Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

That wasn't whiny or pissy. I can't help the self-righteous thing, but good god, neither can you.

Bullshit. You've been a hysterical loon since this fool was elected.

You are mistaken. I wasn't bitching. I was making fun of your ridiculous tendency to quote someone at a cocktail party you made up whenever you think you need support for something you can't otherwise support. I find it infinitely amusing.

One of us regularly meets and drinks with Republicans. You, OTOH, don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You just make up this reality in your head and then flip out when it's challenged. It's unhinged.

No, you're reading emotion into it. I despise the man, but I'm not emotional over your analysis.

Read your shit. You said he's the worst thing to happen to America in the past 100 years. Fucking loony tunes.

And we get to the dumbest part of your post. You want to have a discussion about his chances, but if I express an opinion on those chances, you get butt-hurt. Whatever.

Not at all. You're the one with permanent hemorrhoids here. I don't care much whether Trump wins or loses. What is interesting to me is to spend time (often with drinks) with Republicans and Trump voters, and have been privy to GOP strategy sessions, and then hear you say shit that's so inaccurate.

Your analysis and my analysis aren't too far off. Trump has a near impossible path to winning. But this is all being said by a guy who knows 000.00 about Republican voters, and a guy who was dead fucking wrong about Hillary walking away with it in 2016.

When I talk to GOP sorts, I'm often drunk, and it is anecdotal sometimes. But I'm talking to them, a lot. You're talking to yourself. And convincing yourself you're right. Take a jog. Have a drink. He's probably going to lose. And if he wasn't, there's nothing you can do to change that.

TM[/QUOTE]

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Except I would say everything I've ever said to you here, to your face. You just type tough.

TM

You've met me. I'd say even more in person.

Has it come this, however? You're now calling me out, and yet claiming you're not emotional?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Bullshit. You've been a hysterical loon since this fool was elected.

One of us regularly meets and drinks with Republicans. You, OTOH, don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You just make up this reality in your head and then flip out when it's challenged. It's unhinged.

Read your shit. You said he's the worst thing to happen to America in the past 100 years. Fucking loony tunes.

Not at all. You're the one with permanent hemorrhoids here. I don't care much whether Trump wins or loses. What is interesting to me is to spend time (often with drinks) with Republicans and Trump voters, and have been privy to GOP strategy sessions, and then hear you say shit that's so inaccurate.

Your analysis and my analysis aren't too far off. Trump has a near impossible path to winning. But this is all being said by a guy who knows 000.00 about Republican voters, and a guy who was dead fucking wrong about Hillary walking away with it in 2016.

When I talk to GOP sorts, I'm often drunk, and it is anecdotal sometimes. But I'm talking to them, a lot. You're talking to yourself. And convincing yourself you're right. Take a jog. Have a drink. He's probably going to lose. And if he wasn't, there's nothing you can do to change that.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You've met me. I'd say even more in person.

Has it come this, however? You're now calling me out, and yet claiming you're not emotional?

Sure, sure. Next time you're in NYC, let's meet up for our own little cocktail party. You can tell me in person all about how emotional I am.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

(Vote for him, but don;t care enough to vote in mid-terms.)

High 2018 turnout suggests this group may not be all that large (this was the depressing part of the 2018 results).

We don't know how a reconciliation of 1 and 2 nets.

You also left out the number of third party voters who learned their lesson (maybe because you sagely think it's zero), number of non-voters who will turn out to vote against him, changing demographics leading to lots of new voters and many other factors.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

a guy who was dead fucking wrong about Hillary walking away with it in 2016.

One of us was so sure Hillary was going to win that he voted for the third party candidate, so...

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

The confluence of events that permitted him to eke out a win by 70,000 votes spread over three states (each of which has been fucked hard by Trump over the last two years) will not exist.

TM

I hope you are right.

Or else it's 4 more years of, well, nonsense:

“Hillary wanted to put up wind. Wind. If you―if you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations: Your house just went down 75 percent in value. And they say the noise causes cancer. You tell me that one, OK? ‘Rrrrr, rrrrr’―you know the thing that makes the - it’s so noisy. And of course it’s like a graveyard for birds. If you love birds, you’d never want to walk under a windmill because it’s a very sad, sad sight. It’s like a cemetery. We put a little, we put a little statute for the poor birds. It’s true. You know in ... California, if you shoot a bald eagle, they put you in jail for five years. And yet the windmills wipe ’em all out. It’s true. They wipe ’em out. It’s terrible. And I told the other day at CPAC. Great people at CPAC. We had an incredible thing. I had nothing to do... It was early on a Saturday morning. I had just gotten back from dealing with Kim Jong Un. We had a walk. He wasn’t ready for a deal but that’s OK because we get along great. He wasn’t ready. I told him, you’re not ready for a deal. That’s the first time anybody has ever ... told him that and left. It never happened to him before. Nobody’s ever left. But I said you’re not ready for a deal, but we’ll make a deal. We have a good relationship. We have a good relationship. But I told a story about, at CPAC. The woman, she wants to ...watch television. And she says to her husband, “Is the wind blowing? I’d love to watch a show tonight, darling. The wind hasn’t blown for three days. I can’t watch television, darling. Darling, please tell the wind to blow.” No, wind’s not so good. And you know… you have no idea how expensive it is to make those things. They’re all made in China and Germany, but the way, just in case you’re―we don’t make ’em here, essentially. We don’t make ’em here. And by the way, the carbon, and all those things flying up in the air... you know the carbon footprint? President Obama used to talk about the carbon footprint, and then he’d hop on Air Force One, a big 747 with very old engines, and he’d fly to Hawaii to play a round of golf. You tell me, the carbon footprint.”

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Or else it's 4 more years of, well, nonsense:

If a Democrat wins, the people who voted for Trump will go back to complaining when the President wears a tan suit, bad-faith obstruction, and manufacturing grievances that the media will take seriously.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If a Democrat wins, the people who voted for Trump will go back to complaining when the President wears a tan suit, bad-faith obstruction, and manufacturing grievances that the media will take seriously.

Nothing really changes.

Climate change? Too late.

Wealth inequality? Neither party really wants to change that. (Not with any affordable or sensible program.)

Getting ahead of the impact of automation on labor? Nah, fuck that. Nobody's interested in that. Adam Smith says that'll self correct over the long haul.

Both parties are owned by interests that usually want the same thing: Policies that benefit them and allow them to make more money. They only differences are some of the companies give more to Ds and less to Rs and some give more to Rs than Ds. Some give equal amounts to both. A few only give to one side.

The Ds are a good purchase because they control things by making promises to the population, and sometimes actually follow through. This keeps the people left behind in the changing economy feeling like somebody's got their back. This keeps things stable, which is something the people buying Ds like. You get to make your money, feel like you're a good person, and not worry about instability.

The Rs are good purchase because they flood money to the people who own them. If you've been holding a lot of Ds, but your profits have been a bit weak lately, it's a good time to buy more Rs. They'll give you a giant tax break. They don't promise the little people many things, so there's less stability than there is with buying Ds, but that's the tradeoff you make for those lower taxes.

And both parties do something all of their owners like: Factionalize the population. By selecting policies that are anathema to each other, and marketing themselves to the persuadable, they drive the population into camps that fight each other. This is a most important benefit, because this keeps people from aligning true majority power against the people who own the Ds and the Rs.

Sometimes, even people who fancy themselves smart and well informed will get in arguments with each other over these competing policy menus and marketing strategies which are designed to keep them divided.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

One of us was so sure Hillary was going to win that he voted for the third party candidate, so...

Whoever outlasts Sebby, we need to spray paint this on his gravestone.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Nothing really changes.

Thanks to Obama and the Democrats, and despite the best efforts of most Republicans, close friends of mine have coverage through the ACA. It may not be important to you, but it is to them, and to me.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Thanks to Obama and the Democrats, and despite the best efforts of most Republicans, close friends of mine have coverage through the ACA. It may not be important to you, but it is to them, and to me.

This is, as they say, a BFD.

Look, I grew up on the Hudson, a river that literally glowed yellow some nights and that today you can swim in. Stuff changes, it's just a process that is slow and society wide, not the government waving a magic wand.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Nothing really changes.

Climate change? Too late.

Wealth inequality? Neither party really wants to change that. (Not with any affordable or sensible program.)

Getting ahead of the impact of automation on labor? Nah, fuck that. Nobody's interested in that. Adam Smith says that'll self correct over the long haul.

Both parties are owned by interests that usually want the same thing: Policies that benefit them and allow them to make more money. They only differences are some of the companies give more to Ds and less to Rs and some give more to Rs than Ds. Some give equal amounts to both. A few only give to one side.

The Ds are a good purchase because they control things by making promises to the population, and sometimes actually follow through. This keeps the people left behind in the changing economy feeling like somebody's got their back. This keeps things stable, which is something the people buying Ds like. You get to make your money, feel like you're a good person, and not worry about instability.

The Rs are good purchase because they flood money to the people who own them. If you've been holding a lot of Ds, but your profits have been a bit weak lately, it's a good time to buy more Rs. They'll give you a giant tax break. They don't promise the little people many things, so there's less stability than there is with buying Ds, but that's the tradeoff you make for those lower taxes.

And both parties do something all of their owners like: Factionalize the population. By selecting policies that are anathema to each other, and marketing themselves to the persuadable, they drive the population into camps that fight each other. This is a most important benefit, because this keeps people from aligning true majority power against the people who own the Ds and the Rs.

Sometimes, even people who fancy themselves smart and well informed will get in arguments with each other over these competing policy menus and marketing strategies which are designed to keep them divided.

This nonsense is how you let yourself get owned by the Gary Johnson's of the world.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This is, as they say, a BFD.

Look, I grew up on the Hudson, a river that literally glowed yellow some nights and that today you can swim in. Stuff changes, it's just a process that is slow and society wide, not the government waving a magic wand.

And if you're not seeing change in what the Dem field is talking about, you're not looking.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This is, as they say, a BFD.

Look, I grew up on the Hudson, a river that literally glowed yellow some nights and that today you can swim in. Stuff changes, it's just a process that is slow and society wide, not the government waving a magic wand.

Nixon was an R, but thanks for playin!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This is, as they say, a BFD.

Look, I grew up on the Hudson, a river that literally glowed yellow some nights and that today you can swim in. Stuff changes, it's just a process that is slow and society wide, not the government waving a magic wand.

I don't normally reply to the same post twice, but here goes:

I don't get how climate change got to be such a political issue. I don't know if we have done enough to actually cause the changes they say, and the science has to be very unpredictable, but so what? Almost all the changes are positive. We are better off with cleaner air and water, and we once thrived by driving innovation in the US (and we still do actually). Why not drive the new tech coming to address it?

All that said, I do believe the "we have 5 years to change or it'll be too late" stuff is ultimately harmful. First no one ever says what to change. But worse, there is a "oh well" aspect that comes from it. I mean the first time I heard it was 1990. Your boy Algore was saying it all through the 00's. Guess what? If they were right we are fucked.

And the thing is, no way the science can be that certain. The "test tube" is too big, too many variables.