|
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 16 2016 03:03 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 02:57 LegalLord wrote:On November 16 2016 02:51 ticklishmusic wrote:
eh. at this point i'm hoping that economically and socially vulnerable groups won't be impacted too much by what is shaping up to be 4 years of utter incompetence. i'll be okay as long as asians retain model minority status or nukes don't start flying, i guess.
if trump is draining the swamp though,. it looks like he's replacing it with the dregs. bunch of has-beens like jindal and giuliani that couldn't actually get anywhere by themselves. i look forward to giuliani being raked over the coals if he does get a nomination, though. I hope we will see a productive political realignment within the next four years that will make this all worth it in the long run. 'tis to be hoped, but I doubt it will occur. just as few actually care/vote on policy, few work on the kind of structural adjustments that can fix things long-term.
The Democrats lost an election they should have had massive gains in, and the Republicans have the legislature and presidency but enough vulnerability that they will probably lose both since they now get all the blame for everything bad that happens, and no chance to wipe the slate clean for any faults of theirs. I don't know if the Republicans are ready for change but I'm quite sure the Democrats are already showing signs of the old guard withering away. Hillary Clinton and her retainers probably won't play a role in the party in the future, this loss shouldn't be something she can recover from politically.
|
On November 16 2016 03:10 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 03:06 zlefin wrote:On November 16 2016 03:04 biology]major wrote:
Just look at how much bargaining power an individual is able to obtain from being unpredictable. Seriously people should learn from Trump in negotiating. Nothing is taken for granted, and everything has to be bargained for with him. don't overestimate the value in that, it's very double edged; it can lead to favorable negotiations, or it can lead to people not wanting to deal with you at all. also, you don't inherently gain bargaining power from being unpredictable. it's certainly something to study and observe, not that there's anything notably new; the history of the study of negotiating tactics is very long and deep. The good news is people want to, and in fact absolutely depend on the USA, so it an optimal strategy. Everything in life is in some form or another a negotiation between two opposing parties, on an individual level we prefer a reasonable standard of kindness to supercede that type of thinking, but when dealing with nation states there is no room for feelings, just interests of different countries being evaluated and reaching compromise. Guess what, when you have someone like trump, it becomes very difficult for opposing parties to make assumptions and take positions for granted.
that doens't mean we get better deals though. your belief that it does is unfounded.
|
On November 16 2016 03:13 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 03:03 zlefin wrote:On November 16 2016 02:57 LegalLord wrote:On November 16 2016 02:51 ticklishmusic wrote:
eh. at this point i'm hoping that economically and socially vulnerable groups won't be impacted too much by what is shaping up to be 4 years of utter incompetence. i'll be okay as long as asians retain model minority status or nukes don't start flying, i guess.
if trump is draining the swamp though,. it looks like he's replacing it with the dregs. bunch of has-beens like jindal and giuliani that couldn't actually get anywhere by themselves. i look forward to giuliani being raked over the coals if he does get a nomination, though. I hope we will see a productive political realignment within the next four years that will make this all worth it in the long run. 'tis to be hoped, but I doubt it will occur. just as few actually care/vote on policy, few work on the kind of structural adjustments that can fix things long-term. The Democrats lost an election they should have had massive gains in, and the Republicans have the legislature and presidency but enough vulnerability that they will probably lose both since they now get all the blame for everything bad that happens, and no chance to wipe the slate clean for any faults of theirs. I don't know if the Republicans are ready for change but I'm quite sure the Democrats are already showing signs of the old guard withering away. Hillary Clinton and her retainers probably won't play a role in the party in the future, this loss shouldn't be something she can recover from politically.
on what basis do you claim "should have had massive gains in"?
I don't recall the prior estimates from say, 2015 expecting such. I recall those favoring a republican president, and uncertain shifts in congress, that mostly tended toward nullity.
do you remember which sources claimed otherwise?
|
On November 16 2016 03:10 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 03:06 zlefin wrote:On November 16 2016 03:04 biology]major wrote:
Just look at how much bargaining power an individual is able to obtain from being unpredictable. Seriously people should learn from Trump in negotiating. Nothing is taken for granted, and everything has to be bargained for with him. don't overestimate the value in that, it's very double edged; it can lead to favorable negotiations, or it can lead to people not wanting to deal with you at all. also, you don't inherently gain bargaining power from being unpredictable. it's certainly something to study and observe, not that there's anything notably new; the history of the study of negotiating tactics is very long and deep. The good news is people want to, and in fact absolutely depend on the USA, so it an optimal strategy. Everything in life is in some form or another a negotiation between two opposing parties, on an individual level we prefer a reasonable standard of kindness to supercede that type of thinking, but when dealing with nation states there is no room for feelings, just interests of different countries being evaluated and reaching compromise. Guess what, when you have someone like trump, it becomes very difficult for opposing parties to make assumptions and take positions for granted.
The more the US pushes its "advantage" on the global scale, the more countries will realign themselves away from the US. It's not a smart game in the long term.
|
On November 16 2016 03:18 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 03:13 LegalLord wrote:On November 16 2016 03:03 zlefin wrote:On November 16 2016 02:57 LegalLord wrote:On November 16 2016 02:51 ticklishmusic wrote:
eh. at this point i'm hoping that economically and socially vulnerable groups won't be impacted too much by what is shaping up to be 4 years of utter incompetence. i'll be okay as long as asians retain model minority status or nukes don't start flying, i guess.
if trump is draining the swamp though,. it looks like he's replacing it with the dregs. bunch of has-beens like jindal and giuliani that couldn't actually get anywhere by themselves. i look forward to giuliani being raked over the coals if he does get a nomination, though. I hope we will see a productive political realignment within the next four years that will make this all worth it in the long run. 'tis to be hoped, but I doubt it will occur. just as few actually care/vote on policy, few work on the kind of structural adjustments that can fix things long-term. The Democrats lost an election they should have had massive gains in, and the Republicans have the legislature and presidency but enough vulnerability that they will probably lose both since they now get all the blame for everything bad that happens, and no chance to wipe the slate clean for any faults of theirs. I don't know if the Republicans are ready for change but I'm quite sure the Democrats are already showing signs of the old guard withering away. Hillary Clinton and her retainers probably won't play a role in the party in the future, this loss shouldn't be something she can recover from politically. on what basis do you claim "should have had massive gains in"? I don't recall the prior estimates from say, 2015 expecting such. I recall those favoring a republican president, and uncertain shifts in congress, that mostly tended toward nullity. do you remember which sources claimed otherwise?
Don't remember. But after Trump became the frontrunner there was a lot of talk suggesting that the Democrats could break the Republican control of Congress, and of course they had a presidential advantage. Somewhere along the way it went horribly wrong and there is one person at the center of all that.
|
On November 16 2016 03:23 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 03:18 zlefin wrote:On November 16 2016 03:13 LegalLord wrote:On November 16 2016 03:03 zlefin wrote:On November 16 2016 02:57 LegalLord wrote:On November 16 2016 02:51 ticklishmusic wrote:
eh. at this point i'm hoping that economically and socially vulnerable groups won't be impacted too much by what is shaping up to be 4 years of utter incompetence. i'll be okay as long as asians retain model minority status or nukes don't start flying, i guess.
if trump is draining the swamp though,. it looks like he's replacing it with the dregs. bunch of has-beens like jindal and giuliani that couldn't actually get anywhere by themselves. i look forward to giuliani being raked over the coals if he does get a nomination, though. I hope we will see a productive political realignment within the next four years that will make this all worth it in the long run. 'tis to be hoped, but I doubt it will occur. just as few actually care/vote on policy, few work on the kind of structural adjustments that can fix things long-term. The Democrats lost an election they should have had massive gains in, and the Republicans have the legislature and presidency but enough vulnerability that they will probably lose both since they now get all the blame for everything bad that happens, and no chance to wipe the slate clean for any faults of theirs. I don't know if the Republicans are ready for change but I'm quite sure the Democrats are already showing signs of the old guard withering away. Hillary Clinton and her retainers probably won't play a role in the party in the future, this loss shouldn't be something she can recover from politically. on what basis do you claim "should have had massive gains in"? I don't recall the prior estimates from say, 2015 expecting such. I recall those favoring a republican president, and uncertain shifts in congress, that mostly tended toward nullity. do you remember which sources claimed otherwise? Don't remember. But after Trump became the frontrunner there was a lot of talk suggesting that the Democrats could break the Republican control of Congress, and of course they had a presidential advantage. Somewhere along the way it went horribly wrong and there is one person at the center of all that.
what i'm hearing is: the belief in should have had massive gains may well not have been properly founded, and might've just been wishful thinking on the part of some, rather than based in some actual factual basis.
big difference between some people talking about stuff, and people who know what they're talking about doing so in a well-grounded and fact-based way.
|
Massive gains for the democrats where not to be expected this election. If you look at the past presidents then they have been alternating every 8 years between democrats and republicans,with the exception of Reagan->bush. It kinda was the republicans turn so to say. Though I doubt we will have 8 years of trump now.
If then look at all the problems in the country,the minoritys with police and many people feeling left behind,then I don't think the democrats could have expected to gain anything this election. They had the chance for 8 years,with arguably the most liberal president in history, to do something.
Bit sad that carson said no. He would have given the administration a bit broader appeal. I hope there will be at least a few women and minoritys in the administration.
|
On November 16 2016 03:25 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 03:23 LegalLord wrote:On November 16 2016 03:18 zlefin wrote:On November 16 2016 03:13 LegalLord wrote:On November 16 2016 03:03 zlefin wrote:On November 16 2016 02:57 LegalLord wrote:On November 16 2016 02:51 ticklishmusic wrote:
eh. at this point i'm hoping that economically and socially vulnerable groups won't be impacted too much by what is shaping up to be 4 years of utter incompetence. i'll be okay as long as asians retain model minority status or nukes don't start flying, i guess.
if trump is draining the swamp though,. it looks like he's replacing it with the dregs. bunch of has-beens like jindal and giuliani that couldn't actually get anywhere by themselves. i look forward to giuliani being raked over the coals if he does get a nomination, though. I hope we will see a productive political realignment within the next four years that will make this all worth it in the long run. 'tis to be hoped, but I doubt it will occur. just as few actually care/vote on policy, few work on the kind of structural adjustments that can fix things long-term. The Democrats lost an election they should have had massive gains in, and the Republicans have the legislature and presidency but enough vulnerability that they will probably lose both since they now get all the blame for everything bad that happens, and no chance to wipe the slate clean for any faults of theirs. I don't know if the Republicans are ready for change but I'm quite sure the Democrats are already showing signs of the old guard withering away. Hillary Clinton and her retainers probably won't play a role in the party in the future, this loss shouldn't be something she can recover from politically. on what basis do you claim "should have had massive gains in"? I don't recall the prior estimates from say, 2015 expecting such. I recall those favoring a republican president, and uncertain shifts in congress, that mostly tended toward nullity. do you remember which sources claimed otherwise? Don't remember. But after Trump became the frontrunner there was a lot of talk suggesting that the Democrats could break the Republican control of Congress, and of course they had a presidential advantage. Somewhere along the way it went horribly wrong and there is one person at the center of all that. what i'm hearing is: the belief in should have had massive gains may well not have been properly founded, and might've just been wishful thinking on the part of some, rather than based in some actual factual basis. big difference between some people talking about stuff, and people who know what they're talking about doing so in a well-grounded and fact-based way.
Dems were at the very least favored to win the presidency and Senate for a long time. Obama was neither popular nor unpopular but the Republicans were definitely unpopular. It's unlikely they would cement deep gains for the Democrats here but they did have a chance in that the Senate had a lot of vulnerable Republicans who could have been unseated for the next six years. Ultimately a slightly favored outcome became a thorough loss.
|
I could see an argument for making Carson surgeon general; anything else he's quite unfit for given how little he seems to know outside his field.
Nice guy though.
|
Any idea who is in the running for Secretary of State?
|
On November 16 2016 03:31 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 03:25 zlefin wrote:On November 16 2016 03:23 LegalLord wrote:On November 16 2016 03:18 zlefin wrote:On November 16 2016 03:13 LegalLord wrote:On November 16 2016 03:03 zlefin wrote:On November 16 2016 02:57 LegalLord wrote:On November 16 2016 02:51 ticklishmusic wrote:
eh. at this point i'm hoping that economically and socially vulnerable groups won't be impacted too much by what is shaping up to be 4 years of utter incompetence. i'll be okay as long as asians retain model minority status or nukes don't start flying, i guess.
if trump is draining the swamp though,. it looks like he's replacing it with the dregs. bunch of has-beens like jindal and giuliani that couldn't actually get anywhere by themselves. i look forward to giuliani being raked over the coals if he does get a nomination, though. I hope we will see a productive political realignment within the next four years that will make this all worth it in the long run. 'tis to be hoped, but I doubt it will occur. just as few actually care/vote on policy, few work on the kind of structural adjustments that can fix things long-term. The Democrats lost an election they should have had massive gains in, and the Republicans have the legislature and presidency but enough vulnerability that they will probably lose both since they now get all the blame for everything bad that happens, and no chance to wipe the slate clean for any faults of theirs. I don't know if the Republicans are ready for change but I'm quite sure the Democrats are already showing signs of the old guard withering away. Hillary Clinton and her retainers probably won't play a role in the party in the future, this loss shouldn't be something she can recover from politically. on what basis do you claim "should have had massive gains in"? I don't recall the prior estimates from say, 2015 expecting such. I recall those favoring a republican president, and uncertain shifts in congress, that mostly tended toward nullity. do you remember which sources claimed otherwise? Don't remember. But after Trump became the frontrunner there was a lot of talk suggesting that the Democrats could break the Republican control of Congress, and of course they had a presidential advantage. Somewhere along the way it went horribly wrong and there is one person at the center of all that. what i'm hearing is: the belief in should have had massive gains may well not have been properly founded, and might've just been wishful thinking on the part of some, rather than based in some actual factual basis. big difference between some people talking about stuff, and people who know what they're talking about doing so in a well-grounded and fact-based way. Dems were at the very least favored to win the presidency and Senate for a long time. Obama was neither popular nor unpopular but the Republicans were definitely unpopular. It's unlikely they would cement deep gains for the Democrats here but they did have a chance in that the Senate had a lot of vulnerable Republicans who could have been unseated for the next six years. Ultimately a slightly favored outcome became a thorough loss.
again, CITATION. not your vague memory of what some thouht mgiht be the case, I want some citation that it actually was the case. winning +5 seats in the senate isn't easy. (i know dems were favored for president, but I don't recall it being likely for them to win the senate, possible yes, not likely)
it's also not a thorough loss, that is simply a lie and inaccurate characterization. dems picked up 2 seats in the senate and 5 in the house iirc; that's very far from a thorough loss.
|
On November 16 2016 02:40 farvacola wrote:
Ben Carson just announced that he has no interest in a Trump cabinet position.
This makes me happy, considering the anti-science lunatic was on the short list for Education.
|
Meh, maybe later. I'm busy right now and this entire query suffers from far too much ambiguity for me to be willing to try to make the case for why it is. Nevertheless, a Democratic win in the Senate had at least an even odds of happening by most predictions I saw.
|
On November 16 2016 03:33 LegalLord wrote:
Any idea who is in the running for Secretary of State?
People are reporting John Bolton. Rand Paul justifiably doesn't like it.
http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-will-donald-trump-betray-voters-by-hiring-john-bolton/
Another name is Rudy Giuliani. I'm not sure where Newt Gingrich is going to end up or if he even wants back in government now. But he was #2 for VP after all, so I'm not sure what's going on. The good news is you can always fire the Secretary of State.
John Bolton would be a good Secretary of "I want the oil."
|
You can fire a SoS but you can't undo the policy they set in motion. Not easily, at any rate.
|
One thing this election shows is that protest voting is in fact very effective.
If you are a democrat who didn't support Hillary but who supported sanders,and you didn't vote for Hillary and maybe even voted for trump,despite not sharing most of his platform then you have accomplished something.
The democrats now go a new direction,and give the voice of sanders a more prominent voice in their party. If everyone would have voted Clinton president,then that would never have happened.
Sometimes a negative vote is the only way to accomplish something,and to force change in a party dominated by a small group of insiders.
Its an interesting lesson,that goes against what many here have been arguing. Saying that not voting for Hillary would get you even worse policys. But those policys will only be temporary,the change in the partys direction that this election will force could last for much longer.
|
I checked 538 and others, the dems were favored to win the senate, but very slightly, it was near 50/50; and there odds were worse right before the election (once hillary's numbers went down right near the end).
pmh -> that doesn't prove it's very effective.
the platform had already changed considerably to accomodate the more progressive wing.
also, if you push the whole party to the left, but you push them too far to win elections, you don't actually make progress.
the notion of the party dominated by a small group of insiders doesn't seem entirely founded. the party structure has a lot of different people.
also, a party is a mutual support alliance; if a subset of members doesn't seem to be doing the mutual support part, they won't get much support back, and may be dropped in favor of more reliable allies.
and the policies that are enacted that you oppose may be temporary, or maybe they won't be; there's a lot of inertia in laws and policies, and they do not always get overturned so easily, so they may also stick around for a very long time.
so while you're point has some merit, it's not quite right either, certainly not to the point of being "very effective".
|
Why are people making a big deal out of the fact that "1/2 of the arrested Trump protestors in Washington didn't vote"
1. It's deceptive, arrested protestors aren't necessarily a representative sample of the protestors as a whole.
2. It's not shocking that people in a deep blue state are not particularly motivated to vote for the candidate that is going to win their state.
3. There's at least some overlap with people pointing this out and also pointing out that Trump would have campaigned differently if the US election was a popular vote.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 16 2016 03:46 pmh wrote:
One thing this election shows is that protest voting is in fact very effective.
If you are a democrat who didn't support Hillary but who supported sanders,and you didn't vote for Hillary and maybe even voted for trump,despite not sharing most of his platform then you have accomplished something.
The democrats now go a new direction,and give the voice of sanders a more prominent voice in their party. If everyone would have voted Clinton president,then that would never have happened.
Sometimes a negative vote is the only way to accomplish something,and to force change in a party dominated by a small group of insiders.
Its an interesting lesson,that goes against what many here have been arguing. Saying that not voting for Hillary would get you even worse policys. But those policys will only be temporary,the change in the partys direction that this election will force could last for much longer.
I'm more seeing a massive party realignment on voting blocs and the upheaval that will come with such realignments.
Having flipped the Democratic midwest and united behind a Republican with big Democratic leanings, Republicans too are a set of crossroads. Behind them, the Republicans are looking at the remnants of the Reagan coalition, social conservatism and limited government. Ahead of them is the new coalition of middle class and social conservatism. With so many proposals that look a lot like Democratic spending policies minus the lower class welfare programs, Republicans will have a very tenuous hold on limited government, fiscal conservatives, especially if Trump goes massively into debt to fund both infrastructure and tax cuts.
|
On November 16 2016 01:24 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 01:14 Danglars wrote:On November 16 2016 00:27 Incognoto wrote:On November 16 2016 00:16 LemOn wrote:On November 15 2016 22:59 farvacola wrote:
Depending on what happens with healthcare reform, I bet we see a lot of strikes over healthcare benefits this next year or so. Eh really? He already said he will keep the clauses people are most likely to protest about.. And to the most protestable thing - straight up deporting 2-3million illegals he's already said he'll "focus on those with criminal records" so the 3 million is not happening anytime soon. Nobody will go into strike because of protectionist trade policies, cutting taxes of favouring jobs over climate change protection. Funny part is that millions of illegals were deported during Obama's reign and no one said anything. Trump says he'll do the same thing with those with criminal records and suddenly it's national outrage. People need to be more informed. People do need to be more informed. The Obama administration changed how deportation numbers were calculated. On the other side of the ledger, the number of people deported at or near the border has gone up — primarily as a result of changing who gets counted in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency's deportation statistics.
The vast majority of those border crossers would not have been treated as formal deportations under most previous administrations. If all removals were tallied, the total sent back to Mexico each year would have been far higher under those previous administrations than it is now. From the LA times... I can add link after work So it's always been said with a wink and a nod. They just started counting people turned away attempting to cross the border as deportations and presto-chango the number goes up afterwards. I'm sure those actually committed to truth in statistics will recognize that changing the meaning of what it measures makes comparisons to the past disingenuous, just like if they changed what the poverty rate was. I'm also more than a little interested if anyone previously uninformed will admit this changes things despite the prior conclusion agreeing with their outlook on immigration (I.e. it is the other side that is uninformed). I understand your point but what does that tell us? Are you implying that the deportation numbers under Obama are trivial and not actually to be taken into account? Or are you implying that Trump will increase the number of deported illegals (and that that is a good or bad thing)? I'm asking neutrally because I'm not sure what to make of your remark. I do however thank you for making it, since I wasn't aware that they changed what it formally means to be deported.
Deportations are down under Obama and that should be part of the discussion. You wanted an informed discussion but were misinformed on the underlying facts. So I want frank admissions of the current state of affairs and not blind demeaning of one side, partially to prove that you don't have to distort the facts to make your argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
