Print

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

[Baffler]

Nah, I'd say there's quite a bit of justice there when chile's internal affairs are fucking with albania or said random other place, tbh. If someone five states over is screwing their ground water hard enough it's screwing mine, there's probably decent grounds to start enforcing some externalities on a thingjigger's internal affairs. It's still a problem even if by some engineering miracle they manage to keep the mess inside their borders, because eventually that shit's going to break and it's back to being everyone's problem.

Lotta' times internal affairs are a lot less internal than people want to think they are. Oddly enough, political borders don't create physical closed systems, heh.

There is already a mechanism for addressing international grievances that doesn't require anyone to give up control of their own laws and borders. Diplomacy, or failing that military force and/or the intercession of other powers (whose water is also probably in bad shape because of whatever bullshit they're doing) can all bring an end to it, and none of those things require some unanswerable higher authority that will necessarily come with other baggage.

[martinuzz]

Are you sure about that? Neoliberalism is the idea of minimal regulation and no social welfare net. Neo-cons are that with the addition of social conservatism.

Social Democracy in Europe and the United States is, according to this Wikipedia page, the same, and the most closely associated American politician is Bernie Sanders.

Yes. When a European says neo-liberal, it's the same as the US neo-con. You're right about Bernie Sanders. His view of the democratic party is more like European social democrats than Clinton's view of the democratic party. Or rather, his views would be somewhere in between social democrats and labour. It's just hard to compare the US two party system to the European multi-party systems. Don't laugh. This year we have elections in the Netherlands, and we have a new record: We can choose between about 85 different political parties. Ofcourse, most of these are marginal and won't get enough votes to even get one seat in parliament, but still, it's a lot.

[smjjames]

Are you sure about that? Neoliberalism is the idea of minimal regulation and no social welfare net. Neo-cons are that with the addition of social conservatism.

Social Democracy in Europe and the United States is, according to this Wikipedia page, the same, and the most closely associated American politician is Bernie Sanders.

Yes. When a European says neo-liberal, it's the same as the US neo-con. You're right about Bernie Sanders. His view of the democratic party is more like European social democrats than Clinton's view of the democratic party. It's just hard to compare the US two party system to the European multi-party systems. Don't laugh. This year we have elections in the Netherlands, and we have a new record: We can choose between about 85 different political parties. Ofcourse, most of these are marginal and won't get enough votes to even get one seat in parliament, but still, it's a lot.

85? heh.

I can certainly imagine the Democrats splitting up into different parties if FPTP wasn't there and third (and fourth, fifth, sixth, etc.) parties are completely viable, the internal splits are already there. As united as the Republicans seem to be, they have their own factions as well.

In fact, it seemed like the Republicans were about ready to fracture (despite their successes) when it's actually the Democrats that had worse problems.

Dammit, I wish we had a Democrat slate as vibrant with choices as the Republicans were.

[misko27]

In fact, it seemed like the Republicans were about ready to fracture (despite their successes) when it's actually the Democrats that had worse problems.

I fail to see how Trump's success is the Republican parties success. They are entirely separate entities. What this will mean in practice is unclear, but we will see in the future.

Dammit, I wish we had a Democrat slate as vibrant with choices as the Republicans were.

....

I can't see anyone looking back at the primary season that produced Donald Trump and reasonably thinking "That was how democracy should work, we need more of that" unless they thought Donald Trump is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Hell, even the Trump supporters have more than their fair share of complaints about the process, so what the hell? That was terrible. That was a nine-month national nightmare.

If both the Republicans and the Democrats had had a primary season like the democrats had had, the worst possible outcome would be President Jeb(!). I am not amused by the idea of a Trump of the left. The last thing we need is a modern-day Huey Long (who would probably be some celebrity instead of a career politician, seeing how successful they are) declaring his candidacy in 2020 and cutting through a divisive field.

Speaking of Huey, he is also associated (albeit indirectly) with a party named "America First". Take that for what you will.

[Flying Dice]

Are you sure about that? Neoliberalism is the idea of minimal regulation and no social welfare net. Neo-cons are that with the addition of social conservatism.

Social Democracy in Europe and the United States is, according to this Wikipedia page, the same, and the most closely associated American politician is Bernie Sanders.

Yes. When a European says neo-liberal, it's the same as the US neo-con. You're right about Bernie Sanders. His view of the democratic party is more like European social democrats than Clinton's view of the democratic party. Or rather, his views would be somewhere in between social democrats and labour. It's just hard to compare the US two party system to the European multi-party systems. Don't laugh. This year we have elections in the Netherlands, and we have a new record: We can choose between about 85 different political parties. Ofcourse, most of these are marginal and won't get enough votes to even get one seat in parliament, but still, it's a lot.

Think what PTTG meant is that over here in burgerland neoliberal is an economic label rather than a political one. The liberalism being practiced is entirely to do with market regulation. It is in fact the case that many neo-cons are neo-liberals as well.

[smjjames]

In fact, it seemed like the Republicans were about ready to fracture (despite their successes) when it's actually the Democrats that had worse problems.

I fail to see how Trump's success is the Republican parties success. They are entirely separate entities. What this will mean in practice is unclear, but we will see in the future.

Dammit, I wish we had a Democrat slate as vibrant with choices as the Republicans were.

....

I can't see anyone looking back at the primary season that produced Donald Trump and reasonably thinking "That was how democracy should work, we need more of that" unless they thought Donald Trump is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Hell, even the Trump supporters have more than their fair share of complaints about the process, so what the hell? That was terrible. That was a nine-month national nightmare.

If both the Republicans and the Democrats had had a primary season like the democrats had had, the worst possible outcome would be President Jeb(!). I am not amused by the idea of a Trump of the left. The last thing we need is a modern-day Huey Long (who would probably be some celebrity instead of a career politician, seeing how successful they are) declaring his candidacy in 2020 and cutting through a divisive field.

Speaking of Huey, he is also associated (albeit indirectly) with a party named "America First". Take that for what you will.

I meant more 'I wish we had as many and as diverse choices for Dems as there were for the Republicans'. Though obviously not THAT many. I'm just bemoaning the whole pre-crowning of Clinton and forcing out most would-be contenders. Can't change that now obviously, but it's a lession for next time.

At least Clinton's political career is done with. I suppose she might still have political weight as an endorser or king/queenmaker, but it seems like she might still be too toxic politically even four years from now.

[misko27]

In fact, it seemed like the Republicans were about ready to fracture (despite their successes) when it's actually the Democrats that had worse problems.

I fail to see how Trump's success is the Republican parties success. They are entirely separate entities. What this will mean in practice is unclear, but we will see in the future.

Dammit, I wish we had a Democrat slate as vibrant with choices as the Republicans were.

....

I can't see anyone looking back at the primary season that produced Donald Trump and reasonably thinking "That was how democracy should work, we need more of that" unless they thought Donald Trump is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Hell, even the Trump supporters have more than their fair share of complaints about the process, so what the hell? That was terrible. That was a nine-month national nightmare.

If both the Republicans and the Democrats had had a primary season like the democrats had had, the worst possible outcome would be President Jeb(!). I am not amused by the idea of a Trump of the left. The last thing we need is a modern-day Huey Long (who would probably be some celebrity instead of a career politician, seeing how successful they are) declaring his candidacy in 2020 and cutting through a divisive field.

Speaking of Huey, he is also associated (albeit indirectly) with a party named "America First". Take that for what you will.

I meant more 'I wish we had as many and as diverse choices for Dems as there were for the Republicans'. Though obviously not THAT many. I'm just bemoaning the whole pre-crowning of Clinton and forcing out most would-be contenders. Can't change that now obviously, but it's a lession for next time.

Two things. One: Tell me, precisely, how the expanded Republican field benefited the Republican party. Explain how it was a good thing. Because you are taking it for granted that "more is better,"  but when I look at that I fail to see why, precisely, you want more of that and less of this. If you had just said "in general" I wouldn't be bugging you, but you specifically singled out the worst possible example, so I am going to nag you: why, precisely, do we want to emulate the Republican primary that produced Donald J. Trump?

A reasonable answer here is "Because they won". That is a very reasonable answer. It speaks for itself, really. My response to that would be that winning isn't everything and that a "Trump of the left" is worse than losing. I can't yet imagine a Trump of the left (I don't think there is exactly a Trump of the left waiting in the wings, and if there is I can't imagine who it could be right now), but I couldn't imagine Trump period up until two years ago so my imagination is nothing to rely upon. I'm sure we can all imagine the worst excesses of the left (read: all your least favorite parts) in a single individual and make that person wildly popular among certain people, and bam.

Two: Pre-crowning is the most bullshit answer I've heard all election, because I've been hearing it all election. Bush was pre-crowned the presumptive winner of the GOP by literally everyone. Was it not this very forum that once bemoaned a Bush/Clinton "Dynasty" fight, like this was a freaking monarchy or something? I recall very well that it was, indeed, this very forum that so bemoaned the inevitable degradation into pseudo-monarchy and aristocracy. Well, the inevitable didn't happen. We got literally the weirdest result possible, "pre-crowning" be damned.

[smjjames]

Seemed more like three things to me, but okay:

Two things. One: Tell me, precisely, how the expanded Republican field benefited the Republican party. Explain how it was a good thing. Because you are taking it for granted that "more is better,"  but when I look at that I fail to see why, precisely, you want more of that and less of this. If you had just said "in general" I wouldn't be bugging you, but you specifically singled out the worst possible example, so I am going to nag you: why, precisely, do we want to emulate the Republican primary that produced Donald J. Trump?

You mean the vast roster of 17 candidates? No of course not, it was clear that thinly slicing the pie really hurt them. Five would be more reasonable, maybe 6 or 7 early on. Mainly what I'm getting at is, 'where the heck are the Democrats rising stars and diversity, etc?'

The Republicans problem is that they couldn't consolidate around a single candidate, and when they did, it was too late. The fact that they started with so freaking many and the fact that those lower down in the polls stubbornly hung on didn't help either.

A reasonable answer here is "Because they won". That is a very reasonable answer. It speaks for itself, really. My response to that would be that winning isn't everything and that a "Trump of the left" is worse than losing. I can't yet imagine a Trump of the left (I don't think there is exactly a Trump of the left waiting in the wings, and if there is I can't imagine who it could be right now), but I couldn't imagine Trump period up until two years ago so my imagination is nothing to rely upon. I'm sure we can all imagine the worst excesses of the left (read: all your least favorite parts) in a single individual and make that person wildly popular among certain people, and bam.

Worst excesses? The only ones I can imagine would be people like Justin Beiber (he's British though), Lindsey Lohan, or various performers other who like to party hard or are quirky.

Two: Pre-crowning is the most bullshit answer I've heard all election, because I've been hearing it all election. Bush was pre-crowned the presumptive winner of the GOP by literally everyone. Was it not this very forum that once bemoaned a Bush/Clinton "Dynasty" fight, like this was a freaking monarchy or something? I recall very well that it was, indeed, this very forum that so bemoaned the inevitable degradation into pseudo-monarchy and aristocracy. Well, the inevitable didn't happen. We got literally the weirdest result possible, "pre-crowning" be damned.

It was more how the Dems and the DNC treated Clinton as a candidate than anything, like she was the only one qualified.

[Neonivek]

And remember the news TOTALLY deserves it...

Yep... it totally deserves it and that is why they are going to replace the news with only news that is completely and utterly sympathetic to them.

Because that is justified right?

[smjjames]

On a slight diversion, this just happened. Seriously.

"That's what you guys should be writing and covering," new White House press secretary Sean Spicer angrily lectured reporters on Saturday during his first remarks from the podium of the press briefing room...

..."This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period," Spicer said, contradicting all available data...

...Spicer, at times almost yelling while reading a prepared statement, took no questions. CNNMoney called his cell phone a few minutes later; he did not answer.
Some longtime White House correspondents were stunned by the tirade.

Yep. This is the world we live in now, apparently.

Watch the video, though. It's so messed up.

I already posted about it a couple pages back, but yeah, messed up and not good for the press secretary.

[Rolan7]

No, don't be, I appreciate the link.  Must have missed smjjame's post.

[Reelya]

Well yeah, smjames didn't actually talk about it he just dropped a link. It took me three times reading over the thread to realize this was the post in question:

The first WH 'press conference': http://www.vox.com/2017/1/21/14347812/trump-press-briefing-sean-spicer

Anyway here's an aerial shot of the Trump inauguration crowd (left) vs Obama's (right):


I's say over twice as many people turned up for Obama vs Trump. But note that Obama had an approval rating of 80% on inauguration day vs Trumps 40%. But of course we live in a Brave New World now where it's really 80% for Trump and 40% for Obama and they've doctored the photographs because Fake News. To be honest, I think everyone is going to get sick of an administration obsessed with petty grievances who can't deal with basic facts about reality very quickly, regardless of party.

[Neonivek]

You kidding I am already tired of Trump saying Fake News

Mostly because there are TWO entirely different definitions and he never indicates which
1) LIES!
2) Something that would normally not be news that is paraded around like it is news (Kim Kardashian was found saying the N word at a McDonalds!!!)

[Frumple]

I meant more 'I wish we had as many and as diverse choices for Dems as there were for the Republicans'.

... were the republican choices actually diverse? Like... at all. I seem to remember most of them being more or less interchangeable with (at least) three or four of the other candidates. Even trump to a fair degree, really. Differences were there but they weren't exactly substantial, and policy wise they were pretty close to cookie-cutter t'boot. There was a lot of bodies in that mess but m'not sure if there was much in the way of functional choice involved...

[Rolan7]

I mean, the Republicans obviously hate his guts too - maybe even more than the Democrats.  They RAILED against him.  Then fell in line, in the most obvious way.
They're literally using him as a scapegoat, with Pence as a fallback plan if necessary.
It's Bush/Cheney but instead of a warhawk, we have the fucking moral majority pulling the strings.  *directly* instead of being catered to in the election.

Ironically they weren't even catered to, this time, they just won ANYWAY because the Republican Party has this clueless heir (heiress, but male) by the short hairs!