U.S. Politics: One NothingBurger with 100% Mos-Cow, Side of Orange Slices and a Banana Daiquiri, Please

[Altherion]

18 minutes ago, Lily Valley said:

In case anyone else wants to bet, Paddy Power already has odds for our next president.

It's pretty funny that they have Boris Johnson at 150/1 -- he's not even a US citizen anymore!

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

The one G20 narrative I'm having trouble buying into is that somehow this Putin/Trump meeting has somehow given Putin some measure of legitimacy here. It seems like all the Sunday Morning pundit shows have been trying to make this point. Given Trump's reputation internationally at this point, I just don't see it. 

[Red Tiger]

I honestly think Kim Kardashian would get more votes than Tim Kaine.

[LongRider]

JFC!

Quote

Hundreds of voters are responding to the possibility their information will be shared with President Trump’s election integrity panel by withdrawing their voter registration, according to a Friday report.

In Colorado, one of the states that is complying with part of the commission request, two clerks have seen a significant increase in voters withdrawing their voter registration, Denver’s ABC affiliate reported.

 

In Denver, one clerk has seen a 2,150 percent increase in people withdrawing as voters over the past since July 3 compared to the first non-holiday week before.

Colorado allows voters to withdraw online or make their information confidential by paying a fee.

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/341107-hundreds-of-voters-un-register-after-trump-voter-fraud-panel-demands

edt; seems like it would be too late, their info would already be on file as having voted in 2016, so why unregister now?  

Colorado by giving Kolbach this info you greatly disappoint me.

[ding-fries-are-done]

Classic comedy gold.  Anti trumpers applaud Hitler quotes.  

 

 

[IamMe90]

1 minute ago, ding-fries-are-done said:

Classic comedy gold.  Anti trumpers applaud Hitler quotes.  

 

 

yeah Whoa so funny and edgy i've never seen people be stupid before thanks for introducing me to this fascinating New Comedy Idea 

[DireWolfSpirit]

Will Hunting's brilliant NSA job interview from 1997- 

Matt Damon, writing that monologue, made him a political kindred spirit for me, its been 20 years and I still appreciate his point, maybe even more so today lol.

[The Anti-Targ]

43 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

yeah Whoa so funny and edgy i've never seen people be stupid before thanks for introducing me to this fascinating New Comedy Idea 

I wonder who's more stupid? Neo-Nazi's who give Hitler salutes whenever they can and say heil Hitler because the only thing they know is that Hitler hated Jews (and Gypsies and a bunch of other "non-standard" peoples) and at the same time are aggressive towards anyone or anything that someone labels socialism. Or the people in this video who have probably never heard or read anything of what Hitler thought other than that he hated Jews (and Gypsies and a bunch of other "non-standard" peoples) and so don't recognise his exact words even while possibly agreeing with the general socialist ideology.

It's tired and trite to say it now, but Hitler was a vegetarian. Does that now make all vegetarians evil and stupid because they have something in common with Hitler?

I don't know if it's fair to call these people stupid on the basis that they failed to recognise Hitler's words when not a single anti-Semitic statement or widely known Hitler turn of phrase (not sure there are any that are not anti-Semitic) was included. If they aren't firmly socialist then they might be called stupid for applauding a set of ideological statements with which they don't actually agree.

[Larry of the Lawn]

33 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Will Hunting's brilliant NSA job interview from 1997- 

Matt Damon, writing that monologue, made him a political kindred spirit for me, its been 20 years and I still appreciate his point, maybe even more so today lol.

Isnt Damon a Republican in real life?  

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Isnt Damon a Republican in real life?  

Not even close, he is a diehard Democrat.

[Rippounet]

20 hours ago, Altherion said:

You will undoubtedly deal with the private sector, but the private sector is not monolithic. If you dislike your boss, you can try to find another job. If you dislike the services you are receiving, you can usually (though not always) switch to a different provider. This is not possible with government: the only way to opt out is to move which is rather drastic.

I think you know very well this isn't true. It's almost like you're begging someone to say that you can't possibly believe that.

Yes, it's theroretically possible to resign and look for another job whenever you want to. Except, of course, when jobs are scarce and/or you have a mortgage. Several economic factors take such theoretical freedom away from people in most countries.
Something comparable happens with changing from one service/product provider to another one. Theoretically, competition is supposed to ensure that customers get the best possible deal. In actuality, we all know that competition is reduced to the minimum in many industries because of the massive concentration of corporations.
In the end, it's all about whether you can trust for-profit industries to improve our lives. I personnally don't kid myself ; the record is obvious enough.

But it's interesting, because this is kind-of-a "classic" conservative-liberal divide along the lines of "what is the worst evil?" Is economic oppression worse or is government oppression worse? History -as well as the news- show us that both are terrible. There's just no words to describe just how awful it is when the pendulum swings too far one way or the other -but we all have examples in mind.
This is why liberals, historically, have fought both. Some versions of what we call "conservatism" today are really just "old-style" liberalism. It's also why not that long ago you still had liberal Republicans, or why someone like Churchill could go from being a liberal-democrat in his early career to being an anti-communist conservative in just a few decades. Liberalism was always supposed to be about protecting liberty and fighting oppression regardless of where the oppression is coming from. The reason why modern liberals support government action/intervention is because they believe economic oppression has become the main problem again ; conservatives meanwhile are still fighting the "old fight" against government abuse, which unfortunately isn't that outdated, even in today's Western societies (just look at the surveillance societies we live in).
Take away the semantics, and you realize that on a deeper level most liberals and conservatives (that is, true conservatives) actually tend to have similar principles as far as political philosophy is concerned.

21 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

By and large, the generations which my parents and grandparents belong to do not have my best interests in mind, they do not vote for the best interests of my children or grandchildren.  In fact, they tend to vote aggressively against our future.  Perhaps a political historian could tell me if this is typical or if it's something new.

I'm coming back to this because it is a question I've been working on for some years now. I'm too much of a rookie to answer such a big question, but I would say there is indeed "something new" going on here -to some extent.
It's common for older generations to have different interests or values than that of younger ones (and thus, different political leanings), but the ideology that's been on the rise since the 1980s (or earlier, depending what you're looking at) seems to be making the phenomenon worse.
At the heart of it is something that Thatcher summed up very well: "there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families." And here's the full quote:

Quote

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

I think everyone ("conservatives" and "liberals" alike) fails to understand how profound and terrible this perspective is, which has been influencing our lives in pretty much every Western country. This is no longer a debate along the lines of which is the worst evil. This is an attack on the very idea of a common good, on values of solidarity and cooperation. Some call it "individualism," some call it "neo-liberalism," but this is a different -and newish- political philosophy altogether, grounded in bad readings of Adam Smith and too much reading of Ayn Rand. Not that long ago, both conservatives and liberals would have been looking for the best possible solutions for society as a whole (even while bickering endlessly on what they were) rather than seeing it as a burden to be shrugged off. Despite what she said, Thatcher wasn't just attacking government. She was attacking the very belief that there was any obligation (political or moral) for individuals to care for other individuals and thus look beyond their own personal self-interest.
The problem is that, as it turns out, people are terrible at recognizing where their self-interest lies. They are easily manipulated by short-term promises and rewards, and fail to appreciate what the long-term consequences of political decisions and economic trends will be. Which is how we've come to the point where peoples, collectively, are making awful bad political choices, harming both the collective interest and their own self-interest, no longer seeing when cooperation can make them identical.
And it's not like it hasn't happened before. There were such trends in the 1930s and in the early 20th century, and I'm sure you can find them throughout history. Under certain circumstances (especially when there is economic pressure), peoples lose sight of what the common good is, and revert to erroneous views of what their individual self-interest is instead. And today the elites have become very good not only at using this phenomenon, but even at engineering it. It's become a conscious strategy to preserve the interests of the few against those of the many, an organized class warfare that is supported by propaganda and the permanent crisis or "shock doctrine.". But there are other factors at play. For instance:
- Massive urbanization. There have been studies about this. Simply put, there is less solidarity, weaker feelings of community and belonging in big cities. In smaller cities or villages it was easy to know your neighbors and help them ; organizing and structuring the help was a logical next step. Not so much in the giant megalopolises we have today.
- An evolution of religion, and a weakening of its influence. Traditionally religion tended to impose moral obligations for solidarity and empathy. As religion disappears from the public sphere, humanism struggles to take its place, leaving a spiritual void for many people, increasing the strength of individualism and selfishness.
This is why some American conservatives have found it easy to link islamism with socialism. And very ironically they have a point. Islamism is not only about religion, it also stresses some values that are being lost in Western societies. Conversely, the Christianism professed by some Republicans is galaxies away from the actual gospel, so much so that one can only wonder whether they have actually read the bible ("supply-side Jesus" as Franken quipped).
- The consumer society. By placing a huge emphasis on material wealth, the consumer society places self-interest above the common good. People compete for material possessions rather than working together -under shared values- for the good of society. But not everyone can be happy by having their worth linked to the amount of money they earn. Some people don't succeed professionally, others simply don't see any spiritual fulfillment in such an empty quest. Which is how you get terrorism, when people start seeing the entire dominant socio-economic structure -and the people who participate in it- as devoid of morality and humanism.

So, to answer your initial question, @Dr. Pepper it's not exactly something new, but it's made far worse by modernism. And I think it's extremely dangerous, because it's not just a generational divide. Young people also embrace individualism. And while liberals and conservatives are busy blaming each other for their respective selfishness or stupidity we all lose sight of how the collective can function.

[IamMe90]

20 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I wonder who's more stupid? Neo-Nazi's who give Hitler salutes whenever they can and say heil Hitler because the only thing they know is that Hitler hated Jews (and Gypsies and a bunch of other "non-standard" peoples) and at the same time are aggressive towards anyone or anything that someone labels socialism. Or the people in this video who have probably never heard or read anything of what Hitler thought other than that he hated Jews (and Gypsies and a bunch of other "non-standard" peoples) and so don't recognise his exact words even while possibly agreeing with the general socialist ideology.

It's tired and trite to say it now, but Hitler was a vegetarian. Does that now make all vegetarians evil and stupid because they have something in common with Hitler?

I don't know if it's fair to call these people stupid on the basis that they failed to recognise Hitler's words when not a single anti-Semitic statement or widely known Hitler turn of phrase (not sure there are any that are not anti-Semitic) was included. If they aren't firmly socialist then they might be called stupid for applauding a set of ideological statements with which they don't actually agree.

yeah, I didn't really intend the word "stupid" to be taken too literally - more like, "caught in a moment of ignorance." your point further reinforces the not-very-funniness of this "classic comedy gold," though, so cheers!

[LongRider]

Wait, she said wut?

Quote

Sen. Shelley Moore CapitoShelley Moore CapitoGOP senator: If I have to be that one person to kill healthcare bill, I will AARP ads target Senate swing votes FCC chair, GOP senator take rural broadband pitch to West VirginiaMORE (R-W.Va.), a fierce opponent of the Senate healthcare bill, reportedly said she will kill the legislation if it comes down to her.

“I only see it through the lens of a vulnerable population who needs help, who I care about very deeply,” she said during an interview with Politico that was published Sunday. “So that gives me strength. If I have to be that one person, I will be it.”

Capito, who represents a state that President Trump won by large margins, reportedly expressed concern about the bill's impact on Medicaid recipients, especially those afflicted by the opioid crisis.

 

[OldGimletEye]

On 7/9/2017 at 6:35 PM, ding-fries-are-done said:

Classic comedy gold.  Anti trumpers applaud Hitler quotes.  

 

 

Well I'd say, the person that made this video is pretty slick. And the people, that go around posting it are pretty slick too.

But, perhaps, just not slick enough.

I'm pretty sure that first alleged quote by Hitler was never said by Hitler but by Gregor Strasser. So, it seems to me somebody might not have done their homework. Or maybe they did and didn't care.

Now Strasser was a committed socialist. It's doubtful Hitler really was. It's true that when Hitler and Anton Drexler sat done and wrote the Nazi manifesto around 1925, it contained some references to socialist ideas. How committed Hitler was to those ideas seems, well, very questionable to say the least. For a socialist he sure was able to get the support of wealthy people like the Bechsteins fairly quickly. And under Hitler, at least according to Piketty's book, the capitalist did pretty well, it would seem. Well at least they got higher shares of national income than the capitalist under FDR. And then he made some rather unsocialistic statements, like [The industrialist] “have worked their way to the top by their own abilities, and this proof of their capacity – a capacity only displayed by a higher race – gives them the right to lead. "And it would seem Hitler never took Strasser's ideas seriously and he and Hitler would have a falling out.

Of course people like Jonah Shitbird will try to tell a different story.

Continuing on with the intellectual trash clean up:

On 7/9/2017 at 7:33 PM, The Anti-Targ said:

I wonder who's more stupid? Neo-Nazi's who give Hitler salutes whenever they can and say heil Hitler because the only thing they know is that Hitler hated Jews (and Gypsies and a bunch of other "non-standard" peoples) and at the same time are aggressive towards anyone or anything that someone labels socialism. Or the people in this video who have probably never heard or read anything of what Hitler thought other than that he hated Jews (and Gypsies and a bunch of other "non-standard" peoples) and so don't recognise his exact words even while possibly agreeing with the general socialist ideology.

Yes, this.

And this:

On 7/9/2017 at 7:33 PM, The Anti-Targ said:

It's tired and trite to say it now, but Hitler was a vegetarian. Does that now make all vegetarians evil and stupid because they have something in common with Hitler?

If I recall correctly the German Social Democratic Party was the only party to vote entirely against the enabling act which granted Hitler complete power.

Even if I were to concede that Hiter were a socialist, does that make the German Social Democrats Nazis?

Jonah Shitbird might think so. Everyone else,would think probably not.

[LongRider]

 

Trump’s Son Met With Russian Lawyer After Being Promised Damaging Information on Clinton

July 9, 2017

 

Quote

 

President Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before agreeing to meet with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign, according to three advisers to the White House briefed on the meeting and two others with knowledge of it.

The meeting was also attended by his campaign chairman at the time, Paul J. Manafort, and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kushner recently disclosed the meeting, though not its content, in confidential government documents described to The New York Times.

The Times reported the existence of the meeting on Saturday. But in subsequent interviews, the advisers and others revealed the motivation behind it.

The meeting — at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016, two weeks after Donald J. Trump clinched the Republican nomination — points to the central question in federal investigations of the Kremlin’s meddling in the presidential election: whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. The accounts of the meeting represent the first public indication that at least some in the campaign were willing to accept Russian help.

 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, IamMe90 said:

yeah, I didn't really intend the word "stupid" to be taken too literally - more like, "caught in a moment of ignorance." your point further reinforces the not-very-funniness of this "classic comedy gold," though, so cheers!

I mostly replied to you because I didn't want to dignify the post with the video link with a direct response.

[DireWolfSpirit]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Isnt Damon a Republican in real life?  

SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!

[The Anti-Targ]

5 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

 

Trump’s Son Met With Russian Lawyer After Being Promised Damaging Information on Clinton

July 9, 2017

 

 

The Russians are either a lot less competent and keeping things covered up, or part of their master plan is to undermine both major parties, or the Trump team is so hamfisted that even though the Russians wanted to keep their aevil schemes secret the Trump side couldn't reciprocate with equal secrecy, or FAKE NEWS!

I'm inclined to go with Russia being keen to severely weaken the US's international influence, and hence step 1 was to see Trump elected and Step 2 is to completely undermine the Trump presidency on the international stage. I assume step 3 is to turn all the former soviet states west of Russia into Russian client states and Step 4 is to become a superpower without equal. Or maybe there are a couple more steps before that which need to be done. I'm sure they are keen for the EU to collapse. They must have a bit of concern about China's power and influence too.

[LongRider]

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

or the Trump team is so hamfisted that even though the Russians wanted to keep their aevil schemes secret the Trump side couldn't reciprocate with equal secrecy,

Although this is not a laffing matter, this made me think of this......

 

[Rippounet]

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I'm sure they are keen for the EU to collapse.

No question about that. It's the one thing Trump and Putin undoubtebly share: wanting to fragment the EU to restore their influence over isolated nations.

Which might mean that on some level, the EU is working better than it seems. The EU has both been able to resist some economic demands from the US while expanding to the East. Now both the US and Russia would rather have it disintegrate so they can reassert traditional spheres of influence.