Prelude to the Apocalypse

[BryanM]

but Kerry vs Obama were night and day.

Obviously 2008 Obama was. But he was boosted thanks to his friends the republican party of 2008 and an economic crash.

He was lucky in 2012 to go up against human mayonnaise.

Obviously the housing bubble was going to crash no matter who was president at the time. Since we're talking about accelerationism here, you have to consider the universe where Gore is holding the hot potato when the bottom drops out. Because we're talking about accelerationism here, the outcomes where you DON'T pick the greater evil is the entire point of the fucking conversation in the first place.

Shit's getting worse. It's going to continue to get worse if you vote for it to get worse. There is no viable option presented that does not make things get worse.

"If you're going to vote for things to get worse, spending your precious time and money to do so, you're a fool if you're not voting to make things as bad as possible." -- An accelerationist

Man, BryanM, let the counterfactuals go.

These aren't counterfactuals. They're facts. If you have such a shallow observation and consideration of history, then good luck with your Ted Cruz 2024 goals.

That's what you get for living only in the moment, hand to mouth, never thinking about yesterday or the day after tomorrow.

You're a human being. Jesus.

[Mischief Maker]

That's what you get for living only in the moment, hand to mouth, never thinking about yesterday or the day after tomorrow.

...or the next 30 years of Supreme Court precedent.

[BryanM]

...or the next 30 years of Supreme Court precedent.

I'm thrilled to look forward to the career of the next 50 years of the five republican supreme court justices Clinton is going to appoint. Just fucking thrilled to the brim.

That's going to be so exciting. That's change you can believe in.

[quash]

I'm sure "crooked insiders" would be the farthest thing from your mind if they had gone ahead and investigated.

That depends. If we had anything resembling transparency then we might be able to see what was looked at and how conclusions were drawn. Unfortunately, even the 28 pages weren't immune from curation, because we certainly can't be incriminating some of our best pals such as [REDACTED] and [REDACTED].

Oh look, Donald Trump is accidentally calling for assassinations and bombings again! Definitely the candidate of peace.

https://youtu.be/nC6Sa8t9Ywg

It's funny you mention that...

[Ed Oscuro]

It is funny how Clinton got criticized, apologized for being reckless and being impolitic, and then never brought it up again.

It's a three step plan that just about prints money. Wonder why Trump never tries it out.

About the damn emails, aren't you guys complaining that it's a problem because other people could possibly intercept those files? How do you think you could review those files without them also getting to people we don't want to get to them? In any case, it's easy to forget what the law is meant to do. FBI Director Comey tried to give people some vindication with his criticism of Clinton, which probably was well deserved. However that certainly isn't the same as being able to say somebody ought to be prosecuted, go to jail, or get executed. This should all be obvious to anybody of at least average intelligence, but then we have frantic has-beens like Rudy Giuliani scraping for relevance, arguing that Clinton should be prosecuted under RICO. He said this without any sense of the irony that he should do this in service of Trump.

[quash]

It is funny how Clinton got criticized, apologized for being reckless and being impolitic, and then never brought it up again.

Is an apology really all it takes to get your sympathy glands pumping? Or does this only apply to those who have been vetted by the DNC to be a credit to the cause?

It's a three step plan that just about prints money. Wonder why Trump never tries it out.

Because it goes against his plan of winning an election while spending as little money as possible.

About the damn emails, aren't you guys complaining that it's a problem because other people could possibly intercept those files?

It's a problem because she took SCI out of a SCIF without authorization before anything else.

However that certainly isn't the same as being able to say somebody ought to be prosecuted, go to jail, or get executed.

Are you talking about Trump's comments? He specifically said that if the government tries to take guns away that people should exercise the second amendment. Isn't keeping flagrantly corrupt oligarchs in check the very reason we have such a thing?

[BulletMagnet]

FBI Director Comey tried to give people some vindication with his criticism of Clinton, which probably was well deserved. However that certainly isn't the same as being able to say somebody ought to be prosecuted, go to jail, or get executed.

Already been down this rabbit hole Ed, save your breath: it was determined beyond the shadow of a doubt that there MUST be a way to hold Hillary legally liable, despite the total absence of evidence of ill intent, for the email mess (all .001% of them, if you include the improperly-labeled ones, and the ones that were so secret that the classification only existed for purely diplomatic reasons), but Comey didn't pull the trigger because the Clinton Mafia obviously got to him, and Congressional Republicans didn't do so because, for the first time ever, for reasons I'm obviously too reality-bound to comprehend, when they finally had one of their prime targets of the past several decades perfectly cornered, they suddenly didn't want a big, bloody fight on their hands.

You'll figure out soon enough just what manner of life form you're dealing with here.

[quash]

despite the total absence of evidence of ill intent

You don't need evidence of ill intent. I literally linked you the law that clearly states this and you earned your gold medal in mental gymnastics by saying that it's not an all inclusive clause.

Do you really, seriously think that there aren't government employees out there who want to leak information but don't, precisely because the act itself is a crime, regardless of the intent?

Do you really, seriously think if I were to post SCI on, say, this forum, and I told the investigator working my case that I just did it for the hell of it, that I wouldn't face criminal charges?

Do you really, seriously think that the DOJ and the FBI, both headed by individuals connected to the Clinton Foundation, want to go after one of its highest ranking members?

[quash]

Still ignoring the comments the ex-CIA director (who recently endorsed Hillary) made about openly waging war against Russia and Iran in Syria, I see.

If you really don't want to talk about Syria, I guess I can understand; it's been a huge blemish on Obama's record and really, who cares about some shithole in the Middle East anyways, right? We can just ship off white guys to fight and create more room for everyone else.

But you won't be able to ignore Russia for much longer, I'm afraid. And seeing as we're now openly discussing a proxy war with Russia in Syria, we can just make them synonymous for our purposes. So if you want my older posts to make more sense (I know that's what you pretend to love more than anything), just replace Syria with Russia. Because we've officially passed the threshold of them being separate entities.

[Ed Oscuro]

Is an apology really all it takes to get your sympathy glands pumping?

Way to play that "liberals are bleeding hearts" angle; is an effort-free stereotype joke all it takes to get your "must redirect from the topic" glands pumping?

People of at least average intelligence understand that it is better to not shoot off one's mouth (speaking wholly metaphorically, of course). But when that does happen, showing the average person's ability to

1.) realize one has fucked up
2.) fix it (with an apology if necessary)
3.) move on

is something that most of us consider a life skill, not a weakness, not an aspiration. Clinton simply demonstrated that she could understand when it was time to drop the cross, so she got out from under it. Trump doesn't seem to have the ability to do steps 1 to 3. Clinton may make denial into an artform, but so does Trump. Pretending that fuck-ups are moments of brilliance, and a strange fixation with fighting over being called a loser seem to be a couple hallmarks of not only of Trump but of much of the modern hypersensitive right wing.

It's really pretty strange for you to bring up Clinton's gaffe (though I knew you would), or it would be if I didn't realize that you're doubling down on the double standards and blind hypocrisy. It doesn't even show Clinton is as bad as Trump, because he has shown no ability to control his press by, for example, knowing when to shut up. Call it a biased press if you want, but that's a fact; somebody of average intelligence would know that Trump did not have to keep feeding any of the stories he wanted to keep fighting - and the collapse in his recent poll numbers seems to be entirely due to him picking the wrong fights.

But that's Trump in a nutshell. Trump's negative press is entirely due to things he has chosen to do, rather than choices he made in difficult situations, unless you want to give him a pass over his Vietnam deferrals. (Another anti-liberal slur bites the dust!) Everything else I can think of - being a racist landlord, stiffing small business contractors, hawking frauds, issuing commands under the guise of telling jokes - pretty much all of these are things he decided to do when there was no pressure on him to do the wrong thing. He hasn't been in any situations comparable to Clinton's time as SecState (for example), but we all know you'd have excuses for him if he had made bad choices there.

The whole right wing of this country is having a good time using Trump as a vehicle to absolve themselves of their own sins - the sins of being stupid, choosing a poor President, and being complacent in the face of the mismanagement of the country. So the right wing tells itself - if only we are more stupid, pick more psychopathic elites, and apologize harder, maybe things will turn out better this time.

You'll figure out soon enough just what manner of life form you're dealing with here.

Oh, it's always been clear, but I guess I'm in a brief mood where plumbing the depths of quash's evasive dishonesty is enjoyable. But I'm trying not to indulge myself too much, else I'll go right back to the old days of fighting all those really important online battles.

[ED-057]

the average person's ability to

1.) realize one has fucked up
2.) fix it (with an apology if necessary)
3.) move on

is something that most of us consider a life skill

These are politicians you are talking about. They are great at apologising for something WHEN THEY GET CALLED ON IT by the corporate media.

"I am terribly sorry that I groped those children/hired that prostitute/invaded that country/accidentally systematically mishandled documents. You have no idea how SORRY I am. BOOHOO."

Trump not apologising is part of his not-just-another-politician cred.

[quash]

Way to play that "liberals are bleeding hearts" angle; is an effort-free stereotype joke all it takes to get your "must redirect from the topic" glands pumping?

How am I redirecting the topic? I am literally discussing exactly what you're talking about, how apologies only absolve those whom your confirmation bias supports.

The whole right wing of this country is having a good time using Trump as a vehicle to absolve themselves of their own sins - the sins of being stupid, choosing a poor President, and being complacent in the face of the mismanagement of the country. So the right wing tells itself - if only we are more stupid, pick more psychopathic elites, and apologize harder, maybe things will turn out better this time.

Please, use this talking point on everyone you know. Post it on your Facebook or whatever else you use. Make it even more obvious to the world around you that the sophistry of neoliberalism is crumbling before our very eyes, and that your response is to double down on your hubris and dare people to vote for the crazy guy who wants to start WW3; just try not to look too hard in the mirror when you say that.

[Specineff]

Projection?

[FRO]

Yuck, people actually watch The Young Turks? C'mon man, have some standards. Even Thom "rambles for 10 minutes straight every video while being loudly cut off by his own music" Hartmann is better.

EDIT:

To supply something substantive, I encourage you to read this illuminating interview with the author of Hillbilly Elegy for a frank discussion of how both the Left and Right in America have let down the poor white working class, which has allowed [Comrade?] Trump an opening to the white house. Salient points: traditional GOP economic policies, even if they have some positive effects (some which I think they do), have largely ignored this group and offer them little; the political left alternates between smug derision (it's the "safe" group to be prejudiced against) and denying poor groups their moral agency (ie, only the government managing the economy can solve their problems; otherwise they are hopeless). This election emphasizes this prior theme as both candidates take up positions that underline how powerless people are without government leadership to prop them up (which is not an uplifting or encouraging development). It's worth reading for a fresh perspective, as it's pretty easy to play the blame game with voters without turning the finger on yourself (see: Daily Show and its ilk, Slate and Salon, and so forth).

That's an excellent article you linked - a really balanced look at America's poorest people, and how Trump has tapped into their discontent.

[Jonathan Ingram]

From a blog entry I came across recently:

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that most working class people don’t vote in the first place, it is apparent that liberals, far from being the ‘champion of the little man’, are in reality the champion of dividing the working class according to color, religion, and region. They denigrate one section of the working class (the white working class) while their political foil, conservatives, denigrate the rest of the working class.

https://redneckradical.wordpress.com/

Concise and to the point.

[Lord Satori]

That url though...

[Mischief Maker]

Oh my god! Liberals are the real racists? What a totally fresh and unexpected line of argument that I never ever heard from the right wing before!

The only thing more mind blowing would be if a conservative said Martin Luther King would have been opposed to Black Lives Matter!

[BulletMagnet]

You don't need evidence of ill intent. I literally linked you the law that clearly states this and you earned your gold medal in mental gymnastics by saying that it's not an all inclusive clause.

One more time, kids: if it was really that clear-cut a statute, then either the FBI or any number of Republicans would have gone for the jugular before you could blink an eye, and your stated "theories" as to why either of them didn't do so are, frankly, insane.

If you really don't want to talk about Syria, I guess I can understand

First things first, allow me to repeat my assertion that you only bother summoning Syria out of the void when you don't feel like discussing whatever's actually being discussed. Seriously, where the hell did this latest appearance spring forth from?

Second, to be blunt, get bent. I offered a concise response to the "Hillary totally wants war with Russia for some incomprehensible reason, so we should totally throw our lot in with the guy who recently mounted an unprovoked invasion of sovereign territory with express intent to annex it" nonsense back on page 65 of this topic; you, as you are wont to do when presented with anything you'd rather not deal with, clutched your copy of The Secret close to your chest, sprinkled some fairy dust on your monitor, and just like that reality was altered and my post ceased to exist, as you quickly changed the subject to how the attempted coup in Turkey was - what else? - a false flag, and never looked back. Amazing how the whole not being constrained by objective facts thing works - thanks to your sheer degree of belief that I've totally been avoiding talk about Syria (whenever and wherever you feel like bringing it up, of course), the party ignoring the other here suddenly wasn't you, it was me! It was me all along!

I'll ask yet again - when you want two people to talk about something, but only one of those two people believes that a single objective reality exists, what "conversation" is there to be had, when one of us is playing ping-pong while the other is playing Calvinball?

[Jonathan Ingram]

Oh my god! Liberals are the real racists? What a totally fresh and unexpected line of argument that I never ever heard from the right wing before!

It's a little bit more complicated than that. Although I'm not surprised you let the point go over your head considering how confused you seem to be about your own tendencies, thinking of yourself as somehow belonging to the left-wing of the political spectrum. You don't. The terms "left" and "socialist", before being dragged through the mud by people like you and BulletMagnet, used to signify one's place in the class struggle. They stood for independent working class organization and political revolution of the masses. You are not left. You are a left-wing apologist of the capital, a phoney and a sham. Liberals and conservatives, enemies of the working classes you all, the latter slightly less obnoxious due to not having to avail themselves of nearly as many abstract political platitudes and vaguely left-sounding sloganeering to promote the economic interests of the privileged stratum.

[quash]

One more time, kids: if it was really that clear-cut a statute, then either the FBI or any number of Republicans would have gone for the jugular before you could blink an eye, and your stated "theories" as to why either of them didn't do so are, frankly, insane.

It is literally that clear cut if your last name isn't Clinton. There's countless examples of this statue being invoked in cases where no ill intent was found.

If it were really this easy to lawyer your way out of leaking classified info, why hasn't Snowden come back to the US?

Also, let's conveniently ignore the mysterious deaths of former DNC members, even as Hillary used one of them as an argument for gun control.

(Really, for all the talk of Trump being a reckless cavalier, Hillary may just have him beat with this latest stunt.)

First things first, allow me to repeat my assertion that you only bother summoning Syria out of the void when you don't feel like discussing whatever's actually being discussed. Seriously, where the hell did this latest appearance spring forth from?

Geez, I don't know, maybe it's because the former head of the CIA has validated literally everything I have said about Hillary's intentions in Syria? In public, and reported on mainstream media, no less?

The only reason I haven't gone further into the reasons behind the invasion of Syria is because you and others throw a shitfit anytime I link a article from a media outlet that isn't a subsidiary of the DNC. So now we have to drag this discussion along at a snail's pace because you require your """facts""" to be framed by a narrative that neatly conforms into your preconceived notions of the world's affairs.

Second, to be blunt, get bent. I offered a concise response to the "Hillary totally wants war with Russia for some incomprehensible reason, so we should totally throw our lot in with the guy who recently mounted an unprovoked invasion of sovereign territory with express intent to annex it" nonsense back on page 65 of this topic

Oh boy, you still think the US wasn't involved in Crimea, too? I guess it's to be expected from someone who still seriously thinks Assad was behind the conflict in Syria.

Amazing how the whole not being constrained by objective facts thing works - thanks to your sheer degree of belief that I've totally been avoiding talk about Syria (whenever and wherever you feel like bringing it up, of course), the party ignoring the other here suddenly wasn't you, it was me! It was me all along!

Because you have never provided an explanation as to why I am wrong about Hillary's plan for Syria (and by extension, Russia and Iran), nor have you made anything resembling an argument on how Donald Trump would be any worse. You just point to comments taken out of context like wanting to arm allied nations with nuclear weapons and the possibility of disbanding NATO, not really understanding the current state of affairs surrounding both of these issues (which I really can't be too mad at you for, because most people are frankly clueless on the subject).

I'll ask yet again - when you want two people to talk about something, but only one of those two people believes that a single objective reality exists, what "conversation" is there to be had, when one of us is playing ping-pong while the other is playing Calvinball?

Let me get this straight: you, of all people, are preaching the tenets of objectivism? I thought I was the right wing lunatic here.

[quash]

http://sputniknews.com/asia/20160812/10 ... -line.html

Nothing to see here, folks. Just another red line being crossed because anyone can get away with basically anything they want until January.

[ED-057]

any number of Republicans would have gone for the jugular

LOL. And the Dems would have totally held somebody accountable for the Iraq war. But they didn't*. So I guess it never happened.

* except for one lonely Dennis Kucinich

[ED-057]

I've updated my profile to accurately reflect my location, in the country which will henceforth be known as the United States of Hypocrisy. It is home to such proud cultural traditions as:

condemning welfare while praising corporate welfare

boasting about freedom while operating a police state

calling for gun control while being the world's number one arms exporter

whining about terrorism while launching drone attacks

promoting democracy while plotting regime change

and of course,
criticizing political rivals for voting for evil, while excusing yourself to vote for evil

[quash]

I was with you until:

criticizing political rivals for voting for evil, while excusing yourself to vote for evil

I know damn well that Democrats are good and Republicans are evil. Truth is a function of power; and who has had the strongest grip on political agency in the US for the past century?

But the beautiful thing about Trump is that he is truly neither. We knew that the moment he proudly proclaimed that we need to build a wall to curb illegal immigration. Democrats don't want that because that's a steady stream of voters, and Republicans don't want that because that's a steady stream of labor.

Trump doesn't give a fuck, precisely because his goal is not to be good or evil, but rather to reclaim the political and economic power of the US from those who seek to exploit it.

I'm not voting for Trump because he's the lesser evil, I'm voting for him because Trump is beyond good and evil.

[BulletMagnet]

I've never been sure whether or not you're really that demented or just trolling the hell out of me, but at this point it really doesn't matter; I can't even keep track of all this garbage anymore.

You don't. The terms "left" and "socialist", before being dragged through the mud by people like you and BulletMagnet, used to signify one's place in the class struggle.

...in the meantime, seems I've made another new friend. I haven't kept up too closely with your previous contributions in this thread, admittedly, but I am curious what, in a nutshell, you think I ought to be doing instead of what I've been doing. For the record, I do agree that what passes for modern liberalism has at times been utterly contemptuous of the white working class, much to its own detriment, though I wouldn't put it on the same level of hostility, baked right into its platform, that modern conservatism has for anyone who's not already rich.

[quash]

Why is it the moment I start to have even a little fun I'm accused of being a troll?

You can extend the benefit of the doubt to people who claim the Democrats voted against invading Iraq, people who completely refused to acknowledge the fact that the CIA armed and trained ISIS, people who think the act of mishandling classified information isn't a criminal offense of its own, etc., but as soon as I playfully point out the power dynamics that Trump is attempting to subvert suddenly I'm the one denying reality?

But you know what, let's put all that aside for a second. Let's forget that virtually every prediction I've made so far has come to pass (though I didn't foresee Trump making such a limp dick choice for VP, admittedly) and that if leaking classified information weren't a crime of its own, I could have very easily done so to prove all of my assertions beyond a shadow of a doubt and shut everyone here up.

Let's put all that aside, for just a moment.

A common accusation lobbed towards Trump is that he would start WW3. Nevermind that there is virtually no evidence to suggest that he has any reason to do so (though we can sure make strong arguments based on feelings, amirite), but let's assume that he would want to.

Against whom, by what means, and to what end?

Make a convincing case. Use whatever evidence you think supports it. I have an entire folder of bookmarks that all but prove Obama is giving Hillary the layup, but let's see what you guys can come up with.

[Lord Satori]

Since when does Trump need a convincing case to get anything done?

[Specineff]

Trump doesn't give a fuck, precisely because his goal is not to be good or evil, but rather to reclaim the political and economic power of the US from those who seek to exploit it.

I'm not voting for Trump because he's the lesser evil, I'm voting for him because Trump is beyond good and evil.

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt (not that you'd care much for it, and I'll have to respect that if that's the case), but this is seriously nothing but delusion.

A businessman who was born sucking on a silver spoon, who has stiffed contractors out of their legitimately-earned wages, left other people holding the bag when all went to shit, who has never known what it's like to choose between paying a bill or buy groceries, who's never been downsized, and moreover, who benefitted even when his businesses went to shit, CARES ABOUT THE WELL-BEING OF THE COUNTRY SO MUCH, THAT HE'S WILLING TO TAKE ON THE BURDEN OF BEING PRESIDENT?

Yeah, right. And that's why he got all those hats with his campaign motto from China, right? And why he opened a golf resort in Scotland, right? Because that benefits the US worker and consumer SOOOOOOOOOOOO much, right?

[BulletMagnet]

Why is it the moment I start to have even a little fun I'm accused of being a troll?

Because there's no way in hell you're dumb enough to actually think Hillary has infiltrated both the entire Republican Congress and this very forum, let alone not know the difference between objectivity and Objectivism. 'Fraid I'm done.

[Bananamatic]

what if I am hillary and once I'm elected cave will either fix their shitty steam ports or japan gets nuked