Prelude to the Apocalypse

[Bitter Almonds]

It's no surprise, as shrillary heads the neocon wing of the democrats' party.

[tusecsy]

It's no surprise, as shrillary heads the neocon wing of the democrats' party.

I think they're both idiots but I'll say this about Hillary and Obama. All that rhetoric about "they hate america" bla bla bla. It's not that they hate anyone, it's that they only care about themselves and their immediate family. They will do and say anything to achieve more wealth and more power for themselves and nobody else. This is the reality of money in politics. Be it Hillary, Trump, or yes, even Bernie.

[BulletMagnet]

The sit-in is such a sham. Opportunistic political theater at its worst.

'Fraid that award goes to Congress' continuing refusal to give Garland a hearing; whether or not you agree with the Dems or even believe they actually care about guns, there is at least a real issue in there. In the case of Judge Garland it goes no deeper than "we want to give this administration and anyone possessing a shred of common ground with it one last middle finger".

[EmperorIng]

Leftist opportunistic political theater at its worst.* Like the other aisle, an equally pointless waste of time. Actually slightly less so, since at least that deadlock has temporarily killed some bad examples of executive overreach. Semi-positive results through crippling inaction - what more can man hope for in these troubling times?

*don't forget the sage advice of former Obama chief of staff and current Chicago mayor: "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

[BulletMagnet]

Actually slightly less so, since at least that deadlock has temporarily killed some bad examples of executive overreach.

I won't deny that Obama has at times tested the limits of executive power (though in many cases he's simply following precedents set by the Bush administration...mind you, still not the wisest course of action in general), but how is that the case here? If the nominee is really that awful, give him a hearing/vote and reject him, that's what the legislative branch is supposed to do.

[EmperorIng]

I wasn't defending the inaction and I've long thought that a sensible course of action would have been plain rejection if they really didn't like him. I was only pointing out that the debacle has had some "semi-positive" and unintentional benefits, like potentially assuring greater religious exemption from the HHS mandate (which never should have been an issue in the first place if the mandate was more thoughtfully-worded), or (perhaps more murkily) denying sweeping bypass of congressional authority on citizenship. A problem of the last several presidents, and all current candidates is that they share a tendency towards believing that some procedures are worth following, and others aren't.

[BryanM]

It's not that they hate anyone, it's that they only care about themselves and their immediate family. They will do and say anything to achieve more wealth and more power for themselves and nobody else. This is the reality of money in politics. Be it Hillary, Trump, or yes, even Bernie.

It's hard to imagine a politician that could possibly be less interested in power and money than the old man. He's freaking 75 years old and had decades to sell out and take the bribes ("speaking fees", "jobs"). Decades to run for president, and yet has only spent 2 years working at it. He seems to be more than content with his peasant senator's estate of two houses and a mills' bills in the bank.

Dah, of course he's a politician and actually tries to win. Which is what separates him from the greens and libertarians, I guess.

That Julian Castro guy doesn't even have a high profile yet, and yet he was selected and has been running for president for ten freaking years. It is pretty fundamentally different.

[EmperorIng]

Which is what separates him from the greens and libertarians, I guess.

When your goals are so low, it's easy to be pleased!

Let's reach that 2% vote share, Johnson-ites!

[Bitter Almonds]

Yeah, I don't think Bernie was out shaking hands with Honduran dictators, taking money from the saudis, seeking advice from renown war criminals like kissinger, and giving million-dollar "speeches" to goldman sacks the way shrillary has been doing in all her political/criminal career - whenever she's not calling black people "super predators," voting for the interests of credit card companies, voting to spy on the citizens of this country, voting to conquer and murder the citizens of Iraq, and a number of other things.

I need to be reminded why this subhuman is the better alternative to trump...

[quash]

I knew there was an instance of Obama recusing a judge for their ethnicity, just had to dig for it.

Also, don't bet the media will report on this much.

[Mortificator]

As with when you said Clinton was a war criminal some posts back, I think you're being mislead by relying on editorials, rather than primary sources. Judge Tabaddor's recusal was based on her actions; her involvement with Persian leaders was perceived by a DOJ office as creating the appearance of impropriety. The brief filed by Tabaddor's own representation says...

No immigration judge should have to worry about being the object of a summary blanket recusal order from the EOIR based upon his/her community and civic involvement.

... which is absolutely correct, and the DOJ was wrong to recuse her, but she wasn't recused for being of Iranian descent.

When was there a ban on Muslim immigration from Clinton?

Obama and Hillary already instituted a a temporary ban on refugees until they could figure out what was going on.

Temporarily suspending refugee resettlement from a country while its screening system's improved is in no way equivalent to banning Muslim immigration. Muslims from around the world immigrated to the US throughout 2011.

[quash]

And the judge that presided Trump's case is a member of an NPO that's brazen enough to call themselves La Raza. Are we going to pretend that in either case, the ethnicity of said judges was not at least an implicit cause for recuse?

Temporarily suspending refugee resettlement from a country while its screening system's improved is in no way equivalent to banning Muslim immigration. Muslims from around the world immigrated to the US throughout 2011.

Tell that to your liberal friends! That's all most people want, but they're called racists when they voice concern over it. Which is why we have Trump taking things to their finality to piss off the finger wagging thought police.

If you want to go down the Hillary rabbit hole more, I'm all for it. The only good thing about her is that you never run out of material. They'll have to make an organization dedicated to her tribunal if Trump wins.

[BulletMagnet]

And the judge that presided Trump's case is a member of an NPO that's brazen enough to call themselves La Raza.

Didn't we already establish that the "La Raza" that Curiel belongs to is separate from the one that the conspiratorial cuckoo clocks always like to pretend is trying to make the southwestern states part of Mexico?

More importantly, Judge Tabbador was recused specifically from cases involving Iranian immigrants; the Trump University case has absolutely nothing to do with Mexico, the proposed wall or anything else even marginally relevant. Also, as was already said (and, of course, ignored), Judge Curiel has been very friendly to Trump's side up to this point in the case; any "objections" Trump has to his presence on the bench amount to nothing more than a tear-soaked temper tantrum.

Which is why we have Trump taking things to their finality to piss off the finger wagging thought police.

I'm sure that's exactly it.

[BryanM]

Which is what separates him from the greens and libertarians, I guess.

When your goals are so low, it's easy to be pleased!

Let's reach that 2% vote share, Johnson-ites!

Polling indicates this might be the year he breaks 5%, just from people randomly filling in one of the "other" boxes.

Pretty much any 3rd party would break 10% this year if they could get into the debates on tv. Which they won't be allowed to do. No matter how high they poll in polls.

[Bitter Almonds]

Bernie would poll higher than 10% if he ran as an independent. I would vote FOR him and his policies. With these two pandering clowns, there's no point in voting... which is the way shrillary and the establishment want.

[tusecsy]

Bernie would poll higher than 10% if he ran as an independent. I would vote FOR him and his policies. With these two pandering clowns, there's no point in voting... which is the way shrillary and the establishment want.

Bernie is a true Democrat sadly, party first, people second.

[Mischief Maker]

Bernie would poll higher than 10% if he ran as an independent. I would vote FOR him and his policies. With these two pandering clowns, there's no point in voting... which is the way shrillary and the establishment want.

Bernie is a true Democrat sadly, party first, people second.

Until this primary, Bernie was an independent.

You keep implying these things about Sanders. I would love for you to present proof, or even bald arguments. Knee-jerk cynicism is only a winning strategy on average.

The thing that chaps my ass about this election is Bernie Sanders had one goddamn speech. He peppered it with 5-10 minutes of recent news and local color, but otherwise his platform has been straightforward and rock solid consistent the entire election and anyone with an internet connection and a half-hour's worth of due diligence could have known his full platform inside and out. Yet every non-Bernie supporter I talked with always had some imaginary Bernie Sanders in their head with a zillion different policies ranging in style from Hipster to Stalinist.

But I can't really blame them, because when compared to Hillary, whose policies could change at a moment's notice, and Trump, whose policies do change mid-sentence, due diligence seems like wasted effort.

[BryanM]

Bernie is a true Democrat sadly, party first, people second.

It is hilarious how he's not going to endorse her and is all like "yeah, I'm voting for the lesser evil. If you don't want to, I completely understand. It's Hillary's responsibility to win your vote."

Man do the party critters seethe and seethe that he's not yelling at people to fall in line.

There is an overwhelming sunk cost fallacy in a lot of voter's minds. "I vote democrat. I'm not evil. Ergo, democrats can't be evil." The gentlest of criticism immediately makes them shut down - if Hillary Clinton is objectively an excessive rapist and murderer, then anyone who votes for her is that, too. That truth is too ugly for anyone to accept, so, these folks embrace the sweet comfort of denial and delusion.

There's tons of assholes blaming Nader for George W. So I'm 100% for Sanders's chestburster-esque reclamation strategy. It's worked great for tea partiers and their party.

Yet every non-Bernie supporter I talked with always had some imaginary Bernie Sanders in their head with a zillion different policies ranging in style from Hipster to Stalinist.

That's why it takes ten years to become a semi-viable contestant.

Also why we deserve Trump and the sweet embrace of oblivion he promises us so sweetly. Time to let the squirrels inherit the earth.

BONUS BRYANMRAMBLES.TXT

I did try pitching him and his platform once to my aunt, and she seemed pretty much all-for all the policies I stated.

Then she and the people in the room spent ten minutes complaining about efforts that took down the ten commandants at the Oklahoma capital and people not wanting the confederate flag to be hung on state buildings.

[Ed Oscuro]

The thing that chaps my ass about this election is Bernie Sanders had one goddamn speech. He peppered it with 5-10 minutes of recent news and local color, but otherwise his platform has been straightforward and rock solid consistent the entire election and anyone with an internet connection and a half-hour's worth of due diligence could have known his full platform inside and out. Yet every non-Bernie supporter I talked with always had some imaginary Bernie Sanders in their head with a zillion different policies ranging in style from Hipster to Stalinist.

I find it hard to understand why these guys (and gals) don't figure it out. People listen to Trump because he's generating news. I wish Hilary would just start insulting Trump. Her thoughtful or nuanced responses, or whatever? Those get like a five second footprint in the media, nobody's going to pay attention to those.

And while Trump certainly doesn't elevate the debate, who said that being entertaining was bad?

[BulletMagnet]

Better idea: demand that the media actually serve its purpose as the fourth estate, to educate and empower voters, rather than endlessly chase the shiniest object as one more soulless avatar of nihilistic cannibal capitalism.

[Ed Oscuro]

I think that whole idea of a "golden age" of television with Walter Cronkite is just rose-colored glasses. They tried their best but they simply didn't have to contend with as many channels or as much information as today. Besides, using excitement to attract attention is a really really old human concept - we might as well work on becoming better cyborgs / computers if we want to excise showmanship and demagoguery from the news.

[Mischief Maker]

I think that whole idea of a "golden age" of television with Walter Cronkite is just rose-colored glasses. They tried their best but they simply didn't have to contend with as many channels or as much information as today. Besides, using excitement to attract attention is a really really old human concept - we might as well work on becoming better cyborgs / computers if we want to excise showmanship and demagoguery from the news.

No, once upon a time news channels had reporters bringing home images of bleeding soldiers on stretchers in Vietnam. Once upon a time there were these things called "Investigative Journalists" who would do some actual digging to find a story. Once upon a time news stations had local offices in foreign countries to give the inside scoop on what's going on.

Nowadays, they hear about a story secondhand then put a bunch of assholes in suits on separate screens in front of the host and have them try to shout over each other about what it all means for five minutes. Otherwise they just Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V press releases.

So much more cost-effective!

[BryanM]

Publicly funded tv in a world that doesn't even have publicly funded elections? Good luck.

Gotta be honest here. Sesame Street has had a far bigger impact on progressive advancement than almost everything else put together.

No, once upon a time news channels had reporters bringing home images of bleeding soldiers on stretchers in Vietnam. Once upon a time there were these things called "Investigative Journalists" who would do some actual digging to find a story. Once upon a time news stations had local offices in foreign countries to give the inside scoop on what's going on.

Probably the meddling of all that damn union money that doesn't exist any more.

Also Vietnam isn't very analogous to Iraq. Every kid who was around back during Vietnam knew multiple classmates that carked off. Iraq is an invisible war, unless you happen to have had the misfortune of living in Iraq.


This isn't to say things haven't decayed on many fronts all over. Truman, the guy who nuked the Japanese to show off to the Russians, lived in poverty rather than accept any lucrative job offer after leaving office, so as to not diminish the dignity of the office of president. Today, Ms. Clinton, accepted well over $200 million of personal pocket change because "that's what they offered."

[quash]

Besides, using excitement to attract attention is a really really old human concept - we might as well work on becoming better cyborgs / computers if we want to excise showmanship and demagoguery from the news.

Careful, some androids around these parts might accuse you of not making enough sense.

[BulletMagnet]

Translation: Taking stock of verifiable facts and relevant issues in order to make informed decisions - i.e. democracy working as intended - is so boring, only nerds do that.

If you really think that aiming a bit higher as a society than "make me release enough endorphins and reality will no longer matter" is too much to ask, you're frankly not ready for participatory government.

[quash]

Then give me a logical argument as to why any nation should accept refugees. Or a logical argument as to why healthcare should be a universal right. Or a logical argument for a standard living wage. The list goes on.

Remember, logic, not emotion. If you're going to tell someone they should believe any of those things on a logical basis, you need to give them good, verifiable reasons why.

[Mischief Maker]

Then give me a logical argument as to why any nation should accept refugees.

Reciprocity. Same reason we should respect the Geneva conventions.

Or a logical argument as to why healthcare should be a universal right.

Disease doesn't stay put. When left on its own it spreads, multiplies, and mutates. Isolating and eliminating diseases the same way we did with smallpox shouldn't be considered an entitlement, it should be considered a priority.

As for injuries, if a person becomes an invalid because of a treatable ailment that they can't afford to get fixed, that person becomes a noncontributing drain on the system.

Or a logical argument for a standard living wage.

People only obey the law if they feel the system will reward their restraint in kind. When the system is perfectly willing to let you starve in the gutter, why should you respect its property laws? Cops are not omnipresent.

For example, if you're invested in the system, an outstanding arrest warrant is a serious impairment of your ability to work within the system and something you'll want to get resolved posthaste. If you're homeless on the street, an outstanding warrant isn't going to fuck with your lifestyle. In fact, on cold winter days where the shelters are full, or you're too drunk to be allowed in the shelter, you can turn yourself in to the police and cash in that outstanding arrest warrant for a warm bed and three square meals at taxpayer expense for however many days.

Remember, logic, not emotion. If you're going to tell someone they should believe any of those things on a logical basis, you need to give them good, verifiable reasons why.

You should look in the mirror. Your own emotional attachment to this conservative identity has given you such tunnel vision that you actually thought there was no logical rationale for those three points and probably leaned back in your chair after hitting submit and whispered, "checkmate!"

It's the old conservative empathy gap. A republican lawmaker hates faggots unrepentantly for decades, then his son comes out of the closet, and oh my, suddenly he's aware of all kinds of logical reasons for gay rights!

[quash]

Reciprocity. Same reason we should respect the Geneva conventions.

Syria would be willing to accept boatloads of Europeans. Right.

If we forced them all to stay, why would we need to worry about them accepting us later? Most of them would likely die before that could ever happen.

Isolating and eliminating diseases the same way we did with smallpox shouldn't be considered an entitlement, it should be considered a priority.

Why? And for whom should it be a priority? If we don't have enough medicine for everyone, how do we determine who gets it and who doesn't?

Not to mention the recent findings of bacteria resistant to all known antibiotics, but that's a discussion for another time.

As for injuries, if a person becomes an invalid because of a treatable ailment that they can't afford to get fixed, that person becomes a noncontributing drain on the system.

Then why not euthanize them?

Please keep in mind that I don't advocate this, nor some other things I'm arguing here. I just want to hear a logical explanation for these things.

People only obey the law if they feel the system will reward their restraint in kind. When the system is perfectly willing to let you starve in the gutter, why should you respect its property laws? Cops are not omnipresent.

For example, if you're invested in the system, an outstanding arrest warrant is a serious impairment of your ability to work within the system and something you'll want to get resolved posthaste. If you're homeless on the street, an outstanding warrant isn't going to fuck with your lifestyle. In fact, on cold winter days where the shelters are full, or you're too drunk to be allowed in the shelter, you can turn yourself in to the police and cash in that outstanding arrest warrant for a warm bed and three square meals at taxpayer expense for however many days.

This is more along the lines of what I was hoping someone would bring forth. Even so, why wouldn't the bum just find the nearest weapon and kill everyone in sight? Clearly even he has something to lose.

You should look in the mirror. Your own emotional attachment to this conservative identity has given you such tunnel vision that you actually thought there was no logical rationale for those three points and probably leaned back in your chair after hitting submit and whispered, "checkmate!"

Not really. I'm not a conservative (no matter how many times you and others attempt to lazily throw that label on me, it won't stick) and I'm really just playing devil's advocate at this point.

The issue I see is that a lot of so-called logic presented by progressives these days is little more than a self referential feedback loop. Using the current year as an argument for anything is a perfect example of this: assuming that everyone shares common experience or common perspective on an issue while simultaneously lambasting those who dare to disagree. Clinging to vague notions of "common sense" doesn't work when, as it turns out, people are individuals and have different experiences from which they formed their views.

[quash]

Think of it this way: when a conservative cites the Bible as their justification for creating law, they know that their argument is an emotional one (or as they would usually put it, "faith based"). Take this to its finality and you get "God hates fags", of which even the most ardent believers won't bother arguing on the basis of logic.

When a liberal cites "progress" as their justification for creating law, things get murky. Some of them may damn well know that they largely appeal to emotion. Some of them may genuinely believe that what they're pursuing is logical, but know that it can never be achieved without basically dismantling the government as we know it. Somewhere in between are the ones who acknowledge that much of the modern liberal platform is nothing short of pandering on domestic policy and selling out on foreign policy.

The problem is that when you have large groups of people all telling themselves different sets of lies (presumably for the same cause), you get mixed signals on what progressivism is. Accepting Islam is progressive by virtue of accepting another's religion, but is Islam itself progressive? Is accepting something that is literally antithetical to what it means to be progressive, progressive?

How about the dilemma with civil obedience? Cops are all out to oppress you, especially if you aren't white, but we should surrender our guns to the government because the police will take care of us.

I said before that the evolution occurring within the Republican party right now is very easy to predict. We're basically seeing what the base has always stood for (nationalism) take over the charade of neoconservatism. But the change occurring in the Democratic party is much harder to predict, in no small part because there are so many contradictions in its underpinning ideology.

[Mischief Maker]

I'm really just playing devil's advocate at this point.

Whatever, dude.

If saying you were really trolling me this whole time is what lets you save face, have at it.

But if you're not debating in good faith then I'm not interested in unraveling your spaghetti logic for another 30 pages only to get, "Shyeah, right! I was just funnin' you!" as your response over and over again.