Author Topic: US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP  (Read 6944120 times)

0 Members and 24 Guests are viewing this topic.

agrajag

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| Confederacy of Dunces
« Reply #8880 on: September 08, 2017, 02:33:17 PM »

stufte

  • Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| Confederacy of Dunces
« Reply #8881 on: September 08, 2017, 02:36:27 PM »
Clinton was a mistake.

Your dad ejaculating in your mom was a mistake.

Which time?

Nola

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| Confederacy of Dunces
« Reply #8882 on: September 08, 2017, 03:18:32 PM »
I'm not a fucking shill. Shut the fuck up, Himu.


Boredfrom

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| Confederacy of Dunces
« Reply #8883 on: September 08, 2017, 04:43:34 PM »
Quote
Hillary Clinton has added another name to her long list of grievances about those who cost her the election, this time singling out energized anti-Trump women marchers for failing to deliver before her historic loss.

Clinton referenced the throngs of protesters who took the streets of Washington and other cities in a Women's march shortly after his election. But her thoughts moved from the calls to resistance to the Trump agenda to why they hadn't summoned that same passion for her own campaign. 

"I couldn’t help but ask where those feelings of solidarity, outrage and passion had been during the election," Clinton writes in her new memoir
:neogaf this book, why did nobody stop this :neogaf

Wait. what... Did she decide to go Full Trump?

Human Snorenado

  • Stay out of Malibu, Lebowski
  • Icon
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| Confederacy of Dunces
« Reply #8884 on: September 08, 2017, 05:11:00 PM »
(Image removed from quote.)

:smug :snob  :trumps :ryker :delicious

And yet... if you wouldn't trade all of that in a heartbeat to replace Trump with Shillary, you're a goddamn moronic piece of shit.

Or thisismyusername. But I repeat myself!
yar

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| Confederacy of Dunces
« Reply #8885 on: September 08, 2017, 05:20:19 PM »
(Image removed from quote.)

:smug :snob  :trumps :ryker :delicious

And yet... if you wouldn't trade all of that in a heartbeat to replace Trump with Shillary, you're a goddamn moronic piece of shit.

Or thisismyusername. But I repeat myself!

Who said anything about Trump? Hillary continuing to blame everyone but her campaign is hilarious.
IYKYK

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8886 on: September 08, 2017, 05:27:56 PM »
Comey is an ass and should be in jail.

Hillary should have ran a competent campaign that didn't just appeal to elites on the coasts.

I can think both, while still being someone who voted for Hillary, and yet still laugh at her because I'm not a shill.
IYKYK

nachobro

  • Live Más
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8887 on: September 08, 2017, 05:50:07 PM »
no it's different for them because they are already all nazis anyway

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8888 on: September 08, 2017, 05:52:35 PM »
33. What does that have to do with anything?

If you're a Democrat you support the nominee. The nominee had been decided by mid-April. Anyone still attacking the nominee at that point was a moron.

At that point there were no stans any more than regular Democrats were Kerry stans in 04.

That's stupid if you don't support the nominee. Flip that around, Republicans who derided Trump even after he was officially the nominee were lauded for it. Republicans that stood by their party were called literal Nazis.

Republicans have been working toward Trump for the past 30+ years, pretty dumb to give up on all your hopes and dreams like that.
©@©™

Madrun Badrun

  • twin-anused mascot
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8889 on: September 08, 2017, 06:02:08 PM »
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/7/voter-fraud-alert-over-5000-new-hampshire-presiden/
Quote
More than 5,000 out-of-state voters may have tipped New Hampshire against Trump

More than 6,500 people registered to vote in New Hampshire on Nov. 8 using out-of-state driver’s licenses, and since then the vast majority have neither obtained an in-state license nor registered a motor vehicle.

...

In the presidential race, Democrat Hillary Clinton defeated Republican Donald Trump in New Hampshire by 2,736 votes. In an even tighter race, for the Granite State’s U.S. Senate seat, Democratic challenger Maggie Hassan defeated incumbent Republican Kelly Ayotte by 1,017 votes.

Logan Churchwell, spokesman for Public Interest Legal Foundation, which investigates voter fraud, said Mr. Jasper’s numbers bolster his group’s findings that many people vote in New Hampshire without proof of residence.

“We’ve known for months that more voters cast ballots without any proof of actually living in New Hampshire than the differentials for either federal contest there in 2016,” he said. “Now it looks like they were back in Boston in time to watch the election returns that evening. The left-wing groups suing to block new proof-of-residence laws for same-day voter registration are really proving what drives them to the courthouse.”
Democrats caught blue-handed yet again.

Posting Washington Times is confusing as fuck and gets me every time. 

Boredfrom

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| Confederacy of Dunces
« Reply #8890 on: September 08, 2017, 07:58:04 PM »
33. What does that have to do with anything?

If you're a Democrat you support the nominee. The nominee had been decided by mid-April. Anyone still attacking the nominee at that point was a moron.

At that point there were no stans any more than regular Democrats were Kerry stans in 04.

That's stupid if you don't support the nominee. Flip that around, Republicans who derided Trump even after he was officially the nominee were lauded for it. Republicans that stood by their party were called literal Nazis.

That's not really equivalent. Trump was uniquely unqualified for the presidency. Clinton was like the Democratic equivalent of Romney, or a female Kerry.

It makes sense to buck your nominee if the person is as singularly awful and unfit for office as Trump. Otherwise it's just dumb.

The big ass problem is that Hillary was not able to comunicate as better option than Trump even when most people here would agree that she was. even if Sanders bucklet up after losing the primaries she seems to encourage a entilted behavior in her campaign that could not overcome Trump shit talking. The fact that her shitty book is making her sound more and more like a lite Trump is making most people feel that she doesnt get  how uncharismatic and arrogant she sounds for the avarage voter and she cannot also let the primaries go.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2017, 08:02:38 PM by Boredfrom »

seagrams hotsauce

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| Confederacy of Dunces
« Reply #8891 on: September 08, 2017, 08:09:00 PM »
Quote
Clinton was like the Democratic equivalent of Romney, or a female Kerry.

So basically she was a total loser who completely fucked up a winnable election?

Steve Contra

  • Bought a lemon tree straight cash
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8892 on: September 08, 2017, 08:22:02 PM »
This is a lot of useless arguing over what amounts to "ignoring states she needed to win"

Change the gender in that sentence and you also get the reason why Bernie lost the primaries. Wow!
vin

team filler

  • filler
  • filler
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8893 on: September 08, 2017, 08:35:00 PM »
Hilldog turned out to be your typical self-entitled white girl. Bish acts like we all owed her the presidency or some shit. Be humble, sit down.
*****

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8894 on: September 08, 2017, 08:39:07 PM »
Hillary:Bernie::Midwest:South::WWC:POC::Putin:Debbie Wasserman-Schultz::Faithless electors:Super delegates::Weird online cult of personality:Weird online cult of personality.

Raist

  • Winner of the Baited Award 2018
  • Senior Member

seagrams hotsauce

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8896 on: September 09, 2017, 10:03:37 AM »
Quote
You replied with a disingenuous shitpost and should be ashamed.

newsfeed

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| Confederacy of Dunces
« Reply #8897 on: September 09, 2017, 07:00:02 PM »
I'm not calling Mandark a Hillary shill. I just want his reaction.
Seriously Benji, I don't think Mandark is a shill. :lol
There are only two people in the world, Hillary "shills" aka truth tellers who live in reality and Trump jackboots. Grow up and live in the real world or die in a fucking fire already.

Verritt verification code: 0443124

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8898 on: September 09, 2017, 07:01:59 PM »
Quote
Amy Luna
September 9, 2017 at 9:31 am
We desperately need a media platform that does not regularly pornify, trivialize, gaslight and/or ignore altogether the voices of women and men who understand that “male supremacy” is alive and well on BOTH the left and right and that you won’t hear about that in the New York Times, which has literally never used the phrase “male supremacy” ONCE in all its years of coverage. Check it out. Search “white supremacy” and “male supremacy” in the NYTs archives. Plenty of citations of “white supremacy.” Only ONE citation of “male supremacy”– from an editorial in the early 1900s making fun of the idea of women’s suffrage. Hmmmm…
Quote
Shane valar
September 8, 2017 at 11:41 pm
Was a Democratic Underground member for 15 years but the site became over run by Sanders supporters who would report non believers on a whim. Was banned this month for to many alerts. Very glad this place is here.

I'm a Puppy!

  • Knows the muffin man.
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| Confederacy of Dunces
« Reply #8899 on: September 09, 2017, 08:23:40 PM »
There won't be 3 more years of this, Joe. I'll quit the forum if there is. It's just all the rage right now because that book is coming out and excerpts got released. Said excerpts somehow turned into sand that got lodged in many Bore/GAF vaginas.
And just come back under a different name? There was a guy name Walrus that kept doing that. Man, what a pain.
que

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| Confederacy of Dunces
« Reply #8900 on: September 09, 2017, 08:42:21 PM »
And just come back under a different name? There was a guy name Walrus that kept doing that. Man, what a pain.
going to need to see a verification code for this claim, The Walrus was arguably the most beloved The Bore poster after Oscar and would never do anything underhanded or shady, I heard rumors than he was even in line to become an Icon just because of how respected he was that people felt he needed some kind of recognition, no matter how small, for his evenhanded and helpful leadership that created a better class of Bore posters

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8901 on: September 09, 2017, 10:15:04 PM »
I seem to recall Walrus completing his Master's degree. We could use his expertise in the thread now.
010

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8902 on: September 09, 2017, 10:36:36 PM »
PD, while you're here...

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/349808-michelle-obama-outshines-all-democratic-prospects
Quote
It cannot be overstated how eagerly the Democrats want to take back the White House in 2020.

The Democrats face many obstacles in this effort, but the greatest threat is the fierce internal divisions within the party.

Two of the leading prospective presidential candidates, Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), have begun national fundraising operations. Former Vice President Joe Biden has been busy building a national email list to communicate directly with his supporters, and Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.) has already announced his presidential candidacy.

The Democratic Party does not just need a new leader, but a new policy agenda that is aimed at growing our economy, promoting traditional party values and doing more than resisting President Trump at every step.

Major Democratic donor Marc Lasry told The New York Times, “‘It’s gotten ridiculous,” and the Democrats “need a clearer message about what they want to do, not just about opposing Trump.”

As I’ve said before, the Democrats need an alternative plan to rebuild and unite the party if they have any hope in winning back seats in Congress in the 2018 midterms, nonetheless the White House in 2020.

This alternative plan requires a new, united opposition, led by a political leader with widespread popularity.

The only person I can see accomplishing this would be none other than the party’s most popular political figure: Michelle Obama.

Any further thoughts on how big his man parts are and whether or not that will hurt or harm his 2020 chances?

Trump's small hands turned out to be an advantage potentially.

Trent Dole

  • the sharpest tool in the shed
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8903 on: September 10, 2017, 05:46:14 AM »
It's gonna be fucking Hillary with the justification of 'Hey if I'd won (and I did win the popular vote) I'd be up for reelection'.
Hi

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8904 on: September 10, 2017, 08:59:02 AM »
Chelsea/Zuckerberg 2020

spoiler (click to show/hide)
[close]

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8905 on: September 10, 2017, 06:10:08 PM »
Sherrod Brown/Kamala Harris is probably the best ticket. But Brown isn't winning the primary so
:yeshrug

Michelle Obama becoming the first female president would be a nice way to put the Clintons out to pasture.
010

Atramental

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8906 on: September 10, 2017, 07:38:51 PM »


 :checkit

Boredfrom

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8907 on: September 10, 2017, 07:50:08 PM »

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8908 on: September 10, 2017, 10:32:30 PM »
She told WaPo today that she's "done with being a candidate."

It doesn't get any clearer than that. She won't run.
Quote
Clinton Says She Won’t Run Again
BY KATE PHILLIPS  OCTOBER 12, 2009 2:06 PM October 12, 2009 2:06 pm
This may not be surprising, given the timetable and the high probability that President Obama will run for reelection in 2012, but Hillary Rodham Clinton, the secretary of state, flatly said today in a televised interview that she would not run again.

Asked by NBC’s Ann Curry whether, after how fiercely and competitively she had sought the Democratic nomination in 2008, she would run for president again, she responded with that hearty Hillary laugh we’ve all come to know, and said: “It never crosses my mind … “No no no — No. This is a great job. It is a 24/7 job and I’m looking forward to retirement at some point. ”

(We counted four no’s, as opposed to some others’ count.)

Quote
Hillary Clinton again says she won't run for president in 2016
October 17, 2011|By Michael Muskal
Hillary Rodham Clinton, the woman seemingly born to become the first female president of the United States, on Monday again ruled out a race for the top office in 2016 and insisted she is ready to return to private life.

In an interview with NBC’s “Today” show, Clinton squelched the latest boomlet for her presidential ambitions, emphatically answering “No, no,” when interviewer Savannah Guthrie asked her whether she would ever run again for president.

...

As she has in the past, Clinton shut the door and drove heavy nails into the jamb on Monday.

“I’m very privileged to have had the opportunity to serve my country,” Clinton said. “I’m really old-fashioned. I feel I have made my contribution. I have done the best I can. But now I want to try some other things. I want to get back to writing and maybe some teaching, working on women and girls around the world.”

People will have to “watch and wait” to see what she will do next, Clinton said. “I have made my contribution. I’m very grateful I have had the chance to serve, but I think it’s time for others to step up.”

Quote
DEC 12, 2012

Not even Newt Gingrich giving us his best Nate Silver impersonation or Nate Silver himself being Nate Silver was enough to coerce Hillary Clinton from what she's been telling us for the past two years, not to mention the past week: she won't be running for president. "I've said I really don’t believe that that's something I will do again," Clinton tells Barbara Walters in an early clip released from Walters's 10 Most Fascinating People special, set to air tonight. "I am so grateful I had the experience of doing it before. I think there are lots of ways to serve, so I’ll continue to serve." As if that wasn't clear enough, there's one more denial:
Quote
I just want to see what else is out there. I’ve been doing this incredibly important and satisfying work in Washington as I say for 20 years. I want to get out and spend some time looking at what else I can do to contribute.

As late as last week, The New York Times's Jodi Kantor reported, Clinton was still telling friends she's not running — even though that Sunday front-page story was all about when and if she will. If you look far back as 2010, Clinton has been telling everyone that she isn't running. But instead of listening to her, maybe because we think we know better, people like political over-estimator Newt Gingrich and political number witch Nate Silver have both come out this week and said that Clinton would immediately become the frontrunner in 2016.
:hitler

Quote
duse October 12, 2009 · 2:25 pm
The New York Times as well as others in the Media also need to admit their not-so-small part in what happened with Hillary’s run for the White House.

I have never in my 40 years ever seen a candidate winning major Primary after major Primary and have the Media begging for her to drop out. She wins California (a state pollsters said she’d lose by 10 points)? Drop out, Hillary! She wins Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey? Drop out, Hillary! And lost in all this is the fact — yes, the fact — that, other than his home state of Illinois — Obama never won a major Democratic State during the Primary.
The Media, and the New York Times certainly, were so in-the-tank for Obama and overtly anti-Hillary that it was embarrassing to watch and almost impossible to explain to my friends in Europe. Add to this the Democratic Leadership — Pelosi, Reid and DNC Chairman Howard Dean — also all but demanding Hillary exit the race to smooth things over for The One, and it’s no wonder I sat out the race and decided not to vote for the first time in my life as a Voter.
Pelosi-Reid-Dean-The New York Times’ version of Democracy — where the experienced, fiercely educated one winning the Primaries is asked to leave to make way for the telegenic smooth talker with no experience — is not a version of Democracy I want to take part in.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8909 on: September 10, 2017, 10:35:33 PM »
I don't think she will but I couldn't resist.

Veddit verification code: 8732562

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8910 on: September 11, 2017, 01:01:50 AM »


 :dead :dead :dead :dead

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8911 on: September 11, 2017, 01:36:44 AM »
Quote
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has told associates he wants to put the entire National Security Council staff through a lie detector test to root out leakers. It's unclear whether this will ever happen, but Sessions floated the idea to multiple people, as recently as last month.

Sessions' idea is to do a one-time, one-issue, polygraph test of everyone on the NSC staff. Interrogators would sit down with every single NSC staffer (there's more than 100 of them), and ask them, individually, what they know about the leaks of transcripts of the president's phone calls with foreign leaders.
Sessions' leaker paranoia aside, NSC staff don't have to do this already? It's standard routine practice in the CIA and even (to a lesser extent) the FBI. And I have to assume the NSA too. Depending on what you work on it can be weekly.

Which I've never really totally understood considering the CIA also teaches its agents how to beat polygraphs. And the FBI is well aware they aren't admissible in court.

Aldrich Ames never failed the CIA's multiple polygraphs while investigating him even though they pretty much knew he was a mole in part because they originally taught him how to beat them. :lol

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8912 on: September 11, 2017, 02:07:42 AM »
Will I end up on a watchlist like Amir0x when he's released and possibly Dennis if I google the CIA's anti-p***g***h techniques?
No, just don't teach others about it: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141115/16013429160/feds-indict-another-person-teaching-people-how-to-beat-polygraph-tests.shtml


In the one Penn and Teller: Bullshit episode they tell one way to do it involving your sphincter iirc. I assume that would be the favored Bore method.

FatalT

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8913 on: September 11, 2017, 02:50:07 AM »
Will I end up on a watchlist like Amir0x when he's released and possibly Dennis if I google the CIA's anti-p***g***h techniques?
No, just don't teach others about it: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141115/16013429160/feds-indict-another-person-teaching-people-how-to-beat-polygraph-tests.shtml


In the one Penn and Teller: Bullshit episode they tell one way to do it involving your sphincter iirc. I assume that would be the favored Bore method.

Apparently that episode was removed from YouTube except for a garbage one where the person has the show in the upper right corner in a small box and the rest is just a garbage background.

This is unwatchable.


Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8914 on: September 11, 2017, 08:38:07 AM »
Will I end up on a watchlist like Amir0x when he's released and possibly Dennis if I google the CIA's anti-p***g***h techniques?
No, just don't teach others about it: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141115/16013429160/feds-indict-another-person-teaching-people-how-to-beat-polygraph-tests.shtml


In the one Penn and Teller: Bullshit episode they tell one way to do it involving your sphincter iirc. I assume that would be the favored Bore method.

The chick in the thumbnail has a nice rack.

zomgee

  • We've *all*
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8915 on: September 11, 2017, 09:35:39 AM »
Will I end up on a watchlist like Amir0x when he's released and possibly Dennis if I google the CIA's anti-p***g***h techniques?
No, just don't teach others about it: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141115/16013429160/feds-indict-another-person-teaching-people-how-to-beat-polygraph-tests.shtml


In the one Penn and Teller: Bullshit episode they tell one way to do it involving your sphincter iirc. I assume that would be the favored Bore method.

The chick in the thumbnail has a nice rack.

rub

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8916 on: September 11, 2017, 01:51:36 PM »
IYKYK

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8917 on: September 11, 2017, 04:43:41 PM »
The Pope figured out this one weird trick to getting into Heaven! American conservatives hate him!
dog

Boogie

  • The Smooth Canadian
  • Icon
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8918 on: September 11, 2017, 07:21:41 PM »
Will I end up on a watchlist like Amir0x when he's released and possibly Dennis if I google the CIA's anti-p***g***h techniques?

Aww, that's cute, you think you're not already on a watchlist.  :-*
MMA

PlayDat

  • Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8919 on: September 11, 2017, 10:01:42 PM »
Any opinions on Current Affairs?  I've been reading their stuff throughout the summer and have been very fucking impressed for the most part.  I’m probably gonna subscribe before the year is out.  I’m only paying for one other news site at the moment.

Some of their greatest hits.

Politics is a Contest of Domination
Quote
Ignoring that politics is about dominance is therefore deeply dangerous as well as oblivious. You can’t escape the game by pretending it isn’t happening, you can only lose it. Republicans recognize that the aim of politics is to crush the other guy; Barack Obama spent eight years refusing to recognize this. There’s nothing noble about being too polite to fight for dominance; it just means that the people you’re supposed to fight for will continue to be the ones dominated.

It's Basically Just Immoral to Be Rich
Quote
Of course, when you start talking about whether it is moral to be rich, you end up heading down some difficult logical paths. If I am obligated to use my wealth to help people, am I not obligated to keep doing so until I am myself a pauper? Surely this obligation attaches to anyone who consumes luxuries they do not need, or who has some savings that they are not spending on malaria treatment for children. But the central point I want to make here is that the moral duty becomes greater the more wealth you have. If you end up with a $50,000 a year or $100,000 a year salary, we can debate what amount you should spend on helping other people. But if you earn $250,000 or 1 million, it’s quite clear that the bulk of your income should be given away. You can live very comfortably on $100,000 or so and have luxury and indulgence, so anything beyond is almost indisputably indefensible. And the super-rich, the infamous “millionaires and billionaires”, are constantly squandering resources that could be used to create wonderful and humane things. If you’re a billionaire, you could literally open a hospital and make it free. You could buy up a bunch of abandoned Baltimore rowhouses, do them up, and give them to families. You could help make sure no child ever had to go without lunch.

A Repellant Musk
Quote
Examined more closely, these painstakingly-crafted Silicon Valley personas are little more than salesperson patter. Power always pretends to be something grander than it is. Pharaohs claimed to be the sun-god given human flesh, the bringer of the floods and the architects of every daybreak. In fact, they were petty tyrants, degenerated through successive generations of incest. Feudal lords pretended to be divinely appointed protectors of their loyal but non-consanguineous subjects. In fact, they were just landlords, as miserable and shameless as your own. Armies pretend to spread freedom while spreading death, employers claim to be creating jobs while creaming off surplus value. Elon Musk pretends to be sending humanity to Mars and breaking through the prison of reality itself. What does he actually do?

In a 2016 letter to its partners, the hedge fund Greenlight Capital cast some doubts on Musk’s humanity-saving missions. The Mars stuff, the letter’s authors posited, had an obvious business function: “Elon Musk’s ability to spin a yarn and keep a story going seems to mesmerize his investors, blinding them to the challenges the company is facing.” Musk, of course, claims that he has only sought to become fabulously wealthy for lofty and disinterested reasons. “I really don’t have any other motivation for personally accumulating assets,” he once said, in a characteristically impressive pronouncement, “except to make the biggest contribution I can to making life multi-planetary.” But this claim is, of course, absurd. After all, Elon Musk doesn’t just want to send a band of loners and lunatics off to die on a barren world—he’s planning to charge them two hundred thousand dollars apiece for the pleasure. Whatever private god-king fantasies he might be entertaining, the main reason Musk is in the game of capitalism is because he’s a capitalist.

Lately I’ve been trying to develop more solid economic grounding for my political views.  The more I learn the further I lean away from capitalism (though I can’t say I was ever seriously attached to begin with).  I downloaded the Communist Manifesto from Gutenberg recently.  It’s one of those books I assumed I’d be forced to pick up as assigned reading, but the assignment never came.  I need to finish an O’Reilly book for work right now, but Marx and Engels are up next.

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8920 on: September 11, 2017, 10:03:25 PM »
after your done with that, read Mein Kampf

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8921 on: September 11, 2017, 10:24:06 PM »
The Communist Manifesto isn't really a Marxist work, or intro or primer, in that I mean it's not so much an outline of Marx's philosophy (that's mostly Kapital and probably Grundrisse and the Critique) as it's a contemporary polemic against the utopian and bourgeois socialists. I think like half of it is that and another quarter is their "party" platform. (But I'd really have to check.) Historical materialism is all over the intro but that almost seems to be more Engels doing when you consider that Marx was never as wedded to the idea as Engels seemed to be, Kapital even talks about how selective history can create an illusion of the materialist form.

The Manifesto didn't really even get popular enough to become part of the canon until almost 20 years later, Engels used Marx's death to promote it and his other works to that status.

Really, the best part about the Penguin Classics version of the Manifesto are the 200 pages of historiography attached to it. Gareth Stedman-Jones did a great job.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 10:39:56 PM by benjipwns »

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8922 on: September 11, 2017, 10:30:12 PM »
Of course, Kapital is not only unfinished, but it's a mess and such nonsense that even Marxists have never sworn by it. (edit: And I suspect Marx never really realized he was writing two (or more) completely different books. Engels was a terrible editor. This wasn't uncommon though in the era, to take a contemporary, Darwin originally started a completely different book but realized at some point he had to stop and focus on finishing what became Origin of the Species and then turn to the remainder. And almost every major historian of the era started grandiose projects that even today would be hard to produce.)

Lenin was easily the best writer of the Big Five.

Though Stalin is arguably the most interesting, in terms of his writing philosophy. I should really see if there's any decent historiographies on his works.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 10:36:44 PM by benjipwns »

jakefromstatefarm

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8923 on: September 11, 2017, 11:03:32 PM »
it's not so much an outline of Marx's philosophy (that's mostly Kapital and probably Grundrisse and the Critique)
eat your fucking heart out Theses

it's a mess and such nonsense that even Marxists have never sworn by it.
one of the fun repercussions of the later analytic/continental split is that people who want to be wedded to Marx's poli econ also have to take a stance on which parts of Marx's poli econ they're gonna excise. This results in analytic Marxists telling you they're more than happy to not have to bother with the Hegelian context, to get to what they really wanna talk about: the LTV.

spoiler (click to show/hide)
and then you're like, "so, the worst part of Marx?..."  :huh
[close]

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member

curly

  • cultural maoist
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8925 on: September 12, 2017, 12:53:16 AM »
after your done with that, read Mein Kampf

DIAF

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8926 on: September 12, 2017, 01:10:23 AM »
Quote
Current Affairs is a magazine that publishes bi-monthly in print and online. It was started by Nathan J. Robinson, a PhD student at Harvard University,[1] in 2015 via a Kickstarter campaign.[2] Its stated aims are to be an informative and entertaining independent publication.
huh, neat

Quote
"The Wall Street Journal of surrealistic left-wing policy journals."

"If Christopher Hitchens and Willy Wonka had edited a magazine together, it might have resembled Current Affairs."

"The only sensible anarchist thinking coming out of contemporary print media."

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8927 on: September 12, 2017, 02:21:35 AM »
:drudge TED CRUZ RETWEETED A PORN THING :drudge

Trent Dole

  • the sharpest tool in the shed
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8928 on: September 12, 2017, 02:27:37 AM »
I think he just 'liked' it. Still funny though.
Hi

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8929 on: September 12, 2017, 02:39:07 AM »
https://kidrock.com/blog/announcement/448964/people-pay-no-attention-to-the-garbage-the-extreme
Quote
People! Pay NO attention to the garbage the extreme left is trying to create! (and by the way, fuck the extreme left and the extreme right!)

They are trying to use the old confederate flag BS, etc. to stir the pot, when we all know none of this would be going on if I were not thinking of running for office. Pretty funny how scared I have them all and their only agenda is to try and label people / me racist who do not agree or cower to them!! No one had a word to say when we sold out the 6 shows at LCA back in January! My track record in Detroit and Michigan speaks for itself, and I would dare anyone talking trash to put theirs up against mine. I am also a homeowner and taxpayer in the city of Detroit, so suck on that too!

I am the bona fide KING OF DETROIT LOVE and it makes me smile down deep that you haters know that! Your jealousy is merely a reflection of disgust for your own failures and lack of positive ideas for our city.

I am however very disappointed that none of the people, businesses or charities I have so diligently supported in Detroit have had anything to say about all these unfounded attacks from these handful of jackasses and The Detroit Free Press. So for the unforeseen future I will focus my philanthropy efforts on other organizations besides the ones I have supported in the past. I would however employ that NAN go ahead and make up these losses since they claim to be so good for Detroit and do not want me opening the arena and generating tons of jobs and tax dollars for the city and people I LOVE... IDIOTS! ….. (Has Al Sharpton even paid his back taxes yet?)

P.S. Sam Riddle is a piece of shit criminal and prime example of a lot that is and has been wrong with Detroit. Sam, you suck and you know it! (If anyone does not know who he is, please Google him!)
 
P.P.S. To be clear - Fuck ANYONE who takes a knee or sits during our national anthem! Pretty sure if Russell Wilson or Tom Brady were doing it they would have no problem finding a job playing for any team they wanted in the NFL!  So cut the bullshit!
 
P.P.P.S. Just saw this latest fake news piece…
http://nypost.com/2017/09/10/kid-rock-gloats-over-sharpton-kids-bust/
The idiot that posted it is such a bad reporter that he/she did not even check to see if this was my Twitter (which it is NOT!) - of course the press will report on everything else I have said here except this fake news. Unreal. (and these are the types of stories that can not be taken back in this day and age because they go viral so quickly and the damage is done before the corrections can be made.)
 
P.P.P.P.S. On a positive note, I can’t wait to rock everyone's socks off at LCA the next few weeks! We have been beyond working hard and have something we think all in attendance will enjoy (as long as you don’t mind a few f-bombs here and there! lol).

There is so much to be thankful for and so many positive things going on in and around our city / state that we need not let these handful of jerks sway that in any way.

I know I should probably not even have posted anything about these bottom feeders but I will always stand up for myself, my family, my friends, my fans, my city, my state, my country and the good in human nature!
 
P.P.P.P.P.S. I LOVE BLACK PEOPLE!!

God bless


-Kid Rock

Tasty

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8930 on: September 12, 2017, 02:50:40 AM »
Quote
P.P.P.P.P.S. I LOVE BLACK PEOPLE!!

Newsfeed.

Trent Dole

  • the sharpest tool in the shed
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8931 on: September 12, 2017, 04:48:43 AM »
He is so fucking distinguished mentally-challenged, he'll fit in fine with all the other self absorbed asshole millionaires in our Senate.
Hi

zomgee

  • We've *all*
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8932 on: September 12, 2017, 08:09:28 AM »
I really hadn't thought about the whole Confederate flag thing until Kid Rock announced his candidacy, yeah. I remember seeing confederate flags in the late 70's and thought to myself, I wonder if Kid Rock is going to run for Senate 40 years from now.
rub

Raist

  • Winner of the Baited Award 2018
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8933 on: September 12, 2017, 05:51:31 PM »
Quote
"Were there things that, had you not, but for that, might be the president?" Pauley asked.

"Oh, I think the-- the most important of the mistakes I made was using personal email," Clinton said.

A stream of explanations for her decision to use a private email server while she was secretary of state never satisfied critics or the press.

"I've said it before, I'll say it again, that was my responsibility," she said. "It was presented in such a negative way, and I never could get out from under it. And it never stopped."

YAS QUEEEEEEN

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8934 on: September 12, 2017, 06:52:50 PM »
Well, hold up just a bit Jack, the Secretary of State not only using a private unknown (to the public) e-mail for Department business but also keeping her e-mails on an off-site server entirely within her possession is worthy of an investigation. Especially when considering the Clinton Initiative's existence even if they did seemingly appear to properly follow the various loops of the law strongly.

A FBI investigation? Even a Congressional one? Probably not, and also probably not. Maybe an internal one that reports to a Congressional committee for oversight purposes. Then if there were real crimes it could always be kicked over to DoJ and the FBI.

Remember there were a whole host of problems here that were not exclusive to Hillary outside of her possession of the server. Sarah Palin ran into a multitude of issues that was going to drive her out of office and that was petty state government business. I know Colin Powell is a favorite go-to tu quoque but he appears to have been better than Hillary at keeping the private e-mail separate aside from a few slip-ups on rather unimportant matters that the department knew about. It wasn't tens of thousands of e-mails, the entire worth of correspondence of a time in office. Plus, with all the Russia and China stuff, there's the security aspect. (Though ironically, she probably wound up making her e-mails more secure by not using the State Department's system which I assume has long been compromised to hell and back.)

This also was in the most transparent administration ever where this type of behavior was so rampant to avoid FOIA that we wound up with a fake EPA employee earning an award for ethics because the dumbass EPA Director who was using the fake employee's e-mail (again, for department business) forgot to log out and back into her real one.

Hitting Hillary with sending stuff that was back classified is a problem with the entire system of how the government classifies things and arguably the stupidest part of this is that nobody from either party has used the scandal to point out just how insane this system is. Hillary was fine, but there have been lower level staffers who have faced charges for disclosing information that was classified years later or stuff that was public knowledge and then still classified. And the absurd levels of things that are classified by the government would blow most people's minds. That was the entire reason the Republicans knew Hillary had sent something classified somewhere if they could just get the e-mails because it would be borderline impossible not to.

As for its relation to the 2016 campaign, I think it became more noise than anything for most voters. She would have been swamped by the GOP no matter what, this just fell into their laps. The FBI investigation is the part that kicked it up a notch but I'm unsure as to it being defining enough to flip voters to Trump. Though it may have hurt turnout I don't know how much that can be measured against Berniebros who would never be converted or her inability to turn certain cleavages like Obama.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8935 on: September 12, 2017, 06:53:41 PM »
:stop E-MAILS :stop
spoiler (click to show/hide)
BENGHAZI@CLINTONMAIL.COM
[close]

agrajag

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8936 on: September 12, 2017, 07:39:11 PM »
I get it, since none of us are buying Kilary's book, Jack is going to spoon feed us quotes until we've read the entire book through his posts

 :ohhh

Boredfrom

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8937 on: September 12, 2017, 07:57:58 PM »
That sounds like a plan. Maybe I could screenshot a bunch of good pages and post them here.

People are going to have fun if past stuff is anything to go by, specially Benji.

agrajag

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8938 on: September 12, 2017, 08:01:14 PM »
That sounds like a plan. Maybe I could screenshot a bunch of good pages and post them here.

You're taking money out of the Queen's pocket breh

nachobro

  • Live Más
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| DIAF
« Reply #8939 on: September 12, 2017, 08:12:38 PM »
That sounds like a plan. Maybe I could screenshot a bunch of good pages and post them here.
that's a short post