-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 20, 2019, 11:23:26 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Bellagio 10452
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Politics: 2016 Lame Duck and 2017 New Administration
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 32   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Politics: 2016 Lame Duck and 2017 New Administration  (Read 101884 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #525 on: February 15, 2017, 06:29:56 PM »

Democrats and Republicans have never had a hair's width between them on foreign policy. Until now, of course, if we're counting Trump as a Republican.
On social issues, let's watch what Trump does. He's maneuvering to restrict voting among the poor and urban (read black and Hispanic); he's nominated a justice specifically because he's approved by evangelicals and is frequently compared to Scalia; he's come out for "religious freedom" (i.e. discrimination against gays); he's spoken out in support of bathroom bills; he's spread slander about Muslims, illegal immigrants, and BLM. He's basically denied there are equal pay issues. He thinks poverty in black communities is due to a "lack of spirit"; his parental leave policy only applies to mothers;  whenever he talks about black communities he focuses pretty strictly on law enforcement; he appoints a secretary of education who intends to defund public education; his VP? Well...  his most senior advisor?  Umm. .. He has said he plans to restart the construction of the pipeline despite First Nation objections.
If "pandering" includes appointing them as judges and justices, cabinet secretaries and senior policy advisors, I don't know how that can be separated from actually having those positions.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #526 on: February 15, 2017, 06:41:26 PM »


If "pandering" includes appointing them as judges and justices, cabinet secretaries and senior policy advisors, I don't know how that can be separated from actually having those positions.

As usual, you give me plenty to think about (which pisses me off  Grin). But the quoted part above, I honestly do tend to think that the appointments are overwhelmingly irrelevant to him, and that he's just willing to give them to people who got him elected. I don't think the guy has a strongly believed position on anything other than the cult of his self-worship. And so I think when a Bannon can offer him what sounds like a successful strategy, he figures what the f***, make him a senior advisor. If it requires right-wing Christians to win, great, toss 'em a VP. Admittedly, that's just my own little narrative that could be entirely wrong--and there is no difference from a practical perspective, in that the results are the same.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #527 on: February 15, 2017, 07:08:56 PM »

A number of second-wave feminists had a problem with the gay marriage movement because it's so pro-marriage. There are complexities there. As Sec. of State she worked to get LGBT rights added to UN human rights resolutions; as senator she voted to end federal workplace discrimination; again as SoS, she changed the passport gender policy to reflect transgender gender and changed the depatment's benefits policies to apply equality to gay couples. And she was an activist as First Lady and SoS for women's rights and gay rights in parts of the world where they are less supported than here. She has acknowledged reparations as a legitimate consideration, she is a strong advocate of adding legislation to reinforce the voting rights act. As Senator, she co-sponsored a bill to increase funding for grants to hospitals and schools that serve First Nation communities, and of course there's CHIP. She advocates universal preschool, child care scholarships to support parents continuing their education and a whole lot of other education-related things that I've listed before. And all the women-related things that I've listed before.  
Clearly this stuff doesn't count for much among some people, but it does among others.

(In response to CSM above, not the captain)
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 07:12:38 PM by Emily » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #528 on: February 15, 2017, 07:11:25 PM »


If "pandering" includes appointing them as judges and justices, cabinet secretaries and senior policy advisors, I don't know how that can be separated from actually having those positions.

As usual, you give me plenty to think about (which pisses me off  Grin). But the quoted part above, I honestly do tend to think that the appointments are overwhelmingly irrelevant to him, and that he's just willing to give them to people who got him elected. I don't think the guy has a strongly believed position on anything other than the cult of his self-worship. And so I think when a Bannon can offer him what sounds like a successful strategy, he figures what the f***, make him a senior advisor. If it requires right-wing Christians to win, great, toss 'em a VP. Admittedly, that's just my own little narrative that could be entirely wrong--and there is no difference from a practical perspective, in that the results are the same.
I don't disagree. But it matters more to me what becomes law or policy under him than what his personal opinion is. His personal opinion is obviously for sale to whoever flatters his ego best. It's worth little.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #529 on: February 15, 2017, 07:56:47 PM »

A number of second-wave feminists had a problem with the gay marriage movement because it's so pro-marriage. There are complexities there.

Yes, but that's not why Clinton had a problem with the gay marriage movement, so I'm unsure of the relevance of that.

Quote
As Sec. of State she worked to get LGBT rights added to UN human rights resolutions; as senator she voted to end federal workplace discrimination; again as SoS, she changed the passport gender policy to reflect transgender gender and changed the depatment's benefits policies to apply equality to gay couples. And she was an activist as First Lady and SoS for women's rights and gay rights in parts of the world where they are less supported than here. She has acknowledged reparations as a legitimate consideration, she is a strong advocate of adding legislation to reinforce the voting rights act. As Senator, she co-sponsored a bill to increase funding for grants to hospitals and schools that serve First Nation communities, and of course there's CHIP. She advocates universal preschool, child care scholarships to support parents continuing their education and a whole lot of other education-related things that I've listed before. And all the women-related things that I've listed before.  
Clearly this stuff doesn't count for much among some people, but it does among others.

(In response to CSM above, not the captain)


It absolutely counts, and I gave her credit in my post. Yes, those things do count and are important just as her incredibly destructive positions on social issues also count. Just as it counts when someone might be in favour of the same policies as you but for different reasons, which is why you don't shut them down as a matter of principle.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #530 on: February 15, 2017, 08:23:10 PM »

A number of second-wave feminists had a problem with the gay marriage movement because it's so pro-marriage. There are complexities there.

Yes, but that's not why Clinton had a problem with the gay marriage movement, so I'm unsure of the relevance of that.

Quote
As Sec. of State she worked to get LGBT rights added to UN human rights resolutions; as senator she voted to end federal workplace discrimination; again as SoS, she changed the passport gender policy to reflect transgender gender and changed the depatment's benefits policies to apply equality to gay couples. And she was an activist as First Lady and SoS for women's rights and gay rights in parts of the world where they are less supported than here. She has acknowledged reparations as a legitimate consideration, she is a strong advocate of adding legislation to reinforce the voting rights act. As Senator, she co-sponsored a bill to increase funding for grants to hospitals and schools that serve First Nation communities, and of course there's CHIP. She advocates universal preschool, child care scholarships to support parents continuing their education and a whole lot of other education-related things that I've listed before. And all the women-related things that I've listed before.  
Clearly this stuff doesn't count for much among some people, but it does among others.

(In response to CSM above, not the captain)


It absolutely counts, and I gave her credit in my post. Yes, those things do count and are important just as her incredibly destructive positions on social issues also count. Just as it counts when someone might be in favour of the same policies as you but for different reasons, which is why you don't shut them down as a matter of principle.

If someone is for the same one policy as I because our otherwise entirely opposed philosophies happen to cross in that one spot, and we differ in all other places, and if supporting that person's implementation of that policy would have further implications of forwarding a political philosophy that is entirely opposed to mine, thus facilitating the implementation of additional policies to which I am strongly opposed, it would not make sense for me to support that person and that person's policy efforts.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #531 on: February 15, 2017, 08:38:10 PM »

A number of second-wave feminists had a problem with the gay marriage movement because it's so pro-marriage. There are complexities there.

Yes, but that's not why Clinton had a problem with the gay marriage movement, so I'm unsure of the relevance of that.

Quote
As Sec. of State she worked to get LGBT rights added to UN human rights resolutions; as senator she voted to end federal workplace discrimination; again as SoS, she changed the passport gender policy to reflect transgender gender and changed the depatment's benefits policies to apply equality to gay couples. And she was an activist as First Lady and SoS for women's rights and gay rights in parts of the world where they are less supported than here. She has acknowledged reparations as a legitimate consideration, she is a strong advocate of adding legislation to reinforce the voting rights act. As Senator, she co-sponsored a bill to increase funding for grants to hospitals and schools that serve First Nation communities, and of course there's CHIP. She advocates universal preschool, child care scholarships to support parents continuing their education and a whole lot of other education-related things that I've listed before. And all the women-related things that I've listed before.  
Clearly this stuff doesn't count for much among some people, but it does among others.

(In response to CSM above, not the captain)


It absolutely counts, and I gave her credit in my post. Yes, those things do count and are important just as her incredibly destructive positions on social issues also count. Just as it counts when someone might be in favour of the same policies as you but for different reasons, which is why you don't shut them down as a matter of principle.

If someone is for the same one policy as I because our otherwise entirely opposed philosophies happen to cross in that one spot, and we differ in all other places, and if supporting that person's implementation of that policy would have further implications of forwarding a political philosophy that is entirely opposed to mine, thus facilitating the implementation of additional policies to which I am strongly opposed, it would not make sense for me to support that person and that person's policy efforts.

Even if many lives are on the line? In the 1970s, there were two major factions opposed to the Vietnam war - the activist community and the corporate community. The latter was opposed for obviously terrible reasons - the war had become bad for business. Now, my guess is that if you asked the Vietnamese if it mattered that the reason the war ended there was for terrible reasons, they probably wouldn't care. Sometimes when it's a matter of thousands of lives being saved, I would suggest finding in-roads with people that you are entirely opposed to philosophically.

But, furthermore, the reality is that, today, many of these people with opposed philosophies have had their belief system hijacked by propaganda. They have been swayed before, which means they can be swayed back to a reasonable and rational position, and they are going be much more likely to do that if they are already half-way on board with many of the policies, which is what makes so many Trump supporters so much more malleable than Romney and Bush supporters ever were. The way the discourse seems to be these days, they appear more malleable than establishment Democrats (and their supporters) are at the moment. To write these people off is a grave strategic error in my view, impractical at best and dangerous at worst.

For much the same reason, I stressed the importance of voting for Clinton over Trump, and voting for Obama over Romney/McCain, etc. Sometimes you have to build connections with people even if they mostly represent everything that you stand in opposition to, because it will have the best temporary result and because it will give you the best opportunity for long-term gain.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 08:51:56 PM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #532 on: February 15, 2017, 08:50:58 PM »

A number of second-wave feminists had a problem with the gay marriage movement because it's so pro-marriage. There are complexities there.

Yes, but that's not why Clinton had a problem with the gay marriage movement, so I'm unsure of the relevance of that.

Quote
As Sec. of State she worked to get LGBT rights added to UN human rights resolutions; as senator she voted to end federal workplace discrimination; again as SoS, she changed the passport gender policy to reflect transgender gender and changed the depatment's benefits policies to apply equality to gay couples. And she was an activist as First Lady and SoS for women's rights and gay rights in parts of the world where they are less supported than here. She has acknowledged reparations as a legitimate consideration, she is a strong advocate of adding legislation to reinforce the voting rights act. As Senator, she co-sponsored a bill to increase funding for grants to hospitals and schools that serve First Nation communities, and of course there's CHIP. She advocates universal preschool, child care scholarships to support parents continuing their education and a whole lot of other education-related things that I've listed before. And all the women-related things that I've listed before.  
Clearly this stuff doesn't count for much among some people, but it does among others.

(In response to CSM above, not the captain)


It absolutely counts, and I gave her credit in my post. Yes, those things do count and are important just as her incredibly destructive positions on social issues also count. Just as it counts when someone might be in favour of the same policies as you but for different reasons, which is why you don't shut them down as a matter of principle.

If someone is for the same one policy as I because our otherwise entirely opposed philosophies happen to cross in that one spot, and we differ in all other places, and if supporting that person's implementation of that policy would have further implications of forwarding a political philosophy that is entirely opposed to mine, thus facilitating the implementation of additional policies to which I am strongly opposed, it would not make sense for me to support that person and that person's policy efforts.

Even if many lives are on the line? In the 1970s, there were two major factions opposed to the Vietnam war - the activist community and the corporate community. The latter was opposed for obviously terrible reasons - the war had become bad for business. Now, my guess is that if you asked the Vietnamese if it mattered that the reason the war ended there was for terrible reasons, they probably wouldn't care. Sometimes when it's a matter of thousands of lives being saved, I would suggest finding in-roads with people that you are entirely opposed to philosophically.

But, furthermore, the reality is that, today, many of these people with opposed philosophies have had their belief system hijacked by propaganda. They have been swayed before, which means they can be swayed back to a reasonable and rational position, and they are going be much more likely to do that if they are already half-way on board with many of the policies, which is what makes so many Trump supporters so much more malleable than Romney and Bush supporters ever were. The way the discourse seems to be these days, they appear more malleable than establishment Democrats (and their supporters) are at the moment. To write these people off is a grave strategic error in my view, impractical at best and dangerous at worst.
Probably not if there are many lives on the line, but I don't perceive Trump's foreign policy as life saving.
I think we disagree about who Trump supporters are. I think they are people who are, at base, racist, misogynist, xenophobic and authoritarian and are willing to vote against their own economic interests because bigotry is more important to them than economic well-being. And that they hold so fiercely to their bigotry gives me the sense that they are very much not malleable.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #533 on: February 15, 2017, 08:53:26 PM »

Let me ask you a question, in earnest, have you spent significant time reading the comments of Trump supporters on any of the big Trumpy sites?
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #534 on: February 15, 2017, 09:02:24 PM »

Let me ask you a question, in earnest, have you spent significant time reading the comments of Trump supporters on any of the big Trumpy sites?

No, I haven't. But even if I did, I wouldn't take it as a particularly good representation of his voters. I'd say about at least 70% of the comments that I see on videos on Youtube or news stories on the more moderate news sites (like CBC, here) tend to have an alt-right flavour to them. These people seem to have a vested interest in airing out their hateful venom online and they'll use any forum to do it. Naturally a "big Trumpy site" would be like a magnet for them.

I don't doubt by the way that Trump has many, many racist, misogynist, xenophobic and authoritarian supporters though.

And when I'm referring to saving lives, I'm not so much referring to Trump as I am his supporters who appear to ardently support the idea of disentangling ourselves from international military endeavours (though they appear wildly misguided in terms of how these endeavours began and why). That said, while I don't fully trust Trump on this, I can at least get on board with his position of wanting to reduce tensions with a supremely dangerous country, tensions that the establishment liberals seem only too happy to ignite these days. If he is earnest about that (and he seems to be switching back and forth daily), then, yes, that could save lives.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 09:03:57 PM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #535 on: February 15, 2017, 09:21:46 PM »

Regarding Russia, it depends - is the goal to reduce tensions or is the goal to support Russian regional expansion and hegemony and partner with the very alt-right Russian regime in spreading alt-rightism (can I just say white male supremacy?)
The US right-wing movement has close ties with Russian and other European right-wing nationalist groups. And Trump's administration has multiple oil links to Russia who have been very inconvenienced by the sanctions.  i don't think this is an innocent lessening of tensions. I think it's a strategic consolidation of corporate interests supported by and supporting a movement to reinstate a cultural hegemony.

Regarding the disentangling, I can get behind that, but they weren't for disentangling when we got entangled and they were all for "keeping the oil". And they were pleased with Trump's very aggressive statements regarding the Middle East and his (as usual somewhat inconsistent) policies regarding Israel, which are hardly peace-making. I think their foreign policy ideas are more tied to whether they approve of the president than the policy and whether they perceive the US to be winning or losing at whatever they think the goal is. I agree there are some actual isolationists in there, but I don't think that's the majority.

Again, I think we have different ideas about who they are and what they support and why.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 09:26:59 PM by Emily » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #536 on: February 16, 2017, 06:10:07 AM »

Regarding Russia, it depends - is the goal to reduce tensions or is the goal to support Russian regional expansion and hegemony and partner with the very alt-right Russian regime in spreading alt-rightism (can I just say white male supremacy?)

As far as Russia's regional expansion goes, it's important to note that Putin's illegal expansion has been thus far motivated by very aggressive moves carried out by the US and NATO, after they broke previous agreements they had with Russia. Not that this is an excuse but things do happen for a reason. I think that NATO backing off from the aggressive stance could actually help prevent expansionist Russia since they have been, in many ways, a central cause for it.

I am sure there are very bad reasons motivating Trump's take on Russia but whatever they are, the consequences seem better than the Democrats finding it strategically important to star Cold War: The Sequel.

Quote
Regarding the disentangling, I can get behind that, but they weren't for disentangling when we got entangled and they were all for "keeping the oil".

Sorry to use it as an example again but with recall with Vietnam, the vast majority of the population weren't for disentangling when the US got entangled and were bombing South Vietnam relentlessly and yet what eventually emerged was one of the most significant and consequential activist movements in American history. Again, people's minds can change and it may be a slow process but it could be an extremely beneficial one.

Quote
And they were pleased with Trump's very aggressive statements regarding the Middle East and his (as usual somewhat inconsistent) policies regarding Israel, which are hardly peace-making.

I'm not entirely sure who "they" are here. Certainly the Trump supporters that I argued with on here kept making the case that the US should stay out of the Middle East. Here's an example:
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23034.msg548036.html#msg548036

Quote
Again, I think we have different ideas about who they are and what they support and why.

I think so. But I have seen too much to simply consider Trump voters to be primarily racists, misogynists, etc. Keep in mind that nearly 300 counties that had previously elected Obama twice went Trump this election. Also, have you seen the MSNBC special where Bernie Sanders debates Trump supporters? It's not only a pretty strong reflection of the beliefs of many Trump voters but also inspiring in terms of how easily Sanders convinces so many of them of leftist policies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZK4lvRMANY

And have you seen the Trump Regrets twitter feed? Apart from just being amusing, it is a striking example of how people are genuinely confronting the sham of the Trump campaign. Here's a few Tweets:

"I voted for you but you're going to kill me with no medicine"

"I voted for Trump....but I am losing respect for him and his LYING.... GET RID OF    bannon  miller"

"where's the no nonsense outsider I voted for? Why did you get the biggest insider as your COS? He's undermining your agenda"

"Fake media? You're a fraud! I voted for you You've used fear mongering and eliminating programs from ppl who need it. JOKE!"

And this is just the last couple of days. This is obviously no scientific study but I think it speaks volumes about the reasons why many voted for Trump and now see him as standing in opposition to him.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2017, 06:26:34 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
harrisonjon
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 413


View Profile
« Reply #537 on: February 16, 2017, 09:46:17 AM »

The goal for Trump with Russia is going to be financial. I doubt there's any ideological or strategic thinking going on.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #538 on: February 16, 2017, 10:58:28 AM »

Regarding Russia, it depends - is the goal to reduce tensions or is the goal to support Russian regional expansion and hegemony and partner with the very alt-right Russian regime in spreading alt-rightism (can I just say white male supremacy?)

As far as Russia's regional expansion goes, it's important to note that Putin's illegal expansion has been thus far motivated by very aggressive moves carried out by the US and NATO, after they broke previous agreements they had with Russia. Not that this is an excuse but things do happen for a reason. I think that NATO backing off from the aggressive stance could actually help prevent expansionist Russia since they have been, in many ways, a central cause for it.

I am sure there are very bad reasons motivating Trump's take on Russia but whatever they are, the consequences seem better than the Democrats finding it strategically important to star Cold War: The Sequel.

Quote
Regarding the disentangling, I can get behind that, but they weren't for disentangling when we got entangled and they were all for "keeping the oil".

Sorry to use it as an example again but with recall with Vietnam, the vast majority of the population weren't for disentangling when the US got entangled and were bombing South Vietnam relentlessly and yet what eventually emerged was one of the most significant and consequential activist movements in American history. Again, people's minds can change and it may be a slow process but it could be an extremely beneficial one.

Quote
And they were pleased with Trump's very aggressive statements regarding the Middle East and his (as usual somewhat inconsistent) policies regarding Israel, which are hardly peace-making.

I'm not entirely sure who "they" are here. Certainly the Trump supporters that I argued with on here kept making the case that the US should stay out of the Middle East. Here's an example:
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23034.msg548036.html#msg548036

Quote
Again, I think we have different ideas about who they are and what they support and why.

I think so. But I have seen too much to simply consider Trump voters to be primarily racists, misogynists, etc. Keep in mind that nearly 300 counties that had previously elected Obama twice went Trump this election. Also, have you seen the MSNBC special where Bernie Sanders debates Trump supporters? It's not only a pretty strong reflection of the beliefs of many Trump voters but also inspiring in terms of how easily Sanders convinces so many of them of leftist policies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZK4lvRMANY

And have you seen the Trump Regrets twitter feed? Apart from just being amusing, it is a striking example of how people are genuinely confronting the sham of the Trump campaign. Here's a few Tweets:

"I voted for you but you're going to kill me with no medicine"

"I voted for Trump....but I am losing respect for him and his LYING.... GET RID OF    bannon  miller"

"where's the no nonsense outsider I voted for? Why did you get the biggest insider as your COS? He's undermining your agenda"

"Fake media? You're a fraud! I voted for you You've used fear mongering and eliminating programs from ppl who need it. JOKE!"

And this is just the last couple of days. This is obviously no scientific study but I think it speaks volumes about the reasons why many voted for Trump and now see him as standing in opposition to him.
Just like the conflicts in the Middle East are deeper than the last 15 years, so is the history of Russian expansionism. The policy of hegemony over the region has been around for much longer than NATO has existed. Under the tsarist, Soviet and post-Soviet governments, the policy of Russification had proceeded uninterrupted. Under Stalin, significant local populations were displaced and replaced by Russians, most often in the cities, but in the case of Ukraine, in the valuable agricultural territory, in the expensive Crimean resorts and in Crimean ports. Now Russia is using that forced population movement as a claim to that land - land that is the most valuable in Ukraine, and land that would provide Black Sea pipeline access for Russian oil.
Ukraine or other border countries choosing to ally themselves with NATO can be seen as NATO aggression but it can also be seen as independent countries' desire to form alliances that will help protect them from a powerful and predatory neighbor.
The Cohen argument on Russia is one that basically says that Russia should be ceded rights to all of its neighboring countries. It puts the left in a position in which it is criticizing the US for the same behavior that they defend for Russians. Either poorer, weaker countries that neighbor a big, powerful country should have their autonomy supported by the international community or they shouldn't and big, powerful countries should have the right to interfere, dictate, kill and take resources as a right of might. It's not right to have one set of principles for the US and another for
Russia.
No, I haven't seen the Sanders video (and I can't now). Yes, I have seen the regrets twitter feed. Your sample is not statistically stronger than my Trumpy commenters, so we haven't resolved that gap.
Logged
mtaber
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


View Profile
« Reply #539 on: February 16, 2017, 02:32:15 PM »

Here's why Trump won the election:

1) People are sick of "politics as usual" and "politicians as usual".  Clinton represents both. 

2) People are sick of the news media, which is predominantly liberal, pushing them to share their views - the news media no longer "reports what is happening" and now "reports what we, the news media, think about what's happening". 

3) People view Clinton as a criminal.

Labeling Trump supporters as racists, Emily?  It must be nice to be so open-minded...
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #540 on: February 16, 2017, 04:29:00 PM »

For your--all of your, that is--consideration and comment, from Democracy Now, "Greenwald: Empowering the "Deep State" to Undermine Trump is Prescription for Destroying Democracy"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY1MiNfwcRg&t=3s
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #541 on: February 21, 2017, 06:22:25 AM »

Interesting opinion piece by a senior fellow at the progressive Center for American Progress saying that the Democrats would be smarter to move left and recapture those more progressive voters who voted for minor parties than to focus on the much-discussed white working class, presumably centrist, former Obama voters who voted Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/opinion/move-left-democrats.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region

What I wonder is, is this even a true dichotomy? I'm not sure there was even a consistent difference between the former Democrats voting Trump and the former Democrats voting third party, in many cases. I can't even count how many people I talked to as Sanders's campaign wound down who said without him in the race, they'd probably vote Trump. Clearly, these people weren't thinking about the Democrats becoming more progressive, or more conservative. They were just normal people who (presumably) were attracted to what they saw as a shakeup--and probably heard a talking point or two they liked: job creation, opposition to trade agreements, or something.

Personally, I'd rather see every party stop chasing voters, and instead present positions that let voters choose them.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8141



View Profile
« Reply #542 on: February 21, 2017, 06:23:56 AM »

Make voting great again.... Roll Eyes
Logged

And production aside, Id so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
bachelorofbullets
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


View Profile
« Reply #543 on: February 21, 2017, 10:25:26 AM »

Let me ask you a question, in earnest, have you spent significant time reading the comments of Trump supporters on any of the big Trumpy sites?

Sadly, most Trump supporters know little about politics.  I know many Trump voters and almost of all of them know little about politics, government or the most basic differences between Democrats and Republicans.  Most voted for Trump simply because they liked him, either that or they didn't like Hillary.  Also, Trump voters hold to very strong demographic lines, young people in general did not vote for him.  Many have been brainwashed by Fox News.  It's not a pretty situation, but their opinions are still legitamite.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #544 on: March 17, 2017, 07:13:10 AM »

Just a quick update:

Yesterday the US government announced plans to place millions of Americans at significant nutritional risk by cutting food and poverty programs. They also bombed a mosque with 300 people inside killing over 40 people in what amounts to a serious war crime.

The barbaric enterprise not only continues but considerably ramps up.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2017, 07:17:20 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
mtaber
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


View Profile
« Reply #545 on: March 17, 2017, 12:39:53 PM »

The article that I read indicated doubts as to who bombed the mosque, perhaps the U.S., possibly Russia.  But, if there's any doubt, blame Trump!
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #546 on: March 17, 2017, 12:56:19 PM »

I think CSM has pretty consistently criticized U.S. "war on terror" bombings under any regime: nothing necessarily Trump specific. Obama was the one who ramped up drone bombing and was ok with extrajudicial killing of American citizens, after all.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #547 on: March 17, 2017, 01:57:05 PM »

The article that I read indicated doubts as to who bombed the mosque, perhaps the U.S., possibly Russia.  But, if there's any doubt, blame Trump!

Well then I suggest you double-check what you read because the United States has outright admitted to bombing the region but denies hitting the mosque even though footage shows "a black placard naming a mosque and Islamic law school lean[ing] against a damaged building."

See here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39299266

So, definitely not Russia. The United States is 100% uncontroversially behind the bombings. The only thing they have put into question is what they targeted.

And, yes, as The Captain says, I have consistently criticized Obama's drone campaign on here (by all means, do a search) so I'm not sure who you are arguing against when you say "if there's any doubt, blame Trump" but it's certainly not me.

I will say that what is unquestionably true is that Trump has ramped up the bombing campaign following an administration that itself ramped up the bombing campaign.

So again I repeat: The barbaric enterprise not only continues but considerably ramps up.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2017, 01:57:47 PM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8141



View Profile
« Reply #548 on: March 17, 2017, 01:59:38 PM »

CSM for president! ( I know he is Canadian!)
Logged

And production aside, Id so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #549 on: March 19, 2017, 08:45:58 PM »

Some good commentary in here: https://www.project-syndicate.org/focal-points/trump-an-american-horror-story
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 32   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.388 seconds with 21 queries.