What will be the October Surprise?

[Colonel Sanders]

Here's the problem: we've been able to do this for 30 years now and conservatives have fought this progress tooth and nail.

Here's the real problem; We have been able to do without fossil fuels for 70 years now, and both sides of politics have fought this progress tooth and nail.

The worst offenders were the (not conservative at all) hippies and lefties of the 1960s and '70s, who were determined to prevent the use of big technology of any kind to solve any problem.

They didn't (and still don't) care that size isn't a relevant factor. They just refuse to support anything that they don't fully understand, and refuse to learn anything discovered during or after the Industrial Revolution, which they see as an unalloyed bad thing.

We are faced with a partisan choice between a bunch of greedy fucks who don't give a crap about the planet as long as they get rich selling coal, oil, and gas; And a bunch of hopeless dreamers who want to return to the pre-Industrial age, and don't care nor want to hear about the impossibility of supporting eight billion humans without big industrial behemoths.

Those few lefties who do begin to get an inkling of the problem immediately turn to genocide ("We can't support eight billion, and need to drastically cut population") because the idea of killing seven billion people is more palatable to them than the idea of building a few dozen, gigawatt-scale, clean power plants.

We are stuck choosing between people who refuse to see the problem, and people who refuse to implement the solution. And both groups have massive power, and an almost religious zeal in pursuit of their insane agendas.

We could have it all; But we are too fucking dumb to reach out and take it.

As far as leftists go, I'd say you're correct when it comes to nuclear power. However, the portrayal of back-to-nature hippies holding back progress is inaccurate. There are very few of them and even less have any power. It's not hippies screaming about solar panels or electric vehicles. No doubt there are extremists who run on the far fringe of the left, but they're nobodies.

 

[Derec]

In practical terms, for the purposes of the upcoming 2024 elections that is exactly what it means.

No, it does not. I can still be critical of Biden and vote for him as the lesser evil.
In fact, one of the reasons I am so critical of Biden 2.0 is that, by trying to appease the Squad far-left fringe and the Dearborn Muslims chanting "death to America" he is exposing himself in the middle, making the Trump victory in November more likely.

Or at least that you are willing to tolerate another Trump term (perhaps for life) along with others of similar ilk who appear on the ballot in every state in positions from very local to state to national offices.

Tell that to the far left. They are the ones on the "abandon Biden" bandwagon because he is not caving sufficiently to their extremist demands.

IMO, we need to trounce the GOP in this election and every election for the next few election cycles in order to drum it into their heads that we will not tolerate a fascist state or a dictator and that we do not wish to join the insane Project 2025's quest for pseudo theocratic rule.

So a de facto one party rule because you are afraid that the Republicans would implement a one party rule?

Let's keep Margaret Atwood's dystopic take on US politics in the fiction section.

This is the kind of hyperbole I have in mind.

 

[Derec]

Let me get this straight. Because it's in a differant thread we should act like it never happened?

You certainly should not act as if my criticism of Heiress Apparent's policy positions never happened even though it happened in this very thread.
And note that I had brought up "heels up" in the other thread as an example of hypocrisy about how ridicule of Democratic and Republican politicians is treated. A lot more nasty things are said about Republicans on the regular, and yet people are attacked for quips about "Heels Up Kamala". But again, the whole "Heels Up" was dragged into this thread to distract from my criticism of her idiotic stance on fracking and offshore drilling. I note that you have nothing to say about that, preferring to drag in irrelevant things from other threads instead.

 

[laughing dog]

In practical terms, for the purposes of the upcoming 2024 elections that is exactly what it means.

No, it does not. I can still be critical of Biden and vote for him as the lesser evil.
In fact, one of the reasons I am so critical of Biden 2.0 is that, by trying to appease the Squad far-left fringe and the Dearborn Muslims chanting "death to America" he is exposing himself in the middle, making the Trump victory in November more likely.

Or at least that you are willing to tolerate another Trump term (perhaps for life) along with others of similar ilk who appear on the ballot in every state in positions from very local to state to national offices.

Tell that to the far left. They are the ones on the "abandon Biden" bandwagon because he is not caving sufficiently to their extremist demands.

IMO, we need to trounce the GOP in this election and every election for the next few election cycles in order to drum it into their heads that we will not tolerate a fascist state or a dictator and that we do not wish to join the insane Project 2025's quest for pseudo theocratic rule.

So a de facto one party rule because you are afraid that the Republicans would implement a one party rule?

Let's keep Margaret Atwood's dystopic take on US politics in the fiction section.

This is the kind of hyperbole I have in mind.

As opposed to “the far left” , “caving in”,or “de facto one party rule”?

 

[Derec]

*Some* people get more susceptible to manipulation as they get older. Biden does not strike me as being easy to manipulate.

And yet he was manipulated. For example, the B³ spending plan is very similar to the plan proposed by Bernie "Sandersman the White".

I think his age is the biggest argument against him but my experience is that there are plenty of people significantly older than Biden who are still really with it. And those much younger who are not.

In general, yes. But Biden is really showing signs of old age. So is Trump, to be fair. Neither should have ran again.

 

[Derec]

This is the kind of hyperbole I have in mind.

As opposed to “the far left” , “caving in”,or “de facto one party rule”?

What is hyperbolic about any of this?
The far left - The Squad, Bernie Sanders, and their ilk.
Caving in - Biden adopting many policies advocated by the far left, like the $3.5T spending plan. He even embraced AOC's climate paramilitaries.
De facto one party rule - did you actually read the context? I wrote this in reply to Toni saying that only Democrats should be elected in the foreseeable future because Republicans would be so bad. That is a de facto one party rule.

 

[Toni]

*Some* people get more susceptible to manipulation as they get older. Biden does not strike me as being easy to manipulate.

And yet he was manipulated. For example, the B³ spending plan is very similar to the plan proposed by Bernie "Sandersman the White".

I think his age is the biggest argument against him but my experience is that there are plenty of people significantly older than Biden who are still really with it. And those much younger who are not.

In general, yes. But Biden is really showing signs of old age. So is Trump, to be fair. Neither should have ran again.

Why do you think that Biden adopting the B3 spending plan similar to Sanders' is any sign of manipulation? Sanders is even older than Biden!

One of the best things about Biden is that he's able to build coalitions and to recognize good ideas even if they did not originate with him or his team. I admire that.

I agree that in an ideal world, we would have neither Biden nor Trump as candidates at their ages. But here we are. Without Trump, I think that it is likely that Biden would not have run for a second term---or for the first. But like I said: here we are.

At least with Biden, he has a team who believes in our form of government, believes in democracy and is competent and far less likely to attempt to profit to the max from tenure in government. I respect his team, and that he chooses to surround himself by people who are intelligent, competent and thoughtful and very knowledgeable about how government works and about policy.

 

[Derec]

I know a number of happy couples with a significant age difference. No one seems to be using anyone…

How significant? 60 and 29 are well outside the "half the age plus seven" creepiness rule.

 

[Toni]

This is the kind of hyperbole I have in mind.

As opposed to “the far left” , “caving in”,or “de facto one party rule”?

What is hyperbolic about any of this?
The far left - The Squad, Bernie Sanders, and their ilk.
Caving in - Biden adopting many policies advocated by the far left, like the $3.5T spending plan. He even embraced AOC's climate paramilitaries.
De facto one party rule - did you actually read the context? I wrote this in reply to Toni saying that only Democrats should be elected in the foreseeable future because Republicans would be so bad. That is a de facto one party rule.

I admit I'm not thrilled about having a single party majority in national (or state) government as in normal circumstances, having opposition tends to moderate change, which is often a very good thing.

But as I see it, the reality is that most of the GOP is so far right winged that they do not act as a check to left's policies but as an absolute nightmare situation, far worse than the one you see being proposed by the 'far left' as you call them. Scare quotes because to much of the world, our far left is their slightly right of center.

I see change as inevitable and as potentially a good thing but slow change is safest and gives the most opportunities to correct course where needed and even reverse where wisest to do so. In normal circumstances, this is how our two party system works, if not perfectly. But these are not normal times. We have an openly fascist candidate running for president who supports policies not very different from some of the ones implemented by Hitler. And this time, he has a well organized, well funded machine ready to help him take over every aspect of government and of our lives--and one that is willing to do it, on day one. We will never get our country back again if Trump is re-elected.

 

[Derec]

The number of presidents with a J.D. or roughly equivalent but defunct LL.B. is short: Taft, Hayes, the Roosevelts, Nixon, Ford, Clinton, Obama, Biden. Note the recent partisan trend.

I have noted the one-note educational backgrounds of recent Democratic presidential candidates in the last 40 years, yes.
But as you note, Biden, Obama and Clinton all had JDs. So Kamala Harris is by no means exceptional. In fact, Obama had his degrees from Columbia and Harvard, much more highly rated schools than Howard and UC Hastings. So were Clinton's Georgetown, Oxford and Yale.
While KH is by no doubts well educated, to say that she is one of the most academically qualified is not true.

Three had Master's Degrees in less relevant fields.

I reject this notion that fields other than law are "less relevant".

Coolidge alone a PhD.

You mean Woodrow Wilson?

But I'm considering timeframe as well. The workload necessary for Taft to earn his LL.B. was laughable compared to someone in a modern program of study.

Is it? [citation needed]
You also have to consider the time frame the other way too - college degrees and especially advanced degrees were less common and less required the further back you go. Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer, but did not have a formal education.

I'm also taking other honors and academic reputation into account. GW had an MBA, but no sane person would ever cite one of his papers as a resource. Good for a laugh, maybe.

And what is the h-index of papers KH wrote?

Do I think every president needs to have an advanced degree? Of course not. There are many avenues of competency in this world, and not all of them end in a Ivy League degree. This is fine. But if someone has attained high honors, their stupidity or ignorance is a very silly line of attack in my opinion.

KH does not have Ivy League degrees. Also, I did not say she was not well educated, but that she has a pretty usual education level for recent presidential candidates (esp. Democrats who have almost exclusively been lawyers in recent decades) and so it is silly to say that she would be one of the most academically presidents. Especially since some do have Ivy League degrees.
My problem with KH is not her level of education, or thinking that she is stupid or an airhead. My problem is her lack of judgment, as I have expounded upon repeatedly.

Why not attack her for being an "egghead" or "living in an ivory tower" or "loving her books more than people"? Of course, I know the reason why. But I also know you'd never want to admit it...

She did not pursue an academic career though, so "egghead" and "ivory tower" are not a natural fit. She pursued a professional degree and worked as a prosecutor. We all know what you think the "reason why" is, but that is not true. As Reagan said, the problem with so-called "liberals" is that they "know so much that isn't so".

 

[Toni]

I know a number of happy couples with a significant age difference. No one seems to be using anyone…

How significant? 60 and 29 are well outside the "half the age plus seven" creepiness rule.

Yeah but if it works, it works. Apparently it did not work long term.

Why aren't you similarly concerned about the 24 year age difference between Trump and his wife? Is it because it is widely assumed that Melania saw a meal ticket and visa opportunity for her family, and therefore no controversy?

I'm thinking of a couple of sets of friends with an age difference of >20 years who seem happy together after decades of marriage. In both cases, the younger partner is intelligent, thoughtful and had their own career. Certainly I do not think that either married their partner in order to further their career ---and if they did, it was a gross miscalculation.

 

[laughing dog]

This is the kind of hyperbole I have in mind.

As opposed to “the far left” , “caving in”,or “de facto one party rule”?

What is hyperbolic about any of this?

Therein lies the problem. Your ideological bubble prevents self- reflection. “The far left” is a relative measure reflecting the bias of the reflector. None of your usual suspects are “far left” - all are firmly part of the established and who are working within the system.
It is not “ caving in” to adapt and adopt good ideas. Thoughtful adults can disagree on the value of a proposed policy for a variety of reasons but it is not “caving in” to adapt or afoot the ideas of others - it is the nature of compromise.

Finally, wanting to rid the republic of a cancer by inflicting a punishing defeat in the hope that an improved version will arise does technically mean one party rule. However the goal is not temporary not permanent one party rule.

 

[Derec]

That is generally because you discuss your distaste with the more prominent now far left wing of the Democrat party than Trump.

That is because Trump has hardly any supporters on here. The left-wing of the Democratic Party has many.
This is a discussion forum, not a ditto circle.

 

[laughing dog]

That is generally because you discuss your distaste with the more prominent now far left wing of the Democrat party than Trump.

That is because Trump has hardly any supporters on here. The left-wing of the Democratic Party has many.
This is a discussion forum, not a ditto circle.

You refrain from criticizing Trump because of affirmative action criticism? LOL.

 

[Derec]

Okay, 24 years for Donnie and Melania

And Donnie is some kind of role model here that should be emulated?

And we are talking fat Elvis Donnie, not young Elvis.

To be fair, Willie Brown did not exactly look like young Elvis either.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That is generally because you discuss your distaste with the more prominent now far left wing of the Democrat party than Trump.

That is because Trump has hardly any supporters on here. The left-wing of the Democratic Party has many.
This is a discussion forum, not a ditto circle.

Like I said....

 

[Elixir]

That is generally because you discuss your distaste with the more prominent now far left wing of the Democrat party than Trump.

That is because Trump has hardly any supporters on here. The left-wing of the Democratic Party has many.
This is a discussion forum, not a ditto circle.

Like I said....

Hey, poor Donnie needs some of Derec's sweet luvvin' here.
Everybody gangs up on Donnie!!
It's true. Donnie is a victim.
Always, but especially on IIDB.
You guys are SO mean. And Derec is just a reg'lar SJW sticking up for the downtrodden.

 

[Politesse]

You mean Woodrow Wilson?

Ha! Yes. Silent Cal was no doctor, sorry about the typo. Double O guy, you know, that guy.

 

[Politesse]

What are you sacrificing if you vote for the least unpalatable candidate? Your chance to make a 'statement?'

My vote.

 

[Politesse]

If your vote doesn't matter, then why vote?

Because it is my right, my privilege, and my responsibility to do so. And because voting is extremely important. Single-handedly deciding the next president just isn't the reason why it is important. I was fortunate enough to visit the Lincoln Memorial today, as it happens, among my favorite of this nation's temples to reason and empathy. So I will simply quote that man in saying: we vote so that "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." We only have a democracy insofar as people participate in the franchise that makes it democratic.

And I think everyone else should too. Everyone. I may think you're throwing your vote away by believing you are only allowed to vote as a cabal of powerful men tell you that you must, and you may think I'm throwing away mine for hopelessly challenging the two party system, the insidious institution that our first president correctly prophecied would one day split this nation asunder if it were allowed to fester. But at the end of the day, we are only countrymen insofar as we both make it to the ballot box and commit ourselves to the best decision our reason and hope can lead us to. I hope you would agree, and I think you do. Absent that privilege, we are not truly citizens at all, only residents in an oligarch's playground.