US Elections - From Russia with Love

[Swordfish]

29 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

I miss the good old days, when progressives were all about judging people by the content of their character, and not attacking them for the (assumed, over the internet) color of their skin of their gender. 

 

Those were the days....

[Jaxom 1974]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Trump ending the US electorate system is a very remote possibility. It is in line with his goals and ideals, but it's unlikely. Here are things that are likely:

• It is likely that he'd end the EPA.
• It is likely that he would say that he wouldn't support NATO if the Baltic states were invaded, which would encourage adventurism with Russia.
• It is likely that he would attempt to destroy ACA, and cost at least 18 million people insurance.
• It is likely that he would attempt to deport 11 million people.
• It is likely that he would nominate at least 2 supreme court justices who are strongly anti-abortion rights
• It is somewhat likely that he would end all campaign finance laws (he would need a filibuster-proof majority)
• it is somewhat  likely that he would significantly lower taxes on the rich (he would need a filibuster-proof majority)

Those are all things that he can either do with the power of executive order or do with the help of a friendly congress. And most of those terrify me. 

Should it be true that Russia is backing Trump, and the circumstantial evidence of their collusion is correct, don't be surprised if Putin did move into one or more of the Baltic states within a year of Trump as president.  Call it a gut feeling.

[alguien]

28 minutes ago, Altherion said:

What do you really know about Donald Trump?

...

We have almost reached peak irony. 

[Dr. Pepper]

36 minutes ago, Stannistician said:

This can get out of control sometimes though, especially on the internet.  My 68 year old mother was amazed at how many times she was labeled as a "Bernie Bro" while on the internet during primary season. 

Like, I said, there are exceptions.  It's also a given that groups of people aren't 100% homogenous.  When "Bernie Bros" is tossed out, we tend to envision a young, white, hipster male as the face of the term, but it's not like those who might not fit this description yet were part of the movement of seemingly progressive Bernie supporters engaging in fairly disgusting sexist attacks against Hillary Clinton.  So, I mean, if Mom was involved in that sort of behavior, then....

Frankly, I don't think the gifts of privilege can be pointed out enough in these sorts of instances.  Someone who can laugh off the fear of a Supreme Court that would be appointed by Trump and approved by a GOP congress and would exist for a generation is very likely to be someone who will be least affected by the rulings of that particular court.  Several posters have already listed out what we should be concerned about, you can go read the RNC platform released last week, these are all extremely worrisome things to huge parts of the population.  To laugh off that fear is an obvious sign of privilege.  

But again, there are exceptions.  There is a sizeable portion of the Republican base who vote against their own self interests because the bible told them to be afraid of queers and women.  

25 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

 

Those were the days....

Oh yes, those "good ole days" when your cohort didn't have to think or care about race, gender, sexuality, etc because those populations were still fighting to have their voices heard and taken seriously...

[TrackerNeil]

48 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree. Try to think a little bit outside of the media-prescribed box. What do you really know about Donald Trump? Unless you're one of the few people who have met him before this election season started, your impression is derived almost entirely from the mass media. In the US, the mass media is, with rare exceptions, a for-profit business and, worse, owned by a relatively small number of corporations. Because of the former, it seeks out his most sensational moments and makes them even more sensational simply because that's what people will watch. Because of the latter, it generally tries to portray him negatively because most of these owners are not interested in him being President.

Furthermore, Trump knows this because he's been dealing with the media for most of his life. He appears in the media as a nativist, demagogic buffoon with authoritarian leanings and possibly worse (instability, egomania, etc.) depending on whom you ask. Do you think that this is really how he is or is it just an act calculated to win votes without spending the money typically spent for this purpose? Remember, Trump's opponents in the Republican primary outspent him by factors of 3-4 individually and more than an order of magnitude combined -- and lost. Clinton has likewise outspent him by at least a factor of 4 and more in some areas. He has little staff and not much of a ground game to speak of... but he's currently quite competitive.

So if Trump simply plays an egomaniacal bigot when he isn't, that should...make me feel better about him? Is that what you are saying? 'Cause I think you'll need a better case than that.

[Altherion]

28 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

So if Trump simply plays an egomaniacal bigot when he isn't, that should...make me feel better about him? Is that what you are saying? 'Cause I think you'll need a better case than that.

Think of it from his point of view. Imagine that you are celebrity, can afford to spend some serious money (of order $100M) and want to be President. Unfortunately, you lack support among the elites of either major political party, have no political experience and are either unwilling or unable to raise or personally finance the order of $1B that successful presidential campaigns have recently cost. On the Democrat side is the seemingly unstoppable Clinton juggernaut. On the Republican side, there is a long list of current and former Governors and Senators as well as some random others including a fellow businessperson-celebrity. What would you do?

Most people (including myself) would and in fact did assume that it is completely impossible for such a person to get anywhere in a presidential election and would have given up on the ambition altogether. Trump made the choices that he did and as a result is now much closer to the presidency than nearly anyone expected him to be.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

6 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Think of it from his point of view. Imagine that you are celebrity, can afford to spend some serious money (of order $100M) and want to be President. Unfortunately, you lack support among the elites of either major political party, have no political experience and are either unwilling or unable to raise or personally finance the order of $1B that successful presidential campaigns have recently cost. On the Democrat side is the seemingly unstoppable Clinton juggernaut. On the Republican side, there is a long list of current and former Governors and Senators as well as some random others including a fellow businessperson-celebrity. What would you do?

Most people (including myself) would and in fact did assume that it is completely impossible for such a person to get anywhere in a presidential election and would have given up on the ambition altogether. Trump made the choices that he did and as a result is now much closer to the presidency than nearly anyone expected him to be.

Thing is, if he is just playing a character, it's not much different than the character he's been playing on reality tv for more than a decade, or the character he plays when he gets in big arguments with the Scottish government over golf courses, or the character he played in the 80s and 90s when he admired the CCP for how it handled Tienanmen or when he called blacks naturally lazy.

[Kalbear]

19 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Think of it from his point of view. Imagine that you are celebrity, can afford to spend some serious money (of order $100M) and want to be President. Unfortunately, you lack support among the elites of either major political party, have no political experience and are either unwilling or unable to raise or personally finance the order of $1B that successful presidential campaigns have recently cost. On the Democrat side is the seemingly unstoppable Clinton juggernaut. On the Republican side, there is a long list of current and former Governors and Senators as well as some random others including a fellow businessperson-celebrity. What would you do?

Most people (including myself) would and in fact did assume that it is completely impossible for such a person to get anywhere in a presidential election and would have given up on the ambition altogether. Trump made the choices that he did and as a result is now much closer to the presidency than nearly anyone expected him to be.

Except here's the thing - this persona that you're claiming is a ruse has been both his public and private persona for 30 years. His biographer states that he is almost precisely like what we see - attention deficit, can't sit still, can't think on one thing for more than a bit, stream of consciousness, and massively egotistical and spiteful. We have absurd amounts of eyewitness accounts, interviews, and his own talking that makes him precisely what we see.

Other than you thinking it implausible, there is not a single bit of evidence to think that this is an act. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 hours ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

"Jokes" like this, which are predicated on heterosexism and outmoded views of dominance and submission in normal sexual acts, are really unfortunate. I'm disappointed that Colbert thinks this kind of stuff is funny. 

Dick jokes are timeless. It is known.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 hours ago, Swordfish said:

Those were the days....

 

 

[Stannistician]

 

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Like, I said, there are exceptions.  It's also a given that groups of people aren't 100% homogenous.  When "Bernie Bros" is tossed out, we tend to envision a young, white, hipster male as the face of the term, but it's not like those who might not fit this description yet were part of the movement of seemingly progressive Bernie supporters engaging in fairly disgusting sexist attacks against Hillary Clinton.  So, I mean, if Mom was involved in that sort of behavior, then....

Frankly, I don't think the gifts of privilege can be pointed out enough in these sorts of instances.  Someone who can laugh off the fear of a Supreme Court that would be appointed by Trump and approved by a GOP congress and would exist for a generation is very likely to be someone who will be least affected by the rulings of that particular court.  Several posters have already listed out what we should be concerned about, you can go read the RNC platform released last week, these are all extremely worrisome things to huge parts of the population.  To laugh off that fear is an obvious sign of privilege.  

But again, there are exceptions.  There is a sizeable portion of the Republican base who vote against their own self interests because the bible told them to be afraid of queers and women.  

Oh yes, those "good ole days" when your cohort didn't have to think or care about race, gender, sexuality, etc because those populations were still fighting to have their voices heard and taken seriously...

My mother is the last person who would do such a thing.  Look, just because somebody was labeled a Bernie bro doesn't mean that the label was justified.  Some people, rather than having to think and discuss certain issues, would rather dismiss those that they disagree with by flinging insults at them.  This includes both the left and right.  I was labeled sexist for supporting Obama during the '08 Dem primary, and I never even said one bad thing about Hillary - I just supported her opponent.  That and being male was enough apparently.  People like to forget how ugly that primary was.

I agree with you regarding the RNC and Trump.  I don't like the term privilege because of the baggage associated with it and I think it is counter-productive to use it.  With that said, the Supreme Court nomination(s) is the reason I will vote for Hillary this November.  And I think the bible is a convenient excuse for them to hide behind in many cases.  Hell, it is obvious to any neutral observer that Trump is not Godly person, yet this sizeable portion of the Republican base will still vote for (even the ones who were "never Trump").

 

[snake]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

So if Trump simply plays an egomaniacal bigot when he isn't, that should...make me feel better about him? Is that what you are saying? 'Cause I think you'll need a better case than that.

Trump is something of a buffoon but imagine if in four years things continue the way they are or, heaven forbid get worse, then you might get a shrewd, competent politician who is even worse. 

[ThinkerX]

Spoiler

 

My view remains unchanged:

 

Should it somehow happen, President Trump gets impeached and tossed from office in a bipartisan effort within two years of taking office.  Because he simply cannot restrain himself from doing something impeachable.  Note how many prominent Republicans boycotted their convention this time around.  And how utterly unthrilled or downright treacherous the republicans are who have thrown in with Trump.  Pence is no great shakes, but at this point, I imagine the majority of prominent Republicans views him as a vast improvement over the Donald.

[Altherion]

33 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Except here's the thing - this persona that you're claiming is a ruse has been both his public and private persona for 30 years. His biographer states that he is almost precisely like what we see - attention deficit, can't sit still, can't think on one thing for more than a bit, stream of consciousness, and massively egotistical and spiteful. We have absurd amounts of eyewitness accounts, interviews, and his own talking that makes him precisely what we see.

Other than you thinking it implausible, there is not a single bit of evidence to think that this is an act. 

He obviously can stand still and focus on one thing for a long time when he needs to or he would not be able to give the longest acceptance speech in four decades. Egotistical and spiteful are unpleasant, but hardly disqualifying -- quite a few politicians are thus. I've read his old interviews and while he undoubtedly likes to boast, I don't see anything there that is particularly unreasonable. Furthermore, he has been interacting with the elites for decades. If he really had obvious psychological issues rather than eccentricities, they would not have lent him the massive amounts of money he lost in the bankruptcies.

[Dr. Pepper]

Those were some seriously powerful moments just now at the DNC.  And by powerful, I mean powerful for those who are undecided and who would be swayed by uber patriotism and such that was going on with the general's speech.   I wonder if it's the sort of the thing that would even bring Republicans who hate Trump to vote Dem this year. 

[Shryke]

6 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

This is a bit under the radar because I havent heard it discussed a lot but I think Chelsea is going to deliver a awesome speech. Chelsea may even leave a few people wishing she had ran for the nom this year.(she's 36 and by all accounts has inherited her parents smarts). Its going to be fun hearing from her and I expect her to be second only to the Obama's in pecking order of speeches I enjoy from the convention this year.

Kaine is a big dissapointment, I dont like the thought of him a heartbeat away. The R's are so stupid they barely recognize this is the most moderate ticket they could have possibly hoped for. With an extremist like Trump as the opposition, the R's are lucky we didnt come up with candidates like a (hard left) Kucinich or Nader this cycle. Sanders showed theres a lot of sentiment we should have went for more to the left, but that boats left port and we have a very moderate couple of candidates in a year when liberals may have been able to win it. Count your blessings whiny R's.

 

If Kaine is a moderate then progressives have already won. That's a centre of the Democratic party that has shifted firmly left. Shit, look at this year's Democratic Party Platform.

And Sanders did show there's plenty of room to the left. He also showed, by losing, that the party as a whole would rather stay with the newly defined "moderates".

And against Trump that's probably a better move anyway. Move to the left but not so far that you alienate alot of your own voters and not so left that you start looking really out there and scary to some. Then you can cast yourself as the sensible alternative to the insane clusterfuckery that is going on in the GOP. (depending on who is speaking right now, the Democrats are potentially doing this literally right now) This let's you exploit how poisonous Trump could be to make major gains downballot either by making GOP voters stay home, vote 3rd party or vote for you.

[SkynJay]

Rev. Barber was so powerful I felt myself wanting to go back to church.  Amazing stuff.  Reagan''s speech writer was also good, if some what predictable.  

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

So the apparent strategy for tonight is not to put any good speakers on before Clinton so there is no chance she will be upstaged on her big night by anyone with public speaking skills. Makes for a very, very boring final night. 

[alguien]

5 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

So the apparent strategy for tonight is not to put any good speakers on before Clinton so there is no chance she will be upstaged on her big night by anyone with public speaking skills. Makes for a very, very boring final night. 

Haven't watched much of tonight, but from what I saw, and maybe I'm just an old softy, but I found the speech by the father of the fallen Muslim marine to be moving. 

[Dr. Pepper]

Yeah, not only is Khizr Khan trending, but apparently after he spoke, "register to vote" spiked on google.