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

So Hillary is completely nuts for mentioning it?

I'm just saying, I know this energizes the Democratic base, but these statements also got a lot of Evangelicals to hold their nose and vote for Trump. I know a lot of people who started out #NeverTrump but voted for him in the general on this basis. If it's not going to happen anyway (and I fully agree with you), it doesn't seem totally the best strategy to GOTV for people to vote for someone they hate because they find you worse.

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

I would be totally down with that.

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

If she said it without complete knowledge that it would never pass? Yes.

Look, I know the game is to try to figure out why Hillary was so detestable that dumbasses who act like all this shit or that shit is important to them had to hold their nose and vote for someone who shat on them and their values his whole life, but I really don't think any of this mattered. I think evangelicals are as hypocritical and full of shit as everyone else while pretending Jesus means something to them (while turning away from the poor, hating their neighbor, being in favor of killing, etc.). But when it comes down to it in this election, what appealed to them is the same garbage that appealed to all the other assholes who voted for Trump.

TM

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

It is 100% a moderate position, but some people (eh hem) are extremists on this issue.

I fear that you may have a GOP-like eye-opening coming about what motivates many politically active evangelicals (i.e., racism).

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

Good. It's getting so hard to tell these things anymore.

If you get two people on opposite sides of the table with a common goal of making government work - killing programs that don't work, containing spending, trying to be efficient - I think they can get to a budget that reins in spending while preserving effective programs even if their policy goals are completely different.

The problem comes either when the horse trading is done with funny money and no constraints or when one of the two doesn't care if the process works any more, only if their ideology is served. The single greatest bit of genius that came from the days when Reagan and Tip O'Neill decided to actually work together was Gramm Rudman Hollings (ultimately morphing into PAYGO); the general approach worked right through the Clinton years. But then Bush decided he wanted to put a war on the credit card....

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

My other great really rad idea is to swap Texas for Scotland - I think it would leave both the US (with Scotland) and the UK (with Texas) happier. They'd get oil, a port that didn't complain about having nukes in the harbor, and solid Tory voters, while we'd get oil, single malt and some solid blue voters. And Brits would love vacationing in the warm Texas climes while we'd all enjoy trips to Scotland in the summer.

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

CNN says Cotton for SecDef. Tell me again how Hillary was going to be more warlike, Sebby?

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

I miss Wolfowitz. At least I knew why he was getting us into a stupid war.

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

Sorry, then -- my browser didn't render that properly.

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

Trump will try to infringe bluntly and face backlash. Hillary would continue stealing it quietly. And she'd have had an excellent playbook from which to work, considering Obama's record with whistleblowers and leakers, and his affinity for domestic spying.* Recall whose attu general got a FISA warrant against a reporter? Right. So fuck off on all that.
_____
* She was his "third term," so his sins are hers.

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

No. That's a characterization. I think they'd fuck different groups in different ways, but in aggregate the amount of fucking would be similar.

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

He who trifles with Roe and laws related to it potentially dooms his party for decades. Nobody touches Hyde or Roe.

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

Agreed. But much as I'd desire it, that is fantasy. And a big part of liberty is not taking action to stop women from choosing to abort a pregnancy.

These fuckers had better not start legislating the bedroom. That'll be the end of the GOP. (Which, if they do try that sort of thing, would be deserved.)

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

Neither is perfect, but Voltaire had that covered 250 years ago, so that's not news. I guess what I don't get is why you think you're saying anything or engaging with anyone by saying something so glib and banal. They are very, very different, so announcing that the "aggregate" amount of "fucking" is comparable, is the kind of analysis that will get you a job at Hallmark writing greeting cards, or on CNN as a pundit.

What I'm completely missing from you is any conceivable way in which Clinton would be worse for liberty than Trump. Liberty, because you're a professed libertarian.

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

Alright. That is seriously upsetting. I have no response there.

federal spending
 

http://hoosierecon.files.wordpress.c...ype-2014_0.png

So if you guys want to cut 90% of federal spending, does that mean paying interest on the debt and veterans benefits, and eliminating everything else the government does?

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

You're fucking deluded. He who fucks with Roe will be sainted by the SECs of the world. Most of the rest, who voted for the pussy grabber in chief, won't really care.

The minority with empathy will be outraged. Apparently that's not enough, because you'll be just fine.

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

No shit. Now tend to your garden. It's in the stops and starts where the money's made.

Perhaps I volley as served. It isn't like anyone here's had anything but bleating to offer this week.

They aren't. You're just brainwashed.

Overtly, yes, Hillary would have been more tolerant. But in terms of retaliating against whistleblowers and leakers, and domestic spying, she'd have been worse than Obama, who eclipsed the Nixon standard.

Hillary stood for systemization. She was going to preside over a govt structure that softly managed all people within it. This is in keeping with the Democratic management ethos which has for decades been, "we can control almost everything if we think hard enough."

No. If you think hard enough on that, you'll realize it's comical.

To create a truly comprehensive Great Society, you necessarily need to remove so may liberties, the notion you have any liberty becomes ironic. As it largely is today.

The difference between Trump and Hillary is you'll know he's a quasi-despot. And that will sink him. She was a much quieter authoritarian.

Re: federal spending
 

This is like the upcoming debate on healthcare: people will want to keep a lot of stuff that costs money but not the stuff that pays for it, and have some form of magic math that fixes it. I blame David Stockman.

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

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.

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

Sure, but Hillary would have had a team of people too, so it's totally the same, except this will be Trump's downfall.

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

Part of what is happening here is that the foreign policy and defense communities didn't go with this wimpy "Donald is unfit, unhinged and unstable but think of the poor emails" bullshit that much of the purportedly adult Republicans embraced. In foreign and defense circles, people for the most part said there is no comparison and endorsed Hillary. Trump was supported by nothing but crackpots, who will now be in charge.

Re: federal spending
 

It's not something that can happen overnight, obviously, but as a starter I would go with the hard core Simpson-Bowles plan (even the part that enhanced SS for the working poor. If someone worked for 35 years, they shouldn't live in poverty in retirement just because they were low income). The problem has only gotten worse thanks to the doubling of the national debt within the past 8 years (for which both sides are responsible, but Obama and the Dems much more so).

I think a lot of it will have to go. I am not saying that none of that needs to be done, but not much of it needs to be done by the federal government. I generally think state and local governments are more accountable and more effective for meeting the needs of their constituents. I think that we could do away entirely with the majority of the federal bureaucracy and let states collect and spend funds for health care. Instead of bock grants to states, let them design and fund their own programs. Some solutions may work better for certain populations than others. Or maybe a state will develop something effective that can be emulated by others.

We are going to have to start means testing everything. I think Medicare will need to change as well. I do not believe anyone should die in the street because they are poor, and that people can do what they want with their own money, but if the taxpayers are picking up the tab, I think that the scope of services can and should be limited. Or maybe you can get the care, but you don't necessarily get to pick your doctor. If you want to do that, you can pay for it yourself.

It's like providing catastrophic health insurance. I think that would be a valuable state government option. But not with the kind of mandates that are causing Obamacare to fail (I told you so!) But if CA wants to do it and pay for it for its own citizens. Have at it.

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

For what it's worth, they are now saying Gaffney is not involved. So, yeah, moderating!

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

Your skill with false equivalence is amazing.

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

Cruz for AG. Great. Just great.

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

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

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.

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

You are clinically insane. Literally.

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

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.

Again, clinically insane.

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

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

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

smh

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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.
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.

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

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?

You're making up numbers again.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

Sebby D is not afraid!
 

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.

Re: Infinite Trump
 

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.