Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Rosebuddy wrote:

Politics without values are monstrous and the idea itself is silly because policies ultimately serve a purpose.

But values are almost never directly related to political causes, and when they are it is usually a case of "true belief".

Rosebuddy wrote:

Nobody actually likes a technocrat.

I actually wish the US was more technocratic, and I'm willing to bet I'm not alone in that regard.

Science and Technology is for godless commies.

 dogma wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

Politics without values are monstrous and the idea itself is silly because policies ultimately serve a purpose.

But values are almost never directly related to political causes, and when they are it is usually a case of "true belief".

How do you use "values" here, exactly? Either we have a misunderstanding here or you think that the civil rights movement, feminism, workers' rights etc etc don't have anything to do with what people value. A core value in the civil rights movement, for example, was having a vote regardless of your ethnicity. A core value in opposing the civil rights movement was that voting rights should hinge on being of a particular race. And so on. Just to illustrate what I mean.

Rosebuddy wrote:
This is navel-gazing.

Yes, talking about American politics in the context of the political beliefs of Americans is navel gazing. Anyhow, this is ridiculous. While you are right in your kind of overall point that yes, truly, Democrats and Republicans have more in common than they do with either Nazis or Communists, that's really a point that I don't think anyone who is currently taking the correct amount of medication was struggling with.

So yes, if you want you can carry on about how Clinton's policies are quite small differences from Trump's plans if we put it on a scale with Nazis at one end and Communists at the other. But please don't do it here. Because this thread struggles with focusing on sensible conversation at the best of times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
So, the long knives are out for Bernie. I was wondering when the Clinton political machine would shift into high gear.

So in your universe, Clinton is the bad guy when Sanders supporters issue death threats. fething wow.

Rosebuddy wrote:

How do you use "values" here, exactly? Either we have a misunderstanding here or you think that the civil rights movement, feminism, workers' rights etc etc don't have anything to do with what people value. A core value in the civil rights movement, for example, was having a vote regardless of your ethnicity. A core value in opposing the civil rights movement was that voting rights should hinge on being of a particular race. And so on. Just to illustrate what I mean.

I wouldn't say that securing voting rights was a core value of the Civil Rights Movement, I would say doing so followed from the core value of helping out black people.

Feminism and worker's rights are very mixed bags. Worker's rights on their own are a State to State question, and getting a feminist from one wave to agree with one from another usually requires a lot of teeth gnashing.

 whembly wrote:
Well... I don't support him. But, using tax haven isn't morally dubious. It's legal practice.

Sometimes it's legal, but often it isn't. Whether something is tax avoidance or tax evasion is a lot more subjective that most people like to believe. Not that I'm saying Trump is guilty of any tax evasion, because I honestly have no idea.

And the thing is, Trump's typically had little to no tax to pay because he's got government to agree to that very thing. That's how a lot of successful building projects happen - guys like Trump approach state and local governments, and ask them if they want urban renewal and lots of money spent in the area on a big building project. Of course they do, and all it will cost them is a billion or two in tax credits. Trump has been as good as anyone at working those deals. It's the most likely reason his tax is close to nothing.

Anyhow, as to whether that or anything else in Trump's tax return is legal or moral... it really doesn't matter. What matters is how it will play with the general public. If it turns out the Republican candidate is a billionaire who plays close to no tax, well that's absolute gold to anyone wanting to excite the Democratic base.

Similarly, if it turns out Trump is 'only' worth a billion or $500 million, then how does that frame all his brags? If people suddenly see him as trying to overstate himself at every turn, will people start to see past the bluff?

If you think this doesn't worry Trump... well this is the one of a few things in the whole campaign he's tried to hide away, the one possible weakness where he's actually played defence. Compare it to the feud with Megyn Kelly, when called he just went twice as hard. Or on crazy statements on Mexicans - when called he didn't back down, instead he just went twice as hard. But on tax returns he's done everything to hide them - because he knows how they'll play if released.

Also, just because something is legal does not preclude it from being morally dubious.

Well here is a bit of good news for the Clinton camp:


Obama's approval numbers are looking up. Probably a result of the unpopularity of the current presidential soon to be nominees, but it does bode well for Clinton as she is largely running a third term Obama campaign.

Legal =\= moral.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

Obama's approval numbers are looking up. Probably a result of the unpopularity of the current presidential soon to be nominees, but it does bode well for Clinton as she is largely running a third term Obama campaign.

Part of it is also some of the shenanigans that Congress is pulling. A lot of people disagreed with the Senate's refusal to consider any nominee for the SC, a lot of people didn't like how Boehner's departure played out, etc.

 sebster wrote:


So in your universe, Clinton is the bad guy when Sanders supporters issue death threats. fething wow.

So are you saying Sanders is a bad guy, because someone claiming to be one of his supporters issued a death threat?

Imagine all the fun we can have judging whole organizations based on the actions of 1 person.

In this case you can't even know for certainty if it was sanders supporters or someone hillary paid to make him look bad. Lets believe your main stream media, it's not like they haven't shown hillary favoritism from the beginning right?

Just wait until Clintonites start threatening Trump because of things he says about their queen bee.

Or Trumpists threatening Clinton because of the things she says about fearless leader.

It will happen...mark my words.

Doesn't mean that the candidate is a bad person....obviously.

Or do I really need to explain that?

It isn't much of a bet that Trump will say awful things about Clinton with his history of saying horrible things about women who aren't even his opponents in something. The question is whether the attacks will be related to politics or just random misogyny.

He already re-tweeted (and then deleted) a thing attacking Hillary for not stopping Bill from cheating. I would bet money on at least some of the attacks being misogynist.

 Jihadin wrote:
Cigar was involved to

Quit ruining the smokes!

Rosebuddy wrote:
Nobody actually likes a technocrat.

You take that back. Howard Scott was a visionary. He should have been Iron Man.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 sebster wrote:


So in your universe, Clinton is the bad guy when Sanders supporters issue death threats. fething wow.

So are you saying Sanders is a bad guy, because someone claiming to be one of his supporters issued a death threat?

Imagine all the fun we can have judging whole organizations based on the actions of 1 person.

In this case you can't even know for certainty if it was sanders supporters or someone hillary paid to make him look bad. Lets believe your main stream media, it's not like they haven't shown hillary favoritism from the beginning right?

Let's see here, suggesting someone implied something totally not supported by what that person actually said. Impling someone is broad brushing when that wasn't implied, and jumping to conspiracy theories when no evidence suggests it. Good job, you are a stereotype of a Sanders supporter (yeah I am broad brushing, but I'm not impling Sanders is at fault. It's just his supporters. And it isn't based on just one action of one supporter. I have Facebook too, thigh I try not to check it often.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
Nobody actually likes a technocrat.

You take that back. Howard Scott was a visionary. He should have been Iron Man.

Was that Rhoadie before the other guy became Rhoadie

sirlynchmob wrote:
So are you saying Sanders is a bad guy, because someone claiming to be one of his supporters issued a death threat?

Yeah, that only works if Sanders has been the honest, clean campaigner that well, that his true believers like to pretend he is. Instead he's played a very stupid 'it's all rigged against me' narrative from the start. Any time a delegate count has gone one or two against him he's claimed it's because it's all rigged against poor Bernie, even when it's been a random break produced by a rule that's been in place for a decade or more. And when the vagaries of delegation have given him an extra candidate or two... there's been silence.

Sanders supporters are following his cue. And when that's suddenly gotten as extreme as it has - Sanders issed a statement... to complain that the system is rigged because he isn't the nominee.

People in public politics have a responsibility to lead those who support them. Sanders is ignoring that responsibility, because he's so angry about a system that is 'unfairly' giving the guy with the second most votes the second most number of delegates.

In this case you can't even know for certainty if it was sanders supporters or someone hillary paid to make him look bad.

Okay, cool. Let's just start making things up now. I mean, can we really know for sure it wasn't Trump operatives working as moles within the Clinton camp, who were working as moles within the Sanders camp, who are actually lizard people from Kragnar IV? I mean, we all know how the lamestream media has been silent on lizard people from Kragnar IV this whole campaign.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Doesn't mean that the candidate is a bad person....obviously.

Or do I really need to explain that?

Sure. and if a candidate did nothing to fuel anger among their supporters and it just happened, and then the candidate acts afterwards to ask his supporters to calm down and do things the proper way, then he would be absolved of all blame.

Do I really need to explain that's the opposite of what Sanders has done?

 sebster wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
So are you saying Sanders is a bad guy, because someone claiming to be one of his supporters issued a death threat?

Yeah, that only works if Sanders has been the honest, clean campaigner that well, that his true believers like to pretend he is. Instead he's played a very stupid 'it's all rigged against me' narrative from the start. Any time a delegate count has gone one or two against him he's claimed it's because it's all rigged against poor Bernie, even when it's been a random break produced by a rule that's been in place for a decade or more. And when the vagaries of delegation have given him an extra candidate or two... there's been silence.

You do realize how delegates work right? bernie has more of them, he has more votes, hillary has the super delegates. the super delegates can vote however they choose, even going against the candidate the people they're supposed to represent want. The electoral college is a big part of what is wrong with your elections. Because what you think

People in public politics have a responsibility to lead those who support them.

is not happening.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 sebster wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
So are you saying Sanders is a bad guy, because someone claiming to be one of his supporters issued a death threat?

Yeah, that only works if Sanders has been the honest, clean campaigner that well, that his true believers like to pretend he is. Instead he's played a very stupid 'it's all rigged against me' narrative from the start. Any time a delegate count has gone one or two against him he's claimed it's because it's all rigged against poor Bernie, even when it's been a random break produced by a rule that's been in place for a decade or more. And when the vagaries of delegation have given him an extra candidate or two... there's been silence.

You do realize how delegates work right? bernie has more of them, he has more votes, hillary has the super delegates. the super delegates can vote however they choose, even going against the candidate the people they're supposed to represent want. The electoral college is a big part of what is wrong with your elections. Because what you think

People in public politics have a responsibility to lead those who support them.

is not happening.

I'm not sure where you get your information from but I the real wold nope. No matter how you parse it, no matter how much you wish it, nope. And if you somehow disagree, still nope.

rule 1, remember it

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 sebster wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
So are you saying Sanders is a bad guy, because someone claiming to be one of his supporters issued a death threat?

Yeah, that only works if Sanders has been the honest, clean campaigner that well, that his true believers like to pretend he is. Instead he's played a very stupid 'it's all rigged against me' narrative from the start. Any time a delegate count has gone one or two against him he's claimed it's because it's all rigged against poor Bernie, even when it's been a random break produced by a rule that's been in place for a decade or more. And when the vagaries of delegation have given him an extra candidate or two... there's been silence.

You do realize how delegates work right? bernie has more of them, he has more votes, hillary has the super delegates. the super delegates can vote however they choose, even going against the candidate the people they're supposed to represent want. The electoral college is a big part of what is wrong with your elections. Because what you think

People in public politics have a responsibility to lead those who support them.

is not happening.

I'm not sure where you get your information from but I the real wold nope. No matter how you parse it, no matter how much you wish it, nope. And if you somehow disagree, you are a delusional nut. Still nope.

Also... the Electoral College is not really the problem. Since we're a constitutional republic, a direct vote isn't going to be a thing.

Besides.... don't you think the GOP wished they had Super Delegates now?

 whembly wrote:

Also... the Electoral College is not really the problem. Since we're a constitutional republic, a direct vote isn't going to be a thing.

Besides.... don't you think the GOP wished they had Super Delegates now?

They do have them, they just call them unpledged.

it should be a direct vote, but hey why not go ahead and stick with a system drempt up over 200 years ago

Remember rule 1, even if you don't like what someone is saying find a polite way to disagree with it

 whembly wrote:
Since we're a constitutional republic, a direct vote isn't going to be a thing.

I know this has probably been discussed in the other thread, but being a constitutional republic doesn't prohibit direct voting.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Since we're a constitutional republic, a direct vote isn't going to be a thing.

I know this has probably been discussed in the other thread, but being a constitutional republic doesn't prohibit a direct voting.

Are you trying to tell me that being a constitutional republic only means that we have:

A) a constitution
B) don't have a monarch or other hereditary head of state

And it doesn't really mean what people often seem to think it means?

 motyak wrote:
Remember rule 1, even if you don't like what someone is saying find a polite way to disagree with it

It isn't a matter of disagreement. Basic facts still have a role in the post Trump world and should be respected. On the other hand, I understand that calling people names does no good and feeds the septic world view, and for that I publicly apologize, Sirlynchmob.

 sebster wrote:

Yes, talking about American politics in the context of the political beliefs of Americans is navel gazing.

It is when all you're doing is saying that Clinton is a leftist because that is how the Democratic Party defines itself in relation to the Republican Party despite the fact that she refuses to advocate for social-democratic, socialist, communist or anarchist policy. "I'm leftier than the party that is now fielding a fascist candidate" is incredibly weak and is questionable anyway because of Trump's populism. Seriously, the guy who wants to throw the Muslims out of the country is one out of two hopefuls who think that the government should do anything at all about healthcare and Clinton aint the other one.

You think it's sensible to narrow in on the differences between two deeply entrenched capitalist parties but that only blinds you to everyone who isn't served by those ideologies and that is a lot of people. Material conditions are only getting worse. If you think that people are frighteningly angry in 2016 you're not going to enjoy 2020. This wilful lack of perspective of where things can go is going to be the downfall of the Democratic Party. They're content with what they currently are and offer because they belong to an economic group that is still quite well off. If they don't pull their heads out of their asses, the next time they see sunlight it's gonna be from on top of poles.

Doesn't every generation think that their current times are the worst they have ever been? It doesn't make it true.

Rosebuddy wrote:

It is when all you're doing is saying that Clinton is a leftist because that is how the Democratic Party defines itself in relation to the Republican Party despite the fact that she refuses to advocate for social-democratic, socialist, communist or anarchist policy.

Hillary Clinton was one of the driving forces behind the push for universal healthcare in the early 90's, to the point where the plan's unofficial name is "Hillarycare". Indeed, Hillary's leading role with regard to healthcare reform is one of the main reasons she is so despised by conservatives. She was also a significant force behind SCHIP's (Federally backed healthcare for families with children) passage.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Doesn't every generation think that their current times are the worst they have ever been? It doesn't make it true.

Not really.... though from what I usually see, "today's generation" is always the heroic one, the last generation fethed it all up, and the next one is totally lazy and gonna ruin all the hard work the "heroes" did.


The only people that I honestly see claiming that the current times are the worst they've ever been are either Millenial Christians, or they are arguing that a specific thing is the worst it's ever been.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

It is when all you're doing is saying that Clinton is a leftist because that is how the Democratic Party defines itself in relation to the Republican Party despite the fact that she refuses to advocate for social-democratic, socialist, communist or anarchist policy.

Hillary Clinton was one of the driving forces behind the push for universal healthcare in the early 90's, to the point where the plan's unofficial name is "Hillarycare". Indeed, Hillary's leading role with regard to healthcare reform is one of the main reasons she is so despised by conservatives. She was also a significant force behind SCHIP's (Federally backed healthcare for families with children) passage.

The irony of "Hillarycare" is that Republicans back then shot it down for being "too expensive".... yet I'd bet that many of them who actually voted in the house/senate are now wishing for a "takes-backsies"