Bay 12 Games Forum

Quote from: mainiac on September 29, 2016, 07:30:52 am

Even assuming Clinton manages to defeat Trump, Bernie Sanders probably lost democrats a couple Senate seats this year.  Bernie Sanders probably lost democrats ten house seats these years.

Oh, I would love to hear the tortured logic underlying this statement. Next, you can tell me how Sanders is also responsible for the thinning of the ozone layer, male-pattern baldness, and the cancellation of Firefly.

It's... not really tortured? Dude screwed with the DNC et al mid presidential campaign, despite ostensibly being part of it, and that'll probably have down-ballot impact. Agree or disagree whether that's a bad thing (though M's point seems to be that it probably is, so far as progressive legislation and whatnot in the relatively near term goes), but it's hard to argue it ain't a thing.

Now I find it interesting that you even think someone could look like a jackass I've never really thought when I look at people that they look like something I might vaguely like or dislike their hairstyle or maybe think their hairstyle humorous like Trump's ((becuase i thought it was a wig the first time I saw it.))
But I've never really let someone's appearance at least consciously effect my opinion about someone really negatively.I try to see the best in people.

Presentation is a thing, for good or ill. Certain ways of holding yourself and grooming and whatnot can be indicative, to varying degrees, of particular behavioral patterns. The video linked, th'fellow's got that particular style that's notably common among a particular subset of self-righteous jerks. Could just be entertainment persona or whatev', but he definitely gave off the vibe of ranting jackass, just by appearance. And judging from what you an' others have been saying, that's... pretty accurate.

And yeah, you don't necessarily let it effect you negatively (assuming you notice), because individuals est and appearances can be deceiving and all that rot, but if their appearance or whatever gets on your nerves and you ain't gotta' subject yourself to that, why do it? There's usually enough alternate ways to get the message trying to be communicated that you don't have to suffer for it.

....after seeing how he looked? That's...I can not understand how you would not listen to someone just based of their appearance...

... pretty easily when said someone is operating through a visual medium? That doesn't mean they wouldn't read what they were trying to say or whatev', just that they don't want to look at them for whatever reason. I'd have trouble watching someone with a gaping facial wound discuss economics, ferex. Appearances can be a notable issue, at times, and... there ain't really anything wrong with that, for stuff like randos on youtube. Gotta' filter and all that jazz.

Though my shtick tends to be sound more than sight. Pretty seriously dislike listening to people talk about politics, usually. Give me a transcript and I'm fine, but for whatever reason it seems like half the time the folks doing that have voices (or at least use said voices in a way) that makes me want to maim them.

Lotta' folks are, liberal or conservative. Don't mean they have a single lick of sense when it comes to politickin' or country rulin'. Don't mean they don't either, but if sincerity was all it took to predict a winning campaign trail there'd be a lot of analysts and whatnot that'd be doing something else for a living.

Shit, isp, the DNC actually gave sanders a hell of a lot more support than he probably deserved. They were pretty even handed with a guy that had spent years fairly hostile to the party and then showed up to parasitize on the party's name and do more or less jack all else (well, besides shit on them for the help, by the end of his campaign).

There wasn't terribly much in the way of overt support, sure, but... again. The guy had spent, what, decades? Many years, in any case. In an antagonistic relationship with the party itself. There was zero reason to give the guy any support for them, and quite a few reasons to actively work against him. And they didn't, at least as near as I've noticed anyone able to actually substantiate. They let him use the democratic name in a sodding presidential campaign despite him having spent years doing very little for 'em when he wasn't outright attempting to undermine the party's efforts. Yeah, most of the party threw their weight behind clinton, but it's real bloody obvious why they would.

Clintons not doing that great becuase she's kinda well pandering to Republicans and other people it seems.... really it seems like she's been abandoning her base really.

... can you actually point to anything she's doing that's... well, that? I haven't seen any signs she's abandoning her base, myself. Maybe not bending over backwards for the folks to the left of said base, but she's been pretty consistent for a long damn time on most things, s'far as I'm aware.

I'm still not exactly enthusiastic about 'er myself, but good gods is it becoming increasingly obvious her reputation and whatnot is getting seriously distorted. I mean, hell, I knew that was a thing for a while but goddamn.

Bloody well just noticed, then. Consider this a retroactive "fuck them."

Hold a tick. Those sodding bastards are coopting zog, too? This may be the most I've wanted a stick what could reach through time and crump some gits in months.

Part of me wonders if the 9/11 folks even can use this to sue, under US law. Usually there's some shit about doing stuff before it was a crime getting a pass, or something along those lines (some junk about retroactivity and culpability? My head hurts far too much right now to remember details.), and I'm kinda' curious how/if that's going to get involved. It would be the hilarity nail in the farce cake if it only applied going forward.

E: Though I'm also now wondering about, like. Suing by proxy or something? Can't think of the words. But if we're going to open the door to international litigation, even if it's just for state sponsored terrorism, I'm pretty sure there's a delicious and absolutely fuckhuge pile of dosh waiting to get ripped out of our pockets over the contras, just as an obvious starting point. And didn't we funnel weapons or somethin' into what turned into the taliban? Giving how often the U.S. has suffered vs. indulged in terrorism or its funding, we're not going to come out of this ahead :V