US Politics June - FYGMents of the GOP's Imagination

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Politics June - FYGMents of the GOP's Imagination

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

ReidRansom posted:

Some more information about the Las Vegas shooters.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/shooters-metro-ambush-left-five-dead-spoke-white-supremacy-and-desire-kill-police

Have the feds broken up the Bundy party of crazy yet? If not, you'd hope this would be enough to encourage them to, I don't know, do anything at all.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2014 08:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 15:29

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

Fried Chicken posted:

Let's have some absurdity for lunch

http://nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html?hp&_r=1&referrer=

Also a nice info graphic at the site

quote:

In the Indianapolis suburbs, officers said they needed a mine-resistant vehicle to protect against a possible attack by veterans returning from war.

�You have a lot of people who are coming out of the military that have the ability and knowledge to build I.E.D.�s and to defeat law enforcement techniques,� Sgt. Dan Downing of the Morgan County Sheriff�s Department told the local Fox affiliate, referring to improvised explosive devices, or homemade bombs. Sergeant Downing did not return a message seeking comment.

Kindly go gently caress yourself Sgt. Dan. Don't use vets as your excuse when you were going to get new toys entirely for you to jerk off to anyway.

Every argument the police make is, "Well something bad might happen". Yea? It's a good thing there are no national guard or military facilities in EVERY loving state that can fill the "fighting absurdly well armed terrorists" concern. We should absolutely turn over that capacity to some local cops with no experience using said equipment safely.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2014 23:54

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

Joementum posted:

This is a good point, especially since we've had a Speaker of the House who wrote a dissertation on the positive civilizing influence of the colonial Belgian education system in the Congo.

Wait, what?

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 00:15

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:

Handsome Diamond Joe let out one of his zingers again.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/joe-biden-nennt-deutschland-auslaenderfeindlich-a-974516.html

Play to that Israeli lobby Joe.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 02:25

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

Fojar38 posted:

Japan and China not being as welcoming to foreigners as the US isn't really disputable.

I dunno about Germany though.

Its true. No one is as welcoming to foreigners as the US which really says more about everyone else than it does about us.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 02:40

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

paranoid randroid posted:

Congress is a ladder.

OAquinas posted:

It really works almost verbatim.

"Congress isn't a pit. Congress is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but they refuse. They cling to the nation, or the gods, or love. Illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.”

Magnificent. Between Cantor-bury tales and this we're set on thread titles for two months.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 06:59

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

Spoilers Below posted:

Kind of. Dude was all about taxes and government interference, but only in certain ways.

These writeups about Adam Smith are great, thanks.

Joementum posted:

Mark Levin's been beating the drum loudest for a convention. Here's his proposed list from The Liberty Amendments:

So are the people pushing for this just entirely unaware that we had the Articles of Confederation and it was a disaster? Let's push for states having the power to change anything they want, that could never go poorly.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 17:24

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

JT Jag posted:

Be the change you want to see, zoux. Every time you bitch about the system, you increase the chance of making someone else disaffected. Then that's not just one, that's two votes who aren't participating. And so on and so fourth. Right now, not only are you depriving the democratic process of your vote but you are actively harming it by spreading the idea that voting is pointless to more people. Be passionate, even if your single vote is worthless. Maybe more people will choose to vote who wouldn't have before as a result.

Why would I want to help the democratic process in this country? I'm not an accelerationist by any means but encouraging people to see the system for what it is doesn't strike me as particularly terrible.

I agree with zoux. I vote locally now and then since I think ideology is less important than day to day competency in governance at that level but beyond that I usually don't bother. Not only is my individual vote useless but I'm almost never offered the option to vote for anyone who's proposed policies I find agreeable. If I disagree with >50% of a candidates platform I'm not voting for them, end of story. Everyone here just pushes this idea that if my options are a Democrat that I agree with 35% of their platform or a Republican where I agree with 5% of their platform then I have some civic duty to vote for the Democrat even though I fundamentally disagree with the majority of their proposed policies. It would almost be better if there weren't ANY politicians who I would support but instead there are actually a few I'd wholeheartedly support but I've never once been in a position to vote for them. Fingers crossed Warren runs for president.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 21:37

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

Accretionist posted:

Compared to you, it is. Voting is literally the least you can do. You as in you, specifically.

Being a non-GOP non-voter who tells other non-GOP people not to vote is literally something that Republicans love. The Republicans love you. They spend tons of time and money to suppress voter turnout and here you are helping them out for free.

So I should vote out of spite? The system has enough spite driving it without my meager contributions.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 21:42

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

JT Jag posted:

Just think about it for a second. The system is already hosed up, and the fewer people that vote, the more hosed up it gets. It's a lot easier to buy an election with low turnout, so you're only helping the rich fucks by not voting.

If fewer people are voting because they recognize how broken the system is then it getting more hosed up would hopefully encourage some sort of national discussion about fixing the loving problems.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 21:46

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

Accretionist posted:

Spite's gay. He should vote because it's the right thing to do. He should stop doing what he's doing now, in particular, because he's literally helping the Republican party.

Tatum Girlparts posted:

Bad news nutsack, the core of the right wing voter base is old people with literally nothing to do but vote on election day. Showing 'the system as it is' is basically handing the system over to the dudes who can best manipulate stupid old people and that's pretty always been the right wing since most of their platform is "CHANGE IS SCARY AND DID I SEE A NEGRO?!"

Hahah, I should vote because otherwise the other team wins. Listen to yourselves for a minute. THIS IS MY EXACT loving PROBLEM. I'm not voting in order to screw over some other group, whether or not I find their beliefs abhorrent. I'm either voting FOR someone or not at all.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 21:49

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

^^^^^Hahah, because voting and drum circles are IT. There is no other way to be politically active.

Accretionist posted:

That's only if things getting worse makes people better.

I know. I wish I knew what made people better.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 21:52

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

Tatum Girlparts posted:

No your exact problem is you don't 100% agree with democrats and are too much of a bitch to vote third party because despite your bluster you want to feel like your vote was more 'important' than that, so you say gently caress it like a big baby and take your ball and go home while hiding behind some bullshit 'yea man I'm really opening people's eyes by being a lazy piece of poo poo'.

I've been pretty clear that my line is 50%. If I agree with half of their platform then I'll vote for them. I think that's a low bar to hurdle, but it doesn't happen all that often. When a third party candidate runs that I agree with then I vote for them. It hasn't happened recently, but its happened before. I don't think I'm opening anyone's eyes to anything, it was just an interesting line of discussion, that even talking about not voting is some sort of blight on the democratic process.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 21:58

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

Accretionist posted:

How about for protecting what the Republicans are destroying? Voting out of alignment with their agenda reduces their relative influence.

See, that's a bit more intriguing. I'll think about that, although I suppose I agree to a point or I wouldn't vote locally.

Babylon Astronaut posted:

It's throwing more poo poo in the turd punchbowl, but imagine what the "voting is worthless" argument sounds like to classes that had to fight for their right to vote.

I'd assume disappointing as hell with a sad ring of truth to it.

Bassetking posted:

And we've hit Accelerationism; finish your drinks.

Yea sorry about that. I don't want things to get drastically worse, but I don't think people deciding not to vote when their interests aren't represented to be the end of democracy either.

computer parts posted:

That's the key point though; if it was solely due to awareness you wouldn't have Voter ID laws.

I really wish I didn't agree with you on this. I want awareness to be the solution because then people are moderately decent human beings with limited information driving their poor ideological decisions.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 22:07

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

Zeitgueist posted:

People that are complaining that their vote is worthless aren't saying that voting is useless at all, they're saying that it is minimally useful in practice, albeit in a hyperbolic fashion.

What they're saying, if you listen, is that they feel that meaningful change won't come from a ballot box because the problems are bigger than what we can affect via that method

I'll just let you talk for me about this one, because that's much more eloquently put while saying what I want to say.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 22:08

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

Tatum Girlparts posted:

To put this in less nebulous terms, over in the presidential race thread this kinda sorta came up too. It's fair to say most of us on the center/far left aren't super happy with Clinton as a president, she's left wing but she's pretty strong right in the left and that's not great. Still, we all pretty much agreed, while we're not jumping for joy about her, she's a poo poo ton better than Cruz or Paul or whoever the gently caress the Republicans dig up to run.

I will 100% vote out of spite against Cruz. I irrationally hate that man or maybe not irrationally.

Accretionist posted:

What I hear is, "Doing nothing feels better than doing something because I am demoralized." And what I see is a broader phenomena helping turn this country into plutocratic shithole.

So if we had 100% voter participation and our choices were Obama or Romney, what problem have we just solved as it relates to American becoming a plutocracy?

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 22:15

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

Bassetking posted:

And when your threshold of 50% isn't met; and one of the other individuals in the race is saying things along the lines of "I don't see anything wrong with killing the gays", or "People with chronic illnesses would be better off dying rather than making me pay for anything that doesn't immediately benefit me right now." or "Dead children are a cheap price for the ability to use a quad-stacked magazine." then gently caress it because what does it really even matter?

You think my vote is stopping that? You think your vote is stopping that? 90+% popular support for background checks seemed like it did a lot of good when it went to Congress, huh?

Zeitgueist posted:

It doesn't matter, we've had this discussion a million times. People keep bringing up 2000 and the spectre of whatever social issues exist that represent that the parties most noticeably disagree on(but do little to address). People don't like to talk about the realities of changing US politics because it's really depressing and this thread already is depressing.

You're probably right, but it'd be nice if anyone had any idea other than build a dam with our votes to hold back the raging masses of racists, homophobes, plutocrats, and general assholes from pillaging the country further.

Relentlessboredomm fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Jun 12, 2014

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 22:18

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

Accretionist posted:

That's an issue of necessity versus sufficiency.

But if everyone votes, you're less likely to be staring down an Obama versus Romney situation in the first place. It'd be easier for someone to kill it in the primaries by pushing for Universal Healthcare, which polls majority favor, or pot legalization, which polls majority favor, or increasing taxes on the oligarchs, which I think(?) polls majority favor.

But the Big Money supersedes public interest because we don't have enough influence.

I don't know what that first part means.

That implies that the party representatives actually represent the majority opinion in their parties, I don't know that that's true.

SubponticatePoster posted:

How many of that 90% voted?

Well if its 90% of the population, that means only 10% of the population at large disagrees. That in turn means if >20% of the population votes then a majority of the voting population agrees.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 22:32

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

Amergin posted:

If you get deficit reductions OR lower unemployment I think it would be more palatable. As it is most conservatives still think we're in a shithole economically and that now isn't the time to spend money on aliens.

Aren't large scale public works projects guaranteed to lower unemployment?

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 22:34

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

^^^^^That's absurd. Things need to get better before we can do a thing that will make things better. I hope no one thinks that.

Zeitgueist posted:

Man if only we had some history of doing this kind of thing.

Yea, I was being polite, but the entire New Deal was predicated on that basic understanding. That's why FDR was so beloved.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 22:37

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

Darkman Fanpage posted:

This will never happen sorry enjoy your crumbling highways, people.

And collapsing bridges. I'm astounded they still haven't set aside money for infrastructure issues when bridges have literally just fallen down.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 22:41

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

Accretionist posted:

It's something that came in my science-major lab sections.

Simple example: You have a surface-protein that you think helps a bacteria stick to surfaces but you don't actually know. If you want to find out, you need to test along two lines: Necessity and Sufficiency.

Necessity -- Eliminate the protein. Does the bacteria still stick to surfaces? Whether it does or not answers whether or not the protein is necessary for said sticking.

Sufficiency -- Add the protein to a bacteria which doesn't stick. Does it stick now? Whether it does or not answers whether or not the protein is itself sufficient for said sticking.

There's bunches of reasons why [something] could be sufficient but not necessary, or necessary but not sufficient, for [something else] so it's useful to figure out both. And this is just a general analysis thing that's perfectly reasonable to keep in mind for political science.

And I mentioned it because I figured high voter turn out is necessary but not sufficient. High voter turnout doesn't solve everything but we can't solve everything without high voter turnout.

Ahh ok thank you for explaining.

I don't think solving the big issues is going to happen through the ballot box regardless of turnout.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 22:46

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

Amergin posted:

People do exactly think that. If the media is constantly giving people the impression that "well the economy isn't doing too bad but it isn't good enough to withstand a harsh winter and jobs numbers and GDP are kinda sorta doing well" then how are you going to sell a big expensive project to them?

Big expensive projects are for when you have money to spend and to most people, a tepid economy is not one in which you start a spending spree, regardless of the long-term benefits in infrastructure or the short-term benefits in employment. How do you help sell a big project? Convince people the economy is booming. One of the indicators people like to see in a booming economy is low unemployment, thus you need to fix the problem before you fix the problem.

Now drink.

Somehow we managed to pour money into public works in the Great Depression but today it's unfeasible? Not to mention that we don't have enough money to take care of our own loving country but we have enough to launch and maintain massive invasions. It can be sold to people if anyone cared to or was willing to challenge the bullshit right wing narratives.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 22:53

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

I will never understand the people who on the one hand think America is exceptional and is the greatest richest country on earth but on the other hand we just don't have enough money to help people even if it helps EVERYONE. I have that argument much too often. "We couldn't do the thing you're proposing Relentless because we don't have the money" "Yes I do think we're the richest country on Earth" :psypop:

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 22:57

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

Amergin posted:

The Great Depression is a far cry from where we are now. We have news media that spins the news (or focuses on what the gently caress ever people are saying on Twitter) 24/7, an intense love of a handful of lovely numbers to say whether the economy is "good" or "bad", a populace that at worst hates or at best distrusts its government, and a post-Reagan love affair with bootstrap-pulling, to name a few differences.

I just mean economically. We could afford it during what everyone agrees was the worst economic period in US history but not now? That's bullshit.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 22:59

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

^^^^ At this point I'd settle for just having the debate they want to have instead of some clearly horseshit reason to do nothing. Also, I was addressing just the one concern of being able to afford it. Convincing people that we should do it is a separate thing.

Axetrain posted:

Socialism was gaining a lot of traction in the country at the time (guess why), and with the revolution in Russia still fresh in everyone's mind the rich people basically had to cave into pressure to help the working class, lest they risk their workforce going red.

I understand the motivations behind it, I'm saying that we don't need those same motivations to look back and see that it works in a down economy. The glaringly obvious proof is there.

Relentlessboredomm fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Jun 12, 2014

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 23:01

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

SedanChair posted:

It is gonna be difficult for him to assert some sort of meaningful political activity underpinned by that big rear end "I don't vote." But I'm legitimately willing to be surprised.

The Koch brothers could not vote and it wouldn't affect their influence in the slightest. Maybe zoux is Koch brothers rich. :v:

Actually poo poo, you could make the argument that voting is for the middle class and poor. When you're rich you can just convince the plebians to vote for your interests.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 23:05

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

I need some good high end bourbon ideas. My roommate wants to get me some nice alcohol as a thank you for a favor I did him but I already have a bottle of lagavulin so I don't need more scotch. Thoughts?

# ¿ Jul 2, 2014 22:01

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

Laphroaig. Accept no substitutes. Not a bourbon but its aged in bourbon casks and is about 10000x better than any bourbon imo.

Hmmm not what I was looking for but I haven't gotten a bottle of Laphroaig before. Any specific age?

FAUXTON posted:

Maybe there's a reason he wants bourbon this time

Its because I just got the Lagavulin and I've been slowly savoring it. I'm not even half done with the bottle yet.

# ¿ Jul 2, 2014 22:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 15:29

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

The standard 10 year old is awesome. 18 year old is sublime, but probably not worth the premium. Triple Wood is an awesome deal for what it is, and still cheaper than a Lagavulin 16.

Fantastic, thanks.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2014 02:43

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Politics June - FYGMents of the GOP's Imagination