Print

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

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Are you sure that the reason why there aren't more people running on the "burn it all down" position is because a majority of the people in this country disagree?

I'm sure they do disagree. Humans in general cannot handle long-term concerns. Even if you're intellectually aware of it, that just results in procrastination and downplaying, or even outright apathy if you think you won't live to see it.

That doesn't matter. The trends and consequences are clear enough to know we're in a bad way. Encouraging people to not fuck up systematically is the only thing that can even theoretically unfuck a world of seven billion minds.

[smjjames]

I'm all for restructuring the system, but Trump isn't it, at least not in a way that would be good for the US.

Anyway, I don't know what the FBI is trying to pull here, they released heavily redacted information from the 2001 investigation into Bill Clintons pardon of a hedge fund trader who had been indicted on tax evasion. That case was closed back in 2005 btw.

It makes no sense to me that even after the backlash against Comey for appearing to influence the election, the FBI releases MORE stuff that might influence the election in some way. I know it's on Bill Clinton, but anything having to do with the Clintons has a risk of influencing the election.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm all for restructuring the system, but Trump isn't it, at least not in a way that would be good for the US.

I'm going to go smash my head into a wall now.

[sluissa]

I'm all for restructuring the system, but Trump isn't it, at least not in a way that would be good for the US.

Anyway, I don't know what the FBI is trying to pull here, they released heavily redacted information from the 2001 investigation into Bill Clintons pardon of a hedge fund trader who had been indicted on tax evasion. That case was closed back in 2005 btw.

It makes no sense to me that even after the backlash against Comey for appearing to influence the election, the FBI releases MORE stuff that might influence the election in some way. I know it's on Bill Clinton, but anything having to do with the Clintons has a risk of influencing the election.

I think this is Comey is full on "If I'm going down I'm taking you with me." mode. He knows his career is over.

[Criptfeind]

I'm all for restructuring the system, but Trump isn't it, at least not in a way that would be good for the US.

I'm going to go smash my head into a wall now.

Eh heh heh heh. I feel like you might deserve this still though.

[smjjames]

I'm all for restructuring the system, but Trump isn't it, at least not in a way that would be good for the US.

I'm going to go smash my head into a wall now.

Wut?

[Dorsidwarf]

Even western governments do this from time to time. There was the Earth First lady who got carbombed, the Americans who have been droned while outside the west, the guy who Blair's government in the UK definitely killed and called a suicide. Getting the ire of powerful people isn't the best idea.

And, of course, there's secondaries as well. If the government calls the police to investigate you over and over again while portraying you as a dangerous radical, then they can just hope you get put out of the way. Not necessarily by being killed either, just imprisoned or drained of resources by legal fights. There's also all the people who have been locked out of the US by being placed on the no-fly list after leaving, ensuring that they can practically never return even with citizenship.

MOVE bombing?  Fairly recent and blatant example of politically undesirables getting murdered by the state within the continental USA.  Not orchestrated by upper levels of government, as far as I'm aware, and not terribly covert.  But still somehow not widely known that an entire urban community was literally firebombed by authorities.  And this isn't some shit from the 50's.  How many of you know about it.  How many of the people you know know about it?

I'm aware that it's this exact style of thinking that gets me labeled a conspiracy theorist, but when I see cases like thus that are so egregious, yet still so widely unknown, I can't help but take that as indication of high probability that plenty other such things happen which are equally unknown.

It doesn't take much to get away with things like this.  Why do journalists get so heavy targeted whenever anything controversial is going on?  Things don't have to be kept secret to be kept irrelevant.  So long as exposure can be limited, something that's a big deal will look like not so much amidst a sea of distractions, and easily forgotten

Wow reframe much. The MOVE bombing should be held as an example of horrendous overreaching of powers and indiscriminate responses, but framing MOVE as "political undesirables who were murdered by the state" as opposed to "Armed millitia in a fortified house with a history of shooting policemen who the local police commisioner dropped a satchel charge on and let burn to death, killing innocents in the process" makes me feel bad. Sure the fact that the person who ordered the charge to be dropped got off is horrendous but making it sound like Big Washington nuked some hippies for being dangerously vegan is disingenuous.

[sluissa]

Third parties! Woo! Let's all vote for third parties!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Let's see someone try to turn that into support of trump.

[Criptfeind]

I'm all for restructuring the system, but Trump isn't it, at least not in a way that would be good for the US.

I'm going to go smash my head into a wall now.

Wut?

He wasn't supporting Trump, and in fact had specifically said that Trump is worse and he's voting Hillary. Basically his whole point was that just because Hillary is the better choice one can't just dismiss all Criticism of Clinton as Trump support and just ignore any possible faults... Which you then proceeded to do.

This is a reoccurring theme in this thread. As you can tell by the post right above mine and someone making a joke about it.

[smjjames]

I haven't entirely decided whether I'm going to vote Hillary, vote third party (the Libertarians are the only one that has a decent shot of hitting 5%), or simply abstain, the only thing that is absolutely certain is not voting Trump.

I'll just have to see how close it might be on Election Day, and Trump has no chance of winning California anyhow.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

What of the $1.5 million the city was forced to pay to the sole survivor and families of two of the dead? You make this out like it came from the top, rather than just some idiot mayor. Mind you, yes, the information I have is from 5 seconds of searching, but this does not appear to be a federal "silencing dissidents" operation. Just a mayor fuckwit abusing his power in office to clear out what he considered to be a "disagreeable" civil rights group.

It's a matter of scale. Few groups shake the top, so the top doesn't care. Shaking the town, on the other hand, requires much less work. You can see examples of things "from the top" with COINTELPRO and the Civil Rights Movement or the plans to assassinate Occupy organizers if it endured as a large thing.

So... you want to enforce a policy that a majority of the population disagrees with because you're convinced that you are right and they are wrong and you are helping them? Do I have that right?

What fucking policy? What are we even talking about now?

And the wishes of the majority of the population have never directly mattered. The entirety of the political system is to ensure that their desires can be both known and ignored if necessary. The majority of Americans support severe electoral reforms, nobody runs on that. The majority of Americans wanted out of Iraq, took the better part of a decade (which is still way better than Vietnam). The majority of Americans oppose the drug war, still going. The majority of Americans think this is a Christian nation, countermanded by the Constitution. When Roe v. Wade was passed over 70% of Americans opposed abortion, 50% still do.

No, I don't believe in the fairy tale version of democracy. I believe in effective leadership with intelligibility from the general population. That's not too far off where we are, either, but it requires a certain amount of giving a shit. I'm not concerned about the government being able to push through whatever unpopular thing it needs, because it's always had that power. I'm concerned about whether or not they'll know what unpopular things need to be done for the collective good.

[Culise]

The fact that this could be spun into claiming that Trump is worse than Hitler has not been lost on me.

I would dispute that. An evil genius is worse than an evil idiot. An evil genius can pretend to be idiotic, but an evil idiot cannot pretend to be a genius. An evil genius thus has all the options that an evil idiot does, plus more, and additionally has the intelligence to use them.

While I agree with you in the strict sense, I think you missed that my statement was a bit of a joke: to wit, a riff on the dual meanings of "worse" having distinct definitions whether you're discussing it in the moral sense or practical sense.  Most people say "worse than Hitler" in a moral sense, or rather in terms of evil.  This twist is using the phrase in a practical sense: Trump is less effective than Hitler, and is therefore "worse than Hitler".

Though, it does now occur to me that given the lovely historical backbiting and inefficiencies of the historical National Socialists, that in itself says something as well.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Policy being the "burn it all down" stance that you seem to hold.

I don't want to burn it all down. I want us to recognize that we've got maybe twenty years to make as large a leap as the industrial revolution, and we can't waste any amount of that time like our stupid reptile brains want us to.

And for your information, someone did run on electoral reform this year. His name is Lawrence Lessig.

Don't make me laugh.

[smjjames]

Nobody runs on electoral reform? Well, none of the politicians anyway. Sanders did somewhat, but he's a bit of an outsider.

And for your information, someone did run on electoral reform this year. His name is Lawrence Lessig.

And Sanders to an extent.

Trump decided to do the term limits thing, but in reality, that would be all but impossible to do because Constitutional Amendment and it would be incredibly difficult to make sure that doing term limits doesn't screw us over. Plus it seems to be last minute pandering rather than something he's had all along.

[eerr]

 "I'm not concerned about the government being able to push through whatever unpopular thing it needs, because it's always had that power. I'm concerned about whether or not they'll know what unpopular things need to be done for the collective good."

Hillary promised to fix Obama care? That was originally opposed by many but done for the collective good.
Is that the sort of thing you mean?