2016 Fall Off Topic Thread AKA Football or Politics

[Jesse]

I voted for Johnson. I have fundamental issues with Bernie's embracing of a Trojan Magnum size government and his Robin Hood economics. Sorry. He also caved completely to Hillary and the DNC. Sad.

 

Speaking in broader terms, part of the problem is the two party mess and the fact that people on both sides don't like hearing the widely accepted truths about their faults. Trump represents such a wasted opportunity, as a largely self-funded outsider with a fiery disposition who could lay out the faults of both parties and actually call things as they see it. Not kowtowing to the party-lines but making them kowtow to you. A more decisive version of Ross Perot. Someone who can take control over the tired narratives and reapply some of these common "cynical" truths. The problem with Trump is that he's a childish and undisciplined nob with too low of an IQ and no real vision or principles to guide him beyond his own narcissism. Too bad, because I fear a doubling down on the milquetoast corruption angle of the recent past is in order now and the duopoly establishment will manage to reseize momentum here shortly as Trump self-destructs.

Wow. I agree with a lot of the last paragraph. This is the more intellectual Justin I like to hear from!

 

I don't know if the establishment will take control again or not after this. The bad establishment taste in their mouths is something most Americans will likely not soon forget. Although shortly Trump maybe be replacing this as the more recent of the bad tastes. I also agree that he is currently in a very good position to shake things up for the better, but will likely squander it due in part to how myopic the staggering extent of his egomania actually makes him in many ways.

 

Seeing the rise of a strong third party would be quite heartening. It would take a large constituency of people having the cahones to put partisan politics behind them and stop worrying about what will make the other side look bad or what will best line their wallets, but what is legitimately best for this country. Not gonna hold my breath but there is a small spark of hope in me that Trump will prove spectacular enough of a failure to leave behind a sufficient vacuum of power for such a thing to take place. Playing with fire!

[Phil]

Exactly. And why Republicans will ultimately impeach Trump.

Dude, it's not going to happen. Zero chance.

[Jesse]

Dude, it's not going to happen. Zero chance.

Speaking in absolutes is always a bad idea.

[Guest happ]

Phil, on 27 Feb 2017 - 10:45 AM, said:

It's connected to many religions. It's also connected to popular culture and American lifestyle. So what? How does having it in the pledge negatively impact people's lives? Does it hurt atheists' feelings or something?

 

I don't think you understand what the separation of church and state actually refers to. Hence the Supreme Court decision.

 

Do you believe in ghosts?

[Jesse]

Words cut like a knife.

Come on Matt, tell us what you really think. Dancing around the peripheries of discussion like court Jester doesn't do much.

[Phil]

Speaking in absolutes is always a bad idea.

True, I'll rephrase. It's very, very unlikely to happen.

[Jesse]

True, I'll rephrase. It's very, very unlikely to happen.

You missed the inner joke in that but yeah, probably a good idea.

[Phil]

Do you believe in ghosts?

What?

[Phil]

You missed the inner joke in that but yeah, probably a good idea.

I'm having a slow day, I guess.

[Guest happ]

Phil, on 27 Feb 2017 - 10:55 AM, said:

What?

 

Is it even important if a citizen believes in God?

[Jesse]

What?

If they mention God in the pledge they should probably also mention various spirits. Pandora's box.

 

Or just leave religion out of it entirely. The second one seems easier.

[Phil]

Is it even important if a citizen believes in God?

It shouldn't matter either way. If needs be, put it on the ballot and be done with it.

[Guest Sounder]

Who can you think of that is? Anyone? To me, Sanders seemed like the best candidate, but I know you also seemed to take great sport in bashing him as well.

 

It is really easy to put on the cynic cap, sit back and make fun of everything and mock everyone's attempts at solving problems. Actually taking steps to solve them is much harder.

What is it about Sanders that makes you think he would be effective at enacting real change? With his impressive resume of 3 sponsored bills passed during his tenure as Senator, was one post office renaming in particular more inspiring for you?

[Phil]

If they mention God in the pledge they should probably also mention various spirits. Pandora's box.

 

Or just leave religion out of it entirely. The second one seems easier.

Many people interpret "god" differently. People have their personal god, their religious god, their moral god, their conceptual god, etc.

 

While I personally don't believe in a humanistic "god", one wearing white robes, inflicting catastrophes on Earth, etc, the paradox of time and the incredible synchronicity through which the laws of physics operate leads me to believe in some sort of hidden meaning or purpose to everything. What that is, I have absolutely no idea.

[BLI snowman]

Wow. I agree with a lot of the last paragraph. This is the more intellectual Justin I like to hear from!

 

I don't know if the establishment will take control again or not after this. The bad establishment taste in their mouths is something most Americans will likely not soon forget. Although shortly Trump maybe be replacing this as the more recent of the bad tastes. I also agree that he is currently in a very good position to shake things up for the better, but will likely squander it due in part to how myopic the staggering extent of his egomania actually makes him in many ways.

 

Seeing the rise of a strong third party would be quite heartening. It would take a large constituency of people having the cahones to put partisan politics behind them and stop worrying about what will make the other side look bad or what will best line their wallets, but what is legitimately best for this country. Not gonna hold my breath but there is a small spark of hope in me that Trump will prove spectacular enough of a failure to leave behind a sufficient vacuum of power for such a thing to take place. Playing with fire!

 

I think Trump's presumptive failure would spell doom for a genuine reverberation in the political structuring in the short term. The people at the top can pretty easily scapegoat his failure as emblematic of the "outside" approach and largely re-appropriate the accepted conventions of the recent past. Normalcy shall return, since sans the recent election result, neither major party is in a position otherwise to shake things up in any overarching fashion. And short of a major event (armed civil conflict/ revolution), it would probably take several election cycles to get back to a point where third party populism can even get another genuine shot in the arm. 

 

And unfortunately it often takes those major, usually violent events to bring about any genuine restructuring through human history. We're contradictory creatures by our nature and as a whole like to bemoan the political conventions of a time while simultaneously elevating and almost romanticizing them. Many people speak of wanting someone to "shake things up" but either can't speak to how or simply take offense at the first hint of someone daring to criticize the more conventional aspects of things. I think the last year has shown that it's quite likely going to take some genuinely ugly and violent civil unrest to get to a point where anything dramatic happens at the top. Maybe that's just the cynic in me talking though. 

[Deweydog]

Come on Matt, tell us what you really think. Dancing around the peripheries of discussion like court Jester doesn't do much.

Well first of all I don't think you're a moron. I realize this diminishes our new found focus on productivity but I feel how I feel.

 

What would you like to know?

[Guest happ]

BLI snowman, on 27 Feb 2017 - 11:12 AM, said:BLI snowman, on 27 Feb 2017 - 11:12 AM, said:

I think Trump's presumptive failure would spell doom for a genuine reverberation in the political structuring in the short term. The people at the top can pretty easily scapegoat his failure as emblematic of the "outside" approach and largely re-appropriate the accepted conventions of the recent past. Normalcy shall return, since sans the recent election result, neither major party is in a position otherwise to shake things up in any overarching fashion. And short of a major event (armed civil conflict/ revolution), it would probably take several election cycles to get back to a point where third party populism can even get another genuine shot in the arm. 

 

And unfortunately it often takes those major, usually violent events to bring about any genuine restructuring through human history. We're contradictory creatures by our nature and as a whole like to bemoan the political conventions of a time while simultaneously elevating and almost romanticizing them. Many people speak of wanting someone to "shake things up" but either can't speak to how or simply take offense at the first hint of someone daring to criticize the more conventional aspects of things. I think the last year has shown that it's quite likely going to take some genuinely ugly and violent civil unrest to get to a point where anything dramatic happens at the top. Maybe that's just the cynic in me talking though. 

 

My hope is that town halls adequately communicate citizen unrest/ feedback and admire Republicans willing to accept difficult encounters.

[Jesse]

Well first of all I don't think you're a moron. I realize this diminishes our new found focus on productivity but I feel how I feel.

 

What would you like to know?

What are your views on the inclusion of "Under God" in the pledge?

[Jesse]

What is it about Sanders that makes you think he would be effective at enacting real change? With his impressive resume of 3 sponsored bills passed during his tenure as Senator, was one post office renaming in particular more inspiring for you?

This line of questioning feels pretty loaded. Sanders was definitely more effective at inspiring true progressives to vote than Clinton. We might have seen a pretty solid liberal wave in congress had he been on the ticket.

[Deweydog]

What are your views on the inclusion of "Under God" in the pledge?

I don't think it's a big deal. If someone doesn't want to say it they don't have to.

[Guest Sounder]

This line of questioning feels pretty loaded. Sanders was definitely more effective at inspiring true progressives to vote than Clinton. We might have seen a pretty solid liberal wave in congress had he been on the ticket.

Effective at inspiring those who meet his purity tests and alienating everyone else, you mean. Trump would have won even bigger in the general against Sanders. Wouldn't have even been close.

[Jesse]

Effective at inspiring those who meet his purity tests and alienating everyone else, you mean. Trump would have won even bigger in the general against Sanders. Wouldn't have even been close.

Most polls had Sanders beating Trump more easily than Clinton, actually. The electorate was in a pretty anti-establishment mood this go around.

 

Clearly you really dislike the guy, so I'm not sure I'm going to be able to change your mind. Maybe we should just agree to disagree.

[Jesse]

I don't think it's a big deal. If someone doesn't want to say it they don't have to.

I just see no real argument as to why it should even be in there. It seems hypocritical to what we stand for. We got along just fine without it pre-Cold War.

[Phil]

Most polls had Sanders beating Trump more easily than Clinton, actually.

 

Clearly you really dislike the guy, so I'm not sure I'm going to be able to change your mind. Maybe we should just agree to disagree.

At the very least, Bernie would have won Michigan and Wisconsin. He won Michigan in a similar "upset" during the primary because he was able to tap into that same grassroots level anger and dissatisfaction that Trump was later able to take advantage of.

 

The fact that both of those states flipped red on a dime, for the first time in 30+ years, really says something IMO.

[Guest Sounder]

Most polls had Sanders beating Trump more easily than Clinton, actually. The electorate was in a pretty anti-establishment mood this go around.

 

Clearly you really dislike the guy, so I'm not sure I'm going to be able to change your mind. Maybe we should just agree to disagree.

Oh great, this line of bullshit logic again.

 

Hillary had faced the weight of Republican smear campaigns for decades, it was baked into her numbers against Trump already for the most part. Bernie hadn't. You still think his numbers against Trump would have help up after months of 24/7 smear ads reading bits of ol' Bernard's rape fantasy essays?

 

Bernie Sanders' bullshit, holier than though, zero compromise wing of white male dominated brogressivism is exactly why we have Trump in office right now. It wasn't Hillary's fault that Bernie and is supporters are petulant children who wanted to ruin the game for everyone else and take their ball with them when mommy told them they had to go home.

[Jesse]

Oh great, this line of bullshit logic again.

 

Hillary had faced the weight of Republican smear campaigns for decades, it was baked into her numbers against Trump already for the most part. Bernie hadn't. You still think his numbers against Trump would have help up after months of 24/7 smear ads reading bits of ol' Bernard's rape fantasy essays?

 

Bernie Sanders' bullshit, holier than though, zero compromise wing of white male dominated brogressivism is exactly why we have Trump in office right now. It wasn't Hillary's fault that Bernie and is supporters are petulant children who wanted to ruin the game for everyone else and take their ball with them when mommy told them they had to go home.

Great points!

[Guest Sounder]

Great points!

[Jesse]

 

 

Great points!

http://patriotsandpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Bernie-sanders-rape-essay-780x434.jpg

Simply awful. You just 100% changed my mind on Sanders and everything he stands for. I'll have you know I will not be voting for him in 2016 now. Well done.

[Phil]

Oh great, this line of bullshit logic again.

 

Hillary had faced the weight of Republican smear campaigns for decades, it was baked into her numbers against Trump already for the most part. Bernie hadn't. You still think his numbers against Trump would have help up after months of 24/7 smear ads reading bits of ol' Bernard's rape fantasy essays?

 

Bernie Sanders' bullshit, holier than though, zero compromise wing of white male dominated brogressivism is exactly why we have Trump in office right now. It wasn't Hillary's fault that Bernie and is supporters are petulant children who wanted to ruin the game for everyone else and take their ball with them when mommy told them they had to go home.

This is flawed logic.

 

Clinton outspent Trump across the spectrum, including on TV and on the ground, the media was vehemently anti-Trump, he spewed blatantly racist/sexist rhetoric, and she still lost.

 

Being the "outsider" is always a plus nowadays. Bernie, in similar fashion to Trump, was also a relative outsider. He would have also "shaken things up", so to speak, only he legitimately cares about the working man, while Trump just pretends to.

 

Even if his policies were naive in some respects, Bernie is a genuine guy. Hillary is the opposite of genuine.

[Phil]

Nothingburger?

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-russia-connection-devin-nunes-response-235439

[Jesse]

Nothingburger?

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-russia-connection-devin-nunes-response-235439

Definitely. I bet you a million dollars this is the last we hear of it. Everything that is there has been looked at and nothing new will come to light at any point over the next four years. Deal?

[Phil]

Definitely. I bet you a million dollars this is the last we hear of it. Everything that is there has been looked at and nothing new will come to light at any point over the next four years. Deal?

Regarding the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory? Yeah I highly doubt there's anything there. The optics just aren't right. I said the same thing about Hillary's email stuff, and was lambasted from folks on the right for it.

 

I've been wrong before, but having lived in the political "swamp" my entire life, I think I've developed somewhat of a nose for these things.

[Jesse]

Regarding the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory? Yeah I highly doubt there's anything there. The optics just aren't right. I said the same thing about Hillary's email stuff, and was lambasted from folks on the right for it.

 

I've been wrong before, but having lived in the political "swamp" my entire life, I think I've developed somewhat of a nose for these things.

Cool. Screen shot complete!

[Front Ranger]

Simply awful. You just 100% changed my mind on Sanders and everything he stands for. I'll have you know I will not be voting for him in 2016 now. Well done.

If what Trump has said is fair game (it is), the same applies to everyone else.

[Jesse]

If what Trump has said is fair game (it is), the same applies to everyone else.

This is a great retort to that one part of my post where I said it didn't!

[Front Ranger]

Effective at inspiring those who meet his purity tests and alienating everyone else, you mean. Trump would have won even bigger in the general against Sanders. Wouldn't have even been close.

I think it would have been very close. Many independents like myself would have voted for Bernie. And he still would have had the support of the "anyone but Trump" crowd, which was honestly the strongest support Hillary had.

[Guest Sounder]

I think it would have been very close. Many independents like myself would have voted for Bernie. And he still would have had the support of the "anyone but Trump" crowd, which was honestly the strongest support Hillary had.

Then clearly you hold no actual ideological convictions and instead choose to vote based on cults of personality and anti-establishment circle jerks.

[Front Ranger]

Personally, I don't see the need for "under God" in the pledge. But saying we might as well include Wiccan or ghosts or whatever references is kind of silly. This country has a massively influential Christian history, regardless of how one feels about that. That doesn't mean it should be a favored religion in government or anything like that, but it helps to explain and understand why the fingerprints of clearly Christian ideals are all over our nation's history.

[Front Ranger]

Then clearly you hold no actual ideological convictions and instead choose to vote based on cults of personality and anti-establishment circle jerks.

I vote based on who I feel is the best candidate available.

[Front Ranger]

This is a great retort to that one part of my post where I said it didn't!

You didn't address the actual quote by Sanders.

 

Personally, I give him a pass as he was probably very high when he said it.