Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Trump of the Will


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, ummester said:

Or perhaps it;s just because the West, by and large, is over globalism and progressivism. There is no need to make it about color, or ethnicity - it is culture, pure and simple. Western culture is the greatest the world has ever known (in this Epoch) and destroying it because corporations require suppressed global wages is just not acceptable.

Lol you’re not fooling anyone here buddy. You guys are the ones making it about color. Your dog whistle bigotry is beyond that at this point. It’s playing through a festival PA system.

 

gotta love western white people and their chauvinism and thinking they aren’t bigots.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said:

Lol you’re not fooling anyone here buddy. You guys are the ones making it about color. Your dog whistle bigotry is beyond that at this point.

Ok - considering I am ethnically more Indian than British and still think Western culture is greater than any developed since the Old Egyptian Kingdoms when Akhenaten invented monotheism  -  I kind of consider you misguided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There certainly are people who voted for Trump for those reasons. However, I think most of those people are also older and white, and that they’re experiencing racial resentment, but because they know they can’t say that publicly, they use the wrecking ball argument instead.

Define older. The people I'm talking about are in the high 30s - low 50s range. In my social circle and people I know enough to vouch for personally, I would say there are three Trump voters who all now regret it and one who doesn't. I have never seen anything even resembling a racial slur or prejudice against LGBT or whatever you want to put in that basket. Never once suspected it and would be shocked to find out otherwise. The one who doesn't regret his vote knows Trump is garbage, but that's who the Rs put up and he believed Hillary had to be defeated. Economy is his biggest (only?) voting issue and he's bought into the conservative bullshit.

If you're talking older as in 60s and older, I might agree that there is some hidden (or not so hidden) racial resentment. I know some of those people too. It's obviously not a strict divide by age, (as I know both types of all ages) but I'm talking about my personal experience and I know and talk more with the middle age range.

The R party doesn't have as large an umbrella as the D party, but it is an umbrella that encompases differing views and priorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

Define older. The people I'm talking about are in the high 30s - low 50s range. In my social circle and people I know enough to vouch for personally, I would say there are three Trump voters who all now regret it and one who doesn't. I have never seen anything even resembling a racial slur or prejudice against LGBT or whatever you want to put in that basket. Never once suspected it and would be shocked to find out otherwise. The one who doesn't regret his vote knows Trump is garbage, but that's who the Rs put up and he believed Hillary had to be defeated. Economy is his biggest (only?) voting issue and he's bought into the conservative bullshit.

If you're talking older as in 60s and older, I might agree that there is some hidden (or not so hidden) racial resentment. I know some of those people too.

I just think it's too easy to put people in the deplorable basket and write them off as closet racists. The R party doesn't have as large an umbrella as the D party, but it is an umbrella that encompases differing views and priorities.

So voting for open bigots isn’t an act of prejudice against those demographics when the people they voted for have policies that directly attack them? 

 

They voted for a President that has a that thinks torturing gay people with electro shock is a okay.

 

sorry, the people in your social circle absolutely perpetuated prejudice against marginalized demographics when they voted for this administration. 

 

Trump supporters aren’t closest bigots, they’re out in the open ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said:

So voting for open bigots isn’t an act of prejudice against those demographics when the people they voted for have policies that directly attack them? 

I'm not disputing this. I'm just talking about my personal experience to demonstrate my point. 

edit: to clarify - yes, I think that by supporting Trump and his policies you are supporting his bigotry. However, there was a lot of theorizing before Trump was elected about what his policies would actually be and that he leans dem more than R so it probably won't be so bad or he'll be so incompetent that he won't get anything done. We know better now and the one person I know who doesn't regret his Trump vote I have been re-evaluating what I thought I knew about him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

I'm not disputing this. I'm just talking about my personal experience to demonstrate my point. 

edit: to clarify - yes, I think that by supporting Trump and his policies you are supporting his bigotry. However, there was a lot of theorizing before Trump was elected about what his policies would actually be and that he leans dem more than R so it probably won't be so bad or he'll be so incompetent that he won't get anything done. We know better now and the one person I know who doesn't regret his Trump vote I have been re-evaluating what I thought I knew about him.

Trump made it clear what he was about from the start of his campaign. It was racism and bigotry as soon as he walked down the escalator to announce he was running. The only people theorizing were  centrists with their heads rammed far up their asses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bonnot OG said:

Trump made it clear what he was about from the start of his campaign. It was racism and bigotry as soon as he walked down the escalator to announce he was running. The only people theorizing were  centrists with their heads rammed far up their asses.

I agree that anyone who voted for Trump, however they justified it to themselves, was guilty of an act of bigotry and that it was pure folly and self-deception to believe that he was not a bigot from, well, before he started his campaign actually. Let's get that out of the way to begin with. 

But you understand that the word 'centrist' has a meaning, and is not just a catchall term for 'anyone Bonnot holds in contempt'?

No 'centrist' voted for Trump. As you've rightly pointed out, voting for Trump, for any reason, was not a centrist position - by definition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy, the federal government has brought the death penalty back, after an almost 20 year moratorium! Not since 2003, when a guy named Barr was AG, has there been an execution. And there had only been three executions between 1963 and 2003, and 5 executions have been ordered. Got some catching up to do, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

I agree that anyone who voted for Trump, however they justified it to themselves, was guilty of an act of bigotry and that it was pure folly and self-deception to believe that he was not a bigot from, well, before he started his campaign actually. Let's get that out of the way to begin with. 

But you understand that the word 'centrist' has a meaning, and is not just a catchall term for 'anyone Bonnot holds in contempt'?

No 'centrist' voted for Trump. As you've rightly pointed out, voting for Trump, for any reason, was not a centrist position - by definition. 

Sure centrists exist.  It's just that in the US we call them liberals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Oh boy, the federal government has brought the death penalty back, after an almost 20 year moratorium! Not since 2003, when a guy named Barr was AG, has there been an execution.

I don't like this but Barr wasn't AG anytime around 2003.  That'd be Ashcroft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't like this but Barr wasn't AG anytime around 2003.  That'd be Ashcroft.

Ah, thanks! It’s annoying when you rely on an American’s comment in the NYT, lol, and they were wrong. Wrong Bush I see, he served from 91 to 93, not 2003!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, ummester said:

Or perhaps it;s just because the West, by and large, is over globalism and progressivism. There is no need to make it about color, or ethnicity - it is culture, pure and simple. Western culture is the greatest the world has ever known (in this Epoch) and destroying it because corporations require suppressed global wages is just not acceptable.

Cultural preservation is a euphemism for preventing diversity, full stop. And I’m not sure what makes you think progressivism is unpopular. The West is consistently becoming more and more progressive, and those that oppose this are dying every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ummester said:

Or perhaps it;s just because the West, by and large, is over globalism and progressivism. There is no need to make it about color, or ethnicity - it is culture, pure and simple. Western culture is the greatest the world has ever known (in this Epoch) and destroying it because corporations require suppressed global wages is just not acceptable.

Culture is not a solid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Triskele said:

This reminds me of another hypothetical I've been tempted to throw out, but I worry it's just too hypothetical, but it's this:

Would anyone calculate not just "which candidate can beat Trump" but "which candidate can beat Trump by the most?"  Those margins potentially really matter with the Senate.  

But it might be a useless question because who could really make a great guess at this at primary time.

But if some demon could tell me "Your favorite candidate will beat Trump by 1% and keep the House but narrowly lose the Senate, but your third favorite candidate will beat Trump by 5% and re-take the Senate by five seats" or something like that I would vote for third favorite candidate.  

 

12 hours ago, Triskele said:

A major remaining question that I think gets discussed very little:

What chance do the Dems have of unearthing anything more if they go with Impeachment proceedings?  Is there, like, a Bayesian analysis on this?  And is someone like Pelosi considering this?  

If I was a leader I would want the Bayesian take on this, and then depending on the answer it could inform my decision. 

It's one thing to consider the immediate or direct impeachment ramifications.  It's tougher to consider the the extent to which these indirect factors would or would not impact the overall outcome.   

What is 'Bayesian' analysis? I infer from context that it is a kind of marginal analysis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

What is 'Bayesian' analysis? I infer from context that it is a kind of marginal analysis?

It's essentially deriving probabilities by inferring a more likely distribution based on updated information, if that makes any sense at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all you Harris fans - have you seen Trump’s tweet about her?

“Lame Stream media losing ratings by babbling about their Fairest Mueller. Instead they should wonder how Kamala “Blabbo” Harris is EXACTLY like that Loaf nose Dork-a-ninny Penguin from the unfunny Bloom County: Big mouth, half black, Time’s up, Send ‘em back!”

You cannot make this stuff up. If you tried you’d be laughed out of the room.

Can someone post it, I’m not on my computer. He shows a picture of Opus beside a picture of Harris and the Bloom County fans are begging the writer to sue the shit out of Trump.

eta: Nice one from auto correct, changing Kamala to Kampala.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/mueller-testifies-russia-blackmail-leverage-trump.html

Quote

 

The most interesting and newsworthy portion of Robert Mueller’s six hours of testimony before the House yesterday came in the final two exchanges of the day, long after the narrative was set and the national media had grown bored. In those ten minutes, Mueller confirmed that Russia had blackmail leverage over Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign.

The Mueller report states that it was a criminal investigation, not a counterintelligence probe. If Moscow has leverage over a presidential candidate, that is not a crime. Illinois Democrat Raja Krishnamoorthi opened the line of inquiry by getting Mueller to offer that counterintelligence findings “probably were made in the FBI” and that “the counterintelligence goals of our investigation … were secondary to any criminal wrongdoing that we could find.” Mueller agreed that “the question of whether Russian oligarchs engaged in money laundering through any of the president’s businesses” — a possibility strongly suggested by numerous journalists who have studied Trump’s finances — was “outside his purview.”

But, incidentally to the criminal investigation, Mueller’s criminal probe did turn up at least some counterintelligence findings....

 

Yet -- YET! -- the NY Times et al. say Mueller's hearing have taken the steam out of impeachment.

WTF??????  It's only through impeachment proceedings that the general public is going to learn about these matters, as it did slowly during the Nixon proceedings prior to him resigning.

 

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...