“I was fixing something. I really don’t like that term, but there it is,” Rovin told Hannity. “I was fixing something for an actor who was in their inner circle, and that was how I was engaged. It was that simple.”
He told the Enquirer he was paid $4,000 a month to “silence” stories about “Bill Clinton’s many sexual dalliances” and Hillary Clinton’s “alleged ongoing affair” with former White House aide Vince Foster by “trading access to the Clintons for ‘positive’ interviews, or by paying the reporters.”
Hannity repeatedly told viewers that Fox News was unable to independently verify Rovin’s account. So why did Hannity give him a primetime platform?
Because he's literally out of any real content and he's just coasting until this shitshow is over.
hey man be careful he knows Karate and will fight you.
No seriously. Hannity has said this repeatably on his show. He's threatened to actually fight some people too. He's like that kid that took 2 karate lessons and now thinks he can mouth off and you won't do anything since he "knows Karate".
“I was fixing something. I really don’t like that term, but there it is,” Rovin told Hannity. “I was fixing something for an actor who was in their inner circle, and that was how I was engaged. It was that simple.”
He told the Enquirer he was paid $4,000 a month to “silence” stories about “Bill Clinton’s many sexual dalliances” and Hillary Clinton’s “alleged ongoing affair” with former White House aide Vince Foster by “trading access to the Clintons for ‘positive’ interviews, or by paying the reporters.”
Hannity repeatedly told viewers that Fox News was unable to independently verify Rovin’s account. So why did Hannity give him a primetime platform?
Because he's literally out of any real content and he's just coasting until this shitshow is over.
I'm not saying that these stories about the Clintons having "fixers" following them and solving their "problems" and/or arranging sex for them is bullshit, but...
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has effectively shut down his high-dollar fundraising operation for the rest of the campaign, a highly unusual move that deals another serious blow to the GOP's effort to finance its get-out-the-vote operation before Election Day.
Steven Mnuchin, Trump's national finance chairman, said in an interview with The Washington Post on Tuesday that Trump Victory, a joint fundraising committee between the party and the campaign, held its last formal fundraiser on Oct. 19. The luncheon was in Las Vegas on the day of the final presidential debate.
"We’ve kind of wound down," Mnuchin said. "But the online fundraising continues to be strong."
...holy fuck. Trump just neutered the GOP downticket.
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Having a healthy conservative opposition is something that I feel is quite important to having a healthy democracy. I'm not going to say it's the thing that's most worried me about this election - the blatant hatred and white nationalism wins that prize. But it still is pretty worrying. I really hope this election is the wake up call the Republicans (or whatever party takes their place) needed to start behaving like adults.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Having a healthy conservative opposition is something that I feel is quite important to having a healthy democracy. I'm not going to say it's the thing that's most worried me about this election - the blatant hatred and white nationalism wins that prize. But it still is pretty worrying. I really hope this election is the wake up call the Republicans (or whatever party takes their place) needed to start behaving like adults.
what does a healthy conservative opposition look like, that thing that almost destroyed the global economy like 8 times in the last 6 years?
Having a healthy conservative opposition is something that I feel is quite important to having a healthy democracy. I'm not going to say it's the thing that's most worried me about this election - the blatant hatred and white nationalism wins that prize. But it still is pretty worrying. I really hope this election is the wake up call the Republicans (or whatever party takes their place) needed to start behaving like adults.
when was the last time we had what you think a conservative healthy opposition is, and why is that valuable?
Having a healthy conservative opposition is something that I feel is quite important to having a healthy democracy. I'm not going to say it's the thing that's most worried me about this election - the blatant hatred and white nationalism wins that prize. But it still is pretty worrying. I really hope this election is the wake up call the Republicans (or whatever party takes their place) needed to start behaving like adults.
what does a healthy conservative opposition look like, that thing that almost destroyed the global economy like 8 times in the last 6 years?
Well that's the point, a healthy conservative opposition is extremely important to the nation, but the "conservative" opposition we have right now is sick as fuck.
I feel the Clinton years was the last time they actually existed. Then we got Bush, and then it's been downhill ever since.
So basically we're reaching the point where we are going to have people able to vote for the first time without ever having first-hand experience of what that was like.
I feel the Clinton years was the last time they actually existed. Then we got Bush, and then it's been downhill ever since.
So basically we're reaching the point where we are going to have people able to vote for the first time without ever having first-hand experience of what that was like.
You don't remember the Clinton years very well then.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Having a healthy conservative opposition is something that I feel is quite important to having a healthy democracy. I'm not going to say it's the thing that's most worried me about this election - the blatant hatred and white nationalism wins that prize. But it still is pretty worrying. I really hope this election is the wake up call the Republicans (or whatever party takes their place) needed to start behaving like adults.
when was the last time we had what you think a conservative healthy opposition is, and why is that valuable?
Pre-Nixon.
And it's valuable because look at what's happened to this country since. It's been a massive struggle to get around the almost entrenched conservative hegemony.
I feel the Clinton years was the last time they actually existed. Then we got Bush, and then it's been downhill ever since.
So basically we're reaching the point where we are going to have people able to vote for the first time without ever having first-hand experience of what that was like.
You don't remember the Clinton years very well then.
I can remember political discourse being better than it is now, but for the life of me I can't think of any Conservative policies that were beneficial to society within my lifetime. With the exception of stuff they came up with and then stood in extreme opposition to when Democrats got on board.
Conservative opposition can take the form of "do we really need X change?" "Is this an actual improvement?" "Is this something that government should be spending it's resources on?"
Divorced from the historical background of those who have been asking these questions or are associated with "conservatisim", these are all valid questions to make in most governing scenarios. Having a lead critic or shadow cabinent can be very important roles in government that help draw attention to areas that may not have been thought through completely or which should be re-evaluated as a priority.
Having a healthy conservative opposition is something that I feel is quite important to having a healthy democracy. I'm not going to say it's the thing that's most worried me about this election - the blatant hatred and white nationalism wins that prize. But it still is pretty worrying. I really hope this election is the wake up call the Republicans (or whatever party takes their place) needed to start behaving like adults.
when was the last time we had what you think a conservative healthy opposition is, and why is that valuable?
An echo chamber is just about the worst thing you can have in politics, as you don't have anyone challenging your ideas, making you justify them or reason for them.
Having a party that supports small government and a party that supports big government is generally a good thing, as they're a check/balance on each other. Where you have Democrats saying fund NASA until kingdom come (not enough money), and conservatives saying let private industry take care of it (no cost incentive to explore space), compromise is borne. Now we have government and industry partnerships that have expanded beyond Lockheed/Boeing into SpaceX, Virgin, and others in order to advance Aeronautical capability. Without this compromise and the grants / tax incentives created, VTOL technology as demonstrated by the Falcon program would not exist. Nor would we have meaningfully begun to explore the idea of non-fixed-wing spacecraft as Burt Rutan started.
It's not that conservatives are more valuable than liberals or vice versa, its the compromises that they strike to form a balanced, functional government. This can only occur when both parties are willing to sit at the table, however.
I have little doubt that given full governmental control, the Democrats would vastly increase the deployment of renewable resources, which is a good thing. I do not believe, however, that the Democrats would give proper consideration to the economic effect this has on our coal and oil producing communities. They would provide token support via housing/relocation/education credits, but it wouldn't be enough to mitigate the severe impact these areas would experience. This would be a net bad thing.
Similarly, given full control, I have little doubt that the Conservatives would continue to bolster our military intelligence apparatus through the implementation of better digital espionage. This is a good thing. I do not believe, however, that the Conservatives would give proper consideration to the ramifications these technologies have on the 1st and 4th Amendments. The Democrats must be there as a necessity to strike compromise and make sure that we are keeping up technologically whilst not trampling on rights.
So, Bill Clinton is in Greenville today for an event. One of my wife's friends just posted that she saw him downtown eating at the best place to get oysters in town. Also the best mixed drinks.
I feel the Clinton years was the last time they actually existed. Then we got Bush, and then it's been downhill ever since.
So basically we're reaching the point where we are going to have people able to vote for the first time without ever having first-hand experience of what that was like.
You don't remember the Clinton years very well then.
I can remember political discourse being better than it is now, but for the life of me I can't think of any Conservative policies that were beneficial to society within my lifetime. With the exception of stuff they came up with and then stood in extreme opposition to when Democrats got on board.
FOX News started during the Clinton administration. Discourse took a dive soon after.
But don't kid yourself, the press beforehand was already against Clinton. He was not considered 'worthy' of being president. He didn't belong.
In a healthy political system, there's a natural tension between systemic stasis and reform. Reform is driven by various ideological schools of thought; retaining working elements of the existing system is the healthy conservative position.
That seems alien to a lot of American voters because our "conservative" party, the Republicans, is actually not all that conservative in that sense. They're ideological market fundamentalists, who want to take working aspects of the government and privatize them. They're only conservative in the sense that they're socially reactionary.
This is not to "no true conservative", but when you want to do something like jettison the US Postal Service, an invaluable service that has been working exactly as intended for decades, and replace it with some ghoulish profit-driven monstrosity, you can't really claim you're for sticking with what works.
Duffel on
+46
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
Having a healthy conservative opposition is something that I feel is quite important to having a healthy democracy. I'm not going to say it's the thing that's most worried me about this election - the blatant hatred and white nationalism wins that prize. But it still is pretty worrying. I really hope this election is the wake up call the Republicans (or whatever party takes their place) needed to start behaving like adults.
when was the last time we had what you think a conservative healthy opposition is, and why is that valuable?
An echo chamber is just about the worst thing you can have in politics, as you don't have anyone challenging your ideas, making you justify them or reason for them.
Having a party that supports small government and a party that supports big government is generally a good thing, as they're a check/balance on each other. Where you have Democrats saying fund NASA until kingdom come (not enough money), and conservatives saying let private industry take care of it (no cost incentive to explore space), compromise is borne. Now we have government and industry partnerships that have expanded beyond Lockheed/Boeing into SpaceX, Virgin, and others in order to advance Aeronautical capability. Without this compromise and the grants / tax incentives created, VTOL technology as demonstrated by the Falcon program would not exist. Nor would we have meaningfully begun to explore the idea of non-fixed-wing spacecraft as Burt Rutan started.
It's not that conservatives are more valuable than liberals or vice versa, its the compromises that they strike to form a balanced, functional government. This can only occur when both parties are willing to sit at the table, however.
I have little doubt that given full governmental control, the Democrats would vastly increase the deployment of renewable resources, which is a good thing. I do not believe, however, that the Democrats would give proper consideration to the economic effect this has on our coal and oil producing communities. They would provide token support via housing/relocation/education credits, but it wouldn't be enough to mitigate the severe impact these areas would experience. This would be a net bad thing.
Similarly, given full control, I have little doubt that the Conservatives would continue to bolster our military intelligence apparatus through the implementation of better digital assets. This is a good thing. I do not believe, however, that the Conservatives would give proper consideration to the ramifications these technologies have on the 1st and 4th Amendments. The Democrats must be there as a necessity to strike compromise and make sure that we are keeping up technologically whilst not trampling on rights.
Privatizing the space industry is one of the worst things in the last 20 years IMO. It's great that it's getting done, but we're going to regret giving a handful of companies a monopoly on the nearly unlimited resources and opportunities out there. There is so much dystopic science fiction about this I can't even.
Having a healthy conservative opposition is something that I feel is quite important to having a healthy democracy. I'm not going to say it's the thing that's most worried me about this election - the blatant hatred and white nationalism wins that prize. But it still is pretty worrying. I really hope this election is the wake up call the Republicans (or whatever party takes their place) needed to start behaving like adults.
when was the last time we had what you think a conservative healthy opposition is, and why is that valuable?
An echo chamber is just about the worst thing you can have in politics, as you don't have anyone challenging your ideas, making you justify them or reason for them.
Having a party that supports small government and a party that supports big government is generally a good thing, as they're a check/balance on each other. Where you have Democrats saying fund NASA until kingdom come (not enough money), and conservatives saying let private industry take care of it (no cost incentive to explore space), compromise is borne. Now we have government and industry partnerships that have expanded beyond Lockheed/Boeing into SpaceX, Virgin, and others in order to advance Aeronautical capability. Without this compromise and the grants / tax incentives created, VTOL technology as demonstrated by the Falcon program would not exist. Nor would we have meaningfully begun to explore the idea of non-fixed-wing spacecraft as Burt Rutan started.
It's not that conservatives are more valuable than liberals or vice versa, its the compromises that they strike to form a balanced, functional government. This can only occur when both parties are willing to sit at the table, however.
I have little doubt that given full governmental control, the Democrats would vastly increase the deployment of renewable resources, which is a good thing. I do not believe, however, that the Democrats would give proper consideration to the economic effect this has on our coal and oil producing communities. They would provide token support via housing/relocation/education credits, but it wouldn't be enough to mitigate the severe impact these areas would experience. This would be a net bad thing.
Similarly, given full control, I have little doubt that the Conservatives would continue to bolster our military intelligence apparatus through the implementation of better digital assets. This is a good thing. I do not believe, however, that the Conservatives would give proper consideration to the ramifications these technologies have on the 1st and 4th Amendments. The Democrats must be there as a necessity to strike compromise and make sure that we are keeping up technologically whilst not trampling on rights.
Privatizing the space industry is one of the worst things in the last 20 years IMO. It's great that it's getting done, but we're going to regret giving a handful of companies a monopoly on the nearly unlimited resources and opportunities out there. There is so much dystopic science fiction about this I can't even.
I feel the Clinton years was the last time they actually existed. Then we got Bush, and then it's been downhill ever since.
So basically we're reaching the point where we are going to have people able to vote for the first time without ever having first-hand experience of what that was like.
You don't remember the Clinton years very well then.
To be fair, before Clinton was Bush, and before that? I was too young to know anything about politics (plus I wasn't even in the US).
So think about the fact that the Clinton years was effectively my only real experience with conservative opposition which I thought was still reasonable, and the conservative opposition under Obama and hopefully partly Clinton will be the only ones first time voters in 2020 will have experienced.
Even through Nixon things were pretty okay. It's hard to say a Humphrey administration would have done too much different than a Nixon one, except maybe better healthcare legislation and a stronger push for the Equal Rights Amendment. Still Vietnam War much as it was, still Clean Air Act. The fruits of the Southern Strategy hadn't kicked in yet, that was what really poisoned the GOP.
Question is if US politics would be better off had the Southern Dems stayed with the Dems, while still being just as awful as they were/are. Would an electorally stronger Democratic party pushing for pro-working-class policies, but limited on their ability to push for social issues, done better for the country as a whole than a Democratic party which is more representative of all people, but hampered by racism continuously giving the GOP an advantage in many states and congress?
0
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
Having a healthy conservative opposition is something that I feel is quite important to having a healthy democracy. I'm not going to say it's the thing that's most worried me about this election - the blatant hatred and white nationalism wins that prize. But it still is pretty worrying. I really hope this election is the wake up call the Republicans (or whatever party takes their place) needed to start behaving like adults.
when was the last time we had what you think a conservative healthy opposition is, and why is that valuable?
An echo chamber is just about the worst thing you can have in politics, as you don't have anyone challenging your ideas, making you justify them or reason for them.
Having a party that supports small government and a party that supports big government is generally a good thing, as they're a check/balance on each other. Where you have Democrats saying fund NASA until kingdom come (not enough money), and conservatives saying let private industry take care of it (no cost incentive to explore space), compromise is borne. Now we have government and industry partnerships that have expanded beyond Lockheed/Boeing into SpaceX, Virgin, and others in order to advance Aeronautical capability. Without this compromise and the grants / tax incentives created, VTOL technology as demonstrated by the Falcon program would not exist. Nor would we have meaningfully begun to explore the idea of non-fixed-wing spacecraft as Burt Rutan started.
It's not that conservatives are more valuable than liberals or vice versa, its the compromises that they strike to form a balanced, functional government. This can only occur when both parties are willing to sit at the table, however.
I have little doubt that given full governmental control, the Democrats would vastly increase the deployment of renewable resources, which is a good thing. I do not believe, however, that the Democrats would give proper consideration to the economic effect this has on our coal and oil producing communities. They would provide token support via housing/relocation/education credits, but it wouldn't be enough to mitigate the severe impact these areas would experience. This would be a net bad thing.
Similarly, given full control, I have little doubt that the Conservatives would continue to bolster our military intelligence apparatus through the implementation of better digital assets. This is a good thing. I do not believe, however, that the Conservatives would give proper consideration to the ramifications these technologies have on the 1st and 4th Amendments. The Democrats must be there as a necessity to strike compromise and make sure that we are keeping up technologically whilst not trampling on rights.
Privatizing the space industry is one of the worst things in the last 20 years IMO. It's great that it's getting done, but we're going to regret giving a handful of companies a monopoly on the nearly unlimited resources and opportunities out there. There is so much dystopic science fiction about this I can't even.
Shit, I didn't read the back half of your post before responding. Have you ever been to one of those communities? I have, grew up in one (gold and logging, not coal), the damage is already done, jobs are gone, have been for a long time. All that's left is mitigation, and Clinton was the only candidate in the race (including everybody that didn't win nominations and third party candidates here) that had any plan for those communities. Her whole "We're gonna put a lot of coal miners out of work!" quote that got so much media play was from when she was talking about transitioning those places away from a dead industry.
Having a healthy conservative opposition is something that I feel is quite important to having a healthy democracy. I'm not going to say it's the thing that's most worried me about this election - the blatant hatred and white nationalism wins that prize. But it still is pretty worrying. I really hope this election is the wake up call the Republicans (or whatever party takes their place) needed to start behaving like adults.
when was the last time we had what you think a conservative healthy opposition is, and why is that valuable?
Pre-Nixon.
And it's valuable because look at what's happened to this country since. It's been a massive struggle to get around the almost entrenched conservative hegemony.
well that's definitely not far enough
conservatives in the fifties and sixties were taking the very brave position that civil rights for blacks were bad and McCarthyism was good, that staging coups on democratic governments was good foreign policy, and that the taxes that allowed for a huge economic leap forward were bad
not to mention that as early as the mid-60's they were grifting their base by mail, which is one of the primary causes behind the rightward jump of the overton window
to find a worthwhile conservative party you have to go back to at least the 19th century; I would argue the party as a worthwhile entity died with the Hayes compromise
but more importantly, I find it very strange that anyone would think it is worthwhile to keep around an ideology based around the principle of saying "no" for its own sake
it's not like the alternative is "yes let's do everything always"
I feel the Clinton years was the last time they actually existed. Then we got Bush, and then it's been downhill ever since.
So basically we're reaching the point where we are going to have people able to vote for the first time without ever having first-hand experience of what that was like.
You don't remember the Clinton years very well then.
To be fair, before Clinton was Bush, and before that? I was too young to know anything about politics (plus I wasn't even in the US).
So think about the fact that the Clinton years was effectively my only real experience with conservative opposition which I thought was still reasonable, and what the 2020 voters's first time voters will have experienced.
If you had told my 20-something self back in the Clinton years that Republican opposition to a Democratic President could actually devolve, I would have been slack-jawed in amazement.
But then you would have said "But the next Democratic President is going to be a black dude with the middle name 'Hussein'" and it'd make a bit more sense.
Having a healthy conservative opposition is something that I feel is quite important to having a healthy democracy. I'm not going to say it's the thing that's most worried me about this election - the blatant hatred and white nationalism wins that prize. But it still is pretty worrying. I really hope this election is the wake up call the Republicans (or whatever party takes their place) needed to start behaving like adults.
when was the last time we had what you think a conservative healthy opposition is, and why is that valuable?
An echo chamber is just about the worst thing you can have in politics, as you don't have anyone challenging your ideas, making you justify them or reason for them.
Having a party that supports small government and a party that supports big government is generally a good thing, as they're a check/balance on each other. Where you have Democrats saying fund NASA until kingdom come (not enough money), and conservatives saying let private industry take care of it (no cost incentive to explore space), compromise is borne. Now we have government and industry partnerships that have expanded beyond Lockheed/Boeing into SpaceX, Virgin, and others in order to advance Aeronautical capability. Without this compromise and the grants / tax incentives created, VTOL technology as demonstrated by the Falcon program would not exist. Nor would we have meaningfully begun to explore the idea of non-fixed-wing spacecraft as Burt Rutan started.
It's not that conservatives are more valuable than liberals or vice versa, its the compromises that they strike to form a balanced, functional government. This can only occur when both parties are willing to sit at the table, however.
I have little doubt that given full governmental control, the Democrats would vastly increase the deployment of renewable resources, which is a good thing. I do not believe, however, that the Democrats would give proper consideration to the economic effect this has on our coal and oil producing communities. They would provide token support via housing/relocation/education credits, but it wouldn't be enough to mitigate the severe impact these areas would experience. This would be a net bad thing.
Similarly, given full control, I have little doubt that the Conservatives would continue to bolster our military intelligence apparatus through the implementation of better digital assets. This is a good thing. I do not believe, however, that the Conservatives would give proper consideration to the ramifications these technologies have on the 1st and 4th Amendments. The Democrats must be there as a necessity to strike compromise and make sure that we are keeping up technologically whilst not trampling on rights.
Privatizing the space industry is one of the worst things in the last 20 years IMO. It's great that it's getting done, but we're going to regret giving a handful of companies a monopoly on the nearly unlimited resources and opportunities out there. There is so much dystopic science fiction about this I can't even.
The United States has given no such monopoly on resources whatsoever, namely because ownership of resources off-planet hasn't been agreed upon by any international or intranational group.
Moreover, I'm wondering how you feel that the opening of space travel to a greater number of companies is worse than the existing system we had. Prior to this, Boeing and Lockheed held all of the power. You were fucked for NASA contracts unless you worked for one of those two companies. Now THAT was a monopoly, especially since Boeing and Lockheed were producing increasingly shitty products.
So instead we widened the field, and look what happened - a whole bunch of companies came forward with valuable innovations to contribute! NASA still holds the keys, they still decides who launches and who doesn't. That's as much for the safety of American populations as it is a guarantee to other nations that we aren't carte blanching random people into space.
Industry-Government partnerships is simply a matter of practicality. If your perspective is taken, then when Obamacare was created, the government should have built hundreds of solely-owned government hospitals, hired thousands of government-employed doctors, and approved medications only created by government laboratories.
Like the Space Industry, the Health Care industry is too big to be controlled by any one government. Industry cooperation is essential. It doesn't mean giving up the keys to the country club, it just means letting more people golf. (Which, incidentally, actual Country Clubs have had to do since they realized their business model of exclusive membership doesn't work / isn't financially viable).
I don't even see the virtue in a "conservative" argument at this point. Advocating for a smaller government in our increasingly connected society is ridiculous. If anything we need more better government in all levels of our society.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Having a healthy conservative opposition is something that I feel is quite important to having a healthy democracy. I'm not going to say it's the thing that's most worried me about this election - the blatant hatred and white nationalism wins that prize. But it still is pretty worrying. I really hope this election is the wake up call the Republicans (or whatever party takes their place) needed to start behaving like adults.
when was the last time we had what you think a conservative healthy opposition is, and why is that valuable?
Pre-Nixon.
And it's valuable because look at what's happened to this country since. It's been a massive struggle to get around the almost entrenched conservative hegemony.
Conservatism is an ideology and way of thinking. There is nothing wrong with being Conservative. My thinking usually veers away from Conservatism, but there are a few things about me that could be considered Conservative.
The Republican Party is a party purely of money and power that has been manipulating and exploiting Conservatives for my entire lifetime. I want nothing to do it. As an institution the GOP deserves to die a painful death.
Everybody deserves a voice* in our government advocating for their ideas and beliefs. Right now, Conservatives have even less a voice than Libertarians or Greens.
*Unless it's nothing but hatred and bile.
+3
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
[the dealer passes the cards, and calls out to the elephant holding a facecard and a deuce]
Dealer: you have 13
GOP: hit me
[the dealer passes another card over, a facecard]
Dealer: oooh, 23. Bust. So sorry.
GOP: hit me.
Dealer: what?
GOP: you heard me. hit me. gimme another card.
Dealer: why on earth--
GOP: don't question me, jerk. hit me.
Dealer: um . . .
[the dealer passes more cards]
Dealer: a five. that's 28.
GOP: hit
Dealer: eight of clubs. 35.
GOP: double.
Dealer: the fuck?
[the Republican Establishment takes even more money and puts it on a hand that has already lost several times over]
GOP: fucking hit me!
[this continues on the entire night. the GOP is bankrupt, and no one will come near the table where the crazy person can't stop despite all signs pointing toward endless and worsening failure]
in short, the math can't fail, it can only be failed
+23
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
Having a healthy conservative opposition is something that I feel is quite important to having a healthy democracy. I'm not going to say it's the thing that's most worried me about this election - the blatant hatred and white nationalism wins that prize. But it still is pretty worrying. I really hope this election is the wake up call the Republicans (or whatever party takes their place) needed to start behaving like adults.
when was the last time we had what you think a conservative healthy opposition is, and why is that valuable?
An echo chamber is just about the worst thing you can have in politics, as you don't have anyone challenging your ideas, making you justify them or reason for them.
Having a party that supports small government and a party that supports big government is generally a good thing, as they're a check/balance on each other. Where you have Democrats saying fund NASA until kingdom come (not enough money), and conservatives saying let private industry take care of it (no cost incentive to explore space), compromise is borne. Now we have government and industry partnerships that have expanded beyond Lockheed/Boeing into SpaceX, Virgin, and others in order to advance Aeronautical capability. Without this compromise and the grants / tax incentives created, VTOL technology as demonstrated by the Falcon program would not exist. Nor would we have meaningfully begun to explore the idea of non-fixed-wing spacecraft as Burt Rutan started.
It's not that conservatives are more valuable than liberals or vice versa, its the compromises that they strike to form a balanced, functional government. This can only occur when both parties are willing to sit at the table, however.
I have little doubt that given full governmental control, the Democrats would vastly increase the deployment of renewable resources, which is a good thing. I do not believe, however, that the Democrats would give proper consideration to the economic effect this has on our coal and oil producing communities. They would provide token support via housing/relocation/education credits, but it wouldn't be enough to mitigate the severe impact these areas would experience. This would be a net bad thing.
Similarly, given full control, I have little doubt that the Conservatives would continue to bolster our military intelligence apparatus through the implementation of better digital assets. This is a good thing. I do not believe, however, that the Conservatives would give proper consideration to the ramifications these technologies have on the 1st and 4th Amendments. The Democrats must be there as a necessity to strike compromise and make sure that we are keeping up technologically whilst not trampling on rights.
Privatizing the space industry is one of the worst things in the last 20 years IMO. It's great that it's getting done, but we're going to regret giving a handful of companies a monopoly on the nearly unlimited resources and opportunities out there. There is so much dystopic science fiction about this I can't even.
Shit, I didn't read the back half of your post before responding. Have you ever been to one of those communities? I have, grew up in one (gold and logging, not coal), the damage is already done, jobs are gone, have been for a long time. All that's left is mitigation, and Clinton was the only candidate in the race (including everybody that didn't win nominations and third party candidates here) that had any plan for those communities. Her whole "We're gonna put a lot of coal miners out of work!" quote that got so much media play was from when she was talking about transitioning those places away from a dead industry.
It seems like you are stuck debating the specific, really non-important, examples of his point rather than discussing the general idea of his argument:
That compromise is good, especially when there is a rational conservative and liberal party who can act as checks and balances on each other. Echo Chambers are bad because then there is nothing to point out the weaknesses of the popular viewpoint. There are weaknesses/faults and strengths/benefits in rational liberal and conservative viewpoints, unless you think one is literally perfect and the other has absolutely zero redeeming qualities. Which in that case, I would recommend you expand your knowledge of both.
I feel the Clinton years was the last time they actually existed. Then we got Bush, and then it's been downhill ever since.
So basically we're reaching the point where we are going to have people able to vote for the first time without ever having first-hand experience of what that was like.
You don't remember the Clinton years very well then.
I can remember political discourse being better than it is now, but for the life of me I can't think of any Conservative policies that were beneficial to society within my lifetime. With the exception of stuff they came up with and then stood in extreme opposition to when Democrats got on board.
Was that Limbaugh, Fox News or John McCain calling Clinton's daughter ugly that made it better then it was now?
I'd (theoretically) like a party of people who are either pragmatic to a fault or think that government should be ensuring liberty for people rather than providing for people. They're two arguments I disagree with, but they're still salient arguments.
But the modern Republican party disgusts me because of their ideological bankruptcy, their staunch refusal to govern on a national stage, and their discriminatory panache. (Edit: It's a bit more than a panache but I got carried away with myself you have to forgive me right) The modern Republican ideology just seems to be built on the backs of scared racists and misogynists. Sure all the modern conservative 'thought leaders' (blech!) are corporate shills and spineless dummies, but those shills and dummies made an alliance with the racists and misogynists so that the racists and misogynists would elect the shills and dummies and the shills and dummies would propagate racism and misogyny for the base. They're complicit in this.
Maybe this is because I haven't entertained a good conservative ideologue with a coherent perspective, but I just can't see a good argument for the Republican party. Not even as a check on Democratic power, because the Republicans are obstructionists because they didn't get two cookies and are not happy with just one. Also the Dems haven't purity-tested themselves into oblivion yet.
The best way I have heard it put is "democracy is the belief that you shouldn't ignore a good persons ideas just because they are your house cleaner and conservatism is you shouldn't ignore a good persons ideas just because they are your grandparent."
[the dealer passes the cards, and calls out to the elephant holding a facecard and a deuce]
Dealer: you have 13
GOP: hit me
[the dealer passes another card over, a facecard]
Dealer: oooh, 23. Bust. So sorry.
GOP: hit me.
Dealer: what?
GOP: you heard me. hit me. gimme another card.
Dealer: why on earth--
GOP: don't question me, jerk. hit me.
Dealer: um . . .
[the dealer passes more cards]
Dealer: a five. that's 28.
GOP: hit
Dealer: eight of clubs. 35.
GOP: double.
Dealer: the fuck?
[the Republican Establishment takes even more money and puts it on a hand that has already lost several times over]
GOP: fucking hit me!
[this continues on the entire night. the GOP is bankrupt, and no one will come near the table where the crazy person can't stop despite all signs pointing toward endless and worsening failure]
in short, the math can't fail, it can only be failed
I guess for me, we've been trying the "conservative" approach on a lot of shit for a long time, why not try an actual liberal stance just to see what will happen.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I guess for me, we've been trying the "conservative" approach on a lot of shit for a long time, why not try an actual liberal stance just to see what will happen.
We're not saying that we don't want to try a liberal one. We're saying that giving the Democrats a blank check is just as bad as giving the Republicans one. Healthy opposition. The Democrats have been healthy opposition for decades. Unfortunately, with the pendulum swinging to give liberals more power, the Republicans have failed to create healthy opposition.
“I was fixing something. I really don’t like that term, but there it is,” Rovin told Hannity. “I was fixing something for an actor who was in their inner circle, and that was how I was engaged. It was that simple.”
He told the Enquirer he was paid $4,000 a month to “silence” stories about “Bill Clinton’s many sexual dalliances” and Hillary Clinton’s “alleged ongoing affair” with former White House aide Vince Foster by “trading access to the Clintons for ‘positive’ interviews, or by paying the reporters.”
Hannity repeatedly told viewers that Fox News was unable to independently verify Rovin’s account. So why did Hannity give him a primetime platform?
Because he's literally out of any real content and he's just coasting until this shitshow is over.
I'm not saying that these stories about the Clintons having "fixers" following them and solving their "problems" and/or arranging sex for them is bullshit, but...
It seems like most of the ideological coherence in the GOP fled to the Libertarian Party, which also helps underscore how ideological coherence in a vacuum isn't inherently a good thing.
However I do think there are some decent policy arguments one could make using the frame of limiting government power. Things like drug laws and privacy laws, for example. The same goes, very broadly, for a less interventionist foreign policy.
Posts
hey man be careful he knows Karate and will fight you.
No seriously. Hannity has said this repeatably on his show. He's threatened to actually fight some people too. He's like that kid that took 2 karate lessons and now thinks he can mouth off and you won't do anything since he "knows Karate".
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I'm not saying that these stories about the Clintons having "fixers" following them and solving their "problems" and/or arranging sex for them is bullshit, but...
That guy circled and identified as a "fixer"?
That's Ed Miliband, former leader of the British Labour Party.
The DNC right now
what does a healthy conservative opposition look like, that thing that almost destroyed the global economy like 8 times in the last 6 years?
the GOP doubles down
when was the last time we had what you think a conservative healthy opposition is, and why is that valuable?
Well that's the point, a healthy conservative opposition is extremely important to the nation, but the "conservative" opposition we have right now is sick as fuck.
So basically we're reaching the point where we are going to have people able to vote for the first time without ever having first-hand experience of what that was like.
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
You don't remember the Clinton years very well then.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Pre-Nixon.
And it's valuable because look at what's happened to this country since. It's been a massive struggle to get around the almost entrenched conservative hegemony.
I can remember political discourse being better than it is now, but for the life of me I can't think of any Conservative policies that were beneficial to society within my lifetime. With the exception of stuff they came up with and then stood in extreme opposition to when Democrats got on board.
Meet 1990s conservative leader Newt Gingrich
Divorced from the historical background of those who have been asking these questions or are associated with "conservatisim", these are all valid questions to make in most governing scenarios. Having a lead critic or shadow cabinent can be very important roles in government that help draw attention to areas that may not have been thought through completely or which should be re-evaluated as a priority.
An echo chamber is just about the worst thing you can have in politics, as you don't have anyone challenging your ideas, making you justify them or reason for them.
Having a party that supports small government and a party that supports big government is generally a good thing, as they're a check/balance on each other. Where you have Democrats saying fund NASA until kingdom come (not enough money), and conservatives saying let private industry take care of it (no cost incentive to explore space), compromise is borne. Now we have government and industry partnerships that have expanded beyond Lockheed/Boeing into SpaceX, Virgin, and others in order to advance Aeronautical capability. Without this compromise and the grants / tax incentives created, VTOL technology as demonstrated by the Falcon program would not exist. Nor would we have meaningfully begun to explore the idea of non-fixed-wing spacecraft as Burt Rutan started.
It's not that conservatives are more valuable than liberals or vice versa, its the compromises that they strike to form a balanced, functional government. This can only occur when both parties are willing to sit at the table, however.
I have little doubt that given full governmental control, the Democrats would vastly increase the deployment of renewable resources, which is a good thing. I do not believe, however, that the Democrats would give proper consideration to the economic effect this has on our coal and oil producing communities. They would provide token support via housing/relocation/education credits, but it wouldn't be enough to mitigate the severe impact these areas would experience. This would be a net bad thing.
Similarly, given full control, I have little doubt that the Conservatives would continue to bolster our military intelligence apparatus through the implementation of better digital espionage. This is a good thing. I do not believe, however, that the Conservatives would give proper consideration to the ramifications these technologies have on the 1st and 4th Amendments. The Democrats must be there as a necessity to strike compromise and make sure that we are keeping up technologically whilst not trampling on rights.
FOX News started during the Clinton administration. Discourse took a dive soon after.
But don't kid yourself, the press beforehand was already against Clinton. He was not considered 'worthy' of being president. He didn't belong.
That seems alien to a lot of American voters because our "conservative" party, the Republicans, is actually not all that conservative in that sense. They're ideological market fundamentalists, who want to take working aspects of the government and privatize them. They're only conservative in the sense that they're socially reactionary.
This is not to "no true conservative", but when you want to do something like jettison the US Postal Service, an invaluable service that has been working exactly as intended for decades, and replace it with some ghoulish profit-driven monstrosity, you can't really claim you're for sticking with what works.
Privatizing the space industry is one of the worst things in the last 20 years IMO. It's great that it's getting done, but we're going to regret giving a handful of companies a monopoly on the nearly unlimited resources and opportunities out there. There is so much dystopic science fiction about this I can't even.
So think about the fact that the Clinton years was effectively my only real experience with conservative opposition which I thought was still reasonable, and the conservative opposition under Obama and hopefully partly Clinton will be the only ones first time voters in 2020 will have experienced.
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
Question is if US politics would be better off had the Southern Dems stayed with the Dems, while still being just as awful as they were/are. Would an electorally stronger Democratic party pushing for pro-working-class policies, but limited on their ability to push for social issues, done better for the country as a whole than a Democratic party which is more representative of all people, but hampered by racism continuously giving the GOP an advantage in many states and congress?
Shit, I didn't read the back half of your post before responding. Have you ever been to one of those communities? I have, grew up in one (gold and logging, not coal), the damage is already done, jobs are gone, have been for a long time. All that's left is mitigation, and Clinton was the only candidate in the race (including everybody that didn't win nominations and third party candidates here) that had any plan for those communities. Her whole "We're gonna put a lot of coal miners out of work!" quote that got so much media play was from when she was talking about transitioning those places away from a dead industry.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/11/12/clinton-plan-to-revitalize-coal-communities/
well that's definitely not far enough
conservatives in the fifties and sixties were taking the very brave position that civil rights for blacks were bad and McCarthyism was good, that staging coups on democratic governments was good foreign policy, and that the taxes that allowed for a huge economic leap forward were bad
not to mention that as early as the mid-60's they were grifting their base by mail, which is one of the primary causes behind the rightward jump of the overton window
to find a worthwhile conservative party you have to go back to at least the 19th century; I would argue the party as a worthwhile entity died with the Hayes compromise
but more importantly, I find it very strange that anyone would think it is worthwhile to keep around an ideology based around the principle of saying "no" for its own sake
it's not like the alternative is "yes let's do everything always"
If you had told my 20-something self back in the Clinton years that Republican opposition to a Democratic President could actually devolve, I would have been slack-jawed in amazement.
But then you would have said "But the next Democratic President is going to be a black dude with the middle name 'Hussein'" and it'd make a bit more sense.
The United States has given no such monopoly on resources whatsoever, namely because ownership of resources off-planet hasn't been agreed upon by any international or intranational group.
Moreover, I'm wondering how you feel that the opening of space travel to a greater number of companies is worse than the existing system we had. Prior to this, Boeing and Lockheed held all of the power. You were fucked for NASA contracts unless you worked for one of those two companies. Now THAT was a monopoly, especially since Boeing and Lockheed were producing increasingly shitty products.
So instead we widened the field, and look what happened - a whole bunch of companies came forward with valuable innovations to contribute! NASA still holds the keys, they still decides who launches and who doesn't. That's as much for the safety of American populations as it is a guarantee to other nations that we aren't carte blanching random people into space.
Industry-Government partnerships is simply a matter of practicality. If your perspective is taken, then when Obamacare was created, the government should have built hundreds of solely-owned government hospitals, hired thousands of government-employed doctors, and approved medications only created by government laboratories.
Like the Space Industry, the Health Care industry is too big to be controlled by any one government. Industry cooperation is essential. It doesn't mean giving up the keys to the country club, it just means letting more people golf. (Which, incidentally, actual Country Clubs have had to do since they realized their business model of exclusive membership doesn't work / isn't financially viable).
pleasepaypreacher.net
Conservatism is an ideology and way of thinking. There is nothing wrong with being Conservative. My thinking usually veers away from Conservatism, but there are a few things about me that could be considered Conservative.
The Republican Party is a party purely of money and power that has been manipulating and exploiting Conservatives for my entire lifetime. I want nothing to do it. As an institution the GOP deserves to die a painful death.
Everybody deserves a voice* in our government advocating for their ideas and beliefs. Right now, Conservatives have even less a voice than Libertarians or Greens.
*Unless it's nothing but hatred and bile.
The Atomika Theatre Players present:
GOP Blackjack
in short, the math can't fail, it can only be failed
It seems like you are stuck debating the specific, really non-important, examples of his point rather than discussing the general idea of his argument:
That compromise is good, especially when there is a rational conservative and liberal party who can act as checks and balances on each other. Echo Chambers are bad because then there is nothing to point out the weaknesses of the popular viewpoint. There are weaknesses/faults and strengths/benefits in rational liberal and conservative viewpoints, unless you think one is literally perfect and the other has absolutely zero redeeming qualities. Which in that case, I would recommend you expand your knowledge of both.
Was that Limbaugh, Fox News or John McCain calling Clinton's daughter ugly that made it better then it was now?
But the modern Republican party disgusts me because of their ideological bankruptcy, their staunch refusal to govern on a national stage, and their discriminatory panache. (Edit: It's a bit more than a panache but I got carried away with myself you have to forgive me right) The modern Republican ideology just seems to be built on the backs of scared racists and misogynists. Sure all the modern conservative 'thought leaders' (blech!) are corporate shills and spineless dummies, but those shills and dummies made an alliance with the racists and misogynists so that the racists and misogynists would elect the shills and dummies and the shills and dummies would propagate racism and misogyny for the base. They're complicit in this.
Maybe this is because I haven't entertained a good conservative ideologue with a coherent perspective, but I just can't see a good argument for the Republican party. Not even as a check on Democratic power, because the Republicans are obstructionists because they didn't get two cookies and are not happy with just one. Also the Dems haven't purity-tested themselves into oblivion yet.
The best way I have heard it put is "democracy is the belief that you shouldn't ignore a good persons ideas just because they are your house cleaner and conservatism is you shouldn't ignore a good persons ideas just because they are your grandparent."
I'm Blackjack, and I approve this message.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
pleasepaypreacher.net
We're not saying that we don't want to try a liberal one. We're saying that giving the Democrats a blank check is just as bad as giving the Republicans one. Healthy opposition. The Democrats have been healthy opposition for decades. Unfortunately, with the pendulum swinging to give liberals more power, the Republicans have failed to create healthy opposition.
but guys we totally need to research this and treat it credibly no matter how many times the source has lied in the past
because what if
However I do think there are some decent policy arguments one could make using the frame of limiting government power. Things like drug laws and privacy laws, for example. The same goes, very broadly, for a less interventionist foreign policy.