Octopus Overlords

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:30 pm

Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina has really stepped up to the plate. Thom is tough on Crime, Strong on the Border and fights hard against Illegal Immigration. He loves our Military, our Vets and our great Second Amendment. I give Thom my Full and Total Endorsement!

Has anyone else noticed that Trump uses the same boilerplate tweet for every lower-office endorsement?

It's *always* "[Candidate] is tough on Crime, Strong on the Border and fights hard against Illegal Immigration. [He/She] loves our Military, our Vets and our great Second Amendment. I give [Candidate] my Full and Total Endorsement!" I know I've seen this exact template at least twenty times.

Aside from the weirdness of this particular set of supreme priorities (and their capitalization), doesn't repetition dull the effect?

Speaking as someone who interned for a senator, form letters are used a LOT. As are certain phrases and whole sentences.

Democrats doing everything in their power to entice illegal aliens to enter the USA, and then blaming conservatives for said aliens circumstances once they get here really is a genius plan of attack. Kudos to the left!

em2nought wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:20 pm Democrats doing everything in their power to entice illegal aliens to enter the USA, and then blaming conservatives for said aliens circumstances once they get here really is a genius plan of attack. Kudos to the left!

So it's your contention that the democratic party are the child catcher for *Chitty Chitty Bang Bang* that left are luring impovershed children to the border so Baron Obamaburst could have them imprisoned?

It's the right-wing nutjobs that own all of the private prisons and are profiting from the incarceration of aliens while their status is being decided. These private prisons are NOT subject to the same controls as our regular prisons, hence the over crowding, disease, and death. Our shit bag former Republican governor is an investor in at least one of these facilities.

Waitaminute. I thought the 1% were the job creators, and the "illegals" are coming here for jobs. How is it that dems are to blame? It seems to me that the problem is the same as the drug war. If you can't stop the demand, you need to look at other avenues, because stopping supply just doesn't work.

CNBC

President Donald Trump raised a mammoth $36 million since he officially announced his campaign for reelection last week.

At a donor event on Tuesday at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, the president raised $6 million with 225 people in attendance in support of his joint fundraising committee, according to Republican officials with direct knowledge of the matter. The committee, called Trump Victory, distributes donations between the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee.

I've given it serious thought. I don't think I can vote for a centrist canidate if the Democratic party runs one. I held my nose and voted for canidates who offered and done absolutely nothing for me for too long. I registered independant after 2016.

I will not continue to legitimize this farce. I will campaign for, engage with, donate to progressive canidates whereever I am, but if a centrist gets the nod, I will vote for progressives in the house and senate, but I will write in Bernie Sanders and call it a day in 2020 if the Dems run a centrist.

The republicans are offering someone you might like. He's certainly not a centrist.

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:02 pm The republicans are offering someone you might like. He's certainly not a centrist.

That's certainally a major concern . It's also the arguement that the centrists love to make. I'm betting on if the Democrats do lose in 2020 after running a centrist that the civil war within the party will be EPIC. This may lead to real change.

Of course, I'm not convinced. I'm open to having my opinion changed.

We have a choice: vote for the person the dems put forth, or vote for Trump. I long for the days in which you could actually vote for the person you felt was best suited to leading our country, without worrying that doing so would result in a failed tv reality show host taking the reins. But we don't have the luxury right now. Perhaps someday we will again.

Drazzil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:53 pm I will write in Bernie Sanders and call it a day in 2020 if the Dems run a centrist.

Donald Trump appreciates your vote.

Drazzil wrote:

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:02 pm The republicans are offering someone you might like. He's certainly not a centrist.

That's certainally a major concern . It's also the arguement that the centrists love to make. I'm betting on if the Democrats do lose in 2020 after running a centrist that the civil war within the party will be EPIC. This may lead to real change.

Of course, I'm not convinced. I'm open to having my opinion changed.

Since we are a democracy you certainly can vote for whomever you want. Even a reality show CEO with multiple bankruptcies and a Toddler's view of government has a shot at being president. Just saying...

$iljanus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:30 pm

Drazzil wrote:

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:02 pm The republicans are offering someone you might like. He's certainly not a centrist.

That's certainally a major concern . It's also the arguement that the centrists love to make. I'm betting on if the Democrats do lose in 2020 after running a centrist that the civil war within the party will be EPIC. This may lead to real change.

Of course, I'm not convinced. I'm open to having my opinion changed.

Since we are a democracy you certainly can vote for whomever you want. Even a reality show CEO with multiple bankruptcies and a Toddler's view of government has a shot at being president. Just saying...

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here for a second. What if a second Donald Trump term is exactly what America needs for the Democratic party needs to pull it's head out of it's ass and actually represent progressive values? What if Trump does something so stupid he gets himself overthrown and destroys the Republican strangehold for good? Isin't that better then another 8 years of backsliding into the abyss?

If I subscribed to the belief that we were in danger of "sliding into the abyss" before Trump, perhaps I'd agree with you. But I suspect that the term "progressive values" today has more in common with the reasons Trump voters support him, than it does with any actual good for the country as a whole. It's more likely to be a reactionary platform instead of a reasoned one with a grounding in reality.

Obama was an African American president who (eventually) supported gay marriage, abortion rights for women, raising the minimum wage, and openly discussed gun control reform (I'm not even covering everything). Was he perfect? Hell no. But we certainly weren't "sliding into an abyss" in the way you seem to believe we were.

However, if we let Trump continue on, we may very well see that happen. I never, in a million years, thought Roe vs Wade would be in danger in my lifetime. Now, I'm not so sure.

After Trump stacks the courts for another 4 years (including one or two more far-right SCOTUS judges) and either destroys or neuters any element of public service that doesn't bend and kiss his ring, just what influence do you think progressives might actually have at that point?

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:51 pm If I subscribed to the belief that we were in danger of "sliding into the abyss" before Trump, perhaps I'd agree with you. But I suspect that the term "progressive values" today has more in common with the reasons Trump voters support him, than it does with any actual good for the country as a whole. It's more likely to be a reactionary platform instead of a reasoned one with a grounding in reality.

Obama was an African American president who (eventually) supported gay marriage, abortion rights for women, raising the minimum wage, and openly discussed gun control reform (I'm not even covering everything). Was he perfect? Hell no. But we certainly weren't "sliding into an abyss" in the way you seem to believe we were.

However, if we let Trump continue on, we may very well see that happen. I never, in a million years, thought Roe vs Wade would be in danger in my lifetime. Now, I'm not so sure.

That's the difference between us. Obama talked a goid game and swept to power in 2008, then turned around and governed as a moderate republican during most of his time in office. He (for me at least) felt like the third and fourth terms of Bush. He bailed out the banks, failed to hold Bush or high finance accountable, continued to feed the bloated military industrial complex, and shred worker rights. Yeah, he did some good things, but his policy positions started at centrist right, then he and the Dem party caved again and again until they gave the Republicans 90% of what they wanted.

I don't think he did much of anything besides rearrange deck chairs.

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:54 pm After Trump stacks the courts for another 4 years (including one or two more far-right SCOTUS judges) and either destroys or neuters any element of public service that doesn't bend and kiss his ring, just what influence do you think progressives might actually have at that point?

I think another 4 years of Trump will make things so bad for Americans things will change by the bullet or the ballot.

A centrist would just do his or her best to hold things together for another 8 years. Increasing the misery of the poor, working and middle class while siphoning more "value" to the top.

Yeah, we're very different. I see no part of what you wrote as being intrinsically "progressive' and almost entirely as reactionary. You want governance born out of revenge. I don't.

Drazzil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:01 pm I don't think he did much of anything besides rearrange deck chairs.

So wrong. So very, very wrong.

Drazzil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:35 pm

$iljanus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:30 pm

Drazzil wrote:

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:02 pm The republicans are offering someone you might like. He's certainly not a centrist.

That's certainally a major concern . It's also the arguement that the centrists love to make. I'm betting on if the Democrats do lose in 2020 after running a centrist that the civil war within the party will be EPIC. This may lead to real change.

Of course, I'm not convinced. I'm open to having my opinion changed.

Since we are a democracy you certainly can vote for whomever you want. Even a reality show CEO with multiple bankruptcies and a Toddler's view of government has a shot at being president. Just saying...

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here for a second. What if a second Donald Trump term is exactly what America needs for the Democratic party needs to pull it's head out of it's ass and actually represent progressive values? What if Trump does something so stupid he gets himself overthrown and destroys the Republican strangehold for good? Isin't that better then another 8 years of backsliding into the abyss?

I think we have a movement towards "progressive" values taking place and a centrist President will be ignoring those voices at their peril. If Trump is in office for another 4 years he's not going to be "overthrown" and the chances of sliding into the abyss kind of increase on his watch, especially in the foreign policy arena and on the global economic stage.

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:10 pm Yeah, we're very different. I see no part of what you wrote as being intrinsically "progressive' and almost entirely as reactionary. You want governance born out of revenge. I don't.

Drazzil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:01 pm I don't think he did much of anything besides rearrange deck chairs.

So wrong. So very, very wrong.

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:10 pm Yeah, we're very different. I see no part of what you wrote as being intrinsically "progressive' and almost entirely as reactionary. You want governance born out of revenge. I don't.

I don't think I'm a reactionary. The term "reactionary" seems mostly to do with the right wing. If Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren is revenge politics, then yes I am totally for "revenge". We need voters to see the people screwing people who work for a living laid low. No half measures. In an ideal world [according to me] I'd love to see Trump and Bush in jail for their offenses against Americans.

I'd love to see cyber attacks and hacks against countries that break US law and allow the mega wealthy to avoid paying taxes I want harsh, punitive fines laid on the ultra rich when. evade taxes. I'd love to see our immigration laws enforced by fining large corporations millions of dollars per illegal hired. I'd love to see serious immigration reform and guest worker programs that make its easier for non citizens to fill in the gaps in our labor pool. I'd love to see immigration made easier for people of all race and national origin.

I'd also like to see our criminal justice system reformed.

I'd also love to see our current politicans hold past politicans legally responsible for breaking the law. Most of all I want money out of politics.

$iljanus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:13 pm

Drazzil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:35 pm

$iljanus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:30 pm

Drazzil wrote:

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:02 pm The republicans are offering someone you might like. He's certainly not a centrist.

That's certainally a major concern . It's also the arguement that the centrists love to make. I'm betting on if the Democrats do lose in 2020 after running a centrist that the civil war within the party will be EPIC. This may lead to real change.

Of course, I'm not convinced. I'm open to having my opinion changed.

Since we are a democracy you certainly can vote for whomever you want. Even a reality show CEO with multiple bankruptcies and a Toddler's view of government has a shot at being president. Just saying...

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here for a second. What if a second Donald Trump term is exactly what America needs for the Democratic party needs to pull it's head out of it's ass and actually represent progressive values? What if Trump does something so stupid he gets himself overthrown and destroys the Republican strangehold for good? Isin't that better then another 8 years of backsliding into the abyss?

I think we have a movement towards "progressive" values taking place and a centrist President will be ignoring those voices at their peril. If Trump is in office for another 4 years he's not going to be "overthrown" and the chances of sliding into the abyss kind of increase on his watch, especially in the foreign policy arena and on the global economic stage.

This is the best arguement I've seen for supporting someone I don't like if they become the nominee. One small quibble: How do I know a centrist wouldn't just blow off the progressives if they turn out in large numbers to support them? After all, we'd be willing to hold our noses and vote for them regardless of their abhorrent policies.

After all Obama ignored progressives for 8 years while running as their canidate.

Drazzil says he's not reactionary, then writes a huge reactionary post.

pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:41 pm Drazzil says he's not reactionary, then writes a huge reactionary post.

What about what I wrote above was reactionary? I believe in the rule of law for everyone. Not just those who are too poor to afford a lawyer or a lobbiest.

pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:41 pm Drazzil says he's not reactionary, then writes a huge reactionary post.

God love him, that was truly epic.

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:52 pm

pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:41 pm Drazzil says he's not reactionary, then writes a huge reactionary post.

God love him, that was truly epic.

So... you call me reactionary without actually pointing out whats reactionary. I'd prolly avoid cyberattacking tax havens, but I would certainally insist strongly that they turn over such records on pain of not being able to set foot in a US or ally without being jailed... But other then that. My post stands.

Drazzil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:41 pm

$iljanus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:13 pm

Drazzil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:35 pm

$iljanus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:30 pm

Drazzil wrote:

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:02 pm The republicans are offering someone you might like. He's certainly not a centrist.

That's certainally a major concern . It's also the arguement that the centrists love to make. I'm betting on if the Democrats do lose in 2020 after running a centrist that the civil war within the party will be EPIC. This may lead to real change.

Of course, I'm not convinced. I'm open to having my opinion changed.

Since we are a democracy you certainly can vote for whomever you want. Even a reality show CEO with multiple bankruptcies and a Toddler's view of government has a shot at being president. Just saying...

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here for a second. What if a second Donald Trump term is exactly what America needs for the Democratic party needs to pull it's head out of it's ass and actually represent progressive values? What if Trump does something so stupid he gets himself overthrown and destroys the Republican strangehold for good? Isin't that better then another 8 years of backsliding into the abyss?

I think we have a movement towards "progressive" values taking place and a centrist President will be ignoring those voices at their peril. If Trump is in office for another 4 years he's not going to be "overthrown" and the chances of sliding into the abyss kind of increase on his watch, especially in the foreign policy arena and on the global economic stage.

This is the best arguement I've seen for supporting someone I don't like if they become the nominee. One small quibble: How do I know a centrist wouldn't just blow off the progressives if they turn out in large numbers to support them? After all, we'd be willing to hold our noses and vote for them regardless of their abhorrent policies.

After all Obama ignored progressives for 8 years while running as their canidate.

Incorrect re: Obama. ACA, Bailout, DACA and other Progressive initiatives. Also, was far more Progressive than Hillary would likely have been.

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:13 pm

Drazzil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:41 pm

$iljanus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:13 pm

Drazzil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:35 pm

$iljanus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:30 pm

Drazzil wrote:

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:02 pm The republicans are offering someone you might like. He's certainly not a centrist.

That's certainally a major concern . It's also the arguement that the centrists love to make. I'm betting on if the Democrats do lose in 2020 after running a centrist that the civil war within the party will be EPIC. This may lead to real change.

Of course, I'm not convinced. I'm open to having my opinion changed.

Since we are a democracy you certainly can vote for whomever you want. Even a reality show CEO with multiple bankruptcies and a Toddler's view of government has a shot at being president. Just saying...

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here for a second. What if a second Donald Trump term is exactly what America needs for the Democratic party needs to pull it's head out of it's ass and actually represent progressive values? What if Trump does something so stupid he gets himself overthrown and destroys the Republican strangehold for good? Isin't that better then another 8 years of backsliding into the abyss?

I think we have a movement towards "progressive" values taking place and a centrist President will be ignoring those voices at their peril. If Trump is in office for another 4 years he's not going to be "overthrown" and the chances of sliding into the abyss kind of increase on his watch, especially in the foreign policy arena and on the global economic stage.

This is the best arguement I've seen for supporting someone I don't like if they become the nominee. One small quibble: How do I know a centrist wouldn't just blow off the progressives if they turn out in large numbers to support them? After all, we'd be willing to hold our noses and vote for them regardless of their abhorrent policies.

After all Obama ignored progressives for 8 years while running as their canidate.

Incorrect re: Obama. ACA, Bailout, DACA and other Progressive initiatives. Also, was far more Progressive than Hillary would likely have been.

I can understand why you would list the other things, but the bailout? really?

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:10 pm Yeah, we're very different. I see no part of what you wrote as being intrinsically "progressive' and almost entirely as reactionary. You want governance born out of revenge. I don't.

That's not the definition of "reactionary".

The word you're looking for "class-conscious".

While Sanders would probably make the stronger president in terms of changing things in favor of the working class (often referred to as "the middle class" for some reason in American media, I've noticed), I think the best bet for American proles is Warren. She could be the candidate establishment democrats can tolerate, allowing them to save face and not have to face a Sanders presidency which would admittedly be quite painful for those too corrupted by corporate ties. She's even a former Republican and claims to be pro-Capitalism, a unifying figure positioned well to fight systemic corruption.

The success of Social Democracy in Europe comes largely from the establishment fearing Communist revolution, and making concessions to the relatively more peaceful and pragmatic parts of the labor movement. While Sanders is pretty tame by European standards, he does seem to play the Red boogeyman for the rich and powerful, paving the way for a Warren presidency.

Lagom Lite wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:56 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:10 pm Yeah, we're very different. I see no part of what you wrote as being intrinsically "progressive' and almost entirely as reactionary. You want governance born out of revenge. I don't.

That's not the definition of "reactionary".

The word you're looking for "class-conscious".

Reactionary not in the precise, political definition of the word, but rather reactionary in its "I'm gonna get them back!" approach to politics. In any case, class-conscious in and of itself is merely a recognition of one's perceived place in a society. Perhaps you meant "class-conflict"?

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:14 pm

Lagom Lite wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:56 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:10 pm Yeah, we're very different. I see no part of what you wrote as being intrinsically "progressive' and almost entirely as reactionary. You want governance born out of revenge. I don't.

That's not the definition of "reactionary".

The word you're looking for "class-conscious".

Reactionary not in the precise, political definition of the word, but rather reactionary in its "I'm gonna get them back!" approach to politics.

Again, that's not the definition of the word you're using. I don't mean to be a dick, I genuinely didn't understand what point you were trying to make.

See, here's the thing: It's completely possible to be progressive AND angry. You (and pr0ner) made it seem like it was inconsistent to both want progressive reforms as well as "revenge". It's not.

Other words you could use to describe Drazzil's positions could be "radical", "revolutionary" or even "populist".

Drazzil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:46 pm

pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:41 pm Drazzil says he's not reactionary, then writes a huge reactionary post.

What about what I wrote above was reactionary? I believe in the rule of law for everyone. Not just those who are too poor to afford a lawyer or a lobbiest.

Reactionary:

"We need voters to see the people screwing people who work for a living laid low."

"In an ideal world [according to me] I'd love to see Trump and Bush in jail for their offenses against Americans."

"I'd love to see cyber attacks and hacks against countries that break US law and allow the mega wealthy to avoid paying taxes I want harsh, punitive fines laid on the ultra rich when. evade taxes."

"I'd love to see our immigration laws enforced by fining large corporations millions of dollars per illegal hired"

"I'd also love to see our current politicans hold past politicans legally responsible for breaking the law."

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:14 pm

Lagom Lite wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:56 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:10 pm Yeah, we're very different. I see no part of what you wrote as being intrinsically "progressive' and almost entirely as reactionary. You want governance born out of revenge. I don't.

That's not the definition of "reactionary".

The word you're looking for "class-conscious".

Reactionary not in the precise, political definition of the word, but rather reactionary in its "I'm gonna get them back!" approach to politics. In any case, class-conscious in and of itself is merely a recognition of one's perceived place in a society. Perhaps you meant "class-conflict"?

Sure, that works too. "Class warfare" if you want to red-scare.

pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:26 pm

Drazzil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:46 pm

pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:41 pm Drazzil says he's not reactionary, then writes a huge reactionary post.

What about what I wrote above was reactionary? I believe in the rule of law for everyone. Not just those who are too poor to afford a lawyer or a lobbiest.

Reactionary:

"We need voters to see the people screwing people who work for a living laid low."

"In an ideal world [according to me] I'd love to see Trump and Bush in jail for their offenses against Americans."

"I'd love to see cyber attacks and hacks against countries that break US law and allow the mega wealthy to avoid paying taxes I want harsh, punitive fines laid on the ultra rich when. evade taxes."

"I'd love to see our immigration laws enforced by fining large corporations millions of dollars per illegal hired"

"I'd also love to see our current politicans hold past politicans legally responsible for breaking the law."

None of those things can be labeled as "reactionary".

Reactionary means opposing progress to the degree of wanting to return to a state of affairs status quo ante. Like, "Make America Great Again". A return to a golden age of some sort, opposing change. Unless America has in the past had "voters screw people who work for a living", thrown presidents in jail for "offenses against Americans", used "cyber attacks and hacks against countries that break US law", immigration laws enforced by "finings corporations (...) per illegal hired" or held "past politicians legally responsible for breaking the law" - unless America has in the past, in some golden age "before the war", as it were, done those things, and Drazzil is pledging a return to this, they are not reactionary positions.

They are angry positions, vindictive. But not reactionary. Trump is reactionary.

If reactionary is only defined by conservative/right wing views, sure.

I would say being vindictive is being reactionary in its own way, though perhaps not in the political definition of the word.

That's where I was getting him being reactionary from.

pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:42 pm If reactionary is only defined by conservative/right wing views, sure.

I would say being vindictive is being reactionary in its own way, though perhaps not in the political definition of the word.

That's where I was getting him being reactionary from.

Ok.

As an aside, it's certainly possible to be reactionary and on the political left... Today's Russian Communists are a good example of this. Quite a few Russians think of the Soviet era as "the good old days", selectively remembering only the things they liked while forgetting the things that perhaps were not so good… The old Communist party is still going strong over there in spite of everything.

pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:26 pm

Drazzil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:46 pm

pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:41 pm Drazzil says he's not reactionary, then writes a huge reactionary post.

What about what I wrote above was reactionary? I believe in the rule of law for everyone. Not just those who are too poor to afford a lawyer or a lobbiest.

Reactionary:

"We need voters to see the people screwing people who work for a living laid low."

"In an ideal world [according to me] I'd love to see Trump and Bush in jail for their offenses against Americans."

"I'd love to see cyber attacks and hacks against countries that break US law and allow the mega wealthy to avoid paying taxes I want harsh, punitive fines laid on the ultra rich when. evade taxes."

"I'd love to see our immigration laws enforced by fining large corporations millions of dollars per illegal hired"

"I'd also love to see our current politicans hold past politicans legally responsible for breaking the law."

How is any of this reactionary?

If I said; "I'd like to see the superrich imprisoned, all their assets siezed." or "I want to see the lobbiests lined up against the nearest wall and shot" or "I think we should disenfranchize everyone who voted for Trump for 20 years" or "I want to see 90% of the politicans in power now and 5/9th's of the supreme court and international oil execs tried for treason"

THAT's reactionary, that's even vindictive. What I proposed earlier. Thats asking that we the people whether rich or poor be held to the same standard.

Drazzil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:56 pm

pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:26 pm

Drazzil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:46 pm

pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:41 pm Drazzil says he's not reactionary, then writes a huge reactionary post.

What about what I wrote above was reactionary? I believe in the rule of law for everyone. Not just those who are too poor to afford a lawyer or a lobbiest.

Reactionary:

"We need voters to see the people screwing people who work for a living laid low."

"In an ideal world [according to me] I'd love to see Trump and Bush in jail for their offenses against Americans."

"I'd love to see cyber attacks and hacks against countries that break US law and allow the mega wealthy to avoid paying taxes I want harsh, punitive fines laid on the ultra rich when. evade taxes."

"I'd love to see our immigration laws enforced by fining large corporations millions of dollars per illegal hired"

"I'd also love to see our current politicans hold past politicans legally responsible for breaking the law."

How is any of this reactionary?

If I said; "I'd like to see the superrich imprisoned, all their assets siezed." or "I want to see the lobbiests lined up against the nearest wall and shot" or "I think we should disenfranchize everyone who voted for Trump for 20 years" or "I want to see 90% of the politicans in power now and 5/9th's of the supreme court and international oil execs tried for treason"

THAT's reactionary

You used to do this?

I kid, I kid. I'll stop now.

But seriously. Why does most everyone here think my opinions and political views are reactionary, or vindictive? Can presidents and politicans and the rich live by their own rules and do whatever they please forever and never be held to account? Do we go forward without addressing the sheer amount of damage they've done? They just get a pass to drive off and leave us to pick through the wreckage? My generation is largely a "lost" one. Who should be held to account?

What answer do I get? "Sorry, party unity?"

Drazzil wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:04 pm But seriously. Why does most everyone here think my opinions and political views are reactionary, or vindictive?

I don't. I just wanted to be a smartass.

Can presidents and politicans and the rich live by their own rules and do whatever they please forever and never be held to account? Do we go forward without addressing the sheer amount of damage they've done? They just get a pass to drive off and leave us to pick through the wreckage? My generation is largely a "lost" one. Who should be held to account?

What answer do I get? "Sorry, party unity?"

Don't look at me, I'm safely tucked away in Scandinavia. Where we make cheerful furniture and digital media to export in exchange for action movies and jeans.

I'm just saying, if I were American… I would support the politicians whom I judged to have my interests at heart. And since I'm not particularly wealthy, just a sort of middle class civil servant trying to get by, working and providing for my family, that narrows the field a wee bit.