View Full Version : POTUS Election thread
GeneralHankerchief
11-09-2016, 05:48
The Dems still think they are entitled to the union (working class) and black vote. They have been losing the union votes over the years by both letting the country's manufacturing go to hell and trying (or being painted as trying) to take the guns from the Midwest hunters. And Clinton could not get the black vote motivated in the states that count. She won the primaries in the South mainly with the black vote, but she wasn't going to win those states in the general election regardless.
Pure arrogance lead them to this point. Anointing Clinton before the nomination race even began bypassed the usual vetting, they knew she was hugely disliked and scandal prone and put her up anyway. "How am I not up by 10 points" indeed. :no: They just don't get it.
Yeah, people are blaming the voters for daring to have differing opinions from them. I generally bite my tongue because I enjoy the company of these people when politics isn't involved, but it's not the voters' job to prop up crappy candidates. It's up to the candidates and their campaigns to sell themselves to the voters, and if they aren't able to do that, it's on them.
edyzmedieval
11-09-2016, 06:00
At best, for Hillary, it will be a tie. But that's very unlikely, so it's almost a given now that Donald Trump is the next US President.
Montmorency
11-09-2016, 06:00
Yeah, people are blaming the voters for daring to have differing opinions from them. I generally bite my tongue because I enjoy the company of these people when politics isn't involved, but it's not the voters' job to prop up crappy candidates. It's up to the candidates and their campaigns to sell themselves to the voters, and if they aren't able to do that, it's on them.
It's fairly dispiriting, as even though at this point in my life my political convictions are more than distasteful for any political spectrum, I still hold vestigial sympathies for the left. The D Party is more fragmented than the R party, but complacency has only increased with each instance of pointing this out.
edyzmedieval
11-09-2016, 06:01
Bernie Sanders however would have stood a better chance, except that he didn't get the entire support of the Democratic voting base.
Montmorency
11-09-2016, 06:02
Best-case: long-term executive failure of Trump induces Congress to return powers to the Presidency. Worst case, they remove more powers from the Presidency.
:wacky:
edyzmedieval
11-09-2016, 06:05
What's stunning actually is the complete control of both legislative chambers by the Republicans. Swept away the Democrats.
Yeah, people are blaming the voters for daring to have differing opinions from them. I generally bite my tongue because I enjoy the company of these people when politics isn't involved, but it's not the voters' job to prop up crappy candidates. It's up to the candidates and their campaigns to sell themselves to the voters, and if they aren't able to do that, it's on them.
And if you ignore your base and tell them it's raining, they will eventually realize that they are being micturated on. I am not in the Trump demographic, but I know lots of people that are a part of it. They aren't happy, and they aren't getting any reassurances that their situation will get better from their supposed party. It's not that the GOP will actually improve their situation, but at least they are giving it lip service.
Trump just took the lead in PA. Elitist, arrogant, and out of touch. The Democratic Party, 2016.
Looks like we're about to have our first Oompa Loompa president. Historic.
Kagemusha
11-09-2016, 06:28
I sincerely hope that once Trump is the POTUS, things will not turn out as bad as i fear they will. Well this is democracy and what parties put up as candidates can actually get elected into office.
Strike For The South
11-09-2016, 06:38
I'm in shock. I've stopped drinking.
edyzmedieval
11-09-2016, 06:53
Over. Pennsylvania is Republican.
Montmorency
11-09-2016, 06:54
I haven't seen it pointed out very much, but from my personal experience and a bit of looking into, I found that immigrants (non-Western European immigrants) are very strongly, if not overwhelmingly, in support of Trump. I saw this both in New York and on the West Coast. We know Clinton has had a dip in Hispanic support relative to Obama, but it might be interesting to dig more. I suspect non-Mexican Latinos, whether authorized immigrant or not, will be surprisingly close to even on support.
The thing is, Trump appeals to a wide range of non-metropolitan mindsets, regardless of origin. Where some may oppose him, it will be according to the following logic:
'I more or less agree with Trump on everything he has said or I have imagined, I like what he broadly stands for, I like his attitude, but he insulted my demographic, so :daisy: Trump!'
A firsthand example, though not in so many words, I got while in a Las Vegas taxicab this summer. The driver was an Afghan Marine Corps interpreter.
Strike For The South
11-09-2016, 06:59
Exit polls are showing hispanics voted for Trump in higher numbers than bush or Mittens.
I'm in shock. I've stopped drinking.
I've never stopped, and consumption will definitely be higher.
Both houses, serious majority of both state governors and legislatures. It's amazing how outmaneuvered the Democrats have been, given the overall popular vote. Is it possible Trump is a political genius? Given the upheaval within his own party, what he has done is pretty amazing. Hopefully this will be more entertaining than apocalyptic...
Montmorency
11-09-2016, 07:23
As of this post, DailyKos has a 92% Clinton victory.
:wacky:
As of this post, DailyKos has a 92% Clinton victory.
:wacky:
I think the marijuana votes mostly went "pro", that might explain it. Otherwise, biggest river in Egypt...
Montmorency
11-09-2016, 07:31
OK, to be fair, they probably just didn't update once the voting began. Which leaves the question of why the heck anyone would watch their site as opposed to 538, CNN, NYT, or any other with live updates.
Hooahguy
11-09-2016, 07:46
Well Trump won Pennsylvania so it looks like I owe you a thread Strike.
edyzmedieval
11-09-2016, 08:19
John Podesta went to the HQ and said they're not conceding yet.
John Podesta went to the HQ and said they're not conceding yet.
We will have to wait until tomorrow to see her befuddlement. ~:rolleyes:
It amazes me how incompetent the Democratic leadership has been since 2000. They could have easily thwarted the GOP in several of their missteps over the years, but have shown themselves to be nothing but spineless hacks.
CNN just gave Wisconsin to Trump. It's all over but the crying.
Edit-> Apparently Hillary conceded over the phone to Trump. Ding dong, and god help us all.
RIP America.
This is the moment I wish NASA reveals a secret Earth evacuation plan and I accept their invitation.
Bing bing bong bong, just good that this doesn't affect me at all.
I hope he withdraws from NATO, that way we can also disband the EU and......
ALL HAIL COMRADE PUTIN!
Did you hear that Steven Seagal was given Russian citizenship by Putin?
HopAlongBunny
11-09-2016, 09:26
https://youtu.be/JSUIQgEVDM4
https://youtu.be/87HjsK10_74
Sarmatian
11-09-2016, 09:33
I think it's fitting the election that looked more like a reality tv show to be won be a reality tv star. Another glass ceiling shattered. Now get ready for the first female president, Kim Kardashian in 2024.
Montmorency
11-09-2016, 09:33
Bing bing bong bong, just good that this doesn't affect me at all.
I hope he withdraws from NATO, that way we can also disband the EU and......
ALL HAIL COMRADE PUTIN!
Did you hear that Steven Seagal was given Russian citizenship by Putin?
https://i.imgur.com/RQpCyxj.jpg
Also, a respectable reaction from the Fark comments:
We elected a black president twice. I truly believe that Trump supporters have concerns larger than only race. Dismissing them as solely racists is the kind of thinking that leads to losing an election you thought was in the bag eight hours ago. Sound familiar?
I think Trump voters feel like their jobs and opportunities are dwindling. They feel like immigrants, black people, and LGBT people are making all the progress and they are being left behind. We may disagree and argue over whether those concerns are justified, but you cannot challenge the fact that they have real concerns and that they act upon those concerns at the ballot box.
The Trump candidacy was as much a middle finger to the Republican party establishment as anything else. They sent a message. If Democrats stick our fingers in our ears and say "you're just a bunch of deplorable racists" we're missing the message again. They feel they are being marginalized and left behind. Dismissing them as only hateful racists marginalizes them and therefore proves them right. We can't act like they don't have concerns.
I'm not a Trump supporter. I voted for Hillary. But we Democrats aren't going to win in 2018 or 2020 or beyond by dismissing the concerns of Trump voters. We need to address them, and address them honestly.
I told you Donald was going to win. People are too shy to admit they like Nazism in a phone conversation and it is really awkward that the poll companies have not yet grasped that simple fact. Now only if Admiral Kuznetsov purges today the Islamofascists of W. Aleppo in an orgy of red fire, then Charles Lister (https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/794532795888635904)may finally decide to stop being a waste of oxygen.
AE Bravo
11-09-2016, 09:37
Yall have been finessed by a con artist, plain and simple.
Very smart people!
HopAlongBunny
11-09-2016, 09:42
Yall have been finessed by a con artist, plain and simple.
Too accurate Too true
Montmorency
11-09-2016, 10:10
People are too shy to admit they like Nazism in a phone conversation
I think it's rather that they weren't responding to the polls in the first place. The fascists were already very vocal in their support. The Trump surge owes a good deal to a disengaged and disheartened 'shadow electorate', not to shy Nazis.
Considering the limited length and breadth of his knowledge, I always assumed that even if Trump did win he'll be more of a figurehead rather than anything else while more sensible heads below him do all the actual work.
Let's hope it's so.
I'd like it if one of the takeaways of this election is that money != win. Clinton massively out-raised and out-spent Trump.... and lost. Perhaps it's more important to have a message that appeals to voters rather than spending buckets of cash on over-produced campaign ads?
Having not been a Trump supporter, I'm going to try to remain cautiously optimistic and give Trump the benefit of the doubt until he shows otherwise. I did the same thing for Obama after the 2008 hopey/changey election. I hoped he would be the post-partisan president that he claimed he would be.... and he wasn't. Let's see what Trump does. :shrug:
Edit: I just watched Trump's victory speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_VbkPQ4mbc) and... it wasn't terrible. Probably the most humble I've heard him.
Strike For The South
11-09-2016, 14:29
Yall have been finessed by a con artist, plain and simple.
Very smart people!
lol. You people still don't get it.
Gilrandir
11-09-2016, 15:02
I sincerely hope that once Trump xenophobic wallbuilder sexist is the POTUS, things will not turn out as bad as i fear they will.
Do you really?
Bing bing bong bong, just good that this doesn't affect me at all.
I hope he withdraws from NATO, that way we can also disband the EU and......
ALL HAIL COMRADE PUTIN!
Did you hear that Steven Seagal was given Russian citizenship by Putin?
19142
Edit: I just watched Trump's victory speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_VbkPQ4mbc) and... it wasn't terrible. Probably the most humble I've heard him.
Watched some of that, I like how he said people should be thankful to Clinton for her service in the government when yesterday it was still about crooked Hillary having ruined the country with that same service. :rolleyes:
One could also say he wanted division to win and now that he won he wants unity. Whether that includes all the minorities he wants to trample on remains to be seen I guess. As we say here, the guy says a lot when the day is long... :sweatdrop:
https://s15.postimg.org/97i9lq1cr/14925799_1419630884717666_5450040368247053512_n.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
Canadian Immigration Website crashed...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/how-to-move-to-canada-immigration-website-crash-donald-trump-president-a7406106.html
Pannonian
11-09-2016, 18:19
https://i.imgur.com/qr0XiP4.jpg
No worse than the crap that Corbyn has said over the years. At least Trump has (AFAIK) never taken the side of enemy whom our troops were fighting, unlike Corbyn and his mates.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-09-2016, 18:28
Anyone surprised by this result must have willfully ignored Clinton's unelectability - for at least three different reasons - and the fact that Donald Trump actually had the better message "Make America Great Again".
Actually very like Obama's "Yes we Can!"
It's just like Brexit, people assumed that the "Establishment" side had to win, because it was the Establishment, it was Progressive and it was "On the Right Side of History"
I think it's time we re-evaluate which side History is on, because the last two years have seen a lot of upsets.
Strike For The South
11-09-2016, 18:29
You did the same thing in the Brexit thread. Your opinions are effete, salon room abstractions that only serve to stroke the egos of those in your circle. You offer nothing, other than a pithy meme and your own smug sense of superiority.
This is a little dramatized but the main points are there https://youtu.be/YY-CiPVo_NQ
The working class was willing to look past the henious things he said and did because they have been lied to for so long. Pride cometh before the fall.
Kagemusha
11-09-2016, 19:25
Do you really?
19142
Last time "the working man" started giving the finger to the establishment and started voting and following en masse for the populists, humanity got wonderful establishments like communist and fascist regimes.
What i am afraid of is that Trump wants to make state level deals and appeal to his voting base, he will indeed pull US out of Europe. In a way that is rather self deserving for Europe, for relying to US for so long.
The thing is that once US will be out Euros are going to understand that Russia has become a real threat more so with Brexit. I think at that point the "elite" politicians will have to make room for the more patriotic and populist candidates as well in countries like France and Germany in order to proper issue the threats that are looming. At that point maybe we will all be ready yet again at another round of World War. I sincerely hope not, but remains to be seen.
This is a little dramatized but the main points are there https://youtu.be/YY-CiPVo_NQ
Thank you, that's very interesting. IMO Bernie Sanders was the reasonable vote of that sort and Trump the crazy one. I guess when the democrats decided to "play it safe", a lot of people really did go to the Trump camp. I'm getting more and more curious how that will turn out.
And whether "the system" will allow his ideas to work if he actually implements them. Take the point with the 35% import tax, that only works in some areas I'd guess, in other fields one may end up with a 35% price hike because the wages and working conditions are higher/better when something is produced in the US.
I could be miscalculating, but as I said, that's the part where I'm curious how/whether it will work out. And before anyone says it's easy to watch an experiment on other people from a distance, remember that I was not quite in a position to decide the outcome and didn't exactly encourage this one either.
Montmorency
11-09-2016, 19:58
Well, uh, Kage here's an interesting article (http://warontherocks.com/2016/07/determined-by-history-why-sweden-and-finland-will-not-be-more-than-nato-partners/) on why Finland only cooperates with NATO rather than joining it.
As for the election, looking now I can't help but notice that, despite any loss at all of Pennslyvania-Wisconsin-Michigan being more than just embarrassing for a Democrat candidate, the losses were narrow, around 1%, even 0.3% in Michigan. This might insulate the upper echelons from the urge to reform, if they can rationalize based on the absolute fact of narrow margin there.
For a D candidate it was nearly a bad showing everywhere, even inspiring more NYC metro citizens to vote R - over a million - than since Reagan's time.
Kagemusha
11-09-2016, 20:23
Well, uh, Kage here's an interesting article (http://warontherocks.com/2016/07/determined-by-history-why-sweden-and-finland-will-not-be-more-than-nato-partners/) on why Finland only cooperates with NATO rather than joining it.
Monty how is that relevant to the issue? Finland´s lack of NATO membership can be explained rather more easily. There is no popular majority support for NATO membership in Finland as the "working man" still believes that it is more harm rather then positive thing. Thats democracy once again. Not that yours truly might agree with that assessment. Personally and i think ive expressed that many times before, Finland and Sweden should be in NATO.
The thing is, if NATO is to loose its "muscle" by US withdrawing. In such case the whole security situation in Europe would change drastically. Even more so with British Brexit happening already.
Montmorency
11-09-2016, 20:28
It was a way of recalling and building your confidence in self-reliance and Scandinavian cooperation - just like in old times! :tumbleweed:
https://i.imgur.com/unkjwt3.jpg
Seamus Fermanagh
11-09-2016, 20:44
My analysis was wrong. In fact, my early on prediction of a narrow Trump popular vote win coupled to a significant electoral college defeat was more or less exactly the reverse of what has occurred.
There is a segment of the USA that gets misty-eyed when they hear "Proud to Be an American" that has been sneered at too much and they found in Trump a standard bearer for their anger. The working "class" (a much less sweeping term here than in Europe) was frustrated and angered with an anemic GDP growth rate and regulations etc. that marginalized whole industries and/or assisted growth overseas more than at home -- they want to work and get paid, not be retrained and safety-netted and they found in Trump a standard bearer for that anger. They deeply resented a government which refused to enforce its own laws on immigration and which made efforts to protect the human rights of illegal aliens more thoroughly than that government protected the rights of its own citizens and they found in Trump a standard bearer for that anger.
Familiar names from proud political pedigrees -- the establishment -- were the target of this anger. Those supporting Trump chose a person who used the loopholes in the law to his own advantage over a person who set aside or arguably broke the law for her own convenience and enrichment.
That anger at the collective establishment -- and those who "felt the burn" were fellow travelers in this -- was the...pardon me...Trump card for this entire election season.
Montmorency
11-09-2016, 21:04
Interesting comments:
"Germany and America are bound together by values - democracy, freedom, respecting the rule of law, people's dignity regardless of their origin, the colour of their skin, religion, gender, sexual orientation or political views… On the basis of these values, I am offering to work closely with the future President of the United States Donald Trump."
- German Chancellor Angela Merkel
Striking choice of words.
"Their world is collapsing. Ours is being built."
- French National Front Vice President Florian Philippot
I don't like the sound of that!
"We wish your excellency success in your mission to achieve security and stability in the Middle East and worldwide."
- Saudi King Salman
Is this more or less opaque than it sounds?
What i am afraid of is that Trump wants to make state level deals and appeal to his voting base, he will indeed pull US out of Europe. In a way that is rather self deserving for Europe, for relying to US for so long.
The thing is that once US will be out Euros are going to understand that Russia has become a real threat more so with Brexit. I think at that point the "elite" politicians will have to make room for the more patriotic and populist candidates as well in countries like France and Germany in order to proper issue the threats that are looming. At that point maybe we will all be ready yet again at another round of World War. I sincerely hope not, but remains to be seen.
The people I talked to today about this election all said the very same thing you are saying here.
We have been relying too much on the US to protect us for way too long.
But I doubt the current bunch of idiots running the show here in Europe will understand this in time.
Strike For The South
11-09-2016, 21:25
19143
Kralizec
11-09-2016, 21:46
You did the same thing in the Brexit thread. Your opinions are effete, salon room abstractions that only serve to stroke the egos of those in your circle. You offer nothing, other than a pithy meme and your own smug sense of superiority.
This is a little dramatized but the main points are there https://youtu.be/YY-CiPVo_NQ
The working class was willing to look past the henious things he said and did because they have been lied to for so long. Pride cometh before the fall.
I have always tried to vote for candidates who I find convincing, because they support their views with sound arguments and data. Generally those are candidates which are part of the "elite" that people like Trump like to whine about.
If that counts as saloon room abstractions, so be it. I am not ashamed about it and I won't apologize for it. Screw the "working class" in that case.
FYI, I'm a low income worker. Most of my collegues wouldn't vote for a guy like Trump either. "Working class" in a context like this is just a euphenism for intellectually lazy people who get their political beliefs from their gut. And I don't mean lowly educated- there's a difference.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-09-2016, 21:54
You did the same thing in the Brexit thread. Your opinions are effete, salon room abstractions that only serve to stroke the egos of those in your circle. You offer nothing, other than a pithy meme and your own smug sense of superiority.
This is a little dramatized but the main points are there https://youtu.be/YY-CiPVo_NQ
The working class was willing to look past the henious things he said and did because they have been lied to for so long. Pride cometh before the fall.
After watvhing that I want to vote for Trump.
But, yeah, I get it. He's saying he's going to use the government to punish capitalists for taking advantage of globalisation.
As in, he's saying he'll use the government FOR the people,not just try to balance the government ledger.
Montmorency
11-09-2016, 22:05
Something something Mackinder hilltops and valleys
Kagemusha
11-09-2016, 22:06
Monty, there seems to be lot to read between the lines of those quotes. Apparently so many want so much from US, compared how little some of the US people want to have anything to do with any of those wishes. I think it was Yoda who said something about power and about great responsibility that comes with great power....
The people I talked to today about this election all said the very same thing you are saying here.
We have been relying too much on the US to protect us for way too long.
But I doubt the current bunch of idiots running the show here in Europe will understand this in time.
Maybe we Euros ought to stop derailing this thread and instead start our own thread concerning what all this might do to Europe?
Montmorency
11-09-2016, 22:14
Yoda who said something about power and about great responsibility that comes with great power....
That's more Spiderman.
Anyway, the Mackinder reference (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Democratic_Ideals_and_Reality_(1919).djvu/44):
Democracy implies rule by consent of the average citizen, who does not view things from the hill-tops, for he must be at his work in the fertile plains. There is no good in railing at the characteristics of popular government, for they are its qualities and no mere defects.
Strike For The South
11-09-2016, 22:19
I have always tried to vote for candidates who I find convincing, because they support their views with sound arguments and data. Generally those are candidates which are part of the "elite" that people like Trump like to whine about.
If that counts as saloon room abstractions, so be it. I am not ashamed about it and I won't apologize for it. Screw the "working class" in that case.
FYI, I'm a low income worker. Most of my collegues wouldn't vote for a guy like Trump either. "Working class" in a context like this is just a euphenism for intellectually lazy people who get their political beliefs from their gut. And I don't mean lowly educated- there's a difference.
When has Hillary ever supported anything soundly? Maybe the early 90s when she was on about healthcare? They tried to shove her down our throats because, and I quote, "it's her turn". What the hell kind of message is that to the electorate? For 30 years she said she would help the middle class and for 30 years they have been dying on the vine.
These elites have sold middle America a bag of lies. They've gutted unions, destroyed heath care, taken away jobs, left the infrastructure to rot, and spent American blood on forigen misadventures. Trump is shifty snake oil salesman with no real convictions, but he isn't them and that's what matters.
You people still can't see past your nose.
Strike For The South
11-09-2016, 22:28
You are getting lost in the minutiae and the abstractions. Monty may be the smartest man I have never met but something tells me he would be a poor executive. Policy wonks tend to make poor elected leaders.
You don't have to agree with these people. You do have to understand their pain. You have to be able to look them in the eyes and understand why they feel the way that they do in a way that numbers and political maxims can't.
is it really that hard to see?
Seamus Fermanagh
11-09-2016, 22:33
You are getting lost in the minutiae and the abstractions. Monty may be the smartest man I have never met but something tells me he would be a poor executive. Policy wonks tend to make poor elected leaders.
You don't have to agree with these people. You do have to understand their pain. You have to be able to look them in the eyes and understand why they feel the way that they do in a way that numbers and political maxims can't.
is it really that hard to see?
Thus endeth the lesson.
Pannonian
11-09-2016, 22:34
After watvhing that I want to vote for Trump.
But, yeah, I get it. He's saying he's going to use the government to punish capitalists for taking advantage of globalisation.
As in, he's saying he'll use the government FOR the people,not just try to balance the government ledger.
Not in a million years would I vote for someone like Trump. But the Americans have every right to elect whoever they wish, whatever Euros and (since we're going to be separate) Anglos think. It's up to our governments to find a way of making this work together.
Montmorency
11-09-2016, 23:00
Monty may be the smartest man I have never met but something tells me he would be a poor executive.
Praise, but I'm pretty much a more self-conscious, less driven Trump in my character. We'll see.
GeneralHankerchief
11-09-2016, 23:17
You are getting lost in the minutiae and the abstractions. Monty may be the smartest man I have never met but something tells me he would be a poor executive. Policy wonks tend to make poor elected leaders.
You don't have to agree with these people. You do have to understand their pain. You have to be able to look them in the eyes and understand why they feel the way that they do in a way that numbers and political maxims can't.
is it really that hard to see?
At the end of the day, this is why Bill won and why Hillary cannot.
Kralizec
11-09-2016, 23:27
When has Hillary ever supported anything soundly? Maybe the early 90s when she was on about healthcare? They tried to shove her down our throats because, and I quote, "it's her turn". What the hell kind of message is that to the electorate? For 30 years she said she would help the middle class and for 30 years they have been dying on the vine.
You have every right to disagree with me about HRC. Especially because you're an American and I'm not, and know more about your own politics than I do. But I do recognize some of the sentiments in US political discussions, like the frustrations you mentioned. There are snake oil salesmen here too, who claim that they'll fix what the elite have broken, and that you're selling yourself short if you're not voting for them.
You don't have to agree with these people. You do have to understand their pain. You have to be able to look them in the eyes and understand why they feel the way that they do in a way that numbers and political maxims can't.
That makes it sound like everybody who voted for Trump came out of a John Steinbeck novel. I can, and I do, feel sorry for people who have a hard life. I just don't appreciate it when these people are used against me as a prop, to make me feel guilty about voting for "the elite".
Trump Tower was built on the backs of illegal Polish workers who were scammed out of their wages after the fact. As for "deleting e-mails", Trump's companies have on multiple occasions deliberately destroyed business records (including e-mails) when it became apparent that the opposing party in lawsuits would try to gain acces to them by requesting discovery.
Trump has never been a politician before, and even so there's a mountain of evidence of his contempt for the law, for poor people and basic human decency. That people are trying to paint him as a champion of the downtrodden is downright laughable.
So, again: I feel sorry for people who are faced with economic hardships. I think it's presumptuous to assume that they would naturally vote for Trump, and in my opinion they would be wrong to do so. Quite frankly, if these people vote for Trump for no other reason than feeling short-changed and wanting to kick the "elite" in the nuts, I would put that down under stupidity.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-09-2016, 23:43
...Trump Tower was built on the backs of illegal Polish workers who were scammed out of their wages after the fact. As for "deleting e-mails", Trump's companies have on multiple occasions deliberately destroyed business records (including e-mails) when it became apparent that the opposing party in lawsuits would try to gain acces to them by requesting discovery.
Trump has never been a politician before, and even so there's a mountain of evidence of his contempt for the law, for poor people and basic human decency. That people are trying to paint him as a champion of the downtrodden is downright laughable.
....
That is why I used the phrase "standard bearer for their anger." I was never claiming he embodied their values -- he may or may not and probably both as people are complex -- only that he tapped into them and became their representative. He "felt their pain" as Strike suggests. They rewarded him for it.
Heck, at the rallies following the Billy Bush "Open Mike" reveal by Access Hollywood, some women were sporting this tee shirt...
19144
AE Bravo
11-09-2016, 23:49
Is this more or less opaque than it sounds?
Basically, whatever changes to the DoD contracts Trump has in mind, he'll gladly pay like a good little king. Under the table stuff included.
Personally, I think it is a sign of a greater political movement occurring in multiple countries. So it is more a "sign of the times" rather than some completely out of the blue occurrence. The far-right have been gaining momentum across the world, and it appeals to the same common base as it did back in the 1930s-40s after the Great Depression. These are people affected the worse, and look towards a strongman/desperate solution to the problems, the one who promises them the world, at the expense of the world. It led to the growth of UKIP, National Front, Party for Freedom, Golden Dawn, etc. It led to Brexit, and now the US election. There is a serious possibility that the National Front in power within France is next.
Montmorency
11-10-2016, 00:11
if these people vote for Trump for no other reason than feeling short-changed and wanting to kick the "elite" in the nuts, I would put that down under stupidity.
Who else would they vote for? Clinton's entire campaign studiously ignored those whom Trump spoke to as political actors, perhaps thinking they just wouldn't count for much. This is a fundamental political mistake that should haunt her base, even those who would go so far as to want to extirpate all non-Democrats from the country.
edyzmedieval
11-10-2016, 00:20
Listening to your voters, making sure you hear their pleas and their grievances and acting on their disappointment and resentment should always be the way forward. No exception. Listen to your voters, listen to their problems and subsequently act on it if you get elected into office.
But not done in this way. Not with this election circus. Not with all of the horrific statements said on TV.
Not like this. :shame:
Pannonian
11-10-2016, 00:45
Personally, I think it is a sign of a greater political movement occurring in multiple countries. So it is more a "sign of the times" rather than some completely out of the blue occurrence. The far-right have been gaining momentum across the world, and it appeals to the same common base as it did back in the 1930s-40s after the Great Depression. These are people affected the worse, and look towards a strongman/desperate solution to the problems, the one who promises them the world, at the expense of the world. It led to the growth of UKIP, National Front, Party for Freedom, Golden Dawn, etc. It led to Brexit, and now the US election. There is a serious possibility that the National Front in power within France is next.
In the UK the movement has led to greater influence both for the far right, in UKIP, and the far left, in Corbyn. Some people even manage to combine the two.
In the UK the movement has led to greater influence both for the far right, in UKIP, and the far left, in Corbyn. Some people even manage to combine the two.
I think you are hinting at the SNP there. Almost included them in the list I gave, but it would muddy my point a little too much. Socialists also increased in popularity too post Great Depression.
Montmorency
11-10-2016, 02:38
A bad list, but at least it's an easy reference checklist (the 100-day plan).
I'll pick just one item to snark on:
Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are
over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want
to speed the approval of life-saving medications.
Any red tape effect is largely a product of lack of funding and personnel. Assign the FDA more funding and personnel to speed the process. As it is, the FDA does the bare minimum it is legally required to as it lacks time and resources.
Hooahguy
11-10-2016, 03:02
Expanding the FDA would be a good idea if Trump also didnt propose a hiring freeze for all federal employees so yeah. But I suppose he wouldnt have much of an issue with pushing through drugs that arent fully tested.
I've been reading/listening to a good bit of discussion about this election and one thing that jumped out at me was the case the Obama completely gutted the Democratic party.
He was a personally likable/popular president that kept shoving unpopular policies. He didn't feel much pain from it due to his personal popularity, but his party suffered significant damage. I forget the exact numbers, but over 1000 local, state and federal Democrat office-holders have lost their seats since Obama came into office. He had a majority in both houses of Congress and lost both. The majority of state legislatures and overwhelming majority of state governors are GOP controlled. It was an interesting angle I hadn't really thought much about.
The tragedy for Republicans was that the worst candidate won. The tragedy for Democrats was that they had no one better to run.
Montmorency
11-10-2016, 03:39
He was a personally likable/popular president that kept shoving unpopular policies. He didn't feel much pain from it due to his personal popularity, but his party suffered significant damage.
Of course, the Party itself had a large role to play in many of these policies. Despite gaining the POTUS office, he never did have much clout within his own political organization.
Hooahguy
11-10-2016, 03:43
I've been reading/listening to a good bit of discussion about this election and one thing that jumped out at me was the case the Obama completely gutted the Democratic party.
He was a personally likable/popular president that kept shoving unpopular policies. He didn't feel much pain from it due to his personal popularity, but his party suffered significant damage. I forget the exact numbers, but over 1000 local, state and federal Democrat office-holders have lost their seats since Obama came into office. He had a majority in both houses of Congress and lost both. The majority of state legislatures and overwhelming majority of state governors are GOP controlled. It was an interesting angle I hadn't really thought much about.
The tragedy for Republicans was that the worst candidate won. The tragedy for Democrats was that they had no one better to run.
Yes, I remember reading that the party basically purged the Blue Dog Democrats from the party, largely under the leadership of DWS. Maybe if they rethink that they could make headway in places like Nebraska or whatever, since you arent going to get a moderate Dem to win in those states. The whole party has to be rethought, last night was a rude awakening. Everyone thought, including me, that the GOP was in deep trouble. We were so wrong.
Montmorency
11-10-2016, 04:08
the GOP was in deep trouble
Oh, they are. But navel-gazing and manifest destiny are not a party platform, so it shouldn't have been comfort in the first place.
Montmorency
11-10-2016, 04:13
An example:
If this is indeed the last gasp of the dying Great White Majority, then what reason would minorities have to stick with a hegemonic Democrat party in 20 years, especially given that minorities tend to lean right on social issues and the party has done nothing much to address this?
a completely inoffensive name
11-10-2016, 07:32
I've been reading/listening to a good bit of discussion about this election and one thing that jumped out at me was the case the Obama completely gutted the Democratic party.
He was a personally likable/popular president that kept shoving unpopular policies. He didn't feel much pain from it due to his personal popularity, but his party suffered significant damage. I forget the exact numbers, but over 1000 local, state and federal Democrat office-holders have lost their seats since Obama came into office. He had a majority in both houses of Congress and lost both. The majority of state legislatures and overwhelming majority of state governors are GOP controlled. It was an interesting angle I hadn't really thought much about.
The tragedy for Republicans was that the worst candidate won. The tragedy for Democrats was that they had no one better to run.
My main thoughts on this election (on a subject no one has mentioned here) are incoming, but I will reply to this first. The GOP have been very successful at separating the national candidates from the SCOTUS candidates from the state/local candidates in the eyes of their constituents. Although both parties have been shifting state politics towards the polarizing state of the Federal government, the Democrats seem to demand a much more uniform message across the board, perhaps as over compensating for their big tent demographics. I have seen the GOP be much more flexible on this manner. Obama had a clear mandate and he failed to deliver a product that the working class liked, but that in no way means House or Senate or State Democrats had to go burning down with him. Bob Dole didn't bring down the GOP majority in Congress in 1996.
a completely inoffensive name
11-10-2016, 08:08
I deliberately held off on posting here, not just because my soul sucking job demands all my time for crappy pay but because I am not strong enough to think beyond the talking points until they stop filling the room.
With a day to think about the demographics of Trump's win and the obliviousness of multiple groups to his rise, I think that there is another angle at play here that needs to be discussed. We can blame the Dems and the Republicans and the media all for failing to see the dire state that the white working class of the rust belt is in and how they are going to respond in the booth. But I think that we all know that Donald made good politics by telling them he will bring their jobs back, but he is making (if he follows through) terrible economic and geopolitical decisions.
Our situation reminds me of Ecclesiastes 9:12 (I am trying my best to read the Bible and see what others see in it). In the past twenty years we have found ourselves caught in a net of globalization and more importantly, automation. These rapid changes in technology are simply too overwhelming for our institutions to fully mitigate the negative effects. Any talk by the Dems or GOP on re-training coal miners or assembly line workers into the next generation of green technology technicians is a joke. These people have no viable path to the same standard of living that their demographic had in the past (and neither do the well educated either). The answer is not to cater to them, since their struggle breeds the kind of sentiment that promotes the kind of unstable, possibly xenophobic strongman leadership that was just elected. in my opinion, the political elites need better structures for deciding viable candidates that are able to both listen to the needs of the public without being wholly subservient to them and that starts with reforming the primary systems that the parties use.
What the replacement is, I do not know. Back room deals of the 1800s clearly proved unable to meet the basic demands of the public who grew more progressive for every gilded age candidate that attempted to stomp on labor. But the primary system clearly failed not just in one way but two. The GOP structured their system with too much freedom and power for the public in the hopes of setting up a snowball effect for their establishment candidate and preventing drawn out fights (ex. Romney v Santorum). This allowed a populist movement to capitalize on the state of fragmented establishment candidates. Trump was winning entire states delegates that voted 60% or more against him! On the other hand, the Dems showed just how terrible it is when you limit the voice of the constituents too much. Hillary was never what the people wanted, but it was what the elites had agreed to in their internal power struggles. They stacked the deck in her favor and as the hacked emails show, they actively rigged the system to suppress the candidate who was speaking to the people's demands. The DNC might as well have said forget the primaries, we will just let you know when to vote for her.
There is something wrong with the political calculus our politician's make when making choices and I do not think it is because of anything inherently wrong with them as individuals or groups. The current decision making structures seem to promote oddly constructed moves that ultimately leaves an angrier and more polarized society. This in my opinion is a much bigger threat than Hillary simply writing off white working class voters. What we saw was an across the board failure among all establishments left and right to break this type of thinking, which was the only way that an individual like Trump could ever be granted the keys to the oval office.
EDIT: Fuck, I am a terrible writer. Why do I repeat the same adjectives a million times.
edyzmedieval
11-10-2016, 11:12
The outcome of the election is pretty much this - the United States of America is more likely the Divided States of America. The country is really divided, and the fact that Hillary won the popular vote and Trump the electoral vote will create more tension.
Pannonian
11-10-2016, 11:33
The outcome of the election is pretty much this - the United States of America is more likely the Divided States of America. The country is really divided, and the fact that Hillary won the popular vote and Trump the electoral vote will create more tension.
It sometimes happens. Churchill polled half a million fewer votes than Attlee when he was elected PM, which in 2016 US terms would be around 4m votes. AFAIK Attlee didn't complain about the distribution of votes, but got on with preparing his party for opposition. Trump won traditionally Democratic states as a result of the Democratic vote going drastically down. The Bush era with its even clearer divide of blue and red was a clearer picture of a divided America. This election was a demonstration of how much Hillary Clinton is disliked.
Montmorency
11-10-2016, 14:06
The GOP structured their system with too much freedom and power for the public in the hopes of setting up a snowball effect for their establishment candidate and preventing drawn out fights (ex. Romney v Santorum). This allowed a populist movement to capitalize on the state of fragmented establishment candidates. Trump was winning entire states delegates that voted 60% or more against him! On the other hand, the Dems showed just how terrible it is when you limit the voice of the constituents too much. Hillary was never what the people wanted, but it was what the elites had agreed to in their internal power struggles. They stacked the deck in her favor and as the hacked emails show, they actively rigged the system to suppress the candidate who was speaking to the people's demands. The DNC might as well have said forget the primaries, we will just let you know when to vote for her.
Actually, it is a good point that Clinton's selection more closely cleaves to the old manner of selection, except the local party machines are just replaced by a direct Clinton campaign machine. Still poorly executed; untold millions wasted on what? Might as well spend no money and tell people to read her extended platform on her web zone or :daisy: off.
The popular vote difference is not much to speak of on its own terms. Original projections were a 3-4% over Trump, then when she was well enough defeated and all that was left was to count votes, it was to be ~1%. It has settled around 0.2%. No one should take away that this was a narrow defeat or blame it on the electoral college (anyway the behavior of voters would change without EC considerations). You can't shift the numbers around in a flattering way.
But you may see a change coming regardless with the expansion of the National Interstate Popular Vote Compact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact). Perhaps this isn't what reformists typically advocate, a total shift to raw popular vote count.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among several U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome.[2][3] As of 2016, it has been joined by ten states and the District of Columbia; their 165 combined electoral votes amount to 30.7% of the total Electoral College vote, and 61.1% of the 270 votes needed for it to have legal force.
Any talk by the Dems or GOP on re-training coal miners or assembly line workers into the next generation of green technology technicians is a joke.I know this is only a small point from your post, but I felt the need to point out Obama almost single-handedly killed the coal industry in the US by regulating coal powered electric plants out of existence. I lived in coal country for a couple years and it was sad to see all the workers incrementally getting laid off, knowing that their livelihoods weren't coming back.
I think this probably fed somewhat into Hillary's defeat too. Dems long took union support for granted. These were life-long union workers that were losing their jobs because of Democrat policies. Their anger and frustration is understandable.
Gilrandir
11-10-2016, 15:20
The working "class" (a much less sweeping term here than in Europe) was frustrated and angered with an anemic GDP growth rate and regulations etc.
I don't think the working class think in the terms of GDP growth and marginalizing regulations. It is rather
they want to work and get paid
edyzmedieval
11-10-2016, 15:53
It makes it a very difficult question to answer with regards to workers in industries who will eventually shut down completely.
What do you do with them? You need to get them jobs so they can work, survive and then thrive as individuals, families and societies. But what do you do when you're going to have to close for example all of those coal factories - climate change is real, it's a disaster and coal factories heavily contribute to this. We need to save both our planet (our home) and the workers who are displaced by the sudden shift in policy and essentially... life.
Retraining them is one thing, and it's not a joke. You need to ensure they are retrained so you can give them a fair, solid chance in this new environment.
But what else can you do, that's the important question, apart from just retraining them.
Strike For The South
11-10-2016, 16:59
I'm going to use the term "Hispanic". I'm not particularly fond of the term, but it's the one I'm going to use.
So Trump captured more of the Hispanic vote than Mittens did. This is after the DNC and Spanish media tried to shove the "he's going to deport you all" narrative down the groups collective throat. I remember when Trump got into it with Ramos, the DNC hooted and hollered because the insulted a Hispanic mans pride. The DNC is hiliraously racist and thought this would bring out the vote.
The Hispanic ground swell the DNC predicted never coalesced around Clinton. The obvious answer as to why is because most Hispanics who vote tend to be ones who have been here for multiple generations. There is also a large minority of hispanics who do not have a high opinion of illegal immigration. Black Americans didn't come out in the numbers they were "supposed" to either. I'm not sure why the DNC thought they would, other than the fact they screamed "racist" at Trump a few times.
The DNC thinks they have a stranglehold on the "POC" vote. The facts are that the DNC strategy for getting out the "POC" vote is dated and slightly racist. It's not enough to say "they are racist, we are your party". The socially liberal wing of the party also turns off a lot of potential voters. No one ever addresses that. The most socially regressive attitudes towards gays are faraway found in the minority community. En vogue things like "safe spaces" are alien to these people other than those who attend university (who in turn are used as Proof of some broad coalition).
The malaise that surronded this election was not exclusive only to white voters. I can garuntee most of the people protesting right now didn't vote.
Pannonian
11-10-2016, 18:21
I know this is only a small point from your post, but I felt the need to point out Obama almost single-handedly killed the coal industry in the US by regulating coal powered electric plants out of existence. I lived in coal country for a couple years and it was sad to see all the workers incrementally getting laid off, knowing that their livelihoods weren't coming back.
I think this probably fed somewhat into Hillary's defeat too. Dems long took union support for granted. These were life-long union workers that were losing their jobs because of Democrat policies. Their anger and frustration is understandable.
Over here in the UK, Thatcher killed the British coal mining industry because its workers voted Labour and were inclined to strike. Industries like that were closed and replaced by service industries whose workers tend to vote Conservative.
Greyblades
11-10-2016, 18:52
Good to see the deomcrat voters are taking the defeat well.
https://streamable.com/6nwo
Seamus Fermanagh
11-10-2016, 19:56
I've been reading/listening to a good bit of discussion about this election and one thing that jumped out at me was the case the Obama completely gutted the Democratic party.
He was a personally likable/popular president that kept shoving unpopular policies. He didn't feel much pain from it due to his personal popularity, but his party suffered significant damage. I forget the exact numbers, but over 1000 local, state and federal Democrat office-holders have lost their seats since Obama came into office. He had a majority in both houses of Congress and lost both. The majority of state legislatures and overwhelming majority of state governors are GOP controlled. It was an interesting angle I hadn't really thought much about.
The tragedy for Republicans was that the worst candidate won. The tragedy for Democrats was that they had no one better to run.
I have heard folks comment that the Dems have no "bench" to go to with Clinton and Obama functionally at the end of their office-holding careers. No "rising stars" who are of an age and pedigree to take a shot at national office (at least not yet)
So we have a GOP with a split personality and the duty to govern and a Dem party with a power vacuum. Oddly enough, that's an exact recipe for a powerful presidency. I hope he uses the opportunity well.
Pannonian
11-10-2016, 23:36
I think you are hinting at the SNP there. Almost included them in the list I gave, but it would muddy my point a little too much. Socialists also increased in popularity too post Great Depression.
I was thinking of those strange people who support Corbyn whilst spouting UKIP arguments, and are ardent supporters of both Corbyn (far left) and Trump (far right).
a completely inoffensive name
11-11-2016, 01:09
It makes it a very difficult question to answer with regards to workers in industries who will eventually shut down completely.
What do you do with them? You need to get them jobs so they can work, survive and then thrive as individuals, families and societies. But what do you do when you're going to have to close for example all of those coal factories - climate change is real, it's a disaster and coal factories heavily contribute to this. We need to save both our planet (our home) and the workers who are displaced by the sudden shift in policy and essentially... life.
Retraining them is one thing, and it's not a joke. You need to ensure they are retrained so you can give them a fair, solid chance in this new environment.
But what else can you do, that's the important question, apart from just retraining them.
There is no way you can sufficiently train millions of people in a short period of time for labor markets that do not have the demand for such an expansion.
The only way to maintain the illusion is for a massive government employment program. Kill two birds with the lacking infrastructure, but this is not 1933 and we do not have FDR but the followers of Rand in Congress.
a completely inoffensive name
11-11-2016, 01:12
Actually, it is a good point that Clinton's selection more closely cleaves to the old manner of selection, except the local party machines are just replaced by a direct Clinton campaign machine. Still poorly executed; untold millions wasted on what? Might as well spend no money and tell people to read her extended platform on her web zone or :daisy: off.
The popular vote difference is not much to speak of on its own terms. Original projections were a 3-4% over Trump, then when she was well enough defeated and all that was left was to count votes, it was to be ~1%. It has settled around 0.2%. No one should take away that this was a narrow defeat or blame it on the electoral college (anyway the behavior of voters would change without EC considerations). You can't shift the numbers around in a flattering way.
But you may see a change coming regardless with the expansion of the National Interstate Popular Vote Compact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact). Perhaps this isn't what reformists typically advocate, a total shift to raw popular vote count.
The math simply does not work out for ever getting that compact passed by enough states. Big blue states will only carry it so far, the bottom half of states will never give away their power in the EC. The key states to win over are the swing states that enjoy the election money flooding in to ever think of changing the current system.
a completely inoffensive name
11-11-2016, 01:16
I know this is only a small point from your post, but I felt the need to point out Obama almost single-handedly killed the coal industry in the US by regulating coal powered electric plants out of existence. I lived in coal country for a couple years and it was sad to see all the workers incrementally getting laid off, knowing that their livelihoods weren't coming back.
I think this probably fed somewhat into Hillary's defeat too. Dems long took union support for granted. These were life-long union workers that were losing their jobs because of Democrat policies. Their anger and frustration is understandable.
You are 100% correct. But Obama only sped up what was inevitable for these people. Natural gas is just as plentiful, just as cheap, burns cleaner, allows for greater efficiency turbines and is not as carbon intensive. It is a losing battle that Obama should have left alone, he pounced because it was an easy target.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-11-2016, 03:56
I was thinking of those strange people who support Corbyn whilst spouting UKIP arguments, and are ardent supporters of both Corbyn (far left) and Trump (far right).
While Trump will prove himself to be far less "hard right" than his campaign rhetoric might indicate (it helped him close that deal Wednesday morning, so now it is on to the next), I should note that the USA had a notable slice of the electorate whose first and second preferences were Trump or Sanders -- anybody but the "in crowd" in other words.
Pannonian
11-11-2016, 10:34
While Trump will prove himself to be far less "hard right" than his campaign rhetoric might indicate (it helped him close that deal Wednesday morning, so now it is on to the next), I should note that the USA had a notable slice of the electorate whose first and second preferences were Trump or Sanders -- anybody but the "in crowd" in other words.
Aye, but is Sanders a bona fides hate everything to do with Anglo-America Communist though? I'm thinking of people who support both "Deport the foreigners" UKIP and "Remove all immigration restrictions" Corbyn, with Trump of the former material.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-11-2016, 13:06
Aye, but is Sanders a bona fides hate everything to do with Anglo-America Communist though? I'm thinking of people who support both "Deport the foreigners" UKIP and "Remove all immigration restrictions" Corbyn, with Trump of the former material.
Sanders was amnesty and reduce immigration restrictions...and then pay for their college.
Gilrandir
11-11-2016, 13:44
So we have a GOP with a split personality and the duty to govern and a Dem party with a power vacuum. Oddly enough, that's an exact recipe for a powerful presidency. I hope he uses the opportunity well.
There are only two things I like about Trump:
1. His first lady.
2. His hairdo.
Still can't figure out which I like more.
Good to see the deomcrat voters are taking the defeat well.
https://streamable.com/6nwo
Just like the GOP voters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUo6SNsPCFg
As for the coal industry, noone seems to think outside the box, i.e. basic income guaranteed for everyone. Decouple work and income and don't hang on to the old tripe of "noone will work anymore" that was proven false already.
Could go a step further and limit wealth somehow. The idea that only billionaires can be job creators was proven false by crowdfunding, where a lot of people pool their money to employ others. For our resident market capitalists the appeal could be that in the case of crowdfunding, the market literally decides, whereas with billionaire investors, "the market" for investments is often literally one guy who has all the money and all the decision in his hands.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs
InsaneApache
11-11-2016, 20:10
I was just going to post that video. :laugh4:
The one thing that is weird about the video, although I agree in general, is that the right is not always better at debating things than the left is IMO. Whether you talk to a libraul vegan or a die-hard Trump supporter seems to make little difference in terms of the wall you are often about to hit in terms of ability to convince them of anything. Or maybe it's just that I'm a terrible debater. :shrug:
The one thing that is weird about the video, although I agree in general, is that the right is not always better at debating things than the left is IMO. Whether you talk to a libraul vegan or a die-hard Trump supporter seems to make little difference in terms of the wall you are often about to hit in terms of ability to convince them of anything. Or maybe it's just that I'm a terrible debater. :shrug:
It is more about engaging those in the middle. It is nothing to do with debating skill or finesse in the bigger picture, it is more about enticing their imagination. overly simplistic, but the phrase "Make America Great Again" is more appealing than "I am better than the other guy". Then when you look at engagement, "Corporate interests and corruption is polluting this country, lets shake it up" has more appeal than "at least I am not racist.". Then lets look at Brexit, it is similar, "EU is responsible for everything wrong, get rid of Brussels, lets put the Great back into Great Britain", versus "those guys hate polish people, leaving EU will court disastrous consequences". The first one speaks of change and optimistic outlooks to a beleaguered demographic.
The idea you could debate someone on the fringe to adopt your viewpoint is a loss in itself. But by engaging those in the middle, those who can be swayed, then you will get them to support your cause. Remain should have extolled the virtues of what it is like to be European, more than simply say Brexit campaign is hogwash (it was hogwash, but that is a different matter entirely).
Hooahguy
11-11-2016, 22:32
Oh the double standard is real:
https://i.imgur.com/FhZWo6T.jpg
edyzmedieval
11-11-2016, 23:22
Apparently, the proposed Treasury Secretary is Jamie Dimon of Citibank - who is literally the head of Wall Street, alongside Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs.
So... how's that going?
Montmorency
11-11-2016, 23:32
Well, of course. The Bundy civil protest was a legitimate and peaceful attempt to demonstrate public dissatisfaction with federal policy, unlike those Black Lies pavement [no] who only work to loot and destroy and have no specific grievances.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-12-2016, 00:08
s
Apparently, the proposed Treasury Secretary is Jamie Dimon of Citibank - who is literally the head of Wall Street, alongside Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs.
So... how's that going?
Citibank Exec would probably be comfortable in working with big numbers, making decisions about where the economy will be headed 6 months down the line, and all the tricks the financial industry uses to hide money.
OR
He's there to grease the skids for the banks to up fees and screw customers as hard as possible while bailing out anyone in the "club" who is having trouble.
Greyblades
11-12-2016, 00:28
The one thing that is weird about the video, although I agree in general, is that the right is not always better at debating things than the left is IMO. Whether you talk to a libraul vegan or a die-hard Trump supporter seems to make little difference in terms of the wall you are often about to hit in terms of ability to convince them of anything. Or maybe it's just that I'm a terrible debater. :shrug:
Honestly I'd say you are the best debator out of the left on this board, largely because your wall comes up the least.
AE Bravo
11-12-2016, 00:57
You are getting lost in the minutiae and the abstractions. Monty may be the smartest man I have never met but something tells me he would be a poor executive. Policy wonks tend to make poor elected leaders.
You don't have to agree with these people. You do have to understand their pain. You have to be able to look them in the eyes and understand why they feel the way that they do in a way that numbers and political maxims can't.
is it really that hard to see?
In other words, a kneejerk reaction by a frustrated people. I suppose it's normal for a self-described reactionary to praise the same things he stridently hates about third world countries. You're a hypocrite.
Shut your mouth about populism elsewhere and maybe you'll be consistent. This entire election was a circus, you have little to be proud of or rationalize about your country right now.
s
Citibank Exec would probably be comfortable in working with big numbers, making decisions about where the economy will be headed 6 months down the line, and all the tricks the financial industry uses to hide money.
OR
He's there to grease the skids for the banks to up fees and screw customers as hard as possible while bailing out anyone in the "club" who is having trouble.
Such a difficult choice! I just don't know what to put my money on!
I lie. I bet it all on grease. No worries.
The left doesn't have the corporate cash or media backers to capitalise on public discontent. Instead the right is taking it and corrupting it into rocket fuel for yet greater domination by the elite.
The worry is when Trump fails to deliver anything in 2 years time. He will need someone to blame. You think he's going to target old, rich white men?
HopAlongBunny
11-12-2016, 05:33
https://youtu.be/vHI9BTpGkp8
Good Luck :stunned:
Greyblades
11-12-2016, 07:08
The left doesn't have the corporate cash or media backers to capitalise on public discontent. Instead the right is taking it and corrupting it into rocket fuel for yet greater domination by the elite.
You do know the left outspent the right in this election 2 to 1 one and dominated all but one mainstream news network, right? Or are you making a distinction between the ideological left (bernie) and the corporate "left" (clinton) in which case I would have to agree.
Kagemusha
11-12-2016, 07:18
You do know the left outspent the right in this election 2 to 1 one and dominated all but one mainstream news network, right? Or are you making a distinction between the ideological left (bernie) and the corporate "left" (clinton) in which case I agree.
I dont think you can describe Democrats and Rebublicans as left and right, both are far too loose alliances to describe as simple as that.
Montmorency
11-12-2016, 07:35
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/
Also considers Obama's and Romney's campaign expenditures. Interestingly, Obama's personal campaign raised more money in 2012 than Romney, Clinton, or Trump have raised in their respective campaigns. Astonishingly, this 2016 election season was "cheaper" in these terms than the 2012 contest.
Keep in mind three distinct categories of fundraising:
1. The candidate machine
2. The party machine
3. SuperPACs
Clinton did indeed outraise and outspend Trump in all three categories. Democrats seem to raise more, faster, and earlier.
An interesting discrepancy is between proportions of funds raised through small (<$200) donations, which Obama relied on more than Romney, but Trump more than Clinton.
Clinton’s campaign has directly received 16 percent of its money in donations of $200 or less. Trump’s campaign has directly received 27 percent of its funds from small donations. At this point in the 2012 election cycle, President Obama had raised 34 percent of his total in small donations and Republican Mitt Romney had raised 6 percent.
Sanders raised quite an amount for his time:
The presidential campaign of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders raised $234.3 million, and allied super PACs and other independent groups raised $6.3 million.
HopAlongBunny
11-12-2016, 09:05
This article fits my reading of the election:
Trump offered hope; veiled in mist, never explained, like a magic trick "All will be revealed!"
The Dem's offered nothing; not exactly true but you had to work to get the answers_that is not a winning approach.
P.S. racism still exists
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/why_did_some_white_obama_voters_for_trump.html
You do know the left outspent the right in this election 2 to 1 one and dominated all but one mainstream news network, right? Or are you making a distinction between the ideological left (bernie) and the corporate "left" (clinton) in which case I would have to agree.
There is no way you can describe hillary as left. Watered down centre-right at best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk_QnKtBH8w
It is more about engaging those in the middle. It is nothing to do with debating skill or finesse in the bigger picture, it is more about enticing their imagination. overly simplistic, but the phrase "Make America Great Again" is more appealing than "I am better than the other guy". Then when you look at engagement, "Corporate interests and corruption is polluting this country, lets shake it up" has more appeal than "at least I am not racist.". Then lets look at Brexit, it is similar, "EU is responsible for everything wrong, get rid of Brussels, lets put the Great back into Great Britain", versus "those guys hate polish people, leaving EU will court disastrous consequences". The first one speaks of change and optimistic outlooks to a beleaguered demographic.
Yes, just too bad that that doesn't cheer me up at the slightest, because it just sounds more like "we're all robots and most of us very simple ones with only a few buttons to press at that..." than all the things people want to make themselves out to be all the time.
It makes all the sophisticated discussion and politicking seem even more superfluous because one just needs to find the most common button, and I've said myself before that doing something against the wealth divide is the root of many issues.
Now you may ask "but why aren't you happy then if the candidate who claims to do that has won?". And the answer is that this is a mixed bag.
My evil side is happy and thinks that this experiment could go horribly wrong because he either has stupid ideas for how to fix these issues or is not going to help the people anyway and I gloat over the idea that the people will have to drink what they chose. Especially funny with the privatization and poisoning of drinking water in mind that we've actually seen happen already.
My other side, the one that actually laments this decision, simply says that voting for someone who could potentially kill your children by ignoring global warming and who could tank the entire economy, based on the oh-so-legitimate view that you lost your job when your local CO2-spewing, leaky chemical factory closed is maybe perhaps, most certainly still bloody stupid.
Not least of all because the fact that your town only had that one factory as a job provider was the result of your previous behavior as a consumer and voter, but at that point I'm probably stepping over a line once more where people will tell me about the depressing relation of work hours and education and that I can't just demand people to be reasonable or so.
I guess I'm just a silly elitist who is not giving the working man enough credit for constantly thinking that the vultures who let him work long and hard and abandon him for profit are the solution to all his problems. And the orange vulture said he'll fix it all after all. :dizzy2:
I guess we will see about the magic of Trumponomics, I feel a bit like what Pannonian always said about Fragony watching an experiment from a relatively safe distance. Except that I didn't encourage this experiment, so if it goes wrong I'm free to gloat I guess, if not I can just pick the cherries and want them here, too. :2thumbsup:
The idea you could debate someone on the fringe to adopt your viewpoint is a loss in itself.
Even more depressing news about human nature?
If you cannot sway the extremes, aren't you left with conflict/violent resolution or oppression of their views?
Were Stalinists and Nazis right all along? Alex Jones already said the ones who can't agree with the Trump presidency need to be prosecuted because they'll never be silent, maybe he is onto something?
Montmorency
11-12-2016, 11:24
Were Stalinists and Nazis right all along?
Churchill noted that democracy seemed superior to the other forms of government that have been tried from time to time. Others more abstractly pointed out that democratic organization emerges and performs best in given sets of material and social conditions such as have predominated in the modern age, and that its continuation or future success is purely contingent.
My suggestion is that there is no such thing as "good" governance or form of government, for more fundamental philosophical reasons and all of this discussion is flapping in the breeze and whistling in the dark. It won't stop us from discussing or advocating, as the intrinsic failure of the human condition is precisely what can frame it. To twist your countryman's words a bit: every value is another suicide.
:creep:
Alex Jones already said the ones who can't agree with the Trump presidency need to be prosecuted because they'll never be silent, maybe he is onto something?
I think Alex Jones is talking about his personal experience, when it came to his constant opposition to Obama. The irony in him saying such things is amusing.
Strike For The South
11-12-2016, 14:39
In other words, a kneejerk reaction by a frustrated people. I suppose it's normal for a self-described reactionary to praise the same things he stridently hates about third world countries. You're a hypocrite.
Shut your mouth about populism elsewhere and maybe you'll be consistent. This entire election was a circus, you have little to be proud of or rationalize about your country right now.
A knee jerk reaction? NAFTA was 25 years ago, the loss of the manufacturing base started before that. If anything the people of the rust clung to the Democratic Party (or at least politics as usual) as long as they could. I'm not rationalizing anything. That's what is.
Populism in thrid world countries tends to be bad for America. Populism in thrid world countries tends to involve women getting their clitorises removed. These are things which are sub optimal.
But I'll make you a deal. You can continue using my countries education system and continue to consume its culture. For my part I will continue to ignore the fact your country is the epicenter of modern Slavery and a general pox upon humanity in general. Sound good to you?
And the orange vulture said he'll fix it all after all. :dizzy2:
He is the orange wolf.
https://i.imgur.com/WKFzFU0.jpg
(... (http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/09/trump-won-because-leftist-political-corr#comment))
Strike For The South
11-12-2016, 15:03
Regarding Trumps transition team. Pence is a reprehensible human being committed to undoing the rights of homosexuals. He is basically Ted Cruz without the scruples relating to using government power as a hammer. I'm still not sure I believe all the names that are being floated for cabinet positions, they seem to be worst case scenarios.
if they are real candidates we may be inching closer to a faithless elector scenario and a revolt of the bureaucratic class inside the beltway. Which would be fascinating.
Strike For The South
11-12-2016, 15:25
Will someone tell Hill-dawg she doesn't have to stage photo ops anymore?
He is the orange wolf.
https://i.imgur.com/WKFzFU0.jpg
(... (http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/09/trump-won-because-leftist-political-corr#comment))
That's a very cool link, not that I read very far. There's Quixote talking about First Amendment rights and, if I read this correctly, how they should be curtailed, and then AnnaBoyle gives him the best possible answer:
My best friend's sister makes $95 an hour on the internet.. She has been out of a job for six months but last month her check was $14750 just working on the internet for a few hours. Go this website and click tech tab to start your work...
Amazing, also makes you wonder why people need Trump for jobs...
AE Bravo
11-12-2016, 17:21
A knee jerk reaction? NAFTA was 25 years ago, the loss of the manufacturing base started before that. If anything the people of the rust clung to the Democratic Party (or at least politics as usual) as long as they could. I'm not rationalizing anything. That's what is.
Populism in thrid world countries tends to be bad for America. Populism in thrid world countries tends to involve women getting their clitorises removed. These are things which are sub optimal.
But I'll make you a deal. You can continue using my countries education system and continue to consume its culture. For my part I will continue to ignore the fact your country is the epicenter of modern Slavery and a general pox upon humanity in general. Sound good to you?
It was a knee jerk, they bought a mystery box of bullshit. Your president-elect went back on major pledges. The difference between you and other Americans is that you find it easy to look past all the fighting words that had been said, for your sense of pride. Not everyone can look past that, and this is the difference between you and many of your other countrymen who are not privileged.
Because a Trump presidency isn’t sub optimal? Judging from his cabinet, you’re going to drag us all into a war at some point, not just bomb the defenseless as usual.
Funny you say "pox,"
3,066 Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks from 9/11/2001 through
12/31/2014, including perpetrators and excluding deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq.
o 2,961 of these deaths occurred on American soil.
o 2,902 of these deaths occurred during the attacks on September 11, 2001.
1.3m dead civilians war on terror by US.
[Deleted]
Strike For The South
11-12-2016, 19:25
It was a knee jerk, they bought a mystery box of bullshit. Your president-elect went back on major pledges. The difference between you and other Americans is that you find it easy to look past all the fighting words that had been said, for your sense of pride. Not everyone can look past that, and this is the difference between you and many of your other countrymen who are not privileged.
I didn't vote for Trump specifically because of what he said. Hiliary deserves no ones vote simply because the other viable option is bad. Depressed minority turn out speaks to that, A strong hispanic showing for Trump (relative to the last few cycles) speaks to that. The 50% of people who cast no vote and are now virtue signaling on social media are much more to blame than anyone who cast a ballot.
The DNC should have ran a fair primary. Hillary should have ran an actual campaign. The media should have taken this seriously. Every time someone references "privilege" with regard to not casting a vote for her, Trump gets stronger.
Because a Trump presidency isn’t sub optimal? Judging from his cabinet, you’re going to drag us all into a war at some point, not just bomb the defenseless as usual.
Not as sub optimal as patriarchy or the Indians in your fathers basement. Frankly, Trump may never see office, we have a lot of time and a lot of motivated parties between now and 2017. That's not a murder thing, that's a scandal thing.
Funny you say "pox,"
3,066 Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks from 9/11/2001 through
12/31/2014, including perpetrators and excluding deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq.
o 2,961 of these deaths occurred on American soil.
o 2,902 of these deaths occurred during the attacks on September 11, 2001.
1.3m dead civilians war on terror by US.
Your phrasing implies that all those people were targeted by US forces the same the terrorists targeted civilians. That's a very disingenuous argument. Your number is also a high end estimate that includes things like malnourishment and displacement, things that the US tries to mitigate and are certainly not using those as tactics.
Islam has a virus within it. Unfortunately, the best way for the west to combat it seems to be strongmen, Israel, and lots of American weapons. There are a few countries that are good Petri dishes for democracy but I'm beginning doubt it's even worth nurturing.
[Deleted]
AE Bravo
11-12-2016, 20:54
Trump would have wanted to win the popular vote. Then he could claim that he had a clear mandate, and he'd be right. This is the second time in this century and within the past few decades that Democrats lost as a result of the EC. Trump did not win by a lot in many of these swing states. moreover, it's clear now that Democrats could have easily picked up Wisconsin and Michigan with a more progressive candidate.
This is a state-level failure more than a partisan one.
Not as sub optimal as patriarchy or the Indians in your fathers basement. Frankly, Trump may never see office, we have a lot of time and a lot of motivated parties between now and 2017. That's not a murder thing, that's a scandal thing.
You just can’t “look past your nose.” There are countries like yours, built on revolutions, feuds, and finally some unstable coexistence. On the other hand, there are countries built on family values, maybe you can learn a thing or two about cultivating a tight-knit community. Anyway I’m sure Trump and his entourage got you by the balls so rest assured. In any case, you are no longer in a position to lecture anybody about human rights when your president-elect has consistently put out fighting words and sowed fear among your community. What you know about the Arab Gulf is what you see on Fox News, your slave arguments are at least a decade old. Your treatment of First Nations in South Dakota and the Tohono O’odham of Arizona are no different than how you treat the people you bomb overseas. These are your people and you have failed them. These are your Indian slaves, only they are subjected to deployment of armed forces, Forward Operating Bases, mass surveillance and interrogation, and regular use of helicopters and silent drones.
It’s well-established that the US systematically targeted infrastructure since the First Gulf War and has been the main driving force behind the civilian death toll, crippling any economic dependence that could have been gained. The idea that Islam is a virus is a myth from your generation. You have divided the middle east based on your ideal Israel frame. Now you have us allied subordinates pitted against great civilizations and movements looking for regional self-determination. You must have broken a record for most countries defecated on? Setting Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan back decades.
I’m happy in the mile high, I don’t want to get lynched by nativists with a god complex talking about the middle east. I’ll be in Austin this spring break, you know those people who realize it’s 2016. Come through, I feel it will prove my point that people who share your views tend to sing a different tune when it matters. Frankly I wish you would. I only know one friend from Florida who admitted he’s a fan of Trump. If you’re ashamed of your candidate, don’t vote for him. Silent majority my ass.
Strike For The South
11-12-2016, 21:21
I did not vote for Trump. You wishing I had does not make it so. There was a small moment in time when he had my attention, mostly as a reaction to Hiliray and DNC shenanigans. That passed once it became clear He was just riding anger. Also it very much is a silent majority if none speaks up
Austin and SXSW are overcommercialized tourist traps. Still better than Boulder. The music still has some bright spots though. It's worth going once.
I will say this, don't let someone rope you into going to Franklins. Go to the salt lick in Dripping Springs or any of the 3 in Lockhart.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-13-2016, 06:43
I did not vote for Trump. You wishing I had does not make it so. There was a small moment in time when he had my attention, mostly as a reaction to Hiliray and DNC shenanigans. That passed once it became clear He was just riding anger. Also it very much is a silent majority if none speaks up
Austin and SXSW are overcommercialized tourist traps. Still better than Boulder. The music still has some bright spots though. It's worth going once.
I will say this, don't let someone rope you into going to Franklins. Go to the salt lick in Dripping Springs or any of the 3 in Lockhart.
Salt Lick is first class 'cue. And God bless Huts
HopAlongBunny
11-13-2016, 07:29
https://youtu.be/zNGCgZ8o3UI
Had to laugh when I saw this.
https://i.imgur.com/HJfLvKn.jpg
Greyblades
11-13-2016, 17:28
And in this cage we have the increasingly endangered Self-hating Brit.
And in the other cage we have the nationalist Brit who is currently using crude tools to create platitudes and exaggerations.
HopAlongBunny
11-13-2016, 20:56
https://youtu.be/mDTph7mer3I
Greyblades
11-14-2016, 00:16
And in the other cage we have the nationalist Brit who is currently using crude tools to create platitudes and exaggerations.
You used to be better at this.
InsaneApache
11-14-2016, 19:11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql4YDKaKqVA
Greyblades
11-14-2016, 21:47
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/189/746/337.gif
Kralizec
11-14-2016, 22:42
If he could, I imagine he would try to sell the place for a profit.
HopAlongBunny
11-15-2016, 01:16
Resistance and road map:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-president-agenda-1.3845222
first 100 days:
https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf
Blastoise Groudon
11-15-2016, 01:46
Why do people think Hilary really would have been any better? Don't people remember all the money she took from Trump?
Seamus Fermanagh
11-15-2016, 06:04
Why do people think Hilary really would have been any better? Don't people remember all the money she took from Trump?
The mains stream media has fed the younger ones on a steady diet of:
1. Social progress trending away from traditional values is wonderful (to be fair, some of it truly has been progress).
2. Republicans are racists, bigots, homophobes, and misogynists.
3. Trump was rejected by many Republicans, so he must be worse.
After 8 years of Obama's administration, a goodly chunk of these student age protestors literally have no recollection of any other political "brand."
I find the calls for his impeachment particularly funny. I could have sworn he needed to take the oath before he could be impeached.
AE Bravo
11-15-2016, 07:07
Do you believe Trump espouses these traditional values?
It's not so much the GOP as it is Trump's despicable old guard cabinet. There was a brief time in this election where the GOP had glimpses of a promising new breed. They are fighting an uphill demographic battle. They need Rubio or someone who will not alienate minorities as much. If you want younger voters to have another brand besides the one known, there needs to be a rebranding.
Fisherking
11-15-2016, 13:32
There are a lot of Americans who are optimistic about a Trump Presidency. This is because they believe that he is anti-establishment.
I am not one of them. I am expecting just more building of government power and federal overreach.
We (Americans) have had progressivism in government for so long that we don’t even know what kind of government we are supposed to have. It is not supposed to be state and federal governments that regulate and legislate everything under the sun. It is limited government who’s only purpose for existence is to preserve and protect the rights and property of the people.
Progressives will cry at that and say what about the poor or minorities or what ever cause is in vogue. The may not know that government regulation may be the very thing keeping the poor or minorities where they are.
It is both parties and their elected officials. They represent the Oligarchs who bought them all years ago. The agenda is their version of global government and it is not freedom.
InsaneApache
11-15-2016, 17:53
Breaking news.
The 'Donald' evicts black family from their house.
On the Radio, there was a comment about how British and American voters have different perspectives of politicians. That is, in general, if you say you will do something in British politics, there is the expectation that you will do it. On the other hand in American politics, there isn't the expectation of politicians doing what they say they will do.
How true do people feel this comment is?
Seamus Fermanagh
11-15-2016, 18:46
Do you believe Trump espouses these traditional values?
It's not so much the GOP as it is Trump's despicable old guard cabinet. There was a brief time in this election where the GOP had glimpses of a promising new breed. They are fighting an uphill demographic battle. They need Rubio or someone who will not alienate minorities as much. If you want younger voters to have another brand besides the one known, there needs to be a rebranding.
Rebranding is crap. The mainstream media will just make it obvious that all the GOP would be doing is pandering to Latinos.
The party needs to get in the trenches and slowly teach/educate/work with the Latino communities -- and they are NOT a monolith as any Floridian could tell you -- as to why the GOP's agenda of smaller government, limited regulation, etc. is in their best long term interests.
Pandering gets you votes for one election. Truly working with the groups involved builds your core.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-15-2016, 18:47
On the Radio, there was a comment about how British and American voters have different perspectives of politicians. That is, in general, if you say you will do something in British politics, there is the expectation that you will do it. On the other hand in American politics, there isn't the expectation of politicians doing what they say they will do.
How true do people feel this comment is?
Some of the more "over the top" promises are assumed to be PR. The rest they expect you to make a good effort at -- though our purposefully gridlock-centric system means that such efforts may be stymied.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-15-2016, 19:00
The Dems have a leadership gap. Their old guard is either on the way out due to age/political fortune (Reed, H. Clinton, Nelson, J. Brown, Sanders...) or constitutionally ineligible (Obama, Clinton), or too young/not prominent enough to step onto the national stage yet (Booker). This positions them poorly to push back against Trump, should Trump be able to generate actual support.
The GOP is riven. The Trump coalition (Tea Partyers, Reagan Democrats, Hold-their-nose establishments, and the unwanted but still present Alt Right fringers) is not inherently stable. Trump can maintain most of this cadre by a full-on attack in favor of his full campaign agenda, but might lose support among the nose-holders and the mainline who didn't want him in the first place. This might get a number of the agenda items stymied.
As an alternative, he can go (or at least start with) conservative favorites (clean up tax loopholes, tighten up border security, cut back on regulation) and build a fair amount of support. He would lose the alt right types, and some of the tea party crowd who want sweeping tax changes yesterday, but might be able to build more mainstream party support and shift his direction a bit.
Or, he can make many of these changes while doing deals with democrats for some of their pet issues to buy off their opposition. This would be very "establishment" of him, however, and would lose the alt right types, but also a number of tea partyers, and all of the hard-core social conservatives (since gay marriage etc. are the "buy-off" issues he would have to use). This would rip his current coalition apart. Not sure if he could rebuild an establishment coalition if he goes this route.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-15-2016, 19:01
Breaking news.
The 'Donald' evicts black family from their house.
LOL
But it is not their house -- he's just bouncing them from public housing.
Pannonian
11-15-2016, 21:50
The Dems have a leadership gap. Their old guard is either on the way out due to age/political fortune (Reed, H. Clinton, Nelson, J. Brown, Sanders...) or constitutionally ineligible (Obama, Clinton), or too young/not prominent enough to step onto the national stage yet (Booker). This positions them poorly to push back against Trump, should Trump be able to generate actual support.
The GOP is riven. The Trump coalition (Tea Partyers, Reagan Democrats, Hold-their-nose establishments, and the unwanted but still present Alt Right fringers) is not inherently stable. Trump can maintain most of this cadre by a full-on attack in favor of his full campaign agenda, but might lose support among the nose-holders and the mainline who didn't want him in the first place. This might get a number of the agenda items stymied.
As an alternative, he can go (or at least start with) conservative favorites (clean up tax loopholes, tighten up border security, cut back on regulation) and build a fair amount of support. He would lose the alt right types, and some of the tea party crowd who want sweeping tax changes yesterday, but might be able to build more mainstream party support and shift his direction a bit.
Or, he can make many of these changes while doing deals with democrats for some of their pet issues to buy off their opposition. This would be very "establishment" of him, however, and would lose the alt right types, but also a number of tea partyers, and all of the hard-core social conservatives (since gay marriage etc. are the "buy-off" issues he would have to use). This would rip his current coalition apart. Not sure if he could rebuild an establishment coalition if he goes this route.
Can't he build a Republican coalition by building a picture of the archetypal Democrat, and promising to give them lot a kicking? AFAICS it's easier to build and maintain support against a stereotypical opposition than it is to build something constructive.
AE Bravo
11-15-2016, 22:44
The Dems have a leadership gap. Their old guard is either on the way out due to age/political fortune (Reed, H. Clinton, Nelson, J. Brown, Sanders...) or constitutionally ineligible (Obama, Clinton), or too young/not prominent enough to step onto the national stage yet (Booker). This positions them poorly to push back against Trump, should Trump be able to generate actual support.
They have Tulsi Gabbard. As of now she seems to be the ideal Democratic candidate. Opposed the Iraq War but still served in it, and would likely be running on a similar platform as Bernie Sanders. Plus, she has not shilling for the Hillary shills going for her.
https://i67.tinypic.com/iqza5w.jpg
They have Tulsi Gabbard.
I'd vote for her.
Not only because I just googled pictures, I think I actually heard of her before and that email you posted could be reason enough. :laugh4:
I mean it sounds like a thinly veiled attempt at blackmail or peer pressure, although the fact that it seems to be a done deal would hint at him just insulting her because he is sour. :dizzy2:
edyzmedieval
11-15-2016, 23:58
Admit it Husar, you'd vote for her because you googled those pics man. ~;)
AE Bravo
11-16-2016, 00:16
Wouldn't put it past Trump to question her birth certificate in 2020 for being Hindu.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-16-2016, 00:40
Gabbard is in the same boat as Booker. About 8-10 years of experience and gravitas short. Both are excellent longer term bets though.
Greyblades
11-16-2016, 00:48
Even if this wasnt a problem in the end they arent going anywhere if the party behind them refuses to learn from this year and keeps haemorrhageing voters.
AE Bravo
11-16-2016, 18:40
Gabbard is in the same boat as Booker. About 8-10 years of experience and gravitas short. Both are excellent longer term bets though.
That would make perfect sense if Trump didn't win your primaries and the general.
Montmorency
11-16-2016, 18:53
That would make perfect sense if Trump didn't win your primaries and the general.
Trump didn't win as a consequence of lack of experience and gravitas, or else you might as well consider Bernard the 40 year-old Cincinnati actuary a solid bet for 2020.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-16-2016, 23:03
That would make perfect sense if Trump didn't win your primaries and the general.
Not quite the point I was making. The mainline aka establishment leadership of the Dem party is the one with the gap in leadership. The GOP had an establishment leadership but Trump beat them precisely because he was not a part of it. The same thing could happen to the Democrat party as well.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-17-2016, 22:31
Thought this was an interesting pro-Trump video given the contrast between what he said before deciding to run and after:
https://youtu.be/OCabT_O0YSM
Montmorency
11-18-2016, 15:49
Mmhm (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-democrats-real-turnout-problem.html?smid=tw-share)
For every one voter nationwide who reported having voted for Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016, at least five people voted for Trump after not having voted four years ago. Clinton attracted substantially fewer 2012 nonvoters, the data show. On net, Trump’s gains among nonvoters mattered more than his gains from vote switchers, Rivers says.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/nov/10/if-only-donald-trump-had-come-second-eh-hillary
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/rdlol.gif
Greyblades
11-18-2016, 21:59
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usb2FEfzfRM&t=440s
May contain f-bombs.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-19-2016, 03:21
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/nov/10/if-only-donald-trump-had-come-second-eh-hillary
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/rdlol.gif
Excellent.
HopAlongBunny
11-20-2016, 05:03
A realistic look at Trump and "bringing back manufacturing!"; biggest problem...it never left and is doing very well thank you :rolleyes:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602869/manufacturing-jobs-arent-coming-back/?utm_campaign=internal&utm_medium=homepage&utm_source=features_1
http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/18/liberals-should-stop-ranting-and-seek-out-silent-trump-voters-like-me/
A somewhat interesting view, a few times I wondered whether Proletariat wrote it. :sweatdrop:
There are of course a few flaws, for example the point that a lot of Trump voters oppose his more racist ideas. This might be true, but apparently those are the "silent" Trump supporters who leave the stage entirely to the screaming crazies, making their opposition to these ideas essentially useless. Even more so given that their vote for Trump enabled the implementation of said ideas.
The part about the left not actually being very tolerant is interesting at least, probably worth thinking about and at the very least partially true.
Fisherking
11-20-2016, 19:52
So very much coming from the American Left is just so much spin. What comes from the MSM is as bad as any other Fake News.
Most Americans are not very interested in race. They mostly have friends and colleagues with diverse racial backgrounds. Race usually only plays a part in politics. The Left has made much of Identity politics. It also has become their hue and cry that anyone who disagrees with anything is Racist, Facist, and Bigoted.
They hold the ridiculous view that only Whites can be Racist while at the same time supporting real racist organisations. Whites and Christians are there whipping boys. You need do no more than belong to one of those groups to be held to be a racist, unless of course you belong to the most outspoken leftist groups.
The rest of the people, from moderate to the right (I know no one in the Alt-Right), are resentful of group rights for special interests. To them, everyone has the same basic rights. Not more and not less. They get resentful at being told what to do and what to think. Some Christians still have a problem with the idea of gay marriage but most others could care less, at least until you bring bathrooms into the equation. Americans are paranoid about pedophilia. They disdain the Welfare System because they wrongfully believe that most are generational freeloaders. Most Americans opposed Obama Care and think they are saddled with a bill of goods. To the majority of Trump Voters this is just a swing of the pendulum. Many only voted Trump because Clinton was totally unacceptable. Another sizeable portion are those out of work and long term unemployed who were desperate.
There of course are racists and racism does exist. But most are not organised and White Racist groups are a very tiny segment of the population.
Trump was never considered a Racist until he opposed the left and most people only saw it a rhetoric. Trump was forgiven by his voters because they saw the media hysteria as leftist spin.
In general they thought the remarks were taken out of context or distorted by the press. There is even some merit to that argument. But overall, I think that Michael Moore got it right. He was a human hand grenade to hurl at the establishment.
By echoing the cry of the American Left of “Trump Supporters are Racists” only means that you are too intellectually lazy to look for the truth and are therefore taking the word of Fascists and Racists that their opposition are Racist Fascists.
CrossLOPER
11-22-2016, 03:09
So very much coming from the American Left is just so much spin. What comes from the MSM is as bad as any other Fake News.
You can say that about any news that you don't like.
Most Americans are not very interested in race. They mostly have friends and colleagues with diverse racial backgrounds. Race usually only plays a part in politics. The Left has made much of Identity politics. It also has become their hue and cry that anyone who disagrees with anything is Racist, Facist, and Bigoted.
There is no left in the US. There are various shades on conservative, and I believe that the side that pushes its agenda on Christianity is firmly in the right.
They hold the ridiculous view that only Whites can be Racist while at the same time supporting real racist organisations. Whites and Christians are there whipping boys. You need do no more than belong to one of those groups to be held to be a racist, unless of course you belong to the most outspoken leftist groups.
You're lumping people together again, not unlike the people you are blaming.
The rest of the people, from moderate to the right (I know no one in the Alt-Right), are resentful of group rights for special interests. To them, everyone has the same basic rights. Not more and not less. They get resentful at being told what to do and what to think. Some Christians still have a problem with the idea of gay marriage but most others could care less, at least until you bring bathrooms into the equation. Americans are paranoid about pedophilia.
That's ignorance at best, and forcing your beliefs regarding gender at worst.
They disdain the Welfare System because they wrongfully believe that most are generational freeloaders. Most Americans opposed Obama Care and think they are saddled with a bill of goods. To the majority of Trump Voters this is just a swing of the pendulum. Many only voted Trump because Clinton was totally unacceptable. Another sizeable portion are those out of work and long term unemployed who were desperate.
So third party options were not on the table? It had to be the orange racist?
There of course are racists and racism does exist. But most are not organised and White Racist groups are a very tiny segment of the population.
Racism need not be in a group in order to have an effect. It's a social belief that can be shared by a broad population.
Trump was never considered a Racist until he opposed the left and most people only saw it a rhetoric. Trump was forgiven by his voters because they saw the media hysteria as leftist spin.
In general they thought the remarks were taken out of context or distorted by the press. There is even some merit to that argument.
I am puzzled as to how calling Mexicans rapists and suggesting Muslim internment camps can be "distorted", and especially after appointing two well known racists, one of whom headed an alt-right news organization.
But overall, I think that Michael Moore got it right. He was a human hand grenade to hurl at the establishment.
Again, I am puzzled as to how a) you can make billions and have zero contacts in state and economic institutions and b)how you expect someone with no ability to navigate the political realm will accomplish anything other than tarnishing a position to the point of being a joke.
By echoing the cry of the American Left of “Trump Supporters are Racists” only means that you are too intellectually lazy to look for the truth and are therefore taking the word of Fascists and Racists that their opposition are Racist Fascists.
"I can't come up with a counter-argument, so I'll call you stupid."
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-22-2016, 13:41
Amusing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/22/donald-trump-recommends-nigel-farage-british-ambassador-united/
Trump wants Farage as UK Ambassador - UK Government annoyed.
Amusing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/22/donald-trump-recommends-nigel-farage-british-ambassador-united/
Trump wants Farage as UK Ambassador - UK Government annoyed.
I like how the Web Poll is 100% in favour of no. I wish I voted "yes" now, to be like that 0.0001% in favour.
I'm old enough to remember when Democrats went crazy when Trump suggested he might not accept the election results. Of course, that was when they thought Hillary had it in the bag. After she loses.... I guess opinions change (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/democrats-electoral-college-faithless-trump-231731).
Trump has made some interesting choices for his appointments, but otherwise has done little to indicate he's going to be a good president and quite a few things to indicate (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/2016/11/18/9da9c572-ad18-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html) he'll be a bad one. I'm trying hard to reserve judgment- he hasn't even been sworn in yet, but it's hard.
Apparently, rules preventing federal employees from profiting from their positions don't apply to the President. Expect Trump to take full advantage of this. But at least you don't have to worry about Hillary and the corrupt pay to play Clinton Foundation right? :no:
Gilrandir
11-23-2016, 09:52
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/22/calexit-supporters-for-california-to-secede-take-first-steps-report.html
CrossLOPER
11-23-2016, 16:02
I'm trying hard to reserve judgment...
Let me help you:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38070930
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/trump-hires-two-net-neutrality-opponents-to-oversee-fcc-transition
http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/11/trump-to-ditch-tpp-trade-deal-day-one-of-presidency/
The last one is my favorite.
"I will ask the Department of Defense, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, to develop a comprehensive plan to protect America's vital infrastructure from cyberattacks."
Mere months away from office, he still does not have a coherent, stable plan or stance on anything.
Mind you, this could end up being hilarious as some of the voters are already pretty butthurt:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38072846
There is also the chance he accidentally makes America "great again".
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38034165
I'm old enough to remember when Democrats went crazy when Trump suggested he might not accept the election results. Of course, that was when they thought Hillary had it in the bag. After she loses.... I guess opinions change.
Hey, are you old enough to remember that Hillary didn't go on rants about how the system is rigged and how some Trump supporters promised revolution?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/politics/donald-trump-voters.html
Do you also remember the time that Hillary conceded as soon as the results became clear?
I'm old enough to remember when Democrats went crazy when Trump suggested he might not accept the election results. Of course, that was when they thought Hillary had it in the bag. After she loses.... I guess opinions change (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/democrats-electoral-college-faithless-trump-231731).
If we are going to be honest about this, you are twisting the situation. What Trump did was state that he would not accept the result if he loses, and he would contest it. This is something that has not actually happened before in the United States and defied convention. This was the actual candidate saying this. After Trump won, Hillary conceded defeat before the final results were in. She did not deny or contest the election.
Now, some people were doing demonstrations (which are legal under free speech) saying their disapproval of Trump. Then people like yourself then accuse people about being hypocrites about the Trump situation, when the Trump situation was actually something different. People can go #notmypresident #dumptrump #crookedclinton all they like on twitter, but an actual presidential candidate outright denying the results of an election and the consequences of this is something else entirely, as in constitutional crisis level.
You're wasting your time Beskar. Rhetorical Fallacies are the stock and trade of the right. In this case:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
You're wasting your time Beskar. Rhetorical Fallacies are the stock and trade of the right. In this case:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
While the point is valid, the delivery is severely lacking. I don't think a discussion with Xiahou is a waste of time.
In fact I'd say that you're now polarizing and generalizing "the right" and that's just not right either...
Anyone with half a brain can see that Trump has no clue about how to "make America great again". He was either a good electoral strategist or just a mob demagogue who was lucky in the paucity of his opponent.
Coming to any position after this election other than keenly analytical cynicism, is a sign of intellectual weakness and blinkered patriotism.
Anyone with half a brain can see that Trump has no clue about how to "make America great again". He was either a good electoral strategist or just a mob demagogue who was lucky in the paucity of his opponent.
Coming to any position after this election other than keenly analytical cynicism, is a sign of intellectual weakness and blinkered patriotism.
I found it obvious from his post that he is rather honest about not really finding anything to like about Trump. The least you could do is acknowledge that he is trying to be honest to himself and the world, I read his post more as someone trying to deal with the reality of Trump rather than someone who wants to praise Trump or so.
Your last point is especially weird since you're basically mandating an emotional state for others and claim they're not intellectual if they don't have it? That sounds like you have patented the only real truth or something like that, which seems rather arrogant and elitist in itself.
I'm merely asking you to make your point in a more polite manner, because, you know, it's not very intellectual to bark at everyone with a different opinion like an attack dog.
Pannonian
11-24-2016, 17:59
I found it obvious from his post that he is rather honest about not really finding anything to like about Trump. The least you could do is acknowledge that he is trying to be honest to himself and the world, I read his post more as someone trying to deal with the reality of Trump rather than someone who wants to praise Trump or so.
Your last point is especially weird since you're basically mandating an emotional state for others and claim they're not intellectual if they don't have it? That sounds like you have patented the only real truth or something like that, which seems rather arrogant and elitist in itself.
I'm merely asking you to make your point in a more polite manner, because, you know, it's not very intellectual to bark at everyone with a different opinion like an attack dog.
That is the point American posters have repeatedly made about the Democrats though. They are right, and they don't need to listen to people who disagree with them.
That is the point American posters have repeatedly made about the Democrats though. They are right, and they don't need to listen to people who disagree with them.
I am aware of that, but then again it is a similar generalization to the one I was criticizing Idaho for, no?
When I see both sides making a mistake, I'd rather open up a third side than join either of them.
HopAlongBunny
11-24-2016, 23:03
The Battle for America continues!!!
Jill Stein is demanding recounts in battleground states, and it looks like she will acquire the money to do so.
Is this "situation normal" or is it "not accepting election results" ?
I vote "situation normal"; she has the right and the means to ask for a recount => all systems working:yes:
InsaneApache
11-25-2016, 05:44
Democracy? Pah!
Sarmatian
11-25-2016, 07:53
You mean, Hillary Clinton is demanding a recount. She's just using Stein to get it.
You mean, Hillary Clinton is demanding a recount. She's just using Stein to get it.
Like Putin used Trump to become POTUS?
edyzmedieval
11-25-2016, 19:17
In defence of Trump, he apparently is trying to get some more moderate Republicans on board to make sure that he does not alienate his voter base and does not generate a serious confrontation with the majority of people who did not vote for him.
Because at this moment, there's over 2 million of them over the ones who did vote for him.
Picking Romney, for example.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-25-2016, 20:26
As I suggested long since in this same thread (though I admit that I thought it was hypothetical when I did so), Trump the president will prove VASTLY different than Trump the campaigner. Trump is many things, but not stupid. He will be forced to acquire persons from the establishment -- particularly in foreign policy areas -- because he is well aware of what he can do and what he cannot. He certainly thinks that he can face-to-face with any leader (he wrote "the art of the deal" after all) but knows zip about putting together an embassy or lower level conferences that his new status prevents him from handling personally.
To gain GOP congressional support, he must provide at least some face saving for the establishment. His nominees for the administration are far less rabid than the members of his transition team. He has repudiated water-boarding, repudiated the alt right, watered down his comments on the wall with Mexico, etc.
Interesting to see how long it takes for Trump to be thought of as "just another right winger" by the US political left protest crowd...and how long it takes for Trump voters to start accusing him of betraying the "Washington outsider" cause.
Kralizec
11-26-2016, 18:57
(he wrote "the art of the deal" after all)
Errr, no he didn't.
Errr, no he didn't.
Ghostwritten by Tony Schwartz for Donald Trump. In short, Trump hired an author to write the book in his name.
(for context/explanation)
And for source: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all
“I put lipstick on a pig,” he said. “I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is.” He went on, “I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.”
If he were writing “The Art of the Deal” today, Schwartz said, it would be a very different book with a very different title. Asked what he would call it, he answered, “The Sociopath.”
Mister Schwartz doesn't seem to be a big fan either. :sweatdrop:
https://scontent.ftxl1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15230573_1834416486839001_6199295902247067753_n.jpg?oh=06ae6dd066b7530803577f2e96e89414&oe=58B89DFF
:sweatdrop:
HopAlongBunny
11-29-2016, 23:01
Maybe this should go in the secession thread:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602835/silicon-valleys-call-to-secede-shows-how-out-of-touch-it-is/
California is revolting!
edyzmedieval
11-30-2016, 00:35
Revolting on paper only. Because California will never break from the United States. Just a simple thought. :grin2:
The Battle for America continues!!!
Jill Stein is demanding recounts in battleground states, and it looks like she will acquire the money to do so.
Is this "situation normal" or is it "not accepting election results" ?
I vote "situation normal"; she has the right and the means to ask for a recount => all systems working:yes:She's just fund-raising. Pretending to fight the good fight for Clinton will bring in lots of fundraising dollars from the Clinton supporters who are still in denial over the election results.
California is revolting!
I agree. California is revolting. ~:)
Seamus Fermanagh
11-30-2016, 03:59
...California is revolting!
This is a mantra, no?
Montmorency
11-30-2016, 06:20
Because California will never break from the United States.
*San Andreas fault joke*
Gilrandir
11-30-2016, 11:12
Because California will never break from the United States.
Never is too a long time.
So this is fun.... Trump may be violating the lease (http://www.govexec.com/excellence/promising-practices/2016/11/gsas-trump-hotel-lease-debacle/133424/) for his new DC hotel by being elected president.
TL;DR, the landlord for his new hotel is, in fact, the federal government. As such, the lease states that no elected official can be party to the lease.
Seeing as how this is going to be one of Trump's main avenues for graft (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/2016/11/18/9da9c572-ad18-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html), I'm sure his attorneys will find a way around this. But I hope he at least has to squirm a bit.
a completely inoffensive name
12-01-2016, 05:05
Trump will be the next teflon president.
You mean to say that in this society, the rich and powerful can get away with whatever they like, while the prisons are bulging with poor petty criminals? I'm shocked!
You mean to say that in this society, the rich and powerful can get away with whatever they like, while the prisons are bulging with poor petty criminals? I'm shocked!
Seems to be one of the few things both parties agree on- their elites are above the law. :yes:
edyzmedieval
12-02-2016, 15:01
James Mattis is the pick for Defence Secretary - something that has been welcomed by both sides of the camp, both Democrats and Republicans.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-02-2016, 20:43
James Mattis is the pick for Defence Secretary - something that has been welcomed by both sides of the camp, both Democrats and Republicans.
MSNBC already found a few who will vote no, because he A) is inside the 7 year gap between military and civilian service, or B) Obama told him to strike his flag so he is not their cup of tea, or C) both.
Seems to be one of the few things both parties agree on- their elites are above the law. :yes:
The question is whether you identify your interests as aligning with that elite, or if you think that elite would render you down for tallow if it benefitted then and they could get away with it.
Trump will be the next teflon president.
The "Teflon" is redundant.
Perhaps Obama will be seen as the only president ever with some personal integrity.
The question is whether you identify your interests as aligning with that elite, or if you think that elite would render you down for tallow if it benefitted then and they could get away with it.
Wrong doesn't become right and corrupt doesn't become honourable just because you agree with their ideology. :no:
Perhaps Obama will be seen as the only president ever with some personal integrity.
Obama had his share of scandals too.... I'll name a few:
Operation Fast and Furious
Benghazi
IRS targeting of conservative organizations
DOJ surveiling reporters
Obama paying Iran ransom for hostages
The Secret Service scandals
I'm sure I could find more... but that's a good start.
Shaka_Khan
12-02-2016, 23:36
Revolting on paper only. Because California will never break from the United States. Just a simple thought. :grin2:
Beware! Many people said that Trump would never be president......
And I find it interesting that Hillary is leading in every internet forum poll that I look at. Most of the Americans I know of are either Trump supporters or didn't pay attention to his speeches. Very few were against him. It's probably because of the region that I live in.
edyzmedieval
12-03-2016, 00:12
Obama had his share of scandals too.... I'll name a few:
Obama paying Iran ransom for hostages
I never understood why this stood in common perception.
It's false - and it's a legal dispute that dates back to 1979 - the Iran money was the money of Iran to begin with, the United States simply returned it. The US held money that was Iran's own, it was returned to the rightful owner.
The Shah of Iran paid 400 million US Dollars for military equipment which was never delivered. The money was returned by the USA.
Seems like it was unclear or maybe even interpreted/intended differently on both sides of the exchange:
http://fortune.com/2016/08/05/money-america-iran/
The “sweetener” view may have some validity. Sick concedes that the deal did “let the Iranian hardliners say they got something in the nuclear deal. Iran was happy to get the cash back. Perhaps that made it easier for them to give up the prisoners, I don’t know.” He doesn’t believe the three teams of negotiators were working together. “The negotiations for the hostages were totally separate channels, and handled by the Swiss,” he says.
I'm curious what you mean by "The Secret Service Scandals" Xiahou? That he didn't catch Snowden or that Snowden hd something to expose in the first place? Of course for me the only scandal there is that your government is spying on my private communication, but I blame the one who started it (Bush) more than the one who "merely" maintained it. The drone killings are in the same league in that regard.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-03-2016, 02:24
..I'm curious what you mean by "The Secret Service Scandals" Xiahou? That he didn't catch Snowden or that Snowden hd something to expose in the first place? Of course for me the only scandal there is that your government is spying on my private communication, but I blame the one who started it (Bush) more than the one who "merely" maintained it. The drone killings are in the same league in that regard.
Secret Service handles anti-counterfeiting and presidential protection, not those other things you mentioned. They got dinged repeatedly over the course of a year or so during the Obama administration for letting people penetrate the perimeter while carrying weapons, letting people in to White House events without checking ID/insuring they were on the guest lists, and in at least one case for taking a group of whores up to the hotel to party while on a Pre-presidential visit security prep trip.
The scandals occurred on BHO's watch, but it struck me more along the lines of a bureaucracy gone complacent and sloppy ethics.
Snowden was with No Such Agency, and the programs he objected to were begun under the Patriot Act (Bush 43) but very much continued under BHO.
The drone strikes were mostly conducted by the CIA, who operated armed drones years before the military used them for more than imaging/painting targets. Drone strikes were begun under Bush, but (in part due to the maturation of the technology and in part by executive decision) BHO's administration oversaw far more drone strikes than did the Bush administration.
Secret Service handles anti-counterfeiting and presidential protection, not those other things you mentioned. They got dinged repeatedly over the course of a year or so during the Obama administration for letting people penetrate the perimeter while carrying weapons, letting people in to White House events without checking ID/insuring they were on the guest lists, and in at least one case for taking a group of whores up to the hotel to party while on a Pre-presidential visit security prep trip.
The scandals occurred on BHO's watch, but it struck me more along the lines of a bureaucracy gone complacent and sloppy ethics.
Snowden was with No Such Agency, and the programs he objected to were begun under the Patriot Act (Bush 43) but very much continued under BHO.
The drone strikes were mostly conducted by the CIA, who operated armed drones years before the military used them for more than imaging/painting targets. Drone strikes were begun under Bush, but (in part due to the maturation of the technology and in part by executive decision) BHO's administration oversaw far more drone strikes than did the Bush administration.
Yes, you're right, I hastily confused Secret Service with Secret Agencies. :wall:
Considering how many TV series involving all of them in some capacity I watch, that is actually inexcusable. :sweatdrop:
I agree with you on the Secret Service scandals and I would say there are a few more that Xiahou listed which are not micromanaged by the President most likely. One could blame him for choosing the people responsible, but even that can go a bit far considering that hiring the wrong people for a job happens to a lot of people all the time if you think about it.
The one "good" thing about Obama and drone strikes is that IIRC under his administration the average amount of civilian casualties per strike was heavily reduced. Of course ideally there should be none, but if that's not a choice, reducing them is the least one can do I guess.
I agree with you on the Secret Service scandals and I would say there are a few more that Xiahou listed which are not micromanaged by the President most likely. One could blame him for choosing the people responsible, but even that can go a bit far considering that hiring the wrong people for a job happens to a lot of people all the time if you think about it.I think that's fair, it's not as though Obama ordered them to sleep with prostitutes. At the same time, the buck stops there and all that- I don't think Bush would've gotten a complete pass for repeated misbehavior of his security detail, and Obama shouldn't either.
Oh, that reminds me of another scandal- the Veterans Affairs (http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/02/politics/va-inspector-general-report/) hospitals. Again, Obama wasn't directly responsible for their negligence- but he does bear a share of responsibility for his inability to clean it up during his 8 years in office. :yes:
Seamus Fermanagh
12-03-2016, 19:10
...The one "good" thing about Obama and drone strikes is that IIRC under his administration the average amount of civilian casualties per strike was heavily reduced. Of course ideally there should be none, but if that's not a choice, reducing them is the least one can do I guess.
As much newer tech as anything. The MEDIA may report all of them as Hellfires, but that is far from the only one in use and the newer stuff is far more discriminating and easier to target. Not yet a sniper rifle in the sky, but heading that direction.
The Hellfire was kludged onto the early CIA predators to give them a punch, but it weighs about 100 pounds traditional measure and was designed to target tanks and bunkers with a big boom and who cares about collateral damage. Obviously, even the newer Hellfires have been upgraded.
And, YES, BHO did have his people pay more attention to some of the shoot/no shoot conditions -- though you could judge that badly from an effectiveness perspective.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-03-2016, 19:13
I think that's fair, it's not as though Obama ordered them to sleep with prostitutes. At the same time, the buck stops there and all that- I don't think Bush would've gotten a complete pass for repeated misbehavior of his security detail, and Obama shouldn't either.
Oh, that reminds me of another scandal- the Veterans Affairs (http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/02/politics/va-inspector-general-report/) hospitals. Again, Obama wasn't directly responsible for their negligence- but he does bear a share of responsibility for his inability to clean it up during his 8 years in office. :yes:
The VA hospitals have been an ongoing scandal since at least the Tet offensive days....LOTS of blame to go around there.
I do agree with you, however, that Bush-43 could have announced that "Wednesday" was originally named in honor of Odin All-father.....and STILL got flack for it from at least 15% of the media along with half or more of them arguing he was being culturally insensitive to the descendants of those Norse raiders of old.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-04-2016, 19:13
So this is fun.... Trump may be violating the lease (http://www.govexec.com/excellence/promising-practices/2016/11/gsas-trump-hotel-lease-debacle/133424/) for his new DC hotel by being elected president.
TL;DR, the landlord for his new hotel is, in fact, the federal government. As such, the lease states that no elected official can be party to the lease.
Seeing as how this is going to be one of Trump's main avenues for graft (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/2016/11/18/9da9c572-ad18-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html), I'm sure his attorneys will find a way around this. But I hope he at least has to squirm a bit.
Trump is apparently going to set aside all his businesses whilst President, so don't worry he won't be breaking the law but the money will be there for him when he's done (assuming his kids let him have it).
So how about Trump and China, eh?
If he actually enacts a "Two China" policy I'm going to have to take my hat off to him and admit I agree with it, in principle at the very least.
Trump is apparently going to set aside all his businesses whilst President
Is that why he asked Erdogan for a favour for a Turkish business friend of his over the phone?
Or why his daughter used that picture from the after-election press conference to promote her business?
Trump is apparently going to set aside all his businesses whilst President, so don't worry he won't be breaking the law but the money will be there for him when he's done (assuming his kids let him have it).He says he will- but it remains to be seen. Even if he does formally yield control of his business interests- he's yielding them to his children. The end result would be little different than if he maintained control.
If he actually enacts a "Two China" policy I'm going to have to take my hat off to him and admit I agree with it, in principle at the very least.
So, while I have no doubt he'll be massively corrupt, I do still hope that Trump can do some good for the country while he's in office. He hasn't even been sworn in yet, so I can still hope. :sweatdrop:
Seamus Fermanagh
12-05-2016, 17:40
He says he will- but it remains to be seen. Even if he does formally yield control of his business interests- he's yielding them to his children. The end result would be little different than if he maintained control.
So, while I have no doubt he'll be massively corrupt, I do still hope that Trump can do some good for the country while he's in office. He hasn't even been sworn in yet, so I can still hope. :sweatdrop:
X-man:
As to the financials, we are in uncharted territory here. Washington and Jefferson were men of wealth for their era, but communications of the era and the way finances were structured required that they provide written instructions to someone to manage their property for them and NOT maintain anything more than a distant oversight. Our modern rich politicos were all, functionally, professional politicians before taking the Presidency, so they had the blind-trust or whatever systems ironed out completely in advance. Not so "The Donald." And our other "First political job is the Presidency" types were all generals (Grant, DDE) -- who never have any heavy money. This is uncharted territory -- for good or for ill.
As to the corruption, it is impossible to say. I don't think Trump enough of a putz to make national decisions based on moving Trump industries from 8 to 12 billion in value, but he has ALWAYS been operating among the rich and powerful corporation circles and he probably trusts their judgement in a way that few populist politicians ever have. He is certainly demonstrating a willingness to employ 'heavy money' types over 'heavy academic' types thus far. His personal argument during that campaign, that he was effectively too rich to be bribable, may or may not be a good basis for minimizing corruption.
On the other hand, it is not as though other politicians were not worse. Remember, it was that populist Jackson (after winning the popular vote twice and finally getting elected on the second try) who ramped up the patronage thing and supposedly remarked "If there is any federal job that can't be filled by a Democrat, I want the JOB abolished," and other political professionals like Harding (Teapot dome etc.) and Nixon [Enemies list, Watergate, etc.) with major corruption concerns. Heck, even Carter had Bert Lance forced to resign for corruption reasons, and whatever I think of his presidency or judgment, Carter's personal ethics were and are above reproach.
But Taylor, Eisenhower, and Grant (all, like Trump, beginning their political careers at the Presidential level) each had problems with subordinates nuzzling at the trough. In each case a general found that you could not command a government and keep a government under discipline anywhere close to what you could do with an army. There are, of course, worries that a CEO -- used to saying do this and having people jump through hoops to do that -- will have the same kind of trouble. I hope not, but.....
HopAlongBunny
12-05-2016, 23:00
I doubt (hope) Trump will be no more corrupt than any other politician.
With tax breaks up-chain and I believe "enhanced" budgets for defence and security, the deficit will balloon.
Like under Regan and Bush, that will all be "ok" because Republicans are doing it.
So, more jails to accommodate an renewal of the war on drugs; more gadgets for the military (useful and not)
Will the next civil war be over cannabis? http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/jeff-sessions-coming-war-on-legal-marijuana-214501
Seamus Fermanagh
12-05-2016, 23:17
I doubt (hope) Trump will be no more corrupt than any other politician.
With tax breaks up-chain and I believe "enhanced" budgets for defence and security, the deficit will balloon.
Like under Regan and Bush, that will all be "ok" because Republicans are doing it.
So, more jails to accommodate an renewal of the war on drugs; more gadgets for the military (useful and not)
Will the next civil war be over cannabis? http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/jeff-sessions-coming-war-on-legal-marijuana-214501
I don't think he is gonna be quite so manic about the drug war. He's paying it lip service only so far. I hope so, at least. We lost that one long since and STILL cannot find someone from whom to ask for terms.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html?_r=0
WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump has selected Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general and a close ally of the fossil fuel industry, to run the Environmental Protection Agency, a transition official said, signaling Mr. Trump’s determination to dismantle President Obama’s efforts to counter climate change.
More excellent choices by the president-elect.
HopAlongBunny
12-10-2016, 23:49
Some musing about recursion of negative assessments from the West to the third world:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/12/prospect-banana-republic-161207123725710.html
Without the palm trees, can a banana republic still occur?
Greyblades
12-11-2016, 00:42
The hysteria train keeps on rolling; presented to you by the qatari propaganda arm.
Kralizec
12-11-2016, 02:14
Some musing about recursion of negative assessments from the West to the third world:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/12/prospect-banana-republic-161207123725710.html
Without the palm trees, can a banana republic still occur?
"Banana republic" is just a term people use to mean a state run by thieves that only pay lip-service to the rule of law. Nobody uses the term to disparage south American countries. I'd wager that most people don't even know the real background of the term. People who have played Tropico know, of course.
The article you cited also seems to ignore that social media have frequently compared Trump to European dictators. Thanks to crafty wordsmiths, we now have terms like Cinnamon Hitler and Cheeto Benito.
If we're talking about more established media, comparisons like that are simply taboo. People elsewhere do not share our taboos, or our sensitivities to WW2 related issues. Likewise it's natural that we are not as sensitive regarding the black pages of far off places, either.
That is why comedians and pundits feel comfortable comparing Trump to African dictators or south American strongmen, rather than Hitler or Mussolini. Not some colonial mindset.
Montmorency
12-11-2016, 02:21
"Banana republic" is just a term people use to mean a state run by thieves that only pay lip-service to the rule of law. Nobody uses the term to disparage south American countries. I'd wager that most people don't even know the real background of the term. People who have played Tropico know, of course.
The article you cited also seems to ignore that social media have frequently compared Trump to European dictators. Thanks to crafty wordsmiths, we now have terms like Cinnamon Hitler and Cheeto Benito.
If we're talking about more established media, comparisons like that are simply taboo. People elsewhere do not share our taboos, or our sensitivities to WW2 related issues. Likewise it's natural that we are not as sensitive regarding the black pages of far off places, either.
That is why comedians and pundits feel comfortable comparing Trump to African dictators or south American strongmen, rather than Hitler or Mussolini. Not some colonial mindset.
Well, at least you did address the thesis of the piece itself. But I think the author meant that the fact some were referring to Trump in those terms at all - that is, even the existence of that term, to come to be used - requires assumptive colonial/imperial superiority. The author's a postmodernist, I suppose.
Kralizec
12-11-2016, 02:51
Well, at least you did address the thesis of the piece itself. But I think the author meant that the fact some were referring to Trump in those terms at all - that is, even the existence of that term, to come to be used - requires assumptive colonial/imperial superiority. The author's a postmodernist, I suppose.
I'm not sure it does, actually.
In brief: 'Banana republic' is inspired by some south American countries who's governements were heavily inluenced by fruit companies, most nobably Chiquita. I think most people just associate fruit with tropical countries, and because of that the name stuck far beyond it's historical period. Few people know the background of the term. They're just being crass, and I have no problems with that in itself (in fact, crass humour is the best in my opinion). And mainstream media keep using it because it's a pre-existing term with a widely understood definition; the one I mentioned earlier.
I assume that people in developing countries can be crass in their own way when they're talking about first world countries, in ways that we would consider inappropriate. It may or may not be deserved, but then again...the common people are crass, regardless of place or time. It's not something unique to former colonial powers. If somehow the people in the first world would stop doing it, it wouldn't matter one bit, unlike what the last paragraph in the article says.
Montmorency
12-11-2016, 03:23
"Banana republic" is just a term people use to mean a state run by thieves that only pay lip-service to the rule of law.
He's complaining about the fact that Westerners came up with such a term on the basis of those non-Western states.
Why is it, if someone from "the third world", a "banana republic", or a "palm-dotted tropical island" might be permitted to ask, that when the purveyors of the mighty and magnificent "Western civilisation" want to characterise something nasty and loathsome in their own midst they immediately opt for a metaphor, a pejorative term such as "banana republic" that they have invented for somewhere else?
Latin American countries have been systematically colonised and abused, first by Europe and now by the United States, robbing them of their resources and installing a tyrant over the people lest they revolt against the abuse. And yet the very same abusers get to use a sarcastic term to describe the result!
Pretty clearly has nothing to do with crassness in the view of the author, but the etymology itself. It's not uncommon for semiotics dudes to make such arguments from etymology, so it shouldn't fly over you here.
Greyblades
12-11-2016, 04:03
He needs to get laid, and/or a better job.
HopAlongBunny
12-11-2016, 04:13
He's complaining about the fact that Westerners came up with such a term on the basis of those non-Western states.
It is also a matter of some irony that the term was used as a derogation of the states with bananas, and not used to refer to the state(s) which would wage war (usually undeclared) on behalf of those plantations :smoking:
Montmorency
12-11-2016, 04:30
"Commodity-oriented oligarchy"?
Seamus Fermanagh
12-11-2016, 07:19
It is also a matter of some irony that the term was used as a derogation of the states with bananas, and not used to refer to the state(s) which would wage war (usually undeclared) on behalf of those plantations :smoking:
Despite Smedley Butler's famous quotation, American intervention and constabulary efforts tended to occur more in states where US economic involvement was less pronounced. I've always assumed it was his inability to play organizational politics that had him end up on a bitter note. He should have been commanding the brigade at Belleau Wood and should have been commandant. Great war-fighter; lousy peacetime general.
HopAlongBunny
12-11-2016, 07:46
I did not know Smedley Butler had anything to do with it.
Rather a survey of the history of the United Fruit Company:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company
With a board of directors that is a who's who of the politically powerful in Washington, efforts on behalf of the company became a template for destabilization, overthrow and elimination of populist elements in South and Central America.
Of course, all of the actions had the proper nods to eliminating the "Red Menace" and stopping Communism.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol44no5/html/v44i5a03p.htm
Seamus Fermanagh
12-11-2016, 15:25
I did not know Smedley Butler had anything to do with it.
Rather a survey of the history of the United Fruit Company:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company
With a board of directors that is a who's who of the politically powerful in Washington, efforts on behalf of the company became a template for destabilization, overthrow and elimination of populist elements in South and Central America.
Of course, all of the actions had the proper nods to eliminating the "Red Menace" and stopping Communism.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol44no5/html/v44i5a03p.htm
It's been over-hyped -- in part by a bitter Butler. While there were interventions, most of the interventions were in those countries where US economic interests were less prevalent. Not that United Fruit didn't throw its weight around with bribes and leverage, just that the military interventions were less of an economic project than is stereotypically conceived.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPhIoOKEkRw
So what I didn't know about the Carrier "deal" yet, was that the investment they're going to make is actually aimed at replacing quite a few of the "saved jobs" with robots. Sound like everyone made a big deal out of Trump "saving" 100 or 200 jobs for a few years. Let's hope they buy the robots from Germany or China.
Gilrandir
12-16-2016, 12:10
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-officials-putin-personally-involved-u-s-election-hack-n696146?cid=sm_tw
Greyblades
12-16-2016, 13:09
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/200/515/572.jpg
When Fjodor Kalinkov of Nashni Taksiya refuels his car at 8am in the morning, Putin is personally involved, because Russia.
What's really funny about Trump is this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB38DvTV5kc
I've been saying it's a rigged system, but now I won, so I don't say it anymore... :clown:
:dizzy2::2thumbsup:
CrossLOPER
12-16-2016, 16:52
When Fjodor Kalinkov of Nashni Taksiya refuels his car at 8am in the morning, Putin is personally involved, because Russia.
What's really funny about Trump is this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB38DvTV5kc
:dizzy2::2thumbsup:
B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but at least it's not Hillary.
Oh yeah, Rex Tillerson is a B-Movie villain: https://thecapturedproject.com/exxonmobil
You can scroll down to see the crimes of the painter and the painted.
Upper left corner has an X to close the page and get to the index of all paintings, basically someone asked prisoners to paint people who should be in prison, it's not really Trump-related, I just found Tillerson in there.
Greyblades
12-16-2016, 20:17
B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but at least it's not Hillary.
Wew lad
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/951/043/fee.jpg
Salt is about as substantial a point as the ones Trump made during his campaign.
And it seems to be all his supporters are talking about now, I saw plenty of youtube comments about it, too. :laugh4:
To some extent it feels like I'M in a Dr Who episode and some alien device made people crave salt and vote for the alien scam artist to prepare their invasion. :dizzy2:
It is very entertaining though. :laugh4:
Seamus Fermanagh
12-17-2016, 14:46
Was speaking with the wife last night about the upcoming political change, we found that we have to agree with one key claim made by the Trump and his team. For the first time in a long time, we will have a total outsider who is NOT part of the political elite stepping onto the political scene in the top job.
Both of us place some value on occasionally shaking up the system and forcing it out of a rut....but neither of us voted for this fellow and we are REALLY unsure if he will measure up tp the office. We both hope that he will -- in the sense that we want things to go well for our country -- but we have our doubts.
The last time we had somebody take office who was so in-versed in the political system and not at all groomed to be part of the political leadership was, I think, Ulysses Grant. Grant, prior to earning high command part way through our Civil War, was a shopkeeper (and according to some a drunk). He functioned as a politician only during the brief period of the Johnson Presidency (politics were different then, as there was no campaigning per se, but he did make a number of decisions as commanding General that were done to position himself as "the choice" for the party when the time came.
Grant then went on to preside over the most graft-ridden and corrupt administration in US history. He was never quite as "on top of" the political games as he was cool and collected on a battlefield.
I worry, of course, that Trump may be similarly unprepared to handle the power games of DC.
Was speaking with the wife last night about the upcoming political change, we found that we have to agree with one key claim made by the Trump and his team. For the first time in a long time, we will have a total outsider who is NOT part of the political elite stepping onto the political scene in the top job.
The problem I see with that is that his cabinet is made up out of people who typically pay lobbyists to influence politics for them. It's a bit like he drained the swamp by calling the toads to his cabinet, basically just cutting out the middle man. :dizzy2:
For an outsider, I'd rather have elected Joe the plumber who volunteered for the red cross once rather than anyone whose personal wealth is above middle class levels and who prefers personal success and wealth over everything else...
Gilrandir
12-18-2016, 06:49
For an outsider, I'd rather have elected Joe the plumber who volunteered for the red cross once
Do you know any countries where such people are elected?
Do you know any countries where such people are elected?
Iran?
Russia?
Weren't Ahmadinejad and Putin "farm boys"? Although I suppose they both never volunteered for a good cause. Neither did I, but then again I don't aim to run a country like they do either...
It's well-documented that populations tend to elect psychopaths in general because most people tend to think strength is important for a leader and so on. Even the CEOs of corporations often have lots of psychopathic traits if they're not outright psychopaths in the first place. I'm basically saying that the biggest mistake of "Hourse of Cards" is to make some of the other politicians look like they're not psychopaths, might make it more realistic otherwise. :sweatdrop:
The fault lies with those who vote them to the top though, they have their priorities wrong, support them to gain more themselves and end up getting lied to. Now I can see how that can happen, but it seems to happen to a lot of people again and again every 4 or 5 years... :rolleyes:
Humanity just isn't what Hollywood and some poets would like to make us believe, we're all rotten to the core and should be ashamed of ourselves or just accept that like a cancer, we're going to kill our host and finally ourselves with it. :drama2:
Greyblades
12-18-2016, 18:59
You sulk like a reconstruction era american southerner.
CrossLOPER
12-19-2016, 04:00
You sulk like a reconstruction era american southerner.
A reconstruction is actually not at all a bad idea. People have been left behind, but it is mostly their own doing. I think this article is a fairly good analysis of what was going through the minds of people who are essentially doomed by change because of their unwillingness to adapt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/opinion/sunday/white-resentment-on-the-night-shift-at-walmart.html
I think the next four years will continue to see a yawning gap that is the division in the world. It's all down to economics. Those that didn't prosper simply could not prosper, so they chose to hold on to a tiny shred of hope that someone will shove them back into the coal mines and factories. It would be like wishing for the days of the dot com bubble. It is hopeless.
Gilrandir
12-19-2016, 16:00
Iran?
Russia?
Weren't Ahmadinejad and Putin "farm boys"?
Can't say anything for Iran's president, but Putin was (and is) a KGB boy the latter being a springboard to his future political career. Somehow being a "uniform boy" doesn't fit into my image of a farm boy.
Can't say anything for Iran's president, but Putin was (and is) a KGB boy the latter being a springboard to his future political career. Somehow being a "uniform boy" doesn't fit into my image of a farm boy.
Apparently he came from what we'd call a working or middle class family with the father having been in the NKVD.
He certainly seems to go with the image of being more of a "normal Joe"*, or what are these nature photos all about?
There were probably others I'm not aware of.
*I'm aware his name is not actually Joe...
Gilrandir
12-19-2016, 19:24
Apparently he came from what we'd call a working or middle class family with the father having been in the NKVD.
Once a person becomes a KGB employee he moves away from working/middle class background. Being in secret services opens new vistas and grants totally differnt opportunities and weight. That is in the former USSR countries.
HopAlongBunny
12-21-2016, 21:11
If the latest election cycle is any indication, get ready for fantasy claims about science:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/politicians-most-bogus-science-related-claims-of-2016/
a completely inoffensive name
12-22-2016, 06:58
This may as well be the time for me to jump into local politics.
In 15-20 years, I can be the next Democratic nominee. Cuz they got fuck all in terms of candidates.
Likely they are going to poach from California another inexperienced Senator or a gay governor.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-23-2016, 04:54
This may as well be the time for me to jump into local politics.
In 15-20 years, I can be the next Democratic nominee. Cuz they got fuck all in terms of candidates.
Likely they are going to poach from California another inexperienced Senator or a gay governor.
They really have a gap in leadership with something resembling national stature and of the prime age. Corey Booker in a few years perhaps. Or maybe the other half of the Obamas -- she certainly could hold even with Hillary's performance for sure. So, YES, ACIN, you do have a shot.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.