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.
jasper76 wrote: For the most part, they are people who feel that both political parties have failed them miserably.
So, in response to feeling like both parties have failed them, they vote for one of the parties that has failed them. And for a candidate who is an obvious con man using them for personal gain. Makes sense to me...
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.
jasper76 wrote: For the most part, they are people who feel that both political parties have failed them miserably.
So, in response to feeling like both parties have failed them, they vote for one of the parties that has failed them. And for a candidate who is an obvious con man using them for personal gain. Makes sense to me...
It doesn't have to make sense to you. The world does not turn based on your perception of it. You can endlessly look down on these Americans for their choice, try and understand why they made their choice, or do whatever you like. It won't change what happened.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/06 22:26:08
On one of the few positve notes of late in DC, it looks like there is a leaked white paper from the ATF discussing removing suppressors from the NFA to reduce work backlogs, clearing up some of the sillyness around shouldering braces, and AWB feature import restrictions.
Now, these probably have a snowballs chance in hell of going through, but one can hope.
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.
A Town Called Malus wrote: So I was right when I said that Conservatives are now an irrelevant fringe of US politics.
I don't think they're irrelevant. They are still there, but they are much diminished and basically subservient to Trump, because they fear getting primaried by him and his supporters if they don't tow the new line.
The same thing happened under the Tea Party regime.
Peregrine wrote: Also, this idea that Clinton was some uniquely horrible candidate that needed to be opposed at all costs is utter lunacy. She's a center-left career politician, with the usual rumors of scandals and corruption that go along with pretty much any prominent politician. FFS, her primary campaign was essentially "I'm business as usual, let's keep doing more of the same". There are legitimate things to disagree with about her policy choices, but stop repeating this absurd propaganda myth that Clinton is Satan incarnate.
Uniquely horrible does fit. With active FBI investigations into the Clinton Foundation as well as her use of a private email server as SEC State, I don't think you can find another candidate under that level federal criminal scrutiny during a POTUS campaign. Add in the DNC's collusion with her campaign to take down Sanders and she does indeed seem to be uniquely horrible. If not, who else hit those levels?
This uniquely horrible candidate still won the popular vote by 3 million while Trump only edged the EC by one of the narrowest margins for decades.
Still, it's clearly true that Trump doesn't have widespread conservative support. Look at the pictures of the crowds at his inauguration.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/06 22:59:07
Vaktathi wrote: On one of the few positve notes of late in DC, it looks like there is a leaked white paper from the ATF discussing removing suppressors from the NFA to reduce work backlogs, clearing up some of the sillyness around shouldering braces, and AWB feature import restrictions.
Now, these probably have a snowballs chance in hell of going through, but one can hope.
I'm really hoping the Hearing Protection Act goes through, but like you I think it's unlikely. I figure it will just sit in committee indefinitely rather than actually get brought up for a vote. If it does get brought up for a vote I expect lots of "poison pill" amendments which will either keep it from getting passed or we'll get something like the Hughes amendment to the '86 FOPA.
I'm on the fence about contacting my Senators and Representative about it. Normally I would in a heartbeat, but I'm trying to stay objective and I think there are probably more important things going on right at this moment and maybe I shouldn't be drawing their attention to less important things.
CptJake wrote: With active FBI investigations into the Clinton Foundation as well as her use of a private email server as SEC State, I don't think you can find another candidate under that level federal criminal scrutiny during a POTUS campaign.
Trump's fraudulent "university" says hi. It's a sign of how dysfunctional US conservatives are that "Clinton is being investigated for being a typical politician*" is portrayed as some uniquely horrible situation where voting for literally anyone is justified as long as it keeps her out of office, but deliberately running a for-profit "university" that blatantly scammed its customers for large amounts of money is completely forgotten. The investigation into Trump's scam may be less prominent than the Clinton scandals, but it should be a much bigger red flag when considering who is worth voting for. Clinton's offenses were business as usual for high-level politicians, Trump's was not.
*Remember, republicans have used similar email servers and had similar issues with mishandling classified information, with a similar lack of punishment.
Add in the DNC's collusion with her campaign to take down Sanders and she does indeed seem to be uniquely horrible.
I don't think that a political party putting its support behind a particular candidate is really that alarming, as much as I would have preferred Sanders. Remember that parties have no obligation to hold primaries at all, and are free to nominate whoever they want by whatever means they want.
If not, who else hit those levels?
Trump, even without resorting to hypothetical "the next Hitler" candidates.
.
Trump was NOT under FBI criminal investigation. No other POTUS candidate was either. I'm not sure one has ever been.
So again, how was she NOT an awful candidate?
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
CptJake wrote: With active FBI investigations into the Clinton Foundation as well as her use of a private email server as SEC State, I don't think you can find another candidate under that level federal criminal scrutiny during a POTUS campaign.
Trump's fraudulent "university" says hi. It's a sign of how dysfunctional US conservatives are that "Clinton is being investigated for being a typical politician*" is portrayed as some uniquely horrible situation where voting for literally anyone is justified as long as it keeps her out of office, but deliberately running a for-profit "university" that blatantly scammed its customers for large amounts of money is completely forgotten. The investigation into Trump's scam may be less prominent than the Clinton scandals, but it should be a much bigger red flag when considering who is worth voting for. Clinton's offenses were business as usual for high-level politicians, Trump's was not.
*Remember, republicans have used similar email servers and had similar issues with mishandling classified information, with a similar lack of punishment.
Add in the DNC's collusion with her campaign to take down Sanders and she does indeed seem to be uniquely horrible.
I don't think that a political party putting its support behind a particular candidate is really that alarming, as much as I would have preferred Sanders. Remember that parties have no obligation to hold primaries at all, and are free to nominate whoever they want by whatever means they want.
If not, who else hit those levels?
Trump, even without resorting to hypothetical "the next Hitler" candidates.
.
Trump was NOT under FBI criminal investigation. No other POTUS candidate was either. I'm not sure one has ever been.
So again, how was she NOT an awful candidate?
How many charges did the FBI bring against HRC? How many days was her court trial? What sort of criminal penalties were applied to her?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
CptJake wrote: With active FBI investigations into the Clinton Foundation as well as her use of a private email server as SEC State, I don't think you can find another candidate under that level federal criminal scrutiny during a POTUS campaign.
Trump's fraudulent "university" says hi. It's a sign of how dysfunctional US conservatives are that "Clinton is being investigated for being a typical politician*" is portrayed as some uniquely horrible situation where voting for literally anyone is justified as long as it keeps her out of office, but deliberately running a for-profit "university" that blatantly scammed its customers for large amounts of money is completely forgotten. The investigation into Trump's scam may be less prominent than the Clinton scandals, but it should be a much bigger red flag when considering who is worth voting for. Clinton's offenses were business as usual for high-level politicians, Trump's was not.
*Remember, republicans have used similar email servers and had similar issues with mishandling classified information, with a similar lack of punishment.
Add in the DNC's collusion with her campaign to take down Sanders and she does indeed seem to be uniquely horrible.
I don't think that a political party putting its support behind a particular candidate is really that alarming, as much as I would have preferred Sanders. Remember that parties have no obligation to hold primaries at all, and are free to nominate whoever they want by whatever means they want.
If not, who else hit those levels?
Trump, even without resorting to hypothetical "the next Hitler" candidates.
.
Trump was NOT under FBI criminal investigation. No other POTUS candidate was either. I'm not sure one has ever been.
So again, how was she NOT an awful candidate?
How many charges did the FBI bring against HRC? How many days was her court trial? What sort of criminal penalties were applied to her?
Hillary was a bad candidate the proof is in the fact that in states that have been reliably Democrat in presidential elections for decades Democrats failed to turn out and vote for her. If a candidate can't garner support from the people that should find the candidate most appealing then that candidate isn't a good one.
CptJake wrote: With active FBI investigations into the Clinton Foundation as well as her use of a private email server as SEC State, I don't think you can find another candidate under that level federal criminal scrutiny during a POTUS campaign.
Trump's fraudulent "university" says hi. It's a sign of how dysfunctional US conservatives are that "Clinton is being investigated for being a typical politician*" is portrayed as some uniquely horrible situation where voting for literally anyone is justified as long as it keeps her out of office, but deliberately running a for-profit "university" that blatantly scammed its customers for large amounts of money is completely forgotten. The investigation into Trump's scam may be less prominent than the Clinton scandals, but it should be a much bigger red flag when considering who is worth voting for. Clinton's offenses were business as usual for high-level politicians, Trump's was not.
*Remember, republicans have used similar email servers and had similar issues with mishandling classified information, with a similar lack of punishment.
Add in the DNC's collusion with her campaign to take down Sanders and she does indeed seem to be uniquely horrible.
I don't think that a political party putting its support behind a particular candidate is really that alarming, as much as I would have preferred Sanders. Remember that parties have no obligation to hold primaries at all, and are free to nominate whoever they want by whatever means they want.
If not, who else hit those levels?
Trump, even without resorting to hypothetical "the next Hitler" candidates.
.
Trump was NOT under FBI criminal investigation. No other POTUS candidate was either. I'm not sure one has ever been.
So again, how was she NOT an awful candidate?
How many charges did the FBI bring against HRC? How many days was her court trial? What sort of criminal penalties were applied to her?
Hillary was a bad candidate the proof is in the fact that in states that have been reliably Democrat in presidential elections for decades Democrats failed to turn out and vote for her. If a candidate can't garner support from the people that should find the candidate most appealing then that candidate isn't a good one.
She was an establishment candidate in an anti establishment national mood, she was not the candidate that could inspire, the drawback of having been in public service so long is you amass a record, for good or bad. Her opponent had a much better campaign staff and ran circles around her. She has no real personal magnetism, she couldnt rally folks the way bernie could and she was not elizabeth warren. that the party apparatus basically crowned her queen despite the general mood that did not favor her , that didnt help. Trying to be a back to back democrat president worked against her as well. She was the wrong candidate at the wrong time.
CptJake wrote: With active FBI investigations into the Clinton Foundation as well as her use of a private email server as SEC State, I don't think you can find another candidate under that level federal criminal scrutiny during a POTUS campaign.
Trump's fraudulent "university" says hi. It's a sign of how dysfunctional US conservatives are that "Clinton is being investigated for being a typical politician*" is portrayed as some uniquely horrible situation where voting for literally anyone is justified as long as it keeps her out of office, but deliberately running a for-profit "university" that blatantly scammed its customers for large amounts of money is completely forgotten. The investigation into Trump's scam may be less prominent than the Clinton scandals, but it should be a much bigger red flag when considering who is worth voting for. Clinton's offenses were business as usual for high-level politicians, Trump's was not.
*Remember, republicans have used similar email servers and had similar issues with mishandling classified information, with a similar lack of punishment.
Add in the DNC's collusion with her campaign to take down Sanders and she does indeed seem to be uniquely horrible.
I don't think that a political party putting its support behind a particular candidate is really that alarming, as much as I would have preferred Sanders. Remember that parties have no obligation to hold primaries at all, and are free to nominate whoever they want by whatever means they want.
If not, who else hit those levels?
Trump, even without resorting to hypothetical "the next Hitler" candidates.
.
Trump was NOT under FBI criminal investigation. No other POTUS candidate was either. I'm not sure one has ever been.
So again, how was she NOT an awful candidate?
How many charges did the FBI bring against HRC? How many days was her court trial? What sort of criminal penalties were applied to her?
Hillary was a bad candidate the proof is in the fact that in states that have been reliably Democrat in presidential elections for decades Democrats failed to turn out and vote for her. If a candidate can't garner support from the people that should find the candidate most appealing then that candidate isn't a good one.
She was perceived as a bad candidate by many, sure.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Warren would have been an awesome candidate, I'd have loved to vote for Warren (even if I strongly disagree with her on many issues), particularly after her verbal gangland beatdown of Stumpf after the Wells Fargo debacle a few months ago, that was a thing of true beauty, as was her savaging of DeVos.
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.
Vaktathi wrote: Warren would have been an awesome candidate, I'd have loved to vote for Warren (even if I strongly disagree with her on many issues), particularly after her verbal gangland beatdown of Stumpf after the Wells Fargo debacle a few months ago, that was a thing of true beauty, as was her savaging of DeVos.
If the Dems nominate Warren, they'd be nominating who many believe is a "social justice warrior" paragon. I don't think it would be a wise move; that's not the way the wind is blowing. They need a centrist with crossover appeal.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/07 02:13:30
I said Hillary was a bad candidate due to all the negatives back in the Primaries and was shouted down. I think some forgot that there is an element of the whole thing being a popularity contest and she is the least liked kid in school. I think it was assumed by some that her not being Trump would be enough but in the end a charismatic jackass will move people more than an unpopular candidate.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Vaktathi wrote: Warren would have been an awesome candidate, I'd have loved to vote for Warren (even if I strongly disagree with her on many issues), particularly after her verbal gangland beatdown of Stumpf after the Wells Fargo debacle a few months ago, that was a thing of true beauty, as was her savaging of DeVos.
If the Dems nominate Warren, they'd be nominating who many believe is a "social justice warrior" paragon. I don't think it would be a wise move; that's not the way the wind is blowing. They need a centrist with crossover appeal.
The people who won't vote for someone because they believe they're a 'social justice warrior' are by and large going to be checking that box next to the 'R', anyway.
Vaktathi wrote: Warren would have been an awesome candidate, I'd have loved to vote for Warren (even if I strongly disagree with her on many issues), particularly after her verbal gangland beatdown of Stumpf after the Wells Fargo debacle a few months ago, that was a thing of true beauty, as was her savaging of DeVos.
If the Dems nominate Warren, they'd be nominating who many believe is a "social justice warrior" paragon. I don't think it would be a wise move; that's not the way the wind is blowing. They need a centrist with crossover appeal.
The people who won't vote for someone because they believe they're a 'social justice warrior' are by and large going to be checking that box next to the 'R', anyway.
I suggest to you that perhaps even many Democrat voters are no longer onboard with stuff like political correctness, identity politics, and other pillars of the "social justice warrior" platform. I saw a poll somewhere before the election where more than 60% of Democrats think political correctness has gone overboard.
But if you think she's a smart pick, by all means go ahead and give her your vote. She's almost certain to run, I'd think.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/07 02:28:11
Vaktathi wrote: Warren would have been an awesome candidate, I'd have loved to vote for Warren (even if I strongly disagree with her on many issues), particularly after her verbal gangland beatdown of Stumpf after the Wells Fargo debacle a few months ago, that was a thing of true beauty, as was her savaging of DeVos.
If the Dems nominate Warren, they'd be nominating who many believe is a "social justice warrior" paragon. I don't think it would be a wise move; that's not the way the wind is blowing. They need a centrist with crossover appeal.
If she ran on a primarily economic platform she'd be a perfectly viable candidate, and probably better positioned than just about anyone else on the D side there, and, as noted, anyone who would be excessively turned off by any "SJW" secondary-stuff on a primarily economic platform wouldn't be voting for Warren anyway.
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.
Vaktathi wrote: If she ran on a primarily economic platform she'd be a perfectly viable candidate, and probably better positioned than just about anyone else on the D side there, and, as noted, anyone who would be excessively turned off by any "SJW" secondary-stuff on a primarily economic platform wouldn't be voting for Warren anyway.
That a big "if".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: If warren is somehow not viable who do you think would be a "viable" candidate, jasper?
First and foremost, Bill Gates would mop the floor with anyone, IMO. But I doubt he would even consider it; he already owns the world.
Barring any intervening scandals, I think Cory Booker is a winning candidate. I also think Gavin Newsom is worth consideration.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/02/07 02:53:18
Vaktathi wrote: If she ran on a primarily economic platform she'd be a perfectly viable candidate, and probably better positioned than just about anyone else on the D side there, and, as noted, anyone who would be excessively turned off by any "SJW" secondary-stuff on a primarily economic platform wouldn't be voting for Warren anyway.
That a big "if".
That's been her primary platform in her elections thus far. Even with Trump her primary thrusts have been overwhelmingly of an economic or financial nature, wanting him to release tax returns, put assets in a blind trust, etc.
Barring any intervening scandals, I think Cory Booker is a winning candidate.
He would be another solid candidate for sure.
I also think Gavin Newsome is worth consideration.
If Warren would get tarred with the SJW brush, Newsom would be crucified for it (despite once being known as a business centric candidate), and would energize the "pro-2A" crowd more than almost any other candidate, even Hillary. Newsom is the iconic "California Smug Liberal" to a T, the stereotype even, for many.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/07 02:59:28
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.
OK, I didn't know Newsom was a big antigunner. He does have that "smug California handsome" look about him, I give you that would also work against him.
whembly wrote: It's this ridiculous claim that if you voted for Trump (or any candidate for that matter) that you must support/own everything a candidate does. You can vote for Trump in an effort to do all that you can to keep Hillary Clinton out of the WH.
"Support" means nothing. Whether you in your head decide to support some, most or all of what Trump does and wants to do means nothing to no-one. What matters is how you vote. And people need to be accountable for their vote. It really is the simplest thing in the world that a person is responsible for the vote they cast.
Pick your poison... not your savior.
While it's true that no president is going to part the nile and the lead the people to the promised land, at some there needs to be a long national discussion about bringing some reason and understanding back in to politics. Things have gotten so absolutely deranged that Donald Trump was seen as a viable choice for president. This obviously isn't true, but Trump was able to stand against 3 or 4 normal republican candidates and about 10 other crazies, and a decent chunk of the Republican base thought he was a viable candidate.
After winning, Trump stood against Hillary Clinton, and almost all of the Republican base, many of whom had hated the guy just months before, now were happy to vote him because they thought Clinton was the devil. And even more ridiculously, a large number of Democrats saw Clinton and Trump and couldn't see the difference.
US politics is right now in a place where coherent policies and consistent positions just aren't a factor for the electorate. This should terrify everyone. I mean, hopefully Trump is the cure for this as people realise what it means to have genuinely incompetent people in the Whitehouse for four years, but we can't just assume that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I find this is true of politics in general. Ignore that Bill did a generally good job as President. Probably one of the best men to sit in the White House in my life time. No. Not when there's a debate to be had about the definition of 'is' none of that matters at all. Ignore that Donald Trump is either an evil mastermind or a absurd idiot, no we have to debate Hillary Clinton's emails (and ignore that within 12 hours Donald Trump was already guilty of the same "crime"). It's not just politics either. There are thousands of Feminists in the world with a myriad of different thoughts and ideas, but the only ones that ever seem to get named regularly are the insane ones. Lots of Christians in the US, but I'll bet you more people have heard of the Westboro Baptists Church being complete a-Holes than that time the church down my street offered free blood tests for STDs to anyone who wanted one (and this is a college town so yeah... Actually not a rotten idea).
I think what I'm getting at isn't just about people tending to focus on the bad, but focus on where there is debate. Imagine if Clinton had been caught lying about Lewinsky, and the left as a whole just shrugged. They didn't deny it try to claim it was meaningless or whatever, they just didn't engage in the issue at all. And then within a week Clinton had done five other contraversial things that the left was willing to engage and debate.
Because Trump has a long history of sexual behaviour that the women involved say was sexually predatory, and yet that's barely even remembered. Because the left has raised it, and the right just doesn't engage, and it goes nowhere.
People tune out of issues when it suits them
This is a really good point. One the most interesting things I saw during the campaign was when some people started to control for party affiliation response rate in polls. Before this you saw some poll numbers that made sense, Trump would have one of his big scandals like attacking a silver star family, and his polls would drop about 10 points. That made sense, but it left a question about why Trump's numbers always recovered. But some analysis showed that the drop in Trump's poll numbers weren't actually showing big changes in voting preferences among either Democrats or Republicans, they were actually due to in large part to Republican response rates to the surveys declining. People who might be happy to take the survey and say they were voting for Trump one week, suddenly weren't so keen to take the survey a week later when in the midst of one of his scandals. But they were always planning on voting for Trump, even if they didn't want to talk about it right now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
r_squared wrote: An interesting point, however, the frequency of gaffes is also quite important. Throughout the campaign and even now, Trump and his team have issued a veritable tsunami of unbelievable rubbish, so much that it's almost hard to keep up. I get the impression that it's intentional, everyone is on the back foot, and it's almost impossible to debate anything as the next ridiculous denial of reality comes along.
Right wingers are still in denial about their collusion in electing a dangerous buffoon, which puts them on the defensive, and true Trump faithful just ignore it, or hand wave with "fake news".
Maybe it is a real tactic, lie, lie hard, and often. It definitely feels like a collusion between Trump, and Bannon.
Yeah, there is definitely an element here where Trump seems like the first president to understand the modern, 24 hour news stream. They release just an unending torrent of content. By the time anyone has taken the time to really analyse the issue the narrative has moved through three or four more stories.
I remember Karl Rove's statement that while others were spending time worrying about what was real, the Bush admin were creating their own reality. Rather than figure out what was true, they just decided what would be true, acted as if it were true, and then that made it so. What Trump is doing seems the next evolution on that, where the Trump admin doesn't believe they will make it true, they just don't care.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: There is a lot in what your say, Sebster. For example, your play by play record of Trump's first two weeks omitted the point that he put Bannon of Breitbart on the national security committee while banning the joint chiefs of staff from attending meetings where their services àren't going to be involved.
I made a deliberate choice to leave that out of my list because I considered it a deliberate staffing choice. Whether the decision was wise or not, it was done on purpose, and I was trying to focus just on the bungles and screw ups to show how out of their depth the admin was.
Since I made that list, its turned out that Trump signed the EO to include Bannon on the security committee without actually knowing that's what he was doing. So it was another bungle, but at the time it looked like a decision made on purpose.
What is good or bad about that decision? Any discussion has been lost in the reporting of other decisions.
There's certainly an element of serious but dry decisions by the Trump admin getting buried among the more incendiary but less important things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: No, but to clarify what I said I wasn't addressing Trump's complaint about the judge. That's just petty whining with no legal status behind it. The part I was actually responding to was the idea that things like ignoring supreme court rulings or changing the size of the court to skew it in a particular ideological direction are not things we should worry about because they happened before and our country survived. That's simply an absurd argument, and a far more dangerous attitude than anything involving Trump's latest twitter feud.
Yeah, and that's a really good point.
And to make a clarfication myself, I wasn't singling out your post or Peregrine's, it was more that I'd had the idea floating in my head that what we debate doesn't actually reflect what we actually find important. That the act of debate distorts priorities. It's just because I saw myself and the two of you starting to focus in on Trump's attack on the judge, and it prompted me to actually write down what we'd been thinking about.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/02/07 04:28:48
“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.
whembly wrote: It's this ridiculous claim that if you voted for Trump (or any candidate for that matter) that you must support/own everything a candidate does. You can vote for Trump in an effort to do all that you can to keep Hillary Clinton out of the WH.
"Support" means nothing. Whether you in your head decide to support some, most or all of what Trump does and wants to do means nothing to no-one. What matters is how you vote. And people need to be accountable for their vote. It really is the simplest thing in the world that a person is responsible for the vote they cast.
At the same time though, people should not continue to support a candidate blindly just because of how they cast their vote. I think it's worth clarifying that the fault is not in failing to support Trump after voting for him, or even refusing to admit that voting for him was a bad call in hindsight. The issue is that so many people refuse to admit they voted for Trump despite the available evidence showing he was the objectively worse choice.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/07 04:44:51
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.
Frazzled wrote: Maybe two. I expect the Democrats will attempt to impeach as soon as they regain power, regardless of the stated reason.
Nah, have you noticed that Democrats are doing nothing about Trump's business interests. They could hammer him on the emoluments clause, but they're silent. The only work being done on that is by independent ethics watchdogs.
Now possibly down the line Democrats might try some kind of theatrics about impeachment, if Trump's popularity drops down to 2007 GW Bush levels, but that will be more about forcing Republicans to protect Trump than actually getting the impeachment. But actually pushing Trump out of the whitehouse? No chance, because all that would do is produce a dirty fight that would make Democrats and Trump look bad, while making it easy for Republicans to put up someone not as obviously horrible as their candidate in 2020.
In terms of winning future elections, the best thing Democrats have going for themselves is Donald Trump in the Whitehouse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Our democracy has survived far worse than Trump so I am not that fearful that Trump is going to have much if any adverse effect on our govt.
I posted to say I agree with you that talk about this being the first step on the way to Tyrant Trump was hyperbole, but I then said that doesn't make it okay as it a degradation of a practice that is there to ensure the judiciary is secure from politicians. It doesn't have to be Trump who takes advantage of that in order for it to be a step in the wrong direction.
Since then you've made two posts, both of which begin and end with the idea that this doesn't mean Trump isn't going to become a tyrant. This appears to be all you have to say on the issue, and all you are willing to consider about this issue. Makes any more conversation on this a bit of a waste of time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: I think the big reason why Trumps bumbling campaign didn't hurt him is media coverage. Go check out medi reports from Republican friendly sources that would likely be the gonto media for aTrump supporters and Republicans and see how they covered Trump.
There was certainly a large portion of media that was very friendly to Trump, and looked to support or even create defences for his various screw ups. In contrast Clinton didn't have that. One of the biggest sources for the endless Clinton email stories was the NYT. This is because while the broad, overall position of the NYT may be much closer to the Democrats than to the Republicans, they remain an actual news service that first and foremost. They're chasing stories, big headlines and attention first, then accuracy second, and then actual important stories third.
Compare this to FOX, which is first and foremost dedicated to packaging events in a way the pleases their audience, with exciting stories second, and accuracy a distant third.
But at least that's better than the new wave of internet services like Breitbart, which drops accuracy off their list entirely.
In regards to this specific thread I think what we're seeing is a lack of Trump support on Dakka. Posters like me and others who didn't like Trump as a candidate and didn't vote for him and don't agree with all of his actions so far are going to pick and choose our moments to disagree with arguments/complaints against Trump. I'm never going to try to argue the point that Trump is a good president but I will argue the point that Trump won't be the straw that breaks the camels back in regards to our system of governance and civil order. I will argue the point that not everything that people object to that Trump does is worthy of national outrage or is unprecedented or the worse ever or will destroy our nation. So we can not have much debate about some of Trumps negatives because there might not be much disagreement about the perception that those particulars about the Trump administration are bad.
Sure, but what you're missing is that everyone picks and chooses their battles. Even hardline Trump supporters will engage on issues where they believe their argument is strong, or at least good enough. Why didn't Trump's charity shenanigans attract as much media as Clinton's? I'd argue that it's because, counterintuitively, there was actual substance behind the accusations against Trump and his charities. So when those allegations were made against Trump, the Trump supporters lacked any kind of response so they just didn't make a response. The issue dropped out of debates. In contrast, every time the Clinton Foundation was brought up there was always a whole pile of people on the left ready to argue the issue. This isn't to say one charity was good and another bad, but it explains the incredible phenomenon in which Clinton's charity was well known as a controversial issue, while Trump's was barely known despite there being far more substance to the charges against him.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/07 07:03:50
“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.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Both show conservatives supporting Tump at 81%. Are we talking "alternate facts" here or something? Are you just upset that you identify as conservative and can't understand why someone of a similar bent would vote Trump? Get in line. I identify as American and can't understand how an American would vote for him either.
Well alternative facts is reality of today. Forget facts. You just come up with your own alternative facts to suit you. Like now how he claims there are lots of terrorists attacks on Europe that aren't mentioned in news. Lol. He seriously thinks those would escape? When it's rather opposite. There's tons of news about police cases in Finland involving refugees etc despite for the facts that a) there's more Finns than refugees in Finland b) statistically for every 1000 refugee you have less police related events than 1000 natives(and this includes cases where refugee is victim) so logically there should be huge amount more news about police cases with just locals...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/07 07:16:36
Frazzled wrote: 60mm voted Trump. That doesn't mean they supported Trump, only didn't support Hillary.
So basically what you're arguing is that conservatives did the only meaningful thing that can be done to give a politician support, vote for him, but they don't support him.
Huh, I guess at least its becoming clear exactly why US conservatism has gone to such a crazy place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Well... to be fair, the polls were generally wrong in November...
Actually that's wrong. Across the board the polls were quite accurate. They were much more accurate than in 2012, for instance.
What was in error were some polling analysts, who mistakenly looked at each state as an isolated event, concluded that Trump would have to beat his poll numbers by 1 or 2 point in 5 or 6 states to win, and thought the odds of that happening to be remote. What they missed is that various groups of states tend to beat oplling numbers in the same ways, based largely on geographic and demographic similarities. Clinton was only polling a point or two higher across the rust belt, and if Trump beat his polls by 2 points in one of those states then he'd likely beat his polls by 2 points in most of those states. That would tip the electoral college Trump's way, and from there the only thing that'd save Clinton would be if hispanic voters got out in crazy numbers to give Clinton Florida.
In the end, Clinton's 2 point lead across the polls held up in the final results, but Trump beat his polls in some rust belt states and while hispanic voters did turn out in good numbers it was mostly in California and Texas where it didn't matter.
The polling analyst who laid out that exact scenario was, of course, Nate Silver. It's why he gave Trump a 70% chance of winning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Again... you're conflating 'Conservatives' with 'Republicans/Trump'.
You don't get to define your political faction by how you would like it to be. You define it by what it is. Your political faction includes 60m people who cast their vote for Trump. That is just how it is.
Talking about how modern day US conservatism got to such a crazy place is a conversation we've all been needing to have for a long time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Says the Democrat who candidate had fewer votes then Obama across the nation, including all those evilz racist states. Not lefty enough.
This argument makes zero sense, because it ignores the circumstances at the time of election. Remember, 2012 Obama got less votes than 2008 Obama. Is this because Obama was replaced by a clone in those four years, and we just didn't like the new Obama as much as the original? No, it's because Obama got a massive bounce in 2008 from the GFC and from the almost comical unpopularity of Bush at the end of his term. Clinton ran after 8 years of a Democrat in the whitehouse, and unfortunately that's a long enough time for a lot of democratic leaning voters to forget what things are like under a Republican presidency.
You're also ignoring political skill. Obama was a great speaker, Clinton was an okay speaker, sometimes. Obama sold the mainstream, centrist version of modern Democratic politics through a kind of hopeful, inspirational rhetoric. Clinton just kept talking about the nuts and bolts of complex policy issues.
Those things matter a lot. They certainly matter a lot more than the fairly minor differences between Obama and Clinton in policy.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/07 08:05:30
“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.