[Nicodimas]

worry, on 21 January 2018 - 11:32 PM, said:

Values. You know, like: https://www.cnn.com/...unds/index.html



Or: https://www.npr.org/...h-taxpayer-mone
House Ethics Member Reportedly Settled Sexual Misconduct Case With Taxpayer Money

Or:



Values. I suppose that's one way to look at it. Still, I wonder...now that we've established the majority of white women vote GOP because of Values, what should we conclude about non-white women and Values, since -- for example -- they voted 81% to 16% Clinton over Trump?

God, people voted for Clinton. The horror. The horror.

(Worry you can do better lol)

[Nicodimas]

Note: Since I haven’t stated this awhile .... I don’t believe in the current system at all. All paths of consolidating power are really really bad. Judge away.

I also don’t really like what we dictate and call capatialism. It’s not capitalism, just like socialism is not communism. It’s corporatcacy that’s really mixed up honestly... reality is stranger than any book can sell ya on.

We are all more intelligent than what they are selling us on.

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 22 January 2018 - 12:00 AM

[End of Disc One]

worry, on 20 January 2018 - 10:15 PM, said:

Cautiously optimistic for the '18 midterms. Lots of R incumbents aren't even running again (including several in California ) so that's gotta be a sign of something. We'll see.

You guys really think that things are going to get better once the Democrats are back in control of Congress? I don't know, I just think this whole mentality of supporting one party or the other is off, and it's only going to get worse. Right now the Democrats' identity is basically "anti-Trump," just like the Republican party used to be the "anti-Obama" party. Or still is? Trump sometimes forgets that Obama is not President anymore.

[Obdigore]

End of Disc One, on 22 January 2018 - 07:44 PM, said:

worry, on 20 January 2018 - 10:15 PM, said:

Cautiously optimistic for the '18 midterms. Lots of R incumbents aren't even running again (including several in California ) so that's gotta be a sign of something. We'll see.

You guys really think that things are going to get better once the Democrats are back in control of Congress? I don't know, I just think this whole mentality of supporting one party or the other is off, and it's only going to get worse. Right now the Democrats' identity is basically "anti-Trump," just like the Republican party used to be the "anti-Obama" party. Or still is? Trump sometimes forgets that Obama is not President anymore.

Nah. Democrats identity isn't 'anti-trump', any more than they are 'lets not be dumbasses'. Democrats still have ideas, bills, and some would say, morals.

While I don't agree with most of them, labeling them as only 'anti-trump' is a disservice, especially as compared to the republicans that were elected during the Obama Administration that literally run on nothing beyond 'fuck dem libruls'.

[worry]

'Better' is relative, and better than DJT is easy. A million times yes do I think a mediocre, careerist, 'moderate'-by-US-standards Dem hack is superior to Donald Trump, or frankly any Republican, since even a neolib -- relatively speaking -- is better than a proto-fascist. For one thing, it's impossible to over-emphasize how bad for America the tax bill is. It's going to kill a lot of people, plain and simple (not necessarily before Nov 2018, true). For another, though, progressive policy is popular. DACA & CHIP, which most Republicans despise, are hugely popular. Even Medicare for All is at like 60% approval. A Dem congress could offer up some clean bills. I don't know if DJT would sign much Dem-led legislation, but he'd own his Veto in spectacular fashion.

[End of Disc One]

I'll give you that anyone is better than Trump. And while the tax bill is a clusterfuck and overall not good, I don't think it's THAT bad. I do taxes for a living, and I'm actually a little excited by the optimism that it's bringing to a lot of our clients (most of whom are small business owners). While corporate rates went down, corporations still almost always pay at a higher effective tax rate than individuals due to double taxation. With the individual tax changes, most people are seeing a tax decrease in the short term, and the rich are actually more likely to see a tax increase than the poor are, despite what many believe. The cuts are set to expire, but tax cuts get extended all the time, so we'll see what happens.

But with that out of the way, I understand the argument that the government needs more tax revenue, not less. And this won't help shrink the divide between the rich and the poor by any means. I just don't think the tax bill is going to end us.

[worry]

I agree it's not going to end us, like as a society, since hopefully things will eventually change (though not w/o a Dem or better congress). It is going to end some of us in the meantime, though, as in actual people literally dying who otherwise wouldn't have. Shrinking the divide between rich and poor is the fundamental economic health issue -- moving people from poverty to middle class is vital for civilization; moving people from middle class to upper middle class and above is a gimmick. It benefits very few at the expense of very many -- mostly benefits people who are already there -- and as a legislative priority it's a disaster. Any tax bill that doesn't address that should be read as hostile to the vast majority of Americans.

[worry]

That's not a rousing defense of Dems, mind you. Still in that *relatively* better zone. I mean, today's news alone should tell you how useless the Dems can be in a real fight. Though I think, of the two parties, they're the one that's going to improve generationally (it's already happening some).

[amphibian]

For Nicodemas, what does "values" mean to you?

Also, the tax bill isn't the main objective of the senate and the house Republicans. What they want is to gut Medicare and Medicaid. They're already calling this entitlement reform, when neither are entitlements. The reason why these are going to be in their sights now is because the deficit will rise for to the tax bill.

I will bet real money that many of the Republicans leaving office after the elections this year are going to find very nice jobs in the lobbying business - for health insurance and foreign governments.

[Gust Hubb]

All this is super exhausting to witness. I hate all of these politicians and more so the people who back them. We are such a backwards country and I wish these wealthy politicians would see ruin and shame for the rest of their miserable existences

[worry]

MAGA

[nicetrout]

I had a terrible argument with my uncle and aunt about how Trans people are mentally challenged and gay people are sex criminals. That dude, the big white beard fucko, instantly reminded me of the searing hatred that I faced that day. It's so rare, and harrowing, to just face hatred and have somebody so proudly and boldly stand in their truth, despite their truth being so fucking terrible. I feel like so typically it's easy to slide into thinking that this type of hatred is just manifested in lazy white middle class people who don't want to empathize outside of themselves, but then you face these people who truly hate others and are racist, or homophobic or something. Not all hate is passive ( although those people are a problem too), some hate is searing and bleak.

hard to look into the void sometimes. bleak shit.

[nicetrout]

Memo's out

[Aptorian]

What memo?

[QuickTidal]

Re: The Memo.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is all so that Trump can feasibly fire Rosenstein (who won't fire Mueller) and find someone who will? Like he thinks this is enough of smokescreen that it will cover the fact that firing Rosenstein to try to get at Mueller more directly would point (EVEN MORE) clearly to obstruction of justice?

[Primateus]

QuickTidal, on 02 February 2018 - 05:37 PM, said:

Re: The Memo.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is all so that Trump can feasibly fire Rosenstein (who won't fire Mueller) and find someone who will? Like he thinks this is enough of smokescreen that it will cover the fact that firing Rosenstein to try to get at Mueller more directly would point (EVEN MORE) clearly to obstruction of justice?

Does it actually say anything ostensibly damaging that is also true?

[QuickTidal]

Primateus, on 02 February 2018 - 05:59 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 02 February 2018 - 05:37 PM, said:

Re: The Memo.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is all so that Trump can feasibly fire Rosenstein (who won't fire Mueller) and find someone who will? Like he thinks this is enough of smokescreen that it will cover the fact that firing Rosenstein to try to get at Mueller more directly would point (EVEN MORE) clearly to obstruction of justice?

Does it actually say anything ostensibly damaging that is also true?

I just read it.

From what I understand, they are saying that the FBI has a Democratic bent, and had a bias towards Clinton over Trump during the election. Most of it is about how they surveilled Carter Page (Trump advisor) and that the renewal (you have to renew surveillance orders every 90 days and with new reasons) came with notions about the Steele Dossier (only some of which has been proven)...which they discount because Steele went to the press and exposed that he was working with the FBI...but it disregards to mention that Page was under surveillance LONG before the Steele Dossier was ever involved...so they are like "These renewals are based on the Steele Dossier, and that guy was fired from working with the FBI!"....implying that it's all untrue (but they proved that the Page-Centric aspects of the Dossier are in fact true)...and that Page should not have been surveilled and this was done to discredit Trump...but doesn't note that the surveillance was already going on, and it's just one of the later renewals that included the Dossier info.

So they are essentially fudging the truth and obscuring it behind omissions. What they say is (I assume) TECHNICALLY true...but it's not nearly the damming thing they are painting it as by a long shot. They are calling out only a tiny piece of an overall picture and ignoring the picture.

The last bit seems to be about how an FBI agent was texting his mistress about how they hope Trump didn't get elected...which I guess the Congressional republicans (and Trump) meant to point at the fact that those two have a Liberal bias...and are therefore unable to do their government oversight jobs in an unbiased manner...which is bullshit. Aren't MOST of the people Trump is disparaging in the FBI Republicans?

Anyways, I THINK they think it's a bigger deal than it seems to be.

I also heard that the Dems have some sort of rebuttal memo? Not sure about that.

I DO know that there is some protections now for the Dems to just read classified shit out on the house floor and be totally protected now...which ought to be interesting...

EDIT: Oh, and I almost forgot the cherry on top...the memo actually doesn't actually imply that the the Steele Dossier is what triggered the surveillance (which is what the right has been crowing about it "proving")...one line late in the memo actually flat out states that it was Papadopolous that triggered it, not the dossier.

So yeah...lots of smoke, but even an untrained eye notes that it doesn't do anything they think it does.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 02 February 2018 - 06:17 PM

[Nicodimas]

Trump is wrecking the dems right now...

A whole new game : https://www.scribd.c...dium=affiliate#


They need to clean up their party.. The FBI lied to Courts to subvert the sanctify of US elections. No longer a conspiracy anymore.... a fact. Political suppression in the US.

It’s fact now and the democrats that supported this should go down for treason. Perp walk them to GITMO. Defund the agencies responsible. Strip the judges.

Anyhow dems just lost 2020.. calling it. They can’t even cast their own treasonous people aside.

[Aptorian]

Man, Nico... you're offended my political suppression in the US but somehow think the Republicans and Trump are the good guys in this scenario?!

[worry]

Good summary of what the GOP hopes to con septuagenarians into believing.