Octopus Overlords

Ugh. I do see where Fitzy is coming from. There are strains in the American left that would love to start running roughshod over others. Of course we need to look at our leaders with a skeptical eye. It's just hard to keep that in mind when every day is just another new mass of horrible.

I do have a question about this, though:

The other option I see is what I've seen bounced around here, Parliamentary government in which the majority, whoever that might be, crushes the minority under an authoritarian democracy.

I find this mildly surprising. You look at a country like Switzerland with multiple languages and ethnic groups and I don't see their Parliamentary system squashing minorities with an iron fist. Most of the evidence I've seen is that with multiple parties in play gaining seats, creating a coalition requires compromise - something we are in short supply of here.

gbasden wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:47 am Ugh. I do see where Fitzy is coming from. There are strains in the American left that would love to start running roughshod over others. Of course we need to look at our leaders with a skeptical eye. It's just hard to keep that in mind when every day is just another new mass of horrible.

No one here would disagree with that assessment, it's just that it is incredibly inopportune time to focus on that. You guys had 8 freakin' years to talk about that where the current administration wasn't actively trying to hurt the American public. You will have plenty of time to work on the brokenness of your political system in the near future.

As Blackhawk suggested, the time to talk about maybe getting some contractors in and replacing the old out of code wiring is not when the house is on fire.

Now one could argue that the house is not on fire, like Rip does, but given the last year and a half, and I am not likely to agree with that assessment either.

For fuck's sake, no one except diehard leftwingers (of which there are very few here on OO, no matter how people attempt to paint it) thinks the Democrats are saints or without flaws. But the enemy of the good is the perfect, and right now I'll take mostly ok over the alternative, an alternative that people have admitted openly was put in place to tear the system down.

The idea that the Dems can't save you from Drumpf is absurd. Drumpf has put a large number of department heads in place for the sole purpose of undermining those departments.

The ONLY reason I don't believe the GOP can save Americans from Drumpf is that they have shockingly (I am literally shocked that so many are without any ethical loyalty to their proposed values. I thought they were better than that, even if I didn't like them) decided to support Drumpf.

The GOP can't save you right now because the GOP have hitched their wagons to drumpf and have been enabling him in all sorts of terrible ways. Some have practical impacts, and some, like his constant complaining about free press, are wearing away at the fabric of your society and cultural values, not to mention constitution. On the plus side there is no evidence that the SCOTUS is willing to play ball. On the negative side, no president should ever be denigrating core values in public, constantly.

So, Fitzy, since you singled me out, I feel I owe you a reply. (This weekend we were away at a beach house where internet coverage was too spotty to be worthwhile. It was heavenly.)

Thanks for the long posts. I mean that sincerely: you wrote a serious and full reply, and even though I believe you mis-characterized what I was saying, I do see the point you were making from your perspective.

What I think you have wrong (and others have pointed this out already) is the idea that anyone here is under the illusion that Dems are perfect or saints or immune to corruption. But the plain fact is that Trump's extremes are real and serious and threatening to our institutions far beyond anything Obama ever dreamed of doing (even taking your long list into account), and it's plainly obvious that only the Dems are both willing and capable of standing against them. Since standing against them is only possible with legislative power, that means we need more such Dems in the legislature. It's that simple, and that was literally my only point.

I wrote a bunch more, but I'll snip it. I hope and believe we understand each other's positions anyway.

Just going to chime in since I made noise last week about how everyone needs to vote straight D. That's why. I'm under no illusion that the Dems are perfect, and in saner times the decision's less clear-cut.

We do not live in saner times.

You guys keep saying it is Trump but most of you have already said you feel the same way about numerous other Republicans. Pence, Cruz, Palin, and McConnell just off the top of my head. I am quite sure by election time that list will be into the dozens.

The reality is many of you feel that way about anyone who isn't a straight up RINO.

Rip wrote:You guys keep saying it is Trump but most of you have already said you feel the same way about numerous other Republicans. Pence, Cruz, Palin, and McConnell just off the top of my head.

The 4 horsemen of the Trumpocalypse.

All of them are despicable persons in their own right, and enabled Trump in their own way.

Zarathud wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:45 am

Rip wrote:You guys keep saying it is Trump but most of you have already said you feel the same way about numerous other Republicans. Pence, Cruz, Palin, and McConnell just off the top of my head.

The 4 horsemen of the Trumpocalypse.

All of them are despicable persons in their own right, and enabled Trump in their own way.

So they keep getting dragged out into the line of fire with him as well. Shocking.

Rip wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:33 am You guys keep saying it is Trump but most of you have already said you feel the same way about numerous other Republicans. Pence, Cruz, Palin, and McConnell just off the top of my head. I am quite sure by election time that list will be into the dozens.

Let me pre-empt you. Nunez, Conaway, Meadowss, King, Gaetz are a pretty good start but the can get pretty long. That's the whole problem. You put it perfectly. It's more than dozens. If it weren't Trump would experience resistance.

It's an easy list to compile when you see who vocally stand for the nature of the republican party that drove me away and into the exact US vs THEM sports politics I have been despising my whole life. They set the table for with us or against us and they set the parameters to seat me at against.

I kinda like Justin Amash enough. In saner times, I'd have thought him a bit too libertarian but still a solid thinker working for the US for which you could do much worse. But I can't give him my blessing because his voice is too weak to make a difference.

Zaxxon wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:02 am Just going to chime in since I made noise last week about how everyone needs to vote straight D. That's why. I'm under no illusion that the Dems are perfect, and in saner times the decision's less clear-cut.

I'm under no illusion that I disagree with large swaths of their leadership and desperately want the days when I could vote with those that aligned closely to my beliefs or not all because lesser of two evils but

We do not live in saner times.

Not just the leadership. Large swaths of the population.

LordMortis wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:32 am

I kinda like Justin Amash enough. In saner times, I'd have thought him a bit too libertarian but still a solid thinker working for the US for which you could do much worse. But I can't give him my blessing because his voice is too weak to make a difference.

He seems sensible enough. However, Paul Ryan made the decision long ago to actively aid and abet Trump and his crimes. Any Republican who continues to caucus with Ryan is therefore actively helping to aid and abet Trump, even if they sometimes say sensible things and even if they sometimes vote against Trump.

Dems used to like to talk about Kasich as the hope for a moderate turn in the GOP, but, um, nope.

Apparently his approval among Republicans in Ohio is down to like 41%, and it's not because he is somehow running the state into the ground or doing scandals. It's because he's insufficiently #MAGA.

Yeah, the problem is the Deplorables as much as Trump et al.

I honestly thought going into the Trump presidency that there would be a large block of Republicans who would stand up to his more ridiculous notions. I was HUGELY disappointed that it turned out not to be the case. I was more than prepared to give most of the party the benefit of the doubt.

That's on them, not me. They've had every opportunity to temper his extremes, or call him out on his behavior, and they've failed time and time again.

Why are we still arguing that shit sandwiches, glasses of urine and sandpaper toilet paper are all reasonable choices that for some unknown reason Dems have a problem with?

Dems also had a problem with pedophiles but luckily so did reps, barely.

Rip wrote:Large swaths of the population.

It's an increasingly marginalized swath of the population. And a significant minority.

YellowKing wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:40 am I honestly thought going into the Trump presidency that there would be a large block of Republicans who would stand up to his more ridiculous notions. I was HUGELY disappointed that it turned out not to be the case. I was more than prepared to give most of the party the benefit of the doubt.

That's on them, not me. They've had every opportunity to temper his extremes, or call him out on his behavior, and they've failed time and time again.

They've been sliding since Nixon. At one point they were willing to stand up to criminals like Nixon. Unfortunately those guys are all dead and we have these corrupt and morally bankrupt assholes.

That it happened so fast and so obviously is the hard to believe part. They went from totally criminal equals bad with Nixon. To sorta bad when North committed some crimes. He is now head of the NRA which is a quasi-Republican entity. Quality. Now we have child molesters openly running and some tacitly embracing white supremacist violence (with some loose caveats) and they are barely losing. And the President is an *obvious* grifter who has surrounded himself with a cast of characters who'd fit in nicely with the Teapot Dome Scandal running the government. With obviously suspect ethical issues left and right. Hell of a slide over 40 years.

YellowKing wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:43 am

Rip wrote:Large swaths of the population.

It's an increasingly marginalized swath of the population. And a significant minority.

Of course, part of our problem is that our constitutional structure gives said swath of the population disproportionate power relative to their share of the vote.

YellowKing wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:40 am I honestly thought going into the Trump presidency that there would be a large block of Republicans who would stand up to his more ridiculous notions. I was HUGELY disappointed that it turned out not to be the case. I was more than prepared to give most of the party the benefit of the doubt.

That's on them, not me. They've had every opportunity to temper his extremes, or call him out on his behavior, and they've failed time and time again.

That was my learning curve beginning around 2008, the evolution or emboldening that began with Tea Party snake oil and Sarah Palin folksy Guns and God were normalized incredibly quickly and once embraced by the McConnell and company it, was the end.

I believe this slide into is a direct result of society becoming more progressive. You don't have to resort to dirty tricks if you can win in a fair fight. It's been increasingly apparent to the GOP that they can't win in a fair fight, so here we are.

I can't speak for society but a crotchety as I am, I have embraced more progressive ideas as I get older. If you want to benefit from and be a part of an ever modernizing society you have to. Power grids and sewer systems and education and the Internet and cable TV and police forces and firefighters and libraries and museums and parks and roads all come from progressive thinking and so as we evolve it looks like banking and health care may have an increasing need to subject themselves to this if you want them to have a relationship with modern living. Getting all of these while romanticizing about building your own log cabin and outhouse and well and making bullets out of peat so you can trade furs for guns on five acres of great land you carved out for yourself. Well, you're about two centuries too late for that.

YellowKing wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:43 am

Rip wrote:Large swaths of the population.

It's an increasingly marginalized swath of the population. And a significant minority.

Well come election time I guess we will find out just how big that "minority" is. I still think it is much larger than any of you imagine. Long silent folks who have been tuned out for some time because they felt unrepresented.

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1008749585735569409

Would you like to know more?

Rip wrote: Long silent folks who have been tuned out for some time because they felt unrepresented.

Maybe they're unrepresented because they're wrong.

pr0ner wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:01 pm https://twitter.com/AP/status/1008749585735569409

Would you like to know more?

Take care of existing branches and vets first. Then waste money on bullshit fantasies.

Rip wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:54 pm

YellowKing wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:43 am

Rip wrote:Large swaths of the population.

It's an increasingly marginalized swath of the population. And a significant minority.

Well come election time I guess we will find out just how big that "minority" is. I still think it is much larger than any of you imagine. Long silent folks who have been tuned out for some time because they felt unrepresented.

The problem is that they still aren't getting representation by this administration. They are being paid lip service and otherwise continue to be ignored. Hell, ignored is too kind, they are being used and abused.

Rip wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:54 pm

YellowKing wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:43 am

Rip wrote:Large swaths of the population.

It's an increasingly marginalized swath of the population. And a significant minority.

Well come election time I guess we will find out just how big that "minority" is. I still think it is much larger than any of you imagine. Long silent folks who have been tuned out for some time because they felt unrepresented.

STIGGINIT and racism are certainly a "voice", I suppose.

Rip wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:54 pm

YellowKing wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:43 am

Rip wrote:Large swaths of the population.

It's an increasingly marginalized swath of the population. And a significant minority.

Well come election time I guess we will find out just how big that "minority" is. I still think it is much larger than any of you imagine. Long silent folks who have been tuned out for some time because they felt unrepresented.

Our elections prove nothing in this regard. Plus you are pretty much wrong - voter turnout was sharply lower last election than the previous two. Quite possibly a function of the two major candidates being like choosing between a manure sandwich and a shit sandwich. It wasn't like some font of disaffected people were finally clamoring to cast a vote for Trump...other than White Supremacists I suppose.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:19 pm

pr0ner wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:01 pm https://twitter.com/AP/status/1008749585735569409

Would you like to know more?

Take care of existing branches and vets first. Then waste money on bullshit fantasies.

I think serious people have floated the idea of a space force before. But wouldn't it make more sense to basically just expand the role of the air force (basically make it an Aerospace Force)? Otherwise don't you have to draw some arbitrary height line between the two branches?

The US Air force wasn't even an entity until after WW2 which featured heavy usage of aerial combat. In that context, this sounds hilariously premature.

Yes yes yes but let's get to the important question: has Trump designed the uniforms?

Please tell me he has designed the uniforms!

Holman wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 2:21 pm Yes yes yes but let's get to the important question: has Trump designed the uniforms?

Please tell me he has designed the uniforms!

Ivanka will probably get that job, you know, to avoid the whole conflict of interest thing.

Holman wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 2:21 pm Yes yes yes but let's get to the important question: has Trump designed the uniforms?

Please tell me he has designed the uniforms!

Well, he saw that astronauts use gold in some of the shielding for their suits and landers. He figures if you just made everything gold, it'd be much better.

I'm guessing Moonraker was on late night TV last night?

gbasden wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:47 am Ugh. I do see where Fitzy is coming from. There are strains in the American left that would love to start running roughshod over others. Of course we need to look at our leaders with a skeptical eye. It's just hard to keep that in mind when every day is just another new mass of horrible.

I do have a question about this, though:

The other option I see is what I've seen bounced around here, Parliamentary government in which the majority, whoever that might be, crushes the minority under an authoritarian democracy.

I find this mildly surprising. You look at a country like Switzerland with multiple languages and ethnic groups and I don't see their Parliamentary system squashing minorities with an iron fist. Most of the evidence I've seen is that with multiple parties in play gaining seats, creating a coalition requires compromise - something we are in short supply of here.

I know nothing about Switzerland beyond it’s location so I can’t say. It’s also probable I was annoyed when I posted this and over exaggerated. I do love our free speech, even knowing it causes problems, and I have observed, possibly unfairly, most European based systems have a tendency towards limiting free speech in some circumstances. However, I will take back the crushing minorities, especially since I meant minority polical parties and not minorities in the sense we use it, and even that was wrong. Plus the authoritarian democracy comment was maybe just a little over the top. Or flat out wrong, one or the other.

I would agree that more parties would help a lot, though I don’t think we need a parliamentary system to accomplish that. I heavily support the effort to get a few moderate Senators elected, enough to deny either party the majority. Though I am skeptical that it could happen or that it would work. If it did force compromise that would be worth the effort. But I don’t know.

Holman wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 7:48 am So, Fitzy, since you singled me out, I feel I owe you a reply. (This weekend we were away at a beach house where internet coverage was too spotty to be worthwhile. It was heavenly.)

Thanks for the long posts. I mean that sincerely: you wrote a serious and full reply, and even though I believe you mis-characterized what I was saying, I do see the point you were making from your perspective.

What I think you have wrong (and others have pointed this out already) is the idea that anyone here is under the illusion that Dems are perfect or saints or immune to corruption. But the plain fact is that Trump's extremes are real and serious and threatening to our institutions far beyond anything Obama ever dreamed of doing (even taking your long list into account), and it's plainly obvious that only the Dems are both willing and capable of standing against them. Since standing against them is only possible with legislative power, that means we need more such Dems in the legislature. It's that simple, and that was literally my only point.

I wrote a bunch more, but I'll snip it. I hope and believe we understand each other's positions anyway.

Yeah, I apologize. All I believe is that we should simultaneously elect Democrats (though i admit to holding out hope for some independent moderates who would not support Trump) and we should hold them responsible. It was the second part I felt was being ignored in the discussion, so I chimed in. I thought I was expressing a simple hope we could hold Democrats to a higher standard and that it wasn’t a radical position.

Looking back I can see I did not express my viewpoint well, based on the responses and instead of trying to clarify I got irritated, beyond irritated actually, at feeling like I was being dumped on as a Trump supporter and the feeling that I was being told to be quiet for expressing what I thought was a minor variation.

That’s an excuse and I shouldn’t have done the same thing I felt people were doing to me, shutting down discussion by painting others viewpoints more extreme than they are is not right and I should not have done it. Nor should I have responded while angry, instead I should have waited until the anger cleared and I could see what people were actually arguing and not just how I interpreted it in the heat of the moment.

And yeah, i do agree with most of what is said. Remove Trump, remove the GOP support. I have no clue what happened to the GOP, but they do need a serious voter smackdown.

I can empathize with the idea of people not thinking this is the time to experiment with third parties or independent candidates.

I would love to get more moderates of both parties back in play. Joe Manchin drives me crazy sometimes but I think both parties would benefit from more like him.

malchior wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 2:16 pm The US Air force wasn't even an entity until after WW2 which featured heavy usage of aerial combat. In that context, this sounds hilariously premature.

Yeah, I'm fine with the concept of a space force military branch, but this is like forming a navy after you've swum in a kiddie pool or an air force after riding in a hot air balloon - way too premature.

Defiant wrote:

malchior wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 2:16 pm The US Air force wasn't even an entity until after WW2 which featured heavy usage of aerial combat. In that context, this sounds hilariously premature.

Yeah, I'm fine with the concept of a space force military branch, but this is like forming a navy after you've swum in a kiddie pool or an air force after riding in a hot air balloon - way too premature.

I'm 99% sure that we've signed and ratified multiple treaties regarding militarization of space.

Pyperkub wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:38 pm

Defiant wrote:

malchior wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 2:16 pm The US Air force wasn't even an entity until after WW2 which featured heavy usage of aerial combat. In that context, this sounds hilariously premature.

Yeah, I'm fine with the concept of a space force military branch, but this is like forming a navy after you've swum in a kiddie pool or an air force after riding in a hot air balloon - way too premature.

I'm 99% sure that we've signed and ratified multiple treaties regarding militarization of space.

And the Pentagon has black ops of which we know nothing. It might be justified. We do know that there are Nazis on the moon.

Persons more attuned to military history will know more than I do about this, but I'm dubious about the merits of establishing another top-level chain of command that requires more coordination between quasi-independent services. But people thought having an air force was a farce, too. Plus, moon Nazis.

Pyperkub wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:38 pm
I'm 99% sure that we've signed and ratified multiple treaties regarding militarization of space.

Just one, AFAIK, but I'm sure that, regardless of who is president, at some point - when we seriously commit to expand beyond this planet at the very latest - militarization of Outer Space will happen.

Kraken wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:46 pm
And the Pentagon has black ops of which we know nothing. It might be justified. We do know that there are Nazis on the moon.

That's no moon.

May I present the uniform of this new branch?



(Note: Leaders in this branch get to dress in black, but may develop breathing problems).