Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020? No, it's 2020!

[Drazzil]

I think I will wind up voting for whoever the Dem's run. In the end I think I've been convinced that we cannot afford Trump. For now at least. Trump must be stopped.

[hepcat]

Drazzil says he's not reactionary, then writes a huge reactionary post.

What about what I wrote above was reactionary? I believe in the rule of law for everyone. Not just those who are too poor to afford a lawyer or a lobbiest.

Reactionary:

"We need voters to see the people screwing people who work for a living laid low."

"In an ideal world [according to me] I'd love to see Trump and Bush in jail for their offenses against Americans."

"I'd love to see cyber attacks and hacks against countries that break US law and allow the mega wealthy to avoid paying taxes I want harsh, punitive fines laid on the ultra rich when. evade taxes."

"I'd love to see our immigration laws enforced by fining large corporations millions of dollars per illegal hired"

"I'd also love to see our current politicans hold past politicans legally responsible for breaking the law."

None of those things can be labeled as "reactionary".

Reactionary means opposing progress to the degree of wanting to return to a state of affairs status quo ante.

You're arguing for a precise definition of the word in a political context. Some of us are using it in its secular context of someone who just lashes out at something they dislike without any real plan or goal beyond the act of lashing out. Given that this is a political forum, I will forgive your persistence in trying to make that point repeatedly after it has been otherwise explained to you.

But only this once. Any further replies will be seen as...reactionary.

But seriously. Why does most everyone here think my opinions and political views are reactionary, or vindictive? Can presidents and politicans and the rich live by their own rules and do whatever they please forever and never be held to account? Do we go forward without addressing the sheer amount of damage they've done? They just get a pass to drive off and leave us to pick through the wreckage? My generation is largely a "lost" one. Who should be held to account?

What answer do I get? "Sorry, party unity?"

Some presidents, politicians and rich also do a lot of good in this world. We don't live in a cartoon reality full of Snidely Whiplashes. Some of your replies make me believe that you think we do though.

I'm fine with reform, I love reform, I would kiss reform full on the lips and give it a gift basket from Bed, Bath and Beyond every Valentine's day. But I want it organically and when we're able to define exactly what that reform will look like and how to achieve it without victimizing another group in the end. I don't want it pulled from the ashes of a war and then asked to stand on one leg.

[Drazzil]

Drazzil says he's not reactionary, then writes a huge reactionary post.

What about what I wrote above was reactionary? I believe in the rule of law for everyone. Not just those who are too poor to afford a lawyer or a lobbiest.

Reactionary:

"We need voters to see the people screwing people who work for a living laid low."

"In an ideal world [according to me] I'd love to see Trump and Bush in jail for their offenses against Americans."

"I'd love to see cyber attacks and hacks against countries that break US law and allow the mega wealthy to avoid paying taxes I want harsh, punitive fines laid on the ultra rich when. evade taxes."

"I'd love to see our immigration laws enforced by fining large corporations millions of dollars per illegal hired"

"I'd also love to see our current politicans hold past politicans legally responsible for breaking the law."

None of those things can be labeled as "reactionary".

Reactionary means opposing progress to the degree of wanting to return to a state of affairs status quo ante.

You're arguing for a precise definition of the word in a political context. Some of us are using it in its secular context of someone who just lashes out at something they dislike without any real plan or goal beyond the act of lashing out. Given that this is a political forum, I will forgive your persistence in trying to make that point repeatedly after it has been otherwise explained to you.

But only this once. Any further replies will be seen as...reactionary.

Why do you keep saying what I'm asking for is reactionary. I'm asking for the law to apply to all.

[hepcat]

I added words to my last post. Lots of them. Some of them actually spelled correctly.

In short: don't dislike you. Want some of the things you want. Would prefer to see it happen without my losing my Xbox to my out of work neighbor during the rebalancing though.

Also, don't think everyone is a dangerous weenie if they appear on television in a suit outside of a scripted tv show.

...except for Seth Meyers. I don't trust that guy. There's something about the way he looks at me during his show.

[Drazzil]

Drazzil says he's not reactionary, then writes a huge reactionary post.

What about what I wrote above was reactionary? I believe in the rule of law for everyone. Not just those who are too poor to afford a lawyer or a lobbiest.

Reactionary:

"We need voters to see the people screwing people who work for a living laid low."

"In an ideal world [according to me] I'd love to see Trump and Bush in jail for their offenses against Americans."

"I'd love to see cyber attacks and hacks against countries that break US law and allow the mega wealthy to avoid paying taxes I want harsh, punitive fines laid on the ultra rich when. evade taxes."

"I'd love to see our immigration laws enforced by fining large corporations millions of dollars per illegal hired"

"I'd also love to see our current politicans hold past politicans legally responsible for breaking the law."

None of those things can be labeled as "reactionary".

Reactionary means opposing progress to the degree of wanting to return to a state of affairs status quo ante.

You're arguing for a precise definition of the word in a political context. Some of us are using it in its secular context of someone who just lashes out at something they dislike without any real plan or goal beyond the act of lashing out. Given that this is a political forum, I will forgive your persistence in trying to make that point repeatedly after it has been otherwise explained to you.

But only this once. Any further replies will be seen as...reactionary.

But seriously. Why does most everyone here think my opinions and political views are reactionary, or vindictive? Can presidents and politicans and the rich live by their own rules and do whatever they please forever and never be held to account? Do we go forward without addressing the sheer amount of damage they've done? They just get a pass to drive off and leave us to pick through the wreckage? My generation is largely a "lost" one. Who should be held to account?

What answer do I get? "Sorry, party unity?"

Some presidents, politicians and rich also do a lot of good in this world. We don't live in a cartoon reality full of Snidely Whiplashes. Some of your replies make me believe that you think we do though.

I'm fine with reform, I love reform, I would kiss reform full on the lips and give it a gift basket from Bed, Bath and Beyond every Valentine's day. But I want it organically and when we're able to define exactly what that reform will look like and how to achieve it without victimizing another group in the end. I don't want it pulled from the ashes of a war and then asked to stand on one leg.

Thanks for adding that last part. Clarifies a lot for me and even gives me more to think about. Thanks Hep.

That said. I'm not asking for anyone to be victimized. Just held accountable. South Africa is a sterling example of what happens when victimizers are not held accountable.

[hepcat]

Not asking for anyone to be victimized after a cultural war fought through political means and framed as a reaction (BAM, used it again!) to a litany of perceived injustices that have been blatantly mislabeled as such in some cases, is like asking every parent at a little league baseball game to be nice to the referee. It rarely happens.

[Drazzil]

Not asking for anyone to be victimized after a cultural war fought through political means and framed as a reaction (BAM, used it again!) to a litany of perceived injustices that have been blatantly mislabeled as such in some cases, is like asking every parent at a little league baseball game to be nice to the referee. It rarely happens.

Cept in our case the Referee keeps making terrible calls cause of all the bribes accepted, oh and it's not a little league game... It's the world series and the opposing team wants to destroy the stadium barring a few people in the skyboxes and the ref keeps changing the rules of the game to keep us from getting points.

[Alefroth]

I think another 4 years of Trump will make things so bad for Americans things will change by the bullet or the ballot.

How to put this politely? I think you're delusional.

[Alefroth]

So... you call me reactionary without actually pointing out whats reactionary.

Perhaps because they don't understand what reactionary is.

edit: I see that was the case.

[Drazzil]

I think another 4 years of Trump will make things so bad for Americans things will change by the bullet or the ballot.

How to put this politely? I think you're delusional.

You're probabally right. Our citizens are peasants, easily divided, quick to hate the other and seem to have such an appetite for being screwed.

[hepcat]

So... you call me reactionary without actually pointing out whats reactionary.

Perhaps because they don't understand what reactionary is.

It means Drazzil. Are you just joining us mid program?

[Alefroth]

Given that this is a political forum, I will forgive your persistence in trying to make that point repeatedly after it has been otherwise explained to you.

But only this once. Any further replies will be seen as...reactionary.

And we'll forgive you for doubling-down on using it incorrectly even after your mistake was pointed out to you

[Drazzil]

So... you call me reactionary without actually pointing out whats reactionary.

Perhaps because they don't understand what reactionary is.

It means Drazzil. Are you just joining us mid program?

Nope. I've watched from the beginning but parts of the show are *really* hard to understand and I don't think its going to end well. I just hope we get some new producers and perhaps a new director before it gets cancelled.

[Alefroth]

So... you call me reactionary without actually pointing out whats reactionary.

Perhaps because they don't understand what reactionary is.

It means Drazzil. Are you just joining us mid program?

Yeah, pretty much

[Drazzil]

So... you call me reactionary without actually pointing out whats reactionary.

Perhaps because they don't understand what reactionary is.

edit: I see that was the case.

Ach. I see the point you're trying to make. Perhaps I am reactionary in the vanilla usage of the word. I need to maybe re read what been said already before I post again.

[hepcat]

Given that this is a political forum, I will forgive your persistence in trying to make that point repeatedly after it has been otherwise explained to you.

But only this once. Any further replies will be seen as...reactionary.

And we'll forgive you for doubling-down on using it incorrectly even after your mistake was pointed out to you

Someone learned to use google today. And it wasn’t just me, it seems.

In any case, the word I should have used is reactive or reactional, in hindsight. My point remains the same though. I’m not a fan of calls for change that incorporate victimization of entire groups of people who are lumped together simply because they’re seen as authority figures, or they’re rich, and thus someone to be just angry with.

Ah well, at least I didn’t use “class conscious”.

[Alefroth]

Someone learned to use google today. And it wasn’t just me, it seems.

Lol, good one

I've actually known what it's meant for decades. Reagan was a great teacher.

[Drazzil]

Given that this is a political forum, I will forgive your persistence in trying to make that point repeatedly after it has been otherwise explained to you.

But only this once. Any further replies will be seen as...reactionary.

And we'll forgive you for doubling-down on using it incorrectly even after your mistake was pointed out to you

Someone learned to use google today. And it wasn’t just me, it seems.

In any case, the word I should have used is reactive or reactional, in hindsight. My point remains the same though. I’m not a fan of calls for change that incorporate victimization of entire groups of people who are lumped together simply because they’re seen as authority figures, or they’re rich, and thus someone to be just angry with.

Ah well, at least I didn’t use “class conscious”.

I'm not sure that I agree with your equating my calling for the rich to pay their fair share of taxes (even with draconian methods or punishments for evasion) as victimization. You make good points otherwise. I just don't believe we can have a fair society otherwise. We need a sharp correction and soon, otherwise I do beloeve we are lost.

[Blackhawk]

My reactionary response to this is a headache.

[Lagom Lite]

You're arguing for a precise definition of the word in a political context. Some of us are using it in its secular context of someone who just lashes out at something they dislike without any real plan or goal beyond the act of lashing out. Given that this is a political forum, I will forgive your persistence in trying to make that point repeatedly after it has been otherwise explained to you.

But only this once. Any further replies will be seen as...reactionary.

No. You don't get to tell me to be quiet. There is no "secular context" to the word, you should merely concede that you were unaware of the usage and use proper wording in the future.

Redefining words to support illogical arguments is Orwellian. Words matter.

[hepcat]

You didn’t read far enough. I admitted I should have used another word. You’re right though, words do matter. So keep reading them until you get the whole story.

Also, lighten up. I was being facetious through most of Reactionary Gate.

Also, you used illogical incorrectly. The word you’re looking for is “awesome”.

[Lagom Lite]

You didn’t read far enough. Words do matter. So keep reading them.

Also, lighten up. I was being facetious through most of Reactionary Gate.

Also, you used illogical incorrectly. The word you’re looking for is “awesome”.

[hepcat]

<edited my original reply to be a little less confrontational sounding>

[tjg_marantz]

CNN already with the Biden turmoil story. Must shape narrative to stay relevant. Haven't learned a fucking thing lol.

[Defiant]

“There’s no way Marianne Williamson can exist as a person. She’s obviously a skit.“

The smart money is saying that no such human ever existed, and what was seen last night was Tina Fay engaged in a epic trolling of the American political process.

“If that’s the case, she’s got my vote.”

Nation 95% Sure Marianne Williamson Is Really Tina Fey Engaged In Epic Troll

[Isgrimnur]

It’s actually Andy Kaufman.

[LawBeefaroni]

If so, he's playing the long game.

https://twitter.com/corbin_dewitt/statu ... 0376275968


I mean we know he plays the long game. He may have to answer some questions about having a 17-year-old Laura Dern as a roommate though.

[Defiant]

Kamala Harris backtracks on eliminating private health insurance

Good. Supporting eliminating health insurance is a mistake.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Williamson also officiated one of Elizabeth Taylor's weddings at Neverland Ranch in the early 90s:

https://twitter.com/raylehmann/status/1 ... 75559?s=21

She's everywhere!

[$iljanus]

Williamson also officiated one of Elizabeth Taylor's weddings at Neverland Ranch in the early 90s:

https://twitter.com/raylehmann/status/1 ... 75559?s=21

She's everywhere!

She's an immortal like the Highlander!

[Drazzil]

Kamala Harris backtracks on eliminating private health insurance

Good. Supporting eliminating health insurance is a mistake.

Because healthcare companies have done such a fantastic job of putting their customers first. I was honestly thinking about voting for her if she came up. Now? Not so much. She seems like a triangulator.

[Drazzil]

“There’s no way Marianne Williamson can exist as a person. She’s obviously a skit.“

The smart money is saying that no such human ever existed, and what was seen last night was Tina Fay engaged in a epic trolling of the American political process.

“If that’s the case, she’s got my vote.”

Nation 95% Sure Marianne Williamson Is Really Tina Fey Engaged In Epic Troll

Thats a parody website dude.

[Jaymann]

Kamala Harris backtracks on eliminating private health insurance

Good. Supporting eliminating health insurance is a mistake.

Because healthcare companies have done such a fantastic job of putting their customers first. I was honestly thinking about voting for her if she came up. Now? Not so much. She seems like a triangulator.

I'm sure even Bernie sucks on the teat of Big Pharma.

[Drazzil]

Kamala Harris backtracks on eliminating private health insurance

Good. Supporting eliminating health insurance is a mistake.

Because healthcare companies have done such a fantastic job of putting their customers first. I was honestly thinking about voting for her if she came up. Now? Not so much. She seems like a triangulator.

I'm sure even Bernie sucks on the teat of Big Pharma.

You're likely right.

[Defiant]

Looks like Russia's doing their thing:

BOTS SUSPECTED OF SPREADING TWEET CLAIMING KAMALA HARRIS ISN'T BLACK ENOUGH

[Lagom Lite]

Kamala Harris backtracks on eliminating private health insurance

Good. Supporting eliminating health insurance is a mistake.

If public insurance is introduced (expanded, really), private coverage of the things covered under the public insurance would need to be outlawed in order to prevent fraud (otherwise, unethical companies could try to sell you something that's you're already entitled to as a citizen).

I have a difficult time understanding why you would consider this a problem. Unless you're worried that the coverage provided by Medicare (or equivalent) itself would be somehow inferior, the point is moot.

Are recipients of Medicare dissatisfied?

[Zarathud]

Health care is insane and most private employers who run the numbers would love to ditch the headache of coverage even if it means taxes.

Medicare for all would be fair and incentivize sensible public health policy. It’s a shame Republicans will use fear and resentment to punish anyone sensible.

[Kurth]

Looks like Russia's doing their thing:

BOTS SUSPECTED OF SPREADING TWEET CLAIMING KAMALA HARRIS ISN'T BLACK ENOUGH

I’m sorry, but part of me believes that if we, as a country, fall for this shit again, we deserve what we get. Why is it so hard to understand that social media is NOT a reliable source of information? It wasn’t designed to be so, and it’s clearly not.

[Holman]

https://twitter.com/CoryBooker/status/1 ... 9734532097

[Default]

Kamala Harris backtracks on eliminating private health insurance

Good. Supporting eliminating health insurance is a mistake.

If public insurance is introduced (expanded, really), private coverage of the things covered under the public insurance would need to be outlawed in order to prevent fraud (otherwise, unethical companies could try to sell you something that's you're already entitled to as a citizen).

I have a difficult time understanding why you would consider this a problem. Unless you're worried that the coverage provided by Medicare (or equivalent) itself would be somehow inferior, the point is moot.

Are recipients of Medicare dissatisfied?

It would be an upgrade for everyone but the stockholders and executives. There lies the rub.