|
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 November 12 2016 11:49 Ropid wrote:
@Mercy13:
I think the GOP just got ridiculously lucky. They are only on top because of Trump, because people clicked on all GOP buttons on their voting terminal while trying to select Trump. They didn't plan what happened. It looked like they tried their best to not have Trump as their candidate and then later didn't help in winning the presidential election. I wouldn't think of their actions as the best strategy.
The whole thing is actually ridiculous. It makes no sense really. They shouldn't have those majority House+Senate seats.
I disagree. They had their majorities long before Trump arrived.
|
On November 12 2016 11:49 Ropid wrote:
@Mercy13:
I think the GOP just got ridiculously lucky. They are only on top because of Trump, because people clicked on all GOP buttons on their voting terminal while trying to select Trump. They didn't plan what happened. It looked like they tried their best to not have Trump as their candidate and then later didn't help in winning the presidential election. I wouldn't think of their actions as the best strategy.
The whole thing is actually ridiculous. It makes no sense really. They shouldn't have those majority House+Senate seats.
i'm not so clear on why you're saying that;
if I'm reading the stats right, the house/senate changed very little, basically republicans had a majority beforehand, and the dems gained a few seats total. overall little change.
|
On November 12 2016 11:39 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 11:18 pmh wrote:
Well,the media obviously didn't learn from their mistakes. The amount of crap regarding the plans of the new president is unprecendented. (just looking at what yahoo news had to say during the day)
Every single thing they bring out all the bad aspects of it,painting it in a very bad light. Just a few examples.
-rally on wallstreet:rich people already profiting from trump presidency and the man in the street will be left behind with less resources (article earlier today about who is profiting from trumps election)
but keep in mind:everyone did warn for a stock market sell off incase trump got elected. if the stockmarket would have sold off then the article would have been "president trump tanks wall street, made 1 trillion evaporate. Or something along that line. No matter what would have happened here,the media would have brought it in a negative way
-trumps childcare plan:highlighting all the negative aspects and nothing positive.
And there where a few more articles today,all very one sided and negative.
There have been a few good reports and articles,specially the first day,but now its back in full swing on bashing everything trump does or says.
Now I personally don't even support trump but this is just ridiculous. If I was in usa I would have voted trump just out of spite about the crap the media has been serving us. you've still yet to prove the media made a mistake, rather than that simply being an unjustified perception on your part. it's easy to cherry-pick examples to support your case. it's also very easy to simply say "the media", which is a very vague claim, and hard to counter, because we don't know which media you're tlaking about, we can't look at them and see for ourselves. we don't know how representative a sample it is. also, bad news sells.
The media are now working very hard to devide America,destabelise it and create more social unrest. I am not saying that they are doing this intentionally,but it will be the result if they continue with this line of reporting.
I have been right about nearly everything this election,though I dont bother to make nice posts so i can imagine if people didn't notice and that is fine with me. I don't want convince people,i just like writing down my thoughts about certan things now and then and if people agree with them or not is not that important to me. I fear I will be right with this as well.
|
On November 12 2016 11:56 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 11:39 zlefin wrote:On November 12 2016 11:18 pmh wrote:
Well,the media obviously didn't learn from their mistakes. The amount of crap regarding the plans of the new president is unprecendented. (just looking at what yahoo news had to say during the day)
Every single thing they bring out all the bad aspects of it,painting it in a very bad light. Just a few examples.
-rally on wallstreet:rich people already profiting from trump presidency and the man in the street will be left behind with less resources (article earlier today about who is profiting from trumps election)
but keep in mind:everyone did warn for a stock market sell off incase trump got elected. if the stockmarket would have sold off then the article would have been "president trump tanks wall street, made 1 trillion evaporate. Or something along that line. No matter what would have happened here,the media would have brought it in a negative way
-trumps childcare plan:highlighting all the negative aspects and nothing positive.
And there where a few more articles today,all very one sided and negative.
There have been a few good reports and articles,specially the first day,but now its back in full swing on bashing everything trump does or says.
Now I personally don't even support trump but this is just ridiculous. If I was in usa I would have voted trump just out of spite about the crap the media has been serving us. you've still yet to prove the media made a mistake, rather than that simply being an unjustified perception on your part. it's easy to cherry-pick examples to support your case. it's also very easy to simply say "the media", which is a very vague claim, and hard to counter, because we don't know which media you're tlaking about, we can't look at them and see for ourselves. we don't know how representative a sample it is. also, bad news sells. The media are now working very hard to devide America,destabelise it and create more social unrest. I am not saying that they are doing this intentionally,but it will be the result if they continue with this line of reporting. I have been right about nearly everything this election,and I fear I will be right with this as well.
i'm asking you to provide links/citations. point to which specific sources you believe are doing this. or point to examples that demonstrate it well.
repeating your claims doesn't help. noone can tell if you're right if you don't elaborate at all.
also, I'd probably dispute your claim about being right about nearly everything this election, if I knew what things you thought you were right about. being too sure of yourself is usually bad sign (not always though).
|
I honestly think the party wanted Hillary Clinton to win. Trump forces them in a direction it is not clear they are inclined to go. There will be a weird conflict between the president and the party he is "from" and this will be an awkward contradiction that will have to be resolved. There is no more "dump Trump" and the Trump Republicans now solidified their role in the party.
Meanwhile the Democrats get a chance to clean house under the radar, without worrying about how they will look in the process. At this point they are basically off the radar.
|
Given that they are sufficiently locked out of the system and will be for years it seems to make more sense to foster more Blue Dog dems and team up with the modern industry instead of trying to get the political revolution going. There's a better chance to get progressive ideas going outside of politics. Even Obama didn't have a lot of success during his first term. Just invite all the industry and tech leaders and marginalise the GOP economically.
|
Yes, the democrat party is in a historically bad position influence-wise. If Trump does a decent job reshaping the GOP and making it more palatable, the democrats could find themselves in the wilderness for a while.
|
On November 12 2016 12:19 LegalLord wrote:
I honestly think the party wanted Hillary Clinton to win. Trump forces them in a direction it is not clear they are inclined to go. There will be a weird conflict between the president and the party he is "from" and this will be an awkward contradiction that will have to be resolved. There is no more "dump Trump" and the Trump Republicans now solidified their role in the party.
Meanwhile the Democrats get a chance to clean house under the radar, without worrying about how they will look in the process. At this point they are basically off the radar.
I thought at first the GOP really wanted Trump to lose in the hopes that it would regain them control of the party. But now I'm uncertain, and think they are in a win-win right now.
If he's really a dyed in the wool conservative, or acts like it? Awesome. They get a rubber stamp on their bills and 3 SCOTUS judges. And their policy agenda is accomplished. They can point to the corporate interests/NRA/religious groups and say "look what we did."
He's truly a waffler and/or flip-flops on his promises and/or is a total disaster? They now have someone for the anti-establishment folks to hate even more than the establishment. Plus they can purge his attaches/surrogates, who are all toxic waste to the party at this point. He wouldn't be "just another establishment politician," he would be an ultimate con man that the party could demonize.
Red cat Republicans (or whatever we want to call them) are kind of in a crappy place in scenario 1-but I'm not sure how many of them are left after the Tea Party purges.
|
I really hope the Democrats don't try a "all these important people are with us!" approach again. That clearly didn't work for the election nor does it convince people who are wary of the dishonest.
They have another chance at relevance in two years. It won't be easy but they have to find a niche that the Republican and/or Trump Republican Party fails to fill, and exploit it. They need more than just identity politics and "omg my opponent is basically Hitler" to get it though. It's unclear how the parties will realign but that they will is not really in doubt.
On November 12 2016 12:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 12:19 LegalLord wrote:
I honestly think the party wanted Hillary Clinton to win. Trump forces them in a direction it is not clear they are inclined to go. There will be a weird conflict between the president and the party he is "from" and this will be an awkward contradiction that will have to be resolved. There is no more "dump Trump" and the Trump Republicans now solidified their role in the party.
Meanwhile the Democrats get a chance to clean house under the radar, without worrying about how they will look in the process. At this point they are basically off the radar. I thought at first the GOP really wanted Trump to lose in the hopes that it would regain them control of the party. But now I'm uncertain, and think they are in a win-win right now. If he's really a dyed in the wool conservative, or acts like it? Awesome. They get a rubber stamp on their bills and 3 SCOTUS judges. And their policy agenda is accomplished. They can point to the corporate interests/NRA/religious groups and say "look what we did." He's truly a waffler and/or flip-flops on his promises and/or is a total disaster? They now have someone for the anti-establishment folks to hate even more than the establishment. Plus they can purge his attaches/surrogates, who are all toxic waste to the party at this point. He wouldn't be "just another establishment politician," he would be an ultimate con man that the party could demonize. Red cat Republicans (or whatever we want to call them) are kind of in a crappy place in scenario 1-but I'm not sure how many of them are left after the Tea Party purges.
Option 3: he retains his fanbase, but does so in a way that contradicts the traditional interests of the Republican Party, forcing it in a different direction and causing something of a purge. I think this is the most likely outcome.
|
On November 12 2016 12:42 LegalLord wrote:I really hope the Democrats don't try a "all these important people are with us!" approach again. That clearly didn't work for the election nor does it convince people who are wary of the dishonest. They have another chance at relevance in two years. It won't be easy but they have to find a niche that the Republican and/or Trump Republican Party fails to fill, and exploit it. They need more than just identity politics and "omg my opponent is basically Hitler" to get it though. It's unclear how the parties will realign but that they will is not really in doubt. Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 12:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 12 2016 12:19 LegalLord wrote:
I honestly think the party wanted Hillary Clinton to win. Trump forces them in a direction it is not clear they are inclined to go. There will be a weird conflict between the president and the party he is "from" and this will be an awkward contradiction that will have to be resolved. There is no more "dump Trump" and the Trump Republicans now solidified their role in the party.
Meanwhile the Democrats get a chance to clean house under the radar, without worrying about how they will look in the process. At this point they are basically off the radar. I thought at first the GOP really wanted Trump to lose in the hopes that it would regain them control of the party. But now I'm uncertain, and think they are in a win-win right now. If he's really a dyed in the wool conservative, or acts like it? Awesome. They get a rubber stamp on their bills and 3 SCOTUS judges. And their policy agenda is accomplished. They can point to the corporate interests/NRA/religious groups and say "look what we did." He's truly a waffler and/or flip-flops on his promises and/or is a total disaster? They now have someone for the anti-establishment folks to hate even more than the establishment. Plus they can purge his attaches/surrogates, who are all toxic waste to the party at this point. He wouldn't be "just another establishment politician," he would be an ultimate con man that the party could demonize. Red cat Republicans (or whatever we want to call them) are kind of in a crappy place in scenario 1-but I'm not sure how many of them are left after the Tea Party purges. Option 3: he retains his fanbase, but does so in a way that contradicts the traditional interests of the Republican Party, forcing it in a different direction and causing something of a purge. I think this is the most likely outcome.
Democrats have a lot of genuine influence right now among the academia, cities and a good shot at getting large swathes of the economy on their side. It seems better to try to build de-facto alliances than to try to filibuster for the rest of eternity. Especially the US isn't only federal politics, you can get a lot of stuff done outside of it. I'm pretty sure they have virtually no chance to get back into Congress in 2018.
|
They have a chance at taking the Senate. The House is harder but also feasible. It really just depends on how well Trump does here, and how in line he is with the Republican coalition. Any number of things could happen; this is a pretty awkward situation for both parties.
|
On November 12 2016 12:34 xDaunt wrote:
Yes, the democrat party is in a historically bad position influence-wise. If Trump does a decent job reshaping the GOP and making it more palatable, the democrats could find themselves in the wilderness for a while.
Much more likely scenario is all those people that voted for Trump hoping for change will learn he's no better, if not worse, then other politicians and they'll go back to not voting or to voting for Democrats again. Let's not forget the democrats won the popular vote. Let's also not forget that every day that passes more elderly pass away, who tend to vote Republican, and more teenagers come of legal age to vote, who tend to be liberal.
|
On November 12 2016 12:53 LegalLord wrote:
They have a chance at taking the Senate. The House is harder but also feasible. It really just depends on how well Trump does here, and how in line he is with the Republican coalition. Any number of things could happen; this is a pretty awkward situation for both parties.
The red senate seats up in 2018 are unlikely to be lost, just looking at the map. Except for NV, maybe.
|
Democrats are not in a good position 2 years from now in the Senate. They have to defend 25 seats compared to only 8 seats that are Republican held. But I do think demographics are destiny, and Democrats are better positioned to capture the gains in minorities in the long term.
|
The democrats absolutely do not need to rush. Until the GOP finds a way to make angry white men immortal they are governing on borrowed time. I mean I pretty much said this before this election and it turned out to be wrong but at some point they're going to lose the demographic battle.
|
On November 12 2016 13:20 Nyxisto wrote:
The democrats absolutely do not need to rush. Until the GOP finds a way to make angry white men immortal they are governing on borrowed time. I mean I pretty much said this before this election and it turned out to be wrong but at some point they're going to lose the demographic battle.
I think eventually America will go down.
Empires throughout history have been terminated by over extension(Nazis) and internal battles (KHAN/Romans).
This is exactly what is happening in America.
|
On November 12 2016 13:20 Nyxisto wrote:
The democrats absolutely do not need to rush. Until the GOP finds a way to make angry white men immortal they are governing on borrowed time. I mean I pretty much said this before this election and it turned out to be wrong but at some point they're going to lose the demographic battle.
Your language is pretty dickish, trying to equate the GOP to angry white men (Your ad hominem attacks are not appreciated, and hence why my somewhat aggressive tone).
Also your perspective is absurdly shortsighted. Maybe that'd be true if there was no shift in the parties ever, but just look at how much both parties evolved, and who the past presidents belonged to. Heck, even in the last 40 years there's been a massive shift.
|
On November 12 2016 13:48 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 13:20 Nyxisto wrote:
The democrats absolutely do not need to rush. Until the GOP finds a way to make angry white men immortal they are governing on borrowed time. I mean I pretty much said this before this election and it turned out to be wrong but at some point they're going to lose the demographic battle. I think eventually America will go down. Empires throughout history have been terminated by over extension(Nazis) and internal battles (KHAN/Romans). This is exactly what is happening in America.
We are seeing growing division and alienation that will lead only to whoever can grab power using it to abuse whoever they consider their enemies. The progressive movement, its significant institutional power in academia and the media, and its antipathy toward all that is white and male was a significant factor in the success of Trump. It seems that the same people who warn against alienating Muslims for fear of pushing more toward radicalism not apply the same logic when dealing with white men, and the results are precisely what you'd expect. We've moved far away from dealing with each other in good faith and assuming we all want a better America for all Americans, and now we're just playing an ugly zero-sum game. It isn't sustainable.
|
On November 12 2016 14:52 forsooth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 13:48 RealityIsKing wrote:On November 12 2016 13:20 Nyxisto wrote:
The democrats absolutely do not need to rush. Until the GOP finds a way to make angry white men immortal they are governing on borrowed time. I mean I pretty much said this before this election and it turned out to be wrong but at some point they're going to lose the demographic battle. I think eventually America will go down. Empires throughout history have been terminated by over extension(Nazis) and internal battles (KHAN/Romans). This is exactly what is happening in America. We are seeing growing division and alienation that will lead only to whoever can grab power using it to abuse whoever they consider their enemies. The progressive movement, its significant institutional power in academia and the media, and its antipathy toward all that is white and male was a significant factor in the success of Trump. It seems that the same people who warn against alienating Muslims for fear of pushing more toward radicalism not apply the same logic when dealing with white men, and the results are precisely what you'd expect. We've moved far away from dealing with each other in good faith and assuming we all want a better America for all Americans, and now we're just playing an ugly zero-sum game. It isn't sustainable.
The main issue is that you're comparing something that generally doesn't happen (alienation of white males by the progressive movement) to something that generally does happen (alienation of Muslims by the far right).
The secondary issue is that you think this had any effect on the election. People in the Rust Belt didn't vote to stick it to the SJWs.
|
Honestly you few talking about division are way more negative about the situation than the general stigma I've seen from liberals, which tend to be more about finding unity and working on expanding your sphere of influence to avoid forgetting about the Americans who felt left behind enough to elect Trump. Go watch all the anti-Trump comedians or writers speak about the follow-up to the election. There's nothing about furthering the divide.
You keep treating the situation as though all minorities wish that non-minorities/whites burn for being non-minoritirs. In reality it's moreso that minorities are tired of being treated as a minority, and being made to feel like they don't belong, and that non-minorities consistently fail to emphasize with the issues they face, and are tired of people repeatedly denying that non-minorities enjoy unseen advantages.
Stop taking extremist opinions as though they are the norm, it's incredibly annoying to read on both sides. You're letting your own bubble of interactions with the shittiest of people determine your opinions. You're doing exactly what the right was complaining about when the left would primarily cover the discriminatory chants and supporters in spite of the real problems people faced.
I'll be honest I have no clue how this SJW phenomena has become such a big problem. I thought the consensus was that the anti-white and anti-male folk are delusional? People really need to talk to people more in real life and stay off tumblr. Also deniers really need to have serious in-person talks with friends who are minorities about how pervasive the some of the anti-minority undertones are in society. I have black friends who tell me they notice when people nearby check their pockets when they realize they've been walking behind them. Not that I'm trying to trivialize how whites may feel from anti-white SJWs, but I don't like this divisive talk, where it doesn't sound like one side empathizes with the other side at all.
Also as Nebuchad said, it's not like rural America feels a significant anti-white undercurrent in America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
