This Insane Political Season

Callers to action, creators of Superpacs, and championers of causes great and small unite! Air all your political thoughts here. Whitened teeth, dyed hair, and spray-on tans not required but preferred.

Re: This Insane Political Season

Postby spongebob » Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:47 pm

Jesus Raves wrote:
spongebob wrote:Do share...

I don't like her close ties to Wall Street, but that's just how it goes for many longtime politicians like her. Far more than that, though, her warhawkish tendencies concern me greatly. At times, I wonder if we'd end up involved in less foreign conflict if Trump were to win. That's not to say I support Trump -- because of course I don't. I could go policy-by-policy, because she's generally far too moderate for me, but I think what I've already stated is enough to establish decent grounds for dislike.


I can see why you might think Trump would result in less foreign conflict, because he presents himself as an isolationist. But you aren't factoring in Trump's insane level of narcissism. Observe how many time's he's gotten into a tweet storm just during this campaign, and don't forget about the Tweet fights he's had with other celebrities. I think his thin skinned nature would end up causing all sorts of calamity, with both our friends and foes.

Yes, Hillary is cozy with Wall Street. but I just don't see any other way a President can't be at this point. I like some things Bernie says, but none of that passes through congress. Until we have a congress that's less driven by Wall Street, the President can't be very effective at opposing big business either.

I guess I'm not aware of her hawkish nature. I can't see her being more so than the last Bush administration, but perhaps a little more than Obama.

So, by too moderate I assume you mean not far enough Left of center?
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: This Insane Political Season

Postby Jesus Raves » Sun Aug 28, 2016 8:32 pm

spongebob wrote:I can see why you might think Trump would result in less foreign conflict, because he presents himself as an isolationist. But you aren't factoring in Trump's insane level of narcissism. Observe how many time's he's gotten into a tweet storm just during this campaign, and don't forget about the Tweet fights he's had with other celebrities. I think his thin skinned nature would end up causing all sorts of calamity, with both our friends and foes.

I want clarify that I was speaking figuratively when I said sometimes I think Trump might get us in less foreign conflict. That most likely would not be the case. I meant merely to emphasize how hawkish Hillary is.

Yes, Hillary is cozy with Wall Street. but I just don't see any other way a President can't be at this point.

I don't know. Obama seems somewhat less cozy with Wall Street -- at least, I don't seem him walking back anti-Wall Street comments like Hillary has.

I like some things Bernie says, but none of that passes through congress.

I agree. Never was much of a Bernie Bro. Had a discussion with a Bernie campaign caller a few months back, and the guy really faltered in trying to explain how Bernie would manage to get stuff passed and how he'd manage to pay for his various utopian reforms -- such as free college education.

Until we have a congress that's less driven by Wall Street, the President can't be very effective at opposing big business either.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean we have to settle for a president who embraces and supports corporations over the little guy. There's something in the middle.

I guess I'm not aware of her hawkish nature. I can't see her being more so than the last Bush administration, but perhaps a little more than Obama.

Obama's already pretty bad. He may have reduced troop numbers in some areas, but, as far as I know, he hasn't much reduced offensive action -- in the form of drones and the like.

So, by too moderate I assume you mean not far enough Left of center?

Right. Not far enough left of center, too moderately minded (she's too cautious with her platform; she has ideals, but often it seems that extreme prudence wins out over her ideals -- standard politician behavior, I know).
User avatar
Jesus Raves
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2620
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 3:52 pm
Location: Missouri, USA
Affiliation: Anti-Labelist

Re: This Insane Political Season

Postby spongebob » Mon Aug 29, 2016 8:05 am

Jesus Raves wrote:I want clarify that I was speaking figuratively when I said sometimes I think Trump might get us in less foreign conflict. That most likely would not be the case. I meant merely to emphasize how hawkish Hillary is.


Another point to make regarding Trump's ideas around international involvement is that Trump appears to espouse the idea that the US is too involved around the world militarily and in other ways. He also doesn't seem to show any understanding of how our international relationships are constructed. IOW, Trump says things like he would scrap current trade deals and seek to renegotiate them with better terms for the US. But what does that really mean? Trade negotiations even with our close allies are very complicated and difficult, let alone deals with countries that we consider somewhat adversarial, like Russia and China. No deal happens in a vacuum. Does Trump understand this? I doubt it, but if elected he would very quickly come to know the reality and know that there are no magic buttons that can be pushed to make trade deals that suddenly favor the US and no one else. Clinton served as secretary of state; she has been in the trenches on these things. Its safe to say she understands them viscerally. As much as I would love to see our military budget slashed and that money spent on schools and new roads, I understand that our military presence in the world is part of the complicated web that holds the world as we know it together. Remove that in a significant way and one very real possibility is that the world could change dramatically. All you need to know this is to study the history of empires.

I don't know. Obama seems somewhat less cozy with Wall Street -- at least, I don't seem him walking back anti-Wall Street comments like Hillary has.


But what about all the criticism that the AHA was little more than a kowtow to big insurance and drug companies? What about his support for the TARP? What about his support for the auto industry during the crash? Ideologically, I would say that Obama is less inclined to please Wall Street, but functionally he is far more pragmatic and hasn't really pushed that ideology much. Bernie talks much bigger on this issue, but I wonder how much political clout he would be willing to expend on such ideology when there is essentially zero support from the congress.

I agree. Never was much of a Bernie Bro. Had a discussion with a Bernie campaign caller a few months back, and the guy really faltered in trying to explain how Bernie would manage to get stuff passed and how he'd manage to pay for his various utopian reforms -- such as free college education.


Actually, free state college tuition is one of the more realistic things Bernie promised. Several states are already offering free tuition to community college and some even to state universities. But of course that's just tuition and that's only part of the real cost of college.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean we have to settle for a president who embraces and supports corporations over the little guy. There's something in the middle.


That would be Hillary Clinton and really any Democrat. The only other alternative would be the Green Party, but we all know that's not going to happen. In the divided world we live in today, the Democrats are the best you are going to get in this particular area.

Obama's already pretty bad. He may have reduced troop numbers in some areas, but, as far as I know, he hasn't much reduced offensive action -- in the form of drones and the like.


You know this drone thing is an interesting topic and should probably be a thread of its own. I personally don't understand the revulsion so many on the Left have with this policy. As I alluded to earlier, our global military presence is unavoidable in our current reality. We all know what happened on 9/11. This was possible, in part, because a terrorist training camp operated unimpeded for years after the exodus of Russia from Afghanistan. So had we employed some sort of force in Afghanistan before 9/11 to disrupt these terrorists, it's possible that we might have avoided that disaster. We know for certain the result of doing nothing. So here we are in 2016, still in the same country, still fighting with terrorists because they are still there and they still want to blow up building in the US. For around 40% of Americans, Obama is doing far too little to destroy their ability to do us harm. So what would you have him do? If it was me and I had the option of sending in drones to kill terrorists and perhaps have some collateral damage but significantly reducing our footprint and the loss of life on our side, you bet I would send in the drones. It is a significant technological advantage for us. Technology is generally how wars are won.

Right. Not far enough left of center, too moderately minded (she's too cautious with her platform; she has ideals, but often it seems that extreme prudence wins out over her ideals -- standard politician behavior, I know).


But how can you expect a far Left government to emerge from a country where the far Left represents maybe 25% of the voting populace?
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: This Insane Political Season

Postby Keep The Reason » Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:49 pm

spongebob wrote:Another point to make regarding Trump's ideas around international involvement is that Trump appears to espouse the idea that the US is too involved around the world militarily and in other ways. He also doesn't seem to show any understanding of how our international relationships are constructed. IOW, Trump says things like he would scrap current trade deals and seek to renegotiate them with better terms for the US. But what does that really mean? Trade negotiations even with our close allies are very complicated and difficult, let alone deals with countries that we consider somewhat adversarial, like Russia and China. No deal happens in a vacuum. Does Trump understand this? I doubt it, but if elected he would very quickly come to know the reality and know that there are no magic buttons that can be pushed to make trade deals that suddenly favor the US and no one else.


Just his mentioning his "thoughts" on the subject sends shockwaves through the global markets. He thinks he can power leverage nations like he does with his contract workers and then just default rather than pay them when it's payday. then he sues them.

This is a horrible model, and for my entire political consciousness I've gotten into battles with people who insist we "need successful businessmen to be our president!" No, that's the LAST thing we need. We do NOT need capitalists with profit motives as the end goal in mind running things, because people are not mindless dividends. And look, if we have to have a savvy businessman as president can we at least not get someone who has failed at Every. Business. He's. Tried? (Literally, every one.)

A government that is not working at least in SOME degree of red is a government that's not moving forward. Credit and debt are a steam engine towards productivity and progress. They drive each other. You want a nice house, well unless you're absolutely wealthy you'll have to get a mortgage on it. This debt drives you to work towards paying the debt down. Which in turn drives the entire economy, without which you'd lose your job and not be able to pay off that house.

Obviously you can get yourself way over your head in debt, and that's not good either, but what you CANNOT do is think a capitalist model will always work. It cannot always work-- there are no perpetual motion machines.

The base problem with capitalism is that it's single intended goal of maximizing profit over all other considerations creates an ever spiraling crisis, albeit one that takes some years to show itself. The ongoing rising costs of consumer goods is somewhat counter-intuitive. For instance, in the USA, you would think that with technology and better processes, consumables would be plentiful -- supply and demand; if there's a lot of X, then X costs less. If there isn't a lot of X and it's rare, its costs rise. But capitalism can't simply rely on this because each quarter it must do better than the quarter before it -- which is not even remotely sustainable in the short term as our efficiencies progress. So the market has to play games. Like, if there's a surplus of corn, you'd think the price of corn should plummet. And it may for a few pennies, for a period of time. But if it's a HUGE surplus the government will pay the farmers to destroy their crops otherwise it would create havoc on the market by prices falling too low.

What is happening is that we see over decades that these prices continue to grow but cost of living increases come nowhere near matching. My old man owned his house outright before he died at 52, plus he had a gas guzzler Caddy, and two other cars plus put in a pool and added an extension to his kitchen PLUS dug out a crawlspace to make it a fully furnished apartment... and he was lower-to-middle middle class. Sometimes in fact, we were outright poor.

Today, though I make more in an annual take home than my dad ever did, it would be literally impossible for me to do most of the things he was able to do on a much smaller salary. When I was a kid, smokes cost a quarter and a gallon of gas not much higher. now those items cost hundreds of times more. But our salaries haven't gone up hundreds of times along with those costs.

Clinton served as secretary of state; she has been in the trenches on these things. Its safe to say she understands them viscerally. As much as I would love to see our military budget slashed and that money spent on schools and new roads, I understand that our military presence in the world is part of the complicated web that holds the world as we know it together. Remove that in a significant way and one very real possibility is that the world could change dramatically. All you need to know this is to study the history of empires.


What's ironic is in many ways even the military wants the military to shrink. A big problem with reducing bases is the thousands of businesses around them that rely on their existence. While there are some reasons to keep a European force, it's largely unnecessary at this point. NATO forces could escalate and we could bring our people back home. But there's billions to lose in revenue doing that so... we won't do it.

But what about all the criticism that the AHA was little more than a kowtow to big insurance and drug companies? What about his support for the TARP? What about his support for the auto industry during the crash? Ideologically, I would say that Obama is less inclined to please Wall Street, but functionally he is far more pragmatic and hasn't really pushed that ideology much. Bernie talks much bigger on this issue, but I wonder how much political clout he would be willing to expend on such ideology when there is essentially zero support from the congress.


I agree that Obama has basically walked a balancing act between the corporate interests and the political ideologies. Frankly, I think he's done a pretty good job of it, but then my expectations of a US president being able to do at least two things:

1. Don't get us embroiled in meaningless stupid wars and
2. Don't destroy our economy by unleashing totally deregulated capitalism

...is a pretty low bar to achieve. Ironically, that monumentally idiotic Bush did both, plus got re-elected while doing it. I suppose he needed the two terms of 4 years each to successfully clusterfuck those two simplistic tenets.

I agree. Never was much of a Bernie Bro. Had a discussion with a Bernie campaign caller a few months back, and the guy really faltered in trying to explain how Bernie would manage to get stuff passed and how he'd manage to pay for his various utopian reforms -- such as free college education.


Tax the top 1% way higher than the 12%-20% they tend to pay. Levy massive fines on any wealth off-shored -- tax it TRIPLE the domestic rate. Give tax incentives for bringing those offshore accounts home.

Of course, no way would Congress go for ANY of this. That's the problem with Bernie's candidacy. you think Obama had it tough with an intransigent Congress?? We're still about 10 years away from these things having a hope of happening and that's only if millennials age with their principles intact. If today's millennials remain true to their principles and start getting elected to congress, a guy like Bernie (not Bernie-- he's going to be too old) should be able to effect major changes. That's why we cannot risk a Trump today. Yes, the "old boss" way is still better than the Trump way because Trump will burn the barn to the ground -- out of sheer incompetence, lame-brainness, and buffoonic self-inflated ego, and Hillary won't.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean we have to settle for a president who embraces and supports corporations over the little guy. There's something in the middle.


That would be Hillary Clinton and really any Democrat. The only other alternative would be the Green Party, but we all know that's not going to happen. In the divided world we live in today, the Democrats are the best you are going to get in this particular area.


Meh, slight disagreement here. Both sides are bought and paid for by corps. We've been an corporatist oligarchy since the beginning. Even the FFs were not inclined to let all power reside with people; they were pretty afraid of the mob and that probably got enhanced post French Revolution.

My loyalties lie on the side of the following standard/criteria: "Yeah ok I get it you're all in the pocket of corporations. now -- which side is ALSO for less repression, more freedom, and not shoving their beliefs down everyone else's throats?"

I'd love to be a libertarian for these reasons but the problem is libertarians fall into this "no government is good government" and that's just not true. Some things ONLY a government can do, primarily because we have a constitution that shackles them. Prisons are a good example. No prisons should be privatized because that's a profit-driven entity, and you can only profit by having "customers" (prisoners). I don't want prisons to make money, I want them to LOSE it because there are fewer and fewer criminals. But a for-profit private entity in charge of a prison has a vested interests in driving UP prison populations, and far less regulations on them to adhere to codes. Meanwhile, our government CANNOT thwart its own constitution without reparation. So prisons and the criminal justice system should be run by the government, because even as corrupt as it is now, it's DRASTICALLY more corrupt when it becomes a money-making entity.

You know this drone thing is an interesting topic and should probably be a thread of its own. I personally don't understand the revulsion so many on the Left have with this policy. As I alluded to earlier, our global military presence is unavoidable in our current reality. We all know what happened on 9/11. This was possible, in part, because a terrorist training camp operated unimpeded for years after the exodus of Russia from Afghanistan. So had we employed some sort of force in Afghanistan before 9/11 to disrupt these terrorists, it's possible that we might have avoided that disaster. We know for certain the result of doing nothing. So here we are in 2016, still in the same country, still fighting with terrorists because they are still there and they still want to blow up building in the US. For around 40% of Americans, Obama is doing far too little to destroy their ability to do us harm. So what would you have him do? If it was me and I had the option of sending in drones to kill terrorists and perhaps have some collateral damage but significantly reducing our footprint and the loss of life on our side, you bet I would send in the drones. It is a significant technological advantage for us. Technology is generally how wars are won.


I'm a little split on this but not fully. I think the drones thing is simply creating a lot more hatred. Remotely bombing wedding parties and killing a bunch of dancing people is just not going to help. If you're on the ground at least there's intelligence behind the strategy but of course that's horrifying as well. No good options here.

What we REALLY should do is focus on alternative forms of energy which will eventually reduce the oil needed by people to a mere inconvenience. The fact is, for a LOT of our energy needs we could do away with a LOT of our dependence upon oil and our interests in the middle east will plummet. It's just about the only real reason we've been there, and everybody knows it.

But how can you expect a far Left government to emerge from a country where the far Left represents maybe 25% of the voting populace?


I think you're way overestimating the number of "leftists". Hell, there's hardly a left wing in this country. People can be a bit more socially progressive as a whole, but even that requires a number of years of confrontation with one's perceived enemies -- like, gays only began to get rights because people who previously excoriated them as "vile" started to learn their friends and family members were also gay. So as gays became more visible and people got to know them as people rather than mysterious shadows on which to project venom, their strictures against gays weakened.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10416
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: This Insane Political Season

Postby spongebob » Mon Aug 29, 2016 3:34 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:This is a horrible model, and for my entire political consciousness I've gotten into battles with people who insist we "need successful businessmen to be our president!" No, that's the LAST thing we need. We do NOT need capitalists with profit motives as the end goal in mind running things, because people are not mindless dividends. And look, if we have to have a savvy businessman as president can we at least not get someone who has failed at Every. Business. He's. Tried? (Literally, every one.)


I'm OK with the idea of a smart & successful businessman or woman, but as you say that's certainly not how I would define Trump. A background in business shouldn't disqualify someone from being presidential material. Some law makers go directly from school to supporting someone in congress to getting elected themselves and that hardly seems like a good background to understand the full scope of laws and how the affect people. I've always believed the best combination is diversity.

What's ironic is in many ways even the military wants the military to shrink. A big problem with reducing bases is the thousands of businesses around them that rely on their existence. While there are some reasons to keep a European force, it's largely unnecessary at this point. NATO forces could escalate and we could bring our people back home. But there's billions to lose in revenue doing that so... we won't do it.


Yes, absolutely. This is one area that I often preach about that many people either don't understand or just don't believe. The military does want funds to develop new weapons and stuff, but billions are currently being spent on war machinery that many generals don't need and in some cases can't even find a use for, and the reason is as you said, the military-industrial complex that Ike warned us about. This is the highest form of hypocrisy that the GOP doesn't want us to understand. We could do more with much less militarily, but then we would have to send a lot of people home without jobs. That's just not something Republicans want people to understand.

I agree that Obama has basically walked a balancing act between the corporate interests and the political ideologies. Frankly, I think he's done a pretty good job of it, but then my expectations of a US president being able to do at least two things:

1. Don't get us embroiled in meaningless stupid wars and
2. Don't destroy our economy by unleashing totally deregulated capitalism

...is a pretty low bar to achieve. Ironically, that monumentally idiotic Bush did both, plus got re-elected while doing it. I suppose he needed the two terms of 4 years each to successfully clusterfuck those two simplistic tenets.


I agree on both counts.

Tax the top 1% way higher than the 12%-20% they tend to pay. Levy massive fines on any wealth off-shored -- tax it TRIPLE the domestic rate. Give tax incentives for bringing those offshore accounts home.


Theoretically yes, I agree, though there are some issues that make it profoundly difficult, like shell companies.

Of course, no way would Congress go for ANY of this. That's the problem with Bernie's candidacy. you think Obama had it tough with an intransigent Congress?? We're still about 10 years away from these things having a hope of happening and that's only if millennials age with their principles intact. If today's millennials remain true to their principles and start getting elected to congress, a guy like Bernie (not Bernie-- he's going to be too old) should be able to effect major changes. That's why we cannot risk a Trump today. Yes, the "old boss" way is still better than the Trump way because Trump will burn the barn to the ground -- out of sheer incompetence, lame-brainness, and buffoonic self-inflated ego, and Hillary won't.


That's my point, too, that moving much to the Left is just not possible right now. However, if we could ever get enough real workers elected, I do believe we could get just some of these issues resolved and get people working together to solve real problems. But there's a pretty large chasm between where we are and where we need to be just to begin that process. People are just too entrenched.

Meh, slight disagreement here. Both sides are bought and paid for by corps. We've been an corporatist oligarchy since the beginning. Even the FFs were not inclined to let all power reside with people; they were pretty afraid of the mob and that probably got enhanced post French Revolution.


That's no different than what I was saying. Hillary does represent the Left leaning centrism that is possible today and she has enough influence with business that she won't be quite as controversial as Bernie or Stein.

I'd love to be a libertarian for these reasons but the problem is libertarians fall into this "no government is good government" and that's just not true. Some things ONLY a government can do, primarily because we have a constitution that shackles them. Prisons are a good example. No prisons should be privatized because that's a profit-driven entity, and you can only profit by having "customers" (prisoners). I don't want prisons to make money, I want them to LOSE it because there are fewer and fewer criminals. But a for-profit private entity in charge of a prison has a vested interests in driving UP prison populations, and far less regulations on them to adhere to codes. Meanwhile, our government CANNOT thwart its own constitution without reparation. So prisons and the criminal justice system should be run by the government, because even as corrupt as it is now, it's DRASTICALLY more corrupt when it becomes a money-making entity.


On this I agree as well. I really do want to be a Libertarian, but it worries me quite a bit to consider a near total shutdown of the federal government. Now much of the federal government could be moved to state governments and that might have some positive repercussions. However, the federal government, I believe, has to continue to have strong control over states otherwise what's happening with the EU right now could easily be happening here. Madison was very clear on this and I believe he was absolutely correct.

I'm a little split on this but not fully. I think the drones thing is simply creating a lot more hatred. Remotely bombing wedding parties and killing a bunch of dancing people is just not going to help. If you're on the ground at least there's intelligence behind the strategy but of course that's horrifying as well. No good options here.


It's a sticky choice for sure. But clearly there are some guys in the Mid East who just need to die and I would rather risk a remote control plane than people. You need really good intelligence in both cases, btw. And if people are captured, it creates more problems. A captured drone isn't worth much.

What we REALLY should do is focus on alternative forms of energy which will eventually reduce the oil needed by people to a mere inconvenience. The fact is, for a LOT of our energy needs we could do away with a LOT of our dependence upon oil and our interests in the middle east will plummet. It's just about the only real reason we've been there, and everybody knows it.


Absofreakinglutely! I would like to build a wall someday, but not on our Southern boarder. I want to build it around the entire Mid East. Let them eat their sand and drink their oil!

I think you're way overestimating the number of "leftists". Hell, there's hardly a left wing in this country. People can be a bit more socially progressive as a whole, but even that requires a number of years of confrontation with one's perceived enemies -- like, gays only began to get rights because people who previously excoriated them as "vile" started to learn their friends and family members were also gay. So as gays became more visible and people got to know them as people rather than mysterious shadows on which to project venom, their strictures against gays weakened.


I just checked a recent poll and took the highest number. 25% isn't much to work with. Of course there are many who are slightly Liberal or lean Left. But my overall point is that we just can't expect the government of the 60's with the voting block we have now. Give it another 20 years and we'll see. Its definitely moving in our direction, thank you very much Mr. Trump.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: This Insane Political Season

Postby spongebob » Mon Aug 29, 2016 6:49 pm

Now I've read that Trump has employed Sam Brownback, the governor of Kansas, to be his economics adviser. This is the same guy who has nearly destroyed the Kansas economy be cutting taxes and defunding all sorts of standard government services like roads, schools, hospitals...etc. The state is nearly in ruins and Trump wants to export that to the rest of the US? No thank you, Mr. Trump. Kansas deserves what they've gotten; they voted for this guy. The rest of us do not deserve it.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: This Insane Political Season

Postby Keep The Reason » Mon Aug 29, 2016 9:12 pm

I truly believe Trump is desperate to lose but can't help but fail upwards. He's a complete douchewad , but he's now trapped by the millions of like-minded douchewads that fervently follow him. He's hoisted by his own petard.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10416
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: This Insane Political Season

Postby spongebob » Tue Aug 30, 2016 8:34 am

I think we discussed the Libertarian party at some point and although I don't think a Libertarian President is what we need, I would love to see more members of congress come from this party. They would be a welcome tie-breaker in many political conflicts. They would likely vote with the Democrats on social issues, like homosexual rights, and with Republicans on spending and the size of government. They could be the path to unlocking government gridlock. It would only take 10 - 15% of the Senate and House and suddenly bills get passed that were once stopped in their tracks. Frankly, I would be glad to see some government reform and many federal agencies reduced in size or eliminated altogether and we would be assured that religion, racism and sexism wouldn't be promoted either.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: This Insane Political Season

Postby Keep The Reason » Tue Aug 30, 2016 1:23 pm

spongebob wrote:I think we discussed the Libertarian party at some point and although I don't think a Libertarian President is what we need, I would love to see more members of congress come from this party. They would be a welcome tie-breaker in many political conflicts. They would likely vote with the Democrats on social issues, like homosexual rights, and with Republicans on spending and the size of government. They could be the path to unlocking government gridlock. It would only take 10 - 15% of the Senate and House and suddenly bills get passed that were once stopped in their tracks. Frankly, I would be glad to see some government reform and many federal agencies reduced in size or eliminated altogether and we would be assured that religion, racism and sexism wouldn't be promoted either.


Yeah, agreed. In Congress and the Supreme Court for the same reasons.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10416
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: This Insane Political Season

Postby Simplyme » Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:35 am

Ok, enough of the "Kumbaya" moment. Back to reality. :-)
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5958
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: This Insane Political Season

Postby spongebob » Sat Sep 03, 2016 6:36 am

This election cycle has certainly unearthed some festering racist sentiments among whites, particularly males. Trump's message about Hispanics has been convoluted. At one moment he claims they are criminals and drug dealers. We already know this isn't 100% true. Next he claims they are freeloaders who just want access to US government services, which contradicts claim #1. Then he claims they are after American jobs, contradicting both claims #1 and #2. Hispanics who work for a living are by definition NOT freeloaders, nor are they criminals. Trump has also announced that he plans to drastically reduce the number of LEGAL immigrants entering the US, something that completely contradicts statements he made months ago when he said that as long as immigrants come in properly it was OK.

Now we have this bizarre claim that if we don't do something drastic there will be a taco truck on every corner. So people working food trucks are pretty hard workers. It's a demanding job that starts early and ends late, and they provide a clearly popular service that people really enjoy. In lots of towns across the country there's something of a food truck culture where people will actually pay more for a meal than they would at a traditional restaurant. We even have them here in Huntsville and they are wildly popular. So all of this leaves me with the only logical conclusion that I fan find, and that is that Trump and people who support him don't really care about the legality of immigrants or the jobs or the crime, they are really after this idea that the US was founded by white people and so it should be a white country. He's made the comment many times that we either have a country or we don't and that sounds a whole lot like what some Brits have said who supported leaving the EU. If Trump does get elected and enacts these draconian new laws, I wonder how long it will be until we see rhetoric leading to second class citizenship for anyone who isn't white.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: This Insane Political Season

Postby Keep The Reason » Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:09 am

The taco trucks comment was made by an Hispanic fellow, Marco Gutierrez. Not only has Trump brought about the exposure of virulent white racists, he's exposed a lot of minority self-loathers.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10416
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: This Insane Political Season

Postby spongebob » Mon Sep 12, 2016 9:46 am

Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: This Insane Political Season

Postby Aaron » Sun Sep 25, 2016 7:09 pm

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else" - C.S. Lewis
User avatar
Aaron
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3075
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Alaska
Affiliation: Christian

Re: This Insane Political Season

Postby Simplyme » Sun Sep 25, 2016 7:25 pm

Just what we need...more bullshit.
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5958
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

PreviousNext

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest