EPTI have some hope he's actually pretty left at his core. He was originally a member of the Democrat party, just pretty recently went Republican. Another thing I found interesting is that his son-in-law who helped managed his campaign had donated a good amount of money to the Democrats over the years.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6202
| 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. | ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
I have some hope he's actually pretty left at his core. He was originally a member of the Democrat party, just pretty recently went Republican. Another thing I found interesting is that his son-in-law who helped managed his campaign had donated a good amount of money to the Democrats over the years. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15734 Posts
On November 12 2016 07:30 Ropid wrote: I have some hope he's actually pretty left at his core. He was originally a member of the Democrat party, just pretty recently went Republican. Another thing I found interesting is that his son-in-law who helped managed his campaign had donated a good amount of money to the Democrats over the years. I feel like he's one far-left reddit article away from just being wholly convinced in single payer lol. "People are saying single payer is smart. it just so happens that I, too, am smart." | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23607 Posts
On November 12 2016 05:32 Logo wrote: It hasn't happened before. This is probably the second most likely time for it to happen considering the electoral victor is facing a set of legal challenges among a wave of outrage (especially if Trump's cabinet expected appointments scare off a bunch of people and expose him as a fraud) on top of a split popular/electoral outcome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1876#Electoral_disputes was probably the most likely time. @pmh are you still blaming the media for replaying clips of Trump saying things? I figured people would give up that horribly ridiculous line of lies once Trump won the election. He neglected to mention that if the electors don't vote the way they are supposed to then any member of the house (or senate I think) can basically call into question the results, then it goes to Congress to decide who wins. One reason the protesters and the Hillary supporters pushing around the petition are acting a bit idiotic On November 12 2016 06:30 TheTenthDoc wrote: It's hard to blame the media for painting Clinton as the favorite when the only objective data they (or anyone else) had access to pointed to a Clinton win. I don't think Trump ever led in a single poll of Wisconsin the entire race, and the final RCP average was +6.5 Clinton. But it ended up +1 Trump. How could the media expect that? Psychic powers? Predicting turnout that was not predictable based on the primaries? Michigan? 1 poll in the entire race had Trump up. The average was +3.5 Clinton. He won + 0.3. You can argue Pennsylvania could have been covered more, but the reality was that all the data pointed to a Clinton win. It's not like the LAtimes poll was right and they should have looked at it; it actually missed by considerably more than the average poll. It isn't the media's fault the data were biased (it also isn't the Clinton campaign's fault the data were biased, either, but that's another topic). Maybe they should have put more stock on gut feelings or something...but that seems like a great way to introduce bias. Probably shouldn't just report the polls at face value. I was challenging their turnout models from the beginning. Turns out they were all modeling an Obama electorate, which didn't turn out, and many of the ones who did (white rural folks), voted Trump this time. That was all foreseeable from months ago. Instead of investigating into that, they just parroted polls and pundits that terribly misread the tea leaves and had people thinking the turnout may exceed Obama's in 12 and maybe even 08. That was an obvious delusion to people outside of Hillary's bubble. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15734 Posts
| ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On November 12 2016 07:28 LegalLord wrote: The other problem is that "the right" wasn't really addressing the problem either, though they did pay lip service to it like everyone else. Going out there and boldly making an "America first" message gave him the chance to stage a coup on the Republican leadership. They stuck by Trump because Trump basically promised them what they want. Dismantling trade deals does a lot for them, for example, and that seems to be a core of his policy. Ironically Hillary's decision to not stick to policy and instead attack Trump's character lost her some votes she would have needed to win. While I don't think that Hillary's platform was as focused on them as Trump's was, I still doubt that Trump's anti-trade position will lead to a meaningful, realistic change. But yeah, Trump baited them really well with unsubstantiated, embellished snippets of what they wanted to hear, and then "America first" chants to rile them up. I really honestly wonder if Trump knew what he was doing, or if he just fumbled his way through this by luck. Nice post up there btw. An interesting thought that I found over in more techy/Silicon Valley forums is that "globalization" has made people in coastal cities between different countries more familiar with each other, than with people in rural areas in their own country. So it's a strange divide where the concept of your country doesn't matter so much anymore. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On November 12 2016 07:31 Mohdoo wrote: I feel like he's one far-left reddit article away from just being wholly convinced in single payer lol. "People are saying single payer is smart. it just so happens that I, too, am smart." I mean, 15 years ago he was heavily liberal on healthcare and promoted a Canadian-style healthcare system. And even in September 2015, he pretty much endorsed a public option in an interview: + Show Spoiler + Donald Trump: I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now. Scott Pelley: The uninsured person is going to be taken care of how? Donald Trump: They’re going to be taken care of. I would make a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people. And, you know what, if this is probably– Scott Pelley: Make a deal? Who pays for it? Donald Trump: –the government’s gonna pay for it. But we’re going to save so much money on the other side. But for the most it’s going to be a private plan and people are going to be able to go out and negotiate great plans with lots of different competition with lots of competitors with great companies and they can have their doctors, they can have plans, they can have everything. Which is basically a public option Obamacare. If he can get the GOP to go with it I'll be very impressed, though. On November 12 2016 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote: He neglected to mention that if the electors don't vote the way they are supposed to then any member of the house (or senate I think) can basically call into question the results, then it goes to Congress to decide who wins. One reason the protesters and the Hillary supporters pushing around the petition are acting a bit idiotic Probably shouldn't just report the polls at face value. I was challenging their turnout models from the beginning. Turns out they were all modeling an Obama electorate, which didn't turn out, and many of the ones who did (white rural folks), voted Trump this time. That was all foreseeable from months ago. Instead of investigating into that, they just parroted polls and pundits that terribly misread the tea leaves and had people thinking the turnout may exceed Obama's in 12 and maybe even 08. That was an obvious delusion to people outside of Hillary's bubble. I feel like that's exactly what Romney's camp said in 2012-enthusiasm for Obama will be down, the coalition will dissolve, therefore we need to unskew our polls. And it didn't work out for him. I can see making that conclusion if we had had better data-but I don't think anyone actually had that data. And I don't believe in faulting people for not following their gut. | ||
|
Lionsguard
0 Posts
On November 12 2016 07:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: at this point I feel like there's not really anything on Trump to analyze until he actually gets in in starts doing things. Because it seems like he's constantly changing everything. But at least he sounds a little bit sane. If only we could convince all the protestors in Oregon to feel the same way, but it seems they are hellbent on rioting and destroying their cities every single day until Trump's inauguration. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12383 Posts
On November 12 2016 07:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: at this point I feel like there's not really anything on Trump to analyze until he actually gets in in starts doing things. Because it seems like he's constantly changing everything. But at least he sounds a little bit sane. Trump has a set of things that he's going to want for himself. More tax cuts for him, things that help his business endeavors as much as possible, and if you want to push it, possibly also capacity to get back at people in the media saying he has small hands. He doesn't really care about the rest. Given that he doesn't care, I assume it's logical to imagine he'll do what the republicans tell him to. But maybe he won't, who knows. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the republicans who told him to go after lobbyists. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On November 12 2016 07:39 Blisse wrote: Ironically Hillary's decision to not stick to policy and instead attack Trump's character lost her some votes she would have needed to win. While I don't think that Hillary's platform was as focused on them as Trump's was, I still doubt that Trump's anti-trade position will lead to a meaningful, realistic change. But yeah, Trump baited them really well with unsubstantiated, embellished snippets of what they wanted to hear, and then "America first" chants to rile them up. I really honestly wonder if Trump knew what he was doing, or if he just fumbled his way through this by luck. Nice post up there btw. I think that's an oversimplification. Trump's policies were (and are) so vague outside of the outlandish ones that there's nothing there to really debate. Clinton could have done a better job at showing off policy, but there's probably an assumption there that people who actually cared would easily make up their mind quickly between Trump's gaping policy holes and Clinton's detailed ones (don't make me dig up the Scientific American 20 policy question article again). You also can't just ignore the types of comments Trump makes without seeming like you are normalizing that as OK behavior. I think Clinton in that respect is lost in the times, where as far as we've come for acceptance the sort of stuff people can get away with has also grown a lot. Considering the sorts of things that sunk Gore or other 90's politicians the idea that Trump's behavior could get by is pretty far out there. On November 12 2016 07:43 LegalLord wrote: Trump hit all the populist buttons in a way that genuinely impressed me during the primaries and I think to that extent he did something quite impressive. And at the very least I'm pretty sure he's going to kill TPP, TTIP, and possibly NAFTA. Failing to do that his entire platform falls apart. The popular support is definitely there to throw out those deals. How does your confidence hold up with the way Trump is rumored to be picking cabinet members that seem to be the same old cronies/lobbyists that have been around forever? I don't doubt the TPP is dead, but that's a small step compared to other things like NAFTA (and the TPP is pretty much universally hated at this point). | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On November 12 2016 07:43 LegalLord wrote: Trump hit all the populist buttons in a way that genuinely impressed me during the primaries and I think to that extent he did something quite impressive. And at the very least I'm pretty sure he's going to kill TPP, TTIP, and possibly NAFTA. Failing to do that his entire platform falls apart. The popular support is definitely there to throw out those deals. wouldn't throwing out all of them create serious problems for the US economy outside of a few industries? I feel like he didn't think this whole thing through and put himself in a weird situation where he either does what he promised and people realize it's not going to fix it like they thought or he doesn't and everyone feels betrayed. Plus what are all those coal miners going to do when they realize coals not coming back? Not trying to bash or anything I'm genuinely curious. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On November 12 2016 07:46 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: Plus what are all those coal miners going to do when they realize coals not coming back? As much as almost any other outcome would be better than this dumb as hell cycle continuing the most likely outcome is they'll vote democrat in 2018 and/or 2020. (The cycle is dumb for it going back and forth without helping anyone, not some comment on the people or what not). | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On November 12 2016 07:55 Logo wrote: As much as almost any other outcome would be better than this dumb as hell cycle continuing the most likely outcome is they'll vote democrat in 2018 and/or 2020. (The cycle is dumb for it going back and forth without helping anyone, not some comment on the people or what not). yeah I agree. maybe a multiparty system would work better but that's not going to happen. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23607 Posts
On November 12 2016 07:37 Mohdoo wrote: *Taking a moment to admit once again that GH totally called this entire fucking disaster* On March 02 2016 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote: + Show Spoiler + Mmmhmm "serious". I get that it's important to try to get Bernie out before the rest of the states (like New York) votes because it will (this should say would)* look really bad for her to lose the state she represented as a Senator. Especially considering Trump is actually doing well there. Hillary v Trump opens up a whole new path to 270, I'm going to keep reminding folks how terrible of an idea it is to put Hillary up in a general. Only Yoav mentioned that you'll all have to just pray that Hillary doesn't get indicted (even if later found innocent) or even that the FBI's leaks (which will come if she isn't indicted) don't expose something campaign ending. Bernie is the preference of many/most states that will actually vote D. Hillary supporters have to admit that they supported her knowing full well her campaign could implode at any moment. What if trump releases his Transcripts? She'll be out of excuses and whatever he said won't matter. Putting Hillary up in a general is a catastrophically bad idea I just want that to be clear and get everyone on record so that if he wins, I can remind you all how wrong you were. EDIT: You all know if Trump was under federal investigation for felonies you all would be talking about how dumb it was to nominate him. Like most of my "I told you so's" I'd rather people had realized it when I said it. On November 12 2016 07:59 Mohdoo wrote: I can't tell if you misunderstood me. I was being serious and I totally admit that I was wildly wrong and you were wildly right. I completely misread the situation and you nailed it. I am bowing. had two reply tabs open hit post on the one without the "I sincerely appreciate it" I do. Be nice if some of the more rude dismissers did the same when they had the chance. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15734 Posts
Edit: One thing I realized while I speaking with my friends about the election. In the end, I donated more to Bernie than Clinton. I never really did any outreach or anything for Clinton and I can't help but wonder if I would have for Bernie. Even though I saluted our nominee, my heart was never in it like it was for Bernie early on. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
these kinds of divides are just an inherent part of the way things are. cities have always been more cosmopolitan by nature, (and definition). it's necessarily true really (probably at least) gh -> I make no concessions! but there's no productive argument to be had, so I'll stick with I disagree generically. | ||
|
pmh
1399 Posts
On November 12 2016 07:43 LegalLord wrote: Trump hit all the populist buttons in a way that genuinely impressed me during the primaries and I think to that extent he did something quite impressive. And at the very least I'm pretty sure he's going to kill TPP, TTIP, and possibly NAFTA. Failing to do that his entire platform falls apart. The popular support is definitely there to throw out those deals. There is no way trump is going to kill tpp,ttip and possibly nafta. The "elite" wont let him. He wont even be able to renegotiate it,the negotiations leading to those deals took like forever and both sides made concessions. Trump might want to try it,but he wont succeed and tbh I think he wont even try. But yes, green horizon saw this coming though I didn't read all his posts. I also saw it coming as people might remember though I had my doubts twice. And with me many others saw it as well. Its not something to be proud of though I think. In the end it was still a close call that could have gone the other way as well. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On November 12 2016 08:01 pmh wrote: There is no way trump is going to kill tpp,ttip and possibly nafta. The "elite" wont let him. He wont even be able to renegotiate it,the negotiations leading to those deals took like forever and both sides made concessions. Trump might want to try it,but he wont succeed and tbh I think he wont even try. TPP is already rumored to be DOA. The others will probably be tougher. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On November 12 2016 08:01 pmh wrote: There is no way trump is going to kill tpp,ttip and possibly nafta. The "elite" wont let him. He wont even be able to renegotiate it,the negotiations leading to those deals took like forever and both sides made concessions. Trump might want to try it,but he wont succeed and tbh I think he wont even try. TPP is already dead bro. | ||
| ||
