|
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 February 24 2016 09:53 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 09:48 KwarK wrote:On February 24 2016 09:44 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 24 2016 09:39 Soap wrote:
The next largest presidential country has 28 parties represented in Congress, and we're not any better because of it. Agreed. Multiparty systems just means the largest and most organized bloc railroads all the disagreeing blocs. Not seeing how that is more democratic. Seems more like a good way to establish radical minority viewpoint rule. Having two parties forces more moderate decision making because each of the parties has to appeal to a much larger group of people**. ** though with demographic changes in America and the Republican party's decision to only rely on the white vote going forwards ... the two party trend towards moderation seems to be unraveling. Actually the opposite often applies. If one party has 45% and they go into coalition with another that has 10% then the 10% typically gets its agenda on the table more than the 22.5% of the time you'd think it should based on weighting. Neither can get anything done without the other. One of the criticisms of coalition rule is that it gives too much power to smaller parties, not too little. What about Canada? During the Harper years the 40% Conservative party ruled unopposed over the 20% Greens and 30% Liberals.
lolwut? green party has never gotten any serious amount of support, usually they get 1 or 0 seats. also you're leaving out the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2011
|
On February 24 2016 09:45 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 09:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 24 2016 09:12 Introvert wrote:On February 24 2016 09:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 24 2016 08:38 Introvert wrote:On February 24 2016 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm glad people are finally waking up to Trump being the nominee. I think it validates a lot of what I've been saying for a long time but I suppose Introvert will still disagree.
On the spending side, there's been about $180,000,000 spent so far on the Republican side. Approximately $9m was used to attack Trump, they've been running scared the whole campaign.
Talk is that there's a Trump/Rubio deal and that's what we saw manifest recently with teaming up on Cruz. Pressure has been rolling on Kasich to try to get him out since he can seal the deal for Trump by staying in.
It's basically up to Democrats to decide if they want to win or not. Hillary will lose, Bernie will win. You can be right for the wrong reasons. It's hardly xenophobia powering his campaign. And the number of moderates he gets is impressive. I don't really think that was predicted either. If you don't think xenophobia/racism helped power his campaign in SC, we live in two different realities. I never said it's all R's vote on, but it's obviously a bigger component of the party than you are willing to admit. The establishment candidate thinks women who are raped, even by a family member, should be forced to have that rape child (although he would be willing to sign less strict regulations) The other contender thinks the same thing and adds that birth control is also abortion/murder. That sounds basically like what I was predicting/suggesting the whole time. No one is running on legitimately conservative economic plans, the conservative isn't even doing it, he's running on the religious conservative angle. The economic conservative was the first to be rejected by the voters. My point from all the other crap was that Republicans (and the country at large) don't back "conservative economics" no matter how much conservatives try to convince us that's what drives the Republican electorate. Amusingly, it was the establishment GOP who for years insisted on emphasizing economics at the expense of all other issues. He really is the middle finger voter choice, form what I see/ hear at this point. My analysis doesn't stop at Trump. But if it's just a middle finger vote, why not Cruz, who I presume must be your preferred candidate, and happens to also be the most conservative candidate Republicans have had the opportunity to pick in generations. Every election we've been told the Republicans need to nominate a conservative, but every time they don't and then we're supposed to believe that's not because Republicans and everyone else is rejecting them. Conservatives should just hop on board with breaking up the parties. Can go to 5 parties it's more or less how they break down naturally imo. I know it doesn't, you've been calling the GOP racist (in some form or another) for years. Isn't Trump doing well with people who normally don't vote? And independents (and lots of people going "Bernie or Trump?"). I'm not sure why you keep going off track. Cruz is still seen as a politician to Trump people. Trump still talks about having a "big beautiful door." Immigration is just one thing he uses to hammer people. See, I don't start from the assumption of Trump racism, so I don't see that as his appeal. But I could understand for someone like you, who already holds these idea at the start, that you could come to that conclusion. I thought Trump would fail because there were so many better people running, I didn't anticipate the size of the FU or the moderate appeal.
You like to conflate a lot of various race related issues into "calling the GOP racist", but I don't think there's any doubt there's a significant segment, larger than you seem to want to admit, that is racist/bigoted/homophobic/etc...
Just to give some credit, I don't think there was anything wrong with what Kasich said, it was an accurate description of what happened at that time, and he said it was a different time. His tone seemed to pine for that time but I'm not reading that far into it.
I just want you to admit you're a Cruz supporter instead of trying to argue from a rhetorical perch by not having to have something compared to the alternative being suggested/said by the candidate you're supporting.
It's not about any one thing he says, but it's not a coincidence how the lines break down of who finds Trump to be ist/phobic/etc... The same people who think Trump isn't are the same people who would say they aren't even if they get told what they are saying/doing is often. That's why you underestimated the moderate and "FU" vote. If you have noticed I have never shy'd away from the concept that the opinions we're talking about aren't exclusive to the GOP or that they can't be found in the camps of folks who are looking at Trump or Bernie.
I mean we both remember the last Dem nomination.
An interesting point is that if both Bernie and Trump are getting lots of brand new voters, that means tons of previous voters aren't showing up which is an interesting dynamic.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i was talking about the trump moderate wedge power long ago. fundamentals still important in this age of polls
|
United States42005 Posts
On February 24 2016 09:53 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 09:48 KwarK wrote:On February 24 2016 09:44 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 24 2016 09:39 Soap wrote:
The next largest presidential country has 28 parties represented in Congress, and we're not any better because of it. Agreed. Multiparty systems just means the largest and most organized bloc railroads all the disagreeing blocs. Not seeing how that is more democratic. Seems more like a good way to establish radical minority viewpoint rule. Having two parties forces more moderate decision making because each of the parties has to appeal to a much larger group of people**. ** though with demographic changes in America and the Republican party's decision to only rely on the white vote going forwards ... the two party trend towards moderation seems to be unraveling. Actually the opposite often applies. If one party has 45% and they go into coalition with another that has 10% then the 10% typically gets its agenda on the table more than the 22.5% of the time you'd think it should based on weighting. Neither can get anything done without the other. One of the criticisms of coalition rule is that it gives too much power to smaller parties, not too little. What about Canada? During the Harper years the 40% Conservative party ruled unopposed over the 20% Greens and 30% Liberals.
Exactly? Canada uses first past the post to turn minority votes into majority seats.
You can't have multiparty while using a simple plurality parliamentary system, you need PR to have multiparty. Canada supports my argument, not yours, because Canada was not multiparty, the Greens didn't win seats.
|
On February 24 2016 10:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 09:45 Introvert wrote:On February 24 2016 09:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 24 2016 09:12 Introvert wrote:On February 24 2016 09:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 24 2016 08:38 Introvert wrote:On February 24 2016 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm glad people are finally waking up to Trump being the nominee. I think it validates a lot of what I've been saying for a long time but I suppose Introvert will still disagree.
On the spending side, there's been about $180,000,000 spent so far on the Republican side. Approximately $9m was used to attack Trump, they've been running scared the whole campaign.
Talk is that there's a Trump/Rubio deal and that's what we saw manifest recently with teaming up on Cruz. Pressure has been rolling on Kasich to try to get him out since he can seal the deal for Trump by staying in.
It's basically up to Democrats to decide if they want to win or not. Hillary will lose, Bernie will win. You can be right for the wrong reasons. It's hardly xenophobia powering his campaign. And the number of moderates he gets is impressive. I don't really think that was predicted either. If you don't think xenophobia/racism helped power his campaign in SC, we live in two different realities. I never said it's all R's vote on, but it's obviously a bigger component of the party than you are willing to admit. The establishment candidate thinks women who are raped, even by a family member, should be forced to have that rape child (although he would be willing to sign less strict regulations) The other contender thinks the same thing and adds that birth control is also abortion/murder. That sounds basically like what I was predicting/suggesting the whole time. No one is running on legitimately conservative economic plans, the conservative isn't even doing it, he's running on the religious conservative angle. The economic conservative was the first to be rejected by the voters. My point from all the other crap was that Republicans (and the country at large) don't back "conservative economics" no matter how much conservatives try to convince us that's what drives the Republican electorate. Amusingly, it was the establishment GOP who for years insisted on emphasizing economics at the expense of all other issues. He really is the middle finger voter choice, form what I see/ hear at this point. My analysis doesn't stop at Trump. But if it's just a middle finger vote, why not Cruz, who I presume must be your preferred candidate, and happens to also be the most conservative candidate Republicans have had the opportunity to pick in generations. Every election we've been told the Republicans need to nominate a conservative, but every time they don't and then we're supposed to believe that's not because Republicans and everyone else is rejecting them. Conservatives should just hop on board with breaking up the parties. Can go to 5 parties it's more or less how they break down naturally imo. I know it doesn't, you've been calling the GOP racist (in some form or another) for years. Isn't Trump doing well with people who normally don't vote? And independents (and lots of people going "Bernie or Trump?"). I'm not sure why you keep going off track. Cruz is still seen as a politician to Trump people. Trump still talks about having a "big beautiful door." Immigration is just one thing he uses to hammer people. See, I don't start from the assumption of Trump racism, so I don't see that as his appeal. But I could understand for someone like you, who already holds these idea at the start, that you could come to that conclusion. I thought Trump would fail because there were so many better people running, I didn't anticipate the size of the FU or the moderate appeal. You like to conflate a lot of various race related issues into "calling the GOP racist", but I don't think there's any doubt there's a significant segment, larger than you seem to want to admit, that is racist/bigoted/homophobic/etc... Just to give some credit, I don't think there was anything wrong with what Kasich said, it was an accurate description of what happened at that time, and he said it was a different time. His tone seemed to pine for that time but I'm not reading that far into it. I just want you to admit you're a Cruz supporter instead of trying to argue from a rhetorical perch by not having to have something compared to the alternative being suggested/said by the candidate you're supporting. It's not about any one thing he says, but it's not a coincidence how the lines break down of who finds Trump to be ist/phobic/etc... The same people who think Trump isn't are the same people who would say they aren't even if they get told what they are saying/doing is often. That's why you underestimated the moderate and "FU" vote. If you have noticed I have never shy'd away from the concept that the opinions we're talking about aren't exclusive to the GOP or that they can't be found in the camps of folks who are looking at Trump or Bernie. I mean we both remember the last Dem nomination. An interesting point is that if both Bernie and Trump are getting lots of brand new voters, that means tons of previous voters aren't showing up which is an interesting dynamic.
I disagree.
I didn't bring up Kasich or Cruz, you did. And I've defended Trump on things and am doing so now (in a way).
Again, you approach this from the underlying assumption of racism and prejudice, and it continues to shine through. It's not a coincidence that people who see racism everywhere are the same people who see racism everywhere.
|
On February 24 2016 10:12 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 10:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 24 2016 09:45 Introvert wrote:On February 24 2016 09:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 24 2016 09:12 Introvert wrote:On February 24 2016 09:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 24 2016 08:38 Introvert wrote:On February 24 2016 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm glad people are finally waking up to Trump being the nominee. I think it validates a lot of what I've been saying for a long time but I suppose Introvert will still disagree.
On the spending side, there's been about $180,000,000 spent so far on the Republican side. Approximately $9m was used to attack Trump, they've been running scared the whole campaign.
Talk is that there's a Trump/Rubio deal and that's what we saw manifest recently with teaming up on Cruz. Pressure has been rolling on Kasich to try to get him out since he can seal the deal for Trump by staying in.
It's basically up to Democrats to decide if they want to win or not. Hillary will lose, Bernie will win. You can be right for the wrong reasons. It's hardly xenophobia powering his campaign. And the number of moderates he gets is impressive. I don't really think that was predicted either. If you don't think xenophobia/racism helped power his campaign in SC, we live in two different realities. I never said it's all R's vote on, but it's obviously a bigger component of the party than you are willing to admit. The establishment candidate thinks women who are raped, even by a family member, should be forced to have that rape child (although he would be willing to sign less strict regulations) The other contender thinks the same thing and adds that birth control is also abortion/murder. That sounds basically like what I was predicting/suggesting the whole time. No one is running on legitimately conservative economic plans, the conservative isn't even doing it, he's running on the religious conservative angle. The economic conservative was the first to be rejected by the voters. My point from all the other crap was that Republicans (and the country at large) don't back "conservative economics" no matter how much conservatives try to convince us that's what drives the Republican electorate. Amusingly, it was the establishment GOP who for years insisted on emphasizing economics at the expense of all other issues. He really is the middle finger voter choice, form what I see/ hear at this point. My analysis doesn't stop at Trump. But if it's just a middle finger vote, why not Cruz, who I presume must be your preferred candidate, and happens to also be the most conservative candidate Republicans have had the opportunity to pick in generations. Every election we've been told the Republicans need to nominate a conservative, but every time they don't and then we're supposed to believe that's not because Republicans and everyone else is rejecting them. Conservatives should just hop on board with breaking up the parties. Can go to 5 parties it's more or less how they break down naturally imo. I know it doesn't, you've been calling the GOP racist (in some form or another) for years. Isn't Trump doing well with people who normally don't vote? And independents (and lots of people going "Bernie or Trump?"). I'm not sure why you keep going off track. Cruz is still seen as a politician to Trump people. Trump still talks about having a "big beautiful door." Immigration is just one thing he uses to hammer people. See, I don't start from the assumption of Trump racism, so I don't see that as his appeal. But I could understand for someone like you, who already holds these idea at the start, that you could come to that conclusion. I thought Trump would fail because there were so many better people running, I didn't anticipate the size of the FU or the moderate appeal. You like to conflate a lot of various race related issues into "calling the GOP racist", but I don't think there's any doubt there's a significant segment, larger than you seem to want to admit, that is racist/bigoted/homophobic/etc... Just to give some credit, I don't think there was anything wrong with what Kasich said, it was an accurate description of what happened at that time, and he said it was a different time. His tone seemed to pine for that time but I'm not reading that far into it. I just want you to admit you're a Cruz supporter instead of trying to argue from a rhetorical perch by not having to have something compared to the alternative being suggested/said by the candidate you're supporting. It's not about any one thing he says, but it's not a coincidence how the lines break down of who finds Trump to be ist/phobic/etc... The same people who think Trump isn't are the same people who would say they aren't even if they get told what they are saying/doing is often. That's why you underestimated the moderate and "FU" vote. If you have noticed I have never shy'd away from the concept that the opinions we're talking about aren't exclusive to the GOP or that they can't be found in the camps of folks who are looking at Trump or Bernie. I mean we both remember the last Dem nomination. An interesting point is that if both Bernie and Trump are getting lots of brand new voters, that means tons of previous voters aren't showing up which is an interesting dynamic. I disagree. I didn't bring up Kasich or Cruz, you did. And I've defended Trump on things and am doing so now (in a way). Again, you approach this from the underlying assumption of racism and prejudice, and it continues to shine through. It's not a coincidence that people who see racism everywhere are the same people who see racism everywhere.
You conflate a lot of things into "racism" but there are legacies of "racism" everywhere, being blind to them doesn't make them go away.
|
On February 24 2016 10:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 09:53 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 24 2016 09:48 KwarK wrote:On February 24 2016 09:44 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 24 2016 09:39 Soap wrote:
The next largest presidential country has 28 parties represented in Congress, and we're not any better because of it. Agreed. Multiparty systems just means the largest and most organized bloc railroads all the disagreeing blocs. Not seeing how that is more democratic. Seems more like a good way to establish radical minority viewpoint rule. Having two parties forces more moderate decision making because each of the parties has to appeal to a much larger group of people**. ** though with demographic changes in America and the Republican party's decision to only rely on the white vote going forwards ... the two party trend towards moderation seems to be unraveling. Actually the opposite often applies. If one party has 45% and they go into coalition with another that has 10% then the 10% typically gets its agenda on the table more than the 22.5% of the time you'd think it should based on weighting. Neither can get anything done without the other. One of the criticisms of coalition rule is that it gives too much power to smaller parties, not too little. What about Canada? During the Harper years the 40% Conservative party ruled unopposed over the 20% Greens and 30% Liberals. Exactly? Canada uses first past the post to turn minority votes into majority seats. You can't have multiparty while using a simple plurality parliamentary system, you need PR to have multiparty. Canada supports my argument, not yours, because Canada was not multiparty, the Greens didn't win seats.
Okay, you are talking about something pretty different than the American system then. Something like the Israeli Knesset?
|
On February 24 2016 10:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 10:12 Introvert wrote:On February 24 2016 10:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 24 2016 09:45 Introvert wrote:On February 24 2016 09:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 24 2016 09:12 Introvert wrote:On February 24 2016 09:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 24 2016 08:38 Introvert wrote:On February 24 2016 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm glad people are finally waking up to Trump being the nominee. I think it validates a lot of what I've been saying for a long time but I suppose Introvert will still disagree.
On the spending side, there's been about $180,000,000 spent so far on the Republican side. Approximately $9m was used to attack Trump, they've been running scared the whole campaign.
Talk is that there's a Trump/Rubio deal and that's what we saw manifest recently with teaming up on Cruz. Pressure has been rolling on Kasich to try to get him out since he can seal the deal for Trump by staying in.
It's basically up to Democrats to decide if they want to win or not. Hillary will lose, Bernie will win. You can be right for the wrong reasons. It's hardly xenophobia powering his campaign. And the number of moderates he gets is impressive. I don't really think that was predicted either. If you don't think xenophobia/racism helped power his campaign in SC, we live in two different realities. I never said it's all R's vote on, but it's obviously a bigger component of the party than you are willing to admit. The establishment candidate thinks women who are raped, even by a family member, should be forced to have that rape child (although he would be willing to sign less strict regulations) The other contender thinks the same thing and adds that birth control is also abortion/murder. That sounds basically like what I was predicting/suggesting the whole time. No one is running on legitimately conservative economic plans, the conservative isn't even doing it, he's running on the religious conservative angle. The economic conservative was the first to be rejected by the voters. My point from all the other crap was that Republicans (and the country at large) don't back "conservative economics" no matter how much conservatives try to convince us that's what drives the Republican electorate. Amusingly, it was the establishment GOP who for years insisted on emphasizing economics at the expense of all other issues. He really is the middle finger voter choice, form what I see/ hear at this point. My analysis doesn't stop at Trump. But if it's just a middle finger vote, why not Cruz, who I presume must be your preferred candidate, and happens to also be the most conservative candidate Republicans have had the opportunity to pick in generations. Every election we've been told the Republicans need to nominate a conservative, but every time they don't and then we're supposed to believe that's not because Republicans and everyone else is rejecting them. Conservatives should just hop on board with breaking up the parties. Can go to 5 parties it's more or less how they break down naturally imo. I know it doesn't, you've been calling the GOP racist (in some form or another) for years. Isn't Trump doing well with people who normally don't vote? And independents (and lots of people going "Bernie or Trump?"). I'm not sure why you keep going off track. Cruz is still seen as a politician to Trump people. Trump still talks about having a "big beautiful door." Immigration is just one thing he uses to hammer people. See, I don't start from the assumption of Trump racism, so I don't see that as his appeal. But I could understand for someone like you, who already holds these idea at the start, that you could come to that conclusion. I thought Trump would fail because there were so many better people running, I didn't anticipate the size of the FU or the moderate appeal. You like to conflate a lot of various race related issues into "calling the GOP racist", but I don't think there's any doubt there's a significant segment, larger than you seem to want to admit, that is racist/bigoted/homophobic/etc... Just to give some credit, I don't think there was anything wrong with what Kasich said, it was an accurate description of what happened at that time, and he said it was a different time. His tone seemed to pine for that time but I'm not reading that far into it. I just want you to admit you're a Cruz supporter instead of trying to argue from a rhetorical perch by not having to have something compared to the alternative being suggested/said by the candidate you're supporting. It's not about any one thing he says, but it's not a coincidence how the lines break down of who finds Trump to be ist/phobic/etc... The same people who think Trump isn't are the same people who would say they aren't even if they get told what they are saying/doing is often. That's why you underestimated the moderate and "FU" vote. If you have noticed I have never shy'd away from the concept that the opinions we're talking about aren't exclusive to the GOP or that they can't be found in the camps of folks who are looking at Trump or Bernie. I mean we both remember the last Dem nomination. An interesting point is that if both Bernie and Trump are getting lots of brand new voters, that means tons of previous voters aren't showing up which is an interesting dynamic. I disagree. I didn't bring up Kasich or Cruz, you did. And I've defended Trump on things and am doing so now (in a way). Again, you approach this from the underlying assumption of racism and prejudice, and it continues to shine through. It's not a coincidence that people who see racism everywhere are the same people who see racism everywhere. You conflate a lot of things into "racism" but there are legacies of "racism" everywhere, being blind to them doesn't make them go away.
I am using it as a catch-all, yes.
|
On February 24 2016 09:26 Nyxisto wrote:
or maybe because he retweets stormfront memes, and the 'Islam is not a race' argument is still idiotic, we can stick with racist / bigot if the semantics are so bothersome
Trumps Twitter account loves white supremacist. And weird anime avatars. A true product of the worst parts of the Internet.
|
Canada11279 Posts
On February 24 2016 09:53 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 09:48 KwarK wrote:On February 24 2016 09:44 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 24 2016 09:39 Soap wrote:
The next largest presidential country has 28 parties represented in Congress, and we're not any better because of it. Agreed. Multiparty systems just means the largest and most organized bloc railroads all the disagreeing blocs. Not seeing how that is more democratic. Seems more like a good way to establish radical minority viewpoint rule. Having two parties forces more moderate decision making because each of the parties has to appeal to a much larger group of people**. ** though with demographic changes in America and the Republican party's decision to only rely on the white vote going forwards ... the two party trend towards moderation seems to be unraveling. Actually the opposite often applies. If one party has 45% and they go into coalition with another that has 10% then the 10% typically gets its agenda on the table more than the 22.5% of the time you'd think it should based on weighting. Neither can get anything done without the other. One of the criticisms of coalition rule is that it gives too much power to smaller parties, not too little. What about Canada? During the Harper years the 40% Conservative party ruled unopposed over the 20% Greens and 30% Liberals.
20% was the NDP. Green has never gotten above 7% and 4% of the vote got them their one seat in Victoria. We have FPTP, so 40% popular vote translated into over 50% of the seats, allowing them to rule unopposed. Similarly, the Liberals just won 40% of the popular vote with over 50% of the seat, allowing them to rule unopposed. 40% popular vote pretty much gets you 50% +1 for a majority government; it's been 60 years since a party got 50% of the popular vote, and mostly off a post WWII Liberal government. However, in Canada, it's still a fight for the centre. Regardless of what online partisans' spew about "Reformacons" and other nonsense, Harper swung the party towards the centre, shutting out the social conservative element. Even the NDP were tacking towards the centre this election; it didn't work for them because the Anything But Conservative vote coalesced around the Liberals, but clearly shows the fight is over the centre.
One of my concerns looking at the US elections is that seems like the centre is falling out. Consensus is falling away as one side tacks left and the other right. That means whichever side loses will feel like they REALLY lost, that the country is going in entirely the wrong direction, and in their eyes the winning side can do no wrong. We have the same thing (I think) in the Alberta election where the centre consensus fell apart, the side that tacked left won, leaving the side that tacked right feeling incredibly upset. On Facebook, I've filtered out every friend that moved to Alberta because I quickly tired of hearing their snarky griping. The polarization in the States seems worse, and whatever the results of this election, I don't envy the fall out.
|
|
|
On February 24 2016 09:26 Nyxisto wrote:
or maybe because he retweets stormfront memes,
Not sure what this is about.
On February 24 2016 09:26 Nyxisto wrote:
and the 'Islam is not a race' argument is still idiotic, we can stick with racist / bigot if the semantics are so bothersome
It's kind of important that people know the difference between a race and a religion if they're trying to identify prejudice based on it. I don't personally consider that religion or the inalienable right to enter a country at a given time are immutable attributes someone is born with.
On February 24 2016 09:31 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 09:22 oBlade wrote:On February 24 2016 08:58 m4ini wrote:On February 24 2016 08:38 Introvert wrote:On February 24 2016 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm glad people are finally waking up to Trump being the nominee. I think it validates a lot of what I've been saying for a long time but I suppose Introvert will still disagree.
On the spending side, there's been about $180,000,000 spent so far on the Republican side. Approximately $9m was used to attack Trump, they've been running scared the whole campaign.
Talk is that there's a Trump/Rubio deal and that's what we saw manifest recently with teaming up on Cruz. Pressure has been rolling on Kasich to try to get him out since he can seal the deal for Trump by staying in.
It's basically up to Democrats to decide if they want to win or not. Hillary will lose, Bernie will win. You can be right for the wrong reasons. It's hardly xenophobia powering his campaign. And the number of moderates he gets is impressive. I don't really think that was predicted either. No, by the actual definition of xenophobia, it wasn't. By how xenophobia is used commonly (mainly as a substitute for "racist"), well. You tell me. Main points of trump, constantly, is how chinese are bad people and fuck the US over, hispanic rapists/criminals and better building a wall, brown people in general that should be kept out of the country. Did i miss any ethnics? edit: and arguing that at least half his votes are based purely on the fact that he antagonizes different ethnics would be very.. brave. I wonder very much whether you've listened to Trump himself or just taken the MSM spin on him. For example, when you say "brown people," I think you're talking about his idea of a temporary ban on Muslims entering the US - Islam not being a race. Or when he said illegal immigrants were also criminals, you've twisted that to refer to hispanics, which isn't what he said or meant. And now you're saying "Chinese are bad people" when he's never said a single thing about the Chinese people - one of the only words in his vocabulary is "China" and it's because he's talking about international trade. You're the one making this about race. Just because Trump uses politically correct language to carefully not say anything openly racist doesn't mean that we can't hear and understand exactly what he means. Just ask any Trump supporter at his rallies about what they think about the Mexicans, the Muslims, and the Chinese. Trump has some dastardly policy in mind to hurt each of those groups of people (Wall, Ban, Discriminatory Trade). Trump talks of his policies and their virtues, which is politically correct. But the audience gets that those groups will be harmed. Edit: Also, don't use "race" as a dodge. Hating and hurting people because of identity group membership is pernicious even if it isn't strictly tied to skin color. Identity group here being: race, religion, country of origin, ethnicity. We don't blame people for those things and treat them as unchangeable. Post WWII it hasn't been morally acceptable to tailor policies to hurt people based on belonging to an identity group.
Have you asked them? The wall is not about hurting "Mexicans," it's about curbing illegal immigration. Maybe ask... the Hispanics who back Trump. I almost have no words that it's fallen to me to explain to you how international trade isn't about racism. And the idea of a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country isn't to hurt Muslims, it's about security. You might not agree, think it's a mistake, but that's what it's actually about.
|
your Country52797 Posts
It's... it's even worse than the democratic caucus?
|
The Republican side has no center. Just because you tack on "moderate" on Marco Rubio doesn't mean he's actually a moderate. He's a tea party conservative and is closer to Ted Cruz, both who are in favor of trickle down economics, than to Hillary.
We only have one moderate candidate in this race and it's Hillary.
|
On February 24 2016 10:33 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 09:26 Nyxisto wrote:
or maybe because he retweets stormfront memes, Not sure what this is about. Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 09:26 Nyxisto wrote:
and the 'Islam is not a race' argument is still idiotic, we can stick with racist / bigot if the semantics are so bothersome It's kind of important that people know the difference between a race and a religion if they're trying to identify prejudice based on it. I don't personally consider that religion or the inalienable right to enter a country at a given time are immutable attributes someone is born with. Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 09:31 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 24 2016 09:22 oBlade wrote:On February 24 2016 08:58 m4ini wrote:On February 24 2016 08:38 Introvert wrote:On February 24 2016 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm glad people are finally waking up to Trump being the nominee. I think it validates a lot of what I've been saying for a long time but I suppose Introvert will still disagree.
On the spending side, there's been about $180,000,000 spent so far on the Republican side. Approximately $9m was used to attack Trump, they've been running scared the whole campaign.
Talk is that there's a Trump/Rubio deal and that's what we saw manifest recently with teaming up on Cruz. Pressure has been rolling on Kasich to try to get him out since he can seal the deal for Trump by staying in.
It's basically up to Democrats to decide if they want to win or not. Hillary will lose, Bernie will win. You can be right for the wrong reasons. It's hardly xenophobia powering his campaign. And the number of moderates he gets is impressive. I don't really think that was predicted either. No, by the actual definition of xenophobia, it wasn't. By how xenophobia is used commonly (mainly as a substitute for "racist"), well. You tell me. Main points of trump, constantly, is how chinese are bad people and fuck the US over, hispanic rapists/criminals and better building a wall, brown people in general that should be kept out of the country. Did i miss any ethnics? edit: and arguing that at least half his votes are based purely on the fact that he antagonizes different ethnics would be very.. brave. I wonder very much whether you've listened to Trump himself or just taken the MSM spin on him. For example, when you say "brown people," I think you're talking about his idea of a temporary ban on Muslims entering the US - Islam not being a race. Or when he said illegal immigrants were also criminals, you've twisted that to refer to hispanics, which isn't what he said or meant. And now you're saying "Chinese are bad people" when he's never said a single thing about the Chinese people - one of the only words in his vocabulary is "China" and it's because he's talking about international trade. You're the one making this about race. Just because Trump uses politically correct language to carefully not say anything openly racist doesn't mean that we can't hear and understand exactly what he means. Just ask any Trump supporter at his rallies about what they think about the Mexicans, the Muslims, and the Chinese. Trump has some dastardly policy in mind to hurt each of those groups of people (Wall, Ban, Discriminatory Trade). Trump talks of his policies and their virtues, which is politically correct. But the audience gets that those groups will be harmed. Edit: Also, don't use "race" as a dodge. Hating and hurting people because of identity group membership is pernicious even if it isn't strictly tied to skin color. Identity group here being: race, religion, country of origin, ethnicity. We don't blame people for those things and treat them as unchangeable. Post WWII it hasn't been morally acceptable to tailor policies to hurt people based on belonging to an identity group. Have you asked them? The wall is not about hurting "Mexicans," it's about curbing illegal immigration. Maybe ask... the Hispanics who back Trump. I almost have no words that it's fallen to me to explain to you how international trade isn't about racism. And the idea of a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country isn't to hurt Muslims, it's about security. You might not agree, think it's a mistake, but that's what it's actually about.
can you maybe stop the act?
dog whistle politics is a thing, you claiming it doesn't exist doesn't make it so
|
United States42005 Posts
On February 24 2016 10:20 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2016 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 24 2016 09:53 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 24 2016 09:48 KwarK wrote:On February 24 2016 09:44 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On February 24 2016 09:39 Soap wrote:
The next largest presidential country has 28 parties represented in Congress, and we're not any better because of it. Agreed. Multiparty systems just means the largest and most organized bloc railroads all the disagreeing blocs. Not seeing how that is more democratic. Seems more like a good way to establish radical minority viewpoint rule. Having two parties forces more moderate decision making because each of the parties has to appeal to a much larger group of people**. ** though with demographic changes in America and the Republican party's decision to only rely on the white vote going forwards ... the two party trend towards moderation seems to be unraveling. Actually the opposite often applies. If one party has 45% and they go into coalition with another that has 10% then the 10% typically gets its agenda on the table more than the 22.5% of the time you'd think it should based on weighting. Neither can get anything done without the other. One of the criticisms of coalition rule is that it gives too much power to smaller parties, not too little. What about Canada? During the Harper years the 40% Conservative party ruled unopposed over the 20% Greens and 30% Liberals. Exactly? Canada uses first past the post to turn minority votes into majority seats. You can't have multiparty while using a simple plurality parliamentary system, you need PR to have multiparty. Canada supports my argument, not yours, because Canada was not multiparty, the Greens didn't win seats. Okay, you are talking about something pretty different than the American system then. Something like the Israeli Knesset?
Please look up different electoral systems. Simple plurality is predominant in ex-British possessions but is by no means the only system. Simple plurality inevitably creates a two party system (outside of extreme local variation (see Scottish National Party or Quebec's)) due to how it disproportionately favours the victor. Multiparty systems are almost always a variation on PR which, as I previously explained, typically result in coalitions which in turn typically give more influence than the votes suggest they should to minority parties.
|
On February 24 2016 10:33 oBlade wrote:
And the idea of a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country isn't to hurt Muslims, it's about security. You might not agree, think it's a mistake, but that's what it's actually about.
So where do you stand on this issue? You seem to want to be on the sidelines as if you're just here reporting his agenda. I know his agenda. I want to know if you actually believe this is the right move, and if so, how we should go about it.
|
Lol was just about to post this.
|
I can't wait for someone to tell Trump he stole the vote! roflmao.
|
Yeah nationalreview writer making a claim that can easily be proven with a picture but doesn't have one.
Oh she's just parroting a rubio source 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
