|
Pick posted:Yeah, pretty much. Hillary was "same as before" not in the sense that she represented a continuation of Obama's policies (because that would have been Biden, if anyone). Hillary was "same as before" in that she ran, and lost, and the nation said "no thanks Hillary" and she kept coming back. It doesn't help that she'd been absolutely slandered in a media war for 30 years, whereas Obama came in not carrying that baggage.
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:it seemed like a safe bet if you only talked to upper management of multibillion-dollar companies, who would tend to agree with the idea that four years of the President loving around and accomplishing nothing would be worse than four years of the President deliberately and competently destroying everyone who was not upper management of a multibillion-dollar company This. Even I missed it because I live in an academic liberal bubble and when I walked through my house and heard my racist, dipshit family saying stuff like "gently caress Hillary, that bitch, she's a lying crook just like the rest of them. Trump has nothing to lose because he's already rich also he's gonna put up a wall to keep those loving mexicans out" I just sort of brushed them off because I always brush them off because they're loving stupid. Serves me right.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
fruit on the bottom posted:Lol there's no loving way $20 minimum wage was going to happen. $15 is barely happening in TYOOL 2017 for fucks sake. It's gonna own when they get a federal 15 dollar minimum wage and the republicans win for 30 years straight because it absolutely loving crushes the heartland and the south because they can't afford that poo poo. "What do you mean San Francisco and Birmingham aren't really the same? I thought we're all the same!"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Pick posted:The real shame is that coming down on illegal immigration probably was the right move, but not because there's anything wrong with the immigrants. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.9af4bbb6047f Not that anyone needed to write an article about it. Those of us in the trenches already knew. (the racist idiot trenches)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:being anti-immigrant isnt the same as racism. except for all the times when it is.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Trump is not good at being president.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
SickZip posted:not being good at being president is his most endearing quality The problem isn't even whether someone is good or bad at being president. The problem is that Americans only give a poo poo about the president, and judge all success or failure of the government as a whole as a measure of the president's ability. This means that any time a president makes promises, and fails to deliver them, it causes the people to distrust the government as a whole, and it just keeps going down.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Reform it at the very least because for all the "wahh wahh wee wahh the electoral college protects us good ol' wholesome muricans from the evil clutches of new york and california" in its current state it over-represents the poo poo out of klan country and other, lesser forms of rubes and hayseeds. It also keeps dipshit republicans in blue states, and moron democrats in red states from even bothering to vote because "I'll never get my way abloo bloo bloo"and guess what? There's more republicans here in Chicagoland than there ever were in Wyoming (because there's more people here in general than there ever were there) and most of them don't even fuckin' bother.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
suburban virgin posted:The electoral college doesn't even make the top 10 list of Problems in U.S Politics though. The Presidency could be decided by coin toss between two baby-boomers carefully selected for the greatest mix of stupidity, arrogance, and likelihood to develop Alzheimer's and it still wouldn't be a major issue because the Presidency isn't that important. The fact that the presidency isn't important is an even better reason to do away with it. Every other stupid dipshit serving in the elected positions of the federal government are decided purely by popular vote so who gives a poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
bonerjam posted:I actually don't think we should eliminate it but I don't vote so it makes zero difference to me either way. No poo poo, neither do the other 50% of registered voters. They just sit at home gripping their dicks and crying.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:the fact that no one cares about the electoral college unless their candidate loses by it is how you know it's working as intended I don't like it when my favored candidate wins. What now, bitch?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Of course not I listened to Kendrick Lamar's new album on spotify.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
fruit on the bottom posted:You had to conquer half the world to discover a seasoning other than salt. Your most popular show is about an ancient pedophile who cruises around time and space in a phone booth yelling at things until your FX budget runs out. And for the record, every adaptation of Sherlock Holmes is better when we do it and I'm counting Psych. Wowee that's an awfully poo poo understanding of history and things.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
In much the same way that the New deal/Roosevelt political order that drove the US through to the Carter administration failed and fell apart, Trump might just be the final defender of that Reagan order that replaced it. People were frustrated at the end of the 70s because neither party was offering up anything different or something they thought would benefit them any longer, Reagan changed that. Whoever won this election was going to find themselves quickly becoming unpopular and facing a problem that really transcends what either party can offer given their current wisdom.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:https://medium.com/@valrendel_88615/gently caress-bernie-loving-sanders-fe49195c97cd People are really taking for granted that Hillary would have been able to get anything done. It's clear now that the tea party people, while originally coming out against anything Obama, are actually not interested in negotiating or cooperating with anyone, even a republican president with a republican dominated congress. The GOP couldn't even make sure that one of the candidates they wanted to win could actually do it. This is because they can no longer predict voter behavior. Same thing with the democrats, who had to basically cheat to make sure the establishment candidate got it. It's not a failure in polling necessarily, it's a failure for the parties themselves to factor in the actual concerns of the voters outside of their established party-thought and framework. This is because the political wisdom that has driven them for the last 37 years doesn't hold up anymore. The political order is failing because it no longer serves the interest of voters. Both parties are going to have to evolve to adapt to this. A good comparison of this kind of failure of institutional wisdom that is unrelated is what intelligence communities thought about terrorism during and at the end of the Cold War. They all thought that terrorism for the most part was an offshoot of the cold war itself and once all these proxy conflicts ended and the USSR threw in the towel it would all simmer down. Nope! Turns out they were wrong, and the subsequent cutting of funding and little contests they had with each other for ten years over who could keep the most secrets from one another so they could get budget bumps led to the greatest terrorist attack in history occurring on our very soil. Good job, fellas. NomChompsky fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
I think there's two kinds of partisanship that are really causing problems, but they have to be looked at separately. The first is partisanship within the government, which is mostly a result of gerrymandering. Why should we bother working together when we're all getting paid mad bank by special interests already and there's no goddamn way most of us are going to lose our seats? The other kind of partisanship is the kind that is taking place in the public dialogue, and I think that has more to do with the political landscape, and the priorities of the traditional "left and right" shifting drastically, but with no real political force to accommodate it. So it just ends up with people screaming at one another on the internet and elsewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
poisonpill posted:Oh wait, did Hillary ever actually even say she'd help coal miners and millennials? She did say that Trump's economics were "trickle down ON STEROIDS!!!" which is fine and good if you're a person who understands what that means, or how that economic system hurts the middle class, or anything really about economics at all. But most people really only respond to "I will help you because you are suffering" at best and at worst "THE JOB CREATORS LOVE YOU AND SOMEDAY YOU MIGHT ASCEND TO BE ONE YOURSELF, TEE HEE" Unfortunately, Trump said the latter two things at the same time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
However, Hillary did have hot sauce in her purse, which really appealed to the urban vot--hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Just don't forget how much more they can take away: Yeah but who needs that poo poo anyway. Back in my day... The Landstander posted:Yeah I think this is exactly right. Stephen Skowroneks' "Presidents in Political Time" gives a framework for how this works, and Trump is a classic disjunctive president. An outsider to the system, running to uphold the values of a vision of America which doesn't actually make sense anymore, immediately facing internal divisions from his own party, it's all there. I actually was channeling Skowronek there but didn't wanna name drop him because I've found that gets some goons all huffy and I get accused of snobbery. But yeah, Trump might be a disjunctive president. If he's an articulator, I don't know what the gently caress that even says about the Reagan order. That it's indestructible? That it's already been destroyed but is now a phantom? poo poo. I don't really know what the new political order is going to look like. There's every bit a chance that the new "left" portion of it is more economically in line with Sanders types, and the right wing becoming a nationalist force that champions protectionism and isolationism. The GOP is still trying to be hawkish while their supporters either think "Let's either kill everyone 'over there' or just gently caress off and let them kill each other, why are you gonna RAISE MY TAXES to help some blah blah blah blah" you get the point. Whereas the left is becoming weirdly interventionist in the sense that some of them are starting to think we can actually help people somehow, and ourselves at the same time! The gently caress? Also good on you for reading Good Books. If you ever wanna talk about Good Books let's do that poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Pick posted:Nativist v. corporatist puts you in a bad loving position because both of those suck unbelievable rear end. I don't think it is going to be as clear cut as that though. You can't form a party platform or adapt an old party ideology around those two things by themselves let alone separately. I think it's much more likely we end up with a right that wants to secede from the world while domestically pursuing quasi nativist policies complete with abandoning free trade for protectionism and a left that is domestically social democratic with an extremely hawkish international interventionism.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Which one of these will be the dominant political order is dependent on which successfully replaces the Reagan order. Which just might end with Trump.
NomChompsky fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Fushigi Yuugi fansub posted:since the definition of the political right seems to be isolationist/nationalist nowadays, and the definition of the left is cosmopolitan/globalist, does it, then, follow that a capital globalist, who opposes any and all restrictions on the movement of capital and people (i.e. workforce), is in fact a leftist? Maybe. I think it would depend on how the political order ends up aligning itself and who comes out on top not just in that they win elections but in that they can set strong, transformative policy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
Homestar Runner posted:but but i was reliably informed by D&D that haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 01:35
|
|