The Way Forward - Your Vision for a Post-Trump America

[bad_teammate 13186]

Almost all of us agree that TRUMP is bad.

Almost all of us want him gone ASAP.

There are many ways to achieve this (impeachment/removal in a GOP-controlled Congress (lol), a 2020 defeat (less likely than we think), and 2024 bringing out the two-term limit so we can elect President Ben Sasse of the Republicans Who Are Totally Not Trump Party).

There is disagreement as to how this can happen. In this thread, I hope we can argue in circles about 2018. But even more, I hope we can articulate what we want a post-Trump future to look like.

GO!

(Hopefully this helps the offending derail in the TRUMP!!! thread)

[Pescado_Rojo 19413]

Well for one, the next POTUS is actually going to have to go on that apology tour the R's kept whining about when Obama was President. 

[Post Oak 20205]

My hope is that it starts with a public hanging in the shadows of the Washington Monument.  

After that im open to any idea

[bad_teammate 13186]

I'll start! (DAMNIT YOU GUYS BEAT ME)

We are a nation of idiots, racists, and other types. We are going to need parties that represent, very broadly defined, "liberals" and "conservatives".

Ideally, we stop being a two-party nation.

America First: for the Nazis
Republican: for the fiscal conservatives horror-monsters
Democrat: for the namby-pamby "oh goodness" suburbanites
Democratic Socialists: for the cool, smart people with good politics

Then you have the independents, the majority of the nation, who floats between the parties given the political winds and events of the day.

Edited July 19, 2018 by bad_teammate

[bad_teammate 13186]

1 minute ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I want a President with decorum and good taste; good sensibilities and manners and someone who skews towards "orator". Someone very intelligent. In that sense, I'd like someone that has a lot of Obama features.

I want a President who will support the policies of reasonable immigration reform (read: enforce immigration and be tough on it, but not inhumane and put babies in jail), someone who respects LGBT individuals but doesn't want to carry their Special Interest water, and someone who will at least entertain responsible gun reform.

I want a President who will dismiss or otherwise not support things like free college tuition for all, free/universal healthcare, and generally raising taxes on the middle and upper middle class tax brackets for any number of reasons.

 

I guess I want a Bill Clinton-lite minus the sexual morality shortcomings. But hey, we are all human.

So... a return to the conditions that brought us to where we are now? Like, rewind to the middle of the horror movie and hope the ending changes?

[Huckleberry 32845]

Replying to this here so as not to continue the derail over there:

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I asked this earlier and I guess it got lost: You say you've never voted for a Democrat nationally in your life; do you always vote third party/independent? Have you voted Republican?

But aside from that, nowhere in my choices do I talk about either party, simply the larger political spheres. Will you deny your existence and participation in that sphere?

Maybe not rely on obvious logical fallacies (appeal to authority, identity politics, etc...) and do some independent thinking that might lead you to self-reflection too painful for your astonishing, I-am-very-above-it-all ego?

Also, I don't think "ex-spook" and "CNN analyst" is really the direction I'd want to go even if I wanted to rely lazily on appeals to authority.

White conservatives playing the id-pol game is always a good laugh.

I am going door-to-door across the nation, asking questions. If I find someone who says, "I might vote Dem and I've never done it before" I hit them in the face with a banana cream pie and tell them their mother is a whore. It's time consuming, but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

Not "everyone", buddy, just you guys. Because we all have 20 billion posts we've all read and there's no point pretending that we're talking to some ideological tabula rasa.

This is a funny post in the middle of Huck's effort-posts.

I'm going to start a separate thread for this and Huck can go in there with one-liners and his brigade of puppies can yip at me threateningly there lol

No, I don't participate in the Republican sphere in any way whatsoever and never have. I covered this elsewhere but I actually believe in small government, social liberties, and individual freedoms to the extent possible. But I also believe government regulation does have a role to play in society because protecting individual liberty and safety by limiting the negative impacts of selfishness and greed is one of its main roles. So basically I disagree 100% with the reality of the GOP (although they pay lip service to the small government portion of that they have never actually put that into action since I came of voting age). The only plank and effort of either main party with which I agree is Democratic efforts to preserve social liberties. In national level races I have historically either voted Libertarian or not voted. In State and local races I do occasionally vote Democrat, especially for judicial elections, because I oppose the "LOCK THEM ALL UP" stupidity that Republicans run on. National and State/local government have different roles, as they should. so the easiest way to sum up my voting patterns is generally Libertarian nationally/Democrat locally. Voting for Democrats locally doesn't worry me fiscally because they aren't going to affect fiscal policy in any meaningful way from those positions.

Again, this has all been hashed and rehashed thousands of times on these boards, you just refuse to listen so you can keep your shtick going. It's also beyond humorous to the point of absurd for you to tell other people "Maybe not rely on obvious logical fallacies (appeal to authority, identity politics, etc...) and do some independent thinking that might lead you to self-reflection too painful for your astonishing, I-am-very-above-it-all ego?" considering you bashed everyone who didn't immediately believe the fanciful fiction in Sabrina Erdely's Rolling Stone story. Talk about blinding yourself to terrible logic because you thought you were above everyone else. Holy shit that was something.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

We need to tear down the structures that limit voices for all Americans (Citizens United, Gerrymandering, Lobbyist structure, Electoral College?, etc) and focus on a framework that allows for balanced involvement in government. I do not want to repair the government in YOUR or MY dream vision (I'm a Democratic Socialist), but repair the government to be able to function as cleanly as possible so that the power is with the people and not minority groups and/or power players (1%, Corporations, Foreign Govts, etc). 

[Jiggy-Z 3432]

I have recently been cruising YouTube and looking at the speaking engagements of David Cay Johnston, a very credible journalist that has been covering Trump since 1988.

His most recent engagements have been on his book tour promoting his most recent work: "It's Worse Than You Think".  His speeches bring up a variety of topics but relevant to this thread, he goes through some scenarios with Mueller's investigation and midterm elections...and as his book title suggest, none of them are good.  Definitely worth a look for discussion in this thread.

Mr. Johnston has also written recently a bio on Trump (published 2016) and there are lectures given on that book tour as well. In addition, he has written extensively on tax reform, influence peddling, and wealth concentration. Again, all very enlightening and well researched topics.

His overall plea in his most recent book is to pay less attention to the tweets and "palace intrigue" and look at what is going on from a policy standpoint, and if you are thoroughly disgusted, go vote, become involved, and get a congress elected that will work for you.

[bad_teammate 13186]

1 minute ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Yes, sure. Because if you are the believer of the infinite universe model than any infinite number of outcomes could happen based off of, I don't know, chaos theory or something. So if we rewind to the middle of the horror movie and a few things change, we end up with a rom-com happy ending romance (in my eyes) as opposed to the chainsaw murder movie.

oooh chaos theory I like it

I guess the disconnect you and I would have on this is that I see Trump as kind of a natural outgrowth of 80s-90s culture (both popular and political). Clinton said, "Hey, we can be racist, too!" and jumbled up the previous dynamic of the Democrats being the civil rights party and the Republicans being the law-and-order party.

Anyway, I don't like the idea of referencing the past that much and ESPECIALLY not wanting any kind of rewind. Trump should make us fundamentally rethink some of our basic suppositions about how our government and economy are even supposed to work.

[Bat Guano 359]

First, last, and most: get the big money out of politics. Small donations from actual individuals are fine. Big bribes from corporations and the ultrarich are just that, bribes, and they come with an implied or explicit quid pro quo. Always, without exception. Make donations over a certain amount (let's say $1000, adjusted periodically for inflation) illegal. I don't consider money to be speech any more than I consider speech to be money, and I don't get paid for spouting off on street corners, so it's not a First Amendment issue, and I'm as close to an absolutist on actual 1A issues as you're likely to find. Public financing of elections, the only exception being the small donations from individuals.

Bottom line: make the government accountable to the people. I don't know if it ever has been, but it's a necessary step. This by itself would solve most of the problems we're seeing. Not all, and it would take some time for the pathologies that have been bred into the current system to work their way out, but in time we would have a healthy political corpus without the influence of the root of all evil.

Edited July 19, 2018 by Bat Guano

[David Dennison 18845]

8 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

First, last, and most: get the big money out of politics. Small donations from actual individuals are fine. Big bribes from corporations and the ultrarich are just that, bribes, and they come with an implied or explicit quid pro quo. Always, without exception. Make donations over a certain amount (let's say $1000, adjusted periodically for inflation) illegal. I don't consider money to be speech any more than I consider speech to be money, and I don't get paid for spouting off on street corners, so it's not a First Amendment issue, and I'm as close to an absolutist on actual 1A issues as you're likely to find. Public financing of elections, the only exception being the small donations from individuals.

Bottom line: make the government accountable to the people. I don't know if it ever has been, but it's a necessary step. This by itself would solve most of the problems we're seeing. Not all, and it would take some time for the pathologies that have been bred into the current system to work their way out, but in time we would have a healthy political corpus without the influence of the root of all evil.

Therein lies the problem. The Supreme Court disagrees.

I'm with you on money and speech. The only thing you can do about it as a voter is stop voting Republican. 

[Bat Guano 359]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Therein lies the problem. The Supreme Court disagrees.

I'm with you on money and speech. The only thing you can do about it as a voter is stop voting Republican. 

I know. I didn't say it was going to be easy.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

First we have two get rid of all the white racists. Then we need to get rid of all the black racists (what am I saying black people can't be racist), then the asian racists, then we need to do another sweep of the country looking for all the racists hiding out in the barns. Then we identify the really sneaky racists, then racist, racist racist racist blah. aaaaaaggggggghhhhh !!!

Only then will the country be safe for BT to roam about free and unfettered with the knowledge that someone somewhere has a different philosophy than he.....and he's gonna call em racists...and send them too internment camps... errr re education camps.....

 

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST..............

Edited July 19, 2018 by Onboard 2.0

[Js1 85271]

58 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Therein lies the problem. The Supreme Court disagrees.

I'm with you on money and speech. The only thing you can do about it as a voter is stop voting Republican. 

[Clob94 121]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Almost all of us agree that TRUMP is bad.

Almost all of us want him gone ASAP.

There are many ways to achieve this (impeachment/removal in a GOP-controlled Congress (lol), a 2020 defeat (less likely than we think), and 2024 bringing out the two-term limit so we can elect President Ben Sasse of the Republicans Who Are Totally Not Trump Party).

There is disagreement as to how this can happen. In this thread, I hope we can argue in circles about 2018. But even more, I hope we can articulate what we want a post-Trump future to look like.

GO!

(Hopefully this helps the offending derail in the TRUMP!!! thread)

Please define what you see as the platform for a democratic socialist. Yours specifically. I've heard this term tossed around a bit lately and I'm getting varied responses as to what it is truly defined as. 

[DixonHur 11292]

7 minutes ago, Clob94 said:

Please define what you see as the platform for a democratic socialist. Yours specifically. I've heard this term tossed around a bit lately and I'm getting varied responses as to what it is truly defined as. 

I second this motion.

True Democratic Socialism is a terrible idea.  I'm hoping you misspoke, and are actually talking about Social Democracy, aka the Nordic Model. That I can get behind, but the United Sandinistas of America?  No thanks.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

39 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I second this motion.

True Democratic Socialism is a terrible idea.  I'm hoping you misspoke, and are actually talking about Social Democracy, aka the Nordic Model. That I can get behind, but the United Sandinistas of America?  No thanks.

I will own that I mistyped up above. I am a fan of the Nordic Model (Social Democracy). I wish the two systems didn't have similar names as their functions are quite different. 

Thanks for calling this out to allow for a correction. 

Edited July 19, 2018 by SmokeyTheBear

[Whitman 694]

 

11 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

I.... I am a fan of the Nordic Model ....................... 

#MeToo.

 

[bad_teammate 13186]

I don't know what it is, but I know it's terrible.

Like any party, there is not lock-step agreement on everything and there is no concrete plan for every contingency, but there are some basic things that are concrete DSA musts.

1)  Vital industries need to be nationalized

In the current political climate, one whose language is so dominated by right-wing political shaping, this comes across to many of you like saying we should drill down into the Earth's mantle and eat lava. But it's really not that big of a deal. The Green Bay Packers are not functionally different from other NFL teams and still win bigly. NASA got to the moon. The trains run on time. Our military can still blow everyone up. Etc...

What does nationalization entail? Non-profit operation and the board of directors are subject to democratic forces. There are a dozen ways this could play out, but the principal is that the profit motive is removed from vital industry so that vital utilities are never withheld from citizens.

So what is vital? Utilities are the obvious place to start (electricity, gas, water, television (transmission, not production of shows), and Internet). Healthcare.

"MY GRANDPA BUILT THIS DILDO FACTORY AND I'LL BE GOD DAMNED IF ..."

While your dildos are cool, they aren't vital.

But speaking of your grandpa's dildo factory...

2) Non-vital industries need to be socialized

The profits of for-profit enterprise should be shared more equally among the workers. Again, there are a dozen ways this could work. The ultimate principal goes into the EXTREMELY TRUE thing Obama said that made idiots mad, "You didn't build that."

Grandpa didn't actually build that dildo factory by himself. Lots and lots of people helped him build it. And the entire American taxpayer used their money to fund the infrastructures necessary for that dildo factory to be built and operate.

Profit sharing is the most obvious and least intrusive way of operating. Instead of Jeff Bezos having $150B and his workers making peanuts, what if that wealth was spread among his workers and he only had $500M to scrape by with? (And yes, I realize that isn't liquid cash and is tied to Amazon's worth in the marketplace, but the principle is still there in terms of ownership shares.)

There are two things. There are a lot more, of course, but those are kind of the most important in terms of Democratic Socialism.

[Blotto 23487]

We're not coming back. This country is full of fucking morons.

70% of Republicans approve of the way Trump is handling Russia. Think about that. 

 

[SubliminalHorn 6782]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

I'll start! (DAMNIT YOU GUYS BEAT ME)

We are a nation of idiots, racists, and other types. We are going to need parties that represent, very broadly defined, "liberals" and "conservatives".

Ideally, we stop being a two-party nation.

America First: for the Nazis
Republican: for the fiscal conservatives horror-monsters
Democrat: for the namby-pamby "oh goodness" suburbanites
Democratic Socialists: for the cool, smart people with good politics

Then you have the independents, the majority of the nation, who floats between the parties given the political winds and events of the day.

Unless we change to a proportional parliamentary system, we are never going to have more than 2 parties

[DixonHur 11292]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't know what it is, but I know it's terrible.

Like any party, there is not lock-step agreement on everything and there is no concrete plan for every contingency, but there are some basic things that are concrete DSA musts.

1)  Vital industries need to be nationalized

In the current political climate, one whose language is so dominated by right-wing political shaping, this comes across to many of you like saying we should drill down into the Earth's mantle and eat lava. But it's really not that big of a deal. The Green Bay Packers are not functionally different from other NFL teams and still win bigly. NASA got to the moon. The trains run on time. Our military can still blow everyone up. Etc...

What does nationalization entail? Non-profit operation and the board of directors are subject to democratic forces. There are a dozen ways this could play out, but the principal is that the profit motive is removed from vital industry so that vital utilities are never withheld from citizens.

So what is vital? Utilities are the obvious place to start (electricity, gas, water, television (transmission, not production of shows), and Internet). Healthcare.

"MY GRANDPA BUILT THIS DILDO FACTORY AND I'LL BE GOD DAMNED IF ..."

While your dildos are cool, they aren't vital.

But speaking of your grandpa's dildo factory...

2) Non-vital industries need to be socialized

The profits of for-profit enterprise should be shared more equally among the workers. Again, there are a dozen ways this could work. The ultimate principal goes into the EXTREMELY TRUE thing Obama said that made idiots mad, "You didn't build that."

Grandpa didn't actually build that dildo factory by himself. Lots and lots of people helped him build it. And the entire American taxpayer used their money to fund the infrastructures necessary for that dildo factory to be built and operate.

Profit sharing is the most obvious and least intrusive way of operating. Instead of Jeff Bezos having $150B and his workers making peanuts, what if that wealth was spread among his workers and he only had $500M to scrape by with? (And yes, I realize that isn't liquid cash and is tied to Amazon's worth in the marketplace, but the principle is still there in terms of ownership shares.)

There are two things. There are a lot more, of course, but those are kind of the most important in terms of Democratic Socialism.

Ok, so you actually are advocating for Democratic Socialism.

In that case, I stand by my initial assessment.  That's a terrible idea. 

[Hornius Emeritus 12450]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

So... a return to the conditions that brought us to where we are now? Like, rewind to the middle of the horror movie and hope the ending changes?

 

[bad_teammate 13186]

6 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Unless we change to a proportional parliamentary system, we are never going to have more than 2 parties

We absolutely need to do fundamental reforms to the structure of our government to ensure more accurate and proportional representation.

Including a Constitutional amendment ending corporate and private interest money in politics.

[Clob94 121]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't know what it is, but I know it's terrible.

Like any party, there is not lock-step agreement on everything and there is no concrete plan for every contingency, but there are some basic things that are concrete DSA musts.

1)  Vital industries need to be nationalized

In the current political climate, one whose language is so dominated by right-wing political shaping, this comes across to many of you like saying we should drill down into the Earth's mantle and eat lava. But it's really not that big of a deal. The Green Bay Packers are not functionally different from other NFL teams and still win bigly. NASA got to the moon. The trains run on time. Our military can still blow everyone up. Etc...

What does nationalization entail? Non-profit operation and the board of directors are subject to democratic forces. There are a dozen ways this could play out, but the principal is that the profit motive is removed from vital industry so that vital utilities are never withheld from citizens.

So what is vital? Utilities are the obvious place to start (electricity, gas, water, television (transmission, not production of shows), and Internet). Healthcare.

"MY GRANDPA BUILT THIS DILDO FACTORY AND I'LL BE GOD DAMNED IF ..."

While your dildos are cool, they aren't vital.

But speaking of your grandpa's dildo factory...

2) Non-vital industries need to be socialized

The profits of for-profit enterprise should be shared more equally among the workers. Again, there are a dozen ways this could work. The ultimate principal goes into the EXTREMELY TRUE thing Obama said that made idiots mad, "You didn't build that."

Grandpa didn't actually build that dildo factory by himself. Lots and lots of people helped him build it. And the entire American taxpayer used their money to fund the infrastructures necessary for that dildo factory to be built and operate.

Profit sharing is the most obvious and least intrusive way of operating. Instead of Jeff Bezos having $150B and his workers making peanuts, what if that wealth was spread among his workers and he only had $500M to scrape by with? (And yes, I realize that isn't liquid cash and is tied to Amazon's worth in the marketplace, but the principle is still there in terms of ownership shares.)

There are two things. There are a lot more, of course, but those are kind of the most important in terms of Democratic Socialism.

Exhibit 1 is more of a European model. Except for the television part--- to a certain extent. 

Exhibit 2 can be easily solved by making all corporations worth XY amount of money to simply employ an ESOP strategy. More ownership by employees means greater wealth for the employees and higher influence with regard to corporate officials salaries. 

 

Sound reasonable? 

[bad_teammate 13186]

4 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

 

*the Shag wakes up in October of 2016*

"All right, we need to vote for Hillary. It's all gonna come up roses now that we know!"

lol

[bad_teammate 13186]

Just now, Clob94 said:

Exhibit 1 is more of a European model. Except for the television part--- to a certain extent. 

Exhibit 2 can be easily solved by making all corporations worth XY amount of money to simply employ an ESOP strategy. More ownership by employees means greater wealth for the employees and higher influence with regard to corporate officials salaries. 

 

Sound reasonable? 

It's a great start. Let's do it and see how it works out. We'll make reforms as needed to ensure an equitable (not equal) distribution of our nation's fabulous wealth goes to its beautiful citizens. Even the dumb racists and both-sides above-it-all'ers who think having no principles is a virtue.

[Clob94 121]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

We absolutely need to do fundamental reforms to the structure of our government to ensure more accurate and proportional representation.

Including a Constitutional amendment ending corporate and private interest money in politics.

Now I agree with this. No person or company should be allowed to donate more than $100 to any politician or would be elected official. No more PACS, no pay to play EVER, no more "foundations" for any government officials. If you have one before you're elected, it must be totally dissolved. Once you leave office, you can't start one for at least five years. 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20390]

We all want better government.  My idea is to give people who prove to be more intelligent/well versed in policy more votes. One man, one vote?  Fuck that.  That means that my vote and Cletus  from Fritters, Alabama's vote count the same.  

Here's my idea:  A panel of policy experts, historians, and ordinary folks create a list of 1,000 questions to be asked of citizens/voters.  Anything from "name all the supreme court justices"  to "what does NATO stand for"  to whatever.   The panel would work to ensure that 200 of the questions are very easy, 200 are very hard, and the other 600 lie somewhere in the middle.   When you go to vote, you take a quiz of 100 of those randomly generated questions.  Your score indicates how many votes you get.  So I take the test, get 57 correct answers, and my vote counts as 57 votes.  

The smarter, more well-versed you are on policy and history, the more your vote counts.  It would encourage folks to get better-educated on the issues, too.  Dumbasses would have virtually no say, which is how it should be in my personal utopia. 

 

Edited July 19, 2018 by Horn Under a Bad Sign

[Brisketexan 105057]

25 minutes ago, Blotto said:

We're not coming back. This country is full of fucking morons.

70% of Republicans approve of the way Trump is handling Russia. Think about that. 

 

This.  Further discussion is pointless.  I mean, we'll have it.  And we'll try.  But the die is cast.

As to my vision for a post-Trump America....

[bad_teammate 13186]

Virgin Conservative: "My political vision led to ruin! WE ARE ALL DOOMED!"

Chad Leftist: "Get in, pussy, we're building socialism."

[Blotto 23487]

40 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

The smarter, more well-versed you are on policy and history, the more your vote counts.  It would encourage folks to get better-educated on the issues, too.  Dumbasses would have virtually no say, which is how it should be in my personal utopia. 

 

Are you trying to drive voter turnout to single digits consisting almost entirely of olds? Jesus, the next 10 presidents would be named Trump.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4975]

44 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

We all want better government.  My idea is to give people who prove to be more intelligent/well versed in policy more votes. One man, one vote?  Fuck that.  That means that my vote and Cletus  from Fritters, Alabama's vote count the same.  

Here's my idea:  A panel of policy experts, historians, and ordinary folks create a list of 1,000 questions to be asked of citizens/voters.  Anything from "name all the supreme court justices"  to "what does NATO stand for"  to whatever.   The panel would work to ensure that 200 of the questions are very easy, 200 are very hard, and the other 600 lie somewhere in the middle.   When you go to vote, you take a quiz of 100 of those randomly generated questions.  Your score indicates how many votes you get.  So I take the test, get 57 correct answers, and my vote counts as 57 votes.  

The smarter, more well-versed you are on policy and history, the more your vote counts.  It would encourage folks to get better-educated on the issues, too.  Dumbasses would have virtually no say, which is how it should be in my personal utopia. 

 

It would be easier to just put small doses of birth control in junk food. Occasionally indulge? You'll be ok. Eat copious amounts of junk food? You won't be reproducing.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

3 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

It would be easier to just put small doses of birth control in junk food. Occasionally indulge? You'll be ok. Eat copious amounts of junk food? You won't be reproducing.

I know this is mostly in jest, but real food is priced at a point that the poor cannot afford. It is really hard for a parent to choose a bag full of apples when for cheaper they could get a 6-pack of hamburger helper. 

[Clob94 121]

37 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  Further discussion is pointless.  I mean, we'll have it.  And we'll try.  But the die is cast.

As to my vision for a post-Trump America....

If this is your vision of the post trump Era, I hope your skill set is greater than cooking briskets. You won't be much use to my band of marauders. 

[Brisketexan 105057]

1 minute ago, Clob94 said:

If this is your vision of the post trump Era, I hope your skill set is greater than cooking briskets. You won't be much use to my band of marauders. 

I know my way around a pretty broad array of firearms.  And I drive like an asshole.

[Huckleberry 32845]

9 minutes ago, Clob94 said:

If this is your vision of the post trump Era, I hope your skill set is greater than cooking briskets. You won't be much use to my band of marauders. 

If your marauders don't like brisket then there is no place for them in any version of America.

[realgreggym 835]

1 hour ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

We all want better government.  My idea is to give people who prove to be more intelligent/well versed in policy more votes. One man, one vote?  Fuck that.  That means that my vote and Cletus  from Fritters, Alabama's vote count the same.  

Here's my idea:  A panel of policy experts, historians, and ordinary folks create a list of 1,000 questions to be asked of citizens/voters.  Anything from "name all the supreme court justices"  to "what does NATO stand for"  to whatever.   The panel would work to ensure that 200 of the questions are very easy, 200 are very hard, and the other 600 lie somewhere in the middle.   When you go to vote, you take a quiz of 100 of those randomly generated questions.  Your score indicates how many votes you get.  So I take the test, get 57 correct answers, and my vote counts as 57 votes.  

The smarter, more well-versed you are on policy and history, the more your vote counts.  It would encourage folks to get better-educated on the issues, too.  Dumbasses would have virtually no say, which is how it should be in my personal utopia. 

 

You're assuming that you're smarter than Cletus. I like your idea. My vote would wipe out all of the idiot protestors, all of the occupoopers and all of the illegals because I am assuming that the test would be in English.

[Huckleberry 32845]

10 minutes ago, realgreggym said:

You're assuming that you're smarter than Cletus. I like your idea. My vote would wipe out all of the idiot protestors, all of the occupoopers and all of the illegals because I am assuming that the test would be in English.

Pretty sure Melania speaks English.

[Goredho 17394]

I don't want Trump to just be defeated, I want America to be cleansed of his taint.  Which means the destruction of the GOP.  But I want some sort of rational fiscal conservatism to arise from its ashes so that the far left doesn't run rampantly crazy when power gets consolidated under their control (as the far right have done).

In my adult life, America has been the best when there was a split government that mandated a degree of compromise.

Edited July 19, 2018 by Goredho

[bad_teammate 13186]

I think MLK said it best when he said, better than Theodore Parker, "The arc of the moral universe is short, and it bends towards what makes me comfortable."

[RDCanecutter 26379]

Given that the Treaty of Tordesillas has never been revoked, any plan that ignores the fact that we are in open warfare against the Viceroyalty of New Spain is mere mad gibberings prattled in a coffee shop by gentlemen overly heated and Philosophickal, Sir.

[EMAWesome 101]

5 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Almost all of us agree that TRUMP is bad.

Almost all of us want him gone ASAP.

There are many ways to achieve this (impeachment/removal in a GOP-controlled Congress (lol), a 2020 defeat (less likely than we think), and 2024 bringing out the two-term limit so we can elect President Ben Sasse of the Republicans Who Are Totally Not Trump Party).

There is disagreement as to how this can happen. In this thread, I hope we can argue in circles about 2018. But even more, I hope we can articulate what we want a post-Trump future to look like.

GO!

(Hopefully this helps the offending derail in the TRUMP!!! thread)

So explain to me how it is possible that both "almost all of us want him gone" and a 2020 defeat is less likely than we think.  If a 2020 defeat is less likely than "we" think then it seems obvious that not almost all of us want him gone.

[bad_teammate 13186]

Just now, EMAWesome said:

So explain to me how it is possible that both "almost all of us want him gone" and a 2020 defeat is less likely than we think.  If a 2020 defeat is less likely than "we" think then it seems obvious that not almost all of us want him gone.

As goes the Shag, so goes the nation?

I'm obviously talking about this group of people who would be the only ones reading my post.

[EMAWesome 101]

5 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Replying to this here so as not to continue the derail over there:

No, I don't participate in the Republican sphere in any way whatsoever and never have. I covered this elsewhere but I actually believe in small government, social liberties, and individual freedoms to the extent possible. But I also believe government regulation does have a role to play in society because protecting individual liberty and safety by limiting the negative impacts of selfishness and greed is one of its main roles. So basically I disagree 100% with the reality of the GOP (although they pay lip service to the small government portion of that they have never actually put that into action since I came of voting age). The only plank and effort of either main party with which I agree is Democratic efforts to preserve social liberties. In national level races I have historically either voted Libertarian or not voted. In State and local races I do occasionally vote Democrat, especially for judicial elections, because I oppose the "LOCK THEM ALL UP" stupidity that Republicans run on. National and State/local government have different roles, as they should. so the easiest way to sum up my voting patterns is generally Libertarian nationally/Democrat locally. Voting for Democrats locally doesn't worry me fiscally because they aren't going to affect fiscal policy in any meaningful way from those positions.

Again, this has all been hashed and rehashed thousands of times on these boards, you just refuse to listen so you can keep your shtick going. It's also beyond humorous to the point of absurd for you to tell other people "Maybe not rely on obvious logical fallacies (appeal to authority, identity politics, etc...) and do some independent thinking that might lead you to self-reflection too painful for your astonishing, I-am-very-above-it-all ego?" considering you bashed everyone who didn't immediately believe the fanciful fiction in Sabrina Erdely's Rolling Stone story. Talk about blinding yourself to terrible logic because you thought you were above everyone else. Holy shit that was something.

The catch in believing in small government is that small government means less politicians.  You can count on one hand the number of politicians who are going to support that idea even if the number of voters who would support it number in the tens of millions.  The last thing politicians want to do is get a real job.

[EMAWesome 101]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't know what it is, but I know it's terrible.

Like any party, there is not lock-step agreement on everything and there is no concrete plan for every contingency, but there are some basic things that are concrete DSA musts.

1)  Vital industries need to be nationalized

In the current political climate, one whose language is so dominated by right-wing political shaping, this comes across to many of you like saying we should drill down into the Earth's mantle and eat lava. But it's really not that big of a deal. The Green Bay Packers are not functionally different from other NFL teams and still win bigly. NASA got to the moon. The trains run on time. Our military can still blow everyone up. Etc...

What does nationalization entail? Non-profit operation and the board of directors are subject to democratic forces. There are a dozen ways this could play out, but the principal is that the profit motive is removed from vital industry so that vital utilities are never withheld from citizens.

So what is vital? Utilities are the obvious place to start (electricity, gas, water, television (transmission, not production of shows), and Internet). Healthcare.

"MY GRANDPA BUILT THIS DILDO FACTORY AND I'LL BE GOD DAMNED IF ..."

While your dildos are cool, they aren't vital.

But speaking of your grandpa's dildo factory...

2) Non-vital industries need to be socialized

The profits of for-profit enterprise should be shared more equally among the workers. Again, there are a dozen ways this could work. The ultimate principal goes into the EXTREMELY TRUE thing Obama said that made idiots mad, "You didn't build that."

Grandpa didn't actually build that dildo factory by himself. Lots and lots of people helped him build it. And the entire American taxpayer used their money to fund the infrastructures necessary for that dildo factory to be built and operate.

Profit sharing is the most obvious and least intrusive way of operating. Instead of Jeff Bezos having $150B and his workers making peanuts, what if that wealth was spread among his workers and he only had $500M to scrape by with? (And yes, I realize that isn't liquid cash and is tied to Amazon's worth in the marketplace, but the principle is still there in terms of ownership shares.)

There are two things. There are a lot more, of course, but those are kind of the most important in terms of Democratic Socialism.

Nationalizing the transmission of the media and the internet is the dumbest (and scariest) idea you have had on this board.  That is exactly what every non-democratic government in the world does.

[bad_teammate 13186]

9 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Nationalizing the transmission of the media and the internet is the dumbest (and scariest) idea you have had on this board.  That is exactly what every non-democratic government in the world does.

What is it you think I meant by that?

[DixonHur 11292]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

What is it you think I meant by that?

We think you mean what you said.  Nationalize "television (transmission, not production of shows), and Internet".

Not sure how else to interpret that other than the government controls them.

[bad_teammate 13186]

Just now, DixonHur said:

We think you mean what you said.  Nationalize "television (transmission, not production of shows), and Internet".

Not sure how else to interpret that other than the government controls them.

What is "them"? What is production vs. transmission, in your mind?

[Clob94 121]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What is "them"? What is production vs. transmission, in your mind?

Nationalized (which really kinda sounds like "nationalist") means government controlled media production. Russia, China, Iran etc. 

No thanks. 

Now transmission-- we sorta, kinda already have that. It's called the FCC.