Tryhard Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 (edited) 18 hours ago, Lord Raven said: It's really vanity in the end. A non-vote is a vote for Trump seeing as Trump has the more united electorate. People expect perfection from a candidate to convince them to vote for said candidate. It's vanity. If they didn't participate in the primaries, then they didn't attempt to get their voices heard in the first place. If they participated in the primaries and their candidate lost, then it's clear that there are concessions to be made. The guy doesn't assault people or even harass them. Some people just have a physical way of showing affection, and if him saying "I don't apologize for how I feel but I do apologize for getting into your personal space" isn't enough for them then I'm not sure what is. I do have to wonder if Trump does win re-election, if you will blame the voters. It doesn't seem like a very rewarding strategy, considering Hillary tried to shame people into voting for her and enough people in the right areas did tell her to kick rocks. To make it clear, I would vote for Biden if I would be eligible, but it seems like the exact same conversation is happening over and over again, and some would be so oblivious to why people are disillusioned. I'm not really as confident as I probably should be heading into the potential re-election of a game show host buffoon who talks nonsense 90% of the time, yet still has the awful policies of past presidents if not worse. There is no reflection, no introspection on the part of the Democrats. And if they lose again? Well, nothing else to blame. 6 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said: That doesn't really have to be suspicious. I remember the woman who accused Kavanaugh also only did so after he was nominated as a member of the supreme court. And that itself is fairly logical. You can try to forget and move on, but if your tormentor then goes on to reach a very prestigious position, a position that requires a good deal of moral authority then that can feel completely unacceptable. You can try to forget but at that point you might feel you just have to step forward. Dr Ford also had almost the same story to tell, including the fact that she told others at the time. If you remain skeptical I wouldn't mind as long as you didn't also jump to conclusions in that case. (This is ignoring the fact that Kavanaugh was unfit to be in his position outside of that) Edited May 12, 2020 by Tryhard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tryhard said: I do have to wonder if Trump does win re-election, if you will blame the voters. Depends on how many stay home. Voter turnout was down in 2016 compared to 2012 and 2008. People didn't show up since they were taking it for granted. I mean, again, Michigan went to Trump after being a very solidly blue state. At least PA was a more bluish purple for the last like 20 years, Michigan was like routinely +5-10 points blue. since Bill Clinton won. This time? Who knows. It depends on the state, what means they're implementing to ensure people can vote, etc. Ultimately, it might be the Trump admin to blame. 1 hour ago, Tryhard said: Dr Ford also had almost the same story to tell, including the fact that she told others at the time. If you remain skeptical I wouldn't mind as long as you didn't also jump to conclusions in that case. (This is ignoring the fact that Kavanaugh was unfit to be in his position outside of that) The means through which Ford reported her case was that when Kavanaugh was on a shortlist -- ages before his actual hearing -- she brought it up in private. She was outed during the hearings, testified under oath, and the FBI didn't do a single investigation and Congress just jammed him through. Although, if I'm being honest? That alone should not be disqualifying, even if it were true (there's enough doubt), partially because he was like 17 in a good ol' boys private school right outside of DC in the early 80s. It doesn't excuse the actions of teenagers, but teenagers are fucking stupid and in all honesty if you learn from the stupid shit you said and did as a teenager that's better than... anything Kavanaugh did during that hearing. His response was disqualifying, however, since it was blatantly partisan, flippant, and blamed on conspiracy. Kavanaugh was a trainwreck of a candidate and it has absolutely nothing to do with the allegations. Edited May 12, 2020 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zapp Branniglenn Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 1 hour ago, Tryhard said: It doesn't seem like a very rewarding strategy, considering Hillary tried to shame people into voting for her and enough people in the right areas did tell her to kick rocks. I would very much like for you to elaborate on this shaming people into voting. 5 minutes ago, Lord Raven said: Depends on how many stay home. Voter turnout was down in 2016 compared to 2012 and 2008. Turnout was less than 2008, but not 2012. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 23 minutes ago, Glennstavos said: Turnout was less than 2008, but not 2012. I might be referring to key swing states, then, and might be more specifically referring to lower turnout in Democrats and higher turnout in Republicans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryhard Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Glennstavos said: I would very much like for you to elaborate on this shaming people into voting. Several claims by herself and people who supported her that the reason people won't vote for her is because she is a woman and they are sexist. Several attacks against Bernie Sanders, his campaign, and his supporters and alleged claims of her being far more "electable". Her entire campaign really not focusing so much on her policy or what she's going to do, but rather how awful Trump is (she had the least amount of policy substance in TV ads compared to every other presidential candidate including Trump). The comments about Trump's 'basket of deplorables' are pretty much the quintessential aspect of this, even if you actually believe this is the case (she did regret this, but a generalisation like this still isn't going to go over well since she was calling people who supported her opponent 'racist', 'sexist', 'homophobic', and 'xenophobic' en masse). Why isn't she 50 points of ahead of Donald Trump? Et cetera. You really going to argue this with me? Edited May 12, 2020 by Tryhard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zapp Branniglenn Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 6 minutes ago, Tryhard said: Several claims by herself and people who supported her that the reason people won't vote for her is because she is a women and they are sexist. Trump repeatedly accused her of using the woman card. You wouldn't be the first to buy it. The first female presidential nominee was not going to escape that narrative - even if her opponent had the respect not to steep so low. Or are you claiming her gender actually wasn't a factor in anybody's vote? Quote Several attacks against Bernie Sanders, his campaign, and his supporters and alleged claims of her being far more "electable". Her entire campaign really not focusing so much on her policy or what she's going to do, but rather how awful Trump is (she had the least amount of policy substance in TV ads compared to every other presidential candidate including Trump). It seems her strategy hinged on showing the American people Trump in his own words. Trusting that we would not let somebody like that in the white house. That trust was misplaced, no arguments here. If you paid more attention when she spoke at debates and less to her campaign ads, you'd hear all you needed to about policy. Quote The comments about Trump's 'basket of deplorables' are pretty much the quintessential aspect of this, even if you actually believe this is the case (she did regret this, but a generalisation like this still isn't going to go over well since she was calling people 'racist', 'sexist', 'homophobic', and 'xenophobic'). Deplorable was a soft way of putting it. Adding "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc" is just your brain filling in the blanks. Or are we judging candidates exclusively on the behavior and words of their supporters? I'm not going to apologize for calling assholes what they are. It's not a crime. Quote Why isn't she 50 points of ahead of Donald Trump? So she makes an arrogant comment once. It's not on the same level as claiming you could shoot somebody on fifth avenue and get away with it, or instigating Lock Her Up chants. If you don't believe in your chances and your policies, what are you even doing in the realm of politics? Quote You really going to argue this with me? No, I have no interest in getting in the last word. Go ahead, champ. I was just curious to hear how I was shamed into voting for Hillary four years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryhard Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Glennstavos said: Trump repeatedly accused her of using the woman card. You wouldn't be the first to buy it. The first female presidential nominee was not going to escape that narrative - even if her opponent had the respect not to steep so low. Or are you claiming her gender actually wasn't a factor in anybody's vote? No. But she did like to tout the whole 'first female president' title more than was necessary, and some of the sexism claims made by her and people close to her campaign are/were just lame as hell. 44 minutes ago, Glennstavos said: Deplorable was a soft way of putting it. Adding "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc" is just your brain filling in the blanks. Or are we judging candidates exclusively on the behavior and words of their supporters? I'm not going to apologize for calling assholes what they are. It's not a crime. Except that's what she actually said. “They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic.” It's not me making up anything. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCHJVE9trSM 44 minutes ago, Glennstavos said: So she makes an arrogant comment once. It's not on the same level as claiming you could shoot somebody on fifth avenue and get away with it, or instigating Lock Her Up chants. If you don't believe in your chances and your policies, what are you even doing in the realm of politics? Her entire persona unfortunately came across as an out-of-touch cold politician. One that was quite arrogant. It wasn't just that one instance. It's actually fortunate that Biden tends to be a little more likable, even if he does challenge random people to push up contests and tells them to vote for other people. 44 minutes ago, Glennstavos said: No, I have no interest in getting in the last word. Go ahead, champ. I was just curious to hear how I was shamed into voting for Hillary four years ago. I'm just kinda amazed that we're still talking about this four years later. Hillary was a horrible candidate who was up there talking about how Pepe the frog is a hate symbol, for fucks sake. Not saying you were personally shamed into it but she did seem to like using that tactic quite a bit, or just unknowingly did it, I have no idea. EDIT: 44 minutes ago, Glennstavos said: It seems her strategy hinged on showing the American people Trump in his own words. Trusting that we would not let somebody like that in the white house. That trust was misplaced, no arguments here. If you paid more attention when she spoke at debates and less to her campaign ads, you'd hear all you needed to about policy. I did like some of her policies! Her plan to re-train coal workers was certainly a lot more based in reality than Trump magically bringing coal back. It's just the place where most people were most likely to see some of those things (which I still think was less than other candidates) isn't one that was particularly widely watched, or cared about, it seems. Debates seem to tend to make little difference in the outcome from even past elections. I don't know, I think having the worst record on ads even below Trump, who is pretty much the king of ad hominems, is pretty worrying. I don't mind pointing out the flaws of your opponents but you do need to balance that with what you actually want to offer in exchange, and it seems like those moments were too far and few between. Edited May 12, 2020 by Tryhard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewyn Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) 13 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said: Its a common saying that Democrats fall in love and that Republicans fall in line. We certainly see the Republicans fall in line since they very quickly embraced just about every negative aspect of the Trump administration. If Trump corruption is brought to light they insist its fake news, if Trump personally says something foolish they insist he was just joking and when things wrong they scream that it can't possibly be Trump's fault. Trump is their leader and he simply cannot be wrong. But Democrats fall in love meaning they'll drop their leader in a heartbeat if he doesn't live up to their standards. And a possible sexual assault is a very real reason not to love someone anymore. . That's true and is a huge weakness. Democrats have to change and also fall in line. They should dismiss and not pay attention to the Tara Reade thing at all. Ignore it completely, never bring it up. Call it out for the false crap it is. She is lying and likely paid off by RNC or Trump campaign. Why does she wait after all these decades to finally come out now after the Democratic nominee is chosen? If she had come out January or something, yeah Democrats who didn't like it could just vote for something else. This seems just a way to lead an easy win for Trump. She's a silly fangirl of Putin, Trump isn't so different just much much less intelligent. So what is it now, anyone can come out and say Biden harassed me or some other Democrat and suddenly oh yeah he is a serial rapist, can't vote for him. While Trump, who rapes and assaults whoever he wants without consequence and the RNC are laughing their asses off at how easy it is to play the public? Edited May 13, 2020 by Lewyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Tarrasque Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 No, they don't have to fall in line like the Republicans do, we need to end all that hyper-partisan garbage and have a Congress composed of folks who acknowledge that there's shit that needs to get done and work with those willing to. The Republican party is better off being destroyed because the politicians in that party have proven to be absolute hypocrites with no desire to get anything done other than funneling money to the rich and their platform and rhetoric has been using the Southern Strategy for so long that the party has become a place where Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists feel welcomed in. Get rid of that party and if we're to be stuck with a 2-party system, a new one may follow and that party will have to compete with the Democrats' platform and actually appeal to the people for votes. The Democratic party is also, as been said many times, guilty of the corruption despised by all in the country but even the career politicians will change their tune when their positions are threatened during primaries. Pelosi for example, would certainly be good to have defeated in a primary assuming the likes of Trump will be gone with this election cycle as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zapp Branniglenn Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) The drone nature of the Republic party is what helped get us into this mess. The Democratic party should see no need to follow their example. You won't see me falling in line when Dems are infringing on basic human rights and exploiting innocent people. Enable the politicians willing to do the right thing. But don't feel as if you owe them anything. If democrat leaders start abusing their station, they ought to be removed just the same. Edited May 13, 2020 by Glennstavos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewyn Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 So what happens when Trump wins this election and the Senate is still in Republican control? What happens when they have 6 out of 9 Supreme court Justices? What happens to noble ideals then? Take control of the Senate, boot Trump from office throw him in jail for all his crimes, and now the Democrats and their supporters can be idealistic. The drone misinformation crap of the Republican party has gotten us Trump. So obviously it is super effective, and despite all of Trump's crap which puts him amongst the worst presidents ever if not the worst he still is the Vegas favorite to win. Even if the economy sucks in November and even though we will be in six figures of Coronavirus deaths. Democrats need to focus on winning by any means possible. Once this disgusting morally bankrupt Republican party is destroyed and transformed then they can take the high road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 Yeah, I would say Glennstavos is thinking more 4-8 years down the line when we have more than one viable party. I don't see Republicans as a viable party for the conservation of democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zapp Branniglenn Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 51 minutes ago, Lord Raven said: Yeah, I would say Glennstavos is thinking more 4-8 years down the line when we have more than one viable party. I would not elect degenerates and criminals just because they have a D next to their name. That's the kind of party loyalty I reject. Having standards for politicians is what allows us to advance and not have to cater to the worst kind of people. I don't know what will become of the Republican Party in a post-Trump era, but I don't anticipate they'll "die out" or have significant difficulty winning elections. Especially after a decade or two has passed. We have very short memories in this country. Hell the 1948 Republican slogan was "Had enough?". Imagine that, the generation that climbed out of the Depression and World War 2 and was currently experiencing unprecedented economic growth and a new world leadership role was being lured by the idea that they're not great enough. It would be easy to sweep the stagnation of the last few years under the rug of Coronavirus history. I think the greatest loss for Republicans in the last four years is that it will be a few generations before they can use "Make America Great Again" a third time. Falsified memories are a hell of a drug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoblongoo Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 Post-Trump era for american conservatism is gonna be like post-Civil rights era for American conservatism . (i.e. massive historical revisionism, blame-shifting, and conflation of ideological labels and identifiers) 50 years from now they'll be arguing that universal healthcare and criminal justice reform were always conservative ideas. And it was the liberals who wanted to keep everyone on private insurance + give broad legal authority for police to kill black kids and call it "lawful use of force." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PyroPlazma Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 On 5/13/2020 at 9:29 AM, Shoblongoo said: Post-Trump era for american conservatism is gonna be like post-Civil rights era for American conservatism . (i.e. massive historical revisionism, blame-shifting, and conflation of ideological labels and identifiers) 50 years from now they'll be arguing that universal healthcare and criminal justice reform were always conservative ideas. And it was the liberals who wanted to keep everyone on private insurance + give broad legal authority for police to kill black kids and call it "lawful use of force." Well said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Tarrasque Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 So McConnell proposes a power grab to expand the Patriot Act of all things and then an amendment is suggested to EXCLUDE Internet Browsing History from the scope of this power grab and it doesn't get enough votes to pass lol. All those assholes that voted NAY to this deserve so much shit. Collins must really be banking on McConnell to save her seat to make such a vote given her current situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 4 hours ago, PyroPlazma said: Well said Explain this, because this is technically spam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 3 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said: So McConnell proposes a power grab to expand the Patriot Act of all things and then an amendment is suggested to EXCLUDE Internet Browsing History from the scope of this power grab and it doesn't get enough votes to pass lol. All those assholes that voted NAY to this deserve so much shit. Collins must really be banking on McConnell to save her seat to make such a vote given her current situation. thats because moscow mitch held the vote while two senators who'd vote for it to pass were not present because moscow mitch is as big a cunt as trump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewyn Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 Moscow Mitch is a piece of garbage, but a smart piece of garbage. I would like a scientific study on the "Trump Effect". Would be done by Sociology or Psychology, and study how Trump's speeches and tweets backed by right wing media outlets led to complete subservience and loyalty of about a 1/3 of the US population. That trust what Trump says in any field on any topic over experts, evidence, etc. It is a damn scary thing, these people can't be reasoned with they believe whatever alternative lies/theories are spun from Trump even if he changes these regularly. They will fight for these warped beliefs, and parrot Trump and Fox talking points. Is it hypnotism, is it some form of brain washing? Repetition of certain phrases coupled with facial expressions, the emotion of outrage continuously expressed tapping into deep seated anger? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoblongoo Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, Lewyn said: I would like a scientific study on the "Trump Effect". Would be done by Sociology or Psychology, and study how Trump's speeches and tweets backed by right wing media outlets led to complete subservience and loyalty of about a 1/3 of the US population. Is it hypnotism, is it some form of brain washing? Repetition of certain phrases coupled with facial expressions, the emotion of outrage continuously expressed tapping into deep seated anger? Oh I imagine they'll be no shortage of writings on the subject in journals of political science over the next several decades. Although I don't think they'll be independently designated "The Trump Effect." I think it'll just meld into the preexisting studies on Hitler and Mussolini. Because there's already voluminous writings around those two examining the psychological and sociological phenomenons of how they were able to rise to power. Build broad-based social movements around the things they were saying + the ideas they were putting out. And get large populations of people to legitimately believe that anything they said was true + motivated by the interests of national greatness, while detractors of any renown or level or expertise were just subversive traitors supporting the interests of the globalist elite. Its less the case that Trump stumbled upon anything new here. And more the case that this model for subservience and loyalty has existed since the 1930s. But: (1) A sufficient amount of time needed to pass for the prior use of that model to fade from national memory; for people to forget that this is how the fascists came to power, and to not immediately associate the kind of speeches he was giving and psychology he was tapping into with the negative connotations of fascism (2) A political figure sufficiently shameless, immoral, and ambitious to attempt that play (and sufficiently charismatic to do it effectively) had to come to the forefront of the political scene. ________ Illustrative Blurbs from TheAtlatnic that was published back in 2016: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/american-authoritarianism-under-donald-trump/495263/ "Italians learned in the 1920s what Americans are learning in 2016: Charismatic authoritarians seeking political office cannot be understood through the framework of traditional politics. They lack interest in, and patience for, established protocols. They often trust few outside of their own families, or those they already control, making collaboration and relationship building difficult. They work from a different playbook...The authoritarian playbook is defined by the particular relationship such individuals have with their followers. It’s an attachment based on submission to the authority of one individual who stands above the party, even in a regime." "Mussolini’s rise to power also exemplifies another authoritarian trait America has seen during this campaign: The charismatic leader who tests the limits of what the public, press, and political class will tolerate. This exploration begins early and is accomplished through controversial actions and threatening or humiliating remarks toward groups or individuals. It’s designed to gauge the collective appetite and permission for verbal and physical violence and the use of extralegal methods in policing and other realms. The way elites and the press respond to each example of boundary-pushing sets the tone for the leader’s future behavior—and that of his followers." "For over a year now, Trump has been subjecting Americans and American democracy to analogous tests. Actions many see as irrational make chilling sense when considered under this framework: the many racist tweets or retweets, which his campaign then declares a mistake. His early declaration that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in New York and not lose any supporters. His extended humiliation of powerful politicians such as Paul Ryan and John McCain. His attempt to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the American electoral process. His intimation that “the Second-Amendment people” might be able to solve the potential problem of Hillary Clinton appointing judges, presumably by shooting her. This last remark is a sign that Trump feels emboldened in his quest to see how much Americans and the GOP will let him get away with—and when, if ever, they will say “enough.”" Edited May 15, 2020 by Shoblongoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 It feels like Trump's base is relatively small, given the amount of bitching that's done about him. I wonder how the other charismatic despots fared in their time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted May 16, 2020 Share Posted May 16, 2020 (edited) btw the atlantic is one of the greatest outlets i've read, because they seem to cut out the bullshit and go into deep dives and analyses. It feels somewhere between journalism and research, or rather disseminating research to the public. 12 hours ago, eclipse said: It feels like Trump's base is relatively small, given the amount of bitching that's done about him. I wonder how the other charismatic despots fared in their time? Hitler won a plurality of the votes in the 30s. He was not the majority winner. Edited May 16, 2020 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PyroPlazma Posted May 16, 2020 Share Posted May 16, 2020 On 5/14/2020 at 9:30 PM, eclipse said: Explain this, because this is technically spam. I agree with what he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excellen Browning Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 Wow, I just found out about the Wisconsin SC ruling on the stay at home order. That's pretty cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoblongoo Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 Unless I missed something, the Wisconsin ruling was just that under Wisconsin law the governor can't unilaterally issue stay-at-home orders using the power of the executive branch. Its a legislative power and has to be done by state lawmakers. (ehhhhhhhhhhhhh) The general rule is still that states have broad legal authority to issue and enforce emergency stay-at-home-orders + business closures. Pursuant to--whatever balance of legislative and executive power is called for under the statutes and constitutions of a given state Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.