US Politics: YOUTUBE LINKS OR GTFO

[Swordfish]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 She should've been, absolutely, but folks also should have taken a harder look at Trump and bitten the bullet. Just my humble opinion.  

Maybe...  Hopefully the DNC will not make the same mistake next time, and will put forward a candidate that people actually want, and not rely on dislike of Trump to propel them forward.

I'm not particularly encouraged based on what I've seen so far.

[The Anti-Targ]

I heard a radio interview about Bannon a while back and the interviewee said Bannon is a strong economic nationalist, but he's not a chest beating racist. And clearly he's a conservative Catholic. So he's not about white supremacy, but he is about American supremacy and Christian supremacy. I think in general terms, that is plenty to go on in thinking about the kind of political influence he intends to have over Trump.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

27 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Maybe...  Hopefully the DNC will not make the same mistake next time, and will put forward a candidate that people actually want, and not rely on dislike of Trump to propel them forward.

I'm not particularly encouraged based on what I've seen so far.

There's a long, long time to go before that person is identified.  

[Zorral]

Under the bannon autocracy it's all about starving them all to death, because, you know, they're muslims.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

Unless the angry non-voters are PA, WI, MI or FL voting eligible residents I don't see any reason for them to beat themselves up, or be made to feel bad about failing to vote. The nation as a whole voted for HRC by a pretty decent margin, so long as you don't believe in the whole 3.5-5 million fraudulent votes thing.

Blame the system that allows someone to get to the highest office in the country based on how votes are distributed through the country rather than how many votes a person actually gets.

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

Maybe...  Hopefully the DNC will not make the same mistake next time, and will put forward a candidate that people actually want, and not rely on dislike of Trump to propel them forward.

I'm not particularly encouraged based on what I've seen so far.

3 million more people wanted her than wanted Trump. Arguments lamenting the Dems failings re: populism that fail to include the popular numbers seem pretty empty rhetoric, to me. And I'm no Clinton fan.

 

edit: and the 'that's just a technicality, boo-hoo!' response is just wrong, so don't go there. When it comes to populism and/or democracy as arguments, the popular vote is the truth. It's the fucking electoral college that's a technicality. 

[TheKitttenGuard]

47 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I heard a radio interview about Bannon a while back and the interviewee said Bannon is a strong economic nationalist, but he's not a chest beating racist. 

I think an issue gets to be is how much one think the U.S is an inherently Racist Nation.  If it is than no matter how much want to ignore or deny it will eventually come to service.

I think Bannon engages in several "No True Scotsman" fallacies with Capitalism.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 

Wait, what? I don't even...

 

/Is that Easy-E's older brother or something? 

[Swordfish]

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

There's a long, long time to go before that person is identified.  

Not as long as you might think.

 

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

3 million more people wanted her than wanted Trump. Arguments lamenting the Dems failings re: populism that fail to include the popular numbers seem pretty empty rhetoric, to me. And I'm no Clinton fan.

You know who else won the popular vote?  The falcons.

Sadly for the falcons, Clinton, and the rest of us, the popular vote is irrelevant.

The popular vote win is the equivalent of a participation trophy.

Quote

edit: and the 'that's just a technicality, boo-hoo!' response is just wrong, so don't go there. When it comes to populism and/or democracy as arguments, the popular vote is the truth.

 

it's a complete boo hoo response.  the popular vote is not what determines the presidency.  Period.

You MIGHT have a point if voter participation rates were near to 100%, but that isn't the case.  

This is exactly the kind of 'stick my head in the sand and blame the electoral college/racism/russians' that i would hope the DNC starts to move past, or they will continue to lose.  The candidate was not good enough, and they should have known it.

 

 

Quote

It's the fucking electoral college that's a technicality. 

Completely wrong. If she was running a race to win the popular vote, then she's an even worse candidate than i thought, because that isn't how this works.  That isn't how any of this works.

The electoral college determines the winner, and no amount of sour grapes changes that fact.  It's not like the rules changed in the middle of the race.

 

 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

4 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Not as long as you might think.

 

The popular vote is irrelevant.  You know who else won the popular vote?  The falcons.

The popular vote win is the equivalent of a particpation trophy.

 

it's a complete boo hoo response.  the popular vote is not what determines the presidency.  Period.

You MIGHT have a point if voter participation rates were near to 100%, but that isn't the case.  

This is exactly the kind of 'stick my head in the sand and blame the electoral college/racism/russians' that i would hope the DNC starts to move past, or they will continue to lose.  The candidate was not good enough, and they should have known it.

 

 

Completely wrong. If she was running a race to win the popular vote, then she's an even worse candidate than i thought, because that isn't how this works.  That isn't how any of this works.

The electoral college determines the winner, and no amount of sour grapes changes that fact.  It's not like the rules changed in the middle of the race.

 

 

Just for pedantry, if we're going with a stupid joke analogy, the Patriots won the popular vote. They scored more total points. The Falcons won more states- they won more quarters,

[Altherion]

27 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

3 million more people wanted her than wanted Trump. Arguments lamenting the Dems failings re: populism that fail to include the popular numbers seem pretty empty rhetoric, to me. And I'm no Clinton fan.

 

edit: and the 'that's just a technicality, boo-hoo!' response is just wrong, so don't go there. When it comes to populism and/or democracy as arguments, the popular vote is the truth. It's the fucking electoral college that's a technicality.

The words "populism" and "popular" have the same root, but if you look up what populism actually means, it does not require a majority to be on one's side. Furthermore, the popular vote in an American election is not so much a technicality as an utterly irrelevant artifact that is occasionally useful for propaganda. Everybody knows that California is going to vote for the Democrat, Texas is going to vote for the Republican and, with the exception of the battleground states, most other states will vote for a specific one of the two major party candidates. Thus, the turnout is determined local by elections, convenience of voting, etc. Additionally, the resources spent by candidates to woo and motivate voters are severely distorted by the same knowledge.

The result of all of this is that the popular vote just doesn't mean much and isn't useful for anything except propaganda for people who do not understand how an election where the winner is not determined by the popular vote works.

[OldGimletEye]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-case-for-climate-action.html

Quote

CRAZY as it may sound, this is the perfect time to enact a sensible policy to address the dangerous threat of climate change. Before you call us nuts, hear us out.

During his eight years in office, President Obama regularly warned of the very real dangers of global warming, but he did not sign any meaningful domestic legislation to address the problem, largely because he and Congress did not see eye to eye. Instead, Mr. Obama left us with a grab bag of regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions, often established by executive order.

I appreciate the effort guys.

But you'll have to convince Rush Limbaugh. If you can convince him, then it shouldn't be a problem to convince the Republican Party. Good luck on that one.

Your plan may be the most sensible one out there (and I don't know if it is. no clue at this time), but you know the conservative movement has taken a huge (or should I say yuuge) position that its all a big fuckin hoax. I am hugely (yuugely) skeptical that they are going to reverse now and say, "Sorry guys we were wrong."

Anyway, I'd say it's not a bad effort, even if you did feel the need to take a few swipes at liberals and Obama.

ETA:

Also, I forgot. It seems to me that Cap and Trade was largely a conservative idea. And liberals basically said, "Okay". But, then as soon as we did, conservatives were against it.

It's kind of like what happened with the ACA.

You know, I think we're starting to feel a bit like Charlie Brown getting ready to kick the football, only to have conservatives pull it away at the last minute.

[Swordfish]

15 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Just for pedantry, if we're going with a stupid joke analogy, the Patriots won the popular vote. They scored more total points. The Falcons won more states- they won more quarters,

That's one way to look at it. but it isn't what i was referring to. So it's not so much pedantry as a completely different analogy.

Most people wanted the falcons to win.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/01/30/patriots-poll-super-bowl-li-atlanta-falcons/

Even so, your analogy fails.  The popular vote is not what determines the outcome. The patriots won, therefore suggesting they won the popular vote is just... Not really accurate.

So it seems to me you have it exactly backwards.  The popular vote would be winning more quarters and losing the game, and the electoral win would be scoring more points and winning the game.

 

Quote

A new report from Public Policy Polling found that 53 percent are pulling for the Atlanta Falcons to win in Houston. Only 27 percent of respondents said they are rooting for the Patriots.

The poll also says the Patriots are the most hated team in the league, which has been the case ever since DeflateGate. Two points behind the Patriots are the Cowboys, with 19 percent calling Dallas their least favorite team.

 

[Zorral]

Young white fellows with nazi haircuts,

http://www.esquire.com/style/news/a51116/high-and-tight-fascism-neo-nazis-white-supremacists/

chewing iron / steel nails in their mouths -- as if it is a toothpick --  wearing shirts with swastika, are sitting down across from people in the NYU library who are trying to study or otherwise work, staring at them with threatening expressions. These guys aren't studying or doing any thing, just staring threateningly. And chewing nails.

I can vouch for this the above stuff as of today.

 However I cannot vouch personally what some others have been saying on campus that these guys are going around and saying "Bannon knows who you are."

 

[butterbumps!]

 

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I heard a radio interview about Bannon a while back and the interviewee said Bannon is a strong economic nationalist, but he's not a chest beating racist. And clearly he's a conservative Catholic. So he's not about white supremacy, but he is about American supremacy and Christian supremacy. I think in general terms, that is plenty to go on in thinking about the kind of political influence he intends to have over Trump.

I don't disagree that Bannon isn't proclaiming his racism openly, but I'm not sure that should be a standard measure of racism.  He's not just an "economic nationalist," though that's clearly how he wants to describe himself.   He's very much in the white nationalism camp.  I get that he doesn't typically frame his arguments in terms of race, but his view of "Americanism" is very much about being (preferably Northern) European and Christian.   To illustrate this, he is on record lamenting even legal immigration, as he believes that too many good tech jobs have gone to people with Asian backgrounds.

In addition to the interviews and his radio show, Brietbart itself is basically a "primary source" for understanding Bannon.  It's a deeply racist site.   Even if he's not the one writing articles in the "Black Crime" section, he clearly accepts, fosters, and benefits from the deeply racist sentiments that go hand in hand with his "nationalistic" view of what America should be.

[Altherion]

Despite the fuss over arcane Senate rules, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III has been confirmed as Attorney General. It'll be interesting to see what he will do, but he does have a pretty awesome name.

[aeu]

3 hours ago, Swordfish said:

As for whether or not disliking the other guy is sufficient to motivate voters and sweep you to victory, rather than having them actually be enthusiastic about your actual candidate is, I suppose, debatable, but I wouldn't wager the homestead on that strategy.

 

 

 

Didn't Trump just prove that this strategy works?  Yes, he had some enthusiastic supporters but how many republications were whatever the exact opposite o enthusiastic is and voted for him solely because he would have been better than Hillary on a few select areas (like abortion).

The exact opposite should have been true for those on the left side of the spectrum, but some of those people just enjoy being contrarians and cutting off their own noses to spite their own faces.  Republicans are much more rational about these things.  They may bitch and moan but eventually get in line. 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

This Slate interview with Ben Shapiro from the end of November was a good read, re: Bannon.  not sure it qualifies for what you're looking for, Happy Ent, as they clearly had some kind of falling out.  I suppose it couldn't hurt to check out Bannon's three documentaries or look what changed at Breitbart under Bannon to potentially gain some insight into his worldview.  

 

[Dr. Pepper]

To comment on Sen. Warren's letter reading some more...I can't tell you how many events I've seen pop up on my facebook feed titled "She was warned. She was given an explanation.  Nevertheless, she persisted."  Everything from rallies to postcard writing groups to phone call groups.  As an exercise, Warren definitely capitalized on "Nevertheless, she persisted".  Need to keep up that momentum.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

Despite the fuss over arcane Senate rules, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III has been confirmed as Attorney General. It'll be interesting to see what he will do, but he does have a pretty awesome name.

I say that boy's about as sharp as a bowling ball, sir. Got a mind like a steel trap. Fulla mice. He reminds me of Paul Revere's ride, son. A little light in the belfry.