US & NA Politics Thread

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.

**Disciple of Fate**

Frazzled wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Some were racist, some were just inured to the racism, some were just voting out of denial of reality, some out of loyalty, some to stick it to the left and some to deny it to Hillary. Not exactly glowing praise for his electorate.

These are your statements, not facts. It is not supported by Dem victories since.

Its corresponds with your 3 reasons. Trump had no policies to vote for except slogans that were more negative than positive.

They were policies. You just did not like them.

They literally weren't policies, because policies are plans or ideas to achieve something. What Trump had were concepts without any policy to back up how to work out that concept. I can say I'm giving free unicorn to everyone, but that doesn't make it a policy. Trump did exactly that when he said jobs and walls.

**Frazzled**

It's still a policy. It may be completely crazy and unworkable but it's a policy.

HRC's policy on trade, while more detailed, is a lie, and everyone knew it. Same for illegal immigration.

**Ustrello**

Frazzled wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Some were racist, some were just inured to the racism, some were just voting out of denial of reality, some out of loyalty, some to stick it to the left and some to deny it to Hillary. Not exactly glowing praise for his electorate.

These are your statements, not facts. It is not supported by Dem victories since.

Its corresponds with your 3 reasons. Trump had no policies to vote for except slogans that were more negative than positive.

They were policies. You just did not like them.

So if a politician were to say something like "Stop growing corn" and not have a single piece of information or even a outline of a plan on how they would do that, that would be a policy?

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
Here's the problem with calling Trump supporters racists. Obama won in many of those districts too. Calling half the US electorate racist doesn't pass the lucidity test, especially in light of Democratic gains since.

Yup... non-political people would hear/read that would roll their eyes.

Edit: the PR numbers jive with what people were saying onthe ground.

That makes sense and it's sad that not much attention is given to PR.

PR should be the 51st state imo (yeah, yeah that's like 2 free D Senators and 'x' D congressman... but how is their situation really that different from Hawaii?)

**Disciple of Fate**

Frazzled wrote:
It's still a policy. It may be completely crazy and unworkable but it's a policy.

HRC's policy on trade, while more detailed, is a lie, and everyone knew it. Same for illegal immigration.

Ah ok, so if we totally ignore what policy is everything can be policy

**Ustrello**

whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Here's the problem with calling Trump supporters racists. Obama won in many of those districts too. Calling half the US electorate racist doesn't pass the lucidity test, especially in light of Democratic gains since.

Yup... non-political people would hear/read that would roll their eyes.

Edit: the PR numbers jive with what people were saying onthe ground.

That makes sense and it's sad that not much attention is given to PR.

PR should be the 51st state imo (yeah, yeah that's like 2 free D Senators and 'x' D congressman... but how is their situation really that different from Hawaii?)

They would get about 5ish representatives in congress I believe, I could see it being a 4 to 1 split though in all honesty

**Frazzled**

Ustrello wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Some were racist, some were just inured to the racism, some were just voting out of denial of reality, some out of loyalty, some to stick it to the left and some to deny it to Hillary. Not exactly glowing praise for his electorate.

These are your statements, not facts. It is not supported by Dem victories since.

Its corresponds with your 3 reasons. Trump had no policies to vote for except slogans that were more negative than positive.

They were policies. You just did not like them.

So if a politician were to say something like "Stop growing corn" and not have a single piece of information or even a outline of a plan on how they would do that, that would be a policy?

Yes. Exactly.

Now my response would of course be, shut up pince gringo, TexMex Uber alles, but that is another thread.

**Asherian Command**

All of the items you list were absolutely factors in the election but you're being far too dismissive of the facts that Clinton had the second highest unfavorable ratings of any candidate in the history of tracking unfavorable ratings, second only to Trump. We had the two most disliked candidates running against each other for PotUS, that's going to depress turnout, we literally selected two hugely unpopular people to run in a popularity contest. Regardless of whether or not you think it was fair that Clinton was disliked or the means in which her unfavorability was heightened, it existed and it had an impact on both Republican and Democrat voters.

Second, the media gave Trump billions of dollars of coverage simply to chase ratings. Whatever your feelings on the whole FAKE NEWS meme, it is inarguable that the MSM showed a clear preference for covering Trump instead of other candidates. There were instances of stations like CNN and MSNBC showing live footage of an empty podium waiting for Trump to show up and speak instead of covering a Sanders event also occurring or any other candidate. The coverage featured far more pundits and talking heads discussing what Trump said, reactions to what Trump said and reactions to the reactions of what Trump said than providing background or contextual information regarding issues. The coverage wasn't about doing a public service to inform the electorate it was chasing and promoting controversy to increase ratings.

I agree that Clinton definitely could have campaigned better. It wouldn't have necessarily improved the quality of her positions but while every media outlet was racing to cover Trump 24/7 Clinton pretty much hid from the media and relied heavily on simply not being Trump carrying her to victory. This was exacerbated by the DNC's treatment of the Sanders campaign making it look like Clinton was trying push down the Sanders campaign while keeping her head down and waiting for Trump to finally self destruct instead of getting out and winning over voters..

See was she unpopular or was she shown to be unpopular because of that particular information. IT was because of the wikileaks and everything. Fake news etc.

Which i completely agree with you on. I didn't include your arguments entirely but that is what helped elect trump. Which is not only the news media's fault. But russian interference had a major factor in this election entirely. That and the bernie and bust group being ocherestrated by cambridge analyticia and russian agents.

**Captain Joystick**

whembly wrote:
PR should be the 51st state imo (yeah, yeah that's like 2 free D Senators and 'x' D congressman... but how is their situation really that different from Hawaii?)

It's not that different, but Hawaii had to petition for state hood for something like 50 years- and the arguments against had a lot to do with the colour of its populace.

**Asherian Command**

Captain Joystick wrote:
whembly wrote:
PR should be the 51st state imo (yeah, yeah that's like 2 free D Senators and 'x' D congressman... but how is their situation really that different from Hawaii?)

It's not that different, but Hawaii had to petition for state hood for something like 50 years- and the arguments against had a lot to do with the colour of its populace.

Yuppo. Welcome to the united states.

**Frazzled**

Asherian Command wrote:
All of the items you list were absolutely factors in the election but you're being far too dismissive of the facts that Clinton had the second highest unfavorable ratings of any candidate in the history of tracking unfavorable ratings, second only to Trump. We had the two most disliked candidates running against each other for PotUS, that's going to depress turnout, we literally selected two hugely unpopular people to run in a popularity contest. Regardless of whether or not you think it was fair that Clinton was disliked or the means in which her unfavorability was heightened, it existed and it had an impact on both Republican and Democrat voters.

Second, the media gave Trump billions of dollars of coverage simply to chase ratings. Whatever your feelings on the whole FAKE NEWS meme, it is inarguable that the MSM showed a clear preference for covering Trump instead of other candidates. There were instances of stations like CNN and MSNBC showing live footage of an empty podium waiting for Trump to show up and speak instead of covering a Sanders event also occurring or any other candidate. The coverage featured far more pundits and talking heads discussing what Trump said, reactions to what Trump said and reactions to the reactions of what Trump said than providing background or contextual information regarding issues. The coverage wasn't about doing a public service to inform the electorate it was chasing and promoting controversy to increase ratings.

I agree that Clinton definitely could have campaigned better. It wouldn't have necessarily improved the quality of her positions but while every media outlet was racing to cover Trump 24/7 Clinton pretty much hid from the media and relied heavily on simply not being Trump carrying her to victory. This was exacerbated by the DNC's treatment of the Sanders campaign making it look like Clinton was trying push down the Sanders campaign while keeping her head down and waiting for Trump to finally self destruct instead of getting out and winning over voters..

See was she unpopular or was she shown to be unpopular because of that particular information. IT was because of the wikileaks and everything. Fake news etc.

Which i completely agree with you on. I didn't include your arguments entirely but that is what helped elect trump. Which is not only the news media's fault. But russian interference had a major factor in this election entirely. That and the bernie and bust group being ocherestrated by cambridge analyticia and russian agents.

She was unpopular since the 1990s.

**whembly**

Captain Joystick wrote:
whembly wrote:
PR should be the 51st state imo (yeah, yeah that's like 2 free D Senators and 'x' D congressman... but how is their situation really that different from Hawaii?)

It's not that different, but Hawaii had to petition for state hood for something like 50 years- and the arguments against had a lot to do with the colour of its populace.

Wut?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Puerto_Rico
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/pr

69% of the population is white. They're whiter than the state of Florida!

Methinks the cause is something else....

**Asherian Command**

She was unpopular since the 1990s.

Yes and?

**gorgon**

Prestor Jon wrote:
I agree that Clinton definitely could have campaigned better. It wouldn't have necessarily improved the quality of her positions but while every media outlet was racing to cover Trump 24/7 Clinton pretty much hid from the media and relied heavily on simply not being Trump carrying her to victory. This was exacerbated by the DNC's treatment of the Sanders campaign making it look like Clinton was trying push down the Sanders campaign while keeping her head down and waiting for Trump to finally self destruct instead of getting out and winning over voters..

Yeah, but I don't know what could have changed the end result other than nominating Bernie. The Bernie supporters didn't seem to be operating at a regular political level...looking for give and take, recognition, planks in the platform, etc. It was Bernie or bust...as evidenced by how many of them took their balls and went home even after Bernie told them to get out and vote for Hillary.

There were things that the Dems could have done better or differently, but ultimately I think the Bernie situation was their Kobayashi Maru.

**Iron_Captain**

whembly wrote:
Captain Joystick wrote:
whembly wrote:
PR should be the 51st state imo (yeah, yeah that's like 2 free D Senators and 'x' D congressman... but how is their situation really that different from Hawaii?)

It's not that different, but Hawaii had to petition for state hood for something like 50 years- and the arguments against had a lot to do with the colour of its populace.

Wut?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Puerto_Rico
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/pr

69% of the population is white. They're whiter than the state of Florida!

Methinks the cause is something else....

Maybe it is because they speak Spanish?

**Frazzled**

Asherian Command wrote:
She was unpopular since the 1990s.

Yes and?

The campaign didn't change that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iron_Captain wrote:
whembly wrote:
Captain Joystick wrote:
whembly wrote:
PR should be the 51st state imo (yeah, yeah that's like 2 free D Senators and 'x' D congressman... but how is their situation really that different from Hawaii?)

It's not that different, but Hawaii had to petition for state hood for something like 50 years- and the arguments against had a lot to do with the colour of its populace.

Wut?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Puerto_Rico
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/pr

69% of the population is white. They're whiter than the state of Florida!

Methinks the cause is something else....

Maybe it is because they speak Spanish?

Donde esta El banyo?

**Kanluwen**

gorgon wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
I agree that Clinton definitely could have campaigned better. It wouldn't have necessarily improved the quality of her positions but while every media outlet was racing to cover Trump 24/7 Clinton pretty much hid from the media and relied heavily on simply not being Trump carrying her to victory. This was exacerbated by the DNC's treatment of the Sanders campaign making it look like Clinton was trying push down the Sanders campaign while keeping her head down and waiting for Trump to finally self destruct instead of getting out and winning over voters..

Yeah, but I don't know what could have changed the end result other than nominating Bernie. The Bernie supporters didn't seem to be operating at a regular political level...looking for give and take, recognition, planks in the platform, etc. It was Bernie or bust...as evidenced by how many of them took their balls and went home even after Bernie told them to get out and vote for Hillary.

There were things that the Dems could have done better or differently, but ultimately I think the Bernie situation was their Kobayashi Maru.

We're seeing it again with Green Party too.

**Asherian Command**

Kanluwen wrote:
gorgon wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
I agree that Clinton definitely could have campaigned better. It wouldn't have necessarily improved the quality of her positions but while every media outlet was racing to cover Trump 24/7 Clinton pretty much hid from the media and relied heavily on simply not being Trump carrying her to victory. This was exacerbated by the DNC's treatment of the Sanders campaign making it look like Clinton was trying push down the Sanders campaign while keeping her head down and waiting for Trump to finally self destruct instead of getting out and winning over voters..

Yeah, but I don't know what could have changed the end result other than nominating Bernie. The Bernie supporters didn't seem to be operating at a regular political level...looking for give and take, recognition, planks in the platform, etc. It was Bernie or bust...as evidenced by how many of them took their balls and went home even after Bernie told them to get out and vote for Hillary.

There were things that the Dems could have done better or differently, but ultimately I think the Bernie situation was their Kobayashi Maru.

We're seeing it again with Green Party too.

Wasn't Jill Stein receiving money from Russia?

**Kilkrazy**

"Bring back jobs" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Build a wall" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Cut taxes" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Ban muslims" is a slogan, not a policy.

Trump doesn't do policies.

**ChargerIIC**

Iron_Captain wrote:
whembly wrote:
Captain Joystick wrote:
whembly wrote:
PR should be the 51st state imo (yeah, yeah that's like 2 free D Senators and 'x' D congressman... but how is their situation really that different from Hawaii?)

It's not that different, but Hawaii had to petition for state hood for something like 50 years- and the arguments against had a lot to do with the colour of its populace.

Wut?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Puerto_Rico
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/pr

69% of the population is white. They're whiter than the state of Florida!

Methinks the cause is something else....

Maybe it is because they speak Spanish?

You aren't from California are you? You are either bilingual or eat nothing but national-level fast food for the rest of your life.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
"Bring back jobs" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Build a wall" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Cut taxes" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Ban muslims" is a slogan, not a policy.

Trump doesn't do policies.

When you don't "do" reading, thats as close as you get.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChargerIIC wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
whembly wrote:
Captain Joystick wrote:
whembly wrote:
PR should be the 51st state imo (yeah, yeah that's like 2 free D Senators and 'x' D congressman... but how is their situation really that different from Hawaii?)

It's not that different, but Hawaii had to petition for state hood for something like 50 years- and the arguments against had a lot to do with the colour of its populace.

Wut?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Puerto_Rico
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/pr

69% of the population is white. They're whiter than the state of Florida!

Methinks the cause is something else....

Maybe it is because they speak Spanish?

You aren't from California are you? You are either bilingual or eat nothing but national-level fast food for the rest of your life.

Indeed. Both my kids speak Spanish.

**Steelmage99**

Kilkrazy wrote:
"Bring back jobs" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Build a wall" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Cut taxes" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Ban muslims" is a slogan, not a policy.

Trump doesn't do policies.

And when asked how the President would accomplish such things, ie policy stuff, worthless mouth-piece sell outs like Sarah Sanders would claim that; "The President has made his position clear on this".

After a few repetitions along this refrain, journalist would be left exasperated and speechless........which certain groups of the media would tout as Sarah Sanders putting that evil liberal media in it's place, in articles named along the lines of; "Journalist asks vile questions. You won't believe what happens next" or "It is all over! Sarah Sanders says the most amazing thing".

SMH

**Asherian Command**

Kilkrazy wrote:
"Bring back jobs" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Build a wall" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Cut taxes" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Ban muslims" is a slogan, not a policy.

Trump doesn't do policies.

Yeah I can agree with that.

Building a wall accomplishes what for example?

Cut taxes? In what way how would you implement them? What is the benefit of cutting taxes of the wealthy?

Ban muslims? Why muslims? Isn't that racist or targeted harassment?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steelmage99 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
"Bring back jobs" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Build a wall" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Cut taxes" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Ban muslims" is a slogan, not a policy.

Trump doesn't do policies.

And when asked how the President would accomplish such things, ie policy stuff, worthless mouth-piece sell outs like Sarah Sanders would claim that; "The President has made his position clear on this".

After a few repetitions along this refrain, journalist would be left exasperated and speechless........which certain groups of the media would tout as Sarah Sanders putting that evil liberal media in it's place, in articles named along the lines of; "Journalist asks vile questions. You won't believe what happens next" or "It is all over! Sarah Sanders says the most amazing thing".

SMH

Because trump supporters and pundits don't understand implementation of policy these past two years have taught us that.

None of them know why government works the way it does or throw a hissy fit on twitter that they didn't get their way on the world stage.

Trump is a child in an adult world of people who know what to do. Trump has embarassed us on the world stage enough as is.

**Frazzled**

Steelmage99 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
"Bring back jobs" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Build a wall" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Cut taxes" is a slogan, not a policy.
"Ban muslims" is a slogan, not a policy.

Trump doesn't do policies.

And when asked how the President would accomplish such things, ie policy stuff, worthless mouth-piece sell outs like Sarah Sanders would claim that; "The President has made his position clear on this".

After a few repetitions along this refrain, journalist would be left exasperated and speechless........which certain groups of the media would tout as Sarah Sanders putting that evil liberal media in it's place, in articles named along the lines of; "Journalist asks vile questions. You won't believe what happens next" or "It is all over! Sarah Sanders says the most amazing thing".

SMH

Fake news!

**Ustrello**

whembly wrote:
Captain Joystick wrote:
whembly wrote:
PR should be the 51st state imo (yeah, yeah that's like 2 free D Senators and 'x' D congressman... but how is their situation really that different from Hawaii?)

It's not that different, but Hawaii had to petition for state hood for something like 50 years- and the arguments against had a lot to do with the colour of its populace.

Wut?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Puerto_Rico
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/pr

69% of the population is white. They're whiter than the state of Florida!

Methinks the cause is something else....

Simple math problem what is 2.5 million plus 3.5 million? and is that answer more than 3.3 million which is the population of PR? You should read your sources before you link them because those are the numbers given by wikipedia

**whembly**

Ustrello wrote:
whembly wrote:
Captain Joystick wrote:
whembly wrote:
PR should be the 51st state imo (yeah, yeah that's like 2 free D Senators and 'x' D congressman... but how is their situation really that different from Hawaii?)

It's not that different, but Hawaii had to petition for state hood for something like 50 years- and the arguments against had a lot to do with the colour of its populace.

Wut?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Puerto_Rico
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/pr

69% of the population is white. They're whiter than the state of Florida!

Methinks the cause is something else....

Simple math problem what is 2.5 million plus 3.5 million? and is that answer more than 3.3 million which is the population of PR? You should read your sources before you link them because those are the numbers given by wikipedia

Huh? I pulled the 69% percentage from:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/pr

Wiki has 2010 as:
white 75.8% non-white 24.2%

Maybe you need to read it again?

**Ustrello**

whembly wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
whembly wrote:
Captain Joystick wrote:
whembly wrote:
PR should be the 51st state imo (yeah, yeah that's like 2 free D Senators and 'x' D congressman... but how is their situation really that different from Hawaii?)

It's not that different, but Hawaii had to petition for state hood for something like 50 years- and the arguments against had a lot to do with the colour of its populace.

Wut?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Puerto_Rico
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/pr

69% of the population is white. They're whiter than the state of Florida!

Methinks the cause is something else....

Simple math problem what is 2.5 million plus 3.5 million? and is that answer more than 3.3 million which is the population of PR? You should read your sources before you link them because those are the numbers given by wikipedia

Huh? I pulled the 69% percentage from:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/pr

Wiki has 2010 as:
white 75.8% non-white 24.2%

Maybe you need to read it again?

No I really don't read the US census bureau again and tell me what Hispanic or Latino says

**Vaktathi**

Judge threatens to hold Sessions in contempt after mother and daughter are put on plane to be deported after being told that would not yet happen while appeals were pending, tells govt to "turn the plane around"

**BobtheInquisitor**

ChargerIIC wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
whembly wrote:
Captain Joystick wrote:
whembly wrote:
PR should be the 51st state imo (yeah, yeah that's like 2 free D Senators and 'x' D congressman... but how is their situation really that different from Hawaii?)

It's not that different, but Hawaii had to petition for state hood for something like 50 years- and the arguments against had a lot to do with the colour of its populace.

Wut?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Puerto_Rico
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/pr

69% of the population is white. They're whiter than the state of Florida!

Methinks the cause is something else....

Maybe it is because they speak Spanish?

You aren't from California are you? You are either bilingual or eat nothing but national-level fast food for the rest of your life.

To be fair, plenty of Red Staters despise the existence of California.

**Frazzled**

Vaktathi wrote:
Judge threatens to hold Sessions in contempt after mother and daughter are put on plane to be deported after being told that would not yet happen while appeals were pending, tells govt to "turn the plane around"

Wow. Just wow.