LGS visit 13 days ago, the shirt was "Palpatine/Vader'16" with the Death Star done up in white above red, similar to Obama's campaign emblem.
Asked the wearer from where he got it. He was a custom T-shirt maker, and had just retired in the last two weeks. Imagine my dismay.
I am, at the very least, quite glad that such a T-shirt exists.
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.
One guy in my area had a yuge, (seriously, it was a big piece of plywood nailed to a tree in his front yard) homemade Make America Great, Elect Trump! sign that made me feel bad whenever I drove past it, until the morning I saw that someone had snuck onto his property during the night and scribbled the sign over with silver spray-paint. (No, it wasn't me, I just know what spray paint looks like when seen from a distance in a moving car, okay?!) Anyhow, that's the only lawn signage I've seen around here, and I'm on the side of the vandals.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best was a shirt I saw today that said "Meh. Whatever, 2016" with a waving stars and stripes. Everyone loved it.
Because nothing is cooler than a depressing mix of ignorance, apathy, and cynicism proudly displayed across one's chest.
I keep telling people that I'm not running for office. In no way do I want people looking into my background.
One of the benefits of being totally shallow is you're only 2D surface, so no background.
CARCOSA/FLATLANDER 2016
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best was a shirt I saw today that said "Meh. Whatever, 2016" with a waving stars and stripes. Everyone loved it.Because nothing is cooler than a depressing mix of ignorance, apathy, and cynicism proudly displayed across one's chest.
The original cool dude from Rebel Without a Cause, James Dean, in the cool dude scene itself:
"What are you rebelling against, Johnny?""I dunno. Whatcha got?"
A depressing mix of ignorance, apathy and cynicism pretty much defines 'cool'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best was a shirt I saw today that said "Meh. Whatever, 2016" with a waving stars and stripes. Everyone loved it.Because nothing is cooler than a depressing mix of ignorance, apathy, and cynicism proudly displayed across one's chest.The original cool dude from Rebel Without a Cause, James Dean, in the cool dude scene itself:
"What are you rebelling against, Johnny?"
"I dunno. Whatcha got?"
A depressing mix of ignorance, apathy and cynicism pretty much defines 'cool'.
That was Marlon Brando in The Wild One, not James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause, but yeah, I agree.
Edit: I've also gotta say, voting for third party candidate in hopes that they'll win 5% of the national popular vote and gain minor party status including federal matching funds is not so much a lost cause as a long shot, I just get more and more unwilling to make a symbolic vote as I watch the race tighten between Clinton and Trump.
|
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.One guy in my area had a yuge, (seriously, it was a big piece of plywood nailed to a tree in his front yard) homemade Make America Great, Elect Trump! sign that made me feel bad whenever I drove past it, until the morning I saw that someone had snuck onto his property during the night and scribbled the sign over with silver spray-paint. (No, it wasn't me, I just know what spray paint looks like when seen from a distance in a moving car, okay?!) Anyhow, that's the only lawn signage I've seen around here, and I'm on the side of the vandals.
Because the best way to change my mind is with petty vandalism and destruction of private property.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ayyyy Fergie I live in Florida.
Because the best way to change my mind is with petty vandalism and destruction of private property.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.One guy in my area had a yuge, (seriously, it was a big piece of plywood nailed to a tree in his front yard) homemade Make America Great, Elect Trump! sign that made me feel bad whenever I drove past it, until the morning I saw that someone had snuck onto his property during the night and scribbled the sign over with silver spray-paint. (No, it wasn't me, I just know what spray paint looks like when seen from a distance in a moving car, okay?!) Anyhow, that's the only lawn signage I've seen around here, and I'm on the side of the vandals.
It's your mind, and yours alone, only one person out of the countless billions on the face of the earth could possibly know the best way to change it. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any chance we can do this without personal attacks?
I don't know.
It depends on whether you can stop taking a question like "I wonder if it makes any difference to black people who live in hellhole cities that the Democrats have controlled for decades* whether Democrats' racism is more subtle than Republicans" and turning it into "Are you saying Stephanie Rawlings-Blake orders police to murder black people?!?"
---
*Or the gulag archipelago that Hillary helped build.
Doodlebug, you don't honestly believe Clinton had a hand in instituting the zero tolerance policies of the war on drugs, do you? 'Cause by my reading the War on Drugs was the one governmental policy that really built what you're calling a Gulag Archipelago, and that was all Reagan.
Yeah, I do. That's pretty uncontroversial, Dicey.
The Clintons’ War on Drugs: When Black Lives Didn’t Matter
"Most shockingly, the total numbers of state and federal inmates grew more rapidly under Bill Clinton than under any other president, including the notorious Republican drug warriors Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush."
That's not at all shocking to me, it's just how institutional memory functions. Have I missed a step?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the best way to change my mind is with petty vandalism and destruction of private property.
I mean...do you really feel as though there aren't enough reasons to not support Trump?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it was written by The New Republic which I believe is one of the house organs of fake liberal Democrats. I wouldn't be surprised if they championed all those laws in the '80s and '90s.
Also, I guess I should fess up that I stole "gulag archipelago," in this context, from Ta Nahisi-Coates.
Not Solzhenitsyn? Oh, Doodles! ;)
In this context.
Well, Comrade, when you're using the Comrade alias, I assume you're speaking from an established communist point of view. Forgive me my misunderstanding.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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."
Putting aside the implied stuff and focusing merely on the quote, it's worth noting that C.S. never sought to ground that opinion in any experience of living under actual tyrannies. First-world problems, one might speculate (to borrow a more modern phrase).
It's a clever enough little quote and I certainly have gotten some use out of sorts of for-your-own-good domination in certain LE characters of mine in one game or another, but an authority on authoritarianism C.S. Lewis is not.
Because the best way to change my mind is with petty vandalism and destruction of private property.I mean...do you really feel as though there aren't enough reasons to not support Trump?
That's kinda beside the point, Scott. Which is that vandalism, aside from being totally unacceptable, is unlikely to change anyone's mind.
That's kinda beside the point, Scott. Which is that vandalism, aside from being totally unacceptable, is unlikely to change anyone's mind.Because the best way to change my mind is with petty vandalism and destruction of private property.I mean...do you really feel as though there aren't enough reasons to not support Trump?
No argument there! Just wondering if BlackOuroboros in particular was in need of additional reasons to switch teams.
In this context.
In the parlance of our times.
"Mark it eight, Doodle!"
All I know of a Christian theocracy, I learned from reading Mercedes Lackey.
It's your mind, and yours alone, only one person out of the countless billions on the face of the earth could possibly know the best way to change it. :)Because the best way to change my mind is with petty vandalism and destruction of private property.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.One guy in my area had a yuge, (seriously, it was a big piece of plywood nailed to a tree in his front yard) homemade Make America Great, Elect Trump! sign that made me feel bad whenever I drove past it, until the morning I saw that someone had snuck onto his property during the night and scribbled the sign over with silver spray-paint. (No, it wasn't me, I just know what spray paint looks like when seen from a distance in a moving car, okay?!) Anyhow, that's the only lawn signage I've seen around here, and I'm on the side of the vandals.
Because people LOVE crime so much they actually agree when the cops commit it to by accusing someone of a crime just to get their property!
As long as the crime is committed against those they hate, it's all good, because hate crimes are what they love!!!!
Amazing those same people aren't more for Trump though...
As you can tell, I do NOT agree.
I don't like any of the candidates right now, it's possible that who ever gets elected this time around will automatically almost ensure the next one to be from the opposite party...
But at the same time, this candidate this time around will probably have a bigger impact. I expect at least one and probably two or three Supreme court seats to be selected by the new President over their term. With how powerful the Supreme court is (basically an oligarchy in the US now days rather than a democratic republic...the supreme court makes laws these days rather than simply says a law is unconstitutional and hence is striken from the books, instead what they say institute the creation of other laws instantly normally...and oddly enough) whoever controls the court, basically controls the US these days.
Hence, if one wants a liberal court, this is the election to get it, if they want a conservative court, this is the election to get it.
But at the same time, this candidate this time around will probably have a bigger impact. I expect at least one and probably two or three Supreme court seats to be selected by the new President over their term. With how powerful the Supreme court is (basically an oligarchy in the US now days rather than a democratic republic...the supreme court makes laws these days rather than simply says a law is unconstitutional and hence is striken from the books, instead what they say institute the creation of other laws instantly normally...and oddly enough) whoever controls the court, basically controls the US these days.
Hence, if one wants a liberal court, this is the election to get it, if they want a conservative court, this is the election to get it.
I don't see a new Supreme Court Justice getting confirmed before 2020 unless Trump wins.
Any chance we can do this without personal attacks?
I don't know.
It depends on whether you can stop taking a question like "I wonder if it makes any difference to black people who live in hellhole cities that the Democrats have controlled for decades* whether Democrats' racism is more subtle than Republicans" and turning it into "Are you saying Stephanie Rawlings-Blake orders police to murder black people?!?"
---
*Or the gulag archipelago that Hillary helped build.
If you disagree with me or the things I say, I can handle it. I'm just asking you not to insult me directly. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in that request either.
I don't see a new Supreme Court Justice getting confirmed before 2020 unless Trump wins.But at the same time, this candidate this time around will probably have a bigger impact. I expect at least one and probably two or three Supreme court seats to be selected by the new President over their term. With how powerful the Supreme court is (basically an oligarchy in the US now days rather than a democratic republic...the supreme court makes laws these days rather than simply says a law is unconstitutional and hence is striken from the books, instead what they say institute the creation of other laws instantly normally...and oddly enough) whoever controls the court, basically controls the US these days.
Hence, if one wants a liberal court, this is the election to get it, if they want a conservative court, this is the election to get it.
I think there will be enough pressure after the election that basically there won't be that much of a choice. I think they can get away with it now because OF the election, but if they wait after the election the public will eventually say...are we just going to go without any new Supreme Court justices then?
What happens when it's down to ONE justice...what about then. If they keep a precedent that they won't allow any nominations in, then there comes a point of absolute absurdity.
Right now the only reason it's plausible is because that is how they used the election as a reasoning. After that they are out of reasons unless they want to have a perpetually empty court.
I don't see a new Supreme Court Justice getting confirmed before 2020 unless Trump wins.But at the same time, this candidate this time around will probably have a bigger impact. I expect at least one and probably two or three Supreme court seats to be selected by the new President over their term. With how powerful the Supreme court is (basically an oligarchy in the US now days rather than a democratic republic...the supreme court makes laws these days rather than simply says a law is unconstitutional and hence is striken from the books, instead what they say institute the creation of other laws instantly normally...and oddly enough) whoever controls the court, basically controls the US these days.
Hence, if one wants a liberal court, this is the election to get it, if they want a conservative court, this is the election to get it.
Possible. I think it's unlikely. There's a chance the Democrats will take the Senate (not a great one, but a better one than Trump win). If so, I doubt a filibuster will hold - too much publicity. Too much pressure and too little gain, especially if Clinton renominates Garland or nominates some other moderate liberal.
There's also always the option of changing the rules to not allow filibusters, which the Democrats will do in the face of a complete block.Even without a shift in Senate control, I don't think they'll make such a blatant move. At the moment, they're justifying not acting on Garland's nomination by saying it should wait on the next president - which is nonsense, but it'll still be harder to continue stripped of that figleaf.
At some point this reaches the level of Constitutional Crisis, but you're right that probably doesn't happen until at least one more election cycle passes. At some point there won't be enough Justices left for a quorum.
Keep in mind that whatever gains, if any, that the Democrats get this year will most likely be more than reversed in 2018.
I don't see a new Supreme Court Justice getting confirmed before 2020 unless Trump wins.But at the same time, this candidate this time around will probably have a bigger impact. I expect at least one and probably two or three Supreme court seats to be selected by the new President over their term. With how powerful the Supreme court is (basically an oligarchy in the US now days rather than a democratic republic...the supreme court makes laws these days rather than simply says a law is unconstitutional and hence is striken from the books, instead what they say institute the creation of other laws instantly normally...and oddly enough) whoever controls the court, basically controls the US these days.
Hence, if one wants a liberal court, this is the election to get it, if they want a conservative court, this is the election to get it.
I think there will be enough pressure after the election that basically there won't be that much of a choice. I think they can get away with it now because OF the election, but if they wait after the election the public will eventually say...are we just going to go without any new Supreme Court justices then?
What happens when it's down to ONE justice...what about then. If they keep a precedent that they won't allow any nominations in, then there comes a point of absolute absurdity.
Right now the only reason it's plausible is because that is how they used the election as a reasoning. After that they are out of reasons unless they want to have a perpetually empty court.
They'll be able to justify it because compared to the hatred they've stirred in their base for decades towards Clinton, the crusade on Obama is a passing fad in comparison.
What happens when it's down to ONE justice...what about then. If they keep a precedent that they won't allow any nominations in, then there comes a point of absolute absurdity.
You're in the opinion that we haven't reached that point already? Not just Trump but 14 of the 15 other candidates that vied for the Republican nomination this year were in a grand competition for the absurd. The American electorate is not only divided but has reached new heights of polarisation not seen since the 60's and maybe not even then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like Clinton is calling McConnell's bluff:Isn't it also possible that they'll nominate Garland the moment Clinton wins the election?That's been one theory. To forestall her nominating someone younger and/or more liberal.
IMO, likely only if she hasn't said she'd stick with Garland, which I think she has and only if the Democrats take the Senate. Otherwise, keep stalling.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she wouldn’t be bound by President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, hinting that she would consider a bolder choice if she takes office in January with the seat still unfilled.
If she wins, I'm betting they'll accept Garland's appointment, try to spin it positively, and kick the can down the road.
Yeah, Garland is a social moderate at best, and pretty friendly to big corps. But Scalia was even friendlier to big biz and a regressive revisionist troll on social issues. So he'd be a small step forward on social issues and the status quo on business. Baby steps.
If the Dems get a simple majority in the Senate (which seems well within reach) and win back several seats in the House (they won't get a majority), then all bets are off on whether she keep Garland or double-down. Clinton knows darn well that Garland won't strike down or curtail Citizen's United.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems relevant.
“America has come so far. We’re less racist, sexist, homophobic and anti specific religions than we used to be. We have one remaining bigotry: We don’t want to be around anyone who disagrees with us. The crowd’s laughing, but they didn’t laugh loud because they know I’m telling the truth,” 15th September 2016, The Daily Show
It's been awhile since I've read Mere Christianity, but I believe this quote was meant about a Christian theocracy, am I right?
Entirely likely. I cannot recall, offhand. The bit that sticks with me is that, even separated from that context, I believe it universally applicable.
The hand that is forced, whether by "God/god" or "collective opinion" (and sometimes how the two or three are lumped together, even), is still subject to tyranny. And that is not a commendable state for any person.