Jump to content

US Politics: flaking out and coming uncorked


DanteGabriel

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

And yet, I would still take indifference to enormous cruelty (and I do think that's a fair description of Bush 43) over what we currently have.  It is the difference between tolerating cruelty and actively fostering it for political gain. 

Bush was a weak president with few ideas and terrible instincts in terms of which advisors to listen to.  If he had instead had to deal with a split or Democratic congress and been surrounded by more Powell/Gates/Rice types and fewer Cheney/Rumsfelds, he could have put in a forgettable, mediocre presidency.  I cannot say the same about Trump, he would be a disaster regardless of advisors or circumstances.  He is a disaster right now even though the economy is going strong, the country isn't in any major wars, and his party controls all three branches of government ie, a President's dream job. 

Agree on Trump v Dubya -- I want to push back on the revision of Bush's cruelty. Less cruel than Trump is less wet than the ocean. We shouldn't excuse or (as I've weirdly seen) exult Dubya despite his many significant moral failings and cruelty simply because Trump is worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And I obviously agree about Obama. I’m biased because I worked on his campaigns, but I have no idea how anyone can honestly say he’s the worst president ever without it being due to sheer racism. He’s not perfect, but he was a good president overall. History will remember him kindly, especially since he’s wedged between those two idiots.

Pfft, history. We all know history is written by historians, who are ivory tower academics. What do they know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

If he had instead had to deal with a split or Democratic congress and been surrounded by more Powell/Gates/Rice types and fewer Cheney/Rumsfelds, he could have put in a forgettable, mediocre presidency.

Ah, but the daddy issues!  While his politics are abhorrent, and as of yet his administration was far more cruel in terms of real world implications than Trump's been able to muster, he did have "like to have a beer with him" factor that got him "elected" in the first place.  I think that's what that poll is illustrating - most people see Dubya as a genuinely decent guy, so sure when he's not holding any office it's much easier to view him favorably.  And while his administration is a stain on this country in breathtakingly versatile ways, I tend to agree.  Look at his continued work and advocacy for Africa.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Zorral said:

What part of orange horror show is exactly what the Rethugs have been trying to get done all along do you all not get?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/opinion/republicans-silence-trump.html?

Perhaps the part where he hasn't been able to get anything done? Outside of being able to appoint a stolen Supreme Court Justice appointment, which essentially came with winning the office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Perhaps the part where he hasn't been able to get anything done? Outside of being able to appoint a stolen Supreme Court Justice appointment, which essentially came with winning the office.

There is undoubtedly frustration that there are no legislative wins. But they are creaming themselves over the regulation killing. As long as he can give more money and power to corporations and the fossil fuel industry and convince his base that these are good things for them (regulations are the devil, big gov't blahblahblah), he is not a total bust for the Rs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Week said:

Agree on Trump v Dubya -- I want to push back on the revision of Bush's cruelty. Less cruel than Trump is less wet than the ocean. We shouldn't excuse or (as I've weirdly seen) exult Dubya despite his many significant moral failings and cruelty simply because Trump is worse. 

I wasn’t trying to gloss over what Bush did and how it hurt so many people. Obviously Bush’s actions caused a great deal of pain and suffering both here and abroad. My point was that he doesn’t intentionally hurt people and take joy from doing so like Trump does.

23 minutes ago, mormont said:

Pfft, history. We all know history is written by historians, who are ivory tower academics. What do they know?

History is written by the winners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

There is undoubtedly frustration that there are no legislative wins. But they are creaming themselves over the regulation killing. As long as he can give more money and power to corporations and the fossil fuel industry and convince his base that these are good things for them (regulations are the devil, big gov't blahblahblah), he is not a total bust for the Rs.

Solid point. But all very reversible, right? Just so long as the Dems can take back the Whitehouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for not posting back to those of you that responded. I don't know why people vote against their interests. But, do you really know what their interest are? I'd venture to say that most people hold on thing dear to their heart and vote for that reason alone, abortion, guns, taxes, school reform and you get where I am going.

What I would just like to see is a coming together of the parties, which is unrealistic, I know. But, all those issues that people hold dear to their heart, there has to be a middle ground and a way to make as most people on with those issues as possible. I just don't think it will happen. I see a growing divide in everything political in America. At some point we need it to stop. Its why I call myself a centrist, I have ideals I care for on both sides of the fence and feel that all can be worked out if people can just forget their egos and work with each other.

I liked a lot about Obama, voted for the man. I didn't like Obama care at first, because it made my company provided insurance higher and shittier. But, we owe it to people who can't afford health are to provide what we can for them. I just think it needs to have some adjustments and so on. 

As far as people voting against their interests and then complaining about it afterwards, well I would just call that human nature. People are rarely, if ever happy. Peope like to bitch and moan. We all know this. 

I never voted for Trump, don't like a dann thing about the man or what he stands for. He can't speak without telling 13 lies and changing his story, while bumbling like a fool. I really wish there would be a way to get him out. I'm all for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/25/2017 at 2:02 AM, Rippounet said:

No doubt. A radical is always going to see signs of growing radicalism, at the risk of exaggerating it.

Yet, in spite of my own bias, I wouldn't quite dismiss the gist of my previous message. Clinton did underperform compared to Obama. Sanders lost but his showing was amazing for an avowed socialist who had to fight ingrained suspicion and media hostility. Trump underperformed compared to some establishment candidates but still won the primary and the election. Etc... I wouldn't quite say that "every bit of data" runs against me, I'd say it's more of a complicated picture with different messages.
Many elections, and American ones especially, are hard to read because we don't know how abstention factors in.
One little nugget of information though: in the primaries, Trump won about 14 million votes ; Sanders about 13 million. One way or the other, I think that's tens of million of people who are unlikely to be energized by centrist candidates. And even assuming that every one else is a centrist, that doesn't make it that easy for centrist candidates to win elections. In case you haven't notived, "establishment GOP" candidates are under serious attack from their right.

We agree that millions of Americans want radical change.  We don't agree that they are any sort of majority.

You're talking about margins.  If Barack Obama's first election was people excited about a "radical" and Hilary was a centrist than we know the difference between the two is about 4.5 million votes.  The difference between "radical" Trump and establishment Romney was 2 million.  I'd say the obvious conclusion is that America has two partisan voting blocks that will vote for their party no matter what and each of them have a roughly 10% fringe that will be effected by how energizing a candidate is.

Ultimately though, I don't think framing it as radical verses establishment tells as anything particularly useful about the electorate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Week said:

???? !! ?

No, sorry, not like bombs in the air or anything like, my apologies for being frighteningly vague.

ACC groups with unusually high levels of activity/going off grid/heading towards PAC, like they're gearing up for something pretty soon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Sorry for not posting back to those of you that responded. I don't know why people vote against their interests. But, do you really know what their interest are? I'd venture to say that most people hold on thing dear to their heart and vote for that reason alone, abortion, guns, taxes, school reform and you get where I am going.

The "voting against their own interests!" canard is always condescending bullshit.  It's a sociopathic view of the world that thinks economic interests are the only interests people should care about.  It is obviously hypocritical in that people that use it never apply it to their own party.  If they did we'd get think pieces about why rich people keep voting against their economic interests by voting for democrats. It's condescending to tell other people what their best interests are when clearly they are the best judge of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

The "voting against their own interests!" canard is always condescending bullshit.  It's a sociopathic view of the world that thinks economic interests are the only interests people should care about.  It is obviously hypocritical in that people that use it never apply it to their own party.  If they did we'd get think pieces about why rich people keep voting against their economic interests by voting for democrats. It's condescending to tell other people what their best interests are when clearly they are the best judge of that.

There's a valid angle to what you're talking about and then there are cases that are pretty much impossible to defend...

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-obamacare-trump-voter-20170224-story.html

 

/Like, were you not paying attention 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...