Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+556|5112|Purplicious Wisconsin

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

uh oh, warman has figured out beto is a nickname. It's the latest of a long line of democrats trying to lie to people-

BILL Clinton is actually named William!
BERNIE Sanders' real name is Bernard!
JIMMY Carter is actually JAMES!
AL Gore was born Albert Arnold Gore, Jr!

Fuck bro, you're unraveling a mystery here. Good work, detective!
*facepalm* completely different, man.

Last edited by War Man (2019-04-04 21:55:29)

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,793|5030|949

oh totally different.  He's definitely using the nickname he's been called since he was an infant as a way to connect with Hispanic voters who virtually always vote Democrat. I think you've unraveled his big nefarious plan.

Also, fuck Beto.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+199|2117
Beto will be your next president
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,793|5030|949

Beto...NOT MY PRESIDENT!

Just like Hillary, right? Why do you like Beto? All he does is talk and try to be cool.  He hasn't defined any real policy positions. In that sense, he is t he classic American politician - say what you think will get you elected, and figure out where you stand later.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+199|2117
Biden, Bernie, and Beto have the best chance of beating Trump. Beto is the only one not an old man. He has three least substance but any D is better than Trump.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,966|3756|London, England
Cool, replace an idiot with an even emptier head. That'll show America what-for for electing Trump!
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,793|5030|949

it's the same playbook many repub voters use - gotta own da libs!

In that sense, it's the most american thing we can do
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,966|3756|London, England
I'm kind of disappointed that the 75 candidates running are the best the Democrats could do. What a bunch of lightweights with zero charisma. I'd vote for Charles Schultz if he ran.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+174|1850

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Beto...NOT MY PRESIDENT!

Just like Hillary, right? Why do you like Beto? All he does is talk and try to be cool.  He hasn't defined any real policy positions. In that sense, he is t he classic American politician - say what you think will get you elected, and figure out where you stand later.
he reminds me of mayor carcetti from the wire.

also he used to be a hacker boi. lmao
SuperJail Warden
Member
+199|2117

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

it's the same playbook many repub voters use - gotta own da libs!

In that sense, it's the most american thing we can do
Don't act like Jay. Having a democrat administration in control over the vast federal bureaucracy is a major deal.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,966|3756|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

it's the same playbook many repub voters use - gotta own da libs!

In that sense, it's the most american thing we can do
Don't act like Jay. Having a democrat administration in control over the vast federal bureaucracy is a major deal.
If it matters that much who is in charge of the vast federal bureaucracy, then we should probably get rid of the vast federal bureaucracy.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,623|4504|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

I'm kind of disappointed that the 75 candidates running are the best the Democrats could do. What a bunch of lightweights with zero charisma. I'd vote for Charles Schultz if he ran.
Because charisma matters more than policies.
If it matters that much who is in charge of the vast federal bureaucracy, then we should probably get rid of the vast federal bureaucracy.
Yes, let the free market run America.
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+174|1850

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

it's the same playbook many repub voters use - gotta own da libs!

In that sense, it's the most american thing we can do
Don't act like Jay. Having a democrat administration in control over the vast federal bureaucracy is a major deal.
If it matters that much who is in charge of the vast federal bureaucracy, then we should probably get rid of the vast federal bureaucracy.
you think like someone who struggles to get past first premises into actual complications and nuance.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,966|3756|London, England

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:


Don't act like Jay. Having a democrat administration in control over the vast federal bureaucracy is a major deal.
If it matters that much who is in charge of the vast federal bureaucracy, then we should probably get rid of the vast federal bureaucracy.
you think like someone who struggles to get past first premises into actual complications and nuance.
Not really. If the government has so much power to the point it's absolutely crucial that a certain party maintain power, then it is logical in a world where power bounces back and forth between two parties to shrink its power. The disconnect here is that one party openly advocates expanding government at every turn no matter the issue or expense and then act surprised and angry when they don't get to run it for a few years. It's mostly because they are wholly corrupt and being in charge is how they rake in their slush fund money, but the media sells the we're all gonna die in a gutter nonsense instead.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+174|1850
no one said it’s crucial one party retains power. they pointed out, quite sensibly and obviously enough, that different parties with different ideologies are going to use the bureaucracy/institutions of government in different ways. in the case of trump, the whole game does seem to be to jam the bureaucracy and let it fall into disrepair through a lack of proper appointments.

but i agree it’s so much cleverer a position to say that an highly developed nation with 400 mill people innit would work SO much better with no bureaucracy at all.

what’s sad is you think you’re being clever and making a point whereas really the ‘bureaucratic’ overweening power that is being ‘curtailed’ now is ecological legislation and suchlike. yeah to hell with environmental agencies!

Last edited by uziq (2019-04-07 14:56:53)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,623|4504|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

then act surprised and angry when they don't get to run it for a few years. It's mostly because they are wholly corrupt and being in charge is how they rake in their slush fund money, but the media sells the we're all gonna die in a gutter nonsense instead.
Does either side do that more than the other?
From this perspective they're about even, but fanboys for one side or the other lap it up about the other side.
Epstein didn't kill himself
SuperJail Warden
Member
+199|2117
I don't buy into the "both parties are the same" meme. There is one Political party in the U.S. that is trying to expand the welfare state while the other wants to shrink it. That has a tangible effect on people's lives.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,966|3756|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

then act surprised and angry when they don't get to run it for a few years. It's mostly because they are wholly corrupt and being in charge is how they rake in their slush fund money, but the media sells the we're all gonna die in a gutter nonsense instead.
Does either side do that more than the other?
From this perspective they're about even, but fanboys for one side or the other lap it up about the other side.
Oh they absolutely both do it. The Democrats just have a very deep corruption built in dating back nearly 200 years. The shit they do today would fit right in with Tammany Hall crap.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,623|4504|eXtreme to the maX
They're not the same, but they both have exactly the same "the sky will fall if you don't vote for us so we can enrich ourselves" message.

Personally I think the Republicans are more venal, directing taxes to themselves and their plutocratic cronies compared with directing taxes back to the people.
Epstein didn't kill himself
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,623|4504|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

then act surprised and angry when they don't get to run it for a few years. It's mostly because they are wholly corrupt and being in charge is how they rake in their slush fund money, but the media sells the we're all gonna die in a gutter nonsense instead.
Does either side do that more than the other?
From this perspective they're about even, but fanboys for one side or the other lap it up about the other side.
Oh they absolutely both do it. The Democrats just have a very deep corruption built in dating back nearly 200 years. The shit they do today would fit right in with Tammany Hall crap.
Of course the Republicans aren't corrupt, they never started an unjustifiable war so they could direct $2Trillion in govt funds to themselves and their supporters, and haven't been doing so for decades.

But obviously, starting a war to make rich people richer is exactly comparable with hiring too many public sector workers.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-04-07 17:59:57)

Epstein didn't kill himself
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,793|5030|949

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:


If it matters that much who is in charge of the vast federal bureaucracy, then we should probably get rid of the vast federal bureaucracy.
you think like someone who struggles to get past first premises into actual complications and nuance.
Not really. If the government has so much power to the point it's absolutely crucial that a certain party maintain power, then it is logical in a world where power bounces back and forth between two parties to shrink its power. The disconnect here is that one party openly advocates expanding government at every turn no matter the issue or expense and then act surprised and angry when they don't get to run it for a few years. It's mostly because they are wholly corrupt and being in charge is how they rake in their slush fund money, but the media sells the we're all gonna die in a gutter nonsense instead.
One party openly advocates expanding government, and the other pretends to want to shrink government but is actually responsible for more expansion in the last 50 years.  The worst part is that they actually succeed at drawing in suckers like you with their talking points.  You are one of the dopes that actually buys in to Republican obfuscation and failed talking points!

The indictments you put up for the Dem Party are literally the same thing the Repub Party does. 

You either:
fail to understand because you lack the capability (unlikely);
fail to understand because the Repubs do a great job of obfuscating their positions and talking out of both sides of their mouth (maybe);
don't want to hold the Repub Party responsible for their actions (maybe);
don't actually care about government encroachment as long as it's per your specific wants (maybe);
Love to trade in cognitive dissonance (highly likely, based on the last ~6 years of your posting).

Expanding power and using the government as a slush fund to enrich themselves and their sponsors is a problem with both parties, but you only want to hold one party to task.  Stop pretending there's a difference.
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+712|5083|United States of America
The Democrats have a wide variety of people running, which is ostensibly good because it offers choice. However, I am apprehensive about who their voters end up picking. It worries me that a decision by committee will just produce the least offensive candidate who is nobody's real first choice. From there, people aren't necessarily excited and apathy gets you a two-term Trump.

I'm most on board with Sanders, but a lot of people who identify as Democrats don't like him for baggage from 2016. The party apparatus still abhors him and casts him as a cook, as seen by these recent headlines of "Sanders opposes reparations!" when he essentially said that handing poor blacks a check won't solve their problems.

I like his ideas, but don't hold much hope that if he were elected, much would get done unless a wave of similar people were elected. Even with all the negatives of Trump, a lot of people still aren't on immediately on board with the D's. I think Sanders has the best chance of taking a chunk out of the white people who overwhelmingly backed Trump. It seems the simplest way to win support when you can say "these policies will benefit the vast majority of people". Warren is good, but I have severe reservations about whether she could win in a general election campaign. In all likelihood, they'll end up with a Harris/Booker type to be an Obama II veneer of respectability while not actually addressing any changes in politics.

Last edited by DesertFox- (2019-04-08 19:35:49)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,623|4504|eXtreme to the maX
Its pretty well impossible to change American politics, why even try?
Epstein didn't kill himself
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+282|5173|Moscow, Russia

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its pretty well impossible to change American politics, why even try?
legitimacy. it has to be drawn from the public, if only formally, for the whole social consensus to work - it's that or the ruling capitalist class with all hang. there's also good ol' fascism of course, and the world is gradually approaching it, but we are not quite there yet, so they have to keep an army of brainwashed jays and war mans - and their libertard counterparts - out there to be put through what they call "democratic processes".
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,623|4504|eXtreme to the maX
The ruling capitalist always do just enough to keep the people fat and happy, and work tirelessly to remove their firearms from them.
They learned a lot from the Bolshevik revolution.
Epstein didn't kill himself

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2019 Jeff Minard