The Bigly 2016 US Presidential Election Thread, Part XV - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-27-2016, 09:23 AM   #141
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,401
Local Time: 09:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
It was him? HE bought the album?
Of course it was. Would you expect anyone else?
__________________

Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 09:38 AM   #142
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,537
Local Time: 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
Of course it was. Would you expect anyone else?

__________________

LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 10-27-2016, 09:50 AM   #143
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: nazi punks fuck off
Posts: 22,030
Local Time: 09:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kieran McConville View Post
Right-ho, you sure told me, man!
sorry, i wasn't trying to "tell you", but i certainly was being a bit flippant laying in bed after a long day.

my point was that in the 30s, during the great depression and before world war 2, "the left" in the united states was a very different beast, and communist parties were active and important parts of that side of politics that a leftist politician would absolutely have to court. publicly embracing wealth would have instantly lost him millions of votes. FDR was a shrewd politician and surely knew this, and took advantage of it.

today, outside of some of the most hardcore of bernie bros (who wouldn't vote for hillary if they had a gun to their heads anyways), we don't have any communists in mainstream american politics. to stand any realistic chance in today saying "i hate money" would be political suicide, because it would all flow to your opponent. you literally can't do anything in politics without the backing of the wealthy.

that being said, FDR most certainly was not pure of heart. i am quite certain that this was a public political statement for the benefit of his consitutents rather than any truly held belief. i don't have time to do this before work but i'm sure with a cursory amount of digging it wouldn't be too hard to find evidence of FDR deeply in bed with big business. he would have needed to be. you need a lot of money to become president, and you always have, point blank.

this is not a new phenomenon. politics and money have been completely intertwined since at least the days of the gracchus brothers and their assassination for attempting land reform to benefit the poor. pretending otherwise is just idealism.
DaveC is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 10:24 AM   #144
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Electorally, absolutely.

But not when it comes to actual governance.
Who is talking about Treaty of Versailles-ing them??

If they suffer an absolutely crushing defeat, then maybe they will split (into the crazies and a more moderate corporatist party headed by Romney et al) or they will try to clean house which they refused and/or failed to do thus far. The reason that they have had the luxury of remaining obstructionist and non-compromising is because they have been winning elections aside from the presidency. This is thanks to gerrymandering. Yes, the new census in a few years will set them back but dealing crushing defeat after defeat after defeat may speed that up.

I say that as somebody who could very likely be persuaded to vote for a centrist (gasp! even corporatist) party because in truth, they typically don't care about pursuing socially conservative issues and are sometimes needed to get the debt in order in a responsible way.
anitram is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 10:36 AM   #145
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
It's an absolute fact.
Obama seemed to still be able to accomplish some left leaning things even with the obstructionists in congress.

Maybe it's not as absolute as you think.

Also, complaining about obstructionists is one thing, extrapolating that to "she must be stopped" is quite another.
Diemen is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 10:38 AM   #146
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,521
Local Time: 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Who is talking about Treaty of Versailles-ing them??

BMP is talking about crushing them, no compromise, no surrender, no middle ground.

i am absolutely in support of crushing electoral defeats. i'm not in favor of furthering political trench warfare. i am also someone who is now, apparently, more of a centrist than a progressive, and, like you, could stomach a Romney-type, at least from a financial standpoint, for the reasons you lay out.

the new census is our biggest hope. that, and the need for people to actually turn out in the midterms. to my mind, that's Obama's biggest failure.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 10:40 AM   #147
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: nazi punks fuck off
Posts: 22,030
Local Time: 09:24 PM
i gotta say i'm loving all the world war one metaphors going on in here lately. [/historian]
DaveC is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 11:36 AM   #148
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,521
Local Time: 10:24 PM
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 12:51 PM   #149
ONE
love, blood, life
 
iron yuppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,615
Local Time: 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
If they suffer an absolutely crushing defeat, then maybe they will split (into the crazies and a more moderate corporatist party headed by Romney et al)
This is the most likely scenario IMO. The interests of the business types who don't want social intervention and the financial illiterates who want dramatic social intervention are too conflicting to fit within the parameters of one party anymore. When you try to bridge the gap between the two, you get a monstrous hybrid like Trump.
iron yuppie is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 01:25 PM   #150
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 08:24 PM
Going back to this notion that Hillary is just going to cave into Republican demands in the hopes of getting something done: she got to witness the results of that approach under Obama's first term. She knows exactly what she's getting into, and I doubt she'll waste as much time extending the olive branch before she takes on Obama's 2nd term approach of identifying what she can do as the executive, and (probably more effectively than Obama given her connections) work to support congressional and senatorial candidates to flip seats, while pressing the issue to the public.

Given her history of withstanding constant inquisitions and attacks from the right, I really don't know where this notion came from that she's a pushover who just wants to make people happy.
Diemen is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 02:09 PM   #151
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,401
Local Time: 09:24 PM
Going to have at least 12 years of a dem in the white house, might be able to take all of Congress too if this election is a true blow out, and could tip the balance in the Supreme Court for the next 40 years...

THATS NOT FUCKING GOOD ENOUGH!!!! WE MUST CRUSH THE REPUBLICANS INTO DUST!!!

Jesus... don't those who lean far to the left realize that you're winning? Seriously... From 1992 to at least 2020 will feature 20 of 28 years of a Democrat in the white house, the country is MUCH further to the left than it was at the start of that run, and the likely Supreme Court tipping will only push the country further to the left.

Social conservatism is dying. They're not going to go down without a fight, but it's a fight without hope. Don't fucking push it so far that you give them life. Stay the course and you'll get everything you want. Don't be a greedy dick about it. Sheesh.
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 02:12 PM   #152
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,738
Local Time: 09:24 PM
Stupid phone.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using U2 Interference mobile app
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 02:13 PM   #153
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,738
Local Time: 09:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
They won't compromise. I don't get why people are blind to this or act like I'm being a dick when it comes to this sort of thing.

I'm totally down with finding the middle ground with Republicans on minimum wage, immigration, etc. The problem is that there is no middle ground. They refuse to budge. You've had eight years of their obstructionism to paint this truth for you time and again.

As I've said for about the dozenth time in this thread, I am for compromise. It's not my way or the highway when it comes to governing. They won't compromise, therefore, there is nothing Clinton or any Democratic President could do to accomplish anything left leaning. It's an absolute fact.





But this somehow wouldn't have been an issue for Bernie and his leftist policies? I don't ever remember you bringing this up as an issue for Bernie, yet you have repeatedly for Clinton.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using U2 Interference mobile app



Sent from my Nexus 5X using U2 Interference mobile app
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 02:26 PM   #154
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,401
Local Time: 09:24 PM
Bernie would not have had any issues whatsoever. He'd be up 97 to 3, with the 3 points going to Evan McMullin.

College and health care would already be free, as they insurance companies would have been so frightened that they just gave in.

ISIS would throw down their arms and admit that this whole religion thing is just a bunch of hogwash.

Cause Bern.
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 02:31 PM   #155
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Hewson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your own private Idaho
Posts: 32,201
Local Time: 09:24 PM
Feel the Bern baby.
Hewson is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 02:46 PM   #156
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,521
Local Time: 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron yuppie View Post
This is the most likely scenario IMO. The interests of the business types who don't want social intervention and the financial illiterates who want dramatic social intervention are too conflicting to fit within the parameters of one party anymore. When you try to bridge the gap between the two, you get a monstrous hybrid like Trump.


I'd argue that W Bush was able to bridge that gap -- the blue-blood with the pedigree who got Born Again.

Trump seems a different sort, more a result/reaction of/to globalism and multiculturalism. There's no religion, and his economics are broadly populist but really just garden variety infomercial get-rich-quick alongside a healthy serving of scapegoat.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 02:50 PM   #157
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,537
Local Time: 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
his economics are broadly populist but really just garden variety infomercial get-rich-quick alongside a healthy serving of scapegoat.

What a golden way to put it.

His economics are like a Golden Corral.
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 10-27-2016, 02:54 PM   #158
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
I'd argue that W Bush was able to bridge that gap -- the blue-blood with the pedigree who got Born Again.
I think they felt more comfortable with him, for sure. He had the language down and wasn't afraid to pander. But he was also lucky in the sense that the states were pushing anti-gay measures when he was running so in that sense he was attached to them without actually having to do any of the dirty work himself. What did he get done for social conservatism while in office? I can really only think of two things off the top of my head - cutting off international aid to abortion providers (which really doesn't affect domestic policy anyway) and nominating Alito. Yes, he also nominated Roberts, but among social conservatives, the view is that he shat the bed on that one. His entire policy was run by Dick Cheney who clearly couldn't give a half a crap about any sort of conservative values.

They were basically duped, my feeling is that the ones who are also xenophobic/racist/sexist (probably a high number) shifted the Trump, and the ones who are true Jesus warriors with no other interests will either hold their hypocritical noses and vote for Trump or will be disengaged and not vote.
anitram is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 03:02 PM   #159
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,401
Local Time: 09:24 PM
I think that W couldn't have gotten elected without Cheney, but could have been a much better president without Cheney.

I think he knows this, too. Thus his almost complete disappearance from public life since leaving office. I think he's embarrassed for himself that he allowed himself to be suckered by Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 03:51 PM   #160
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,521
Local Time: 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
But he was also lucky in the sense that the states were pushing anti-gay measures when he was running so in that sense he was attached to them without actually having to do any of the dirty work himself.


i don't remember, but didn't Rove orchestrate this? states with GOP governors/legislatures put these measures up for votes in 2004 to motivate the socially conservative base, which may have actually tipped Ohio.
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×