3 ms·

I'd posit that Jan 20 2017 marked the beginning of the end. It's a daily challenge to keep track and not spiral into despair. It's not just that one man, it's

by pstuart 9mo ago

I'd posit that Jan 20 2017 marked the beginning of the end. It's a daily challenge to keep track and not spiral into despair. It's not just that one man, it's that so many citizens love him. It truly boggles the mind.

jacquesm 9mo ago
It does indeed, and I agree that is a good alternative date but a lot of people still had the excuse that they did not know how bad it could get. For the re-run they knew exactly what to expect and still voted for it.
- istjohn 9mo ago
  It can always get worse, and it has.
  - jacquesm 9mo ago
    Prediction: it will get worse still.
    - pstuart 9mo ago
      I wish you were wrong but you aren't. The big question is how far until we bottom out, and what does "recovery" look like. The fact that the political divide has grown so that realities do not converge is rather terrifying.
      - jacquesm 9mo ago
        The scala of possible outcomes here is so broad it is terrifying. The best the rest of the world can hope for is that it will remain contained but I think we are already seeing plenty of evidence that will not be the case.
ethbr1 9mo ago
December 12, 2000. The US might have had a president who was knowledgeable about technology and dedicated to solving climate change. Who might have chosen differently about invading Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm sure Gore would have made mistakes, but it's hard to see a path where he wasn't a better president (for the US and for the world) than W Bush.
- myrmidon 9mo ago
  Completeley agree. It's such a stark contrast between Bush senior and junior, too-- GWB put the US on such a bad trajectory (middle east interventionism, surveillance state, etc.), altough 9/11 probably deserves a lot of blame for it. I also blame the republicans for turning elections more and more into polarized shit slinging personalized attacks instead of policy based arguments, and I'd argue that this really took off in the Clinton era, and then got really bad under Obama/Trump.
  - pstuart 9mo ago
    I think that in the scheme of things GHWB was the most qualified and "best" of their offerings I've seen in my many years.
  - boogieknite 9mo ago
    mccain seemed quite respectable and i liked the spirit of his campaign reform efforts. they were probably more strategic than altruistic. on the other hand palin seems like shed fit right in with the clown show conservatives trot out now
- pstuart 9mo ago
  Yep. He made a mistake in conceding as he could have won that battle: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections200...
  - ethbr1 9mo ago
    Yes and no. It would have been corrosive to democracy to fight too hard. Gore cared more about the country than his own ambition. See: Trump

by pstuart 9mo ago

jacquesm 9mo ago

It does indeed, and I agree that is a good alternative date but a lot of people still had the excuse that they did not know how bad it could get. For the re-run they knew exactly what to expect and still voted for it.

istjohn 9mo ago
It can always get worse, and it has.
- jacquesm 9mo ago
  Prediction: it will get worse still.
  - pstuart 9mo ago
    I wish you were wrong but you aren't. The big question is how far until we bottom out, and what does "recovery" look like. The fact that the political divide has grown so that realities do not converge is rather terrifying.
    - jacquesm 9mo ago
      The scala of possible outcomes here is so broad it is terrifying. The best the rest of the world can hope for is that it will remain contained but I think we are already seeing plenty of evidence that will not be the case.

ethbr1 9mo ago

December 12, 2000. The US might have had a president who was knowledgeable about technology and dedicated to solving climate change. Who might have chosen differently about invading Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm sure Gore would have made mistakes, but it's hard to see a path where he wasn't a better president (for the US and for the world) than W Bush.

myrmidon 9mo ago
Completeley agree. It's such a stark contrast between Bush senior and junior, too-- GWB put the US on such a bad trajectory (middle east interventionism, surveillance state, etc.), altough 9/11 probably deserves a lot of blame for it. I also blame the republicans for turning elections more and more into polarized shit slinging personalized attacks instead of policy based arguments, and I'd argue that this really took off in the Clinton era, and then got really bad under Obama/Trump.
- pstuart 9mo ago
  I think that in the scheme of things GHWB was the most qualified and "best" of their offerings I've seen in my many years.
- boogieknite 9mo ago
  mccain seemed quite respectable and i liked the spirit of his campaign reform efforts. they were probably more strategic than altruistic. on the other hand palin seems like shed fit right in with the clown show conservatives trot out now
pstuart 9mo ago
Yep. He made a mistake in conceding as he could have won that battle: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections200...
- ethbr1 9mo ago
  Yes and no. It would have been corrosive to democracy to fight too hard. Gore cared more about the country than his own ambition. See: Trump