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.
Don't worry. Under Trump's new regime only former Trump aids will be allowed to interact with foreign governments. Everyone else who tries will go to jail and all will be as it should be
The Airman wrote: Julian Assange apparently went dark a few hours ago. I hope he's okay!
Hey, remember a few years ago, when Mike Huckabee was calling for him to be executed, and Sean Hannity said he was waging war on the US? Funny how people change once you through out a few pitches for the red team, isn't it?
feth that.
WIkileak is NOT our friend (blue or red).
Assange, Snowden and et. el are enemy of the state. Period.
We have things like Whistle Blower protection laws for a reason.
skyth wrote: I just had an amusing thought...The party that has the mantra that we should privatize everything because anything the government produces is worse and incompetent claims to be upset with someone privatizing their IT security because the government version is more secure...
I am assuming (Dangerous as that is) that you are referring to the Clinton E-mail scandal. If that isn't the case then ignore the next part because it doesn't directly pertain.
Nobody is upset that Clinton used a private IT security company because it wasn't a government one and as we all know government is better.....(Sarcasm)
We are upset because we know that Hillary's server was less secure then GMAIL and the last time I checked Anonymous and other hackers have yet to gain access to SIPPER and HIGHSIDE servers. In fact the only leaks from SIPPER and HIGHSIDE are from government insiders who copy documents off the server and give them to the public (Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden)
On classified networks it is against the regulations to take documents and information directly off the network, either by printing or saving to a CD/Thumb Drive, And it is physically impossible to e-mail it off the server because they aren't connected to other networks (You can't e-mail someone from a SIPPER network onto a regular internet network). That means that in order for Then Secretary of State Clinton to have those documents on her server at home, someone in the IT section had to have violated protocol, regulations and laws in order to move ALL of those documents off a secure network and put them on a regular network. It is not implausible that Mrs Clinton ordered Aids to literally hand jam all of those documents to her because she is wealthy and well connected, but its more likely they used thumb drives. For those who don't know, when you download documents onto a thumb drive or a CD it sends out warning notices across the board to the system administrators and the IT guys (On classified networks) that means that they were complicit in this breach of security as well.
In other words, nobody is mad that it wasn't a private firm, they are mad that Mrs Clinton broke the law, broke the rules, broke the regulations and so far hasn't even had her clearance stripped. Ironically though, almost everyone else involved was given an immunity agreement from the FBI.
This has possibly been the worst, most blatant violation of our justice system by a political candidate ever.
Indeed... what this guy said.
Funny how the most likely close Clintonites who broke the law in acquiring/sending classified information on Clinton's server... received immunity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I was wondering where you got too.I was worried you offed youself insteas of dealing with a Clinton presidency.
Nah... I'm waaaaaaaaay past the acceptance phase.
I'm prepared to do the intellectual-battle during the ear of the HRC Presidency.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Laughing Man wrote: Nah, Clinton had him assassinated and this is merely a clever simulacrum created from his post history.
This has possibly been the worst, most blatant violation of our justice system by a political candidate ever.
bs.
I truly believe HRC's email ordeal and the Clinton Foundations pay-to-play endeavors are worst then Watergate... by several orders of magnitudes.
The fethed up thing? The Republicans nominated Cheeto fething Jesus.
We're so boned.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
infinite_array wrote: So, if Clinton were to be convicted, then it'd be perfectly allowable to go after the people involved with the RNC's email server, right?
...not even remotely the same thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: We can have the same stupid argument every month, or we can agree to ignore the people making the same stupid argument every month.
Or we can making principled arguments.
What you don't have the right to claim is that your rebuttals are the basis of facts... they are, merely opinions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
curran12 wrote: Where's whembly to say that this is how cooperative politics work?
Indeed.
IF the Senate refuses to take up a President's nomination... that's their prerogative. If the President wants his nomination to go through, then simply put up someone agreeable to the Senate.
CptJake wrote: Can you give the links showing that Trump (or his campaign) are in collusion with the Russian secret service to bias the US Presidential Election?
Thanks
That's a tough one. While I have no opinion on Trump, he did call on Russia to hack his opponent. Which then happened. He's also been reading the Russian Times, apparently, since he repeated one of their... frankly questionable articles on the day of publication. One of Russia's more... colorful politicians did claim that America would vote Trump or face Nuclear war.
I'd say that it's not conclusive, but it looks a bit suspicious.
The hack occurred beforeTrump "asked" for Russia to hack his opponent.
However, who's to say the Russia isn't trying to influence our elections? That's the real concern here imo.
Well, of course. There was never any legal or historical precedent to prevent Barack Obama from filling that spot. Since the GOP is already in uncharted waters, why stop there? Why not block appointees for 4 years? Why not 8?
What would force them to act?
If it were me, just give 'em an up/down vote.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Remember how Clinton is a bad choice because she had an insecure email server, and how Trump is really good at cyber?
Objection your honor... Trump doesn't traffic in top fething secret information that compromises US interests.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Obama just mentioned Trump in a speech and whatever, no one cares about that, teams have been picked. What was interesting to me, and saddening, was to see how goddamn old Obama looks now.
He's been in office 8 years and looks like he's aged 30.
December 2007:
Spoiler:
2016:
Spoiler:
I remember this happened to W as well, although not quite as bad.
It makes me wonder more than ever why anyone would even want this gakky job
There must be a certain gravity in being The President. That takes a toll on you.
This message was edited 11 times. Last update was at 2016/10/24 02:18:30
ulgurstasta wrote: As a swede, I would much rather see an American president that co-operates with Russia, then a president that escalate the conflict between NATO and Russia, for obvious reasons.
It's pretty hard to see how Clinton, or really any president since Reagan has 'escalated' conflict with Russia. The current low in relations between the two countries comes from Russia taking expansionary actions, and the US reacting as you'd expect. The only way a more friendly relationship with Russia is possible is if the US decides that it is okay with Russia stops its actions in the Ukraine, or if Russia stops dicking around in other people's countries.
Trump is arguing for the former, which is pretty fething incredible.
Though for Aussies you might be more worried by US/China relations
Yeah. And the issue there is that Trump is 100% wrong about the central friction in the relationship. He thinks only of trade (and only of manufacturing trade weirdly enough). The central issue there is Chinese expansion, and their expansion that is not limited by international rulings against them.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
The result is a forgone conclusion, and short of setting fire to the Declaration of Independence, the presidency is HRC's...
But then what? What happens to the two parties, because there are big questions to ask...
Big questions all around for sure.
The Democrat party has been reduced to being a front for the Clinton foundation.
Nah... the Clinton Foundation is *distinctly* different than the Democratic Party.
One accept $$$ and votes from natives for governmental access...
The other accept $$$ from foreigners for governmental access and preferential treatments.
The GOP was used as a vehicle for a third party candidate, Donald Trump, and its own preferred candidates turned out to be as useful as a bucket of horseback.
And then there is the American people.
Yup. The alt-right has reared it's ugly head right now (note, alt-right isn't conservative by any stretch).
Obviously, I'm no expert on the US, despite my interest in its culture and history, but even to somebody like me, there seems to be two Americas.
The coastal enclaves of California, New York, and New England, and then everybody else in between.
Yup. Everyone "in between" is often labeled as the "Flyover Country".
The in between people are seeing their life expectancy drop, wages stagnate, jobs going, and have generally been left behind by the modern age.
This is not unique to the USA as it's happening right now in my own country.
But I don't think the two main parties speak for anybody these days, I don't think they will hold, I think they will splinter.
The USA is crying out for new parties, but unfortunately, its system is designed for two parties.
Something will have to give...
The splinter won't happen unless someone truly wealthy (or a large enough people pooling resources) build new party. That takes time and money... which MUST start at the bottom up... not, at the top-down.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Regarding "What happens to the R party after Trump?"
Just remember, Conservatism never fails, it can only be failed. After Trump loses, the establishment will try to sweep it all under the rug and simply claim Trump lost because he wasn't Conservative enough! Of course, what that actually means is pretty unclear. They will then go back to doing exactly what they have been doing since W was president and focus on winning state houses, state's governorship, and House seats.
:rolls eye:
You'll likely see another "Tea Party" rising than that... which, if you are honest, drove the GOP victories in the House/Senate/Local States.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You can bet your last dollar that the GOP will change the nomination rules to ensure that people like Donald Trump never again darken the convention hall of the Republican Party.
Easier said than done.
Each local state party has a "say" in HOW the primaries are conducted.
I think the only thing they need to do, is to encourage more CLOSED primaries.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Shadow do you think those planned Parenthood videos were real? Because thay video and this one run in similar veins
Nah... Veritas doesn't have any credibility.
Whereas those Planned Parenthood videos were fething damning and had TWO forensic investigation companies who verified the validity of the released RAW/UNedited videos.
To my knowledge, Veritas never releasd RAW videos... which only perpetuates their lack of credibility.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: At first I thought the idea that Trump was a plant by the Democrats was another crazy right-wing theory. Now I'm not entirely sure. As implausible as it is, man, it's almost the only thing that would explain how Donald Trump has run his campaign.
...asked another way... if he truly was a plant... would he run his campaign any differently? Or, is it simply incompetence?
The former? Sheesh its hard not to believe it... but, Occam Razor is the latter imho...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I actually found it interesting that the left wing sites had such a high concentration of "nonfactual content." Guess the lefties love to banter randomly or something XD
Dude... that's every partisan site... not just the left wingers.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/10/24 02:58:19
Kilkrazy wrote: A lot of Republicans feel so ground down (for whatever reasons) and left behind by conventional government that they are prepared to take a chance on Trump because while it may be a million to one shot, that is better than nothing.
The issue really is the 'whatever reasons'. People have been to quick to say economics, or racism, and have spent the last 6 months arguing over which one is causing people to do something as crazy as vote for Trump.
What people seem to have missed is the possibility that a lot of people might believe things are terrible simply because lots of people have been saying things are terrible. It's a self-created, self-sustaining movement, that exists largely inside its own echo chamber, where no alternative voice or any kind of factual reality ever gets in. It's a movement that rejects any kind of expertise (especially political expertise), rejects institutions and accepted political norms, and rejects with extreme hostility the idea that on the whole things are generally okay. It's gotten as strong as it has in large part because the Republican party and their massive number of connected media outlets have been happy to play up to this movement for their own political gain. Unfortunately the Republican campaign worked too well, and it's produced a base that's bought in to the despair so much that they have rejected the party that sold them the plan in the first place.
I mean sure, I think economics and racism have played a big part. But the biggest appeal, I think, is that Trump staggered on to stage completely ignoring the conventions of ordinary politics. To a large number of people raised in that echo chamber of misery, this sounded so much better than just another establishment Republican.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/24 03:05:22
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Kilkrazy wrote: A lot of Republicans feel so ground down (for whatever reasons) and left behind by conventional government that they are prepared to take a chance on Trump because while it may be a million to one shot, that is better than nothing.
The issue really is the 'whatever reasons'. People have been to quick to say economics, or racism, and have spent the last 6 months arguing over which one is causing people to do something as crazy as vote for Trump.
What people seem to have missed is the possibility that a lot of people might believe things are terrible simply because lots of people have been saying things are terrible. It's a self-created, self-sustaining movement, that exists largely inside its own echo chamber, where no alternative voice or any kind of factual reality ever gets in. It's gotten this crazy in large part because the Republican party, and their massive number of connected media outlets have been happy to play to this movement for their own political gain. Unfortunately the campaign worked too well, and it's produced a base that's bought in to the despair so much that they have rejected the party that sold it to them.
I think you're over analyzing this...
Many are voting #NotHillary... rather than *for* Trump in order to try to prevent a HRC Whitehouse.
It's a lost cause since Trump's nomination...
I suspect that we'll see something like the Tea Party movement again in 2018 as a response to President Clinton.
Kilkrazy wrote: A lot of Republicans feel so ground down (for whatever reasons) and left behind by conventional government that they are prepared to take a chance on Trump because while it may be a million to one shot, that is better than nothing.
The issue really is the 'whatever reasons'. People have been to quick to say economics, or racism, and have spent the last 6 months arguing over which one is causing people to do something as crazy as vote for Trump.
What people seem to have missed is the possibility that a lot of people might believe things are terrible simply because lots of people have been saying things are terrible. It's a self-created, self-sustaining movement, that exists largely inside its own echo chamber, where no alternative voice or any kind of factual reality ever gets in. It's gotten this crazy in large part because the Republican party, and their massive number of connected media outlets have been happy to play to this movement for their own political gain. Unfortunately the campaign worked too well, and it's produced a base that's bought in to the despair so much that they have rejected the party that sold it to them.
I think you're over analyzing this...
Many are voting #NotHillary... rather than *for* Trump in order to try to prevent a HRC Whitehouse.
It's a lost cause since Trump's nomination...
I suspect that we'll see something like the Tea Party movement again in 2018 as a response to President Clinton.
I would posit that such has in fact become the new core of the Republican party, an outsider movement, unless it's Trump (and not GOP) centric, doesn't have the purpose it once did. Either way, I expect pretty much anything nothing to get done for the next 4-8 years, that's one of the reasons I wasn't a fan of Hillary, because she's just going to draw the same obstructionism we saw with Obama, only moreso, and she'll probably be grossly ineffective in pushing any sort of legislation.
Though I guess we'll see how the Senate races turn out...that could be the big kicker.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Kilkrazy wrote: A lot of Republicans feel so ground down (for whatever reasons) and left behind by conventional government that they are prepared to take a chance on Trump because while it may be a million to one shot, that is better than nothing.
The issue really is the 'whatever reasons'. People have been to quick to say economics, or racism, and have spent the last 6 months arguing over which one is causing people to do something as crazy as vote for Trump.
What people seem to have missed is the possibility that a lot of people might believe things are terrible simply because lots of people have been saying things are terrible. It's a self-created, self-sustaining movement, that exists largely inside its own echo chamber, where no alternative voice or any kind of factual reality ever gets in. It's gotten this crazy in large part because the Republican party, and their massive number of connected media outlets have been happy to play to this movement for their own political gain. Unfortunately the campaign worked too well, and it's produced a base that's bought in to the despair so much that they have rejected the party that sold it to them.
I think you're over analyzing this...
Many are voting #NotHillary... rather than *for* Trump in order to try to prevent a HRC Whitehouse.
It's a lost cause since Trump's nomination...
I suspect that we'll see something like the Tea Party movement again in 2018 as a response to President Clinton.
I would posit that such has in fact become the new core of the Republican party, an outsider movement, unless it's Trump (and not GOP) centric, doesn't have the purpose it once did. Either way, I expect pretty much anything nothing to get done for the next 4-8 years, that's one of the reasons I wasn't a fan of Hillary, because she's just going to draw the same obstructionism we saw with Obama, only moreso, and she'll probably be grossly ineffective in pushing any sort of legislation.
Though I guess we'll see how the Senate races turn out...that could be the big kicker.
Eh... I think what we're describing is simply a divided governance.
Imagine a Democratic Congress and a Republican holding the Whitehouse.
It was guided by people who should have been exiled to a log cabin in Alaska, not given the wheel of a superpower....
"Since" 2001?
US foreign policy was a mess before 2001, and it will be a mess after 2016. This is not because the US is somehow uniquely bad at foreign policy, but because foreign policy is a mess for everyone. There are no good answers, just least horrible answers, and lots of internal political reasons to reject the least horrible answer. And even when you make the least horrible answer it sometimes blows up in your face because life is gak like that.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was a uniquely big screw up, but outside of that US has wandered along making mostly 'least horrible answers', with some blowing up in their face anyway. Such is life.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
If Hillary wins (almost certain), and the Dems take the Senate (fair chance), and then maybe take the House (#ThanksTrump?), it would be interesting to see what that would be like. Would they try to build bridges, or would they look at they look at 2008-2010 and then the years since and say "feth the GOP" and do what they want?
d-usa wrote: If Hillary wins (almost certain), and the Dems take the Senate (fair chance), and then maybe take the House (#ThanksTrump?), it would be interesting to see what that would be like. Would they try to build bridges, or would they look at they look at 2008-2010 and then the years since and say "feth the GOP" and do what they want?
GOP will retain the House.
Democrats has a great chance to take the Senate, but they won't get to that magical 60th vote to steamroll everything.
Kilkrazy wrote: A lot of Republicans feel so ground down (for whatever reasons) and left behind by conventional government that they are prepared to take a chance on Trump because while it may be a million to one shot, that is better than nothing.
The issue really is the 'whatever reasons'. People have been to quick to say economics, or racism, and have spent the last 6 months arguing over which one is causing people to do something as crazy as vote for Trump.
What people seem to have missed is the possibility that a lot of people might believe things are terrible simply because lots of people have been saying things are terrible. It's a self-created, self-sustaining movement, that exists largely inside its own echo chamber, where no alternative voice or any kind of factual reality ever gets in. It's gotten this crazy in large part because the Republican party, and their massive number of connected media outlets have been happy to play to this movement for their own political gain. Unfortunately the campaign worked too well, and it's produced a base that's bought in to the despair so much that they have rejected the party that sold it to them.
I think you're over analyzing this...
Many are voting #NotHillary... rather than *for* Trump in order to try to prevent a HRC Whitehouse.
It's a lost cause since Trump's nomination...
I suspect that we'll see something like the Tea Party movement again in 2018 as a response to President Clinton.
I would posit that such has in fact become the new core of the Republican party, an outsider movement, unless it's Trump (and not GOP) centric, doesn't have the purpose it once did. Either way, I expect pretty much anything nothing to get done for the next 4-8 years, that's one of the reasons I wasn't a fan of Hillary, because she's just going to draw the same obstructionism we saw with Obama, only moreso, and she'll probably be grossly ineffective in pushing any sort of legislation.
Though I guess we'll see how the Senate races turn out...that could be the big kicker.
Any Democratic president would face even more increasing obstruction and stonewalling. Doesn't matter who it was. It's one of the reasons I would have voted for Hillary over Bernie. With Hillary, it's expected, and I think she can deal with it. I'm not sure Bernie would have been able to and it would have killed his support when he couldn't get anything done. People expect the Republican obstructionism against Hillary though and I think she has the political acumen to deal with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: If Hillary wins (almost certain), and the Dems take the Senate (fair chance), and then maybe take the House (#ThanksTrump?), it would be interesting to see what that would be like. Would they try to build bridges, or would they look at they look at 2008-2010 and then the years since and say "feth the GOP" and do what they want?
Building bridges is the responsibility of the Republicans at this point after they went and burned all of them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/24 03:23:21
Kilkrazy wrote: A lot of Republicans feel so ground down (for whatever reasons) and left behind by conventional government that they are prepared to take a chance on Trump because while it may be a million to one shot, that is better than nothing.
The issue really is the 'whatever reasons'. People have been to quick to say economics, or racism, and have spent the last 6 months arguing over which one is causing people to do something as crazy as vote for Trump.
What people seem to have missed is the possibility that a lot of people might believe things are terrible simply because lots of people have been saying things are terrible. It's a self-created, self-sustaining movement, that exists largely inside its own echo chamber, where no alternative voice or any kind of factual reality ever gets in. It's gotten this crazy in large part because the Republican party, and their massive number of connected media outlets have been happy to play to this movement for their own political gain. Unfortunately the campaign worked too well, and it's produced a base that's bought in to the despair so much that they have rejected the party that sold it to them.
I think you're over analyzing this...
Many are voting #NotHillary... rather than *for* Trump in order to try to prevent a HRC Whitehouse.
It's a lost cause since Trump's nomination...
I suspect that we'll see something like the Tea Party movement again in 2018 as a response to President Clinton.
I would posit that such has in fact become the new core of the Republican party, an outsider movement, unless it's Trump (and not GOP) centric, doesn't have the purpose it once did. Either way, I expect pretty much anything nothing to get done for the next 4-8 years, that's one of the reasons I wasn't a fan of Hillary, because she's just going to draw the same obstructionism we saw with Obama, only moreso, and she'll probably be grossly ineffective in pushing any sort of legislation.
Though I guess we'll see how the Senate races turn out...that could be the big kicker.
Eh... I think what we're describing is simply a divided governance.
Imagine a Democratic Congress and a Republican holding the Whitehouse.
Do you expect anything to be really different?
Given the agenda and rhetoric of each party, at the current time, I would expect the obstructionism from the Democrats to be markedly less than what we're seeing from the Republicans of late. Both sides play their shennanigans and engage in obstructionism to some degree, but the stuff coming out of the Republican congress is not comparable on a consistent basis to what we've seen with divided government at other points in recent history. The fact that Trump has gotten to where he is, with the statements he has made and the insane or quite simply nonsensical/nonsequitur policy stances he and the party has taken, coupled with the extremes to which the Republicans took their dogma over the last few years in congress, is indicative of how far off the rails the Republican party has gone of late.
And I say that as a generally staunch non-partisan. I voted for one Republican, one Democrat, two Libertarians and a write-in on my ballot today. I will vote for Republicans when I believe that individually they can be effective, but as a party, they've gone off the deep end.
Any Democratic president would face even more increasing obstruction and stonewalling. Doesn't matter who it was. It's one of the reasons I would have voted for Hillary over Bernie. With Hillary, it's expected, and I think she can deal with it. I'm not sure Bernie would have been able to and it would have killed his support when he couldn't get anything done. People expect the Republican obstructionism against Hillary though and I think she has the political acumen to deal with it.
I don't think Bernie would have really had a hard time dealing with it, but rather, he just doesn't have the clout and machinery backing him to get the same things done that Clinton does. Clinton however energizes the Republican base in ways that Bernie does not. But, I could be wrong, I don't think we'd see much cooperation regardless
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/24 03:32:21
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I mean, I would/could believe that Trump ran to attempt to make the other republican candidates look too crazy, fail the primaries and walk away with a sweet pile of cash somewhere.... I don't think even he counted on actually winning anything.
Trump has written three books on politics. He's clearly interested in politics and the nation. Well, he's interested in telling everyone how to fix things, he's not so much interested in finding out how things actually work, but then that's hardly a flaw unique to Trump
And Trump has a long record of starting new projects with the assumption that he'll be awesome at them because he's Trump. Casinos. Airlines. Water. Steaks. Mortgages. Trump has never once in his life though 'actually I don't know anything about this and probably won't be successful at it'... why would politics be any different?
The real question is why so many Republicans chose him as their candidate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Primarily because he pulled the same stunt in the primaries at the first republican debates. He refused to say he would support the nominee no matter who it was, or promise not to run third party. That sets a precedent for the question, parti6 with his rigged election comments.
Trump complained that the Emmy's were rigged, when he didn't win there. This is actually unrelated to politics, and is really just about Trump. He thinks like a particularly horrible 3 year old - all he wants is the ego rush of the win, and if doesn't get it must be rigged.
Gore's issue was very different, contesting specific issues in a specific race, not going out beforehand and talking about a rigged election weeks ahead of time.
Yeah. Making sure that votes are counted accurately in a very close election, and then conceding once the process is (more or less) concluded and you've lost, that is fine and politics working as it should. Trump is announcing ahead of the election that he doesn't agree with the result.
Comparing the two things is utterly ridiculous.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/24 03:44:28
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
The real question is why so many Republicans chose him as their candidate.
"So many Republicans" is something of a misstatement. The clown-car Republican primary allowed Trump to avoid any real policy questions and instead play up the reality show antics that he's kept up during the general election. The rest of the Republican primary candidates were either boring or dead on arrival. And the clown-car aspect helped Trump maintain a plurality that took advantage of the Republican primary methods - something the GOP will likely change for the 2020 primary.
Trump's base comes from the right-wing media that's been screaming for the past eight years about the ineffectiveness of Washington, helped by the GOP's evolution into the Greedy Obstructionist Party. That forced Obama to overreach with executive power in cases where he would normally be working with the legislative branch. Which then helps feed the right-wing media's narrative.
After Trump got the nomination, a lot of Republicans that didn't support him during the primary fell into step along party lines. Although, if the past few months have been any indications, those party-liners look to be dropping off.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/24 03:50:09
LordofHats wrote: I actually found it interesting that the left wing sites had such a high concentration of "nonfactual content." Guess the lefties love to banter randomly or something XD
I'm guessing it will be mostly those fething minion images with patronising little quotes about good and self-righteous it is to be a liberal
The right wing sites having a much higher rate of false statements wasn't really that surprising to me, the US right has really marched off the reservation in the last couple of decades. What surprised me was that both the left and right wing had much smaller % of false statements than I'd have thought, I would have guessed something closer to 1/3 on the left, and 2/3 on the right. I guess they're only looking at clearly false statements, rather than statements that may be literally true but still be extremely misleading.
Probably the most telling thing is that the false statements are much more likely to get shared. That there sums up the problem more than anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrotherGecko wrote: I think Putin has been courting US right wing for a while (can't entirely escape conspiracy theories).
There isn't really much of a conspiracy theory there at all. Russia has a pretty well established doctrine of information warfare, using disinformation fed through official and unofficial sources. The aim generally isn't even to get people to believe the stuff the Russians are making up, it's more about getting people so overloaded with claims and counter narratives that they end up rejecting everything. Russia does this in plenty of countries around the world, and has done so since the old Soviet days, sometimes it does it to meet some direct political end (such as all the claims about Ukrainian nazis), but most of the time if just does it do dick around with other countries and destabilize them just a little.
But it isn't the right wing that gets targeted with this stuff. It gets aimed at anyone who operates in any kind of flying rodent gak politics. I remember during the occupation of Iraq there were countless stories that claimed proof that the US was taking Iraqi oil and planning a permanent occupation, those lies were aimed at the crazy end of the US left. The reason it is associated with the right wing right now is that the Republican party nominated a candidate who revels in flying rodent gak political nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote: I keep forgetting about how this forum operates. Anyone remotely right of center who posts something remotely right of center gets ganged up on and their opinions shot down.
This is how the market place of ideas works. You make your claims and argue with people who think differently. There's no 'ganging up'. If lots of people think you're wrong, they're going to tell you so. If your argument is worth a damn then it will be quite fun to use facts and reason on each person trying to argue against you. It's only when your argument sucks, and you have to keep thinking up dodgy arguments that it isn't fun.
As much as it's become something of a cliche now, I still get kind of surprised each time I see the right wing whinging like this. "Everyone is picking on me". The right is supposed to the tough guy, man's man party that argues for free speech and every saying their piece. But when an argument goes against them, the whinging is more than anything you get out of the left.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/24 04:53:23
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Ah yes, funny how Republican supporters love to shift blame for Trump to anyone but themselves. Keep at it, worked so well for you thus far! I'll keep laughing at you as the GOP continues their burning fall into irrelevance.
SemperMortis wrote: Just as a friendly reminder though, this forum is very left leaning, these same people who are SURE Trump won't win are the same ones who were SURE Brexit wouldn't happen. Anyway, good luck to you all.
That argument doesn't work. For starters, it isn't the same people. The political polling experts in the US are not the political polling experts in the UK, this is because they are different countries who have their own experts.
On top of that, referendums such as Brexit are very rare, there is little historical precedent to rely on. The US has had quite a few presidential elections, and while this hardly produces certainty in the relationship between polling and election day results, it produces a lot more certainty than you will see in a one-off referendum.
And finally, Brexit polls showed close results. Across the whole they favoured a vote for remain, but not by much. In contrast, Clinton's lead is pretty big, on average its north of 6%.
Of course nothing is certain until election day happens. But the only way you can predict a Trump win is likely is to start believing that polls have no meaning at all, and that's basically the rejection of information simply because you don't like what it's telling you.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/24 05:46:46
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
So, because I got my ballot in this weekend, I thought y'all would get a kick out of the parties represented on it for POTUS.
Included are the "obvious" big 4... but then there's a pair from the "Constitution Party", the "Socialism and Liberty Party", and finally a pair from the "Socialist Workers Party"
It's almost too bad none of those last 3 "candidates" got on a debate stage.... almost.
Many are voting #NotHillary... rather than *for* Trump in order to try to prevent a HRC Whitehouse.
Sure, but they weren't the people who gave Trump the nomination in the first place. 45% of the votes cast in the Republican primary went to Donald Trump. Those votes weren't cast to defeat Clinton, they were cast because those people liked what they saw in Trump.
So the question is what exactly it is they liked about Trump to nominate him as the Republican candidate. The answers so far have been mostly 'racism' and 'economic hardship makes people do stupid things'. The economy is the more intuitive answer, but the evidence has pretty clearly contradicted that claim (Trump voters are typically more likely to be employed, and earn more than average). This has caused most people to conclude racism is the answer, and while there is evidence linking racist views to support of Trump, I think that answer is also pretty weak as the US has very little record of voting for overt racists outside of Trump.
I suspect the reason both those answers above are unsatisfactory is because they assume Trump is an event outside of the normal operations of the Republican party. I believe that he's just an exaggeration of ordinary Republican politics, with some extra populist elements thrown in for good measure. In particular, Trump has taken the racism and conspiracy nonsense that worked in the background of ordinary Republican politics, and turned those elements up to 11.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Either way, I expect pretty much anything nothing to get done for the next 4-8 years, that's one of the reasons I wasn't a fan of Hillary, because she's just going to draw the same obstructionism we saw with Obama, only moreso, and she'll probably be grossly ineffective in pushing any sort of legislation.
Though I guess we'll see how the Senate races turn out...that could be the big kicker.
Even if the Democrats win the senate, they won't reach the 60 seats needed to call for cloture, and it's very unlikely that they'll claim the house. So the senate will be a nice symbolic win, but not much more than that.
Really, what will get done in the next eight years will get done through executive action. Clinton's advantage over Obama is that she knows that already, both because Clinton has been able to see how Republicans in congress have acted for the last 8 years, and because Clinton was always a more canny operator than Obama behind the scenes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Eh... I think what we're describing is simply a divided governance.
Imagine a Democratic Congress and a Republican holding the Whitehouse.
Do you expect anything to be really different?
The key word in your first sentence there is 'governance'. There is nothing wrong using a minority position to challenge the dominant party, look to reform or modify some bills, and block others. The issue is that such action should never get in the way of actually governing the country. This is where the Republicans have been such a gak party for the last eight years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: If Hillary wins (almost certain), and the Dems take the Senate (fair chance), and then maybe take the House (#ThanksTrump?), it would be interesting to see what that would be like. Would they try to build bridges, or would they look at they look at 2008-2010 and then the years since and say "feth the GOP" and do what they want?
They'll celebrate the win, declare Clinton has a mandate (whatever that means), then dick around for two years, then lose control of the senate in mid-terms when they yet again fail to get their base to turn out outside of presidential elections.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
infinite_array wrote: "So many Republicans" is something of a misstatement. The clown-car Republican primary allowed Trump to avoid any real policy questions and instead play up the reality show antics that he's kept up during the general election. The rest of the Republican primary candidates were either boring or dead on arrival. And the clown-car aspect helped Trump maintain a plurality that took advantage of the Republican primary methods - something the GOP will likely change for the 2020 primary.
If Republicans decided they were all terrible options (a not unreasonable conclusion), then voters would have stayed home and there would have been a low turn out. The opposite happened. 14 million people chose Trump, more than for any other Republican candidate in history. He ended up with 45% of the vote. Even now there is a large number of very enthusiastic Trump voters turning up at conventions and meetings. It's nowhere near a majority of voters, and probably not quite a majority of the people who will be voting for Trump in November, but it's still a very large group of people.
Trump's base comes from the right-wing media that's been screaming for the past eight years about the ineffectiveness of Washington, helped by the GOP's evolution into the Greedy Obstructionist Party. That forced Obama to overreach with executive power in cases where he would normally be working with the legislative branch. Which then helps feed the right-wing media's narrative.
After Trump got the nomination, a lot of Republicans that didn't support him during the primary fell into step along party lines. Although, if the past few months have been any indications, those party-liners look to be dropping off.
This I completely agree with. And I think it supports what I said above - Trump has a large base of voters, the people who've bought in to stories about national decline and dysfunction in Washington.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/10/24 05:46:00
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Dude... that's every partisan site... not just the left wingers.
I was referring, as was the person I was responding to, to this.
I found it interesting that the left wing sites contained a larger amount of nonfactual information, which the study used as a trash bin for posts that "do not contain a factual claim." The left wing sites examined contained a lot more than the right, save for right wing outlier Eagle Rising. The conclusion drawn was essentially "right wing sites contain more false information, and left wing sites contain more opinion."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/24 07:35:48
sebster wrote:I'm guessing it will be mostly those fething minion images with patronising little quotes about good and self-righteous it is to be a liberal
You mean like this?
Spoiler:
sebster wrote:
d-usa wrote: If Hillary wins (almost certain), and the Dems take the Senate (fair chance), and then maybe take the House (#ThanksTrump?), it would be interesting to see what that would be like. Would they try to build bridges, or would they look at they look at 2008-2010 and then the years since and say "feth the GOP" and do what they want?
They'll celebrate the win, declare Clinton has a mandate (whatever that means), then dick around for two years, then lose control of the senate in mid-terms when they yet again fail to get their base to turn out outside of presidential elections.
sebster wrote: Even if the Democrats win the senate, they won't reach the 60 seats needed to call for cloture, and it's very unlikely that they'll claim the house. So the senate will be a nice symbolic win, but not much more than that.
I think it's a huge difference if they win the senate because of the supreme court (and other appointments). If Clinton wins she's appointing at least one justice, and with the democrats being able to pick whoever they want it seems fairly likely that at least one or two of the left-leaning justices (who are getting kind of old) will take the opportunity to retire. That "symbolic win" has the potential to impact the court for decades.
And of course things get really interesting if the republicans insist on a "filibuster everything" strategy and the democrats call their bluff. If the republicans have to actually stand up there and read from the phone book for days at a time to delay a vote instead of simply declaring "we refuse" and making the senate require a 2/3 majority in all but name it probably forces them to compromise more and get stuff done. The alternative is making their blatant obstructionism obvious to everyone who isn't a right-wing zealot the next time something like the debt ceiling "crisis" happens. You'd have the democrats taking the moral high ground and saying "we have 50+ votes lined up to pass a bill if our colleagues in the house will stop stalling" and the republicans looking even more like spoiled children than the last time. And we all know what that did for their approval ratings.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: They'll celebrate the win, declare Clinton has a mandate (whatever that means), then dick around for two years, then lose control of the senate in mid-terms when they yet again fail to get their base to turn out outside of presidential elections.
I think that this is kind of pessimistic. Yeah, low turnout might be a problem, but the republican party is going to have huge problems of its own if Trump loses. So if it's low turnout (depending who the candidates are) for the democrats, but a civil war in the republican party between Trump's angry mob, the religious right, and the "mainstream" conservatives I think it's assuming a bit much to expect the democrats to lose the senate.
And of course this is on top of state/local issues that can drive turnout. For example, here in NC McCrory is extremely unpopular and there are a lot of people eager to vote and get the out of office. And most of them will probably be marking "D" in other races even if they might have been apathetic enough to stay home otherwise. And who knows how that kind of stuff is going to look in two years in the states where senators are up for election. With as close as things have been in recent years it wouldn't take many states having local issues drive turnout to make a difference in controlling the senate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/24 08:08:17
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
ulgurstasta wrote: As a swede, I would much rather see an American president that co-operates with Russia, then a president that escalate the conflict between NATO and Russia, for obvious reasons.
It's pretty hard to see how Clinton, or really any president since Reagan has 'escalated' conflict with Russia. The current low in relations between the two countries comes from Russia taking expansionary actions, and the US reacting as you'd expect. The only way a more friendly relationship with Russia is possible is if the US decides that it is okay with Russia stops its actions in the Ukraine, or if Russia stops dicking around in other people's countries.
Trump is arguing for the former, which is pretty fething incredible.
It´s not that hard if you actually look for it, you have for example the constant NATO expansion, Afghanistan, Syria, the sanctions and the sabre-rattling. Russia of course aren´t innocent in this, but it is frightening how willing Clinton is escalate the situation.
That's the best minion based meme I've seen. Low bar, of course.
Peregrine wrote: I think it's a huge difference if they win the senate because of the supreme court (and other appointments). If Clinton wins she's appointing at least one justice, and with the democrats being able to pick whoever they want it seems fairly likely that at least one or two of the left-leaning justices (who are getting kind of old) will take the opportunity to retire. That "symbolic win" has the potential to impact the court for decades.
And of course things get really interesting if the republicans insist on a "filibuster everything" strategy and the democrats call their bluff. If the republicans have to actually stand up there and read from the phone book for days at a time to delay a vote instead of simply declaring "we refuse" and making the senate require a 2/3 majority in all but name it probably forces them to compromise more and get stuff done.
The alternative is making their blatant obstructionism obvious to everyone who isn't a right-wing zealot the next time something like the debt ceiling "crisis" happens. You'd have the democrats taking the moral high ground and saying "we have 50+ votes lined up to pass a bill if our colleagues in the house will stop stalling" and the republicans looking even more like spoiled children than the last time. And we all know what that did for their approval ratings.
I think a filibuster on the SC nomination is all but inevitable. There won't be too many Republican senators who would feel safe in a primary challenge if they stopped the filibuster and allowed a vote that got a left wing nomination approved that flipped the Supreme Court.
From there, it becomes a question of how effectively the Republicans will be able to paint the nominated person as far left lunatic who needs to be stopped via filibuster. I think the sell will be a much easier than their debt ceiling shenanigans, because there are no immediate repercussions. Right now there's a block on Garland's nomination and Democrats have tried to raise it as a political issue and gotten nowhere. I'm not convinced the political impact will be that great, it certainly won't be greater than the political impact against any individual Republican who backs down from the filibuster and lets a liberal nomination.
I think that this is kind of pessimistic. Yeah, low turnout might be a problem, but the republican party is going to have huge problems of its own if Trump loses. So if it's low turnout (depending who the candidates are) for the democrats, but a civil war in the republican party between Trump's angry mob, the religious right, and the "mainstream" conservatives I think it's assuming a bit much to expect the democrats to lose the senate.
The Republican party was in a mess in 2008 as well. That time around they managed to unify again under 'we hate Obama and his healthcare reform' enough to have a really strong result in the next mid-terms. This time around will be an easier fix, Trump is a disaster but it is much easier to move on from a crappy candidate, than it was to move on from a crappy president/GFC. And this time around they've got someone in the Whitehouse who they hate even more than they hated Obama. That doesn't mean we can just assume such a rally will happen, of course, and they will need to come up with something different this time around to the Koch brothers Tea Party scam, but I'd consider it a fair bit more likely than not that they'll manage to rally enough to beat the woeful Democrat turnout we normally see in mid-terms.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ulgurstasta wrote: It´s not that hard if you actually look for it, you have for example the constant NATO expansion, Afghanistan, Syria, the sanctions and the sabre-rattling. Russia of course aren´t innocent in this, but it is frightening how willing Clinton is escalate the situation.
Singling out Clinton for NATO expansion is weird. Expansion of NATO into former Soviet Bloc countries has been a US aim since there were former Soviet Bloc countries, and it is a process supported by other NATO members. Nor is it an aggressive measure - a commitment to mutual defense is only a threat or an impact on Russia to the extent that Russia plans to invade those countries.
The sanctions are a direct response to the use of force by Russia in military expansion. It's the bare minimum response to military aggression. Clinton is completely within US and international norms in her response.
Syria is always going to attract US attention. It's a giant humanitarian mess, and despite that the US was actually treating it with a 'speak loudly but do very little' approach until ISIS became impossible to ignore with their effective attack on Iraq. And now the US has continued to maintain an ISIS only stance, despite the Russians directly attacking rebel forces, and forcing a collapse of the ceasefire. Painting any of that as sabre rattling is very imaginative indeed.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/24 09:22:39
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: I think a filibuster on the SC nomination is all but inevitable. There won't be too many Republican senators who would feel safe in a primary challenge if they stopped the filibuster and allowed a vote that got a left wing nomination approved that flipped the Supreme Court.
But how long can they really keep it up, if the democrats force them to do an actual filibuster? Do you honestly expect the republicans to literally spend every moment 24/7 reading from the phone book for two full years, knowing that any break in the filibuster means a vote to confirm the nomination? And look like anything other than spoiled children in the eyes of the voters while doing so?
Right now there's a block on Garland's nomination and Democrats have tried to raise it as a political issue and gotten nowhere.
I think that comes down to three major differences:
1) The current debacle of an election is far more interesting than the nomination mess, and certainly taking up a much bigger share of the news. There's no more election after november, so all the attention can go to what congress is doing.
2) The republican party has managed to get some success with the idiotic argument of "we need to let the voters decide", which puts a finite end point to the stalling (at least in theory). They can spin it into somehow taking the moral high ground and preventing the democrats from rushing into a last-second nomination before a republican president (supported by the will of the people) takes office. But if they lose in november and continue to stall they can't defend it like that and it becomes blatantly obvious that they are never, under any circumstances, going to allow a supreme court justice to be nominated.
3) The republican party has a majority in the senate anyway, so everyone knows Obama's nomination is just playing political games and not a legitimate attempt to fill the position. A straight party-line vote, as we could expect to happen, would result in any nomination being rejected. So all refusing to have the vote does is allow the record to be "no vote happened" instead of "voted against a qualified nominee" in future campaign advertising. That changes entirely if the democrats hold a majority and confirming the nominee is a realistic (and, in fact, guaranteed) outcome with practical value.
This time around will be an easier fix, Trump is a disaster but it is much easier to move on from a crappy candidate, than it was to move on from a crappy president/GFC.
I disagree here. The problem is that the republican party is facing some much more serious divisions than in 2008-2010. Moving on from Bush was possible because the party was still pretty well united and nobody really liked Bush by that point. Sure, the Tea Party angry mob existed, but was still a definite minority compared to the "mainstream" conservatives running the party. But now Trump's angry mob has enough votes to win primaries and take control over the party, and they aren't going to let go of their anger. They're going to be voting for Trump 2.0 everywhere they have an opportunity, and that puts them into direct conflict with the "mainstream" conservatives who don't want incompetent lunatics running the country and "moderate" voters who don't approve of the racism and far-right ideology.
So, the question is less about moving on from Trump, and more about whether the awful candidates Trump's angry mob puts up in the midterm senate elections have any hope of winning when they don't have "STOP HILLARY" to fall back on. And the amusing failures of Tea Party candidates suggest that this is going to be a real problem for the republican party.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
ulgurstasta wrote: It´s not that hard if you actually look for it, you have for example the constant NATO expansion, Afghanistan, Syria, the sanctions and the sabre-rattling. Russia of course aren´t innocent in this, but it is frightening how willing Clinton is escalate the situation.
Singling out Clinton for NATO expansion is weird. Expansion of NATO into former Soviet Bloc countries has been a US aim since there were former Soviet Bloc countries, and it is a process supported by other NATO members. Nor is it an aggressive measure - a commitment to mutual defense is only a threat or an impact on Russia to the extent that Russia plans to invade those countries.
The sanctions are a direct response to the use of force by Russia in military expansion. It's the bare minimum response to military aggression. Clinton is completely within US and international norms in her response.
Syria is always going to attract US attention. It's a giant humanitarian mess, and despite that the US was actually treating it with a 'speak loudly but do very little' approach until ISIS became impossible to ignore with their effective attack on Iraq. And now the US has continued to maintain an ISIS only stance, despite the Russians directly attacking rebel forces, and forcing a collapse of the ceasefire. Painting any of that as sabre rattling is very imaginative indeed.
You can call NATO what you wish, but when it starts encircle Russia they are gonna get nervous and see it as an aggresion, especially when NATO breaks the agreement they had with Russia regarding the eastward expansion of NATO. Just as the US would never have accepted that it´s neighbors joined the Warsaw pact or any other milliary alliance they weren´t part of.
The US has had the goal of toppling Assad since day 1 of the conflict and if it hadn´t been for the war-weary US people there would probably had been boots on the ground right now. Clinton and the establishment has derailed any diplomatic solutions to the problem and are now pushing to escalate things even further with the No-Fly-Zone.
The saber-rattling was mostly in reference to Clintons accusations against Russia in this election and the various generals and politicians that try to stir up the old cold war fears of the russians.
That doesn´t make the Russians the "good guys" of course, both the US and Russia have imperialist ambitions and are willing to act on them. But as someone living relatively close to Russia I dont want to see these powers escalate into a real conflict.
out of office. And most of them will probably be marking "D" in other races even if they might have been apathetic enough to stay home otherwise. And who knows how that kind of stuff is going to look in two years in the states where senators are up for election. With as close as things have been in recent years it wouldn't take many states having local issues drive turnout to make a difference in controlling the senate.
