The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Pete at Home on March 14, 2016, 02:33:31 PM

Title: Election Day
Post by: Pete at Home on March 14, 2016, 02:33:31 PM
OK, cards on the table.  If the election was today, and you had a choice of any candidate still running, who do you vote for and why?  Let's stick to discussion of your candidate only.  Not a litany of negatives against the others (there are plenty of threads for that).  If you've got nothing positive to say about your candidate, then say the name and ya esta.

I am for Sanders.  He seems like the most honest candidate we've had since Carter, but more magnetic.  I trust him to do what he thinks is right, and if he doesn't have a majority, he'll negotiate lawfully.  We need that sort of a leader.  We're getting to the point where some Americans hate more Americans than they fear Daesh and Al Qaeda.  Enough is enough.  I can't see anyone hating Bernie.  He's basically the anti-Trump.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 14, 2016, 02:35:44 PM
I like Sanders but still think (with all her baggage) that Clinton would be more effective.  I can't stomach any of the candidates still in the running on the GOP side.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Wayward Son on March 14, 2016, 03:29:52 PM
I think Sanders would be stymied by the Republican House just like Obama, and after a short while attacked just as vehemently.  Hillary at least has experience being attacked and stymied, so she's my best hope to actually get something done with this oppositional Congress.  Hillary.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: D.W. on March 14, 2016, 03:39:58 PM
Sanders, for the reasons Pete pointed out and because if you are going to be opposed either way, I'd rather be stopped trying to do the right thing rather than surrendering on several issues trying to build "good will" for negotiating and then getting stopped anyway...  On top of obstructionism I don't like, he may add obstructionism I DO like via veto.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 14, 2016, 03:56:29 PM
Sanders, assuming that he reaches the full potential of how he's campaigning, he will also be working with a much more agreeable congress than Clinton will, since his coattails will be much longer.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: scifibum on March 14, 2016, 04:01:01 PM
I vote for Sanders.  TEA Party and Trump would be extremely destructive.  Clinton won't change a thing. 

Say Sanders wins.  If Trump isn't the GOP candidate then they probably maintain their majorities in Congress.  They don't let Sanders do anything, but he consistently calls them out on it.  Given Sanders' upset victory, there's a chance the DNC will start to get behind him for fear of being replaced with more progressive candidates, and if the message coheres then he might get a more sympathetic Congress after people are sick enough of their do-nothing reps to stay home and let the Dems win the following election.

If Trump IS the nominee, Sanders gets his sympathetic congress sooner.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on March 14, 2016, 04:18:24 PM
Sanders. As with DW I'd rather fight for a good candidate and potentially lose than to settle for a candidate I hate with a slightly higher chance of 'winning.' What, exactly, would I be winning? A vote is power, and voting for status quo is not only sanctioning but empowering the status quo. Not for me. Incidentally I think Sanders would have a better shot against Trump than Hillary would. The best anti-Trump is the candidate who actually is the anti-Trump.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: LetterRip on March 14, 2016, 05:26:35 PM
Sanders,

for the reasons others have given.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: JoshCrow on March 14, 2016, 05:41:09 PM
Sanders as well.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Seriati on March 14, 2016, 06:35:10 PM
Undecided, but I'd be shocked if I didn't vote for the Republican (only a possibility if Sanders is the nominee, I don't agree with anything he says, but he seems like the most respectable candidate left on either stage).
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Greg Davidson on March 14, 2016, 07:20:31 PM
Sanders if he had a better or equal chance of defeating the Republican (and 3rd party nominee, if any).
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on March 14, 2016, 07:29:51 PM
Sanders if he had a better or equal chance of defeating the Republican (and 3rd party nominee, if any).

Out of curiosity, what will settle this "if" for you? I know you like numerical analysis, but what kinds of metrics could quantify such a thing this early in the election cycle?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: LetterRip on March 14, 2016, 09:18:06 PM
If Kasich is nominated for the Republicans and Clinton for the Democrats - I'd seriously consider voting for Kasich.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Greg Davidson on March 14, 2016, 11:38:45 PM
Quote
Out of curiosity, what will settle this "if" for you? I know you like numerical analysis, but what kinds of metrics could quantify such a thing this early in the election cycle?

I don't know how I will vote when the election gets around to California. I never would have thought that someone as left-wing as Sanders had a chance, but if Trump is the Republican I think that factors other than policy might drive the election and that Sanders could suffer a great deal of smearing and still squeek out a win.  I don't think that he would be able to get much done in terms of his agenda, but I'd bet that a Sanders win on election day would suddenly have Republicans in Congress cut a bunch of deals with Obama
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: JoshuaD on March 15, 2016, 06:43:58 AM
Of the four, I'd pick Senator Sanders.

It bothers me that he doesn't have a Federalist bone in his body, but he's a good man and a bright man. I disagree with him on some issues, but I like him and trust him more than any of the other three.

I still have to take a closer look at Senator Cruz. There are things I like about him, but there are a lot of things I don't like either.

Under no circumstance would I vote for either Secretary Clinton or Mr. Trump.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: msquared on March 15, 2016, 08:55:13 AM
If Kasich had a larger lead in today primary, I would vote for Bernie to give him an edge over Hillary.  However, I want to make sure Trump does not win, so Kasich.  Even my wife, who has voted democrat for the past 20 years, is going to vote for Kasich so that Trump does not win.

In the general, I am not sure.    I might vote for Bernie, for the reasons listed above, but that would depend on who the Republican candidate is.

msquared
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDrake on March 15, 2016, 01:17:22 PM
These guys are still running (http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-presidential-debate-to-air-on-stossel-show-in-april) as libertarian party candidates, I'll probably vote for whoever wins. That's assuming that I vote at all. I'm changing states and I may be lax about my new registration.

If I were to choose from amongst the Republicans and Democrats, my list would go Sanders-Rubio-Clinton-Cruz-Trump.

I could not see giving Clinton, Cruz, or Trump my vote under any circumstances.

Sanders has integrity that the others lack, in my opinion. He isn't afraid to tell a truth that he knows some people won't like. I dislike his economic policy, particularly that against free trade. I'm not a fan of the "free college for everyone" plan. I like his defence of American privacy, emphasis on diplomacy rather than military action, and support for infrastructure spending. I like his plan to tax speculators engaging in high frequency computer trading, which I think does nothing to advance economic goals, sound investing, and adds risk of flash-crash instability.

I also kind of prefer that no one major party get control of the house, senate, and executive simultaneously.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: JoshuaD on March 15, 2016, 04:27:22 PM
It's amazing to me how wide of an appeal Sanders has.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 15, 2016, 04:52:05 PM
To be fair, Trump has also raised a widespread and unified response.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: JoshuaD on March 15, 2016, 07:33:53 PM
That's not my experience. All of the people I know who like Trump fall into the same basic category: White Republicans who haven't spent much time studying politics, often in the lower or lower-middle class.

I understand there are others out there, but I think the vast majority of his supporters are in that category.

On the other hand, I see Senator Sanders pulling from those who are typically left-leaning (scifi, Josh, LR) and from those who are typically right leaning (myself, msquared, Pete, Fenring).

Although, my biggest shock is that you (AI Wessex) support Secretary Clinton. I would've bet a good amount of money on you being for Sanders.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDrake on March 15, 2016, 09:06:06 PM
Trump just won Florida (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/exit-poll-gop-unhappy-dems-sanders-clinton-37672334) with 4 out of 10 of those with a college degree. In NH (http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/nh/Rep) Trump had far and away more college grads than any other candidate and again about 40% of the total.

By contrast, he won 47% of people who didn't finish high school. Looks to me like a relatively minor skew. I think people who get interviewed about supporting him skew about 90%, however.

If you look at data by income, its also not very dramatic. In Florida, he pulled 46% of people making over 100k. Against 58% of under 50k. Trump also polls relatively high with Independents.

Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Gaoics79 on March 15, 2016, 09:08:21 PM
I don't usually care about a politician's personal characteristics, but Sanders comes across as just so damned honourable and sincere, it's hard not to want to see him succeed. I say that as someone who probably would disagree with 3/4 of his policies.

I'd also enjoy watching Trump win, partly for spite (his most vehement detractors are more detestable than he is) and partly out of sheer curiosity. Not overly noble motives, I'll concede.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: JoshuaD on March 15, 2016, 09:24:43 PM
Sad day as far as I'm concerned. The two people who did well are the two people I like least. :(
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 15, 2016, 10:22:01 PM
Quote
That's not my experience. All of the people I know who like Trump fall into the same basic category: White Republicans who haven't spent much time studying politics, often in the lower or lower-middle class.
That was a joke.  He's managed to get most of the Tea Party aligned with Conservatives against him, not to mention all bloggers with at least a high school education.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pete at Home on March 16, 2016, 12:42:09 AM
That's not my experience. All of the people I know who like Trump fall into the same basic category: White Republicans who haven't spent much time studying politics, often in the lower or lower-middle class.

I understand there are others out there, but I think the vast majority of his supporters are in that category.

On the other hand, I see Senator Sanders pulling from those who are typically left-leaning (scifi, Josh, LR) and from those who are typically right leaning (myself, msquared, Pete, Fenring).

Although, my biggest shock is that you (AI Wessex) support Secretary Clinton. I would've bet a good amount of money on you being for Sanders.

Doesn't surprise me that Al or Greg D supports Hillary.  I reckon Tom D would as well, and I will be very surprised if Pyr sticks with Sanders; he has Clinton writ all over him.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: JoshuaD on March 16, 2016, 02:37:35 AM
Quote
That's not my experience. All of the people I know who like Trump fall into the same basic category: White Republicans who haven't spent much time studying politics, often in the lower or lower-middle class.
That was a joke.  He's managed to get most of the Tea Party aligned with Conservatives against him, not to mention all bloggers with at least a high school education.

I do continue to be surprised at how much support he gathers.

He seems to be swinging to the middle now. It looks like he secured the crazy right as good as he can, so he's working on the middle.

It's scary how effective he is. He's very good at what he's doing.

I don't believe the rhetoric we've seen from him shows us the real man, which would normally comfort me a little. But everything I've seen from him belies a complete lack of a moral compass. I don't think the man we're seeing is what we'll get, but I don't think what's actually back there is much better.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 16, 2016, 12:28:27 PM
Doesn't surprise me that Al or Greg D supports Hillary.  I reckon Tom D would as well, and I will be very surprised if Pyr sticks with Sanders; he has Clinton writ all over him.
As in you're suggesting that I should write him in in the general and let Trumop take it to prove that I'm not defecting to Clinton?

I mean, I think Trump's narcissism and desire to be seen as the best there ever was will actually pull him back from the cliff that he's currently dancing on to take advantage of the divisiveness the GOP has trained its base to respond to, which puts him a little over Cruz who is a a true believer in it, but I'm not going to throw the election to him by voting Sanders or (at that point, Stein who at least will be on the ballot) in the general. The places where Sanders and I disagree put him closer to Clinton than me, I'm not going to go around him in the primary for a less desirable match or one that's far more vulnerable to Trump's game once he flips his campaign to recruit as many orphaned Sanders supporters as possible.

Unless he's actually out to throw the campaign to Clinton, he's well positioned to eat her lunch. She just looks safe because the media can't quite zoom out enough to pat attention to his strategy rather than the tactics he's applying when his targets are limited to the GOP base that's been pre-conditioned for decades to respond to his current show of authoritarianism.

Sanders can beat him at his own game, Clinton will be in trouble, never mind that she's far too conservative to do anything but mostly hold the line as she currently presents herself.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 16, 2016, 12:30:42 PM
I don't believe the rhetoric we've seen from him shows us the real man, which would normally comfort me a little. But everything I've seen from him belies a complete lack of a moral compass. I don't think the man we're seeing is what we'll get, but I don't think what's actually back there is much better.
Yeah, exactly. He's a genius at manipulation to the point of perhaps being a complete sociopath. It's frightening for reasons completely different than the act he's putting on. The main thing frightening about that is how well conditioned his audience is to respond to it.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on March 16, 2016, 12:46:55 PM
Pyr, I was about to "like" your penultimate post but realized I was confused about your meaning. First you say you won't throw the election to Trump by voting for Sanders (or Stein) in the general, and later say that Sanders can beat Trump at his own game while Hillary would be in trouble against him. Can you clarify?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 16, 2016, 12:53:13 PM
Pyr, I was about to "like" your penultimate post but realized I was confused about your meaning. First you say you won't throw the election to Trump by voting for Sanders (or Stein) in the general, and later say that Sanders can beat Trump at his own game while Hillary would be in trouble against him. Can you clarify?
I won't throw it by _writing in_ Sanders in the general if Clinton is the Democratic nominee. (Something that I've seen people starting to advocate) I'll vote for Sanders in the Primary and pull for him to win to the extent of my ability to do so. But if Clinton takes it, even only because of superdelegate manipulation, then I'll vote for her in the general if that's what it takes to keep Trump from landing the job. I disagree with Clinton, but at least I know where she stands, I'm not willing to bet on a complete wildcard taht is nakedly only playing the game for self-aggrandizement.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: NobleHunter on March 16, 2016, 02:32:17 PM
I have a weird bubble effect going with Sanders. Almost everyone I see online seems to be supporting him and I don't think I've really seen anyone come out in full unequivocal support for Clinton, but she's winning pretty solidly. She must be doing better in the non-social media demographics but it looks really weird.

I had a stray thought that posited Clinton as the Establishment-Trump but I can't quite re-construct why I though that was clever.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 16, 2016, 02:44:48 PM
Social media gives the illusion of a wide field of people, but it's really a vary narrow and pretty biased sample. It's hard to get that because it's hard for us to really grasp just how many other people there really are out there.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: NobleHunter on March 16, 2016, 02:48:00 PM
Prolly doesn't help that my feeds are white af. And any non-white people are way left wing.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: JoshuaD on March 16, 2016, 02:51:10 PM
I have a weird bubble effect going with Sanders. Almost everyone I see online seems to be supporting him and I don't think I've really seen anyone come out in full unequivocal support for Clinton, but she's winning pretty solidly. She must be doing better in the non-social media demographics but it looks really weird.

I have the same bubble effect. I literally don't have one person in my facebook feed supporting Clinton. I think it's, in big part, an age thing.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on March 16, 2016, 02:54:41 PM
I have a weird bubble effect going with Sanders. Almost everyone I see online seems to be supporting him and I don't think I've really seen anyone come out in full unequivocal support for Clinton, but she's winning pretty solidly. She must be doing better in the non-social media demographics but it looks really weird.

Clinton does well in certain demographics, none of which include young people. The online community skews towards younger ages hence why Sanders has overwhelming online support. Also worth noting is that a vote is an unqualified statement and does not brook detail. For instance, it would easily be possible for Sanders to be the more popular candidate and yet lose, since many people are hoodwinked by the media's claims that Sanders can't win. People believe that 'wasting' a vote on a losing candidate is a mistake, and if enough people are made to believe this it (strategically) becomes true. That's what we call magick with a k.

Another detail missing in a vote is how much the voter supports that candidate. Let's say, for instance, instead of a vote each voter simply scored a candidate on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, and the winner was the person with the most points. The winner in such a contest might not be the winner in a "one vote" system where not voting for the other person gives them zero points. To date I've never met a staunch Hillary supporter, although I'm sure there are some out there. But for the sake of argument let's say that someone voting for her would give her a 5/10, and Bernie 3/10; and now let's say 10 people vote like this. Then let's say 8 people vote with 10/10 for Bernie and 1/10 for Clinton. Clinton wins the one-vote game, and Bernie by far wins the points game here, making him in a casual conversational sense the more popular candidate even though he loses in the current system. And I do, in fact, think this is the case, since many Bernie supporters tend to really believe in him and would love to see him govern, while Hillary supporters are no doubt distributed among those who outright support her, those who dislike her but see her as the best option, and those who feel they have no choice because to do otherwise risks a GOP presidency.

I also expect there is some amount of the standard election fraud going on (vote rigging and so forth), since I consider this to now be a standard practice wherever voting machines are used. Testimony before the senate made it clear that this is quite easy to accomplish and can't really be traced, and almost implied that it happens and there's nothing you can do about it.

Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Gaoics79 on March 16, 2016, 07:59:11 PM
Can we suck out Sanders' soul a la Shang Tsung and transplant it into Hillary's body? That would seem the ideal solution to the problem.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pete at Home on March 16, 2016, 08:12:45 PM
Doesn't surprise me that Al or Greg D supports Hillary.  I reckon Tom D would as well, and I will be very surprised if Pyr sticks with Sanders; he has Clinton writ all over him.
As in you're suggesting that I should write him in in the general

No, that's not what I'm suggesting that you do. What I said was something else entirely, and not any suggestion of how you should vote.  While there are things you say and do that I will never respect, I do fully respect (*censored*, man sometimes I outright ADMIRE you when you're consistent and honest about a controversial position where you have no allies at all!)  that your politics is different than mine.   What I meant was that I'd be surprised if you voted Sanders over Hillary in a primary, given how you fawned over the mobbers who gracelessly cornholed Sanders in on national television.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Greg Davidson on March 17, 2016, 12:21:22 AM
Quote
Doesn't surprise me that Al or Greg D supports Hillary

Pete, if you saw my post above, I did not say that I supported Hillary. I still am not certain who I will vote for. I have spent a lot of time defending Clinton, because she has be subject to far more unjustified attacks than Sanders
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 17, 2016, 01:08:00 AM
Quote
What I meant was that I'd be surprised if you voted Sanders over Hillary in a primary, given how you fawned over the mobbers who gracelessly cornholed Sanders in on national television.
You never give up making gratuitous insults and crude comments as if those things somehow enhance your status as a deep thinker.  In fact, as other posters have also pointed out, you're becoming a distraction, even an embarrassment.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: OrneryMod on March 17, 2016, 01:24:12 AM
AI and Pete: Stop it.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 17, 2016, 11:36:02 AM
   What I meant was that I'd be surprised if you voted Sanders over Hillary in a primary, given how you fawned over the mobbers who gracelessly cornholed Sanders in on national television.
Except I'm not. I'm just not willing to judge and castigate them the way you are. There's a wide middle ground between fawning over someone and vilifying them. I refuse to vilify and try to put in the effort needed to understand the wider context of things that I might, in the immediate moment, find distasteful, no matter how abusive you get in your seeming insistence that everyone must be completely with you or completely against you.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Gary238 on March 17, 2016, 05:01:30 PM
Sanders. He has a rare sincerity, and is really pushing for a government that serves it's people. Doesn't hurt that I agree with a lot of his proposed policy, but that's actually secondary to my evaluation of his character.
I want to know who the running mates are, though, because I fear that any effective agent of change might be at real risk of assassination.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 17, 2016, 05:07:19 PM
I'm not as interested in the VPs as I am in who their staff/cabinet will be in areas that they're weaker. Who will Sanders look to for Sec of State, who will Clinton favor for the Treasury, Comptroller of hte Currency, SEC, etc...

Some sign that Trump's cabinet isn't going to be a room full of severed heads of his opponents that he turns to for advice when talking to himself doesn't get him anywhere...
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on March 17, 2016, 05:27:06 PM
Some sign that Trump's cabinet isn't going to be a room full of severed heads of his opponents that he turns to for advice when talking to himself doesn't get him anywhere...

You're not by any chance a Babylon 5 fan, are you? :)
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 17, 2016, 05:34:22 PM
Seems as amusing a parallel as any ;).
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Wayward Son on March 17, 2016, 05:39:50 PM
Sounds more like The Walking Dead to me.  ("Hey, gov'nor, whacha got in your back room there?" :) )
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pete at Home on March 17, 2016, 05:49:53 PM
   What I meant was that I'd be surprised if you voted Sanders over Hillary in a primary, given how you fawned over the mobbers who gracelessly cornholed Sanders in on national television.
Except I'm not. I'm just not willing to judge and castigate them the way you are. There's a wide middle ground between fawning over someone and vilifying them..

I absolutely agree. Most ornerians fall into that middle ground.  You do not, since you actually did fawn over her.  But that's an argument for another thread. You asked what i meant and as usual cast me as having some hateful reasoning, so i set the record straiight.  I dont expect you to write sanders in.  I just dont expect you to vote him over hillary.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 17, 2016, 06:05:24 PM
Caligula and his horse come to mind for me.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 17, 2016, 06:06:33 PM
Sounds more like The Walking Dead to me.  ("Hey, gov'nor, whacha got in your back room there?" :) )
There was an explicit scene in B5 where the Emperor of one of the races went into his "council chamber" which was a room with the heads of all of his advisors that he'd executed for displeasing him.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pete at Home on March 17, 2016, 06:15:37 PM
For those who care for actual historical reference, idi amin dada kept his enemies heads in his refrigerator and would take the mout for a chat now and then.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Wayward Son on March 17, 2016, 06:36:19 PM
Sounds more like The Walking Dead to me.  ("Hey, gov'nor, whacha got in your back room there?" :) )
There was an explicit scene in B5 where the Emperor of one of the races went into his "council chamber" which was a room with the heads of all of his advisors that he'd executed for displeasing him.

OK, that beats out Dead, where the Governor simply had a collection of zombie heads in fish tanks, snapping at him when he wanted to think. :)
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: JoshuaD on March 18, 2016, 12:44:21 AM
I don't know how he did, but Senator Sanders won me over. I went from probably not voting to actively supporting the guy in the past few weeks.

His personal virtues did a lot for me. He and I have some pretty different ideas about what the government should be, but I just really like him. He's that guy who shouldn't have gotten this far. I'd like to see him go all the way, and I'd be willing to vote for him.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: DJQuag on March 18, 2016, 06:18:52 AM
This is an interesting piece on how the NYT being pretty obvious in their Clinton bias. It also puts lie to the narrative that Sanders is too extreme to get anything done with the opposition.

He's principled, honorable, and hasn't been paid off. He is by far the best candidate, and it says a lot about the political climate when Hillary Clinton is the second best option available.

ETA - Forgot the link. 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-20160315?page=2
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 18, 2016, 08:01:01 AM
You raise a fair point about bias in covering "fringe" candidates, which the Times has been very slow to get past with Sanders.  He's a mainstream candidate now who has to be taken seriously, with a clear and strong voice that is influencing Clinton's policy statements to reflect his, while at the same time she hasn't had nearly as much impact on his.  The Times editorial watchdog (Margaret Sullivan) agrees that the unusually significant changes to the original article's content and positive tone caused the revised article to reflect the Times editorial view, which has been less flattering.

I read the article you linked to and all of the articles it links to, as well.  I also agree that the Times introduced a point of view (which they're entitled to do), but there is one section in the original Steinhauer article that is consistent with the Times overall editorial perspective that is overlooked in the discussion:

Quote
Big legislation largely eludes Mr. Sanders because his ideas are usually far to the left of the majority of the Senate — from his notions about bank regulations, to the increase he seeks to the minimum wage, to his repeated attempts to get the federal government in the business of providing rebates for the purchase and installation of solar heating systems.

But from his days in the House, where he served from 1991 to 2007, and into his Senate career, Mr. Sanders has largely found ways to press his agenda through appending small provisions to the larger bills of others.

To paraphrase, he operates (and succeeds) at the margins because his larger ideas are not consistent with either Party's agenda.  You could argue that he has been effective, but you can also argue that while his changes have in some cases had a significant impact on legislation, he has not been a leader on program or policy development in either the House or Senate.  The changes made to the article put more emphasis on this aspect of his legislative history, which if heightening the Times editorial point of view, is not inaccurate.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 18, 2016, 08:19:30 AM
Quote
Mr. Sanders has largely found ways to press his agenda through appending small provisions to the larger bills of others.
This is an interesting statement if you think about what the nominal responsibilities of the President in respect to Congress are. He doesn't set the legislative agenda or write the bills, but to the extent that he needs to approve to get them fully passed, that's a good level to operate at.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 18, 2016, 08:35:01 AM
That sets a low bar that every modern President has far surpassed or failed to succeed against.  The legacy of a President is not on how well s/he applies fit and finish, but on their domestic and international policy objectives (sometimes collectively called the eponymous "X Doctrine") and achievements.  Obama and Clinton are two recent officeholders who will be remembered for how stridently Congress tried to usurp that sense of initiative.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 18, 2016, 08:55:10 AM
There are more than one bar. This is specific to going about those higher goals in regard to interactions with Congress, not the whole picture. Specifically just the bar for "Can the President get what's needed from Congress?", not the entirety of "Can the President accomplish major policy goals?"

A president who is consistently able to get things they want into legislation by making deals and accepting a few things they don't like but can work around can easily be more effective than one who can't penetrate Congressional deadlock and has to invest a lot of time and energy in constant battles of will.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 18, 2016, 09:23:13 AM
We can go round and round finding examples of great successes of Presidents with aggressive agendas (FDR) and those with great failures (Nixon, Bush II) and sometimes both (LBJ).  There are also successful accommodating Presidents (Clinton) and those who don't stand out (Ford).  Carter is interesting because he has come to be considered a failure because he didn't put forward a major agenda and bad things happened on his watch that were not within his ability to control.  So, there's some of each, both and neither.

I would rather go for a President who has the right ideas (Bernie) and can get things done (Hillary), but no one in this year's race measures up all on their own.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: DJQuag on March 18, 2016, 09:45:32 AM
I wouldn't say Bush the 2nd was ineffective at getting his agenda accomplished. Didn't he largely get what he wanted in the first six years? The only major defeat I remember was over social security privitization.

And I still think you're overstating the difference in their abilities to work with Congress.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 18, 2016, 09:58:56 AM
By "accomplished", I meant to include if their policies were failures.  Bush II left us with Iraq, Afghanistan and the so-called Great Recession.  That's quite a legacy.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 18, 2016, 10:58:33 AM
I would rather go for a President who has the right ideas (Bernie) and can get things done (Hillary), but no one in this year's race measures up all on their own.
And the point made above is that the evidence shows taht, in his own way, Bernie does have a track record of getting things done. It's a very subtle track record, because he doesn't fuss about having his name on the top line, but he actually has shown himself quite capable in a way that's very compatible with the President's nominal power in relationship to Congress. It's a difference of style, not necessarily capability.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on March 18, 2016, 11:18:10 AM
We've been round this bend before, and I don't think anything in the universe would sway Al from his belief that Bernie 'can't get things done.' I just read an article yesterday, which for the life of me I can't find right now, that he has a reputation in the senate as being the "amendment king." Here's another article on the subject, albeit not as good as the other one I read:

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you

Instead of trying to bully in bills of his own he uses a bipartisan approach to try to modify existing bills to make them more progressive and add in items that will further his causes. In other words, he believes fundamentally in compromise rather than in trying to win. His reputation as 'amendment king' is that of someone more successful than any other senator in furthering the causes he believes in without making it 'political' or all about him. To me this is a far more important characteristic for a President to have than would be a glory hound or someone who regularly locks horns with the other side. Bernie's relationship with the GOP is basically the opposite of Hillary's; he's that reasonable, friendly guy who they can work with sometimes, and she's their arch-nemesis and devil who they will go down fighting rather than agree to anything she says. Many GOP senators even remark at their liking for Sanders in a personal sense; a testament to the fact that you can be a decent guy and still work in Washington.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: DJQuag on March 18, 2016, 11:21:20 AM
Quote
with a clear and strong voice that is influencing Clinton's policy statements to reflect his

https://youtu.be/O3iBb1gvehI

SFW
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 18, 2016, 12:22:42 PM
Quote
Instead of trying to bully in bills of his own he uses a bipartisan approach to try to modify existing bills to make them more progressive and add in items that will further his causes. In other words, he believes fundamentally in compromise rather than in trying to win.
How does that square with his platform that calls for radical change?

DJQuag, yes, she feels the Bern!
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: DJQuag on March 18, 2016, 12:30:23 PM
Because he's been very vocal about his stances and beliefs, and they haven't changed even whilst he's been compromising. He's very capable of compromising, while also using the soapbox of the presidency to call his opponents out and advance his ideas to the public.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on March 18, 2016, 02:55:20 PM
Quote
In other words, he believes fundamentally in compromise rather than in trying to win.
How does that square with his platform that calls for radical change?

That is his personal belief, and also what he thinks is the personal belief of many Americans. He wants people to stand up and fight for what they believe in, which in turn has no bearing on whether he's able to compromise or not. Do you really not understand something about this or are you just stonewalling?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 18, 2016, 03:01:46 PM
Quote
In other words, he believes fundamentally in compromise rather than in trying to win.
How does that square with his platform that calls for radical change?

That is his personal belief, and also what he thinks is the personal belief of many Americans. He wants people to stand up and fight for what they believe in, which in turn has no bearing on whether he's able to compromise or not. Do you really not understand something about this or are you just stonewalling?
That makes no sense to me for a candidate, who has to offer clear policy objectives and plans. If he were running for the Office of Motivational Speaker, perhaps...
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on March 18, 2016, 03:09:35 PM
That makes no sense to me

Gee, what a surprise :p
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pete at Home on March 18, 2016, 03:18:10 PM
Quote
In other words, he believes fundamentally in compromise rather than in trying to win.
How does that square with his platform that calls for radical change?

That is his personal belief, and also what he thinks is the personal belief of many Americans. He wants people to stand up and fight for what they believe in, which in turn has no bearing on whether he's able to compromise or not. Do you really not understand something about this or are you just stonewalling?
That makes no sense to me for a candidate, who has to offer clear policy objectives and plans. If he were running for the Office of Motivational Speaker, perhaps...

Facepalm.

It's the most powerful and most honest use of the executive.  You compromise on what you sign, but appeal directly to The People to put pressure on their reps.  You use the bully pulpit to expose the workings of every back room deal.  It's the only honest and effective way to fight against contributor back door oligarchy.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pete at Home on March 18, 2016, 03:21:08 PM
I would rather go for a President who has the right ideas (Bernie) and can get things done (Hillary), but no one in this year's race measures up all on their own.
And the point made above is that the evidence shows taht, in his own way, Bernie does have a track record of getting things done. It's a very subtle track record, because he doesn't fuss about having his name on the top line, but he actually has shown himself quite capable in a way that's very compatible with the President's nominal power in relationship to Congress. It's a difference of style, not necessarily capability.

Interesting. Thanks. 
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 18, 2016, 03:33:52 PM
Quote
It's the most powerful and most honest use of the executive.
I don't hear Bernie talking about compromises or incremental progress, so would you expect that a reluctant Congress would hope to mollify him with amendments?  A major component of "liberal disappointment" with Obama is that he accomplished so much less than he promised.  Granted Trump's never held office, but then why take what he says seriously?  He could "work around the edges" and not call for sweeping changes once he's in office. 

I'm surprised that people here who like Bernie so much for his boldness appear to be willing to take less and say they will still be satisfied. Would you be happy if Sanders accomplished as much in office as Clinton claims she wants to do?  If her goals are more modest, mightn't she do more than she promises and exceed expectations? 

Does it really matter which one is elected, in that case?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 18, 2016, 03:38:59 PM
A lot of small changes stacked on top of each other can easily add up to a few large changes that never actually happen.

And you're confusing scope of ultimate vision with strategy to implement that vision. How does one eat an elephant? One bite at a time. Clinton may be promising to swallow a turkey whole, but the elephant is, once finished, a much larger goal to reach.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on March 18, 2016, 03:40:23 PM
Quote
It's the most powerful and most honest use of the executive.
I don't hear Bernie talking about compromises or incremental progress, so would you expect that a reluctant Congress would hope to mollify him with amendments? 

Are you joking? This is a Presidential campaign and he's trying to rile people up and get them excited. If you think that can be done without going for broke with your beliefs then I don't know what you think a campaign should look like.

The idealist in me still hopes for Bernie to win, but the comedian in me is hoping that Hillary will beat him so that you can enjoy four years of a Trump presidency. No matter what he does in office I promise you I'll look back at this with some sense of satisfaction.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 18, 2016, 03:48:37 PM
Quote
Are you joking?
Let me repeat the obvious in the form of a question.  Why are liberals who enthusiastically supported Obama in his first election dissatisfied with him now?

Quote
And you're confusing scope of ultimate vision with strategy to implement that vision.
Mebbe, mebbe not.  You can't fight a war one soldier at a time.  Sanders initiatives are far larger than an elephant, and somewhat less than a war.  Which of those analogies will apply to him will depend on how much he actually tries to achieve in office.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: JoshuaD on March 18, 2016, 03:58:04 PM
Quote
Ai:Why are liberals who enthusiastically supported Obama in his first election dissatisfied with him now?

As an aside, Bernie's got much wider across-the-aisle appeal. Look at the moderate conservatives you've got lined up in this thread saying "Yea, I like Bernie."

There's no chance I vote for Clinton. But Bernie's got me sold.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on March 18, 2016, 04:00:28 PM
Why are liberals who enthusiastically supported Obama in his first election dissatisfied with him now?

By posing this question you are implicitly stating that Obama shouldn't be blamed for any lack of success he encountered in his Presidency, which by corollary I assume you want to lay at the feet of the GOP. Your point, I take it, is that Sanders couldn't do any better than Obama did so what's the difference. This is a much more complex question than can be fielded here, but in short it depends on information we don't have. It depends heavily on to what extent Obama always was a company man, versus having had a real vision and then once in office having been instructed by the powers that be that he'd better play ball or else. I can't say I know which is more true, or if it's a blend. My instinct tells me it's a little of both but I can't be sure.

To whatever extent it was the system at fault (and I would put it that way rather than blame the GOP, who are merely agents of the system) the only cure is raising public awareness not to put up with it. There are certain kinds of changes you can't really make from within while the people think there's nothing wrong going on. With pressure for change coming from local constituencies things start to happen, even if slowly. But being quiet about it publicly while trying to wage a battle against the system from within (or against the other party) is a losing game since the entrenched power structure will always beat you in this kind of game.

The Occupy movement was a good sign, and Sanders picked up that torch successfully. Maybe if Obama had only come along now he could have done the same; I don't know. But there is a right time and place for things and if Obama came at the wrong time to make positive change then I can't blame him for that. But that doesn't mean I have to accept your implicit defeatism and say that because one guy couldn't do it no one can.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pete at Home on March 18, 2016, 04:05:54 PM
"Let me repeat the obvious in the form of a question.  Why are liberals who enthusiastically supported Obama in his first election dissatisfied with him now?"

Because he didnt make us take a loyalty oath to him, maybe?  ::P. Look, different people have different motives and expectations.  Obama wasnt worse than the Bishes or Clinton.  But Sanders acctually gives me hope.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 18, 2016, 04:33:02 PM
Quote
By posing this question you are implicitly stating that Obama shouldn't be blamed for any lack of success he encountered in his Presidency, which by corollary I assume you want to lay at the feet of the GOP.
Answer the question without somehow making it about me asking it.
Quote
Your point, I take it
I didn't make a point, so don't make one for me just to quibble with it.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Seriati on March 18, 2016, 04:48:26 PM
Quote
Are you joking?
Let me repeat the obvious in the form of a question.  Why are liberals who enthusiastically supported Obama in his first election dissatisfied with him now?
Because they've always been unrealistic in their expectations.  They represent a minority of the voting populace, which means a majority of the government is made up of people who don't share their views.  Couple that with their absolute conviction that any negative results of any policy they favor must only be attributable to either "obstructionism" or "not going far enough" and your in a situation where anything less than a full out win is an unbelievable failure, and anything that goes wrong is proof of an unbelievable failure or the inadvisability of "compromises" or "concessions" to the other side, which obviously caused the failure, and you're left with perpetually dissatisfied liberals even after the most liberal President in forty years.

I've rethought it, I can't vote for Sanders, but the difference is I can respect him.  I firmly believe that even if elected, he won't be able to get any grand sweeping changes through Congress, but it's very possible he could cut deals where he gets more of what he wants than I'd like, but gives his opponents more of what they want than he'd like (something the current President won't do).
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 18, 2016, 04:52:56 PM
Let me repeat the obvious in the form of a question.  Why are liberals who enthusiastically supported Obama in his first election dissatisfied with him now?

Because his negotiation strategy failed, and he didn't shift it well enough or use the tools that he had at his disposal well enough to make as much progress as people would have like to see. Clinton may absolutely be more willing to apply those tools forcefully, but Sanders offers a proven track record of applying them with finesse and actually accomplishing a lot against odds taht seemed stacked against him.

Clinton may be able to pull off a few big upsets, but that needs to be weighed against Sanders being able to score a mountain of small victories that amount to much more meaningful change, and that's without getting into the difference in potential coattails so far as setting how favorable the congress he needs to deal with is.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 18, 2016, 05:00:32 PM
Quote
Clinton may be able to pull off a few big upsets, but that needs to be weighed against Sanders being able to score a mountain of small victories that amount to much more meaningful change, and that's without getting into the difference in potential coattails so far as setting how favorable the congress he needs to deal with is.
If Sanders is the nominee and is elected, if he does this I would take it as a big win.  So, I'm back to being ok if it's either Clinton or Sanders, and for once I'm pretty confident I'll be right this time.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 20, 2016, 12:03:34 PM
So, we're veering ever more deeply into la-la land for this election.  This article in the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html?emc=edit_th_20160320&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=869778&_r=0) describes the feverish behind the scenes efforts in the GOP to deny Trump the nomination.  It makes no sense for them to field an independent candidate if Trump ends up the nominee if they want to win the election outright.  Even though it's not stated, the only way for the GOP establishment to get what it wants is for the election to get thrown to the House because no candidate received the necessary number of electoral votes.  To do that, they would have to deny Clinton a plurality in enough states, but even that seems a bit far-fetched since she would get all of the Democratic Party votes but Trump and the as-yet-unknown 3rd candidate would split the Republican vote.  Strange times, strange times...
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Gary238 on March 20, 2016, 04:46:49 PM
Really are strange times. It rubs me the wrong way when the losing team scrambles to change the rules, but I gess that's always been part of the game.
I'd love to see a four way Sanders, Clinton, Trump, Whoever general election.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 20, 2016, 05:18:29 PM
The rules changes are usually initiated by the candidate leading with the most delegates. In 2012 Romney's team used that to create the rule requiring candidates on the 2nd ballot to have won the majority of delegates in at least 8 caucuses or primaries.  That won't work this year to unseat Trump given that Cruz may not reach that threshold due to Kasich drawing delegates from both of the others.  So, Trump may not have the necessary number to win on the first ballot and the "GOP establishment" will have to rig the rules committee to deny him the easy path on the second ballot.  We also have to keep in mind that the delegates awarded in Colorado, Pennsylvania and a few other states are not committed and in theory can vote for anybody even on the first ballot.  That means that even if Trump has the votes, he may still not get the nomination.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: NobleHunter on March 20, 2016, 05:38:59 PM
Really are strange times. It rubs me the wrong way when the losing team scrambles to change the rules, but I gess that's always been part of the game.
I'd love to see a four way Sanders, Clinton, Trump, Whoever general election.
That'd look a lot like a Canadian election, well one from the '90s (NPD, Liberal, Alliance, PC, respectively). I don't think the Electoral College is set up to get along with that many choices.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: DJQuag on March 28, 2016, 04:26:59 PM
So Clinton's spokesperson has said that she is refusing to do anymore debates with Sanders because he has been too "negative."

I'm not surprised she's scared. Sanders would run rings around her.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: D.W. on March 28, 2016, 04:42:40 PM
Not sure about running rings around her, but it would defiantly give him much needed exposure.  It does work to the Clinton campaign's advantage to ignore him and hope he goes away.  Beat the drum that the contest is already over and he's a distraction.  She has zero to gain no matter how well she performs in a debate against him.  The level of blunder he would have to make for her to come out ahead would have to be ridiculous, even by the standard of this primary season's antics.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: LetterRip on March 28, 2016, 09:51:46 PM
This seems like it would be ripe for mocking.  If she can't handle the absolute kid gloves that Bernie has treated her with, what will she do against a opponent who doesn't take pains to be nice to her.

If I were his campaign manager I'd get cartoons about cowardice circulating ('If you can't handle little ol Bernie, how will you be able to win against mean ol' Trump) on the internet to mock her with and embarrass her into doing a debate.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on March 28, 2016, 10:31:05 PM
Unfortunately, LR, the same reason Hillary is a liar is the reason Bernie won't do that. He has refused at every opportunity to engage her negatively, and now that she's calling bully on him it will go unanswered. Maybe that's for the best.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: scifibum on March 28, 2016, 10:32:03 PM
That sort of mockery would be a little ironic.  He can call her out, but he needs to do it respectfully.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 29, 2016, 05:11:10 AM
I think the explanation may be simpler.  She's ahead with what she hopes is a glide path to the nomination.  Bernie has hard-core support from a segment (big but not as broad as hers), and she doesn't want to give him more public exposure, as it won't help her but could cut into her own support.  Calling him negative is just an excuse, a little unfair, not beanbag, but not out of bounds.  If you don't like Clinton you won't like her less because of this.  If you do like her you'll shrug it off.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: LetterRip on March 29, 2016, 12:44:02 PM
I think she can be called out in a manner that is sufficiently respectful.

'If Hillary Clinton is afraid to debate Sanders in New York, where she was a Senator and has 'home turf advantage', how can we have confidence in her ability to successfully debate with Trump in the primaries?'

AI - I agree that she is hoping for said glide path, and the calling him negative is just an (idiotic) excuse.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: D.W. on March 29, 2016, 01:01:59 PM
Maybe that's not a fair criticism at all.  I mean, are we confident Trump and Hillary (if both the nominees) would ever consent to a debate?  We all assume they will have to, but given this climate?  I'm not sure that's a given.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 29, 2016, 01:26:14 PM
For Trump there are only 3 certainties in life: death, taxes and getting clobbered by Hillary in the general election.  We can be confident that he will lie, cheat and steal his way out of all of them if he can.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on March 29, 2016, 03:01:13 PM
For Trump there are only 3 certainties in life: death, taxes and getting clobbered by Hillary in the general election.  We can be confident that he will lie, cheat and steal his way out of all of them if he can.

I will be sure to remind you of this statement should President Trump ever be sworn in. He is more likely to be defeated by the RNC than by Hillary.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pete at Home on March 29, 2016, 03:25:28 PM
So Clinton's spokesperson has said that she is refusing to do anymore debates with Sanders because he has been too "negative."

What a loser.  *Sanders* is too "negative"?  I'm hard pressed to think of a less negative presidential candidate in the last 30 years.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pete at Home on March 29, 2016, 03:26:47 PM
Really are strange times. It rubs me the wrong way when the losing team scrambles to change the rules, but I gess that's always been part of the game.
I'd love to see a four way Sanders, Clinton, Trump, Whoever general election.

I wish that too, but I don't think Sanders will do that ... he'll honor his new commitment to the DNC, even if they backstab him.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Wayward Son on March 29, 2016, 03:28:48 PM
He is more likely to be defeated by the RNC than by Hillary.

I kinda doubt that, Fenring.

For one, not nominating Trump will cost the Republican Party quite a bit.  It will alienate a large segment of Trump supporters who will feel that the RNC "stole" Trump's nomination, which is a price the RNC may not be willing to pay.

And while  Hillary has a -13 point unfavorability rating among voters (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html), Trump  is posting a -33 point average. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html)  While people hate Hillary, they really hate Trump.

So with the RNC having so much to lose, and Hillary being less unpopular than Trump, I'd say there is a better chance of him being defeated in the general election.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pete at Home on March 29, 2016, 03:35:25 PM
Quote
It's the most powerful and most honest use of the executive.
I don't hear Bernie talking about compromises or incremental progress

He's talked about it, but it's not his focus.  Don't obfuscate it; it's a simple idea.  set your sights high, guide the people towards your goal, and then take whatever steps you can take in that direction.  As opposed to Obama who misleads people about where he's going on SSM.  Compromise isn't the goal, it's the only honest means towards your end.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on March 29, 2016, 04:01:07 PM
For one, not nominating Trump will cost the Republican Party quite a bit.  It will alienate a large segment of Trump supporters who will feel that the RNC "stole" Trump's nomination, which is a price the RNC may not be willing to pay.

Maybe so, WS, we will see. Just remember how consistently wrong people have been about Trump's appeal and his chances from the start until now. Are you so sure you understand how he generates support? if I had told you a year ago that he would personally torpedo Bush's campaign and send it down in flames like the Hindenburg I bet you would have called me crazy. After all, Trump ran before and never achieved much, while Bush had a dynasty behind him. People were all but resigned to a Bush vs. Hillary election before primary campaigns were even announced. I wonder that people whose predictions were that far off before can now feel sure about the outcome.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 29, 2016, 09:05:18 PM
Yes, we can't trust Hillary, so vote for Trump.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on March 29, 2016, 09:32:00 PM
Yes, we can't trust Hillary, so vote for Trump.

You know what? They should be punished for trying to foist Hillary on America. If Trump for 4 years is the way to safeguard against such nonsense in the future (for either party) then actually I am for it.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 30, 2016, 07:38:32 AM
There's never been an election cycle like this before.  The top four candidates are reckless, hated, untrustworthy and a socialist.  One of them will become the leader of the world's largest democracy.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Greg Davidson on March 30, 2016, 10:33:54 AM
You know what I would find interesting? A single debate now between Sanders, Clinton, Trump, Cruz, and Kasich.  As with baseball, an inter-league game (once upon a time, teams from the National League and the American League would never play each other during the regulat season; consider today's standard for political debates to be the same).
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 30, 2016, 11:01:54 AM
You know what I would find interesting? A single debate now between Sanders, Clinton, Trump, Cruz, and Kasich.  As with baseball, an inter-league game (once upon a time, teams from the National League and the American League would never play each other during the regulat season; consider today's standard for political debates to be the same).
With a more normal candidate pool, that might be a good idea, with this group, it might start off interesting, but I could easily see it degenerating into a knife fight between Clinton and Trump (with Cruz "mysteriously" coming out completely maimed from "missed" swings on both sides) while Kasich and Sanders pull off to the side with the moderators and argue policy over shots, eventually promising that if one wins their primary at the other loses, they'll consider putting aside differences to create a fusion ticket that history will never forget.

This isn't to say that it's a bad idea, just to properly set expectations for just how epic to expect it to be.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 30, 2016, 12:20:21 PM
It runs counter to the very idea of having Parties.  We could go full-on originalist and follow the Constitutional requirement that electors don't have to vote for the VP choice of the Party of the Presidential candidate who wins the most (popular) votes in their state.  In other words, voters don't vote for the VP.  There hasn't been that sort of conflict since 1800, but there's no legal provision against a state's electors voting for Hillary and Kasich, or Trump and Ann Coulter, or maybe even Cruz and his mother.  In fact, since voters are actually voting for electors rather than the Presidential candidate, there's not even a legal requirement that Party electors vote for their own Party's candidate, so Trump could win the majority of electoral votes in November and in December the electors could vote for Clinton.  This year is so weird, that I can imagine that happening if I squint hard enough.  You know, even that wouldn't surprise me.

One other fun fact is that the VP is not term limited.  Either Party could select and elect a VP who meets the Constitutional requirement of being 35 years old, and re-elect him/her in every following election until s/he dies or ascends to the Presidency and serves two terms.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Greg Davidson on March 30, 2016, 09:34:25 PM
Quote
One other fun fact is that the VP is not term limited.  Either Party could select and elect a VP who meets the Constitutional requirement of being 35 years old, and re-elect him/her in every following election until s/he dies or ascends to the Presidency and serves two terms.

So Biden is available for whoever wins on the Democratic side...

Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: LetterRip on March 30, 2016, 10:44:51 PM
Wow.... miraculously Clintons paperwork was submitted by the DNC on time, but somehow Sanders wasn't.  It is quite impressive how the party keeps making these mistakes and they always favor Clinton.  I'm sure it is strictly an accident...

Quote
Both the Vermont senator’s team and the campaign of rival Hillary Clinton submitted the required $2,500 registration fee and other paperwork, but the party did not notify the D.C. Board of Elections by a key deadline..

The registration deadline was March 16, but the party did not send the board Mr. Sanders‘ registration information until the 17th, according to the affiliate. As a result of this error, Mr. Sanders‘ eligibility to appear on the ballot is being contested.

Confusion appeared to reign late Wednesday over just what happened and whether it could be fixed.

D.C. Democratic Party Chairwoman Anita Bonds told The Washington Times that the party’s primary plan, which included the paperwork for all candidates, was submitted by 7 p.m. on the 16th. The D.C. Board of Elections offices closes at 4:45 p.m.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/30/bernie-sanders-left-dc-primary-ballot-after-democr/

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-district-columbia-ballot-221398
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on March 30, 2016, 11:01:04 PM
So Biden is available for whoever wins on the Democratic side...

Maybe Al Gore would like another crack at it?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: LetterRip on March 31, 2016, 01:56:07 AM
Note that I do think it was legitimately a screw up, but good grief.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 31, 2016, 08:14:31 AM
I was a bit imprecise above.  26 states and DC require electors to vote for their Party's nominee with varying penalties if they don't, but 24 states have no binding on electors.  Since every state gets to decide how serious the penalties are and how free unbound electors are, it could be a free-for-all.  But, before we get there, we have to have a candidate to vote for.  That ain't over by a longshot on the GOP side (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/29/5-questions-you-have-about-delegates-answered/):

Quote
Should Trump fail to nab the majority of delegates on the first ballot —  and at this point, that looks entirely possible — the race becomes a fight for the support of those on the convention floor.

Since many delegates will be free to vote for whomever they wish on a second ballot, they could conceivably ditch Trump on later votes. Take, for example, South Carolina. Though Trump won the state, only Republicans who attended the state’s 2015 convention — in other words, party insiders or activists — can become delegates. Many have expressed support for Cruz over Trump, reports Politico.

In Louisiana, Cruz may actually end up with more supporters than the primary winner, Trump, noted the Wall Street Journal. That’s because five delegates are unbound per state rules and five were allocated to Marco Rubio. These 10 have indicated that they are more likely to back Cruz, prompting a lawsuit threat from Trump.

In fact, National Review reports that a good chunk of delegates across the country could likely defect to Cruz. In other words, the second ballot favors the Texas senator who’s done a much better job organizing around the rules, according to Putnam.

I'm beginning to warm up to LetterRip's observation that Trump could buy delegates' votes one by one.  I'd be tempted to lean in his lever if I could timeshare in his New York City apartment for a week.  No, make that two weeks.  Hell, just give me a key and I'm good.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 31, 2016, 08:54:29 AM
Trump.

Build the wall. Good fences make good neighbors. If we want to look at a good example of how to model our own immigration law and procedures all we need to do is follow Mexico's example, especially since everyone tells us how great they all are. No illegals should get any taxpayer benefits. No schools. No welfare. No nothing. They should be deported. For every one permanently deported I'm fine with letting three of the millions who are waiting in their own countries right now, sometimes for years, to come here legally and who already have their paperwork in the pipeline getting expedited approval.

Get rid of birthright citizenship, by Amendment if need be or by Supreme Court decision or just do it by Executive Order the way Obama does everything. Outlandish hypothetical but if during WWII a pregnant female Japanese pilot managed to blow up a U.S. battleship during the attack on Pearl Harbor and then survived a crash landing in a clearing in a Hawaiian mountain forest and survived until she gave birth to her child, would that child automatically be a U.S. citizen just because they were born here? Also of course assume Hawaii was a state at the time which of course as we all know it wasn't yet. If an enemy waging war against America has their child on U.S. soil and there is nothing in the law or Constitution to prevent that child from being a U.S. citizen then that is a very serious problem that needs to be corrected.

Everyone who comes into our country needs to be better vetted. Muslims coming in from terror states need to be kept out until the vetting process for them can keep out the terrorists. If that keeps out refugees then so be it. We can work to help them settle somewhere safer but somewhere else.

And it's not that I agree with Trump so much as he agrees with me about what I've been saying and thinking since long before he threw his hat in the ring. He's not persuading me at all. He never needed to.

Also we should go over there and as he says bomb the stuffing out of ISIS and then occupy their territory permanently and take every last drop of oil under it as well as all the other resources in it for ourselves. If instead of getting deported illegals want to go to our new colony and populate it and after ten years or so of law abiding productive contributions earn their American citizenship that's fine. And for everyone around the world who wants to go to our new colony and populate it too with the same deal that's fine as well. Instead of an Islamic Caliphate we will turn it into a non-Islamic American controlled oil producing state with hundreds of millions of non-Muslims right in the heart of formerly Muslim territory. A fitting punishment for ISIS indeed.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 31, 2016, 09:25:19 AM
Quote
Outlandish hypothetical but if during WWII a pregnant female Japanese pilot managed to blow up a U.S. battleship during the attack on Pearl Harbor and then survived a crash landing in a clearing in a Hawaiian mountain forest and survived until she gave birth to her child, would that child automatically be a U.S. citizen just because they were born here? Also of course assume Hawaii was a state at the time which of course as we all know it wasn't yet. If an enemy waging war against America has their child on U.S. soil and there is nothing in the law or Constitution to prevent that child from being a U.S. citizen then that is a very serious problem that needs to be corrected.

Cherry, thanks for providing a good example of why it is almost impossible to reason with Trump supporters.  You left out many other potential (but admittedly somewhat outlandish) hypotheticals.  What if a pregnant Japanese female pilot from WWII who had been impregnated by Hitler crash-landed in the westernmost Aleutian island, fell into a state of frozen hibernation and was awakened in 2001 and gave birth to a transgender Siamese twin connected at the head to a racist rapist pedophile radical conservative.  Would the mother then be eligible for food stamps or to receive the annual Alaska oil bonus paid to all residents?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: D.W. on March 31, 2016, 10:08:42 AM
I'm amused by the idea of turning our immigration issue into imperial colonial homesteaders.  :)
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: NobleHunter on March 31, 2016, 10:16:18 AM
Ethnic cleansing is hilarious.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on March 31, 2016, 10:33:04 AM
Ethnic cleansing is hilarious.

What, like with a cloth or something?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: D.W. on March 31, 2016, 10:43:38 AM
Ethnic cleansing is hilarious.

What, like with a cloth or something?
No that's white washing... isn't it?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 31, 2016, 11:35:48 AM
Obviously that hypothetical wasn't meant to imply that illegals should have their anchor babies automatically granted birthright American citizenship. It just shows that as the liberals on the Supreme Court always insist, our Constitution's original intent, if in this case that even was the original intent, can't always account for every possibility. Babies born to illegals and non-citizen birth tourists shouldn't be granted birthright American citizenship either. That's just ridiculous and makes a mockery of our laws, our borders, and our Constitution. Breaking the law should not be rewarded. And the birth tourism thing is just ridiculous. The fraudulent citizenship erroneously bestowed upon all such individuals should be revoked by Trump with an Obama type imperial executive order.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 31, 2016, 11:41:19 AM
And no need for ethnic cleansing either. How many people in Mexico are waiting there right now years after filling out the paperwork to come to America legally?

For every illegal who jumped in line ahead of them and can be permanently deported I'd let in three of those who are waiting to come here legally. Let them in right now and finish their paperwork while they enjoy America like the illegals that butted in front of them were doing. Every time someone is deported take all their biometrics like dna, fingerprints, retina scan, facial recognition print, and go for gait analysis too if you want and then never let them back into the country again ever. And maybe not any of their children either. In return as I said let in even more of the law abiding people from the same country who are waiting to come here legally. I don't see what's the problem.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/08/26/fact-check-trump-birthright-citizenship/32397823/

> Jon Feere, the author of the CIS report, told us via email that if the U.S. were to stop granting automatic citizenship to children of immigrants who are in the country illegally, "it would be following an international trend."

    Feere, Aug. 24: In recent years, the international trend has been to end universal birthright citizenship. Countries that have ended universal birthright citizenship include the United Kingdom, which ended the practice in 1983, Australia (1986), India (1987), Malta (1989), Ireland, which ended the practice through a national referendum in 2004, New Zealand (2006), and the Dominican Republic, which ended the practice in January 2010. The reasons countries have ended automatic birthright citizenship are diverse, but have resulted from concerns not all that different from the concerns of many in the United States. Increased illegal immigration is the main motivating factor in most countries. Birth tourism was one of the reasons Ireland ended automatic birthright citizenship in 2004.

----------------------------------------

I almost said we should just model ourselves on Mexico which doesn't allow birthright citizenship but I'm glad I checked that first before I made the same mistake Trump made and just assumed it was true. But in any case from the same article that said Mexico does allow it there was still this nice little tidbit that does the trick anyway. Again going back to the liberals on the Supreme Court, we're supposed to be looking at international trends now upon which we should base our own laws, right? At least if it's convenient anyway.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: NobleHunter on March 31, 2016, 11:44:34 AM
What do you think would happen if you started shipping people from South and Central America to Iraq? They'll all just hang out and drill for oil together?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 31, 2016, 11:51:48 AM
They are hard workers, right? So yeah. Of course they'll require training and that can be provided. Obviously oil won't be the only industry. There will be support industries and then with the entrepreneurial talent and powerful injection of fresh young blood immigrants our known for the oil is just the start and there is no telling what other industries and accomplishments they will provide the world. Maybe they'll start a space program, or make advancements in arable land agriculture, or have computer programs with the new VR, or make a new entertainment industry to rival Hollywood. There's no telling. I can't wait to see what happens.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 31, 2016, 11:58:13 AM
Oh sorry, I just got the ethnic cleansing joke. I thought it was meant that America would experience it because we're kicking out the illegals to which I responded by saying we'll import even more people from the same countries but they'll just be legals instead.

But... the territory referred to was what is now held by ISIS.

I didn't say we would kick out the Muslims who are there.

All I saying is we will flood them with hundreds of millions of non-Muslims.

How is that ethnic cleansing?

Diluting a population while still letting them live there is different from killing them all or driving them out. I'm not sure we have a good term for it though. I guess it could be similar to what the Chinese are doing to Tibet if the Chinese weren't keeping Tibetan men from marrying Tibetan women and things like that.

But this wouldn't be that type of ethnic suppression.

This is going to be the exact opposite. It's going to be ethnic enrichment.

Just like what we're always told is so great when it's happening in America.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on March 31, 2016, 01:33:04 PM
Oh sorry, I just got the ethnic cleansing joke. I thought it was meant that America would experience it because we're kicking out the illegals to which I responded by saying we'll import even more people from the same countries but they'll just be legals instead.

Uh, I kind of thought he meant cleansing America of ethnic 'illegals.'
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 31, 2016, 02:12:20 PM
Well now I've covered both bases, just in case.

And going back to ISIS being a new multicultural, multireligious "Mecha" of diversity, that would be some nice poetic justice and serve them right for trying to cleanse their territory of all non-Muslims and non-Muslim-enough Muslims.

There is one thing I don't understand though. What is so evil about kicking out the people who came here illegally if we replace them with even more people from the same countries? Surely there are enough people in those countries who would be willing to come here legally and can pass background checks, right?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: D.W. on March 31, 2016, 02:18:07 PM
Maybe they are rewarding their go-get-em attitude and motivation?  :P
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 31, 2016, 03:14:20 PM
Quote
What is so evil about kicking out the people who came here illegally if we replace them with even more people from the same countries? Surely there are enough people in those countries who would be willing to come here legally and can pass background checks, right?

What makes you think you can screen out bad guys that way?  One of the San Bernadino shooters was a US citizen and his wife passed all of the background checks and tests they ran against her.  Perhaps we should do what Jeb Bush suggested about letting Christians in and keeping Muslims out and just ask them if they are terrorists.  If it's a moral mission, why would they lie?

But once they're here, they're here.  We don't even want people to be asked *why* they want guns and we sure don't stop anyone from going anywhere in this country they want to.  It would stop some people from doing harm if they had to get some sort of entrance waiver - like a visa - to move from one state to another, or even to visit.  No one should be allowed to go anywhere near a sensitive infrastructure installation without an official guide.  Nobody should be allowed to carry guns into schools or churches, or else everyone should be *given* a gun to protect themselves if we can't guarantee that no one snuck in with one.

I have a *lot* more suggestions that would help reduce the awful incidence rate of legal or illegal immigrant terrorist attacks in this country, even though the number is almost as tiny as the number of people who cast fraudulent votes and far smaller than the number of home-grown terrorist acts.

A new motto for today's climate of abject fear: Let's Make America Safe Again: Build a wall, become a good neighbor.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 31, 2016, 05:51:04 PM
Apparently it would have violated her civil rights if our government would have checked the Facebook page she was using (under an assumed name I think but still not difficult for our government to fine out about if they wanted to and didn't have a directive to leave alone in any case) on which she clearly indicated her sympathies. But our government has no problem checking any one of our Facebook pages at any time. There is a man now doing research on how many Americans are killed by drunk driving illegals after his child was killed by one of them. That's information "the most transparent administration in history" doesn't want getting out though so I wish him luck. And is it really too much to ask for a background check to deny people entry if they have drunk driving convictions in their home countries? When we have the pick of the litter why are those drunk drivers the ones we should let in first?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 31, 2016, 05:58:19 PM
That's one man's source of pain.  Shouldn't we also bar people with any convictions, such as criminal, civil and religious?  We should also bar people who are sick or might get sick, not because they would be a burden on the government, but because they might make us sick, those who are possibly unwilling to learn to read and write English and use that language exclusively outside of their homes.  I would also add people who have shown sympathy for any cause that our government deems contrary to our national interests, which would include anyone who opposes any foreign government or regime that we consider an ally.  People who would fit in and should be welcomed include those who enjoy unlimited access to guns and welcome others carrying them in public, who enjoy all legal drugs and liquor, and are opposed to labor unions, unnecessary or excessive government regulations, paying taxes, government spending and helping people with medical or financial needs.  And of course if they are Muslim, know anyone who is Muslim or look like they might be Muslim, because you never can tell.

But first and foremost, nobody with a drunk driving conviction, because you know somebody who was burned by that.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 31, 2016, 07:27:36 PM
Well there's hundreds of guys with convictions for drunk driving, child rape, illegal drug use, who were cartel assassins, etc. and then there are millions of people who have had absolutely no problems with the law at all.  Who do you let in first?

With an open border you don't have any say in the matter.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on March 31, 2016, 08:54:48 PM
Drunk driving is a misdemeanor in the US and doesn't bar anyone from any future activity.  It might be a more serious offense in another country, but is probably unrelated to their reason for leaving and coming to the US.  My point is that you can disqualify pretty much everyone for whatever reason you want to use to discriminate against them.  I would probably look askance at someone who was arrested for domestic assault or had a record of carrying weapons in public.  I bet any 10 random people in the US could find a reason to exclude everyone.  And if people are excluded for reasons that make them undesirable, then we have a lot of undesirable people here who other random groups of 10 people would want to send to other countries.  That would include blacks, liberals, Jews, atheists, union sympathizers, gays and Catholics, not to mention people who like Disco music, something we can all agree on.  I'm sure you're undesirable, as am I. Perhaps someone should look into our situations.  Who would that be?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 31, 2016, 10:56:23 PM
Quote
With an open border you don't have any say in the matter.
Just the opposite, with an open border you have _more_ say in the matter, since those people can be checked on the spot as they enter and selectively weeded out while people who represent a threat can safely pass through. It's only when you close the border that you open wide illegal avenues for them to enter, hidden among many more people that are non-threatening, such that we have no idea if they've tried to enter or where they might be.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: D.W. on April 01, 2016, 09:49:50 AM
He was equating that illegal avenue as the "open door policy".  What you are suggesting is a streamlined legal avenue for immigration.  Something that hasn't been argued against.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 03, 2016, 07:03:55 AM
Another great thing about Trump compared to all the other candidates is that Trump won't hesitate to expose all of the illegal activity of Obama along with the incompetence and immorality of his administration. The other candidates will be content to sweep it all under the rug and move on "for the good of the country." Trump is the only one who agrees with me that shining a spotlight on this corruption and watching all the cockroaches scatter and the scumbags turn on each other like rats in a cage as he seeks prosecutions is what's good for the country. He won't hesitate to expose Obama for the imposter usurper fraud that he is such as by revealing if he registered as a foreign student and in fact had a student I.D. that identified him as a foreign student and also if he backdated his Selective Service registration, which is most likely since he wasn't required to register for Selective Service before he turned 18 because the law didn't require that until later so why on Earth would he? We'll also get to the bottom of what Obama is trying to hide with his massive slow walking and outright denial of FOIA requests, along with prosecutions at the IRS for illegally targeting the Tea Party and the statute of limitations hopefully won't be up on Lerner either so she can have her pension stripped since she won't be needing it in federal prison anyway. She won't be lonely though because Hillary will be there to keep her company.

Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 03, 2016, 07:13:24 AM
D.W. has the better sense of it here because I'm not talking about a closed border but instead a secure border. People will still be able to come and go and the difference then compared to now is that we will know who they are and what they're about.  The open border means that massive numbers of people are coming and going at will without anybody knowing anything about them because they can come and go without so much as a "by your leave", for instance by coming through tunnels, swimming a river, getting smuggled in a van or semi, or just simply walking across. At least with the half or so of illegals who flew in and overstayed their visas we know who they are so of course it will be easy enough to pinch them whenever they show up on the radar and definitely put them and perhaps their families on the list of people who can never come here legally again.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 03, 2016, 01:38:01 PM
Cherry, I'll give you props for leaning into the wind, but you are leading with your chin. All of those wonderfully tasty morsels of massive fraud are are themselves nothing but frauds and hoaxes, all of which have been thoroughly debunked, all of which can now be used to identify people too far gone to take seriously in any discussion about American politics. You're a member of that small, very strident and very, very proud cadre of people who valiantly throw their credibility on the bonfire of their beliefs and get nothing but ridicule in return.  Like I said, I give you props for telling it like you want it to be, but that's all you can ever hope for.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: D.W. on April 04, 2016, 09:10:02 AM
While I agree with what AI just said about "all the corruption" of the current admin, I think it serves the public good to have people hoping for, wishing for, signs of that corruption to appear.  It keeps our politicians slightly more honest.  Or at least careful.  :)

Or at least I feel that way until they grind the operating of the country to a halt on a witch hunt.  :(
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Greg Davidson on April 06, 2016, 01:06:51 AM
Cherry,

Can you name a President in the last 150 years whose Administration had less corruption that President Obama?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on April 06, 2016, 02:34:35 AM
Cherry,

Can you name a President in the last 150 years whose Administration had less corruption that President Obama?

Not to sidetrack you, but what corruption did JFK have?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: DJQuag on April 07, 2016, 12:25:58 PM
I agree with this exchange over at Sake River between Dogbreath and Samprimary.

------
I mean, Sanders pretty accurately assessed the situation and warned that this would happen. But then again, he also voted against the war in Iraq. And supported gay rights well before 2013. (which is when Hilary Clinton finally changed her mind about opposing SSM) It's easy, after a scandal like this breaks, to go back and say what the right decision should have been. Sanders is one of the few people (and only presidential candidate) who has had the integrity and conviction to consistently make the right and moral decisions, even though those decisions have often been deeply unpopular at the time.
--------
All throughout contemporary US politics, even going back before I was even born, you can go through the entire laundry list of the most notably stupid bad crap the US has done — and especially the stuff that has come back around to bite us in the ass — and bernie sanders is on video essentially saying 'this is stupid bad crap that will bite us in the ass, believe you me'

it's eerily consistent
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: DJQuag on April 07, 2016, 12:52:43 PM
Just realized that there is some context missing,  the first thing Dogbreath is talking about Sanders being right is him saying years ago that Panama was a tax haven that encouraged bad financial practices.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: DJQuag on April 07, 2016, 01:05:03 PM
Bernie Sanders on the first Gulf War.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-iraq/#gulf-war-and-desert-storm
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 07, 2016, 02:03:40 PM
I was on one of the buses that went to DC from Ann Arbor to protest the first gulf war in 1991.  Bernie wasn't on my radar back then, but I and everyone on the buses and far more people back at home were saying the same things.  We were acting against a general mood in the country that was almost as if it was a "happy war" that we couldn't lose in a place we really didn't care about the people who were affected to protect our oil supplies that we couldn't live without.  Win-win all around, eh?  No surprise that we weren't taken seriously.

We said it again before the second Iraq war, and were ignored again.  Even so, the "vote for the war" wasn't quite that, though in retrospect it was inevitable and obvious what Bush was going to do. 

You may not remember that when the Iraq resolution was being debated and voted on in Congress in October, 2002 the DC "beltway snipers" were killing people at random.  The sense of anxiety and dread was overpowering for people who lived or visited there during the month. I was commuting to the Virginia suburbs near DC on business about two weeks out of every month the second half of that year and can testify to how the fear the two shooters inspired magnified and multiplied the still-fresh anguish and fear from the 9/11 attacks.  High school football teams were holding team practices in "undisclosed locations" and people disrupted their daily routines to the extent that some wouldn't go to their mailboxes out of fear of being shot for no reason. 

I had lots of long conversations with people who lived there and back home about the way the shootings affected how they felt about the Iraq resolution.  Virtually everyone in the DC area was in favor of the resolution, but people's lives back in Michigan were not impacted by the shootings and many people weren't sure the resolution and possible war was the right direction to take.  It wasn't win-win like the first time, but more acting out of overwhelming fear of lose-lose.

Watching and being part of both events gave a palpable example of how fear based on one event can compound the anxiety you already feel about another.  We seem to never learn that taking the long-term view can help avoid the short-term mistakes that result from acting on impulse and fear.

Knowing what Bernie said then (and that he was right) still doesn't convince me that I should prefer him to Hillary, but like I've said (often, now) I'm ok with either of them as the candidate.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 07, 2016, 03:50:21 PM
As for a President who was less corrupt than Obama I would without hesitation offer Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon.

And he was the most corrupt President up until Obama.

And let me be clear about Nixon in that I think Ford was a true putz to pardon him. He should have served the rest of his life in federal prison. The pardon made a mockery of the law and exemplified what Trump is saying about the establishment and how they always cover for each other. Nobody but Trump will investigate federal officials who have committed crimes, from top to bottom, from the ATF to the IRS all the way to Hillary and Barrack. And certainly nobody else will send them to federal prison after their convictions. Why would Trump do that? Because exposing the corruption in Washington and the you rub my back and I'll rub yours way of things will vindicate him and everything he is saying right now. His willingness to make the hard and unpopular stands and say the insulting things he says proves he is the only one willing to do what it takes to tackle the massive corruption not to mention the more run of the mill waste, fraud, and abuse endemic in our government right now.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but doesn't Obama have more unanimous Supreme Court decisions, at least 20 so far, against him and isn't that more than any other President? That means even the liberals he appointed slapped him upside the head and waved the Constitution in his face and then one at a time walked by him and shouted, "No!" in his ear.

As I mentioned before there are also the matters of the date of his Selective Service registration and whether or not he registered as a foreign student for benefits while going to college. I agree with Trump on not mentioning the birth certificate thing for the moment until after he gets into office and can get to the bottom of all of these mysteries. Mystery still on the birth certificate? Well it was mysterious that one of the government officials involved in it inexplicably died in a plane crash after she was already in the water with a life jacket with the other survivors. Echoes of Ron Brown who was about to go after Bill Clinton and investigate some of his schemes.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 07, 2016, 03:53:02 PM
I don't suppose anyone has heard about the voting machines that switch Republican votes to Democrat votes? Or the ones that switch Bernie votes to Hillary?

Nobody is going to get to the bottom of that type of illegal activity but Trump. He's the only one who will be willing to play hardball.

The rest of them will cover it up because exposing the true level of corruption would cause such outrage that it would threaten them all.

That's why they are all teaming up to take Trump out. He's the only one who is truly a threat to the bacon wrapped shrimp club they've been enjoying all this time.

And I don't really have a problem with Cruz. He'll make a fine Supreme Court justice as Trump's first order of business when the Republicans maintain control of the Senate and rubber stamp him. But Cruz doesn't have the brass ones Trump has to reveal all the corruption and Cruz proves it by how nice he is. Right now we don't need nice. We need downright mean and rude.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: DJQuag on April 07, 2016, 04:17:13 PM
I take your point on Clinton and Cruz not being willing to dig too deep into past transgressions, but there is absolutely nothing about Sanders to suggest that he would cover up for the benefit of the system.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on April 07, 2016, 04:37:32 PM
Nobody but Trump will investigate federal officials who have committed crimes, from top to bottom, from the ATF to the IRS all the way to Hillary and Barrack. And certainly nobody else will send them to federal prison after their convictions.

Just to elaborate on this point, I don't think the sole blame lies in corrupt power brokers that cover for each other. There is a cultural element in America, a sort of 'patriotic' credulousness where people are extremely hesitant to point fingers at a white collar criminal with an eye towards seeing justice done. There is vehement emotion in America about locking away violent offenders and sex offenders, but not so much bankers or politicians. Most of the time when a politician goes down in a scandal it was a hatchet job by his enemies rather than 'the people' prevailing. As an example of this cultural attitude, I was chatting with a English girl the other day and talking to her about Blair regarding Iraq 2.0. There is a major investigation into him right now on the topic of potential war crimes (waging an illegal war and lying to the English people) and apparently it's being taken very seriously over there. People from both parties there want to see him go down and likewise the people are very upset at him for what they believe he did. Contrast with America, where there is no similar push to prosecute anyone for Iraq 2.0 from either party, and even 'regular folks' from both parties seem not to be interested in such a thing. Evidence of that can even be seen here on Ornery where there was more or less unanimous consensus that either nothing could be or should be done about it.

When you have a culture of acceptance like this where it is not expected that officials will be held to task for their actions it's no wonder that people of influence are so brazen about covering for each other with no fear. I don't really know that Trump will actually take this system on, but what would help would be the average person waking up and not tolerating systemic corruption any more. I believe this is part of what Bernie's campaign is about, which is one reason I support him. Change has to come from below, not from above, for things to have lasting impact. If the people don't demand a result it won't really happen; and in a way nor should it. The people get the government they deserve.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pyrtolin on April 07, 2016, 04:48:20 PM
I'm not sure what legal remedies there are for the Iraq war, but it's helpful that Sanders has Bill Black as one of his top economic advisors, who has been calling for prosecutions in response to the financial crisis similar to those that he helped with in the wake of the SnL crisis in the 80.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 07, 2016, 05:02:26 PM
I would like to hope that Sanders will do something and certainly even though on policy I probably disagree with him more than Hillary I'd still rather see him get elected than her because there is a slight possibility he will investigate and do something about waste, fraud, and general corruption. I'm just hesitant to trust him because I feel that Obama was promising the same sort of things and we all experienced the disappointing results for instance as far as I know nobody going to prison for crimes committed during the housing meltdown. That happened mostly under Bush so Obama would have been free to pursue legal action without even taking any of the blame, unless you count the Freddie/Fannie connection to the Democrats. Much of that misbehavior was actually technically legal but I can't believe that all of it was and yet there weren't many if any prosecutions. I do agree with Bernie very much about breaking up Too Big to Fail companies. If it's too big to fail then it's too big to exist. I hear Trump though and he is also talking about tackling Wall Street and the bankers and they seem to be taking him seriously too the way they are trying to stop him.

I disagree with Iraq being a good example of this type of corruption but that's a whole big topic to get into though I will sum up my opinion as if it was a mistake it was based on faulty intelligence such as that coming from an Iraqi general and even that is questionable as far as how faulty it was because we still have no idea or any longer even any curiousity about that massive convoy of trucks that was caught on satellite video rolling into Syria right before we invaded. If those were chemical weapons, for instance maybe some of the ones used in the Syrian civil war, then maybe we weren't wrong at all. And in any case Saddam was violating the cease fire agreement that left him in power and numerous UN resolutions. The big mistake was pulling out too early allowing the rise of ISIS. I was with McCain on the need to occupy them for decades like we've done with Germany and Japan and Korea and in fact I agree with Trump that we can pull out of those countries and use all those troops and resources to invade and occupy ISIS territory and steal all their oil.

Having said that, there are numerous other examples of corruption that both parties benefit from and cover up to tackle and I agree that there isn't much public outcry about it but I also believe that is largely because these crimes are covered up well enough that they are unknown and I just trust Trump to work to expose them more than Bernie. That seems to be Trump's primary agenda while Bernie has a different agenda that he will focus on. Trump will be able to tackle this and then say, "See I told you so." Bernie has a lot more on his plate and isn't talking about this type of thing as much or as forcefully.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: OpsanusTau on April 09, 2016, 07:54:42 PM
Every time I stop and think about it, which isn't often thank goodness, I'm just astounded that these are the candidates available to us this election cycle.

Hilary Clinton: jeeza pete. I mean I know I'm supposed to like her because I'm a woman, but actually I don't care about that and I do care that she is sleazy and treats her subordinates like dirt. Also I have no intention of voting for a boomer ever again, and especially not one who is so exactly typical of boomers.

Trump: omg this man lies all the time, who even knows what he would do in office? Maybe I would like it, maybe I wouldn't. There is literally no way to tell, because he just constantly lies about everything and then pretends he didn't.

Sanders: is a socialist, and also has a lot of bona fide silly policy ideas. I mean he seems like a nice person and I have no doubt that he would try to do a good job, but I am very skeptical that he would be able to get anything at all done as an executive.

Cruz: I hate to be rude but I am just amazed that a man this weird looking is being seriously considered for national office in this day and age. Did we learn nothing from Nixon/Kennedy? And I'm aware that it's some kind of attempt to woo "hispanic" voters but there is a really major and important cultural difference between Mexican-Americans and Cuban-Americans and putting a Cuban-American on the ticket is not exactly going to make Mexican-Americans feel better about the Republican party. Also he's kind of a religious nutbar but that's almost beside the point.

Anyways I can't bring myself to really "support" any of these candidates but all I really hope for is that I won't be put in the position of a Clinton vs Trump ballot because I live in a swing state and I know how to do my duty but I'd rather not.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 10, 2016, 04:07:20 AM
Quote
Anyways I can't bring myself to really "support" any of these candidates but all I really hope for is that I won't be put in the position of a Clinton vs Trump ballot because I live in a swing state and I know how to do my duty but I'd rather not.
If you vote, those are your choices, so you're in the same boat as (most of) the rest of us.  But I would characterize the bad options differently.  Cruz wants to destroy the government and is willing to let the country be destroyed as a result. Trump wants to rule the country and with each nonsensical decision he will feel more entitled to ignore the screams.  Sanders would preach fire and brimstone to a choir (Congress) who sing from a different hymnbook and who will respond by calling him a silly old man.  Then there's Clinton, who wants to reassure everyone that the boat isn't going to sink, but doesn't quite realize realize that the hole is getting bigger and the winds are beginning to howl.

We, the People, can't reach them to tell them what they should know and what they should do, because they won't listen to us and believe that they were given the sacred mission to tell us those things instead.

I'll vote with a modicum of hope as well as a healthy amount of fear.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on April 10, 2016, 05:25:37 AM
Then there's Clinton, who wants to reassure everyone that the boat isn't going to sink, but is partially to blame and doesn't care that the hole is getting bigger and the winds are beginning to howl.

FTFY
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 10, 2016, 05:57:44 AM
I tell you what, I'll fix it for myself:

Quote
If you vote, those are your choices, so you're in the same boat as (most of) the rest of us.  But I would characterize the seasick options differently.  Cruz wants to sink the ship of state and is willing to let everyone drown as a result. Trump imagines himself the Captain of the Titanic, but this time it won't sink because he'll lighten the load by jettisoning the lifeboats.  Sanders gets everyone on board a fleet of bamboo rafts and sets course for the new world.  Then there's Clinton, who tries to patch the gaping hole with tar paper that was caused by years of scraping against the rocks but doesn't hear the winds beginning to howl.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: OpsanusTau on April 10, 2016, 09:37:13 AM
Yes, those are the same choices everyone gets. (?)

My post was a description of the reasons for my own astonishment that these are, in fact, the choices. Everyone else can continue to make generally correct arguments why all of them are legitimately problematic candidates - great! I just feel like we're all in bizarro world. I'm for Dole/Kemp. http://www.dolekemp96.org/ (http://www.dolekemp96.org/)

To unpack my statement about hoping it's not a Clinton vs. Trump race nationally - I really don't want to vote for Clinton for several reasons, most importantly to me because I'm serious about the whole Boomer thing but also because as far as I can tell she's legitimately a jerk and a crook. But Trump is such a constant liar and such a joke in terms of actual policy and also our international standing that it is pretty important to me that he not become President. In previous presidential elections I've always lived in states where the electoral college made my actual vote pointless and I did what I wanted (e.g., write-in candidate or third party). Now I live in a swing state, so not only will I need to make an actual vote, but probably I will consider it my duty to do some civic volunteering amongst my neighbors - and I really don't want to be doing that in favor of Hilary Clinton. That's what I think is somewhat different about my own situation as opposed to many other voters - I'm a disaffected independent living in a swing state, and opposed to all the candidates but much more strongly opposed to one than any of the others.  :P
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 10, 2016, 01:42:07 PM
To clarify, can you rank them, where >0 means you could vote for the person, 0 is eh, and <0 is no way.  Your numeric values should be in the range of -2^16..2^16 - 1, and the larger the value, the more.  Values are relative, of course.  The four suspects don't have to be the only persons of interest, so go free range if you want.  Mine would be:

Other: 20
Clinton: 17
Sanders: 14
Kasich: -622
Trump: -32767
Cruz: -32768

All values +/- some waggle.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: DJQuag on April 11, 2016, 05:45:14 AM
Sanders +100
Clinton -1
Cruz and Trump tie at -100 because I suspect that they would be equally bad, just in different ways.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: DJQuag on April 11, 2016, 08:22:08 AM
There was a point in the past when the Baby Boomers finally noticed that, holy *censored*, enough of the old guard had finally died off that it was now them that got to make the rules.

I firmly believe that this will be looked back on as the election where Millenials started to realize this.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 11, 2016, 01:48:43 PM
Quote
I firmly believe that this will be looked back on as the election where Millenials started to realize this.
I think you may be right about that.  I'm retiring soon and will become more politically active, but I suspect the scope of my ability, and that of my age cohorts, to influence things will be increasingly less.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 11, 2016, 07:10:09 PM
...and then your kids can blame you :).  Consider that anything is possible and most big things are hard, and "this hard thing" is like turning a battleship in a small harbor.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 12, 2016, 02:25:07 PM
JFK was probably all right besides all the affairs. It may have been his anti-corruption that got him killed in that he and his brother seemed intent on, rightfully in my opinion, cracking down hard on the mob. I don't remember saying he was corrupt. Johnson was though. His voter fraud in Texas is legendary.

Back to Trump. I like the fact that he is willing to insult people and countries. That's what we need more of especially when they like getting up on their high horse and telling us how terrible we are such as Europe was doing with the Muslim refugee crisis and now look at them. They must be racist Islamophobes too now since they are putting tighter controls on the free flow of humanity like many of us suggested they do in the first place. Idiots.

And Mexico too. I'm not saying they are deliberately sending their criminals across but if they are doing nothing to stop them then that's pretty much the same difference. I would be curious to know how many of their criminals that they suspect have crossed the border they have given us a heads up about so we know to look out for them and how many of their criminals they have asked to be extradited back to Mexico so they can face the music for the crimes they committed there. There are a few cartel kingpins they may have warned us about but rapists, child molesters, and your run of the mill murderer? It looks like they are just glad those people are our problem now.

The same thing goes for China and its abuse of monetary and trade policy at our expense. This going along to get along nonsense, refusing to ruffle any feathers and letting Americans suffer for it has gone on long enough.  I don't agree with Donald insulting many of those he has insulted such as Ted's wife, but we can't continue to paralyze ourselves with fear about possibly insulting someone when we know very well that they will use that against us to take advantage and have their way to our detriment.

Sanders -100
Clinton - 250
Kasich + 30
Cruz +200
Trump +250
Jack in the Box +45
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on April 12, 2016, 02:40:19 PM
cherry, I notice that the magnitude of your lack of support for Clinton is precisely the same for your positive support for Trump. Assuming -250 means you hate Clinton and everything she stands for, does this mean you equally love Trump and everything he stands for? And as a corollary question, does this means you almost-love Cruz?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 12, 2016, 03:24:46 PM
I agree with Cruz more than Trump over the broad spectrum of issues but on the issues that I agree with Trump I have more hope that Trump will actually be able to get something done about them.

For instance regarding border security, deporting illegals, destroying ISIS and taking the oil they use to fund their terror spree as just compensation, negotiating trade deals that are fairer for America, tackling inefficiency and waste in government like it was a business for instance by firing people, I expect that Trump and Cruz would largely agree except on ISIS but Trump seems like he is the only one who would actually do what he says he will do in part because he won't worry about all the feelings he will hurt while getting it done.

Clinton will continue the flooding of America will illegals and all manner of other future Democrat voters regardless of the fact that we are trillions of dollars in debt and will only dig ourselves deeper into the sinkhole if we don't do something different from what we've been doing. Not to mention the votes of those people will seal the fate of the Republican party and usher in generations of Democratic socialist failure.  Kasich will do that too for the cheap labor and for purposes of pandering and the result will be the same even if it takes a few years longer because he keeps the floodgates open whereas Clinton blows up the dam. But basically, yes, I disagree with Clinton about as much as I agree with Trump. I would say my scale may have been +275 to -275. I probably agree with Clinton on cutting pollution and I fear it will increase with Trump though even with Clinton she will probably act as feebleminded as most Democrats nowadays by concentrating on carbon instead of real pollution like mercury, lead, sulfur, dioxins, and the like.  Hopefully Trump will keep his word and get rid of Obamacare. I understand he's even agreed to single payer and though I don't think that will work out as well as most supporters hope and I disagree with it on principle, it will still be a vast improvement over Obamacare.

I think I mentioned before that I agree with Newt's idea of a two tiered system where people can buy insurance if they want or they can get free or subsidized healthcare courtesy of the government but they may have to wait longer or the care may not be top notch, for instance on par with what veterans get or prisoners. And of course there is a third tier which is cash. So even if Trump does go with single payer that is fine as long as people still have the option of buying insurance that can get you faster and better care from private providers. I'm seeing something like that in action now. My mother in law had a stroke in Japan and though she would get care even if she were indigent she gets better care such as a private hospital room because she has insurance. That may not seem "fair" compared to Canada and Britain where if I'm not mistaken they make everyone wait and receive the same (lousy) level of service but it helps support the health care system not to have everyone so dependent on it and helps lead to better medical advances when there are financial incentives for discovering them. I also mentioned my idea to have a "militarized" healthcare system in which people could have their medical education paid for or provided in government run training facilities in return for a term of service after which they could go into the private sector. I hear that the number of doctors and nurses are purposefully limited by the industry in order to keep prices, salaries, and profits artificially high. The solution is obviously to increase the supply of medical practitioners and since the industry itself is limiting it only the government will be able to step in to solve the problem.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 12, 2016, 03:35:41 PM
Quote
But basically, yes, I disagree with Clinton about as much as I agree with Trump. I would say my scale may have been +275 to -275.
I suggested the range could be as broad as -32768..+32767, so you're saying that Clinton is bad but not *that* bad. You wouldn't be happy about it if she were elected, but you're not going to climb to the top of the water tower and mow us down, eh?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 12, 2016, 03:43:52 PM
Yeah those numbers were too much for me to deal with. Sorry.

No I won't be that despondent if she wins. I'm looking at dual Irish citizenship though to have a backup "bug-out" country. It was going to be Japan but unfortunately they got irradiated. But I won't be like one of the liberals after Trump wins such as I heard stories about when Bush won his second term. Like this one:

"Got into the office early today to get some extra work knocked out but I've been having a lot of trouble concentrating as liberal after liberal goes screaming past outside my office window with a look of sheer terror in their eyes and screaming like they just witnesses bloody murder. Come on people. Bush isn't going to be THAT bad, is he? Even though we disagree politically, many of these people are my good water cooler gossip friends so as our eyes briefly meet I give them a big encouraging smile and hearty thumbs up. Though to be honest I'm not sure how much good it's going to really do seeing as how I work up on the forty-fifth floor... But I do wish them well."
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: NobleHunter on April 12, 2016, 03:51:59 PM
Quote
destroying ISIS and taking the oil they use to fund their terror spree as just compensation
Continuing the American tradition of stealing from thieves at the expense of the people who owned it in the first place.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 12, 2016, 04:19:18 PM
True. There's no denying it. But we can't keep letting it be used to help fund the genocide of non-Muslims by ISIS. And we can't risk it going back into the hands of ISIS 2.0, both the oil and the territory. And we deserve to be compensated for the tremendous cost in blood and money we will have to pay to stop them. So what's the other choice?

Keep doing the bare minimum to deflect suspicion from Obama that he doesn't really consider this a problem? Or keep doing what the EU is doing which is nothing at all?

That reminds me... I also agree with Trump's stance on waterboarding. Belgium captured that Paris terrorist and he decided he didn't want to talk anymore and wanted a lawyer. A few days later Brussels was hit by terrorists he probably knew about and if thirty or more people died with hundreds horrifically injured because he wasn't waterboarded then on one side you have those who say all of those people dying and getting maimed was worth it not to waterboard him and on the other side you have Trump and me saying waterboarding one terrorist would have been a very small price to pay, and well worth it, to save those poor people doomed by their own government for the sake of a terrorist.

If they purposefully target civilians then in my opinion they aren't entitled to protection under the Geneva and Hague conventions otherwise what's the incentive for anyone at all to abide by them?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: NobleHunter on April 12, 2016, 04:24:59 PM
Deserve compensation? Why do you deserve compensation for stopping the monster you helped create? More to the point, pillaging the oil will simply create ISIS 2.0. In order to stop people from treating you like an enemy, you should stop behaving like one.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 12, 2016, 04:27:37 PM
So just leave them be then?

Or go in and get our good soldiers killed out of charity?

That's not going to happen so then we're left back at doing little to nothing.

What do you think is the right play?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: NobleHunter on April 12, 2016, 04:37:22 PM
It wouldn't be charity, it would be cleaning up the mess you made.

Supporting allied or less-hostile groups seems to be the least bad play. It will eventually deal with ISIS the territorial entity, which should help deal with the ISIS the ideological entity.

The assorted war crimes proposed by current and former GOP candidates are not the right play. Neither is robbing people.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: D.W. on April 12, 2016, 05:19:57 PM
Expansionism Lite isn't working out so well.  Conquer and hold or leave it alone.

If there is nobody to "prop up" then you can't clean up the mess.  If you do prop up someone, you risk eroding their legitimacy and them being seen as nothing but our puppet.

I suggest we focus on space exploration, terraforming and then just, "so long and thanks for all the fish", the problem.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 12, 2016, 05:55:24 PM
Space exploration at this point seems too pie in the sky for me.

I'd rather do like the Chinese and focus on the oceans except in addition to man-made islands we should work on colonizing the depths and mining the ocean floors.

But still keep up with the space exploration as well. It's just not going to happen nearly fast enough for my taste while ocean colonization can pretty much start now, and much of what we learn doing that will be applicable to space exploration as well.

As for ISIS territory, taking their oil is a small price to pay to stop the damage they are doing. That's damage being done that can never be undone. Japan pays us huge amounts of money to occupy them and I don't see why we should let ISIS off any more lightly. Plus it will work as a magnet to attract attacks from all the crazies over there, redirecting their focus away from the heartland and we would let the new immigrants from all over the world volunteer to supply much of the cannon fodder defense forces using a defense in depth strategy composed of many layers with them being on the more dangerous periphery so they might experience the pride and joy of earning their freedom and new opportunities for themselves and their descendants the way many of our ancestors did for us.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on April 12, 2016, 09:51:59 PM
How does one 'take their oil' anyhow? With giant buckets? The principle way in which oil is 'taken' from weaker nations is through disfavorable trade agreements made effectively at the point of a gun. With the lesser nation guarding its own borders and interests, with some small help from the U.S., they had handle the security and private interests can handle the extraction. Bereft of a stable nation or government with which to make such an arrangement the options for oil mining are few in such a way that it can be done safely. You can either set up your own sovereign land in that region and label it a territory or new state, while defending it with full military support (no doubt including a permanent garrison), or you could somehow arrange for the whole thing to be done on a paramilitary basis through private contractors, effectively allowing private persons to control a foreign region for their own enrichment. Both of these options would strike most people as remarkably imperialistic bordering on pure conquest, which I think is why most previous regime changes have had as their plan the establishment of puppet governments owing allegiance to the U.S. but sovereign in most visible ways. This reduces long term costs while generating revenue and allowing for various locations for military bases as part of the deal. One nation where this was distinctly not done was in Libya, but I think obtaining oil there was actually a secondary goal and therefore the complete instability there doesn't mean that the primary objective necessarily botched.

For the U.S. to simply occupy a region of Iraq/Syria, however, would indeed be an aggressive move, especially towards Russia and Iran. Even China would probably not like it at all.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Greg Davidson on April 12, 2016, 10:17:05 PM
Quote
As for ISIS territory, taking their oil is a small price to pay to stop the damage they are doing. That's damage being done that can never be undone

ISIS stole their oil - if we fight ISIS, do we get to keep it?  Should we have kept France in World War 2?   
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 13, 2016, 08:08:39 AM
We take their oil by taking over the country (ISIS territory held now minus some given back to Iraq and Syria and of course the Kurds get to own and keep everything they are claiming since they are the only ones really fighting) and flooding it with tens if not hundreds of millions of people from all over the world looking for an escape from poverty, violence, lack of opportunity, disease, starvation, and all the rest of it of course especially including those seeking to escape Muslim oppression. It will be a liberal's paradise with tolerance for all. Every race and every religion. It will even feature gay marriage and transgendered restrooms. Then some of those people can receive training to work in the oil industry and we will even set up our own refineries over there so we don't have to ship it to America for that process which will help save on transportation and reduce the carbon footprint and so help to save the world from global warming. The American flag will fly over this new colony with their own flag that the citizens come up with underneath it. After working a "tour" of ten years and making a contribution while staying out of trouble, these people and their children will be eligible to become American citizens. "Service means citizenship! Would you like to know more?"

In thirty to fifty years the non-American citizens of this colony can vote on becoming a state, their own independent nation, or something in between like Puerto Rico. The American citizens can decide if they want to stay there as ex-pats or come stateside or do whatever else they want to do where ever they want to do it with the new skills they have learned and the education they have received and all the money they've earned and saved.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 13, 2016, 08:14:08 AM
If we liberated France from Germany and then they turned into something like ISIS and attacked us on our home soil with their terrorists so that we had to go back in there or keep watching our civilians die then yes we should have taken France. As it is we have occupied Germany and Japan with tens of thousands of troops for over seventy years now. And Korea for decades as well. Was that a mistake? Or did it work?

So why should ISIS be any different?

And Japan pays for about half of our military expenses to occupy them. Why should ISIS get off any easier? And how else will they pay besides oil? Mineral deposits? Well of course we will take those too.

If some other country like China or Russia wanted to go in there and wipe out ISIS then I'd have no problem with them doing the exact same thing I'm suggesting. It wouldn't hurt to make an example out of them so nobody tries this again.

If you've got a better idea then please do share. So far I'm not really seeing anything. Only Trump's idea looks like it would be effective.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on April 13, 2016, 08:55:14 AM
We take their oil by taking over the country (ISIS territory held now minus some given back to Iraq and Syria and of course the Kurds get to own and keep everything they are claiming since they are the only ones really fighting) and flooding it with tens if not hundreds of millions of people from all over the world

So basically you're saying American should create Israel 2.0. I'm sure Netanyahu would be very pleased. But tell me, what authority does the U.S. have to found a nation in this way?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: D.W. on April 13, 2016, 09:45:10 AM
We take their oil by taking over the country (ISIS territory held now minus some given back to Iraq and Syria and of course the Kurds get to own and keep everything they are claiming since they are the only ones really fighting) and flooding it with tens if not hundreds of millions of people from all over the world

So basically you're saying American should create Israel 2.0. I'm sure Netanyahu would be very pleased. But tell me, what authority does the U.S. have to found a nation in this way?
You say that like it would be an odd thing.  This is pretty much the way the world worked until recently.  I think the compelling argument against it is not, "what gives us the authority?", but rather, when we do so we open the door for a might makes right world stage.  You can't scold the aggression of other nations.  You cannot try to force people to hold to former treaties.  At that point all you can do (when others follow our example) is to defend with force our allies who come under threat of occupation or conquest. 

While gaining some rewards for our efforts sounds good at first glance, I'm much more inclined to a foreign policy of ignore it till you can't.  Surgically smash the hell out of the trouble spot / assassinate the leadership.  Then stay out and loudly proclaim, "There is more where that came from.  Reshuffle and try again."
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 13, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Asking what authority do we have is one question. A good question.

Another good question is what duty do we have?

Don't we have a duty to protect the Christians over there who are having their throats cut and their blood drained into a bucket because they refuse to convert to Islam?

Or is that just too bad, so sad?

Don't we have a duty to stop ISIS from raising a generation, or more, of psychopathic killers from the cradle to their suicide bomb detonation?

What was our authority to bomb the hell out of the Christians defending themselves from violent Muslims in Bosnia?

What did those Muslims do once they had the upper hand? Burn the Christian churches and force the Christians to flee?

It's funny how you don't see the results of our actions in the news anymore.

Our duty to defend the innocent from evil is what gives us the authority.

And those innocent people include our own citizens here in America such as those murdered in San Bernadino. The longer we sit back and allow ISIS to thrive, the more effective and influential their recruiting efforts will become. Nothing breeds imitation like success. Again, that's why we need to make an example out of them.

And in this case we can't just go in and take them out and then leave because this Islamic blood phoenix would just rise again.

And what authority did we have to occupy Japan and Germany? Well whatever that authority was we have the same authority to do it to ISIS, and the oil is justly due reparations, much of which will be paid out to the victims of ISIS and their families.

But don't worry. There's basically no way we will do what I'm suggesting so we're going to try it Obama's way and just keep failing, each new innocent victim of ISIS another reminder of that continuing failure to stop them.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 13, 2016, 10:09:24 AM
Took bad you only seem to extend your concern for "innocents" to Christians.  That's a big reason we're in such a big mess.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: NobleHunter on April 13, 2016, 10:12:06 AM
I'm not sure which is worse: that cherry thinks the suggested course of action is moral or that he thinks it would work.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 13, 2016, 10:13:14 AM
Just because I only mentioned Christians doesn't mean we shouldn't protect the Jews and Yazidis and Kurds along with the gay and emo Muslims and everyone else. I thought that would be covered under the broad umbrella of those suffering from Muslim oppression, including of course other Muslims such as the one in Scotland who was just murdered by a fellow Muslim for saying that he hoped all his Christian friends had a happy Easter holiday.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on April 13, 2016, 10:18:10 AM
You say that like it would be an odd thing.  This is pretty much the way the world worked until recently.

Right. It was called colonialism :)
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: D.W. on April 13, 2016, 10:44:51 AM
You say that like it would be an odd thing.  This is pretty much the way the world worked until recently.

Right. It was called colonialism :)
And shockingly when the powerful countries decide, OK things are good enough.  We're content with the status quo.  Those who didn't get the hand they want at the game seem a bit upset.  That we think we can quit while ahead and change the rules, then act affronted when others object, is the strange thing.

If you want a stable world where colonialism is not the solution you need to be benevolent winners.  It is impossible to reason with people and get them to accept a lesser role in the world as their fate.  We can either be colonialists, wall ourselves in our fortress and try to forget the world outside or we can improve things for others to the point where they no longer resent us.

Quit blaming religious differences for our problems.  It is, and has always been, a smoke screen to excuse tactics, direct others towards a common goal or to firewall against total destruction in the hopes of reclaiming lost power.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on April 13, 2016, 12:24:21 PM
I'm not quite sure I'm following you, D.W...
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: D.W. on April 13, 2016, 12:44:14 PM
I'm not looking for followers.  :)

I wasn't directing the "quite blaming" part specifically at your quote.  If that was the confusion.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Greg Davidson on April 14, 2016, 01:58:42 AM
cherry,

Unfortunately, your comments indicate that your hatred is more towards Muslims than towards killers. I'll take one quote in particular, "What was our authority to bomb the hell out of the Christians defending themselves from violent Muslims in Bosnia?"  The primary instigators of genocide in the former Yugoslavia were Christians. If you are reading materials that somehow make Muslims the primary instigators of that killing (instead of Orthodoc Christian Serbs focusing on killing Croat Catholics), re-evaluate your sources.

As I have repeatedly demonstrated with data, since 9/11 the hands that have killed the most people on Earth have not been Muslims, they have been Christian.  There are Muslim killers of Christians, and Christian killers of Muslims, and Tamil suicide bombers killing hindus, and Buddhist killers oppressing Muslims. In recent years in the US, the terrorist who have killed the most Americans have been non-Muslim right wing extremists. A lot of people have killed a lot of other people, but except in terms of television coverage, there is no basis in fact for any belief that Muslims in general are a particular threat

Rather than your irrational focus on Muslim killers, I propose that we agree that we are against all killers. We oppose all extremists who kill in the name of their ideology. And to the degree we have a duty to protect non-Americans, we value all of those non-American lives the same rather than putting disproportionate focus on some killed by one particular flavor of extremist rather than another.
 
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 14, 2016, 06:31:47 AM
Religion is a red herring when trying to count up mass deaths attributed to "causes" over the centuries.  Power, greed, sociopathic charismatic leadership drive people to commit to massacres and all-out wars that measure success by the number of people who are killed and territory that is gained.  Followers go along either enthusiastically or out of fear and the people they attack fight back with similar expectations and fears.

It's people who do these atrocious things.  They all carry the banner of some Great Cause, either to expand the influence of or fiercely defend their religion, country or way of life.  The pathetic reality is that the losers in these wars either assimilate and lose their earlier stalwart identity or carry the deep scars and seek revenge in later generations.

Blaming religion instead of "human nature" is an excuse to continue the cycle of faceless killing into the next millennium.  Breaking the cycle, rather than accusing one side or another of being the villain, is the only way humanity can survive.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 14, 2016, 09:21:32 AM
Yeah. And don't forget the bathtub killers, Obama's top priority since they apparently murder more Americans every year than Muslims. I'm sorry but it's just not possible to take the "innocence of Muslims" seriously especially when we are now seeing the release of evidence that the Saudi government itself was probably helping the 9-11 terrorists and we know that Pakistan was hiding bin Laden. I guess what you assert makes sense though, but only if you agree with Obama that the violent Muslims like the ones in ISIS and al-Qaeda are not "true" Muslims. In that case there is no Muslim violence at all.

Here's a little bit of good news though.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/beast-gobbling-fighters-iraq-us-215837762.html

"Washington (AFP) - An American-made Iraqi army tank that locals have fondly nicknamed "The Beast" is playing a major role driving the Islamic State group from a town on the frontlines, a Pentagon official said Wednesday."

Maybe it's just propaganda but that's fine because it brings up a point I want to make anyway. I don't want to go into Iraq and Syria and destroy ISIS and take the oil ISIS is using to fund itself and terrorism. It's just that it needs to be done. The sooner ISIS is stopped, the better off the world will be. It doesn't really matter who does it. If Iraq with U.S. help and Syria with Russian help can do it that is definitely the best case scenario. But just letting ISIS continue to build its strength and attack the heart of Europe as well as inspire attacks in America is the worst possible option.

But I'm willing to listen to ideas, for instance Greg what do you think is the best way to handle it then?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 14, 2016, 12:14:35 PM
Going back to the issue of Trump being the most likely candidate willing to expose government corruption, especially much of what Obama is hiding, this is an example:

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/tom-fitton/what-does-fbi-have-obama-gang

" By Tom Fitton | April 13, 2016

Barack Obama at a news conference last month with Rahm Emanuel. They and another Obama staffer, Valerie Jarrett, have been interviewed in connection with the investigation of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

For several years we have been seeking records of then President-elect Barack Obama’s interview with two FBI agents and two assistant U.S. attorneys regarding former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, who was sentenced to fourteen years in federal prison for attempting to sell Obama’s vacated Senate seat...

... The FBI contends the release of these records “could reasonably be expected” to interfere with law enforcement proceedings...

... Writing in The Washington Examiner, Rudy Takala noted, “There are no enforcement proceedings related to the case known to be pending, leading critics to charge that the agency's denial is politically motivated...

... Well, yes.  This lawsuit highlights the personal corruption issues of Barack Obama.  He and his closest aides were interviewed by the FBI in a criminal investigation, and his administration doesn’t want Americans to have the details. The Chicago way shouldn’t TRUMP the American people’s right to know.

It won’t if we have anything to do with it."

---------------------------------------------------

I put the TRUMP in all caps. What did Obama know and when did he know it? What is "the most transparent administration in history" hiding? If Bernie or Hillary get elected will we ever find out? Not a chance. What about Kasich or some other Pollyanna? Not likely. Cruz might tell us but he won't gloat as much as he should about it. Trump will gleefully expose the massive corruption of Obama without hesitation and publicly scoff and ridicule the naivete of most Obama supporters while revealing the true colors of those who know Obama is corrupt and just don't care or know exactly how corrupt he is and delight in the fact that he has gotten away with so much. Until now.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 14, 2016, 05:45:18 PM
It goes without saying (but needs to be said) that you can always tell the FBI is lying because they are saying what you don't want to hear.  You also know with a high degree of certainty that Obama has something to hide because he hasn't revealed confidential evidence that would say otherwise.  And if he did, it would be flamingly obvious that he didn't reveal the REAL evidence that would prove his guilt (in whatever it is you're hoping to find him guilty of).

One thing is pretty clear, however.  If we don't break this curtain of silence we'll never know how deeply implicated he was in the Vince Foster murder or the Rahm Emanuel Bar Mitzvah atrocities.  No rush, we'll find out about all of these things when DRUMPF takes command.  The little women and little men in the overfed bureaucracy will all be on their knees begging him to tell them to open up.

Argue with me if you want, but I have to warn you that I'm not listening.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 15, 2016, 08:04:08 AM
http://www.newsweek.com/yezedis-islamic-state-christians-sex-slaves-human-rights-iraq-447842

Why Has The World Forgotten Islamic State's Female Sex Slaves?
By Skye Wheeler On 4/14/16 at 11:58 AM

"Twenty months ago the Islamic State (ISIS) abducted thousands of Yezidi women and girls as the extremist group swept through their villages in northern Iraq in the middle of a terrible summer. Many were forced to become sex slaves for the group’s fighters. Hundreds remain enslaved and many of those who have escaped are still reliving the trauma and often not getting the help they desperately need."

This is Obama's failure.

With all the talk from blacks about slavery you don't hear any of them least of all Obama talking about putting a stop to modern day slavery and more importantly actually doing something about it.

Instead the focus is on assassinating police officers by shooting them in the back as happened again in Houston.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_29765568/latest-someone-detained-over-deputy-constable-shooting?source=rss

"Clopton had assisted a colleague with a traffic stop and was leaning into a patrol vehicle when he was shot from behind."

This is what Trump and his supporters mean when they say they want to make America great again. It means putting a stop to ISIS and modern day slavery over there, securing the border and cracking down on sex slavery right here in America, and stopping the war on police. We always here about how dangerous rhetoric is and how what we should be concerned with most right now is anti-terrorist rhetoric that will cause violence against Muslims but liberals like Obama and BLM don't seem to appreciate their own arguments may also apply to their hateful attacks on police many of which are built on outright lies. Or do they appreciate it and that's why they do it?

So this is another part of the Trump draw. People are tired of everything getting turned upside down where the bad guys are the victims and the good guys like the police are made out to be evil.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: D.W. on April 15, 2016, 09:27:27 AM
cherry, can you try to phrase that again?  Why is it Obama's failure.  How does that tie into or contrast against assassinations of the police?   What is Trump's policy of dealing with ISIS' capture of girls in another country, held in another country?  What is is policy on dealing with, or ignoring assassinations of police officers? 

What point is it that post was suppose to make? 

Bad-guys in good-guy cloths are a worse threat than bad-guys.  Particularly bad-guys in another country.  But... That isn't necessarily the president's job.  Is that the point?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 15, 2016, 10:18:58 AM
Obama pulled out of Iraq too early.  I mean that's just obvious. The mistake wasn't going into Iraq. The mistake was abandoning those people when they needed us most. Obama doesn't want to do what needs to be done to stop slavery over there which is boots on the ground. Doing that will amount to admission of failure.

Obama continually insults the police and takes the side of blacks even when they are criminals.


There are some bad cops, no doubt about it, but many of these high profile cases are of good cops acting appropriately against criminals such as in Ferguson. The federal investigation there proved it. Has Obama come out and made the case for black people showing more respect for the cops? No. Obama himself has no respect for the police. Why would he when in his book he brags about enthusiastically trying every recreational drug he could get his hands on?

Why doesn't Obama get out there and go over the Ferguson case and put it quite bluntly to blacks that the cop was right and BLM is idiotic to use that case to justify anything at all?

http://nypost.com/2014/08/19/cop-involved-in-ferguson-shooting-has-fractured-eye-socket-report/

"The black teen killed by a white cop in Ferguson, Mo., viciously attacked the officer as he sat in his patrol car, delivering a bone-crunching punch that shattered the cop’s eye socket, a report claimed Tuesday.

Officer Darren Wilson suffered an “orbital blowout fracture to the eye socket,” Gateway Pundit reported, citing sources in the St. Louis County Police Department and the DA’s office."





Here's what a cop has to say about it:

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/04/30/sheriff-clarke-defends-cops-against-obama-insults-disdain-for-the-police-200247

"Clarke, who accused Obama with showing a “general disdain” for police officers, cautioned about a rush to judgement."

------------------------------------------------------------------

"General disdain." Perfect. He put that quite well.

----------------------------------------------------------------

On Tuesday, Obama denounced the burning and looting that took place in Baltimore, but after pointing to Ferguson, Mo., he added that “there are some police who aren’t doing the right thing.”

“I think there are police departments that have to do some soul-searching,” Obama said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------


Again, Obama's own federal investigation cleared the cop in Ferguson and yet that is still used as a rallying cry for Black Lives Matter and I suppose it's just a coincidence that with the President deriding the police we are getting a rash of cop shootings where people aren't even involved in a crime but they just walk up to a cop from behind and start shooting. Was that a popular thing to do before Obama? Well apparently it is now.

So the point is that Obama is a miserable excuse for a President and Trump will be so much better you won't even believe it. It's going to be a huge improvement right out of the gate just with the difference in attitude where Trump loves America and wants to make it great again as opposed to Obama who hates America and must bring it down low to build it back up the way he wants it.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Wayward Son on April 15, 2016, 10:36:21 AM
ISIS recently released a list of Muslim-Americans targeted for death because they have become "apostates" (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/14/isis-and-the-u-s-right-hate-the-same-muslims.html) (not that ISIS actually wants to kill apostates, because then they'd have to go and shoot themselves :)).  Interestingly enough, these same Muslim-Americans have also been attacked (verbally) by the Far Right for being terrorist sympathizers.

I guess the Far Right shares more with ISIS than they'd like to admit. ;)
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 15, 2016, 10:52:50 AM
Quote
Obama pulled out of Iraq too early.  I mean that's just obvious. The mistake wasn't going into Iraq. The mistake was abandoning those people when they needed us most. Obama doesn't want to do what needs to be done to stop slavery over there which is boots on the ground. Doing that will amount to admission of failure.
It wasn't a mistake going into Iraq if you couldn't see that it would destabilize the entire region. BTW, I'm talking about the first Iraq War, which even though it was a huge mistake pales against the ongoing horror created by the second invasion. 

Frankly, it wouldn't have made a hell of a lot of difference if Obama had reversed course from the US withdrawal that Bush had negotiated.  *WE* have to accept responsibility for the complete debacle of the Iraqi state that *WE* created after *WE* installed the government, which has been widely cited as the most corrupt government in the world.  Get that?  WE created the most corrupt government in the WORLD, and you're complaining that we aren't still sticking around to sacrifice our blood and treasure to prop it up. 

How many of your military buddies do you think it's worth letting die or come back maimed to do that?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: NobleHunter on April 15, 2016, 10:59:59 AM
Quote
Obama doesn't want to do what needs to be done to stop slavery over there which is boots on the ground.
Last I heard, the only candidate who proposed boots on the ground was Graham. So, none of the current candidate are suggesting re-invading Iraq. Trump is only suggesting murdering women and children.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 15, 2016, 11:31:19 AM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/10/donald-trump-islamic-state-put-boots-ground-take-o/

Donald Trump on Islamic State: Put boots on the ground, ‘take the oil for our country’

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Monday said his plan for combating the Islamic State terrorist group would be to “knock the hell out of” them and take back the oil the group controls in the Middle East.

“They have great money because they have oil. They have much oil,” Mr. Trump said via phone on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “Any place where they have oil, I would knock the hell out of ‘em, and I would put boots on the ground in those areas; I would take the oil. Because what you’re doing is you’re cutting off a big portion of their money source.”

------------------------------------------------------------------

"Trump is only suggesting murdering women and children."

As opposed to letting ISIS continue to do it for us?

ISIS has already proven they are willing to take the fight to us. They aren't just murdering "their" women and children. They are murdering ours. Should we just sit back and play with our drones until they launch another 9-11 type attack, meaning not with planes but something catastrophic for which we are unprepared like a dirty bomb, poisoning a water supply, blowing up a dam, etc?

Like I said, Obama doesn't take the threat seriously. Neither do most of his supporters. Obama's more worried about getting attacked by his bathtub.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: NobleHunter on April 15, 2016, 11:36:12 AM
Sorry, I don't keep up to date on what Trump's lying about now.

I'm dismayed at how little Trump and his supporters seem to care about not murdering people.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 15, 2016, 12:10:35 PM
Standing back and watching people get murdered and turned into sex slaves the way ISIS is doing when we can put a stop to it isn't any more moral than pulling the trigger or raping them ourselves. I guess that's the disconnect. Liberals release violent criminals from prison because of prison overcrowding, a 5-4 Supreme Court decision the liberal justices came down on the side of allowing new victims to suffer, and feel no responsibility for the crimes caused by their lack of action. It looks like that's the difference between a liberal and a conservative. If we put boots on the ground then all the collateral damage, the women and children who die because of course ISIS will hide behind them and use them as human shields is our fault, not the fault of ISIS. But if we do nothing and let those children be turned into psychopathic monsters used as brainwashed weapons by ISIS and if girls are turned into sex slaves and baby making factories to pump out a whole generation of ISIS soldiers to rinse and repeat this cycle then that's all on ISIS. Nothing to do with us even if we could have stopped it. Obama could have nipped it in the bud but as usual the threat was underestimated and downplayed. We all remember the "JV team". ISIS is still in its infancy. Taking them out now will reduce the misery quotient of the world much more than sitting back with a coke and some popcorn and just watching the cancer metastasize because cutting it out will be painful; it's going to be a lot less painful than letting it grow. That's what Trump understands that Obama, Hillary, Bernie, and even many of the Republican candidates don't.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: D.W. on April 15, 2016, 12:17:44 PM
One of my biggest gripes about Obama has been his habit of attempting to monopolize on social outrage before the facts are in.  So I'm with you on that criticism.  How you get from A to B I still don't entirely follow, but you do make what I consider a good point.  Iraq, I'll just have to agree to disagree.  If anything he dragged his feet on the withdraw. 
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 15, 2016, 12:37:11 PM
I can accept y'all's disagreement and put it another way, as the doctor's say, "First do no harm." And along with that don't make matters worse. With our history, with war in general, and with the way this war against ISIS would have to be fought on their terms not only behind women and children but against women and children, I can understand anyone not wanting that on their conscience and understand the concern that we will only cause even more suffering no matter how sincere our desire to help since that's about all we've really achieved up to now. It's just tough to sit back and watch. But I know the right answer isn't always that you have to do something, do anything, even if it's throwing a drowning man a hammer to hope that will help fix his situation.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 15, 2016, 12:38:18 PM
Quote
Standing back and watching people get murdered and turned into sex slaves the way ISIS is doing when we can put a stop to it isn't any more moral than pulling the trigger or raping them ourselves.
I find this very narrowly focused concern for what's happening in the place where we get our oil very disturbing.  Do you not think that other parts of the world suffer just as greatly as they do, but don't have oil that Trump would just plain take?  Don't forget that we are responsible for a major portion of the suffering of Iraqi's over the past 25 years.  How much better (or worse) would the people of that country be today if we had never invaded the first time, which was used to justify invading a second time, which is being used by Trump as a reason to invade a third time?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: D.W. on April 15, 2016, 01:22:17 PM
To AI's point, I didn't think you were referring to Iraq when I first read your complaint.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 15, 2016, 02:51:18 PM
ISIS is attacking us though. Ever heard of San Bernadino?

Boko Haram is not.

Okay I can see some people being okay with sitting back and watching Christian women getting their throats cut and their blood drained into a bucket and not caring enough to do anything about it because it's way over there but what's harder to understand is how people can see innocent Americans getting butchered like sheep in San Bernadino by ISIS and not caring enough to do anything about it. To people like me and Trump that is war. Are those just crimes though? Just let the police handle it? Maybe send the LAPD into ISIS territory to make some arrests? I think that's a little out of their jurisdiction.

 Not to mention al-Qaeda is still there and the Taliban is as strong as ever. Is New York City really that far away? If people want to be pacifists that's always their prerogative. I just pray I'm never in a position of weakness and at the mercy of evil with my only hope being those kinds of people.

But in any case, that's the difference between Trump and so many others. He's not just going to sit back and take it and smile and ask for more.

And maybe I missed it but can't recall seeing the suggestion on exactly what the proper response is supposed to be here. What should we be doing and what will it accomplish?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 15, 2016, 03:02:29 PM
Here's Bernie's position:

http://2016election.procon.org/view.source.election.php?sourceID=13496#question2050

"Should the United States Send Ground Troops to Fight ISIS?

"Well, let's understand that when we talk about Syria, you're talking about a quagmire in a quagmire. You're talking about a group of people trying to overthrow Assad, other groups of people fighting ISIS. You're talking about people who are fighting ISIS using their guns to overthrow Assad, and vice versa. I'm the former chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee, and in that capacity I learned a very powerful lesson about the cost of war, and I will do everything that I can to make sure that the United States does not get involved in another quagmire like we did in Iraq, the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country. We should be putting together a coalition of Arab countries who should be leading the effort. We should be supportive, but I do not support American ground troops in Syria."

Source: New York Times, "Full Transcript: Democratic Presidential Debate," nytimes.com, Oct. 14, 2015

[Editor's Note: In addition to the above Con statement, Bernie Sanders also made the following statement in his Nov. 19, 2015 speech "Senator Bernie Sanders on Democratic Socialism in the United States," available at berniesanders.com:

"I’m not running to pursue reckless adventures abroad, but to rebuild America’s strength at home. I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will never send our sons and daughters to war under false pretense or pretenses or into dubious battles with no end in sight...

To my mind, it is clear that the United States must pursue policies to destroy the brutal and barbaric ISIS regime, and to create conditions that prevent fanatical extremist ideologies from flourishing...

A new and effective coalition must be formed with the Muslim nations leading the effort on the ground, while the United States and other major forces provide the support they need."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with getting the Muslims over there to fight ISIS. That's a good plan. It's working to some extent with the Kurds. But Obama seems to have had the same idea for years now and it's just not happening. The King of Jordon made a good show of it in a moment of glory when one of their pilots was executed by ISIS but in the end nothing really came of that either. So even though that's a great idea what are we going to do if the Muslim countries simply refuse? So far for the most part they have because if they were serious, if even one major country over there was serious, ISIS would have been wiped out years ago. And that just hasn't happened.

It reminds me of the people always saying that the solution to border security is to solve all the economic, political, crime, corruption, disease, and lack of education problems of Latin America. Sure, that would be fantastic. Great idea. And until the day we finally enjoy that pie in the sky what do we do about the border? Just continue to leave it inadequately defended? Apparently, yes.

Or... maybe we don't wait until others solve our problems because that's just never going to happen. Maybe we need to solve them ourselves.

Edited to add: Just a good article that really nails it:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427219/obama-still-convinced-his-isis-strategy-events-what-events-jonah-goldberg
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: NobleHunter on April 15, 2016, 03:04:00 PM
Note: there's an awful lot of space between invading Iraq, again, and pacifism. I expect most people who object to your and Trump's harebrained schemes are doing so because those plans are unlikely to work. As I implied earlier, what you are suggesting is immoral and it wouldn't even have the justification of being successful (which I accept counts for a fair bit in international affairs).

Furthermore, you're implying the US isn't attacking ISIS. They aren't "just sitting back" but are actively engaged in blowing stuff up. Even we (Canada) had climbed onto that particular bandwagon before we elected a government that's slightly less hostile to reality.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Wayward Son on April 15, 2016, 03:33:38 PM
Quote
Okay I can see some people being okay with sitting back and watching Christian women getting their throats cut...

Why do you keep harping about Christian women, Cherry? Christian, Jew, Yazidi and Kurds make up maybe 10 percent of those murdered by ISIS.  90 percent of those murdered are Muslim.  Why don't you mention the vast majority of those killed by ISIS?  Why only mention the religion of a relatively small minority?

It almost sounds like you don't think they count. :(

Quote
...what's harder to understand is how people can see innocent Americans getting butchered like sheep in San Bernadino by ISIS and not caring enough to do anything about it.

I can see several reasons for that.

First, Americans get butchered like sheep every day and we hardly do anything about it.  How many people were butchered in San Bernadino before those two ISIS supporters went on a rampage?  How many since?  How many Americans have been slaughtered since the San Bernadino massacre across the country by non-ISIS killers?  What are we doing about that?

50 times the number of people are murdered every year, but because those two were "ISIS," we should invade another country and risk losing a few thousand more Americans to "keep us safe?"  Considering the damage ISIS has done to us so far, it won't make a damn bit of difference.

Second, IIRC, those two murders were merely ISIS supporters.  They were not directly supported by ISIS, did not follow any orders from ISIS, and basically did what they did on their own initiative.  Destroying ISIS probably won't prevent such people from doing harm; they'll just find some other radical organization to follow.  They didn't need ISIS to do what they did.

Furthermore, is that really the standard we want to use to go after organizations?  That they "inspire" people to kill?  How about those that inspired the terrorist Robert Dear, Jr?  Shouldn't we go after them, too?  Or those that inspired the terrorists Jerad and Amanda Miller?  Shouldn't those bastards be stopped, too?  Or those that inspired terrorist Timothy McVeigh?  168 American men, women and children dead, more than 680 injured.  Why haven't we crushed those that inspired him?

It is because ISIS is "the other," while those other terrorists were inspired by people closer to home? ;)

We are doing something about ISIS, just as we are doing something about the murders in our country and those that inspire them.  But we aren't going to go overboard.  We aren't going to break international law, have hundreds if not thousands of Americans killed taking and holding territory that we have no claim to, and justify everything that ISIS has been saying, just because they bloodied our noses.  Because ultimately, amid all the terror and murder and atrocities that go on in this world, the ISIS cockroaches are a minor player.  And while we will stamp them out, we will do so in a slow, sober manner that minimizes casualties (at least American) and hopefully does so in a lasting way.  We won't let our outrage lead us into ill-conceived plans (like Trump proposes*) that will end up hurting us more than ISIS has done.

No, it ain't perfect.  But if you've looked around, you've probably noticed that this isn't a perfect world.  And it's hard to be outraged when there is so many other outrages going on all the time.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 15, 2016, 04:10:50 PM
I'm not going to apologize for caring about Christian women. Why would anyone have such a problem with it being highlighted that Christian women are being viciously murdered by Muslims for the crime of refusing to convert to Islam?

Should we sweep it under the rug and pretend it never happened like Mama Merkel did with the mass rape by Muslims against innocent young German ladies while the police did absolutely nothing to protect them because it exposes the lies we are being told?

Why don't I mention the others? Well for one thing I did. But if it concerns you so much go ahead and mention it. Going down the list of the groups ISIS and other Muslims are abusing and oppressing, murdering in the name of Islam and enslaving will get tedious because that's a lot of people.

If you go to Catholic.org you can see exactly what ISIS is doing to Christian women. And Yazidis. And children.

What I'm hearing is that you don't want to do anything. That's fine. That's one option. It's just not one I support.

And in America we don't generally just let murderers and rapists and other criminals get away with it. We go after them. That's why we have the police.

Similarly when crimes are committed against Americans in acts of war by foreign powers there is no law that says we need to let those people get away with it either. We can go after them and bring them to justice. That's why we have the military.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 15, 2016, 04:15:13 PM
ISIS is directly calling for these types of attacks. It seems like that's some sort of crime to me but I'm no lawyer. Are you suggesting that is completely legal?

If someone did the same thing in America we would go after them. In fact, Obama's got his law enforcement apparatus all over them looking for any such excuse to take them out.

Remember this?

 "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks

    Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists,” it says. “DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities..."
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: D.W. on April 15, 2016, 04:39:14 PM
So, rather than making the world safe for everyone, why not focus on inviting in those who are being persecuted?  Put boots on the ground right along side those tires on the ground and passenger planes on tarmacs.  Keep them there just long enough to let anyone hitch a ride who wants out. 

Then we can defend our home and be the saviors, without antagonizing others by our presence and meddling.  Oh, right, because we are afraid those people we try to save are or may become terrorists who can't or won't integrate with our culture...

So lets go out there and "secure" their areas, then make a few bucks in the process because... hey, that's fair.  We are doing them a favor!  Ouch!  Hey, why are you fighting us?   ::)
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Wayward Son on April 15, 2016, 05:29:15 PM
Quote
Why would anyone have such a problem with it being highlighted that Christian women are being viciously murdered by Muslims for the crime of refusing to convert to Islam?

Because by constantly emphasizing Christian women, you seem to be ignoring the Muslim women who are being viciously murdered by Muslims for the crime of refusing to convert to their brand of Islam.  Aren't they women, too?  Aren't you equally outraged that they are getting murdered, too?  Then why not mention them?

I mean, if someone was killing women in the U.S.--all types of women, but mostly white--wouldn't you find it odd and just a bit annoying if someone kept talking about how this person was killing "black women?"  Wouldn't you think something weird was going on when only, at most, 10 percent of the women were black?  That's just what you're doing.

Quote
What I'm hearing is that you don't want to do anything. That's fine. That's one option. It's just not one I support.

Sorry, but you're not hearing that.  That comes from your own head, not from me.  Yes, we need to do something.  And we are.  We are bombing them.  We are coordinating with local troops to attack them.  We are supplying the resistance.  And I'm sure we'll do more in the future.

But we can't just waltz in there and kick them out.  They are occupying territory of other countries, countries that are fighting them.  We can't just invade our allies because it's more convenient for us, or because they are not winning fast enough to us.  Especially when it will probably make the overall situation worse, not better.  And especially in a war zone where other groups are fighting each other, which will only make the situation so much more of a mess.  (Would we ally with Syria and Russia, or the Syrian rebels, some of whom are ISIS?)

One day we may very well invade the area.  But we're not the world's policeman, no matter how much we want to be.  We can't do anything that we want to.  We have to work with other nations.  We have to work with the situation.

I'd love to do more, to see these cockroaches stomped right now.  But not at the cost of being stuck in a quagmire, watching our American soldiers die year after year for nothing.  Not doing something stupid is not the same as doing nothing. :P
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 15, 2016, 06:55:47 PM
Cherry, in your thinking you have to think of it like a cancer, particularly a cancer that is either embedded in vital tissue that you would kill the patient to cure, like pancreatic cancer, or one that so thoroughly infiltrates the healthy tissue, like glioma, that there is no real treatment for today.  ISIS is not something *on* the culture, but something *in* the culture.  You can't kill it, you have to find a way to confine and control it.  Bombs won't do it, as we've proven many times over.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 15, 2016, 09:54:06 PM
Going back to justification to go to war against ISIS and destroy them utterly, if the San Bernadino attack was too indirect a connection then how about the attacks on Paris and Belgium? They are our allies and in NATO so aren't we treaty bound to help defend them and go to war with ISIS?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on April 16, 2016, 05:26:35 AM
Not to mention al-Qaeda is still there and the Taliban is as strong as ever.

Hey man, you need to keep yourself updated. These are our allies now, didn't you hear? They're on 'our side' against Assad and the Houthis in Yemen. Maybe some day ISIS will be on our side too, once 10 or so years have passed and everyone forgets that we're supposed to be at war with them.

I agree with getting the Muslims over there to fight ISIS. That's a good plan. It's working to some extent with the Kurds. But Obama seems to have had the same idea for years now and it's just not happening.

You think the U.S. is allied with the Kurds against ISIS? Of all factions in Syria the Kurds are the one group not supported by the U.S. as far as I can tell, since they are enemies of a member of the G20. Gotta love Turkey. Whatever idea you seem to think Obama's had about arming Muslims to fight ISIS, I don't think the Kurds are part of it. But a great deal of effort has been spent on arming the 'moderate' rebels in Syria (including Al Qaeda), so that's what you are perhaps referring to.

ISIS is directly calling for these types of attacks. It seems like that's some sort of crime to me but I'm no lawyer. Are you suggesting that is completely legal?

What in the world has American law to do with what ISIS does in its own territory? It may be against international law (which really only applies to recognized sovereign nations, which ISIS is not) but it certainly wouldn't fall under any criminal law unless ISIS is breaking its own laws within its own borders. You could make the case that it's not ok for them to call for attacks, but the legality of it is more or less irrelevant. Terrorist groups aren't concerned with law...

Going back to justification to go to war against ISIS and destroy them utterly, if the San Bernadino attack was too indirect a connection then how about the attacks on Paris and Belgium? They are our allies and in NATO so aren't we treaty bound to help defend them and go to war with ISIS?

Treaties of this sort (mutual defense) are invoked when a nation is attacked or invaded by another nation. It does not apply to terrorist attacks, nor to policing actions. Otherwise you would have seen the U.S. invoke such a treaty obligation after 9-11, which obviously it did not. Instead Bush had to use persuasion to get some other countries to help in Afghanistan and then Iraq 2.0. That doesn't mean a nation should blithely ignore when its ally is having difficulties of various sorts, but that's different from an obligation. No nation, however, should ever feel compelled to take an invasive action in foreign territory to help and ally when that ally itself is unwilling or deems it unnecessary to take such action.

Your main points seems to be that ISIS is a major threat to the U.S. and needs to be stopped, which is a rhetorical narrative that has been pushed for some time and has no basis in reality. They have been determined already to be no tactical threat to the U.S. at all. The humane issues involved in what ISIS does to its local population matters, however as others have mentioned the only difference between ISIS and, say, Boko Haram would be that ISIS is dwelling in oil-rich areas, which would make a call to deal with them and not other groups mercenary at best.

I do, however, agree with another point you made, which is that there were several opportunities for the U.S. to take an aggressive posture against ISIS long ago which it clearly opted not to do. I think the reason for this is all too clear: Obama was hedging on ISIS taking down Assad and removing a problem for the G20 (as well as for Saudi Arabia and Israel), after which perhaps ISIS might have been dealt with. That didn't happen, of course, and then to further scuttle the plan Russia got involved and began to do what the U.S. was calling for but wasn't actually doing. Without addressing whether or not this was a good plan initially, it seems evident to me in any case that ISIS exists as it does now because it was deliberately allowed to. So I'm with you there. Where I disagree is regarding how much of a need there really is to take extreme action to deal with them. I don't think they're worth it. If anything I prefer Bernie's idea of trying to help local nations deal with them. Since this would include supporting Assad's regime in Syria this plan has been deemed unacceptable to many powerful people (especially Hillary and certain Republican groups) but I think it's the best option.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 16, 2016, 08:04:53 AM
Going back to justification to go to war against ISIS and destroy them utterly, if the San Bernadino attack was too indirect a connection then how about the attacks on Paris and Belgium? They are our allies and in NATO so aren't we treaty bound to help defend them and go to war with ISIS?
Those countries are responding with overwhelming public support against the threat to their internal security and well-being.  I wish people like you who would use isolated events here and over there to incite us to declare an all-out war against ISIS would apply your passion to far more sweeping problems we have long suffered from in this country.

Fenring:
Quote
They have been determined already to be no tactical threat to the U.S. at all.
No strategic threat.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Wayward Son on April 16, 2016, 10:50:54 AM
Going back to justification to go to war against ISIS and destroy them utterly, if the San Bernadino attack was too indirect a connection then how about the attacks on Paris and Belgium? They are our allies and in NATO so aren't we treaty bound to help defend them and go to war with ISIS?

Cherry, we are at war with ISIS.  What do you think dropping bombs on someone means?

As to destroying them utterly, that is the ultimate goal.  But we can't do it willy-nilly.  This isn't your conventional war.

ISIS is not a nation.  They hold territory, but it's conquered territory.  Most of the people in the territory aren't ISIS supporters; at most, they are people who have sworn allegiance to ISIS in order not to be beheaded.  Which is why the idea of carpet bombing the area that some of our Presidential candidates have mentioned is so stupid.  It would be like suggesting to carpet bomb Paris during the Nazi occupation.  ::)

Similarly, the idea of going in and taking ISIS' territory is stupid, because it isn't ISIS' territory.  It belongs to Iraq and Syria.  Coming in and taking the territory would be like coming into Paris, kicking out the Nazis, and then declaring it U.S. territory.  We would be no better than the conquerors we just kicked out, and we would be treated just like them.

So we need to defeat ISIS without alienating those who own the territory ISIS occupies.  The best way to do that is to let those who own the territory take it back themselves.  Easier said than done when one country is in the midst of a horrible civil war and the other country is tottering on the brink of one.

So while the simple solution of just declaring that "they can't take care of it themselves and we'll do it" sounds good, it will ultimately just make us the next ISIS that they will deal with.  Which means we won't just have ISIS survivors out to kill us, but every nationalistic Iraqi and Syrian and every person that sympathizes with them or fears a conquering U.S. and just needed proof.  IOW, a whole lot more people than before. :(

We are at war with ISIS, and ultimately we want to completely obliterate them.  But we have to do it the right way, the way that will decrease the number of people who want to fight us, not increase it.  As the old joke goes:

Young Bull: Hey, let's run down the hill and **** one of those cows.

Old Bull: No, let's walk down the hill and **** them all. :)
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on April 16, 2016, 12:32:38 PM
Fenring:
Quote
They have been determined already to be no tactical threat to the U.S. at all.
No strategic threat.

A nitpick, to be sure, but quite right. Thanks I guess.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 16, 2016, 02:02:56 PM
You're all making some good points and I'll let them just stand. We don't need to go back and forth on everything we disagree with or even agree on when sometimes it's enough to just each say our piece and leave it be at that.

But I will revisit the emphasis on the Christians being slaughtered and genocided by ISIS and why according to liberal theology that is actually a greater crime than when Muslims are murdering Muslims. The short answer is because when a Muslim does it to a Christian specifically because they are a Christian that is a hate crime. It has been beaten into us now for years that hate crimes are worse than regular crimes and more must be done about them. The same thing goes for genocide which we are told is worse than your run of the mill mass slaughter.

I'm all for giving Christians facing death and sex slavery at the hands of ISIS and Muslims in Africa like Boko Haram sanctuary in America or where ever they want to go but there is one big problem with that approach which is that it offers a resounding victory to the Muslims in their goal to drive the Christians out of "Muslim" territory, perhaps for the foreseeable future. Aren't liberals supposed to be opposed to that?

The only way to prevent that result is to go in there and secure the area and wrest control away from the Muslim oppressors like ISIS and others. Inviting in Christians and people of other religions from around the world, as well as peaceful Muslims, into the lands that ISIS and others are attempting to purge them from would offer poetic justice and a pleasing symmetry by not only thwarting the attempt at genocide and a religious purging but giving the genocidal Muslims the exact opposite of what they wanted and in spades with millions more Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and anyone else who wants to come and defend their new home and the opportunity to escape whatever squalor is driving them from their home countries. All that's probably never going to happen of course but the least we should strive to prevent is ISIS achieving their goal of driving the Christians and others out of lands their ancestors have inhabited for over a thousand years and again the only way to do that is to go in there and soon to take ISIS out because the longer we wait the more final and complete this genocidal religious purging becomes.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Greg Davidson on April 16, 2016, 08:01:38 PM
Quote
I will revisit the emphasis on the Christians being slaughtered and genocided by ISIS and why according to liberal theology that is actually a greater crime than when Muslims are murdering Muslims

Wrong about liberal theology in so many ways. Murder is murder.

In my view, hate crimes are in some ways like terrorism, the evil is both for the act of murder/violence and the additional political intent of the act of murder/violence.  I am not a huge fan of hate crime legislation because I think that the murder matters far more than the rationale, and that there aren't many "nice" rationales for murder.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 17, 2016, 10:18:51 AM
Another expectation I have of Trump, and why the establishment of both parties may be so afraid of him, is that he will make public embarrassing things like this:

http://nypost.com/2016/04/17/how-us-covered-up-saudi-role-in-911/

Bush obviously instigated this coverup but Obama's hands are not clean either because after promising transparency he has had years to actually deliver but has instead only continued the coverup.

Nobody else will go after this kind of stuff the way I hope and expect Trump will. It validates everything he is saying and will prove to Americans that they were right to elect him when he shows us the lies our government has been telling us for years and across administrations in both parties.

A vote against Trump is a vote against the truth and a vote for perpetual ignorance of what the hell is really going on.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 17, 2016, 11:45:15 AM
Quote
A vote against Trump is a vote against the truth and a vote for perpetual ignorance of what the hell is really going on.
A vote FOR Trump is a vote for ignorance AND ego, hubris, narcissism and shallow thinking.  Everything you seem to like about him is based on one or or more those things.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: DJQuag on April 17, 2016, 11:49:13 AM
Cherry I understand your excitement for Trump, and I even agree that he is more likely then the others to go digging for things.

But you keep on saying "When Trump is President." You do know his unfavorable ratings are historically high, like around s 70 percent? Short of Clinton getting the nomination and then being indicted shortly before the election, there is just no possible way that he carries a general election; hell, he's even beginning to have trouble with the GOP base.

The only reason the media keeps talking about him like he could win is that it scares the *censored* out of the majority, and gets the minority excited. In other words, it's good for business.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 17, 2016, 12:10:08 PM
Al, we seem to be talking about different types of ignorance. There is the type you are talking about with being Islamophobic and racist and not knowing how to play the primary system with the delegates.

And then there is the ignorance graciously bestowed upon a populace by a magnanimous Orwellian government for our own protection and blissful happiness.

By voting against the former Trumpian type of ignorance that will be casting a vote for the latter type of ignorance. We will never know what we do not know and that is the worst type of ignorance there is.

----------------------------------------------------

Obviously I don't know for sure if Trump will win or not in a general election. I don't even know if he will win the primary. I could say "if" Trump wins the Presidency instead of "when" by I choose to be optimistic. I think he has a much better chance against Bernie or Hillary than Cruz does no matter what the polls say. I'm confident Cruz supporters will be more likely to vote for Trump than the other way around particularly if Cruz steals the primary the way he is doing now. Technically Cruz didn't cheat Trump, of course. That's just the rules. But he sure as hell lawyered him. And Trump supporters don't like that any better. Plus Cruz has absolutely no crossover appeal. And Trump will go after his Democrat opponent in ways that will make them squeal in pain unlike other Republicans who play only with kid gloves. For instance, Trump wouldn't hesitate to use this new Saudi 9-11 connection against Hillary. What did she know and when did she know it? He will hammer all of her scandals mercilessly. It's going to be HUGE. You're going to love it.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 17, 2016, 12:39:53 PM
Quote
By voting against the former Trumpian type of ignorance that will be casting a vote for the latter type of ignorance. We will never know what we do not know and that is the worst type of ignorance there is.
I can't help but think that your idea of finding out the dread secrets is like breaking the cookie jar to get at the cookies inside.  All you want is cookies, and you think having Trump wreak havoc will get you a tasty treat.  OK, after you've broken the cookie jar, binged on the cookies and the jar can't be put back together, what comes next? 

Seriously, all you have going for you is wishful thinking about how Trump will brilliantly solve all those problems, so after your wishes are granted, what do you think comes next?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: DJQuag on April 17, 2016, 12:45:45 PM
I have no liking for Clinton, so I probably would get enjoyment out of it.

Clinton is beatable by Trump. Extremely unlikely, but possible. I don't think that Sanders is. The man doesn't have scandals, has a long record of correctly calling out America's dumbest mistakes, and positions like single payer healthcare, universal higher education, and regulation of the financial industry are not only no longer third rails, they become more and more popular as time goes on.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 17, 2016, 12:50:45 PM
Are you suggesting that if the Saudi government was involved in planning and executing the attack against America on 9-11 that this should, if it were possible, continue to be covered up for our own good? And Americans don't have the right to know other such dangerous information?

Now I don't think we have the right to know everything especially operational secrets that would put intelligence assets at risk, but I do think we have the right to know who exactly was responsible for the deaths of over 3000 Americans on 9-11. Covering that up would be like FDR trying to hide the fact that Japan was behind the attack on Pearl Harbor, if he could have gotten away with it. After all, didn't that knowledge end up leading us into a war that cost over four hundred thousand American lives?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 17, 2016, 01:01:56 PM
Well I like Sanders. I don't think his proposals will work but it probably won't hurt too much to give them a shot and find out one way or another. Of course I had the same type of thinking with Obama except I trusted Obama a lot less. But when you think about all the money Obama just completely wasted many of the proposals of Sanders make a lot more sense. At least paying for college tuition gets you something for the money instead of throwing away the trillions of dollars like Obama did and having nothing at all to show for it. Did I make the joke about Imelda Marcos saying that even though she wasted loads of taxpayer money at least she had more to show for it than Obama with her room full of shoes? And some of what Sanders wants to do like taxpayer funded college only costs a drop in the bucket compared to the ten trillion dollars Obama flushed down the toilet. I think we were debating whether or not Obama doubled the national debt and before he technically hadn't but I'm pretty sure now he and his supporters can be very proud of themselves for achieving that goal. I feel confident predicting that even if Sanders could do everything he dreams about and even if it didn't work out nearly as well as he hopes it will still be a vast improvement over the last eight years. The reduction in corruption alone, if it happens like we all hope it will under a President who wasn't spawned from the Chicago machine, will be a huge improvement.

And if Trump can't beat Sanders, then I highly doubt Cruz would have beat him either.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 17, 2016, 01:56:44 PM
Are you suggesting that if the Saudi government was involved in planning and executing the attack against America on 9-11 that this should, if it were possible, continue to be covered up for our own good? And Americans don't have the right to know other such dangerous information?

What would you do with that information?  It should have been revealed right after the attack so we knew who and what we should be fighting against.  I'm assuming the Saudi government (the wrong word for their extended monarchy) did have some involvement and maybe even were indispensable to the plan.  I am guessing the reason we didn't go after them on 9/12 and during the Iraq war that followed is due to a calculation that going after them would hurt us even more than they already had done.  That's probably still true today.  Note the current bill being debated in Congress that would allow victims of 9/11 to sue foreign governments.  The Saudi response is that if the bill becomes law they will sell off many $$B of their US assets, which could throw our economy into a tailspin and expose our own government to international lawsuits.  You have to think about those things before you smash the cookie jar.

Quote
Now I don't think we have the right to know everything especially operational secrets that would put intelligence assets at risk, but I do think we have the right to know who exactly was responsible for the deaths of over 3000 Americans on 9-11. Covering that up would be like FDR trying to hide the fact that Japan was behind the attack on Pearl Harbor, if he could have gotten away with it. After all, didn't that knowledge end up leading us into a war that cost over four hundred thousand American lives?
I'm for sunshine laws, but like everything else, in some moderation.  The government does a lot of things that hurt some segment of the population, usually for some reason based on the larger benefit of the status quo that acting differently would upset.  We even have a significant history of illegal acts for which there are no possible moral excuses.  Many of those things -- but not all -- should be revealed.

The problem is that a completely open government is weaker in some respects.  For example, you're a big fan of invading foreign countries and stealing their oil.  Do you really want to know the nitty-gritty of how the decisions were really made that sent you and hundreds of thousands of other patriotic young men and women into the Mideast desert where thousands died and over 100,000 came back with lifelong injuries?  If you really knew, wouldn't you feel like an idiot?

The bottom line is you pay a price for telling the truth just as you do for lying.  In order to get you to believe that the second Iraq war was a "success" partly because of torturing prisoners, they told you a story and you did believe it. Trump wants to do all those things "and worse" when he is in charge.  Will you believe him when he tells you how incredibly successful and smart he's been?

He's a con man and you're his mark.  He's playing you like a cheap violin and loving every second.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 17, 2016, 02:49:37 PM
I wouldn't worry about disruption to our economy from the Saudis selling off their assets. That's the same type of thing we hear all the time about the threat of the Chinese selling off our bonds. So what? They have to sell them to someone. Just like if you are fed up with paying your property taxes so you threaten to sell your house and move away does the tax authority care at all? Nope. Someone has to buy it for you to sell it and then they will pay the taxes. If a lot of people sell off then they someone still has to buy the property for them to sell, unless we are talking about mass bankruptcies and defaults which would be a different story.

Besides which, the problem of the Saudis selling may not be a problem at all if the law passes. They should of course be prevented from selling anything and their assets in America will be frozen until after their trial. If they lose, which this new evidence is suggesting they will, then those assets will be confiscated and we will sell them off to the highest bidders to pay the families of the victims of 9-11 among others including the expenses of our own government and taxpayers. Once you tack on punitive damages and damages for pain and suffering the Saudis won't have to worry about selling anything.

In any case, put me on record as having the position that our government was and is wrong regarding this massive 9-11 cover-up. All this time I honestly thought Bush helped the Saudis escape because they were innocent. If he did it because he knew they were guilty that is aiding and abetting an enemy in time of war. That is treason. Maybe the liberals will have their dream of seeing Bush in prison come true after all. And for his role in the ongoing coverup Obama can share his cell.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 17, 2016, 04:02:18 PM
I suppose my character would be Watchmen's Rorschach who demands that people know the truth instead of living under the protection of a lie whereas others agree more with Colonel Jessep in A Few Good Men: "You can't handle the truth!"

This is just the tip of the iceberg concerning all the lies we have been told and the vast of majority of the lies Trump will expose don't have this moral dilemma associated with them but are serving only to mask simple incompetence and outright corruption in our government. 
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on April 18, 2016, 11:56:38 AM
But I will revisit the emphasis on the Christians being slaughtered and genocided by ISIS and why according to liberal theology that is actually a greater crime than when Muslims are murdering Muslims. The short answer is because when a Muslim does it to a Christian specifically because they are a Christian that is a hate crime. It has been beaten into us now for years that hate crimes are worse than regular crimes and more must be done about them. The same thing goes for genocide which we are told is worse than your run of the mill mass slaughter.

Actually, what ISIS is doing almost specifically meets the criteria for genocide, as their intent is to deliberately alter the demographic composition of a region. But then it also can be (somewhat) classed as "a domestic issue" which has unique carve outs under international law.

http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/icc/statute/part-a.htm
(part 2)
Quote
Article 6: Genocide

            For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

            (a)     Killing members of the group; 
            (b)     Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; 
            (c)     Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; 
            (d)     Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; 
            (e)     Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Check on (a), check on (b), check on (c), check on (d), and check on (e). Looks like ISIS has a clean sweep.

Now lets continue.

Quote
Article 7: Crimes against humanity

1.         For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

            (a)     Murder; 
            (b)     Extermination; 
            (c)     Enslavement;
            (d)     Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
            (e)     Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; 
            (f)     Torture; 
            (g)     Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; 
            (h)     Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
            (i)     Enforced disappearance of persons; 
            (j)     The crime of apartheid; 
            (k)     Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

I'm pretty sure the only one that ISIS didn't get on THAT list was (j) but even that can be argued, given the definition they use for it, as detailed below( 2 (h) ).

Quote
2.         For the purpose of paragraph 1: 

            (a)     "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;
            (b)     "Extermination" includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population; 
            (c)     "Enslavement" means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;
            (d)     "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
            (e)     "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;
            (f)     "Forced pregnancy" means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy; 
            (g)     "Persecution" means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity; 
            (h)     "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime; 
            (i)     "Enforced disappearance of persons" means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time. 

3.         For the purpose of this Statute, it is understood that the term "gender" refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term "gender" does not indicate any meaning different from the above.

Article 8: War crimes

1.         The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

2.         For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:

            (a)     Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

                    (i)     Wilful killing;
                    (ii)     Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
                    (iii)     Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health; 
                    (iv)     Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; 
                    (v)     Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power; 
                    (vi)     Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial; 
                    (vii)     Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
                    (viii)     Taking of hostages.

            (b)     Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

                     (i)     Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
                    (ii)     Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives; 
                    (iii)     Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict; 
                    (iv)     Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; 
                    (v)     Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
                    (vi)     Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
                    (vii)     Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
                    (viii)     The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;
                    (ix)     Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;
                    (x)     Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;
                    (xi)     Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
                    (xii)     Declaring that no quarter will be given;
                    (xiii)     Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
                    (xiv)     Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party; 
                    (xv)     Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war; 
                    (xvi)     Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault; 
                    (xvii)     Employing poison or poisoned weapons; 
                    (xviii)     Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices; 
                    (xix)     Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions; 
                    (xx)     Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;
                    (xxi)     Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
                    (xxii)     Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions;
                    (xxiii)     Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;
                    (xxiv)     Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;
                    (xxv)     Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;
                    (xxvi)     Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.

            (c)     In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:

                    (i)     Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; 
                    (ii)     Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
                    (iii)     Taking of hostages; 
                    (iv)     The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable. 

            (d)     Paragraph 2 (c) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature.

            (e)     Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

                    (i)     Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
                    (ii)     Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;
                    (iii)     Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;
                    (iv)     Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;
                    (v)     Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;
                    (vi)     Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence also constituting a serious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions;
                    (vii)     Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities;
                    (viii)     Ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand;
                    (ix)     Killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary;
                    (x)     Declaring that no quarter will be given;
                    (xi)     Subjecting persons who are in the power of another party to the conflict to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;
                    (xii)     Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict;

             (f) Paragraph 2 (e) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature. It applies to armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when there is protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups.

3.         Nothing in paragraph 2 (c) and (e) shall affect the responsibility of a Government to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the unity and territorial integrity of the State, by all legitimate means.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on April 18, 2016, 01:26:33 PM
Oh, it should be noted, the previous post was quoting the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court. You know, they lovely organization that is the Pride and Joy of Western Europe, that the United States went to great lengths to avoid having our troops falling under the jurisdiction of. :)
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 27, 2016, 07:35:25 AM
Inching ever closer to locking down their Party nominations, Clinton and Trump are gearing up for full frontal battle.  Trump opened it up last night by saying if Hillary were a man she'd be getting only 5% of the primary votes.  I can't wait for her to dump on him.

Meanwhile, Bernie is now shifting his focus to amassing as many delegates as possible so he can push for his "progressive agenda" at the convention.  I think that is a meaningless objective, since all Hillary needs is to have one delegate over the top.  If he wants to influence her he will have to align himself with her first (sort of like a loyalty pledge).

On the other side, Cruz is playing the "long game" of trying to corral enough delegates to win on the second ballot.  That is not out of the question, given it is still hard for Trump to go to the convention with enough committed delegates to take the first ballot.  Even though he clobbered Cruz in PA last night, the majority of the delegates who were elected are uncommitted and presumably can be bought. 

I heard a story about a group of GOP party operatives who moved to the Virgin Islands, which will send 9 "soft-pledged" and unpledged delegates to the GOP convention this year. It's a mess, but basically John Yob moved to the VI specifically for the purpose of becoming a GOP delegate to Cleveland, and is working behind the scenes with 5 other delegates to shop their votes to either Cruz or Trump.  That's a particularly overt bit of chicanery, but we shouldn't assume that all leaning or uncommitted delegates will actually vote the way their favored candidate expects.  If Trump falls one vote short on the first ballot, the odds swing in Cruz's direction.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: DJQuag on April 27, 2016, 09:34:05 AM
Man, am I ever sick of Team Clinton and her supporters telling Sanders and his supporters that they need to just shut up now and act like good Democratic drones.

I'd be happiest if Sanders didn't concede until every last delegate was counted on the convention floor. He talks about things and ideas that Clinton doesn't. Good ideas.

This movement is the left version of the Tea Party. And the Democrats have the same choice now that the Republicans did back then. Either start paying serious attention to it, or run the risk of losing a large amount of voters. The only reason it won't hit full force in this election is Trump.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: D.W. on April 27, 2016, 09:40:47 AM
Quote
Meanwhile, Bernie is now shifting his focus to amassing as many delegates as possible so he can push for his "progressive agenda" at the convention.  I think that is a meaningless objective, since all Hillary needs is to have one delegate over the top.  If he wants to influence her he will have to align himself with her first (sort of like a loyalty pledge).
Early on I was of the mind that either of these two would work.  Then the more I watched/read the more I realized how strongly I prefer Bernie.  Even then, if Clinton was “winning” then I’d get over it.

However the media’s treatment of Sanders as well as seeing in practice what I’ve always known about the two party system has left a very bad taste in my mouth.  The independents, fence sitters as well as people who just want you to EARN their vote rather than demand your loyalty, just don’t have a voice in the primary system.  At least the Democrats don’t have the truly awful “winner takes all” delegate system the Republicans put up with.

But no, Bernie doesn’t need to do anything to influence her.  He’s already said as much.  He needs to prove that there are enough people out there whom she cannot take for granted.  People who SHE needs to court, and maybe even try to represent.  He just needs to pull in enough delegates (he already has) to shine a light on these people and show her that while she may still have an advantage given the rules of the game, she cannot afford to ignore this group.  A group I’m convinced would be the majority if the primary elections were all open and not party restricted.

But hey, why think about all that when you had “dominating wins” of 4 of 5 states?  It was interesting to learn what constitutes “dominating” by the media now.  It’s not enough to say she gained 58 delegates on her lead?  I’m bummed out Bernie lost when honestly he did need to win by that amount or more, but still the media continues to attempt to force the man, and more importantly, his voters, into irrelevancy. 

His loyalty pledge doesn’t mean *censored* to me were he to make it.  She needs to be the one making pledges to win me over.  My vote was not given to someone so that he could hand it over to the person I declined to cast it for.  I’ll make up my own mind again, once I know who my choices are and know as much about them as possible.  The longer the primaries continue (hopefully up until the end) the more we’ll know.  And it’s not like there is anything Bernie can do to damager her that the Republican’s won’t.  Smear all you want, they aren’t so inept that they can’t come up with an attack strategy without Sanders’ help.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 27, 2016, 12:39:17 PM
Quote
This movement is the left version of the Tea Party. And the Democrats have the same choice now that the Republicans did back then. Either start paying serious attention to it, or run the risk of losing a large amount of voters. The only reason it won't hit full force in this election is Trump.
I don't think they are anything like each other.  The Tea Party has a set of representatives in Congress that uphold the same so-called principles.  They wreak havoc with orderly governance at both state and federal levels.  Bernie's team is just Bernie, who has been beating his drum for over 30 years to no avail.

Quote
But no, Bernie doesn’t need to do anything to influence her.  He’s already said as much.  He needs to prove that there are enough people out there whom she cannot take for granted.  People who SHE needs to court, and maybe even try to represent.
He only needs to influence her if she thinks she needs those votes.  To be clear, if Trump wins the GOP nomination and his polling numbers stay down where they are with the general electorate, Clinton won't need Bernie's voters.  That would mean that she could campaign, win *and* (maybe) govern from her centrist position.  She only needs Bernie if Trump creeps up in the polls before Labor Day.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: D.W. on April 27, 2016, 01:04:20 PM
Good point.  with 56% support of her party's voters,  thanks to Trump, she can rest easy.  Bank on the boogyman to scare people into supporting you?  While Trump is a gift to the Democratic party in terms of claiming the white house, I think it's a bit naive to suggest she doesn't need Bernie's voters.

She IS going to get a lot, or even most of them by default.  Party loyalty and voting against Republican rather than FOR Democrat is absolutely a thing.  Telling voters their opinion doesn't matter and they aren't necessary is a fantastic message to push. 

/tinfoil_hat Maybe it's not just about winning.  Maybe the media demanded a "close general race" in return for their favoritism. 
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 27, 2016, 02:33:21 PM
I totally agree that the press is no longer a passive voice that informs the populace.  They are yet another beast that demands to be fed.  A blowout depresses ratings just like a lopsided football game loses viewers in the second half.  They will do whatever they have to to make it more "exciting" to the bitter end.  Even now CNN has 11 different analysts dissecting every primary even when the outcome is a foregone conclusion, as it was yesterday.  Those people need to feed their families, too.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Seriati on April 27, 2016, 05:54:20 PM
He only needs to influence her if she thinks she needs those votes.  To be clear, if Trump wins the GOP nomination and his polling numbers stay down where they are with the general electorate, Clinton won't need Bernie's voters.
That's a funny way to look at it.  He's hoping to influence her regardless of whether she thinks she can win without those voters (she can't, but she doesn't reasonably expect them to stay home either).  More, he's hoping to influence the party, its platforms and its other political candidates, and how could it not?  Clinton's coattails are demonstrably smaller with the support that Bernie gets, and other party members have to see an opportunity to get the support of really excited young workers and voters with a Bernie endorsement.  The bigger he is at the convention the more the party has to move, period, and honestly that's almost as much a win for him as getting the nomination (at least from the point of view he had when he decided to run).
Quote
That would mean that she could campaign, win *and* (maybe) govern from her centrist position.  She only needs Bernie if Trump creeps up in the polls before Labor Day.
She doesn't have a centrist position.  Or maybe you'd like to articulate exactly what she's in the center of.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 27, 2016, 06:52:51 PM
You first.  What is she if not centrist?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on April 27, 2016, 07:50:05 PM
Quote
That would mean that she could campaign, win *and* (maybe) govern from her centrist position.  She only needs Bernie if Trump creeps up in the polls before Labor Day.
She doesn't have a centrist position.  Or maybe you'd like to articulate exactly what she's in the center of.

I was going to say something along these lines too.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Seriati on April 27, 2016, 07:51:44 PM
Lol, you're like her number one fan on here AI, don't tell me you made a claim about her positions without a basis.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 27, 2016, 09:18:22 PM
I can say this (http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm), I guess.  Let me know if you find it convincing :).  if you don't, feel free to respond with detailed position information on a well-known political figure who you think is centrist.  Cruz, maybe?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on April 27, 2016, 10:00:59 PM
I can say this (http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm), I guess.
I saw war on women as the leading issue and not worth my time after that.

You're asserting the position, and I'm not wading through metric tons of political BS to find these alleged centrist positions.
Quote
if you don't, feel free to respond with detailed position information on a well-known political figure who you think is centrist.  Cruz, maybe?

I don't think anyone ever claimed he was. Haven't followed the campaigns much, Trump's just damn near impossible to avoid and has been since he announced, as I expected to happen.

The previous positions for Cruz have trended towards strict Constitutionalist, almost Libertarian on many fronts, while holding strongly to social conservatism. I've just been amused that he somehow became the "establishment" candidate, considering the Republican Powers that be in Washington hate him too.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on April 27, 2016, 11:03:28 PM
I can say this (http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm), I guess.  Let me know if you find it convincing :).  if you don't, feel free to respond with detailed position information on a well-known political figure who you think is centrist.  Cruz, maybe?

None of the top four candidates are centrist, although Trump is probably the closest since he had to lean right to pass as Republican at all. Bernie is a centrist on some positions (foreign policy and civil rights) but is obviously far left on a few choice topics. Hillary is for the status quo, which I wouldn't call the same by any means as centrist. It would be centrist if the status quo had been designed by centrists, but it wasn't. I won't even address what Cruz is.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 28, 2016, 06:17:57 AM
Quote
None of the top four candidates are centrist, although Trump is probably the closest since he had to lean right to pass as Republican at all.
TheDeamon responded reasonably, but your response is why I didn't take the challenge all that seriously.  The skew in your and Seriati's thinking is so severe that it would take a magnet stronger than I could find to bring your judgment back to a neutral setting.

Quote
You're asserting the position, and I'm not wading through metric tons of political BS to find these alleged centrist positions.
Not altogether reasonably, I suppose.  Her voting records are included in that laundry list, too.  They give as decent an indicator as you can find for a long-term government representative.  If that's also BS there's nowhere left to go to answer the question.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Seriati on April 28, 2016, 10:03:59 AM
I can say this (http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm), I guess.
Which positions in the list do you think are Centrist?  My goodness, it's like pulling teeth with you, you can't answer even simple questions.  Is it your assertion that she's centrist on everyone of these (nonsensical)?

This site used to really come down hard on people who couldn't or wouldn't support their claims. And to be clear your claim requires not only that you know her positions, but also that you know where the center is.

Pick the ones you think are centrist, and we'll take a look.  Given your claim on her, it should be easy, as it should be the majority or at least a significant minority of the positions.
Quote
Let me know if you find it convincing :).
If you make an argument, or just engage in the minimal courtesy of supporting your assertion, I'd be happy to.  It's not like I have a reputation for disengagement.
Quote
if you don't, feel free to respond with detailed position information on a well-known political figure who you think is centrist.  Cruz, maybe?
In what world would Cruz be a centrist, the guys incredibly extreme and liar to boot.  His ends justifies the means philosophy is something I've come to associate with Democrats, but that I find even more repugnant and hypocritical is someone who claims to be a moral/religious conservative (rather than a fiscal one).

As far a "centrist politicians" I find the idea nuts, there's really no such thing.  There are positions that are "centrist" on some issues, and there are politicians who vote some left and some right, and there are ones that try to mediate for compromises.  Any of which or none of which could be deemed to be centrist.  Of the ones who are left, Trump is closest to the center on the biggest number of issues, but that's because like Fenring pointed out, he's tacking from the left in a party that prefers the (extreme) right.  Best you can say for Hilary is she's try to tack from the extreme left, for a party that prefers the extreme left, because she's always seen her goal as a the general election where theirs a preference for the slightly left of center.

Of the total candidates in the election, I thought Christie was most in the middle, tough to be sure on some of the others where they had less history.  Most North-Eastern Republicans fit the bill as well, particularly younger ones for whom the social rights (gays rights for example) issues have already been decided in the liberal direction.  There are definitely Dems in the middle as well, though I don't see it as much in their leadership, which tends to have the politicians in the middle not be the idealistic ones but rather the realists.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 28, 2016, 11:07:37 AM
Quote
Is it your assertion that she's centrist on everyone of these (nonsensical)?
No.

Quote
As far a "centrist politicians" I find the idea nuts, there's really no such thing.
Then why would I try to convince you?  I couldn't even convince you of the obvious facts on the Flint water crisis.  You see why I'm reticent to put a lot of effort into this?  You can peruse what I linked to and decide if anything strikes you as something other than radical.

Quote
Of the ones who are left, Trump is closest to the center on the biggest number of issues, but that's because like Fenring pointed out, he's tacking from the left in a party that prefers the (extreme) right.  Best you can say for Hilary is she's try to tack from the extreme left, for a party that prefers the extreme left, because she's always seen her goal as a the general election where theirs a preference for the slightly left of center.
See, I think he's an extreme right-wing on many issues, brain-dead on others and occasionally reasonable seeming by accident of his personal history.  And, of course, he has famously changed his opinions on a great many important issues, so it's even harder to predict where he'll land on any given day.

Quote
Of the total candidates in the election, I thought Christie was most in the middle
Sher he is ;).  Why don't you compile for us a list of his positions that demonstrates that?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Seriati on April 28, 2016, 11:36:32 AM
Thanks for clarifying that your claim is just an unsupported claim, I'd preferred if you'd have clarified whether that's because you can't support it, or whether it's because you're parroting someone else's marketing efforts for the campaign and don't understand it, but what can I say.  And, specifically on Flint, I went to great lengths, including citing to primary sources to demonstrate exactly what I was talking about, and never made the claim that "my side" had no responsibility, yet it's seems to be a part of your fundamental character that any contribution of "your side" (of which there were many) must be systematic ignored or hidden.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: D.W. on April 28, 2016, 01:12:21 PM
Isn't "centrist" going to always be a subjective title/claim?  It claims you know what the mid point is between the two parties.  Makes a personal decision of how much of each party's fringe to ignore to set that scale.  Then states your opinion on who most fits your arbitrary criteria.

AI is right not to try to pin this down, I just don't get why you are wasting your breath (keystrokes) talking about it.  Is anyone still running MORE centrist than Hillary?  I don't think so.  I don't think that makes her particularly centrists, just more so than those left.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Seriati on April 28, 2016, 02:19:50 PM
AI is right not to try to pin this down, I just don't get why you are wasting your breath (keystrokes) talking about it.  Is anyone still running MORE centrist than Hillary?  I don't think so.  I don't think that makes her particularly centrists, just more so than those left.
And if it came down to Bernie and Cruz would you have to pick one as the centrist?   Hillary isn't a centrist, neither really is Trump (though he has more of the positions on both sides of center than could characterize a "centrist").  Kasich?  Maybe.

AI's point was that she would govern as a centrist and that's absolutely false and unsupportable.  That she may be closer to the center than other extremists doesn't change that.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: D.W. on April 28, 2016, 03:00:50 PM
We can't agree on what the center is.  So anyone can consider any candidate a centrist as long as they can point to someone to the left and someone to the right of that candidate.  As that person can choose to ignore someone too far to the left or right as "irreverent or extremist" it means the question is all but pointless.

That is why "left of X" or "right of Y" are useful.  "Centrist", not so much.  Centrist is useful to contrast against a partisan if anything.  Within that framework, I don't think Hillary is a centrist.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 28, 2016, 03:32:02 PM
Quote
AI's point was that she would govern as a centrist and that's absolutely false and unsupportable.  That she may be closer to the center than other extremists doesn't change that.
Absolutely false, right.  Yep.  I give you credit for not having any doubts in your speculative opinions; it definitely smooths the road ahead.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on April 28, 2016, 04:12:01 PM
We can't agree on what the center is.  So anyone can consider any candidate a centrist as long as they can point to someone to the left and someone to the right of that candidate.  As that person can choose to ignore someone too far to the left or right as "irreverent or extremist" it means the question is all but pointless.

That is why "left of X" or "right of Y" are useful.  "Centrist", not so much.  Centrist is useful to contrast against a partisan if anything.  Within that framework, I don't think Hillary is a centrist.

Frankly I define centrist not on what is politically center, which as you say is nebulous at best, but rather whether a candidate has as their aim to address the concerns of the majority of Americans rather than to appeal strictly to their political base in order to win elections. Partisans who fight for their party first and for America second may be more or less extreme to either side, but either way I don't define them as centrist. I think the majority of working class American have similar views on some of the major problems in the country, and while they may differ on some issues (abortion, terrorism, immigration) you'll see the difference in candidates who have no intention of addressing that they agree on but instead fixate on the disagreements. The political climate right now is not amenable to centrists because they aren't sensational enough to make press, and real centrists can't exist in a circus.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 28, 2016, 05:47:18 PM
Quote
Frankly I define centrist not on what is politically center, which as you say is nebulous at best, but rather whether a candidate has as their aim to address the concerns of the majority of Americans rather than to appeal strictly to their political base in order to win elections.
Yet another in a long line of nebulous but confidently stated opinions.  By that measure, NONE of the candidates -- wait, I mean ALL of the candidates meet that criteria -- no, wait again, I mean DON'T meet that criteria.  Are we clear?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Seriati on April 28, 2016, 06:53:43 PM
Quote
AI's point was that she would govern as a centrist and that's absolutely false and unsupportable.  That she may be closer to the center than other extremists doesn't change that.
Absolutely false, right.  Yep.  I give you credit for not having any doubts in your speculative opinions; it definitely smooths the road ahead.
All I really have to say about that is, AI Wessex says:
Quote
That would mean that she could campaign, win *and* (maybe) govern from her centrist position.
Was I hitting too strongly on the "maybe" in your assertion?  Lol, please try to remember what YOU said before you get on your high horse about how I heard it.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 28, 2016, 09:02:48 PM
Quote
All I really have to say about that is, AI Wessex says:

    That would mean that she could campaign, win *and* (maybe) govern from her centrist position.

Was I hitting too strongly on the "maybe" in your assertion?  Lol, please try to remember what YOU said before you get on your high horse about how I heard it.
I'm not following.  I said maybe, and you flipped it into an absolute.  What's your point?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on April 28, 2016, 09:25:27 PM
That is why "left of X" or "right of Y" are useful.  "Centrist", not so much.  Centrist is useful to contrast against a partisan if anything.  Within that framework, I don't think Hillary is a centrist.

This is the inherent problem with a 2 party system. People want to place the resulting political system on a single axis scale. The reality is there are multiples of them involved. It goes well beyond anything that could likely be represented in 3D, never mind a 2D graph or simple line drawing.

But then some of this goes back to initial right/left axis from the French courts. Where the right supported expanding the authority of the crown, while the left wanted to give more authority to the population at large.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on April 29, 2016, 01:29:14 AM
Quote
Frankly I define centrist not on what is politically center, which as you say is nebulous at best, but rather whether a candidate has as their aim to address the concerns of the majority of Americans rather than to appeal strictly to their political base in order to win elections.
Yet another in a long line of nebulous but confidently stated opinions.  By that measure, NONE of the candidates -- wait, I mean ALL of the candidates meet that criteria -- no, wait again, I mean DON'T meet that criteria.  Are we clear?

If you thought what I said was unclear why don't you just ask for a clarification instead of assuming I meant nothing. I take your statement to mean you didn't understand what I meant, and what's interesting is you automatically assume that's my failure.

Quote
All I really have to say about that is, AI Wessex says:

    That would mean that she could campaign, win *and* (maybe) govern from her centrist position.

Was I hitting too strongly on the "maybe" in your assertion?  Lol, please try to remember what YOU said before you get on your high horse about how I heard it.
I'm not following.  I said maybe, and you flipped it into an absolute.  What's your point?

If you had a real point to make you undermine it by trying to be slippery like this. Instead it looks like you're copping out of what you said, when in fact what you said may have validity to it (Seriati was trying to see if it did). I don't see any grammatical way to interpret the phrase "maybe govern from her centrist position" to read as "to govern, from a position that is maybe centrist." I could understand if you misstated what you wanted to say, but if so then why not say so and sort out the confusion?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 29, 2016, 07:37:30 AM
I understood what you said, but it didn't mean anything.  You could hold it up as a mirror to any candidate to affirm any view about them.  That's what my (hopefully equally clear) comment meant.

Quote
If you had a real point to make you undermine it by trying to be slippery like this. Instead it looks like you're copping out of what you said, when in fact what you said may have validity to it (Seriati was trying to see if it did). I don't see any grammatical way to interpret the phrase "maybe govern from her centrist position" to read as "to govern, from a position that is maybe centrist." I could understand if you misstated what you wanted to say, but if so then why not say so and sort out the confusion?

That's funny.  I'm wondering if you're joking, but (maybe) you're not.  Hard to know.  For me, I think every President gets a huge wakeup when they sit down in the chair in the Oval office for the first time, as if it's actually wired to give a jolt.  Obama has governed more from the middle than he campaigned (part of the "campaign in poetry, govern in prose" principle), which is why I find it wrily humorous that so many right-wingers squeal and whine when they don't get everything they want.  Hell, they even blamed him for "making them" shut down the government, as if he had forced them to do it, and then complained even more when it didn't get them what they wanted.  Mommy, the wibewal did it again!

But Hillary starts off more middle-ish (to avoid the controversial "c" word) and could (maybe) pull more to the left or (maybe) to the right than she would want to go.  I heard a news story on the radio yesterday about her colleagues when she served in the Senate. The report used them to try to make the case that she was liked by Republicans almost as much as by Democrats, because she was always prepared, always willing to share the glory or recognition and genuinely wanted to get things done even if it meant giving away part of her goal to do it.

But the key takeaway that flew right by you and Seriati is that we won't know until she gets there and events take center stage rather than her.  I'd say that Bush II was the first President in a long time who got to be himself in office, and look what that got us.  But I could be wrong (maybe).
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on April 29, 2016, 10:33:09 AM
I understood what you said, but it didn't mean anything.  You could hold it up as a mirror to any candidate to affirm any view about them.  That's what my (hopefully equally clear) comment meant.

If you don't the difference means anything between someone working for the American people versus just working for their party (or personal gain) then I can't help you. But the lack of a distinction between these would certainly remove some possible objections to Clinton.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 29, 2016, 12:28:49 PM
I understood what you said, but it didn't mean anything.  You could hold it up as a mirror to any candidate to affirm any view about them.  That's what my (hopefully equally clear) comment meant.

If you don't the difference means anything between someone working for the American people versus just working for their party (or personal gain) then I can't help you. But the lack of a distinction between these would certainly remove some possible objections to Clinton.
I can't see any intrinsic difference, so it's on you now to explain what the difference between "working for the American people versus just working for their party".  Give clear examples of how doing one is different from doing the other.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on April 29, 2016, 01:02:17 PM
I can't see any intrinsic difference, so it's on you now to explain what the difference between "working for the American people versus just working for their party".  Give clear examples of how doing one is different from doing the other.

Alright. I can certainly address this, in contrast to the sarcastic previous reply.

I already mentioned that one difference is that partisan hacks will focus only on the issues where Americans tend to disagree with very polarized views, and will reinforce those differences by appealing to their base with an 'us vs. them' mentality. It very much plays into the press and into the divergence of 'sides' in America into two distinct camps. In contrast to this, I see a 'centrist' candidate as someone who would look for ways to show America that it shares common interests and to emphasize those instead. You could perhaps call this an across-the-isles candidate, but I prefer to think of it as someone who doesn't particularly care how the party does compared to how America is doing. I think both parties are willing to a certain extent to harm America in order to help themselves. They might well think of it as the ends justifying the means, since a short term hurt is 'worth it' if their party gains ascendency and can help America in the long run, but I don't think a centrist would accept thinking in these terms. In this particular respect I think Bernie is very much a centrist, but the reason I mentioned earlier that I don't think any of the four candidates are really centrists is because although Bernie isn't partisan I do think some of his policy ideas are quite far from what many Americans would themselves suggest for the country. That doesn't mean I don't agree with some of them, but they're radical to an extent.

Another difference as I see it between a centrist and a partisan is that a partisan will tend to be on the take for private interests and even despite any possible good intentions will necessarily be beholden to forces that are hostile to the best interests of the American public. In other words, being partisan tends to involve a massive conflict of interest. A centrist, in my opinion, would be someone who would in some sense be better at managing private interests as they intersect with public interests so that neither is substantially harmed by the other. I would like to say that a centrist would focus mainly on public interests but I see how this could be an unrealistic goal for right now.

Maybe the most important difference as I see it is just rhetorical. A centrist wouldn't bother talking about right or left, or which party is better. Basically it's someone who could exist absent a party system and do just as well, if not better. Maybe I'm thinking back to someone like Pericles of Athens, of whom it was said he was concerned with the notion of educating and improving the populace. While a partisan has the agenda of dividing the country and obscuring the validity of the other side, a centrist would be more concerned with speaking to everyone and elevating discourse rather than putting blinders on it.

Naturally these points are, to extent, vague, and no candidate will ever be entirely one or the other. But I think most of us can spot a partisan or sensationalist candidate when we see one, and should realize we haven't seen a centrist candidate for a while. I wasn't following the scene back when Bill Clinton first ran against Bush; maybe he was one? I'm not sure. Definitely since his 2nd term all prominent candidates in the generals have been partisan players.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 29, 2016, 01:20:39 PM
Quote
Maybe the most important difference as I see it is just rhetorical.
...
Naturally these points are, to extent, vague, and no candidate will ever be entirely one or the other.
Do you see how these two sentences render most of the rest of your post meaningless?  What is "centrist" (now you're using the word) to me might be highly partisan to you, or vice versa.  What a candidate says to their base to get elected may indeed be an appeal to the greater good of everyone in the country, even if the opposition attacks every word that comes out of their mouths. 

Watching the Republicans in Congress over the past 8 years makes it abundantly clear that they see no difference between what's good for their Party and what's good for the nation.  Unfortunately, they ignore the complaints and counterposing views of people who disagree.  Feel free to make the same claim about Democrats. It's impossible to have a reasonable conversation about any aspect of political agendas these days, anyway.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on April 29, 2016, 07:31:42 PM
A centrist, in my opinion, would be someone who would in some sense be better at managing private interests as they intersect with public interests so that neither is substantially harmed by the other. I would like to say that a centrist would focus mainly on public interests but I see how this could be an unrealistic goal for right now.

The system is so corrupt right now that I doubt a "perfect balance" scenario is possible. Private interests are public interests, and public interests are private interests. You don't "correct" such a situation without pain for both sides. Which isn't to mention the fighting over which should be which.

Quote
Maybe the most important difference as I see it is just rhetorical. A centrist wouldn't bother talking about right or left, or which party is better. Basically it's someone who could exist absent a party system and do just as well, if not better.

More likely, this will be a populist, rather than a centrist. Also, this kind of describe Trump, as he's running counter to many long-established platform items in the Republican Party, he is doing well in spite of the Republican Party, not because of it(well, aside from the Republican Leadership "not getting it").

Quote
Maybe I'm thinking back to someone like Pericles of Athens, of whom it was said he was concerned with the notion of educating and improving the populace. While a partisan has the agenda of dividing the country and obscuring the validity of the other side, a centrist would be more concerned with speaking to everyone and elevating discourse rather than putting blinders on it.

Again, define where the center is. The answer will be different for different locations, and even different times in the same location. Politics is fluid and always changing. Centrists also don't tend to be particularly stable or noteworthy for accomplishing anything, because doing so would require stepping on toes, which is counter to what they've been doing to attain power.

Now if you're talking statesmen or even visionaries, that's another matter. But that isn't so much that they triangulate on where the center is. They communicate what they're doing, why they're doing it, and where they're wanting to go, and pull the center to wherever they are on the particular political axis they reside on. Of course, populists can do the same thing, although for them it's more like drawing back a bow string, while the visionaries and statesmen accomplish more lasting changes.

Of course, Statesmen also run into another hazard, which puts them into a class by themselves, sometimes they're going to be put into situations where communicating the how and why for a particular decision is simply never going to be effectively accomplished in a timely manner.

Even with that being said, if push comes to shove, they will knowingly fall on their own proverbial political sword if they feel circumstances call for them to do so. In other words, they will make politically unpopular decisions knowing full well it may very well end their career, but that history will likely vindicate them. I actually think Bush 41 falls generally into this category(going back on "read my lips" in particular). Some aspects of Bush 43 could possibly be claimed as such as well, but I know that's a tough sell given a large number of OTHER aspects in regards to that admin(and the matter that they largely put themselves in that position in the first place); that and much of the assertion for 43 having acted that way was in turn invalidated by Obama so history's judgement shall likely forever be a split jury on that front.

Quote
Naturally these points are, to extent, vague, and no candidate will ever be entirely one or the other. But I think most of us can spot a partisan or sensationalist candidate when we see one, and should realize we haven't seen a centrist candidate for a while.

What do you consider Obama to be?
What do you consider Romey or McCain to have been?
I'm not going to ask about "W"

Quote
I wasn't following the scene back when Bill Clinton first ran against Bush; maybe he was one? I'm not sure. Definitely since his 2nd term all prominent candidates in the generals have been partisan players.

Bill Clinton wasn't really any of the above, he was(is) the consummate politician, so in many respects he was a centrist(because that polled well) who made efforts to pull things to the left, but when he saw significant pushback(in the polls), he'd usually back off.  By most reports I'm aware of Hillary goes to great lengths to make clear she will be not be Bill Clinton 2.0 and has caused no amount of grief in past campaigns because she actively ignored warnings from Bill about pursuing certain campaign strategies, and then having them blow up in her face. The current campaign is not appreciably different, it's running on her terms, not Bill Clinton's.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Greg Davidson on April 29, 2016, 09:30:53 PM
Fenring, I found your comment to be very interesting:
Quote
In contrast to this, I see a 'centrist' candidate as someone who would look for ways to show America that it shares common interests and to emphasize those instead. You could perhaps call this an across-the-isles candidate, but I prefer to think of it as someone who doesn't particularly care how the party does compared to how America is doing.

I believe that in the current environment, any Democrat who attempted to take such a position would be savaged regardless of the policies he pursued. For example:

Quote
Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America — there's the United States of America.

The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too: We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States, and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.

It did not matter that Obama took his signature policy initiative not from the approaches preferred on the left (single payer, or healthcare with a public option) but instead based on that originally proposed by a Republican think-tank and first implemented by a Republican Governor. 

Sorry, but there is no equivalence between the behavior of Republicans and Democrats regarding partisanship in the past 25 years. You can't name a major Republican who made a significant speech with a centrist theme similar to that by Obama above because there isn't one; you can't name a Republican President who designed his major domestic policy around something proposed and implemented first by Democrats. That's because there is no equivalence here.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on April 30, 2016, 07:59:48 AM
Greg, if you want to make a case that Obama was unusual in that he wanted to be a real centrist (as I call it) then maybe you could make that case. I didn't see him that way but maybe I'm wrong. But I also see a difference between Obama the candidate and President Obama. I agree with your other comment, that any Democrat who tried it now would be savaged. As I mentioned, in the current climate real centrists can't exist.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on April 30, 2016, 08:44:38 AM
Quote
Bill Clinton wasn't really any of the above, he was(is) the consummate politician, so in many respects he was a centrist(because that polled well) who made efforts to pull things to the left, but when he saw significant pushback(in the polls), he'd usually back off.  By most reports I'm aware of Hillary goes to great lengths to make clear she will be not be Bill Clinton 2.0 and has caused no amount of grief in past campaigns because she actively ignored warnings from Bill about pursuing certain campaign strategies, and then having them blow up in her face. The current campaign is not appreciably different, it's running on her terms, not Bill Clinton's.
I've heard that Hillary herself says she's not a great campaigner.  She would probably describe herself as a wonk, which Bill essentially was, though Bill had gifts when it came to communicating.  Neither have a hard line, despite the rhetoric claiming every little thing she does is another example of her extreme lefthood.  She'll make deals to get as much of what she wants as she can that neither Bernie nor Ted would condescend to do.  Who knows what Trump would do, probably sulk and turn things over to his VP, his lovely, lovely daughter.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pete at Home on April 30, 2016, 10:53:03 AM
I see the Clintons as a classic Mr Codependent (Bill was onsessed with being liked) Mrs Narcicist.  That's not necessarily a bad thing.  Lincoln may have been a codependent and Churchill a narcissist, but I think this is a time in history when we could particularly benefit from a straight shooter like Bernie.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on May 01, 2016, 07:26:30 AM
I see the Clintons as a classic Mr Codependent (Bill was onsessed with being liked) Mrs Narcicist.  That's not necessarily a bad thing.  Lincoln may have been a codependent and Churchill a narcissist, but I think this is a time in history when we could particularly benefit from a straight shooter like Bernie.

I don't see Hillary as any more a narcissist than anybody who would run for any high office.  It takes incredible personality resources to fulfill that sort of commitment.  That applies to Cruz and Trump, as well as her and Bernie.  But they don't all fill their tanks with the same fuel and they'll apply their drive to take us to totally different places if elected. 

Cruz wants us all to live in his own concoction of a religio-cultural caliphate; Sanders wants us all to go back to school and won't grade us on a curve; Trump wants to win his own beauty contest but has to get his vicarious kicks by scrutinizing the minute flaws of the world's most pulchritudinous 20-year old girl-women; Hillary wants nothing more than to shatter the glass ceiling but with each blow of her fist until now has only pushed it a few inches higher. 

Lincoln's "codependency" and Churchill's "narcissism" are only noted in passing after you look at their extraordinary accomplishments that will be remembered and studied by many generations yet to come.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: JoshCrow on May 01, 2016, 11:11:48 AM
Hillary wants nothing more than to shatter the glass ceiling but with each blow of her fist until now has only pushed it a few inches higher.

Gee, you forgot the part where she wants peace on earth, puppies for all, and for there to be no more bad things.

I think you underestimate the intelligence of the people on this forum.  This isn't kindergarten, nobody here believes this kind of naive, oversimplified pablum of an argument.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on May 01, 2016, 12:29:13 PM
What JoshCrow said. And one more thing:

Sanders wants us all to go back to school and won't grade us on a curve

Huh?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on May 01, 2016, 01:12:12 PM
Hillary wants nothing more than to shatter the glass ceiling but with each blow of her fist until now has only pushed it a few inches higher.

Gee, you forgot the part where she wants peace on earth, puppies for all, and for there to be no more bad things.

I think you underestimate the intelligence of the people on this forum.  This isn't kindergarten, nobody here believes this kind of naive, oversimplified pablum of an argument.
That wasn't meant to be a deep analysis ;).  I recognize that some here are as or more thoughtful than me, but I see precious little play.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on May 01, 2016, 04:23:41 PM
That wasn't meant to be a deep analysis ;).

No, I understand that part. But it sounded like you were actually making fun of Bernie for...valuing higher education? Damn, you got him. What a scumbag.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on May 01, 2016, 06:25:07 PM
That wasn't meant to be a deep analysis ;).

No, I understand that part. But it sounded like you were actually making fun of Bernie for...valuing higher education? Damn, you got him. What a scumbag.
Amusing that you read it that way :).  I was implying that he has a somewhat rigid standard and objective, and Hillary is more flexible in her approach.  She would grade progress toward the same goals on a curve.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Seriati on May 02, 2016, 02:14:48 PM
It did not matter that Obama took his signature policy initiative not from the approaches preferred on the left (single payer, or healthcare with a public option) but instead based on that originally proposed by a Republican think-tank and first implemented by a Republican Governor. 
First implemented by a veto proof Democratic legislature in a state with a Republican governor, and based on a "Republican" plan that never received the support of the party or became a plank, but was only offered up as a tactic, but you know other than being completely misleading there's not much wrong with that fantasy interpretation. 

I guess by that logic, the Dems should give credit to the Republicans for all their civil rights positions since they were originally proposed and supported by Republicans.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on May 02, 2016, 02:59:35 PM
It's a lingering embarrassment to the GOP that they have drifted so far from principles of racial equality and providing health care, voting rights and other services to those who they now deny them.  Trump and Cruz uphold the banner of their ever-burgeoning intolerance.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pete at Home on May 03, 2016, 01:07:15 AM
I see the Clintons as a classic Mr Codependent (Bill was onsessed with being liked) Mrs Narcicist.  That's not necessarily a bad thing.  Lincoln may have been a codependent and Churchill a narcissist, but I think this is a time in history when we could particularly benefit from a straight shooter like Bernie.

I don't see Hillary as any more a narcissist than anybody who would run for any high office.  It takes incredible personality resources to fulfill that sort of commitment. 
...
Lincoln's "codependency" and Churchill's "narcissism" are only noted in passing after you look at their extraordinary accomplishments that will be remembered and studied by many generations yet to come.

That was pretty much my point.  But I do see Bernie as more of a straight shooter than other visible pols.

The main distinction between what I said and what you said is that I think that Lincoln and Churchill's particular set of skills and weaknesses made them extraordinarily good during the time they ruled, but they might not have been the best leaders had they been elected at some other time in history.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Greg Davidson on May 03, 2016, 01:37:48 AM
Seriati

Quote
I guess by that logic, the Dems should give credit to the Republicans for all their civil rights positions since they were originally proposed and supported by Republicans.

Yes, the Republicans were the best party on Civil Rights for much of the century after the Civil War. Then the racists shifted parties, particularly after LBJ pursued justice over political gain and the Democrats led the Civil Rights movement.

And your point is what exactly?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on May 03, 2016, 07:30:50 AM
Quote
The main distinction between what I said and what you said is that I think that Lincoln and Churchill's particular set of skills and weaknesses made them extraordinarily good during the time they ruled, but they might not have been the best leaders had they been elected at some other time in history.
If the times produce the leader more than the other way around (Hitler something of an exception), then what is this "time" that has produced Trump?  Put differently, Lincoln, Churchill, FDR and others solved problems that threatened the very fabric of the nation, each with a unique mix of personality, perseverance and wisdom.  What will Trump do for the nation that we so desperately need right now that Breckenridge, Chamberlain and Hoover couldn't and Clinton can't?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pete at Home on May 03, 2016, 12:10:48 PM
Quote
The main distinction between what I said and what you said is that I think that Lincoln and Churchill's particular set of skills and weaknesses made them extraordinarily good during the time they ruled, but they might not have been the best leaders had they been elected at some other time in history.
If the times produce the leader more than the other way around (Hitler something of an exception), then what is this "time" that has produced Trump?

Hmm.  I disagree with a number of assumptions there.  I think your phrase "the times produce the leader more than the other way around" is clearly more true of Hitler than of any other leader I could think of in history.  Hitler as a person and leader was more of a product of his time than Churchill or Lincoln.  The latter, although nearly perfect leaders for their particular times, had extraordinary gifts beyond mere charisma and magnetism.  Their words and acts continue to inspire generations who never knew them.  And yet if someone with the gifts and weaknesses of a Lincoln or of a Churchill were to run for election today, I doubt either would get elected.  And if either were somehow placed in executive capacity today, I don't think this is a time in which they could shine.  I also disagree with your implication that Trump is some sort of a "leader."  An election might possibly make him such, but that hasn't happened and might never happen.

Setting aside the erroneous premises, I think I can address this question: "then what is this "time" that has produced Trump", as to how our time has produced his popularity and current position in the election.

America has had a problem with cyclical populism that started with Andrew Jackson.  That chronic problem has always come to a head when the least privileged 75% of white male groups loses real purchasing power and possibilities for advancement for more than a full generation, while a small elite is gaining wealth hand over fist and flaunting it.

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/162259

Quote
A presidential candidate who strikes a wide range of observers, including leaders of his own party, as dangerously abrasive, arrogant, and racist. Partly because of those qualities, the same candidate appeals stylistically to common-man voters who feel threatened by change, despite his being one of the super-rich himself. While this is Donald Trump in 2016, it also describes Andrew Jackson in the 1820s.

...
Other top priorities of the Jackson administration revealed precisely who would and would not benefit from his regime. They included the now-infamous policy of Indian Removal, wherein Jackson sided with Georgia’s confiscation of Native American land and the eviction of the dispossessed; to the point of ignoring John Marshall’s Supreme Court ruling that this policy was unconstitutional. Furthermore, the rising abolitionist movement found in him a president who would condemn them as pestiferous traitors, in his Postmaster General one who would connive at the suppression of their literature being mailed, and in his party those who would pass the Gag Rule suppressing all antislavery petitions and discussion in Congress.

While these policies provoked outrage among his political opponents, none of them were particularly surprising given his stated principles and priorities as a candidate. It would likewise seem foolhardy for us now to fail to take Trump’s threats and promises seriously. Both supporters and opponents of Jackson found their election-year instinct that personality matters in a president fully vindicated by Jackson’s two terms in office. His personality as well as policies proved divisive enough that this era is still known as Jacksonian. Those who raise similar questions about Trump’s un-presidential disposition stand alongside Jackson’s critics.

For all these rather scary comparisons between Trump and Jackson, one vital difference may make all the difference between 1828 and 2016. Given that no women were enfranchised and only a small percentage of free people of color had the vote, Jackson only had to appeal to white males. His manlier-than-thou shtick thus worked extraordinarily well. Trump, as with so many other Republican candidates in recent years, seems to wish we still had an all-white-male electorate. It is to be hoped that he finds that acting on that wish will turn off more voters than it mobilizes. Thus, for all the instructive parallels between this election cycle so far and the bitter partisan politics of the Jacksonian era, time will tell whether we will indeed travel back to the 1820s.


Quote
Put differently, Lincoln, Churchill, FDR and others solved problems that threatened the very fabric of the nation, each with a unique mix of personality, perseverance and wisdom. 

Quote
What will Trump do for the nation that we so desperately need right now that Breckenridge, Chamberlain and Hoover couldn't and Clinton can't?

Why you asking me this?  What I said (and what you cited in your response) was that BERNIE SANDERS seems to me to be the best available leader for our time:

Quote
I see the Clintons as a classic Mr Codependent (Bill was onsessed with being liked) Mrs Narcicist.  That's not necessarily a bad thing.  Lincoln may have been a codependent and Churchill a narcissist, but I think this is a time in history when we could particularly benefit from a straight shooter like Bernie.

Have you confused Donald Trump with Bernie Sanders?

I think Trump's far more the clear cut narcissist than Senator Clinton.  I don't think this is a time to be led by a narcissist.  Indeed, I think much damage to our economy comes from putting too much power and wealth in the hands of narcissist CEOs who screw with their companies to tweak the short term corporate stats in the same way that Chinese food engineers put antifreeze in the food to tweak the nitrogen readings.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on May 03, 2016, 12:22:29 PM
Yes, the Republicans were the best party on Civil Rights for much of the century after the Civil War. Then the racists shifted parties, particularly after LBJ pursued justice over political gain and the Democrats led the Civil Rights movement.

I keep hearing this claim made, but haven't really seen anyone back it up. The Democrats did retain several former members of the KKK on their roster up until the past 10 years. Oh, they "repented" for their sins, never mind. I'm more inclined to think this is more along the lines of the assertion "that everybody knows the National Socialist(Nazi) party of early 20th Century Germany was an extremist right-wing political movement" (on the current/recent past U.S. political spectrum).

I won't disagree that the most vocal of the white supremacy crowd tend to portray themselves as right wing(see above about Nazis being "right wing"), but only on a handful of issues, and more in the vein of Stalin(right-winger that he was ::) ) in regards to Freedom of the Press and the Right to Bear Arms: Important to loudly support while in the minority, and critical to get rid of once the majority.

The Democrats are doing plenty of things to undermine minorities in the U.S. so I don't see any reason why a smart white supremacist would rock that boat.

As to the intolerant practices of "the moral majority"(religious right), that wasn't anything to do with Johnson or race relations. That's Ronald Reagan's most annoying legacy for the Republican Party.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on May 03, 2016, 12:31:48 PM
Quote
For all these rather scary comparisons between Trump and Jackson, one vital difference may make all the difference between 1828 and 2016. Given that no women were enfranchised and only a small percentage of free people of color had the vote, Jackson only had to appeal to white males. His manlier-than-thou shtick thus worked extraordinarily well. Trump, as with so many other Republican candidates in recent years, seems to wish we still had an all-white-male electorate. It is to be hoped that he finds that acting on that wish will turn off more voters than it mobilizes. Thus, for all the instructive parallels between this election cycle so far and the bitter partisan politics of the Jacksonian era, time will tell whether we will indeed travel back to the 1820s.

And Jackson's legacy continues in other ways to this day, the Jackass(err, donkey) used as the emblem for the Democratic Party hails from him. Some of the earliest protections of civil servants from political whims also comes from him and the rampant corruption within his administration.

But they're also ignoring a more recent parallel, albeit on the other side of the political spectrum: Hugo Chavez.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pete at Home on May 03, 2016, 12:33:42 PM
Al, I think history would have worked out a hell of a lot better if Trump had been president during WWI. I think that's a time at which his particular personality, bullheaded stubbornness, and pathological indifference to his popularity among other world leaders might have really benefited the USA.  Similarly, I think Hillary could have made a great president during Reconstruction. But I don't think today's a good day to make either Clinton or Trump president.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on May 03, 2016, 03:31:09 PM
Quote
Why you asking me this?  What I said (and what you cited in your response) was that BERNIE SANDERS seems to me to be the best available leader for our time:
I was giving you the opportunity to opine about Trump if you want.  You have a sense for history, so perhaps you see him in a light that makes sense.  He makes no sense to me, since he's more cartoon than character.  I can't understand what in the nation's psyche raises him up to that level.  Maybe these are end-times and he's been given to us to usher them in.  I don't think so, but others apparently do.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on May 03, 2016, 08:46:38 PM
Cruz is out!  Wimp.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Greg Davidson on May 04, 2016, 01:24:18 AM
To TheDeamon,

I'm kinda confused. Are you arguing that racist voters did not migrate from the Democratic party to the Republican party after the Democrats passed the Civil Rights act?

Did you ever hear of Nixon's "Southern Strategy ?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy)

Or Reagan campaigning in Philadelphia, Mississippi  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan%27s_Neshoba_County_Fair_%22states%27_rights%22_speech (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan%27s_Neshoba_County_Fair_%22states%27_rights%22_speech)

Here's a link to an audio tape of Lee Atwater, who was in the Nixon Administration and was the Campaign Manager for Bush's 1988 campaign - here's how he described the apporach of the Republicans from the 1960's through the 1980's http://americablog.com/2012/11/audio-of-infamous-lee-atwater-interview-its-a-matter-of-how-abstract-you-handle-the-race-thing.html (http://americablog.com/2012/11/audio-of-infamous-lee-atwater-interview-its-a-matter-of-how-abstract-you-handle-the-race-thing.html) 

Quote
[It’s a matter of] how abstract you handle the race thing. In other words, you start out … Now y’all aren’t quoting me on this … you start out in 1954 by saying, “*censored*, *censored*, *censored*.” By 1968 you can’t say “*censored*”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff.

And you’re getting so abstract now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites…. “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “*censored*, *censored*.” …

Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Greg Davidson on May 04, 2016, 09:11:54 AM
By the way, that was Ornery substituting the word "censored" for each time that Atwater used the N-word.

Did I mention that Atwater was Karl Rove's mentor?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: D.W. on May 04, 2016, 10:02:28 AM
Not sure how much of a wimp he is AI.  They were already past the point where they needed to strait up steal the nomination from Trump.  Why waste money to get a few more token delegates?  Either Trump is the nominee or delegates don't matter to their choice anyway.  He didn't back "the nominee" he suspended his campaign. 

What in any other election season would be synonymous, may be a big distinction this time.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Seriati on May 04, 2016, 11:42:08 AM
To TheDeamon,

I'm kinda confused. Are you arguing that racist voters did not migrate from the Democratic party to the Republican party after the Democrats passed the Civil Rights act?
Actually, TheDeamon is correct, and we went over this before as well.  There was no statistically significant portion of registered Democrats that registered as Republicans.  There were high profile politicians who switched parties, but the Democratic racists who they targeted, for the most remained and died or are still registered as Democrats.

Now you could argue that less young racists registered as Democrats, but even that's questionable in states with heavily racist populations.  Its hardly proof or evidence, but my own experiences, for instance, have demonstrated that WV, Kentucky and NC still have vast numbers of Democratic racists.

Your argument on this is just rehashing propaganda that was always more visible than accurate that has come to be accepted without demonstration of truth.  You can easily find treatises on the "Southern Strategy" what you can't find is any evidence that racist Democrats reregistered as Republicans in any significant numbers.

Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Wayward Son on May 04, 2016, 12:21:09 PM
That's all well and good, Seriati, but you have to remember one important fact: racists do not vote Democrat.

Which party was outraged at the courts overturning the Voting Rights Act?  Which party is for providing welfare to poor blacks?  Which party is for racial equality in schools and workplaces, even if it means quotas?  Which party is for allowing Muslim refugees into our country?

I cannot imagine a solid racist supporting any of these things, nor supporting the party which has major leaders advocating any of these things.  Can you?

Now, which party is against these things? ;)

Perhaps racists aren't ardent Republicans.  But the Republican party and platform is much closer to they're goals and values than the Democrats.  They may not register Republican, but when it comes time to vote, is there any doubt that they will choose the typical Republican over the typical Democrat?

And isn't it an odd coincidence that the stated goals of Republicans fit much better with racists than those of the Democrats, even though the Democratic Party was the party of racial suppression years ago?

If you look at the platforms and goals, there is really no question.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on May 04, 2016, 02:18:34 PM
And isn't it an odd coincidence that the stated goals of Republicans fit much better with racists than those of the Democrats, even though the Democratic Party was the party of racial suppression years ago?

Aside from the rest this in itself is a bad argument. Deregulation, for instance, tends favor a number of disparate groups, which may include libertarians, racists, religious groups, drug users, schemers, pure capitalists, cartels, certain kinds of business, and states rights activists. You can claim that a pro-deregulation party is "for" any one of these groups but you'd be missing the point.

If anything the most plausible claim that Republicans have a racists agenda would be in the war-hark contingent of the GOP, where those foreign people who end up dead as a result of aggressive foreign policy have a tendency of being non-white and often Muslim. However even this is not directly connected to the issue of racism within America.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on May 04, 2016, 02:24:18 PM
That's all well and good, Seriati, but you have to remember one important fact: racists do not vote Democrat.
Doubtful.

Quote
Which party was outraged at the courts overturning the Voting Rights Act?

Before my time, I'm not currently inclined to take my time digging through the context of the situation to pass a proper judgement on it. But I'm also inclined to be skeptical of how you'd want to portray it.

Quote
Which party is for providing welfare to poor blacks?  Which party is for racial equality in schools and workplaces, even if it means quotas?  Which party is for allowing Muslim refugees into our country?

And just how effective has 50+ years of government welfare programs helped them? Seems to me it has done a remarkable job of making the issue worse in many ways.

Quotas are not racial equality, and further, quotas help further disenfranchise people with the idea of racial equality initiatives. All it takes is for that person to learn they didn't get hired or promoted despite possibly being the better candidate, just because of the color of their own skin vs the color of skin of the person who got it. Sounds like a good way to encourage recruitment in racial supremacy groups however.

The Islamic refugee situation is complex, and more cultural than racial in nature, although I won't deny race as being a factor for some. The issue there has more to do with as the joke goes, "future Democrat voters" if the DNC wasn't certain that allowing those refugees was likely to translate into into a potential lock on more Democratic voters down the line, you could be sure the DNC would have a different position on restricting their access to the USA.

Quote
I cannot imagine a solid racist supporting any of these things, nor supporting the party which has major leaders advocating any of these things.  Can you?

At first glance, I'd agree. But then go back and see my statement about "smart racists" (oxymoron as you may view it to be), and look at the comparative fruits of all that work the Democrats have done. I'm not convinced they're interested in truly fixing the problem, in all honesty, many of them have made very comfortable lives talking about the problem. Fixing it would mean they're out of business, which is bad for their business, so they've made it their business to talk a good game, but stop short of anything meaningful. Knowing that, if I were a racist, I'd gleefully support the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, they do far more to harm blacks than I could ever hope to do on my own.

Quote
And isn't it an odd coincidence that the stated goals of Republicans fit much better with racists than those of the Democrats, even though the Democratic Party was the party of racial suppression years ago?

I think if you went back and looked at the Republican objections to the Civil Rights legislation pushed through by Dems, in relation to the legislation they(the Republicans) had passed previously. You'd find a different answer than you'd expect. It's one thing to look at the vote tallies, it's another to look into their reasons.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Seriati on May 04, 2016, 03:41:36 PM
That's all well and good, Seriati, but you have to remember one important fact: racists do not vote Democrat.
Racists vote how they're registered much the same as non-racists.  The actual percentage of racist in the two parties is pretty even, when you just look at white on black.  When you look at black on white, or any minority to white or another minority, it's overwhelming Democratic racists. 

In any event the important point your dodging is that neither party puts racist candidates forward, or supports racist ideals for the racists to support.  Accordingly, racists are going to vote based on other issues.  At best you're arguing for correlation here, with an implied hidden assumption that racists are conservative (as Republicans happen to be), that isn't really relevant and doesn't even hold out in any reasonable measure. Go to any affluent white democratic community and try to convince them its their duty to provide low income minority housing in their community and you'll see it, go into any blue collar union democratic community and talk to them about the illegal immigrants they believe are taking their jobs and you'll see.
Quote
Which party was outraged at the courts overturning the Voting Rights Act?
The party that's been manipulating its rules for years to its own benefit.  Fact is the VRA was designed to stop express and deliberate racism, the kind of which hasn't existed in 25 years.  Is it your view that the change - it was only partially overturned - was unfair?  Why, are you asserting that the rule was intended to be permanent, despite the specific statements that it wasn't?  Or that somehow states that are no longer remotely acting in a racist manner need to have a level of scrutiny applied to them than doesn't apply to other states because 60 years ago they were racist? 

The change to the VRA is a fake race issue, it talks about race so it appears to be a race issue, but the actual issues are anything but about race.
Quote
Which party is for providing welfare to poor blacks?
The party that gets its voters by creating a permanent underclass of dependent voters.  Increases in welfare, and perverse incentives built into its allotment, have been an absolute disaster for the success of minorities.  It may not be possible to fix it cold turkey without causing worse harm, but anyone who really cares about minorities should want to see the end of a class of people being dependent on the government rather than themselves.
Quote
Which party is for racial equality in schools and workplaces, even if it means quotas?
Both parties are for racial equality in schools and workplaces.  And quotas do not in any way contribute to that, where there isn't active discrimination the likes of which we haven't seen in 40 years.
Quote
Which party is for allowing Muslim refugees into our country?
Neither.  They only people who seem to be are liberal elites, they haven't talked to the working class members of their party if they think they have support for this.
Quote
I cannot imagine a solid racist supporting any of these things, nor supporting the party which has major leaders advocating any of these things.  Can you?
Sure.  A solid racist would absolutely advocate welfare, the impacts of it prove everything they want to tell themselves about the differences between the races.

Quotas are more misguided than anything else.  Muslim immigrants are not a racism issue, anymore than attacks on US Christian beliefs are a racism issues.  And like I said the issue with the VRA is a false flag operation, its virtually impossible to rationally explain why one state should have a different standard than another in how it makes laws based on conduct from 60 years ago without any indication that it still exists.
Quote
Now, which party is against these things? ;)
Some of them, like Muslim immigrants, both.  Quotas, large groups of both parties are against.  VRA most people don't even understand it, but the Democratic leadership protested it for selfish reasons not out of any reasonable ones, could be the Republicans did the same - hard to say as they were correct on the issues as well.  Welfare, I think both parties think they are the one that is being helpful, while the other is the one cynically exploiting the poor.
Quote
Perhaps racists aren't ardent Republicans.  But the Republican party and platform is much closer to they're goals and values than the Democrats.  They may not register Republican, but when it comes time to vote, is there any doubt that they will choose the typical Republican over the typical Democrat?
Lol.  There is no party that presents any core items for a white racist, all they can do is pick based on other issues they value.  North Eastern elites who are totally racist at a personal level (even if they say the right things) are often hardcore Dems, so are blue collar union racists.  You tell me who are they voting for?

And that's without even getting into the black on white racists who advocate expressly racist policies and get support from the Democratic party in doing so.
Quote
And isn't it an odd coincidence that the stated goals of Republicans fit much better with racists than those of the Democrats, even though the Democratic Party was the party of racial suppression years ago?
It would be odd if it were true, however its just nonsense propaganda.
Quote
If you look at the platforms and goals, there is really no question.
Lol, if you have blinders on maybe.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Wayward Son on May 04, 2016, 03:46:53 PM
I fully realize there are all sorts of justifications for the programs and positions I listed which have absolutely nothing to do with race.

But they still are all antithetical to the goal of traditional racists--to make sure whites stay better off than other, "inferior" races.

Perhaps you can twist yourself into believing that a racist might support government support of blacks via welfare as a way to "keep them down," but it would be at the price of taking money away from whites who earned it.  (I'm sure a "good" racist wouldn't consider that any other race could, or should, earn as much as him. :) )  Other races are naturally inferior to his anyway, so quotas are not needed to give the appearance of inferiority; he believes it is already there.  And while there are other reasons to oppose Muslim immigration, race is still a factor, as you said.

So while racists may not agree with everything Republicans do and stand for, they still have much less that they outright disagree with.  And that is going to be more important when they go to the polls than what the Democrat Party did in the 1950s, or how many of those old Senators stayed with the party.

Perhaps the best thing would be to try and find out what the stances are on these issues by some racist organizations.  I'll take a look sometime when I have a chance.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Wayward Son on May 04, 2016, 04:08:03 PM
If you feel impatient, you could look into these White Nationalist organizations that are hailing Trump (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/hail-emperor-trump-white-nationalists-take-victory-lap-following-trump-win) to see what they say. :)
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Seriati on May 04, 2016, 04:12:47 PM
I think the problem is that you're conflating a cartoon image of a "racist" that is a member of a white supremacy movement or some sort of genocidal maniac with what's generally meant by a racist.  If all you care about are KKK style racists you're missing the actual argument about the extensive and persuasive impact of a racism.  Honestly, the racists you seemed to be concerned about are tiny minority of any population that's reviled by the vast majority of both parties.  Who cares who they vote for, no one is a good fit for their desires.  I mean honestly, if you let him vote Charlie Manson would have to pick someone to vote for, does it matter which candidate he'd favor?

The best thing would be to quit conflating arguments about an extreme minority as somehow generally relevant to as broad a group as either the Republicans or Democrats, or move on from the caricature based argument and actual parse, which racists (broadly defined) back each policy and why.  If I advocate speed traps to slow people down and stop highway fatalities am I somehow tainted because someone else advocates them because they get a physical thrill from watching people get harassed?  Your pretending like reasons are completely irrelevant (though I suspect, you're trying to imply that they are false reasons with a secret meaning being the "real" reason).
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Wayward Son on May 04, 2016, 04:32:04 PM
Perhaps we need to define terms, then.

When you referred to racists, I thought you were talking about good ole fashioned Southern segregationists.  The closest to them that I can think of currently are the fringe White Nationalist groups.

So who were you talking about when you said, "There were high profile politicians who switched parties, but the Democratic racists who they targeted, for the most remained and died or are still registered as Democrats?"  And what were their beliefs?

Perhaps, once we have an understanding of that, we could compare their beliefs with the current political stances of the Democrat Party and see if they would still be staunch supporters of that platform.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on May 04, 2016, 04:46:05 PM
Perhaps, once we have an understanding of that, we could compare their beliefs with the current political stances of the Democrat Party and see if they would still be staunch supporters of that platform.

As Seriati mentioned, the more plausible conversation to have about racism in America would be something other than KKK-style racism. Pyrtolin, for instance, speaks a lot about systemic racism, and at least that's a reasonable topic regardless of one's views on it.

If you ask me the main issue affecting any 'race' in this day and age is socio-economic class, and that, in turn, has to do more with the cycle of poverty and less with biased hiring policies or so-called wage gaps. As such, the great ill affecting minorities, if anything, is poverty, and in turn whatever perpetuates systemic poverty is the best candidate for a 'racist' agenda, aside from the war on drugs.

Since I believe the economic status quo has been set up to benefit certain sectors of the economy over others mostly at the expense of the middle class and the poor, as far as I'm concerned the best interests of racists would be to vote for status quo candidates of either party. Similarly, trade deals with Asia that export jobs should be seen in a similar light since those predominantly exports jobs that middle-low income earners would apply for, and replace them with Walmart or McDonald's. Look towards candidates who were/are supportive of TPP to see who's actually in favor of systemically racist policies.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Seriati on May 04, 2016, 05:55:20 PM
So who were you talking about when you said, "There were high profile politicians who switched parties, but the Democratic racists who they targeted, for the most remained and died or are still registered as Democrats?"  And what were their beliefs?
The "Southern Strategy" only makes sense if it's tapping a vast group of people with racist tendencies.  There's never been enough KKK guys to interest either party, and the downside of that association has always been obvious and unpalatable plus you're talking about a Republican party that at the time was clearly on the better side of the debate than the Democrats, not a group that was inclined to switch to support cartoon racists. 

The idea is behind the strategy, was to convince people who disassociated themselves from the Dems "because the Dems radicalism on race" to vote Republican because they were more aligned on OTHER ISSUES with the Republicans not to try and appeal on racism.  Essentially, it was an argument that Southerners were only Democrats by accident and were only staying Democrats because that party was expressly racist.  If neither party is racist, then the argument was they should take a closer look at whether ANY of their views really aligned with the Democrats.  Its a gross mischaracterization to pretend they were trying to appeal to a racist platform.

The target "racists" were everyday southerners who had been raised to believe that whites were the superior race but who weren't particularly activists.  Pretty much the vast majority of the white south at the time.  Not even necessarily intentionally discriminatory people, plenty of people who didn't believe they were racist had racist views (its still very common for parents who vote hard left to find objections to their daughter marrying across races, even if they won't say why they find it uncomfortable and revert to dog whistles when they discuss it).  Pretty much the soccer mom's who saw nothing but trouble coming from their kids mixing with kids of other races.  But to be clear they weren't being targeted because of their racism, they were being targeted because of their disillusionment with what they saw as the Democrat's betraying them by adopting radical stances on race.

It's like the debate we have now around gay marriage, there are awful lot of people who softly support gay marriage, but will find it "bridge too far" when the details start playing out and say you have a wedding chapel forced to close because they won't perform gay marriages, or when a baker is forced to make a wedding cake.
Quote
Perhaps, once we have an understanding of that, we could compare their beliefs with the current political stances of the Democrat Party and see if they would still be staunch supporters of that platform.
Well no, because the whole point is that the only "racists" that analysis makes sense for are single issue racists.  For the ones that actually make up the relevant majority of those with racist views its NOT their defining characteristic, and they vote based on who ELSE they are.  Which is exactly my point.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 04, 2016, 10:44:42 PM
Has Hillary mentioned anything about cutting the national debt and deficit and how she plans to do it?

Even if she did why should we believe she can when Obama failed so miserably?

At least Trump is talking about it.  He says he will negotiate better and harder to get fair trade instead of free trade and he will make our allies pay more for their military security. He will keep more jobs in America by punishing companies that move abroad and he will go after illegals to free up the jobs they are doing for American citizens.

Again, what is Hillary's plan? And why will it succeed where Obama failed?

It seems like the Democrats have decided in true Meatballs fashion that it just doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: yossarian22c on May 04, 2016, 11:12:07 PM
Has Hillary mentioned anything about cutting the national debt and deficit and how she plans to do it?

Even if she did why should we believe she can when Obama failed so miserably?

The deficit is about 1/3 of what it was when Obama took office.  You can say that is a failure but failed miserably seems like a stretch.

I know you don't adhere to MMT (Pry's economic theory) and consider the cutting of the deficit when private debt is very high to be a failure.  Just pointing out that a bunch of economists would argue the exact opposite of what you are saying (I'm sure there are a number that would agree with you as well).


Quote
At least Trump is talking about it.  He says he will negotiate better and harder to get fair trade instead of free trade and he will make our allies pay more for their military security. He will keep more jobs in America by punishing companies that move abroad and he will go after illegals to free up the jobs they are doing for American citizens.

My question is what is Trump's plan to do any of that other than him claiming he will do it.  I have a feeling our allies around the world won't like having to pay us "protection" money. 

How is he going to "punish" companies, what is his plan there? 


Quote
Again, what is Hillary's plan? And why will it succeed where Obama failed?

It seems like the Democrats have decided in true Meatballs fashion that it just doesn't matter.

Hillary's plan for what? 

If the economy continues to steadily improve the way it has for the last 6 years under Obama that it would amount to one of the longest periods of sustained (even if somewhat slow) economic growth in the history of the nation.  Would that be a failure?  I don't think so.  Illegal immigration has pretty much slowed to a net of zero (although it may be picking back up with improving economic conditions).  Libya and ISIS are problems but Trump doesn't have any plan for dealing with them either.  Wait his plan is to kill the families of terrorists (which is a war crime). 
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Greg Davidson on May 05, 2016, 02:27:23 AM
Seriati,

Look at what Lee Atwater said. He's very clear and specific that Republicans used racism, and later, code words for racism, to motivate racist voters to support Republican candidates over Democratic candidates. And I did not even include the Willie Horton ads Atwater used in the 1988 campaign against Dukakis (and at the end of his life he expressed regret for this as well).  When a leading political activist within the Republican Party establishment is on the record saying that the positions that they have pushed over the past 50 years are based on dogwhistle appeals to racism, one plausible explanation for that action is being he's telling the truth.

Whether its the South's "peculiar institution" or the cause of State's Rights, the United States has a long history of racists using careful language to hide the fact that the benefit politically by spreading hatred of minorities. Atwater's testimony just brings that tale up to the present

And don't give me the false argument that the Civil War was about State's Rights, because the Southern States had the perfect opportunity to choose between slavery and states rights with the Fugitive Slave Act prior to the Civil War, and they clearly demonstrated that they wanted federal law to trump state law if it would help them protect slavery.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on May 05, 2016, 04:34:05 AM
Quote
Not sure how much of a wimp he is AI.
I was being slightly ironical.  He's taken such strong positions on so many things that are irrational, I just figured maybe he would insist that he could still win even if he didn't have enough votes to do it.  It took Kasich (the Reasonable One) yet a day longer to drop out, even though the odds of him getting the nomination were worse than getting hit by lightning, a meteor, a car, a train and a falling piano on the same day.  'Nother wimp.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on May 05, 2016, 04:47:11 AM
Quote
Actually, TheDeamon is correct, and we went over this before as well.  There was no statistically significant portion of registered Democrats that registered as Republicans.  There were high profile politicians who switched parties, but the Democratic racists who they targeted, for the most remained and died or are still registered as Democrats.
Cite?  That goes against common sense, since it makes no sense for an old-line southern Democratic racist to ever vote for a Democrat, nor has it for the last 50 years.

Quote
Quotas are not racial equality, and further, quotas help further disenfranchise people with the idea of racial equality initiatives. All it takes is for that person to learn they didn't get hired or promoted despite possibly being the better candidate, just because of the color of their own skin vs the color of skin of the person who got it. Sounds like a good way to encourage recruitment in racial supremacy groups however.
Whites who support equal opportunity for blacks hate whites, which means they hate themselves, just like Jews who don't support every Israeli policy are self-hating.  So, every time a white person (aka a Democrat) helps a qualified disenfranchised black person to get a job that a qualified white person (aka a Republican who doesn't believe in Affirmative Action) could have gotten only reinforces how much Democrats are racists who hate white Republicans.

Quote
Racists vote how they're registered much the same as non-racists.  The actual percentage of racist in the two parties is pretty even, when you just look at white on black.  When you look at black on white, or any minority to white or another minority, it's overwhelming Democratic racists.
A great example of begging the question. QED what I said above.  No need to counter anything you said that follows, since it all sings out of the same hymnbook.

Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on May 05, 2016, 10:39:44 AM
Look at what Lee Atwater said. He's very clear and specific that Republicans used racism, and later, code words for racism, to motivate racist voters to support Republican candidates over Democratic candidates. And I did not even include the Willie Horton ads Atwater used in the 1988 campaign against Dukakis (and at the end of his life he expressed regret for this as well).  When a leading political activist within the Republican Party establishment is on the record saying that the positions that they have pushed over the past 50 years are based on dogwhistle appeals to racism, one plausible explanation for that action is being he's telling the truth.

Here are the main issue with the Atwater commentary:

While you make a good appeal to authority, as "he was there" you still run into the problem that you are citing a single source. Based on the assertions you claim to have been made by Lee Atwater, you are asserting the Republican Party, as a whole, is actively racist. If that assertion was actually true, I think there would have been more than one person among the Republican "power elite" who would have confessed and "atoned for their sins" by coming clean by now in the 25+ years after Atwater's death. The Democrats would welcome them into the fold with wide open arms--as it would help them do considerable damage to the Republican Party, after all.

The other issue, playing the Machiavelli card, is that whether or not the Republican Party was using verbiage to "Appeal" to racist voters, does not necessarily mean the person courting those voters, actually is one.

Of course, a quick visit to wiki on Lee Atwater also brings this up:

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

Quote from: wikipedia
Atwater also argued that Reagan did not need to make racial appeals, suggesting that Reagan's issues transcended the racial prism of the "Southern Strategy":
Quote
Atwater: But Reagan did not have to do a southern strategy for two reasons. Number one, race was not a dominant issue. And number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been, quote, southern issues since way back in the sixties. So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference. And I'll tell you another thing you all need to think about, that even surprised me, is the lack of interest, really, the lack of knowledge right now in the South among white voters about the Voting Rights Act."

So uh, Greg, your primary source for asserting that Reagan ran a race specifically courting racists in the south, successfully courted racists in the south by NOT (intentionally) using any "racist dog whistles" how's that work for you?

Also interesting is Atwaters' comment about the VRA, in that early 1980's interview. If the south was so diabolically racist even up to the present day, I'd think awareness of the VRA wouldn't have been virtually non-existent in the south during the early 1980's. Which does tend to point towards current attitudes regarding the VRA being rather disconnected from its 1960's origins.

The Willie Horton ads also get a mention on wiki, and I'm not sure where you get his expression of regret being about those ads specifically(he did apologize for "the naked cruelty" of the campaign), but of note on wiki in regards to those ads, when it came to the ones Atwater was in control of: "Although Atwater clearly approved of the use of the Willie Horton issue, the Bush campaign never ran any commercial with Horton's picture, instead running a similar but generic ad. The original commercial was produced by Americans for Bush, an independent group managed by Larry McCarthy, and Republicans benefited from the coverage it attracted in the national media."

Seems the Bush team was content to just use the criminal's name. Other political operatives thought differently on the matter, but that goes back to the Machiavelli card, which would have been blatantly obvious to almost everyone back then. As Willie Horton plays well in "the scary black man" sterotype to further undermine Dukakis.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on May 05, 2016, 10:43:35 AM
Quote
Quotas are not racial equality, and further, quotas help further disenfranchise people with the idea of racial equality initiatives. All it takes is for that person to learn they didn't get hired or promoted despite possibly being the better candidate, just because of the color of their own skin vs the color of skin of the person who got it. Sounds like a good way to encourage recruitment in racial supremacy groups however.
Whites who support equal opportunity for blacks hate whites, which means they hate themselves, just like Jews who don't support every Israeli policy are self-hating.  So, every time a white person (aka a Democrat) helps a qualified disenfranchised black person to get a job that a qualified white person (aka a Republican who doesn't believe in Affirmative Action) could have gotten only reinforces how much Democrats are racists who hate white Republicans.

Nice strawman.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on May 05, 2016, 11:12:11 AM
If you ask me the main issue affecting any 'race' in this day and age is socio-economic class, and that, in turn, has to do more with the cycle of poverty and less with biased hiring policies or so-called wage gaps. As such, the great ill affecting minorities, if anything, is poverty, and in turn whatever perpetuates systemic poverty is the best candidate for a 'racist' agenda, aside from the war on drugs.

Since I believe the economic status quo has been set up to benefit certain sectors of the economy over others mostly at the expense of the middle class and the poor, as far as I'm concerned the best interests of racists would be to vote for status quo candidates of either party. Similarly, trade deals with Asia that export jobs should be seen in a similar light since those predominantly exports jobs that middle-low income earners would apply for, and replace them with Walmart or McDonald's. Look towards candidates who were/are supportive of TPP to see who's actually in favor of systemically racist policies.

I'd add significant hikes to the minimum wage to that list as well. Increasing the cost of labor raises the bar in regards to experience required to get hired. So every time the minimum wage goes up, the harder it becomes for low income members of challenged socioeconomic groupings(low education/low skill) to attain employment, making them more dependent on government assistance(hallmark of the DNC) rather than less.

Also on the fallout list of minimum wage hikes, most jobs don't see pay hikes just because the minimum wage becomes that much closer to the wage they were previously earning. Which means that each hike of the minimum wage brings yet another grouping of skilled labor (blue collar) occupations that much closer to the poverty line until they ultimately find themselves below it, and likewise dependent on government assistance(and "clients" of the DNC) to get by. (Incidentally, this also makes it that much more unlikely that an employer will hire an "unskilled worker" and train them to do a "skilled labor" job, instead forcing the prospective hire to seek out "a school of higher learning" to teach them the fundamentals of their prospective trade before being able to start looking for employment in that given "skilled labor" task, win for the trade school who just made money off that student, lose for the student who just had to pay for that training(or the taxpayer that did so instead on their behalf))

We could also get into higher minimum wages also make automation options more viable for employers as you don't have to pay wages to robots. Which favors tech companies(and their investors) as they're the ones making the automation systems(big backers of the DNC). It also favors larger national store chains(more likely to have the capital available to invest in automation) as it makes smaller(local) stores even less cost competitive as they're unlikely to be able to easily automate on their own, but that shift certainly does benefit Wall Street(Big DNC backers), as most small businesses aren't publicly traded, that's the domain of large national chains.

Of course, all that automation also means there are more than a few people who are now going to get turfed, and find an even higher barrier for entry into future employment. Which means more government assistance(more power to the DNC, generally speaking) being needed for them to continue to live, or going back to school for further education(another field that tends to lean strongly in favor of the DNC). But short of the automation option, the other side of the coin is that if automation isn't viable, but the outsourcing(/offshoring) of the job is possible, then closing the facility down and moving the work to a region with lower wages becomes more viable, which again favors large manufacturing(Wall Street connected) over smaller operations who are unlikely to have the resources available to make such a move.

Minimum wage is a boondoggle from hell, it creates many more problems than it solves, people trapped in jobs that don't allow them to keep their heads above water isn't good either. But realizing that they're going to be needing government assistance one way or the other, that tends to argue for a complete and total revamp of how Government assistance is handled in general. Currently it is an all or nothing proposition, and that approach after 50 years of being attempted, I think has been a demonstrated and certifiable failure.  I'm not sure what a solution would look like, but it certainly doesn't look much like anything we having going on currently.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on May 05, 2016, 11:23:26 AM
If you feel impatient, you could look into these White Nationalist organizations that are hailing Trump (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/hail-emperor-trump-white-nationalists-take-victory-lap-following-trump-win) to see what they say. :)

What about the ones that backed Obama in 2008 expecting a large scale racist backlash?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on May 05, 2016, 11:50:06 AM
Quote
Nice strawman.
More than a strawman.  Here's an example:
Quote
A Southern Utah University student sued the Getty Foundation on Friday, alleging she was “deterred from applying” for  an internship because she is white.

The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, accuses Getty of racial discrimination, civil rights violations, harassment and retaliation. She is seeking “unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.”

According to CBS Los Angeles, Samantha Niemann intended to apply for Getty’s Multicultural Undergraduate Internship in Feb. 2015, but was told by a representative that “only black, Asian, Latino, Native-American and Pacific Islanders” were eligible.

CBS Los Angeles reports Niemann is of German, Irish and Italian descent.

The internship is intended for “outstanding students” interested in careers relating to museums and visual arts, according to The Getty Foundation website. A list of eligibility requirements state that students must be “of a group underrepresented in museums and visual arts organizations, including, but not limited to, individuals of African American, Asian, Latino/Hispanic, Native American, or Pacific Islander descent.”
Note that she is suing because even though the internship is meant to draw in people from under-represented groups she should still be allowed to compete.

Then, of course, there is the whole "religious freedom" movement in the south where a person can refuse to satisfy either their professional or civil rights obligations because their religion demands that they discriminate against people whose needs are no different from anyone else that they would treat.  Why should a nurse have to save your life if you look weird or don't speak English or admit that you are gay?

Quote
What about the ones that backed Obama in 2008 expecting a large scale racist backlash?
Cite?  Add this request to Seriati's so-far unsupported assertion that Democrats didn't switch parties after the CRA passed.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on May 05, 2016, 11:52:26 AM
If the economy continues to steadily improve the way it has for the last 6 years under Obama that it would amount to one of the longest periods of sustained (even if somewhat slow) economic growth in the history of the nation.  Would that be a failure?  I don't think so.  Illegal immigration has pretty much slowed to a net of zero (although it may be picking back up with improving economic conditions).  Libya and ISIS are problems but Trump doesn't have any plan for dealing with them either.  Wait his plan is to kill the families of terrorists (which is a war crime).

The economy is dubious at best right now, a significant portion of the economic growth that happened under Obama over the past 4 years was a result of a Shale-Oil/Fracking boom on private land that is currently in a hard "bust" cycle as they oversupplied the market and dropped the cost of a barrel of oil well below the cost of extracting it via fracking. There is a rapidly growing list of small oil and oil exploration companies that are folding in those areas as what they had in cash reserves rapidly deplete, and with them go the jobs they and residual cash flows they provided to those areas. Many state governments in those areas have budgets that are in chaos as revenue projections are falling wildly short of what they were expecting to receive. This is going to be rippling through the economy through much of the coming year.

A recession is very likely to happen in the near future. How short or long lived it is, we shall see. Its hard to call on what markets will do with a Trump win vs a Clinton win.

I'm inclined to say a Hillary win is likely to be status quo initially, as they're probably about as inclined to trust her as they were to (not) trust Obama and play it close to the vest while she's in office. Although a few may gamble on her trying to play it as Bill Clinton 2.0 but I don't think most will make that kind of play at the start of her Administration.

Trump is a total and complete wildcard, and that is part of the problem with him. It brings a trainload of uncertainty into the market(in particular on the international front), and businesses don't like uncertainty. However, he also is a businessman, so they may be more inclined to believe he isn't going to screw them over like Hillary or Obama might try to do if given a chance.

There has been a growing pile of cash most companies have been amassing since Obama took office that they've probably been itching to spend for almost 8 years now, so when they decide to release that money it could trigger a large scale economic growth event in its own right without much regard to other factors at play beforehand. It just is a matter of what conditions need to be met in order for them to truly let go.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on May 05, 2016, 11:58:02 AM
Quote
What about the ones that backed Obama in 2008 expecting a large scale racist backlash?
Cite?  Add this request to Seriati's so-far unsupported assertion that Democrats didn't switch parties after the CRA passed.

I hope the Southern Poverty Law Center is considered trustworthy. :)

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2008/06/11/president-obama-many-white-supremacists-are-celebrating

Quote
With the nomination of Barack Obama as the Democratic presidential candidate clinched, large sections of the white supremacist movement are adopting a surprising attitude: Electing America’s first black president would be a very good thing.

It’s not that the assortment of neo-Nazis, Klansmen, anti-Semites and others who make up this country’s radical right have suddenly discovered that a man should be judged based on the content of his character, not his skin. On the contrary. A growing number of white supremacists, and even some of those who pass for intellectual leaders of their movement, think that a black man in the Oval Office would shock white America, possibly drive millions to their cause, and perhaps even set off a race war that, they hope, would ultimately end in Aryan victory.

Edit: I'll throw another one into the mix, which also cites an Esquire article from before the election as well, that further supports the claim.

http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2008/10/30/white-supremacists-favor-obama-over-mccain-a-weird-election/
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on May 05, 2016, 12:08:29 PM
Quote
Nice strawman.
More than a strawman.  Here's an example:
Quote
A Southern Utah University student sued the Getty Foundation on Friday, alleging she was “deterred from applying” for  an internship because she is white.

The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, accuses Getty of racial discrimination, civil rights violations, harassment and retaliation. She is seeking “unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.”

According to CBS Los Angeles, Samantha Niemann intended to apply for Getty’s Multicultural Undergraduate Internship in Feb. 2015, but was told by a representative that “only black, Asian, Latino, Native-American and Pacific Islanders” were eligible.

CBS Los Angeles reports Niemann is of German, Irish and Italian descent.

The internship is intended for “outstanding students” interested in careers relating to museums and visual arts, according to The Getty Foundation website. A list of eligibility requirements state that students must be “of a group underrepresented in museums and visual arts organizations, including, but not limited to, individuals of African American, Asian, Latino/Hispanic, Native American, or Pacific Islander descent.”
Note that she is suing because even though the internship is meant to draw in people from under-represented groups she should still be allowed to compete.

And this is relevant  to the strawman I called you on how? I think I need you to draw me a picture or how the above related to this:

Quote
Quotas are not racial equality, and further, quotas help further disenfranchise people with the idea of racial equality initiatives. All it takes is for that person to learn they didn't get hired or promoted despite possibly being the better candidate, just because of the color of their own skin vs the color of skin of the person who got it. Sounds like a good way to encourage recruitment in racial supremacy groups however.
Whites who support equal opportunity for blacks hate whites, which means they hate themselves, just like Jews who don't support every Israeli policy are self-hating.  So, every time a white person (aka a Democrat) helps a qualified disenfranchised black person to get a job that a qualified white person (aka a Republican who doesn't believe in Affirmative Action) could have gotten only reinforces how much Democrats are racists who hate white Republicans.

Nice strawman.

Quote
Then, of course, there is the whole "religious freedom" movement in the south where a person can refuse to satisfy either their professional or civil rights obligations because their religion demands that they discriminate against people whose needs are no different from anyone else that they would treat.
 

Still not sure how that is relevant to the strawman you constructed, other than some tangential relations, and some of the same words and concepts used, albeit in completely different contexts. Your also using extreme examples to support a hyperbolic strawman. Extreme examples that still fall well short of supporting the claim you assert.

Quote
Why should a nurse have to save your life if you look weird or don't speak English or admit that you are gay?

And now we have yet another new strawman.....
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: NobleHunter on May 05, 2016, 12:14:29 PM
Quote
And now we have yet another new strawman.....

If it's a strawman, why are states passing laws to allow it?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on May 05, 2016, 12:32:16 PM
Quote
And now we have yet another new strawman.....

If it's a strawman, why are states passing laws to allow it?

First things first, context.

Quote
Why should a nurse have to save your life if you look weird or don't speak English or admit that you are gay?

And now we have yet another new strawman.....

I have serious doubts that any state is (intentionally) attempting to pass legislation that allows a (potential) first responder to deny medical(life saving) services on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other criteria. Which is why the strawman flag was thrown on that one. Until someone cites an example where that is explicitly intended, I'll stand by that one.

Now as to non-critical care(most abortions), and a long list of other (non-critical, and thus "not life-saving") medical procedures, I could see that being the case legislatively speaking. I don't entirely agree with the intent, spirit, or a few other things in regards to such legislative actions, but I won't deny their existence. But the specific example given is extremely likely to be hyperbolic in nature and requires a specific citation to go with it. Until then, it is, and shall remain, a strawman.

edit to add: It also is a hell of a leap to say that legislation passed with the intent of allowing OB/GYN's to opt-out from performing Abortions on moral or religious grounds in general is part of a grand racist conspiracy to deny life-saving medical care to certain ethnic or linguistic groups, or even certain sexual orientations.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on May 05, 2016, 12:42:39 PM
I'd add significant hikes to the minimum wage to that list as well. Increasing the cost of labor raises the bar in regards to experience required to get hired.

Here, however, we have an issue which ties into the false economics of trickle-down. It has become increasingly clear that economic productivity has little correlation with real income, and that wage does not keep up with production capacity or net profits over time. I agree that the solution of "making them" pay better wages is not so clear-cut as a win, however from what I've read regions that have tried it (like San Francisco) have reported that the bottom line of business was able to handle it and that it was a net positive. In other words, the issue of overhead was somewhat overstated when considering a high minimum wage. However I do appreciate the potential complications of removing the capacity for the market to determine appropriate wages, while also recognizing that even without a high minimum wage it seems incompetent as doing this anyhow.

Quote
Also on the fallout list of minimum wage hikes, most jobs don't see pay hikes just because the minimum wage becomes that much closer to the wage they were previously earning. Which means that each hike of the minimum wage brings yet another grouping of skilled labor (blue collar) occupations that much closer to the poverty line until they ultimately find themselves below it, and likewise dependent on government assistance

If anything this is evidence that the market has a skewed ability to set appropriate wage levels. We could suggest that unless wage values are artificially raised the market on its own won't do it sufficiently, and that the shortening of the distance between unskilled labor and skilled labor only means that the real wage is dropping for both of them but that the system can only remedy the lower of the two. And this doesn't even get into the fact that skilled blue color labor is being massively outsourced anyhow. And before you say that's because of minimum wages, outsourcing began when wages abroad were a tiny fraction of an American wage. The American wage at any level could never have competed.

Quote
We could also get into higher minimum wages also make automation options more viable for employers as you don't have to pay wages to robots.

This is an inevitable crisis and one that I hope comes sooner rather than later. Keeping wages low will delay but not prevent this, and the delay would likely only be for a few paltry years since tech prices tend to come down quite quickly once they're on the open market. The low real wage is, to whit, part of a general trend of capitalism becoming obsolete, and the sooner proper measures are taken to deal with this the better.

Quote
I'm not sure what a solution would look like, but it certainly doesn't look much like anything we having going on currently.

The general consensus among people who are me is to introduce a basic income. I think a wage hike is vaguely in this direction but comes from the wrong end. You may not approve of this solution, but studies seem to show that it's functionally tenable. More to the point, I think it may actually be the only solution.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: NobleHunter on May 05, 2016, 12:55:00 PM
I have serious doubts that any state is (intentionally) attempting to pass legislation that allows a (potential) first responder to deny medical(life saving) services on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other criteria. Which is why the strawman flag was thrown on that one. Until someone cites an example where that is explicitly intended, I'll stand by that one.

Now as to non-critical care(most abortions), and a long list of other (non-critical, and thus "not life-saving") medical procedures, I could see that being the case legislatively speaking. I don't entirely agree with the intent, spirit, or a few other things in regards to such legislative actions, but I won't deny their existence. But the specific example given is extremely likely to be hyperbolic in nature and requires a specific citation to go with it. Until then, it is, and shall remain, a strawman.

edit to add: It also is a hell of a leap to say that legislation passed with the intent of allowing OB/GYN's to opt-out from performing Abortions on moral or religious grounds in general is part of a grand racist conspiracy to deny life-saving medical care to certain ethnic or linguistic groups, or even certain sexual orientations.
I'm not talking about the assorted abortion laws but the "religious freedom" laws being proposed/passed. While they probably aren't intentionally giving cover to a nurse or EMT refusing life-saving treatment on the basis of "religious belief"  they don't seem to be going out of their way to prevent it.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on May 05, 2016, 02:59:33 PM
I'm not talking about the assorted abortion laws but the "religious freedom" laws being proposed/passed. While they probably aren't intentionally giving cover to a nurse or EMT refusing life-saving treatment on the basis of "religious belief"  they don't seem to be going out of their way to prevent it.

I'm inclined to say some of the "religious freedom" laws could also just as well be expressed under "freedom of (dis)association" if I don't want anything to do with a particular person, for whatever reason. I shouldn't be legally compelled to have to associate with them when operating on my own recognizance as a private citizen or as a private business owner. The people refusing to associate due to superficial reasons are idiots, but if that's what they want to do, more power to them.

However, I will agree that today is not the day that everywhere in the US is ready for that kind of right to be fully restored, particularly in poor/rural areas where there is disproportionate influence capabilities for even small employers. But saying it cannot or shouldn't be done everywhere is a different matter than saying it can't be done in some places. I think allowing the business that are so inclined to operate openly in today's society would find such policies to be very detrimental to their business interests, no governmental involvement required. It won't do away with those businesses entirely, but such enterprises would be little more than a fringe concern.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: NobleHunter on May 05, 2016, 03:06:55 PM
What about the freedom of private busimess owner not to associate with bigots? These "religious freedom" laws tend to include measures to prevent people from being fired for failing to do their jobs.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on May 05, 2016, 03:25:51 PM
Quote
I hope the Southern Poverty Law Center is considered trustworthy. :)
You realize that makes my point, not yours?

Quote
A growing number of white supremacists, and even some of those who pass for intellectual leaders of their movement, think that a black man in the Oval Office would shock white America, possibly drive millions to their cause, and perhaps even set off a race war that, they hope, would ultimately end in Aryan victory.

Quote
I have serious doubts that any state is (intentionally) attempting to pass legislation that allows a (potential) first responder to deny medical(life saving) services on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other criteria. Which is why the strawman flag was thrown on that one. Until someone cites an example where that is explicitly intended, I'll stand by that one.
Look up nurses deny CPR to woman.  That's professional (i.e., corporate) policy in this case.

Tennessee just passed a law allowing therapists to refuse treatment to a patient who says they are gay.  That would apply even if the patient was in distress and said they felt suicidal.

Here (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/03/23/3417404/when-religious-liberty-was-used-to-deny-all-health-care-to-women-and-not-just-birth-control/)'s an interesting case where a company wanted to deny all health care benefits to women employees because men are the heads of households and should make the decisions about health care for their wives.  They were taken to court and lost, but the Hobby Lobby case makes it clear that employers can discriminate on health care it provides to its employees, in this case women can't have insurance coverage for birth control.

Here (http://www.refinery29.com/2015/09/93354/aclu-suit-catholic-hospitals-deny-tube-tying-procedure)'s a case where a woman was refused an operation that would have left her unable to have more children, even though it was a health issue, because the Catholic Hospital said it would violate their principles to perform the surgery.  The hospital "made an exception" for the woman after the ACLU threatened to sue.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pete at Home on May 05, 2016, 04:32:25 PM
Quote
Tennessee just passed a law allowing therapists to refuse treatment to a patient who says they are gay.  That would apply even if the patient was in distress and said they felt suicidal.

Rubbish on the interpretation.  What the law actually does is allow a gay fake patient to make his lawyer rich at the expense of the Tennessee government. 

Obviously the Tennessee law is wrong. What I find deplorable is, say, forcing a Christian fertility specialist to impregnate someone she doesn't want to work with.  Forcing such intimate non-essential contact is tantamount to state-enforced rape.  Welcome to Pakistan
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on May 05, 2016, 04:55:31 PM
Better than a slippery slope is jumping the chasm.  Nicely done.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on May 05, 2016, 07:04:59 PM
What about the freedom of private business owner not to associate with bigots? These "religious freedom" laws tend to include measures to prevent people from being fired for failing to do their jobs.

I would support that. (The ability to fire persons who refuse to perform "core functions" of their job on religious grounds) I'm all for reasonable accommodation, but if that means having to have someone else shadow them in the event of their objecting to serving a particular customer. That's not reasonable.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on May 05, 2016, 07:09:45 PM
Quote
I hope the Southern Poverty Law Center is considered trustworthy. :)
You realize that makes my point, not yours?

Quote
A growing number of white supremacists, and even some of those who pass for intellectual leaders of their movement, think that a black man in the Oval Office would shock white America, possibly drive millions to their cause, and perhaps even set off a race war that, they hope, would ultimately end in Aryan victory.

I'm pretty sure the position you staked was that a racist(specifically, a white supremacist) would NOT do anything that might benefit a racial minority, as "doing so would be detrimental to white folk." Therefore, they would not be supportive of a person like Obama getting into the Oval Office as "that benefits a black man." Then again, the KKK emphasized his being half-white and tried to ignore his being black, but that isn't how many of the others went.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pete at Home on May 05, 2016, 07:14:16 PM
"Here's an interesting case where a company wanted to deny all health care benefits to women employees because men are the heads of households and should make the decisions about health care for their wives"

"here" as in where?  if you had a linky, I would read. Agreed that is outrageous.

I believe I linked to fertility specialist story on the previous Ornery board.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on May 06, 2016, 09:38:12 AM
The link works for me.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Wayward Son on May 06, 2016, 11:13:48 AM
Strange, it worked for me, too.

Try this: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/03/23/3417404/when-religious-liberty-was-used-to-deny-all-health-care-to-women-and-not-just-birth-control/
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on May 07, 2016, 12:04:22 AM
So now we're accusing conservatives of something based on a court case heard over 30 years ago?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on May 07, 2016, 12:17:09 AM
So now we're accusing conservatives of something based on a court case heard over 30 years ago?
Do you think that kind of attitude no longer infects the conservative legislative base in many (mostly) southern states?  Doesn't arguing about the "Southern Strategy" and why Democrats are still racist because (allegedly) southern racists never renounced their Party membership in the 60's go back even longer?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on May 07, 2016, 10:15:57 AM
So now we're accusing conservatives of something based on a court case heard over 30 years ago?
Do you think that kind of attitude no longer infects the conservative legislative base in many (mostly) southern states?  Doesn't arguing about the "Southern Strategy" and why Democrats are still racist because (allegedly) southern racists never renounced their Party membership in the 60's go back even longer?

Well, for one, the court case was brought forward by a religious group, not a political party.

For another, the "Southern Strategy" and Democrats being/not being racist after the alleged exodus to the Republican Party only came up because you wanted to paint the Republicans as racist based on past (30+ year old) events. IIRC, we simply expressed skepticism of the claim one way or the other. YOU were the one asserting the position as being valid. So... Ask yourself?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on May 07, 2016, 02:42:44 PM
I don't quite follow.  It's abundantly clear to me that the GOP has been a magnet for soft-to-medium racists over the past 50 years.  I honestly don't know how one can deny that, even if many of those same racist beliefs had found a safe harbor in the southern Democratic Party before then.  You said you didn't live through the times of the CRA, but if you'll forgive this kind of appeal to authority, I did.  Being an aggrieved black, Hispanic or any other (actually) disenfranchised or discriminated against group doesn't make those people racist or bigoted for pointing out the long-term suffering and denial to which they were subjected. 

I noticed the other day that David Duke supports Trump and hopes he will do something about the "Jewish problem" in the US.  Being anti-semitic is apparently just a call for reparations against people you hate and have long wished to be enslaved or eliminated.  Otherwise they will try to  live among you and enjoy same freedoms and opportunities you rightly and uniquely deserve.  I think he hates blacks for the same reason.

We know who Republicans and conservatives don't like, but who exactly do Democrats hate, btw?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 07, 2016, 05:39:09 PM
What are some examples of these racist beliefs?

And obviously I hope you can come up with something other than the border needs to be secured, the immigration laws enforced, we need to know that the people who are voting are who they say they are, and race shouldn't be used as the determining factor in college admissions or employment because if not I am going to be disappointed since none of that is racist in the least. Except perhaps to liberals with an agenda which declares that any position they disagree with must be because the other person is a racist.


Yossarian

"The deficit is about 1/3 of what it was when Obama took office.  You can say that is a failure but failed miserably seems like a stretch."

Maybe I shouldn't have brought up the deficit so much but just stuck with the national debt although the two obviously go hand in hand. Obama doubled the national debt. Even Obama admits it's a terrible idea to ... well let me just quote Obama himself when he talked about Bush adding four trillion dollars to the national debt:

“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents -- number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic,” said Obama on July 3, 2008, at a campaign event North Dakota.

So is the national debt suddenly not a big deal anymore? I don't really hear anyone but Trump talking about it. Certainly not Hillary. Did Obama double down and win? Like in blackjack? This is something I just don't get, honestly. Why doesn't the media ever bring this up with Obama right now and ask him to explain himself? What could his explanation possibly be? He still says we need to do all that infrastructure work that he said a long time ago was already shovel ready. Something was shovel ready alright, but it wasn't jobs.

How is it that if Hillary is elected we should expect her to reduce the national debt? By every indication it looks like she might pull another Obama and add another ten trillion dollars to it or maybe even more. I guess I'm just not understanding why this issue no longer seems important. It's almost like we've given up, like Puerto Rico or Argentina. Or someone in so deep on their credit cards that they know they'll never pay it back so they don't even try or pretend to care anymore.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on May 07, 2016, 05:52:40 PM
I noticed the other day that David Duke supports Trump and hopes he will do something about the "Jewish problem" in the US.  Being anti-semitic is apparently just a call for reparations against people you hate and have long wished to be enslaved or eliminated.  Otherwise they will try to  live among you and enjoy same freedoms and opportunities you rightly and uniquely deserve.  I think he hates blacks for the same reason.

Anti-semitism is alive and well in the Liberal side of the political spectrum, both in overt and covert forms. Being an anti-semite isn't grounds for being shunned, you have to hold other "undesirable" views before they'll normally put distance between themselves and the anti-semite.

Quote
We know who Republicans and conservatives don't like, but who exactly do Democrats hate, btw?

Jews that don't give them money. Straight, white males without a 6 figure net-worth are another. Their policies are also directly harmful to many of the people they claim to be trying to help. Now that could just be benign incompetence/obliviousness, but after over 50 years, that doesn't quite track.

The question also is which Democrats are we talking about? The ones holding the levers of power I'm pretty sure are upper crust elitists who could give a *censored* about anyone not in the top 5% of the income/wealth brackets, but realize they can't openly behave that way, so they'll pay lip service to the problems of "the little people" in order to keep them appeased and off their backs personally because they can point to what they're supporting and say they're trying.

The upper tiers of the Republican establishment isn't much better, and they've generally done a job of playing devil for the Democrats as to why their(Democrat) efforts keep failing. Thing is the Republicans also have a LOT of (semi-)genuine people in the mix that are very straight up about what the problems are, what can be done about them, and how to overcome a lot of that crap. Thing is personal accountability doesn't sell well to the masses, and other aspects of their messages aren't particularly diplomatic and don't play well, particularly given historical contexts(which AI is gleefully demonstrating).

But the biggest part of it is personal accountability doesn't come across as very caring, which also means it doesn't give anyone warm fuzzies(except maybe the actual racists; or the people who've done the work, and have become the change in their own lives).

To quote a popular expression, "Buy a man a fish, he is fed for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he is fed for life."

The DNC is about bread and circuses, and buying the needy fish so they don't starve. (Yes, the Dems will offer training, but you don't need to train in a viable field, and if you can't find work local to where you're at. That's ok, they've got ways to help you bide your time)
The Republicans typically take the other side and insist on the needy learning how to fish(although they do often fall short of offering the means to learn how).

The DNC is all about doing what makes you "feel good and be happy" and offer government programs to help you attempt to achieve that, welfare, government assistance, unemployment benefits allowing people to be better able to remain in place and wait for a job to come to them.

The Republicans are more on the "get to work" side of things, and if that means moving to where the work is, well then, start packing. Which doesn't make a lot of people happy, or feel good. They've often put down roots where they are, and they don't want to move. But that also plays into "the Republicans don't care about me like the Democrats do."
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Greg Davidson on May 08, 2016, 02:27:22 AM
Quote
What are some examples of these racist beliefs?

Let's go with an easy one. Donald Trump still insists that he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating the terrorists on 9/11.

That is the modern American example of the blood libel.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on May 08, 2016, 07:36:24 AM
Cherry:
Quote
And obviously I hope you can come up with something other than the border needs to be secured, the immigration laws enforced, we need to know that the people who are voting are who they say they are, and race shouldn't be used as the determining factor in college admissions or employment because if not I am going to be disappointed since none of that is racist in the least. Except perhaps to liberals with an agenda which declares that any position they disagree with must be because the other person is a racist.
Exactly the sort of Republican/conservative overreaction I was thinking of.  It's not racism when people are simply told to stay in their place.

TheDeamon:
Quote
Anti-semitism is alive and well in the Liberal side of the political spectrum, both in overt and covert forms.
Cite (3rd recent request; maybe I'll get lucky this time)?

Quote
Jews that don't give them money. Straight, white males without a 6 figure net-worth are another. Their policies are also directly harmful to many of the people they claim to be trying to help. Now that could just be benign incompetence/obliviousness, but after over 50 years, that doesn't quite track.
Utterly nebulous and unprovable collection of insults.  What about Jews that *do* give them money?  How are their policies "directly harmful"?  You've got "over 50 years" of history, so there must be some crystal clear examples in there to choose from.

Quote
The DNC is all about doing what makes you "feel good and be happy" and offer government programs to help you attempt to achieve that, welfare, government assistance, unemployment benefits allowing people to be better able to remain in place and wait for a job to come to them.

The Republicans are more on the "get to work" side of things, and if that means moving to where the work is, well then, start packing. Which doesn't make a lot of people happy, or feel good. They've often put down roots where they are, and they don't want to move. But that also plays into "the Republicans don't care about me like the Democrats do."
You realize that this hard-hitting analysis is nothing more than partisan talking points, right?  I could just as easily have said Republicans want you to suffer and Democrats try to alleviate your suffering and wouldn't be either more or less accurate.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on May 08, 2016, 01:09:56 PM
Cherry:
Quote
And obviously I hope you can come up with something other than the border needs to be secured, the immigration laws enforced, we need to know that the people who are voting are who they say they are, and race shouldn't be used as the determining factor in college admissions or employment because if not I am going to be disappointed since none of that is racist in the least. Except perhaps to liberals with an agenda which declares that any position they disagree with must be because the other person is a racist.
Exactly the sort of Republican/conservative overreaction I was thinking of.  It's not racism when people are simply told to stay in their place.

How is asking people to behave in a legal way(which btw, is color blind in the first place) telling them to stay in their place?

Quote
TheDeamon:
Quote
Anti-semitism is alive and well in the Liberal side of the political spectrum, both in overt and covert forms.
Cite (3rd recent request; maybe I'll get lucky this time)?

Sadly, it doesn't translate in a ready-made Google search. So it isn't something I can casually pull up. I know from friends in academia, whose social circles are almost entirely liberal/Democrat in makeup that when certain events occur, in particular involving Isreal. Their social media pages start getting flooded with anti-Semitic, not just Anti-Isreali, rhetoric in short order, mostly from those same liberal/Democratic co-workers.

But spending a few minutes digging around online, and ignoring most of the pages that are talking more about reverse-racism scenarios coming out of the DNC.

http://www.wnd.com/2003/01/16744/
Quote
A new study finds Democrats are more anti-Semitic than Republicans.

The Institute for Jewish & Community Research, which conducted an authoritative public opinion survey on the topic of anti-Semitic beliefs, also reveals the young are more likely to be anti-Jewish than those over 35.

. . .

Democrats tend to be more anti-Semitic than Republicans. For example, Republicans are less likely to view Jews as caring only about themselves (12 percent) than Democrats or independents (20 percent each). This finding may come as a surprise to many Jews, who are much more heavily aligned with the Democratic Party.

. . .

The data from the survey also revealed a connection between anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism.

“Much of anti-Israelism is thinly veiled anti-Semitism – anti-Semitism in disguise,” said Tobin. “The same kinds of stereotypes are often used, such as Israel controls the media or Congress.”

...now which party harbors the most people who express strong anti-Israeli sentiments again?


http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/192751/crossing-a-line-to-sell-a-deal
Quote
What we increasingly can’t stomach—and feel obliged to speak out about right now—is the use of Jew-baiting and other blatant and retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice as tools to sell a political deal, or to smear those who oppose it. Accusing Sen. Schumer of loyalty to a foreign government is bigotry, pure and simple. Accusing senators and congressmen whose misgivings about the Iran deal are shared by a majority of the U.S. electorate of being agents of a foreign power, or of selling their votes to shadowy lobbyists, or of acting contrary to the best interests of the United States is the kind of naked appeal to bigotry and prejudice that would be familiar in the politics of the pre-Civil Rights Era South.

This use of anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool is a sickening new development in American political discourse, and we have heard too much of it lately—some coming, ominously, from our own White House and its representatives. Let’s not mince words: Murmuring about “money” and “lobbying” and “foreign interests” who seek to drag America into war is a direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card. It’s the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally, not from the president of the United States—and it’s gotten so blatant that even many of us who are generally sympathetic to the administration, and even this deal, have been shaken by it.
 

We can go back a little further, remember Occupy Wall Street, guess who else fully endorsed and supported it? Your favorite racist boogeyman David Duke. But it gets better(not bothering to quote Duke).

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/former-kkk-grand-wizard-david-duke-supports-occupy-wall-street-movement

Quote
Media Research Center President Brent Bozell has condemned the anti-Semitism evident at many of the Occupy Wall Street protests and has called upon the presidents of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, and NBC News to start reporting the racism clearly evident at the demonstrations.

CNSNews.com is a division of the Media Research Center.

In one video, cited by Bozell, an OWS protester says, "The Jews commit more white collar crime than any other ethnic group on earth, and they go unprosecuted because they can buy their way out of it. ... Whenever there's a billion dollar fraud, there's a Jew involved."

. . .

Don Feder, head of Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation, said: “The Left has a long history of anti-Semitism going back to Karl Marx. In that context, the anti-Semitism of some OWS protestors and organizations isn’t surprising. What also isn’t surprising, but is disturbing, is the mainstream media’s refusal to report this. Unsubstantiated allegations of racism on the part of certain Tea Party protestors which later proved to be unfounded was the subject of intense media scrutiny. Real palpable, verifiable anti-Semitism on the part of OWS protestors the media has no interest in covering.”

Quote
Jews that don't give them money. Straight, white males without a 6 figure net-worth are another. Their policies are also directly harmful to many of the people they claim to be trying to help. Now that could just be benign incompetence/obliviousness, but after over 50 years, that doesn't quite track.
Utterly nebulous and unprovable collection of insults.  What about Jews that *do* give them money?  How are their policies "directly harmful"?  You've got "over 50 years" of history, so there must be some crystal clear examples in there to choose from.

The ones that DO give them money are, as Stalin would say, are "useful idiots." But part of that cut off is that once you enter the the 6+ figure net worth club, you're "one of them" so you get a pass on most things even if they have to criticize you in public if you are publicly caught out pursuing agendas that aren't kosher with the upper crust collective.

It is one of those truly ironic things, Occupy Wall Street, misguided as it was, did happen to be on the right general track, but it was still wrong on a number of other fronts, in particular who it considered to be friends.

Quote
You realize that this hard-hitting analysis is nothing more than partisan talking points, right?  I could just as easily have said Republicans want you to suffer and Democrats try to alleviate your suffering and wouldn't be either more or less accurate.

People do, and will continue to, vote their wallets. Whichever party is likely to either give them more (opportunities for) stuff(whatever form that "Stuff" may take) is far more likely to get their vote than the party that threatens to reduce their continued ability to obtain "stuff." Which makes people in the Welfare/Government Assistance spiral more prone to becoming "natural" Democratic Party voters, because they're the ones talking about providing more/better benefits, while the Republicans typically talk about finding ways to get them off the dole.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 08, 2016, 01:53:37 PM
Just because the American media doesn't report it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Obama killed the credibility of the American mainstream media which had already decided to poison themselves anyway with their own bias. But it was a slow acting poison so the media basically begged Obama to go ahead and get it over with and just shoot them to put them out their misery. Obama happily obliged. The recent public confession of Obama aid Mr. Rhodes is just one example of many with Obamacare's Gruber being another.  You have to go to Britain and sometimes even Russia to get an idea of what's really going on.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3369705/Was-Trump-Police-officer-says-pockets-Muslims-celebrated-9-11-shouted-Allahu-Akbar.html

"'The women were shouting in Arabic and keening in the high-pitched wail of Arabic fashion,' Gallagher continued. 'They were told to go back to their apartments since a crowd of non-Muslims was gathering on the sidewalk below and we feared for their safety.'

That apartment building, located in Jersey City, New Jersey, was visited by FBI agents several days later and some residents were taken into custody, the Star-Ledger reported.

Another celebration occurred on Jersey City's John F. Kennedy Boulevard, according to eyewitnesses, which is near the mosque where Omar Abdel-Rahman, known as 'the blind sheikh,' had preached before his terrorist ties were uncovered during the investigation into the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

'When I saw they were happy, I was pissed,' said 56-year-old Ron Knight, who said he heard cries of 'Allahu Akbar' while making his way through a crowd of 15 to 20 people on the street.

60-year-old Carlos Ferran, who lives in the same apartment building of Knight, also remembered coming across the gathering while he was walking to a liquor store to buy beer.

'Some of them had their hands in the air,' Ferran told NJ.com. 'They were happy.'

A crowd was reportedly gathered on a rooftop from an address on the same street, 2801 John F. Kennedy Blvd., but officers dispatched were unable to enter the building because the front door was locked.

'By the time I got to the roof, no one was there,' said retired officer Bruce Dzamba.

This was the building mentioned in a local news report by journalist Pablo Guzman, which Trump had pointed to as proof.

On the air, Guzman, citing unnamed sources, said federal officials had detained eight men at this scene who were cheering.

Retired officer Arthur Teeter, who worked in the radio room on 9/11, told NJ.com that this was one of several addresses where cheering was witnessed and that bystanders called in to report.

'They said they were witnessing this,' Teeter said. 'We don't send out cars based on someone saying somebody else saw it.'

NJ Advance Media journalists found a handful of other officers who shared similar recollections but would not go on the record, in part, because they feared repercussions from Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop, who has repeatedly said that the celebrations did not happen.

'There are no records of this, and over time, what has happened is that it has become urban legend in many cities where people say they heard or saw something,' Fulop said. 'At the end of the day, the only thing we can go on are facts. There is no media record. There is no police record. There is nothing.'

Fulop questioned why Gallagher didn't file a report at the time.

Gallagher responded saying that 'if no violence is involved it is, and was, a minor assignment.'

'The people on the roof were cooperative as were the people on the sidewalk,' he continued. 'No report was necessary.'

Other officers who served alongside Gallagher said he wouldn't make something like this up.

'I would have no reason to doubt Pete,' said Tom Comey, a former New Jersey police chief. 'He's a man of high integrity.'

Gallagher told NJ.com that he didn't come forward to make a political statement, just to set the record straight.

'The celebrations happened,' he said. 'All or most on rooftops. The [Jersey City Police Department] leadership put on an order to seek the cooperation of the Muslim celebrants for their own safety. By 2 p.m. there were no more celebrations and my squad was designated a roving patrol to guard about six mosques.'

Trump again made a claim about Muslims celebrating on 9/11 when he appeared on This Week with George Stephanopoulos yesterday.

'Oh there were plenty of people cheering, believe me,' Trump said. 'And I've come up with plenty [of evidence],' he told the host, a day before the NJ.com story came out.

'And a lot of people - thousands of people - have been calling and writing and emailing, many people saw it. And it was in New Jersey and it was all over the world, George,' Trump said.

Trump said, however, that there were 'articles written about it,' articles that, to this day, have never been found.

'There were people celebrating,' he said again."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Bush was willing to get the Saudi government agents who helped pull off 9-11 out of the country so they could avoid the prosecutions and interrogations they deserved then it's not difficult to imagine our government would also act to downplay Muslim celebrations to help protect Muslims from hate crimes.

Like I said before, stuff like this is one more good reason why Trump needs to be the President. Otherwise we will never find out about the many lies our government in collusion with the media have been feeding us.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on May 08, 2016, 09:15:41 PM
Quote
The ones that DO give them money are, as Stalin would say, are "useful idiots." But part of that cut off is that once you enter the the 6+ figure net worth club, you're "one of them" so you get a pass on most things even if they have to criticize you in public if you are publicly caught out pursuing agendas that aren't kosher with the upper crust collective.
It makes clear your bias to call Jews who give money to Democrats "useful idiots".  After all, it's not like they're normal people.

Quote
...while the Republicans typically talk about finding ways to get them off the dole.
I think Republicans are far more focused on reducing the size of government than helping people get off the dole, so abandoning people in need is a win because it technically gets them off the dole.  That they end up on the street or burden everyone else by using emergency services is somehow not a problem.  Less is more, however much and whoever it hurts.  In Utah and and now Ann Arbor there are initiatives to give people in need low-cost housing and social services.  What the cities that offer those things finds is that they save a lot of money that would otherwise be spent in special and sometimes desperate interventions.  Those are principles that I would expect a self-identified Christian nation to to endorse and promote, but instead the party that more closely identifies itself with religion and religious freedom is more interested in denying and eliminating those kinds of help.

In line with that, one should look at school funding disparities before one says poor people living in underfunded urban environments would get better jobs if they had better educations.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on May 08, 2016, 09:47:50 PM
Quote
The ones that DO give them money are, as Stalin would say, are "useful idiots." But part of that cut off is that once you enter the the 6+ figure net worth club, you're "one of them" so you get a pass on most things even if they have to criticize you in public if you are publicly caught out pursuing agendas that aren't kosher with the upper crust collective.
It makes clear your bias to call Jews who give money to Democrats "useful idiots".  After all, it's not like they're normal people.

Who said I, personally, called them that? That is how I'm sure a number of the power elite in the DNC view them, though. Besides which, if they're giving money to the DNC or any other backer of the DNC, they're certainly not useful to me.

Edit to add: That also includes you ignoring the matter that smart people are not immune from being idiots where other topics are concerned which are outside their normal areas of experience.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Wayward Son on May 09, 2016, 02:30:54 PM
You have to go to Britain and sometimes even Russia to get an idea of what's really going on.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3369705/Was-Trump-Police-officer-says-pockets-Muslims-celebrated-9-11-shouted-Allahu-Akbar.html

"'The women were shouting in Arabic and keening in the high-pitched wail of Arabic fashion,' Gallagher continued. 'They were told to go back to their apartments since a crowd of non-Muslims was gathering on the sidewalk below and we feared for their safety.'

That apartment building, located in Jersey City, New Jersey, was visited by FBI agents several days later and some residents were taken into custody, the Star-Ledger reported.

Another celebration occurred on Jersey City's John F. Kennedy Boulevard, according to eyewitnesses, which is near the mosque where Omar Abdel-Rahman, known as 'the blind sheikh,' had preached before his terrorist ties were uncovered during the investigation into the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

'When I saw they were happy, I was pissed,' said 56-year-old Ron Knight, who said he heard cries of 'Allahu Akbar' while making his way through a crowd of 15 to 20 people on the street...

'The celebrations happened,' he said. 'All or most on rooftops. The [Jersey City Police Department] leadership put on an order to seek the cooperation of the Muslim celebrants for their own safety. By 2 p.m. there were no more celebrations and my squad was designated a roving patrol to guard about six mosques.'

Trump again made a claim about Muslims celebrating on 9/11 when he appeared on This Week with George Stephanopoulos yesterday.

'Oh there were plenty of people cheering, believe me,' Trump said. 'And I've come up with plenty [of evidence],' he told the host, a day before the NJ.com story came out.

'And a lot of people - thousands of people - have been calling and writing and emailing, many people saw it. And it was in New Jersey and it was all over the world, George,' Trump said.

Trump said, however, that there were 'articles written about it,' articles that, to this day, have never been found.

'There were people celebrating,' he said again."

That's the problem with Trump supporters:  they're memory is just as flaky as Trump's. :)

Look again at what Trump actually said (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/22/donald-trump/fact-checking-trumps-claim-thousands-new-jersey-ch/):

Quote
"I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down," the Republican presidential candidate said at a Nov. 21 rally in Birmingham, Ala. "And I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering."

The next day, ABC This Week host George Stephanopoulos asked Trump if he misspoke, noting that "the police say that didn't happen."

Trump -- who has said he was in his Manhattan apartment the morning of the attack -- doubled down.

"It was on television. I saw it," Trump said. "It was well covered at the time, George. Now, I know they don't like to talk about it, but it was well covered at the time. There were people over in New Jersey that were watching it, a heavy Arab population, that were cheering as the buildings came down. Not good."

Does anything in that article indicate there were "thousands and thousands" of people cheering?  Or does a group of 20 now constitute "thousands?" :)

And when did he see it?  He said he was in his Manhattan apartment at the time.  Did he suddenly teleport to New Jersey to witness these isolated events?  Or does he have a magic TV that sees things at a distance that no one else can see.  Because, remember, no one else remembers seeing those things on TV, except Trump.

I don't doubt that some Muslims may have celebrated the attack on 9/11 in New Jersey.  I'm sure some white supremacists
were celebrating, thinking that America just got a wake-up call about their bigoted beliefs (just like some bigots endorsed Obama, because it would cause people to rise up against blacks).  But reports of a few dozen people supposedly celebrating the attack does not becomes "thousands and thousands of people" "all over New Jersey."  And no amount of stretching is going to cover that big of an exaggeration.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on May 09, 2016, 03:34:08 PM
Quote
Who said I, personally, called them that?

You said without qualification:
Quote
The ones that DO give them money are, as Stalin would say, are "useful idiots."
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 09, 2016, 03:50:59 PM
If you want to make the case that Trump exaggerated then I'll certainly agree to that. He does that all the time and he did it again here.

But there are plenty of reports that say those celebrations didn't happen at all and that's an exaggeration going the other way, if I'm not butchering the word there.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/22/donald-trumps-outrageous-claim-that-thousands-of-new-jersey-muslims-celebrated-the-911-attacks/

... “That is totally false. That is patently false,” Speziale said. “That never happened. There were no flags burning, no one was dancing. That is [barnyard epithet].” He said the main concern after the attacks was that the U.S. Muslim population would face retaliation, and so law enforcement officials worked with the community to ensure that did not happen. “They’ve been very helpful and law-abiding.”

... As the Newark Star-Ledger put it in an article on Sept. 18, 2001, “rumors of rooftop celebrations of the attack by Muslims here proved unfounded.”

Well obviously if they are on a rooftop it's going to be tough to fit thousands of people there.

And there were plenty of Muslims caught dancing and celebrating abroad. I think it's obvious there were a few who were caught celebrating in America and thousands dancing and cheering overseas and Trump conflated them together in his mind.

Both he and the ones who deny anything happened as far as American Muslims celebrating are incorrect. Even if it was just a handful that is still a story that shouldn't be covered up the way it was.

Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 09, 2016, 05:42:55 PM
I've been curious for a while how much the plans of Sanders would run up the national debt. I was wondering if he could achieve another Obama double. It looks like maybe so.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/study-sanders-economic-plan-piles-170219543.html

"Democratic presidential candidate Sanders would raise taxes by more than $15 trillion over 10 years, with most of that paid by upper-income earners.

But that wouldn't be enough to cover the cost of his proposed government-run health care system, along with free undergraduate college, enhanced Social Security, family and medical leave, among other new programs. The cost of the health care plan alone is more than $30 trillion, according to the study.

The bottom line: Sanders would add $18 trillion to federal debt over a decade. That's about double the current total government debt of $19 trillion. "



Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: TheDeamon on May 09, 2016, 09:54:34 PM
Quote
Who said I, personally, called them that?

You said without qualification:
Quote
The ones that DO give them money are, as Stalin would say, are "useful idiots."

Context for that comment matters. Just to be clear, I went through the discussion and did a re-build of that discussion chain for you:

We know who Republicans and conservatives don't like, but who exactly do Democrats hate, btw?
Jews that don't give them money. Straight, white males without a 6 figure net-worth are another. Their policies are also directly harmful to many of the people they claim to be trying to help. Now that could just be benign incompetence/obliviousness, but after over 50 years, that doesn't quite track.
Utterly nebulous and unprovable collection of insults.  What about Jews that *do* give them money?  How are their policies "directly harmful"?  You've got "over 50 years" of history, so there must be some crystal clear examples in there to choose from.
The ones that DO give them money are, as Stalin would say, are "useful idiots." But part of that cut off is that once you enter the the 6+ figure net worth club, you're "one of them" so you get a pass on most things even if they have to criticize you in public if you are publicly caught out pursuing agendas that aren't kosher with the upper crust collective.

To be clear the "them" referenced are the "upper crust" of the Democratic party, and the "useful idiots" was quoted for two reasons, even if the one wasn't completely transparent without full context. (The other being because, well, it's a quote) Within the context of my comment, it is "them" who are calling their Jewish donors "useful idiots," not me. 

Because, once again, if they're giving money to an arm of the DNC or its support apparatus, they're not terribly "useful" for me personally.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Greg Davidson on May 10, 2016, 12:16:33 AM
Quote
I think it's obvious there were a few who were caught celebrating in America and thousands dancing and cheering overseas and Trump conflated them together in his mind.

Cherry, I question your story of a police officer who spoke no Arabic yet understood that there were celebrations of joy in support of 9/11 because 'The women were shouting in Arabic and keening in the high-pitched wail of Arabic fashion'.  And across the world among 1.8 billion Muslims, it would not have been surprising if several thousands of them celebrated... but there is no evidence of that.  All I have ever seen from a video that was verified as having been taken on 9/11 was a few dozen people.

And Donald Trump was not uncertain in any way - he stated with certainty that he saw with his own eyes thousands of American Muslims celebrating the terrorist attacks on 9/11. And he has done this repeatedly. And he has never retracted his statements.

 
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Seriati on May 10, 2016, 06:32:20 PM
Seriati,

Look at what Lee Atwater said. He's very clear and specific that Republicans used racism, and later, code words for racism, to motivate racist voters to support Republican candidates over Democratic candidates.
Actually I think this was well addressed by TheDeamon.

Even still though, I'm not sure why his opinion is controlling.  At best he was reviewing a strategy that was implemented before he even left school, and even if you think he was an insider later, he'd only reporting on hearsay and based on after the fact recollections for the early period.

In any event, I don't think it's all controversial that the Republican strategy made use of the Democratic shift on race to appeal to disaffected voters, I think it's a complete farce to recharacterize it as adopting a racist platform or using racism to appeal.  It was exactly what I said, an appeal to voters that felt betrayed by their party, and it pointed out both the betrayal and the core of other issues on which those persons other views aligned with the Republicans.

And you know what, it'll happen again in the future.  One party or the other will strike an absolutely wrong note with a core constituency and the other party will actively seek to widen that rift and draw them in.  It could happy with blue collar workers any day, the Democrats have very little in common with their members actual social positions.  It could go the other way with Cuban voters moving towards the Democrats.
Quote
When a leading political activist within the Republican Party establishment is on the record saying that the positions that they have pushed over the past 50 years are based on dogwhistle appeals to racism, one plausible explanation for that action is being he's telling the truth.
Lol, he may have been telling the truth -as he saw it.  That doesn't make him correct.

Honestly, the reason you find it so overwhelming credible that you think it trumps everything else, has nothing to do with any objective analysis of whether he actually was in a position to know the truth with respect to the entire Republican party (and given the actual members of that party his interpretation is unlikely to be the whole truth), but because it ratifies what you want to be true.  You do the same thing on Obama care, which is why you always drag out the canard about it being a Republican plan and cite to the Heritage foundation (notwithstanding that its never been a Republican plank or supported by the party).  It's just confirmation bias in action.
Quote
Whether its the South's "peculiar institution" or the cause of State's Rights, the United States has a long history of racists using careful language to hide the fact that the benefit politically by spreading hatred of minorities. Atwater's testimony just brings that tale up to the present
Well I agree on the peculiar institution, how could one not, that's an express reference to slavery. 

But state's rights is a fundamental structural point of the county.  It's almost nonsensical to claim that's just a dog whistle for racists, particularly when it became an issue over the exact time period of the federal government's rampant expansion into issues long controlled exclusively by the states.
Quote
And don't give me the false argument that the Civil War was about State's Rights, because the Southern States had the perfect opportunity to choose between slavery and states rights with the Fugitive Slave Act prior to the Civil War, and they clearly demonstrated that they wanted federal law to trump state law if it would help them protect slavery.
First of all, again state's rights is more than just a civil war argument, but I don't find it remotely controlling that because state's made a bad argument and wrong decision in one instance, it automatically decides the issue for hundreds of other rights.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on May 17, 2016, 08:50:41 AM
The Clinton campaign of "in his own words" ads is beginning (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/05/new-super-pac-donald-trump-clinton-ads).  I can imagine how annoying it will be to see these ads popping up everywhere you go, but the more you hear and see them the worse Trump appears.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 17, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Speaking of "in his own words":


    "But there are some areas that the federal government should not leave and should address and address strongly. One of these areas is the problem of illegal immigration. After years of neglect, this administration has taken a strong stand to stiffen the protection of our borders. We are increasing border controls by 50 percent. We are increasing inspections to prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants. And tonight, I announce I will sign an executive order to deny federal contracts to businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

    Let me be very clear about this: We are still a nation of immigrants; we should be proud of it. We should honor every legal immigrant here, working hard to become a new citizen. But we are also a nation of laws."

Bill Clinton's during his 1996 State of the Union address.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If making it easy to be an illegal alien is not enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee full access to all public and social services this society provides. And that is a lot of services. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?" - Harry Reid

In the early 1990s, Harry Reid was a strong advocate of ending birthright citizenship. In 1993, he introduced theImmigration Stabilization Act, legislation that would have, among other features, denied citizenship to children whose parents were not legally in the U.S. He pushed for the idea again in 1994, writing an op-ed on it for the Los Angeles Times.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/vitter-quotes-93-reid-senate-speech-on-ending-birthright-citizenship/article/2561481
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on May 17, 2016, 03:25:36 PM
Anything more recent than 1996, like from a candidate in this election cycle maybe?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on May 17, 2016, 03:43:57 PM
Anything more recent than 1996, like from a candidate in this election cycle maybe?

"We came, we saw, he died. *cackles*" -Hillary

No other quote from her is required once this one is fully appreciated.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 17, 2016, 05:18:35 PM
Of course not Al because the Democrats ran the numbers soon after that and decided that letting our borders and laws get violated would help them win elections.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on May 17, 2016, 09:32:29 PM
I'm wryly amused by Fenring's and Cherry's last two posts, as if they do anything but present their opinions about things.  What exactly do you each think the obvious meaning of your posts is?  Cherry I get, because he is psychologically predisposed to find fault in anything with a "democrat" label attached or in the vicinity, regardless of what the actual meaning might be.  Fenring posts a fave right-wing clip about Clinton celebrating the success of a possibly ill-advised objective that later turned out to have lots of unexpected consequences.  Are you both going out of your way to demonstrate that you have a strong visceral hatred for Hillary and a few scattered remnants of trivia to insist that they stand for everything you hate about her?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on May 17, 2016, 09:38:18 PM
Fenring posts a fave right-wing clip about Clinton celebrating the success of a possibly ill-advised objective that later turned out to have lots of unexpected consequences.

It's not a right-wing clip, it's a clip of reality. Neither is it editorial - it's video of what a person said on TV. If you think even mentioning it is "right wing" then I guess Hillary can't be held to her statements the same way Trump, a few posts ago, is being held to his.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on May 18, 2016, 06:46:01 AM
Quote
It's not a right-wing clip, it's a clip of reality. Neither is it editorial - it's video of what a person said on TV.

Fenring, what does the clip mean to you?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on May 18, 2016, 11:59:45 AM
Quote
It's not a right-wing clip, it's a clip of reality. Neither is it editorial - it's video of what a person said on TV.

Fenring, what does the clip mean to you?

There are a few things it means, as in, they are facts about what she's talking about. They don't mean that strictly to me, which would entail my opinion, although I do have opinions about it as well which I think are less pertinent than the facts:

1) The video shows a person laughing about the brutal, torturous murder of another person.

2) The video shows a person who was Secretary of State laughing about the assassination of a foreign head of state, after she herself called for his death; such an assassination is an international crime.

3) Hillary is quoting Caesar, a tyrant. In utilizing a triumphant Caesar quote after completing a bloody affair she championed, it could be construed that Hillary sees herself as some kind of rightful ruler of the stupid masses. It's debatable whether she really sees the people this way, but it doesn't seem very controversial that she sees herself as being part of a kind of elite ruling class. That she is quoting Caesar is a fact, but what that means is certainly a matter of interpretation.

I'm sure there's more I could read into it, such as the possible psychology of someone who would speak like this, but I'll leave it at these two facts and one interpretation of a fact.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: NobleHunter on May 18, 2016, 12:08:06 PM
#3 is a pretty ridiculous stretch. Especially since the quote has nothing to do with Caesar's political ambitions but rather his military accomplishments.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on May 18, 2016, 12:15:40 PM
#3 is a pretty ridiculous stretch. Especially since the quote has nothing to do with Caesar's political ambitions but rather his military accomplishments.

It's not so much that by using this quote she is trying to promote the notion that she's a great military genius or triumphant leader or something. It's more the mentality of "why choose that quote?" I mean there are many great quotes from history from all kinds of people; poets, philosophers, pacifists, generals, civil rights leaders. She chose a quote from a military despot who believed in force and in bribing the people to gain their support. Imagine if I quoted Hitler on something I did to show my success; people would raise eyebrows, no? And they would ask why I'd quote such a person, and do I associate myself with him? I think that question would be posed by most people and they would take it very seriously. So here she quoted Caesar, and while what that says about her is definitely up to interpretation, the fact is that's who she thought of to associate herself with. I don't think it's irrelevant.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: NobleHunter on May 18, 2016, 12:40:42 PM
Very little Hitler has said can be dissociated from him. He just wasn't that good at coming up with a bon mot. He's also a meme for guilt-by-association.

Caesar has at least two witticisms that survived for two thousand years and both of them have entered the common vernacular without much connection to their origins. Until I looked it up, I had no idea which of Caesar campaigns the quote referred to and then it was a war I'd never heard of. He's also remembered more for being assassinated than being a tyrant. The most widely-read depiction of his death makes it seem like he was killed before he had a chance at tyranny.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on May 18, 2016, 01:21:47 PM
Quote
1) The video shows a person laughing about the brutal, torturous murder of another person.

2) The video shows a person who was Secretary of State laughing about the assassination of a foreign head of state, after she herself called for his death; such an assassination is an international crime.
I agree that calling for his death and then celebrating it goes way over the line.  I can't imagine why she would have made either statement.  I'll grant you this was egregious.  Do you think that this, from 6 years ago, evens the "score" with Trump's continued outrageous statements?  To put it differently, if all you knew about Trump and Clinton were the regrettable public comments each has made, which one would you be more inclined to vote for?

[BTW, you shouldn't throw incendiary remarks into threads yourself and then claim you aren't speaking for yourself or expressing your own opinions.  That's what we're here for, isn't it?]
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on May 18, 2016, 01:48:16 PM
Do you think that this, from 6 years ago, evens the "score" with Trump's continued outrageous statements?  To put it differently, if all you knew about Trump and Clinton were the regrettable public comments each has made, which one would you be more inclined to vote for?

That's a good question, and on its face I don't think - as I think you don't - the election should boil down to who said the worst thing at what times. It would have to be about whose interests the candidate speaks for, whom they serve, and also to an extent what their character is like. I'd kind of prefer a bum with an honorable agenda than a witty orator who worships the devil. I only issued the Hillary quote since you posted about the "in his own words" Hillary campaign about Trump quotes. I didn't do so to defend Trump, but rather to suggest that anyone can play that game. However there are certain kinds of quotes which are more revealing than others. Trump has repeatedly said things off the cuff that were illogical or incorrect, and then flipped or denied it or whatever. This kind of maneuvering, as a whole, demonstrates that he doesn't take campaign rhetoric very seriously, which is a statement about him to be sure. It doesn't tell us his true beliefs, but it does tell us in what kind of esteem he holds the election process (and I don't blame him on that score). However sometimes a politician lets slip a comment that betrays their true belief about something, and if that belief is ugly there's no way to erase what they said or compare it to some "gaffe" made by someone speaking hastily. So I don't equate every "dumb quote" made by politicians.

Quote
[BTW, you shouldn't throw incendiary remarks into threads yourself and then claim you aren't speaking for yourself or expressing your own opinions.  That's what we're here for, isn't it?]

I differentiate between assessment of facts and opinion about them. My assessment about the "we came, we saw..." quote was as I wrote above. My opinion about that isn't as worthy to present since it involves speculation by me about Hillary's character and what that line suggests about what kind of person she is. I guess it's legit for me to post that kind of opinion, but I'm not that interested in pushing my opinions on people. I prefer discussing facts and trying to figure out basic truth in situations. Most disagreements on Ornery seem to be about whether A or B actually happened, rather than taking a common agreement on the facts and saying what we think about them. Jumping to the latter without agreement on the former seems like a quagmire to me. I'm reminded of the thread a year or two ago about the Senate Torture Report (which is now in the process of being disappeared), and how certain posters were contesting the fact that any torture even happened. We could scarcely get to the debate about whether there are circumstances that would warrant it, or whether problems in government allowed these things to go on undetected by the Congress.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on May 19, 2016, 08:03:09 AM
Quote
My opinion about that isn't as worthy to present since it involves speculation by me about Hillary's character and what that line suggests about what kind of person she is.
The rest of your post is fine, but this is what I have a problem with.  You choose what to post, so whether you add on with a statement like "and it PROVES everything I've been saying" or not, you could have picked other words to convey other interpretations of her positions or personality.  You also snipped a single question and answer (really just the answer without the context of the overall interview or even the question that was asked) out of a stream of interviews and public comments she has made spanning over 40 years in the public service sector, where Trump's remarks were all or for the most parts spontaneous comments for which he was under no compulsion to respond as he did.  For instance, what would have been the question behind his comment that women with small breasts can't be "a 10"?  It doesn't mean nothing.

Both sets of comments are revealing, to be sure, and both are taken out of a very large body of publicly available comments.  But when you (or the Hillary super-PAC) make your selection, you are offering an opinion.  You should own up to what it means, not just that it must mean something or you wouldn't have picked it.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on June 02, 2016, 08:49:34 AM
There is still strong interest among some conservatives to field an independent candidate. It would seem crazy to think that a non-Party establishment candidate running as an independent could win the election, not least because there isn't enough time to get him/her (really, white male) on the ballot in all 50 states.  So the real objective has to be to take votes away from Trump in order to take electoral votes away from Clinton.  If such a candidate can get on the ballot on "moderate" toss-up states, like Ohio and Florida and win, neither Clinton nor Trump will have the necessary EVs to win outright and the contest would then be thrown to the House to decide.  That would happen on January 6, 2017.

The procedure would be for each state delegation in the House to get one vote to be cast for one of the top three EV recipients in the election.  That vote would be taken by the new House members, who are sworn in on January 3.  Even if the Democrats win more seats in the House, it's likely that Republicans would have the majority of representatives in more than half of the state delegations.  That means that if Hillary doesn't get 270 EVs on November 8, the next President will be either Trump or the independent with the most votes.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pete at Home on June 02, 2016, 11:15:48 AM
Interesting that you oppose creating an alternative to Trump, Al.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on June 02, 2016, 02:27:07 PM
Interesting that you oppose creating an alternative to Trump, Al.
My post has nothing to do with that, as I was only commenting on the likely conservative strategy and objective behind putting up an independent.  I think Trump would be a horrible choice and that Hillary will win in a landslide, so I'm not worried (yet).
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on June 10, 2016, 01:14:28 PM
Now that Clinton has secured enough delegate votes to win the nomination, it's worth noting that regardless of what other Presidential candidates may have done in private, she is the first one ever to publicly declare their gender identity as a woman.  That, despite the fact that I can't find a single picture of her on the campaign trail wearing a dress.  One wonders if the DNC will now give her a $150,000 clothes allowance like the RNC gave Palin in 2008.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on June 10, 2016, 01:23:01 PM
she is the first one ever to publicly declare their gender identity as a woman.  That, despite the fact that I can't find a single picture of her on the campaign trail wearing a dress.

I'm trying really hard to figure out exactly which set of subtext should be read into this comment. There are so many possibilities. Is it a criticism of the public image of 'femaleness' and applauding Hillary for defying it? Is it an identification of the fact that Hillary may be a woman but she won by acting and dressing 'like a man'? And if so, does that mean she's sold out to the patriarchy, or that she is subverting it?

I know your comment was kind of flip, but for the life of me it would never have come into my mind in a thousand years that "hey, I noticed she never wears a dress!" So something about that stuck out to you; I'm wondering what.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on June 10, 2016, 04:53:57 PM
Quote
I'm trying really hard to figure out exactly which set of subtext should be read into this comment. There are so many possibilities.
Kind of my point.  Like so many other things, it means something, but to whom and what, YMMV.

Quote
I know your comment was kind of flip, but for the life of me it would never have come into my mind in a thousand years that "hey, I noticed she never wears a dress!" So something about that stuck out to you; I'm wondering what.
That's a good observation. I guess I have a guy eye for the ladies and have noticed that from her earliest days in the 60's she has shown a strong preference for gender neutral clothes.  I admire that she never felt compelled to conform to the norms of expected women's attire.  I think it means to me, doctor, that she is an independent minded person and tries to see things as a tailor might, to measure twice and cut once.  In politics it's rare to measure once and cut once; usually you cut twice or more when you do that.  Trump, OTOH, never measures, only cuts and cuts again.

I commented on another thread a month or two ago that many Republican Senators who served with her were and still are almost secret admirers.  They said that when she would walk into a conference room in the Senate building her arms were loaded with binders and folders that she had studied.  More than most people we classify as "politicians", which is a pejorative term, she seems to care about the things she talks about.  Of all the candidates in this election cycle, she has presented more concrete plans and reachable objectives than anyone else.  I admire that in a leader, too.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Fenring on June 10, 2016, 04:59:37 PM
many Republican Senators who served with her were and still are almost secret admirers.

Oh, I'm sure they are; they have so much in common.

(I know you didn't mean it like that)
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on June 21, 2016, 09:18:32 PM
It seems that nothing is out of the question or too absurd to consider when it comes to Trump.  Until now he has managed to scatter and disarm his critics and survive their attacks and skepticism.  But now it looks like the anti-Trump movement is starting to coalesce and Trump is giving it new fuel on a daily basis.  There's no way that he can lose the nomination on the first ballot at the upcoming GOP convention unless the rules are changed.  It's beginning to look like they may be in for an overhaul.

All the wonks say it's a long shot, but consider that the chairman of the convention rules committee is a Cruz delegate and the co-chair of the committee is a Trump delegate who was originally a Bush supporter.  Add the tepid support of Paul Ryan and Trump's dismal performances lately, and it's now a plausible scenario for a revolt to take place.

There are a lot of problems with the dump-the-trump movement.  There's not a lot of time to pull it off, major changes would have to be made to the convention rules, and not least, a replacement candidate has to be found.  Then, of course, Trump would have to go quietly, or if not quietly, quickly so the second string candidate can appear instantly Presidential.

I don't see anyone with the necessary gravitas and broad respect within the party to take the mantle.  For instance, I can't see it being any of the other primary contenders that he whupped.  If the Party voters wanted one of them they would have already picked him/her (for politeness including Carly, but not really).

So, maybe Romney, but the Party faithful blame him for being so poor a candidate that he he lost in 2012 when many thought he should have won in a walk.

Who else?  Nobody I can think of.

But going back to Trump going quietly, he really does have a following.  I would bet that the same proportion of Republican voters would stay home if he wasn't their candidate as a different group of them will stay home if he is.  Of course, if he runs as an outside candidate he doubles down on his own aggrieved candidate status and his ardent and loyal followers follow suit on their anger at being relegated to outsiders by their own party.

The bottom line is that the GOP is screwed if he is their candidate and just as screwed if he's not.  On top of that, either way it goes the GOP has almost decertified itself as a legitimate party, so they may well lose both the Senate and the House in the fall.

Good riddance.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pete at Home on June 21, 2016, 11:47:31 PM
Now that Clinton has secured enough delegate votes to win the nomination, it's worth noting that regardless of what other Presidential candidates may have done in private, she is the first one ever to publicly declare their gender identity as a woman. 

She's the first presidential candidate to run on the fact that she is a woman, and I'm not sure that's a good thing.  (Attacking Bernie for "standing in the way of history?", etc.) 

Quote
One wonders if the DNC will now give her a $150,000 clothes allowance like the RNC gave Palin in 2008.

They have to have blown thrice that on Michelle Obama, who makes Evita Peron look like Elanor Roosevelt.   Not cool during an economic depression.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on June 22, 2016, 04:44:59 AM
Pete, you constantly amaze me.  You're like a wolf in sheep's clothing, always insisting that you are being harsh but reasonable, but your comments about either of the Obamas or Clintons consistently come across to me as bitter and resentful.  We *know* about Palin's clothes allowance.  Do you have any evidence besides projections based on your personal animosity that the Democratic Party spent a penny on Michelle's wardrobe?
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: D.W. on June 22, 2016, 09:57:40 AM
And even if they did... She's the first lady.  You expect her to shop at Walmart?  This line of criticism is one of the more ridiculous things I've read.  And people float some crazy *censored* around here.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pete at Home on June 22, 2016, 03:30:08 PM
Pete, you constantly amaze me.  You're like a wolf in sheep's clothing, always insisting that you are being harsh but reasonable, but your comments about either of the Obamas or Clintons consistently come across to me as bitter and resentful. 

All I did is turn around your bitter and resentful whines about another female politician's clothes.  And I'm a bit bitter yes, that democrats defamed Ben Carson's wife for not dressing like a fragging diva.

And even if they did... She's the first lady.  You expect her to shop at Walmart?  This line of criticism is one of the more ridiculous things I've read.  And people float some crazy *censored* around here.

Like I said, I think Elanor Roosevelt set the standard of how a first lady that cares about the people dresses during an economic depression.

I think that our first couple set a wonderful example of a loving and faithful family relationship, and I like that Michelle Obama follows Mrs. Roosevelt's example when it comes to raising her voice in numerous good causes.  I find it sad where she departs from Mrs. Roosevelt's example; I don't think it's appropriate for her to court fashion magazines.  We aren't in the roaring twenties.  I believe that high crime and high violence are primarily products of ECONOMIC INEQUITY (real liberals would agree with me on that) and dressing the first lady up like another one of the rich oligarchs only magnifies the problem.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on June 22, 2016, 06:06:06 PM
I find that a pretty arbitrary comparison.  Why didn't Laura Bush wear black for 7 years after the 9/11 attack?  How insensitive of her was that?  Is it critical to find them wanting in every aspect?  FOX attacked Michelle for "lecturing" the nation on good nutrition and exercise, because...well, we know why. 
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pete at Home on June 22, 2016, 06:36:15 PM
I find that a pretty arbitrary comparison.

White house ladies during a depression?  Was the comparison "arbitrary" when I praised Michelle Obama as being Elanor-like with regard to her political activity?

Face it, Al -- you're just being a partisan hack.  Any negative thing I say about the Obamas you attack as vicious and horrible, and anything positive I say about them, you just ignore, because you can't cope with the fact that someone might like the Obamas on certain issues and disagree with them on others.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: scifibum on June 22, 2016, 06:55:55 PM
Quote
I believe that high crime and high violence are primarily products of ECONOMIC INEQUITY (real liberals would agree with me on that) and dressing the first lady up like another one of the rich oligarchs only magnifies the problem.

I think your use of "magnifies" is probably accurate in that she's very visible and it makes the luxuries enjoyed by the ruling classes somewhat more evident than they might be otherwise, but I would stop short of criticizing her for it nonetheless.  It's just such a minor thing, and I don't think we get anywhere by noting such minor shortcomings of virtue. 

In the same way, we can safely ignore Palin's clothing budget. 

We do have to watch out for sharks in pig's clothing, too, as the "High Sparrow" character in A Song of Ice and Fire points out.  I don't know of anyone who qualifies based on the clothing they wear, but some of the TV evangelists certainly get along nicely with their outward piety and quiet fleecing.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on June 22, 2016, 08:09:01 PM
Quote
Face it, Al -- you're just being a partisan hack.  Any negative thing I say about the Obamas you attack as vicious and horrible, and anything positive I say about them, you just ignore, because you can't cope with the fact that someone might like the Obamas on certain issues and disagree with them on others.
I don't like your constant fault-finding.  Even her clothes, for which you have to go back 70 years to find someone you can hold up as a mirror to shame her. Come up with something more substantial than how the First Lady dresses on public occasions and maybe we'll find common ground.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pete at Home on June 22, 2016, 10:14:27 PM
Quote
Face it, Al -- you're just being a partisan hack.  Any negative thing I say about the Obamas you attack as vicious and horrible, and anything positive I say about them, you just ignore, because you can't cope with the fact that someone might like the Obamas on certain issues and disagree with them on others.
I don't like your constant fault-finding. 

Hypocrite!  You're the one who brought up Palin's shagging wardrobe, and turned this discussion onto a whine - fest of women's clothing.

Quote
Even her clothes, for which you have to go back 70 years to find someone you can hold up as a mirror to shame her.

That's absurd.  I could bring up Hillary Clinton, or any first lady.  Hell, no First Lady in history has done such a vanity tour as Michelle's handlers.  You're too much of a hack to grasp that I was actually flattering her by comparing her to Elanor Roosevelt, for good and for bad.  If I thought you were brighter, I'd think you were setting me up to drag her through the mud.

Quote
how the First Lady dresses on public occasion

What does that have to do with the price of lice?  I criticized the supermodel in chief's shootings for fashion magazines. 
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pete at Home on June 22, 2016, 10:23:28 PM
If you search on the forum for Michelle Obama and Saudi Arabia, you'll see that I actually have nothing but praise for her public appearance clothes, (and in response to your foolish question, it takes guts to dress as she did in Saudi Arabia).
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on June 23, 2016, 08:20:21 AM
Trump voters are Republicans, only moreso (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/23/who-supports-donald-trump-take-a-republican-and-make-them-more-wary-of-outsiders/).  In this case, moreso means more suspicious, fearful, xenophobic and protectionist.  They want comfort and aren't too concerned about how they get there.

Quote
When it comes to whether a person is bothered by immigrants who speak little to no English, Republicans in general are significantly more bothered (66 percent) than Democrats (35 percent). But Trump backers are significantly more bothered still, at 77 percent.
...
Four in 10 Trump supporters (41 percent) want to identify and deport all illegal immigrants, compared with about 3 in 10 (29 percent) Republicans.
...
Trump supporters are about 11 points more likely than your average Republican to say that immigrants increase crime in local communities.
...
...while 72 percent of Republicans believe that discrimination against whites has become as bad as discrimination against blacks and other minority groups, among Trump supporters the number is 81 percent.

And 74 percent of Republicans say the American way of life should be protected against foreign influence, while 83 percent of Trump supporters say this — including 45 percent who are "completely" in agreement.
...
And, perhaps not surprisingly, Trump's base is significantly more apt to support a ban on Syrian refugees, building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and banning all Muslim immigrants — Trump proposals all.
...
The pattern is actually remarkably consistent across all of these questions, with the gap between the GOP and Trump supporters being about 10 points, give or take. Of course, there is plenty of overlap among Trump supporters and Republicans, so if you isolated the non-Trump Republicans, you'd get a significantly bigger gap between Trump backers and other Republicans on many of these issues.
This is another indication that Trump won't carry as much of his own Party as Romney or any other GOP candidate in recent memory, putting him in "Goldwater" territory.  But these are also the segment of the Republican Party base - angry white men - who are most likely to "take matters into their own hands" if they don't get what they want.  I think that we may see a new Party come out of this, the Tea Party on steroids (the FAWX Man Party - Fear, Anxiety, White & Xenophobia Men), that will coalesce in the South and will fight with the traditional Republican Party for at least a generation.  The question is whether the Republican Party can survive either with or without them.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: Pete at Home on June 23, 2016, 12:41:45 PM
Quote
I believe that high crime and high violence are primarily products of ECONOMIC INEQUITY (real liberals would agree with me on that) and dressing the first lady up like another one of the rich oligarchs only magnifies the problem.

I think your use of "magnifies" is probably accurate in that she's very visible and it makes the luxuries enjoyed by the ruling classes somewhat more evident than they might be otherwise, but I would stop short of criticizing her for it nonetheless.  It's just such a minor thing, and I don't think we get anywhere by noting such minor shortcomings of virtue. 

In the same way, we can safely ignore Palin's clothing budget. 

On the whole, I think Michelle Obama has done more good than harm in the public sphere.  Ultimately I'm not criticizing her but her handlers. And I'd not have brought it up except in response to the hateful spectre of Dems attacking Mrs. Carson for "not dressing like a first lady," and the jackassery of Palin's clothing being brought up as if it were relevant to this election.  I agree that we don't "get anywhere by noting such minor shortcomings of virtue" but I think that the discussion's a good introduction to a much more important topic; how advertising, image, and fashiobation magnify inequity and hence increase violence.  Violence cannot be bred by inequity which no one perceives.  It's the perception of inequity that drives social violence.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on June 24, 2016, 07:53:12 AM
Quote
I agree that we don't "get anywhere by noting such minor shortcomings of virtue"...
But you didn't raise anything besides noting that minor shortcoming, which has nothing to do with virtue.  FWIW, Eleanor Roosevelt was seen as an icon of dress style in her day as a romanticized reminder of the formality and propriety of the Victorian era.  If you can find anything that says she dressed like a dowager to show solidarity with poor people I'd be interested to see it.

Quote
but I think that the discussion's a good introduction to a much more important topic; how advertising, image, and fashiobation magnify inequity and hence increase violence.
You didn't raise this either, which would be a potentially useful discussion.  Really, you only raised it to whine like a gossip, but it's good to see that you are at least giving it a wider thought now.
Title: Re: Election Day
Post by: AI Wessex on June 24, 2016, 09:01:46 AM
Quote
Eleanor Roosevelt was seen as an icon of dress style in her day as a romanticized reminder of the formality and propriety of the Victorian era
That didn't come out quite right. She was a reactionary figure whose personal demeanor (and looks) stood in opposition to the free-swinging and more sexually provocative styles of the previous decade.  In that light she did reflect the conservative and pragmatic concerns of the lower classes, but it was her personality rather than any sort of effort of solidarity that drove her stylistic choices.