Politics 2020

[Gromnir]

19 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Gromnir I can understand your concern about the nature of what defines normal and real  news and yes  some Trump supporters believe the worst forms of misinformation I have ever encountered in my life in any first world country 

But the good news is this doesnt represent the views of most normal Republicans, for example there are a few credible Republican supporters on CNN like Scott Jennings and Rick Santorum who make very reasonable comments about Trump but do call out the theatre and populism and where he is out of line 

the bad news is those folks is becoming a minority w/i the party. recall, every 2016 republican party candidate forceful rejected trump's muslim ban. called trump xenophobic and a bigot. where are those republicans in 2020? even rick santorum works very hard to spin every trump blunder as positive as possible.

the republicans george h.w. bush or reagan would recognize is in places such as this.

most "normal republicans" we recognize are offended by trump. too few. far too few. 

and for skarp_one, no, there is indeed an easy and correct answer to the white supremacy question. we already noted how the past cannot be erased with a single response. the reason why the question is problematic today is 'cause trump screwed it up so many times in the past.

but again, as already stated, the question weren't for the benefit o' those who already made up their mind 'bout trump. for the few undecided voters, reject white supremacy unequivocal woulda' made a difference. those wanting to vote trump policies but offended by trump character coulda' more easily convinced self that trump were not the bigot he appears to be. trump failed, again. he improbable failed again and that comes from a person who assumes trump will fail. 

easiest question evar.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by Gromnir

[Darkpriest]

6 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

Yeah, but regular folks would be happy with a "yes, I condemn white supremecy."

Not "Be on standby, and let me condemn a completely different group that was not asked about."

Wouldn't it be better? : "I condemn all supremacists movmenets based on race, as well as all forms of racial dsicrimnation"?

[Malcador]

15 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Because there is no answer to that question that will ever satisfy  the radical left. You can do and say whatever you want but if radical left declares you are racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. there is nothing that will make them change their minds. To many examples of people pandering to them in hope they will leave them be and being attacked at the slightness transgression of their crazy beliefs. 

In your mind what would happen if Trump would say "Yes, I condemn white supremacy in all shape and form with all my mind, heart and soul". Would anyone on the left say "It's great he said those words"? BS there would be "Trump "says" he condemns, but...", "If he truly condemns white supremacy then he must do...". 

There is no end to that with radical left, so at some point you have to just say "I will not participate in this s**tshow, enough i enough". And they will screech and they will yell, because they cannot control you anymore.

There's a lot of people that are not the "radical left", though, that would have been content with him taking the easy lay-up or at the very least be indifferent.  Refusing to do so, does make people wonder why he didn't. 

Maybe Santorum was on to something in that he just doesn't criticizing people who like him. 

1 minute ago, Darkpriest said:

Wouldn't it be better? : "I condemn all supremacists movmenets based on race, as well as all forms of racial dsicrimnation"?

Pretty much, would have worked better as he could have started complaining about Antifa off of that.

 

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by Malcador

[BruceVC]

16 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

mayhap 'cause as often as not he vacillates or equivocates when is asked 'bout white supremacy. for fun, do a search on trump being questioned 'bout david duke. don't just read first headline neither.

the white supremacy question is not difficult bruce. is not even an aleppo kinda thing where a person perhaps becomes confused in the moment.  

...

the weird part is that the question from wallace were an uncontested layup opportunity. am suspecting it were not intended to be difficult. wallace gives trump a chance to undermine the left's argument that trump supports white supremacists. sure, just 'cause trump rejected white supremacists during a national debate would not make folks who dislike him forget all his previous equivocation, but for those undecideds, many of whom agree with trump policies but nevertheless fear he is racist, condemning white supremacy public, national and unequivocal woulda' been a boon. 

on tuesday, trump managed to solidify one portion o' his base. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stand-back-and-stand-by-proud-boys-merchandise-amazon/

call it a win?

easiest question ever faced by a Presidential candidate in a debate: are you willing to condemn white supremacists?

how is it possible to screw the pooch on that question?

HA! Good Fun!

Gromnir  please always assume I do have a reason for making  some points outside of not really understanding the obvious, I appreciate your feedback as it allows me to understand the issues and your detail in making posts is appreciated so please keep providing posts around these topics 

I have followed the general comments around Trump and his lack of perceived criticism towards the right wing but there is level of complexity around this and what it means. Would you  like to read what I am taking about, I am not  trying to be silly about why I should make a post but it will take me some time and I enjoy debates but you could honestly not be interested in a different view on this and then its pointless making a long post especially if its considered unorthodox 

But I would like  you to understand the view and get your comments ?

[Darkpriest]

53 minutes ago, Elerond said:

There were 33.4 million votes cast through mail in 2016 election

That second link absolutely tells how you can't trust mail-in-voting

"The California secretary of state’s election data obtained by the AP showed 102,428 mail-in ballots were disqualified in the state’s 58 counties, about 1.5% of the nearly 7 million mail-in ballots returned. "

"The most common problem, by far, in California was missing the deadline for the ballot to be mailed and arrive. To count in the election, ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received within three days afterward. Statewide, 70,330 ballots missed those marks."

"Another 27,525 either didn’t have a signature, or the signature didn’t match the one on record for the voter."

 

So almost all the ballots were rejected because they didn't fill two basic rules of voting 

Do you believe, that if this amount of ballots will be rejected, it will not trigger a **** poaturing and hitting one another with a verbal bat, no matter who will win? 

Trunp wins - Democrats will cry, that the administration, including poat service obstructed deliveries on purpose, etc 

Biden wins - Trumpers will call fraud, as so many were missing and a lot were mismatching on signatures or in wrong envelopes. 

[Elerond]

In 2016 when Trump won he called fraud in basis of millions of people voting illegally in person. So I am sure that Trump will again call fraud regardless of results

[ComradeYellow]

"Normal Republicans" consist of the rank and file from the suburbs and the lower middle class types in rural areas (Small business owners, farmers, ect.) and are almost unanimously in favor of Trump.  These Apparachick Republicans in D.C. who oppose Trump are a small minority.

[BruceVC]

19 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

 

In your mind what would happen if Trump would say "Yes, I condemn white supremacy in all shape and form with all my mind, heart and soul". Would anyone on the left say "It's great he said those words"? BS there would be "Trump "says" he condemns, but...", "If he truly condemns white supremacy then he must do...". 

T

Your post is really interesting because you have summarized nicely what I am noticing, its difficult to explain but when he gets asked the question " do you condemn the right wing " its not a real question because there is already an assumption on what he thinks....so its just part of a way of not getting an answer but confirming a bias 

Trump has had on several occasions condemned the right wing, people can google this if they dont believe me 

How did you come to this view around this question, is this just an observation or did you read a link.  I have only noticed it now and it is interesting to me on different levels but I havent read much about it ?

[Gromnir]

13 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

"Normal Republicans" consist of the rank and file from the suburbs and the lower middle class types in rural areas (Small business owners, farmers, ect.) and are almost unanimously in favor of Trump.  These Apparachick Republicans in D.C. who oppose Trump are a small minority.

again, the party demographic has shifted. is exact our point that normal republicans today is unrecognizable to us older folks... and is the reason why trump won the nomination in 2016. all the 2016 republican Presidential candidates save for trump were, before their immaculate conversion, traditional conservatives.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/doctors-once-gop-stalwarts-now-more-likely-to-be-democrats-11570383523

why on earth would working class americans and farmers vote trump given how his policies both economic and in response to covid has disproportionate hurt working class americans and farmers? in 2020 is not 'bout policies or even performance. is all so... european.
 

@BruceVC

"Trump has had on several occasions condemned the right wing, people can google this if they dont believe me"

you do know what we meant when we identified trump vacillation and equivocation, yes? trump frequent defends white supremacists and claims ignorance o' individuals or groups he has specific spoken 'bout previous, then when epic fallout ensues, a day or two removed, he then offers a kinda/sorta condemnation.  

surely you gotta see how such equivocation and vacillation provides fodder for those who see trump policies and rhetoric as racial motivated.

the question at the debate was easy. the ez answer to the question were not meant to change hearts and minds. the question were to provide undecided voters with an excuse, and trump improbable sabotaged himself.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

10 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

Do you believe, that if this amount of ballots will be rejected, it will not trigger a **** poaturing and hitting one another with a verbal bat, no matter who will win? 

Trunp wins - Democrats will cry, that the administration, including poat service obstructed deliveries on purpose, etc 

Biden wins - Trumpers will call fraud, as so many were missing and a lot were mismatching on signatures or in wrong envelopes. 

Dark I am enjoying this debate you and Elerond are having around the legitimacy of the vote in mail but I dont want you to spend all this time researching this potential risk and then in the election its not an issue at all .......because sometimes what Trump says is just a media reaction and the media always ends up discussing it 

And if something is just a distraction then your time can be spent on other more relevant things. But Trump has excellent ways of manipulating the narrative to his own comfort, this is something he really does well and be able to justify it because he mentions how the media is always going to believe anything he says ....and of course CNN will discuss exactly what Trump expects them to respond 

And if I was CNN presenter I would be so tired of always discussing his " offensive "  tweets and how he doesnt care about the history of the USA and how he wants to undermine the credibility of the election because it just seems like  a distraction around policy which would be more interesting 

[BruceVC]

20 minutes ago, Elerond said:

In 2016 when Trump won he called fraud in basis of millions of people voting illegally in person. So I am sure that Trump will again call fraud regardless of results

Elerond what would be your greatest concern around Trumps presidency and him being elected again 

For people like us outside the USA we may have different concerns 

[ComradeYellow]

7 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

why on earth would working class americans and farmers vote trump given how his policies both economic and in response to covid has disproportionate hurt working class americans and farmers? in 2020 is not 'bout policies or even performance. is all so... european.

As I said a couple pages back, support from such people does exist, but it's purely sentimental and not steeped in a rational, logical decision to support him, as they are not very intelligent or "educated" as some people like to say so they have an emotional bond with him.

The idea that a significant portion of the American population is dumb and ignorant certainly carries water.  Though it causes me discomfort to talk about it, but it is germane to the point so sometimes you got to get it out there.

[Skarpen]

44 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

Wouldn't it be better? : "I condemn all supremacists movmenets based on race, as well as all forms of racial dsicrimnation"?

That statement reeks of white supremacy, racism, homophobia, sexism and pickles. You should be ashamed to even suggest such a thing 

[Darkpriest]

10 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Dark I am enjoying this debate you and Elerond are having around the legitimacy of the vote in mail but I dont want you to spend all this time researching this potential risk and then in the election its not an issue at all .......because sometimes what Trump says is just a media reaction and the media always ends up discussing it 

And if something is just a distraction then your time can be spent on other more relevant things. But Trump has excellent ways of manipulating the narrative to his own comfort, this is something he really does well and be able to justify it because he mentions how the media is always going to believe anything he says ....and of course CNN will discuss exactly what Trump expects them to respond 

And if I was CNN presenter I would be so tired of always discussing his " offensive "  tweets and how he doesnt care about the history of the USA and how he wants to undermine the credibility of the election because it just seems like  a distraction around policy which would be more interesting 

I do not think the issue qe discuss is really about the actual legitimacy. 

I raise a point about perception of this process, and that it would be better to have longer voting period, but in person voting where it would be mpre difficult to spin narratives about the legitimacy. 

There are high social tensions, and you open the results for claims of illegitimacy with a process, which in theory, can be manipulated by any side to some extent. 

Even if you are right, you need to be able to convince people that you are right. 

People in the past were burnt for claims that Earth is not the center of the universe... 

[Skarpen]

33 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Your post is really interesting because you have summarized nicely what I am noticing, its difficult to explain but when he gets asked the question " do you condemn the right wing " its not a real question because there is already an assumption on what he thinks....so its just part of a way of not getting an answer but confirming a bias 

Trump has had on several occasions condemned the right wing, people can google this if they dont believe me 

How did you come to this view around this question, is this just an observation or did you read a link.  I have only noticed it now and it is interesting to me on different levels but I havent read much about it ?

I know you will be a little disappointed, because I know how you love a good link 

But it's mostly an observation and discussion on forums and with my friends and colleagues. Just look what is happening to Gina Carano for example and dozens of other people. 

[Skarpen]

21 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

as they are not very intelligent or "educated"

Ah, spoken like a true tolerant left. If you don't think like me then you are dumb and uneducated. And then the priceless "I don't understand why people vote for Trump". If you are so highly educated and intelligent you should have the answer. Or maybe you are not as much above the people you hate so much after all?

[Elerond]

11 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Elerond what would be your greatest concern around Trumps presidency and him being elected again 

For people like us outside the USA we may have different concerns 

Personally I probably will get richer if Trump is elected again as current republican and Trump policies have actually increased Finnish products and services ability compete in European markets. Meaning his trade war with EU hurts our american competition on European markets and USA's sanctions against Russia has made Finland even bigger port to Russian markets, like they ship sneakers from China to Finland so that they can be imported to Russia. And sanctions and threats against Chines companies has given Nokia ability to grab quite lot European 5G contracts and so on.

But Trump's presidency  has made it for China, Russia and Turkey to break international agreements and do their power and land grab politics. Which probably lead unrest all over the world. But I am not sure if Biden will make any difference because current state of US's domestic politics will guarantee that next president does not have time/ability to do effective foreign politics.  

[Gromnir]

6 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

As I said a couple pages back, support from such people does exist, but it's purely sentimental and not steeped in a rational, logical decision to support him, as they are not very intelligent or "educated" as some people like to say so they have an emotional bond with him.

will forgo the obvious tee-ball opportunity with which you present us and instead repost a tribe quote we offered on these boards late last year.

"Many Americans who voted for Trump view themselves as belonging to a victimized, disenfranchised class that has finally discovered its champion. For some of them, Trump’s appeal is less what he will accomplish programmatically than whom he will attack personally. Were Trump removed from office by political elites in Washington, DC—even based on clear evidence that he had grossly abused power—some of his supporters would surely view the decision as an illegitimate coup. Indeed, some right-wing leaders have already denounced the campaign to remove Trump as a prelude to civil war. This rhetoric, too, escapes reality and indulges pernicious tendencies toward apocalyptic thinking about the impeachment power."

am getting that the shift happened. am recognizing the common factor 'mongst folks vulnerable to such rhetoric as trump offers, which is why we always stress education is the real solution. even so, this doesn't happen in the US. not for a long time. get too remote and just weren't possible to be happening 'cause the President weren't what it is today.

americans ordinarily hold the President accountable for that which is beyond the capacity o' the President to control. we, as a nation, unfair hold the President to account. economic changes made by a President rare have immediate impact and the current President is often being blamed for mistakes o' the previous President or Congress. 

etc. 

repeating... again.

am getting how there is a disaffected portion o' the population which is vulnerable to conspiracy theories and rhetoric which offers clear villains and ez solutions. however, two party system and senate/house split and a hundred other institutional and cultural differences has meant the US has been less vulnerable to idealogues. 

the recession hit people harder than employment numbers suggest... 'cause the employment numbers were changed. is a whole lotta folks who never recovered from the recession, and even before 2008, real wages were having been no better than flat for decades. perhaps the current situation were inevitable... just is so improbable trump, a populist who could not manage to win the popular vote, and who has enacted policies which disproportionate hurt his base, should be the President when the system finally lurched backwards and slouched towards bethlehem. 

it took a unique alchemy o' the electoral college and US system and weird demographic shifts to make 2020 possible.  doesn't make sense save for fact it has happened.

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

If Trump had condemned all racially motivated groups it probably would not have made much difference to the critic/ pundit reaction. The commentary would be about how he'd dodged the question of condemning specifically white groups and how he was saying that a BLM guy protesting George Floyd's death and Tim McVeigh were the same in magnitude. Weird as it may be failing to condemn the Proud Boys or whoever is almost certainly not a vote loser for Trump, anyone who viewed such things as disqualifying isn't voting for him anyway.

As for why workers and farmers would vote for Trump he does offer more hope for them than the Democrats. What really lost Clinton the election- because it lost her those 3 critical rust belt states- was her telling all those desperate people that they were irrelevant and had to get with the program and become web designers/ programmers/ 'new economy'. If you're offered that as an alternative Trump saying he's going to bring back the jobs and take on Chinese manufacturing offers the only hope. Same for farmers, practically Trump's idea of being pro farming is pro corporate farming rather than pro mom & pop farming, but Hillary (and Biden) are 100% economic orthodoxy including things like the TPP which the farmers feared and Trump got rid of (ironically, the TPP also got far more attractive for all remaining participants as soon as the US left). It doesn't matter if you're offered false hope when the other side is telling you you're on an inevitable spiral to oblivion.

I always find it far more 'confusing' why US voters are so keen to vote along moral lines and impose their own morality on others rather than they'd vote for someone who offers them at least a theoretical future vs someone telling you you're a dinosaur staring at an oddly expanding star in the end Cretaceous sky.

[Darkpriest]

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/BigStory12/idUSKBN26M5O2

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/senate-orders-big-tech-ceos-testify-liability-shield-election-day

[ComradeYellow]

5 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

If Trump had condemned all racially motivated groups it probably would not have made much difference to the critic/ pundit reaction. The commentary would be about how he'd dodged the question of condemning specifically white groups and how he was saying that a BLM guy protesting George Floyd's death and Tim McVeigh were the same in magnitude. Weird as it may be failing to condemn the Proud Boys or whoever is almost certainly not a vote loser for Trump, anyone who viewed such things as disqualifying isn't voting for him anyway.

As for why workers and farmers would vote for Trump he does offer more hope for them than the Democrats. What really lost Clinton the election- because it lost her those 3 critical rust belt states- was her telling all those desperate people that they were irrelevant and had to get with the program and become web designers/ programmers/ 'new economy'. If you're offered that as an alternative Trump saying he's going to bring back the jobs and take on Chinese manufacturing offers the only hope. Same for farmers, practically Trump's idea of being pro farming is pro corporate farming rather than pro mom & pop farming, but Hillary (and Biden) are 100% economic orthodoxy including things like the TPP which the farmers feared and Trump got rid of (ironically, the TPP also got far more attractive for all remaining participants as soon as the US left). It doesn't matter if you're offered false hope when the other side is telling you you're on an inevitable spiral to oblivion.

I always find it far more 'confusing' why US voters are so keen to vote along moral lines and impose their own morality on others rather than they'd vote for someone who offers them at least a theoretical future vs someone telling you you're a dinosaur staring at an oddly expanding star in the end Cretaceous sky.

Bingo!  2016 Trump was far more viable and understandable than 2020 Trump.  The former get a pass, the latter do not.  The usual GOP rank and file are expected to vote Trump, agnostic swing voters have no excuse this time around.  Really says something about those who do, and none of it is good.

[Skarpen]

If anyone is truly concerned by Fascism and Nazism rising it's ugly head again, look no further then all time classic Germany. 

Just yesterday Katarina Barley VP of EU had a flashback of her grandfather child stories and she wants to starve Poland and Hungary. 

https://newsbeezer.com/hungaryeng/ep-vice-president-member-states-like-hungary-and-poland-must-be-starved-financially/

EU is on the way to become Fourth Reich.

[Gromnir]

le sigh

again, the white supremacy question were not meant to appease pundits or change hearts and minds. undecideds and the demographics which trump was strong in 2016, but has lost ground considerable particular o' late (women and the elderly) were given a chance to see trump reject white supremacists on national tv. were ez.  identify how the far left or pundits weren't gonna be budged utter misses the point. multiple posters are strawmanning this one to death.

and identify why 2016 voters got suckered in by trump is preaching to the choir but more important ignores how Americans demand more from Presidents as 'posed to less. this is not europe. we don't have a prime minister and a parliament. we got an extreme centrist tradition and a system which promotes moderation 'cause our government can't LEGAL function w/o cooperation from both sides o' the aisle. the reason why trump keeps resorting to unconstitutional is 'cause the system is designed to prevent exact what is happening. 

working class had not improved under pre-covid trump anymore than were happening in the second half o' obama's term, and his handling o' the pandemic made situation far worse for folks w/o a college degree. even before the pandemic, the rate o' farmer bankruptcies were at highs not seen in many decades and suicides by farmers were also nearing post ww2 highs. is not just that what were bad under obama were continuing to be bad. the trade war with china were killing american farmers and trump policies were making situation worse save for the largest corporate farms.

Americans has always expected more from Presidents and the ideology nonsense has never been convincing on this side of the pond. nevertheless, trump has sold the his base on the existential threat o' democrats and blm and muslims and immigrants. of course folks more familiar with european politics ain't shocked, but the US has been different for a long time... intentional so.  our extreme right and extreme left has, until recent, looked positive centrist by euro standards. our system makes centrist the norm. 

nevertheless, an unpopular populist ushers in new kinda American politics? we got an unpopular President who is able to get away with almost daily violations o' the Constitution, and is not possible to stop him unless our senate, which is current answerable to a distinct minority o' the population, chooses to say, "no." the senate, btw, is designed to be more remote from the will o' the people with their six-year terms... which is ordinary the case... at least it was until citizens united.  centrist. moderation. 

until trump?

HA! Good Fun!

[Amentep]

New thread -