|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 18 2015 00:19 Deathstar wrote:
You look at the Republican field and tell me who is worth supporting besides Trump. If we get someone like Rubio, it will be more of the same (more tax cuts, more deregulation, maybe a war) and besides that things will be uneventful.
If you want the status quo of the past decade to continue, then I guess Rubio (and on the flip side Hillary) is your guy. But Trump will rock the boat so much it will awaken our country to be more politically active going into the future.
By rocking the boat, you mean destroying the Constitution and our liberties? That's not new; that's the status quo. If you want a real anti-establishment candidate, then vote Rand.
|
On December 18 2015 00:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2015 15:35 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think you can do this in a historical vacuum. Groups that suffer from historical oppression often form a strong identity around their culture. Jewish communities in Europe are often relatively narrow minded and reclusive. That's not because they're Jewish supremacists but because they've created a strong identity because of their history. If black people want to have a "black student" club it's not some vulgar skin color thing. While this is all true, this is becoming a self accelerating issue and is just not making sense. Advocating for the percentage of black professors to be many times the number of black PhD students is a perfect example. They are not being reasonable. They are not making demands based on what makes sense. It is just a horribly misguided attempt to feel some sort of retribution.
http://www.npr.org/sections/monkeysee/2015/11/27/457375043/pop-culture-happy-hour-a-conversation-with-trevor-noah
NPR's Linda Holmes talked with Trevor Noah, who provides some real good discussion about representation and the problems it faces. He points out that its not about just being open to all applicants, but also making sure that the job offers and networking covers all minority groups.
He talks about hiring new talent for the Daily Show and that they only received applications from four black comedians. He asked about it and they said “that is all we received,” and he assumed black people in the US didn’t like the daily show. But then he talked with several of his black comedian friends and they just didn’t know about the offer because they were not connected to the networks that the daily show used to hire. And they couldn’t get access because the agents that the daily show worked with wouldn’t take them on. And that wasn’t acceptable once the daily show found out, because it was denying them access to potential talent they were totally unaware of. The whole interview is funny and pretty insightful and grounded. He also takes a chunk out of BLM and outrage/call-out-culture from an outsiders view(he is not from the US).
So its less about hiring more minorities and more about making sure that the company are getting applications from minorities that might want the job. I think the college students have the wrong solution, but the problem is one that a lot of industries have, but they are not aware of it or sure how to fix it.
And as someone who had hired people, you can always use resumes. More is better.
|
On December 18 2015 00:19 Deathstar wrote:
You look at the Republican field and tell me who is worth supporting besides Trump. If we get someone like Rubio, it will be more of the same (more tax cuts, more deregulation, maybe a war) and besides that things will be uneventful.
If you want the status quo of the past decade to continue, then I guess Rubio (and on the flip side Hillary) is your guy. But Trump will rock the boat so much it will awaken our country to be more politically active going into the future.
In other words, if you want the status quo of the past decade to continue, vote for Rubio, and if you want the country to go down with a bang, vote for Trump?
|
It's interesting that despite following this thread pretty intently I didn't realize that of the last seven Iowa polls, six of them including the days when Trump want full unimplementable Muslim ban, Cruz has been leading Trump in five of the seven and Trump has never lead by more than the margin of error (Cruz has three results where he leads by more than the margin of error I think, maybe two).
From what I understand, this is the first time since Trump went to the top that anyone has led him in the RCP average anywhere. Yet news agencies don't seem to to be covering it. Will Trump's first state be a loss? That might make him cry.
We'll see if Cruz can maintain the surge. I can't imagine the debate would have done much to worsen his standing-apparently people really want us to glass those ISIS members.
On December 18 2015 02:49 xDaunt wrote:
It'll be interesting to see whether Trump comments on the new budget deal. The new deal certainly isn't going to do anything to bring voters back into the establishment fold.
I don't think he will beyond saying "mine would be better." He's not going to actually read it, he is unlikely to comprehend its pros and cons, and if his comments make either of those obvious it will not play well. It's pretty much a lose/lose if he goes beyond "it's bad for making America great again."
Same reason he didn't won't try to get between Rubio/Cruz on whether voting for the surveillance modification bill was right. It's a lose-lose. He needs a mega-him focused announcement to drown out the pain the nuclear triad question inflicted on his ego.
|
It'll be interesting to see whether Trump comments on the new budget deal. The new deal certainly isn't going to do anything to bring voters back into the establishment fold.
|
The United States has agreed to restore scheduled flights to Cuba, the State Department announced Thursday, one year after President Barack Obama moved to thaw relations with the communist nation.
While U.S. law still bars travel to Cuba for tourists, the deal is expected to increase authorized travel between both nations, improve traveler choices and further people-to-people links from the U.S. and Cuba.
Obama in a statement on Thursday touted the steps the U.S. has taken to normalize relations with Cuba in the past year and called on Congress to lift its embargo. In May, the U.S. removed the island nation from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, an act that led to the reopening of embassies months later. Secretary of State John Kerry visited Cuba in August — the first secretary of state visit to the country in seven decades — for the American Embassy’s flag-raising ceremony.
Just last week, the U.S. and Cuba announced they would resume direct postal services between both nations several times a week, alleviating the need to rely on routing mail through a third country. Details of that deal are expected to be finalized in coming weeks.
Source
|
DEC. 17, 2015: With 271,527 votes cast -- and all three presidential candidates campaigning directly for your vote -- the results are in and they are extraordinary. Bernie Sanders has earned Democracy for America's endorsement in the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primary with an astonishing, record-breaking 87.9% of the vote.
Source
I know that Sanders supporters tend to be more active on the internet and as a result, he does well in online polls. But this one was a pretty important one for the endorsement of the DFA, and in order for an endorsement to be given, a candidate had to get >2/3 of the votes. I'm fairly surprised Clinton's campaign didn't put more effort into being represented in this one, unless this endorsement isn't as important as I thought it was.
DFA founder Howard Dean sent out an email last week that he personally endorsed Clinton and asked people to join him in that support on the poll.
+ Show Spoiler [Copy/Paste from my email] +Welcome to Democracy for America's official 2016 Presidential Endorsement Poll -- in which you have the power to decide which Democratic candidate DFA will endorse! This week, DFA members will be receiving messages from all three candidates -- Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, and Bernie Sanders -- with each making the case for why they deserve your vote. To level the playing field between the candidates, we're randomizing the daily order in which DFA members receive these emails and sending each candidate's message to an equal number of recipients. Enjoy reading these important messages -- and don't forget to vote and share your vote with your friends! - Eden James, Political Director, Democracy for America
Joe --
As you make your decision about who Democracy for America will endorse to be our next president, I want to share a few words about my choice: Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton is the candidate who shares our progressive values on issues like climate change, immigration reform, and LGBT rights -- and she has the experience and ability to turn those values into policies that will help Americans. She has spent her entire career fighting for families, from her first job out of law school helping disabled kids at the Children's Defense Fund to her courageous work standing up for women and girls around the world as first lady and Secretary of State.
In the 25 years I've known Hillary, I've learned that she has a work ethic that drives her to persist until the job is done and done right. And she has a record in the Senate of successfully working with both sides of our very combative political spectrum in order to accomplish goals that improve the lives of ordinary Americans. I trust her to do the same as president.
I trust you, too. I know you'll take this decision as seriously as I have, and I hope that Hillary will be your choice. Click here to vote for Hillary in DFA's 2016 Presidential Endorsement Poll now.
That's enough from me -- read on to see what Hillary has to say about why your vote matters to her. Thanks for your commitment to this process, and to our democracy.
- Howard
Gov. Howard Dean, Founder
Democracy for America
|
It's probably not as important as you thought it was... I checked my email and apparently I'm on their list, but all their stuff goes into my spam folder lol.
If you want a more accurate picture of how important they are/ how much clout they have, look at their Facebook/ Twitter activity.
More importantly he got an endorsement from the Communications Workers of America, which is a pretty big union.
|
Sanders could drop out and he would still be winning internet polls.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 18 2015 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2015 00:19 Deathstar wrote:
You look at the Republican field and tell me who is worth supporting besides Trump. If we get someone like Rubio, it will be more of the same (more tax cuts, more deregulation, maybe a war) and besides that things will be uneventful.
If you want the status quo of the past decade to continue, then I guess Rubio (and on the flip side Hillary) is your guy. But Trump will rock the boat so much it will awaken our country to be more politically active going into the future. Yeah you know sometimes rocking the boat is not something you wanne do. It sounds fun when your standing on the sideline but is a lot less enjoyable when your on the boat in high seas. The Presidency is not a joke and if your only choice is between 'more of the same' and 'batshit crazy' its often better to go with more of the same.
trump is probably the sanest real candidate from the right.
it's hilarious tho to see both liberals and austrians getting rekt by trump
|
On December 18 2015 05:37 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2015 00:26 Gorsameth wrote:On December 18 2015 00:19 Deathstar wrote:
You look at the Republican field and tell me who is worth supporting besides Trump. If we get someone like Rubio, it will be more of the same (more tax cuts, more deregulation, maybe a war) and besides that things will be uneventful.
If you want the status quo of the past decade to continue, then I guess Rubio (and on the flip side Hillary) is your guy. But Trump will rock the boat so much it will awaken our country to be more politically active going into the future. Yeah you know sometimes rocking the boat is not something you wanne do. It sounds fun when your standing on the sideline but is a lot less enjoyable when your on the boat in high seas. The Presidency is not a joke and if your only choice is between 'more of the same' and 'batshit crazy' its often better to go with more of the same. trump is probably the sanest real candidate from the right. it's hilarious tho to see both liberals and austrians getting rekt by trump
The only people who have ever been "rekt" by Trump are the media and pundits that salivate on his every word.
Every other time someone has contradicted him, they have always been correct. To my knowledge he has never corrected anyone on anything ever and been in the right (mostly because he never corrects others on things besides poll numbers which he is usually wrong about).
Just look at any exchange between him and Rand Paul and see how thoroughly he has been crushed in knowledge and understanding. Unless calling people names is somehow winning an argument.
|
I don't know how you get "rekt" by Trump when he hasn't won anything but the "Look at this totally questionable poll that says Trump is ahead conducted god knows who" contest.
|
A mark of a leader who can bring about change is not someone who knows a bunch of trivia.
|
On December 18 2015 05:49 Deathstar wrote:
A mark of a leader who can bring about change is not someone who knows a bunch of trivia.
So Trump has neither of these qualities and is not qualified in any way?
|
On December 18 2015 05:49 Deathstar wrote:
A mark of a leader who can bring about change is not someone who knows a bunch of trivia.
Is blatantly lying one of those marks?
Just about the only thing good about trump is that he knows so little that there is a razor thin chance he could come up with some crazy solution to a problem that any knowledgeable person wouldn't even consider, and he'd have the arrogance to think he was right and try and pull it off.
|
Haha Trump can rile up the crowd and channel their energy to a cause, like infrastructure projects and wall building.
There needs to be a better way than the current dysfunctional government. Only Trump has the ability to rally crowds. Imagine 10k+ angry people outside your office window. Trump can do that to our politicians.
|
Did you just claim he could use his personality to build bridges just by "riling up a crowd"? I think you might be confused how infrastructure projects work. We don't run on an outrage based economy. And our politicians responding to angry mobs outside their office does not sound like a way that good decisions are made. Mobs of angry people are not really known for their high level decision making and problem solving skills.
|
On December 18 2015 05:49 Deathstar wrote:
A mark of a leader who can bring about change is not someone who knows a bunch of trivia.
Yeah, who cares if Trump spends three minutes railing against a bill handing China power when it actually doesn't even include China? That's trivia.
Or knowing how the internet works when calling for shutting it down. That's trivia too.
Or knowing that the surveys you cite have multiple definitions of Sharia law and jihad in them. Fuck that trivia.
The Geneva Conventions? Trivia. We need to be "tough and strong."
Or knowing...well...anything, really. All you need is to make funny faces and gibber semi-coherently. That'll get us more efficient government for sure.
The only change Trump is bringing is the change Sarah Palin brought in 2012-money in their pocket.
|
On December 18 2015 06:01 Plansix wrote:
Did you just claim he could use his personality to build bridges just by "riling up a crowd"? I think you might be confused how infrastructure projects work. We don't run on an outrage based economy. And our politicians responding to angry mobs outside their office does not sound like a way that good decisions are made. Mobs of angry people are not really known for their high level decision making and problem solving skills.
Widespread political support for issues has been insanely effective in the past. Getting people to actually be politically active in a country with such awful voter turnout statistics is really significant. If Trump is able to prove capable of getting people who historically have not voted, out to the polls, there is a real possibility he could inspire a lot of radical change.
I think you are focusing way too much on Trump's actual "quality" as a candidate. That's just not relevant. It doesn't matter if they are truthful, accurate, or even well intended. If someone can inspire a large population, they can really shake things up.
The question remains whether Trump's support will actually materialize, but if it does, all your points regarding Trump's ignorance just don't matter. Whether his plans are appropriate/smart or not, they will very likely get done.
|
Expect that Trump doesn't have wide spread political support. He has the support of people willing to participate in polls about the Republican primary.
And all arguments that hinge on "The quality of the candidate doesn't directly impact their ability to create change" are complete garbage. That is arguing change is good, regardless of the outcome. I don't want to go full Godwin, but people have made big changes before with complete lies. It ends poorly. If that is the reason you think Trump is good for the country, expect people to point out that white supremacists are part of the group he is rallying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
