PDA

View Full Version : RIP America


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Sukoto
11-09-2016, 01:54 AM
I just can't. I am going to live the next four years in denial, pretending that Obama is still president. I can't possibly make sense of this mess.

rand
11-09-2016, 02:15 AM
I can at least take some small comfort in the fact that NH looks like we're going with Clinton. So I don't have to be completely embarrassed about living here.

But come on, look at all the positives. Miley Cyrus says she's moving to Canada. And then there's...well, I'm sure there's more...

SomeOneElse
11-09-2016, 03:23 AM
Well now I believe in american democracy cause even such a clown can become a president in your country.

I thought that hillary winning was predefined just because she's a woman.

DahLliA
11-09-2016, 03:27 AM
I'll just copy what I wrote on FB:

"Maybe letting the worst candidate, apart from Trump, cheat her way to the democratic candidacy wasn't such a good idea after all? Pretty sure anyone else would have had a walkover with Trump as their opponent."

This was completely avoidable if the rich assholes in charge of your country had paid attention to what was going on in the lower classes of American society instead of trucking along in their elitist ways.

Pretty sure even Hillary would have won against Trump if she had gotten the candidacy without cheating.

GonzoTheGreat
11-09-2016, 03:42 AM
Yeah, the Democrats wrested defeat from the jaws of near inevitable victory. They do have a talent for that; they managed the same thing 16 years ago too.

yks 6nnetu hing
11-09-2016, 05:10 AM
Damn damn damn.

This is what you get in a culture of glorification of ignorance. Seriously, fuck damn.


Next, Wilders wins simple majority in the Netherlands and I'll have to move, but where? Hope that Russia hasn't taken over Eastern Europe already, I guess. Because NATO is dead. And give Trump a few days in the office and USA will be bankrupt. God damn this mess.

Kimon
11-09-2016, 07:47 AM
I'll just copy what I wrote on FB:

"Maybe letting the worst candidate, apart from Trump, cheat her way to the democratic candidacy wasn't such a good idea after all? Pretty sure anyone else would have had a walkover with Trump as their opponent."

This was completely avoidable if the rich assholes in charge of your country had paid attention to what was going on in the lower classes of American society instead of trucking along in their elitist ways.

Pretty sure even Hillary would have won against Trump if she had gotten the candidacy without cheating.

She was a bad candidate, but she did not cheat to win the primary. How do people believe this nonsense?

DahLliA
11-09-2016, 08:03 AM
She was a bad candidate, but she did not cheat to win the primary. How do people believe this nonsense?

I don't know? Maybe because we don't have a blind faith in the obviously corrupt politicans we're stuck with?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podesta_emails#Debate_questions_shared_by_Donna_Br azile

Davian93
11-09-2016, 08:04 AM
Once again, Hillarys utter arrogance and stupidity cost her an election. A damn shame this time it also means the end of Pax Americana and our place in the world.

Good work, Dems. You utter fucking idiots for picking her.

Kimon
11-09-2016, 08:37 AM
I don't know? Maybe because we don't have a blind faith in the obviously corrupt politicans we're stuck with?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podesta_emails#Debate_questions_shared_by_Donna_Br azile

Neither of which demonstrate cheating in any way, only that many at the DNC didn't like Bernie. Hardly a surprise, as he isn't a democrat. He got fewer votes than Hillary. The system wasn't rigged. They didn't steal votes from him. This is exactly why Bernie and his demagoguery bothered me nearly as much as Trump's. That doesn't change the fact that she was a bad candidate too, but we had two awful candidates. A demagogue (Bernie) and paranoid technocrat without any charisma (Hillary). The problem was that all the good candidates (Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown) decided that Hillary had earned a clear field, which unfortunately led to her running against a non-democrat in the primaries, Bernie. She could have also helped tourniquet this situation by picking a true progressive as her VP, like Warren or Brown. But she chose Tim Kaine, a candidate even more boring, and more centrist than herself. That choice, like the email, was really stupid.

The Supreme Court, and the country, are now both really screwed. Hopefully Ginsburg holds out long enough that Trump isn't the one replacing her or this mess will last for the next 25-30 years.

Davian93
11-09-2016, 09:38 AM
Hillary loses the Wisconsin primary badly to an upstart candidate.

Her response: Never visit the state again or give any effort campaigning there.

And people are surprised she lost? Sheer hubris and arrogance. She was an awful candidate 8 years ago that got crushed by a freshman Senator with zero experience and a super muslimy name in a country that hates Muslims. Why did anyone on earth thing she'd be better now?

Idiots, all of them.


Also, told ya Bernie was the better option.

Kimon
11-09-2016, 09:54 AM
Hillary loses the Wisconsin primary badly to an upstart candidate.

Her response: Never visit the state again or give any effort campaigning there.

And people are surprised she lost? Sheer hubris and arrogance. She was an awful candidate 8 years ago that got crushed by a freshman Senator with zero experience and a super muslimy name in a country that hates Muslims. Why did anyone on earth thing she'd be better now?

Idiots, all of them.


Also, told ya Bernie was the better option.

Certainly a lot to justify the above sentiment considering the post mortem, but Bernie's stances on Brexit, on trade, on education reform, all scared the crap out of me nearly as much as Trump. I still find it hard to fathom however that Trump won Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and seemingly Michigan too. Bernie, with his anti-trade message would have likely won all three of those states and the election.

Hopefully we get a better candidate (maybe Michelle Obama) in 4 years, and Trump has only filled one seat on the Court, and not two by then. Even with just that he's going to do a lot of damage, maybe irreparable (social security likely will be gutted, as will the ACA and EPA) considering he has a Republican Congress. Our only hope is that he is so petty that he ignites a civil war between himself and the Republicans in Congress, which considering Trump, is quite possible.

yks 6nnetu hing
11-09-2016, 10:21 AM
Nah, his fist act will be to get rid of the debt. Either by printing more money or declaring bankruptcy.



Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Nazbaque
11-09-2016, 10:51 AM
Nah, his fist act will be to get rid of the debt. Either by printing more money or declaring bankruptcy.



Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

No his first act is to have sex in the oval office. With his daughter. Incest sex scandal within a week.

He might take a naked piss on the roof of the White House before dealing with the debt. Something of a coin toss.

GonzoTheGreat
11-09-2016, 01:30 PM
I think he'll shock everyone by actually being a good and competent president who gets worthwhile things done.

Nazbaque
11-09-2016, 01:41 PM
I think he'll shock everyone by actually being a good and competent president who gets worthwhile things done.

Don't be naive Gonzo. There are no worthwhile things.

Davian93
11-09-2016, 02:07 PM
Certainly a lot to justify the above sentiment considering the post mortem, but Bernie's stances on Brexit, on trade, on education reform, all scared the crap out of me nearly as much as Trump. I still find it hard to fathom however that Trump won Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and seemingly Michigan too. Bernie, with his anti-trade message would have likely won all three of those states and the election.

Hopefully we get a better candidate (maybe Michelle Obama) in 4 years, and Trump has only filled one seat on the Court, and not two by then. Even with just that he's going to do a lot of damage, maybe irreparable (social security likely will be gutted, as will the ACA and EPA) considering he has a Republican Congress. Our only hope is that he is so petty that he ignites a civil war between himself and the Republicans in Congress, which considering Trump, is quite possible.

You really think Ginsburg will last 4 more years? Really?

That's laughable. She's barely hanging on as it is.

Davian93
11-09-2016, 02:12 PM
Figure Obamacare will be gone on Day 1...I'm sure they've already prepped the legislation. Same with opening relations with Cuba...gone since that was an Executive Order anyway.

Gay/LGBTQ rights? Curtailed
Immigration Reform? Dead
Defense Of Marriage will be revisited
Almost a certain challenge to Roe V Wade once that SCOTUS seat is filled.
I can 100% guarantee the Senate Republicans will eliminate the filibuster on Day 1 too...zero reason for them to keep it around as it would slow them down.

It'll be like Kansas under Brownback...only its not a backwater shithole state, its formerly the most powerful nation in the world.

I'd be terrified if I was in China's sphere of influence or in eastern Europe. There is zero chance he'll support NATO. I wouldn't be shocked to see the Baltic states come to a separate agreement with Russia once Trump tells them they're SOL on US support.

I'm quite curious to see how he handles marijuana legalization. Up till now, its still a felony under federal law but Obama told DEA to not go after producers in states where its legal. Its now legal in several more states but Trump could easily end that in 5 seconds with the stroke of a pen.

Should be one hell of a ride.

Davian93
11-09-2016, 02:17 PM
Example of how this is going to go down: 2 Oilmen and his own son are atop the list to head Dept of the Interior...you know, the Dept in charge of preserving public lands and our national parks. The current Secretary was previously the CEO of REI (one of the best outdoors outfitters in existence) who also had a massive resume of protecting the environment.


Its like a giant FU to the country's public lands and parks system. What's next, an oil derrick in Yellowstone?

Ivhon
11-09-2016, 02:29 PM
Certainly a lot to justify the above sentiment considering the post mortem, but Bernie's stances on Brexit, on trade, on education reform, all scared the crap out of me nearly as much as Trump. I still find it hard to fathom however that Trump won Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and seemingly Michigan too. Bernie, with his anti-trade message would have likely won all three of those states and the election.

Hopefully we get a better candidate (maybe Michelle Obama) in 4 years, and Trump has only filled one seat on the Court, and not two by then. Even with just that he's going to do a lot of damage, maybe irreparable (social security likely will be gutted, as will the ACA and EPA) considering he has a Republican Congress. Our only hope is that he is so petty that he ignites a civil war between himself and the Republicans in Congress, which considering Trump, is quite possible.

Even then, Republicans won't give up the stranglehold they now have on politics. Redistricting, voter suppression laws, SCOTUS, Congress, governors, state legislatures. They have all the power. Can literally rewrite the Constitution if they wish. But why bother as they can do whatever they want without recourse.

Kimon
11-09-2016, 04:49 PM
You really think Ginsburg will last 4 more years? Really?

That's laughable. She's barely hanging on as it is.

She's 83, so it's not completely implausible. She has however had colon cancer ('99) and pancreatic cancer ('09), and had a stent placed in her coronary artery in '14. So yeah...

She probably should have retired within the first year or two of Obama's second term, just to be safe, but now we can only hope that she makes it four years. The other two elderly justices, Kennedy (80) and Breyer (78), of which only Breyer is a dem appointee, should both make it that far, though I'd have to imagine that there will be significant pressure on Kennedy to retire while a Republican is president.

Mort
11-09-2016, 05:02 PM
Sat up watching just up til they announced that Florida was too close to call. Felt it was gonna take a while so I went to bed. Woke up to this shit.

One positive out of all this is: President isn't King so he can't tear everything up in 4 years.

Either Trump will be a better President that we think, and all his speeches and campaign vows has been rhetoric and made extreme to negotiate on later (some are actually likely) OR he'll be a complete fuck up that has no excuse other than his own incompetence since he and the Reps holds all the cards to make things better for the people who voted for him. If he fails to deliver that, he's out in four years.

Kimon
11-09-2016, 05:18 PM
Sat up watching just up til they announced that Florida was too close to call. Felt it was gonna take a while so I went to bed. Woke up to this shit.

One positive out of all this is: President isn't King so he can't tear everything up in 4 years.

Either Trump will be a better President that we think, and all his speeches and campaign vows has been rhetoric and made extreme to negotiate on later (some are actually likely) OR he'll be a complete fuck up that has no excuse other than his own incompetence since he and the Reps holds all the cards to make things better for the people who voted for him. If he fails to deliver that, he's out in four years.

You're forgetting that he will (once he appoints a ninth justice) control all three branches, as the Republicans control Congress (both House & Senate) as well, and none of us have any illusions as to how political the justices are. Those appointments are a fight for good reason. That open seat also should help explain why this happened. He won't be able to overturn Roe, or probably the ACA until after filling that vacancy on the court, but once that is done, expect Roe to be immediately challenged. That however is still on the lesser end of the scale of damage that he could do. Same with the ACA. I'm more worried about Social Security, Medicare, Meidcaid, Voting Rights (which will be completely eviscerated), the environment, and social justice. I see us moving hard towards privatization, towards eliminating all regulations on curbing pollution as well as on consumer protections, and towards theocracy. And there is nothing that can be done to stop it because the four Republicans already on the court are all bible-thumping neanderthals, and the fifth one will be as well.

The only potential hindrance to our march towards becoming a theocratic banana republic is Trump's own ego. I think there's at least a 33% that he ends up openly attacking the Republican leadership in Congress (as he already has done during the primaries and general), forcing them to turn on him. I'm just not convinced that they are skillful enough to manipulate him, and he is a narcissistic psychopath with poor, if not nonexistent, impulse-control, and is clearly driven by a sense of revenge. Thats why the ACA is clearly toast. He is going to destroy Obama's legacy even if it means screwing millions of people, which it will. That same vendetta impulse may require him to go after Ryan and the Republicans in Congress. Or so at least we can hope. If I'n the dems in Congress this is my goal - to become Iago.

Isabel
11-09-2016, 05:49 PM
:( :( :(

Daekyras
11-10-2016, 04:13 AM
:(

Davian93
11-10-2016, 09:08 AM
6 months ago: "Ha ha, The UK is so stupid!!! WTF is wrong with you guys"

Now: "Nobody does stupid like us...NOBODY!!!"

GonzoTheGreat
11-10-2016, 09:21 AM
6 months ago: "Ha ha, The UK is so stupid!!! WTF is wrong with you guys"

Now: "Nobody does stupid like us...NOBODY!!!"
Trump has made America great again.

Though not in the same way that I am Great, I must admit.

Rand al'Fain
11-10-2016, 11:26 AM
Trump has made America great again.

Though not in the same way that I am Great, I must admit.

Yeah, GREATLY stupid.

Ozymandias
11-10-2016, 12:01 PM
I think he'll shock everyone by actually being a good and competent president who gets worthwhile things done.

It isn't out of the question.

Lets be honest, no one really knows where he stands on anything.

He's a racist, bigoted assclown, but for all that, its possible his actual policy stances are far more liberal than any of the other GOP contenders' might have been.

I actually agree with some of his proposals, especially the anti-Washington ones. While the entire "elites ignored America" argument is a tired old canard without a shred of truth to it, it WOULD be awesome to see term limits for legislators.

Also worth pointing out: the US is almost certainly going to experience an economic contraction/recession in the next 4 years. We've had an unprecedented run of growth fueled by low interest rates which will almost certainly end. It may well work in the Dems favor to have a GOP candidate in office when that occurs.

I'm also hopeful that when all the angry bigots who elected Trump realize he can't make good on his campaign promises, they come out in droves in 2018 and put Democrats back in charge of Congress.

Southpaw2012
11-10-2016, 12:02 PM
I just can't. I am going to live the next four years in denial, pretending that Obama is still president. I can't possibly make sense of this mess.


Pretending that Obama is still president? It's been RIP for America since he took office. It absolutely blows my mind that people are going ape shit already and Trump hasn't even been sworn in. Did he over-exaggerate while on the campaign trail? Yes, and there was stuff he said that was inappropriate for a presidential candidate. But what about Clinton saying "what difference does it make" almost immediately after her utter failure at Benghazi, followed by coverup, got four men killed. Oh wait, she's a Democratic woman so she's free from the liberals and liberal media.

Oh, Trump won because of racism and sexism. No, he won because people are fed up with the establishment and the Democrats rigged the primaries to put forth the most corrupt and crooked presidential candidate possibly in the history of the U.S. More hispanics and blacks voted for Trump than Romney in 2012. If Democrats want to continue destroying themselves, keep accusing Republicans of racism and sexism. That is what's driving people out to the polls. We've been told the past however many years that we're all racist simply for disagreeing with liberal policies. Black violence continues to grow in inner-cities and we've seen on television every few weeks riots that have destroyed peoples businesses and livelihoods. Yet, the media is silent when it comes to black on white violence. Yeah, people are fed up with the crap that is going on, and when Democrats begin to focus on legit issues and stop automatically assuming that Republicans are "racist" all the time, perhaps they will win. It's only pissing people off and the rage was shown in this election.

Clinton is free from accusations of racism yet it's been her policies, and her husbands policies, that have hurt minorities. Trump hasn't done anything yet, other than say a few things that have hurt the over-sensitive minds of millenials. Perhaps if people gave him a chance they'd be surprised. I didn't vote for him, but I'm willing to give a clean slate to see where things go. Republicans, overall, gave Obama a chance until his healthcare tyranny led to the rise of the Tea Party. And the Tea Party didn't go out and riot, unlike the idiots fussing about a Clinton loss. People are sick of Democratic Party's unconstitutional tyranny over the past few years. I'm sure many people here don't agree, as most of you support over-regulation and government takeover, but many don't. This election proved it.

Liberals love tolerance and coexistence, yet the stuff protesters have been yelling, and doing, are more intolerant and disrespectful than anything Trump has ever said or done. It's the greatest hypocrisy of the Democratic Party. "We love tolerance and coexistence, and the right of everyone to do what they want and say what they want to say........ Unless it's a conservative that we disagree with. Then we riot, destroy, and attack."

Davian93
11-10-2016, 02:01 PM
the most corrupt and crooked presidential candidate possibly in the history of the U.S.

Well...other than her opponent of course.

And Nixon...and Harding too at a minimum.

Davian93
11-10-2016, 02:04 PM
Trump hasn't done anything yet, other than say a few things that have hurt the over-sensitive minds of millenials.

Well, he did kinda deny housing to minorities as a building owner/property manager.

And he admitted to sexually assaulting women without their consent. That's what "Grab them by the pussy without even asking" actually means.

You'd think as a law student you'd be familiar with the definition of sexual assault. Guess not. Maybe you fell asleep that day at law school?

Brita
11-10-2016, 02:33 PM
Well this (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-muslim-ban-website-link-removal-1.3845491) is interesting.

Some of the most controversial proposals Donald Trump made while running for U.S. president were gone from his campaign website by Thursday, including his call to ban Muslims from entering the country and his promise to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement.

The link to his Dec. 7 proposal titled: "Donald J. Trump statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration," in which he called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," has vanished, along with his list of his potential Supreme Court justice picks as president, and certain details of his economic, defence and regulatory reform plans.


Did he just pull the wool over the Republican's eyes? I suspected it might be the case. I still despise the man, but his policy actions may not be as extreme as anticipated.

Rand al'Fain
11-10-2016, 02:55 PM
Well this (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-muslim-ban-website-link-removal-1.3845491) is interesting.



Did he just pull the wool over the Republican's eyes? I suspected it might be the case. I still despise the man, but his policy actions may not be as extreme as anticipated.

I'm thinking some of his campaign staff were finally able to convince him to backpedal on some stuff. All things considered, ever since Trump chose Pence, Pence has had to backpedal and clean up after Trump since day 1. That might have been their last goal.

And that is gonna piss off a number of people that were all gun-ho about it.

Kimon
11-10-2016, 03:09 PM
Well this (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-muslim-ban-website-link-removal-1.3845491) is interesting.



Did he just pull the wool over the Republican's eyes? I suspected it might be the case. I still despise the man, but his policy actions may not be as extreme as anticipated.

The Breitbart crowd seems to want to move the Republican party towards a more populist brand of conservatism - anti-trade, anti-immigration, less of a role abroad. It's difficult to really get much of a sense of personal stances on just about anything though, except for the racism, which he seems to have inherited from his father, who was arrested at a KKK rally in 1927 in Queens. But he's not religious, he once was pro-choice, once was pro-gun control. Does he just not care about those issues, and is willing to adopt whatever stance will be most personally beneficial for him in the moment? Is he really more liberal still on those issues than the impression he gave to his constituents during the election? Has he really had a change of heart on some or all of those issues? I would presume that his opionions on these matters are more opportunistic than ideological. That could be a good thing, or a bad thing.

Either way, I suspect that he is unlikely to nominate justices that would be viewed favorably, even privately, by dems. If he wants to maintain any peace and cooperation with the Republicans in Congress, he will need to, at minimum, allow them to murder Roe. Beyond that it is difficult to know what to expect. Would going after Social Security fit with their (the Breibartians) more populist agenda? The uncertainty is paert of what make him a source of anxiety, and a potential anxiety both for them and for us, though you note that voters like Southpaw still think that Trump should be viewed favorably, and that he is less of a criminal, or of a threat to the Republic than Obama or Hillary, which is nuts.

And in terms of foreign policy? It is rather telling that the only countries that seemed pleased with this result are Russia and the Philippines. It also makes it all the more imperative that the campaigns to retake Mosul and Raqqa be wrapped up before January, as he can certainly not be trusted to handle mopping up ISIS anywhere near as much present administration.

One has to give him credit for being a very skilled con man, but a skilled administrator? His businesses have had more of a record of criminality and incompetence than of success. One might hope that he could not run America at least into bankruptcy like he did so many of his businesses, but keep in mind how close the Republicans came even in recent years to defaulting on our debt. Now, without the dems forcing them to at least pay their bills, can we really not expect that to occur? I suspect he will leave quite a mess for whoever replaces him in four years. That's if he doesn't try to declare himself God Emperor Trump I, and rename America as Trumpistan. At the very least I think he is likely to make the White House look really tacky like all of his other residences.

Nazbaque
11-10-2016, 03:30 PM
All of America or just the United States? I can easily imagine him declaring both continents as "Trumpland", but was that what you meant?

Brita
11-10-2016, 03:58 PM
That's if he doesn't try to declare himself God Emperor Trump I, and rename America as Trumpistan. At the very least I think he is likely to make the White House look really tacky like all of his other residences.

The night of the election I had a dream that Donald wanted to be referred to as "Captain Washington" and he was busy figuring out a hand sign (picture a "C" and a west coast type W). Also, I did not sleep well.

Kimon
11-10-2016, 04:01 PM
All of America or just the United States? I can easily imagine him declaring both continents as "Trumpland", but was that what you meant?

This tends to be something about us that irritates our neighbors, that we refer to the US as America, and to ourselves as Americans. In our defense, it is the only phonetically pleasing ethnic deisgnator, as calling ourselves United Staters would be really clumsy, though that is how Mexico seems to prefer to refer to us (Estados Unidos). I don't get the impression that this idiosyncracy annoys the Canadians anywhere near as much as our neighbors to the south.

I suppose he could rename the US as Trumpistan and the continents as either North and South Trumpland, or as North and South Trumpia. Trumpistan also just makes more sense since he is so openly servile towards the Russians.

Kimon
11-10-2016, 04:04 PM
The night of the election I had a dream that Donald wanted to be referred to as "Captain Washington" and he was busy figuring out a hand sign (picture a "C" and a west coast type W). I also did not sleep well.

I think it's also 50-50 odds that he tries to make it the Gold House and laquer the whole thing in tacky gold gilding.

Brita
11-10-2016, 04:06 PM
I don't get the impression that this idiosyncracy annoys the Canadians anywhere near as much as our neighbors to the south.


Really doesn't bother us at all. We always refer to US citizens as American and are completely unconcerned with the infringement on the North America trio.

I wonder why Mexico cares more than we do? Maybe because they feel maligned in general, and this is like the third-wheel friend that wants to make sure we remember they are part of the group.

Kimon
11-10-2016, 04:08 PM
Really doesn't bother us at all. We always refer to US citizens as American and are completely unconcerned with the infringement on the North America trio.

I wonder why Mexico cares more than we do? Maybe because they feel maligned in general, and this is like the third-wheel friend that wants to make sure we remember they are part of the group.

Might have something to do with the fact that we conquered their whole country after they refused to sell us California. We did give them back most of it, but...

Ozymandias
11-10-2016, 04:20 PM
I'm thinking some of his campaign staff were finally able to convince him to backpedal on some stuff. All things considered, ever since Trump chose Pence, Pence has had to backpedal and clean up after Trump since day 1. That might have been their last goal.

And that is gonna piss off a number of people that were all gun-ho about it.

Or more likely, the answer is that no one knows Donald Trump's politics.

We have the remember that the only two things Trump has EVER been successful at are marketing himself, and reality television. When viewed in that light, his campaign makes perfect sense. He knows just how low brow Americans want their entertainment (not to mention that politics is now consumed as entertainment), and just how to play that role, and he knows how to market that role and himself as effectively as anyone before or since (barring perhaps the Kardashians).

He isn't a Democrat in disguise, but I think there is a real possibility that he both loses interest in the minutiae of governing and also clashes, intensely, with GOP leadership.

Nazbaque
11-10-2016, 04:32 PM
This tends to be something about us that irritates our neighbors, that we refer to the US as America, and to ourselves as Americans. In our defense, it is the only phonetically pleasing ethnic deisgnator, as calling ourselves United Staters would be really clumsy, though that is how Mexico seems to prefer to refer to us (Estados Unidos). I don't get the impression that this idiosyncracy annoys the Canadians anywhere near as much as our neighbors to the south.

I suppose he could rename the US as Trumpistan and the continents as either North and South Trumpland, or as North and South Trumpia. Trumpistan also just makes more sense since he is so openly servile towards the Russians.

I thought the -istan part was an Arabic thing. Could be wrong of course but a lot of people associate it with Middle-East and thus Muslims. But then Trump pissing off everyone he hasn't yet pissed off would just make him Trump.

Rand al'Fain
11-10-2016, 04:46 PM
Well, the Muslim ban is back on.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

Brita
11-10-2016, 04:52 PM
Well, the Muslim ban is back on.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

Saw that, they said it was a "glitch".

Kimon
11-10-2016, 04:56 PM
I thought the -istan part was an Arabic thing. Could be wrong of course but a lot of people associate it with Middle-East and thus Muslims. But then Trump pissing off everyone he hasn't yet pissed off would just make him Trump.

Are you thinking Persian? It's an old link word in Indo-European, going back to Sanskrit, but like ἵσταμαι (to stand) in Greek, and stare (to stand) in Latin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-stan

The suffix, originally an independent noun, but evolving into a suffix by virtue of appearing frequently as the last part in nominal compounds, is of Indo-Iranian and ultimately Indo-European origin: It is cognate with Sanskrit sthā́na (Devanagari: स्थान [st̪ʰaːna]), meaning "the act of standing", from which many further meanings derive, including "place, location", and ultimately descends from Proto-Indo-Iranian *sthāna-.

The Proto-Indo-European root from which this noun is derived is *steh₂- (older reconstruction *stā-) "to stand" (or "to stand up, to step (somewhere), to position (oneself)"), which is also the source of English to stand, Latin stāre, and Ancient Greek histamai (ἵσταμαι), all meaning "to stand" and Russian стан (stan, meaning "settlement" or "semi-permanent camp"). In Polish and Ukrainian, stan means "state" or "condition", while in Serbo-Croatian it translates as "apartment" (a Slovenian word "stanovanje" means apartment or other closed space of living is an obvious derivative of stan) in its modern usage, while its original meaning was "habitat". In Czech and Slovak, it means "tent" or, in military terms, "headquarters". Also in Germanic languages, the root can be found in Stand ("place, location"), and in Stadt (German), stad/sted (Dutch/Scandinavian), stêd (West Frisian) and stead (English), all meaning either "place" or "city". The suffix -stan is analogous to the suffix -land, present in many country and location names.

I was thinking in reference to the fact that most of the countries that use it were Soviet Republics - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan (there are only two others that use it, Afghanistan and Pakistan). So while coincidentally associated with Islam, not really related to linguistically to Islam, nor at all to Arabic (which isn't in the Indo-European family linguistically).

Nazbaque
11-10-2016, 07:27 PM
Are you thinking Persian? It's an old link word in Indo-European, going back to Sanskrit, but like ἵσταμαι (to stand) in Greek, and stare (to stand) in Latin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-stan



I was thinking in reference to the fact that most of the countries that use it were Soviet Republics - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan (there are only two others that use it, Afghanistan and Pakistan). So while coincidentally associated with Islam, not really related to linguistically to Islam, nor at all to Arabic (which isn't in the Indo-European family linguistically).

What about Istanbul? Or is that a coincidence?

Kimon
11-10-2016, 07:43 PM
What about Istanbul? Or is that a coincidence?

Coincidence. It's actually not even Turkish, but still derived from Greek.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul

The name İstanbul (Turkish pronunciation: [isˈtanbuɫ] ( listen), colloquially [ɯsˈtambuɫ]) is commonly held to derive from the Medieval Greek phrase "εἰς τὴν Πόλιν" (pronounced [is tim ˈbolin]), which means "to the city"[27] and is how Constantinople was referred to by the local Greeks. This reflected its status as the only major city in the vicinity.

As an aside, unless Medieval Greek has an eccentricity to its pronunciation rules to which I'm not aware (it's possible though, modern Greek isn't pronounced the same as ancient in many instances), the pronunciation guide they provide above seems weird. Using normal ancient pronunciation that should be rendered like "ice tain pole-in", which is completely different from the above. I can't recall if pi starts sounding like a beta sound, but modern Greek started doing some odd things with beta, developing a "v" sound as it modernized. Things like the ancient name for the isle of Euboea becoming in modern Greek Evia. That would however help explain the presence of that "b" in place of the "p" in Istanbul, though not really sure if that might not be a Turkish pronunciation more than a Greek development. Either way, it isn't from ἵσταμαι, it's just a prepositional phrase - "to the city". The Greek πόλις is where we get words like politics and police.

Nazbaque
11-10-2016, 08:30 PM
Man this etymology stuff would be simpler if languages could copyright syllables.

Rand al'Fain
11-10-2016, 10:19 PM
Man this etymology stuff would be simpler if languages could copyright syllables.

And all of that, isn't even getting into languages like, say, those of the many Native American tribes, many of whom did not even have written languages.

tworiverswoman
11-10-2016, 11:29 PM
I find it kinda interesting that the only place I"m running into conversations about the election is on the forums. (And news outlets, but that's a given)

NO ONE at my office has even mentioned it - it's like politics doesn't exist, which is a bit of a change from the day BEFORE the election. Apparently we're all just holding our breath, waiting to see which way to run.

And mostly the news outlets aren't talking about who won, but rather the discrepancy between poll numbers and actual outcome. I'm sure that'll change soon.

As for me, I'm still in neutral, but my gears keep stripping. I can't really believe it, but I'm trying to keep an open mind. Trouble is, my mind isn't really open about Trump. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until he takes an action, but I don't expect to be pleased.

Daekyras
11-11-2016, 08:27 AM
For those of you older than I am- What was the general consensus when Ronald Reagan was elected?

GonzoTheGreat
11-11-2016, 09:50 AM
For those of you older than I am- What was the general consensus when Ronald Reagan was elected?
It varied. Which, of course, is also the case now that Trump's been elected.

Out of curiosity (of a rather morbid sort): what kind of candidate are the Republicans going to come up with next?

Rand al'Fain
11-11-2016, 06:38 PM
It varied. Which, of course, is also the case now that Trump's been elected.

Out of curiosity (of a rather morbid sort): what kind of candidate are the Republicans going to come up with next?

Probably David Duke.

ShadowbaneX
11-12-2016, 07:44 PM
A lot of people haven't been sleeping well recently.

Mort
11-13-2016, 04:54 AM
Found this yesterday (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs). British satirist who plays a news reporter (talking to his producer Tim) that in this video throws a fit after Trump got elected. Blaming liberals and generally the culture of throwing around labels instead of engaging with them on issues. It's very true IMO.


I'm also hopeful that when all the angry bigots who elected Trump realize he can't make good on his campaign promises, they come out in droves in 2018 and put Democrats back in charge of Congress.

Voters want change, any change. If the Dems can find one who promises that. Maybe. Clinton surely wasn't the one. That's why she lost to Obama in 2008.

GonzoTheGreat
11-13-2016, 05:39 AM
Sanders promised change, but, as your satirist suggested, that's politically incorrect, so the Democrats opted for Clinton.

Nazbaque
11-13-2016, 06:25 AM
Found this yesterday (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs). British satirist who plays a news reporter (talking to his producer Tim) that in this video throws a fit after Trump got elected. Blaming liberals and generally the culture of throwing around labels instead of engaging with them on issues. It's very true IMO.



Voters want change, any change. If the Dems can find one who promises that. Maybe. Clinton surely wasn't the one. That's why she lost to Obama in 2008.

Well it is true in a way, but some crucial points are missing. The assumption that honest discussion would open people's eyes to what they don't want to see is not based on fact. The label and insult method certainly doesn't work, but it is more a symptom than a cause. The average voter is too mentally lazy to deserve the right to vote. If honest discussion were to work the people engaged in it can't be mentally lazy and on the other hand if they weren't mentally lazy the labels, insults and lack of discussion wouldn't be a problem in the first place. This is like saying that if people were healthy, they wouldn't be sick.

DahLliA
11-13-2016, 06:34 AM
Sanders promised change, but, as your satirist suggested, that's politically incorrect, so the Democrats opted for Clinton.

Think that the fact that Sanders wasn't in the Cool Dem Club had more to do with it.

Everyone knows it's important to keep the power confined to as few people as possible.

Much easier to keep track of all the bribes and favors too.

EDIT:
Hell, I see that apparently a lot of Americans want Michelle Obama to run in 2020. Are you trying to become a monarchy? Because putting the same family in power over and over again is how you get a monarchy (or whatever it's called when one family runs a country instead of one specific king/queen).

GonzoTheGreat
11-13-2016, 07:11 AM
Think that the fact that Sanders wasn't in the Cool Dem Club had more to do with it.
Somebody thought that Hillary was cool? :eek:

Hell, I see that apparently a lot of Americans want Michelle Obama to run in 2020. Are you trying to become a monarchy? Because putting the same family in power over and over again is how you get a monarchy (or whatever it's called when one family runs a country instead of one specific king/queen).
I think that is more based on name recognition together with lack of imagination. Which then results in a nomocracy, if I remember correctly. Which I don't; that's actually a system based on the rule of law. So my next attempt is onomacracy, which at least has the advantage that no one else ever has thought of it.

Kimon
11-13-2016, 09:25 AM
Somebody thought that Hillary was cool? :eek:


No one thought this. The word that both you and Dahlia are looking for is charisma. Hillary definitely didn't have this. People (myself included) mostly voted for her due to a combination of not wanting change (but not having the option of just being allowed to vote for Obama for a third term), thinking that she was the most qualified (these are probably all voters who are old enough to have fond memories of the Bill Clinton years, something which the millennials, the Bernie crowd, are too young to recall - the only other equally qualified candidate was Bill Weld), and thinking that while Bernie was more charismatic than Hillary, that he is also batshit crazy and irresponsible. He just seemed like a crappy imitation brand of Elizabeth Warren.

Hillary's problem is that even her own supporters didn't really like her. It's a bad sign when Bill Weld, the libertarian vp candidate, doesn't just feel like the best of all the candidates (both from the general and the primaries), but the best by a nearly exponential proportion. Which is probably why Michelle Obama now seems potentially appealing for the next cycle. She is intelligent (like Hillary, Bill Clinton, and Barack), charismatic (like Bill and Barack), and can deliver a compelling speech (again like Bill and Barack). The other dem that can easily fulfill those criteria is Elizabeth Warren, but Elizabeth Warren is going to be 71 in 2020. This would be less of an issue if she would have been 71 when running for election, but for a first term? That is just too old (the same unfortunately was true of Hillary, of Bernie, and of Trump). Michelle Obama will be 56 in 2020. Though admittedly, a lot of the appeal of Michelle is obviously that we're still pissed that we can't just have a third term of Barack.

GonzoTheGreat
11-13-2016, 09:56 AM
Of course, without that Amendment you might've been facing Dubya's fifth term now. So it isn't all bad.

Nazbaque
11-13-2016, 10:13 AM
Somebody thought that Hillary was cool? :eek:


I think that is more based on name recognition together with lack of imagination. Which then results in a nomocracy, if I remember correctly. Which I don't; that's actually a system based on the rule of law. So my next attempt is onomacracy, which at least has the advantage that no one else ever has thought of it.

Damn it Gonzo now you have me wondering what an enemacracy would be.

Kimon
11-13-2016, 11:49 AM
Of course, without that Amendment you might've been facing Dubya's fifth term now. So it isn't all bad.

Yeah, considering how unpopular he was at the end of his second term, the disaster that his wars had become, and the mess that the economy was, there was no chance of him even getting a third term. The Republicans passed the 22nd Amendment out of a fear of Truman becoming like FDR, but Truman was unpopular by the end of his second term as well. Eisenhower almost certainly could have been able to, but aside from him the list is pretty small. Reagan was in advanced senility by the end of his second, so zero chance there. Clinton maybe, Obama definitely.

DahLliA
11-13-2016, 01:20 PM
Damn it Gonzo now you have me wondering what an enemacracy would be.

To be honest it wouldn't be all that different?

The people would still get shit shoved up where the sun don't shine by those in power.

You might be cleaner afterwards in an enemacracy though.

Rand al'Fain
11-13-2016, 05:10 PM
Yeah, considering how unpopular he was at the end of his second term, the disaster that his wars had become, and the mess that the economy was, there was no chance of him even getting a third term. The Republicans passed the 22nd Amendment out of a fear of Truman becoming like FDR, but Truman was unpopular by the end of his second term as well. Eisenhower almost certainly could have been able to, but aside from him the list is pretty small. Reagan was in advanced senility by the end of his second, so zero chance there. Clinton maybe, Obama definitely.

Only problem for Obama, is that both the House and Senate went to the GOP. He was already getting blocked before (hence the gutted version of Obamacare we have now), but now, he'd be lucky to be allowed to go to the bathroom, let alone pass anything.

And I wonder what the Trumpers are going to do now, since Trump has brought on a bunch of establishment GOP and all of a sudden, isn't leaning on tearing up Obamacare ASAP.

Kimon
11-13-2016, 05:58 PM
Only problem for Obama, is that both the House and Senate went to the GOP. He was already getting blocked before (hence the gutted version of Obamacare we have now), but now, he'd be lucky to be allowed to go to the bathroom, let alone pass anything.

And I wonder what the Trumpers are going to do now, since Trump has brought on a bunch of establishment GOP and all of a sudden, isn't leaning on tearing up Obamacare ASAP.

I think that Obama would have made enough of a difference to give the dems control, very narrowly, of the senate. Right now it is 51 Republicans and 48 Dems (Louisiana is having a run-off, so it will be 52 republicans eventually). Hassan actually ended up beating Ayotte in New Hampshire, by a similar narrow margin to how Hillary just barely held New Hampshire. The difference was Pat Toomey holding on, unexpectedly, in Pennsylvania, and Ron Johnson, also unexpectedly, hold on in Wisconsin. Those were two states that Obama won both times, two states the Hillary was expected to win, but lost. Most people don't split their tickets. If Obama is on the top of the ticket is is reasonable to suggest that he carries both of those states, and that both of those Republican incumbents fall. That would have made it 50-50, with Joe Biden as the tie-breaking vote. And, if it had been Obama, maybe he holds North Carolina and Missouri, and we knock off Burr and Blunt as well.

Perhaps this will at least finally make people realize the repercussions of voting third party.

Nazbaque
11-13-2016, 06:16 PM
To be honest it wouldn't be all that different?

The people would still get shit shoved up where the sun don't shine by those in power.

You might be cleaner afterwards in an enemacracy though.

Wouldn't it be the ones in power who take it up the arse? The ruler is the one with the greatest ass. In a way. Oh the benefits of being the power behind that throne. Or would the throne be a toilet?

Terez
11-13-2016, 11:04 PM
My opinion on all this: yes, Bernie probably could have won. Hypothetical match-ups had Bernie beating every Republican by better margins than Hillary, especially Trump. All the arguments about how that would have changed in the general were pretty much unfounded (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/02/karp-bernie-sanders-electability-clinton-republicans-trump-election/) and illogical (http://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency).

As I made clear on this forum at the time of the first Democratic primary debate, Bernie was far from my first choice. He was a terrible candidate...but, so was Trump. Both had the populist appeal that the country was hungry for this year, and Bernie had the advantage of ethics and humane policy positions.

Bernie absolutely trounced Hillary when it came to the youth vote in the primaries; he got an average of around 70-80% in the 18-30 demographic, if I recall. It's no surprise that Hillary suffered from low youth turnout. And turnout is everything in an election like this.

Bernie might not have been the best president, but he would have been far preferable to Trump. Any attempt to equate the two is intellectually dishonest.

That said, I would have preferred a better slate of candidates in the first place. Elizabeth Warren was my first choice, and indeed I ended up voting for her anyway, since I live in one of the least likely states to decide a presidential election.

Hillary should never have run; her weakness as a candidate was the most obvious thing in the world. But, the Ready For Hillary dunces decided they wanted to lose the election this year. And yes, the DNC is absolutely culpable, as are the media elites. They engineered the primary in Hillary's favor with every tool at their disposal; if Warren had run against her, she would have been ostracized in the party as a traitor. So, here we are. President Trump, god help us.

Terez
11-14-2016, 01:14 AM
Think that the fact that Sanders wasn't in the Cool Dem Club had more to do with it.
That's a good way of putting it. But, Elizabeth Warren is like a better Bernie in pretty much every way, and she's in the cool club. That's the only reason she didn't run, and she held out as the only woman among Senate Democrats to refrain from endorsing Hillary until it was obvious that Bernie no longer had a chance. I really admire her for taking it that far, because there really was no other option for her. She's a politician; she has to play politics. Hopefully all her colleagues now realize their mistake (though that's probably too much to hope for).

The bright side to Hillary losing is that Warren can run in 2020, because 2024 would probably be too late for her.

Hell, I see that apparently a lot of Americans want Michelle Obama to run in 2020. Are you trying to become a monarchy? Because putting the same family in power over and over again is how you get a monarchy (or whatever it's called when one family runs a country instead of one specific king/queen).
I have only seen one person suggest this on Facebook, and it was Luckers. He's Australian. My reaction: "No." :p I told him it's tiresome when people look for future presidential candidates among the families of former presidents. Just stop it.

rand
11-14-2016, 01:32 AM
Rosalynn Carter 2020.

Terez
11-14-2016, 04:15 AM
Perhaps this will at least finally make people realize the repercussions of voting third party.
This is probably the most delusional comment in this thread. The vast majority of Johnson voters were disaffected Republicans. If there had only been two choices on the ballot, Hillary would have lost even worse than she did.

Kimon
11-14-2016, 08:02 AM
This is probably the most delusional comment in this thread. The vast majority of Johnson voters were disaffected Republicans. If there had only been two choices on the ballot, Hillary would have lost even worse than she did.

It is not delusional to think that Johnson was pulling more from Hillary than from Trump. He thought he was pulling evenly, but there is a reason why Weld was on MSNBC the weekend before the election begging people to vote for Hillary. You may not want to admit it, but his vote totals in Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania were all well beyond the margin between Hillary and Trump.

If you can point to exit polling data that definitively points otherwise, then link it, but to assert that his and Stein's support was not largely disaffected college students and liberals is counter-intuitive - i.e. disaffected Bernie supporters. Indeed this may explain the polling errors made by people like Nate Silver, they were providing the result in a two-way race, not accurately enough accounting for the damage that Johnson and Stein would do. This was Nader all over again, only on a larger scale.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/gary-johnson-jill-stein-spoiler/

This is the best that I can find on his demographics, at least quickly (before I need to head to work), but it is a few months old, not from the actual election results.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/us/politics/gary-johnson-libertarian-third-party.html

Edit: Noticed that I had accidentally inverted that first sentence.

Terez
11-14-2016, 09:56 AM
It is not delusional to think that Johnson was pulling more from Hillary than from Trump.
Yes, it is. Johnson is a libertarian; his politics are largely polar opposite to Hillary. I don't know a single liberal who voted for Johnson; it's all Republicans who were looking for an alternative.

If you can point to exit polling data that definitively points otherwise, then link it, but to assert that his and Stein's support was not largely disaffected college students and liberals is counter-intuitive - i.e. disaffected Bernie supporters.
Bernie was attractive to some social libertarians who were never, ever going to vote for Hillary. You act as though these people voted for Johnson because they thought Hillary was going to win anyway, but the reality is that most Johnson voters didn't want Hillary to win and made a conscious choice to vote against her, even in swing states. Hillary lost because she was the wrong person for the Dems to run against Trump. Perhaps the worst person in the field of viable candidates to run against Trump.

Indeed this may explain the polling errors made by people like Nate Silver, they were providing the result in a two-way race, not accurately enough accounting for the damage that Johnson and Stein would do. This was Nader all over again, only on a larger scale.
No, 538 did a pretty good job accounting for third-party voters. What they didn't manage to account for was Hillary's turnout problem. That's partly a problem with the pollsters' methodology.

Edit: Noticed that I had accidentally inverted that first sentence.
You should have left it like it was; it was more correct, despite not supporting your delusion.

Daekyras
11-14-2016, 09:59 AM
Hey Guys,

You know Im not all that good on american Politics but can I ask about Sanders for a minute?

He LOST the democratic vote. (the Primaries?) So why do people think he would have done better when he had already lost out to Hillary in his own party?

Nazbaque
11-14-2016, 10:07 AM
Look guys this result had a lot of factors contributing to it. Blaming it all on third party voting is delusional and so is insisting that it wasn't a factor. The media was a much bigger culprit in my opinion, but what exactly did they have to work with? How many people have the right to vote in the US? How many exercised it? How many people thought: "Why bother? We are fucked anyway." How many thought: "Hillary wins anyway, but I don't want to vote for her. Not like she loses without my vote," and then voted third party or didn't vote at all.

You have long been in a situation best described as republicans vs. the rest. At least half of democrat support is based on hating republicans and so when you've had a non-repuplican in power for eight years and their candidate is a joke there just isn't enough fear or anger to drive people to vote for a democrat. That's the lesser of two evils upside down. People want a third option and they don't think the greater evil is likely to happen, so they don't get involved. Supporting the lesser evil makes you feel dirty no matter how necessary it was, so when it doesn't seem necessary you just want your hands clean. Of course they won't be but admitting that is just depressing.

Terez
11-14-2016, 10:29 AM
Hey Guys,

You know Im not all that good on american Politics but can I ask about Sanders for a minute?

He LOST the democratic vote. (the Primaries?) So why do people think he would have done better when he had already lost out to Hillary in his own party?
Because the hardcore base of the Democratic Party are the only people who like Hillary, and many in the middle of the party were badgered into voting for Hillary based on spurious "electability" arguments. (These arguments were pushed by media outlets that were actually colluding with Hillary behind the scenes, as evidenced by several leaks; over and over, actual voters being interviewed said they liked Bernie but voted for Hillary because they thought she could win.) The progressive wing of the party was vehemently against Hillary, to a level that's hard to imagine with any other viable candidate.

Bernie had appeal to independent voters that Hillary never had. This was evidenced over and over throughout the primary season. I know several long-time conservative/Republican voters who supported Bernie in the primary. I believe ST was one of them.

Hillary's popularity with base Democrats did not help her in the general because those are the most dependable voters. Her unpopularity with everyone else hurt her quite a bit; people either voted against her or didn't vote at all because they were uninspired.

Trump's unpopularity with base Republican voters didn't hurt him because those people were going to vote Republican no matter what, with very few exceptions. His popularity with people who don't normally vote was his biggest strength. Bernie had a similar populist appeal.

It was clear early in the primary season that this was going to be a populist election season. That made it all the more dangerous for the Democrats to run Hillary. She was never going to be a good candidate, but she was the worst person to run against Trump.

See the articles I linked earlier; Bernie's favorability numbers were higher than that of any other candidate, much more favorable than either Hillary or Trump, and he consistently performed better than Hillary in hypothetical general election match-ups against every potential Republican candidate, but especially Trump.

Terez
11-14-2016, 10:33 AM
How many thought: "Hillary wins anyway, but I don't want to vote for her. Not like she loses without my vote," and then voted third party or didn't vote at all.
There was a progressive third-party candidate and a conservative third-party candidate. The progressive (Jill Stein) did not show very well; it was Johnson, the conservative, who had the substantial showing. It's absolutely illogical to argue that he took more votes away from Hillary than he took from Trump.

Nazbaque
11-14-2016, 10:49 AM
There was a progressive third-party candidate and a conservative third-party candidate. The progressive (Jill Stein) did not show very well; it was Johnson, the conservative, who had the substantial showing. It's absolutely illogical to argue that he took more votes away from Hillary than he took from Trump.

But how many would have voted that didn't if the candidates had been different? How many votes were lost from the election completely?

Terez
11-14-2016, 10:56 AM
But how many would have voted that didn't if the candidates had been different?
Not sure exactly what you are asking here. Obviously people wanted alternatives to both major candidates, but it's pretty clear that Hillary would have lost even worse if there had only been two choices on the ballot.

How many votes were lost from the election completely?
It's hard to say. Youth turnout was low compared to the last two presidential elections; as I noted before, that's not unrelated to Hillary's poor performance with the 18-30 demographic in the primary. Trump boosted turnout in rural counties, which went for Bernie in the primary almost without exception.

Kimon
11-14-2016, 11:08 AM
There was a progressive third-party candidate and a conservative third-party candidate. The progressive (Jill Stein) did not show very well; it was Johnson, the conservative, who had the substantial showing. It's absolutely illogical to argue that he took more votes away from Hillary than he took from Trump.

What little evidence we have at present, eventually there may be better actual demographic breakdowns of his vote in the actual election, suggests otherwise. His support was mostly amongst millenials. The same group that supported Nader, the same group that tends to overwhelmingly vote either democrat, or not vote. Perhaps most of these wouldn't have voted at all, but this crowd looks like Bernie supporters, not Republicans. Most of them either seem to have eventually voted for Trump, or, in very small numbers, for McMullin. And Johnson's positions were not conservative, they were libertarian. Sure he was pro-trade, but how many actually knew that? And the single most obvious position he had was pro-pot, and decriminalizing drugs. He is also anti-war.

I'm not sure why more of the Bernie vote didn't end up with Stein, but it certainly seemed to go to Johnson instead. Your premise would seem to require that not only was Hillary destined to lose this election, but that so too would have Obama. After all, her stances and Obama's were identical. Trump got all of the vote that he was expected to get. The candidate that had a noticeably missing percentage, essentially underperforming (not merely under drawing - turn out was also a major problem) what Obama had done was Hillary. It was not Trump that underperformed Romney's old numbers. That suggests that Johnson, whose 4% was absent last cycle was drawing from the left more than the right. The other major differences, Hillary did a little better amonst college educated white voters, and worse amongst non-college educated than typical. But those balanced each other. The difference seems to be Johnson and turnout.

The turnout was her fault, because she was a bad and uninspiring candidate. The Johnson issue is also her fault, and for the same issue, but the question remains, why do these Bernie voters have a problem with Hillary? Do they really have a problem with Obama? Because if not with him, why with her? She isn't as exciting a speaker as Obama, not as charismatic. But their politics are identical. She would appoint the same types of justices, carry out the same policies. So is it just that they really believe that nonsense about Bernie being cheated? Because that what it seems like. And Bernie was not cheated. He just got fewer votes. That's it. He lost because most dems thought that he was even worse than Hillary.

Look people certainly have the right to vote third party, I just think they should be honest about why they are doing it, because there are only two logical reasons. Either they don't care who will win between the two viable options, or they want to punish one of the two out of protest, and thus help the other win. So, which is it? Did you really not care if Trump wins, or are you happy he won, because this sticks it to the dems for not overturning the vote and handing the nomination to Bernie simply because you and his supporters thought that he had the better chance of beating Trump in the general. Bernie wasn't cheated. But Hillary would have been cheated had that scenario played out.

And let's keep in mind why so many dems thought that Hillary had earned a clear field. She won the popular vote over Obama during the primaries in '08, but was a good soldier, conceded, and helped him win, then helped him govern. That's why.

GonzoTheGreat
11-14-2016, 11:30 AM
And let's keep in mind why so many dems thought that Hillary had earned a clear field. She won the popular vote over Obama during the primaries in '08, but was a good soldier, conceded, and helped him win, then helped him govern. That's why.
And she got her reward: Donald Trump as president.

It may have been irrational, but oodles of voters really disliked her. This election was an unpopularity contest, and Trump turned out to be the less unpopular. He lost, so now he has to go to the White House; he may even have to spend an occasional night there.

The policies of Obama and Clinton may be the same, but Obama could sell them and Clinton could not.

Kimon
11-14-2016, 01:01 PM
The policies of Obama and Clinton may be the same, but Obama could sell them and Clinton could not.

This is actually a pretty common problem for the democrats in comparison to the republicans. Dems tend to be lawyers and academics (or a mix of the two, like Obama), while republicans tend to be sleezy businessmen, i.e. conmen. Does tend to mean that the republicans produce better salesmen. I personally liked Obama's oratory, but even he had difficulty selling his vision, and convincing the American people of the benefits of the ACA. He certainly wasn't as natural at this side of politics say as Bill Clinton. Hillary is really bright, and was quite a successful lawyer, but she is not particulary gifted at oratory. Certainly not as gifted as her husband, of as her former boss (Barack), or as Elizabeth Warren.

I just find it aggravating that the Bernie crowd still wants to assert that she was the lesser of two evils, which is bs. She may have been boring, but she was not evil. Not even a lesser evil. And now, instead, we have a president who makes a normal republican look like a lesser evil by contrast to the nightmare that is Trump.

Nazbaque
11-14-2016, 03:08 PM
I just find it aggravating that the Bernie crowd still wants to assert that she was the lesser of two evils, which is bs. She may have been boring, but she was not evil. Not even a lesser evil. And now, instead, we have a president who makes a normal republican look like a lesser evil by contrast to the nightmare that is Trump.

Well people don't usually think of it as literally evil when they use the phrase. Helps them sleep at night when they vote for the lesser evil. They still use the word when they quote the phrase, because substituting with "boring", "ugly", "unpleasant", "scary" or other descriptions that more accurately fit their sentiments makes them look bad. The voters that is not the candidates.

Terez
11-14-2016, 09:38 PM
What little evidence we have at present, eventually there may be better actual demographic breakdowns of his vote in the actual election, suggests otherwise. His support was mostly amongst millenials.
Yeah, so? That doesn't make them any more likely to have voted for Hillary over Trump. We tried to tell you this (http://fusion.net/story/273852/why-millennials-arent-immune-to-right-wing-populism/) back when you were trying to shove your unelectable candidate down our throats, but of course you didn't listen, and now you'll do anything to shift the blame elsewhere. Just accept it: people who voted for Johnson did so, for the most part, knowing full well that it could lead to Hillary losing. That was the point.

Kimon
11-14-2016, 10:09 PM
Just accept it: people who voted for Johnson did so, for the most part, knowing full well that it could lead to Hillary losing. That was the point.

Which is exactly what I said. Which begs the question, why then are you trying to suggest that my premise is delusional? Johnson helped cause Trump's victory. Yes, Hillary being a weak candidate helped open that door, but that same issue was at play in 2000 with Gore and Nader. With Nader it was one state. But it was enough. With Johnson, it was many states, and again, more than enough to have detrimentally determined the outcome.

I was long concerned with the Bernie Bros for good reason. Perhaps they, and you, think that the cause, of punishing the dems, perhaps even hoping to push them in the future permanently further to the left, was worthwhile enough to sacrifice not just the chance at holding the presidency, but also to surrender the Supreme Court for at least a generation. That is a very heavy price out of hope for a minor victory down the road.

Terez
11-14-2016, 10:15 PM
Which is exactly what I said.
No, you implied that people voted third party because they were too stupid to realize that it could lead to Hillary's loss.

Kimon
11-14-2016, 10:40 PM
No, you implied that people voted third party because they were too stupid to realize that it could lead to Hillary's loss.

No, I agree that many of them knew that they were sabotaging the election. But I think it unlikely that all, or even most, of those Johnson voters really hoped that Trump would win. Whether they were stupid, and simply didn't think what they did would matter (and certainly it did not for all of them, only for some, and in certain states), or whether they think that Hillary got what she deserved, and that the dems deserved to lose because in their opinion Bernie was robbed somehow, are however important distinctions. If the latter, then those voters apparently actually preferred Trump to Hillary, and preferred that outcome both before, during, and after the vote. If they were just naive, however, and didn't actually want Trump to win, hopefully they will think twice about voting third party in the future.

If you don't care who will win, then vote third party. But if you just want to punish one of the candidates, while still wanting them to win...

Gary Johnson got 4% of the vote in Michigan - 173,021. Trump won (probably, Michigan remains the only state that hasn't certified the election yet) Michigan by 11,837 (Jill Stein got 50,686). Johnson got 4% also in Wisconsin- 106,442. Trump won that state by 27,257 (Jill Stein got 30,980). Johnson got 2% in Pennsylvania - 142,653. Trump won Pennsylvania by 68,236 (Jill Stein got 48,912). That's a wide enough margin that maybe Trump wins Pennsylvania narrowly even if 2/3 of Johnson's vote normally would have gone to the dem, and 1/3 to the republican. Nonetheless, that is three states that normally would have been thought to have been safe for the dems. States where one might think that a protest vote would not have tilted the outcome in Trump's favor.

Terez
11-15-2016, 03:30 AM
And let's keep in mind why so many dems thought that Hillary had earned a clear field. She won the popular vote over Obama during the primaries in '08, but was a good soldier, conceded, and helped him win, then helped him govern. That's why.
And she got her reward: Donald Trump as president.

It may have been irrational, but oodles of voters really disliked her. This election was an unpopularity contest, and Trump turned out to be the less unpopular. He lost, so now he has to go to the White House; he may even have to spend an occasional night there.

The policies of Obama and Clinton may be the same, but Obama could sell them and Clinton could not.
This is exactly the problem. Democrats could never see past Hillary's résumé and her standing within the party to recognize that she was never going to be a strong candidate for president because of her history. It didn't even matter what she deserved as a person; her decision to run in 2016 negated whatever she had earned before because it was the wrong decision for the party.

GonzoTheGreat
11-15-2016, 04:02 AM
Which is exactly what I said. Which begs the question, why then are you trying to suggest that my premise is delusional? Johnson helped cause Trump's victory.
Only if you assume that those who now voted for Johnson would have voted for Clinton if Johnson hadn't been on the ballot. There is no evidence to support this idea; it seems more likely that they would have just stayed home. In which case Trump still would have won.

Clinton lost and Trump will start shaping the Supreme Court to his liking. That is the risk the Democrats decided to take when they went with a candidate who, like Al Gore before her, was not good at selling her program.

If anyone deserves blame for this, then it isn't Johnson. That blame belongs squarely to the Democrats who decided to reward Clinton with an election (which she lost) despite the fact that she was never a good candidate. Thus, it is actually a very good reminder of why having viable third parties is a good thing: if one party does not present a good option, then you can still pick another, sufficiently similar, party instead of simply not voting at all (as is the only remaining choice in the USA).

Kimon
11-15-2016, 07:52 AM
Thus, it is actually a very good reminder of why having viable third parties is a good thing: if one party does not present a good option, then you can still pick another, sufficiently similar, party instead of simply not voting at all (as is the only remaining choice in the USA).

No, Gonzo. I'm not sure how much more obvious both this situation and the one in 2000 with Nader could be. Or, for that matter, in '92 with Perot, or in 1912 with Teddy. This is the result of a third party candidate. And a viable third party would naturally steal from either the right (like Perot), or the left (like Nader, Johnson, and Stein). They can't get elected. The way third parties have success here is however also how you've seen in this election - through infiltration. This is essentially what Trump did to the Republican party, and what Bernie almost did to the dems.

GonzoTheGreat
11-15-2016, 08:26 AM
With "a viable third party" I do not mean "a third party which can take away some votes from one of the two actually relevant parties".
Instead, I mean a situation like that in the Netherlands, where one can chose from a dozen or so parties which have decent chance of getting into parliament, and two dozen more that probably won't make it but might produce a surprise result anyway.

Obviously, that won't work with a "winner takes all and screw everyone else" election system, so I admit that it is impossible in the USA. Tough luck; you'll have to make do with second rate politicians only.

Nazbaque
11-15-2016, 11:38 AM
With "a viable third party" I do not mean "a third party which can take away some votes from one of the two actually relevant parties".
Instead, I mean a situation like that in the Netherlands, where one can chose from a dozen or so parties which have decent chance of getting into parliament, and two dozen more that probably won't make it but might produce a surprise result anyway.

Obviously, that won't work with a "winner takes all and screw everyone else" election system, so I admit that it is impossible in the USA. Tough luck; you'll have to make do with second rate politicians only.

Tenth rate at best.

Kimon
11-15-2016, 01:16 PM
Tenth rate at best.

Our system produced Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Eisenhower, the Kennedys, LBJ, Clinton, and Obama, just to name a few of the best. Yes, it also produced Andrew Jackson, Hoover, Coolidge, Nixon, and Trump, but nonetheless, I'm guessing that both you and Gonzo recognize most or all of those names. Similar such lists of good and bad could be made for the Greeks, the Romans, the English, the French. Our system is not perfect, but it has worked pretty well, and there is a reason why the whole world pays attention to our elections, and knows who holds the imperium in America.

The same is not true of Finland, nor even the Netherlands.

Hillary Clinton was not a 10th rate politician. There are advantages to having a parliamentary system instead. But such a system produced Likud in Israel, Erdogan in Turkey, Berlusconi in Italy, and Hitler in Germany. Our system can produce good leaders, bad leaders, or simply mediocre ones. So can parliamentary systems. If we could utilize a coalition government, and if we were but voting for members of parliament, rather than a president, then voting for third party candidates would make pragmatic sense. But that is not how our system works. If greens want to push the dems to the left, then become a dem, like Bernie did, and like Jill Stein could do if she wished to be a serious candidate. If libertarians want to push republicans back to the center then Weld and Johnson should rejoin the Republican Party. So long as they run only outside the system, they are not making a real attempt to fix the system, only to protest and sabotage it.

Nazbaque
11-15-2016, 02:13 PM
Our system produced Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Eisenhower, the Kennedys, LBJ, Clinton, and Obama, just to name a few of the best. Yes, it also produced Andrew Jackson, Hoover, Coolidge, Nixon, and Trump, but nonetheless, I'm guessing that both you and Gonzo recognize most or all of those names. Similar such lists of good and bad could be made for the Greeks, the Romans, the English, the French. Our system is not perfect, but it has worked pretty well, and there is a reason why the whole world pays attention to our elections, and knows who holds the imperium in America.

The same is not true of Finland, nor even the Netherlands.

Hillary Clinton was not a 10th rate politician. There are advantages to having a parliamentary system instead. But such a system produced Likud in Israel, Erdogan in Turkey, Berlusconi in Italy, and Hitler in Germany. Our system can produce good leaders, bad leaders, or simply mediocre ones. So can parliamentary systems. If we could utilize a coalition government, and if we were but voting for members of parliament, rather than a president, then voting for third party candidates would make pragmatic sense. But that is not how our system works. If greens want to push the dems to the left, then become a dem, like Bernie did, and like Jill Stein could do if she wished to be a serious candidate. If libertarians want to push republicans back to the center then Weld and Johnson should rejoin the Republican Party. So long as they run only outside the system, they are not making a real attempt to fix the system, only to protest and sabotage it.

Obviously you are easier to impress than I am. Tenth rate at best.

Davian93
11-15-2016, 02:48 PM
Hey Guys,

You know Im not all that good on american Politics but can I ask about Sanders for a minute?

He LOST the democratic vote. (the Primaries?) So why do people think he would have done better when he had already lost out to Hillary in his own party?

Honestly? He's a white guy going for change. Hillary got destroyed among the formerly white male democratic constituency. Regardless of policies, a lot of white guys would have voted for him that ended up going with Trump and "change"

Davian93
11-15-2016, 02:51 PM
Yeah, so? That doesn't make them any more likely to have voted for Hillary over Trump. We tried to tell you this (http://fusion.net/story/273852/why-millennials-arent-immune-to-right-wing-populism/) back when you were trying to shove your unelectable candidate down our throats, but of course you didn't listen, and now you'll do anything to shift the blame elsewhere. Just accept it: people who voted for Johnson did so, for the most part, knowing full well that it could lead to Hillary losing. That was the point.

Yup...I remember saying it quite a bit. But hey, going with Hillary was a really really really smart move in hindsight, eh?

Sei'taer
11-15-2016, 02:57 PM
Here's something that I've posted at least three times in one form or another on facebook. This is the last time I'll post it because I'm sick of having to defend my vote. MY VOTE.

80 million +/- Americans didn't even vote, but it's my fault?


Let's work through this, to keep Caseys sensibilities intact, in order for libertarians to be on the main stage, they have to achieve 5% of the national vote. Here in TN, where I live, any candidate not republican or democrat is listed as independent. That goes from the national level all the way down to the local level. The reason they're listed that way is because they have to get 5% of the national, national, national, vote. I was educated enough to know who to find in the mess of "independent" candidates to find the correct third party candidate to cast my vote for. This is why libertarians, Green Party, and constitutionalists have a tough time gaining any traction. The party system is set up to keep the sheep voting for them and not looking at others that may be closer to their true beliefs. As I said in another post, whoever came up with "a vote for so and so is really a vote for so and so" was brilliant and an incredible system advocating asswipe.

This year, there were 265 candidates in the election that were from or endorsed by the Libertarian party. There were over 100 Green Party candidates, and close to the same number of constitutional candidates. Again, the problem is that in most states they're just listed as independent candidates. This causes an enormous issue with voters and it all goes back to that 5% quota.

My biggest issue is that I see people rail against the third party voters, but not many say anything about the people that didn't vote. People want to get their panties in a bunch over third parties, but non voters...eh, whatever.

I also want to point out that I agreed with over 90% of my candidates platform. I run a libertarian page on facebook and I'm well versed in their platform. Also, I didn't vote for Johnson, he's as much a libertarian as Trump is a republican. If I had walked into the booth and had no third party candidates to vote for, then I would have abstained from voting for president. It's that simple, and if that was the case, then I feel like I could have taken some heat for one or the other getting elected.

Kimon
11-15-2016, 04:38 PM
Obviously you are easier to impress than I am. Tenth rate at best.

No, merely impressed by different things. Considering our interactions, that is hardly surprising.

Nazbaque
11-15-2016, 08:34 PM
No, merely impressed by different things. Considering our interactions, that is hardly surprising.

Oh? So what was it that impressed me more than you?

Kimon
11-15-2016, 09:08 PM
Oh? So what was it that impressed me more than you?

For one, you seem to take an odd joy in being tedious.

yks 6nnetu hing
11-15-2016, 10:40 PM
Some sleep deprived not really strung together thoughts :

1. Getting rid of the electoral college altogether is a stupid idea. Sure, Hillary won the popular vote this time with this system, this doesn't mean that she/the dems would have won if the campaigns had been geared at a full popular vote. Also, popular vote pretty much guarantees that the already vitriolic tone of elections gets even worse. It could use an overhaul though.

2. Just because certain people have positive name recognition because they happen to have governed a large country doesn't necessarily mean that they were better statesmen than those governing smaller countries. One cannot really choose one's birth citizenship, ya know

3. I saw a really good article which of course I can't find any more, where the journalist really dived into the what if Bernie angle, but from the Republican campaign point of view. He would have been torn apart. Also, Hillary won the Dems popular vote fair and square, that email thing of the DNC - if you look at the dates on those emails, most of them are from after she'd practically won already but Bernie hadn't conceded yet.

4. Sei is right about the non voters. And the third party - 5% rule. And the fact that Johnson isn't really a libertarian

5. IMHO, what really sunk Hillary's campaign was two things: the media's (and I mean both mainstream and social media) lopsided obsession with her emails while forgetting all about Trumps many many many scandals and shortcomings; and Comey. And possibly Russian hackers although that can probably never be proven to full satisfaction.

Sei'taer
11-15-2016, 10:49 PM
Some sleep deprived not really strung together thoughts :



4. Sei is right about the non voters. And the third party - 5% rule. And the fact that Johnson isn't really a libertarian



3 rights!! baBAM!!!

Kimon
11-15-2016, 11:10 PM
1. Getting rid of the electoral college altogether is a stupid idea. Sure, Hillary won the popular vote this time with this system, this doesn't mean that she/the dems would have won if the campaigns had been geared at a full popular vote. Also, popular vote pretty much guarantees that the already vitriolic tone of elections gets even worse. It could use an overhaul though.


Yeah, the electoral college is far less of an issue than campaign finance reform and gerrymandering. It would mostly just shift who is inundated with an unending string of annoying political ads. The only real problem with the electoral college is that the same rules don't apply in every state. They should all be all or nothing, or all proportional. The odd setup in Maine and Nebraska should not be legal, if only in that they create a dangerous precedent.

2. Just because certain people have positive name recognition because they happen to have governed a large country doesn't necessarily mean that they were better statesmen than those governing smaller countries. One cannot really choose one's birth citizenship, ya know

I'll admit to being more than just a bit salty, not only due to Hillary's defeat, but also Michigan losing to Iowa. Pretty much the only icing on this crappy autumn had been the Wolverines, so as John Oliver suggested on Sunday:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MtAaJJdzGA

Nazbaque
11-16-2016, 12:02 AM
For one, you seem to take an odd joy in being tedious.

How does that imply me being impressed? Normally it's me being bored. Pretty much the opposite of being impressed.

Terez
11-16-2016, 12:06 AM
I saw a really good article which of course I can't find any more, where the journalist really dived into the what if Bernie angle, but from the Republican campaign point of view. He would have been torn apart.
I believe I saw the same article. It really doesn't matter how much he would have been "torn apart", though; Trump was a terrible candidate who was "torn apart" daily and it didn't stop him from winning. Bernie's advantage was his appeal to liberal-leaning folks who don't always vote. Hillary had the people who always vote Democrat...but Bernie would have had those voters too.

Kimon
11-16-2016, 12:21 AM
How does that imply me being impressed? Normally it's me being bored. Pretty much the opposite of being impressed.

I do have a tendency to be somewhat passive aggressive, but the pertinent implication should be obvious.

Kimon
11-16-2016, 12:39 AM
I believe I saw the same article. It really doesn't matter how much he would have been "torn apart", though; Trump was a terrible candidate who was "torn apart" daily and it didn't stop him from winning. Bernie's advantage was his appeal to liberal-leaning folks who don't always vote.

I do think he would have benefited from his more conservative stance on the 2nd Amendment, and his much clearer antagonism towards NAFTA and other free trade agreements. Those are two (of the many) things that I didn't like about him, but it would have helped him in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Hillary had the people who always vote Democrat...but Bernie would have had those voters too.

I actually disagree with this one. Hillary seemed to have trouble appealing to two groups - young voters, who do tend to be pretty idealistic and liberal, and blue-collar white voters that normally lean democrat. That latter group can be liberal, but often can be conservative - Reagan democrats. Losing these voters is why she lost Macomb County in Michigan, and why she lost Ohio. Bernie's anti-trade and more pro-gun stances would have helped hold those voters, albeit helped him lose the support of voters like me (well that and especially his free college demagoguery).

Terez
11-16-2016, 07:25 AM
I do think he would have benefited from his more conservative stance on the 2nd Amendment, and his much clearer antagonism towards NAFTA and other free trade agreements. Those are two (of the many) things that I didn't like about him, but it would have helped him in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
I wasn't even talking about that; I was talking about his appeal to progressives who usually don't bother voting because there's no progressive candidate running. People who are borderline apathetic about politics. Those people came out in huge numbers for Bernie in the primaries, but they were outnumbered by the "pragmatic" voters in the end.

Bernie's crossover appeal was another thing altogether.

I actually disagree with this one. Hillary seemed to have trouble appealing to two groups - young voters, who do tend to be pretty idealistic and liberal, and blue-collar white voters that normally lean democrat. That latter group can be liberal, but often can be conservative - Reagan democrats. Losing these voters is why she lost Macomb County in Michigan, and why she lost Ohio. Bernie's anti-trade and more pro-gun stances would have helped hold those voters, albeit helped him lose the support of voters like me (well that and especially his free college demagoguery).
Would you have really voted for Trump over Bernie? I really doubt that many would have; dependable Democratic voters are just that: dependable, party-line voters who will vote against the Republican even if they don't like the Democrat.

Kimon
11-16-2016, 08:14 AM
Would you have really voted for Trump over Bernie? I really doubt that many would have; dependable Democratic voters are just that: dependable, party-line voters who will vote against the Republican even if they don't like the Democrat.

Of course not. I've never voted for Republican, and do not foresee, unless they change drastically, ever doing so. I don't like Bernie, I do not think he would be a good president. I think his policies are stupid and dangerous. But better than Trump? Obviously. Better for the future of the Court in terms of his presumed appointments? Obviously.

If the Bernie voters that voted for Trump, Johnson, Stein, or write-ins really think that Hillary is just as bad as Trump, that's one thing. But if they think he's a disaster, and that Hillary would be just like Obama, unless they would have also been unwilling to vote for Obama, I just don't get why so many were unwilling to vote for Hillary, unless out of spite.

Nazbaque
11-16-2016, 08:22 AM
I do have a tendency to be somewhat passive aggressive, but the pertinent implication should be obvious.

If you have one or more specific case where you believed me to be impressed state them. Now you are just being vague.

GonzoTheGreat
11-16-2016, 08:36 AM
If the Bernie voters that voted for Trump, Johnson, Stein, or write-ins really think that Hillary is just as bad as Trump, that's one thing. But if they think he's a disaster, and that Hillary would be just like Obama, unless they would have also been unwilling to vote for Obama, I just don't get why so many were unwilling to vote for Hillary, unless out of spite.Some of them probably wouldn't have voted for Obama either, though they would have voted for Sanders. Others may have thought that Clinton was worse than Obama, and may have decided on that ground that not voting this time was the most valid available option.

Clinton is similar to Obama, but she isn't the same. For instance, she voted in favour of the Iraq war, while Obama was opposed to it.

Kimon
11-16-2016, 09:57 AM
Clinton is similar to Obama, but she isn't the same. For instance, she voted in favour of the Iraq war, while Obama was opposed to it.

This is why I voted for Obama rather than Hillary in '08, but keep in mind, Obama wasn't elected to the Senate until 2005, and that vote occured in 2002. Much easier to take the stance that he did when his opposition was meaningless. Moreover, both of his secretaries of state, Hillary and John Kerry, voted for the resolution, as did his VP, Joe Biden.

Kimon
11-16-2016, 09:58 AM
If you have one or more specific case where you believed me to be impressed state them. Now you are just being vague.

If you still can't figure it out, it only reinforces my opinion.

Nazbaque
11-16-2016, 10:28 AM
If you still can't figure it out, it only reinforces my opinion.

You think I was impressed by something and it should be obvious to me what it was and when this happened? I'm seriously lost here. Is it that you don't understand the word "impressed"? I don't know the details of your opinion so how should I know if I prefer you to keep it? I don't actually live inside your head you know.

Kimon
11-16-2016, 10:48 AM
You think I was impressed by something and it should be obvious to me what it was and when this happened? I'm seriously lost here. Is it that you don't understand the word "impressed"? I don't know the details of your opinion so how should I know if I prefer you to keep it? I don't actually live inside your head you know.

I've been as blunt as I'm willing to be. There are enough context clues for you to figure it out. And if you still can't, that too would be rather on topic...

Terez
11-16-2016, 10:51 AM
Of course not. I've never voted for Republican, and do not foresee, unless they change drastically, ever doing so. I don't like Bernie, I do not think he would be a good president. I think his policies are stupid and dangerous. But better than Trump? Obviously. Better for the future of the Court in terms of his presumed appointments? Obviously.
That's all I'm saying. Hillary voters were more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter what. Bernie voters, on the other hand, were generally not so loyal to the Democratic party. That's extremely pertinent when it comes to the general election calculus. It's why Bernie was more likely to win, and would have remained more likely to win even if he'd been "torn apart" in the general.

Nazbaque
11-16-2016, 11:05 AM
I've been as blunt as I'm willing to be. There are enough context clues for you to figure it out. And if you still can't, that too would be rather on topic...

As blunt as you are willing to be? Well then I suppose you don't really care if what you believe is actually true. Somewhat ironic as that behaviour is really the core of why the election turned out as it did and you have a hard time seeing it. You just don't have the humility for true wisdom. Such a waste.

Kimon
11-16-2016, 11:11 AM
As blunt as you are willing to be? Well then I suppose you don't really care if what you believe is actually true. Somewhat ironic as that behaviour is really the core of why the election turned out as it did and you have a hard time seeing it. You just don't have the humility for true wisdom. Such a waste.

This is amusingly ironic. You've stumbled, by accident, upon the point I was making. It is something you have done quite often, as I hinted, in previous interactions. Something which clearly does not impress me...

Davian93
11-16-2016, 11:19 AM
Trump refuses a salary as President...that's basically Step #1 of "How to be a Populist Demagogue". When do the roundups and purges begin? He's already cleared out the Christie supporters in the Night of the Long Steak Knives...soon enough, it'll be some other group of undesirables.

Maybe he'll go all Stalinist on us and start photoshopping Christie out of old campaign photos. I hope for Christie's sake, he doesn't move to Mexico City...

Davian93
11-16-2016, 11:22 AM
That's all I'm saying. Hillary voters were more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter what. Bernie voters, on the other hand, were generally not so loyal to the Democratic party. That's extremely pertinent when it comes to the general election calculus. It's why Bernie was more likely to win, and would have remained more likely to win even if he'd been "torn apart" in the general.

As much as we want to pretend that a good chunk of Democrats aren't just as sexist as Republicans...Bernie wouldn't have lost the white male democrat vote the way Hillary did. And its not like she pulled in the woman vote either so that particular theory has hopefully finally died a painful death. Women DO NOT give a damn about electing the first female President. Sure, a small minority of them do but overall, they honestly dont care. On Bernie, his populist message would have allowed him to hold onto PA, MI and WI. Sure, he maybe isn't as competitive in NC (like that mattered) but who the hell cares. All the states where Hillary was super strong in the primaries due to the black vote were GOP strongholds anyway. Who gives a damn if NC took a while to be called for the GOP...in the end, she lost and lost badly as she's easily the most hated woman in the country.

Nazbaque
11-16-2016, 11:28 AM
This is amusingly ironic. You've stumbled, by accident, upon the point I was making. It is something you have done quite often, as I hinted, in previous interactions. Something which clearly does not impress me...

A point you refused to make and still have not.

Terez
11-16-2016, 11:41 AM
As much as we want to pretend that a good chunk of Democrats aren't just as sexist as Republicans...Bernie wouldn't have lost the white male democrat vote the way Hillary did. And its not like she pulled in the woman vote either so that particular theory has hopefully finally died a painful death. Women DO NOT give a damn about electing the first female President. Sure, a small minority of them do but overall, they honestly dont care.
I mean, we care. We want to see it happen. We also want to pick the best person for the job. I can understand why many women thought Hillary was that person, but I never did. And I wanted Elizabeth Warren not because she was a woman (though it would have indeed been a convenient weapon in the 2016 primary), but because she was everything I wanted in a candidate aside from a few minor and humanly inevitable flaws. She was a progressive firebrand like Bernie but better in almost every way. She was the right person to steer the economy back on track, the right person to breathe new life into the party, and the right person to inspire the fickle left enough to overcome whatever role sexism might have played in the general. But it was Hillary's turn, right?

Sei'taer
11-16-2016, 11:44 AM
If the Bernie voters that voted for Trump, Johnson, Stein, or write-ins really think that Hillary is just as bad as Trump, that's one thing. But if they think he's a disaster, and that Hillary would be just like Obama, unless they would have also been unwilling to vote for Obama, I just don't get why so many were unwilling to vote for Hillary, unless out of spite.

I only have anecdotal evidence on this, but when Bernie lost, there was an influx of people joining my libertarian page on facebook. I can give you some reasons that I saw though.

A lot of them, male and female alike, didn't like the idea that they had to vote for her "because she's a woman" the weird thing is, that mostly came from much younger, first time voters who were Bernie loving females. There were a lot of passionate arguments about this simply because most libertarians don't give a flying sack of shit what gender you are as long as you leave them alone.

Several weren't comfortable with her ties to Wall Street even when the knew how deep Trump and Johnsons ties were to Wall Street also.

The reason a lot of them looked libertarian is because they're sick of interventionist policies held dear by both parties in US. They said she was as much a warmonger as Bush, Trump, and Obama in their eyes (mine too, incidentally, but this isn't about me).

The biggest reason I found though was that Bernie supporters, in general, weren't comfortable voting for the lesser of two evils. I think that's what caused many of them to vote libertarian. There were also quite a few that chose to write in Bernie. I'd love to see something that showed how many votes he got. I haven't really tried all that hard to find it though.

Davian93
11-16-2016, 11:48 AM
I mean, we care. We want to see it happen. We also want to pick the best person for the job. I can understand why many women thought Hillary was that person, but I never did. And I wanted Elizabeth Warren not because she was a woman (though it would have indeed been a convenient weapon in the 2016 primary), but because she was everything I wanted in a candidate aside from a few minor and humanly inevitable flaws. She was a progressive firebrand like Bernie but better in almost every way. She was the right person to steer the economy back on track, the right person to breathe new life into the party, and the right person to inspire the fickle left enough to overcome whatever role sexism might have played in the general. But it was Hillary's turn, right?

Yup...and going with it being "her turn" worked out really well. It stopped better qualified Dems like Biden or Warren from running and it destroyed any chance that an insurgent candidate like Bernie had.

I still say the strongest ticket by far would have been Biden/Warren. It appealed to both wings of the party and there was none of the negative baggage that the Clintons bring into the equation.

Davian93
11-16-2016, 11:50 AM
There were also quite a few that chose to write in Bernie. I'd love to see something that showed how many votes he got. I haven't really tried all that hard to find it though.

It'd probably be nearly impossible to do so since most states simply toss out write-in votes without even counting them due to the very specific laws they have about write-in candidates (they have to be registered, etc). So those votes were simply never counted.

GonzoTheGreat
11-16-2016, 12:09 PM
Trump refuses a salary as President...that's basically Step #1 of "How to be a Populist Demagogue". When do the roundups and purges begin? He's already cleared out the Christie supporters in the Night of the Long Steak Knives...soon enough, it'll be some other group of undesirables.
Are you sure that "undesirables" is the right term? I thought that "deplorables" would be more apt.

Sei'taer
11-16-2016, 12:16 PM
On the subject of "it's her turrn" here's what gets to me; throughout this election there was an expectation stated repeatedly that people needed to "fall in line." Realistically, it is the candidate and/or party's job to appeal to voters, not the voter's job to line up with a candidate.

In my opinion, this is really what turned off a lot of potential Hillary voters.

GonzoTheGreat
11-16-2016, 12:28 PM
In my opinion, this is really what turned off a lot of potential Hillary voters.They should just have obeyed orders. American democracy is all about "do as I say, not as I do", after all.

Terez
11-16-2016, 12:47 PM
Yup...and going with it being "her turn" worked out really well. It stopped better qualified Dems like Biden or Warren from running and it destroyed any chance that an insurgent candidate like Bernie had.

I still say the strongest ticket by far would have been Biden/Warren. It appealed to both wings of the party and there was none of the negative baggage that the Clintons bring into the equation.
I disagree. No one takes Biden seriously; that's especially obvious right now with all the Biden memes, but it was always pretty obvious. My dream ticket was Warren/Feingold. And, on that note, Feingold would almost certainly have won his senate seat back in Wisconsin with Bernie or Warren at the top of the ticket. Instead, Hillary lost Wisconsin and a senate seat.

On the subject of "it's her turrn" here's what gets to me; throughout this election there was an expectation stated repeatedly that people needed to "fall in line." Realistically, it is the candidate and/or party's job to appeal to voters, not the voter's job to line up with a candidate.

In my opinion, this is really what turned off a lot of potential Hillary voters.
It was a coronation. It was almost that way in 2008, which is how we ended up with Obama; he was a much easier alternative for the loyal Democrats to get behind than Bernie, and the progressive wing did not want Hillary. When she lost 2008, loyal Democrats felt sorry for her; this is well-documented. That just heightened the desire in the core of the party to give her another chance, and the fact that it was her second run just solidified her inevitability.

She shouldn't have run. Her announcement video was one of the most depressing things I've ever seen in American politics, honestly.

Sei'taer
11-16-2016, 01:00 PM
I disagree. No one takes Biden seriously; that's especially obvious right now with all the Biden memes, but it was always pretty obvious. My dream ticket was Warren/Feingold. And, on that note, Feingold would almost certainly have won his senate seat back in Wisconsin with Bernie or Warren at the top of the ticket. Instead, Hillary lost Wisconsin and a senate seat.


It was a coronation. It was almost that way in 2008, which is how we ended up with Obama; he was a much easier alternative for the loyal Democrats to get behind than Bernie, and the progressive wing did not want Hillary. When she lost 2008, loyal Democrats felt sorry for her; this is well-documented. That just heightened the desire in the core of the party to give her another chance, and the fact that it was her second run just solidified her inevitability.

She shouldn't have run. Her announcement video was one of the most depressing things I've ever seen in American politics, honestly.


"It's my turn" probably would have been a better slogan.

Davian93
11-16-2016, 01:04 PM
I disagree. No one takes Biden seriously; that's especially obvious right now with all the Biden memes, but it was always pretty obvious. My dream ticket was Warren/Feingold. And, on that note, Feingold would almost certainly have won his senate seat back in Wisconsin with Bernie or Warren at the top of the ticket. Instead, Hillary lost Wisconsin and a senate seat.


It was a coronation. It was almost that way in 2008, which is how we ended up with Obama; he was a much easier alternative for the loyal Democrats to get behind than Bernie, and the progressive wing did not want Hillary. When she lost 2008, loyal Democrats felt sorry for her; this is well-documented. That just heightened the desire in the core of the party to give her another chance, and the fact that it was her second run just solidified her inevitability.

She shouldn't have run. Her announcement video was one of the most depressing things I've ever seen in American politics, honestly.

I disagree. Plenty of people take him seriously and he's very well liked (thus the basis of those ridiculous memes)

Also, if being taken super seriously was a requirement for President, we wouldn't be practicing our goosestepping right now for the Trumpenfuhrer.

Terez
11-16-2016, 01:08 PM
I disagree. Plenty of people take him seriously and he's very well liked (thus the basis of those ridiculous memes)

Also, if being taken super seriously was a requirement for President, we wouldn't be practicing our goosestepping right now for the Trumpenfuhrer.
He wouldn't have been much better than Hillary because he's not inspiring to the maybe-voters in any way. Not as hated, sure, but hardly a formidable candidate. You can put him side-by-side with Bernie and he looks more serious and presidential, but as you say, that didn't seem to matter much in this election. It was all about populist fervor, and Biden was never that.

Davian93
11-16-2016, 01:14 PM
He wouldn't have been much better than Hillary because he's not inspiring to the maybe-voters in any way. Not as hated, sure, but hardly a formidable candidate. You can put him side-by-side with Bernie and he looks more serious and presidential, but as you say, that didn't seem to matter much in this election. It was all about populist fervor, and Biden was never that.

Biden is a pretty good speaker...if you've never heard him give a speech. He's far better and more personable than Hillary could ever hope to be. And having Warren on the ticket would have significantly helped him. There was zero chance that Hillary would have gone with an all female ticket but a balanced ticket would have worked great for Biden.

Davian93
11-16-2016, 01:25 PM
Today's fun news: Pence wants to model his Vice Presidency off of Dick Cheney's.

Always two are the Sith...Master and Apprentice.

Kimon
11-16-2016, 01:30 PM
I disagree. Plenty of people take him seriously and he's very well liked (thus the basis of those ridiculous memes)

Also, if being taken super seriously was a requirement for President, we wouldn't be practicing our goosestepping right now for the Trumpenfuhrer.

I like Biden as well, and agree that he would have been a better candidate than Hillary, but this does underscore the divide between the pragmatists and the idealists (both groups are progressives). The Bernie crowd doesn't just have a problem with Hillary, it's with all the more pragmatic wing of the party. This is why they remind me of the Tea Party on the other side. There is that same fervor for purist idealism in both groups, even if it has taken different forms, although both groups also tend to be more populist. Nonetheless, this did seem a cycle where a more populist candidate clearly would have done better, at least against Trump's own populism.

That reference to not taking Biden seriously, while hoping for Bernie/Feingold also demonstrates how wide the divide is, because I can't take either Bernie or Feingold seriously, but like Biden. This is why Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown would perhaps have been the best top of ticket choices. Both have appeal both for the populists (Bernie types), and the pragmatists (Obama types). But picking a ticket of Bernie and Feingold would have been as imbalanced as Hillary's ticket of herself and Kaine. If he won, I would have been urging, or at least hoping, that he would take someone like Cory Booker or Kirsten Gillibrand. Feingold wouldn't add anything different to that ticket. And let's be blunt, Feingold isn't impressive in any way. There's a reason why he was always a toss up to hold his own seat in Wisconsin.

Nazbaque
11-16-2016, 01:31 PM
Today's fun news: Pence wants to model his Vice Presidency off of Dick Cheney's.

Always two are the Sith...Master and Apprentice.

Do you know the philosophy behind the rule of two?

Davian93
11-16-2016, 01:34 PM
Bernie/Feingold would have be way too far Left to gain national acceptance. They maybe eke out a victory against Trump but I dont see them having coattails among the moderate wing of the party.

They likely would have done a bit better than Hillary/Kaine though.

Speaking of which, what the hell did Kaine actually bring to the ticket? He didn't even help with VA...which was barely won by Hillary. He has to be one of the worst VP picks in recent memory (not Palin bad but definitely up there with Paul Ryan or Joe Lieberman (great pick, John...wasn't idiotic at all)

Terez
11-16-2016, 01:36 PM
Not sure why anyone wouldn't take Feingold seriously.

What Kaine brought to Hillary's ticket: subordinance. She didn't want anyone to outshine her, so she picked a "safe" dud.

Davian93
11-16-2016, 01:38 PM
Not sure why anyone wouldn't take Feingold seriously.

What Kaine brought to Hillary's ticket: subordinance. She didn't want anyone to outshine her, so she picked a "safe" dud.

Like every single other decision she made...that really worked out well, eh?

Davian93
11-16-2016, 01:43 PM
Not sure why anyone wouldn't take Feingold seriously.

.

Well, for one, he got his ass kicked in his last 2 Senate election attempts...that doesn't exactly bode well for him at the national level.

When the people that know him best won't vote for him, there's something wrong. He was a 3 term sitting Senator who lost to an idiot in Ron Johnson...TWICE.

Nazbaque
11-16-2016, 02:07 PM
When the people that know him best won't vote for him, there's something wrong.

Wrong with him or the people?

Southpaw2012
11-16-2016, 03:14 PM
It'd be wise for liberals to pay attention to these easy truths.


http://www.newsmax.com/JonahGoldberg/xxxx/2016/11/16/id/759200/

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/matt-walsh-liberals-if-youd-like-to-keep-losing-please-continue-behaving-like-this/


The fixation is "racism" and "sexism" will destroy the Democratic Party if they don't learn to argue with facts and reason to legitimate issues, such as how to actually improve the country. No sane person denies racism excuse, but what I just speaks truths as to how ridiculous it has become.

1. No, the electoral college isn't racist or sexist nor was it ever intended to be.

2. No, white people aren't racist simply because they're white.

3. No, Trump voters aren't racist. Some obviously are, as are some Clinton supporters, and those people should be emphatically denounced at every moment. However, 54% of white voters voting Trump are no more racist than the 95% of blacks who voted for Obama.


4. If liberals want to win again, it might be smart to get someone less liberal who may appeal to moderates. Nut-job Elizabeth Warren won't win over the truly educated / actual working people of the nation. It's unfortunate Jim Webb didn't do better... Though he would've been taken down by the corrupt Clinton cartel.

5. American universities are now the joke of the civilized world, as they have become absolutely pathetic with the whole "cry-in" sessions hosted for pathetic, weak minded hippies who can't handle losing. We survived King Obama, they can survive Trump. If he gets out of line, answer at the voting booths.


As I've said before, if you want to keep losing, keep accusing conservative whites of racism and sexism. It will fail and fail hard. Many people who voted for Trump didn't do it out of admiration or support, but as a backlash to the progressive bs that has infected this nation.

Davian93
11-16-2016, 03:30 PM
Um...the rise of racism and sexism in the country are legitimate issues that need to be addressed.

The rest of your post doesn't even rise to level of needing to be addressed since its just so ridiculous.

We get it, you don't like your fellow classmates and think they're all liberal hippies.

Davian93
11-16-2016, 03:36 PM
4. If liberals want to win again, it might be smart to get someone less liberal who may appeal to moderates

Fun fact: Hillary was a Goldwater Girl, held Center Right policies and was mostly despised by the Liberal wing of the party. Her husband won election by going the Third Way (I assume even a pre-law student like you is familiar with that rise of fiscally conservative/socially liberal policies that dominated the US and UK in the 1990s). Neither was or is a super liberal and both were despised by the liberal/progressive base for that centrist viewpoint.

She didn't lose by being "too liberal".

Kimon
11-16-2016, 04:10 PM
Fun fact: Hillary was a Goldwater Girl, held Center Right policies and was mostly despised by the Liberal wing of the party. Her husband won election by going the Third Way (I assume even a pre-law student like you is familiar with that rise of fiscally conservative/socially liberal policies that dominated the US and UK in the 1990s). Neither was or is a super liberal and both were despised by the liberal/progressive base for that centrist viewpoint.

She didn't lose by being "too liberal".

I still don't get this push to deny that Hillary is progressive enough, or liberal enough. She was the force behind the attempt at single payer health care under Bill Clinton, and she has a progressive voting record on progressive issues in terms of social justice and gun control. Indeed much more strongly so than Bernie on gun control. Her main problems on the left are not with actual progressive issues, it's with free trade (a stance that she shares with Obama), and her hawkishness. The former is not a progressive/conservative divide. It is pragmatist vs idealist. Nor is the latter. That is a hawk/dove issue, not progressive/conservative issue. I don't like how hawkish she is either, but that has nothing to do with being a progressive.

The difference between her and Bernie isn't over who is more deserving of the mantle of progressivism, it's over who wears the mantle of populism. Those are not the same thing. This was a divide between idealism and pragmatism. The country was no longer in the mood for pragmatism. After four years of Trump that likely (or at least hopefully) will change.

On the other hand, had more of us just been pragmatic...

Davian93
11-16-2016, 04:30 PM
I still don't get this push to deny that Hillary is progressive enough, or liberal enough. She was the force behind the attempt at single payer health care under Bill Clinton, and she has a progressive voting record on progressive issues in terms of social justice and gun control. Indeed much more strongly so than Bernie on gun control. Her main problems on the left are not with actual progressive issues, it's with free trade (a stance that she shares with Obama), and her hawkishness. The former is not a progressive/conservative divide. It is pragmatist vs idealist. Nor is the latter. That is a hawk/dove issue, not progressive/conservative issue. I don't like how hawkish she is either, but that has nothing to do with being a progressive.

The difference between her and Bernie isn't over who is more deserving of the mantle of progressivism, it's over who wears the mantle of populism. Those are not the same thing. This was a divide between idealism and pragmatism. The country was no longer in the mood for pragmatism. After four years of Trump that likely (or at least hopefully) will change.

On the other hand, had more of us just been pragmatic...

She's not a classic liberal, she's the same as her husband with the 3rd Way. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. That's why Wall Street loved her so much. Her monetary positions were anything but liberal.

Thus, not progressive enough.

Weiramon
11-16-2016, 04:57 PM
Burn my soul, there are legends of a tall red-haired fellow with 3 wives who rose to the heights of power . . . at a time when the world was becoming a dust bowl, while he did nothing, leaving it to others to restore the weather.

He had a wall built about his tower, but that wall became a prison . . . he attempted to expel a foreign horde, but only succeeded in destroying those around him.

The legends will fade to myth and eventually be long forgotten . . .

Kimon
11-16-2016, 05:12 PM
She's not a classic liberal, she's the same as her husband with the 3rd Way. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. That's why Wall Street loved her so much. Her monetary positions were anything but liberal.

Thus, not progressive enough.

Is Obama a progressive?

She supports regulations. Supports unions. Supports Keynesian economic policies. Opposes Citizens United. The Clintons inherited NAFTA, they didn't negotiate it. Hadn't campaigned for it. Bill simply thought that trying to smother it in the crib would do more harm than good. Repealing NAFTA will not bring back those manufacturing jobs. No more than demagoguing about coal will somehow bring back those lost coal jobs in Appalachia. her stance on the TTP and TTIP was obviously more nebulous than Bernie's, but her stance was born out of obligations from working in the administration that negotiated and was selling those deals - Obama.

Canada just negotiated a trade deal with the EU. Is Trudeau not a progressive? Is the EU fiscally conservative?

This simply strikes me as a misapplication of the terminology. It also strikes me of the potential drawback of nominating a figure that has been in the public eye so long that opinions are cemented out of disinformation and false impressions painted by the other side more than out of their own record. Bernie at least had the benefit of being more a blank slate, an unknown, much like Obama had been in '08.

Davian93
11-16-2016, 07:48 PM
Is Obama a progressive?

She supports regulations. Supports unions. Supports Keynesian economic policies. Opposes Citizens United. The Clintons inherited NAFTA, they didn't negotiate it. Hadn't campaigned for it. Bill simply thought that trying to smother it in the crib would do more harm than good. Repealing NAFTA will not bring back those manufacturing jobs. No more than demagoguing about coal will somehow bring back those lost coal jobs in Appalachia. her stance on the TTP and TTIP was obviously more nebulous than Bernie's, but her stance was born out of obligations from working in the administration that negotiated and was selling those deals - Obama.

Canada just negotiated a trade deal with the EU. Is Trudeau not a progressive? Is the EU fiscally conservative?

This simply strikes me as a misapplication of the terminology. It also strikes me of the potential drawback of nominating a figure that has been in the public eye so long that opinions are cemented out of disinformation and false impressions painted by the other side more than out of their own record. Bernie at least had the benefit of being more a blank slate, an unknown, much like Obama had been in '08.

Honestly, I would say that Obama is not a true progressive. He's fairly liberally socially (though he didn't push LBGTQ rights, he basically allowed the states to do it so that's a bit of a black mark on his social progressive side). His healthcare plan was a free handout to the Insurance companies that is now falling apart as they are raping us with premium increases. His fiscal policies are no different than Clinton's and not much different than Bush Jr so he's basically just another Third Way modern democrat. The Dems haven't won election with a true liberal since probably LBJ was out of office. The progressive FDR New Deal wing of the party has been dead for a long long time.

Its not a misapplication of terminology, its the reality of American politics where we have a Far Right (now outright Fascist Nationalist party) and a Center Right party in the Dems. When people say Bernie, Feingold or Kucinich are "super liberal nuts" they forget that those 3 would be Center Left at best in a true balanced political spectrum.

The United States is a super conservative country in general...so this really isn't a surprise. Look what happens when a true Liberal tries to run:

1968: Bobby Kennedy (murdered), Eugene McCarthy (destroyed by the party machinery of Hubert)
1972: McGovern (Destroyed by Nixon)
1976: Carter crushed the liberal wing of the party (mainly Jerry Brown) as an "outsider" but a southern Democrat outsider.
1980: Ted Kennedy destroyed by Carter in the primary...due more to his drinking issues than anything.
1984: Mondale (technically a New Dealer but more of a centrist in reality) was destroyed in the most lopsided election loss in recent memory. McGovern lost the primary to him but it was never close. But it was "Mondale's turn" and it went about as well as 2016 for the Dems.
1988: Um...yeah, Dukakis worked out as yet another "establishment candidate" beating out Jesse Jackson and Al Gore. Dukakis was afraid to even call himself a "Liberal" since Reagan had made it a dirty word. Running from his views went about as well as expected.
1992: Clinton's Third Way crushes the liberal wing of the party.
1996: See Above
2000: Southerner Al Gore runs from the most popular president in recent memory, loses to an ape. Bill Bradley ran on the liberal wing and was utterly destroyed in the primaries.
2004: John Kerry crushes Howard Dean in the primary...runs as Republican Lite against a highly unpopular sitting president and gets crushed. Hell, his VP pick almost became the GOP VP 4 years later. Way to be a true liberal, John!
2008: Kucinich was technically a candidate in the primaries...he won zero states and zero delegates.
2012: Sitting president so no challenge.
2016: Bernie loses to one of the most unpopular political candidates in history.

So yeah...there really isn't much of a true liberal progressive wing in the Dem Party.

Res_Ipsa
11-16-2016, 09:24 PM
I am glad that the vocal consensus is that the Democrats have no one but to blame but themselves for the most undemocratic nominee in history, and I am not exaggerating that in the slightest. I would have voted for Bernie over Trump, but I could not vote for Hillary. Obama's assessment of Hillary's campaign since the nomination was spot on and wikileaks revealed how Hillary and the DNC 21'd the primary.

Kimon
11-16-2016, 10:31 PM
Trump's cabinet is continuing to fill up with some really dubious selections.

Priebus as Chief of Staff won't raise any eyebrows, but Bannon? Even some Republicans seem disgusted by that one. And the names floated for Sec of State, Giuliani and Bolton, are very much in the Neo-Con fold. Not exactly good signs for what his foreign policy will be like, especially when he could just pick someone like Corker instead. And now that nutty Lt. Gen. Flynn for National Security Advisor? This one is just as embarrassing as Bannon.

Davian93
11-16-2016, 10:53 PM
Trump's cabinet is continuing to fill up with some really dubious selections.

Priebus as Chief of Staff won't raise any eyebrows, but Bannon? Even some Republicans seem disgusted by that one. And the names floated for Sec of State, Giuliani and Bolton, are very much in the Neo-Con fold. Not exactly good signs for what his foreign policy will be like, especially when he could just pick someone like Corker instead. And now that nutty Lt. Gen. Flynn for National Security Advisor? This one is just as embarrassing as Bannon.

Ted Cruz has been floated as a potential SCOTUS replacement for Scalia's seat or the AG spot. I think that one wins the crazy factor so far.

Kimon
11-16-2016, 11:00 PM
Ted Cruz has been floated as a potential SCOTUS replacement for Scalia's seat or the AG spot. I think that one wins the crazy factor so far.

I'm sure all the Bernie Bros will agree that Obama would have been just as bad for SCOTUS as Ted Cruz, right? I mean at least Trump will maybe kill the TTP. Priorities...

rand
11-16-2016, 11:50 PM
Burn my soul, there are legends of a tall red-haired fellow with 3 wives who rose to the heights of power . . . at a time when the world was becoming a dust bowl, while he did nothing, leaving it to others to restore the weather.

He had a wall built about his tower, but that wall became a prison . . . he attempted to expel a foreign horde, but only succeeded in destroying those around him.

The legends will fade to myth and eventually be long forgotten . . .
If Mike Pence is Mat, does that mean he'll be comically married to al-Baghdadi at some point?

Terez
11-17-2016, 01:35 AM
Well, for one, he got his ass kicked in his last 2 Senate election attempts...that doesn't exactly bode well for him at the national level.

When the people that know him best won't vote for him, there's something wrong. He was a 3 term sitting Senator who lost to an idiot in Ron Johnson...TWICE.
This has more to do with the purple nature of Wisconsin than anything else. It's why I say he would have won with a progressive at the top of the ticket. Democrats in general are not great about turning out for midterm elections; that's why he lost the first time. Even Illinois, one of the bluest states in the country, has this same problem; we just replaced a Republican senator who was elected in a midterm year. Wisconsin is much less dependably blue, so turnout was crucial this year.

GonzoTheGreat
11-17-2016, 05:24 AM
Canada just negotiated a trade deal with the EU. Is Trudeau not a progressive? Is the EU fiscally conservative?
Trudeau may be progressive, but he inherited the CETA negotiations from a more right wing government and I don't know of anything he did to change their course at all.
The EU is definitely right wing in general. The fact that there are actual socialists (sometimes even communists) in many parliaments here doesn't change the fact that governments in Europe tend to be right wing far more often than left wing. Time and time again government decisions are defended by saying "it is necessary in order to comply with EU budget rules".

yks 6nnetu hing
11-17-2016, 10:35 AM
And how many *actually* comply with the EU budget rules? Not that many. In fact, it's three, some years two. And all of them are small countries.

GonzoTheGreat
11-17-2016, 10:46 AM
Well, yes. But while "do as we say, not as we do" is also vigorously practised by left wingers, it is definitely something that the right wing engages in too. So this is only a hint that even European politicians may be human, nothing more than that.

Davian93
11-17-2016, 01:33 PM
This has more to do with the purple nature of Wisconsin than anything else. It's why I say he would have won with a progressive at the top of the ticket. Democrats in general are not great about turning out for midterm elections; that's why he lost the first time. Even Illinois, one of the bluest states in the country, has this same problem; we just replaced a Republican senator who was elected in a midterm year. Wisconsin is much less dependably blue, so turnout was crucial this year.

Sitting senators have a massive born-in advantage when it comes to campaigning...even in off-year elections. He was a 3 term Senator from a bluish state. He clearly hadn't done enough for Wisconsin for them to want to keep him.

Terez
11-18-2016, 06:50 AM
Sitting senators have a massive born-in advantage when it comes to campaigning...even in off-year elections.
It really depends on the state. Wisconsin's purple nature is not exactly typical, and that goes for a lot of Midwestern states. The traditional Democrats are union types who vote their pocketbooks. Scott Walker took advantage of the white-man insecurities there and he's been helping to turn the state redder for a long time. I doubt there's a single Democrat who could have done better than Feingold there; he's well loved among core Democrats. He needed a bigger populist push from the party to win again there, and Hillary didn't do it for him.

Kimon
11-18-2016, 07:59 AM
It really depends on the state. Wisconsin's purple nature is not exactly typical, and that goes for a lot of Midwestern states. The traditional Democrats are union types who vote their pocketbooks. Scott Walker took advantage of the white-man insecurities there and he's been helping to turn the state redder for a long time. I doubt there's a single Democrat who could have done better than Feingold there; he's well loved among core Democrats. He needed a bigger populist push from the party to win again there, and Hillary didn't do it for him.

Unions numbers have sharply declined.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2015/11/10/125252/wisconsin-unions-and-the-middle-class/

Wisconsin was once one of the nation’s most unionized states—but no longer.
In 1983, 23.8 percent of Wisconsin workers were members of a labor union, making Wisconsin the 12th most unionized state in the country.
In 2014, union membership stood at just 11.6 percent of Wisconsin’s working population.
The 2015 passage of a so-called right-to-work law will further weaken the Wisconsin labor movement. The law gives some workers a free ride by allowing them to enjoy the benefits of a union contract, such as higher pay, without paying the cost of negotiating that contract.
Unions in Wisconsin have fallen victim to the same forces that have caused union membership to decline across the country: the decline of heavily unionized sectors such as manufacturing and lax enforcement of federal labor law. Wisconsin has also suffered from a forceful antiunion agenda led by Gov. Scott Walker (R), who signed a law to curtail public sector bargaining in 2011 and the so-called right-to-work law in 2015.

There are still some strong unions that still vote overwhelmingly blue, the most obvious of which is teachers. But you don't tend to have that same uniformity of association from police or fire department unions. Growing up in suburban Michigan I've known many dems and republicans, but aside from teachers, I've known very few union members.

Davian93
11-18-2016, 03:59 PM
Jeff Sessions as AG...one of the only men ever denied a Senate confirmation hearing as a US District Judge due to his racist viewpoints.

Add in the white nationalist Steve Bannon as a Chief Strategist and Trump is really looking to be the President of "all Americans", eh?


Does Southpaw want to defend this racist filth? I'm guessing he does.

Kimon
11-18-2016, 04:59 PM
Jeff Sessions as AG...one of the only men ever denied a Senate confirmation hearing as a US District Judge due to his racist viewpoints.

Add in the white nationalist Steve Bannon as a Chief Strategist and Trump is really looking to be the President of "all Americans", eh?


Does Southpaw want to defend this racist filth? I'm guessing he does.

At least this is a position that has to be confirmed by the Senate, so there will be the opportunity to revisit all of his racism publicly. I also doubt that democrats will forget just how fractious the confirmation was for Loretta Lynch. There was no just cause for their opposition there, and yet 43 Republicans voted against her. It will be interesting to see what the vote is for Sessions. He is still a senate colleague, which begs the question, will they really vote en masse against him? I would suspect not.

johnadan
11-19-2016, 12:48 AM
SFGATE began in 1994 as one of the first major news websites in history, ushering in a new era in information and interaction with digital news, and even winning a Pulitzer Prize.

GonzoTheGreat
11-19-2016, 04:50 AM
Jeff Sessions as AG...one of the only men ever denied a Senate confirmation hearing as a US District Judge due to his racist viewpoints.

Add in the white nationalist Steve Bannon as a Chief Strategist and Trump is really looking to be the President of "all Americans", eh?


Does Southpaw want to defend this racist filth? I'm guessing he does.
Based on what you say, Trump is really a traditionalist who holds the Founding Fathers in high regard. At least, I would assume that Sessions isn't any more racist than those 18th century slave holders managed to be.

Nazbaque
11-19-2016, 04:56 AM
Based on what you say, Trump is really a traditionalist who holds the Founding Fathers in high regard. At least, I would assume that Sessions isn't any more racist than those 18th century slave holders managed to be.

Don't be too sure about that. It's true that the slave owners treated other human beings as livestock, but even among them there were people who were kind to their livestock.

GonzoTheGreat
11-19-2016, 05:46 AM
Are you suggesting that Trump won't be kind to properly subservient blacks?

Nazbaque
11-19-2016, 05:53 AM
Are you suggesting that Trump won't be kind to properly subservient blacks?
Trump wants every non-white dead, buried and removed from recorded history. Slavery never happened, because there has only ever been one race of humanity.

GonzoTheGreat
11-19-2016, 08:02 AM
Speaking about Trump: he had declared on a number of occasions that the elections were rigged. Did he tell the truth about that?

Nazbaque
11-19-2016, 09:28 AM
Speaking about Trump: he had declared on a number of occasions that the elections were rigged. Did he tell the truth about that?

Isn't the rig built in? Is it possible to have a fair and square vote with the American system? Would such an election be a counter-rigged election? Rigged from the system's point of view but just from an objective point of view.

Rand al'Fain
11-19-2016, 10:51 AM
Honestly, aside from the racism, one of the most annoying things I've seen posted about Trump from his religiously faithful, is their comparing him to Teddy Roosevelt.

I think dear old Teddy would've punched each person in the nose for such a comparison, and then proceeded to get into an all out fight with Trump. About the only thing they would have in common (we can all agree the GOP then is far different than now), is that both are outspoken.

But Teddy had held political office before (Governor of New York and Secretary of the Navy), rather than dodge the draft, Teddy resigned from his political office and enlisted into the army, and Teddy introduced health standards for food.

Davian93
11-19-2016, 08:34 PM
Honestly, aside from the racism, one of the most annoying things I've seen posted about Trump from his religiously faithful, is their comparing him to Teddy Roosevelt.

I think dear old Teddy would've punched each person in the nose for such a comparison, and then proceeded to get into an all out fight with Trump. About the only thing they would have in common (we can all agree the GOP then is far different than now), is that both are outspoken.

But Teddy had held political office before (Governor of New York and Secretary of the Navy), rather than dodge the draft, Teddy resigned from his political office and enlisted into the army, and Teddy introduced health standards for food.

Teddy would have hunted him for sport and mounted his head on the wall.

Teddy was one of the best presidents we ever had...easily Top 5 at worst and arguably #2 behind his cousin FDR since the year 1900.

Davian93
11-21-2016, 02:31 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/11/21/trump-asked-argentine-prez-for-biz-help.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl

Argentine President: Congrats on being elected President

Trump: Thanks, BTW, I'm having issues with a real estate deal in Argentina, could you help out with that?



Totally legit...Make America Great Again!

Kimon
11-21-2016, 07:50 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/11/21/trump-asked-argentine-prez-for-biz-help.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl

Argentine President: Congrats on being elected President

Trump: Thanks, BTW, I'm having issues with a real estate deal in Argentina, could you help out with that?



Totally legit...Make America Great Again!

Trump issued a statement today, and while the TPP element is what is receiving most of the focus, there are some other issues to keep an eye on...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38059623

In the video message, Mr Trump said his governing agenda would be based on "putting America first".
The six executive actions he would take on day one are:
issuing notice of withdrawing from TPP


I still think that this is a mistake, even though this was going to happen regardless of who was elected. Backing out will do nothing to protect American industries or jobs, but our involvement would have at least served as a counter-balance to Chinese hegemony in the East, and our withdrawal from this deal may well simply serve to undermine our influence in Asia, and to force those nations (including our immediate neighbors) more into China's sphere of influence.

cancelling restrictions on US energy production

This probably at minimum means increasing coal production, which is a waste of time and investment, in addition to being environmentally foolish. It might be even a more dangerous indication though, as this likely also means opening up federal lands for fracking and various exploitations, clearing remaining hurdles on the completion of oil pipeline, and increasing offshore oil exploration. This likely also means undermining the EPA and restrictions on the ability of businesses and individuals to pollute so as to maximize profits.

cutting regulations on businesses

Hardly a surprise, and probably will be coupled with the undermining of both worker and consumer protections.

ordering a plan to combat cyber-attacks

This one is impossible to take seriously considering his close relationship with the Russians, and the growing camaraderie of the far right with Wikileaks. Hopefully this election has at least opened the eyes of the left fully concerning just what Julian Assange is.

investigating visa abuses that undercut American workers

Still think that this one is just empty rhetoric, but time will tell.

imposing a five-year ban on people leaving government to become lobbyists

This one is almost certainly unconstitutional, and unless done as an executive order (which would be immediately challenged in the courts), there is no chance that this would ever be passed by Congress. I suspect that this one is also just empty rhetoric, and nothing will ever come of this, but this one would be an interesting development if he actually attempted it.

Davian93
11-22-2016, 10:10 AM
So...to increase coal production, is he going to ban cheap natural gas then? That's the reason coal is dying, not EPA regulations.

I wonder when he'll realize that his BS pandering lies aren't reality and you can't govern based on lies. There is nothing that will increase coal production right now...it'd be like trying to increase buggy whip production. Technology is killing the industry, not regulations.

Still think that this one is just empty rhetoric, but time will tell.

Oh so he's going to cut down on the H1B program then?...yeah, sure he is. I'm sure all his rich buddies who make bank of them will be all over that.

On the lobbyist thing, I wonder how he is defining lobbyist...considering that by most definitions that would mean he has to fire half his current transition team. I almost bet that its pure window dressing to show how different he is...just like the "I'm not taking a salary" BS to save us money.

He wont take a salary but he plans on going back to Trump Tower every single weekend and his wife/kid will be staying there too. How many hundreds of millions will that cost us in tax dollars. But hey, he's saving us that salary he's refusing so he's a good guy, right?

Rand al'Fain
11-22-2016, 10:24 AM
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/

Of course Trump is too preoccupied with how "unfair" Saturday Night Live is, or a civil message from an acting cast that Trump thinks is "insulting".

Kimon
11-22-2016, 10:45 AM
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/

Of course Trump is too preoccupied with how "unfair" Saturday Night Live is, or a civil message from an acting cast that Trump thinks is "insulting".

His open flirtation KKK and Neo-Nazis is hardly new, and it has been getting a lot of attention, perhaps so much so that we often overlook more mundane signs of potentially immediate concern.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38064854

Donald Trump will now meet New York Times executives, his spokeswoman says, hours after cancelling the face-to-face, complaining of "nasty" coverage.
The US president-elect had earlier accused the newspaper on Twitter of changing the terms of the meeting.
The apparent U-turn came a day after he berated media chiefs at Trump Tower for their "unfair" election coverage.

Jonathan Mahler, a political correspondent for the New York Times, tweeted that it was the president-elect who had tried to change the rules of engagement.
He said Mr Trump had asked for the discussion to be private and off-the-record, but the daily had refused.

This isn't an isolated incident, and there are quite a few worrisome signs of his intent to limit media access, or at least to threaten to deny access unless the press agrees to tailor its message to his desires. He seems to want to browbeat the media into becoming something akin to what it is in Russia and Turkey, where all press is either state-run, or else destroyed by the state. Normally I would trust Congress or the Supreme Court to intervene and defend the freedom, and independence of the press, but a Republican controlled Congress? A Republican controlled Supreme Court? I don't trust them to protect anything besides the 2nd Amendment, corporate greed, and theocratic oppression.

On Monday evening, he invited leading figures from the American TV networks for an off-the-record briefing at Trump Tower, where they were subjected to a tirade about election reporting.
The media executives and anchors - including NBC's Lester Holt, CNN's Wolf Blitzer and ABC's George Stephanopoulos - were apparently expecting to discuss coverage of his presidency.

But instead Mr Trump reportedly labelled them "liars" and called journalists the "lowest form of humanity".
One attendee leaked the details to the New York Post, saying: "The meeting was a total disaster.
"The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style dressing down."
The New York Times reports that during his complaint about "dishonest" coverage Mr Trump singled out CNN president Jeffrey Zucker.
According to the Washington Post, Mr Trump also referred to NBC's Katy Tur and ABC's Martha Raddatz, without naming them.
But Ms Conway said the meeting was "very cordial".

GonzoTheGreat
11-22-2016, 11:11 AM
On the lobbyist thing, I wonder how he is defining lobbyist...considering that by most definitions that would mean he has to fire half his current transition team.
I suspect that he'll counter that by pointing out that he can't write ex post facto laws. Besides, they're not lobbying, they are just using their 1st Amendment rights of expressing their opinions. It is only the other side which needs to resort to lobbying, obviously.

Davian93
11-22-2016, 11:30 AM
His open flirtation KKK and Neo-Nazis is hardly new, and it has been getting a lot of attention, perhaps so much so that we often overlook more mundane signs of potentially immediate concern.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38064854





This isn't an isolated incident, and there are quite a few worrisome signs of his intent to limit media access, or at least to threaten to deny access unless the press agrees to tailor its message to his desires. He seems to want to browbeat the media into becoming something akin to what it is in Russia and Turkey, where all press is either state-run, or else destroyed by the state. Normally I would trust Congress or the Supreme Court to intervene and defend the freedom, and independence of the press, but a Republican controlled Congress? A Republican controlled Supreme Court? I don't trust them to protect anything besides the 2nd Amendment, corporate greed, and theocratic oppression.

What an utter joke.

Good work idiots for electing this demagogue.

Nazbaque
11-22-2016, 12:17 PM
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/

I wonder if this guy realises that Mexicans are just as European as he is. In terms of legal citizenship: not at all. In terms of ancestry: possibly more.

I also wonder what people like him would do if I pointed out that I'm whiter than they are and demanded they lick my shoes. I am a superior being by their standards after all.

GonzoTheGreat
11-22-2016, 01:36 PM
I also wonder what people like him would do if I pointed out that I'm whiter than they are and demanded they lick my shoes.
For that, they have their Second Amendment, I think.
I would advise you not to put that to the test.

Nazbaque
11-22-2016, 01:42 PM
For that, they have their Second Amendment, I think.
I would advise you not to put that to the test.

Fanatics today. No respect for their gods. What is the world coming to?

Southpaw2012
11-23-2016, 04:58 PM
Lincoln once said that America would be destroyed from within. With progressives striking out against American patriotism by attacking our flag and what we stand for, it's only a matter of time before we are taken over.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/11/23/book-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-reveals-al-qaedas-plan-to-destroy-u-s-through-immigration/?utm_content=buffer3f5c9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer


The weak-minded pansy liberals on college campuses who can't handle not getting what they want continue to destroy the flag and everything that represents America. In Maryland, the song Party in the USA is now considered offensive.

Keep it up, liberals. We are only a generation or two away from losing what we take advantage of. The American flag may be "offensive" now to the rich, sensitive snowflakes who aren't getting what they want, but wait until the country is transformed into what you now see in the Middle East.

connabard
11-23-2016, 05:09 PM
Lincoln once said that America would be destroyed from within. With progressives striking out against American patriotism by attacking our flag and what we stand for, it's only a matter of time before we are taken over.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/11/23/book-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-reveals-al-qaedas-plan-to-destroy-u-s-through-immigration/?utm_content=buffer3f5c9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer


The weak-minded pansy liberals on college campuses who can't handle not getting what they want continue to destroy the flag and everything that represents America. In Maryland, the song Party in the USA is now considered offensive.

Keep it up, liberals. We are only a generation or two away from losing what we take advantage of. The American flag may be "offensive" now to the rich, sensitive snowflakes who aren't getting what they want, but wait until the country is transformed into what you now see in the Middle East.
I don't even know, really, what to make of this.

When you condescendingly say "not getting what they want" are you referring to the very likely possibility of women losing abortion rights? Or, perhaps the rise of open hate-crimes and people openly heiling Jeff Sessions and proclaiming "Heil Trump"?

Or perhaps it's gay marriage.

Rich white liberals might have the largest voice, but a lot of the outraged people are not rich or white, or men.

Nazbaque
11-23-2016, 06:56 PM
You know why people like southpaw blame terrorism on Islam? It's because of the philosophy of revenge. 9/11 was the big deal and there had to be vengence. But that vengence hurt a lot of innocent people who are now just as justified in getting revenge. Anyone who doesn't admit this is something of a hypocrite. Unless of course there were no innocent people there. So blame it all on being a muslim so no one who died was actually innocent and the American people don't deserve any punishment what so ever for what they have done.

ShadowbaneX
11-23-2016, 07:32 PM
Lincoln once said that America would be destroyed from within. With progressives striking out against American patriotism by attacking our flag and what we stand for, it's only a matter of time before we are taken over.

By de-funding public education, so you wind up with an ignorant electorate that jumps at various dog whistles about terrorism, antisemitism, intolerance & hatred?

Yeah, that just happened.

GonzoTheGreat
11-24-2016, 04:43 AM
Lincoln once said that America would be destroyed from within. With progressives striking out against American patriotism by attacking our flag and what we stand for, it's only a matter of time before we are taken over.
Yes, it is obvious that Trump really won because progressives had been attacking the confederate flag, the racism and yearning for slavery that it stood for. Well, you got your wish: racism is triumphant. And now you have been taken over, but I don't think you will really like your new owner.

Davian93
11-24-2016, 04:07 PM
Lincoln once said that America would be destroyed from within. With progressives striking out against American patriotism by attacking our flag and what we stand for, it's only a matter of time before we are taken over.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/11/23/book-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-reveals-al-qaedas-plan-to-destroy-u-s-through-immigration/?utm_content=buffer3f5c9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer


The weak-minded pansy liberals on college campuses who can't handle not getting what they want continue to destroy the flag and everything that represents America. In Maryland, the song Party in the USA is now considered offensive.

Keep it up, liberals. We are only a generation or two away from losing what we take advantage of. The American flag may be "offensive" now to the rich, sensitive snowflakes who aren't getting what they want, but wait until the country is transformed into what you now see in the Middle East.

If you feel so strongly about defending "the flag", you could always enlist. What's that? You're just full of talk and too chickenshit to go fight for our country? Or maybe if you did, you'd get over your obsession with idiotic symbols like a flag and realize a country is a hell of a lot more than that.

ShadowbaneX
11-25-2016, 02:10 PM
If you feel so strongly about defending "the flag", you could always enlist. What's that? You're just full of talk and too chickenshit to go fight for our country? Or maybe if you did, you'd get over your obsession with idiotic symbols like a flag and realize a country is a hell of a lot more than that.

I'm glad you said it because I'm pretty sure I can't.

Rand al'Fain
11-25-2016, 07:50 PM
Well, single parent families, and families with a few kids, are gonna get strangled by taxes it seems.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/middle-class-trump-plan-mean-tax-increase-153628510--finance.html#comments

ShadowbaneX
11-25-2016, 08:45 PM
step 1. raise taxes on single parent families.
step 2. make sure women can't get abortions.
step 3. ????
step 4. PROFIT!

Khoram
11-27-2016, 09:59 PM
I realise I'm late to all of this, but I've just been preparing mentally and physically to go to war. I've got less than two weeks left in BMOQ, and I was hoping my prospects for going to war would be slim. But then the election happened. *sigh* I guess it's a good thing I'm in the field this week; that way I don't have to worry about these things.

Nazbaque
11-27-2016, 11:53 PM
I realise I'm late to all of this, but I've just been preparing mentally and physically to go to war. I've got less than two weeks left in BMOQ, and I was hoping my prospects for going to war would be slim. But then the election happened. *sigh* I guess it's a good thing I'm in the field this week; that way I don't have to worry about these things.

Stay safe out there.

Kimon
11-28-2016, 05:02 PM
So apparently even Petraeus is under consideration for Sec of State now, which is interesting, considering that...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/28/state-contender-petraeus-knowingly-leaked-secrets-biographer-lied-fbi/94547624/

WASHINGTON — Retired Army general David Petraeus, who stepped down as CIA chief amid the scandal of an extramarital affair and pleaded guilty to divulging classified information, has emerged as a top contender as secretary of State in the incoming Trump administration.

Petraeus’ fall from grace was swift but not complete. He resigned immediately from the CIA in November 2012 after the affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell became known. The most famous military leader of his generation, Petraeus remained in limbo, under FBI investigation and generally avoiding public life, until March 2015 when he accepted a plea agreement in which he admitted to spilling a massive amount of sensitive information to Broadwell and lying to FBI agents about it.

All of his success, however, comes with the major caveat of the plea agreement he struck with the Justice Department. It contains echoes of the controversy that surrounded the failed presidential bid of Hillary Clinton, who maintained a private email server when she served as secretary of State. However, in Clinton’s case, FBI Director James Comey found no cause to prosecute her for careless handling of classified information.

Petraeus wasn’t sloppy with classified information. He purposely gave it away to his lover and biographer and sought to cover that up by lying to federal investigators, according to the plea deal.

This would certainly make for an amusing confirmation hearings considering their calls to incarcerate Hillary, especially as what she did could only even remotely be construed as comparable in the Orwellian world of those brainwashed by Breitbart and the rest of the Republican Minitrue outlets.

And this is all alongside the brazen actions of Kellyanne Conway, bashing her boss' apparent preferred choice of Mitt Romney.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-kellyanne-conway-mitt-romney-comments-2016-11

We were all expecting incompetence, but four years of this type of chaotic stupidity will be difficult to dig ourselves out of, even notwithstanding the fallout just from the schmucks that he is certain to put on the court.

GonzoTheGreat
11-29-2016, 04:26 AM
We were all expecting incompetence, but four years of this type of chaotic stupidity will be difficult to dig ourselves out of, even notwithstanding the fallout just from the schmucks that he is certain to put on the court.
The voters wanted Change, and that's what they are now getting. This is going to be very different from anything that went before. Who knows? Maybe it will even actually work.

Nazbaque
11-29-2016, 04:33 AM
The voters wanted Change, and that's what they are now getting. This is going to be very different from anything that went before. Who knows? Maybe it will even actually work.

Define "work". Because you know from the slave owner's point of view slavery works just fine.

GonzoTheGreat
11-29-2016, 06:08 AM
Seems to me that you understand the word well enough for "I know it when I see it" purposes. From a legal point of view, that means that no further definition is required.

Davian93
11-29-2016, 10:42 AM
So apparently even Petraeus is under consideration for Sec of State now, which is interesting, considering that...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/28/state-contender-petraeus-knowingly-leaked-secrets-biographer-lied-fbi/94547624/





This would certainly make for an amusing confirmation hearings considering their calls to incarcerate Hillary, especially as what she did could only even remotely be construed as comparable in the Orwellian world of those brainwashed by Breitbart and the rest of the Republican Minitrue outlets.

And this is all alongside the brazen actions of Kellyanne Conway, bashing her boss' apparent preferred choice of Mitt Romney.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-kellyanne-conway-mitt-romney-comments-2016-11

We were all expecting incompetence, but four years of this type of chaotic stupidity will be difficult to dig ourselves out of, even notwithstanding the fallout just from the schmucks that he is certain to put on the court.

He's a great guy...when he can keep his dick in his pants.

I used to work directly for him actually...he's quite brilliant. He ruined what would have been an amazing career by thinking with his dick. A shame that happened and a shame he's that stupid.

Davian93
11-29-2016, 10:43 AM
I realise I'm late to all of this, but I've just been preparing mentally and physically to go to war. I've got less than two weeks left in BMOQ, and I was hoping my prospects for going to war would be slim. But then the election happened. *sigh* I guess it's a good thing I'm in the field this week; that way I don't have to worry about these things.

Stay safe and keep your head up. There really is light at the end of the tunnel at this point for you. Congrats on almost being done with BMOQ.

GonzoTheGreat
11-29-2016, 12:20 PM
Stay safe and keep your head up. There really is light at the end of the tunnel at this point for you.
Just hope that the light at the end of the tunnel isn't an oncoming train.

StrangePackage
11-30-2016, 06:54 PM
Lincoln once said that America would be destroyed from within. With progressives striking out against American patriotism by attacking our flag and what we stand for, it's only a matter of time before we are taken over.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/11/23/book-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-reveals-al-qaedas-plan-to-destroy-u-s-through-immigration/?utm_content=buffer3f5c9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer


The weak-minded pansy liberals on college campuses who can't handle not getting what they want continue to destroy the flag and everything that represents America. In Maryland, the song Party in the USA is now considered offensive.

Keep it up, liberals. We are only a generation or two away from losing what we take advantage of. The American flag may be "offensive" now to the rich, sensitive snowflakes who aren't getting what they want, but wait until the country is transformed into what you now see in the Middle East.

I must have stopped posting long before this guy showed up. I'd remember this.

Davian93
12-01-2016, 01:09 PM
I must have stopped posting long before this guy showed up. I'd remember this.

He's our new resident far right wing nutter...its easier than going to The Blaze/Breitbart to get the latest talking points at least.

Kimon
12-01-2016, 04:36 PM
He's our new resident far right wing nutter...its easier than going to The Blaze/Breitbart to get the latest talking points at least.

Did you notice whose name is floating recently for heading the VA?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/308113-palin-under-consideration-to-head-veterans-affairs-report

Hopefully this one is just Trump trolling America.

Davian93
12-01-2016, 07:45 PM
Did you notice whose name is floating recently for heading the VA?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/308113-palin-under-consideration-to-head-veterans-affairs-report

Hopefully this one is just Trump trolling America.

Yeah, I saw that yesterday...At this point, its all you can do to just laugh.

I mean, Petreaus would be the height of hypocrisy after all the BS they pulled about Clinton and her alleged mishandling of classified as SecState. Petreaus actually did massively and deliberately mishandle classified and would have to get permission from his probation officer to even travel to DC but he's somehow a legit candidate for any high office? I dont care how smart or qualified he is otherwise...he should never again be in any position where he's got access to sensitive information. And I say that as someone who actually likes, knows and respected him for years.

Palin as anything at all? I mean, WTF??? Having a son who was in the national guard for a little bit doesn't qualify you to run one of hte largest healthcare networks in the country that millions of veterans rely upon for all of their health needs. The VA has 330,000 employees and they serve over 6 million veterans as their only source of medical care. And that's not even counting the other half of their organization that handles VA disability benefits and even things like VA loans, etc. Its such a massive organization that so many people that have no other options depend on and they need someone who can fix the issues thtey already have due to being underfunded and crapped on repeatedly by the GOP for the last 15 years since they started both wars that gave us another generation of massively injured vets with a huge host of medical (physical and psychological) issues. Even considering someone like Palin is a massive FU to every single Vet who needs their help.

But hey, carry on you small handed insecure POS.

Kimon
12-01-2016, 09:45 PM
His choice for Sec of Defense actually seems somewhat decent, though it does tend to underscore, just as have the variegated collection of Sec of State candidates, just how erratic Trump's views on foreign policy are.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/us/politics/james-mattis-secrtary-of-defense-trump.html

For instance, in contrast to Trump...

But in some important policy areas, General Mattis differs from Mr. Trump, who has been filling the top ranks of his national security team with hard-liners. General Mattis believes, for instance, that Mr. Trump’s conciliatory statements toward Russia are ill informed. General Mattis views with alarm Moscow’s expansionist or bellicose policies in Syria, Ukraine and the Baltics. And he has told the president-elect that torture does not work.

Despite his tough stance on Iran, General Mattis also thinks that tearing up the Iran nuclear deal would hurt the United States, and he favors working closely with allies to strictly enforce its terms.

Mattis is far more hawkish than the type of defense secretary that I would have chosen, but at least he seems both qualified and competent. And he at least will be a voice of reason hopefully on Russia, and perhaps even pragmatic enough to see the obvious need to keep the nuclear treaty with Iran. Trump unfortunately seems to like to pair one reasonable selection with two batshit awful ones.

Kimon
12-03-2016, 12:06 PM
I mean, Petreaus would be the height of hypocrisy after all the BS they pulled about Clinton and her alleged mishandling of classified as SecState. Petreaus actually did massively and deliberately mishandle classified and would have to get permission from his probation officer to even travel to DC but he's somehow a legit candidate for any high office? I dont care how smart or qualified he is otherwise...he should never again be in any position where he's got access to sensitive information. And I say that as someone who actually likes, knows and respected him for years.


The parade of prospective clowns unfortunately is becoming even more ridiculous.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/308363-scarborough-trump-considering-exxon-ceo-for-secretary-of-state

An Exxon-Mobil CEO? If this was for Energy Sec I would be disgusted, but not surprised (as it happens the name floated there, for Energy, is somewhat insidiously clever - Joe Manchin). But for Sec of State? This one hopefully is too amateurish even for Trump, though frankly none of the names mentioned, except Corker, are qualified for the job. And unfortunately this recent Taiwan issue helps underscore just how much Trump, and we (since we're the ones stuck handcuffed to this moron), needs someone that knows what he/she is doing in that position, because clearly he doesn't...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38194371

Kimon
12-04-2016, 07:51 PM
This isn't quite a requiescat for Italia, but it does seem that this demagogic cancer that began in Britannia, and metastasized to America, has now spread to Hesperia.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38204189

There has been an immediate reaction from right-wing leaders in Europe.
The leader of Front Nationale in France, Marine Le Pen, tweeted her congratulations to the Northern League.
"The Italians have disavowed the EU and Renzi. We must listen to this thirst for freedom of nations," she said.

StrangePackage
12-05-2016, 08:20 AM
More good news. Ben Carson for Housing and Urban Development.

Because, you know... he once lived in public housing in an urban area. Much the same way that if you eat at McDonalds, you can run a kitchen in a restaurant.

Davian93
12-05-2016, 02:21 PM
More good news. Ben Carson for Housing and Urban Development.

Because, you know... he once lived in public housing in an urban area. Much the same way that if you eat at McDonalds, you can run a kitchen in a restaurant.

Well, you see, he's black and only black people live in the inner cities so he's qualified...because he's black.

Yes, that is the extent of this appointment.

Same with having Nikki Haley, a small state governor with zero foreign policy experience, serve as UN Ambassador. You see, she's brown so she can talk to all those brown foreigners.

Its a great world that dumbass is building.

StrangePackage
12-05-2016, 03:38 PM
I at least get Nikki Haley- she's being groomed with additional foreign policy experience for a run in a few years.

Carson though...

ShadowbaneX
12-05-2016, 09:58 PM
This is one thing I really don't understand about the American system. How can you have all these appointments to people that weren't elected. For a nation where just about every possible position right down to Coroner is elected, having the cabinet members be appointed is a head scratchier.

Kimon
12-05-2016, 11:23 PM
This is one thing I really don't understand about the American system. How can you have all these appointments to people that weren't elected. For a nation where just about every possible position right down to Coroner is elected, having the cabinet members be appointed is a head scratchier.

Some of these positions have to be confirmed by Congress, but we've directly elected the president - well sort of, he did get around 2 million fewer actual votes, but unfortunately, enough to win in the electoral college. It is not particularly different from how the cabinet level positions are selected in Britain or Canada, though typically in both, cabinet ministers need to be members of Parliament, correct? Nonetheless, you're no more electing them directly to be Foreign Secretary than do we to be our Secretary of State.

The one position where this process truly is reprehensible is with our Supreme Court, since unlike with the cabinet, we're going to be stuck with whatever handful of new appointments Trump makes quite a few decades beyond the end of his tenure of his presidency. We only started directly electing senators in 1913, considering how political, and how politically divisive the supreme court has become, it would seem long past due to both directly elect the justices, and to elect them for a defined, and limited, term in office. Of course attempting to do anything that would require amending the constitution is nigh impossible.

Davian93
12-06-2016, 10:58 AM
Some of these positions have to be confirmed by Congress, but we've directly elected the president - well sort of, he did get around 2 million fewer actual votes, but unfortunately, enough to win in the electoral college. It is not particularly different from how the cabinet level positions are selected in Britain or Canada, though typically in both, cabinet ministers need to be members of Parliament, correct? Nonetheless, you're no more electing them directly to be Foreign Secretary than do we to be our Secretary of State.

The one position where this process truly is reprehensible is with our Supreme Court, since unlike with the cabinet, we're going to be stuck with whatever handful of new appointments Trump makes quite a few decades beyond the end of his tenure of his presidency. We only started directly electing senators in 1913, considering how political, and how politically divisive the supreme court has become, it would seem long past due to both directly elect the justices, and to elect them for a defined, and limited, term in office. Of course attempting to do anything that would require amending the constitution is nigh impossible.

If you could directly elect them, there would be zero qualifications for them...at least now, they basically have to be an Ivy league lawyer/judge with plenty of federal experience. We dont need the judicial equivalent of Trump on the highest bench in the land.

Brita
12-06-2016, 10:59 AM
though typically in both, cabinet ministers need to be members of Parliament, correct?

This is correct, and a crucial difference. Any cabinet position will be filled by an elected member of parliament, and not just some yahoo that has deep pockets and/or a penchant for extreme ass-kissing.

Davian93
12-06-2016, 11:00 AM
This is correct, and a crucial difference. Any cabinet position will be filled by an elected member of parliament, and not just some yahoo that has deep pockets and/or a penchant for extreme ass-kissing.

Sadly, in the US, it really wouldn't matter since there are plenty of those crazies in our Congress anyway.

ShadowbaneX
12-06-2016, 02:04 PM
But at least people voted for those ass-kissers. Most of the people that Trump is selecting seem only have "failed to get elected on the federal level" in common. Plenty of congress types seem to serve on committees and the like. Why not just add the Privy Council/Cabinet Members or whatever you call them the same?

Kimon
12-06-2016, 05:57 PM
This is correct, and a crucial difference. Any cabinet position will be filled by an elected member of parliament, and not just some yahoo that has deep pockets and/or a penchant for extreme ass-kissing.

There are some lower level cabinet positions that typically get filled this way, but what you're describing above tends to be more how ambassadorships usually get allotted. Upper cabinet positions (like for Sec of State or Defense) typically go to ex-magistrates, often prestigious vanquished foes from the primaries - people like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. The same is oft true of how one picks a VP. Treasury tends to go to Wall Street types, often non-partisan, with deep roots both with the Federal Reserve and with the Investment Banks, often ex-Goldman Sachs execs. Chiefs of Staff often are ex-magistrates too.

Part of the issue here is that we can't have them simultaneously hold positions both in the Cabinet and continue to hold a seat in Congress.

Kimon
12-06-2016, 06:06 PM
But at least people voted for those ass-kissers. Most of the people that Trump is selecting seem only have "failed to get elected on the federal level" in common. Plenty of congress types seem to serve on committees and the like. Why not just add the Privy Council/Cabinet Members or whatever you call them the same?

Part of the issue is that Trump is coming from business rather than from government, part of the issue is that republicans tend to mistrust both government and experience in governing. They wanted an amateur that would burn the house down. Of course, the Bernie crowd seemingly wanted the exact same thing...

StrangePackage
12-06-2016, 07:34 PM
Well, you see, he's black and only black people live in the inner cities so he's qualified...because he's black.

Yes, that is the extent of this appointment.

Same with having Nikki Haley, a small state governor with zero foreign policy experience, serve as UN Ambassador. You see, she's brown so she can talk to all those brown foreigners.

Its a great world that dumbass is building.

Ooops. Looks like I was mistaken- he never lived in public housing. But he had friends who did.

So yeah. Now he's got nothing.

Davian93
12-06-2016, 07:41 PM
Part of the issue is that Trump is coming from business rather than from government, part of the issue is that republicans tend to mistrust both government and experience in governing. They wanted an amateur that would burn the house down. Of course, the Bernie crowd seemingly wanted the exact same thing...

Bernie's Experience:

Mayor of Burlington, VT: 1981-1990
US Representative: 1990-2006
US Senator: 2006-Present

Yes, he's a complete political amateur with zero legislative experience.

Get real.

Davian93
12-06-2016, 07:42 PM
Ooops. Looks like I was mistaken- he never lived in public housing. But he had friends who did.

So yeah. Now he's got nothing.

He's black and black people are the only people that live in cities and public housing.

That's seriously his only qualification that matters to Trump...that and personal loyalty/dependence on Trump.

Kimon
12-06-2016, 08:14 PM
Bernie's Experience:

Mayor of Burlington, VT: 1981-1990
US Representative: 1990-2006
US Senator: 2006-Present

Yes, he's a complete political amateur with zero legislative experience.

Get real.

I was referring to the burn the house down mentality. I think that Bernie would have given us very non-traditional appointments as well.

As for your other point, Bernie obviously deserves quite a bit of credit for accomplishing something that Jill Stein, nor even Nader, ever will accomplish - actually being elected into positions in an attempt to do more than merely offer up empty rhetoric. That said, he was still viewed as an outsider and a rogue for a reason. Had he been elected, I have little doubt that his cabinet would have been filled more with amateurs than with the usual suspects from the dem ranks. Some people loved him for that, I have little use for revolutionaries.

Davian93
12-06-2016, 08:55 PM
They likely would have been unusual but they likely at least would have been qualified. The list of candidates Trump has lined up are about as far from qualified as you can possibly get. Its like a mirror opposite of Lincoln's Team of Rivals...or hell, even Obama's first cabinet which was immensely qualified on paper.

Kimon
12-06-2016, 09:23 PM
They likely would have been unusual but they likely at least would have been qualified. The list of candidates Trump has lined up are about as far from qualified as you can possibly get. Its like a mirror opposite of Lincoln's Team of Rivals...or hell, even Obama's first cabinet which was immensely qualified on paper.

I agree for the most part, but I think he would have likely appointed someone far too iconoclastic to Treasury, that and I was obviously anxious about what he might try to an extent with the ACA, and especially with Education.

I guess I would posit the true divide like this - I imagine that neither of us really liked Hillary, but voters like Terez clearly really disliked her for reasons that I still find difficult to fathom. Though clearly I nearly dislike Bernie as much as she does Hillary. I wish I could have had the choice of someone like Biden, and to be blunt, I don't really get the impression that Terez thought much better of Joe than she did Hillary. She certainly doesn't seem to like Obama much either, and she gave the impression (I may be in error here, but this certainly seemed the case) that had Hillary picked Warren (as she clearly should have), that she would have considered it a betrayal had Warren accepted. Which I also find somewhat strange, but then I like Warren, but, on the other hand, I clearly do not trust Bernie, and I certainly don't trust his judgment. Bernie and Trump strike me as far too similar for my liking. I look at both of them and see dangerous demagogues.

Kimon
12-06-2016, 09:47 PM
So this is mostly about the Younger Flynn, but still...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38231532

One of Donald Trump's aides has lost his job after fanning a conspiracy theory that climaxed at the weekend in gunfire at a pizzeria.
Michael Flynn, 33, left the US president-elect's transition team on Tuesday following his tweets about the so-called Pizzagate fake news story.
His father, Michael Flynn Snr, Mr Trump's pick to be US national security adviser, has also shared fake news.
The Pizzagate hoax led to a gunman firing shots in a restaurant on Sunday.

No one was injured in the incident at Comet Ping Pong in Washington DC.
The suspect told police he had turned up to "self-investigate" online rumour-mongering that the pizzeria was the nexus of a paedophile ring involving Hillary Clinton and one of her aides, John Podesta.

Vice President-elect Mike Pence acknowledged that Mr Flynn Jnr had been helping his father with scheduling and administrative items during the transition but said "that's no longer the case".
Asked repeatedly whether a security clearance was requested, Mr Pence refused to answer directly.
Mr Flynn Snr, 57, has also tweeted out unsubstantiated conspiracy theories accusing Mrs Clinton and her aides of child-sex trafficking.

The Pizzagate theory originated on alternative message board 4chan, based on emails hacked from the Democratic Party and leaked by Wikileaks.
The restaurant's owner, James Alefantis, a Democratic Party donor, appears in the emails in relation to organising a Democratic fundraiser.
Users of 4chan and another message board, Reddit, had said words in the emails such as cheese, hot dog, and pizza were code for young children and sex acts.

Nazbaque
12-07-2016, 12:39 AM
I agree for the most part, but I think he would have likely appointed someone far too iconoclastic to Treasury, that and I was obviously anxious about what he might try to an extent with the ACA, and especially with Education.

I guess I would posit the true divide like this - I imagine that neither of us really liked Hillary, but voters like Terez clearly really disliked her for reasons that I still find difficult to fathom. Though clearly I nearly dislike Bernie as much as she does Hillary. I wish I could have had the choice of someone like Biden, and to be blunt, I don't really get the impression that Terez thought much better of Joe than she did Hillary. She certainly doesn't seem to like Obama much either, and she gave the impression (I may be in error here, but this certainly seemed the case) that had Hillary picked Warren (as she clearly should have), that she would have considered it a betrayal had Warren accepted. Which I also find somewhat strange, but then I like Warren, but, on the other hand, I clearly do not trust Bernie, and I certainly don't trust his judgment. Bernie and Trump strike me as far too similar for my liking. I look at both of them and see dangerous demagogues.

Why are you suddenly trying to pick a fight with Terez?

Kimon
12-07-2016, 07:45 AM
Why are you suddenly trying to pick a fight with Terez?

This was merely an observation of the contrast within the milieu of the left. Terez seems an apt example in reference to the more intransigent Bernie supporters, as she was quite open about her unwillingness, one which was mirrored by many other Bernie supporters (but not by Davian), to rejoin the flock. Hence her refusal to vote for Hillary after Bernie lost. It seemed part of a larger dissatisfaction with the democrats than merely a problem with Hillary.

Nazbaque
12-07-2016, 08:52 AM
This was merely an observation of the contrast within the milieu of the left. Terez seems an apt example in reference to the more intransigent Bernie supporters, as she was quite open about her unwillingness, one which was mirrored by many other Bernie supporters (but not by Davian), to rejoin the flock. Hence her refusal to vote for Hillary after Bernie lost. It seemed part of a larger dissatisfaction with the democrats than merely a problem with Hillary.

But why bring her up as an example? That's basically the same as Unreasoner bringing up Southpaw before he has even made a post on a subject. Has she done something to piss you off?

GonzoTheGreat
12-07-2016, 08:52 AM
The Democrats aren't left, they are centre-right. That may be part of the reason why many people on the left aren't all that eager to vote for them.

Kimon
12-07-2016, 09:56 AM
But why bring her up as an example? That's basically the same as Unreasoner bringing up Southpaw before he has even made a post on a subject. Has she done something to piss you off?

She has posted on this subject. It's why she is the most obvious comparative example. I was drawing a contrast between the three largest blocks of voters from the left (and yes, contrary to Gonzo's repeated complaints, this is the left) - the Hillary supporters (me), the Bernie supporters who voted for Hillary in the general (Davian), the Bernie supporters who refused to vote for Hillary (Terez).

This wasn't an ad hominem (at least not against Terez), this, as typical, is merely you being obtuse.

Nazbaque
12-07-2016, 10:35 AM
She has posted on this subject. It's why she is the most obvious comparative example. I was drawing a contrast between the three largest blocks of voters from the left (and yes, contrary to Gonzo's repeated complaints, this is the left) - the Hillary supporters (me), the Bernie supporters who voted for Hillary in the general (Davian), the Bernie supporters who refused to vote for Hillary (Terez).

This wasn't an ad hominem (at least not against Terez), this, as typical, is merely you being obtuse.


Her last post on this thread is post #161 on 11/18. 70 posts and nearly three weeks ago. You are picking a fight. And seeing as you go for insults that quickly you clearly are pissed off for some reason, though probably not because of terez or even because of me or at least not originally because of me. So three choices: 1) apologize, 2) make this a full blown fight and get it out of your system, or 3) continue your passive aggressive bitching until you piss everyone else off.

And even in America there are people on the actual left and I doubt they like the dems being the next best thing center-right as they are by most countries' standards.

Brita
12-07-2016, 12:48 PM
Her last post on this thread is post #161 on 11/18. 70 posts and nearly three weeks ago. You are picking a fight. And seeing as you go for insults that quickly you clearly are pissed off for some reason, though probably not because of terez or even because of me or at least not originally because of me. So three choices: 1) apologize, 2) make this a full blown fight and get it out of your system, or 3) continue your passive aggressive bitching until you piss everyone else off.


I don't usually do this (weigh in on personal fights that aren't mine)- but here I go.

Naz- if Terez is offended in any way, she can speak for herself. To me, the only person that looks like they are picking a fight is you.

Kimon
12-07-2016, 01:01 PM
I don't usually do this (weigh in on personal fights that aren't mine)- but here I go.

Naz- if Terez is offended in any way, she can speak for herself. To me, the only person that looks like they are picking a fight is you.

Just to be clear, I didn't mean any offence to Terez, so if she is by chance offended, I'll apologize for any unintentional offence to her. Nonetheless, my comment about her here seemed a completely innocent point of comparison. Naz just seemed up to his usual, and obnoxious, trolling. My insulting of him, thus was intentional.

Davian93
12-07-2016, 01:01 PM
The Democrats aren't left, they are centre-right. That may be part of the reason why many people on the left aren't all that eager to vote for them.

The Dems haven't had a real Progressive Wing of the party since before Reagan was in office. That's a big part of why they are so good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (2000, 2004, 2016 elections are all great examples of this mentality by them).

I almost guarantee that they learn the absolute wrong lesson from 2016 and run away from the progressive base once again to try and be Republican Lite in their quest for the center of the country to like them...which will never ever happen because even the most conservative Democrat is painted as an ultra libtard crazy commie by the Right.

They need to grow a pair and embrace their liberal roots but they never get that.

Kimon
12-07-2016, 01:17 PM
The Dems haven't had a real Progressive Wing of the party since before Reagan was in office. That's a big part of why they are so good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (2000, 2004, 2016 elections are all great examples of this mentality by them).

I almost guarantee that they learn the absolute wrong lesson from 2016 and run away from the progressive base once again to try and be Republican Lite in their quest for the center of the country to like them...which will never ever happen because even the most conservative Democrat is painted as an ultra libtard crazy commie by the Right.

They need to grow a pair and embrace their liberal roots but they never get that.

A lot of this is due to the decline of unions, but has spilled into a question of where the party should move in its evolution. In many aspects the party is far more liberal today than it was in the 70s (gay rights, womens' rights, environment). In others it has remained in the same position (choice, gun control, science over religion). Where it has moved to the right is on trade and labor issues - largely because unions have died. For those that this issue seems paramount, the dems seem to have gotten too conservative, but the party still maintains stances far more progressive than the republicans, far more progressive in many cases than even its older 1970s incarnation. A lot of those old union type voters (blue color white - and older) used to be dems, who started going red during the Reagan years (often because they didn't like the progressive social policies of the dems, only the progressive labor policies). A lot of those voters obviously went for Trump this cycle.

And this is a large part of the debate within the party that has been going on since Reagan. Do we try to bring those blue collar white voters back in the mix by moving to the center on social issues but left on labor issues, or just continue moving to the left on social issues, abandoning some of the old labor issues to instead try to bring in more of the white collar Rockefeller crowd who likes the progressive social stances, but not the progressive labor policies. I don't think that there is an easy answer here, but then I do have some Tory tendencies...

Nazbaque
12-07-2016, 02:23 PM
Just to be clear, I didn't mean any offence to Terez, so if she is by chance offended, I'll apologize for any unintentional offence to her. Nonetheless, my comment about her here seemed a completely innocent point of comparison. Naz just seemed up to his usual, and obnoxious, trolling. My insulting of him, thus was intentional.

Oh well then, since to me you seemed to be picking a fight without being provoked, my obnoxious trolling as you put it was just as justified as your insults.

Davian93
12-07-2016, 03:01 PM
Retired Marine General John Kelly tabbed as the next head of DHS.

Is it just me or is Trump selecting alot of Generals for his cabinet? If this were a 3rd world country, I'd almost say it feels like a military coup occurred rather than a democratic election.

Add in Flynn, Mattis and possibly Petreaus...and its just weird.

Rand al'Fain
12-07-2016, 03:34 PM
Retired Marine General John Kelly tabbed as the next head of DHS.

Is it just me or is Trump selecting alot of Generals for his cabinet? If this were a 3rd world country, I'd almost say it feels like a military coup occurred rather than a democratic election.

Add in Flynn, Mattis and possibly Petreaus...and its just weird.

Let's not forget the many Washington insiders he's brought on as well.

I guess he'll "drain the swamp" by overfilling it?

Davian93
12-07-2016, 04:13 PM
Maybe it'll dry up due to global warming...given that he's just selected one of the most vocal opponents to any sort of climate control to be the head of the Environmental Protection Agency...Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt.

For the non-Americans here, Oklahoma is literally owned 100% by the oil & gas industry and Pruitt has fought the federal gov't tooth and nail on every and any measure that could possibly slow down climate change. Its the equivalent of picking the fox to guard your hen house.

StrangePackage
12-07-2016, 04:19 PM
Maybe it'll dry up due to global warming...given that he's just selected one of the most vocal opponents to any sort of climate control to be the head of the Environmental Protection Agency...Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt.

For the non-Americans here, Oklahoma is literally owned 100% by the oil & gas industry and Pruitt has fought the federal gov't tooth and nail on every and any measure that could possibly slow down climate change. Its the equivalent of picking the fox to guard your hen house.

Not 100%. There's a few Indian reservations on the land that didn't have oil or gas.

Davian93
12-07-2016, 04:22 PM
Not 100%. There's a few Indian reservations on the land that didn't have oil or gas.

And to be fair to the oil and gas industry...they dont just take, they're also givers. I mean, without them, OK wouldn't have the hundreds to thousands of earthquakes that they now get to enjoy due to the massive amount of fracking they do there...nor would people in rural NY and PA be able to light their tap water on fire for much the same reason.



He literally picked a guy that doesn't believe in climate change to head the EPA. What a freaking POS.

Kimon
12-07-2016, 05:05 PM
Maybe it'll dry up due to global warming...given that he's just selected one of the most vocal opponents to any sort of climate control to be the head of the Environmental Protection Agency...Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt.

For the non-Americans here, Oklahoma is literally owned 100% by the oil & gas industry and Pruitt has fought the federal gov't tooth and nail on every and any measure that could possibly slow down climate change. Its the equivalent of picking the fox to guard your hen house.

Interesting that you should mention a hen house, since...

On March 6, 2014, Pruitt joined a lawsuit targeting California's prohibition on the sale of eggs laid by caged hens kept in conditions more restrictive than those approved by California voters. Less than a week later, Pruitt announced that he would investigate the Humane Society of the United States, one of the principal proponents of the California law.[11][12]

On September 9, 2014, in Pruitt v. Burwell, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma ruled against the IRS.[13]

In October 2014, a California judge dismissed the lawsuit, rejecting the arguments of Pruitt and the other attorneys-general concerning California's Proposition 2, a 2008 ballot initiative. Judge Kimberly Mueller ruled that Oklahoma and the other states lacked legal standing to sue on behalf of their residents and that Pruitt and other plaintiffs were representing the interests of egg farmers, rather than "a substantial statement of their populations." [14][15][16]

But, yeah, silliness aside, dude is a definitely a shill for the fracking industry.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/scott-pruitt-stenographer-oil-gas-industry-article-1.2902255

Sometimes we say that so and so is a “mouthpiece” of some special interest, meaning that they’re in cahoots, that they express their views. Or maybe we say someone’s a “puppet” of industry. Most of the time these are metaphors.

But sometimes they’re literal. Scott Pruitt, Donald Trump’s pick to head the EPA, is a mouthpiece and a puppet of the fossil-fuel industry. He’s a stenographer.

How do we know this? We know this because in 2014 Pruitt sent a letter to that same EPA in his capacity as attorney general of Oklahoma. The letter argued that the agency was dramatically overstating how much pollution new gas wells in his state were causing.

He was wrong (the EPA has actually dramatically underestimated the pollution from fracking, as they’ve lately admitted), but never mind that. What was interesting was the letter.

It turned out that it had been written by the good folks at Devon Energy, a local oil and gas company. And Pruitt had taken their words, and put it on his letterhead, and passed it on to the EPA as the official position of the state.

And he did the same thing with letters to President Obama and the secretary of the interior. Once he’d dispatched the company’s letters to D.C. on his stationery, his staff wrote to Devon Energy to report back, and, according to the New York Times, got a pat on the head from the company’s executive vice-president for public affairs.

This unfortunately is the typical sort of EPA that I would expect from any Republican, not just Trump. The generals though, and the continued parade of candidates from all across the spectrum (well, the spectrum of the right) for State however is atypical. Part of this problem with State might just be difficulty finding someone who would want to work with him. Corker is the obvious choice, and it may still be him, but Trump certainly doesn't appear to be taking this position, and its filling, anywhere near serious enough. And he clearly needs to, because this game that he is playing this past week with China is worrisome.

Terez
12-07-2016, 07:43 PM
I agree for the most part, but I think he would have likely appointed someone far too iconoclastic to Treasury, that and I was obviously anxious about what he might try to an extent with the ACA, and especially with Education.
Bernie's Treasury appointment is the one I was looking forward to the most. I'm sure he would have picked someone like Warren (if not Warren herself), i.e. highly qualified but in no way beholden.

I guess I would posit the true divide like this - I imagine that neither of us really liked Hillary, but voters like Terez clearly really disliked her for reasons that I still find difficult to fathom. Though clearly I nearly dislike Bernie as much as she does Hillary. I wish I could have had the choice of someone like Biden, and to be blunt, I don't really get the impression that Terez thought much better of Joe than she did Hillary.
I thought they were both bad candidates for completely different reasons. But of course, Bernie was a bad candidate too. He just had a far better chance of winning this year than Hillary ever did. Hillary was probably the worst candidate we could have chosen (and mind you, this has nothing to do with her résumé).

She certainly doesn't seem to like Obama much either...
I have no idea where you got that from. Certainly some of his choices have disappointed me, but I voted for him twice enthusiastically.

...and she gave the impression (I may be in error here, but this certainly seemed the case) that had Hillary picked Warren (as she clearly should have), that she would have considered it a betrayal had Warren accepted.
As running mate? I dunno if I would go so far as "betrayal" though I do think it would have been unwise on Warren's part. That said, I never thought she was a likely choice for Hillary's running mate.

Kimon
12-07-2016, 08:57 PM
Bernie's Treasury appointment is the one I was looking forward to the most. I'm sure he would have picked someone like Warren (if not Warren herself), i.e. highly qualified but in no way beholden.


I figured that he would have picked Warren as either his VP or Sec of State. Warren just doesn't seem as adversarial with Wall Street as Bernie does. I figured he would have picked someone from academia, rather than someone serving in government. Picking a member of Congress for Treasury just strikes me as odd. Still, he could have just picked someone like Robert Reich. That would have been a good pick, though I still think that Reich is better in Labor (where he was with Bill), and would prefer someone like Krugman at Treasury. But, then I don't get the impression that Krugman and Bernie see eye to eye on economics, so obviously not the type of academic that Bernie would have chosen.

I have no idea where you got that from. Certainly some of his choices have disappointed me, but I voted for him twice enthusiastically.

Yeah, I was most hesitant on this one, and this is still the issue that confuses me since you clearly seem to like Tammy Duckworth. I don't see any difference between Tammy, Hillary, and Obama, and the clearest difference between Bernie and Hillary is over free trade. Those free trade deals were more Obama's policies than Hillary's. Obama (and Bill) is far more charismatic than Hillary. Far better at selling a message and inspiring voters. Hillary clearly was awful at that.

As running mate? I dunno if I would go so far as "betrayal" though I do think it would have been unwise on Warren's part. That said, I never thought she was a likely choice for Hillary's running mate.

I still think that this was Hillary's worst mistake. Though in retrospect, maybe she should have just offered the position directly to Bernie. Even if he would have just turned her down, he did seem to give the impression that he was annoyed that she didn't at least give him the opportunity to politely decline. Regardless she really miscalculated when she picked Kaine. Something needed to be done to reach out more to Bernie's supporters.

Terez
12-08-2016, 09:00 AM
I figured that he would have picked Warren as either his VP or Sec of State.
That last would have been a ridiculous choice. I doubt Bernie would have made that mistake.

Warren just doesn't seem as adversarial with Wall Street as Bernie does.
The difference is mostly rhetorical. Warren is definitely a radical when it comes to banking.

I figured he would have picked someone from academia, rather than someone serving in government. Picking a member of Congress for Treasury just strikes me as odd. Still, he could have just picked someone like Robert Reich. That would have been a good pick, though I still think that Reich is better in Labor (where he was with Bill), and would prefer someone like Krugman at Treasury.
Why Krugman over Reich? Just curious.

Yeah, I was most hesitant on this one, and this is still the issue that confuses me since you clearly seem to like Tammy Duckworth. I don't see any difference between Tammy, Hillary, and Obama, and the clearest difference between Bernie and Hillary is over free trade.
You're taking their platforms at face value, then. As for Tammy Duckworth, I expect different things from a Senator than I do from a President, but either way she and Hillary are very different politicians with very different histories.

Those free trade deals were more Obama's policies than Hillary's.
This I doubt.

Obama (and Bill) is far more charismatic than Hillary. Far better at selling a message and inspiring voters. Hillary clearly was awful at that.
I like Hillary better than I like Bill.

I find it interesting that you think of me as one of the "most intransigent" Hillary opponents when I made it clear several times that I would have voted for her if I lived in a state somewhat more likely to decide the election than Illinois.

Davian93
12-08-2016, 09:39 AM
Why won't Tammy Duckworth stand up for veterans??!?!?!?!!

Kimon
12-08-2016, 10:03 AM
That last would have been a ridiculous choice. I doubt Bernie would have made that mistake.

Why Krugman over Reich? Just curious.


Why not Sec of State? It's definitely more prestigious than Treasury, and most would consider it more influential, and it's far more (unless the president dies) important than VP. If offered all three, Sec of State is definitely the position that I would accept. Do you think she just doesn't have enough foreign policy experience? I'd have probably gone with Joe for Sec of State myself, but Warren would have seemed one of the obvious other potential candidates for a dem administration.

As for Krugman over Reich, they both have an economics background, and are both Keynesians (which as far as I'm concerned should be a prerequisite, at least for anyone that I would choose) but Krugman's is far deeper, including even a Nobel. Krugman is also less hostile to free trade. I obviously disagree with Bernie on this point of policy. Reich's experience is more on the public policy side. I like them both, but Reich seems more suited for Labor.

StrangePackage
12-08-2016, 01:43 PM
New head of the Small Business Association has, like the President-Elect, also failed to effectively sell a Stone-Cold Stunner. She also runs a large business which she built up by shutting down competing small businesses.

And the new head of the Department of Labor is a fast-food magnate vehemently opposed to increased overtime pay, raising the minimum wage, and unionization.

It's like the only qualification you need to run one of Trump's agencies is an open hostility to it's raison d'etre. That, and have given a shit ton of money to the Trump campaign.

Terez
12-09-2016, 12:43 AM
Why not Sec of State? It's definitely more prestigious than Treasury, and most would consider it more influential, and it's far more (unless the president dies) important than VP. If offered all three, Sec of State is definitely the position that I would accept. Do you think she just doesn't have enough foreign policy experience?
It's certainly the area where she has the least experience. One could argue that she needs the experience if she's going to run in the future, but I wouldn't say she's qualified for the job, no. The Secretary of State needs to be, if anything, more experienced at foreign policy than the President. It's not a job you hand out as a political favor, but then, that's what you guys were talking about before I heard my name.

As for Krugman over Reich, they both have an economics background, and are both Keynesians (which as far as I'm concerned should be a prerequisite, at least for anyone that I would choose) but Krugman's is far deeper, including even a Nobel. Krugman is also less hostile to free trade. I obviously disagree with Bernie on this point of policy. Reich's experience is more on the public policy side. I like them both, but Reich seems more suited for Labor.
For me, the difference between Krugman and Reich is that Krugman is an a priori economist. And that's a crucial difference.