We can agree to disagree. I loathe Trump. I more than loathe Trump and the massively ugly tide of ignorance and filth in American culture and the American population that he stands as the figurehead of.
However, he's so fucking transparent and self promoting and bad at pretense it's a joke. He's a carnival barker with an inheritance. He thinks he's shrewd but he isn't.
Clinton is something else. She's a practiced liar and a manipulative narcissist. No fucking thank you. Not with a twenty foot pole.
I don't think Congress would let Trump do anything. He would unite the Congress against him like no one has since Andrew Johnson.
Really? Even if the Tea Party didn't support many of the positions he holds and were totally against him, they would probably still support him because he's liable to blow up and take the whole U.S. government down with him, and that's exactly what they want anyway.
I don't think Congress would let Trump do anything. He would unite the Congress against him like no one has since Andrew Johnson.
Really? Even if the Tea Party didn't support many of the positions he holds and were totally against him, they would probably still support him because he's liable to blow up and take the whole U.S. government down with him, and that's exactly what they want anyway.
There's no money behind him. The Kochs, Crossroads for America, all that money is anti-Trump. The only way Trump could get Congress to support him is if he was as much of an economic powerhouse as the entire GOP establishment. He has enough money to run his own campaign, but he can't fund enough of the rest of the party to get traction in the Legislative branch.
I don't think Congress would let Trump do anything. He would unite the Congress against him like no one has since Andrew Johnson.
Really? Even if the Tea Party didn't support many of the positions he holds and were totally against him, they would probably still support him because he's liable to blow up and take the whole U.S. government down with him, and that's exactly what they want anyway.
There's no money behind him. The Kochs, Crossroads for America, all that money is anti-Trump. The only way Trump could get Congress to support him is if he was as much of an economic powerhouse as the entire GOP establishment. He has enough money to run his own campaign, but he can't fund enough of the rest of the party to get traction in the Legislative branch.
How anti-Trump do you think they really are?
Sure, the establishment would prefer to have a different candidate right now, but if he were to become president do you really think that the Kochs and Crossroads would continue to fight him? After all, he basically supports many of the positions that the Kochs support; will they resist him purely out of spite?
Besides, the issue isn't so much what the Congress would or would not allow Trump to do, and more that Trump wouldn't not let Congress (or rather, the far-right faction that dominates the Republican part of it) do exactly what they wanted.
Besides, the issue isn't so much what the Congress would or would not allow Trump to do, and more that Trump wouldn't not let Congress (or rather, the far-right faction that dominates the Republican part of it) do exactly what they wanted.
This.
Also Muppet you can feel free to live your delusions. You can't tell the difference between trying to get elected and governing. Hillary Clinton has done nothing crazy when actually working as a politician, you can blame her for saying crap to get elected but you gotta get elected before you can actually do anything. You can blame her for making some crappy votes but she'll admit she was wrong.
Even if she's leaning one way or the other just for the election she's no where near any of the republicans or being a dangerous person. All that she's every established is she is career focused and driven. I don't think anyone ever said when she was Sec of State that she was just coasting or when she was senator. She also raised the profile of the office of the first lady. Moving policy and getting involved.
I'm dying of the US healthcare "system" so forgive me if I haven't got the patience you've got for plodding progress and greased palms. It's Sanders or nobody for me. There's plenty who feel similarly. If Hillary gets the DNC nomination, get ready for president Trump because Bernie's support will never become Hillary's.
Unless anyone's got something FiveThirtyEight doesn't, I'll take Nate Silver's word for it. Everything else is somebody talking out of their ass, yes? I recall recently reading you might as well flip a coin right now, we're so far out.
Hillary tried to fix that back when Bill was president. The GOP and the southern Democracts fucked her over, and has hated her ever since for not playing by the old boy rules.
She fought for this, and it ruined her political career for a decade. It certainly wasn't the complete solution, but in 1993 it would have been one fuck of a step forward.
Status quo is bad enough for a large enough portion of the population that the choice is academic. Then there's climate change, which Clinton will ignore.
Ultimately with our rigged Congressional elections, it's more than half moot anyway.
She fought for this, and it ruined her political career for a decade. It certainly wasn't the complete solution, but in 1993 it would have been one fuck of a step forward.
Not a complete solution is an understatement. It would have been an early ACA, which for all of the sweet bullet points that keep getting flogged, is a failure in the way most liberal detractors said it would be. You can argue that it's the best we could do because of an intransigent Congress but considering the only workable holdout was Lieberman it felt more like theater than a heroic effort. Especially to those who still can't afford to take their medications even with insurance, and we're not talking exotic stuff.
Maybe Bernie can't fix it. One thing I know is that he'll be a better proponent for it than Hillary.
And.that's one facet. I'd write a thesis if I thought anybody here gave a shit. Hillary is untrustworthy. I'd rather it all go to hell than another 8 years of pretending we're addressing things. We've got arctic researchers sobbing in conferences because they think our planet may not remain inhabitable through our lifetimes. No more lukewarm bullshit thanks.
On Climate Change that's complete bullshit. While Obama has supported a bunch of drilling efforts and supply policy (pretty much trying to placate a lot of the US that relies on natural resource extraction for their livelyhood. ) He's also pushed and largely succeeded in getting pretty strict emission laws. And in most cases while he initially comes out on the pipeline and such he later finds a reason to crush it. He approved Arctic Drilling and the companies actually pulled out because it wasn't cost effective. Hillary Clinton acknowledges the science behind climate change and reacts to it. Hillary Clinton pretty much has the same policies as Obama does, where he gets as much as he can done with executive action. Which is pretty much how you have to deal with the nihilistic congress. That's going to be the same weather Hillary or Sanders is in office.
Apparently, you'd rather have someone who's actively against the changes you want than someone who's at least vocally in support with questionable follow through. Can't you see how there's a problem with that line of thinking?
Apparently, you'd rather have someone who's actively against the changes you want than someone who's at least vocally in support with questionable follow through. Can't you see how there's a problem with that line of thinking?
He subscribes to an odd subsection of Marxism that believes we must cut the fiscal safety net for the poor in order to create unrest and therefor revolution.
Are thosr supposed to be Rolling Stones logo urinals? That would be weirdly cool.
I know the story behind these - they're custom-designed by Meike van Schijndel in 2002, and while they're not meant to be the Rolling stones logo, they are reportedly inspired by them. Since then, they've spread all over the world - Being sold by the firm she designed them for, BathroomMania - along with the usual assortment of knockoffs and such. They're called the "Kisses" urinal.
That image is fake. The wall is of the Belushi Sports Bar, but there was never a painting of trump there, it's shopped. The PR manager for the bar has confirmed to me(Geez, I love work) that the image isn't really there.
Apparently, you'd rather have someone who's actively against the changes you want than someone who's at least vocally in support with questionable follow through. Can't you see how there's a problem with that line of thinking?
He subscribes to an odd subsection of Marxism that believes we must cut the fiscal safety net for the poor in order to create unrest and therefor revolution.
We haven't got a safety net. We've got the pretense of a safety net. Poor? I'm well above the median income for my area and one missed paycheck from foreclosure most of the time. We get enough of a tax refund to enjoy a few things with our kids but that's not stable middle class existence.
My argument isn't make everybody suffer until they care. There's plenty of suffering and no one cares. My argument is let's stop with this opiate of the masses shit where people are lulled by good lip service in the way that Venture apparently is.
Hillary is a lip service specialist. So is Trump but at least in his case it's obvious.
Our constitution forbids his Holocaust II style plans, so he won't get far unless people lie down and let him.
It's funny Greg because I was arguing with a self proclaimed revolutionary a couple of hours ago and enumerating for him all the ways in which his angry bluster was a great plan for suicide by cop if be were the least bit serious. Fortunately it was all just chest beating.
Marxist? Maybe. Revolutionary? I think it's impossible.
We haven't got a safety net. We've got the pretense of a safety net. Poor? I'm well above the median income for my area and one missed paycheck from foreclosure most of the time.
You realize that this "pretense of a safety net" keeps millions fed and sheltered, yes? That the services that you consider negligible was earned through the blood sweat and tears of our comrades like Eugene Debs and Joe Hill? That would have been called radical socialism by tyrants like Louis XIV and Nicholas II? That many regimes in the modern world would feel the same way?
Jeff Rosenstock just deleted a magnificent tweet "Cab driver just told me 'well, at least Donald Trump can't be bought by the proletariat'". Sadly, he's not famous enough for this to have been screencap'd in the 30 seconds it was up.
Comments
However, he's so fucking transparent and self promoting and bad at pretense it's a joke. He's a carnival barker with an inheritance. He thinks he's shrewd but he isn't.
Clinton is something else. She's a practiced liar and a manipulative narcissist. No fucking thank you. Not with a twenty foot pole.
Sure, the establishment would prefer to have a different candidate right now, but if he were to become president do you really think that the Kochs and Crossroads would continue to fight him? After all, he basically supports many of the positions that the Kochs support; will they resist him purely out of spite?
Besides, the issue isn't so much what the Congress would or would not allow Trump to do, and more that Trump wouldn't not let Congress (or rather, the far-right faction that dominates the Republican part of it) do exactly what they wanted.
Also Muppet you can feel free to live your delusions. You can't tell the difference between trying to get elected and governing. Hillary Clinton has done nothing crazy when actually working as a politician, you can blame her for saying crap to get elected but you gotta get elected before you can actually do anything. You can blame her for making some crappy votes but she'll admit she was wrong.
Even if she's leaning one way or the other just for the election she's no where near any of the republicans or being a dangerous person. All that she's every established is she is career focused and driven. I don't think anyone ever said when she was Sec of State that she was just coasting or when she was senator. She also raised the profile of the office of the first lady. Moving policy and getting involved.
She fought for this, and it ruined her political career for a decade. It certainly wasn't the complete solution, but in 1993 it would have been one fuck of a step forward.
The worst case scenario with Clinton is the status quo.
Ultimately with our rigged Congressional elections, it's more than half moot anyway.
Maybe Bernie can't fix it. One thing I know is that he'll be a better proponent for it than Hillary.
And.that's one facet. I'd write a thesis if I thought anybody here gave a shit. Hillary is untrustworthy. I'd rather it all go to hell than another 8 years of pretending we're addressing things. We've got arctic researchers sobbing in conferences because they think our planet may not remain inhabitable through our lifetimes. No more lukewarm bullshit thanks.
That image is fake. The wall is of the Belushi Sports Bar, but there was never a painting of trump there, it's shopped. The PR manager for the bar has confirmed to me(Geez, I love work) that the image isn't really there.
My argument isn't make everybody suffer until they care. There's plenty of suffering and no one cares. My argument is let's stop with this opiate of the masses shit where people are lulled by good lip service in the way that Venture apparently is.
Hillary is a lip service specialist. So is Trump but at least in his case it's obvious.
Our constitution forbids his Holocaust II style plans, so he won't get far unless people lie down and let him.
Marxist? Maybe. Revolutionary? I think it's impossible.
We have bits and pieces of a barely adequate safety net. Better?