2nd Term Part IX - How Lame is my Duck

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part IX - How Lame is my Duck

Yes Kep, I'm always afraid to speak my mind out here.

But, you should be thanking me from saving you from "Naderism". Some people would rather lose because they think it proves a point. I'm getting the sense you'd be as happy with a Hillary loss in the general election as a win, which is a foolhardy position to take. Yes, you could go around for 4 years saying "I told you so" all the while ignoring that indifference would have caused the country to elect someone who makes W look like a lefty. Unfortunately you need to put your desire to go around saying that on the back burner for the good of the country. If an undecided voter is listening to one side say "TED CRUZ IS THE SECOND COMING!!! I HEAR GOD IS ENDORSING HIM AT THE CONVENTION!!!!" and you're saying "I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Hillary" under your breath, who do you think has a more compelling argument? As we've found out with Obama's Presidency, sometimes being right on policy isn't enough (which Hillary is despite your odd objections). Sometimes how its all packaged matters too, and if half the Dem base has your attitude, start getting used to President Cruz or President Paul (which you may not mind).

You cite Naderism with the regularity of the knucks citing Munich. Believe me -- I haven't suddenly lost the ability to read. I considered your objection the first 83 times you made it and rejected it as irrelevant to the current situation.

You have a preconceived notion concerning why liberals would not be happy with Hillary, and you then doggedly apply it to any and all objections. You can slam people who don't agree with you to drop to their knees for She Who Must Be Obeyed all you want, but it's never been about that for me at least, and I suspect for many of those of us who would actually like the Democratic nominee to turn back the godawful rightward avalanche of the last 30 years. Want to get liberals on your side? Try sounding more like an open-minded individual and less like a right wing talk show host.

The last six years have proven nothing if not that without constant pressure from the hard left even an able and apparently sympathetic Democratic president is either seduced or intimidated by the Dark Side into making horrendous concessions. You are saying you are practical and want to present a united front. I am being practical in pressing for as much as (or more than) we can reasonably expect from our representatives because I know the other side is screaming that anything less than adoption of their entire agenda constitutes Treason and Witchcraft. You've lived with the consequences of "conservative" governance for long enough to know how much damage the right has inflicted on our country. What price if we gain the presidency but fail to fight that disease?

 

[Handyman]

Re: 2nd Term Part IX - How Lame is my Duck

Kep I am with you (how often is that true) in that I have no desire to ever see Hillary be Prez. Man Wall Street sure is going to quake in their boots when she is in office...I can see all the regulations she wont enforce the party they will throw will be glorious! (hookers and blow for everyone!!) Electing her will be like electing a Republican, only she doesnt get her answers from a book written 2000 years ago, she gets it from the one inside her purse!

Unlike you though I wont vote for her. My vote doesnt count (Minnesota will go D it wont even be close despite the doomsday stories that will show up like they always do) so I can truly vote with my heart.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: 2nd Term Part IX - How Lame is my Duck

I'm getting the sense you'd be as happy with a Hillary loss in the general election as a win, which is a foolhardy position to take.

I can't quite decide if this statement means you're delusional or stupid. I'm leaning towards delusional, but I could be convinced the other way. If you'd actually bothered to read even 2% of Kepler's posts over these past many years, you would know that this couldn't be farther from the truth - I disagree with him on a great many things, but I respect his passion, fervor, and consistency in arguing for what he believes in, and to suggest he would backtrack on that over petty politics....well, I have no other words.

 

[busterman62]

Re: 2nd Term Part IX - How Lame is my Duck

So, stop whining. Join up with The Hill and lets kick some knuckledragger tail next election. Some elections are about vision, others are about competence. I don't need soaring rhetoric out of the old girl. I need the peace and prosperity of the late 90's, instead of a bunch of people trying to drag us back to the 50's or 1982. To paraphrase Pierre Trudeau, don't compare her to The Almightly. Compare her to the opposition. Go around telling people you're holding your nose next election and as joey pointed out its hardly a ringing endorsement. That attitude gave us George W Bush....

Sick Boy: No, it's not bad, but it's not great either. And in your heart you kind of know that although it sounds all right, it's actually just shiite.

.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term Part IX - How Lame is my Duck

Hillary's qualification is that her husband was the best President in most people's memory, and therefore lets hope she picked up a few ideas on how to run the country from being a first hand observer to him running the govt. Its the same reason why Jeb Bush = W's 3rd term. Really, you can't top experience like that, if there's one thing people crave now its good government. The Liddy Dole comparison is stupid. Bob Dole was never President, and his wife never ran anything as complicated as the State Department (no, the Red Cross doesn't count). As far as the antithesis of feminism goes, do you really picture ANYBODY bossing Hillary around once she reaches the pinnacle of power?


So, stop whining. Join up with The Hill and lets kick some knuckledragger tail next election. Some elections are about vision, others are about competence. I don't need soaring rhetoric out of the old girl. I need the peace and prosperity of the late 90's, instead of a bunch of people trying to drag us back to the 50's or 1982. To paraphrase Pierre Trudeau, don't compare her to The Almightly. Compare her to the opposition. Go around telling people you're holding your nose next election and as joey pointed out its hardly a ringing endorsement. That attitude gave us George W Bush....

One of the points of the New World Order is that change for the sheeple is not only beneficial, but it is expected. GOP will take the next election (whether or not they win the popular vote is unknown), and in turn the Democrats will win at a later point.

 

[Jimjamesak]

One of the points of the New World Order is that change for the sheeple is not only beneficial, but it is expected. GOP will take the next election (whether or not they win the popular vote is unknown), and in turn the Democrats will win at a later point.

Puff puff pass bro.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: 2nd Term Part IX - How Lame is my Duck

One of the points of the New World Order is that change for the sheeple is not only beneficial, but it is expected. GOP will take the next election (whether or not they win the popular vote is unknown), and in turn the Democrats will win at a later point.

A nutjob rant just isn't complete without some sort of reference to "sheeple". Thanks for not disappointing.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part IX - How Lame is my Duck

Puff puff pass bro.

Sort of. If by "the NWO" he means a metaphor for the fact that the majority owners of transnational corporations do things that harm billions of people in pursuit of amassing their own trillions of dollars, he's right. These people are few in number (at most, a couple million worldwide; probably closer to a couple hundred thousand). It's probably not personal, it's just the thrall of capital. Though if you look at how the accidental beneficiaries of the power structure in the US invent all sorts of rationalizations for why everyone around them suffers while they grow richer, it's apparent that self-delusion must be basic to the psychology of the ultra rich.

If he means Icke's Reptilian shapeshifters I'm not quite prepared to join him.

Yet.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term Part IX - How Lame is my Duck

Sort of. If by "the NWO" he means a metaphor for the fact that the majority owners of transnational corporations do things that harm billions of people in pursuit of amassing their own trillions of dollars, he's right. These people are few in number (at most, a couple million worldwide; probably closer to a couple hundred thousand). It's probably not personal, it's just the thrall of capital. Though if you look at how the accidental beneficiaries of the power structure in the US invent all sorts of rationalizations for why everyone around them suffers while they grow richer, it's apparent that self-delusion must be basic to the psychology of the ultra rich.

If he means Icke's Reptilian shapeshifters I'm not quite prepared to join him.

Yet.

I've never heard of Icke's Reptilian Shapeshifters, but you may want to consider the relationship between Dr. Richard Day and Dr. Lawrence Dunegan, especially in the years 1969 and 1989.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part IX - How Lame is my Duck

I can't quite decide if this statement means you're delusional or stupid. I'm leaning towards delusional, but I could be convinced the other way. If you'd actually bothered to read even 2% of Kepler's posts over these past many years, you would know that this couldn't be farther from the truth - I disagree with him on a great many things, but I respect his passion, fervor, and consistency in arguing for what he believes in, and to suggest he would backtrack on that over petty politics....well, I have no other words.

He's not backtracking over petty politics. Its that he sometimes slips into defeatism. He's been doing that a lot more lately. Look, I like the guy and enjoy his posts, but he's getting this odd Corporate Overlord Conspiracy Theory mantra infecting every post. Its getting Fishy/Flaggy like in its banality. We need the dude fully engaged and doing his thing, not him expecting to be crushed by a Koch brothers funded Killer Robot driven by Hillary Clinton to crush the serfs.

I don't mention Nader in the thought that Kep will vote for a sure loser. I mention Nader in that a lot of the rhetoric on the far left starts to sound the same. "There's no difference between the parties". "Corporations are taking over our lives." Blah blah blah. Its like the nonsense the knuckledraggers spout about a New World Order or the Government of the United Nations.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term Part IX - How Lame is my Duck

I don't mention Nader in the thought that Kep will vote for a sure loser. I mention Nader in that a lot of the rhetoric on the far left starts to sound the same. "There's no difference between the parties". "Corporations are taking over our lives." Blah blah blah. Its like the nonsense the knuckledraggers spout about a New World Order or the Government of the United Nations.

You know what the funny thing is? All statements are pointing to the exact same bush, just from different directions.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part IX - How Lame is my Duck

I mention Nader in that a lot of the rhetoric on the far left starts to sound the same. "There's no difference between the parties". "Corporations are taking over our lives." Blah blah blah. Its like the nonsense the knuckledraggers spout about a New World Order or the Government of the United Nations.

That is not my intent. The gap between Liberals and Mainstream Democrats is significantly smaller than the charm between Mainstream Democrats and Mainstream Republicans. Better a hundred years of (D) than one night of (R).

When I say Hillary is a cold, I am not suggesting she is no different from the Republicans who are Ebola. There is no excuse for claiming there is no difference between the parties after 2000-08. Never again.

But also: I have no defeatism at all. You are misreading me. I know the good guys are always going to win over the long term as long as we have a democracy. When we govern according to our principles the vast majority of people's lives are improved. Gradually people begin to take the improvement for granted and so the country lets down its guard. But them, by charisma or fear, when the right governs according to their principles a few well-connected people win enormously and everybody else suffers -- and gets mad, so they are not long for office (as long as we count all the votes, which is why the GOP is fighting so hard now to throw more and more votes out). We have the short-term disadvantage and the long-term advantage of the honest salesman.

Yet I even think we are going to win in the near term in 2016, just because the math looks good, and given that I think we are going to have a local maximum, I want that to mean something. One thing you can say for the Reaganites in 1980 and the Neocons in 2000: they made the most of their moment (and boy has the US suffered because of it). I am in fact optimistic enough to believe that we do better when we are strong liberals than when we are mealy-mouthed centrists. Elections are not about convincing people to switch parties, they're about promoting a vision that excites your own people and gets them to the polls.

Hillary may well do that. I hope she does, because as I said she's almost certainly going to be the nominee. But the Clintons are not about liberalism. They are about... the Clintons.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part IX - How Lame is my Duck

You know what the funny thing is? All statements are pointing to the exact same bush, just from different directions.

Indeed.

That is not my intent. The gap between Liberals and Mainstream Democrats is significantly smaller than the charm between Mainstream Democrats and Mainstream Republicans. Better a hundred years of (D) than one night of (R).

When I say Hillary is a cold, I am not suggesting she is no different from the Republicans who are Ebola. There is no excuse for claiming there is no difference between the parties after 2000-08. Never again.

Getting back to Hillary, 20 years ago she was considered a Femi-Nazi, radical leftist honed from 60's activism. Now she's a DINO, Wall St lovin righty? Either that's the biggest transformation in the shortest time of any politician since Al Smith turned on FDR, or its all bunk.

So, picture a Clinton Presidency with Lizzy Warren herding a Senate Dem majority in the proper direction and providing the ideas/explanations for progressives/liberals/whatever. What's not to like? Clinton has the potential, not a certainty mind you, but the potential to play in states and regions that Dems would normally be shut out of. We're going to need that to make major gains in the House. My ideal candidate for the nomination in 2016 is myself, but someone slipped Buddy the Dog getting whacked footage under my door the other day, and since I don't want to end up like that I'm sitting this one out. So, with me out of the picture I'll back the strongest horse knowing I'll get 90% of what I want...

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part IX - How Lame is my Duck

Getting back to Hillary, 20 years ago she was considered a Femi-Nazi, radical leftist honed from 60's activism. Now she's a DINO, Wall St lovin righty? Either that's the biggest transformation in the shortest time of any politician since Al Smith turned on FDR, or its all bunk.

I'll say. She was never a radical leftist. Heck, even I'm not a radical leftist and I think I'm about the closest thing we have on the cafe.

Hillary is a classic machine politico. She would be a great caretaker of liberal policies -- vote Hillary, 1972! But we've seen how hard it is to turn the aircraft carrier that is the US which has been going full throttle in the wrong direction for 34 years. Bill was necessary in 1992 as a firebreak against the worst predations of the right -- we saw in the Dubya years just what he managed to hold back. However, I believe we need to be more ambitious now. We can't play field position forever -- eventually we have to try to score.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term Part IX - How Lame is my Duck

Indeed.





Getting back to Hillary, 20 years ago she was considered a Femi-Nazi, radical leftist honed from 60's activism. Now she's a DINO, Wall St lovin righty? Either that's the biggest transformation in the shortest time of any politician since Al Smith turned on FDR, or its all bunk.

Well, she was a member of her school's chapter of College Republicans while in college...

 

[joecct]

Re: 2nd Term Part IX - How Lame is my Duck

After CBS News published this puff piece on the President's athletic achievements, James Woods posted this on twitter..

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: 2nd Term Part IX - How Lame is my Duck

Ah, so now the opinions of celebrities matter.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part IX - How Lame is my Duck

Reason magazine is a strange beast, about 25% principled, intelligent skepticism and 75% doctrinaire, dullard cant, but they have a list of 10 things the new GOP Congress should (and can) do. Below my assessment of item / whether it's a good idea / and why it won't happen.

1. Restore "fast track" trade promotion authority.
Whether it's a good idea: It's a push. On the one hand, reducing trade barriers in an ideal world is a worthy goal. But in this world these agreements merely enrich a few people while immiserating workers. Having full Congressional debate is probably in our overall interest.
Why it won't happen: The GOP regards the current president as the actual anti-Christ.


2. End blanket NSA surveillance
Whether it's a good idea: Obviously.
Why it won't happen: WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!


3. Curtail civil asset forfeiture
Whether it's a good idea: Obviously.
Why it won't happen: "My opponent, Senator Bedfellow, believes we should coddle criminals..."


4. Kill the renewable fuels mandate
Whether it's a good idea: If it's just ethanol, then obviously.
Why it won't happen: They haven't moved the location of the first caucus.


5. Lower the drinking age
Whether it's a good idea: It won't matter unless they simply eliminate it and also ban advertising. The problem is commerce.
Why it won't happen: WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!


6. Audit the Fed
Whether it's a good idea: Obviously. Just because crackpots sponsor something doesn't mean it's wrong.
Why it won't happen: It probably will, so, yay, maybe?


7. Fix government worker pensions
Whether it's a good idea: No. It's just the usual attempt to get Wall Street's grubby paws on a protected fund. Reason should know better but they're blinded by the words "government" and "pension."
Why it won't happen: Congress will make some empty symbolic gesture, 'Bams will veto it, everybody will get some campaign ammo.


8. Implement sentencing reform
Whether it's a good idea: Obviously.
Why it won't happen: "My opponent, Senator Bedfellow, believes we should coddle criminals..."


9. Let federal education funds follow kids
Whether it's a good idea: If restricted to public schools only, yes, but this is not about that. The ambition should be to decouple local resources from the school system and bring all public schools up to a good standard. This is just a Trojan Horse to destroy public education, one of the either uglier or at best most naive reductia ad absurdum of libertarianism.
Why it won't happen: Congress will make some empty symbolic gesture, 'Bams will veto it, everybody will get some campaign ammo.


10. Respect marijuana federalism
Whether it's a good idea: Obviously
Why it won't happen: WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?! plus the GOP's herpa-derp Culture War fetishism.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: 2nd Term Part IX - How Lame is my Duck

I'm not a fan of lowering the drinking age.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2nd Term Part IX - How Lame is my Duck

When the legislature in our state says WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!

It usually means that there is no way that piece of legislation will pass unless they parade out a bunch of waifs for the cameras to play on our sympathies.