US Politics

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.

**wuestenfux**

sebster wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote:
So we started this believing the Republicans were in disarray when it looks like the Democrats will be. I think the Liberal protest votes will be the story in the next few weeks.

Well, Conservatism is revitalised, and has shown its got a really strong electoral map when it can get white working class voters out and voting for the party. However, I'd say the Republican party is in a right mess because their policy set does not mesh well with getting that white working class vote out.

Seconded.

Those people in New Liverpool, Ohio, voted mostly for the Trumpeltier. But his politics will hardly make their lives better.

**d-usa**

sebster wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote:
So we started this believing the Republicans were in disarray when it looks like the Democrats will be. I think the Liberal protest votes will be the story in the next few weeks.

Well, Conservatism is revitalised, and has shown its got a really strong electoral map when it can get white working class voters out and voting for the party. However, I'd say the Republican party is in a right mess because their policy set does not mesh well with getting that white working class vote out.

The other question will be if the results of this year will drive the minority voting blocks out in greater numbers, even as the white working groups continues to shrink.

**Crazyterran**

As long as he doesn't actually do anything to NATO and NAFTA and doesn't encourage the spread of nuclear arms while he's in office, I don't really care anymore, to be honest.

**hotsauceman1**

angelofvengeance wrote:
I think I speak for many people here- AMERICA- WHAT THE FETH HAVE YOU DONE?

Voted in who we want in the job to represent us?

**d-usa**

USA: where we elect Trump because we are tired of the system and want change, while at the same time reelecting congress once again.

**LordofHats**

sirlynchmob wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
the IRS never went after conservative groups. It was just another trumped up and invented scandal by the GOP. so your short list is falling short of any actual factual claims

So........You're saying that WikiLeaks emails are wrong, and that a totally disproportionate number of Conservative groups were either downright denied, or just left in non-approved limbo because of random happenstance?

Yes, that's a pants on fire lie:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/jun/12/were-two-thirds-groups-targeted-irs-not-conservati/

The pants on fire lie is "2/3rds of the groups investigated by the IRS were not Conservative" and look at the actual article the reality is that of nearly 300 groups investigated a third of them had "Patriot" "9/11" and "tea party" in their names is the basis for the clam. I think it's a leap to assume that is every conservative group investigated has those words in their name.

This article actually says nothing about whether or not the IRS targeted conservative groups.

exactly, the IRS never tartgeted conservative groups. They were just doing their jobs like they always do.

1). that the IRS gave people a list of terms to look for says they did target (at least a subset) of conservative groups

The distinction your missing is that any number between 33%-100% of the groups investigated could have been conservative, because a groups name is not definitive in determining its political leanings.

I.E. Not exactly. Your link provides no support for your claim. It actually doesn't directly address the claim at all, but rather a sub-claim.

**sirlynchmob**

LordofHats wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
the IRS never went after conservative groups. It was just another trumped up and invented scandal by the GOP. so your short list is falling short of any actual factual claims

So........You're saying that WikiLeaks emails are wrong, and that a totally disproportionate number of Conservative groups were either downright denied, or just left in non-approved limbo because of random happenstance?

Yes, that's a pants on fire lie:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/jun/12/were-two-thirds-groups-targeted-irs-not-conservati/

The pants on fire lie is "2/3rds of the groups investigated by the IRS were not Conservative" and look at the actual article the reality is that of nearly 300 groups investigated a third of them had "Patriot" "9/11" and "tea party" in their names is the basis for the clam. I think it's a leap to assume that is every conservative group investigated has those words in their name.

This article actually says nothing about whether or not the IRS targeted conservative groups.

exactly, the IRS never tartgeted conservative groups. They were just doing their jobs like they always do.

1). that the IRS gave people a list of terms to look for says they did target (at least a subset) of conservative groups

The distinction your missing is that any number between 33%-100% of the groups investigated could have been conservative, because a groups name is not definitive in determining its political leanings.

I.E. Not exactly. Your link provides no support for your claim. It actually doesn't directly address the claim at all, but rather a sub-claim.

if they didn't know the groups political leanings, because that didn't matter at all, how can you claim they were being targeted?

**hotsauceman1**

d-usa wrote:
USA: where we elect Trump because we are tired of the system and want change, while at the same time reelecting congress once again.

My Senate Choices where either
Democrat
or
Democrat
I wouldnt be surprised if others where like this.

**Breotan**

Oh, I suggest everyone stay away from any comments section on the internet for a week at least. You'll likely not have seen anything as toxic as what'll be posted there the next few days.

**hotsauceman1**

Breotan wrote:
Oh, I suggest everyone stay away from any comments section on the internet for a week at least. You'll likely not have seen anything as toxic as what'll be posted there the next few days.

I Got my Facebook on my Laptop
Twitter on my phone,
Tumblr on my Tablet
And enough energy drinks to kill a lesser man.
Im ready to read it all.

**sirlynchmob**

Breotan wrote:
Oh, I suggest everyone stay away from any comments section on the internet for a week at least. You'll likely not have seen anything as toxic as what'll be posted there the next few days.

so on the one hand, you have democrats posting toxic things. On the other hand if trump had lost people were threatening armed rebellion and assassinating Hillary. Yep, I see it, they're equally bad.

**ulgurstasta**

tneva82 wrote:
sebster wrote:
I'm guessing there'll be a big tax cut for the rich, no discussion about the deficit that will cause, and probably not much else.

Well since that was Trump's budget idea not much of a leap of faith. Bad time to be anything but rich.

Business as usual then

**Vankraken**

The DNC and media really gakked the bed on this one. They stacked the deck against Bernie Sanders and pushed for Clinton who is terrible at being charismatic or motivating. Did they not learn from the Gore and Kerry campaigns or notice why Obama won with such high voter turnout?

**LordofHats**

sirlynchmob wrote:

if they didn't know the groups political leanings, because that didn't matter at all, how can you claim they were being targeted?

How can you claim they didn't?

The actual answer in that scenario is "we do not know if they did or did not target conservative groups" (even though they very evidently did, by telling people to look for the words "tea party" "patriot" and "9/11" given how much conservative groups like hounding those particular terms). How many groups in total were investigated, or what percentage the targeted were, is kind of irrelevant.

**sebster**

LordofHats wrote:
One interesting statistic coming out is that younger Americans did not come out as much this election as they did the previous 2. Sebter's prediction that the Dem's might swing further left could come true. They need that demographic if they want to win in the future, and that means swinging more toward's Bernie's side of the isle.

If the Democrats go looking for energy, and Trump does what you'd expect to whip up a lot of anger among college kids, the Democrats could swing further left sooner rather than later.

If at the same time Democrats start responding to Republicans with their own tricks (such as blocking a supreme court nomination), then you could see that radicalisation happen even quicker.

I can see the partisanship get a lot more severe in the near future. Not that it would have been much different under Clinton, its more just a reality of what strategies are working for the two parties right now.

**tneva82**

Crazyterran wrote:
As long as he doesn't actually do anything to NATO and NAFTA and doesn't encourage the spread of nuclear arms while he's in office, I don't really care anymore, to be honest.

Well seeing those are on his to-change list...Along with making sure rich get even more rich at the cost of middle class and poor.

As it is I hope I get to do my plans on spring. Frankly I'm not too sure we will still be around next year.

**sebster**

cuda1179 wrote:
So........You're saying that WikiLeaks emails are wrong, and that a totally disproportionate number of Conservative groups were either downright denied, or just left in non-approved limbo because of random happenstance?

The number was proportionate. The time period in question saw a very large number of groups start up as part of the Tea Party movement. It shouldn't be any surprise that when you perform a sweep on groups with political identifiers in their name, at that point you would end up with more right wing groups, given that is who the majority of groups were at that time.

**d-usa**

So who will become the face of the Democratic Party and the shift to the left? Clinton is done, Bernie and Biden are old, so who is the future?

Warren 2020?

**BrotherGecko**

sebster wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote:
So we started this believing the Republicans were in disarray when it looks like the Democrats will be. I think the Liberal protest votes will be the story in the next few weeks.

Well, Conservatism is revitalised, and has shown its got a really strong electoral map when it can get white working class voters out and voting for the party. However, I'd say the Republican party is in a right mess because their policy set does not mesh well with getting that white working class vote out.

It doesn't matter if the base wants what the party wants because they will still vote for them. Trump was supposed to be their feth you vote to the establishment and then they secured the establishment. We have also seen that a personality is all that matters, not what they stand on. Trump could change his mind after inauguration and it won't matter.

The GOP is doing good tonight. Even if they fail 4 years I don't see them in bad shape.

**lord_blackfang**

d-usa wrote:
So who will become the face of the Democratic Party and the shift to the left? Clinton is done, Bernie and Biden are old, so who is the future?

Warren 2020?

German media is pushing Michelle Obama for some reason.

Anyway, congrats to the US for voting against a third Gulf war.

**tneva82**

lord_blackfang wrote:
Anyway, congrats to the US for voting against a third Gulf war.

Against? They just voted the most likely person on the planet currently to start a war into the presidency! And guy who doesn't even settle for mere conventional warfare but is looking forward to deploying the nukes.

3rd gulf war? You are thinking too small. Trump is aiming for bigger than that.

**hotsauceman1**

Considering Trump has said several times he wantsto be ffriends with Russia........

**nels1031**

Supreme Court is going to get interesting.

**flamingkillamajig**

You know what? Somebody alert Kid_Kyoto. His joke banner on this will be magical just like with warhammer and politics.

**Peregrine**

lord_blackfang wrote:
Anyway, congrats to the US for voting against a third Gulf war.

ISIS is making a tremendous amount of money because of the oil that they took away, they have some in Syria, they have some in Iraq, I would bomb the gak out of them.
I would just bomb those suckers, and that's right, I'd blow up the pipes, I'd blow up the refineries, I'd blow up ever single inch, there would be nothing left.
And you know what, you'll get Exxon to come in there, and in two months, you ever see these guys? How good they are, the great oil companies, they'll rebuild it brand new... And I'll take the oil.

-Donald Trump

Automatically Appended Next Post:

flamingkillamajig wrote:
I'm guessing the all too typical sexist, misogynist, racist, bigoted, etc., etc. lines will keep coming.

So long as Trump and his mob of deplorables continue to be sexist, misogynist, racist, bigoted, etc, people will continue to point out this fact.

**sebster**

Peregrine wrote:
Unfortunately the deplorables now have a blank check to run the country: Trump, a majority in both houses of congress, and a supreme court majority once the senate rubber-stamps the next Scalia. The racists will probably get a ton of money wasted on border "security", continued obstruction of any attempt to hold the police accountable, and leave a lot of victims of ISIS looking elsewhere for a home (while simultaneously bombing their home countries). The anti-LGBT bigots will get "religious freedom" laws to endorse discrimination, "bathroom security" laws to make sure transgender people know they aren't welcome (along with less well known stuff like making it harder to get government documents changed), and probably an attempt to overturn gay marriage. If you're a middle-class straight white guy you'll probably get through the next few years ok, as long as you can keep your job. If you're a member of a vulnerable minority you have a lot to be afraid of.

Time will tell on how much of the Trump and GOP platform they were actually serious about. I'm hoping not much, other than the tax cut, but we'll see.

I kind of feel bad for the rubes in old manufacturing areas that turned out to vote for Trump because he promised them he'd bring back manufacturing jobs. The looks on those guy's faces on the next 12 months as Trump does nothing for them, both because he doesn't actually give a gak, and because there's nothing that could be done anyway.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breotan wrote:
I'm going to bed now. Talk at you guys later.

If 'talk at you' was deliberate that was really funny, and something I'm definitely going to steal

**Peregrine**

sebster wrote:
Time will tell on how much of the Trump and GOP platform they were actually serious about. I'm hoping not much, other than the tax cut, but we'll see.

With Pence, proud deplorable, as his VP pick I'm pretty worried that they were entirely serious about that platform. It's not like this stuff has come out of nowhere, republicans have been pushing for legalized anti-LGBT discrimination, bathroom "safety" laws, abortion restrictions, etc, at the state level for quite a while. Carrying on with the same platform at the national level now that they have full control of the government and an angry mob eager to see this stuff is a fairly predictable outcome.

**hotsauceman1**

Ok, so, the DOW closed with 800.
Does that really mean anything with it being pure speculation from what a Trump Presidency will ACTUALLY BE.
God, what if it turns out trump actually ends up being a good president and creates a half decent economy................God I hope I can pass the police exam and get secured in a job before he does anything too bad.

**d-usa**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, so, the DOW closed with 800.
Does that really mean anything with it being pure speculation from what a Trump Presidency will ACTUALLY BE.
God, what if it turns out trump actually ends up being a good president and creates a half decent economy................God I hope I can pass the police exam and get secured in a job before he does anything too bad.

The markets prefer a stable and known future, even if it's less than ideal, over an unknown future.

**sebster**

LordofHats wrote:
How can you claim they didn't?

The actual answer in that scenario is "we do not know if they did or did not target conservative groups" (even though they very evidently did, by telling people to look for the words "tea party" "patriot" and "9/11" given how much conservative groups like hounding those particular terms). How many groups in total were investigated, or what percentage the targeted were, is kind of irrelevant.

They also targeted groups with 'liberal' or 'green' in their names. They went looking for groups that weren't meeting the charity definitions because of political activity, how can you not end up targeting political groups?

Ultimately, the IRS was left in a really crap position of having to administer a charitable exemption that was sure to drag them in to politics. They didn't handle it well, but the claims of persecuting conservative groups only is pure Republican fantasy.