|
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. |
but yeah compared to teapot dome, watergate, probably a few others this isn't anywhere up there yet. could always explode into more but we'll see. Considering also worldwide West Germany once militarily raided a newspaper they didn't like and England has had its share of controversies that brought down their entire ruling party, or the assasination of Grigoris Lambrakis in greece which was linked to the military which later took the country by force. etc etc etc
|
On January 13 2017 08:09 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 06:02 farvacola wrote:His denials – at least some of them – were emphatic, even by the standards that Donald Trump has come to be judged by. The dossier, he said, was a confection of lies; he compared it to Nazi propaganda; it was fake news spread by sick people.
At his press briefing on Wednesday, the president-elect dared the world’s media to scrutinise the 35 pages of claims, before throwing down a challenge – where’s the proof? Nobody had any. Case closed.
But in the rush to trample all over the dossier and its contents, one key question remained. Why had America’s intelligence agencies felt it necessary to provide a compendium of the claims to Barack Obama and Trump himself?
And the answer to that lies in the credibility of its apparent author, the ex-MI6 officer Christopher Steele, the quality of the sources he has, and the quality of the people who were prepared to vouch for him. In all these respects, the 53-year-old is in credit.
On Thursday night, as the former spy was in hiding, having fled his home in the south-east of England, former colleagues rallied to defend him. One described him as “very credible” – a sober, cautious and meticulous professional with a formidable record.
The former Foreign Office official, who has known Steele for 25 years and considers him a friend, said: “The idea his work is fake or a cowboy operation is false – completely untrue. Chris is an experienced and highly regarded professional. He’s not the sort of person who will simply pass on gossip.”
The official added: “If he puts something in a report, he believes there’s sufficient credibility in it for it to be worth considering. Chris is a very straight guy. He could not have survived in the job he was in if he had been prone to flights of fancy or doing things in an ill-considered way.”
That is the way the CIA and the FBI, not to mention the British government, regarded him, too. It’s not hard to see why.
A Cambridge graduate, Steele was one of the more eminent Russia specialists for the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6). The Guardian understands that he focused on Soviet affairs after joining the agency, and spent two years living in Moscow in the early 1990s.
This was a period when Russia and the breakup of the eastern bloc were still the prime focus for Britain’s intelligence agencies, and a successful spell in the region was a good way to get on.
By all accounts, that’s exactly what Steele did. And his interest in Russia did not diminish as he continued to rise up the ranks, a friend and contemporary of Alex Younger – now head of MI6. Trump dossier: intelligence sources vouch for credibility of report's author I'm more confused about why THIS isn't being talked about more. Like, Hillary's emails accounted for a fuckton of online and in-person discussion, and in the big picture it ended up being a non-story (despite what the media and apparently Russia wanted people to believe). Yet we have the biggest political scandal in history perhaps starting to come to light, and it gets passing mention from what I am seeing and hearing. That's fucking crazy. More evidence of something shady has been put forth in this case than in half the horseshit people accused Hillary of, and yet gets far less attention. I guess that's just 'Murica for you.
Its about status quo vs disruption of the status quo.
Rich old white guy has shady deals is status quo
Powerful woman being a cutthroat politician disrupts the status quo
As such, lots of people can't handle a disruption of the status quo and will turn anything related to it into the biggest thing in the century, while things that maintains the status quo gets relegated to normalcy.
|
On January 13 2017 08:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 08:09 Ayaz2810 wrote:On January 13 2017 06:02 farvacola wrote:His denials – at least some of them – were emphatic, even by the standards that Donald Trump has come to be judged by. The dossier, he said, was a confection of lies; he compared it to Nazi propaganda; it was fake news spread by sick people.
At his press briefing on Wednesday, the president-elect dared the world’s media to scrutinise the 35 pages of claims, before throwing down a challenge – where’s the proof? Nobody had any. Case closed.
But in the rush to trample all over the dossier and its contents, one key question remained. Why had America’s intelligence agencies felt it necessary to provide a compendium of the claims to Barack Obama and Trump himself?
And the answer to that lies in the credibility of its apparent author, the ex-MI6 officer Christopher Steele, the quality of the sources he has, and the quality of the people who were prepared to vouch for him. In all these respects, the 53-year-old is in credit.
On Thursday night, as the former spy was in hiding, having fled his home in the south-east of England, former colleagues rallied to defend him. One described him as “very credible” – a sober, cautious and meticulous professional with a formidable record.
The former Foreign Office official, who has known Steele for 25 years and considers him a friend, said: “The idea his work is fake or a cowboy operation is false – completely untrue. Chris is an experienced and highly regarded professional. He’s not the sort of person who will simply pass on gossip.”
The official added: “If he puts something in a report, he believes there’s sufficient credibility in it for it to be worth considering. Chris is a very straight guy. He could not have survived in the job he was in if he had been prone to flights of fancy or doing things in an ill-considered way.”
That is the way the CIA and the FBI, not to mention the British government, regarded him, too. It’s not hard to see why.
A Cambridge graduate, Steele was one of the more eminent Russia specialists for the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6). The Guardian understands that he focused on Soviet affairs after joining the agency, and spent two years living in Moscow in the early 1990s.
This was a period when Russia and the breakup of the eastern bloc were still the prime focus for Britain’s intelligence agencies, and a successful spell in the region was a good way to get on.
By all accounts, that’s exactly what Steele did. And his interest in Russia did not diminish as he continued to rise up the ranks, a friend and contemporary of Alex Younger – now head of MI6. Trump dossier: intelligence sources vouch for credibility of report's author I'm more confused about why THIS isn't being talked about more. Like, Hillary's emails accounted for a fuckton of online and in-person discussion, and in the big picture it ended up being a non-story (despite what the media and apparently Russia wanted people to believe). Yet we have the biggest political scandal in history perhaps starting to come to light, and it gets passing mention from what I am seeing and hearing. That's fucking crazy. More evidence of something shady has been put forth in this case than in half the horseshit people accused Hillary of, and yet gets far less attention. I guess that's just 'Murica for you. Its about status quo vs disruption of the status quo. Rich old white guy has shady deals is status quo Powerful woman being a cutthroat politician disrupts the status quo As such, lots of people can't handle a disruption of the status quo and will turn anything related to it into the biggest thing in the century, while things that maintains the status quo gets relegated to normalcy.
What? Trump was elected to break the status quo with his radical positions. Hillary was as status quo as they come. She is Obama light.
|
The Environmental Protection Agency said Fiat Chrysler violated the Clean Air Act by allegedly installing and failing to disclose software in some 104,000 cars and trucks that alters emissions.
The automaker was required by law to disclose the software to regulators during the certification process but did not do so, the EPA announced Thursday. While the agency is still investigating the nature of these devices, it said the software results in increased emissions of nitrogen oxides.
"The software is designed such that during the emissions tests, Fiat Chrysler's diesel cars meet the standards that protect clean air," EPA Assistant Administrator Cynthia Giles told reporters on a conference call. "However, under some other kinds of operating conditions, including many that occur frequently during normal driving, the software directs the emissions control system to operate differently, resulting in emissions that can be much higher."
That includes times when vehicles are "driving at high speeds and for an extended period," Giles added.
The software was found in two models, according to the EPA: "light-duty model year 2014, 2015 and 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Ram 1500 trucks with 3.0 liter diesel engines sold in the United States." The regulator said it has not yet made a certification decision for model year 2017.
The EPA stressed that issuing a notice of violation is a first step as discussions continue with the company. It added that Fiat Chrysler might be liable for civil penalties and injunctive relief.
Fiat Chrysler said in a statement that it was "disappointed" by the notice of violation and "intends to work with the incoming administration to present its case as resolve this matter fairly and equitable."
The company added that it has provided "voluminous information" about its technology in response to EPA requests; the EPA said the company has thus far failed to explain the devices.
The vehicles remain legal to drive and vehicle owners aren't required to take any action at the moment, the EPA says.
Source
|
On January 13 2017 08:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 08:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 08:09 Ayaz2810 wrote:On January 13 2017 06:02 farvacola wrote:His denials – at least some of them – were emphatic, even by the standards that Donald Trump has come to be judged by. The dossier, he said, was a confection of lies; he compared it to Nazi propaganda; it was fake news spread by sick people.
At his press briefing on Wednesday, the president-elect dared the world’s media to scrutinise the 35 pages of claims, before throwing down a challenge – where’s the proof? Nobody had any. Case closed.
But in the rush to trample all over the dossier and its contents, one key question remained. Why had America’s intelligence agencies felt it necessary to provide a compendium of the claims to Barack Obama and Trump himself?
And the answer to that lies in the credibility of its apparent author, the ex-MI6 officer Christopher Steele, the quality of the sources he has, and the quality of the people who were prepared to vouch for him. In all these respects, the 53-year-old is in credit.
On Thursday night, as the former spy was in hiding, having fled his home in the south-east of England, former colleagues rallied to defend him. One described him as “very credible” – a sober, cautious and meticulous professional with a formidable record.
The former Foreign Office official, who has known Steele for 25 years and considers him a friend, said: “The idea his work is fake or a cowboy operation is false – completely untrue. Chris is an experienced and highly regarded professional. He’s not the sort of person who will simply pass on gossip.”
The official added: “If he puts something in a report, he believes there’s sufficient credibility in it for it to be worth considering. Chris is a very straight guy. He could not have survived in the job he was in if he had been prone to flights of fancy or doing things in an ill-considered way.”
That is the way the CIA and the FBI, not to mention the British government, regarded him, too. It’s not hard to see why.
A Cambridge graduate, Steele was one of the more eminent Russia specialists for the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6). The Guardian understands that he focused on Soviet affairs after joining the agency, and spent two years living in Moscow in the early 1990s.
This was a period when Russia and the breakup of the eastern bloc were still the prime focus for Britain’s intelligence agencies, and a successful spell in the region was a good way to get on.
By all accounts, that’s exactly what Steele did. And his interest in Russia did not diminish as he continued to rise up the ranks, a friend and contemporary of Alex Younger – now head of MI6. Trump dossier: intelligence sources vouch for credibility of report's author I'm more confused about why THIS isn't being talked about more. Like, Hillary's emails accounted for a fuckton of online and in-person discussion, and in the big picture it ended up being a non-story (despite what the media and apparently Russia wanted people to believe). Yet we have the biggest political scandal in history perhaps starting to come to light, and it gets passing mention from what I am seeing and hearing. That's fucking crazy. More evidence of something shady has been put forth in this case than in half the horseshit people accused Hillary of, and yet gets far less attention. I guess that's just 'Murica for you. Its about status quo vs disruption of the status quo. Rich old white guy has shady deals is status quo Powerful woman being a cutthroat politician disrupts the status quo As such, lots of people can't handle a disruption of the status quo and will turn anything related to it into the biggest thing in the century, while things that maintains the status quo gets relegated to normalcy. What? Trump was elected to break the status quo with his radical positions. Hillary was as status quo as they come. She is Obama light.
You mean trump was not an old white guy spouting a xenophobic message while promising american superiority?
You mean Hillary was not the first woman to have a strong shot at breaking a 239 year all male streak?
Even your accusation of Hillary being Obama Light points to the fact that Obama was one of the biggest game changers this country has had, changing both the dialogue and political landscape completely. Saying she is similar to that huge moment of change simply cements things for her being outside of status quo.
I mean, sure, if you're weak minded enough to believe the GOP message then I'm sure you could think that--but if you actually looked at the fact then you'd realize its silly to think otherwise.
|
On January 13 2017 08:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The Environmental Protection Agency said Fiat Chrysler violated the Clean Air Act by allegedly installing and failing to disclose software in some 104,000 cars and trucks that alters emissions.
The automaker was required by law to disclose the software to regulators during the certification process but did not do so, the EPA announced Thursday. While the agency is still investigating the nature of these devices, it said the software results in increased emissions of nitrogen oxides.
"The software is designed such that during the emissions tests, Fiat Chrysler's diesel cars meet the standards that protect clean air," EPA Assistant Administrator Cynthia Giles told reporters on a conference call. "However, under some other kinds of operating conditions, including many that occur frequently during normal driving, the software directs the emissions control system to operate differently, resulting in emissions that can be much higher."
That includes times when vehicles are "driving at high speeds and for an extended period," Giles added.
The software was found in two models, according to the EPA: "light-duty model year 2014, 2015 and 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Ram 1500 trucks with 3.0 liter diesel engines sold in the United States." The regulator said it has not yet made a certification decision for model year 2017.
The EPA stressed that issuing a notice of violation is a first step as discussions continue with the company. It added that Fiat Chrysler might be liable for civil penalties and injunctive relief.
Fiat Chrysler said in a statement that it was "disappointed" by the notice of violation and "intends to work with the incoming administration to present its case as resolve this matter fairly and equitable."
The company added that it has provided "voluminous information" about its technology in response to EPA requests; the EPA said the company has thus far failed to explain the devices.
The vehicles remain legal to drive and vehicle owners aren't required to take any action at the moment, the EPA says. Source
Yeah I saw this story too. First Volkswagen, now this. And that first payout was huge.
|
18.9% of people did not vote for an independent billionaire in 1992 because the other two choices weren't white enough or male enough. People have wanted a political outsider at the top for a long time. This parallel narrative is what focusing on someone's identity does to you. Trump is pejoratively a "rich old white guy" and despite that 75% of that applies to HRC, who is a Clinton (how could you be more establishment?), she was born as a woman so she was the change candidate.
|
On January 13 2017 08:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 08:30 Gorsameth wrote:On January 13 2017 08:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 08:09 Ayaz2810 wrote:On January 13 2017 06:02 farvacola wrote:His denials – at least some of them – were emphatic, even by the standards that Donald Trump has come to be judged by. The dossier, he said, was a confection of lies; he compared it to Nazi propaganda; it was fake news spread by sick people.
At his press briefing on Wednesday, the president-elect dared the world’s media to scrutinise the 35 pages of claims, before throwing down a challenge – where’s the proof? Nobody had any. Case closed.
But in the rush to trample all over the dossier and its contents, one key question remained. Why had America’s intelligence agencies felt it necessary to provide a compendium of the claims to Barack Obama and Trump himself?
And the answer to that lies in the credibility of its apparent author, the ex-MI6 officer Christopher Steele, the quality of the sources he has, and the quality of the people who were prepared to vouch for him. In all these respects, the 53-year-old is in credit.
On Thursday night, as the former spy was in hiding, having fled his home in the south-east of England, former colleagues rallied to defend him. One described him as “very credible” – a sober, cautious and meticulous professional with a formidable record.
The former Foreign Office official, who has known Steele for 25 years and considers him a friend, said: “The idea his work is fake or a cowboy operation is false – completely untrue. Chris is an experienced and highly regarded professional. He’s not the sort of person who will simply pass on gossip.”
The official added: “If he puts something in a report, he believes there’s sufficient credibility in it for it to be worth considering. Chris is a very straight guy. He could not have survived in the job he was in if he had been prone to flights of fancy or doing things in an ill-considered way.”
That is the way the CIA and the FBI, not to mention the British government, regarded him, too. It’s not hard to see why.
A Cambridge graduate, Steele was one of the more eminent Russia specialists for the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6). The Guardian understands that he focused on Soviet affairs after joining the agency, and spent two years living in Moscow in the early 1990s.
This was a period when Russia and the breakup of the eastern bloc were still the prime focus for Britain’s intelligence agencies, and a successful spell in the region was a good way to get on.
By all accounts, that’s exactly what Steele did. And his interest in Russia did not diminish as he continued to rise up the ranks, a friend and contemporary of Alex Younger – now head of MI6. Trump dossier: intelligence sources vouch for credibility of report's author I'm more confused about why THIS isn't being talked about more. Like, Hillary's emails accounted for a fuckton of online and in-person discussion, and in the big picture it ended up being a non-story (despite what the media and apparently Russia wanted people to believe). Yet we have the biggest political scandal in history perhaps starting to come to light, and it gets passing mention from what I am seeing and hearing. That's fucking crazy. More evidence of something shady has been put forth in this case than in half the horseshit people accused Hillary of, and yet gets far less attention. I guess that's just 'Murica for you. Its about status quo vs disruption of the status quo. Rich old white guy has shady deals is status quo Powerful woman being a cutthroat politician disrupts the status quo As such, lots of people can't handle a disruption of the status quo and will turn anything related to it into the biggest thing in the century, while things that maintains the status quo gets relegated to normalcy. What? Trump was elected to break the status quo with his radical positions. Hillary was as status quo as they come. She is Obama light. You mean trump was not an old white guy spouting a xenophobic message while promising american superiority? You mean Hillary was not the first woman to have a strong shot at breaking a 239 year all male streak? Even your accusation of Hillary being Obama Light points to the fact that Obama was one of the biggest game changers this country has had, changing both the dialogue and political landscape completely. Saying she is similar to that huge moment of change simply cements things for her being outside of status quo. I mean, sure, if you're weak minded enough to believe the GOP message then I'm sure you could think that--but if you actually looked at the fact then you'd realize its silly to think otherwise.
Obama has had 8 years. As far as I am concerned he is the status quo.
Plus as a European he is closer to our normal politicians aswell.
Can see where your coming from tho.
|
On January 13 2017 08:18 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
but yeah compared to teapot dome, watergate, probably a few others this isn't anywhere up there yet. could always explode into more but we'll see. Considering also worldwide West Germany once militarily raided a newspaper they didn't like and England has had its share of controversies that brought down their entire ruling party, or the assasination of Grigoris Lambrakis in greece which was linked to the military which later took the country by force. etc etc etc
This is nothing like Watergate. Russians hacking the DNC and collaborating with the Trump campaign to use that to win the election is pretty much like Watergate. This, if true, is indeed a much bigger scandal than Watergate or the teapot dome or anything in recent memory.
And to those claiming 'fake news' yesterday, we now know it was an intelligence report by a highly reputable former MI6 expert on Russia. It isn't something that western intelligence communities are disregarding yet and neither should we.
|
U.S. spy chief James Clapper and President-elect Donald Trump gave different accounts of a phone conversation they had about a dossier of unverified, salacious claims linking Russia to Trump, who is locked in a war of words with the intelligence agencies he will command in eight days.
A newcomer to politics, businessman Trump has been at odds with U.S. spy agencies for months, disputing their conclusions that Russia used hacking and other tactics to try to tilt the 2016 presidential election in his favor.
On Wednesday, he acknowledged the point but opened a new battlefront, responding to media reports of unsubstantiated claims that he was caught in a compromising position in Russia by accusing intelligence agencies of practices reminiscent of Nazi Germany.
In a Wednesday night statement Clapper, director of national intelligence, said that in a call with Trump he expressed his dismay over media leaks. Clapper added that he did not believe the leaks came from U.S. intelligence agencies.
Clapper said he emphasized to Trump that the report was not produced by U.S. intelligence agencies and that they had not judged whether the information was reliable. He did not say the document was false.
By contrast, Trump suggested in a tweet on Thursday that Clapper agreed that the report was untrue.
"James Clapper called me yesterday to denounce the false and fictitious report that was illegally circulated. Made up, phony facts. Too bad!" Trump wrote.
Democratic congressman Adam Schiff, an opponent of the Republican Trump, was asked by CNN on Thursday morning about Trump's characterization of Clapper's statement that the document was false.
"Sadly, you cannot rely on the president-elect’s tweets or statements about what he's receiving in intelligence briefings. And that’s a real problem," said Schiff, the leading Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
"If people really want to know what Director Clapper had to say to Donald Trump, do not rely on Donald Trump’s tweets, rely on Director Clapper’s statement."
At a news conference before speaking to Clapper, Trump accused U.S. intelligence agencies of leaking the document to the media.
Two U.S. officials said the allegations about Trump, which one called "unsubstantiated," were contained in a two-page memo appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election given to Trump and President Barack Obama.
Source
|
On January 13 2017 08:40 oBlade wrote:
18.9% of people did not vote for an independent billionaire in 1992 because the other two choices weren't white enough or male enough. People have wanted a political outsider at the top for a long time. This parallel narrative is what focusing on someone's identity does to you. Trump is pejoratively a "rich old white guy" and despite that 75% of that applies to HRC, who is a Clinton (how could you be more establishment?), she was born as a woman so she was the change candidate.
"People" as an abstract plurality only want two things: Outsiders or Protectionists.
Either they are scared for their lives and vote for the guy they think will protect them. Or they vote for the person they feel "understands" them or don't seem like "a politician."
You know why they voted for Bill Clinton? Because he promised to completely change the Democratic party by shifting the conversation away from identity politics into economics. You know why they voted for Bush? Because politics was too focused on economics and so "family values" became the outsider stance; hence the "I can have a beer with him" quote. Then Obama came in and shifted into the academic. Casual humanity was now the status quo and so someone more eloquent, plan driven, and inspiring became the new outsider.
And and on the idea of the outsider will always be the thing that allows people to swallow the normalcy of all presidential candidates. It's the "he/she might be ____, but at least _____" internal argument all voters must have.
Now, these traits are not actually things that makes them outsiders; what makes them outsiders is how these traits are marketed and sold to the consumer.
Hillary definitely has all the stats of an outsider, but none of the marketing. Trump literally did not have any of the stats to make him an outsider. Its all the same plans, the same arguments, and the same promises as the GOP has been having since Reagan. But, he sold his golden showers as if it was actually gold and both Bernie supporters and Conservatives lapped it up like honey.
|
On January 13 2017 08:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:
You know why they voted for Bill Clinton? Because he promised to completely change the Democratic party by shifting the conversation away from identity politics into economics.
And in comes the other Clinton to change the conversation right back.
Probably why she lost Wisconsin and WWC voters in key states.
|
On January 13 2017 08:59 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 08:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:
You know why they voted for Bill Clinton? Because he promised to completely change the Democratic party by shifting the conversation away from identity politics into economics.
And in comes the other Clinton to change the conversation right back. Probably why she lost Wisconsin and WWC voters in key states.
Definitely a possibility; but then again the Hillary team and Bill argued all the time about what the better plan was. I recall an article published mid-november detailing that Bill wanted a bigger emphasis on the rust belt and small towns but that Podesta wanted to leverage the polling data to better manage their spending plan. They poured tonnes of cash into Texas and Florida wanting to keep things super lean on all the other states, even the ones calling them for help because they felt the polls were wrong--Michigan being the most talked about one of that.
That was definitely one of the biggest issues in Hillary's campaign, they never got to the point where they had a product to sell the consumers. The "not Trump" message is fine as a first strike, but its not rally what you want on a poster. Trump had "Make America Great Again," Obama had "Hope," Bush had "Family Values," and Bill had "It's the Economy."
There was a few almost-there moments. But it just never clicked--whether it be because of bad marketing or inability to commit to the message.
Lots of faults to toss around in that regard.
|
On January 13 2017 08:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 08:40 oBlade wrote:
18.9% of people did not vote for an independent billionaire in 1992 because the other two choices weren't white enough or male enough. People have wanted a political outsider at the top for a long time. This parallel narrative is what focusing on someone's identity does to you. Trump is pejoratively a "rich old white guy" and despite that 75% of that applies to HRC, who is a Clinton (how could you be more establishment?), she was born as a woman so she was the change candidate. "People" as an abstract plurality only want two things: Outsiders or Protectionists.
Perot foiled the Republican vote more than the Democratic vote.
On January 13 2017 08:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Either they are scared for their lives and vote for the guy they think will protect them. Or they vote for the person they feel "understands" them or don't seem like "a politician."
You know why they voted for Bill Clinton? Because he promised to completely change the Democratic party by shifting the conversation away from identity politics into economics. You know why they voted for Bush? Because politics was too focused on economics and so "family values" became the outsider stance; hence the "I can have a beer with him" quote. Then Obama came in and shifted into the academic. Casual humanity was now the status quo and so someone more eloquent, plan driven, and inspiring became the new outsider.
And and on the idea of the outsider will always be the thing that allows people to swallow the normalcy of all presidential candidates. It's the "he/she might be ____, but at least _____" internal argument all voters must have.
Now, these traits are not actually things that makes them outsiders; what makes them outsiders is how these traits are marketed and sold to the consumer.
So you're saying the last three presidents were real outsiders, not fake ones, and also HRC was a real outsider, but not Trump and I presume not Perot?
|
Perot didn't disproportionately hurt the republican vote. videos 10 min long but base of it is that voters were pretty equally split between which party they would have voted for had he not ran.
exit polling of Perot voter was 38 bush 38 clinton 24 wouldn't have voted.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-ross-perot-myth/
|
On January 13 2017 09:16 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 08:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 08:40 oBlade wrote:
18.9% of people did not vote for an independent billionaire in 1992 because the other two choices weren't white enough or male enough. People have wanted a political outsider at the top for a long time. This parallel narrative is what focusing on someone's identity does to you. Trump is pejoratively a "rich old white guy" and despite that 75% of that applies to HRC, who is a Clinton (how could you be more establishment?), she was born as a woman so she was the change candidate. "People" as an abstract plurality only want two things: Outsiders or Protectionists. Perot foiled the Republican vote more than the Democratic vote. Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 08:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Either they are scared for their lives and vote for the guy they think will protect them. Or they vote for the person they feel "understands" them or don't seem like "a politician."
You know why they voted for Bill Clinton? Because he promised to completely change the Democratic party by shifting the conversation away from identity politics into economics. You know why they voted for Bush? Because politics was too focused on economics and so "family values" became the outsider stance; hence the "I can have a beer with him" quote. Then Obama came in and shifted into the academic. Casual humanity was now the status quo and so someone more eloquent, plan driven, and inspiring became the new outsider.
And and on the idea of the outsider will always be the thing that allows people to swallow the normalcy of all presidential candidates. It's the "he/she might be ____, but at least _____" internal argument all voters must have.
Now, these traits are not actually things that makes them outsiders; what makes them outsiders is how these traits are marketed and sold to the consumer. So you're saying the last three presidents were real outsiders, not fake ones, and also HRC was a real outsider, but not Trump and I presume not Perot?
No, I'm saying that all candidates can be sold as outsiders with the right messaging.
People can also be actual outsiders in their policy, plans, or how the affect the overall narrative of American history--but voters don't give a fuck about that.
I also said that people vote for either outsiders or protectionists. GWB's 2nd run was on protectionism, ie "Vote for me or the Terrorists kill you."
In 2008, for example, I would say that McCain had a better history of being an outsider than Obama when it came to policies they support and how they argue their cases. But being that he was the old guy without music videos he was just seen as status quo--even with them force feeding a beauty queen as his running mate.
|
it seems a president should not be doing this. some liberals called for a boycott of LL bean (for bad reasons. other liberals criticized it). LL bean says they are in no way political and don't support any political candidate and that just one person on their 50 person board had a super pac. Trump tweets out thanking the person for their support. and telling people to buy there So he basically just polarized it further and did the exact same thing the people complaining were doing.
President-elect Donald Trump took to Twitter again Thursday morning, this time to urge his followers to "Buy L.L.Bean," and support one of his campaign backers.
"Thank you to Linda Bean of L.L.Bean for your great support and courage," he tweeted Thursday. "People will support you even more now. Buy L.L.Bean."
The tweet came in response to public attention over Linda Bean's political support for Trump. Bean, a board member and co-owner of the family-owned outdoor retailer and the granddaughter of company founder Leon Leonwood Bean, says she gave money to a PAC supporting Trump. The Associated Press reported that her donations totaled $30,000 — exceeding limits on individual contributions in a single year. (The news service says the PAC, Making Maine Great Again, initially reported Bean contributed $60,000 but amended its filings.)
Her political stance drew criticism from some liberals, who called for a boycott of the company under the hashtag #Grabyourwallet. That prompted the company to respond, noting that Linda Bean's views did not reflect on the company or the views of other Bean family members.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/12/509536517/trump-urges-people-to-buy-l-l-bean-amid-boycott-threat
|
On January 13 2017 09:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 09:16 oBlade wrote:On January 13 2017 08:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 08:40 oBlade wrote:
18.9% of people did not vote for an independent billionaire in 1992 because the other two choices weren't white enough or male enough. People have wanted a political outsider at the top for a long time. This parallel narrative is what focusing on someone's identity does to you. Trump is pejoratively a "rich old white guy" and despite that 75% of that applies to HRC, who is a Clinton (how could you be more establishment?), she was born as a woman so she was the change candidate. "People" as an abstract plurality only want two things: Outsiders or Protectionists. Perot foiled the Republican vote more than the Democratic vote. On January 13 2017 08:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Either they are scared for their lives and vote for the guy they think will protect them. Or they vote for the person they feel "understands" them or don't seem like "a politician."
You know why they voted for Bill Clinton? Because he promised to completely change the Democratic party by shifting the conversation away from identity politics into economics. You know why they voted for Bush? Because politics was too focused on economics and so "family values" became the outsider stance; hence the "I can have a beer with him" quote. Then Obama came in and shifted into the academic. Casual humanity was now the status quo and so someone more eloquent, plan driven, and inspiring became the new outsider.
And and on the idea of the outsider will always be the thing that allows people to swallow the normalcy of all presidential candidates. It's the "he/she might be ____, but at least _____" internal argument all voters must have.
Now, these traits are not actually things that makes them outsiders; what makes them outsiders is how these traits are marketed and sold to the consumer. So you're saying the last three presidents were real outsiders, not fake ones, and also HRC was a real outsider, but not Trump and I presume not Perot? No, I'm saying that all candidates can be sold as outsiders with the right messaging. People can also be actual outsiders in their policy, plans, or how the affect the overall narrative of American history--but voters don't give a fuck about that. I also said that people vote for either outsiders or protectionists. GWB's 2nd run was on protectionism, ie "Vote for me or the Terrorists kill you." In 2008, for example, I would say that McCain had a better history of being an outsider than Obama when it came to policies they support and how they argue their cases. But being that he was the old guy without music videos he was just seen as status quo--even with them force feeding a beauty queen as his running mate.
You just said HRC was an outsider because she was Obama-lite. And also that she was an outsider because she is a woman, although I'm guessing GWB's family values is just the fake appearance of an outsider, right? Meanwhile she's running with entitlements and welfare, doesn't that mean people are voting to protect themselves? I'm having trouble navigating this landscape you're constructed. Obviously the opposite of outsider is insider.
|
On January 13 2017 09:39 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 09:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 09:16 oBlade wrote:On January 13 2017 08:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 08:40 oBlade wrote:
18.9% of people did not vote for an independent billionaire in 1992 because the other two choices weren't white enough or male enough. People have wanted a political outsider at the top for a long time. This parallel narrative is what focusing on someone's identity does to you. Trump is pejoratively a "rich old white guy" and despite that 75% of that applies to HRC, who is a Clinton (how could you be more establishment?), she was born as a woman so she was the change candidate. "People" as an abstract plurality only want two things: Outsiders or Protectionists. Perot foiled the Republican vote more than the Democratic vote. On January 13 2017 08:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Either they are scared for their lives and vote for the guy they think will protect them. Or they vote for the person they feel "understands" them or don't seem like "a politician."
You know why they voted for Bill Clinton? Because he promised to completely change the Democratic party by shifting the conversation away from identity politics into economics. You know why they voted for Bush? Because politics was too focused on economics and so "family values" became the outsider stance; hence the "I can have a beer with him" quote. Then Obama came in and shifted into the academic. Casual humanity was now the status quo and so someone more eloquent, plan driven, and inspiring became the new outsider.
And and on the idea of the outsider will always be the thing that allows people to swallow the normalcy of all presidential candidates. It's the "he/she might be ____, but at least _____" internal argument all voters must have.
Now, these traits are not actually things that makes them outsiders; what makes them outsiders is how these traits are marketed and sold to the consumer. So you're saying the last three presidents were real outsiders, not fake ones, and also HRC was a real outsider, but not Trump and I presume not Perot? No, I'm saying that all candidates can be sold as outsiders with the right messaging. People can also be actual outsiders in their policy, plans, or how the affect the overall narrative of American history--but voters don't give a fuck about that. I also said that people vote for either outsiders or protectionists. GWB's 2nd run was on protectionism, ie "Vote for me or the Terrorists kill you." In 2008, for example, I would say that McCain had a better history of being an outsider than Obama when it came to policies they support and how they argue their cases. But being that he was the old guy without music videos he was just seen as status quo--even with them force feeding a beauty queen as his running mate. You just said HRC was an outsider because she was Obama-lite. And also that she was an outsider because she is a woman, although I'm guessing GWB's family values is just the fake appearance of an outsider, right? Meanwhile she's running with entitlements and welfare, doesn't that mean people are voting to protect themselves? I'm having trouble navigating this landscape you're constructed. Obviously the opposite of outsider is insider.
Obama won 2004 as an outsider by being the "Hope and Change" candidate. As such, calling someone just another Obama is calling them an outsider. However, since Bernie supporters twisted the social media impression of Obama into a warmonger, being similar to Obama stopped being an outsider narrative and shifted to that of a status quo narrative.
Do you recall what Hillary ran on?
Minimum Wage hikes--with details
Education reform--with details
Banking Reform--with details
Proactively attacking a supreme court decision
Proactively pushing for an increase in women's rights akin to the civil rights movement
Proactively taking a bigger stance on Russia
Proactive management of globalization
These are not things that the DEMs had been pushing for in prior elections. Even Romney was ridiculed by DEMs for even pointing at Russia.
What did her opponent run on?
The Mexican border? Status quo.
Isolationism? Status quo.
Repeal the ACA? Status quo.
Trump had the same message as everyone else did. So he sold the Trump name instead of the Trump policy. In the end it didn't matter what Hillary's policy stances were, or how different they were from previous elections, how innovative their goals were--she was branded as the status quo despite the content of her message.
You see, it's super simple: How a candidate is sold defines if people see them as outsiders no matter what their actual policy stances are.
Trump's policies are Status Quo for the GOP, but he sold his identity as an outsider
Hillary's policies are outsider for the DEMs, but her identity got sold as status quo
Same issue happened in 2008
Obama's policies were status quo, but he sold his identity as an outsider
McCain's policies earned him the title of Maverick, but his identity in the election was seen as status quo
|
Some may argue that Obama selling himself as an outsider but delivering the status quo is a betrayal of what he was elected to do. He clearly went for incremental changes rather than a true reform of the government as many may have desired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
