Lets Get Political

[Hurlshort]

Fake news, Sharpie. Trump won because he ran a smarter campaign. It isn't some new political movement led by a disgruntled voter base. If he wins in 2020 it will be because the Dems are a trainwreck of candidates right now and it seems unlikely anyone can rise above it. Plenty of time to change that, I suppose, since the Republicans looked the same way early on in 2016.

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

 

Maybe this would shed some light for you. 

have made same argument dozens o' times... but as a criticism. the 30% doesn't care that trump lies 'cause all politicians lie and the deep state and fake news? yeah, we said that. the 30% don't care if trump is mendacious and corrupt and constant fails to achieve promised goals 'cause at least he is fighting for them? yeah, you are repeating Gromnir back to Gromnir.

bizarro world o' 2019 is so polarized our criticisms and condemnations is the 30% rallying cry.

is a scenario only harlan ellison coulda' cooked up... but is real

warning: smidge sweary

HA! Good Fun!

[Skarpen]

1 hour ago, Hurlshot said:

Fake news, Sharpie. Trump won because he ran a smarter campaign. It isn't some new political movement led by a disgruntled voter base. If he wins in 2020 it will be because the Dems are a trainwreck of candidates right now and it seems unlikely anyone can rise above it. Plenty of time to change that, I suppose, since the Republicans looked the same way early on in 2016.

I don't see your point. What voters numbers have to do with anything I said? And where did I say anything about new political movement? I referenced Obama and political strategy that goes way back to middle ages. And Trump running a smarter campaign goes without saying. He won, its obvious. My post was more about why not how.

And can we please drop this sharp bs? It's creepy.

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

have made same argument dozens o' times... but as a criticism. the 30% doesn't care that trump lies 'cause all politicians lie and the deep state and fake news? yeah, we said that. the 30% don't care if trump is mendacious and corrupt and constant fails to achieve promised goals 'cause at least he is fighting for them? yeah, you are repeating Gromnir back to Gromnir.

bizarro world o' 2019 is so polarized our criticisms and condemnations is the 30% rallying cry.

is a scenario only harlan ellison coulda' cooked up... but is real

warning: smidge sweary

HA! Good Fun!

Ok. I don't know what you did say in the past. I'm new here. But if you know all that then why ask what you asked? A little confusing.

[Gromnir]

31 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

 

And can we please drop this sharp bs? It's creepy.

Ok. I don't know what you did say in the past. I'm new here. But if you know all that then why ask what you asked? A little confusing.

am agreeing the sharp stuff is creepy.  pathos inducing and creepy. 

and we explained why we asked. the stuff you present as validation and explanation is the exact same material we used as condemnation and criticism. fact the 30% dismiss the lies and failures 'cause o' the deep state conspiracies and fake news claims should be concerning. was kinda clear on that rather sharp point. in our posts, a willingness to accept behaviour which violates rule of law because he is the 30%'s guy should be disheartening, rather than used as validation. again, the ability o' sharpone and the 30% to invert a scathing criticism should be shocking.

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

 

[injurai]

"I'm new here."

[Skarpen]

56 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

am agreeing the sharp stuff is creepy.  pathos inducing and creepy. 

and we explained why we asked. the stuff you present as validation and explanation is the exact same material we used as condemnation and criticism. fact the 30% dismiss the lies and failures 'cause o' the deep state conspiracies and fake news claims should be concerning. was kinda clear on that rather sharp point. in our posts, a willingness to accept behaviour which violates rule of law because he is the 30%'s guy should be disheartening, rather than used as validation. again, the ability o' sharpone and the 30% to invert a scathing criticism should be shocking.

HA! Good Fun!

And we're back on the high horse snarking on the peasants below. Good luck with that attitude. You must be helluva fun at parties.

[majestic]

23 minutes ago, injurai said:

"I'm new here."

The "new" guy also debates with Gromnir, then tells him he must be fun at parties. Actual new guys annoyed by Gromnir wonder what the hell is going on with his posting style.

[Gromnir]

1 minute ago, Skarpen said:

And we're back on the high horse snarking on the peasants below. Good luck with that attitude. You must be helluva fun at parties.

am kinda a guaranteed designated driver as we don't drink, we always bring or prepare food which is appreciated and we got loads o' funny anecdotes from a kinda unusual range o' experiences, so yeah, am a hit at parties. 

and has nothing to do with peasants v. elite. urban poor and educated poor are not part o' the 30%, which is why is stable 30%. is not a class division. other portion o' trump consistent voters is sooper wealthy, so again, is not a class break. 

with wacky polarization increasing gripping US political climate this last decade, no doubt some will find reassurance/amusement/horror that those at the extremes o' the spectrum is increasing entrenched and obtuse, regardless o' ethnicity or euro class definitions.  

HA! Good Fun!

[injurai]

"I used to just lurk, I swear."

[Calax]

4 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

Fake news, Sharpie. Trump won because he ran a smarter campaign. It isn't some new political movement led by a disgruntled voter base. If he wins in 2020 it will be because the Dems are a trainwreck of candidates right now and it seems unlikely anyone can rise above it. Plenty of time to change that, I suppose, since the Republicans looked the same way early on in 2016.

To be fair, the reason Trump survived is because of the mess of candidates leading up to the primaries. Traditional candidates were fighting over the same overall electorate that, as a group, were the majority of the party. Meanwhile Trump managed to touch the base of the party through clever marketing (he had more unpaid screentime than the others because of his on-display ego), and because people didn't believe that he'd follow through on half of what he said (IE he won't actually shutdown the government over something petty...).

 

If the democratic party can get it's **** together and coalesce around somebody without to much ridiculous infighting, they should pull out a fairly easy win from the population that was already anti-Trump, plus those that he's lost due to various factors (for example, farmers who've lost money for almost a year because of tariffs with China).

[Guard Dog]

57 minutes ago, Calax said:

To be fair, the reason Trump survived is because of the mess of candidates leading up to the primaries. Traditional candidates were fighting over the same overall electorate that, as a group, were the majority of the party. Meanwhile Trump managed to touch the base of the party through clever marketing (he had more unpaid screentime than the others because of his on-display ego), and because people didn't believe that he'd follow through on half of what he said (IE he won't actually shutdown the government over something petty...).

This. That got him nominated. Not being Hillary Clinton got him elected. You didn't really know  what you were getting with Trump. Everyone knew what Hillary Clinton was all about. This time around you know what you are getting. So unless the Democrats take leave of their senses and nominate Sanders, Booker, or one of the other crazy ones, the 2020 race should be theirs to lose. IDGAF who wins. I'll hate them no matter what. As long as Congress is split I'll sleep soundly.

 

As for the last two and a half years... don't blame me I voted for Johnson.

[Hurlshort]

Hey, according to my graphic, 3rd parties had a massive jump last election. Just need a few more 250% increases to break through!

[ShadySands]

I wonder how many voters abstained? Especially from the swing states since they are the only ones that matter. While I'm at it I wonder if there is a way to tell the impact of losing the Voting Rights Act.

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Calax said:

To be fair, the reason Trump survived is because of the mess of candidates leading up to the primaries. Traditional candidates were fighting over the same overall electorate that, as a group, were the majority of the party. Meanwhile Trump managed to touch the base of the party through clever marketing (he had more unpaid screentime than the others because of his on-display ego), and because people didn't believe that he'd follow through on half of what he said (IE he won't actually shutdown the government over something petty...).

 

If the democratic party can get it's **** together and coalesce around somebody without to much ridiculous infighting, they should pull out a fairly easy win from the population that was already anti-Trump, plus those that he's lost due to various factors (for example, farmers who've lost money for almost a year because of tariffs with China).

is not 2016.

exit polls in 2016 showed the majority o' trump voters didn't actual like trump but they disliked the alternatives even more. unfortunately, after ~2.5 years o' bumbling incompetence, lies and attacks on the rule o' law, polarization has increased and trump's followers is fully entrenched. inexplicable, and beyond reason, trump followers like trump more now than they did in 2016. doesn't have more votes, but the votes is less up-for-grab than they were in 2016.

that said, if a democrat candidate can be as popular as the woeful unpopular clinton, which is a low bar, then should be a democrat win. independents were the deciding factor in 2016, and at the moment, the majority o' such is polling as anti-trump. nevertheless, if democrats pick anything other than a moderate candidate, and the candidate they choose ain't energizing the democrats who didn't bother to vote last election in the battleground states, then history could repeat.

trump is polling worse with those educated and female voters who voted for him in 2016, but inexplicable, trump is more popular with his base than when he were elected. democrats can't get lazy the way clinton were lazy.

HA! Good Fun!

ps sad truth for us is that o' the demo field, the only one who appears to have a real plan for dealing with actual issues is elizabeth warren. am not a fan o' hers, but she is the only one who ain't just selling hopes and dreams. 

[Zoraptor]

Support for Trump hardening is hardly surprising. For a lot of Trump voters he's done- or tried to- everything, or at least enough that, they wanted him to. Immigration, counters to 'unfair' competition, SC judges, that sort of stuff. And if Trump is doing what you want him to then opposition from Democrats and the 'Deep State' doesn't make you question your choice, it reinforces it and means you are less likely to vote for them; thus you end up with people liking Trump more. Plus, the economy is doing well at least statistically, and that always helps.

And unfortunately for Trump opponents things like the Mueller Report have not played all that well with those who aren't already convinced that Trump is satan- mostly due to the million gleeful press leaks, opinion pieces and analyses priming people for a far worse report than was received. That made it very easy to spin a merely bad report into a victory and put anyone saying otherwise into the Fake News folder and meant people had extensive Mueller fatigue.

[Gromnir]

59 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Support for Trump hardening is hardly surprising.

it should be. more than any other US political office, Presidents get more credit and blame for their actions. trying hard and good intentions never helped carter or even george h.w. .and while the President has little direct impact on the economy until after they has left office or deep into a second term, they tend to get blame and credit disproportionate to actions. the thing is, other than small business owners and the ultra wealthy, the economy, in spite o' statistical overall strength, has not improved for trump voters in particular. tariffs and commercial farm deregulation has had devastating impact on family farmers, and the average manufacturing sector wage slave has seen 0 noteworthy improvement in actual disposable income since 2011. income disparity and debt is at all-time levels and 'mongst the folks suffering worst is trump loyalists.

but again, try and fail 'cause o' opposition from opposing party or foreign powers or acts o' god has never been the salvation o' an unsuccessful President, and for a chief executive who had majorities in both houses for his first two years, trump's list o' accomplishments is historically anemic. nothing other than unilateral decisions and a hastily authored tax cut which did double the amount before estate tax would kick in, which no doubt is reason the guy working at the local mill is voting trump 2020.

deep state? have mentioned this before, but pre-trump, pretty much every deep state conspiracy were intimate tied to eisenhower warnings o' the military-industrial complex. big business. oil. defense contractors. 

how the hell does the guy with the flowers become the face of deep state?

trump and fox managed to sell fear to folks most afraid. sold stoopid conspiracies to people least educated. 

support for trump should be surprising. doesn't make sense in context o' US politics o' the last +6 decades. extreme polarization. complicit cable media. historic levels o' government distrust in spite o' absence o' major crisis. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps there were a funny moment during the house judiciary committee circus today. matt gaetz asks john dean how he thinks a plan for universal health care should be paid. dean, confused by non-sequitur, asks for clarification. gaetz points out how as dean were testifying 'bout mueller report events he had no actual first hand knowledge, why should he not also testify 'bout universal health care... if only basis were nixon era experience, then what were the point o' dean's presence? dean kinda chuckles and mentions how nixon did have a plan for universal health care. widespread laughter ensues.

Edited June 11, 2019 by Gromnir

[smjjames]

17 hours ago, Amentep said:

Please keep posts to addressing the topic and not other posters.

Late reply: I still wanted to rebut at Gromnir, but I agree that going further on that line is going to go nowhere, so, I'll agree to disagree with Gromnir on that partricular line/dispute and leave it at that.

Edited June 11, 2019 by smjjames

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

[stuff]

I broadly agree with you as a matter of personal opinion, but Trump has done a historically good job of blaming everyone else for things going wrong because people genuinely do believe he's an 'outsider' etc being blocked by the establishment. In an objective sense it's ridiculous, but people typically aren't objective.

For a potential Trump supporting blue collar worker (or blue collar support of most of the new right type parties) the logic basically goes:

• I've lost my job, or my job is under threat
• Why?
  1. My job is obsolete and foreigners can do it cheaper, better just deal with it and move on OR
  2. Foreigners/ Immigrants are stealing my job!

If you pick option 2, always appealing as it means your problem is someone else's fault, then Trump's tariffs etc look great as does his war on immigration; and all they ever really have to do is look good or better than the alternative. Any criticism or obstruction just reinforces that they shouldn't vote for the other side as they wouldn't do anything to help, quite the reverse. If given the choice between a palateable lie and an unpalateable truth people will often- usually- go for the palateable lie; especially so when the unpalateable truth is itself wrapped up in obvious falsehoods. Hillary could promise retraining or renewal etc all she wanted, but not all the old economy workers could be retrained for the 'new economy', there plain aren't that many new economy jobs- and everyone knows it. Without that the renewal will exclude a lot of people, and they know that too.

Realistically, sure, the best Trump is doing is kicking the can further along the road on pretty much everything. But as above, people typically aren't objective about such things.

There isn't really much point calling someone stupid for believing Trump, if you were a car assembler entering the workforce in 1986 and losing your job in 2016 you simply don't have much in the way of options other than to hope your old job or an equivalent comes back and you plain and simple didn't have the option of an ejob or whatever when entering the workforce as they didn't exist. Retrain as a web administrator or something per Hillary? I'm sure tech companies are crying out for 50 year olds entering a new field probably without any tertiary qualifications etc. When your future is grim and there's nothing you can do about it you cling to what you can, and you listen to the guy telling you it will all be OK in the end because... you don't really have another option.

Edited June 11, 2019 by Zoraptor

[smjjames]

Is there a BBC code view or something? Would be nice to be able to easily split up quotes.

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

it should be. more than any other US political office, Presidents get more credit and blame for their actions. trying hard and good intentions never helped carter or even george h.w. .and while the President has little direct impact on the economy until after they has left office or deep into a second term, they tend to get blame and credit disproportionate to actions. the thing is, other than small business owners and the ultra wealthy, the economy, in spite o' statistical overall strength, has not improved for trump voters in particular. tariffs and commercial farm deregulation has had devastating impact on family farmers, and the average manufacturing sector wage slave has seen 0 noteworthy improvement in actual disposable income since 2011. income disparity and debt is at all-time levels and 'mongst the folks suffering worst is trump loyalists.

but again, try and fail 'cause o' opposition from opposing party or foreign powers or acts o' god has never been the salvation o' an unsuccessful President, and for a chief executive who had majorities in both houses for his first two years, trump's list o' accomplishments is historically anemic. nothing other than unilateral decisions and a hastily authored tax cut which did double the amount before estate tax would kick in, which no doubt is reason the guy working at the local mill is voting trump 2020.

Not sure what you mean by 'it should be', like it should be surprising? If you take it logically, yeah, I can see how you'd say it's surprising, since on the face of it, it makes no sense. However, the guy working at the local mill who is voting Trump isn't neccesarily using logic here.  The main thing that is surprising though is that he doesn't have a higher job rating despite a good economy, and yeah, it's quite ironic how the impacts of much of what Trump did has actually negatively hit his base.

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

support for trump should be surprising. doesn't make sense in context o' US politics o' the last +6 decades. extreme polarization. complicit cable media. historic levels o' government distrust in spite o' absence o' major crisis.

The answer is found in how Trump presented himself, as an outsider who would 'smash the establishment to pieces and drain the swamp'. It's not the entire story, obviously, since he didn't create the conditions which enabled his Presidency and instead tapped into the existing mood.

If the Democrats can't figure out how to understand that disaffected voter bloc, then Trump will definetly win a second term. There will be portions that would never vote Democrat ever in a quadrillion trillion years, but theres a reason why those people are disaffected.

[Gromnir]

11 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

I broadly agree with you as a matter of personal opinion, but Trump has done a historically good job of blaming everyone else for things going wrong because people genuinely do believe he's an 'outsider' etc being blocked by the establishment. In an objective sense it's ridiculous, but people typically aren't objective.

For a potential Trump supporting blue collar worker (or blue collar support of most of the new right type parties) the logic basically goes:

• I've lost my job, or my job is under threat
• Why?
  1. My job is obsolete and foreigners can do it cheaper, better just deal with it and move on OR
  2. Foreigners/ Immigrants are stealing my job!

If you pick option 2, always appealing as it means your problem is someone else's fault, then Trump's tariffs etc look great as does his war on immigration; and all they ever really have to do is look good or better than the alternative. Any criticism or obstruction just reinforces that they shouldn't vote for the other side as they wouldn't do anything to help, quite the reverse. If given the choice between a palateable lie and an unpalateable truth people will often- usually- go for the palateable lie; especially so when the unpalateable truth is itself wrapped up in obvious falsehoods. Hillary could promise retraining or renewal etc all she wanted, but not all the old economy workers could be retrained for the 'new economy', there plain aren't that many new economy jobs- and everyone knows it. Without that the renewal will exclude a lot of people, and they know that too.

 

yeah, but the thing is, while trump has been successful at creating bad guys and demons and threats, he hasn't actual done anything 'bout them. that is the real difference 'tween trump and others who has tried suc fear-based tactics. blame immigrants and then have proposed wall efforts stymied while illegal border crossings actual increase would be catastrophic for any past President not involved in a genuine shooting war with a foreign power.  can't get a deal done with Congress on immigration or wall funding? such would be blamed on President no matter what excuses were presented.

this President fails over and over and over again. government shutdowns and tarif threats and obamacare repeal and anything else which would take executive negotiation and skill has wound up aborted or in an indefinite holding pattern. 

ignore all the character issue problems and you still got a record o' historic failure. Americans have typical demanded more of Presidents than they were capable-- expect 'em to fix economy and police violence and abortion issues. Constitution gives limited powers to the President but public always demands more. nevertheless, expectations from trump followers is lower than we ever recall a President being afforded. 

trump blames others? sure. fearmongering ain't new and past aspiring leaders has used such threats to gain power. the thing is, once you got the power, Americans has demand Presidents fix those problems, even if the problems is largely illusionary. those angry and fearful americans have never been particular patient either.

is a brave new world?

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorth]

45 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

I've lost my job, or my job is under threat

• Why?
  1. My job is obsolete and foreigners can do it cheaper, better just deal with it and move on OR
  2. Foreigners/ Immigrants are stealing my job!

 

Yeah, option 2 does indeed always seem to be the popular choice

[smjjames]

The thing is that Congress has been unable to make a major deal and reform on their own for immigration for like, the past 20 years now. Every time they get close to any sort of comprehensive deal, conservative scream AMNESTY!!11!1!!1 and scuttle the whole thing. DACA, whether you support it or not, was an attempt at fixing part of it, but that’s not the same thing as something comprehensive and holistic coming out of Congress.

[injurai]

Do the powers that be really want it fixed though?

America get's to brain drain the world, and put that talent to use in our defense and military complex. We use illegal immigration to compete with foreign companies with lesser labor laws, and also bolsters the wealth of the American business class. Defense of minorities and "the other" constantly feeds into the liberal platform which uses social issues to get in the office war hawks. Immigrants are the forever scapegoat for American industry which takes the heat off of corporate America, and is the feeds into the conservative platform which uses the social issue to get in war hawks as well. Oh and America can constantly flaunt being for dreamers and how America is about joining a patriotic set of values, while also having a hard litmus test that encourages people to come illegally (and are often incentivized to.) Between most immigrants being younger, and the deportation department being twitchy, it seems America cycles in a cheap workforce of people who would be at the top of their game as far as efficient competency and not yet burned out. Everyone wants to slave for the world's greatest reserve currency even when it's a bad deal.

[Gromnir]

18 minutes ago, injurai said:

Do the powers that be really want it fixed though?

 

real or not, trump presented self as an anti-establishment and populist choice. in spite o' being one o' the least popular Presidents at the time o' election, we still talk 'bout his core followers and how he needs keep such folks happy as an explanation for his antics.

how can a populist President give his core nothing and nevertheless be more popular with that group than when he were elected? is utter baffling. romans did bread and circus to keep the mob sated. trump don't even need the bread as he is, all by his lonesome, providing the circus his core followers appear to want.

trump only makes sense if you ignore last +6 decades o' US presidential history. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

THOUGHTCRIME! https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kylie-jenner-slammed-handmaids-tale-themed-party-192214186.html

 

 

Nothing like a weird birthday party theme to get the "hollywood left" in a snit.