U.S. Politics-Hope Floats 2: We All Float Down Here

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Simon Steele said:

And the basic principal that these people will keep not voting with you--even though they have like interests--is going to be continued because of that kind of attitude.

So in other words they'll somebody like Trump win and continue to destroy the country and ruin the lives of many. including themselves, because their feelings got a hurt a little bit? Seriously?

Just now, Simon Steele said:

 The fact that the only way to not have Trump was to vote for the highly flawed Clinton puts the blame on the Democratic party and their forcing her down our throats. The DNC totally did everything they could to hand that nomination to her. Don't act like there was no antecedent. The Democratic party can only blame itself. IT lost the election to the worst possible candidate in modern history, and the Dems wants to blame everyone but themselves.

You know, there is a lot wrong with the Democratic Party. And Clinton wasn't perfect.

But the alternative was real nasty Orange Buffoon and a party that isn't merely flawed, but is utterly nuts.

That was the choice people had to make. And unfortunately, there was no side stepping that.

If people don't always like they way the Democratic Party operates or the candidates it puts out, its fine to get involved in it's internal politics and start voting in primaries. But, once the the Democratic Party has selected it's candidate, internal party squabbling should be over.

Given the situation we are in, it can no longer be the situation where it's like trying to herd a bunch of cats with liberals and lefties.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

And the basic principal that these people will keep not voting with you--even though they have like interests--is going to be continued because of that kind of attitude. The fact that the only way to not have Trump was to vote for the highly flawed Clinton puts the blame on the Democratic party and their forcing her down our throats. The DNC totally did everything they could to hand that nomination to her. Don't act like there was no antecedent. The Democratic party can only blame itself. IT lost the election to the worst possible candidate in modern history, and the Dems wants to blame everyone but themselves.

This may be a valid argument for not voting for Clinton.

But voting is, has always been and always will be about weighing many different arguments for why you should or should not vote for a candidate. There were also arguments for voting for Clinton - that she was the only candidate who could defeat Trump, for example. Voters needed to weigh both arguments.

If they did that, and thought that your argument was due more weight, then they're open to criticism. Because that was a massive misjudgement.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

12 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Ha! HahaHA HAHA HAHA 

HA!

Don't worry though, you can still hang on to your 'hope'.

Would you prefer that the double Jeopardy portion of the 5th Amendment be removed?  I’m skeptical that this court will hold that a criminal case by a seperate sovereign will constitute double jeopardy. Roberts in particular, and almost certainly Thomas should vote in favor of States having the power to bring cases seperate and apart from the Federal Government without running afoul of Double Jeopardy.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

So in other words they'll somebody like Trump win and continue to destroy the country and ruin the lives of many. including themselves, because their feelings got a hurt a little bit? Seriously?

You know, there is a lot wrong with the Democratic Party. And Clinton wasn't perfect.

But the alternative was real nasty Orange Buffoon and a party that isn't merely flawed, but is utterly nuts.

That was the choice people had to make. And unfortunately, there was no side stepping that.

If people don't always like they way the Democratic Party operates or the candidates it puts out, its fine to get involved in it's internal politics and start voting in primaries. But, once the the Democratic Party has selected it's candidate, internal party squabbling should be over.

Given the situation we are in, it can no longer be the situation where it's like trying to herd a bunch of cats with liberals and lefties.

I think this is too reductive of a stance. What we have are a big group of left leaning people who are not voting for the establishment democrat and because of this, Donald Trump wins the office. When he wins, the majority Dems point fingers and blame their own. It's a real game of, "you must admit I am right." Why? Why do these people who voted for third party candidate have to admit you or anyone else is right? How likely is it, with their backs pinned to the wall for making stupid choices (seriously? Gary Johnson and Jill Stein? They are nuts), will they stop and say, "you know, your incessant badgering of my voting history has really made me think," Unlikely. Call it hurt feelings if you want, but these are full human beings who we need to vote with us starting now, and because they are full human beings, you can't hold them to some standard you have created.

They voted for someone who didn't win. So did we. In the end, the only thing we can do is try harder to sway them next time, and, you know, look at the 40+ percent of people who don't vote and see about getting them into the game as well. People who don't vote are super put off by the current state of affairs in Washington. So when they, sometimes, decide, I'm going to try and make a difference instead of passively resisting, they are met with a chorus of, "you must do it this way." They look at the candidates sometimes and see real issues they can't reconcile. 

People in general are notoriously bad about thinking about the outcomes of their decisions. When they don't vote for Clinton, their decision is not, "Well Trump is okay." Most people seriously do not think this way, nor can they, because of how our neural connectivity works. So much of our actions are generated through stimulation from outside responses. I am thirsty, I take a drink. I am tried, I close my eyes. We know very intelligent in our lives who smoke cigarettes despite the dangers they know are present--because it's very hard for us to think about future events in meaningful ways. In fact, this argument is a great illustration of that.

Instead of looking at past mistakes, "These idiots need to figure out how to vote," and seeing this always drives away a significant population of voters with problematic candidates, we continue to do it. And drive them away. And give the appearance of the process the image of being hopelessly rigged and problematic. In fact, Trump's support shows that a strong proportion of our citizens detest the status quo logic that you want to push on them. Goodbye Bush, goodbye Rubio, welcome Donald Trump.

You have to reason with people where they are and understand where they come from. If you fold your arms and say, "Nope, this is wrong, and you have to see it my way, the right way," then you lose. Every time you lose.

But you can't see that because, as I said, people are notoriously bad at looking to the future. They can't understand the spiraling impact of their decisions. They only understand what they view as the immediate outcome: if I tell them they must vote this way, they will. If I do not vote for Hillary, she will not win. That's as far as logic goes in these matches of wits.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Simon Steele said:

snip

Leftwingers like Sarandon who casually sit back and say there is no difference between Trump and Clinton are a lot like the "both sides" crowd.

They both think they've said something very deep, penetrating and hip and believe they are being reasonable.

Fact is though they really are none of those things. Now if they need that politely put, then fine. But, I still think they are making an error and need to be told so.

One can make well placed criticisms of the Democratic Party, without getting into both sides nonsense. One can make reasonable criticisms of Hillary, without getting into nonsense the she wasn't any different from Trump.

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Leftwingers Sarandon who casually sit back and say there is no difference between Trump and Clinton are a lot like the "both sides" crowd.

They both think they've said something very deep, penetrating and hip and believe they are being reasonable.

Fact is though they really are none of those things. Now if they need that politely put, then fine. But, I still think they are making an error and need to be told so. 

One can make well placed criticisms of the Democratic Party, without getting into both sides nonsense. One can make reasonable criticisms of Hillary, without getting into nonsense the she wasn't any different from Trump.

What are you talking about?

Everybody knows that pro-life and pro-choice is the exact same thing.

That social security is 100% supported by both sides and totally not screwed over when you implement a tax cut.

That the Republicans believe in a strong centralized government as much as the Democrats do.

That public schools are a drain on society and private schools are fantastic.

Also, off course, both sides are equally pro-gun, which is why we had the march for our guns rally a couple of months ago.

I see no difference, nope, none whatsoever

 

[LongRider]

Whoda thunk it?

 

[ThinkerX]

I regarded Clinton as badly flawed from the outset.  First big red flag was the secret corporate speeches, whose contents she refused to divulge.  Told me - and others - that she intended to be more of a corporate figurehead than a president.  'Corporations come first - always' - type mentality.

 

Second red flag was the whole email investigation, which like it or not, did result in an active, apparently legitimate investigation against a presidential candidate.  Clintons denials and evasions only made this situation worse, and convinced a lot of people she was not merely a corporate puppet, but incompetent as well.

 

Third flag was the condescending attitude - 'adult in the room' mentality combined with an utter lack of charisma. 

 

Most damaging was the lack of vision: condemn Sanders all you want, but he had a message that resonated very strongly with a large segment of the population.  Clinton, on the other hand, kept trying to be 'all things to all people,' which combined with her other issues - especially the lack of charisma - pretty much did her in.

 

Wake up people.  If the democratic party is to win the presidential election in 2020, they will need a candidate possessed of both charisma - the ability to get a crowd to howl at the top of their lungs and go out and do something - AND a clear, easily understood vision that can be reduced to a 'sound bite.'

 

A boring technocrat WILL fail, regardless of academic/political qualifications.  A candidate whose platform comes down to 'at least I'm not Trump' WILL fail. 

 

[Zorral]

36 minutes ago, Triskjavikson said:

A few days ago Yascha Mounck had a column after the Kennedy announcement where he said a friend had said something like "this is the darkest day of the Trump presidency because it's the day when Trump begins to consolidate his power."  Feels about right.

I'm starting to wonder if Mueller had the good on Trump big time and was able to deliver it to Congress if it would even matter.

You're only beginning to wonder?

By all means let us obey the tone political police and be civil, very civil.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, Red Tiger said:

What are you talking about?

Everybody knows that pro-life and pro-choice is the exact same thing.

That social security is 100% supported by both sides and totally not screwed over when you implement a tax cut.

That the Republicans believe in a strong centralized government as much as the Democrats do.

That public schools are a drain on society and private schools are fantastic.

Also, off course, both sides are equally pro-gun, which is why we had the march for our guns rally a couple of months ago.

I see no difference, nope, none whatsoever

 

Throw in a "you morons" at the end there. You got them. Who needs them? They're clearly fools.

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, LongRider said:

Whoda thunk it?

 

Didn't Kavanaugh help author the Starr Report? You know, where they investigated a sitting President and let a civil suit against him proceed?

[Martell Spy]

Collins: New justice should not favor overturning Roe v. Wade

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/01/collins-abortion-roe-wade-supreme-court-689547

Quote

 

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said Sunday that President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court should not seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that enshrined abortion rights in the United States.

“Roe v. Wade is a constitutional right that is well-established,” Collins said on “State of the Union” on CNN. “And no less an authority than Chief Justice [John] Roberts said that repeatedly at his confirmation hearing.“

 

 

[Darth Richard II]

Yay?

[HoodedCrow]

Let’s hope doesn’t get offered a deal that she can’t refuse.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

Throw in a "you morons" at the end there. You got them. Who needs them? They're clearly fools.

He's right, though.

It think the part of this conversation that gets lost what Trisk was talking about asking for a name for defensive voting.  It's really describing voting in a two party system.  I know we've all heard the cliches about lesser of two evils and what not, but at the end of the day you are voting for an outcome.  You are not voting for a candidate in vacuum.  

There were two candidates in Nov 2016 that had a shot at winning the presidency.  Anyone had the option to contribute to that result (save those excluded by GOP voting restrictions).  The idea that Trump and Clinton are the same is demonstrably false.  

Sure Clinton has lots of disgusting corporate connections and tendencies and is generally an advocate of the status quo.  But any issue someone has with her, Trump is way worse in every department.  

The fence sitting voters can go fuck themselves, morons or not.  Dems are better off reaching out to the apathetic left and pulling in the younger voters who usually stay home.  Mainstreet Dems and moderates show up every time - the Dems need to reach out and make sure they get every latinx, black, and under 30 vote out there.  The disenfranchised and the apathetic.  

A large portion of my friends are the ones that scream and hand wring about how they can't bring themselves to choose between two fucked up people.  It's bullshit.  You're not marrying the person.  You're being presented with two choices for the future of the country, and if you don't endorse one you're tacitly endorsing the other.  

That might be a tough practical pill for the idealists out there to swallow, but if your (impersonal you, not you SS) purity is so fucking important, why aren't you out there making sure that Sanders gets the nomination instead of Hillary?  And if you are, surely you realize that Clinton is going to deliver something closer to your ideal than Trump will.

  It might not affect a white suburban voter, but I guaranfuckingtee you my 11 year old brother who is of Guatemalan descent is going to have a much shittier time in Trump's America than Hillary's.  My parents are having an 11 year old carry around a photo copy of his passport in New England.  Because that's the America we live in now.  

[LongRider]

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

Didn't Kavanaugh help author the Starr Report? You know, where they investigated a sitting President and let a civil suit against him proceed?

Wikipediea sez

Quote

Brett Michael Kavanaugh (born February 12, 1965) is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He was Staff Secretary in the Executive Office of the President of the United States under President George W. Bush.

A protégé of Kenneth Starr, Kavanaugh played a lead role in drafting the Starr report, which urged the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.[1] Kavanaugh also led the investigation into the suicide of Clinton aide Vincent Foster. After the 2000 U.S. Presidential election, in which Kavanaugh worked for the George W. Bush campaign in the Florida recount, Kavanaugh joined Bush's staff, where he led the Administration's effort to identify and confirm conservative judicial nominees.[2]

I guess his dislike of Presidents being investigated or questioned or have lawsuits against them only extends to Republicans. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Martell Spy said:

Collins: New justice should not favor overturning Roe v. Wade

Now why doesn't this give me a whole lot of confidence?

I mean surely Collins wouldn't be the sort of person to get hoodwinked or anything.

[JGP]

Nope. No way.

 

 

Nuh uh.

[Kalbear]

23 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Again, I am no Sarandon expert, but did she explicitly say Trump isn't so bad?

Yes.

23 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Either way, she's just a person, and no one listened to her.

Many people listened to her. And even if they hadn't, it doesn't make her less of an asshole. 

23 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

This is twisted, circular logic. It's getting old. 2,000 kids are detained. And back in 2004-2005, nearly a thousand people were detained in Gitmo while I was deployed there, but people largely didn't say shit about that. Turns out most of them didn't do much of anything either. Except exist as Muslims. 

And people rightly blamed others for voting for Bush instead of Kerry then, because that was ALSO a stupid thing to do. 

23 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

If you take the moral high ground, have you taken it every single time? Were you right every single time? Is doing the right thing voting for Clinton or the establishment every time? Are we free to only search for progressive candidates if the only other option is establishment Democrats? That way we can play it safe?

This isn't about some generalistic case. This is about Sarandon saying that Trump was better than Clinton, that she was more scared of Clinton than Trump, and that things wouldn't be that much different under Trump. I don't have to be right every time to blame her for her specific action this time. That's sort of how it works. 

[davos]

time for a new thread.