Mountain West Microbrew: Chit chat and irrelevancy

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I think Kurdish secession in southeastern Turkey is about as likely as a Palestinian state. If the honest message to the Palestinian people is, "Want a state? Move to Amman." then I suppose the message to Turkish Kurds would be "move to Erbil."

Turkey is bombing Kurds in Syria and it will do its best to stop a Kurdish state in Iraq. They're trying to keep them from getting any cookies from the cookie jar.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

They're trying to keep them from getting any cookies from the cookie jar.

Except for basically funding the Kurdish Regional Government. Turkey does that also.

[Cirrus]

It's really hard to take seriously the opinion of anyone who calls her "Hitlery."

[ToysNoiz]

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Except for basically funding the Kurdish Regional Government. Turkey does that also.

Isn't that basically like saying that the US Federal Government is helping to fund the State of Utah which happens to be ran my Mormons (not an ethnicity but the analogy stands)?

Assad is also giving the Kurds a province to run, the one where all the Kurds already live.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

Isn't that basically like saying that the US Federal Government is helping to fund the State of Utah which happens to be ran my Mormons (not an ethnicity but the analogy stands)?

No? The Kurdish Regional Government is an Iraqi federal region, organized under the Iraqi constitution, comprised of the three predominantly Kurdish provinces in northern Iraq. (They have a different language, different constitution, you name it - the religious loyalties of Iraqi provinces are not at all analagous to Mormons in Utah. Their political parties are religion-based, for crying out loud. There is no separation of church and state in Iraq.) Anyways, the KRG hasn't been getting their payments from Baghdad from some time now. So they've been supplementing with direct trade and oil sales to Turkey. If Turkey was all that concerned about propping up Kurds in northern Iraq, they could just stop the flow of money and let them starve. But better to have a stable quasi-ally on your border, particularly when you're worried about an ethnically-aligned minority in your own southern provinces.

[s.p.hansen]

Well, I hope Turkey would let a Kurdish state in Iraq happen because I think they'd do a hell of a job not unlike the Israelis. They are a very self determined people. I also think having some kind of Kurdish state would release the pressure in neighboring states with Kurdish people.

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

It's really hard to take seriously the opinion of anyone who calls her "Hitlery."

I thought it was a pretty funny pun. Do you disagree with the premise of my post, that she has been nothing but inconsistent and dishonest ?


150 million in IRS declared income for the Clinton's since they left office. Try much, much harder. I mean, look at both of them. He wears crappy suits and barely spent money on haircuts until recently. They don't spend a month in a 40,000 dollar rental in the Hamptons every summer, like the Clintons. Please. It's so fucking obvious.
Edit: Sorry, my bad, that Hamptons rental was 100,000 dollars for two weeks. (Holy shit!) http://time.com/money/4002916/hillar...cation-rental/. Fuck, if I paid that kind of money, it would be two chicks at the same time, all the time, but, different chicks each time.

Oh, and this was just a quick Google result about the sleazy foundation contributions while she was Sec of State. Such arrogance. Like the emails, it's just like, I do this because, well, I can. Whatcha goin to do bout it?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ca6_story.html


Bernie at least seems like he gives a shit about the average American. I understand many of his policies are unrealistic but at least he isn't in Goldman Sach's pockets. Nevermind hitlery's constantly changing opinion on everything from foreign to domestic policy.


"Consistent policy" my ass

[Sam Hill]

Well, I guess this thread is ruined.

[transistor]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Well, I guess this thread is ruined.

They should build a streetcar network that serves to take me from my house to Comrade Brewing Co.

That place has a fantastic IPA.

[Cirrus]

To be funny a joke like that has to be well-meaning. Mean-spirited character assassination jokes are not really jokes, and therefore are not really funny. In any event, I'm not interested in character assassination. Nor am I interested in populism for populism's sake. I'm interested in policy and how to achieve it.

It's not that I don't like Bernie's policies. I do. Regulating and taxing Wall Street more would absolutely create more net American wealth than it destroyed. That's all well and good. But if the Obama administration has taught me one thing, it's that the main way the president can be effective is in how they administer the unsexy federal bureaucracy. Congress will be deadlocked with any Democrat president, but in the meantime the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration and a lot of other people wield tremendous meaningful powers that affect the actual day-to-day operation of the country, and do legitimately move it in the correct direction.

Obama's attempts at revolutionary hope and change mostly failed, but his attempts to change things slowly and steadily using the bureaucracy to its full advantage have been far more successful than he generally gets credit for. I care about that. I care about those results. And like it or not, slow but steady actual movement in the correct direction is more effective than trying to force a never-going-to-happen-anyway revolution.

So we have Hillary, who can produce slow but steady results but doesn't inspire revolution. And we have Bernie, who's very inspiring but who's shown absolutely zero interest or competence in actually governing. He's a lollipop candidate who's very sweet but has no meat. I do not trust him to operate the federal bureaucracy competently, which I believe is the supreme responsibility and secret weapon of the presidency. I'm glad he's run, to pull Hillary to the left and keep her sharp. I like the things he's said, and I'd certainly vote for him over any Republican who's been in the race. But given the choice I'll take a competent liberal administrator over a thought exercise every time.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

So we have Hillary, who can produce slow but steady results but doesn't inspire revolution. And we have Bernie, who's very inspiring but who's shown absolutely zero interest or competence in actually governing. He's a lollipop candidate who's very sweet but has no meat. I do not trust him to operate the federal bureaucracy competently, which I believe is the supreme responsibility and secret weapon of the presidency. I'm glad he's run, to pull Hillary to the left and keep her sharp. I like the things he's said, and I'd certainly vote for him over any Republican who's been in the race. But given the choice I'll take a competent liberal administrator over a thought exercise every time.

I like Bernie because Democrats have been on the retreat from addressing income inequality and matters of the working class since Reagan. Bill Clinton brought the Democrats back but they were playing in Reagan's homefield. The fact that Republicans are calling a private sector policy solution for poor accessibility to healthcare coverage "socialist" is just more evidence of us moving the goal posts deeper in Republican territory. What has set Obama apart from Bill Clinton is that he weathered an economic storm rivaling Reagan's with steadyness and he oversaw the death of the social conservative sacred cow of enshrined anti gay marriage legislation. And I don't think we can underestimate the chaos that has ensued for the Republican voting coalition, that Trump is a product of, if we don't see how gay marriage has lost its ability to animate and distract party members.

Hillary is running on a third term of Obama, which isn't bad, but it really isn't good either. This country overvalued how long it could strip away manufacturing jobs and keep "entry level" job wages stagnant in a dash towards a yearly percentage point increase in profits to report for its shareholders. We moved far beyond greedy corrupt unions and overpaid GM car employees to the other extreme. And we're seeing the average American's purchasing power diminished. Its become clear that a two layer economy based on white collar and service sector employees isn't cutting it right now for GDP growth in the private sector. At least not while we think of these service jobs as "entry jobs" that people should grow out of or that newer Mexicans to this country should work. We have to take seriously the real peril we're in if we don't deal with diminishing purchasing power of the people who are working service jobs and many white collar jobs. At some point if we don't there aren't going to be Macy's anymore nor Nordstrom. All we're going to have left are areas of growth in high end luxuary for much more affluent people who are increasingly making more of the new income generated in America.

The rise of Bernie and Trump is a product of a failure to launch of young white collar workers and younger working class Americans with college debt and less prospects than the previous generation or they're older working class men who didn't get the trickle down benefits promised since Reagan. It's not a vote over who is more fascist or socialist, it's about who is talking to people who aren't takers and making just enough to be paying 25% in taxes and not enough to be paying 35% (the same segment of people getting the most screwed by the Affordable Care Act). What Bernie is doing right now is making Clinton better and showing her where her base is. If he doesn't win she'll be a better candidate and hopefully President (though her sticking with her new base while in the Oval Office seems no different than a gamble that Trump will suddenly stop demagoguing once he gets there).

At the end of the day look at TPP and see what status quo we are trying to protect vs other countries. For the USA it's all about intellectual property, lawyer stuff, Bunt stuff, not to be confused with butt stuff. If we look at working class protections, you come up with the same trend of deregulating we've seen coinciding with wage stagnation for over 40 years. Who likes these agreements? Every President since Nixon.

[bunt_q]

It's worth reminding younger folks that before Clinton and the New Democrats brought the party back to the center, the Democrats were on the edge of an abyss, seen as unelectable, and on the verge of extinction. Just because Republicans are doing that to themselves now does not mean that the fundamentals have changed and the country as a whole is seeking a leftist revolution. If you want to bring the Republicans back, the best thing you could do for them is move the Democratic Party back toward the far left where it was pre-Clinton.

There was an interesting article in the Guardian the other day on this: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...-election-2016

Bernie has been in Congress through all of this and accomplished exactly nothing. I assume you saw that interview in the New York Daily News? There's a reason Bernie can't answer basic questions about how he'd implement any of his plans - he's never had to even think about that, because it's impossible, and he knows this from decades of experience failing at it.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Bernie has been in Congress through all of this and accomplished exactly nothing. I assume you saw that interview in the New York Daily News? There's a reason Bernie can't answer basic questions about how he'd implement any of his plans - he's never had to even think about that, because it's impossible, and he knows this from decades of experience failing at it.

Bernie is the left's equivalent of Ron Paul- an ideologue who is utterly ineffective in doing the job (to govern) that he's held for his entire life.

Good for talking points, lousy at actually getting anything done.

[s.p.hansen]

I would think if any forum would appreciate executive experience, it would be this forum respecting the experience of being a mayor. Bernie was a great mayor and left a lasting impact on his city. Kind of like Denver's Governor...


What Kind of Mayor was Bernie Sanders?

In his eight years as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, Bernie Sanders revitalized the economy and solidified support for progressive municipal policies.

http://www.thenation.com/article/ber...inable-future/

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Bernie is the left's equivalent of Ron Paul- an ideologue who is utterly ineffective in doing the job (to govern) that he's held for his entire life.

I think that's exactly right.

And the thing is, that's an important function. Both parties need that. The Oval Office just isn't the place for those guys.

[Cirrus]

The executive experience you get being the mayor of Burlington VT, population 40,000, is approximately equal in relevance to a presidential election to the executive experience you get being mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The executive experience you get being the mayor of Burlington VT, population 40,000, is approximately equal in relevance to a presidential election to the executive experience you get being mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

It made him a great retail politician and we can look at the transformation of the city under his partnership with the private sector. It's still more organic than First Lady Clinton landing out of abstraction in New York and becoming senator. And it explains in contrast why she keeps losing against "impossible" alternatives like a black man and a Jew.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

And it explains in contrast why she keeps losing against "impossible" alternatives like a black man and a Jew.

Another possible explanation is that behind the many cults of personality Hillary keeps finding herself up against is a rampant sexism that's still prevalent in America. The results in Wisconsin bear this out - 50/50 among women, but 64/35 in favor of Sanders among men. I think many people, women in particular, accept that America was probably ready for a black president before a female one. Men, particularity young white men, have a harder time accepting this.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Another possible explanation is that behind the many cults of personality Hillary keeps finding herself up against is a rampant sexism that's still prevalent in America. The results in Wisconsin bear this out - 50/50 among women, but 64/35 in favor of Sanders among men.

This is an interesting assertion; do you think Democrats are more sexist than Rebublicans? Let's say Rebublicans had year without Trump and Nikki Haley ran instead. I think she could easily have become the nominee.