US Election 2016: DO NOT MY FRIENDS BECOME ADDICTED TO WATER

[The Marquis de Leech]

3 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

And in Sweden I have a political party who work on BOTH these goals at the same time. But in US - nope.

We're talking the Left Party, presumably?

Here we've got the Labour Party (Social Democrats to you), but no viable bunch further left. Pulling that bunch left is something a lot of people (including myself) keep trying to do. But politics is a marathon, not a sprint, so it's not something we can achieve over night.

[Mexal]

Clinton's new ad against Trump on foreign policy.

 

[Protagoras]

1 minute ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

We're talking the Left Party, presumably?

Here we've got the Labour Party (Social Democrats to you), but no viable bunch further left. Pulling that bunch left is something a lot of people (including myself) keep trying to do. But politics is a marathon, not a sprint, so it's not something we can achieve over night.

Yup

Well, don´t complain people get disillusioned and act in a way you don´t want until you have succeded. I think people in this forum should understand where people who support Bernie come from and they refuse to - for their own selfish reasons, and then accuse me for being selfish! No- that is not how it works. 

[Protagoras]

7 minutes ago, LOLStorm said:

But it's not half a loaf. It's a crumb, and then you're asked to be grateful for it.

Exactly!

[Pro Augustis]

17 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

But she isn´t giving me a half loaf of bread. She is giving me some scraps and say "This is what you get".

And then I start to think that those scraps isn´t worth it. I should gamble for an entire loaf - with the risk of getting nothing. 

What this misses, so far as I can tell, is the likelihood that the gamble will succeed. If it was reasonably likely then sure, go for broke. But it isn't. The US is vast enough that denying your vote to the democratic party is overwhelmingly likely to have zero impact besides making a Republican win infinitesimally more likely. Furthermore, assuming that somehow you are the straw that broke the democratic donkey's back and caused some sort of revolution (not totally sure about the mechanism here), that still leaves the question for both your and Altherion's view of violent change -> something better: who says that something better has to come out of upheaval? Most bloody revolutions and internal conflicts led to something getting much worse, not better. 

[Protagoras]

2 minutes ago, Pro Augustis said:

Most bloody revolutions and internal conflicts led to something getting much worse, not better. 

I disagree. The french revolution gave an echo for the future, despite the bloody times they were. The russian one scared the world about revolutions, allowing political reform impossible to do otherwise despite those living there had a nightmare and a stagnated economy. 

Scaring the elite has its own value and you should see beyond the consequences for those at that time and place. 

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

I disagree. The french revolution gave an echo for the future, despite the bloody times they were. The russian one scared the world about revolutions, allowing political reform impossible to do otherwise despite those living there had a nightmare and a stagnated economy. 

Scaring the elite has its own value and you should see beyond the consequences for those at that time and place. 

And the value is? 

Another way to put it is this: you pointed out two revolutions. One resulted in a fairly good time. The other resulted in the second most repressive nation state the world has ever known. And those are the good options. Most revolutions do not end up with a good result. They end up with instability and collapse for hundreds of years. 

And yet another way to put it is that no democracy, ever, has survived a revolution or a change to another form of government. None. 

But hey, you actually admire the USSR, so we have a good idea of what your goal is - economic socialism, repressive authoritarianism and massive restricting of civil liberties.

[Kalbear]

In other news, remember how Clinton has the perception of conflict of interest, despite not having actions that show said conflict of interest?

Here's what actual, genuine corruption and bribery looks like. Trump paid state AGs donations, and shockingly they stopped prosecuting vs. Trump University. 

Quote

 

Eric Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York, launched a lawsuit against Trump University in 2013 that is still pending. And Horwitz and Biesecker report that "Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi briefly considered joining with Schneiderman in a multi-state suit against Trump University."

But it ultimately didn't happen:

Three days after Bondi's spokeswoman was quoted in local media reports as saying the office was reviewing the New York lawsuit, the Donald J. Trump Foundation made a $25,000 contribution to a political fundraising committee supporting Bondi's re-election campaign. Bondi, a Republican, soon dropped her investigation, citing insufficient grounds to proceed.

 

 

[TrackerNeil]

39 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Neither of those articles support your point, which I will remind you was this:

Then take a gander as the Rolling Stone piece to which Shryke linked. If that does not convince you, nothing will.

[Mexal]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

But hey, you actually admire the USSR, so we have a good idea of what your goal is - economic socialism, repressive authoritarianism and massive restricting of civil liberties.

This is the big thing for me. I know quite a number of people who grew up in the USSR. Their lives were terrible. If that's what this guy admires, fair enough, but it's certainly not what I want my country to be.

[BloodRider]

55 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

This is why I like tit-for-that in all circumstances.

Well that's great and all, but it isn't how reality is built.

5 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

If I am not able to use you as a chip for my causes - why the hell should I care about your issues? Who should I care if you are getting discriminated against or treated less-than-human? You are unwilling to strike a deal with me to correct the injustices I see, but in your arrogance demands me to consider your position without giving anything in return. And when I don´t I am the asshole?

Edit: Doesn´t this also mean that if you stand to lose so much, shouldn´t you, like - take my deal in pure self interest? Why fighting me when I am not the one denying you your rights?

Again.  It ain't a zero sum game.  

[LOLStorm]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

But hey, you actually admire the USSR, so we have a good idea of what your goal is - economic socialism, repressive authoritarianism and massive restricting of civil liberties.

What became the USSR almost immediately after the revolution granted many civil liberties that would not become the norm elsewhere for decades. The most obvious examples being the decriminalized both abortion and homosexuality. Since the poster your replying to specified that it was the revolution they supported your characterization of them seems demonstrably false and deeply disingenuous.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, LOLStorm said:

What became the USSR almost immediately after the revolution granted many civil liberties that would not become the norm elsewhere for decades. The most obvious examples being the decriminalized both abortion and homosexuality. Since the poster your replying to specified that it was the revolution they supported your characterization of them seems demonstrably false and deeply disingenuous.

They also said that they miss the USSR in a prior post. It seems like they liked both the revolution and the actual establishment. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

50 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Clinton's new ad against Trump on foreign policy.

 

That's not a foreign policy ad. It's on his tax returns.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Regarding third or 4th parties like the Greens and Libertarians (who have fielded two particularly strong candidates in former Guvs Johnson and Weld this cycle), I read an interesting quote in a Huff post article today about the framers (founding fathers) fears/intentions.

The Constitution does not mention political parties at all, and the Framers were worried that the rise of powerful factions would undermine liberty. As John Adams wrote in a letter in 1780: "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

[BloodRider]

26 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

I disagree. The french revolution gave an echo for the future, despite the bloody times they were. The russian one scared the world about revolutions, allowing political reform impossible to do otherwise despite those living there had a nightmare and a stagnated economy. 

Scaring the elite has its own value and you should see beyond the consequences for those at that time and place. 

Yeah, thanks a lot for advocating for another Reign of Terror, Maximilien Robespierre.  That was a bundle of laughs for everyone, and in no way replaced one set of elites with another who continued to effect inequality AND killed people who weren't grateful for their crumbs.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DireWolfSpirit said:

Regarding third or 4th parties like the Greens and Libertarians (who have fielded two particularly strong candidates in former Guvs Johnson and Weld this cycle), I read an interesting quote in a Huff post article today about the framers (founding fathers) fears/intentions.

 

Pity they put almost no considerations in place to stop said parties. If they had codified even anything like a non first past the post voting scheme into the constitution the US would be a multiparty place.

[BloodRider]

13 minutes ago, LOLStorm said:

What became the USSR almost immediately after the revolution granted many civil liberties that would not become the norm elsewhere for decades. The most obvious examples being the decriminalized both abortion and homosexuality. Since the poster your replying to specified that it was the revolution they supported your characterization of them seems demonstrably false and deeply disingenuous.

Are we really at the place where we are waxing nostalgic for fucking Stalin?  (Who, BTW, was not so awesome on teh gays.)  

"At least Hitler made the trains run on time" used to be an ironic statement.  

[LOLStorm]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They also said that they miss the USSR in a prior post. It seems like they liked both the revolution and the actual establishment. 

Even the later day USSR enabled the expansion of civil liberties in certain circumstances. Something like the brown vs board of education is a good example of this. American racism was a keystone of soviet propaganda and in that particular case helped immensely. You could also look cite the opposition to apartheid, or if you broadened to the entire East Block bring up how many of GDR's policies were both more progressive than FRG's and prompted West Germany to adopt better policies.

[Mexal]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's not a foreign policy ad. It's on his tax returns.

Ahh, interesting. The link I posted in the post doesn't go to the video that I wanted. Try this link.