Calling 2020 for Entropy

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 13871
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by Kolohe » 04 May 2019, 22:36

Mayor Pete was 6 years old when that song first debuted.
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13324
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by Eric the .5b » 05 May 2019, 17:09

Elsewhere, I'm watching people who loved Saint Barry the Obama-Christ when he was in office. They're going on about Biden's "Let's roll the country back to 2016, when things were OK" campaign as if the country was a be knighted hell-hole, then.

Of course, these particular Blues also think the country is hungry for a hard turn to the left. Which is why Clinton got a majority of the votes and Trump actually won, I guess...
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 16984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by lunchstealer » 05 May 2019, 17:19

And why Gary Johnson got 3x the votes of Jill Stein.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13324
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by Eric the .5b » 05 May 2019, 18:27

And Clinton has been martyr-reformed from the dirty centrist nobody to the left liked to a woman who ran a boldly leftist campaign from start to finish.

I can't even. We may need Gropey Joe to save us from the useless progressives giving Trump a second term.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18462
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 05 May 2019, 18:39

In fairness to Hillary Clinton, and that's something you'll probably never see me write again, she was probably always significantly to the left of her husband and Obama. That's not to make her out as a Stalinist aside from the fact that she loved wielding power as much as Stalin did, but she at least learned from Bill where most of the Democratic votes are even if she didn't know which states to make sure she carried.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 27708
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by thoreau » 05 May 2019, 18:54

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
05 May 2019, 18:39
In fairness to Hillary Clinton, and that's something you'll probably never see me write again, she was probably always significantly to the left of her husband and Obama.
In what sense? I am not sure that I know what it means to say where a politician's views "really" are. In office she was never all that left. Like any Senator she had mixed voting record, sometimes doing what any Senator from her party needed to do to stay in good standing and sometimes going "bi-partisan." As Secretary of State she was pretty centrist, to say the least. Her foreign policy would have gotten good marks from just about every Red of consequence if her name weren't Hillary Clinton. On the campaign trail she tried to thread the needle between what primary voters wanted and what swing voters in the general election wanted, just like any candidate.

Yes, in 1993 she said something about healthcare, showing some inner liberal side that few 1993 Blues would show. Even on that, I wonder how much of it was that she was actually more liberal than the rest of them and how much of it was hubris and bad timing due to being thrust into the political spotlight without any actual experience as an elected official in her own right. She didn't understand incrementalism yet.

I suspect that if Barack Obama sat down with a bunch of comfortable, professional, educated Blues and talked politics with no recording devices and no concerns about what might get out, he might show a set of sympathies substantially to the left of how he governed. He wouldn't be as left as Fox News wants people to fear, but he'd be to the left of much of his Cabinet. But if somebody in this hypothetical conversation then said "So why didn't you do that?" he'd say that the job is what it is, the political landscape is what it is, and he did what he had to do.

If Hillary Clinton had held an elected office in Arkansas before her husband became President, she would have filtered herself very differently, and a lot fewer people would have spent a quarter of a century portraying her as a radical left-wing menace.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18462
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 05 May 2019, 19:07

thoreau wrote:
05 May 2019, 18:54
D.A. Ridgely wrote:
05 May 2019, 18:39
In fairness to Hillary Clinton, and that's something you'll probably never see me write again, she was probably always significantly to the left of her husband and Obama.
In what sense? I am not sure that I know what it means to say where a politician's views "really" are. In office she was never all that left. Like any Senator she had mixed voting record, sometimes doing what any Senator from her party needed to do to stay in good standing and sometimes going "bi-partisan." As Secretary of State she was pretty centrist, to say the least. Her foreign policy would have gotten good marks from just about every Red of consequence if her name weren't Hillary Clinton. On the campaign trail she tried to thread the needle between what primary voters wanted and what swing voters in the general election wanted, just like any candidate.

Yes, in 1993 she said something about healthcare, showing some inner liberal side that few 1993 Blues would show. Even on that, I wonder how much of it was that she was actually more liberal than the rest of them and how much of it was hubris and bad timing due to being thrust into the political spotlight without any actual experience as an elected official in her own right. She didn't understand incrementalism yet.

I suspect that if Barack Obama sat down with a bunch of comfortable, professional, educated Blues and talked politics with no recording devices and no concerns about what might get out, he might show a set of sympathies substantially to the left of how he governed. He wouldn't be as left as Fox News wants people to fear, but he'd be to the left of much of his Cabinet. But if somebody in this hypothetical conversation then said "So why didn't you do that?" he'd say that the job is what it is, the political landscape is what it is, and he did what he had to do.

If Hillary Clinton had held an elected office in Arkansas before her husband became President, she would have filtered herself very differently, and a lot fewer people would have spent a quarter of a century portraying her as a radical left-wing menace.
Pretty much that. Clinton got burned letting her push a health care agenda that used up political capital and got nothing in return. That was the end of "two presidents for the price of one." Yeah, I know, that rhetoric had already stopped, but that was also the end of her having any genuine power in his administration. But had they not gotten burned, I think it's a safe bet she would have been empowered and emboldened to push on those sort of social welfare "Great Society" agendas. No, there's no sense in which Hillary is Bernie with a vagina and, yes, she didn't understand incrementalism but, more importantly, she didn't understand the view when you're not the lead sled dog.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 27708
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by thoreau » 05 May 2019, 19:12

Actually, I believe she became Public Enemy #1 long before that. When she made her remark about housewives staying at home and baking cookies, she alienated a shitload of women, including working women who knew that their own stay-at-home mothers had done a whole lot more than bake cookies. My mother had just finished going back to school to finish her degree--i.e. she was no foe of women with professional ambitions--but she was so massively turned off by that remark. The only stay-at-home moms with light duties are the ones who have professional help, e.g. a politician's wife living in the governor's mansion.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18462
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 05 May 2019, 19:29

thoreau wrote:
05 May 2019, 19:12
Actually, I believe she became Public Enemy #1 long before that. When she made her remark about housewives staying at home and baking cookies, she alienated a shitload of women, including working women who knew that their own stay-at-home mothers had done a whole lot more than bake cookies. My mother had just finished going back to school to finish her degree--i.e. she was no foe of women with professional ambitions--but she was so massively turned off by that remark. The only stay-at-home moms with light duties are the ones who have professional help, e.g. a politician's wife living in the governor's mansion.
Well, you and I remember the 90s differently or you've been reading up more on it while I'm relying on my admittedly unreliable memory. The "two presidents for the price of one" comment was a campaign gaff and, apropos of the Clintons' entire political career, promptly erased as though it never happened. I don't know that much about the Clintons in Arkansas except that there was plenty of insider wheeling-dealing with the subsequently notorious Rose Law Firm, but that's all probably Arkansas political business as usual and in the South in general there isn't nearly as much antipathy toward a strong female politician as there is toward a Northern carpetbagger who met her husband at Yale Law School.

I recall Hillary getting plenty of criticism for pantsuits and "ugly fat ankles" and not being willing to fall into the First Lady cookie-cutter image and I don't blame her at all for pushing back on that even if it did piss off lots of voters. I'm simply saying that between the two of them, Hillary appears to be far less the pragmatist than Bill and, from all outward appearances, than Obama, at least on domestic issues. How she behaved in the Senate, which she certainly always saw as a mere stepping stone, or as Secretary of State, which everyone saw as a consolation prize, isn't as telling to me about what I think are her actual political leanings, as what she tried to influence when she was sleeping in the East Wing.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 27708
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by thoreau » 05 May 2019, 19:41

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
05 May 2019, 19:29
Well, you and I remember the 90s differently or you've been reading up more on it while I'm relying on my admittedly unreliable memory. The "two presidents for the price of one" comment was a campaign gaff and, apropos of the Clintons' entire political career, promptly erased as though it never happened. I don't know that much about the Clintons in Arkansas except that there was plenty of insider wheeling-dealing with the subsequently notorious Rose Law Firm, but that's all probably Arkansas political business as usual and in the South in general there isn't nearly as much antipathy toward a strong female politician as there is toward a Northern carpetbagger who met her husband at Yale Law School.
Fair enough. I just know how it went over in my setting, but certainly she was hated for more than one reason.
I recall Hillary getting plenty of criticism for pantsuits and "ugly fat ankles" and not being willing to fall into the First Lady cookie-cutter image and I don't blame her at all for pushing back on that even if it did piss off lots of voters.
Yeah, this shit was unfair, and I wish it hadn't happened to her. Partly because I don't want that to happen to anyone and partly because it always made it harder to level more reasoned criticisms.
I'm simply saying that between the two of them, Hillary appears to be far less the pragmatist than Bill and, from all outward appearances, than Obama, at least on domestic issues. How she behaved in the Senate, which she certainly always saw as a mere stepping stone, or as Secretary of State, which everyone saw as a consolation prize, isn't as telling to me about what I think are her actual political leanings, as what she tried to influence when she was sleeping in the East Wing.
Fair point. Though I will note that she was certainly able to exercise self-discipline in the Senate, and as Secretary of State she didn't come across as any more do-gooder than a median Blue Secretary of State. Obligatory photo ops and speeches and token aid gestures regarding global health issues and women's empowerment, but not much more than any other respectable politician would do. If she was just restraining herself to get the job that she REALLY wanted, well, clearly she had learned quite a bit about pragmatism between the 1992 campaign and her installment as Secretary of State in 2009.

My guess is that if she had won in 2016, she would have started off less pragmatic than Obama or her husband, but only slightly less so. She'd already spent nearly a quarter of a century playing a long game, and she probably would have hunkered down to try to win back the Senate in 2018 so that she could do what she REALLY wants. And then after that failed she would have spent 2019 and 2020 trying to win re-election with a Blue Congress so she can do what she REALLY wants.

Or maybe she would have had a "deplorable" slip-up again, not realizing how easy it is to undermine years of pragmatism with a few words.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18462
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 05 May 2019, 20:03

thoreau wrote:
05 May 2019, 19:41

My guess is that if she had won in 2016, she would have started off less pragmatic than Obama or her husband, but only slightly less so. She'd already spent nearly a quarter of a century playing a long game, and she probably would have hunkered down to try to win back the Senate in 2018 so that she could do what she REALLY wants. And then after that failed she would have spent 2019 and 2020 trying to win re-election with a Blue Congress so she can do what she REALLY wants.

Or maybe she would have had a "deplorable" slip-up again, not realizing how easy it is to undermine years of pragmatism with a few words.
Were I to bet, I'd go with the slip-up as more likely. She has long struck me as someone with every bit as much hubris as, well, as Trump and not nearly the political acumen or patience or willingness to compromise, etc. as her husband or Obama. Every single tell-all about the Clintons has told the same story: Bill is brilliant and charismatic and can't keep his dick in his pants unless he's simultaneously amazing and boring you with his political wonkery and Hillary has a short temper and throws tantrums as often as Trump and with as little willingness to ever be held accountable. Mind you, on balance I'd still have painfully preferred her to win over Trump, but neither of them should ever have been given an iota of the power of the Oval Office.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 27708
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by thoreau » 05 May 2019, 20:15

Fair enough, but I wouldn't compare her to Trump. She seems like one of those people who has iron discipline until she doesn't. At least in public.

Trump lies so much that he has to change his lies by mid-sentence. And then he pouts at anyone who points it out.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18462
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 05 May 2019, 21:31

thoreau wrote:
05 May 2019, 20:15
Fair enough, but I wouldn't compare her to Trump. She seems like one of those people who has iron discipline until she doesn't. At least in public.

Trump lies so much that he has to change his lies by mid-sentence. And then he pouts at anyone who points it out.
Trump was an amusing buffoon until he became a buffoon with power. Clinton has been in one political campaign or another for damned close to her entire adult life, and no one lasts in politics without being able to pretend to be something s/he isn't when in the public eye. Trump has never pretended he was something he isn't, well, not counting being a pathological liar, but otherwise he's pretty much still WYSIWYG. That's far worse than Hillary in many ways, but in their inability to stand criticism, dissent, etc. I have no reason to think they're all that different.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13324
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by Eric the .5b » 05 May 2019, 23:33

thoreau wrote:
05 May 2019, 18:54
In what sense? I am not sure that I know what it means to say where a politician's views "really" are. In office she was never all that left. Like any Senator she had mixed voting record, sometimes doing what any Senator from her party needed to do to stay in good standing and sometimes going "bi-partisan." As Secretary of State she was pretty centrist, to say the least. Her foreign policy would have gotten good marks from just about every Red of consequence if her name weren't Hillary Clinton. On the campaign trail she tried to thread the needle between what primary voters wanted and what swing voters in the general election wanted, just like any candidate.
Honestly, I'd say she went further and pushed herself hard as the "electable centrist" in the primary, then tried to woo back the alienated further-left people, taking the opposite trajectory as is usual. And she was always more militaristic than Obama, even saying his "don't do stupid shit" motto for intervention (you know, the one that he twigged onto in his second term) was not an appropriate standard for a "great nation".

But, more to the point, I watched these Blues sniff at her as "a neo-liberal centrist" all of three years ago. I remember us talking about how "liberal" went from "to Obama's left" to "some goon who'd punch a hippie for Hillary". But now, suddenly, she's Warren 2: the Prequel.

That's not reconsidering a political figure, that's a damn retcon.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Dangerman
Posts: 6509
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by Dangerman » 06 May 2019, 09:44

A specialty socks store here in Portland has a display with a series of socks featuring women who changed America:

Harriet Tubman
Susan B Anthony
AOC

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 27708
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by thoreau » 06 May 2019, 12:17

I know that most gryllers are afraid to upset the status quo by impeaching a president, but if Andrew Yang is elected I think we need to impeach him on January 20.



Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 16984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by lunchstealer » 06 May 2019, 13:21

Burn it all to the ground.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
JD
Posts: 10749
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by JD » 06 May 2019, 15:01

"Andrew Yang calls on Amazon to admit job loss from automation" - this is not specific to the 2020 presidential race, but this kind of nonsense is really one of my pet peeves. Of course automation causes job loss. That's the whole point of it. It's why we're posting arguments about automation and job loss on the internet instead of scratching in the dirt with a stick hoping to find something to eat.
"Millennials are lazy. They'd rather have avocado toast than cave in a man's skull with a tire iron!" -FFF

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 15588
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by Aresen » 06 May 2019, 15:13

thoreau wrote:
06 May 2019, 12:17
I know that most gryllers are afraid to upset the status quo by impeaching a president, but if Andrew Yang is elected I think we need to impeach him on January 20.



Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk
Seconded. Using PowerPoint is worse than Hitler.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23789
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by JasonL » 06 May 2019, 16:11

I'll be real honest - powerpoint is awful and dumb but not dumber than SOTU, so it kind of makes sense to me.

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 16984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by lunchstealer » 06 May 2019, 16:27

JasonL wrote:
06 May 2019, 16:11
I'll be real honest - powerpoint is awful and dumb but not dumber than SOTU, so it kind of makes sense to me.
I'd support him just sending Congress his SOTU slide deck and doing the speech via GoToMeeting.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23789
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by JasonL » 06 May 2019, 16:30

That's what I'm talking about. Let's not pretend its other than it is. Here's your webex. Here are your slides, we'll focus on slides 3 and 25 for the most part.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 27708
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by thoreau » 06 May 2019, 16:48

"OK, I know there's a lot of text on this slide, but I think the important thing is that the team has been working on the Iran project for a while and the data is still ambiguous."

"We'll begin with an introduction, go over the topics, and conclude with a conclusion."

"Oh, sorry, for some reason the video isn't playing, but what you should see is an animation of the trendline as we change to different budget scenarios."
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 15588
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by Aresen » 06 May 2019, 16:51

lunchstealer wrote:
06 May 2019, 16:27
JasonL wrote:
06 May 2019, 16:11
I'll be real honest - powerpoint is awful and dumb but not dumber than SOTU, so it kind of makes sense to me.
I'd support him just sending Congress his SOTU slide deck and doing the speech via GoToMeeting.
You could probably save a lot of money by shutting down Washington and having Congress meet by teleconference.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3985
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Calling 2020 for Entropy

Post by Painboy » 06 May 2019, 16:55

Aresen wrote:
06 May 2019, 16:51
lunchstealer wrote:
06 May 2019, 16:27
JasonL wrote:
06 May 2019, 16:11
I'll be real honest - powerpoint is awful and dumb but not dumber than SOTU, so it kind of makes sense to me.
I'd support him just sending Congress his SOTU slide deck and doing the speech via GoToMeeting.
You could probably save a lot of money by shutting down Washington and having Congress meet by teleconference.
A whole lot less standing and clapping if nothing else.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests