Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
kevbone

Go Bernie

Recommended Posts

political dynasties are nothing new in 'merica and in some ways they do make sense - families often cleave to a certain profession over generations, and human nature finds voters re-assured w/ familiar names

 

i'd plan on ordering off the menu in a bush/clinton election :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders Shamelessly Pandering to Voters Who Want to Hear Truth

BY ANDY BOROWITZ

 

 

CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE (The Borowitz Report)—Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is gaining legions of new admirers by shamelessly pandering to voters who want to hear the truth, critics of the Vermont senator say.

 

According to those critics, Sanders has cynically targeted so-called “truth-based voters” to build support for his Presidential bid.

 

“People come to Sanders’s rallies expecting to hear the truth, and he serves it up to them on a silver platter,” the political strategist Harland Dorrinson said. “It’s a very calculated gimmick.”

 

But while Sanders’s practice of relentlessly telling the truth might play well in states that are rich in truth-based voters, like the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire, critics say that his campaign could stall in states where the truth has historically been less important, like Florida.

“At some point in this campaign, voters are going to get truth fatigue,” Dorrinson said. “Right now, the novelty of a politician who doesn’t constantly spew lies is grabbing headlines. But after months of Bernie Sanders telling the truth, voters are going to start wondering, Is that all he’s got?”

 

Dorrinson is just one of many critics who is eagerly waiting for the Sanders phenomenon to come down to Earth. “Telling the truth may be working for Bernie Sanders, but it shows a serious lack of respect for the American political system,” he said.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
political dynasties are nothing new in 'merica and in some ways they do make sense -

 

At the presidential level? We had one father-son combo early on in the Adams. Other than that we had distant cousins in the Teddy/FDR combination separated by around 30 years.

 

Bush-Clinton-Bush-gap-Bush or Clinton seems pretty fucking unprecedented, don't you think? I'm with dberdinka that neither Bush nor Clinton should be even up for president - it is profoundly disturbing that these two families could control the White House for most of 40 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jeebus, doesn't wikipedia have an entry for everything? :)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_political_families

 

sure only 4 of 44 presidents have been direct relations, but that's an awful small data set and, even so, that still means 9% of all presidents have been father-son, which is a big chunk - throw in the harrisons and and roosevelts and you're up to nearly 1/5 presidents being from a dyansty (if indeed a dynasty is but 2 members of the same family being in the same profession)

 

clearly, as the wiki shows, there's a shit-ton of political families over the ages, many of whom would have been president if the political winds had allowed it

 

the corruption of a political machine seems equally menacing to the corruption of a family - i'd not vote against the current bush or clinton b/c of their family name so much as the fact i didn't think much of the current flower of that family tree :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jeebus, doesn't wikipedia have an entry for everything? :)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_political_families

 

sure only 4 of 44 presidents have been direct relations, but that's an awful small data set and, even so, that means 9% of all presidents have been father-son, which is a big chunk

 

clearly, as the wiki shows, there's a shit-ton of political families over the ages, many of whom would have been president if the political winds had allowed it

 

the corruption of a political machine seems equally menacing to the corruption of a family - i'd not vote against the current bush or clinton b/c of their family name so much as the fact i didn't think much of the current flower of that family tree :)

 

I did not deny that FAMILIES are in politics, wielding power. But you are avoiding addressing the fact that in this instance two families could control the presidency for 28 out of 36 consecutive years. That's unprecedented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

president, governor, mayor, meh, it's much the same - it's harder to dominate presidential politics of course b/c there's such fewer spots

 

how is the potential tyranny of a family much different than of a machine?

 

would it make much sense to describe a political dynasty as being just a husband and wife, as in the clinton case? to my mind a dynasty is defined as being multi-generational, which the clinton's don't meet, and to which even the bush's are only barely qualified

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
president, governor, mayor, meh, it's much the same - it's harder to dominate presidential politics of course b/c there's such fewer spots

 

how is the potential tyranny of a family much different than of a machine?

 

would it make much sense to describe a political dynasty as being just a husband and wife, as in the clinton case? to my mind a dynasty is defined as being multi-generational, which the clinton's don't meet, and to which even the bush's are only barely qualified

 

 

you're being obtuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in the meantime Trump is bringing the politics to the new low. Even scarier is the fact in some of the areas over 20% of population is supportive of the lowest most common denominator populist idiocracy in the making. This is a live remake of what have already happen in places like Pakistan- once you unleash this blind hate, there is no turning back. I don't know why is media even allowing for this shit- most of what Trump is saying should be labeled as "hate speech" and banned outright. And anyone even slightly supportive of this populist tool should realize that this is a dictatorship in the making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And in the meantime Trump is bringing the politics to the new low....most of what Trump is saying should be labeled as "hate speech" and banned outright...

 

pot. kettle. black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
president, governor, mayor, meh, it's much the same - it's harder to dominate presidential politics of course b/c there's such fewer spots

 

how is the potential tyranny of a family much different than of a machine?

 

would it make much sense to describe a political dynasty as being just a husband and wife, as in the clinton case? to my mind a dynasty is defined as being multi-generational, which the clinton's don't meet, and to which even the bush's are only barely qualified

 

 

you're being obtuse.

n' yer being didactic :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And in the meantime Trump is bringing the politics to the new low....most of what Trump is saying should be labeled as "hate speech" and banned outright...

 

pot. kettle. black.

 

well, just to add personal touch trump style, all the Kozak's males are drunk assholes, and all the women are whores. Enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

once you unleash this blind hate, there is no turning back. ...

 

....most of what Trump is saying should be labeled as "hate speech" and banned outright.

 

Good point. The first amendment is overrated anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

well, just to add personal touch trump style, all the Kozak's males are drunk assholes, and all the women are whores.

 

Wait, what? Bob, what just happened there........??!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

once you unleash this blind hate, there is no turning back. ...

 

....most of what Trump is saying should be labeled as "hate speech" and banned outright.

 

Good point. The first amendment is overrated anyway.

 

The only thing we should ban in this country is retards that want to ban shit they don't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF is a democratic socialist? Every fucking hipster/millennial counts themselves a socialist 'cause it's so cache. Sorry but your just a poseur. Get a clue, Simpleton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

once you unleash this blind hate, there is no turning back. ...

 

....most of what Trump is saying should be labeled as "hate speech" and banned outright.

 

Good point. The first amendment is overrated anyway.

 

The only thing we should ban in this country is retards that want to ban shit they don't like.

 

Yes, let's just return to daily school reading of Mein Kampf. Shit, let's just all indulge at child porn, as it also should be protected under 1st Amendment.

It has been established long long time ago by courts, that harmful speech (or hate speech) is not protected, as it might cause harm to society at large. The very same way child pornography is not protected.

The effects of Trump's hate speech are already clearly visible: one of the trumps zealots told Jorge Ramos to "go back to where he came from". Never mind he is a US citizen. But clearly in your case- ignorance is a bliss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I appreciate a lot of socialist causes, I'm definitely not a socialist, and neither are any other Americans. We definitely love our individual liberty and property rights, and socialism doesn't jive with private ownership nor individuality.

 

So what's that leave us? Euro-style "socialism," with super high taxes and boundless social services, while corporations continue to enjoy near regulatory immunity? Fuck that, and people who don't understand that's exactly what they're asking for.

 

I think if you did an ideological study on these guys, you'd find they're progressive-libertarians, not "socialists." But progressive-libertarian just isn't catchy, especially now that "libertarian" has been shot-gun married to conservatism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

once you unleash this blind hate, there is no turning back. ...

 

....most of what Trump is saying should be labeled as "hate speech" and banned outright.

 

Good point. The first amendment is overrated anyway.

 

The only thing we should ban in this country is retards that want to ban shit they don't like.

 

Yes, let's just return to daily school reading of Mein Kampf. Shit, let's just all indulge at child porn, as it also should be protected under 1st Amendment.

It has been established long long time ago by courts, that harmful speech (or hate speech) is not protected, as it might cause harm to society at large. The very same way child pornography is not protected.

The effects of Trump's hate speech are already clearly visible: one of the trumps zealots told Jorge Ramos to "go back to where he came from". Never mind he is a US citizen. But clearly in your case- ignorance is a bliss.

 

"the courts" have determined yelling "FIRE!" in a theater is harmful speech. Child porn necessitates the harming of children and/or illegal activity - you'll note that "the courts" (you know, SCOTUS) have actually found that simulated child-porn is PROTECTED SPEECH. So yea... speech is protected. ALL of it, with the exception of speech that is the result or cause of a criminal act.

 

so STFU noob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

once you unleash this blind hate, there is no turning back. ...

 

....most of what Trump is saying should be labeled as "hate speech" and banned outright.

 

Good point. The first amendment is overrated anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

well, just to add personal touch trump style, all the Kozak's males are drunk assholes, and all the women are whores.

 

Wait, what? Bob, what just happened there........??!!

 

What happened is a hyperbole generalization, something trump is a master of. Just like fucking bullshit statement, when trump called latinos rapist, murders and criminals. So if KKK is siding with an asshole hater, I will use asshole hater methods to insult his heritage, see how he likes them apples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened is a hyperbole generalization, something trump is a master of. Just like fucking bullshit statement, when trump called latinos rapist, murders and criminals. So if KKK is siding with an asshole hater, I will use asshole hater methods to insult his heritage, see how he likes them apples.

 

Says the guy whose sig line on cc.com used to be:

 

"I love pussy but hate the bitch it's attached to"

 

You make Trump look like a Boy Scout with your rhetoric you misogynist asshole :wave:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened is a hyperbole generalization, something trump is a master of. Just like fucking bullshit statement, when trump called latinos rapist, murders and criminals. So if KKK is siding with an asshole hater, I will use asshole hater methods to insult his heritage, see how he likes them apples.

 

Says the guy whose sig line on cc.com used to be:

 

"I love pussy but hate the bitch it's attached to"

 

You make Trump look like a Boy Scout with your rhetoric you misogynist asshole :wave:

 

 

Your friggin atrophic brain fail to register a difference and fact that I AM NOT running for a public office. If you don't like my sense of humor, you can fuck off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking the Trumpster would take things up a few notches if he were to post in spray. Fortunately or unfortunately he has bigger fish to fry that provide more publicity :laf:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
while corporations continue to enjoy near regulatory immunity? .

Corporations already have a complete immunity at this very second, and pretty much enjoyed such since 2002. Particularly the financial sector continues to act with impunity. After the crash of financial sector in 2007 there was not a single prosecution. Some of the banking practices were not illegal, but they were unethical. However there were more then enough down right financial crimes (including massive frauds), and not a single CEO or CFO of these banks did a single hour of jail time. These things were clearly documented by journalists (read Big Short by Michael Lewis), but neither FBI nor other federal agencies did not prosecute a single case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×