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.
Ahtman wrote:I've seen this posted several places in different ways so might as well see what people here say:
You voted for Trump because Clinton was going to be in Wall Street's pocket. Trump wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and eliminate the Fiduciary Rule, letting Wall Street return to its pre-2008 ways.
You voted for Trump because of Clinton's emails. The Trump administration is running its own private email server.
You voted for Trump because you thought the Clinton Foundation was "pay for play." Trump has refused to wall off his businesses from his administration, and personally profits from payments from foreign governments. \
You voted for Trump because of Clinton's role in Benghazi. Trump ordered the Yemen raid without adequate intel, and tweeted about "FAKE NEWS" while Americans died as a result of his carelessness.
You voted for Trump because Clinton didn't care about "the little guy." Trump's cabinet is full of billionaires, and he took away your health insurance so he could give them a multi-million-dollar tax break.
You voted for Trump because he was going to build a wall and Mexico was going to pay for it. American consumers will pay for the wall via import tariffs.
You voted for Trump because Clinton was going to get us into a war. Trump has provoked our enemies, alienated our allies, and given ISIS a decade's worth of recruiting material.
You voted for Trump because Clinton didn't have the stamina to do the job. Trump hung up on the Australian Prime Minister during a 5pm phone call because "it was at the end of a long day and he was tired and fatigue was setting in."
You voted for Trump because foreign leaders wouldn't "respect" Clinton. Foreign leaders, both friendly and hostile, are openly mocking Trump.
You voted for Trump because Clinton lies and "he tells it like it is." Trump and his administration lie with a regularity and brazenness that can only be described as shocking.
Let's be honest about what really happened. The reality is that you voted for Trump because you got conned. Trump is a grifter and the American people were the mark. Now that you know the score, quit insisting the con-man is on your side.
Fake News. None of that happened. Everyone likes Trump, even Obama! Trump said so.
Kilkrazy wrote: 30-40% support roughly matches his votes as a proportion of the electorate FWIW.
Didn't he get like 48% votes though? If 30-40% americans approve his actions and 48% voted him then whole bunch of people who voted for him then don't support his orders...
Not all the electorate voted. Trump got less than half the votes of the IDK what percentage of people actually voted.
~60m R votes, ~63m D votes idk how many independents but lets say ~5m, that's 128/350 Americans. You could say 40% of the electorate cast a vote.
feeder wrote: My issue is she highlights the pay-to-play politics that all the true believers were endlessly banging on about during the election and now... crickets.
I'm sure Whem' will be all over this after the fuss he made over the Clinton Foundation
Sure... what are the instances showing 'pay to play'??
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 00:05:15
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.'”
feeder wrote: My issue is she highlights the pay-to-play politics that all the true believers were endlessly banging on about during the election and now... crickets.
I'm sure Whem' will be all over this after the fuss he made over the Clinton Foundation
Sure... what are the instances showing 'pay to play'??
Did you not read the posts before this...?
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
whembly wrote: Sure... what are the instances showing 'pay to play'??
Direct quote from her:
“My family is the biggest contributor of soft money to the Republican National Committee. I have decided to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply concede the point. They are right. We do expect something in return. We expect to foster a conservative governing philosophy consisting of limited government and respect for traditional American virtues. We expect a return on our investment.”
Add that to the dishonesty of making her fortune from a pyramid scheme and her contempt for separation of church and state, and she's a nominee that should have been rejected 100-0.
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.
Ahtman wrote:I've seen this posted several places in different ways so might as well see what people here say:
You voted for Trump because Clinton was going to be in Wall Street's pocket. Trump wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and eliminate the Fiduciary Rule, letting Wall Street return to its pre-2008 ways.
You voted for Trump because of Clinton's emails. The Trump administration is running its own private email server.
You voted for Trump because you thought the Clinton Foundation was "pay for play." Trump has refused to wall off his businesses from his administration, and personally profits from payments from foreign governments. \
You voted for Trump because of Clinton's role in Benghazi. Trump ordered the Yemen raid without adequate intel, and tweeted about "FAKE NEWS" while Americans died as a result of his carelessness.
You voted for Trump because Clinton didn't care about "the little guy." Trump's cabinet is full of billionaires, and he took away your health insurance so he could give them a multi-million-dollar tax break.
You voted for Trump because he was going to build a wall and Mexico was going to pay for it. American consumers will pay for the wall via import tariffs.
You voted for Trump because Clinton was going to get us into a war. Trump has provoked our enemies, alienated our allies, and given ISIS a decade's worth of recruiting material.
You voted for Trump because Clinton didn't have the stamina to do the job. Trump hung up on the Australian Prime Minister during a 5pm phone call because "it was at the end of a long day and he was tired and fatigue was setting in."
You voted for Trump because foreign leaders wouldn't "respect" Clinton. Foreign leaders, both friendly and hostile, are openly mocking Trump.
You voted for Trump because Clinton lies and "he tells it like it is." Trump and his administration lie with a regularity and brazenness that can only be described as shocking.
Let's be honest about what really happened. The reality is that you voted for Trump because you got conned. Trump is a grifter and the American people were the mark. Now that you know the score, quit insisting the con-man is on your side.
Fake News. None of that happened. Everyone likes Trump, even Obama! Trump said so.
Kilkrazy wrote: 30-40% support roughly matches his votes as a proportion of the electorate FWIW.
Didn't he get like 48% votes though? If 30-40% americans approve his actions and 48% voted him then whole bunch of people who voted for him then don't support his orders...
Not all the electorate voted. Trump got less than half the votes of the IDK what percentage of people actually voted.
~60m R votes, ~63m D votes idk how many independents but lets say ~5m, that's 128/350 Americans. You could say 40% of the electorate cast a vote.
feeder wrote: My issue is she highlights the pay-to-play politics that all the true believers were endlessly banging on about during the election and now... crickets.
I'm sure Whem' will be all over this after the fuss he made over the Clinton Foundation
Sure... what are the instances showing 'pay to play'??
whembly wrote: Sure... what are the instances showing 'pay to play'??
Direct quote from her:
“My family is the biggest contributor of soft money to the Republican National Committee. I have decided to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply concede the point. They are right. We do expect something in return. We expect to foster a conservative governing philosophy consisting of limited government and respect for traditional American virtues. We expect a return on our investment.”
Add that to the dishonesty of making her fortune from a pyramid scheme and her contempt for separation of church and state, and she's a nominee that should have been rejected 100-0.
That quote is pretty clear that Devon donated to the Republicans based on the premise that the Republican Party would champion a political agenda based on limited govt conservatism and traditions American values (whatever those are) and since she gave the Party money she expects them to adhere to that philosophy. That's the same reasoning everyone who donates to a Party or candidate uses. If you liked the principals Bernie stood for as a candidate and donated money to his campaign you had an expectation that Bernie would use your donation to continue to champion the principals that earned him your donation. That's different from a quid pro quo arrangement.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 00:51:28
Yeah, I'm sure it's complete coincidence that someone who donated money to the republican party and openly said "I expect a return on my investment" was appointed to a position that she is utterly unqualified to hold. Pure coincidence. Drain the swam, indeed...
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.
I mean it's not technically illegal for her to use her notability as first lady for making money, but it is pretty repugnant.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, apparently the Republican's response to criticism of Sessions is to stop Democratic senators from being able to speak.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 01:59:08
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Yeah, I'm sure it's complete coincidence that someone who donated money to the republican party and openly said "I expect a return on my investment" was appointed to a position that she is utterly unqualified to hold. Pure coincidence. Drain the swam, indeed...
If you want to pull sentence fragments out of context and decide that demanding that the Party you donate money to support adheres to the principals they claim to espouse is the same as donating money to a politician for the express purpose of getting a personal benefit in exchange then go right ahead.
Donating piles of money and having your brother be the head of Blackwater is going to get you preferential treatment yes. That quote from Devos doesn't show that she donated money to the RNC because she expected to get a cabinet position out of it.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:None of this matters. What matters is “How much popularity Trump have in the military”. With high popularity among senior officers and sufficient popularity among the rest he can just seize power and be done with it.
As someone who has taken and lived by the enlistment oath for over 23 years, I can tell you how your little conspiracy theory would pan out in reality. ALL military personnel are sworn to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States, not any one or several persons in power. What would happen in your scenario is: President gives order to senior military person, who refuses said order as unlawful. That guy will either need arrested or executed. Find next in chain of command. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. LONG before he gets to anyone self-serving enough to cast away their oath, he will have racked up quite a body count, and his intent will be laid bare. Do you think the military would then follow an unlawful order given by his meat puppet, or steadfastly refuse, assisting in the removal of said President AND whatever high ranking official took his side. Any other result would simply not happen. I wouldn't expect someone who has never served in the US military to understand on that level, and I would expect a non-citizen to understand even less, so I tried to be as earnest as possible with it.
tneva82 wrote:Congress is on republic control now right? Have R's give president more power. That's how it's generally done. Those that have power give it to someone else for some reason.
Assuming that THAT happened, which would grossly violate the Constitution, what do you think would happen next? I'll give you a hint: it's hiding in my comment to HSOO above.
Just like the rest of them in the D.C. political establishment.
And there it is, ground zero of the derangement of modern US conservatism - the absolute conviction that politicians in Washington DC are terrible just because they are we said so.
The whole thing should be a big laugh, given that it was originally a sales pitch from Newt Gingrich designed to try and spread the blame for the disfunction he intended to create. It would be a laugh at least, except that a sizable portion of the US voting public has somehow been suckered in by that con, to the point where they honestly can't see how ridiculous it is to pick real estate developer and TV show host with zero policy knowledge and even less interest, over politician who's with vast knowledge and experience in Washington.
I'd like to think the screw up we've seen from Trump so far, and the inevitable screw up we'll see in the next four years will teach people that knowing what you're doing actually matters in politics. But I'm not certain people will take that lesson on board, because if learning from how politics plays out was a thing people did they never would have bought in to such a silly argument in the first place.
“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.
Prestor Jon wrote: That quote from Devos doesn't show that she donated money to the RNC because she expected to get a cabinet position out of it.
No, but it describes her attitude towards those donations. And if she didn't expect to get a cabinet position out of it then why did she get appointed? What are her qualifications for the job, besides donating lots of money to the republican party? Is it her valuable experience making money off a pyramid scheme? Or her desire to dismantle public education in favor of private religious schools that will teach her right-wing Christian ideology?
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: We also have a Constitution, and Separation of Powers with military to enforce it if needed.
A constitution and Separation of Power only works as far as people respect those. The Weimar republic had both.
Don't believe those will inherently prevent a dictatorship. What will prevent a dictatorship is the disapproval of everyone in the system (police, military, legislature, judiciary, …). However, given how Trump interacts with its followers, I can see him convincing them that it would be a good thing to give him unchecked power.
Yeah. Nobody TAKES power. But one can do it so that he is GIVEN power.
Obviously if everybody opposes Trump he cannot become dictator. But what if he is given dictatorial powers willingly? Has happened before, will happen again. Don't see anything in US that makes it uniquely safe from it. Constitution and separation of powers? Hasn't protected before either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Yeah, no, you're not going to get literally hundreds of thousands of military and LEOs to join forces to conspire to ditch the constitution for the sake of making Trump dictator of America.
Why makes America immune to that when that hasn't worked elsewhere?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: I'm sure it was the Founders idea to just assume everything would be cool and let stuff slide instead of being vigilant about government. There seems to be a strange thing going on where the people who used to argue how awful government is and that we need to be on guard for abuse went and voted for people who can't be trusted and then try to tell others that we should trust the system to keep everything in place. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Ah but it's because now people in power are R's. You only need to be on guard for abuse when it's D's in power!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: Do you think the military would then follow an unlawful order given by his meat puppet, or steadfastly refuse, assisting in the removal of said President AND whatever high ranking official took his side.
Has happened before in the history. So since we know it's possible what makes US immune to it? Oath to constitution? Not enough. History shows it. Give better reason.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/02/08 03:57:44
jasper76 wrote: Why so much reluctance for people to admit Clinton was a bad candidate?
Because while Clinton certainly ran a mediocre campaign, the claims that she was a bad candidate are nonsense.
Put the FBI aside for a second.
Or don't, because it was a beat up from the beginning to the end. She broke security protocols on emails. That's it. It is serious and investigation with the possibility of sanction was reasonable. The talk about criminal charges or the idea that it meant she should never be allowed near the halls of power again were pants on head crazy.
She was a Wall Street candidate. Whatever idealism she may have once had gave way to 6 figure speeches to Goldman Sachs. She was literally a Wall Street Senator.
This is wrong, has been constantly explained, to the point where it is getting ridiculous. Famous people give speeches. Because of the money event organizers can charge for tables at these speaking events, the speakers can charge a hell of a lot. Clinton's charges to Wall St were crazy high compared to what the average person earns, but they were run of the mill compared to what speakers with her level of fame can command. Nicky Minaj charges more than $250k just for turning up to a nightclub and sitting at a table for a couple of hours, she doesn't even have to talk to anyone. This is not evidence that Nicky Minaj is secretly getting payments from the nightclub industry to help them with advantageous
Meanwhile, under Obama we saw the first small steps towards restoring financial regulations. In themselves they were minor, but as a reversal of decades of de-regulation they were promising. The Wells Fargo theft was uncovered because of those new laws.
The issue here is that, like most of the campaign, it was argued in terms of personal attacks. Not on policy. Clinton was in favour of greater control and reform, Trump was in favour of less regulation.
Trump, of course, has now appointed a Goldman Sachs exec to his cabinet. He is drafting legislation to roll back the financial reforms passed under Obama. People would have known Trump was going to act to help Wall St profits, while Clinton was in favour of protecting the greater economy from Wall St instability... if only they read a fething thing about policy. But instead they read that nonsense about speaking tours.
She's a well known and unapologetic hawk.
She is certainly happy to intervene around the world. As a reason to be non-plussed about Clinton I can see how that would be an issue for many. But anyone with those inclinations would have to realise Trump was not only more interventionist he was dangerously reckless, and so Clinton must be the preferred option.
She ran against our natural American disinclination for dynasties.
What the gak? The US has had three father-son presidential dynasties (Adams, Harrison, Bush). The two Roosevelts were relations, not only by birth but through marriage (Eleanor was Teddy's niece). Madison, Taylor and Polk were all cousins. Van Buren was a cousin to the Roosevelts. US politics is practically inbred.
And she did the most idiotic thing she could...she insulted in harsh terms a huge swath of the citizenry with her "basket of deplorables" "irredeemable" comments.
It was a blunder, sure. In a campaign where Trump said more negative things about more people almost weekly, it's a bad hard to think it mattered one way or another.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I think everybody on this thread has long accepted that it matters not who sits in the White House.
I not only disagree, I hold think it is an absurd thing to believe. Utterly fething ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Plus that organized bribe machine...er charity. Interesting how donations blew away like the wind the moment she lost.
Except that's bs. The drop in Clinton Foundation donations collapsed in the first half of 2016, when the Clintons stopped working to collect them, because they were busy campaigning.
Funny that the bs about the Clintons just won't stop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: The thing with Trump is, he'd say what's on his mind and he showed he had a spine when dealing with his opponents and the media. That, combined with his populist message is what flipped those States.
There was certainly a level of appeal to that. And probably the bigger point was Trump's fairly crude speaking style - simple words used in repetition, and instead of speaking in coherent, flowing sentences he speaks in sentence fragments, throwing the most important words out first. It appealed, dare I say it, to less intelligent voters.
But probably all of that didn't matter compared to the campaign devolving in to a mudslinging match. Both sides trashed the other, both sides failed to put forward any kind of coherent message, both candidates ended up disliked by the majority of the electorate. Then on election day Republicans did their party duty and voted loyally like they always do, but a greater chunk of the larger Democratic base stayed home. And that's how Republicans win elections.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: What would a President do with their informal power to influence a Federal judge? Target them for harassment from Federal agencies? Have the NSA or DoJ tap the phones and put them under surveillance and try to obtain information for blackmail?
Um, those examples you gave are formal powers. Informal power is stuff like dragging a civil servant in to national media attention. Inviting party loyalists to attack a person. It took about two days for Ken Bone to get his life and possibly marriage destroyed after he stumbled on to the national stage, and he was non-partisan, and the people who trashed him were just doing it for gaks and giggles. Consider what happens when a professional press team with decades of contacts in the media decides to go after a civil servant.
That's informal power. While it didn't involve a judge, the Plame/Wilson affair is a classic example. When Wilson wrote a piece challenging the intel of the Bush administration, the Bush administration turned right around and attacked Wilson, claiming his appointment was nepotism due to his marriage to Plame (which was utterly false). Eventually the truth came out, but how many people want to risk walking in to that kind of shitstorm? The idea of a presidency being able to cause anyone to think twice before risking his petulant ire should concern people.
In regards to the Trump foundation scandal vs the Clinton foundation scandal I think you have to take into consideration that Hillary was the presumed nominee for the entire process and it wasn't until late in the primary season that people realized that Trump was a legitimate frontrunner for the nomination. The Clinton foundation scandal was already established dating back to her time as SecState, even Obama went on record with rules he set for her to avoid conflicts of interest, so there was already a level of awareness for that storyline that got amped up because Clinton's nomination was inevitable. Trump got a lot of news coverage during the Republican primary race but a lot of that coverage was devoted to the horse race of the primary process and the surprising performance of Trump more so than actually digging into Trump the candidate. By the time Trump's nomination was assured and the media scrutiny of his candidacy intensified it was during a compressed window of time leading up to the general election.
Except that even when uncovered, the Trump foundation corruption barely hit the news at all. There was a day or two of second tier reporting. Meanwhile the Clinton allegations somehow remained front page stuff, even when 'breaking stories' contained no new information at all.
I think you are right that the amount of time as a major political figure did play in to this, though. Having been in the public spotlight for 20 years, and having developed a long time bad relationship with much of the press, there was something of an open season mentality on reporting about her. There was even something of a cottage industry on reporting terrible things about Clinton, a steady steam of books and a known audience for new articles claiming bad stuff about Clinton. Over 20 years it refined itself in to a very well established narrative, which was hammered on constantly through this campaign.
While the media certainly weren't reluctant to attack Trump, it was all over the shop, in large part because Trump himself was all over the shop. And there was a reluctance to abandon normal political reporting, even though Trump himself had abandoned all normal political behaviour. The question was asked repeatedly through the campaign whether it was okay to keep reporting 'he said, she said' when the line from Trump was a well established lie that he had repeated many times after it was shown to be a lie.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2017/02/08 09:41:08
“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.
Nicki Minaj is a high-profile entertainer and night clubs are places of entertainment. Hillary Clinton is a high-profile politician and Wall Street one of the centres of power in the US, one particularly known for serving its own interests to the detriment of the American people. The comparison is not honest.
Rosebuddy wrote: , one particularly known for serving its own interests to the detriment of the American people.
Ah you basically just summed up Trump in one sentence.
And now Trump openly said about ruining senator's career because he proposed method where officers could confiscate money etc without being charged with crime should be made illegal.
Rosebuddy wrote: Nicki Minaj is a high-profile entertainer and night clubs are places of entertainment. Hillary Clinton is a high-profile politician and Wall Street one of the centres of power in the US, one particularly known for serving its own interests to the detriment of the American people. The comparison is not honest.
That they are different people in different contexts but both getting paid huge amounts of money for basic tasks is the whole point of the comparison.
That is the shallowest possible analysis. Minaj doesn't decide US policy, Clinton did and intended to continue doing it. Who she regularly takes money from is highly relevant to the questions of whose interests she will serve.
Rosebuddy wrote: That is the shallowest possible analysis. Minaj doesn't decide US policy, Clinton did and intended to continue doing it. Who she regularly takes money from is highly relevant to the questions of whose interests she will serve.
And Trump being even worse on that regards is obviously of no issue.
Good if it's done by R's, bad if it's done by D's. Motto of some it seems.
We're talking about the real flaws Clinton had as a candidate that made people unsure if voting was even useful. Choosing the lesser evil is still ending up with evil and nobody gets excited for that.
Rosebuddy wrote: We're talking about the real flaws Clinton had as a candidate that made people unsure if voting was even useful. Choosing the lesser evil is still ending up with evil and nobody gets excited for that.
Yeah but you are comparing real flaws of Clinton to same flaws except bigger in Trump...
Prestor Jon wrote: What is it you guys are afraid Devon will do? The Dept of Ed is controlled by Federal education laws all that the Sec of Ed does is oversee the administrating of Federal laws, namely school performance testing and sending out Feseral funds. Is there anything that a Sec of Ed has done over the last few decades that has had a meaningful impact, good or bad, on US public education?
Among other things, the Dept of Education is responsible for accreditation of for profit schools. During Bush's second term, his appointee Margaret Spellings failed to act on the rapidly increasing number of schools that signed kids up, got their enrolments paid through student loans, and then pushed them through without a qualification with little to no employment value. This issue was slowly acted on by the Obama administration, first with a ramp up of investigation and de-accreditation of problematic schools, and finally through new laws passed through congress. DeVos, as I've explained to you before, was asked about this during her hearing - not only is she unwilling to maintain the current investigation practices, she is ambivalent to enforcing the existing legislation.
If you have any question about where her loyalties lie, when defending on-line courses she cited a series of graduation rates that turned out to be absolute nonsense, and nothing like the official numbers. A little poking around showed her numbers came from a private, for profit educator she used to be a part owner of. Holy gak what are Devos' priorities and loyalties going to go. Who the feth can figure that mystery out.
“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.
Rosebuddy wrote: We're talking about the real flaws Clinton had as a candidate that made people unsure if voting was even useful. Choosing the lesser evil is still ending up with evil and nobody gets excited for that.
Yeah but you are comparing real flaws of Clinton to same flaws except bigger in Trump...
Many who have trouble with Clinton's flaws have trouble with the same flaws in Trump. Hence why I'm saying that for some the choice wasn't between voting for Clinton or for Trump but between voting for Clinton or not voting at all.
Frazzled wrote: We also have a Constitution, and Separation of Powers with military to enforce it if needed.
Come on, who do you think we are? Europe?
To paraphrase a certain tyrant, "and how many divisions does your constitution have?"
Seriously, this talk of military coups and all the rest is crazy, but that's kind of what makes it so strange that the responses have been so weak.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: I'm sure it was the Founders idea to just assume everything would be cool and let stuff slide instead of being vigilant about government. There seems to be a strange thing going on where the people who used to argue how awful government is and that we need to be on guard for abuse went and voted for people who can't be trusted and then try to tell others that we should trust the system to keep everything in place. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
It's like a switch gets flipped election day. People who woke up on that November Tuesday wary of government and thinking they might just have to rebel go to be that night thinking everything will always be fine so people are wrong to even talk about it. Meanwhile the other half swap from trusting government to thinking a coup is coming any day now.
fething identity politics man. It corrodes sensible politics completely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: I've seen this posted several places in different ways so might as well see what people here say:
That was great, thankyou.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: From speaking with Trump supporters that I know, there was another reason many of them voted for him: he made people they don't like really, really angry and upset. I don't think that's a very good reason to vote for someone, but I guess if that's what they were going for it has worked out as they expected?
Yeah, that's something I picked up on during the campaign, especially from Trump supporters here on dakka. After spotting the pattern, I started to keep a rough count of the Trump voters who would say one thing they really liked about him was how he pissed of the SJWs or some other tribal enemy. I got to 4, which isn't a huge number, but there weren't more than a half dozen willing, happy Trump supporters who ever spoke up on dakka, so it was a fair chunk out of the sample group.
And yeah, voting for the presidency based on how much you dislike people that you have assigned to the other tribe is a really, really terrible reason to vote for someone.
feth me I just burst out laughing, almost woke the baby.
We just went through a whole fething year of the right wing saying any money in to the Clinton Foundation was proof of something or other, and the left talking about how what you needed was an actual quid pro quo, otherwise you ain't got gak. Now there's a Republican in charge and oh my god holy gak will you look at that the right has adopted a very narrow definition of acceptable favours for cash. Who could have seen that coming?
Anyhow, moving past the Clinton Foundation conspiracy nonsense, and to Obama's actual appointments, Obama did reward significant contributors to his campaign with political appointments. I don't know if he appointed anyone who directly paid in big money, but there was more than a few who ran large donation lobbying efforts who were given diplomatic posts. That was gak, to put it bluntly. It is not good enough whenever someone closely connected to the money trough is moved in to a government position, it is far too open to corruption.
Trump has gone well past Obama's appointments. He is appointing someone that didn't just lobby for him, but directly paid in, and not to some backwater diplomatic posting, he's giving them a cabinet position.
And all the people who cheered him on for saying he'll drain the swamp seem rather okay with this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: As someone who has taken and lived by the enlistment oath for over 23 years, I can tell you how your little conspiracy theory would pan out in reality. ALL military personnel are sworn to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States, not any one or several persons in power.
Giggle. Look, the idea of US coup is silly, but it isn't because of this oath nonsense. Every monarch had their armies swear oaths to them... which is why no king or queen was ever thrown from power by their military.
I actually am a bit baffled as to what is happening here. The coup talk is ridiculous, but the responses about why it won't happen are probably even worse. What the hell is going on with you guys today.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote: Nicki Minaj is a high-profile entertainer and night clubs are places of entertainment. Hillary Clinton is a high-profile politician and Wall Street one of the centres of power in the US, one particularly known for serving its own interests to the detriment of the American people. The comparison is not honest.
There's no fething comparison here, there's just me explaining how a simple business arrangement works. When an organiser can use your name and profile to make hundreds of thousands in table sales, that makes you worth a six figure sum to the organiser. Because very few people will charge less than they can, that means Clinton, Minaj, and goddamn anyone else on the circuit will charge six figures to appear.
That is just the basic economics of it. People were ignorant of this, and so they made those weird half conspiracies that Clinton could only have been paid that much because Wall St was buying her. And what's incredible is that even after how they've learned how it actually works, they still believe the nonsense.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/02/08 09:45:40
“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.
Just Tony wrote: As someone who has taken and lived by the enlistment oath for over 23 years, I can tell you how your little conspiracy theory would pan out in reality. ALL military personnel are sworn to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States, not any one or several persons in power. What would happen in your scenario is: President gives order to senior military person, who refuses said order as unlawful.
Sure. I'm sure all the senior military personnel are paragon of virtue that would always chose the Constitution over Trump, or any other politician. That is how it is now, and that is how it will be for ever and ever. Amen.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: From speaking with Trump supporters that I know, there was another reason many of them voted for him: he made people they don't like really, really angry and upset. I don't think that's a very good reason to vote for someone, but I guess if that's what they were going for it has worked out as they expected?
Yeah, that's something I picked up on during the campaign, especially from Trump supporters here on dakka. After spotting the pattern, I started to keep a rough count of the Trump voters who would say one thing they really liked about him was how he pissed of the SJWs or some other tribal enemy. I got to 4, which isn't a huge number, but there weren't more than a half dozen willing, happy Trump supporters who ever spoke up on dakka, so it was a fair chunk out of the sample group.
And yeah, voting for the presidency based on how much you dislike people that you have assigned to the other tribe is a really, really terrible reason to vote for someone.
I don't see that as bad thing, it just shows the disillusionment of X% of people from the political norm. The problem is having 8 years of the same old same is not always progress and in many places in the states, the people thought they did not see much benefit. Social change occupancies political change, it is after all democracy and you could quite rightly argue that the S.J.W's are in fact denying democracy and free speech by bigotedly branding people who believe differently as morally wrong. I see it as too many people resting on their laurels and then becoming reactionary to change.
I am not American, but if I could have voted in the election I would have voted Trump for several reasons, one being to rub up the S.J,W's as mentioned. You could draw the same parallel reaction to the UK referendum which to some extent I voted Leave for the same reason (as did many other people for both topics). I do not see it as a terrible reason to vote for anything, as you should never give in for what you believe in, because if people were afraid to vote on an issue because certain people were against it and would get angry, then you would only have one opinion and effectively no democracy.
Sentinel1 wrote: and you could quite rightly argue that the S.J.W's are in fact denying democracy and free speech by bigotedly branding people who believe differently as morally wrong.
A person using their own speech to criticize you is NOT "denying democracy and free speech". Freedom of speech means that the government can't prevent you from speaking or punish you for doing so, outside of certain situations (like the classic "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" example). It does not in any way mean that you have a right to say whatever you want without other people criticizing you, even criticizing you in harsh terms. If someone says "you're morally wrong" in response to the things you say or believe then that's entirely within the bounds of freedom of speech.
And I find this especially amusing because the anti-SJW crowd spends so much time whining about trigger warnings, safe spaces, etc. And now here you are, criticizing the SJWs and essentially demanding a safe space where you can say/believe whatever you want without being criticized. The hypocrisy is just absurd.
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.
Just like the rest of them in the D.C. political establishment.
And there it is, ground zero of the derangement of modern US conservatism - the absolute conviction that politicians in Washington DC are terrible just because they are we said so.
The whole thing should be a big laugh, given that it was originally a sales pitch from Newt Gingrich designed to try and spread the blame for the disfunction he intended to create. It would be a laugh at least, except that a sizable portion of the US voting public has somehow been suckered in by that con, to the point where they honestly can't see how ridiculous it is to pick real estate developer and TV show host with zero policy knowledge and even less interest, over politician who's with vast knowledge and experience in Washington.
I'd like to think the screw up we've seen from Trump so far, and the inevitable screw up we'll see in the next four years will teach people that knowing what you're doing actually matters in politics. But I'm not certain people will take that lesson on board, because if learning from how politics plays out was a thing people did they never would have bought in to such a silly argument in the first place.
Attitudes like this is whats gonna win Trump his second term, Liberals so clueless they believe all the discontent brewing in the US (and the west at large) is just some conspiracy by Gingrich/Putin/"Your villain of the week".
And here I was hoping that a Trump presidency would be a wake-up call for the american left and liberals...
Kilkrazy wrote: How do you feel that rubbing up the SJWs advances the society wide debate about free speech, abortion, equality and other such issues?
Well I think it is very simple, the S.J.W's begin bleating, the media catches on, people get interested and suddenly said topics are being discussed by more people and fresh movements are born. If anything it is speeding up the debate on such topics and making people aware of them.
Sentinel1 wrote: and you could quite rightly argue that the S.J.W's are in fact denying democracy and free speech by bigotedly branding people who believe differently as morally wrong.
A person using their own speech to criticize you is NOT "denying democracy and free speech". Freedom of speech means that the government can't prevent you from speaking or punish you for doing so, outside of certain situations (like the classic "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" example). It does not in any way mean that you have a right to say whatever you want without other people criticizing you, even criticizing you in harsh terms. If someone says "you're morally wrong" in response to the things you say or believe then that's entirely within the bounds of freedom of speech.
And I find this especially amusing because the anti-SJW crowd spends so much time whining about trigger warnings, safe spaces, etc. And now here you are, criticizing the SJWs and essentially demanding a safe space where you can say/believe whatever you want without being criticized. The hypocrisy is just absurd.
That is from the sublime to the extreme! Everyone should be able to voice their view, I am certainly not against constructive criticism from anyone. It helps make a healthy debate, as long as what is said isn't extremist.
