Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism Thread


Off-Topic Discussions

2,001 to 2,050 of 2,749 << first < prev | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | next > last >>

Don't know if this is the right place for it, but I thought it fit.

One oft repeated claim when people warn against the perils of socialism is that of higher taxes. Turns out that focus on lower taxes above the value of public services has costs.

Spoiler:
The idea of a dispatcher telling a terrified caller "If he comes inside the residence and assaults you, can you ask him to go away?" is all I will ever need in order to refute starve the government arguments.

Liberty's Edge

The idea of cutting off police funding in one of Oregon's most meth- and militia-infested counties is just, so terrible.

Scarab Sages

Heya, Reds and...Red..dits?

I don't know if any of you are familiar with this? They've got my vote (I've known about them for many years, for what that's worth - they echo some sentiments I came up with on my own).


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

Heya, Reds and...Red..dits?

I don't know if any of you are familiar with this? They've got my vote (I've known about them for many years, for what that's worth - they echo some sentiments I came up with on my own).

Interesting... They say nothing about who'd be in charge from what I can see, though. Mind you, it only applies to the US, so the rest of us would (presumably) still have to put up with the Price System whatever happened.

Scarab Sages

Limeylongears wrote:
Mind you, it only applies to the US, so the rest of us would (presumably) still have to put up with the Price System whatever happened.

Starting where they are, I guess. Maybe some people think it's politically inadvisable to start out on the "one-world government" foot (nevermind that it looks like one-world government is already here for the most part, now liberal democracy simply has to catch up).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Existential Comics 16: Marx and Kautsky give Ayn Rand the Office Space treatment


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, CAJE seems to be dying. Unprecedented burst of identity politics by three people who haven't done much in three months complaining that, among other things, our film series is run by "two white guys" and is not sinking roots in the community.

The Nigerian Princess, lemme tell you, wasn't particularly pleased to hear that she is a "white guy" and we pointed out that while they were off doing nothing CAJE-related (you wanna complain about us not sinking links in the local community while you're running off to Albany, NY and lily-white West Roxbury in Boston?) we were running all around New Hampshire trying to make the Jeffrey Pendleton case a bigger thing. Didn't get around to mentioning that while we were doing that, they let the Perez shooting in Lowell go unprotested even though they repeatedly said they would contact the family after Mr. Comrade offered to.

Privilege theorists, heal thyself.

Meanwhile, second Capital reader's circle went well. Read section three of Chapter One. At this rate we should be done sometime in 2020.

Tonight, we present the first not-CAJE film showing:

Salt of the Earth


My cat died.

:(


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Comrade,

It is natural to feel the loss of a beloved (or not) companion. When one is faced with such things, perspective of the greatness of said companion's life versus the roughest parts can help soften the blow, and hold onto the memories of your feline observer tightly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

My cat died.

:(

Sorry to hear that, DA :(


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks, comrades.

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


perspective of the greatness of said companion's life

Mardi was the fattest, laziest cat I've ever met. He was so fat, half of the time he was in the litter box he'd still end up pooping on the floor and he was so lazy that he would often lay down with his head in the food bowl to eat.

I'll miss that fat f~%#.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Thanks, comrades.

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


perspective of the greatness of said companion's life

Mardi was the fattest, laziest cat I've ever met. He was so fat, half of the time he was in the litter box he'd still end up pooping on the floor and he was so lazy that he would often lay down with his head in the food bowl to eat.

I'll miss that fat f*$@.

I once had a fat cat that was extremely stupid. And his front half didn't have much of a speaking relationship with his rear half.

If his tail got stepped on. He'd turn his head and look for a second or two before it would occur to him to yowl.

And he'd try to lick candle flames. And make friends with dogs ready to bite him in half.

Affectionate cat... but colossally stupid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Affectionate cat... but colossally stupid.

It never ceases to amaze me, the sheer spread of intelligence among housecats -- it's like the standard deviation is as large as the mean. I've had cats dumber than dirt, and cats smarter than I am (some would argue the latter is no great feat).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
If his tail got stepped on. He'd turn his head and look for a second or two before it would occur to him to yowl.

That sounds familiar. Mardi was also pretty dumb. He also never mastered the, I would imagine, pretty basic skill of retracting his claws and would get stuck to everything.

[Should be in Good Books thread]

I'm on vacation for the next two weeks so today I fished Elvis, Jesus and Coca-Cola by Kinky Friedman out of the backseat of the Doodlemobile and finished it. If anyone has ever read it, or, it looks like, any of the previous books featuring the protagonist, also named Kinky Friedman, they might recall that he spends a lot of time talking to his cat.

In an afterword, the author writes an eulogy to the real-life inspiration for the detective's cat, Cuddles, who died on January 4, 1993.

In it, he writes: "They say when you die and go to heaven all the dogs and cats you've ever had in your life come running to meet you."

Mardi never ran. He would walk fast, especially if there was food at the end of the walk, but he never ran.

Scarab Sages

My cat died in 2009. She started wandering around the house meowing at nothing a few months beforehand, and since we were on vacation at the time, the person taking care of her and the other pets and the house in general just figured "aww, she misses him" - but then we came back, and she kept doing it. A few months later, I caught Solaris on Turner Classic Movies. I watched the whole thing...and she got up on the couch and sat with me through the whole thing. This was pretty unusual for her all the way around. When I got up, she had trouble moving, like something was wrong with her leg. Anyways, it was all downhill from there, and she died - in my lap - a few evenings later.

Without saying too much, I haven't always been sure I was capable of loving others - but I know I love her. The day I stop loving her is the day I'm truly gone.


I had to put my rat down on Wednesday. I've been too upset about it to post more about her. If it's any consolation, I think I know how you feel.

PS I feel for everyone posting about pets of the past, but clicking the "favorite" button is just not the right thing to express my feelings.


My cat isn't dead, but she has just recently gone blind, apparently as the result of (very) high blood pressure. I'm also having to give pills for the blood pressure, so there isn't a lot of happiness around here right now.

Scarab Sages

I sincerely wish you both luck, thejeff. At least she's still alive - maybe she can get her sight back eventually.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Condolences to everyone else with ailing or deceased pets.

Trump came up to NH yesterday, but in the wake of the Orlando massacre he cancelled two of his three appearances, including the one where we were going to have a protest. :(

Instead we went to a rather ho-hum meeting of the Nashua Labor Coalition. Most interesting part was when the lifelong Democratic Party hack and candidate for state rep, who had been feeling the bern, started passing out petitions to get Jill Stein on the NH ballot. Might be time to check back in with the local Bernie crowd.

I won't do it this week, though, because [DJdD]I am going to Brooklyn where I will most likely have a lot of sex and then break up with La Principessa. Actually, La Principessa maintains that we've never gotten back together from last time we broke up, but she wants me to come down and have lots of sex with her anyway.

Speaking of which, I'd also tell you about how Mr. Comrade and the Nigerian Princess broke up, but at the last Capital reader's circle I got drunk and let slip about this thread and that, I, too, am a bit of a leftist internet celebrity (I was bragging) and apparently, now, she lurks in here, so I won't.

I will say, however, that no condolences are necessary because they still sleep in the same bed even if they go out to bars and encourage each other to try to pick up other people, fail at it because everybody in the bar assumes they're together, and then go home and do it.

Ah, love.[/DJdD]


Will also use my stay in Brooklyn to catch up over at WPZO where I am woefully behind.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Interesting little thumbnail that I'd never heard:

A Note from Mike Davis about the Second Amendment

Which, being quite short, I'll copy and paste:

FIVE WEEKS BEFORE the final ratification of the Bill of Rights in December 1791, the regular Army of the United States of America, under the command of Revolutionary War hero Arthur St. Clair, was utterly destroyed at the Battle of the Wabash by an alliance of Western Indians led by the great war chiefs Little Turtle and Blue Jacket. It was a worse disaster than the Little Big Horn. Only 45 members of St. Clair’s 1300-person expedition which included regulars, militia, and camp followers survived the ambush unscathed.

This is the real historical context in which the meaning of the Second Amendment must be interpreted: the national army had been annihilated, the First Nations had reclaimed the Ohio Valley, and the British were emboldened to retain the Western forts (Michilmakinac and Detroit) that they had agreed to surrender in the treaty of 1787. A “well-regulated militia” of armed people was the only thing standing between George Washington and the return of King George III. Or, between white people and successful rebellions of slaves and Native Americans.

Odd, to say the least, that the left-liberal media has so neglected this background, particularly since it speaks to “original intent,” that fetish of Scalia and much of his party. More importantly, why haven’t we taken advantage of the GOP’s Salafist interpretation of the Constitution to revive the classical (Charles) Beardsian critique of this slaveowners’ relic? The alternative tradition in American history, embraced by Jefferson, Lincoln, and Wilson, has always asserted the priority of the Declaration of Independence as the nation’s foundational document and natural law.

---

Can't say I ever recall reading about the Battle of the Wabash.


And, now, apparently, the Nigerian Princess and Mr. Comrade are helping each other set up their Her and Tinder profiles, respectively.

I don't like any of this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just entered Battle of Wabash into youtube, and one of the top links had this:
During the Ohio Indian Wars Anthony Wayne built Fort Recovery on the site where Arthur St. Clair fought, and lost, the Battle of the Wabash.

Mad Anthony Wayne is a bit of a yokel legend in the area around West Point, NY. (I live on the other side of the Hudson River, and south a little.) He did some interesting stuff like taking a fortified British position in a daring night-time raid (Battle of Stony Point), even though many of his troops did not have a single musket ball to fire. Apparently, he was hit in the head by a musket ball during the battle, and recovered.

On the subject of firearms, on WBAI radio they played the clip of Obama speaking about how baffled he was that he was not allowed to restrict firearms from people who visited ISIS websites. I'm a little shocked that he would admit to monitoring what websites people visit, and try to remove people's constitutional rights with no due process. Not shocked that he would want to do it, just shocked that he would admit it without some coded language or something. Oh well, he didn't mention anything about people being investigated by the FBI not being allowed to run for president, so some freedoms are different then others.

Scarab Sages

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Instead we went to a rather ho-hum meeting of the Nashua Labor Coalition. Most interesting part was when the lifelong Democratic Party hack and candidate for state rep, who had been feeling the bern, started passing out petitions to get Jill Stein on the NH ballot. Might be time to check back in with the local Bernie crowd.

I would so love the opportunity for Jill Stein to make a serious power grab - heck, I'd consider supporting Gary Johnson (or Jesse Ventura!) if they were the ones who could manage a threatening 3rd-party run. The more I learn about Hillary, the more I realize I'm not just wholly dissatisfied with her; she's THE enemy (as opposed to Trump, who is AN enemy).

At any rate, there's never been a time like the present for the Green Party, if only they can muster the voter base - so what's the prognosis for that look like to you? I CANNOT BEAR another 4 years of "Same-Or-Worse" (at least if Trump wins, I've been promised we'll be leaving the country - I'm kind of hoping we can see our way to doing that if Hillary wins, too).

On the other hand, Hillary's being haunted by an increasingly serious and legitimate Scruff McGruff Squad (as opposed to Ken Starr and the Washington Pornquisition and the Amazing Benghazi Symphony Orchestra, who are kind of her most powerful allies), and Trump STILL refuses to release his tax returns (What happens if he never does? What happens if he DOES?), and this Orlando thing might finally lead to his long-overdue "Have You No Shame/Decency" moment.
Wouldn't it be funny if they held an election, and nobody quite managed to stay in the race?

Scarab Sages

Okay, here's a WEEEIIIRRRD question (talk about your "out-of-left-fielders"): Any of you on here who live/have lived either in New York or the Bay Area know anybody by the name of Todd O'Connell (or possibly O'Connor; I forget, which is a big problem)? Frizzy short dark hair, Irish and proud of it, pronounced New York accent (no, I can't identify the burrough), Jewish girlfriend/fiancé (at least as of 2000), called himself "progressive" and read Michael Moore years before it was cool (i.e. 2000), John Lennon fanboy, Howard Zinn devotee, foul-mouthed, informed people explicitly when he was going to "take a s$+@," admits having cried when Ronald Reagan left office, but since grew to hate his guts?

He was a very important teacher of mine, and I'd REALLY, REALLY like to find him again.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Instead we went to a rather ho-hum meeting of the Nashua Labor Coalition. Most interesting part was when the lifelong Democratic Party hack and candidate for state rep, who had been feeling the bern, started passing out petitions to get Jill Stein on the NH ballot. Might be time to check back in with the local Bernie crowd.
I would so love the opportunity for Jill Stein to make a serious power grab - heck, I'd consider supporting Gary Johnson (or Jesse Ventura!) if they were the ones who could manage a threatening 3rd-party run. The more I learn about Hillary, the more I realize I'm not just wholly dissatisfied with her; she's THE enemy (as opposed to Trump, who is AN enemy).

Currently Gary Johnson is looking far more threatening thatn Jill Stein. Dislike of Trump on the right is far broader than of Hillary on the left. His chances of winning even any electoral votes are tiny, but some polls have him around 10% nationally. That normally drops as we get closer to the election, but this is a crazy cycle.


thejeff wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Instead we went to a rather ho-hum meeting of the Nashua Labor Coalition. Most interesting part was when the lifelong Democratic Party hack and candidate for state rep, who had been feeling the bern, started passing out petitions to get Jill Stein on the NH ballot. Might be time to check back in with the local Bernie crowd.
I would so love the opportunity for Jill Stein to make a serious power grab - heck, I'd consider supporting Gary Johnson (or Jesse Ventura!) if they were the ones who could manage a threatening 3rd-party run. The more I learn about Hillary, the more I realize I'm not just wholly dissatisfied with her; she's THE enemy (as opposed to Trump, who is AN enemy).

Currently Gary Johnson is looking far more threatening thatn Jill Stein. Dislike of Trump on the right is far broader than of Hillary on the left. His chances of winning even any electoral votes are tiny, but some polls have him around 10% nationally. That normally drops as we get closer to the election, but this is a crazy cycle.

All I can say is, "Pencil in anybody other than Trump or Clinton." Shillary will probably wind up being our next President (hork), but with the fearmongering that dominates our political system in the US ("lesser of two evils" is the only way to play; vote for the other party in the midterm Congressional elections), even an idealist like myself will probably wind up resigning himself/herself to the notion of "It's lose-lose-lose-lose no matter which way you slice it."

My current shortlist:
1) Write myself in (36 years old, natural-born US citizen, no felonies/misdemeanors, lived here the whole time)
2) Bernie Sanders (just because I would rather vote for a guy making moral arguments than anyone saying "I'm not the other one")
3) Cthulhu -- 'cause if we're that screwed, we might as well go the whole way

EDIT: I would vote Green or Libertarian or some other group if there was a valid shot of that party becoming a full-time component of the national dialogue, but since when have we persuaded ourselves that voting for someone was better than voting against the "Great Evil" being advocated by the "other side"?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

All I can say is, "Pencil in anybody other than Trump or Clinton." Shillary will probably wind up being our next President (hork), but with the fearmongering that dominates our political system in the US ("lesser of two evils" is the only way to play; vote for the other party in the midterm Congressional elections), even an idealist like myself will probably wind up resigning himself/herself to the notion of "It's lose-lose-lose-lose no matter which way you slice it."

EDIT: I would vote Green or Libertarian or some other group if there was a valid shot of that party becoming a full-time component of the national dialogue, but since when have we persuaded ourselves that voting for someone was better than voting against the "Great Evil" being advocated by the "other side"?

The other guy is bad has always been a common political ploy - look back to the Jefferson-Adams campaign for examples.

Nonetheless, and despite the complaints of those far to one side or the other (or some other way off the mainstream), the majority of people voting for a candidate usually actually like that candidate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

All I can say is, "Pencil in anybody other than Trump or Clinton." Shillary will probably wind up being our next President (hork), but with the fearmongering that dominates our political system in the US ("lesser of two evils" is the only way to play; vote for the other party in the midterm Congressional elections), even an idealist like myself will probably wind up resigning himself/herself to the notion of "It's lose-lose-lose-lose no matter which way you slice it."

EDIT: I would vote Green or Libertarian or some other group if there was a valid shot of that party becoming a full-time component of the national dialogue, but since when have we persuaded ourselves that voting for someone was better than voting against the "Great Evil" being advocated by the "other side"?

The other guy is bad has always been a common political ploy - look back to the Jefferson-Adams campaign for examples.

Nonetheless, and despite the complaints of those far to one side or the other (or some other way off the mainstream), the majority of people voting for a candidate usually actually like that candidate.

In view of the current "unpopularity" polls highlighting the two presumptives, I don't know whether that will apply as much as we're accustomed to seeing. This cycle, if nothing else, has been full of the unexpected.

Please forgive my earlier hyperbole; I just can't stand for our lack of good options without screaming for the whine and cheese menu.

I still stand by the "lose-lose-lose-lose" comment.


[rant]

"Peace! Peace!"

looks left, looks right

Replies:

"Ain't none, bruh. Who's lyin' now?"

[/rant]


Syrus Terrigan wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

All I can say is, "Pencil in anybody other than Trump or Clinton." Shillary will probably wind up being our next President (hork), but with the fearmongering that dominates our political system in the US ("lesser of two evils" is the only way to play; vote for the other party in the midterm Congressional elections), even an idealist like myself will probably wind up resigning himself/herself to the notion of "It's lose-lose-lose-lose no matter which way you slice it."

EDIT: I would vote Green or Libertarian or some other group if there was a valid shot of that party becoming a full-time component of the national dialogue, but since when have we persuaded ourselves that voting for someone was better than voting against the "Great Evil" being advocated by the "other side"?

The other guy is bad has always been a common political ploy - look back to the Jefferson-Adams campaign for examples.

Nonetheless, and despite the complaints of those far to one side or the other (or some other way off the mainstream), the majority of people voting for a candidate usually actually like that candidate.

In view of the current "unpopularity" polls highlighting the two presumptives, I don't know whether that will apply as much as we're accustomed to seeing. This cycle, if nothing else, has been full of the unexpected.

Please forgive my earlier hyperbole; I just can't stand for our lack of good options without screaming for the whine and cheese menu.

I still stand by the "lose-lose-lose-lose" comment.

Clinton is currently polling somewhere around 40% favorability. But that counts everyone who isn't going to vote for her either way. If you assume a rough split down the middle and she gets 50% of the vote (+ or - a few percent), you have to figure the vast majority of the 40% will vote for her, which puts something like 80% of her voters favorable to her. Clinton's numbers are also likely to rise with the primary wars over.

I get you don't think they're good options. They wouldn't be my first choice either, but that doesn't mean they aren't popular among their voters. It may just mean we're outside the mainstream.


I have no problem not being mainstream. I only wish more people would seek to be well-informed. Utterly outrageous.

EDIT: Sorry if I trampled on anyone's dreams here, folks. It's very easy for me to get too fired up about politics. I may be arrogant enough to think my ideas are better than many, but I'm not so arrogant to think that my ideas are the only way things should be. I would like to feel like I have a say in all this, and, historically, I haven't. Last time I voted for a winning candidate was 2000, and I learned to regret that decision. Trump's got one thing right -- we Americans do like winners.

If you read my words and got mad, thank you for taking the time to do so; if you read my words and understand why I'm so mad, thank you for taking the time to do so. I'm very good at identifying problems, but terrible at solving them. I never meant to offend for offenses' sake.

I'm gonna go find some lunch.

Love you guys!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
I have no problem not being mainstream. I only wish more people would seek to be well-informed. Utterly outrageous.

Hell, that's Trump's appeal in a nutshell: Things are horrible. I don't know what to do about it, other than get mad.


thejeff wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
I have no problem not being mainstream. I only wish more people would seek to be well-informed. Utterly outrageous.
Hell, that's Trump's appeal in a nutshell: Things are horrible. I don't know what to do about it, other than get mad.

LOL. True, that. But if that outrage drives you to bigotry, isolationism, and "tremendous" undefined "wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey" policy "things", I would strongly suggest that you're merely doing what I mentioned earlier -- identifying, rather than solving.

Yes, we want to solve those things, and we're outraged a-plenty, but I am not convinced The Donald can lead us through them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
I have no problem not being mainstream. I only wish more people would seek to be well-informed. Utterly outrageous.
Hell, that's Trump's appeal in a nutshell: Things are horrible. I don't know what to do about it, other than get mad.

LOL. True, that. But if that outrage drives you to bigotry, isolationism, and "tremendous" undefined "wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey" policy "things", I would strongly suggest that you're merely doing what I mentioned earlier -- identifying, rather than solving.

Yes, we want to solve those things, and we're outraged a-plenty, but I am not convinced The Donald can lead us through them.

My point was more that, by itself, that's a horrible, horrible approach. "Get angry now and figure out what to do later" is horrific. It's the demagogue's approach. Because once you've got everyone pissed off enough, it's easy to point them where you want them to go.

And that's all Beale was doing in that scene -

And of course Trump can't lead us through them. He's not trying to. He's trying to lead us to put him in power. Everything else is just sturm und drang. There're are no policies or plans. Any he's suggested are either completely unworkable or liable to change without notice. Or blatantly unconstitutional.

Say what you like about Clinton, she's talked policy. You might not like it, but it's there. You can see it. You


thejeff wrote:
Say what you like about Clinton, she's talked policy. You might not like it, but it's there. You can see it. You

I await the intended remainder with bated breath, good sir. If there was more intended.

Oh, Beale's rants were both instances of demagoguery, no doubt. In the one I cited, though, I thoroughly approve of the qualifiers "I don't want you to protest, I don't want you to riot, . . ." Tapping that outrage is merely the beginning, or, more accurately, a beginning; there's gotta be something we can do to effect positive change . . . . Surely.

I'd have voted for Lawrence Lessig if he were still in the running. Actually, just go ahead and bump him to the top of my shortlist above.

Overturn Citizens United. Good start.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Say what you like about Clinton, she's talked policy. You might not like it, but it's there. You can see it. You

I await the intended remainder with bated breath, good sir. If there was more intended.

Oh, Beale's rants were both instances of demagoguery, no doubt. In the one I cited, though, I thoroughly approve of the qualifiers "I don't want you to protest, I don't want you to riot, . . ." Tapping that outrage is merely the beginning, or, more accurately, a beginning; there's gotta be something we can do to effect positive change . . . . Surely.

I'd have voted for Lawrence Lessig if he were still in the running. Actually, just go ahead and bump him to the top of my shortlist above.

Overturn Citizens United. Good start.

Nothing more, just an abandoned half formed thought.

If you want Citizens United overturned, vote Democratic. Democrats in Congress have pushed several times to get the disclosure rules the Court suggested into place. And Democratic appointed Justices are far more likely to overturn or modify the decision itself. The 4 liberal Justices dissented from most of the ruling.


"Vote Democratic to overturn Citizens United."

I just recovered from one of those 24-hour stomach virus things, and I think it's threatening an "ideological inversion" relapse. Ugh. I really don't think I could keep my gorge down long enough to vote for Hillary, but for it (the overturning) to happen would require it be a part of the national conversation, which calls for presidential-cycle coverage.

Impasse.

I've backed the Sanders campaign for quite a while, but that's taken a pretty YUGE dive in my book once I ran some numbers -- $27 average donation at 7 million instances yields $189 million. Great job mobilizing a grassroots demographic, but sheez! If 1 out of every 3780 contributions (at that average rate) had gone to me, I'd be out of debt. (yeah, 50k -- student loans; dumb$#!7 private school student, me; been paying on track for a while now -- I work while I gripe, folks.)

Even if the shift that has been rumbling through the Democratic party earns CA a slot in the party platform, I rather seriously doubt that it would be a thing that Hillary would follow up on -- "piecrust promise", so to speak. Seems unlikely that the email "scandal" will result in indictment, much less a conviction, so Sanders' "I'm still in it, just quietly" mode likely won't get him what he wants, even if by default. It may be that overturning the decision reflects the will of the people, but that can be ignored altogether if "enough" is done to appease whichever chunk of the electorate got the winner in to begin with; CA likely *isn't* the crux of this election cycle for most voters.

Huzzah! Fringe franchisees frolic festively as the fires fester!!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

"Vote Democratic to overturn Citizens United."

I just recovered from one of those 24-hour stomach virus things, and I think it's threatening an "ideological inversion" relapse. Ugh. I really don't think I could keep my gorge down long enough to vote for Hillary, but for it (the overturning) to happen would require it be a part of the national conversation, which calls for presidential-cycle coverage.

Impasse.

I've backed the Sanders campaign for quite a while, but that's taken a pretty YUGE dive in my book once I ran some numbers -- $27 average donation at 7 million instances yields $189 million. Great job mobilizing a grassroots demographic, but sheez! If 1 out of every 3780 contributions (at that average rate) had gone to me, I'd be out of debt. (yeah, 50k -- student loans; dumb$#!7 private school student, me; been paying on track for a while now -- I work while I gripe, folks.)

Even if the shift that has been rumbling through the Democratic party earns CA a slot in the party platform, I rather seriously doubt that it would be a thing that Hillary would follow up on -- "piecrust promise", so to speak. Seems unlikely that the email "scandal" will result in indictment, much less a conviction, so Sanders' "I'm still in it, just quietly" mode likely won't get him what he wants, even if by default. It may be that overturning the decision reflects the will of the people, but that can be ignored altogether if "enough" is done to appease whichever chunk of the electorate got the winner in to begin with; CA likely *isn't* the crux of this election cycle for most voters.

Huzzah! Fringe franchisees frolic festively as the fires fester!!

It isn't the crux of this election. It's not going to be on the party platform. There isn't directly anything Clinton could do to overturn it, short of proposing a Constitutional Amendment and starting the long process of getting that through the system and even that's more Congress's job than the executives, though she could obviously push the party to do so. That's a very uncertain and unlikely process, at best.

She could (and certainly would) nominate Supreme Court Justices more inclined to support campaign finance restrictions, which would set the court up to at least limit, if not overtly overturn CU. A Democratic Congress would also be far more likely to pass laws requiring more disclosure, which would help. But the Supreme Court is the main thing: replacing Scalia with even a moderate liberal is a sea change. It makes Kennedy no longer the swing vote. In the worst case, the new Justice would be. That's why the Republican Senate has taken the completely unprecedented approach of not even considering Obama's nominee.

None of this requires any shift in the Democratic party. The Democratic party has been opposed to Citizen's United from the start. The case itself was about an election time hit piece on Clinton. Whatever Sander's rhetoric, there's little to nothing he could have done directly about it either. There's really little practical short-term way of overturning Supreme Court decisions. Changing the court is the most likely option and that's a long term project. But a crucial one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Instead we went to a rather ho-hum meeting of the Nashua Labor Coalition. Most interesting part was when the lifelong Democratic Party hack and candidate for state rep, who had been feeling the bern, started passing out petitions to get Jill Stein on the NH ballot. Might be time to check back in with the local Bernie crowd.
I would so love the opportunity for Jill Stein to make a serious power grab - heck, I'd consider supporting Gary Johnson (or Jesse Ventura!) if they were the ones who could manage a threatening 3rd-party run. The more I learn about Hillary, the more I realize I'm not just wholly dissatisfied with her; she's THE enemy (as opposed to Trump, who is AN enemy).

Currently Gary Johnson is looking far more threatening thatn Jill Stein. Dislike of Trump on the right is far broader than of Hillary on the left. His chances of winning even any electoral votes are tiny, but some polls have him around 10% nationally. That normally drops as we get closer to the election, but this is a crazy cycle.

They're not tiny, they're non-existent. I have issues with Clinton, bugt I'm mystified that she generates so much hate from both the far right AND the far left, both of whom seem to quote reasons based more on religious mania than any form of logic. The idea that anyone would equate her with the Trump of 2016 is ludicrous to the extreme. It also seems that what most of the character aspects people assassinate her on would be hunky dory on a male candidate.


Man, there must be a dearth of politroll threads on the boards these days.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Instead we went to a rather ho-hum meeting of the Nashua Labor Coalition. Most interesting part was when the lifelong Democratic Party hack and candidate for state rep, who had been feeling the bern, started passing out petitions to get Jill Stein on the NH ballot. Might be time to check back in with the local Bernie crowd.
I would so love the opportunity for Jill Stein to make a serious power grab - heck, I'd consider supporting Gary Johnson (or Jesse Ventura!) if they were the ones who could manage a threatening 3rd-party run. The more I learn about Hillary, the more I realize I'm not just wholly dissatisfied with her; she's THE enemy (as opposed to Trump, who is AN enemy).
Currently Gary Johnson is looking far more threatening thatn Jill Stein. Dislike of Trump on the right is far broader than of Hillary on the left. His chances of winning even any electoral votes are tiny, but some polls have him around 10% nationally. That normally drops as we get closer to the election, but this is a crazy cycle.
They're not tiny, they're non-existent. I have issues with Clinton, bugt I'm mystified that she generates so much hate from both the far right AND the far left, both of whom seem to quote reasons based more on religious mania than any form of logic. The idea that anyone would equate her with the Trump of 2016 is ludicrous to the extreme. It also seems that what most of the character aspects people assassinate her on would be hunky dory on a male candidate.

Well, Johnson would be mostly stealing from disaffected Republicans, not from Clinton, so it's exactly the crazy of Trump of 2016 that gives him a miniscule chance at a state or two. Trump would really have to melt down and it would ensure a Clinton landslide, but it is possible. An outside chance, but the best chance for a 3rd party to register in a long time.

But yeah, I don't really get the Clinton hate either. She's basically a bog-standard modern Democrat. Which is way to the right of my preference, but it's what we've got to work with. I know some of the hard left <looks up at thread title, waves to the goblin> pretty much despises the whole Democratic establishment, but this seems to go beyond that. 20+ years of demonization from the right probably has something to do with it. I suspect a good chunk of it will fade as we get farther from the primary wars - much like the PUMAs came around to support Obama back in 2008.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Man, there must be a dearth of politroll threads on the boards these days.

Yeah, sorry for invading your thread. I've been surprised by the lack for awhile now. We didn't really get any good primary wars threads. What's happened around here anyway?


No, no. I am pleased to host the only Paizo politroll thread. Have fun!

Also,

Break with the Republicans, Democrats and Greens!
For workers revolution!

Vive le Galt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
But yeah, I don't really get the Clinton hate either. She's basically a bog-standard modern Democrat. Which is way to the right of my preference, but it's what we've got to work with.

Eh. I don't like her, but she is far and away the least appalling of the 18 (major) Republicans who ran this time... which is saying something given her stumping for Goldwater's 'southern strategy' campaign, her founding role in the modern prison-industrial complex, her warmongering, and various other deplorable policy positions she has advanced.

If she were smart she'd choose Warren as her VP as an olive branch to the Democrats... but I'll be surprised if she doesn't go with Julian Castro despite the fact that she'd get next to nothing from such a pick.


This daily kos post pretty much sums up my point. Yeah, Daily Kos is a shill for the Democratic Party, but it's worth a read. It does seem that the Left at times IS taking cues from Fox when it comes to Ms. Clinton.

Warren would not be an olive branch to the Democrats... that would be someone like Biden, but 8 years in the most useless post in the Cabinet might already have been too much.

For that same reason, I don't think that Sanders would have any more interest than Clinton herself did in being Obama's VP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But yeah, I don't really get the Clinton hate either. She's basically a bog-standard modern Democrat. Which is way to the right of my preference, but it's what we've got to work with.

Eh. I don't like her, but she is far and away the least appalling of the 18 (major) Republicans who ran this time... which is saying something given her stumping for Goldwater's 'southern strategy' campaign, her founding role in the modern prison-industrial complex, her warmongering, and various other deplorable policy positions she has advanced.

Seriously? Barry Goldwater's "southern strategy"?

Clinton is winning the southern states by appealing to racist whites? No. She won the southern states in the primary by appealing to African-Americans. Maybe you should pay attention to them rather than accusing her of nonsense like that.
Or are you dredging up something she did in high school, fifty years ago? Really?

The more people react to her like this, the more I want to defend and support her. And I certainly didn't start out as a fan.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


Warren would not be an olive branch to the Democrats... that would be someone like Biden, but 8 years in the most useless post in the Cabinet might already have been too much.

For that same reason, I don't think that Sanders would have any more interest than Clinton herself did in being Obama's VP.

Warren would be an olive branch to the left wing of the democrats and to left independents. Democrats in general like Clinton just fine.

Besides a couple of years as VP and Warren would be despised by the same groups that hate Clinton now. In the White House, even as VP, she'd be tied to all the horrible things that Clinton does.

Scarab Sages

It's NOT the 20+ years of GOP propaganda. If anything, that's the strongest thing she has to preserve her reputation. I certainly didn't used to hate the Clintons. At all. AT ALL. Gradually, however, I've learned. Even my parents have by now, and my mother in particular has always been a diehard Clinton fan. A lot of people (female Baby Boomers, in particular) fell in love with Hillary in 1992. The person they fell in love with may have been there, once - but that person is gone, now. Somewhere along the way, she had a "Darth" added to her name. All she has is the "Trump card."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
It's NOT the 20+ years of GOP propaganda. If anything, that's the strongest thing she has to preserve her reputation. I certainly didn't used to hate the Clintons. At all. AT ALL. Gradually, however, I've learned. Even my parents have by now, and my mother in particular has always been a diehard Clinton fan. A lot of people (female Baby Boomers, in particular) fell in love with Hillary in 1992. The person they fell in love with may have been there, once - but that person is gone, now. Somewhere along the way, she had a "Darth" added to her name. All she has is the "Trump card."

Okay. Whatever. She won the Democratic primary. By a bigger margin than Obama beat her by in 2008, but somehow everybody still hates her. Nobody actually likes her, not even the millions that voted for her.

She's just evil. Somehow.

Just out of curiosity, has Obama also picked up a "Darth"? Is this a generic "Democrats are evil" or is Clinton somehow so much worse than the rest of the party - despite being a pretty solid mainstream liberal Democrat by most of objective measures? At least by today's standards.

2,001 to 2,050 of 2,749 << first < prev | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism Thread All Messageboards