Red Mosquito

I want blood in 2020 and will become excited by nothing less

Monkey_Driven wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:My ideal candidate:

1. Violently advocates single-payer healthcare
2. Violently advocates strict environmental protection laws (real laws that restrict corporations, not placebo laws that push pointless measures on consumers)
3. Violently fights to wrestle as much power as possible away from the ruling class and shifts it to the working class

Bonus points if they advocate beheading establishment politicians and corporate leaders

"Violently beheading"

No, no, regular beheadings.

Jimmy Carter once sent a jacket to the dry-cleaner’s with the nuclear detonation codes still in the pocket.

We need someone to run with that kind of DGAF attitude to take out Trump.

Biden fits.

I think Elizabeth Warren could have won in 2016 but self-inflicted blows like being seen as Clinton's general election attack dog and the whole DNA fiasco put her in a much weaker position than she should have been. She'll have an uphill battle but there are no obviously great candidates, so who knows. Because of her Clinton support she could end up being a bridge candidate from the moderate to the left wing of the party, but then again having any Clinton stink on her could sink her with the left wing, regardless of her ideology.

It’s still early, but there are a few things that might drastically change Warren’s standing:

1. Most Americans do not, in fact, have a strong opinion of her. A poll that came a few weeks after her DNA debacle showed that while 34% favored her in a hypothetical against Trump (Trump was at 30%), 36% had no strong opinion on her or didn’t recognize the name. That’s a better starting point historically than mass favorability, because presidential races temper people’s language and typically mean very popular people become less so.

2. Donald is gunning hard on the DNA thing, which only polls well with Republicans. Also, literally every Republican attack point Trump has ever adopted has become consequentially more negatively viewed by unaffiliated voters. He is defanging their easiest wins as he goes.

3. There is an intra-media self-scolding going on right now over the volume of likability concern articles written about female vs male candidates. “Is she likable enough” was an endless question during Clinton’s campaign, and is likely to be much more tempered in the coming election (outside of Fox News).

McParadigm wrote:Bi_3, then?

I'm a fan of social stability and evolutionary change (which is why I ended up liking a lot of what Obama did). Ideas about governance, morality, scientific understanding, etc. these change over time in a society and we cannot be reactionary in how we deal with them at the national level. Issues like climate change policy and more importantly interest on the national debt are too important for the OMGPLASTICSTRAWS crew to handle without destroying our ability to deal with whatever comes next and the R's have proven spineless and ignorant too many times for me to go there, so I'm back to the Clinton dems with the full understanding they are corporate sellouts. I would rather have businesses run the country than those who claim to represent the 'working class'.

Thank you.

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Bi_3, then?

I'm a fan of social stability and evolutionary change (which is why I ended up liking a lot of what Obama did). Ideas about governance, morality, scientific understanding, etc. these change over time in a society and we cannot be reactionary in how we deal with them at the national level. Issues like climate change policy and more importantly interest on the national debt are too important for the OMGPLASTICSTRAWS crew to handle without destroying our ability to deal with whatever comes next and the R's have proven spineless and ignorant too many times for me to go there, so I'm back to the Clinton dems with the full understanding they are corporate sellouts. I would rather have businesses run the country than those who claim to represent the 'working class'.

Saying you care about climate change and then saying you’re okay with business running the country is a complete contradiction. Under-regulated business is the #1 existential threat on the planet. Everything else is distraction. This is why “Clinton dems” are not the people who will make meaningful strides for change. They ARE the “plastic straws” crowd.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Bi_3, then?

I'm a fan of social stability and evolutionary change (which is why I ended up liking a lot of what Obama did). Ideas about governance, morality, scientific understanding, etc. these change over time in a society and we cannot be reactionary in how we deal with them at the national level. Issues like climate change policy and more importantly interest on the national debt are too important for the OMGPLASTICSTRAWS crew to handle without destroying our ability to deal with whatever comes next and the R's have proven spineless and ignorant too many times for me to go there, so I'm back to the Clinton dems with the full understanding they are corporate sellouts. I would rather have businesses run the country than those who claim to represent the 'working class'.

Saying you care about climate change and then saying you’re okay with business running the country is a complete contradiction. Under-regulated business is the #1 existential threat on the planet. Everything else is distraction. This is why “Clinton dems” are not the people who will make meaningful strides for change. They ARE the “plastic straws” crowd.

This is where we disagree. Globally, calling out Asia specifically, some unregulated businesses are an existential threat, but if we kill our ability to maintain leverage through economic, political, and military means then we are trading tomorrow for today and that's what hear all the time from progressives. An inability to see second order consequences in their policy goals. We need someone who understands that line between what is needed to maintain global dominance and drive meaningful and realistic domestic changes or we are ceding the future to China, Russia, and.. probably Iran.

After two years of watching Trump and the MAGAts get off on “triggering libtards,” it’s quite satisfying to see Pelosi as speaker again.

It’s not hundreds of millions of Americans driving their 3 litre engine cars and SUVs with gas at $2 a gallon that’s doing all the damage.


It’s the plastic straws.

Bloody dems it’s all dems fault.

Bi_3 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Bi_3, then?

I'm a fan of social stability and evolutionary change (which is why I ended up liking a lot of what Obama did). Ideas about governance, morality, scientific understanding, etc. these change over time in a society and we cannot be reactionary in how we deal with them at the national level. Issues like climate change policy and more importantly interest on the national debt are too important for the OMGPLASTICSTRAWS crew to handle without destroying our ability to deal with whatever comes next and the R's have proven spineless and ignorant too many times for me to go there, so I'm back to the Clinton dems with the full understanding they are corporate sellouts. I would rather have businesses run the country than those who claim to represent the 'working class'.

Saying you care about climate change and then saying you’re okay with business running the country is a complete contradiction. Under-regulated business is the #1 existential threat on the planet. Everything else is distraction. This is why “Clinton dems” are not the people who will make meaningful strides for change. They ARE the “plastic straws” crowd.

This is where we disagree. Globally, calling out Asia specifically, some unregulated businesses are an existential threat, but if we kill our ability to maintain leverage through economic, political, and military means then we are trading tomorrow for today and that's what hear all the time from progressives. An inability to see second order consequences in their policy goals. We need someone who understands that line between what is needed to maintain global dominance and drive meaningful and realistic domestic changes or we are ceding the future to China, Russia, and.. probably Iran.

Single-payer healthcare, environmental protection laws, and ethical regulations that stop corporations from exploiting workers will not stop America from being a world leader.

dimejinky99 wrote:It’s not hundreds of millions of Americans driving their 3 litre engine cars and SUVs with gas at $2 a gallon that’s doing all the damage.


It’s the plastic straws.

Bloody dems it’s all dems fault.

We go over this a lot here, it's China's emissions and the fact that they have emitted so much in such a short period that is the issue.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Bi_3, then?

I'm a fan of social stability and evolutionary change (which is why I ended up liking a lot of what Obama did). Ideas about governance, morality, scientific understanding, etc. these change over time in a society and we cannot be reactionary in how we deal with them at the national level. Issues like climate change policy and more importantly interest on the national debt are too important for the OMGPLASTICSTRAWS crew to handle without destroying our ability to deal with whatever comes next and the R's have proven spineless and ignorant too many times for me to go there, so I'm back to the Clinton dems with the full understanding they are corporate sellouts. I would rather have businesses run the country than those who claim to represent the 'working class'.

Saying you care about climate change and then saying you’re okay with business running the country is a complete contradiction. Under-regulated business is the #1 existential threat on the planet. Everything else is distraction. This is why “Clinton dems” are not the people who will make meaningful strides for change. They ARE the “plastic straws” crowd.

This is where we disagree. Globally, calling out Asia specifically, some unregulated businesses are an existential threat, but if we kill our ability to maintain leverage through economic, political, and military means then we are trading tomorrow for today and that's what hear all the time from progressives. An inability to see second order consequences in their policy goals. We need someone who understands that line between what is needed to maintain global dominance and drive meaningful and realistic domestic changes or we are ceding the future to China, Russia, and.. probably Iran.

Single-payer healthcare, environmental protection laws, and ethical regulations that stop corporations from exploiting workers will not stop America from being a world leader.

They will if they make us significantly less competitive relative to nations like China and India.

Bi_3 wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:It’s not hundreds of millions of Americans driving their 3 litre engine cars and SUVs with gas at $2 a gallon that’s doing all the damage.


It’s the plastic straws.

Bloody dems it’s all dems fault.

We go over this a lot here, it's China's emissions and the fact that they have emitted so much in such a short period that is the issue.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Bi_3, then?

I'm a fan of social stability and evolutionary change (which is why I ended up liking a lot of what Obama did). Ideas about governance, morality, scientific understanding, etc. these change over time in a society and we cannot be reactionary in how we deal with them at the national level. Issues like climate change policy and more importantly interest on the national debt are too important for the OMGPLASTICSTRAWS crew to handle without destroying our ability to deal with whatever comes next and the R's have proven spineless and ignorant too many times for me to go there, so I'm back to the Clinton dems with the full understanding they are corporate sellouts. I would rather have businesses run the country than those who claim to represent the 'working class'.

Saying you care about climate change and then saying you’re okay with business running the country is a complete contradiction. Under-regulated business is the #1 existential threat on the planet. Everything else is distraction. This is why “Clinton dems” are not the people who will make meaningful strides for change. They ARE the “plastic straws” crowd.

This is where we disagree. Globally, calling out Asia specifically, some unregulated businesses are an existential threat, but if we kill our ability to maintain leverage through economic, political, and military means then we are trading tomorrow for today and that's what hear all the time from progressives. An inability to see second order consequences in their policy goals. We need someone who understands that line between what is needed to maintain global dominance and drive meaningful and realistic domestic changes or we are ceding the future to China, Russia, and.. probably Iran.

Single-payer healthcare, environmental protection laws, and ethical regulations that stop corporations from exploiting workers will not stop America from being a world leader.

They will if they make us significantly less competitive relative to nations like China and India.

And where do we decide to draw that line? And who decides? We should all sacrifice our lives at the altar of ruling class profit because of some phantom foreign threat? And how is fucking single-payer healthcare going to cause us to lose world influence? Yeah, no, I’m not buying it.

Bi_3 wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:It’s not hundreds of millions of Americans driving their 3 litre engine cars and SUVs with gas at $2 a gallon that’s doing all the damage.


It’s the plastic straws.

Bloody dems it’s all dems fault.

We go over this a lot here, it's China's emissions and the fact that they have emitted so much in such a short period that is the issue.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Bi_3, then?

I'm a fan of social stability and evolutionary change (which is why I ended up liking a lot of what Obama did). Ideas about governance, morality, scientific understanding, etc. these change over time in a society and we cannot be reactionary in how we deal with them at the national level. Issues like climate change policy and more importantly interest on the national debt are too important for the OMGPLASTICSTRAWS crew to handle without destroying our ability to deal with whatever comes next and the R's have proven spineless and ignorant too many times for me to go there, so I'm back to the Clinton dems with the full understanding they are corporate sellouts. I would rather have businesses run the country than those who claim to represent the 'working class'.

Saying you care about climate change and then saying you’re okay with business running the country is a complete contradiction. Under-regulated business is the #1 existential threat on the planet. Everything else is distraction. This is why “Clinton dems” are not the people who will make meaningful strides for change. They ARE the “plastic straws” crowd.

This is where we disagree. Globally, calling out Asia specifically, some unregulated businesses are an existential threat, but if we kill our ability to maintain leverage through economic, political, and military means then we are trading tomorrow for today and that's what hear all the time from progressives. An inability to see second order consequences in their policy goals. We need someone who understands that line between what is needed to maintain global dominance and drive meaningful and realistic domestic changes or we are ceding the future to China, Russia, and.. probably Iran.

Single-payer healthcare, environmental protection laws, and ethical regulations that stop corporations from exploiting workers will not stop America from being a world leader.

They will if they make us significantly less competitive relative to nations like China and India.

I was speaking more to the fact that Americans are blissfully unaware they have the cheapest gas by far than any other country In the whole world and the US govt has gone to war and invaded resource rich countries to keep it that way and when the day comes, and it soon will, that they have to pay anything like as much as any other guy in any other country pays, that’s when you’ll see meltdown and outright civil unrest, regardless of political affiliation.

Emissions and footprint per person aren’t issues getting any traction either in the US or China. Outside of lip service from some and flat out denied by most Americans it seems.
No idea what the Chinese think. They don’t talk about it. My brothers living in Beijing right now and he says it’s post apocalyptic when it comes to air quality but it’s not something that’s spoken about. It’s closed down on wechat by censors and you just don’t talk about that stuff in the office in case you end up being reported.

Real change isn't made by electing "sensible people" like Clinton. It's made by electing agents of chaos like Trump. See: leaving Syria.

This is how it's done. Don't be afraid.

BurtReynolds wrote:Real change isn't made by electing "sensible people" like Clinton. It's made by electing agents of chaos like Trump. See: leaving Syria.

This is how it's done. Don't be afraid.

I want a leftist Trump TBH

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Real change isn't made by electing "sensible people" like Clinton. It's made by electing agents of chaos like Trump. See: leaving Syria.

This is how it's done. Don't be afraid.

I want a leftist Trump TBH

A lot of republicans probably wish they had a more Republican Trump. we don't get much control over it anyway. That's the nature of chaos. Best to let loose the bull in the China shop from time to time so we can put the pieces back together better than before.

I think this happens eventually anyway wether we want it to or not. Why worry? None of this matters.

I want someone who goes further than insults - I want them to tell politicians to their face that they deserve to be killed. Lock her up? Nah, send ‘em to the guillotines. Fuck stability. I’m not interested in stability.