EPTUser was temp banned for this post.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6142
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On November 10 2016 03:05 Mysticesper wrote: trump will probably elect a conservative judge. but i doubt he will pursue anti lgbt / abortion stuff, since that was his major criticism prior to running, so he had to pander to the religious right. The Senate will hold his nuts to the fire unless he nominates Scalia 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0. Cruz would probably filibuster the nominations or some shit, he's that much of a nut | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On November 10 2016 02:48 oneofthem wrote: the kind of politics that excites the base right now is either very leftist or attached to a charismatic leader that is not yet here. it's a problem if your base is bought up on bad politics. that's all there is to it. you keep talking about bad "politics" but i think the word you are looking for is "management" | ||
|
MyLovelyLurker
France756 Posts
On November 10 2016 03:08 LegalLord wrote: If anyone is wondering where I stand, as a Hillary voter who pulled no punches in criticizing her faults, I suppose all I can give is the "Putin response" to this sort of thing: I'm ready to work with either candidate being president, I like and dislike some things from both sides, and I just hope that what we have will be for the best. At this point no one knows what will happen. The country took a riskier choice than I was prepared to make myself, but I'll live with it and hope for the best. I'm more worried about his staffers than Trump himself. Old frozen horrors like Giuliani, Bannon and Gingrich that should have remained in the closet forever. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 10 2016 03:10 ChristianS wrote: Now the question is, is Donald Trump a shrewd political operative or a true believer? He said he wanted to do a lot of stuff that sounds really scary. Does he really wanna do that stuff? Or was he just saying that to get elected? He struck deep at many populist issues in ways that Hillary didn't. He really did go out on a limb with a few of them, including Atlanticism, trade, and immigration. Those won't be forgotten, and I don't think he is planning on forgetting those. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 10 2016 03:05 MyLovelyLurker wrote: It's not like Trump's Treasury nominee is a former Goldman partner either. What's the difference then really ? the difference is in what they believe and their likely policies. this is not rocket science, 'don't judge a book by its cover' doesn't mean 'don't read the book'. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On November 10 2016 03:12 MyLovelyLurker wrote: I'm more worried about his staffers than Trump himself. Old frozen horrors like Giuliani, Bannon and Gingrich that should have remained in the closet forever. Look forward to that Gingrich moonbase. | ||
|
Scrubwave
Poland1786 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 10 2016 03:11 IgnE wrote: you keep talking about bad "politics" but i think the word you are looking for is "management" not really. it's about the direction of activist politics. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 10 2016 03:12 MyLovelyLurker wrote: I'm more worried about his staffers than Trump himself. Old frozen horrors like Giuliani, Bannon and Gingrich that should have remained in the closet forever. Be thankful for the fact that the US government was designed with a remarkable amount of resilience to this sort of thing. We will endure and at this point our best chance is to look towards real, substantial change in 2020 that will be more than Hillary Clinton. Play the hand you are dealt, even if it's not what you wanted, and you might find some substantial silver linings there. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On November 10 2016 03:07 BigFan wrote: extremely well written article. Recommend everyone to read it. This reminds me a lot of what's happening in China and the previous sentiment and the lessening divide there. We should look to how they've been helping their rural areas prosper. We (the left) should also be careful to watch our language, and find a way to stop subliminally treating rural America as inferior and such. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On November 10 2016 03:14 oneofthem wrote: not really. it's about the direction of activist politics. you mean towards socialism? socialism is just bad management? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18430 Posts
On November 10 2016 02:44 Jormundr wrote: Also this is probably the most realistic explanation of this election I've seen so far. Point #3 hits very close to home. That was an excellent read, and I think it is probably very true. It's also what xDaunt has been trying to say, albeit without being very clear about it. I also really liked the companion piece, which addresses another one of the themes we have talked about in the thread: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-helpful-answers-to-societys-most-uncomfortable-questions/ In particular: Now, we circle back to the idea I introduced at the start -- you, hypothetical white male reader, didn't own slaves or systematically shut black people out of the economy for 150 years after. But, you are part of a greater whole, and, thus, you reaped some of the benefits. In theory, we should all have learned this in history class -- not just that slavery happened, but that we were all born at a certain level because we were boosted there by a complicated set of systems developed to reserve the best jobs, schools, neighborhoods, and social systems for people who look like us. If they try to teach this in the classroom, critics will scream that they're making white kids "feel guilty for being white." But, there's that confusion again -- telling those kids they're guilty (that is, "to blame") for being white would be wrong. Telling those kids that, as white people, they are responsible for fixing inequality is just a statement of fact. The entire concept of civilization is that things are supposed to always be getting better -- each link in the chain is hopefully a little smarter, richer, and healthier than the one before. That's why the average American today dies at about 79, but the average ancient Roman died in their late 40s (even excluding those who died in childhood). But, improving means fixing things that are broken. That is, things that other people broke. Although that quote unarguably works better in the context of the entire piece, which is well worth reading. In particular for the xDaunts and ggtemplars of the thread. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 10 2016 03:07 BigFan wrote: extremely well written article. Recommend everyone to read it. #3 is a big part of why reduction in cost of living of cities, liveability and public transport etc should have been highlighted in her platform. it's not like we don't know these are the problems preventing rural america from coming back. it just got drowned out by the noise and general poll tested platitudes she was getting fed with. | ||
|
Clonester
Germany2808 Posts
On November 10 2016 03:10 hunts wrote: I'm just disappointed in my country. I guess we'll have to put up with this until the baby boomers die off or hopefully we pave over rural america and drag those rednecks into the 21st century kicking and screaming. I just can't believe this many people would vote against their self interests and for a potential dictator. The fun thing is, in 30 years your children will be in the some kind of forum hoping for the millenials finally to die off and make place for the future and prosperity. Grow up. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 10 2016 03:16 IgnE wrote: you mean towards socialism? socialism is just bad management? socialism as a goal is not bad. but a style of politics that emphasize antagonism, hatred and general mistrust of the system is pretty destructive on the way towards socialism. it would lead to radicals getting into power using precisely the type of tactic that did in HRC, attacking character rather than policy etc. | ||
|
207aicila
1237 Posts
On November 10 2016 03:07 BigFan wrote: extremely well written article. Recommend everyone to read it. Going to echo this thought and go one step further and add, even as someone who had lost respect and interest in this website, it does a very good job of pointing out the facts and being sympathetic without implying any support. On November 10 2016 03:10 hunts wrote: I'm just disappointed in my country. I guess we'll have to put up with this until the baby boomers die off or hopefully we pave over rural america and drag those rednecks into the 21st century kicking and screaming. I just can't believe this many people would vote against their self interests and for a potential dictator. You should read that article for instance. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On November 10 2016 03:15 LegalLord wrote: Be thankful for the fact that the US government was designed with a remarkable amount of resilience to this sort of thing. We will endure and at this point our best chance is to look towards real, substantial change in 2020 that will be more than Hillary Clinton. Play the hand you are dealt, even if it's not what you wanted, and you might find some substantial silver linings there. It's true. I mean, the last time Republicans had a hold on all three chambers of government (at least according to Zeo, I can't find a good stat) the Great Depression happened (though that was not really the cause per se), but at least we got FDR. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On November 10 2016 03:07 BigFan wrote: extremely well written article. Recommend everyone to read it. So the question going forward is--if a Trump presidency is an expression of rural America's discontent, then how will a Trump presidency fix that discontent? Rural America has been left behind by the rest of the country. But this is not an easy problem to solve, and certainly not one that's solvable by even the best possible president. Were things better for them in the 50s and 60s? Probably. But we can't go back to the 50s and 60s. The rest of the world isn't going to shift back in time for us. What we have to be doing is coping with how technology and the rest of the world are changing America, and that unfortunately also means a huge shift in America's economy toward urban centers. No amount of protectionist trade policy is going to be able to reverse that shift. I understand that rural America is discontent with the way things are in 2016, but it's not clear to me where the way forward is, especially with their deeply-ingrained aversion toward far-left progressive welfare reform. Maybe someone with a better understanding of these things has a clearer understanding of where we go from here and can explain it to me (preferably with the smallest possible amount of condescension or right-wing rose-tinted glasses). | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9991 Posts
On November 10 2016 03:16 Acrofales wrote: That was an excellent read, and I think it is probably very true. It's also what xDaunt has been trying to say, albeit without being very clear about it. I also really liked the companion piece, which addresses another one of the themes we have talked about in the thread: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-helpful-answers-to-societys-most-uncomfortable-questions/ In particular: Although that quote unarguably works better in the context of the entire piece, which is well worth reading. In particular for the xDaunts and ggtemplars of the thread. The problem with that small passage (I've not read the whole piece) is that it assumes that people in general believe that inequality is bad or unfair. If that was true conservative politics would not exist. | ||
| ||
