USPOL Dec: The War on Christmas -- Just another example of the War on Coal

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Dec: The War on Christmas -- Just another example of the War on Coal

«‹›2 »

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

N00ba the Hutt posted:

WaPo has a terrifying and yet somewhat hilarious report on What Carson Supporters Actually Believe.

I can't be certain, but it seems like this woman actually believes that Obama supports taking in Syrian refugees... so he has people to hang out with once he's left office?

At any rate that article is sort of disappointing as it's just a profile of some idiot married couple in their late fifties - though I have no reason to think they aren't representative of Carson supporters.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2015 13:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 7, 2024 10:45

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Sardine Wit posted:

This is a great read and holy poo poo why would short selling stock be legal? Is there any benefit to the economy at large?

The idea is that people who think a stock is loving worthless can still participate in the market for it, and it's basically a good idea in theory. The downside of course is that price manipulation becomes a lot easier.

Shorting should be legal IMO, but only in a perfect world where day trading is punishable by death and all investments must be held for a minimum of thirty days before they can be sold again.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2015 15:45

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Mr Interweb posted:

Hmm. So he thinks they're harmful but has no abortion related objections to birth control pills?

So what do conservatives consider abortificents? I might have been confusing it with birth control pills but I swear I've seen them use the term to describe something related to birth control.

I don't know if I've heard them called "abortifacients" but I have heard people lump them in the same category as abortion pills, especially in the case of Plan B, because they think it works primarily (or exclusively, or whatever) by preventing implantation of a fertilized embryo, which is apparently similar enough to an abortion to count. And probably in the case of Plan B a lot of people just think they are straight-up abortion pills, and no mere fact is going to convince them otherwise of course.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2015 04:03

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

"We don't want to ban birth control we just want to make sure that any pharmacist can decide not to sell you birth control if they feel like it and employers can refuse to provide coverage for it if they want and we'll call women sluts if they use it and we'll tell schoolchildren that it doesn't work."

# ¿ Dec 2, 2015 15:07

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

TheDisreputableDog posted:

Cite that he knowingly lied please

the alternative does not make him look any better tbh

# ¿ Dec 2, 2015 15:52

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

In the video it looks like he's reading from a report that claims that one of the reasons some schools were failing is that they are predominately non-white.

# ¿ Dec 5, 2015 15:25

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Regarding mass shootings in the US: has there been much work done looking at the relationship between a culture which exalts individualism (to a fault) and the prevalence of narcissistic injury/rage? I'm asking for a friend.

# ¿ Dec 5, 2015 15:34

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Jagchosis posted:

He was already on a doomed trajectory that just made his campaign a joke

Well he went on to engineer the 2006 elections victory for the Democrats and helped pave the way for the 2008 elections as well, so it wasn't a total loss. He was a hell of a lot better for the Democrats than Debbie Schultz for certain.

# ¿ Dec 7, 2015 14:08

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

stinkles1112 posted:

My point is that I frankly don't care if some legal grey area is meandered into in service of the noble cause of breaking America's awful gun culture.

Geoff Peterson posted:

I'm all for loving up Gun Culture.

quote:

GUN CULTURE

Ah tribalism. Nothing bad ever came of that!

# ¿ Dec 7, 2015 14:39

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

stinkles1112 posted:

Gun owners are a "tribe" much the same way that people who drive Buicks are a "tribe"

Guys, we can't judge someone on the color of their skin, but the content of their holster

You can't bleat about "gun culture" *and* claim they aren't a group, dumbass :jerkbag:

At any rate the way you approach politics is about as unproductive as a typical Fox News viewer, and for exactly the same reason.

# ¿ Dec 8, 2015 03:41

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Muscle Tracer posted:

Gun culture is culture, not a group of people. "American culture" is a thing, not a group of people.

You're splitting hairs. In what way is basing your approach to gun policy on the fact that you don't like gun owners, going to result in better policy?

How about this: I don't like like people who take ecstasy. There is a whole culture that has grown up around the drug and I think it's loving stupid. I *would* support decriminalization, which a dispassionate reading of the facts and a sober look at the successes of this approach elsewhere will support, but I just don't like people who take MDMA. Let's lock them all up.

Kilroy fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Dec 8, 2015

# ¿ Dec 8, 2015 03:59

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Muscle Tracer posted:

lol

Well it is at least sincerely good to know that you'd rather just shitpost than try to defend a horrible approach to policy.

# ¿ Dec 8, 2015 05:32

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Muscle Tracer posted:

The idea that the culture around an illegal drug is remotely comparable to the culture around something enshrined in the American constitution and national mythology does not deserve a rebuttal. Neither does the strawman built on top of it, hth.

What strawman? Both are examples of allowing Red Team / Green Team thinking to influence your opinion. What you actually think of gun control or drug legalization is not relevant to my point, which is that tribalism is loving stupid and that avoiding it should be a top priority of anyone who doesn't want to end up like a Trump supporter.

# ¿ Dec 8, 2015 05:47

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

stinkles1112 posted:

In case you haven't noticed, the approach to politics of the so-called average Fox News viewer has been so wildly much more successful in getting their agenda pushed than anything the American left has tried in 80-odd years that it may just be time to take some pages out of their book.

Yeah so successful that someone like Donald Trump has a serious shot at taking the nomination despite the universal loathing of party leaders and dislike of most Republican voters. That's what you want for the left?

# ¿ Dec 8, 2015 08:10

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

A Bag of Milk posted:

Anyone who thinks they can predict how the general would go if Trump wins the nomination is deluding themselves. Basically everything that political scientists know about the primary process points to the fact that a Trump nomination is unthinkable and impossible. If it comes to pass that he is the nominee, we'll be in completely uncharted territory. Throw out the whole rulebook. lol forever at people thinking they can predict voting patterns or turnout with any sort of accuracy in that kind of situation. No, let go of your illusions of understanding and just strap in for the madness. (He still won't be the nominee though).

It's going to be hrod vs. Ted "Motherfucking" Cruz vs. (I) The Donald. The best part of this scenario is that Hillary would almost certainly grab 400+ EVs, but the down-ticket would be a bloodbath for Democrats. Veto-proof majority in the House, and I'd say the Senate as well any other year, but probably not 2016 thank goodness.

# ¿ Dec 8, 2015 12:03

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

VitalSigns posted:

I am pretty sure he's saying the Democrats would get their asses handed to them in downticket races from the combination of Republican voters and the crazy-rear end bigots getting out the vote for Trump and filling R down the rest of the ballot.

That also makes his "veto-proof House majority" comment make sense.

This.

# ¿ Dec 8, 2015 14:34

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Dapper_Swindler posted:

true. but at least he knows how hosed up his party has become.

Or he's just trying to have a Joe Welch moment. gently caress this guy.

We already know the Republican establishment hates Trump. They don't hate Trump for the same reasons decent people hate Trump, though. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.

# ¿ Dec 8, 2015 15:29

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Full Battle Rattle posted:

Dick Cheney, like most republicans, was fine with all of this as long as nobody said it in the open.

This is why I love Trump. Dog whistles aren't going to work on the lunatic "fringe" of the Republican party anymore. For Presidential and probably Senatorial races, they are in some serious trouble. Even if he loses the nomination, a line has been crossed here that you can't easily walk back.

They have been pulling this poo poo since at least the sixties and winning elections with it, and to watch it slowly blow up in their stupid smirking faces like this, gives me a kind of satisfaction that I didn't know existed before.

The House is safe for now, of course, and they'll probably continue to gobble up governerships and state legislatures since Democrats don't turn out for those. But it's a safe bet the 2020 primaries are going to be no less a poo poo show than what we're seeing now.

Kilroy fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Dec 8, 2015

# ¿ Dec 8, 2015 15:51

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Salt Fish posted:

At a very minimum I know for a fact that the full content of their emails and phone calls which are made internationally to their families and friends back home are being recorded by the NSA.

All international calls and emails are being recorded, so that doesn't qualify as "extra" tabs. It's just tabs, just like everyone else.

# ¿ Dec 8, 2015 15:55

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

This is probably just kabuki theatre aimed at frightening the children, but the GOP Hivemind is now battening down the hatches for a Brokered Convention:: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-preparing-for-contested-convention/2015/12/10/d72574bc-9f73-11e5-8728-1af6af208198_story.html

"How can we sabotage this avatar of fear and rage and bigotry for which we have been striving to summon these past many decades?"

# ¿ Dec 11, 2015 15:34

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Hollismason posted:

Hrmmm current insanity over on Breitbart is over Rubio's backing of a immigration bill that's also backed by Mark Zuckerburg which will in fact bring millions of Muslims to the USA through STEM trickery at Universities.

I think Rubios going to prob get hammered on this.

Good, gently caress that immigration bill.

# ¿ Dec 14, 2015 15:11

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

ShutteredIn posted:

That's not really surprising if you consider that Obama's 2008 victory was in part a referendum to do exactly that, and that he had some crossover appeal among moderate Republicans for this reason.

Gail Wynand posted:

The Googles and Facebooks of this world do not want to expand H-1B so they can hire legions of underpaid Indian programmers. Yes there are segments of the industry that do want to do this (every IT consulting firm) but Zuckerberg and Page are not among them.

Google and FB recruit from the top CS programs, and there is a finite supply of grads from these programs. Some of these grads are foreign citizens and the H-1B cap is a barrier to hiring these. Meanwhile there are also great CS programs overseas (particularly in India) that it is harder to recruit from because of the cap. A graduate of a top IIT is going to make a 6 figure salary anywhere s/he goes in the world, this isn't about cheap labor.

A lot of the cap issues emerge because of body shops abusing the system, but as a matter of political strategy it's best to keep the industry unified and focus on raising the cap - since it is BS anyway. I'd rather focus on cracking down on abusers than set some artificial quota.

Facebook and Google may not want to expand it for that reason, but they're sure as poo poo not going to put any resources into resolving the issue, either, since it would hurt support for lifting the cap. Even if they aren't body shops themselves, they're at least on the same team.

# ¿ Dec 15, 2015 03:47

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Solkanar512 posted:

Compared to Dean she's still absolute poo poo though.

God drat I thought I was the only one.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2015 17:05

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Trabisnikof posted:

No, you're right, I think the Clinton campaign would have fought it harder with the DNC directly and likely used their influence to stop such a reaction.

The Clinton campaign would not have had to do even that, as the possibility that they might lose access wouldn't have even come up.

quote:

I still think if they get their data connection back soon enough, this should hopefully all be a meaningless and very stupid spat.

As to people swallowing their pride, when the scale of the issues of climate change, income inequality, and a Republican Party that's currently led by the "bomb their families and journalists" faction, I can't help but hope that anyone who really believes in the issues would see the essential nature of the choice.

If someone's vote for Sanders is about tribalism, sticking it to Clinton, or some fundamental litmus test, you're right that there's not much to be done about them.

Let's flip that around. With all that is at stake, why risk alienating potential voters in the general to kneecap a candidate who has no chance of getting the nomination anyway?

# ¿ Dec 19, 2015 00:31

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Gail Wynand posted:

Realchat the US is the only developed country that taxes foreign earnings and it's an idiotic policy

I haven't read the specifics, but I'll be surprised if the tax break for foreign earnings applies ordinary citizens, rather that being targeted specifically at our superhuman corporate overlords.

And anyway, you'll still have to file, even if your tax liability is zero, and don't even get me starting on the onerous FINRA reporting requirements and the fact that the US is such a pain in the rear end about this stuff that many foreign banks are starting to just straight-out refuse to do business with Americans.

Most Americans seem to think that if you dare to live and work outside the US, you are something like a traitor, and American tax policy really reflects that.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2015 00:39

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Trabisnikof posted:

Or there's an alternative explanation that this isn't a grand conspiracy? Instead an overreaction from an organization that's not known for its technical knowhow. Watergate comes to mind quickly and that comparison sheds light on the response.

I'm not suggesting that there is a conspiracy, and I don't think there is a conspiracy. Rather, I think DWS has her head so far up Hillary's rear end in a top hat that there need not be any conspiracy, and that she gravely miscalculated here and probably the Clinton campaign is nearly as pissed off about this as any Bernie supporter.

And I'm a Hillary supporter, by the way, converted from supporting Sanders before any of this went down.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2015 00:46

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Raskolnikov38 posted:

Ugh on one hand it'd finally get Florida Dems to run someone other than Crist and Sink.

Otoh it's loving DWS who would lose worse than either

Maybe the reason she has "no other way to advance her career" is that she's a lovely person? If she can win the Senate seat, great, otherwise I see no better career path for her than to go back to being just another nobody in the House.

Bring back Dean.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2015 01:31

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Shifty Pony posted:

Welp!

(Hillary's Press Secretary)

Ugh, okay so I guess I have to take back what I said earlier about the Clinton campaign :ohdear:

How do you climb to the top of national politics when you will frivolously alienate people like this at the drop of a hat?

# ¿ Dec 19, 2015 02:08

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

SirKibbles posted:

Dean delivered the Presidency and several governers in states Dems haven't won in years and that wasn't good enough,but Debbie cost Dems the house until at least 2020 with her lovely as GOTV efforts. Why is she not gone yet? The gently caress?

Agreed. I will never get why they got rid of Dean, nor why so many at the top of the party hierarchy were against him getting the position in the first place. You have virtually no effect on policy as chairman of the DNC, and it is a career dead-end for the most part, yet Dean seemed happy to use his position to serve Democratic interests generally while keeping his mouth shut. You could hardly ask for a better chair of the DNC.

But nah, better put in someone from the worst state in the Union, so she can use that position to right every perceived wrong ever done to her ever ever, while losing election after election.

fishmech posted:

Who's that alienating? I mean besides the crooks?

Right or wrong, not everyone who supports Bernie is automatically going to vote for Hillary in the general. She's got the nomination wrapped up anyway, and making GBS threads on people who haven't made up their mind to support you yet, is not how you win an election.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2015 02:26

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Logikv9 posted:

You can't alienate the Sanders campaign! You will be insulting the Sanders supporters! They'll vote GOP out of spite!

No they just won't vote, why is this hard to understand?

I mean you've got Bernie supporters saying that Hillary is worse than Republicans. They're wrong, they're irrational, and some of them are just loving babies, but if they vote for Hillary in the general I don't give a poo poo, and neither should you.

The point is that there is no upside. There is no one on the fence about voting for Hillary, in either the primaries nor in the general, who is going to decide to support her because of the way her campaign is reacting to this. She's not winning a single extra vote by doing this, and generally when you're trying to succeed at a thing, you only do things that make success more likely, not less.

Kalman posted:

I mean.

He's not wrong.

What he's saying is factually correct. What he's doing is loving stupid and wrong.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2015 02:35

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

fishmech posted:

There is absolutely no downside either, because no person on earth is dumb enough for a loving tweet in December 2015 to still leave them pissy in November 2016.

Yes plenty of people on planet Earth will do exactly that. Maybe you can count on your hands and feet, the number of people who will cite one particular tweet as a reason not to vote for Hillary in the general, but "I don't like how she ratfucked Bernie over esoteric GOTV stuff" will definitely turn a lot of people off, and so far the response from the Clinton campaign has been to mostly play into exactly that narrative.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2015 02:42

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

fishmech posted:

Bernie got ratfucked by his own team being crooks, not by Hillary Clinton.

How loving thick are you? All that matters is how the Bernie camp perceives the reaction from the Clinton campaign. Who ratfucks who is irrelevant. Now, because you are incapable of understanding nuance, you will probably assert that they were going to interpret any action or response from the Clinton campaign in the most negative possible light, anyway. But, you are wrong. Some of his supporters will not vote for her in the general no matter what, and some of his supporters will vote for Hillary in the general no matter what. However, some of Bernie's supporters may or may not turn out to vote for Hillary in the general depending on how demoralized they are after their first choice does not secure the nomination. These are potential supporters whose votes Hillary should be trying her very best to secure ahead of the general campaign, and nothing that her campaign has done so far in response to this data breach accomplishes that.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2015 03:05

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

fishmech posted:

Nobody needs to care about how the delusional branch of the Bernie camp feels, they're already never going to vote for Hillary Clinton. Hell many won't even vote for Bernie because he'll have dropped before their primary rolls around. And they're the only ones who will still be upset about an offhand tweet 46 weeks from now.

Quit referring to the Clinton campaign reaction up to this point as a single offhand tweet. It's not.

As much as you want to cling to the belief that Bernie's support comes exclusively from fanatical redditors, that is not the case. A lot of people in your "delusional branch" of the Bernie camp just want a robust nomination process and lively debate, and will accept Hillary's inevitable win as long as they perceive the process was fair.

Also Joementum is absolutely right that news cycles dedicated to this GOTV inside baseball stuff, are news cycles that would be better spent on the GOP horror show. So sweep this under the rug ASAFP.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2015 03:21

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Ugh, fine. gently caress it. Clinton campaign functionaries will use their position to needlessly antagonize potential voters in the general election, but this is fine since the only people who will take any offense are precisely the people who weren't going to vote for her anyway, according to fishmech. That doesn't seem to actually bode well for her chances in the general, to be honest, but I'm starting not to give a poo poo about that anyway. I think I'm going to have to revise my position of "Hillary Supporter" to "on the fence" after the reaction of her campaign so far and the tribal bullshit going on in this thread which is seriously loving aggravating. I don't know how you can call yourself a Democrat, or even a lean-Democrat, if you're willingly to piss off other Democrats for literally no good god drat reason at all.

btw:

quote:

Brian Fallon

Formerly @TheJusticeDept and @ChuckSchumer spokesman.

What a loving surprise.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2015 03:37

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

fishmech posted:

I'm sorry that you refuse to admit that the only people dumb enough to refuse to vote Democratic nearly a full year from now over mild rudeness, are people who were already going to refuse to vote Democratic. But it's true.

You're literally pulling that shtick that people did in 2008 where they acted like the tiny group of offended Hillary supporters were going to hand the election to McCain.

It would be one thing if the reaction from the Clinton campaign gave them any advantage at all, but it doesn't.

You seem happy enough provided the Clinton campaign not do anything that will obviously harm their chances in the general, or will have no effect on the general. I would rather they only do things that will help their chances. Like, literally every single action performed by every member of the Clinton campaign - to the extent humanly possible - between now and November 8 should contribute positively to her chances of winning that election. Reducing those chances is obviously bad and doing stuff that has little effect either way, takes time away from doing stuff that increases the chance of a win.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2015 03:45

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

fishmech posted:

The "response" did absolutely nothing to reduce Clinton's chances.

Prove it. Better yet, prove it helped them.

Kilroy fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Dec 19, 2015

# ¿ Dec 19, 2015 03:56

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

fishmech posted:

Here's my proof: November 2016 you whiner. It's really great how you think a joke made 46 weeks before election is totally going to lose the election.

So, not proven, then.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2015 04:00

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

fishmech posted:

You don't have any proof of your lunatic theory.

I don't think you know what my "lunatic theory" is since you keep missing the mark in arguing with me.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2015 04:03

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

fishmech posted:

Your insane theory is that the Bernouts horribly offended by this were ever going to vote for her.

Let's assume for the sake of argument and since I'm obviously not going to convince you otherwise or get through to you on this, that this is an accurate appraisal of what I think.

So let's hear from you how the Clinton campaign reaction, initially at least, since it is their initial reaction that you were defending, is a net positive for her general election campaign.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2015 04:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 7, 2024 10:45

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

fishmech posted:

Why do things have to be a net positive to be done?

Isn't that obvious?

quote:

I guess they were wrong to expect the whiny contingent to not freak out, but you can't really plan around the barely sane.

It's actually trivially easy to plan around, provided you don't first dismiss them as "the whiny contingent" and "barely sane".

# ¿ Dec 19, 2015 04:45

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Dec: The War on Christmas -- Just another example of the War on Coal

«‹›2 »