Politics Thread #17: “We’re All Going to Fucking Die” Edition Previous Thread:>>413917
Between Ol’ 45’s desire to use nukes, North Korea’s launching of missiles, and the rolling back of environmental regulations, we are basically one disaster away from living in a goddamned wasteland. So…yeah.
If Hillary had had a foreign policy person on the payroll after being cautioned that they were at risk of compromise by a foreign national, every single pundit on MSNBC, CNN and Fox would be screaming for her to get the lethal injection. Not exaggerating.
>>414745 Well I mean yeah, if it were a democratic president right now, the GOP congresscritters would be pushing for high treason charges, which is one of the few capitol offenses. So no, it's not exaggerating in the slightest.
Meanwhile, with a republican in the white house, the same crooks ask irrelevant questions in an important deposition about the crime to try and distract from someone literally betraying the sovereignity of the United States to a foreign power for personal gain, or to impugn the character of the person who is testifying.
As far as I'm concerned, the entire party should be charged with conspiracy to commit treason for trying to obstruct the prosecution of these bad actors.
>>414766 He got pardoned and got away with all his crimes, and is vocally defended by the right to this day as a model president who was unfairly victimized by the left for something as minor as committing a little light treason?
McCain: "disappointed" and calls again for an independent probe but will undoubtedly fall in line and confirm Giuliani/Christie/Gowdy/Flynn wearing a beaglepuss/whoever Agent Orange picks as the new director; hope his wife likes her new State Department job Lankford: "the American people need clarity and deserve an explanation for his immediate firing" Burr: "I am troubled by the timing and reasoning" Corker: this "will raise questions" Cornyn: "Oh so NOW Democrats love Comey!!!!!!!!!" Collins: lmao look at this Graham: "Given the recent controversies surrounding the Director, I believe a fresh start will serve the FBI and the nation well."
>>414781 I wonder if this is meant to scare some people. The director of the firm used to work for a lobbying group owned by Paul Manafort and super crazy dude Roger Stone, but it could be about an old fraud lawsuit. It's just the timing makes you wonder.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/creditcards/10231556/Man-who-created-own-credit-card-sues-bank-for-not-sticking-to-terms.html https://qz.com/981029/a-federal-court-has-ruled-that-an-open-source-license-is-an-enforceable-contract/ Two recent examples of businesses running afoul of contract law and basically arguing that it should only apply when it benefits them.
Three separate Trump associates told the press last night that Trump did not leak any information to the Russians (and how dare they say he did).
Trump, on Twitter, this morning: “As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism."
Is there anyone at all within this administration who has not had their credibility destroyed by Ol’ 45?
>>414816 A win for Putin requires the Eastern border to weaken. It hasn't, despite Agent Orange's best efforts. If anything, the Dutch and French are the start of the rebound where it comes back stronger than ever.
>>414816 That would be interesting. US being removed from that massive intel alliance. It will go back to plain old five eyes. Will all the Commonwealth countries have to ally with Russia too because US is big bully?
>>414817 It took me a solid ten seconds to figure out what you meant by Agent Orange, but that is a beautiful nickname.
>>414818 I feel like I would be bowled over had Trump not already admitted to obstructing justice on network TV last week. Must be getting desensitized. Jesus Christ it's only been a week since Comey was fired.
>>414822 On any other day (and under any other administration) it'd be a diplomatic incident but it got overlooked. Kinda like how a tunnel full of nuclear waste collapsed at the Hanford Site the day Comey got sacked, but you didn't really hear about that.
Keep in mind, Pence was the chairman of the transition team. They knew he was under investigation (no fucking way Pence didn't know, but I assume they'll go with the "he was misled" defense again) and Obama warned 45 not to hire him, and he made Flynn the NSA anyway. Sally Yates warned that Flynn was compromised and he fired HER. And he asked Comey to lay off Flynn. (Also, was originally considering him for VP; remember that?)
Seriously what is even going on there.
Also, since there's apparently not enough crazy Flynn shit today: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article151149647.html
Ryan hushing up the "joke" about Trump being paid by Putin got more attention, but I think their knowledge of Russia's active measures in Ukraine while pretending that didn't happen here is more disturbing.
Lots of shit happened today. White House lawyers are researching impeachment, a top White House associate has become now a “person of interest” in all the various investigations (rumor mill says Kushner is the likely POI), and Comey agreed to testify in an open hearing after Memorial Day.
And Trump has begun his first international trip as president, which will presumably go about as well for him as the other hundred-plus days of his presidency.
>>414865 Defo a dark ritual being completed. I don't know who everyone in the photo is, but Donald Trump appears to be among their leaders ( and I suspect the man next to him is the Saudi leader) and too many of them are wearing business suits for anything good to come of what's happening in that room.
I'm quite sure you can't tell a lot from what happens in Montana. Weird election, weird candidates, weird events the day before and more importantly a lot of the vote locked in via mail because that's hwo they roll in Montana.
They might even prefer it if Gianforte loses because if he's convicted of physical assault even a disgusting soulless eel like Paul Ryan might feel a bit of pressure not to seat him.
The actual question re: Montana was always more about what the margin and turnout looked like than actually beating GG or not, and even in that really both parties are more interested in Georgia anyway.
More than body-checking a member of the press, I'm interested in how Montana managed to elect a man who sincerely believes we shouldn't have social security because Noah built an arc when he was 700 years old.
Like, GG Montana. I sincerely doubt this person will be able to cause any actual change in Washington, but you sent the nation a message loud and clear: that the majority of you are fucking dumbasses.
Trump voters want that, by the way. Their candidate ran on an image of dominance and strength. They want authoritarians in charge, want that kind of use and abuse of power, want their leaders to dominate “the other side” by any means necessary.
At this point, Ol’ 45 really could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and get away with it. His rabid fanbase (including Fox News) would see to that.
I'm losing track of this shit. This communication backchannel has come up before, but is this the first time Kushner's involvement was specified? Him being neck-deep in this is so duh that the other day's story about him being the senior White House official under FBI investigation wasn't even a surprise, so this feels the same way.
>>414904 I would love it if instead of trying to drive the mentally ill so far up the wall they start killing so that we can argue about whose political affiliation is correct about the other over the still warm dead bodies of the innocent, WE INSTEAD GOT THEM SOME FUCKING MENTAL CARE.
>The Trump administration is planning to disband the Labor Department division that has policed discrimination among federal contractors for four decades, according to the White House’s newly proposed budget, part of wider efforts to rein in government programs that promote civil rights.
>>414911 >I have no idea what his racial background is He's a white supremacist m8. So the media immediate goes for "mentally ill" instead of "terrorist" even though terrorism is a tactic he was using.
I hope that his tune-in-to-find-out waffling about the Paris Accord is just Season 2 of "We're pulling out of NAFTA, it's a bad, bad deal (and we're planning to make the announcement during the WHCA Dinner just to ruin journalists' evening)............. WE'RE STAYING WITH NAFTA"
By the way california will have to increase taxes 3-4 times, from 140 billion to over 400 billion, to keep the an abortion like unaffordable care act which doesnt even deliver insulin to people who need it.
>>414954 It sure as fuck wasn't covering the guy who died from lack of insulin, which is who we're talking about.
>20 million So you've managed to fuck over 330 million people, including people who need meds or provide charity to people who do.... in order to give CORPORATIONS tax money so they can cover 20 million people who might not even need coverage.
But hey, put your wallet where your mouth is, move to California and enjoy 22% state taxes (on top of 34% federal) if they're dumb enough to want the unaffordable care act in that one state. You'd be handing almost half your paycheck in for something that isn't even decent coverage for 5% of the population.
I bet you don't have the balls though. Bet you stay in a red state where people know how the economy works.
>so they can cover 20 million people who might not even need coverage. I'm using "cover" loosely here since the unaffordable care act doesn't cover emergency services, surgery or hospital stays, outpatient care, rehab, anything relating to pregnancy, pediatrics, mental health services, laboratory services, or PRESCRIPTION DRUGS LIKE INSULIN.
At this point you may be asking yourself "well what the fuck DOES it cover?".
Well the insurance corporations pocket a few trillion dollars, print a little sticker with the words <<<You're Insured!>>> on it to 20 million people, which Obama then waves in the faces of people like >>414954 as proof that he did something during his 8 years instead of just wasting everyones time REMEMBRRR MUH LEGASEEEEEEEE!
So in short: the unaffordable care act covers Obamas ass.
>>414957 >Also, holy shit, you have a weird, seemingly sexual obsession with Obama and his “legacy”.
That's what the Trump thing is really about in the first place. No one actually likes Trump, they're just glad that SOMEONE is going to do their part to dismantle everything that happened under Obama to prove that white folk are still in charge.
>>414970 Your earlier post (if it was the same one that I deleted) was deleted since it was a worthless post. Not a different opinion or an offensive statement, but literally a mindless image post with no justification. There are other websites for that. Your current image, on the other hand, is a clever satire, and even if it wasn't at least you've got text to make your post worthwhile.
>>414973 Just because the joke goes over your head, doesn't mean it's not satire. It's was very related to current events, and it was related to the other posts I was making.
You just didn't like it.
>>414971 Oh hey, it's one of those cowardly lunatics that lurk the +/pol/ threads. What's it like being a pathetic parasite that produces nothing of value for society? Does it make you feel cool to be the rad keyboard warrior you always envisioned yourself to be?
>>414972 You're right. She'd at least be launching drone strikes on middle eastern countries and destabilizing Syria while doing all that. Trump's needs to step up his game.
>>414980 Funny how none of you said anything about the Manchester attack. Funny how, no doubt, you would have nothing to say about these new attacks outside of blaming Trump or people who aren't leftist. Funny how normal this kind of thing is becoming.
When do you think the next attack is gonna be? Where? What a fun game it is to play, to try to predict when more innocent people will die while doing nothing about it. Because god forbid we look intolerant.
>>414981 Considering its been going on for decades at a more frequent rate than now, I'm not sure how its funny that its become normal. That would be like me claiming white men going on shooting sprees because they hate brown people or a woman turned them down was abnormal.
Also, good job pretending to miss my point. Your priorities are as obvious as they've always been.
>>415004 Well, the Trump Supporters basically seem to be going with the talking points you said, but the RNC seems slightly more troubled (not enough to do anything, obviously), saying things like "Trump was new to the job and didn't know what he was doing" and just silently ignoring the fact that Comey testified under oath multiple times that Trump is a liar who can't be trusted.
Incidentally, Trump's lawyers came out and called Comey a liar because of that. But if he was lying, they should be pushing for perjury charges.
>>415070 >BUT if you ever wanted to learn what it's like in Russia right now, do watch.
Russia is North Korea lite. It's shitty, ugly, massively corrupt, contributes nothing, only exists due to blackmail and intimidation of other nations, is an ex-communist state that adapted an even worse system, and most of the population has no soul, culture, spirit or will to live.
>>415117 There's nothing exaggerated about it. That's the alt-right dream state: an uber corrupt, rusted over shitpile which rejects all outside attempts to help it with threats to take everyone with it when it inevitably goes into its death spiral
>America is North Korea lite. It's shitty, ugly, massively corrupt, contributes nothing, only exists due to blackmail and intimidation of other nations, is an ex-capitalist state that adapted an even worse system, and most of the population has no soul, culture, spirit or will to live.
Britain is North Korea lite. It's shitty, ugly, massively corrupt, contributes nothing, only exists due to blackmail and intimidation of other nations, is an ex-colonial state that adapted an even worse system, and most of the population has no soul, culture, spirit or will to live.
Cambodia is North Korea lite. It's shitty, ugly, massively corrupt, contributes nothing, only exists due to blackmail and intimidation of other nations, is an ex-genocidal state that adapted an even worse system, and most of the population has no soul, culture, spirit or will to live.
Turkey is North Korea lite. It's shitty, ugly, massively corrupt, contributes nothing, only exists due to blackmail and intimidation of other nations, is an ex-caliphate state that adapted an even worse system, and most of the population has no soul, culture, spirit or will to live.
Germany is North Korea lite. It's shitty, ugly, massively corrupt, contributes nothing, only exists due to blackmail and intimidation of other nations, is an ex-fascist state that adapted an even worse system, and most of the population has no soul, culture, spirit or will to live.
Mexico is North Korea lite. It's shitty, ugly, massively corrupt, contributes nothing, only exists due to blackmail and intimidation of other nations, is an ex-stone age state that adapted an even worse system, and most of the population has no soul, culture, spirit or will to live.
Arabia is North Korea lite. It's shitty, ugly, massively corrupt, contributes nothing, only exists due to blackmail and intimidation of other nations, is an ex-slave state that adapted an even worse system, and most of the population has no soul, culture, spirit or will to live.
Japan is North Korea lite. It's shitty, ugly, massively corrupt, contributes nothing, only exists due to blackmail and intimidation of other nations, is an ex-imperialist state that adapted an even worse system, and most of the population has no soul, culture, spirit or will to live.
Nigeria is North Korea lite. It's shitty, ugly, massively corrupt, contributes nothing, only exists due to blackmail and intimidation of other nations, is an ex-tribal state that adapted an even worse system, and most of the population has no soul, culture, spirit or will to live.
Israel is North Korea lite. It's shitty, ugly, massively corrupt, contributes nothing, only exists due to blackmail and intimidation of other nations, is an ex-crusader state that adapted an even worse system, and most of the population has no soul, culture, spirit or will to live.
Zimbabwe is North Korea extreem.
India is North Korea lite. It's shitty, ugly, massively corrupt, contributes nothing, only exists due to blackmail and intimidation of other nations, is an ex-cannibal state that adapted an even worse system, and most of the population has no soul, culture, spirit or will to live.
Canada is North Korea lite. It's shitty, ugly, massively corrupt, contributes nothing, only exists due to blackmail and intimidation of other nations, is an ex-savage state that adapted an even worse system, and most of the population has no soul, culture, spirit or will to live.
And SCOTUS will also look at the “I won’t bake a wedding cake for a gay couple” bakery case that every other court beneath it has ruled in favor of the gay couple. (The teal-dear version: Baker was asked to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, baker said no, the state said “that violates our non-discrimination law”, baker said “nuh-uh”, every appeals court said “yeah-huh”, baker kept appealing to SCOTUS, SCOTUS finally said “let’s get this shit over with” likely thanks to Gorsuch’s presence.)
The baker ruling will probably hold, that ball is in Kennedy's court and he's been pretty consistent re: LGBT rights. If anything that hillbilly baker is probably going to accidentally nationally enshrine LGBT non-discrimination.
>>415140 Congress can regulate interstate commerce, its hard to tell if a brick and mortar bakery in one state applies as interstate commerce. I mean they might buy flour from out of state, but does that apply? If it was a corporate owned chain of bakeries it might be more clear.
Lower courts dont matter or care, their purpose is to keep the retarded nuisance lawsuits out of the way so SCOTUS can deal with morally ambiguous cases.
The token lesbians and Lady Lich are solid pro-intervention for protected classes. Breyer is in play because hes a fucking idiot who doesnt understand any topic. Kennedy is in play because hes pro LGBT but anti intervention (boy scout case). Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito are solid anti intervention and anti special interest. Roberts is closeted but he's anti gay marriage, which a lot of gays are because they hate marriage.
If nothing changes the bakery decision has a 60-66% chance of being uphheld. If vampire lady or kennedy is replaced by prez, its not even going to be a fight, itll be overturned for sure.
It's weird how Christians actually should be as cunty and petty towards divorced people, but have settled for only picking on gay people because they are a smaller group with less clout. What I'm saying is the bakery people deserve acid burns.
>>415182 Not him, but: >Like Ol’ 45, you seem to save your most vile material for those whom you have a deep-seated hatred. Much like yourself. >And, like Ol’ 45, you seem to have a deep-seated hatred for women. Like how you have a deep-seated hatred for people who disagree with you.
Every time you try to put yourself into a position of superiority, you expose yourself for the absolute hypocrite you are.
>>415184 Why are you people's responses always so tedious and predictable? Is there something in your political dogma that also states that you're not allowed to have personalities or anything resembling a sense of humor, either?
If someone threatened to cut off Obama's finger unless he publicly said something demeaning about the appearance of a specific person, I think he would be physically incapable of doing it. Same thing with Bill, W and pretty much any president in the modern era.
The founding fathers would have hanged Donald from a tree by now.
>>415196 Partial. In the sense that we can now admit that "Okay, it turns out that getting kicked in the groin was not the worst thing that could happen to us, now that we have experienced being eaten alive by ants."
>>415243 The global economy is thrown into shambles, and the US economy exponentially moreso. Red states lose the funding provided by blue states and now have to negotiate separate trade agreements with each, despite having very little in the way of exports to offer, and eventually begin suffering from massive resource shortages. Blue states continue to suffer problems because the issues that divide the country aren't based on state vs. state but urban vs. rural, so even the blue states have a huge problem with trump supporters.
A few states manage to thrive--probably California and New York, though it's likely that New York will suffer its own civil war and New York City will become its own unincorporated City State, which will constantly be at war with the rest of New York, which craves NYC's resources and culture.
Global warming continues to get worse because the red states, free of federal law, begin deregulating industry. Every state on the Mississippi river, regardless of its political orientation, is hit with pestilence, famine, and dwindling populations as upstate States allow industry to dump whatever they want into their waterways and the rest of the states suffer. The states affected by this go to war with the states that deregulate, and since they likely have stronger economies and better governmental systems to keep a regulated military in effect, likely win and either force concessions or conquer.
Eventually the US is all united under a single empire made up of the strongest and most willing to cooperate of the remnant states, which again will most likely be California and New York City, given the resources and population available to both and their willingness to set up governments that can actually get shit done.
From there, to see what happens next, check your history books under "Roman Empire."
>>415264 I know California would die from NO WATER if it can't get a trade deal with Nevada ASAP. I could also see a lot of Cali's neighbors join under the New California Republic's banner. I give Washington a 50/50 chance joining California or Canada. And a bunch of states bordering Canada would unite under that red leaf. A Texas bloc would form and a New York bloc. Maryland and Utah both stay independent, as it has always been their dreams. Hawaii gets bought out by China.
>>415267 >I know California would die from NO WATER if it can't get a trade deal with Nevada ASAP. They have options to make that less of a problem if they would only enact them. Like kicking Nestle in the balls. But yeah, Climate Change is going to end up being the death of California regardless of what happens with politics.
>>415266 Jesus Christ Anon, use your keyboard and type in a meaningful post that explains why you are so offended by this discussion. This has NOTHING to do with '/pol/tards' or conspiracy theorists or paranoia. You look in a fucking mirror, Anon. Try to visualise an external viewpoint of your posts and hopefully you will understand how out of place they are in this environment. Your post is not even in the wrong thread, it's in the wrong 4chan.
I wonder what Bob Mueller's daily routine is. Like, I doubt he needs to do much actual INVESTIGATION, as such, both because his principal persons of interest scream their every crime out at the top of their lungs and because the intelligence community probably just dumps shit at his feet daily.
>>415295 >anarcho-capitalists My first impression of that political identity is the thought of capitalism without any regulation. Not my cup of tea.
>>415296 (I hope this wasn't meant to be anonymous because, this time for real, you can tell who the poster is)
I can't comment on that issue because I know next to nothing about it, but there are so many events that countries do not officially admit to or try to disguise even though it's obvious that they did it. Are they actually fooling anyone?
>>415276 this site had just under a hundred users (us/uk/canada?) before we moved on with our life.
occassionally we swing by to watch the dumpster fire.
most of the american users either voted trump, or voted bernie and got disenfranchised by a corporation. the only ones that shill for hill are ~5 nolifes who stayed here instead of geting a job, house, wife/husband and growing out of a dead site.
these peter pan manchildren calling us poltards is pretty funny.
>I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we're going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons. I think you're going to find it very informative and very, very interesting.
— Donald Trump, from a victory speech in New Jersey held on the 7th of June 2016, two days before Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer on the pretense that said lawyer would give Trump Jr. damaging information about Hillary Clinton; transcript of the speech: http://time.com/4360872/donald-trump-new-jersey-victory-speech-transcript/
Now, I cannot say for sure that Ol’ 45 knew about that meeting, but he never did deliver that “major speech” mentioned above.
>>415320 I like that the person you've chosen to represent yourself is drawn like a villain from an Archie comic, as if even you recognize on some level that your proper role in any story is that of the villain.
>>415327 You're an idiot who, after 9 straight years of Republicans telling us to die, is still unwilling it admit they're the enemy.
I mean fuck, you can't even take arms against alt-right fucks like /pol/-kun, and they're neo-Nazis.
Learn that their side is invalid and abandon this Liberal Golden Mean Fallacy. Only socialism can unite the populace against the enemy, because only socialism at once acknowledges that they ARE the enemy and offers real solutions to poverty.
I can disagree with assholes like /pol/-kun and denounce their philosophies without either wishing them dead or expressing a desire to commit an act of violence against them. I don’t want to hurt people if I can absolutely help it.
I know their side is invalid. I know they don’t care about anyone but themselves. Why should that give me any sort of justification for either wanting them dead or wanting to kill them myself?
>>415329 I don't necessarily agree with >>415328, but the "don't give them justification" argument is a non-starter. They don't need justification, and they actively make plans around liberals taking the "moral high ground" because it's a big part of why liberals are fucking pussies who can't get anything done and who both the left and the right in the US think of as jokes.
There's a reason the Left is on the rise but liberals are as derided as ever. And it's because liberals are jokes, like libertarians and the green party. Only difference is that liberals get just enough votes to control the debate formats and prevent any leftist parties from actually challenging the right.
I will not commit violence in the name of a political stance. I will not commit violence because someone’s opinions or morals or philosophical stances evoke a negative emotional reaction. If this stance makes me a coward in your eyes, I do not care—your arbitrary labelling does not and will not change that stance.
>>415331 It's not about cowardice, it's about the fact that your placing such significance on "being the bigger man" is bullshit and self-sabotage. I'm not arguing that you should go as far as that other anon and be happy with seeing rightists dead, but I'm saying that it's ridiculous to pretend like you have the moral high ground when by your unwillingness to fight the right with everything, you are complicit in their wrongdoing.
When millions of people die because the conservatives pass a "healthcare" bill that is designed to kill off the poor and enrich the already rich, that's fucking class warfare, and saying you won't engage in it with them doesn't mean you're not culpable for the evil you allow them to do. In fact your willingness to treat them like rational adults at all validates their tactics and their methods as though the things they say are positions that can be held by members of society without losing their right to be treated like sane people by the rest of us.
Your attitude normalizes rightwing extremism by coddling them for the sake of your own ego. It's not about cowardice at all--it's about how you're actively helping the Alt Right win legitimacy.
My stance centres around the desire to commit violence. If a Neo-Nazi attacks me or a friend of mine, I will punch that asshole in the face as an act of defense. But I will not provoke said Neo-Nazi into violence just so I can have an excuse to punch them in the face, nor will I punch them in the face unprovoked just because they are a Neo-Nazi.
Not wanting to commit violence is not the same as a hardline stance against never committing violence. I do not actively desire to hurt other people, but I will do so if violence is necessary to protect myself or others.
>>415335 >If a Neo-Nazi attacks me or a friend of mine Hot tip, they do this every single day you liberal coward. The Nazi party is attempting to kill millions of us. Destroying the Republicans isn't provocation, it's self defense.
>>415337 They're a coup government, so even if I were trying to do that they have no legitimacy that would make it wrong. I am merely telling you to stop being a moron and coming down on people for wishing death on Nazis. They're fucking Nazis.
>>415337 Again, I'm not trying to convince you to kill people--you've gone off on this tangent on your own because you're a milquetoast liberal moderate who wants to assassinate the character of anyone on the left far more than you want to work together to actually accomplish anything.
To people like you, it's far more important to look like the moral winner than to actually help anyone.
Then what is all this shit about “you’re a pussy” and “this is class warfare” and “destroying the Republicans isn't provocation, it's self defense” if it is not a naked attempt to goad me into committing violence for the sake of a political ideology?
>>415328 >Only socialism can unite the populace against the enemy, because only socialism at once acknowledges that they ARE the enemy and offers real solutions to poverty. Because socialism worked out real well in Venezuela, right? Because that's definitely not going to turn out like every other Marxist experiment that's been performed. That's surely not going to lead to mass starvation and tyranny when you centralize power. I'm sure the governing body you elect (and I'm giving you a lot of credence when I say you'd actually do this democratically) wouldn't abuse the power you give them. No sir, the people you put into control won't become corrupt or killed by someone who wants to wield that power.
>>415339 It's really sad that I would side with Stone on anything, but if anyone here is a pussy, it's you and people like you. At least with Stone, he's somewhat willing to engage in debate about his politics--you are too cowardly to participate in discourse because you are either completely inept and don't know jack shit, or you know that if your policies and ideas were put to the test, you would be ripped to shreds. You've victimized yourself to the point where you believe that the principles of logic and reason are solely the tools of your "oppressors." Again, I really don't like Stone, but at least he's not such gutless moron to delude himself into believing that violence and destruction are the only reasonable solutions to whatever problems he sees.
I'm sure you're just going to use this to try to prove your point further, though. God forbid someone with differing politics find even one thing agreeable in another--that proves they're guilty by association.
>>415345 Capitalism is not perfect or immune to cronyism, which is pretty much the absolute enemy of human society, but it's a fuck-load better than socialism at dealing with it and distributing economic benefits. Capitalism has problems, and they need to be addressed and worked out, but the solution is not Marxist bullshit.
>>415348 It's not cherry picking when every fucking example of Marxism has led to death, starvation, poverty, and tyranny. If socialism is so great, give me an example of it working out.
>>415349 More examples of how terrible you people are at dealing with reality. I dared to point out how full of shit you were, and you have a desire for me to experience pain and suffering. The truth is, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're merely spewing rhetoric you've learned from whatever source, and then turning to violence when your criticized because you don't have any ground to stand on. It's amazing how people can be this daft and lack any amount of self conscientiousness, yet pretend to be virtuous champions of the oppressed.
You're nothing but a different kind of oppressor. Someone who uses his supposed moral righteousness position of oppression to enforce his will on others.
>>415354 >Economic ideology cannot protect the less fortunate from abuse. It absolutely can. You just assume it can't because capitalism has trained you to believe from an early age that greed is a universal constant.
>>415355 >capitalism has trained you to believe from an early age that greed is a universal constant. Replace capitalism with biology studies and then you have an accurate statement. Universal is actually a good word for it: this isn't limited to humans. Hierarchies exist because one or more beings wants more resources than the others in order to better ensure survival.
>>415353 So you can't give an example? Doing a real good job of dodging the argument.
Anyway, as far as examples of capitalism working out, I'd say much of the western world. I'm sure you're going to jump on this by pointing out how capitalism is not a utopian system that has brought prosperity to the world, but that's never been my point. I'll reiterate: capitalism is not perfect. It has flaws, and is susceptible to cronyism like any other society. Here's the second part of my point: socialism is not the answer. Socialism is even more susceptible to cronyism than capitalism is, and is more destructive.
None of you have yet to prove why socialism is somehow better than capitalism. The only thing you've done is wish violence upon me (and what a fucking shocker that is), and say that capitalism is not perfect.
>>415357 Except that conveniently ignores the existence of all social organisms which survive almost entirely through cooperative efforts and communal resource gathering / ownership, some to such a high degree that individuals don't even have the ability to fulfill basic biological functions, such as reproduction, because they depend on other members of the community to fulfill those roles. Humans, like ants or bees, are social organisms--not eusocial, to be sure, but our entire ability to thrive as a species has been dependent from the very beginning on our evolution into social beings. It's the reason we have managed to thrive despite other organisms that exist in the same niche as we do being better than us in pretty much every single other rubric--mental or physical--other than endurance and/or patience.
Much like every time right wingers and capitalists bring up "biology" to justify their tunnel vision, the "science" you cite is not the kind that's actually based on empirical evidence or studies.
>>415358 >Anyway, as far as examples of capitalism working out, I'd say much of the western world. Didn't you just elect a candidate who ran on the premise that America, perhaps the posterchild of the "Western World" was not great, and wouldn't be until he came in to fix it? Isn't capitalism the actual reason most of the people who lost their jobs (i.e. people working in jobs like mining and manufacturing that have automated to such a degree that one person can do the work of hundreds) lost those jobs and were in such dire straights in the first place?
It's not just that Capitalism isn't utopian, it's that it's flat out dystopian and nightmarish and the only people who don't realize that are the people who won the capitalism lottery and got to be on the winning side of the "Fuck the majority of the citizens of this country" game. You are only able to believe that capitalism "works" because you were lucky enough to be born into circumstances that make it tolerable--and even then, even you admit that "there are problems." And I'll bet your idea of "problems" are more like "my taxes are too high" than "I can't eat even though there's more than enough food here to feed me because someone decided that they would rather I die of starvation than that anyone be allowed to eat for free."
And let's be honest about the real reason you support staying with this system, while we're at it: it's not because you think communism won't work. It's because you're afraid that you might not be deemed better than the majority of human beings by your society once it's done changing.
>>415360 Come on, you can come up with something better than that. Use your imagination a bit. Really dig into that nasty little part of yourself that's just begging to come out.
>>415361 >And I'll bet your idea of "problems" are more like "my taxes are too high" than "I can't eat even though there's more than enough food here to feed me because someone decided that they would rather I die of starvation than that anyone be allowed to eat for free." Actually, one of the problems I think capitalism has is what you said in your first paragraph. It's a problem that's only going to get worse, too; the lower end of white-collar working class people are up next. It's something that really needs to be addressed. You're under this impression that I think capitalism is THE answer to societies problems, when really I just believe it's the best system we have right now. Hopefully we can fix these issues in time, and if that means we move on to a different system that is genuinely better (i.e. not fucking socialism), then that's what should happen.
Marxism isn't the answer to these problems. It's not going to fix anything, in fact it'll only make things worse.
>And let's be honest about the real reason you support staying with this system, while we're at it: it's not because you think communism won't work. It's because you're afraid that you might not be deemed better than the majority of human beings by your society once it's done changing. I don't think communism (and I'm glad your calling it what it really is now) won't work, I know for a fact it won't work. It hasn't ever worked when it's been tried, and every time it's led to the deaths of millions, poverty, starvation, etc.
It's been tried. It doesn't work. How many more bodies do you need to understand that?
>>415359 Point taken, but I still believe that without brainwashing/disabling/killing all the power-hungry members of society, someone will always gain and use their power to exploit those below them for personal gain. I believe it's an inherent personality trait in certain people. Similarly, there will always be people who are able to be exploited.
Note: by fortunate, I didn't just mean people birthed into bad circumstance or victims of random events. People get scammed, people make bad investments. 100% success rate seems impossible to me simply because of selfish people being able to be selfish.
>>415364 >>Killing people tends to create further issues rather than solve them. One exception: >Kill all the people >No more problems for any human ever Of course, it means we all forfeit the competition of life, which is embarassing if there are other ""intelligent"" lifeforms to discover us.
Trumpcare is dead again because a few Republican senators got mad that McConnell tried to trick them with Medicaid cuts that he told others would never be allowed to come into effect. Hopefully this means the death of tax reform as well and nothing being allowed to get done next year.
I would hope that McCain’s cancer diagnosis will spur him into giving a shit about health care reform rather than trying to repeal Obamacare (regardless of whether he and the GOP can replace the ACA [which they can’t]). But I do not trust to hope, especially when it comes to a Republican legislator.
In extremely unsuspicious news, Donald has now warned Mueller to not investigate any finances of his family not related directly to Russia, has talked to people about firing said Mueller and has been asking around about pardoning everyone, including himself.
>>415391 >will spur him into giving a shit about health care reform rather than trying to repeal Obamacare I don't know shit about American politics, but I would assume that guy is rich enough for Obamacare to be almost irrelevant to him.
It's really sad that all that shit goes down with the Minneapolis police so they stupidly think the answer is to hire more diverse police.
Why? Why are our reaction so binary, so two dimensional? America investigates for years and also seems to come to the wrong conclusion.
You don't need more black officers (especially self-hating ones who don't like kids or women) or officers of any race, you need officers who are taught to acknowledge any bias they might have and work to correct it.
You need the steadiest people you can find, if you can describe an officer as "jumpy" or "twitchy" he really shouldn't be an officer, regardless of race.
I think America's race problem is how MUCH it worries about race, on both sides. The frustrating thing is listening to the protesters, because they get it, they are so tired of this bullshit.
>>415407 >I think America's race problem is how MUCH it worries about race, on both sides. That is traditionally the position held by those too privileged to realize the degree to which these things affect people's lives when they're not in as privileged position as the speaker.
"Colorblindness" is not a lack of racism, it's white-centrism and apathy coated in a thick layer of (often intentional) obliviousness.
>"Colorblindness" is not a lack of racism, it's white-centrism and apathy coated in a thick layer of (often intentional) obliviousness.
Agreed. Combating racism is not some one-and-done occurence where some miracle combination of laws, societal norms, and plain goddamn luck will deliver us from the evils of racism. It is an ongoing effort that lasts a lifetime.
>>415409 >I think we can definitely agree diversity hires are not a solution. I disagree. Diversity hires are important because non-whites suffer economic hardship from the normalization of whiteness. When people think of "leaders" and "successful businessmen" and things of that nature, they think of white people. White people have less to prove to potential employers because they automatically look like the kinds of people who have held these positions in the past, assuming they haven't made special effort to look unusual. This creates a bias which affects other races negatively from an economic standpoint.
Diversity hires are certainly not an ideal solution, but they're definitely the most realistic way of addressing the problem.
>>415413 Agreed on that front. We could probably do with a lot fewer cops in general and a lot more training and regular testing / psychological screenings for the ones we have. And maybe even consider disarming most of them, other than non-lethal things like pepper spray and truncheons.
If nothing else, disarming like 75% of the police in the US of their firearms would ensure that the cowardly bullies refused to join the force anymore.
Diversity/representational hires can also increase the amount of police officers who actually represent the racial diversity of the places they patrol. That can help better build more trust between the police and the communities they serve.
>>415414 Disarming the police when guns are so prevalent amongst the population, both law-abiding and criminal, seems like a poor move.
In the UK guns are less common and the territory is smaller so not every officer needs to be equipped to fight against gun-wielding assailants compared to the armed response unit, though there is a shortage of officers for the nation that is something of a problem.
This would be funny if it were possible that “ignorance of the plight of Middle America” was the only conceivable reason for Trump’s victory. But between Democrats fucking up on messaging, Republican gerrymandering, potential Russian interference, and the entirety of the Trump campaign (specifically his own rhetoric and behavior), saying “we should care more about poor whites in Iowa” does not actually solve the issues of Republicans attacking voting rights (amongst other things), Democrats fucking up on messaging, corporate money influencing political campaigns (and beyond), the possibility for more dark money to enter politics by way of non-enforcement of the Johnson Amendment in re: houses of worship (which is actually a tacit state endorsement of religion thanks to the Trump regime only applying the non-enforcement to churches instead of all non-profit organizations), and the Ol’ 45 regime trying to dismantle the federal government and set up his Mafia-style family business bullshit.
Yes, the whole “we need to pay attention to the actual working-class people again” argument has merit. Yes, we need a government that will give those people a break rather than turn a deaf ear to them while listening to (and taking money from) billionaires. But that is not the only reason Trump won, and anyone who believes otherwise is a damned fool.
>>415440 Something liberals were warned about when they kept demeaning and marginalizing leftists after Bernie's concession. They made their own bed there by expecting leftists to fall in line no matter how the liberals treated them, despite the fact that leftists tend to be idealistic to the point of martyr complexes. PLUS, all that still just reinforces the point already being made here--liberals ignored the desire of the common people and especially those on the left to reduce the influence of crony capitalism on politics.
Yes, it was dumb for leftists to let Trump get into office because they were too apathetic to vote when the only other choice was a liberal, but it was also entirely predictable and could have been easily addressed by the liberals. They decided that it was not worth their time to court the leftist vote. The failure was their fault. They could have easily gotten leftists enthusiastic enough to vote for Clinton by being more inclusive of "Bernouts" and playing up their ideals. They decided instead to rest on their laurels and let the shittiness of the other candidate do their work for them.
There's no denying that leftists didn't show up for Clinton. And yes, to a certain extent, I hold those who refused to bother voting partially responsible for Trump's victory. But the vast majority of the blame goes to the liberal, establishment wing of the Democratic party who relied on corporatism, money in politics, and largely maintaining the status quo as enough to push them to victory.
>>415444 Make no mistake, I consider Clinton not simply coopting Bernie as VP a killing blow, but that doesn't excuse our nominal fellow leftists for not sucking it up and voting Lib. Voters and Candidate alike are responsible for our predicament.
>>415446 >>415447 Jill Stein was Green, not Libertarian. The Libertarian candidate was that dude who managed to be even less qualified and well-informed than Trump, which is a status usually reserved for single-celled organisms.
>>415449 Well, no. The real problem was turnout. The Dems lost much more votes to no-shows than they did to third parties. 3rd Party voters are usually insane enough that they're not supporting the mains whether they show up or not. Bernouts are called as such because they stayed home.
>415451 Agreed, though there *are* actual movements being made toward moving away from First Past the Post. Most of the progress is being made in smaller jurisdictions, like in local or state elections rather than Presidential.
There's also an ongoing effort to move to national popular vote that is getting fairly close to succeeding--it doesn't require national legislation because it's a compact between States. Each state agrees to switch to granting all of their electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote once the others in the compact do, which takes effect once the sum of electoral votes amongst all states in the compact is 270 or more.
It doesn't require an act of Congress, since it's guaranteed in the constitution that each state can decide for itself how its electoral votes are distributed. Because of this, it's also possible that the same rule could be used to move toward an alternate system on a state-by-state basis. California, for example, could move to a Ranked Choice Voting system and award its electoral votes accordingly. It's not as good as changing things nationwide, but it's a start. And once it's successful in one jurisdiction, the chances of it moving to other jurisdictions increases.
There are a few other things we need to do that might be harder to accomplish, though. Like doubling our number of national legislators and using proportional representation rather than district-based, to eliminate gerrymandering and also make the senate more representative.
>>415452 >though there *are* actual movements being made toward moving away from First Past the Post. Good to hear. Even if it's in smaller jurisdictions, it's still a step forward.
>It doesn't require an act of Congress, since it's guaranteed in the constitution that each state can decide for itself how its electoral votes are distributed. That comes as a surprise to me, I just assumed the federal Congress controlled the whole election system.
Thank you for the post. I didn't know much about this stuff before.
>>415451 I mean it's not like MP voting isn't still FPTP, you just have boroughs where some 3rd parties are popular enough >That comes as a surprise to me, I just assumed the federal Congress controlled the whole election system. Nah, because originally our constitution was the stitching together of multiple disparate political entities rather than establishing the administrative boundaries within one larger entity
Its also worth noting that the two parties in the US aren't really "parties" as such, more like premade coalition governments. The implementation of this in practice has shifted somewhat, especially for the Republicans who tend to keep in line, but it's definitely still true for the Dems. Basically, both parties breakdown into multiple smaller political divisions, sort of like how Labour includes both Corbynistas and Blairites, so just because they share a banner doesn't mean they're agreeing on everything, or indeed ANYTHING. What this means for the 3rd parties is that in order to not be in one group or the other, you've probably gone so far off the reservation that most would consider you a lunatic.
Ol’ 45 just announced that he will ban transgender people from serving in the military in any capacity, supposedly because of “massive” medical costs. Oh, and he announced this not at a press conference or a special address from the White House, but via Twitter.
>>415460 >he announced this not at a press conference or a special address from the White House, but via Twitter. So he did it appropriately, considering the subject matter. Trannies shouldn't be in the military, and it's ridiculous that people with a mental disorder like that were allowed in the first place.
>I disagree with that anon but he has a fair point
The US military already employs several thousand transgender people. The costs of their medical care are negligible (at best) compared to both the overall amount of money spent on the military and, say, the costs of Ol’ 45 spending a weekend at Mar-a-Lago with the Secret Service and such in tow. And I have yet to hear of any study or report that shows how trans people serving openly has enough of a negative effect on “military readiness” that would justify a blanket ban on their service in any capacity. So yes, please fuck off with that bullshit.
In fairness, you didn’t really deserve a counterpoint because no, trans people are not some grave threat to “military readiness” or “unworthy” of putting their lives on the line in service of their country because they are trans, and anyone who says otherwise does not have “a fair point” because they are trying to justify anti-trans bigotry. They should be told to fuck off—especially if they lack any actual evidence or any sort of fact-based argument to back up such a “fair point”. If you say something is a “fair point”, you can either explain why or you can fuck off.
>>415473 >you can either explain why or you can fuck off. All my explanations are based of anecdotal evidence or limited personal observation, because as an egalitarian I have no absolutely interest in transexual people statistics, nor do I have any interest in gathering US military facts. So I will, as you suggested, fuck off from this conversation from this comment forth. Nevertheless, I still appreciate that you actually gave an argument as opposed to a dismissive death threat.
(I understand that you may be shocked to see me describe myself as egalitarian, but I will restate that I don't agree with the ban (I'm personally appalled). On the other hand, I acknowledge that trans people do cost more for the military to handle, and the US already spends way too much on defense. It's not, in my opinion, a cost worth cutting, but that doesn't make the cost not exist.)
>I acknowledge that trans people do cost more for the military to handle
No. No, they do not. If you are going to make a statement like the one you made, either back it up with facts or understand that you will be mocked for making a declarative statement without anything to back it up.
I think calling McCain a fucking "loser beta RINO-cuck" (paraphrased) for being caught by the Congs and threatening to freeze Alaskans alive to punish Murkowski (why the fuck is she even a republican?) might maybe possibly have been a poor stratagem.
Bear in mind that McCain totally voted Y to the MtP so he could be all dramatic and vote No to the bill to look like a hero. That's some wrestling bullshit, and he did it with the healthcare of millions so he could have an ego trip.
Meanwhile, Collins and Murkowski actually have consistently, publicly stood against this the whole time, and break from Mitch and Trump on the regular.
Oh but McCain has a penis, guess he must be the real hero here after all.
On the plus side, him doing that has caused Mitch to blow their one reconciliation attempt for the year, unless I misunderstand that. They'll need 60 now. They could try again next year but like hell they're stamping anything that poisonous on election year.
Hmm. He made a general his new Chief of Staff, he gave several speeches to a few uniformed groups this week (the Boy Scouts, the police, the military), he encouraged the police to basically forget about the civil rights of average citizens and “get rough” with arrested suspects, and he keeps staffing positions based on “loyalty” rather than any actual qualifications.
Apparently he's planning to just tell Congress to fuck themselves, in which case, hey! The good news is Trump will be impeached, the bad news is that leaves us with President Pence who might actually be able to make a government that can send us back to the stone age.
>>415489 Unlikely. Pence will be more competent than Trump, no question than that (I mean, so would a ficus, so don't take that as too much of a compliment there Mikey), but the republicans have still shown themselves to be incapable of governing even with a majority in both houses. The things they want go against the wishes of the American people, and they are discovering that even when they control the government, the wants of the citizens do actually matter.
That depends on whether the GOP can retain control of Congress through the midterms. Given how hard they will likely be fighting to do that—i.e., how hard they will be fighting any attempts to de-gerrymander Congressional districts and protect voting rights—I would not consider the Trumpcare issue “closed” for good. The GOP waited seven years to try this shit; they can wait two more if it means growing the Congressional majority they need to pass the bill.
>>415496 >The GOP waited seven years to try this shit Correction:
They SAID they waited for it. At MINIMUM half just thought it was bluster and they'd never be able to do it. They just lost the game of chicken and now we're threatened by it.
Yes, it hinges on the midterms of course, but having these idiots' signatures on a nationally famous bill with sub-20% approval is USEFUL in this regard, nevermind the constant idiocy out of the WH forcing the country out of apathy.
>>415491 Since citizens have been bothered enough to make things very difficult on those who decided to tow the party line instead of representing their constituents. People have been barraging them non-stop about healthcare, the approval is in the toilets, and serious money has been donated to groups and politicians running to unseat the people who supported this nonsense. It was enough to make the representatives fight about how to implement it (in the first round that was run aground by the "Freedom Caucus" who decided the noise was because the replacement wasn't conservative ENOUGH) and to tell the three Republicans who didn't support the skinny repeal that they would be supported for their decision to fight it.
The smartest among the Republicans understand that while they have stacked the odds in their favor via a lot of dishonest workarounds to subvert democracy, these same cheats also make their position precarious--for example, gerrymandering makes "safe" districts less safe by moving more democrats into republican districts to try to make their votes not count, so a sufficiently strong democratic wave or a strong enough left turn amongst swing voters would turn all their redistricting into a liability that creates far more democratic seats than the democrats should actually have. Their position not only isn't safe, it's dangerous.
And they really don't want a democratic majority right now. A democratic majority in both houses right now would be very bad for not only Trump's presidency, but as more and more Republicans are looking complicit based on the increasingly criminal-looking revelations leaking from the most incompetent administration in American history, for the majority of the leadership Republican party.
When Trump goes down, there is a very high chance he takes the Republican party as we know it down with him. Cutting the head from the beast won't kill it, but it'll make it have to spend a lot of time and energy growing a new head.
>Within one month of issuing body cameras to a third of the Baltimore police department two officers suspended without pay and four others on leave pending investigation with all pending investigations by the officers dropped and all cases they were involved in immediately entering review, in all hundreds of cases dropped.
>City actually taking a blow because of how much it relied on money generated by fraudulent fines and arrests.
>No one told them it takes 30 seconds after you hit the off button for the camera to actually turn off.
>Cops such major scum bags they could literally not go thirty seconds without committing a crime if believing they aren't being recorded.
Clearly we need to set randomizing times between when an officer hits off and the camera actually goes off.
>Clearly we need to set randomizing times between when an officer hits off and the camera actually goes off. Why even let them choose when turns on and off? Sure, it requires more data storage, but it's just another distraction and it allows selection of what evidence is collected.
To all non-American anons here: What are police like in your country? Is the state of the American police force typical?
>>415530 No, American police are very much their own thing, in Canada we struggle with it more, especially in the wake of Bourque.
But we still never really go to guns, this fucker killed three officers and crippled 2 others for life: they still didn't shoot him but they sure as hell curb stomped him up and down the street to the applause and cheers of the people. He cried because he told officers that "he was supposed to be the hero" because they "were coming to take his guns away."
Should have taken them sooner, anyway it super cemented in the Canadian consciousness that guns are for cowards to wreak mayhem and that no one needs handguns besides police and security.
Oh geez, Trump is helping MS-13, his tough talking is making EVERYONE far more afraid to call the police which means they can kill with impunity and force unprecedented numbers into the gang, they even promise with loyalty that they will keep ICE off your family. This is really bad.
This is what happpens when you put a man who knows nothing about policing or gangs or terrorism or anything outside of being a self-absorbed fuckhead in charge of anything beyond his social media accounts.
God help us if Mark Zuckerberg actually decides to run for president.