• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kalbear

  • Rank
    Liquor in the growler
  • Birthday 10/26/1974

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://addictedtoquack.com

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location The worst BwB meetup area EVER

Recent Profile Visitors

12,111 profile views
  1. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    I think that's got some good points, but it simplifies a lot of things about the New Deal I don't agree with - especially the notion that this was a bloodless revolution or that the New Deal ended up being massively successful in turning things around. That being said, the main thing I agree with here is that FDR had a significantly bigger problem with significantly bigger motivation than what this looks like - which is my point. My point is that the US has proven to be pretty resilient. When it needs to be, it does change. The idea that we need something like that right now when by your words things were significantly worse - a 25% unemployment rate, massive inflation, and a threatening superpower starting to rattle sabers. This? This isn't that. We have income inequality, and that sucks. We have racial slavery by means of prison, and that really sucks. We do not have a quarter of the country out of work. We have more people with more jobs and more higher education than at any point in our history. Things can be better, and certain things should be a LOT better - and we should make those changes. But none of that justifies Trump winning. None of it justifies panicking and wanting to get to that crisis mode sooner. My point was simply that the current inequality crisis is not at a crisis point, is probably not going to be there for a while, and if it gets to there chances are really good that we'll be able to fix it. And if it isn't a crisis, perhaps we shouldn't try insanely stupid measures and should instead focus on incremental changes that can help.
  2. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    I'm saying that while the problems certainly exist, they are not emergency problems that would warrant the idea of voting for someone who would undoubtedly make them significantly worse in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, things might get better later. It makes sense to do that sort of thing when you think that you're in an emergency situation and you have little help of anything else working. It makes no sense at all to do it if you think things can be fixed without major disruption. And if the whole point is to fix the problems without completely obliterating the prior system, why would you think Trump would be a good choice? While a Clinton presidency might continue the status quo (I doubt that incredibly seriously), a Trump presidency would exacerbate problems while making them far more difficult to actually change further given that the supreme court would be significantly more conservative (and there probably being more debt, more war, less jobs and less tax revenue). All of those things make change without massive disruption incredibly hard. Furthermore, history is littered with examples of countries who went authoritarian after a Democracy and never, ever recovered. But that's what you want. Which again, makes no sense given what you state you want.
  3. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    Except here's the weird thing with that logic - this implies that it needs to be fixed right this second. Even though there's very little sign that it actually does. Furthermore, we have evidence from FDR 1.0 that it not only can be fixed, it can be fixed fairly quickly. And the first time it was fixed it was not after really incompetent government or hated people or something like that, and it's certainly not like FDR was some odd outsider. So to me, it's weird to classify these 'problems' which are at best speculative as a major emergency, and accept that we should cause major suffering right this instant to fix problems that aren't actually there yet. And even better, do so by completely obliterating the prior system.
  4. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    He's easy to emotionally manipulate. Especially to cause anger. He's like the opposite of the Hulk. That doesn't mean you can get what you want, but it is easy to push his buttons. Trump simply has to say exactly what he said above to convince them - because Crooked Clinton and DWS won't allow Sanders to win, he won't debate Sanders. Trump doesn't have to appeal to them as a good choice - all he has to do is make Clinton look like the REAL enemy. Just like he did in the above message. And what is Sanders going to say? No, the system isn't crooked? He's been saying that this whole time! Or DWS isn't crooked and bad? He specifically just came out and said that! Trump doesn't have to have Sanders cooperate with him - all Trump has to do is say the same shit that Sanders has said over and over. That's it.
  5. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    See, now? Now would be a good time for Sanders and Clinton to come together, call on Trump to debate Sanders, and go after him for being afraid. Especially since a tech company was going to host it for $10mil to go to charity as long as they could host the actual debate (which would be probably even better). Shaming Trump and calling him a coward hits right at his supporters' core values and more importantly his own sense of machismo.
  6. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    He can, but given the more recent debates it's very easy for him to go negative (as he has the last two debates) and my suspicion is that Trump would want to goad him into it. And Sanders is kind of easy to manipulate in debates emotionally. I don't think that Sanders is mwahahah evil - but I think he has a combination of too much positive idealism about other people's motivations ,and he's too easy to emotionally manipulate, especially based on incomplete information. (the example of him yelling that Clinton was unqualified when Clinton didn't say that he was is a good example of this). It's not about wooing Sanders supporters. It's about two things: Convincing Sanders supporters that they should not under any circumstance support Clinton Convincing Sanders supporters that Trump really isn't that bad. Again, the debate at this point is basically what happens to Sanders' supporters. Trump isn't wanting to steal anyone away, because he isn't trying to beat Sanders. He's wanting to use Sanders as a political tool. Sanders wants to beat Trump, but this is also a political tool - to show that he can beat Trump, but also that Clinton sucks. The debate would be on Fox. The same Fox that just released a special 'The Trumps' focusing on all the awesome part of Trump's family. I don't think controlling the debate is that hard, and Trump has never had a hard time curbing any debate towards the things he wants.
  7. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    Talking it over with friends I think you need both. You need the anger and the outrage sometimes - though I think the anger needs to be directed outward, not at a specific person, in order to be effective in changing minds. And then you need the mediator. You need the anger to cause people to want to do things. To see something as unfair and wrong, and make their emotional mind engage and want action. And then you need the mediator to show that you can, indeed, join the other side and not lose your signaling identity and won't be a traitor. At the same time - I've not felt this angry about some of my acquaintance's behavior in 6 years, since one of my friends came out as a bigot. It bothers me on a very basic moral level to think that people would be okay with sending the US into chaos and violence and open revolt so that maybe in a few years things would be better. It bothers me that their friend's rights are so meaningless to them that they would happily spend them if it meant (maybe) getting something more like what they want down the road. Maybe this is really personal for me because of events this year that happened to my family. When I think that there were 20 million people previously that could have had the medical bills that we have had...and have nothing with medical insurance, that angers me incredibly. When I think that there are about 3 million American kids who can have their parents deported despite living in the US for 10-20 years and even owning property - that angers me incredibly. That's not even talking about the stupid foreign policy blunders that await, mind you. That's talking about just what will happen to US policy if Trump (or realistically, almost any Republican in current vibes) comes into power.
  8. Deadpool v SkullpoopL: Dawn of Spoilers

    The problem with Stephen Lang or Clancy Brown as Cable is that they're great as Cable; I don't see them as great in a deadpool movie. To be fair I don't really know what the Cable and Deadpool arc is like, but I would imagine that he's basically the straight man to Deadpool and it's some kind of 48 hours thing. In which case you need someone who is at least a bit goofy-minded who can also do menace. I don't see that about Clancy Motherfucking Brown. And I love him. But he does Menace, and that's it. Maybe Stephen Lang - I honestly haven't seen much outside of avatar with him - but seems similar. Perlman, however, does goofy and stud.
  9. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    It's not every decision - but doing things like debating with the Republican nomination when you haven't won and are far, far behind is a really dangerous thing to do. It's certainly the sort of thing that should have been asked about and talked about, especially if your overall goal is to beat Trump in November. As an example, while Sanders debating Trump is seen as a huge potential problem for Clinton and a major gain for Trump, if Clinton and Sanders coordinated a bit prior to the debate and made sure that Sanders only went after major talking points - and also made sure to emphasize that there is nothing that he has in common with Trump and fight that assertion at every step - it might end up being a positive for Democrats. Having a way to make sure that Sanders supporters don't support Trump is kind of a big deal, and there are ways to make that at least more likely. Sanders, say, calling Trump a proto-Nazi and summoning up what happened to his Jewish friends in WW2 and saying how he has nothing in common with said Nazi is really hateful rhetoric that would suck - but it's also not coming from Clinton and is precisely the sort of thing that Sanders can do in a way that wouldn't hurt Clinton.
  10. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    Ugh. I had forgotten that Michael Moore was one of the 'Bush and Gore are EXACTLY THE SAME' people back in the day. Bah. Anyway, here's an article on why you shouldn't vote for your conscience - it's because, arguably, you are not a human tire fire.
  11. X-Men Apocalypse: continued

    Well, a lot of fans had figured that Bvs would suck, Apoc would suck, and Deadpool might be awesome. But for, say, some random person who barely knows the characters this is a really weird ranking. BvS should have been an incredibly big, Avengers sized movie. Instead it's not even going to be the best DC movie this year.
  12. Straczynski/Wachowski Sense8 on Netflix

    I thought they mentioned that they do walkthroughs at a central location first before doing any of their on location shooting so that they can iron out some of the kinks earlier.
  13. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    That might be true. at the same time, we're seeing the rank and file republicans get in line to blow Trump, including people who said that they would rather die than do so like Lindsey Graham. That's going to signal a whole bunch of people who think that Trump is an idiot to at least think that maybe the party can handle him.
  14. X-Men Apocalypse: continued

    It is so weird that if you were told that Batman vs. Superman, X-men vs. Apocalypse, Captain American and Deadpool were coming out - no one on the planet would have picked them in reverse order as far as quality is concerned.
  15. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    But this means that Clinton +12 and Clinton +0 are both equally predictive, since they both just happened in the period mentioned. That doesn't make a lot of sense. ETA: misread this. What this is saying is that right now polls are the least useful that they're going to be from a predictive standpoint. While he has a lot of very weird and sometimes super contradictory positions, he doesn't change on a few no matter what - the wall, immigration being bad, politicians sucking and being politically correct. Note the people saying that 'he says what he thinks' and the like - that hasn't changed. And that's been true of him for 30 years. The ideology of being a total asshole is what he's running on, and that is absolutely something people like. Just like they do with Putin.