US Politics: 2017 Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Libtards, SJWs, femenazis, special snowflakes.

Are we pretending that it's only left that uses terms to paint huge groups? And are we pretending that actual bad groups don't exist because some people use the label incorrectly?

Certainly not me, unless you're only reading a portion of my posts.

Here let me help.
libtards: 2012
feminazis: Clinton era
SJW's 2008

also
communist: 1960
nattering nabobs: 1970s (my personal favorite)

**Co'tor Shas**

Frazzled wrote:
What detracts from real use is when that word is then used willy nilly. Its like the Clinton 'Deplorables' comment.

True enough. I do tend to personally use it for actual members of the group, but it certainly gets thrown around a lot more than it should.

More importantly to your issue, the clock is ticking. If improvements are not made in a short period of time, those voters will fall by the wayside and the Democrats will regain power. Considering Trump's approval ratings are fluttering (depending on poll) time may be short indeed.

I can only hope so, but I worry. If anybody can feth something like this up, it's the democrats. And a group like this getting any power at all is concerning. It's like communists (actual, "seize the means" "kill the bourgeoisie" communists) getting into power.

**Frazzled**

Easy E wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
@Color Shas: You are ignoring the fact that many people who are identified as alt-right voice opposition to white supremacy and do not take a position on isolationism.

Anti-progressivism does not mean white supremacy, or isolationism. It does not mean you are threatened by equality.

"Alt-right" is too vague a term to be helpful, and I question the motives of people who want to lump everyone they don't agree with with an "alt-right stamp".

I hope you also question the motives of those who throw around the term SJW, liberal, conservative, progressive, and libertarian as well. We should always wonder what the agenda each group is pushing is, and then align ourselves witht he one we think fits our needs best at the moment.

I think we can easily categorize anyone throwing a term for people (except for hippy tree hugger because thats one thousand percent accurate!

) is not coming to the discussion with an open mind (at best) and ulterior motives (at worst).

**jasper76**

d-usa wrote:
Libtards, SJWs, femenazis, special snowflakes.

Are we pretending that it's only left that uses terms to paint huge groups? And are we pretending that actual bad groups don't exist because some people use the label incorrectly?

No, I'm just asserting that "alt-right" means different things to different people. I'd prefer if people called white supremacists "white supremacists", isolationist "isolationists", anti-SJWs "anti-SJWs", etc. so I know what the hell people are talking about. Without a concrete definition of the term "alt-right", I have to proceed from the assumption that it means "people I don't agree with", because as it stands, everyone has their own working definition of what "alt-right" means, and therefore it's not a helpful phrase in conversation.

I've personally and correctly been taken to task for using the term "the left" too broadly, and I've tried to adjust my phrasing to better indicate what I mean accordingly. I'm just suggesting that other people do the same instead of using the phrase "alt-right".

**d-usa**

But that's like saying we shouldn't use "conservatives" because we should call pro-lifers pro-life, anti-gun control folks anti-gun control, call budget hawks budget hawks, etc.

You can be isolationist without being alt-right. Heck, look at Frazzled, he's about as isolationist as they come, that doesn't make him part of the alt-right.

The alt-right does, however, contain a broad group of people who share certain defining characteristics and who engage in certain behaviors. And just like other ideologies there are differences and overlaps: alt-right, evangelicals, millennials, baby-boomers, etc.

**jasper76**

d-usa wrote:
But that's like saying we shouldn't use "conservatives" because we should call pro-lifers pro-life, anti-gun control folks anti-gun control, call budget hawks budget hawks, etc.

You can be isolationist without being alt-right. Heck, look at Frazzled, he's about as isolationist as they come, that doesn't make him part of the alt-right.

The alt-right does, however, contain a broad group of people who share certain defining characteristics and who engage in certain behaviors. And just like other ideologies there are differences and overlaps: alt-right, evangelicals, millennials, baby-boomers, etc.

Fair enough. I've said my peace. Does that mean I can start saying "the left" again without everybody and their mama jumping down my throat?

In any case, I won't do it, because I understand the point of the people who criticized me for it, and I think it's more helpful in conversation to use phrases that everyone agrees to the meaning of.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

A United States of America, confident in its values, and confident in its long history of democracy, respect for the rule of law, and its unwavering belief in the 1st amendment, would not give two hoots for alt-right, SJW, or any other modern name tag.

It would confidently accept these developments in its stride, recognizing them as being part and parcel of a free society, the majority of its citizens disagreeing with such views, but defending the rights of these people to say these things.

Sadly, Western Democracies, not just the USA, are losing faith, undermining their own values, or forgetting what made them great in the first place.

That is the problem here...

**Frazzled**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A United States of America, confident in its values, and confident in its long history of democracy, respect for the rule of law, and its unwavering belief in the 1st amendment, would not give two hoots for alt-right, SJW, or any other modern name tag.

It would confidently accept these developments in its stride, recognizing them as being part and parcel of a free society, the majority of its citizens disagreeing with such views, but defending the rights of these people to say these things.

Sadly, Western Democracies, not just the USA, are losing faith, undermining their own values, or forgetting what made them great in the first place.

That is the problem here...

WHAT THE

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

**jasper76**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It would confidently accept these developments in its stride, recognizing them as being part and parcel of a free society, the majority of its citizens disagreeing with such views, but defending the rights of these people to say these things.

It is indeed a sad development that this particular value is eroding. "I may disagree with what you say, but I'd die for your right to say it" used to be an axiom regardless of political affiliation. This is giving way to "I may disagree with what you say, and I will do everything in my power to make sure you can't say it."

**Ensis Ferrae**

d-usa wrote:
But that's like saying we shouldn't use "conservatives" because we should call pro-lifers pro-life, anti-gun control folks anti-gun control, call budget hawks budget hawks, etc.

You can be isolationist without being alt-right. Heck, look at Frazzled, he's about as isolationist as they come, that doesn't make him part of the alt-right.

The alt-right does, however, contain a broad group of people who share certain defining characteristics and who engage in certain behaviors. And just like other ideologies there are differences and overlaps: alt-right, evangelicals, millennials, baby-boomers, etc.

Best example I can give here: All terrorists are extremists, but not all extremists are terrorists.

@Do I Not Like That... and while we see undermining activity from both sides of the political spectrum, it seems to me that we have more people who claim to be all about individual rights, willingly and happily signing them away from themselves because "Gosh darnit, we can't let those turrorists kill ma dog and burn ma trailer! Our 200 person town is a major target!!!!" Things like the Patriot Act, the "war on drugs" and so many other things were actually cheered on by a significant portion of people, we have been in the business of trading freedoms for "security" for years now.

**Frazzled**

jasper76 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It would confidently accept these developments in its stride, recognizing them as being part and parcel of a free society, the majority of its citizens disagreeing with such views, but defending the rights of these people to say these things.

It is indeed a sad development that this particular value is eroding. "I may disagree with what you say, but I'd die for your right to say it" used to be an axiom regardless of political affiliation. This is giving way to "I may disagree with what you say, and I will do everything in my power to make sure you can't say it."

That has been old hat in the US. There has never been this mythical time where this was the case. Thats why the First Amendment was so special.

After all if it weren't an issue we wouldn't have had Skokie, ill, or the ultimate I disagree with you" the American Civil War.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
d-usa wrote:
But that's like saying we shouldn't use "conservatives" because we should call pro-lifers pro-life, anti-gun control folks anti-gun control, call budget hawks budget hawks, etc.

You can be isolationist without being alt-right. Heck, look at Frazzled, he's about as isolationist as they come, that doesn't make him part of the alt-right.

The alt-right does, however, contain a broad group of people who share certain defining characteristics and who engage in certain behaviors. And just like other ideologies there are differences and overlaps: alt-right, evangelicals, millennials, baby-boomers, etc.

Best example I can give here: All terrorists are extremists, but not all extremists are terrorists.

@Do I Not Like That... and while we see undermining activity from both sides of the political spectrum, it seems to me that we have more people who claim to be all about individual rights, willingly and happily signing them away from themselves because "Gosh darnit, we can't let those turrorists kill ma dog and burn ma trailer! Our 200 person town is a major target!!!!" Things like the Patriot Act, the "war on drugs" and so many other things were actually cheered on by a significant portion of people, we have been in the business of trading freedoms for "security" for years now.

Trailers...God's favorite plaything.

**whembly**

Interesting...
Trump haters: Please do these 2 thought experiments.

1. Imagine a President Trump whose policies all accord with your own. Substantively, he's like, perhaps, Barack Obama. He'll appoint the Supreme Court Justice who will give the liberal faction a decisive 5-person majority. He's very accepting of undocumented immigrants, committed to Obamacare, etc. etc. — whatever it is that you like. But he has all the personal characteristics of Donald Trump. He entered politics from a successful business career, funded his own campaign using his private wealth, and figured out how to do politics on the fly, making mistakes and correcting his course. He got knocked around in the press and by party insiders who wanted to stop him, but he kept going, overcoming 16 opponents. He had his own way of talking and he took it straight to the people, with hundreds of rallies, and he especially connected with working class people. They just loved him, as the elite shook their heads, because he didn't have the diplomacy and elegance they'd come to expect from a President. Be honest now. How would you like this man? How would you speak about his personal style?

2. Imagine a President Trump with all of the substantive policies of the real Donald Trump — all of them, exactly the same. But this Donald Trump meets your stylistic ideal. He looks, acts, and speaks the way you picture a perfect President. He never seems at all rude or crude or imprecise in his words. His tone — you know the word 'tone'? — is well-modulated. His sentences are the right length, his vocabulary large without verging into show-offiness. He seems confident, but not arrogant. He's nice looking and the right age, perhaps 58, and his wife, who's only exactly as good-looking as he is, is almost the same age. He's got what everyone regards as a "good temperament." He's on task and organized — his administration is up and running like a fine-tuned machine — and putting through all these policies that you loathe and dread. What would you be saying about this Donald Trump?

Experiment #1... I got nothing... before, Trump running for GOP ticket, I imagined him being that NY Billionaire Liberal.

Experiment #2... this one's easy, it's:

Spoiler:

**skyth**

jasper76 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It would confidently accept these developments in its stride, recognizing them as being part and parcel of a free society, the majority of its citizens disagreeing with such views, but defending the rights of these people to say these things.

It is indeed a sad development that this particular value is eroding. "I may disagree with what you say, but I'd die for your right to say it" used to be an axiom regardless of political affiliation. This is giving way to "I may disagree with what you say, and I will do everything in my power to make sure you can't say it."

Calling a spade a spade is not preventing them from saying stuff that shows that they are a spade.

**jasper76**

Frazzled wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It would confidently accept these developments in its stride, recognizing them as being part and parcel of a free society, the majority of its citizens disagreeing with such views, but defending the rights of these people to say these things.

It is indeed a sad development that this particular value is eroding. "I may disagree with what you say, but I'd die for your right to say it" used to be an axiom regardless of political affiliation. This is giving way to "I may disagree with what you say, and I will do everything in my power to make sure you can't say it."

That has been old hat in the US. There has never been this mythical time where this was the case. Thats why the First Amendment was so special.

After all if it weren't an issue we wouldn't have had Skokie, ill, or the ultimate I disagree with you" the American Civil War.

I don't know...for my part, I was raised with this value, and it was promoted in my education as an axiom. Maybe I am a special case.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Frazzled wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A United States of America, confident in its values, and confident in its long history of democracy, respect for the rule of law, and its unwavering belief in the 1st amendment, would not give two hoots for alt-right, SJW, or any other modern name tag.

It would confidently accept these developments in its stride, recognizing them as being part and parcel of a free society, the majority of its citizens disagreeing with such views, but defending the rights of these people to say these things.

Sadly, Western Democracies, not just the USA, are losing faith, undermining their own values, or forgetting what made them great in the first place.

That is the problem here...

WHAT THE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

What jasper76 said.

**Frazzled**

jasper76 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It would confidently accept these developments in its stride, recognizing them as being part and parcel of a free society, the majority of its citizens disagreeing with such views, but defending the rights of these people to say these things.

It is indeed a sad development that this particular value is eroding. "I may disagree with what you say, but I'd die for your right to say it" used to be an axiom regardless of political affiliation. This is giving way to "I may disagree with what you say, and I will do everything in my power to make sure you can't say it."

That has been old hat in the US. There has never been this mythical time where this was the case. Thats why the First Amendment was so special.

After all if it weren't an issue we wouldn't have had Skokie, ill, or the ultimate I disagree with you" the American Civil War.

I don't know...for my part, I was raised with this value, and it was promoted in my education as an axiom. Maybe I am a special case.

You are to an extent.

Most people want others to do what they say. We used to be constrained by moral codes and local laws with the federal government not being involved. Now we have local laws, state laws, and federal laws. Ask the Black Panthers, LGs, abolitionists etc how their rights were viewed. Ask the Mormons why they were driven way out to the Devil's hole of Utah (ok it might be nice but its a desert and hot and literally nowhere when they ended up there-the freaking gulag). Some strive for it, and defend it, but by and large, nope.

**d-usa**

Both scenarios still give you a liar, an angry man child, someone who says he can grab women by the pussy, someone who says he wouldn't assault ugly women, and someone who panders to the alt-right.

It's almost like the article leaves out the main issues people have with him, but I guess my main problem with the lying pussy grabbing man-child is that he is Republican?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

jasper76 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It would confidently accept these developments in its stride, recognizing them as being part and parcel of a free society, the majority of its citizens disagreeing with such views, but defending the rights of these people to say these things.

It is indeed a sad development that this particular value is eroding. "I may disagree with what you say, but I'd die for your right to say it" used to be an axiom regardless of political affiliation. This is giving way to "I may disagree with what you say, and I will do everything in my power to make sure you can't say it."

I'm glad somebody sees the bigger picture.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Both scenarios still give you a liar, an angry man child, someone who says he can grab women by the pussy, someone who says he wouldn't assault ugly women, and someone who panders to the alt-right.

It's almost like the article leaves out the main issues people have with him, but I guess my main problem with the lying pussy grabbing man-child is that he is Republican?

Except he's not a Republican. He's a statist NYer. Reagan would punch him right in the face.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

skyth wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It would confidently accept these developments in its stride, recognizing them as being part and parcel of a free society, the majority of its citizens disagreeing with such views, but defending the rights of these people to say these things.

It is indeed a sad development that this particular value is eroding. "I may disagree with what you say, but I'd die for your right to say it" used to be an axiom regardless of political affiliation. This is giving way to "I may disagree with what you say, and I will do everything in my power to make sure you can't say it."

Calling a spade a spade is not preventing them from saying stuff that shows that they are a spade.

By all means call a racist a racist, but nation with a 1st amendment like yours, has to allow a racist to hold racist views, however distasteful you and I find them to be.

Without free speech, even free speech you disagree with, the free society is dead.

**Vaktathi**

jasper76 wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Hrm, there very much is an alt-right, and many that will claim to be a part of it openly. The idea that it's some sort of canard to broad-brush paint "the right" as nazi's is...a deflection without basis in reality. These people exist, acknowledge this effort as a real and coordinated effort, and many accept this label. This "deep state" sounds exactly like what the author is attempting to portray the "alt-right" as, instead of simply accepting that large segments of the population don't like Trump and is looking for a way to simply blanket label and then dismiss them.

The problem is, no-one can really provide a definition of what "alt-right" means. Is it the YouTube kids talking about anti-SJW stuff who claim to oppose racism and sexism? Is it legit white supremacists like the Spencer guy? Is it people whose primary motivation is protecting US labor? Is it Trump supporters in general?

thats because there isnt one, just like there isnt ine single definiton of BLM or "conservatives" or "progressives" or anything else. It's a movement with inherent contradictions like many others, but it exists nonetheless.

Many articles call it a "vaguely defined" group, which isn't helpful. And in particular, the lumping in of white supremacists is not helpful, because most of the "alt-right" people I see online are against white supremacy.

To me, it means "people that I don't agree witb" until someone can come up with a satisfactory definition of what the hell it is they are talking about.

mostly it generally seems to be "people who want to be able to say vile, terrible and insane things about other people (mostly about people who arent white males) and be praised for it and think government is the root of all evil" to me, with strong nationalist, and social/economic isolationist themes.

Some of these are actual nazis (Spencer) or similar kinds of racists, others are overreactions to stuffy workplace political correctness, some are just longstanding casual racists or mysoginists (who may not be overtly advocating for racist policies but who dont hesistate to strongly view the world through racial or gender lenses, think that awkward uncle at thanksgiving who's normally fine until someone mentions the word "Hillary"), and other such types. They arent a single cohesive group that all fits one mold anymore than any other movement, but there are consistent and strong racial, gender, and social threads that link their views.

Its a culture war movement, with all the contradictions, strange bedfellows, and viciousness that entails. That doesnt mean its just "people I dont agree with", there are plenty who embrace that label and that label originated with the group, it wasnt applied by outside "others".

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
d-usa wrote:
But that's like saying we shouldn't use "conservatives" because we should call pro-lifers pro-life, anti-gun control folks anti-gun control, call budget hawks budget hawks, etc.

You can be isolationist without being alt-right. Heck, look at Frazzled, he's about as isolationist as they come, that doesn't make him part of the alt-right.

The alt-right does, however, contain a broad group of people who share certain defining characteristics and who engage in certain behaviors. And just like other ideologies there are differences and overlaps: alt-right, evangelicals, millennials, baby-boomers, etc.

Best example I can give here: All terrorists are extremists, but not all extremists are terrorists.

@Do I Not Like That... and while we see undermining activity from both sides of the political spectrum, it seems to me that we have more people who claim to be all about individual rights, willingly and happily signing them away from themselves because "Gosh darnit, we can't let those turrorists kill ma dog and burn ma trailer! Our 200 person town is a major target!!!!" Things like the Patriot Act, the "war on drugs" and so many other things were actually cheered on by a significant portion of people, we have been in the business of trading freedoms for "security" for years now.

Sadly, you are right. If you're American, you're more likely to be struck by lightning, shot by a toddler with a gun, or shot by a dog, than you are to be killed by a terrorist attack carried out by foreigners.

The irony is that the founders warned against this: those who trade liberty for security will have neither liberty nor security. They were a smart bunch.

**d-usa**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
skyth wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It would confidently accept these developments in its stride, recognizing them as being part and parcel of a free society, the majority of its citizens disagreeing with such views, but defending the rights of these people to say these things.

It is indeed a sad development that this particular value is eroding. "I may disagree with what you say, but I'd die for your right to say it" used to be an axiom regardless of political affiliation. This is giving way to "I may disagree with what you say, and I will do everything in my power to make sure you can't say it."

Calling a spade a spade is not preventing them from saying stuff that shows that they are a spade.

By all means call a racist a racist, but nation with a 1st amendment like yours, has to allow a racist to hold racist views, however distasteful you and I find them to be.

And there has been nothing new that has disallowed someone from holding a racist view. Milo is a free man and is facing no criminal charges.

Without free speech, even free speech you disagree with, the free society is dead.

People in the US have spoken out against speech they disagree with since before the Articles of Confederation were signed.

**Witzkatz**

I'm still not getting where exactly free speech is supposedly limited right now on any actual scale, not counting violent individuals causing local riots. I don't see the government action to silence journalists like in Turkey, or propaganda influencing people to suppress their fellow citizen's opinions on a large scale with threats of violence or ratting them out to authorities of some kind.

**Frazzled**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
d-usa wrote:
But that's like saying we shouldn't use "conservatives" because we should call pro-lifers pro-life, anti-gun control folks anti-gun control, call budget hawks budget hawks, etc.

You can be isolationist without being alt-right. Heck, look at Frazzled, he's about as isolationist as they come, that doesn't make him part of the alt-right.

The alt-right does, however, contain a broad group of people who share certain defining characteristics and who engage in certain behaviors. And just like other ideologies there are differences and overlaps: alt-right, evangelicals, millennials, baby-boomers, etc.

Best example I can give here: All terrorists are extremists, but not all extremists are terrorists.

@Do I Not Like That... and while we see undermining activity from both sides of the political spectrum, it seems to me that we have more people who claim to be all about individual rights, willingly and happily signing them away from themselves because "Gosh darnit, we can't let those turrorists kill ma dog and burn ma trailer! Our 200 person town is a major target!!!!" Things like the Patriot Act, the "war on drugs" and so many other things were actually cheered on by a significant portion of people, we have been in the business of trading freedoms for "security" for years now.

Sadly, you are right. If you're American, you're more likely to be struck by lightning, shot by a toddler with a gun, or shot by a dog, than you are to be killed by a terrorist attack carried out by foreigners.

The irony is that the founders warned against this: those who trade liberty for security will have neither liberty nor security. They were a smart bunch.

However I've already been in car accidents with at least two illegal aliens who didn't have insurance and live in a state with heavy cartel organized crime activity so...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Witzkatz wrote:
I'm still not getting where exactly free speech is supposedly limited right now on any actual scale, not counting violent individuals causing local riots. I don't see the government action to silence journalists like in Turkey, or propaganda influencing people to suppress their fellow citizen's opinions on a large scale with threats of violence or ratting them out to authorities of some kind.

Evidently journalists are sensitive flowers who don't like it when they are called poopy faces. Way better than the previous administration which tried to get them on felonies.

**A Town Called Malus**

So this is currently trending on Facebook:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/21/supreme-court-us-mexico-border-shooting/98194778/

Seems very dangerous to have a situation where Border control agents on either side of the border can shoot into the next door country without those on the other side having any recourse to justice.

Also, the argument that:

Lower courts have said that because Hernández was a Mexican citizen in Mexico, he lacked constitutional protection against unreasonable use of deadly force under the 4th Amendment, as well as due process rights under the 5th Amendment.

I find incredibly chilling. Sure there will be a whole can of worms to extending the protections of the constitution beyond the US border but still, to argue that it grants zero protection against US police officers shooting you, regardless of whether it is justified by US law, in your own country is quite cold.

Brought an image to mind of illegals being herded over the border to then be gunned down by machine gun fire, a la The Great Escape. Obviously that won't happen but still, scary.

**Kanluwen**

Frazzled wrote:

Witzkatz wrote:
I'm still not getting where exactly free speech is supposedly limited right now on any actual scale, not counting violent individuals causing local riots. I don't see the government action to silence journalists like in Turkey, or propaganda influencing people to suppress their fellow citizen's opinions on a large scale with threats of violence or ratting them out to authorities of some kind.

Evidently journalists are sensitive flowers who don't like it when they are called poopy faces.

Yes, because it's the journalists' fault that the administration and its members can't handle being criticized.

Way better than the previous administration which tried to get them on felonies.

Can you cite some specific cases here? Most of what I'm remembering didn't go after the journalists, but those who leaked information to them.

**Frazzled**

Its not a legal case. Its a dispute between nations.

Border agents routinely have been fired on by Mexican military units including copters.

**Co'tor Shas**

whembly wrote:
Interesting...
Trump haters: Please do these 2 thought experiments.

1. Imagine a President Trump whose policies all accord with your own. Substantively, he's like, perhaps, Barack Obama. He'll appoint the Supreme Court Justice who will give the liberal faction a decisive 5-person majority. He's very accepting of undocumented immigrants, committed to Obamacare, etc. etc. — whatever it is that you like. But he has all the personal characteristics of Donald Trump. He entered politics from a successful business career, funded his own campaign using his private wealth, and figured out how to do politics on the fly, making mistakes and correcting his course. He got knocked around in the press and by party insiders who wanted to stop him, but he kept going, overcoming 16 opponents. He had his own way of talking and he took it straight to the people, with hundreds of rallies, and he especially connected with working class people. They just loved him, as the elite shook their heads, because he didn't have the diplomacy and elegance they'd come to expect from a President. Be honest now. How would you like this man? How would you speak about his personal style?

2. Imagine a President Trump with all of the substantive policies of the real Donald Trump — all of them, exactly the same. But this Donald Trump meets your stylistic ideal. He looks, acts, and speaks the way you picture a perfect President. He never seems at all rude or crude or imprecise in his words. His tone — you know the word 'tone'? — is well-modulated. His sentences are the right length, his vocabulary large without verging into show-offiness. He seems confident, but not arrogant. He's nice looking and the right age, perhaps 58, and his wife, who's only exactly as good-looking as he is, is almost the same age. He's got what everyone regards as a "good temperament." He's on task and organized — his administration is up and running like a fine-tuned machine — and putting through all these policies that you loathe and dread. What would you be saying about this Donald Trump?

Experiment #1... I got nothing... before, Trump running for GOP ticket, I imagined him being that NY Billionaire Liberal.

Experiment #2... this one's easy, it's:

Spoiler:

#1: They seem to have a very rose-tinted view of Trump, IMO. Him being a brash outsider isn't the problem, it's the complete lack of self-control, ignorance, sexism, and general horribleness that makes Trump repugnant. If you had an actual "Trump, but liberal," I'd be voting for the Republican HRC equivalent (so Someone like Romney, or Jeb Bush).

#2: I'd be against his policies still (because they are gak polices), but I wound't be against him on a personal level (well, it depends on if his views are still as repugnant).

**CptJake**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
So this is currently trending on Facebook:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/21/supreme-court-us-mexico-border-shooting/98194778/

Seems very dangerous to have a situation where Border control agents on either side of the border can shoot into the next door country without those on the other side having any recourse to justice.

Having lived in el Paso from 1999-2002 I can tell you there were cases back then of folks in Mexican police uniforms and vehicles shooting at border patrol and other US federal agents to suppress them to enable narcos. At times they very deliberately crossed onto the US side a few hundred meters. We didn't have much legal recourse back then either.