Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

More to the point, he wouldn't have invaded the wrong damn country over made-up WMDs.

And I find it highly unlikely he would have declared war on Japan to stop whaling (I have had this suggested to me before. It took a great deal of self-control to restrain my response.)

@smjjames: Prescott Bush, Nazis, etc etc. Dunno if I'd go that far, but let's just say the Bush family history isn't much to be proud of. George Sr was an ok guy though.

[Flying Dice]

Yeah, Gore was a bland bore, but he wasn't the grandson of a traitor.

I'm reminded of a joke nickname that was given to both candidates at the time, bore and gush. I know, I know, it's a simple switch of the first letter of their last name and not particularily creative, but hey, it fitted.

Also, since when was George W. Bush the grandson of a traitor?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/07/the-plot-agains.html

I'm not sure what else but treason to call plotting to overthrow a sitting President while making a fortune on Hitler's rise, directly fueling the Nazi industrial buildup, and continuing to move and hold large sums of money for one of Hitler's major financial backers until late 1941.

[smjjames]

Why should we hold him accountable for his grandfathers sins anyway?

[Flying Dice]

Less that, more that I'm not particularly comfortable with a president whose policies I already almost wholly disagree with being appointed to office by a partisan SCOTUS after a questionable election when his family fortune is based on decidedly anti-American interests. Any one of those alone would make me leery, but all together?

Then there's the hindsight bonus of him wrecking our economy (though to be fair the blame for that ultimately falls on The Great Cowboy Actor) and dragging us even deeper into the shit in the ME, drastically harming civil liberties, &c. But it's not fair to use those as reasons for why electing him was a bad idea, just proof after the fact. I'm damned sure that if Gore had been elected we wouldn't be dealing with ISIS right now.

[mainiac]

It is my one sticking point with the left in the US that they think they know what's good for us and will fight tooth and nail to keep us from even thinking otherwise... and Clinton is basically the archetype of this.

The problem with "independents" is that democrats bend over backwards and self-flagellate to reach out and independents never notice.  At least Republicans actually have a set of beliefs and promote them.

"Independents" generally have some stupid, naive idea about how democracy in action actually works.  How it works is that when you reach out to independents and try to create consensus, the other side slanders you and your proposals are dead in the water.  Everyone is on board with assault weapon regulation after a massacre?  Dont worry, let's debate it for two months while the gun advocates tell outright lies and the legislation will become unpopular.  The republicans refused to consider working on long overdue healthcare legislation?  Well be better blame the democrats for passing major legislation on a party line vote.  And if you just ram something through with no fucking consideration, independents dont even notice.  Even though it's the exact fucking thing they bitch about.  It's fucking perverse.

[RedKing]

@FD: um...the Bankers' Plot was the 1920's version of "jet fuel can't melt steel beams". No credible evidence that it was anything beyond a wild idea. And I've never actually seen Prescott Bush mentioned in connection with it before. Now, the financing the Nazis thing is legit, but he was hardly the only American (or Brit) with a fondness for the Nazis up until the war broke out. Jews weren't exactly popular here either, and things were in the shitter such that many people yearned for a strong leader.

Bad judges of character does not equate to treason. There were oil companies in Texas cutting pipeline deals with the Taliban in the summer of 2001, even after they were already known to be Not Nice Guys™. That doesn't become treason unless you continue to do business with them after they've become public enemies.

@mainiac: its almost like we're ungrateful for not recognizing what a wonderful job the Democrats have been trying to do saving us from ourselves. What nerve...we don't even deserve to have such wisdom dispensed to us

[smjjames]

It is my one sticking point with the left in the US that they think they know what's good for us and will fight tooth and nail to keep us from even thinking otherwise... and Clinton is basically the archetype of this.

The problem with "independents" is that democrats bend over backwards and self-flagellate to reach out and independents never notice.  At least Republicans actually have a set of beliefs and promote them.

"Independents" generally have some stupid, naive idea about how democracy in action actually works.  How it works is that when you reach out to independents and try to create consensus, the other side slanders you and your proposals are dead in the water.  Everyone is on board with assault weapon regulation after a massacre?  Dont worry, let's debate it for two months while the gun advocates tell outright lies and the legislation will become unpopular.  The republicans refused to consider working on long overdue healthcare legislation?  Well be better blame the democrats for passing major legislation on a party line vote.  And if you just ram something through with no fucking consideration, independents dont even notice.  Even though it's the exact fucking thing they bitch about.  It's fucking perverse.

You shouldn't generalize independents like that, which are a pretty diverse group.

[mainiac]

@mainiac: its almost like we're ungrateful for not recognizing what a wonderful job the Democrats have been trying to do saving us from ourselves. What nerve...we don't even deserve to have such wisdom dispensed to us

It's almost like we're not grateful for not acknowledging what a splendid influence on democracy the independents are.

[smjjames]

You know, I'm kind of in support for Rubio, but we shall see in time...

If anything, he seems to be the least bad of the republican candidates.

[redwallzyl]

You know, I'm kind of in support for Rubio, but we shall see in time...

If anything, he seems to be the least bad of the republican candidates.

i would literally elect a goat before Trump or Carson.

[smjjames]

You know, I'm kind of in support for Rubio, but we shall see in time...

If anything, he seems to be the least bad of the republican candidates.

i would literally elect a goat before Trump or Carson.

I said Rubio, not Trump or Carson

[Arx]

That's the point. Rubio doesn't have much opposition.

[mainiac]

And yet his poll numbers are still...

[RedKing]

@mainiac: its almost like we're ungrateful for not recognizing what a wonderful job the Democrats have been trying to do saving us from ourselves. What nerve...we don't even deserve to have such wisdom dispensed to us

It's almost like we're not grateful for not acknowledging what a splendid influence on democracy the independents are.

We'll just have to agree to disagree that you're wrong. 

Independents are on the rise because because both parties are increasingly polarized and unrepresentative. To paraphrase Ford, you can have a politician with any positions you want, as long as they're Blue/Red.

There's not a lot of room at the top for purple. Or green. Or whatever else doesn't hew to party orthodoxy. This is why a pragmatic Republican like Kasich or Pataki or Huntsman is a non-starter in his own party. Why Warren didn't even run and why Sanders might as well have stayed home. Did he affect "the conversation"? Yeah, probably do. Will the conversation have any effect on the actual policies? Not in a million years. Clinton can put on the mask of being an anti-corporate crusader all she wants, but I don't believe in a million years that, if elected, she would enact meaningful corporate regulation.

Hillary gotta be Hillary. Which mean pro-corporate centrist market liberalism. Which is the Democratic brand for at least the last 30 years.

[sluissa]

I am where Redking is at, tbh. Except if things keep going like they are, I'm voting trump, because I want to see the world burn. If this is where we end up at... a choice between something terrible and something horrible. Then we deserve the worst. Plus my conscience screams at me if I think of voting Hillary. I'd rather vote the guy who's honest about being a horrible corporate overlord than the person who will sell us out to them behind our backs.

Now that I"ve got that out of my system... we really do focus far too much on the presidential election when the congressional elections are probably more important. They have far more power than the president does and so many of them are... doing such a bad job... if not simply in the "I don't agree with their choices" sense, then often in the complete incompetence in even the most basic sense of their jobs, for example showing up to vote, or knowing the details of what they vote on, or being in a committee designed to make decisions on a subject and having absolutely no knowledge of that subject whatsoever.