US politics 2016: I can see Russia from my White House

[Jaxom 1974]

9 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 

Look, I agree with like 97% of what you're saying. He is terrible. He is dangerous. But he's not a threat to democracy as a whole. 

Though I generally want to believe this, I don't know that I can.  There has already been too much normalizing of terrible, un-presidential behavior.  He's walked back or altered every single promise he made on the campaign trail (If he even remembers making them) and none of his supporters care.  If those who support him don't care that he's doing none of the things he said he'd do, why would they care when he moves to erode or trample more rights and freedoms.  He continues to challenge norms and accepted practices and no one is telling him no.  I'm not as eloquent as Kal, but I'm on a similar plane of worry as he is.

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Yes, that's exactly my point. Prior to 2016 the party was a major check on extremist members of their own party as well as a check to ensure that they had a loyal member of their party. This is not the case with Trump, at all. My point is that this is yet another political norm that is gone. 

Gotcha, your wording and citation made this point unclear.  I agree that Trump represents the continuing polarization and extremism of the right.  This is reflective of the empirical fact the right is becoming more extreme vis-a-vis the left as polarization increases.  Political observers have been (incredibly) concerned about this for upwards of thirty years, so characterizing it as "outside the political norm" means you haven't been paying attention.  And as for primaries, we have seen them play a role in fostering such polarization since 2010, the rise of the Tea Party, and the advent of the term "getting primaried" popularized in the political lexicon.  My point, as it has been throughout, is not in your perspective on the troubling trends Trump's election signifies - on this we're in agreement - but rather the apocalyptic conclusions derived from such.

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

GHWB isn't a 1-term party switch president. That was sort of the point. And it's not a trend of just three presidents - it's Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama. That's 32 of the last 36 years, with another 4 for GHWB who was basically an extension of Reagan. Basically the entire era of politics in my lifetime has had exactly one party switching single term president, and he came into power in a fairly insane time - namely, right after Nixon. 

K.  That's an incredibly over-specific factoid that does not portend much of anything.  If you're going to point out Carter is the only "party-switching" one-term president, go for the gusto:  he's also the only one-term "party switching" president since FDR.  Your just merely pointing out trivia in which there's no theoretical basis to explain why this has happened.  It's like only one Republican president has won reelection in the past 28 years.

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Courts might. Congress, not so much - at least not particularly indicative of that so far. (and again I ask - how does congress oppose things like his dismantling the EPA?)

Again, the his party in Congress has no reason to oppose him yet and generally does not abandon the president until his popularity erodes, which is contingent upon how long honeymoon lasts.  As far as the GOP caucus acquiescing on his more outlandish proposals regarding immigration and trade, we'll see and I disagree with the notion they'll simply bend over.

Regarding the EPA, first, it's a cherrypicked case because it was created by executive order.  Most regulatory agencies weren't and have statutory protections that require legislative action.  Second, again, bureaucratic drift is highly likely if Trump attempt to radically alter the goals and makeup of agencies, particularly when the interest groups that traditionally work with specific agencies oppose his actions as well.  This is the point of the Reagan EPA example - the scandal only arose because the resistance from career bureaucrats and IGs sounded the fire alarm, motivating Congress to act.  That's how bureaucracy works.

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

You're conflating two things incorrectly. Trump doesn't want immigration reform. He wants to enforce - heavily - the existing immigration laws. There's nothing to pass in congress, because all he wants to do is use what exists. Which he can do. He has sole power to enforce immigration laws, and as long as he doesn't pass any executive orders there's nothing the courts can actually do to stop him or even challenge him. Where does he get the funding? Well, that's the other fun thing - he can simply request local and state law enforcement to aid ICE in raids, and they're supposed to do so. If they don't? That's the stick of withholding federal funding. 

See above.  But sure, you're right that deportations will increase (although not nearly at the scale he thinks it will).  Does that suck?  Yep.  But it's not the end of democracy as we know it.  To drastically change immigration policy WILL require legislative action for the simply fact he will run out of money without it.

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

It doesn't have anything to do with the senate, but the senate looks pessimistic for entirely other reasons - namely, 25 of the 33 seats up for re-election are Democrat, and about 12 of them are safe at best. And again, I ask - how are you planning to fight back here? What specific actions do you think you, personally, can take, and what can the Democrats do? 

Right.  And then in 2020 22 of the 33 seats up for re-election are Republican.  By George they're screwed!  How should Dems fight back?  By continuing the type of minority obstruction the Republicans employed against Obama (and, the Dems used against Bush).  Certainly not by laying down and crowing that "we can't check this tyrant."  Instead, perhaps attempt to do so.

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

In a world of ethical republicans there would have been plenty of things to oppose Trump's choices on. Bannon, Flynn, DeVos, Price

You're conflating cabinet with white house appointees.  And if you want to talk about WHO staffers with questionable ethical backgrounds, boy do I have a list for you.  Incidentally, same goes for past Cabinet officials.

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

You're the one that said poor white people voted for him en masse, and then changed it to badly educated white people. Is it particularly much of a stretch to think that of the 70% of Republicans that think Obama is a Muslim or not born in the US, that most are in that uneducated class? I'm not taking small samples here - 70% of Republicans believed that. 80% believe that Trump was more trustworthy and lied less than Clinton. 65% believed that the mainstream media lied. This isn't some small fraction. I don't know that they are all idiots that will do whatever Trump says, but I do know a whole lot of them will, and even more of them will sit idly by and do nothing while that group goes out and does...whatever. 

Oh JFC.  I described them as poor white voters without clarifying education is the main predictive factor (but they're still highly correlated).  Stop acting like I shifted positions when it was a hastily written statement.  This is a message board, I'm not sending out the damn posts for review.

And yep 70 to 80% of Republicans believe in crazy and ridiculous things.  You know who you target?  Those other 20 percent - and all the independents who voted for him (that also don't express views that indicate they are not going to deviate from GOP voting).  That's how you win elections - and the first part in doing is by explaining why your side it better than the other, not by equating their vote with the end of democracy.

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Commodore said:

Maybe my translation program is wrong, but the court ruling says it cannot be aired as an advertisement. They would have to find some other means of getting it on TV. Effectively, it's a ban.

Only if you insist on showing the clip without providing any context or criticism ; which basically amounts to using such a clip as propaganda.

Ironically the CSA had only issued a recommendation. It insisted that it had not meant to obstruct the broadcasting of the clip (it did intervene after its broadcast), and even stated that it considered it to be of general interest in some respects, but that it was merely reminding the tv channels of the letter of the law ; the representatives of the CSA went out of their way to stress the fact that it was not a ban. And the court decision was only about whether the recommendation was legal in the first place.

Subtleties matter. You insist it's a ban, when the CSA expressly stated it isn't. By doing so you are deliberately twisting the facts. No political messages may be shown on French television as advertisements (with some very specific exceptions). Issuing a polite request to the tv channels to conform to the law isn't a ban. It's the other way around: if the CSA had allowed the tv channels to air a clip with obvious political content as advertisement it would have been actively favouring a specific political agenda. Which would have been exceptional and outrageous.

And the supreme irony here... Is that by presenting the clip as you do, you only confirm that the CSA was right in considering the clip as propaganda in the first place... You're actually harming your own case.

But this is an interesting one. You start by giving us what is false information. When I remark that it's false, you insist that from a certain perspective, it is correct. Now I have to demonstrate that your perspective is false as well.

This makes us lose sight of what matters. That the clip itself contains false information. That the clip cynically uses handicaped children and adults to convey a political message (something that you actually confirm). That broadcasting the clip as advertisement was done by breaking the rules on such matters. That conservatives actually had the gall to sue the CSA for doing its job. And that you use the whole affair to argue that people who are in favour of abortion have trouble dealing with its consequences.

It's all truly despicable. But it shows just how much bad faith you are willing to use to support your ideas.

1 hour ago, Commodore said:

The ad itself is not scolding or shaming,

Sure. But you are the one who stated that it evoked feelings of guilt and shame, didn't you?

1 hour ago, Commodore said:

it merely evokes those feelings naturally (as one would expect people pleading not to murder their kind would do)

There's nothing natural about this clip. Not only can one doubt that the people in the clip are not repeating what they were told to say (there are several clues that would indicate this ; for instance the tones and stresses strongly suggest recitation), not only is some of the information false (people with DS don't go to school "like everyone else" in France, and I very much doubt they do so in other countries ; it's exceedingly difficult and rare for people with DS to live on their own), but the words at the beginning of the video (addressed to a "mom") cynically use the whole content for a specific purpose. Because at no point in the video is abortion referred to. That this is what the video is really about is our (yours and mine) conclusion and the CSA's. Has it not occurred to you that the people in the video do not have the intellectual ability to guess that? And that the whole clip and you, sir, are using their naivety and generosity for you own purpose?

Which is why I will say that I find both the clip and you to be utterly despicable. What you are doing actually makes me nauseated. And if you have any sense of decency you will crawl back to whatever hole you came from and stay there.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Only if you insist on showing the clip without providing any context or criticism ; which basically amounts to using such a clip as propaganda.

Ironically the CSA had only issued a recommendation. It insisted that it had not meant to obstruct the broadcasting of the clip (it did intervene after its broadcast), and even stated that it considered it to be of general interest in some respects, but that it was merely reminding the tv channels of the letter of the law ; the representatives of the CSA went out of their way to stress the fact that it was not a ban. And the court decision was only about whether the recommendation was legal in the first place.

Subtleties matter. You insist it's a ban, when the CSA expressly stated it isn't. By doing so you are deliberately twisting the facts. No political messages may be shown on French television as advertisements (with some very specific exceptions). Issuing a polite request to the tv channels to conform to the law isn't a ban. It's the other way around: if the CSA had allowed the tv channels to air a clip with obvious political content as advertisement it would have been actively favouring a specific political agenda. Which would have been exceptional and outrageous.

And the supreme irony here... Is that by presenting the clip as you do, you only confirm that the CSA was right in considering the clip as propaganda in the first place... You're actually harming your own case.

But this is an interesting one. You start by giving us what is false information. When I remark that it's false, you insist that from a certain perspective, it is correct. Now I have to demonstrate that your perspective is false as well.

This makes us lose sight of what matters. That the clip itself contains false information. That the clip cynically uses handicaped children and adults to convey a political message (something that you actually confirm). That broadcasting the clip as advertisement was done by breaking the rules on such matters. That conservatives actually had the gall to sue the CSA for doing its job. And that you use the whole affair to argue that people who are in favour of abortion have trouble dealing with its consequences.

It's all truly despicable. But it shows just how much bad faith you are willing to use to support your ideas.

Sure. But you are the one who stated that it evoked feelings of guilt and shame, didn't you?

There's nothing natural about this clip. Not only can one doubt that the people in the clip are not repeating what they were told to say (there are several clues that would indicate this ; for instance the tones and stresses strongly suggest recitation), not only is some of the information false (people with DS don't go to school "like everyone else" in France, and I very much doubt they do so in other countries ; it's exceedingly difficult and rare for people with DS to live on their own), but the words at the beginning of the video (addressed to a "mom") cynically use the whole content for a specific purpose. Because at no point in the video is abortion referred to. That this is what the video is really about is our (yours and mine) conclusion and the CSA's. Has it not occurred to you that the people in the video do not have the intellectual ability to guess that? And that the whole clip and you, sir, are using their naivety and generosity for you own purpose?

Which is why I will say that I find both the clip and you to be utterly despicable. What you are doing actually makes me nauseated. And if you have any sense of decency you will crawl back from whatever hole you came from and stay there.

 

What clip are y'all referring to?

[Rippounet]

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What clip are y'all referring to?

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

 

Was this not broadcast in the US?

[Rippounet]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Was this not broadcast in the US?

I wouldn't know. I only reacted because Commodore falsely wrote it was banned in France.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I wouldn't know. I only reacted because Commodore falsely wrote it was banned in France.

Ahh... now I see the context.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Yes, that's exactly my point. Prior to 2016 the party was a major check on extremist members of their own party as well as a check to ensure that they had a loyal member of their party. This is not the case with Trump, at all. My point is that this is yet another political norm that is gone. 

 Is that norm gone or was Trump combined with a pathetic GOP primary field an extreme outlier? He's a cautionary tale, not the new norm.