*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[OngBonga]

One day, someone will be going for the job as PM in the UK and his opponents will dig up some old shit about him, like cocaine and hookers. And the reply will be "so fucking what? I've lived."

He, she, or [other] will get my vote.

[boost]

[COLOR=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]In that interview, Sanders pointed to a worker-owned asbestos plant in Lowell, Vermont, as an example of the kind of worker-owned enterprise that he envisioned in the economy of the future.

I feel like his endorsement of asbestos is about as bad as his hyperbolic analogy involving chattel slavery. Both are poor form with the benefit of hindsight, but both took place in the 1970's.[/COLOR]

[Poopadoop]

Trump tweeted something today about how he only hired Bolton as head of NSA because he begged him for a job, like it was a pity hire.

Dude, you're the fucking POTUS, not some guy who owns a deli and lets his aunt work the till. The people you hire matter. So don't hire people just to be nice and make them feel better about themselves. You fucking idiot.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'll understand if he got Bolton to take a pay cut on account of how much he's begging for the job and all.

Wouldn't even be surprised at that as a business move. Wouldn't expect otherwise from Trump.

[OngBonga]

Brexit Day tomorrow.

Might have a pint to celebrate.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Happy B-day, Brittain!

[OngBonga]

Thanks. I celebrated with a cup of tea and a spliff.

[oskar]

Poor Theresa May, if she knew that brexiters would have been happy with Britain suspending their vote in the EU, but to keep abiding by its trade rules, she could have just done that. Or maybe Britain needed the right salesman to sell them this *slaps bonnet* vintage Marina!

But in other news: the US Senate just voted to have no witnesses in order to make their sham trial look more like a sham trial than it already does. Meanwhile the White House's legal defense is literally: it is not impeachable for a president to do anything if he thinks it helps his re-election campaign (actual argument).

I think it's time for muricans to start putting together a plan of action if Trump gets voted out in november but doesn't leave.

[Jack Sawyer]

I'd vote for Gabbard, Buttigieg, or AOC happily (I don't think AOC was running, but I'd vote for her if she were).

Gabbard's real, Buttigieg is a fake and a fraud. A 3 dollar bill. He's a made up politician.

If Sanders is on the ballot, I'll vote for him.
I don't think he can win, but I think he has vision. I even like some of his vision.

Why do you have the sentiment that he can't win?

You sound like this guy

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/o...-campaign.html

What's Warren's platform? Basically it's Sanders' platform with some stuff that you'd think they probably both agree on, but just prioritize differently.

No. Main difference is Sanders' actually walks the walk, Warren will constantly backtrack with a modicum of pressure. Oh, and she lies. A lot.

Either one is fine with me, but neither is attracting any Rep voters.

Bernie actually beats Trump nationally by the widest margin of any other current Democratic hopeful.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ders-6250.html

Has done so for quite some time now.

Keep in mind that Bernie is this popular in spite of the fact that everybody and their mother smears him on a literal daily basis.

A beautiful example:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...in-iowa-110159

Read the headline, then look for the headline in the article. See for yourself if anything makes sense. Also read how Buttigieg is reffered as.

No one the Dems had in the running was attracting any Rep voters that I could tell, but I don't really look too deeply into early polls.

If it's between Trump and Biden, I'll abstain.

I'm not voting for no-vision Biden, and I'm not voting for isolationist Trump.

As will everyone else, guaranteeing four more years of The Donald. The Donald's base will happily show up. The other people? Will feel cheated again and forced into submission. I hope they have a safe word.

Of course, this is all a distraction from the deeper issue. It's not the politicians fault that they tell us what we want to hear. That's just their job. The real fault is that we down here on the ground are in our little camps. Reps don't talk to Dems on our level, so why would our politicians alienate themselves from us, their constituents by acting differently?

That's the main difference between a cookie cutter politician and Bernie. He has actually walked this walk for decades now. He doesn't tell you what you want to hear; Buttigieg does that. Warren will back off of policies the moment her advisers tell her to, she has no spine. A spineless gut will not get shit done in the white house.

Bernie, however, has his finger on the pulse of the actual problems that the USA has. He is also called the "Amendment King". He actually gets shit done.

I try to engage in political conversations, but it's both too easy and too difficult. It's too easy to get a conversation going, but near impossible to keep it civilized and productive. I can count the number of times someone changed their mind in one of those conversations on one hand. At least during the conversation. Some things take time to sink in, obv.

I literally called for a Bernie/Tulsi ticket since the start of this election. That ticket will be unbeatable, despite what the paid pundits keep telling you on a daily basis.

[Jack Sawyer]

https://fair.org/home/corporate-medi...ttack-machine/

Despite all of this shit, Bernie surged like a mofo and leads the polls. Remember that Bernie's actual base, the young folk, are not too likely to be in polls (to be polled). The turnout will be surprising, and it will be glorious seeing all of these media assholes having to eat their own shit. So many people will be fired just to keep appearances (I mean, what good are you as a political pundit if you literally can't read the tea leaves in front of you), and the DNC is in for a Red Wedding of its own once Bernie becomes the nominee.

[Jack Sawyer]

LOL Impeachment!

"But you can't have any witnesses"

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

It's so sad it's funny

[Jack Sawyer]

it's time for muricans to start putting together a plan of action if Trump gets voted out in november but doesn't leave.

LOL you're not kidding, this will happen. MAGA will cordon off the white house, armed to the teeth in their second amendment and potato chips. Mexican ICE will be defending their northern border against detractors of the regime. All the while NBC picks up the rights to "Not Leaving", and CBS comes up with "Forever J". November will be stunningly hilarious

[Jack Sawyer]

Iranians love western culture. They wear blue jeans and have garage punk bands.

Iran is a terrible country to go to war with. We could win the hearts and minds of the Iranian people so easy.

We have a fair number of Iranian physics graduate students here at Wash U. So many that they hold a Nowruz festival every year and throw a traditional Persian new years party for us.
The party has an open invite to the whole campus. It's a great event.
I've heard it's one of the biggest inter-depertmental celebrations on campus.


***
Vietnam has McDonalds and Baskin Robins in downtown Hanoi. Hard to say America lost a culture war against the Soviets, which is exactly what the Vietnam conflict was about.

Korea more of a mixed bag. S. Korea, at least, is another example of a place that is a very strong ally with the US. As far as cultural victories go, S. Korea goes to the US.
Hard to argue that N. Korea went to the Soviets, too. N. Korea isn't really supported by the Russians so much as the Russians don't want to deal with the fallout of refugees that is expected to happen if/when N. Korea joins the international communities.
Besides, Korean war gave us M*A*S*H, which put Alan Alda in the spotlight which 100% made the world a better place.

The war in Vietnam nowadays is about coffee, with Starbucks losing to Highlands mainly due to price and not assessing the local market properly

[oskar]

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...stigating-2020

It's done. Trump can't be investigated and seeking foreign election interference is not a crime if you think it will help your chances of getting re-elected. Also Article 2 says Trump can do whatever he wants.
This is going to be a rough election.

On the plus side, I think the conspiracy around the Iowa caucus is actually helping Bernie more than just straight up winning. Namely the conspiracy that the democratic party would be competent enough to rig the vote, rather than what it most likely is: nepotism leading to extremely incompetent people fucking up jobs that a counting horse could do.

[OngBonga]

Isn't Trump's approval rating at an all time high now? This impeachment farce has been a huge own-goal from the "Dems", as far as I can tell.

[oskar]

I'm torn. Kyle Kulinsky who has a good record of predicting things correctly always said it was a bad move from the start. It was weak to focus on the Ukraine stuff, which was not all that interesting compared to emoluments, crimes against humanity at the border, overtly racist policies: the muslim ban, which only passed the supreme court on a technicality, the travel ban on african countries which has zero security merit. I think by far the strongest impeachment article would have been separating 4000 children at the border, losing track of them, and then fighting the Flores act in court... we've been over this.

Out of all of the things they could have picked, they pick the one that looks the most like they're just throwing a hissy fit because their spoiled kid's fake jobs are on the line.
It's very fitting that the day after the impeachment vote, the Iowa caucus app which was at least partially funded by the Buttigieg campaign, and reportedly had a number of ex Hillary staffers and some current Buttigieg staffers working on it malfunctioned so badly, the full count still isn't out today. I can't code, but I'd have the sense to USE FUCKING GOOGLE DOCS! How do you fuck that up?

What I think tipped the impeachment over the break even point for me was Adam Schiff. He actually turned out to be a really great speaker. Having a full week of coverage of Schiff laying out the arguments, I think will turn out well. The acquittal energized Trump's base, but I think senate democrats actually did a really great job laying out what's on the line. Romney flipping is also huge. I don't buy that it's a big loss or big win either way. By november it will mean very little.


The big upside is: the absolute blatant and incompetent campaign against Sanders by his own party is so embarrassing and so incompetent and so infuriating that it will make Sanders pull so far ahead that the DNC will have no choice but to nominate him.

[OngBonga]

The problem I saw with this whole impeachment nonsense was that it never had any chance of succeeding, so it was all very obviously a huge waste of time and money, and only served to further divide the country. Impeachment shouldn't even go to trial unless there is a clear chance of success, and for that there needs to be more than one person flipping. The fact the Dems pushed so hard for this smacks of desperation, and further hurt their cause. It doesn't help that they say things like "Trump is a threat to democracy" while they try to remove an elected man from power.

Trump will win in November, and in doing so will become the first impeached President to get reelected. That will speak volumes about what the American people think about this political theatre.

[boost]

The house shouldn't do their jobs because they know the senate most likely wont? Democrats forced the republicans to preside over a sham trial.

To be fair, I'm not sure they're capitalizing on the outcome appropriately, but the idea that the house should never vote to impeach without a "clear chance of success" is nonsensical.

[OngBonga]

To be fair, I'm not sure they're capitalizing on the outcome appropriately, but the idea that the house should never vote to impeach without a "clear chance of success" is nonsensical.

Maybe the bar should bet set to 2/3 for a vote to impeach, like it is in the Senate. That shows that there are members of the President's own party who believe he should be removed from office. That's the key for me, and what I mean by a "clear chance of success". As it is, the process is open to political abuse, which costs the American taxpayer money.

"The house" didn't "do their job". The vote to impeach was split down party lines. This was political theatre, it was never a genuine attempt to remove a criminal from office. So what was the point?

[OngBonga]

Let's put it another way. We're to believe that approximately half of those polled believed the President to have acted criminally. To think that's true when the vote is split down party lines, that's nonsensical. Arguably, only Romney voted with his conscience. The rest were partisan, which shows it for the sham it is. Not one Dem thought "this is bollocks, I'm not voting for it", and only one Rep thought "I can't support this President". A complete waste of time and money that should never have been allowed to get to trial.

[oskar]

With as strong a base of support as he has, no impeachment trial for any reason was going to succeed. They don't need a majority in the senate, they need a supermajority of 75%. Dems need more than half of the republican senators to vote with them. With Trump at 85% approval among republicans, that would kill the party. It would kill the party at just about any approval rating. With the vote being public, every senator who votes against Trump would get voted out next cycle. The way political parties have developed, it is pretty much inconceivable for an impeachment vote to ever hold up in the senate.

Senate impeachment never even was on the table. I think of impeachment as a 2 week PSA. I don't think many people realized the scope, the persistence, and how well corroborated the Ukraine scandal was, and it's good that it got coverage.
He did ask Selinsky to start an investigation into Biden in exchange for the release of military aid.
He held military aid expressly to extort Ukraine to investigate Biden.
He didn't release it until he knew he was already under investigation.
This is corroborated by multiple witnesses and documents who the Republicans blocked from testifying under oath.

Huge miscalculation imo for dems not to throw Biden under the bus. That they kept calling the Burisma thing a debunked conspiracy theory was ridiculous. Way overblown, yes, but how about you admit it's a conflict of interest and throw it right back at Trump who's daughter is a senior advisor with zero political experience. They could have gotten a deal to exchange Bolton for Biden's son. They should have taken it imo.

I'm not mad about it because I think at the end of the day who comes out a winner is Bernie. Biden was his biggest rival and Biden is out. Buttigieg is polling at zero percent with black voters... they're desperately trying to pave the way for Bloomberg.

It doesn't help that they say things like "Trump is a threat to democracy" while they try to remove an elected man from power.

There has to be a remedy for a criminal president. The article that I linked earlier is exactly why impeachment was a fight worth losing. You cannot go unopposed against this. Barr is now blocking any criminal investigation of the Trump campaign. Trump can now use federal money to extort other countries in helping with his re-election campaign and it will be unpunishable because he already got acquitted for exactly that.
The prospects are bad, and not fighting it will be worse.
2nd term Trump would be horrifying.

[oskar]

On a more positive note: Bernie's ads are on fire.

[oskar]

[Poopadoop]

Cool thing about Bernie is people are actually passionate about supporting him. Biden is just a slightly more likeable version of boring old douchebag Hillary. Bernie gets people excited.

Oh, and he's also not a criminal retard like a certain POTUS. I think if you gave average Joe Lunchbucket a choice between Trump and Bernie, Bernie would win every time. It's just a shame he wasn't nominated in 2016, 'cause I'm pretty sure he would have stomped Trump.

Fingers crossed the DNC doesn't manage to fuck him again.

[OngBonga]

With as strong a base of support as he has, no impeachment trial for any reason was going to succeed.

I dunno about this. I mean, if he gets caught murdering someone, for example, he might lose most of his support. That's the point... it's only worth impeaching him if what he's accused of is likely to hurt his support. If it isn't going to do that, there's no point.

They don't need a majority in the senate, they need a supermajority of 75%.

I thought it was 2/3, or 67%, but I could be mistaken. If it's 67%, then the Dems would need just under half the Reps to flip.

With the vote being public, every senator who votes against Trump would get voted out next cycle. The way political parties have developed, it is pretty much inconceivable for an impeachment vote to ever hold up in the senate.

Again, it really does depend what he's accused of. Very few people seem to think this is worthy of such a process, even you hinted as such.

He did ask Selinsky to start an investigation into Biden in exchange for the release of military aid.... He held military aid expressly to extort Ukraine to investigate Biden.

Nobody cares. And that's the whole point. Even those who voted against him don't care about Ukraine, they only care about trying to fuck Trump.

how about you admit it's a conflict of interest and throw it right back at Trump who's daughter is a senior advisor with zero political experience.

I don't think anyone really cares about this either. I don't.

I'm not mad about it because I think at the end of the day who comes out a winner is Bernie.

I'm not so sure about this. Bernie might well win the Dems nomination, but he won't win the election.

There has to be a remedy for a criminal president

Do you really think the motivation for this was to provide remedy for a criminal President? I don't.

You cannot go unopposed against this.

Against what? Trying to influence the outcome of an election? Criminal behaviour? The Dems are guilty of this themselves.

Barr is now blocking any criminal investigation of the Trump campaign. Trump can now use federal money to extort other countries in helping with his re-election campaign and it will be unpunishable because he already got acquitted for exactly that.The prospects are bad, and not fighting it will be worse.

More fool the Dems for taking it to trial and allowing him to be acquitted, then.

2nd term Trump would be horrifying.

People thought the first term would be horrifying, but there's been less war, so I have to disagree.

[boost]

Again, the republicans were forced to orchestrate a sham trial with no evidence and no witnesses.

The idea that because it was essentially a party line vote means that both groups of senators are just partisan hacks doesn't add up. It was a binary choice and one choice was (more) right. I'm fine disagreeing about which choice was right, but your claim that a party line vote indicates everyone's vote was based solely on their party bias simply doesn't make sense.

The idea behind a majority vote to impeach and a 2/3 vote to convict is that it should be harder to convict than to bring charges. It's mirrored in the criminal justice system. It's relatively easy to indict a person as compared to convicting them.

As far as costing the the American taxpayer money, uh, yeah, it's the government. The government is funded by taxes. An explicit part of their duty is oversight. It's like saying the DA wasted taxpayer money in the OJ trial. If you stop and think about it, there was almost no chance the state could assemble a jury that would convict. Yet we all know OJ is a murderer.

Also, you keep bringing criminality into it. The charges were not criminal in nature and they needn't be. Impeachment is inherently political. It is a political remedy because this is a weird spot where the American system of justice breaks down. The president has vast powers that cannot be effectively constrained by legislation, and possibly can't even be constrained due to their being granted by the constitution. The judicial can check the president by clarifying the extent of the presidents powers and congress can check the president through impeachment should the president use his powers in an egregious way.

A clarifying example: the president could lawfully pardon all pedophiles with the stroke of a pen. For this lawful use of his power to pardon, he should be removed from office.

A point of clarification: it's not that the president hasn't committed crimes, therefore making him a criminal, but these were not included in the articles of impeachment brought against him.

[oskar]

I'm not so sure about this. Bernie might well win the Dems nomination, but he won't win the election.

According to the polls he beats Trump handily head to head... but any democrat might have to beat Trump by as much as 60% to win the electoral college vote, and even if he does win it, Trump is not leaving. There will be endless recounts, Trump will declare the election fixed and if RBG doesn't hold on for another year, Trump has the supreme court picks to overrule any election result.
But just because the US silently already is an autocratic banana republic doesn't mean it's not worth fighting for. Fascism is a death cult that eats itself wherever it rises, it's just a matter of time. The question is will it be one more year, or will it be a decade.

Do you really think the motivation for this was to provide remedy for a criminal President? I don't.

No. I didn't say that no good. There's no explicit crime that says a potus can't tell his treasury to withhold congress appropriated military funds to extort a foreign nation into announcing an investigation into a political opponent.
There's no precedent.

So while it can't be a crime if there's no law against it - If Trump can get away with doing what he did, it does massive damage to the democratic process. The offer is already on the table: If you're Netanyahu or Erdogan or Bin Salman, you understand this. Anything you do to help Trump get elected could potentially get you a massive return on your investment. That is a good gamble for any rogue nation.

Yes! The democrats are guilty of that themselves, as is glaringly obvious with what's going on in Iowa right now. There is blame with the individuals engaging in election meddling, but the focus should be on targeting the system that allows it.
As of right now, and I want to hammer this home: the actual argument of the republicans is not that Trump didn't do it, or that it wasn't wrong, but that it is something a president can do. That is something worth fighting against over and over even if any one battle is a losing one.

[oskar]

Again, the republicans were forced to orchestrate a sham trial with no evidence and no witnesses.

That was an important vote. It is very hard to spin this in the public eye as anything other than obstruction.

A point of clarification: it's not that the president hasn't committed crimes, therefore making him a criminal, but these were not included in the articles of impeachment brought against him.

Yup, he's an indited co-conspirator in at least one of the charges Cohen is currently in prison for. He has multiple ongoing investigations for tax fraud.
If he does end up leaving the white house alive, that will initiate an absolute shitstorm of state charges being launched against him.

[MadMojoMonkey]

There's no explicit crime that says a potus can't tell his treasury to withhold congress appropriated military funds to extort a foreign nation into announcing an investigation into a political opponent.

I think there is, actually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoun...opriated_funds

[oskar]

That seems relevant but I've never heard anyone bring it up. I guess if you can have a trial without documents and witnesses I don't know what kind of law is actually relevant to that trial.

In other news:
Alexander Vindman, the Ukraine expert who testified in congress has just been removed from the security council and escorted out of the White House. William Barr has stopped the possibility of the FBI investigating the Trump campaign in 2020. They'll be cleaning house of anyone who has spilled the beans on Ukraine. This is going to be a fun election cycle.
Still no final results for Iowa.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think the issue is that impeachment is a trial, broadly speaking, but it's not a criminal court.
Impeachment is not even a function of the executive branch, which criminal courts all are.

While there are similarities between indictment and Congress passing articles of impeachment, they are not the same. Same for the Senate trying those impeachment articles being similar in some ways to a court of law, but it is not that.

POTUS doesn't have rights of habeas corpus or anything like that. He's not being accused of criminal behavior, technically. All of that is just a Rep smokescreen. Impeachment doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with criminal behavior. Johnson was impeached, among other reasons, for "speaking in such a way as to promote contempt of Congress." or some such. They were all, "No first amendment for you. By undermining our authority to the American people, you have undercut the legitimacy of our Constitution. Suck it."
{paraphrased}

[MadMojoMonkey]

Argh... obv. criminal courts are operated by the Judicial branch, but those trials originate with indictments from the executive branch.
The Judicial branch is not empowered to decide whom should be judged, only to judge. The Legislative branch says upon what shall the people be judged.
The executive branch gets to walk around and say who may need to be judged, but can't do the judging, or decide upon what they should be judged.

[oskar]

[Jack Sawyer]

I'm torn. Kyle Kulinsky who has a good record of predicting things correctly always said it was a bad move from the start. It was weak to focus on the Ukraine stuff, which was not all that interesting compared to emoluments, crimes against humanity at the border, overtly racist policies: the muslim ban, which only passed the supreme court on a technicality, the travel ban on african countries which has zero security merit. I think by far the strongest impeachment article would have been separating 4000 children at the border, losing track of them, and then fighting the Flores act in court... we've been over this.

Out of all of the things they could have picked, they pick the one that looks the most like they're just throwing a hissy fit because their spoiled kid's fake jobs are on the line.
It's very fitting that the day after the impeachment vote, the Iowa caucus app which was at least partially funded by the Buttigieg campaign, and reportedly had a number of ex Hillary staffers and some current Buttigieg staffers working on it malfunctioned so badly, the full count still isn't out today. I can't code, but I'd have the sense to USE FUCKING GOOGLE DOCS! How do you fuck that up?

What I think tipped the impeachment over the break even point for me was Adam Schiff. He actually turned out to be a really great speaker. Having a full week of coverage of Schiff laying out the arguments, I think will turn out well. The acquittal energized Trump's base, but I think senate democrats actually did a really great job laying out what's on the line. Romney flipping is also huge. I don't buy that it's a big loss or big win either way. By november it will mean very little.


The big upside is: the absolute blatant and incompetent campaign against Sanders by his own party is so embarrassing and so incompetent and so infuriating that it will make Sanders pull so far ahead that the DNC will have no choice but to nominate him.

I wonder, these assholes never used excel before. How do you fuck up a single job so badly? Truly fubar'd it

[Jack Sawyer]

I'm not so sure about this. Bernie might well win the Dems nomination, but he won't win the election.

Why not?

Back in '16, he would dominate every poll where it was him v. trump. Hillary was always within the margin of error to fail. Why would he not win now, when he is clearly stronger than he's ever been?

[OngBonga]

but your claim that a party line vote indicates everyone's vote was based solely on their party bias simply doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense, unless you assume a person's sense of morality is closely aligned with their political alignment. You either think what he did was acceptable or unacceptable, it shouldn't matter if you're left or right.

People did not vote based on their sense of morality, with the possible exception of Romney, and even he might have been making a tactical vote based on future ambitions. The Dems voted to remove Trump from office because the accused is a Republican, and the Reps voted to protect their President. If people were voting based on their true belief as to gravity of the charge, then it would be highly unlikely to be split almost perfectly down party lines. It might still be approximately 50-50, but there would be some rebels on both sides.

The idea behind a majority vote to impeach and a 2/3 vote to convict is that it should be harder to convict than to bring charges.

The 2/3 threshold is there to stop the Senate from removing an opposing President without the support of at least some of his own party. By setting that threshold when it comes to voting to impeach, it proves that support is there before it even gets to trial.

As far as costing the the American taxpayer money, uh, yeah, it's the government.

A government has a responsibility to spend taxpayer's money wisely. Of course that responsibility is widely ignored, but putting people on trial with 0% chance of a successful prosecution is just a stupid waste of resources. It's nothing like the OJ case, not least because there was not a 0% chance of prosecution, also because what he was accused of was a crime of the most serious nature... murder.

Also, you keep bringing criminality into it. The charges were not criminal in nature and they needn't be.

I was under the impression that the impeachment process exists purely to deal with cases where a President has allegedly acted in a criminal manner. I know impeachment is a political process, not a criminal process, but it paves the way for a future criminal process by removing from power someone who is immune to criminal prosecution. Perhaps I'm wrong.

A clarifying example: the president could lawfully pardon all pedophiles with the stroke of a pen. For this lawful use of his power to pardon, he should be removed from office.

That would probably be an opinion shared by more than 2/3 of American politicians. But ok, I see your point... there's nothing illegal that I'm aware of in pardoning convicted paedophiles, but there's a lot morally wrong with it, in the opinion of most people.

A point of clarification: it's not that the president hasn't committed crimes, therefore making him a criminal, but these were not included in the articles of impeachment brought against him.

A point of pedantry: behaving in an alleged criminal manner does not make someone a criminal; being proven by a court to have acted in a criminal manner makes someone a criminal.

[OngBonga]

@ oskar and jack...

According to the polls he beats Trump handily head to head...

First of all, polls are heavily politicised and flawed, as proven by Trump winning the election, and Brexit. I really do not care what polls claim, it's a complete irrelevance.

For me, the problem Bernie faces is that he is USA's Jeremy Corbyn, and USA is traditionally more anti-communism that then UK. Corbyn got destroyed at the last election, because the British people did not trust his economics. I can only imagine that Bernie will have even more difficulties convincing the US public that his economics can work. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there is increased appetite within USA for hardcore socialist policies, to the point Bernie has a chance of success. I would be very surprised though.

[oskar]

Clinton was always statistically more likely to win the popular vote and a 60/40 flip on electoral college. She ended up winning the popular vote and lost the flip. Because of the way the US presidential election hangs on a few low population swing states, they are much more volatile than the general election for a country of 300 million should be. Doesn't mean the polls were wrong.

[Poopadoop]

@ oskar and jack...
First of all, polls are heavily politicised and flawed, as proven by Trump winning the election, and Brexit. I really do not care what polls claim, it's a complete irrelevance.

Isn't Trump's approval rating at an all time high now? This impeachment farce has been a huge own-goal from the "Dems", as far as I can tell.

Error. Error. Does not compute.

[OngBonga]

This must be the greatest day of poop's life. You got me.

[boost]

Ong (not sure why quotes aren't working),

Again, a party line vote points to a lot of voting based on party affiliation, but it doesn't tell us who. If a vote is held on whether the sky is blue or red and you have a party line vote, should we assume that both parties are simply ignoring truth and voting with their party? No, of course not. And then if we filter in more relevant info, like the fact that one party, as of recent, has been much more known to vote in lock step, we can start to make further inferences.

The constitution, and therefore the rules of impeachment were drafted before the democrats and republican parties existed, before it was clear a two party system would arise, before it was clear gerrymandering would consistently lead to roughly 50/50 splits of the chambers, and more over at a time when factions, otherwise known as parties, were seen to be antithetical to the good of the nation. As I said, the 2/3 requirement to convict vs a majority to impeach is a mirror of criminal proceedings where it is progressively harder the closer you get to punishing a person who's afforded the presumption of innocence. I understand how you could come to assume it is how you say, but you're simply wrong.

OJ and Trump were both accused of some of the most serious transgressions-- I'm not sure if it's intentional here, but the implication that Trump's charges were not criminal in nature has some bearing on the seriousness of them does not hold water. We've been over this. The process of impeachment is not a criminal matter, the charges can, but needn't be criminal in nature, and that is all by design.

Congress is tasked with oversight of the executive. They are not doing their jobs if they only go after slam dunks. I'd like to also point out that there was a >0% of removal. It was slim, but there was a chance that public opinion would have drastically turned. It's possible that if a few senators flipped to allow witnesses and evidence in the trial (imagine that...) public opinion would have turned. So while it buoys your point to claim there was no chance, it's a baseless claim which once abandoned forces you to find some arbitrary line of likely success. *shrug* good luck with that.

Re: the purpose of the impeachment process-- yeah, there president's powers are just far to vast to legislate limits around them. And you're right, while it's disturbingly not 100% clear we'd get 2/3 of the senate to vote for removal in the case of blanket pedo pardons, it seems highly likely-- and that's why it's a clarifying hypothetical. Now that we've established that crimes need not be committed, don't you find it kind of curious that a common refrain from not only Trump's surrogates outside of congress, but senators (who very well should know better) kept tossing that out as a justification for acquittal?

A point of further pedantry: Committing crimes makes one a criminal. Conviction in a court of law gives commenters the freedom to go about their day without fear of libel suits.

[boost]

On polling:

The polls were not wrong. The weather man is not wrong. A poker forum seems like a strange place for probabilistic thinking to be such a foreign concept.

[Poopadoop]

Votes for Brexit because "Arrrggh foreigners!!"

Forgets he relies almost entirely on EU migrant labour.

Oops!

https://twitter.com/davidschneider/s...49554980106240

[OngBonga]

Fair play to him for voting based on conscience rather than selfish reasons like his business.

"Better for my country"
"Personally it's a disaster"

Completely alien position to people like you poop who think economics is more important than sovereignty.

There are a lot of unemployed people in this country. I would happily pick fruit for minimum wage. In fact, I might just do that.

[Poopadoop]

You should become a fruit picker. It's not backbreaking work at all, and the wages are going to relatively high given there's no-one else to do it.

You can also buy more fish and chips with the money you earn. You know, keeping doing your bit for Brexit.

And yeah, I figured you'd try to spin it like this guy's some kind of superpatriot, sacrifcing his own livelihood for everyone else's "benefit". Note how he says " *I* was fed up of being told what to do by... Luxembourg." A bit different than "it's bad for our country, better to have agriculture take a nosedive 'cause there's no labour about, at least we'll have our sovereignty." or some other such nonsense.

Nah, this guy didn't like having regulations come from foreigners, thought (inasmuch as he's capable of it) he could hire labour from outside the EU (somehow), and just now is realising what a retard he is. Like a lot of other farmers who voted Brexit I suspect. I feel sorry for these guys who lacked even the basic foresight to see what Brexit would really mean for them.

[Poopadoop]

In fact, I think they should round up every unemployed person who voted for Brexit and make them pick fruit every summer until we negotiate a migrant labour deal with the Ukraine and Russia.

[OngBonga]

You should become a fruit picker.

If I did, do you know what it would do? Improve the economy ever so slightly, as I will sign off and pay tax. Also I won't send my money to Poland.

It's not backbreaking work at all, and the wages are going to relatively high given there's no-one else to do it.

I'm not afraid of a bit of graft outside in the summer. It's no more backbreaking that gardening, which I enjoy doing. Wages will be minimum wage, although maybe you're right, maybe I could command a higher wage because there's less people willing to do it. Your strawberries might be a few pence more expensive though, something for you to cry about.

Give them back our sovereignty so I can save ten pence.

You can also buy more fish and chips with the money you earn. You know, keeping doing your bit for Brexit.

It was nice for a while, you not being a sarcastic twat. I think you lasted over a month, better than I did with quitting smoking.

I'd buy more fish and chips because I can afford to. I'd have it once a week, instead of once a month.

And yeah, I figured you'd try to spin it like this guy's some kind of superpatriot, sacrifcing his own livelihood for everyone else's "benefit".

You mean you figured out that he acted unselfishly, but can't bring yourself to acknowledge it as a good deed. You'd rather people think about their own interests, like cheap labour and saving ten pence on a pack of strawberries.

Nah, this guy didn't like having regulations come from foreigners

I like how you say this in such a way that it implies it's racist to not want to be regulated by foreigners. I guess my Granddad was a xenophobe for fighting the Germans.

and just now is realising what a retard he is

He is a retard, I can't argue with that.

I feel sorry for these guys who lacked even the basic foresight to see what Brexit would really mean for them.

I feel sorry for people who lack the foresight to think about more than themselves.

In fact, I think they should round up every unemployed person who voted for Brexit and make them pick fruit every summer until we negotiate a migrant labour deal with the Ukraine and Russia.

Yeah, this doesn't surprise me. You support a body that turns a blind eye to fascism, so of course you think we should round people up and make them work.

[oskar]

"We need someone with a diverse coalition."

https://twitter.com/AbshirDSM/status...249874944?s=20

"Not like that!"


(for MMM: Caucus organizer in a mosque struggles to follow proceedings because everybody in the room is voting Bernie.)

[Poopadoop]

If I did, do you know what it would do? Improve the economy ever so slightly, as I will sign off and pay tax. Also I won't send my money to Poland.

I'm sure knowing that you got their back would make all those bankrupt farmers feel so much better.

I'm not afraid of a bit of graft outside in the summer. It's no more backbreaking that gardening, which I enjoy doing. Wages will be minimum wage, although maybe you're right, maybe I could command a higher wage because there's less people willing to do it. Your strawberries might be a few pence more expensive though, something for you to cry about.

Give them back our sovereignty so I can save ten pence.

I guess you're not really seeing the broader implications of that piece just yet. See my response to your quote above.

I'd buy more fish and chips because I can afford to. I'd have it once a week, instead of once a month.

what do you eat now that is cheaper than f&c?

You mean you figured out that he acted unselfishly, but can't bring yourself to acknowledge it as a good deed. You'd rather people think about their own interests, like cheap labour and saving ten pence on a pack of strawberries.

There's no evidence of altruism there. Never does he say 'well, I knew it would break me personally, and make my family poor, and now my kids won't be able to go to college, but I did it anyways for the good of the country.' He basiclaly said 'arrggh, foreigners!' and then 'oh shit, I'm fucked'.

I like how you say this in such a way that it implies it's racist to not want to be regulated by foreigners. I guess my Granddad was a xenophobe for fighting the Germans.

Reductio ad Hilterum.

I feel sorry for people who lack the foresight to think about more than themselves.

Like all the other farmers he was putting in the same position as himself? Yeah, it's a shame.

Yeah, this doesn't surprise me. You support a body that turns a blind eye to fascism, so of course you think we should round people up and make them work.

Reductio ad bananum.

[Poopadoop]

He is a retard, I can't argue with that.

Yeah like I said.

He didn't vote Brexit out of salf-sacrifing patriotism.

[OngBonga]

I'm sure knowing that you got their back would make all those bankrupt farmers feel so much better.

I live in the countryside. The farmers around h ere are certainly not bankrupt.

I guess you're not really seeing the broader implications of that piece just yet. See my response to your quote above.

See my response to your response.

what do you eat now that is cheaper than f&c?

Mate you have no idea how tight my budget is. You complain about Brexit making you poorer, but you don't know what it's like to live on a fiver a day. You will likely never experience a lifestyle that is normal to me, which is why you won't get sympathy from me if you're a little out of pocket as a result of us leaving the EU.

There's no evidence of altruism there.

Sure there is, I already quoted it but allow me to do so again...

"Better for my country"
"Personally it's a disaster"

Reductio ad Hilterum.

Ok, let me just ask you this... are you ok with being regulated by foreigners?

Reductio ad bananum.

This is quite an ironic catchphrase of yours. I mean, I wasn't being entirely serious on that point, because you weren't either. You obviously don't really think we should round up the unemployed Brexit voters and make them work, because you're not that much of a moron. You were just being dramatic to make a point. And I replied in kind.

[OngBonga]

He didn't vote Brexit out of salf-sacrifing patriotism.

He's a moron because of the Luxembourg comment. But he seemed to have some awareness that it was a disaster for him. I can't tell from the interview if he anticipated as much, he did seem to indicate surprise at the result though. But that doesn't tell us anything about whether he would have voted differently had he known it was an actual possibility we might leave.

[Poopadoop]

I live in the countryside. The farmers around h ere are certainly not bankrupt.

There's different kinds of farms. I suspect most of the fruit is grown in the south. Not sure what they grow up there, but if it doesn't depend on migrant labour, they're probably safe from bankruptcy. Doesn't help the farmers in the south much though.

Mate you have no idea how tight my budget is. You complain about Brexit making you poorer, but you don't know what it's like to live on a fiver a day. You will likely never experience a lifestyle that is normal to me, which is why you won't get sympathy from me if you're a little out of pocket as a result of us leaving the EU.

And you have no idea what it means to study and work hard for a living. Maybe if you did you'd understand why I value my income.

"Better for my country"
"Personally it's a disaster"

It becomes clear later that his idea of "better for my country" is not being regulated by "Luxembourg." He reveals himself as a moron, and I'm guessing he was not prepared to go bankrupt just so other people would not be regulated by foreigners.

Granted, I can't read his mind. So maybe he would be happy to go bankrupt for Brexit. Doesn't look like it though.

Ok, let me just ask you this... are you ok with being regulated by foreigners?

I'm already being regulated by foreigners. It makes little difference to me whether they're English or "Luxembourgers". I have no prejudice either for or against either group; as far as I'm concerned they're all human beings.

The way I look it is whether the regulations are sensible or insensible. For the most part I assume regulations are there for the overall good. But tbh, I haven't studied the EU regulations enough to answer whether they are good, bad or otherwise.

[OngBonga]

Doesn't help the farmers in the south much though.

If there's a farm that is economically dependent on cheap foreign labour, they deserve to go bankrupt. I'm not sure there is such a farm though. Who picked strawberries before the foreigners came here to do it? We did. What makes you think that British people won't take these jobs? Besides, those who actually have the right to be here can still work in these jobs, so it's only really a problem if these farms are employing people who either shouldn't be here or who can't be bothered to sort out the paperwork.

And you have no idea what it means to study and work hard for a living. Maybe if you did you'd understand why I value my income.

Sure I do. I haven't always been unemployed. And I've been to college. Just because my life didn't turn out as I might have hoped, doesn't mean I don't know what hard work is.

and I'm guessing he was not prepared to go bankrupt just so other people would not be regulated by foreigners.

If he's a competent businessman and not afraid of hard work, he won't go bankrupt.

It makes little difference to me whether they're English or "Luxembourgers". I have no prejudice either for or against either group; as far as I'm concerned they're all human beings.

I know you find this incredibly hard to accept, but I don't have prejudice either. This isn't about them being foreign. It's about them being unaccountable. We don't get an EU vote every five years, and nor should we because it would be unworkable. This is one big reason why the whole project is flawed from a democracy pov.

I want to be regulated by someone who can be removed from office.

But tbh, I haven't studied the EU regulations enough to answer whether they are good, bad or otherwise.

Of course you haven't, you haven't got a few years to spare.

[Poopadoop]

Who picked strawberries before the foreigners came here to do it?

Interesting question.

https://theconversation.com/who-pick...-workers-63279

Positions left empty if EU migration is restricted following Brexit could theoretically present a solution to high unemployment rates in the UK. But the fact is that many British people simply do not want to carry out seasonal labour because incentives for doing so are very low. Changes in the composition of rural populations mean that areas of high unemployment are often located at significant distances from the farms offering work. Seasonal jobs are also known to be low-paid, hard work, with long hours, and are often associated with unfavourable conditions and diminished social status. Domestic residents prefer permanent employment or complete withdrawal from the labour market onto the social security system.

[Poopadoop]

Back to MAGA - news, I don't know what annoys me more: The Alabama cop who says they should blow up Nancy Pelosi, or this announcer's outrage being so out of proportion, like this guy was seriously making a death threat.

[OngBonga]

Sorry boost, I missed your wall at me somehow because I got distracted by poop.

The constitution, and therefore the rules of impeachment were drafted before the democrats and republican parties existed, before it was clear a two party system would arise

Ok fair point. The 2/3 threshold though is a convenient benchmark in a two-party system.

OJ and Trump were both accused of some of the most serious transgressions-- I'm not sure if it's intentional here, but the implication that Trump's charges were not criminal in nature has some bearing on the seriousness of them does not hold water.

I kind of does though. I mean fair enough, you cited an example of an act that is non-criminal yet morally questionable. But even so, one's behaviour is governed by law. Anything that is a non-criminal act becomes a matter of public opinion. If what trump has done is not criminal, then it's for the voters, or perhaps his own party, to decide if it is serious enough to warrant him losing h is job. His party had already made it clear that such an outcome was not forthcoming, and the only people who are outraged about it are those who scream at every tweet he posts.

They are not doing their jobs if they only go after slam dunks. I'd like to also point out that there was a >0% of removal. It was slim, but there was a chance that public opinion would have drastically turned.

I looked like zero to me, but I must admit that I haven't been following this as closely as you seem to have been.

...don't you find it kind of curious that a common refrain from not only Trump's surrogates outside of congress, but senators (who very well should know better) kept tossing that out as a justification for acquittal?

Not really. Criminal law is the benchmark for acceptable behaviour. Anything non-criminal is a matter of opinion, and opinion wasn't against him on this matter, not in a significant way anyway.

A point of further pedantry: Committing crimes makes one a criminal.

I mean we're just arguing nonsense with this point, but a court decides if an act is criminal. If I kill someone, a court has to decide if it is justifiable. If I sell drugs, a court has to prove it. Only when I am convicted do I become a criminal.

[boost]

Ong, Nixon had strong support and an apparently unshakable grasp on his party going into impeachment.

Otherwise I'd just say that a common theme in your arguments is that you don't actually game them out. If the Democrats don't impeach, then it's a tacit approval of what Trump has done. If they do impeach, it's a waste of tax payer money because they had no (correction, little chance) at senate removal. Similarly, you claim that his transgressions should be adjudicated by his own party or voters, which completely ignores the point of impeachment being written into the constitution. You just deciding which parties should have authority is cute and all, but, uh, you know, it's an extraordinarily unpersuasive point.

Pedantics: Yeah, I think you've adopted a convenient yet wrongheaded stance here, but it's not all that interesting of a tangent.

[boost]

I will say, I'm kinda coming around on Brexit.

I don't think it was a good move, and it is always suspect when your side has the racists' vote-- but I think calling brexiter's all racist is hysteria or intentionally misleading. I don't think isolationism is the solution, but I do feel like the corporatists hijacked the left and they're happy to keep people busy with identity politics while our countries turn into jokes of wealth inequality with entirely service based economies.

[OngBonga]

Ok, let me put it this way... the impeachment of Trump was, in my opinion, motivated purely by politics, and not morality. They've been itching for a reason to have a go at him since he took the job.

It strikes me that Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job. Turns out that if they did just a little bit of actual investigation, they'd have found much more reason to impeach him, reasons that might actually have outraged his vote base. So why didn't they? It was theatre then, it's theatre now. There's no moral compass guiding these people, just politics.

You just deciding which parties should have authority is cute and all, but, uh, you know, it's an extraordinarily unpersuasive point.

I think the point is that neither party should have sole authority when it comes to such matters.

...but I do feel like the corporatists hijacked the left and they're happy to keep people busy with identity politics while our countries turn into jokes of wealth inequality with entirely service based economies.

The left are so brainwashed into outrage, they're currently kicking up a stink about us sending Jamaican criminals, who are not UK citizens, back to Jamaica, like deporting criminals is racist. Identity politics is cancer.

This is a pretty astute comment of yours.

[Poopadoop]

I will say, I'm kinda coming around on Brexit.

I don't think it was a good move, and it is always suspect when your side has the racists' vote-- but I think calling brexiter's all racist is hysteria or intentionally misleading. I don't think isolationism is the solution, but I do feel like the corporatists hijacked the left and they're happy to keep people busy with identity politics while our countries turn into jokes of wealth inequality with entirely service based economies.

If by this you mean you understand people being against globalisation, and voting for Brexit as a means to show that opposition, then I can see that. It's also possible to be against globalisation without shooting your own country, and by proxy yourself, in the foot the way Brexit does,which I think you acknowledge implicitly.


The rest of your arguments don't make a lot of sense to me though. The right-wing parties that claim isolationist policies like Brexit are historically the same ones who are mostly responsible for income disparity, due to their being anti-labour. And Brexit isn't going to solve income disparity unless if by that you mean it will make everyone in the UK poorer, and reduce income disparity that way. But I doubt that's what you meant.

I'm not sure the corporatists have hijacked the left anymore than they have hijacked both sides. It's not like the left is champinoning corporatism more than the right.

A lot of anti-globalisation is coming from racists and xenophobes imo. Most other people don't care if there's a world economy or not, except inasmuch as it affects their own prosperity.

As far as having a service-based economy versus a manufacturing-based one goes, I'd prefer the former myself. Not sure why people have such nostalgia about factory assembly line jobs, like these were some kind of dream job. I'd rather let other countries do the semi-skilled jobs and us do the jobs that pay better, are more interesting to do, and require some kind of education.

[boost]

Politics is the mechanism by which an off the rails president is checked. This is a good thing. It's good that it's not, for example, the supreme court. If 9 unelected individuals could remove the president, that would be trouble. It's a good thing that impeachment charges were brought, because politically there was support for the charges to be brought. And since Trump's support from his base remained so firm, while it pains me to say it, it was good that he was acquitted**. It's not quite a ballot recall, but is instead a less disruptive way to deal with a problematic president with deference to the electorate. Political theater is not a bad thing, it's a core part of a representative democracy.

As for wanting him out since day one, well, he's been doing outlandish shit from before day one. His constant attack on the news cycle has served to make his scandals and abuses the norm, but it's backwards to then point the finger at the opposition for constantly being outraged. He's doing outrageous shit, full stop.

**As the chips fell, it was good that he was acquitted, but the acquittal was reached in a way that degrades the system.

[Poopadoop]

The left are so brainwashed into outrage, they're currently kicking up a stink about us sending Jamaican criminals, who are not UK citizens, back to Jamaica, like deporting criminals is racist.

I think you'll find the level of stink being kicked up now is much less than the stink caused by the Windrush fiasco, where people were denied their rights, held without trial, and deported without cause; the one that led to the resignation of the Home Secretary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windrush_scandal

I suspect whatever current stink there is (and I haven't seen any evidence of people being outraged on anything like the same scale they were a couple of years ago) is inertial energy left over from Windrush. You can question the legitimacy of deporting people who've been here since they were five, though at least there seems to be some reason to do it this time rather than just outright bigotry.

[oskar]

Ok, let me put it this way... the impeachment of Trump was, in my opinion, motivated purely by politics, and not morality. They've been itching for a reason to have a go at him since he took the job.

It strikes me that Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job. Turns out that if they did just a little bit of actual investigation, they'd have found much more reason to impeach him, reasons that might actually have outraged his vote base. So why didn't they? It was theatre then, it's theatre now. There's no moral compass guiding these people, just politics.



I think the point is that neither party should have sole authority when it comes to such matters.



The left are so brainwashed into outrage, they're currently kicking up a stink about us sending Jamaican criminals, who are not UK citizens, back to Jamaica, like deporting criminals is racist. Identity politics is cancer.

This is a pretty astute comment of yours.

I already agreed that there would have been much more substantial articles of impeachment, but I do think that obstruction of justice was a very important one, and that's actually a bad one politically because most people will doze off 5 seconds into anyone trying to explain what it means. If other government agencies refuse to cooperate with congressional subpoenas, that means there is no more separation of power, and no separation of power means you are one fake election away from literal dictatorship. I'm a massive cynic and I thought even though I don't see Trump leaving peacefully, the powers are in place that will get him out. It very much looks like those powers aren't there anymore.

In the last couple of days it has become absolutely clear that Trump is fully in charge of the justice department, and congress does not have the power to investigate anyone. America is now officially in the consolidation of power phase of authoritarianism. Dissidents are getting evicted from government positions, and all the highest courts are packed with sycophants.

On the other side: not only has the DNC and MSM not learned from their mistakes in 2016, they're doubling down on them.

[Poopadoop]

Politics is the mechanism by which an off the rails president is checked.

I agree with this inasmuch as it implies the Ds were right to impeach even if it seemed unlikely to lead to his removal.

The issue I see is that the refusal of R senators to support impeachment is basically saying POTUS can do wtf he wants as long as his party controls the senate. The R's have basically identified themselves so strongly with Trump now that the two are more or less indistinguishable.

[Poopadoop]

I already agreed that there would have been much more substantial articles of impeachment, but I do think that obstruction of justice was a very important one, and that's actually a bad one politically because most people will doze off 5 seconds into anyone trying to explain what it means. If other government agencies refuse to cooperate with congressional subpoenas, that means there is no more separation of power, and no separation of power means you are one fake election away from literal dictatorship. I'm a massive cynic and I thought even though I don't see Trump leaving peacefully, the powers are in place that will get him out. It very much looks like those powers aren't there anymore.

In the last couple of days it has become absolutely clear that Trump is fully in charge of the justice department, and congress does not have the power to investigate anyone. America is now officially in the consolidation of power phase of authoritarianism. Dissidents are getting evicted from government positions, and all the highest courts are packed with sycophants.

On the other side: not only has the DNC and MSM not learned from their mistakes in 2016, they're doubling down on them.

It is looking increasingly grim. I think Bernie is starting to look like America's last hope for turning things around. Not sure enough of his supporters are violent enough to strap on their guns and march on Washington though to get the Orange menace evicted from the premises if Bernie wins.

[Poopadoop]

On the other side: not only has the DNC and MSM not learned from their mistakes in 2016, they're doubling down on them.

You'd never see a socialist in any other developed country being likened to an aspiring communist dictator. McCarthyism is still alive in the USA apparently.

[boost]

Poop:

You're right, the political class had been pushing for globalization for decades without adequately supporting the inevitable domestic losers. I believe the reason the isolationists tended to arise on the right is because how moralizing the left had become. There are certainly people who are isolationists due to racism, but then anyone who took issue with the way globalization was unfolding was being told they're racist.

I should also point out that the right is culpable for this situation as well, as they quietly accepted racists into their ranks for decades.

Anyways, how the parties aligned historically isn't of much relevance-- due to their respective constituent parts, the seismic realigning that's been happening has tended to break in the direction of the right being isolationists. There were murmurs of isolationism on the right, and when it picked up steam, there wasn't a cudgel for the political class to check it with; on the left there was the accusation of racisms, which drove non racists to the right. The corporatists on the right lost control of the ship because their only argument, free market capitalism, rings hollow for people who are losing due to free market capitalism.

A lot of anti-globalisation is coming from racists and xenophobes imo. Most other people don't care if there's a world economy or not, except inasmuch as it affects their own prosperity.

Yeah, no. I think 10 years ago isolationists were likely mostly racists and xenophobes, but today it's become abundantly clear that globalization does have dramatic local effects on the poor, working class, and lower middle class.

As far as having a service-based economy versus a manufacturing-based one goes, I'd prefer the former myself. Not sure why people have such nostalgia about factory assembly line jobs, like these were some kind of dream job. I'd rather let other countries do the semi-skilled jobs and us do the jobs that pay better, are more interesting to do, and require some kind of education.

It's not that a service based economy is bad, but transitioning to one in a haphazard way is bad. It's like the early years of the industrial revolution before child labor laws were enacted. Previous child labor was standard. You worked on your families farm, in your families mill, etc as soon as you could-- it made sense in a predominantly agrarian economy, but it resulted in unconscionable conditions in an industrialized economy.

[boost]

I agree with this inasmuch as it implies the Ds were right to impeach even if it seemed unlikely to lead to his removal.

The issue I see is that the refusal of R senators to support impeachment is basically saying POTUS can do wtf he wants as long as his party controls the senate. The R's have basically identified themselves so strongly with Trump now that the two are more or less indistinguishable.

I agree completely. There is something fundamentally wrong with the current political atmosphere. My point was to respond to Ong's derision of the process, using "political theater" as a pejorative.

[boost]

Honestly, I kind of worry that America has just lost sight of what politics shields us from. Like the in pax-romana, people have come to forget what the alternative to a well functioning government is: violence. All these norms that are getting trampled, they're the same norms that see to it that outgoing power holders aren't routinely exiled or executed.

[oskar]

[oskar]

You'd never see a socialist in any other developed country being likened to an aspiring communist dictator. McCarthyism is still alive in the USA apparently.

Our neoliberal parties are further left than Sanders... except for the racism. They're pretty racist.

As someone who dabbles in communism I find it very annoying how the label has been hijacked by authoritarians who skimmed the index of Das Kapital and went "I got the gist of it: impose pseudoscientific nonsense on agriculture and industry under the threat of violence and funnel tax money into the pockets of oligarchs." It breaks my brain just how stupid the leadership in Maoist china and the Soviet Union was. Even for criminal autocrats they were jaw droppingly stupid.

[oskar]

I recommend Greatest Events of WWII on Netflix. Lots of great colorized archival footage, and one of the few documentaries that doesn't paint Hitler as some sort of evil genius, but exposes him for the dunce he was.

[Poopadoop]

Love some of the comments on this on twitter:

"I've been looking all over the supermarket for a bendy banana and can't find one. This is not the Brexit I voted for!"

"Cut my finger today and went to the hospital expecting immediate service now we have £350m a week extra to spend on NHS. Had to wait five hours! This is not the Brexit I voted for"

"There is still Danish pastries and croissants in my local Tesco. This is not the Brexit I voted for. I’m calling the police."

"Just tried to work in 27 nations in mainland Europe and got told to "apply for a visa". This is not the Brexit I voted for!"

[Poopadoop]

...