|
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 May 10 2016 03:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2016 02:41 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2016 02:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 09 2016 11:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 10:51 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2016 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 10:34 Introvert wrote:
Only reason the dumb pledge was necessary was because of Trump's whining about being "treated fairly." And he was still hedging even after he signed it. Trump deserves no loyalty, and I assume most of the other 60% of GOP primary voters would agree. Paul Ryan isn't obliged to go along with every asinine comment Trump makes. Especially considering that his own district went against Trump like 2:1.
I have my own issues with Ryan, but his comments were 100% correct and appropriate. If Trump says he doesn't want certain people, then they are released to go elsewhere. Majorities of republican voters are supporting Trump and his message. If the GOP isn't going to support Trump, then they will be flaunting the will of their voters. I don't think that such action will end well for the GOP. He didn't have a majority in a single state until New York, if memory serves. He has like 40% of the popular vote. He's deeply polarizing, and chances are, quite toxic. So imo they are smart to stay away. Remember he only got close because of the various front-runner biased state rules. He hasn't a majority of the vote in the early states because he has been running against a large field. Once the field shrank down to four candidate, he was reliably scoring majorities in the states that he ran. So yes, I think that it is fair to say that a majority of republicans are supporting him now. They may not find him to be their perfect candidate (myself included), but they are going to back him as the best option nonetheless. You are going to vote for this lunatic? Wow. Just wow. Better him than Hillary, who is demonstrably incompetent. Oh man... I don't even know what to say. Well, someone (not Churchill) said that the best argument against democracy is a five minutes conversation with the average voter; I guess you are a pretty good illustration. That you can think that someone who didn't bother to utter anything true, that made one burlesque proposal after another, that fuels hatred and bigotry and whose main attributes are to be a vulgar, boastful, and a complete bully is a better choice than one of America's most experienced politician, I am pretty fucking sad for you. The saddest thing is that you seem like a reasonably well informed person. And that's depressing; to see resentful and completely ignorant people voting for him is bad enough; but that someone able to have more or less a rational discussion is backing up this clown is just beyond me. Anyway. Germans voted for Hitler, Italians Mussolini, French people are voting for Le Pen and English for Farage. If people decide to go full stupid, there is little to do. I guess that's the price to pay for democracy. Seriously, voting is a responsibility. Get back to planet earth.
Why I (and many others) support Trump over Hillary really isn't that hard to understand. Those who purport to not understand it are either idiots or liars. Your post is fairly emblematic of the latter possibility. Trump's platform, such as it is, far more closely aligns with my personal views than Hillary's. For that reason alone, I'd rather roll the dice with Trump than vote for Hillary. Second, and to the extent that Trump has personality/character problems, Hillary has a whole freight train's worth of her own, which you are more than happy to overlook. She's a liar. She's crooked. Most importantly, she has a demonstrable record of failure from Hillarycare through her time as Secretary of State (which was particularly bad). It's not like people who support Trump are passing on some prodigy. Hillary is a middling politician at best.
Finally, I want Trump elected as a gigantic "fuck you" to the current political and cultural establishments, which are both rotten. I've railed plenty against the GOP recently, so I'll pass on elaborating there. On the cultural side, I deeply resent the current oppression that the left has imposed on political and societal discourse. We presently can't even have intelligent discussions about things like immigration policy for fear of getting pulled over by the PC police. Trump has already reopened lines of discourse, and his election will cement those gains and accelerate the acceptance of true free speech once again. That, in and of itself, is worth a ride on the Trump train.
Seriously, some of you leftists around here need to spend a good solid five minutes with your heads out of your asses and take the time to actually understand the opposing point of view rather than post drivel such as Biff's above. The level of discourse around here from most of you is fucking sad.
|
Some of us took 10 minutes and decided some people go a long way to convince themselves something is a good idea. And that terrible people like McCarthy were also elected by popular vote.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On May 10 2016 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:I think that Gillibrand scoring "worse" than Bernie on the "lifetime" list, but 67th in 2015, while basically being a Clinton surrogate in the senate, shows that as the meaningless metric it is. + Show Spoiler + Kirsten E. Gillibrand next year, the new senator is acquiring a major advantage: much of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s extensive New York network of campaign operatives, donors and advisers.
Since Ms. Gillibrand was appointed in January, top Clinton aides have signed on to her campaign or Senate staff. Others with ties to Mrs. Clinton have worked to help smooth over rifts with groups that are skeptical of Ms. Gillibrand’s relatively conservative voting record. Some of Mrs. Clinton’s top presidential fund-raisers have joined Ms. Gillibrand’s finance team to help her raise the $70 million or more she will need for the 2010 and 2012 elections.
And while Mrs. Clinton seems likely to shy away from electoral politics now that she is secretary of state, there is little doubt about where the Clintons’ loyalty lies: On Wednesday, Bill Clinton himself will headline an Upper East Side fund-raiser for Ms. Gillibrand.
“Kirsten has inspired the band to get back together,” said Karen Finney, who was a deputy press secretary for Mrs. Clinton in the White House and is now advising Ms. Gillibrand. “It’s nice to be working for another great woman from New York.” Link
on the contrary, this shows that hillary friend kirsten is pretty liberal. it doesn't invalidate the partisan measurement
|
Of all the stupid things Trump has said, his recent quotes about Debt may be the dumbest.
Classic example in the difference in understanding between a businessman and an economist. Complete disregard for the obvious inherent, and catastrophic, consequences of his plans. Thinking of the problem in purely a "is it immediately good for us" mindset is dangerous (a word I often associate with Trump).
|
In response to electing Trump to signify contempt of the current establishment: This is why I think there should be an option on ballots for None of the above; with real consequences if None of the above wins.
So that there's a way for people to express contempt/disagreement if they don't like any of the choices, and do so in a meaningful way.
I can totally see why xdaunt thinks Trump is preferable to Hillary; I just think that that conclusion is based on some unsound premises.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
and hillary haters need to actually read her platform first. it's a bit of a tome but it is also basic principles to know what you are criticizing.
|
Trump doesn't actually stand for anything though. He's pretty much incoherent.
I get you dislike the GOP and I sincerely wish we had a functioning conservative party (the Democrats aren't exactly a well run machine either). I also wholeheartedly agree that what you call the PC police is a problem. However Trump is not the answer, like you said he's just a fuck you.
|
On May 10 2016 04:52 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2016 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:I think that Gillibrand scoring "worse" than Bernie on the "lifetime" list, but 67th in 2015, while basically being a Clinton surrogate in the senate, shows that as the meaningless metric it is. + Show Spoiler + Kirsten E. Gillibrand next year, the new senator is acquiring a major advantage: much of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s extensive New York network of campaign operatives, donors and advisers.
Since Ms. Gillibrand was appointed in January, top Clinton aides have signed on to her campaign or Senate staff. Others with ties to Mrs. Clinton have worked to help smooth over rifts with groups that are skeptical of Ms. Gillibrand’s relatively conservative voting record. Some of Mrs. Clinton’s top presidential fund-raisers have joined Ms. Gillibrand’s finance team to help her raise the $70 million or more she will need for the 2010 and 2012 elections.
And while Mrs. Clinton seems likely to shy away from electoral politics now that she is secretary of state, there is little doubt about where the Clintons’ loyalty lies: On Wednesday, Bill Clinton himself will headline an Upper East Side fund-raiser for Ms. Gillibrand.
“Kirsten has inspired the band to get back together,” said Karen Finney, who was a deputy press secretary for Mrs. Clinton in the White House and is now advising Ms. Gillibrand. “It’s nice to be working for another great woman from New York.” Link on the contrary, this shows that hillary friend kirsten is pretty liberal. it doesn't invalidate the partisan measurement
It just shows that a single year isn't representative of much, and that it's meaningless regarding what it says about a particular individual in relation to the election.
Random open question: Is this the first time in history the Republican nominee has donated to the Democratic nominee's previous presidential/senatorial campaigns?
|
On May 10 2016 04:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2016 03:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 10 2016 02:41 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2016 02:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 09 2016 11:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 10:51 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2016 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 10:34 Introvert wrote:
Only reason the dumb pledge was necessary was because of Trump's whining about being "treated fairly." And he was still hedging even after he signed it. Trump deserves no loyalty, and I assume most of the other 60% of GOP primary voters would agree. Paul Ryan isn't obliged to go along with every asinine comment Trump makes. Especially considering that his own district went against Trump like 2:1.
I have my own issues with Ryan, but his comments were 100% correct and appropriate. If Trump says he doesn't want certain people, then they are released to go elsewhere. Majorities of republican voters are supporting Trump and his message. If the GOP isn't going to support Trump, then they will be flaunting the will of their voters. I don't think that such action will end well for the GOP. He didn't have a majority in a single state until New York, if memory serves. He has like 40% of the popular vote. He's deeply polarizing, and chances are, quite toxic. So imo they are smart to stay away. Remember he only got close because of the various front-runner biased state rules. He hasn't a majority of the vote in the early states because he has been running against a large field. Once the field shrank down to four candidate, he was reliably scoring majorities in the states that he ran. So yes, I think that it is fair to say that a majority of republicans are supporting him now. They may not find him to be their perfect candidate (myself included), but they are going to back him as the best option nonetheless. You are going to vote for this lunatic? Wow. Just wow. Better him than Hillary, who is demonstrably incompetent. Oh man... I don't even know what to say. Well, someone (not Churchill) said that the best argument against democracy is a five minutes conversation with the average voter; I guess you are a pretty good illustration. That you can think that someone who didn't bother to utter anything true, that made one burlesque proposal after another, that fuels hatred and bigotry and whose main attributes are to be a vulgar, boastful, and a complete bully is a better choice than one of America's most experienced politician, I am pretty fucking sad for you. The saddest thing is that you seem like a reasonably well informed person. And that's depressing; to see resentful and completely ignorant people voting for him is bad enough; but that someone able to have more or less a rational discussion is backing up this clown is just beyond me. Anyway. Germans voted for Hitler, Italians Mussolini, French people are voting for Le Pen and English for Farage. If people decide to go full stupid, there is little to do. I guess that's the price to pay for democracy. Seriously, voting is a responsibility. Get back to planet earth. Why I (and many others) support Trump over Hillary really isn't that hard to understand. Those who purport to not understand it are either idiots or liars. Your post is fairly emblematic of the latter possibility. Trump's platform, such as it is, far more closely aligns with my personal views than Hillary's. For that reason alone, I'd rather roll the dice with Trump than vote for Hillary. Second, and to the extent that Trump has personality/character problems, Hillary has a whole freight train's worth of her own, which you are more than happy to overlook. She's a liar. She's crooked. Most importantly, she has a demonstrable record of failure from Hillarycare through her time as Secretary of State (which was particularly bad). It's not like people who support Trump are passing on some prodigy. Hillary is a middling politician at best. Finally, I want Trump elected as a gigantic "fuck you" to the current political and cultural establishments, which are both rotten. I've railed plenty against the GOP recently, so I'll pass on elaborating there. On the cultural side, I deeply resent the current oppression that the left has imposed on political and societal discourse. We presently can't even have intelligent discussions about things like immigration policy for fear of getting pulled over by the PC police. Trump has already reopened lines of discourse, and his election will cement those gains and accelerate the acceptance of true free speech once again. That, in and of itself, is worth a ride on the Trump train. Seriously, some of you leftists around here need to spend a good solid five minutes with your heads out of your asses and take the time to actually understand the opposing point of view rather than post drivel such as Biff's above. The level of discourse around here from most of you is fucking sad.
If you want to burn up your vote to say "fuck you" to the establishment, then that's your right, but if you're going to do that, you also have to accept ethical responsibility if that "fuck you" ends up completely destroying the welfare of this country when you knowingly voted for someone just to cause political upheaval.
|
On the cultural side, I deeply resent the current oppression that the left has imposed on political and societal discourse. We presently can't even have intelligent discussions about things like immigration policy for fear of getting pulled over by the PC police.
Must be hard out there for you, the oppression must be overwhelming. I admire your strength in the face of such adversity. I hope one day America can put an end to such oppression, surely no American deserves to live under such a yoke and no American can stand idle while others do.
|
On May 10 2016 05:03 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2016 04:44 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2016 03:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 10 2016 02:41 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2016 02:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 09 2016 11:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 10:51 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2016 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 10:34 Introvert wrote:
Only reason the dumb pledge was necessary was because of Trump's whining about being "treated fairly." And he was still hedging even after he signed it. Trump deserves no loyalty, and I assume most of the other 60% of GOP primary voters would agree. Paul Ryan isn't obliged to go along with every asinine comment Trump makes. Especially considering that his own district went against Trump like 2:1.
I have my own issues with Ryan, but his comments were 100% correct and appropriate. If Trump says he doesn't want certain people, then they are released to go elsewhere. Majorities of republican voters are supporting Trump and his message. If the GOP isn't going to support Trump, then they will be flaunting the will of their voters. I don't think that such action will end well for the GOP. He didn't have a majority in a single state until New York, if memory serves. He has like 40% of the popular vote. He's deeply polarizing, and chances are, quite toxic. So imo they are smart to stay away. Remember he only got close because of the various front-runner biased state rules. He hasn't a majority of the vote in the early states because he has been running against a large field. Once the field shrank down to four candidate, he was reliably scoring majorities in the states that he ran. So yes, I think that it is fair to say that a majority of republicans are supporting him now. They may not find him to be their perfect candidate (myself included), but they are going to back him as the best option nonetheless. You are going to vote for this lunatic? Wow. Just wow. Better him than Hillary, who is demonstrably incompetent. Oh man... I don't even know what to say. Well, someone (not Churchill) said that the best argument against democracy is a five minutes conversation with the average voter; I guess you are a pretty good illustration. That you can think that someone who didn't bother to utter anything true, that made one burlesque proposal after another, that fuels hatred and bigotry and whose main attributes are to be a vulgar, boastful, and a complete bully is a better choice than one of America's most experienced politician, I am pretty fucking sad for you. The saddest thing is that you seem like a reasonably well informed person. And that's depressing; to see resentful and completely ignorant people voting for him is bad enough; but that someone able to have more or less a rational discussion is backing up this clown is just beyond me. Anyway. Germans voted for Hitler, Italians Mussolini, French people are voting for Le Pen and English for Farage. If people decide to go full stupid, there is little to do. I guess that's the price to pay for democracy. Seriously, voting is a responsibility. Get back to planet earth. Why I (and many others) support Trump over Hillary really isn't that hard to understand. Those who purport to not understand it are either idiots or liars. Your post is fairly emblematic of the latter possibility. Trump's platform, such as it is, far more closely aligns with my personal views than Hillary's. For that reason alone, I'd rather roll the dice with Trump than vote for Hillary. Second, and to the extent that Trump has personality/character problems, Hillary has a whole freight train's worth of her own, which you are more than happy to overlook. She's a liar. She's crooked. Most importantly, she has a demonstrable record of failure from Hillarycare through her time as Secretary of State (which was particularly bad). It's not like people who support Trump are passing on some prodigy. Hillary is a middling politician at best. Finally, I want Trump elected as a gigantic "fuck you" to the current political and cultural establishments, which are both rotten. I've railed plenty against the GOP recently, so I'll pass on elaborating there. On the cultural side, I deeply resent the current oppression that the left has imposed on political and societal discourse. We presently can't even have intelligent discussions about things like immigration policy for fear of getting pulled over by the PC police. Trump has already reopened lines of discourse, and his election will cement those gains and accelerate the acceptance of true free speech once again. That, in and of itself, is worth a ride on the Trump train. Seriously, some of you leftists around here need to spend a good solid five minutes with your heads out of your asses and take the time to actually understand the opposing point of view rather than post drivel such as Biff's above. The level of discourse around here from most of you is fucking sad. If you want to burn up your vote to say "fuck you" to the establishment, then that's your right, but if you're going to do that, you also have to accept ethical responsibility if that "fuck you" ends up completely destroying the welfare of this country when you knowingly voted for someone just to cause political upheaval.
Well, lets be honest, Bernie would be much more destructive to the status quo than Trump is. Not because Trump doesn't want to do bad things--he does. But Trump is not a politician and will have a much harder time getting things done when yelling loudly and publicly stops being effective on people like other foreign leaders and congressmen/senators. Bernie, while having lots of bad ideas, and lots of ideas that will destroy the democratic party, at least has enough resistance against him to prevent anything too bad from happening--but not enough resistance to actually stop bad things from happening.
|
On May 09 2016 13:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 13:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2016 13:05 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
Record number of primary voters, and apparently most of them were motivated to vote for someone besides Trump. So that argument holds no water. And turnout is an interesting, considering that the 5 states he won with over 50% had some of the lowest voter turnout percentages in this whole cycle. So basically people gave up opposing him after New York. There is no great drive for Trump. He has his cultists, but most are less than pleased, even if they'll hold their nose and pull the lever. Who, exactly, do you think that the voters at the margin (ie those voters who voted in the GOP primary who normally wouldn't, thereby allowing for the record turnout) voted for? And your insistence upon ignoring the significance of Trump's large plurality victories in the crowded, early primaries, combined with Trump's recent majority victories, badly betrays your bias. Facts are facts, dude. Give him a month or so, he'll be "reluctantly voting for Trump" though he'll probably never admit to it here. Couldn't even own supporting Cruz for some inexplicable reason. I'm not so sure. You can break down the Republicans into three categories: 1) those who fervently support Trump and his platform (as they perceive it), 2) those who will support whoever is the GOP nominee by default (because they detest the thought of another Clinton in the White House), and 3) those conservative/neoconservative/GOP voters who understand that Trump's platform is largely anathema to their own political ideologies and will thus oppose him vehemently. There are a lot of people on the Right who have a lot to lose if Trump is elected.
I would also say there is a 4th category of people who just do not support him specifically outside of policies and will not vote for him. They see a general lack of understanding and often contradictory positions which make no sense coupled with a general childish attitude while campaigning and say he is not someone they can responsibly vote for as president. I know quite a few people in that category who like some of the things he says but just would never vote for him because of the antics he has pulled and his general stupidity about many issues while pretending he knows everything.
|
On May 10 2016 04:54 zlefin wrote:
In response to electing Trump to signify contempt of the current establishment: This is why I think there should be an option on ballots for None of the above; with real consequences if None of the above wins.
So that there's a way for people to express contempt/disagreement if they don't like any of the choices, and do so in a meaningful way.
I can totally see why xdaunt thinks Trump is preferable to Hillary; I just think that that conclusion is based on some unsound premises.
At all levels or just the presidency? What would be an example of the consequences? Not an unfilled office, right?
|
I have to side with Oblade on this one, there are offices that must be filled. Especially the oval office, since our military has limited powers to act without a commander and chief. None of the above is not an option.
|
On May 10 2016 05:03 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2016 04:44 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2016 03:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 10 2016 02:41 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2016 02:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 09 2016 11:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 10:51 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2016 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 10:34 Introvert wrote:
Only reason the dumb pledge was necessary was because of Trump's whining about being "treated fairly." And he was still hedging even after he signed it. Trump deserves no loyalty, and I assume most of the other 60% of GOP primary voters would agree. Paul Ryan isn't obliged to go along with every asinine comment Trump makes. Especially considering that his own district went against Trump like 2:1.
I have my own issues with Ryan, but his comments were 100% correct and appropriate. If Trump says he doesn't want certain people, then they are released to go elsewhere. Majorities of republican voters are supporting Trump and his message. If the GOP isn't going to support Trump, then they will be flaunting the will of their voters. I don't think that such action will end well for the GOP. He didn't have a majority in a single state until New York, if memory serves. He has like 40% of the popular vote. He's deeply polarizing, and chances are, quite toxic. So imo they are smart to stay away. Remember he only got close because of the various front-runner biased state rules. He hasn't a majority of the vote in the early states because he has been running against a large field. Once the field shrank down to four candidate, he was reliably scoring majorities in the states that he ran. So yes, I think that it is fair to say that a majority of republicans are supporting him now. They may not find him to be their perfect candidate (myself included), but they are going to back him as the best option nonetheless. You are going to vote for this lunatic? Wow. Just wow. Better him than Hillary, who is demonstrably incompetent. Oh man... I don't even know what to say. Well, someone (not Churchill) said that the best argument against democracy is a five minutes conversation with the average voter; I guess you are a pretty good illustration. That you can think that someone who didn't bother to utter anything true, that made one burlesque proposal after another, that fuels hatred and bigotry and whose main attributes are to be a vulgar, boastful, and a complete bully is a better choice than one of America's most experienced politician, I am pretty fucking sad for you. The saddest thing is that you seem like a reasonably well informed person. And that's depressing; to see resentful and completely ignorant people voting for him is bad enough; but that someone able to have more or less a rational discussion is backing up this clown is just beyond me. Anyway. Germans voted for Hitler, Italians Mussolini, French people are voting for Le Pen and English for Farage. If people decide to go full stupid, there is little to do. I guess that's the price to pay for democracy. Seriously, voting is a responsibility. Get back to planet earth. Why I (and many others) support Trump over Hillary really isn't that hard to understand. Those who purport to not understand it are either idiots or liars. Your post is fairly emblematic of the latter possibility. Trump's platform, such as it is, far more closely aligns with my personal views than Hillary's. For that reason alone, I'd rather roll the dice with Trump than vote for Hillary. Second, and to the extent that Trump has personality/character problems, Hillary has a whole freight train's worth of her own, which you are more than happy to overlook. She's a liar. She's crooked. Most importantly, she has a demonstrable record of failure from Hillarycare through her time as Secretary of State (which was particularly bad). It's not like people who support Trump are passing on some prodigy. Hillary is a middling politician at best. Finally, I want Trump elected as a gigantic "fuck you" to the current political and cultural establishments, which are both rotten. I've railed plenty against the GOP recently, so I'll pass on elaborating there. On the cultural side, I deeply resent the current oppression that the left has imposed on political and societal discourse. We presently can't even have intelligent discussions about things like immigration policy for fear of getting pulled over by the PC police. Trump has already reopened lines of discourse, and his election will cement those gains and accelerate the acceptance of true free speech once again. That, in and of itself, is worth a ride on the Trump train. Seriously, some of you leftists around here need to spend a good solid five minutes with your heads out of your asses and take the time to actually understand the opposing point of view rather than post drivel such as Biff's above. The level of discourse around here from most of you is fucking sad. If you want to burn up your vote to say "fuck you" to the establishment, then that's your right, but if you're going to do that, you also have to accept ethical responsibility if that "fuck you" ends up completely destroying the welfare of this country when you knowingly voted for someone just to cause political upheaval.
Fair enough. But we are about to wrap up eight years of Obama, and if his presidency tells us anything, it tells us that the political establishment and institutions are remarkably resilient to whatever the president may choose to do. In short, worrying about Trump wrecking the country is largely hyperbolic.
|
On May 10 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2016 05:03 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 10 2016 04:44 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2016 03:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 10 2016 02:41 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2016 02:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 09 2016 11:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 10:51 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2016 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 10:34 Introvert wrote:
Only reason the dumb pledge was necessary was because of Trump's whining about being "treated fairly." And he was still hedging even after he signed it. Trump deserves no loyalty, and I assume most of the other 60% of GOP primary voters would agree. Paul Ryan isn't obliged to go along with every asinine comment Trump makes. Especially considering that his own district went against Trump like 2:1.
I have my own issues with Ryan, but his comments were 100% correct and appropriate. If Trump says he doesn't want certain people, then they are released to go elsewhere. Majorities of republican voters are supporting Trump and his message. If the GOP isn't going to support Trump, then they will be flaunting the will of their voters. I don't think that such action will end well for the GOP. He didn't have a majority in a single state until New York, if memory serves. He has like 40% of the popular vote. He's deeply polarizing, and chances are, quite toxic. So imo they are smart to stay away. Remember he only got close because of the various front-runner biased state rules. He hasn't a majority of the vote in the early states because he has been running against a large field. Once the field shrank down to four candidate, he was reliably scoring majorities in the states that he ran. So yes, I think that it is fair to say that a majority of republicans are supporting him now. They may not find him to be their perfect candidate (myself included), but they are going to back him as the best option nonetheless. You are going to vote for this lunatic? Wow. Just wow. Better him than Hillary, who is demonstrably incompetent. Oh man... I don't even know what to say. Well, someone (not Churchill) said that the best argument against democracy is a five minutes conversation with the average voter; I guess you are a pretty good illustration. That you can think that someone who didn't bother to utter anything true, that made one burlesque proposal after another, that fuels hatred and bigotry and whose main attributes are to be a vulgar, boastful, and a complete bully is a better choice than one of America's most experienced politician, I am pretty fucking sad for you. The saddest thing is that you seem like a reasonably well informed person. And that's depressing; to see resentful and completely ignorant people voting for him is bad enough; but that someone able to have more or less a rational discussion is backing up this clown is just beyond me. Anyway. Germans voted for Hitler, Italians Mussolini, French people are voting for Le Pen and English for Farage. If people decide to go full stupid, there is little to do. I guess that's the price to pay for democracy. Seriously, voting is a responsibility. Get back to planet earth. Why I (and many others) support Trump over Hillary really isn't that hard to understand. Those who purport to not understand it are either idiots or liars. Your post is fairly emblematic of the latter possibility. Trump's platform, such as it is, far more closely aligns with my personal views than Hillary's. For that reason alone, I'd rather roll the dice with Trump than vote for Hillary. Second, and to the extent that Trump has personality/character problems, Hillary has a whole freight train's worth of her own, which you are more than happy to overlook. She's a liar. She's crooked. Most importantly, she has a demonstrable record of failure from Hillarycare through her time as Secretary of State (which was particularly bad). It's not like people who support Trump are passing on some prodigy. Hillary is a middling politician at best. Finally, I want Trump elected as a gigantic "fuck you" to the current political and cultural establishments, which are both rotten. I've railed plenty against the GOP recently, so I'll pass on elaborating there. On the cultural side, I deeply resent the current oppression that the left has imposed on political and societal discourse. We presently can't even have intelligent discussions about things like immigration policy for fear of getting pulled over by the PC police. Trump has already reopened lines of discourse, and his election will cement those gains and accelerate the acceptance of true free speech once again. That, in and of itself, is worth a ride on the Trump train. Seriously, some of you leftists around here need to spend a good solid five minutes with your heads out of your asses and take the time to actually understand the opposing point of view rather than post drivel such as Biff's above. The level of discourse around here from most of you is fucking sad. If you want to burn up your vote to say "fuck you" to the establishment, then that's your right, but if you're going to do that, you also have to accept ethical responsibility if that "fuck you" ends up completely destroying the welfare of this country when you knowingly voted for someone just to cause political upheaval. Fair enough. But we are about to wrap up eight years of Obama, and if his presidency tells us anything, it tells us that the political establishment and institutions are remarkably resilient to whatever the president may choose to do. In short, worrying about Trump wrecking the country is largely hyperbolic.
"Trump winning the GOP primary" and "Trump destroying the GOP" used to be largely hyperbolic as well. Look at where we're at now. Trump's won and the GOP has been completely decimated, with no leadership and zero party unification.
|
On May 10 2016 04:54 zlefin wrote:
In response to electing Trump to signify contempt of the current establishment: This is why I think there should be an option on ballots for None of the above; with real consequences if None of the above wins.
So that there's a way for people to express contempt/disagreement if they don't like any of the choices, and do so in a meaningful way.
In Brazil we have that option, but in practical terms it's never mattered because it requires too much social coordination for None of the above to actually win.
Oh, and the consequences are redoing the elections actually it's a grey area (conflicting legislation), nobody is 100% sure.
|
On May 10 2016 05:21 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2016 04:54 zlefin wrote:
In response to electing Trump to signify contempt of the current establishment: This is why I think there should be an option on ballots for None of the above; with real consequences if None of the above wins.
So that there's a way for people to express contempt/disagreement if they don't like any of the choices, and do so in a meaningful way.
I can totally see why xdaunt thinks Trump is preferable to Hillary; I just think that that conclusion is based on some unsound premises. At all levels or just the presidency? What would be an example of the consequences? Not an unfilled office, right?
at all levels; I'd say in fact it's more important at low levels. At the presidency there's always at least two candidates, and often several primary options. But for some state and city offices, they're just entirely uncontested; noone else runs, either from the other party or in a primary. This means even if you don't like the guy you can't get rid of them by voting.
I wouldn't leave the offices unfilled; I'm not sure what the optimal filling method is, but for most offices there are rules that establish how they will be filled if they are vacant, since vacancies occur periodically by death, every office that has stuff that needs to be done has some sort of rule, typically appointment by an appropriate executive (governor, mayor, president); some have deputies who automatically take over.
For consequences: I'd say they don't get the job, and they can't be put into the job (or an equivalent one) by appointment (for filling the vacancy), and maybe they can't be put into any other appointed/hired government position either. I mean, if you manage to lose to "none of the above", it's reasonable to assume people don't want you in government; and I want there to be some real consequences. The shame of losing to none of the above may not be enough on its own.
These are just rough drafts of course; if we were to actually implement such a thing, I'd want some smart people to spend some serious time thinking about the details.
|
On May 10 2016 04:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2016 03:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 10 2016 02:41 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2016 02:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 09 2016 11:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 10:51 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2016 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 10:34 Introvert wrote:
Only reason the dumb pledge was necessary was because of Trump's whining about being "treated fairly." And he was still hedging even after he signed it. Trump deserves no loyalty, and I assume most of the other 60% of GOP primary voters would agree. Paul Ryan isn't obliged to go along with every asinine comment Trump makes. Especially considering that his own district went against Trump like 2:1.
I have my own issues with Ryan, but his comments were 100% correct and appropriate. If Trump says he doesn't want certain people, then they are released to go elsewhere. Majorities of republican voters are supporting Trump and his message. If the GOP isn't going to support Trump, then they will be flaunting the will of their voters. I don't think that such action will end well for the GOP. He didn't have a majority in a single state until New York, if memory serves. He has like 40% of the popular vote. He's deeply polarizing, and chances are, quite toxic. So imo they are smart to stay away. Remember he only got close because of the various front-runner biased state rules. He hasn't a majority of the vote in the early states because he has been running against a large field. Once the field shrank down to four candidate, he was reliably scoring majorities in the states that he ran. So yes, I think that it is fair to say that a majority of republicans are supporting him now. They may not find him to be their perfect candidate (myself included), but they are going to back him as the best option nonetheless. You are going to vote for this lunatic? Wow. Just wow. Better him than Hillary, who is demonstrably incompetent. Oh man... I don't even know what to say. Well, someone (not Churchill) said that the best argument against democracy is a five minutes conversation with the average voter; I guess you are a pretty good illustration. That you can think that someone who didn't bother to utter anything true, that made one burlesque proposal after another, that fuels hatred and bigotry and whose main attributes are to be a vulgar, boastful, and a complete bully is a better choice than one of America's most experienced politician, I am pretty fucking sad for you. The saddest thing is that you seem like a reasonably well informed person. And that's depressing; to see resentful and completely ignorant people voting for him is bad enough; but that someone able to have more or less a rational discussion is backing up this clown is just beyond me. Anyway. Germans voted for Hitler, Italians Mussolini, French people are voting for Le Pen and English for Farage. If people decide to go full stupid, there is little to do. I guess that's the price to pay for democracy. Seriously, voting is a responsibility. Get back to planet earth. Why I (and many others) support Trump over Hillary really isn't that hard to understand. Those who purport to not understand it are either idiots or liars. Your post is fairly emblematic of the latter possibility. Trump's platform, such as it is, far more closely aligns with my personal views than Hillary's. For that reason alone, I'd rather roll the dice with Trump than vote for Hillary. Second, and to the extent that Trump has personality/character problems, Hillary has a whole freight train's worth of her own, which you are more than happy to overlook. She's a liar. She's crooked. Most importantly, she has a demonstrable record of failure from Hillarycare through her time as Secretary of State (which was particularly bad). It's not like people who support Trump are passing on some prodigy. Hillary is a middling politician at best. Finally, I want Trump elected as a gigantic "fuck you" to the current political and cultural establishments, which are both rotten. I've railed plenty against the GOP recently, so I'll pass on elaborating there. On the cultural side, I deeply resent the current oppression that the left has imposed on political and societal discourse. We presently can't even have intelligent discussions about things like immigration policy for fear of getting pulled over by the PC police. Trump has already reopened lines of discourse, and his election will cement those gains and accelerate the acceptance of true free speech once again. That, in and of itself, is worth a ride on the Trump train. Seriously, some of you leftists around here need to spend a good solid five minutes with your heads out of your asses and take the time to actually understand the opposing point of view rather than post drivel such as Biff's above. The level of discourse around here from most of you is fucking sad.
I don't think we have a whole lot to discuss, you and me, so I will politely leave that discussion.
|
On May 10 2016 05:28 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2016 05:03 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 10 2016 04:44 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2016 03:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 10 2016 02:41 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2016 02:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 09 2016 11:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 10:51 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2016 10:38 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Majorities of republican voters are supporting Trump and his message. If the GOP isn't going to support Trump, then they will be flaunting the will of their voters. I don't think that such action will end well for the GOP. He didn't have a majority in a single state until New York, if memory serves. He has like 40% of the popular vote. He's deeply polarizing, and chances are, quite toxic. So imo they are smart to stay away. Remember he only got close because of the various front-runner biased state rules. He hasn't a majority of the vote in the early states because he has been running against a large field. Once the field shrank down to four candidate, he was reliably scoring majorities in the states that he ran. So yes, I think that it is fair to say that a majority of republicans are supporting him now. They may not find him to be their perfect candidate (myself included), but they are going to back him as the best option nonetheless. You are going to vote for this lunatic? Wow. Just wow. Better him than Hillary, who is demonstrably incompetent. Oh man... I don't even know what to say. Well, someone (not Churchill) said that the best argument against democracy is a five minutes conversation with the average voter; I guess you are a pretty good illustration. That you can think that someone who didn't bother to utter anything true, that made one burlesque proposal after another, that fuels hatred and bigotry and whose main attributes are to be a vulgar, boastful, and a complete bully is a better choice than one of America's most experienced politician, I am pretty fucking sad for you. The saddest thing is that you seem like a reasonably well informed person. And that's depressing; to see resentful and completely ignorant people voting for him is bad enough; but that someone able to have more or less a rational discussion is backing up this clown is just beyond me. Anyway. Germans voted for Hitler, Italians Mussolini, French people are voting for Le Pen and English for Farage. If people decide to go full stupid, there is little to do. I guess that's the price to pay for democracy. Seriously, voting is a responsibility. Get back to planet earth. Why I (and many others) support Trump over Hillary really isn't that hard to understand. Those who purport to not understand it are either idiots or liars. Your post is fairly emblematic of the latter possibility. Trump's platform, such as it is, far more closely aligns with my personal views than Hillary's. For that reason alone, I'd rather roll the dice with Trump than vote for Hillary. Second, and to the extent that Trump has personality/character problems, Hillary has a whole freight train's worth of her own, which you are more than happy to overlook. She's a liar. She's crooked. Most importantly, she has a demonstrable record of failure from Hillarycare through her time as Secretary of State (which was particularly bad). It's not like people who support Trump are passing on some prodigy. Hillary is a middling politician at best. Finally, I want Trump elected as a gigantic "fuck you" to the current political and cultural establishments, which are both rotten. I've railed plenty against the GOP recently, so I'll pass on elaborating there. On the cultural side, I deeply resent the current oppression that the left has imposed on political and societal discourse. We presently can't even have intelligent discussions about things like immigration policy for fear of getting pulled over by the PC police. Trump has already reopened lines of discourse, and his election will cement those gains and accelerate the acceptance of true free speech once again. That, in and of itself, is worth a ride on the Trump train. Seriously, some of you leftists around here need to spend a good solid five minutes with your heads out of your asses and take the time to actually understand the opposing point of view rather than post drivel such as Biff's above. The level of discourse around here from most of you is fucking sad. If you want to burn up your vote to say "fuck you" to the establishment, then that's your right, but if you're going to do that, you also have to accept ethical responsibility if that "fuck you" ends up completely destroying the welfare of this country when you knowingly voted for someone just to cause political upheaval. Fair enough. But we are about to wrap up eight years of Obama, and if his presidency tells us anything, it tells us that the political establishment and institutions are remarkably resilient to whatever the president may choose to do. In short, worrying about Trump wrecking the country is largely hyperbolic. "Trump winning the GOP primary" and "Trump destroying the GOP" used to be largely hyperbolic as well. Look at where we're at now. Trump's won and the GOP has been completely decimated, with no leadership and zero party unification.
The first isn't really hyperbole. I think you're referring to the denialist narrative that people were holding on to to reassure themselves that it was impossible Trump would get nominated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
