Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, TrickstaPriest said:

...No thoughts on the Amazon...?

 

Edit: Old Man's post gave me enough information to find out what was meant by the OP. I had to dig for the result, though, as it's apparently no longer fresh enough to appear near the top of the page for either Google or various news sites, and I've been mostly away from news sites for the majority of the day. Amazon's new office building in Hyderabad is still trending near the top, though. It shows what's a priority in the minds of news organizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's happening in the Amazon is so horrifying that it's almost beyond comprehension.  It's incredible how much one corrupt regime can screw everyone on the planet.  These guys are literally burning as fast as they can, to gain themselves as much poorly productive farmland as they can, before somebody stops them.  Six soccer fields of rainforest burned down in the time it took me to type this.  There are ashfalls in Sao Paulo, thousands of miles away.   Numerous indigenous tribes have been rendered homeless just in the past few days.  It's one of the most glaring cases of FYIGM I've ever seen.

 

I suppose I should be used to it by now, as a citizen of the most powerful corrupt government in the universe, but I'm not.  Between the eradication of the Amazon, and the fact that Greenland's ice sheet is melting orders of magnitude faster than expected, this has not been a great week in environmental news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, archer said:

 

If Puerto Rico could decide as a group what they wanted from the US, it would be likely that the US could treat them more fairly.

 

Some of them strongly want independence. Some of them strongly want statehood. Some of them strongly want to keep the current status but get more economic assistance and assorted non-economic benefits (the specifics of which vary almost from person to person).

 

I know what I'd do with Puerto Rico if I were given control over the situation. But it's difficult to build any kind of political consensus for major changes in any direction until they coalesce behind some idea of what they'd be satisfied with.

Puerto Rico voted overwhelming for statehood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

 

Edit: Old Man's post gave me enough information to find out what was meant by the OP. I had to dig for the result, though, as it's apparently no longer fresh enough to appear near the top of the page for either Google or various news sites, and I've been mostly away from news sites for the majority of the day. Amazon's new office building in Hyderabad is still trending near the top, though. It shows what's a priority in the minds of news organizations.

 

I do appreciate the digging, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Old Man said:

A deeply offensive one, absolutely. Especially coming from four-deferment Cadet Bone Spurs. 

 

5 actually.  :)

 

PS:  I'll allow that it could be considered a joke to clueless, uninformed civilians - which Trump is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Horrifying" is indeed the word for what's happening in the Amazon. As the BBC notes in its recording, greedy people are destroying a major source of the oxygen we breathe. The Amazon rain forest is big, but it ain't infinite.

 

Meanwhile, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro spins conspiracy theories that the fires are being set by NGOs to make him look bad. Truly, he is the Brazilian Trump: A liar without shame, and an utter narcissist.

 

Can the aliens please conquer us now?

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DShomshak said:

"Horrifying" is indeed the word for what's happening in the Amazon. As the BBC notes in its recording, greedy people are destroying a major source of the oxygen we breathe. The Amazon rain forest is big, but it ain't infinite.

 

Meanwhile, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro spins conspiracy theories that the fires are being set by NGOs to make him look bad. Truly, he is the Brazilian Trump: A liar without shame, and an utter narcissist.

 

Can the aliens please conquer us now?

 

Dean Shomshak

 

I anticipate a massive backlash across the world after the current wave of arrogant, selfish, deceitful faux-populist leaders are finally exposed for the frauds they are. My fear is that it will come too late to mitigate the damage they're doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

I anticipate a massive backlash across the world after the current wave of arrogant, selfish, deceitful faux-populist leaders are finally exposed for the frauds they are. My fear is that it will come too late to mitigate the damage they're doing.

 

Honestly, I can easily envision French Revolution level out rage...

or American voter level apathy.

I don't know which I dread more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DShomshak said:

Meanwhile, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro spins conspiracy theories that the fires are being set by NGOs to make him look bad. Truly, he is the Brazilian Trump: A liar without shame, and an utter narcissist.

 

Can the aliens please conquer us now?

 

One of the best countries in the world decided that their best two candidates were Hillary and Trump. 

 

330 million people to choose from and those two got the nod.

 

We deserve whatever happens to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, DShomshak said:

Can the aliens please conquer us now?

 

Funny, we're actually doing exactly what Jeff Goldblum's character drunkenly suggested in Independence Day: Trashing the planet to the point that the aliens won't want it any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, kidding aside...

 

I know this will offend some people here, but I did not hold my nose when I voted for Hillary Clinton. I thought, and still think, she'd have made a pretty good president. Not great, but pretty good. Here's why.

 

During the 2016 campaign, All Things Considered interviewed several of her former Senate colleagues to get a sense of her time there. The senators spoke highly of her detailed knowledge of law and policy, and her skill and diligence at quiet negotiation to bring coalitions together to get useful legislation passed, instead of scoring noisy propaganda points to please the activist party zealots.

 

The kicker? These were moderate Republican senators. Well, former senators -- all but one had been primaried out in the Tea Party wave.

 

Some of Hillary's much-touted flaws are also a matter of perspective. For instance, that she's "calculating" and "inauthentic." Well, I certainly hope a president would think carefully before speaking and try to strike a balance between what voters want to hear and what can actually be done. As for "authenticity," I am not sure what people mean by that. I'd say, Hillary showed herself to be authentically calculating.

 

(You can't get much more spontaneous and authentic than Donald Trump. Still think those are always good qualities?)

 

Hillary did not project a warm personality on the campaign trail. Fine with me, I'm not voting for someone to have a beer with.

 

Some people also objected to her and Bill's fundraising. They particularly didn't like some of the sources for the money. Well. Until someone figures out a way to really and truly get money out of politics -- without replacing it with something even more damaging and less democratic -- it's harder to get elected without money, and you can't do good in government without getting elected. The Clinton fundraising machine helped a lot of Democrats. Hillary would have entered the White House with a lot of Dems owing her and ready to advance her agenda.

 

I admit, Hillary seems to have a shifty relationship to the truth. It seems to be a common flaw for politicians so I grade on a curve here. The Hillary-lies that stick in my memory -- I particularly think of her story of landing in Bosnia under fire -- seem designed to make her look braver and more interesting, rather than meant to harm others.

 

Deleting the emails didn't look good either, but as political crimes go this clumsy attempt at damage control doesn't offend me much. FBI Dorector Comey didn't think it was prosecutable, so I'll let it pass.

 

Finally, consider Hillary's enemies. I suspect the far Right wouldn't hate her so much if they did not assess her as deeply dangerous to them. That is an endorsement in itself.

 

All in all, Hillary was a pretty bad candidate. But like I said, she might have done okay as a president. I'd have voted for her even without Donald Trump as the alternative. She wouldn't have pleased the progressive wing of the Dems, but I'm rather centrist myself.

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

One of the best countries in the world decided that their best two candidates were Hillary and Trump. 

 

330 million people to choose from and those two got the nod.

 

We deserve whatever happens to us.

 

"Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle merite [Every country has the government it deserves]."

---Josephe de Maistre, Lettres et Opuscules Inedites (1851) vol.1, letter 53 (15 August 1811)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DShomshak said:

Okay, kidding aside...

 

I know this will offend some people here, but I did not hold my nose when I voted for Hillary Clinton. I thought, and still think, she'd have made a pretty good president. Not great, but pretty good. Here's why.

 

During the 2016 campaign, All Things Considered interviewed several of her former Senate colleagues to get a sense of her time there. The senators spoke highly of her detailed knowledge of law and policy, and her skill and diligence at quiet negotiation to bring coalitions together to get useful legislation passed, instead of scoring noisy propaganda points to please the activist party zealots.

 

The kicker? These were moderate Republican senators. Well, former senators -- all but one had been primaried out in the Tea Party wave.

 

Some of Hillary's much-touted flaws are also a matter of perspective. For instance, that she's "calculating" and "inauthentic." Well, I certainly hope a president would think carefully before speaking and try to strike a balance between what voters want to hear and what can actually be done. As for "authenticity," I am not sure what people mean by that. I'd say, Hillary showed herself to be authentically calculating.

 

(You can't get much more spontaneous and authentic than Donald Trump. Still think those are always good qualities?)

 

Hillary did not project a warm personality on the campaign trail. Fine with me, I'm not voting for someone to have a beer with.

 

Some people also objected to her and Bill's fundraising. They particularly didn't like some of the sources for the money. Well. Until someone figures out a way to really and truly get money out of politics -- without replacing it with something even more damaging and less democratic -- it's harder to get elected without money, and you can't do good in government without getting elected. The Clinton fundraising machine helped a lot of Democrats. Hillary would have entered the White House with a lot of Dems owing her and ready to advance her agenda.

 

I admit, Hillary seems to have a shifty relationship to the truth. It seems to be a common flaw for politicians so I grade on a curve here. The Hillary-lies that stick in my memory -- I particularly think of her story of landing in Bosnia under fire -- seem designed to make her look braver and more interesting, rather than meant to harm others.

 

Deleting the emails didn't look good either, but as political crimes go this clumsy attempt at damage control doesn't offend me much. FBI Dorector Comey didn't think it was prosecutable, so I'll let it pass.

 

Finally, consider Hillary's enemies. I suspect the far Right wouldn't hate her so much if they did not assess her as deeply dangerous to them. That is an endorsement in itself.

 

All in all, Hillary was a pretty bad candidate. But like I said, she might have done okay as a president. I'd have voted for her even without Donald Trump as the alternative. She wouldn't have pleased the progressive wing of the Dems, but I'm rather centrist myself.

 

Dean Shomshak

Well I disagree on some level, but I don't understand this at all. Just like all armies seem to try fighting the last war over, all "politicos" seem to want to re fight the last election. Trump is a total dumpster fire of a pres, but if you're trying to use that to say Hillary, or one just like her, is a good choice, You run the real risk of being over run by other forces yet again. Without Hillary Trump could not have won...that's on the machine politics that dominate both modern parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said:

...No thoughts on the Amazon...?

Well, someone told me about the whole oxygen cycle thing about 30 years ago, and that the Brazilian rain forest provides a hefty percentage of both our oxygen supply and our carbon dioxide "sink".  If the oxygen content of the atmosphere drops below a certain percentage(13 or 14%, IIRC), our brains basically stop working.  Similarly, if the carbon content of the atmosphere hits 1000 ppm, cognitive impairment sets in.  As resilient as humans are, we still have environmental requirements and the climate crisis threatens to push those requirements out of reach, with fairly obvious catastrophic, possibly extinction level consequences for our species.  But something something oil stocks will take a hit, so "doing nothing" it is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DShomshak said:

Okay, kidding aside...

 

I know this will offend some people here, but I did not hold my nose when I voted for Hillary Clinton. I thought, and still think, she'd have made a pretty good president. Not great, but pretty good. Here's why.

 

[SNIP rational arguments]

 

4 hours ago, pinecone said:

Well I disagree on some level, but I don't understand this at all. Just like all armies seem to try fighting the last war over, all "politicos" seem to want to re fight the last election. Trump is a total dumpster fire of a pres, but if you're trying to use that to say Hillary, or one just like her, is a good choice, You run the real risk of being over run by other forces yet again. Without Hillary Trump could not have won...that's on the machine politics that dominate both modern parties.

 

While I had no vote in the last American presidential election, if I had I would not have had serious reservations over voting for Hillary Clinton. I do believe her relationship to the truth is highly flexible, but that applies to many (most?) politicians. But I had no doubt that she was competent to perform the duties of the office, based on her past experience and demonstrable effectiveness. Hillary's biggest drawback was being seen, justifiably, as the ultimate political insider, the candidate chosen through "machine politics" as pinecone puts it, at a time when the American public was fed up with the dysfunctional, elitist politics-as-usual crowd dominating the federal scene. The "machine" should have recognized that, and they paid for their arrogance.

 

Trump's appeal in that political climate was the perception that he was a political outsider (he never was, of course), and his populist rhetoric, which is the easiest platform to get elected on and hardest to govern from. I was convinced as soon as Trump started spouting off in debates that he was dangerously incompetent for the office of POTUS, so Hillary seemed an acceptable if not ideal alternative. But none of us could have foreseen the magnitude of disaster President Trump would become.

 

As Abraham Lincoln said, "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My feelings on Trump vs. Clinton are solidly of the “Pox on both their houses” variety. It saddened me—and still does—that out of 320+ million people in this country, we collectively decided these two were the best options.

 

A more damning indictment of the two-Party system I expect never to see again. (At least, I hope never to. But who knows what next year will bring?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

23% of registered Puerto Rican voters voted overwhelmingly for statehood. The main political party supporting the status quo organized a boycott of the referendum by their supporters.

 

Opps! I had recollections of there being a referendum and it passing.  So when I opened up the wiki page and saw the numbers, I read no further. My bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, pinecone said:

Well I disagree on some level, but I don't understand this at all. Just like all armies seem to try fighting the last war over, all "politicos" seem to want to re fight the last election. Trump is a total dumpster fire of a pres, but if you're trying to use that to say Hillary, or one just like her, is a good choice, You run the real risk of being over run by other forces yet again. Without Hillary Trump could not have won...that's on the machine politics that dominate both modern parties.

 

Perhaps you missed that I said nothing of the sort. I said I thought Hillary would make a pretty good president in her own right, not merely an alternative to Trump, and listed the reasons why.

 

As LL said, it was Hillary's bad luck to be playing the old game by the old rules at a time when the voters wanted to throw away the board. We shall see how the new game works out.

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I did not see it that way. I see you saying Hillary would have been a good pres....and I am saying Nope. perhaps I was not clear, I think that Trump could not have won without Both party machines churning out un electable candidates, I cannot endorse the concept that Hillary would have been "OK" Except in comparison to Trump, And if the parties don't change their ways I'll have to endure 4 more years of the Dufus in chief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Pariah said:

My feelings on Trump vs. Clinton are solidly of the “Pox on both their houses” variety. It saddened me—and still does—that out of 320+ million people in this country, we collectively decided these two were the best options.

 

A more damning indictment of the two-Party system I expect never to see again. (At least, I hope never to. But who knows what next year will bring?)

Yeah I feel that we need about 4 parties to bring some ballence back. At least that would force the corruption to spread thinner, and be more circumspect, as the other three will be looking to publisise. What we have now is everybody being too comprimised to act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...