Politics, local-national-global-galactic

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

fdcks are a trip.

20 hours ago, ShadySands said:

I don't the Republicans would have agreed to anything to be honest. He's too vital to their reelections and they're also mostly afraid of his wrath. I do think that the house should have gone harder for witnesses and evidence even I'm also sure it would have also been disregarded. 

Didn't Chafee run against Hillary in the primary last time around? IIRC he was kind of a wet noodle

I think he got dropped after the first debate after getting brutally one-upped by Hillary. Weird that he's running as a libertarian but he already changed parties several times so maybe he's just schizophrenic.

Edited February 8, 2020 by KaineParker

[Skarpen]

3 hours ago, TrueNeutral said:

And his twin brother, I heard. Which would be a federal offense, no? But I guess since the senate is under his control and he doesn't face consequences for his criminal activity, Baron Harkonnen can do whatever the **** he likes. 

I know this still is a hard pill to swallow but Clinton lost 2016 elections, so the Harkonnens were banished and house Atreides rules benevolently upon the world.

Is it a federal offence to fire a traitor of the country? Law is funny.

1 hour ago, ComradeMaster said:

It's true though. FDR, like Stalin, nationalized much of the economy and built schools, roads, hospitals, farming subsidies, banking and much more.  It's just Stalin was a dictator was able to ruthlessly drive his policies to the max, which ensures he'll always be seen as a "bad" figure in history (which he admitted) but which ultimately saved the USSR from the Nazi beast.

Might also been the massacres of people and siding with the Nazis that ensures him being seen as "bad" figure. Totally undeserved 

Edited February 8, 2020 by Skarpen

[213374U]

I wonder how things would have played out after '41 if FDR had purged the upper echelons of the US military less than half a decade before.

[Chilloutman]

2 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

It's true though. FDR, like Stalin, nationalized much of the economy and built schools, roads, hospitals, farming subsidies, banking and much more.  It's just Stalin was a dictator was able to ruthlessly drive his policies to the max, which ensures he'll always be seen as a "bad" figure in history (which he admitted) but which ultimately saved the USSR from the Nazi beast.

[Blarghagh]

47 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

I know this still is a hard pill to swallow but Clinton lost 2016 elections, so the Harkonnens were banished and house Atreides rules benevolently upon the world.

Is it a federal offence to fire a traitor of the country? Law is funny.

How is the guy's brother a traitor? 

Also I'd never compare the Clinton's to Atreides. They're more like the Bene Gesserit. 

But you're right, Trump certainly strikes the same figure and moral strength of Leto II. 

[ComradeYellow]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

Might also been the massacres of people and siding with the Nazis that ensures him being seen as "bad" figure. Totally undeserved 

Signing a non-aggression pact is not "siding with".  The only thing Nazi's and Stalinists had in common was that they hated western liberalism (unlike the Trotskyists).   The USSR, even before WW2, was subject to numerous Western aggressions so it seemed plausible at the time that the Soviets should look into some kind of treaty with Nazi Germany, as the West was always scornful towards them.  Deep down in their cores though, fascists and communists can never get along, as their ideologies are built off hating the other.

[Guard Dog]

22 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

 The USSR, even before WW2, was subject to numerous Western aggressions so it seemed plausible at the time that the Soviets should look into some kind of treaty with Nazi Germany, as the West was always scornful towards them.  

Apparently you've read different history books than I have. I remember Lenin was pissed about allied intervention on behalf of the Whites in the east following the October Revolution. That was less about stopping the Bolshiveks than it was keeping Russia in the war. But after the war there was very little interaction between the USSR and the western powers. By the early 1930's relations were normal, trade was regular and the USSR was hiring American and British engineers and the like for their growth. 

Edited February 8, 2020 by Guard Dog

[pmp10]

3 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

It's true though. FDR, like Stalin, nationalized much of the economy and built schools, roads, hospitals, farming subsidies, banking and much more.  It's just Stalin was a dictator was able to ruthlessly drive his policies to the max, which ensures he'll always be seen as a "bad" figure in history (which he admitted) but which ultimately saved the USSR from the Nazi beast.

I was going to laugh at the weak bait but is seems to have worked.
How the mighty how fallen...

[Guard Dog]

First time I can ever remember agreeing with Chris Matthews: https://www.dailywire.com/news/msnbcs-chris-matthews-explodes-on-democrats-over-socialism-it-doesnt-frickin-work

[Skarpen]

23 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

Signing a non-aggression pact is not "siding with".  

You want to tell a Polish person that Stalin didn't sided with Hitler? 

Read up about history from some genuine sources man, really.

[ComradeYellow]

22 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

First time I can ever remember agreeing with Chris Matthews: https://www.dailywire.com/news/msnbcs-chris-matthews-explodes-on-democrats-over-socialism-it-doesnt-frickin-work

What does work is keeping money out of politics and offering a state sponsored employment safety net that's damn near mutually exclusive from the private sector.  Perhaps we should try that?

Fiscal conservatives would never go for it though, even Trump has caved away from his internal infrastructure campaign promises and has fell in line with the bipartisan policy of constant military spending and domestic austerity.

'tis a shame, Trump could have been a half-decent POTUS but joining the R party ensures he's doomed to bottom feed.

[ComradeYellow]

And anyone else surprised at what appears to be Biden's downfall?

I guess Democrats are coming to their senses that a worse-than-Trump isn't the best idea?

Edited February 8, 2020 by ComradeMaster

[Gromnir]

48 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

First time I can ever remember agreeing with Chris Matthews: https://www.dailywire.com/news/msnbcs-chris-matthews-explodes-on-democrats-over-socialism-it-doesnt-frickin-work

am agreeing with chris matthews, but probable not exact same as gd.

somebody needs to start asking bernie tougher questions. elizabeth warren, like her or hate her, can answer questions 'bout how she is gonna pay for all the bright new toys she promises, and we know exact where she stands on virtual every issue. bernie is less certain. the lack o' certainty has, so far, been good for his campaign 'cause is less likely drive folks away for practical reasons related to implementation or policy. serious flame brands and more moderate democrats may both support bernie just so long as we don't know what exactly he is selling.

the following happened a few days past and were similar bothersome to us.

bernie folks selling the us v. them bit with "billionaires" being the evil them. not just nina or a few folks. is one o' the new rallying cries, or so it seems. blame on billionaires is just so cheap and easy for bernie folks and is becoming a mindless refrain rather than a point o' real discussion. if having money is making a person bad, then bernie and warren is terrible people deserving o' scorn and ridicule. am knowing there ain't gonna be much sympathy for billionaires 'round these parts, but jason johnson were right on this point. "oligarch" is tame compared to some o' the labels being bandied 'bout by the bernie folks. 

am thinking most o' us agree it were wrong for somebody in the warren campaign to leak bernie's previous observations 'bout women Presidential candidates right before iowa, but am understanding some o' the frustration the various campaigns is feeling when dealing with bernie supporters and their social media antics.

https://thebulwark.com/bern-it-all-down/

we always gave credit to bernie regarding the consistency o' his outspoken views on violence and bullies. bernie were vocal and unequivocal with his condemnation o' antifa shenanigans. the thing is, his campaign is indeed embracing increasing divisive and unrestrained elements 'bout which more recent he has been uncharacteristically silent. perhaps we would be willing to endure his billionaire blame game if he were more outspoken 'bout chastising some o' the more unsavory elements in his campaign. am bothered by his silence.

course am gonna once again observe, in spirit o' full disclosure, we ain't a big bernie fan. am thinking he is good for the campaign 'cause he forces Americans to discuss relevant issues such as income disparity, but he ain't our horse in this race save for unpleasant scenario where we end up with bernie v. trump.  

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Apparently you've read different history books than I have. I remember Lenin was pissed about allied intervention on behalf of the Whites in the east following the October Revolution. That was less about stopping the Bolshiveks than it was keeping Russia in the war.

Don't know what history books those were but the intervention was very much about suppressing the revolution and the western powers only withdrew once it was obvious who had irreversibly won (and following major disillusion with the grossly corrupt and incompetent White leadership). Parts of Russia were still occupied 4 years after the end of WW1- Vladivostok was occupied until late 1922, for example.

Molotov-Ribbentrop only happened because the French reneged on their 1935 mutual defence pact with the soviets- mostly over objections from Britain. Not exactly Britain's finest hour either dismember Czechoslovakia to appease Hitler, block the soviets from treaties and hope that nazis and soviets would fight each other to a standstill. Not only morally bankrupt, but worse, morally bankrupt and a failure that achieved the exact opposite of its aims.

[ShadySands]

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

First time I can ever remember agreeing with Chris Matthews: https://www.dailywire.com/news/msnbcs-chris-matthews-explodes-on-democrats-over-socialism-it-doesnt-frickin-work

I mostly expect this from the red scare generations but nobody is calling for full blown socialism

It's like when you say you you swing Libertarian and someone always suggests you mean full anarcho-capitalism

PS I know this is a repeat convo

Edited February 8, 2020 by ShadySands

[ComradeYellow]

It doesn't matter, the economic right in America is so far gone that any kind state intervention in the economy is seen as Siberian Gulag.

Wall street is in full force now pumping out propaganda to protect their interests and there's no shortage of useful idiots here -rich, poor, middle- who gobble it right up.

Edited February 8, 2020 by ComradeMaster

[Gromnir]

24 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

I mostly expect this from the red scare generations but nobody is calling for full blown socialism

 

am not certain if we can agree with this. am also not certain full blown socialism is the tipping point for gd or most other independents to say nothing o' moderate democrats.

reverse. is no different than full blown free market capitalism. well of course nobody is calling for full blown capitalism. eh. maybe a couple folks, but not many.

socialism as debated in context o' the US politics and economics is not a fixed system o' inherent interconnected policies. shady and gd could easily have very different ideas as to what constitutes acceptable socialism and am suspecting full blown is not the appropriate measure for the vast majority o' folks concerned 'bout such issues. yeah, is a few pure capitalists and socialists who huddle in shadowed corners and come out only during the hour of the wolf on nights when there is dark of the moon. there is indeed folks calling for full blown socialism and full blown capitalism, and internet makes 'em quote worthy exceptions, but would be unfair to use such folks as stand ins for any current campaign-- democrat or republican. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps 'cause bernie only talks in grand sense, is difficult for supporters and opponents to pin him down regarding where he exists on the socialist continuum. full blown? unlikely, but again, full blown is not gonna be the bridge too far for most voters.

 

Edited February 8, 2020 by Gromnir

[ComradeYellow]

41 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

ps 'cause bernie only talks in grand sense, is difficult for supporters and opponents to pin him down regarding where he exists on the socialist continuum. full blown? unlikely, but again, full blown is not gonna be the bridge too far for most voters.

I think in a crunch he considers himself the spiritual successor to FDR and his New Deal policies, but he seems to shy away from the grossly and cleverly disguised imperialist polices FDR implemented (mostly as a consequence of WW2).

I consider Bernie more symbiotic than anything.  I do not support his trade policies  or his DNC sponsored rhetoric regarding aggressive foreign policy towards countries the gangs in D.C. don't like.

I am confident he will come over to our side though if he loses the nomination.  Warren, not so sure, and don't want to engage in wishful thinking,

[Guard Dog]

2 hours ago, Gromnir said:

 

we always gave credit to bernie regarding the consistency o' his outspoken views on violence and bullies. bernie were vocal and unequivocal with his condemnation o' antifa shenanigans. the thing is, his campaign is indeed embracing increasing divisive and unrestrained elements 'bout which more recent he has been uncharacteristically silent. perhaps we would be willing to endure his billionaire blame game if he were more outspoken 'bout chastising some o' the more unsavory elements in his campaign. am bothered by his silence.

 

Like I told you a few weeks ago. He is not the kind of man to endorse violence but he certainly appears to be willing to "ride the tiger".

Quote

course am gonna once again observe, in spirit o' full disclosure, we ain't a big bernie fan. am thinking he is good for the campaign 'cause he forces Americans to discuss relevant issues such as income disparity, but he ain't our horse in this race save for unpleasant scenario where we end up with bernie v. trump.  

You will have other names on your ballot. And if it assuages your conscience at all remember that you, like myself, live in a state where the winner of the electoral votes is a foregone conclusion. If you lived in Ohio or Florida or somewhere like that I'd suggest being a bit more circumspect with your vote. But you have the luxury of choosing without consequence. You should consider that.

[Gromnir]

11 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

 

You will have other names on your ballot. And if it assuages your conscience at all remember that you, like myself, live in a state where the winner of the electoral votes is a foregone conclusion. If you lived in Ohio or Florida or somewhere like that I'd suggest being a bit more circumspect with your vote. But you have the luxury of choosing without consequence. You should consider that.

and we keep pointing out how ignoring total popular vote is a mistake. is a reason other than ego why trump kept trying to claim he actual won the popular vote by imagining millions o' fraudulent votes for hillary. his impotence the first two years o' his administration, in spite o' having party majorities in both house and senate were due in part to his gross incompetence, but also 'cause he were not popular enough compared to clinton. actual enumerated powers o' the President is limited. the chief executives who were able to get stuff done had a mandate from the people. a mandate from people is not electoral college and trump knew such. reagan and obama came into office with large vote totals and were able to implement major policy changes. popularity, like it or not is gonna be measured 'gainst the runner-up.

there is a consequence to throwing away a vote on a third party candidate in what once again appears to be an election which will be decided by mere % points and a few hundred thousand voters spread across the battleground states. am personal not gonna do anything which helps empower trump.

oh, and if there were a 3rd party candidate who genuine spoke to us and appeared capable o' handling the job, then we would vote for (unnamed,) but use our vote for a 3rd party option to do little more than object to the two major candidates is not constructive. in the absence o' a candidate who genuine resonates, am choosing to vote for whoever makes trump less impactful.

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

[Guard Dog]

2 hours ago, Gromnir said:

am not certain if we can agree with this. am also not certain full blown socialism is the tipping point for gd or most other independents to say nothing o' moderate democrats.

reverse. is no different than full blown free market capitalism. well of course nobody is calling for full blown capitalism. eh. maybe a couple folks, but not many.

socialism as debated in context o' the US politics and economics is not a fixed system o' inherent interconnected policies. shady and gd could easily have very different ideas as to what constitutes acceptable socialism and am suspecting full blown is not the appropriate measure for the vast majority o' folks concerned 'bout such issues. yeah, is a few pure capitalists and socialists who huddle in shadowed corners and come out only during the hour of the wolf on nights when there is dark of the moon. there is indeed folks calling for full blown socialism and full blown capitalism, and internet makes 'em quote worthy exceptions, but would be unfair to use such folks as stand ins for any current campaign-- democrat or republican. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps 'cause bernie only talks in grand sense, is difficult for supporters and opponents to pin him down regarding where he exists on the socialist continuum. full blown? unlikely, but again, full blown is not gonna be the bridge too far for most voters.

 

Also @ShadySands

I am not terribly concerned with socialism coming to the US. If Bernie won and the Democrats had Congress and were actually willing to go along with him (no sure bet at all) they could no more turn the US socialist than they could flap their arms and fly. Oh they can absolutely tax the living crap out of everything that walks or crawls. They can spend a f--kload of money and do terrible damage to the economy.  But if/when they overreach those pesky mid-term elections roll around and everything reverses. 

In 2008 the Republican Party was all but exterminated on the national stage. The Democrats had three of the four aces in the government card game and had 60 votes in the Senate. 60! That is the US equivalent of absolute power. And they overplayed it. Two years later they lost the House. Two years after that they lost the Senate. Four years after that they  lost the White House, Congress and were completely shut out of 36 State governments. You could drive from Miami Florida to Pocatillo Idaho and not pass through any state or congressional district where the Democrats had power. With the Supreme Court the GOP had all four aces in their hand. Two years later they lost the House. Four years.... we'll see.

You see the pattern here. When Obama was elected with the Congress he had down the street I was worried as hell. I probably should not have been.

Of course I'd feel a lot better about the back and forth if the Democrats and Republicans were not essentially the same BS in different buckets. 

You know what worries me? This: https://www.usdebtclock.org/

This number goes up by $62k per second. In 2020 we will have a spending deficit of $1T. Even if the folks in DC could magically balance the budget right this moment there are still $23.26T in unfunded liabilities and debt. Now, the US has been in the red for a very long time. Why worry now? Crypto-currency. Last year Bashneft, a Russian oil company made sales to Indonesia, Peru, and other governments and were paid in Bitcoin. Crypto-currencies like that have an advantage over traditional bank notes. There is a finite amount that can exist. That means it's largely immune from monetization and inflation. The only reason the US economy has not imploded is because the Dollar is valuable as the currency of choice for international business. The most common way to handle the debt is to devalue the currency via monetization. Basically that means they issue bonds to finance debt then buy the bonds at market value and call it income. These shenanigans have not undermined international confidence in the Dollar before but these days there are viable alternatives. 

What I am worried about is what has happened to other countries and people fool themselves into believing it can't happen here. Hyperinflation, currency collapse, economic implosion. The Democrats seem to want to sprint to it. The Republicans want to jog. However the destination is not in doubt. 

You know what really bothers me? I'm not an economist. I'm not a financial expert or political leader. I'm just a guy that's read a few books. If I can see this coming how is it people like Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Andew Yang, and others can't? What really scares me is maybe they do and they don't care. 

 

Edited February 8, 2020 by Guard Dog
Bad grammar

[Guard Dog]

28 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

 

oh, and if there were a 3rd party candidate who genuine spoke to us and appeared capable o' handling the job, then we would vote for (unnamed,) but use our vote for a 3rd party option to do little more than object to the two major candidates is not constructive. in the absence o' a candidate who genuine resonates, am choosing to vote for whoever makes trump less impactful.

 

Fair enough. We have a very different viewpoint on this. My objective is to help a third party earn a seat at the table. That matters more to me than the political fortunes of whomever is carrying the standard of that party for that election. 

[ComradeYellow]

3 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

It doesn't matter, the economic right in America is so far gone that any kind state intervention in the economy is seen as Siberian Gulag.

Let me rephrase this.  I don't believe that the government should interfere with the private sector, I believe that the government and the private sector should be completely and utterly separated and the government should offer it's own sector.

Not only would it curb corruption but it would also force both sectors to compete with each other, which would lead to overall better quality....everything!

My perfect consumerist world: You got Pepsi Blue, you got Coke Red, you got -Insert Government Green Labeled Cola Here-.

Edited February 8, 2020 by ComradeMaster

[Gorth]

7 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

The USSR, even before WW2, was subject to numerous Western aggressions so it seemed plausible at the time that the Soviets should look into some kind of treaty with Nazi Germany,

Yeah, damn Polish imperialist kept making border raids into western USSR in an attempt to seize chunks off it. Luckily the combined military forces of the USSR and Nazi Germany were able to neutralize the threat before Poland took over all of Europe!

 

On a more serious note, Stalin was way too busy with purging the military Erdogan style (and reforming the NKVD) and didn't need a war, so he would be likely to sign any treaty that would keep the Nazis off his doorstep until the firing squads ran out of Soviet officers  to execute (for the greater good).

[ComradeYellow]

*rollseyes*

Never change, liberals.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will applaud Stalin and Russians for their performance in WW2 despite being dealt an initial bad hand and playing it the best they could.  Not a fan of dictatorships or One Party states but credit and respect can go where they're due.

Edited February 9, 2020 by ComradeMaster