The REAL USPol - February - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The REAL USPol - February

«‹›154 »

Amergin: Jan 29, 2013; THE SOUND A WET FART MAKES

Lotka Volterra posted:

grew up in Columbia as opposed to Shitsville, SC and holds a relatively high office.

Columbia is still very much Shitsville, SC.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 21:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 12:38

Adar: Jul 27, 2001

"Democrat" is what half of Freep uses, isn't it? The only times I've ever seen it used in that way were all in the Freep thread.

Now somebody dig up that guy's Freep account.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 21:02

LeeMajors: Jan 20, 2005; I've gotta stop fantasizing about Lee Majors...
Ah, one more!

Adar posted:

"Democrat" is what half of Freep uses, isn't it? The only times I've ever seen it used in that way were all in the Freep thread.

Now somebody dig up that guy's Freep account.

Freep prefers thug or Amish

Democrat is a regional thing in the south as far as it's a dogwhistle. You generally only spot it in suburbs or touristy areas. Out in the sticks there's no dogwhistles

# ? Feb 15, 2016 21:10

Epic High Five: Jun 5, 2004

Also even if you "only meant" Democrats he's still saying how much he wishes he could hunt human beings with dogs

# ? Feb 15, 2016 21:10

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Epic High Five posted:

Also even if you "only meant" Democrats he's still saying how much he wishes he could hunt human beings with dogs

yeah this is my point. we dont have to split hairs about who exactly he wants to hunt with dogs so we can collect the 1.2x racial outrage modifier

# ? Feb 15, 2016 21:11

Rhesus Pieces: Jun 27, 2005

Whether he meant "democrat" as his political opposition or as a subtle and easily deniable dog whistle for an entire race of people, implying that he looks forward to exterminating them and hunting down the remnants like wild game is profoundly disturbing.

Especially when that sentiment is coming from a state officeholder warming up the crowd for the demagogic GOP frontrunner who appeals to full-blown white supremacists.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 21:18

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Radbot posted:

Everyone calling out this guy is just trying to be outraged. People from the South want to hunt people they don't agree with to death, deal with it.

They need to be given some sort of safe space. Something like an island with a luxury resort, where they can hunt each other for sport in peace

# ? Feb 15, 2016 21:24

Mister Facetious: Apr 21, 2007; I think I died and woke up in L.A.,
I don't know how I wound up in this place...

Mr Hootington posted:

Or depleted Uranium munitions.

Or brain damaging levels of lead in the water of American cities.

Rhesus Pieces posted:

Especially when that sentiment is coming from a state officeholder warming up the crowd for the demagogic GOP frontrunner who has the literal public (and media covered) endorsement of full-blown white supremacist leaders.

Clarified for emphasis.

Mister Facetious fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Feb 15, 2016

# ? Feb 15, 2016 22:15

PhazonLink: Jul 17, 2010

Canadians, Mondays, anything else?

Also Rush said he wanted to put the last two Dems in a zoo(He said this in the ancient 90s?) and a shitheel from Texas said to shoot at cars with out of state plates.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 22:58

Nostalgia4Infinity: Feb 27, 2007; 10,000 YEARS WASN'T ENOUGH LURKING

SCOTUSblog saying Loretta Lynch most likely to get nomination.

:what:

# ? Feb 15, 2016 23:39

Meg From Family Guy: Feb 4, 2012

I want unlimited on-demand abortion

# ? Feb 15, 2016 23:41

Nostalgia4Infinity: Feb 27, 2007; 10,000 YEARS WASN'T ENOUGH LURKING

Meg From Family Guy posted:

I want unlimited on-demand abortion

well that is your constitutional right as an american so

# ? Feb 15, 2016 23:42

BobTheJanitor: Jun 28, 2003

Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

SCOTUSblog saying Loretta Lynch most likely to get nomination.

Obama loved her last historically long confirmation fight so much, he wants to do it all over again? :shrug:

# ? Feb 15, 2016 23:43

Wicked Them Beats: Apr 1, 2007; Moralists don't really *have* beliefs. Sometimes they stumble on one, like on a child's toy left on the carpet. The toy must be put away immediately. And the child reprimanded.

I support abortion through the tenth trimester.

Loretta Lynch would not be the best choice, IMO, given how contentious her nomination for Attorney General was.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 23:44

Hollismason: Jun 30, 2007; An alright dude.

Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

SCOTUSblog saying Loretta Lynch most likely to get nomination.

That's perfect. Think about it. She's already been put through the ringer and been voted for. She's already been "well vetted". Plus, you have the Republicans attacking a minority appointment to the Supreme Court.

I don't like her opinions on civil forfeiture ,but she's a great choice.

She's already went through a 166 day vetting process. What else are they going to say , rehash everything that was went over before for another 10 months.

Hollismason fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Feb 15, 2016

# ? Feb 15, 2016 23:47

Epic High Five: Jun 5, 2004

They've already promised to stonewall LITERALLY ANYBODY he appoints, so why not go for the gold?

I still hope he rams it through in this recess if that's even still a possibility, regardless of who he ends up choosing

# ? Feb 15, 2016 23:49

Syjefroi: Oct 6, 2003; I'll play it first and tell you what it is later.

Maybe it's like Warren with the CFPB. Lynch is just there to get the GOP to pull out all the stops and block her, then a "compromise" candidate gets rolled out and forced through as the Republicans are made to look like babies.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 23:52

Wicked Them Beats: Apr 1, 2007; Moralists don't really *have* beliefs. Sometimes they stumble on one, like on a child's toy left on the carpet. The toy must be put away immediately. And the child reprimanded.

Hollismason posted:

She's already went through a 166 day vetting process. What else are they going to say , rehash everything that was went over before for another 10 months.

Yes.

This is exactly the sort of choice that can make it easier for the Republicans to paint Obama as "politicizing" the Supreme Court. He shouldn't pick anyone who has been intimately involved in his administration. Plus I don't like the idea of another liberal justice who's going to recuse themselves from important cases for the next two years.

I read the SCOTUSblog posting, and his analysis seems to begin and end at Lynch = Black Lady, so I'm not sure it holds a lot of water. Guess we'll find out in a week or two.

Edit: And a recess appointment would be the goddamn stupidest political move of his entire presidency, for anyone still suggesting that.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 23:53

Hollismason: Jun 30, 2007; An alright dude.

I think the point is they look even worse because they've already pulled out all the stops for the Attorney General appointment. Plus, you know they'll be attacking the first African American Woman appointed to the Supreme Court which will infuriate the Democratic Base. She's also a loving great choice.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 23:54

Boon: Jun 21, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Litany Unheard posted:

Yes.

This is exactly the sort of choice that can make it easier for the Republicans to paint Obama as "politicizing" the Supreme Court. He shouldn't pick anyone who has been intimately involved in his administration. Plus I don't like the idea of another liberal justice who's going to recuse themselves from important cases for the next two years.

I read the SCOTUSblog posting, and his analysis seems to begin and end at Lynch = Black Lady, so I'm not sure it holds a lot of water. Guess we'll find out in a week or two.

Edit: And a recess appointment would be the goddamn stupidest political move of his entire presidency, for anyone still suggesting that.

You act like the GOP isn't going to say and do whatever it wants anyway.

To my mind, by choosing Loretta Lynch, someone who has no chance of taking the nomination, he's effectively keeping the other candidates unspoiled. Meanwhile, someone who has survived a long vetting process and confirmed gets to take the brunt of the heat.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 23:57

Mooseontheloose: May 13, 2003

Rand Paul ardent defender of the constitutions thinks Obama picking an Supreme Court Nominee is a conflict of interest. And thus proving to me libertarians are slobbering idiots.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 23:57

Nissin Cup Nudist: Sep 3, 2011; Sleep with one eye open

We're off to Gritty Gritty land

Is Lynch gonna be Kagan 2.0 and have to recuse herself for half of the prospective csses?

# ? Feb 15, 2016 23:58

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

DOOP posted:

Is Lynch gonna be Kagan 2.0 and have to recuse herself for half of the prospective csses?

Remember, Kagan won't have to keep doing that once Obama is out of office.

Boon posted:

You act like the GOP isn't going to say and do whatever it wants anyway.

To my mind, by choosing Loretta Lynch, someone who has no chance of taking the nomination, he's effectively keeping the other candidates unspoiled. Meanwhile, someone who has survived a long vetting process and confirmed gets to take the brunt of the heat.

And at the same time increasing the probability that Republicans do and say stupid things about the nomination. I was actually convinced by the scotus blog article. Not just because she's a black woman, but also as AG and a prosecutor she has all the National Security/Toughness cred that neuter a lot of usual Republican attacks.

# ? Feb 15, 2016 23:59

Wicked Them Beats: Apr 1, 2007; Moralists don't really *have* beliefs. Sometimes they stumble on one, like on a child's toy left on the carpet. The toy must be put away immediately. And the child reprimanded.

DOOP posted:

Is Lynch gonna be Kagan 2.0 and have to recuse herself for half of the prospective csses?

Potentially, depending on how many potential SCOTUS cases she's been involved in prosecuting during her tenure.

Technically she wouldn't have to recuse herself from anything, but it would look bad if she didn't.

# ? Feb 16, 2016 00:01

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

So the Atlantic published this wonderful turd today.

Shithole defending stagnation and nepotism posted:

In Defense of Political Dynasties

Candidates from established political families may have unfair advantages, but an inherited tradition of public service isn�t something Americans should dismiss out of hand.

Ted Niblock
Last year, when it seemed likely that the next general election for president of the United States was going to be between another Clinton and another Bush, there was much handwringing about political dynasties. The Economist observed that America had been subjected to a decades-long �double helix of two dysfunctional political families,� and Time featured George W. Bush and Bill Clinton on the cover with the headline �Game of Thrones.� Of course, the 2016 campaign has not ended up as a boring rematch. Eleven terrifying months after the first candidate declared his intent to run for president, America�s electoral process more and more resembles the tea party�from Alice in Wonderland. A choice between two serious, professional, political leaders with even temperaments and years of training and experience might seem quite welcome.

So why do Americans so fear and dislike political dynasties?

Most American political leaders, of course, are elected without the benefit of family name recognition, but when they are, a worry bubbles to the surface: that birthright instead of merit is the reason they were chosen. In a nation that promises the hardworking an opportunity to succeed, Americans understandably fear triumph based on unearned qualifications. It likely originates with hostility to hereditary monarchy. In their final death rattle, the inbred and incompetent crowns of Europe plunged the world into an inconceivably bloody war and precipitated the rise of both Soviet and National Socialist totalitarianism. But is that really what Americans endorse when they elect a Bush or a Kennedy, a Taft or a Chafee?

Given America�s second and sixth presidents were both named Adams, it�s hard to claim that political families are �un-American.� All over the world, every day, people enter the same industries as their parents, often even the very businesses their relatives own or run. There is no way to know how many of those decisions are based on merit and how many on familial preferences. When the family business is representing the public interest, though, it invites scrutiny and speculation. It�s tempting to assume that the scions of political families are trading on unearned reputations, and possess inferior qualifications.
A candidate from a political dynasty knows firsthand what demands the life will make of them.

Political dynasties, though, may actually produce unusually well-qualified candidates for office. Although their progeny get a boost from a famous name, they are more likely to have chosen the career with eyes wide open, and to have acquired significant skills simply by observation and imitation. A candidate from a political dynasty knows firsthand what demands the life will make of them, and they have witnessed their parent or spouse perform this rather unusual job, even being part of the act. Isn�t it possible that growing up with a seat at the table�watching a parent devoted to public service, campaigning, arguing, and deal making�is just excellent training?

Outside of politics, many celebrities followed their parents or spouses into the public eye. Peyton and Eli Manning, Laila Ali, Dale Earnhardt Jr., Serena Williams, and many other star athletes grew up watching their parents or siblings excel. They learned the skills, discipline, culture, work ethic, expertise, and demeanor needed to perform at that level. Similarly, Luke Russert undoubtedly learned an enormous amount about political broadcast journalism while growing up in Washington, D.C., and watching his father spar with world leaders every Sunday morning. Hollywood is filled with children of famous entertainers who followed in their footsteps to great success, including Oscar winners Angelica Houston, Peter Fonda, Angelina Jolie, Sophia Coppola, and Nicolas Cage.

None of this means dynasties are inherently good, nor that their heirs are worthy. A healthy suspicion of the advantages accompanying privilege is always warranted�and is a very American impulse. Dynasties don�t ensure merit, or even make it more likely, and there are many examples of family names buoying subpar candidates into undeserved positions. That�s as true of some of the younger Kennedys, perhaps, as it is of the actor Charlie Sheen. As William Smith, an early 19th-century U.S. representative from South Carolina, observed: �The sons of great and wise men often proved anything but great and wise.�

But then, obscure origins are not a guarantee of excellence, either�and many mediocre candidates have attempted to woo the public with their humble beginnings.

The American electoral system is an imperfect meritocracy at the best of times. Voters may succeed in identifying traits that disqualify candidates�criminal conduct, off-color public remarks, uneven temperament, being named �Richard Milhous��but it�s far harder to identify objective merit. Although some second- or third-generation public officeholders are less than perfect, a famous name doesn�t necessarily mean an empty head. Many of America�s most notable political families have not degraded with the handing of the torch to the next generation. Not all Americans may like the Pauls, Romneys, Cuomos, Daleys, Rockefellers, Tafts, Harrisons, or, of course, the Frelinghuysens, but many of the members of the younger generations of these families who chose to seek office were or are as effective and successful as their elders.

Because if Americans are going to vote for a famous name, they might weigh whether they�d be better off with someone who already knows how to find the coat closet and coffee machine at the White House�or a candidate who inherited wealth and privilege, but not a tradition of public service.

Bolded the more idiotic parts. Seriously one has only to look to Asia and South America to see how generally political dynasties a detriment to democratic republicanism. I also love how there is barley any real talk of how the heirs can be less competent then their forebears but can succeed because of their forebearers connections.

# ? Feb 16, 2016 00:19

Aves Maria!: Jul 26, 2008; Maybe I'll drown

Amergin posted:

Columbia is still very much Shitsville, SC.

That would make the entire st-ohhhhhh

# ? Feb 16, 2016 01:08

Wicked Them Beats: Apr 1, 2007; Moralists don't really *have* beliefs. Sometimes they stumble on one, like on a child's toy left on the carpet. The toy must be put away immediately. And the child reprimanded.

It's an oddly timed article since the only dynastic candidate currently in the running is Jeb!, and he's polling below the margin of error most of the time.

And a dynasty isn't necessarily a death-knell for a democracy, presuming said dynasty is elected, ya know, democratically.

# ? Feb 16, 2016 01:09

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

Crowsbeak posted:

So the Atlantic published this wonderful turd today.

Bolded the more idiotic parts. Seriously one has only to look to Asia and South America to see how generally political dynasties a detriment to democratic republicanism. I also love how there is barley any real talk of how the heirs can be less competent then their forebears but can succeed because of their forebearers connections.

Our country's already garbage what's the harm

# ? Feb 16, 2016 01:10

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

For those who ask whats the harm. seriously we could do alot loving worse. Just look at the wonders that Dynastic politics have produced in India.

# ? Feb 16, 2016 01:18

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Crowsbeak posted:

For those who ask whats the harm. seriously we could do alot loving worse. Just look at the wonders that Dynastic politics have produced in India.

On the other hand, South Korea hasn't fared too badly.

# ? Feb 16, 2016 01:23

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

computer parts posted:

On the other hand, South Korea hasn't fared too badly.

On the other other hand, North Korea hasn't fared too well.

# ? Feb 16, 2016 01:25

Wicked Them Beats: Apr 1, 2007; Moralists don't really *have* beliefs. Sometimes they stumble on one, like on a child's toy left on the carpet. The toy must be put away immediately. And the child reprimanded.

computer parts posted:

On the other hand, South Korea hasn't fared too badly.

Isn't something like half of South Korea's economy controlled by five or six families?

# ? Feb 16, 2016 01:40

Proust Malone: Apr 4, 2008

Litany Unheard posted:

Isn't something like half of South Korea's economy controlled by five or six families?

There are only five or six Korean last names so it's hard to tell.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Feb 16, 2016 01:53

CannonFodder: Jan 26, 2001; Passion’s Wrench

Lotka Volterra posted:

That would make the entire st-ohhhhhh

Saturday in Columbia SC I saw a horse trailer that had a camel in it. They were stuck in traffic on I-26. This anecdote illuminates nothing.

# ? Feb 16, 2016 02:08

bird food bathtub: Aug 9, 2003; College Slice

Litany Unheard posted:

Isn't something like half of South Korea's economy controlled by five or six families?

Sounds like an improvement over the US. What is it like 40% controlled by the Waltons or something?

# ? Feb 16, 2016 02:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 12:38

Wicked Them Beats: Apr 1, 2007; Moralists don't really *have* beliefs. Sometimes they stumble on one, like on a child's toy left on the carpet. The toy must be put away immediately. And the child reprimanded.

SumYungGui posted:

Sounds like an improvement over the US. What is it like 40% controlled by the Waltons or something?

Hunted down some quick numbers for comparison. Wal-Mart/Sam's Club makes up about 2% of US GDP. Samsung makes up 17% of South Korea's GDP, and accounts for one-fifth of all its exports.

# ? Feb 16, 2016 02:17

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The REAL USPol - February

«‹›154 »

Lotka Volterra posted:

Popular Thug Drink posted:

Adar posted:

Epic High Five posted:

Popular Thug Drink posted:

Radbot posted:

Mr Hootington posted:

Rhesus Pieces posted:

Meg From Family Guy posted:

Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

Hollismason posted:

Litany Unheard posted:

DOOP posted:

Boon posted:

DOOP posted:

Shithole defending stagnation and nepotism posted:

Amergin posted:

Crowsbeak posted:

Crowsbeak posted:

computer parts posted:

computer parts posted:

Litany Unheard posted:

Lotka Volterra posted:

Litany Unheard posted:

SumYungGui posted: