Print

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

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Sometimes you just want to throw a Communist revolution and install a proper democracy instead of this shitpile that we have.

And Trump is just normal Trump. A vile shit. How does any of this surprise you, Sergarr? If Trump supported a second Holocaust, I don't think I'd be that surprised. He has an absolutely fucked up moral system.

[Neonivek]

I am starting to think Trump is fostering this controversy because frankly...

No one cares how sexist he is (well... no one who matters at this point anyway)...

It has become a dull blade.

[Rolepgeek]

Sometimes you just want to throw a Communist revolution and install a proper democracy instead of this shitpile that we have.

Worked every other time, after all

See, this is what our consumerist culture does to us. Back in the way old days like 150 years ago, when something broke, you fixed it, you didn't throw it away! Darn adults these days. No respect for the dead.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

I am starting to think Trump is fostering this controversy because frankly...

No one cares how sexist he is (well... no one who matters at this point anyway)...

It has become a dull blade.

I'm not sure if I edited it before you, but that's my point too. Everybody's just numb to his vileness.

Sometimes you just want to throw a Communist revolution and install a proper democracy instead of this shitpile that we have.

Worked every other time, after all

See, this is what our consumerist culture does to us. Back in the way old days like 150 years ago, when something broke, you fixed it, you didn't throw it away! Darn adults these days. No respect for the dead.

The key part is the democracy. Of fucking course, if you give all the power to the state, and the state doesn't represent the people, you're going to have a fucking bad time. That's a no-brainer.

I honestly think that moving more of the federal government's power to the states would be better. Right now, "states' rights" are code for "let us red states do whatever the hell we want," but that doesn't have to be the case - a federal government whose main purpose is to uphold rights and protect the people would be pretty good. Just have the states, or hell, even the counties, do everything else.

Actually, isn't "uphold rights and protect the people" the main purpose of government?

[RedKing]

So this is a thing I missed when it came out a couple months ago. (Warning: Cannot unsee.)

Guess it would explain why Giuliani is so devoted to Trump. I mean, after a guy's motorboated your fake tits like that...

I honestly think that moving more of the federal government's power to the states would be better. Right now, "states' rights" are code for "let us red states do whatever the hell we want," but that doesn't have to be the case - a federal government whose main purpose is to uphold rights and protect the people would be pretty good. Just have the states, or hell, even the counties, do everything else.

We tried that from 1781-1789. It failed miserably. Besides, "upholding rights" is a large part of what the Federal government does that pisses states off. Without the Feds, the Southern states would roll civil rights back 100 years (and have been trying to anyways).

[Sergarr]

Oh, and also I didn't notice, but apparently one of the articles I've EDIT:added to my last post has allegiations that Trump has actually exploited his pageants for sexual favours. Some of these pageants were as young as 15.

Pedogate, incoming?

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

What the hell, RK. Is that real?

[RedKing]

What the hell, RK. Is that real?

Yup. Part of some kind of annual comedy ball that NYC does with its political elites (back when Giuliani was mayor). Was a skit they had put together.
Seems to me they were mocking the openly known fact that Trump was a womanizer.


EDIT: Wat.

Spoiler: WAT (click to show/hide)

Has Evan McMullin's ship come in? Is this where those defecting Republicans are landing?

[Sergarr]

Who the fuck even is McMullin?

[mainiac]

Who the fuck even is McMullin?

Because Trump.

Imagine if the Republicans had found somebody with even the slightest bit of credentials.

Edit: oh sorry, it was "who" not "how.

He is just a low level republican staffer that the "Never Trump" movement settled upon because no one else had the balls to take the job. Bunch of cucks.

[RedKing]

Who the fuck even is McMullin?

David Evan McMullin (born April 2, 1976) is the former chief policy director for the House Republican Conference in the U.S. House of Representatives and a former CIA operations officer.

He's also from Utah and a Mormon, so it's perhaps not so surprising to see a big boost in Utah, versus non-Mormon Gary Johnson, who has made some missteps with the LDS crowd.

McMullin's running mate is Mindy Finn, who as best as I can tell, does something with social media and Twitter. Because why the fuck not, it's as qualified as Trump.

[SalmonGod]

The way social-justice is used in America is hilarious by the way. I want to meet the guy who had the idea to remove the class element from Marxist rhetoric and replace it with an emphasis on LGTBQ issues. Both always had a place, but now they barely pays lips service to the working class.

From the point of view of the Establishment it's pure genius : It makes the whole thing unattractive to the American proletariat, and more relevant to middle class teens while giving them the illusion of having the moral high ground. It allow them to get the sympathy capital slowly gained by the left and sown a deep rift within its rank.

Only issue is : it makes a part of the left sympathise with a part of the right, namely the one who is actually disfranchised, and separate them completely from their usual ideologues. That's actually quite dangerous, and you can expect to see pretty wild ideas and movements emerge in America soon. If you thought the tea party was bad, hold on because you're in for a ride.

This is my biggest beef with American politics, and the source of a great deal of "anti-establishment" sentiment among the left here.  That social issues are used as a shame-club on elements of the left that complain about Democrats being regressive on anything else.  Even if the political establishment doesn't intentionally do this (though it's hard to believe that it doesn't), core party voters absolutely do this.  Every election season.  And it absolutely does fracture our politics, preventing ideological allies from banding together and actually getting shit done.

I don't see Clinton as an improvement on Trump honestly : she's doing a lot of pseudo-left lips service sure, but she is clearly a pure product of pure poll-driven communication. Her political agenda is 100% corporate, she just adapted and is using less pretend racism and more pretend social-justice.

However, I can't agree with this.  I don't despise Clinton, and I think most of the media shitshow surrounding her is distractive BS.  I also don't feel she represents me, don't think she's what we need right now, and I'm not the type to allow a good cop/bad cop routine to trick me into giving the good cop what they want, which is still ultimately not in my interests.

But to say that she's no better than Trump is quite out there.

Clinton released a major child poverty proposal yesterday.  How many people read about it?  How many people read about what racial slur Trump tweated at breakfast?

I am actually grateful when people point things out like this.  I will read it, and I am open to things like this changing my overall perceptions and decisions.  Problem is I don't have hours every day anymore to look past the wall of shallow bullshit that is our media coverage and political culture.  I don't know how many others there are out there who would honestly say the same, but as cynical as I am about politics, I am optimistic about human nature.  If you want to change things, promoting information like this is the way to do it.

Every good change ever has come from incrementalism.  Abolition, suffrage, civil rights, progressive taxation, social security, medicare, medicaid, S-CHIP.  Every one of these was watered down in the first draft and improved later on.  And currently we are in the middle of Obamacare which was watered down at first but which can be improved right now.  And this clinton tax credit is an example of "improved later on".  You just keep making additions and fixes and eventually you fix the problem.

I have to disagree with this, though...

Some change is fundamental.  Some problems are fundamental.  Some things are beyond increments.  You can't build a tower on a foundation that isn't designed to support it, no matter how slowly you add bricks.

And fundamental change never happens without massive disobedience and shows of rebellion in some form.  Whether it's riots, organized violence, strikes, or gathering to throw food at a building.  There's no historical precedent for electing the right person being the only catalyst behind a fundamental change.

Recognizing black people as human beings instead of property was a fundamental change.  Adjusting laws and implementation to force people to actually respect and incorporate this fundamental change was a matter of incrementalism.  And it all took place under duress from forces outside of representative politics - the threat of severe unrest.

[Frumple]

And in a turn that may not surprise anyone, it's looking like the downballot destruction derby may be starting.

Interesting to see if this stuff's showing up elsewhere. I'm not actually watching the wapo website, but it seems some of the other folks I've been looking at definitely are.

[Max™]

Couldn't find it, but then how the hell is it a round number?

Because they just indexed it so it wont stop being a round number until next year.

You are not making incremental changes for the better. You are cementing a status-quo.

Every good change ever has come from incrementalism.  Abolition, suffrage, civil rights, progressive taxation, social security, medicare, medicaid, S-CHIP.  Every one of these was watered down in the first draft and improved later on.  And currently we are in the middle of Obamacare which was watered down at first but which can be improved right now.  And this clinton tax credit is an example of "improved later on".  You just keep making additions and fixes and eventually you fix the problem.

Hell Bernie Sanders was calling for a "revolution" and he was still talking about incremental changes.

So was that Marx guy, since the whole post-capitalist society was something he talked about happening over generations as technology advanced and forced certain things which were then a fact of life to be questioned, opened up new options, and so forth.

It is amusing watching the ongoing wreckage that is the Trumptrain derailing mid-derail after crashing into that damned reality thing Trump keeps trying to avoid, and which maybe just maybe the Republican leadership will be forced to come to terms with after the smoke clears. It is remarkable to look back a month ago and chuckle at the things which we thought "well that's it, he's done then" over.

Does kinda distract from the opportunity which Clinton presents, cynical as one may be after listening to that big booming voice talking about hope and such, he wasn't remotely in the same ballpark of experience as she is, taking office after 4 years in senate. She's had 4 years as secretary of state, 8 as a senator, and 8 more as a first lady who actually had a pretty significant role in her husbands presidency with her leading his push for health care reform. Though it failed (remember Hillarycare?) she was smart enough to note that her own political inexperience was no doubt a factor in it getting voted down.

Though it isn't brought up as much, besides being active in politics since the 60's, she's also been a champion of children and women's rights since the same period, including her time as a lawyer, which I guess we can go ahead and hold against her.

If the worst stuff people say about her being in the pocket of wall street, corporations, and whatever is true... we'd still be getting someone with experience and relationships built up with the people she'd be working with and a long history fighting to improve the rights and standing of children and women, the poverty measure brought up above isn't a new thing for her really.

I didn't google it though, I banged it because duckduckgo is the shizzy.

Sometimes you just want to throw a Communist revolution and install a proper democracy instead of this shitpile that we have.

And Trump is just normal Trump. A vile shit. How does any of this surprise you, Sergarr? If Trump supported a second Holocaust, I don't think I'd be that surprised. He has an absolutely fucked up moral system.

Well, like I said above, Marx was talking about cultural revolutions over long time periods, not rising up with pitchforks and hoping it works out.

As for the dressing room thing, grab that crayon out of the box labeled "unsurprised" and get to work on me.

The republicans coming back to him though, damn, I wouldn't normally say it looked like battered spouse syndrome, but that's one of the signature abuser tricks. "Fine, I'm better off without you anyways!" *pause* *runs to catch him* screw it, let's go down the list.

• Fears for their life (or existence as a party) for more than a month ✔
  
• Performance at work and day to day life is affected ✔
• Manipulated through threats of violence, unwanted sex, isolation, degradation, and more ✔
  
• Dislike their bodies and exhibit somatic health issues ✔
• Sexual intimacy issues ✔

Well fuck, I guess it's time for an intervention?

[mainiac]

Some change is fundamental.  Some problems are fundamental.  Some things are beyond increments.  You can't build a tower on a foundation that isn't designed to support it, no matter how slowly you add bricks.

But you dont just add bricks, you replace them too.  Take healthcare.  If we were starting from scratch a single payer system would make sense.  But right now we have an employer based system where the federal government is setting the guidelines and the federal government is underwriting the individual market.  If more people switch to the individual market then we end up with a system where the feds are controlling the standards and the finances and the insurance companies have just been cut down to just underwriting.  Add a public option onto that and you have a single payer system in everything but name.  It would take decades of gradual change to get us there but it's doable.