US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3401

On March 19 2016 18:41 Jibba wrote:

I'm pretty sure Testie has gotten bored with life, so lately he's taken to seeing how ridiculous he can be in this thread.

On March 19 2016 15:02 Mohdoo wrote:
Honest question: Why are people protesting a Trump rally? Why are they willing to get violent? Get a fucking job and find a better way to spend your time.

On March 19 2016 18:37 FuzzyJAM wrote:

What an odd post. IDK if English is a second language for you or something, but revolutions don't have to be violent.

On March 19 2016 15:02 Mohdoo wrote:
Honest question: Why are people protesting a Trump rally? Why are they willing to get violent? Get a fucking job and find a better way to spend your time.

On March 19 2016 14:55 wei2coolman wrote:



Kind reminder that Bernie Sanders has the moral high ground here. Trump does not. That's why Trump is getting blamed for all of this violence.

On March 19 2016 17:17 SK.Testie wrote:
Don't worry, Bernie's non-violent.

Surely his "inspiring" rhetoric against the rich boogeymen ruining the country isn't inciting people to do anything...
+ Show Spoiler +

Call it a revolution.. and anything can become justified. A shame millions voted for him, and he can't be held responsible for the actions of a few.

Attacking him for speaking on a 'low' (and easily understandable) level is not just petty and condescending, it's also very counter-productive in that it establishes part of his anti-elitist narrative as true. I mean, the 'I have the best words' line is hilarious and hard not to smile at, but if you want to stump the trump, telling his supporters that they are dumb is not the way to do it... While you might argue that american education is a partial failure showcased by how you have to speak at a 4th grade level to reach out to the disenfranchised masses, that actually isn't Trump's fault.

On March 19 2016 22:48 farvacola wrote:

I disagree with the notion that "any criticism" is counterproductive; like Drone implies, there are a number of significantly more meaningful lines of criticism that can be directed at Trump relative to the actual merits of his candidacy, i.e. grasp of the issues, diplomatic competency, and willingness to work with others, just to name a scant few. Focusing on the quality and register of his language skills is to miss the forest for the trees, I think, but that doesn't mean that the woods aren't worth going into

On March 19 2016 20:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Agreed, him saying 'very' and 'totally' in front of his adjectives rather than use more advanced descriptive words is irrelevant. The problems are a) he constantly lies, b) his message is one of hatred and division and c) he presents simplistic solutions to complex problems.

Attacking him for speaking on a 'low' (and easily understandable) level is not just petty and condescending, it's also very counter-productive in that it establishes part of his anti-elitist narrative as true. I mean, the 'I have the best words' line is hilarious and hard not to smile at, but if you want to stump the trump, telling his supporters that they are dumb is not the way to do it... While you might argue that american education is a partial failure showcased by how you have to speak at a 4th grade level to reach out to the disenfranchised masses, that actually isn't Trump's fault.

Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois on Friday became the first Republican senator to call for an up-or-down vote on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, saying on a Chicago radio show that his colleagues ought to “just man up and cast a vote.”

That Kirk would be first to break with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other GOP colleagues, who believe the next president should pick the replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, is not particularly surprising: Kirk was already one of two Republican senators, with Susan Collins of Maine, to call for hearings.

Kirk faces what is perhaps the most difficult Senate reelection race in the nation — running during a presidential election year as a Republican in a state that hasn’t voted for a Republican president since George H.W. Bush in 1988. He is pitted against Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D), who has already sought to tie Kirk to national Republicans, including GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump.

Further complicating matters for Kirk is that Garland grew up in Illinois, in a Chicago suburb only a few miles from the border of the congressional district Kirk used to represent.

Kirk, speaking Friday morning on WLS-AM, said that the Senate “should go through the process the Constitution has already laid out” but that he did not see McConnell relenting before the election.

“I think given Mitch’s view, I don’t see his view changing too much,” Kirk said. “Eventually we will have an election, and we will have a new president, and the new president will come forward with a nomination.”

Among Senate Republicans, only Kirk and Collins have said they favor holding hearings on Garland’s nomination. Several others have said they would grant a courtesy meeting but only to inform Garland of their position against taking up his nomination.

On March 19 2016 23:05 farvacola wrote:

Ahh, but that line of thinking would necessarily conclude that critical political discourse is inherently unproductive, and I genuinely do not think that that is the case. For example, I recently had a discussion with a fellow law student that challenges that conclusion. Having been a fan of Trump, he hadn't really critically engaged with the substance of Trump's platform and had instead built up a defense of Trump that revolved around brushing off CNN -style attacks directed towards Trump's hair, demeanor, and word use. Given the deplorable quality of media coverage relative to Trump, who can blame him? Once prompted to actually interact with some of Trump's ideas, he rather quickly admitted that many of them were not workable and that some of the more troubling ones, namely Trump's approach to diplomacy and immigration, would in fact harm the United States in the long run. All it took was some respectful criticism directed towards Trump's substance rather than his style.

Now, what's interesting to ponder is whether or not Trump is aware of the fact that his campaign's merits don't stand up to scrutiny outside the inflammatory realm of the mainstream media. I'm not sure myself, though I do think he's more of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" kind of guy rather than a master strategist.