[worry]

Man, Bernie. I really wish the DNC hadn't done him dirty. Anyway, it's extremely worth watching the video instead of just reading the summary: https://www.rawstory...than-2-minutes/
Watch Bernie Sanders convince a Trump voter she voted for the wrong person — in less than 2 minutes

That title is maybe a little overstated, but it's an admirable effort.

[Tsundoku]

 MTS, on 14 December 2016 - 12:55 AM, said:

 HoosierDaddy, on 13 December 2016 - 10:59 PM, said:

Random thought: The person in charge of monitoring after-Midnight White House tweets becomes a much more lucrative and more prestigious position than in the past.

That might have to be the other 'red button' that follows Trump around wherever he goes. As soon as he gets his phone out: 'Red Two, abort Tweet! I repeat, ABORT TWEET!'

Sure puts that bit with Baby Groot and Rocket in the GotG2 trailer into context, doesn't it?



apologies for going off topic

This post has been edited by Captain Needa: 14 December 2016 - 11:20 AM

[MTS]

 death rattle, on 14 December 2016 - 10:30 AM, said:

Man, Bernie. I really wish the DNC hadn't done him dirty. Anyway, it's extremely worth watching the video instead of just reading the summary: https://www.rawstory...than-2-minutes/
Watch Bernie Sanders convince a Trump voter she voted for the wrong person — in less than 2 minutes

That title is maybe a little overstated, but it's an admirable effort.

The title is clickbait-worthy, but yeah, a nice watch. Still makes you wonder how Bernie would have fared in a general. He's much better than Hillary at connecting with voters and explaining his ideas, and was certainly a much more exciting figure to lead a movement of change (which was what the electorate wanted). Hillary was just qualified for the job in every way possible, which didn't turn out to be enough (though considering the opposition, it clearly should have - damn you, electoral college!).

 Captain Needa, on 14 December 2016 - 11:19 AM, said:

 MTS, on 14 December 2016 - 12:55 AM, said:

 HoosierDaddy, on 13 December 2016 - 10:59 PM, said:

Random thought: The person in charge of monitoring after-Midnight White House tweets becomes a much more lucrative and more prestigious position than in the past.

That might have to be the other 'red button' that follows Trump around wherever he goes. As soon as he gets his phone out: 'Red Two, abort Tweet! I repeat, ABORT TWEET!'

Sure puts that bit with Baby Groot and Rocket in the GotG2 trailer into context, doesn't it?



apologies for going off topic

 1fy3hw.jpg (53.92K)
Number of downloads: 0

[worry]

Looking like V. Putin had a direct hand in the hacking process: http://www.nbcnews.c...on-hack-n696146

Not shocking, but is there a line beyond which this info actually changes anything?

[Darkwatch]

 death rattle, on 14 December 2016 - 11:57 PM, said:

Not shocking, but is there a line beyond which this info actually changes anything?

A few people have been mentioning that one aspect (out of many, specifically the nazism of his core supporters and spinelessness of the establishment) that allows Trump to blow through scandals is the sheer number he produces. There are so many of them that it's hard to pin one down to do something about it before he's off on another equal or greater scandal. Basically he's generating so much noise to a system that's usually accustomed to dealing with fewer scandals in detail than this many on the surface.

I suppose the media have to take the statistical approach and take them as an aggregate whole, though I don't know how that would be done in such a way to be interesting to an audience and voters.

[MTS]

 death rattle, on 14 December 2016 - 11:57 PM, said:

Looking like V. Putin had a direct hand in the hacking process: http://www.nbcnews.c...on-hack-n696146

Not shocking, but is there a line beyond which this info actually changes anything?

I don't really think so, unless the Obama administration/CIA are prepared to truly retaliate or do something about the electoral result. It's like when Putin was flatly denying the presence of Russian soldiers in eastern Ukraine. We all knew it was bullshit, but the West wasn't willing to do anything about it, and so whether we had confirmation or not was irrelevant. Obama's red line in the sand on chemical weapons in Syria was much the same.

[worry]

North Carolina update: Gov. McCrory's bid to unscrupulously reverse his loss last week or so was foiled, so now the state's GOP-controlled legislature is trying -- in a special session with dozens of proposed bills -- to strip the executive branch of many of its powers, even down to control of its own cabinet. Call it a coup, a power-grab, or whatever else you want but it's cutthroat politics at its worst.
http://www.charlotte...e120847418.html
The article is a bit wonkish, but aside from major theft of gubernatorial powers, there's also bills that would change how county election boards work, one that's like an omnibus deregulation bill for attempts that all failed throughout the year, and even an attempt to carve power away from the State Supreme Court. Scary stuff.

[Tsundoku]

Too many arseholes, not enough Lee Harvey Oswalds.

There, I said it.

[worry]

Save that post as a lyric should you ever start an anarcho-punk band.

[worry]

[EmperorMagus]

To follow the bleakness of a legislative coup (let's call it what it is, it's disgusting) in NC, I want to post a trump tweet that was swiftly edited:

https://pbs.twimg.co...AHJEO.jpg:large

President Elect of the US cannot spell. FML.

This post has been edited by EmperorMagus: 17 December 2016 - 02:01 PM

[Aptorian]

 Captain Needa, on 15 December 2016 - 04:32 AM, said:

Too many arseholes, not enough Lee Harvey Oswalds.

There, I said it.

So, out of curiosity, if somebody had made that statement 4 or 8 years ago, what do you think the forum reaction would had been?

Is it only the political candidates that you don't agree with that deserve to be assassinated? Or is assassination an acceptable political tool?

[Silencer]

 Apt, on 17 December 2016 - 02:42 PM, said:

 Captain Needa, on 15 December 2016 - 04:32 AM, said:

Too many arseholes, not enough Lee Harvey Oswalds.

There, I said it.

So, out of curiosity, if somebody had made that statement 4 or 8 years ago, what do you think the forum reaction would had been?

Is it only the political candidates that you don't agree with that deserve to be assassinated? Or is assassination an acceptable political tool?

Uh, what do you mean, if? There were plenty of people suggesting Obama be assassinated throughout his candidacy and presidency, and the same was said of Hillary - even being implied by Trump as something his supporters should consider.

Is assassination an acceptable political tool? Yes. Of course, it depends on the circumstances. If one is being oppressed by a dictator then you have very few alternatives for implementing change. If you live in a democracy, then no. Because that undermines democracy and the will of the people. Then again, so does America's system on the whole, so... Screwed either way?

I can't speak for Sombra, but I for one don't think assassinating Trump is a viable or reasonable course of action. Unless he turns into a dictator, and isn't removed from office by those empowered to do so. But that's highly unlikely, all things considered.
That being said, he actually lost the popular vote in America. It's just that the electoral system there is screwed up so you can still win even when you lose. But that is a fault of the system, not something to be met with an illegal act.

Tl;Dr an act such as assassination or a coup is only a valid political action if it is carried out against someone who is themselves illegally retaining or obtaining power, and there is no practical alternative to pursue.

[Aptorian]

 Silencer, on 17 December 2016 - 04:13 PM, said:

 Apt, on 17 December 2016 - 02:42 PM, said:

 Captain Needa, on 15 December 2016 - 04:32 AM, said:

Too many arseholes, not enough Lee Harvey Oswalds.

There, I said it.

So, out of curiosity, if somebody had made that statement 4 or 8 years ago, what do you think the forum reaction would had been?

Is it only the political candidates that you don't agree with that deserve to be assassinated? Or is assassination an acceptable political tool?

Uh, what do you mean, if? There were plenty of people suggesting Obama be assassinated throughout his candidacy and presidency, and the same was said of Hillary - even being implied by Trump as something his supporters should consider.

People in general or people here on the forum?

I'm never surprised what the village idiot says on CNN, it's another thing what people mention here on the discussion board.

I watch this discussion of the American presidency from a far and I am sort of confused by the people who are against Trump. They all worry about what he's going to do and complain about the behaviour of Trumps followers. And yet then you have the same people talking about assassinating trump and generally spinning as much hatred and bias as possible into any discussion about Trump.

These next four years sure are going to be interesting.

(EDIT: Not that Trump doesn't deserve ridicule, I'm just saying it's unbecoming of people to want to hurt a person who is obviously mentally disabled)

This post has been edited by Apt: 17 December 2016 - 04:48 PM

[HoosierDaddy]

Sombra's the first person on the board to even allude to it, so I don't get your point. I'm about as anti-Trump as it gets, but I don't advocate that. I also don't think he was secretly born in South Africa to an Apartheid supporting white woman. Nor is he the probable anti-Christ.

On the other hand, words have power all on their own, and his words paint him as a populist with fascist tendencies. Hell, someone tried to assassinate Reagan because they had an obsession with Jodie Foster for Christ's sake. And trump TERRIFIES people. So, is it possible? Yes. People were worried about Obama being assassinated as well.

[amphibian]

I don't think murder is the "solution" to Trump or to dictators in general.

Killing someone is an act with repercussions far beyond the trigger pull, the button push, the knife stab, the IV drip, or whatever action is taken to end the person's life. There are costs for the killer, for the family and friends, for the people in the community, and more that go beyond the simple "good/bad" evaluation. There's financial costs, there's emotional/mental damage and pain, there's anger incurred, and there's at least one dead person where there was life before.

It's stupid to say there's too many terrible people and not enough deranged assassins to "handle" them. It's envisioning life as a Civilization computer game - which life decidedly is not.

The American electoral system is designed to produce far more Trumps than Obamas. The system is working sort of how the founding fathers - who were racists and purposely embedded racist, misogynist, and many other biases enriching rich white men at the costs of others into the government they created - intended for the system to work.

I also think we get 8 years of Trump now that my blinkers have been lifted from the realities of American voters, political entrenchment, and how the various media systems, societal trends and current crop of politicians combine.

[worry]

I dunno about 8 years. I sure hope not. I think a lot rests on whether Dems swing (or remain, if you prefer) right-wing (a disaster) or left (a blessing), and have a credible compelling candidate to offer. I have no faith in the HRC camp to audit themselves but I do think the Democratic party has actual wings to it, and the Sanders/Warren wing is ascendant -- so party-wise the audit is hopefully going to be more genuine than the phony one the GOP did 4 years ago. All the anti-Ellison pushback is disgusting, but it doesn't necessarily have the legs of the GOP sidelining Ron Paul for example. Will it happen "in time" for 2020? I don't know.

And yeah, I dunno what Apt is talking about. Sombra's not even American, and the key to his post was a pretty interesting near-rhyme. He might actually be Billy Bragg in disguise. There's no widespread (or even moderately spread) movement to harm the Pres Elect or anyone else in office. And there weren't just people who suggested assassination of Obama, people tried, just not very competently. People shot at the White House, there was that guy who jumped the fence and made it through the doors, and there lots of foiled plots: https://en.wikipedia...st_Barack_Obama

There is some rising level of Antifa organization going on now, but it's still pretty small and mostly focused on resisting the "alt-right" neo-Nazis, and I don't think violence is their first resort. I will say that "violence never solves anything" rhetoric is history-blind nonsense that favors the oppressor, that violence in defense of self or others can solve plenty, and that violence against Nazis is almost always inherently defensive in nature.

[Tsundoku]

Probably should have used the usual "bullets" instead of "Lee Harvey Oswalds" but I guess it's a snapshot of how nasty I was feeling at the time.

Actually, I was reacting more to Worry's post about the NC shit than Trump, but it was probably more of a straw and camel's back thing than in isolation.

Well, since almost half of those eligible who could be bothered getting off their fat arses in the USA voted for Drumpf are the kind of people who crap on about the 2nd amendment and how their 200 assault rifles each protect them from tyranny, I also figured it was contextually appropriate to say that.

@Apt
If I thought it was OK to assassinate (OK Amph's right, let's call it murder, a fancy title doesn't grant you a magical "death status") people I agreed with, I'd be a right nutter wouldn't I?

@Silencer
Of course killing DT (heh, here "DT's" mean either delerium tremens or dick togs/speedos) isn't a reasonable course of action. You'd have to get Pence too, plus the whole vipers nest. Then you'd end up with the head of the CIA as President ...

@Amph
You're also right about the system being designed to produce far more Trumps than Obamas, and why. That's some depressing shit right there. However on the upside I also think you're wrong about DT (heh) having 8 years. I have enough faith that he will do so much harm in the next 4 years that he will lose against anyone else next time round in a landslide.

But if he proves competent - and/or indeed relatively benevolent - I'll be happy to be wrong. We're all entitled to our opinions though.

As an aside, would anyone here argue or give a shit if someone put a lead asprin through Bashar al-Assad's head? I believe he started off as a fairly reasonable fellow.

@Worry
I wish I could take credit for that almost-rhyme, but it was purely accidental. I'm not that clever.

This post has been edited by Captain Needa: 17 December 2016 - 09:25 PM

[amphibian]

The head of the CIA was president - George Herschel Walker Bush.

[HoosierDaddy]

The FORMER Head of the CIA. Don't be needlessly pedantic, Amph.