-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 19, 2019, 07:56:04 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Beach Boys Britain
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 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 32   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Politics: 2016 Lame Duck and 2017 New Administration  (Read 101854 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: November 28, 2016, 07:42:39 AM »

Of course they are. It will be two more weeks since the last election and the next won't be for quite a while. Naturally there willl be less talk about voting. And there's no existing competition to have a stalemate over. I really just don't know what you're talking about.
However, back to the fake news topic and your enthusiasm for Trump's manipulation. You have asserted that willingness to lie and manipulate will make him a good president. I believe they will contribute to him being a bad president. Is there a point with you at which lying to "win" becomes a bad thing? Do you feel like policy based on improving actual reality, not based on manipulation, matters at all? Do you think that honesty matters at all? Do you think it's OK if a president sows discord and lies constantly, as long as he "wins"?

Well, I walked into a minefield there didn't I?

The point that I was trying to get across was that with the new tweet about 3 million illegal votes, that's him using a rope-a-dope strategy. It might seem like a huge target and something to 'Gotcha!' him on, but I don't think anyone's going to land a punch. The angry people are just gonna wear themselves out. do some extreme fact checking and until the next big 'mistake' or whatever you wanna call it. 2 weeks from now, the popular vote argument will be completely defanged and won't come up much at all. He knows how to nullify an argument, and the guy is a pro at it. I mean, remember how big of a deal his tax returns were? It was meant to a bombshell, huge and people really hammered on about it. Well, the election has come and he managed to win without releasing them. It's pretty much been nullified.

I think Trump will be a good president, but we'll just have to wait and see. I don't think he's thin skinned or that he has a bad temperament either. One line during the campaign was 'A man who can be provoked by a tweet should not have his hands anywhere near the nuclear codes'. I think he's proven time and time again that HE is a master of provoking people in 140 or less, plenty of proof on this site alone.

As for the news, this election cycle the media just popped out non-stop propaganda on both sides, there has been collusion between major networks and political parties, so I think the term fake news stretches out way further than Alex Jones.

I probably skimmed over some of your points, so I'm sorry about that, but if you wanna have a proper back and forth about this, we should take it to the Campaign thread. I don't wanna take over The Captain's thread because it's being steered in a certain direction and I'd probably make it go round in circles.
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8141



View Profile
« Reply #76 on: November 28, 2016, 07:44:42 AM »

The Captain for president 2020! Grin
Logged

And production aside, Iíd 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
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: November 28, 2016, 08:37:23 AM »

It's not my thread, SinisterSmile. I just started to to move into current events rather than rehashing what went wrong in the campaign. By all means, contribute any such comments, arguments, etc you'd like.
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 #78 on: November 28, 2016, 11:08:16 AM »

Gen Petraeus has apparently emerged as a kind of compromise candidate for State, with detractors for both Giuliani and Romney. It seems Trump's interest in protecting classified information is malleable when the crime is for the benefit of something he believes in: infidelity.

Imagine the childish nicknames he'd have earned had he been a presidential candidate!
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 #79 on: November 28, 2016, 07:02:25 PM »

Of course they are. It will be two more weeks since the last election and the next won't be for quite a while. Naturally there willl be less talk about voting. And there's no existing competition to have a stalemate over. I really just don't know what you're talking about.
However, back to the fake news topic and your enthusiasm for Trump's manipulation. You have asserted that willingness to lie and manipulate will make him a good president. I believe they will contribute to him being a bad president. Is there a point with you at which lying to "win" becomes a bad thing? Do you feel like policy based on improving actual reality, not based on manipulation, matters at all? Do you think that honesty matters at all? Do you think it's OK if a president sows discord and lies constantly, as long as he "wins"?

Well, I walked into a minefield there didn't I?

The point that I was trying to get across was that with the new tweet about 3 million illegal votes, that's him using a rope-a-dope strategy. It might seem like a huge target and something to 'Gotcha!' him on, but I don't think anyone's going to land a punch. The angry people are just gonna wear themselves out. do some extreme fact checking and until the next big 'mistake' or whatever you wanna call it. 2 weeks from now, the popular vote argument will be completely defanged and won't come up much at all. He knows how to nullify an argument, and the guy is a pro at it. I mean, remember how big of a deal his tax returns were? It was meant to a bombshell, huge and people really hammered on about it. Well, the election has come and he managed to win without releasing them. It's pretty much been nullified.
I still don't understand what you're talking about. Recount or not, his tweet or not, people will still be very conscious that this was one of the least-popularly elected presidents in history. Unlike the Miss Universe pageant thing, that's not the sort of information historians and journalists forget. Regarding everyone else, it doesn't matter. He's no longer campaigning. Two months ago, your point might be valid. Right now, lying to manipulate people about this serves no purpose. The recount isn't a threat to him (though of course his tweet supports, incorrectly, that there should be a recount/investigation so he contradicted himself, as usual), and the popular vote point wouldn't continue to be brought up for long whether he tweeted or not. But his tweet is not going to stop people from mentioning it in discussions where it's pertinent. It's just pointless stupidity.
Regarding his taxes, it's quite obvious that his supporters never cared. He didn't affect that. The people who care care and the people who don't don't without regard to his tweets. It wasn't nullified with the people who care and he didn't convince those who care not to care.
I think Trump will be a good president, but we'll just have to wait and see. I don't think he's thin skinned or that he has a bad temperament either. One line during the campaign was 'A man who can be provoked by a tweet should not have his hands anywhere near the nuclear codes'. I think he's proven time and time again that HE is a master of provoking people in 140 or less, plenty of proof on this site alone.
Do you think provoking people is an important skill for a president?
As for the news, this election cycle the media just popped out non-stop propaganda on both sides, there has been collusion between major networks and political parties, so I think the term fake news stretches out way further than Alex Jones.
Indeed it stretches way further than Alex Jones, as I expressed in an earlier post. The "both sides" things is just factually a false equivalence.
I probably skimmed over some of your points, so I'm sorry about that, but if you wanna have a proper back and forth about this, we should take it to the Campaign thread. I don't wanna take over The Captain's thread because it's being steered in a certain direction and I'd probably make it go round in circles.
I'd appreciate it if you'd answer some of my questions. As I expressed earlier in this thread, I'm baffled by the spreading of fake news AS IF it's true when some of the people spreading it know it's false and don't profit from it. It's pretty clear there's a mass phenomenon of people knowing that fake news is the only justification for their candidate and, instead of thinking they should probably rethink their candidate, they decide to embrace fake news. You seem to be among them. So I'm curious - if fake news is necessary for your candidate, don't you think that reflects badly on the candidate? And now that he's president-elect, don't you think his continuing to spread fake news (ie. lying to the public in ways that are destructive to Democracy) is a problem? If not, why?
Everything you've said positive about trump is basically that you think he's a skillful liar and manipulator. Why does this translate to you, in the absence of decent policy proposals, to a likely good president? Do you feel that policy is completely unimportant and that the presidency is only about skillful public manipulation to garner presidential popularity? And is there a line you would draw when lying for political ends is inappropriate?
I sincerely do not understand the thinking and would appreciate if you would answer some of my questions.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: November 28, 2016, 07:06:14 PM »

Gen Petraeus has apparently emerged as a kind of compromise candidate for State, with detractors for both Giuliani and Romney. It seems Trump's interest in protecting classified information is malleable when the crime is for the benefit of something he believes in: infidelity.

Imagine the childish nicknames he'd have earned had he been a presidential candidate!
I've known General Petraeus for many years. He's a nice and very smart man who acted out a sadly common mid-latish life ridicularity. I'm sorry to say that I still think that this would be a grossly hypocritical and inappropriate appointment.
Logged
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: November 28, 2016, 10:05:31 PM »

Quote
I still don't understand what you're talking about. Recount or not, his tweet or not, people will still be very conscious that this was one of the least-popularly elected presidents in history.
A lot of people on social media still haven't accepted him as President and are still clinging to the popular vote argument/vote recount in certain states. This tweet brings it up and forces people to process it. I don't think it's manipulation, it's negotiation. You might see it as whining or something else, I see it as a good move.

Quote
However, back to the fake news topic and your enthusiasm for Trump's manipulation. You have asserted that willingness to lie and manipulate will make him a good president. I believe they will contribute to him being a bad president.
I think he's playing the role of politician and he's light years ahead of anyone else at the moment, you make it sound like he's using mind control.

Quote
Is there a point with you at which lying to "win" becomes a bad thing?
Of course, I'll letcha know if we start going down that path.

Quote
Do you feel like policy based on improving actual reality, not based on manipulation, matters at all?
Sure. I think Trump will improve reality.

Quote
Do you think that honesty matters at all?
I think Trump has been the most honest of the politicians this cycle.

Quote
Do you think it's OK if a president sows discord and lies constantly, as long as he "wins"?
I think what Trump is doing is fine and that you might be overly critical, but we will just have to see how he acts as President.

Quote
Do you think provoking people is an important skill for a president?
Getting results is important, and Trump hasn't missed his mark yet.

Quote
Indeed it stretches way further than Alex Jones, as I expressed in an earlier post. The "both sides" things is just factually a false equivalence.
Well, we should figure out what real news is before we go further, because both sides are beyond dirty. We could really go back and forth with this one, so it's like only if you want to.

Quote
I'm baffled by the spreading of fake news AS IF it's true when some of the people spreading it know it's false and don't profit from it. It's pretty clear there's a mass phenomenon of people knowing that fake news is the only justification for their candidate and, instead of thinking they should probably rethink their candidate, they decide to embrace fake news. You seem to be among them. So I'm curious - if fake news is necessary for your candidate, don't you think that reflects badly on the candidate?
I still don't get all this fake news stuff. Hillary had CNN working overtime to protect her, are they real news?

Quote
And now that he's president-elect, don't you think his continuing to spread fake news (ie. lying to the public in ways that are destructive to Democracy) is a problem?
You say lying, I say negotiating. I don't think he's doing any damage with his tweets, I think we can both agree that he's a master baiter though, right?

Quote
Everything you've said positive about trump is basically that you think he's a skillful liar and manipulator.
Fantastic public speaker, excellent persuader, knows where and when to pick a fight. He's not the be all end all, but he has a lot of positives.

Quote
Why does this translate to you, in the absence of decent policy proposals, to a likely good president?
I can't give you the hard evidence you want, but just like when I predicted his win during the primaries, chalk it up to a gut feeling. He'll be good.

Quote
Do you feel that policy is completely unimportant and that the presidency is only about skillful public manipulation to garner presidential popularity?
Policy is important and I think Trump will surprise many of his naysayers when it comes to policy, not all but many. Watch this space.

Quote
And is there a line you would draw when lying for political ends is inappropriate?
Maybe if he got caught saying that he had private position and a public position on everything, and when questioned he blamed it on a Spielberg movie. I'd have to throw in the towel after that (this is a joke by the way)

Quote
I sincerely do not understand the thinking and would appreciate if you would answer some of my questions.
I would have appreciated discussing how Hillary's campaign failed without being called a woman hater, but you can't always get what you want.

Damn, wall of text. Sorry for any errors or mistakes in there

« Last Edit: November 28, 2016, 10:07:31 PM by SinisterSmile » Logged
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2451


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: November 28, 2016, 10:27:16 PM »

I am trying to understand why Jill Stein is pushing these recounts. Is she trying to deflect the fact that her candidacy greatly contributed to Trump's victory, and in doing so, environmental regulations will be rolled back by 70 years and the EPA gutted. I mean, really, what was she thinking when she ran. She arrived at the DNC escorted by a Fox News crew.

Great job Green Party and the dopes who voted for it!  All the while, wrapped up in the Dakota Pipeline protest. The pipeline which Trump is heavily invested in.
Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: November 29, 2016, 03:55:12 AM »

Quote
I still don't understand what you're talking about. Recount or not, his tweet or not, people will still be very conscious that this was one of the least-popularly elected presidents in history.
A lot of people on social media still haven't accepted him as President and are still clinging to the popular vote argument/vote recount in certain states. This tweet brings it up and forces people to process it. I don't think it's manipulation, it's negotiation.
[\quote]
It really doesn't force people to process anything. It's a lie. You know it's a lie. And it's an irresponsible, destructive lie. It doesn't negotiate anything. It's a fact that he lost the popular vote by a whopping amount and the people who support him will take the lie as a further excuse to allow authoritarianism, which I'm guessing you think is a good thing at this point. But it will do nothing to reduce the fact that he lost the popular vote and since it's such a transparent lie, it won't affect anyone's knowledge or opinion on that.
Quote from: SinisterSmile link=topic=24566.msg596503#msg596503 date=1480399531
[quote
However, back to the fake news topic and your enthusiasm for Trump's manipulation. You have asserted that willingness to lie and manipulate will make him a good president. I believe they will contribute to him being a bad president.
I think he's playing the role of politician and he's light years ahead of anyone else at the moment, you make it sound like he's using mind control.

Quote
Is there a point with you at which lying to "win" becomes a bad thing?
Of course, I'll letcha know if we start going down that path.

Quote
Do you feel like policy based on improving actual reality, not based on manipulation, matters at all?
Sure. I think Trump will improve reality.

Quote
Do you think that honesty matters at all?
I think Trump has been the most honest of the politicians this cycle.

Quote
Do you think it's OK if a president sows discord and lies constantly, as long as he "wins"?
I think what Trump is doing is fine and that you might be overly critical, but we will just have to see how he acts as President.

Quote
Do you think provoking people is an important skill for a president?
Getting results is important, and Trump hasn't missed his mark yet.

Quote
Indeed it stretches way further than Alex Jones, as I expressed in an earlier post. The "both sides" things is just factually a false equivalence.
Well, we should figure out what real news is before we go further, because both sides are beyond dirty. We could really go back and forth with this one, so it's like only if you want to.

Quote
I'm baffled by the spreading of fake news AS IF it's true when some of the people spreading it know it's false and don't profit from it. It's pretty clear there's a mass phenomenon of people knowing that fake news is the only justification for their candidate and, instead of thinking they should probably rethink their candidate, they decide to embrace fake news. You seem to be among them. So I'm curious - if fake news is necessary for your candidate, don't you think that reflects badly on the candidate?
I still don't get all this fake news stuff. Hillary had CNN working overtime to protect her, are they real news?

Quote
And now that he's president-elect, don't you think his continuing to spread fake news (ie. lying to the public in ways that are destructive to Democracy) is a problem?
You say lying, I say negotiating. I don't think he's doing any damage with his tweets, I think we can both agree that he's a master baiter though, right?

Quote
Everything you've said positive about trump is basically that you think he's a skillful liar and manipulator.
Fantastic public speaker, excellent persuader, knows where and when to pick a fight. He's not the be all end all, but he has a lot of positives.

Quote
Why does this translate to you, in the absence of decent policy proposals, to a likely good president?
I can't give you the hard evidence you want, but just like when I predicted his win during the primaries, chalk it up to a gut feeling. He'll be good.

Quote
Do you feel that policy is completely unimportant and that the presidency is only about skillful public manipulation to garner presidential popularity?
Policy is important and I think Trump will surprise many of his naysayers when it comes to policy, not all but many. Watch this space.

Quote
And is there a line you would draw when lying for political ends is inappropriate?
Maybe if he got caught saying that he had private position and a public position on everything, and when questioned he blamed it on a Spielberg movie. I'd have to throw in the towel after that (this is a joke by the way)

Quote
I sincerely do not understand the thinking and would appreciate if you would answer some of my questions.
I would have appreciated discussing how Hillary's campaign failed without being called a woman hater, but you can't always get what you want.

Damn, wall of text. Sorry for any errors or mistakes in there


Wow. So you don't differentiate at all between news that reports actual facts, albeit with a slant, and news that is pure fiction?
And you don't see a problem with pressing discord and destruction in the guise of "negotiation"?
It's interesting, though, that you have ONLY listened to Trump and read his version of the news. It creates a very pure image of Trump-think.
Do you think it makes no difference what the president does as long as he's effective in doing it?
What do you believe, not in terms of slogans but in terms of actual policy, Trump's plans are, what do you believe he'll succeed in actually doing and how do you think those policies will make things actually better?
« Last Edit: November 29, 2016, 04:44:20 AM by Emily » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: November 29, 2016, 07:15:54 AM »

I am trying to understand why Jill Stein is pushing these recounts. Is she trying to deflect the fact that her candidacy greatly contributed to Trump's victory,

Except that it didn't in any way whatsoever that we know of. That is a complete fabrication.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2016, 07:16:21 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: November 29, 2016, 07:37:39 AM »

I can't give you the hard evidence you want, but just like when I predicted his win during the primaries, chalk it up to a gut feeling. He'll be good.

OK, in that case, can you possibly answer some direct questions.

His tax plan to reduce the top tier tax percentage, has historically only led to the disenfranchisement of the working class, the dissipation of the middle class, the inflation of personal debt and the inflation of national debt. The difference between Trump and these previous cases is that he wishes to impose this policy in an even more extreme fashion. What do you think is good about that?

On election day, the World Meteorological Organization released information that illustrated uncontroversially the striking man made contributions to climate change. They noted that "2016 will be the hottest year on record," that "Concentrations of major greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continue to increase to new records," and that "there was significant and very early melting of the Greenland ice sheet." Trump's decision in this case is largely to ignore this. What do you think is good about that?

Furthermore, there have already been severe consequences as a result of these major environmental changes, not the least of which being environmental migration. As the WMO point out, "in 2015 there were 19.2 million new displacements associated with weather, water, climate and geophysical hazards in 113 countries, more than twice as many as for conflict and violence." In the upcoming years, no matter what Trump says about immigration, there will be simply no way he could ever possibly adhere to those standards, at least not without killing many people. What do you think is good about that?

Trump has made no bones about his opposition to basic entrenched rights. So, for example, he has argued that he is in favour of "expanding libel laws" to target news organizations who write things about him that he doesn't like. What do you think is good about that?

In terms of international policies, most politicians propose a coherent one, whether you can agree with it or not. Trump still hasn't put forward a consistent foreign policy. What do you think is good about that?
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: November 29, 2016, 07:45:15 AM »

Don't forget reinstituting torture (contrary to international law and studies proving its ineffectiveness) and other punishments on free speech (beyond libel, such as threatening imprisonment or even revoking citizenship of people who burn the flag). Oh he's so clever! He's gonna be so great! I feel the country re-greatening already! Roll Eyes
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 #87 on: November 29, 2016, 07:50:18 AM »

Don't forget reinstituting torture (contrary to international law and studies proving its ineffectiveness)

Yes, what he's said there has been heinous, though I might file that under the "incoherent foreign policy" header, since he's reversed position on that. Sort of. In an unclear way. So ultimately, I feel like his torture comments come from a basic lack of clarity when it comes to international decisions.

Quote
and other punishments on free speech (beyond libel, such as threatening imprisonment or even revoking citizenship of people who burn the flag).

Yeah, that one I didn't add because I just saw it today and I am waiting to see how it plays out. But, yes, it's ridiculous.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: November 29, 2016, 07:59:23 AM »

Is she trying to deflect the fact that her candidacy greatly contributed to Trump's victory ...
Great job Green Party and the dopes who voted for it! 
The issue I have with people complaining about other voting blocs as ďcosting us the electionĒ is twofold:
 
1) As Iíve argued before on this board, that assumes the people who voted otherwise wanted things to go your way, which by definition (e.g., voting for someone else), they didnít. You can rant until youíre blue in the face that any reasonable person would blah blah blah lesser of two evils  blah blah blah logical conclusion. But itís YOUR conclusion FOR THEM. Not their conclusion for themselves. If someone decides two the two most likely winners are both equally unacceptable, or even unequally unacceptable but unacceptable, thatís that. S/he can vote however s/he chooses.
 
2) You can select any segment of voters who didnít vote your way and conduct the same exercise. You can blame Stein voters if you want, but why not blame the more progressive of the Johnson voters? If only theyíd understood that Clinton was more likely to [pursue issue of choice] than TrumpÖ Or blame the moderate Republicans who align with Clinton more than Trump on almost everything other than abortion, but still voted GOP out of the typical tribal loyalties, or maybe over the Supreme Court. Or blame the Democrats who stayed home. Or blame populist conservatives whose interests would be better served by Clinton than by the moron-wolf in populist's clothing. Or blame the progressive Democrats who align with Stein, but voted Clinton: those damn Clinton voters cost Stein the election (if you want to play that game). The scapegoat options are literally endless.
 
Point being, there are sufficient subgroups of non-Clinton voters who could have given Clinton a victory except for one major problem: they were voting for someone other than Clinton, which means THEY DIDNíT WANT CLINTON. They have no obligation to help Clinton supporters get their way. Everyone has a right to vote for the candidate of his or her own choice for whatever reason s/he finds persuasive. If your persuasion attempts are too weak to convince those people, thatís not their shortcoming.
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 #89 on: November 29, 2016, 09:21:09 AM »

I also suspect that his "rigged" and "illegal votes" talk is a set-up to institute more voting restrictions.
And there are abortion rights.
And he and his education secretary both advocate cutting public education funding.
His infrastructure plan is just to give a bunch of money to private construction  companies (who work closely with real estate developers, of course).
« Last Edit: November 29, 2016, 09:24:12 AM by Emily » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #90 on: November 29, 2016, 09:45:46 AM »

Point being, there are sufficient subgroups of non-Clinton voters who could have given Clinton a victory except for one major problem: they were voting for someone other than Clinton, which means THEY DIDNíT WANT CLINTON. They have no obligation to help Clinton supporters get their way. Everyone has a right to vote for the candidate of his or her own choice for whatever reason s/he finds persuasive. If your persuasion attempts are too weak to convince those people, thatís not their shortcoming.

Excellent point. When the supporters of the liberal establishment aren't espousing a very odd strain of anti-democratic rhetoric, they are pointing fingers at everybody else who won't get in line. This is not particularly surprising. After all, this was a presidential candidate who privately said that the US should have flat-out undermined democracy in Palestine. And it's not surprising that the fingers are being pointed elsewhere. After all, the liberal establishment and their supporters fundamentally believe that their position is the right one. So, for them, it was inconceivable that the public didn't support Clinton because she was a bad candidate. And so a bunch of other reasons have to be invented. And, as you point out, this reasons are almost comically unending. Here's one that blames it on Jon Stewart retiring:

http://tvline.com/2016/11/11/hillary-clinton-elected-president-jon-stewart-daily-show/

And furthermore, one could ask Clinton supporters why they didn't apply this same standard to themselves when she was running up against Obama in 2008?
« Last Edit: November 29, 2016, 09:51:43 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2451


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: November 29, 2016, 10:39:49 AM »

I am trying to understand why Jill Stein is pushing these recounts. Is she trying to deflect the fact that her candidacy greatly contributed to Trump's victory,

Except that it didn't in any way whatsoever that we know of. That is a complete fabrication.

Except it's not! Your statement is like all the fake news going around. Multiple analysis from multiple sources confirm the conclusion. You simply are in denial on your wasted vote!

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

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: November 29, 2016, 10:44:25 AM »

The story admits it is speculative.

Quote
It's impossible to know how an election could have gone under hypothetical scenarios ... If Johnson and Stein weren't in the race, it's also possible many of their supporters may have stayed home. But if about half of Johnson's supporters would have voted for Clinton over Trump, and if most of Stein's supporters broke for the Democrats, the electoral map would have been decidedly different.

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 #93 on: November 29, 2016, 10:45:32 AM »

I am trying to understand why Jill Stein is pushing these recounts. Is she trying to deflect the fact that her candidacy greatly contributed to Trump's victory,

Except that it didn't in any way whatsoever that we know of. That is a complete fabrication.

Except it's not! Your statement is like all the fake news going around. Multiple analysis from multiple sources confirm the conclusion. You simply are in denial on your wasted vote!

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

We have talked about this before. As you know, the statistics show that even if every Jill Stein voter voted for Clinton, Trump would still be president. And none of the stories you are linking to say otherwise, except they are desperately attempting to massage the statistics to avoid the fact that Clinton lost because she was not a good candidate. This is why I find the term "fake news" somewhat problematic because the mainstream media is certainly as capable of being fake as any of the online sources.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: November 29, 2016, 10:47:20 AM »

Also isn't CSM Canadian, and this couldn't vote? If so, ORR, that's twice you've mistakenly blamed someone for "wasting" their votes: to me, when I voted the way you did, and I think to CSM, who can't vote in American elections. Please look before you leap for these erroneous conclusions and subsequent wrongful accusations.
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 #95 on: November 29, 2016, 10:48:27 AM »

Also isn't CSM Canadian, and this couldn't vote? If so, ORR, that's twice you've mistakenly blamed someone for "wasting" their votes: to me, when I voted the way you did, and I think to CSM, who can't vote in American elections. Please look before you leap for these erroneous conclusions and subsequent wrongful accusations.

Yes, and furthermore, on this very site, not long before the election, I said exactly what I said on this site about Obama in 2012, that the best solution would be to vote for Clinton in a swing state.

Here's where I say it: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20357.msg593278.html#msg593278

And here I am saying virtually the same thing about Obama in 2012: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,14227.msg316114.html#msg316114
« Last Edit: November 29, 2016, 10:51:32 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2451


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: November 29, 2016, 10:58:57 AM »

Is she trying to deflect the fact that her candidacy greatly contributed to Trump's victory ...
Great job Green Party and the dopes who voted for it!  
The issue I have with people complaining about other voting blocs as ďcosting us the electionĒ is twofold:
 
1) As Iíve argued before on this board, that assumes the people who voted otherwise wanted things to go your way, which by definition (e.g., voting for someone else), they didnít. You can rant until youíre blue in the face that any reasonable person would blah blah blah lesser of two evils  blah blah blah logical conclusion. But itís YOUR conclusion FOR THEM. Not their conclusion for themselves. If someone decides two the two most likely winners are both equally unacceptable, or even unequally unacceptable but unacceptable, thatís that. S/he can vote however s/he chooses.
 
2) You can select any segment of voters who didnít vote your way and conduct the same exercise. You can blame Stein voters if you want, but why not blame the more progressive of the Johnson voters? If only theyíd understood that Clinton was more likely to [pursue issue of choice] than TrumpÖ Or blame the moderate Republicans who align with Clinton more than Trump on almost everything other than abortion, but still voted GOP out of the typical tribal loyalties, or maybe over the Supreme Court. Or blame the Democrats who stayed home. Or blame populist conservatives whose interests would be better served by Clinton than by the moron-wolf in populist's clothing. Or blame the progressive Democrats who align with Stein, but voted Clinton: those damn Clinton voters cost Stein the election (if you want to play that game). The scapegoat options are literally endless.
 
Point being, there are sufficient subgroups of non-Clinton voters who could have given Clinton a victory except for one major problem: they were voting for someone other than Clinton, which means THEY DIDNíT WANT CLINTON. They have no obligation to help Clinton supporters get their way. Everyone has a right to vote for the candidate of his or her own choice for whatever reason s/he finds persuasive. If your persuasion attempts are too weak to convince those people, thatís not their shortcoming.

The great flaw in your continuing flawed argument is that:

A. There were only two candidates running who could possibly  be elected - Trump or Clinton. Like Clinton or not, her positions are light years in liberal contrast to Trump. My choice to be President  wasn't running so I had to choose between a known, unexciting career bureaucrat to a dangerous, right wing, buffoon!

B. If you are a left leaning person, your choice not to vote for Clinton was essentially a vote for Trump. The slim margins of the swing states were so close that you Stein votes swing it for Trump in several states.

C. Luther, you continue are argue against the choice YOU made. You said something like you pinched your nose and voted Clinton because the possibility of Trump was unacceptable!


Anyway, my post was mainly about Stein's motivation for a recount. This thread concerns post election developments.
Any theories on the recounts?
Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: November 29, 2016, 11:09:25 AM »

I argue against the choice I made because I acknowledge everyone's freedom to choose for him- or herself. I'm nothing special and may have chosen wrong. The argument that only the majors can ever win shows cowardice or lack of political imagination, really, and it's how the parties keep us in line.

I think the recounts are a waste of time, money, and energy, and do nothing but increase the already wide chasm between Americans despite no chance of changing anything. And even if they somehow showed a reversal of results in enough states to switch the result, how does that happen after a concession? What about the inevitable drawn-out lawsuits? Who would be president in the interim? Would both candidates' transition teams move forward? It's nonsense for no good reason. Trump won, unfortunately. People and parties who oppose him should put their own houses in order.
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.
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2451


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #98 on: November 29, 2016, 11:26:35 AM »

The story admits it is speculative.

Quote
It's impossible to know how an election could have gone under hypothetical scenarios ... If Johnson and Stein weren't in the race, it's also possible many of their supporters may have stayed home. But if about half of Johnson's supporters would have voted for Clinton over Trump, and if most of Stein's supporters broke for the Democrats, the electoral map would have been decidedly different.



The story never uses that word or phrase. Arguably is a different word.

You sound like Trump. That climate change due to man made actions in speculative.
Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #99 on: November 29, 2016, 11:34:38 AM »

Now THAT is an absurd analogy. The story admits it is hypothetical, and goes on to say IF certain hypothetical scenarios played out a certain way (based on the third party candidates' own guesses and positioning, not on facts), THEN it could be true that the race would've turned out otherwise. Which is so obvious asbto not require even being stated. But so are literally countless other hypothetical but counter factual scenarios, as I outlined earlier.

In no way is that remotely similar to a climate change denier rejecting overwhelming evidence.
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.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 32   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.281 seconds with 22 queries.