Prelude to the Apocalypse

[Skykid]

I'm... beginning to think that it's more likely that Trump could beat Hillary in the general election than not. And I think that feeling will only grow over time.

This could be really happening, people.

I so hope it happens. A country that votes Donald Trump into presidency would have to have both a wonderful sense of humour and absolutely no self respect.

[Ed Oscuro]

You have no logical reason to trust news media. They're not on your side.

Good lord, you make missing the point into an artform. (And where did I say I trusted news media? They brought us Trump, after all. TI =/= news media.)

What, exactly, are you trying to achieve here? Nobody is whitewashing anything, so your comments along that line are out of place.

I can actually go to my own real-life experiences. I've spent a fair amount of time involved in various social campaigns and with some of the poorest people out there, so I have a very good sense how they are served / not served by this society.

I think pretty much everybody here is on the same page that there's a lot more that needs to be done. Nobody's denying it.

What I am disputing is that it's sensible to say that the US is "the most corrupt." So what, then, do you call China? Or Somalia? You devalue words and understanding with this hyperbole.

Progress is impossible if you refuse to see things in perspective, as you do with stupid comments like "the closest thing to slavery." There's a difference between today's economic problems and living in a company town. There's a difference between being in a company town and being a sharecropper. And being a sharecropper is still a step above being a slave, where you're not allowed to own anything, eat food that's good for you, get an education, or get treated by a doctor unless the slave master says it's OK.

It's a shame that Wenchang didn't post again because I think there's a good case to be made that he's understating the structural problems in society. But it's a mixed bag - modern knowledge and technology certainly has us much better off, but on the other hand it's not clear we can even continue along this path as 20th century prosperity is certainly a historical abberation. Even people like Bill Gates actually understand (parts of) this - but it's the know-nothings all along the other parts of the spectrum who cause these problems.

Like quash, who decided that there's no way to distinguish between obvious racists and people who aren't.
And Satan, the typically cantankerous and inscrutable old one who just wants to punch things.
And Skykid, who is fixated on calling the United States corrupt despite having lived in a country with half the United States' openness for years. Remove the plank from thine own eye, Skykid!

Maybe Skykid just has it out for the United States. So, then, how about comparing a couple former Crown countries instead?
This is the kind of thing people worry about in South Africa.
This is the kind of thing people worry about in Canada.

From the comfort of a chair both stories look pleasantly enough reported, but it's clear which one of these stories is the more worrisome.

[Skykid]

Morning Ed.

Good lord, you make missing the point into an artform.

Based on the choice quotes you've made from my post, I'd actually put you in that camp.

What, exactly, are you trying to achieve here? Nobody is whitewashing anything, so your comments along that line are out of place.

90% of my comments were nothing to do with whitewashing, it was a discussion about wealth inequality amongst others. I only made fun of that ridiculous chart you pulled from a news media source that's given away for free on the streets of London.

What I am disputing is that it's sensible to say that the US is "the most corrupt." So what, then, do you call China? Or Somalia? You devalue words and understanding with this hyperbole.

No, but you clearly do. I never said "most corrupt". I simply responded to the nonsense chart you posted claiming it's in good corruption stead. Kissinger would approve.

And Skykid, who is fixated on calling the United States corrupt despite having lived in a country with half the United States' openness for years. Remove the plank from thine own eye, Skykid!

You're just talking shit now. Try to reread the posts and figure out what was actually being discussed. I barely even mentioned the US.

[BryanM]

None of these disagreements will matter once Trump is president and he implements his human instrumentality project

[Skykid]

None of these disagreements will matter once Trump is president and he implements his human instrumentality project

I honestly can't wait. I have this weird excitement over the prospect of seeing what absolute catastrophe looks like.

[Xyga]

In truth he's working for China, your country will soon be under control of the Untold Empire MWAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Skykid]

In truth he's working for China, your country will soon be under control of the Untold Empire MWAHAHAHAHAHA!

It's not my country, although I doubt the Chinese will ever be under anyone's control after the recent display of boisterous propaganda that was the 70th anniversary of Japan's defeat in WWII. It was heavy weaponry and nukes on parade for most of the day, and the patriotism here is so fierce that even the most unexpected people dragged their asses out of bed to watch its 9am kick off.

Putin is now officially way cool with Chinese people.

[Xyga]

You've missed the meaning of my crappy joke post entirely.

It was fantasy about Trump being an undercover Chinese Empire agent about to seize control of the US. And correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you're British.

[Skykid]

You've missed the meaning of my crappy joke post entirely.

It was fantasy about Trump being an undercover Chinese Empire agent about to seize control of the US. And correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you're British.

Don't worry, I wasn't taking it seriously. It's a very amusing notion anyway: it wouldn't surprise me if Trump was a robot with loose wiring being controlled by an awful Chinese internet connection and similarly shoddy satellite relay.

I'm half English, although the UK would be my permanent domicile if I ever decide to go back to the mundanity of it all and give up fun and future prospects.

[BulletMagnet]

None of these disagreements will matter once Trump is president and he implements his human instrumentality project

So instead of a giant glowing Rei Ayanami it'll be a skyscraper-sized Ivanka? (insert "YUUGE" joke here)

[quash]

Like quash, who decided that there's no way to distinguish between obvious racists and people who aren't.

Projecting arguments, are we? Do tell where I gave that impression.

None of these disagreements will matter once Trump is president and he implements his human instrumentality project

That's if we're lucky.

[jonny5]

This is the kind of thing people worry about in Canada.

A blog post from a very small town with a population of 10,000? Yes, this is truly a good indication of Canadian politics

[quash]

I can actually go to my own real-life experiences. I've spent a fair amount of time involved in various social campaigns and with some of the poorest people out there, so I have a very good sense how they are served / not served by this society.

I would really like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you are coming across as a middle class martyr right now.

How about my experience: being raised in the lowest economic class in the US my entire childhood. Being homeless twice before the age of 18. Living in neighborhoods where my family was a constant target of harassment because we were the only whites. Finally catching a break in subsidized housing, only to have any hope of upward mobility thwarted by a system that wants minors to pay rent if they're working.

And that's just the beginning.

I was motivated, smart, and lucky enough to get out of that situation, but there are far too many who get stuck. Tangled up in the so-called "safety nets" that are there to prevent you from falling any further, but also to prevent you from going anywhere. Thanks to well-meaning but misguided people who want to help the poor, but have no idea what being poor is actually like.

Maybe you're one of them, maybe you're not. One thing I can say with certainty is that I have experienced what people like you merely study. Not a slight against you; there's nothing wrong with being rich/middle class, as long as you have some perspective.

[antron]

Some questions for anyone who wants Trump to win the general:

1. What policy positions of Trump's do you believe he will actually carry out?
2. Do you think Trump really believes Obama wasn't born in Hawaii?
3. If you answered anything to 1 and no to 2, what makes you so sure he's not just making shit up to win as he did with the birth certificate thing?

[Giest118]

Some questions for anyone who wants Trump to win the general:

1. What policy positions of Trump's do you believe he will actually carry out?
2. Do you think Trump really believes Obama wasn't born in Hawaii?
3. If you answered anything to 1 and no to 2, what makes you so sure he's not just making shit up to win as he did with the birth certificate thing?

I don't want him to win but I'm going to answer anyway.

1: He is exclusively only going to implement policies that are bad ideas while preventing any and all good ideas from being implemented.
2: Yes. I also believe that Trump was not born anywhere on the face of the planet.
3: He is absolutely making shit up. He is constantly hallucinating literally everything he does.

[BryanM]

3. If you answered anything to 1 and no to 2, what makes you so sure he's not just making shit up to win as he did with the birth certificate thing?

No I don't think he thinks Obama is a foreign plant or that all Mexicans are rapers. It's all part of a stage act to attract free media advertising and the support of racists (a good 20 to 40% of the GOP base). This is an example where being perceived to have a lack of honesty gives him crossover appeal: Racists can love him, and Less Racists can rationalize it with "eh it's just an act."

There's honestly no telling what he might do, and that's an enormous amount of his appeal. Someone plops a mystery box in front of you, you kinda want to know what's inside. "That's fucktarded!" someone from a non-fucktarded country might say. Since you're clearly a foreigner, you have to understand what choices the establishment has chosen for us.



Both of them are employed by the bank and oil industries. Oil industry wants to be allowed to kill everyone, the banks just want everyone's money. The only significant difference between the two is Bush III will work to eliminate federal income tax, the minimum wage, social security, and medicare, as that is what our libertarian overlords pay their employees to do. And he'll work to break up Iran AGAIN so we can have another country like IS rise out of the ashes and millions more refugees flood out of the region. Because that worked perfectly the first time. (And we're talking about this on Osama Bin Laden Day, the day that we implemented Osama's foreign policy for decades to come. What a downer.)

So our only options are a mystery box, or supporting an angry old wonderful geezer who the entire establishment hates who'll probably cark it months before he takes office even if he manages to win.

Welcome to America. : (

So instead of a giant glowing Rei Ayanami it'll be a skyscraper-sized Ivanka? (insert "YUUGE" joke here)

It made me really sad to confirm the Vice Prez has to qualify to be Prez, so she's technically out of the running.

Somehow I think he could still kick reason to the curb and make it work, some how.

[Ed Oscuro]

Skykid is sore that I won't swallow his arguments whole.

Well, what am I supposed to do? Go against the best sources available, and my own experiences, because some movie critic who lives in China knows better?

Again, saying "everything is terrible" makes progress impossible.

I can actually go to my own real-life experiences. I've spent a fair amount of time involved in various social campaigns and with some of the poorest people out there, so I have a very good sense how they are served / not served by this society.

I would really like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you are coming across as a middle class martyr right now.

Hahaha, wrong on all counts, and you're inventing a story about what I wrote instead of asking me for clarification. Sorry, but you lost any right to judge me, since you obviously don't have any idea where I'm coming from. This is not a classy debate tactic, bro.

Let me try that again, then, since you completely missed the point. I'm not here to talk about my own circumstances, in which I've been very lucky. I was talking about actual poor people that I've spent a lot of time with, activists from minority groups, and people involved with social work (and I've been involved with social work myself). These are all people at or below the official poverty line, and many of them facing racism, going back to the mid '90s. If you want more details you could just ask, you know, and not be an asshole to try and score points.

Instead you post a misguided multi-paragraph diatribe which sure makes it look like you'd like to talk about yourself, speaking of martyrs, making it clear where your interests are. Self-interest is good, but it becomes hypocritical when you scream that somebody else is trying to do the same (especially when you invented that storyline to make yourself look good).

On the other hand you've not given me any reason to back off from what I've gathered about your own views of the world. From everything you've posted, you claim there's no difference between the Democrats and the party which still provides ample cover to racists, bigots, and whose official platform is trickle-down economics. In the grand scheme of things, minor scandals like Servergate don't matter.

I'm not saying that anybody has to settle for the Democrats; it's pretty clear that the Democrats have a problem with their platform vs. the people, same as the Republicans. But for my money, and specifically in light of the biggest issues, the Republicans look much farther from what I'd find acceptable at the moment.

This is the kind of thing people worry about in Canada.

A blog post from a very small town with a population of 10,000? Yes, this is truly a good indication of Canadian politics

These are actually just a couple articles I found randomly - they weren't hand-picked. But I hope you still see my point - people in Canada can actually make blog posts like this and rile up their representatives over things like that. Do you think the lady would get very far trying out those same criticisms in the South African atmosphere? In any case, you can correct me here - so what would you choose?

The ongoing story of First Nations people's historic treatment is what I'd pick; the Guardian says a "corruption scandal looms" when there's a $90K (CAD) check and some questionable expenses in the trial of a senator. I hope you'd agree that's a far cry from the South African example.

[Ed Oscuro]

Jesus Christ Ed, where's your head at? Your government is so fucking corrupt it's a circus.

Kissinger

You're just talking shit now. Try to reread the posts and figure out what was actually being discussed. I barely even mentioned the US.

Hey Skykid, why don't you try rereading the posts? I gave most of your posts barely a skim read because you're writing a lot without saying much (and that's coming from me!) but I think the fact that I didn't call you to task over the wealth inequality issue, and also questioned Wenchang's statements on taxes
might hold a clue for you

So why are you still trying to fight about that?

[BryanM]

[BryanM]

Killer Mike has an opinion on Reagan. It's like watching a nightmare.

[Ed Oscuro]

Ha, speaking of Reagan, maybe we should talk on something that can get some progress - like the failure of the American political system to address wealth / income inequality (both really). Whatcha all think 'bout that?

[BulletMagnet]

As I said earlier, until the "greed is (always) good" nonsense dies a very bloody and very public death nothing else will change, since its "the market has chosen and is never wrong" underpinnings can be (and is) used to justify pretty much any action, no matter how despicable, by anyone of means. As long as enough people believe it things will only get worse for the vast majority of us.

[Ed Oscuro]

Very much on-point there.

You know, if I had been smart enough to avoid being drawn into the blame game up above, I could have written something else:

Does anybody remember the alien election from The Simpsons, where the aliens convince everybody they have to vote for one of two candidates in a hilariously rigged election?

This is at the heart of why I'm talking about thinking about the parties (and the candidates) clearly.

We don't really live in a two-party system, and candidates like Trump and Sanders are good in that they can shake up the typical resolve of the party establishments to double down on failed messages and failed policies. At the same time, do we really need a President who spews racist, sexist, and plain crazy rhetoric like Trump?

Before this cycle, I didn't see myself ever advocating for voting in somebody I didn't want to win the primary - what if they win? With Trump, I might make an exception because I do think that getting the story out about wealth inequality is worth that much. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. It's not that your vote gets thrown away - it's that you don't get to choose what it gets counted for in the politics beyond the election. For all that the election matters, how that vote is counted and claimed by interested parties is arguably just as important.

Establishment politicians have proven adept at spinning whatever happens into a storyline they can grasp. No doubt, if Trump wins the big red R the establishment will say "well, it's certainly not because of his sexist remarks," so they'll pretend that doesn't happen. But there's more than that. "Neoliberal" types will do all they can to claim that all the voters were just voting "mainstream" (i.e., establishment) Republican, and certainly not for his arguments about economic justice. They might claim that his votes were solely the result of dissatisfaction with migration policy - or, really, any of the many, many issues Trump talks about on the campaign trail, which they think they could live with after any Trump Presidency has become a distant memory.

And of course, I have no reason to expect that Trump wouldn't double count any votes from registered blues as favorable towards his worst ideas. It's not just buyer beware towards the parties - but towards everybody in the political scheme. (And call me crazy, but isn't Trump the very embodiment of the "greed is good" stereotype?)

From where I'm standing, Sanders certainly can do what I'd like without the negatives. For all the people blasting me over "trusting the media," Sanders has had a much tougher hike to proving he's a serious candidate, while Trump has been gifted the mantle of the celebrity candidate from the start.

And I'd still vote Hillary over Trump in the general, any day. The Democratic party isn't spouting neoliberal economic poison - sure, wealthy Senators don't do much to help wealth inequality either, but it's certainly a party with more room for that kind of idea.

[Skykid]

3. If you answered anything to 1 and no to 2, what makes you so sure he's not just making shit up to win as he did with the birth certificate thing?

No I don't think he thinks Obama is a foreign plant or that all Mexicans are rapers. It's all part of a stage act to attract free media advertising and the support of racists (a good 20 to 40% of the GOP base). This is an example where being perceived to have a lack of honesty gives him crossover appeal: Racists can love him, and Less Racists can rationalize it with "eh it's just an act."

There's honestly no telling what he might do, and that's an enormous amount of his appeal. Someone plops a mystery box in front of you, you kinda want to know what's inside. "That's fucktarded!" someone from a non-fucktarded country might say. Since you're clearly a foreigner, you have to understand what choices the establishment has chosen for us.



Both of them are employed by the bank and oil industries. Oil industry wants to be allowed to kill everyone, the banks just want everyone's money. The only significant difference between the two is Bush III will work to eliminate federal income tax, the minimum wage, social security, and medicare, as that is what our libertarian overlords pay their employees to do. And he'll work to break up Iran AGAIN so we can have another country like IS rise out of the ashes and millions more refugees flood out of the region. Because that worked perfectly the first time. (And we're talking about this on Osama Bin Laden Day, the day that we implemented Osama's foreign policy for decades to come. What a downer.)

So our only options are a mystery box, or supporting an angry old wonderful geezer who the entire establishment hates who'll probably cark it months before he takes office even if he manages to win.

Welcome to America. : (

So instead of a giant glowing Rei Ayanami it'll be a skyscraper-sized Ivanka? (insert "YUUGE" joke here)

It made me really sad to confirm the Vice Prez has to qualify to be Prez, so she's technically out of the running.

Somehow I think he could still kick reason to the curb and make it work, some how.

This is a wonderful post.

[trap15]

So how 'bout that McAfee 2016

[Ed Oscuro]

He's just a trojan horse for Intel.

[BryanM]

We don't really live in a two-party system

The real miracle of the internet is its given us the power to kill our political parties by changing who they are. DailyKos and such have been working endlessly to try and force the Democrats to not suck ass as much, while New Republic and friends break off the knob on the nativist streak inherent to the GOP.

Sanders had to go around the media to reach where he is today: people who give a shit about their own survival giving him hundreds of $millions worth of volunteer hours. Without the internet, he'd have been kicked off already like other challengers have in the past when TV was in control of everything.

Talking about TV... A couple months ago was the first time that cable subscriptions have gone down in absolute terms. I am naively hopeful for our future. Maybe the meerkats don't have to take the wheel just yet.



(... and yeah. Since Reaganism it's always been "Will we bomb them a little now, or a lot later? Will we increase inequality a little now, or a lot later?" Never doing anything to go in the opposite direction is to concede that we must do it eventually.)

So how 'bout that McAfee 2016

For some reason, I'm not surprised Virus Checker Guy likes orgies where they do a bunch of butt drugs and stuff. Honestly it's the extreme weirdos like Gates and Musk that seem to be the exception to how things are supposed to work 'round here.

[Skykid]

Hey Skykid, why don't you try rereading the posts? I gave most of your posts barely a skim read because you're writing a lot without saying much (and that's coming from me!) but I think the fact that I didn't call you to task over the wealth inequality issue, and also questioned Wenchang's statements on taxes
might hold a clue for you

So why are you still trying to fight about that?

Is there some form of dementia at work here? You don't hold a direct one on one discussion like this.

You didn't "call me out" over the wealth inequality issue, but you combated my suggestion of high level corruption by big business and government with a very fuzzy chart. You then declared I was ragging on the USA even though I hadn't, made up a quote out of thin air, and then went freewheeling into some other unrelated twiddle.

You skim read my 'posts'?... I only made one that was directly on topic, and it was very brief. By your standards it was like an excerpt of an excerpt. If you can't take the time to read that, why do you expect us to weed through your essays to try to find a relevant addition to the discussion.

How on Earth is someone supposed to have a conversation like this? My original post was simple and clear about details that I feel Wenchang didn't address, and when others say the exact same things:

Both of them are employed by the bank and oil industries. Oil industry wants to be allowed to kill everyone, the banks just want everyone's money. The only significant difference between the two is Bush III will work to eliminate federal income tax, the minimum wage, social security, and medicare, as that is what our libertarian overlords pay their employees to do. And he'll work to break up Iran AGAIN so we can have another country like IS rise out of the ashes and millions more refugees flood out of the region. Because that worked perfectly the first time. (And we're talking about this on Osama Bin Laden Day, the day that we implemented Osama's foreign policy for decades to come. What a downer.)

They get a special Ed Oscuro pass.

Skykid is sore that I won't swallow his arguments whole.

More like befuddled that you managed to not engage the argument at all, ignore the core of the post, make up stuff I didn't say, post more really useless links, and then blame me for not getting your angle.

Jesus.

Well, what am I supposed to do? Go against the best sources available, and my own experiences, because some movie critic who lives in China knows better?

Difficult to say. Are we supposed to go against real world issues and plain as day social injustice because some cross-forum wall fly spends all day writing diatribes of text and posting countless links to completely fallible sources while skirting around people's original points to whip some of their own up out of thin air?

This is your debating faux pas in a nutshell:

Again, saying "everything is terrible" makes progress impossible.

Who said that? When was it implied? When was this used as a significant attribute of an argument? When you close your eyes, do you see dancing bunny rabbits?

Perhaps consider adressing your approach. This one isn't working so well.

[quash]

Let me try that again, then, since you completely missed the point. I'm not here to talk about my own circumstances, in which I've been very lucky. I was talking about actual poor people that I've spent a lot of time with, activists from minority groups, and people involved with social work (and I've been involved with social work myself). These are all people at or below the official poverty line, and many of them facing racism, going back to the mid '90s. If you want more details you could just ask, you know, and not be an asshole to try and score points.

I'm really not trying to be an asshole, but to anyone who has actually had to claw their way up the ladder, hearing about how someone whose biggest financial concern is likely student debt claim about how they have "experience with being poor" is one of the few things that will set you off in any kind of discourse about economics. It's a tactic that has been used many a time to disingenuously appeal to policymakers and the poor themselves, many of whom will believe anything you tell them as long as it means a roof over their head.

Again, I don't necessarily want to believe that you are one of them. It's just hard to imagine that line coming from anywhere else, speaking from experience. If you want to give detail, then by all means. I'm listening.

Instead you post a misguided multi-paragraph diatribe which sure makes it look like you'd like to talk about yourself, speaking of martyrs, making it clear where your interests are. Self-interest is good, but it becomes hypocritical when you scream that somebody else is trying to do the same (especially when you invented that storyline to make yourself look good).

You talked about yourself first, lol. And I invented nothing: this was where I called home for over a year.

On the other hand you've not given me any reason to back off from what I've gathered about your own views of the world. From everything you've posted, you claim there's no difference between the Democrats and the party which still provides ample cover to racists, bigots, and whose official platform is trickle-down economics. In the grand scheme of things, minor scandals like Servergate don't matter.

When did I say there was no difference? I just said they're both equally out of touch, and that acting like one party is sitting on some kind of moral high ground shows that you're taking sides.

Democrats may not lie as much to our faces, but they aren't in a position to do so, anyways. They still hold office and have a sizable portion of the legislative branch. Wait until they're back on the defensive and we'll see things change quickly.

[Ed Oscuro]

Hey Skykid, why don't you try rereading the posts? I gave most of your posts barely a skim read because you're writing a lot without saying much (and that's coming from me!) but I think the fact that I didn't call you to task over the wealth inequality issue, and also questioned Wenchang's statements on taxes
might hold a clue for you

So why are you still trying to fight about that?

Is there some form of dementia at work here? You don't hold a direct one on one discussion like this.

So, what, you're not going to engage with the post? Oh, I'm not being a polite enough debater? You've got no basis for complaining about how other people post, as your own are all dripping with contempt, "clever" one-liners, and studiously avoid trying to find common ground.

You didn't "call me out" over the wealth inequality issue,

That's the point, you fool.

but you combated my suggestion of high level corruption by big business and government with a very fuzzy chart.

The point I've made, repeatedly, is that this was about relative corruption, and I also admit that there certainly is corruption, but I take issue with your hysterical and unhelpful language. If the US is "corrupt as hell" (or whatever your phrase was) then what do you call Iraq? Somalia? You simply don't admit that this is the case.

Just as importantly, you shrug off my, Xyga's (he captured the relative nature of corruption very well in his post), and TI's thoughts on the matter, without bothering to share any sensible reasons why we should take your beliefs more seriously than a large, independent, worldwide organization's study. I am not in the habit of accepting the random beliefs of strangers on the Internet, especially those who are obviously totally unaware of the subject matter and write dumbass things like this:

A 'transparent' measurement of global corruption... how the hell was that even tallied?

Oh, great, you've never heard of it before. Please, then, exhaustively share your insights into what's wrong with it.

You write more, and more, and more which I will not bother reading, because you are only scratching your urge to be abrasive and insult your fellow Forum goers, but I've addressed the heart of the problem: You acting like the world's expert on subjects you've got no clue about.