|
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 October 04 2016 05:35 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 05:27 Danglars wrote:On October 04 2016 05:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 04 2016 04:52 LegalLord wrote:
The issue is, the party that is supposed to represent those people is more interested in lying and coercing their vote and prop up the wealthy at their expense. You asked me last week to elaborate on where I thought that the Republican Party went wrong, and this is basically it right here. At some point during the latter half of the 1990s, the Republican Party ceased to be effect advocates for the interests of a majority of its constituents. By the time that W became president, the party was basically a coalition that advocated for the material interests of its elite membership while dragging along the base by soliciting support on a few social issues. Throw in the Republican Party's failure to develop an effective, affirmative agenda (as opposed just opposing everything that the Democrats wanted to do), and the seeds were sewn for various populist and insurgent grass roots movements to rock the party and reshape it. All of this. Trump is the beta test, like it or not, for reshaping the party and there's a lot not to like about how effective he is personally as an agent of change and which policies need to be at the forefront of a new GOP. In any case, change will take many years because of incumbency and donor systems. So Trump is the hero the GOP deserves, not the one it needs? Or instead of batman is he the league of shadows coming to blow shit up because it's pretty much irredeemable. I disagree Trump is really much different in substance, though he is certainly a departure w/r/t to style. More tax cuts for the wealthy, less regulation (except where it enforces "family values"), more military spend...
So xDaunt outlined how the GOP ignored its voting base and insulated itself from representing core interests. This is the beta test of the cure. No hero/villain necessary, though if you perceive struggles in comic book storylines you'll certainly struggle to understand what I'm saying.
|
On October 04 2016 05:41 KwarK wrote:
I am baffled by the willful belief in there being absolutely nothing sexist about Trump bringing young women onto a show in which he was supposed to mentor them into becoming professional businesswomen and then talking about which of them he'd like to fuck. Everything about it is slimy, from the position of power and seniority to the chasm between the respect they clearly deserve and the respect he gives them. Again, despite what everyone on the right seems to believe, context matters. Remarking on the ass of a stripper is not the same as remarking on the ass of an aspiring businesswoman you're mentoring.
It's not just a playboy commenting on a woman's ass.
I think it's pretty sexist but simply don't care to be honest; I'm sure many fall on that camp. If he was saying they are worthless or something because of being female it would bother me. It also was like 20 years or more ago?
I'm a fan of old james bond movies :p
|
On October 04 2016 05:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 05:35 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 04 2016 05:27 Danglars wrote:On October 04 2016 05:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 04 2016 04:52 LegalLord wrote:
The issue is, the party that is supposed to represent those people is more interested in lying and coercing their vote and prop up the wealthy at their expense. You asked me last week to elaborate on where I thought that the Republican Party went wrong, and this is basically it right here. At some point during the latter half of the 1990s, the Republican Party ceased to be effect advocates for the interests of a majority of its constituents. By the time that W became president, the party was basically a coalition that advocated for the material interests of its elite membership while dragging along the base by soliciting support on a few social issues. Throw in the Republican Party's failure to develop an effective, affirmative agenda (as opposed just opposing everything that the Democrats wanted to do), and the seeds were sewn for various populist and insurgent grass roots movements to rock the party and reshape it. All of this. Trump is the beta test, like it or not, for reshaping the party and there's a lot not to like about how effective he is personally as an agent of change and which policies need to be at the forefront of a new GOP. In any case, change will take many years because of incumbency and donor systems. So Trump is the hero the GOP deserves, not the one it needs? Or instead of batman is he the league of shadows coming to blow shit up because it's pretty much irredeemable. I disagree Trump is really much different in substance, though he is certainly a departure w/r/t to style. More tax cuts for the wealthy, less regulation (except where it enforces "family values"), more military spend... So xDaunt outlined how the GOP ignored it voting base and insulated itself from representing core interests. This is the beta test of the cure. No hero/villain necessary, though if you perceive struggles in comic book storylines you'll certainly struggle to understand what I'm saying.
That part was pretty clearly a joke, though if you struggle in perceiving that, well... 
|
On October 04 2016 05:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 05:35 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 04 2016 05:27 Danglars wrote:On October 04 2016 05:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 04 2016 04:52 LegalLord wrote:
The issue is, the party that is supposed to represent those people is more interested in lying and coercing their vote and prop up the wealthy at their expense. You asked me last week to elaborate on where I thought that the Republican Party went wrong, and this is basically it right here. At some point during the latter half of the 1990s, the Republican Party ceased to be effect advocates for the interests of a majority of its constituents. By the time that W became president, the party was basically a coalition that advocated for the material interests of its elite membership while dragging along the base by soliciting support on a few social issues. Throw in the Republican Party's failure to develop an effective, affirmative agenda (as opposed just opposing everything that the Democrats wanted to do), and the seeds were sewn for various populist and insurgent grass roots movements to rock the party and reshape it. All of this. Trump is the beta test, like it or not, for reshaping the party and there's a lot not to like about how effective he is personally as an agent of change and which policies need to be at the forefront of a new GOP. In any case, change will take many years because of incumbency and donor systems. So Trump is the hero the GOP deserves, not the one it needs? Or instead of batman is he the league of shadows coming to blow shit up because it's pretty much irredeemable. I disagree Trump is really much different in substance, though he is certainly a departure w/r/t to style. More tax cuts for the wealthy, less regulation (except where it enforces "family values"), more military spend... So xDaunt outlined how the GOP ignored it voting base and insulated itself from representing core interests. This is the beta test of the cure. No hero/villain necessary, though if you perceive struggles in comic book storylines you'll certainly struggle to understand what I'm saying.
Trump is more like a tactical nuke, and the target is the deplorable and irredeemable establishment/donor class. There will be casualties all around but the system will not come out the same. League of shadows is good analogy.
|
"Vote for Trump because he's like a tactical nuke."
Works for me
|
On October 04 2016 05:50 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 05:47 Danglars wrote:On October 04 2016 05:35 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 04 2016 05:27 Danglars wrote:On October 04 2016 05:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 04 2016 04:52 LegalLord wrote:
The issue is, the party that is supposed to represent those people is more interested in lying and coercing their vote and prop up the wealthy at their expense. You asked me last week to elaborate on where I thought that the Republican Party went wrong, and this is basically it right here. At some point during the latter half of the 1990s, the Republican Party ceased to be effect advocates for the interests of a majority of its constituents. By the time that W became president, the party was basically a coalition that advocated for the material interests of its elite membership while dragging along the base by soliciting support on a few social issues. Throw in the Republican Party's failure to develop an effective, affirmative agenda (as opposed just opposing everything that the Democrats wanted to do), and the seeds were sewn for various populist and insurgent grass roots movements to rock the party and reshape it. All of this. Trump is the beta test, like it or not, for reshaping the party and there's a lot not to like about how effective he is personally as an agent of change and which policies need to be at the forefront of a new GOP. In any case, change will take many years because of incumbency and donor systems. So Trump is the hero the GOP deserves, not the one it needs? Or instead of batman is he the league of shadows coming to blow shit up because it's pretty much irredeemable. I disagree Trump is really much different in substance, though he is certainly a departure w/r/t to style. More tax cuts for the wealthy, less regulation (except where it enforces "family values"), more military spend... So xDaunt outlined how the GOP ignored it voting base and insulated itself from representing core interests. This is the beta test of the cure. No hero/villain necessary, though if you perceive struggles in comic book storylines you'll certainly struggle to understand what I'm saying. Trump is more like a tactical nuke, and the target is the deplorable and irredeemable establishment/donor class. There will be casualties all around but the system will not come out the same. League of shadows is good analogy.
A tactical nuke also has decades of fallout which might make the analogy a rather troubling one.
I'd stick with fuel-air bombs myself.
|
United States44177 Posts
On October 04 2016 05:49 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 05:41 KwarK wrote:
I am baffled by the willful belief in there being absolutely nothing sexist about Trump bringing young women onto a show in which he was supposed to mentor them into becoming professional businesswomen and then talking about which of them he'd like to fuck. Everything about it is slimy, from the position of power and seniority to the chasm between the respect they clearly deserve and the respect he gives them. Again, despite what everyone on the right seems to believe, context matters. Remarking on the ass of a stripper is not the same as remarking on the ass of an aspiring businesswoman you're mentoring.
It's not just a playboy commenting on a woman's ass. I think it's pretty sexist but simply don't care to be honest; I'm sure many fall on that camp. If he was saying they are worthless or something because of being female it would bother me. It also was like 20 years or more ago? I'm a fan of old james bond movies :p
See, I can appreciate this kind of honesty. It's fine if you just don't care, it's the pretending that it's something other than it was that gets me.
|
oh god what have i started
|
On October 04 2016 05:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 05:17 Doodsmack wrote:On October 04 2016 04:58 Danglars wrote:On October 04 2016 04:32 Doodsmack wrote:On October 04 2016 03:37 Danglars wrote:
A billionaire playboy (turned politician) commented about a woman's ass and which women he'd like to take home. And that's a valid news story for some people. This mischaracterization of what Donald did had already been rebutted 5 or so times before your post. You could at least respond to the rebuttal, right? Rofl those are rebuttals? The entire news story is a farce on its face. Trump voters know what a billionaire playboy and beauty show host is likely to have done. But let's raise the debate to what you think passes for a rebuttal. Confess to thinking rape is less of a deal than unwelcome sexual remarks. News stories tell us the extent of things a playboy/beauty show host running for president has done. Saying "I knew he probably did this" is not a response to an argument that says he shouldn't do it and it's part of a pattern in him. Nor is "Hillary's cover up of rape is worse than Donald's actual rape of his wife" an actual response. The argument wasn't the should/shouldn't, try again. He isn't running on the strength of his moral character nor is he hoping to be elected pope. And maybe you should quote the whole post of mine if you're so poor at reading comprehension to think I was bringing up rape in respect to Donald. One highlight of a successful rebuttal is to show you've read and understood the original argument by your response. Don't immediately launch into mischaracterizing the framing and content of the post you're responding to. It will just confirm you intend to forge the controversy and not debate the topic.
Lol right, our argument was "it was unpredictable that Donald did this in the past, therefore this is a valid news story". Except not.
"He isn't running on the strength of his moral character nor is he hoping to be elected pope."
Red herring there.
You brought up rape in respect to Hillary ("lol yeah Donald did that but Hillary is worse on women cuz rape"), so on the assumption rape was relevant to the topic I hand, I brought up rape in respect to Donald. But perhaps you're right, you weren't saying anything relevant when you brought up rape in respect to Hillary.
|
On October 04 2016 05:45 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 05:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 04 2016 04:52 LegalLord wrote:
The issue is, the party that is supposed to represent those people is more interested in lying and coercing their vote and prop up the wealthy at their expense. You asked me last week to elaborate on where I thought that the Republican Party went wrong, and this is basically it right here. At some point during the latter half of the 1990s, the Republican Party ceased to be effect advocates for the interests of a majority of its constituents. By the time that W became president, the party was basically a coalition that advocated for the material interests of its elite membership while dragging along the base by soliciting support on a few social issues. Throw in the Republican Party's failure to develop an effective, affirmative agenda (as opposed just opposing everything that the Democrats wanted to do), and the seeds were sewn for various populist and insurgent grass roots movements to rock the party and reshape it. One might further assert that the "fundamentalist Christian" element of the party is part of the necessary support of the party, and while it is obviously a losing side of ideological thought, it is also a part of the party that votes consistently and votes in the midterms. To a large extent the "social issues" part of the platform candidates have is incidental, while they are personally invested in economic and foreign policy, so they adjust their social policy with the tides of social opinion.
Yes, the fundamentalist Christian element of the party was a necessary component of the party's aspiration to acquire an electoral majority. And for a while, placating them worked. However, given the social conservatives' crushing judicial defeats over the past fifteen years, I think that the jig is up. There isn't much left to fight for on that front, not that the Republican Party was an effective advocacy group anyway.
If I recall correctly, you mentioned at some point that part of the rationale for voting for Trump is to see him remake the party into a form more serviceable to its voter base. I have mentioned this, and Yango has expanded a fair bit on it: Pence seems like an anchor to the standard Republican policy that will push Trump back to the Republican norm which few of the posters here find to be serviceable, including the Trump supporters. Do you think this is a concern that undermines that voting rationale?
No, I'm not worried about Pence undermining Trump's ability to reform the GOP. Pence is there to serve as an olive branch to traditional conservatives to help Trump get elected and to serve as a liaison to Capital Hill. Trump is clearly the one who is powering his campaign.
|
|
|
The the reigning US Women’s Chess Champion has said she would rather sacrifice her career than submit to demands to wear a hijab at the next world championship.
Nazi Paikidze, one of the nation’s best-ranked players, swore to boycott the 2017 contest, which is being held in Iran and will have an enforced Islamic dress code.
Paikidze admitted that the decision will harm her career, but said that doing the bidding of an oppressive regime in order to compete is not a price worth paying.
In an interview with the founder of My Stealthy Freedom, a campaign against Iran’s hijab laws, she said: “I will NOT wear a hijab and support women’s oppression. Even if it means missing one of the most important competitions of my career.”
She is sticking to her guns despite attempts from chess officials to silence her.
Susan Polgar, who chairs the women’s committee of the international chess governing body, told Paikidze to keep her objections to herself in a tense exchange on Twitter.
Polgar had previously told players to respect “cultural differences” and go along with wearing the hijab.
She then tried to win over sceptics by praising the “beautiful choices” of fabric on offer.
Other players have also threatened to boycott the contest, including Carla Heredia, a former Pan American champion from Ecuador.
Source
|
How can one know that Trump won't abdicate to Pence, particularly since a vote for Trump has been called "a dice roll" and there is indication that Trump promised leadership spoils to other VP contenders?
|
On October 04 2016 05:50 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 05:47 Danglars wrote:On October 04 2016 05:35 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 04 2016 05:27 Danglars wrote:On October 04 2016 05:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 04 2016 04:52 LegalLord wrote:
The issue is, the party that is supposed to represent those people is more interested in lying and coercing their vote and prop up the wealthy at their expense. You asked me last week to elaborate on where I thought that the Republican Party went wrong, and this is basically it right here. At some point during the latter half of the 1990s, the Republican Party ceased to be effect advocates for the interests of a majority of its constituents. By the time that W became president, the party was basically a coalition that advocated for the material interests of its elite membership while dragging along the base by soliciting support on a few social issues. Throw in the Republican Party's failure to develop an effective, affirmative agenda (as opposed just opposing everything that the Democrats wanted to do), and the seeds were sewn for various populist and insurgent grass roots movements to rock the party and reshape it. All of this. Trump is the beta test, like it or not, for reshaping the party and there's a lot not to like about how effective he is personally as an agent of change and which policies need to be at the forefront of a new GOP. In any case, change will take many years because of incumbency and donor systems. So Trump is the hero the GOP deserves, not the one it needs? Or instead of batman is he the league of shadows coming to blow shit up because it's pretty much irredeemable. I disagree Trump is really much different in substance, though he is certainly a departure w/r/t to style. More tax cuts for the wealthy, less regulation (except where it enforces "family values"), more military spend... So xDaunt outlined how the GOP ignored it voting base and insulated itself from representing core interests. This is the beta test of the cure. No hero/villain necessary, though if you perceive struggles in comic book storylines you'll certainly struggle to understand what I'm saying. Trump is more like a tactical nuke, and the target is the deplorable and irredeemable establishment/donor class. There will be casualties all around but the system will not come out the same. League of shadows is good analogy.
By removing donor caps and moving further into the trickle down direction? That's the part where the 'gamble' gets bizarre, I agree with the outlined issues that the party has benefited the elite and that a large chunk of its constituents were kept solely with social issues while being economically marginalized, what I don't see is how moving further in that direction is in any way a solution.
A gamble that would make some sense to me would be if Trump's economic plan were the complete opposite and you guys didn't think he'd do it but voted for him anyway in case there's a tiny chance of it happening. But this is more like Russian roulette than a chance to win anything.
|
On October 04 2016 06:00 farvacola wrote:
How can one know that Trump won't abdicate to Pence, particularly since a vote for Trump has been called "a dice roll" and there is indication that Trump promised leadership spoils to other VP contenders?
The fact that I call it a "dice roll" should tell you all that you need to know. I'm very clearly weighing probabilities.
|
Maybe the secret plan is for Trump to back out just over two years into his first term to allow Pence to rule for a decade.
|
not surprising at all, Trump would bring volatility to the stock market and shareholders
|
|
|
Trump "abdicating" seems unlikely, the more probable scenario is there's simply a large number of relevant issues that he just doesn't give a shit about and will just let a Republican congress do whatever they want.
The issues that actively get campaigned on are a comparatively small subset of the things the president actually has to deal with.
|
On October 04 2016 06:08 TheYango wrote:
Trump "abdicating" seems unlikely, the more probable scenario is there's simply a large number of relevant issues that he just doesn't give a shit about and will just let a Republican congress do whatever they want.
The issues that actively get campaigned on are a comparatively small subset of the things the president actually has to deal with.
Beyond the issues on which he is really campaigning on, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump rubber stamps much of what Congress (whoever holds it) passes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
