1. Hey Guest,

    Are you handy with Photoshop? Do you feel the DLP Anakin logo is tired and old? Do you want to win a special as of yet undetermined prize? Join the DLP Banner Photoshop Competition! Fame, fortune, and the respect of your peers await those that enter. Sadness, despair, and a deep self-loathing await those that do not.

    Enter the competition.
    Dismiss Notice

The Trumperium 2: Caesar by the Pussy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jon, Jun 15, 2017.

  1. Invictus

    Invictus Heir

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,718
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    Clinton wasn't condemned after half a decade of multiple investigations and hundreds of millions dollars spent. So allegations in here case were proven to be false, so you're just being an hypocrite for calling her corrupt when Sanders' wife case hasn't even finished and apparently it's all smear campaign. Also, Sanders lost, in the Democratic primary, by at least a million votes. In the Dem primary, meahwile multiple moderate Democrat governors won in states Trump won, while Sanders liberal candidates almost all to a man flopped hard.

    Sanders isn't a centrist, in case you don't know, not even the UK and Germany have completely free Universities and Healthcare, like what Sanders proposed. No country in the world has someone centrist proposing US$30t dollars in extra spending in 10 years in social spending.

    'IT POLLS WELL' Congrats, guess what polled well? Clinton, she polled very well. Meanwhile, how many important politicians in the US were elected under a socialist plataform? California itself reject universal healthcare.

    So your speech is nice and all, but it just doesn't hold up to the facts. Man, people like you just can't understand why you lost the primary and still use the same arguments eh?
     
  2. Oment

    Oment The Betrayer

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,616
    Oi, did we end up in the past again? This topic has been discussed to utter death over the past year. It's old, boring, and a complete rehash of what was said before. It accomplishes nothing that an afternoon of reading past posts wouldn't do.

    Anyway, since y'all are on this trip down nostalgia lane, have some old-but-new news on Trump's tax returns (a resolution was rejected in committee); some factually highly suspect (if not outright wrong) voter fraud claims; some bipartisan yammering about gerrymandering that will not lead to anything; some mumbling about shutting down the government (from the other side, this time; and who can forget calls for sanctions against a nuclear state.
     
  3. Solfege

    Solfege High Inquisitor DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    520
    Location:
    East Coast & the South
    To piggyback on this point, modeling on the Bismarck system in Germany would realistically seem most appropriate for the US. A universal mandate upon a mixed private-public partnership; the US is halfway there already. As a friend who took comparative public policy told me, the common refrain is "Bismarck beats Beveridge." Multi-payer beats single-payer.

    But you would never know a mixed system could be possible from listening to American policy debates. How typically black-and-white: it's either entirely privatized (with socialized externalities in the form of Medicare/aid) or single-payer.
     
  4. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    682
    High Score:
    1,802
    Looks like someone's easily triggered and/or looking for a fight, and twisting everything they read into an attack.

    If you actually read my post in context instead of going at it like a salty Bernie Bro looking for something to be offended by so you can launch into some good old insane ranting, you'll see that I wasn't saying anything remotely like what you seem to be crusading against.
     
  5. Sauce Bauss

    Sauce Bauss Order Member DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    890
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    Because Donald J. Trump is now President of the United States, and is doing damage that will take generations to undo, if it is undone at all.
     
  6. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    188
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    Why should they have voted for Clinton?

    Because they didn't and gave us Trump. Bastards. Don't try to pull any of this bullshit 'they were both just as bad' crap, either. It's objectively false; would HRC have damaged our diplomatic status, or crusaded against LGBT people in the military, or would her cabinet appointees have been so demonstrably terrible for the Departments of State, Justice, Homeland, Energy, Education, HUD, Interior, OMB?

    No.

    You can try to spin it and say it's a period of storm and strife but you'll take back Congress! all you want, but a) fuck you, b) don't count your chickens before they hatch, and c) you wouldn't shoot your dog in the head to save your cat, so don't try to claim this is worth it.
     
  7. Agayek

    Agayek Dark Lord

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,984
    To be fair, in my view at least, Trump's election was/is somewhat of a necessary shock to the public consciousness to get Congress and its many issues fixed. It's hard to say for sure if it will do so, but I have strong doubts that anything less would manage it, so while it's not good, obviously, I do think that the short-term chaos and long-term damage Trump's causing are ultimately net positives, even if the next decade or so is completely fucked.
     
  8. Oment

    Oment The Betrayer

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,616
    If only this decade wasn't a fairly crucial one in trying to keep that whole climate change thing from fucking humans over.
     
  9. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    682
    High Score:
    1,802
    I'd feel more confident if the same sort of thing hadn't been said about Bush's election 16 years ago.
     
  10. Agayek

    Agayek Dark Lord

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,984
    I wasn't terribly politically active back then, what with being 12, so I can't speak authoritatively, but I'm reasonably confident the situation is substantially different now. For one, Bush Jr wasn't an avowed outsider pretty much explicitly elected to spit in the face of the existing establishment. Similarly, we also didn't have the Tea Party semi-regularly threatening to collapse the entire global economy, and both parties so ludicrously polarized that they each need a supermajority (and in the Republicans case, even more than that) to actually get anything meaningful done.

    Now, it's certainly possible that nothing changes and we keep grinding along as the system slowly disintegrates. That's always an option, and these kinds of predictions are always imprecise, so that is a very real possibility. That said, there's decent odds, and I can't see anything less severe actually managing to sort out Congress' shit.
     
  11. ASmallBundleOfToothpicks

    ASmallBundleOfToothpicks Professor

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2010
    Messages:
    435
    Location:
    Tir-Na-Nogth
    18 months into the investigations, people were a lot less clear on Hillary's lack of guilt on those charges. Give it time. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, right?

    Err... Sanders has supported tuition free public colleges, not free college across the board. Also, your point about German Univeristies is a bit misleading, considering that most fees associated with Public colleges are administrative/student union fees that total around 350 euros for German citizens, as I understand it. But it's accurate to say that the UK's system would put more burden on the students than Sanders proposals.

    Also your pricing is incorrect. The high estimate is ~$75 billion per year. New York just passed a similar bill, and Cuomo is quite happy with it.

    Yeah. It got vetoed by the governor. One of his major donors is the pharmaceutical lobby. Funny how that works.

    Here we come to the clincher: Bernie Sanders lost a campaign that was rigged against him by the DNC. They have admitted to such in court, though the court dismissed the case on the basis that the court had no authority to render judgment. The DNC's defense could be boiled down to: "The DNC is not legally obligated to follow their own charter, and thus is not legally obligated to run an unbiased campaign."

    For those unaware of the lawsuit, it's a group of donors who went through the Florida state courts to try to get their money back from the DNC on the basis that the DNC committed fraud by lying about their bias. As I understand it, the plaintiffs will be appealing the decision and bringing it to a higher court. Once the court docs dropped, the DNC donations trickled into something of a dry spell. Interesting coincidence.

    You can read the whole transcript, and it is actually worth a look, if only because you get such lovely lines as this:
    That -- even to define what constitutes evenhandedness and impartiality really would already drag the Court well into a political question and a question of how the party runs its own affairs.

    Link:http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/042517cw2.pdf

    Except they really didn't. Clinton gave us Trump. I think our disconnect can be boiled down to this. You say the voters are responsible, and I disagree fundamentally. It is literally Clinton's job, as a candidate, to convince voters to choose her. She was unable to do so with enough voters in key states, despite winning the popular vote. That is on the Clinton, not the voters.

    From my perspective, Hillary Clinton dropped the ball. She had literally every advantage a candidate could hope for, a joke of an opponent, and she lost. That is on her, no matter what unfavorables she was carrying. Now she whines about losing and blames everyone but herself.

    Would Biden have been better? I dunno. His ties to Obama might have hurt him enough to get a comparable result, and Trump could yell names at Biden just as well as he could at Hillary. I also think Hillary probably handled the debates against Trump better than Biden would have, since he's got a bit of foot in mouth disease. He also probably would have been a bit more proactive than Hillary, which might have gained him the Rust Belt.

    Would Bernie have been better? Probably. His popularity was directly correlated with voter exposure to his platform. His populism may have cost him votes among urban elites, but he still probably would have taken the coasts by similar margins. He likely would have gained points in Rust Belt and rural states, as his polling since the election has indicated. I doubt Trump would be able to effectively use his favored tactics as effectively against the issue focused Sanders. Because of how platform driven his campaign was, I doubt standard political attack ads on his socialism and attacking his identity would be as effective as people seem to think.

    In order: She already has damaged our diplomatic status in multiple ways, wouldn't bother, and her appointments in State, Energy, Interior, and Justice would have been comparable in the damage they'd do.

    Pragmatically speaking, from the rational actor's viewpoint, there is an argument that Clinton in the White House without the support of congress would accomplish little beyond being a figurehead. She would not be able to maintain power. She would also act as a clear target for a right wing populist movement to oppose. When such a movement arose, she would be unable to effectively oppose it due to partisan gridlock. The longer she remained in office the more extreme and organized such a movement would become. This same basic scenario applies to Sanders as well, though. He does have a better chance to rally the populist left against this alliance than Clinton would.

    By having Trump in the White House you're dividing the right wing base, and allowing the populist left to coalesce.

    It's obviously not worth it for you and yours- you've invested in the current political establishment. He's a tempest in your teapot. Hot tea is going everywhere, your hand is burnt, the carpet is stained, and you're the ones expected to clean it up. From your perspective, it's horrible.

    To the militant progressive, Trump represents an opportunity that they're jumping on- not something to be frightened of. His clear ineptitude, the way his support base is crumbling away from him, and his clownish antics make him an easy way to unite the fractured progressive base while dismantling their opponents' support structures. Every horrible thing Trump does is more ammunition for them.

    To the average voter, all of this is just another circus when what they need is bread. Trump doing horrible things just leads them shaking their heads and trying to figure out how pay the electrical bill.

    So, to finish up: a) You're cute, but I'm seeing someone else. b) Sound advice. However, a few chicks have hatched and they appear healthy. And c) My response in that scenario largely depends on how healthy the dog is. If it was a cancerous, obese, worm-ridden specimen with dementia, yeah I'd kill my dog to save my cat. I'd probably put it down on principle. A bit of a mercy killing, really.
     
  12. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    188
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    Who elects a person? The voters. Trump is our fault. And he's your fault more than he is mine, because at least I did something about it.

    It's the job of a candidate to be a good candidate, true. But it's your job as a voter to be informed on the issues, and then to choose the better candidate (of the parties who can actually win, of which there are two, don't give me any third party crap). Trump is objectively worse. Anyone with a brain could see he's objectively worse. As a 'progressive' Bernie voter, you might have disagreed with her position on 75% of the issues, because you don't think she's 'progressive enough', but Trump is antithetical to everything progressives/liberals stand for.

    More importantly, sometimes, it's your duty as a citizen to choose the candidate who's better for the country. And it's a duty you failed.

    Obama could have won a third term. He would not have dragged Biden down.

    Correction: His popularity was correlated directly with exposure among the Democratic Primary. And even then, it had a ceiling. He most certainly would not have had the same level of traction among the General Electorate.

    And if it had been him? And Kasich or Jeb? I would have voted for Jeb. Because all Bernie has is pie in the sky for gullible teenagers and washed-up hippies.

    Firstly, she was widely regarded as a very competent Secretary of State, and it's thanks to her almost entirely that we built up such international goodwill that we did after the horrors of the second Bush term. If it weren't for her, we would never have built the Iran Nuclear Agreement or the Paris Agreement.

    Secondly, if you think her appointments to DOS, DOJ, DOE or DOI would have been 'comparable in the damage they'd do', then you're either retarded, or you just have no idea what you're talking about. Tillerson has been nothing short of an act of criminal negligence, Sessions is sadly competent and completely disastrous, Perry didn't even think his department should exist, and Zinke wants to cover national parks in oil wells. There is no reality in the entire multiverse where anyone Clinton would have picked to lead those departments, or indeed any of the government agencies, who would be even infinitesimally close to the uniformly horrendous leadership the Executive Branch is under at the moment.

    You apparently are willfully ignorant to the level of power that the Executive has and can wield for better or worse. Even if she had done literally nothing but tread water for four years and let the Obama legacy solidify, we would be in a better position than we are in today.

    Except that they're not, because they lose everything they touch.

    I'm invested in competent government. I'm invested in functional leadership. I'm invested in things not going to shit, and people getting killed by it.

    The fact that you don't seem to value those things because you're putting your political goals ahead of your country is pathetic.

    An opportunity that they will either inevitably squander, or else form the Left's version of the Tea Party, and further ruin our country by miring it in extremist political bullshit.

    And in the meantime, Trump rampages across our national institutions of government and democracy, all because you were too petty to stop him.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2017
  13. Sauce Bauss

    Sauce Bauss Order Member DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    890
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    I find it funny that you give voters zero agency, and reduce them to nothing more than the manipulated tools of candidates. They're like the girlfriends in a dating sim to you, and the candidate is the one who needs to say the right things and raise the right flags to make the mindless hoards do the thing you want. I shouldn't have to beg, plead, convince and cajole you into not burning your house down. If you still do so, it's not my fault.
     
  14. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    682
    High Score:
    1,802
    I'd say there's room to complain about voters and the candidate. There were definitely plenty of voters who let their antipathy towards Hillary blind them to the fact that Trump was even less in line with their policies. By the same token, just about everyone agree's Hillary's campaign was full of missed opportunities and unforced errors.
     
  15. Oment

    Oment The Betrayer

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,616
    They are making lemonade out of lemons and making the best out of what many of them think is a terrible situation that shouldn't have happened in the first place. This does not mean they actually wanted Trump, and many of them are actually frightened for what Trump does to the country. Destruction is far, far easier than creation, after all. (And if you really want a sodding example of that, just look at the ACA repeal's structure - how many meetings, town halls, committees were held on both sides; the level of transparency on both sides... Need I go on?)

    Yes, every stupid thing Trump does gives them more ammunition. Every stupid thing Trump does gives basically everyone more ammunition these days, apart from those who support him (his share of the GOP base, most of Congress, and the latter is arguable because they're politicians.) Everyone not on board with Trump's particular brand of populism is practically frothing at the mouth at the sheer opportunity Trump's seeming inability to navigate political waters represents, and everyone thinks their faction will be the one who will weather the storm the best so that they might sweep in like some kind of anointed saviour and return America (and/or the world) to its rightful order in which [insert values here] are most important. The progressive faction - while definitely being more vocal and arguably more influential than before - is really no exception to the rule.

    And because this is the US, the collective left (which, for me, includes Clinton and any remaining Blue Dog Democrats, before you purity test all over them) is utterly and completely fucked. Who is left pulling the cart in your asinine cult of personality-based system that fetishises personal appeal? Right now? Not a lot of people there, y'know. Sanders has the idiotic stigma of 'socialism' hanging over him. (Meanwhile, whatever's left of actual socialist parties in Europe despairs at some milquetoast barely-not-centrist being called 'socialist'.) Warren? She's going to get (is already getting) the Clinton treatment - it worked once, why wouldn't pillorying work again? Sure, the GOP doesn't have twenty-odd years to find the perfect formula, but they already have a good blueprint. Adaptation is easier than creation as well. Booker? You're going to purity-test all over him and we'll get a 2016 primary repeat. O'Malley? He was beaten so hard in 2016 that I'm surprised he hasn't retreated to some farm upstate yet. Franken? I mean, it's a plus that we'd get something to genuinely laugh about, but I think his past on SNL might come back to haunt him. Biden is probably the best man for the job, and a sad state of affairs it is when a septuagenarian (two if you want to include Sanders) is the only saviour for the party that traditionally trends younger than their opponents.

    Meanwhile, the GOP manages to unseat Trump in a reasonably controlled way and voilĂ , now you have a perfectly uninspiring, but helped-by-incumbency President Pence. Good game Dems, but you're not getting the presidency in 2020, nor the House any time before... I don't know. 2040?

    And as much as my personal politics differ from Chengar's, I agree that there is definitely room to blame both voters and the campaign. The former let personal antipathy get in the way of their values (fucking cults...), while the latter took far too many variables for granted. It was far more of a precarious position to be in than anyone running against Trump had any right to be in, and then there are universes in which bad things do happen. Like this one.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2017
  16. ASmallBundleOfToothpicks

    ASmallBundleOfToothpicks Professor

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2010
    Messages:
    435
    Location:
    Tir-Na-Nogth
    Lets be clear: no-one on the left wants or wanted Trump. There is a wing of the left that is not terrified of having him in office, and are willing to use him as a means to an end. That is my entire point there- otherwise I pretty much agree with what you've said. The DNC has no clear candidates for 2020, though Kamala Harris looks to be thinking about a run.

    The blame for Trump, in my mind, goes to everyone who didn't vote at all. They functionally voted for every candidate, including Trump. Also, Bernie Sanders is not some sacred cow. His policies made the most sense out of the candidates, given where the American populace was at the time.

    No. It's a duty Clinton failed. You say voters need to be informed on the issues? Maybe she should have spent less time on celebrity endorsements, more time making a case for her policies, and given some damn evidence she'd stick to her campaign promises. The alternative you're not accepting is that many voters were informed on the issues, perhaps a great deal more than you yourself are, and were appalled at Clinton's lackluster record.

    I really don't care how "progressive" a candidate is. If a ham sandwich had policies worth voting for, I'd vote for the damn ham sandwich. Clinton's policies were less likely to be effective at helping the average US citizen than Sanders' policies. That is why I voted for Sanders in the primary.

    Also, I applaud your efficacy and agency at getting Hillary elected. Truly, I could not have done better myself.

    Yeah, Obama probably could have won against Trump. He's much better at selling people on his points than Biden. I think Biden ultimately would have sunk himself, but Obama's more questionable legacy elements could have been used to attack him. Also, to be clear, this largely depends on the platform. If Biden or Obama amalgamated enough populism or gave Bernie a visible position in the administration I think that probably would have made it much easier for them.

    Then why is he the most popular politician in the US right now among the voting public? Hell, across the board, Red state or Blue state, he's well regarded. The bills he's sponsoring are popular with the average citizen. I'll give you a hint: It isn't because of who he is.

    Kasich was Sanders' worst matchup, sure. That's a race where Sanders and Hillary probably both would have lost.

    Jeb went down in flames dude. You're talking about a man who couldn't even convince his own mother that he'd be a good candidate. If Sanders is for "gullible teenagers," and "washed up hippies," then Jeb Bush is for products of incest and war criminals.


    Heh. "International goodwill" is an interesting term for what we've got. The US is far and away regarded globally as the largest threat to peace in existence. I'd posit that they're terrified of us. I'd also say that the only people who thought she was competent were those she paid to, or her owners.

    Hillary would have appointed someone who was best friends with the relevant corporate entity, leaving governance in roughly the same spot, frankly. They just wouldn't be names that most people would recognize. For Sec. of State, she'd fill it with a neo-conservative hawk, who'd do an entirely different kind of damage than Sessions.


    I think you quite misunderstand my point. Number one, I think Obama's more positive legacies would be ripped up and shat on during a Clinton Presidency without at least a split Senate, because she isn't interested in protecting them. His more negative legacies would be allowed to run rampant. Number two, I think you're not accurately accounting for just how effective an RNC in control of every branch of government except the executive branch would be at nuking any ability for Clinton govern. They thrive on being perceived as an opposition party, and they'd gain seats under her.


    That does describe the DNC well, doesn't it?

    Yeah me too. Hillary isn't that, and Trump is the antithesis of that.

    This may be the most asinine thing you've ever said, and you just admitted you'd vote for Jeb Bush. You're rather invested in attacking my character, of all things, for disagreeing with you politically and interpreting events differently.

    I'd also say that it is absurdly hypocritical for you to support a candidate that has repeatedly valued her wallet over her country.

    You know, the most interesting thing about this tantrum of yours, is how well it maps to everyone Hillary blames in her most recent book.
     
  17. Agayek

    Agayek Dark Lord

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,984
    Staying out of the rest of this, as I honestly don't know enough to contribute meaningfully, but I feel the need to comment on this particular line:

    If all that stuff is so popular, why did Sanders lose the primary, and literally every candidate Sanders endorsed in 2016 lose? I'm just not seeing where the claim that "Progressives would have won!" has any merit, given the preponderance of irrefutable evidence.

    It'd be much more credible to take the claim seriously if the progressive wing actually had significant victories to its name, rather than random polls that don't actually mean anything.

    Edit: Anyone happen to know how to fit multiple links into one word without the random space there?
     
  18. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    188
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    I will respond to this as a representative example, mainly because of its sheer lack of depth. The fact that I apparently have to explain to you that Jeff Sessions is the Attorney General and not the Secretary of State shows how little you know of what you speak.
     
  19. Mordecai

    Mordecai Drunken Scotsman Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Messages:
    371
    Location:
    Scotland
    High Score:
    3,485
    Also the idea that the Clinton would have chosen a Sec State in anything other than her own image is laughable, she wouldn't be wanting to undo the work she did and then Kerry continued by putting a conservative in that position.
     
  20. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    682
    High Score:
    1,802
    If anything, the biggest worry probably would've been her being tempted to micromanage State and/or do a lot more hands-on diplomacy and international relations work.