Larry of the Lawn Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 9 minutes ago, Maester Drew said: I saw one tweet saying that Trump supporters have jobs, so they couldn't attend the inauguration... and yet they were more than happy to attend his campaign rallies... That can't be; all their manufacturing jobs went over seas in in the 70s, 80s, and 90s or were lost to automation because of Obama and Hillary. Oh wait that's just another bullshit narrative we've been bombarded with the last year or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 1 minute ago, larrytheimp said: is there any protest, in your opinion, that this wouldn't apply to? Yes. Absolutely. The pipeline protests for example. Quote The fact that there are likely more protesters in DC right now than Trump supporters sends a message that he has no mandate, Got any data on that? Quote that he was elected by the skin of his mendacious teeth, How does protesting affect this one way or another? The election results are publicly available and have been openly discussed since the election. Quote and that the first amendment will be defended. That most of the country believes he is bullshit. That would be an accomplishment for sure, if most of the country was protesting. I don't believe that is the case, and therefor I don't see how it demonstrates that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 55 minutes ago, Swordfish said: Totally unacceptable and counterproductive. I don't even really understand what protesting the inauguration is meant to accomplish at this point. Seems like protesting for the sake of protesting. Yep, all protests are just on a countdown until police bring out the riot gear. Without any apparent goals it's just going to go from protesting to riot squad without accomplishing much of anything. I'd like to support the protesting, i saw one positive of Trump being elected as, since so many dont like him and are afraid of what he will do people will be paying much closer attention to government than they would if just another status quo relatively normal candidate won. But what are you protesting here?? Whats the goal? Just to say you don't like the guy? OK, message received. Now what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 59 minutes ago, Altherion said: There are very, very few people who like him, but for opposition to violent protests to be meaningful, it must be against all violent protests -- otherwise you're merely disagreeing regarding the choice of acceptable targets. Also, I suspect that those punches are quite valuable to him: his face will heal in a few days, but propaganda regarding the incivility and violence of people who oppose him is forever. It's true. I think he's a terrible human being but engaging in violence like this is useful to him. It helps him and for purely pragmatic reasons shouldn't be tolerated or apologized for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: It's true. I think he's a terrible human being but engaging in violence like this is useful to him. It helps him and for purely pragmatic reasons shouldn't be tolerated or apologized for. It's also, you know, objectively wrong on it's own merits, regardless f whether it helps Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 1 minute ago, Swordfish said: It's also, you know, objectively wrong on it's own merits, regardless f whether it helps Trump. I was talking about the white supremacist James Spenser. He's a horrible human being. But not even he should be subject to random unjustified violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 Just got an email from the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee claiming they are have their best fundraising day ever. Hope that's true -- and, if it's true, that they know how to spend the money wisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I was talking about the white supremacist James Spenser. He's a horrible human being. But not even he should be subject to random unjustified violence. Yes, so was I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 1 minute ago, Swordfish said: Yes, so was I. Then we agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 1 minute ago, Ormond said: Just got an email from the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee claiming they are have their best fundraising day ever. Hope that's true -- and, if it's true, that they know how to spend the money wisely. It will be interesting to see what they do with it. The effectiveness of old methods of political spending is clearly not what it used to be -- Clinton outspent Trump by roughly 2:1 and the Republican primary opponents outspent him by significantly more than that (Bush was probably the highest individual at about 4:1). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maester Drew Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 What the Democrats need to do is mobilize and enthuse their base. That was one of the reasons why Hillary lost, there were a lot of Democratic voters who weren't excited about Hillary and chose to not vote or vote for another candidate. However, even if the Democrats continue to raise funds reinvigorate their base, it might not be enough- especially for the 2018 election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 6 minutes ago, Maester Drew said: What the Democrats need to do is mobilize and enthuse their base. That was one of the reasons why Hillary lost, there were a lot of Democratic voters who weren't excited about Hillary and chose to not vote or vote for another candidate. However, even if the Democrats continue to raise funds reinvigorate their base, it might not be enough- especially for the 2018 election. Welcome to two months ago. Thanks for the in-depth analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maester Drew Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 11 minutes ago, Week said: Welcome to two months ago. Thanks for the in-depth analysis. Did you enjoy writing that bitchy comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 I enjoyed reading it, it was hilarious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 /soapbox 1 hour ago, larrytheimp said: that he has no mandate, There are no such things as mandates. They are empty narratives made up by winning campaigns and the media, but in actuality they do not exist. My honors college thesis was a statistical analysis of the concept (humble brag, I got a perfect score) inspired by this paper written by arguably the most famous and credited political scientist to ever live (sadly it's behind a pay wall though). After analyzing every credible poll from every presidential election between 1964 and 2008, among other things, I was able to rather easily conclude that there has never been a single presidential mandate. Here's a short article that tackles the issue: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-myth-of-the-presidential-mandate/2012/06/08/gJQA0HvVNV_blog.html?utm_term=.fbdaa1754c28 /steps off soapbox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 3 hours ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said: Did I just hear that his first act is to go on vacation? So he starts pretending to be president on Monday? Does this idiot not understand that his administration will be most vulnerable when it just begins. So he responds to that by taking a vacation and leaving most of his mid level posts vacant? Good lord.... I mean, he recalled all of Obama's Ambassadors, hasn't replaced them, all while a war might break out in Western Africa. Great..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said: Does this idiot not understand that his administration will be most vulnerable when it just begins. So he responds to that by taking a vacation and leaving most of his mid level posts vacant? Good lord.... I mean, he recalled all of Obama's Ambassadors, hasn't replaced them, all while a war might break out in Western Africa. Great..... He's not taking a vacation. He's simply not working on the weekend. He mentioned this since being elected, and even went so far as to ask whether or not he had to live in the White House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 22 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: /soapbox There are no such things as mandates. They are empty narratives made up by winning campaigns and the media, but in actuality they do not exist. My honors college thesis was a statistical analysis of the concept (humble brag, I got a perfect score) inspired by this paper written by arguably the most famous and credited political scientist to ever live (sadly it's behind a pay wall though). After analyzing every credible poll from every presidential election between 1964 and 2008, among other things, I was able to rather easily conclude that there has never been a single presidential mandate. Here's a short article that tackles the issue: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-myth-of-the-presidential-mandate/2012/06/08/gJQA0HvVNV_blog.html?utm_term=.fbdaa1754c28 /steps off soapbox You're absolutely right about "mandates". They're polticial rhetoric, nothing more. Kalbear, I don't think the President has to live in the White House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 I didn't watch Trump's speech, but now I've read the transcript and it seems in line with what he said during his campaign. It is significantly more nationalistic than any Presidential speech I've heard or read (can somebody link one that is more nationalistic?). He also correctly diagnoses the problems. I've read the mockery comparing his speech to Bane's, but what he says about DC and the establishment is absolutely correct. Of course, there is no guarantee that he will be able to do any better, but the speech itself was pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudguard Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 Well, it's not yet clear whether we are better off with Trump and his administration not doing anything or Trump actively implementing his plans. Maybe we should be happy that he's not in any hurry to do his job. I wouldn't mind if he decided to take a nice long vacation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.