Prelude to the Apocalypse

[antron]

Trump's gorillas tore this sign up and pushed these guys around.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_x1JRNQ ... pp=desktop

They're brown so polls ftw.

[BryanM]

It's good that you aren't going to bother defending him because there is nothing to defend.

Well sure there is. "If we vote for the human species to go extinct, then we deserve to go extinct."

It'd do a great job of freeing up a niche - clearly we've reached a point of local maximum. Freeing up some space will let someone else give it a go - meerkats might do pretty well imo.

Of course the Earth will probably be swallowed by the Sun before language evolves again. Aw well. We had a nice run. Ghostbusters and boobs were pretty neat, weren't they?

[Ed Oscuro]

4.5Bn years down, 1.7Bn to go!

[quash]

After 8 years of Bush? Nope.

I count 16. At least, that's what the expansion of military operations, individual mandate healthcare, and mass deportations are telling me.

Is this what we call a liberal administration now? lol

Knows exactly what kinds of racist things to say to appeal to racists who don't think that they're racist (etc.)?

Are we talking about people that want immigration reform or SJWs?

[quash]

(Go Midwest/Northwest/Exotic Places Senators!)

"58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution." My point stands.

Congressional Dems were also depending on getting the full story from the intelligence community, who it's pretty clear didn't do a good job.

You could power a small city with this rationalizing. It wasn't the fault of the intelligence community, either; they weren't pushing the false narrative, Bush and Cheney were.

[BryanM]

quash is generally correct about them being complicit in that war. They wanted it to happen, or they were spineless worms that will say or do anything an opinion poll tells them to do. The entire country was screaming for their blood.

how does this site know hilldawg's positions on things, cause i'm pretty sure even she doesn't know

They fill in the missing parts with frog DNA

[quash]

This is why I can't stand politics. You have the idiots on the left who act like their shit doesn't stink and will straight up deny their corroborations with the GOP and the morons on the right who do the same thing (acting like Obamacare isn't an inherently conservative idea, criticizing Obama on foreign policy when he's been a carbon copy of Bush).

Rob says that Trump is anti-intellectual; I posit he is the closest we have to an intellectual choice. That you are failing to see the method behind the madness is proof that you have given in to rhetoric. The reason the GOP hates him so much is because he goes against their rhetoric.

[Ed Oscuro]

(Go Midwest/Northwest/Exotic Places Senators!)

"58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution." My point stands.

And the other number?

The Senate has always been full of conservative old fogeys. The Senate members from either party being more in support of a war (or any Administration policy, generally) shouldn't surprise anybody. The House is often a lot more relevant for looking at the future of the party, and there roughly 2/3 of Dems voted against. Taken as a whole, Democrats certainly could have buckled worse to the wave of war enthusiasm.

I'm not especially interested in writing apologetics for members who voted for the war - either from deceiving themselves, or being caught up in the spin cycle, their judgment seems quite suspect - but it happened, and that's a part of history at a time when many people didn't see things clearly. Even in the worst case, I think most people (aside from the Cheneys of the world) now realize that the war was a very bad idea, even with the attempts to write it off as a failed implementation (like Vietnam was before).

There would certainly be some pleasing shadenfreude in the people who made the wrong votes being forced to fall on their swords, but then who would we get for their replacements? A whole new batch of prospective fools without the experience of having made a bad decision at this level.

We'll have to wait and see, but unlike Vietnam, I don't see a lot of public appetite for a "politicians failed the soldiers, so we lost the war" narrative here. Rather the narrative is "politicians were wrong to start the war to begin with." Even amongst people who still think Iraq was responsible in some way for 9/11, or that it was a major WMD threat, there's now more skepticism about the government response to 9/11 and the Iraq War.

[quash]

If you're willing to be so forgiving towards Hillary and co., why not to any GOP candidate who voted the same way? Surely being affiliated with a different party doesn't disqualify you from learning from your mistakes?

[Ed Oscuro]

That's some pretty rhetoric - too bad it misses the mark entirely. Anyway, original post before I caught your update:

You have the idiots on the left who act like their shit doesn't stink

Yes, quite a bit of this, definitely.

will straight up deny their corroborations with the GOP[/url]
Well, if you really want it, we could have everybody acting like the Tea Party members during the shutdown debate every time something came up they didn't like...maybe this threat is overplayed in the US system, but I suspect that a lot of the reason many Europeans enjoy somewhat progressive policies is due to long heritage, not to some particular refinements in their political system.

criticizing Obama on foreign policy when he's been a carbon copy of Bush).

Wait, remind me of where Obama opened a new war front? It's not that Obama is a copy of Bush, but rather Obama is doing the same thing in a very long line of Presidents taking a "use it or lose it" view of US fighting influence. Obama is more a Truman or Reagan in that respect - maybe not even a Reagan or JFK, actually.

Rob says that Trump is anti-intellectual; I posit he is the closest we have to an intellectual choice.

Even amongst the other Republican candidates, there's a few choices that are probably just as smart, while also being more coherent. He's pretty smart, sure, but he's constantly betraying my appreciation of that by saying things that don't make sense given his other statements, or just the march of time.

I think Clinton and others on the Democratic side certainly have all the intellectual chops - I've just been heavily distrustful of many of those people since their exceedingly gentle touch for the instigators of the financial collapse. Sanders certainly doesn't get tarred with any of that stigma.

[quash]

Wait, remind me of where Obama opened a new war front?

Syria.

It's not that Obama is a copy of Bush, but rather Obama is doing the same thing in a very long line of Presidents taking a "use it or lose it" view of US fighting influence.

He's using it, alright.

Again, I hope for your sake that you'd be so forgiving to a Republican for doing the same thing, since you seem to be fine with Obama doing it.

I think Clinton and others on the Democratic side certainly have all the intellectual chops

I remain unconvinced. And I don't necessarily credit Trump's genius political strategy to him; I'm sure there are plenty of people helping him out.

I've just been heavily distrustful of many of those people since their exceedingly gentle touch for the instigators of the financial collapse. Sanders certainly doesn't get tarred with any of that stigma.

Sanders is easily the best candidate they have. If they're stupid enough to choose anyone else, I have no choice but to vote for Trump. On the flipside, if the Republicans are stupid enough to choose anyone besides Trump, I have no choice but to vote Democrat.

[Ed Oscuro]

Syria - seriously, seriously. The typical right-wing argument there is that Obama didn't enter the war, so I'm not sure what you're aiming for here. It's likely Obama has left the matter to the Iranians , which is certainly not the way "coalition of the willing" men would have done it.

You don't follow a fact-allergic argument about Syria and Obama with a link from 2012, which was well before Syria had a chance to cross the "red line" (sound familiar?), and when the article photo caption explicitly reads

Peter Bergen says the drone campaign in Pakistan is waning.

as a way to show that Obama is actually equivalent to Bush (or Richard "secret plan to end the war" Nixon, for that matter). The article says that 2010, two years into Obama's first term, saw the most drone strikes. That seems to have held through to the present day. Remember John McCain? He says the US relies on drones too much. Does this mean that voting for McCain would have been the right choice? Is John McCain speaking from 2008's knowledge, or 2015's?

The "just as bad" argument seems to be wishful thinking in large part. Somebody with no record always can deny they'd have done what history has shown to be the wrong thing. To me, this means that we definitely have to pay closer attention to what the candidates say when they think they can get away with anything.

And for the big one: You ought to stop projecting arguments onto me. I've not said that I admire Obama for the drone use - and I could expand on this, like tolerating the technologically incompetent Big Brother encryption dreams of the NSA and other agencies, and the crackdowns on whistleblowers.

Do I regret not having voted for R. MONEY? Not a goddamn bit.

_________________

Sorry for the double, but on second thought, I guess quash is asking an important question which I think I can answer, even if it's unfortunately framed as an attempt to catch me in a hypocrisy.

We agree on the most important point - the shit stinks, no matter which offices it's been piled up in.

But you ought to try throwing that hypocrisy argument in more directions and seeing where it sticks. Think about it for more than ten seconds, and you should find few public figures escape the charges - much less the average politician. If you think that a third party candidate is the way to go - well, there's Sanders, and (lo and behold) he's decided that the Democrats better represent what he's about. So did Black Lives Matter, who have been working on him in a way he certainly hasn't always found flattering, but they certainly didn't waste their time on Trump. I am not sure you're seriously advocating a Republican President over a Democrat, but you know, the entire bundle of issues still matters. The Democratic party hasn't been in the news lately as the "big tent" for self-professed Randian economic experts, Tea Party obstructionists, and Willie Horton style attack ads. Call be crazy, but I think it's better not to be associated with those things.

Of course, "doing no evil" isn't enough and I think that's the most important part of what you're on about. A lot of self-declared political experts are too quick to spout off lines like "politics are the art of the possible" and try to explain why we should settle for second best. We shouldn't settle for second best. On the other hand, who said "to make an omelet one has to break eggs?" Not a radical...

But unless you are willing to actually push for issues you care about, you're not doing much more than whine, and hoping somebody else does it for you, or that it should happen by accident. I guess accusing random people of being hypocrites on Internet forums is a start, though.

[quash]

Syria is obviously not going see full-scale involvement for quite some time, but we have our hands in that pot and there is no denying it.

The Democratic party hasn't been in the news lately as the "big tent" for self-professed Randian economic experts, Tea Party obstructionists, and Willie Horton style attack ads. Call be crazy, but I think it's better not to be associated with those things.

But what of the dehumanizing racial discourse the left has been pushing? Or the advocacy of gun control in an age where the government has more control over its people than ever? What about the Democratic-ruled government's complacency in said control? What about their insistence on implementing carbon credits so coal can become "carbon neutral" (as if there is even such a thing lol)?

The lunacy does not stop at party or ideological lines, and the left is just as bad as the right from where I'm standing.

And the accusation of "not caring", or "not doing enough"; I work for the government, you tools. I care more than you and I prove it by showing up to work every day. I will likely work for the government in some capacity for much of my adult life, not because it's the best or most lucrative field, but because I enjoy what I do and want to help the US as much as I can.

[Rob]

That you are failing to see the method behind the madness is proof that you have given in to rhetoric.

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

The tweets of an "intellectual". He has a one-track mind.

[quash]

I never said Trump is an intellectual. I did say he is the closest there is to an intellectual choice, with Sanders in a close second.

Plus, you're not getting the point of his campaign if you're hung up on what he's saying. What makes his campaign work is that he manages to tap in to so many different (misguided) sentiments at once.

His plan for building a wall along the border and forcing Mexico to pay for it is so stupid that it has literally no chance of ever happening, but he's rallying support around the sentiment that immigration reform is not something that can wait.

Remember what I said about using the media's tactics against them?

[quash]

Just in case anyone still thinks the GOP is supporting Trump.

[Ed Oscuro]

But what of the dehumanizing racial discourse the left has been pushing?

You're free to check out my posts in the Gamergate thread - but in reality, I see a lot of fellow whiny white guys who are scared about the new kids on the block.

We can't really pick and choose here - I like the democratic socialist view, but it also so happens that this is the part of the political spectrum that also happens to have radfems. OH BOY!

Radfems, at worst, aren't hard to ignore, if it comes down to that. The people you hate on Tumblr or Twitter, and all the "please no use of disrespectful gender pronouns" furry crowd don't scare me at all. So this is an issue of priorities and, dare I say it, judgment. But I'm really not worried about girls who think they can win a fight using angry speech, which as far as I can tell has been a special talent of men on the Internet.
Or the advocacy of gun control in an ag ... tifact.com, which is just one thing that came to mind, I got bored before I found anything from a Democrat that's rated as a lie - and many of the facts from GOP guys are aimed at Trump. The remainder? Santorum spreading lies about global warming, Scott Walker evading getting cover from Obamacare (though that's given a "mostly true" rating), some guy arguing that gun control = more violent societies, some group's attempt to smear the Obama administration with 10 billion tons of coal.

Actually, I take that back - there's a black woman with the Mostly False-ometer to the side! Well, there you go, certainly some liberals lie too. Or at least half-lie. Maybe less, if you look at what she's saying.

And the accusation of "not caring", or "not doing enough"; I work for the government, you tools. I care more than you and I prove it by showing up to work every day. I will likely work for the government in some capacity for much of my adult life, not because it's the best or most lucrative field, but because I enjoy what I do and want to help the US as much as I can.

And what party do you have to thank for public employment? The party of Bull Moose(s) and Teddy Roosevelt? Well, somewhere down the line that party became the party of Warren G. Don't Give A Fuck Harding and Silent Cal. On the other side, we have the Great Society and the New Deal. I'll leave you to ponder who is who there.

But yeah, I'm going to have to repeat myself: Nobody gets a free pass to denigrate the system when they won't work to fix it. You're stuck at the GI Joe PSA phase, where you know "half the battle." But what about the other half?

Trying a different tack - and I have to apologize if I'm being rude, I appreciate your working for Uncle Sam - but this story gives an idea what has to be done. "Which shows one more time that in politics, just showing up is a huge part of the game." Even if I think it's a bit rich to say "a pox on both your houses" and despair, I'll say that whatever you can do to fight for what you believe is a help. But obviously - the more you can do, the better.

[quash]

You're free to check out my posts in the Gamergate thread - but in reality, I see a lot of fellow whiny white guys who are scared about the new kids on the block.

I see a left wing that deems it okay to refer to people as colored, as long as it's in a context that's antagonistic towards whites; "people of color" (because they're all the same) and their lack of "privilege" vs. "whites", many of whom weren't considered white until relatively recently. While we're at it, let's make it seem like violent crime is rising when it's the lowest it's ever been, and maybe throw in some fudged statistics on income that don't factor in anything besides race.

Just because they aren't (caught) outright lying to our faces as often doesn't mean the left isn't manipulating several false narratives to push several different agendas. Or I take it you believe that Hillary only deleted personal e-mails from her server?

Maybe I'll stop projecting arguments onto you now, since you've taken it a step further and outfitted me with a fedora. That's just dirty.

And if you don't mind me asking: what are your solutions?

[BryanM]

I recommend drinking an entire bottle of Everclear while we all die in a fire.

And yeah, I am still reveling in the impotency the GOP has in stopping the Trumpinator. I'm thinking they're gonna have to go to extremely dark and low places - like how they shut down McCain by robocalling people about an imaginary black baby he had out of wedlock. My guess, label him a raper of his ex wife.

In happier thoughts.



I love how Biden is the reverse of Mitt Romney, and manages to insult everyone inside the smoke filled room of guys who own America instead of everyone outside of it:

“I am not a populist. But Bernie Sanders, he’s doing a helluva job,” Biden said, puzzling at least a few donors at a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee fundraiser in Miami.

Sure, it was a Joe-being-Joe moment. But a few donors weren’t over amused.

“What the hell was he saying? I mean, 90 percent of the room is a Hillary donor,” one contributor told POLITICO.

Another attendee chuckled at the out-of-the-blue mention of the Vermont senator: “Yeah. It was kinda weird.”

...

Biden also seemed to call out the donors, some of whom who paid $10,000 or more for the dinner, because they’re the so-called 1 percent who have 26 percent of the nation’s wealth – a system that he said is ruining the middle class, a donor said.

[Xyga]

[Mischief Maker]

Wow, you guys must have been hammered last night if you were thinking that Trump is the smartest candidate on the trail!

Am I the only one remembering the time he mistook a joke on the Leno show for a legally binding contract and frivolously sued Bill Maher?

Dudes, Trump didn't build his empire from nothing, he inherited it! He's your boss' asshole son times a million. His businesses have gone bankrupt several times, but he was born with a financial safety net that allows him to bounce back from fuckups that would ruin a man of normal means.

I think he really does have something in common with the collection of Eastern European beauty queens he serially marries then dumps: no man has ever been honest with him because they all want something out of him. Why else did he keep hammering on Obama's birth certificate long after the non-issue had died? Why else does he indulge in absurd levels of egotism like having his hotels plaster his face on everything like mouse ears in Disney world? And yes, why else does he think that ridiculous comb-over is a good look for him? Because at no point in his life has he ever had a friend put an arm around his shoulder and say, "Dude, c'mere. Let's talk."

[BulletMagnet]

Or the advocacy of gun control in an age where the government has more control over its people than ever? What about the Democratic-ruled government's complacency in said control?

The fact that you're placing yourself in (or damn near close to) the "Obama's gonna take our guns away!" camp (and the "we could totally fight off the army!" camp while we're at it) after he and the rest of his party have repeatedly pissed their pants and fled to the nearest cave the second the NRA looks at them askance, no matter how inexcusable (and, in many cases, contrary to the preferences of most gun owners) the latter's stance, makes me very, very tempted to dismiss you as a troll outright, because anyone who's gone down that particular rabbit hole has very little grasp of the actual fact-based evidence or existing balance of power on any issue.

The lunacy does not stop at party or ideological lines, and the left is just as bad as the right from where I'm standing.

Then you're standing in a coat closet with the light bulb burned out, and have been there for quite some time. As undeniably pathetic as the modern left can be, there's simply no comparison with the openly malevolent tripe that regularly passes for both "leadership" and "intellectualism" on the modern right.

And if you don't mind me asking: what are your solutions?

The nation was at its most prosperous in all of human history when "conservative" meant "Eisenhower", labor unions were at their strongest and the top tax rate on the wealthiest was 90 percent. Finally stop sucking Reagan's dick and move steadily back in that general direction.

[BryanM]

Am I the only one remembering the time he mistook a joke on the Leno show for a legally binding contract and frivolously sued Bill Maher?

Man, that's an impressive amount of free advertising for the guy. This guy's a fucking genius wizard.

He gets MORE exposure with his $0 twitter account than Jebbers can buy with his $150 million.

[Xyga]

Now instead of a stupid picture I thought I'd nag and shove my uncalled European 2€c into this 'Murica thread where people apparently started wearing Gold Cloths for serious political debate (moero! ore no como yo!) by saying that if I could vote I'd 100% go for Trump.

Warum ?

Because when the USA get a dumbasshole for President, we in Europe suddenly appear smarter, wiser, and Hell we could use some lustre at the moment because shit hits the fan on a daily basis around here.
Even Hollande looks like a decent person next to Trump lol.

The Bush years were bliss for our image really.

Another reason is I want the World and human multicunt-civilisation in its current state to collapse, therefore we fuckers around the world have to take all of the wrong-est possible decisions now to speed-up the process that will trigger something so awful it will scare us shitless.
(since apparently mother nature getting over-gang-raped, unbearable poverty and disparities skyrocketing, or thousands of people dying horrible deaths everyday isn't enough)
A monstrous slap, a shock on every human consciousness, of a magnitude we would have never expected in order to wake us up good in our present, will be better than waking up in 50 or 100 years from now with our guts lying on the floor next to what we shat so slowly and painfully, and no wire nor needle to sew'em back in.

Chuck Norris predicted a thousand years of darkness if Obama was elected, I predict the same if Trump isn't !



EDIT: can't resist that one;

Spoiler

[BryanM]

We call that accelerationism. The idea to turn into decent human beings, we have to go through mass starvation and teeter on the brink before we pull our heads out of our asses. WW2 being a prerequisite for England establishing the NHS. Making that happen sooner and not later is where the "accelerating" comes in.

Chuck Norris talked big about bringing us eternal darkness if we crossed him, but last time I checked there's still sunshine outside.

But I'm still in awe of Mischief Maker's extra input about Trump laying the groundwork for his run years ago. It made no sense at the time. It makes all the sense in the world now.

[Specineff]

Another reason is I want the World and human multicunt-civilisation in its current state to collapse, therefore we fuckers around the world have to take all of the wrong-est possible decisions now to speed-up the process that will trigger something so awful it will scare us shitless.
(since apparently mother nature getting over-gang-raped, unbearable poverty and disparities skyrocketing, or thousands of people dying horrible deaths everyday isn't enough)

So, the plot to Watchmen.

[Xyga]

Why yes, the plot of a number of books, comics, movies etc as well.

Having Trump in that kind of scenario things will get hairier in a matter of months.

[Mischief Maker]

Another reason is I want the World and human multicunt-civilisation in its current state to collapse, therefore we fuckers around the world have to take all of the wrong-est possible decisions now to speed-up the process that will trigger something so awful it will scare us shitless.
(since apparently mother nature getting over-gang-raped, unbearable poverty and disparities skyrocketing, or thousands of people dying horrible deaths everyday isn't enough)

So, the plot to Watchmen.

And Trump's comb-over is the squid.

[Ed Oscuro]

Xyga, what happened with Hollande? I recall hearing that he was the crusading socialist who was going to punish all the bankers, but then he started slipping back to the usual boring old "we have to preserve the markets" stance everybody else in the Western world takes. Is that right, and what else has happened?

You're free to check out my posts in the Gamergate thread - but in reality, I see a lot of fellow whiny white guys who are scared about the new kids on the block.

I see a left wing that deems it okay to refer to people as colored, as long as it's in a context that's antagonistic towards whites; "people of color" (because they're all the same) and their lack of "privilege" vs. "whites", many of whom weren't considered white until relatively recently. While we're at it, let's make it seem like violent crime is rising when it's the lowest it's ever been, and maybe throw in some fudged statistics on income that don't factor in anything besides race.

Well, first off, thanks for taking things a bit more equitably this time.

Anyhow, my premise has never been that quash is 100% wrong. I think there is more than a kernel of truth to most of the arguments you've made.

But it is kind of ironic that so many times I run into political experts who spend all their time arguing about how bad all politicians are - but no matter how long I spend trying to break down the reality, which is often complex, it's as if I didn't write anything at all. Denying what the other guy has said has got to be the oldest political trick.

But let's see if we can get this one done:

Just because they aren't (caught) outright lying to our faces as often doesn't mean the left isn't manipulating several false narratives to push several different agendas. Or I take it you believe that Hillary only deleted personal e-mails from her server?

Here's another case where it might help to know the fuller story. You're in government, you probably know that sometimes it's not pleasant to look in the kitchen. The WashPo ran a good op-ed recently describing how things got to this point. A widely respected top general actually handled classified information worse, but the media gave him a pass. Also, this isn't just a Democrats are just as bad story. Important excerpt: John Kerry asked State Department staff to fix the problem that allowed Mrs. Clinton to have her own email server. So, clearly, a lot of Democrats aren't happy with Clinton on this issue.

But since you want to pin me down on everything - I think that even if this is more or less "standard practice," I think it does show poor judgement on Clinton's part. I think you'd find that a heck of a lot of Democrats are not happy with her. We're not just some big school of sardines swimming the same direction, after all.

Then again, the State Department can't even afford to put on lunches. I'm just interested in finding out what the committees find. But the flip side to your claims is that you'd also have to be somewhat naive to think that the Republicans are pushing this just out of concern for state security.

Maybe I'll stop projecting arguments onto you now, since you've taken it a step further and outfitted me with a fedora. That's just dirty.

Not a fan of classic movies then? Well, that was a reference probably nobody in the world would get: In his book about traveling with the JFK campaign, James A Michener writes something like that about one of the political operatives who struck him as a classic type. I didn't mean it as an insult; the idea is that this is somebody who knows what the dirty tricks are, but also has a personal code of ethics that doesn't allow him to do just whatever to win - so ultimately he chooses his conscience over being what we would now call "pragmatism."

I know it's trite, but guys like Michener sure knew how bad things could get. Michener wrote a relatively decent book (The Bridge at Andau) about the Soviet invasion of Hungary. He also saw how the New Deal helped keep our country going during its darkest ages.

Now, something a lot of people tend to forget is that even during those days of the "best President ever!!" there were dirty tricks. Not only was JFK apparently taking advantage of young women all the time, but it sounds like Johnson would have some Union heavies go "twist the balls" of guys who tried to protest during JFK's speeches. Can you imagine the outrage if somebody did that today? It would be the worst thing ever. Johnson himself was infamous for peeing outside on Capitol Hill and basically shaking his (probably enormous) willie at the secretaries.

So, this should help explain why it is a lot of the Left is wringing its hands over seeming trifles. A lot of the worst problems were already solved or are being solved. We live in more peaceful and prosperous times by far, and we generally have a lot to look forward to. Anything that people are angry about now was probably a problem before, along with bigger issues: Massive levels of discrimination, regular riots in major cities, police abuses to make most of today's problems look like nothing, the draft, bad prospects for health, AIDS and ebola just coming up, 3 national TV channels even in the '80s.

And if you don't mind me asking: what are your solutions?

First, we have to always look beyond the candidates. We're (as always) at the tail end of decades of politics. Instead you have to do like the Black Lives Matter and the gun control activists are trying to do to Sanders: Work on everybody to get your issues out. The main reason I shake my head at a lot of people on the SJW crusade is that they seem to expect that their bugbears will have something like a divine revelation and suddenly decide to do the SJW's stuff for them. Obviously, it doesn't work that way.

Secondly, though, we have to make careful choices about who to vote for - because by the time you're at the tail end of decades of politics, our winner-takes-all system means that we end up getting somebody who might do some of what we want, but not all of it. Other political systems (like many European parliamentaries) certainly go crazy on a regular basis, like Xyga says, but you also don't get these crusty blocks of hard-liners who won't budge to support popular positions.

Personally, I think Trump is a pretty alright guy overall. I'd probably get along with Mrs. Clinton well enough, I think, but Trump certainly would be more fun. But the flip side is that sometimes "fun" goes along with being "a bit too crazy to be reliable."

[Xyga]

Xyga, what happened with Hollande? I recall hearing that he was the crusading socialist who was going to punish all the bankers, but then he started slipping back to the usual boring old "we have to preserve the markets" stance everybody else in the Western world takes. Is that right, and what else has happened?

Nothing. Nothing of significance happened. Like the country's frozen.
Whether left or right if that matters, we're all desperate at their uselessness and weakness. Amateurs, traitors, stupid, deaf-blind, are common qualifiers for Hollande and the government in conversations.
Actually since we've been on a sustained social an economic decline for years now, we French are so bitter about everything that we don't fucking care about our politics anymore.
Without exaggerating I'd say a majority of the people would be happy if those cretins would all disappear, because we don't see any party, any leader who would help our economy and society recover even a bit.
The main right-wing party will certainly win the 2017 general election, but that won't change anything as in our eyes the ordocapitalist Bruxelles and the big global players have more power and influence on our everyday lives and future than our own State and republic do.
So yeah Hollande failed big time, and as a whole France today sits several rows away from the big scene.
Things change so quickly...during the 90's up until the early 2000's we were a power more or less on par with Germany and the UK, now we're clearly falling behind...

When you're done with Obama please lend him to us, so we can at least and at last have a president who doesn't look like a penguin in a suit.