Guard Dog Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 And regarding the Jussie Smollet thing, it's not difficult to find other cases from either side of the aisle of people wanting someone to be guilty of whatever bad thing to confirm what they already believe about that person/group/organization. Not hard at all. I can think of three from the Obama years without even resorting to google. My Tribe = Good. Your Tribe = Evil. That's just how it is now. 1 "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Hurlshort Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 In an ideological war, is it more important to hold people accountable, or to change their minds?
smjjames Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 In an ideological war, is it more important to hold people accountable, or to change their minds? Why not both?
HoonDing Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 Funny the uproar about Smollett while Trump was on the phone with Assange. The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
BruceVC Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 In an ideological war, is it more important to hold people accountable, or to change their minds? Interesting question, if this is about the USA political climate its important to not conflate the current issues with other global ideological conflicts where there is no interest in reconciliation or working for a common good....I dont think the USA is at this stage at all even if it may feel like that if you are a citizen Anyway back to the question, an ideological war is normally rigid and not really a place for reasonable debate. So people generally dont care about conversion but rather unwavering support for there side? What is your view on the current USA political climate ? "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
injurai Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 Funny the uproar about Smollett while Trump was on the phone with Assange. Trump payed Smollett to distract people away from himself. This is why Smollett got two Nigerian Immigrants, because he knew Trump would betray him by sicking the police investigators on him. He didn't want two white dudes in MAGA hats to be accosted endlessly by the media, knowing the Nigerians would be given leeway and he'd bare all the risk of backlash. This deal was struck because he was tired of Empire which wasn't paying him enough, and wanted to retire in peace. #TotallyNotFakeNews 1
BruceVC Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 Funny the uproar about Smollett while Trump was on the phone with Assange. Not really unusual as Trump supported the principle of Wikileaks during the election so he may believe Assange can help him in another way, Assange is a hypocrite and lacks moral compass...I am looking forward to the day he gets hopefully extradited to the USA to face federal charges.....but what type of person would want to live in an embassy since 2012!!!!! He might as well just go to normal jail ....I wonder what he does every day since he cant ever leave? "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
BruceVC Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 Funny the uproar about Smollett while Trump was on the phone with Assange. Trump payed Smollett to distract people away from himself. This is why Smollett got two Nigerian Immigrants, because he knew Trump would betray him by sicking the police investigators on him. He didn't want two white dudes in MAGA hats to be accosted endlessly by the media, knowing the Nigerians would be given leeway and he'd bare all the risk of backlash. This deal was struck because he was tired of Empire which wasn't paying him enough, and wanted to retire in peace. #TotallyNotFakeNews This is a joke right ...I thought it was real at first "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
Bartimaeus Posted March 12, 2019 Posted March 12, 2019 (edited) Speaking of liars, the amount of times the White House has leaked that "the Mueller report is about to be turned in" is infuriating - almost as infuriating as the media taking it and running with it again and again like it were gospel each time when the White House has repeatedly shown to be composed of a not insignificant amount of compulsive liars. On the subject of impeachment, Nancy Pelosi says, "Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it." In other words, until the Republican base starts to turn on him, there's little to no chance of even trying impeachment. That's probably for the best, though I do wish his base had already turned on him given his reprehensible personal conduct thus far, but c'est la vie. Edited March 12, 2019 by Bartimaeus Quote How I have existed fills me with horror. For I have failed in everything - spelling, arithmetic, riding, tennis, golf; dancing, singing, acting; wife, mistress, whore, friend. Even cooking. And I do not excuse myself with the usual escape of 'not trying'. I tried with all my heart. In my dreams, I am not crippled. In my dreams, I dance.
Guard Dog Posted March 12, 2019 Posted March 12, 2019 In the Washington Post today Pelosi says she is going to be a check on a President that disregards the Constitution. I find that commendable. Of course when the previous President disregarded the Constitution and she was in a position to do something about it the silence was deafening. So... f--k her. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
smjjames Posted March 12, 2019 Posted March 12, 2019 Are you referring to DACA? The Democrats were in the minority in the House in 2012. Anyways, yea, she's previously said that Trump is unfit to be President, so, theres plenty of hypocrisy to go around.
injurai Posted March 12, 2019 Posted March 12, 2019 What's so frustrating is when people in power complain how they are beholden to the people, claiming the people are responsible to enact change. Then all of a sudden one day when they see fit, they wield that mighty power unabashed because they've been "endowed with that jurisdiction." Often times when it's turned back on the people its for things that the people aren't even responsible for. Apparently the overwhelming majority of the plastic waste in the Pacific is from China, India, and South East Asia. Doesn't mean it won't be used to make people feel ****ty that their city is really dumping recycling bins in the same landfills as everything else. Great shibboleth to get in power and knock the previous administration out, when the real objective is to shift the cities budget to contract with another elite faction of asset and real-estate owners. Then all of a sudden the recycling program falls through because too much of the budget was ear-marked, and they kick it down the road as a long term project. Only to let the next administration also not take action. 1
BruceVC Posted March 12, 2019 Posted March 12, 2019 What's so frustrating is when people in power complain how they are beholden to the people, claiming the people are responsible to enact change. Then all of a sudden one day when they see fit, they wield that mighty power unabashed because they've been "endowed with that jurisdiction." The wording of this point made me laugh..good one "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
ShadySands Posted March 12, 2019 Posted March 12, 2019 Testicular Bill of Rights 1 Free games updated 3/4/21
Guard Dog Posted March 13, 2019 Posted March 13, 2019 Looks like Joe Biden has finally chosen between s--t and getting off the pot: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/433659-exclusive-biden-to-run-for-white-house-says-dem-lawmaker So this the the official Guard Approval rating for the current field: Democrats Joe Biden: Acceptable. We could do better. But we could do a lot worse. At least you know what you're getting. Corey Booker: Tolerable. He is in favor of criminal justice reform, drug decriminalization and using tax reductions to spur growth. He occasionally sounds like a Jacksonian democrat. Of course he would also spend tax money like a drunken sailor on a three day liberty. But who wouldn't that's running now? Pete Buttigieg: Who? Julián Castro: Unacceptable. Tax and spend and spend and spend John Delaney: Acceptable. He's pragmatic, experienced, and well liked in DC. But he has no money and no one outside the 495 Beltway knows who he is. Tulsi Gabbard: Tolerable. She's in favor of a non-interventionist foreign policy which I can support. but she has no qualms spending the country into insolvency. Kirsten Gillibrand: Unacceptable. Name any issue and you can find a video clip of her saying different and mutually exclusive statements about it. She's Hillary Clinton without the scandals and the sneering condescension. Kamala Harris: Don't know yet. John Hickenlooper: Unacceptable. The love of liberty does not abide in this man. Four words. Imminent Domain, Gun Control. Screw him. Jay Inslee: Unacceptable. Has no idea WTF he's talking about when he says the US can be powered completely by solar and wind. It can't. Amy Klobuchar: Unacceptable. Another Gun control advocate. Add to that her stance on aggressive drug prosecutions and hawkish foreign policy and you get big NO from me. Bernie Sanders: Secession! Elizabeth Warren: Unacceptable. She's Hillary Clinton WITH scandals and sneering condescension. And bad tax policy to boot. And she's a f-----g liar. Marianne Williamson: $100B in slavery reparations. Do I need to say more? Andrew Yang: Who? Republicans Donald J. Trump: Unacceptable. But probably preferable to almost every name already listed except maybe Biden, Delany and Gabbard. If we're going to hell in a handbasket no mattery what might as well go big. Bill Weld: Acceptable. If I were eligible to vote in the Republican Primary I'd vote for him. We could do a lot worse. Of course he has two chances: slim and none. Republicans are loyal. Even when they shouldn't be. Independent: Howard Schultz: Don't know. Billionaire businessman with no political experience. Where have we heard that before? But to his credit he is the only candidate other than Weld that is talking about the imminent economic implosion we as a country are spending our way towards. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
injurai Posted March 13, 2019 Posted March 13, 2019 No clue who will be most popular in the primary. I can see Trump being viewed as a worn down deer that just needs another arrow in his side. Meaning they'll probably try to get someone like Warren into the white house. On the other hand, I think Biden would be a shoo-in. Basically tactical nukes out. He'd easily sweep a lot of independent and swing support. Pragmatically, Gabbard sort of splits the difference, but is black-balled by the dems mostly for not cowtowing to that rather dependable ideological progressive fervor that is being over-leveraged these days. No chance, I think she should have not put her name in until 2024. Still, I think Bernie if he gets his rhetoric right and avoids any major controversies (or at least neo-dodges false flags pinned against him by the DNC) then I think he could become the best leader of an actual left-shift movement. This is dependent I people being woke about humanist economics being the means to enact social change, not permanent reverse preference hierarchies. The growing Asian population will hopefully push back on this awful regressive progressiveness. I really don't see Bernie as capable of causing bad economic damage, right now a lot of government spending is going straight to private DOD contractors. I think a lot of that spending could be brought in and redirected to better human capital investment, which is the worst that he'll manage. Still capital might "feel" just to be spiteful and prove that "welfare++ post-Neo-liberalism" is bad because it's unfun for the land-holding dividend-owning class. Which will just get pinned on him as being a "socialist harbinger of doom" which he really is not. I think people will care less about "just trying to get Trump out of office" meaning I think Biden will probably need a strong platform, but if the rest of the playing field is too fractured he might just clean house for simply being familiar.
Hurlshort Posted March 13, 2019 Posted March 13, 2019 I think Bernie is basically Ron Paul for the democrats. He'll make noise but never get the nomination.
smjjames Posted March 13, 2019 Posted March 13, 2019 (edited) <p> Bernie Sanders: Secession!Are you doing that just because he has the word socialist attached to him? I swear you're doing it to get a kick out of annoying the liberals around here. *goes off into diatribe about how the word 'socialist' has been misused so much that it is meaningless and is just a way of getting out of providing any details or concretely arguing against specific things, yadda yadda yadda* Andrew Yang: Entrenepruer guy, his page has lots of ideas ranging from small stuff to large picture stuff, but that seems to be pretty much it, ideas rather than solid policy proposals. Seems more like he's just trying to get his ideas out there. Even though he is the son of Taiwanese Chinese immigrants and not mainlander Chinese, his last name might be an issue for some. His site barely has any foriegn policy stuff, though it sounds like he is aiming for America First without the alienation of allies. Marianne Williamson: Oprahs spiritual advisor, don't know anything else about her. Wouldn't be surprised if she has some odd beliefs about stuff. Amy Klobuchar: The fact that she is a pragmatic and is well liked (or at least respected) on both sides of the aisle and works on both sides of the aisle should be an asset though, no? Seems like it'd be a plus for a VP. Pete Buttigeig: Mayor of a city/town in Indiana, don't know much of anything about him. Got rave reviews from CNNs town hall though apparently. Bernie Sanders: UNSECCESSION!!!! BWAHAHAHA! Jay Inslee: He's trying to run on a single issue campaign, watch for others co-opting parts of his ideas. Kirsten Gillibrand: I think you spoke a little too soon on scandals, she just got caught up in her own #metoo hypocrisy moment. Not a full blown scandal, but still. Elizabeth Warren: The whole Native American ancestry stuff is problematic on it's own IMO, a while back I saw an op ed making the point about if she claimed to be such an advocate for Native Americans, where was she in some of the recent clashes. I haven't made any set in stone opinions about any of the candidates yet. Also, I'm thinking of voting strategtically (or maybe it's tactically?). Since I'm in a mostly Republican district and I vote as independent, I'm thinking of voting for whoever is opposing Trump on the Republican side. The Democrats will have plenty of votes among themselves, so, it's an opportunity to undermine Trump in the primary. Edit: what the? Modifying it on mobile got rid of the enter key spaces..... *fixes* Edited March 13, 2019 by smjjames
Guard Dog Posted March 13, 2019 Posted March 13, 2019 (edited) smjames in case you couldn't tell I don't take Bernie Sanders seriously as a politician, a candidate, or as a human being. He's been in elected office his entire adult life. He is a multi-millionaire whose net worth is greater than the sum of every paycheck he's ever received. Is yours? He owns three homes including a beach vacation home. He wears $5k Tom Ford suits to events where he riles people up about how terrible the rich people are. He wants to nationalize banks, hospitals, and auto manufacturers but he never needs worry about cost or scarcity. He thinks free food should be a right and even defends bread lines but he'll never need to stand in one. He thinks everyone has a right to the labor of doctors and nurses but he'll never need to wait weeks or months for an appointment. "Socialism for thee but not for me." No wonder he gushed admiration for people like Chavez and Castro. Take away all the murders and he's just like them. Poverty and scarcity for all but not for him. Edit: Spelling was atrocious Edited March 13, 2019 by Guard Dog "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Hurlshort Posted March 13, 2019 Posted March 13, 2019 He thinks everyone has a right to the labor of doctors and nurses but he'll never need to wait weeks or months for an appointment. Wait, is that one a bad thing? 1
smjjames Posted March 13, 2019 Posted March 13, 2019 smjames in case you couldn't tell I don't take Bernie Sanders seriously as a politician, a candidate, or as a human being. He's been in elected office his entire adult life. He is a multi-millionaire whose net worth is greater than the sum of every paycheck he's ever received. Is yours? He owns three homes including a beach vacation home. He wears $5k Tom Ford suits to events where he riles people up about how terrible the rich people are. He wants to nationalize banks, hospitals, and auto manufacturers but he never needs worry about cost or scarcity. He thinks free food should be a right and even defends bread lines but he'll never need to stand in one. He thinks everyone has a right to the labor of doctors and nurses but he'll never need to wait weeks or months for an appointment. "Socialism for thee but not for me." No wonder he gushed admiration for people like Chavez and Castro. Take away all the murders and he's just like them. Poverty and scarcity for all but not for him. Edit: Spelling was atrocious Perhaps I misunderstood your intent back there, I apologize.
213374U Posted March 13, 2019 Posted March 13, 2019 Bernie Sanders: Secession! HA! If only. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Maedhros Posted March 13, 2019 Posted March 13, 2019 Is there any politician (or anyone in general?) who isn't a hypocrite? Sanders seems more trustworthy than most of them.
213374U Posted March 13, 2019 Posted March 13, 2019 Nope. Being a general piece of **** is condicio sine qua non to get anywhere further than maybe secretary of your local workers' council. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Blank Posted March 13, 2019 Posted March 13, 2019 Checks and balances. While I despise the moral character and general demeanor of the current U.S. president, you can see the checks and balances of the other branches of federal government expressing themselves in a clearer way right now. There are attempts by the president to alter policy through executive action and vetoing, but then you have in the general public a broader discussion of executive branch overreach which should have been happening 40 years ago. A more philosophical correction may be taking place. Anecdotally, I have overheard more constructive political discussion around town than ever before. So while I may not like a move here or there, or maybe there are a few moves I think are on the right track, and while I may despise the man, I also see how there are positive outcomes from such a disasterpiece in office.
Recommended Posts