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.

**Spinner**

Another interesting effect is how many of those accusations were fueled by the conservative outrage machine.

The deplorables comment, for instance. It wasn't well-thought-out or articulate, but taken in context, it was clearly and explicitly referring to an undeniably vocal base of support for Trump, not everyone considering giving him their vote.

And, as a quick look through this thread can show you, that immediately got swallowed up by "CLINTON SAYS ALL TRUMP SUPPORTERS ARE RACIST RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE".

What was that about accusing someone of something they haven't done?

**Tannhauser42**

DarkTraveler777 wrote:

By doing what they did (voting Trump and supporting Trump) they are becoming the very thing they don't want to be associated with in some misguided attempt to strike back at a nebulous group ("SJWs") who they despise. So really, they are the gak bags "SJWs" believe them to be since they are willing to embrace the ugly rhetoric of Trump and embrace his toxic ideas in order to score points against a social movement they disagree with.

This is that wide brush I was talking about. Just because someone voted for Trump does not mean they embrace, support, or condone his offenses. All it means is that, at minimum, they're willing to ignore his offences because they're getting something else they do want/support. There is a difference.

Just like I was willing to ignore Clinton's corruption because I would get something else I supported. It didn't mean I wanted her to continue doing bad things.

**Frazzled**

Did she say it? Yes.

Did she take it back? No.

Calling the other side deplorable is not going to help your cause. Your true believers may like it, but the independents don't and it helps stir up the other side's base - which occurred spectacularly in this case.

I talked to two family friends who voted Trump. They didn't vote for Trump, they voted against Hillary. If HRC can't get older women to vote for her, yea she's going to lose, and she did.

The incumbent side always faces head winds in this type of election. Don't run someone actively hated by a large portion of the country. Its that simple. She lost to a carnival barking twitter nut.

Do you think Biden would have lost?
Do you think she would have beaten Rubio-who her team was really afraid of? How about Kasich? Who exactly could she have beaten?

Just like I was willing to ignore Clinton's corruption because I would get something else I supported. It didn't mean I wanted her to continue doing bad things.

Not me. I voted for the dopehead. I embraced his dopeheadedness.

**BigWaaagh**

Let the assault on the environment begin. This is like making Michael Vick the head of ASPCA.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2016/12/oklahoma-ag-pruitt-epa-chief-232319

**infinite_array**

Frazzled wrote:

Did she take it back? No.

She took it back in September after realizing that more Republican voters would be willing to step into the basket than distance themselves from the worst of their base.

Frazzled wrote:

I talked to two family friends who voted Trump. They didn't vote for Trump, they voted against Hillary. If HRC can't get older women to vote for her, yea she's going to lose, and she did.

By voting for Trump... They're not voting for Trump?

Ask them who they voted for back in 2012 and 2008.

**Frazzled**

Let the assault on the environment begin. This is like making Michael Vick the head of ASPCA.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2016/12/oklahoma-ag-pruitt-epa-chief-232319

You're just jealous because he comes from the land of flat. When the fracking induced tremors hit, its so flat balls and small children on Hot Wheels scooters roll for miles. Grandmas in wheelchairs have been known to roll so far they end up in Arkansas where Bill Clinton feels their pain.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

infinite_array wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Did she take it back? No.

She took it back in September after realizing that more Republican voters would be willing to step into the basket than distance themselves from the worst of their base.

She only qualified the number. She didn't take it back.

Frazzled wrote:

I talked to two family friends who voted Trump. They didn't vote for Trump, they voted against Hillary. If HRC can't get older women to vote for her, yea she's going to lose, and she did.

By voting for Trump... They're not voting for Trump?

Ask them who they voted for back in 2012 and 2008.

Ask HRC voters how many voted for her vs. voting against Trump.

2012-Obama. 2008 I didn't know them.

**DarkTraveler777**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:

By doing what they did (voting Trump and supporting Trump) they are becoming the very thing they don't want to be associated with in some misguided attempt to strike back at a nebulous group ("SJWs") who they despise. So really, they are the gak bags "SJWs" believe them to be since they are willing to embrace the ugly rhetoric of Trump and embrace his toxic ideas in order to score points against a social movement they disagree with.

This is that wide brush I was talking about. Just because someone voted for Trump does not mean they embrace, support, or condone his offenses. All it means is that, at minimum, they're willing to ignore his offences because they're getting something else they do want/support. There is a difference.

Just like I was willing to ignore Clinton's corruption because I would get something else I supported. It didn't mean I wanted her to continue doing bad things.

Sorry, but I cannot accept that stance.

Ignoring certain policy choices a candidate made is one thing, but if that candidate creates their entire platform on racism, misogyny and bigotry, that isn't a policy issue, that is a character issue. You could argue that Clinton's corruption is a direct reflection of her character, and many people did indeed feel that way, but somehow Trump gets a pass in that regard on the statements he has made about women, minorities and institutions in our country. Somehow his character is separated from his policy when that same courtesy is not extended to other politicians (remember when Obama was a monster for attending a church that hosted Reverend Jeremiah Wright?).

When Trump supporters aren't willing to accept that they voted in a racist, bigoted, misogynist, when they want to put an asterisk by their support, they are being disingenuous. When Trump supporters "only" supported him because they wanted to send a message to "SJWs" they have to acknowledge that their vote enabled a man with a flawed character, who ran on undemocratic principles, to become the Commander in Chief. One can't back away from the ugliness of Trump while also pointing out the ugliness of the other side as justification for a Trump vote.

Either character matters or it doesn't. It seemed to matter greatly for anti-Hillary people, but got lost suddenly when they had to evaluate Trump.

Its mental gymnastics to try and justify the ugliness of Trump and not accepting the consequences their vote had, has, and will continue to have on the country for years to come.

**Frazzled**

Ignoring certain policy choices a candidate made is one thing, but if that candidate creates their entire platform on racism, misogyny and bigotry, that isn't a policy issue, that is a character issue.

Your argument is based on your opinion, and thus fails before it begins. The only popular candidate to try that was the Democrat Wallace and of course Strom Thurmond.

Now if we voted for Cthulu, would you be arguing that thats a character issue as Cthulu is all about that 10,000 and pain and blood thing? You know thats just puffery right? Its really just 100 years or so.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
interesting and unique plan afoot by Democrats to seize control of the Senate and force Garland's appointment. I think its a good plan, after all any plan to "fight the Fascists" is a a good plan.

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/12/senate-democrats-have-one-shot-saving

It is now time for Senate Democrats to take their shot at saving this country from fascists assuming the reins of power in January. It can be done, but it will require them to be courageous and aggressive.

David Waldman (KagroX on Twitter) has outlined how they can confirm Judge Merrick Garland on January 3rd for the few minutes that they will be the majority in the Senate. Waldman is a long-standing expert on Senate procedure and political plays. He was one of the first to call for passage of the ACA via reconciliation in the Senate after Scott Brown was elected.

Here it is, in a nutshell.

On January 3, 2017, Democrats will hold the majority in the Senate for a few minutes, until the newly-elected Senators are sworn in. Biden could convene the Senate in those few minutes and call for a vote. The majority could then suspend the rules and vote in Merrick Garland.

The key here is that VP Biden would have to be willing to convene the Senate and recognize Senator Dick Durbin instead of Mitch McConnell. Durbin moves to re-nominate Garland, and Senate Democrats then vote to confirm him. They will have a quorum for those few minutes.

It's bold. Garland would be confirmed by 34 Democrats and no Republicans. It will certainly enrage Republicans, but they're already enraged and full of hubris about how they're going to screw Democrats anyway, so what do they really have to lose?

Not much. It takes courage. It takes a resolve to do what's right for this country, to reclaim the Supreme Court nomination Republicans think they stole from us. It takes backbone.

Here's where the rubber meets the road. We're not talking about "comity" anymore. We're talking about conviction and confirmation.

Here are Waldman's tweets. Let's start making some noise about this. Call everyone. Get Bernie Sanders on board, fired up. Let's DO THIS.

Send Biden to the Senate on Jan. 3 w Garland's renomination & instructions to recognize Durbin before swearing in. https://t.co/KUNbf8qF8a

— David Waldman (@KagroX) November 25, 2016

Dem Senators can force approval of Merrick Garland on Jan. 3: Crazy!

Trump supporters recite Nazi propaganda & give fascist salute: Dapper!

↓ Story continues below ↓

— David Waldman (@KagroX) November 22, 2016

@CatrionaMDW On 1/3, before new Sens. are sworn, 67 seated Sens. & Biden are in the chamber. Biden turns to Durbin instead of McConnell. Go.

— David Waldman (@KagroX) November 22, 2016

@CatrionaMDW 67 Senators are seated. 34 is a quorum. Rs walk out & it's unanimous instead of 34-30.

— David Waldman (@KagroX) November 22, 2016

@CatrionaMDW Schumer's not involved. He's among the Sens. who wouldn't be sworn at the time. And no, pro forma sessions predate them all.

— David Waldman (@KagroX) November 22, 2016

Senators, don't throw away your shot.

**Tannhauser42**

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Tannhauser42 wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:

By doing what they did (voting Trump and supporting Trump) they are becoming the very thing they don't want to be associated with in some misguided attempt to strike back at a nebulous group ("SJWs") who they despise. So really, they are the gak bags "SJWs" believe them to be since they are willing to embrace the ugly rhetoric of Trump and embrace his toxic ideas in order to score points against a social movement they disagree with.

This is that wide brush I was talking about. Just because someone voted for Trump does not mean they embrace, support, or condone his offenses. All it means is that, at minimum, they're willing to ignore his offences because they're getting something else they do want/support. There is a difference.

Just like I was willing to ignore Clinton's corruption because I would get something else I supported. It didn't mean I wanted her to continue doing bad things.

Sorry, but I cannot accept that stance..

I'll have to explain in detail later when I have the time, but your whole post clearly indicates you did not understand mine.

**Frazzled**

A modest proposal:

Lets quit calling Democrat and Republican voters: corrupt; racist; misogynist, socialist, sexist,fascist or communist. I know its really stepping out there, but maybe it will make the thread a little more tolerable.

**commander dante**

Frazzled wrote:
A modest proposal:

Lets quit calling Democrat and Republican voters: corrupt; racist; misogynist, socialist, sexist,fascist or communist. I know its really stepping out there, but maybe it will make the thread a little more tolerable.

Yes, Lets

I believe we should shift the conversation to TIME magazine naming Trump "Person Of the Year"

And all i see about it are "Hurr Durr Hitler got that as well so Trump=Hitler" So Did Ghandi, Obama Etc
You cant just "Ignore" History to get what you want

And anyway, TIME PoTY is decided by the Most Infulentual, not the "Best" (In terms of if they're a Good Guy)

**Frazzled**

Trump is a good pick. I would have also considered "the forgotten voter" and of course this guy, already discussed in TIME:

http://time.com/4285465/watch-a-dog-play-hockey/

**Co'tor Shas**

Wasn't Obama POTY in 2008? I'm pretty sure most presidents win it the first time.

**jasper76**

Wait a sec...people still read TIME magazine?

**Galef**

jasper76 wrote:
Wait a sec...people still read TIME magazine?

Doctors offices need something to stock their waiting rooms with, I guess

**BigWaaagh**

Oooooooh, yeah! Didn't know if I should post this here or the Wrestling thread.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/trump-chooses-pro-wrestling-magnate-linda-mcmahon-to-head-sba/ar-AAlh0uX?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

**Frazzled**

OK now Trump is just trolling us. I did SBA loans a long time ago and you need a banker to run that, not some piece of of crap carnival barker.

**A Town Called Malus**

The only interaction the McMahons have had with small businesses is to buy them out and then waste their talent.

**Easy E**

Frazzled wrote:
OK now Trump is just trolling us. I did SBA loans a long time ago and you need a banker to run that, not some piece of of crap carnival barker.

He isn't trolling, he has just exhausted his rolodex of loyalists.

**Frazzled**

Easy E wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
OK now Trump is just trolling us. I did SBA loans a long time ago and you need a banker to run that, not some piece of of crap carnival barker.

He isn't trolling, he has just exhausted his rolodex of loyalists.

That sounds amazingly accurate.

**BigWaaagh**

Frazzled wrote:
Easy E wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
OK now Trump is just trolling us. I did SBA loans a long time ago and you need a banker to run that, not some piece of of crap carnival barker.

He isn't trolling, he has just exhausted his rolodex of loyalists.

That sounds amazingly accurate.

Take that Queso! It's not your day Frazz... Now I'm hungry.

http://www.thv11.com/news/local/arkansas-cheese-dip-wins-us-senate-blind-taste-taste/365311085

**jasper76**

I'm hearing from people that Bam Bam Bigelow will be the next ICE Administrator.

**BigWaaagh**

jasper76 wrote:
I'm hearing from people that Bam Bam Bigelow will be the next ICE Administrator.

At this point, I'd take Ric "Nature Boy" Flair as EPA head over that gakbag from Oklahoma chosen by Trump. No offense, Sooners.

**A Town Called Malus**

jasper76 wrote:
I'm hearing from people that Bam Bam Bigelow will be the next ICE Administrator.

That'd be quite the trick as he's been dead for almost 10 years

**d-usa**

I wonder how many people who had any complaints about "pay-to-play" by Clinton and her foundation are now silent about Trump and his appointments.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
I'm hearing from people that Bam Bam Bigelow will be the next ICE Administrator.

That'd be quite the trick as he's been dead for almost 10 years

Well, that means he voted Democrat and Trump won't pick him.

**jasper76**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
I'm hearing from people that Bam Bam Bigelow will be the next ICE Administrator.

That'd be quite the trick as he's been dead for almost 10 years

Ouch. I'm both showing my age and my ignorance all at once!

(Incidentally, that sucks...I loved Bam Bam when I was a kid!)

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:

interesting and unique plan afoot by Democrats to seize control of the Senate and force Garland's appointment. I think its a good plan, after all any plan to "fight the Fascists" is a a good plan.

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/12/senate-democrats-have-one-shot-saving

It is now time for Senate Democrats to take their shot at saving this country from fascists assuming the reins of power in January. It can be done, but it will require them to be courageous and aggressive.

David Waldman (KagroX on Twitter) has outlined how they can confirm Judge Merrick Garland on January 3rd for the few minutes that they will be the majority in the Senate. Waldman is a long-standing expert on Senate procedure and political plays. He was one of the first to call for passage of the ACA via reconciliation in the Senate after Scott Brown was elected.

Here it is, in a nutshell.

On January 3, 2017, Democrats will hold the majority in the Senate for a few minutes, until the newly-elected Senators are sworn in. Biden could convene the Senate in those few minutes and call for a vote. The majority could then suspend the rules and vote in Merrick Garland.

The key here is that VP Biden would have to be willing to convene the Senate and recognize Senator Dick Durbin instead of Mitch McConnell. Durbin moves to re-nominate Garland, and Senate Democrats then vote to confirm him. They will have a quorum for those few minutes.

It's bold. Garland would be confirmed by 34 Democrats and no Republicans. It will certainly enrage Republicans, but they're already enraged and full of hubris about how they're going to screw Democrats anyway, so what do they really have to lose?

Not much. It takes courage. It takes a resolve to do what's right for this country, to reclaim the Supreme Court nomination Republicans think they stole from us. It takes backbone.

Here's where the rubber meets the road. We're not talking about "comity" anymore. We're talking about conviction and confirmation.

Here are Waldman's tweets. Let's start making some noise about this. Call everyone. Get Bernie Sanders on board, fired up. Let's DO THIS.

Send Biden to the Senate on Jan. 3 w Garland's renomination & instructions to recognize Durbin before swearing in. https://t.co/KUNbf8qF8a

— David Waldman (@KagroX) November 25, 2016

Dem Senators can force approval of Merrick Garland on Jan. 3: Crazy!

Trump supporters recite Nazi propaganda & give fascist salute: Dapper!

↓ Story continues below ↓

— David Waldman (@KagroX) November 22, 2016

@CatrionaMDW On 1/3, before new Sens. are sworn, 67 seated Sens. & Biden are in the chamber. Biden turns to Durbin instead of McConnell. Go.

— David Waldman (@KagroX) November 22, 2016

@CatrionaMDW 67 Senators are seated. 34 is a quorum. Rs walk out & it's unanimous instead of 34-30.

— David Waldman (@KagroX) November 22, 2016

@CatrionaMDW Schumer's not involved. He's among the Sens. who wouldn't be sworn at the time. And no, pro forma sessions predate them all.

— David Waldman (@KagroX) November 22, 2016

Senators, don't throw away your shot.

Nope. Nope.... and nope.

Having said that, all the GOP has to do, is warn Schumer that if he pulls this off... expect the GOP to 'pack' the courts in an aggressive way.

We could have 13, 15 or 17 Supreme Court Justices if Congress/President desires it.

**Co'tor Shas**

It's a horrid idea, and goes against the spirit of the law (much like not voting on any nominee).

**feeder**

I agree it's a terrible idea. The alternative is whoever Trumppence puts forwards.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Fething deplorables and those who closed their eyes and got into bed with those deplorables really fethed your country.

**whembly**

feeder wrote:
I agree it's a terrible idea. The alternative is whoever Trumppence puts forwards.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Fething deplorables and those who closed their eyes and got into bed with those deplorables really fethed your country.

:sigh:

Keep that up... Trump will be re-elected.