[Terez]

Identity crisis is just a symptom. The true cause is economic instability.

The United States is in an economic depression. It's masked by the fact that our measure of such is based on GDP growth and contraction. We're showing weak growth, but all of that growth is being funneled to the top 0.1% and their profit machines. The purchasing power of the vast majority is caught in a stranglehold. Gadgets and entertainment are cheap, but housing and health care are through the roof relative to wages, and public assistance is going the way of austerity, as it is all across the globe.

I have to quote MLK again. It's US-specific, and from before most of us were born. But the basic message is universal.

https://soundcloud.c...n-how-the-races

MLK said:

If it may be said of the slavery era that the white man took the world and gave the Negro Jesus, then it may be said of the Reconstruction era that the southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor white man Jim Crow. (Yes, sir) He gave him Jim Crow. (Uh huh) And when his wrinkled stomach cried out for the food that his empty pockets could not provide, (Yes, sir) he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him that no matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man, better than the black man. (Right sir) And he ate Jim Crow. (Uh huh) And when his undernourished children cried out for the necessities that his low wages could not provide, he showed them the Jim Crow signs on the buses and in the stores, on the streets and in the public buildings. (Yes, sir) And his children, too, learned to feed upon Jim Crow, (Speak) their last outpost of psychological oblivion. (Yes, sir)

[amphibian]

Dumbledude, on 24 February 2016 - 03:53 AM, said:

I also think at least theoretically Clinton has an A-Game to bring, and Trump doesn't.

What in this election cycle and the last one makes you think Clinton has a higher political gear to employ?

I have some thoughts on this, but I want to hear from you first.

[Terez]

amphibian, on 24 February 2016 - 05:35 PM, said:

Dumbledude, on 24 February 2016 - 03:53 AM, said:

I also think at least theoretically Clinton has an A-Game to bring, and Trump doesn't.

What in this election cycle and the last one makes you think Clinton has a higher political gear to employ?

I have some thoughts on this, but I want to hear from you first.

Food for thought which I don't believe I have posted here:

https://www.currenta...rump-presidency

[Abyss]

amphibian, on 24 February 2016 - 05:35 PM, said:

Dumbledude, on 24 February 2016 - 03:53 AM, said:

I also think at least theoretically Clinton has an A-Game to bring, and Trump doesn't.

What in this election cycle and the last one makes you think Clinton has a higher political gear to employ?

I have some thoughts on this, but I want to hear from you first.

Unfortunately the Repubs may have a serious counter to her A-game... it goes like this...

"So Hillary, tell us about Goldman Sachs. ... no? ...ok how about those foreign contributors... also no? Ok, fine, how about those Wall Street speech transcripts... you spoke in front of hundreds if not thousands of people, surely you can tell us what those say...? No, maybe just send us an email, how about that...?"

[worry]

amphibian, on 24 February 2016 - 05:35 PM, said:

Dumbledude, on 24 February 2016 - 03:53 AM, said:

I also think at least theoretically Clinton has an A-Game to bring, and Trump doesn't.

What in this election cycle and the last one makes you think Clinton has a higher political gear to employ?

I have some thoughts on this, but I want to hear from you first.

I dunno, just grasping at straws and assumptions. Like Terez said, the Dem primary hasn't been particularly no holds barred (nor was it in '08), but I'd imagine the gloves come off against Trump. I don't think making Trump a laughingstock is a bad strategy or even remotely implausible. I know so far he's been drawing big numbers, especially relative to his rivals, and he's been Teflon so far. But nobody on the right really attacked him because his policies -- while vague and stupid -- aren't that different from their slightly less vague but equally stupid policies. To be frank, 100% of Republican candidates this year have been cowards. I don't think it's impossible to chip away at his turnout or voter enthusiasm, I just don't think it's been tried much yet. I'm not saying she's not a uniquely flawed candidate or that the DNC won't find every opportunity to shoot its own foot, but uhhhhh I hope they don't?

She also needs to get on her hands and knees and beg Elizabeth Warren to be her running-mate.

[worry]

I'm also pleased to hear that single women are one of the most powerful voting blocs this year. They've been swinging toward Sanders but I don't think it's a stretch to say they'll in large part support either Dem. And I'm not underestimating the GOP congress's role in tanking their odds this year either, especially with the SCOTUS nom thing. I know a lot of this is mere potential, and there's an element of "wishful thinking" to all of this, but it's not wholly impractical either.

And this too: http://www.pewresear...tory/#pq=6OjlPh

Most diverse electorate in our history.

This post has been edited by Dumbledude: 24 February 2016 - 11:50 PM

[worry]

Vote Libertarian. You seem reasonably socially moderate. I just looked at their candidates and John McAfee (yep, that McAfee) is running. I suppose he needs a new house after fleeing Belize. I assume Gary Johnson is gonna be their nominee though and he at least has a strong principled record.

I'm only half-joking. Actually kinda sad that no libertarian candidates (in that party or in GOP) get any traction, and I'm positive even Gary Johnson (who got over 1 million votes in 2008, the most ever for a Libertarian candidate) will be completely ignored by cable news. I suppose that's because next to Ron Paul, Rand was bland (and also not very likable), and TV news doesn't want to mess up their ratings with too many storylines. But it would be nice to see Gary Johnson surge at least a little.

This post has been edited by Dumbledude: 25 February 2016 - 04:11 AM

[Terez]

Mentalist, on 24 February 2016 - 04:44 PM, said:

Abyss, on 24 February 2016 - 04:02 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 24 February 2016 - 02:33 PM, said:

Is Nevada traditionally a red state?

Apparently it's now a crazy state.

Jeezez Xreist America, you are actually going to do this, aren't you...?

There's a global trend of identity crisis in Western politics. Trump is just one example of that.

Coming back to this because a friend posted this video on Facebook today. I've seen it before (it was originally posted in early January), but it's germane.

[amphibian]

Dumbledude, on 24 February 2016 - 09:11 PM, said:

amphibian, on 24 February 2016 - 05:35 PM, said:

Dumbledude, on 24 February 2016 - 03:53 AM, said:

I also think at least theoretically Clinton has an A-Game to bring, and Trump doesn't.

What in this election cycle and the last one makes you think Clinton has a higher political gear to employ?

I have some thoughts on this, but I want to hear from you first.

I dunno, just grasping at straws and assumptions. Like Terez said, the Dem primary hasn't been particularly no holds barred (nor was it in '08), but I'd imagine the gloves come off against Trump. I don't think making Trump a laughingstock is a bad strategy or even remotely implausible. I know so far he's been drawing big numbers, especially relative to his rivals, and he's been Teflon so far. But nobody on the right really attacked him because his policies -- while vague and stupid -- aren't that different from their slightly less vague but equally stupid policies. To be frank, 100% of Republican candidates this year have been cowards. I don't think it's impossible to chip away at his turnout or voter enthusiasm, I just don't think it's been tried much yet. I'm not saying she's not a uniquely flawed candidate or that the DNC won't find every opportunity to shoot its own foot, but uhhhhh I hope they don't?

She also needs to get on her hands and knees and beg Elizabeth Warren to be her running-mate.

My thinking is that she doesn't have a higher political gear to employ because she hasn't truly been stretched in a race since 2008 - and she's using the same team as then. Normally, that's not a terrible thing, but they haven't changed much up or improved her weaknesses. Her Senate run was a walk in the park. She got pushed out in 2008 by a charismatic person with a lightweight resume (in terms of pre-Presidential resumes). She didn't display the higher political gear back then and she kinda isn't this election cycle either. She needs more work and somehow, the SecState job/campaign prep didn't get her it.

I think this goes back to how Bill got elected. He has the most charisma/magnetic personality of anyone in American politics in the last 50 years. It is a genuine phenomenon and it allowed him to kind of overachieve. He ran on a platform best described politically as a post-Carter Democrat, slashing welfare, boosting the economy, and setting into place things that would get morphed by GWB into disasters. I suspect that Clinton's charisma let him get away with a ton in terms of running a campaign and putting together a platform that genuinely appealed to people. Hillary doesn't have that charisma. She's tough, she's smart, and she's not got the Bill magic.

That means she can't overachieve and when she puts together essentially the same team that put Bill into office and lost her the 2008 nomination, it means that they have to shore up her weak spots and be better. They had to be evolving and improving over those years. I theorize that they haven't done so in the amounts necessary to win this race early, which is why Sanders went from a "snowball's chance in hell" to someone who has a real chance to be the eventual nominee. He somehow has a campaign staff that knows how to work momentum and get to people today vs get to people 20 years ago. I have no idea how this happened and it's all the more interesting since most of Obama's top campaign people are not with either of the two candidates.

It's odd because I think Bill had one of the better teams to govern as a President in terms of getting legislation to Congress, dealing with crisis after crisis, and being what he needed. But they may not have been the best "getting into office" team because he was so good at campaigning. So when Hillary uses most of that team, it's interesting what happens now. I prefer Sanders over Clinton, but either will be far, far better for the country than any GOP candidate in this election cycle or the next.

Almost like Miami replacing LeBron James with Luol Deng, if that metaphor makes sense.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 25 February 2016 - 05:17 AM

[worry]

It does not, since I'm one of those nerds who doesn't follow sports. But I do get your overall point. I was actually wondering about her Senate run, so I'm glad you addressed it.

I still don't think Trump plays as well in the general as he does in the primaries (to a select crowd -- hopefully). And I think Clinton is more of a question mark than a thumbs down. I think your view of her staff is sound, but I also don't think they're the end of the equation. Her A-Game needs to include full mobilization of Dem support. She needs to connect Trump's slumlord past to the water in Flint. She needs to expose him as Palin 2.0. Destroy his reputation mercilessly in a way the GOP is unwilling to do.

[Terez]

Compared to Bill, Hillary's an angel. I don't believe in giving people passes for charisma. Bill's a creep, and a liar, and a morally repugnant person in general.

[worry]

Out of 4 years of Trump or 4 years of Clinton, through which do you guys think human beings would experience the higher quantity of suffering? And by how much of a difference?

[Terez]

Dumbledude, on 25 February 2016 - 06:09 AM, said:

Out of 4 years of Trump or 4 years of Clinton, through which do you guys think human beings would experience the higher quantity of suffering? And by how much of a difference?

This is difficult to predict, since we have no idea really what kind of president Trump would be. He has already said that he'd be a nicer person as president. It's certainly possible for him to be terrible—his goon squads in particular are scary—but it's also possible that he'd be a good president focusing on improving the lives of working people. I'm just not willing to take the gamble because he's shown himself willing to stoop pretty low, and that kind of stooping is dangerous.

[amphibian]

Bill presided over an economically prosperous time. However, he ran on a platform that wrecked welfare and put into place things that would later blow up - almost entirely affecting poor and minority people.

His presidency is still much better than GWB, but it's not a brilliant one. Hillary is in a tough situation in that she actually believes in most of the policies behind Bill's actions because they make sense to her with her particular background and education. She doesn't quite see the downstream effects that a very large chunk of the Democratic voters now saw from Bill's time and she doesn't have the context to not say Liberal White People Racist stuff like the Reconstruction comments a few weeks ago.

So it's odd that the older candidate in Sanders is more flexible on picking up newer theories, but he's got a few problems of his own (shoving everything he possibly can in a class based analysis when some things are more complex than that framework allows for).

Also, Briar King, I don't think you are paying attention to the reprehensible things Trump is saying he will do as part of his political platform. This guy is scum. He's wildly entertaining scum as compared to the other bits of pond scum running for the GOP nomination, but that does not lend itself well to a possible Presidential term. We would be electing the modern day equivalent of Andrew Jackson - the guy who did the Trail of Tears and other historical atrocities and damaging events for the country.

Vote Libertarian if you hate Hillary that much, but none of these GOP candidates are worth a ballot and our nominal support. They are scum like I have not seen in my thirty years.

[bubba]

Terez, on 25 February 2016 - 06:12 AM, said:

Dumbledude, on 25 February 2016 - 06:09 AM, said:

Out of 4 years of Trump or 4 years of Clinton, through which do you guys think human beings would experience the higher quantity of suffering? And by how much of a difference?

This is difficult to predict, since we have no idea really what kind of president Trump would be. He has already said that he'd be a nicer person as president. It's certainly possible for him to be terrible—his goon squads in particular are scary—but it's also possible that he'd be a good president focusing on improving the lives of working people. I'm just not willing to take the gamble because he's shown himself willing to stoop pretty low, and that kind of stooping is dangerous.

Quit posting drunk.....people mite think you're serious.

[Terez]

Bubba, on 25 February 2016 - 07:21 AM, said:

Quit posting drunk.....people mite think you're serious.

I am serious....and 100% sober. I can't remember the last time I was drunk...

Anyway, I don't think it's somehow radical to say that Trump is an unpredictable person in many respects. I think he is a cynical politician, but I also think he honestly wants to be a good president, and there is a chance that he's willing to act on some of his better ideas and use his charisma (such as it is) for good. I don't think it's a 50-50 gamble; it's more like 80-20 that he would be every bit as dangerous as he appears to be right now. But it's not impossible to imagine a relatively smooth, productive, and centrist Trump presidency with a sort of "I got mine" approach to economic stability. It's not impossible or even difficult to imagine him talking Putin out of Ukraine and Syria with a trade deal that is favorable to all sides. He might be the only candidate we have who is even capable of that because he presents an opportunity for Putin to save face.

Again, I'm not willing to take that gamble, mostly because he has shown himself to be willing to go too far to win the Republican nomination (the importance of this fact should not be understated) but there are plenty of other reasons too. 80-20 that Hillary would be a better president. And you all know what I think of the prospect of President Hillary.

[Terez]

Good article on the Donald by Matt Taibbi:

http://www.rollingst...ppable-20160224

The "King Trump" line at the end is probably a reference to McKay Coppins's 2014 article on Trump which many have blamed for Trump's decision to run:

http://www.buzzfeed....th-donald-trump

Coppins said:

Over the course of 25 years, he's repeatedly toyed with the idea of running for president and now, maybe, governor of New York. With all but his closest apostles finally tired of the charade, even the Donald himself has to ask, what's the point? On the plane and by the pool with the man who will not be king.

[Tsundoku]

Terez, on 25 February 2016 - 07:57 AM, said:

Bubba, on 25 February 2016 - 07:21 AM, said:

Quit posting drunk.....people mite think you're serious.

I am serious....and 100% sober. I can't remember the last time I was drunk...

Well, obviously ... you were drunk after all.

If you will excuse the digression, a couple of points strike me:

1. Most USAnians have fuck all idea what "socialism" actually is. If they did, you wouldn't go to state run schools, or pay taxes of any sort, or have any sort of welfare etc. "Social-ism" is what creates things like that. Not so much the more "dictatorship of the proletariat" Socialism of Marx und Engels, mind.

2. I'm seeing enough parallels in this year's cult of celebrity/confused neo-fascism to Germany Votes (1933) to be 50% amused and 50% alarmed.

Did I just Godwin this? Apologies if I did, but that wasn't a troll, it really did occur to me while reading the posts and - more scarily - the linked articles on Senor Trumpadour. Especially the pro-Trump comments in that article Tiste linked:

http://forum.malazan...ost__p__1221801

[Terez]

FYI, TheBlaze (website Tiste linked) is a conservative news org founded by Glenn Beck. The comments are not a representative sample of America. (Beck has endorsed Cruz.)

[Tsundoku]

I've heard of Beck. He's a fuckwit of the highest order apparently.

Didn't really check the credentials of that site admittedly, but just the sheer ... wide-eyed stupid of the comments was breathtaking. I'll bet a scarily-high proportion of those people take their holidays in that wacky Creationism amusement park/resort. These are the sort of people who think education is overrated and being stupid is some sort of badge of honour. And while I know (hope) that's representative of a minority of the population, the trouble is they're being portrayed to the rest of us Westerners as the norm these days, rather than the exception.

The trouble with stereotypes is they exist for a reason.

Crikey!