[Gust Hubb]

It is over worry. They won, of course. Did you ever thing that money and power wouldn't end up with the final say?

I just submitted my condolences to all non-wealthy Republicans on FB. I will remind them in a couple of years when they see the fruits of their labor.

Here is what I posted btw:
"My dear Republican friends, at least those left still reading my posts:I wanted to send you my condolences at the passage of the new tax bill by the Republican House and Senate. You may not feel it now nor a few years down the road, but I wanted to put this down in words so when FB gives me a chance to remember this day, I can share it with you all again when it makes more sense.

I also want to remind my Republican friends that their representatives in both houses made sure to pass this bill and their president will sign it into law. Please keep this in mind come 2018, when you decide whether or not to reelect this representative. Do they truly represent your interests or are you better able to see how the wealthy and powerful have bought agendas not designed for you?

To the students being worked with low pay and some semblance of comfort in the tax breaks for tuition, my condolences. To the people living in expensive states with high property taxes, I wish you the best. To the people not buoyed by wealthy relatives passing down their money and assets, I hope you find other means to make ends meet. To the lower middle class and less moneyed, I am sorry your burdens will become greater. And finally, as a catch all, to those not benefiting from the agenda of the moneyed minority of our beloved country, I am truly sad on your behalf.

To those who rejoice in what the Republicans have accomplished, who see their wealth now increased and ensured on the backs of people already struggling to pay for their livelihood, I cannot say well played. If it was well played, it would have involved some ingenuity, but when you have as much wealth and power you all have, this is shooting fish in a barrel. I hope whatever is left of your tattered conscience is at least giving you heartburn.

Sincerely,"

This post has been edited by Gust Hubb: 02 December 2017 - 08:33 PM

[worry]

I don't trust Republicans to do the right thing. Obviously. Every last one of them should be dipped toes first into acid baths. And I'm not saying the odds are good that we'll flip even two of them.

But it's not over. And you should do the right thing regardless of the odds against you. Civilization is participatory, and while despair is a natural reaction to what's happening, giving in to despair is a privilege.

[Brujah]

Being at the mercy of those with the money and power should have its' own name as a mode of government. It's how I sure feel.

They, 'THEY', also love to keep us all fighting each other instead of uniting and doing something about things so to speak.

On another note, you mentioned we don't trust the republicans. Of course not. They hide behind trying to be the old style moral party. Typing that sentence with a straight face is impossible, but people are easily fooled.

The Democrats are there only to make the people feel like they have a choice......a.....democracy if you will. Now, Democrats are the better party for many instances, but I've always looked at it as two sides of the same coin;the two parties.

Who warned us of party politics close to first? Thomas Jefferson over 200 Years ago. Until we have another real option, many of us will stay jaded.

I've either voted for, or would have voted for a different party candidate almost every other election. To name a few: I wasn't old enough, but I always liked Ross Perot. I liked Geore H. Bush, Bill Clinton, Obama, and yes I voted against Hillary.

The only wife to a president I'd vote for would be Michelle Obama, hands down our best First Lady, at least in my generation. Now look at what we have. I handle Trump better than her.

[worry]

The way I see it, if you have your priorities in order (policy preferences, ethical and moral stances, etc.), you don't have to worry about whether you "like" a candidate or not. I do not care about any of these politicians' lives, I do not and never will know them personally, so what I care about is their impact on the world. A Republican, by its very nature, will have a worse impact on the world than even the worst pondscum Democrat, because when you average out the interests of its owners, the Republican's will be more destructive, bloodthirsty, life-threatening, and callous. Regardless of how jaded, how cynical, how "a pox on both houses" you are, this is plainly true.

On the one hand, that's what makes it so important to be civically active outside of (and preferably before) general elections in the ways you can be..so you don't end up having to choose between a mediocre candidate and a worse one. On the other hand, at least to me, and even though I can relate to the sentiment involved, I tend to think of protest votes against flawed-but-better-candidates as human sacrifice. It's the same politics-over-people thinking you see in mainstream partisanship, and it gets real people hurt and killed. So like I said, I can relate to the sentiment of Necessary Wake-Up Call voting choices, but I don't think they're necessarily noble or even helpful. Maybe they'll result in more attention and accelerated change in the long run...but definitely at a cost, and we (at least those of us left) will have to wait and see if it was worth it, I guess.

[Brujah]

You touched on something I've always believed. A candidate should push policies and vote in a way representing those who put him in office. Nutty concept, huh!?

So I, for the most part, totally agree. I'm just not one for better wording.

[Macros]

What will it take for Americans to vote 'none of the above' and finally break the two party system?

[Macros]

Genuine question

[HoosierDaddy]

It'd be very difficult to do. The nature of the 2 party system is that it subsumes single issue parties into their own platforms, pay lip service for one or two terms, and then they are locked in to the party apparatus. The Bull Moose Party was the most successful I can think of and that was because a former President didn't like what his party was doing. But that was 1904? Right around then.

It'd take a fundamental change to the electoral college system, which would require an amendment to the Constitution. That won't happen.

[worry]

Yah I think H.D. is right. What it would take to change that is a very looooooong bottom-up process of outsider wins...city councils, stuff like that. The people at the top aren't gonna voluntarily give up their power on principle, so it would take a long game shift in the citizenry's voting habits first.

Or a billionaire, I guess.

[Cause]

I was talking to a friend about the Jerusalem thing last night and honestly I cant see where it will lead. I don't think anyone can. My friend thinks it will lead to greater unrest, another intifada and more anti-Semitism (especially if more fighting breaks out). I feel like its possibly almost a non event. The analogy I keep thinking of is that's its kinda how everyone to avoid pissing off china does not have 'true' diplomatic relations with Taiwan or fully acknowledge its sovereignty. At least that's what they say, then everyone proceeds to act with Taiwan as if it was its own country. Foreign presidents who have visited Israel have had no problem in the past about visiting Jerusalem or speaking in the Knesset/parliaments in Jerusalem. Taiwan is a defacto country and Jerusalem has been the defacto capital of Israel for 50 years.

My personnel prediction is also that if this actually follows through, and given that it could take up to five years there is even time for a new president to cancel it, they will make damn sure to build the embassy in western Jerusalem. Which is something I have never understood about the Jerusalem problem. Many people acknowledge that east Jerusalem should belong to the Palestinians but they still prefer not to say that the west then belongs to Israel.

The reason I wonder if any big ripples will occur is that because although Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and turkey etc all threatened severe repercussions for the move I also feel like they say it because its expected of them. I think nearly everyone acts that way about the problem theses days. Its like a rote dance. Everyone talks the same talk in an endless circle and no one is really too serious about fixing the problem. In the meantime we get the status quo.

Every peace process hits a dead end. Jerusalem. Israel wont give it up, the Palestinians wont give up demanding it. Something had to alter that equation. Did Donald trump do it for those reasons? I don't think he gave it any serious thought actually. He did it because in the mathematics of presidential support I think he believes it will resonate strongly with his base and/or possibly bring in new support.

I suppose only time will time. Will terrorism increase? Do terrorists need more reasons? Will the move actually carry through over the next five years (Trump might not even be president after the next elections)? Will the peace process be hurt? Was it going anywhere as is? Will ISIS, Syria, Yemen etc exacerbate the problem or detract from it? The whole things seems like a shot in a dark.

[Silencer]

 Cause, on 07 December 2017 - 08:11 AM, said:

I was talking to a friend about the Jerusalem thing last night and honestly I cant see where it will lead. I don't think anyone can. My friend thinks it will lead to greater unrest, another intifada and more anti-Semitism (especially if more fighting breaks out). I feel like its possibly almost a non event. The analogy I keep thinking of is that's its kinda how everyone to avoid pissing off china does not have 'true' diplomatic relations with Taiwan or fully acknowledge its sovereignty. At least that's what they say, then everyone proceeds to act with Taiwan as if it was its own country. Foreign presidents who have visited Israel have had no problem in the past about visiting Jerusalem or speaking in the Knesset/parliaments in Jerusalem. Taiwan is a defacto country and Jerusalem has been the defacto capital of Israel for 50 years.

My personnel prediction is also that if this actually follows through, and given that it could take up to five years there is even time for a new president to cancel it, they will make damn sure to build the embassy in western Jerusalem. Which is something I have never understood about the Jerusalem problem. Many people acknowledge that east Jerusalem should belong to the Palestinians but they still prefer not to say that the west then belongs to Israel.

The reason I wonder if any big ripples will occur is that because although Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and turkey etc all threatened severe repercussions for the move I also feel like they say it because its expected of them. I think nearly everyone acts that way about the problem theses days. Its like a rote dance. Everyone talks the same talk in an endless circle and no one is really too serious about fixing the problem. In the meantime we get the status quo.

Every peace process hits a dead end. Jerusalem. Israel wont give it up, the Palestinians wont give up demanding it. Something had to alter that equation. Did Donald trump do it for those reasons? I don't think he gave it any serious thought actually. He did it because in the mathematics of presidential support I think he believes it will resonate strongly with his base and/or possibly bring in new support.

I suppose only time will time. Will terrorism increase? Do terrorists need more reasons? Will the move actually carry through over the next five years (Trump might not even be president after the next elections)? Will the peace process be hurt? Was it going anywhere as is? Will ISIS, Syria, Yemen etc exacerbate the problem or detract from it? The whole things seems like a shot in a dark.

I don't disagree, but I do think Trump's motives are somewhat worse than what will resonate with his base. If moving the embassy, or in the process of declaring they will move the embassy, triggers greater unrest in the region then Trump gets two things: a potential war to keep the military-industrial complex happy and distract people from how fucked up America is becoming under his rule; and a "justification" for his Muslim ban. The second one is probably more important to him, honestly, but both are not great.

It's also just more of his general signalling that he's a barely closeted white supremacist supporter who won't be doing anything to fix the de facto prison camp/war crime in progress that is the Gaza Strip. But that's kinda taken for granted at this point.

[Macros]

My thoughts exactly.
A double hit.
Unrest justifies his travel ban.
External problems distract from internal. Classic strategy for struggling political figures

[HoosierDaddy]

I'm just stunned at the reaction to the Jerusalem announcement. Who could have ever imagined this vitriol and reaction?

Stunned, shocked, stupified.

[Macros]

I assume your post is satirical

fuck me but DJT is a fucking moron.
Does the GOP want to start WW3, or why are they letting him clown around still now that their tax bill is through?

[worry]

Well, funny you should say that. Alongside the travel ban and the general distraction of ME unrest, it's also a nod to American Evangelicals who value Israel (solely) as the seat of the Apocalypse. DJT doesn't believe in that stuff (nor do Bannon or Miller) but the believers are part of his base for sure.

[Gorefest]

Sounds like DJT. Keep your supporters happy, screw the rest.

[QuickTidal]

 Gorefest, on 08 December 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

Sounds like DJT. Keep your supporters happy, screw the WORLD

FTFY

[Macros]

Surely Moore will not get elected

[amphibian]

 Macros, on 12 December 2017 - 02:00 PM, said:

Surely Moore will not get elected

Robot polls have him well in the lead. In person polls have Jones ahead.

A background to this story is that Alabama has enacted several policies that mostly prevent black people from voting due to moving polls very far away from them, closing local motor vehicle offices where they would register, and requiring photo ID to vote.

So even though more people lean left, the GOP has purposefully shrunk the voting pool in order to try and maintain their electoral power.

[Malankazooie]

Wow. Trump's tweet that Senator Kirsten Gillibrand "would do anything" for campaign contributions. Damn, the man is legitimately one sick fuck.