Hot takes on the Democratic frontrunners

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Luce

I am puzzled by the implication that antifa is an organization. It's not, at least not more than at a strictly local level. It's a set of beliefs. A motivation, rather than a group.

That's odd, why isn't there an official group?

[Luce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

That's odd, why isn't there an official group?

They voted against it at the convention.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

That's odd, why isn't there an official group?

I would guess it's set up in cells. Making it the sort of organization the right would immediately assume is Communist influenced so they can automatically punch them in the street. They are the equal and opposite of the fascist groups which can punched without remorse from the left. We, chimp nation, are in trouble if we can't stand peacefully against extremists.

[Luce]

Originally Posted by Griff

I would guess it's set up in cells. M

It's not even that.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

You need to brush up on what libertarianism really is -- and consider that pure anything social theories do not sustain in actual societies. They perish of exposure to life and necessity -- apparently I need to remind you that I understand this. Puritans became Congregationalists within three generations, and so forth.

Off the top of my head, there was the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion, and one of these (which one was it?) generated about three bloody noses total. The other one didn't.

It's a mild affray when *all* the casualties can say, "Ow. Quit it."

[Luce]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

You need to brush up on what libertarianism really is -- and consider that pure anything social theories do not sustain in actual societies. They perish of exposure to life and necessity -- apparently I need to remind you that I understand this. Puritans became Congregationalists within three generations, and so forth.

Off the top of my head, there was the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion, and one of these (which one was it?) generated about three bloody noses total. The other one didn't.

It's a mild affray when *all* the casualties can say, "Ow. Quit it."

Shay's rebellion had, IIRC, 2 fatalities. But the point was made all the same.

And as for the whiskey rebellion, I think there was a single fatality.

But again, the point was driven home. Within the bounds of the constitution, the government is not libertarian in nature and has never been so.

At the moment, it is nowhere near it. Not even in the same area code. Pretty sure you agree with me, but for entirely different reasons.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Luce

And as for the whiskey rebellion, I think there was a single fatality.

It almost burned down the entire town of Pittsburgh. I believe whiskey was used to smooth those savage beasts.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Ah, there's your problem, then. You thought I said "government." Not so. I said "society." A distinction between the two is legitimate to make.

[Luce]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Ah, there's your problem, then. You thought I said "government." Not so. I said "society." A distinction between the two is legitimate to make.

If it took a couple of hundred years to get to the point where Black folks can be hired and Gay folks can walk the streets without being killed, then I'd argue that any libertarianism involved has been for one select group. By which I mean straight white males.

For the most part, things are better, but I can obviously not speak for toddlers in cages.

Our society is by nature an oligarchy.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Kamala Harris is winnowed out, and this Libertarian says "Damned good riddance."

[Griff]

I'm hoping Biden is winnowed out next. His shitty insistence that Hunter didn't do anything illegal completely ignores that his son gets a free ticket for being his son. Trump would crush him in a general election despite being profoundly more corrupt.

We also know that Putin handles oligarchs with ease. He plays Trump like a balalaika. I suspect Bloomberg would be a simple guy to control as well.

[Luce]

Originally Posted by Griff

I'm hoping Biden is winnowed out next. His shitty insistence that Hunter didn't do anything illegal completely ignores that his son gets a free ticket for being his son. Trump would crush him in a general election despite being profoundly more corrupt.

We also know that Putin handles oligarchs with ease. He plays Trump like a balalaika. I suspect Bloomberg would be a simple guy to control as well.

Biden exists right now to take the heat.

In that, he is doing just fine.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Griff

Trump would crush him in a general election despite being profoundly more corrupt.

Absolutely. If Biden is nominated, and Trump hasn't resigned and/or been removed, Trump will win a second term.

I'm still with Mayor Pete.

[glatt]

I've stopped predicting politics in the era of Trump. I have no fucking clue what other people are thinking.

But I would point out that Virginia swung blue this last election and it's a fairly decent predictor of the country.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by glatt

I've stopped predicting politics in the era of Trump.

I keep thinking how hard/impossible it will be for a lot of Republican politicians to dissociate themselves from Trump, if he should become political poison. Because of the way he demands loyalty, they're irrevocably attached to him.

And now, he's under scrutiny for something that we all know he's guilty of. Republicans will either stick by his side-- knowing that he's guilty, or go against him-- which means a complete, career-ending ostracization. But the Republicans are too invested to go against him, now. So that means, either he faces consequences--and they face consequences for being associated with him, or he doesn't, and... [this part I can't figure out]. What happens when you can do anything and nothing happens? It's, like a political singularity.