US Politics: Follow the Money!

[Darth Richard II]

lol, common decency and McCain.

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

What's decent about lying about how you feel about someone?

There's a difference between portraying your thoughts about a public figure and what's being said.  Perhaps I didn't explain too well - I have no problem with calling McCain vainglorious and selfish, those are descriptive and accurate adjectives.  What's not common decency is some of the...more colorful criticisms of McCain.

As for the alternative argument that he doesn't observe common decency so why should we?  That's what a child would say.

[Jace, Extat]

5 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Yes.

I dunno, common decency.

Alright, I guess I'll step in it.

Since this story about the staffer who made the joke in the WH yesterday, I have felt the urge to retract some of the more... vicious statements I have made towards McCain. I never thought I'd be someone who insulted a man dying of brain cancer before. Well, I guess before about late 2015. I have always been a mean bitch and enjoy pushing boundaries, but I used to have compassion.

But in the Post Truth Age such things are of no use, burdensome, and quite honestly more than a little dangerous.

A great Human societal development tool has become an albatross.

I urge you to let these vestigial urges go. They will serve you little good in our new world.

[Durckad]

39 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

So we should wait to impugn his character until after he dies from brain cancer? 

Or we should have done it before he got brain cancer?

But definitely not while he has brain cancer and is dying from it? 

Honestly, why is this is relevant to his character at all, or one's ability to impugn it?

While I certainly don't think we should censor ourselves when it comes to comments about McCain's history, his character, or his legacy as a legislator, maybe wishing brain cancer upon him or saying he deserves it might be going a bit too far. Maybe.

It would be like saying Obama totally deserves to get drone striked or something.

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, Durckad said:

While I certainly don't think we should censor ourselves when it comes to comments about McCain's history, his character, or his legacy as a legislator, maybe wishing brain cancer upon him or saying he deserves it might be going a bit too far. Maybe.

It would be like saying Obama totally deserves to get drone striked or something.

Word.

I watched my grandpa die of multiple myeloma and my dad of brain cancer. I wouldn't wish cancer on my worst enemy. 

[IamMe90]

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

There's a difference between portraying your thoughts about a public figure and what's being said.  Perhaps I didn't explain too well - I have no problem with calling McCain vainglorious and selfish, those are descriptive and accurate adjectives.  What's not common decency is some of the...more colorful criticisms of McCain.

As for the alternative argument that he doesn't observe common decency so why should we?  That's what a child would say.

 

2 hours ago, Durckad said:

While I certainly don't think we should censor ourselves when it comes to comments about McCain's history, his character, or his legacy as a legislator, maybe wishing brain cancer upon him or saying he deserves it might be going a bit too far. Maybe.

It would be like saying Obama totally deserves to get drone striked or something.

 

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Word.

I watched my grandpa die of multiple myeloma and my dad of brain cancer. I wouldn't wish cancer on my worst enemy. 

Yeah, so I assumed we were all just ignoring Sword of Doom, since he/she regularly wishes for/delights in the gruesome death of all Republicans and this is nothing new. 

However, it seemed like @dmc515 was trying to say we should halt on calling McCain out (sadistic brain cancer wishes aside) on any of the bullshit that has afflicted his career out of some sort of common decency until he dies. I think that's total horse shit. If I were a personal acquaintance of McCain, then maybe I would feel the need to shut up about this (maybe.). But I'm not, he's a public figure, and I don't see how his dying should stop me or anyone else from voicing grievances about his so-called political legacy.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, IamMe90 said:

However, it seemed like @dmc515 was trying to say we should halt on calling McCain out (sadistic brain cancer wishes aside) on any of the bullshit that has afflicted his career out of some sort of common decency until he dies. I think that's total horse shit. If I were a personal acquaintance of McCain, then maybe I would feel the need to shut up about this (maybe.). But I'm not, he's a public figure, and I don't see how his dying should stop me or anyone else from voicing grievances about his so-called political legacy.

As I said, I'm sorry for the misrepresentation/interpretation/whatever ation.  That's not what I meant.

[IamMe90]

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

As I said, I'm sorry for the misrepresentation/interpretation/whatever ation.  That's not what I meant.

S'all good. I just kind of take it as a given that the vast majority of people aren't cool with other people getting their rocks off by wishing death by cancer upon people. Then I remember that this is ASOIAF, and actually half of the very erudite community here are probably totally cool with it. Which is why all y'alls reactions are actually more reasonable than I initially perceived. Damn, the polarization in this nation is something fierce.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

Then I remember that this is ASOIAF, and actually half of the very erudite community here are probably totally cool with it.

Yup.  That's what's not cool.

[Darth Richard II]

I would not wish any type of cancer on anyone. Well Fred Phelps but he's dead. 

I also feel like I don't have to feel bad for not feeling bad though, if that makes any sense. It's late abd I can't sleep.

[TheKitttenGuard]

It is this that makes me want the Democratic Party being minority that will be of true distinguished and be saved from these Reasonable Democrats.

Quote

Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) has announced he will support President Trump’s pick to lead the CIA, Gina Haspel, increasing her chances of being confirmed.

Donnelly said in a statement Saturday he believes that Haspel “has learned from the past, and that the CIA under her leadership can help our country confront serious international threats and challenges.”

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/387405-donnelly-announces-support-for-trumps-cia-pick-gina-haspel

Do not expect in any significant way for the Democratic Party to oppose Trump's push for War with Iran. Any opposition to war is going against want is a Bi-Partisan view of Iran's dangers and that is going to be very hard. Not envitablity but the mindset is very difficult to face.

[Zorral]

13 hours ago, dmc515 said:

If you're not willing to go to places where a significant portion of the population wants to kill you, then don't run for president.  Trump lives in NYC.  Even then, those aren't the areas she'd be going to in swing states, so it's a moot point.  The fact is Clinton got half-lapped by a lazy septuagenerian that has shown a juvenile propensity towards fast food.  Was she bad at campaigning?  Yeah, but that doesn't mean you don't try, and in doing so, try to get better.  So, yes, I will attribute the appropriate amount of blame to her campaign, or lack thereof.

On the McCain thing, I agree he's vainglorious and selfish.  That's a pretty spot-on depiction.  But so was Ted Kennedy (not to say I'm comparing their legislative output - in magnitude and character, Kennedy was what McCain could have been), and I don't remember the urge to call him names or impugn his character while he was dying from brain cancer.

Have no idea what you're trying to say in the bolded section.

Do you not attribute as well to Comey and the Russians a lot of her problems? Also, sexism? As well as all those bot campaigns on social media and so-called journalism, which the wonky-wonks among so many got pawned by?

The facts remain that this was perhaps the most filthy, phony election (due to bot manipulation via the Russians, which continues constantly right now) ever in the history of the US, which is saying a huge amount.  And it is the ONLY US election that was manipulated by a hostile foreign power on behalf of itself -- at least as far as I know.

Once again, let me, yet again and again and again, emphasize, that she wasn't the candidate of my choice, and that I believe, even after reading her book, her own blindness to so much, due to living in a first class political bubble for almost all her adult life, made her a lousy candidate.  The election was hers to lose, and she lost it.  Yet, she very likely wouldn't have if not for the factors put up above -- particularly the sexist stuff, and yes, the racist stuff.  Not only was she hated long before by those that hated her husband, she was further hated now because of her close relationship with Obama.  We all know what that was about, as careful as the those interviewed, for instance, in yesterday's WaPo report of the dumpster voters in the midwest, to word their antagonism to the migrants who staffed the meat packing plants, and just say that Obama's policies were the worst ever -- without even mentioning exactly what those policies that were the worst ever were.

[Larry of the Lawn]

On 5/12/2018 at 12:25 PM, Zorral said:

Have no idea what you're trying to say in the bolded section.

Do you not attribute as well to Comey and the Russians a lot of her problems? Also, sexism? As well as all those bot campaigns on social media and so-called journalism, which the wonky-wonks among so many got pawned by?

The facts remain that this was perhaps the most filthy, phony election (due to bot manipulation via the Russians, which continues constantly right now) ever in the history of the US, which is saying a huge amount.  And it is the ONLY US election that was manipulated by a hostile foreign power on behalf of itself -- at least as far as I know.

Once again, let me, yet again and again and again, emphasize, that she wasn't the candidate of my choice, and that I believe, even after reading her book, her own blindness to so much, due to living in a first class political bubble for almost all her adult life, made her a lousy candidate.  The election was hers to lose, and she lost it.  Yet, she very likely wouldn't have if not for the factors put up above -- particularly the sexist stuff, and yes, the racist stuff.  Not only was she hated long before by those that hated her husband, she was further hated now because of her close relationship with Obama.  We all know what that was about, as careful as the those interviewed, for instance, in yesterday's WaPo report of the dumpster voters in the midwest, to word their antagonism to the migrants who staffed the meat packing plants, and just say that Obama's policies were the worst ever -- without even mentioning exactly what those policies that were the worst ever were.

I don't know that it was the most phony election we've ever had.  I mean women didnt get the right to vote until 1920.  Voter disenfranchisement, while still massive and serious problem, is nothing compared to what it was during the Jim Crow era.  You're setting a pretty high bar there.   

The Russian stuff has the potential to be very bad but it isn't clear yet what the extent of it was.  Yeah if it turns out DJ Trumpkins actually worked with Russia to fuck with the election that is awful and criminal.  But we don't even know how successful any such operations were.

If on the other hand it ends up being just a bunch of bogus right wing Facebook accounts, it isn't exactly a propaganda campaign you hang on the refrigerator.  It's treasonous, but if that's the case I think it's all the other stuff resulted in the Trump outcome.  Hillary was a bad candidate for many reasons, most of which were very unfair.  But I still don't think we can call 2016 the most phony and filthy in US history.

 

Edited to add*  the rest of your post I strongly agree with.

[Altherion]

Have you guys seen examples of the allegedly Russian Facebook ads? There are some here and they are hilariously awful. For one thing, they don't even use grammatically correct English and it doesn't look like they used Google Translate -- this is more like somebody assembling together English words without understanding how an English sentence is supposed to be structured. Also, most of it is really old-fashioned: you might have seen American work work like this in the mid-twentieth century (think Rosie the Riveter), but no serious ad agency does things like this today. And finally, the ads are written by people who kind of know what's going on, but not completely.

Maybe there is some latent demand for old-fashioned propaganda written in English so bad that it's understandable mostly because you already know what they're trying to say, but honestly, if this silliness is enough to swing an election, we're so screwed...

[Bonnot OG]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

Have no idea what you're trying to say in the bolded section.

Do you not attribute as well to Comey and the Russians a lot of her problems? Also, sexism? As well as all those bot campaigns on social media and so-called journalism, which the wonky-wonks among so many got pawned by?

The facts remain that this was perhaps the most filthy, phony election (due to bot manipulation via the Russians, which continues constantly right now) ever in the history of the US, which is saying a huge amount.  And it is the ONLY US election that was manipulated by a hostile foreign power on behalf of itself -- at least as far as I know.

Once again, let me, yet again and again and again, emphasize, that she wasn't the candidate of my choice, and that I believe, even after reading her book, her own blindness to so much, due to living in a first class political bubble for almost all her adult life, made her a lousy candidate.  The election was hers to lose, and she lost it.  Yet, she very likely wouldn't have if not for the factors put up above -- particularly the sexist stuff, and yes, the racist stuff.  Not only was she hated long before by those that hated her husband, she was further hated now because of her close relationship with Obama.  We all know what that was about, as careful as the those interviewed, for instance, in yesterday's WaPo report of the dumpster voters in the midwest, to word their antagonism to the migrants who staffed the meat packing plants, and just say that Obama's policies were the worst ever -- without even mentioning exactly what those policies that were the worst ever were.

DMC is your typical white male, has no clue the impact that bigotry played in the election and thinks the loss was just because of campaign errors. Peak privellege. 

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

Do you not attribute as well to Comey and the Russians a lot of her problems? Also, sexism? As well as all those bot campaigns on social media and so-called journalism, which the wonky-wonks among so many got pawned by?

Certainly!  That doesn't mean Clinton can't be taken to task for her own role in her failure.  There are a lot of factors to blame - with Comey and the media the most obvious, let alone sexism and racism - that's why I literally said "So, yes, I will attribute the appropriate amount of blame to her campaign, or lack thereof."

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

The facts remain that this was perhaps the most filthy, phony election (due to bot manipulation via the Russians, which continues constantly right now) ever in the history of the US, which is saying a huge amount.

Yeah I don't know if I'd go that far.  At all.

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

Yet, she very likely wouldn't have if not for the factors put up above -- particularly the sexist stuff, and yes, the racist stuff.

Said it many times before - the election was so close basically any legitimate variable can be held up as the deciding factor.

6 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

DMC is your typical white male, has no clue the impact that bigotry played in the election and thinks the loss was just because of campaign errors.

LOL no.  I barely believe in the ability of campaigns to affect elections.  Racism had a much bigger role.

[LongRider]

n/m

[Zorral]

It remains that never in the history of our national elections has there been interference from another country -- and if there had been, surely it wouldn't be laughed off the way some of the members of this forum are doing in the face of the facts that there was interference.  Good grief, do you all not read the news from sources that aren't faux noose at all?

How anyone thinks that this country being run for the benefit of Putin and his kepto oligarchs won't affect one personally is hard to understand -- except, perhaps one can now understand why there are so many willing and able to abet what Hungary's Viktor Orban's crowing these days:

Quote

 

[Orban] ... declared the era of liberal democracy to be over.

"We have replaced a shipwrecked liberal democracy with a 21st-century Christian democracy, which guarantees people's freedom, security," Orban said during his acceptance speech before the lawmakers in Budapest.

"It supports the traditional family model of one man and one woman, keeps anti-Semitism at bay, and gives a chance for growth," he added.

 

Which goes right along with this -- what do all these assholes have in common, whether ISIS, incel, extreme  radical right wingers of ALL types, including all religions, globally -- gotta get them there wimmens and others back in their place so I can rule unimpeded as I did in the golden age of the past (where my dad walloped me, I didn't make any money,  but by golly I could wollop my sisters, and later my wife and daughters, and any dark skinned / other I felt like and so was king of the earth:

https://www.salon.com/2018/05/12/angry-young-white-men-the-incel-rebellion-and-an-age-of-worldwide-reaction/

Then there's this very clearly written piece by Rebecca Solnit, in which this whole craptastic thinking is laid out -- we really hate when the wimmin talk back don't we?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/12/sex-capitalism-incel-movement-misogyny-feminism

 

[Mexal]

This is normal.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

20 hours ago, Zorral said:

It remains that never in the history of our national elections has there been interference from another country -- and if there had been, surely it wouldn't be laughed off the way some of the members of this forum are doing in the face of the facts that there was interference.  Good grief, do you all not read the news from sources that aren't faux noose at all?

How anyone thinks that this country being run for the benefit of Putin and his kepto oligarchs won't affect one personally is hard to understand -- except, perhaps one can now understand why there are so many willing and able to abet what Hungary's Viktor Orban's crowing these days:

No one is arguing the first part I bolded.  You're arguing with someone that doesn't exist.  I for one, am curious to see what the actual scope of interference was.  

 

As to the second part of bolded - you know very well that absolutely no one is arguing that either.  This is a bunch of hand-wringing over what are basically strawman arguments.