticism of the American public, not a Trump endorsement of any kind. Sorry if it came off that way.

OOMike,
I'm not sure who I'm voting for. I can't see my self voting for either main candidate, nor the green party lady. And the more I look at Johnson the less happy i am there.

For a few weeks I've been saying that the choices all suck. I am an unhappy American.


If you are curious as to where I stand on your off the cuffs:

I support the rights of gays to marry, have full parental rights, and basically be treated the same as every other American. -
merc: Agree -

I support universal background checks of all firearms
merc: Agree

I do not support abortion (but understand it is necessary on occasion), but I am in favor of not making that decision for every woman in the country -
merc: I mostly agree but struggle with one line I have heard "who will speak for the unborn." At 52 I don't know how to reconcile the issue and take the coward's way out of not tying it to my political decisions.

I do not support singling out a religious group for persecution.
merc: Agree

I am better off now than I was 8 years ago, and would like to see the path we are on continue -
Merc: ties too many issues together for me to agree or disagree. My family is better off now that I was at my kid's age. Not sure government had anything to do about that as the progression has been steady thru good times & bad, R or D.

I have two children with terminal medical conditions and a wife with a preexisting medical condition and I support the advantages that ACA has provided them.
Merc: God Bless you sir. I am too uneducated to understand how Obamacare makes a difference. I'll take you at your word with out hesitation.

I would like to see the student loan crisis in this country addressed, not necessarily free college, but something needs to be done about the cost of school.
Merc: Agree, but I see this as a free market issue. Someday I'll get into the joys of private school shopping with my oldest- summary low income great students have the BEST opportunities in college selection -

Climate change is real, humans have impacted it, we need to take steps to stop.
merc: i tie this to overall quality of the planet we leave to future generations and agree. Singling out "climate change" creates a preferred status for some businesses over others, allowing politcal wankers to distort the money and/or discussion.

Refugees should be allowed to come to the US after the current vetting process clears them
merc: disagree - the current vetting process is antiquated and must be updated. Then I support immigration open to what the economic factors can sustain.

Radical Islam is not the biggest threat to this country, Radicals are.
merc: interesting take but it's apples and oranges. Radical Islam is the greatest threat to world peace. Radicals (all sides) are the greatest threat to the USA functioning as a single entity. I'm not of the mind to decide which is a greater overall threat both are BAD.

Citizens United needs to be overturned
merc: caught me off guard here. I see any extremest group as not good, see Radical above. But I think the political issue is free speech. In that venue I oppose PAC's and the obscene amounts of money funded to fuel elections.

Biggies for me that you may want to opin on:

I support a government that manages income/spending as any business does. Deficit spending is untenable. Balance the budget.
I support eliminating all laws that provide a second class citizenship by creating exemptions for politicians.
I support reducing business taxes on expatriated monies to help fuel the jump start to our next growth cycle.
I support a strategy that puts economic health in the hands of private sector growth, not government intervention.
I support pushing education back to States.
I support equitable contributions on income for everyone living at 2x the poverty level as a percent of income with zero tax exemptions.
I support gun ownership to a level below automatic military grade weapons.
I support term limits on every elected office and the US Supreme Court Judges.
I support the elimination of the "executive order" to legislate
I support a supreme court that will revist "executive privledge" and NFL Article 46.

Contained within my support are Private sector must be the driver of economic stability/growth, smaller government including the elimination of the IRS (which will create economic turmoil short term), significant downsizing of the DoE as States assume the lead role in education and a less powerful executive office.

For you non football fans NFL Article 46 sucks.

And I appreciate this type of dialogue. Makes it simple to understand where someone comes from. Good idea!

edited for clarity

[Edited on 7-29-2016 by merc]


Cherokee Jack - 7-29-2016 at 06:20 PM

quote:
I will share why I am voting for Hillary and I hope you will respond with your reasons for vote for Trump.
Good call, let's focus more on positives.

quote:
I support the rights of gays to marry, have full parental rights, and basically be treated the same as every other American.
100% in agreement. If churches don't want to recognize gay marriage that's their business, but under the law in this country there should be absolutely no difference.
quote:
I support universal background checks of all firearms
Agreed, and honestly there needs to be more action taken than just this, but it's a start.
quote:
I do not support abortion (but understand it is necessary on occasion), but I am in favor of not making that decision for every woman in the country
I don't think even the staunchest pro-choicers would argue that abortion itself is a good thing. But as you said, there are circumstances where it's appropriate or even necessary, and this isn't an issue where you can stipulate only certain circumstances where it's legal. It either has to be legal or not, and if there are circumstances where it's necessary, it should be legal. I don't want it being left to the discretion of doctors, lest we get some religious nut doctor that never seems it appropriate for anyone, and I'm against legislating morality in general.
quote:
I do not support singling out a religious group for persecution
I am better off now than I was 8 years ago, and would like to see the path we are on continue
Yep and yep.
quote:
I have two children with terminal medical conditions and a wife with a preexisting medical condition and I support the advantages that ACA has provided them
While I can't personally relate to your situation, I support the ACA for those very reasons. Is it perfect? No, and I'd like to see us at least start the process of moving toward single-payer. But I absolutely want to see the ACA remain intact at least until something better can be put on the table (still waiting for the "replace" part of "repeal and replace"...).
quote:
I would like to see the student loan crisis in this country addressed, not necessarily free college, but something needs to be done about the cost of school
Bernie's idea of simply "free college for everyone" probably wasn't realistic, but yeah something needs to be done. College degrees have basically become the new high school diploma in terms of getting jobs, and so we should find a way to make that attainable to anyone without having to go into massive debt. I like the idea that (I'm pretty sure) President Obama threw out in a speech a while back that any high school student who meets at least moderate grade/test score benchmarks should be eligible for free tuition to a two-year community/junior college.
quote:
Climate change is real, humans have impacted it, we need to take steps to stop
I wish you'd have used "global warming," so I could throw back a sarcastic "oh yeah, then how do you explain that time it snowed last year?!" But yes, the science is no longer up for debate. Just because it won't make earth uninhabitable in the current baby boomers' lifetimes doesn't mean it's something that we can just ignore.
quote:
Refugees should be allowed to come to the US after the current vetting process clears them
Radical Islam is not the biggest threat to this country, Radicals are.
Agreed. Fearmongering wins votes, but serves no constructive purpose.
quote:
Citizens United needs to be overturned
Yes yes yes. I don't know that I'd expect a President Clinton to get that done, but definitely there's the better chance here. Might depend on how big a role she's willing to give Bernie when it comes to influencing policy.



Edit: and some more!

quote:
I support a government that manages income/spending as any business does. Deficit spending is untenable. Balance the budget.
Sounds good, but government is simply not a business. Agreed that deficit spending should be reigned in, but I believe that that has been happening throughout President Obama's term. If things can continue as they are, a balanced budget may not be far off. Of course you never know when a war may start of a natural disaster or something that requires emergency spending.
quote:
I support eliminating all laws that provide a second class citizenship by creating exemptions for politicians.
Examples?
quote:
I support reducing business taxes on expatriated monies to help fuel the jump start to our next growth cycle.
I assume you're suggesting offering a tax break on businesses that bring money back into the country? If so, I'd be okay with a one-off limited-time offer on that.
quote:
I support a strategy that puts economic health in the hands of private sector growth, not government intervention.
Sounds good, but wasn't the big 2008 recession caused largely by businesses (banks, specifically) being allowed to do whatever they want with increasingly little regulation/oversight? Private sector growth is great, but it feels naive to operate under the assumption that private business will be prioritizing the health of the American economy over fattening the pockets of its shareholders.
quote:
I support pushing education back to States.
Again, sounds good, but then I see the shit Texas was doing, and ehhhhhh... States devising their curriculum is fine, but much like business, there has to be SOME oversight.
quote:
I support equitable contributions on income for everyone living at 2x the poverty level as a percent of income with zero tax exemptions.
The flat tax? Meh, we'll just have to disagree on that. I could agree that simplifying the code would be a good thing, but I haven't seen a way to implement a flat tax that doesn't either A) not provide enough money for the government to function, or B) totally fuck over the people at the lower end of the spectrum
quote:
I support gun ownership to a level below automatic military grade weapons.
Another good step. I'd also add limiting magazine sizes and registration.
quote:
I support term limits on every elected office and the US Supreme Court Judges.
Elected officials, totally agree. Supreme Court justices, disagree. The notion of elected judges is ridiculous, and if you made it a sure thing that X-number of judges will be replaced in the next term, then every election will become about that. We're seeing it this year especially thanks to the Scalia vacancy and the Republicans' refusal to grant Obama's nominee a hearing. We don't need to see the laws on major issues flip-flopping every decade based on which party holds the presidency.
quote:
I support the elimination of the "executive order" to legislate
Were executive orders ever this controversial prior to 2009? I can't remember there ever being a big furor over them before that tyrant Obama took office. But anyway, they don't legislate, not really. The orders work within existing law, and can be overturned by either congress (if they pass/change a law that overrules the order), or the courts (if the executive is deemed to have overstepped his authority in issuing said order).
quote:
I support a supreme court that will revist "executive privledge" and NFL Article 46.
Blame the players. They (with the exception of the Steelers) voted to approve it. Hopefully they'll demand it go on the table in the next negotiations.

[Edited on 7-29-2016 by Cherokee Jack]


Quentil - 7-29-2016 at 06:21 PM

I am taking a break from this conversation. I'm tired of pissing in the wind.

[Edited on 7-30-2016 by Quentil]


Paddlefoot - 7-31-2016 at 04:46 AM

Back to the third-party option, here's how the latest polling looks.




#dicks out for pro-vaccinations


merc - 7-31-2016 at 04:35 PM

Jack,
Good thoughts. here are some of my thoughts around your questions/comments.

quote:
Originally posted by Cherokee Jack



1. Sounds good, but government is simply not a business. Agreed that deficit spending should be reigned in, but I believe that that has been happening throughout President Obama's term. If things can continue as they are, a balanced budget may not be far off. Of course you never know when a war may start of a natural disaster or something that requires emergency spending.


In 2009 Obama's first budget year the Federal debt as a percent of GDP jumped from about 68% to 82% and has continued to climb. Since 2013 it is over 100%.

For comps, in the Reagan years it climbed from low 30's to low 40%.
In the Clinton years it dropped from low 60% to mid 50%
in the Bush 2 years it climbed from mid 50's to 68%.

To put actual dollars to those numbers isn't mathematically fair, no GDP growth or inflation factored, so take the numbers with a grain of salt. In 1980 it the debt was around $11B and in 2015 it was around $2,600B. The debt dollars have doubled during the Obama administration. W

Summary, we are not heading towards a balanced budget no matter how you play with numbers. The majority of politicians are to blame for this mess. At some point, future generations will have to suffer the gridlock and dishonesty we currently deal with.

So with that said, IMO, I think the country should demand government be run like a business. Business becomes more complex as they grow, and the government is certainly the biggest business.


quote:
I support eliminating all laws that provide a second class citizenship by creating exemptions for politicians.
quote:
Originally posted by Cherokee Jack
Examples?


This isn't a recent thing, but ongoing. Some examples (anti discrimination, preferential treatment, etc) have been repealed decades after they were passed under constituent pressure once they came to light. The most recent that comes to mind is Congress claiming exemption from the insider trading STOCK act. In that example the SEC took the House Ways & Means to court.


My overall feeling (just a gut feeling) is those in power game the system.


quote:
I support reducing business taxes on expatriated monies to help fuel the jump start to our next growth cycle.
quote:
Originally posted by Cherokee Jack
I assume you're suggesting offering a tax break on businesses that bring money back into the country? If so, I'd be okay with a one-off limited-time offer on that.


One offs are OK, but then the money sits waiting for the next crisis. Finding a number that encourages off shore profits to be repatriated on an annual basis is best for budgeting - see all part of a total financial plan- it can't be a stand alone discussion.


quote:
I support a strategy that puts economic health in the hands of private sector growth, not government intervention.
quote:
Originally posted by Cherokee Jack
Sounds good, but wasn't the big 2008 recession caused largely by businesses (banks, specifically) being allowed to do whatever they want with increasingly little regulation/oversight? Private sector growth is great, but it feels naive to operate under the assumption that private business will be prioritizing the health of the American economy over fattening the pockets of its shareholders.



People much smarter than me debate the cause of 2008 without resolution. My simple analysis is; banks were overextended on real estate, the rules around Freddie & Fannie had changed and when real estate values dropped, there was not enough capital to cover.

As to why the rules changed - politics
as to why the banks were overextended - new rules and corporate earnings growth
As to why real estate values dropped - chicken or egg argument I think- no one knows definitively.

I'm not arguing that if Freddie & Fannie hadn't been required to change rules that the crash wouldn't have happened. I don't know. What I do know is during the best GDP growth in my lifetime the private sector drove the growth and government looked healthier for it. Take a look above at the Clinton years +/-. That was the PC & internet boom. A lot of private wealth and businesses valuations exploding, putting money into the economy. Combine that with some sound political decisions and it was a great time to ride the elevator up. The challenge is always to find the next "big thing" Industrial revolution, automobile, etc. Until the business cycle hits on what "it" is; fiscal conservatism is the style needed to manage governemntal growth. (hops off soapbox)

on an aside, remember who "shareholders" are; it isn't just wealthy individuals.

on an aside again yeah merc gave credit to a Clinton. It wasn't his politics I disliked.



quote:
I support pushing education back to States.
quote:
Originally posted by Cherokee Jack
Again, sounds good, but then I see the shit Texas was doing, and ehhhhhh... States devising their curriculum is fine, but much like business, there has to be SOME oversight.


I agree with "SOME", we are negotiating in the weeds to determine that definition.


quote:
I support equitable contributions on income for everyone living at 2x the poverty level as a percent of income with zero tax exemptions.
quote:
Originally posted by Cherokee Jack
The flat tax? Meh, we'll just have to disagree on that. I could agree that simplifying the code would be a good thing, but I haven't seen a way to implement a flat tax that doesn't either A) not provide enough money for the government to function, or B) totally fuck over the people at the lower end of the spectrum


It's funny, what got me hooked on flat tax is the Dem's argument of the wealthy pay too little.

I'm not focused on the lower end, define that is it poverty level? 1//2 poverty? 2x poverty? 10x poverty? once defined it's a basic math thing. at 20% someone making $50k pay $10k and someone making $500m pay $100m. Seems pretty fair.

Private business owners play the balance sheet game, taking minimal salaries. This area is where I see the Dem's argument playing out correctly. I'd wager if you put five business owners in a room and said, come out with some way to tax a private business that is equitable to both publicly traded businesses and the tax payer they could figure it out in a day.





quote:
I support gun ownership to a level below automatic military grade weapons.
quote:
Originally posted by Cherokee Jack
Another good step. I'd also add limiting magazine sizes and registration.
quote:

not sure what registration is. but we can easily find common ground.

quote:
I support term limits on every elected office and the US Supreme Court Judges.
quote:
Originally posted by Cherokee Jack
Elected officials, totally agree. Supreme Court justices, disagree. The notion of elected judges is ridiculous, and if you made it a sure thing that X-number of judges will be replaced in the next term, then every election will become about that. We're seeing it this year especially thanks to the Scalia vacancy and the Republicans' refusal to grant Obama's nominee a hearing. We don't need to see the laws on major issues flip-flopping every decade based on which party holds the presidency.


I see judges up for election as I travel. I hadn't considered how the election cycle v. D/R played out. I whole hardheartedly agree with your last sentence. When I think SCJ term limits I'm thinking 20-25 years.

quote:
I support the elimination of the "executive order" to legislate
quote:
Originally posted by Cherokee Jack
Were executive orders ever this controversial prior to 2009? I can't remember there ever being a big furor over them before that tyrant Obama took office. But anyway, they don't legislate, not really. The orders work within existing law, and can be overturned by either congress (if they pass/change a law that overrules the order), or the courts (if the executive is deemed to have overstepped his authority in issuing said order).


This is a slippery slope issue. Here's the tyrant Bush's history:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/recycled/2009/01/ten_to_toss.html

The purpose is to circumvent established law. It was not considered when the structure of government was created and the use is abusive regardless of which side.

quote:
I support a supreme court that will revist "executive privledge" and NFL Article 46.
quote:
Originally posted by Cherokee Jack
Blame the players. They (with the exception of the Steelers) voted to approve it. Hopefully they'll demand it go on the table in the next negotiations.


As the sole non-liberal/consistent Democrat in the OO Universe i'll ask

Looking at the total body of issues discussed, are we really that far apart? What issue feels irreconcilable?

[Edited on 7-31-2016 by merc]


OOMike - 8-1-2016 at 01:38 PM

quote:

Biggies for me that you may want to opin on:

I support a government that manages income/spending as any business does. Deficit spending is untenable. Balance the budget.

Government should not be run as a business, a business' main purpose is to create profit for its owners. Government's main purpose should be to provide the goods and services that are not profitable but are needed for society (transportation, military, etc.) Government should never be considered a profit making enterprise.
quote:
I support eliminating all laws that provide a second class citizenship by creating exemptions for politicians.

Agree, all laws should apply to all Americans equally.

quote:
I support reducing business taxes on expatriated monies to help fuel the jump start to our next growth cycle.

Unsure, I don't know enough on this to have an opinion

quote:
I support a strategy that puts economic health in the hands of private sector growth, not government intervention.

This sounds dangerously trickle-down which has shown not to work. Yes private sector is more efficient in driving growth than the government, but unregulated private sector only drives growth for business owners

quote:
I support pushing education back to States.

Agree, but there need to be universal standards and curriculum so students in Mississippi are learning the same things in science, history, etc that those in Oregon are learning. We need to understand that an educated society is a benefit to the country as a whole.

quote:
I support equitable contributions on income for everyone living at 2x the poverty level as a percent of income with zero tax exemptions.

Flat tax has problems that will limit income and business growth as well. First the wealthy will shift their income to non taxed sources, capital gains, capital goods, etc. And business are against the zero exemptions because they rely on those exemptions to drive R&D and capital goods growth (depreciation of that new building or equipment)

quote:
I support gun ownership to a level below automatic military grade weapons.

We will need to discuss what that means... semi-automatic AR-15, armor piercing rounds, etc.

quote:
I support term limits on every elected office and the US Supreme Court Judges.

I have flip flopped on this issue for congress as I hear the arguments from both sides, so right now I am opposed to it, however I am against election or limits on Supreme Court Judges.

quote:
I support the elimination of the "executive order" to legislate

The original purpose of executive order was to clarify laws passed by Congress or to address an issue that Congress that has not addressed that needed to be addressed. The problem is that with the current partisan situation in Congress where nothing can be agreed upon for the risk of giving the other party a "win". After reviewing the article posted about Bush's EOs I would like to see a change where Congress can pass a law that specifically addresses an EO that the president can not veto, but as I write that I can see that being abused. So I don't know where I sit with this either.

quote:
I support a supreme court that will revist "executive privledge" and NFL Article 46.

I hope the players got something good for giving up that power to the Commish, but I think the owners have dangled that 18 game season simply for the reason of using that as a bargaining chip to get things like this included in the contract.

quote:
Contained within my support are Private sector must be the driver of economic stability/growth, smaller government including the elimination of the IRS (which will create economic turmoil short term), significant downsizing of the DoE as States assume the lead role in education and a less powerful executive office.

If you get rid of the IRS, who will collect taxes and investigate tax fraud?


Quentil - 8-1-2016 at 04:10 PM

Sigh. I guess I feel like urine on my lips today.

Also, you all realize that this is all pointless, yes? It's all just us posturing without any of us actually going to change our opinions on any of this, right? Those who believe that Obama is the devil or that Trump is the devil are still going to think it after the leave OO to look at some porn. Just so we're all clear here that this entire conversation is without any real, lasting merit, and more of a place for us to posture and bitch about things we don't like, mmmkay?

So now that you understand the spirit I'm taking this in, perhaps you won't get sandy vaginas. Unless you like sandy vaginas. In that case, it's fine...But keep that pervy shit to yourself.

[Rant to nobody in particular]

People who push tax cuts on the rich, reduced services for the poor, increased spending on the military and fossil fuels, guns in every pocket, a dismantling of government regulation, and finally, locking people into low-paying wage slave jobs, pushing Christianity in schools and government, or advocating increased numbers of prisoners....All to to help the richest elite... should understand that all of these policies, when tried in the past, have tended to always fail.

Protectionism doesn't work.
Trickle down doesn't work.
Cutting taxes on the rich doesn't work.
Cutting services for the poor doesn't work.
The existing gun policy doesn't work.
A "Christian America" doesn't work.

Say all that you want about a story you heard when you were 12, or how things were when you were in high school twenty years ago (which weren't as you say anyhow), but none of that means jack nor shit in regards to any of the topics being discussed. And there's no need to 'try to explain' it for the 15th time. I got it the first time. In my opinion, trying to spout some lame, ignorant claim that things were "much better in the past" or that American is no longer great is just fear mongering bullshit. Well, unless you are a poorly-educated sexist who wants to hang black and Hispanic people from trees. Then it's not bullshit...Then you're just a southern Conservative wishing you could be how your daddy brought you up as. Zing! Haha, I amuse myself.

And Conservatives need to stop talking about fraud in welfare as if's some sort of magical smoking gun. Just stop. It isn't, no matter how many times you repeat the same debunked thoughts. All it does is make you look like complete, obsessive fools, screaming about how you lost ten cents over a twelve billion dollar transaction and how it's indicative of anything. Over and over.

I'm sorry, people who support these ideas, but you really don't understand basic elements of a successful financial system and your refusal to even try makes you exceptionally easy to keep angry over false claims about fraud and immigrants stealing your money. The only reason why these ideas as spouted as popular and viable theories are because they help the richest folks the most. Why do you think all those rich old, white people spend billions a year pushing hate agendas and blaming the poor for everything? It's to keep the programmed idea alive in the heads of their deluded followers that somehow cutting taxes on the rich and services on the poor and middle class is what's best for the poor and middle class.

And it works shockingly well, because people don't trust verifiable facts anymore. They trust shock and awe media blitzes and viralized memes. They trust what their preacher told them about evolution, or what their grandfather (who still has trouble using the microwave buttons) said about net neutrality. They still insist the US Civil War wasn't mostly about slavery, deny that climate change is real, and insist that coal is the future.

It would be surprisingly simple to "fix" the system. Which isn't really broken, so "effect an increased rate of change" might be a better way of putting it. The problem is that everyone is told to distrust the system now, even as the system has them the most safe, most protected, and arguably most innovative population on the planet.

You are so busy being Chicken Littles that you let everything else that's better in life slip past in a blind panic to blame someone for a perceived problem that you didn't even know about until you just saw it on Fox News. It's okay to know this. I used to be one of those people too. I just realized it before you, and worked to look at things differently when I could. You can get there too. The brown-skinned people aren't your enemy. The poor aren't lazy. The rich aren't job creators. Guns have one purpose: To kill things. Take a deep breath. It'll get easier with time to accept.

So how to fix things? My take on it? It's not that hard. And I understand it's very complicated and involves literally trillions of dollars and millions of programs. And there's a whole world going on that constantly is spewing obstacles in the way. But overall? There's a well-working system already in place that can handle all that, once you make the decisions on top to change what's happening at the bottom.

If you gave those illegal immigrants legality, created a less stifling criminal system, cut the military and social services both, and increased taxes on the richest people while leaving intact the free market, you'd have solution in 5.91 nanoseconds. The key to success is assimilation and acceptance, not division and blame.

New people, new markets, new hybridized cultures. Not new walls, new barriers, and new hatred.


Oh, and new porn. Lots of new porn. In fact, I think a major part of any new political platform should be about excessive porn for all. And chocolate chip cookies. Porn and chocolate chip cookies for all.

Ron Jeremy/Cookie Monster 2016!
[/Rant to nobody in particular]


OOMike - 8-1-2016 at 06:50 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
Sigh. I guess I feel like urine on my lips today.

Also, you all realize that this is all pointless, yes? It's all just us posturing without any of us actually going to change our opinions on any of this, right? Those who believe that Obama is the devil or that Trump is the devil are still going to think it after the leave OO to look at some porn. Just so we're all clear here that this entire conversation is without any real, lasting merit, and more of a place for us to posture and bitch about things we don't like, mmmkay?

So now that you understand the spirit I'm taking this in, perhaps you won't get sandy vaginas. Unless you like sandy vaginas. In that case, it's fine...But keep that pervy shit to yourself.

[Rant to nobody in particular]

[/Rant to nobody in particular]


I have these posts, because first we need to still talk to each other, or we are fucked. Second, sometimes I do learn something new, and I hope that occasionally the person I am talking to learns something new as well, even if it is a reason why I don't agree. Lastly, this is for the lurker, the person who doesn't have an opinion or is just looking to hear from both sides and gathering information.

I'm sorry you feel it is pointless, but respectful conversation needs to be nurtured, especially today with the divisive media/internet running rampant.

Now here is a towel, clean up and join us in talking and more importantly, listening.


Quentil - 8-1-2016 at 09:10 PM

The sad thing is that nobody is ever going to listen in this conversation taking place in this format. It's all just listing opinions.

But I admire your optimism.

And the US never stopped being great. Too many of you just stopped believing it.

Keep your towel. I'd rather be self-aware and cognizant of the futility of trying to change the minds of people on an internet forum, and not pretend that a stated opinion that I know to be wrong has any credibility at all.

I'm not close-minded, but i'm not going to coddle people who are easily proven to be ill-informed on something. But whatever. I'll just exclude myself from this thread entirely. Because there's nothing more to be gained here, on my end. I hope you have a different experience.

[Edited on 8-1-2016 by Quentil]


merc - 8-2-2016 at 12:01 AM

Mike,
Good thoughts.

1. I agree government should't be run for profit. A different view, government shouldn't spend more than they raise in a single year until they get their debt under control. Exactly what they blame the 2008 crash on is what they have done- over extend. That's my business tie- not profit.

2. You missed my reply to Jack on flat tax. I think you are spot on- there needs to be a taxpayer, private business & publicly traded business consideration. You can't address one without the other in the discussion. My thoughts are over simplified, but covers the manipulation concern which is very real.

3. Conceptually flat tax eliminated the need for individual IRS functions. It's a simple formula businesses implement, similar to what they do now.

Living in NH, I have had he chance to ask many presidential candidates about the details on flat tax plans. Steve Forbes, way back in the 90's, came closest, but wouldn't tighten the private business loop hole you identified. Since then all shams.

Monday is wrestling night!


OOMike - 8-2-2016 at 12:32 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
The sad thing is that nobody is ever going to listen in this conversation taking place in this format. It's all just listing opinions.

But I admire your optimism.


[Edited on 8-1-2016 by Quentil]


I would like to think Merc and I are having a conversation and listening to each other, I could be wrong, but I am learning something. But I was not just speaking about here, but the internet overall (Facebook, Twitter, etc.


Matte - 8-8-2016 at 08:29 PM

Chris Jericho: You actually think that you could run for president?
#BROKEN Matt Hardy: I am considering it.


denverpunk - 8-8-2016 at 08:59 PM

If Matt Hardy and I ever vote for the same candidate, then I voted for the wrong person.


OOMike - 8-12-2016 at 05:02 PM

I need to get some answers and I hope you know some of them or can get them from someone who knows the answers.

If you are a Bernie supporter and can't/won't vote for Hillary, so you are voting for Trump/Johnson, why? I can understand not being able to support Hillary, but why vote for another candidate that runs counter to so many of the things that Bernie (and their supporters I would think) wanted to get done with a Sanders Presidency.

I have looked long and hard at the four main candidates, being in Ohio my vote may have more impact than most, and I can see Bernie supporters that refuse Hillary going with Stein, she is like Bernie, but dialed up to 15.

Is it the legalize pot thing? Is that the only thing that matters?

I would post this on my Facebook but too many members of my wife's family are right-wing nutjobs (I do not talk politics at family functions, the inside of my lip is numb) and I don't want to deal with all the "Killary" "Dumb Cunt" etc replies when I am looking for honest answers.


CCharger - 8-12-2016 at 05:45 PM

As a Bernie supporter, I have an answer for you Mike.

It has it's roots in game theory, not politics. I am going to vote for Gary Johnson. Not because I agree with anything he supports, but because I think the current two party system blows.

If a third party gets 15% of the popular vote, they get federal money and can get ballot access in all 50 states.

Well, OK, you moron, you are thinking...if you don't support the Libertarian Party or what they believe, then why do you want them to get all that? Why not vote Green Party.

Because many GOP voters consider themselves libertarian and in the future those voters would choose to vote Libertarian rather than Republican. Essentially, it splits the conservative vote. So you have the conservative vote split in two and the progressive vote as one. This will lead to more progressive (Democratic) victories.

That way, I can avoid voting for Clinton (whom I loathe) while still helping progressive causes down the road.

ETA: The presidential election is pretty inconsequential anyways. The important elections are your local ones: school board, state senate, congressman, referendums, etc.

[Edited on 8-12-2016 by CCharger]


Cherokee Jack - 8-12-2016 at 06:33 PM

My hypothesis:

Bernie -> Trump: Someone who's so bitter over losing the primary that they'd rather fuck over Hillary than anything else, even if that means fucking over the rest of the country in the meantime. These people need to grow up.
Bernie -> Johnson: Some who just wants to support the trendy anti-establishment candidate, regardless of that person's actual platform. These people need to grow up.

As a Bernie supporter, I get not wanting to vote for Hillary. She isn't a candidate that I'm excited about, even though I likely will be voting for her. And the stuff with DWS and the DNC was kinda shitty, but as I've argued previously is neither a scandal nor anything that delegitimizes the result. Hillary won. But it can't be denied that Bernie didn't have an impact on the party's platform, the man himself has given her his endorsement, and I hope that in a Hillary administration that he'll be given a position of some influence (even if it's just as an informal adviser/consultant, if they don't want to give up his senate seat).

Go with Stein if you want the closest non-Hillary option to Bernie, or just don't vote if you're disgusted with the whole thing. Either of those options are understandable. But going from Bernie to either of those two makes no rational sense. Especially Trump. Doing anything to increase the chances of Donald Trump becoming president is spitting in the face of everything that Bernie stands for.

Edit: Interesting theory as well there, Charger. Don't know that I'd agree with the likelihood that it works as intended, but more rational than most that I've seen.

[Edited on 8-12-2016 by Cherokee Jack]


OOMike - 8-12-2016 at 07:25 PM

quote:
Originally posted by CCharger
ETA: The presidential election is pretty inconsequential anyways. The important elections are your local ones: school board, state senate, congressman, referendums, etc.

[Edited on 8-12-2016 by CCharger]


THIS^^^^

I have been trying to get that through to my son and his friends that Bernie has brought to the politics party.

We in Columbus just had a referendum about increasing the size of the City Council from 7 to 23. The turnout was a whopping 9%. Now granted this was the only thing to vote on, and until I got a postcard from the local Democrat party the week before, I had no idea it was happening, but when I told them, none of them voted.

But thank you for your response Charger, I do appreciate it, and I can see your reasoning.

Jack - I am still wondering about those that are supporting Johnson because they want him to win. I want to know what policies they are supporting in him that matches with Bernie.


merc - 8-12-2016 at 11:05 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
Your lack of understanding and negativity sadden me. You aren't a stupid person, so I don't really get it.


Q please don't patronize me.

Your anal focus on tying everything to evil right wingers has helped define you. I'm OK with left wing wack jobs, I just don't debate them, so I've moved on.

But occassionally just how wacked one is slips out. And then I dismiss them.

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
Honestly, fuck non-Kurdish Syria. Other than the Kurds, there's no "good guys" there doing the fighting. At least not in any numbers anymore that matter.



There are about 1.8million Syrian Christians...or at least there were. I guess if you keep your head up your arse long enough your statement will be true.

You sir, are dismissed. Troll all you want.


Quentil - 8-13-2016 at 03:15 AM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
Your lack of understanding and negativity sadden me. You aren't a stupid person, so I don't really get it.


Q please don't patronize me.

Your anal focus on tying everything to evil right wingers has helped define you. I'm OK with left wing wack jobs, I just don't debate them, so I've moved on.

But occassionally just how wacked one is slips out. And then I dismiss them.

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
Honestly, fuck non-Kurdish Syria. Other than the Kurds, there's no "good guys" there doing the fighting. At least not in any numbers anymore that matter.



There are about 1.8million Syrian Christians...or at least there were. I guess if you keep your head up your arse long enough your statement will be true.

You sir, are dismissed. Troll all you want.


Not sure why you replied here with this, but okay.

I'm not a left-wing person. But I get that you might think that. I'm actually a centrist. I lean left a bit on progressive issues, and lean right a bit on economic ones. If you've paid attention to any of my posts before you started insulting me in them, you should have realized that long ago.

I don't tie anything to the Conservatives other than what they've done. But I get why you think otherwise. And your direct implication that all Christians are "good people" with your comment shows the exact lack of common sense that's replaced with a leap of faith that makes up a lot of your persona.

You don't debate me, or anyone really, because your points are constantly refuted in minute detail, so you try to change the subject, call people close-minded and other ad hominem, and then repeat the same things that were just refuted. I'm sorry that it's like that with you, I really am. You sometimes make valid points. It's just that they are so mixed in with your terrible debating skills, your lack of any factual foundation in your claims, it's easy to forget about them.

Insult me if you wish if it makes you feel better. It's certainly easier than debating with me, as you bring nothing to the table other than your "gut feeling" a lot of the time. And a singular lack of ability to see how much you project your own flaws on to people that you see as enemies.

As far as me being a troll? I'm most certainly an asshole, and once I lose patience for a person I cease often being anything more than indifferent. But I've honestly tried with you. I've edited comments multiple times to try to keep things polite, even as you lobbed insult after insult at me. But whatever man.

If you don't want to reply to my comments in the future, then don't. It's all good. No need to even reply to this. I'm good with you thinking I am some evil left-wing nut job who is a troll and evil and steals candy from babies. I get that you need to create hate and enemies in your life, because you are scared that change is making you irreverent. If you want me to be such an enemy in order to feel better about yourself, then I'm glad to be of service.

Either way, have fun and try to be more positive in life. And maybe think about getting some professional help. You've got a lot of issues boiling up inside of you, and I really hope you get them resolved and enjoy life more.

[Edited on 8-13-2016 by Quentil]


merc - 8-28-2016 at 09:24 PM

A Hillary supporter rand my doorbell today. She was in her early-mid 20's, nice rack and a cute sundress. So far that's the best reason to vote for either candidate.


bopol - 8-29-2016 at 12:13 AM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
A Hillary supporter rand my doorbell today. She was in her early-mid 20's, nice rack and a cute sundress. So far that's the best reason to vote for either candidate.


Ahhh, Merc's in love. Yet thing we know you'll be burning rope and reading poetry.


williamssl - 8-29-2016 at 02:24 AM

Hillary gets elected and Bill will be playing his world famous "where'd my cigar go?" game with her in the first lady's office. Over/under is 180 days post-inauguration.

Let the betting commence.


Paddlefoot - 8-29-2016 at 02:33 AM

Less than two years into the new admin before the first impeachment attempt happens. And that's if either of them win.They're both in their hearts just too crooked to control themselves or not reward their sleazy buddies for four long years.


GodEatGod - 8-29-2016 at 02:40 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
Less than two years into the new admin before the first impeachment attempt happens. And that's if either of them win.They're both in their hearts just too crooked to control themselves or not reward their sleazy buddies for four long years.


I expect Republicans to try and introduce impeachment proceedings on the day she's sworn in. These are people who routinely have pointless votes to repeal Obamacare knowing they don't have the votes for it. They'll be more than happy to howl in feckless, primal outrage at being denied their Great Pumpkin King.


Paddlefoot - 8-29-2016 at 02:57 AM

The GOP establishment will be more than happy to unite with the Congressional Dems to take Trump down too though. They hate him as much as he hates them. It won't take much to rally against him when he inevitably does something so stupid or crooked it can't be ignored. Install Pence as a much more pliable POTUS for the remainder of the term and they can at least do some kind of partial rebuild heading into the 2020 election which, if 2016 is any indication of how the voter patterns are settling out, is going to turn into as much of an ass-kicking on them as this year's one will turn out to be.

In a normal election Clinton would have a set pool of voters without much room for expansion available. Trump though manages to piss off a new demographic every day, to the point where the list of life-long GOP'ers saying "I cannot and will not vote for this fool" just keeps growing. When it's over and done I'm betting that she beats him by almost 200 electoral votes and that'll be as much thanks to the ones who held their noses and voted for her as it is to those who actually believe any of her own silly schtick.


bopol - 8-29-2016 at 01:22 PM

quote:
Originally posted by GodEatGod
quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
Less than two years into the new admin before the first impeachment attempt happens. And that's if either of them win.They're both in their hearts just too crooked to control themselves or not reward their sleazy buddies for four long years.


I expect Republicans to try and introduce impeachment proceedings on the day she's sworn in. These are people who routinely have pointless votes to repeal Obamacare knowing they don't have the votes for it. They'll be more than happy to howl in feckless, primal outrage at being denied their Great Pumpkin King.


If she wins, the Republicans likely lose the Senate and have a smaller majority in the House. Given how fractured the party is, they will have trouble trying to impeach Clinton for stuff that the voters chose to ignore and elect her (what, we haven't heard about Benhgazi already?).

Personally, I think that the Rs will go with their normal strategy of demonizing her and not letting Congress work, hoping to drive her out in 4 years. And, I honestly doubt that she will run in the 4 years, citing health or something else, because I don't think she can get her popularity to the point where she can win a 2nd election (let's face it, if she were running against a normal Republican, she'd be losing right now).

I don't like to think about what will happen if Trump wins, but I do think he'll be impeached quickly. I also think that, if the election became close, you'll see the Republicans push for supporting Evan McMullin in Utah, hoping that neither major party candidate wins the majority so they can put McMullin into the White House via the House of Representatives instead of Trump. Trump's path to victory is so narrow, that tiny Utah might be needed to put Trump over the finish line.

What I don't see coming out of this election is that either party will have any mandate to push legislation that would make a difference. Government disfunction will continue. Things I'd like to see like a public option for health care and a balanced approach to balancing the budget (raising some taxes and reducing spending) won't happen. I live in Illinois and the state government is in chaos. It has weird consequences that people didn't expect (like enrollment at state universities is dropping A LOT) and I'd hate to see this shit on a national level, but that's where we're heading.


williamssl - 8-29-2016 at 04:28 PM

Pretty much everything people were upset about with politics and outcomes is going to continue for the next 4 years no matter which of these two idiots gets elected. They're looking at one-term-and-done for a variety of reasons, assuming they're still in office come 2020 elections.

I look forward to someone breaking out the Miz' line about him not being the Jannety only in a political "I'm not the George HW Bush/Jimmy Carter" context.


GodEatGod - 8-29-2016 at 04:51 PM

quote:
Originally posted by williamssl
Pretty much everything people were upset about with politics and outcomes is going to continue for the next 4 years no matter which of these two idiots gets elected. They're looking at one-term-and-done for a variety of reasons, assuming they're still in office come 2020 elections.



I don't know about that one term for Hillary, just because of the Republicans. Above and beyond personal beliefs, their primary system managed to choose the most extreme, unelectable option it had (and yes, I know there's an argument to be made that so did the Democrats, but Hillary's long term entrenched support from the establishment is in many ways the opposite of Trump's rise). The runner-up was Ted Cruz, who was a dumpster fire of anti-charisma hated by everyone who ever worked with him.

The Repubs are going to have to find a way to keep the extremist wing of their party from hijacking the primaries again and I'm not sure they have a way to do that. The people who voted for Trump aren't going to find fault with Trump the candidate - they're already spinning that the election will have been stolen by Crooked Hillary.


Cherokee Jack - 8-29-2016 at 07:05 PM

Yeah, I don't think that auto-impeachment will happen. Hell, congressional republicans have been going on for years about Obama's "lawlessness," yet they never had the guts to push through with an honest impeachment attempt, despite much of their base calling for it. Why? Because they knew they had nothing to really go on, and it would be a political loser for them. Same with Hillary. We'll get more of the last eight years: non-stop obstruction in congress, every effort made to delegitimize the president, and try to take her out in 2020.

If it's Trump? I don't think the democrats impeach automatically, but I'm not convinced that he won't do something to actually warrant it eventually, whether it comes in the form of tweeting out some classified military intel to show off how much info he has, or dealings that he's had with Russia coming to light, who knows.


Paddlefoot - 8-29-2016 at 07:25 PM

That's more of a case of the difference between Obama and Clinton. For whatever flaws he has Obama ran an admin remarkably free of any significant scandals. He really gave the GOP nothing to go after him over. What could they impeach him on? Something as ridiculous as the Fast & Furious fuck-up? Benghazi, which eight separate GOP-dominated congressional investigations showed was caused by an Al Qaeda operation that the US military was too far away to do anything to prevent? In hindsight, compared to practically every president since Eisenhower, Obama's admin was so clean that it was practically boring.

I have no such faith that Clinton II will be anything like Obama. It's like I said before, she's the ultimate insider with a million pissant little political debts to pay off to cronies and suck-ups, and she is absolutely morally incapable of running a clean administration. It's going to be a repeat of Clinton I except worse. The policies aren't going to be all that bad, the end of the world won't come with her in charge, but she is who she is. And that's where the impeachment attempt will eventually come in. She'll do something so stupid, for no greater reason than to reward one of her shitty friends somewhere, and that'll get the ball rolling.

Clinton's only real superiority over Trump is that she's only a crook whereas he's a crook and also a complete fucking unhinged nut as well. When she's over and done in due time, probably as early as 2020 after the nausea factor kicks in, the best thing that will be said about her is that at least she didn't launch a nuclear weapon at someone over a Twitter tantrum.


merc - 8-29-2016 at 07:26 PM

OK enough time has passed that my infatuation with Miss Sundress is over.

Screw both of them.


bopol - 8-30-2016 at 02:28 AM

I'm glad. I'd hate to lose the Merc we all know and love over getting your dick wet and thinking it is love.

Part of the reason I don't have faith in Clinton doing more than 4 years is her age and health. She's 68 and a bit pudgy. The Presidency is a hard job and I've watched it beat up two healthy middle aged men in the last 16 years. I think Clinton will find it hard to maintain the same schedule in her early 70s and not want to keep going. Honestly, as my parents are hitting that age along with a lot of their friends, I can think of only one healthy enough to handle the intensity of the job (Daddy Bopol).

The only President we've had that has been well into the 70s is Reagan, and, in retrospect, he was certainly showing signs of the Alzheimer disease at the end of the2nd term.


bigfatgoalie - 8-30-2016 at 02:40 AM

US Congress...where doing nothing = still better than voting DNC.

The DNC is full of flawed individuals...but man, what is the appeal of the RNC? Outside of Pro-Life bull shit...what makes people vote that way?


BBMN - 8-30-2016 at 03:33 AM

Well there are a LOT of conservatives that push the AMERICA agenda when it comes to jobs, so that will garner support. Of course screaming AMERICA doesn't actually produce results, and we see them consistently side with big business that doesn't give a fucking fuck about Americans or their employment.

Also, the NRA has done a masterful job of converting itself from a weapons safety and advocacy group, into a lobby machine, that is able to persuade (with great success) it's members, that the guvment is gonna take their guns.

This is an AMAZING piece on it...

http://www.mediaite.com/online/daily-show-spends-entire-episode-tearing-into-nra/


So there's two big issues that have roots in logic and common sense human preservation, that have been twisted hard enough by the GOP that it can be hard to realize where the starting point was. I don't entirely blame people for getting on the GOP bandwagon, since they have been after all, drowned in propaganda about these issues since they were teens, if not younger.


Then there is the less ethical reason for a totally different group - extreme wealth and power. If you're a VP for some Wall Street investment group, you want the guy that will make you richer, not the one saying "Holy fucking shit you're ruining everyone and everything."


merc - 8-30-2016 at 03:44 AM

Thanks Bo, btw Trump is already 70. Fucked either way.


BBMN - 8-30-2016 at 04:08 AM

Nice try, Merc. Trump's own doctor said he's the healthiest person of all times. He's more powerful than the offspring of Dolph Lundgrend and Grace Jones.


Quentil - 8-30-2016 at 06:42 AM

It's true. It's damn true. He was able to diagnose just how excellent Trump's health as in a few minutes while making his driver wait for him.


merc - 8-30-2016 at 03:51 PM

quote:
Originally posted by BBMN
Nice try, Merc. Trump's own doctor said he's the healthiest person of all times. He's more powerful than the offspring of Dolph Lundgrend and Grace Jones.


I laughed out loud...and found Grace Jones remarkably doable in her day.

Maybe I'll set my sights on a mid air collision between the corporate jets flying both of them around...


CCharger - 8-30-2016 at 06:39 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
quote:
Originally posted by BBMN
Nice try, Merc. Trump's own doctor said he's the healthiest person of all times. He's more powerful than the offspring of Dolph Lundgrend and Grace Jones.


I laughed out loud...and found Grace Jones remarkably doable in her day.

Maybe I'll set my sights on a mid air collision between the corporate jets flying both of them around...


Giant Meteor 2016


Paddlefoot - 8-30-2016 at 06:48 PM

Mega-shark eats both their planes.


bopol - 8-31-2016 at 01:03 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
That's more of a case of the difference between Obama and Clinton. For whatever flaws he has Obama ran an admin remarkably free of any significant scandals. He really gave the GOP nothing to go after him over. What could they impeach him on? Something as ridiculous as the Fast & Furious fuck-up? Benghazi, which eight separate GOP-dominated congressional investigations showed was caused by an Al Qaeda operation that the US military was too far away to do anything to prevent? In hindsight, compared to practically every president since Eisenhower, Obama's admin was so clean that it was practically boring.

I have no such faith that Clinton II will be anything like Obama. It's like I said before, she's the ultimate insider with a million pissant little political debts to pay off to cronies and suck-ups, and she is absolutely morally incapable of running a clean administration. It's going to be a repeat of Clinton I except worse. The policies aren't going to be all that bad, the end of the world won't come with her in charge, but she is who she is. And that's where the impeachment attempt will eventually come in. She'll do something so stupid, for no greater reason than to reward one of her shitty friends somewhere, and that'll get the ball rolling.

Clinton's only real superiority over Trump is that she's only a crook whereas he's a crook and also a complete fucking unhinged nut as well. When she's over and done in due time, probably as early as 2020 after the nausea factor kicks in, the best thing that will be said about her is that at least she didn't launch a nuclear weapon at someone over a Twitter tantrum.


Honestly, Clinton I wasn't bad. The economy was strong but too dependent on a tech bubble. The deficit went to nothing. There were failures (Janet Reno was a pretty horrid Attorney General) and personal scandals (Lewinsky), but, overall, it was the most confident I've seen America be in my lifetime in the days before 9/11 caused everyone to be scared of their own shadow.

The assumption that a Clinton II presidency will be scandal ridden doesn't have a basis in fact. More likely that the Republican media will make up a bunch of shit and their ilk will think that the scandals are real.


Paddlefoot - 8-31-2016 at 04:51 AM

On an important side-track does anyone know how to layer a music track over a video. John Boehner, living the life of the free after escaping from the Congressional madhouse, posted this today. A proud white man out on the road RV'ing, which is about the most awesomely white thing anyone can do these days. All it needs is a soundtrack to what John is probably listening to as he travels the highways and byways of his beloved yet tragically falling land. I suggest going with Volbeat's The Devil's Bleeding Crown first (what would a GOP caucus meeting be like after all without some Danish satanic death metal playing in the background) and then moving on from there. Give 'em hell, big goblin-orange tanned John!


BBMN - 8-31-2016 at 06:34 AM

http://youtubedoubler.com/jca2


Paddlefoot - 8-31-2016 at 07:03 AM

aww yeaaaahhhh



suddenly the water pill kicks in

what is drunk? hey flipper, c'mon now. settle down there, buddy





[Edited on 8/31/2016 by Paddlefoot]


denverpunk - 9-1-2016 at 08:14 PM

Well, it's not the one I wanted, but here you go. Two months left!!



[Edited on 9-6-2016 by denverpunk]


janerd75 - 9-11-2016 at 09:20 PM

Best. 9/11 Tribute. Ever.


williamssl - 9-11-2016 at 10:13 PM

But which tower was she? Or was that meant to symbolize both?


janerd75 - 9-12-2016 at 12:36 AM

Building 7, bro. The one the planes didn't hit but the Mossad did. I...I've said too much.

Heh heh, I love political humor. Just jokes, folks. Just jokes. Believe me. I'm sure she's fine. Just fine. Completely fine. Fine...fine..................fine.











Fine. Now move along and don't ask questions Citizen.


Paddlefoot - 9-12-2016 at 08:02 AM

The debate could go as well as this one did if she's still sick by September 26.


GodEatGod - 9-12-2016 at 09:11 AM

Hillary Clinton in a coma is still a better President than Donald Trump.


bopol - 9-12-2016 at 01:40 PM

Yeah, I don't understand the whole "Hillary Clinton's sick, so vote for Trump". Trump is hopelessly unqualified because his record as a strong businessman has been exposed and he has demonstrated a willingness to bribe public officials (Bondi in Florida), not pay vendors for services (essentially theft), violate the Geneva Convention (torture and steal another country's resources) and defraud and scam people (Trump University). I'd rather have Tim Kaine or 99.9% of all Americans be President before Trump giving everything we've learned about him and don't understand how not knowing what Aleppo is somehow disqualifies Gary Johnson, when the drivel that exits Trump's mouth is much, much worse.

Honestly, the reverse would be more interesting as I would much rather have Pence as the Republican nominee than Trump and I've driven through Indiana and realize what a shit job he's done taking care of the roads. I'm sure, for all the cheering going on in the right-wing punditry, the leadership of the Republicans are thinking the wrong candidate got sick.


G. Jonah Jameson - 9-12-2016 at 01:57 PM

I suspect a good part of the right's trolling about Hillary Clinton's health is sour grapes about 2008. I'm sure there are some folks who think the drumbeat about John McCain's health cost him the election, and while I imagine President Bush's unpopularity would have doomed any Republican candidate, it certainly could have been closer. Though I think the McCain health concerns didn't really gain a foothold until he brought on Sarah Palin as his running mate, and that doesn't really work with Clinton, as I doubt anyone has given Tim Kaine a second thought since he was announced.


Paddlefoot - 9-12-2016 at 02:42 PM

In a normal world where real investigative journalism still mattered Trump bribing that crooked slut Pam Bondi in order to derail any state examination of his bogus university would have been the single issue that brought him down. The local media and internet are doing a good job with the story. It's the CNN/FOX/MSNBC that are fucking up their real job by concentrating only on Trump's daily bozo eruption statements as a form of entertainment that's doing the real disservice and damage to the electoral process. If plagiarizing something in college took Joe Biden out of the race in 1992 then something as obviously illegal as bribing the attorney general of the state of Florida, something that should in any other year take Bondi and maybe even Rick Scott down too, should be front-page coverage across the entire country. It's thanks to ratings ghouls like Wolf Blitzer that it isn't because they're more interested in entertainment than in reporting.


GodEatGod - 9-12-2016 at 07:38 PM

The media's interest is in having the race be close. A landslide is bad for ratings. Nobody's gonna be stayin' up late watching Democalypse 2016 LIVE if Trump is so obviously out of contention (even if, barring dramatic reversals, that looks to be the case right now).

Plus, Trump's two years OLDER than Hillary and, while Hillary has the BEST and most LUXURIOUS doctors, Trump appears to have been treated by Gene Parmesan.


Paddlefoot - 9-13-2016 at 05:06 AM

quote:
Originally posted by GodEatGod
Plus, Trump's two years OLDER than Hillary and, while Hillary has the BEST and most LUXURIOUS doctors, Trump appears to have been treated by Gene Parmesan.




Trump's doctor's wife has her own Twitter account. She hasn't updated it for quite awhile but apparently her last tweet merely said (and I'm not even joking) "big wet ass".


BBMN - 9-20-2016 at 09:20 PM

My kinda girl.


Paddlefoot - 9-20-2016 at 11:41 PM

Deadspin asked an important question today. Odds are that over the course of 90 minutes Trump won't be able to bullshit his way out of things at the real debate the same way he did at the primary debates against those lackluster GOP losers. When Clinton corners him on something what happens when he melts down and calls her a cunt or bitch on live TV in front of millions of viewers around the world? Does it end for him then and there with a final line being crossed? Or is the final moment of the trademark classless vulgarity that's made him a success throughout his life and propels him to the presidency?

I can't answer this one. After seeing him catch up over the last couple of weeks I don't want to imagine anything anymore because imagination land is starting to pale in comparison to how fucked up basic reality has become.

[Edited on 9/20/2016 by Paddlefoot]


bopol - 9-21-2016 at 01:21 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
Deadspin asked an important question today. Odds are that over the course of 90 minutes Trump won't be able to bullshit his way out of things at the real debate the same way he did at the primary debates against those lackluster GOP losers. When Clinton corners him on something what happens when he melts down and calls her a cunt or bitch on live TV in front of millions of viewers around the world? Does it end for him then and there with a final line being crossed? Or is the final moment of the trademark classless vulgarity that's made him a success throughout his life and propels him to the presidency?

I can't answer this one. After seeing him catch up over the last couple of weeks I don't want to imagine anything anymore because imagination land is starting to pale in comparison to how fucked up basic reality has become.

[Edited on 9/20/2016 by Paddlefoot]


He won't because he would have to do it to her face. He has been very cowardly. Look at the black pastor in Flint that stopped him. He was like "oh, oh, oh, ok" at the time and then claiming she was a hot mess on Fox and Friends the next day. I think he's scared of Hillary and won't go there.

I don't think he can cross a line that his supporters will disown him. After all, the Evangelicals are behind the three-time married, accused of raping his first wife, bragging about his sexual infidelities, accused of raping a kid, man that claims to be a Christian and has never asked God for forgiveness because he hasn't done anything wrong. He could proclaim loyalty to Satan and still get their votes.

On the other hand, I think he will lose, but not as soundly as he should either way no matter what outrageous line he crosses.


OOMike - 9-21-2016 at 12:18 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
Deadspin asked an important question today. Odds are that over the course of 90 minutes Trump won't be able to bullshit his way out of things at the real debate the same way he did at the primary debates against those lackluster GOP losers. When Clinton corners him on something what happens when he melts down and calls her a cunt or bitch on live TV in front of millions of viewers around the world? Does it end for him then and there with a final line being crossed? Or is the final moment of the trademark classless vulgarity that's made him a success throughout his life and propels him to the presidency?

I can't answer this one. After seeing him catch up over the last couple of weeks I don't want to imagine anything anymore because imagination land is starting to pale in comparison to how fucked up basic reality has become.

[Edited on 9/20/2016 by Paddlefoot]


Unfortunately if he does snap (I doubt he will) I think it will help his numbers simply because that whole myth that he isn't politically correct and says what he thinks.

I think the problem with the debates for Hillary is the same problem Gore had, the expectations for Trump are so low, if he comes out speaking English with pants on it will be a win. And the English is questionable.


ETA: Trump is setting up for the debates brilliantly. First he complains about the timing, even though it was done months ago before the candidates were chosen. Second, he complains about the moderators, stating that they will be unfair to him during the debate. So if the moderators call out his bull shit lies, he can either make the comment during the debate "I knew I wouldn't get a fair treatment" or use it as an excuse for a poor performance afterwards. Or the moderators will be afraid of giving that appearance and let him get away with saying anything up to and including that Hillary Clinton has Satan's cooch.

Add the story that he already is claiming that the election is rigged if he loses in November.

I will be shocked if there isn't some kind of outbreak of violence in November.

[Edited on 9-21-2016 by OOMike]

[Edited on 9-21-2016 by OOMike]


williamssl - 9-22-2016 at 04:22 AM

Trump will not accuse Hillary of having Satan's cooch because she has a penis. It's on snopes. Trump will however accuse her of having Satan's tallywhacker though. Bill may object, believing his to be the Dark Lord's.


Paddlefoot - 9-22-2016 at 04:29 AM

Like Mike said it won't make a difference to his supporters but it'd still be funny as fuck if he went into word-salad mode and just shot out an incoherent stream of babble Sarah Palin-style when he can't answer a question. Time to set the ground rules for a debate drinking contest game. Anyone watching has to take a shot every time Clinton lies or Trump says something really fucking stupid. Might have to buy a 40 oz for that game because odds are a 26'er would be empty before the clock even hits one hour.



[Edited on 9/22/2016 by Paddlefoot]


janerd75 - 9-22-2016 at 04:40 AM

Dude. DOOOD. I only have one fucking liver. This isn't Canada. I can't just walk into a Tim's and order a liver transplant with a double double.


Paddlefoot - 9-22-2016 at 04:45 AM

Most Canuckistanis are born with two livers. A few uncommon examples exist of three-livers. These ones tend to work on oil rigs and/or reside in the Maritimes.

[Edited on 9/22/2016 by Paddlefoot]


merc - 9-22-2016 at 04:24 PM

I hope there isn't violence, neither candidate is worth it.


GodEatGod - 9-22-2016 at 11:11 PM

Drew Magary's new GQ article, "If You Vote for Donald Trump, Screw You" pretty much sums up my feelings about this election. And, like him, I'm tired of the false equivalence. Hillary and Trump are in no way equally bad. You may not like her and that's fine, but she's at least fucking competent and capable of doing the job, whether you agree with her decisions or not.

http://www.gq.com/story/a-word-for-donald-trump-voters


Chris Is Good517 - 9-23-2016 at 12:59 AM

quote:
Originally posted by GodEatGod
Drew Magary's new GQ article, "If You Vote for Donald Trump, Screw You" pretty much sums up my feelings about this election. And, like him, I'm tired of the false equivalence. Hillary and Trump are in no way equally bad. You may not like her and that's fine, but she's at least fucking competent and capable of doing the job, whether you agree with her decisions or not.

http://www.gq.com/story/a-word-for-donald-trump-voters


Drew Magary is possibly my second favorite writer on the Internet (right behind some Jeb something guy. Y'all probably have never heard of him). I really want to pick up his new book.


merc - 9-23-2016 at 01:49 PM

GEG I wholeheartedly disagree with your premise that Clinton is less bad because of competency. Consider issues where she was "in charge". It ends poorly. Sadly I agree with your thoughts on Trump.

But there is this:

https://youtu.be/xrkPe-9rM1Q

I appreciated her candor when she's says, she regrets doing it.

I bring little energy to the discussion because both options suck. I think of Johnson as least offensive. He might have heard Barnicle say A lepo, but at least his plan doesn't let the city knowingly be brutalized like our current administration is.


OOMike - 9-23-2016 at 07:20 PM


GodEatGod - 9-24-2016 at 02:00 AM

To paraphrase a tweet I saw, if you're equally disgusted by the two candidates, try to remember that the white supremacists all picked the same one. That should help narrow down which one's worse.


BBMN - 9-24-2016 at 05:39 AM

quote:
Originally posted by BBMN
I don't believe for a minute that Christie was ignorant of his appointees closing lanes on George Washington Bridge.


http://theweek.com/5things/649695/chris-christie-knew-about-bridgegate-plot-prosecutors-say

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/nyregion/bridgegate-trial.html?_r=0


NO FUCKING WAY! I CAN'T BELIEVE IT!






Of all the fucking pathetic things I've heard of a politician doing for petty revenge, this truly takes the cake. Great job you fucking dumbfuck. This man shouldn't be in charge of your local Olive Garden, let alone a state. GOD DAMN THIS IS EMBARRASSING.


merc - 9-24-2016 at 02:46 PM

OOMike,

Thanks for that. Good to see that Johnson takes a long term view, versus spouting off what's politically favorable in the moment and never following up. That behavior is dishonest. I'd bet my life that his long term view is accurate.

#illtakeclueless


BB those are are opening statements, nothing has changed...yet.
#christieaintrunninganymore



[Edited on 9-24-2016 by merc]


BBMN - 9-24-2016 at 03:43 PM

It simply continues where the story left off. And it is relevant since he's become Trump's jester. And since he would like to be seen as a future contender.

Like I said, this looks fairly simple. The bridge closed and all signs point to him and his people. It's like finding a kid in a kitchen covered in cake and the kid insists his brother did it. Sure thing, buddy!

Except instead of a cake, it's a bridge that thousands of commuters use everyday. What type of sociopath does that? Of yea, a public official that is weak and petty and can't even manage to not fuck up the fucking up of a bridge.



Gee, I wonder why his buddy plead the 5th?
Totally have no idea why he did that...



[Edited on 9-24-2016 by BBMN]


Chris Is Good517 - 9-24-2016 at 07:16 PM

quote:
Originally posted by GodEatGod
To paraphrase a tweet I saw, if you're equally disgusted by the two candidates, try to remember that the white supremacists all picked the same one. That should help narrow down which one's worse.


Stealing this.


bopol - 9-25-2016 at 02:57 AM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
GEG I wholeheartedly disagree with your premise that Clinton is less bad because of competency. Consider issues where she was "in charge". It ends poorly. Sadly I agree with your thoughts on Trump.

But there is this:

https://youtu.be/xrkPe-9rM1Q

I appreciated her candor when she's says, she regrets doing it.

I bring little energy to the discussion because both options suck. I think of Johnson as least offensive. He might have heard Barnicle say A lepo, but at least his plan doesn't let the city knowingly be brutalized like our current administration is.


I think Clinton might be a pretty good President in a sense of not fucking up royally like GW Bush did and what I believe Trump would do. I doubt she'll have the ability to help drive legislation on issues I care about, but I think there will be incremental improvement on certain less sexy issues. I do believe that having her pick some Justices to the Supreme Court will be better than Trump given that the right wing hero for how to be a Supreme Court Justice was Scalia. In general, I think it will be a plus. But I also think she'll only serve one term because the physical drag on her will be too much to go into her mid-70s.


janerd75 - 9-26-2016 at 11:40 PM





This is so exciting!!! I hope Angel Queen Do-No-Wrong Tell-No-Lies Heroine of Libya and Syria once and for all puts an end to this farce with Notorious White Supremacist Trumpstain Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho!

Seriously though, folks, I'm assuming she'll swoon aboot 27 minutes in and when Trump goes to her aid her SS agents will take him out and then the next day on CNN we'll be treated to 'round the clock coverage and edited video packages showing how Trump was "attacking" her so the agents did what they had to do.

Lol, this is gonna be a shitshow!!!!

You go gurrrrrl!!!!!!

Golly!, this isn't very transparent... http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440380/obama-email-alias-clinton-why-fbi-didnt-prosecute-hillary


Paddlefoot - 9-27-2016 at 12:01 AM

Sticking to wrasslin' tonight. Staying away from the debate shit-show altogether. I think the insane vulgarian will literally say something to her along the lines of "your husband got his dicked sucked in the White House by all those sluts" or "you're a fat dumpy little cunt just like Rosie O'Donnell". The place will erupt in chaos and tomorrow his ratings will shoot up five points after such a display of "leadership", proving once and for all that civility, manners, and adult behaviour of any sort are now completely dead in the United States, and in most of the world too.


merc - 9-27-2016 at 01:53 AM

I'm recording it to teach my grandkids, should I live to see them, the night American politics failed the population.


Paddlefoot - 9-27-2016 at 02:26 AM

Betting pool. The debate will be:

a) civilized and mannerly

b) like a dog taking a crap that's so disgusting another dog takes a look at it and throws up all over it followed by another dog that comes over to see what all the fuss is about and then shits all over the place


janerd75 - 9-27-2016 at 02:30 AM

The answer is C:


Paddlefoot - 9-27-2016 at 02:47 AM

Thank you Jeb!




and friends:









[Edited on 9/27/2016 by Paddlefoot]


CCharger - 9-27-2016 at 02:53 PM

I mean...regardless of who you are supporting this year...everyone has to agree that Hillary took Trump to Suplex City last night, right?


janerd75 - 9-27-2016 at 08:40 PM

As far as a clash of personalities go, I think he 'won' the first half and she the second. Once she started in on the Achilles Heel that is his massive ego, he predictably fell apart. On substance, she was more consistent with political boilerplate and he, predictably, was all over the place in that charmingly maniacal stream-of-consciousness way of his. He didn't bring up many zingers or questions about her ZOMG! scandals as I would have hoped. Whether you're for her or against her I would hope most of you would concede that, if she has reasonable answers to them, she should be able to calmly dismiss and/or refute them on a national debate stage regardless of whether or not it's Trump poking her with that stick.

Anywho, if you're scoring at home, I'll be fair and say Hildabeast -1,473,467 to Trumpstain -3,497,824



Also, there were no body slams or running knees.


CCharger - 9-27-2016 at 10:32 PM

Fucking Hillary. Stealing Flair's gimmick in that gif.


janerd75 - 9-27-2016 at 11:31 PM

quote:
Originally posted by CCharger
Fucking Hillary. Stealing Flair's gimmick in that gif.


Charger, godit dude you know I got that When-Cartman-Hears-Sail-Away-by-Styx-He-Has-to-Sing-it-All-The-Way-Through disease whenever I get a g(j)if "suggestion".


Paddlefoot - 9-28-2016 at 01:23 AM

Good song. Good ol' boy lyrics. ...that woman I'm in love with, she's been shooting scenes for COHF......


merc - 9-28-2016 at 03:34 PM

I watched it finally. Trump is a fuckin idiot, he left layups all over the place.

LH: Mr. Trump tell us about cyber security blah blah

THE ENTIRE WORLD THINKS: He he goes to her email servers

TRUMP: Fat guys hack.


Gary Johnson looks a fuckload better today...not in a real world way, but in a 2016 fuckin idiots voted for fuckin idiots kinda way.


bopol - 9-28-2016 at 09:21 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
I watched it finally. Trump is a fuckin idiot, he left layups all over the place.

LH: Mr. Trump tell us about cyber security blah blah

THE ENTIRE WORLD THINKS: He he goes to her email servers

TRUMP: Fat guys hack.


Gary Johnson looks a fuckload better today...not in a real world way, but in a 2016 fuckin idiots voted for fuckin idiots kinda way.


Did the 'fat guys hack' hit a little too close to home? I mean, it's true for me, but I hate Trump anyway, so I didn't weep.


bigfatgoalie - 9-29-2016 at 09:22 PM

quote:
Originally posted by janerd75
He didn't bring up many zingers or questions about her ZOMG! scandals as I would have hoped.




It must be hard deciding between a competent, experienced woman and a lying, xenophobic, unpredictable, dangerous narcissist. And no, competent doesn't mean perfect...I'm not saying there isn't things to dislike about Hillary. But outside of comedy at his expense...there is NOTHING to like about Donald Trump.







Want to read more on how ridiculous the thinking process of Clinton and Trump are both corrupt? Read this.

Want to read more about Trump averaging one falsehood every 3 minutes and 15 seconds over nearly five hours of remarks? READ THIS.


Want to keep thinking Clinton and Trump are any way equal?

Seriously, the US is major trade partner of Canada. They are a military partner. What the US does has a huge impact on the rest of the world.

So don't be stupid and think a bad businessman (lost $800 million LAST YEAR), deals with Castro, borrows from Putin, rents to Gaddafi, quotes Mussolini, admires El-Sisi, invites Kim Jong-Un to USA, reads Hitler ass clown is the equal to a women who took her husband back after he fucked some other woman and embarrassed your national pride in the process.


janerd75 - 9-30-2016 at 02:43 AM

Love ya BFG, but if'n you ain't gonna look at the link I provided detailing why Hilly wasn't charged by the F.B.I. (spoiler alert: Emperor Transparency Darth Barkevious The Mischievous' involvement in her e-mail scandal), I certainly ain't gonna play a game of I'mRightAndYou'reWrong.com with you and your links, especially if it involves the NYT and Paul Fucking Krugman. I'd sooner eat my own ass than burn my eyes with that prog ghoul shill swill, and seeing as how my cock horking stretches haven't gotten me any closer to glory (re: short stubby crank), it looks like it's really gonna be a while before I consider it.

And just for shiggles, can you drop me some info aboot Hillary's competency and experience? Gosh I wish I could go into more detail aboot that concept but loose lips sinking ships and all, sadly I cannot. Plenty of hard facts and info out there if you're willing to see it. Anyways, I won't even ding you for referring to her as a woman as not only is that point debatable it means absolutely fuck all to the discussion at hand regarding the aforementioned competency and experience. I hope all that C and E isn't what she and Darthy B accomplished in Libya and Syria, the latter of which currently being the center of a shitstorm she and he got and are getting us into with Vlad and the Russians. Also, not to be pedantic and belabour a point but that "husband" that "fucked some other woman and embarrassed your national pride in the process" also in the process of doing so perjured himself under oath as President. I like to call that an impeachable offense, even though it was 'only a blowjob' from a chubby chick.

And my national pride certainly wasn't hurt. 'Murica's pretty big. 320 or so million. Lot's of folks with lots of different ideas, believe me. But don't worry, when Trumpstain gets in, and not that he's even remotely my preferred choice, but he will be reigned in from all sides and be forced to act accordingly because neither side likes him and/or he'll get this economic shitshow done with faster either by his own actions or because TPTB want to hang hyperinflation on his Presidency. She, on the other hand, would keep this Two Party farce steaming along until all her pals, both R and D alike, get as much loot as they can knowing all the while it's already OVAH economically speaking as the dollar eventually circles the drain. And she wants to pick a fight with Vlad right now, too?!? To quote a great man: Wouldn't it be nice if we got along with Russia? Ageen, don't worry my friend, as 'Murica's favored pet status, Trump's gonna make so many deals with Canada, the best deals, believe me.

Otherwise:


bigfatgoalie - 9-30-2016 at 03:45 AM

quote:
Originally posted by janerd75
And just for shiggles, can you drop me some info aboot Hillary's competency and experience?


Why?

Clinton could grantee you all the perverted porn your heart could desire while Bailey Jay tops and/or bottoms for you depending on the outcome of a coin flip and there's no reason to believe it would change your mind on her.

Note to self...talking politics online is pointless.


Paddlefoot - 9-30-2016 at 06:45 AM





janerd75 - 9-30-2016 at 09:25 AM

Do they not have online debate manuals up there? Here's a copy of mine you can borrow. Ahh, it's all in good fun. Let's go grab a Molson's and play a game of toque or no, eh? I'll let you go first.



Sorry, Purpledrank, but Señor Benjamin's getting trebuchet'd over that glorious goded wall all the way back to Puerto Rico and his lawn concerns will be returned to the rightful hands of an unemployed poor 'Murican worker named Señor Dixie.


OOMike - 9-30-2016 at 01:08 PM

quote:
Originally posted by janerd75
Also, not to be pedantic and belabour a point but that "husband" that "fucked some other woman and embarrassed your national pride in the process" also in the process of doing so perjured himself under oath as President. I like to call that an impeachable offense, even though it was 'only a blowjob' from a chubby chick.




I don't care if you are serious or not, but this has been bothering me for a few weeks.

Her husband cheated on her, lied about it, and she forgave him, is all held against her. I don't know why her husband cheating is a negative for her, but whatever.

He has had three wives, and multiple affairs while married to at least two of them, and it does not reflect badly on him at all. He is the one that cheated on his wives, but the evangelicals and "family-first" right wingers ignore it and only scream about what Bill did in the 90's.

ETA:
quote:
Love ya BFG, but if'n you ain't gonna look at the link I provided detailing why Hilly wasn't charged by the F.B.I. (spoiler alert: Emperor Transparency Darth Barkevious The Mischievous' involvement in her e-mail scandal), I certainly ain't gonna play a game of I'mRightAndYou'reWrong.com with you and your links, especially if it involves the NYT and Paul Fucking Krugman. I'd sooner eat my own ass than burn my eyes with that prog ghoul shill swill, and seeing as how my cock horking stretches haven't gotten me any closer to glory (re: short stubby crank), it looks like it's really gonna be a while before I consider it.


Complaining that someone using the New York Times is partisan and not reading it because of it's slant when you are linking the National Review a self-described neo-con magazine is hypocritical.


[Edited on 9-30-2016 by OOMike]


CCharger - 9-30-2016 at 02:30 PM

This is election is like having to choose between fucking Sunny's sloppity, floppity, herpetic pussy (Clinton) or fuck Chyna's rotten carcass pussy (Trump).

The thought of either repulses me to the core and leaves me sobbing and begging for mercy, but in the end, necrophilia just ain't my bag, baby.


merc - 9-30-2016 at 02:52 PM

I've given up Jan. The walls are too thick.

BFG look at you lie graph closely for any bias clues. You're smaht for a Canadian, g'head g'head we'll wait to see if you uncover any.

OOM I agree Hillary's personal choice on her relationship decisions are irrelevant.

And (I never thought I'd type this) CC your first sentence is quality analysis.

Fuck the American public for not caring more about who lives at 1600 PA Ave. cunts!


Paddlefoot - 9-30-2016 at 03:07 PM

National Review only trumpeted low-key holocausts in places like Guatemala and Iraq. The NYT made their reputation in the '20's and '30's by vigorously endorsing the trend-setting genocide Stalin pulled off in Ukraine.

And for further laughs look into how the NYT, in a time when newspapers were far more important to everybody than they are now, made the AIDS epidemic in New York that much worse in it's early years because the people in charge at the time, supposed liberals all of them, just found the gay folk to be way too icky so they refused to run any stories about the health crisis as it was taking shape and gathering strength. Pretty much the equivalent of journalistic irresponsibility if a major paper in Miami or New Orleans refused to run anything about the weather as a Cat 5 storm was streaking right towards town. At least something like FOX is consistent on what they're doing and who they support. The NYT plays everybody's best friend even when their boardroom is as politicized as to what they will and won't cover as any other media joint out there is. Taking lessons in morals from the NYT is like taking a course in how to run a wrasslin' promotion from Dixie Carter.

And Janny, I'll see your Trump phallus-triggered seizure and raise you one half-term governor getting all jiggy with it, perhaps recalling her younger days when the NCAA basketball tourney would come to town.





[Edited on 9/30/2016 by Paddlefoot]


CCharger - 9-30-2016 at 04:00 PM

The idea that media outlets owned and operated by massive, profitable, global corporations could be in any way, shape, or form "progressive" or "liberal" is almost laughable. Certainly Fox and MSNBC's business models call for them to appeal to the most batshit extreme of the right and left, but by and large most "mainstream media outlets" are own by corporations eager to do nothing except increase their profit margin and maintain the status quo.

Please stahp with the "liberal media" stuff.

ETA: Suggesting that the NYT is "bad" or "liberal" for supporting Stalin (source please?) is like saying that the GOP is the party of black people because Lincoln freed the slaves.


Paddlefoot - 9-30-2016 at 04:20 PM

After the Bolshevik revolution, a NYT reporter named Walter Duranty was assigned to cover the events in Russia. He was basically a communist himself and sent back nothing but a series of white-washed reports detailing the massive industrialization and building projects Stalin began. He deliberately ignored however the other main reality of what was going on in Russia at the time, and that was the extermination of millions of Soviet citizens by the secret police. When Stalin imposed forced collectivization of farming in the rural areas it resulted in the deaths of upwards of ten million Ukrainians. They grew the food but weren't allowed to keep any of it for themselves, resulting in an entirely man-made famine that was enforced at gunpoint by the secret police. The NYT's Duranty was well aware of what was happening in the countryside but was so enamoured of the social scene of the upper-rank communists he was associating with in Moscow he wrote off the Ukrainian genocide as the "mere" cost of rebuilding the country along Bolshevik economic principles. He also regularly described the scattershot and basically helpless Ukrainians as "terrorists" and "anti-socials" in order to justify what Stalin was doing to them.

Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting from Russia. In the entrance foyer of the NYT building in NYC they have a wall with a memorial listing the names of all their award-winning reporters. Duranty's name is still up there, decades after he was exposed as a Stalinist tool and long after the reality of the genocide in Ukraine was revealed. That's the NYT mentality for you right there. Yes, Walter Duranty was a liar, a propagandist, probably a paid-off agent, and was morally complicit in mass murder. But c'mon, he helped us win this neat trophy.

There is a liberal bias in a lot of the media. Corporate owners can be either liberal or conservative. Just because they're all wealthy doesn't mean they're all raving right-wingers. For every Koch brother out there there's a Zuckerberg to match them. The thing is, that the conservatives want people to ignore or forget, is that between FOX, the radio talk-shows, and the internet there's just as much media now with a conservative bias as there is a liberal one. I don't expect 100% objectivity from anyone because it's impossible for any human to be that truly neutral. It's up to the individual to decide which outlets to them are the ones they want to rely on. There's enough legitimate and serious ones on both sides to choose from so relying on the demented and hyper-partisan ones as sources of information is really just plain lazy.

[Edited on 9/30/2016 by Paddlefoot]


CCharger - 9-30-2016 at 04:48 PM

So, one rogue correspondent 90 years ago is proof enough for you of how the NYT has an unfair liberal bias? OK, buddy.

Look, media outlets are businesses. They want to make money. That's fine! Great! But in order to do that - especially at the large, mainstream level - those outlets self-censor in order to appease the monied interest in order to increase their profit margins and further their careers in the industry. Corporations are desperate for order, for stability, for status quo. Viacom, Disney, Time Warner - they aren't looking to rock the boat and fundamentally change America. They want to appeal to the greatest number of Americans and make advertisers happy. Same reason Vince is no longer TV-13 or whatever.

You should read "Manufacturing Consent". In it the author's argue that the media does in fact have a bias - one that leans to the right-wing corporate overlords.

For example (and I stole this from Wikipedia, but you're welcome to research it yourself), "FAIR reported that between January and August 2014 no representatives for organized labor made an appearance on any of the high-profile Sunday morning talkshows (NBC's Meet the Press, ABC's This Week, Fox News Sunday and CBS's Face the Nation), including episodes that covered topics such as labor rights and jobs, while current or former corporate CEOs made 12 appearances over that same period.

[Edited on 9-30-2016 by CCharger]


Paddlefoot - 9-30-2016 at 05:24 PM

That's because the main media isn't interested in things like talking to union leaders anymore because they get better ratings from Trump and the Kartrashians. It's a sea-change but it isn't all there is to the media. You have to search what you want to find. No one's obligated to bring it to you. Even the government media arm here in Soviet Canuckistan is the same. They're more in-depth, and pretty hands off when it comes to ever critically examining the flaws and warts of our two left parties, but they aren't talking to union leaders or ivory tower intellectuals either. That's not because of some huge corporatist plot, it's because no one really cares what those kind of people have to say anymore.

And Chomsky, Finklestein, the Zinn-drones, they all have their own websites now. You can go there for your daily dose from the horse's mouth themselves. Or go on Amazon and order their books direct to your house. No one's stopping you from doing this, except maybe yourself if you're stuck in some kind of mental trap and believe that they have to bring it to you for free instead of you looking it up on your own.

And Walter Duranty wasn't some "rogue". He was one of the NYT's main poster boys for decades thanks to that Pulitzer he got. It wasn't until recently that his mendacity was fully exposed and even after it was made public what he was doing on behalf of Stalin the NYT still refuses to abjure him.


denverpunk - 9-30-2016 at 08:45 PM

If we’re expecting the media to always be perfect, then we’re bound to be always disappointed, because the media is nothing more than a bunch of imperfect people trying to report. As flawed as the NYT may or may not be, we have them to partially thank for Tammany Hall being busted and for fatcat business owners not making employees work in completely unsanitary conditions for pennies a day. I might even give them some credit for help fostering conditions where a middle class might exist in the distant past. Even if they aren’t perfect, they are still more trustworthy than most other daily sources out there, and I think their heart is in the right place. Fox News, on the other hand…

Also, hating the media for liberal bias is like hating a dog for being a dog. The media’s job (in this country at least) is supposed to be to asking questions, investigating when they smell rats, and to be a check for the status quo, which sounds like a pretty liberal mission statement if you ask me. Again, it’s far from perfect, but the mean ol’ liberal media has done a lot more good than not, and it’s pretty much their job to do what they do. If people feel they are generally doing the wrong thing, then maybe it’s their values that need to be questioned as much as the media’s.

One thing I do agree with – TV news is hot garbage and has been for many years. The quest for ratings and money is, if not destroying the credibility of the media, it’s definitely making the lines a lot grayer and harder to sift through. Whose fault is that? I say ours, since it seems to be what we want. I blame it more on the education system being systematically fucked over, and a lack of education leads to acting more on ideology than facts. Ironically, as our country gets dumber, it makes educated people seem more elitist and threatening – remember when John Kerry was criticized for (gasp) knowing a foreign language? I see Donald Trump’s emergence as a product of all that, and the fact that his disgusting campaign and his abysmal debate showing haven’t gotten him literally tarred and feathered honestly blows my mind. If I were more of a crackpot, I might argue that this is exactly what the people truly running this country really want – if people are only interested in sound bites and entertainment, then they won’t spend time asking tough questions about the status quo. Clearly, the last thing the powers that be wants is an informed populace.


bopol - 10-1-2016 at 01:52 AM

quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
quote:
Originally posted by janerd75
Also, not to be pedantic and belabour a point but that "husband" that "fucked some other woman and embarrassed your national pride in the process" also in the process of doing so perjured himself under oath as President. I like to call that an impeachable offense, even though it was 'only a blowjob' from a chubby chick.




I don't care if you are serious or not, but this has been bothering me for a few weeks.

Her husband cheated on her, lied about it, and she forgave him, is all held against her. I don't know why her husband cheating is a negative for her, but whatever.

He has had three wives, and multiple affairs while married to at least two of them, and it does not reflect badly on him at all. He is the one that cheated on his wives, but the evangelicals and "family-first" right wingers ignore it and only scream about what Bill did in the 90's.




Personally, I'm glad to see this so that I know that all the Christian conservatives have now exposed themselves as naked political entities beholden to the Republican Party that could give a rat's ass about what Jesus or the Bible said. It's given me a free pass to say they are full of shit for the rest of my life, and given their power over both the political system and their perversion of Christianity, I'll be glad to see them lose their hold on both.


Paddlefoot - 10-1-2016 at 03:17 AM






[Edited on 10/8/2016 by Paddlefoot]


Paddlefoot - 10-8-2016 at 10:43 PM

New hats available online!



New Gadsden Flag for the ladies now available too!



And sound rhetorical advice from Comptroller Hannity too!



[Edited on 10/9/2016 by Paddlefoot]


Paddlefoot - 10-9-2016 at 10:50 PM

For BBMN:



janerd75 - 10-9-2016 at 11:06 PM







THIS IS SO ENTERTAINING!!!!!!!


Paddlefoot - 10-9-2016 at 11:32 PM

I'm glad the last election in Soviet Canuckistan was decided by more important issues. Like which leader had the best hair.


Matte - 10-11-2016 at 12:57 AM


williamssl - 10-11-2016 at 03:20 AM


janerd75 - 10-11-2016 at 04:12 AM


bigfatgoalie - 10-11-2016 at 04:25 AM

http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635

TLR

Trump passes off Russian propaganda as fact at rally, even after the Russian "news" source deleted their post when they realized it was too easy to disprove.


bopol - 10-11-2016 at 03:04 PM

quote:
Originally posted by bigfatgoalie
http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635

TLR

Trump passes off Russian propaganda as fact at rally, even after the Russian "news" source deleted their post when they realized it was too easy to disprove.


Only liberals think Russia can be a threat to world peace. Conservatives have always been big fans of Russia.


GodEatGod - 10-11-2016 at 05:46 PM

quote:
Originally posted by janerd75




THIS IS SO ENTERTAINING!!!!!!!


After seeing this, just because it hadn't been said in a while, I'm reminded that you need to be reminded sometimes.

You are a fucking idiot. I'm not offended by you. I'm not 'triggered'. I'm annoyed. You're the kid who snaps bra straps and makes fart noises in the back of the class, only someone taught you how to make gifs and permanently froze you mentally at age 10. You contribute nothing but noise, nothing of substance. Even when you seem to make an effort, it's just regurgitated right wing pablum conspiracy horseshit.

I'm done with you. Fuck off. I'm just skipping over posts with your name on them henceforth.


janerd75 - 10-11-2016 at 08:17 PM

quote:
Originally posted by GodEatGod

'triggered'

...Even when you seem to make an effort, it's just regurgitated right wing pablum conspiracy horseshit.
I'm done with you. Fuck off. I'm just skipping over posts with your name on them henceforth.


Relax, proggie. I ain't even right wing nor am I much into conspiracies. At least not the fake moon landing or aliens kind. But the crony capitalist/government official kind? Whether they have an R or D in front of their name? Abso-fucking-lutely. But your emotional outburst is quite delicious nonetheless. Word to the wise for next time, and there will be a next time because clearly I'm on your mind, but please do not feed the troll.

Also, and this can't be emphasized enough, but this is mainly a site where we lavish praise on sweaty beefhunks that play scripted slapfight for our amusement. Emphasis on the word scripted. As in pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and please enjoy the show *wink wink*. I cannot make the *winkwink* any more obvious, unless you truly think something like the Colbert Report was an actual news show with a staunchly conservative anchorman at the helm.

I accept your apology and I still love you.


Paddlefoot - 10-11-2016 at 09:19 PM

Can y'all meet somewhere in the middle and write-in this guy for POTUS?


janerd75 - 10-11-2016 at 10:10 PM

Yeah, meat in the middle of my buttcheeks trololololol.



Now how can a guy be Prez-O-Dent whut can't even take a stunner correctly? See, I can be nonpartisan. Even magnanimous. But never obtuse. My gosh, never ever that.


CCharger - 10-11-2016 at 10:14 PM

quote:
Originally posted by janerd75
quote:
Originally posted by GodEatGod

I'm done with you. Fuck off. I'm just skipping over posts with your name on them henceforth.


But your emotional outburst is quite delicious nonetheless. Word to the wise for next time, and there will be a next time because clearly I'm on your mind, but please do not feed the troll.



Flash - 10-14-2016 at 08:51 AM

One nice thing about Hillary is that win, or lose, the presidency she herself will probably quietly fade away into the background for the most part... Trump, not so much. Sadly I think that if he loses we still are in for a year or two of a complete and utter continued media shitstorm from him... He's probably good for 2 books, dozen's of monthly interviews about how the election was rigged, Hillary needs to go to prison still, a half dozen lawsuits, and any number of at this point in time unseen issues that he'll continue to spew forth ad nauseam (well... we're well past that point already aren't we?).

Face it America, Trump isn't going anywhere for a loooooong time.... heck, you may even see him again amongst the likes of Joe Walsh, Curt Schilling, Mark Cuban, and Kanye West.

This is what you get for having more of your citizens vote for American Idol than they do in your elections*

*Yeah, our Canadian voter turn out isn't the greatest either, but our greatest PM can pirouette like nobody's business!


janerd75 - 10-14-2016 at 09:28 AM

It's like having to choose between getting fucked in the ass or in the mouth by a hairy stranger. I'd rather choose neither but unfortunately one of them will be...'it'...no matter what, so in this analogy either one or the other it must be. So sue me if I have a preference for one over the other. You're taking the load unwillingly either way. Unless you like shit like that. In which case you're


bopol - 10-14-2016 at 11:59 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Flash
One nice thing about Hillary is that win, or lose, the presidency she herself will probably quietly fade away into the background for the most part... Trump, not so much. Sadly I think that if he loses we still are in for a year or two of a complete and utter continued media shitstorm from him... He's probably good for 2 books, dozen's of monthly interviews about how the election was rigged, Hillary needs to go to prison still, a half dozen lawsuits, and any number of at this point in time unseen issues that he'll continue to spew forth ad nauseam (well... we're well past that point already aren't we?).



Hillary needs to be in jail for what exactly? Specifically, what crime did she commit? This is tired bullshit repeated by Trump supporters over and over again with no basis is reality.

quote:


Face it America, Trump isn't going anywhere for a loooooong time.... heck, you may even see him again amongst the likes of Joe Walsh, Curt Schilling, Mark Cuban, and Kanye West.

This is what you get for having more of your citizens vote for American Idol than they do in your elections*




Trump will go the way of the now irrelevant Glen Beck. Half the Republicans can't stand him now and the other half are the fickle nutjobs that are very unlikely to stay loyal when he loses to a girl.


OOMike - 10-14-2016 at 01:04 PM

You mean the Glenn Beck that endorsed Hillary?


bopol - 10-14-2016 at 01:15 PM

quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
You mean the Glenn Beck that endorsed Hillary?


That's a strike against Hillary then.

Six years ago, Glen Beck was the guy among conservatives. Big DC rallies, star of his own cable news and radio show and now he is an afterthought. And, frankly, he had more substance than Trump, which is a pretty low bar. Trump's bluster will wear thin quickly and, in four years, no one will admit they voted for him.

On the plus side, there will be millions of "Make America Great Again" hats to cover the heads of poor kids in third world countries.


GodEatGod - 10-14-2016 at 03:22 PM

quote:
Originally posted by bopol
quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
You mean the Glenn Beck that endorsed Hillary?


That's a strike against Hillary then.

Six years ago, Glen Beck was the guy among conservatives. Big DC rallies, star of his own cable news and radio show and now he is an afterthought. And, frankly, he had more substance than Trump, which is a pretty low bar. Trump's bluster will wear thin quickly and, in four years, no one will admit they voted for him.

On the plus side, there will be millions of "Make America Great Again" hats to cover the heads of poor kids in third world countries.


Beck's endorsement of Hillary is rooted in his Mormonism. The Mormons take their family values shit more seriously than evangelicals, apparently, because while the Southern Baptists are going to hold their noses and vote for Trump, it does appear that the Salt Lake Saints are pretty much not going to forgive Trump his trespasses.

I honestly think that Trump and Roger Ailes are planning a Fox News/The Blaze style news channel of their own. Alex Jones will probably have an evening show. Someplace for the isolationist/xenophobic/racist wing of the right to settle in for some good old fashioned dog whistlin'. It will, of course, be called Trump TV.


Flash - 10-14-2016 at 04:21 PM

Hey Bopol...

Not sure if you misunderstood me or not, but I wasn't suggestion Clinton needs to go to jail, but that Trump will continue to beat that sad, tired drum well after she is voted president.

Unrelated to the above, my personal take is that Clinton's faults and "criminal activity" have been greatly exaggerated to the point of bluster. I think she is on paper one of the more qualified presidential candidates seen in a long time. I don't think she is terribly likeable, and that he lack of transparency is a huge problem for her. I'm genuinely dismayed at how many of the attacks seemed to be based upon her gender, which is disgusting in this day and age.

I truly hope you are right about Trump going the way of the dinosaur, but I just don't see it... people love a train wreck, and Trump is the mother of all train wrecks.


Paddlefoot - 10-14-2016 at 05:12 PM

Clinton's the next Nixon. Intelligent and capable beyond belief, which even Nixon's enemies thought that he was. Also saddled, as shown by the e-mail lunacy, by a reflexive impulse towards secrecy where it's not warranted. As with Nixon, if she displays the same traits as POTUS as she did as SoS then she'll destroy her own presidency. Odds are, as unbelievable as it seems, she's more hated by the right than Obama is. They'll be waiting to nail her on even the slightest thing and, as opposed to Obama, she's more likely to do a really major fuck-up because of secrecy and that'll give them the opportunity to try to take her down.

The gong show isn't ending with Trump's defeat. All indications are that it's going to get much, much worse.


janerd75 - 10-14-2016 at 06:19 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot

The gong show...


The gong show?!? So, you're just going to gloss over Chuck Barris' admitted involvement as a C.I.A. assassin for the Military/Industrial Complex? They made a movie aboot it, maybe look it up and educate yourself so you don't sound so ignorant. So done with you.


Paddlefoot - 10-14-2016 at 06:40 PM



I don't have a cardigan sweater with a red dot on it to give as a peace offering so have these instead.


merc - 10-14-2016 at 07:01 PM

quote:
Originally posted by GodEatGod
quote:
Originally posted by bopol
quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
You mean the Glenn Beck that endorsed Hillary?


That's a strike against Hillary then.

Six years ago, Glen Beck was the guy among conservatives. Big DC rallies, star of his own cable news and radio show and now he is an afterthought. And, frankly, he had more substance than Trump, which is a pretty low bar. Trump's bluster will wear thin quickly and, in four years, no one will admit they voted for him.

On the plus side, there will be millions of "Make America Great Again" hats to cover the heads of poor kids in third world countries.


Beck's endorsement of Hillary is rooted in his Mormonism. The Mormons take their family values shit more seriously than evangelicals, apparently, because while the Southern Baptists are going to hold their noses and vote for Trump, it does appear that the Salt Lake Saints are pretty much not going to forgive Trump his trespasses.

I honestly think that Trump and Roger Ailes are planning a Fox News/The Blaze style news channel of their own. Alex Jones will probably have an evening show. Someplace for the isolationist/xenophobic/racist wing of the right to settle in for some good old fashioned dog whistlin'. It will, of course, be called Trump TV.


As the resident moderate...

...

...

There is nothing good going on this election cycle.


But the Glen Beck thing I find interesting. As a "family values" guy who has rallied against pro-abortion candidates, organizations, platforms, etc. I don't see how he can endorse anyone who is pro unborn baby killing. Ranking aberrant behavior from that perspective it seems Trump's words/physical contact is far less bad than piles o'fetus...I would think.

So interesting in the way that those "Christian right wing" or however you want to describe them are running from the only chance at protecting the unborn. Rings FU fake to me.

In no way is the above a commentary on the propriety or impropriety of legally or illegally killing unborn babies or viable or non-viable fetuses or disregarding or regarding the life or future life of non or actual mothers or carriers of non viable life when termination occurs before viability begins or could potentially begin if the viable baby or fetus was outside the human who originated the fetus or baby.


GodEatGod - 10-14-2016 at 07:02 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
Clinton's the next Nixon. Intelligent and capable beyond belief, which even Nixon's enemies thought that he was. Also saddled, as shown by the e-mail lunacy, by a reflexive impulse towards secrecy where it's not warranted. As with Nixon, if she displays the same traits as POTUS as she did as SoS then she'll destroy her own presidency. Odds are, as unbelievable as it seems, she's more hated by the right than Obama is. They'll be waiting to nail her on even the slightest thing and, as opposed to Obama, she's more likely to do a really major fuck-up because of secrecy and that'll give them the opportunity to try to take her down.



Unwarranted? People have been trying to rip her to shreds and destroy every ounce of privacy she has for twenty five years, more if you count the Arkansas years. I don't know what it is about her that puts a bug up right wingers' ass, but she's had plenty of reason to be wary of the press and not particularly eager to trust that they'll treat anything she says with nuance or thought.

As for them nailing her, they haven't managed it yet and they've had plenty of chances. If she's a supervillain, she's at a far higher level than Nixon ever thought about being because most of her enemies have looked like a clown car full of sexist boobs for years and look moreso every day.

Maybe that's why they hate her so much. Because she always beats their asses in the end.


janerd75 - 10-14-2016 at 07:12 PM

Aw shoosh, I can't stay mad at my favorite Canadienne. You are, of course, always invited to mah mental breakdown party. I will transmit to His Excellency Grand Admiral Generalissimo Trumpstain tales of your courage and worthiness before the tanks roll north to subdue your fellow Soviet Canuckistanis. I don't know if I can spare you the indignity of toiling in the moose mines harvesting pelts to upholster furniture for the coming Trump Hotel/Casino Industrial Complex, but perhaps I can at least guarantee a foreman position cordwooding your fellow countrymen into the molten syrup disposal vats. Believe me.


Paddlefoot - 10-14-2016 at 07:29 PM

That video clip did me a real frighten. Sudden flashback to being ten years old, watching that show after school, and the parents screaming in the background at each other over something stupid.


denverpunk - 10-14-2016 at 09:17 PM

I'm not going to bother looking it up, but I'm pretty sure Trump has either supported pro-choice in the past, or has flip flopped on the subject enough times to create conservative unease. They wanted Ted Cruz.


merc - 10-14-2016 at 09:25 PM

quote:
Originally posted by denverpunk
I'm not going to bother looking it up, but I'm pretty sure Trump has either supported pro-choice in the past, or has flip flopped on the subject enough times to create conservative unease. They wanted Ted Cruz.


I think you are right. And I think Hillary has been a staunch supporter without flipping. So flipper or not is the choice.

I just saw this and laughed.


bopol - 10-15-2016 at 02:20 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Flash
Hey Bopol...

Not sure if you misunderstood me or not, but I wasn't suggestion Clinton needs to go to jail, but that Trump will continue to beat that sad, tired drum well after she is voted president.

Unrelated to the above, my personal take is that Clinton's faults and "criminal activity" have been greatly exaggerated to the point of bluster. I think she is on paper one of the more qualified presidential candidates seen in a long time. I don't think she is terribly likeable, and that he lack of transparency is a huge problem for her. I'm genuinely dismayed at how many of the attacks seemed to be based upon her gender, which is disgusting in this day and age.

I truly hope you are right about Trump going the way of the dinosaur, but I just don't see it... people love a train wreck, and Trump is the mother of all train wrecks.


Yeah, I totally misread that. My bad. I'm sorry.

People love a trainwreck, yes. But no one takes the views of Lindsey Lohan or Sunny seriously on anything. It'll cross the line from serious to amusing to sad fairly fast.


bopol - 10-15-2016 at 02:29 AM

quote:
Originally posted by merc


As the resident moderate...

...

...

There is nothing good going on this election cycle.


But the Glen Beck thing I find interesting. As a "family values" guy who has rallied against pro-abortion candidates, organizations, platforms, etc. I don't see how he can endorse anyone who is pro unborn baby killing. Ranking aberrant behavior from that perspective it seems Trump's words/physical contact is far less bad than piles o'fetus...I would think.

So interesting in the way that those "Christian right wing" or however you want to describe them are running from the only chance at protecting the unborn. Rings FU fake to me.

In no way is the above a commentary on the propriety or impropriety of legally or illegally killing unborn babies or viable or non-viable fetuses or disregarding or regarding the life or future life of non or actual mothers or carriers of non viable life when termination occurs before viability begins or could potentially begin if the viable baby or fetus was outside the human who originated the fetus or baby.


Most pro-life people are not single issue voters (though some are). Sure, they'd like it if they had a good pro-life candidate to vote for, but the Republicans (or Trump in particular) have views contrary to many other things that a typical religious pro-life person might support. Then factor in that Trump is a liar and I don't think you can count on him to do anything he says and I think even single issue pro-life voters would have difficulty believing he is paying them lip service.


Paddlefoot - 10-15-2016 at 05:52 AM




the goon - 10-15-2016 at 06:42 AM

This is kind of on topic, kind of not, but I listen to Sean Hannity sometimes on my break at work (because I like to drive myself crazy) and all I ever hear is him talking about how terrible Hillary and Obama are, yet he's a Trump supporter. There's never any mention about how Trump is fucking insane or a terrible person or there are tons of awful stories about him floating around out there...I just don't get it. Like, if you hate Hillary and/or Obama, okay, fine. I'm not going to try and argue with your or sway you from that opinion. But if you hate them while also saying "Trump is the guy we need as president!" I got nothing.

It's kind of like the question I have about big dollar evangelicals like Joel Osteen or Steven Furtick...does Sean Hannity know he's full of shit but just goes with it anyway because he's making a gazillion dollars or does he truly believe all the things he says?


Paddlefoot - 10-15-2016 at 06:58 AM

If you're not an ideologue or dogmatist it's pretty much impossible to understand those who are. It's also Hannity's job to behave that way. It's difficult for those to understand this if we actually work at real jobs for a living but what Hannity and the others do isn't a lark or a freebie that they do for the glory of the cause, it's their occupation. His circus act draws ratings and money therefore he has a financial stake in doubling-down on the crazy if it means increased profit both for him and for FOX. The short answer is, yes, he believes the crap he spews out but he's obligated to put that much extra of a spin on it to keep the rubes hypnotized so as much money as possible can be made off of them.

[Edited on 10/15/2016 by Paddlefoot]


the goon - 10-15-2016 at 07:11 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
If you're not an ideologue or dogmatist it's pretty much impossible to understand those who are. It's also Hannity's job to behave that way. It's difficult for those to understand this if we actually work at real jobs for a living but what Hannity and the others do isn't a lark or a freebie that they do for the glory of the cause, it's their occupation. His circus act draws ratings and money therefore he has a financial stake in doubling-down on the crazy if it means increased profit both for him and for FOX. The short answer is, yes, he believes the crap he spews out but he's obligated to put that much extra of a spin on it to keep the rubes hypnotized so as much money as possible can be made off of them.


Going along with that, I heard him say the other day (and this is more or less a direct quote) "all of the media is in bed with Hillary and the Democrats...the only one that's going to give you an unbiased and real opinion is Fox News."

My head basically exploded from disbelief and anger at that point.


Paddlefoot - 10-15-2016 at 07:26 AM

I'm amazed they still get away with the "liberal media bias" con-job considering that the right-wing has at least fifty percent of the internet sites and pretty much all of the radio talk shows on their side.


bopol - 10-15-2016 at 02:32 PM

quote:
Originally posted by the goon
quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
If you're not an ideologue or dogmatist it's pretty much impossible to understand those who are. It's also Hannity's job to behave that way. It's difficult for those to understand this if we actually work at real jobs for a living but what Hannity and the others do isn't a lark or a freebie that they do for the glory of the cause, it's their occupation. His circus act draws ratings and money therefore he has a financial stake in doubling-down on the crazy if it means increased profit both for him and for FOX. The short answer is, yes, he believes the crap he spews out but he's obligated to put that much extra of a spin on it to keep the rubes hypnotized so as much money as possible can be made off of them.


Going along with that, I heard him say the other day (and this is more or less a direct quote) "all of the media is in bed with Hillary and the Democrats...the only one that's going to give you an unbiased and real opinion is Fox News."

My head basically exploded from disbelief and anger at that point.


Is this the first time in your life that you heard of someone who is willing to lie about anything? I've met a few. It is disturbing because society couldn't function if we wondered if anything anyone said to us is a lie, but people like Sean Hannity exist.

Hannity's a propaganda shill and would gladly drink the piss of Hitler and tell you it tastes good.

[Edited on 10-15-2016 by bopol]


Quentil - 10-15-2016 at 10:24 PM

I watched a Trump speech yesterday. Mostly because I was bored and Facebook had it on livestream. The amount of lies....It was staggering.

The lies that we could bring back jobs like coal industry and tv repairman jobs that no longer, and will never again, exist. The lies that a tariff war would somehow benefit the American business owner when it's never done that, ever. Pushing an agenda against Bill Clinton while at the same time dismissing accusations against him because they were "ages ago." The lies of how the US is somehow a destroyed nation in ruins.

But I could tolerate all of those lies. I mean, I understand opinion and economic theories come and go, and that politicians lie. So sure, I rolled my eyes, but it's nothing I haven't seen people spout in ignorance before on a political level.

The thing that really scares me is that the fringes of both parties are saying the system is rigged, that the voting process is suspect. That's simply not true, but the simple belief undermines American foundations of trust in government and in the Constitution. The Bernie folks did it, and still do, but the Trump folks take it to another level entirely.

The idea that "the only way the system isn't rigged is if our candidate wins" is simply one of the most utterly what the fuck beliefs I've ever encountered. The amount of spoiled behavior, vanity, entitlement, and sheer ignorance it displays in a goodly amount of the electorate is terrifying.

I mean, we can all agree or disagree on taxes, public vs private sector, how many bombers we need, or how little we really need to give a fuck about anything the Canadians think, but when we start encouraging the idea that the whole system is suspect and that only one singular messiah figure can save all of you...And if they aren't elected, then you all "know what needs to be done..." That's flirting with destroying the entire system just for a chance to run it. It's scorched earth. It's nothing but an open attempt to subvert the system.

That's simply a threat to our fabric as a society and against American values, no matter where your personal beliefs lay on the political landscape.


bigfatgoalie - 10-15-2016 at 10:41 PM

https://www.thenation.com/article/gop-states-keep-ignoring-court-orders-to-restore-voting-rights/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

quote:

On September 22, the same day Wisconsin assured the judge in a legal filing that everything was hunky-dory, Zack Moore, a 34-year-old homeless African-American man who moved from Chicago to Madison, was turned away from the DMV without a voter ID despite bringing an Illinois driver’s license, Social Security card, and proof of Wisconsin residency. He was told to go back to Illinois and get his birth certificate, or else it would take six to eight weeks for him to get an ID for voting, despite a sign in the DMV that said, “Get your ID to vote! No birth certificate? No problem!”



The irony of a Republican nominee complaining about a rigged system is kind of off the chart.


merc - 10-16-2016 at 03:44 PM

quote:
Originally posted by bopol

Hannity's a propaganda shill and would gladly drink the piss of Hitler and tell you it tastes good.

[Edited on 10-15-2016 by bopol]


You were doing so good until this. Hitler's dead and his piss wasn't preserved; making your statement completely unbelievable and me sad.


bopol - 10-16-2016 at 06:27 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
quote:
Originally posted by bopol

Hannity's a propaganda shill and would gladly drink the piss of Hitler and tell you it tastes good.

[Edited on 10-15-2016 by bopol]


You were doing so good until this. Hitler's dead and his piss wasn't preserved; making your statement completely unbelievable and me sad.


Dude, Hitler escaped to Argentina and might still be alive (he'd be really old, but Nazi doctors were experimenting with ways to extend life), so it may be possible for Hannity to drink his piss and I'm sure he would happily do it if asked and report that he's refreshed and ready to go afterwards.


denverpunk - 10-16-2016 at 09:03 PM

Silly people. Everyone knows that Hitler was frozen Han Solo style and then brought back to life. Here's a pic of when it happened:



[Edited on 10-16-2016 by denverpunk]


Quentil - 10-16-2016 at 10:25 PM

Seems legit.


Quentil - 10-16-2016 at 10:31 PM

quote:
Originally posted by bigfatgoalie

The irony of a Republican nominee complaining about a rigged system is kind of off the chart.


Yeah, Republicans love to claim "Fraud" as something that really matters in everything.

Spoilers: It doesn't matter in anything they claim it to matter in. It's a cop-out excuse used to fool idiots in order to justify cutting funds for social programs and to (in this case) limit the ability of minorities to vote. It always has been, and it always will be.

Life goes on.

[Edited on 10-16-2016 by Quentil]


janerd75 - 10-16-2016 at 10:34 PM

Sean Hannity is just the modern version of Morton Downey, Jr., though far, far less entertaining and sadly without the lung cancer. He's the spittin' image of every comic book version of a right-wing pundit from Alan Moore's 'Watchmen' or Frank Miller's 'Dark Knight Returns'. I could jam a kazoo up my ass and rot out more coherent G.O.P. boilerplate black wind than he could with his assmouth. He's probably what William Burroughs envisioned when he crafted the Talking Asshole Routine from 'Naked Lunch'. Even when he occasionally says something correct it's wrapped in a seething, tattered version of the 'Murican flag that he wipes his ass with right before he musket loads it down his willing devotees throats with a cross-shaped ramrod, thus rendering the original correctness fully warped, demagogued, and processed for Team Right's consumption. We're wrasslin' fans. Do we still not know how mass media manipulation works? Oh man, did jantard just give a bunch of you Communauts a confused stiffy or what? I know the feeling. I get confused like that when I look at pictures of Domino Presley.

I still stand by this assessment, though. Whether it's Trumpstain or The Hildabeast, it's all above your pay grade anyway. None of you are in The Club. Dollar go boom, you no eat, game over man, game over.



Paddlefoot - 10-16-2016 at 10:51 PM

Only dogs should be allowed to vote.


janerd75 - 10-16-2016 at 11:01 PM



Except the small barky ones. Those ones should be Adam Vinatieri'd into alligator pits.


Paddlefoot - 10-16-2016 at 11:12 PM

Play-along time, lads. List of things that would make a better POTUS than either Trump or Clinton:

- a dog
- any dog
- maybe even a cat
- a T-800 terminator
- Ramsey Bolton
- a green plastic bowler hat full of green-dye tinted sick left on a Boston sidewalk on St. Paddy's Day
- Harambe (goes without saying)

Continue as you wish plz.


merc - 10-17-2016 at 12:06 AM

Ron Jeremy


janerd75 - 10-17-2016 at 12:24 AM

Buck Zumhofe. 'Cause if yer gonna get fucked without permission, it may as well be proper fucked by a pro.


williamssl - 10-17-2016 at 01:30 AM

Any one of my countless kidney stones.


Similarities:
They brought about a previously not experienced and too intense to describe level of pain.
They made me piss blood.
I prayed like I never have before that they would pass quickly out of my kidneys and into the toilet so that I could flush them away and give them a burial far far better than they deserved.
I wouldn't wish them on even my worst enemies. Ok maybe a few of the absolute worst.
After passing one, I am lured into the false sense of security thinking they are gone for good. They sit in the background, forming and gradually getting bigger until it is time again and they resurface with the pain and suffering they brought last time. (Ok - this one is all Hillary and her failed 2008 bid and return)


Differences
I could get prescription meds to reduce my suffering somewhat.
The painful part lasted for days-to-weeks, not 1+ Years leading up to something followed by another insufferable 4-8 years dealing with them including an extreme flare-up after 4 years.
My kidney stones, despite the pain and suffering they brought, were not evil wretched creatures intent on bringing about said pain and suffering.

TBD
I experienced tremendous relief and happiness once they passes. I likely will...but see previous "length of suffering" difference.


OOMike - 10-17-2016 at 02:51 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
I watched a Trump speech yesterday. Mostly because I was bored and Facebook had it on livestream. The amount of lies....It was staggering.

The lies that we could bring back jobs like coal industry and tv repairman jobs that no longer, and will never again, exist. The lies that a tariff war would somehow benefit the American business owner when it's never done that, ever. Pushing an agenda against Bill Clinton while at the same time dismissing accusations against him because they were "ages ago." The lies of how the US is somehow a destroyed nation in ruins.

But I could tolerate all of those lies. I mean, I understand opinion and economic theories come and go, and that politicians lie. So sure, I rolled my eyes, but it's nothing I haven't seen people spout in ignorance before on a political level.

The thing that really scares me is that the fringes of both parties are saying the system is rigged, that the voting process is suspect. That's simply not true, but the simple belief undermines American foundations of trust in government and in the Constitution. The Bernie folks did it, and still do, but the Trump folks take it to another level entirely.

The idea that "the only way the system isn't rigged is if our candidate wins" is simply one of the most utterly what the fuck beliefs I've ever encountered. The amount of spoiled behavior, vanity, entitlement, and sheer ignorance it displays in a goodly amount of the electorate is terrifying.

I mean, we can all agree or disagree on taxes, public vs private sector, how many bombers we need, or how little we really need to give a fuck about anything the Canadians think, but when we start encouraging the idea that the whole system is suspect and that only one singular messiah figure can save all of you...And if they aren't elected, then you all "know what needs to be done..." That's flirting with destroying the entire system just for a chance to run it. It's scorched earth. It's nothing but an open attempt to subvert the system.

That's simply a threat to our fabric as a society and against American values, no matter where your personal beliefs lay on the political landscape.


I don't remember if it was Politifact or FactCheck that looked at his speeches, but they determined that almost 50% of what he says is mostly false, false, or pants on fire lie, with an average lie spoken every 3 minutes.


Paddlefoot - 10-17-2016 at 02:58 PM

I saw that clip. It was actually closer to 80-85% of what he said was false.


GodEatGod - 10-17-2016 at 08:06 PM

Saw an interesting but totally speculative article a while back on Vox, the basic gist of which was this: Trump doesn't register truths or lies. The way he uses language indicates that he sees virtually all verbal exchanges as simple contests, battles of wills. All that matters is winning. True or false, he'll say whatever he thinks will make him win the argument, period. Obviously, in speeches, that's not exactly a dialogue, but it means he'll say whatever makes the crowd cheer for him and, if it isn't true, so what? They loved him, that's what's important.

It's why when confronted with a position and told it's bullshit, he'll deny having ever said it or completely reverse course. Because what he said before doesn't matter, it's only this current moment that means anything to him. It's why he feels perfectly okay ignoring contracts and not paying people - he was fine promising whatever they asked for, but, once he got what he wanted, he stopped giving a shit and cared only about paying them as little as possible. Only a loser worries about their word being their bond or honor or any of that shit, as far as he's concerned.

It was mostly based on language analysis and, of course, bullshit armchair psychology, but it was fascinating and it definitely rang true with the way he acts, making it almost more a pathology than anything, like he just can't help himself.

Which doesn't excuse anyone who votes for the fucker.


merc - 10-17-2016 at 11:01 PM

Ok first off, if there isn't a picture attached fuck me, my ipad2, Apple, XMB 1.8 and Al Gore.

The Union Leader is the paper of record in New Hampshire, conservative is the correct description. They endorsed Johnson/Weld. Sunday they followed up the endorsement with the (it had better be) attached.


GodEatGod - 10-17-2016 at 11:46 PM

I honestly don't think Gary Johnson has any interest in really being President. I think running for President and being the 'Libertarian Guy' is his actual business at this point and just the way he fills time between smoking joints. That's why he gets wackier the more coverage he gets, because the last thing he wants is to become actually relevant - it would ruin the con.


bopol - 10-17-2016 at 11:46 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
Ok first off, if there isn't a picture attached fuck me, my ipad2, Apple, XMB 1.8 and Al Gore.

The Union Leader is the paper of record in New Hampshire, conservative is the correct description. They endorsed Johnson/Weld. Sunday they followed up the endorsement with the (it had better be) attached.


It's sideways. Can you fix it?


blazeofglory - 10-18-2016 at 01:55 PM

Politics is sideways and cannot be fixed. The image is a metaphor.


Paddlefoot - 10-20-2016 at 04:21 AM

Our friend Jeb had some good ones tonight.



merc - 10-22-2016 at 02:54 PM

quote:
Originally posted by bopol
quote:
Originally posted by merc
Ok first off, if there isn't a picture attached fuck me, my ipad2, Apple, XMB 1.8 and Al Gore.

The Union Leader is the paper of record in New Hampshire, conservative is the correct description. They endorsed Johnson/Weld. Sunday they followed up the endorsement with the (it had better be) attached.


It's sideways. Can you fix it?


I see it correctly. I'm just about over my ipad2, with the iOS 10 upgrade- that it can't handle, a lot of things don't seem to work anymore. Photos and these forums. Are just one.

Shifting gears, an old high school buddy posted this video. It's in black and white (what else would I post) and has Charlie Chaplin in it. But in 4 minutes his script creates more vision than the almost 2 years of prezidential politics (minus Vermin Supreme). Give it a view.

https://youtu.be/V1fMvLbE85E


Quentil - 10-23-2016 at 03:52 PM

Huh. I have a new video game and a new girl in my life.

Who was running again? Oh yeah, a corporate stooge, a racist autocrat, a Brave New World guy or the anti-vaxx crackpot.

Guess I'm still for the corporate stooge.


CCharger - 10-25-2016 at 04:15 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil

Guess I'm still for the corporate stooge.


Gerald Brisco is running for president?


Paddlefoot - 10-28-2016 at 03:18 AM

If only, and just for wimping out on us when Stone Cold gave him the Stunner.......


janerd75 - 11-1-2016 at 12:25 AM

Happy Hill-O-Weiner everybody!



Undone by a Weiner. Agayn! What a time to be alive!


bigfatgoalie - 11-1-2016 at 02:46 AM

quote:
Originally posted by janerd75
Happy Hill-O-Weiner everybody!



Undone by a Weiner. Agayn! What a time to be alive!


Yeah. And Trump has destroyed documents, uses a private server for Russian business, and is encouraging voter fraud.

But yeah, emails not associated with no link to Clinton or her server are a big deal.

Can you just fuck off?


janerd75 - 11-1-2016 at 04:50 AM

Hey BFG buddy, suck lead you know-nothing willfully blind criminal-apologist daft Prog cunt. Vote early and often you dim-witted water-carrying manqué. Go get some poutine gravy and stroke it to your Wall Of Justins Trudeau Belieber Shrine you sanctimonious motherfuck. Stay in your lane lil' Canada and maybe we'll help y'all oot when the Wacky Pakis rape convert and honor kill your "polite" culture into an actual Soviet Canuckistan, eh?

May Hillary's dick shoot forever in your direction. Also, fuck the Blue Jays.

Sorry, not sorry.


williamssl - 11-1-2016 at 05:02 AM

Silly janerd. Hillary's dick is the legendary nine-headed hydra. Cut off one, two grow in its place. Bill tried to 8x and now it's up to 18. Long way of saying...she can point it at lots of people if she wants to. Or, you know, point all 18 in one direction. No one has lived to tell THAT tale.


Edit. Shit....did my hydramath wrong. Only 17 heads. The "no one has lived..." part still stands, though.


[Edited on 11-1-2016 by williamssl]


CM Crunk - 11-1-2016 at 05:34 AM

Apparently according to NASA an asteroid whizzed right by us all last night. Close enough for their early detection system to catch it.

I wish it would come back.


Paddlefoot - 11-1-2016 at 05:57 AM

1) Giant Meteor 2016 continues to poll well this year, as does Great Cthulhu. Vladimir Putin too.

2) Someone needs to offer a white cashmere sweater to someone in order to restore peace to the Newz section. Preferably the sweater won't have a red dot on it to indicate it came out of the bargain bin.

3) Re: this awful election. While I'm convinced that Trump is the greater evil, and his background and history show him to be a completely horrifying and awful person, I'm not ever going to say that Clinton is a good choice either. I think she's smart enough to keep anything from sticking to her too much. The main problem with a Clinton isn't the Clinton's themselves. It's the rat bastard ratfuckers that travel with them. And unfortunately the Hilla-beast is primed to put all the snakes that were in Bubba's White House right back in there with her. John Podesta. Lanny Davis. Sid Blumenthal. Terry McAuliffe. Donna Brazile. Even Huma Abadin has a ton of baggage too, and the only reason she gets off the hook a bit is because of the sad-wife thing that Weiner and his dick have given her.

A Clinton White House will be awful, with all the awful things that they did and allowed to happen in the 1990's come back for a sequel. Yes, of course, Trump will be that much worse and corrupt. I really can't imagine the mental gymnastics that one would have to do to every believe that a slime like Donald Trump would ever run a clean and honest organization. It's only his sheer horrific nature that are making a second Clinton White House look palatable in comparison. And once again it's all of this that's made this the literal election from hell.


williamssl - 11-1-2016 at 06:23 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
2) Someone needs to offer a white cashmere sweater to someone in order to restore peace to the Newz section. Preferably the sweater won't have a red dot on it to indicate it came out of the bargain bin.



How's about a blue dress with a white stain? Will that suffice?


bopol - 11-1-2016 at 01:43 PM

I seem to remember the 90s differently. I remember good economies in most of the 90s (starting 94 or so). I remember a lack of international drama in the 90s (short of Saddam Hussian being obnoxious occasionally). I don't remember all the supposed scandal in the Clinton White House short of the Bill's BJ misadventures. I do remember balancing the budget.

Honestly, I think it's very possible that Hillary Clinton may be a good president. Sure, the Republicans will say she's corrupt from day one and fight her tooth and nail, but honestly, what has she done to earn this level of vitriol? The same Republicans that attack her nominated a liar, adulterer and thief that promises to break international law. If Clinton did 1/100th of what Trump did, the Republicans would (well, they probably will anyway) impeach her. And we're going to trust their word on her? They've lost all credibility and yet good people with open minds have bought in. Look for the facts themselves. There just isn't much, if anything, there.


Paddlefoot - 11-1-2016 at 02:51 PM

You can also say that the lack of action on Bubba's part led to Sept 11, 2001. They had a clear opportunity to get Bin Laden in Sudan and balked. The (non) response to the USS Cole attack can only be described as a complete joke. The runaway from Somalia was a disgrace. And the foot-dragging in both Rwanda and Bosnia led to the deaths of multiple hundreds of thousands of people that might have been prevented with a firm United States saying knock it the fuck off and then not leaving the half-assed interventions up to the UN and Europeans who botched everything they touched in both of those countries. Seriously, don't anyone ever condemn Trump for proposing a neo-isolationist foreign policy when Clinton 1 essentially put one into practice.

I'm trying to not make any false equivalencies between Clinton and Trump which is why I clearly keep repeating that Trump is about the worse thing I've ever seen come out of politics in my entire life. Aside from the music scene there really wasn't all that much that was terrific about the 1990's. And the politics of the time were just as grotesque as they were before and are now. If anything the 90's were the height of baby boomerism, with the Clinton victories being their high-water mark like "yay, hooray, it's our turn now!". And nothing really changed all that much. It was the same old backroom song and dance for the insiders doing the Potomac Two-Step. And I still maintain that clique of absolute insider assholes that I mentioned before that surround the Clintons are going to cause her nothing but trouble if she wins. They're as filthy now as they were back then. It won't just be Limpbaugh and his hate-radio or a rag like the American Spectator going after them this time, it'll be the entire internet edifice of insanity that's built up over the last eight years of Obama that'll be in on the act too, and those rancid motherfuckers never sleep. What's worse is that here and there names like Blumenthal and McAuliffe are more than capable of doing enough dirty crap that ends up giving the loons on the right a justification for their existence.


Quentil - 11-1-2016 at 03:42 PM

quote:
Originally posted by bopol
but honestly, what has she done to earn this level of vitriol? The same Republicans that attack her nominated a liar, adulterer and thief that promises to break international law. If Clinton did 1/100th of what Trump did, the Republicans would (well, they probably will anyway) impeach her. And we're going to trust their word on her? They've lost all credibility and yet good people with open minds have bought in. Look for the facts themselves. There just isn't much, if anything, there.


This.

Oh, and to answer your original question, the Republicans fairly lost some elections. When the Republicans lose, they always blame minorities or women. It's in their sexist, racist DNA makeup. Groups like Rush Limbaugh and the religious right, despite being pillheads and wife beaters and adulterers, somehow claimed the moral high ground. they realized it was easier to lie and try to get people removed than it was to win an election fairly.

The Tea Party continued this by pretending to be a grass roots party, when it was backed by billionaires with the specific intent of taking the thin wedge of reactionary independents back into the fold and basing the new Party on fear and "gut feelings" over legitimate fact. The Republican Party essentially seems to take the idea of, "If we can't have it, we're going to break it and blame it on you." as their primary gospel.

But mostly it's because Bill Clinton was popular and successful as a president, and the Republicans can't stand that. Add to this that a black man became president, and there you go. Now the middle-aged uneducated white male population that never bothered to adjust to a changing society wants to burn it all down instead of share it with everyone else. The welfare cases, if you will, are the folks that keep the party strong. Despite the fact that the Party itself is constantly removing their benefits and blaming it on the Democrats. Sigh.

I'm not saying all Republicans are like this. They aren't. But half of them really are a basket of retardation, propelled by hate speech and a belief that things were somehow better when women couldn't vote and children worked 12hr days for pennies. "The good old days."

[Edited on 11-1-2016 by Quentil]


Paddlefoot - 11-1-2016 at 05:11 PM

Hi, Jeb.






bigfatgoalie - 11-1-2016 at 05:30 PM

quote:
Originally posted by janerd75
Hey BFG buddy, suck lead you know-nothing willfully blind criminal-apologist daft Prog cunt. Vote early and often you dim-witted water-carrying manqué. Go get some poutine gravy and stroke it to your Wall Of Justins Trudeau Belieber Shrine you sanctimonious motherfuck. Stay in your lane lil' Canada and maybe we'll help y'all oot when the Wacky Pakis rape convert and honor kill your "polite" culture into an actual Soviet Canuckistan, eh?

May Hillary's dick shoot forever in your direction. Also, fuck the Blue Jays.

Sorry, not sorry.


So...

Can we ban this jerk?


Quentil - 11-1-2016 at 05:38 PM

Wait, if we get rid of Toronto, can we get the Expos back? Because they were by far the cooler of the two teams. World Series wins notwithstanding and all that. If we can make this happen, I'll tentatively back the rest of Janerd's platform.


Paddlefoot - 11-1-2016 at 05:46 PM

quote:
Originally posted by bigfatgoalie
quote:
Originally posted by janerd75
Hey BFG buddy, suck lead you know-nothing willfully blind criminal-apologist daft Prog cunt. Vote early and often you dim-witted water-carrying manqué. Go get some poutine gravy and stroke it to your Wall Of Justins Trudeau Belieber Shrine you sanctimonious motherfuck. Stay in your lane lil' Canada and maybe we'll help y'all oot when the Wacky Pakis rape convert and honor kill your "polite" culture into an actual Soviet Canuckistan, eh?

May Hillary's dick shoot forever in your direction. Also, fuck the Blue Jays.

Sorry, not sorry.


So...

Can we ban this jerk?


Why should we? Eliminate the swearing, and the horrific anti-Canuckistani bigotry, and he was still 100% right about PM Sunnyways "L'il Potato" McSelfie.


merc - 11-1-2016 at 09:09 PM

I think HRC & DT are the same. They do whatever they want, get caught and deny, lie, accuse, deflect and obfuscate. It is a blight on the American population that they are the two major party candidates.

The 90's fiscal joys were driven by technology advances. Don't get me started on turning the dial or moving rabbit ears...and encyclopedias and libraries.

Bill's politics were OK, I kinda liked them, but the leader of the free world lied to his country and under oath. He left a trail of... Insert however you want to describe bitter ex I slept/blew a married man women. Character matters to some and character matters more in some. He failed miserably and epically.


bigfatgoalie - 11-1-2016 at 09:22 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
I think HRC & DT are the same. They do whatever they want, get caught and deny, lie, accuse, deflect and obfuscate. It is a blight on the American population that they are the two major party candidates.

The 90's fiscal joys were driven by technology advances. Don't get me started on turning the dial or moving rabbit ears...and encyclopedias and libraries.

Bill's politics were OK, I kinda liked them, but the leader of the free world lied to his country and under oath. He left a trail of... Insert however you want to describe bitter ex I slept/blew a married man women. Character matters to some and character matters more in some. He failed miserably and epically.


Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are not the same person. But even if they were, Double Headed Billary Clinton is a far superior choice compared to Donald if your main criteria is character.

And for every negative character trait you may think Donald and Billary share, there's no denying who has done more good for people. The Clinton's work as civil servants has served them well, but they did a lot of good for others. The Clinton Foundation has performed actual charity, compared to Trump's non-charity buying paintings of Trump for Trump, and fixing his companies fountains. Oh and paying people off.

Is Hillary flawed? Yes. Is Billary even more flawed? Yes. But Clinton is still a vastly superior candidate to Trump.


the goon - 11-1-2016 at 11:13 PM

quote:
Originally posted by bopol
The same Republicans that attack her nominated a liar, adulterer and thief that promises to break international law.


I've seen a similar comparison made between Obama and Trump, and it drives me kind of crazy. Like, what if Obama had been married three times? Or had kids from two different women? Or wouldn't release his tax returns while running for office? Or probably hadn't paid taxes in a couple decades? Or had a pending lawsuit about a scam university he ran? Or was caught on tape saying he could grab women by the pussy because he was famous? The right would have a field day and declare Obama the most despicable man in history (well, more than they already do) and unfit for being president. But Trump does all these things? Eh, no big deal. Fuck you libtards!


janerd75 - 11-1-2016 at 11:16 PM

quote:
Originally posted by bigfatgoalie
quote:
Originally posted by janerd75
Hey BFG buddy, suck lead you know-nothing willfully blind criminal-apologist daft Prog cunt. Vote early and often you dim-witted water-carrying manqué. Go get some poutine gravy and stroke it to your Wall Of Justins Trudeau Belieber Shrine you sanctimonious motherfuck. Stay in your lane lil' Canada and maybe we'll help y'all oot when the Wacky Pakis rape convert and honor kill your "polite" culture into an actual Soviet Canuckistan, eh?

May Hillary's dick shoot forever in your direction. Also, fuck the Blue Jays.

Sorry, not sorry.


So...

Can we ban this jerk?


Yes yes, let us ban the jerk...coming from the guy that started it by telling me to get fucked because I posted that sweetass Hans Gruber quote aboot the FBI. Didn't have much to say when I posted the insulting gif I made of Trump sucking an imaginary dick though. Kinda one-sided if you ask me. Damn shoot hell son, at least GEG had the decency and smarts to politely tell me where to get off and then did the wise thing and just bypassed my goofy rants. Some folks just can't handle the Jan Man I suppose. Jokes, dude. It's all aboot the jokes, which is what this farce of an election is anyway. So pardon me for grabbing onto the Weiner and riding it as hard as I can. C'mon, it's right there waving in everybody's face!

Anywho, wacky delusional Janerd's theory is thus:

Clinton - Definitely corrupt on an international scale with tendrils extenting to governments everywhere. If you imagineer just the Wikileaks stuff alone which is fairly recent, and nothing else, it is incredibly damning the depth and breadth of her Machiavellian machine. Oh, and she wants to establish a no-fly zone over Syria, which a top general just testified before congress would essentailly mean war with Russia. Yes, that Russia. The one with the nukes. The one, alongside China, that could call the vig on our debt to them at any moment and flush our economy without firing a shot. (On my phone now so I'll update later with the general's testimony.)

Trump - Probably corrupt on a national scale. That goofy wall idea and getting into trade wars are just bonkers. But he has no real international pull other than a bunch of hotels and casinos everywhere. Yeah, he's sing-songy aboot making nice with Putin and 'negotiating', whatever the hell that means, but color me crazy I kinda prefer that to the alternative of a bunch of S-300's ripping our planes out of the sky over the Syria Hillary and Bammer helped destroy. Plus, with him we'd have the added bonus neither the lifer Republicans and Democrats working with him very easily. He'd constantly be surrounded and thwarted legislatively and might actually do something right by accident or intention.

I guess I just don't understand why people want polished politicians who 'know what they are doing' instead of someone relatively outside the system. Yes, I know Trumpstain's a vulgarian and I can't readily understand what he's after when The Stream Of Consciousness diarrhea kicks in. But, he's a known commodity. It's easy to see what he is and is not. Hell, listen to old Stern broadcasts for some crude and rude awesomeness. And tell me you don't think it'd be cool to have a Pres-O-Dent that tackled Vinnie Mac at a WM? Not that stunner though. If anything should disqualify him from office it's that.

Anywho, I'm probably wrong and delusional and Hillybeans will fine just fine. I'll just go sit in a mud hut in the woods somewhere, comforted by the the warmth and RF blocking capabilities of my homemade tinfoil suit. Until the black Suburbans pull up to git muh gunz. Then it's game fucking on.


the goon - 11-1-2016 at 11:56 PM

quote:
Originally posted by janerd75
I guess I just don't understand why people want polished politicians who 'know what they are doing' instead of someone relatively outside the system. Yes, I know Trumpstain's a vulgarian and I can't readily understand what he's after when The Stream Of Consciousness diarrhea kicks in. But, he's a known commodity. It's easy to see what he is and is not. Hell, listen to old Stern broadcasts for some crude and rude awesomeness. And tell me you don't think it'd be cool to have a Pres-O-Dent that tackled Vinnie Mac at a WM? Not that stunner though. If anything should disqualify him from office it's that.


I think for me (and probably many others), it's just the fact that Trump comes across as so batshit insane and narcissistic. I'm all for a guy not playing the usual political games and calling the government out on their bullshit, but just...not this guy. Like, if this were circa 1980's Jack Nicholson running for president, being cool as shit and wrecking the Washington elite? Then fuck yeah, he's got my vote. An orange fake billionaire who quite literally could be suffering from dementia and/or years of cocaine abuse? Not so much.

With all of that said, I'm probably not quite as terrified of a Trump presidency as some are (though as an American, I would be depressed as shit to know that a former reality TV star and WrestleMania participant got elected as president). If anything, I'm more just morbidly curious. If he doesn't build the wall or stomp out ISIS or improve things for the poor/middle class, will his idol-worship followers still blindly support him? And how many months into his presidency does he say or do something totally fucked up that completely embarrasses America on a national stage? These are the positives of Trump as president that I like to focus on.


chretienbabacool - 11-1-2016 at 11:58 PM

Trump isn't out of the system and he is in some respects more in the system than the Clintons. Hell he used to be best friends with the Clintons when it suited his purpose. He is best friends with all the rich and elite when it suits his purpose, he uses every tax trick possible to avoid paying taxes including declaring bankruptcy and passing off the debt onto other people and forcing his workers to the unemployment line, he is the most sue happy presidential candidate in history and never passes up an opportunity to get his lawyers involved, he never gives money to charities despite promising he will, every supposed off the cuff remark is actually perfectly tailored to his audience and he will lie and pretend his statements never happened if it suits him.

Only complete morons think this guy is an out of system guy who will fix anything. This guy IS Wall Street and IS part of the rich and elite controlling everything his idiotic supporters claim to hate. Because he'll make completely calculated un-PC remarks his supporters mad that they can't spew racist, sexist crap without getting called out on it lather it up. I'll give the man credit for this: he's highly successful at getting morons to cult like follow him.

Also, a presidential candidate endorsing rape matters. As someone trying to raise a girl confident in protecting herself, when a man that might possibly lead the United State says that if you have money you can forcefully attack a woman, that caused my daughter to come to me in tears. She is taught to respect the President and you have this guy getting support from half the country claiming females are just pieces of ass to judge solely on their beauty and who you can take advantage of if it suits you. Anyone defending that is a scum bag.


bigfatgoalie - 11-2-2016 at 12:24 AM

http://www.oowrestling.com/OOForums/viewthread.php?tid=11105

quote:


2. What can get you banned:
• Posing as a moderator or columnist, NWS photos, racism




quote:
Originally posted by janerd75
Hey BFG buddy, suck lead you know-nothing willfully blind criminal-apologist daft Prog cunt. Vote early and often you dim-witted water-carrying manqué. Go get some poutine gravy and stroke it to your Wall Of Justins Trudeau Belieber Shrine you sanctimonious motherfuck. Stay in your lane lil' Canada and maybe we'll help y'all oot when the Wacky Pakis rape convert and honor kill your "polite" culture into an actual Soviet Canuckistan, eh?

May Hillary's dick shoot forever in your direction. Also, fuck the Blue Jays.

Sorry, not sorry.


Yes I told you to fuck off for trying to make non-News in to a big deal. Because it was a stupid post in a thread that could use less BS.

You replied with racist crap.

There's a slight difference.

Let's ignore that you could have been banned for NSFW content, or for not writing like an adult. Much like curse words, most of that stuff is ignored here.

But do we really need to put up with that and racists BS?


Quentil - 11-2-2016 at 12:42 AM

We should talk about how there's evidence that the Russian government and the Trump organization have had a secret private server running that only serves to transmit unknown data back and forth. And right before a lot of the Trump accusations, huge spikes in data sent from Russia's end was recorded.

And it'll stop all this dramatic raging hopefully, as well.


bopol - 11-2-2016 at 01:39 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
You can also say that the lack of action on Bubba's part led to Sept 11, 2001. They had a clear opportunity to get Bin Laden in Sudan and balked. The (non) response to the USS Cole attack can only be described as a complete joke. The runaway from Somalia was a disgrace. And the foot-dragging in both Rwanda and Bosnia led to the deaths of multiple hundreds of thousands of people that might have been prevented with a firm United States saying knock it the fuck off and then not leaving the half-assed interventions up to the UN and Europeans who botched everything they touched in both of those countries. Seriously, don't anyone ever condemn Trump for proposing a neo-isolationist foreign policy when Clinton 1 essentially put one into practice.


But remember that the United States did bomb a factory in Sudan targeting al Qaeda and it was bad intelligence and Clinton caught tremendous shit for it from the Republicans. I can understand being careful after being burned badly. As far as not playing the world's policeman, I take some issue with the idea that the United States needs to solve the all the world's problem. Bosnia is in Europe, but the Europeans didn't seem all that anxious to do shit to fix it and somehow it becomes Clinton's failure.

Trump doesn't really have policies, so I think saying that he is proposing a neo-isolationist foreign policy is giving him far too much credit.

quote:


I'm trying to not make any false equivalencies between Clinton and Trump which is why I clearly keep repeating that Trump is about the worse thing I've ever seen come out of politics in my entire life. Aside from the music scene there really wasn't all that much that was terrific about the 1990's. And the politics of the time were just as grotesque as they were before and are now. If anything the 90's were the height of baby boomerism, with the Clinton victories being their high-water mark like "yay, hooray, it's our turn now!". And nothing really changed all that much. It was the same old backroom song and dance for the insiders doing the Potomac Two-Step. And I still maintain that clique of absolute insider assholes that I mentioned before that surround the Clintons are going to cause her nothing but trouble if she wins. They're as filthy now as they were back then. It won't just be Limpbaugh and his hate-radio or a rag like the American Spectator going after them this time, it'll be the entire internet edifice of insanity that's built up over the last eight years of Obama that'll be in on the act too, and those rancid motherfuckers never sleep. What's worse is that here and there names like Blumenthal and McAuliffe are more than capable of doing enough dirty crap that ends up giving the loons on the right a justification for their existence.


I don't disagree with general criticism of boomers and I do think that Bill Clinton as president did not do as much to change things as try to seem above the fray (trianglism, I believe it was called). But, again, what exactly did Blumenthal and McAuliffe do to deserve the vitriol? They were political operatives. That's what they do. They weren't exceptional as evil people in politics go. If you ask me, I would say that Dick Cheney or Rahm Emmanuel are much worse than those two.


merc - 11-2-2016 at 03:20 AM

BFG the 90's reference was in reply to someone who invoked the goodness of the 90's. Not sure what, other than your piousness, identifies Trump's character as worse than Bill's. Both are lying womanizing power moguls. Clinton lied under oath and in violation of the Constitution he swore to uphold. Trump hasn't had the opportunity to do so yet and south of the border we still believe someone is innocent until proven guilty.

I know it doesn't fit your narrative.

And now I must go pummel myself with vigor for typing anything that defends DT. I hate myself.

ETA: before the pummeling begins, Cheney & Emmanual in the same boat. Curious...

One shot his hunting buddy in an exclusive club and the other is overseeing human hunting in his city. It is sad to see that our current Prez's hometown has just surpassed 600 murders...after recovering from my pummeling, I will be sad for one of my favorite cities.

[Edited on 11-2-2016 by merc]


GodEatGod - 11-2-2016 at 04:15 AM

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's the narcissism and the racism that make Trump's character obviously worse than Bill Clinton's. Hot take, I know. But please, when Bill Clinton starts retweeting @whitegenocide and Hillary gets endorsed by the Klan, feel free to treat them equivalently.


Cherokee Jack - 11-2-2016 at 04:37 AM

quote:
Trump hasn't had the opportunity to do so yet and south of the border we still believe someone is innocent until proven guilty.
Except...wasn't Bill acquitted? Therefore, not proven guilty?

Not saying that the man is without his faults, but kinda defies logic to defend Trump with "innocent until proven guilty" while meanwhile being all BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON TOTALLY DID ALL THESE CRIMES that they've been investigated/tried for and never found guilty of.

Even just consistency's sake, one kinda either needs to accept that there's probably some shady shit going on on the Trump side as well, or drop the whole "the Clintons are criminals" thing.


OOMike - 11-2-2016 at 12:36 PM

quote:
Originally posted by janerd75

Trump - Probably corrupt on a national scale. That goofy wall idea and getting into trade wars are just bonkers. But he has no real international pull other than a bunch of hotels and casinos everywhere. Yeah, he's sing-songy aboot making nice with Putin and 'negotiating', whatever the hell that means, but color me crazy I kinda prefer that to the alternative of a bunch of S-300's ripping our planes out of the sky over the Syria Hillary and Bammer helped destroy. Plus, with him we'd have the added bonus neither the lifer Republicans and Democrats working with him very easily. He'd constantly be surrounded and thwarted legislatively and might actually do something right by accident or intention.


Well unless you want to talk about how the only international leader that likes Trump is Putin. Our allies (you know our friends) are scared shitless that he wants to pull out of our treaties (you know the ones that have helped prevent WWIII). Not to mention that his answer to insure peace is more nukes in more countries, and making the US Military mercenaries for hire.

quote:

I guess I just don't understand why people want polished politicians who 'know what they are doing' instead of someone relatively outside the system. Yes, I know Trumpstain's a vulgarian and I can't readily understand what he's after when The Stream Of Consciousness diarrhea kicks in. But, he's a known commodity. It's easy to see what he is and is not. Hell, listen to old Stern broadcasts for some crude and rude awesomeness. And tell me you don't think it'd be cool to have a Pres-O-Dent that tackled Vinnie Mac at a WM? Not that stunner though. If anything should disqualify him from office it's that.



Yes why would you want someone with experience and knowledge of the job to take over the most important position in the free world? I mean if I guy talks well and has been successful in real estate I am sure he knows how to perform open heart surgery.


merc - 11-2-2016 at 01:03 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Cherokee Jack
quote:
Trump hasn't had the opportunity to do so yet and south of the border we still believe someone is innocent until proven guilty.
Except...wasn't Bill acquitted? Therefore, not proven guilty?

Not saying that the man is without his faults, but kinda defies logic to defend Trump with "innocent until proven guilty" while meanwhile being all BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON TOTALLY DID ALL THESE CRIMES that they've been investigated/tried for and never found guilty of.

Even just consistency's sake, one kinda either needs to accept that there's probably some shady shit going on on the Trump side as well, or drop the whole "the Clintons are criminals" thing.


Coupla things. Your extraction of my quote doesn't tie to BC. It's a simple fact that the USA judicial system holds anyone innocent until proven guilty. As there are Canadian posters here, BFG being one, I am unfamiliar with their guiding documents. There are GREAT variations in how freedom and rights iare viewed in "free" countries.

( but you do know Bill Clinton was impeached on 2/4 charges right? He was only the second Prez to be impeached.)

Second, I'm not a Hillary fan, but I don't think I've ever convicted her of crimes. I think when her lips move she is being untruthful significantly more than the average woman. I also think her strategy, cloned from her husband, of lie, deny, attack and ignore is quite effective until things like, in his case blue dresses are found. Time will tell, politics allowing, if there is a "blue dress" in her actions. And if those lies were whilst she was testifying...well that is illegal. Until then she's innocent.

As to her lying, currently there is a 13 minute video on YouTube of her interviews where she contradicts herself in different interviews. A search of "13 minutes of Hillary lying" will provide her being her. Bernie & Trump have both blown the campaign by not running 30 second spots with her contradicting herself. It's all out there and I am stunned by how people turn a blind eye. Maybe character matters less to the majority - for me it is now and always will be a deal breaker.

Third (ok one more than a coupla), if you reread my full post you are hard pressed to extract anything that endorses Trump. I agree with the majority of assessments here on his character. I'm also confident if elected he too will lie, not sure if it will be under oath - which happens to be a crime for Republicans too.

Here's how I see the choice in a simple analogy: Would you rather die by electrocution or lethal injection? Spin it anyway you want either way you are dead. That is not good.


OOMike - 11-2-2016 at 01:26 PM

Impeached = indicted. Has nothing to do with guilt, just means there is a formal accusation of a crime

Second, yes Hillary lies, however if you look at different fact checking websites you can see that Trump lies MUCH more than Hillary, one of them (politifact or factcheck I will look for a link) shows that Trump lies every three minutes in a standard stump speech.

Third, this has nothing to do with one is better than the other, just that it continues to bother me that people call out Hillary for lying, ignoring the fact that Trump is worse.

ETA: To me a better analogy would be would you rather get a root canal from a dentist that after graduating from school has had issues with lying or an accountant that has worked with dentists that also lies?

[Edited on 11-2-2016 by OOMike]


bopol - 11-2-2016 at 01:42 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
ETA: before the pummeling begins, Cheney & Emmanual in the same boat. Curious...

One shot his hunting buddy in an exclusive club and the other is overseeing human hunting in his city. It is sad to see that our current Prez's hometown has just surpassed 600 murders...after recovering from my pummeling, I will be sad for one of my favorite cities.




Both were/are political operatives that greatly damaged the President they were serving. I offer them as examples that the idea of Sidney Blumenthal (who somehow has become Satan) really isn't that bad.


OOMike - 11-2-2016 at 06:29 PM

Here is the latest update from Politifact:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/nov/01/truth-check-clinton-and-trump-truth-o-meter-1-week/

quote:

Trump:
True: 4.7%
Mostly True: 10.4%
Half True: 14.5%
Mostly False: 19.2%
False: 34%
Pants on Fire: 17.2%

Clinton:
True: 18.4%
Mostly True: 32.6%
Half True: 23.7%
Mostly False: 12.1%
False: 10.5%
Pants on Fire: 2.6%



So the narrative is that Clinton is a liar, everything she says is a lie and Trump is a straight shooter, however the numbers show that 13.1% of Clinton's statements are lies and 51.2% of Trump's are lies. Half of what Trump says is a lie.

If he wins I really hope the scary shit he wants to do fall in that 50%.


Chris Is Good517 - 11-2-2016 at 10:22 PM

Hey guys, didja know that we've now spent THREE TIMES as much time and resources investigating Benghazi as we did the Kennedy assassination, and yet they haven't found any wrongdoing on Hillary's part? This is going to sound crazy, but it's almost like maybe that was a shit situation and it wasn't her fault. I dunno.

But please, Republicans. Keep trying to die on that hill. Maybe the 63rd inquisition will be the one where something sticks.


Meanwhile, I keep hearing "Trump's not a politician, he's an outsider who's going to shake up Washington!" Yeah, that outsider who's going to shake things up idea makes for a good mantra until you apply it to things.

"My favorite professional sports team just hired this guy! He's never coached football in his life and can't name more than two players on his team, but he's going to shake up the NFL!"

"My local fire department just hired Lucas, the most popular freshman at the local junior high! He has no training whatsoever but he's going to shake up the fire department!"

"My open heart surgery is going to be performed by Frank, our neighborhood garbageman! He's going to shake up the hospital!"

BEING TRAINED AND QUALIFIED FOR A JOB IS IMPORTANT, YOU FUCKING KNOBS. Disliking Hillary is fine. I'm not going to talk you off that ledge. Frankly, if you would describe Hillary with words like "trustworthy" I'm already weary of you. She's corrupt and I acknowledge that. BUT SHE'S FUCKING QUALIFIED, AND CHESTER CHEETOH'S NAZI UNCLE IS NOT. This isn't goddamned American Idol. This is the immediate future of not only us but our children. There's no way to feel good about what you've done after walking into a voting booth next week, but there's one way that's demonstrably less painful than the other.


merc - 11-2-2016 at 10:35 PM

I like you OOMIke, I respect how you approach things and have learned from your posts.

You know it's coming

BUT

just because you read something on the interweb doesn't make it true. Here is a report that Your fact checking source made 13 pro Hillary errors in a single report. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess this report is grossly exaggerated, to save anyone the need to burn GB proving the report wrong.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/07/12/epic-humiliation-politifact-makes-13-errors-in-a-single-clinton-cash-fact-check/

I share because being noobs (not the OO Universe dooood) is what got Los Estados United in this predicament in the first place. Look and listen, make your own educated decision, but don't blindly follow or believe spin doctors. They are everywhere, even in Tampa Florida editor's offices.

And on a semi related rant, how the fuck do you people still debate with me using Trump is worse? I can't give a pimple on a rats ass worth of care about him. I'm not buying either of these choices. They both fucking suck and, in the case of leader of the free world, less sucky is not a valid reason to support.

I am so over these two fucking idiots and anyone who presents either in a positive light. So I am moving on...

Now on to a fun political tidbit. I live in NH, a political mishmash, but pretty engaged. We have a D woman governor and a R female senator running for senate. The first time F-F campaigning for Senate has happened btw. It happens I have voted for both in their current roles, in fact voted for the D governor more than once.

The race is being called the closest in the country. Or was. A week ago it was reported that Hillary, confident in her lead, had directed PAC money to support Maggie over Kelly.. To the tune of MILLIONS of dollars. I have heard on TV 3M and I read 10M. But in a small state a fuckload, in fact so much money that they are buying spots on Boston TV cuz they can't spend it all on NH stations. Here's a shocker, all the PAC money is running negative ads...Kelly kills old people, women and veterans apparently and sleeps with wall st. and oil. If you go 30 minutes without hearing that she eats children and is responsible for famine on Mars then you have no electronics on. Hell it has even invaded my online game ads; no shit I've stopped playing criminal case because of the anti Kelly ads.

My prediction is Kelly wins her seat fairly easily as more and more yard signs are popping up for her over the last week. It's sad to see a very good woman in Maggie succumb to partisan politics; I think that will sink her boat. It has with me.


bigfatgoalie - 11-2-2016 at 11:42 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
And on a semi related rant, how the fuck do you people still debate with me using Trump is worse? I can't give a pimple on a rats ass worth of care about him. I'm not buying either of these choices. They both fucking suck and, in the case of leader of the free world, less sucky is not a valid reason to support.

I am so over these two fucking idiots and anyone who presents either in a positive light. So I am moving on...



Because he is. And before you just think that's coming from some self righteous Canadian ass hat, consider where most of the hate for Hillary comes from.

As CIG and Mike pointed out, a lot of time and tax dollars has been wasted on establishing that the Clinton's are the devil. Hillary sucks in that she's overtly guarded because she's been tossed through the ringer so many times over bs. She likes being wealthy, and doesn't always act fast enough to embrace progressive thinking.

Take the email fucking servers. While it's been well established that other Secretary of States have used private email servers...it was the worst thing ever if you believe Republicans. GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz has personally promised to investigate this matter to remove Clinton from office if she gets elected. Know what is funny about that? Chaffetz is now being investigated for using a personal email account.

And yet there's no Republican led charge against Chaffetz. There's no uproar that maybe ALL persons being sent classified intelligence should be investigated.

Why? Because it's not something a member of the GOP can use in an AD or stump speech to show they care about the right. It's not something that will show the right how they are TRUE AMERICANS. To borrow a phrase from you, it doesn't fit their narrative.

The emails. Benghazi. The number one reason that these are concerns aren't because of corruption...but because they can rile up the right and help down ballot GOP members get elected.

Meanwhile Trump's tax plan is terrible, his health plan will ensure the system gets worse and the number of folks covered decreases significantly, he denies climate change, he lies about NAFTA causing a decline in manufacturing jobs (economists state the main cause for declines since the 70s is automation)...and that's before you debate his morals. He could be the world's greatest guy and he would still be a worse candidate than Hillary based on what little policy he has talked about. Hell, by all accounts Bernie Sanders is a better person, but that doesn't mean he was a better candidate than Clinton.

As for another reason people keep debating this...some folks are generally concerned about Trump being in power. We've all ready seen the GOP embrace him. The belief that congress or the senate will keep him in check is weak. There's more evidenc to suggest that they will fall in line to look strong to their base. That's fucking scary if you are not white, male, straight, and wealthy...or even simply if you care about people who don't fall under that group.


Cherokee Jack - 11-3-2016 at 03:51 AM

quote:
As for another reason people keep debating this...some folks are generally concerned about Trump being in power. We've all ready seen the GOP embrace him. The belief that congress or the senate will keep him in check is weak. There's more evidenc to suggest that they will fall in line to look strong to their base. That's fucking scary if you are not white, male, straight, and wealthy...or even simply if you care about people who don't fall under that group.
Case in point: all of the GOP congressional dipshits (including their leader, Speaker of the Dipshits Paul Ryan) that have put out statements akin to "I will not endorse Donald Trump, but he has my vote." Hey dipshit: when you issue a public statement declaring that a candidate has your vote, that is an endorsement.

And it won't stop there if the man is elected. The only reason to put out a chickenshit statement like that is to try and pretend like you're distancing yourself while making sure not to turn the Trump true believers against you. So when you're in a safe Republican gerrymandered district where your only electoral fear is getting primaried from the right, are you going to suddenly stop worrying about those people?

Of course, if the story that came out of the Kasich camp is true, it's just as possible that Pence would essentially be the president in all but title...which still leaves the fucking scary part of BFG's post just as relevant.


OOMike - 11-3-2016 at 01:07 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
I like you OOMIke, I respect how you approach things and have learned from your posts.

You know it's coming

BUT

just because you read something on the interweb doesn't make it true. Here is a report that Your fact checking source made 13 pro Hillary errors in a single report. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess this report is grossly exaggerated, to save anyone the need to burn GB proving the report wrong.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/07/12/epic-humiliation-politifact-makes-13-errors-in-a-single-clinton-cash-fact-check/




First, I can't open your link because my computer at work blocks the site as a security risk. Second, I share a non-partisan site that is referenced by both the left and the right and you respond with the site founded and run by the man running the Trump campaign, so excuse me for doubting it before I can read it (which I can't). Third, I brought up politifact to show that Trump lies over half the time, if they got one Clinton fact check wrong, okay, but where are all the arguments that all those Trump statements are actually true? Hell I heard him complain that most of his workers are being screwed over by Obamacare at 9:30am during a speech and at 10:00am when one of the managers spoke after Trump he said that most of the workers have private insurance and are not impacted by Obamacare.

quote:

I share because being noobs (not the OO Universe dooood) is what got Los Estados United in this predicament in the first place. Look and listen, make your own educated decision, but don't blindly follow or believe spin doctors. They are everywhere, even in Tampa Florida editor's offices.


You do know that the fact check site has the links to the sources of the information right? That you can (and I do) go and look at the source material. In fact any fact check article that does not provide references to support their information I am naturally doubtful.

ETA:
quote:

The race is being called the closest in the country. Or was. A week ago it was reported that Hillary, confident in her lead, had directed PAC money to support Maggie over Kelly.. To the tune of MILLIONS of dollars. I have heard on TV 3M and I read 10M. But in a small state a fuckload, in fact so much money that they are buying spots on Boston TV cuz they can't spend it all on NH stations. Here's a shocker, all the PAC money is running negative ads...Kelly kills old people, women and veterans apparently and sleeps with wall st. and oil. If you go 30 minutes without hearing that she eats children and is responsible for famine on Mars then you have no electronics on. Hell it has even invaded my online game ads; no shit I've stopped playing criminal case because of the anti Kelly ads.

My prediction is Kelly wins her seat fairly easily as more and more yard signs are popping up for her over the last week. It's sad to see a very good woman in Maggie succumb to partisan politics; I think that will sink her boat. It has with me.



I know, the balls of outside organizations coming into your state with millions of dollars to support one candidate, it is just so upsetting.

https://morningconsult.com/alert/rove-aligned-group-splashing-16-million-new-hampshire-senate-race/
quote:
The Granite State Solutions PAC – a political action fund aligned with a network of organizations linked to Republican operative Karl Rove – said it will drop nearly $16 million in New Hampshire over the next two months in an effort to help Sen. Kelly Ayotte win re-election.


[Edited on 11-3-2016 by OOMike]


Paddlefoot - 11-4-2016 at 04:54 AM

Maybe it's me, what with the shorter days and longer dark right now, but a depressive wave hit me like a ton of bricks today and this fucking election was at the root of it. Just thinking of what's going to happen if that goddamn maniac wins knocked me back pretty badly. Not scared, just appalled. Like, this is as low as I've ever seen anything in my adult life. If he wins basically everything I ever admired and loved about the United States will be dead. When he unleashed both economic and foreign policy disaster I don't think I'd be able to have any pity for Americans any more, as in "fuck you, you voted for him knowing exactly what he is like as a person, you deserve what you get". Not like with Bush Junior, because at least it was Sept 11 that led him towards what he did. With Trump there won't be anything like that as a pretext, he'll just do it because on the inside he's a big bag of poison.


bopol - 11-4-2016 at 01:33 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
Maybe it's me, what with the shorter days and longer dark right now, but a depressive wave hit me like a ton of bricks today and this fucking election was at the root of it. Just thinking of what's going to happen if that goddamn maniac wins knocked me back pretty badly. Not scared, just appalled. Like, this is as low as I've ever seen anything in my adult life. If he wins basically everything I ever admired and loved about the United States will be dead. When he unleashed both economic and foreign policy disaster I don't think I'd be able to have any pity for Americans any more, as in "fuck you, you voted for him knowing exactly what he is like as a person, you deserve what you get". Not like with Bush Junior, because at least it was Sept 11 that led him towards what he did. With Trump there won't be anything like that as a pretext, he'll just do it because on the inside he's a big bag of poison.


I have been shocked that so many Americans are willing to vote for Trump and sad for my country.

That said, you have to keep in mind that the media (main-stream) has totally failed us by their coverage of the election as a sideshow. The headlines have all been about the Trump's behavior and Clinton's email (and Clinton's emails have been headlines for better than a month of this campaign despite the fact that NOTHING has come of them). They can't talk about policy because Trump has no policies to compare Clinton's to. It's pathetic.


merc - 11-4-2016 at 06:17 PM

quote:
Originally posted by bopol They can't talk about policy because Trump has no policies to compare to whichever side of an issue Clinton claims to be on today. It's pathetic.


Fixed that for ya. No charge - edit coming with a link.
https://youtu.be/7syNUYAXHwo

OOM!
Thanks for that link. I'll be honest, the ads are running a lot to a little bashing Kelly. I was at the DMV yesterday afternoon & this morning with youngest son getting his license (he passed) and ads were playing on TV. There was a general comment made about the negativity and several jumped in on how bad it was. Broad spectrum of demographics and based on response Maggie's "helpers" aren't doing her any favors. Maybe they stick out because they are just nasty? Today a new one. Apparently Kelly has raised the price of drugs to let old ladies die. I'd guess some other politicians might be involved but guess not.

[Edited on 11-4-2016 by merc]


bopol - 11-5-2016 at 03:58 AM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
quote:
Originally posted by bopol They can't talk about policy because Trump has no policies to compare to whichever side of an issue Clinton claims to be on today. It's pathetic.


Fixed that for ya. No charge - edit coming with a link.
https://youtu.be/7syNUYAXHwo

OOM!
Thanks for that link. I'll be honest, the ads are running a lot to a little bashing Kelly. I was at the DMV yesterday afternoon & this morning with youngest son getting his license (he passed) and ads were playing on TV. There was a general comment made about the negativity and several jumped in on how bad it was. Broad spectrum of demographics and based on response Maggie's "helpers" aren't doing her any favors. Maybe they stick out because they are just nasty? Today a new one. Apparently Kelly has raised the price of drugs to let old ladies die. I'd guess some other politicians might be involved but guess not.

[Edited on 11-4-2016 by merc]


Hey, thanks for changing my words and then not addressing what I really said, which is that Trump has no policies with a Youtube video and a story about New Hampshire politics.


CVD39 - 11-5-2016 at 01:08 PM

Fucking Christ, this asshole can't win, right? RIGHT?

Unless you're a straight, white rich guy that's not empathetic to others and the state of the earth, how could you possibly vote for this human turd? Even Christians are voting for this fucking guy. I know Jesus and 21st century Christians have little in common besides being prolife and little else but c'mon, Trump? Jesus'd be laughing his holy butt off if he came back and took a look around. Then he'd probably hammer in the nails himself to get it over with quicker because a base supporting Trump would obviously have it's sights set on crucifying any and everyone that doesn't wholeheartedly obey this megalomaniac. Heavy on the megalo, heavier on the maniac

95% certain the people of America don't fall for it and/or this will be a domination that is just passed off as closer so the media can make one last cash grab of the political season but ohhhhhh my, the 5% has me shitting proverbial bricks. And if he wins, they won't stay proverbial.


Cherokee Jack - 11-5-2016 at 02:44 PM

Better start drinking the prune juice now. Even if this election ends up being what passes for a landslide these days, in all likelihood Trump is taking at least 40+% of the popular vote and somewhere around 200+ electoral votes. And that is probably in a best-case scenario for people that want him nowhere near the White House.


merc - 11-5-2016 at 06:28 PM

quote:
Originally posted by bopol
quote:
Originally posted by merc
quote:
Originally posted by bopol They can't talk about policy because Trump has no policies to compare to whichever side of an issue Clinton claims to be on today. It's pathetic.


Fixed that for ya. No charge - edit coming with a link.
https://youtu.be/7syNUYAXHwo

OOM!
Thanks for that link. I'll be honest, the ads are running a lot to a little bashing Kelly. I was at the DMV yesterday afternoon & this morning with youngest son getting his license (he passed) and ads were playing on TV. There was a general comment made about the negativity and several jumped in on how bad it was. Broad spectrum of demographics and based on response Maggie's "helpers" aren't doing her any favors. Maybe they stick out because they are just nasty? Today a new one. Apparently Kelly has raised the price of drugs to let old ladies die. I'd guess some other politicians might be involved but guess not.

[Edited on 11-4-2016 by merc]


Hey, thanks for changing my words and then not addressing what I really said, which is that Trump has no policies with a Youtube video and a story about New Hampshire politics.


My pleasure!
I'm sure you read the parts of my post where I denounce trump and refuse to defend him. Unlike many here, I'm not ignoring how rancid my typical drink is. Frankly it's embarrassing that so many Americans are swallowing the HRC swill being served. And yes I'm ignoring Canadians cuz they can't vote.


Cherokee Jack - 11-5-2016 at 07:19 PM

Here's what I (and I assume many others) stand on Hillary:

Is she an exciting or inspiring candidate? No. But she is competent and qualified. That last part is very important. Qualified.

It isn't just a party/ideology thing. If you look at the republican side of the candidate pool, there are a lot of them that, even if I think they'd be terrible presidents and they'd never have my vote, at least meet SOME base level of qualification. John Kasich, Jeb Bush, even a Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. They have some experience with government, they understand how government works, they are actually capable of discussing policy in terms other than "I have all the best plans, it's gonna be great, you're gonna love it." Donald Trump does not meet any level of qualification for this office (unless you count being rich, white and angry, which sadly seems to be enough for a lot of people).

And if the "Pence will do all the actual presidential work" theory is true, then that's simply someone I don't want near the presidency. I really don't want to live in a theocracy, thanks.

Hillary's is plenty qualified, and I think she will at least be a decent president, possibly very good. Worst case scenario is that she essentially continues what Obama's been doing, which is fine with me. All the "scandals" around her don't bother me because it's largely a bunch of made-up/blown-up shit by a group of people that have been trying to kill her political career for the last couple of decades. Her foreign policy may be a bit hawkish for my tastes, but that's still a far cry from a candidate openly advocating for war crimes.

So yes, Hillary is a candidate that I'm comfortable with, if not excited about. And the Trump factor does matter, because the notion of him being president goes beyond "I don't think he'd do a very good job." The notion of him being president is scary and dangerous. So while I could look for a third party candidate that more precisely lines up with my worldview, as a friend of mine wrote on facebook "this is an election for voting pragmatically, not ideologically."


bopol - 11-6-2016 at 04:30 AM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
My pleasure!
I'm sure you read the parts of my post where I denounce trump and refuse to defend him. Unlike many here, I'm not ignoring how rancid my typical drink is. Frankly it's embarrassing that so many Americans are swallowing the HRC swill being served. And yes I'm ignoring Canadians cuz they can't vote.


I tend to agree with what Cherokee Jack wrote. The fact is we can't have an honest debate about the policies of the two candidates because one candidate has no policies, so I guess the media doesn't cover it because it isn't fair. I don't know. Over the weekend where the FBI director inserted himself into the election with a clear violation of the Hatch Act, the coverage on Clinton's emails was 3x the coverage of her policies. And that's been this entire election. And, you know what, that's on Trump and the Republicans. The Republicans chose to nominate someone who insulted his way through the primary. They wanted anger. They got anger. They didn't get policies. They didn't get a qualified candidate. But they got anger.

So, at the end, the choice is between someone who I have absolutely no idea what he will do as President but hasn't thought twice about saying he'll break international law by bringing back torture (waterboarding and more), that he'll attack the families of terrorists, that has bribed public officials that are investigating him, that he regularly rips off his contractor, that he can barely state a coherent thought and someone who at least seems to be a regular national politician. Basically, the Republicans ran an 8th grade basketball player and the Democrats ran Kevin Love. Is Kevin Love the best player in the world? No. But I think he's a lot better than an 8th grader. And that's what this election is.

Maybe next election, the Republicans will nominate someone good and we can have a thoughtful discussion on the finer intricacies of their policies and what we be best for America.

In the meantime, I hope she wins and I hope she turns into a good President, but I never thought I'd be voting for her or that she'd have a chance to win.


merc - 11-6-2016 at 09:38 PM

I like your Kevin Love v. 8th grade comparison, although I think you reached too high on both sides.


bigfatgoalie - 11-6-2016 at 10:13 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
I like your Kevin Love v. 8th grade comparison, although I think you reached too high on both sides.


How about Tom Brady vs Johnny Football? One has a bunch of scandals because people hate them...the other is a joke who talks about wealth and abuses women.

And the reason I think a lot of non-Americans are so involved and interested in the election is because it has a huge impact on us as well. With the added fuck you that we have no control over it. It's how I imagine a honour student who will turn 18 in December feels right now. They can be informed, they can try to share and debate the information out there...and they know they have to sit back and watch while people who don't do anything but like for a (R) or (D) beside a candidate can actually vote.


Paddlefoot - 11-6-2016 at 10:20 PM

Don't know anyone on the entire planet that shouldn't be concerned with the thought of a massive nuclear arsenal coming under the control of brattish 70-year-old man-child with the same temperment as Caligula.


janerd75 - 11-7-2016 at 12:08 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
Don't know anyone on the entire planet that shouldn't be concerned with the thought of a massive nuclear arsenal coming under the control of brattish 70-year-old man-child with the same temperment as Caligula.


Well hell, that's just part of the fun guessing who's gonna get glassed. Payed for those fuckers may as well use 'em. You Canadiennes just don't 'preciate blowin' shit up real gud like we do down here in God's Country.

In other news, Jandog's wiener got deflated when Comey became a good guy, agayn, and let Her Innocence off the hook. Agayn.

http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/fbi-stands-by-decision-not-to-charge-clinton-after-review-of-additional-emails/

Man, did I ever back the wrong guy for Prez. There was nothing there and there never was. Hillybeans truly is the most qualified person to run for office in the history of office running, save for the guy before her of course, and I have to admit I was 100% wrong with all this funny business I've been up to. Any chance I can dump the Trump this late in the game and crawl back under grandmammy's skirt and ride her snuke to glory? Ol' Janburgers was just joshin' around, fellas. Please take me back. Pls.


merc - 11-7-2016 at 12:57 AM

quote:
Originally posted by bigfatgoalie
quote:
Originally posted by merc
I like your Kevin Love v. 8th grade comparison, although I think you reached too high on both sides.


How about Tom Brady vs Johnny Football?


You take that back.


bopol - 11-7-2016 at 03:30 AM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
quote:
Originally posted by bigfatgoalie
quote:
Originally posted by merc
I like your Kevin Love v. 8th grade comparison, although I think you reached too high on both sides.


How about Tom Brady vs Johnny Football?


You take that back.


Yeah, Johnny Manziel has/had the potential to be a decent NFL quarterback if he could get himself under control. Donald Trump has no potential to be President or anything resembling a public servant even if he got himself under control.

I still think Kevin Love is a good comparison to Clinton - very good but not great NBA player. More a person that would end up in the middle of the pack in the Senate (where I thought she'd end up for the rest of her career).


Thom - 11-7-2016 at 03:34 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
I like your Kevin Love v. 8th grade comparison, although I think you reached too high on both sides.


How about "whomever the 8th man on the Phoenix Suns is vs. the toddler that just put his first ball through a hoop, but didn't let go?"


GodEatGod - 11-7-2016 at 09:01 PM

quote:
Originally posted by janerd75


Man, did I ever back the wrong guy for Prez. There was nothing there and there never was. Hillybeans truly is the most qualified person to run for office in the history of office running, save for the guy before her of course, and I have to admit I was 100% wrong with all this funny business I've been up to. Any chance I can dump the Trump this late in the game and crawl back under grandmammy's skirt and ride her snuke to glory? Ol' Janburgers was just joshin' around, fellas. Please take me back. Pls.




[Edited on 11-7-2016 by GodEatGod]


Paddlefoot - 11-7-2016 at 09:47 PM

I say we keep him. Look how sad he is!


janerd75 - 11-7-2016 at 10:36 PM

quote:
Originally posted by GodEatGod
quote:
Originally posted by janerd75


Man, did I ever back the wrong guy for Prez. There was nothing there and there never was. Hillybeans truly is the most qualified person to run for office in the history of office running, save for the guy before her of course, and I have to admit I was 100% wrong with all this funny business I've been up to. Any chance I can dump the Trump this late in the game and crawl back under grandmammy's skirt and ride her snuke to glory? Ol' Janburgers was just joshin' around, fellas. Please take me back. Pls.




[Edited on 11-7-2016 by GodEatGod]





Cherokee Jack - 11-8-2016 at 09:22 PM

Couple days late, but here's one...

The Trump campaign in Nevada has filed suit, alleging that early voting locations were illegally kept open late. The people running the station say that nothing illegal happened, that they only stayed open to accommodate people that were already in line at the time polls closed (which is allowed), and that the approx. 2 hour wait time is what kept them open till around 10.

The money quote?

quote:
"Last night, in Clark County, they kept a poll open 'til 10 o'clock at night so a certain group could vote," McDonald said

A CERTAIN GROUP.


merc - 11-9-2016 at 04:02 AM

So here in God's country the local dem analysts have about conceded Gov., Senate & one congressional seat with a foreboding of...it all lines up for a Trump win.

The local republican analysts are just smiling....


OOMike - 11-9-2016 at 04:32 AM

Fuck


the goon - 11-9-2016 at 04:41 AM

You know, I don't claim to have called it or 100% predicted it, but a Trump win just kinda felt inevitable to me. It's like I was hoping beyond hope he wouldn't win, but deep down inside knew he was going to be our next president.

I think people may have just underestimated the unwavering support for Trump and the unwavering hatred/disillusion for Hillary.


Paddlefoot - 11-9-2016 at 04:45 AM

Anyone vomited yet? I came close to doing so earlier.


CM Crunk - 11-9-2016 at 05:06 AM

Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

As I'm typing this Clinton's percentages for winning have bounced between 44% and 52% on FiveThirtyEight. I can only imagine how anybody feels watching the live cable news coverage of this shitshow considering how on edge and crestfallen I feel right now. I swore off the cable news stuff to avoid the anxiety and I'm honestly a wreck right now without Wolf Blitzer's help.


bigfatgoalie - 11-9-2016 at 05:21 AM

Looking at numbers right now, it looks like people who supported Gary Johnson over Clinton in Michigan and Wisconsin are going to elect Trump.

And hearing exit poll results is dumbfounding.

Ohio voters listed the economy as their main concern...and they picked Trump?!?!?


Paddlefoot - 11-9-2016 at 05:30 AM

Someone up here said the Immigration Canada government website temporarily crashed due to the number of views from Americans it's had in the last three hours.


punkerhardcore - 11-9-2016 at 05:32 AM

Eh. I was actually MUCH more upset when Bush won his second term in 2004. As awful as I know this is, I just don't think my Grinch heart cares that much anymore.


merc - 11-9-2016 at 05:32 AM

Just one little state, but apparently those educated rich white folks did not support Trump here. So I'll clear my U2U inbox for your apologies as you guys have really been ass hats in your holier than thou proclamations.

It seems non college educated blue collar folks are going Trump big time. That's throwing all the polling into WTF range. Both congressional districts were predicted to go D. As I type this both are slightly R...on Trump coat tails. who knew the ass wore a coat. Jim Lawrence is the shocker there if it holds; a black republican in a white state...fucking racists...oh wait, no that doesn't work. Chauvinistic pigs...wait 2 female senators....holy shit how can we condemn? Maybe they voted for the best person?

The Kelly negative ads, by PACS have fucked Maggie. YAFUCKINHOO. Maybe PACS will be marginalized (he prays).

Gov. goes republican as he get the rich white folks and blue collar indies (again trump coat tails).

That's where it stands looking into micro results at 11:30. I still think there could be a dem swing on one congressional seat. But I think Trump takes it in a way no political view saw. That's why no one is calling it yet.

I'm stunned, as I fully expected a woman presidential nominee at the end of this all...

And regardless of who wins, I'm not happy.


the goon - 11-9-2016 at 05:39 AM

Silver lining, at least for me: I just want to see what's gonna happen with Trump as president. Like, it could be horrible and we'll all be nuked to death in six months. But if we're not, and the country doesn't improve over the next few years, I just want to see how long the devoted, unwavering Trump followers will stick with him.

I mean, right now you literally cannot insult the guy amongst his most ardent followers. No matter what he says or does, the general response is "fuck you, Hillary is a corrupt bitch!" But say, two or three years from now and things haven't improved in America? And Trump hasn't stomped out ISIS? Or built that wall? Or eliminated crime? Or, heaven forbid, made America great again? I'm just curious to see what his followers will say then.


janerd75 - 11-9-2016 at 05:40 AM






anglefan85 - 11-9-2016 at 07:02 AM

Here's what we could potentially lose, in no particular order with a Trump-appointedd Supreme Court:

Affordable Care Act
Roe V. Wade
Marriage equality
Net Neutrality
Earned Income Credit

Not to mention Trump wanting to pull out of NATO, wanting to go after freedom of the press, wanting to pass a bill into law that would allow LGBT individuals to be discriminated based on religious beliefs, and being a denier of climate change.

Well America, this is what you've chosen. Now live with it.

Ball's in your court now, Republicans. No pressure, right?

[Edited on 11-9-2016 by anglefan85]


Paddlefoot - 11-9-2016 at 07:27 AM

So, what are the oddsmakers saying about how long it takes him to go full-bore Greg Stillson?





[Edited on 11/9/2016 by Paddlefoot]


janerd75 - 11-9-2016 at 10:35 AM





[Edited on 11-9-2016 by janerd75]


OOMike - 11-9-2016 at 01:38 PM

To all the OOsters that are in Canada, I would like some information on moving to Canada, so anything you can share about where to look for jobs, affordable places to live, etc.

You can message me, I don't want to share that information with the people that would elect Trump president (more importantly all the competition of people who didn't).


OOMike - 11-9-2016 at 01:41 PM

quote:
Originally posted by anglefan85
Here's what we could potentially lose, in no particular order with a Trump-appointedd Supreme Court:

Affordable Care Act
Roe V. Wade
Marriage equality
Net Neutrality
Earned Income Credit

Not to mention Trump wanting to pull out of NATO, wanting to go after freedom of the press, wanting to pass a bill into law that would allow LGBT individuals to be discriminated based on religious beliefs, and being a denier of climate change.

[Edited on 11-9-2016 by anglefan85]


Plus environmental regulations, Trade Agreements, plus impose new duties, gay conversion therapy, increasing spending, cutting taxes.


merc - 11-9-2016 at 01:54 PM

quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
To all the OOsters that are in Canada, I would like some information on moving to Canada, so anything you can share about where to look for jobs, affordable places to live, etc.

You can message me, I don't want to share that information with the people that would elect Trump president (more importantly all the competition of people who didn't).


If I were moving north, I'd follow Sharpton, Miley & Snoop to start.

At least you can still post here.

[Edited on 11-9-2016 by merc]


Paddlefoot - 11-9-2016 at 04:10 PM

quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
To all the OOsters that are in Canada, I would like some information on moving to Canada, so anything you can share about where to look for jobs, affordable places to live, etc.

You can message me, I don't want to share that information with the people that would elect Trump president (more importantly all the competition of people who didn't).


The bombs will drop here too. There is no escape for any of us.


Kareem Ofweet - 11-9-2016 at 08:54 PM

It's fun watching the left have a complete, collective meltdown and show their true colors because you didn't get your way. Only 24 hours ago, you little bed wetters and self-castrated nu-males were having pre-ordainment parties.


Paddlefoot - 11-9-2016 at 09:11 PM

Are you one of those guys who posts on Daily Stormer about how the 19th Amendment should be repealed so women can't vote anymore?


bopol - 11-9-2016 at 09:26 PM

Well, I am trying to hope he will somehow be a good President. I just can't see it though.

I'm not sure if I think the people that voted for Trump are going to get what they want to out of Trump. It's kind of sad, but I guess anger > hope.


royberto - 11-9-2016 at 10:00 PM

quote:
Originally posted by anglefan85
Here's what we could potentially lose, in no particular order with a Trump-appointedd Supreme Court:

Affordable Care Act

Parts of that will be repealed by executive order. The rest will be done in congress. Supreme Court doesn't come into play here

quote:

Roe V. Wade

Overturning that requires a consitutional amendment. Not going to happen.
quote:

Marriage equality

See Roe v. Wade

quote:

Net Neutrality
Earned Income Credit

Trump won't touch either. He has bigger fish to fry.

quote:

Not to mention Trump wanting to pull out of NATO, wanting to go after freedom of the press, wanting to pass a bill into law that would allow LGBT individuals to be discriminated based on religious beliefs, and being a denier of climate change.

COurts will block that. Not going to happen.

quote:

Well America, this is what you've chosen. Now live with it.

I am fine with it. Time to undo the damage done by Obama.

quote:

Ball's in your court now, Republicans. No pressure, right?

They are well aware of it.


Matte - 11-9-2016 at 10:47 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Kareem Ofweet
It's fun watching the left have a complete, collective meltdown and show their true colors because you didn't get your way. Only 24 hours ago, you little bed wetters and self-castrated nu-males were having pre-ordainment parties.

People are real dicks when it comes to politics. This kind of things makes people look very immature.


bigfatgoalie - 11-10-2016 at 12:09 AM

Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic to Lead EPA Transition

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/

quote:

Donald Trump has selected one of the best-known climate skeptics to lead his U.S. EPA transition team, according to two sources close to the campaign.
Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, is spearheading Trump’s transition plans for EPA, the sources said.
The Trump team has also lined up leaders for its Energy Department and Interior Department teams. Republican energy lobbyist Mike McKenna is heading the DOE team; former Interior Department solicitor David Bernhardt is leading the effort for that agency, according to sources close to the campaign.
Ebell is a well-known and polarizing figure in the energy and environment realm. His participation in the EPA transition signals that the Trump team is looking to drastically reshape the climate policies the agency has pursued under the Obama administration. Ebell’s role is likely to infuriate environmentalists and Democrats but buoy critics of Obama’s climate rules.
Ebell, who was dubbed an “elegant nerd” and a “policy wonk” by Vanity Fair, is known for his prolific writings that question what he calls climate change “alarmism.” He appears frequently in the media and before Congress. He’s also chairman of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a group of nonprofits that “question global warming alarmism and oppose energy-rationing policies.”
Ebell appears to relish criticism from the left.



But no, but Trump and Clinton were horrible choices.


chretienbabacool - 11-10-2016 at 01:47 AM

quote:
I am fine with it. Time to undo the damage done by Obama.


I am very confident that with the hindsight of history Obama will go down as one of the better presidents we've had in this country, especially after a Trump presidency.

quote:
They are well aware of it.


Considering how eagerly the Republicans lapped up the idea that Trump was a straight shooter despite the fact that non-partisan sites had him as one of the biggest liars in politics, reality is one of the last things I would subscribe to the Republican party. This is a dude who has consistently lied about his track record in finances and personal life while screwing over countless people who have worked for him and believing that he will be able to do anything of the things he has promised is one of the most moronic things I've ever heard.

Also he's going to be able to nominate a disastor to the Supreme Court so you thinking the court is going to block some of the things he will set out to do is questionable. We are in for a disastrous 4 years (unless you're a white, Christian male maybe and I guess maybe that was the whole point?).


anglefan85 - 11-10-2016 at 02:30 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Matte
quote:
Originally posted by Kareem Ofweet
It's fun watching the left have a complete, collective meltdown and show their true colors because you didn't get your way. Only 24 hours ago, you little bed wetters and self-castrated nu-males were having pre-ordainment parties.

People are real dicks when it comes to politics. This kind of things makes people look very immature.


It doesn't matter what cause you're fighting for. If you're being a dick, you're doing yourself a disservice.


merc - 11-10-2016 at 03:32 AM

“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” – President Obama to House Republican Whip Eric Cantor, January 23, 2009.

I recall the reporting, but am not positive this is an accurate quote, via realclearpolitics, but similar on Washington Post and other sites. I don't recall great outcry or protests on the sentiment.


Paddlefoot - 11-10-2016 at 03:37 AM

quote:
Originally posted by merc I don't recall great outcry or protests on the sentiment.


That's because, whatever his flaws were, Barack Obama isn't a fucking narcissistic psychopath. Unlike Donald Trump.


janerd75 - 11-10-2016 at 03:46 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Matte
quote:
Originally posted by Kareem Ofweet
It's fun watching the left have a complete, collective meltdown and show their true colors because you didn't get your way. Only 24 hours ago, you little bed wetters and self-castrated nu-males were having pre-ordainment parties.

People are real dicks when it comes to politics. This kind of things makes people look very immature.


Just shove a hot throbbing rod of black Kryptonite in his face and he'll crawl back under his trailer and furiously wankweep for his unrequited love of BBC.


merc - 11-10-2016 at 03:59 AM

quote:
Originally posted by PaddlefootThat's because, whatever his flaws were, Barack Obama isn't a fucking narcissistic psychopath. Unlike Donald Trump.


A professional opinion? Sure offered as if you are a PH.D.
OOMIke here's proof positive that Canada's mental health system is not good. Stay buckeye true!

On another note I have a large group of Bern friends...in fact most of my closest outspoken political friends are Bern folks. This link is trending for them:

https://medium.com/@trentlapinski/dear-democrats-read-this-if-you-do-not-understand-why-trump-won-5a0cdb13c597#.yvvhgr3ww


Paddlefoot - 11-10-2016 at 04:15 AM

Just because you choose not to see doesn't mean it's not real. You talk about the first President Bush. Are you aware that there are no longer men like that inside the GOP to keep someone like Trump contained, that he basically has a free-for-all waiting in front of him to do whatever he wants whenever he wants? Do you seriously think that he'll be contained by the limits of the constitution, when he's so openly proud of having broken any rule or law that he's ever encountered in the course of his selfish and miserable life?

I take back what I said about Sept 11. This is worse than Sept 11. This is the single worst thing I've ever seen in my entire life. The damage will be incalculable and will never be repaired. There's no coming back from this one, no redemption possible ever. You haven't just destroyed your own country with this idiocy, you've wrecked the rest of us too.

[Edited on 11/10/2016 by Paddlefoot]


punkerhardcore - 11-10-2016 at 04:27 AM

quote:
Originally posted by merc

On another note I have a large group of Bern friends...in fact most of my closest outspoken political friends are Bern folks. This link is trending for them:

https://medium.com/@trentlapinski/dear-democrats-read-this-if-you-do-not-understand-why-trump-won-5a0cdb13c597#.yvvhgr3ww


I took one look at the author's photo thumbnail at the top of that article, and knew I could never take anything he's written seriously.

Also-- I don't even dislike Bernie Sanders, but he never, ever would have fucking won. No chance.


the goon - 11-10-2016 at 07:04 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
Just because you choose not to see doesn't mean it's not real.


That's what I don't get about a lot of Trump followers. The guy is obviously batshit insane, a complete egomaniac/narcissist, and full of shit. But people either just don't see it or don't care. Like, I truly don't understand what the draw of Donald Trump is...if this were Brad Pitt running for president, being charming as fuck, then sure. But a guy who's painted orange, has horribly bizarre/fake hair, has been married three times, won't release his tax returns, has zero political experience, makes insane tweets at three in the morning, has made sexual innuendos about his own daughter, and has filed for multiple bankruptcies? That is your fucking savior? What the fuck is it about this guy that gives you such a massive 'Murica boner? I just...I can't.

But I guess a certain sect of America has gotten so disillusioned and/or are clamoring for the white Christian male to retain their grip on power that this is what you get.


Matte - 11-10-2016 at 07:17 AM

quote:
Originally posted by the goon
But I guess a certain sect of America has gotten so disillusioned and/or are clamoring for the white Christian male to retain their grip on power that this is what you get.

I've been trying to stay away from any political conversation, but I've been drinking so I feel the need to address this. I saw a demographic map on the voting, and it had white males and white females being the only ones with a majority to vote Trump. Every other grouping went the opposite way. I also saw a map of age 18-25 voters, and it had a yuge majority voting democratic. You can kind of put two and two together based on these demographic maps.


the goon - 11-10-2016 at 07:48 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Matte
I also saw a map of age 18-25 voters, and it had a yuge majority voting democratic. You can kind of put two and two together based on these demographic maps.


I saw a similar map (or maybe the same one). Even before this current election, I've always said that you just need to wait for the current white, angry, mean, pseudo-Christian generation to die out from America. And it's going to take at least another 20 years or so I'd wager (and many of them have surely already groomed the next generation to carry on their legacy), but they will die out eventually. For as much shit as we give the current generation of youth, what with their wacky smart phones and Pokemon games, they are way more diversified than any previous generation. These are kids growing up with all different races and sexualities, and probably less religion, so who knows, maybe these fuckers will end up saving us all.


Paddlefoot - 11-10-2016 at 08:02 AM

Probably not. Check the final numbers. Trump's final vote tally is going to come in at a million votes less than what Mitt Romney got in 2012. Clinton lost because she got less votes from practically every demographic that massively supported Obama in '08 and '12, especially the millenials. If they were still in a snit over Clinton beating Sanders, even after Sanders practically begged them to come out and vote for her, then they're as impossible to get through to on a rational basis as the Trump supporters are. This is the third time (2010, 2014, now 2016) when millenials didn't show up when they were needed, when everything from the Tea Party GOP to Trump posed an active threat to what they allegedly believe in. If they can't be counted on when the chips are down then fuck them too. They deserve to live in a country where, thanks to their crazy grandparents who have been poisoned by Fox, Beck, and Limpbaugh for the last twenty years, things will only get worse. If they're not going to stand up when they're needed then they can sit down and shut the fuck up once and for all.


OOMike - 11-10-2016 at 02:24 PM

Obviously some people need a history lesson: (royberto this means you)

Roe v Wade and Same sex marriage were court decisions on interpretation of the Constitution. Just like the Death Penalty being deemed constitutional, then unconstitutional, then constitutional again.

I am assuming you have heard of Brown v the Board of Education of Topeka, KS? If not, it ended segregation in schools. But have you heard of Plessy v Ferguson, that was a court case that ruled that segregation was constitutional.

So interpretation of what the Constitution states can change with the make up of the court, so all we need is five judges that decide that life doesn't begin at viability, but when there is a heartbeat, or something else like cell formation and guess what abortion is illegal again.

Five judges to decide that the freedom of religion "trumps" the 14th amendment, then you can say that my religion says I can hate them and treat them different.

Five judges have to decide that freedom of press has more limitations.

And all this will stay until a new president can fill the court with their choices again.

So as a straight white male (but Jewish) I am less nervous for myself, but scared shitless for my friends who are not.


ETA: I saw that map, but you know what? It don't mean shit when the 18-29 year olds had a whopping 19% participation rate. The majority of the voters in this election were over 40 (with over 60 having a participation rate of almost 60%), and talking to my son's friends who fall in demo, it was either Bernie is out so fuck it, or I am going for Johnson and get a third party (but most didn't even vote for him), not realizing that there was more than President to vote for, but unless pot was on the ballot, they stop after the first line, and I blame myself for not working harder to get them to realize it.

ETA2: fixing numers

[Edited on 11-10-2016 by OOMike]


Quentil - 11-10-2016 at 03:35 PM

It's truly a sad day when Americans feel it's okay to denigrate women, minorities, and whole religions. When the environment is seen as something to destroy for profit, and when the poorest gun owners attack and threaten everyone that isn't a billionaire out of a belief that it will make them a billionaire.

That's what the dumbest, most racist Americans bought into: A pipe dream that they do will be just like Donald Trump. They will be able to grab pussy, shoot black kids in hoodies, and and be rewarded for it. Perhaps they were more right than wrong, and that's the scariest aspect of allowing this wave of racists and bigots to take over again.

This isn't the America I grew up to believe. This is a dark shade of racism and hatred spawning in a century where it has no belonging.

If you support Donald Trump, you're a racist, a bigot, a liar, a wannabe nazi white supremacist by association. Oh, and I'm sure some of you are okay people, too.

[Edited on 11-10-2016 by Quentil]


Paddlefoot - 11-11-2016 at 05:22 AM

When in doubt blame a millenial for this outcome:

http://www.sfgate.com/elections/article/Millennials-blew-chance-to-defeat-Trump-says-10604804.php



quote:
Pick whichever reason you want for the reduced margin — millennials' allegiance to Sen. Bernie Sanders, general mistrust of Clinton, a weak job market or the email scandal. Perhaps American millennials were simply gripped by same apathy that affected UK millennials during the Brexit vote when only 36 percent of young people turned out despite polls showing 73 percent of them supported Remain.

While fewer young voters rallied around Clinton, they didn't flock to Trump either. Trump did about as well as Romney and John McCain with millennials.

As millennial Emma Lord wrote for Bustle: "Sure, it was the Baby Boomers' votes that influenced this election — but only because we weren't there to stop them. It is, quite frankly, terrifying that we are looking at Millennial electoral maps like this with 'hope for the future'; if we had all done our civic duty, that future would have been today."

Millennials now number 75.4 million in the U.S., surpassing the 74.9 million Baby Boomers (ages 51-69). They represent the largest share of the electorate today.


So all it would have taken would be for maybe a couple million more of you to bother voting. But I guess it makes you look more "woke" burning a flag outside of Trump Tower or tossing a brick through the window of a Starbucks while you're wearing a Rage Against The Machine t-shirt instead. How about that, might actually have a generation on our hands who turn out to be even more pissy and shittier in all the ways that count than the baby boomers are. Fuckin' selfish pricks.

[Edited on 11/11/2016 by Paddlefoot]


TomS - 11-11-2016 at 09:23 AM

If I were American I would have voted Clinton. I would have voted for a house-brick over Trump, but I understand why the voter turnout was so low. Hilary fuckin' Clinton - that's who they put up for President? Not exactly inspiring voters to make the effort.

The fucking bigots loved it though didn't they? Bigot Christmas is here, and Trump is telling everyone white grab a turkey leg! No wonder he won.


merc - 11-12-2016 at 05:11 AM

I caught a video of some guy getting beaten by a couple of other guys whilst a woman yelled "beat his ass. He voted trump."

Curious I went to the YouTube and searched "beaten trump supporter". After a review of the results, I typed "beaten Obama supporter".

The results were not similar.


chretienbabacool - 11-12-2016 at 05:16 AM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
I caught a video of some guy getting beaten by a couple of other guys whilst a woman yelled "beat his ass. He voted trump."

Curious I went to the YouTube and searched "beaten trump supporter". After a review of the results, I typed "beaten Obama supporter".

The results were not similar.


A gay friend of mine just got a bottle thrown at his head and yelled faggot at. Our examples are perfect representatives of the population as a whole. If you're an idiot.

[Edited on 11-12-2016 by chretienbabacool]


merc - 11-12-2016 at 09:31 PM

https://youtu.be/i3iKj28KqNg


bigfatgoalie - 11-13-2016 at 02:25 AM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/us-election-hillary-clinton-more-votes-popular-vote-any-candidate-barack-obama-donald-tr ump-a7413596.html

quote:

Hillary Clinton is on course to receive more votes than any other US presidential candidate in history except Barack Obama – despite losing Tuesday’s election to Donald Trump.

With the last remaining ballots still being counted, analysts expect the Democrat to pull clear of the new President-elect in the popular vote even though she lost the electoral college tally by some margin.



As for Trump representing change...umm, no. His transition team and advisors throughout the process have been folks like Pence, Christie, and Rudy Giuliani.


williamssl - 11-13-2016 at 02:46 AM

quote:
Originally posted by bigfatgoalie
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/us-election-hillary-clinton-more-votes-popular-vote-any-candidate-barack-obama-donald-tr ump-a7413596.html

quote:

Hillary Clinton is on course to receive more votes than any other US presidential candidate in history except Barack Obama – despite losing Tuesday’s election to Donald Trump.








Great meaningful stat....if the US population was staying flat. It's not though. It has grown 11% since the last non-Obama election. Thus, the stat is meaningless in the context it's being used in.


Flash - 11-14-2016 at 02:44 AM

Where does America go from here?

I'm not criticising (God knows we had enough Canadians running around up here also denouncing Clinton, and supporting many of Trump's more offensive ideas)... but it strikes me that you folks have been locked into a bit of a deadlock of either "yes" or "no" for a while now... Yes if it's a republican idea, No if it comes from the Democrats, Yes if it comes from the Democrats, No if it comes from the Republicans.... that's a big divide, and it seems like the whole union idea might be cracking a bit.

Trump getting voted in scares me... no it's not the whole finger on the nuclear button thing, or all the ways that he might screw up the country or world... there are enough safeguards keeping him away from that button, and the world is a little too big for the actions of one man to completely mess it up permanently... people might suffer or thrive in the short run, but it will eventually sort itself out to some extent or another.

No, what scares me is that in an age when we are supposed to be getting closer to that Star Trek dream of a better tomorrow where we look past one another backgrounds, and try and lift one another up... where we are starting to have honest dialogue about our differences and embracing those differences, where gender, and identity are being talked about honestly, and we realize that the global table is a big one where we can still invite many of the disenfranchised and those ignored by history to join us.... We just voted in a man who has a number of sexual assaults levelled against him that he still has to answer for, a man who seems to want to isolate, and build walls... a man who blames instead of embraces... We've seen that before, and the world suffered for it.

I wonder if this is in many ways a reaction... has insincere correctly worn us out? Are there just bad things that we are willing to accept because we might not have to face it, but can still fear it (I'm not an expert, but I'm guessing Wisconsin or North Dakota don't have a big illegal Mexican immigrant problem)? It's easy to ignore the fact that it might mostly be hard working people looking for a better opportunity when the 24 news cycle is showing nothing but gang bangers getting the boot... easier to sleep at night, and not think too hard about it anyway.

Throw onto all of this a whole list of issues like abortion, gun control, capital punishment, religion, role of the government and it seems like that divide is getting deeper... Christ, I won't even touch the mess that is race at the moment on this continent... How long before New Hampshire says fuck it, we're going to do our own thing... Texas, California... ect.

Like I said, not a criticism... hate and fear are universal (see the Brexit, and like I said... we have our own silly people up here as well)... genuinely curious where some of our American cousins see their country going... not in a reactionary OMG Trump won, pack your bags kind of way... but am I right about this locked in broken political cycle where your only two choices are yes or no... that the ideological divides are getting bigger...


Paddlefoot - 11-14-2016 at 03:29 AM

As much as I love Star Trek we need to put that kind of fantasy-land thinking away for good. The world will never be like that because humans will also never be like that. And that's not humans anywhere who, just in case anyone's forgotten, are acting a hell of a lot worse in lots of other places around the planet than just in what's soon going to be Donald Trump's America.


OOMike - 11-14-2016 at 07:02 PM

I was talking to friends of ours that are big Trump fans and we were talking about the Biden memes that are all over now, and the conversation drifted to, If Biden ran would he have won? My initial thought was yes, Trump beat the only person he could because of the amount to dislike both candidates had. I think Sanders would have been closer, the Millennials would have come out for him, but the anti-socialists would have gone harder for Trump, but I think Biden would have been a bigger winner since he is more centrist without the controversies of Clinton.

Thoughts?


williamssl - 11-14-2016 at 08:02 PM

I see no scenario where either doesn't win.

With Sanders, blah socialist something something.
He has a totally energized base who would have turned out in droves.
All the people who wanted change and non-establishment would now have a choice between the old socialist crazy one and the batshit insane one. I think the former wins out on that at least 60% of the time.
It's not like the left is gonna walk away from Sanders and go Trump all of a sudden.


Biden....shit. Slam dunk for sure had he entered the race from the outset. I little iffier given when he ultimately made his decision as the Hillary machine was already in momentum mode.


But yeah - I see no scenario where either doesn't win....


Different question -

Is there any other Democrat besides Hillary who would/could have lost to Trump? I mean really..she pulled off something I don't think any other serious politician could have done. Note - I'm not inviting the "cast fingers everywhere but her" dialogue although certainly can't shut it off.


Frank Lloyd Wright - 11-14-2016 at 09:05 PM

It isn't rocket science why Hillary lost. When you are corrupt, don't have a message for people to latch onto, and lose the Rust Belt.....you know the region that is currently in economic decline, has major population loss, and urban decay due to the shrinking of its once-powerful industrial sector. Also, when over 80% of the evangelical population votes for your opponent......you are fucked!!! The evangelicals is the main reason Romney didn't win. They decided to stay home, instead of casting their vote for a Mormon. Trump's message resonated with all the groups that Hillary and the out of touch Democratic Party failed to capture.


OOMike - 11-14-2016 at 09:44 PM

quote:
Originally posted by williamssl


Different question -

Is there any other Democrat besides Hillary who would/could have lost to Trump? I mean really..she pulled off something I don't think any other serious politician could have done. Note - I'm not inviting the "cast fingers everywhere but her" dialogue although certainly can't shut it off.


Lincoln Chaffee. or the other guy who was in the Primary for twenty minutes.

I honestly think that if either party ran someone else they would have won in a landslide. I don't think Hillary could have had been competitive against any other Republican. Well maybe Cruz cause he is a serial killer.


merc - 11-15-2016 at 12:41 AM

Since I feel a ban coming...here's what lies ahead:

Trump cut illegal immigration significantly- enough to move the natural minimum wage.

Trump goes hard at infrastructure improvement further driving up natural minimum wage

Inflation runs to 5-7%. After all natural minimum wage inflation drives pricing. paying the doers has to impact pricing.

Obamacare is refined as some new everyone gets covered - as if that was ever not the case- rates pull back to still higher than pre Obama care levels

Global markets calm as no one can find Trumps "horns and trident".

Government jobs drop to a numerical level below manufacturing for the first time since the Bush Administration.

Siros continues to bus in and pay protesters. Uneducated American males pray for his death without knowing who he is.

Stupid cunts continue to whine and bitch about "what ifs" instead of listening to that great Democrat FDR, " the only thing to fear is fear itself."

Canada doesn't get the infusing of fucking asshole liars as promised.

Big business repatriates 3T dollars as tax rates are cut- investing in R&D, development efficiencies and clean/cheaper energy.

Small business struggles mightily with the increase in wages as it does not offset the deregulation expense decrease.

The Supreme Court remains a 5-4 split on 20% of issues.

The sun continues to rise in the east and set in the west for the next 1450+ days.


Paddlefoot - 11-15-2016 at 01:30 AM

Be nice if these gutless threats to ban people around here for saying the "wrong" thing would come to a permanent end. Other forums only do it for spammers, obvious trolls, and tinfoilers. OO is unfortunately the only one I frequent where it can happen for no other reason than some kind of group-upset erupts or because someone with mod-power (however many of them are still here) is trying to enforce an inflexible code of thought among everyone instead of just policing the genuine idiots/troublemakers. It's not right to do these abusive kinds of things over harmless talk and it never has been.

[Edited on 11/15/2016 by Paddlefoot]


bopol - 11-15-2016 at 02:33 AM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
Siros continues to bus in and pay protesters. Uneducated American males pray for his death without knowing who he is.



Or being able to spell his last name.


merc - 11-15-2016 at 02:57 AM

quote:
Originally posted by bopol
quote:
Originally posted by merc
Siros continues to bus in and pay protesters. Uneducated American males pray for his death without knowing who he is.



Or being able to spell his last name.


LOL. I thought about checking but who cares about a fucking traitor.


bopol - 11-15-2016 at 03:53 AM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
quote:
Originally posted by bopol
quote:
Originally posted by merc
Siros continues to bus in and pay protesters. Uneducated American males pray for his death without knowing who he is.



Or being able to spell his last name.


LOL. I thought about checking but who cares about a fucking traitor.


It's good that you know he's a traitor even if you don't know enough about him to spell his name correctly.


williamssl - 11-15-2016 at 04:04 AM

TRUMP'S AMERICA - where we judge people based on ability to spell others' last names.

We were warned this would happen....and here it is already.


Paddlefoot - 11-15-2016 at 04:08 AM

We're thru the looking glass here, ppl.


bigfatgoalie - 11-15-2016 at 04:09 AM

quote:
Originally posted by williamssl
TRUMP'S AMERICA - where we judge people based on ability to spell others' last names.

We were warned this would happen....and here it is already.


As a person who couldn't care less about grammar and spelling...this is just standard online bitchiness. It's petty and stupid, but hey that kind of thing is presidential now!


bopol - 11-15-2016 at 04:23 AM

quote:
Originally posted by williamssl
TRUMP'S AMERICA - where we judge people based on ability to spell others' last names.

We were warned this would happen....and here it is already.


It just seems if you are going to call him a traitor, you might know something about him like how to spell his name.

If you want to go to substance, let me ask why you think big businesses repatriating $3T because of lower taxes will result in R&D developments and that will be towards clean/cheaper energy. There will be no financial incentive to invest in something as low/no profit as clean energy if there are no environmental regulations on other energy sources. Can you explain how that will work?


merc - 11-15-2016 at 05:44 AM

quote:
Originally posted by bopol
quote:
Originally posted by williamssl
TRUMP'S AMERICA - where we judge people based on ability to spell others' last names.

We were warned this would happen....and here it is already.


It just seems if you are going to call him a traitor, you might know something about him like how to spell his name.

If you want to go to substance, let me ask why you think big businesses repatriating $3T because of lower taxes will result in R&D developments and that will be towards clean/cheaper energy. There will be no financial incentive to invest in something as low/no profit as clean energy if there are no environmental regulations on other energy sources. Can you explain how that will work?


Fair question. Let's take company X with plants throughout the Midwest. Their international growth has been damn good over the last 12 years, whilst US profits lag. That's a fair description of many mid-large cap companies.

A comprehensive review determines that the operating costs in the USA are higher as a result of older facilities. In fact margins could improve by 4-8% if the facilities were upgraded and another 10% with tech efficiencies. Projects have been pushed back while profit goals were (hopefully) attained to keep investors happy.

EUro/pacific. Is doing well because their bells & whistles are newer & shinier.

Now a block o cash becomes available at a reduced rate. A rate low enough to make pulling the cash back home makes sense. If CEO Bo had a choice what is he doing with the cash?

CEO merc is laying out a 7 year CAPEX plan to improve margins within the USoA. The cash is a balance sheet item that can be partially offset by the capital investment, but the spend laid out over 3,5,7 years will have a positive ROI, depending on how your tax dudes advise.

What does that mean? Jobs, not just at my biz, but in the tech/construction contractors, the manufacturing that produces what the projects need, the transportation to move the stuff, food, hotels, retail.

Oh yeah, Wall St. Loves infrastructure projects with profitable projections, so stock jumps making Joe pension fund guy happy with his retirement account...never mind how the down stream companies P&L get fatter.

So that's a very simple layout of repatriation of $2T Will there be folks that take cash in and buy back stock or pay dividends, sure. There was in 2004 and it was ignorantly vilified. No one explained that those Arent bad things either...pensions, 401ks benefit. (Comment on 2004 below) Some companies may actually buy back debt, although CEO merc would ask for the CFO's resignation should that be the plan. Money is too cheap not to leverage it long term currently.

2004 tax holiday was a move by desperate politicians hoping to keep a sluggish economy moving. It was rushed and didn't account for anything else - just done in a silo.

The attacks came because some companies consolidated with the +-400b or so that came back and others paid dividends/ buy backs. The 5% tax rate sounded awfully low. Estimates of 15-20,000 jobs were cut in mergers. Politicians panicked, spin was immediate and in a vacuum. It was a rush to get cash back in a small window, that isnt the way business works. So it was done poorly.

That long term component is key. If it is to be, it has to be a "permanent rate" and enacted 12 months in the future. Then budgets are built in anticipation, cash isn't just rushed in and moved off balance sheets, but planned for.

But Rep. & Dems have been too petty to figure out that what plays well to their constituents may not be in the best interest of the economy. It doesn't matter which side figures this out, they will see a significant economic uptrend over several years.

Free markets work when "free" is closer to true than not. But on any given day, any given person can take any given issue and isolate it, magnify it and blame the woes of whatever "Cause" on it. Ours has become a society that has the attention span of half a sound bite. (That's how Trump is Prez elect I believe). So expecting someone to put puzzle pieces together when sound bites scream -protect the Pygmy sloth! Banks want to screw you! Or insert your favorite cause here - messages of fear is asking to much.

Things are interconnected, and few spend time tying together how.

So that's my theory, hope it answers your question. Now ya'll can pick it apart or offer how you'd fix things. The asshole growing in my head says not a single leftist here can lay out a "tax us to fiscal health "responsible plan.


PB-13 - 11-15-2016 at 09:10 AM

...okay, I know to not come HERE any more...


OOMike - 11-15-2016 at 01:38 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
Since I feel a ban coming...here's what lies ahead:

Trump cut illegal immigration significantly- enough to move the natural minimum wage.

Trump goes hard at infrastructure improvement further driving up natural minimum wage

Inflation runs to 5-7%. After all natural minimum wage inflation drives pricing. paying the doers has to impact pricing.

Obamacare is refined as some new everyone gets covered - as if that was ever not the case- rates pull back to still higher than pre Obama care levels

Global markets calm as no one can find Trumps "horns and trident".

Government jobs drop to a numerical level below manufacturing for the first time since the Bush Administration.

Siros continues to bus in and pay protesters. Uneducated American males pray for his death without knowing who he is.

Stupid cunts continue to whine and bitch about "what ifs" instead of listening to that great Democrat FDR, " the only thing to fear is fear itself."

Canada doesn't get the infusing of fucking asshole liars as promised.

Big business repatriates 3T dollars as tax rates are cut- investing in R&D, development efficiencies and clean/cheaper energy.

Small business struggles mightily with the increase in wages as it does not offset the deregulation expense decrease.

The Supreme Court remains a 5-4 split on 20% of issues.

The sun continues to rise in the east and set in the west for the next 1450+ days.


You forgot about the debt rising by trillions over the next few years and stifling growth.

ETA: and the drastic rise in hate crimes against anyone not white, male, and straight.

[Edited on 11-15-2016 by OOMike]


bopol - 11-15-2016 at 01:46 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
quote:
Originally posted by bopol
quote:
Originally posted by williamssl
TRUMP'S AMERICA - where we judge people based on ability to spell others' last names.

We were warned this would happen....and here it is already.


It just seems if you are going to call him a traitor, you might know something about him like how to spell his name.

If you want to go to substance, let me ask why you think big businesses repatriating $3T because of lower taxes will result in R&D developments and that will be towards clean/cheaper energy. There will be no financial incentive to invest in something as low/no profit as clean energy if there are no environmental regulations on other energy sources. Can you explain how that will work?


Fair question. Let's take company X with plants throughout the Midwest. Their international growth has been damn good over the last 12 years, whilst US profits lag. That's a fair description of many mid-large cap companies.

A comprehensive review determines that the operating costs in the USA are higher as a result of older facilities. In fact margins could improve by 4-8% if the facilities were upgraded and another 10% with tech efficiencies. Projects have been pushed back while profit goals were (hopefully) attained to keep investors happy.

EUro/pacific. Is doing well because their bells & whistles are newer & shinier.

Now a block o cash becomes available at a reduced rate. A rate low enough to make pulling the cash back home makes sense. If CEO Bo had a choice what is he doing with the cash?

CEO merc is laying out a 7 year CAPEX plan to improve margins within the USoA. The cash is a balance sheet item that can be partially offset by the capital investment, but the spend laid out over 3,5,7 years will have a positive ROI, depending on how your tax dudes advise.

What does that mean? Jobs, not just at my biz, but in the tech/construction contractors, the manufacturing that produces what the projects need, the transportation to move the stuff, food, hotels, retail.

Oh yeah, Wall St. Loves infrastructure projects with profitable projections, so stock jumps making Joe pension fund guy happy with his retirement account...never mind how the down stream companies P&L get fatter.

So that's a very simple layout of repatriation of $2T Will there be folks that take cash in and buy back stock or pay dividends, sure. There was in 2004 and it was ignorantly vilified. No one explained that those Arent bad things either...pensions, 401ks benefit. (Comment on 2004 below) Some companies may actually buy back debt, although CEO merc would ask for the CFO's resignation should that be the plan. Money is too cheap not to leverage it long term currently.

2004 tax holiday was a move by desperate politicians hoping to keep a sluggish economy moving. It was rushed and didn't account for anything else - just done in a silo.

The attacks came because some companies consolidated with the +-400b or so that came back and others paid dividends/ buy backs. The 5% tax rate sounded awfully low. Estimates of 15-20,000 jobs were cut in mergers. Politicians panicked, spin was immediate and in a vacuum. It was a rush to get cash back in a small window, that isnt the way business works. So it was done poorly.

That long term component is key. If it is to be, it has to be a "permanent rate" and enacted 12 months in the future. Then budgets are built in anticipation, cash isn't just rushed in and moved off balance sheets, but planned for.

But Rep. & Dems have been too petty to figure out that what plays well to their constituents may not be in the best interest of the economy. It doesn't matter which side figures this out, they will see a significant economic uptrend over several years.

Free markets work when "free" is closer to true than not. But on any given day, any given person can take any given issue and isolate it, magnify it and blame the woes of whatever "Cause" on it. Ours has become a society that has the attention span of half a sound bite. (That's how Trump is Prez elect I believe). So expecting someone to put puzzle pieces together when sound bites scream -protect the Pygmy sloth! Banks want to screw you! Or insert your favorite cause here - messages of fear is asking to much.

Things are interconnected, and few spend time tying together how.

So that's my theory, hope it answers your question. Now ya'll can pick it apart or offer how you'd fix things. The asshole growing in my head says not a single leftist here can lay out a "tax us to fiscal health "responsible plan.


Of course, nothing you say above has anything to do with clean energy, whose investment is largely due to opportunities presented by governments creating regulations to keep businesses from polluting the environment.

I doubt that much of the repatriated money will end up in investments in the US. Much, much more likely it'll end up in the pockets of stockholders in the form of dividends or stock buybacks. Whether or not that drives the economy is any meaningful is to be determined, but I think doubtful.


Quentil - 11-15-2016 at 02:56 PM

quote:
Originally posted by bopol

Of course, nothing you say above has anything to do with clean energy, whose investment is largely due to opportunities presented by governments creating regulations to keep businesses from polluting the environment.

I doubt that much of the repatriated money will end up in investments in the US. Much, much more likely it'll end up in the pockets of stockholders in the form of dividends or stock buybacks. Whether or not that drives the economy is any meaningful is to be determined, but I think doubtful.


Merc has no understanding of economics, and is constantly afraid that the brown people will move into his neighborhood and take his vintage collection of VHS tapes. So it's best to just pat him on the head and to ignore him.

Clean energy is something that will be hurt by a Trump agenda. His already-picked people are all oil tycoons, and Trump says he's going to roll back all the laws and policies Obama put into place in regards to coal and other heavy pollution sources of fuel. Mostly because all of these people own the oil/mineral rights to half the US, and want access to government lands for the rest. I'd expect very little to go into R&D, to be honest. Expect subsidized coal and lots of fracking and a bunch of environmentally devastated areas as a result. Because this is what the old white folks make their energy money off of. The green energy wave is new money with lots of brown people getting rich. The old guard will push for a return to energy sources they control.

I wouldn't expect any significant infrastructure package to emerge that will pave all the roads and rebuild all the bridges. I'm sure a package will get passed, but it'll be full of no-bid contracts and block grants sent in such a way to line the pockets of the rich VIPs of contracting groups, creating little in the way of new development. This is quite simply because Trickle Down in any form has never worked. It's a pyramid scheme created by Reaganites that simply pushed greater profits into the pockets of the rich, at the expense of everyone else. Lower taxes have always meant simply richer people in smaller numbers at the top, and a growing number of poor.

I don't see much investment in power generation, either. With less regulations on what can be kept running, it makes much more financial sense for operators to now keep running older, less efficient (but already paid-for) plants because the profit margins are far higher in the short term to do so. With no governmental penalties in the form of taxes or regulatory standards enforced with fines, there's simply no need to upgrade anything.

This will be worse, if inflation increases at a quick rate, and the US starts trade wars and leaves free trade agreements. The US economy could possibly even contract if Trump's most anti-free market policies get put into place. The world will turn away from the US and start buying aircraft and electronics from elsewhere in retaliation to the US jacking tariffs up. There isn't going to be some magical resurgence in US Steel or US textiles above current levels from any policy that puts all the money into the hands of the fewest possible. This will leave less money available for research and development in infrastructure.

It's been proven the when you give the richest people a huge chunk of money, they don't give it back in any significant way. Unless you count beach houses and hiring illegals to clean them.

[Edited on 11-15-2016 by Quentil]


merc - 11-15-2016 at 03:42 PM

quote:
Originally posted by bopol
quote:
Originally posted by merc
A comprehensive review determines that the operating costs in the USA are higher as a result of older facilities. In fact margins could improve by 4-8% if the facilities were upgraded and another 10% with tech efficiencies. Projects have been pushed back while profit goals were (hopefully) attained to keep investors happy.

EUro/pacific. Is doing well because their bells & whistles are newer & shinier.



Ours has become a society that has the attention span of half a sound bite. (That's how Trump is Prez elect I believe). So expecting someone to put puzzle pieces together is asking to much.

Things are interconnected, and few spend time tying together how.

So that's my theory, hope it answers your question.


Of course, nothing you say above has anything to do with clean energy, whose investment is largely due to opportunities presented by governments creating regulations to keep businesses from polluting the environment.

I doubt that much of the repatriated money will end up in investments in the US. Much, much more likely it'll end up in the pockets of stockholders in the form of dividends or stock buybacks. Whether or not that drives the economy is any meaningful is to be determined, but I think doubtful.


Bo, I've enjoyed our exchanges, so I simplified all the words. The first paragraph talks to clean energy. Old facilities chew profit, upgrading to current cheaper (and cleaner) tech makes sense. That's where I'd spend my money CAPEX projects.

I left the rest of my post in because you proved my point. People read headlines, not details.

Govt. is ok with forcing start ups, mixed bag over history. Personally I'm not a fan of ongoing subsidies that come with their involvement, or ongoing consequences. That's a whole other debate that I don't have energy for (clean or dirty. ).

Finally, your dividend point is a good one. That's why I addressed 2004 v. A complete overhaul. However, again you post a headline. Let's dive a little below surface.

take IBM just cuz International is in their name. About 11% of their stock is held by Vanguard. I focus on Vanguard because it is the common Joe MF company, but there are other institutional and MF holders, 60% of the total company's stock.

Specific to Vanguard, at a glance, they own north of 350 times more stock than the insiders own. So if the dividend and buyback program benefits INSERT EVIL TERM HERE it also benefits thousands, if not millions of average folks. That detail is always left out of who "wall st" is.

Cheers!

[Edited on 11-15-2016 by merc]


BBMN - 11-15-2016 at 04:10 PM

Clinton can't get a assassinated for "rigging" the election since she lost. Yay...?

I'm looking forward to four years of these twats.






Trump will probably be impeached for being a shady piece of shit in under four years.

PENCE WILL BECOME OUR GRAND GODLY LEADER. THANK FUCKING GOD I'M STRAIGHT.

Trump is trying to get top secret security clearance for his children. Literally.
Okay that's less of a thought and more of a "just shoot me in the face already" moment.

Trump may start a trade war with China. What could possibly go wrong?

Trump will buttfuck Net Neutrality. Jesus fucking Christ.

I feel terrible for conservatives. Their brand was taken over by Trump. Honestly I do feel bad for moderate conservatives.
And Latinos. And immigrants. And gay people. And Muslims. And rational thinkers. And the future. And the environment.

This is all an end result of complacency on behalf of the American voter.
And ineptitude on Clinton's campaign to lose the the Midwest.
And last but not least, Clinton fucking Bernie over. Bernie would have won.
This was all avoidable and you fucked it up, Hillary, you dumbass.




Tump was right. The election is in a way "rigged" by way of the Electoral College. I've been against the EC since I was like sixteen.
Back then I only had a vague idea of how bad it fuck up democracy in my lifetime. Not once but twice.



Speaking of Bush... Trump makes Dubya look like a Rhodes Scholar. Jesus... I MISS GEORGE W BUSH.

And finally, Trump and I are on the same page on at least one thing.


CCharger - 11-15-2016 at 05:20 PM

quote:
Originally posted by williamssl
quote:
Originally posted by bigfatgoalie
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/us-election-hillary-clinton-more-votes-popular-vote-any-candidate-barack-obama-donald-tr ump-a7413596.html

quote:

Hillary Clinton is on course to receive more votes than any other US presidential candidate in history except Barack Obama – despite losing Tuesday’s election to Donald Trump.








Great meaningful stat....if the US population was staying flat. It's not though. It has grown 11% since the last non-Obama election. Thus, the stat is meaningless in the context it's being used in.


Where you getting your data? In 2012, the population was 313 million. Today it is 323 million. Source: http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table

That is barely a 3% increase.


Thom - 11-15-2016 at 05:52 PM

quote:
Originally posted by CCharger


Where you getting your data? In 2012, the population was 313 million. Today it is 323 million. Source: http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table

That is barely a 3% increase.


He said the last non-Obama election. That would be 2004 - when the population was just under 293 million. Using July numbers (since that's when the 2004 number is listed in that table) - we have 322.69 million vs 292.81 million. That's an increase of 10.2%.

edited to get rid of monster quote nest.

[Edited on 11/15/16 by Thom]


williamssl - 11-15-2016 at 06:16 PM

Thanks for more nicely pointing out reading comprehension than I would have.

I had slightly diff #'s for 2016 which then rounded up to 11% vs down to 10%, but yeah....

This is why we use relative statistics instead of absolute stats/numbers.

[Edited on 11-15-2016 by williamssl]


CCharger - 11-15-2016 at 06:19 PM

Wait.

We had a president BEFORE OBAMA?


bopol - 11-15-2016 at 06:58 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
quote:
Originally posted by bopol
quote:
Originally posted by merc
A comprehensive review determines that the operating costs in the USA are higher as a result of older facilities. In fact margins could improve by 4-8% if the facilities were upgraded and another 10% with tech efficiencies. Projects have been pushed back while profit goals were (hopefully) attained to keep investors happy.

EUro/pacific. Is doing well because their bells & whistles are newer & shinier.



Ours has become a society that has the attention span of half a sound bite. (That's how Trump is Prez elect I believe). So expecting someone to put puzzle pieces together is asking to much.

Things are interconnected, and few spend time tying together how.

So that's my theory, hope it answers your question.


Of course, nothing you say above has anything to do with clean energy, whose investment is largely due to opportunities presented by governments creating regulations to keep businesses from polluting the environment.

I doubt that much of the repatriated money will end up in investments in the US. Much, much more likely it'll end up in the pockets of stockholders in the form of dividends or stock buybacks. Whether or not that drives the economy is any meaningful is to be determined, but I think doubtful.


Bo, I've enjoyed our exchanges, so I simplified all the words. The first paragraph talks to clean energy. Old facilities chew profit, upgrading to current cheaper (and cleaner) tech makes sense. That's where I'd spend my money CAPEX projects.

I left the rest of my post in because you proved my point. People read headlines, not details.

Govt. is ok with forcing start ups, mixed bag over history. Personally I'm not a fan of ongoing subsidies that come with their involvement, or ongoing consequences. That's a whole other debate that I don't have energy for (clean or dirty. ).

Finally, your dividend point is a good one. That's why I addressed 2004 v. A complete overhaul. However, again you post a headline. Let's dive a little below surface.

take IBM just cuz International is in their name. About 11% of their stock is held by Vanguard. I focus on Vanguard because it is the common Joe MF company, but there are other institutional and MF holders, 60% of the total company's stock.

Specific to Vanguard, at a glance, they own north of 350 times more stock than the insiders own. So if the dividend and buyback program benefits INSERT EVIL TERM HERE it also benefits thousands, if not millions of average folks. That detail is always left out of who "wall st" is.

Cheers!

[Edited on 11-15-2016 by merc]


Hey merc...I enjoy our exchanges too, but I am not convinced by your argument and it isn't (all) the details I take issue with, but rather the premise. You can say that the returned money will be re-invested in company infrastructure, but there is little reason to actually believe it will be. Just because you would do it isn't a compelling argument. If these investments were sound, most would be being done now under the current existing tax code. I don't see any reason to assume that would somehow be different if the tax code changed allowing the money to come back into the US without paying federal taxes and, as a result, all the particular details you present on how it will work become irrelevant because I reject the premise.

If you want to argue that bringing the money back into the country will benefit the shareholders of the company, than we would agree. On whether or not that is a good thing, I don't have a strong opinion on and I don't think I implied it was EVIL, but rather that it was the far more likely outcome. Personally, it would benefit me, so I suppose I should be for it, but I also would like to see a plan from the Republicans that address the deficit as well, which they aren't right now. Perhaps there is a middle ground where the money can be repatriated at a rate less than the current rate so both the deficit and the companies benefit.

In general, I do think the issue does need to be addressed, but I think your belief on the results of a tax change are good hearted but incorrect.


OOMike - 11-15-2016 at 09:32 PM

quote:
Originally posted by BBMN

Trump is trying to get top secret security clearance for his children. Literally.
Okay that's less of a thought and more of a "just shoot me in the face already" moment.



Which son leaks national security secrets to some woman in a bar to try and impress her enough to suck his dick in the bathroom?


Kareem Ofweet - 11-15-2016 at 11:05 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
Are you one of those guys who posts on Daily Stormer about how the 19th Amendment should be repealed so women can't vote anymore?



Nope. I haven't voted since 2004, and I steer clear of all news shows and political sites. It was just so fucking sweet to see #WithHer nu-males and offended-by-everything-twats faces as the night wore on because they, and the entire left and the media (BIRM), felt so entitled to a Hillary victory. And then all the finger-pointing at everyone except the candidate.

Jonathan Pie sums it up nicely, and he's on your side of the aisle.

https://youtu.be/GLG9g7BcjKs


CCharger - 11-15-2016 at 11:46 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Kareem Ofweet

I steer clear of all news shows and political sites.




Oh, so you have no fucking idea what you're talking about then?

Glad we cleared that up.


merc - 11-16-2016 at 12:41 AM

Bo,
There is a tipping point, we agree. Obama proposed a 14% tax rate on repatriation, the 2004 rate was 5%. Structure is key, it can't be immediate, but passed for future relief, then 5% to invest in infrastructure 14% to build the balance sheet (or stock) would be a compromise that I'd think congress would support as both sides felt burned by 2004.

The optimist in me is looking for any good that can come from a Trump Presidency, as I am not a fan.

Cheers!


Paddlefoot - 11-16-2016 at 01:12 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Kareem Ofweet..... he's on your side of the aisle.....


I have no side. I hate the whole human race and want everyone dead.

Plus look what this job does to people.



[Edited on 11/16/2016 by Paddlefoot]


OOMike - 11-16-2016 at 11:48 AM

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trumps-trickle-down-economics-hasnt-worked-well-in-the-past-for-all-205508784.html

quote:

In addition to contributing to inequality, trickle-down tax-cuts-for-the-rich economics has not been shown to help long-term economic growth in the past. According to the CRS research, “the results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth.”
quote:


Can't wait for all those deficit hawks in congress to roll over and flash their belly


bopol - 11-16-2016 at 01:43 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
Bo,
There is a tipping point, we agree. Obama proposed a 14% tax rate on repatriation, the 2004 rate was 5%. Structure is key, it can't be immediate, but passed for future relief, then 5% to invest in infrastructure 14% to build the balance sheet (or stock) would be a compromise that I'd think congress would support as both sides felt burned by 2004.

The optimist in me is looking for any good that can come from a Trump Presidency, as I am not a fan.

Cheers!


The corporations are holding out for 0% with no restrictions on how to use it and they will probably get it. Tea Party Patriots will be upset over the deficit now, I'm sure.


bopol - 11-16-2016 at 01:45 PM

quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trumps-trickle-down-economics-hasnt-worked-well-in-the-past-for-all-205508784.html

quote:

In addition to contributing to inequality, trickle-down tax-cuts-for-the-rich economics has not been shown to help long-term economic growth in the past. According to the CRS research, “the results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth.”
quote:


Can't wait for all those deficit hawks in congress to roll over and flash their belly


Doesn't matter because this won't get pasted to the facebook feed of those on the right, who will continue to believe otherwise.


CCharger - 11-21-2016 at 05:37 PM

Donald Trump's tax plan bears a striking resemblance to the one proposed by current governor Sam Brownback and enacted in 2012. Both plans feature deep cuts for individual and business income, with the benefits going primarily to the rich. They are both implementations of the Reagan-era "trickle down" philosophy of taxation. Both Brownback and Trump were personally advised by Art Laffer, who developed trickle down theory.

So, how did it work out in Kansas, now that we have four years' worth of data? Not so well:

"In September, the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia ranked Kansas 50th in the nation for employment growth, manufacturing hours worked, unemployment rate and wage growth. An economist with the Washington-based, low-tax advocate Tax Foundation told Mississippi lawmakers evaluating planned tax cuts that Kansas is "an example of what not to do in tax reform."

Brownback continues to insist that his cuts were a success, saying, "I am pleased the President-elect understands the importance of revitalizing the American economy by creating an environment that keeps jobs in America and encourages the growth of both large and small businesses."

The Republican legislature does not agree, apparently, and is getting ready to raise taxes in order to try to fix their budgetary mess.

In fairness, after 7-8 years of continuous growth, the U.S. economy is due for a downward turn. Trump's plan, if implemented, looks like it will merely guarantee that outcome.


OOMike - 11-21-2016 at 09:43 PM

Not to mention the cuts to the services provided by the state, so deep that the supreme court called out the state government for underfunding the school system in the state. The response by the governor and his allies in the legislature? Cut the funding to the judicial branch if they don't change their ruling.

Plus record deficits....


merc - 11-22-2016 at 12:35 AM

Kansas is 84% white. Mutherfucka be holding my peeps down. Damn Trump following suit, dude hates the white man.

Tongue firmly planted in cheek (what is the typing equivalent?), but you can see how easy it is to distort figures. I'm over debating at this point. I'm ridiculing everyone.

Oh and while I'm at it, this thread is no longer about presidential candidates - gonna have to change title soon. If only I knew how to poll...

Here are my top 3 thoughts

1. Advice for our future president (no Canadians allowed)
2. Insights for the leader of the free world ( no idiots allowed)
3. Only like minded conservatives post

I think #
1 comes close to evening the sides,
2 eliminates everyone making for a dead thread,
3 just flips the existing ratio over.

Those are your choices; Discuss...


williamssl - 11-22-2016 at 04:46 AM

Or we can use it to blame everything bad that happens in the world ever on a Trump. Kind of a "Thanks Obama" thing where just like that....some people do it tongue in cheek knowing that A did not cause B while others go all in on everything because hey fuck this guy.


bopol - 11-22-2016 at 06:51 AM

I think the federal receipts and spending need to settle in 19% of GDP. Right now (2015), receipts are at 18% and spending is at 20.4%. I am concerned that a policy of cutting taxes and increasing defense spending will result in the gap opening up because, historically, that's what happens when you cut taxes and increase spending.


CCharger - 11-22-2016 at 04:11 PM

quote:
Originally posted by bopol
I think the federal receipts and spending need to settle in 19% of GDP. Right now (2015), receipts are at 18% and spending is at 20.4%. I am concerned that a policy of cutting taxes and increasing defense spending will result in the gap opening up because, historically, that's what happens when you cut taxes and increase spending.

Don't forget about de-regulation. The Trump plan is now to drastically reduce regulation on businesses including environmental standards.

It was the de-regulation of the financial sector (pushed for by the GOP and sheepishly signed off on by the Dems) that caused the Great Recession.


bopol - 11-22-2016 at 07:33 PM

quote:
Originally posted by CCharger
quote:
Originally posted by bopol
I think the federal receipts and spending need to settle in 19% of GDP. Right now (2015), receipts are at 18% and spending is at 20.4%. I am concerned that a policy of cutting taxes and increasing defense spending will result in the gap opening up because, historically, that's what happens when you cut taxes and increase spending.

Don't forget about de-regulation. The Trump plan is now to drastically reduce regulation on businesses including environmental standards.

It was the de-regulation of the financial sector (pushed for by the GOP and sheepishly signed off on by the Dems) that caused the Great Recession.


I am at a loss why people don't think environmental regulations haven't enhanced quality of life. It's almost like Flint didn't happen. There used to be cases where someone working in Pittsburgh would have to take an extra white shirt to work to change at lunch because the first one was all gray and smudged up. There is a columnist in Cleveland that would happily sacrifice environmental regulations for long lost jobs (over things like labor costs, not environmental regulations).

I would rather see the playing field leveled off with regards to China (a fiscal policy that forces China to not artificially restrain its currency to keep labor costs artificially low) than messing with environmental regulations, but you are probably right - those will be on the chopping block.


CCharger - 11-22-2016 at 08:25 PM

quote:
Originally posted by bopol
I am at a loss why people don't think environmental regulations haven't enhanced quality of life.

Because climate change is a Chinese hoax pushed on Americans by tree-hugging hippie liberals eager to bring down American industry.

Did I get that right?


bopol - 11-23-2016 at 04:33 AM

quote:
Originally posted by CCharger
quote:
Originally posted by bopol
I am at a loss why people don't think environmental regulations haven't enhanced quality of life.

Because climate change is a Chinese hoax pushed on Americans by tree-hugging hippie liberals eager to bring down American industry.

Did I get that right?


Even if you believe that, polluted places are shitty places to live. I have friends who are from India. They'll go visit family once every few years and come back with bloodshot eyes and coughing fits from all the pollution. I really don't think people understand the consequences of rolling back environmental regulations.


CVD39 - 11-23-2016 at 11:56 AM

Guys guys guys, rich people don't give a fuck about the environment. They give a fuck about making money. They've already duped the Jesus lovers (who are technically anti-Jesus people now, they're just too blinded by their own hypocrisy that they haven't figured it out yet-maybe one day they'll collectively grow a brain and see how ass backwards they've been) into believing everything they've shilled out because they learned awhile back that those people will believe anything.. When they realize that they can rule unopposed by just embracing the Hispanic community, we're all fucked. Of course, they're blinded themselves because of their racist ways.

Once they find a balance where they can join the Hispanic family values/Jesus lovin' community with the hypocrite Christian Right, it'll be game over. And time to fucking move.


CCharger - 11-23-2016 at 03:40 PM

quote:
Originally posted by bopol
quote:
Originally posted by CCharger
quote:
Originally posted by bopol
I am at a loss why people don't think environmental regulations haven't enhanced quality of life.

Because climate change is a Chinese hoax pushed on Americans by tree-hugging hippie liberals eager to bring down American industry.

Did I get that right?


Even if you believe that, polluted places are shitty places to live. I have friends who are from India. They'll go visit family once every few years and come back with bloodshot eyes and coughing fits from all the pollution. I really don't think people understand the consequences of rolling back environmental regulations.

I was being sarcastic.

quote:
Originally posted by CVD39
Guys guys guys, rich people don't give a fuck about the environment. They give a fuck about making money. They've already duped the Jesus lovers (who are technically anti-Jesus people now, they're just too blinded by their own hypocrisy that they haven't figured it out yet-maybe one day they'll collectively grow a brain and see how ass backwards they've been) into believing everything they've shilled out because they learned awhile back that those people will believe anything.. When they realize that they can rule unopposed by just embracing the Hispanic community, we're all fucked. Of course, they're blinded themselves because of their racist ways.

Once they find a balance where they can join the Hispanic family values/Jesus lovin' community with the hypocrite Christian Right, it'll be game over. And time to fucking move.

By the time it gets to that point, you won't be able to move. Either because you and people who think and/or look and/or worship like you will have been shipped off to re-education camps, or because they have closed the borders to prevent defectors.

[Edited on 11-23-2016 by CCharger]


merc - 11-23-2016 at 08:07 PM

CVD39,
Take some of these other whack jobs and go clean up India so Bo's friends can go back to visit a healthier place. Sounds like its ripe for a bunch of tree hugging fucktards. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, oh and drop your passport in an iron mountain bin.

Where are the cries of protest for the hating going on in Kansas?!? Deity damned hypocrites!


Yeah, this is gonna work nicely


merc - 11-23-2016 at 08:10 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc
CVD39,
Take some of these other whack jobs and go clean up India so Bo's friends can go back to visit a healthier place. Sounds like its ripe for a bunch of tree hugging fucktards. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, oh and drop your passport in an iron mountain bin.

Where are the cries of protest for the hating going on in Kansas?!? Deity damned hypocrites!


Yeah, this is gonna work nicely




On a serious note, regardless of what regulations are or are not rolled back in the USoA, places like India & China still gonna stink. See regardless of what we may think, America can't tell other countries to clean up their shit...figuratively as well as literally.


Quentil - 11-23-2016 at 09:50 PM

quote:
Originally posted by merc

On a serious note, regardless of what regulations are or are not rolled back in the USoA, places like India & China still gonna stink. See regardless of what we may think, America can't tell other countries to clean up their shit...figuratively as well as literally.


Of course we can. We do it all the time. Try educating yourself in how we use our economic power to effect environmental change in other areas of the world. There's lots of documentation available on it. One of the basic tenants of Globalization is about larger nations using their ability to force more efficient and cleaner infrastructure into the developing ones.

And honestly, essentially saying that 'someone up the street has a pile of dirty diapers in their backyard so why can't we?' is fallacy. It's not a logically valid argument, and thus cannot be used as evidence to successfully argue your point that there's no value in working towards fewer diaper-filled yards.

[Edited on 11-23-2016 by Quentil]


CVD39 - 11-23-2016 at 10:04 PM

^^^^Why are you trying to have a logically valid argument with that guy? Go talk to a wall, it'll have a better thought process.


bopol - 11-24-2016 at 12:11 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
quote:
Originally posted by merc

On a serious note, regardless of what regulations are or are not rolled back in the USoA, places like India & China still gonna stink. See regardless of what we may think, America can't tell other countries to clean up their shit...figuratively as well as literally.


Of course we can. We do it all the time. Try educating yourself in how we use our economic power to effect environmental change in other areas of the world. There's lots of documentation available on it. One of the basic tenants of Globalization is about larger nations using their ability to force more efficient and cleaner infrastructure into the developing ones.

And honestly, essentially saying that 'someone up the street has a pile of dirty diapers in their backyard so why can't we?' is fallacy. It's not a logically valid argument, and thus cannot be used as evidence to successfully argue your point that there's no value in working towards fewer diaper-filled yards.

[Edited on 11-23-2016 by Quentil]


I think an example would be the ROHS regulations from the EU. The company I worked for made all their products ROHS compliant even though a small portion were sold in the EU. It was interesting that there was a global market outside of the US large enough to change the entire world.


merc - 11-29-2016 at 06:01 PM

quote:
Originally posted by bopol
I think the federal receipts and spending need to settle in 19% of GDP. Right now (2015), receipts are at 18% and spending is at 20.4%. I am concerned that a policy of cutting taxes and increasing defense spending will result in the gap opening up because, historically, that's what happens when you cut taxes and increase spending.


I looked for a Canada economy thread, couldn't find it. I picked this quote because it speaks to increasing spending- which is B A D . those little fuckers up north have 20 years of history on how to fix national debt. And all they share with us is comments on how fucked we are, instead of sharing their secrets.

Trying to link a Facebook video


Paddlefoot - 11-29-2016 at 07:30 PM

The Canadian secret is to not bother funding our own military at greater than 1% of GDP for the last forty-plus years because we know the United States isn't going to let anything happen on North American soil. It means we get your protection by default without having to financially contribute sweet fuck-all for continental defense. Yeah, we lose some national sovereignty this way, and know someday that a President who wants to become an Emperor instead will either annex us with zero opposition or just crush us like a bug altogether, but it allows us to spend our own money on other things like social programs.


bopol - 11-30-2016 at 12:48 AM

Hey merc, that's from 2009 when the US economy was in the shitter and the unemployment benefits were being extended because there was a huge problem with long-term unemployment.

That said, I'd be ok if the US wanted to copy the banking regulations that Canada used to keep the bankers from crashing their economy. And single payer. You can't really half-copy Canada and expect it to work, you have to go all in.


Quentil - 12-2-2016 at 11:24 PM

I don't really get why Trump is fighting recounts. I mean, I assume the voting hasn't been tampered with, but with the amount of effort and money he's putting into trying to stop the legal recounts, it really makes me wonder now. There's simply no reason for him to fight the recounts with this much effort unless he's honestly afraid something will be found.

Then we have the guy in North Carolina that's flat out trying to steal an election he lost.

Much of the Republican Party doesn't even pretend to follow or respect the Constitution anymore, do they?


Quentil - 12-2-2016 at 11:35 PM

quote:
Originally posted by CVD39
^^^^Why are you trying to have a logically valid argument with that guy? Go talk to a wall, it'll have a better thought process.


Because I know every time I show him to yet again be wrong, it infuriates him. He won't even talk to me because he thinks i'm some uber liberal, even though I'm a Centrist that tends to side with the free market Republicans in economic matters most of the time. He complained each time I showed him to be a bigot, incorrect, or simply lying, and it sent him into little silent moody pouting, followed by pretending that nobody proved him wrong and simply starting his entire point over again

So as a result, he hates my guts or something. I just find it amusing that he's so clueless. He's the typical 50ish yr old bitter white man who somehow believes things were better a century ago when minorities and women were treated like sub-humans by the white folks.

If this were the 1960s, Merc would be standing right by the governor of Alabama trying to bar black folks from being able to go to "white schools" because he'd claim the justices who ended segregation were all guilty of fraud.

If this were the 1860s, Merc would be a Democrat fighting for the south, declaring that slavery was a Divine Right given to the white folks, and that fraud and even foreigners were conspiring to destroy slavery to destroy America.

If this were the 1760s, Merc would be a British Loyalist, charging his neighbors with treason whether they were rebels or not, and hoping they'd be punished all because his neighbors told him to clean up all the trash in his backyard.

It's how Merc is. He's clueless, angry, and poorly educated. For all I know, he creates troll accounts just to post about how amazing he is.

But yeah, mostly I correct Merc because it pisses him off, sends him into quiet pouty rages, and leaves him unable to do anything but to look like a fool. And when you do it in a calm, logical way, citing sources, it just angers him more.


bopol - 12-3-2016 at 04:08 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
I don't really get why Trump is fighting recounts. I mean, I assume the voting hasn't been tampered with, but with the amount of effort and money he's putting into trying to stop the legal recounts, it really makes me wonder now. There's simply no reason for him to fight the recounts with this much effort unless he's honestly afraid something will be found.


Usually the winning party fights the recount for obvious reasons. I don't have much doubt that the Democrats would be fighting any recount if Hillary had won by 10000 votes in PA.


Then we have the guy in North Carolina that's flat out trying to steal an election he lost.

Much of the Republican Party doesn't even pretend to follow or respect the Constitution anymore, do they?


They can justify it all.


G. Jonah Jameson - 12-3-2016 at 02:37 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
I don't really get why Trump is fighting recounts. I mean, I assume the voting hasn't been tampered with, but with the amount of effort and money he's putting into trying to stop the legal recounts, it really makes me wonder now. There's simply no reason for him to fight the recounts with this much effort unless he's honestly afraid something will be found.

Then we have the guy in North Carolina that's flat out trying to steal an election he lost.

Much of the Republican Party doesn't even pretend to follow or respect the Constitution anymore, do they?


I can see why Trump would want to fight the recounts even if no wrongdoing occurred. For one thing, it's possible they could further widen Clinton's popular vote lead, which would be another blow to his all-important ego. But the larger factor is that every move like this serves to further delegitimize Trump's presidency. He, like so many others, spent the last eight years trying to delegitimize Obama's presidency, so he's seen firsthand how effective this technique is, and I'm sure he doesn't want it to happen to him. Though it's probably inevitable, recount or no.

The North Carolina thing is far, far shadier, but McCrory wouldn't even be considering it if he didn't think there was a good chance he could get away with it.


merc - 12-3-2016 at 06:39 PM

I assume this is a Jannerd production.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW85ZcswiqM

funny creative shit... wait! It likely isn't a Jannerd production.


janerd75 - 12-4-2016 at 01:28 AM

Now haaang on there merc-diddly-iddly, don't wrap ol' Jannerbeans up in your shenanigans-iddily-diddily. I've made mah peace wiyuth Gawd...eatgawd.



Thought I gotta say, if I'm gonna George Bailey myself off a bridge, there's going to be a few cinderblocks chained around my neck and feet with about 10kg of semtex attached to a depth gauge set to go off at aboot 30m. Got the bullet pointed punch list laminated on premium grade card stock just in case I forget anything. But, it's not like I have a specific plan or anything so don't start to worry 'bout lil' ol' me, but I gotta make sure I don't come back and Vorhees the everlasting shit outta some of you fine fellOOws.


BBMN - 12-4-2016 at 11:43 PM

quote:
Originally posted by janerd75
Thought I gotta say, if I'm gonna George Bailey myself off a bridge, there's going to be a few cinderblocks chained around my neck and feet with about 10kg of semtex attached to a depth gauge set to go off at aboot 30m.


Nice plan. If I ever go out I have two options. First is to simply catch a flight up to the upper edge of Alaska and fist fight a polar bear. Second is to skydive into an active volcano for a lava bath. Hopefully do a live video stream for either one.


Paddlefoot - 12-5-2016 at 12:07 AM

Death by animal is usually quick, unless it's like a poisonous snake or spider because then it hurts like fuck. Leopard seals, bears, and red kangaroos with their nightmare-fuel claws don't fuck around though and would finish it fairly quickly.



Placing your head on train tracks is pretty swift too, and a hose attached to a car's tail pipe doesn't take long either. Jumping in frozen water too, because all you do is shiver for a while then go to sleep. I don't want to shoot myself in the head because it makes too much of a mess. That and because I'm donating my brain to science so they can find out what's wrong with me after-the-fact. Janny's idea is great and very inspired though, especially if he does it right underneath a yacht with Beiber, at least one Kardashian, or a college football team on it. For me though it would be a hard call on the target for a Semtex Surprise only because there really is a lot of deserving banks and Arab consulates/embassies to have to choose from. Now excuse me while I merrily Comet PingPong my dick all over these titties.

[Edited on 12/5/2016 by Paddlefoot]


the goon - 12-6-2016 at 05:52 AM

quote:
Originally posted by G. Jonah Jameson
quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
I don't really get why Trump is fighting recounts. I mean, I assume the voting hasn't been tampered with, but with the amount of effort and money he's putting into trying to stop the legal recounts, it really makes me wonder now. There's simply no reason for him to fight the recounts with this much effort unless he's honestly afraid something will be found.

Then we have the guy in North Carolina that's flat out trying to steal an election he lost.

Much of the Republican Party doesn't even pretend to follow or respect the Constitution anymore, do they?


I can see why Trump would want to fight the recounts even if no wrongdoing occurred. For one thing, it's possible they could further widen Clinton's popular vote lead, which would be another blow to his all-important ego. But the larger factor is that every move like this serves to further delegitimize Trump's presidency. He, like so many others, spent the last eight years trying to delegitimize Obama's presidency, so he's seen firsthand how effective this technique is, and I'm sure he doesn't want it to happen to him. Though it's probably inevitable, recount or no.

The North Carolina thing is far, far shadier, but McCrory wouldn't even be considering it if he didn't think there was a good chance he could get away with it.


As a longtime Charlotte/Carolinas resident, I'm happy to say that stupid fuck (aka Pat McCrory) finally conceded today. That's like the one shred of good news to come out of this year's election results.


williamssl - 12-10-2016 at 04:25 AM

IF YOU FUCKING CRYBABY LIBTARDS ARE FINALLY DONE MAKING EXCUSES AND POINTING FINGERS EVERYWHERE TO BLAME FOR THE ELECTION RESULTS AND ARE OK COMING OUT OF YOUR SAFE SPACES FOR A MOMENT, THE bOOardie NOMINATIONING THREADS ARE UP. .




Click here for an overview and here to for the nomination threads themselves.



PB-13 - 12-10-2016 at 08:19 PM

Been spending far too much time contemplating how my life will end, sadly. At least I'm in therapy and on meds.


OOMike - 12-16-2016 at 07:08 PM

Donald Trump is correct. This has been an historical election. No other president has been elected with a lower percentage of the popular vote that was running against only one other candidate. (before you argue about Johnson/Stein I am only counting candidates that received Electoral College votes or more than 15% of the popular vote because 1992 was a fucked up election)


CCharger - 12-16-2016 at 09:12 PM

Clinton now has more votes than Obama received in 2008. Admittedly, this is a little deceiving since the population has grown since then.


OOMike - 12-16-2016 at 09:57 PM

That is why I focused on percentages... Tex among others have pointed out that number of votes is misleading


williamssl - 12-16-2016 at 11:38 PM

quote:
Originally posted by CCharger
Clinton now has more votes than Obama received in 2008. Admittedly, this is a little deceiving since the population has grown since then.



It is not a little deceiving. It is as useless as the people who quote it as if it means anything.



bopol - 12-17-2016 at 01:56 AM

The night of the election, I couldn't believe the polls could be that wrong (they had Clinton up by 4). It is now looking like they weren't wrong, Clinton will win the popular vote by 2%.

I think that losing the popular vote, combined with the fact that the announcement of an ongoing investigation into Clinton's email (that proved to be much ado about nothing) by the FBI director just 10 days before the election and the way Trump ran his campaign, will make it very difficult to be a leader to all the people and push forward an agenda. Bush couldn't get jack-diddley squat done after he dispatched Kerry in 2004 and I think Bush had more goodwill at that point than Trump has now.

Even now, he is blowing off intelligence meetings. If America is attacked, he is opening himself up to impeachment hearings. If he puts his people into the intelligence community, half the country will assume that it's all lies and he won't be able to push a foreign policy. Certainly, our allies are already having serious doubts because he doesn't seem to understand anything about diplomacy.

I think that he will have trouble governing and still don't think he will make it 4 years, much less go beyond that. I think we vastly underestimate how hard the job is and I don't think a 70 year old can handle it (I said that about Clinton as well).


OOMike - 12-20-2016 at 06:38 PM

Now that it is official, what issue does President Trump tackle first on Jan. 21?

There are the campaign promises:
Wall
Islam ban
Investigate/Lock up Hillary
Withdraw from NAFTA
End ObamaCare

Other issues:
Nominate SC justice
Iran Deal
Nuclear Proliferation
Syria
ISIS
Abortion/Planned Parenthood


Personally I think he will go with SC Justice, it has the biggest impact on his legacy and I think the easiest thing he can get through the Dems in the Senate.


CCharger - 12-20-2016 at 09:06 PM

quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
Now that it is official, what issue does President Trump tackle first on Jan. 21?

There are the campaign promises:
Wall
Islam ban
Investigate/Lock up Hillary
Withdraw from NAFTA
End ObamaCare

Other issues:
Nominate SC justice
Iran Deal
Nuclear Proliferation
Syria
ISIS
Abortion/Planned Parenthood


He's already walked back on his promise to build a wall. Even Trump confidante Newt Gingrich has called that "campaign talk".

Though he won't ever get a full on ban on Muslims to pass Congress or survive a Supreme Court review, he could get resurrect a George W. Bush era program called NSEERS which attempted to vet immigrants from "high risk nations". Problem is that program was shuttered in 2011 under criticism that 24 of the 25 nations on the list were predominantly Muslim.

He's already said that he has no plans to see Hillary "locked up". In fact, he told a rowdy crowd recently that "That plays great before the election -- now we don't care, right?"

Honestly, NAFTA has caused irreparable damage to the American working class so I won't be sad to see it go. However, globalism and free trade are so ingrained into the Washington mindset that what Trump will likely do is "modify" it rather than withdraw completely.

Trump cannot unilaterally end ObamaCare. Congress has been trying for years and has failed each time to get the necessary number of votes. Again, perhaps you see a revision of the law, but it's here to stay.

So, all of those proud deplorables are going to be pretty disappointed a year from now, it would seem.

As far as the other issues you mentioned?

Make no mistake, Pence is going to be the one to decide who is nominated for the Supreme Court, and make no mistake that whoever they nominate will be STRONGLY anti-abortion and anti-gay.

Iran could be a situation where Trump could follow through and pull the plug.

The idea of Donald Trump and nuclear weapons gives me nightmares.

ISIS is nearly defeated already. There are still a few strong pockets of resistance, but they are near collapse as an army. Problem is that Obama did all the heavy lifting, and then in March, when they are finally defeated, Trump can go on Twitter and claim the victory for himself.

Trump is pro-choice. He may talk anti-abortion to his followers, but make no mistake, he is pro-choice. Pence on the other hand will push hard for laws limiting reproductive rights. This issue will be interesting.


[Edited on 12-20-2016 by CCharger]


OOMike - 12-20-2016 at 09:43 PM

quote:





What do you think it will be though?


Paddlefoot - 12-20-2016 at 09:50 PM

Obama could do an executive temporary appointment of Merrick Garland which would allow him to sit on SCOTUS for two years. This would be hilarious to watch the GOP tear their fucking hair out over, and it would be strategically smart too because by the time the 2018 midterms come around the odds are great that Trump and the GOP will be so unpopular that the Dems could gain more seats in both the House and Senate. Of course that would be the tough, mean, and dirty thing to do instead of "taking the high road" that the Dems love martyring themselves with so of course Obama won't do it. And millenials don't like showing up for midterms anyway, but all the FOX-addicted fogies will show up to vote in their huge herds, so the GOP will just as likely end up gaining seats no matter how rotten a job they're going to do over the next couple of years.

As for NAFTA the deed is done. The time to stop it was 25 years ago, not now. Why clobber it now when it'll just end up killing the jobs that have grown up around it since it was approved when none of the jobs it eliminated are ever coming back anyway? Killing it now is stupid, which means Trump and Congress will now do it because these days only stupid things are guaranteed to happen with 100% certainty. I mean, why settle for just making things worse when you can do something idiotic and make things four or five times worse than they are naturally on their own?

Cynicism and nihilism is reigning big time these days. The last month and a bit has been like if Sauron had succeeded in steamrolling Gondor.


OOMike - 12-20-2016 at 10:11 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
Obama could do an executive temporary appointment of Merrick Garland which would allow him to sit on SCOTUS for two years.


The Senate has to be out of session for so many days (five maybe?) before Obama can make a recess appointment, and the Republicans are having different Senators come in every couple of days, call the Senate to order, then to recess every couple of days to prevent this. (Dems would do the same thing) so Garland is not going to the SCOTUS.

I'm going to change my call for Jan. 21 first order of business, I'm going to go with the ending of sanctions against Russia and Russian citizens over the Ukraine.


Thom - 12-21-2016 at 04:31 PM

quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
Now that it is official, what issue does President Trump tackle first on Jan. 21?

There are the campaign promises:
Wall
Islam ban
Investigate/Lock up Hillary
Withdraw from NAFTA
End ObamaCare

Other issues:
Nominate SC justice
Iran Deal
Nuclear Proliferation
Syria
ISIS
Abortion/Planned Parenthood


Personally I think he will go with SC Justice, it has the biggest impact on his legacy and I think the easiest thing he can get through the Dems in the Senate.



Not entirely sure - although I'd also guess SC Justice.

I wonder, though, if this will be a case similar to "Obama's gonna take your guns!" And nothing (or not much) that anyone is really worried about will come to pass.


CCharger - 12-21-2016 at 05:05 PM

quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
quote:





What do you think it will be though?

Oh, what will be the first thing Trump tackles? Probably a 22 year old intern with big tits.


Quentil - 1-5-2017 at 11:24 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/paul-ryan-planned-parenthood-obamacare/

Planned Parenthood is about to be destroyed. A shame, because it was a wonderful program. I'm sure that money saved will help in fighting the inevitable Middle Eastern war that we'll be declaring in the Spring/Summer in order to distract Americans that the country is heading into the shitter for the benefit of 50 old white dudes.


Ah well. I guess public education will be next. Because first you delegitimize the media so they can't blow the whistle on you. Check. Then you figure out everyone in the system that is against you and make a list to fire them. Check. Then you question the integrity of and promise to defund the governmental agencies that can stop you like the FBI and CIA. Check. Then you ruin the education system, making people less able to critically think and question.

You know, taken from a certain perspective, are we seeing a coup attempt into authoritarian rule being done by the Republican Party to circumvent the Constitution? Will the voting be rigged or elections even canceled in a few years? And will there still be enough people left here to stop it from happening?

Interesting times full of obvious destruction of our personal liberties and programs that help enable them. And yet poor white dudes everywhere are happy about being able to tell sexist jokes at work again. Sad, really.

[Edited on 1-5-2017 by Quentil]


bigfatgoalie - 1-6-2017 at 12:58 AM

It's important to remember that no federal money can be used for abortions.

So defunding planned parenthood is a fuck you to women's health, and basically being pro STDs and cancer.

But it looks like they are supporting Christian beliefs, so go Republicans!!!


OOMike - 1-6-2017 at 01:30 PM

Um, excuse me, that money from Planned Parenthood is going to build the wall. You remember that wall on the Mexican border that Mexico was going to pay for? Well Trump just told Congressional Republicans that he will need an appropriations bill passed to cover the cost.


I guess I can put this in broken promises.


Cherokee Jack - 1-6-2017 at 07:13 PM

But you left out how the DISHONEST MEDIA refuses to report that Mexico is totally going to reimburse us for whatever it costs.

You know, the Mexico that has repeatedly emphasized that they ain't paying for shit.


OOMike - 1-6-2017 at 08:46 PM

Through higher tariffs, but since I am in the business of international trade, I can state for a fact, no government pays a tariff to the US government. The businesses that import products pay them to the government and then you and I pay the business a higher price for that item to cover the cost of said tariff.

But MATH.


Quentil - 1-6-2017 at 10:54 PM

Let's not also forget the fact that higher tariffs always reduce actual trade dollars and result in a net loss of jobs. It also drives up the prices of everything. Finally, it tends to result in lower R&D and foreign investment, as well. So it's essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul, only now both of them dislike and distrust you and will start trading with Chin Lee instead.

Often, the people who were buying your product and selling product to you instead just switch to another supplier/nation to get/sell the materials at (now) better overall prices. I'm sure Airbus can't wait to get all those plane orders that used to go to Boeing. And I bet you that China and other nations would love to get a larger foothold into North and South America, both economically and politically. Latin and South America, as well as the Asian nations that wanted to sign the TPP are all already courting China, with the implication of cutting the US out of the deal in the process.

This is why China and Russia love Trump. He's going to hand them whole continents on a silver platter while destabilizing and undermining American business and industry at home at the same time.

[Edited on 1-6-2017 by Quentil]


Flash - 1-12-2017 at 05:26 AM

I was reading an article not too long ago where they interviewed some former Mexican higher up (like an ambassador or something), so probably tinged with more than a bit of an agenda, but there were three points in there that I thought were interesting:

*Mexico has some really major financial ties to like 22 different states; while some stuff it outsourced to Mexico, a lot of that same stuff criss-crosses the border at varying states of completion as companies on both sides contribute to the manufacturing of the finished product.

*If the USA pulls too much out of Mexico, and follows through on ejecting it's multitude of undocumented workers there is the strong chance of destabilizing Mexico and creating the worlds largest refugee problem right next door to a country with its own financial problems.

*By treating Mexico with hostility, and economically targeting them they are forcing Mexico to behave in kind; Mexico is currently the only country in the world with a near complete open door policy to various American government agencies like the DEA, FBI... ect. Keeping your neighbour strong and happy helps you too... imagine the cost of border security when you don't have co-operation and one of the largest sources of drug smuggling already.


Paddlefoot - 1-20-2017 at 12:23 AM

Balloon goes up tomorrow.



quote:
We're setting sail to a place on the map
From which no-one has ever returned
Drawn by the promise of the joker and the fool
By the light of the crosses that burned
Drawn by the promise of the women and lace
And the gold and the cotton and pearls
It's the place where they keep all the darkness you need
You sail away from the light of the world on this trip, baby

You will pay tomorrow
You're gonna pay tomorrow
You will pay tomorrow

Oh, save me, save me from tomorrow
I don't want to sail with this Ship of Fools, no, no
Oh, save me, save me from tomorrow
I don't want to sail with this Ship of Fools, no
I want to run and hide
Right now

Avarice and greed are gonna drive you over the endless sea
They will leave you drifting in the shallows
Drowning in the oceans of history
Traveling the world, you're in search of no good
But I'm sure you'll build your Sodom like you knew you would
Using all the good people for your galley slaves
As your little boat struggles through the warning waves
But you don't pay

You will pay tomorrow
You're gonna pay tomorrow
You're gonna pay tomorrow

Oh, save me, save me from tomorrow
I don't want to sail with this Ship of Fools
Oh, save me, save me from tomorrow
I don't want to sail with no Ship of Fools,no,no,no

Where's it coming from
Oh, where's it going to
It's just a, it's just a Ship of Fools....


janerd75 - 1-20-2017 at 02:01 AM

Hush you. You hosers could probably use a little extra warmth right aboot now anyway. Just pound down 1 to 47 Molson XXX's and enjoy the warm glow of the new Southern Lights this Friday night. You're welcome. Also, can someone dial me in on how Trumpstain is gonna start a nucular war with Pootie Tootie Russkie Fruitie when they're BFF's? Oh right, Choina. Nevermind. Either way...




Paddlefoot - 1-20-2017 at 02:45 AM


Quentil - 1-21-2017 at 04:19 PM

How long before we invade Mexico because they won't pay for the wall?


G. Jonah Jameson - 1-21-2017 at 08:12 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
How long before we invade Mexico because they won't pay for the wall?


We won't. When Trump realizes it's not going to happen, he'll just claim he never said Mexico was going to pay for the wall, and his supporters will believe him.


Count Zero - 1-22-2017 at 07:40 AM

quote:
Originally posted by G. Jonah Jameson
quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
How long before we invade Mexico because they won't pay for the wall?


We won't. When Trump realizes it's not going to happen, he'll just claim he never said Mexico was going to pay for the wall, and his supporters will believe him.
I wish I could gaslike this post.

(c wut i dood thar)


CCharger - 1-31-2017 at 10:38 PM

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/

It's a long read, but powerful.


BBMN - 2-5-2017 at 08:21 AM


OOMike - 2-7-2017 at 06:52 PM

History has been made, for the first time ever, the Vice President had to break a tie and confirm a Cabinet appointment.


CCharger - 2-7-2017 at 07:29 PM

quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
History has been made, for the first time ever, the Vice President had to break a tie and confirm a Cabinet appointment.

And now our Secretary of Education is a rich, white woman who has never attended public school, has no background in education at all. She's a billionaire GOP donor who wants to divert public money to pay for private school vouchers.


Paddlefoot - 2-7-2017 at 08:00 PM

Clearly the answer is Pepsi. Or Jesus.



bopol - 2-8-2017 at 02:16 AM

quote:
Originally posted by CCharger
quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
History has been made, for the first time ever, the Vice President had to break a tie and confirm a Cabinet appointment.

And now our Secretary of Education is a rich, white woman who has never attended public school, has no background in education at all. She's a billionaire GOP donor who wants to divert public money to pay for private school vouchers.




Draining the swamp baby.


anglefan85 - 2-8-2017 at 03:55 PM

http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/white-house-switchboard-facebook-messenger-1201967138/

Well, how about that?


CCharger - 2-8-2017 at 06:10 PM

quote:
Originally posted by anglefan85
http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/white-house-switchboard-facebook-messenger-1201967138/

Well, how about that?

It's not just the White House that is ignoring citizens' concerns...

https://thinkprogress.org/americans-are-taking-an-active-role-in-their-democracy-and-their-representatives-cant-handle-it-b7d310c03a16#.45djsbn96 />
I imagine GOP politicians sitting in their offices with their hands in their hands going "LALALALALALALALALALALA" very loudy.

[Edited on 2-15-2017 by CCharger]

[Edited on 2-15-2017 by CCharger]


anglefan85 - 2-8-2017 at 06:41 PM

I...I've got nothing to say about this one. Aside from typing I can barely form actual coherent words at this. I am beyond furious and disgusted. Anyone who even tries to debate this one can go tap-dance in a minefield.

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/trump-va-listening-session-no-advocates


CCharger - 2-8-2017 at 07:07 PM

But...but...but..conservatives love the military.

Until they come home and need medical help or mental health counseling or end up jobless or homeless.

Then it's all "Suck it up, snowflake!"


OOMike - 2-14-2017 at 01:36 PM

Flynn is out, the fall guy has fallen upon his sword, but will it be sufficient to protect the administration from the claims and investigation into the possible tampering with foreign relations prior to inauguration? Probably, some congressional Dems are calling for an investigation, but besides a few requests for information I doubt we will see any thing more than the administration feeding the story that "We aren't sure what he said, and anything he did say was on his own."

My guess is that this is just another small bump in the road to new lows of approval ratings.


CCharger - 2-14-2017 at 04:47 PM

What a chaotic mess. Transitions like this are never smooth, but this is a whole new level of fucked up.

"His team hasn't even collected their first paychecks yet, and already someone has had to resign in a cloud of scandal. And not a trivial scandal, either—this isn't hiring an undocumented maid or sending an inappropriate photograph on one's cell phone. Flynn broke the law and then lied about it. Further, he is hardly the only member of the team to find themselves in hot water. Would-be communications director Jason Miller and would-be adviser Monica Crowley didn't even make it to Inauguration Day, felled by charges of adultery and plagiarism, respectively. Steve Bannon has attracted negative attention for his power grabs. Sean Spicer and Kellyanne Conway have been mocked for their "alternative facts," the latter also had to be reprimanded for breaking the law on national television. For a candidate who promised to hire "the best people," Trump certainly hasn't had much success so far."

-- http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Also, Stephen Miller, Trump's senior advisor, made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows. This is what he had to say:

"The end result of this, though, is that our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned."

Will not be questioned? Authoritarian dictatorship much? Motherfuck...

[Edited on 2-14-2017 by CCharger]


OOMike - 2-14-2017 at 06:45 PM

And now, the UK has changed 45's visit to when Parliament is out of session to save any embarrassment about not being invited.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-visit-uk-rescheduled-091400633.html


ETA: Well looks like there will be no investigation into Flynn/Russians... caught a little bit of CNBC where they were talking to a Rep Nunes -CA (R) and I heard that the Senate has stated they are not going to investigate, and the committee that he is on is more interested into looking at why Flynn's recording was being tapped and how that transcript leaked to the media. So in other words, was there a crime? Maybe, but we are more interested in the fact that it was revealed. Fuck us.

Add to the fact that he stated that there will be no tax reform without a Border Adjustment Tax.... which is a consumption tax... like sales tax... and the most regressive tax and will hit those at the bottom of the income range the hardest. So yea!

[Edited on 2-14-2017 by OOMike]


CCharger - 2-14-2017 at 09:45 PM

I wouldn't give up on the investigation into Flynn just yet. There are a lot of GOP reps who a disgusted enough with Putin to call for a bipartisan committee to investigate this. Besides, I think the American people WANT to know more about Russia's involvement in the election and their ties to the Trump administration. If the GOP ignores that, then it could end up being a net win for the lefties.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/politics/republicans-want-flynn-investigations/index.html

Just goes to show you that most times, the cover up is worse than the crime.


CCharger - 2-15-2017 at 03:54 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
We should talk about how there's evidence that the Russian government and the Trump organization have had a secret private server running that only serves to transmit unknown data back and forth. And right before a lot of the Trump accusations, huge spikes in data sent from Russia's end was recorded.



This was some scary foreshadowing for what is happening currently. Hindsight is 20/20.


CamstunPWG187 - 2-15-2017 at 05:35 PM

But...her emails!!!


anglefan85 - 2-16-2017 at 01:10 AM



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/15/kid-rock-musician-floated-possible-gop-senate-cand/


Quentil - 2-16-2017 at 08:58 PM

quote:
Originally posted by CCharger
quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
We should talk about how there's evidence that the Russian government and the Trump organization have had a secret private server running that only serves to transmit unknown data back and forth. And right before a lot of the Trump accusations, huge spikes in data sent from Russia's end was recorded.



This was some scary foreshadowing for what is happening currently. Hindsight is 20/20.



Well yeah, although of this stuff was available before the election. The connections and contacts between Trump and Russia were described in detail, even. When I posted that up (in the beginning of November) everyone was too busy screaming about Emails or grabbing pussy and forwarding bad Facebook memes that the actual important stuff was mostly ignored. And that's how a lying con artist becomes president, and threatens the United States at its core. Well, that and the fact that Republicans sold their souls for party, and put it and sucking corporate and Christian cock ahead of the well-being of the United States as a whole.

The Republican leadership realized they can manipulate people who are both egotistical and ignorant into charging forward simply by making them afraid and giving them an easy solution to complicated problems. Throw in constant lying until you can claim alternative facts as truth, and there you go. The result is that they've taught people to believe that strength comes from fear and being a bully, and that intelligence and critical thinking is to be ridiculed as somehow being weak.

And it's bringing us closer to armed conflict with ourselves as a result.


CCharger - 2-17-2017 at 12:41 AM

Q,

You're a smart guy (a little too conservative for my tastes, but I'm to the left of Emma Goldman). What are you doing about this? Are you on the #resist bandwagon? Participating in Indivisible stuff? Or just making a big batch of bathtub gin and awaiting the Second Coming?


Quentil - 2-17-2017 at 01:27 AM

I vote, I comment, and if the folks seem decent enough, I'll debate. Sometimes I'll participate in local party politics, even going so far as to have gone to "town hall" meetings a few times over the years to say something. And now for some pointless tangentially-related thought...

I used to debate a bit more than I do now, but as a centrist I got sick of having all of my friends from both major parties pissed off at me for something. Which isn't that surprising, I suppose. The parties seems to have become ever-more polarized towards the extremes, and as a result the understanding of the issues has been simplified. The fringes seem to make political participation easier and more aggressive, at the expense of compromise and critical thinking. But yeah, I tend to keep internal my thoughts more than I used to, just because it's not worth getting worked up or trolled over by people that aren't going to give a shit anyhow.

I mean, I try to be a decent enough person to other people. And to respect their beliefs even if I do not share them. At least until they've shown themselves to not be worth the effort. At this point, the hardcore Trump supporters aren't worth the effort. Actually, that point came and went a long time ago. Because no matter what you say to them, they will scream "FAKE NEWS!" or "KILLARY!" or bring up things that aren't true at all to justify a different point than the one you were talking about anyhow. The "Us vs Them" mentality above all else just weakens us all over time.


CCharger - 2-17-2017 at 02:20 AM

Agreed on the Trump supporters, although to be fair, conservatives behaved the same way before Trump. No room for compromise. Even worse, any time you supplied them with the facts, they would scream "liberal media!". That's the trick that Fox News and talk radio have played on them: convinced them that the news has a liberal bias so don't trust the facts. Therefore, anything that goes against their conservative narrative is easily dismissed as "fake" or "biased". How can you talk to anyone or debate anyone who can't separate fact from opinion or slanted news from straightforward news? It's impossible.

I'm now of the belief that this election, ultimately, will be a good thing for progressives. Yes, the Democrats lost, but Clinton was never a liberal. She was a neoliberal who embraced cultural leftism. She was as much a trickle-down, free trade, Wall Street cheerleader as any 80's Republican. She just supported cultural liberalism: gay rights, feminism, environmentalism, etc.

When it comes to macroeconomic policy the Venn diagram of the Democratic Party and Republican Party was basically a circle. This election was a huge FUCK YOU to the idea of neoliberal economic policy that includes free trade, globalism, deregulation, and privatization. Regular Joes living in Small Town Middle America couldn't give two shits about who uses the bathroom in North Carolina. They just want to have a decent paying job and put their kids through college. They are tired of hearing the Dems yammer on about identity politics while giving their struggle a shrug. Coastal urban elites made out fine in the last 10 to 20 years and they think everyone else is dandy too. Not the case and this election sent the message that there are people really struggling in the Rust Belt. Hillary's answer was "job re-training". Fuck that. Not everyone wants to sit behind a computer in a cubicle. Some people want to drive a backhoe and work heavy machinery.

Now I think the Dems are starting to get the message that their base wants economic populism married to cultural leftism. Same sex marriage is fine as long as you jail the bankers. The right to choose is great as long as you fight for unions over corporations. You are seeing a huge swing to the left for the Dems and they are learning how to fight the GOP instead of trying to be more like them. When Trump and the GOP run the country into the ground in the next four years, there won't be anyone to blame but themselves and a newly invigorated leftist, populist Democratic Party will be there to pick up the mess.

What was the alternative? Vote for Hillary? If Hillary was elected, what message would that have sent? "You're policies are bullshit and your candidate is flawed, but whatever, we are going to vote for you anyways?" No, instead, America said, "Go fuck yourself. Get your shit together, Dems and get back to us in 2 to 4 years." Yes, it's going to be a tough learning experience, but absolutely necessary in the end.


Count Zero - 2-17-2017 at 06:57 AM

quote:
Originally posted by CCharger
No, instead, America said, "Go fuck yourself. Get your shit together, Dems and get back to us in 2 to 4 years." Yes, it's going to be a tough learning experience, but absolutely necessary in the end.
Actually, it looked more like "America" didn't think anything needed to be said, and presumed the supposedly-commonsensical outcome would happen.

"The Majority" was not asking to break eggs for omelettes here. Apathy ruled the polls, and now Sociopathy sits in the Oval Office.

This is why "I don't care who runs the country" is a terrible first-premise for most of the electorate to start with. As long as you live in a country, you (the generic, non-specific 'you' ) really need to give at least one or more fucks.

(etfix brackets so it didn't turn into a smileyface.)

[Edited on 2-17-2017 by Count Zero]


Quentil - 2-17-2017 at 03:15 PM

I'm not excluding the far left in the crazy lie talk either, though. While Trumps' hardcore supporters are ignorant bigots, the same can be said about the far left in their support of homeopathy, government conspiracies, and abuse of the Constitution when it suits their wants. The creation of "safe spaces" everywhere in which they want first amendment rights but also to revoke everyone else's is the most glaring example, but there's plenty of others.

You don't know the sort of liberal I'm talking about? There's an easy way to test your left-leaning friends to find the crazy: Talk about television, and the ones that say, "I don't even own a television!" are the crazies. Other easy ways are when they try to talk to you about lavender oil and how it cures cancer, or how meat is the cause of all disease in the world (I've actually had this said to me with a completely straight face).

So yeah, the fringe on either side should never control government, in my opinion.


CCharger - 2-17-2017 at 03:36 PM

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/06/this_is_our_neoliberal_nightmare_hillary_clinton_donald_trump_and_why_the_market_and_the_wealthy_win_every_time

Here's a great article written months before the election. It correctly portends an electoral rebellion against neoliberal multiculturalism. In the end, those hurt most by neoliberalism chose the guy who they thought (at the time) was less neoliberal than the other. Obviously, very few Americans walked into the voting booth knowing what neoliberalism WAS let alone thinking about it as they voted, but the effects of neoliberalism and who represented it (Clinton) was foremost on their minds.

We are experiencing a seismic shift away from the "Washington Consensus" toward more Keynesian, New Deal-esqe economics. Occupy Wall Street and Bernie Sanders weren't quirky fads. That movement is here to stay.

Certainly, that won't be BECAUSE of Trump. It will be as a result of him. In spite of him. The movement for economic justice will only grow in reaction to the expansion of economic inequality under Trump. When he is swept from office in four years, hopefully replaced by a candidate sincerely dedicated to opposing neoliberalism and restoring economic justice and power to the working class, it will be a turning point in our history.

I welcome it. Either way, check out the article.

These are dark, dark times, but I'm optimistic we will survive and come out the other side even stronger and better as a country.

ETA: This article does a great job criticizing the "othering" of those who do not embrace identity politics. The same "far left" that you mention.

[Edited on 2-17-2017 by CCharger]


williamssl - 2-22-2017 at 08:55 PM




CCharger - 3-1-2017 at 04:50 PM

Well, President Trump had his first address to a joint session of Congress last night and the big news was that he wasn't an angry, arrogant, bloviating asshole. Congratulations.


OOMike - 3-22-2017 at 05:58 PM

Lets see what is going on lately.... Trump is trying to spend more time out of the White House than in as President (the microwaves have ears), it looks like several of his campaign people have close ties to Russia that were not disclosed, his daughter, who I thought was running his businesses with his sons, is an unofficial member of his administration.

Can we get updated odds that he lasts less than four years?

And can someone talk to a Trump voter and see how they feel about all this? All mine on FB have disappeared, or are limiting themselves to posting Obama/Hillary memes.


CCharger - 3-22-2017 at 08:21 PM

quote:
Originally posted by OOMike

And can someone talk to a Trump voter and see how they feel about all this? All mine on FB have disappeared, or are limiting themselves to posting Obama/Hillary memes.

The ones that I know are blaming either the "liberal media" who are trying to bring Trump down through "fake news", or they are blaming what they call the "Deep State" who are Obama loyalists left over from the previous administration who are trying to undermine the Trump administration through leaks and acts of sabotage.

As Trump's nefarious connections to Russia become more and more apparent, his approval rate continues to plummet. According to fivethirtyeight.com, who runs a daily aggregate of all major approval polls, Trump approval rate is at 42.3% which is the lowest of his presidency and the lowest of any president in modern American history at this point in their term. Meanwhile, his DISAPPROVAL rate is at 51.7% which again is a record high. Main point: Trump is the most unpopular president in modern American history at this point in his term.

At this point, the GOP has to be seriously worried about losing seats in Congress. Typically, the party in the White House always loses seats in Congress at the midterm election regardless of how popular the president is. However, an unpopular president means even MORE seats being lost. With a historically unpopular president AND an angry and motivated Democratic Party, the GOP could lose control of Congress and make Trump's life miserable for two years.

[Edited on 3-22-2017 by CCharger]


Paddlefoot - 3-22-2017 at 08:30 PM

A motivated Democratic party is one thing. A competent Democratic party is something else altogether. Hey, let's check in on what the Dems are doing in this moment of health-care repeal when they should be pushing the same logical, reasonable, and much less costly single-payer (i.e. the government) system that the rest of the developed world has:



Golly, this must have been the same guy who told Clinton that Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio were a lock going into election day. Doesn't look like much of a plan to go into the next election with. Even with a chunderfuck Trump merrily committing a daily suicide ritual you really shouldn't count on the other guy imploding just to make your own job easier for you. Five months after the fact we should all be wide-eyed aware that if there's any group that can blow it completely it's the current Democratic party leadership.


CCharger - 3-22-2017 at 08:37 PM

Truer words have never been spoken. If anyone can step on their own dick, it's the Dems. I guess my point was the Democratic/progressive VOTERS are motivated and angry. Whether that translates into electable candidates with bold alternatives to Trumpism is yet to be seen.


Quentil - 3-28-2017 at 04:44 PM

One thing that really shows his support in how they think is that they still go to his rallies and chant things like "LOCK HER UP!" It's a useless chant that means nothing, and never did...But his fanbase still seems to think it's relevant and some rebellious act. Then I realize that it's not about fixing the US for a lot of his support, it's about being part of the pageant, part of the spectacle.

It's about bragging about how you were at a rally and how people were cheering in their two minutes of hate. For Trump, I think it's similar. He wants the adoration and ability for making money, but not any of the actual, boring, job shit. It's like Trump is a parasite, but he knows how to distract his victims as he burrows into them.

This is modern politics, I think. It's long on grand displays and social media views and short on actual policy. And this holds true for the supposed progressive left as well. They spend millions on GMO labeling and making up fake shit about Monsanto and transgender time out safe spaces that they would be just as big of failures on the legislative front.

And it's also interesting how every Trump fan will say at some point in a conversation, "I'm not a racist, but..." or "I'm not a sexist, but..." and they say something horribly racist or sexist and honestly not realize it. Trump has managed to tap into a thin wedge of middle-aged white people's hatred at not all being jet-flying, limo-riding rich folks. And he's using them to try to wind back the clock to the 1800s. And the rest of the world is looking at him in shock, refusing to believe that he's serious.


They aren't afraid of him, and in fact they know he's a terrible negotiator and easy to work around to get their goals finished. But so long as Trump has his supporters screaming "LOCK HER UP!" for years, this terrible situation will fester along and get worse.

I can't wait until someone in his inner circle breaks and spills the beans on everyone else. You know it's gonna happen. Then shit will get very real, and Trump will likely start trying to forment an armed situation somehow, blaming everyone else but himself.


[Edited on 3-28-2017 by Quentil]


CCharger - 3-28-2017 at 06:34 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil

I can't wait until someone in his inner circle breaks and spills the beans on everyone else. You know it's gonna happen. Then shit will get very real, and Trump will likely start trying to forment an armed situation somehow, blaming everyone else but himself.


[Edited on 3-28-2017 by Quentil]

http://theslot.jezebel.com/trump-administration-reportedly-tried-to-block-sally-ya-1793718027

You don't even need anyone in his inner circle to flip. These guys are so incompetent, they don't even know how to cover up a scandal.


anglefan85 - 3-29-2017 at 08:10 PM

In one day, Trump:

-revokes LGBTQ employment protections
-cuts $300 million dollars in HIV/AIDS research
-removes LGBTQ folks in census

As someone who views himself as an LGBTQ ally and someone who has friends in the community, if you voted for Trump and still stand with him, go fuck yourself.


Paddlefoot - 3-29-2017 at 08:22 PM

Being the greatest deal-maker of all time maybe those were the things he exchanged in order to get a couple dozen coal-mining jobs back.


CCharger - 3-29-2017 at 08:35 PM

I think we all know now that when Trump said he was going to Make America Great Again, he really meant Make America Rich, White, Straight, Christian and Male Again.


anglefan85 - 3-29-2017 at 10:20 PM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-mexico-border-wall-cost-funding-20170328-story.html

Wow...wants to fund the wall and is willing to cut cancer research to do so? There is being an asshole, and then there's moves like this where even assholes will call you out on it.


CCharger - 3-29-2017 at 10:42 PM

In Trump's America, Mexicans and ISIS are scarier than malignant tumors and climate change.


anglefan85 - 3-30-2017 at 09:19 PM

At this rate, I think one of the smartest investments for me to make is in Orville Redenbacher. Trump's now going after his own people:

Trump Goes After Conservatives of Freedom Caucus

quote:
President Trump declared war on the conservatives of the House Freedom Caucus on Thursday, suggesting Republicans should “fight them” in the 2018 midterm elections if they do not back his agenda.

“The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don’t get on the team, & fast,” Mr. Trump said Thursday morning on Twitter, escalating a fight that began when the conservatives from the caucus blocked his Affordable Care Act repeal last Friday.

“We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!” Mr. Trump wrote, apparently making good on suggestions that he would support Republican challengers to lawmakers in his own party who oppose him, a stance advocated by his chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon.

Friday’s loss on health care rekindled a long-running civil war between the party’s establishment, represented by Speaker Paul D. Ryan, who drafted the original bill, and anti-establishment conservatives in the caucus, who thought it preserved too many elements of the Obama-era program.

The post from Mr. Trump did not seem to have been impulsive: Mr. Bannon, who has counseled a tough tone with the rebels, has instructed his staff to more closely monitor the president’s Twitter messages to use them as leverage in negotiations.

Dan Scavino, an aide who controls Mr. Trump’s official White House Twitter account, recently moved into Mr. Bannon’s West Wing office, where he closely monitors social media activity by and about the president, according to two officials.

Minutes after Mr. Trump’s post, his Republican critics took to Twitter to respond, in Trump-ese: “It’s a swamp not a hot tub. We both came here to drain it. #SwampCare polls 17%. Sad!” wrote Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who often sides with the caucus on votes.

“It didn’t take long for the swamp to drain @realDonaldTrump,” said Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, a member of the Freedom Caucus who has emerged as one of Mr. Trump’s most caustic Republican critics. “No shame, Mr. President. Almost everyone succumbs to the D.C. Establishment.”

Michael Flynn Jr., a conservative activist — and son of Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser — went even further. “Why is @realDonaldTrump siding w/ estab Repubs (which we know r closet Dems) and looney Dems like Pelosi and Schumer? NOT WHAT WE VOTED FOR,” he said on Twitter.

Over the past few days, Mr. Trump has lurched between battering and buttering up conservatives who killed his health care overhaul in an agenda-scuttling insurrection that imperils his plans for a tax code rewrite and a trillion-dollar infrastructure package.

On Wednesday — about 18 hours before Mr. Trump’s Twitter attack — senior officials from the White House invited two dozen leaders from conservative groups for a closed-door session to plot a path ahead.

Participants, who were instructed by the organizers of the event not to divulge details of the meeting, or even the groups attending, described the hourlong sit-down as a welcome, but long overdue, policy discussion. It included a candid, polite airing of complaints that they have been largely left out of the loop on major administration decision-making, according to people who attended.

The meeting, put together by Mr. Trump’s conservative outreach director, Paul Teller, at the request of conservatives, included representatives of the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Limited Government and Judicial Watch, all of whom were critical of some administration policies, including the health bill.

Thomas Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch — a conservative legal advocacy group that successfully sued the Obama administration for the release of Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails — made a pointed pitch for the release of all documents pertaining to the Russia controversy, according to people who attended the session in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House.

Mr. Fitton, the participants said, told Mr. Teller that Mr. Trump needed to be committed to a policy of extreme transparency about contacts between Russian government officials and Trump associates during the 2016 campaign, including Mr. Flynn and Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law.

He also asked Mr. Teller and other administration officials present to more rapidly approve bottled-up Freedom of Information requests about Russia and other topics — likening the foot-dragging on legally mandated disclosure to what he said was the Obama administration’s flouting of immigration laws.

Mr. Teller nodded, took notes and was noncommittal, an activist in attendance said.

Rick Manning, a longtime conservative activist and former lobbyist, had worked on setting up the meeting for weeks, but it took on a greater urgency after the health care debacle.

One administration official, speaking as were others on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the meetings, said it was a long overdue attempt to keep conservatives from criticizing Mr. Trump publicly.

About an hour after he stepped up his criticism of his own party, Mr. Trump trained his fury on a more familiar target, The New York Times, posting on Twitter a link to a New York Post editorial critical of the paper.

“The failing @nytimes has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change libel laws?” Mr. Trump wrote.


[Edited on 3-30-2017 by anglefan85]


anglefan85 - 3-30-2017 at 11:58 PM

Holy fucking shit.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-flynn-offers-to-testify-in-exchange-for-immunity-1490912959

Well, this is going to be very intertesting.


BBMN - 3-31-2017 at 04:14 AM




CCharger - 3-31-2017 at 01:57 PM

Michael Flynn in September: "When you are given immunity, that means that you've probably committed a crime."

Michael Flynn in March: "I'd like immunity to protect me from an unfair 'witch hunt'."

FWIW, I would not expect him to turn state's evidence and expose Trump and others. If you read his statement, his attorney makes it clear that he feels the whole "Trump/Russia" thing is a farce:

"Notwithstanding his life of national service, the media are awash in unfounded allegations, outrageous claims of treason, and vicious innuendo directed against him. He is now the target of unsubstantiated public demands and other political critics that he be criminally investigated. “no reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch-hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution.”


BBMN - 4-4-2017 at 09:32 PM

I came across this quote by her and wanted to share it, but as I poked further down the rabbit hole, I found out some pretty fucked up accusations (as if there already aren't enough) dealing once again with Russia.

First off the quote;

"My family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican Party. I have decided to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply concede the point. They are right.

Fun times. And then the real story that followed...

Blackwater founder held secret Seychelles meeting to establish Trump-Putin back channel

U.S. officials said the FBI has been scrutinizing the Seychelles meeting as part of a broader probe of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and alleged contacts between associates of Putin and Trump. The FBI declined to comment.

The Seychelles encounter, which one official said spanned two days, adds to an expanding web of connections between Russia and Americans with ties to Trump — contacts that the White House has been reluctant to acknowledge or explain until they have been exposed by news organizations.


anglefan85 - 4-7-2017 at 03:53 AM

Trump launched 50-70 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian airbase without Congressional support. Syria's biggest ally is Russia.

Welp, so much for him being the one thing that could keep us from WW3, huh? Ah, we had a good run.

"Crawl out through the fallout, baby, when they drop that bomb..."


Quentil - 4-7-2017 at 07:45 AM

quote:
Originally posted by anglefan85
Trump launched 50-70 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian airbase without Congressional support. Syria's biggest ally is Russia.

Welp, so much for him being the one thing that could keep us from WW3, huh? Ah, we had a good run.

"Crawl out through the fallout, baby, when they drop that bomb..."


Nah. The attack is more of a display of what we could do rather than anything actually damaging. The Russians (and thus Syrians) had at least some advance notice, the base itself was isolated and mostly held older aircraft and a secondary importance overall. The attack in no way threatens Assad's power. It's simply a statement telling him to not use chemical weapons in the future.

I'm sure it did some damage to the airbase, limiting its use for the near future. But the attack's main purpose was to tell Assad to go back to killing people with regular bombs instead of chemicals.


anglefan85 - 4-7-2017 at 01:52 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
quote:
Originally posted by anglefan85
Trump launched 50-70 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian airbase without Congressional support. Syria's biggest ally is Russia.

Welp, so much for him being the one thing that could keep us from WW3, huh? Ah, we had a good run.

"Crawl out through the fallout, baby, when they drop that bomb..."


Nah. The attack is more of a display of what we could do rather than anything actually damaging. The Russians (and thus Syrians) had at least some advance notice, the base itself was isolated and mostly held older aircraft and a secondary importance overall. The attack in no way threatens Assad's power. It's simply a statement telling him to not use chemical weapons in the future.

I'm sure it did some damage to the airbase, limiting its use for the near future. But the attack's main purpose was to tell Assad to go back to killing people with regular bombs instead of chemicals.


So, he basically spent all that money, launched 59 missiles, $1.41 million each, for a display of power and a warning? That's a pretty expensive warning.


Quentil - 4-7-2017 at 02:33 PM

quote:
Originally posted by anglefan85

So, he basically spent all that money, launched 59 missiles, $1.41 million each, for a display of power and a warning? That's a pretty expensive warning.


Uh, every president lobs cruise missiles at someone at some point. It's the go-to American power projection that doesn't threaten American lives. You can agree or disagree with its need, but there's little reason to be shocked or surprised at their use.

Trump actually showed a fair bit of restraint in his targeting, all things considered.


williamssl - 4-7-2017 at 03:10 PM

Hillary said the US should attack Syria. She did this hours before the bombing, as the media has been sure to poInt out.

You want to be upset about this one, then blame the good ol' US of A for doing what we do. Unless of course you're only upset about this because of who was at the helm at the time.

Should he have consulted congress? Yeah. Would the outcome have been any different? Not at all.


anglefan85 - 4-7-2017 at 04:00 PM

Fuck her, too, I'm no fan of her, either.

My main issue is this: he's been saying for years not to do this, said that Obama would be a fool if he did it, he ran on the campaign trail saying he wouldn't do this, and now he's done it.

If you don't believe me, try looking at his supporters online today, see their reactions. They are pissed off at him.

[Edited on 4-7-2017 by anglefan85]


Cherokee Jack - 4-7-2017 at 06:27 PM

quote:
Originally posted by williamssl
Should he have consulted congress? Yeah.
To be fair, he did make a point of informing the most important people relevant to his administration...

US official: Russians were advised of impending US attack on Syrian airfield.


OOMike - 4-7-2017 at 06:36 PM

And the reports are that the Syrians also knew in advance ( I wonder from who?) and moved most of the equipment and troops prior to the attack.


anglefan85 - 4-7-2017 at 07:09 PM

quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
And the reports are that the Syrians also knew in advance ( I wonder from who?) and moved most of the equipment and troops prior to the attack.


So he essentially blew up dirt and did this for a photo op.

Fucking hell...


Paddlefoot - 4-7-2017 at 07:15 PM

Yeah, it's all just dick waving, which is entirely appropriate to call a decision made over a steak sammich in the club house restaurant at a golf course. By the end of the weekend the focus will be back on Trump doing another tweetstorm all pissed off at Saturday Night Live again.


anglefan85 - 4-7-2017 at 07:44 PM

Holy mother of fuck...this is worse than I thought.

The pro-Trump Super PAC, Great American PAC is doing a fundraiser based on support of the Syria missile strike. I...I got nothing.


Quentil - 4-7-2017 at 08:10 PM

quote:
Originally posted by anglefan85
quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
And the reports are that the Syrians also knew in advance ( I wonder from who?) and moved most of the equipment and troops prior to the attack.


So he essentially blew up dirt and did this for a photo op.

Fucking hell...


Yes and no. I'm sure the Russians moved whatever helicopters they had there, and some equipment probably made it out. But you can't move the aircraft, fuel, ammo, and support structures like SAM sites and runways in the one hour notice the Americans gave the Russians. So plenty of viable targets were no doubt hit. Early reports are about 15-20 aircraft were destroyed, with about a half dozen being Mig-23s, and the rest likely were SU-22s. Both designs are old soviet-era fighter-bombers that would be decimated against any modern air force, but which are deadly against the rebels, who can't really shoot back. And it's where the chemical weapons attack originated from.

So basically:

Syria loses a secondary (but still important) air base and two squadrons of fighter-bombers, along with the munitions and fuel needed to keep them in action.

It's also in the heart of government-held territory, making an additional implied statement that we can target the government at our leisure if we so chose. That said, it's also an isolated base that isn't critical for Assad to keep in operation, so it tells Assad that we really don't want to bomb him, either, so long as he doesn't press his luck on this one issue.

It really will come down to how Syria reacts here. If they go back to killing their people just with conventional bullets and bombs, I doubt Trump will give a shit enough to bomb them again. If they decide to get into a dick-waving contest, then yeah. Could be a bit more thorny of an issue. Especially if the Russians start using the sophisticated air defense network they have in place that covers most of Syria and large portions of Turkey as well.

Edit: Added some updated information about the planes that were destroyed.


[Edited on 4-7-2017 by Quentil]


anglefan85 - 4-7-2017 at 08:27 PM

That's a good response, I like it when someone can have a differing opinion without resorting to insults.

Yeah, my main issue in all of this isn't just Syria itself since there's no question that al-Assad is a monster who needs to be removed from power, but rather who they are closest with. Syria might not have much of a means in retaliating against us, but their allies can.


denverpunk - 4-7-2017 at 08:41 PM

I take issue with Trump using this as an opportunity to act like some sort of humanitarian when he refuses to allow those same children that died refuge here. Even if the reasoning was altruistic (which I HIGHLY doubt), I wouldn't believe it since I can't intellectually believe a word that comes out of his mouth.


anglefan85 - 4-7-2017 at 09:13 PM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-us-air-strike-latest-bashar-al-assad-claims-children-killed-chemical-weapons-latest-a7671946 .html

Trying to find some other sources before saying that this is 100% legit, especially since its coming from the country that we just bombed, but this is not looking good for us at all.


Quentil - 4-7-2017 at 09:24 PM

quote:
Originally posted by anglefan85
That's a good response, I like it when someone can have a differing opinion without resorting to insults.

Yeah, my main issue in all of this isn't just Syria itself since there's no question that al-Assad is a monster who needs to be removed from power, but rather who they are closest with. Syria might not have much of a means in retaliating against us, but their allies can.


A bit of a long response here, with some basic details about the nations in the area for those who aren't familiar...

Honestly, while I agree that Assad is a monster, I don't really think he's the only one in Syria. Most of the rebel groups are pretty bad as well. But yeah, Syria isn't a threat at all to the US. Their military is depleted, in serious disrepair, and spread out thin along a half-dozen fronts. If not for the Russians, they'd likely have collapsed six months ago.

Let's take a look at Syria's main allies:

Hezbollah - Again, not a threat to the US at all. They technically are terrorists according to our government, but we consider them to be "good terrorists" when compared to groups like ISIS or Al Queda. Their "military", or perhaps better described as paramilitary, is the sort made up of pickup trucks and machine guns, and their threat-level outside of Lebanon and Syria is non-existent. They make great meatshields though to repopulate the front-lines. And they are getting better equipment as a result. Although Israel is making it a point to blow up anything really good that heads their way.

Iran - Iran could be a threat to US interests in both Iraq and in the Persian Gulf. They have a capable military with layered air-defenses and the ability to strike most US middle eastern allies if they wanted to. Don't get me wrong, in a direct conflict, the US military would roll over them, but it would be bloody. Iran also is fighting a proxy war in Yeman as well, in addition to deploying several regiments in Iraq and Syria, while underwriting a dozen more units with finances and equipment that they've put together from true believers and poor folks from half the Muslim world. Their equipment isn't cutting edge, but it's well-maintained from local industries. That said, they aren't going to go to war with the US over one airstrike in Syria, nor are they going to rock the boat in Iraq, where American air support is helping them a fair bit.

Russia - They really are the main threat to the US. They can counter US policy all over the world, and have a stack of nuclear weapons to make themselves immune to any real attack on them directly. They have interfered in US elections, and arguably have spies in the White House. That said, their military really is junk, despite what newspapers say. Their equipment breaks down constantly, their aircraft maintain barely a 50% availability rate (western nations like the US maintain their sortie readiness rates at or above 90% most of the time, even when deployed in the field.), and their navy is in frightful shape. They don't even send out their obsolete aircraft carrier without a tugboat alongside it, as it has the bad habit of breaking down in transit. It makes for good PR to have it steaming along, but militarily it's next to worthless. When it was recently deployed to the Mediterranean, all of its aircraft had to be flown to a land base because the carrier couldn't successfully land returning fighters due to mechanical problems.

I'm wagering that the Russians, behind the scenes, are probably furious with Assad. Because the Americans had mostly bowed out of the whole thing, only to be dragged back into it with the chemical attack.

The Russians will shoot back though if their soldiers start dying. But a single air strike isn't going to have them go to war. They will likely make the US' time of things more annoying with little things like painting with RADAR and the like, but probably won't do more than that.

TLDR; I wouldn't worry too much about retaliatory strikes against the US from any of Syria's allies.

[Edited on 4-8-2017 by Quentil]


janerd75 - 4-7-2017 at 10:34 PM

Another theory going is that Trump was doing some baller episode of 24, Art of the Deal Tom Clancy-type shit by having missiles launched while having dinner sitting next to Xi Jinping. Not saying that's right or wrong at the moment, just that there's really only two swinging dicks left in the world in the U.S. and China, at least economically speaking, and those two really need to get on the same page lest one side or the other mistakes each other as cowards or fools and somebody does something truly stupid to provoke a conflict.

Curious about the angle that Trump's a Russian agent! now, too. Though apparently warnings were sent beforehand to interested parties, i.e. Russia, that shit was about to fly, which to my understanding means it was more an introduction to Mad Dog Mattis' attention getting technique than it truly was to disable any major Syrian infrastructure. A bunch of dumpy Tomahawks dinging up a secondary airfield that the Russian S-300 and S-400 anti-missile batteries could, and probably did shoot down a few with ease? Dick. Swinging.

As always in things like this, the obvious evidence of chemical attacks and who did them could easily be presented to us rubes to state the case for why this was necessary. Humanitarian issue? There's other hotspots around the world they could use for attention getting purposes, like those Boko Haram fucks, yet somehow always comes back to the Middle LEast for some strange reason. Petrodollars and pipelines betwixt all the major players in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and China are what I think is most likely in play here.

Regardless, I think right now the hotspot of hotspots is whatever the fuck we're going to be doing with North Korea. Only China truly has the power to reign them in with the least likely amounts of shots being fired. If Trumpster gets involved without Chinese 'permission' in their territory, then shit gets a bit more dicey. We've both essentially got economic weapons pointed at each other's head with them, IIRC, being the largest holders of our debt and us the largest purchasers of their shit.

Meh, we're all going out someday so may as well enjoy the show we all payed to see. Hopefully there are some Jack Bauers behind the scenes (there are) keeping this shit on an even keel while the Vince Mcmahons, Eric Bischoffs, and Paul Heymans of world leadership are dicking around in the ring doing promos on one another for show.


BBMN - 4-8-2017 at 03:44 AM

Please, God, make it stop.


BBMN - 4-8-2017 at 03:47 AM

FFS....


BBMN - 4-8-2017 at 03:49 AM

Kill yourself.


anglefan85 - 4-8-2017 at 10:09 PM

Not sure how how to embed a tweet on this site, but:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/850785347038576640

"The reason you don't generally hit runways is that they are easy and inexpensive to quickly fix (fill in and top)!"

So now we're at the point where he is flat-out discussing military strategy on social media. Plus the airfield that he bombed is back up and running again.

[Edited on 4-8-2017 by anglefan85]


Quentil - 4-9-2017 at 01:18 AM

Actually, unless you use bombs specially made to dig into the ground before exploding, hitting a runway is pretty pointless as a deterrent. Runways are one of the easiest things to fix. I mean, they are flat ground. All you need to do is to fill in a hole. To take out an airfield, you need to hit the planes, munitions, and command and control (IE, tower). The runways are usually a tertiary or symbolic target at best. This isn't some secret, and has been a well-known thing going back to at least WW2. Also, Tomahawks aren't made to destroy runways. They'd be wasted on such a thing.

For a runway, you want something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matra_Durandal Using these would have required aircraft, which the Trump administration likely didn't want to do as it would risk even greater escalation, along with American pilots.

And just because a couple planes took off there, it doesn't mean the base is operating anywhere close to 100%, or even 50%. Don't fall prey to a blatant PR move done to try to discredit the attack's success.

And again, this attack wasn't about destroying Assad's ability to fight. It was a message telling him to feel free to kill people with conventional munitions, but to keep the chemical stuff off of the table. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is all pretty basic military and political type of stuff on the world stage. It's something folks who remember the Cold War should be very familiar with, especially in regards to the Middle East.

[Edited on 4-9-2017 by Quentil]


anglefan85 - 4-9-2017 at 03:56 AM

You might be right. I mean, hell, Trump's already moving on to other things. Such as attempting to piss off North Korea by sending a strike group that's headed toward the Korean Peninsula. Sending warships into Korean Peninsula, North Korea's biggest allies are Russia and China. What could possibly go wrong here?:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/politics/navy-korean-peninsula/index.html

[Edited on 4-9-2017 by anglefan85]


CCharger - 4-9-2017 at 05:03 AM

Trump attacked Syria over the murder of children that he wouldn't let in to his own country to avoid being murdered.


Paddlefoot - 4-9-2017 at 05:22 AM

I wouldn't worry at all about a carrier group doing a drive-by on the Norks. These things happen all the time without incident. It's mere saber rattling that serves to send a "we're still here" message to the kind of d-bags like L'il Kim who think they amount to more than they do.

My worry is if and when the ramp-up on "we gotta do something about Iran!" begins. To me that's the most likely target for Trump to play his own little version of spreading "democracy" the way Dubya did to, err, in Iraq. All this other shit is just for show but attacking Iran will be the next "worst foreign policy debacle" in American history behind Iraq and Vietnam.

Post-Reagan Republican outlook on foreign policy? Yeah, it really does amount to nothing more (and completely insincere) than this:


CCharger - 4-11-2017 at 03:42 PM

As we approach Trump's first 100 days, let's take a look and see exactly what Trump has accomplished:

1. Easier for hunters to shoot hibernating bears
2. Easier for mentally ill people to own guns
3. Easier for coal companies to dump waste in rivers and streams
4. Easier for internet companies to sell your private data to third parties
5. Fuel efficiency standards have been weakened
6. Banks and brokers are allowed to put their interests ahead of their customers' interests
7. Easier to ban refugees from Muslim-majority countries (except those with business ties to Trump)
8. Fired 50 cruise missiles at a virtually abandoned air base (everyone was warned ahead of time) that was operational two days later
9. Had his National Security Advisor resign in disgrace over improper ties to a foreign government
10. Reneged on his promise to have Mexico pay for the wall and instead passed on the $20 - 25 billion bill to the U.S. taxpaye

If I am a conservative, I guess I'm pretty excited about things are so far, huh?

Oh, and Trump continues to be a hypocrite:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/10/politics/donald-trump-obama-travel-costs/index.html


anglefan85 - 4-11-2017 at 04:39 PM

He's also slated to gut the National Institute of Health, which does a lot of research for medical issues such as stroke.

It also could absolute devastate me, seeing how my college major is in biochemistry and I'm slated to graduate this year. I have no idea how this could affect me getting a job in the field.


anglefan85 - 4-11-2017 at 07:43 PM

Wow, just when I think that they can't top themselves, they just keep digging that hole.

Spicer today said at the press briefing that Assad is worse than Hitler because Hitler never used chemical weapons on his own people. He also referred to concentration camps as "holocaust centers."

Yes, you just read that correctly.

[Edited on 4-11-2017 by anglefan85]


CCharger - 4-11-2017 at 11:50 PM

quote:
Originally posted by anglefan85
Wow, just when I think that they can't top themselves, they just keep digging that hole.

Spicer today said at the press briefing that Assad is worse than Hitler because Hitler never used chemical weapons on his own people. He also referred to concentration camps as "holocaust centers."

Yes, you just read that correctly.

[Edited on 4-11-2017 by anglefan85]

The Trump administration is like the dumb kid in class who gets assigned to your group and does no work, but insists on speaking during the presentation and then makes a complete ass out of themselves when they demonstrate that they have no idea what the project was about.


Quentil - 4-12-2017 at 12:38 AM

quote:
Originally posted by CCharger
quote:
Originally posted by anglefan85
Wow, just when I think that they can't top themselves, they just keep digging that hole.

Spicer today said at the press briefing that Assad is worse than Hitler because Hitler never used chemical weapons on his own people. He also referred to concentration camps as "holocaust centers."

Yes, you just read that correctly.

[Edited on 4-11-2017 by anglefan85]

The Trump administration is like the dumb kid in class who gets assigned to your group and does no work, but insists on speaking during the presentation and then makes a complete ass out of themselves when they demonstrate that they have no idea what the project was about.


Sounds like the hardcore Bernie fans to me as much as the Trump ones.

Honestly, and I mean this as an attempt to help you.... You're stressing out waaaay too much over verbal mistakes like Spicer's Nazi thing today. He wasn't being anti-semetic, so it shouldn't be portrayed as such. But you do it anyhow.

You are looking so hard to hate everything Trump and his administration do, you're missing a lot of the important stuff because every day you're being distracted by stuff that you fail to put into proper context, or stuff that is just outright distraction meant to rile you up and have you lose focus.

Trump is the enemy, sure. He's a scumbag liar who has conned a specific wedge of Americans, and he is damaging the United States as a whole as a result. He's already racked up several impeachable offenses. But he's not going to get any punishment from it with the current political environment in Washington DC. Few things are going to change that. The first being a Russia "smoking gun" being found. Which could be possible, but it's not something to depend on. The other path is far more difficult:

Instead of hanging on every word of Huff post or Salon when they spit out garbage that doesn't matter and is only half-true anyhow once you take out all the shock and awe adjectives, focus on winning the 2018 mid-terms for your party. Work to create a positive and welcoming Democratic party, in which conservative democrats, centrists, and the far left alike compromise and find one unified platform to build from.

That's how you win as a Democrat. You need to bridge the divides and not push for a complete suicide dive towards the follies of the far left. Take back Congress, or at least narrow the space between their majorities and your minorities.

Don't be the better person. Be the harder-working one. Be the smarter one. And part of that is to stop obsessing over every little thing Trump does, and to stop underestimating him. Beat him where it matters: Governorships, in the state and federal legislatures, and eventually in the White House. Do what so many on the far left can't seem to do these days, and focus on one issue and follow through, as opposed to being enraged over everything for 15 mins, and then finding something else to be enraged at.

Then you'll get the results you want. Take back your country through hard work in the trenches. Get up from the computer and start pounding the pavement to enact real change.


Paddlefoot - 4-12-2017 at 01:41 AM

quote:
Originally posted by anglefan85
Wow, just when I think that they can't top themselves, they just keep digging that hole.

Spicer today said at the press briefing that Assad is worse than Hitler because Hitler never used chemical weapons on his own people. He also referred to concentration camps as "holocaust centers."

Yes, you just read that correctly.

[Edited on 4-11-2017 by anglefan85]


This picture makes much more sense now:



There's not much to cheer in Spicer's downfall though. All Trump will do will be to replace him with a genuine clown like Katrina Pierson or a genuine evil like Ann Coulter (her first government job!). It's not like there's someone who isn't another total goof waiting to fill his mismatched shoes.


anglefan85 - 4-12-2017 at 02:30 AM

I appreciate that you're trying to help me find some positives, really, I do. I wish I had your optimism on this, but I just can't. These aren't little things. This is beyond democrats or Republicans, I'm an independent Moderate, I don't even care about that.

He’s making massive cuts to the National Institute of Health, which could affect me personally, seeing how I’m set to graduate with a Bachelors in Bioichemistry and start my scientific career. This is my livelihood that he could hurt. Aside from that, there's medical issues such as stroke which don't get enough research funding to begin with. People with pre-existing conditions like diabetes (which my sister has), can also be affected due to the potential cuts in both research and awareness programs.

He's making it so that being a racist fuckwit in this country is to be encouraged since its what helped get him to the position that he's in. I personally know people that this man has made feel like they aren't welcome in this country anymore.

He's threatening North Korea AND China on fucking Twitter. This is something that could get us into a World War. You don't just change that by pounding pavement. Even if we could change things in 2 years, at this rate, it'll be too late.

So you're gonna have to bear with me if I can't seem to find much motivation right now.

[Edited on 4-12-2017 by anglefan85]


Quentil - 4-12-2017 at 05:16 AM

quote:
Originally posted by anglefan85
I appreciate that you're trying to help me find some positives, really, I do. I wish I had your optimism on this, but I just can't. These aren't little things. This is beyond democrats or Republicans, I'm an independent Moderate, I don't even care about that.



I'm a 41 year old left-leaning centrist. I support gun ownership, free health care and college, and the justification for 10 aircraft carrier groups. People like me seem to be pretty common in parts of NY, PA, and Ohio. Nice to meet you.

quote:

He’s making massive cuts to the National Institute of Health, which could affect me personally, seeing how I’m set to graduate with a Bachelors in Bioichemistry and start my scientific career.


First off, no cuts he wants are a given. In fact, many of them have no chance at all of passing in the eventual budget. Congress controls the budget, and Trump's paperwork is mostly a wish list. That said, I do feel your pain, as likely some good programs are gonna get ball-punched by the moron. But it won't be the bloodletting that some fear. At least, I don't believe it will be.

quote:

This is my livelihood that he could hurt. Aside from that, there's medical issues such as stroke which don't get enough research funding to begin with. People with pre-existing conditions like diabetes (which my sister has), can also be affected due to the potential cuts in both research and awareness programs.



All of this is important, yes. Most of it will still be funded by the government. My worry is that much of the rest will be funded by private companies who will then charge $500 a pill for whatever they research. My father had a stroke last January, so I understand the personal anecdotal sort of feelings in this much as you do.

I also worry that there won't be enough testing done on new drugs because of a cut in funding for the folks that handle such things. And that this will result in something really bad getting on the market.

quote:

He's making it so that being a racist fuckwit in this country is to be encouraged since its what helped get him to the position that he's in. I personally know people that this man has made feel like they aren't welcome in this country anymore.



The thing is, this stuff started a revival way before Trump. The moment Obama got elected president, white power groups, militias, and racism in words and actions spiked and kept climbing. Things like transgender rights, gay rights, and a highly secular view simply were gasoline on the growing fire. Trump has made it a bit easier to be open about it, yes.

This is nothing new, and sadly part of the cycle of things. We just need to remain vigilant and prevent this upswing from gaining more traction than it has. Time is against the white power folks in the US, and they know it. What we see here is the last grasping attempts to slow the decline before multiculturalism in the US destroys them as something we should care about. But it'll take some effort to finish them off. And that'll take folks from across the political spectrum working together.

quote:

He's threatening North Korea AND China on fucking Twitter. This is something that could get us into a World War. You don't just change that by pounding pavement. Even if we could change things in 2 years, at this rate, it'll be too late.



Have faith in checks and balances and public opinion, my friend. China isn't a threat, and tough talk by both sides won't really change the overall relationship between the two nations. Trump isn't gonna start a war with them, either a shooting one or a trade one. China is far more dependent on the US than we are on them. Trump might not realize this, but his handlers do. Well, maybe not Bannon. But the rest do.

North Korea is something different. They really aren't a threat to the US, even with their nukes. What they are a threat to are South Korea, Japan, and maybe Australia. That said, their missiles are garbage. They really are. The stuff we have in both South Korea and just off the coast on a plethora of ships can knock any rocket/missile they fire out of the sky in short order. We can't stop their artillery from killing tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands in Seoul, though.

I see that China is massing troops on the North Korean border. Maybe the US and China will work to remove the threat. It's in the best interests of both, so long as the US leaves a North Korea under Chinese influence as opposed to a unified Korea. I'd wager Trump would probably do something like that. And I'd even support it.

But even if that doesn't happen, I don't think Trump will start an all-out war against North Korea. And that's what any attack would do. Again, you have to hope that his handlers (sans Bannon) manage to explain this to him.

To add something along these lines: The Middle East really isn't threat much of a threat, either. I'm old enough to have seen it go from US vs. Iran, then Lebanon, then Iran, then Libya, then Iran, then Iraq, then Iran, then Iraq, then Libya, then Iraq, then Syria...

Throw in Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan (twice), Somalia (Blackhawk Down, etc), and likely a dozen I have forgotten, and you should see why 60 missiles launched at someone in the Middle East doesn't really phase me at this point.

It doesn't make it right. But it puts it into a context where it's hard to get super excited when every president does it at some point, for whatever reason, and things just keep on keeping on pretty much the same for both the US and for the Middle East.

quote:

So you're gonna have to bear with me if I can't seem to find much motivation right now.
[Edited on 4-12-2017 by anglefan85]


Oh, I get it, my dude. I really do. But panic and outrage only goes so far. You need the cold touch of reason and rational thought to go along with it. Temper that hatred and energy with a bit of patience and forethought. It'll get us out of this mess faster if we set up targets and a viable path to knocking them down in the proper order as opposed to being Chicken Littles.

That's my thought on it, at least.


[Edited on 4-12-2017 by Quentil]


anglefan85 - 4-12-2017 at 01:05 PM

I can't promise that I can do all of this. But I will try, hearing that does give me some motivation. Thanks.


anglefan85 - 4-13-2017 at 05:54 PM

So, we just dropped the biggest non-nuclear bomb in our arsenal on Afghanistan today, code-named "The Mother of All Bombs."

Well then...Quentil, I'm gonna need some good news on this one. Or is it time to start worrying now?

[Edited on 4-13-2017 by anglefan85]


Quentil - 4-13-2017 at 06:13 PM

Stop running around like a chicken little. We used a MOAB in Afghanistan? ....And? We've had them sitting around since like the first Gulf War.

I don't see how dropping a bomb in Afghanistan matters as anything important, much less as something to freak out about. I'd wager it's an attempt to try to scare North Korea or Syria or someone, and it won't accomplish much. As far as Trump goes?

At most, you can make a joke about Trump's penis size, I guess.

I can see Trump saying, "Drop the biggest bomb we have! That'll show them!"

Not anything to really care about, though. We bombed a cave. That'll show 'em?

[Edited on 4-13-2017 by Quentil]


anglefan85 - 4-13-2017 at 06:19 PM

*sigh* I dunno, its probably my anxiety just doing this to me. You're right, I gotta stop freaking out about this shit, so many other things to focus on.

[Edited on 4-13-2017 by anglefan85]


Quentil - 4-13-2017 at 06:24 PM

It's the news media and the rush to print hyperbole. And this is true for all news media, no matter what the political slant they favor.

We've been bombing Afghanistan for over a decade. One more bomb, even a big one, smashing against a cave system isn't really news.

For what it's worth, the MOAB is kind of a gimmick weapon, anyhow. It's a dumb iron bomb mostly that's pushed out of the back of a cargo plane. Nine times out of ten, or even 19 out of 20, a single 2000lb JDAM would do a better job.


Paddlefoot - 4-13-2017 at 06:27 PM

Pretty sure every generation since Hiroshima and Nagasaki has felt the same way. I can remember a few sleepless nights as a kid back in the 1980's with the way Reagan and the Russians were yapping back and forth at each other all the time. And when The Day After movie was televised. It's hard not to get freaked out when the leaders are talking like dipshits about 'a winnable nuclear war'. And back then at least Nancy kept ol' Ronnie on a leash, and didn't let any of the true maniacs in the Pentagon or GOP HQ get through to him very often. Can't say that about Trump now unfortunately, the smartest guy in the room who doesn't take any wimpy advice from anyone. If before bedtime Melania said to him starting a war might be a bad idea his only response to her would be "panties and bra off now, bitch".

EDIT: the only reason to use a MOAB on a cave and tunnel system would be to try to use the concussive effects to collapse it; don't know why though they wouldn't use thermobarics instead because they were pretty successful with those things back in the early years over there.

[Edited on 4/13/2017 by Paddlefoot]


Quentil - 4-13-2017 at 06:37 PM

Watching "The Day After" still creeps me the fuck out. Imagine how much it scared me when I saw it on tv at the age of like 8. Seriously, go and watch that made for tv movie. That's right, they made this for the prime time television audience, haha. It's still disturbing to watch, and really explains how we all felt during parts of the Cold War.

I remember being told over and over again things like, "Once the missiles launch, you have 43 minutes to live. Unless they are sub missiles. then you have like 8 minutes." I remember the fallout shelters in the basements of schools and town halls, and the fear of seeing the Soviet menace in Eastern Europe, Africa, China, and seemingly everywhere.

So yeah, I get it and don't hold that sort of worry against anyone. But we need to control our freaking out to the times when it's truly called for.

But to swing back into the positive...You know how the 80s ended? Huge cuts in nuclear stockpiles, the Berlin Wall coming down, and 20 or so years of a far more relaxed world. Watching the Berlin Wall come down is still one of the biggest memories of my life. I honestly felt like the world had become a better place, and that it would stay that way.

So keep in there, man. Those positives do happen.

ETA: Here's a link to "The Day After" on Youtube for anyone that hasn't ever seen it. It shows the early 80s worries of America pretty well. And hey! Young Steve Guttenburg!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iyy9n8r16hs


[Edited on 4-14-2017 by Quentil]


Paddlefoot - 4-13-2017 at 09:46 PM

If a MOAB is the mother-of-all-bombs does that mean they have to put a Heath Slater "I Got Kids" shirt on one before they drop it?


Count Zero - 4-13-2017 at 10:54 PM

Or even more pertinently, could the Slater Family use the MOAB to dig a new in-ground pool to replace the above-ground model?


Chris Is Good517 - 4-13-2017 at 11:32 PM

Quentil, I appreciate your well-needed dose of optimism because I'm at a very similar level of doom & gloom and anxiety as anglefan, but can you please elaborate what you mean about China not being a threat to us and needing us more than we need them?


CCharger - 4-14-2017 at 12:25 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Chris Is Good517
Quentil, I appreciate your well-needed dose of optimism because I'm at a very similar level of doom & gloom and anxiety as anglefan, but can you please elaborate what you mean about China not being a threat to us and needing us more than we need them?

I don't think China is a threat, but I worry about Russia.

All it takes is for one of our jets to accidentally shoot down one of theirs over Syria. Or they misinterpret on of our military operations as a threat to them and it's all over. There won't be any shooting. It will simply be flashes of bright light followed by only the sound of radioactive fire spreading across the globe.

I imagine their assholes are already puckered with us nosing around in their involvement in the election and the tough talk from some on Capitol Hill. Combine that with Trump's recent unpredictable behavior and you have a recipe for Armageddon.


Quentil - 4-14-2017 at 04:00 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Chris Is Good517
Quentil, I appreciate your well-needed dose of optimism because I'm at a very similar level of doom & gloom and anxiety as anglefan, but can you please elaborate what you mean about China not being a threat to us and needing us more than we need them?


Long rambling to follow, TL;DR: at the end:

China's economy is hugely dependent on the Americans. The USA buys a goodly amount of their crap, and South Korea and Japan do as well. This has allowed their economic expansion over the past few decades. There simply isn't a market that equals the United States that is interested in China. The EU certainly could be, and they have a large amount of trade collectively with China. Exceeding that of the States, even. But the markets in the EU are different than that of the US for China. For various reasons, the US market is more important.

China simply can't find a market to replace the United States to export to. They are trying to build up their ties in Asia and Africa to help resolve this. In fact, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was something that scared the shit out of China. Because it gave the USA preferred and sometimes exclusive markets in places all over southeast Asia, and China was purposefully left out of this agreement. Trump pulling the US out actually helped China immensely, as it allowed them to gobble up the markets that we had secured for ourselves. It'll likely come back to be the biggest economic mistake the US makes for decades to come. But hey! Americans are idiots when it comes to understanding the world economy. Anyhow, I'm getting off topic.

Essentially China depends on the US for a huge chunk of their exports. Their economy would collapse into free fall if the US found other partners. And the thing is, the US could fairly easily. We could easily buy our cheap crap from Mexico or Taiwan or Vietnam or a half-dozen other developing countries. And we'd create an economic boom in them. So they'd be happy for our investments. So basically, if we stopped trading, China's economy would be crippled for a long time, while the US economy would adjust fairly quickly.

Next we have debt. China has bought a fair bit of US T-Bills and other debt, which rely upon a stable US Dollar and economy in general in order to make a decent profit from them. It allows the US to borrow are extremely low levels, usually at ~1%. It means the US gets to keep buying Chinese crap, and essentially China gives us near interest free loans with long-term payback options. China destabilizing the US would cause them to lose a ton of money.

A handful of years ago, China actually panicked a bit and mass sold off a bunch of their US debt. The dollar rebounded, and China wound up losing hundreds of billions iirc. But anomalies like that aside, the debt actually helps Chinese securities by giving them a stable investment, albeit at a low return. It helps the US because it's essentially all the money that we want at no real risk. That said, we could easily encourage the EU or Japan to invest more heavily into T-Bills, offsetting the Chinese influence. And there's no alternative investment for the Chinese at this time. Although they are trying to find one, because they know their weakness as much as American economists do.

This also brings up the idea that China could "call in all their loans" that you hear people use as they claim China is a bad enemy. The thing is, T-Bills and other loans don't work like that. An easy example to use is when you get a mortgage for a house. The bank can't just randomly knock on your door one day and demand that you give them all of the money you owe or else. That's not how it works. So long as you pay your percentage, they must honor the contract or else lose credibility with other existing and potential customers. The US is in zero danger of defaulting. Thus, the idea of China owning American debt isn't a dangerous one.

The Chinese also need the US to deter Russian aggression. It sounds silly to some, but China and Russia really aren't friends, and haven't been for a long time. Sure, they'll sometimes make loud noises over cooperation, but they have a fortified border that's unresolved in some areas, and widely different ideas on their roles in the region.

The Chinese also need the US to join certain world organizations. The US is the dominant economic force on the planet, with a varied mixed-economy coupled with skilled workers and a high technology that really no other single nation can match. At least not in quantity. The US is also a huge agriculture powerhouse, and because of all of this essentially have de facto veto power when it comes to letting new kids into the elite club. China wants to be one of those kids.

In addition to this, the de facto world currency is the US Dollar. Which is also used in pretty much all international oil sales. This means the Chinese investments in the US are dependent on the world oil market arguably more than even the US is. Especially with US domestic energy production shooting through the roof.

And as an aside, I'm not saying runaway debt is a good thing. It's just not really the case at this point with the US. As impossible as the media and politicians make it out to sound, it would be pretty easy for the US to run a surplus and to pay down the national debt. It just wouldn't be popular politically or with the rich folks that buy politicians with donations. And so long as folks lend to us at the aforementioned 1%, it's not really an issue anyhow.

To sum up, the American economy is far more stable overall than the Chinese one. The US economy is highly varied, running the gauntlet from cheap trinkets to energy to high-tech items like chemicals and aircraft. It's a literal economic juggernaut, bitch. It's why it frustrates me when ignorant folks talk about how the economy is doing horribly because they heard a 15 second sound bite. The US economy grew roughly 2% last year. China's grew 1.5%. Russia's contracted by .5% in the same timeframe. But the overall trends show the US economy always growing at a stable rate. China and Russia have both been in a downspin because they are far more at risk to fluctuation because of world events.

The Chinese economy is built on selling high volumes of a handful of different types of goods. Mostly cheap stuff, at that. They also have to pay a premium on high-end goods, as they don't have the manufacturing capability at a certain technological level to produce them in quantities they need. Meanwhile, the American economy is built on selling high volumes of every type of good, coupled with buying cheap shit from whatever developing country we deem the most suitable at the time. Thus, in any trade war or economic crises, the US economy has a number of distinct advantages over the Chinese one.

Militarily, US is in far better shape than the Chinese as well. Our equipment is more modern, we have them ringed with allies and bases, and Russia isn't a friendly neighbor to them. Those things they are building in the pacific on coral atolls? Yeah, we built the same damn things. Check out a picture of Johnston Atoll if you don't believe me. And we could take them out easily as they are actually heavily exposed positions for the Chinese that they cannot easily resupply. It's why we sail our ships right alongside them and flip them the finger as we pass through and they don't do a damned thing about it.

TL;DR: Without a stable US Dollar and market for the Chinese, China's economy would collapse. The American economy would suffer far less. Also, our guns are better than theirs.
Thus, when it comes to these things, the US always has the advantage.


[Edited on 4-14-2017 by Quentil]


Quentil - 4-14-2017 at 04:15 AM

quote:
Originally posted by CCharger
I don't think China is a threat, but I worry about Russia.

All it takes is for one of our jets to accidentally shoot down one of theirs over Syria. Or they misinterpret on of our military operations as a threat to them and it's all over. There won't be any shooting. It will simply be flashes of bright light followed by only the sound of radioactive fire spreading across the globe.

I imagine their assholes are already puckered with us nosing around in their involvement in the election and the tough talk from some on Capitol Hill. Combine that with Trump's recent unpredictable behavior and you have a recipe for Armageddon.


Russia didn't exactly nuke Turkey when they shot down one of their fighter-bombers last year, did they? They hurt Turkey with some economic sanctions, but definitely didn't shoot back at them. There's not much Russia would do if there was an accident. And there's not much we'd do, either. Relations are pretty shit, right now, yes. But we're not on the verge of nuclear war. At least no more than any other day. Which should get you puckered a bit, but not overly so.

That said, we should strengthen NATO, and work to counter Russian influence in Ukraine, Georgia, and elsewhere. No point in letting them gain anything back that they lost a few decades ago.

That's my take on it, at least.


OOMike - 4-14-2017 at 01:12 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
Long rambling to follow, TL;DR: at the end:




In my job looking at factories all around the world, there are a couple of things I disagree with on your conclusions:
China had the world's fastest growing economy from 1985-2015 averaging 10% a year, only very recently has their economy slowed, partially due to increased wage costs as their middle class has grown. Keep in mind, it slowed to 6.9% in 2015, 6.7% in 2016. The US on the other hand hasn't been above 7% since 1984, and was only 2.6% in 2015.

Also over 20% of our imports come from China, that is a lot of capacity to try backfill from other countries that basically do not have the room right now to fill that. Can they build factories? Yes, but who is going run those machines? A billion workers is not something that can be replaced as easily, so the middle class and lower are going to be hit the hardest as the things that they rely on, cheap clothes and consumer goods will either disappear, or be too expensive. Plus, a lot of the factories in those other countries are Chinese owned.

The other benefit for us is that the China economy is growing, which is creating new customers for those high end products that we are producing, and to be honest there aren't other customers out there that would have the money to replace the Chinese.

TL;DR - Both China and the US would be hurt by a trade war, and since they are the two largest economies, the rest of the world will feel the pain as well.


Quentil - 4-14-2017 at 02:19 PM

The Chinese economy grew at a rate to be expected of a break out power. They had a perfect economic storm, so to speak. It's very similar to what happened to the US in the 1950s. And the same thing that happened to the US is happening to China right now. Their middle class and the consequences of fast growth are eating into the gains.

As far as finding new markets for our goods and to buy from, the US history in the 20th century never had an issue with it. Why would they now? I'm sure we could expand the unskilled labor factories in Vietnam or Indonesia at a rate to where after a year or so, the Chinese market for imports wouldn't be nearly as large.

As far as exporting goes, it's true that China buys a lot of high-end American stuff. But there's always new markets for that, as well. India, Iran, and certain other nations in the Middle East have shown they can pick up the slack of purchasing American aircraft, as an example. But you're right in one respect: It would be a tug of war to see which goods were more vital to which country. Would the cheap electronics and kids toys from China be worth more the the Americans than the aircraft, chemicals, and food we ship to China?

I think you are definitely right in saying that in the short-term, it would drive up prices for goods for the middle-class and poor. I just think we'd recover far sooner than China would. We've already shown through a most of a century of the free market that there's always another nation to develop to sell us crap.

That said, can we share agreement that it's in China's best interests to not rock the boat with the Americans, for a number of reasons? That China isn't the big threat that lots of people seem to think? They are certainly a rival, but not really a threat.

[Edited on 4-14-2017 by Quentil]


Paddlefoot - 4-14-2017 at 04:57 PM

Take it as a hopeful sign, as much as one can hope after the November election results, that the Bannon clique in the White House seems to be losing it's influence over foreign policy. And that's a good thing because Bannon was the one that openly said that he wanted the US to go to war with China. There appears to be some consensus, if not secret co-operation between Trump and Beijing to do something about the North Koreans where the Chinese will stay out of it if the US goes after Kim, or that hopefully the Chinese will do it themselves and install a new mostly-uninsane new government over there.


OOMike - 4-14-2017 at 05:19 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
That said, can we share agreement that it's in China's best interests to not rock the boat with the Americans, for a number of reasons? That China isn't the big threat that lots of people seem to think? They are certainly a rival, but not really a threat.

[Edited on 4-14-2017 by Quentil]


Agreed, but I think you are being overly optimistic about the ability to switch production so easily and find a replacement for that many workers, when in many of those other countries are having difficulty filling the jobs they have now.

ETA: Also don't discount the Chinese military because we have better guns, we had better guns in Vietnam, that didn't work out very well.

[Edited on 4-14-2017 by OOMike]


Quentil - 4-14-2017 at 07:07 PM

quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
That said, can we share agreement that it's in China's best interests to not rock the boat with the Americans, for a number of reasons? That China isn't the big threat that lots of people seem to think? They are certainly a rival, but not really a threat.

[Edited on 4-14-2017 by Quentil]


Agreed, but I think you are being overly optimistic about the ability to switch production so easily and find a replacement for that many workers, when in many of those other countries are having difficulty filling the jobs they have now.



You're probably right to some degree about my optimism. I see it as the US having a more varied economy and a history of being able to rebound from recessions over China. But there's plenty of ways to look at it, and lots of numbers and statistics that argue them effectively.


quote:

ETA: Also don't discount the Chinese military because we have better guns, we had better guns in Vietnam, that didn't work out very well.
[Edited on 4-14-2017 by OOMike]


Vietnam is a totally different ball of wax. I do agree that there's some truth to what you say, and you make a decent point, but there's some real differences too. The Vietnamese equipment wasn't as bad as you imply. Their Migs and artillery and even small arms were often cutting edge, or just below cutting edge compared to the similar US equipment in theater. I mean, the North Vietnamese forces had the AK-47, as an example, while the US used the WW2-era M1, and then a not-ready-for-combat M-16. The North had the Mig-17/19 Mig-21 as well. And these planes tore into the F-100s and F-105s the US had early on, and held their own against later A-4s and F-4s. And let's not forget the North's layered and high-tech anti-air systems that constantly shot down American planes throughout the entire war.

Couple this with the fact that the US military actually won the vast majority of battles in the war. Khe Sanh? US Victory. Tet Offensive? A resounding US victory. And yet they were media nightmares, and thus political ones as well. The US definitely "won" the war on the battlefield most of the time. But they lost it culturally and politically, to the point where their battlefield gains and victories were eroded. I imagine it would be similar in China, as well.

But I'm rambling mostly off-topic again. A war against China wouldn't be a pretty picture. My personal opinion is that the Americans have a lot more ability to launch a conventional first-strike than the Chinese do. Bases around China give the US some flexibility that the Chinese lack in regards to the mainland US. The US would dominate in the air and sea, and the Chinese would not be concerned with an invasion as they could overwhelm it with sheer numbers in a ground offensive, technological differences or not. That said, the Chinese pose exactly zero threat to invade the US. We'd see their ships coming from ten thousand miles away and sink them in short order. That is, if they even had the logistical ability to do such a thing. Which they don't. So effectively, we'd have a stalemate in which the Chinese were bottled up, but the Americans were being bled dry over time. Still! Both sides realize this, and they also realize they both have nukes too. And the Chinese and American world goals actually aren't that much different a lot of the time, either. So yeah, war isn't really a threat between the two.

And I've a got a lot of free time, it seems, as these replies all seem far longer than they need to be, heh. It's decent conversation, though. So I suppose it's all good.


Quentil - 4-14-2017 at 07:35 PM

I found this amusing:


BBMN - 4-15-2017 at 03:59 AM

I gotta read all this and come back later... but first a couple thoughts.

I saw today important-army-officer-man say that the MOAB drop was purely tactical and had nothing to do with anything else because it was the right weapon for the job. I agree and disagree with his position. I also agree and kinda disagree with the above assertion that a JDAM would do the same job. It appears they have similar penetration depth, but the payload has to be much bigger. I imagine it completely obliterated the entire cave network.

Then again, couldn't a few JDAMs make up for that? Probably, but if we are gonna make this shit, might as well use it I guess. No sense in building a MOAB, letting it sit for decades, then dismantling it.

As for the army guy saying it was purely tactical.... if so, why even discuss it? Why make the video public the next day? It is purely for show. It shows many things to many people. It shows Trump's supporters that "Look here, your vote wasn't totally in vain!" It shows defense contractors that they're about to be in even more demand by the fed. It shows ISIS that they're pretty fucked. (Which of course they know and don't mind because you know.... 72 raisins...

I think it's mostly about dick waving by Trump and our military. Which isn't a bad thing. Nor is it a good thing. It's just a drunk frat boy screaming his dick is huge. Like, okay, Chad. You have a monster dong. Can you put it away now?


Quentil - 4-15-2017 at 05:30 AM

quote:
Originally posted by BBMN
I gotta read all this and come back later... but first a couple thoughts.

I saw today important-army-officer-man say that the MOAB drop was purely tactical and had nothing to do with anything else because it was the right weapon for the job. I agree and disagree with his position. I also agree and kinda disagree with the above assertion that a JDAM would do the same job.


I actually didn't mean it quite that way. Here's my original comment:

"For what it's worth, the MOAB is kind of a gimmick weapon, anyhow. It's a dumb iron bomb mostly that's pushed out of the back of a cargo plane. Nine times out of ten, or even 19 out of 20, a single 2000lb JDAM would do a better job."

My meaning in saying this is that the bomb isn't some new-tech problem solver. Just that it's a big ass mostly old-tech bomb (that's pushed out of a slow as fuck and entirely defenseless cargo plane) that has limited uses on the battlefield. If this was one of the uses, then that's cool. The vast majority of the time, a bomb that destroys nine city blocks isn't that effective is the point I was trying to make.

It makes sense, as we used similar bombs against caves a decade and a half ago, and the complete air superiority we have in Afghanistan means we can push bombs out of cargo planes with impunity. We wouldn't have similar success in say, North Korea or Syria. But most Americans who support Trump won't realize that.

I agree with your thought that it's mostly a dick-waving contest with no real effect. We killed 36 or so barely literate dudes with 30yr old AK-47s with a bomb that can flatten nine city blocks. Seems a bit silly. Although if we managed to collapse the tunnels too, then cool. But we'll never know that unless we send ground troops there to check. Making part of the justification of dropping it (the part about it saving the need to send in ground troops) seem false.

[Edited on 4-15-2017 by Quentil]


OOMike - 4-17-2017 at 12:45 PM

Our entire military would have to collapse beyond epic proportions before we are threatened with the possibility of an invasion. But I don't think we can knock out China either, so it would end up being a high tech WWI and they have a lot more meat to through into the grinder, and the willingness to keep throwing it.

Back on topic, I don't have a problem with dropping the MOAB, I'm sure that if the situation presented itself in the past 8 years, it would have been used with Obama. Now maybe Trump has lowered the standards of possible collateral damage that allowed it to be used now, but I think the military had to go ahead previously, since it was stated that they did not get approval from Trump prior to its use.


CCharger - 5-1-2017 at 01:57 PM

Well, this is disturbing.

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-nation/2017/05/01/Trump-may-be-talking-about-consolidating-his-own-power/stories/201705010080?pgpageversion= pgevoke

Donny thinks our system of government is "archaic" and needs to be "streamlined" because it's "bad for the country". Clearly, he means that because he can't get his way all the time we have to get rid of those hindrances, like, say...checks and balances.

If I thought he had any chance of making this a reality, I'd be nervous, but it does show you where his head is at.

Oh, and he is apparently getting bored with being president because it isn't any fun.

http://nypost.com/2017/04/28/trump-thought-being-president-would-be-easier/

How about you cash it in and let the adults take over then, Cheeto-lini?

[Edited on 5-1-2017 by CCharger]


Cherokee Jack - 5-1-2017 at 06:38 PM

"I don't stand by anything."
https://youtu.be/-TCR5oC5ZQs


anglefan85 - 5-2-2017 at 04:31 PM

He thought that being President would be easier? What the hell did you think the job entailed, you orange-skinned fuck?


Paddlefoot - 5-2-2017 at 05:13 PM

quote:
Originally posted by anglefan85
He thought that being President would be easier? What the hell did you think the job entailed, you orange-skinned fuck?


Grabbin' puss and smackin' down bitches, apparently.


CCharger - 5-2-2017 at 07:21 PM

I think he thought it would be like running his business: he makes a decision, orders others to carry it out, and then it happens.

In other words, he thought president meant he was a dictator. That's why he is so eager to sign these "executive orders" - because the thinks it's a way to govern by decree.

This whole "checks and balances" thing has really gotten Donny Boy down.

Frankly, based on a few interviews recently, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump decides not to run again in 4 years. I still think his ego would win out, and he wouldn't want to appear like a quitter, but he's old, he's frustrated by the "archaic" system, he doesn't like the long hours, and he is realizing that some issues are very, very, very complicated and very, very, very nuanced and he isn't prepared for them. I could see him announce, "We had a very, very successful four years. A tremendous four years. We accomplished so, so much. We promised to make America great again. I believe we have done that. I did what I said I would do, and now it's time to move on and do other really amazing, amazing things."


Count Zero - 5-2-2017 at 11:55 PM

This shows the amount of disconnect there is between "career politicians" and "the populace". The group of people who 1)voted for Cheetolini (I like that one) and 2) thought he could actually govern the way he said he was going to shows there is a clear lack of understanding of what politicians actually do in their daily work. Trying to get a bunch of people representing a bunch of different interests to pull in a direction that is beneficial to the most-people-possible on any given bit of governing is pretty goded tricky.

I'm not saying "yay politicians!" here; I'm just saying "people don't understand the system they participated in". This is what happens when that hits critical mass.

The scary thing is that "Civics" seems to be a big part of the US Educational System? Or at least it appears to be, from the outside. (If I'm wrong on this, I will gladly welcome correction.)


OOMike - 5-3-2017 at 12:44 PM

Civics or Government (depending on the school system) teaches kids how the government should work, the process of making a bill a law, how the branches check and balance each other, etc. The reality is that there is a lot of wheeling and dealing to get that bill turned into a law. I don't think people in general and Trump specifically understand the amount of compromise and back and forth it takes to get anything done.

Trump, I think, is used to just going to someone's competitor if they won't give him the deal he wants, and government is a monopoly, there is no one else he can go to get a bill passed.


CCharger - 5-3-2017 at 02:33 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Count Zero
This shows the amount of disconnect there is between "career politicians" and "the populace". The group of people who 1)voted for Cheetolini (I like that one) and 2) thought he could actually govern the way he said he was going to shows there is a clear lack of understanding of what politicians actually do in their daily work. Trying to get a bunch of people representing a bunch of different interests to pull in a direction that is beneficial to the most-people-possible on any given bit of governing is pretty goded tricky.

I'm not saying "yay politicians!" here; I'm just saying "people don't understand the system they participated in". This is what happens when that hits critical mass.

The scary thing is that "Civics" seems to be a big part of the US Educational System? Or at least it appears to be, from the outside. (If I'm wrong on this, I will gladly welcome correction.)

A lot of it is attributable to the anti-intellectualism of our current age. Many conservatives are suspicious and resentful of anyone who is highly educated. It's like, "Oh, you think you're SOOO smart, you fancy-pants scientist."

It's why we have elected a man who thinks Fredrick Douglass is still alive and Andrew Jackson could have prevented the Civil War. Many voters looked at Trump's ignorance, disdain for facts, knowledge, and science, and attraction to wild conspiracies and felt empathetic. He was on their level and he connected with them. He was "one of them" rather than some egghead who made them feel dumb and inferior.

[Edited on 5-3-2017 by CCharger]


salmonjunkie - 5-3-2017 at 08:31 PM

quote:
Originally posted by CCharger
Many voters looked at Trump's ignorance, disdain for facts, knowledge, and science, and attraction to wild conspiracies and felt empathetic. He was on there level and he connected with them. He was "one of them" rather than some egghead who made them feel dumb and inferior.


It's actually not that dissimilar as to Bush vs Gore. Gore was seen as that stuffy intellectual that reminded people of their stick-up-their-ass science teacher, while Bush was seen as that guy who's kinda on their level (even if it wasn't completely true).

"Bush got C's in college"

"Well, shit, I got C's in high school, this guy ain't too bad!"


Count Zero - 5-4-2017 at 02:22 AM

quote:
Originally posted by OOMike
Civics or Government (depending on the school system) teaches kids how the government should work, the process of making a bill a law, how the branches check and balance each other, etc. The reality is that there is a lot of wheeling and dealing to get that bill turned into a law. I don't think people in general and Trump specifically understand the amount of compromise and back and forth it takes to get anything done.

Trump, I think, is used to just going to someone's competitor if they won't give him the deal he wants, and government is a monopoly, there is no one else he can go to get a bill passed.
Well, it seems like Trump and his 'supporters' don't even understand the fundamental checks & balances part. He told people he could just go there and do these things, and enough people believed his 'promises' to turn farce into fact.

Not only does STEM-type education need a boost, but an improvement to "this is how your country works" classes might be somewhat useful too.

ETA: RE: GWB
One of the things I remember about the Dubbya Days was how people said "he's the kinda president I reckon I could go have a beer with." I'm not in -any- way dismissing the joys of beer, but... I kind of would want a president who isn't "a beer-drinkin common man" type, because he ought to be too busy for that kind of thing. He is, after all, in charge of a LOT of things, and should probably be doing a lot of reading/researching to make sure he's good at dealing with all those things. Maybe =after= he's done presidenting, and has time to let his hair down, sure.

[Edited on 5-4-2017 by Count Zero]


anglefan85 - 5-4-2017 at 05:14 AM

AHCA goes to vote tomorrow to repeal Obamacame. Game on, lets see how many of these assholes are willing to cut their own throats to pass their agenda.


williamssl - 5-4-2017 at 05:28 AM

Here you go:



Just liquidpaperphotoshop the date put your name in there and you should be good to go for a month.

I'm sorry about the zero refills. My morals and ethics don't kick in on the first RX for some reason but refills sure trigger them.

That being said, you can probably shop this around a few pharmacies and get at least a 3 month supply before they catch on.


Paddlefoot - 5-4-2017 at 05:51 AM

That the same one Adam Rose tried to use?


janerd75 - 5-4-2017 at 05:59 AM

quote:
Originally posted by williamssl
Here you go:



Just liquidpaperphotoshop the date put your name in there and you should be good to go for a month.

I'm sorry about the zero refills. My morals and ethics don't kick in on the first RX for some reason but refills sure trigger them.

That being said, you can probably shop this around a few pharmacies and get at least a 3 month supply before they catch on.


You are a beautiful human being, you know that? That's aboot a mile away from my folk's storage units where we pay $500 a month to warehouse literal tons of useless life detritus that MUST BE KEPT FOR REASONS!!1!11!!!! When I get back over to the West Coast of Hell, mayhaps I'll make a jaunt over to the Pill and Handy Emporium that is that location. For "therapeutic reasons" of course.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/4900+33rd+Ave+N,+St.+Petersburg,+FL+33710/@27.8018272,-82.7003678,3a,75y,180.05h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSA5m1K1o68T -jYgy0O5JoA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x88c2e30d3aeb27bd:0x315db901cc52560d!8m2!3d27.8015857!4d-82.7003911!6m1!1e1

I knew there was a reason to ghost the political threads. Y'alls are still caught up in the D.C. shitshow business? Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but the R's and D's don't care aboot you. Buy the dip, go long PM's, and don't get caught up in the The Show. You're welcome.


williamssl - 5-4-2017 at 09:58 PM

If you're gonna use that fake RX I gave you, I'd suggest using it pretty quickly. You've definitely got a pre-existing condition, and I'm not sure how the changes to the affordable care act are gonna impact your eligibility. There's definitely a decent chance that you won't be eligible to use the fake RX given your pre-existing condition, so get on it!


janerd75 - 5-4-2017 at 10:11 PM

quote:
Originally posted by williamssl
If you're gonna use that fake RX I gave you, I'd suggest using it pretty quickly. You've definitely got a pre-existing condition, and I'm not sure how the changes to the affordable care act are gonna impact your eligibility. There's definitely a decent chance that you won't be eligible to use the fake RX given your pre-existing condition, so get on it!


The only pre-existing condition I have is congenital awesomeness. Okay I guess there's one more, too.





#merclives


CCharger - 5-4-2017 at 11:02 PM

The ACHA (ObamaCare repeal) is so star-spangled awesome that the GOP made sure the Congress was EXEMPT from it.

They literally don't care anymore. The Dems, while they consistently fuck shit up, at least TRY to make people's lives better. The GOP simply gives zero fucks.

What will be funny is when the Senate defeats this. It ends up as another L in Trump's record, and then in 2018 the Dems will be able to run ads against all the GOP Congressmen about how "He/she voted to take away your health insurance."

The midterms are going to be a bloodbath.


Cherokee Jack - 5-5-2017 at 01:26 AM

quote:
Originally posted by CCharger
What will be funny is when the Senate defeats this. It ends up as another L in Trump's record, and then in 2018 the Dems will be able to run ads against all the GOP Congressmen about how "He/she voted to take away your health insurance."

The midterms are going to be a bloodbath.
I'd like to think you're right, but not so sure yet.

First off, it not passing the senate is dependent on McConnell not abolishing the filibuster. And he's said he wouldn't but how trustworthy is this guy? I don't think he does it, but it totally wouldn't shock me if in a week or two he dusts off his finest shit-eating grin and gives some "I don't think the American people are willing to watch one party stop anything from getting done" statement before pulling the trigger.

More likely scenario: comes to a halt in the senate. Democrats do what you say, republicans counter with "well we totally wanted to pass this awesome bill full of freedom and liberty for Americans' health care, but the democrats stood in the way of us getting rid of OBAMACARE." Some (a relatively small percentage of) republican voters see through it but the base and true believers are totally on board. Democrats make small gains but not enough to retake the house. Maybe the senate, but I seem to remember that the list of senators up for reelection in 2018 is mostly democrats, so that could be tough too.


janerd75 - 5-5-2017 at 01:36 AM

quote:
Originally posted by CCharger
The ACHA (ObamaCare repeal) is so star-spangled awesome that the GOP made sure the Congress was EXEMPT from it.

They literally don't care anymore. The Dems, while they consistently fuck shit up, at least TRY to make people's lives better. The GOP simply gives zero fucks.

What will be funny is when the Senate defeats this. It ends up as another L in Trump's record, and then in 2018 the Dems will be able to run ads against all the GOP Congressmen about how "He/she voted to take away your health insurance."

The midterms are going to be a bloodbath.


Roger that. I think there's still a "Well, he still hasn't fucked up that bad yet" honeymoon fog over the proceedings, but once we get toward summer and shit goes off the rails it's going to be hard to tell who means well or not because there's going to be so many arrows slung in either direction. I will politely disagree that the D's care or try. Neither side cares. They all make megabucks from being in the positions they're in and passing legislation that fills their coffers and empties ours. As a non R or D, I say fudge 'em. Fudge 'em all to heck.

However, if ever there was a person that could unite the clans, I got my retarded eye on Tulsi Gabbard. Lady impresses me the more I hear her speak or see her act. Now she's a Madam President if I ever saw one.

Regardless, take it from an utter loon: Get your own house in order and stick with likeminded folk that are cool and decent. Keep an eye on your money and don't worry aboot what happens in D.C. Just plan on them fucking up no matter what and act accordingly. Also, big fat tiddies. Thank you.


Paddlefoot - 5-5-2017 at 01:46 AM

Just another day that fully confirms that Robespierre was right. This is the only thing that will ever really scare them into no longer behaving this way.




janerd75 - 5-5-2017 at 03:05 AM

Once agayn, Paddlefriendo brings up my greatest concerns. Like this swirling Berkeley nonsense where no matter what righteous "side" you're on, there is no ref or arbiter to penalize those that get out of line with the ultraviolence. There is no magical R, D, or I talisman that will protect you if shit goes sideways. Don't worry aboot your betters in Congress though. Their 401's, health care, and futures are set.

Anywho, funny you should reference a John Prine song because he lives not far from Tex's med clinic location in St. Pete. Humble domicile, as you would expect.


Paddlefoot - 5-5-2017 at 03:53 AM

I'm not a communist. Maybe a soft socialist at best. There's no way anymore though to not regard the wealthy as an existential threat to the health, safety, and lives of those who aren't one of them. If it passes the Senate then it a certainty that more Americans will end up dying in the short term from lack of health care than have ever been harmed by ISIS, Al Qaeda, Iran, the Norks, or by any illegal immigrant who ends up working for $20 a day at some McHell cattle feedlot in Texas. The rich are trying to kill YOU and take everything YOU have and to leave all of YOU with nothing in order to sate their bottomless greed. And just because it's death by neglect doesn't make it morally any less wrong than simply taking a gun and shooting someone in the head.

Your republic is rapidly collapsing into a neo-aristocracy, and it's one that's so morally and ethically vile that it makes the ancient perverted monarchies of old Europe look like paragons of enlightenment and virtue in comparison. It's you and your country that they're doing it to. Only you can do anything to stop them and, yes, I absolutely endorse direct action violence* against them if they refuse to stop their depredations against the poor, the sick, and the perpetually powerless.

* real meaningful and terrifying violence too, French Revolution style, not some pathetic street display of some Antifa shitheads smashing the windows of a McDonalds then clapping themselves on the back about how tough and brave they are

[Edited on 5/5/2017 by Paddlefoot]


Quentil - 5-5-2017 at 04:06 AM

Yeah, we're almost as bad and as hypocritically smug as Canada.

That's how bad it's getting.


Paddlefoot - 5-5-2017 at 04:15 AM

?


Quentil - 5-5-2017 at 02:30 PM

Just being silly, and throwing stones from my glass house as others return the favor.

[Edited on 5-5-2017 by Quentil]


Paddlefoot - 5-5-2017 at 03:05 PM

That's cool. Thought I was in trouble.

BTW, I haven't boosted the Canadian system nor would I. It's main benefit is that no one gets turned away or gets charged for service because almost all of it is covered by taxes. It's failings are bad line-ups in emergency rooms because the funding and staffing for them hasn't kept up with population growth. And surgeries for conditions that aren't immediately life-threatening take far too long as well. These two issues are probably the worst things that happen here.

I also firmly believe that a mixed public/private system is best. For example, in a few Canadian provinces, private clinics that do diagnostic services have taken up a lot of the slack and successfully cut waiting times for things like MRI's, CAT scans, x-rays etc. If you can pay out of pocket or by employer benefits then it makes more than enough sense to do so. I paid for my own MRI once. Cost me $700 but it was worth it to skip the ten month (minimum) waiting list to get it done at the public hospital.

There's lots of tinkering around the edges that can be done with the system to improve it. There's been periodic attempts by populist conservatives in Canada to move towards more privatization of more important parts of the system. These usually get defeated simply by pointing out that to do this they'd have to get insurance companies from the US involved and when most people figure out that the monthly or yearly insurance costs would be three or four times larger than what the average guy pays in taxes for health care the idea dies out fairly quickly.


CCharger - 5-5-2017 at 03:10 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Paddlefoot
I'm not a communist. Maybe a soft socialist at best. There's no way anymore though to not regard the wealthy as an existential threat to the health, safety, and lives of those who aren't one of them. If it passes the Senate then it a certainty that more Americans will end up dying in the short term from lack of health care than have ever been harmed by ISIS, Al Qaeda, Iran, the Norks, or by any illegal immigrant who ends up working for $20 a day at some McHell cattle feedlot in Texas. The rich are trying to kill YOU and take everything YOU have and to leave all of YOU with nothing in order to sate their bottomless greed. And just because it's death by neglect doesn't make it morally any less wrong than simply taking a gun and shooting someone in the head.

Your republic is rapidly collapsing into a neo-aristocracy, and it's one that's so morally and ethically vile that it makes the ancient perverted monarchies of old Europe look like paragons of enlightenment and virtue in comparison. It's you and your country that they're doing it to. Only you can do anything to stop them and, yes, I absolutely endorse direct action violence* against them if they refuse to stop their depredations against the poor, the sick, and the perpetually powerless.

* real meaningful and terrifying violence too, French Revolution style, not some pathetic street display of some Antifa shitheads smashing the windows of a McDonalds then clapping themselves on the back about how tough and brave they are

[Edited on 5/5/2017 by Paddlefoot]


To paraphrase John Steinbeck: Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

This is why so many poor and/or working class Americans vote against their own interests. Americans don't hate the rich. They admire them, and they've been brainwashed to believe that if you work hard enough you can be one of them. The American Dream, if you wheeel.

Since the 1970's America has turned hard right politically. Today, Dwight D. Eisenhower would be branded a dangerous, radical progressive. Hillary Clinton is probably farther to the right than George H.W. Bush. I think that's changing (despite the most recent election), and I am hoping it leads to more "New Deal-esque", Keynesian-style economic reform and Teddy Roosevelt-style progressivism.


Quentil - 5-10-2017 at 12:19 AM

Did Donald Trump just fire the guy that is in charge of the Russia investigation against him? And now he gets to hand pick the guy that will replace him and take over the whole thing?

That's....Uh...Yeah.


williamssl - 5-10-2017 at 12:46 AM

You forgot the part where he did it on the recommendation of the guy who had recused himself from said investigation.


Paddlefoot - 5-10-2017 at 01:52 AM

So, does the Enabling Act come before or after the concentration of all police power in the executive office? Shouldn't the Reichstag fire happen first too?


CCharger - 5-10-2017 at 01:52 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quentil
Did Donald Trump just fire the guy that is in charge of the Russia investigation against him? And now he gets to hand pick the guy that will replace him and take over the whole thing?


It's completely backfiring. Washington is up in arms. Cable news is horrified. The American people find it totally wrong.

What Trump has done is earn himself a special prosecutor, mobilize the entire FBI against him, alienate Congress, and raise the suspicion of Joe Six Pack.

It took Watergate months to finally move the needle, and the Saturday Night Massacre was the catalyst.

Some are calling this a "soft coup" which is probably hyperbolic, but we have a sitting president firing the man in charge of investigating his campaign's alleged involvement in a foreign government.

Regardless, this is a move that will be remembered for generations, and either our democratic institutions will resist against executive corruption and overreach or they will collapse.