Zorral Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 3 hours ago, Jace, Extat said: Westeros.org: Civil War Reveal hidden contents I stand with the King! Long has he known my lealty. But seriously, like guys... we're basically at war (again). Is this not some bizarre shit? I feel like it's barely even news. Has the American public become so divested of interest and agency that a new West Asia conflict gets the political equivalent of a shrug and a handwave? What a marvelous and wicked people we are! It's being talked of and reported on everywhere else, just not here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadlines? What Deadlines? Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Idiots. Fucking idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 5 hours ago, Jace, Extat said: But seriously, like guys... we're basically at war (again). Is this not some bizarre shit? I feel like it's barely even news. Has the American public become so divested of interest and agency that a new West Asia conflict gets the political equivalent of a shrug and a handwave? What a marvelous and wicked people we are! To be fair, the US media is covering the escalation in considerable detail (I linked to it a few pages back) and people I've spoken to in real life are aware of this. It's only this thread on this board that for some reason appears to be obsessed with the various trials of Trump and other Trump related material to the point where few other things get discussed for more than a few posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 (edited) Nvm Edited February 1 by Larry of the Lawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 (edited) Elephants. Edited February 1 by Zorral Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadlines? What Deadlines? Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 30 minutes ago, Zorral said: Not allowed. Because to discuss would include the elephant in the room which is prohibited. Trump is going to win in November. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michigan-muslim-arab-leaders-cancel-meeting-biden-campaign/story?id=106720208#:~:text=Muslim and Arab American leaders,multiple people told ABC News. They wouldn't fucking meet with them. Priceless. https://www.discourseblog.com/p/nancy-pelosi-sounds-like-a-complete 'Substantial MENA population in those midwest states states that are likely to decide the next election. They won't vote Republican but they might not be very enthusiastic about coming out for Joe. "But they can't do that! The Republicans are Theocrats who'll discriminate against them!!" What, like they've been discriminated against for the last 23 years? Fuck off. The Pumpkin Spice Latte crowd will still blame them for losing the election. That shit's fucking delicious BTW. Oh, and all those January 6th psychos who are currently doing jail time? They're getting pardoned. First day. Even money says there'll be a military coup by the end of the first month. In my country, You have political leaders from both ends of the mainstream spectrum that have stated publicly that they will "support Israel no matter what they do." So that's settled. What is there to talk about? Have fun. I'm going to go back to mocking Boebert for getting felt up in a theater. AncalagonTheBlack 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 10 hours ago, Altherion said: To be fair, the US media is covering the escalation in considerable detail (I linked to it a few pages back) and people I've spoken to in real life are aware of this. It's only this thread on this board that for some reason appears to be obsessed with the various trials of Trump and other Trump related material to the point where few other things get discussed for more than a few posts. Well, see, the thing about this thread and indeed all other threads on this board is that they're not a news programme. They're not any sort of media, really. They're just a place where people chat. It's in the name: 'General Chatter'. There's no requirement for balance, no editorial priorities, no headlines, just whatever stuff people feel like saying. Sometimes stories can be important but people feel like they don't have much to say about them. That's fine. Sometimes stories are trivial but people like to discuss them. That's fine too. It's chatter. It's not the news. Spockydog, Phylum of Alexandria, Rippounet and 4 others 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 14 hours ago, Zorral said: It's being talked of and reported on everywhere else, just not here. 12 hours ago, Altherion said: To be fair, the US media is covering the escalation in considerable detail (I linked to it a few pages back) and people I've spoken to in real life are aware of this. It's only this thread on this board that for some reason appears to be obsessed with the various trials of Trump and other Trump related material to the point where few other things get discussed for more than a few posts. Maybe it's just my own little circles I'm observing, then. My fam doesn't care, none of my friends even seem aware... I brought up the deaths of Americans in a discord (where my pals were playing a war game) and there was no reaction at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phylum of Alexandria Posted February 1 Author Share Posted February 1 2 hours ago, mormont said: Sometimes stories can be important but people feel like they don't have much to say about them. That's fine. Sometimes stories are trivial but people like to discuss them. That's fine too. It's chatter. It's not the news. And sometimes you're waiting for further development of a story to have a thought about it. This story does seem important, but I don't have much to say at this point beyond: "Oh shit," and "Dear Lord." drawkcabi 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derfel Cadarn Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 2 hours ago, mormont said: Well, see, the thing about this thread and indeed all other threads on this board is that they're not a news programme. They're not any sort of media, really. They're just a place where people chat. It's in the name: 'General Chatter'. There's no requirement for balance, no editorial priorities, no headlines, just whatever stuff people feel like saying. Sometimes stories can be important but people feel like they don't have much to say about them. That's fine. Sometimes stories are trivial but people like to discuss them. That's fine too. It's chatter. It's not the news. Fake chatter! Jace, Extat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 23 hours ago, Maithanet said: Sinema is pinning a lot of her hopes and energy on this immigration bil lin the Senate. She wants to brand herself as the New Maverick of Arizona, but there are a lot of reasons why this isn't working well for her. John McCain never left the Republican party, and had a strong brand with voters before his started pissing everyone off. Relying on getting stuff done requires that you actually get stuff done and that voters care that you do. Voters aren't going to back her because of the work she did on the infrastructure bill, and the immigration bill has been on life support for weeks. It is looking more and more like if the immigration bill fails (which it will), then Sinema will not run at all. Which would certainly make the AZ race simpler for Gallego. I don't understand Sinema's strategy at all. Did she really believe that leaving the Democratic Party would make her more electable in AZ? I think party-switching is, in general, not a winning strategy. Your old party still runs against you, and the opposition party does the same, so you're left to try to carve a perilous path between them. You might win, you might not, but I think you're taking the path of most resistance. I think the real winning strategy is to stay on the right side of both your constituents and your party. (Yes, I know that Joe Lieberman existed, no one has to remind me of him.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 10 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said: I don't understand Sinema's strategy at all. Did she really believe that leaving the Democratic Party would make her more electable in AZ? I don't think she really cares. From the outside looking in it seems like she's been trying to set up her post-politics career. She has her pension locked in and has spent her time once she had some power cozying up to big business. It wouldn't surprise me if her marching orders were to try her best to fuck up the AZ election. Very liberal people in their youth can be turned into corporate lackies too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 27 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said: I don't understand Sinema's strategy at all. Did she really believe that leaving the Democratic Party would make her more electable in AZ? I think party-switching is, in general, not a winning strategy. Your old party still runs against you, and the opposition party does the same, so you're left to try to carve a perilous path between them. You might win, you might not, but I think you're taking the path of most resistance. I think the real winning strategy is to stay on the right side of both your constituents and your party. (Yes, I know that Joe Lieberman existed, no one has to remind me of him.) I totally agree that the easiest thing for a Senator basically anywhere is to be a mainstream member of your party to avoid a primary. If you're in a swing state like Arizona, that should be all you need to do. Nobody is talking about primarying Mark Kelly. It seems like Sinema really is pretty conservative on some issues (and pretty liberal on others, it's a mixed bag). So she got in her head that instead of being a normal Democrat she should rebrand herself as the Democratic McCain who stands up to her own party and gets bipartisan legislation done. However, that strategy was a lot easier in the 90s than it is today, and it was a pretty fine line to walk even back in the 90s. Then she doubled down on this losing strategy by leaving the party when it was clear Democrats were tired of her bullshit and ready to primary her. Why she has gone this way is anybody's guess. It is possible this is soft (or not so soft) corruption of furthering her post-senate career since she's pretty popular with business and lobbying firms. Having a lot of Republican friends certainly helps with that. But most Senators prefer being Senators to being lobbyists, and there was a very reasonable path to Sinema having a long career in office. She chose not to take it. TrackerNeil 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 1 hour ago, Derfel Cadarn said: Fake chatter! Prohibition commandments! Jace, Extat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadlines? What Deadlines? Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 1 hour ago, Derfel Cadarn said: Fake chatter! 8 minutes ago, Zorral said: Prohibition commandments! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 14 minutes ago, Zorral said: Prohibition commandments! The King: "Lo and obey, thine kingdom! From sea to sea shall be a world for me unrabbled by thee!" The Lealists: The Rabble: "From yonder seat mine king, a better song should sing!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 55 minutes ago, Maithanet said: But most Senators prefer being Senators to being lobbyists, and there was a very reasonable path to Sinema having a long career in office. She chose not to take it. She's not trying to be a lobbyist, she's setting herself up to be a CEO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 I think that Sinema knew she would get primaried but she wanted to keep getting funding for elections for a bit and not just retire. She certainly has been told that her path is not one for success, so the question then becomes does she believe in herself anyway - or is she doing it for other reasons. Given her mercenary behaviors I'm inclined it's mostly for money and acting as a spoiler. I would not be surprised if Republican donors have been funding what remains of her campaign bid, with promises of future payments after the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 Well the longer she waits to get the signatures required to be on the ballot, the more it will cost to get them. By the end of this month, it will be nearly impossible at any price. The fact that she's waited this long is a pretty strong argument IMO that she's not just doing this to grift money and screw the democrats. That might be the result or a secondary benefit, but she seems to be genuine in her desire for an immigration deal and the idea that it would change her political fortunes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 A philosopher observed: Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. And Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you aim at the wrong target. drawkcabi, kissdbyfire and Prince of the North 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts