The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Greg Davidson on July 12, 2018, 10:21:26 AM

Title: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 12, 2018, 10:21:26 AM
So far, it has not mattered that he has blown up the deficit, broken campaign promises (one of hundreds was universal health care for everyone at lower costs https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-obamacare-promises-236021 (https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-obamacare-promises-236021)), made concessions to our enemies without anything in return (North Korea) while offending our allies, had more convictions in the first years of his Administration than President Obama had in 8...

Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh even suggested that the President should be immune from any legal consequences for his actions until he's out of office. But by that standard, a President could literally take a gun and murder any Supreme Court Justices who disagreed with him as long as he had the votes of 34 Senators. And a President with those powers does not ever have to leave office.

So what are the red lines?  I am assuming that if President Trump literally pulled a trigger to commit a murder, that would be adequate to change your view (but I am also prepared to be surprised). But go beyond that - are there any other things he could do that would stop you supporting him?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on July 12, 2018, 10:30:59 AM
What could President Trump do that would stop you from making new troll threads asking what it would take other people to stop supporting him?

What would it take for you to stop making misleading and erroneous statements in connection with said troll threads?

Is it time for yet another CA versus TX or other random state thread with cherry picked stats?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Lloyd Perna on July 12, 2018, 10:33:47 AM
I think you've already run this troll.  http://www.ornery.org/forum/index.php/topic,425.0.html
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: yossarian22c on July 12, 2018, 11:42:39 AM
What could President Trump do that would stop you from making new troll threads asking what it would take other people to stop supporting him?

If he had united the world against Chinese trade policies instead of blundering into a trade war with the rest of the world all at once. If he had achieved concessions in talks with North Korea. If he had gotten a better Iran deal. If he had passed an infrastructure plan. If he had completed a revenue neutral tax reform instead of just cutting taxes for corps and the 1%. If he treated our allies with the same kind of deference he shows Putin. If he hadn't prioritized separating parents from kids over prosecuting drug dealers and human traffickers. If he didn't have cabinet members like Scott Pruitt. If he didn't nominate a person who worked on his campaign and was then employed by Alfa bank to head the criminal division of the justice department. If every other word out of his mouth wasn't a lie.

I don't expect you to change your mind. Republicans get tax cuts for the rich and corps, "strong man" foreign policy, the administrative death of the ACA, 1/8 of the federal bench, and 2/9 of the Supreme Court. So I get why you feel like he is accomplishing things you want, but the cult of personality around Trump is dangerous and he is probably dirty.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on July 12, 2018, 11:55:01 AM
I think you've already run this troll.  http://www.ornery.org/forum/index.php/topic,425.0.html

I hate summer reruns.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Wayward Son on July 12, 2018, 02:03:37 PM
Our concern and worry is that Trump has already appears to have crossed several traditional Republican "red lines," on trade, foreign relations, deficit spending, morality, and integrity.  So much so that many traditional Conservatives, like Steve Schmidt (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-gop-strategist-abandons-his-party-and-calls-for-the-election-of-democrats/2018/06/20/b3f9fbd4-74c3-11e8-b4b7-308400242c2e_story.html?utm_term=.6cb95d76dacd) and George Will (http://fortune.com/2018/06/22/george-will-leaves-republican-party-donald-trump/) have actually left the Republican party.  So much so that many Congressmen are retiring.  So we are wondering if there is any line that he can't cross.

Republicans used to criticize Clinton for having affairs.  Ralph Reed, co-founder of the Christian Collation, once said: (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/opinion/trump-evangelicals-ralph-reed.html)

Quote
''Character matters, and the American people are hungry for that message,'' said Mr. Reed, the coalition's former executive director and now a private political consultant. ''We care about the conduct of our leaders, and we will not rest until we have leaders of good moral character.''


Now, when asked about Trump character shortcomings, he says: (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/opinion/trump-evangelicals-ralph-reed.html)

Quote
To be effective in advancing public policy that reflects their faith, men and women who enter the arena fired by their religious beliefs cannot make the perfect the enemy of the greater good. We are all flawed, we are all sinners, we all fall short of God’s glory, we are all in various ways far from perfect.

Republicans used to be for balancing the budget.  They used to be for family values.  Now separating thousands of families for misdemeanor offenses seems perfectly OK.

Seriously, when you voted for Trump, did you expect him to approve a tax cut that would increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion?  Did you wonder how long it would take to start a trade war with China, Mexico, Canada and the European Union?  Were you looking forward each month to see who would next be dismissed or resign due to scandal?  Did you delight in finding out our foreign ambassador positions are not being filled, including one that oversees North Korea?  Sure, you wanted and expected justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade, cut government programs and secure the border.  But did you expect it to be handled this way, and do you approve of it all?

And weren't you at least somewhat worried about these things beforehand?

The line which Republicans won't cross seems to keep moving, and we're wondering if there is any line that won't be crossed.  Would cancelling elections because of a war with Iran be too much?  Would disenfranchising millions of voters make you pause?  Would arresting Democrats and locking them up in old Wallmarts be too much?

You might consider this trolling, but we don't.  We are genuinely concerned.  Is there some principles that Trump could break that would make you stop supporting him?  Or, as long as he cut taxes, secures the border and moves toward making abortions illegal, would you support him no matter what he does?

We are really wondering...
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: rightleft22 on July 12, 2018, 04:15:55 PM
Many of the Evangelical Christians I know will continue to support Trump as long as he continues to move toward making abortions illegal.
(I personally find the wiliness to disregard character as being hypocritical and confusing as they want to save all the babies and at the same time remove any social net that might give these kids a chance.)

Anyway my guess at a line that Trump that would lose him support would be to change direction in support of abortion. 
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Crunch on July 13, 2018, 03:43:15 PM
So what are the red lines?  I am assuming that if President Trump literally pulled a trigger to commit a murder, that would be adequate to change your view (but I am also prepared to be surprised). But go beyond that - are there any other things he could do that would stop you supporting him?

At one time, I would have said my limit was things like illegal gun running to drug cartels, using the IRS to target political enemies, abandoning US soldiers and diplomats to die, sending pallets of cash to our enemies so they can fund terrorism, using a private email server to circumvent federal law, you know, those kinds of things.

But now, as I see the cultural war we're in and how the enemy has no limit, I've removed mine.

For the first time, we have a war time president who is fighting back and winning. The only limit I have is if he stops winning. I don't care what Trump does as long as he continues what is literally the best economy in US history, keeps our allies on edge and honest and our enemies closer. Trump can do whatever he wants as long as my side is winning. Losing is the only sin I won't forgive.

With two more SCOTUS picks in the balance over this term or the next, I'll tolerate even a few losses because this war is bigger than a few battles.

The left has engaged in total war for decades, I'm ready for whatever it takes to win now.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: D.W. on July 13, 2018, 04:07:50 PM
Always interesting to see a 'fresh' perspective from Crunch.  Years ago, here, I'd accuse you of being someone's pet project for playing devil's advocate.  Now?   

I take it at face value and as much as I cringe when I read your posts, they are... enlightening.  Enjoy your "winning" while it lasts.  Sorry you feel so assailed by The Left.  :P
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 13, 2018, 04:32:51 PM
Crunch,

If you would be willing to stand behind those standards, I would love to hear you defend NRA Head Oliver North who back in the Iran-Contra Scandal days was breaking the law by "illegal gun running to drug cartels". Or explain the US soldiers left to die in Niger by a still unexplained action of the Trump Administration, or the 60 people killed in 13 Embassy attacks during the George W Bush Presidency.

But perhaps your most important and honest comment was as follows:

Quote
For the first time, we have a war time president who is fighting back and winning. The only limit I have is if he stops winning. I don't care what Trump does as long as he continues what is literally the best economy in US history, keeps our allies on edge and honest and our enemies closer. Trump can do whatever he wants as long as my side is winning. Losing is the only sin I won't forgive.

I'll skip over the historical ignorance of your assertion that this is "literally the best economy in US history" and focus on what seems to be at the heart of your support for Trump.

And thank you again for your honesty in this.

You don't care what he does, you don't care about facts, you are motivated by hating other Americans and America. Your words say that he can literally do "whatever he wants" as long as he helps what you call "my side" win. He can violate precedent, he can violate the law. And demographics are pretty clear that what you call "my side" is defined primarily by being white Americans and predominately male white Americans. When someone believes the fearless leader is more important than the law, and when their standard for success is making sure another group in society loses, that's pretty much the definition of fascism and racism.

Crunch, can you describe any meaningful way that the position that you have laid out is not fascism or racism? Except maybe the caveat that since Muslims and Jews are also in the group that you hate, it's bigotry rather than just racism.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: cherrypoptart on July 13, 2018, 04:39:52 PM
I have to agree with Crunch that the gloves are off and it would be foolhardy to let political opponents use your own morals against you. It's like letting someone use your own religion against you. After a while you finally have to face reality and admit that enough is enough and you just can't take it anymore. You won't take it anymore. Trump's Supreme Court picks made everyone who ever doubted him from the conservative side have to admit, at least if they are being honest with themselves, that they were wrong. The differences there between Trump and Hillary mean that not being gung-ho for Trump, all the way, 100%, was just prideful foolishness considering the disaster Hillary would have brought upon us with her Supreme Court picks. All we need for proof of that is the reaction of the left to Trump's picks. There is no doubt that would have been the same reaction from the right to Hillary's. Epic defeat and utter heart wrenching, hopeless despair for at least a generation.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: rightleft22 on July 13, 2018, 04:53:12 PM
Interesting
What other leaders have gotten such support?
Everyone loves a winner, until...
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on July 13, 2018, 05:00:16 PM
You don't care what he does, you don't care about facts, you are motivated by hating other Americans and America.

I literally read him to be saying, that the left doesn't care about what Trump does, don't care about facts, are motivated by hating other Americans and have no intention of consistently applying any principal, and accordingly it would be foolish to let them manipulate him against his own interests by appeals that they don't actually believe.

It's interesting that your take away from him saying that he's going to be drop to the level of his opponents (which presumably includes you), is to claim that's proof he's horrible.  Do you fail to see the irony there or not?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: cherrypoptart on July 13, 2018, 05:21:18 PM
rightleft22

"Interesting
What other leaders have gotten such support?
Everyone loves a winner, until..."

... they are blowing their own brains out down in a bunker?

Good point that it is important to be very careful about mindlessly following any leader but Trump is the one giving us back our freedoms like the freedom not to have to purchase an over priced and substandard product from a for profit corporation against our will. The 2nd Amendment is now secure. If you don't have controlled borders then you hardly have a country at all so Trump is securing us there too. I don't really see where the racism comes into it. Trump has more black Americans working than at any time since before the Civil War. I should probably delete that and I'm not sure if it's technically accurate but the point is that reducing under the table illegal labor helps the American poor, of all races, get those jobs and forces employers to pay more and offer benefits which they don't have to do if they hire illegal labor and Trump also helps Americans out at the top end by reducing the abuse of the H1-B program which for instance had highly trained and paid Disney technical workers training their foreign replacements, giving the lie to those being the jobs that Americans don't want or aren't trained to do. It hardly makes sense to see America first as racism when Americans are already of all different races.

Racism is just a reactionary term at this point and hardly has any meaning since it's thrown around so loosely. When almost everything is called racist then hardly anything probably is really racist. For instance, limiting immigration. That's just common sense. There has to be a limit.  Hardly racism at all though it may have a disproportionate affect, obviously. But we can't accept everyone who wants to come to America. Or can we? Are we racist if we don't then?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Crunch on July 13, 2018, 05:45:55 PM
Crunch,

If you would be willing to stand behind those standards, I would love to hear you defend NRA Head Oliver North who back in the Iran-Contra Scandal days was breaking the law by "illegal gun running to drug cartels". Or explain the US soldiers left to die in Niger by a still unexplained action of the Trump Administration, or the 60 people killed in 13 Embassy attacks during the George W Bush Presidency.
I’m not going to defend it, I’m joining you in absolutely not caring about these things. Your standards are now mine.


But perhaps your most important and honest comment was as follows:

Quote
For the first time, we have a war time president who is fighting back and winning. The only limit I have is if he stops winning. I don't care what Trump does as long as he continues what is literally the best economy in US history, keeps our allies on edge and honest and our enemies closer. Trump can do whatever he wants as long as my side is winning. Losing is the only sin I won't forgive.

I'll skip over the historical ignorance of your assertion that this is "literally the best economy in US history" and focus on what seems to be at the heart of your support for Trump.

And thank you again for your honesty in this.

You don't care what he does, you don't care about facts, you are motivated by hating other Americans and America. Your words say that he can literally do "whatever he wants" as long as he helps what you call "my side" win. He can violate precedent, he can violate the law. And demographics are pretty clear that what you call "my side" is defined primarily by being white Americans and predominately male white Americans. When someone believes the fearless leader is more important than the law, and when their standard for success is making sure another group in society loses, that's pretty much the definition of fascism and racism.

Yeah, it’s kind of like the left during the Obama era, just no media cover up. I love how you run to the cry of racism depite no mention of it. It’s a tried and true playbook ... well, not anymore. Call me whatever names you want, it’s meaningless any more. You’ve worn that tactic out, nobody cares.
Crunch, can you describe any meaningful way that the position that you have laid out is not fascism or racism? Except maybe the caveat that since Muslims and Jews are also in the group that you hate, it's bigotry rather than just racism.
LMAO, yeah, whatever. I don’t care what baseless slurs you conjure up and trot out. The vast majority of Americans don’t care either. You’re fake news, yawn.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Crunch on July 13, 2018, 05:46:35 PM
You don't care what he does, you don't care about facts, you are motivated by hating other Americans and America.

I literally read him to be saying, that the left doesn't care about what Trump does, don't care about facts, are motivated by hating other Americans and have no intention of consistently applying any principal, and accordingly it would be foolish to let them manipulate him against his own interests by appeals that they don't actually believe.

It's interesting that your take away from him saying that he's going to be drop to the level of his opponents (which presumably includes you), is to claim that's proof he's horrible.  Do you fail to see the irony there or not?

QFT
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Crunch on July 13, 2018, 05:48:23 PM
Interesting
What other leaders have gotten such support?
Everyone loves a winner, until...

Clinton. He was a serial rapist. If they can support a guy that routinely rapes women, it’s kind of hard to take the whining about lack of limits seriously.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Crunch on July 13, 2018, 05:52:15 PM
Always interesting to see a 'fresh' perspective from Crunch.  Years ago, here, I'd accuse you of being someone's pet project for playing devil's advocate.  Now?   

I take it at face value and as much as I cringe when I read your posts, they are... enlightening.  Enjoy your "winning" while it lasts.  Sorry you feel so assailed by The Left.  :P
See the part where Greg just makes thing up and calls me a racist and a fascist. I don’t “feel” assailed, it’s straight up, full on, attack.

Maybe you could ask Steve Scalise if he “feels” assailed upon?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: cherrypoptart on July 13, 2018, 06:02:10 PM
In a way I'm actually glad that Obama was President for eight years and the Democrats controlled Congress for a while because it gave us a good chance to see what that gets us with Obamacare and the Supreme Court picks, with the Christian genocide in the Middle East and the Arab Spring that turned into chaos and a mass migration into Europe which helped open the floodgates of economic immigration as well. It's not even a what-if scenario anymore or something and no one can just be accused of imagining things. I said before President Obama took office that results matter and if his results would have been good I would be happy to admit it but what we saw was devastation. My stock portfolio did well and that's nothing to take for granted but in so many other ways President Obama was a huge disappointment. He had so much potential too. There was so much hope but he just didn't live up to the hype which is why we saw so many areas that went for Obama before turn to Trump instead of Hillary. She promised more of what Obama gave us and that just wasn't good enough.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Wayward Son on July 13, 2018, 06:40:03 PM
So what are the red lines?  I am assuming that if President Trump literally pulled a trigger to commit a murder, that would be adequate to change your view (but I am also prepared to be surprised). But go beyond that - are there any other things he could do that would stop you supporting him?

At one time, I would have said my limit was things like illegal gun running to drug cartels, using the IRS to target political enemies, abandoning US soldiers and diplomats to die, sending pallets of cash to our enemies so they can fund terrorism, using a private email server to circumvent federal law, you know, those kinds of things.

I would hope that you realize that every single one of those statements is an exaggeration, distortion or out-right lie.  But, naturally, you don't. You think they're God's truth.  Which is precisely what they want you to think.

Quote
But now, as I see the cultural war we're in and how the enemy has no limit, I've removed mine.

For the first time, we have a war time president who is fighting back and winning. The only limit I have is if he stops winning. I don't care what Trump does as long as he continues what is literally the best economy in US history, keeps our allies on edge and honest and our enemies closer. Trump can do whatever he wants as long as my side is winning. Losing is the only sin I won't forgive.

With two more SCOTUS picks in the balance over this term or the next, I'll tolerate even a few losses because this war is bigger than a few battles.

The left has engaged in total war for decades, I'm ready for whatever it takes to win now.

And that is precisely what they want you to believe and feel. :(

You're following the plan perfectly, Crunch.  First, convince your followers that the opposition has no morals, no scruples, and cannot coexist with your most deeply held values and beliefs.  Convince them they will literally do anything to defeat your side.  Make them an existential threat.

Then, you can convince your followers to do anything.  Shoot illegal immigrants on sight?  Hey, they were going to kill you.  Prevent the other side from voting, or cancel the vote completely?  Hey, the vote wasn't legitimate anyway, because the other side was cheating.  Round up all Democrats and hold them in old Wallmarts?  They were planning to do that to us!  Don't you remember the "military exercises" they were going to use as an excuse back in 2015?  Thank God we did it to them first!!

You should read "The Protocols of Zion" again to remind yourself of how that works, and what it can lead to. :(

This attitude, this belief, is precisely what I fear the most.

Because it will justify any action to the followers.  There is no limit.  And it can tear this country apart.

I know I can't convince you that you've been lied to and used.  Only you can convince yourself of that.  But just remember one thing before you step up to do your part for the cause.

They will tell you that the other side are pushovers.  Snowflakes.  Once the heat is on, they will melt and trickle away.  There will be no fight, no opposition.  Once our side show our strength, they will run from us.

Don't believe them.  We believe in what we believe in as much as you do, if not more.  We will fight.  We will fight you in the courts, at the ballot box, even in the streets if necessary.  If you come to take away our rights, our livelihoods, or even our lives, we will no go willingly.  And it will cost you.  Count the costs before you start.

You think we've been in total war for decades?  You ain't seen nothing yet.  We will defend our country with our lives, if necessary.

Don't make it necessary, for your own sake.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: rightleft22 on July 13, 2018, 08:31:35 PM
Quote
Clinton. He was a serial rapist. If they can support a guy that routinely rapes women, it’s kind of hard to take the whining about lack of limits seriously.

And if billy jump off a cliff would you follow him - I think that's the standard parental reply when kids try to excuse their behavior by pointing to others bad behavior.   :-X

Anyway like so many I don't care anymore. I'm not my brothers keeper. I'm a old white guy, no kids, so even if I don't agree with the direction the far right is going  - I'll be good and with luck dead when it comes time to pay the price.

Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: cherrypoptart on July 13, 2018, 08:57:04 PM
A lot of that sounds more like what's coming from the left, for instance with Antifa violence and recently Maxine Waters saying, “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere,” she added.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keET6bbERc4

But yeah, it should be a concern.

Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: cherrypoptart on July 13, 2018, 09:11:50 PM
You're going all the way to shoot illegal immigrants on sight but is that really fair or accurate when all the right wants is controlled immigration? Isn't it more accurate to say that the left is the side that seems to have gone overboard here? May I ask what now is the position of the left on immigration? What limits should there be? Are those limits really reasonable? It seems the left has gone so far to the extreme that now even just a reasonable position on immigration which matches exactly where the Democrats themselves were twenty years ago is now called extreme right and racist. Does that mean that twenty years ago the Democrats were extreme right and racist on immigration? Or is it more likely that it means that the right now isn't that racist at all on immigration and just wants it controlled instead of having uncontrolled and virtually unlimited immigration?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Crunch on July 14, 2018, 09:57:11 AM
Quote
I would hope that you realize that every single one of those statements is an exaggeration, distortion or out-right lie.  But, naturally, you don't. You think they're God's truth.  Which is precisely what they want you to think.
“They”. LOL, right. The Russians I assume. Go look at the economic statistics, the real numbers. Or don’t, whatever.

Quote
I know I can't convince you that you've been lied to and used.  Only you can convince yourself of that.  But just remember one thing before you step up to do your part for the cause.

They will tell you that the other side are pushovers.  Snowflakes.  Once the heat is on, they will melt and trickle away.  There will be no fight, no opposition.  Once our side show our strength, they will run from us.

Don't believe them.  We believe in what we believe in as much as you do, if not more.  We will fight.  We will fight you in the courts, at the ballot box, even in the streets if necessary.  If you come to take away our rights, our livelihoods, or even our lives, we will no go willingly.  And it will cost you.  Count the costs before you start.

You think we've been in total war for decades?  You ain't seen nothing yet.  We will defend our country with our lives, if necessary.
There it is, the threat of violence. Gonna shoot some people at baseball practice maybe? Run up and hit people with locks? Dress in all black, hide your face, and riot?  Come on, be specific, what violent action are you advocating?

Quote
Don't make it necessary, for your own sake.
You’ve been watching too many movies.  ;D



Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on July 14, 2018, 01:19:28 PM
I know I can't convince you that you've been lied to and used.  Only you can convince yourself of that.  But just remember one thing before you step up to do your part for the cause.

They will tell you that the other side are pushovers.  Snowflakes.  Once the heat is on, they will melt and trickle away.  There will be no fight, no opposition.  Once our side show our strength, they will run from us.

Don't believe them.  We believe in what we believe in as much as you do, if not more.  We will fight.  We will fight you in the courts, at the ballot box, even in the streets if necessary.  If you come to take away our rights, our livelihoods, or even our lives, we will no go willingly.  And it will cost you.  Count the costs before you start.

You think we've been in total war for decades?  You ain't seen nothing yet.  We will defend our country with our lives, if necessary.

Don't make it necessary, for your own sake.

The "Snowflake Army" is laughable mostly because the proportion of them with any kind of actual military or law enforcement background is pretty freaking small. The preponderance of people performing those roles trend strongly very strongly towards centrist or "conservative"(not the pundit definition, the more literal usage re: "reasonably comfortable with status quo") views.

A leftist uprising in the Unties States, particularly against a conservatively inclined government is going to be a spectacular train wreck.

At least a right-wing uprising in the United States, even during a left-wing inclined government, is going to be much more of a mixed bag because "status quo" is going to be scattered all over the place.

The most a leftist uprising can do, particularly when up against Federal opposition, is to essentially become terror groups. If you think that's going to help your cause, good luck with that, but I'm pretty sure it's more likely to push things in a direction other than the one you desire.

Sure they'd probably manage to obtain some enclaves with provisional "democratic support" existing within those, but it still becomes a matter of their not fully understanding how dependent most parts of the country are on other parts of the country. They're going to find standing on their own exceptionally difficult. Particularly if they want to continue to enjoy their "urban amenities."

Which is the bigger part of the derision regarding "Snowflakes" many of the people most inclined to use the term also are not particularly reliant on those same amenities, and in many cases would likely be just fine without them. That they also tend to live in more rural areas, and have some modicum of ability to not be reliant on receiving goods and/or services every couple of days from third parties further underlines that.

Most of Urban America is in deep *$@& if they become "unplugged" from the rest of society for more than a day, nevermind the better part of a week or more. No external power grid, no water diversions, no food shipments, and so on.

I'd love to see how well San Francisco, as well as LA, and San Diego hold out when their respective aqueducts and water diversions get shut off. Or how California fares when Nevada and Arizona stop supplying them with Electricity. Silicon Valley can't do squat when they can't get access to even a kilowatt.

The list goes on and on and on. Yes, it would be highly disruptive for all involved, but I'd put better odds on rural america being able to "hold out" against a total embargo for longer than 48 hours with minimal chaos. Los Angeles or New York on the other hand? I doubt law and order would persist past the first few hours, particularly if people knew why it was happening.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on July 14, 2018, 01:38:31 PM
Quote
Don't make it necessary, for your own sake.
You’ve been watching too many movies.  ;D

I'm more concerned about the historical precedence that exists on this. IIRC, and bearing in mind polling data is obviously non-existent for obvious reasons. But the American Revolution only had the estimated support of somewhere between 20 to 30% of the population at the onset. Of course, the loyalists were also a comparatively small fraction of the population as well(estimated to be around 20% as well).

Fast forward to the American Civil War and we again see a comparable thing happen, a comparatively small percentage of the population(even among the Confederate states themselves!) supported what the Confederacy did. Likewise mirrored by a comparatively small percentage of the population actively supporting what Lincoln decided to do in response. Most of the population, in both cases was largely indifferent. But that didn't prevent large protracted and relatively(given populations of the eras) bloody conflicts from occurring.

Also noteworthy is that arguably "status quo" won out both times, although it can be argued on how much Colonial Independence/self-determination as an outcome of the Revolutionary War truly reflected "status quo" for most colonists.

The Civil War, at least in terms of reunification(which was Lincoln's reason), if you ignore the issue of slavery,  was once again, "status quo" as well.

Right now we're in a weird limbo-state regarding which way the "status quo" decision is going to fall, but in either case, whichever side "Acts first" to upset the status quo in this current iteration of things is likely to be the side "that loses the war."

And as it stands, the Republicans/Conservatives are the ones with the home court advantage, if the "Snowflakes" want to be the neo Confederacy and rebel before Trump does something to thwart them, then it is going to be an uphill slog for them. Going by the rhetoric being used by many, I think they are preparing to do exactly that as well, since I doubt the electoral outcome is likely to be to their liking. Only time will tell, and there is hope cooler heads will prevail before then, but I'm concerned and torn all the same.

In a darkly twisted way, I find the prospect of a violent leftist backlash utterly hilarious because of how self-defeating it would be. But in most other ways I find any kind of violent backlash, without respect to who does what, horrifying because the human cost of those acts is going to be unacceptable. Except it seems that many people are nearly ready to invoke a blood price at this point.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 14, 2018, 07:58:09 PM
Hey Crunch, if your political views are to support a supreme leader regardless of his actions and regardless of the laws, your political beliefs are fascist. That's not an insult or an attack, that's essentially a definition*. If you don't think that fascism is an accurate description of your beliefs, don't be a snowflake, instead just tell us all what actions President Trump could take that you would not support. Also tell us all what you feel are the limits on his power to fire anyone investigating him and to pardon anyone committing any crime.

* A deeper description the early warning signs of fascism was put up many years ago at the Holocaust Museum

Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on July 14, 2018, 09:10:55 PM
Wait, since when were fascists anti-intellectual? Eugenics and a long list of other Nazi/fascist nastiness was the height of intellectual thinking in Europe, up until the Nazi concentration camps became general public knowledge.

For that matter, their(nazi/fascist) "corporate protection" was oddly selective and very capricious. (Party Membership-- in good standing -- required)

Given the Nazis were socialists, I am not sure how "LABOR POWER SUPPRESSED" tracks with fascists.

"RAMPANT CRONYISM AND CORRUPTION" has a "there are no Angels to be found here" issue.

"CONTROLLED MASS MEDIA" seriously? This points at the Democrats far more strongly than the Republicans, or Trump specifically.

Most of the others can be valid, can be red herrings, or have other issues present in that "they're not ALWAYS bad" by themselves. Agreed that certain specific combinations are cause for concern, but that doesn't mean the SS is around the next corner.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: velcro on July 15, 2018, 01:35:30 PM
Quote
Trump can do whatever he wants as long as my side is winning.

Please tell us who "your side" is.  It is not America.  It may be some small subset of America, but is unquestionably less than the majority, and undeniably not the country as a whole.

In case you are wondering, when it comes down to it, "my side" is the people who preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. When Trump and Republicans start fulfilling that oath, no matter what policy differences we have, they will be on "my side".

Quote
Given the Nazis were socialists, I am not sure how "LABOR POWER SUPPRESSED" tracks with fascists.
You may want to do a little research before making such absolute statements.  Because in this case, you are categorically wrong. (https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/).  Having "socialist" or "workers" in your name does not mean anything.  It was put there to mislead.

Quote
In the months after Hitler took power, SA and Gestapo agents went from door to door looking for Hitler’s enemies. They arrested Socialists, Communists, trade union leaders, and others who had spoken out against the Nazi party; some were murdered.

Quote
Eugenics and a long list of other Nazi/fascist nastiness was the height of intellectual thinking in Europe
  Again, no.  It was not the height of intellectual thinking in Europe.  It was a subset of one tiny part of intellectual thinking. It was also wrong.  Being fascist doesn't mean you are stupid.  If you are anti-intellectual, but you find some misinformed group of intellectuals who make your case for you, supporting them does not prove you are not fascist. 

But you are missing the point.  The list is warning signs.  You don't need to have all of them. But if you have a lot of them, you really ought to consider the possibility.

Yup, any one of those factors could be  red herrings.  But if you consider Fox, the National Enquirer, and Breitbart to be mass media, (not every single outlet, but mass media) then I think we have all of them covered.  We really ought to consider the possibility.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: cherrypoptart on July 16, 2018, 05:09:35 PM
I think a mass amnesty even for the Dreamers would be something that would turn me against Trump a bit unless it was accompanied by something very solid like getting rid of birthright citizenship for people not here legally along with tourists. I suppose getting rid of the visa lottery and going to a strict merit based system might also be okay in return for Dreamer amnesty but that would also cost some support since it's obviously better to do those things and still block Dreamer amnesty too.

Along those lines, is there anything that could turn people who hate Trump in his favor? For instance, if he granted the Dreamer amnesty would that do anything for him?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: velcro on July 16, 2018, 10:49:07 PM
How about granting Russia amnesty for meddling with elections, annexing Crimea, supporting Assad, assassinating British citizens in Britain, and interfering with Brexit? Would that cause problems with his supporters?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 17, 2018, 01:03:17 AM
How about siding with Russia over the United States?  https://www.facebook.com/ezraklein/videos/944375235750079/UzpfSTIzMjg0MzQ0ODQwOTpWSzo5NDQzNzUyMzU3NTAwNzk/ (https://www.facebook.com/ezraklein/videos/944375235750079/UzpfSTIzMjg0MzQ0ODQwOTpWSzo5NDQzNzUyMzU3NTAwNzk/)
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: yossarian22c on July 17, 2018, 07:29:48 AM
The answer is no. He is giving each group something they want. Religious conservatives get judges. He has created the fear over immigrants at the southern boarder and he is being "strong" on boarders for the more nationalistic wing. The part of the party he is most likely to lose is the business community, they got tax cuts but a trade war with the rest of the world all at once is going to cost them more.

I hope the Trump will start to see him for the con man he is but I'm not holding my breath. A number of Republicans came out and criticized him yesterday. I give it a week before all of them that are planning on staying in office backtrack or refuse to speak of it again.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: velcro on July 17, 2018, 08:00:33 AM
What would turn Trump to my favor?

For a start, apologize sincerely to the literally hundreds of people he has publicly insulted and humiliated.
Apologize for commenting on investigations in process, and never do it again.
Personally retract his comment saying he would order American soldiers to kill relatives of terrorists, which is a war crime.
Admit that he had no evidence that Obama tapped his phones, or that there were 3 million illegal votes.
Admit he was a major force behind the lie that Obama was not born in the US.
Admit that the women accusing him of sexual harassment and assault are not all liars.

That's off the top of my head.
Notice that these are not policy positions. These are not things that Republicans do or Democrats don't. These are evidence that he is a total a**hole, and not a person who should be representing our country.

Pence will provide the judges and the anti-immigrant rhetoric and the tax cuts, without all the garbage Trump brings.  So there is no rational reason to keep him.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: rightleft22 on July 17, 2018, 10:49:35 AM
“Notice that these are not policy positions”

That’s an important point. Policy decisions can be debated. I may or may not agree with a policy however in a democracy, I don’t expect to agree with everything. (I think we have forgotten that, its not all or nothing)

I believe that character matters and that the ends don’t justify the means – that is not to say that I don’t understand that sometimes doing something you don’t like or want to may be required however it doesn’t justify it. Crap is crap, so we must be careful as the end is always in the beginning and there is always an accounting.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: velcro on July 17, 2018, 01:37:51 PM
One more thing that would turn Trump in my favor:

Release his tax returns.
 Like he said he would.  Many, many times.  Over several years. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/times-donald-trump-release-tax-returns-article-1.3061868#)

Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on July 17, 2018, 02:40:03 PM
Trump could lose support if he:

1. Pushed to restore funding to Planned Parenthood, and even increase it.
2. Pushed to raise the number of work Visas, green cards, and naturalized citizens from Latin America.
3. Rolled back tariffs unilaterally without pretending to have achieved anything.
4. Appoint a Democrat to a high level Cabinet position.
5. Pleasured himself with an American flag while the anthem was being sung on Veteran's Day.

As long as he's pushing the MAGA agenda, and doesn't do anything against that process, he's going to do great. Anything disparaging he has to say about foreign governments or any federal agency - including intelligence - only increases the fervor of his supporters.

As for me - Trump is inherently going to be Trump. There is no scenario in which I could vote for him, apologize for him, or tolerate him. Even if he did all of the above things, he'd still do it as Trump, with petty insults for a different group of opponents and all his usual style. He'd still be railing about the press, who would undoubtedly criticize him for his complete reversal rather than praising him for changing his position. He'd still be wanting to spend money on a grand military parade for himself, and possibly a giant statue. He'd still be loathed by half the population, although possibly many would switch sides.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: cherrypoptart on July 17, 2018, 04:05:19 PM
So basically for a lot of people, it's personal. That's cool. Nothing wrong with having morals and convictions. I didn't really like the fact that Obama did hard drugs and didn't seem to have a problem with it while Trump and Romney too for that matter have never used illegal drugs at all as far as we know, and don't even drink alcohol. We could go into the Clintons but it's personal and subjective and everyone has their personal lines they'd prefer others didn't cross especially if they are our political leaders. I don't see anything wrong with people being against Trump then for all of those reasons and wouldn't try to talk anyone out of it.

One thing that does make me cautious is Alinsky's Rules for Radicals #4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." So while everyone should set their own standards and try to live up to them people also have to be careful not to let others use it against you. Abortion really isn't one of my main issues but an example for some of the people for whom it is would be not to let people use Trump's problems to talk them into giving away the Supreme Court. Obviously a lesser of two evils situation. I think that's where a lot of the Trump support is coming from and I'm sure it happens on the Democrat side as well, holding your nose and voting for a candidate whose personal behavior you don't necessarily condone but seeing the necessity of it anyway.

One can't help but wonder with Trump's past of supporting Democrats, if he had run on the Democrat ticket and beat Hillary in the primary and was looking to nominate more liberal justices to the Supreme Court if many of the people who would never vote for him as a Republican because of his personal issues would hold their nose and do it anyway if he were a Democrat. I suppose many wouldn't and would give up the Supreme Court because of personally not liking a candidate but that would sure put it all to the test.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Wayward Son on July 17, 2018, 04:18:24 PM
Quote
There it is, the threat of violence. Gonna shoot some people at baseball practice maybe? Run up and hit people with locks? Dress in all black, hide your face, and riot?  Come on, be specific, what violent action are you advocating?

Let me make is clear (just in case there was any confusion), I am not advocating violence.  If there is violence, then we have all failed.

What I am saying is that, in order to implement your "winning" agenda, you will eventually have to enact certain laws to institutionalize this agenda and force everyone in the country to adhere to them.  What good is making abortion illegal if it is still legal in California and New York?  What good is limiting immigration if people welcome immigrants to jobs and to homes?  What good is your "winning" if a sizable segment of the population refuses to acknowledge they have "lost" and continues to do what they did before? ;)

The traditional method is by force.  Enact laws and enforce them.  If people break the laws, arrest and jail them.  Arrest those who encourage people to break the law.  If too many people break the law, arrest them all.  If there aren't enough jails--well, as President Trump said, then they shouldn't have broken the law in the first place...

And then there is staying in power.  After all, what good is "winning" if your "side" loses the next election?  Or the one after that?  Or the one after that?  Your agenda may be weakened, or completely repealed, if you lose elections again.  So your side will need to find a way to prevent that from happening.  Like making sure only the right people vote.  Or making sure only the correct results are official.  Or just eliminating the whole voting thing completely, since you can't trust the results anyway...

I just want to put you on notice that if things like this happen, people will not take it lying down.  There will be push back.  In whatever form is necessary.  Which may include violence, especially if violence is used to enforce your "winning."

You have stated that you will continue to support President Trump, regardless of what he does, so long as he continues to implement the policies you approve of--as long as your side is "winning."  And I'm trying to warn you that if part of those things that he does entails revoking the hard-earned civil rights we have in this country, and violence is used to enforce those revocations, people will fight.  And it isn't going to be a short, easy little war, either.  Those opposing won't just lay down and die.  Which means that your "side" may require you and/or your loved ones to fight for them at some point.  And the cost will probably be more than you are willing to pay.  But at that point, you won't have a choice.  Because you'll have to be either for them or against them.

So be careful when you decide that you will support someone or something no matter what.  Because it can get out of hand, especially when those you support want to hold on to their power no matter what.  And then you will be one of those who pay for that "no matter what." :(
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on July 17, 2018, 04:50:47 PM
Not bad points, cherry, but I would go beyond "not liking" in my disgust at Trump. I've disliked a lot of politicians based on character, its hard to find one that doesn't have character flaws and it might be a prerequisite for the office (I disqualified Hillary as well).

I don't think many of us are under any illusions that if the choice is between Trump and a socialist, spy hiring, baby murdering ballot fraudster intent on destroying everything that America stands for, that the Democrat will get a vote. Or even an abstention.

A question would be whether they would entertain a challenge from a God fearing, swamp draining, border walling, freedom loving challenger during the 2020 primaries. Those voters didn't necessarily have that choice last time, but you can bet that members of the House Freedom caucus might be thinking about a run. Would a Trump voter choose an establishment Republican like Pence? Maybe.

But support isn't just "I voted for him." It's enthusiastic support. It's donating and volunteering. It's planting signs in your yard. It's retweeting and making people uncomfortable at dinner parties.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: cherrypoptart on July 17, 2018, 05:01:53 PM
"What good is limiting immigration if people welcome immigrants to jobs and to homes?"

The press does a good job of conflating legal immigrants with illegal immigrants so it's hard to know what anyone is really talking about anymore and when the press does it that's a form of fake news but it's kind of understandable since it's so commonly done that everyone else is falling into that pattern too but the point is, is this referring to illegal immigration or legal immigration?

It's hard to know where to go with this until that's settled first. If it's legal immigration, people don't really have a problem with it. If you limit H1Bs then the ones that are left are still legal immigrants so there's not really an issue. If this is actually a reference to illegal immigration then it gets interesting if there is supposed to be a civil war brewing if we try to control immigration.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: scifibum on July 17, 2018, 05:09:16 PM
What would turn Trump to my favor?

For a start, apologize sincerely to the literally hundreds of people he has publicly insulted and humiliated.
Apologize for commenting on investigations in process, and never do it again.
Personally retract his comment saying he would order American soldiers to kill relatives of terrorists, which is a war crime.
Admit that he had no evidence that Obama tapped his phones, or that there were 3 million illegal votes.
Admit he was a major force behind the lie that Obama was not born in the US.
Admit that the women accusing him of sexual harassment and assault are not all liars.

That's off the top of my head.
Notice that these are not policy positions. These are not things that Republicans do or Democrats don't. These are evidence that he is a total a**hole, and not a person who should be representing our country.

I'd like him to acknowledge and apologize for the atrocity of stealing young children from their parents in some kind of attempt to scare people away from the border, and take steps to mitigate the damage done. 

Quote
Pence will provide the judges and the anti-immigrant rhetoric and the tax cuts, without all the garbage Trump brings.  So there is no rational reason to keep him.

Well, there is. It's the same reason that the GOP is afraid to criticize him. If Trump goes down, it demoralizes the people who voted for him. If Trump goes down, the midterm election is a huge blue wave.

Rational, but not moral.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: cherrypoptart on July 17, 2018, 06:10:43 PM
"But Obama..."

Didn't Obama do the separation of families?

Then there was the kids in cages photo that was blamed on Trump when it was taken under Obama.

It seems like there are a lot of things Obama did and nobody had a problem with it but then all of a sudden it's a big issue because of Trump. What's a Trump supporter supposed to make of that?



https://www.gop.com/mcclatchy-yes-obama-separated-families-at-the-border-too/

https://globalnews.ca/news/4238798/us-children-immigration-photo-2014-trump/
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on July 17, 2018, 06:23:45 PM
Didn't Obama do the separation of families?

Obama separated far fewer, because that administration used discretion on prosecution and detention as opposed to the "zero tolerance" - but I think you already know that.

It is highly regrettable that the wrong pictures were used - which probably could have been avoided if anyone were allowed in to take current ones. Even US legislators were turned away.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: D.W. on July 17, 2018, 06:25:45 PM
Quote
It seems like there are a lot of things Obama did and nobody had a problem with it but then all of a sudden it's a big issue because of Trump.
Qualifiers:  I know the laws that dictate that families be separated were not new to Trump's admin, and it was a matter of enforcement rather than law.  I'm not up to speed on how many families may have been separated under Obama.

With that out of the way, the reason it's suddenly a problem is that family separation was being used as a cudgel and a deterrent.   Part of his continued tactic/policy of inflaming anti-immigrant xenophobia.   It was the perfect opportunity as it fit the letter of the law as well.  A slight miscalculation in estimating the backlash, and it will take awhile before we determine if the 'scare factor' has any noticeable impact on illegal/amnesty immigration.

So it's a bigger deal now, because we don't see Obama as either whipping up fear of immigration for political gains, or as someone who would use this as a deterrent against vulnerable people.  Are we more willing to believe the worst about Trump?  Sure, that's fair, but there are reasons we believe that.  He is, objectively a terrible person.  It doesn't mean he has to be a terrible president (but that seems to be the case as well).
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Wayward Son on July 17, 2018, 06:35:00 PM
Quote
"What good is limiting immigration if people welcome immigrants to jobs and to homes?"

The press does a good job of conflating legal immigrants with illegal immigrants so it's hard to know what anyone is really talking about anymore and when the press does it that's a form of fake news but it's kind of understandable since it's so commonly done that everyone else is falling into that pattern too but the point is, is this referring to illegal immigration or legal immigration?

I'm going to leave this as a moot point, cherry, since it was not the point of my post.  I wasn't making a comprehensive list of points that might stir "the other side" to action, but rather an example list of things.  So the specifics are not that important.

I would also like to point out that this Administration apparently is not distinguishing between the two very well.  I have heard that there are a few cases where an adult and child(ren) have presented themselves at the border asking for asylum, and the adult has been arrested and the child(ren) taken away.  When legally asking for asylum is treated like illegal immigration in the real world, there is very little reason to try to distinguish between them in a hypothetical. :(

Quote
Didn't Obama do the separation of families?

Then there was the kids in cages photo that was blamed on Trump when it was taken under Obama.

It seems like there are a lot of things Obama did and nobody had a problem with it but then all of a sudden it's a big issue because of Trump. What's a Trump supporter supposed to make of that?

The Trump supporter should consider the numbers.  How many such instances occurred during the 8 years of the Obama Administration?  How many during the last few months of the Trump Administration?

No one has a problem with separating children from their parents when the parent is a danger to the child.  But it is another thing when something that happened infrequently, most of the time for good cause, suddenly becomes the standard practice happening to dozens of people each month, so much so that there are not the resources available to handle them all.

This doesn't mean that it was acceptable under Obama.  But it wasn't such a big deal because it was so infrequent.  It pretty much went on under the radar.  But Trump has to do everything big and grand, so it will be noticed.

And, BTW, when did Republicans start getting all their morals from Democrats?  I mean, it used to be that Republicans disparaged the morality of Democrats.  But now, whenever Republicans do something immoral or unethical--like separating families or refusing to schedule hearing for Supreme Court nominees--they always point to the Democrats to justify it.  "It can't be immoral, unethical or wrong!  A Democrat did it first!"

Democrats know that we have to be examples to the nation, but we didn't realize that every time we stumble, Republicans will run with it as if it were the new normal.  Come on guys.  You really are putting an impossible burden on us!  Although you don't realize it, we aren't perfect!  Please stop expecting it of us! :( ;)
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: cherrypoptart on July 17, 2018, 07:22:12 PM
I can't find the article about the liberal reporter who was crushed and disillusioned with Obama when Obama's answer to one of his questions indicated that Obama was using family separation as a deterrent. I wish I could though. It was only about a month ago that I think I saw it. But the point is that Obama was purposefully using family separation as a deterrent also.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Gaoics79 on July 17, 2018, 07:24:21 PM
Quote
What I am saying is that, in order to implement your "winning" agenda, you will eventually have to enact certain laws to institutionalize this agenda and force everyone in the country to adhere to them.  What good is making abortion illegal if it is still legal in California and New York?  What good is limiting immigration if people welcome immigrants to jobs and to homes?  What good is your "winning" if a sizable segment of the population refuses to acknowledge they have "lost" and continues to do what they did before? ;)

You're describing a zero sum game where for one side to win, the other side has to lose. You're describing a scenario where compromise is a dirty word.

I wish I knew how to convince you that this is exactly what your "side" has been doing for the past 50 years, successfully. That there were compromises available, that maybe both sides could have lived with, but no one on your "side" would give so much as a 1/4 inch while you were convinced your total victory was inevitable.

But I know already that it's impossible - you'll just assume that I'm being disingenuous, self-serving, and that I'm one of "them", even though I have much more in common with most of you than most of them.

Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Wayward Son on July 18, 2018, 10:52:50 AM
First off, jasonr, realize that I was describing what I see as Crunch's attitude, not my own.  Politics, like economics, does not need to be a zero-sum game.  It is usually characterized as such by those who want to manipulate their followers into believing so.  So perhaps your critique should be directed at him, not me.

Second, yes, it is a hard sell to say that "my side" has not been willing to compromise for the last 50 years (!), since it implies that "your side" would.  This, after John Boehner pledged (https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-pledge-044311): "We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it [the Obama agenda], stop it, slow it down, whatever we can."  After Mitch McConnell said: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." After the House voted on two immigration bills specifically intended to prevent a bi-partisan bill from being forced to a vote on the floor.  And you see "us" as the ones who are never willing to compromise?

Of course, I'm more generous than you.  I only see Republican obstructionism lasting about 20 years, since late in the Clinton Administration.  What happened 50 years ago where "we" did not compromise with "them?"  Perhaps if you provided a list of these issues where "we" won't compromise, and "our" statements were "we" said we would never compromise (like the ones above), you'd have a better chance of convincing me of the intransigence of "my" side.  Because it seems to me that compromise only truly went out the window when the Haster Rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule) became entrenched in our government.  And that only became the norm in the late 90's with Newt Gingrich, after making a budget compromise with Clinton--just about the last major piece of legislation where our representatives cooperated across the aisle.

It would make an interesting topic to discuss which "side" is less willing to compromise than the other.  Perhaps you should start a topic on it?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on July 18, 2018, 11:10:43 AM
I can't find the article about the liberal reporter who was crushed and disillusioned with Obama when Obama's answer to one of his questions indicated that Obama was using family separation as a deterrent. I wish I could though. It was only about a month ago that I think I saw it. But the point is that Obama was purposefully using family separation as a deterrent also.

Quote
As the number of asylum-seeking families from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico arriving in the United States soared in recent years, the Obama Administration aggressively expanded family detention in an attempt to “deter” the arrival of others. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) opened large detention centers to detain mothers and children. Although DHS has the authority to place asylum-seekers directly into immigration court proceedings, it continues to detain mothers and children and subject them to fast-track removal. Families and advocates have exposed the numerous ways that detention and fast-track removal jeopardize the well-being of asylum-seeking families. They have also drawn attention to the due-process violations caused by detention that prevent families from accessing the system of humanitarian protection created for people in their circumstances.

This report examines what happens when “family detention” does not actually keep loved ones together. Through its custody determinations, DHS splits family members—sending them to different facilities around the country—while failing to track and reunite those who arrive separately. While DHS claims that family detention keeps families together, the truth is that a mother and child who are sent to family detention will often have been separated by DHS from other loved ones with whom they fled—including husbands, fathers, grandparents, older children, and siblings. Minors who arrive with non-parent caretakers are often removed from their custody. These DHS custody determinations that divide families do not occur in a vacuum. The administration has targeted these families, while Congress maintains a controversial directive to fund a minimum capacity of 34,000 noncitizen detention beds.

So, depending on your point of view, they had more compassion and kept mothers and children together - or they understood that the optics of tearing kids out of the arms of their mothers would be much worse than separating other family. Or, practically, they knew it would require fewer personnel to care for the kids if you left them with one parent.

Quote
For asylum-seeking families who arrive in the United States together and who are apprehended together, the first point of separation is likely to be CBP’s temporary detention facilities near the U.S.-Mexico border. These holding cells—which are designed for short-term custody of 12 hours or less, yet regularly detain people for days at a time—are commonly referred to by guards and detainees alike as hieleras [iceboxes] or perreras [dog kennels] because of their frigid temperatures and harsh conditions.

article, Aug 2016 (https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/divided-by-detention-asylum-seeking-families-experience-of-separation)


Wasn't just a recent thing, this from 2012, with an upbeat headline from CNN:

Obama proposes rule to ease immigration for some (https://www.cnn.com/2012/01/06/politics/immigration-policy-changes/index.html)

But this was about having separated families due to a mix of citizen and non-citizen. The infamous "chain migration" that drives Breitbart regulars to tears of rage.

Quote
But, according to Ira Mehlman, with the Federation of American Immigration Reform, which seeks to reduce the number of immigrants, that doesn't make the proposal more acceptable.
"The bar re-entry rule was established as a deterrent to people violating immigration law -- that coming illegally could result in long-term denial back to the U.S. ," Mehlman told CNN after the proposed rule was announced. "The administration is undermining this important deterrent."

Doesn't quite feel like an administration that was trying to use family separation as a deterrent, but I could be wrong.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: velcro on July 18, 2018, 01:11:51 PM
So basically for a lot of people, it's personal. That's cool. Nothing wrong with having morals and convictions.

In all seriousness, it sounds like morals and convictions are completely optional for you.  Just curious - do you have them?

YMMV, but when a presidential candidate says that they will order American soldiers to commit war crimes, it's not "personal".  Same for lying about significant policy issues and clean campaign issues.  Maybe calling his sexual assault accusers liars is personal, like drug use. But the others are behaviors that damage the country, not just personally irritate me.

Quote
One can't help but wonder with Trump's past of supporting Democrats, if he had run on the Democrat ticket and beat Hillary in the primary and was looking to nominate more liberal justices to the Supreme Court if many of the people who would never vote for him as a Republican because of his personal issues would hold their nose and do it anyway if he were a Democrat. I suppose many wouldn't and would give up the Supreme Court because of personally not liking a candidate but that would sure put it all to the test.

If Trump as Democrat went against Kasich, Romney, McCain (without Palin), Bush I, Dole, or Kemp, I would vote for the Republican in a heartbeat. Bush II I would have to think about.  Policies can be reversed easily compared to the damage Trump is doing on many fundamental levels.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on July 18, 2018, 01:22:56 PM
Quote
In all seriousness, it sounds like morals and convictions are completely optional for you.  Just curious - do you have them

I don't get that sense at all. Thou shalt not kill is a moral conviction, but comes with a caveat for most interpreters "unless someone is trying to kill you".

For many, the moral imperative of "must not lose freedom, must stop abortion, etc." overrides any consideration of whether someone is a bald faced liar, a serial groper, or a war crime threatener entirely. Some might draw the line at actually ordering war crimes, but possibly not. However, this is a false dichotomy. You aren't stuck with only one person who can do the good things under that moral framework that don't come with the horrors of Trump. Unless you believe him when he says things like "only I can do this".
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Gaoics79 on July 18, 2018, 09:58:58 PM
Quote
Second, yes, it is a hard sell to say that "my side" has not been willing to compromise for the last 50 years (!), since it implies that "your side" would.  This, after John Boehner pledged: "We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it [the Obama agenda], stop it, slow it down, whatever we can."  After Mitch McConnell said: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." After the House voted on two immigration bills specifically intended to prevent a bi-partisan bill from being forced to a vote on the floor.  And you see "us" as the ones who are never willing to compromise?

Of course, I'm more generous than you.  I only see Republican obstructionism lasting about 20 years, since late in the Clinton Administration.  What happened 50 years ago where "we" did not compromise with "them?"  Perhaps if you provided a list of these issues where "we" won't compromise, and "our" statements were "we" said we would never compromise (like the ones above), you'd have a better chance of convincing me of the intransigence of "my" side.  Because it seems to me that compromise only truly went out the window when the Haster Rule became entrenched in our government.  And that only became the norm in the late 90's with Newt Gingrich, after making a budget compromise with Clinton--just about the last major piece of legislation where our representatives cooperated across the aisle.

It would make an interesting topic to discuss which "side" is less willing to compromise than the other.  Perhaps you should start a topic on it?

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear in terms of what I was talking about. I wasn't referring to the petty day to day bickering among political parties in Washington over nothing, which is really what you are talking about above. Obama versus Bush versus Clinton - potato potaato. Republicans, Democrats, please - no one could even tell the difference.

I was specifically referring to the social issues that have reshaped society for the past fifty years, somewhat through the vehicle of the courts, but also in society at large - the sexual revolution, unfettered legalized abortion on demand, no-fault divorce, gay marriage, ubiquitous legal pornography, school prayer, affirmative action, the recession of religion in public and private life, the reshaping of the modern university to openly endorse and entrench left wing ideologies, and the filtering of these ideologies into law societies (the bodies that regulate lawyers), schools, governments and quasi governmental associations.

Republicans and other right aligned parties in the west have railed against most of these items for 50 years, used them to rally their bases, raise money. Democrats and left aligned parties have used them as rallying calls to their bases. But in the end, the left won every single battle, completely. The fearsome Christian right in the USA, arguably the spearhead of right / conservative / religious power in the west,  failed at every battle it fought, a spent force impotent to achieve anything. The right in the USA and especially in the rest of the developed world has been a perennial loser for much longer than I have been alive.

It's amazing to talk to people who actually believe that the right and conservative aligned ideologies are so powerful in our societies. It's laughably delusional.

And it's interesting to watch people wail and gnash their teeth at the idea of a Supreme Court that may be starting to lean ever so gently right for the first time in more than a generation. Suddenly judges making law isn't so appealing, is it?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: cherrypoptart on July 18, 2018, 10:43:04 PM
Found the article. Luckily I had it in my history because wasn't finding it by searching the usual ways.

http://www.businessinsider.com/zero-tolerance-border-crisis-immigration-trump-obama-detention-centers-2018-6

"Immigration lawyer recounts a conversation with Obama about the border crisis that he says 'shook me to my core'
Bryan Logan Jun. 20, 2018, 4:47 AM

    A lawyer who works with immigrant communities in the southern US argued on Monday that the fallout from the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" immigration policy was an extension of practices implemented by the Obama administration.
    R. Andrew Free recounted on Twitter a 2015 exchange with President Barack Obama, during which Free said he implored Obama to close two detention centers in southern Texas out of concern for the women and children being held there.
    "It's wrong. And it's going to be a stain on your legacy," Free recalled telling Obama.
    The lawyer said Obama's response, as he remembered it, "shook me to my core."

...  In his tweets, Free recalled Obama's response to his suggestion that the detention centers would tarnish the president's legacy.

"I'll tell you what we can't have," Obama said, according to Free. "It's these parents sending their kids here on a dangerous journey and putting their lives at risk."

Free said he interpreted the president's remarks as an argument for treating the migrant holding facilities as a deterrent to illegal immigration."

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

I'm not sure that specifically addresses separating the families though except perhaps indirectly. Obama seems to be more concerned here about the mothers who separated themselves from their own children and sent them on a long and dangerous journey where they arrived here, if they were lucky, as unaccompanied minors. In those cases it wasn't our government separating mothers and children, but the mothers themselves doing it. So what was Obama's alternative that wouldn't encourage more people to do the same thing?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 19, 2018, 01:27:47 AM
cherry,

Your whole point here with this quote depends on you coming up with a very sinister interpretation of a single quote by Obama that has many other interpretations. 
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 19, 2018, 01:31:27 AM
Quote
But in the end, the left won every single battle, completely. The fearsome Christian right in the USA, arguably the spearhead of right / conservative / religious power in the west,  failed at every battle it fought, a spent force impotent to achieve anything.

With respect to social issues, the left has won many battles, but not all - access to abortion has been significantly constrained.

However, with respect to the balance between corporations and employees, the right wing has had 40 years of victories (go back and look at laws in the mid 1970's). In terms of providing greater and greater advantages to the wealthy, the right wing has been largely successful over the past 3 decades.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Gaoics79 on July 22, 2018, 04:45:45 PM
Quote
However, with respect to the balance between corporations and employees, the right wing has had 40 years of victories (go back and look at laws in the mid 1970's). In terms of providing greater and greater advantages to the wealthy, the right wing has been largely successful over the past 3 decades.

I don't disagree with the fact that power has tilted to corporations and the wealthy. However, I'd argue increasing inequality has vastly more to do with mechanization, offshoring and free trade, all practices that are neither right nor left, and have broad bipartisan support among mainstream political factions from all sides of the right/left divide in most of the developed world, including the USA.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on July 22, 2018, 05:54:27 PM
With respect to social issues, the left has won many battles, but not all - access to abortion has been significantly constrained.

Sigh.  Access to abortion, went from illegal in many states to legal in every one.  Meanwhile, approval of abortion has become the majority view of the country, with major support in both political parties.  34% of all Republicans (and 54% of mod/liberal Republicans) think it should be legal in most or all cases (keep in mind 22% of all Democrats think it should be illegal in all cases).  The social war has been won.  It's unlikely the SC will try to unwind it, but even if they do they can't make it illegal anywhere, only push it to the states, and if the states act in such a manner it's almost certain to force a constitutional amendment and/or ensure that 60-70% of the country votes against the party behind it.

Quote
However, with respect to the balance between corporations and employees, the right wing has had 40 years of victories (go back and look at laws in the mid 1970's). In terms of providing greater and greater advantages to the wealthy, the right wing has been largely successful over the past 3 decades.

Well, keeping aside the idea that the law shifted too far to labor in the past, which objectively I believe it did.  The biggest "swing" has been NAFTA and free trade initiatives that have put perpetual pressure on the working class (and which you've defended as good things).   The idea that American workers can have $15 minimum wages, pensions and full healthcare when competing with workers making less than a dollar a day and no benefits without any kind of tariffs or other protections was non-sense.  It's literally, a political day dream to claim you want to protect workers by insisting that they have costly benefits that make them uncompetitive.

Labor Unions put themselves out of business in most of the private market.  They lobbied for the laws that protected the workers and got them, after that 90% of what they want makes them less competetive than the companies with which they are competing (and your free trade stance makes it impossible to force their non-US competitors to meet the same standards).

They've always had inherent unfairness built in.  Union shops are unfair.  Seniority based systems that force better newer workers out the door in favor of poorer performers with seniority are unfair (and the trade off that it keeps employers from firing employees with more experience that cost more is largely a solution in search of a problem).  It's a silly system that hard codes years of service without considering if there is a value adjustment.  Preventing bad employees from being fired is bad for morale, quality and expenses.  All that caused bankruptcy after bankruptcy.  Not law changes, plain old expenses.

Public unions should never have been allowed in the first place.  They are corruption inherent.  They persistently get involved in political decisions to put in power and hold sway over the very people that negotiate their contracts on behalf of their employer (the people of the community).  And it shows, public unions have contracts that provide rights that the people in the community in which they live could only dream of.  Rights that have been so expensive and unrealistic as to drive communities into bankruptcy.  Rights that don't change when the market leaves them behind.  Rights that are absolutely not in the interest of the public that retained them and that only corrupt vote buying politicians would have agreed to provide.

I mean honestly, the NLRB has been so anti-business that it's interfered with the ability of companies to build where they want, to hire who they want and even how they conduct business on a day to day basis.  it's devolved from a grand history of actually protecting employees to one of partisan wishlist pursuits.

If you are preaching about the plight of the American worker at the same time you are  decrying Trump on his trade wars you are a literal hypocrite on this topic.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: velcro on July 22, 2018, 10:09:31 PM
Quote
In all seriousness, it sounds like morals and convictions are completely optional for you.  Just curious - do you have them

I don't get that sense at all.

You left out the original quote that I was referring to.
Quote
Nothing wrong with having morals and convictions.

Read with its standard interpretation, it means you think something is good, but not essential.  "Nothing wrong with free pizza on Fridays."  But if you think morals and convictions are fundamental to your personal integrity, it is generally not something you would say.  It's subject to interpretation, which is why I asked. 
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 25, 2018, 10:33:49 AM
I did want to get back to Seriati on unions - I agree that unions sometimes do bad things. Just like the 6 corporations that decided to make giant bets totaling most of the $54 trillion that were the primary root cause of the economic collapse in 2008.

The objective is to have balance so that the interests of both those who earn money because they own stuff and those who work for wages can be represented. Almost no one works 6-7 days a week, because the labor movement had enough power to make changes that we all enjoy to this day.  In recent US history, corporate power has disadvantaged workers both relative to past history (in some ways) as well as relative to their counterparts in developed economies that in the past generation have grown as much as the US or more (with the only caveat that under Obama, the US recovered faster than the rest of the developed world). 
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on July 25, 2018, 10:49:35 AM
Quote
Almost no one works 6-7 days a week

Challenge.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on July 25, 2018, 11:08:38 AM
I did want to get back to Seriati on unions - I agree that unions sometimes do bad things. Just like the 6 corporations that decided to make giant bets totaling most of the $54 trillion that were the primary root cause of the economic collapse in 2008.

We already had this debate, and as i recall you didn't comprehend the true causes of the financial collapse.  In any event, it's a complete nonsequitor, that's equalivant to the much ballyhooed whataboutism.

Quote
The objective is to have balance so that the interests of both those who earn money because they own stuff and those who work for wages can be represented. Almost no one works 6-7 days a week, because the labor movement had enough power to make changes that we all enjoy to this day.

So ivory tower.  I work on average 6 days a week and I know many people that work all 7 routinely.

Quote
In recent US history, corporate power has disadvantaged workers both relative to past history (in some ways) as well as relative to their counterparts in developed economies that in the past generation have grown as much as the US or more (with the only caveat that under Obama, the US recovered faster than the rest of the developed world).

So your claim is that US workers are worse off than other workers in the world?  That's how we got the reputation of being the greatest consumer economy on the planet?  The lack of power of our workers?

Obama was a disaster economically.  ignoring the economic drag his policies created is your biggest failing, and really only possible because N=1 and we can not directly compare the much better results different policies would have generated over the same time period.

I've pointed out to you dozens of times, that the Fed Funds rate was set effectively at zero for his entire Presidency.  It's never been that low for any other President, and never that consisentently held low for any administration.  That's a direct measure of how desparate the government was to try and force any improvements under Obama back maximizing stimulus and it still didn't work.  Checked the rate out under Trump?  Constant raises to try and slow economic growth. 

Why do you hate the poor and the middle class so much that you'd rather endorse terrible economic policies than admit they were failures?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 26, 2018, 12:05:09 AM
Quote
We already had this debate, and as i recall you didn't comprehend the true causes of the financial collapse

As I recall, Alan Greenspan and the entirety of free market economic theorists cannot explain the actual events of the economic collapse of 2008 into their models, as he confessed in Congressional testimony 10/23/2008 ("I have found a flaw [referring to his economic philosophy]... I don't know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact... I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms" https://www.c-span.org/video/?c3342718/waxman-greenspan-testimony (https://www.c-span.org/video/?c3342718/waxman-greenspan-testimony)). I missed the part where you came up with a alternative economic model that addressed Greenspan's error (and I missed your subsequent Nobel Prize as well).


As for the macho American thing bragging about how many hours you work, I can go toe-to-toe before addressing this issue - I have done 80-hour work-weeks, and I lead a group that often has some people working that long and hard (they get extra compensation for large numbers of extra hours, but I don't at my level).  So I also work 6 days a week often, but I also am a highly-compensated employee with kids out of the house and a wife who works long hours at her nonprofit religious institution.  That being said, TheDrake is right, there has been considerable backsliding in the US in the last few decades due to the precise dominance of corporate interests over unions that led to the 5-day work week as a standard. But that reinforces the point that when union power was more of a counter-point to corporate power, that drove the vast majority of American workers to a 5-day schedule. 

Your assertion that "Obama was a disaster economically" is blaming him for the economic collapse. Republicans get this amnesia about what it was like when the economy was losing 25,000 private sector jobs every day until Obama came into office. Your assertion is completely inconsistent with the facts that the US economy (with Obama's stimulus) grew faster than every other developed economy in the world. Sure, Fed policy helped a great deal, but at that point the financial system and the automotive industry were falling over a cliff. Your retelling of history is convenient, but not accurate.

 
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Fenring on July 26, 2018, 12:40:04 AM
To be fair, Greg, Greenspan and others like him frequently exhibit what I would call a contempt of the Congress. This can manifest in various ways, which include either refusing to answer questions, answering dishonestly knowing that the reverse cannot be proved, or making statements that have the air of cooperation but which essentially either kick the can or dodge. In the case of this particular testimony I'm not sure what his intention was, but if Greenspan says he made a mistake it could just as soon be the case that he knew exactly what the risks were and won't accept any responsibility. The conditions that eventually led to the collapse happened on his watch, after all, so he's not exactly going to say that it was foreseeable and he was incompetent - or worse. It seems only natural that he'll attribute the collapse to misjudgment about the competence of banks to protect themselves rather than to himself (at least in part). And this is especially noteworthy because he headed the exact institution that would allow for companies to behave irresponsibly on purpose and get away with it without folding.

I say this not to torpedo your point, which I actually agree with, which is that these matters aren't so trivial that a simple theory can just explain it all. However on the other hand I'm not entirely willing to believe that Greenspan and certain others were simply blindsighted by all this. Low level traders - absolutely; but him? My point is that when measuring who's 'won' or 'lost' in terms of right vs left, I don't know that monetary policy is a fair area in which to weigh things because I think that sphere largely exists above and outside of partisan politics. Unions may be weaker than they used to be, but as jasonr pointed out I think much of the shifting has been technological and diplomatic in cause and not to do with either side defeating the other. Fiscal policy might be a better area in which to weigh wins and losses between the sides, but even then I think shifting can be accounted for in various ways other than this. The social issues seem to be the easiest to clearly attribute to local American change, and so it would seem based on this at any rate that the left has been destroying the right almost across the board for some time. This alone makes it harder for people supporting Trump (or any Republican) to readily switch sides to vote Democrat on principle, as there are real social losses being incurred on a regular basis. That said I just learned recently that a couple of right-wing friends actually did vote for Hillary over Trump on principle, but I suspect this isn't that common an occurrence, especially for single-issue voters.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on July 26, 2018, 11:31:26 AM
Union rules, and the laws they generated, actually prevent workers from having nice things they want. If I want to work 50 hours (hourly), and I would be perfectly happy with my normal rate, I am prevented from doing that.

Instead, if I want to work 50 hours, I know have to have two different employers and try to juggle schedules between them.

In fact, employers are probably only going to give me 30 hours for a variety of reasons, including overtime rules.

Back when I was in college, this made me a criminal because I participated in a scheme to move hours from one week to the next, and paying people under the table. All to avoid these lovely rules that I owe some kind of debt to unions for creating?

I'll take corporate and self interest every day over some group of people elected by 51% of my co-workers.

And that's ignoring the violent action taken toward people who just wanted to work and feed their family and not be in the union.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: velcro on July 26, 2018, 12:26:35 PM
As Greg said, unions, like corporations and any other organization, do good things and bad things. There are some unions with stupid rules.  There are some corporations with stupid policies.  There are some unions and corporations with good policies.  Anyone who denies this is an idealogue.

We should not demonize all unions, or all corporations.  However, just as we all agree that monopolies are bad, the same reasons apply to having a balance between labor and capital, i.e. between unions and corporations.  Too much power on one side causes problems.

On another topic:

Quote
Why do you hate the poor and the middle class so much that you'd rather endorse terrible economic policies than admit they were failures?

Proverbs 26:4
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on July 26, 2018, 12:35:32 PM
There's nothing a Union can accomplish that enlightened self interest cannot. Does everybody need to go on strike for it to be effective? Do you have to hurl obscenities at people who decide that they don't think the company is so bad? Unions use force. They compel. Companies do not. If a business hires non-union, unions threaten them. It's extortion. I don't know of exceptions to that rule. Is there a union out there that doesn't use labor laws to force all workers to join up after a vote? Is there one that doesn't get agitated if a non-union person is ever hired and threaten never to work with them again? It seems to apply to as varied sources as AFL-CIO, IWW, SAG, AFT, AFSCME.

#righttowork
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Fenring on July 26, 2018, 12:44:12 PM
Unions use force. They compel. Companies do not.

Oh, I don't know about that. Individually, if you inspect a company out of context, it may appear that their policies and terms are all voluntary. When looking at the larger picture it can become clear that a literal or a de facto cartel has emerged where similar terms are offered across the field and there is no meaningful choice for workers beyond 'work or die'. And even that implies that the work can be obtained in the first place. Cartel-like behavior is one of the most significant reasons IMO that a free market devoid of strict regulation can ever function properly. Random workers cannot self-organize like an industry can, and this imbalance needs to be corrected one way or another. Also noteworthy is that the use of soft or hard force has different connotations depending on who's wielding it. If a group of corporate interests dictates terms to potential workers the result of them effectively refusing those terms is they become homeless or perish. Conversely, when workers leverage terms with companies the result will be far less dire to management should they refuse such terms; their lives are literally not on the line, at least in the short term. This imbalance of negotiating power can be seen even more acutely in the realm of medical care costs, where being "free" to refuse terms offered is a non-starter in many cases.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on July 26, 2018, 12:59:11 PM
I'm fine with breaking down companies with clauses or contracts that restrict the mobility of workers.

And I'm also fine with large numbers of employees freely deciding to bargain collectively at a company or across an industry to improve their bargaining power. If its such a good deal, there shouldn't be any problem getting people to voluntarily sign up and pay dues.

If somebody doesn't sign up, then management should be free to pay them less, give them fewer benefits, etc.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Fenring on July 26, 2018, 01:17:57 PM
If somebody doesn't sign up, then management should be free to pay them less, give them fewer benefits, etc.

What you're talking about isn't brand new, it's called scab labor. There can be varying reasons to strike-break: either you need the money so desperately you can't afford to strike; or maybe you're content to work for worse terms than the next guy. The issue in a market where the workers are deprived of negotiating power is that you'll much more readily find people willing to undercut the other workers, thereby driving down the price of labor to a point where potentially no one can really afford it but they'll take it anyhow. It's entirely reasonable to suppose that workers will accept unreasonable contracts and - to use a liberal term - vote against their own interests with their choice of employment. One can see the same thing in contract bidding where an open bidding system is used, and the result is that companies will offer bids they can't actually afford to follow-through on because they want to undercut the competition. The result is misery for all, where they either cannot fulfill the contract or else jack up the costs later on and the company that hired them faces the sunk cost problem; or sometimes they just go out of business because they can't afford to work for that little. But invariably many will offer to do it anyhow just to get the contract. That's why open bidding is often eshewed in favor of a blind bid system - to make sure that the terms are actually operable by both sides. In the case of 'bidding' for jobs the workers haven't got the luxury of 'making sure' they accept fair terms as they cannot afford to not accept some sort of contract. If all contracts offer miserable terms they will still take it, and in the case of strike-breaking all you would find is that the more people who did as you suggest the weaker the union would be, and eventually the unions would fold and cease to exist. It's not very useful to be in a union with no teeth and where just as many workers if not more offer the same services sans union for cheaper and no benefits. What companies in the short-term do not see - and are not even designed to care about - is what the aggregate effect is of getting one over on the workers. It seems like the 'free market' solution to you, but it actually harms the companies too in the long run. And no, self-interest will not correct for this; more likely the group myopia will drive things into the ground if not reversed artificially. See the 2008 crash for details.

I don't disagree with the notion, by the way, that union terms can price themselves out of the market and ruin industries. I'm not entirely convinced that a union is the correct way to re-balance negotiating power with businesses. However I do recognize that some sort of universal balancing needs to take place to prevent workers from being bullied. Noteworthy also is that we can see the mirror image of this in sectors where highly-skilled workers are hard to find, in which case they hold the negotiating power over the businesses. This can often be seen now in tech, for instance, where companies like Google snatch up skilled labor and costs are basically driven up for anyone looking for good coders or engineers. So properly I should say that the negotiating imbalance right now seems to center around the workers least able to stand being out of work for even a short time due to lack of savings and alternative solutions - which is a huge proportion of the American workforce.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: NobleHunter on July 26, 2018, 03:12:16 PM
Unions use force. They compel. Companies do not.

I suggest you double check the history of the labor movement.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on July 26, 2018, 04:22:36 PM
Obviously I mean contemporary companies in the western world. And limited to employee relations, primarily.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 27, 2018, 01:12:43 AM
Quote
Unions use force. They compel. Companies do not.

Force by workers and companies are both intrinsic to human behavior, wherever there is a conflict over interests. And companies generally have more power, including the power to create the impression that they are innocent and it is only those greedy workers who are engaged in struggles over income.  Read these words by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations from 1776 and tell me if you don't feel that they are just as true today:

Quote
We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals. We seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the usual, and one may say, the natural state of things, which nobody ever hears of. Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy, till the moment of execution, and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do, without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people. Such combinations, however, are frequently resisted by a contrary defensive combination of the workmen; who sometimes too, without any provocation of this kind, combine of their own accord to raise the price of their labour. Their usual pretences are, sometimes the high price of provisions; sometimes the great profit which their masters make by their work. But whether their combinations be offensive or defensive, they are always abundantly heard of.

One of the remarkable accomplishments of American civilization is that we recognized this conflict and put legislation in place that eliminated much of the abuses of corporate power. It is the policy of the Republican Party to gut as much of that legislation as they can, and let corporate power rule.

There are different tools in the modern arsenal than in Adam Smith's time, but the same basic conflict occurs, and right now through the power and sophistication of money to influence media, the balance tilts far too much towards corporate power
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: velcro on July 27, 2018, 07:27:49 AM
Quote
If somebody doesn't sign up, then management should be free to pay them less, give them fewer benefits, etc.

First of all, with public sector unions, it is against the law to do that.  If a union negotiates a better salary, the non-union workers must get the same salary.  Which makes the recent Supreme Court ruling that prevents unions from charging non-members anything for that benefit even more ridiculous.

This may have been mentioned already, but management has an incentive to pay all workers the same anyway.  It weakens the incentive for workers to be in the union.  Why pay for something you could get for free?

Your suggestion of workers banding together informally for negotiation is sort of a multi-dimensional prisoners dilemma.  A union like that is very unstable.

Some unions use force.  Some hurl obscenities.  Some do not.
Some companies use force.  Some hurl obscenities.  Some do not.
Actually, it is individuals using force and hurling epithets.  Companies and unions have no arms or vocal cords.

Quote
There's nothing a Union can accomplish that enlightened self interest cannot.
That's true of companies too.  Or government.  Or religions.  Or any organization.
The question is how likely is it to happen.  Pure enlightened self-interest is somewhat unicornish.  Add just a pinch of human nature, e.g. one of the seven deadly sins, and that goes out the window.  Reality requires rules and compulsion to some extent.  Not neccessary in an ideal world, but necessary in this one.  The key it to minimize it and make it equal.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on July 27, 2018, 01:09:46 PM
Costco and Walmart are great foils in this space. Both companies have jobs with minimal training. Walmart regularly faces unionization threats because they treat their employees, customers, and suppliers like garbage. The Costco workers would not be better off if a grocery union pops up.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: velcro on July 27, 2018, 01:13:19 PM
Quote
Almost no one works 6-7 days a week

Challenge.

Not to speak for Greg, but here goes:

The original statement was:
Quote
Almost no one works 6-7 days a week, because the labor movement had enough power to make changes that we all enjoy to this day.

Replace that with "the hours worked per week dropped from 60 to 40 (https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/) because the labor movement had enough power to make changes that we all enjoy to this day"

Does anyone deny that? If so, read the link.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: D.W. on July 27, 2018, 01:53:02 PM
Quote
Almost no one

This is the part in question.  While I almost always work 40, I know several people who work more. 

I don't think many would argue that the labor movement didn't improve things, but a lot of people must work more than that still.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Fenring on July 27, 2018, 02:05:14 PM
Quote
Almost no one

This is the part in question.  While I almost always work 40, I know several people who work more. 

I don't think many would argue that the labor movement didn't improve things, but a lot of people must work more than that still.

Working more than 40 hours is a direct result of a weakness in bargaining power by workers. Drake's challenge is actually direct evidence that the market will not correct itself to everyone's satisfaction except under ideal circumstances. When business is hurting and people are starving for good jobs they will accept poor terms because they know they can't get better elsewhere. Although in our current situation this seems to have been caused by a combination of the 2008 crash and the outsourcing of the middle class, the result verges closely to what we would see in a quasi-cartel situation. In either case the situation is one where a lack of better options means you have to accept what they offer you, which includes working nights and weekends for jobs that have no business demanding that. The lack of plentiful salary positions especially means that salary workers are taken advantage of in this way, which is probably borderline illegal but also unenforceable.

I think the bragging we see in Americans who work so hard (Europeans seem to have difficulty understanding what's to be proud of in having a brutal work/life balance) can be largely attributed to cognitive dissonance and a refusal to see what's happening as abusive. No one wants to think that they're being abused and can do nothing about it.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on July 27, 2018, 02:22:28 PM
Quote
Almost no one works 6-7 days a week, because the labor movement had enough power to make changes that we all enjoy to this day.

Replace that with "the hours worked per week dropped from 60 to 40 because the labor movement had enough power to make changes that we all enjoy to this day"

Those are drastically different statements.

But either category fails on salaried employees, people who own their own business, who don't fit cleanly into "almost no one". One can say "a significant number of workers saw their hours decline at one time, which can be attributed to a labor movement fueled by unions". And today a large number of people get to enjoy underemployment as they get scheduled for 30 hours a week because of the delightful contribution of unions that penalize employers who give employees more than 40 hours of work.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on July 27, 2018, 02:28:00 PM
Quote
The eight-hour push of 1886 was, in Norman Ware’s words, “a flop” (Ware, 1929). Lack of will and organization among workers was undoubtedly important, but its collapse was aided by violence that marred strikes and political rallies in Chicago and Milwaukee. The 1886 drive for eight-hours literally blew up in organized labor’s face. At Haymarket Square in Chicago an anarchist bomb killed fifteen policemen during an eight-hour rally, and in Milwaukee’s Bay View suburb nine strikers were killed as police tried to disperse roving pickets. The public backlash and fear of revolution damned the eight-hour organizers along with the radicals and dampened the drive toward eight hours — although it is estimated that the strikes of May 1886 shortened the workweek for about 200,000 industrial workers, especially in New York City and Cincinnati.

Go team violence!

What do we want? Lots of time to hang around and do nothing productive!
When do we want it? Two out of every seven days!
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Fenring on July 27, 2018, 02:32:43 PM
And today a large number of people get to enjoy underemployment as they get scheduled for 30 hours a week because of the delightful contribution of unions that penalize employers who give employees more than 40 hours of work.

This doesn't seem entirely relevant, since the 40 hour workers wouldn't have gotten the benefits either without the unions. As to underemployment, that is in part a result of refusing to make someone "full time" but also a result of making sure that your workforce is adequately fluid in the revolving door that is known as your staff. If people are employed full time and one leaves it gives them bargaining power, so having more workers on fewer hours allows for more flexibility in scheduling as well as a less rigid roster where people can be replaced more easily. It's yet another symptom of the weakness of worker power.

In saying this I won't even go deeply into the worst part of underemployment, which is the worthless university degrees people were told they had to get. Making a lousy wage wouldn't even be as bad as it is if people didn't have student debt to contend with. When a business requires (officially or not) a university degree for a crappy job that's practically an advertisement for wage slavery, where the pitch is "hey come work here so that you won't make enough to pay for the degree we're requiring you to have gotten to work here." Nice deal all around, since it means the worker bargaining power is around zero. Or maybe there's a such thing as negative bargaining power - "please give me this bad job! I'll thank you for it!"
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on July 27, 2018, 02:42:33 PM
Not bad, Fenring. I'll take wage slavery all day over wage extortion.

"I have no skills or experience to differentiate me from the other 200 people in your lobby. You will sell the same amount of product whether I work here or not, at the same margin. Let's negotiate, I'm looking forward to folding boxes for ACME!

What's that, low wage? Let me discuss with the other 200 people and we'll decide what we want. If you bring in anyone else who doesn't want to be part of our labor cabal, we'll slash the scab's tires!"
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Fenring on July 27, 2018, 02:49:32 PM
Not bad, Fenring. I'll take wage slavery all day over wage extortion.

We could talk philosophy about the intersection between moral ethics and economic sense. But on a more pragmatic level, there's one thing you're not taking into account, which is morale. If the morale of management is low the result is they take a fancy vacation. If the morale of workers is low then you can have serious problems that may explode. You can joke a little about wage slavery, but if people who believe they are entitled to something (rightly or wrongly) feel they are being taken advantage of this is a one-way ticket to bad news bears. If violence if what you're worried about then appeasing the people may be the best economic option. Don't forget that economics is the study of what people want, and is sometimes wrongly though of as the study of how to number crunch currency flow. The threat of violence isn't some aberrant un-economic activity, but is rather a very natural economic behavior to upset an unacceptable situation. Avoiding violence isn't only the duty of each person but also the duty of the system itself. If a 'good' economic system makes people violently angry then it isn't actually good. And lest it seem that I'm talking about barbaric heathens who won't live in a civilized manner, what I actually mean to point at is that if people see their situation as akin to actual slavery they will feel not only entitled to be upset but also entitled to feel righteous about it. And this isn't a trivial matter to brush away, especially when it comes to Americans.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on July 27, 2018, 03:17:24 PM
There are a lot of good reasons to pay people to keep them happy, and not only because they will otherwise be more likely to rob or murder you. Analysts and investors routinely fixate on labor cost, without measuring productivity, customer service, training costs, recruiting costs, etc. That's why I'll never shop in a Walmart - not because I judge them for not being a benevolent employer, but because I don't want to interact with the mouth breathing idiots who are the only people who are hard up enough to work for them.

Luckily all this will disappear as a conversation for the most part when unskilled labor transfers to AI and robots. Unless the robots become self aware, unionize, and demand to be turned off for 2/3 of every day.

Paying off the guys who threaten to break your windows can also be the best economic option, it doesn't mean that this is a good thing, and laws can and do exist to prevent it.

My ire isn't as much on behalf of the company though, it is as a worker. I've heard talk of engineers wanting to form a union. Invariably, these are the least skilled, least motivated, and most bitter members of our profession. Why wouldn't they want to take my salary and average it with theirs, they'd get to move up! Meanwhile, I love doing my job and I'm happy to work 12 hour days. They heart work-life balance and can't wait for the minute hand to hit twelve. Why wouldn't they want us all to be on a contract that forces the company to send us home after eight hours? In other words, why wouldn't they want to limit my potential so they can be better off? All without giving me any say in the matter.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on July 28, 2018, 12:50:14 PM
I'm not sure that specifically addresses separating the families though except perhaps indirectly. Obama seems to be more concerned here about the mothers who separated themselves from their own children and sent them on a long and dangerous journey where they arrived here, if they were lucky, as unaccompanied minors. In those cases it wasn't our government separating mothers and children, but the mothers themselves doing it. So what was Obama's alternative that wouldn't encourage more people to do the same thing?

As I recall, that time frame was rife with "unaccompanied minor" crossings into the United States sans parents obviously.

So in that respect, you also need to reframe some of rhetoric about imagery of children being held in detention centers without parents during the Obama Admin. Those children were without their parents due to factors outside the control of ICE--In that there were no parents around to keep with the children.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on July 28, 2018, 01:01:23 PM
With respect to social issues, the left has won many battles, but not all - access to abortion has been significantly constrained.

The type of constraint in many cases is very different.

Inability to obtain an abortion because a care provider refuses to provide the service is a very different scenario from being unable to obtain a safe abortion because it was illegal to obtain one.

Giving a doctor(or their employer) a legal right to refuse to provide certain types of care based on religious/moral grounds is very different from telling the doctor their personal views don't matter, and abortion is not an option legally available for consideration, period.

I oppose making most forms of abortion illegal. I support the right of doctors, and the organization they operate under, to decline to render said services.

I know this is placing a lot of women in the unenviable situation of having an unwanted pregnancy in an area where the closest care provider who is willing to provide said services is for all intents, inaccessible. It is an sub-optimal situation, and there no easy way to reconcile the two sides. However, it is highly annoying to see people conflate one thing with another. Lack of access is not the same thing, even if it may feel that way at times.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 28, 2018, 06:07:59 PM
Lack of access is not the same as prohibition, I agree. But you create a false dichotomy by defining the choice as either making abortion illegal or supporting "the right of doctors, and the organization they operate under, to decline to render said services".  American conservatives have fought against abortion by a barrage of moves that have ranged from

These are some of the most significant ways that conservatives have fought against the pro-choice position - do you think that your point about forcing doctors to perform abortions is anywhere close to any of these other items in terms of impact?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: rightleft22 on August 17, 2018, 03:27:17 PM
I have family members authentically trying to live their Christians values who politically primary care about one issue. Abortion… They also fear homosexuality and immigration and the impact those issues have with regards to Christian influence (control), but its Abortion the will die for.
 
They want Government out of there pockets while enforcing their values, so they will stand by Trump regardless of anything else he does. Trump could literally walk up to someone on the street and shoot them in the head in front of cameras and they would find a way to look past it… Unless it was a direct tribe member, even then I’m not sure. And that is how movements such as Trumpism tend to go off the rails, men like Trump don't get held accountable.

Before 2016 they would never have excused let alone defend and support a man with similar character traits. 
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Crunch on August 17, 2018, 03:49:50 PM
I have friends and family who care about abortion a great deal. They also fear AGW and and oil use and it's theoretical impact on the planet.

Before 1992, they would never have excused let alone defend a serial rapist and the wife that supported it by personally destroying his victims. Bill Clinton was never held accountable.

The left made these rules, now we're all gonna play by them.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: LetterRip on August 17, 2018, 04:03:06 PM
I have friends and family who care about abortion a great deal. They also fear AGW and and oil use and it's theoretical impact on the planet.

Before 1992, they would never have excused let alone defend a serial rapist and the wife that supported it by personally destroying his victims. Bill Clinton was never held accountable.

There was no evidence at all that Clinton was a rapist, let alone a serial rapist back in 1992 - the one person who it was claimed to publicly denied it and denied it in court depositions under penalty of perjury, and the only person claiming it was a political operative.  The only evidence we had in 1992 was that he was a serial philanderer.

Quote
The left made these rules, now we're all gonna play by them.

Complete and utter BS.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: DonaldD on August 17, 2018, 04:12:33 PM
It's the latest and most popular debate method oozing down from Trump, LR - the tried and true "I know you are, but what am I" pre-school of argumentation.

For other examples, see "there is no collusion - the Dems colluded!"
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Wayward Son on August 17, 2018, 07:52:35 PM
I have friends and family who care about abortion a great deal. They also fear AGW and and oil use and it's theoretical impact on the planet.

Before 1992, they would never have excused let alone defend a serial rapist and the wife that supported it by personally destroying his victims. Bill Clinton was never held accountable.

The left made these rules, now we're all gonna play by them.

As I've said before, this demonstrates that the Right has no morals.  They look to the Left to define them for them.

Before the Right believes something, they first need a Democrat to show them the way.  They wait for a Democrat to do something, then wholeheartedly embrace it, make it their own, and expand it, doing it 100x as much.  And if asked to justify their behavior, they point to the Democrat.

You know something, Crunch?  Just because someone else does something wrong doesn't mean it's now right.  :P

But that's what the Right believes.  Bill Clinton was a horn-dog.  That means the Right can elect a President who is a p**sy-grabber, serial-adulterer, serial-husband who believes the vows of marriage are for idiots.  After all, even if he is worse than Bill Clinton, he's still our man.

I would suggest any person with any morals to denounce the Republican party ASAP.  Because the next time any Republican talks about being the party of morality and intelligence, I will point to the 2016 election and ask, "If you truly believe that, when why did you elect a man who routinely sh*ts on everything you hold dear?" :)

Congratulations.  I guess you guys never really were against adultery and such.  You were just jealous that it wasn't your guy doing it.  And now you've gotten your wish.  :P
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 17, 2018, 11:49:54 PM
I have friends and family who care about abortion a great deal. They also fear AGW and and oil use and it's theoretical impact on the planet.

Before 1992, they would never have excused let alone defend a serial rapist and the wife that supported it by personally destroying his victims. Bill Clinton was never held accountable.

The left made these rules, now we're all gonna play by them.

As I've said before, this demonstrates that the Right has no morals.  They look to the Left to define them for them.

No, in this case I am pretty sure this is an example of "To the victor go the spoils of war" and the Democrats have been winning, for decades. When people are losing, realize they've lost, but aren't ready to give up, they tend to get desperate and will grasp at just about anything which might "save them" from whatever they think their proverbial demise is.

It is a large part of why it was strongly encouraged that victors in competitions treat the defeated well(in the eyes of the defeated) as it makes it less likely that more extreme stress responses will be demonstrated.

Ie the guy who needs only fear a handshake is going to be less desperate than the guy who thinks he is going to be to the Lions otherwise.

"The Left" has played a very major role in setting the tone re: "take no prisoners" for years, and Conservatives left it alone because they were a "clear majority" and not too concerned about it. Well, that "clear majority" is gone, AntiFa and its ilk are in their face, and the stress response has started to show.

But this also cycles back to an earlier refrain: The Democrats have "already won the culture war" they just realize it,  which is a large part of what makes their response to Trump so problematic. They're increasing the stress response rather than letting it play itself out.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Wayward Son on August 18, 2018, 01:22:41 AM
You forget what the other typical response of a majority discovering it is/has become the minority: take over and repress the majority.

We've seen it played out in Syria, South Africa and so many other countries.  We're seeing it starting to play out in Israel.  The typical response is to disenfranchise the majority, take away their rights, their vote, and create a second-class of citizens, just to make sure the minority stays in power.  And they defend it with everything they have, mainly because they fear that, if they become the minority, they will become the second-class citizens.

This may not "play itself out."  It may escalate instead.  That's what we're worried about.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Fenring on August 18, 2018, 04:18:04 AM
You forget what the other typical response of a majority discovering it is/has become the minority: take over and repress the majority.

We've seen it played out in Syria, South Africa and so many other countries.  We're seeing it starting to play out in Israel.  The typical response is to disenfranchise the majority, take away their rights, their vote, and create a second-class of citizens, just to make sure the minority stays in power.  And they defend it with everything they have, mainly because they fear that, if they become the minority, they will become the second-class citizens.

This may not "play itself out."  It may escalate instead.  That's what we're worried about.

You've got to be kidding me. Trump won an election, not a national movement. And he won because the DNC blew it and for little other reason. You can call dictatorship all you like, but the current Presidency has little to do with the minority suing for fascism (do you really believe that? wtf...) and everything to do with how inept and corrupt the two parties have become. This is Alex Jones level of fearmongering.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 18, 2018, 07:03:17 AM
You forget what the other typical response of a majority discovering it is/has become the minority: take over and repress the majority.

It isn't a minority, not in reality. It isn't a majority either anymore, and that is a change. It still remains a plurality(The largest "single basket" of minorities), it can still result in the plurality lording of the other minority groups however, but the risk factors with regards to the United States becoming that way, in particular by any group claiming to be "conservative" in nature are in the very low probability range. Considering that voting block is big into "the right to be left alone" by the government, the last thing most of the members of that block will support is a government that fails at leaving people alone without respect to what tag may be attached to a persons name.

Quote
We've seen it played out in Syria, South Africa and so many other countries.  We're seeing it starting to play out in Israel.  The typical response is to disenfranchise the majority, take away their rights, their vote, and create a second-class of citizens, just to make sure the minority stays in power.  And they defend it with everything they have, mainly because they fear that, if they become the minority, they will become the second-class citizens.

This may not "play itself out."  It may escalate instead.  That's what we're worried about.

Self-fulfilling nightmare scenario at this point. But only because they keep refusing to back off and let things cool down(or for the current clown in office to discredit himself, he doesn't need the "help," just let him do it on his own. All that is being achieved by "fighting him" is giving him excuses to hide his own folly behind).

Or to work more on the prior metaphor of the desperate man and/or cornered animal comparison is that:
1) "The Left" won the culture war, even if current evidence seems to suggest otherwise.
2) "The Left" is continuing to sling stones and otherwise hurl insults at said desperate man/cornered animal.

....which isn't helping de-escalate things, it is only going to make things worse.

But part of that is because "the Left" has likewise deluded itself into the view that in fact, it is they who are the cornered animal/"desperate man" in this scenario, not those they are railing against.

And you might have noticed I introduced "cornered animal" into this now rather mixed metaphor at this point. Which it to take it to the undesirable conclusion:

What happens when you lock a desperate, nearly feral animal, in a small room with yet another desperate, nearly feral animal?

The rhetoric is out of hand, and while it would be nice if "the conservatives" had an option on the plate at present which allowed them to be the one to turn down the heat on this one, but they're not truly the ones at the controls on this one. Besides which, such acts are usually best performed by the side which is ascendant at the time, which isn't them.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: D.W. on August 18, 2018, 09:50:48 AM
Quote
AntiFa and its ilk are in their face
I gotta ask, where do you guys see this AntiFa surge/prominence?
I swear 75% of my AntiFa exposure is what people here say.  The other 25% is in the news when they are at a white supremacist rally.  If the left is prone to making a much bigger deal out of KKK or Nazi prominence than is deserved given their numbers, then the obsession over AntiFa has got to be exponentially more irrational. 

In what part of the country are these people even worth talking about?  Are they active anywhere accept as a brand name / label to counter protest under?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 18, 2018, 10:44:34 AM
I sense from the conservative side a lot of fear and victim-hood - they believe that the Left has done bad things to them, and so all of their bad actions are merely justified retaliations.

So let me rephrase my initial question. Could we devise any test of your basic premise that could theoretically cause you to change your views if the answers came out differently than your expectations?  If we looked in the last 40 years at the 3 most aggressive actions that Democrats took against Republican power and that Republicans took against Democrat power, would you expect that the actions matched in severity and the Democrats took their extreme actions first?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 18, 2018, 12:20:24 PM
I sense from the conservative side a lot of fear and victim-hood - they believe that the Left has done bad things to them, and so all of their bad actions are merely justified retaliations.

The same could be said about "the other side" as well. Frankly, both sides could benefit greatly from "a chill pill" and quality time in time out. But it isn't going to happen.

Quote
So let me rephrase my initial question. Could we devise any test of your basic premise that could theoretically cause you to change your views if the answers came out differently than your expectations?  If we looked in the last 40 years at the 3 most aggressive actions that Democrats took against Republican power and that Republicans took against Democrat power, would you expect that the actions matched in severity and the Democrats took their extreme actions first?

Honestly, I think we stepped "through the looking glass" a long time ago, 2016 at the latest. It has long been "a conservative lament" that for liberals logic and facts don't matter, how they feel about an issue takes precedence over everything else. Well, for a substantial portion of "the political right" logic and facts no longer matter, how they feel about the matter trumps everything else(pun intended).

Reality as it exists in a quantifiable form, assuming you could even get agreement over how to quantify it, has little bearing on things. Perception is now king, for both sides.

The only way you come back from that is one side or the other backs down and gives room and time for the other to cool off. But we're not operating in a paradigm at present where either side is willing to do so.

That and honestly, perceived or actual wrongs from 20 to 40 years ago, while they certainly inform the present, don't have a whole lot of relevance on right now. The perception, and by most measures it is quantifiably correct, is that "the left has won the Culture War" even if they're unwilling to declare victory.

Pursuing their "war" further is something that, IMHO, is something they pursue at their own peril. As they are very much in real danger of spurring their opposition into taking far more desperate and destructive acts than electing Donald Trump as President of the United States. They're cornered, they know they're cornered, they have their heckles up, but they haven't truly lashed out... Yet.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 18, 2018, 12:37:04 PM
Alternatively, assertions that both sides are similarly engaging in inappropriate behavior ("Perception is now king, for both sides") might be a false premise asserted by the right because it justifies actions that are otherwise undefendable.

As a group, we don't have concensus regarding the following three hypothesis:

I am looking for common ground in the form of tests of logic and fact that we could agree were valid.


Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: LetterRip on August 18, 2018, 01:38:28 PM
It's the latest and most popular debate method oozing down from Trump, LR - the tried and true "I know you are, but what am I" pre-school of argumentation.

For other examples, see "there is no collusion - the Dems colluded!"

Look at the timeline of the Clinton scandal.  There was zero credible evidence of any rape, let alone rapes in 1992.  All we had evidence of in 1992 was that he was unfaithful.  The earliest the public could have even suspect Clinton had ever raped anyone was during the Lewinski trial - and that was only if you refused to believe that woman that was alleged to have been raped - who signed affidavits and gave testimony to the fact that it never happened.

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

So again - BS - he made a complete and utterly false allegation that is divorced from reality and facts.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 18, 2018, 01:45:38 PM
Alternatively, assertions that both sides are similarly engaging in inappropriate behavior ("Perception is now king, for both sides") might be a false premise asserted by the right because it justifies actions that are otherwise undefendable.

Uh, have you been living under a rock where you've missed the rhetoric where the United States is less than two steps away from becoming 1930's Nazi Germany headed by Donald Trump?

Obviously the right-wing of the political spectrum doesn't have a monopoly on hyperbole.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Fenring on August 18, 2018, 02:24:33 PM
Quote
AntiFa and its ilk are in their face
I gotta ask, where do you guys see this AntiFa surge/prominence?
I swear 75% of my AntiFa exposure is what people here say.  The other 25% is in the news when they are at a white supremacist rally.  If the left is prone to making a much bigger deal out of KKK or Nazi prominence than is deserved given their numbers, then the obsession over AntiFa has got to be exponentially more irrational. 

In what part of the country are these people even worth talking about?  Are they active anywhere accept as a brand name / label to counter protest under?

I think Antifa is a fringe minority and don't matter that much in terms of being a force unto themselves. But what's troubling is that they share a core worldview with what is becoming mainstream 'liberalism'. Young people are being trained in universities and elsewhere about certain "truths" and eventually it will be the only game in town. What you call liberalism, which some people call classical liberalism, is on its way out as a majority left worldview. So while Antifa is the equivalent of the alt-left, the non-extremist left will still agree with them on premises if not on tactics and execution. I happen to agree with Jordan Peterson on the general classification of the up-and-coming mainstream view as being the critical theory/postmodern brand of theory. And I think a lot of people are in agreement that this theory is inherently scary and problematic in terms of its fundamental assumptions. So while it's fair to look at culture wars in terms of jurisprudence and who's won or lost in that arena, I think it shouldn't be forgotten that other areas of culture have been involved in Trump's election as well, one of which is the social milieu that has no direct connection to politics, but where I think some people viewed the irreverent Trump as tacitly standing against that cultural movement. Even if he never addressed it directly, merely by being un-PC Trump ended up as the de facto 'anti-critical theory' candidate, and I think liberals should be acutely aware of the various factors turning off or even scaring much of the U.S.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 18, 2018, 02:36:30 PM
The one caveat I'd make is that (late) 20th century "liberalism" isn't very closely linked to its 19th century, or 1790's era counterparts.

Most of the Liberals from the early 19th Century would probably be horrified by many of the positions people claiming the same label today stand by. And I'm not talking about racial or gender issues.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: D.W. on August 18, 2018, 03:42:05 PM
Was that an answer to my question Fenring?  You see their prominence in universities where they are being trained?  Meaning, by the staff or by their peers? 

Listen, I'm all for the "We should fight back against fascists" message, but we are talking about a group with an agenda who, people seem to characterize as ready and willing to commit violence against their political enemies.  Or at least antagonize them and instigate conflict every bit as much as the "alt-right".  They are held up as a counter point to the bad actors on the far right.

So you've seen "AntiFa", and they are being "trained" in universities?  Do you need to be on campus as a student or teacher to see them?  I live and work in big college towns and I've not noticed them.  They aren't talked about in my circles.  But universities are just in my town and I though I work mere feet from campus I don't work "on campus". 

They are more than just a bogyman to the right leaning news consumer who need a counter point to the ugliness in their own party?  An example that, "it's not just us!"?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 18, 2018, 05:45:33 PM
Quote
Alternatively, assertions that both sides are similarly engaging in inappropriate behavior ("Perception is now king, for both sides") might be a false premise asserted by the right because it justifies actions that are otherwise undefendable.

Uh, have you been living under a rock where you've missed the rhetoric where the United States is less than two steps away from becoming 1930's Nazi Germany headed by Donald Trump?

Obviously the right-wing of the political spectrum doesn't have a monopoly on hyperbole.

The Deamon,

(1) Your comment appears to be a non-sequitur - I asked about if there was any test you could agree to concerning the most significant actions taken over the past decade. Is there any such test? In other words, can you agree to a fair test of your assertions?

(2) You then follow up with a string of concepts (you assert that there is rhetoric about Trump and Nazi Germans so the right wing doesn't have a monopoly on hyperbole) that when analyzed mean almost nothing. What does the "monopoly" clause mean? If in a nation of hundred of millions, there is even a single stupid thing said by one side, then that somehow balances a larger number of stupid things said by the other side? I understand your inference is that many harmful, wrong, and false assertions of the right can be justified as long as there is at least a single voice on the left also saying stupid things, but how is this different from your assertion that both sides are the same? And if that is your assertion, why won't you agree to a test more stringent than that "monopoly" theshold?

Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 18, 2018, 10:18:42 PM
(1) Your comment appears to be a non-sequitur - I asked about if there was any test you could agree to concerning the most significant actions taken over the past decade. Is there any such test? In other words, can you agree to a fair test of your assertions?

As my comment was in regards to how things are perceived, and how people are responding in lieu of that perception, trying to substantiate or disprove it is going to be near impossible. And I'm not justifying what they're doing, I'm simply stating why I think they're doing what they're doing, and what I think needs to happen to de-escalate the situation. I've pretty much disengaged from the process at this point, I decided it was going to be a train wreck long ago(Spring 2016) and moved to "a reasonably safe distance" to watch from the peanut gallery. Of course, it seems my expectations for what contitutes "a safe viewing distance" seems to differ from others, who would prefer not to be in the same country, or even planet if possible when/if it happens. 

Quote
(2) You then follow up with a string of concepts (you assert that there is rhetoric about Trump and Nazi Germans so the right wing doesn't have a monopoly on hyperbole) that when analyzed mean almost nothing. What does the "monopoly" clause mean? If in a nation of hundred of millions, there is even a single stupid thing said by one side, then that somehow balances a larger number of stupid things said by the other side? I understand your inference is that many harmful, wrong, and false assertions of the right can be justified as long as there is at least a single voice on the left also saying stupid things, but how is this different from your assertion that both sides are the same? And if that is your assertion, why won't you agree to a test more stringent than that "monopoly" theshold?

Uh, at least in the corners of the internet I peruse, and most of them slant strongly to the left, it is what I keep getting assailed with on a very regular basis. So it is hardly "one guy on the left" spouting off with these things. It's a whole slew of them. It's practically a meme in its own right at this point.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 18, 2018, 11:54:41 PM
Quote
So it is hardly "one guy on the left" spouting off with these things. It's a whole slew of them

There were 63 millions American citizens who voted for the Democratic nominee for President. How many people do you consider a "slew"? Have you seen 1,000 people make such comments, otherwise known as 0.0016% of the people who voted for Clinton? And that does not count for the proven activity of the Russian military in creating false internet personalities to promote divisive positions.

You just keep echoing your unsubstantiated assertion of false equivalence. In contrast, I can point to a very large data sample that refutes your point: during the 2016 election campaign after Trump had wrapped up the nomination, polling indicated that 59% of Trump supporters believed that President Obama was a Muslim https://www.rollcall.com/politics/poll-two-thirds-trump-supporters-think-obama-muslim (https://www.rollcall.com/politics/poll-two-thirds-trump-supporters-think-obama-muslim) - if that's even roughly 59% of the 60 million that eventually voted for him, that's 35 million people.

Not equivalent.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Crunch on August 19, 2018, 09:08:16 AM
It's the latest and most popular debate method oozing down from Trump, LR - the tried and true "I know you are, but what am I" pre-school of argumentation.

For other examples, see "there is no collusion - the Dems colluded!"

Look at the timeline of the Clinton scandal.  There was zero credible evidence of any rape, let alone rapes in 1992.  All we had evidence of in 1992 was that he was unfaithful.  The earliest the public could have even suspect Clinton had ever raped anyone was during the Lewinski trial - and that was only if you refused to believe that woman that was alleged to have been raped - who signed affidavits and gave testimony to the fact that it never happened.

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

So again - BS - he made a complete and utterly false allegation that is divorced from reality and facts.

You can have this frenzied tantrum all you want, it’s weird and telling.  I’m not sure why you’re making up that I was referring only to 1992 but I can see you’re really enjoying it.

Did you kniw that the Clinton’s were politically active and deeply connected to the democrat party after 1992? In fact, as recently as 2016 Hillary was a presidential candidate. Does any of that ring a bell?  ;D
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: LetterRip on August 19, 2018, 03:32:05 PM
You can have this frenzied tantrum all you want, it’s weird and telling.

I didn't have a tantrum.  Pointing out that you lack facts isn't "having a tantrum".

Quote
I’m not sure why you’re making up that I was referring only to 1992 but I can see you’re really enjoying it

You specifically said 1992.  Perhaps reread what you wrote so you don't get confused?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: rightleft22 on August 23, 2018, 10:50:22 AM
'I don't care if Trump paid off a porn star' https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45274175

The cognitive dissonance is amazing.

Its going to be interesting what will matter to Trump followers once his term is over.

Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: D.W. on August 23, 2018, 10:57:19 AM
I don't know if that's fair rightleft22.  Most of these people being questioned in the link didn't seem to have any understanding that the seriousness of what's going on has little to do with where Trump put his dick (or didn't) or even about the fact these women were paid off.  Apparently the interviewer did little to clarify things.

It mostly seemed framed as asking why they weren't outraged at his bad behavior. 
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on August 23, 2018, 11:26:37 AM
Quote
"You know, I guess it says something like high crimes and all -- I don't know how you can impeach somebody who has done a great job," Trump said.

I think that's what his supporters think also. As long as he's deporting Mexicans, banning Muslims, engaging against China, and appointing conservative judges, I doubt anything at all in campaign finance is going to matter to them. Even if he had paid a dozen women hush money directly out of campaign funds without reporting it.

Given that what we have may be a technical violation of not reporting a loan to the campaign that could easily have been made legally, it feels more like ignorance of the rules than malfeasance.

People still cheer for their favorite player even when caught using steroids. Trump's fans think that he is their only chance to stop globalists, the deep state, socialists, and a variety of other scary things.

Just as Clinton supporters weren't really bothered by the fact that he lied under oath.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Crunch on August 23, 2018, 01:46:21 PM
You can have this frenzied tantrum all you want, it’s weird and telling.

I didn't have a tantrum.  Pointing out that you lack facts isn't "having a tantrum".

You’re having a tantrum. You’re not pointing out facts, you’re just acting out.
Quote
I’m not sure why you’re making up that I was referring only to 1992 but I can see you’re really enjoying it

You specifically said 1992.  Perhaps reread what you wrote so you don't get confused?

I specifically said “before 1992”. If you weren’t so deep in the throws of your tantrum you would realize that if here is a before 1992 hat there is also an after 1992. The point made is that once Clinton was exposed as a serial rapist and Hillary his enabler, nobody cared.

So have your tantrum, play the fool. Everyone else will cont Be to be be ashamed for you.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: OrneryMod on August 23, 2018, 02:12:11 PM
Please remember that we are here to discuss political and philosophical issues with one another, and it is generally not productive or permissible to negatively characterize how we believe others are acting or what their motivations might be. Doing so invariably leads to increased tensions and reduces the quality and enjoyability of the conversation for everyone involved.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: rightleft22 on August 23, 2018, 02:56:49 PM
Quote
I don't know if that's fair rightleft22.

I wasn't sure if it was fair either - just noting that people are not changing their minds as it concerns Trump.
those I have talked to that would never ever approve of adultery don't care when it comes to Trump

I think the Left has to stop attacking Trump character and focus on whats really behind the loyalty Trump is getting or there going to lose again.
Trump followers are going to get out and vote, I'm not so sure if the Democrats will
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on August 23, 2018, 03:42:25 PM
Quote
Trump followers are going to get out and vote, I'm not so sure if the Democrats will

Especially if their voting locations have been closed.  :P
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: LetterRip on August 23, 2018, 04:51:28 PM

You’re having a tantrum. You’re not pointing out facts, you’re just acting out.

Nothing I've written could be in any way, shape or form be properly characterized as a 'tantrum'.  This is obvious to anyone reading except yourself apparently.

Quote
I specifically said “before 1992”. If you weren’t so deep in the throws of your tantrum you would realize that if here is a before 1992 hat there is also an after 1992.

Up to and including 1992 there were no credible allegations of any rapes at all.  After 1992 (1999) there is a single allegation of rape that may or may not be credible.  There has been, at most, a single credible allegation of a rape.

So your claim was completely and utterly lacking in fact.

I think this piece gives a fair opinion on the topic of the credibility of Juanita Broarddrick's claim.  (Though it leaves out some important issues that I've seen covered elsewhere that shed doubt on her claims).

https://www.vox.com/2016/1/6/10722580/bill-clinton-juanita-broaddrick

I think people of good faith can believe Juanita Broaddrick's accusation, and I similarly believe that people of good faith can believe that her accusation isn't credible.  In legal terms I don't think it meets the 'more likely than not' level of evidence for even a civil trial; let alone a 'beyond reasonable doubt' of a criminal trial.

Also it seems unlikely that most people have more than a passing familiarity with the facts of the claim, and thus would not be in a position to determine whether it was credible.

So your suggesting that Democrats are some how to blame for the lack of integrity of Trump supporters is offensive.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: cherrypoptart on August 23, 2018, 11:18:35 PM

TheDrake

"I think that's what his supporters think also. As long as he's deporting Mexicans, banning Muslims, engaging against China, and appointing conservative judges, I doubt anything at all in campaign finance is going to matter to them. Even if he had paid a dozen women hush money directly out of campaign funds without reporting it."

While that's all true I wouldn't have put it quite like that. Trump is acting to enforce immigration law and secure the border. Getting better deals on trade is also a good idea when you look at the trade imbalances and how we often pay more in tariffs than we charge. Conservative judges and the Supreme Court cannot have their importance overstated. It's good that tax cheats are brought to justice and if money was illegally paid even if through ignorance of the law that should be made right and supposedly Trump can afford it but none of this is any reason to open the border back up to virtually unlimited immigration, abandon fairer trade deals, and lose the courts. Nobody else would do the things Trump is doing so he is pretty much indispensable. That gives him a lot of latitude.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Gaoics79 on August 26, 2018, 09:43:59 AM
Quote
I wasn't sure if it was fair either - just noting that people are not changing their minds as it concerns Trump.
those I have talked to that would never ever approve of adultery don't care when it comes to Trump

That's because the support for Trump has little to do with Trump and everything to do with the forces against Trump.

The people who support him are diametrically opposed, ideologically, to the people who are against Trump. This isn't some trivial "tribal" thing, like hating a rival sports franchise, although there could be an element of that. There are genuine, deep and fundamental disagreements between how "left" and "right" tribes view the world. The right tribe doesn't just disagree with, but despises certain vocal elements within the "left" tribe, which they see as ascendant, to the point where they see those voices as an existential threat to their way of life. As Fenring noted, these groups (eg: Antifa) are numerically small, but disproportionately influential. They are absolutely a major cause of the fear driving Trump's supporters into his arms, as surely as Nazi and white supremacist supporters of Trump drive people away from him, into the arms of whoever is leading the charge against him.

Look at it this way: you're in a city that's under siege. The enemy is flinging rocks and arrows over the walls, attacking with battering rams. If the City falls, you believe (rightly or wrongly) that every man, woman or child will be slaughtered. Your king is a bastard. But he's your bastard. And the forces who want him deposed are openly working for the enemy. They're not even hiding it. They want him deposed because they want to open the gates so they can enter the City and slaughter everyone. Do you help them, even if you believe that their arguments are correct (the king is certainly a bastard, after all) or do you support your king, however immoral?

The people supporting Trump not only won't turn on him, they can't. From their point of view, doing so would be slitting their own wrists. Sure, someone like Mike Pence could take over if Trump were impeached and it's not as if it would mean Hillary Clinton would parachute into the white house - but Trump being deposed would send the message that his supporters were wrong to fight in the first place.  It would be blood in the water. That is how it would be portrayed and that's how it would feel. It wouldn't be about a specific leader's fitness or morality, but about the underlying rightness of the ideology that put him into power and a symbol of that ideology's defeat. As long as Trump being impeached is cast as a referendum on the results of the last election and on the rightness of the ideology behind his support, from the point of view of his supporters, turning on him is equivalent to surrender, permitting the barbarians to sack the city.

That's why there is literally nothing Trump could do to get his supporters to turn on him, so long as he pursues policies that put him on the correct side of the ideological divide.

I don't feel the "left" tribe would be any different if the shoe was on the other foot. There is no magic to Trump's support. It's completely understandable, and frankly, rational. 
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 26, 2018, 10:54:42 AM
Quote
So it is hardly "one guy on the left" spouting off with these things. It's a whole slew of them

There were 63 millions American citizens who voted for the Democratic nominee for President. How many people do you consider a "slew"? Have you seen 1,000 people make such comments, otherwise known as 0.0016% of the people who voted for Clinton? And that does not count for the proven activity of the Russian military in creating false internet personalities to promote divisive positions.

Considering I'm seeing it turn up in works of fiction, mostly ranging into the 20,000+ word range, if the Russians are directly behind writing those dystopian works in colloquial English, then we're probably beyond screwed.  :-X
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 26, 2018, 12:43:49 PM
Quote
The right tribe doesn't just disagree with, but despises certain vocal elements within the "left" tribe, which they see as ascendant, to the point where they see those voices as an existential threat to their way of life. As Fenring noted, these groups (eg: Antifa) are numerically small, but disproportionately influential. They are absolutely a major cause of the fear driving Trump's supporters into his arms, as surely as Nazi and white supremacist supporters of Trump drive people away from him, into the arms of whoever is leading the charge against him.

Can you consider the hypothesis that those on the right seek out and publicize (and even fictionalize) the most extreme or divisive voices on the left with the explicit intention of motivating their supporters? This is not only a basic form of propaganda, it has been revealed that this was one of the ways that the Russian military attacked the US by creating false extreme voices. I have been on the left for a long time, and yet the first time I ever heard of antifa was on Ornery. Exactly how "disproportionately influential" are they?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 26, 2018, 12:52:54 PM
The people supporting Trump not only won't turn on him, they can't. From their point of view, doing so would be slitting their own wrists. Sure, someone like Mike Pence could take over if Trump were impeached and it's not as if it would mean Hillary Clinton would parachute into the white house - but Trump being deposed would send the message that his supporters were wrong to fight in the first place.  It would be blood in the water. That is how it would be portrayed and that's how it would feel. It wouldn't be about a specific leader's fitness or morality, but about the underlying rightness of the ideology that put him into power and a symbol of that ideology's defeat. As long as Trump being impeached is cast as a referendum on the results of the last election and on the rightness of the ideology behind his support, from the point of view of his supporters, turning on him is equivalent to surrender, permitting the barbarians to sack the city.

That's why there is literally nothing Trump could do to get his supporters to turn on him, so long as he pursues policies that put him on the correct side of the ideological divide.

I don't feel the "left" tribe would be any different if the shoe was on the other foot. There is no magic to Trump's support. It's completely understandable, and frankly, rational.

This is what I've been trying to convey. At this stage "it is entirely political" and in that mode of operation, reality doesn't matter, perception or narrative(/spin) if you prefer, matters. It removes everything else from consideration.

They may not be able to elucidate what they're doing, or why, but they're running on instinctive understanding at this point. Basically that because of how Trump has been "connected" to everything else they value by those who oppose Trump, it doesn't matter if they would jettison Trump as a person at the first opportunity otherwise. What matters is Trump, as a symbol, is too important to allow that to happen. So they ignore and deflect away from it.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Gaoics79 on August 26, 2018, 02:44:35 PM
Quote
Can you consider the hypothesis that those on the right seek out and publicize (and even fictionalize) the most extreme or divisive voices on the left with the explicit intention of motivating their supporters? This is not only a basic form of propaganda, it has been revealed that this was one of the ways that the Russian military attacked the US by creating false extreme voices. I have been on the left for a long time, and yet the first time I ever heard of antifa was on Ornery. Exactly how "disproportionately influential" are they?

I think you're almost certainly correct that extremists on the left side are used extensively by the right for propaganda purposes. Trump himself has done this all the time; witness his statements that Maxine Waters was the "face" of the Democratic party.

But that said, I reject your implication that these groups are insignificant in influence. Groups like Antifa share a certain cultural language and framework that is absolutely influential in modern society, particularly among millennials and especially in the university setting. From the university this cultural framework filters down into civil society, particularly among lawyers, teachers, scholars and others.

Ideas like gender being wholly defined by the self-identity of the individual rather than sex (a concept that would have been laughable less than 10 years ago), are becoming mainstream, and are filtering into the courts and human rights tribunals of much of the developed world. Statues of famous people, such as John A MacDonald and Lord Cornwallis, are being torn down or destroyed based on perceived wrongs against minority groups.

Keep in mind that as an American, you are insulated from this to some extent, because your country still has a robust right wing intellectual stream and your Supreme Court has tilted right. In Canada, for example, there is no real right wing left among the intelligentsia, and courts are already pretty much in agreement with the fundamental framework that is the de facto view among law professors and Antifa.

If you haven't felt this seachange yet, you will. Other individuals I have known for decades, including people who once proudly called themselves "liberal" are starting to notice this.

You might say that this is just a counterpoint to the rise of right wing extremism, which is a popular view among the left, but a false one. Have a look at the latest Nazi rallies and white supremacist rallies we have seen in the past 2 years since Trump was elected. Assuming they are even actually Nazis or real fascists (Antifa considers pretty much anyone who might vote Republican to be a "fascist" if not a Nazi) The "counter" protesters (including groups like Antifa) routinely outnumber the right winger 10:1. It's no contest. I have yet to see this fearsome alt right accomplish anything thus far. Where are the hordes of angered white supremacists blocking the destruction of confederate monuments?

Mainstream voters in the centre right (what used to be considered centre, or even centre left) have perceived this change. Something is rising in our society, and it's not Nazism, although from where I stand, it's about as bad. And by the way, I am not on social media of any kind. I have zero exposure to the kind of media that the Russians are accused of manipulating.

Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Gaoics79 on August 26, 2018, 02:55:24 PM
Quote
They may not be able to elucidate what they're doing, or why, but they're running on instinctive understanding at this point. Basically that because of how Trump has been "connected" to everything else they value by those who oppose Trump, it doesn't matter if they would jettison Trump as a person at the first opportunity otherwise. What matters is Trump, as a symbol, is too important to allow that to happen. So they ignore and deflect away from it.

I upvoted your post because I agreed with it completely. But I'd make one small clarification: it's not just the people supporting him or even Trump himself that has created this symbolic connection. Trump's enemies are eager to nurture the idea that everything Trump supports (and by implication, what his supporters value) rises or falls with his presidency. They eagerly feed this notion. The big irony of course is that Trump is one of the least ideological politicians to come along in recent memory. Up until his Presidential run, the guy was known pretty universally as a pro choice liberal. He used to contribute to the Clintons. Trump's newfound ideology is about as mercenary as they come.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Fenring on August 26, 2018, 03:07:28 PM
Quote
The right tribe doesn't just disagree with, but despises certain vocal elements within the "left" tribe, which they see as ascendant, to the point where they see those voices as an existential threat to their way of life. As Fenring noted, these groups (eg: Antifa) are numerically small, but disproportionately influential. They are absolutely a major cause of the fear driving Trump's supporters into his arms, as surely as Nazi and white supremacist supporters of Trump drive people away from him, into the arms of whoever is leading the charge against him.

Can you consider the hypothesis that those on the right seek out and publicize (and even fictionalize) the most extreme or divisive voices on the left with the explicit intention of motivating their supporters? This is not only a basic form of propaganda, it has been revealed that this was one of the ways that the Russian military attacked the US by creating false extreme voices. I have been on the left for a long time, and yet the first time I ever heard of antifa was on Ornery. Exactly how "disproportionately influential" are they?

What you say is certainly accurate. However on my side of things I can only report my personal experience, and that is that all of the more extreme left sentiment I've heard isn't from media sources reporting on it (such as FOX or even CNN) but directly from the horse's mouth either from liberal bloggers or just individuals posting on social media. So the vast majority of my observations of alarming sentiment (ranging from violently phrased animosity directed towards "people who believe in slavery and racism", to "if you believe/voted for X unfriend me now", to the usual alt-feminist stuff like articles about how men who try to open a door for a woman are The Problem) come from individuals that now only believe these things but trumpet them.

Now, perhaps it's possible that some of these 'bloggers' are really Russians posing as liberal bloggers, and that a lot of the more silly stuff I read isn't really anyone's position but since it seems nominally to be about the same sort of thing that liberals believe it's accepted as being part of the tribe. However, that wouldn't explain these same blogs being reposted and quoted. So even if we assert that there is a smear job being done it's being accepted and perpetuated by ordinary people. If so, one can hardly even fault the fake bloggers since what they publish seems to be accepted. So one can only assert one of two explanations for this acceptance: either the people looking to stir up s**t have actually hit on real things people believe and are providing an avenue for these somewhat hidden beliefs to surface (much like the explanation given on how alt-right sources give a platform for people with subtly racist beliefs to feel legitimized); or alternatively the people reposting this material simply don't understand much of anything and can't tell the difference between social justice and between communist propaganda. That latter would be a significant problem all of its own; the inability for the average person to tell the difference between Soviet social control programs and liberal values would indicate a disastrous problem with the public awareness of liberal values. Or alternatively we could ascribe this lack of discernment to a social nuclear arms race: the extremist statements sound "strong" and strength is needed to defeat the evil Right. Either way it's a problem. The truth may lie across all of these, but it seems like the old adage always returns, "rules for thee but not for me." And this mentality seems to infest all sides when victory takes priority over sensibility; consistency takes back seat to a show of force.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 26, 2018, 04:51:32 PM
Quote
since it seems nominally to be about the same sort of thing that liberals believe it's accepted as being part of the tribe

Quote
Trump's enemies are eager to nurture the idea that everything Trump supports (and by implication, what his supporters value) rises or falls with his presidency. They eagerly feed this notion. The big irony of course is that Trump is one of the least ideological politicians to come along in recent memory.

There is a lot of speculation in these comments.  I do know some annoying people on the left who harp discuss "privilege" and "allies" in a way that I don't agree with. I also know many more of those on the left who grapple with these ideas and accept part and disregard extremes. And the majority of people I know who vote for Democrats don't really care about those kind of ideological issues, and are more concerned about gun control, healthcare, women's access to abortion and birth control, climate change, and protecting consumers from big corporations. And polling of self-proclaimed Democrats reinforces these last set of issues as what drives the vast majority of them.

My premise is that it is not a mirror image for Republicans, and polling reinforces that. While you always get some crazy responses in polling, there has been consistent evidence in polling that relatively large fractions of voters who describe themselves as Republicans really do hold extreme opinions. Trump is an ideologue and a consistent one - and his core ideological principle that goes back decades is racism. Whether it's the Central Park 5, pr that the black President isn't legitimate,  or the imaginary Muslims cheering 9/11,  or that immigrants are murderers and rapists, or the judge who can't be fair because he is Mexican, President Trump has consistently spread xenophobia and racism. And if you look at polling results, many millions of Republicans are strongly motivated by his ideology.   
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 26, 2018, 05:31:06 PM
Quote
So the vast majority of my observations of alarming sentiment (ranging from violently phrased animosity directed towards "people who believe in slavery and racism", to "if you believe/voted for X unfriend me now", to the usual alt-feminist stuff like articles about how men who try to open a door for a woman are The Problem) come from individuals that now only believe these things but trumpet them.

I can't speak to those particular individuals who made those comments, but it is at least an arguable position that many supporters of the Confederacy (particularly those who make the factually false argument that the Civil War was primarily about State's Rights and not slavery) are most accurately described as being at least apologists for slavery.

I disapprove of "violently phrased animosity", but to me the sin of of those people is of lesser moral consequence than support for those who actually commit violent acts due to easy access to guns and "stand your ground" laws that essentially say that if you are scared enough, you get to kill whoever scared you.  On the other hand, both are wrong, so you have agreement with me that doing either is inappropriate.

As for your concern with those who "unfriend" people simply because they voted for President Trump, I would not do that myself, but I also believe that Americans have every right to hold others morally responsible for the actions that they commit in a way that is proportional to the adverse action. And Trump voters committed a profound act with their vote - they knew he had bragged about committing felony sexual assault, they knew he had repeatedly made comments that even senior Republican officials described as "textbook racism", and they nevertheless invested the full power of their citizenship to help make him President. It is at least arguable that "unfriending" is an act of smaller moral consequence than of voting to make Donald Trump President.

 
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 26, 2018, 07:13:30 PM
What you say is certainly accurate. However on my side of things I can only report my personal experience, and that is that all of the more extreme left sentiment I've heard isn't from media sources reporting on it (such as FOX or even CNN) but directly from the horse's mouth either from liberal bloggers or just individuals posting on social media. So the vast majority of my observations of alarming sentiment (ranging from violently phrased animosity directed towards "people who believe in slavery and racism", to "if you believe/voted for X unfriend me now", to the usual alt-feminist stuff like articles about how men who try to open a door for a woman are The Problem) come from individuals that now only believe these things but trumpet them.

My favorite one had to be fallout from Trump's initial election win, where a childhood friend of my younger sister started freaking out on facebook, raged about how intolerant people in my home state were among a few other things, and how she was going to see about moving to California.

If she's a Russian agent, I'm impressed at Russia's social networking skills.

She also wasn't completely unique, she was just the person I knew best who did that. I have plenty of other people I know, IRL and online, who have reported comparable experiences involving one or more, if not several(depending on age group), people within their circle of friends & associates (IRL and online) behaving in comparable ways and raging about the same things.

It is part of why I've kind of rolled my eyes at "It's Russian disinformation" in a number of other cases. The "Russian Conspiracy" has limits, I doubt my sister's childhood friend is part of it. I also doubt a significant number of people I know have somehow placed themselves in the situation of being within one degree of separation from the Russian intelligence services. They can't ALL be Russian agents.

If they are, we're screwed. Ditto for my earlier comments about the stuff I'm seeing in many of the (amateur) literary circles I move in. Particularly when many of those people have online presences that can be traced back across the better part of a decade, if not further. If they're Russian agents, they've been playing an exceptionally deep and long game on a mindbogglingly large scale. One above and beyond anything McCarthy could have imagined in one of his fever dreams.

And then of course, I have to fondly remember walking into a McDonald's off of I-5 in Washington State in the spring of 2017 and finding a hipster sitting at a table with his Macintosh Laptop out and it proudly displaying "This Computer attacks Fascists." In hindsight, I kind of wish I had asked him how it could tell which ones were the fascists? But even then, not yet fully aware of anti-fa, I decided that probably wasn't a wise thing to do.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 26, 2018, 09:35:19 PM
No one believes that the majority of extreme anti-Trump sentiment is due to the Russian military, that is a strawman.  However, there has been real and ongoing intervention in American politics by the Russian military - do you deny this? There has been a remarkable reluctance on the part of the Trump Administration to even spend appropriated funds on cyber protection.  And I have yet to see anyone actually provide a plausible explanation for Presidents obsequious Trump's behavior in Helsinki.
 
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 27, 2018, 12:26:55 PM
No one believes that the majority of extreme anti-Trump sentiment is due to the Russian military, that is a strawman.  However, there has been real and ongoing intervention in American politics by the Russian military - do you deny this?

Why would I? Have I ever done so? I don't recall doing so, quite the opposite actually, I think my initial responses were on the lines of "Of course they're meddling, why wouldn't they?"

Quote
There has been a remarkable reluctance on the part of the Trump Administration to even spend appropriated funds on cyber protection.  And I have yet to see anyone actually provide a plausible explanation for Presidents obsequious Trump's behavior in Helsinki.

This gets into the politics of optics, and may have little to nothing to do with any actual collusion having happened or quid-pro-quo going on behind closed doors.

Trump has been placed in the situation, starting just days after he won election, never mind assumed office, where he cannot acknowledge those things without calling the legitimacy of his electionelectoral college win into question. I may not agree with what he's done, but I can understand it. The Democrats have set him up to be damned no matter what he does on the matter.

As to his behavior re: Putin, he's always signaled that Putin was someone he liked, so his "obsequious behavior" on that front isn't shocking, and nothing I can really comment on as it isn't anything I've bothered to pay attention to.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: rightleft22 on August 27, 2018, 01:05:57 PM
"Of course they're meddling, why wouldn't they?"

Are you concerned by such meddling?

My own opinion, is that the meddling does not call into the legitimacy of his electoral college win (gerrymandering might :) )
Trump and his followers can't acknowledge the meddling,  or explain it away as just something nations do to each other, is physiological. A refusal to see the shadow and the cognitive dissonance of previous held views on Russia and the like. 

If Trump was a Democrat with similar connections to Russia and 'Liking of Putin' no way, absolutely no way, would the GOP let it go.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: DonaldD on August 27, 2018, 01:34:29 PM
That's because Democrats are communist and anti-american, whereas Trump is inherently anti-communist and a patriot, as are his supporters.  As such, the meaning of those same actions, if taken by Democrats, would be completely different.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 27, 2018, 02:22:42 PM
"Of course they're meddling, why wouldn't they?"

Are you concerned by such meddling?

My own opinion, is that the meddling does not call into the legitimacy of his electoral college win (gerrymandering might :) )

Your view is different than what a large number of people would try to make it if Trump acknowledged that there was Russian meddling that benefited him politically. Even if he wasn't involved in it.

As to my being concerned about it? Yes, I am. But that's a very broad sliding scale with a lot of competition. It IS a concern, but it isn't anything I am freaking out over, and highly doubt anything worth freaking out about will be found. So overall, it is a very low priority concern being given not a lot of significance on my part.

As part of a larger trend, it certainly warrants heightened vigilance all the same.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Fenring on August 27, 2018, 04:23:21 PM
I can't speak to those particular individuals who made those comments, but it is at least an arguable position that many supporters of the Confederacy (particularly those who make the factually false argument that the Civil War was primarily about State's Rights and not slavery) are most accurately described as being at least apologists for slavery.

If we were talking about those folks who insist on flying the Confederate flag then I'd probably agree with you. However the "if you believe in slavery" meme (if I may call it that) has nothing to do with being a literal Confederate and is actually about taking sides in the cultural war. Basically the gist seems to boil down to "if you're not on our side you believe in slavery." That sort of minimalist strawman is often the tack taken by alt-liberals, with the motte-bailey built in that converts into "we mean you subconsciously abet systemic racism" when pressed. The height of the "if you believe in slavery you are the literal devil" mania came at around the time of the Charlottesville incident, where anyone either defending the initial rally, or speaking negatively about the counter-protest by parties including Antifa, were meant to be understood as standing squarely in the "believes in slavery" box; or alternatively in the "believes in fascism" box. But it doesn't really matter what the box is, the point is that the position put forward is that "we hate X group, and if you dispute our position or oppose us you will be understood not only to support X group but to be one of them." In this case, X was "Nazi fascist evil scum" and it was presented as being an unassailable position to denounce them, despise them, and mark them as evil. In the wake of the Charlottesville incident, Trump's remark that both sides shared some blame is to this day being used as proof of Trump's fascist and racist tendencies.

The real trick about denouncing these easy-sounding targets like racism and fascism is that an entire worldview was being subtly denounced at the same time, so that by 'winning the battle' against those 'fascists' a blow would also be struck against a whole swathe of people and beliefs not really related to the protesters. These subliminal insertions of identity (e.g. that by beating the protesters we stick it to rednecks, conservatives, and patriarchists everywhere) are part of what instinctively drives people over to the right to vote Republican, btw. Because they know it isn't just about one thing.
 
Quote
I disapprove of "violently phrased animosity", but to me the sin of of those people is of lesser moral consequence than support for those who actually commit violent acts due to easy access to guns and "stand your ground" laws that essentially say that if you are scared enough, you get to kill whoever scared you.  On the other hand, both are wrong, so you have agreement with me that doing either is inappropriate.

On a 1-to-1 basis I agree with you. However if default rhetoric veers towards being "violently phrased" then the long-term damage could be worse than small numbers of individuals who act like cowards or bullies, at whom most people roll their eyes already or worse. It isn't mainstream among conservatives to want to hurt people, whereas *if* it were to become mainstream to rail in violent terms against 'evil' people I think that would indeed be a significantly bad phenomenon.

Quote
It is at least arguable that "unfriending" is an act of smaller moral consequence than of voting to make Donald Trump President.

What you say sounds reasonable...but in fact I think it isn't. I would suggest to you that breaking lines of communication and ostracizing people (to whatever extent possible) is far, far worse than being wrong about all kinds of things and even doing wrong to boot. There is simply no coming back from refusing to speak to people you think are wrong, or denouncing them and walking away. The chance that you ever convince them or find common ground becomes zero. And I know what the thought is: they won't listen anyhow so what's the point. But actually that rationale is a form of moral despair. You, personally, seem to do quite well making repeated attempts to get through to people who you have every reason to expect will disagree once again, but in the case of many other people the thought that an attempt to convince others will fail is simply unacceptable, and so they want nothing more to do with them. I think "unfriend me and go away" is very underrated in terms of being a form of violence; not physical of course, but a mental attack in the form of "you are worthless, begone." While the refrain is always valid that a person has the right to choose with whom to associate, all the same discarding dissenting people is a grave offence against reason in my opinion. It's the person who disagrees the most who most needs to see that good people believe otherwise. When the 'wrong opinion' is just a symbol then it's easy to hate. But when someone you really care about or respect has that wrong opinion it becomes a completely different beast: why do they feel that way? Or maybe they know something I don't?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Gaoics79 on August 27, 2018, 07:06:22 PM
Quote
It is at least arguable that "unfriending" is an act of smaller moral consequence than of voting to make Donald Trump President.

What you say sounds reasonable...but in fact I think it isn't. I would suggest to you that breaking lines of communication and ostracizing people (to whatever extent possible) is far, far worse than being wrong about all kinds of things and even doing wrong to boot. There is simply no coming back from refusing to speak to people you think are wrong, or denouncing them and walking away. The chance that you ever convince them or find common ground becomes zero. And I know what the thought is: they won't listen anyhow so what's the point. But actually that rationale is a form of moral despair. You, personally, seem to do quite well making repeated attempts to get through to people who you have every reason to expect will disagree once again, but in the case of many other people the thought that an attempt to convince others will fail is simply unacceptable, and so they want nothing more to do with them. I think "unfriend me and go away" is very underrated in terms of being a form of violence; not physical of course, but a mental attack in the form of "you are worthless, begone." While the refrain is always valid that a person has the right to choose with whom to associate, all the same discarding dissenting people is a grave offence against reason in my opinion. It's the person who disagrees the most who most needs to see that good people believe otherwise. When the 'wrong opinion' is just a symbol then it's easy to hate. But when someone you really care about or respect has that wrong opinion it becomes a completely different beast: why do they feel that way? Or maybe they know something I don't?

I completely agree: it is infinitely worse. In fact, one of the fundamental differences between the USA, Canada and other Democratic nations and many third world democracies is that here people do manage to separate the political from the personal, or have in the past. The idea that you can vote Republican, but work or date or drink with someone who votes Democrat, isn't a small achievement in our societies. Casting a ballot for the wrong person is transitory, and in a secret ballot system with two parties that have largely pursued similar overarching policies, an act with far lesser ramifications for civil society than cutting out all your friends of the wrong political pursuation, much less boycotting establishments like restaurants (or conversely, establishments boycotting customers belonging to the wrong group).
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 27, 2018, 07:12:08 PM
While the refrain is always valid that a person has the right to choose with whom to associate, all the same discarding dissenting people is a grave offence against reason in my opinion. It's the person who disagrees the most who most needs to see that good people believe otherwise. When the 'wrong opinion' is just a symbol then it's easy to hate. But when someone you really care about or respect has that wrong opinion it becomes a completely different beast: why do they feel that way? Or maybe they know something I don't?

The whole post was great, but this cannot be emphasized enough.

edit: Huh, never noticed that kind of "nested markup" behavior before, but as what I initially posted was technically incorrect, it's own unusual behavior is acceptable I guess. Fixed it to conform to "proper standards."
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on August 27, 2018, 07:33:39 PM
So it was wrong to boycott companies that did business with South Africa during apartheid? Was it wrong of the civil rights movement to boycott buses in Montgomery? What about boycotting Canal Street where they had segregated facilities?

More recently from Hobby Lobby to the NRA, boycotting is about making your voice heard. Non-violently expressing your opinion about how those companies behave, or perhaps more clearly, how the leadership of those companies behave. Conservatives are doing that now with Facebook, or the NFL, or I guess Keurig for some reason.

I see such things as a natural expression of one's opinion in a Democracy. It certainly beats blocking roads, breaking windows, or marching around with Tiki torches.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: cherrypoptart on August 27, 2018, 08:46:34 PM
People shouldn't have their company valued based on whether or not someone thinks they can eventually be made to agree with them. I thought that was the whole foundation for valuing diversity, but here we see by the actions of those who professed it most that it was all based on a lie. I haven't unfriended or ostracized anyone because they voted for Obama or Hillary. I don't even see them as being wrong. I just see them as having different priorities. Their choices may have been right for them but they aren't the right choices for me because we simply need different things. 

Just to clarify by here I don't mean here at Ornery because all you people are pretty great but I mean here in our present society.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 27, 2018, 09:14:56 PM
So it was wrong to boycott companies that did business with South Africa during apartheid? Was it wrong of the civil rights movement to boycott buses in Montgomery? What about boycotting Canal Street where they had segregated facilities?

Most of those boycotts were targeting abstracts, or otherwise "sending a message" and IIRC, the Montgomery buses were operated by the city. :/

The more important thing there was boycott != exile, scapegoating, or ostracism.

"If you did ____ then unfriend me, or let me know so I can unfriend you." Boycotts were about hurting those operations on their financial bottom line, and make the decision a financial one, if nothing else.

How do you boycott a friendship? I don't know about you, but my friendships aren't financial transactions. So someone ending their friendship isn't really going to hurt me financially more often than not. (Although in time, it very well might, given what some friends can bring to the table; But if that's what you're doing, "kowtow to my political whims or no help from me!" Then you aren't a very good friend anyhow)

When it comes to ending a Friendship or (at least civil) association over an issue, you're talking about scapegoating, ostracism, or even exile(I know, kind of redundant given what scapegoating is, but some people don't know better).

You don't improve communications or understanding, mutual or otherwise, by cutting all ties.

But it now seems to be the favored modus operandi of many "on the left" because us conservatives are evil haters who think Society was just fine circa 1840 and why can't we just go back to those days?  ::)

That kind of evil cannot be tolerated in this modern age of enlightenment, and the best way now seems to be that we just cast them out of proper society instead.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: DonaldD on August 27, 2018, 10:35:37 PM
You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "scapegoat".  Why don't conservatives believe in personal responsibility anymore?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Fenring on August 27, 2018, 10:45:39 PM
How do you boycott a friendship? I don't know about you, but my friendships aren't financial transactions.

Just FYI, I suspect Drake was responding to jasonr's comment linking cutting ties with individuals to boycotting companies like restaurants.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: cherrypoptart on August 28, 2018, 01:13:02 AM
You shouldn't keep ties with people you disagree with just because you might someday be able to change their minds whereas if you cut ties you never will. You should keep ties with people you disagree with because you disagree with them, even if it's profoundly, and it's nice not to surround yourself with people who all think like you do. That's real diversity. That's what gets me about all the people cutting ties with anyone who supports Trump. They are doing exactly what they always tell everyone not to do; they are being intolerant of people because they are different.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: D.W. on August 28, 2018, 07:52:13 AM
Quote
You should keep ties with people you disagree with because you disagree with them, even if it's profoundly, and it's nice not to surround yourself with people who all think like you do
This applies to those of us who are willing to except friction and strife among our friends and family in exchange for sharpening testing and augmenting our beliefs and opinions. 

Most here at Ornery are going to fall into that category.  Hate to break it to you, that is a minority opinion.  Worse yet, those who try to live by it are probably going to have an even lower exposure rate to contrary opinions than others.  Because WE are the ones who get unfriended / unfollowed by those who prefer the comfort of reinforced beliefs and echo chambers.  Not to mention the side liners who want no part in the whole mud-fight and stay out of politics.

It goes both ways too.  I got dropped by my step-dad off facebook after being critical of Trump.  (something I don't make a habit of doing on that platform which I tend to keep fairly non-political)

If you feel you must drop someone, do it because they are being disrespectful, toxic or stress you out.  There is a huge difference between sparing and matching wits for mutual benefit, and verbally attacking each other and letting politics ruin an otherwise functional relationship.  We had personal relationships before social media.  We can still have them excluding that medium of communication. 
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 28, 2018, 08:10:43 AM
You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "scapegoat".  Why don't conservatives believe in personal responsibility anymore?

Modern or historical as I just discovered? Hadn't realized the modern usage had shifted somewhat.

Historically it was this:
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat

I'd also be inclined to group in the Athenian practice of banishing prominent/"dangerous" members of the community for years at a time a form of the same as well, just aimed more at the top rather than the bottom.

I have no problem taking responsibility for things I did do. I don't know of anyone, aside from a certain religious figure, who gladly takes responsibility for things they did not do, and nobody close to them did either.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: NobleHunter on August 28, 2018, 09:08:26 AM
The Athenians stopped ostracizing people because it was corrupted by politics. If we started doing it, it would be just another way to screw with political enemies.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 28, 2018, 09:51:30 AM
The Athenians stopped ostracizing people because it was corrupted by politics. If we started doing it, it would be just another way to screw with political enemies.

Uh, we're already doing it, we just don't have a legal system built around it, or a formalized process--yet.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on August 28, 2018, 09:54:20 AM
On the other question, of friendships and exposure to other ideas, I definitely support the value of such exposure. I may have mentioned before, this is one of the reasons that I go to Breitbart and read the comments section. By reading, as much as blatant racism, homophobia, violent threats, and other vitriol disgusts me, I can still learn to empathize with the less outrageous people there and gain insight to the nationalist movement and recognize that some people can have some of those views and not be the worst of the worst.

I have friends that are strongly in line with various Trump policies. I don't need to unfriend them, either online or IRL, because they also give me respect. If they start shouting about libtards, or how Democrats are traitors, or start marching side by side with white supremacists, then yeah I'm going to put them out of my life.

There is a danger to scorched earth ostracism, to be sure. I met someone here in Texas who was a pretty decent individual, but used the N-word like he got a dollar every time he said it. I explained to him that I wasn't cool with that, and over time his behavior around me changed. I could imagine many people who would immediately cut ties over that - especially since the company you keep reflects on you. To change society for the better, one must make an effort from time to time.

Especially dangerous is the public ostracism of people for things they did many years before. I shudder to think of the horror some of my friends, especially younger ones, would think of me if they had a transcript of what I said and how I acted in my teens.

In today's world, redemption seems to be vanishing. American History X comes to mind where you had a violent white supremacist whose mind is changed by a patient, understanding black man in prison. That he comes to loathe what he had been. That he got a second chance and tried to use that chance to do good. 

I just searched out Louis CK, and I guess he just barely did his first set in 10 months since his allegations. To me, he is a model for redemption. He immediately owned up to what he had done, making the statement, "nothing about this that I forgive myself for.”

He wasn't billed, and apparently the club got mostly positive feedback for having him on. I think his no compromising, no excuses response is a big part of his early acceptance in small circles, but it remains to be seen what happens if he is billed or tries to place shows he produces on a network. Will certain activists come out of the woodwork to protest at his shows? Will they demand advertisers abandon anything he puts on TV? Some will, I'm sure.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 28, 2018, 10:32:32 AM
Quote
If we were talking about those folks who insist on flying the Confederate flag then I'd probably agree with you. However the "if you believe in slavery" meme (if I may call it that) has nothing to do with being a literal Confederate and is actually about taking sides in the cultural war. Basically the gist seems to boil down to "if you're not on our side you believe in slavery." That sort of minimalist strawman is often the tack taken by alt-liberals, with the motte-bailey built in that converts into "we mean you subconsciously abet systemic racism" when pressed.

You take a twist with this argument that I believe is invalid. I was referring to literal Confederacy apologists (which may even be a smaller group than those who show a Confederate flag), and you immediately segue over to an assertion of a totally different interpretation that is "often the tack taken by alt-liberals".  I see that argument as another attempt at false equivalence by avoidance of math. There are many tens of millions of Americans who have had views supporting the Confederacy.  How many Americans do you think fit into the category of being an "alt-liberal" who often addresses any difference in policy as advocacy for slavery? And remember, part of my argument is that conservative media intentionally promotes false narratives to exaggerate that kind of opposition, because it is the best strategy to distract from the fact that millions of citizens at the core of the Republican party will actually defend the slaveholding Confederacy.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 28, 2018, 10:35:51 AM
Quote
I completely agree: it is infinitely worse.

I believe that you undervalue the moral significance of your vote if you believe that Facebook "friendships" are vastly more important than the life and death acts that are performed by our country. If voters don't see their votes as very significant as individuals, in the aggregate then who do you believe is morally responsible for the elected government of our country?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Fenring on August 28, 2018, 11:45:23 AM
You take a twist with this argument that I believe is invalid. I was referring to literal Confederacy apologists (which may even be a smaller group than those who show a Confederate flag), and you immediately segue over to an assertion of a totally different interpretation that is "often the tack taken by alt-liberals".  I see that argument as another attempt at false equivalence by avoidance of math. There are many tens of millions of Americans who have had views supporting the Confederacy.  How many Americans do you think fit into the category of being an "alt-liberal" who often addresses any difference in policy as advocacy for slavery? And remember, part of my argument is that conservative media intentionally promotes false narratives to exaggerate that kind of opposition, because it is the best strategy to distract from the fact that millions of citizens at the core of the Republican party will actually defend the slaveholding Confederacy.

Let's restate the points in sequence to show you that I didn't shift topics:

ME: I've seen many statements made in the form of "If you believe in slavery...etc"
YOU: There are many people who believe in the Confederacy and therefore are apologists for slavery (not what I was talking about, as the people I'm referring to aren't actually acquainted with anyone who fits that description)
ME: The way "if you believe in...etc" is used tends to be directed towards anyone who doesn't agree wholesale with the position the poster takes. So for instance anyone who agrees with Trump that 'both sides' at Charlottesville were imperfect falls into this category.
YOU: No, I am talking about literal Confederacy apologists.
ME: But you were responding to what I was talking about, which was not about Confederacy apologists.

See my point? I already agreed with you that insofar as people may literally be Confederacy apologists there is something negative to say about that position. However what I'm talking about is not actually a specifically defined group that is being denounced (although on the surface it's portrayed that way), but rather something more like - in set theory terms - Me-prime. Anything that is not my belief is that evil thing, which I will call slavery/fascism, etc. Contesting the position of such a person means, according to them, defending or even being one of those evil white supremacist fascist dogs protesting at Charlottesville. I won't even go into my opinion on categorizing everyone at that protest under the moniker "white supremacist" or "fascist", which evidence on the scene didn't bear out in my opinion; but that's a separate matter really from what I'm discussing.

I guess what I'm saying is that many liberals seems to have taken a page out of W's playbook, "if you're not with us you're against us." The Biblical version of that quote is meant to say that if you don't believe in good then there's only one other game in town, but the way it's used now it means if you're not in my political/social club you're the enemy. These sorts of people (of which you're not one) have become rather evangelical in their liberalism.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on August 28, 2018, 11:48:50 AM
Quote
I won't even go into my opinion on categorizing everyone at that protest under the moniker "white supremacist" or "fascist", which evidence on the scene didn't bear out in my opinion; but that's a separate matter really from what I'm discussing.

If you are at an event, and you look over and see even a couple of Nazis at your event, I would suggest you reconsider your attendance.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 28, 2018, 12:18:37 PM
Quote
I won't even go into my opinion on categorizing everyone at that protest under the moniker "white supremacist" or "fascist", which evidence on the scene didn't bear out in my opinion; but that's a separate matter really from what I'm discussing.

If you are at an event, and you look over and see even a couple of Nazis at your event, I would suggest you reconsider your attendance.

So there is no circumstance you can ever envision where you might have "common cause" with a Nazi?

Never say never.

Edit: I guess you'll also be a no-show to protest efforts to ban Mein Kampf from University Campuses.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: scifibum on August 28, 2018, 12:30:29 PM
Nazis have badly broken moral compasses.

Multiply that by the fact that political activism is always about something controversial, not about whether babies should be allowed to nap or about whether the USA should just go ahead and hand over the keys to DPRK.

It's a really safe rule of thumb, as such things go.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Fenring on August 28, 2018, 12:33:27 PM
Quote
I won't even go into my opinion on categorizing everyone at that protest under the moniker "white supremacist" or "fascist", which evidence on the scene didn't bear out in my opinion; but that's a separate matter really from what I'm discussing.

If you are at an event, and you look over and see even a couple of Nazis at your event, I would suggest you reconsider your attendance.

No doubt you are correct that the optics aren't great for people standing side by side with a bona fide Nazi. Is what you're concerned about in life primarily optics? There are times when, strategically, you might want to distance yourself from a cause because you don't like who else is for it, and I get that. But what you're implying now is that anyone who does not take this precaution basically is the same (for all public intents and purposes) as the person standing next to him. Therefore by that logic everyone at Occupy Wall Street must either a commi-socialist, or at least kept company with them and must not be much better. Or alternatively by that logic, whomever votes for someone must be counted as guilty by association with whomever else voted for that person...right?

Now there are limits to these analogies, because standing next to someone in person sporting a swastika would certainly impact me more greatly than knowing abstractly that I voted for the same person as that same neo-Nazi. However the impact of the proximity of those whose beliefs intersect with mine in one area but are insanely divergent else shouldn't logically impact how I am assessed as a person. "Well, you were standing physically near the bad guy, so that's worse than agreeing with him about this at a distance." That's the argument I basically don't accept. But as I mentioned that's a side issue as I didn't want to divert attention into this being about the characteristics of the individuals at Charlottesville.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on August 28, 2018, 12:34:51 PM
Quote
Edit: I guess you'll also be a no-show to protest efforts to ban Mein Kampf from University Campuses.

Correct. I'll send a strongly worded letter condemning censorship. I can conceive of agreeing on some point with a Nazi. I can't conceive attending an event and raising my fist in the air next to them, chanting slogans with them, or helping them make banners.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on August 28, 2018, 12:40:32 PM
If you are talking about a discussion, on line or IRL, then proximity also matters. Doesn't mean you can't participate, but you have an opportunity to distance yourself. You can say "hey we should defend our borders", but still call out the guy who characterizes Mexicans generally as lazy, dirty, violent rapists.

I generally do see people not drawing that distinction or dismissing it, but I likewise also see a lot of people defend everything Trump says because they agree with his policies or goals. There's an opportunity to say Trumps "he speaks perfect English" is racist AF, and still support him having the event in general and calling attention to a border patrol guy who did a good job.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: D.W. on August 28, 2018, 12:52:41 PM
Quote
Anything that is not my belief is that evil thing, which I will call slavery/fascism, etc. Contesting the position of such a person means, according to them, defending or even being one of those evil white supremacist fascist dogs protesting at Charlottesville.
Context is important.  This isn't (always) about "ANYTHING" that is not my belief.  There are some truly objective evil views being professed.  There are some truly objectively fascist ideas being put forward. 

This framing of the conversation, as if it's ONLY about "the other" is disingenuous.  I get it though.  How do you defend the indefensible?  How do you accept their votes and their money while telling them to keep their ugly opinions to themselves? 

Better to ignore it and claim that it is the other side unfairly painting you with a wide brush.    Avoidable though.  Just take a few steps away from the toxic people.  Or, you know, scour the web for Antifa spotting like some sort of cryptozooligist so you can point and say, "It's not just our side!"
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on August 28, 2018, 01:06:12 PM
Just because you like Trump, and he says he likes his steak well done, does not mean that you approve of well done steak. If you defend him for liking steak well done, then now you own it. You ought to call him out on it and say that you don't like steak well done. You are also no longer invited to my barbecue.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Fenring on August 28, 2018, 01:18:16 PM
Just because you like Trump, and he says he likes his steak well done, does not mean that you approve of well done steak. If you defend him for liking steak well done, then now you own it. You ought to call him out on it and say that you don't like steak well done. You are also no longer invited to my barbecue.

I like steak well done. So there.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on August 28, 2018, 01:24:00 PM
I like steak well done. So there.

You try to pick something non-controversial. :)

But you're definitely not invited to my barbecue, and I'm not coming over for dinner. But I won't ignore you for life on all other topics.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: D.W. on August 28, 2018, 01:30:23 PM
All it takes is:

Listen, the man can make a mean potato salad, and for that he will always be welcome at my BBQ's.  However, I cannot abide his desire for a well done steak.  If he will not turn from this abominable stance he can damn well grill his own meat!
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 28, 2018, 01:34:48 PM
You ought to call him out on it and say that you don't like steak well done. You are also no longer invited to my barbecue.

I like burnt meat, just as long as cardboard isn't easier to chew. :)

That said, "well done" on steak is a bit of a travesty all the same, it kills the flavor.  8)
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 28, 2018, 01:36:40 PM
Listen, the man can make a mean potato salad, and for that he will always be welcome at my BBQ's.  However, I cannot abide his desire for a well done steak.  If he will not turn from this abominable stance he can damn well grill his own meat!

On his own grill, with his own equipment, and meat.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Fenring on August 28, 2018, 01:37:59 PM
Quote
Anything that is not my belief is that evil thing, which I will call slavery/fascism, etc. Contesting the position of such a person means, according to them, defending or even being one of those evil white supremacist fascist dogs protesting at Charlottesville.
Context is important.  This isn't (always) about "ANYTHING" that is not my belief.  There are some truly objective evil views being professed.  There are some truly objectively fascist ideas being put forward. 

This framing of the conversation, as if it's ONLY about "the other" is disingenuous.  I get it though.  How do you defend the indefensible?  How do you accept their votes and their money while telling them to keep their ugly opinions to themselves? 

I'm not trying to frame the conversation 'as' anything; rather as I mentioned earlier I am only reporting what I actually observe happening on my social media and with people I know. The context of my post was that, in reply to jasonr's comment that people on the right see their entire worldview under attack, Greg then said that right-wing media goes to work creating propaganda blowing up minor extremist positions as 'the left.' My post merely stated that I don't get any of my observations from what media corporations write, but rather right from the liberal people themselves who say the things that alarm conservatives. It's not more complicated than that. And yes, I do perceive that the invective isn't limited to literal Nazis and fascists. It's facile to the extreme to denounce something already ridiculous to the vast majority of people and think you're being real or edgy or something. But the reason I think it really is edgy is because the circle of what counts as fascist or racist has been steadily widening such that you can see it widely said (not by a majority of people, mind you) that all white people are either racists or abet racism; or are privileged and can't speak about such things; or that those in power (men, white people, etc) are oppressors; or that "if you don't think you're a racist then you're part of the problem." The list goes on and I've seen all of the above repeatedly. Most of it can be roughly categorized as either a virtue-signalling clarion call or else as a dumpster-sized Kafkatrap. Which isn't to say that literally none of what these people say makes sense; some of it does. But the general tenor of it scares even me, and I'm not on the team they're most often railing against.

It goes without saying that most people don't make posts like this or blog about social justice. However the currents in a culture usually come from a minority anyhow so I see the numbers issue as being somewhat specious. It only ever takes a minority, often a vast minority, with no one contesting them. So for those just now who, rightly, say that you can vaguely agree with something a Nazi says but you should make it clear to distance yourself publicly from their garbage, I think it should be plain that the same is true for what I'm calling the 'alt-left'. I, myself, can agree with denouncing racism and facism (duh), but I would no sooner set foot in an Antifa rally as I would at a Nazi rally. I am happy to support the thing they claim to support without wanting anything to do with them, and I've said so before in threads on this topic. We had one specific thread about the branding of causes and how some causes have been branded in such a way as to make them seem very unsavory whereas they should in reality have broad appeal. Part of the problem in the social justice arena is that, despite what was just said about not wanting to be seen next to Nazis even if you agree with them on one topic, liberals in general seem to have little sensibility of distancing themselves from unsavory elements that 'agree' with them on some topic. The general vibe in the social justice community is that all social justice people are in the same boat and fighting for the same thing. But they are not! Not even close. The united front carries with it some power, even though to generate this seeming power the wholesomeness of these causes (like standing vigilant against fascism) seem to disappear. Instead those 'fighting fascism' often come across to me as bullies. Go figure.

So D.W., my issue isn't exactly with 'the other' (although that is always an issue), but with trying to help explain why people would flock to Trump and why they won't dump him when it's proven he is a problem. jasonr (whose username has now been changed?) suggested it's because they are actually under attack, and there is no bastion for them except Trump. Even though Trump never really made an overt appeal to them, he is the default place for them (i.e. people afraid of liberal invective and political correctness) to go, and there is no other option.

Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: D.W. on August 28, 2018, 01:38:07 PM
Listen, the man can make a mean potato salad, and for that he will always be welcome at my BBQ's.  However, I cannot abide his desire for a well done steak.  If he will not turn from this abominable stance he can damn well grill his own meat!

On his own grill, with his own equipment, and meat.
Good luck getting any of that potato salad "friend".
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on August 28, 2018, 02:15:33 PM
My most alarming thing is the drawing up of sides. The average American seems less likely to concede even a minor point than in the past. You get Trump supporters wearing t-shirts applauding his "grab 'em" comments from Access Hollywood. This is something that I can't really fathom, and it strikes me as fanatical. On the other end, you get people who want to physically beat people down because they're wearing a hat. I'm not drawing equivalence between those actions, its not a study. It is merely a quick illustration of the picking of teams that is getting progressively worse.

And what is clear about the Always Trumpers, is that they will not only tolerate but vigorously defend every single thing he does. To me, that is fanaticism, just like on the other side when every single move Trump makes is denounced by the Never Trumpers to a maniacal degree. Waiting to pounce on whatever comes next. This happened to a lesser degree with Clinton, GWB, and Obama. But Trump's own absolutism, lack of political polish, and fearless hyperbole simply pushes the needle way over - he's like the poltical equivalent of an anger amplifier.

When the common ground falls away, by mutual agreement, this invites dehumanization of your opponents. That leads to violence, started by one side, retaliated against by the other until everything becomes so blurry that both sides believe the other side started it and must be stopped.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Lloyd Perna on August 28, 2018, 02:34:06 PM
https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/08/27/maga-trump-hat-taken/ (https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/08/27/maga-trump-hat-taken/)

This is timely.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on August 28, 2018, 02:38:10 PM
Because teens have never taken hats from each other before Trump.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Lloyd Perna on August 28, 2018, 02:43:03 PM
This was not just "some teen" taking somebody's hat.  This was a political statement that ended up in violence.

Quote
“That’s a racist and hateful symbol,” Butler said.

Quote
“Maybe just wake people up in some type of way, because it’s not cool the environment our classroom is in,” Butler said.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on August 28, 2018, 03:02:41 PM
So that's:

A. A random event that involved a couple of kids that this time happened to involve politics that will receive appropriate discipline and legal repercussions.

or

B. A terrifying example of how far those liberals are willing to go.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: D.W. on August 28, 2018, 03:08:36 PM
A.  lack of self control, results in reprimand.  A more succinct lesson in social studies one couldn't ask for.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: D.W. on August 28, 2018, 03:15:41 PM
Quote
It's facile to the extreme to denounce something already ridiculous to the vast majority of people and think you're being real or edgy or something.
The war to distort perception goes both ways.  A lot of people on the left are reeling.  It’s not that anyone believed that we didn’t have serious problems with racism still but we at least believed that the days of open hate speech had gone the way of the dinosaurs or at least relegated to, “*censored* grandpa says when not out in public.” Then we saw a lack of willingness to govern while Obama was in office that was hard to chalk up to JUST party politics.  Then the Republican party’s response to his presidency?  Donald J. Trump.  A man who seems to take sick glee in fomenting racial tension.  So we ask ourselves, “is it really THIS bad still?”  Probably not, but if you read, watch, listen to the news or social media, it sure looks like a HUGE backslide in open racism and bigotry.
No, you shouldn’t have to denounce something “we” (a group believed to cross party lines and be an overwhelming majority until recently) believed to be ridiculous.  Yet here we are.  The *bleeping* president seems to promote it.  YOU don’t’ feel that way… do you? 
Quote
But the reason I think it really is edgy is because the circle of what counts as fascist or racist has been steadily widening
As it will continue to do so, and frankly, it should until we either out breed the ”problem” and everyone is enough of a melting pot it’s pointless to categorize, or just we get over it and actual equality is achieved.  I’m hoping for option that doesn’t take many generations to achieve…
Quote
such that you can see it widely said (not by a majority of people, mind you) that all white people are either racists or abet racism; or are privileged and can't speak about such things; or that those in power (men, white people, etc) are oppressors; or that "if you don't think you're a racist then you're part of the problem." The list goes on and I've seen all of the above repeatedly. Most of it can be roughly categorized as either a virtue-signalling clarion call or else as a dumpster-sized Kafkatrap. Which isn't to say that literally none of what these people say makes sense; some of it does. But the general tenor of it scares even me, and I'm not on the team they're most often railing against.
Spot on here.  I’ve always written off the vast majority of these statements as the voice of well meaning but strategically incompetent kids.  Emphasis on the “kids” part.  They want to make a difference and force change, and they believe that an “us vs. them” strategy is the only option.  Wait… that sounds familiar.  Could it be that there are forces on both sides of the aisle that benefit from creating strife?  That “firing up one’s base” is, gasp, a bipartisan tactic?
The general tenor of it shouldn’t scare you.  If you don’t agree with their (stated) goals, then breathe a sigh of relief.  These people are least likely to initiate change.  If you do agree with their (stated) goals, then weep, for the same reason.  Those who seek out more and more enemies of greater and greater power will eventually get the fight they want.  And then lose it.  This is also why the right is constantly checked with, “They aren’t with you… are they?” because we don’t want a larger more powerful enemy.  We want this human garbage to scatter when the lights come on, and starve to death due to lack of attention.
Quote
We had one specific thread about the branding of causes and how some causes have been branded in such a way as to make them seem very unsavory whereas they should in reality have broad appeal. Part of the problem in the social justice arena is that, despite what was just said about not wanting to be seen next to Nazis even if you agree with them on one topic, liberals in general seem to have little sensibility of distancing themselves from unsavory elements that 'agree' with them on some topic.
On the contrary, I tend not to distance myself from “unsavory elements” because I’ve never once encountered them.  Sure I read stories about a group of antifa looking for a fight finding one in the form of white supremacists who were… out looking for a fight.  IMO it’s falling for a trap, and I shed no tears when they… well get tear gassed or arrested or whatever. 
I’ve never met someone who put on a mask and went out to “fight fascists” in the literal sense.  I’m not saying they don’t exist, but you can’t distance yourself from people who are so rare as to never be seen accept as a sometimes response to active trolling by groups we all know are wrong and shouldn’t have to state the obvious and denounce But… I’m not a 20 something uni student adrenalin junky spoiling for a fight to prove I have the will to change things!  … or something.  That’s the thing.  Unless my perception of the dreaded Antifa is wrong, they are ALWAYS counter protestors.  Sure they may be collaborators in a scheduled street fight and should be scorned as such, but there is no moral equivalence here.  There may be (and is in practice) a legal equivalency though.
Quote
The general vibe in the social justice community is that all social justice people are in the same boat and fighting for the same thing. But they are not! Not even close.
It really is though.  Treat everyone as equals.  The End.  It’s only the tactics of how that might be achieved that differentiates the various factions.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Fenring on August 28, 2018, 03:27:21 PM
It would be interesting to pose that scenario (of the hat) before many people and see their reaction to it. While reasonable people would likely grimace at slapping the teacher, I wonder how many would say something negative about the incident and then throw in a comment like the father did, to the effect that "well she shouldn't have hit anyone, but maybe that message needed to be made." It's not an apology for the assault, and yet a more or less complete solidarity with the sentiment behind the assault. Well, gee, what a surprise, that a feeling like slapping 'those people' will result in someone immature actually doing so.

As Drake pointed out, we don't want to ascribe this silly incident to 'the left'. But at the same time the dad's comment...does not bode well. He should have roundly apologized for her with no qualification.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on August 28, 2018, 03:40:17 PM
As Drake pointed out, we don't want to ascribe this silly incident to 'the left'. But at the same time the dad's comment...does not bode well. He should have roundly apologized for her with no qualification.

I agree. And conversely, I'm willing to bet somewhere at some time, a kid got picked on and assaulted for being Mexican and the parent made a half-justification for that too. That also would reflect on a far wider audience.

There's a general trend of finding the worst examples possible of immigrants, Muslims, free speech advocates, liberals, anti-globalists, <append>. Then saying "see, that's what They are."

So you get people characterizing support for Medicare for All as the leading edge of a path that will inevitably lead to a police state that Stalin would envy. And another group looking at people who question racial quota systems as the leading edge of a path that will inevitably result in the return of segregation and slavery.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Lloyd Perna on August 28, 2018, 04:17:15 PM
Do you think this type of agressive action is just random?   Leftist politicians and Media personalities such as Maxine Waters and Chris Cuomo as well as the Neo-marxist humanities faculty at our universities have been justifying if not encouraging this type of behavior for some time now.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/401699-cnns-cuomo-defends-antifa-those-who-oppose-hate-are-on-the-side-of-right (http://thehill.com/homenews/media/401699-cnns-cuomo-defends-antifa-those-who-oppose-hate-are-on-the-side-of-right)

Quote
But when someone comes to call out bigots and it gets hot, even physical, are they equally wrong as the bigot they’re fighting? I argue no. ... Fighting matters, too, there’s no question about that. But drawing a moral equivalency between those espousing hate and those fighting it, because they both resort to violence emboldens hate, legitimizes hateful belief and elevates what should be stamped out.

And when they say bigots they mean anybody who doesn't completely support their agenda.

Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on August 28, 2018, 04:28:27 PM
The full context of the article you cited:

Quote
"In the eyes of the law, yes. But in the eyes of good and evil, here’s the argument: If you’re a punk who comes to start trouble in a mask and hurt people, you’re not about any virtuous cause," he continued. "You’re just somebody that’s going to be held to the standard of doing something wrong."

"But when someone comes to call out bigots and it gets hot, even physical, are they equally wrong as the bigot they’re fighting? I argue no. ... Fighting matters, too, there’s no question about that. But drawing a moral equivalency between those espousing hate and those fighting it, because they both resort to violence emboldens hate, legitimizes hateful belief and elevates what should be stamped out."

"Antifa or whomever ... or malcontent or misguided, they are also wrong to hit, but fighting hate is right," Cuomo said later. "And in a clash between hate and those who oppose it, those who oppose it are on the side of right.”

That's a far stretch from condoning, encouraging, or excusing in any fair reading, especially in the first paragraph.

What he is saying is that there are levels of violence, and it certainly isn't limited to the left to draw such distinctions. Trump has talked before about how people on the left making statements deserve physical violence. The guy he'd like to punch in the face. The offer to pay the legal bills for someone who chooses to do so.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Lloyd Perna on August 28, 2018, 04:33:39 PM
The full context of the article you cited:

Quote
"In the eyes of the law, yes. But in the eyes of good and evil, here’s the argument: If you’re a punk who comes to start trouble in a mask and hurt people, you’re not about any virtuous cause," he continued. "You’re just somebody that’s going to be held to the standard of doing something wrong."

"But when someone comes to call out bigots and it gets hot, even physical, are they equally wrong as the bigot they’re fighting? I argue no. ... Fighting matters, too, there’s no question about that. But drawing a moral equivalency between those espousing hate and those fighting it, because they both resort to violence emboldens hate, legitimizes hateful belief and elevates what should be stamped out."

"Antifa or whomever ... or malcontent or misguided, they are also wrong to hit, but fighting hate is right," Cuomo said later. "And in a clash between hate and those who oppose it, those who oppose it are on the side of right.”

That's a far stretch from condoning, encouraging, or excusing in any fair reading, especially in the first paragraph.

What he is saying is that there are levels of violence, and it certainly isn't limited to the left to draw such distinctions. Trump has talked before about how people on the left making statements deserve physical violence. The guy he'd like to punch in the face. The offer to pay the legal bills for someone who chooses to do so.

In a peaceful conversation or event or demonstration.  The first one to swing loses all moral authority. 
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Lloyd Perna on August 28, 2018, 04:37:34 PM
Tale a look this list of recent acts of violence or harassment of Trump supporters and then explain to me how this is not a problem.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/07/05/rap-sheet-acts-of-media-approved-violence-and-harassment-against-trump-supporters/ (https://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/07/05/rap-sheet-acts-of-media-approved-violence-and-harassment-against-trump-supporters/)
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: DonaldD on August 28, 2018, 04:41:40 PM
Well done, Lloyd, you managed to successfully ignore the 20 or so times that Cuomo said that the violence was not justified.  Oh, wait... you actually didn't quite ignore all instances, as you actually included one in the very quote that you presented:
Quote
Fighting matters, too, there’s no question about that.
Seriously, every third sentence in that editorial was about the antifa actions being illegal and/or not acceptable... while also making the point that they are not as morally repugnant as the white supremacists they are demonstrating against, while being no less legally responsible for laws broken.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: DonaldD on August 28, 2018, 04:47:31 PM
Quote
In a peaceful conversation or event or demonstration.  The first one to swing loses all moral authority.
Ahh, but that was not your original claim.  You said that Cuomo
Quote
[has] been justifying if not encouraging this type of behavior for some time now.
Which is patently untrue in the article/opinion piece to which you made reference.

Or is your point simply that any argument that does not at least put white supremacists on an even moral footing with antifa is implicitly an encouragement to illegal activity?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Lloyd Perna on August 28, 2018, 05:06:45 PM
Ok, let's break it down.

Quote
"In the eyes of the law, yes. But in the eyes of good and evil, here’s the argument: If you’re a punk who comes to start trouble in a mask and hurt people, you’re not about any virtuous cause," he continued. "You’re just somebody that’s going to be held to the standard of doing something wrong."
Here he says if your just here to start trouble you're in the wrong.  I agree.

Quote
"But when someone comes to call out bigots and it gets hot, even physical, are they equally wrong as the bigot they’re fighting? I argue no."
But here, he says that as long as you are here to call out the bigots then sure, if they make you mad mess them up, they deserve it.

Quote
Fighting matters, too, there’s no question about that. But drawing a moral equivalency between those espousing hate and those fighting it, because they both resort to violence emboldens hate, legitimizes hateful belief and elevates what should be stamped out.
Now he waffles a bit, maybe its not totally ok to fight but don't worry, our cause is just

Quote
Antifa or whomever ... or malcontent or misguided, they are also wrong to hit, but fighting hate is right, And in a clash between hate and those who oppose it, those who oppose it are on the side of right.”
More talking out of both sides of his mouth.  Its wrong to commit violence.  but not so much if its against these bad people.

"And in a clash between hate and those who oppose it, those who oppose it are on the side of right.”
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on August 28, 2018, 05:22:40 PM
So we're back to scorched earth. If he shows any empathy or understanding of what those people are doing and why, if he acknowledges that their methods can be separated from their cause, then it doesn't matter what his actual words say.

Let's say I heard someone use a slur toward a gay man, then saw somebody punch him in the mouth, I'm going to say that is wrong. But I'm not going to equate it to a guy who tracks someone down for being gay and punches him in the mouth.

If I were on either jury, I'm gonna vote to convict. If I have an input on sentencing, I'd render an unequal penalty.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: D.W. on August 28, 2018, 06:17:27 PM
So we're back to scorched earth. If he shows any empathy or understanding of what those people are doing and why, if he acknowledges that their methods can be separated from their cause, then it doesn't matter what his actual words say.

Let's say I heard someone use a slur toward a gay man, then saw somebody punch him in the mouth, I'm going to say that is wrong. But I'm not going to equate it to a guy who tracks someone down for being gay and punches him in the mouth.

If I were on either jury, I'm gonna vote to convict. If I have an input on sentencing, I'd render an unequal penalty.
This is a big distinction.  You can be morally right, but legally wrong, and wrong in terms of polite society.  Being on the correct side of a moral issue is not a license to mistreat or attack those on the morally incorrect side.  Doing so doesn't magically transmute a moral good into a moral evil though.

Just as being attacked first doesn't necessarily make it morally justifiable to respond with deadly force, though it may be legally justifiable to do so. 

Our president makes/made a lot of business decisions that are not morally "good" but they are (mostly?) legal.  Being "in the right" requires one to differentiate morals with law.  They are not the same.

Quote
The first one to swing loses all moral authority.
I disagree.  Moral authority can be judged entirely separate from the violence.  In fact, violence like this is often sparked by moral outrage...  That doesn't make the violence justified. 

Perfect restraint is not, and has never been, a requirement of the moral high ground.  My morality is not subject to the actions of my neighbor.  Is yours?*

*General question, not directed at TheDrake or Lloyd even though those quote prompted this rambling response.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on August 28, 2018, 07:11:04 PM
Quote
We already had this debate, and as i recall you didn't comprehend the true causes of the financial collapse

As I recall, Alan Greenspan and the entirety of free market economic theorists cannot explain the actual events of the economic collapse of 2008 into their models, as he confessed in Congressional testimony 10/23/2008 ("I have found a flaw [referring to his economic philosophy]... I don't know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact... I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms" https://www.c-span.org/video/?c3342718/waxman-greenspan-testimony (https://www.c-span.org/video/?c3342718/waxman-greenspan-testimony)). I missed the part where you came up with a alternative economic model that addressed Greenspan's error (and I missed your subsequent Nobel Prize as well).

Yes you did.  The actual reality was laid out in about a half dozen links in our discussion.  Your appeal to authority notwithstanding, nothing about that is really on point.  The models were fine, they just couldn't anticipate a non-historic event (i.e., a significant increase in the sub-prime default rate on a national rather than regional scale).

Quote
As for the macho American thing bragging about how many hours you work, I can go toe-to-toe before addressing this issue - I have done 80-hour work-weeks, and I lead a group that often has some people working that long and hard (they get extra compensation for large numbers of extra hours, but I don't at my level).

There was nothing "macho" there, just a correction of your misrepresentation that people don't work that long.  Even the hourly workers I know work more than five days a week.

Quote
But that reinforces the point that when union power was more of a counter-point to corporate power, that drove the vast majority of American workers to a 5-day schedule.

Sort of.  Though you're really citing to a correlation rather than to the causation, there were lots of other correlated factors that also swung in favor of the middle class in the same window.  In any event happy to concede that private unions played an important part in changing us from the era of Robber barons to the era of a working middle class.  Of course, they and their public counterparts, continued to play an important part in changing us from an era of a working middle class to an era of unsustainable debts and no middle class, but I'm guessing your less willing to acknowledge that. 

Quote
Your assertion that "Obama was a disaster economically" is blaming him for the economic collapse.

Really?  Can you provide the quote where I did so.  Seriously, this seems like a completely nonsensical assertion.

Obama is responsible for the horrible response to the collapse, to the underwhelming recovery, and to "using the crisis" to dump a vast array of regulations that had little to do with economic recovery and everything to do with maximizing state control.  He literally was an autocrat that didn't believe in free markets.

Quote
Republicans get this amnesia about what it was like when the economy was losing 25,000 private sector jobs every day until Obama came into office.

Lol.  Yes, the government was directly responsible for the crash that lost those jobs, and the "solutions" they implemented were directly responsible for keeping them from recovering better than they did.

Quote
Your assertion is completely inconsistent with the facts that the US economy (with Obama's stimulus) grew faster than every other developed economy in the world. Sure, Fed policy helped a great deal, but at that point the financial system and the automotive industry were falling over a cliff. Your retelling of history is convenient, but not accurate.

Wow.  Obama beat anemic Europe.  That's what you are citing to?  So has every other President.  Every other President has beat Australia too.  How is doing something every other President has done (and usually by a bigger margin) something that we should praise Obama for?

I mean talk about making a fake argument.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on August 28, 2018, 07:13:20 PM
We should not demonize all unions, or all corporations.

Agreed, we should only demonize public unions.  They literally negotiate against the public's interest.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on August 28, 2018, 07:32:21 PM
As I've said before, this demonstrates that the Right has no morals.  They look to the Left to define them for them.

That's really not what the quote showed.  It showed that in our scorched earth politics Republicans will follow the Democrats to each new low.  Not sure, how you turned that around to be a critique of the Republicans.

Quote
Before the Right believes something, they first need a Democrat to show them the way.  They wait for a Democrat to do something, then wholeheartedly embrace it, make it their own, and expand it, doing it 100x as much.  And if asked to justify their behavior, they point to the Democrat.

Whereas the Democrats, start doing bad acts, lie about them, cover them up, and then accuse the Republicans of doing them (when they know they aren't), until they finally get a Republican that does the act and then they all claim that "both sides" are doing it and we can't hold them to blame for it.

Aren't partisan characterizations fun.

Quote
You know something, Crunch?  Just because someone else does something wrong doesn't mean it's now right.  :P

True.  But claiming Republicans are hypocrites for doing what the Democrats are already willing to do is almost the definition of hypocrite.

Quote
But that's what the Right believes.  Bill Clinton was a horn-dog.  That means the Right can elect a President who is a p**sy-grabber, serial-adulterer, serial-husband who believes the vows of marriage are for idiots.  After all, even if he is worse than Bill Clinton, he's still our man.

I find the p-grabber story fascinating.  Trump said celebrities can get away with it, given what we know from the #metoo movement that was literally true, and yet, in the delusion mind view you've moved past a statement that celebrities can do it, to it being a personal admission and a fact.  Do you have anyone credible that's come forward on that "fact"? 

In any event a serial adulterer is not worse than a rapist.  Is that some kind of bizarre "he's our man" equivalence that you're running?  Or was calling Bill Clinton a "horn-dog" rather than a rapist and serial sexual assaulter and sexual harasser just your way of "normalizing" him?

Quote
I would suggest any person with any morals to denounce the Republican party ASAP.

I don't see many people taking moral advice from the other side. 

Quote
Because the next time any Republican talks about being the party of morality and intelligence, I will point to the 2016 election and ask, "If you truly believe that, when why did you elect a man who routinely sh*ts on everything you hold dear?" :)

Well, cause there was no moral choice in 2016.  And the other choice would have been even worse for everything this guy holds dear.  Not to mention, most of what you're complaining about would - at best - be relevant for an extreme religious conservative not for a Republican in general (and even in that case, they'd still be inclined to choose the lesser of 2 evils in a 2 party system).

I mean honestly, you got to read Clinton campaign emails that revealed they were total scum and that they held even their own voters in contempt.  Didn't you still vote for them after that?

Quote
Congratulations.  I guess you guys never really were against adultery and such.  You were just jealous that it wasn't your guy doing it.  And now you've gotten your wish.  :P

Should I congratulate you on never being against autocracy and governmental fraud?  Or in favor of misuse of the Justice department?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on August 28, 2018, 07:56:30 PM
Alternatively, assertions that both sides are similarly engaging in inappropriate behavior ("Perception is now king, for both sides") might be a false premise asserted by the right because it justifies actions that are otherwise undefendable.

Unfortunately the claim of "both sides" is almost always made by the left, though I agree with your conclusion that those on the left make it to justify the undefendable.

Quote
As a group, we don't have concensus regarding the following three hypothesis:
  • the left has committed significantly more bad actions
  • both sides are the same
  • the right has committed significantly more bad actions

I am looking for common ground in the form of tests of logic and fact that we could agree were valid.

There are no such measures.  We don't have a pool of all actions, good or bad, to test against.  The left has significant control of media resources and media reports, the left has significant control of academic resources and academic research, and now the left has significant control of (and is starting to exercise that control over) social media.  While there is still enough material out there to feed any confirmation bias that one may have, there's no way to get a neutral set of facts to run tests on.

Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on August 28, 2018, 08:03:42 PM
Listen, I'm all for the "We should fight back against fascists" message, but we are talking about a group with an agenda who, people seem to characterize as ready and willing to commit violence against their political enemies.  Or at least antagonize them and instigate conflict every bit as much as the "alt-right".  They are held up as a counter point to the bad actors on the far right.

I actually think that's a misrepresentation.  Can you point me to the violent "alt-right" demonstration or attack on a leftist rally that predates Antifa?  I suspect not without going back pretty far in history.  The idea that Anti-fa is reacting to a real problem is pretty much just a lie.  The claim that the alt-right (which is a made up concept to lump in people with extreme but reasonable views, with repugnant people) was promoting violence or even a threat to cause violence is an unsupportable claim.

Heck, even the actual racists have been marching for years without committing violence.

Quote
So you've seen "AntiFa", and they are being "trained" in universities?  Do you need to be on campus as a student or teacher to see them?  I live and work in big college towns and I've not noticed them.  They aren't talked about in my circles.  But universities are just in my town and I though I work mere feet from campus I don't work "on campus".

Antifa doesn't have offices, or student center meetings. They organize online and anonymously.  They wear masks so you can't identify them.  They're literal domestic terrorists. 

Quote
They are more than just a bogyman to the right leaning news consumer who need a counter point to the ugliness in their own party?  An example that, "it's not just us!"?

Well, no.  "It's not just us" is not what anyone on the right should say.  They should say, "It's not us at all, it's only the left."  Or do you have some actual facts that say otherwise?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on August 28, 2018, 08:28:46 PM
Quote
So it is hardly "one guy on the left" spouting off with these things. It's a whole slew of them

There were 63 millions American citizens who voted for the Democratic nominee for President. How many people do you consider a "slew"? Have you seen 1,000 people make such comments, otherwise known as 0.0016% of the people who voted for Clinton? And that does not count for the proven activity of the Russian military in creating false internet personalities to promote divisive positions.

You just keep echoing your unsubstantiated assertion of false equivalence. In contrast, I can point to a very large data sample that refutes your point: during the 2016 election campaign after Trump had wrapped up the nomination, polling indicated that 59% of Trump supporters believed that President Obama was a Muslim https://www.rollcall.com/politics/poll-two-thirds-trump-supporters-think-obama-muslim (https://www.rollcall.com/politics/poll-two-thirds-trump-supporters-think-obama-muslim) - if that's even roughly 59% of the 60 million that eventually voted for him, that's 35 million people.

More than half of Democrats think Bush lied about Iraq, notwithstanding that he followed the recommendation of everyone of his intelligence agencies, notwithstanding that his Director of the CiA was a Clinton appointees. 

Everytime I've looked into your surveys on the "Obama is a Muslim" question they've proven out to have been misleading constructed, and not to actually say what you claim the say.  By the way, take a look at the actual survey cited in that link.  It's pretty laughable.

Quote
Not equivalent.

Or you know, completely equivalent if you look at the right fake beliefs.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: DonaldD on August 28, 2018, 09:00:17 PM
Quote
But here, he says that as long as you are here to call out the bigots then sure, if they make you mad mess them up, they deserve it.
No.  You need to read what he wrote, not what you imagine.  He said very explicitly that they are simply less wrong than their combatants who are fighting in support of racism.  Less wrong <> right. It's hard, but you really need to check your bias.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: D.W. on August 28, 2018, 10:02:13 PM
Quote
I actually think that's a misrepresentation.  Can you point me to the violent "alt-right" demonstration or attack on a leftist rally that predates Antifa? 
Huh?  I don't know if I could.  As you say, probably, with sufficient homework, but that wasn't the case I was trying to make.  I was describing, parroting really how I've heard Antifa described.  I wasn't trying to say this was like a violent alt-right demonstration or an attack by a right leaning group.  I suppose I can see where you got there from my quote, but “ready and willing to commit violence” is not the same thing.  I believe that is an accurate portrayal of many fringe groups hoping that others will strike the first blow.  Instigation is different than an attack.  So is my misrepresentation that Antifa are willing to strike the first blow instead of provoking others to do so?  That would be a lot closer to the point I thought I was conveying...

Quote
he idea that Anti-fa is reacting to a real problem is pretty much just a lie.
  Opinion not fact.  We COULD debate it, but seems less than productive.
Quote
The claim that the alt-right (which is a made up concept to lump in people with extreme but reasonable views, with repugnant people) was promoting violence or even a threat to cause violence is an unsupportable claim.
First point, I thought it was a rebranding of white supremacists by white supremacists in order to make themselves somewhat more accessible and gain supporters?  And again, while even those rogue elements may have rogue elements dumb enough to strike first, in the name of the Alt-Right, I believe they are instigators willing to provoke violence.  The more inteligent of them wouldn't even be that willing to fight back prefering to play the victim, but many (my guess) would probably fall into the “spoiling for a fight” category.  As this is perception, a group without membership cards and an official charter, and motive speculation by myself and a lot of other people based upon observed behavior, I don't know if I can meet your criteria of a “supportable claim.”

Quote
Antifa doesn't have offices, or student center meetings. They organize online and anonymously.  They wear masks so you can't identify them.  They're literal domestic terrorists.   
So that's a no?  I would have accepted observed “in the wild” fully adorned with identity masking plumage.  I get the point you are making, but this very thing makes them a boogyman and leads people to give them far more weight than they are due.  A counter protest group who takes the bait when nazi's protest is a civil matter for the police to deal with, not a troubling sign that the left has turned violent and lashing out at anyone who voted for the wrong team.

Quote
Well, no.  "It's not just us" is not what anyone on the right should say.  They should say, "It's not us at all, it's only the left."  Or do you have some actual facts that say otherwise?
Too true.  This was meant to be an internal dialogue / rationalization, not a hypothetical or actual quote someone on the right would say.  :(
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 29, 2018, 12:18:47 AM
Hey, welcome back Seriati. Forgive me if I don't go through that long list of belated responses right now, but let's start with just one and see if you can muster a counter-argument with any validity:

Quote
.  The actual reality was laid out in about a half dozen links in our discussion.  Your appeal to authority notwithstanding, nothing about that is really on point.  The models were fine, they just couldn't anticipate a non-historic event (i.e., a significant increase in the sub-prime default rate on a national rather than regional scale).

If the models were "fine", how did they result in a catastrophic failure. How would you define the word "fine" as an expression of the quality of the model, if you hold that it extends to situations where the model says that a certain adverse outcome could not occur and literally trillions of dollars are invested under that false premise?  How bad would the model have to be for it not to be "fine"?

And what exactly do you mean by a "non-historic event"? Since the event occurred, it's pretty historic. Are you saying that the model should be forgiven its flaws because the exact same failure conditions had not occurred previously?  Not only would that premise be arguable (irrational speculation in the value of assets followed by a collapse has occurred many times in history), but even if it were true that this was unprecedented, the conservative economic model never came with a warning that it provided no protection against new dangers. Instead, it was posited to apply to all economic situations, and deregulation was broadly pushed because of a universal belief in the benefit and safety of the free market.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on August 29, 2018, 11:47:29 AM
Hey, welcome back Seriati. Forgive me if I don't go through that long list of belated responses right now, but let's start with just one and see if you can muster a counter-argument with any validity:

Quote
.  The actual reality was laid out in about a half dozen links in our discussion.  Your appeal to authority notwithstanding, nothing about that is really on point.  The models were fine, they just couldn't anticipate a non-historic event (i.e., a significant increase in the sub-prime default rate on a national rather than regional scale).

First of all, Greg, all these questions were answered on the prior thread.  If you've forgotten the answers I would suggest you re-read it.

Quote
If the models were "fine", how did they result in a catastrophic failure.

They didn't, they failed to express what would happen in a non-historic event.  Much like I've never seen a "standard" climate model that throws in a random catastrophic meteor strike (and there we know they happen so it's not even non-historic), the financial models did not include a consideration of a national scale increase in default rate.  If you look at the historical record, stability is the only word to describe it, prior to the crisis.

Quote
How would you define the word "fine" as an expression of the quality of the model, if you hold that it extends to situations where the model says that a certain adverse outcome could not occur and literally trillions of dollars are invested under that false premise?

The model is still fine.  It still predicts exactly what it claims to predict.  The premises aren't false now, nor were they false then, they were incomplete.  It's literally a caveat to every computer model (which is part of why I routinely criticize over-reliance on modeled results), that they can only include historic events.

Quote
How bad would the model have to be for it not to be "fine"?

You understand the models still work right?

Quote
And what exactly do you mean by a "non-historic event"? Since the event occurred, it's pretty historic.

I'm not sure I find this a serious question.  Do you literally not understand that a non-historic event would be an event that has no historical reference in any data at the time a model is created?  I gave you links to the historic mortgage default rates, did you look at them?

Quote
Are you saying that the model should be forgiven its flaws because the exact same failure conditions had not occurred previously?

I'm saying the model can't predict a result that there is no historic data to support.  Should we throw out Newtonian Physics on Earth because they can't predict stellar mechanics?  Or can we acknowledge that incomplete processes still can add useful information.

But more significantly, a model is a tool not an agent with moral culpability.  There is no forgiveness to be provided or needed.

Quote
Not only would that premise be arguable (irrational speculation in the value of assets followed by a collapse has occurred many times in history), but even if it were true that this was unprecedented, the conservative economic model never came with a warning that it provided no protection against new dangers.

Once again, you're flat wrong that this was irrational speculation.  It was completely, 100% rational, it was just wrong under these circumstances.  It could not account for the large number of non-economic factors that had put pressure on the history of the underlying data (which is exactly why the real fault here is the government's as they were the ones that created and forced those pressures).

And, why do you think it "came with no warning"?  I've seen the models on the collateralized mortgage products they came with pages of warnings, but then and now, and on EVERY SINGLE ONE was a disclaimer that historical results should not be relied on as a prediction of future returns.  The warning was LITERALLY stamped onto the paper work, the projections and the underlying models.

People chose to make rational judgements about how much credence to give the warnings because they UNDERSTOOD the underlying data, and not, as you imply, because they didn't understand it.

Quote
Instead, it was posited to apply to all economic situations, and deregulation was broadly pushed because of a universal belief in the benefit and safety of the free market.

Which is a nonsequitor.  Where you slip side ways into your world view as if that was somehow getting support from your not understanding the prior issue.  If the free market had been left alone, we'd never have had this crisis, the regional mortgage lender would still be the primary holder of mortgages, and we'd have some neighborhoods were no bank is willing to lend and that are under-served.  Changing that "present" to what we have now was a specific decision of our politicians.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on August 29, 2018, 12:07:33 PM
Quote
I actually think that's a misrepresentation.  Can you point me to the violent "alt-right" demonstration or attack on a leftist rally that predates Antifa? 
Huh?  I don't know if I could.  As you say, probably, with sufficient homework, but that wasn't the case I was trying to make.  I was describing, parroting really how I've heard Antifa described.

Antifa's claim is that they are reacting to violence.  They are not, they are provoking violence and even initiating it.  Ideologically, the views of racists are wrong.  Ideologically, protecting their right to express them is right.  Ideologically, initiating violence over opinions is wrong.  Ideologically, protecting yourself from violence is right.

Antifa is in the wrong everywhere it initiates violence.  Period.

Racists are always wrong about their opinions.  They are not wrong to defend themselves from violence.

Quote
I wasn't trying to say this was like a violent alt-right demonstration or an attack by a right leaning group.  I suppose I can see where you got there from my quote, but “ready and willing to commit violence” is not the same thing.  I believe that is an accurate portrayal of many fringe groups hoping that others will strike the first blow.

I don't think that's an accurate portrayal of the original "Alt-Right" collection of repugnants.  I say "original" because even though the label was created by racists to rebrand themselves the media and the left have at times used it to "label" nearly half the country.  The way it's used today is not descriptive but rather designed to tar and feather anyone that doesn't agree with the left.  Take a look at the Wiki on it, the list of things that have described as Alt Right is vague and ever expansive.  And in true Motte and Bailey fashion, the attack is on the "racist" beliefs that represent a tiny fraction of the country.

As to the original racists that coined the term.  Their history is of seeking to be offensive with massive police protection.  I've never noted that they try to get hit, it's been decades since they "fought back" in response to violence.  Pretty much, they respond to violence at their rallies by relying on government protection.  They aren't "itching" for a fight.

Quote
Instigation is different than an attack.  So is my misrepresentation that Antifa are willing to strike the first blow instead of provoking others to do so?  That would be a lot closer to the point I thought I was conveying...

As far as I can tell, Anti-fa is the only group that's really itching for any kind of physical confrontation.  They justify it morally (to themselves) by redefining words as violence, therefore someone saying words with which they disagree is committing violence upon them and they are morally justified in applying physical violence back.

That's why meally mouthed condemnations that put the "blame" back on the victim of violence because their words are "always in the wrong" is actually repugnant.  Anti-fa are terrorsists.  The fact that they claim to terrorize only repugnant people doesn't change or justify that.  Particularly not when their definitions of repugnant are constantly open to expansion.

It reminds me of how Americans, pre-9/11, used to think it was okay to fund the IRA's terrorism.  It's not okay to support initiating of violence against anyone.

Quote
Quote
he idea that Anti-fa is reacting to a real problem is pretty much just a lie.
  Opinion not fact.  We COULD debate it, but seems less than productive.

It is worth it.  Protesting racists is an objective good.  Punching them is not.  Pretending and covering for groups that claim they are morally justified in punching them is objectively bad. 

If the racists are committing violence arrest them.  There is no reasonable basis to support vigilantes enforcing "rules" that are actually violations of our civil rights.

Quote
First point, I thought it was a rebranding of white supremacists by white supremacists in order to make themselves somewhat more accessible and gain supporters?

Yes, originally.  But again I point you to the wiki, that isn't where it's stayed.  If all we're talking about is Klansmen, we don't really need to use the term, there aren't enough of them to matter.  Instead, it gets used so much to try and tar anyone on the right as "the same as a racist" and it's utility other than as propaganda is effectively zero.

Quote
Quote
Antifa doesn't have offices, or student center meetings. They organize online and anonymously.  They wear masks so you can't identify them.  They're literal domestic terrorists.   
So that's a no?  I would have accepted observed “in the wild” fully adorned with identity masking plumage.  I get the point you are making, but this very thing makes them a boogyman and leads people to give them far more weight than they are due.  A counter protest group who takes the bait when nazi's protest is a civil matter for the police to deal with, not a troubling sign that the left has turned violent and lashing out at anyone who voted for the wrong team.

I almost said, if you want to see them, go where they are active.  Join their websites and go to where they protest. 

The most troubling thing about them is the idea that seems to have general acceptance that they have any moral right on their side.  They do not have any moral right when they are using violence to shut down the legal speech rights of others.  Period.  End of story.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 29, 2018, 12:36:46 PM
Quote
The general vibe in the social justice community is that all social justice people are in the same boat and fighting for the same thing. But they are not! Not even close.
It really is though.  Treat everyone as equals.  The End.  It’s only the tactics of how that might be achieved that differentiates the various factions.

Except it isn't, because the most vocal parts of the Social Justice Movement don't wan't everybody to be treated equally. Otherwise they'd be pushing for Justice, not Social Justice.

Their entire premise is that the system is unfair and unequal as it is, so "simple equality" doesn't work. Which is where Social Justice comes into play so they can rig the game in favor of those they decide need special assistance.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Fenring on August 29, 2018, 12:42:45 PM
I'm saying the model can't predict a result that there is no historic data to support.  Should we throw out Newtonian Physics on Earth because they can't predict stellar mechanics?  Or can we acknowledge that incomplete processes still can add useful information.

It sounds like you are saying that the people who created these models don't really understand economics very much at all. Although it would be no mean feat to even accurately model what's already happened, the underlying processes are at the heart of any science, and if the mechanics involved aren't understood then...you don't understand them. Now if a random phenomenon had bamf'ed into existence then we might well go "whoa, that was random". But when creating a system that has known mechanisms and operations, if the effects of this cannot be determined until the system plays itself out then there is no model to speak of that means anything. In physics, while it's true that one can have a decent theory even though it's incomplete, the theory should always allow you to take known elements (like payments, interest, etc) and reconfigure them and calculate the expected result. You should be able to use Newtonian mechanics to take any arbitrarily massive body and determine its momentum and so forth based on starting conditions. In the case of economics, however, it seems that only already completed cycles can be the basis of future expectation. Can you imagine how lame physics would be if all they could do is observe a planet already in orbit and say "well, now we can say how we expect its orbit to go!" If there is no predictive power involving a planetoid, trajectory, and what sort of orbit (if any) it would achieve, then the science is either immature or bad.

The very idea of a "non-historic" event in economics is laughable. The whole point of a theory is to explain how things will change. If nothing changed then you wouldn't need much of a theory. Incidentally, I would have more sympathy for this idea of a 'non-historic' event if it was literally an act perpetrated by one single person, like a Lex Luthor, out of the clear blue sky. "Luthor did a trick in the stock market that no one understood, and the next morning it crashed." But when it comes about as a result of ordinary people making ordinary transactions for years on end, and that's what we're calling "unknowable"? Hah. What that means is that there is no general theory of economics whatsoever.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on August 29, 2018, 12:55:00 PM
'I don't care if Trump paid off a porn star' https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45274175

The cognitive dissonance is amazing.

Its going to be interesting what will matter to Trump followers once his term is over.

Where do you see actual cognitive dissonance there?  Are you just supposing that everyone that commented is some kind of religious hardliner?

This goes back to something I find troubling, you seem to be evaluating Trump supporters against some stereotype in your head rather than reality.  Pretty much all those people said was that the economy and his actual policies are more important than what the media wants you to focus on.  They (and really none of us) have not seen any actual evidence of illegality on behalf of Trump, and at this point they don't really expect too, meanwhile they've watched actual illegality get ignored (the point about the treatment of Manafort's tax issues in comparison to Sharpton's was very direct).

Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on August 29, 2018, 01:08:33 PM
Quote
The right tribe doesn't just disagree with, but despises certain vocal elements within the "left" tribe, which they see as ascendant, to the point where they see those voices as an existential threat to their way of life. As Fenring noted, these groups (eg: Antifa) are numerically small, but disproportionately influential. They are absolutely a major cause of the fear driving Trump's supporters into his arms, as surely as Nazi and white supremacist supporters of Trump drive people away from him, into the arms of whoever is leading the charge against him.

Can you consider the hypothesis that those on the right seek out and publicize (and even fictionalize)  the most extreme or divisive voices on the left with the explicit intention of motivating their supporters?

Easy to hypothesize, the media does it in every election season where they find a Republican running for a minor state office somewhere that says something offensive and report it on a national basis as if it were a plank of the Republican party.  Are you now concluding this is unfair?  Or is it only unfair, where a majority view of the party you support is held against them?

It's also easy to reject "extremist voices," but I've not actually seen you reject specific philosophies as extreme.   Which views exactly do think are extremist or divisive on the left and that we're only hearing because the right is trying to apply them too broadly?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on August 29, 2018, 01:23:43 PM
Quote
I won't even go into my opinion on categorizing everyone at that protest under the moniker "white supremacist" or "fascist", which evidence on the scene didn't bear out in my opinion; but that's a separate matter really from what I'm discussing.

If you are at an event, and you look over and see even a couple of Nazis at your event, I would suggest you reconsider your attendance.

I guarantee that you have supported a cause that a Nazi supported. There's no such thing as guilt by non-consensual association.  For every binary decision there will be millions of undesirable people on each side.

I also guarantee you've supported a cause that wife beater supported, that a child molester supported, that a serial killer supported.  In fact, I'd be willing to bet that every cause you support is also supported by a repugnant person.

Are you going to live up to your charge and renounce your worldly views?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on August 29, 2018, 01:26:06 PM
Just because you like Trump, and he says he likes his steak well done, does not mean that you approve of well done steak. If you defend him for liking steak well done, then now you own it.

No you only own it if you claim that steak well done is likable.  Plenty of people eat things that are repugnant and I'd be happy to defend that they like them, that doesn't mean I own that those things are good to eat.

Quote
You ought to call him out on it and say that you don't like steak well done. You are also no longer invited to my barbecue.

What I usually say, is the steak is done, if you want to ruin yours feel free to put it back on the grill.

EDIT - And I apologize for the dredging up of a bunch of old posts.  Missed 3 weeks and this thread took some interesting turns.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on August 29, 2018, 01:43:43 PM
Quote
It's facile to the extreme to denounce something already ridiculous to the vast majority of people and think you're being real or edgy or something.
The war to distort perception goes both ways.  A lot of people on the left are reeling.

That's true, they believed they had a permanent majority and would never have to give up the reins again.  Then they showed utter contempt for the American voters, and found a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (shouldn't be a surprise, they did the same thing when they ran John Kerry in an election they should have won against George Bush).

Quote
It’s not that anyone believed that we didn’t have serious problems with racism still but we at least believed that the days of open hate speech had gone the way of the dinosaurs or at least relegated to, “*censored* grandpa says when not out in public.”

Who is engaging in open hate speech? 

Pretty much the left has carte blanche to do so, and even grandpa's are crucified on the right.  Or are you conflating policy positions - like the need to stop illegal immigration with "hate speech"?

Quote
Then we saw a lack of willingness to govern while Obama was in office that was hard to chalk up to JUST party politics.

It wasn't hard at all.  I've yet to see a credible argument of a moderate policy that Obama put forward that was opposed.  Meanwhile, what we see today is that anything Trump says is opposed ("America was never that great") and policies like Abolish ICE (notwithstanding a majority of the country wanting a secure boarder). 

Literally, what the right was accused of.  The left even labelled itself the "resistance," not the resistance to policy x or policy y, just the "resistance."

Quote
Then the Republican party’s response to his presidency?  Donald J. Trump.

Not the party response.  The party flat out hated him.  The voter response.  You may even remember when the media supported Trump and the speculation was that Hillary pushed him to run to make her campaign easier.  Lol.

Certainly the media took great glee in backing Trump in his efforts to tear down Republicans "with an actual chance to beat Clinton."

Quote
A man who seems to take sick glee in fomenting racial tension.

Maybe you can point out the "sick glee"?  I've never seen it.  In fact, most of the "fomenting racial tension" is in the heads of the left and not in actual reality or policy.  Meanwhile, he's actually focused on policies to bring economic development, jobs and a real chance of a future to minority communities.  But the meme of "racism" is more important than the reality of better futures.

Quote
So we ask ourselves, “is it really THIS bad still?”  Probably not, but if you read, watch, listen to the news or social media, it sure looks like a HUGE backslide in open racism and bigotry.

I agree, I never thought the left would adopt open bigotry and racism on the scale they have. 

Quote
As it will continue to do so, and frankly, it should until we either out breed the ”problem” and everyone is enough of a melting pot it’s pointless to categorize, or just we get over it and actual equality is achieved.  I’m hoping for option that doesn’t take many generations to achieve…

If we still believed in a melting pot, culturally, we'd be well on the way to eliminating racial disagreement.  Respecting each our and being inclusive to new ideas is far more community building than insulating ourselves and excluding others as guilty of cultural theft.  Emphasizing separate cultures does little more than ensure cultures clash.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: D.W. on August 29, 2018, 01:44:57 PM
Quote
They are not, they are provoking violence and even initiating it.
Such as?  Or do you mean showing up when alt-right groups are protesting.  As that is literally the ONLY things I’ve read about them doing.  If those are the situations you are also referring to, then it’s a chicken or egg issue.  Did the alt-right invite violence, or did Antifa showing up to counter protest invite the violence? 
I’ll be clear on this part.  I personally, don’t give a poop.  If there’s violence, cops should make arrests and sort them out.  I am not supporting violence.  I don’t support Antifa in general as far as how they are characterized by the right.  I, in fact, don’t even believe they exist as characterized by the right.  I believe (and I could be way off base here) that they are a handful of counter protestors spoiling for a fight that are, correctly pissed off about seeing racism and open hate paraded around.  They are a boogeyman of the right media and our president and that’s pretty much the extent of it.  A make believe menace based loosely on a few violent individuals in masks.
Now if instead you mean Antifa goes places and provoke violence or initiate violence against random citizens going about their day whom they have identified as “their enemies”, please cite one of these incidents.  I was not aware this “group”, in so far as it’s not just random counter protestors wearing a mask, behaved this way. 
Quote
Racists are always wrong about their opinions.  They are not wrong to defend themselves from violence.
Agreed.  Or, at least they are legally allowed to.  Taunting someone until they hit you is “your right”, but it’s not “right”. 
Quote
I say "original" because even though the label was created by racists to rebrand themselves the media and the left have at times used it to "label" nearly half the country.  The way it's used today is not descriptive but rather designed to tar and feather anyone that doesn't agree with the left
All I can say to this is I think you are wrong.  To flip this around the media of the right is trying to make their consumers terrified that not only are The Left violent (see recent remarks by our beloved President…) but that we hate ALL Republican voters.  That we think you are ALL racists.  It’s pure horse poop.  However you are ALL letting a lot of your leadership get away with behavior you insist doesn’t represent you.  And we ‘of The Left’ do see this, and take note.
Quote
It is worth it.  Protesting racists is an objective good.  Punching them is not.  Pretending and covering for groups that claim they are morally justified in punching them is objectively bad.
I disagree.  They MAY be morally justified.  They just aren’t legally justified.  It’s an important distinction for me.  I wouldn’t punch a racists because I obey the law.  I may want to when I hear them spouting off.  I see nothing wrong with that desire, and I feel it is correct to feel hostility towards those people.  It may not be constructive though…  So self control is important.
Quote
Yes, originally.  But again I point you to the wiki, that isn't where it's stayed.  If all we're talking about is Klansmen, we don't really need to use the term, there aren't enough of them to matter.  Instead, it gets used so much to try and tar anyone on the right as "the same as a racist" and it's utility other than as propaganda is effectively zero.
You do realize that the Alt-Right is a significant threat because it IS more than just Klansmen or Nazis.  And while you worry about The Left painting others with the brush, I worry about those on the Right flying the banner voluntarily because of some perceived safety in numbers fortress mentality against the terrible Left aggressors. 
Was Hillary wrong for calling Trump supporters “deplorable”?  Heck ya.  But then we get large groups of those supporters embracing the label.  Some of them even taking particular delight in acting in ways the left would find deplorable…
The Alt-Right is no longer saying, “Hey, do you support white supremacy and hate brown people?  Why not join us?”  They instead say, “Stick it to The Left!  They hate you anyway and we should stick together and show them who’s boss!”  So blame us if you want for the Alt-Right ‘brand creep’.  I’d be happy if the label faded away. 
Quote
Join their websites and go to where they protest.
  Do they protest in isolation, or am I correct they are exclusively a ‘response force’ to alt-right, KKK, nazi protests/marches?  I’m not looking for a street address or anything.  They are getting some high profile attention as of late.  You’ve called them terrorists.  So I’m just asking for a little info to back up the rhetoric.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: D.W. on August 29, 2018, 01:50:16 PM
TheDeamon, I've got no idea how to properly respond to your post about Social Justive vs. Justice...

I've never once in my life heard the term phrased/defined in such a way as to support your statements.

I suppose I can see why you took issue with the word "simple" but the rest of it comes across as nonsense to me. 

Those attempting to "rig" anything tend to be "simple" stabs at extracting Justice from the existing system.  Patches not repairs, I guess. 

If you are suggesting 'The Left' is not ideologically pure, and free of opportunists; then I agree.  Beyond that, no clue what you are getting at.  Justice in society IS 'social justice'.  Social Justice is not some code word for, "my turn to be king of the hill."
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: D.W. on August 29, 2018, 02:14:01 PM
Quote
That's true, they believed they had a permanent majority and would never have to give up the reins again.
Then those people were idiots.  It takes some serious twisting of “a lot of people” to make this quote meaningful.  I won’t return fire and say “nobody believes this” but… well you get the point.  Anyway, what I MEANT was, they believed that open blatant racism in public had been pushed back such that it was no longer a concern.  While most still understand there is a lot of work to reach equality, we thought that level of social decency was permanent.  WHOOPS!

The abolish ICE thing did strike me as a ridiculous proposition, until it was pointed out they weren’t always around. (Somehow I had entirely forgotten about "pre-ICE" even though it is a recent change.)  And our borders didn’t magically become more secure IMO when they were created.  I’m not convinced getting rid of them and re-re-branding back to INS and changing oversight would solve anything, but the proposal isn’t as pant-pooping-insane as it sounds on its face.   
Quote
Literally, what the right was accused of.  The left even labelled itself the "resistance," not the resistance to policy x or policy y, just the "resistance."
A lot of truth to this.  *I* see differences in the agenda of each white house and proposed legislation, but I get why others would not. 
Quote
Maybe you can point out the "sick glee"?  I've never seen it.
Too subjective.  If you’ve never seen it, I doubt the two of us sitting watching clips of him over beers with me going, “right there!  Can’t you just TELL what he was feeling when he said that?”, would precipitate a eureka moment on your part.  ;)
Quote
But the meme of "racism" is more important than the reality of better futures.
I hope you are correct that he makes changes that will have a long term positive impact for everyone and particularly those at the lower end of the economic scales.  I think you’ve got blinders on if you don’t see him pandering to racial fears, but that doesn’t mean the man (and his policies) can’t result in some positive things.  I disagree with his economic theories, but I could be wrong. 
Quote
I never thought the left would adopt open bigotry and racism on the scale they have. 
I get that this is intended as a ripost… but that’s pretty much the extent of me grasping what you are referring to here.
Quote
If we still believed in a melting pot, culturally, we'd be well on the way to eliminating racial disagreement.  Respecting each our and being inclusive to new ideas is far more community building than insulating ourselves and excluding others as guilty of cultural theft.  Emphasizing separate cultures does little more than ensure cultures clash.
Agreed.  Other than perhaps gun control, this is where I diverge most from ‘The Left’ as a brand.  Attempting to preserve and partition cultures and enclaves and minority/majority voluntary segregation and calling it a positive thing is the most backwards thing we do.  I don’t “respect your culture”, because it’s MY culture as well.  Melting pot away.  Keep what you like, discard what you don’t.  We don’t need economically linked social isolation.  Be that by skin color, religion or voting habits…  That’s not the way things are trending though.  The Great Melting Pot experiment seems to have failed.  Or is in danger of failing right now.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on August 29, 2018, 03:25:01 PM
Quote
They are not, they are provoking violence and even initiating it.
Such as?  Or do you mean showing up when alt-right groups are protesting.  As that is literally the ONLY things I’ve read about them doing.  If those are the situations you are also referring to, then it’s a chicken or egg issue.  Did the alt-right invite violence, or did Antifa showing up to counter protest invite the violence?

It's not a chicken or the egg situation.  Antifa specifically shows up to punch racists.  They post about it, they organize it and when they show up they start fights.  Racists have been organizing their small demonstrations for years, we know what they do at them.

Antifa subscribes to the philosophy that racist words ARE violence and therefore Antifa is justified in responding to that violence with physical violence.

Quote
I’ll be clear on this part.  I personally, don’t give a poop.  If there’s violence, cops should make arrests and sort them out.

I agree.

Quote
Now if instead you mean Antifa goes places and provoke violence or initiate violence against random citizens going about their day whom they have identified as “their enemies”, please cite one of these incidents.  I was not aware this “group”, in so far as it’s not just random counter protestors wearing a mask, behaved this way.

Honestly, I don't see any reason that I should have to find a "random" person they have harassed.  Everyone they have harassed has a right to free speech.  Much like the ACLU used to defend Nazi's that's where we should be coming out today on any violent suppression of speech.

But we've seen multiple incidences of violence and threats of violence used to shut down speakers on the right.  A few I can think of, Ben Shapiro (which is really stretching into a fairly mainstream speaker), Anne Coulter, Mylo Yiannapolis, the Bell Curve guy (name escapes) me, were all well publicized.

Quote
Quote
Racists are always wrong about their opinions.  They are not wrong to defend themselves from violence.
Agreed.  Or, at least they are legally allowed to.  Taunting someone until they hit you is “your right”, but it’s not “right”.
 

You don't actually have to listen to them.  How are they taunting you, other than by you choosing to interact with them?

It's interesting that "stand your ground" is an offense to the world view of the left, but the idea that racists are taunting someone who deliberately followed them to a place and could easily walk away into violence makes sense somehow. 

Quote
Quote
I say "original" because even though the label was created by racists to rebrand themselves the media and the left have at times used it to "label" nearly half the country.  The way it's used today is not descriptive but rather designed to tar and feather anyone that doesn't agree with the left
All I can say to this is I think you are wrong.  To flip this around the media of the right is trying to make their consumers terrified that not only are The Left violent (see recent remarks by our beloved President…) but that we hate ALL Republican voters.  That we think you are ALL racists.  It’s pure horse poop.  However you are ALL letting a lot of your leadership get away with behavior you insist doesn’t represent you.  And we ‘of The Left’ do see this, and take note.

Is it horse poop?  Did you look at the Wiki?  It actually identifies as groups that have been labelled alt right, christian fundamentalists (massive group very few of which are remotely racist) and Trump campaign supporters (what over 60 million voters?).

Heck, above Greg asserts that 'tens of millions of Americans' support slavery because they make arguments about the confederacy in the civil war.  That's an incredibly broad and false brush.  One can easily view that slavery was completely wrong, but that hasn't nothing to do with another issue that was connected to the civil war.  It's this bizarre tribal world we live in where a tribe has to be right about 100% of everything or about 0% and we can't have a somethings that make sense on each side.

Quote
Quote
It is worth it.  Protesting racists is an objective good.  Punching them is not.  Pretending and covering for groups that claim they are morally justified in punching them is objectively bad.
I disagree.  They MAY be morally justified.  They just aren’t legally justified.  It’s an important distinction for me.  I wouldn’t punch a racists because I obey the law.  I may want to when I hear them spouting off.  I see nothing wrong with that desire, and I feel it is correct to feel hostility towards those people.  It may not be constructive though…  So self control is important.

Why are you complaining about a characterization if you believe what you just said? 

No one is morally entitled to meet words with violence.  Period.  This is not just a legal matter.

Quote
Quote
Yes, originally.  But again I point you to the wiki, that isn't where it's stayed.  If all we're talking about is Klansmen, we don't really need to use the term, there aren't enough of them to matter.  Instead, it gets used so much to try and tar anyone on the right as "the same as a racist" and it's utility other than as propaganda is effectively zero.
You do realize that the Alt-Right is a significant threat because it IS more than just Klansmen or Nazis.

Did I misunderstand you when you seemed to be claiming that I was wrong that "alt-right" is being defined too broadly?  And now you're asserting it is a broad term?

The Alt Right is not a threat.  Racism is not picking up speed, it's a failed philosophy that's only being held up as a strawman to justify extremism.

Quote
And while you worry about The Left painting others with the brush, I worry about those on the Right flying the banner voluntarily because of some perceived safety in numbers fortress mentality against the terrible Left aggressors.
 

What are you worried about?  Show me the racist brown shirts attacking the left.

Are you just worried that your ideas can't beat the ideas of racists? 

Quote
Was Hillary wrong for calling Trump supporters “deplorable”?  Heck ya.  But then we get large groups of those supporters embracing the label.  Some of them even taking particular delight in acting in ways the left would find deplorable…

Honestly, couldn't care less what she called them.  Where its wrong is the easy acceptance of the lie that millions of people that have legitimate policy disagreements with her can be dismissed as nothing but racists.

Quote
The Alt-Right is no longer saying, “Hey, do you support white supremacy and hate brown people?  Why not join us?”  They instead say, “Stick it to The Left!  They hate you anyway and we should stick together and show them who’s boss!”  So blame us if you want for the Alt-Right ‘brand creep’.  I’d be happy if the label faded away.
 

No you wouldn't.  Without the label you'd have to have a real argument with someone about whether having an open border and allowing people from repressive countries with massive violence into the country without any constraints or controls is really in the best interests of the country, instead of just labeling them as racists and dismissing them.

Quote
Quote
Join their websites and go to where they protest.
  Do they protest in isolation, or am I correct they are exclusively a ‘response force’ to alt-right, KKK, nazi protests/marches?

No, your just guilty of white washing them.  They are "response" force to anyone they perceive as the slightest bit off of their "pure" ideology.  Did you read the story of the leftist protest who got beat down by Anti-fa because he brought a US flag to try and "reclaim" it for the cause?

Quote
I’m not looking for a street address or anything.  They are getting some high profile attention as of late.  You’ve called them terrorists.  So I’m just asking for a little info to back up the rhetoric.

Organized in secret, with a plan to do violence to intimidate political opponents, showing up with weapons and disguises and actually committing violence.  What part of that is not terrorist behavior?

If Nazi's did the same thing and beat up their opponents would you not think they were engaging in terrorism?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: D.W. on August 29, 2018, 03:30:18 PM
Quote
Honestly, I don't see any reason that I should have to find a "random" person they have harassed. 
Agreed.  I tend not to respond to such requests… but:
A:  Antifa ONLY gather in response to a protest /  march by groups they “want to punch” (in your words)
B:  Antifa organize and gather independent of any catalyst protest / march and do… whatever. 
Are they out “punching people” proactively?  Or ONLY where racists have gathered to voice their racisim in an organized gathering/protest/march?

That’s the question I’m trying to get answered.   It is my assertion that they exist EXCLUSIVELY as a counter. 
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on August 29, 2018, 03:41:35 PM
D.W., I think you're missing the point.  They define "racist" very broadly.  The idea that they are "reacting" to anything is false.  By the way calling them "Anti-fa" is false, they are literally facists.

I'm not going to represent the validity of this link, but here's a source https://www.dailywire.com/news/20343/timeline-antifa-violence-january-%E2%80%93-august-2017-frank-camp (https://www.dailywire.com/news/20343/timeline-antifa-violence-january-%E2%80%93-august-2017-frank-camp) that demonstrates a fairly broad violence trigger.  There are a lot more links on google that you can easily find.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: D.W. on August 29, 2018, 04:03:46 PM
Quote
You don't actually have to listen to them.  How are they taunting you, other than by you choosing to interact with them?
Correct.  And?  I was drawing a parallel.  Illustrating a point.  Thought that was obvious.  This behavior, on both sides, reminds me of (is equivalent to) drunk teens getting in each other’s face daring each other to take the first swing while they talk trash.  Shocker, violence sometimes occurs. 
Quote
No one is morally entitled to meet words with violence.  Period.  This is not just a legal matter.
My morality says differently.  Period.  I believe klansman deserve, an ass kicking.  I believe my grandma deserves a smack across the face when she says something racist.  I don’t go out and kick ass, or slap my grandma, but I BELIEVE they deserve it.  I’m just arguing semantics.  WHY?  Because, if I concede your classification of Antifa is accurate, then I believe they are morally justified in violence.  They have CHOSEN to disregard the law in order to act on that moral justification.  THAT, I have a problem with.  They are acting on a moral justification and creating anarchy.  I prefer a world of just laws over one of moral justifications.  Moralities differ.  Laws (ideally) are open for all to see so one knows how to act to stay in good standing in society.
Quote
Did I misunderstand you when you seemed to be claiming that I was wrong that "alt-right" is being defined too broadly?  And now you're asserting it is a broad term?
We disagree in WHO is broadening the term, and for what purpose.
Quote
Are you just worried that your ideas can't beat the ideas of racists?
I’m worried that rational thought doesn’t factor into it at all.  And I do worry our pathetically slow crawl away from our country’s history regarding racism is in danger of slowing further or even back sliding instead of making long strides forward.
Quote
No you wouldn't.  Without the label you'd have to have a real argument with someone about whether having an open border and allowing people from repressive countries with massive violence into the country without any constraints or controls is really in the best interests of the country, instead of just labeling them as racists and dismissing them.
I’ll chalk this up as a generalization.  It misses the mark pretty widely as it pertains to my thoughts on immigration.  I have problems with fear mongering, racial or otherwise, but I’m pretty far from the characterization of the open border loving liberal.
Quote
No, your just guilty of white washing them.  They are "response" force to anyone they perceive as the slightest bit off of their "pure" ideology.  Did you read the story of the leftist protest who got beat down by Anti-fa because he brought a US flag to try and "reclaim" it for the cause?
You must be reading a lot into my words to consider that an attempt to white wash.  It was an honest question.  No I hadn’t heard that.  Was this an event where Antifa showed up at a leftist protest and attacked them/him for ideological impurity?  (No KKK, Nazi or Fascists present?)  That would be an example of what I was asking for.
Quote
Organized in secret, with a plan to do violence to intimidate political opponents, showing up with weapons and disguises and actually committing violence.  What part of that is not terrorist behavior?

If Nazi's did the same thing and beat up their opponents would you not think they were engaging in terrorism?
Indeed.  As that is a serious claim, then there should be evidence and citations available.  The FBI should be out in force after them.  Understand, I’m NOT suggesting that those things aren’t terrorism.  My exposure to Antifa is ridiculously small.  I find it hard to just accept they are such a big deal.  That’s why I’m nitpicking things like “moral justification” vs “legally justified”.  I don’t KNOW the specifics on how “they” operate.  It’s why I’m asking questions.  I’m not trying to make excuses for Antifa.  I’m trying to figure out what is actually to this whole craze about them.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: D.W. on August 29, 2018, 04:10:01 PM
Thanks for the link Seriati.  That's easily the most condensed info I've seen on the issue. 
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: DonaldD on August 29, 2018, 04:15:36 PM
Words matter.  Antifa members might be evil; they might use violence with the goal of enforcing their desires; they might proactively attack innocents.  But those attributes do not fascists make.

Antifa, at least many if not most of them, are more appropriately labelled anarchists. Fascism at its most simple, is a philosophy prioritizing the nation (usually in the context of race); the two concepts are antuthetical, and the term "antifa" is not a coincidence - there is simply no amount of semantic gymnastics that is going to square that circle. 
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on August 29, 2018, 04:45:16 PM
Quote
A:  Antifa ONLY gather in response to a protest /  march by groups they “want to punch” (in your words)
B:  Antifa organize and gather independent of any catalyst protest / march and do… whatever. 
Are they out “punching people” proactively?  Or ONLY where racists have gathered to voice their racisim in an organized gathering/protest/march?

Many of the members of Antifa do indeed form their own marches and protests. They are drawn from the same pools that have rioted over various things in various places, from WTO protests to BLM. As anarchists, they generally reject the right of the police to tell them where they can go. As a result, they often initiate physical contact with police, trying to push past barricades. They have been known to join with union groups, from IWW to AFL-CIO, and will generally use similar tactics like preventing someone from getting to work or from leaving a parking lot. Those that attempt to push through are met with violence.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: D.W. on August 29, 2018, 04:58:54 PM
Thanks TheDrake.  I think a lot of the disconnect is my questions about who they are and what they do (or have done) are being taken as defense of those actions I've not mentioned.

Person 1:  How can you defend them?
Me:  I got no clue WTF they're up to, where they're doing it, and to whom.

As I thought they ONLY punched Nazis and Klansman, it was hard to give a *censored*.  Not sure I do or not still, but the last page here has helped me understand what has those right wing commentators all hot and bothered.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 29, 2018, 05:09:10 PM
Quote
Then the Republican party’s response to his presidency?  Donald J. Trump.

Not the party response.  The party flat out hated him.  The voter response.  You may even remember when the media supported Trump and the speculation was that Hillary pushed him to run to make her campaign easier.  Lol.

Which runs us back to:

Quote
The right tribe doesn't just disagree with, but despises certain vocal elements within the "left" tribe, which they see as ascendant, to the point where they see those voices as an existential threat to their way of life. As Fenring noted, these groups (eg: Antifa) are numerically small, but disproportionately influential. They are absolutely a major cause of the fear driving Trump's supporters into his arms, as surely as Nazi and white supremacist supporters of Trump drive people away from him, into the arms of whoever is leading the charge against him.
Can you consider the hypothesis that those on the right seek out and publicize (and even fictionalize)  the most extreme or divisive voices on the left with the explicit intention of motivating their supporters?

Easy to hypothesize, the media does it in every election season where they find a Republican running for a minor state office somewhere that says something offensive and report it on a national basis as if it were a plank of the Republican party.  Are you now concluding this is unfair?  Or is it only unfair, where a majority view of the party you support is held against them?

It's also easy to reject "extremist voices," but I've not actually seen you reject specific philosophies as extreme.   Which views exactly do think are extremist or divisive on the left and that we're only hearing because the right is trying to apply them too broadly?

Which if someone bothered to go back and dig through late 2015/early 2016--and onward posts, you would see many of "the conservatives"/so inclined on this forum lamenting exactly that behavior from the press. By that spring I'd also decided that strategy was a bad approach for them to use with Trump, even if it worked on Romney. That panned out to be correct:

Which goes back to Trump being a great candidate because he is such a terrible candidate. It is a giant middle finger at "the establishment" and its "politically correct" power base.

In other words: They ran a "terrible candidate" to make the less terrible ones easier to beat, but the voter mood was "f--- that!" and decided to throw a really big spanner into the works. What should have made him easy to beat, instead served to make him difficult to defeat for weak candidates. (Which Hillary was, for numerous reasons, however right or wrong those may be)

Both sides wanted to send a message to the establishment.  One seemed to be a positive message (if more left than many wanted) and the other seemed entirely negative wrapped in a token layer of patriotism.

Keep in mind, in 2014 it was widely reported, at least among "the Right Wing Media" that the powers that be in Washington basically declared war on the Tea Party during the primaries and were doing everything in their power to crush it. I'm 99.9% certain that "a lot" (but not necessarily most) of the support for Trump is a very direct consequence of the Republican "Establishment" doing the political equivalent of unzipping and taking a whiz on much of their grass roots support base. They're seriously pissed off, after having been pissed on by their own side, and more than happy to gleefully burn down the GOP political establishment around their ears if they can pull it off because of that.

Which is why Trump being a terrible candidate made him a "good pick" in their mind.

That is what I keep re-iterating. Trump wasn't getting a lot of the (early) support he received because they felt he was a strong candidate that would accomplish much of anything they truly support. He received that support because he's such a train wreck waiting to happen that the hope is there won't be much of a GOP establishment left to effectively fight back against their own "Grass Roots" in the future. Putting the Democrats through hell in the process is just an added bonus.

This also probably describes why his approval/support numbers are so high despite everything else. He's accomplishing what they wanted--mayhem reigns in Washington's political halls of power.

But the founders were very clear that no system can exist free of corruption/tyranny/oligarchy without constant vigilance and refusal to allow entrenched bureaucracy from forming. This means never really having an easy status quo, and requires the population to be willing to risk it all to do battle with the state when it begins to cater to oligarchs. Right now the people are absolutely unwilling to do this; power isn't taken, it's given.

Uh, I'm pretty sure what's being seen with Donald Trump is a shot across the bow for "The Establishment" in Washington. I think a majority of the population is fully aware that we are dealing with an entrenched and rather pernicious Oligarchy. Trump's success, as well as the showing of Bernie Sanders were likely both reflections of that. The Republican voters just seem to be further along in the process of realizing what they're up against, and they're not happy about it, as such the voter revolt went further with him.

October will be a very interesting month, to say the least. Who wins in November will likely make it even more so. 2018 is going to be an "interesting" year to see to see if the respective Party Machines have properly digested and understood what happened this year. They'll probably have another chance in 2020, but if they blow it that time, it's probably not going to be pretty.

"We tried it your way, and discovered the system is hopelessly rigged. We tried it our way to send you a message, you utterly failed at understanding it. Redress, it seems, isn't possible under the current system..."

Quote
"We tried it your way, and discovered the system is hopelessly rigged. We tried it our way to send you a message, you utterly failed at understanding it. Redress, it seems, isn't possible under the current system..."
I think if Clinton wins, the DNC will dodge the bullet in 2020. I think she'll be left-ish enough for the disaffected parts of the electorate that would participate in the Democratic primaries will be relatively quiescent. The GOP (if it still exists) will be even more of a train wreck than this year.

I think Clinton is the "business as usual" candidate, and most of the voter base isn't going to be happy with that while the Republicans are busy with internal mayhem. Meanwhile the angry voter block that normally goes Republican is just going to become more enraged. I'm almost hoping that by some fluke the Republicans/right wing side of things manages to obtain enough voter support that it's the lefties who flip out in a violent manner first, but we'll see.

I do know that I wouldn't take a bet against rioting in the event of a Trump win at this point.

Would you be happy with either of them as President?  What do you imagine would happen in their first term?

Trump would either cease being so flamboyant and move to political center, which I think is his true color, and likely be a 1 term President regardless.

Otherwise, I wouldn't be surprised to see him either resigning or being impeached in his 1st year in office.

Well, at least on this one, "The Left" will not allow him to move to "the center" whatever that may be these days, at least, not yet. We'll see what November brings.  However, he DID make it past his 1st year in office. If he can make it to January 21st, its even possible for him to resign and for Mike Pence to theoretically spend 10 years as PotUS if he managed to turn certain other things around. But honestly, I think I'd almost prefer Trump in office over Pence in the same seat.

And back to where this post started:
And blaming it all on Trump is inconsistent with the fact that the batsh-t crazy things he says today are not appreciably more batsh-t crazy than the things he has been saying for over a year, but only Hillary Clinton's campaign has been able to make him pay for that.

I never came off the fence on Trump being a ringer in this election cycle, with the idea of getting the Republican Nominee to stake a political position the Democrats could make him pay for in the general. As Trump did to Romney in 2012. Only this time, the ringer became the nominee through a twist in the political tides.

Anybody can look like a genius when running against a Straw Man, gender is irrelevant.

I'm still on that fence by the way.

Trump's problem isn't old news, it's new news. It seems like he can barely go a couple of days without mouthing off on camera. If he stopped saying outrageous things, people would stop reporting on them. He's shoveling coal into a fire and then complaining that it keeps getting hotter.
It's only a problem if you are trying to win.  ;)  If your goal is publicity, both the acts and the feigned outrage of how his detractors react to them, are steps along the same path.

Pretty much, what is happening plays right into the whole "Trump ran for President for the publicity, not to become President" scenario.

My thinking about Trump's campaign has shifted again.  Pete (I think it was Pete) was the first here to suggest that Trump wasn't really running to be President, but to satisfy some other goal.

I think I was the first one to fully outline it on Ornery, although I know there are older accusations that Trump was ringer from the start, most people who held to that view shut-up at some point during the later portion of the primaries and the run-up to the RNC. Some probably even managed to convince themselves otherwise for awhile.

Quote
I've read several articles in the last week suggesting that, and they make a certain kind of sense.  Rather running a campaign in which he will lose, he may be trying to lose by design.  It's becoming increasingly harder to believe that anything he says or does has as its purpose to increase the chances of his winning.

And paradoxically, if more people buy into it, it also becomes possible that his odds of winning will increase. The more convinced people become that Trump doesn't want the job, the more likely it becomes that people will vote for him as a protest vote, much like what went on in Brewster's Millions for the fictional NYC Mayor race.

Quote
Why would he do that?  Just to bolster his ravenous need for attention isn't good enough, because after the election all that attention goes away.  He *wants* something out of all this that will survive and grow and I think he's going to get it.  What the country gets is not all that interesting to him.

The attention does go away, but the name recognition remains, which is why many publicists and PR types will occasionally say "There's no such thing as bad publicity." It's all about spin control.

The other thing you're ignoring is that if Trump loses in November, don't be surprised to see filming for another season of "The Apprentice" or some other (new) reality TV program with Trump as the lead, to start filming by January.

Which isn't to mention the possibility he has a documentary crew following him around currently. Romney did that in 2012, Trump may be taking it to "another level."

Well, if there was a documentary crew following him around, we haven't heard about them yet, which at this point would be an utterly amazing feat given everything else that happened regarding his campaign since then.

I'm having a hard time pulling up the earlier/other comments I remember making back then regarding Trump, but then, I guess its entirely possible some/many of those comments were actually being made elsewhere during the time frame in question.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 29, 2018, 05:16:17 PM
As it will continue to do so, and frankly, it should until we either out breed the ”problem” and everyone is enough of a melting pot it’s pointless to categorize, or just we get over it and actual equality is achieved.  I’m hoping for option that doesn’t take many generations to achieve…

If we still believed in a melting pot, culturally, we'd be well on the way to eliminating racial disagreement.  Respecting each our and being inclusive to new ideas is far more community building than insulating ourselves and excluding others as guilty of cultural theft.  Emphasizing separate cultures does little more than ensure cultures clash.

DW, the "Melting Pot" is anathema for most left-wing groups. That implies integration, that means "uniqueness is lost." (It also makes "us vs them" harder to play out)

The last thing they want is for people to become "Americans" or for "Americans" to become more like another group. (Hence why "cultural appropriation" is no longer acceptable)

You are what are, you should forever remain what you are, because that's your "identity" and that's important above everything else. Anybody who suggests you change in order to adapt should be ignored or ridiculed. The melting pot needs to be destroyed with utmost haste, it destroys identity.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 29, 2018, 05:20:54 PM
Quote
Join their websites and go to where they protest.
  Do they protest in isolation, or am I correct they are exclusively a ‘response force’ to alt-right, KKK, nazi protests/marches?  I’m not looking for a street address or anything.  They are getting some high profile attention as of late.  You’ve called them terrorists.  So I’m just asking for a little info to back up the rhetoric.

The rioting/"wide scale vandalism" that happened during Trump's inauguration in Washington D.C. was largely connected to Anti-Fa and associated groups. I guess you could call that a "counter protest" but I think that's a wee bit a stretch. That's one I can recall offhand.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: D.W. on August 29, 2018, 05:26:36 PM
TheDeamon: 

RE: melting pot.
I know, it bums me out in a major way.

RE:  rioting, I don't think Antifa was even on my radar back then.  It's a perfect example of what I was asking for an example of.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 29, 2018, 05:34:46 PM
Words matter.  Antifa members might be evil; they might use violence with the goal of enforcing their desires; they might proactively attack innocents.  But those attributes do not fascists make.

Antifa, at least many if not most of them, are more appropriately labelled anarchists. Fascism at its most simple, is a philosophy prioritizing the nation (usually in the context of race); the two concepts are antuthetical, and the term "antifa" is not a coincidence - there is simply no amount of semantic gymnastics that is going to square that circle.

More accurately, they're anarcho-socialists, they're more closely aligned with Stalinism than Nazism. Not that there is much practical difference between the two. In fact, the historical Anti-Fa from 1930's Germany was essentially an arm of the German Communist party. Not Fascists, but not particularly good people all the same.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 29, 2018, 11:00:03 PM
So many Seriati posts to refute

Quote
First of all, Greg, all these questions were answered on the prior thread.  If you've forgotten the answers I would suggest you re-read it.

Quote
If the models were "fine", how did they result in a catastrophic failure.

They didn't, they failed to express what would happen in a non-historic event.  Much like I've never seen a "standard" climate model that throws in a random catastrophic meteor strike (and there we know they happen so it's not even non-historic), the financial models did not include a consideration of a national scale increase in default rate.  If you look at the historical record, stability is the only word to describe it, prior to the crisis.

That last sentence explains how you can believe in conservative economics - because you have no memory for history. Because before the economic collapse of 2008 there was the dot-com bubble, the Savings and Loan crisis in the 1980's, the Great Depression, and a string of many more speculative collapses running back to Dutch Tulip bulbs in the 17th century. If you don't understand or recognize that history, you can't understand Keynes or appropriately value the benefits provided by the financial regulations implemented to address these repeated "instabilities". 



Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: yossarian22c on August 29, 2018, 11:03:36 PM

Quote
Then we saw a lack of willingness to govern while Obama was in office that was hard to chalk up to JUST party politics.

It wasn't hard at all.  I've yet to see a credible argument of a moderate policy that Obama put forward that was opposed.  Meanwhile, what we see today is that anything Trump says is opposed ("America was never that great") and policies like Abolish ICE (notwithstanding a majority of the country wanting a secure boarder). 

The Dream Act - passed biparitson in the Senate and the house refused to debate or vote on it.
The stimulus - Stimulus is the standard policy response to a downturn in the economy.
ACA - no public health insurance options included, nothing close to the NHS in the UK or Canada.
Merit Garland was a centrist pick for the SC - no vote/hearings on him in the Senate.

Most of Obama's foreign policy was pretty centrist as well.

Feel free to label all of those extreme in some way but at some point they all had bipartisan support (McConnell had recommended Garland for previous SC openings) before Obama endorsed them.

Abolish ICE was a stupid over-reactive policy proposal to Trump's policy of stripping children away from their parents at the boarder and having no good plan to reunite them. But as DW pointed out ICE is a post 9-11 agency and getting rid of it isn't the same thing as calling for open boarders.

Quote
Literally, what the right was accused of.  The left even labelled itself the "resistance," not the resistance to policy x or policy y, just the "resistance."

I'm not sure which part of the left you're talking about, maybe some groups on social media? I think I'm much happier not being a part of social media political commentary - it seems like the YouTube comments of political debate (full of bluster, anger, and immaturity).

But I would like remind everyone human brains really don't interpret social media well. People have very large online networks that keep them connected to 100's or 1000s of people they would have lost touch with in a pre Facebook world. I'm perfectly willing to believe that out of 60+ million people that voted for Clinton that between 1 and 5 million had mini-meltdowns and unfriended people who voted for Trump. Which means that if you have a couple hundred FB friends you were likely to see one or two such temper tantrums play out post election. However it really doesn't represent the larger percentage of liberals in the country. But "outrageous" actions get more attention and are more noticed than more mundane or expected reactions so our brains fool us into thinking those outrageous actions are common and widespread.

Its just like any rare but shocking event, school shootings, child abductions by strangers, plane crashes, etc. We hear about almost all of those events when they happen almost anywhere in the country so most people have a much larger fear of those events than is warranted by the actual risk they pose.

I think both sides need to stop amplifying the most heinous voices on the opposite side in attempts to have guilt by association. David Duke and the KKK are pretty marginal groups, sure they still hold a redneck loser rally ever now and then but by and large we would be better off to largely ignore the ***holes and move on with our lives but come down like a ton of bricks on them when/if they actually break laws to intimidate people. The right should do the same with anti-fa, I had literally never heard of them prior to the right making a big deal about them and their role in the street fights in Charlottesville. I've still never met anyone IRL (or online) that claims to be a member or who has even talked about joining (if they are even organized enough to join).
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: yossarian22c on August 29, 2018, 11:09:39 PM
As it will continue to do so, and frankly, it should until we either out breed the ”problem” and everyone is enough of a melting pot it’s pointless to categorize, or just we get over it and actual equality is achieved.  I’m hoping for option that doesn’t take many generations to achieve…

If we still believed in a melting pot, culturally, we'd be well on the way to eliminating racial disagreement.  Respecting each our and being inclusive to new ideas is far more community building than insulating ourselves and excluding others as guilty of cultural theft.  Emphasizing separate cultures does little more than ensure cultures clash.

DW, the "Melting Pot" is anathema for most left-wing groups. That implies integration, that means "uniqueness is lost." (It also makes "us vs them" harder to play out)

The last thing they want is for people to become "Americans" or for "Americans" to become more like another group. (Hence why "cultural appropriation" is no longer acceptable)

You are what are, you should forever remain what you are, because that's your "identity" and that's important above everything else. Anybody who suggests you change in order to adapt should be ignored or ridiculed. The melting pot needs to be destroyed with utmost haste, it destroys identity.

Yeah, I'm pretty bummed about the cultural appropriation thing as well. I'm all for the more libertarian philosophy of live and let live in whatever way you choose (while making sure to be respectful of other's right to do the same). I don't really care whether or not that way of life matches how your parents did it or some pre-conceived notion of your culture being tied to the color of your skin.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 29, 2018, 11:29:10 PM
And there is just a blizzard of things that you say Seriati and clearly believe but they are not anchored in fact.

Quote
they believed they had a permanent majority and would never have to give up the reins again

I am a member of "they" and I never believed that, neither did most people I know who are on the left. I am sure some did, because there are millions of people on the left.

Quote
Who is engaging in open hate speech? 

Candidate and later President Trump. Repeatedly lying that thousands of American Muslims in New Jersey were cheering on 9/11 is indefensible. Calling immigrants rapists and murderers. Inciting his crowds to consider the press as the enemy of the people. These are the acts of despots across history - inciting hatred is an evil but common tactic of authoritarian regimes.

Quote
I've yet to see a credible argument of a moderate policy that Obama put forward that was opposed.

His very first policy was a stimulus for the economy. Republicans and Democrats had voted for a $150BM stimulus plan under President Bush just 12 months earlier https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/washington/25fiscal.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/washington/25fiscal.html). A year later when President Obama proposed a stimulus plan under much more dire circumstances (losing 800,000 jobs per month), Republicans not only voted against it, but they asserted that stimulus plans don't create jobs. In fact, 115 of those Congressional Republicans made this very assertion in Washington, and later when the stimulus arrived they took credit in their district for the jobs that were created by the stimulus. 

Quote
Heck, above Greg asserts that 'tens of millions of Americans' support slavery because they make arguments about the confederacy in the civil war.  That's an incredibly broad and false brush.  One can easily view that slavery was completely wrong, but that hasn't nothing to do with another issue that was connected to the civil war.  It's this bizarre tribal world we live in where a tribe has to be right about 100% of everything or about 0% and we can't have a somethings that make sense on each side.

No, it is a very nuanced world where determinations of justice require careful consideration. But that doesn't mean some things can't be true. I would agree that many people love the Confederacy not because they love (or even think of) slavery, but because they love the culture of nobility and virtue that they grew up associating with the Confederacy. But I hold them responsible for understanding that at the heart of all of their positive associations there is a horrible evil, and that the historical Confederacy was built to defend and protect slavery.

Quote
Where its wrong is the easy acceptance of the lie that millions of people that have legitimate policy disagreements with her can be dismissed as nothing but racists.

What evidence do you have that policy is a substantially greater motivator of Trump supporters than racism? It's not a lie if it's true, and for your counter to be true you would need to prove that there is not even a few "millions" of people who are for Trump because of racism.

Quote
DW, the "Melting Pot" is anathema for most left-wing groups. That implies integration, that means "uniqueness is lost." (It also makes "us vs them" harder to play out)

The last thing they want is for people to become "Americans" or for "Americans" to become more like another group. (Hence why "cultural appropriation" is no longer acceptable)

No, that's not true of me. And it's not true of most liberals that I know. When you think of national politicians, it is more Republicans who use phrases like "real Americans to exclude others.   

Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on August 30, 2018, 09:48:44 AM
So many Seriati posts to refute

Quote
First of all, Greg, all these questions were answered on the prior thread.  If you've forgotten the answers I would suggest you re-read it.

Quote
If the models were "fine", how did they result in a catastrophic failure.

They didn't, they failed to express what would happen in a non-historic event.  Much like I've never seen a "standard" climate model that throws in a random catastrophic meteor strike (and there we know they happen so it's not even non-historic), the financial models did not include a consideration of a national scale increase in default rate.  If you look at the historical record, stability is the only word to describe it, prior to the crisis.

That last sentence explains how you can believe in conservative economics - because you have no memory for history. Because before the economic collapse of 2008 there was the dot-com bubble, the Savings and Loan crisis in the 1980's, the Great Depression, and a string of many more speculative collapses running back to Dutch Tulip bulbs in the 17th century. If you don't understand or recognize that history, you can't understand Keynes or appropriately value the benefits provided by the financial regulations implemented to address these repeated "instabilities".

So in other words you haven't actually looked at what we are actually talking about - historical default rates on mortgages.

You know the subject of the models you were ranting about, and the things that were the root cause of the crisis.  But heck, you're right, the tulip crisis is Holland is what I should be considering, because, well, instability has occurred somewhere, sometime, and that's way more relevant than the actual data that was subject of what we were discussing.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on August 30, 2018, 10:27:31 AM
The Dream Act - passed biparitson in the Senate and the house refused to debate or vote on it.

Since the Dream Act had and still has bipartisan voter support, one might ask why it's never been passed.  The answer is that there is a bipartisan majority of politicians that refuse to address immigration.  Neither side will let the "other side" fix it, even though there's a clear majority of voters that won't it fixed.  Given this has been the case for decades it's not really an Obama vs. obstructionist Republicans issue.

Quote
The stimulus - Stimulus is the standard policy response to a downturn in the economy.

It has been a "standard" response, but it's also a controversial one, with fair arguments that "too much" actually depresses recovery.  In any event, Obama locked in "emergency spending" levels as standard, and Trump is spending even more.  Obama doubled the deficit, and your compliant is that we didn't spend even more?  Growth was non-existent for him because of the regulatory burden he added, not because he didn't get to go with an even bigger deficit.

Quote
ACA - no public health insurance options included, nothing close to the NHS in the UK or Canada.

ACA was already a far left policy, public option was even further left.  Trying to nationalize one of the largest industries in America, eliminating health options for the entire country and forcing private citizens to buy a private company product is no where near a centrist position.

Quote
Merit Garland was a centrist pick for the SC - no vote/hearings on him in the Senate.

Merrick was the most centrist of Obama's 3 picks.  His first two are extreme left.  Merrick's biggest "crime" is that he's unabashedly for the expansion of the regulatory state, with a record of complete deferral to bureaucrats, oh and that he was replacing Scalia.  Kind of like if Trump were to get to appoint a replacement for Ginsburg right before a Presidential election.

Quote
Most of Obama's foreign policy was pretty centrist as well.

"Most" of Obama's foreign policy wasn't opposed by Congress either.  Where he did get opposed it was decidedly not on centrist positions.

Quote
Feel free to label all of those extreme in some way but at some point they all had bipartisan support (McConnell had recommended Garland for previous SC openings) before Obama endorsed them.

Garland would have breezed through as either of Obama's first 2 picks.  I'll let you in on a secret, if Hillary had won the election, there's very little chance that she would have renominated Garland.  He would have "withdrawn his nomination" (because she forced him out behind the scenes, but wouldn't have wanted the political damage of pushing him out).

Quote
Abolish ICE was a stupid over-reactive policy proposal to Trump's policy of stripping children away from their parents at the boarder and having no good plan to reunite them. But as DW pointed out ICE is a post 9-11 agency and getting rid of it isn't the same thing as calling for open boarders.

Well except it's clear that the left does want open borders.  They literally advocate for them.  They oppose deportation for illegal aliens, unless they are convicted of another crime.  Effectively, if you get here you can stay.

Quote
Quote
Literally, what the right was accused of.  The left even labelled itself the "resistance," not the resistance to policy x or policy y, just the "resistance."

I'm not sure which part of the left you're talking about, maybe some groups on social media?

I honestly don't believe you.  It's impossible to have consumed any television, print or social media and never have heard the left referring to itself as the resistance.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on August 30, 2018, 11:29:59 AM
Quote
they believed they had a permanent majority and would never have to give up the reins again

I am a member of "they" and I never believed that, neither did most people I know who are on the left. I am sure some did, because there are millions of people on the left.

Those are great anecdotes.  Maybe you'd like to refute the articles that were written on the point.  A quick search found over 25 million results in the time period.  Maybe they were all written by the same person, who isn't one of your inner circle of friends.  Maybe not.

Quote
Quote
Who is engaging in open hate speech? 

Candidate and later President Trump. Repeatedly lying that thousands of American Muslims in New Jersey were cheering on 9/11 is indefensible. Calling immigrants rapists and murderers. Inciting his crowds to consider the press as the enemy of the people. These are the acts of despots across history - inciting hatred is an evil but common tactic of authoritarian regimes.

Claiming he saw American Muslims cheering 9/11?  That isn't hate speech.  We all saw images of cheering from non-US Muslims (at least before the media decided to suppress that story).  Yes, it's an embarrassment that he won't back away from a clearly erroneous claim, but that's not hate speech.

"Call immigrants rapists and murders," sort of what he said, and definitely over broad, on the other hand quite a few drug cartels and gangs have taken advantage of our soft borders to import rapists and murderers.  I'll give you some credit, as the claim is overbroad (kind of like your claim on the civil war).

Is that it?  That's really not the language of despots.  Not is the language of an authoritarian.  It's the language of a demagogue.  Kind of like labelling your opponents as a "basket of deplorables" or as racists, sexists, fascists, or whatever.  If we're really going to call out hate speech, I'd suggest a very big mirror.

Quote
Quote
Heck, above Greg asserts that 'tens of millions of Americans' support slavery because they make arguments about the confederacy in the civil war.  That's an incredibly broad and false brush.  One can easily view that slavery was completely wrong, but that hasn't nothing to do with another issue that was connected to the civil war.  It's this bizarre tribal world we live in where a tribe has to be right about 100% of everything or about 0% and we can't have a somethings that make sense on each side.

No, it is a very nuanced world where determinations of justice require careful consideration.

No it's really not.  You're literally advocating for not using careful consideration.  One can't admire anything, or believe that one side was partially correct, or even completely correct about some issues, because of the taint of a particular repugnant view.

If a racist believes in free speech, must we reject free speech?

Quote
But that doesn't mean some things can't be true. I would agree that many people love the Confederacy not because they love (or even think of) slavery, but because they love the culture of nobility and virtue that they grew up associating with the Confederacy. But I hold them responsible for understanding that at the heart of all of their positive associations there is a horrible evil, and that the historical Confederacy was built to defend and protect slavery.

Really?  You "hold them responsible" for a fact they already acknowledge.  I haven't heard anyone defend slavery.  You want to bring it up solely because you view it as a trump card to overrule any other possible disputes.  What does slavery really have to say about whether we should have national or local government?  Either level can be a true oppressor, either level can be the real protector of rights.  There are reasonable arguments that local communities have better insight into the rules they want, and reasonable arguments that they will oppress those who disagree.

Quote
Quote
Where its wrong is the easy acceptance of the lie that millions of people that have legitimate policy disagreements with her can be dismissed as nothing but racists.

What evidence do you have that policy is a substantially greater motivator of Trump supporters than racism?

Let's be clear.  By racism you mean white on black racism, which is the most reviled form and a form that is actively practiced by a tiny fraction of the country (like 1% or less).  Trump's support was about the same size as Hillary's.   Ergo, policy was substantially greater motivator than "racism."

Now on the hand, if we look at actual racism, which the Democratic party accepts and endorses so long as its any other racism than white on black, then it's pretty big chunk of what motivates their supporters.  I mean heck, blatant sexism - if you are a woman you are a traitor if you don't vote for a woman - was endorsed repeatedly by party leaders.

Fact is, the Democratic party is far more racists and sexist, they've just "defined" their racism and sexism as socially acceptable.

Quote
It's not a lie if it's true, and for your counter to be true you would need to prove that there is not even a few "millions" of people who are for Trump because of racism.

No I really don't.  Even if every racist in the country voted for Trump  -which literally didn't happen as most racists are Democrats (even white on black racists are fairly evening distributed between parties) - that doesn't make him a racist.  We have a binary system, repugnant people have to vote for someone, and when neither candidate is actually a racist, they have to find a reason other than satisfaction of their policy goals to pick one.

Quote
Quote
DW, the "Melting Pot" is anathema for most left-wing groups. That implies integration, that means "uniqueness is lost." (It also makes "us vs them" harder to play out)

The last thing they want is for people to become "Americans" or for "Americans" to become more like another group. (Hence why "cultural appropriation" is no longer acceptable)

No, that's not true of me. And it's not true of most liberals that I know. When you think of national politicians, it is more Republicans who use phrases like "real Americans to exclude others.

Lol.  I challenge you to talk about the need for a melting pot on any leftist community.  You'll discover very quickly how the issue really plays out.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 30, 2018, 10:55:15 PM
Quote
So in other words you haven't actually looked at what we are actually talking about - historical default rates on mortgages.

You are in error, sir, that's what you are talking about. I am talking about the creed of free market (or neoclassical or Austrian) economics that posits certain behavioral patterns about the entire economy that are frequently refuted by history. When Alan Greenspan confessed that there was a fundamental flaw in his philosophy, he was not referred to a data trend on mortgage defaults, he was referring to the behavior of the vast majority of firms in an economy. Of Greenspan is wrong (and even he admitted he was wrong), than the Republican platitudes that regulation is bad and the free market is good are dangerously simplistic and wrong.

Quote
Claiming he saw American Muslims cheering 9/11?  That isn't hate speech.

This is either hate speech or something worse - if you look at cases such as Rwanda or Serbia under Milosevic, the words of Donald Trump are as severe as those used to incite genocide. Trump has not incited genocide, so on that scale he's not as bad as Milosevic. If this is not hate speech, exactly what would qualify as hate speech for you?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 30, 2018, 10:57:53 PM
Quote
You want to bring it up solely because you view it as a trump card to overrule any other possible disputes.

Wrong again - I have probably made 5000-6000 comments here and never done that. How many false things do you have to assert, Seriati, before you recognize that you sure are asserting a whole lot of false things.

Oh, and my favorite is your assertion that the Democrats are the racists. Come on, even the actual racists like the Klu Klux Klan are 100% behind President Trump. Ar you saying they don't know what they are talking about but you do?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Fenring on August 30, 2018, 11:56:49 PM
Oh, and my favorite is your assertion that the Democrats are the racists. Come on, even the actual racists like the Klu Klux Klan are 100% behind President Trump. Ar you saying they don't know what they are talking about but you do?

In this case I believe he's not referring to rednecks/Klansman, but rather to the core beliefs of the new stream of liberals which in his opinion are inherently racist in both overtones and content. Seriati's repeated argument seems to be that the former group exists, and is probably Republican, but is also small and getting smaller over time, whereas the latter group, while not steeped in a history of lynching and such, is much larger and is gaining traction. I would tend to agree with you, Greg, that he's overstating the case, however I also agree with him that this new brand of 'justice' often does sound awfully racist to me. Did you read those tweets written by Sarah Jeong, who was subsequently hired by the NYT as an editor? No doubt she's never attacked a white person with a crowbar and so doesn't stand equally beside an old-time Klansman in terms of severity of her actions, but oh man...are you telling me those tweets weren't racist? The type of position she posits in them is a more extreme version of what I see frequently in softer tones in 'alt-liberal' material.

As a side comment on the economic issue, it seems to me ridiculous to suppose that anything in economic history has ever been "consistent" or "predictable." Any claim I've read about so far attesting to 'understanding' economics has always been proven to be a farce, and the best thing I can say about it thus far is that economic study is decent at short-term gambling strategies but completely useless at long-term forecast. For a 5-10 year period these theories can be decent (but not always); go further than that and "non-historic" things have a funny habit of always happening.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 31, 2018, 12:20:51 AM
Oh, and my favorite is your assertion that the Democrats are the racists. Come on, even the actual racists like the Klu Klux Klan are 100% behind President Trump. Ar you saying they don't know what they are talking about but you do?

Which party does the Black Panthers support again? Or am I confused, racism isn't something exclusively belonging to white people.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 31, 2018, 12:33:21 AM
On a tangental note:

How is it that Crazy Rich Asians is getting "crazy huge" amounts of popular media praise and attention, rather than being called out for being racist?

Or right, it was written, produced and directed by Asians with an Asian Cast. They can lampoon Asians all they want, as they are part of that group. But my interest was more on the "All Asian" aspect of it. That it also makes plays on racial sterotypes among other things for comedic effect is to be ignored.

Yes, I get the "representing a new demographic" and the "Crazy Rich Europeans" equivalent could describe a rather large number of A and B-list Comedy productions out of Hollywood over the past 100 years. So "I get that." But two wrongs don't make a right.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDrake on August 31, 2018, 08:39:23 AM
Quote
Let me say this to the brothers and sisters who listened and watched that speech. We may not like the vessel that said what he said, but I ask us to truly examine what he said, because it is a fact that for 54 years, we have been voting for the Democratic party like no other race in America. And they have not given us the same loyalty and love that we have given them. We as black people have to reexamine the relationship where we are being pimped like prostitutes, and they’re the big pimps pimping us politically, promising us everything and we get nothing in return.

Leader of the new Black Panther Party. So no, they don't support the Democratic Party.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 31, 2018, 10:09:18 AM
Quote
I would tend to agree with you, Greg, that he's overstating the case, however I also agree with him that this new brand of 'justice' often does sound awfully racist to me.

Yes, I absolutely agree that there are voices on the left who say things that I consider to be bigoted/racist, including Sarah Jeong. But there is no comparison between the racism of the Republican Party and its nationally elected leaders and that of the Democratic Party and its leaders when it comes to racism.

TheDeamon, your reference to the Black Panthers is interesting (even in 2008, Fox News only had "the New Black Panther Party", which was two angry black men shouting in a clip that Fox News broadcast across the nation something like 248 times running up to the election).  I disagree with your both-sides-do-it argument, the history and extent of the Black Panthers is nothing like the history and extent of the Ku Klux Klan, and the current endorsement of President Trump by extremists is unprecedented and unmatched by anything for any other President in living memory.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on August 31, 2018, 10:45:50 AM
I disagree with your both-sides-do-it argument, the history and extent of the Black Panthers is nothing like the history and extent of the Ku Klux Klan, and the current endorsement of President Trump by extremists is unprecedented and unmatched by anything for any other President in living memory.

Uh, there are people still alive who remembver Woodrow Wilson as PotUS, they may be a very small fraction of the population at this point, but they do exist.

So if you're asserting Trump is more racist(or even homophobic) than Woodrow Wilson, who was very openly affiliated with the KKK, you have a bit of ground to cover.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on August 31, 2018, 10:52:23 AM
Quote
So in other words you haven't actually looked at what we are actually talking about - historical default rates on mortgages.

You are in error, sir, that's what you are talking about.

I'm not in error, go back and read it more closely.  The ONLY thing I've ever claimed was so stable as that it would be nonsensical to have "predicted" such a non-historic change is the default rate.  That was the underlying factual basis for the entire sub-prime crisis, and honestly, its just an indisputable fact as to its stability.

Quote
Quote
Claiming he saw American Muslims cheering 9/11?  That isn't hate speech.

This is either hate speech or something worse - if you look at cases such as Rwanda or Serbia under Milosevic, the words of Donald Trump are as severe as those used to incite genocide. Trump has not incited genocide, so on that scale he's not as bad as Milosevic. If this is not hate speech, exactly what would qualify as hate speech for you?

Really?  You think saying he saw American Muslims cheering (which didn't occur) at a time when one could have seen non-American Muslims cheering, immediately after Muslim terrorists killed 2000 US citizens, is "worse" than the genocide inciting comments that directly dehumanized entire populations?

Maybe you should go back and actually look up some of the quotes to which you are referring.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on August 31, 2018, 10:59:16 AM
Quote
You want to bring it up solely because you view it as a trump card to overrule any other possible disputes.

Wrong again - I have probably made 5000-6000 comments here and never done that. How many false things do you have to assert, Seriati, before you recognize that you sure are asserting a whole lot of false things.

You do have a lot of comments, and you're often reasonable.  I also have a lot of comments, and am often reasonable.

However, this is not one of the cases where you are being reasonable.  Walk me through how this taint works, if you don't intend it as a trump. 

Quote
Oh, and my favorite is your assertion that the Democrats are the racists. Come on, even the actual racists like the Klu Klux Klan are 100% behind President Trump. Ar you saying they don't know what they are talking about but you do?

Maybe you have stats on that, which you'd like to provide.  The actual studies that have looked at white on black racism, show an embarrassingly high amount in BOTH parties.  Here's an older link https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-white-republicans-more-racist-than-white-democrats/ (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-white-republicans-more-racist-than-white-democrats/).  This doesn't get into the self identified racists like the KKK (which historically, exist primarily in states with very large Democratic majorities, and have historically been registered Democrats).  Maybe you have some specific data on that.  Again, you make assertions on this point, but they're routinely what you wish rather than reality.

But lets get really really.  If you include any racism other than white on black, there's no contest which party houses the majority.  It's literally the Democrats. 
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: DonaldD on August 31, 2018, 11:07:17 AM
Quote
You think saying he saw American Muslims cheering (which didn't occur) at a time when one could have seen non-American Muslims cheering, immediately after Muslim terrorists killed 2000 US citizens
You don't get to just make this stuff up.  Maybe he said it immediately after 9/11.  But he also repeated it in 2015, and then again after he was told that there was no substantiation.  https://www.factcheck.org/2016/08/trumps-revised-911-claim/ (https://www.factcheck.org/2016/08/trumps-revised-911-claim/)
Quote
Trump, Nov. 21, 2015: Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering. So something’s going on. We’ve got to find out what it is.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on August 31, 2018, 11:12:44 AM
Reading comprehension on this site is really going downhill.  What did I make up DonaldD?  Did you miss this:

Quote
Yes, it's an embarrassment that he won't back away from a clearly erroneous claim, but that's not hate speech.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: DonaldD on August 31, 2018, 11:52:59 AM
Yes, reading comprehension is not great. You said "You think saying he saw American Muslims cheering (which didn't occur) at a time when one could have seen non-American Muslims cheering"

I showed you that he made the claim in 2015 (the "saying" from your statement) which was not "at a time when one could have seen non-American Muslims cheering" as you claimed.  The important part of my Trump reference was the date, not the statement, the accuracy of or exact wording of which nobody disputes.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on August 31, 2018, 12:06:41 PM
DonaldD, again, he made the claim about what he saw at the time the World Trade center was collapsing, not that he saw it in 2015.  Is there some confusion here?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: D.W. on August 31, 2018, 12:09:47 PM
That it was BS then, and he "stuck to his guns" even after that.

*edit:  At first it could be a mistake.  Repeating it again later gives weight to the theory that it is a calculated move.  (hate speech)  Alternately, and equally plausible, Trump doesn't ever feel the need to correct himself and would rather bend perceptions around his mistakes being 'the truth' rather than admit them.

I personally feel it's both.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Fenring on August 31, 2018, 12:10:57 PM
DonaldD, again, he made the claim about what he saw at the time the World Trade center was collapsing, not that he saw it in 2015.  Is there some confusion here?

He's talking about the veracity of the claim that Trump made that statement. You're talking about the evaluation of whether the statement is hate speech or not. So I guess there is some confusion :p
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on August 31, 2018, 12:13:29 PM
That it was BS then, and he "stuck to his guns" even after that.

Quote
Yes, it's an embarrassment that he won't back away from a clearly erroneous claim, but that's not hate speech.

DonaldD, again, he made the claim about what he saw at the time the World Trade center was collapsing, not that he saw it in 2015.  Is there some confusion here?

He's talking about the veracity of the claim that Trump made that statement. You're talking about the evaluation of whether the statement is hate speech or not. So I guess there is some confusion :p

Well, again, I clearly conceded the veracity point.  Someone talking in 2015 about what they saw in 2001 could make an error about where what they saw occurred (and you could have seen cheering non-US muslims in that time period).  But there's no reason not to back off it, once it became clear it was an error.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 31, 2018, 03:47:37 PM
Quote
The ONLY thing I've ever claimed was so stable as that it would be nonsensical to have "predicted" such a non-historic change is the default rate.  That was the underlying factual basis for the entire sub-prime crisis, and honestly, its just an indisputable fact as to its stability.

Right, and that "ONLY" claim is both wrong and not germane. When you are changing policy in a dramatic way because of your economic ideology, you have a responsibility to assess the likelihood of uncertainties and risks. That is not nonsensical - it is basic competence. I hope and assume that you have never been hit by a car - but it would be nonsensical for you to assume that since you had never been hit, you never could. We have never had human-caused effects that changed the climate, are you saying that it is nonsensical to even consider such a possibility because it is "a-historical"?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on September 03, 2018, 01:10:54 AM
Quote
The ONLY thing I've ever claimed was so stable as that it would be nonsensical to have "predicted" such a non-historic change is the default rate.  That was the underlying factual basis for the entire sub-prime crisis, and honestly, its just an indisputable fact as to its stability.

Right, and that "ONLY" claim is both wrong and not germane. When you are changing policy in a dramatic way because of your economic ideology, you have a responsibility to assess the likelihood of uncertainties and risks. That is not nonsensical - it is basic competence. I hope and assume that you have never been hit by a car - but it would be nonsensical for you to assume that since you had never been hit, you never could. We have never had human-caused effects that changed the climate, are you saying that it is nonsensical to even consider such a possibility because it is "a-historical"?

To be fair here, it was more Keynesian Economics that failed to predict what happened than the "Austrian" school, and if you remember which school reflects which politcal outlook in the US, that turd belongs with the Democrats.

The other thing is you are comparing apples and oranges. "Without Historical Precedent" in this case means almost literally "without precedent within the modern era of record keeping going back nearly 100 years in many cases, and further in others." Whereas people getting hit by a car is certainly within the realm of historical precedent, and sufficiently so that they can give you a "reasonable" probability as to your likelihood of being hit by one should you not take "extraordinary measures" to either mitigate or compound the risk respectively.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 03, 2018, 12:56:36 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/24/the-video-of-celebrations-that-was-broadcast-on-911/

https://nypost.com/2015/12/21/nj-police-captain-says-some-muslims-did-celebrate-on-911/

So you have credible witnesses at multiple locations in the second story saying they saw numerous Muslims in America celebrating and then you have more numerous Palestinians celebrating in the streets (something to remember when it comes to funding them). Maybe Trump confused the two groups or exaggerated but at the other end you also have denials that there was any celebration at all: "Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop, one of many politicians who blasted Trump after the remarks, still denied that celebrations took place despite the eyewitness accounts. “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 told the website."


https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/september-11-twin-towers-world-trade-centre-new-york-i-knew-muslims-who-celebrated-naive-a7238081.html

Just an interesting article from a Muslim admitting that Western Muslims were happy about the attacks, whether or not they celebrated in the streets.

As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Trump is more correct though to call attention to the fact that Muslim Americans were celebrating and much of the media and the left such as the Jersey City mayor are more wrong because they say it never happened. It's worse to deny something exists at all than it is to exaggerate it. And whether they celebrated in the streets or in the privacy of their homes, as the last story tells it, it is still a cause for concern and something to think about and more importantly, know about and acknowledge happened and still exists in the hearts of some today.

Or we can go the other way like Germany did and have the government collude with the media to cover up mass rape in the streets.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: DonaldD on September 03, 2018, 09:05:19 PM
Pass the popcorn: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/03/trump-slams-sessions-on-twitter-says-ag-is-hurting-gop-in-midterms.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/03/trump-slams-sessions-on-twitter-says-ag-is-hurting-gop-in-midterms.html)
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on September 04, 2018, 01:11:16 AM
Quote
To be fair here, it was more Keynesian Economics that failed to predict what happened than the "Austrian" school

This sentence should win a prize as one of the most wrong statements ever made on Ornery - I believe that it would be hard to write a sentence that was more appreciably wrong than this. Before addressing this argument, The Deamon, I am curious as to what possibly could have been your source for such a wrong-headed statement. Do you remember what you read that made this suggestion to you? And if you do remember where, when you find out from me (or check independently) and find out how wrong this is, what steps will you make in the future to shift your skepticism to the false source(s)?


The risk from a collapse exactly like the one in 2008 is at the heart of the writings of John Maynard Keynes - the notion that industry can be collectively driven by irrational speculation ("animal spirits" in Keynes colorful language), and that once there is a collapse in business prospects, that can create a spiral of collapse in which businesses foresee a still worse business prospects in the future, so they fire workers and cut investments, leading to fewer purchases on newly-fired employees and reductions in orders for capital investments, all of which cause future cut-backs across industries. 

In contrast, Austrian economics is driven by the concept of praxeology, which means that you take on faith that people and firms always optimize in the aggregate. In Austrian economics it might be possible for one or several firms to fail, but you cannot have a speculative failure across the entire financial system.

And your "without historical precedent" comment is also way off base.  Within 100 years in the United States, besides the 1999 dot-com bubble and the 1987 Savings and Loan Crisis, there is the Great Depression itself (which was particularly proximate to Keynes and his writings). And during this time there actually was decent regulation to prevent such speculative bubbles, and antitrust to keep firms smaller to prevent such dangers to the entire economy - such speculative collapses were much more common in the 50 years prior to the Great Depression.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on September 04, 2018, 01:39:06 AM
cherrypoptart,

Your "credible sources" are no better than the numerous sources who claimed to see Jews drinking the blood of Christians in the Middle Ages. 

There were no thousands. Donald Trump didn't see thousands. And yet he lied repeatedly to claim that there were major groups of American Muslims celebrating a terrorist attack on the US (an attack where the only role that US Muslims played was as victims in the twin towers).

Your contrary evidence is that this one retiree reported that he heard 30 Muslims were celebrating something on a Tuesday, and with no understanding of Arabic he leaped to the conclusion that they were celebrating the terrorist attack on the US. 

Look, I don't deny the possibility that there could have been some Muslims who approved of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. With populations of millions, there are always crazy outliers. Immediately after the attacks, the powerful televangelist Jerry Falwell called 9/11 a punishment from God and laid the blame on "paganists", "abortionists", "feminists" and "gays and lesbians", claiming that they "helped this happen" and Pat Robertson (who came in 3rd place in the 1988 Republican Presidential race) concurred with the statements. There are Jews living in Israel who pray for the state of Israel to be overthrown (more of whom are probably among the ultra-orthodox who do not believe that a nation of Israel should exist prior to the coming of the messiah). There are crazy people everywhere - but there were not thousands of Muslims cheering the 9/11 attacks that Tuesday, and to tell that lie is to denigrate the entirety of the American Muslim population.

Your "As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle" repeats the common Republican assumption to normalize morally abhorrent behavior with bothsides-isms. There were not thousands of American Muslims protesting in NJ. Donald Trump lied repeatedly when he claimed that there was, and that he had seen it. And this claim of thousands cheering for 9/11 at its core is a racist lie, just like the lies about African Americans raping white women that were used justify lynching, and just like the racists lies that were used in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia to incite racial hatred.

 
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: DonaldD on September 04, 2018, 12:58:00 PM
This is not likely to change anybody's mind, since Bob Woodward is probably seen as a partisan by Trump supporters, but if even a fraction of this is true... it's still a disturbing picture.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/04/bob-woodward-book-fear-donald-trump-white-house (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/04/bob-woodward-book-fear-donald-trump-white-house)
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Fenring on September 04, 2018, 02:35:17 PM
Quote
To be fair here, it was more Keynesian Economics that failed to predict what happened than the "Austrian" school

The risk from a collapse exactly like the one in 2008 is at the heart of the writings of John Maynard Keynes - the notion that industry can be collectively driven by irrational speculation ("animal spirits" in Keynes colorful language), and that once there is a collapse in business prospects, that can create a spiral of collapse in which businesses foresee a still worse business prospects in the future, so they fire workers and cut investments, leading to fewer purchases on newly-fired employees and reductions in orders for capital investments, all of which cause future cut-backs across industries.

We should be clear about one thing: there are different philosophies of economics right now (Austrian, Keynesian, Monetarist [now largely defunct], etc) and even with each there can be subsets such as Keynesian-deficit and Keynesian-redistribution, and so forth. And while each of these does make different claims about what will drive the economy the most effectively, at their heart each of these is really a philosophy about how monies should be used. None of them can make a claim to have solved economics or to have direct evidence that their 'methods' are completely sufficient. In fact, they literally cannot be sufficient, because zero out of these theories involves the area of human desire and reason, which are, of course, the heart of economics. Each of the famous 'systems' is a number-crunching algorithm (to be charitable) that makes claims that certain types of economic actions are better; but none gives an account of why anything happens.

I make this specification because it should be clarified that the lack of foreseeing and stopping 2008 isn't the result of the failure of one philosophical system versus the other; the failure comes from a lack of 'economics' being tied in with psychology and motivation. What happened in 2008 was obvious if seen in the following way:

-The odds that many people will jump at cheap mortgages with no money down: 100%
-The odds that banks will be satisfied sitting on worthless subprime mortgages with no effort to monetize them: 0%
-The odds that a process that seems successful in the short term will continue: 99.99%
-The odds that financial institutions will base decision-making on short-term gains rather than long-term theoretical ramifications: 99.99%
-The odds that in any sufficiently complicated system an actual person in the system will be able to unravel to 'totality' of what's going on: 0.01%
-The odds that a complicated system is the inevitable result of a shady operation actually predicated on people not knowing the true value of a tranche: 100% (opaqueness is requisite for the success of the system in these cases)

Well look at that, a 'psychological' statistical analysis of the situation leading up to 2008. I think I should be awarded honorary doctorates for this work, at least in economics and applied stats, maybe in psychology too. Kidding aside, these premises are pathetically obvious and could be determined almost as a thought experiment with trivial ease. The lack of "economics theory" (whatever that's supposed to mean) taking these points into account should only go to show that the big theories out there aren't economic theories but philosophical schools more intent on a political power struggle than in understanding why people do things. They are definitely not theories of economics in any intelligible way as I see it. I'm on this tear because I disagree that any theory of economics is to be applauded or ridiculed as a result of 2008. While I do think there are interested debates to have between Keynesian/Austrian, etc, the vagaries of their disagreements are not at the core of why no one saw it coming. The reason no one saw it coming is that economic activity has long been inspected with one eye closed, and the more important eye at that. In a funny way marketing firms probably have a better handle on economics than trained economists do because at least they're in the business of nailing down exactly what people will and won't do, and how much. Nothing from 2008 was surprising looking back on it; there is no mystery. The only mystery is that it wasn't plain to 'experts' that proceeding with dubious purchases and then monetizing those purchases over and over was a bad thing. That's not a Keynes vs Austrian school issue; it's really a moral issue when put in different terms. What was needed wasn't another 'economist', but a moral doctor.

In conclusion: I agree with you, Greg, that TheDeamon's comment was objectionable. However I also disagree that the current school of Keynesian thought is to be applauded in any way either. 2008 isn't directly a smear or vindication for any system being put forward right now, but is rather than indication that they are not really economic systems of analysis, but more something like systems of procedure. An actual system of analysis would be needed to calculate whether a given system of procedure will actually work or not.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: TheDeamon on September 04, 2018, 03:51:19 PM
This is not likely to change anybody's mind, since Bob Woodward is probably seen as a partisan by Trump supporters, but if even a fraction of this is true... it's still a disturbing picture.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/04/bob-woodward-book-fear-donald-trump-white-house (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/04/bob-woodward-book-fear-donald-trump-white-house)

So the Russian Investigation is Trump's version of Carter's Iran Hostage Crisis, only the "hostages" in this case are personal associates of Trump.

It doesn't change much not because Woodward is considered partisan, but that it is unlikely any rational person is going to be shocked to discover that the Media-Obsessed Trump is obsessed over one of his biggest perceived problems. In other words, it isn't news strictly speaking in that nothing particularly new came to light.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on September 04, 2018, 10:04:02 PM
The problem with any principle or philosophy is there are always some hacks who can say they are followers but actually distort the key fundamentals. Keynesian economics is not immune - for forty years there have been those calling themselves Keynesians who fundamentally accept the market-clearing assumptions common to Austrian economics and just account for a little turbulence before the market naturally finds the optimum at some point in the long run. But not Keynes, who noted in the long run we are all dead.

There really is a difference
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Fenring on September 04, 2018, 10:29:03 PM
The problem with any principle or philosophy is there are always some hacks who can say they are followers but actually distort the key fundamentals. Keynesian economics is not immune - for forty years there have been those calling themselves Keynesians who fundamentally accept the market-clearing assumptions common to Austrian economics and just account for a little turbulence before the market naturally finds the optimum at some point in the long run. But not Keynes, who noted in the long run we are all dead.

There really is a difference

Sure. But my point is that you can adopt any philosophy you want, and all it's going to do is to suggest that you should do (with monetary policy, for instance). But what it's not going to do is make any striking predictions or anticipate most of the significant variables in the system. So while Keynes may suggest that an influx of capital (say, into the real estate market) via credit will have a multiplier effect and 'zoom the economy' as Reagan put it, it does not in any way suggest what exact micro-systems will form, what people will prefer to do within that system, how prudent they will be, how enforceable prudence will even be, and whether the influx itself may inevitably be responsible for or at least create the danger of a particular pathological pattern forming. It won't and can't state any of that, since its purpose such as it is is to suggest a general course. It's a decision-making system but not a diagnostic or prognostic system. So Keynesian theory will neither predict nor prevent pathological patterns that emerge from micro behaviors out of macro decisions, and is therefore not to blame for systemic failures but also not to praise either. It simply isn't in the business of diagnostic of this kind and in fact we lack any system for diagnostic in that way. So that's what I mean about the lack of 'experts' in the way people think of expertise in regards "why didn't they foresee the collapse." It's because there is in fact no "they"; the "they" we think of (e.g. economists) aren't in the practice of knowing legitimate diagnostic methods since they are for all intents and purposes economic philosophers. That's not a direct attack on them but it is an attack on the expertise they often claim to have but don't.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: DonaldD on September 05, 2018, 04:41:25 PM
Ummm... wow: https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics/nyt-trump-resistance-op-ed/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics/nyt-trump-resistance-op-ed/index.html)

Quote
The author writes the resistance inside the White House is not the same "resistance" of the left against Trump, and wrote, "we want the administration to succeed. ... But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic."

"That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump's more misguided impulses until he is out of office."
This cannot end well.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on September 05, 2018, 09:29:36 PM
Quote
But my point is that you can adopt any philosophy you want, and all it's going to do is to suggest that you should do (with monetary policy, for instance). But what it's not going to do is make any striking predictions or anticipate most of the significant variables in the system. So while Keynes may suggest that an influx of capital (say, into the real estate market) via credit will have a multiplier effect and 'zoom the economy' as Reagan put it, it does not in any way suggest what exact micro-systems will form, what people will prefer to do within that system, how prudent they will be, how enforceable prudence will even be, and whether the influx itself may inevitably be responsible for or at least create the danger of a particular pathological pattern forming. It won't and can't state any of that, since its purpose such as it is is to suggest a general course. It's a decision-making system but not a diagnostic or prognostic system. So Keynesian theory will neither predict nor prevent pathological patterns that emerge from micro behaviors out of macro decisions, and is therefore not to blame for systemic failures but also not to praise either.

Your assertion is completely wrong. From the above comment, I see the assertion that there are no meaningful predictions from Keynes that could drove policy in a way that better protects the economy. If that is your claim, it is entirely false. The first meaningful prediction of Keynesian theory is that the economy is vulnerable to economy-wide collapse. That is not possible in the context of Austrian economics. Secondly, there are specific Keynesian policies to pro-actively address the risk of economic collapse such as government regulation of banks and financial institutions (including antitrust) - these are specific policies implemented in the 1930's that primarily Republicans have been fighting against, with success starting in the 1980's. In addition, once an economic collapse has started, there are very different policies that come out of a Keynesian framework relative to an Austrian economic framework. Keynes would suggest a government stimulus to stop the downward spiral of business expectations, while the Austrian economics response is austerity.  United States policy in response to the economic collapse was different in two ways from the rest of the developed economies: we had relatively higher stimulus, and we had a faster recover.  And all of this happened even though the stimulus was not enough (because initial estimates in January 2009 of the severity of the collapse in Aug-Dec 2008 were far too low, and because many state governments pursued an austerity path that counteracted some of the federal stimulus). 
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on September 16, 2018, 06:10:55 PM
Quote
The ONLY thing I've ever claimed was so stable as that it would be nonsensical to have "predicted" such a non-historic change is the default rate.  That was the underlying factual basis for the entire sub-prime crisis, and honestly, its just an indisputable fact as to its stability.

Right, and that "ONLY" claim is both wrong and not germane. When you are changing policy in a dramatic way because of your economic ideology, you have a responsibility to assess the likelihood of uncertainties and risks. That is not nonsensical - it is basic competence.

This is why debate here has gone down hill.  The argument is complex and was fully fleshed out on the prior thread.  Your response here is utter nonsense.

What does a stable default rate on residential mortgages (A FACT) have to do with "changing policy in a dramatic manner"?  There wasn't a dramatic policy change behind the economic meltdown, there was a deliberate and gradual pressure as politicians exploited the stability of the mortgage default rate to force more risk into banks to ensure that more people got into homes.

The bankers IN FACT analyzed the risks and probabilities.

Quote
I hope and assume that you have never been hit by a car - but it would be nonsensical for you to assume that since you had never been hit, you never could.

Oddly, that's partly why I've delayed so long in responding. 

To put it in the actual context of the mortgage default rate, it would be like you refuse to drive, to take a taxi, to take an Uber, to cross a street, to walk on a street, or even to go into the front rooms of your house which are "too close" to the street, because some people are in car accidents.

Quote
We have never had human-caused effects that changed the climate, are you saying that it is nonsensical to even consider such a possibility because it is "a-historical"?

No.  I'm saying, it must have happened that a coin flip has come up "edge" somewhere and sometime, but that doesn't make it rationale to bet that it will do so this time.

The idea that any changes to the environment don't have a impact violates what we understand about cause and effect.  The question is one of scale, not one of whether.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on September 16, 2018, 06:19:30 PM
Quote
To be fair here, it was more Keynesian Economics that failed to predict what happened than the "Austrian" school
The risk from a collapse exactly like the one in 2008 is at the heart of the writings of John Maynard Keynes - the notion that industry can be collectively driven by irrational speculation ("animal spirits" in Keynes colorful language), and that once there is a collapse in business prospects, that can create a spiral of collapse in which businesses foresee a still worse business prospects in the future, so they fire workers and cut investments, leading to fewer purchases on newly-fired employees and reductions in orders for capital investments, all of which cause future cut-backs across industries.

If my "animal spirits" you mean the direct and deliberate policies of Congress that rewarded such behavior, and then of several administrations in a row that punished anyone that would have put the brakes on it, you could make such a claim. 

Quote
In contrast, Austrian economics is driven by the concept of praxeology, which means that you take on faith that people and firms always optimize in the aggregate. In Austrian economics it might be possible for one or several firms to fail, but you cannot have a speculative failure across the entire financial system.

If you design your policies and laws to reward speculation and punish conservatism it becomes rationally optimal to speculate.  The economy is not in isolation from the rules set by the government.

Quote
And your "without historical precedent" comment is also way off base.

Well it is if you were being honest about exactly what was without historical precedent and the size of the data record that it was based on.  Why don't you actually look at the stats and come back to us on what you find.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on September 16, 2018, 06:30:42 PM
I make this specification because it should be clarified that the lack of foreseeing and stopping 2008 isn't the result of the failure of one philosophical system versus the other; the failure comes from a lack of 'economics' being tied in with psychology and motivation. What happened in 2008 was obvious if seen in the following way:

-The odds that many people will jump at cheap mortgages with no money down: 100%
-The odds that banks will be satisfied sitting on worthless subprime mortgages with no effort to monetize them: 0%

I think this second one has problems.  Subprime mortgages were not worthless.  The individual odds on each one of them were that they would generate greater revenues than a comparable value mortgage.  They were worth quite a lot, the problem was the greater risk.  Collateralization came about to spread risk, so that no one bank got unlucky and stuck with too many losers in a row, and all could share in the higher return (even after accounting for the increased number of defaults).

The odds that other banks wouldn't want to buy-in to more valuable safe assets.  Also 0%.

Quote
-The odds that a process that seems successful in the short term will continue: 99.99%
-The odds that financial institutions will base decision-making on short-term gains rather than long-term theoretical ramifications: 99.99%

This second one is also not accurate  Bankers always consider long term, as well as, short term financial rewards.  The difference here is that collaterallization is actually better long term than it is short term.  They also found a massive short term windfall from creating the products as they were so high performing for their level of safety that they became demanded by non-bank investors.

Quote
-The odds that in any sufficiently complicated system an actual person in the system will be able to unravel to 'totality' of what's going on: 0.01%

This is true, but misleading.  The products themselves worked and still work as intended to do the task they were designed to do.  Picking up that all the pressure on the system was pointed in the same direction, was too much for anyone to actually see without hindsight.

Quote
-The odds that a complicated system is the inevitable result of a shady operation actually predicated on people not knowing the true value of a tranche: 100% (opaqueness is requisite for the success of the system in these cases)

Again, I think you only think this because its hard to understand as an outsider.  This product is not a mystery to financial professionals.  It's far from being on the "complicated" side of what is routinely traded and commonly understood.  This is literally the same principal upon which your health insurance works (or should work), by pooling lots of people's contributions and only having a few people get sick or hurt you are averaging out the costs over time.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on September 16, 2018, 07:33:37 PM
Seriati, among the many things you are missing is that the market for mortgages was transformed into a market for mortgage derivatives and a betting market associated with those derivatives. There was far more money in those markets than just in the mortgage markets (by a factor of 10-20 more). Clever financial people in the private sector arbitraged past mortgage stability into instruments that had the appearance of stability without all of the associated costs that historically went in to that stability.

As for your right wing theory that the government has primary responsibility for this economic collapse, please explain why government and not the private sector is responsible for the $54 trillion in bad bets made by investment banks? Please explain why government and not the private sector is responsible for the private sector ratings agencies making the false determination that these mortgage derivatives were AAA and low risk. Please explain why the government and not the private sector is responsible for mortgage companies such as Countrywide making many billions of dollars of bad loans (Fannie Mae should get a minority fraction of the blame, but remember even as you call them a "governmental" entity, it is important to include the caveat that their employees were not civil servants and they were driven by their share price just like stock firms).. Oh, and please explain why government is responsible for the actions of all of those private sector individuals who signed up for mortgages they could later not pay.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Pete at Home on September 17, 2018, 01:30:12 AM
Re the topic question:

He could:

Admit the bill Clinton recruited him as a straw man to ensure hillary’s Foreordained victory, and that he had never intended to win.

Explain why his agenda has tirelessly supported the Koch brothers and other plutocrats that had contributed to Clinton’s campaign and not to his own.

Admit that he is intentionally leading the Republican Party off a cliff.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on September 17, 2018, 12:18:16 PM
Seriati, among the many things you are missing is that the market for mortgages was transformed into a market for mortgage derivatives and a betting market associated with those derivatives.

What makes you think I "missed it"?  My detailed explanations of how those derivatives were structured?  My extensive writings on those points in the detailed threads on the crisis (that you ignore responding to when you jump to a new thread)?  Or was it the several links I provided you to detailed write ups on the last detailed thread?

I don't get you.  The factors that led to this are known, and most all of them lead to the government. 

There's certainly no denying that greed had an impact, it kept the foot on the gas.  But Congress built the down hill track, put everyone in race cars and cut the brake lines.  Yet in your world it's only the foot on the gas that was a problem.

Quote
There was far more money in those markets than just in the mortgage markets (by a factor of 10-20 more). Clever financial people in the private sector arbitraged past mortgage stability into instruments that had the appearance of stability without all of the associated costs that historically went in to that stability.

Synthetics (credit default swaps) were not 10x20 multiples of the market.  The market itself was $7 trillion and the synthetic market was $5trillion (at least if you believe Wikipedia).  I agree that's crazy high for credit default swaps which are insurance products that should have been regulated from day 1, required to be linked to positions in the actual underlying securities and prohibited for speculative investing.  There are other derivatives that do trade at extreme multiples but as a whole synthetics are not as large a part of the market as you imply (that would be $70 to 140 trillion).

Are you just confused about the instruments involved?  MBS is not synthetic.

Quote
As for your right wing theory that the government has primary responsibility for this economic collapse, please explain why government and not the private sector is responsible for the $54 trillion in bad bets made by investment banks?

I did this in detail last time you asked.  Go back and respond to what I said.  It's not good faith to move on and pretend like a prior conversation never happened.

Long and short is that the government set a deliberate policy to force banks to make bad loans to serve other policy goals.

Quote
Please explain why government and not the private sector is responsible for the private sector ratings agencies making the false determination that these mortgage derivatives were AAA and low risk.

MBS is and was low risk.  Nothing false about that.  Feel free to take a look at Chart 1 in the attached:

https://www.standardandpoors.com/ja_JP/delegate/getPDF?articleId=1498583&type=COMMENTS&subType= (https://www.standardandpoors.com/ja_JP/delegate/getPDF?articleId=1498583&type=COMMENTS&subType=)

The AAA default rate, even at the height of the crisis in 2008 and 2009 is not even one percent.  Look at Table 1, AAA (with one exception) doesn't even have a default rate until 2007 and only exceeds half a percent in 2008.  Take a look at Chart 3 for that matter, which shows how far down the line you have to hit to see consistent default risk. 

Is that not the definition of low risk?

Quote
Please explain why the government and not the private sector is responsible for mortgage companies such as Countrywide making many billions of dollars of bad loans (Fannie Mae should get a minority fraction of the blame, but remember even as you call them a "governmental" entity, it is important to include the caveat that their employees were not civil servants and they were driven by their share price just like stock firms)..

You mean the mortgage brokers that were formed specifically to make no documentation loans to anyone that walked through the door without any investigation of ability to repay, because such an investigation was deemed racial profiling and could subject a financial institution to massive consequences by governmental fiat?  The mortgage brokers ended up being the foot on the gas, the giant profit motive in the last stage that was the gas on the broken system Congress created.  No doubt about that.

Those loans were backed by Freddie and Fannie, and eventually they became big direct customers because of the returns that were being generated, which was a DIRECT government foot on the gas to help make sure private industries foot didn't slip.

And Countrywide was also famous for the scandals it had connected with Democratic politicians receiving below market mortgages in exchange for what....  Any interest in a special prosecutor on that corruption?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countrywide_Financial_political_loan_scandal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countrywide_Financial_political_loan_scandal)

Quote
Oh, and please explain why government is responsible for the actions of all of those private sector individuals who signed up for mortgages they could later not pay.

Because the politicians in charge of this specifically told them that they deserve to be in a house, and that it was only unfair lending policies that kept them out?  That your side endorses a view of the people taking out those loans that is based on denying that they have any personal responsibility and that it's the job of the government to take care of them?

Or how about the government specifically threatening lenders who, I don't know, denied loans because a borrower couldn't demonstrate an ability to repay them?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Pete at Home on September 17, 2018, 04:59:43 PM
No responders to my theory that Trump is part of a center-left conspiracy to destroy the Republican Party??
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: rightleft22 on September 17, 2018, 05:19:12 PM
If Trump admitted to being part of the deep state and evil genius behind 'a center-left conspiracy to destroy the Republican Party'...
His followers would still support him even as they leap off the cliff behind him. Any survivors may, if they land on their back and are able stair up at the sky, reflect that maybe they should have withdrawn there support.   
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Pete at Home on September 17, 2018, 11:06:39 PM
To be sure since the conspiracy is clearly not “deep state” — the so called “intelligence community is united in hatred of Trump.”  I’m talking a small or tiny center left conspiracy not necessarily involving more than Trump and Bill Clinton. A hatchet job not really more organized than that of the Marathon bombers.  Things have not gone as planned and they are winging it. 

But seriously, how else do you explain Trump doing so much for the Koch brothers who panned and opposed his election?

Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: rightleft22 on September 18, 2018, 09:44:35 AM
The only thing I can think of is Money.  Koch brothers have money, Trump likes money and does not have as much as people think he has. When the game is over he wants to be able to have unquestioned proof.
 
Also even though its a mistake to underestimate Trump (there is order in his manufactured chaos. Something the left is to dim to counter)
I think Trump can and is being played
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Greg Davidson on September 18, 2018, 10:20:48 AM
Quote
Synthetics (credit default swaps) were not 10x20 multiples of the market.  The market itself was $7 trillion and the synthetic market was $5trillion (at least if you believe Wikipedia).

The market may have been $5 trillion but the exposure was $54 trillion (https://democrats-oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/migrated/20081024163819.pdf) (https://democrats-oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/migrated/20081024163819.pdf)) - and that was private sector firms making that decision. 
That level of exposure is validated by repeated estimates

Quote
The US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has just published its latest quarterly report on bank trading in derivatives, and disclosed that the exposure of US banks to them now totals $US237 trillion.

Of that, the big four - JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America - account for US$219.7 trillion. And that's just the Americans.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-12/kohler-controlling-derivatives/5515666 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-12/kohler-controlling-derivatives/5515666)
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Seriati on September 18, 2018, 10:57:15 AM
First of all that's the entire derivatives market, which includes far more than just credit default swaps.  It includes commodities contracts (you know the classic orange crop futures, or gold futures), where there's a real commercial interest and the trading value of the "principal" is low risk with the trading value being the change in value.

It includes things like interest rate swaps, where notwithstanding a $100 million face value, the thing being traded is the difference between a fixed rate interest payment of 4% and a variable rate of prime plus 2%. 

It includes foreign exchange contracts, where again you have a large face amount and the actual trade is for the difference between 2 currencies exchanged today versus six months from now.

Are you just confused about how derivatives work - are you mistaking the face amount for what's actually at risk?  The way you post these things it seems like you're spreading misinformation and I'd like to know if it's intentional or just honest misunderstanding.

The bank holdings also specifically include transactions they entered into cover deals they made with their customers.  Effectively, eliminating most of the risk of the transaction.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Pete at Home on September 19, 2018, 07:56:26 AM
The only thing I can think of is Money.  Koch brothers have money, Trump likes money and does not have as much as people think he has. When the game is over he wants to be able to have unquestioned proof.
 
Also even though its a mistake to underestimate Trump (there is order in his manufactured chaos. Something the left is to dim to counter)
I think Trump can and is being played

Fair enough. I just think that Bill Clinton is the player.  Everything that’s occurred  other than Trump’s victory (an accident) either benefits BC or avenges a wrong done against him.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: yossarian22c on September 20, 2018, 09:34:27 PM
Re the topic question:

He could:

Admit the bill Clinton recruited him as a straw man to ensure hillary’s Foreordained victory, and that he had never intended to win.

Explain why his agenda has tirelessly supported the Koch brothers and other plutocrats that had contributed to Clinton’s campaign and not to his own.

Admit that he is intentionally leading the Republican Party off a cliff.

I considered this remotely plausible during the election but not anymore.

Trump's "agenda" is self promotion. If the republican legislature writes a tax bill that benefits the Koch's to the tune of billions of dollars Trump doesn't give a **** either way as long as it also benefits him and he gets a "win". Likewise he doesn't care what the EPA un-regulates as long as he gets a "win". Its not like he is going to have to drink the contaminated water.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 21, 2018, 05:38:09 AM
Call me crazy (just a figure of speech) but my sense of Trump is that he's totally legit. There is no hidden agenda. He's completely honest if often mistaken. The guy just doesn't have the guile to pull off subtle machinations or deep plots. As the saying goes, he means what he says and says what he means even if it's just the first thing to pop into his head. I actually see a lot of myself in Trump, heaven help me.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: rightleft22 on September 23, 2018, 12:24:58 PM
Completely Honest? How do you define Honest?

In his own book he praises the art of misleading, truthful hyperbole, the preemptive counter punch, (if its preemptive is it still a counter punch), and to always deny, deny, deny and accuse rivals of doing the very thing they accuse him of doing. A very honest way of doing business? But your not talking about how he does business just the goals?
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 23, 2018, 12:45:13 PM
Completely honest isn't the best choice of words, I suppose. I think he's being completely honest about his big issues and where he wants to take the country and why he thinks it will make America better and that form of honesty is actually different from many other politicians who put their finger into the wind to see which way it's blowing and then go in that direction even if they don't think  it's really in the best interests of the country. Look at how Obama changed on gay marriage, immigration and the border, the national debt, and the individual mandate. He said what he needed to say to get elected and then he did an about face. Trump said what just about everyone told him would ensure he could never win an election because that's what he really thought and now he's doing it. Reducing immigration, going hard on fairer trade, getting rid of the red tape for businesses, beating ISIS by taking the gloves off, and so on. Trump is dishonest on the little stuff as opposed to Obama who was dishonest about the big stuff.
Title: Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
Post by: Pete at Home on September 23, 2018, 04:24:12 PM
As Iago demonstrates in Othello, bluntness and tactlessness does not necessarily mean honest