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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I'd seen an article today that estimated that Trumps travel ban has cost the US about $185 million in lost tourism already, with flight bookings from the UK to parts of the US (like Florida) being down as much as 58% year-on-year, causing a drop in hotel rates of about 30%,

And given the amount of hassle I've heard of from online/work colleagues on regular US business trips, I can certainly understand the reluctance to visit until things settle.

US airport officials are some of the most rude, arrogant, and obnoxious people I've ever had the misfortune of meeting

Yeah. For once Trump is probably just making worse an already huge problem rather than creating a new one. Airport security has to be one of the biggest jokes we have as far as keeping people safe goes.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Have you guys seen the Washington Post article about Trump feeling out the idea that the recent rise in antisemitism is a false flag by a cabal of Jews to make him look bad?


Think that can't be topped? Try this:
https://mobile.twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/836653660864147456/photo/1

Alrighty...

"Anti-Semitism is bad, though maybe what we have here is that the Jews're bringing it on themselves. Yeah, how about they're antagonizing the other side to gain our sympathy! That must be it!".

People've said that Trump isn't deliberately playing up to that part of his base, but when he's coming out with stuff like that in meetings its kind of obvious what he thinks behind closed doors (or at least what he wants that base to think).

 LordofHats wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I'd seen an article today that estimated that Trumps travel ban has cost the US about $185 million in lost tourism already, with flight bookings from the UK to parts of the US (like Florida) being down as much as 58% year-on-year, causing a drop in hotel rates of about 30%,

And given the amount of hassle I've heard of from online/work colleagues on regular US business trips, I can certainly understand the reluctance to visit until things settle.

US airport officials are some of the most rude, arrogant, and obnoxious people I've ever had the misfortune of meeting

Yeah. For once Trump is probably just making worse an already huge problem rather than creating a new one. Airport security has to be one of the biggest jokes we have as far as keeping people safe goes.

A friend of mine, ex-British army, came into contact with various US Army generals/top officials during his army career. Exchanges, visiting NATO HQ etc etc

There was never a problem. US Airports? Whole different ball game.

You guys trusted him to be near your generals, but the treatment he got at American airports (bag search once) is rather amusing when he looks back at it

I have never felt less welcome anywhere than as an American trying to get back into his own country at many airports.

Worst: Chicago
Best: MSP

An interesting view on the Democrats current internal position:
https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/648616?unlock=208XEVNLYRMG77TE&mref=homepage-free

 Frazzled wrote:
An interesting view on the Democrats current internal position:
https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/648616?unlock=208XEVNLYRMG77TE&mref=homepage-free

I think the Ds will be fine. The GOP only seems to exist once every 4 years, but the internal structures of the Democrats seem to be more permanent than that.

They can bounce back in 2020, but they must never allow another Clinton type candidate to hijack the party machinery again.

That is identity politics because it cares only about what each candidate looks like rather than what their ideology is. The characterisation of liberals as pragmatic is also highly suspect.

The Democrats going all in on diversity in the ruling class is not going to appeal to a very large amount of people because it doesn't benefit many people. If the Democrats want minority votes they should champion public schools, public healthcare and employment for all with an eye towards specifically making sure that minorities aren't passed over and actually receive help proportional to their problems.

Rosebuddy wrote:
That is identity politics because it cares only about what each candidate looks like rather than what their ideology is. The characterisation of liberals as pragmatic is also highly suspect.

The Democrats going all in on diversity in the ruling class is not going to appeal to a very large amount of people because it doesn't benefit many people. If the Democrats want minority votes they should champion public schools, public healthcare and employment for all with an eye towards specifically making sure that minorities aren't passed over and actually receive help proportional to their problems.

Indeed. In some ways its like the parties swapped names in the last election. Republican-populist, nativist, domestic trade. Democrat-elitist, internationalist, foreign trade. Both are pretty much the same party for everything else that effects people.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

They can bounce back in 2020, but they must never allow another Clinton type candidate to hijack the party machinery again.

The machinery must never allow the person who won the primary to run in the general election?

https://twitter.com/RonPaul/status/836773603488182272

Militarism gone wild. It's all going off the rails. Strongly support NATO? I though we were getting out!

seems to depend which way the wind is blowing TBF.

 d-usa wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

They can bounce back in 2020, but they must never allow another Clinton type candidate to hijack the party machinery again.

The machinery must never allow the person who won the primary to run in the general election?

She received help from her DNC clique, wrecked local parties and ultimately crashed and burned because she was so convinced of her victory that she didn't campaign properly. Clinton was exactly the kind of vanity candidate the delegates are ostensibly meant to protect the party from.

And black people preferred her to Bernie Sanders. Alot of folks don't seem willing to take that into account.

 d-usa wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

They can bounce back in 2020, but they must never allow another Clinton type candidate to hijack the party machinery again.

The machinery must never allow the person who won the primary to run in the general election?

The machinery picked the winner beforehand, except of course the winner was a loser.
next time pick a candidate who doesn't lose to a carnival barker.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

They can bounce back in 2020, but they must never allow another Clinton type candidate to hijack the party machinery again.

The machinery must never allow the person who won the primary to run in the general election?

She received help from her DNC clique

What kind of help?

wrecked local parties

Examples?

and ultimately crashed and burned because she was so convinced of her victory that she didn't campaign properly.

Which has nothing to do with the primary.

Clinton was exactly the kind of vanity candidate the delegates are ostensibly meant to protect the party from.

Not counting the super-delegates, Hillary won the primary with 2,272 delegates to 1,821 delegates.

Counting the actual votes, and ignoring delegates completely, Hillary had 16,914,722 votes and Sanders had 13,206,428 votes.

Counting only states won, Hillary had 34 against Sanders with 23.

Clinton was a gakky horrible candidate in the General Election, but she was the gakky horrible candidate that the rank-and-file members of the Democratic Party wanted. The DNC and Democratic Leadership didn't do anything to loose the election. The democrats did by voting for a gakky candidate during the primary, and then not voting for her during the general election.

 jasper76 wrote:
And black people preferred her to Bernie Sanders. Alot of folks don't seem willing to take that into account.

Sanders would also have lost the Dems lots of votes among moderate educated professionals who don't want to endure big tax hikes so that millenials can have free money.

Sanders would have lost just the same, and probably by a bigger margin.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

They can bounce back in 2020, but they must never allow another Clinton type candidate to hijack the party machinery again.

The machinery must never allow the person who won the primary to run in the general election?

The machinery picked the winner beforehand, except of course the winner was a loser.
next time pick a candidate who doesn't lose to a carnival barker.

The machinery preferred Clinton.

The actual people who are bitching about Clinton winning the primary actually also picked Clinton.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

They can bounce back in 2020, but they must never allow another Clinton type candidate to hijack the party machinery again.

The machinery must never allow the person who won the primary to run in the general election?

The machinery picked the winner beforehand, except of course the winner was a loser.
next time pick a candidate who doesn't lose to a carnival barker.

The machinery preferred Clinton.

The actual people who are bitching about Clinton winning the primary actually also picked Clinton.

Statement without evidence.

 gorgon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
And black people preferred her to Bernie Sanders. Alot of folks don't seem willing to take that into account.

Sanders would also have lost the Dems lots of votes among moderate educated professionals who don't want to endure big tax hikes so that millenials can have free money.

Sanders would have lost just the same, and probably by a bigger margin.

It's an interesting question to ponder whether Sanders would have fared better or worse than Clinton.

My guess is the country at large has no stomach for the level of socialism that Sanders was advocating, and that Trump would have given him a clever and effective nickname like Commie Sanders, and would likely have swept the floor with him. But I guess we'll never know.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

They can bounce back in 2020, but they must never allow another Clinton type candidate to hijack the party machinery again.

The machinery must never allow the person who won the primary to run in the general election?

The machinery picked the winner beforehand, except of course the winner was a loser.
next time pick a candidate who doesn't lose to a carnival barker.

The machinery preferred Clinton.

The actual people who are bitching about Clinton winning the primary actually also picked Clinton.

Statement without evidence.

I would point to any chart with numbers on them, like delegate counts, actual voters, etc and ask you which side has the bigger numbers. In fact I have already done so.

However, I can't force you to read it nor can I force you to understand that some numbers are bigger than other numbers. But to try to Frazzle-splain it: if rock is bigger than other rock, then that rock has more rock. I hope that helps.

The people picked Clinton by voting for her, simple as that. If the people want someone to blame for Clinton winning the primary, then they should look at the people who voted in the primary. The DNC didn't pick her, the people voting in the primary picked her. The DNC liked her better, but the GOP also liked lots of people better than Trump. In the end, leadership preferences don't mean gak, it's up to the people to pick their candidate.

And the people voting for Hillary chose her.

Did I miss this? http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/25/politics/nsa-radical-islamic-terror-term-unhelpful/?iid=ob_lockedrail_bottommedium

So McMaster doesn't believe that "radical Islamic terrorism" is a useful term and that Russia is a bona fide adversary. Which is true, but also contradicts Trump's position. Interesting.

 d-usa wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

They can bounce back in 2020, but they must never allow another Clinton type candidate to hijack the party machinery again.

The machinery must never allow the person who won the primary to run in the general election?

She received help from her DNC clique

What kind of help?

Tiny things, like Donna Brazile giving up the debate questions. And of course, Brazile was punished for that. Oh no, wait. Instead she was rewarded by being made the interim DNC chairperson.

And why did they need an interim DNC chairperson? Oh yeah, it was because wikileaks showed Wasserman Shultz was being a bit less than impartial during the primary and they had to can her.

Honestly if knowing those debate questions cost Sanders the primary then he deserved to loose.

So we have one person, not part of the DNC, throwing questions to Clinton. This is how they stole the election?

Edit: there is nothing wrong with the DNC chair being partial. Hell, the GOP was partial as hell, we see how that turned out. The DNC has super delegates because the party leadership is supposed to be partial and have a voice.

 d-usa wrote:
Honestly if knowing those debate questions cost Sanders the primary then he deserved to loose.

So we have one person, not part of the DNC, throwing questions to Clinton. This is how they stole the election?

Edit: there is nothing wrong with the DNC chair being partial. Hell, the GOP was partial as hell, we see how that turned out. The DNC has super delegates because the party leadership is supposed to be partial and have a voice.

You were asked how the DNC clique helped her. You have now been given examples. Piss and moan all you want, Frazz's statement was accurate.

1) she was not part of the DNC
2) the DNC is not supposed to be impartial
3) the majority of people voted for Hillary

 sebster wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
This is why Democrats lose elections. Condescension towards people who simply want an economic policy that benefits rather than harms them is not exactly engaging. Losing faith in the Democratic Party because of their unwillingness to stand up to the police state, to economic exploitation, the misery of collapsing schools and lack of healthcare and their general incompetence is perfectly rational, not the result of childish expectations.

You've missed the point entirely. To explain it again look at the 2008 election. 69 million voters turned out to vote for Obama. That's 10 million more than Kerry got 4 years before. It's 5 million more than Clinton got eight years later. It's 3.5 million more than Obama himself got four years later.

Obama offered nothing outside of the ordinary, mainstream Democratic platform. His policy proposals were no different to what Gore or Kerry had offered before him, and Clinton changed very little 8 years later. So it's impossible to argue that somehow suddenly lots of people who voted Obama in 2008 were suddenly upset by Clinton's economic policies - they're the same damn policies.

You're ignoring two things:
1) Clinton was trying for a 3rd Democrat term, where historical is extremely difficult to achieve (only happened 2 or 3 times in history).
2) The fact that she lost, while maintaining pretty much the mainstream Democrat/Obama polices should also highlight just how she's not a likable person. While not a deathblow... definitely an achilles heel.

Nor is it possible to argue that 2008 was due simply to Obama's skill as a politician. He was a charismatic speaker who maintained strong messaging throughout his campaign, but in 2006 Democrats won big in the house and senate mid terms, led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It's basically impossible to attribute any electoral success to those two, and so the groundswell towards Democrats must have come from something else.

No. Pelosi/Reid won in 2006 primarily because of anti-Bush sentiment. It was really hot around this time.

In 2008, again, Obama had the benefit of running against the Bush years and McCain was disadvantaged in running for that 3rd GOP Prezzy term. There were a distinct and strong 'Bush fatigue' that kicked the rest of the GOP party in the ass. Obama was a rockstar on the campaign and the rest of the Democrats largely coasted by riding his coatails.

It becomes very obvious that the enormous result in 2008 really comes down to people getting really angry at the Bush and the Republicans who had managed a long string of feth ups (Iraq, Katrina etc), and enacted or at least attempted some incredibly unpopular policies (tax cut for the rich, medicare vouchers, private savings accounts to replace SS).

Iraq... yes. But everything else you listed? No. Those weren't on the radar at 2008. (seriously, how in the holy feth Kartina is the GOP's fault...).

But if people got that angry about what Bush and the 2000-08 Republicans did, why wouldn't they be that upset about Trump and the current crop of Republicans? The Republicans have only gotten more extreme in the last 8 years, more committed to even more radical tax cuts and gutting of government programs. And Trump can only be even less competent and administrator than Bush. But this didn't prompt a response like 2008, simply while they were out of power the insane stuff Republicans were promising was just words.

Now that Trump is in power lots of that outrage is forming once again. Trump's opinion rating has dropped lower than any president at the same time in their presidency. Normally apolitical groups like scientists are forming plans to protest the Trump admin.

But it's all pretty pointless now, the only time that stuff really matters is on election day. And unfortunately on election day a lot of these people didn't get out and vote, because they simply forgot what it was like when the modern Republican party was in power.

You are obviously biased against the GOP. That's okay...

But, at least take a critical eye on the Democrats as well, with the same critical eye you used on the GOP. Or better yet, try to answer this question:

Hindsight 20/20, what should've the Democrats done differently?

 gorgon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
And black people preferred her to Bernie Sanders. Alot of folks don't seem willing to take that into account.

Sanders would also have lost the Dems lots of votes among moderate educated professionals who don't want to endure big tax hikes so that millenials can have free money.

In what reality is this even close to anything proposed or talked about? Aside from la-la land?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
And black people preferred her to Bernie Sanders. Alot of folks don't seem willing to take that into account.

Sanders would also have lost the Dems lots of votes among moderate educated professionals who don't want to endure big tax hikes so that millenials can have free money.

In what reality is this even close to anything proposed or talked about? Aside from la-la land?

He's probably referring to the free public college education that Sanders was advocating.

Better not start talking about Sanders beating Trump, or else the wrath of sebster will fall upon us.

In many respects, sebster is right. Sanders couldn't beat Clinton, but he would beat Trump, was a theme in the election.

In a lot of ways, that is flawed logic, but politics is a funny game. In the heat of an election, strange things can happen, but we'll never know, and it's all speculation.

 reds8n wrote:
https://twitter.com/RonPaul/status/836773603488182272

Militarism gone wild. It's all going off the rails. Strongly support NATO? I though we were getting out!

seems to depend which way the wind is blowing TBF.

On the one hand, it's certainly true we could cut our military budget.





On the other, anyone talking about pulling out of NATO is an idiot not fit to decide international policy. I mean, I'm a fething tree-hugging, pansy, anti-war, liberal, and I strongly support NATO. NATO has caused less armed conflict, not more.

 jmurph wrote:

So McMaster doesn't believe that "radical Islamic terrorism" is a useful term and that Russia is a bona fide adversary. Which is true, but also contradicts Trump's position. Interesting.

Well, his being chosen is interesting because EVERYONE at that level knows that McMaster is not a "Yes man." So, of course he might have a view which contradicts Trump's.

He's also an extremely smart, well researched/well read dude. He is definitely correct on "radical islamic terrorism," I would say because it's been used so often that people now just hear "Islam" and paint with broader and broader brush strokes.