Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Courting Trump


Mr. Chatywin et al.

Recommended Posts

So I guess all the people storming these GoP town halls are from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party? Or are they mostly Obamacare affected people?

Although I was somewhat bearish on the 2018 elections, these recent days have given me hope that the outlook isnt as bleak. Furthermore, populism does have its uses and I'm glad the Bernies and Warrens are out there riling up the public to a fever pitch. Maybe it wont translate to votes and seats, but who knows...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

So I guess all the people storming these GoP town halls are from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party? Or are they mostly Obamacare affected people?

Although I was somewhat bearish on the 2018 elections, these recent days have given me hope that the outlook isnt as bleak. Furthermore, populism does have its uses and I'm glad the Bernies and Warrens are out there riling up the public to a fever pitch. Maybe it wont translate to votes and seats, but who knows...

I think it must be the Indivisible folks. Did you see this link from the previous thread? It describes how two former Democratic aides started working off their election grief by organizing opposition through their creation of a handbook.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/protest-movement-republicans-234863

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/hillary-clinton-email-timeline/

 

I guees it depends how you want to frame it.  

 

Ok, I see what you're getting at, and you do have a point. I was looking at it from the perspective of the official announcement and how that might impact her campaign, but if you want to look at it from the perspective of what they knew internally then yeah, they really dropped the ball.

Quote

That's not my job to determine.  had they not placed all their eggs in the Hilary basket for a couple decades, they wouldn't have been faced with such a bare cupboard.  That's exactly the kind of stuff they should be focusing on.

I don't think they had many options, to be honest, but it really doesn't matter anymore. 

Quote

I don't even really know what you're arguing now.

Like I said, if I were the dems, I wouldn't be betting on that strategy.  Assuming you're right that it worked for Trump and not Hilary, i don't see how that refutes the point I'm making. in fact, it seems to validate it.  They tried it, it didn't work, they should try and do better.

Not as the main strategy, no, but as a part of an overall plan, yes. And as far as it working for Trump more than Hillary, the truth is he was simply better at it, and that's what I feared might happen which is why I was telling people like @TrackerNeil to not root for Trump to beat Cruz in the primary. 

36 minutes ago, Fez said:

I assume it was actually Trump. Even so, pretty pathetic output by him these first few weeks. Not that I'm complaining. I'm incredibly grateful for gridlock now.

It was Trump, and I agree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Ok, I see what you're getting at, and you do have a point. I was looking at it from the perspective of the official announcement and how that might impact her campaign, but if you want to look at it from the perspective of what they knew internally then yeah, they really dropped the ball.

I don't think they had many options, to be honest, but it really doesn't matter anymore. 

Not as the main strategy, no, but as a part of an overall plan, yes. And as far as it working for Trump more than Hillary, the truth is he was simply better at it, and that's what I feared might happen which is why I was telling people like @TrackerNeil to not root for Trump to beat Cruz in the primary. 

 

I have to admit, i was in the crowd that just didn't think Trump could actually win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don't think they had many options, to be honest, but it really doesn't matter anymore. 

Worth remembering that the Republican party had a cupboard full of options. Up-and-coming stars, dynastic party stalwarts, self-styled outsiders, you name it. And not a one of them could do what Clinton did, ie get more votes than Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mormont said:

Worth remembering that the Republican party had a cupboard full of options. Up-and-coming stars, dynastic party stalwarts, self-styled outsiders, you name it. And not a one of them could do what Clinton did, ie get more votes than Trump.

Don't forget creatures of ooze.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, mormont said:

Worth remembering that the Republican party had a cupboard full of options. Up-and-coming stars, dynastic party stalwarts, self-styled outsiders, you name it. And not a one of them could do what Clinton did, ie get more votes than Trump.

Because republican primaries and general elections are the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Because republican primaries and general elections are the same thing.

My point was that a deeper Democrat bench shouldn't be assumed to be something that would have prevented Trump winning. And also, of course, that Trump's win gets presented as being the fault of the Democrats for not stopping him, but the Republicans have their share of that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNN is reporting that some of the conversations in the Russian dossier have been confirmed by US investigators. It doesn't look like anything huge about Trump at this point but it is increasing credibility in the dossier itself.

Quote

For the first time, US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent, multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials tell CNN. As CNN first reported, then-President-elect Donald Trump and President Barack Obama were briefed on the existence of the dossier prior to Trump's inauguration. 

None of the newly learned information relates to the salacious allegations in the dossier. Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals. Sources would not confirm which specific conversations were intercepted or the content of those discussions due to the classified nature of US intelligence collection programs.

But the intercepts do confirm that some of the conversations described in the dossier took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier, according to the officials. CNN has not confirmed whether any content relates to then-candidate Trump.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel Abraham posted this link from someone stopped by the not-a-Muslim travel ban. Have you seen it?

Well, looks like I'm not allowed to post it, even if it shows up on my screen, it disappears when I post.

Briefly, a gentleman apologizes to his friends for vanishing. He returned to the US from being out of the country and was stopped by Homeland Security, who demanded the access PIN to his cellphone to copy the data. He did not want to give it, since he's a US-born citizen and a NASA engineer at the Jet Propulsion Lab and the phone belongs to them. He realized he would be held until he did, so he gave the PIN and was then locked up with other detainees while they copied the data on his phone.

JPL has given him a new phone and number and is running forensics on his phone to see what they did.

Image may contain: text

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I give up. I have never, ever followed any line of reasoning even close to that. (I love Pinker to death, but I am not swayed by appeal to authority either.)

Now the case against Bannon is based on, and I shit you not, “a passing reference” to Evola (who, I kid you not, “inspired” the Italian fascists from the 70s). Wow. By that reasoning, I am a fascist. Anybody who ever used the koncept of the Great Lie (die große Lüge) quotes Mein Kampf and is therefore a fascist.

Look people, I don’t give a flying fuck about who thinks Bannon is a fascist. If he were one, I’d be perfectly happy. I consider fascism a completely legitimate political position, that I just strongly disagree with, much like Communism or Islamism.

But I want to understand what Bannon thinks. I want to hear his world view, preferably in his own words. This is because I care about ideas. I don’t want to know who labels whom with that. That game is not about ideas, but about social signalling. Most people are stupid and care only about that. It forms an important role in society. And I’d be happy if many people virtue signalled their distaste for fascism, or any other totalitarian ideology, because I share those views. Please go ahead and do that, on Facebook or Twitter, or even here. To me, it’s just noise. I don’t care. You are all intellectual children to me.

I’m not interested in hearing somebody represented by their bad arguments. I want to hear good arguments. In particular, from people I disagree with. I want the steel-manned version of Bannon’s arguments. I want to know the best interpretation of what he wants and why he wants it. I completely realise that I am in the minority with that desire – most of you care about identifying the worst representation of the other side. I don’t, in fact I find that psychological mechanism extremely unbecoming and highly unenlightening. Surrounding myself with bad arguments make me stupider (but strengthens my social cohesion). I want to surround myself with good arguments makes me smarter (but weakens my social cohesion).

@Happy Ent

That's fair, it was glib attempt at appeal to authority.

But if you're going to be an asshole, I will say this: You certainly seem to have a soft-spot for white-nationalism and neo-reactionary thought. I suspect you already agree with Bannon, if not for the white nationalism, then for the fact that we all (not just this board, but the global, cosmopolitan left in general) despise him, and you like being certain sort of intellectual contrarian. The sort of intellectual hipster you see all the time on the Less Wrong, Overcoming Bias, Marginal Revolution, or Slate Star Codex comment sections.

I mean what do you really want? He's obviously got complex beliefs, but he's a somewhat private person. He hasn't written a manifesto. He certainly doesn't spew out his internal monologue 140 characters at a time. You can look at statements he's a few years ago. The output of his website, the fact that he apparently invested in a WoW gold-farming operation, and you may get a hint. If you can derive a a valid Unified Theory of Steve Bannon, then great. I'd love to read it.

I'm reminded of the the paradigm shift between traditional statistics and machine learning. Statisticians are trying to tease out exogeneity and root causes from the data. Data Scientists, instead, don't care what the underlying reasons behind the model are, as long as the model is useful for prediction. Similarly I, and I suspect most of my Front Row Kid brethren, don't really care about Steven Bannon's underlying worldview all that much. I mean sure, if you could eventually supply us with one it'd be fascinating purely for intellectual reasons, but I digress. We don't have a window into his soul, but we know that he's said on multiple occasions that he thinks that Judeo-Christian West should be viewed in oppostion to the Islamic world, and China. He opposes immigration- not just illegal or low skilled immigration, but also highly educated and skilled immigration (like the Canadian model you've been so effusive in praising). He runs a website that caters to and promotes a number of racist and sexist movements and indulges the worst impulses of a generation of poorly socialized young white men.

That, by itself, is enough for me to oppose him. Beyond that, I have some conjectures of his worldview based on snippets. If not a fascist, he definitely has shades of a 19th Century Blood and Soil Nationalist. He supports "Christian Civilization", but it doesn't seem to be in the same way as Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee in the sense that Christianity is a huge part of his personal life (this is obviously conjecture) but more in the sense of cultural Christianity. Sort of like the idea (not entirely without merit) that the Enlightenment, Scientific Revolution, Rule of Law, and the Western System of hyrid utilitarian/deontological Ethics was derived from Christian principles. He believes in Capitalism, but thinks Capitalism should serve the Nation, and the unfettered free market is not a good in and of itself. I believe* that he sort of believes in returning to a mythic American Past- a world of Norman Rockwell Paintings, hardworking pioneers in coonskin caps taming the wilderness, factory workers working with heavy machinery 9-5 before returning to their perfect Leave it to Beaver-esque families, and a proud, brave US Military defending US interests abroad.

To be honest, his vision wouldn't be completely unappealing to me, if it weren't for the fact that I'd likely have no place in his ideal America.

*This part isn't based on any quote or speech his given, but rather the speeches and sentiments of the guy Bannon is working for. I'm not sure if he really holds these beliefs himself, but like I've said before-it doesn't really matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

I have to admit, i was in the crowd that just didn't think Trump could actually win.

I didn't think it was likely, but wasn't at a place where he could be completely written off. My fear was that he would drag the election into the sewage and throw every nasty thing he could at Clinton and hope enough of it would stick, and towards the end of the race he basically confirmed that that was his last ditch plan with the "Scorched Earth" approach. It wouldn't have worked with any other potential Democratic nominee, but it was a unique weakness for Clinton.

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Worth remembering that the Republican party had a cupboard full of options. Up-and-coming stars, dynastic party stalwarts, self-styled outsiders, you name it. And not a one of them could do what Clinton did, ie get more votes than Trump.

There are multiple ways to read this. First, I think Republicans were right to be optimistic about their bench. They certainly had more young potential nominees than the Democrats did going into 2016, although Trump may have damaged a number of them beyond repair. Second, having such a large field is what allowed Trump to become the nominee. He never really had more than 23%-30% support from the Republican primary and caucus voters. Had the race just been Trump, Cruz, Rubio and Kasich, I feel confident that Trump would not have been the nominee. And lastly, there's no point in bringing up the fact that Clinton got more votes if it didn't result in her victory other then to point out that she didn't run that bad of a campaign or to reassure yourself that the Democrats aren't in as weak of a position as it may look or feel right now. 

40 minutes ago, mormont said:

My point was that a deeper Democrat bench shouldn't be assumed to be something that would have prevented Trump winning. And also, of course, that Trump's win gets presented as being the fault of the Democrats for not stopping him, but the Republicans have their share of that too.

A deeper Democratic bench may have resulted in a different nominee that could have fared better against Trump. Who knows if Biden or Bernie or Warren or whoever could have beaten Trump, but I think it's safe to say they didn't suffer from the same weaknesses that Clinton did and those specific weaknesses are what Trump exploited to win.

30 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Whoa, as I am sitting here watching CNN Republican Rep. Ted Yoho just threatened the three judges that heard the appeal.

By threatened, I mean he said their order had to be examined and if they overstepped their powers there needs to be ramifications.

The increased attacks on the Judiciary are deeply unsettling. There are essentially three checks on Trump establishing an autocracy and he and his flunkies are currently attacking two (the Judiciary and the media) while the third (the Legislature) is acquiescing to him and it remains to be seen if they'll ever grow a spine.

Fun times to be alive and young......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Whoa, as I am sitting here watching CNN Republican Rep. Ted Yoho just threatened the three judges that heard the appeal.

By threatened, I mean he said their order had to be examined and if they overstepped their powers there needs to be ramifications

He is not wrong. If you ignore all of the noise surrounding this order, there is an interesting issue at the heart of this: who has the final say on whether a visa is revoked or temporarily suspended for reasons of national security? If the executive branch claims that it cannot be certain that all entrants from specific regions do not pose a threat, does that entitle it to bar them entirely or is it required to prove to the judicial branch that barring them does not violate the myriad of laws that prevent action against groups of citizens? It's an interesting question and if the judicial branch claims that it has the final say, it will effectively have used Trump's overreach to make a massive power grab for itself in which case the legislative branch may have to respond because the alternative is probably a Jacksonian standoff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Mexal said:

CNN is reporting that some of the conversations in the Russian dossier have been confirmed by US investigators. It doesn't look like anything huge about Trump at this point but it is increasing credibility in the dossier itself.

 

Yeah, this is the sort of thing I was talking about before - that the dossier has so much detail that it should be fairly easy to confirm or deny it.

And it looks like more of it is being confirmed as far as names/dates/places. Again, doesn't mean the most outlandish of it is true, but it does improve those chances. And that + the Flynn information and then the lie about it is not a good look at all. 

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...