Well, one thing that really shouldn’t be that controversial is restoring the machinery of our democracy. The checks and balances, our election infrastructure, etc. In some ways it’s more important than what exactly that machine is doing currently, because that at least passes. Albeit, I’m somewhat dubious on a wholesale fix anytime soon, there are too many broken areas. I don’t think most people even recall how large swaths of our government were designed to work in fact.
2 Likes
They don’t, and its a real problem. You can only do high school civics so much. That being said-
Not sure if I posted about it here, but the other day I had a thought. Ignoring the oversteps to the constitution that the executive branch currently has (one of the few things me and mick agree on) and just focusing on the trump presidency… it’s utterly staggering to think about how much work the next administration is going to have just cleaning up after trump. The reports of non-qualified people being jammed into high level positions alone is maddening - because of these, we may not get hard data from several federal institutions for years, and that’s assuming that the trump era has an expiration date in two years. Without that, you still have the tariffs on allies and whatever “deals” the fuckweasel thinks he’s making that will need to get sorted through, especially any that have international ink. It’s utterly mind boggling to consider the amount of pain we could be in for years because of this cocknugget and how little he knows about the internal machinery at work.
See… you say that…
Yes, because the point of government is to masturbate wildly and make accusations that others are doing things wrong. To that point, boy do you ■■■■■■■ libertarians have that ■■■■ down.
Edit: As I pass out drunk this morning, I’m left with the thought that one Billy Quizboy quote from Venture Brothers sums up how I see libertarian politics at this point-
“It’s industrial espionage! You’ve come to steal our great ideas- You’ve been foiled; we have none!”
3 Likes
Gfd…:
1 Like
Tell me more about how smug libertarians are while you post nothing but smugness and little men made o’ straw. Are you even self-aware, bro?
Go there, and learn it. LEARN IT ALL! You’ll find enough anti-Trump stuff to whet your Democratic whistle, and the rest, well, whatever.
3 Likes
Just a friendly reminder that tongue-in-cheek jabs turn in to feuds right quick.
Let’s keep it civil and put a full stop on the “you lot this and that” talk.
I’d rather not see the day come where a padlock is situated next to the title of this thread.
6 Likes
My bad, peeps. 
4 Likes
1 Like
Thanks for understanding, folks.
Libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, should be the topic of debate, less so than their adherents.
Discussion and debate, if it has any purpose, is not so much to change minds, but to come to greater understanding and learning by way of the Socratic method.
4 Likes
“I feel like I can hear Western civilization crumbling as we speak.”
■■■■ just got insane.
Is there NO mechanism for bringing some accountability to the POTUS? If the British PM tried to do this outside of parliament, she would be in deep DEEP trouble. (Inside, there’s this thing called Parliamentary Privilege, which is why so many UK politicians are vague and evasive when questioned outside the building.)
Edit:
4 Likes
If his lies were bowel explosions, I’d suspect someone slipped him some horse laxatives.
Combined with the ricin-laced mail sent to Trump (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly_CLH-8h9E), I have a few theories on the mail terrorism of late:
- a sword-and-shield attack targeting one’s opponents while the attacker stays blameless by claiming they were also targeted.
- someone trying to sway the other side, given that they’re now saying that the bombs were supposedly duds intended to convey a message.
- someone playing against both sides.
The suspect is, shockingly, a ■■■■■■■ nut! I repeat, the suspect is a nutso!
Lookit this guy! Haha, this isn’t at all what I expected, and I thought it could be just about anything or anyone. But never once did I think, “I bet it’s a guy with a creeper van with posters all over it, and I bet he really works out a lot, I think he’s probably an American Indian, and ya know what else? Bet he works at a stripclub.”
W.T.F.
3 Likes
I’ve got to admit, he really does seem like a stereotype. Still, I didn’t really put a lot of thought into it, given he never actually succeeded. Honestly I’ve mostly been watching polling numbers and the like, that and considering whether I should get my voting out of the way.
2 Likes
If 2016 taught me anything, it’s that polls are useless. Also, wish Missouri had early voting. I already know who I’m voting for (hint, nobody with a ‘D’ or ‘R’ next to their filthy statist name).
1 Like
Eh, the pundits just wanted to excuse their assumptions. The polling was nowhere near as bad as they like to pretend. 538 had an interesting series of articles on that actually.
3 Likes
Someone has been trawling his social media feeds:
Pretty sure there’s going to be a court-ordered psych evaluation in the suspect’s future…
2 Likes
That’s the thing that always gets me about this ■■■■: it’s always some total and complete wackjob, but then the media (and everyone else) will act like someone else is to blame, and the real cause is their ■■■■■■ political rhetoric. People will for sure put the blame for this guy on Trump, just like they blamed Democrats for the douchey Bernie Bro that shot up the GOP Congressmen at baseball practice. Or they’ll blame someone else for Antifa and the Proud Boys hitting each other with baseball bats in the street.
At some point we have to understand that there are crazy people in the world, and it doesn’t matter what you do or don’t say. Crazy people gonna crazy.
2 Likes
Double post!
Hadn’t seen any of that. I don’t read Nate Silver all that often, but from what I recall didn’t he predict something like a 90 percent chance of President Hillary based on the 2016 polling?
I dunno. I guess you could also say, “Well, 90% isn’t 100%, so…”
1 Like
Except I don’t think those are really equivalent statements. First, because Bernie Saunders’ rhetoric is nowhere near as inflammatory, aggressive, and flat-out dishonest as Trump’s. And secondly - well, I don’t know if you scrolled down that long list in the Guardian live stream or not, but this guy has basically bought into every lie, half-truth, and conspiracy theory endorsed BY TRUMP through his tweets and rally speeches.
So yes, I AM going to say that Trump should be held accountable in this case.
2 Likes
Bernie (and other Democrats) didn’t say that the GOP didn’t care about poor people dying for lack of insurance? Either way, I’ll very cordially disagree that we can hold politicians responsible for their rhetoric if it manages to incite crazy.
Now, all of the above being said, I DO AGREE that perhaps we ought to tone some of it down. I’d really don’t approve of Trump encouraging his supporters to punch people in the face, as he did during rallies during his campaign. But I also don’t enjoy hearing Democrats say that we should get in each other’s faces and form mobs. All seems like bad juju. But then again, wtf do I know? Maybe I don’t politick right.
2 Likes