Politics

[wizards8507]

What are peoples' thoughts on what's going on in Spain with the Catalan independence movement ramping up again?

Mes que un club.

Did I do that right?

 

[no.1IrishFan]

So Rand Paul's neighbor beat his ass. Im having difficulty thinking this was a political argument gone south. Can't wait to see this one unfold.

5 fractured ribs and lung contusion.

Thoughts and prayers.

 

[IrishLax]

Rand Paul's injuries from assault more severe than initially reported - CNNPolitics

 

[no.1IrishFan]

100% speculation, but for me to straight up tackle someone and break ribs and stuff, it would probably need to involve something with my wife or kids. Other than that, most rational men can refrain from violence. Just my .02

 

[Wild Bill]

100% speculation, but for me to straight up tackle someone and break ribs and stuff, it would probably need to involve something with my wife or kids. Other than that, most rational men can refrain from violence. Just my .02

And his attacker is an anesthesiologist, right? It's a little out of character for a highly educated 59 year old to attack someone, especially someone as well known as Rand Paul.

It's the second attack on Paul in the last five months. That's a bit troubling, if it's found to be politically motivated.

 

[SonofOahu]

And his attacker is an anesthesiologist, right? It's a little out of character for a highly educated 59 year old to attack someone, especially someone as well known as Rand Paul.

It's the second attack on Paul in the last five months. That's a bit troubling, if it's found to be politically motivated.

Rand Paul seems like the kind of guy who would mow a lawn at 7am and not clean his clippings.

 

[zelezo vlk]

And I heard that it has to do with lawn flora

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[SonofOahu]

Rand Paul seems like the kind of guy who would mow a lawn at 7am and not clean his clippings.

Holy crap, I was right:

Rand Paul has 6 broken ribs following assault - CNNPolitics

"According to the neighbor, Paul and Rene Boucher, who was charged with attacking Paul, share a property line in a gated community and have a long-running dispute over grass clippings and leaves blown onto each others' lawns."

 

[irishog77]

If true (and accurate), disgusting. Kick every member of congress out.


Taxpayer piggy bank lets Congress settle sexual harassment cases in secret | Fox News

 

[wizards8507]

If true (and accurate), disgusting. Kick every member of congress out.


Taxpayer piggy bank lets Congress settle sexual harassment cases in secret | Fox News

What happened to the presumption of innocence? If I say "irishog77 touched my penis in 1997," how are you supposed to prove that you didn't? With the way things are trending, I could do such a thing and you'd be fired, divorced, and destroyed by the press within a week.

 

[irishog77]

What happened to the presumption of innocence? If I say "irishog77 touched my penis in 1997," how are you supposed to prove that you didn't? With the way things are trending, I could do such a thing and you'd be fired, divorced, and destroyed by the press within a week.

Are you paying my salary, my staff's salary, my transportation and lodging, my insurance, and my retirement, while also publicly overseeing and managing the money of all the people?

 

[wizards8507]

Are you paying my salary, my staff's salary, my transportation and lodging, my insurance, and my retirement, while also publicly overseeing and managing the money of all the people?

Employers often hold litigation insurance policies on top executives. This seems like that.

 

[irishog77]

Employers often hold litigation insurance policies on top executives. This seems like that.

No, not really. Do you actually not see the difference in a private citizen and an elected official, or are you purposefully obfuscating this?

If a private company (or even a public one with a BoD and share holders) decide they want to take out insurance policies, then fine. If members of U.S. congress are using our money to fight their own personal problems, not disclosing this to the public, spending our money to settle these problems, and hiding behind their own veil of secrecy, that's a big fucking deal.

Look, we all know all these cases aren't legitimate. But even if 1 is, we deserve to know about it and have a say in how congress handles it.

At its core, this is just more bullshit as usual from the swamp.

 

[Rack Em]

No, not really. Do you actually not see the difference in a private citizen and an elected official, or are you purposefully obfuscating this?

If a private company (or even a public one with a BoD and share holders) decide they want to take out insurance policies, then fine. If members of U.S. congress are using our money to fight their own personal problems, not disclosing this to the public, spending our money to settle these problems, and hiding behind their own veil of secrecy, that's a big fucking deal.

Look, we all know all these cases aren't legitimate. But even if 1 is, we deserve to know about it and have a say in how congress handles it.

At its core, this is just more bullshit as usual from the swamp.

Did you touch his penis in 1997 or not? Or are you purposefully obfuscating this?

 

[irishog77]

Did you touch his penis in 1997 or not? Or are you purposefully obfuscating this?

I'm a member of congress, so I'm shielded from having to answer that.

 

[SonofOahu]

No, not really. Do you actually not see the difference in a private citizen and an elected official, or are you purposefully obfuscating this?

If a private company (or even a public one with a BoD and share holders) decide they want to take out insurance policies, then fine. If members of U.S. congress are using our money to fight their own personal problems, not disclosing this to the public, spending our money to settle these problems, and hiding behind their own veil of secrecy, that's a big fucking deal.

Look, we all know all these cases aren't legitimate. But even if 1 is, we deserve to know about it and have a say in how congress handles it.

At its core, this is just more bullshit as usual from the swamp.

Yup

 

[SonofOahu]

Oklahoma Democrats win state Senate seat in red-district special election | TheHill

This should give the GOP some sleepless nights:


Democrats in Oklahoma picked up a key state Senate seat in a Tuesday special election, marking the fourth seat Democrats have gained in special elections in the state this year.

The Tulsa World reports Democrat Allison Ikley-Freeman won a close race over Republican Brian O’Hara in Oklahoma’s Senate District 37. The race was held to fill the seat of Republican Dan Newberry, who was leaving the state Senate.

Ikley-Freeman, a 26-year-old lesbian married to an African American woman, defeated O’Hara by 31 votes.

...

The normally conservative district, which is in Tulsa County and is part of Oklahoma’s First Congressional District, was won by President Trump by nearly 40 points in the 2016 presidential election.

 

[SonofOahu]

The GOP tax-plan is based on ideas that have never worked. "Trickle Down" is a shit plan, that has NEVER happened, no matter what revisionists want to tell you.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/15/ceos-raise-doubts-about-gary-cohns-top-argument-for-cutting-the-corporate-tax-rate-right-in-front-of-him.html

 

[Bluto]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">What is neoliberalism? Here's my definition. <a href="https://t.co/qgr7nMgoau">pic.twitter.com/qgr7nMgoau</a></p>— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) <a href="https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/841389028410814465?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 13, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Have you read any of Pierre Bourdieu's work? If not I would highly recommend it. A good introduction to his theories and an easy read is the book The Favored Circle: The Social Foundations of Architectural Distinction.

 

[MJ12666]

The GOP tax-plan is based on ideas that have never worked. "Trickle Down" is a shit plan, that has NEVER happened, no matter what revisionists want to tell you.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/15/ceos-raise-doubts-about-gary-cohns-top-argument-for-cutting-the-corporate-tax-rate-right-in-front-of-him.html

Since "it is not economically rational to root for the a solution that goes against your best interests", and I would personally pay less taxes in future years, I am therefore all for the GOP tax plan.

 

[Wild Bill]

The GOP tax-plan is based on ideas that have never worked. "Trickle Down" is a shit plan, that has NEVER happened, no matter what revisionists want to tell you.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/15/ceos-raise-doubts-about-gary-cohns-top-argument-for-cutting-the-corporate-tax-rate-right-in-front-of-him.html

Whether it "works" or not depends upon what you're trying to accomplish with the policy.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Since "it is not economically rational to root for the a solution that goes against your best interests", and I would personally pay less taxes in future years, I am therefore all for the GOP tax plan.

You're the type of guy that gives capitalists a bad name. Well done.

Sure, lots of others will get royally fucked, and corporations already flushed with cash will get even more cash and by most accounts WON'T turn that into more jobs and higher wages, but hey, as long as it benefits ME, I'm all for it.

And sure, the POTUS is a massive POS, a liar, a sexual assaulter, can't get shit done, is a ridiculous little snowflake, is all about flattery, is ruining our reputation around the world and his actions will damage our country for decades to come (including the fact that the Republican Party is nothing like it used to be and Democrats are suddenly "woke" like I've never seen and are poised to capture so many government positions that conservatives will finally start to rue the day they cast their vote for Trump), but hey, I'll vote for Trump because I'll get a tax break.

Awesome. Me me me me me. Everything that is wrong with this society in one quick post.

 

[SonofOahu]

Whether it "works" or not depends upon what you're trying to accomplish with the policy.

It definitely works for the rich, that's for sure. It may end up working for investors, I guess that remains to be seen. Trickle down is about as valid a term as "compassionate conservatism" though.

 

[SonofOahu]

Since "it is not economically rational to root for the a solution that goes against your best interests", and I would personally pay less taxes in future years, I am therefore all for the GOP tax plan.

More power to you, dude.

 

[SonofOahu]

You're the type of guy that gives capitalists a bad name. Well done.

Sure, lots of others will get royally fucked, and corporations already flushed with cash will get even more cash and by most accounts WON'T turn that into more jobs and higher wages, but hey, as long as it benefits ME, I'm all for it.

And sure, the POTUS is a massive POS, a liar, a sexual assaulter, can't get shit done, is a ridiculous little snowflake, is all about flattery, is ruining our reputation around the world and his actions will damage our country for decades to come (including the fact that the Republican Party is nothing like it used to be and Democrats are suddenly "woke" like I've never seen and are poised to capture so many government positions that conservatives will finally start to rue the day they cast their vote for Trump), but hey, I'll vote for Trump because I'll get a tax break.

Awesome. Me me me me me. Everything that is wrong with this society in one quick post.

This really was their endgame, though. Nothing else matters to this particular class of voter. I give them this: at least they aren't hiding behind religion.

Their greed is presented upfront, and that's noble (in some twisted way.)

 

[ickythump1225]

And sure, the POTUS is a massive POS, a liar, a sexual assaulter, can't get shit done, is a ridiculous little snowflake, is all about flattery, is ruining our reputation around the world and his actions will damage our country for decades to come (including the fact that the Republican Party is nothing like it used to be and Democrats are suddenly "woke" like I've never seen and are poised to capture so many government positions that conservatives will finally start to rue the day they cast their vote for Trump), but hey, I'll vote for Trump because I'll get a tax break.

LOL. First off, the Left is being massively exposed as a group of the worst people on the planet between the politicians and Hollywood "celebrities." For all the talk of "women's rights" the Left is full of some the worst rapists, sexual assaulters, pedophiles, etc. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Do I think what someone like Al Fraken did is really all that awful and he deserves to (figuratively) hang for it? No, that is ridiculous. HOWEVER, Fraken has actively contributed to the current cultural and political climate that has trapped many other men guilty of nothing more than aggressive flirting that 20 years ago was standard fare so I'll gleefully watch him and men like Louis CK and Harvey Weinstein get torn apart by the vultures they fed and nourished.

Democrats are suddenly "woke" like I've never seen and are poised to capture so many government positions

LOL@this. Just like Democrats were "woke" in 2016 right and the "orange man" wouldn't even break 100 electoral votes right? The Left is currently in the process of eating itself because they can't figure out which special victim class in their Rainbow Coalition is the most important: African-Americans, women, Hispanic immigrants, Middle Eastern/North African refugees, etc.

The GOP will lose if they continue to encourage their base to stay home by running milquetoast loses like Ed Gillespie. Hillary would be president right now if any other candidate other than Trump, someone willing to run on nationalist themes, ran. Could you imagine the bloodbath if #lowenergy Jeb had won the nomination?

 

[NorthDakota]

This really was their endgame, though. Nothing else matters to this particular class of voter. I give them this: at least they aren't hiding behind religion.

Their greed is presented upfront, and that's noble (in some twisted way.)

Believe it or not, desiring a tax break doesn't make one greedy.

A lot of people don't particularly want the government to be a bunch of social justice warriors either.

 

[NDinL.A.]

LOL. First off, the Left is being massively exposed as a group of the worst people on the planet between the politicians and Hollywood "celebrities." For all the talk of "women's rights" the Left is full of some the worst rapists, sexual assaulters, pedophiles, etc. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

LOL...is this even real life? Are you serious? Guess what, powerful men ON BOTH sides of the aisle are pieces of shit. Was that some sort of revelation to you? I was on the "right" my entire life until the Moron in Chief took over the party. The difference between the left and the right at this time is the left at the very least os calling out their own, and they are believing their victims. Even far left sites like HuffPo and MotherJones are exposing these POS for what they are. Meanwhile, on the right, they celebrate when Weinstein and Franken get popped, but blame the victims and call them ALL liars when guys like Ailes, O'Reilly, Moore, and yes, your boy Trump get popped. You're on the wrong side on this one.

LOL@this. Just like Democrats were "woke" in 2016 right and the "orange man" wouldn't even break 100 electoral votes right? The Left is currently in the process of eating itself because they can't figure out which special victim class in their Rainbow Coalition is the most important: African-Americans, women, Hispanic immigrants, Middle Eastern/North African refugees, etc.

You obviously don't follow politics so I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time, but whatever. The left was asleep in 2016. It is NOTHING like it is now. At all. Stop watching Hannity and reading Fale News Breitbart and pay attention to what is really going on. The left is putting out candidates at levels they've never seen, and have started to win races only Republicans were winning the past 25 years. They've flipped 30 red seats across the country to blue this year alone (where there hardly any elections). They flipped 4 massively red seats in Oklahoma and two more in Georgia. Dems never win there. Even in races they've lost in red states they've cut the margins by double digits.

If the alt-right continues to think like you do, they're in for a rude awakening. Like I said, activism is at an all-time high for the left, and for the first time in decades, it is turning into votes. That's a problem for Trump and the right. Laugh and bury your head in the sand all you want, but 2018 will be a cold shower for you. I had the same conversation in 2010 with my Democratic friends when I told them that the Tea Party was getting ramped up. The left ignored it and there was a bloodbath. I think 2018 will be even worse. Trump is the best thing that has ever happened to left activists.

The GOP will lose if they continue to encourage their base to stay home by running milquetoast loses like Ed Gillespie. Hillary would be president right now if any other candidate other than Trump, someone willing to run on nationalist themes, ran. Could you imagine the bloodbath if #lowenergy Jeb had won the nomination?

You mean like Roy Moore? Look at that idiot. He's on the verge of losing in the reddest of red states. And the polls were tightening even before we found out that he was a pedophile. The genius Steve Bannon might just put a Dem in a seat that any Republican with a pulse would have won. Shiiiiiiit, Moore barely beat a Democrat the last time he was elected, with only a 51% vote share. Again, in Alabama.

I hope Genius Bannon keeps pushing psycho candidates to primary normal Republicans. He'll waste more money, leave more candidates exposed as they cannibalize each other, and Trump will be stuck with less Congressmen and women to help push his wacked out agenda.

(And LOL at Trump calling anyone #lowenergy. Turns out the WH has had to excuse Trump's weird behavior on him being "tired" many times. #lowenergyTrump lol)

Bookmark this post.

 

[SonofOahu]

Believe it or not, desiring a tax break doesn't make one greedy.

I don't disagree with that. What I'm saying is that there is a large portion of Trump's "base" that is nothing more than corporate raiders, market exploiters, and those wanting unchecked capitalism. They used to have to hide behind religion to get what they wanted. They don't have to, anymore.

"Greed is good."

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The Week's Matthew Walther just published an article titled "Conservatism is dead':

The most significant aspect of President Trump's legacy will not be the border wall, which is never going to be built, or the Affordable Care Act, which will never be repealed, or NAFTA, the terms of our involvement in which he will not meaningfully alter, or even his combative personality, which is only the flipside of Barack Obama's nauseating kindergarten teacher routine. It is the end of what used to be called conservatism, which he precipitated, though he did not quite set it in motion.

What do I mean by "conservatism"? It has never been a rigorous concept. In Britain the word has long been synonymous with the Tories, now a moderate neoliberal party but once the defender of the interests of country squires, retired colonels, and Jane Austen vicars. Its most distinct characteristic, in the 18th century as today, has been an unabashed philistinism. (In Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, the head of MI6 blames "golfers and conservatives" for the rise of an incompetent colleague.)

On these shores its definition has been at once clearer and more diffuse. From the 1950s until the end of the Cold War, "conservatives" were a loose grouping of classical liberals, fuddy-duddy traditionalists (such as Russell Kirk, who, among other endearing commitments, opposed private ownership of automobiles), constitutionalists, and dedicated anti-Communists. In a very boring book that I have never read, a man called Frank Meyer referred to their alliance, which was very broadly against the Soviet Union rather than in favor of anything in particular, as "fusionism."

Conservative fusionism was a matter of concrete personalities and institutions. Magazines such as National Review and the much better-written American Spectator, politicians such as Barry Goldwater, popular books by Milton Friedman that were more often cited than read, opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment and, eventually, to legal abortion, the Federalist Society, and other groups dedicated to promulgating a fetishistic reading of the text of the Constitution — these together comprised "conservatism" as it once existed.

More so even than George W. Bush, who, with the exception of a handful of writers associated with the American Conservative magazine, was criticized by conservatives for his best decisions — expanding Medicare — and praised for his worst — the epochal folly of the Iraq War — Trump divided conservatives. Many rejected him out of hand because he had previously supported single-payer health care and raising taxes on the wealthy. Others found him simply too vulgar. Many got what they were hoping for when he was rude to Sen. John McCain and they felt they had an excuse to write Trump off. Voters did not, generally speaking, care about McCain's feelings, nor did they mind very much when Trump dismissed conventional wisdom about entitlements and trade and Iraq and other issues about which conservatives had settled opinions — indeed, it was for this reason that they supported him.

Today the remnants of the former conservative movement are scattered. They simply have nothing in common with one another. First Things, the magazine founded by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus to promote cooperation between Catholics, Protestants, and Jews on questions of social importance and to defend liberal democracy, runs essays in support of monarchy and the establishment of the Catholic Church as the state religion and against free-market absolutism. Reason magazine thinks that the rights of pornographers and white supremacists are in need of safeguarding. The editors of National Review continue to expound idealist views about political economy that have as much to do with the concrete realities of the distribution of goods and services as a polite game of chess does with the Battle of Gettysburg. With no common enemy in the Soviet Union and no Democratic president threatening any of their overlapping, if not shared, priorities — the "sanctity" of marriage when no-fault divorce is available in all 50 states, the rights of tycoons to construct pipelines, the looming problem of a national debt that is never going to disappear — they have no reason to cooperate with one another.

How long will it be before the "conservative" label itself disappears?

Conservatism exists now mainly in the minds of its former enemies. In America today it does not matter if one supports single-payer health care, the nationalization of major industries (including banking and internet service providers), stricter environmental regulations, and higher taxes for the wealthy, opposes NAFTA, "right-to-work" legislation, monopolies, and payday lending. If you are against abortion, you are, for all practical purposes, a conservative. As Matthew Continetti put it recently, "In 21st century America culture and identity take precedence over economics, and it is in regards to culture and identity that the true break between left and right is found."

Probably it is too late, but regardless of the baggage, I think that "conservative" was really not such an undesirable appellation. The most wholesome political trends of the 20th century were not radical — like communism and fascism and neoliberalism — but modest and pragmatic programs of reform: the patrician trust-busting and welfare statism of the two Roosevelts, the toast and jam socialism of Clement Attlee, post-war Christian democracy in Europe, the High Tory paternalism of Harold Macmillan that found its transatlantic counterpart in the common sense and moderation of Eisenhower. All of these things were "conservative" while having nothing whatever to do with the intellectual movement with which they share an adjective.

Conservatism at its best was a temperament, not a body of writing or a set of policy prescriptions. It meant kindness and decency and good humor. It tended to involve a fondness for small and outdated and, very frequently, absurd things for their own sake. It rejected the windy meliorism that is the essence of liberalism. It was a repudiation of the Evil One, who, in the words of Cardinal Newman, promises "trade and wealth … knowledge, science, philosophy, enlargement of mind. He scoffs at times gone by; he scoffs at every institution which reveres them." The greatest conservative thinker of the last century was probably Fred Rogers.

At present there is no reason to believe that a post-conservative conservatism could go anywhere, not because there is no constituency for it — socially conservative and fiscally moderate to progressive describes the views of a majority of Americans — but because our two parties are beholden to their donors. I do not expect to vote for a pro-life socialist or anti-corporation Republican in my lifetime.

This is a shame. In my opinion, all political campaigns should be conducted with public funding. Expenditures should be strictly limited and campaigning should begin two weeks before political conventions that take place perhaps two months before Election Day. To get money out of politics we must first get politics out of it.

But this is a digression. It is also, frankly speaking, a pipe dream. Conservatism is dead and nothing of any consequence is likely to replace it any time soon.