The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

[BigTom]

Well, here's some good news. I don't know him well, but he's a good guy so far as I've seen:

Good morning, friends! It's true: I'm a registered candidate for Mississippi's First Congressional District. I'm excited about this campaign and the support that I've received from y'all already.

Carlton officiated my wedding back in 2012 at the UUC in Arlington, VA.

[disgruntledgoat]

My point exactly. The USSR started out trying to do good and, after considerable internal turmoil and leadership changes, ended up with Stalin. It took about twenty years for the whole enterprise to go completely south. Compare that to the speed and directness with which Nazism got there.

Only one of those two social movements intended mass murder and genocide.

Sorry, I'm late to this party, but this needs to be corrected. The USSR started out bad and got worse. Lenin was not the benevolent dictator trying to good he is sometimes portrayed as. He attempted to collectivise the nations agricultural sector, resulting in the murder of thousands of peasants who saw the only things they had (a filthy shack and a couple of cows) being taken from them and then saw themselves labelled as class traitors. Lenin was as brutal as Stalin.

As to the USSR not engaging in mass murder or Genocide, perhaps they didn't industrialise it as well as the Nazis, but the Ukrainian famine of the 30s, the pogroms of the western states Jewish populations in the 20s, Stalin's repeated terrors and the abolition of private sphere of life and the network of Gulags speak otherwise.

The USSR was exactly as evil as Nazi Germany, it just lasted longer and went after thought instead of race.

[John A Arkansawyer]

Sorry, I'm late to this party, but this needs to be corrected. The USSR started out bad and got worse. Lenin was not the benevolent dictator trying to good he is sometimes portrayed as. He attempted to collectivise the nations agricultural sector, resulting in the murder of thousands of peasants who saw the only things they had (a filthy shack and a couple of cows) being taken from them and then saw themselves labelled as class traitors. Lenin was as brutal as Stalin.

There was a lot of brutality in the Russian Revolution, just like there was brutality under the system they overthrew. It began as an ugly situation. It's a rare revolution that doesn't. I don't excuse the brutality and I don't see how the Soviets could have avoided it. It's certainly nothing to cheer for. But again, collectivization was supposed to work out. It wasn't a pretext hiding an intention to kill peasants. It fucked up and killed them. That doesn't matter to the dead person, usually. It does matter if you're trying to deal with the system that commits a heinous act. I'd rather deal with a system that kills by fucking up than a system that kills by working as intended.

It's very strange to me to write words like that. I spent most of my time on the left despising the Soviets, from my teen years on, and for good reasons, many of which you noted in your post. It's only in their absence, in a world gone way out of balance, that I have any use for them. Maybe it's that I've gotten older and more conservative. Or maybe it's that I've encountered head on the incredible difficulty of getting anything done in this world over the years, and have learned to cut a lot more slack for people who compromise themselves to get shit done. Like Joni says, "Things that you held high and told yourself were true, lost or changing as the days come down to you."

[pearlbeer]

Wow. Trump just pardoned Joe Arpaio, who is, quite plainly, a racist asshole. I mean, at this point, do we really need to question the President's racial motivation?


http://www.thedailybeast.com/president- ... joe-arpaio

[sactochris]

Wow. Trump just pardoned Joe Arpaio, who is, quite plainly, a racist asshole. I mean, at this point, do we really need to question the President's racial motivation?


http://www.thedailybeast.com/president- ... joe-arpaio

It's a sad fucking day to be an american. I think everyone knew this was coming but it still stings.

[pearlbeer]

Wow. Trump just pardoned Joe Arpaio, who is, quite plainly, a racist asshole. I mean, at this point, do we really need to question the President's racial motivation?


http://www.thedailybeast.com/president- ... joe-arpaio

A Category 4 Hurricane is currently hitting my friends, in my state. Over 30 counties have already been declared a disaster area. Then this racist orange fucker goes and fucking pardons a racist human rights abuser that openly defied a high court ruling for years.

If anyone needs me, I'll be in the garage drinking beer and listening to this song all damn night. Fuck. I didn't ever want to have to even think about the country reliving this song. And it ain't getting better.

[Swamp]

Wow. Trump just pardoned Joe Arpaio, who is, quite plainly, a racist asshole. I mean, at this point, do we really need to question the President's racial motivation?


http://www.thedailybeast.com/president- ... joe-arpaio

A Category 4 Hurricane is currently hitting my friends, in my state. Over 30 counties have already been declared a disaster area. Then this racist orange fucker goes and fucking pardons a racist human rights abuser that openly defied a high court ruling for years.

If anyone needs me, I'll be in the garage drinking beer and listening to this song all damn night. Fuck. I didn't ever want to have to even think about the country reliving this song. And it ain't getting better.

For some reason "Perfect Timing" comes to mind.

[Flea]

"Perfect Timing" needs to worm its way back into the setlist.

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

can't figure out how to post an image of this tweet, but all credit goes to @asmith83 (Adam Smith-- no, not THAT Adam Smith )

Trans soldiers willing to die for our country: bad

Racist sheriff who broke the law: good.

[beantownbubba]

I am intrigued by David Brooks's column in today's NYT. He's somewhere between forgetful, misguided and wrong on the recent history of the Republican Party and I have no knowledge of or feel for the internal dynamics of the GOP, but whatever one thinks of the details Brooks makes some important observations about the nature of conservatism, the consequences of making decisions based solely on political expediency and the evolving, and toxic, nature of white identity politics. In particular the latter touches on some of the observations made here by lotus a few weeks ago.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/opin ... d=39564728

While tangential to both his argument and my reasons for making this post, the cited factoid that 48% of Republicans believe there is a lot of discrimination against Christians in this country is mind boggling to me. The only explanation I can think of is that "discrimination" means different things to different people. But let me ask those of you who might have first hand experience: Do Christians not get jobs or housing or credit because of their religious beliefs? Do Christians get stopped by the police while driving because of their religion? These are serious questions; I'd really like to understand what this is about.

[Clams]

Hurricane Harvey is the best thing to happen to Trump since the day he was elected.

[Zip City]

While tangential to both his argument and my reasons for making this post, the cited factoid that 48% of Republicans believe there is a lot of discrimination against Christians in this country is mind boggling to me. The only explanation I can think of is that "discrimination" means different things to different people. But let me ask those of you who might have first hand experience: Do Christians not get jobs or housing or credit because of their religious beliefs? Do Christians get stopped by the police while driving because of their religion? These are serious questions; I'd really like to understand what this is about.

There is a subset of self-identifying Christians (one I would have pegged at much lower than 48%, but here we are) who believe that any act by government aimed at keeping their faith from being dominant in society is "oppression" or "discrimination". Removal of the Ten Commandments from court houses, no school prayer, red coffee cups at Starbucks, this is all a War on Christianity[tm]. Telling them that they can't deny goods and services to other groups of people based on their biblical values is oppression. They are lead by a gaggle of local, state and national legislators who author "Religious Freedom" laws that are really "Christians can do what we want and fuck everyone else" laws.

So, bubba, the next time you suggest that a cake shop owner is an asshole because she won't make a cake for a gay wedding, just remember, YOU are the real oppressor

[beantownbubba]

While tangential to both his argument and my reasons for making this post, the cited factoid that 48% of Republicans believe there is a lot of discrimination against Christians in this country is mind boggling to me. The only explanation I can think of is that "discrimination" means different things to different people. But let me ask those of you who might have first hand experience: Do Christians not get jobs or housing or credit because of their religious beliefs? Do Christians get stopped by the police while driving because of their religion? These are serious questions; I'd really like to understand what this is about.

There is a subset of self-identifying Christians (one I would have pegged at much lower than 48%, but here we are) who believe that any act by government aimed at keeping their faith from being dominant in society is "oppression" or "discrimination". Removal of the Ten Commandments from court houses, no school prayer, red coffee cups at Starbucks, this is all a War on Christianity[tm]. Telling them that they can't deny goods and services to other groups of people based on their biblical values is oppression. They are lead by a gaggle of local, state and national legislators who author "Religious Freedom" laws that are really "Christians can do what we want and fuck everyone else" laws.

So, bubba, the next time you suggest that a cake shop owner is an asshole because she won't make a cake for a gay wedding, just remember, YOU are the real oppressor

Oh. OK. The "war on Christianity" I get (meaning I'm familiar w/ the argument, not that I agree w/ it). I didn't realize that was the same as "discrimination." Thanks for clearing that up.

Hurricane Harvey is the best thing to happen to Trump since the day he was elected.

Yep.

[Tequila Cowboy]

Hurricane Harvey is the best thing to happen to Trump since the day he was elected.

How so? t's a Republican state with a Republican governor so thus far the reaction to his response has been favorable but there is going to be a lot of suffering and already badly taxed Federal agencies are likely not up for the long term task of rebuilding. It may be a distraction for now but it will become yet another albatross within three weeks from today. Mark my words.

[Clams]

Hurricane Harvey is the best thing to happen to Trump since the day he was elected.

How so? t's a Republican state with a Republican governor so thus far the reaction to his response has been favorable but there is going to be a lot of suffering and already badly taxed Federal agencies are likely not up for the long term task of rebuilding. It may be a distraction for now but it will become yet another albatross within three weeks from today. Mark my words.

Because he's no longer the focus of 100% of the news on TV, cable, the internet, newspapers, etc. The disaster has replaced him as the big story.

[brett27295]

Because he's no longer the focus of 100% of the news on TV, cable, the internet, newspapers, etc. The disaster has replaced him as the big story.

Agreed. As a matter of fact the new bombshell emails between Trump officials and the Russians that recently surfaced have barely been covered.

[Tequila Cowboy]

Because he's no longer the focus of 100% of the news on TV, cable, the internet, newspapers, etc. The disaster has replaced him as the big story.

Agreed. As a matter of fact the new bombshell emails between Trump officials and the Russians that recently surfaced have barely been covered.

OK, I get that but it's for a few days and those things are over covered in the first place. The people that know those things are a big deal also know that the investigation will take months if not years and the other people wouldn't believe them in the first place. So temporary cover? Sure. When FEMA scrambles next week and there are no resources for the next storm? Well he might not like it so much. I get what you're saying though.

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

48% of Republicans believe there is a lot of discrimination against Christians in this country

[Zip City]

Trump addressing a gathering in Houston: "What a crowd! What a turnout!"

Jesus Hopping Christ, this isn't a fucking rally, you dick face. This is a natural disaster. Quit making it about YOU

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

Trump addressing a gathering in Houston: "What a crowd! What a turnout!"

Jesus Hopping Christ, this isn't a fucking rally, you dick face. This is a natural disaster. Quit making it about YOU

Orangey, you're doin' a heckuva job

[beantownbubba]

On Melania's shoes:

I get it. If you're a Trump fan or if you think snowflakes/liberals/Democrats have gone off the deep end, complaining about Melania's choice in footwear sounds like Exhibit A. What could be more unimportant, more petty, more flat out ridiculous?

I saw "the picture" on its own w/ just a vanilla headline along the lines of "the president and first lady board marine 1 to begin their trip to Texas" and at that point I had not seen any of the responses to the picture nor had I heard anything about the kerfuffle. My immediate, visceral reaction was somewhere between surprise and disgust. It just was and that's the truth. I'm no fashion maven, I don't follow fashion, read about it, care about it, spend money on it, notice it (unless there's nudity involved) or anything else. Yet the first thing I saw when I looked at the picture was Melania's shoes and the first thing I thought was how inappropriate and how removed from reality they were.

Of course the fuss has become too great, too disproportionate. At this point that's simply the way the media/internet/social media are about everything and it's neither a measurement of anything nor a reason to dismiss (or accept) the underlying point. All I can say is that based on my own reaction I know that at least some of the negative reaction is legit.

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

On Melania's shoes:

I get it. If you're a Trump fan or if you think snowflakes/liberals/Democrats have gone off the deep end, complaining about Melania's choice in footwear sounds like Exhibit A. What could be more unimportant, more petty, more flat out ridiculous?

I saw "the picture" on its own w/ just a vanilla headline along the lines of "the president and first lady board marine 1 to begin their trip to Texas" and at that point I had not seen any of the responses to the picture nor had I heard anything about the kerfuffle. My immediate, visceral reaction was somewhere between surprise and disgust. It just was and that's the truth. I'm no fashion maven, I don't follow fashion, read about it, care about it, spend money on it, notice it (unless there's nudity involved) or anything else. Yet the first thing I saw when I looked at the picture was Melania's shoes and the first thing I thought was how inappropriate and how removed from reality they were.

Of course the fuss has become too great, too disproportionate. At this point that's simply the way the media/internet/social media are about everything and it's neither a measurement of anything nor a reason to dismiss (or accept) the underlying point. All I can say is that based on my own reaction I know that at least some of the negative reaction is legit.

what about Trump sporting the new cap that coincidentally just went on sale at his website?

I guess we do have to give Melania credit for NOT wearing a hat that said FLOATUS

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

did you notice that once they got to Texas she no longer had on the heels, she had switched to some sneakers? I assume that someone suggested to her that maybe those weren't the most appropriate shows for where she was going

[Swamp]

did you notice that once they got to Texas she no longer had on the heels, she had switched to some sneakers? I assume that someone suggested to her that maybe those weren't the most appropriate shows for where she was going

Wasn't Ed Sullivan the one who said something about really big shoes

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

did you notice that once they got to Texas she no longer had on the heels, she had switched to some sneakers? I assume that someone suggested to her that maybe those weren't the most appropriate shows for where she was going

Wasn't Ed Sullivan the one who said something about really big shoes

I think it was Bob Lanier

[brett27295]

Gotta be honest, I don't give a fuck about her shoes. When I first saw the picture I kind of rolled my eyes but in the generally scheme of things it just doesn't matter.

[Iowan]

I hate Trump, but seriously, bitching about her shoes is just the most absurd nit to pick.

[Clams]

Melania's only function in life is to look good, which she obviously manages quite well. She's like a high-fashion super-model cyborg, constructed by a top secret robotics team in Europe to make all men envious of Donald and to make all women weep from inferiority. Her choice of footwear, as well as her absence of practicality and empathy which said footwear reflects in this particular situation, should not be surprising. Just another absurd and tone-deaf day at the office for Team Trump. Nothing to see here...

[Tequila Cowboy]

I hate Trump, but seriously, bitching about her shoes is just the most absurd nit to pick.

A-fucking-men.

[PonyGirl]

I think the shoes are pretty symbolic, actually.

Lately, there have been several documentaries broadcast to commemorate Princess Diana on the 20th year of her passing. Her commitment to philanthropy and altruism was pretty amazing and I guess that's why they called her "The People's Princess." Her willingness act in such a way as to engage in physical contact with people who were homeless or ill, specifically hugging AIDS patients and holding babies suffering from AIDS during a time when many people were terrified to do so, to demonstrate that one wouldn't contract the disease through a hug, or to walk through a mine field, to name a fraction of her charitable involvements, made her an amazing role model of kindness, compassion and action.

She'd show up, in flat shoes and sensible (but stylish) clothes and get stuff done.

When I juxtapose that image against the image of Milania Trump showing up at disaster zone, I sense a few different things: She isn't actually interested in getting involved or helping and she doesn't actually give a damn about people and I find it particularly pathetic that she doesn't even know that she should, at the very least, pretend to care or go through the motions of looking like she wants to help.

I also think that this kind of thing belies her husband's perspective and approach to people and suffering.