U.S. Politics: Houston Avoids Second Disaster

[Zorral]

16 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Mute bits of metal and stone don’t actually do anything, don’t oppress anyone, don’t send any message...

To that guy then, if there's no message here, why ever in the world was all that treasure and muscle spent in erecting them all over the place, naming schools and other public structures after these particular folks, having ceremonies and rituals of the unveiling and erections of same, etc. etc. etc.

It's like saying commercials and images have no affect on people's thinking, yet millions and by now when it gets to political campaigns, even approaching a billion, spent to make such things and disseminate them everywhere? Why did Fox etc. spend millions and millions to lobby having their and only their network in every Hampton Inn lobby, every airport, every military transport and base, etc. 

[OldGimletEye]

On 8/29/2017 at 10:31 AM, Zorral said:

snip

Yeah, his entire argument is nonsense.

[Maithanet]

16 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

You don't think Republicans might get on board in any meaningful numbers? If they want any hope at keeping the White House in 2020 they have to know Trump's gotta go. What is the GOP even going to look like after another 3+ years of this?

They do?  I don't see why.

Trump is creating a national brand that is stronger with Republicans than the Republican brand.  Trump's polling with Republicans is consistently higher than Republicans in Congress.  Any attempt at shoving Trump aside and running someone else in 2020 is doomed to failure.  In contrast, Trump has a legitimate shot at getting reelected in 2020.  Presidential approval ratings more than 3 years out are almost meaningless. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

You don't think Republicans might get on board in any meaningful numbers? If they want any hope at keeping the White House in 2020 they have to know Trump's gotta go. What is the GOP even going to look like after another 3+ years of this?

I think it’s unlikely. Say Republicans pick up three seats in the Senate in 2018. That would give them a 10 seat majority, which means 22 Republicans would have to defect to convict Trump. That would absolutely destroy their chances in 2020 because they’d be at each other’s throats. What would need to happen is for a super majority of Republicans to defect and convict Trump if they wanted to save their party, and I just can’t see that happening.

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

But look at the way the rest of the country has flown to the left since last November. The Trump campaign did a pretty good job of selling the lie that he and Clinton were equally undesirable. But will they really be able to pull that off twice? Trump didn't so much win the 2016 election, as Democrats lost it. All of the people who sat home in protest, flushed their vote down a third party toilet, or wrote in Bernie fucking Sanders have been shitting their collective pants for the past nine months. I cannot envision this country being stupid enough to let Trump scam his way into the White House twice.

I can't believe this country was stupid enough to elect Trump once.  Twice would be a smaller surprise than that.  There are plenty of tricks Trump can pull between now and election day.  Democrats have spent far far too long underestimating Trump.

Quote

I agree that the GOP running someone else in 2020 is doomed to failure. It would only divide the voters and hand the election to the Democratic candidate. That's why I think some of them might have their fingers crossed that enough Democrats get in next year to impeach. With Pence in the big seat the unpredictability factor is gone, and they distance themselves from some of Trump's more moderate-alienating features.

Pence isn't particularly charismatic, he's a placeholder.  And Trump WILL NOT go quietly into the night.  If he's impeached, he will scream bloody murder about "this is a a coup!" and "our democracy is at stake!", and his supporters will eat it up.  If Trump is removed from office in 2019 (which will not happen, but if it did), I think he'd probably run against Pence in the Republican primary in 2020.  And he'd probably win.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

28 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

  If Trump is removed from office in 2019 (which will not happen, but if it did), I think he'd probably run against Pence in the Republican primary in 2020.  And he'd probably win.

That’s an interesting idea I had never considered. I figured he would just do like you said and tweet away and raise hell. But his need to be seen as a winner combined with his vindictive personality could very well drive him to run again, either as a Republican or an Independent.

[sperry]

Trump's not getting impeached. The dems aren't going to make huge gains in congress. Systemically there isn't too much shifting that can happen. 2020 Trump will be a strong favorite for reelection unless the democrats can come up with a really strong candidate. Not sure why people are still underestimating the power and anger of the lower middle class white base that makes up a huge percentage of this country, and large majorities of the states that Trump won in the election.

[mormont]

14 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

I've heard reasons given.  One could debate the goodness or badness of the reasons, if that's even permitted on a board as ideologically uniform as this one.

I can confirm that it's permitted to debate even the most fantastic of ideas: the existence of unicorns, for example, or even more unlikely, the existence of a good reason to ban transgender people from serving in the armed forces.

However, there's not much point in doing so, since we both know that even if such a reason existed* it is patently not the reason why Trump has done this. Trump has done this because he is a bigot and because he wants to appeal to bigots. Since we both understand that simple fact, the point is moot.

 

* for absolute clarity, it definitely doesn't.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, sperry said:

Trump's not getting impeached. The dems aren't going to make huge gains in congress. Systemically there isn't too much shifting that can happen. 2020 Trump will be a strong favorite for reelection unless the democrats can come up with a really strong candidate. Not sure why people are still underestimating the power and anger of the lower middle class white base that makes up a huge percentage of this country, and large majorities of the states that Trump won in the election.

The margins in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin in 2016 were way too tight for you to make this claim.  Further, you are underestimating how Trump's presence and existence is going to fire up everyone to the on the left side of Attila the Hun to come out and vote against the bizarre man currently occupying the White House.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

This guy seems to give some "reasons":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7jptUoiGHA&t=160s

But whether he is right or wrong, I never agreed with you that Trump is bigoted against transgender people.  And I certainly did not agree with you that he was trying to appeal to bigots.  I merely suggested that he was cynical, like all politicians.  It is you who assumed that anyone who might oppose transgenders in the military is a "bigot" and hence that it is "bigots" that Trump is trying to "cynically" appeal to. 

And it is this habit of name-calling adversaries, that insults and alienates people, and loses hearts and minds.  

Whether he's bigoted against transgender people personally is not really relevant. That he is willing to use them as political capital in this manner is really all you need to know. The terms subhuman and extermination are hyperbolic, but at the very least Trump is categorizing transgender people as being subcitizens with this executive order. It's a terrible policy. Replace transgender with Muslim, Latino, Jew, Korean, irish or whatever subset of citizens you'd care to name. It's unacceptable. It's wholly unAmerican.

[Maithanet]

42 minutes ago, sperry said:

Trump's not getting impeached. The dems aren't going to make huge gains in congress. Systemically there isn't too much shifting that can happen. 2020 Trump will be a strong favorite for reelection unless the democrats can come up with a really strong candidate. Not sure why people are still underestimating the power and anger of the lower middle class white base that makes up a huge percentage of this country, and large majorities of the states that Trump won in the election.

Trump is not getting removed from office through impeachment (requires 2/3rd of senate).  Trump could get impeached, which only requires a majority vote in House.  It all depends on if Democrats take the House, which I would rate about a coin flip at this point.  Then if their subsequent investigations find something outrageous (very probable), they could easily proceed with impeachment.

I'm not quite as sanguine as you about Trump's reelection chances.  I think it's more likely than not that he's a one term president.  But giving Trump an ~40% chance of reelection is better than I would have given him on election day last year, so what the hell do I know?

 

[Which Tyler]

I just want to quote this from the last page of the last thread; partly to applaud @James Arryn; and partly because it really deserves to be seen by people who will miss it given that this thread was started before it was posted.

Quote

It's really weird for me to see arguments against non-violence citing the rise of the Nazis when that exact rise was one of the major motivations for the rise of the non-violent movement itself. Gandhi started it much earlier, but he MLK and others all openly credited the world's experience with the Nazi rise as a main reason it gained so much post WWII momentum.

Because, I guess unlike many today who think of the Nazis after their rise...a pretty indelible image, i grant you...the people of the post-war age remember the environments in Spain, Italy and Germany before the fascist became the respective governments. They remember the dangerous rise of a new violent political ideology that threatened to break the social structure, and who didn't mind breaking a few heads to get it done. Yeah, the communists.

And they likewise remember the counter movement that sprang up to take the fight to the communists, to not be pushed around and not sit idly by as their counties were torn apart. You know who I mean, right? The fascists.

Because that's exactly how the fascist movements go started, by saying 'enough is enough, forget waiting for the system to stop these thugs, the system is rigged and so right thinking people need to step up and meet violence with violence.[/i]

Mussolini admitted that in the beginning, that's pretty much all he had, the determination to resist communism and the willingness to get his hands dirty doing it. He kind of patched an overall ethos together as he went along, and though he never really zeroed in on a Mein Kampf kind of mission statement, he did enough that it could eventually be said to stand for some things instead of just against others. 

The same pattern was repeated elsewhere, to a degree modelled after Mussolini, at least in terms of idealogical street violence and propaganda. And the generations who grew up having seen that pattern or heard if from their parents understood what happens when X's violence is legitimized simply because they oppose Y and everyone knows how dangerous Y is. Common people get so scared by the constant violence that they either pick the side that seems strongest and help push to victory (and presumably peace) or they surrender political power to government strong men as the price to pay for order. Sooooo many people without any fascist sympathies effectively became part of the fascist army this way (and likewise communist). And as clear a distinction that you or I might make between the ideologies of fascism and opposing fascism, if their actions are increasingly hard to distinguish from one another...or, worse, if the fascists can often be portrayed as the victims (and their whole ideology is centered on that idea) you might win some battles, but you're giving them a shot at winning a war they have no business even being in. I say not doing that is the better idea. 

 

Edit for obvious alternative: if a Nazi marches up and down a square and nobody's there, does he make a sound?

Double-blind: they're not marching to make sounds, they're marching hoping it becomes a confrontation. How hard is that to understand?

Have a like, and I apologise that you may not understand it, even if it opens: http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/download/file.php?id=267

[sperry]

43 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The margins in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin in 2016 were way too tight for you to make this claim.  Further, you are underestimating how Trump's presence and existence is going to fire up everyone to the on the left side of Attila the Hun to come out and vote against the bizarre man currently occupying the White House.

 

Why didn't that happen last time? Yes, he won by slim margins, but why will those margins change? The people that voted for him are going to be energized by the anti-trump crowd. Anti-Trump isnt' going to win. It's going to have to be genuine support of a strong candidate, and probably someone who distances themselves from a lot of the stances of the current left wing of the party.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, sperry said:

Why didn't that happen last time? Yes, he won by slim margins, but why will those margins change? The people that voted for him are going to be energized by the anti-trump crowd. Anti-Trump isnt' going to win. It's going to have to be genuine support of a strong candidate, and probably someone who distances themselves from a lot of the stances of the current left wing of the party.

Because we now have 7 months of a clusterfuck administration that continually craps its' own pants and can't seem to get out of its' own way? 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

Why didn't that happen last time? Yes, he won by slim margins, but why will those margins change? The people that voted for him are going to be energized by the anti-trump crowd. Anti-Trump isnt' going to win. It's going to have to be genuine support of a strong candidate, and probably someone who distances themselves from a lot of the stances of the current left wing of the party.

Because, assuming he makes it to 2020 we will have had 4 years of Trump's bizarre behavior to fire people up.  All we had in November 2016 was the unbelievable idea that Trump could win the Presidency.

[sperry]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Because we know have 7 months of a clusterfuck administration that continually craps its' own pants and can't seem to get out of its' own way? 

 

Why do you think Trump voters care about that? He's still supporting what they want him to support.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, sperry said:

Why do you think Trump voters care about that? He's still supporting what they want him to support.

Because he's not delivering on those promises. ACA repeal? The Wall? Simple infrastructure maintenance is being shorted. There's likely to be some pretty serious backlash from the lack of relief regarding Texas if things shakeout the way they are beginning to look. All this stuff adds up. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

Why do you think Trump voters care about that? He's still supporting what they want him to support.

Why do you think that no one who voted for Trump because he was going to "shake up the system" is rather upset by how Trump has "shaken up the system".  His approval numbers across the board are in the cellar.

[mormont]

44 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

This guy seems to give some "reasons":

The topic was good reasons. If you think the ones given in the video are good reasons, why not just say so? Why try to stay on the fence?

44 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

 I never agreed with you that Trump is bigoted against transgender people.  And I certainly did not agree with you that he was trying to appeal to bigots.

No, you didn't. But you know it's true, just the same.

44 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

And it is this habit of name-calling adversaries, that insults and alienates people, and loses hearts and minds.  

Hey, you know who name-calls anyone and everyone, alienates and insults people as naturally as breathing? Donald J Trump. Each and every day he says something a hundred times more insulting to a thousand times more people than anything that has been said on this thread. Why not direct your concern towards him?

[Maithanet]

14 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

Why do you think Trump voters care about that? He's still supporting what they want him to support.

Trump supporters are not all the same.  There is definitely a significant contingent that have bought into Trump's cult of personality, and admit  in polling that there is nothing that would make them change their mind about the man.  But there are also more reluctant Trump supporters, many of whom are very unhappy with this string of failures and embarassments. A couple of my in-laws fit into the latter category, and while I still find their support for Dubya/Iraq to be baffling, I give them credit for admitting they were wrong about Trump. 

EDIT:  The pretty consistent downward trend of of Trump's polling is not fake news.  His polling average on 538 is down 8 points since taking office.  That means of the 45% of Americans who supported him in January, nearly 20% have abandoned him.  Plenty of them are not coming back.