Geoff > Status Update

Geoff
added a status update
Since it seems as likely as not that in a week DONALD FUCKING TRUMP is going to be declared commander-in-chief of the most powerful army humanity has ever known, I ask the good people of the world, what are you stocking your bomb shelters with? Also, half of America? Fuck you. I'm not one of you and I don't like you - stay away from me and my family you scary idiots.
— Nov 02, 2016 04:39AM
252 likes · Like flag
Comments Showing 4,201-4,250 of 4,673 (4673 new)

But how will we pay for this, David?!

I don't think anyone posting here in the last day or so is likely to vote for Trump if Sanders is the Dem candidate but polls show those people exist. And elsewhere online I have certainly seen people saying they wouldn't vote if it was Sanders, quite a lot of them women who support Warren and who are negative about Bernie bros. I admit I did used to think it was just talk but I have seen some stuff online recently, including on Twitter in the last couple of weeks where someone ended up taking her account private for over a week because of a mobbing from Sanders supporters. I didn't think it was a good argument she had made, that they were replying to, but their reaction was way OTT and aggressive. Warren has fairly similar policies so it makes particular sense not to alienate her supporters.



Quite a lot of people in this camp try, where they are able, to reject systems or ways of doing things that are bad and broken - aIongside knowing they can't fix the system themselves and supporting candidates who do aim to fix it. They don't do everything bad just because everybody else is. I think that a rejection of being insulting on social media can be a part of that, same as boycotting certain products and services and so forth.
I have always had similar issues with the Corbyn supporters who would talk about the importance of kindness and then a few hours later throw insults at people who disagreed with them - as opposed to setting out why they were wrong, often attacking the person with ad hominems rather than the argument.

Left wing politics isn't about being kind. It's about winning the class war.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/06/politi......"
"Nobody likes him...a career politician....it's all just baloney." Incredible example of projection on Hilary's part.

And then there's just the issue of moral clarity. He campaigned like hell for her because he believed it was the right thing to do, and now she's not even ready to say that she'd endorse him against Trump. You can't make it up.

But yeah what a bizarre argument from Hillary Clinton. Guessing she is going to back whoever is the other Dem candidate remaining against Bernie when it becomes clear which two are left. Really, really hoping she doesn't run again, saw some speculation a few weeks ago that she might; a terrible idea.

Haha! That's what most of us thought when he announced running. Personally, I'm ambivalent about Bloomberg. But we have to consider that given his ad visibility and the rising poll nos., he could land somewhere in the top-tier of candidates.
If Bloomberg (or any other non-Sanders candidates e.g. Buttigieg, Biden etc) does get the DEM nomination, would Sanders supporters vote for that person (against Trump), or would they abstain from voting altogether?
Bloomberg has stated on record that if it came down to Sanders v.s. Trump, he would throw his support behind Sanders. And if by support, he uses his billions to further pave the way to the White House for Sanders. Would that be ok for Sanders supporters?
Not asking to be snarky, but just genuinely curious what the thoughts are.

Haha! That's what most of us thought when he announced running. Personally, I'm ..."
I think what somewhat bugs me about the way this question is asked is that it puts the onus on Bernie supporters to demonstrate loyalty, when we already did so four years ago- and so did Bernie.
Sure, some Bernie supporters went to Trump- the number I've seen reported is 12%- but remember the context that that's a lower percentage than the Clinton voters who went to McCain instead of Obama in '08. After Bernie lost the nomination four years ago, he did 39 rallies for Hillary Clinton (even if she doesn't seem particularly grateful about it these days). Given that Hillary herself has recently expressed uncertainty about whether she would endorse Bernie against Trump (a difficult moral decision, I guess), maybe the real question is whether mainstream Democrats would vote for Bernie.
I hope your question about Bloomberg turns out to be moot. Are we really going to take all the energy and enthusiasm behind Bernie's candidacy and throw it overboard because we're so cynical that we think, "well, at least our oligarch is richer than their oligarch..."?
Speaking for myself, I don't know what I would do if Bloomberg turned out to be the candidate. But it's not just about voting- it's about volunteering, knocking on doors, making phone calls, etc. It's about the broad coalition of voters that Bernie is building. And taking an educated guess, I would say that it's a real stretch to think that you're going to be able to transfer the energy behind Bernie's campaign to the campaign of someone who's basically his antithesis- a billionaire who's trying to buy the election.

Twitter is a place full of garbage because there's no space for nuanced debate, so it quickly devolves into memes and pith, and smug self-satisfaction. It's the nature of the platform to be a shit heap that gets clicks.

And let's not forget Hillary's explanation for why she hadn't conceded. "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June..."

This would be just....I don't even like thinking about it. Reminds me of something W said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY...
Meanwhile, I'm sure some of you saw this yesterday, but Trumplestiltskin tweeted something mildly alarming:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s...

Haha! That's what most of us thought when he announced running. Personally, I'm ..."
Speaking just for myself, I would not vote for Bloomberg or Buttigieg at this point. I live in California. Voting for someone picked by blatantly undemocratic practices would just be a gratuitously rewarding oligarchs.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s..."
He's tweeted that a few times in recent months and made "jokes" along the same lines before that. He keeps normalising what should be alarming.

But how will we pay for this, David?!"
Forgot to mention this, but we'll never get to the point of having to pay for it. Here in Oregon, when climate bills come up for a vote, Republican lawmakers simply don't show up to prevent having a quorum.
Also, hundreds of giant trucks and tractors surround the Capitol and blare their horns....for HOURS. Diesel fumes registered several orders of magnitude above normal levels.
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2...

I wasn't reading much news that year anyway, and pretty much all from UK sources I think.
I hadn't looked into the history of these falsehoods about Obama, only knew that they were flung about by right-wing conspiracy theorists.
The presidential system sure does create a lot of open animosity within a party. Obvs we have big divisions in political parties here, but it's not engineered in quite the same way as over there. They are at least *supposed* to present a unified front nearly all of the time.

https://www.elle.com/life-love/a30551..."
Good article. Sad.
Access to talk therapies for those who can't pay is pretty poor in many areas of the UK as well tho. V limited selection of types not helpful for everyone, extremely long waiting lists.
But the costs of any type of healthcare in the US are staggering compared to most private health in the UK. (But I daresay Brexit will make an unwelcome difference.) I often wonder how/why Americans even buy anything inessential, with giant healthcare costs looming over them all the time.

Before I forget, thanks to whoever it was who resuscitated this thread. Many of us needed a friendly tuft to visit, even if briefly. By that, I mean most people here have common grounds wrt to Trump.

Wow, Alfred, I hadn't heard that yet. Wonder what other revenge is coming.
And very glad to have this space to talk through things with friends. We're going to need it.

Alexander Vindman being fired is awful, but surely no surprise.
But his twin brother - just for being the brother of someone who testified against Trump...? Sheesh. Next level.

Mob-like retribution.


I'd never heard of that, but it has a Wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon%2...


Games and techniques - that's too much credit to Trump unless the technique is called bullying, and the game is everything else Cecily said.

And Gordon Sondland fired too! He got what he paid for. No refund on that $1 million campaign donation...
Richard wrote: "It saddens and revolts me that no one's shouting about the Nixon Enemies List that, almost by itself, ended that presidency."
Everyone outside the Trump cult knows he is way worse than Nixon.
Everyone outside the Trump cult knows he is way worse than Nixon.

But the country is somehow *unmoved* by his explicit campaign of revenge against those who spoke against him?! This is appalling!

I'd say it remains to be seen. War with Iran would be worse than anything Nixon did; we've come perilously close, but so far it hasn't happened. Nixon did expand the Vietnam war to Cambodia; I'd say that was probably worse than anything Trump has done, even including his continuation of the war on Yemen.
As far as cracking down on domestic dissent, COINTELPRO (active from 1956-71) was a thousand times worse than anything done under the Trump administration.

Didn't Corbyn say he wanted to try Tony Blair for war crimes?
David wrote: "Peter (Pete) wrote: "Everyone outside the Trump cult knows he is way worse ..."
I'd say it remains to be seen. War with Iran would be worse than anything Nixon did; we've come perilously close, bu..."
true Iran remains to be seen but domestically he is already worse and cointelpro revelations came out decades later what is going on these days in that regard remains to seen I have a feeling future revelations will put him on worse footing than Nixon and Nixon bad as he was didn't have kids in cages in concentration camps on the border.
I'd say it remains to be seen. War with Iran would be worse than anything Nixon did; we've come perilously close, bu..."
true Iran remains to be seen but domestically he is already worse and cointelpro revelations came out decades later what is going on these days in that regard remains to seen I have a feeling future revelations will put him on worse footing than Nixon and Nixon bad as he was didn't have kids in cages in concentration camps on the border.

Alfred wrote: "Trump "lucked" out when Iran accidentally brought down the Ukrainian plane. Overnight, they went from mourning their leader to curbing widespread angry protests. Iran's retaliation against Trump is..."
During this whole time with the Trump administration I think we are most likely a tiny sliver of the subsets of the Branching Multiverse of parallel earths that haven't had a civilization-ending nuclear war.
During this whole time with the Trump administration I think we are most likely a tiny sliver of the subsets of the Branching Multiverse of parallel earths that haven't had a civilization-ending nuclear war.


Former PMs occupy a different sort of space in public life and the media. It's like a retired colleague to all intents and purposes. They don't count in quite the same way as the people still in the office. I'm not sure if it seems different to people who are actually in parliament or have been.
But also this isn't structural - I was meaning that the state caususes for nominations really pit candidates against each other.
With leadership battles in parties people are conscious they will have to work together afterwards in the same room for years, plus they are shorter. (Thre are usually a few who will go all out to attack another side - Rory Stewart and Boris Johnson among the Tories last year for instance, or Owen Smith's challenge to Corbyn - but most of the time a candidate talks about what they will do rather than slagging off the others, which is what seems to be happening with this Labour leadership contest.)


Alfred wrote: "Peter (Pete) wrote: "Bloomberg are you effing kidding me an oligarch who wants to buy his way into the white house"
Haha! That's what most of us thought when he announced running. Personally, I'm ..."
I am going to vote strategically in the general which when it comes down to it boils down to voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is but I tell you right now there are a lot of Bernie or Bust people who will sit this out.
Haha! That's what most of us thought when he announced running. Personally, I'm ..."
I am going to vote strategically in the general which when it comes down to it boils down to voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is but I tell you right now there are a lot of Bernie or Bust people who will sit this out.
Alfred wrote: "We would never have a civilization-ending nuclear war under the Trump administration because there are guardrails around Trump like the Senate, Congress, constitution and law-abiding senior staff a..."
Exhibit A.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outloo...
Exhibit A.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outloo...

I think so too. Watching the debate last night, I thought Jesus, he still goes so easy on Biden. I think he has genuine contempt for Trump, though.
Warren had another weird, snake-like moment last night: she claimed that she and Amy were the only ones on stage who were not billionaires and who don't take pac money.
I detest Mayor Pete but he is doing the lords work ruining Biden and clearing a path for Bernie to the nomination while Pete has no path.

"Detest" is strong. May I ask why?
(I'm just a curious onlooker from the UK, so have no axe to grind, nor skin in the game.)
His work at McKinsey his careerism his rumored CIA connections, His way of trying to sound high flown like Obama while saying absolutely nothing with his vacuous verbiage. That fact that he is bland centrist in young millennial packaging.
I think Vox’s understanding of politics is fundamentally technocratic. As was Obama’s. Bernie’s is not. While his use of “revolution” may be hyperbolic, it is true he seeks to mobilize millions for the sake of massive structural change. I see this as entirely desirable given the hellish aspects of American society and the scientific consensus that we have maybe ten years to massively reorganize human civilization to avert ecological catastrophe.