Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

[Don Edwards 548]

1 hour ago, ChronosCat said:

you'd need to pay attention to notice how off the deep end the leaders of the Republican Party have gone, or that the Democrats are significantly better.

Well, I only disagree with the last word. I would change it to "more so."

[The Old Hack 2,448]

2 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

Well, I only disagree with the last word. I would change it to "more so."

I dunno about that. It wasn't a high ranking Democrat who accused me, my family and a whole lot of other people that share our religious ancestry of committing massive scale arson on the US west coast by means of space lasers.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

5 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

Well yes - and the volcano was active in the comic, too. My point is that if it weren't for all the drama about Trump, you'd need to pay attention to notice how off the deep end the leaders of the Republican Party have gone, or that the Democrats are significantly better. And also, the Democrats are far from perfect, while the jungle island in the comic looked like a stereotypical paradise island (though of course in real life the resources on an island like that would be poor, and there might be dangerous animals hiding in the jungle, so maybe it's not quite as bad an analogy as I initially thought).

Also true, but with so many lies floating around these days it can be hard to figure out what's true these days. I'm there are a lot of people that hear all the bad things both sides say about one another (and fail to find any impartial source of information they trust) and conclude that all of today's politicians are scum.

At any rate, I have a bit of sympathy for those who don't think there's enough difference between the parties to matter, as I fell for that line back in 2000 (in my defense, it was my first presidential election, and I naively thought you should vote for the person you actually think would be the best President without worrying about whether they have a chance to win; luckily my state went to Gore so I don't feel too guilty about my mistake). Of course the political situation has changed a lot in the last 23 years, so it's possible my sympathy is misplaced these days.

First paragraph, nightmare fuel. They are, per the article, not that dangerous, OTOH, anything that looks like a huge spider out of a horror movie is motivation to leave.

Second and third paragraphs, there are false equivalencies buried there. I agree, when you are young an naive, mistakes will be made. To continue in those when you are older speaks to the sturdiness of your framework, or rather, the lack thereof.  At 40 or 50, you should be able to spot character issues.

That said, the best people may not be the best leaders, visa versa. Jimmy Carter was a wonderful person, on many counts. He was not a stand out president (and so, he was defeated in his bid for a second term). Bill Clinton was a philanderer. He has the best record on the economy within my memory. Nixon was a horrible person on many counts; decades after his death he is still hated and is iconic of untrustworthy government. There are few presidents that accomplished more than he did while he was in office.

 

[Darth Fluffy 302]

4 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

Well, I only disagree with the last word. I would change it to "more so."

Please elaborate. You seem like a generally reasonable guy, yet your political opinion does not track with reality. I would like to know more.

The current 'G.O.P.' is not the G.O.P., it is a herd of RINOs who have hijacked your party. People who were the extreme right ten years ago are the shunned voices of reason today, standing out as lights against the utter darkness. "Justice is pushed aside; righteousness stands far off, because truth has stumbled in the public square, and honesty can't enter."

I hope they can turn it around, because our nation cannot endure much more of this.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

14 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Please elaborate. You seem like a generally reasonable guy, yet your political opinion does not track with reality. I would like to know more.

I am curious about this as well. Please give examples of Democrats who have said or enacted more unhinged things than:
 

• Marjorie Taylor Greene, who claims Jews have started forest fires in California by means of orbital laser cannon
• Mike Huckabee, who recently stated that if Republicans do not win in 2024, the next election will be decided by 'bullets not ballots'
• Ron de Santis, who has effectively enacted the death sentence for being a trans woman in public by 1) making child molestation punishable by death and 2) claiming that being a drag queen or trans woman is child molesting. Oh, and changed procedure so you only need 8 out of 12 jury votes for a death sentence rather than an unanimous jury vote.

 

Of course it might be that you find all of the above perfectly reasonable, in which case I suppose I have earned a death sentence from any reasonable government.

~tOH.

Edited September 14, 2023 by The Old Hack
Wrong name

[Don Edwards 548]

You're singling out individual nutcases.

Although I may have been slightly unfair to the Democrats, in the sense that maybe (probably) the Republicans are generally letting them take the lead in imposing government mandates and regulations on stuff that should not be mandated or regulated, and positioning themselves to be seen as opposing them while actually merely nitpicking over exactly what the mandates and regulations will say, and being careful to not actually impede anything very much. And only rarely do they undo any of the horrible results - more often they try to fix the consequences by enacting something closer to what the Democrats initially proposed.

In the US Congress, a compromise usually consists of the Democrats getting half of what they want in exchange for a promise to not demand the other half for a year or two. And that promise is often broken, followed by a new compromise in the same pattern.

But I'll point specifically at Hillarycare. This isn't just a single nutcase, a large part of the Democrat leadership at both national and state level joined in.

The Washington state legislature, with a solid Democrat majority at the time, enacted Hillarycare - some pages of the bill originally went to the House floor bearing marks showing that they were faxed from the White House. Critics predicted, before it was even formally proposed, that it would be a disaster, and fairly quickly.

Turned out the critics were overly optimistic. It was a worse disaster, sooner, than they predicted. A year after it took effect, in about half the counties in the state it wasn't possible for an individual to acquire medical-care insurance. Several large insurers abandoned the whole state. In the next election for the state legislature, I don't think there was a single candidate who (a) did not pledge to repeal it and then (b) won, against an opponent who had pledged repeal.

The replacement plan, designed to empower individuals and make medical-care insurance reasonably affordable rather than designed to transfer power from individuals to government, worked pretty well until the Obamacare law invalidated it.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

4 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

You're singling out individual nutcases.

I wish. They are representative of the GOP. For example, Ron de Santis could not have gotten his law put through without the backing of the entire Florida GOP among both Senate and Representatives. Marjorie Taylor Greene is Kevin McCarthy's right hand woman, a position she would not have if she were an individual nutcase. Mike Huckabee was *cheered* by the crowd he voiced his violent rhetoric to, and he is by far not the only Republican using violent and threatening rhetoric.

Poorly thought out laws are enacted with depressing regularity in every political system I have ever heard of. You would need to do a lot of talking before you could convince me that the Republican party was the sole exception to this rule. I do not consider these in any way the equivalent of hate rhetoric aimed at promoting civil violence and genocide.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

10 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

You're singling out individual nutcases.

Although I may have been slightly unfair to the Democrats, in the sense that maybe (probably) the Republicans are generally letting them take the lead in imposing government mandates and regulations on stuff that should not be mandated or regulated, and positioning themselves to be seen as opposing them while actually merely nitpicking over exactly what the mandates and regulations will say, and being careful to not actually impede anything very much. And only rarely do they undo any of the horrible results - more often they try to fix the consequences by enacting something closer to what the Democrats initially proposed.

In the US Congress, a compromise usually consists of the Democrats getting half of what they want in exchange for a promise to not demand the other half for a year or two. And that promise is often broken, followed by a new compromise in the same pattern.

But I'll point specifically at Hillarycare. This isn't just a single nutcase, a large part of the Democrat leadership at both national and state level joined in.

The Washington state legislature, with a solid Democrat majority at the time, enacted Hillarycare - some pages of the bill originally went to the House floor bearing marks showing that they were faxed from the White House. Critics predicted, before it was even formally proposed, that it would be a disaster, and fairly quickly.

Turned out the critics were overly optimistic. It was a worse disaster, sooner, than they predicted. A year after it took effect, in about half the counties in the state it wasn't possible for an individual to acquire medical-care insurance. Several large insurers abandoned the whole state. In the next election for the state legislature, I don't think there was a single candidate who (a) did not pledge to repeal it and then (b) won, against an opponent who had pledged repeal.

The replacement plan, designed to empower individuals and make medical-care insurance reasonably affordable rather than designed to transfer power from individuals to government, worked pretty well until the Obamacare law invalidated it.

Re: "You're singling out individual nutcases." - You presented one example, 'Hillarycare'. Even then, that's not what you're taking issue with, you are citing that Washington State implemented a plan based on Hillarycare, and that Washington State could not make it work.

It seems reasonable that what might work at a federal level with a federal level budget and backing might not work at a state level, although Washington State seems like a state that would be solvent. In any case, Hillary's direct involvement was authoring the plan, and perhaps forwarding it - you may have more facts, is it possible or even likely that it was requested? Lots of staffers work in the White House, is it possible or likely that one of them sent it?

Under Obamacare (which, if I recall correctly was authored by Mitt Romney for Massachusetts) I was able to continue to receive health benefits through my company. I believe the biggest beneficiaries were those who had no affordable access to health insurance. Is that a bad thing?

I applaud the decision to offer free COVID tests and shots, which I believe were Trump initiatives. The more people test and vax, the less it spreads, and the more herd immunity is built up. Therefore, the less likely I and my loved ones are likely to get COVID.

Summary: 1) I don't understand your gripe, 2) I don't see that it has much to do with Hillary, and 3) it's one isolated thing, the very thing you mentioned in your first line. This is not a rational, convincing stance.

[mlooney 3,417]

[mlooney 3,417]

[The Old Hack 2,448]

On 9/15/2023 at 6:39 PM, mlooney said:

I hope Putin.

[mlooney 3,417]

7 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

I hope Putin.

We can but pray.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

Points off for timing, but big bonus for sheer deadpan snarkery.

[Don Edwards 548]

Actually, I would prefer that nobody be the next to die in that fiasco... but that isn't an option. Putin is almost certainly the least-bad choice.

[mlooney 3,417]

30 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

Actually, I would prefer that nobody be the next to die in that fiasco... but that isn't an option. Putin is almost certainly the least-bad choice.

Yeah, Putin should be tried in the ICC and spend the rest of his life in jail.  A Russian jail, not one of those nice northern European jails.     

[The Old Hack 2,448]

1 hour ago, mlooney said:

Yeah, Putin should be tried in the ICC and spend the rest of his life in jail.  A Russian jail, not one of those nice northern European jails.     

I agree with the sentiment but I would put up with him even in Danish jail as long as he at least got jailed.

[ijuin 572]

Frankly, I don’t even care whether he’s jailed or not as long as he no longer has any influence over national or international affairs.

[mlooney 3,417]

6 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

I agree with the sentiment but I would put up with him even in Danish jail as long as he at least got jailed.

Point.  Just for a long time.  25 years would be a life sentence for him, so let's go with that.

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,586]

 

Is there any chance the US Senate could deal with Trump the way the Roman Senate handled Caesar?

 

[ijuin 572]

If Trump dies of anything besides natural causes, his supporters are going to make a huge martyr out of him.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

13 hours ago, ijuin said:

If Trump dies of anything besides natural causes, his supporters are going to make a huge martyr out of him.

To be fair, he is huge . . .

 

On 9/17/2023 at 4:26 PM, ijuin said:

Frankly, I don’t even care whether he’s jailed or not as long as he no longer has any influence over national or international affairs.

He is effectively already in a very nice jail by his own volition, except that he wields too much clout. He can't travel safely out of Russia (and that is not likely to change), powerful Russians want him dead, and based on the recent Pregozhin example, they should have learned by now that cutting him any slack and backing off is not going to work in their favor.He has the mile long table for a reason. In a culture known for its affinity for bribe mechanics, a nice bribe in the pocket of a guard would probably be enough to have him put down. I imagine he does not sleep well at night.

Ironically, he can't step down if he wants to. What happened to Pregozhin would happen to him; someone would want to send a message.

 

15 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Is there any chance the US Senate could deal with Trump the way the Roman Senate handled Caesar?

God, I hope we don't sink to that. Every event of that sort lowers the bar for the future. That was true for Rome as well.

Our Congress critters are still too civilized to go down that path, and the ones that might tend in that direction are Maggats in his camp.

His Jan 6 insurrection is exactly that kind of event, and needs to be punished. He and his cronies need to face charges for that, not just the rabble.

 

13 hours ago, ijuin said:

If Trump dies of anything besides natural causes, his supporters are going to make a huge martyr out of him.

F'ing COVID, you had one f'ing job . . .

Trump can't die of natural causes, if he could, he should already be dead. There ain't nothing healthy about his lifestyle.

My theory is that the Teflon Tornado is already deceased, but his hubris won't allow him to own up to it.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

Trump has just stated that cognitive impairment will cause Biden to lead the US into WW2.

I find the irony staggering.

[ijuin 572]

Well, there’s been no end of people comparing Biden to Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was the most recent president to have died of natural causes during his own Presidency.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

6 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Trump has just stated that cognitive impairment will cause Biden to lead the US into WW2.

I find the irony staggering.

Trump's own cognitive impairment caused him to publicly admit to conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election.

I think that kicks the legs out from under any previous defense, he should actually be going to prison soon, and be disqualified from running again.

He could possibly be pardoned in the future by another president, but that should not be grounds to override the disqualification; although if it came to it, I could see him testing that.

In any case, he is clearly a few sacks shy of a full load. Which then leads to, ". . .  and why do folks trust him?" I am clearly in the wrong field, with this 'trying to make an honest living' bullshit. Maybe if Trump University offers a grifting curriculum . . . and he could do it, 'Teach what you know' . . .

[Darth Fluffy 302]

6 hours ago, ijuin said:

Well, there’s been no end of people comparing Biden to Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was the most recent president to have died of natural causes during his own Presidency.

I have not heard that. Seems off to me. Biden is a centrist. His policies are not extreme. Roosevelt accomplished some similar infrastructure things, but in his case, they were more of a means to and end, to employ masses of people. While his innovative policies seem tame today, they were controversial at the time.