Politics and Statesmenship: A Forum Special Report

[ktchong]

Mostly white people. I'd wager most are also Republicans, who hate education and teachers, who think teachers do not deserve a living wage, and who keep voting for Republican politicians who want to guts education and schools.   So now, very few experienced Americans teachers are willing to teach in rural America.  Those rural white folks pretty much did and brought this upon themselves and their own communities. So they get no sympathy from me.

And here is the irony: those rural white Republicans have gutted their own schools and driven away teachers, so now they have turned to hiring and importing brown immigrants from "****hole" countries - those darn "invaders" they just love to hate - to educate and teach their children.  And they are the people who keep complaining about how immigrants are driving down wages and how employers are paying low wages to hire immigrants.  Ah, first-degree hypocrisy.

P.S. why is "sh!thole" a censored word here?  If it's good enough for our President to use it in public...

Edited April 28, 2019 by Gorth
Using alternate characters to circumvent language filter is a no go...

[smjjames]

I guess you can ask in the obsidian general discussion about that.

[Gromnir]

On 4/27/2019 at 6:23 AM, ktchong said:

 

P.S. why is "****hole" a censored word here?  If it's good enough for our President to use it in public...

is neither surprising or unreasonable for obsidian to expect more from you than the guy who bragged 'bout being able to get away with pu$$y grab due to his celebrity. use that guy as the decorum benchmark would be as misguided as use nicolas cage as a role model for fiscal responsibility. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Edited April 28, 2019 by Gorth
Making it consistent with the edited post

[Guard Dog]

I guess Joe Biden wouldn't be a terrible President. Irrelevant though. The angry left will never forgive him for being white and old. 

[smjjames]

Apparently Trump fears Biden the most, and thus seems like the best to be able to defeat Trump, but how much of that is just from underestimating/ignoring the other candidates (though he admires Sanders to an extent) or just only seeing Biden as a worthy opponent. Hillary was also seen as being able to beat Trump perfectly well, and here we are, plus Biden has like twice the amount of political baggage that Hillary had.

I can also see Trump becoming complacent if he thinks he's truly unbeatable and/or ignores a challenger until it's too late.

In an interview, he said he wouldn't commit to one term. If Biden did manage to win the Presidency, seems like being a one term President would be healthier in the long run so as to work out the political issues and give a newer generation breathing space. Plus, there'd be a good chance of him not seeing through a second term.

Edited April 27, 2019 by smjjames

[213374U]

On 4/27/2019 at 6:23 AM, ktchong said:

P.S. why is "****hole" a censored word here?  If it's good enough for our President to use it in public...

Because it wasn't used "in public", it was used in a meeting with some ****bags (oops!) in the Oval Office. For consistency though, "****show", is also filtered out, so you can hardly accuse Obsidian of being political in this regard.

Edited April 28, 2019 by Gorth
To make consistent with the edited, original post

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, 213374U said:

Because it wasn't used "in public", it was used in a meeting with some ****bags (oops!) in the Oval Office. For consistency though, "****show", is also filtered out, so you can hardly accuse Obsidian of being political in this regard.

in public has been less o' a limit on trump than any President we can name.

Donald Trump Keeps Cursing. Here's Why It Might Help Him

trump swears in part 'cause he knows it will draw criticism. the qq and squee crowd inexplicably like trump more if he is criticized for such stuff. all those soft, namby-pamby, snowflakes complain 'bout nonsense while trump talks like real people and is trying to get $#&* done... or some such nonsense. doesn't need make sense if you add a qq.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[BruceVC]

3 hours ago, smjjames said:

Apparently Trump fears Biden the most, and thus seems like the best to be able to defeat Trump, but how much of that is just from underestimating/ignoring the other candidates (though he admires Sanders to an extent) or just only seeing Biden as a worthy opponent. Hillary was also seen as being able to beat Trump perfectly well, and here we are, plus Biden has like twice the amount of political baggage that Hillary had.

I can also see Trump becoming complacent if he thinks he's truly unbeatable and/or ignores a challenger until it's too late.

In an interview, he said he wouldn't commit to one term. If Biden did manage to win the Presidency, seems like being a one term President would be healthier in the long run so as to work out the political issues and give a newer generation breathing space. Plus, there'd be a good chance of him not seeing through a second term.

I am concerned that there are no strong Democratic candidates that could beat Trump, there policies and ideological views are too left or they are more concerned with bashing Trump than explaining what they can do for the USA...endlessly bringing up  Charlottesville starts being hackneyed 

Trump is his own  worse enemy around not focusing on his political successes. He raises  controversial and divisive policies  like the border wall and  embellishing the impact of immigration, look at the outcome of the 2018 midterm elections,  but if the Democrats dont have a message that resonates with most of the voting public than  Trump has the advantage

If I could vote  and this was 2020 then I would rather not vote as I am not convinced by any Democratic candidate there polices and ideas speak to me 

 

[Elerond]

Democrats don't really need strong candidate, they probably would do best with less know candidate for whom people don't have preconceived opinions and who does not have history of actions that can be attacked. Because democrats will vote democratic candidate unless they really hate that candidate, republicans will vote republican candidate even if they hate the candidate, and in case of independents less hated candidate will win.    

[BruceVC]

4 hours ago, Elerond said:

Democrats don't really need strong candidate, they probably would do best with less know candidate for whom people don't have preconceived opinions and who does not have history of actions that can be attacked. Because democrats will vote democratic candidate unless they really hate that candidate, republicans will vote republican candidate even if they hate the candidate, and in case of independents less hated candidate will win.    

So at the moment which party has the momentum to win the 2020 election based on current developments and public opinion ?

Edited April 27, 2019 by BruceVC

[Guard Dog]

Let's see.... Trump is promising more of the same. The Democrats are promising big government shoved right up our butts. Joe Biden is just going to touch our butts... the female one''s at least. Howard Schultz is promising to cut the spending, reduce debt and we all get a coffee with our name on the cup. 

The choice is clear... at this point at least.  

[smjjames]

 

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Let's see.... Trump is promising more of the same. The Democrats are promising big government shoved right up our butts. Joe Biden is just going to touch our butts... the female one''s at least. Howard Schultz is promising to cut the spending, reduce debt and we all get a coffee with our name on the cup. 

The choice is clear... at this point at least.  

To you, the point is clear, but you’d have to admit that a third party run has no realistic chance in the FPTP system. Yes, I know you’ve said that all we need to do is vote third party more so that they get a toe in the door, but that’s not Bruce’s question. 

 

To answer Bruces question for real, the Democrats certainly have the momentum and Trumps public opinion is in the danger zone. However, even then, it’s still uncertain who will win considering that the Democrats thought they had it in the bag in 2016. 

[Guard Dog]

39 minutes ago, smjjames said:

 

To you, the point is clear, but you’d have to admit that a third party run has no realistic chance in the FPTP system. Yes, I know you’ve said that all we need to do is vote third party more so that they get a toe in the door, but that’s not Bruce’s question. 

 

No it is likely hopeless. I don't really like Schultz anyway. He's just the least bad option right now. But when it comes to voting if you find both the Democrats and Republicans to be equally vile and repugnant where else do you turn? Voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil. Trump is President today because enough people convinced themselves "well at  least he isn't Hillary Clinton". If she had won the reverse would be true. Neither of them possessed any virtues that would convince you they would make a good President. 

 

For what it's worth no one currently running would make a good President either but one of these fools is going to get elected God help us. 

 

Edited April 27, 2019 by Guard Dog

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, smjjames said:

To answer Bruces question for real, the Democrats certainly have the momentum and Trumps public opinion is in the danger zone. However, even then, it’s still uncertain who will win considering that the Democrats thought they had it in the bag in 2016. 

Yes I tend to agree with your post but as usual with these questions they nuanced and have a myriad of considerations 

For example why would Trump not focus on his " wins "  like the tax breaks, the strength of the  USA economy and the Kavanaugh appointment, I consider all these outcomes positive and or fair ( the Republicans control the Senate, they had a right to appoint Kavanaugh  despite the Ford accusation)   ...he almost studiously raises issues that appeal only to his base but alienate moderate or undecided voters

I did think Hilary Clinton would win but there were numerous factors that contributed towards her defeat, the primary  reason she lost IMO was that she just wasnt the right candidate and did  not connect with enough voters. In the 2020 election I dont see the numerous factors playing the same part and undermining any Democratic candidate in the same way but I am just not convinced the current candidates have the correct message

So I am also unsure how 2020 will play out at the moment 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2019 by BruceVC

[ShadySands]

My wife will likely vote for any Democrat that faces Trump but I can't see myself voting for Biden. Others I don't really care for are Booker, Klobuchar, Castro, and Harris but I just haven't paid much attention to most of the others at this point. I like Sanders and Gabbard but am waiting until the field gets a lot narrower before I really dive into it.

If I don't care for whoever gets nominated then I'll probably be a 3rd party voter again this year.

[smjjames]

38 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Yes I tend to agree with your post but as usual with these questions they nuanced and have a myriad of considerations 

For example why would Trump not focus on his " wins "  like the tax breaks, the strength of the  USA economy and the Kavanaugh appointment, I consider all these outcomes positive and or fair ( the Republicans control the Senate, they had a right to appoint Kavanaugh  despite the Ford accusation)   ...he almost studiously raises issues that appeal only to his base but alienate moderate or undecided voters

I did think Hilary Clinton would win but there were numerous factors that contributed towards her defeat, the primary  reason she lost IMO was that she just wasnt the right candidate and did  not connect with enough voters. In the 2020 election I dont see the numerous factors playing the same part and undermining any Democratic candidate in the same way but I am just not convinced the current candidates have the correct message

So I am also unsure how 2020 will play out at the moment 

Just wondering, what do you think would be the correct message? Also, the number of candidates means that theres a good variety of messages, so, those messages will get thoroughly tested out. However, the fact that there are so many choices means that they could easily run into the same problems as the Republicans did in 2016 simply because there is only so much pie to slice.

[BruceVC]

5 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

My wife will likely vote for any Democrat that faces Trump but I can't see myself voting for Biden. Others I don't really care for are Booker, Klobuchar, Castro, and Harris but I just haven't paid much attention to most of the others at this point. I like Sanders and Gabbard but am waiting until the field gets a lot narrower before I really dive into it.

If I don't care for whoever gets nominated then I'll probably be a 3rd party voter again this year.

You have raised another important "  Trump own goal " , due to his condescending and dismissive remarks towards women he has created an understandable enemy of many women in the USA

For example irrespective of Kavanaughs guilt or innocence, we cant say for certain either way, Trump was abrasive and demonstrated contempt for the emotional suffering of Ford during her testimony. This was one of the worst  times for him to show his usual lack of compassion and empathy. If I was a women that alone would motivate me to not vote for the Republicans under Trump

Again we  can see the outcome of this vexation by the number of women Democrat candidates who won seats in the House in the midterm elections, supporting my earlier observation that Trump is at times his own worse enemy 

 

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

No it is likely hopeless. I don't really like Schultz anyway. He's just the least bad option right now.

 

if schultz had any kinda plan for reducing debt, we would consider his candidacy, but he is kinda like trump insofar as complete absence o' anything save rhetoric which resonates with a portion o' the voting public. have seen enough o' that. 

to get our vote, a candidate for prez needs display a willingness to reverse the foreign policy trends o' the last two administrations and must show an ability to work with Congress to achieve clear goals OR they must be the candidate running against trump who has a chance o' a win. am not gonna throw away a vote on a candidate if doing so makes a trump second term even a millionth times more likely.

foreign policy is where a President may have greatest impact, but predicting how a candidate will deal with allies and adversaries on the world stage has been an overlooked aspect o' presidential races since fall of the wall. 

biden is gonna make things tough for democrats.  the single biggest hurdle for any democrat candidate is getting democrats to actual vote. biden is the right kinda candidate in that he is a moderate who will appeal to many independents (and republicans) who is tired o' trump's jackson-pollock-but-with-poop approach to the Presidency. unfortunate, the growing segment o' socialist democrats is unlikely to vote at all unless they get a candidate with the right amount o' sex appeal... figurative or literal? biden is not gonna have young and angry democrats turning out in record numbers to vote, and if race is close, they may need such.  

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

[HoonDing]

I'm not librul but I'd vote for Buttagig.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

11 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Let's see.... Trump is promising more of the same. The Democrats are promising big government shoved right up our butts. Joe Biden is just going to touch our butts... the female one''s at least. Howard Schultz is promising to cut the spending, reduce debt and we all get a coffee with our name on the cup. 

The choice is clear... at this point at least.  

Starbucks is so bad a free cup is more like a punishment.

[BruceVC]

https://fareedzakaria.com/columns/2019/4/25/democrats-theres-a-better-strategy-than-impeachment

Another good read from Fareed Zakaria around any  Democratic plans to impeach Trump is misplaced and how the greater objective should be addressing the ideological rise of " Trumpism "  which will exist in one form or another once Trump is gone 

 

[Guard Dog]

Sooooo.... Trump is going to go to the Supreme Court to stop the House of Representatives from trying to impeach him? Which they have already said they are not trying to do (right now)? 

You know, it's like he has no experience at all in how the US Government is set up. Oh wait... he does have no experience.  Part of me wishes he would go to the SCOTUS to stop one of the branches of government from executing one of it's enumerated powers. Their reply to such a petition might be very comedic. 

[Guard Dog]

And let's start out the day with a quote from the late and definitely great George Carlin:

 

 

Planning on voting for a D or R? Repeat after me: Baaaaa

[BruceVC]

 

Guys here is an excellent debate between Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Žižek about the benefits and or flaws of Capitalism vs the Communism Manifesto

As usual I find Peterson erudite, reasonable, logical  and compelling. I dont expect anyone to watch all 2 + hours but just the first 40 minutes where Peterson intellectually raises numerous flaws and fabrications with the idea of Communism

I cant imagine people defending the "  Utopian "  ideals of Communism after his points raised 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2019 by BruceVC

[smjjames]

Dammit, the captioning is terrible on that and flips from either acting like some kind of heavy accent (which Slavoj probably does have, but I don't think Jordan would have as it's doing that for both men) to transcribing normally.

Anyways, the main problem with a penultimate communist utopia is that it runs smack into human psychology (particularily when dealing with groups larger than your typical hunter-gatherer tribe of over 10,000 years ago) and you'd have to fundamentally change human psychology in order to make it work. That's not to say that some socialist ideas like Social Security can work.

Edited April 28, 2019 by smjjames