The All Things Political Topic - Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation

[Bartimaeus]

1 hour ago, majestic said:

I got the impression that @Malcador post was supposed to be a joke, what with the truncated quote and all.

Even if it wasn't, I'd just like to make it clear that my ire is really reserved for those who poke their noses into everything and believe themselves knowledgeable about all of it whilst only armed with a woefully inadequate surface level of understanding. It is perfectly normal to be ignorant of the million different subjects in which you do not claim any substantive/authoritative expertise over (there's only so much time in life to learn the fine details!), but way too many are wholly incapable of knowing that they don't know enough and have an inexplicable sense of pride about it when they painfully come to face with it. Don't be that guy, nobody likes that guy...and you're just going to keep proverbially urinating yourself when you get into discussions with people who actually know their stuff, and that's embarrassing for everyone involved.

(e): And on the subject of elections, it sounds like Democrats have good reason to believe the Nevada senatorial race will go their way; if Arizona is won as well, it would make the Georgia race redundant for control of the Senate. And it looks very possible Republicans will only win the House by the slimmest of margins, possibly literally right at the exact mark for control.

Edited November 10, 2022 by Bartimaeus

[majestic]

1 hour ago, Bartimaeus said:

Don't be that guy, nobody likes that guy...and you're just going to keep proverbially urinating yourself when you get into discussions with people who actually know their stuff, and that's embarrassing for everyone involved.

Like a horde of comments from foreigners (both US and otherwise) on our 2016 presidential elections, an otherwise mostly meaningless election that suddenly became of world wide interest (in right wing circles) because Breitbart decided it was going to push the issue, because the winning candidate was from the Greens - which again is another misinterpretation based on not knowing anything, because our Greens are fiscal/economic conservatives with a socio-liberal worldview and a focus on environmental protection, i.e. they're mostly well off, highly educated people - libertarians, basically, who want to pay taxes for environmental protection but nothing else, the sort of people who expect that everyone can commute to work back and forth on a bicycle because they can work comfortably from home. They're left in name only, or can be considered left if you simply take the definition and assume it comes merely with not being against gay marriage or polluting the youthful mind with transgender ideas, something that - oh wonder - is being pushed by conservatives and right-wing extremists everywhere in the West at the moment.

They wondered how and why the presidential race was called while it was really narrow (like 50.6% to 49.4% or something) based on exit polls. Indeed, calling a race based on exit polls would be stupid. Except, nope, we're not calling races based on exit polls at all, but using statistical sampling to extrapolate the most likely results, and when there's a .6% lead with an uncertainty of only .1%, it is more than fine to call the race.

The outstanding mail-in ballots will not magically feature a totally different voting distribution, in particular not when historically, they've been overwhelmingly cast for the Green party.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2016/05/24/feared-austria-gets-extremist-president/

Jesus H. Christ, I forgot how much of a sh*trag Breitbart is.

Quote

Austrians who voted for Hofer are talking about “betrug” – fraud – and this may well be more than sour grapes. In some areas there was a remarkable 146.9 percent voter turnout. This stinks of a stitch up by the bien-pensant elite in unholy alliance with the immigrant bloc vote.

Sigh. Indeed, mail-in ballots cannot be added to the voting district they come from because they do not contain sender addresses on the envelope, so they're all collected and simply added to the count in the nearest voting district (this happens in the areas where one post office is responsible for several small villages, for instance - it is very common, especially in more rural areas). As such, it is entirely possible for the vote count to surpass the amount of registered voters in a voting district. That does not mean the voter turnout is above 100% or that any manipulation happened.

Makes for less interesting headlines, of course.

Huh, no idea why I wrote that post, but now that it is there I don't want to delete it. What a long winded way to agree.

1 hour ago, Bartimaeus said:

(e): And on the subject of elections, it sounds like Democrats have good reason to believe the Nevada senatorial race will go their way; if Arizona is won as well, it would make the Georgia race redundant for control of the Senate. And it looks very possibly Republicans will only win the House by the slimmest of margins, possibly literally right at the exact mark for control.

This red wave seems to be as much of a dud as the 'purple' wave was in 2020. Well, even more so, probably. So sad. 

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

Didn't something like that happen in Italy after Berlusconi's corruption scandals reach the point beyond salvaging, even by his 95% media dominance?

 

Iirc, the parliament appoint an unaffiliated technocrat to try to salvage the economy for the short term. Somebody without a past (or a political future) who just happened to understand basic economics, so he got shoved into the seat for a while (while the old political parties were plotting on how to get back into power once the economy looked just a little better)

No need to go back that far, Mario Draghi's failed government was like that just recently. Except one cannot claim Mario Draghi to be an independent technocrat, but the concept is the same.

Edited November 10, 2022 by majestic

[Lexx]

7 hours ago, Gromnir said:

am gonna continue to provide corrective  info as required when we see you get it wrong

Sure, why not? Never said anything against that.

 

And Bruce is right, american politics has a direct influence on our daily lives.

Edited November 10, 2022 by Lexx

[Pidesco]

 

[Azdeus]

1 hour ago, Lexx said:

Sure, why not? Never said anything against that.

And Bruce is right, american politics has a direct influence on our daily lives.

The Swedish Democrats, Moderates and Christian Democrats here in Sweden are basically taking american right wing ********ery and running with it.

[Sarex]

2 hours ago, Lexx said:

And Bruce is right, american politics has a direct influence on our daily lives.

I have never seen results of US elections, have any major impact on their foreign policy, be it democrats or republicans.

[Lexx]

Uh, I know it's been a few years already, but the Trump era should not be forgotten so easily.

[TruckerJay]

3 minutes ago, Lexx said:

Uh, I know it's been a few years already, but the Trump era should not be forgotten so easily.

Once new president is elected, people tend to forget how bad previous ones were. Just look how noone talks about Bush at this point and that was probably worst by far.

[majestic]

1 hour ago, Azdeus said:

The Swedish Democrats, Moderates and Christian Democrats here in Sweden are basically taking american right wing ********ery and running with it.

The problem is, the very vocal American 'wokerati' on Twatter make it all too easy for them to point to and yell: "That is what you get from the left."

In particular because our media (edit: that include Euro-Peon wokerati on Twatter) and some political parties don't seem to have anything better to do than to pick up on these issues and present them. In the real life, I'm sorry, nobody gives a flying rat's ass about whether or not white people should be forbidden from wearing dreadlocks or if languages that have grammatical gender should be changed so that the generic masculine is more gender neutral or if people should be able to pick their own pronouns.

The height of stupidity was our government prior to the election that changed our center-right party into a right-wing populist one and brought us a right-right-extremist government for a while. Changing the lyrics of our national hymn to read sons "and daugthers" because that certainy was a pressing issue that very much increased the quality of life, and the best part? Nobody's using the new hymn text, and the minister who came up with the change patted herself on the back for a feminist's job well done.

I don't even... don't get me wrong, these are things we should be aware of in some capacity, but it is not something politicians should spent time and energy on when the world's burning to a cinder, there's still a large educational gap, much less women in STEM fields, non-equal rights for people with different sexual orientations, the educational system still in need of reforms, spending goes overboard and rich people can dodge taxes in any which way they feel like.

At the moment our conservatives are falling apart at the seams with one massive corruption scandal chasing the next one, and what do our left leaning centrists do to capitalize on it? They want to reduce the hurdles on the way to citizenship right after a hundred people with migratory backgrounds and asylum seekers rioted during All Hallows Eve celebrations. Not only is that the worst possible timing you can have because it's just more wind in the sails of the extreme right, it is also terrible because the idea is a good one and (in my opinion) a just cause, because the hurdles on the way to Austrian citizenship are so high that even law abiding, hard working people from other nations who are well integrated can scarcely afford to apply for citizenship (never mind natural citizens not being able to pass the test, oh boy).

We're basically marginalizing even those who are willing to integrate and play by our rules by telling them that no matter what they do, they're not going to be allowed to participate in our democratic process, but at the same time we expect everyone to respect our democratic process. Find the issue there yet? I do. The problem is, many others do not, so you can talk about that at some point later. Win the election first, then change the process.

You're not going to win elections by championing easier citizenship after bored asylum seekers threw explosives at the police. Perhaps it should not be that way - but it is what it is. Where's the common sense here?

I feel like I'm parroting Dave Chapelle, because he made a similar point about the Democrats before/shortly after Drumpf became president.

1 hour ago, Lexx said:

Uh, I know it's been a few years already, but the Trump era should not be forgotten so easily.

Name one significant difference in foreign policy since Biden became president. Oh, right, he took the trade wars started by Trump and put on the thumb screws and antagonized China over Taiwan (for better or worse).

Yeah, Trump might not want to support the Ukraine in the same way. Does not mean it would not have happened, but that could be a difference.

1 hour ago, TruckerJay said:

Once new president is elected, people tend to forget how bad previous ones were. Just look how noone talks about Bush at this point and that was probably worst by far.

Compared to the Tangerine in Chief, Bush was a reasonable, well spoken and articulated person, and let's not forget that it was Bush who once said he believes that man and fish can coexist peacefully.

Edited November 10, 2022 by majestic

[Hurlshort]

2 hours ago, majestic said:

 

Compared to the Tangerine in Chief, Bush was a reasonable, well spoken and articulated person, and let's not forget that it was Bush who once said he believes that man and fish can coexist peacefully.

I didn't realize you were pro-war against fish. Does that make you a fishmongering warmonger or a warmongering fishmonger? 

[majestic]

23 minutes ago, Hurlshort said:

I didn't realize you were pro-war against fish. Does that make you a fishmongering warmonger or a warmongering fishmonger? 

Just someone who believes that the future will be better, tomorrow.

[Malcador]

17 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Without personal reason to be invested and care, any knowledge I could have of said elections would undoubtedly lead to the same shallow "understanding" that results in ignorant and oft annoying jerk-ass comments like we see about American elections from both too many voters here at home and ye poorly informed foreigners, foreigners who understandably couldn't ever even begin to grasp the issues at play without actually living here...and that's with American elections evidently being covered to an unhealthy degree in at least the anglosphere. It's already a serious undertaking to be at least a little knowledgeable about American elections to the point of being able to talk about them, and I try to be aware of when I don't know enough before I open my mouth about something, so I will graciously leave the Canadian elections to the Canadians and the German elections to the Germans. Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt and all that.

Forgot with Americans you need to telegraph a joke better, but thanks for the lecture, I needed a laugh today. Luckily I am in a place where access to US media is prevalent, to the point many here think they are in the US.  

That said, not even sure how Canada came up, Volo must have traumatized you lot.

Edited November 10, 2022 by Malcador

[Gorth]

2 hours ago, majestic said:

Compared to the Tangerine in Chief, Bush was a reasonable, well spoken and articulated person, and let's not forget that it was Bush who once said he believes that man and fish can coexist peacefully.

 

[HoonDing]

[Gromnir]

13 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Even if it wasn't, I'd just like to make it clear that my ire is really reserved for those who poke their noses into everything and believe themselves knowledgeable about all of it whilst only armed with a woefully inadequate surface level of understanding.

@Guard Dogdoesn't even need be here for people to try and use the i was keeding defense, eh?

if Gromnir makes an off-color joke 'bout trump or antifa and somebody calls us on it, we would look kinda stoopid if we claimed that this time we were joking.  got some rando who has a posting history o' years trying to pretend he is just keeding, this time, eh?  is no reason you need pretend as if posters has never posted on these boards previous to making their "joke."

as for @majestic suggesting that maybe biden deserves some credit for a shift in policy toward ukraine, am admitted confused 'cause it didn't appear to be meant as keeding. like him or not, agree or not, biden responded to russian buildup much different than woulda' the former guy, and act dismissive as if nato posture and US contributions maybe/possibly could have been different with 45 is the sorta hyperbole another poster, after the fact, pretended were keeding so...

but while is admitted not fair, am gonna get resist becoming involved in a nato/ukraine debate, save that am thinking it ain't actual debate worthy to suggest nato posture and US response to the russian invasion o' ukraine would look quite different today, but for biden. is hardly a trivial change. even so, were so much gaslighting and pretending as if january and february ukraine posts didn't happen on these boards that am so not gonna deal with further ukraine punditry at this time... and for the foreseeable future. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by Gromnir

[majestic]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

as for @majestic suggesting that maybe biden deserves some credit for a shift in policy toward ukraine, am admitted confused 'cause it didn't appear to be meant as keeding. like him or not, agree or not, biden responded to russian buildup much different than woulda' the former guy, and act dismissive as if nato posture and US contributions maybe/possibly could have been different with 45 is the sorta hyperbole another poster, after the fact, pretended were keeding so...

I was not kidding, merely pointing out one area where Biden's current foreing policy could potentially deviate significantly from the Tangerine's. Trump is on record saying that the war would never have happened on his watch, and I am not as convinced as you are that he would not have felt betrayed by is 'good friend' Putin going ahead with the invasion anyway. Trump is nothing if not petty and throws friends and former allies under the bus on perceived slights, much less real ones.

It is not that unreasonable to assume that he'd throw tantrum and suggest bombing Russia with Chinese decals. Like he did before.

But who knows, I also thought Putin would not be anserous enough to go ahead with the invasion because it clearly was not in Russia's best interest, and lo, he clearly was, so clearly I suck at gauging other people's intentions. Clearly not much of a surprise there, I guess, that's clear.

Edited November 10, 2022 by majestic
Added some clears! Clearly necessary.

[Malcador]

9 hours ago, majestic said:

Yeah, Trump might not want to support the Ukraine in the same way. Does not mean it would not have happened, but that could be a difference.

Trump'd send all the free kit Ukraine would whine for. Just ask for Odessa as payment, probably.

[Gromnir]

26 minutes ago, majestic said:

I was not kidding, merely pointing out one area where Biden's current foreing policy could potentially deviate significantly from the Tangerine's, because Biden has done very little to walk back Trump's foreign policies that directly affect the EU and/or Serbia, which was @Sarex point (well, he's not calling Mexicans rapists, or trying to build a wall that is unreasonable anway, or institute an unlawful muslim ban, so he's certainly smarter about it). Trump is on record saying that the war would never have happened on his watch, and I am not as convinced as you are that he would not have felt betrayed by is 'good friend' Putin going ahead with the invasion anyway. Trump is nothing if not petty and throws friends and former allies under the bus on perceived slights, much less real ones.

It is not that unreasonable to assume that he'd throw tantrum and suggest bombing Russia with Chinese decals. Like he did before.

But who knows, I also throught Putin would not be anserous enough to go ahead with the invasion because it clearly was not in Russia's best interest, and lo, he clearly was, so clearly I suck at gauging other people's intentions. Not much of a surprise there, I guess.

*sigh*

have no idea if trump woulda' eventual become embroiled in ukraine following a russian invasion. we didn't claim a trump administration would have perpetual avoided. am also having no idea what point you see in bringing up serbia as somehow relevant to the specific issue o' how US policy regarding ukraine would be different under biden than the former guy. 'could also have told complained to us 'bout US foreign policy regarding pakistan. if you got a wild hare up your arse regarding serbia or pakistan, then no doubt you see such as debate worthy, but neither is touching specific the differences 'tween a biden and trump administration response to ukraine.

can't believe am responding, 'cause this is a level o' obvious difficult to fathom. (edit... and done with this. pontius pilate moment arrived)'cause of course trump woulda' been working with ukraine and nato allies pre-invasion, sharing intelligence and quietly attempting to impress upon them the threat the US intelligence agencies (agencies which trump did not trust and routine ignored) were observing? and when invasion did happen, no doubt trump's first reaction would have been to get other nato nations to commit to defense o' ukraine, as 'posed to a whole lotta bluster and ridicule directed at nato leaders and the press and hillary. is no way the trump and biden response to ukraine is similar. consensus building with nato by trump? serious? 

whatever. am so no going down the rabbit hole any further. perhaps this is one o' those situations where pre invasion opinions is preventing any meaningful chance to reevaluate. @majesticwould hardly be the only person paralysed with pre-invasion opines, but we don't know as have been avoiding to a great degree. regardless, equivocating as to whether the US  response to ukraine would look different under biden as 'posed to trump is... silly.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by Gromnir

[Bartimaeus]

8 hours ago, Malcador said:

Forgot with Americans you need to telegraph a joke better, but thanks for the lecture, I needed a laugh today. Luckily I am in a place where access to US media is prevalent, to the point many here think they are in the US. 

Tell a better joke next time, sucka.

[Malcador]

Playing on a well worn stereotype seemed pretty good for a little one.  At least I didn't go with my initial draft of our need of a final solution for Florida Man.

Edited November 10, 2022 by Malcador

[Gromnir]

aside, am thinking even if dems manage to win both the nevada and arizona senate contests, georgia is extreme important. am guessing IF dems do win nevada and arizona, and those victories is hardly a certainty at this point, then the person rooting most aggressive for herschel walker in the runoff is krysten sinema... and that is only slight hyperbole. the other senator from arizona, who has been identified as the most disliked member o' the senate by a number o' recent polls, is only relevant these days as a spoiler who appears curious committed to wall street. manchin is troublesome for democrats, but he has displayed a willingness to work with his party to advance key legislation and he is at least arguable representing his coal loving constituents. marginalizing sinema with an additional senate seat would be a major boon for democrats, and for the people o' arizona. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[majestic]

'k, thanks for the reminder why I usually stay out of this thread.

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

*sigh*

have no idea if trump woulda' eventual become embroiled in ukraine following a russian invasion. we didn't claim a trump administration would have perpetual avoided. am also having no idea what point you see in bringing up serbia as somehow relevant to the specific issue o' how US policy regarding ukraine would be different under biden than the former guy. 'could also have told complained to us 'bout US foreign policy regarding pakistan. if you got a wild hare up your arse regarding serbia or pakistan, then no doubt you see such as debate worthy, but neither is touching specific the differences 'tween a biden and trump administration response to ukraine.

can't believe am responding, 'cause this is a level o' obvious difficult to fathom. (edit... and done with this. pontius pilate moment arrived)'cause of course trump woulda' been working with ukraine and nato allies pre-invasion, sharing intelligence and quietly attempting to impress upon them the threat the US intelligence agencies (agencies which trump did not trust and routine ignored) were observing? and when invasion did happen, no doubt trump's first reaction would have been to get other nato nations to commit to defense o' ukraine, as 'posed to a whole lotta bluster and ridicule directed at nato leaders and the press and hillary. is no way the trump and biden response to ukraine is similar. consensus building with nato by trump? serious? 

whatever. am so no going down the rabbit hole any further. perhaps this is one o' those situations where pre invasion opinions is preventing any meaningful chance to reevaluate. @majesticwould hardly be the only person paralysed with pre-invasion opines, but we don't know as have been avoiding to a great degree. regardless, equivocating as to whether the US  response to ukraine would look different under biden as 'posed to trump is... silly.

HA! Good Fun!

Okay, you got me. I was just kidding.

I thought of another reasonable cop out: The subjunctive was meant for expressing whether or not the change in the handling of the Ukrainian situation can be considered significant depends on where in the world one is. See, for someone from Serbia, it makes no difference, hence it is not significant. That is clearly what I meant, I was just expressing it poorly! Yes, I'm going with that.

No, I took that sentence out of the post in editing before you replied simply because it looks like a cop out and I did not want to give that impression, you can perhaps still check the timestamps (before they start reading "one hour ago").

Alas, that is not at all what I originally meant, of course, because you're right about the pre-invasion handling, which was not really on my mind and I did not take into acocunt Trump's buffoonish handling of intelligence offered to him, simply about his potential reaction to being ignored by Putin. I am uncertain what that has to do with me being paralysed with pre-invasion opines other than the fact that I already admitted to being wrong about the situation that I commented on a handful of times (there are two that I can recall off-handedly, the first that I did not think Russia would weaponize energy exports and that there would be no invasion, as both moves make no sense when thinking about Russia's well-being, or at least the well-being of the people, which Putin does not care about - okay, that one is not much of a surprise, but at least I thought he'd not stand in the way of the profit of his oligarch mafiaesque buddies - and no, I did not count, feel free to take this as another attack vector if you like), but that is fine.

Am still right about the intraweb though.

Edited November 10, 2022 by majestic

[Zoraptor]

To see what Trump's response to being ignored by Putin would be just look at Syria 2018 where archdove Jim Mattis had to talk Trump out of attacking Russian forces there because they said they'd shoot his missiles down (on, uh, Twitter). Tends to get Occam's Broomed by anyone who wants Trump to be a Russian asset though.

To paraphrase the great philosopher Viscerys I "Trump's pride has pride" and that informs all his decisions.

Edited November 10, 2022 by Zoraptor

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

11 hours ago, majestic said:

Name one significant difference in foreign policy since Biden became president

[Chairchucker]

To dredge up a page or so old conversation I can't be bothered finding and quoting, when I saw the comment about the USA not being allowed to have more than two parties I assumed it was referring not to there being some law against other parties existing, but about how the voting system and whatever else effectively prevents them from ever gaining any support. The reply where someone agreed and also mentioned being a member of the libertarian party seemed like it could only possibly be confirmation of that interpretation, because how could you possibly claim membership of a party that you agree has been legally prevented from existing.

 

Was surprised to then see the multiple paragraphs that I did not read all of that seemed to be talking about how ACTUALLY, there's no law about there being more than two parties.