Politics Generations

[Malcador]

28 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Giving a s—t about what cannot be changed is frustrated death.  If the train is going over the cliff no matter what anyone does might as well enjoy the ride!

Well fighting against inevitability is what life is all about -- who told you life was meant to be happy ?

[BruceVC]

11 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

 Republican democracy is a terrible system of governance. In fact it’s the worst kind. Except of course for all of the others. The problem is not that the system is flawed. The problem is that all of the choices are wrong. Gromnir  has going on at some length about all of the damage that Trump has done to the executive office and the balance of power. And he’s right. Is the thing though, it was only going to be Trump or Hillary Clinton. Is there anything about Hillary Clinton’s past, present, pattern of behavior, or reputation that leads any sane person to believe she would’ve been the kind of president that respects the  limitations of the office?  Or the ethics that are expected of the executive? The answer to that is obviously no.   So with a contest of two villains we’re told voting third-party is throwing our vote away.  Do you know the old adage when the sheep have to choose between the lion or the wolf they are only voting for which belly they end up in. 

 

 Next year‘s election will be the same. With just two exceptions neither of which has a realistic shot of winning, no one currently running for president will make a capable or ethical leader that respects the limitations of the office. So you see? No matter what happens we are f——d.

Thanks for sharing, I need sometime to ponder your viewpoint 

But one positive consideration, I agree with much of what Gromnir says but no one is a true prognosticator especially when it comes to the Trump presidency. But what if I told you things in the USA could quite easily return to " normal"  once Trump is gone. Trump is an anomaly and I doubt we will ever see someone quite like him again...so the US Democracy will survive  at worst case another 6  years of Trump 

I 

[BruceVC]

15 hours ago, Gorth said:

There, fixed it for you. The guy is only a year younger than Sanders though, so just as likely to keel over from a heart attack before the final vote is counted.

 

Elizabeth Warren might surprise you. She's the bookmakers favourite too... at least at the time of writing. No, not going to post link to gambling sites, but lets just say Aussies give her 1.91 times money back, Biden 4.33 (and Sanders 11.0)

Gorthfuscious !!!! Im shocked, a man of your profound insight and intellectualism relying on  information from snake charmers, iconoclasts   and pagans 

 

Bookies dont understand the nuance, Warren will never defeat Trump so lets not even focus on her as the right Democratic candidate 

 

[Malcador]

Finally saw that press conference with the Finnish President,  sort of disappointed the reporter didn't try to wind him up more.

[Gfted1]

57 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

...over your head, before the execution?

 

Nah, this is the new age millennial socialism. It works like this: Gfted1 *exists* = Gfted1 *gains inalienable rights to free healthcare, free schooling, reduced housing cost, guaranteed monthly stipend, and all your base are belong to me.*

Ill sell my vote all day long.  

[BruceVC]

14 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Finally saw that press conference with the Finnish President,  sort of disappointed the reporter didn't try to wind him up more.

I didnt see the part where anyone asked him any questions but he didnt seem very happy overall....his facial expressions just made me laugh 

[smjjames]

4 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Gromnir I havent read any previous posts you made about the question  I want to get your opinion on so I apologize if you have already answered this

But legally and based on historical precedent  do you think the Democrats  can impeach Trump around the Ukrainian phone call, the basic argument seems to be "  a US president cannot get other countries to interfere in the US election process in any way ".  So when Trump expected Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden and then literally held back on aid to Ukraine this seems like a real impeachable offense because this would be used to undermine Joe Biden in 2020

But is this correct legally and what makes sense, in other words you could inadvertently strength Trump at the end if he is not found guilty like when Bill Clinton became more popular at the end of his impeachment 

 

The thing though is that there technically is no precedent because this has never happened before, so, it's hard to judge it based on historical precedent.

[smjjames]

Now Trump is saying that China of all countries should investigate the Bidens. After which he made a context free claim.

I can easily imagine China seeing this and going "What?! No way, we're not getting involved in this clusterf**k" (except in more diplomatic language), especially not after he's straight up blurted it out in public since everybody is going to know. It's probably an attempt along the lines of his "Russia, if you're listening, please find Hillary's 30,000 (or whatever number) emails!", but it's in the middle of where people are already wary.

[Pidesco]

No matter many how times I hear/read someone stating that Clinton would have been as bad as/worse than Trump, it still leaves me kinda at a loss for words. It's like the utmost expression of bothsideism in text, given form by extraordinary misinformation, willful ignorance or rampant dishonesty.

 

As per usual I post the above with full conscience that Hillary Clinton is an inveterate political animal who probably shouldn't be trusted by anyone.

[Guard Dog]

11 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

No matter many how times I hear/read someone stating that Clinton would have been as bad as/worse than Trump, it still leaves me kinda at a loss for words. It's like the utmost expression of bothsideism in text, given form by extraordinary misinformation, willful ignorance or rampant dishonesty.

 

As per usual I post the above with full conscience that Hillary Clinton is an inveterate political animal who probably shouldn't be trusted by anyone.

Sure conduction state business on private servers and phones. Away from the prying eyes of Congress who has a Constitution duty to oversight just as they do now. Millions upon millions of dollars changing hands then all devices being thoroughly and professionally destroyed the moment they were subpoenaed. And this just one instance in a very long career or this kind of s--t. 

But then again you may be falling into that age old trap: four legs good two legs baaaaaaad. There is a lot of that going on here in the US. The truth is there are naught but villains in government. 

[BruceVC]

23 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

 

As per usual I post the above with full conscience that Hillary Clinton is an inveterate political animal who probably shouldn't be trusted by anyone.

By that argument then we shouldnt trust any politicians, just because someone is a  career politician it doesnt mean they cant be trusted on most things 

[Pidesco]

9 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Sure conduction state business on private servers and phones. Away from the prying eyes of Congress who has a Constitution duty to oversight just as they do now. Millions upon millions of dollars changing hands then all devices being thoroughly and professionally destroyed the moment they were subpoenaed. And this just one instance in a very long career or this kind of s--t. 

But then again you may be falling into that age old trap: four legs good two legs baaaaaaad. There is a lot of that going on here in the US. The truth is there are naught but villains in government. 

You could have just written "buttery males" and be done with it.

[Bartimaeus]

5 hours ago, Pidesco said:

No matter many how times I hear/read someone stating that Clinton would have been as bad as/worse than Trump, it still leaves me kinda at a loss for words. It's like the utmost expression of bothsideism in text, given form by extraordinary misinformation, willful ignorance or rampant dishonesty.

 

As per usual I post the above with full conscience that Hillary Clinton is an inveterate political animal who probably shouldn't be trusted by anyone.

There are areas where Hillary and Trump share way too much in common for my liking...but extrapolating that to them somehow being the same seems like a case of losing the forest for the trees, though. It's interesting to think about an alternative scenario where Hillary is president, the Democratic party continues to refuse to move left, and Republicans still control both the House and the Senate, though...and knowing Mitch McConnell (who has since openly admitted that his "no SC appointees in an election year" stance was a lie), the Supreme Court is still at a 4-4 split (as in this scenario, Kennedy is never coerced to retire).

Edited October 3, 2019 by Bartimaeus

[Gromnir]

5 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Gromnir I havent read any previous posts you made about the question  I want to get your opinion on so I apologize if you have already answered this

But legally and based on historical precedent  do you think the Democrats  can impeach Trump around the Ukrainian phone call, the basic argument seems to be "  a US president cannot get other countries to interfere in the US election process in any way ".  So when Trump expected Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden and then literally held back on aid to Ukraine this seems like a real impeachable offense because this would be used to undermine Joe Biden in 2020

But is this correct legally and what makes sense, in other words you could inadvertently strength Trump at the end if he is not found guilty like when Bill Clinton became more popular at the end of his impeachment 

 

impeachment isn't a criminal justice issue. individual articles o' impeachment is gonna be discussed and voted 'pon in house committee, and then entire house of representatives will vote on each article which successful gets outta committee.

legal? is wrong way to think 'bout it. the Court is final arbiter o' legal in this country, but the SCOTUS will not intervene and render decisions on the issue o' impeachment, save to acknowledge that they cannot issue a decision regarding impeachment-- is a separation of powers issue and is non justiciable 'ccording to the Court. the President and and the executive branch obvious cannot render some kinda binding rule or finding 'bout impeachment neither. 

ask what is legal is wrong question 'cause even if there were some kinda legal, nobody but Congress could decide such.

hypothetical: nancy pelosi, in an attempt to win over southern democrats and evangelicals, announces she is leaving trump's impeachment fate in "God's hands." to that end, every member o' legislature gets to pick a bingo card marked alternatively yay or nay. instead o' vote on articles o' impeachment, the House holds impeachment bingo on each article of impeachment. bring in that little girl from sweden to pick the bingo balls and maybe have that guy from boxing announce the numbers.

legal? doesn't matter if is legal 'cause nobody with authority under the Constitution has power to challenge the issue.

HA! Good Fun!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1 hour ago, Pidesco said:

No matter many how times I hear/read someone stating that Clinton would have been as bad as/worse than Trump, it still leaves me kinda at a loss for words. It's like the utmost expression of bothsideism in text, given form by extraordinary misinformation, willful ignorance or rampant dishonesty.

 

As per usual I post the above with full conscience that Hillary Clinton is an inveterate political animal who probably shouldn't be trusted by anyone.

I think that they are both worse, a Clinton presidency would have kept "centrism" alive so that the ticking bombs of climate change and class stratification wouldn't be confronted as much as they are now for example. The presidency isn't just what they do when in charge but is also how they are reacted to and of there's a silver lining to the dementia addled buffon it's that some people are realizing business as usual isn't going to work anymore.

[Gromnir]

3 hours ago, Malcador said:

Well fighting against inevitability is what life is all about -- who told you life was meant to be happy ?

 

am gonna momentarily get philosophical.

life is hard. 

...

didn't say it were gonna be deep or profound philosophy. even so, we stand by our statement: life is hard. a character in vonnegut's slaughterhouse five opines to a psychiatrist, "i think you guys are going to have to come up with a lot of wonderful new lies, or people just aren't going to want to go on living." literal qft.

*shrug*

converse, and perhaps paradoxical, am gonna suggest that the only things worth living for are the things worth dying for. am not a big fan o' a few o' the folks in our family, but Gromnir would take a bullet for them... most o' them. stuff worth dying for is principle and conviction and emotional. almost never provable. can't prove love. can't prove justice. can't prove God and look at just how many people has died for their notion o' God.

sad flip side is that folks take our worth dying for observation and is convinced, with little reservation, to morph it into worth killing for... which is understandable but all kinda disturbing.

and no, we haven't been drinking or doing drugs.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited October 3, 2019 by Gromnir
had apologized for double-post... were unnecessary.

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

and no, we haven't been drinking or doing drugs.

Uh huh.

3 hours ago, smjjames said:

Now Trump is saying that China of all countries should investigate the Bidens. After which he made a context free claim.

Bold strategy.  Well, either that or he's losing his ****.

[213374U]

4 hours ago, Pidesco said:

No matter many how times I hear/read someone stating that Clinton would have been as bad as/worse than Trump, it still leaves me kinda at a loss for words. It's like the utmost expression of bothsideism in text, given form by extraordinary misinformation, willful ignorance or rampant dishonesty.

As per usual I post the above with full conscience that Hillary Clinton is an inveterate political animal who probably shouldn't be trusted by anyone.

I'll bite.

I have no doubt Clinton would have been worse than Trump -- for NATO member countries, and short-term at least. Trump has launched no new wars, which considering the record of his predecessors is kind of a big deal.

Now consider Clinton's track record as Secretary of State, her statements about Russia. Her boss essentially restarted the Cold War. It's anyone's guess if we would be on the brink of WWIII if Hillary had won, but I'd rather have an incompetent, lying, narcissistic but largely isolationist buffoon in power in the US than the latest in a long line of hawks ready to gamble with the possibility of another war in Europe. Just in case.

edit: also accelerationism, as KP explained.

Edited October 3, 2019 by 213374U
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[smjjames]

23 minutes ago, 213374U said:

Her boss essentially restarted the Cold War.

And antics like Russia invading Crimea had nothing to do with it?

32 minutes ago, 213374U said:

edit: also accelerationism, as KP explained.

More like getting shocked out of complacency IMO, but could partially be an accelerationism effect too.

[Raithe]

" Just to be clear, Trump is currently, this morning, calling on foreign leaders to investigate Biden in the midst of an impeachment proceeding about whether he has encouraged foreign leaders to investigate Biden "

" Trump encouraged foreign election interference on his behalf from two countries in the course of one 7-minute media availability. "

[Zoraptor]

34 minutes ago, smjjames said:

And antics like Russia invading Crimea had nothing to do with it?

If Russia had just installed a pro Russian government in Mexico or Canada I doubt there'd be any question of who had restarted the Cold War, however the US reacted.

And practically of course Crimea had voted to leave Ukraine twice in 1991 and 1994-5; the latter crushed by 70k Ukrainian troops being sent in and resulting in the Ukrainian constitution literally being rewritten to exclude any vote ever happening again. That's two more votes than, say, Kosovo being split off of Russia's ally Serbia, after a western invasion under Clinton, that was totally unrelated to restarting the Cold War...

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, smjjames said:

And antics like Russia invading Crimea had nothing to do with it?

 

whenever russian "antics" is discussed, be careful o' the unholy trinity o' deflection, false equivalency and moral relativism. whataboutism became a popular phrase meant to identify kinda moral equivalency argument which is effective a frankenstein o' the aforementioned.

What Is 'Whataboutism,' And Why Is It Suddenly Everywhere?

trump has embraced the old soviet tactics with alarming vigor. is perhaps trump's favorite russian import.

The Daily 202: False moral equivalency is not a bug of Trumpism. It’s a feature.

The Slippery Slope of Trump’s Dangerous ‘Whataboutism’

whenever you see a defense o' russia or defense by russia, immediate look for the obvious ploys... and then have a good laugh at the comical predictability.  

HA! Good Fun!

 

[smjjames]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

whenever russian "antics" is discussed, be careful o' the unholy trinity o' deflection, false equivalency and moral relativism. whataboutism became a popular phrase meant to identify kinda moral equivalency argument which is effective a frankenstein o' the aforementioned.

What Is 'Whataboutism,' And Why Is It Suddenly Everywhere?

trump has embraced the old soviet tactics with alarming vigor. is perhaps trump's favorite russian import.

The Daily 202: False moral equivalency is not a bug of Trumpism. It’s a feature.

The Slippery Slope of Trump’s Dangerous ‘Whataboutism’

whenever you see a defense o' russia or defense by russia, immediate look for the obvious ploys... and then have a good laugh at the comical predictability.  

HA! Good Fun!

 

Um, I think you misunderstand? I wasn't trying to defend Russia, I was basically going 'and antics like that weren't contributing factors? Because Obama tried to do the relations reset (as botched as it was), which isn't exactly behavior of someone 'basically restarting the cold war'. Maybe I should have said the whole thing rather than the part I did say.

[Gromnir]

Just now, smjjames said:

Um, I think you misunderstand? I wasn't trying to defend Russia, I was basically going 'and antics like that weren't contributing factors? Because Obama tried to do the relations reset (as botched as it was), which isn't exactly behavior of someone 'basically restarting the cold war'. Maybe I should have said the whole thing rather than the part I did say.

didn't misunderstand. we added a warning to you 'cause there will be russia defenders responding, and they will indulge in the silliness mentioned in the links.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[smjjames]

I see. Was a little confused if you were trying to attack or not.

Anyhow, looks like Rick Perry, DOE Secretary, may be the next casualty of the investigation. The Politico link has the three sources claim that Ukraine has nothing to do with it, but it could be a contributing factor as he's been sucked into it.