US politics have really gone to shit, haven't they

[Cyborg Girl]

I hadn't heard about this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick

I'm still voting for Clinton; seeing as Trump is literally calling for ethnic cleansing, and Clinton isn't.

But good Christ, this is pathetic. When the choice for President is "sleazebag rapist" vs. "sleazebag who protects rapists", you know the country has really gone to the dogs.

[vendic]

You have to be pragmatic GJ and let things slide...

[vendic]

They have been shit for a long time.
Take a look at Larry Agran. Basically he was the Sanders in the 1990's but without social media, they just literally deleted him from the news and events such as debates.

This documentary is interesting as it is just back channel recordings of satellite feeds that the public never got to see.
http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/spin/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Agran

[SciFiFisher]

If you really study the history of politics (especially in the U.S.) almost anywhere it is a dirty messy corrupt holy crap how do we actually get reasonably decent results out this fine mess process. Yet, somehow, for the most part, we get something that most of us can live with. It's imperfect. It's evolving and de-evolving. Sometimes it appears to be lurching inexplicably towards anarchy and revolution. Other times we seem to be soaring towards a better brighter future. And most of the time we just muddle through. This is one of those times. We are muddling through. And hoping that the forces of anarchy are not prevalent.




ETA: Spelling. Dang plow boy hands and dyslexic keyboard.

[Cyborg Girl]

@Fisher

We are muddling through. And hoping that the forces of anarchy are not prevalent.

Amen.

@vendic

That is... disturbing. And probably more surprising to me than it should be. Freaking political establishments.

[Cyborg Girl]

Even more awful stuff:

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/22/483100251 ... -annotated

Most of the statements in Trump's speech above are false... Except for the parts where he insults Clinton. Almost all the smears against Clinton are true. The lies are things that don't pertain to her.

So... Clinton is a lying, narcissistic, hypocritical, and immensely privileged fraud. She's only a feminist insofar as it serves her personally. Shame on me, for ever having bought her act.

And Trump is a lying, narcissistic, hypocritical, and even more immensely privileged fraud, with Fascist aspirations. Shame on my country, for allowing a man like that to wield any power over others.

Government in the US has, I think, reached the point of self-parody.

I guess I'll pray that we've hit some kind of bottom, and that things will get better from here.

(And while I'm at it, I might as well pray for world peace, clean fusion power, and rain in Antarctica.)

[vendic]

Welcome to my world.

[Cyborg Girl]

Ha.

Frankly, I'll still be voting for Clinton. Lesser evil, stopgap measures and all that. She's not talking about ethnic cleansing, etc.

But I seriously need to get more involved in political activism, because the bastards won't be holding themselves accountable.

[vendic]

Here's the DNC's own research as leaked: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/0 ... foundation

They even state that they need to stop calling the Clinton Foundation a charity, it's run like a cattle farm.
It's all about getting money in for the Clintons and most of it is from foreign countries.
Want to bribe the US President, you can, it's just for the privileged few though. Prices are steep.

[vendic]

And here it comes, the pressure from Wall St to the possible future President of the USA, do not pick certain people or you lose our backing. Yep. That's what you get when you take bribes...er sorry, campaign contributions from big business.
Let's see how much influence they have seeing as Clinton keeps claiming they have no influence over her.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/e ... ent-224489

“If Clinton picked Warren, her whole base on Wall Street would leave her,” said one top Democratic donor who has helped raise millions for Clinton. “They would literally just say, ‘We have no qualms with you moving left, we understand all the things you’ve had to do because of Bernie Sanders, but if you are going there with Warren, we just can’t trust you, you’ve killed it.’”

Oh, Pretty sure this is propaganda. Working on the premise that most stuff we read in the media is what they want us to read.
IOW, it was a deliberate release.

[SciFiFisher]

If you want to know the truth. (can you handle the truth?). In general what goes on in Washington DC doesn't have as big of impact on the average person as most of us think it does. Unless we have a major war, economic downturn, or some major catastrophe most people's day to day lives are not affected by what the politicians do. Over the long term some of the trends do impact them. But, the impact tends to be so gradual that everyone adapts to it without realizing how things may or may not have changed.

What is important to note is that a relatively small percentage of the population is driving a lot of those trends.

[vendic]

You mean this: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/def ... cs.doc.pdf

Where we finally have proof that regardless of which side is in power, the people's influence is merely coincidental and has a near zero effect.

[SciFiFisher]

You mean this: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/def ... cs.doc.pdf

Where we finally have proof that regardless of which side is in power, the people's influence is merely coincidental and has a near zero effect.

sort of. And even when the majority of the people "know" that the shenanigans in the state capitols and Washington DC are influenced by just a handful of people most of the time the average person's reaction seems to be "meh, so what? It doesn't have anything to do with me". And that's with slightly over 50% of the people voting in major elections.

[vendic]

I've noticed. Most of the time when I point out the study they dismiss it like it was not done right even though they didn't read it.
Can't remember what the name of that is, where people when presented with irrefutable facts just dig their position in further instead of accepting that they were wrong.

[Swift]

I've noticed. Most of the time when I point out the study they dismiss it like it was not done right even though they didn't read it.
Can't remember what the name of that is, where people when presented with irrefutable facts just dig their position in further instead of accepting that they were wrong.

We all need our delusions to get through life, some believe in religion, others believe in democracy. You are not going to win friends and influence people by telling what they believe is a lie.

I just glanced through the paper and I didn't study it enough, nor care enough, to pick out flaws in their methods. If it makes you happy to say that I therefore accept their conclusions, fine.

DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
WOMAN: Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.
DENNIS: That's what it's all about if only people would--

So what, if anything, do you propose to do about it? Isn't the point of the study that trying to do something about it is pointless (unless you are a member of the ruling class, which I'm not). So what does any of it matter?

As my friend Kurt used to say "Life sucks, then you die".

Thank you for once again pointing out something that I seem to have an immense problem remembering, that most serious discussions, particularly politics, are utterly pointless. None of it fucking matters and all the chat and posts make no fucking difference.

[SciFi Chick]

The reason he points it out is because he still has hope that things can change, no matter how much he masquerades as a cynic. It's not that he believes we can't make a difference. It's that the current system is broken and needs fixing.

I don't, however, have any idea how to fix it. But I don't think everything is utterly pointless and then we die.

And while most people dig in their feet and refuse to change, not everyone does. I know this, because I've changed my viewpoint on a number of things. What I need to figure out is why, and try to access that aspect of people that I'm trying to reason with.

[vendic]

...Thank you for once again pointing out something that I seem to have an immense problem remembering, that most serious discussions, particularly politics, are utterly pointless. None of it fucking matters and all the chat and posts make no fucking difference.

Well, it's like this.
If people are ignorant there is no chance for change.
I bring these things out and post them so some maybe there's a slime chance a few will listen and they might convince some others that there is a problem.
If that happens, it won't be long before something can be done. You know how the law of exponential works as well as I do.
X^Y only works if X is greater than 1 and Y is greater than 1.
If I am X, and I can convince two people, there is a chance.
If I too decide, fuck it, it's too fucking hard, then I make X and Y zero.

Now I'm not the initiator of this, I'm one of the plebs that read the paper, realised it's value and decided to do something.
My contribution is to pass the message as much as I can in the hope it will spread. The US almost got there. Sanders almost got somewhere on a grass roots effort because of people that understand the problem. It won't be long before a real change happens. It sure won't happen if Hillary or Trump get in so there a few more years to go yet.

As for what do I intend to do about it?
I've posted previously to a site that has made a difference, right here on fwis, here it is again: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1645

I refuse to give up on the people of the USA, though sometimes I really feel that they have given up on themselves.
So have at it and chastise me if you like. I really don't give a fuck. I'll put you down to one of the many I couldn't convince.
I don't judge you for it. I don't even dislike you for it. I as always just feel sorry for the many that are living here in a country and believe that it's not possible to make a change so vote against making it.
I will however continue to push the message.
I'm an asshole that way.

[Swift]

And I don't hate you for pushing your message.

But I guess, to a great extent, I have mostly given up. I'll vote on the lesser of the evils that are presented on a given ballot, I'll even drop the occasional e-mail to my elected officials. But I won't give any of them any money, that's just a waste of my money. I'm pretty convinced none of that will make a difference, for better or for worse.

I sometimes can't help myself from saying something, like the present debate about guns on Facebook. And I almost instantly regret saying something (like I'm regretting this discussion here). The debates just make me feel worse, and no one ever convinces anyone of anything.

I don't understand the idea of Sanders as any kind of savior. I voted for him in the Ohio primary, but I don't like him all that much, I disagree with him on a number of things, and I think a lot of what he proposals are pipe dreams. Look, Obama proposed a lot of less radical things, and the vast majority of them got shot down, to believe Sanders could do differently with more radical ideas is just dreaming.

And if what your linked article says is true, Sanders would never really change anything.

I don't see the system changing anytime soon, almost certainly not in my lifetime (another datapoint in support of your reference). The only ways I can imagine it are ugly, and I doubt I'll survive such a revolution.

I'm sorry to get in the way of your debate.

[vendic]

Don't appologize.
You bring to the table what a lot of people feel like.
That's important to know.

I didn't see Sanders as a savior. I saw him as the only candidate that wasn't part of the system as detailed in the report because he has been saying the same things for so long. By not getting him in, it's just a further delay in change. Mostly because I think the American people do feel defeated and for many they were ignorant of the issues.

Did I think he was going to change things?
Hell no.
Did I think he would start on the path of change, yes.
Do I think Trump or Clinton will do the same, hell no.
They will both take it further down the road of ignoring the people while serving the interests of the few.

Till this aspect of American politics is changed, everything else is like throwing bread to the peasants while they are in awe of the royal's generosity. It's the people that make them rich, make them powerful, make them assholes.
Only the people can change that.

But hey, I've been told I am too biased and come on too strong on this issue.
I say, nowhere near strong enough. This is THE only issue that will make a real lasting change.
Everything else is fluff to please the peasants.

[vendic]

I sometimes can't help myself from saying something, like the present debate about guns on Facebook.

Add me to that list.
Though I'm all for gun control and for training and shooter licensing, I don't like studies that try to show things when they don't do the study correctly.

That's why I push things that these "shooters" that want no rules or regulations have difficulty answering.
Like I kept pressing on that FB thread, "why does a person hunting need large magazine walk fire ability?"
Oh, no real answer.
How about why a weapon designed for combat and slightly modified is suddenly better for hunting than guns specifically designed for hunting to begin with.

[Swift]

Though I'm all for gun control and for training and shooter licensing, I don't like studies that try to show things when they don't do the study correctly.

That's why I push things that these "shooters" that want no rules or regulations have difficulty answering.
Like I kept pressing on that FB thread, "why does a person hunting need large magazine walk fire ability?"
Oh, no real answer.
How about why a weapon designed for combat and slightly modified is suddenly better or hunting than guns specifically designed for hunting to begin with.

My take on this (backed up by no data that I can present) is that the people who advocate any sort of need for the average citizen to have such weapons comes from one or more of the following camps (they aren't mutually exclusive):
- they want them because they want them and don't think or care more deeply than that
- they believe all this conspiracy stuff that Obama or Hillary or the next Commie leader is going to come and round them all up and send them to the death camps unless they have enough firepower to fight off the dang Blue Coats
- a variant of that where the invading army is composed of Mexican/Islamic/Nigger/Jew immigrants
- they've bought the nonsense that even the slightest check on unbridled second amendment rights is the first step in a complete cancellation of the second amendment. It is the same absolutism mindset that thinks that teaching sex education and distributing condoms is the first step to devil worship and killing babies

I believe that all of these various attitudes have been encouraged by the gun industry, with the help of the NRA, as a means of increasing gun sales. And this same industry just loves the mass killings (and the everyday ones and twos) because they lead to more sales. They even love the firestorm calling for more gun control, because that just leads to more sales (abundant evidence of that).

[vendic]

If you want to hear me rant about the NRA and their fucking stupidity: Press Here: <button>

[SciFiFisher]

If you want to hear me rant about the NRA and their fucking stupidity: Press Here: <button>

Does the fact that it turns blue indicate the level of rant?

[SciFiFisher]

I've noticed. Most of the time when I point out the study they dismiss it like it was not done right even though they didn't read it.
Can't remember what the name of that is, where people when presented with irrefutable facts just dig their position in further instead of accepting that they were wrong.

One part of it is called "confirmation bias". They just filter out anything that doesn't agree with what they believe. Another aspect is that the more you attack (or they feel attacked) an idea the harder they defend it. In many cases past the point of rationale behavior.

[SciFi Chick]

rationale behavior.

Or rational even. Yup. That's right. That's all I have to add to this discussion. A spelling correction. Yay me.