US Politics returns: the post-Election thread

[Weeping Sore]

57 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..

The real jobs opened up by mass deportations will be in the slaughterhouses or in the fields picking fruits and vegetables. Of course a lot of these jobs will migrate to the other side of The Wall, unless the ex-NAFTA tariffs are high enough to keep them in this country at wages non-illegals will actually take. In which case food prices will sky-rocket.

Will the resurgence of the white middle class be as vegetable pickers?

"Tell me again, about the rabbits, Donald."

[Fez]

34 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.

I'm not saying Democrats don't have solutions, they do have them; at least some of them. And Clinton's website sure had a bunch of them on it. And I'm not saying Democrats haven't been blocked by Republicans from implementing those solutions, because they sure have been.

What I am saying is, most Democrats don't campaign on those solutions. Like, at all. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

15 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

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 him 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!"

You are not seeing my point.  I didn't coddle him.  I didn't meet him half way and compromise an agreement.  I said "You're wrong to worry about Sharia and here is why."  

What I didn't do is call him a "fucking redneck moron" for sharing this crap.  I didn't use in emotional insults which, while they may be cathartic for the person offering them, do nothing but encourage the person push the person being insulted to double down on their terrible position.

How is calmly saying "You're wrong and here's why..." in any way "appeasement" to the person offering the terrible meme or opinion?

[The Marquis de Leech]

12 minutes ago, SerPaladin said:

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)

Yeah, no.

In both the 1960s and the 1980s, both parties were much broader coalitions than they are today. The Dixiecrat Democrats and the Rockefeller Republicans were a going concern, which meant that working across the aisle was expected (and as for Reagan's popularity - he was highly vulnerable during his early Presidency; there were fewer Congressional Republicans in 1982 than 1972). Today's polarisation is something altogether different - the conservative wing of the Democrats have been routinely massacred, while Republicans live in terror of being primaried from the Right. Where this causes problems is that, without consensus, the US political system comes to a grinding halt.

[mormont]

Scot: please get off this hobby horse.

The problem you are talking about is simply not the reason the Democrats lost the election. As I've pointed out, there is absolutely zero evidence of it having any effect on voting whatsoever. Moreover it is not a problem that is limited to one party, nor does it relate to the Democratic party as a political entity at all. There is no prescription or policy the Democratic party could have adopted that would affect how non-party members behave on social media.

So forgive me, but the relevance to this thread of what you appear to be discussing, i.e. a small number of ordinary people being rude to each other on Facebook or Twitter, appears to be nil.

[aceluby]

1 hour ago, ummester said:

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.

Yes, let's look at actions.

He's groped women.

He's failed businesses.

He's personally screwed over small businesses after they completed services.

He uses lawsuits as a way of doing the above.

He's been found guilty or settled 200+ times.

He's fraudulently taken people's money for a fake education.

 

This is just a short list of 'actions'.  So what cognitive dissonance are you going to come up with next, I wonder?  Let me guess, it's liberals fault?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, mormont said:

Scot: please get off this hobby horse.

The problem you are talking about is simply not the reason the Democrats lost the election. As I've pointed out, there is absolutely zero evidence of it having any effect on voting whatsoever. Moreover it is not a problem that is limited to one party, nor does it relate to the Democratic party as a political entity at all. There is no prescription or policy the Democratic party could have adopted that would affect how non-party members behave on social media.

So forgive me, but the relevance to this thread of what you appear to be discussing, i.e. a small number of ordinary people being rude to each other on Facebook or Twitter, appears to be nil.

Mormont,

I will not get offer this "hobby horse" and I do believe there were many voters who flipped to Trump in frustration and anger.  I've said, for decades now, that reasoned rational interactions are a better way to win people over than screaming about how horrible they are.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Yes, let's look at actions.

He's groped women.

He's failed businesses.

He's personally screwed over small businesses after they completed services.

He uses lawsuits as a way of doing the above.

He's been found guilty or settled 200+ times.

He's fraudulently taken people's money for a fake education.

 

This is just a short list of 'actions'.  So what cognitive dissonance are you going to come up with next, I wonder?  Let me guess, it's liberals fault?

Ummester,

I'm agreeing with Ace but to run with your assertion that "words don't matter" what about this scenario:

If Trump announces that he's going to launch a full scale nuclear first strike at Russia... but doesn't, is that just fine and dandy because it was "just words"?

[aceluby]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If Trump announces that he's going to launch a full scale nuclear first strike at Russia... but doesn't, is that just fine and dandy because it was "just words"?

Exactly.  Words matter as President.  Actions matter as President.  Trump has been absolutely awful at both and people that voted for him either voted because of those, or simply didn't care about anything he said or did.  

All it takes to get half of voters to vote for you is have an R behind your name.  This election absolutely proved that.

[ummester]

2 minutes ago, aceluby said:

He's personally screwed over small businesses after they completed services.

Banks screwed over your whole country and everyone seems fine with that

3 minutes ago, aceluby said:

He's groped women.

If it is grievous enough, he needs to be convicted of sexual assault in a court of law.

5 minutes ago, aceluby said:

He's failed businesses.

And succeeded. I don't get the point of this one at all? No one's life is full of only ups.

5 minutes ago, aceluby said:

He uses lawsuits as a way of doing the above.

So does everyone. The other comments are all things that I suspect most of the elite class do over and over and get away with it.

 

What he seems guilty of to me, at this stage, is being an outspoken, crass, narcissistic, chauvinist, populous demagogue who has appealed to resentment of economic inequality, progressive shaming tactics and national pride. Does this make him a likeable person? Not at all. But then, I've met a few people who travel in elite circles and I've never liked any of them. He just seemed to manipulate the media and his opponents enough to win a race of popular appeal.

As far as I'm can see the major issues he was elected on were promises of protectionism and isolationism - the rest seemed like a lot of BS to me, as most of the media that comes out of the US is now. I think to keep the majority of America happy he has to be seen delivering on those things and they will forget about the rest.

[butterbumps!]

18 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Mormont,

I will not get offer this "hobby horse" and I do believe there were many voters who flipped to Trump in frustration and anger.  I've said, for decades now, that reasoned rational interactions are a better way to win people over than screaming about how horrible they are.

I think you've located a reason that people voted trump-- resentment of elites, like what's described in this vox piece.    

But why are you convinced that their resentment is so validly based in aggressive interpersonal exchanges between elites and what many of them seem to consider "real Americans"?   Between the lines of that piece I linked, these people hold erroneous beliefs about receiving disproprionately small govt help, but are information-limited to their own small social circles so that they never get opposing views, believe that their way of life is the only true hardworking American way, and apparently haven't wanted to get to know the urban perspectives, while simultaneously faulting urbanites for not listening to them.   They fear being called names and judged by us, but how often does that actually happen?    Is this honestly a genuine reality, that they suffer namecalling assaults by the left endlessly?   Or is it just a perception that this happens? It seems like the name calling is less a reality and more of a preemptive fear on their part, knowing their views are at odds with a changing culture and not wanting to be judged for resisting the change.  

[ummester]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Ummester,

I'm agreeing with Ace but to run with your assertion that "words don't matter" what about this scenario:

If Trump announces that he's going to launch a full scale nuclear first strike at Russia... but doesn't, is that just fine and dandy because it was "just words"?

Ultimately, they are still just words - particularly dangerous ones, foolish even - but words still.

Where is the line drawn with this nuclear threat? If Trump goes 'I'm gonna lunch Putin'

And Putin goes 'Not if I launch first'

And Trump goes 'You can't beat me'

What's the point? Surely, the modern nuclear system is set up so that as soon as any launch is actually detected, a counterattack ensues. And surely, most people in the world, regardless of what they say or hear, wouldn't push the button knowing this?

Threatening to push the button is not the same as pushing it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, butterbumps! said:

I think you've located a reason that people voted trump-- resentment against elites, like what's described in this vox piece.    

But why are you convinced that their resentment is so staunchly based in aggressive interpersonal exchanges between elites and what many of them seem to consider "real Americans"?   Between the lines of that piece I linked, these people hold erroneous beliefs about receiving disproprionately small govt help, but are information-limited to their own small social circles so that they never get opposing views, believe that their way of life is the only true hardworking American way, and apparently haven't wanted to get to know the urban perspectives, while simultaneously faulting urbanites for not listening to them.   They fear being called names and judged by us, but how often does that actually happen?    Is this honestly a genuine reality, that they suffer namecalkung assaults by the left endlessly?   Or is it just a perception that this happens?

I think folks from all sides engage in name calling.  I'm suggesting it is counterproductive and I've heard people here, from time to time, argue that emotional arguments are as valid as rational ones.  Name calling is a method used in emotional argumentation.  I'm suggesting everyone, especially people I agree with, back off the emotional throttle and embrace rational discourse.

[SerPaladin]

22 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Yeah, no.

In both the 1960s and the 1980s, both parties were much broader coalitions than they are today. The Dixiecrat Democrats and the Rockefeller Republicans were a going concern, which meant that working across the aisle was expected (and as for Reagan's popularity - he was highly vulnerable during his early Presidency; there were fewer Congressional Republicans in 1982 than 1972). Today's polarisation is something altogether different - the conservative wing of the Democrats have been routinely massacred, while Republicans live in terror of being primaried from the Right. Where this causes problems is that, without consensus, the US political system comes to a grinding halt.

You're agreeing with me here, albeit for a different reason. When you've got power, you use it, when you don't have power, you obstruct, unless obstructing will hurt you more. I think there is some recency bias. Reagan had a republican Senate in his first 6 years. Obama had a democratic Senate his first six years. LBJ had Rockefeller Republicans, Obama had the gang of eight. There always fringers who are willing to work, regardless of "today's polarization."

[aceluby]

4 minutes ago, ummester said:

Banks screwed over your whole country and everyone seems fine with that

Non-sequitur

Quote

If it is grievous enough, he needs to be convicted of sexual assault in a court of law.

He is actually going to court before inauguration.  There have also been a dozen women who have come forward, and he's admitted to it.  But I bet you think Cosby is innocent too.

Quote

And succeeded. I don't get the point of this one at all? No one's life is full of only ups.

If he had taken his inheritance and simply invested it in the market he would have made more money than he claims to have made.  So yeah, he is actually a bad businessman.

Quote

So does everyone. The other comments are all things that I suspect most of the elite class do over and over and get away with it.

No, they don't.

The cognitive dissonance here is appalling.

[butterbumps!]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think folks from all sides engage in name calling.  I'm suggesting it is counterproductive and I've heard people here, from time to time, argue that emotional arguments are as valid as rational ones.  Name calling is a method used in emotional argumentation.  I'm suggesting everyone, especially people I agree with, back off the emotional throttle and embrace rational discourse.

Well I'm very much in favor of rational discourse without namecalling.    I'm just skeptical that this type of namecalling is so widespread in actuality to have had much of an impact and I'm skeptical that rational discourse solves the knee jerk reaction people have when confronted with someone telling them that they have a morally poor or intellectually compromised view.   

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, ummester said:

Ultimately, they are still just words - particularly dangerous ones, foolish even - but words still.

Where is the line drawn with this nuclear threat? If Trump goes 'I'm gonna lunch Putin'

And Putin goes 'Not if I launch first'

And Trump goes 'You can't beat me'

What's the point? Surely, the modern nuclear system is set up so that as soon as any launch is actually detected, a counterattack ensues. And surely, most people in the world, regardless of what they say or hear, wouldn't push the button knowing this?

Threatening to push the button is not the same as pushing it.

Ummester,

Yeah "words don't matter" and can't create dangerous situations:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_begin_bombing_in_five_minutes

What if the Soviet commander was a hot head and decided to use this information to get in his licks before the American bombs started falling?  Words, on this level, matter enormously and can get many people killed.

[ummester]

3 minutes ago, aceluby said:

He is actually going to court before inauguration.  There have also been a dozen women who have come forward, and he's admitted to it.  But I bet you think Cosby is innocent too.

Don't know enough about Cosby to comment - don't really care. If he gets convicted, he wont be president and none of this will matter then, will it? But, you will end up with a very divided country and a lot of people (perhaps more than half) that don't believe it. The riots you've seen so far will likely pale in comparison.

2 minutes ago, aceluby said:

No, they don't.

I'd rather save my money.

[SerPaladin]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think folks from all sides engage in name calling.  I'm suggesting it is counterproductive and I've heard people here, from time to time, argue that emotional arguments are as valid as rational ones.  Name calling is a method used in emotional argumentation.  I'm suggesting everyone, especially people I agree with, back off the emotional throttle and embrace rational discourse.

This is so, so wrong. Rational, reasoned arguments may work for lawyers and engineers and other "head over heart" types, but they are a vast vast minority in the US.

You could barely get a mention of a policy for 18 months in this country. I was amused at the pages of discussion of the Baltic States you guys had. It was real, but so very few people that vote care.

For all Hillary's sizable policy advantage, the slogans were "I'm with Her" (women, vote for me, we will break the glass ceiling), and "Stronger Together" (community over individuality) and "Love Trumps Hate" (explicit appeal to heart, implicit that the other guys are hateful). For all Trump's populist rhetoric, the chants were "lock her up", and "build that wall", not "bring us jobs".

All emotions, all the time, the world is moved by marketers, not reason.

[ummester]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Ummester,

Yeah "words don't matter" and can't create dangerous situations:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_begin_bombing_in_five_minutes

What if the Soviet commander was a hot head and decided to use this information to het him his licks before the American bombs started falling?  Words, on this level, matter enormously and can get many people killed.

Only if people take them the wrong way, like the Russians did. The argument is circular.