Did you see the part where I agreed with you? There is a lot of s%$% that's still f+!+ed up. Do you understand my point?Two more articles that came across my feed and caught my fancy,
New Poll Finds That Hillary Supporters Are Pretty Racist Too
I had a reply that got ate a day or two ago about the racism.
I think the Democratic party is pretty racist. It's subtler than Republican racism, but it still exists. It's also a good example why I'm an incrementalist (though I appreciate hardcore rhetoric, it reminds us of how far we need to go).
In the "civil rights" era, a lot of victories were won and progress was made. The thing is that it's harder to deal with the more subtle and insidious varieties when you have to first convince people to stop lynching you, setting dogs on you and allowing you to participate in society like a human being.
If your roommate is trying to stab you with a knife, it might not be the best time to resolve why they never contribute to purchasing toilet paper. Fix the worst thing first, worry about the smaller stuff later...
I'm not sure how subtle it feels in Rahm Emanuel's Chicago, Tom Barrett's Milwaukee, Bill de Blasio's New York, your own Betsy's Minneapolis, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake's Baltimore or any of the other Democratic-controlled flashpoints in the new civil rights movement or, for that matter, in the gulag archipelago the Clintons helped build.
Yeah, I saw the part where you agreed with me. Not sure if I understood your point. Probably not; I was drunk.
Democrats are racist but they are more subtle than Republicans. During the Civil Rights era, it was difficult to focus on subtle racism when blacks were being lynched and mauled by dogs (I guess they only do that to red people these days, yay incremental progress!). If someone's trying to stab you, you don't worry about toilet paper. Some checking of your privilege, then, a resummation of Democrats are more subtle in their racism than Republicans, but there is a long way yet to go.
And my response was, and is, I wonder what the black residents of those cities would make of your knife metaphor when they are being gunned down with impunity in cities run by the more subtle racists?
I found a new website that looks pretty good:
DEMOCRATS HAVE THEIR OWN BASKET OF DEPLORABLES
and
THE CLINTON FOUNDATION’S PROBLEMS ARE DEEPER THAN YOU THINK
Which addresses some of my thoughts that I haven't been able to articulate about its "charity." For example,
"Ira Magaziner, who heads the independent Clinton Health Access Initiative, has said of their work that 'the whole thing is bankable… It’s a commercial proposition. This is not charity.' Instead of aid, the Clinton Foundation spends much of its effort 'creating new markets,' finding lucrative investment opportunities in the developing world for Western private capital. These have included everything from 'using business methods to streamline fertilizer markets in Africa' to 'working with credit card companies to expand the volume of low-cost loans offered to poor inner city residents.' (Note that typically, enticing poor people into taking on large amounts of credit card debt is not among the activities of a charitable foundation.) Bill Clinton is open about the fact that in this work, he is trying to help corporations profit from the developing world. He attempts to “reinvent philanthropy” as a lucrative enterprise for his partners because, in his words, 'I think it’s wrong to ask anyone to lose money.'"
It all depends on what the alternative is.
If the result of streamlining fertilizer markets in Africa is that people can reliably grow their own food, that's a net benefit even if corporate partners take their cut. If it means that the person raising cattle up the street ends up dumping their manure in the river instead of selling it, that's more exploitative.
On the other one, if credit card companies offering these low-cost loans means the inner city residents are going into debt when they otherwise would have lived within their means, I absolutely agree that's not appropriate activity of a charitable foundation. If it means they can access the same credit market as me rather than relying on predatory payday loans, that's absolutely something I support a charitable foundation facilitating.
If a charitable foundation does/pays somebody to do something important, it'll keep happening as long as the donations flow in to that foundation and it's a priority for that foundation. If they show a corporate partner a way to profit from it, it'll keep happening in perpetuity. There is absolutely a chance for abuse, but it's not inherently opposed to what a charity should do.
Some checking of your privilege, then, a resummation of Democrats are more subtle in their racism than Republicans, but there is a long way yet to go.
And my response was, and is, I wonder what the black residents of those cities would make of your knife metaphor when they are being gunned down with impunity in cities run by the more subtle racists?
Are you putting forth that Democratic mayors devise and implement direct policies that their police officers should "go out and shoot some black people"?
Or is the cause of these deaths more nuanced and complicated than that?
I apologize for the earlier analogy. It was an attempt at hyperbole and we're talking about people's lives. I think the killing of black people is unacceptable. It has reduced significantly over the decades and when white people do it, they aren't necessarily punished, but they aren't as celebrated either (we don't hold picnics and have towns posing for photographs with the body). I'm not 100% convinced the problem can be solved at this point by ONLY talking about the body count. Relatively speaking, the body count is getting small, while any number is tragic, hammering at the killing issue alone until perfect isn't going to fix it at this point.
Policing in general needs to be changed, but this doesn't just address the killing issue, but also the criminalization issue, which as long as that happens, killings will always be a problem. By that, I mean if police officers, regardless of political party and/or race, view African-American's as predominantly criminals, they're more likely to use violence to resolve a situation, which is more likely to end up with someone dying.
Just shouting at the police to stop killing POC isn't going to fix it. We need to change the things that cause police to treat POC as criminals automatically. That thought in the back of a man's head that makes him automatically suspicious of a black man, that's the subtle problem. I don't think BLM can reach a satisfactory state until that subtle problem is addressed. That doesn't mean I think they should stop, on the contrary, they are a huge part of helping to solve that and should continue.
Democrats are racist but they are more subtle than Republicans.
They are not more subtle at it.
They are more efficient at it. It is baked into their institutional control, as can be easily seen by looking at the areas they control and abuse it the most. They generally just tend to be loudest at pointing it out in their opponents, because they think it takes the focus off them. For their minions, this is true. For everyone else, not so much.DEMOCRATS HAVE THEIR OWN BASKET OF DEPLORABLES
The Democrat 'basket of deplorables' is meta in that it applies more to the words they use. Everyone who disagrees is racist, sexist, xenophobic, or whatever the current -ist or -phobe of the month is, used over and over until the point of meaninglessness. When Hillary said that, it showed two things. 1) She's utterly intellectually bankrupt. 2) She's foolishly divided the country into 'her people' and 'everyone else', with the latter to be hated. Bad move when your opponent is being all inclusive all of a sudden.
Lest you think I have a love for the Republicans (what with all this Democrat-bashing), don't bother. The Democrats are extremely efficient in exploiting the law and every institution they can corrupt. The Republicans, on the other hand, are the least competent group of whiners and surrender monkeys ever to fill an American political party. They lost their balls decades ago and despite calling themselves "Conservative" have been nothing more than a weak set of brakes on their opponent's goals.
The best thing about this utterly amazing election is that it will end with either one (if Hillary wins) or two (if Trump wins) of the political parties becoming an utter smoking ruin of its former self, forced to adapt to the times and realign their politics along that of the real-world--or be replaced by one that will.
Or, you know, the conspiracy theorists will be proven right, nothing will change in our national policies, and we'll have 100% proof that they were two faces of the same lying beast. But even if this were true, nobody would act on it anyway.
Either way, the old system (either the mechanics or the illusion) is done. Glorious.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never thought I'd see the day when the Democrats were called efficient in exploiting the law and every institution they can corrupt, and the Republicans the least competent group of whiners and surrender monkeys ever to fill an American political party.
The wheel of fortune goes round and round . . .
Some checking of your privilege, then, a resummation of Democrats are more subtle in their racism than Republicans, but there is a long way yet to go.
And my response was, and is, I wonder what the black residents of those cities would make of your knife metaphor when they are being gunned down with impunity in cities run by the more subtle racists?
Are you putting forth that Democratic mayors devise and implement direct policies that their police officers should "go out and shoot some black people"?
Or is the cause of these deaths more nuanced and complicated than that?
No, I am wondering how much solace is to be found in racist hellhole cities, like Baltimore, like Milwaukee, etc., etc. run by Democrats, that Democrats are more subtle in their racism.
Democrats are racist but they are more subtle than Republicans.They are not more subtle at it.
Should have put that in quotes. It was a paraphrase of the post Comrade Pravda asked me if I had read.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never thought I'd see the day when the Democrats were called efficient in exploiting the law and every institution they can corrupt, and the Republicans the least competent group of whiners and surrender monkeys ever to fill an American political party.
Now that the Republicans are corrupt AND incompetent the 'false equivalence squad' needed to make up new myths to keep their view of the two parties 'balanced'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I am wondering how much solace is to be found in racist hellhole cities, like Baltimore, like Milwaukee, etc., etc. run by Democrats, that Democrats are more subtle in their racism.Some checking of your privilege, then, a resummation of Democrats are more subtle in their racism than Republicans, but there is a long way yet to go.
And my response was, and is, I wonder what the black residents of those cities would make of your knife metaphor when they are being gunned down with impunity in cities run by the more subtle racists?
Are you putting forth that Democratic mayors devise and implement direct policies that their police officers should "go out and shoot some black people"?
Or is the cause of these deaths more nuanced and complicated than that?
So, are the cities hellholes because Democrats run them? Or do Democrats run them because they are hellholes?
Baltimore is 63% black by population, with a population of 622,000. Maryland has 40,000 disenfranchised felons. Let's assume they're all black and they all live in Baltimore. If that's true, African-Americans still account for 56% of the population in Baltimore. Baltimore isn't run by Democrats. It's run by black Democrats.
Just curious, is it because they're Democrats that they're racists and ordering their police to kill fellow citizens?
It all depends on what the alternative is.
Earlier in the discussion, maybe not in this thread maybe one of the three (the two convention ones and the "Sellouts on the Left, Sellouts on the Right") that preceded it, there was discussion of the Clintons' speaker's fees from Wall Street, etc., and how these fees were pumped back into the Clinton Foundation, a charity, so what could be wrong with that?
I wondered aloud if it might be the case that donors to the Foundation and payers of these fees, I believe I used Monsanto as an example, might benefit greatly from these charitable actions. It looks like they do and, as I suspected, the Clinton Foundation is a key player in the left wing of neoliberalism.
There is certainly an argument to be made, by the defenders of capitalism, that left neoliberalism is the best that we can do. But there are others, not fans of neoliberalism and letting the market sort it out, who also rushed to the defense of the Clinton Foundation because it's a charity. I thought these latter might be interested in the nature of its charity.
And, that, of course, is assuming that the Foundation works. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, I wouldn't know, but here's some from later in the article:
"...After the devastating Haitian earthquake in 2010, both Clintons were heavily involved in the recovery. Bill was given such large and nebulous authority that Haitians dubbed him 'Le Gouverneur,' fearing he would become a sort of colonial administrator. The Clintons raised millions of dollars, including 30 million dollars through the Foundation, to assist the Haitian people.
"But all of this money produced very little. Multiple expensive initiatives went nowhere, and the gleaming new industrial park the Clintons touted for Haiti brought few jobs and was largely unused. Instead of housing, the Clinton-led recovery built needless new luxury hotels. Indeed, Adam Davidson reports that the Clinton Foundation is not a major force in Haiti, and is not making any significant progress there. Journalist Jonathan Katz says it’s 'hard to find anyone who looks back on [the recovery] as a success.' The Clintons themselves have simply stopped discussing Haiti publicly, though Haitians have occasionally showed up at Hillary Clinton’s office to protest the disappearance of millions of dollars in recovery funds. As one Haitian official who worked with Bill Clinton put it, 'There is a lot of resentment about Clinton here. People have not seen results. . . . They say that Clinton used Haiti.'"
Just curious, is it because they're Democrats that they're racists and ordering their police to kill fellow citizens?
Since I never claimed that Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) were ordering their police to kill people--in fact, I answered "no" to your previous question--I'm not sure how to respond to your strawman.
Oh, now there's an edit I didn't see before.
Anyway, more knife analogies:
"If you stick a knife nine inches into my back and pull it out three inches, that is not progress." --Malcolm X
But that was before the Dixiecrat desertion! Before George Wallace apologized for standing in the school house door, before Byrd apologized for being in the Klan! Before Hillary apologized for her role in creating the mass incarceration state!
Two more articles that came across my feed and caught my fancy,
Huh. Apparently, The Observer is run by the Donald's son-in-law.
[Goes back to searching the internet]
Just curious, is it because they're Democrats that they're racists and ordering their police to kill fellow citizens?Since I never claimed that Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) were ordering their police to kill people--in fact, I answered "no" to your previous question--I'm not sure how to respond to your strawman.
You're laying the blame for the killings of African-Americans on Democratic politicians, correct?
I mean, you were listing democratic mayors with killings earlier. That's the implication, if not just outright direct meaning.
No, I wondered, three times I think, if it was any solace to the black residents of Democratic-controlled cities that the Democrats are more subtle in their racism.
I hope your teaching job isn't in the English department.
Any chance we can do this without personal attacks?
I don't think anyone is even remotely aware of my metaphor, outside of this thread, which means your "wondering" is to make an implication on the discussion here. If I'm not understanding your meaning correctly, which you say I'm not, please illuminate it for me.
I said democratic racism was more subtle (implying btw, that it's more subtle than republican racism).
You responded by pointing out that black people are killed in democratic controlled cities.
The inferred connection I'm making there, is that you're claiming democratic racism is directly related to those killings and isn't subtle at all. Am I wrong?
Edit: I edit a lot. It's a forum, not a chat room and I get an hour to edit my remarks. I frequently use this feature, particularly as it helps me cut down on the number of posts and helps me organize my thoughts more clearly, hopefully making my contributions to the thread easier to read. Not always successful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...My vote won't count for much in any given direction, no matter how purple the US may be, demographically.
I'm taking this quote out of context for a purpose:
We just had our Florida state & local primaries back on August 30th. Lee & Collier Counties have over half a million residents, but some of the winning candidates on this ballot only received a few thousand, even under a hundred votes. There was a special measure on the ballot to determine funding and coverage of the Naples Reserve Fire District; it only passed by one vote, because only one person voted for it.
Regardless of whether you choose to vote for a PotUS/VPotUS candidate or not, please seriously consider to vote for all the downticket races, all the way down to school board races, even mosquito control & animal control officials. If you want to see new progressive blood and voices in higher office, this is where your vote will count the most. Your choices will decide who educates the kids who will become tomorrow's voters and candidates. You will decide which of these brand new candidates gets into office; officials who will start learning how the system works (and its limitations), how to toughen their skin and spine, and how to compromise to achieve measurable, if incremental, progress. These people are the first stepping stones on the path to fighting for and winning the achievements this country, its people, needs.
If you oppose the racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, anti-women, anti-LGBT, authoritarian bullsh!t that Trump has made acceptable... this cancerous hate that many state and local candidates openly embrace or are too cowardly to oppose... these downticket races is where we all stop it. A landslide of votes on November 8th against these candidates would be best to send the message that This Is Un-American, but just a simple win is still preferable to silence and tacit approval.
And if you really, truly want to see candidates who you can proudly support, you can start anew on November 9th. Seriously. Find your own way to get involved in your local politics and make it happen. If you want a better choice than Clinton or Sanders, this is where it starts.
...My vote won't count for much in any given direction, no matter how purple the US may be, demographically.I'm taking this quote out of context for a purpose:
No, you've gotten it exactly right.
And a little food for thought:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
-- C. S. Lewis
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I think part of it is that we have to acknowledge that there are different levels of racism, lynching is the high end of it, but subconsciously passing over a African American sounding name on a job application forum also hurts the black community. Subtle racism is still racism.
Again, we see this "all or nothing"-ism.
Not being able to get a job sucks, I grant, but it doesn't suck nearly as hard as dying at the end of a rope because you walked down the wrong street at the wrong time.
And there are a lot of people who are pushing, for example, to make racism, whether covert or overt, more common and more effective. Pushing for the elimination or neutralization of Affirmative Action, making voting more difficult in a way that disproportionately falls on minorities (you don't have the right ID, and even if you did, you can't get to the polls, and even if someone could give you a ride, we've reduced the hours so that fewer people can vote), and so forth.
Again, one side is actively pushing for these measures. One side has not being doing enough to eliminate them. Are you seriously seeing no difference between not trying to put out a fire and actively committing arson?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Canadians cheat. For 6 months of the year there is no race as you can't see anyone under the hood of the parka.....:)
According to that same article, assorted bills were introduced to address the sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine from both sides of the aisle prior to the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act at least as far back as 2001. Specifically, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) in 2001 and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) in 2007 along with a half-dozen additional bills introduced during the 110th Congress of 2007-2008.
"One side" is not applicable as per the source linked. 'Both sides' were clearly attempting to address something for almost/at least a decade beforehand.
Are you seriously seeing no difference between not trying to put out a fire and actively committing arson?Well I don't see either side doing much to repeal draconian drug laws for example, I do see one side trying to suppress the vote because it would benefit them in the election, and I see the other side fighting that because it would benefit them in the election. I suppose some might be fighting for purely idealistic reasons, fighting for equality and giving power to the powerless, but let's not assume that everyone in the party is actually concerned with the plight of minority voters.I know, I know, it's not enough, but one side did do something.
And I don't really care whether they're doing it for purely idealistic reasons or not, but one side is fighting to deny minorities the vote and the other is fighting to expand it. That matters. It matters whatever the intent is.
It's also worth noting that, even if the superficial intent of fighting against voter discrimination laws is because fewer voter discrimination laws increases Democratic turnout, it increases Democratic turnout because minority voters tend to see the Democratic Party as far more supportive of their rights and needs. It wouldn't increase Democratic turnout if minority voters didn't think the Democratic Party was working for them.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not gonna vote this election because I don't like the candidates.
When they count up the votes in my state they're gonna be like, "hey, where's Spastic Puma's vote? He's a pretty smart guy. Why didn't he vote?" And the other guy's gonna be like "Didn't you check Facebook? He thinks both candidates are dumb because they don't match his impossibly liberal tastes". And then Trump and Hilary and the party leaders are gonna be like "What have we done?" and impeach themselves. Then the whole country will unite and from the ashes will rise the perfect political demigod -- like a phoenix born from apathy and disdain for incrementalism. Then everyone will know that being right and having the most correct worldview is much more important then stopping the most ludicrously destructive incarnation of beta carotene this nation has ever seen.
And I don't really care whether they're doing it for purely idealistic reasons or not, but one side is fighting to deny minorities the vote and the other is fighting to expand it. That matters. It matters whatever the intent is.
While this is not specifically about denying the vote to minorities, when it comes to anti-democratic efforts, it is tough to beat the DNC. Note: I think the Republicans probably get the gold in the voter disenfranchisement Olympics, but Democrats give them stiff competition.
Ralph Nader Files Lawsuit Accusing Democratic Party of Conspiring to Block Presidential Run
"And this was the most massive anti-democratic campaign to eliminate a third-party candidate from the ballot in — probably in recent American history. It is — not content with having all these laws and statutes on the book that make it difficult for third-party and independent candidates to run, the Democratic Party and their allies in over 53 law firms, with over 90 lawyers, were engaged in filing litigation in 18 states. They were to remove Ralph Nader from the ballot. It was an organized, abusive litigation process.
The core of the lawsuit is that these lawyers, led by Toby Moffett and Elizabeth Holtzman, and something called the Ballot Project, which was a 527 organization, systematically went around the country and filed lawsuit after lawsuit, 24 in all, plus five FEC complaints, to try to completely remove the Nader campaign from the ballot and to, in effect, bankrupt the campaign, which they succeeded in doing. Not content with that, one of the defendants, Reed Smith, which is a large corporate law firm in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, they are now going after Ralph Nader’s personal bank account to make him pay some of the cost of this litigation."
Wow! I had almost forgotten what absolute scum the Democratic Party leadership are. I would feel deeply ashamed to be associated with them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Obama's done a lot to elevate trans issues to the public eye, as well. In a climate where even Sanders and Clinton barely talked about transgender people, Obama released a school briefer that's led to open rebellion from conservative states. Good on him!
Clinton doesn't talk about it much, and I think no one much talks about it if they weren't impacted by it, but she, or at least the State Department under her, did do something very significant for trans people: changing its rules so that we could get a passport with our proper gender listed without surgery. That's pretty big, having a piece of government ID with your correct gender on it.
Just curious, is it because they're Democrats that they're racists and ordering their police to kill fellow citizens?Since I never claimed that Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) were ordering their police to kill people--in fact, I answered "no" to your previous question--I'm not sure how to respond to your strawman.You're laying the blame for the killings of African-Americans on Democratic politicians, correct?
I mean, you were listing democratic mayors with killings earlier. That's the implication, if not just outright direct meaning.
He wouldn't be the first or the only to do so.
Are you seriously seeing no difference between not trying to put out a fire and actively committing arson?Well I don't see either side doing much to repeal draconian drug laws for example, I do see one side trying to suppress the vote because it would benefit them in the election, and I see the other side fighting that because it would benefit them in the election. I suppose some might be fighting for purely idealistic reasons, fighting for equality and giving power to the powerless, but let's not assume that everyone in the party is actually concerned with the plight of minority voters.I know, I know, it's not enough, but one side did do something.
And I don't really care whether they're doing it for purely idealistic reasons or not, but one side is fighting to deny minorities the vote and the other is fighting to expand it. That matters. It matters whatever the intent is.
That same side however fights very hard to make sure those minorities don't have much of a choice of who to vote for, considering the shenannigans they pulled on both Nader and Sanders.
Hey KSF, welcome to the political scrum thread! Glad to have your perspective here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey KSF, welcome to the political scrum thread! Glad to have your perspective here.
Run, KSF, run away while you still can! Before the thread sinks its tendrils in youuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!!!!
I'm not gonna vote this election because I don't like the candidates.
When they count up the votes in my state they're gonna be like, "hey, where's Spastic Puma's vote? He's a pretty smart guy. Why didn't he vote?" And the other guy's gonna be like "Didn't you check Facebook? He thinks both candidates are dumb because they don't match his impossibly liberal tastes". And then Trump and Hilary and the party leaders are gonna be like "What have we done?" and impeach themselves. Then the whole country will unite and from the ashes will rise the perfect political demigod -- like a phoenix born from apathy and disdain for incrementalism. Then everyone will know that being right and having the most correct worldview is much more important then stopping the most ludicrously destructive incarnation of beta carotene this nation has ever seen.
Absurdists! F!ck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of the Democratic Party, Dude, at least it's an ethos.
I'm not gonna vote this election because I don't like the candidates.
What state do you vote in Spastic Puma?
I'm not gonna vote this election because I don't like the candidates.
When they count up the votes in my state they're gonna be like, "hey, where's Spastic Puma's vote? He's a pretty smart guy. Why didn't he vote?" And the other guy's gonna be like "Didn't you check Facebook? He thinks both candidates are dumb because they don't match his impossibly liberal tastes". And then Trump and Hilary and the party leaders are gonna be like "What have we done?" and impeach themselves. Then the whole country will unite and from the ashes will rise the perfect political demigod -- like a phoenix born from apathy and disdain for incrementalism. Then everyone will know that being right and having the most correct worldview is much more important then stopping the most ludicrously destructive incarnation of beta carotene this nation has ever seen.
You, I like you.
I'm not gonna vote this election because I don't like the candidates.What state do you vote in Spastic Puma?
I have a sneaking suspicion that the post you quoted was not entirely serious, Fergie.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the post you quoted was not entirely serious, Fergie.I'm not gonna vote this election because I don't like the candidates.What state do you vote in Spastic Puma?
Indeed. Still worth reading. And the laughing.
Hey KSF, welcome to the political scrum thread! Glad to have your perspective here.Run, KSF, run away while you still can! Before the thread sinks its tendrils in youuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!!!!
I'd be even more worried if something tendriled it's sinks into me.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the post you quoted was not entirely serious, Fergie.
EVERYTHING is entirely suspiciously serious, or seriously sneaking, or suspiciously sneaking, or... What was I talking about again?
I was just going to point out that if he lived in a close swing state, his humor would be more insightful then if he lived in a dem or repub safe state.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And then Trump and Hilary and the party leaders are gonna be like "What have we done?" and impeach themselves.
Spastic Puma:
I hereby notify you that owe me a new keyboard, as mine has been destroyed by a nasal spray of Coke Zero.
My accountants will be in touch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not gonna vote this election because I don't like the candidates.
When they count up the votes in my state they're gonna be like, "hey, where's Spastic Puma's vote? He's a pretty smart guy. Why didn't he vote?" And the other guy's gonna be like "Didn't you check Facebook? He thinks both candidates are dumb because they don't match his impossibly liberal tastes". And then Trump and Hilary and the party leaders are gonna be like "What have we done?" and impeach themselves. Then the whole country will unite and from the ashes will rise the perfect political demigod -- like a phoenix born from apathy and disdain for incrementalism. Then everyone will know that being right and having the most correct worldview is much more important then stopping the most ludicrously destructive incarnation of beta carotene this nation has ever seen.
Was it Steve Brust who said something like "Sarcasm works a lot better when you lightly dust a phrase with it, instead of drenching every word."
GG Allin said "Always leave them wanting less."
Actually, it was Andy Warhol, but I like attributing it Allin.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Was it Steve Brust who said something like "Sarcasm works a lot better when you lightly dust a phrase with it, instead of drenching every word."I'm not gonna vote this election because I don't like the candidates.
When they count up the votes in my state they're gonna be like, "hey, where's Spastic Puma's vote? He's a pretty smart guy. Why didn't he vote?" And the other guy's gonna be like "Didn't you check Facebook? He thinks both candidates are dumb because they don't match his impossibly liberal tastes". And then Trump and Hilary and the party leaders are gonna be like "What have we done?" and impeach themselves. Then the whole country will unite and from the ashes will rise the perfect political demigod -- like a phoenix born from apathy and disdain for incrementalism. Then everyone will know that being right and having the most correct worldview is much more important then stopping the most ludicrously destructive incarnation of beta carotene this nation has ever seen.
Subtlety was the first casualty in this race.
Was it Steve Brust who said something like "Sarcasm works a lot better when you lightly dust a phrase with it, instead of drenching every word."
This is a post-Trump world now, and most everyone's incredulity detectors are smoking ruins like a Samsung 7 or a hoverboard. Ya gotta upsize your sarcasm to yuge levels for it even to register anymore.
Hey KSF, welcome to the political scrum thread! Glad to have your perspective here.Run, KSF, run away while you still can! Before the thread sinks its tendrils in youuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!!!!
This is why I have a cloak of protection from politics +20.
In recent propaganda sightings, yesterday I noticed a Hillary bumper sticker, but then realized it was a "Hillary for Prison" sticker. I also found a "Hillary, Sane and Competent" button while putting chairs away at the local library. Today I was right around Chappaqua NY, and noticed some Hillary yard signs for the first time ("It takes a community" or something). So far it seems like Hillary has a slight edge in yard-signs, stickers, and pins, but it is pretty close to 50/50 around here.
The best was a shirt I saw today that said "Meh. Whatever, 2016" with a waving stars and stripes. Everyone loved it.