Religion, politics, sex .. and other taboo subjects

FallenAngelina said:
She's going to take California, New York and Pennsylvania and with these monster states in her corner, Bernie Sanders will soon be but a quaint character in American politics.
Click to expand...

Well, okay.

Since Donald "Duck" Trump is leading on the right side of the aisle, I'll have to concede that what you say may be true. Surrealism is surrealism, after all. And if you had said that D. Duck Trump would be the Republican nominee to me six months ago I would have called you delusional -- and that perhaps you have taken the wrong toin in Albuquerque.

In fact, why don't we all just elect Daffy Duck or Bugs Bunny for President?

Now, where was I?

Huh?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Bernie (Birdie) took 3 of 3 states yesterday. My prediction is that he'll have a majority of voter's support among Democrats by the time the convention rolls around. He may not, however, have a majority of superdelegates.

This may mean that some of the superdelegates will give their vote to Bernie at the convention.

I predict that Bernie will win California. He may also win New York. But I'm pretty sure he'll win California.

Any bets concerning my California prediction?
 
fear of competition

Sanders likely to take both Wisconsin & Wyoming.

Pledged count: Clinton 1,243, Sanders 975
Clinton will claim the nomination with 671 more delegates (of either flavor). However, with those "flexibles" in play, she'll need to do MUCH better than just a handful over the 2,382.5 fulcrum, because a strong Sanders showing is going to make at least a few reassess the supprt they represent, & how it may have shifted in the intervening months.

New York still looks strongly for Clinton... but not so much a slam-dunk as a month ago.
________________

One thing I learned in studying social psych is how common it is for people to say, "oh, why struggle, it's inevitable" then be totally unaware of how much effort they're putting into making that very "inevitable" thing happen. The degree of self-sabotage in the collective psyche of the United States is amazing.

And those very same people get REALLY bent up if anyone dares to suggest this phenomenon might exist at all.

Clinton IS NOT inevitable -- & if she's going to go up against a GOP shit-storm this autumn, then she & her handlers had better get used to actually campaigning.

And the Reds have been carefully planning out that shit-storm since long before 2008. Part of their failure to beat Obama was that they were all set up for a full-on assault against Hillary, so when the nominations went the other way, the Rightists were caught flat-footed & fell into disarray long enough to lose, & lose badly.

A few months ago, Sanders was a late-night-show punchline, the 2016 Nader, just a dotty old idealist. Bored with the blah-blah-blah that Clinton was shovelling out, preaching to the converted, Sanders was actually interesting.

About the worst the Wingnuts can say about Sanders is to keep mindlessly repeating "He's a Socialist!! He's a Socialist!!"

...which always makes me snicker, considering how many hardcore anti-pinko Rightists are making big bucks in (repeatedly!) greasing the skids of Free Trade with Communist Red China.
 
Lately, I've been seeing a rise of addled Rightist memes, to the effect that "polls don't mean ANYTHING... except for the ones that show we're winning."

Whew. Good thing no Lefties are that stupid, huh? ;)
________________

A SurveyUSA poll looked into the "who would you vote for, right this minute?" question in Michigan. (Hardly binding: far as I can tell, they asked 87 people :rolleyes: but all were supposedly selected carefully as "average voters," so whatever.)

Against Trump, Clinton would win, by 11.

Against Cruz, Clinton would win, by 10.

Against Kasich, Clinton would lose, by 5.
________________

I kinda like RealClearPolitics.com. Some examples --

Speaking of the effects of preconceived "fate":
Sanders fighting perception he can't overcome Clinton edge

Interview: Sanders addresses the "superdelegate" issue:
"Who are you going to give your vote to?"

Kasich reconsidering the "poison pill" loyalty pledge
 
Last edited:
Look what's happening in California!

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-california-democratic-presidential-primary

Bernie's (birdie's) graph line is going up and up and these graph lines look like they are incredibly likely to converge very soon. What could cause Birdie's graph line to climb even faster, and Hillary's to plummet even faster?

How about a three out of three states win like yesterday? Lots of folks don't take a candidacy as seriously when the candidate is not gaining tremendous momentum and appears to be far behind in the race.

My prediction is that everyone, Californians included, are now taking Birdie much more seriously than before yesterday. And we're just getting started in this tortoise and hare race in which Hillary is the hare and Birdie is learning to fly.
 
River said:
Now both Hillary and Trump have birds too!

http://birdiesanders.org/image/141719667887
Click to expand...

Dude I freaking LOVE LOVE LOVE the thing comparing Bernie's avian encounter with Trump's.

Trump gets attacked and frightened by an Eagle.

Bernie's got a little sparrow friend just chillin and hanging out while the crowd goes utterly batshit all around them.

Hillary's got...a suit that's kind of...eggshell blue...?

And I'm not so sure that Hillary's got NY nailed down solid. Bernie is Jewish, are there not quite a lot of Jewish people in NY? If I've ever in my life seen a group of people who show solidarity and support to one of their own, it is the Jewish community. Of course there is his challenge of money-power and the question of certain big old Jewish families and whether they'd want to see the establishment get all shaken up, as well as (in my opinion) a question of Bernie's actual sincerity and/or ability to really move and shake like the memes present...especially if Congress digs in and resists...but I feel like at the least there are questions to the notion that Hillary is just going to take NY or CA without a fight.

This is all, at the very least, very interesting to watch.
 
If Clinton started losing (a lot of) superdelegates, then I'd have hope of Sanders winning the nomination.
 
kdt26417 said:
If Clinton started losing (a lot of) superdelegates, then I'd have hope of Sanders winning the nomination.
Click to expand...

I understand.

Birdie (Bernie), in many if not most polls, is considered to be favorable in relation to Hillary when the polls are asking the general national populace whether, today, ... "Who would you vote for, Hillary, Bernie or Trump?" This strongly suggests that the Democrats would be best to put up Bernie rather than Hillary, if the goal is to win against Trump.

If winning against Trump is the question at hand, in other words, Bernie should be our guy.

Right?


_____________

Pick your own polls. Here's one.: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-...y-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2333
 
Last edited:
River said:
I understand.

Birdie (Bernie), in many if not most polls, is considered to be favorable in relation to Hillary when the polls are asking the general national populace whether, today, ... "Who would you vote for, Hillary, Bernie or Trump?" This strongly suggests that the Democrats would be best to put up Bernie rather than Hillary, if the goal is to win against Trump.

If winning against Trump is the question at hand, in other words, Bernie should be our guy.

Right?
Click to expand...

I believe so.
 
R.I.P. G.O.P.

... on the death of the G.O.P.

"It has been replaced by warring tribes:

Evangelicals opposed to abortion, gay marriage, and science.

Libertarians opposed to any government constraint on private behavior.

Market fundamentalists convinced the “free market” can do no wrong.

Corporate and Wall Street titans seeking bailouts, subsidies, special tax loopholes, and other forms of crony capitalism.

Billionaires craving even more of the nation’s wealth than they already own.

And white working-class Trumpoids who love Donald. and are becoming convinced the greatest threats to their wellbeing are Muslims, blacks, and Mexicans."
Click to expand...

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/17"/robert_reich_the_gop_died_in_2016_partner/


http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/wp-con...n-Shot-2016-02-25-at-10.00.07-AM-1024x741.jpg



.
 
Last edited:
More oligarchy, please!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...t-oligarch-in-America-supporting-her-campaign

"When politicians refuse to reform institutions like Goldman Sachs, they have become oligarchs.

When politicians refuse to turn off the Goldman Sachs funding spigot, they have become oligarchs.

When candidates schmooze for big paydays at Goldman Sachs, they have become oligarchs.

When the CEO of Goldman Sachs speaks out in public for his investment house’s oft-funded, preferred candidate and denounces her opponent, both he and his candidate are oligarchs."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
With all the gravitas of his shoot-from-the-hip style, The Donald has walked into a corner.

He agreed that, if abortion were outlawed, women who obtain illegal abortions should be punished.

Too many hits to choose from --
https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+abortion+punish&btnG=Search&oe=utf-8

He has backpedalled, of course -- none dare call it FLIP-FLOP -- saying that those who perform said abortions should be punished.

Clearly, women as a class are perpetual victims, who must be protected from their own addled actions. This protection, of course, must be accomplished by those who know what's best for women -- namely, men.

The fact that this trope is even being floated strongly suggests that the Rightists are making plans to outlaw abortion nationwide ASAP upon retaking the Presidency. They're already planning to revoke same-sex marriage, so why not, eh?

Today is where terms like "Libertarian feminist" or "moderate Republican" should be recognized as oxymoronic -- emphasis on MORON.
________________

Speaking of oxymorons: Gay Republicans finally say "Huh?"
 
Ravenscroft said:
With all the gravitas of his shoot-from-the-hip style, The Donald has walked into a corner.

He agreed that, if abortion were outlawed, women who obtain illegal abortions should be punished.

Too many hits to choose from --
https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+abortion+punish&btnG=Search&oe=utf-8

He has backpedalled, of course -- none dare call it FLIP-FLOP -- saying that those who perform said abortions should be punished.

Clearly, women as a class are perpetual victims, who must be protected from their own addled actions. This protection, of course, must be accomplished by those who know what's best for women -- namely, men.

The fact that this trope is even being floated strongly suggests that the Rightists are making plans to outlaw abortion nationwide ASAP upon retaking the Presidency. They're already planning to revoke same-sex marriage, so why not, eh?

Today is where terms like "Libertarian feminist" or "moderate Republican" should be recognized as oxymoronic -- emphasis on MORON.
________________

Speaking of oxymorons: Gay Republicans finally say "Huh?"
Click to expand...

HEY NOW!! Don't you go slammin' Libertarians just because those Teabagger fucks took our word! No Libertarian EVER would want abortion or gay marriage outlawed, if they are legitimately a Libertarian. The whole emphasis there is on freedom, as in "Let people make their own choices without the government trying to crawl up our backsides all the time." However, a Libertarian also would not support an anti-discrimination law that forced a private business to accept any customer they didn't like.

In that I sometimes disagree with my Libertarian friends because I think that in particular when we're talking about rural essential services, it's not so easy to just take your business elsewhere...and sadly there are still Americans who are so bass-ackwards they have to be TOLD not to beat, kill, threaten, harass, block, or deny other human beings for being different in some basic way. It'd be great if we were past all that, but we're not.

But I defend my Libertarian leanings, even though they don't describe accurately the entire picture of my political views, because frankly...I have a very hard time trusting the government. I often think we'd be better off if they'd just stop trying to micromanage things, step off, and let people be.
 
Hi Spork.

I'm a lower case l libertarian on the left -- or left libertarian (ll). it looks like two I's, but it's not. Nor is it a Roman numeral.

I think you and I probably have very similar political views. But I have very little in common with Right Libertarians, who -- on many topics -- seem to me to be boneheaded.

Left Libertararianism - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

The Wikipedia article is a limited introduction, and could result in some folks presuming that I cannot be both an "anarchist" and a "left libertarian," but I think that's bullshit. I'm way, way down in the lower left corner of most of the political orientation graphs which have four quadrants with libertarian lefties like me down in the lower left corner. I'm very damn left, and very damn anti-authoritarian.

Here's a little about left decentralist / libertarian philosophy: http://www.centerforneweconomics.org/publications/lectures/Sale/Kirkpatrick/overview-decentralism

https://www.google.com/search?q=qua...X&ved=0ahUKEwjc4dzr_evLAhUqmIMKHZm5BbMQsAQIKg
 
Last edited:
I too differentiate strongly between libertarian & Libertarian.

I gave up on the Libertarian Party back around 1986, when I realized how much rhetoric they were using from poorly remembered Ayn Rand articles & hoary John Birch Society cliches.

I worked at a newspaper. One of our reporters came back crestfallen because he'd covered a campaign stop by an LP candidate, & this reporter considered himself an LP supporter. Well, after a rousing speech, the candidate went around the room shaking hands... & right near the reporter stopped to tell a racist joke & have a laugh with a few supporters. (Let's just say "N-word.") This sorta imploded the reporter's understanding of the Libertiarian Party.

And as much as I would like to see an actual functioning Free Market Economy -- after all, that's about as Socialist as you can reasonably get!! :eek: -- the cold nasty fact is that THE FREE MARKET IS AN OUT-AND-OUT LIE, designed for the ultimate victory if the biggest, nastiest, most egocentric players. Anyone touting it is either a fool, or a liar, & there ain't no third option.

Now, given all that, since 1986 the LP has further been taken over by "reasonable Republicans" & crypto-anarchist teabaggers.

In Wikipedia, Gary Johnson said in 2012 that the LP is (quoting the article, not him) "more culturally liberal than the Democrats." They're anti-censorship (to the point of being pro-porn), pro-queer, pro-drug -- none of these seems to get mentioned much in public.

However, they believe that with no government oversight & no taxes with which to maintain credible enforcement of the few remaining laws, the citizenry will fix stuff all by themselves. In my reading of world history, this is almost always solved by the rise of warlords, dictators, the Chicago Mob, etc. -- leadership by one or a few Glorious Leaders protected by sadistic thugs -- rather than the anarchistic oligarchy the LP promises.
A few authoritarian regimes to examine.

Add in that the solution for problems with the public school system will be solved by the Free Market... the environment will be protected -- nay, improved!! -- by the Free Market... roads & bridges will magically be repaired without ANY tax money by the (sing along with me!) Free Market... the poor & underemployed & disabled & elderly will all receive proper healthcare thanks to the (lalalalalalla!!) Free Market... a woman's right to seek safe abortion will be protected by preventing The Government from keeping the clinics safe & funded -- yep, there's that Free Market thing again...

The abortion thing didn't even occur to me, until I read an article by LP icon F. Paul Wilson, where he stated plainly that abortion should be outlawed in order to protect the personhood of the mass of cells often called a "fetus." That's where factions like "Libertarians for Life" crop up. And as for the Free Market solution:
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Click to expand...

Anyway, the LP is at best a one-trick pony, with one Grand Unifying Theory that they claim will fix Absolutely Anything. (And since it's impossible, they ain't got even ONE trick.) Their constituency has changed since they left Colorado, & I can't see where it's for the better. Sure, maybe the GOP has intentionally stirred Right WIngnuts into the LP to keep it from becoming a standalone threat, but the damage is done.
 
Yeah the big distinction is between one's personal ideology, and what a politician or political party actually presents as their positions...and then again what they ACTUALLY do support or do once in office...all very different things.

I do not think that eliminating government or reducing it to something utterly impotent or minimal is an answer, nor that the free market will fix everything. I think that the government at all levels should be more accountable to people. I would prefer to see more power in the hands of the states in many respects, but there are some big issues I think should get knocked out at the federal level. While in many cases I do prefer that Americans be let to make our own choices and have our own freedoms, I also acknowledge that when it comes particularly to matters of doing right by other people, or not doing harm to other people, the government does have an obligation to regulate things somewhat.

An example I talked to a friend about yesterday...
The "gay wedding cake" thing, it just keeps coming up. I think the ideal solution to this would be if a federal law were passed that a new designation must be established for every business enterprise (for-profit, non-profit, etc) where the State would determine if it qualified as an "essential service." An essential service is a hospital, an essential service is the only grocery or gas station within a certain geographical radius. A utility company. An organization that provides a service considered necessary to life, particularly in a market where there is no meaningful competition for that service.

Those with the "essential service" designation would be subject to anti-discrimination law.

Those without that designation, would not. So if you live in a city with 23 bakeries, and one specific bakery won't bake your wedding cake, you can go somewhere else, you can boycott, tell your friends, picket the establishment, and let the market do what the market does. Though in all honesty I don't see where a bakery would ever be an essential service if they aren't the only place in a huge territory that sells foodstuffs.

That's the solution I'd consider to be reasonable.

But anyhow.

I watched the Libertarian debates this weekend. Gary Johnson and...whatshisname, the kid...both utterly useless. If I were the governor of New Mexico I sure as hell wouldn't put it on my resume. That state has a long history of serious police brutality problems. I wouldn't want to live there. And that young dude, he's just weaksauce. He's just excited they let him get up off the bench and stand there with the grown ups and participate.

But John McAfee....oh my god. OH MY GOD. *drool* I'm not sure if I'd want him as President, but I would pay money for a weekend naked with him. rawr!
 
Spork said:
If I were the governor of New Mexico I sure as hell wouldn't put it on my resume. That state has a long history of serious police brutality problems.
Click to expand...

Hey, wait a minute? Albuquerque, yes. But the whole state? Nah. I doubt it. I'd have to see evidence for that. Santa Fe, where I live, is hardly a place of police brutality above the national average. Go South sixty miles to albuquerque and all bets are off. That city is a bit of a mess.

As a whole, New Mexico is NOT Albuquerque.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top