Languish.org

I think we can all agree that President Obama is one of the best presidents of all time, and that his only fault was not being tough enough on the evil Republicans.  But we also know that Trump is basically Hitler.  So...

If you could jump to an alternate reality where Mitt Romney defeats Obama in the 2012 election and then wins re-election in 2016, keeping Donald Trump out of the presidential picture, would you do that and forgo a glorious second Obama term?

Man you sure do love Obama Spicey. Your green job must be amazing.

But I think Romney is much preferable to Trump.

Who do we end up with in 2020 in each scenario?

Quote from: Valmy on January 11, 2017, 12:01:28 PM
Man you sure do love Obama Spicey. Your green job must be amazing.

I loved him enough to buy five of his plates.  Pretty sure that's more than any of you bought.

QuoteBut I think Romney is much preferable to Trump.

It's not that simple, though.  Is Trump bad enough that you cut Obama's reign in half and deny him all his accomplishments in his second term?

Would gladly have taken 1-2 terms of Romney.

Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2017, 12:00:08 PM
I think we can all agree that President Obama is one of the best presidents of all time, and that his only fault was not being tough enough on the evil Republicans.  But we also know that Trump is basically Hitler.  So...

If you could jump to an alternate reality where Mitt Romney defeats Obama in the 2012 election and then wins re-election in 2016, keeping Donald Trump out of the presidential picture, would you do that and forgo a glorious second Obama term?

Yes

Quote from: frunk on January 11, 2017, 12:02:20 PM
Who do we end up with in 2020 in each scenario?

Anyone's guess.  But let's go with a fresh set of GOP and Democrat choices in the alternate reality scenario, and Trump running for re-election in the historical scenario.

Of course. I voted for Romney in 2012. :mellow:

Quote from: garbon on January 11, 2017, 12:06:15 PM
Of course. I voted for Romney in 2012. :mellow:

Yeah, I don't see how this is all that controversial.  Romney was a candidate worthy of the office, at the very least.

I think Spicey might have misread his audience...

Quote from: Habbaku on January 11, 2017, 12:09:15 PM
I think Spicey might have misread his audience...

I really didn't know what to expect.  Which is why I made the poll.

This scenario seems like a no brainer, a more interesting one would be 2012 Romney 2016 Sanders.

I voted for Romney in 2012 and Clinton in 2016.

Quote from: Habbaku on January 11, 2017, 12:09:15 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 11, 2017, 12:06:15 PM
Of course. I voted for Romney in 2012. :mellow:

Yeah, I don't see how this is all that controversial.  Romney was a candidate worthy of the office, at the very least.

I think Spicey might have misread his audience...

I guess he thinks we're so blindly partisan as he is. I'd happily trade 4 years of Obama to avoid Trump. Meh, Romney was acceptable.

I mean for me it's a non-brainer, since I foreigner non-voted for Romney in 2012, but would have non-voted for Clinton just to stop Trump.

Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2017, 12:11:21 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on January 11, 2017, 12:09:15 PM
I think Spicey might have misread his audience...

I really didn't know what to expect.  Which is why I made the poll.

Yes, I'm sure that's why you lead the poll with that idiotic strawman.

Quote from: Habbaku on January 11, 2017, 12:17:03 PM

Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2017, 12:11:21 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on January 11, 2017, 12:09:15 PM
I think Spicey might have misread his audience...

I really didn't know what to expect.  Which is why I made the poll.

Yes, I'm sure that's why you lead the poll with that idiotic strawman.

What strawman?

Quote from: Valmy on January 11, 2017, 12:01:28 PM
Man you sure do love Obama Spicey. Your green job must be amazing.

:D

It's actually a quandary for derspiess. He wouldn't have been able to see as much of Michelle.

Since we're doing alt-hist I'd much rather see Hitler 7 unite the feuding Hitler clones leading the various moon bases, and have him descend on the White House.

Since this poll question is dumb because what idiot would prefer a Trump presidency over a 2012/2016 Romney victory, I propose a new poll question:

How will Trump's presidency end?

1) Complete full 8 years
2) Complete full 4 years
3) Resign in disgrace sometime in the next 8 years
4) Impeachment and thrown out of office
5) Assassination
6) Jaron ascends the Golden Throne in a coup

Either #4 or #2 are the most likely.

No Trumpreich of a Thousand Years option? It lacks hyperbole otherwise.

I think it's more in keeping with the spirit of the original question to think of people who would be worse than Trump.

Here's my list:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2017, 12:34:09 PM
I think it's more in keeping with the spirit of the original question to think of people who would be worse than Trump.

Here's my list:

:lol:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2017, 12:34:09 PM
I think it's more in keeping with the spirit of the original question to think of people who would be worse than Trump.

Here's my list:

Kanye West

The trumpenproletariat love him, full 8 years  :(

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2017, 12:34:09 PM
I think it's more in keeping with the spirit of the original question to think of people who would be worse than Trump.

Here's my list:

:)

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2017, 12:34:09 PM
I think it's more in keeping with the spirit of the original question to think of people who would be worse than Trump.

Here's my list:

Bernie Sanders? :hmm:

Trump does have some positives - some of his cabinet appointments have been solid, he promises to appoint conservative USSC justices, that mitigate against his general awfulness.  A hard-left President like Sanders isn't as awful a human being, but he doesn't have any positives to bring to the table either.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 11, 2017, 12:35:24 PM
The trumpenproletariat love him, full 8 years  :(

Well they love him now...

Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2017, 12:41:21 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2017, 12:34:09 PM
I think it's more in keeping with the spirit of the original question to think of people who would be worse than Trump.

Here's my list:

Bernie Sanders? :hmm:

Trump does have some positives - some of his cabinet appointments have been solid, he promises to appoint conservative USSC justices, that mitigate against his general awfulness.  A hard-left President like Sanders isn't as awful a human being, but he doesn't have any positives to bring to the table either.

:rolleyes:

Agree Sanders is horrible and scary. However, he would have had little ability to implement his terrible policies since the Republicans control almost everything else.

Quote from: garbon on January 11, 2017, 12:45:36 PM

Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2017, 12:41:21 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2017, 12:34:09 PM
I think it's more in keeping with the spirit of the original question to think of people who would be worse than Trump.

Here's my list:

Bernie Sanders? :hmm:

Trump does have some positives - some of his cabinet appointments have been solid, he promises to appoint conservative USSC justices, that mitigate against his general awfulness.  A hard-left President like Sanders isn't as awful a human being, but he doesn't have any positives to bring to the table either.

:rolleyes:

I was talking to Yi, not you.

Yeah well let's see who he appoints.

Quote from: Valmy on January 11, 2017, 12:48:46 PM
Yeah well let's see who he appoints.

I'd definitely prefer Yi to appoint any new Supreme Court Judges, but I don't think it'll happen.

As for the poll question, Romney in 2012 if it means no Trump without a doubt.

Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2017, 12:41:21 PM
Trump does have some positives - some of his cabinet appointments have been solid, he promises to appoint conservative USSC justices, that mitigate against his general awfulness.  A hard-left President like Sanders isn't as awful a human being, but he doesn't have any positives to bring to the table either.

My understanding is they are all social conservatives, not my preferred flavor of conservative.

Yeah, the fact that spicey has so partaken of the Kool Aid of the Rush Limbaugh wing on the conservatives that he thinks this would even be an interesting question is way more interesting than the actual question.

The difference between Obama and Romney is a sliver compared to the difference between Trump and pretty much anyone, including his fellow Republicans.

This question is a complete no-brainer, as long as Romney is only marginally better than Trump.  It doesn't matter how good of a president Obama was.  The only quality of his that will turn out to matter are his political skills, which are atrocious.  It is this lack of political skills that will multiply by zero all his achievements, and leave us with an extremely destructive political party holding all levers of power on top of that.

I have no idea who your pronouns are referring to.

Quote from: frunk on January 11, 2017, 01:13:24 PM
I have no idea who your pronouns are referring to.

To him.

Quote from: frunk on January 11, 2017, 01:13:24 PM
I have no idea who your pronouns are referring to.

Он

The leading candidate for Trump's supreme court pick is Diane Sykes.
Here's one of her leading opinions:  https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6601456173694501289&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholar

QuoteSIU also claims CLS violated the university's Affirmative Action/EEO policy, which states that SIU will "provide equal employment and education opportunities for all qualified persons without regard to[, among other things,] sexual orientation." We are skeptical that CLS violated this policy. . . . In response to the law school's inquiry about its membership policies, CLS explained that it interprets its statement of faith to allow persons "who may have homosexual inclinations" to become members of CLS as long as they do not engage in or affirm homosexual conduct. The same is true of unmarried heterosexual persons: heterosexual persons who do not participate in or condone heterosexual conduct outside of marriage may become CLS members; those who engage in unmarried heterosexual conduct and do not repent that conduct and affirm the statement of faith may not. CLS's membership policies are thus based on belief and behavior rather than status, and no language in SIU's policy prohibits this

Bottom line: it is not discrimination against gays to discriminate against anyone who "affirms homosexual conduct"

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 11, 2017, 01:32:40 PM
The leading candidate for Trump's supreme court pick is Diane Sykes.
Here's one of her leading opinions:  https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6601456173694501289&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholar

QuoteSIU also claims CLS violated the university's Affirmative Action/EEO policy, which states that SIU will "provide equal employment and education opportunities for all qualified persons without regard to[, among other things,] sexual orientation." We are skeptical that CLS violated this policy. . . . In response to the law school's inquiry about its membership policies, CLS explained that it interprets its statement of faith to allow persons "who may have homosexual inclinations" to become members of CLS as long as they do not engage in or affirm homosexual conduct. The same is true of unmarried heterosexual persons: heterosexual persons who do not participate in or condone heterosexual conduct outside of marriage may become CLS members; those who engage in unmarried heterosexual conduct and do not repent that conduct and affirm the statement of faith may not. CLS's membership policies are thus based on belief and behavior rather than status, and no language in SIU's policy prohibits this

Bottom line: it is not discrimination against gays to discriminate against anyone who "affirms homosexual conduct"

BS.  CLS is clearly discriminating (and also discriminates against those who engage in unmarried heterosexual conduct).  But it's allowed to because it's a religious organization following the tenets of it's faith.  This is an easily defensible decision.

that's not the bottom line

CLS prohibited non-marital sex. technically speaking, the judge is right.  ;)

Quote from: LaCroix on January 11, 2017, 01:39:03 PM
that's not the bottom line

CLS prohibited non-marital sex. technically speaking, the judge is right.  ;)

No technically speaking she's wrong.  CLS separately prohibits "affirmation" of homosexual conduct, of any kind under any circumstance.  That is exactly what the university policy prohibits.

Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2017, 01:39:00 PM
BS.  CLS is clearly discriminating (and also discriminates against those who engage in unmarried heterosexual conduct).  But it's allowed to because it's a religious organization following the tenets of it's faith.  This is an easily defensible decision.

The issue here was eligibility for university subsidies so the defensibility is not so clear.
But what is interesting is that Sykes did not rely on that argument, but went further to say it doesn't discriminate against gays in the first place.  That's a blinking red light in my book. 

My understanding (based of course on my being a damn Canuckistani) is that Southern Illinois University has to account for the rights not only of it's gay students and their right not to be discriminated against, but also it's Christian students and their rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of religion.

Students are entitled to form groups that subscribe to shared values, and to discriminate on who they might allow as members of that group.

I'm really surprised A: that this would be a leading opinion, as it's fairly small potatoes and such issues have been litigated plenty of times, but B: that you think it's controversial.

BB: CLS freedom of religion \wasn't an issue - CLS and its members could practice whatever faith it wants and free exercise is a negative right, there is no entitlement to subsidies.  (in fact support in a public u setting arguable raises Establishment Clause problems).

The case was brought as a First Amendment viewpoint discrimination case.  That is perhaps an arguable point and had that been the sum total of Sykes' opinion I agree it would not be notable.

But she also held that the university policy didn't even reach the conduct based on this inane distinction between "inclination" on the one hand and "support" or "conduct" or another.  That's batty.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 11, 2017, 01:54:36 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on January 11, 2017, 01:39:03 PM
that's not the bottom line

CLS prohibited non-marital sex. technically speaking, the judge is right.  ;)

No technically speaking she's wrong.  CLS separately prohibits "affirmation" of homosexual conduct, of any kind under any circumstance.  That is exactly what the university policy prohibits.

I'd have to spend more time reading about the opinion to respond, and I just don't want to. but, you do have a habit of bringing politics into your interpretations of legal opinions, at least on languish, so

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 11, 2017, 02:13:54 PM
BB: CLS freedom of religion \wasn't an issue - CLS and its members could practice whatever faith it wants and free exercise is a negative right, there is no entitlement to subsidies.  (in fact support in a public u setting arguable raises Establishment Clause problems).

The case was brought as a First Amendment viewpoint discrimination case.  That is perhaps an arguable point and had that been the sum total of Sykes' opinion I agree it would not be notable.

But she also held that the university policy didn't even reach the conduct based on this inane distinction between "inclination" on the one hand and "support" or "conduct" or another.  That's batty.

The "subsidy" involved being allowed to post on law school bulletin boards and being allowed to book rooms at the law school.

McCain seemed pretty damn decent as republicans go.
Romney...pretty bad. It remains to be seen whether as bad as Trump though- hopefully Trump being so at odds with the republican establishment will lessen the shit.

Quote from: LaCroix on January 11, 2017, 02:15:08 PM
I'd have to spend more time reading about the opinion to respond, and I just don't want to. but, you do have a habit of bringing politics into your interpretations of legal opinions, at least on languish, so

What politics are you referring to?  And what examples support this habit?

If a policy prohibits discrimination on the basis of skin color, and an organization says people with black skin are allowed as long as they bleach, it is really "political" to point out this is an obvious violation of the policy?

Dakota, as your special advisor on political strategery, it is my duty to point out that right now might not be the optimal time to go looking for new opponents.

Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2017, 02:17:14 PM
The "subsidy" involved being allowed to post on law school bulletin boards and being allowed to book rooms at the law school.

It also involved cash. 
The plaintiff conceded it was able to hold meetings on campus using campus facilities without molestation.

Quote from: Tyr on January 11, 2017, 02:17:22 PM
Romney...pretty bad.

But he never closed a single coal mine.  :(

Hey Squeeze, on the subject of coal miners, how does it make you feel that your beloved chavs were the ones responsible for Brexit and Trump?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 11, 2017, 02:18:23 PMWhat politics are you referring to?  And what examples support this habit?

If a policy prohibits discrimination on the basis of skin color, and an organization says people with black skin are allowed as long as they bleach, it is really "political" to point out this is an obvious violation of the policy?

our citizens united discussion. that was an instance where two (or more) legit interpretations existed, but you said the legit interpretation the court took was wrong. here, I'm assuming the opinion was heard before a panel. it's unlikely the panel straight up got it wrong

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 11, 2017, 02:23:09 PM

Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2017, 02:17:14 PM
The "subsidy" involved being allowed to post on law school bulletin boards and being allowed to book rooms at the law school.

It also involved cash. 
The plaintiff conceded it was able to hold meetings on campus using campus facilities without molestation.

It might involve cash.  The details were not clear that it did for CLS.

Quote from: LaCroix on January 11, 2017, 02:15:08 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 11, 2017, 01:54:36 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on January 11, 2017, 01:39:03 PM
that's not the bottom line

CLS prohibited non-marital sex. technically speaking, the judge is right.  ;)

No technically speaking she's wrong.  CLS separately prohibits "affirmation" of homosexual conduct, of any kind under any circumstance.  That is exactly what the university policy prohibits.

I'd have to spend more time reading about the opinion to respond, and I just don't want to. but, you do have a habit of bringing politics into your interpretations of legal opinions, at least on languish, so

Here's an example.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2017, 02:19:18 PM
Dakota, as your special advisor on political strategery, it is my duty to point out that right now might not be the optimal time to go looking for new opponents.

:D

my post was pretty harsh, and "habit" was too strong

Quote from: garbon on January 11, 2017, 02:30:21 PMHere's an example.

I actually wondered whether you'd reference that post in your response to my question in the other thread. but you called me a dick before the post existed.

Quote from: Jacob on January 11, 2017, 12:56:50 PM
As for the poll question, Romney in 2012 if it means no Trump without a doubt.

But remember how terrible Mitt was?  I mean, "binders full of women"??  Dog on top of the car??  Monstrous.

Quote from: LaCroix on January 11, 2017, 02:36:31 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 11, 2017, 02:30:21 PMHere's an example.

I actually wondered whether you'd reference that post in your response to my question in the other thread. but you called me a dick before the post existed.

Dick recognizes he is a dick but then for some reason decides to challenge the label. :hmm:

Watching a decidedly unclever man trying to be clever is a very gut-wrenching experience.  :(

Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2017, 03:01:04 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 11, 2017, 12:56:50 PM
As for the poll question, Romney in 2012 if it means no Trump without a doubt.

But remember how terrible Mitt was?  I mean, "binders full of women"??  Dog on top of the car??  Monstrous.

That was just shit for Seedy to troll you with.

Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2017, 03:09:28 PM
Watching a decidedly unclever man trying to be clever is a very gut-wrenching experience.  :(

Are we talking about lacroix or trump?

This late in the day, I'd happily see Patton leading a cavalry charge down Pennsylvania avenue on his way to staging a military coup.

Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2017, 03:09:28 PM
Watching a decidedly unclever man trying to be clever is a very gut-wrenching experience.  :(

:(

Quote from: garbon on January 11, 2017, 03:08:44 PMDick recognizes he is a dick but then for some reason decides to challenge the label. :hmm:

it was a dickish post, sure. I was wondering why you called me dick earlier. I figured it was a flippant remark, but I thought I'd ask to see if maybe it wasn't

Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2017, 03:09:28 PM
Watching a decidedly unclever man trying to be clever is a very gut-wrenching experience.  :(

I wasn't trying to be clever...

I was actually talking about desrpiess.  To give credit where credit is due, you never come off as someone trying to be clever.

My stalker is back :hug:

Quote from: LaCroix on January 11, 2017, 03:46:49 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 11, 2017, 03:08:44 PMDick recognizes he is a dick but then for some reason decides to challenge the label. :hmm:

it was a dickish post, sure. I was wondering why you called me dick earlier. I figured it was a flippant remark, but I thought I'd ask to see if maybe it wasn't

It wasn't.

Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2017, 03:55:50 PM
I was actually talking about desrpiess.  To give credit where credit is due, you never come off as someone trying to be clever.

ah, appreciate the clarification.  :P

Quote from: LaCroix on January 11, 2017, 02:28:16 PM
our citizens united discussion. that was an instance where two (or more) legit interpretations existed, but you said the legit interpretation the court took was wrong.

My view on Citizens United is and always been that it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of corporate law.  It's not a political disagreement.  I do also happen to think that the political result has been negative but that's not my beef with the legal reasoning.  There are lots of properly reached Supreme Court rulings with crappy consequences.  Eg. I think AEDPA is pretty terrible but the court's rulings on it can be defended as proper application of a badly conceived law.

Quotehere, I'm assuming the opinion was heard before a panel. it's unlikely the panel straight up got it wrong

Not sure why that is unlikely.  Not unknown for panels to get things wrong.  Every year, the Supreme Court reverses panel decisions, sometimes 9-0.
In this case there was a 3 judge panel.  1 signed on, the other dissented.  The dissenter was Diane Wood, also a former Supreme Court shortlister.  Wood's dissent is polite but among other things points out that the majority assumed and relied on facts that were not in the record below.  Suggesting that if there was political motivation here it may lie on the other side of the panel.

Quote from: Barrister on January 11, 2017, 02:29:41 PM
It might involve cash.  The details were not clear that it did for CLS.

Part of the problem with the case was that the factual record was highly undeveloped . . .

In any case, my beef was Sykes is not the argument that the university policy was unconstitutional.  Its her factual conclusion that CLS was not violating the university policy in the first place.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 11, 2017, 04:03:47 PMMy view on Citizens United is and always been that it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of corporate law.  It's not a political disagreement.  I do also happen to think that the political result has been negative but that's not my beef with the legal reasoning.  There are lots of properly reached Supreme Court rulings with crappy consequences.  Eg. I think AEDPA is pretty terrible but the court's rulings on it can be defended as proper application of a badly conceived law.

I recall you arguing that it made corporations people, that it had been a fiction before the opinion but citizens united did something entirely new with the concept. IIRC, it didn't really do anything new except push corporate law to its next logical step. the stance you took seemed influenced by politics / your interpretative style. it's possible I misunderstood your argument at the time.

QuoteNot sure why that is unlikely.  Not unknown for panels to get things wrong.  Every year, the Supreme Court reverses panel decisions, sometimes 9-0.

panels can get things wrong, but when two experienced attorney argue over whether an opinion got it right, a twenty second skim seems to suggest the opinion is OK, and the panel's ruling was never overturned, then I'm more inclined to believe disagreement is more caused by simply having a different interpretation.

Quote from: LaCroix on January 11, 2017, 04:15:05 PM
I recall you arguing that it made corporations people, that it had been a fiction before the opinion but citizens united did something entirely new with the concept. IIRC, it didn't really do anything new except push corporate law to its next logical step. the stance you took seemed influenced by politics / your interpretative style. it's possible I misunderstood your argument at the time.

I think so. 
Corporations are artificial persons that are creatures of statute.  The question is what that means and how to think about First Amendment expression involving such artificial persons.  The Supreme Court over the years tried to develop a framework for thinking about these issues, including how to think of them in the specific context of campaign contributions.  CU overruled those cases and blew up that framework.

Quotepanels can get things wrong, but when two experienced attorney argue over whether an opinion got it right, a twenty second skim seems to suggest the opinion is OK, and the panel's ruling was never overturned, then I'm more inclined to believe disagreement is more caused by simply having a different interpretation.

The panel ruling was effectively overturned when the Supreme Court decided a similar case against CLS several years later.

But in any case - to repeat yet again - the problem here is not so much the result which I agree could be debated.  By rather her dictum about whether the university policy was contravened by the conduct in the first place.

Quote from: Berkut on January 11, 2017, 01:03:17 PM
Yeah, the fact that spicey has so partaken of the Kool Aid of the Rush Limbaugh wing on the conservatives that he thinks this would even be an interesting question is way more interesting than the actual question.

The difference between Obama and Romney is a sliver compared to the difference between Trump and pretty much anyone, including his fellow Republicans.

But!

What if, in his alternate universe, he was antiSpicy (with a beard) and trolled languish as hard over Romney as he does over Trump, but wouldn't troll languish if Trump got elected?

So, Romney plus troll, or Trump minus troll?  Which is worse?

Quote from: FunkMonk on January 11, 2017, 12:30:51 PM
Since this poll question is dumb because what idiot would prefer a Trump presidency over a 2012/2016 Romney victory, I propose a new poll question:

How will Trump's presidency end?

1) Complete full 8 years
2) Complete full 4 years
3) Resign in disgrace sometime in the next 8 years
4) Impeachment and thrown out of office
5) Assassination
6) Jaron ascends the Golden Throne in a coup

I'll guess option #5.

As to the original poll question:  Less Obama and no Trump?  Absolutely.

Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2017, 12:04:09 PM

It's not that simple, though.  Is Trump bad enough that you cut Obama's reign in half and deny him all his accomplishments in his second term?

Of course he is.

Quote from: derspiess on January 11, 2017, 12:00:08 PM
I think we can all agree that President Obama is one of the best presidents of all time, and that his only fault was not being tough enough on the evil Republicans.  But we also know that Trump is basically Hitler.  So...

If you could jump to an alternate reality where Mitt Romney defeats Obama in the 2012 election and then wins re-election in 2016, keeping Donald Trump out of the presidential picture, would you do that and forgo a glorious second Obama term?

I told you to let the Canucks show you how to do smug.  You're no good at it.  Should've let Xiacob do the poll.  Let the pros be pros.

It's all about courtesy and being magnanimous in victory.  Seriously, for example, look at Yi:  when swathes of people lose their jobs and careers in layoffs so millionaires can simply be more millionairey, he comes like a volcano, right?  I mean, he ejaculates so fucking hard with all that monster free market wage suppressing cock so far up his ass, his prostate lights up like a Kenny Roger's Roasters sign and a single tear rolls down his cheek as he pinches his own nipples--but at least he's courteous enough not to wipe it on the furniture, right?  You don't see him spiking the ball as he passes out gently in a pool of his own jism and shit-stained and pinkish hemorrhoidal blood, do you?  No, you don't.  You should be more like that.  Cum quietly.  Tuck away the tissue.  Roll over and go to sleep. 

Just hand the ball to the ref, dude.  Don't worry, all those filthy whores and dirty niggers you hate are going to be put back in their place soon enough, and as a bonus probably some Jews as well, so don't sweat it.  So act like you've been there before.  Like 1961.  Or 1861.

Hmm.

Romney never. Him and his goofball religion.

I'm sorta looking forward to Trump now. I'm sorta turned on.

The poll right now is 26 to 1 Lmaoooo

It's pretty unsurprising.  I think Languish tilts center-right overall, and opposition to GOP stuff is geared around how retarded and disconnected from reality significant portions of the party have gotten over the last decade.

Yep.

Languish is about as leftist as CNN.

It only appears to be leftists to those so far to the right that they have zero perspective anymore.

I'd say languish* isn't so much leftist as it is blindly rabid against trump, to where trump can literally do nothing right. there's always an angle in a trump story that can fit the perspective that he's hitler

*the majority of the outspoken posters

inyouropinionlacroixwhathastrumpdonethatwouldbeconsideredrightinyoureyes?

WHy do you think that is the case?

I mean, what is it that we are all failing at seeing, such that we have this blind spot with Trump, and have this "rabid" and unthinking critical view of him?

Your claim is that Languish is incapable of thinking and coming to objective conclusions about Trump. Why? What is it about him, as compared to some other politician that has made so many people so rabid?

If Trump really is as bad as most of us think, wouldn't it be perfectly rational for thinking, objective people to act in a manner that looks pretty rabidly anti-Trump?

In other words, it isn't crazy if the guy really is a fucking disaster.

And every single piece of data we have about what he does, is consistent with the view that he is the worst president elect in living memory, and probably the worst in American history.

It isn't irrational to despise a man who is worthy of your despite.

It IS irrational to excuse his actions because you are a partisan hack though, and he is "your guy".

berkut, look at how much shit gets thrown at posts that attempt to interpret trump's conduct in a way where he isn't some villainous characiture

Quote from: Berkut on January 11, 2017, 11:36:17 PM
Yep.

Languish is about as leftist as CNN.

It only appears to be leftists to those so far to the right that they have zero perspective anymore.

Left and right are relative terms. I think everyone here is to the right of marx and the left of Hitler (excluding ed  :rolleyes:).

Where the dividing lines are drawn is subjective, but if you want to use the US voting public as a baseline in discussions about US politics, I'd point out the House, Senate, and most state government are Republican, and Trump just got elected president.

Don't roll your eyes at me son.

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 12, 2017, 12:04:00 AM
Don't roll your eyes at me son.

Jeez, don't you have enough kids without going around adopting strays.

Quote from: HVC on January 12, 2017, 12:05:16 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 12, 2017, 12:04:00 AM
Don't roll your eyes at me son.

Jeez, don't you have enough kids without going around adopting strays.

U jelly.

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 12, 2017, 12:07:55 AM

Quote from: HVC on January 12, 2017, 12:05:16 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 12, 2017, 12:04:00 AM
Don't roll your eyes at me son.

Jeez, don't you have enough kids without going around adopting strays.

U jelly.

I approve of the process, it's the outcome that I find less than agreeable :D

Romney defeats Obama 2012, Obama defeats Romney 2016.

Quote from: LaCroix on January 11, 2017, 11:58:01 PM
berkut, look at how much shit gets thrown at posts that attempt to interpret trump's conduct in a way where he isn't some villainous characiture

So?

A rational, objective reading of the shit he does results in a rational, objective conclusion that he is a fucking nightmare.

Somone coming along and desperately polishing a turd doesn't make it smell any better.

If someone came along and tried to convince that Bundy wasn't such a bad guy, and if you squint hard and tilt your head a certain way, murdering people isn't so bad, they would catch a bunch of shit. And rightly so. That isn't evidence that there is some rabid and irrational hatred.

And I notice you didn't even try to answer my question. Why? Why is it that everyone is ganging up on Trump, if it isn't actually because he is a fucking despicable human being who keeps doing objectively horrifying things?

Quote from: alfred russel on January 12, 2017, 12:00:34 AM

Quote from: Berkut on January 11, 2017, 11:36:17 PM
Yep.

Languish is about as leftist as CNN.

It only appears to be leftists to those so far to the right that they have zero perspective anymore.

Left and right are relative terms. I think everyone here is to the right of marx and the left of Hitler (excluding ed  :rolleyes:).

Where the dividing lines are drawn is subjective, but if you want to use the US voting public as a baseline in discussions about US politics, I'd point out the House, Senate, and most state government are Republican, and Trump just got elected president.

He got elected with a minority of the vote, so that is hardly evidence that most of the people in the country are more aligned with the Republicans.

We just came off a solid eight years of a Dem president who left with well over a 50% approval rating. And your little clique has been assuring us that he is a communist, so I guess that means most Americans are commies?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2017, 02:24:32 PM

Quote from: Tyr on January 11, 2017, 02:17:22 PM
Romney...pretty bad.

But he never closed a single coal mine.  :(

Hey Squeeze, on the subject of coal miners, how does it make you feel that your beloved chavs were the ones responsible for Brexit and Trump?

I hate chavs.

It all goes back to thatchers destruction of the working class anyway :contract:
It's not the Ignorant 80% tricked into voting against their interests I hate.  It's the evil 20% who did the tricking.

Thatcher didn't destroy the British working class; globalization did. It was inevitable.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 12, 2017, 05:10:23 AM
Thatcher didn't destroy the British working class; globalization did. It was inevitable.

Hitting the ice berg was inevitable. Screaming "full steam ahead!" instead of making attempts to lessen the damage and save as many people as possible was not.
(West) Germany et al are doing fine.

Quote from: Tyr on January 12, 2017, 05:13:39 AM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 12, 2017, 05:10:23 AM
Thatcher didn't destroy the British working class; globalization did. It was inevitable.

Hitting the ice berg was inevitable. Screaming "full steam ahead!" instead of making attempts to lessen the damage and save as many people as possible was not.
(West) Germany et al are doing fine.

I think it could have been approached better (though I don't really know if possible with the politics of both parties at the time) but I don't know if the country as a whole have ended up at a better place.

Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2017, 01:36:42 AM

Quote from: LaCroix on January 11, 2017, 11:58:01 PM
berkut, look at how much shit gets thrown at posts that attempt to interpret trump's conduct in a way where he isn't some villainous characiture

So?

A rational, objective reading of the shit he does results in a rational, objective conclusion that he is a fucking nightmare.

Somone coming along and desperately polishing a turd doesn't make it smell any better.

If someone came along and tried to convince that Bundy wasn't such a bad guy, and if you squint hard and tilt your head a certain way, murdering people isn't so bad, they would catch a bunch of shit. And rightly so. That isn't evidence that there is some rabid and irrational hatred.

And I notice you didn't even try to answer my question. Why? Why is it that everyone is ganging up on Trump, if it isn't actually because he is a fucking despicable human being who keeps doing objectively horrifying things?

bundy murdered a lot of people. trump is a real estate mogul

the problem with your discussion re objectivity is people could use it to justify anything trump does as being horrible, because they have this image on their mind of him. it's like jurors who get an idea of who a criminal defendant is and look at all the evidence in a way that matches their expectations. that's not objectivity, but it can be called objective by the person.

(I didn't try to answer a question because I was about to sleep)

No.  This really isn't Obama/Bush = Hitler stuff.
It's not like the stupid Bush stuff where a few goofs were blown up out of all proportion  and talked about again and again.  Trump is giving new material practically every day. It's standard for him.
Even many firmly on Trump's side of the fence agree.  He is a bloody disaster. 
Sure.  He might end up being a good president.  Anything is possible.  But looking at his past business dealings and his general behaviour...  You're either mad or personally in bed with him to expect something positive.
If he does turn out to be good then sure.  Expect his enemies to keep attacking him.  But that isn't what is happening now.

It is trivial to refute your claim croix, by simply providing some set of examples of where people who are highly critical of Trump are NOT critical of some thing he has done.

However, for the most part, we aren't talking about the things we agree with, we are talking about the things we DO NOT agree with.

For example, I think Mattis as SecDef is a great choice, at least in theory. So right there I've disproven your claim.

Quote from: Tyr on January 12, 2017, 05:13:39 AM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 12, 2017, 05:10:23 AM
Thatcher didn't destroy the British working class; globalization did. It was inevitable.

Hitting the ice berg was inevitable. Screaming "full steam ahead!" instead of making attempts to lessen the damage and save as many people as possible was not.
(West) Germany et al are doing fine.

.

Germany's condition was not the same as Britain's though. And Britain is doing fine as well.

And the alternative being presented was not a difficult and thorough reform trying to save some part of the industry in exchange for modernization. Instead it seemed like just kicking the can down the road.

Sweden was the 4th largest civilian shipbuilder in the world. In a few decades the industry was wiped out. No sane Swede weeps for the loss of those jobs, and the loss has completely dropped from public discourse. Dreams of returning to inefficient industries are not the way forward.

I would not send Swedish boys to do what Korean boys could do a lot more efficiently for themselves.

Quote from: Tyr on January 12, 2017, 05:13:39 AM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 12, 2017, 05:10:23 AM
Thatcher didn't destroy the British working class; globalization did. It was inevitable.

Hitting the ice berg was inevitable. Screaming "full steam ahead!" instead of making attempts to lessen the damage and save as many people as possible was not.
(West) Germany et al are doing fine.

So you blame Arthur Scargill for screaming full speed ahead" without taking a vote among the miners?  You place the blame correctly.  Scargill seemed to be indifferent to the fate of his followers if his ego-driven actions did not succeed.

Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2017, 09:36:18 AM
It is trivial to refute your claim croix, by simply providing some set of examples of where people who are highly critical of Trump are NOT critical of some thing he has done.

However, for the most part, we aren't talking about the things we agree with, we are talking about the things we DO NOT agree with.

For example, I think Mattis as SecDef is a great choice, at least in theory. So right there I've disproven your claim.

I don't think he can hear you over the noise of him nailing himself to that cross.

Quote from: Valmy on January 12, 2017, 09:53:58 AM

Germany's condition was not the same as Britain's though.

More so than people think.
The emergence of London as an overwhelmingly dominant place where the entire economy is  is a rather modern development. Well into the 20th century the economy was more balanced with a combination of northern cities being London's match.

Quote
And Britain is doing fine as well.

It's really not. The crappy state of things is what led so many to being willing to believe the brexit fuckwittery.

(https://s28.postimg.org/4tcmn2hz1/Gross_domestic_product_GDP_per_inhabitant_in_p.png)

And consider that the above is just basic gdp per capita, combined with our poor gini coefficient....
Really. Much of Britain is more comparable to eastern europe than western.

Quote
And the alternative being presented was not a difficult and thorough reform trying to save some part of the industry in exchange for modernization. Instead it seemed like just kicking the can down the road.

So other politicians at the time failed too. Its hardly news and it isn't the issue here.

Quote from: Tyr on January 12, 2017, 04:51:24 PM
So other politicians at the time failed too. Its hardly news and it isn't the issue here.

It is absolutely the issue. Because ultimately Thatcherism came to power in reaction to the crisis brought about by those failures.

Quote from: Valmy on January 12, 2017, 04:55:58 PM

Quote from: Tyr on January 12, 2017, 04:51:24 PM
So other politicians at the time failed too. Its hardly news and it isn't the issue here.

It is absolutely the issue. Because ultimately Thatcherism came to power in reaction to the crisis brought about by those failures.

:rolleyes:
Yes, ignore the important part and instead go off onto this irrelevancy.
That I say the government of the time was bad says absolutely F.A about whether the opposition at the time would have done a better job. The point is that the government was wrong and should have done something different.

That's an incorrect view of British history BTW. It was poor timing in calling an election that brought Thatcher to power and foreign policy incompetence/good luck on her part and  labour completely losing its way, embracing the anti-nuclear feeling, splitting in two, etc... that kept her there.

Quote from: Tyr on January 12, 2017, 05:00:18 PM
:rolleyes:
Yes, ignore the important part and instead go off onto this irrelevancy.

You claim that Britain has more in common with Eastern Europe than Western Europe. Seems pretty similar to France and Spain to me. Germany and Northern Italy are much more urban than those countries.

QuoteThat's an incorrect view of British history BTW. It was poor timing in calling an election that brought Thatcher to power and foreign policy incompetence/good luck on her part and  labour completely losing its way, embracing the anti-nuclear feeling, splitting in two, etc... that kept her there.

So instead they should have subsidized and fought to preserve backwards and inefficient industries? I don't really think those are the policies that led to the blue parts of your map.

My awesome thread hijacked by talk of coal mining subsidies :(

Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2017, 09:36:18 AM
It is trivial to refute your claim croix, by simply providing some set of examples of where people who are highly critical of Trump are NOT critical of some thing he has done.

However, for the most part, we aren't talking about the things we agree with, we are talking about the things we DO NOT agree with.

For example, I think Mattis as SecDef is a great choice, at least in theory. So right there I've disproven your claim.

well, you think mattis is a great choice so that he can hopefully keep trump at bay. but you're right that I shouldn't have said "literally" re "to where trump can literally do nothing right." beyond that nitpick, you haven't refuted my claim.

(also, aren't you doing now what in the past you've attacked people for doing re: nitpicking an exaggeration?)

Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2017, 03:15:59 PMI don't think he can hear you over the noise of him nailing himself to that cross.

:huh: i am the cross

Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2017, 01:38:50 AM


He got elected with a minority of the vote, so that is hardly evidence that most of the people in the country are more aligned with the Republicans.

Very true. He won with 46% of the vote or something, versus 48% for Hillary or whatever it was. Most people are not aligned with Trump. But close to half of voters voted for him. Unless you want to make the case that all four candidates were rather radical, I think it is a tough sell to put Trump anywhere other than center right. That is, if we are using the American electorate as a baseline of what constitutes right wing and left wing.

QuoteWe just came off a solid eight years of a Dem president who left with well over a 50% approval rating. And your little clique has been assuring us that he is a communist, so I guess that means most Americans are commies?

This is so dumb on so many levels I don't know where to begin. I'd never argue he is a communist or even a leftist, and I never have. That would be stupid. I've been on this forum the entire time Obama has been in public life, and I've never argued such a thing.

On this forum, I don't think I even have a clique. I gather most people don't like me. In real life, I think my clique had more Sanders supporters than anyone else, and I only know of one person in my family that voted for trump.

Quote from: LaCroix on January 12, 2017, 05:34:50 PM

Quote from: Berkut on January 12, 2017, 09:36:18 AM
It is trivial to refute your claim croix, by simply providing some set of examples of where people who are highly critical of Trump are NOT critical of some thing he has done.

However, for the most part, we aren't talking about the things we agree with, we are talking about the things we DO NOT agree with.

For example, I think Mattis as SecDef is a great choice, at least in theory. So right there I've disproven your claim.

well, you think mattis is a great choice so that he can hopefully keep trump at bay.

Thanks for letting me know what I think!

While that is a nice benefit, I think Mattis is a good choice regardless of that, I think he would have been a good choice if Hillary had won, for example.

So you are wrong yet again.

Quote
but you're right that I shouldn't have said "literally" re "to where trump can literally do nothing right." beyond that nitpick, you haven't refuted my claim.

I don't think "refute" means what you think it means.

If you say that the problem is that no matter what Trump does, his actions will be seen more negatively than they deserve because (mumblemumblemumbleiwastiredcantanswerwhy) then that would be the case consistently. If we can show that in fact that is not the case, that in fact when he makes decisions that are reasonable they are in fact recognized, then your theory is in fact refuted, whether you stated it with hyperbole or not.

Quote
(also, aren't you doing now what in the past you've attacked people for doing re: nitpicking an exaggeration?)

I am not attacking anyone.

Quote from: Tyr on January 12, 2017, 04:51:24 PM
It's really not. The crappy state of things is what led so many to being willing to believe the brexit fuckwittery.

Looks like France might be a more of a real comparison but...

Also odd how the Brexit Remain vote map doesn't really map so well to that.

if my post had been "to where trump can mostly do nothing right," then your earlier post doesn't work

Quote from: LaCroix on January 12, 2017, 06:17:32 PM
if my post had been "to where trump can mostly do nothing right," then your earlier post doesn't work

If you are now arguing that Trump's actions are mostly stupid, then welcome to the club at long last.  If you are merely repeating your tired assertion that everyone who sees Trumps's mistakes as mistakes is somehow morally suspect, then jump back up on that cross.  Don't expect anyone but you to feel bad about your self-inflicted martyrdom, though.

I don't think there's anything morally suspect about it

(edit) and martyrdom is a pretty strong word there

Quote from: Tyr on January 12, 2017, 05:13:39 AM
Hitting the ice berg was inevitable. Screaming "full steam ahead!" instead of making attempts to lessen the damage and save as many people as possible was not.
(West) Germany et al are doing fine.

What does this mean in concrete policy terms?

Quote from: alfred russel on January 12, 2017, 05:43:02 PM
I gather most people don't like me.

I don't think that's true. For a lot of them, shoveling abuse is how they show they care.  :)

Quote from: LaCroix on January 12, 2017, 05:36:04 PM
:huh: i am the cross

Ah. Who is Jesus in this analogy? :hmm:

Quote from: alfred russel on January 12, 2017, 05:43:02 PM
I gather most people don't like me.

I find you reasonable on most issues and hilarious on football.  Hence, I certainly like your posts.

I wouldn't have Dorsey executed.  :)

30 to 2, that's 93.33% to 6.67%

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 12, 2017, 08:10:08 PM
30 to 2, that's 93.33% to 6.67%

Yeah, but that's popular vote.

I voted for Jill Stein

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 12, 2017, 08:15:37 PM
I voted for Jill Stein

worse than hitler.

Maybe we should have a poll like, "Would you give up an Obama second term to avoid any more herpes outbreaks?"

Quote from: katmai on January 12, 2017, 08:21:14 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 12, 2017, 08:15:37 PM
I voted for Jill Stein

worse than hitler.

:)

Quote from: alfred russel on January 12, 2017, 08:24:52 PM
Maybe we should have a poll like, "Would you give up an Obama second term to avoid any more herpes outbreaks?"

The answer would be heavily dependent on exactly who was having the outbreaks.

Quote from: dps on January 12, 2017, 09:53:16 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on January 12, 2017, 08:24:52 PM
Maybe we should have a poll like, "Would you give up an Obama second term to avoid any more herpes outbreaks?"

The answer would be heavily dependent on exactly who was having the outbreaks.

Your mother.

Play nice Fredo.

He set me up for that. I had no choice.

What does he care if his mother has herpes?  He's been out of that womb for at least 50 years, right?

QuoteWhat does this mean in concrete policy terms?

Slow and steady shift away from old industries to new.
Holistic analyses of the broader impact of closing particular sites rather than just a blunt look at the profit and loss statement of the site itself.
Far more major attempts to spread economic development in several centres around the country rather than just London.
Hindsight speaking, but: avoid generational unemployment at all costs.

Quote from: garbon on January 12, 2017, 06:16:20 PM
Looks like France might be a more of a real comparison but...

Also odd how the Brexit Remain vote map doesn't really map so well to that.

You mean in the south east outside London?
The issue there is that this is the conservative heartland. The people there were always going to vote brexit for very different reasons to people in the north. They're the ring leaders of brexit.
Scotland of course is an oddity. Its "blame the other" fuckwittery has been directed against the English rather than Europe.

Quote from: Habbaku on January 12, 2017, 11:48:16 PM
What does he care if his mother has herpes?  He's been out of that womb for at least 50 years, right?

Don't most people care about their mother after they have been born? :unsure:

Yes. I'm sure Habbs is being flip.

Remember that we will soon have President Trump in 5 days because of Obama's public humiliation of him almost 5 years ago at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4

I have to say that this routine is not as funny as it once seemed.

Quote from: Phillip V on January 15, 2017, 01:15:59 AM
Remember that we will soon have President Trump in 5 days because of Obama's public humiliation of him almost 5 years ago at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4

This is a common misconception. Trump ran because the Putin activated his election pee pee protocols.

Quote from: FunkMonk on January 15, 2017, 08:16:08 AM

Quote from: Phillip V on January 15, 2017, 01:15:59 AM
Remember that we will soon have President Trump in 5 days because of Obama's public humiliation of him almost 5 years ago at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4

This is a common misconception. Trump ran because the Putin activated his election pee pee protocols.

No wonder he's all about casinos.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ultimatemovierankings.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F05%2Fsinatra-333333.jpg&hash=12c403fc60e8c6f91bce2a182c1259a21182a2ff)

 :lol:

Quote from: FunkMonk on January 15, 2017, 08:16:08 AM
This is a common misconception. Trump ran because the Putin activated his election pee pee protocols.

[TRUMP has a phone to his ear]
Voice: But I have promises to keep
And miles to go before I pee
Remember, Donald.
Miles to go before you pee.

TRUMP (in monotone): And miles to go before I pee.
[End scene]

Does the President-Elect have much support around here?  I wouldn't think so. 

It seems to me that the President's second term was fairly unproductive (especially with Congress betting hard on a Republican win in 2016), so perhaps a win by Mr. Romney would be a worthwhile trade.  I'm loathe to reward the bad behavior of the Republicans, but as things worked out, it would probably be the better move.

Is this the most epic failed thread in Languish history?

Absolutely.  I'm so ashamed.

You should be.  :(

Quote from: Berkut on January 15, 2017, 11:42:15 PM
Is this the most epic failed thread in Languish history?

I find it hard to tell.  You need to know what the thread was trying to accomplish to know how hard it failed, and this is where I'm stuck.  It seems like a random spazzing out more than anything.

Just wanted to know what choice you bulzbies would make.

Hard to say but I'll side with having two Obama terms and Trump coming along with ideas to change things up. Romney would have been more of an establishment candidate, not rocking the boat, same old go along to get along. He would likely have been better on economy and he talked toughly on Russia and was mocked by Obama for it.

Reason I side with Trump over Romney four years ago is that Trump talks of changes on things that voters have been angry about. Both he and Sanders talked of the faults and problems in government with platforms of serious reform. (Sanders is too far left and socialist for my taste and IMO would have continued big, runaway government.) Trump has talked of things like more efficient and less costly building by government, reforms to Veterans admin, reforms to other programs like education where the US seems to lag far behind comparable nations. Trump is looking seriously at Pentagon waste and overly pricey procurement process, trade policies, is seriously pushing tax reform for most of us and which includes incentives for companies and jobs remaining in the US and/or moving much of their cash back to the US. Changes to US health care and insurance. Many of these are big changes and I think many of them are items that both political parties can get behind, at least to some extent.

He appointed lots of radicals though. The education secretary doesn't sound like what America needs to get better in those comparison tests. The tax plans I heard about aren't for "most of us", the GOP has already proposed massively increased military spending etc.
He will change things and his appeal was that he does address some real grievances that other politicians ignored. But I doubt he'll improve any of those areas. Quite the opposite...

Quote from: Zanza on January 17, 2017, 07:44:17 PM
He appointed lots of radicals though. The education secretary doesn't sound like what America needs to get better in those comparison tests. The tax plans I heard about aren't for "most of us", the GOP has already proposed massively increased military spending etc.
He will change things and his appeal was that he does address some real grievances that other politicians ignored. But I doubt he'll improve any of those areas. Quite the opposite...

Some of those "radicals" may just be people with ideas on how to do things differently that aren't working so well now. Such change rankles embedded interests. Trump and GOP do want to rebuild the military which has been hammered badly, force levels are way down. But they're also talking of things like waste that came out in reports that the Pentagon has tried to keep quiet about. Tax relief is for all, middle class, small businesses. Could be important for small businesses which are held by people filing as individuals so they get hit hard with taxes, yet because of their business income they've looked at like they're wealthy. Small businesses need some breaks and they employ the majority of workers. That's unlike large businesses that can file differently so can take advantage of various tax breaks and generally have lower tax rates.

I am unsure what the basis for your optimism is KRonn but hey I hope sunshine and lollipops descend on us all.

Tax relief is all well and good but weren't we worried about deficits?

We have had politicians talking about 'waste' and so forth for decades. So talking about it does not impress me much.

If eliminating "fraud, waste, and abuse" was a political priority we would have changed the constitution to allow Bill Clinton four terms.

The Trump can trot out the same old, tired and discredited "solutions to America's problems" impresses me not at all.  That KRonn buys that line of bullshit astonishes and dismays me.

So, has nobody ever read Kronn's posts until now?

Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2017, 09:13:57 PM
So, has nobody ever read Kronn's posts until now?

I thought he was trolling at first. Nope drank the kool-aid.

Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2017, 08:48:17 PM
That KRonn buys that line of bullshit astonishes and dismays me.

I don't recall KRonn ever being one to critically think through any "common sense" political slogans.  He may not at either ideological extreme, but that doesn't automatically make your opinions well-reasoned.

Quote from: 11B4V on January 17, 2017, 09:17:12 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2017, 09:13:57 PM
So, has nobody ever read Kronn's posts until now?

I thought he was trolling at first. Nope drank the kool-aid.

And he gets flak because it's not the "Trump is a Russian plant" flavor that is popular on the forum.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 18, 2017, 01:03:11 AM
And he gets flak because it's not the "Trump is a Russian plant" flavor that is popular on the forum.

And he gets flak because he is talking utter rubbish.  I own a small business and can assure you that'd I'd much rather the profit be taxed as personal income rather than corporate profit.  All this talk of "oh, i'm so smart that i will be able to run the government better and cheaper than anyone ever has" stuff is to laugh at, for anyone with a brain.  yet, people i thought had brains have drunk that kool-aid and think Trump's Amateur Hour Administration actually represents an improvement on something.  The Texans have a phrase that perfectly encapsulates Trump:  "All hat, no cattle."

I was not disputing that KRonn was "drinking the koolaid". Just pointing out he was hardly the only one. This election cycle has seen Languish jump at more conspiracy theories than any I can recall.

Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2017, 05:03:13 PM
Just wanted to know what choice you bulzbies would make.

Very hard to believe you truly thought the outcome was in doubt.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 18, 2017, 08:00:06 AM
I was not disputing that KRonn was "drinking the koolaid". Just pointing out he was hardly the only one. This election cycle has seen Languish jump at more conspiracy theories than any I can recall.

It is a weird time on the internet.

It could be that Trump only admires Putin. That is bad enough in my book.

Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2017, 08:40:04 AMIt could be that Trump only admires Putin. That is bad enough in my book.

this is a good position to take. the positions some are taking that trump is literally an agent of putin (willingly or through extortion) is a far worse position. the evidence so far wouldn't even pass preponderance

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 18, 2017, 08:15:52 AM

Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2017, 05:03:13 PM
Just wanted to know what choice you bulzbies would make.

Very hard to believe you truly thought the outcome was in doubt.

Obama is held in very high regard here.  Trump is held in very low regard here; just wanted to see which outweighed which, plus maybe revisit whether Mitt was as bad as you guys said he was in 2012.

The issue is not whether you could get Trump indicted. That is not the point.

The danger around a stated enemy of the US having any kind of undue influence over the President of the US is so incredible that the risk is worthy of real concern whether it is a 50% likely or only 10% likely.

Given that it would be trivial for Trump to put those concerns to bed if he actually had no entanglements, the fact that he does not do so, and in fact keeps doing things that make very little sense keeps the concerns alive.

Who would nominate an Exxon exec who has stated that sanctions should be lifted on Russia and has been personally awarded Russian state awards from the ex-KGB dictator of the country to head the State department, for example? That is so obviously a terrible idea that it creates serious concerns.

There is real and credible evidence that Putin has been engaged in an organized and state controlled effort to influence our election, and the elections of many other European states. This isn't even surprising - given Putin's rather obvious geo-political goals over the last two decades, it would be a surprise to find out that he didn't. What is Trump's response to this? He denies it categorically, and the ONLY thing you can get him to say about Russia at all is 100% fawning, positive, man love for how smart Putin is and how much he respects him.

In fact, the ONLY THING Trump has been consistent about throughout this entire election has been his fawning position on Russia.

There is no way any objective observer could look at the total of what we know about the Trump-Russia issue and come away with anything but a sense of alarm. You have to put on the gold colored glasses and nail them to your forehead to see this as anything other than horrifying.

Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2017, 09:11:54 AM
Obama is held in very high regard here.

Not really. The best I ever said about him was he was ok. He let me down pretty significantly but I was in favor of some of the things he did. The fact he has been almost completely sidelined for the past six years is also a pretty big negative.

But I don't think he was the most evil/incompetent wannabe dictator Presihitler in history so maybe that means 'high regard' in your book?

you can have all your points and leave it at "trump really likes russia, and that's horrifying." some are going to these extremes of calling him an agent, and that's where it gets a bit silly given the insufficient evidence

Quote from: LaCroix on January 18, 2017, 09:01:24 AM
this is a good position to take. the positions some are taking that trump is literally an agent of putin (willingly or through extortion) is a far worse position. the evidence so far wouldn't even pass preponderance

The fringes of the internet where people are claiming "that trump is literally an agent of putin" are not worried about evidence, any more than the fringes that claimed that Obama was born in Kenya (hello, Mr. Trump!) were.  Luckily, we don't have any of those types here at languish, and so don't need to worry about the "evidence" for such claims.

Did Putin want to see trump ,elected?  Absolutely.  Did he take actions to make that wish come true/  Evidence overwhelmingly says that yes, he did.  That's as far as the evidence takes us.  But the evidence DOES take us that far, no matter how much the heads-in-the-sand types want to deny it.

Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2017, 09:11:54 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 18, 2017, 08:15:52 AM

Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2017, 05:03:13 PM
Just wanted to know what choice you bulzbies would make.

Very hard to believe you truly thought the outcome was in doubt.

Obama is held in very high regard here.

Only in the same way you see Clinton as being held in very high regard.

If you don't think she is the worse possible candidate ever, then you "hold her in high regard". Plenty of people on Languish are incredibly critical of Obama on a variety of topics.

Not thinking he is a secret Muslim intent on destroying America != "very high regard".

Quote
Trump is held in very low regard here; just wanted to see which outweighed which,

This is the basic problem with you - in your mind, Trump should be seen by the left about as bad as the right sees Obama. They are both just undesirable political figures as seen by the other side.

Of course, that is completely false. The hatred of Trump actually has almost nothing to do with his position on the political spectrum, while the hatred of Obama from the right is exactly because of his position, and the fact he is black, of course.

The issue with Trump is not that he is a Republican, it is that he is a narcisstic demagogue appealing to the very worst of the American electorate.

The fact that you are so blind to this that you would actually put up a poll asking if people would put Romeny up for comparison illuminates this perfectly. Romney is disliked by the left because he is a member of the right. Languish leans left, so by and large it doesn't like Romney. But Romney rather obviously falls into the political spectrum in a rational manner. Him winning election is just one side beating the other.

There is no comparison to Trump, which is the side of bigotry, intolerance, ignorance, and hatred beating the side of core western values.

You get shit for cheerleading this because it makes it clear that you aren't so much a core Republican as you are a core populist, and shows that you support not Republican values, but rather the values that Trump actually ran on (and won) - intolerance, ignorance, and gross populism. Your poll is kind of amusing because it perfectly illustrates this, but you didn't even realize it. You really thought people would consider Romney somewhere on the Trump scale, when in fact he isn't at all.

Trump is the perfect example of the concept of the narcissism of small differences. Compared to Trump, the difference between Romney, Obama, Clinton (either of them), Bush (either of them), Kasich, Jeb, etc., etc. is infinitesimal.

Quotelus maybe revisit whether Mitt was as bad as you guys said he was in 2012.

Even back in 2012 nobody on the left thought Romney was even in the ballpark of bad enough that he could be considered as comparable to your hero Trump. It isn't an apples and oranges comparison, it is an apples and and pile of shit comparison.

well, yeah. it makes complete sense putin would want to elect trump over hillary

Quote from: LaCroix on January 18, 2017, 09:30:14 AM
well, yeah. it makes complete sense putin would want to elect trump over hillary

Is this the part where you tell us about how Hillary wanted to start WW3?

Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2017, 09:11:54 AM
Obama is held in very high regard here.

That's an interesting claim, and one which says everything about you and nothing about us.

Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2017, 09:29:23 AM
You get shit for cheerleading this because it makes it clear that you aren't so much a core Republican as you are a core populist, and shows that you support not Republican values, but rather the values that Trump actually ran on (and won) - intolerance, ignorance, and gross populism.

:lol:  That was pretty good :thumbsup:

Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2017, 09:31:46 AMIs this the part where you tell us about how Hillary wanted to start WW3?

no, but it's a fact that hillary would have been much harsher on russia than trump. trump really hasn't ever said anything about russia, because he (edit - probably) likes russia. trump was having a bad time in the election, so it made sense for putin to try to get him into office. putin weighed the risk and the consequences and figured, hey, why not. hillary is gonna be bad to us either way.

don't worry, derspiess, I hold obama in very high regard :)

Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2017, 09:34:45 AM

Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2017, 09:29:23 AM
You get shit for cheerleading this because it makes it clear that you aren't so much a core Republican as you are a core populist, and shows that you support not Republican values, but rather the values that Trump actually ran on (and won) - intolerance, ignorance, and gross populism.

:lol:  That was pretty good :thumbsup:

Keep doubling down.

Quote from: LaCroix on January 18, 2017, 09:36:51 AM
don't worry, derspiess, I hold obama in very high regard :)

Really?

Huh. Well he does give a good speech and damn can he run for President. If the skills that help one run for President matched up with the ones that help one be a good President he might have really been the second coming of his hero Abe.

yes, really. despite the old bureaucrats criticizing his slowness, I think he's been mostly fine in foreign affairs. then there's national healthcare, which was a huge undertaking, etc.

Quote from: LaCroix on January 18, 2017, 09:36:02 AM
no, but it's a fact that hillary would have been much harsher on russia than trump. trump really hasn't ever said anything about russia, because he (edit - probably) likes russia.

What planet do you live on that has ignored all that Trump has said favorably about Russia and Putin?

missed a "bad" there

Quote from: LaCroix on January 18, 2017, 09:17:43 AM
you can have all your points and leave it at "trump really likes russia, and that's horrifying." some are going to these extremes of calling him an agent, and that's where it gets a bit silly given the insufficient evidence

I've never been serious about Trump being an agent, I don't think there's any percentage in such an arrangement for either party.  Putin disliked Clinton and liked Trump.  Trump hated Obama and anything he did, plus he likes authoritarianism and people with bad taste.  Putin did what he thought he could get away with to give Trump an edge but didn't explicitly conspire with Trump.  If they were actually working together Trump would of been much smarter about handling the whole email hack.

What I find most disturbing is Trump's own penchant for conspiracy theories.  That is so easy to manipulate.