I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

We're dealing with an emerging national defense team with Cotton, Giuliani, Bolton and Gaffney in positions of leadership.

Don't worry, no biggie. None of those folks would ever do anything rash.

Cruz for AG. Great. Just great.

Although, every. single. person. in the Senate loathes him. That'll be a fun conformation hearing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Your skill with false equivalence is amazing.

It's getting harder to control people. Govts have challenges on their hands in trying to keep things stable in a status quo that benefits them and the interests that contribute to them. Trump's employing an in-your-face top down dinosaur approach. Hillary and the Democrats were more of soft approach. Rather than dictate, they favor a system where the state becomes more of an essential element in everyone's lives. This allows for various forms of nuanced control over people increasingly becoming dependent upon it. Frog in a tea kettle analogy applies. By the time everyone realizes how much of their lives are captured by govt, it's too late to try to unwind it.

Neither approach works. We cannot afford a system where govt administers, controls, and transfers so much. Nor can any quasi-despot employ enough force to credibly dictate in an effective manner.

But with either party, both of which share a primary aim of keeping and increasing power for themselves, the goal is control. I think the Orwellian approach is much easier to subvert than the one borrowing from Huxley. As you can see, we're a nation of common people much more easily led with entertaining narratives than told bluntly what to do.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's getting harder to control people. Govts have challenges on their hands in trying to keep things stable in a status quo that benefits them and the interests that contribute to them. Trump's employing an in-your-face top down dinosaur approach. Hillary and the Democrats were more of soft approach. Rather than dictate, they favor a system where the state becomes more of an essential element in everyone's lives. This allows for various forms of nuanced control over people increasingly becoming dependent upon it. Frog in a tea kettle analogy applies. By the time everyone realizes how much of their lives are captured by govt, it's too late to try to unwind it.

You are clinically insane. Literally.

Also, the frog does not stay in the tea kettle. That's a myth.

We cannot afford a system where govt administers, controls, and transfers so much.

Given that the rest of the developed world has lived in the world where the government administers, controls and transfers vastly more for something like half a century, and given that we are in no danger in even coming close to matching them in the foreseeable future, yeah, we certainly can.

But with either party, both of which share a primary aim of keeping and increasing power for themselves, the goal is control.

Again, clinically insane.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's getting harder to control people. Govts have challenges on their hands in trying to keep things stable in a status quo that benefits them and the interests that contribute to them. Trump's employing an in-your-face top down dinosaur approach. Hillary and the Democrats were more of soft approach. Rather than dictate, they favor a system where the state becomes more of an essential element in everyone's lives. This allows for various forms of nuanced control over people increasingly becoming dependent upon it. Frog in a tea kettle analogy applies. By the time everyone realizes how much of their lives are captured by govt, it's too late to try to unwind it.

Neither approach works. We cannot afford a system where govt administers, controls, and transfers so much. Nor can any quasi-despot employ enough force to credibly dictate in an effective manner.

But with either party, both of which share a primary aim of keeping and increasing power for themselves, the goal is control. I think the Orwellian approach is much easier to subvert than the one borrowing from Huxley. As you can see, we're a nation of common people much more easily led with entertaining narratives than told bluntly what to do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH8xbDGv7oY

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/more-t...vote/351964445

smh

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Cruz for AG. Great. Just great.

Although, every. single. person. in the Senate loathes him. That'll be a fun conformation hearing.

yes, that could be entertaining.

Amirite that at this point 8 years ago, Obama was reviewing more mainstream republicans for positions in his admin than Trump is today?

[Hank Chinaski]

just for funsies-

Pa 2012
Obama 2,900,000
Romney 2,600,000
3rd party 70,000

Pa 2016
Trump 2,912,00
Clinton 2,844,000
70,000 votes

3rd Party 210,000

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Also, the frog does not stay in the tea kettle. That's a myth.

You can be such a tool. Who cares? It's the most well known analogy that fits.

Given that the rest of the developed world has lived in the world where the government administers, controls and transfers vastly more for something like half a century, and given that we are in no danger in even coming close to matching them in the foreseeable future, yeah, we certainly can.

With what? You have a magic money tree? We could tax the top 5% at 70% and not dent the obligations. Oh, let me guess... Here's your solution: Retraining + Global Trade + New Emerging Technologies that will somehow create jobs (despite not having done so in the past 20 years) = Growth!

Get fucking real. Your side has no more of a credible plan than that Orange Haired Nut we just elected President.

And you personally haven't trotted out anything more than a stale talking point rooted in the most uncreative and increasingly suspect notions of classical economics since I've known you. Of course, you have a right to be doctrinaire. But for God's sake... Could you once think a little for yourself? If I wanted to hear my Econ 101 professor drone, I'd sign up for a fucking alumni lecture.

Again, clinically insane.

Let me get this straight. It's valid for you to freak out right now about Trump taking control of the govt and imposing his will on people. But it's invalid to note both parties seek to control people in insidious ways. Why not just express your real point: Democratic Control is okay; Republican Control is not.

I think Control's Control. Fuck anything making the attempt.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

With what? You have a magic money tree?

Yes, it's called taxation. If we wanted a modern welfare state like the rest of the developed world has, we'd have to tax like them too. It would also help if we significantly scaled back our military spending.

Of course, we aren't going to get a modern welfare state so what's the problem?

We could tax the top 5% at 70% and not dent the obligations.

You're making up numbers again.

New Emerging Technologies that will somehow create jobs (despite not having done so in the past 20 years)

Again, are you living under something? Ask yourself whether you can think of any industries that employ large numbers of people that didn't exist 20 years ago. I bet you can.

And that's without even challenging your narrative-driven understanding of the economy, which is vast, complex and not well summed up in narrative.

Your side has no more of a credible plan than that Orange Haired Nut we just elected President.

You say this because you routinely blow our problems out of proportion. You have no concept of scale or proportion or, apparently, ability to think on the margin.

But you know, facts, man.

It's valid for you to freak out right now about Trump taking control of the govt and imposing his will on people.

You're aware that he won the election and is, in fact, taking control of the government in January, right? And that he's putting in place a lot of people who are nutjobs who have said they want to do lots of bad things, in addition to the bad things Trump has said he wants to do?

How is that in any way equivalent to the bad things that you, and only you, believe that Hillary would have done despite her never saying that she would do them and her party having no track record of advocating for?

Heck, you don't even come up with anything specific. You just say more of the same is just as bad radical changes that will make things worse.

But it's invalid to note both parties seek to control people in insidious ways.

Neither party seeks to control people for control's sake. That's tinfoil hat stuff.

Why not just express your real point: Democratic Control is okay; Republican Control is not.

Each party has policy preferences. Democratic policy preference are mostly okay. Republican party policy preferences are mostly not. Some of Trump's stated policy preferences are abhorrent.

You ignore those policy preferences so you can pose like they are the same.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/more-t...vote/351964445

smh

I heard that last night, and the scream I let loose is still echoing in my head, and will likely continue to echo there for the next four years.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You can be such a tool. Who cares? It's the most well known analogy that fits.

People who value intellectual discipline care. If the frog does not actually stay in the tea kettle, it undermines your argument that we are going to somehow unknowingly allow ourselves to be cooked alive by the increasing heat of governmental scrutiny and intrusion.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/more-t...vote/351964445

smh

Infuriating, but inspiration nonetheless for the Daily Dose. Funkadelic. "If You Don't Like the Effects, Don't Produce The Cause."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkA7ok5MySk

[Adder]

For Sebby. (Link instead of image for the sake of margins)

Here's more on the measure, which I'm not particularly familiar with, but share for context on where we stand relative to the past.

Note that this is "non-employment" and includes those who are not in the labor force.

Bottom line is that non-employment right now is well within normal over the last two decades.

[Not Bob]

When the world is running down, make the best of what's still around.

And what is still around, you say! The Fashion Board! Come join gwnc and The Pretty One in discussing the quirks of Not Bob's musical influences! He's on his way to meet a client, but he promises to follow up this evening with some albums that made him realize that Corporate Rock sucked! (Except when it didn't! See him mention those albums, too!)

Or you can continue to debate the shitstorm that is American politics. Whatever.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I heard that last night, and the scream I let loose is still echoing in my head, and will likely continue to echo there for the next four years.

To address budget issues, I understand we are going on subsidized time, with 2016 being the Year of the Whopper. So this will echo right on through to at least the Year of the Perdue Wonderchicken and maybe even until the Year of the Depends Adult Undergarment.