Jump to content

US Politics returns: the post-Election thread


mormont

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Forgive me, but who are you to say who is in the so called right or wrong? More accurate would be to say that you disagree with their opinion.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. But it would be foolish to deny that some opinions are in fact wrong.

For example, people held the opinion that legalising gay marriage would inevitably lead to legalising incestuous marriage. Those people were wrong.

Many people hold the opinion that Donald Trump will be a good President of the United States. I'm comfortable saying that those people, also, are wrong, and that they will be proved wrong.

Who am I to say so? A person with an opinion, who believes his opinion is correct, as most people do. I'm glad to see you insisting on the right to hold contrary opinions, though, and I hope you'll be applying that to President Trump when he stands up and tells people they are wrong to disagree with him, wrong that he is a bigot, and wrong that he is unfit to be President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ummester said:

That is very judgemental - I don't think any of us get to determine what is ultimately right or wrong when it comes to human ideology, as they are all totally subjective. Claiming any ideology is wrong, however righteous you may feel about your own, is a form of intellectual bigotry.

I'll just on the record here and say, that I'm one of those lefties that has never been fond of moral relativism.

So, I'll just say that fascism is wrong. And facism based in racism is extremely wrong. I won't apologize for that view.

Now if somebody wants to call me an "intellectual bigot" for holding such views, my answer would be: I don't give a fuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

I'll just on the record here and say, that I'm one of those lefties that has never been fond of moral relativism.

So, I'll just say that fascism is wrong. And facism based in racism is extremely wrong. I won't apologize for that view.

Now if somebody wants to call me an "intellectual bigot" for holding such views, my answer would be: I don't give a fuck.

And because you don't give a fuck, your mind is as closed as the racist. But it's your mind, not mine to save.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ummester said:

And because you don't give a fuck, your mind is as closed as the racist. But it's your mind, not mine to save.

As I often say to my conservative friends: I believe in having an open mind. But, not so open where my brains fall out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

As I say to my conservative friends: I believe in having an open mind. But, not so open where my brains fall out.

I'm not a pure conservative, so I don't know if you are referring to me directly with that.

There is and always will be a difference between words and actions. The trouble with modern liberal ideology is that it's too concerned with words. Sticks and stones, as they say.

Who cares what Trump says, it's what he does that matters. But all these people are having little emotional breakdowns about his words, which to me shows how mentally precious the West has become, not enlightened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bernie was on Charlie Rose the other day. His post-election analysis was that the Democratic Party has been consistently losing ground the past few years because they have been focusing on the wrong issues.

From reading these post-election threads, it is clear that racism/bigotry is at the very top of most people's list. While Bernie clearly condemned the racism in Trump's campaign he also pointed out it simply wasn't the most important issue that decided this election. When the starving Parisans rose up and filled the streets of Paris. The elite said why not just "let them eat cake."

In many ways, the obsession with racial issues is the Democratic elite's equivalent to "let them eat cake". It's a failed attempt to avoid talking about the real issue that decided this election. Jobs, jobs and jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ummester said:

There is and always will be a difference between words and actions. The trouble with modern liberal ideology is that it's too concerned with words. Sticks and stones, as they say.

Not true. Actually, most serious liberals are concerned with policy. In fact it would have been nice to talk about policy issues, but then we had to talk more about people's emails.

4 minutes ago, ummester said:

Who cares what Trump says, it's what he does that matters. But all these people are having little emotional breakdowns about his words, which to me shows how mentally precious the west has become, not enlightened.

Because 1) Trumps words often signify that is okay to be a white nationalist asshole. And that is a problem.

And because Trumps words also indicate that on substantive policy matters he has no fucking clue to what he is talking about or doing. That too is a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MorgulisMaximus said:

In many ways, the obsession with racial issues is the Democratic elite's equivalent to "let them eat cake". It's a failed attempt to avoid talking about the real issue that decided this election. Jobs, jobs and jobs.

I cant wait for all the Pepe trolls to get started at all the new coal mines and steel factories..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Because 1) Trumps words often signify that is okay to be a white nationalism asshole. And that is a problem.

Do Trump's words matter?  Apparently so.

http://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/11/15/13637936/anti-semitic-propaganda

Quote

I had to scroll through the racist acts documented in "Day 1 in Trump's America" several times, because I couldn't believe this was happening. I got shivers all over my body when I read David French's moving essay about how alt-right trolls photoshopped his adopted Ethiopian daughter's face into gas chambers "with a smiling Trump in a Nazi uniform preparing to press a button and kill her."

I know others have experienced things far more threatening and personal than a piece of hate mail sent from more than 2,000 miles away.

I also know this man who sent me the mail, Brian Clayton Charles, is a man with a criminal record and a long history of abnormal acts. I know other Jewish journalists have received similar mailings from this man.

But what's different today is that people like Brian Clayton Charles now have been given license to do this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Because 1) Trumps words often signify that is okay to be a white nationalism asshole. And that is a problem.

And because Trumps words also indicate that on substantive policy matters he has no fucking clue to what he is talking about or doing. That too is a problem.

Nationalism is the most normal response for a society to have to globalism, immigration and cultural decline. Trump is just feeding of a feeling that is already there and has risen and fallen countless times over the history of our species.

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Not true. Actually, most serious liberals are concerned with policy. In fact it would have been nice to talk about policy issues, but then we had to talk more about people's emails.

I wasn't talking about the election, I was talking generally about how modern liberal ideology tries to shame others for what they say or think out of some smug righteousness. It's why the majority of people are turning against it, it pushed too hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MorgulisMaximus said:

In many ways, the obsession with racial issues is the Democratic elite's equivalent to "let them eat cake". It's a failed attempt to avoid talking about the real issue that decided this election. Jobs, jobs and jobs.

If jobs were the issue, Democrats would win every time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

As for "obsessing about racial issues," Hillary wasn't the one invoking the ghost of George Wallace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MorgulisMaximus said:

In many ways, the obsession with racial issues is the Democratic elite's equivalent to "let them eat cake". It's a failed attempt to avoid talking about the real issue that decided this election. Jobs, jobs and jobs.

Not really. The last thing the party of "let's return to the goldstandard" wanted to do is actually have fight over economic matters.

The Republican Party has been basically preaching economic crankery for years. There is a reason why somebody like Ben Beranke just threw his hands up in frustration with the Republican Party.

Better for them  just to say,"Emails man! And we're the party of business!!!! Trust us!!!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the exit polls are wrong on Latino votes

Quote

 

Of all the surprising things about the presidential race, few were as shocking as the exit poll‘s finding that Donald Trump lost to Hillary Clinton among Latino voters by a margin of only 65-29 percent, which was actually better than Mitt Romney did four years ago. How is that possible? After all, we’re at the end of a period in which Republicans competed among themselves to see who could be the most hostile to immigrants and promise the harshest crackdown. And then they nominated a presidential candidate who opened his campaign by calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals, promised to build a wall on our southern border and engaged in a nakedly racist attack against the Latino judge presiding over his fraud trial. How could nearly a third of Latinos have voted for him?

The answer is: They didn’t. On this point, the exit polls are just wrong.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Lord Flashheart said:

I cant wait for all the Pepe trolls to get started at all the new coal mines and steel factories..

Doesn't matter that they won't be able to do it (or likely even try to do it), Republicans at least talk about it during elections. The bullshit doesn't register with people because the media doesn't call them out on it and Democrats don't engage properly; they'll call it out, but not offer their own solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Fez said:

Doesn't matter that they won't be able to do it (or likely even try to do it), Republicans at least talk about it during elections. The bullshit doesn't register with people because the media doesn't call them out on it and Democrats don't engage properly; they'll call it out, but not offer their own solution.

I don't quite agree with this as for the past 8 years the GOP has refused to legislate proprely simply because they refused to work with Obama.  Dem's and good ideas aren't voted in because of gerrymandering.  Dem's offer solutions, but they don't win enough elections that count to be able to work on those solutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting.....

Lindsey Graham Calls for Investigation Into Russian Election Tampering

Quote

“Assuming for a moment that we do believe that the Russian government was controlling outside organizations that hacked into our election, they should be punished,” Graham said. “Putin should be punished.”

During the election, American intelligence officials repeatedly voiced concerns that Russia was using cyberattacks — hacking the DNC and leaking emails damaging to Hillary Clinton, for example — to influence the outcome of the election.

Graham is no friend of Donald Trump and has often opposed him publicly, though he has said that he would support him fully as commander-in-chief. The senator’s call represents an attack on Trump’s policy positions, especially because the investigation that Graham has described would not be limited to the election, but would also include what he calls “Russia’s misadventures throughout the world,” even in places like Syria.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

And yet here I was, the only person who has been a paid staffer on a political campaign, telling them how wrong they were. And no one listened......

I've been a candidate, won 3 of my 4 campaigns. I ran as an independent one time, came 75 votes short of winning, then created a competing local republican club, overcame then eliminated the other club, and over 3 years systemically unseated each of their elected officials. Moved the town from a 50-50 with changing majorities to a 6-1 republican majority where we win 60+% every election (except against that one popular D).

But now I'm "out of politics" with 44 days left in my last term, only providing ocassional advice to local campaigns. I think someone else here is active on the D side in Philly, but as far as I know, I'm the only elected official on the board

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Or to use another example: would it have been better if I had just called my first cousin "stupid" and blocked him when he shared anti-muslim memes as opposed to engaging him rationally?

Yep, I would have called him an idiot. Now if he wants to object to being called an idiot, I would make him explain why he is not being an idiot. And would have kept pressing and pressing him on it.

But, here is another example:

Somebody shows me on their Facebook page, a picture of Obama dressed as a witch doctor or a primate? What should I do? Me personally: I chew that conservative butt. 

What would you do? Just say, "uh yeah, I see you have a point there!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, LongRider said:

I don't quite agree with this as for the past 8 years the GOP has refused to legislate proprely simply because they refused to work with Obama.  Dem's and good ideas aren't voted in because of gerrymandering.  Dem's offer solutions, but they don't win enough elections that count to be able to work on those solutions.

Much as the left doesn't like it, that is a completely legitimate strategy that both sides use ALL THE TIME.

When you have split power, like in the 80s, the democrat congress could have tried to obstruct Reagan, but they would have suffered in the face of a popular president who aggressively used the bully pulpit. When you've got full power, like LBJ had, when the democrats had majorities and governing power, they did not seek input or votes aside from a token to call it bipartisan. (yes, there were a few exceptions, there always are token, politically meaningless agreements)

The democrats blocked Bush in his second term, and planned to (hey, here's a WP link http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61686-2005Jan9.html). It's a hardball world. Obama had majorities and passed things. Complaining about obstructionism in politics is like complaining about the weather.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...