U.S. Politics

[villakram]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

He taped all the conversations. He even released one into the public domain of Trump telling him to pay one of them off

Did you hear Trump tell him to commit a felony on those tapes? Mueller will need a lot more than those to do anything more than sully the office or some such and Trump needs no assistance on that count.

[Keyblade]

18 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't agree, or at least I don't think it's a useful framing. The parties aren't the same, nor are they mirrors of each other. 

They both exist to maintain the status quo. Both are heavily lobbied by and beholden to often the same big money interests.

There are a few finer social issues that they (vociferously) disagree on, but in terms of policy they're largely on the same page whether they realize it or not. 

[HanoiVillan]

3 hours ago, Keyblade said:

They both exist to maintain the status quo. Both are heavily lobbied by and beholden to often the same big money interests.

There are a few finer social issues that they (vociferously) disagree on, but in terms of policy they're largely on the same page whether they realize it or not. 

I think that's a view that's increasingly both simplistic and out-of-date. 

How important is combating global warming? Because a Dem government would be allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions; a Republican President appointed a man who repeatedly sued the EPA to lead it. Even the most corporate Democrat would have voted for Merrick Garland, and whatever other weaknesses he would have had, carbon emissions would be being regulated now; even the most 'moderate' Republican would be backing a congressional leadership that was responsible for having Kavanaugh instead, who believes this to be an example of perfidious regulatory over-reach. 

It isn't simply 'finer social issues', or even close. Democrats wouldn't have passed a tax cut explicitly targeted at benefiting the highest earners as their signature legislation of the last Congress. Democrats wouldn't have spent all of 2017 trying to overturn Obamacare, and increase the number of people without health insurance. Glossing environmental regulation, the tax system and health care, on which the parties have very different opinions, as 'finer social issues', is absurd. 

If you mean neither party is the vanguard of a socialist revolution, then fair enough. But that doesn't mean they're the same. 

[Keyblade]

9 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think that's a view that's increasingly both simplistic and out-of-date. 

How important is combating global warming? Because a Dem government would be allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions; a Republican President appointed a man who repeatedly sued the EPA to lead it. Even the most corporate Democrat would have voted for Merrick Garland, and whatever other weaknesses he would have had, carbon emissions would be being regulated now; even the most 'moderate' Republican would be backing a congressional leadership that was responsible for having Kavanaugh instead, who believes this to be an example of perfidious regulatory over-reach. 

It isn't simply 'finer social issues', or even close. Democrats wouldn't have passed a tax cut explicitly targeted at benefiting the highest earners as their signature legislation of the last Congress. Democrats wouldn't have spent all of 2017 trying to overturn Obamacare, and increase the number of people without health insurance. Glossing environmental regulation, the tax system and health care, on which the parties have very different opinions, as 'finer social issues', is absurd. 

If you mean neither party is the vanguard of a socialist revolution, then fair enough. But that doesn't mean they're the same. 

They're obviously not exactly the same, the Republicans are actively seeking to make things worse whereas the Democrats aren't, but are fine with things as they are and won't really rock the boat. What progressive tax, healthcare and especially energy initiatives could you foresee the Democrats pursuing if they had the power? I can't see any really. Maybe some tweaks to Obamacare at a push.

My point is, in the grand scheme of things what is that really worth when the trajectory is downwards as things stand? How far apart are "actively making things worse" and "sitting idly while a bad situation gets worse" really?

I might be lacking perspective on this but to me it's a turd sandwich either way. I hate to make false equivalencies and "both sides an issue" but I feel like giving Dems brownie points for not being as apocalyptically bad as Republicans reinforces their trademark ineffectualness and lethargy. It's what Hillary Clinton ran her disastorous campaign on.

Meanwhile, earlier today 5 house Democrats voted against cutting funds for the war in Yemen, while 7 'abstained'. 

 

[peterms]

The religious context seems quite important in parts of the US.

Here's a list of people who face hellfire.  It looks fairly comprehensive, though I was intrigued to see "whoremongers" included, but not "warmongers".

 

[blandy]

Cow worshippers are the worst!

[blandy]

And ankle biters- pure scum. 

[mjmooney]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

Cow worshippers are the worst!

Hindus, presumably. 

[LondonLax]

The website doesn’t work. Could be a prank?

[villa4europe]

i was reading the bible last night, the bit about gangster rappers is pretty damning to be fair

[blandy]

1 hour ago, mjmooney said:

Hindus, presumably. 

Or maybe not,. Maybe it's the marvellous Guadalcanal Diary in their sights?

 

[VILLAMARV]

[bickster]

2 hours ago, LondonLax said:

The website doesn’t work. Could be a prank?

Nope, Christian Interviews is Pastor Aden Rusfeldt, a hate preacher from Philadelphia. probably just doesn't use the website any more. Still very active on FB, here's an example of his magnificent work from YT (again not active on there much but its easier than FB links)

 

[peterms]

11 minutes ago, bickster said:

here's an example of his magnificent work

And a little more background.

Quote

Rusfeldt in the early 2000s proclaimed himself a guru in the foreign exchange market. In online forums promoting his services, he described his investing technique as akin to planting "a money tree" that produces hundred-dollar bills every day, and bragged about attending a business conference with Eric Trump.

The truth was much less profitable. Court records show he lost more than $105,000 in a seven-month stretch ending in May 2006, and the next year, his company was sued by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in Texas for defrauding clients. In a settlement, he was barred from giving financial advice and ordered to pay $1.9 million.

His redemption remains incomplete: In September 2015, officials concluded that Rusfeldt had violated the terms of the settlement, and tacked on a new fine of $3.2 million. By Rusfeldt's own estimation, he still owes more than $5 million.

"I used to have a greed problem," he said last month. "I [also] used to have sex before marriage. I used to hit the bong like Cheech and Chong."

 

[villakram]

8 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think that's a view that's increasingly both simplistic and out-of-date. 

How important is combating global warming? Because a Dem government would be allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions; a Republican President appointed a man who repeatedly sued the EPA to lead it. Even the most corporate Democrat would have voted for Merrick Garland, and whatever other weaknesses he would have had, carbon emissions would be being regulated now; even the most 'moderate' Republican would be backing a congressional leadership that was responsible for having Kavanaugh instead, who believes this to be an example of perfidious regulatory over-reach. 

It isn't simply 'finer social issues', or even close. Democrats wouldn't have passed a tax cut explicitly targeted at benefiting the highest earners as their signature legislation of the last Congress. Democrats wouldn't have spent all of 2017 trying to overturn Obamacare, and increase the number of people without health insurance. Glossing environmental regulation, the tax system and health care, on which the parties have very different opinions, as 'finer social issues', is absurd. 

If you mean neither party is the vanguard of a socialist revolution, then fair enough. But that doesn't mean they're the same. 

US oil production increased from not all that much to being a global leader under Obama. 

The Opioid crisis metastasized under Obama.

US life expectancy dropped under the presidency of Obama.

Democrats with total control of government passed a healthcare package that explicitly excluded 30 million Americans and completely caved in to the large insurance interests. 

Democrats with total control of government passed a banking reform bill that was a complete cave in to the large financial interests.

Under Obama, the US government murdered US citizens without trial.

Under Obama, the US surveillance state was properly codified and made permanent. Political opponents of the government were imprisoned and tortured while others were condemned to exile. Whilstleblowers were prosecuted at an unprecedented rate.

Under Obama, the US nuclear arsenal was re-upped, including explicit R&D into tactical options.

Under Obama, Libya, Syria. 

Words vs actions. Huge difference between the parties.

Actions vs actions, it's much more nuanced. 

[villakram]

Reports that the progressive Dems have gotten Pelosi to agree she'll go away after a few yrs, perhaps after the 2020 election cycle... some small progress if true, but I'd be surprised if one of her people wasn't favored to replace her.

Edited December 13, 2018 by villakram

[Brumerican]

LOL @ NRA

 

[Straggler]

11 minutes ago, Brumerican said:

LOL @ NRA

 

Who could have known that the NRA was an immoral organisation?

[TheAuthority]

Wasn't sure where to put this (here or musicians thread) but after my show last night cast and musicians were treated to a party at the venue hosted by Johnathon Soros (George Soros's son.)

Of course there was much talk in the dressing room before hand about how the right have managed to make the Soros name a dog whistle for anti-semitism and a synonym for evil.

Well I can honestly report from first hand experience that he and his family did not have horns or tails, Johnathon was very articulate, humble, acted with great humility and is a true supporter of the arts.

Edited December 14, 2018 by TheAuthority
Mistype

[StefanAVFC]

32 minutes ago, TheAuthority said:

Wasn't sure where to put this (here or musicians thread) but after my show last night cast and musicians were treated to a party at the venue hosted by Johnathon Soros (George Soros's son.)

Of course there was much talk in the dressing room before hand about how the right have managed to make the Soros name a dog whistle for anti-semitism and a synonym for evil.

Well I can honestly report from first hand experience that he and his family did not have horns or tails, George was very articulate, humble, acted with great humility and is a true supporter of the arts.

I might be totally wide of the mark here, but generally Soros does interfere but he does it for objectively humanist causes whereas the Kochs, Mercers etc do it to advance corporate interests.

I guess the question is whether you can justify somebody like George Soros being influential in worldwide politics through his money, if his causes are worth it.

Edited December 13, 2018 by StefanAVFC