|
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 March 06 2017 12:25 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 11:54 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 11:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2017 11:26 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 11:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2017 11:17 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 11:15 pmh wrote:
How long will this go on about Hillary lol,still the first stage of grief. Until "how did we elect an idiot like this" has an internalized answer of "because his opponent was Hillary Clinton." Madame electable. Didn't realize Clinton ran in the Republican primaries. Might as well have since she promoted Trump's candidacy to give her an easy opponent. In the words of our current Secretary of Energy, "oops." Also he was really damn charming in the primary. If you watched him you would see why he won. And he lost all that charm after the primary? Somehow, yes. So he looked like a strong candidate against Republicans but not against Clinton?
People focus a lot on how Hillary lost the general, but equally important is how he he actually won the primary. To quote The New Yorker
If Republican voters hadn’t been so disillusioned by their usual leaders, Trump would have remained a fringe candidate. Instead, aided by some prominent right-wing media figures, such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity, the New York businessman was able to present himself as the heir to the Tea Party revolution, which many activists felt had been quashed or betrayed. He was also able to tap into many Republicans’ anger, some of it tinged with racism, about President Obama and his policies; into broader fears of terrorism and economic decline; and into a general disgust with professional politicians, some of which was brought about by the G.O.P.’s own obstructionism.
Contented countries don’t produce politicians like Trump. For many years now, a majority of Americans have told pollsters that they believe the nation is on the wrong track. A decade and a half marked by foreign wars, terrorist threats, recession, slow growth, political gridlock, culture wars, and (for many voters) declining incomes have further undermined faith in the political system, creating space for insurgent candidates like Trump and Bernie Sanders.
Of course, if you are going to run as a populist outsider, you need a message that fires up voters. It was here that Trump’s instinctive grasp of the darker reaches of the Republican psyche came to the fore. Having spent years listening to talk radio, he knew that the issue of illegal immigration divided the grassroots of the Party from its leadership in Washington. In promising to deport millions of undocumented workers and build a wall across the southern border, he established his conservative bone fides and differentiated himself from the other candidates.
In responding to fears of terrorism, Trump made a similar calculation. When he called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States and a registry system for Muslims who already live here, he must have known that the media and most of his Republican rivals would react with outrage. But Trump perhaps sensed that his illiberal proposals would prove popular with ordinary G.O.P. voters, and he turned out to be right, especially after the gun massacre in San Bernardino, California, in December.
Finally, Trump ignored some Republican economic orthodoxy, which, for decades, had been promulgated by free-market economists, rich donors, and corporate-funded think tanks. On Social Security, long a target of conservative reformers, he came out against cuts in benefits or a rise in the retirement age. On taxes, he took a standard Republican line, releasing a reform plan that would bestow huge gains on wealthy households, but he hasn’t talked about it very much. Instead, he has promised to rebuild the nation’s crumbling infrastructure—such as roads, airports, schools, and hospitals—saying that much of what we have got is “Third World.” His pledge to rebuild isn’t very credible—he doesn’t say where the money would come from—but it aligns him more closely with Democrats than with many Republicans.
Trump’s biggest heresy was to abandon free trade. Claiming that NAFTA and other trade agreements have cost countless jobs, he threatened to impose hefty tariffs on countries such as China, which export a lot of cheap goods to the United States. In his speech last night, Trump made clear that he will try to use this line of attack against Hillary Clinton. “She doesn’t understand trade,” he said, adding that NAFTA, which her husband signed, was “perhaps the single worst trade deal in history.” But it isn’t just previous Democratic and Republican Administrations that Trump has challenged. He has also criticized American corporations for shifting jobs to foreign countries, and has threatened to punish them. “We’re going to bring back our jobs, and we are going to save our jobs,” he said at Trump Tower. If U.S. companies insist on moving them overseas, he went on, “there will be consequences, and there will be very serious consequences.”
As with his tax and spending promises, Trump’s tough talk on trade and offshoring doesn’t withstand close inspection. (How would he bring the jobs back?) It does, however, give him something to say to Republican voters who have seen factories close down, jobs lost, and wages stagnate. And it further distinguishes him from other Republican politicians.
And that, in the end, is Trump’s greatest strength. Despite having demonstrated political cunning in the course of dispatching his sixteen rivals, he has managed to convince many Republican voters that he isn’t a politician at all.
|
On March 06 2017 03:51 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 03:39 ChristianS wrote:
So it's justified to tweet falsehoods (or accusations for which you have no proof) if you don't like the current news cycle? regardless of justification, it is effective, and trump is good at doing it.
Hopefully it will actually not be effective. I'll be interested to see how polls do. In other words do people trust Trump less than they trust the media? There was actually a poll saying that.
Like, do most people realize that Trump has just fabricated this? He fabricates other things, in very transparent ways, so you just can't trust him.
|
polls vary a bit. found one though. Note the results are from about 2 weeks ago.
think fivethrty eight or politico had an article on why this and another poll varied so much but can't find it.
|
That's humiliatingly awful for Republicans.
|
On March 06 2017 13:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
That's humiliatingly awful for Republicans.
With the bicameral system being as adversarial as it is and Trump labeling the media "the opposition party" at times, it's no surprise that a lot of republicans don't trust the media. He does their R next to his name, after all.
|
If that figure is even close to true, Republicans are a lost cause. Just disgraceful.
|
If it were Clinton in the same situation those numbers would be flipped. Not that Clinton would be though, because you know she would be an actual president and not a reality tv star.
|
On March 06 2017 13:49 Slaughter wrote:
If it were Clinton in the same situation those numbers would be flipped. Not that Clinton would be though, because you know she would be an actual president and not a reality tv star.
No, the GOP numbers would basically be entirely "Don't know/not sure" because they view the media as an extension of Clinton, so it wouldn't be a valid question to them.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Also many more independents wouldn't trust Clinton yet be perfectly fine trusting the media (or at least not have a right-wing hostility towards media at any rate).
|
On March 06 2017 14:03 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 13:49 Slaughter wrote:
If it were Clinton in the same situation those numbers would be flipped. Not that Clinton would be though, because you know she would be an actual president and not a reality tv star. No, the GOP numbers would basically be entirely "Don't know/not sure" because they view the media as an extension of Clinton, so it wouldn't be a valid question to them.
You are forgetting Fox News. The numbers would be almost identically flipped imo but I don't like the poll because "the media" is too broad.
|
38% for Independent is even worse. Dems and Reps are going to vote for their party no matter what.
Knowing there are that many swing voters that you can outright lie to and win their vote? Good luck in future elections.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 06 2017 14:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:
38% for Independent is even worse. Dems and Reps are going to vote for their party no matter what.
Knowing there are that many swing voters that you can outright lie to and win their vote? Good luck in future elections.
These days a lot of independents are party-liners in all but name. Party affiliation has crashed over time.
|
On March 06 2017 14:04 LegalLord wrote:
Also many more independents wouldn't trust Clinton yet be perfectly fine trusting the media (or at least not have a right-wing hostility towards media at any rate).
That's probably true. If you look at polls of how fairly the medias treating Trump most independents think its relatively fair.
In my opinion Dems just need a good balanced (ie 1 establishment and 1 progressive) ticket in 2020 and they should do fine in my opinion. Make everyone feel like they have a stake in it. Oh and focus more on economic issues.
|
On March 06 2017 11:17 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 11:15 pmh wrote:
How long will this go on about Hillary lol,still the first stage of grief. Until "how did we elect an idiot like this" has an internalized answer of "because his opponent was Hillary Clinton." Madame electable.
On March 06 2017 12:37 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 12:25 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2017 11:54 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 11:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2017 11:26 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 11:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2017 11:17 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 11:15 pmh wrote:
How long will this go on about Hillary lol,still the first stage of grief. Until "how did we elect an idiot like this" has an internalized answer of "because his opponent was Hillary Clinton." Madame electable. Didn't realize Clinton ran in the Republican primaries. Might as well have since she promoted Trump's candidacy to give her an easy opponent. In the words of our current Secretary of Energy, "oops." Also he was really damn charming in the primary. If you watched him you would see why he won. And he lost all that charm after the primary? Somehow, yes. So he looked like a strong candidate against Republicans but not against Clinton? People focus a lot on how Hillary lost the general, but equally important is how he he actually won the primary. To quote The New YorkerShow nested quote +If Republican voters hadn’t been so disillusioned by their usual leaders, Trump would have remained a fringe candidate. Instead, aided by some prominent right-wing media figures, such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity, the New York businessman was able to present himself as the heir to the Tea Party revolution, which many activists felt had been quashed or betrayed. He was also able to tap into many Republicans’ anger, some of it tinged with racism, about President Obama and his policies; into broader fears of terrorism and economic decline; and into a general disgust with professional politicians, some of which was brought about by the G.O.P.’s own obstructionism.
Contented countries don’t produce politicians like Trump. For many years now, a majority of Americans have told pollsters that they believe the nation is on the wrong track. A decade and a half marked by foreign wars, terrorist threats, recession, slow growth, political gridlock, culture wars, and (for many voters) declining incomes have further undermined faith in the political system, creating space for insurgent candidates like Trump and Bernie Sanders.
Of course, if you are going to run as a populist outsider, you need a message that fires up voters. It was here that Trump’s instinctive grasp of the darker reaches of the Republican psyche came to the fore. Having spent years listening to talk radio, he knew that the issue of illegal immigration divided the grassroots of the Party from its leadership in Washington. In promising to deport millions of undocumented workers and build a wall across the southern border, he established his conservative bone fides and differentiated himself from the other candidates.
In responding to fears of terrorism, Trump made a similar calculation. When he called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States and a registry system for Muslims who already live here, he must have known that the media and most of his Republican rivals would react with outrage. But Trump perhaps sensed that his illiberal proposals would prove popular with ordinary G.O.P. voters, and he turned out to be right, especially after the gun massacre in San Bernardino, California, in December.
Finally, Trump ignored some Republican economic orthodoxy, which, for decades, had been promulgated by free-market economists, rich donors, and corporate-funded think tanks. On Social Security, long a target of conservative reformers, he came out against cuts in benefits or a rise in the retirement age. On taxes, he took a standard Republican line, releasing a reform plan that would bestow huge gains on wealthy households, but he hasn’t talked about it very much. Instead, he has promised to rebuild the nation’s crumbling infrastructure—such as roads, airports, schools, and hospitals—saying that much of what we have got is “Third World.” His pledge to rebuild isn’t very credible—he doesn’t say where the money would come from—but it aligns him more closely with Democrats than with many Republicans.
Trump’s biggest heresy was to abandon free trade. Claiming that NAFTA and other trade agreements have cost countless jobs, he threatened to impose hefty tariffs on countries such as China, which export a lot of cheap goods to the United States. In his speech last night, Trump made clear that he will try to use this line of attack against Hillary Clinton. “She doesn’t understand trade,” he said, adding that NAFTA, which her husband signed, was “perhaps the single worst trade deal in history.” But it isn’t just previous Democratic and Republican Administrations that Trump has challenged. He has also criticized American corporations for shifting jobs to foreign countries, and has threatened to punish them. “We’re going to bring back our jobs, and we are going to save our jobs,” he said at Trump Tower. If U.S. companies insist on moving them overseas, he went on, “there will be consequences, and there will be very serious consequences.”
As with his tax and spending promises, Trump’s tough talk on trade and offshoring doesn’t withstand close inspection. (How would he bring the jobs back?) It does, however, give him something to say to Republican voters who have seen factories close down, jobs lost, and wages stagnate. And it further distinguishes him from other Republican politicians.
And that, in the end, is Trump’s greatest strength. Despite having demonstrated political cunning in the course of dispatching his sixteen rivals, he has managed to convince many Republican voters that he isn’t a politician at all.
"how did we elect an idiot like this" has an internalized answer of "because his opponent was Hillary Clinton."
"how did this idiot win a primary" - fears of terrorism/distrust of institutions, economic insecurity (populism), illegal immigration and the porous southern border, packed primary field defraying the conservative vote, desire for a more confrontational response to media slander ... among others.
And the article besides minor gripes hits the major theme rather well. Disillusionment with leaders. Run the same moderate face with conservative running mate and all the conservative platform that who knows if it will be fought for (Bush McCain Romney). How's that small government pledge working out for everybody?
Basically in a functioning political discourse and cultural backdrop, somebody like Trump would be deservedly impossible. Who needs the blowhard, seriously? Or like Decius & Co's formulation flight 93 election, only in a corrupt republic, in corrupt times, could a Trump rise ... puzzling that those most horrified by Trump are the least willing to consider the possibility that the republic is dying.
On March 06 2017 14:05 LuckyFool wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 14:03 Nevuk wrote:On March 06 2017 13:49 Slaughter wrote:
If it were Clinton in the same situation those numbers would be flipped. Not that Clinton would be though, because you know she would be an actual president and not a reality tv star. No, the GOP numbers would basically be entirely "Don't know/not sure" because they view the media as an extension of Clinton, so it wouldn't be a valid question to them. You are forgetting Fox News. The numbers would be almost identically flipped imo but I don't like the poll because "the media" is too broad.
Or a question centered on 'how truthful do you find MSNBC/ABC/CNN/NYT/WaPo' 'how truthful do you find Trump.' Because making a comparison between a serial liar and narrative-driven establishments obscures their shared weakness.
|
On March 06 2017 14:05 LuckyFool wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 14:03 Nevuk wrote:On March 06 2017 13:49 Slaughter wrote:
If it were Clinton in the same situation those numbers would be flipped. Not that Clinton would be though, because you know she would be an actual president and not a reality tv star. No, the GOP numbers would basically be entirely "Don't know/not sure" because they view the media as an extension of Clinton, so it wouldn't be a valid question to them. You are forgetting Fox News. The numbers would be almost identically flipped imo but I don't like the poll because "the media" is too broad.
I dunno, I don't even consider Fox News part of the media. At best, it's softcore porn with conservative talking points being read in the background.
|
On March 06 2017 15:19 Danglars wrote:
Or a question centered on 'how truthful do you find MSNBC/ABC/CNN/NYT/WaPo' 'how truthful do you find Trump.' Because making a comparison between a serial liar and narrative-driven establishments obscures their shared weakness.
Yeah, this was my thought on what is basically a Sophie's choice of a poll. The responses aren't particularly informative. They'd be better off asking "Do you find X credible?" and then following that up with additional questions to better quantify relative levels of trustworthiness.
|
On March 06 2017 15:19 Danglars wrote:Basically in a functioning political discourse and cultural backdrop, somebody like Trump would be deservedly impossible. Who needs the blowhard, seriously? Or like Decius & Co's formulation flight 93 election, only in a corrupt republic, in corrupt times, could a Trump rise ... puzzling that those most horrified by Trump are the least willing to consider the possibility that the republic is dying.
Well most countries have their Trump, so he seems very possible. You need most developed countries to be malfunctioning, and to have been for a while, for this theory to be correct. It seems much simpler to assume that a populist alternative at the extreme of the right political spectrum is a standard setup for an electoral system; I expect I can make a credible argument that you only got yours so late because your establishment right wing solution was already absurdly far right in the first place, so the need for that alternative view wasn't felt as strongly as it had been in other places.
|
Con artists exist no matter what the social and political climate looks like, and people as a whole will still believe in Roswell aliens and faked moon landings.
People like Trump can succeed because people want to believe there are easy, magic fixes for all their problems, and want to believe that the establishment is holding all those solutions back from them.
|
On March 06 2017 15:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 11:17 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 11:15 pmh wrote:
How long will this go on about Hillary lol,still the first stage of grief. Until "how did we elect an idiot like this" has an internalized answer of "because his opponent was Hillary Clinton." Madame electable. Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 12:37 Tachion wrote:On March 06 2017 12:25 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2017 11:54 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 11:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2017 11:26 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 11:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2017 11:17 LegalLord wrote:On March 06 2017 11:15 pmh wrote:
How long will this go on about Hillary lol,still the first stage of grief. Until "how did we elect an idiot like this" has an internalized answer of "because his opponent was Hillary Clinton." Madame electable. Didn't realize Clinton ran in the Republican primaries. Might as well have since she promoted Trump's candidacy to give her an easy opponent. In the words of our current Secretary of Energy, "oops." Also he was really damn charming in the primary. If you watched him you would see why he won. And he lost all that charm after the primary? Somehow, yes. So he looked like a strong candidate against Republicans but not against Clinton? People focus a lot on how Hillary lost the general, but equally important is how he he actually won the primary. To quote The New YorkerIf Republican voters hadn’t been so disillusioned by their usual leaders, Trump would have remained a fringe candidate. Instead, aided by some prominent right-wing media figures, such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity, the New York businessman was able to present himself as the heir to the Tea Party revolution, which many activists felt had been quashed or betrayed. He was also able to tap into many Republicans’ anger, some of it tinged with racism, about President Obama and his policies; into broader fears of terrorism and economic decline; and into a general disgust with professional politicians, some of which was brought about by the G.O.P.’s own obstructionism.
Contented countries don’t produce politicians like Trump. For many years now, a majority of Americans have told pollsters that they believe the nation is on the wrong track. A decade and a half marked by foreign wars, terrorist threats, recession, slow growth, political gridlock, culture wars, and (for many voters) declining incomes have further undermined faith in the political system, creating space for insurgent candidates like Trump and Bernie Sanders.
Of course, if you are going to run as a populist outsider, you need a message that fires up voters. It was here that Trump’s instinctive grasp of the darker reaches of the Republican psyche came to the fore. Having spent years listening to talk radio, he knew that the issue of illegal immigration divided the grassroots of the Party from its leadership in Washington. In promising to deport millions of undocumented workers and build a wall across the southern border, he established his conservative bone fides and differentiated himself from the other candidates.
In responding to fears of terrorism, Trump made a similar calculation. When he called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States and a registry system for Muslims who already live here, he must have known that the media and most of his Republican rivals would react with outrage. But Trump perhaps sensed that his illiberal proposals would prove popular with ordinary G.O.P. voters, and he turned out to be right, especially after the gun massacre in San Bernardino, California, in December.
Finally, Trump ignored some Republican economic orthodoxy, which, for decades, had been promulgated by free-market economists, rich donors, and corporate-funded think tanks. On Social Security, long a target of conservative reformers, he came out against cuts in benefits or a rise in the retirement age. On taxes, he took a standard Republican line, releasing a reform plan that would bestow huge gains on wealthy households, but he hasn’t talked about it very much. Instead, he has promised to rebuild the nation’s crumbling infrastructure—such as roads, airports, schools, and hospitals—saying that much of what we have got is “Third World.” His pledge to rebuild isn’t very credible—he doesn’t say where the money would come from—but it aligns him more closely with Democrats than with many Republicans.
Trump’s biggest heresy was to abandon free trade. Claiming that NAFTA and other trade agreements have cost countless jobs, he threatened to impose hefty tariffs on countries such as China, which export a lot of cheap goods to the United States. In his speech last night, Trump made clear that he will try to use this line of attack against Hillary Clinton. “She doesn’t understand trade,” he said, adding that NAFTA, which her husband signed, was “perhaps the single worst trade deal in history.” But it isn’t just previous Democratic and Republican Administrations that Trump has challenged. He has also criticized American corporations for shifting jobs to foreign countries, and has threatened to punish them. “We’re going to bring back our jobs, and we are going to save our jobs,” he said at Trump Tower. If U.S. companies insist on moving them overseas, he went on, “there will be consequences, and there will be very serious consequences.”
As with his tax and spending promises, Trump’s tough talk on trade and offshoring doesn’t withstand close inspection. (How would he bring the jobs back?) It does, however, give him something to say to Republican voters who have seen factories close down, jobs lost, and wages stagnate. And it further distinguishes him from other Republican politicians.
And that, in the end, is Trump’s greatest strength. Despite having demonstrated political cunning in the course of dispatching his sixteen rivals, he has managed to convince many Republican voters that he isn’t a politician at all.
"how did we elect an idiot like this" has an internalized answer of "because his opponent was Hillary Clinton." "how did this idiot win a primary" - fears of terrorism/distrust of institutions, economic insecurity (populism), illegal immigration and the porous southern border, packed primary field defraying the conservative vote, desire for a more confrontational response to media slander ... among others. And the article besides minor gripes hits the major theme rather well. Disillusionment with leaders. Run the same moderate face with conservative running mate and all the conservative platform that who knows if it will be fought for (Bush McCain Romney). How's that small government pledge working out for everybody? Basically in a functioning political discourse and cultural backdrop, somebody like Trump would be deservedly impossible. Who needs the blowhard, seriously? Or like Decius & Co's formulation flight 93 election, only in a corrupt republic, in corrupt times, could a Trump rise ... puzzling that those most horrified by Trump are the least willing to consider the possibility that the republic is dying. Show nested quote +On March 06 2017 14:05 LuckyFool wrote:On March 06 2017 14:03 Nevuk wrote:On March 06 2017 13:49 Slaughter wrote:
If it were Clinton in the same situation those numbers would be flipped. Not that Clinton would be though, because you know she would be an actual president and not a reality tv star. No, the GOP numbers would basically be entirely "Don't know/not sure" because they view the media as an extension of Clinton, so it wouldn't be a valid question to them. You are forgetting Fox News. The numbers would be almost identically flipped imo but I don't like the poll because "the media" is too broad. Or a question centered on 'how truthful do you find MSNBC/ABC/CNN/NYT/WaPo' 'how truthful do you find Trump.' Because making a comparison between a serial liar and narrative-driven establishments obscures their shared weakness.
Here is a third answer to "how did this idiot won that election": because you supported (and I assume voted for) him? The blame might be shared with the DNC, the establishment, everything you want, it goes primarily to the people who actively supported a total clown. I insist because the main focus should really be, in which moral and intellectual disarray is part of America that we enthusiastically chose that? It's a deeper and more interesting question than both Clinton's lack of charisma or the wave of populist resentment towards the elites.
To your second point, it's equally stupid to put MSNBC and the NYT in the same question. It's like asking people how they find restaurants in New York and include both Mc Donald and Chef's Table in the question as if we talked about the same thing.
|
On March 06 2017 14:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:
38% for Independent is even worse. Dems and Reps are going to vote for their party no matter what.
Knowing there are that many swing voters that you can outright lie to and win their vote? Good luck in future elections.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Given the political climate, the republican and democrat results are somewhat expected, but independents being close to 50/50 is more indicative of the distrust of media.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
