US Politics: Help Me Vladimir!!! Xi Wants Me to Lose!!!

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Also, @DanteGabriel

I saw this story on the Hill this morning about an Obama/Hillary ticket being possible (I didn't actually read past the headline and byline). I laughed. Then I googled the author, and the first two stories of his were something about the Covid19 panic being stupid, and Trump being the smartest President we've ever had. So...yeah.

Yeah, The Hill used to (and occasionally still does) have some decent articles, but these days you really have to wade through the dreck to find them.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Yeah, The Hill used to (and occasionally still does) have some decent articles, but these days you really have to wade through the dreck to find them.

Since the John Solomon scandal I'd say it's best practice to read any opinion pieces from The Hill with healthy skepticism.

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Fury Sr wouldn’t be having it if I (or anyone near him) had a finger directed anywhere near a trigger like that until ready to discharge. I learned that shit at like 8years old. Where are these dipshits’ fathers to be “not angry, disappointed”

Seriously. Every single one of them looks like he's about to blow his buddy's foot off. 

This is just the dumbest shit ever. Trump is going to get people shot, on top of getting people infected. Can you imagine if there had been an accidental discharge?

[Guest]

Just now, DMC said:

Since the John Solomon scandal I'd say it's best practice to read any opinion pieces from The Hill with healthy skepticism.

I don't even read their opinion, and very few analysis articles, there anymore, for precisely that reason.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Rorshach said:

Not sure if I'm to laugh or cry about those gunmen, but I did enjoy this takedown. Note, I'm not really interested in guns, and my 12 months in the military (mandatory at the time) was spent as a first aid soldier. Still, seemed to me this guy knows what he's talking about.

 

They say the pandemic is a hoax so why are they wearing masks?  The single one not holding a gun over crotch, appears, to be, female?

[mcbigski]

On 5/1/2020 at 6:30 AM, DanteGabriel said:

Please list these ways, and be as specific as you can. Because these threads have seen a ton of "the parties are the same" arguments.

There is some amount of truth to it, which is how people get there in the first place. The Democrats are captive to corporate interests and run by wealthy, out of touch plutocrats  whose top priority is preserving their own power.

I've beaten this dead horse repeatedly, but that's largely a function of the election rules in the US.  Coalition gets built before the election instead of after the results are in.  Which moderates both extremes.  Also said before, the difference between Bill Clinton and Bush 43 apart from the specifically wedge issues (abortion, stem cell etc) was basically nil beyond the cosmetics.  Because that's how you get to 48% plus in the general.   (Edited to add:  More polarized results without triangulation, of course.)

 

On 5/1/2020 at 6:54 AM, Rippounet said:

This is the post I'd have written if I wanted to set the US politics thread on fire before cackling like emperor Palpatine in front of a confused jedi.

Mayhaps it's time for a separate thread on the whole "liberal vs left" thing. It's not a specifically US issue tbh.

It's probably different in the US than in Europe though.  I'm a liberal but not a leftist.  Being founded as a republic with egalitarian aspirations is just plain a different world than coming from a monarchy/aristocracy. 

On 5/1/2020 at 8:12 AM, BigFatCoward said:

You dont choose someone to piss in your mouth or your face. But if that's the only choice then you take the one that bothers you least, if you are a grown up. 

Edit, if you like being pissed on that is a personal choice, however I reckon 70 year old man piss is gross, so get it elsewhere. 

This is highly dependent on the pisser tbh,

Sorry, I came back to this thead after a short hiatus, but things moved quickly and I haven't read the last ten pages.

 

[Rippounet]

31 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

It's probably different in the US than in Europe though.

Not really. The semantics are often different but not only is the fundamental opposition pretty close, but some people are actively working to reproduce the US paradigm.

31 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Being founded as a republic with egalitarian aspirations is just plain a different world than coming from a monarchy/aristocracy.

My revolution was more egalitarian than yours!

Seriously though, and as unpopular as the idea can be, I don't think the American Revolution really had egalitarian aspirations. Or to be more accurate, what "egalitarian" aspects it had were largely inherited from Britain.

[mcbigski]

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Not really. The semantics are often different but not only is the fundamental opposition pretty close, but some people are actively working to reproduce the US paradigm.

My revolution was more egalitarian than yours!

Seriously though, and as unpopular as the idea can be, I don't think the American Revolution really had egalitarian aspirations. Or to be more accurate, what "egalitarian" aspects it had were largely inherited from Britain.

Thats why I said aspirational.  Otoh we re still on our first republic.

[DMC]

I think the major contribution of the founding & framing is in constitutional design - and subsequently the Federalist.  "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition" and "liberty is to faction what air is to fire" are pretty valuable and accessible guiding principles for any state-building.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

22 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Not really. The semantics are often different but not only is the fundamental opposition pretty close, but some people are actively working to reproduce the US paradigm.

My revolution was more egalitarian than yours!

Seriously though, and as unpopular as the idea can be, I don't think the American Revolution really had egalitarian aspirations. Or to be more accurate, what "egalitarian" aspects it had were largely inherited from Britain.

Given the evolution into “La Terreur” is the French Revolution really where you want to brag?

[Fragile Bird]

28 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Given the evolution into “La Terreur” is the French Revolution really where you want to brag?

Lol, I’d hate to see the kind of Terror the US would descend into if there were a revolution now.

[OldGimletEye]

56 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Seriously though, and as unpopular as the idea can be, I don't think the American Revolution really had egalitarian aspirations. Or to be more accurate, what "egalitarian" aspects it had were largely inherited from Britain.

A few things. Patents of nobility were abolished. No official church was declared. Colonist adopted the less servile Dutch word "boss", instead of  using master or mistress.

Also, if you mean, that Enlightenment as it was developed in England was influential on leaders of the revolution, then that would be correct.  But, that influence often battled with established older order in England. That's not just some small detail.

[mormont]

20 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

I'm a liberal but not a leftist. 

The problem with this is, if it were actually true, you would sooner jump in the Atlantic than vote for Trump. 'Liberal' is a malleable, oft-abused term but even in the vast range of meanings it can convey there isn't a single principle that isn't utterly antithetical to everything Trump represents.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, mormont said:

The problem with this is, if it were actually true, you would sooner jump in the Atlantic than vote for Trump. 'Liberal' is a malleable, oft-abused term but even in the vast range of meanings it can convey there isn't a single principle that isn't utterly antithetical to everything Trump represents.

Yes.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Lol, I’d hate to see the kind of Terror the US would descend into if there were a revolution now.

Probably something like this if you were in charge:
 

Spoiler

 

 

[Fury Resurrected]

3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Hope they all realize they look like a bunch of dorks.

Worst cosplay ever. This is the lamest fandom.

[mcbigski]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

The problem with this is, if it were actually true, you would sooner jump in the Atlantic than vote for Trump. 'Liberal' is a malleable, oft-abused term but even in the vast range of meanings it can convey there isn't a single principle that isn't utterly antithetical to everything Trump represents.

Only Siths deal in absolutes!

Trump has reduced (I wanted to say significantly, but lets be honest here Leviathan has inertia on its side) regulation.  More freedom.  Compared to It Takes a Village HRC, he was clearly the govern from the bottom up, respect individual rights, candidate last time in the final election. (FWIW I was a Cruz guy during the primaries, but on the insider v outsider axis, I was fine w Trump.  And being skeptical of the media by default, more enthused now for re-election.  Unless you want your hair sniffed by grandpa.)  I kind of feel like if the left is going to abandon liberal as a title, I should reclaim it.  Fits me better anyway.

I'm pretty sure Liberty isn't a top-down fall in line do as you're told sort of endeavor.

[mcbigski]

18 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yes.  

Really?  Trump isn't just sometime wrong, or even wrong more often than not, but antithetical to right think categorically?  Scot my impression is that the number of topics you are willing to hold your own opinion on has shrunk noticeably.

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, mcbigski said:

 respect individual rights, 

Remember when Arpaio went around violating the 4th Amendment rights of latinos and was told to stop, but didn't'. What did Trump do about that?

The problem with certain sorts of people is that they see something like environmental or financial regulation as huge affronts to "freedom", but could care less if the police go around harassing people for no good reason.

[mcbigski]

I'm all for reigning in the police along a number of axes.  Arpaio was a long time whipping horse so not sure which travesty specifically you mean.  Is this a stop and frisk sort of thing?

Am in favor of more localized and less federalized police.  Certainly some assholes will abuse their power but at least if it's localized instead of national people have the last resort to vote with their feet.

Really, absent military conflict with another nation state, bottom up is generally the way to go. But collectivists have to collectivise.