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 July 09 2017 22:38 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: A true work of art this compilation video. Amazing music, great direction
The President of the United States, everyone.
Yes, he is.
What am I missing? there is nothing special at all in that video.
I suppose that's the saddest part of it all.
I'm serious, what is that video supposed to show?
"Here is a countries leader, shaking hands with other country leaders. Here he is posing for photos with other country leaders like every single summit ever".
There is nothing unusual or out of the ordinary that I see.
I'm guessing you are watching without sound
I think a choir singing MAGA while zooming in on Trumps head in photos is quite strange
I would have said the need to make such a cringy video is what's a bit strange... I don't see Merkel ever making such a collage to show how everything's just fine.
Don't think there's anything with what's IN the video
The song's bad. It's also pretty pathetic to try to turn your campaign slogan into a patriotic anthem. But even given that, it's really just not a great song
On July 09 2017 17:17 Biff The Understudy wrote: Just out of curiosity, which female politician you guys could see becoming a good POTUS candidate?
The wording on that makes it tough to answer since "good POTUS candidate" does conflict a fair bit with who I'd like to see in office. But hey, let's throw out a few names.
Tulsi Gabbard is one I like. She's an odd one but I would vote for her. Warren is a huge maybe. I criticize her for being a one-trick pony but I would definitely give her a chance at redemption if she sought to run seriously. Gabby Giffords and Tammy Duckworth are two "sympathy vote" candidates who seem reasonable enough. They have enough attention to have a chance, they would just have to make their candidacy stick. From the Republican side, the most reasonable name being thrown around is Nikki Haley. Personally I think she's doing a kind of bad job at the UN but I think she could get the kind of broad appeal she would need to be a good candidate.
I'll admit I had to reach a fair bit to get a list of five names. But part of that is that prominent male politicians are far more numerous, and I would still have trouble finding five good male choices for president in 2020. I very much disagree with the implicit idea that misogyny would sink any possible female candidate - it's just very clear that Hillary was the wrong choice, and being a woman doesn't somehow explain all her badness or the common perception thereof away. Billy Clinton for example has all the same baggage as she does - and it's not his maleness that gets him more popularity, but more so his intrinsic charm and charisma.
From the low bar of Trump appointment performance thus far, Haley's done great.
Dems are still stuck on stupid if they blame Hillary's loss on her status as woman. It's the remnants of the post-election messianic complex she's obtained. Any woman can outperform by running a traditional message campaign (not doubling down on this group-that group identity politics), show passion and voice, and not be proven a untrustworthy liar throughout her political career.
Dems have a weak field again for 2020. Seriously, good luck.
The bigger problem, perhaps, is not that she is a woman and campaigns on it as an issue, but that she uses that as an excuse to pooh-pooh away the shittiness that people hate her for. Stupid shit like "women who don't vote for Hillary Clinton go to hell" (a line she took with a giant banana grin) and "I can't be part of the establishment because I'm a women" isn't misogyny, it's stupid identity politics. Beyond that, you would have to make some fairly convoluted ("implicit misogyny" and the like) arguments to justify the idea that she lost because woman. That's fairly evidently not why it happened, she just sucked and Trump sucked and sucky things happened from the merged suckage.
What do you mean? It's kind of like getting someone from Citigroup or Goldman Sachs to run the US Treasury. You get an expert in the field who knows exactly what's up, with no ulterior motives.
Is the concept of multiple sufficient causes really still beyond people? Here's 3 points. Does anyone disagree with any of these three?
1) Hillary lost the election. 2) It was really close. 3) We don't really know how much sexism is out there or how much it affected people's votes.
If these three points are granted it's just plain dumb to boldly proclaim "sexism didn't cost her the election" or "it wasn't that she was a woman, it was x y z." It's entirely possible that in a hypothetical universe where sexism wasn't present she would have won. That doesn't mean your x y z wouldn't have made the difference too, but if you're responding to Kwark's comment, it's not crazy to think that the dems would have a better chance with an old white guy.
On July 10 2017 00:57 ChristianS wrote: Is the concept of multiple sufficient causes really still beyond people? Here's 3 points. Does anyone disagree with any of these three?
1) Hillary lost the election. 2) It was really close. 3) We don't really know how much sexism is out there or how much it affected people's votes.
If these three points are granted it's just plain dumb to boldly proclaim "sexism didn't cost her the election" or "it wasn't that she was a woman, it was x y z." It's entirely possible that in a hypothetical universe where sexism wasn't present she would have won. That doesn't mean your x y z wouldn't have made the difference too, but if you're responding to Kwark's comment, it's not crazy to think that the dems would have a better chance with an old white guy.
You could make the exact same argument for Russia, or Comey, or deplorables, or whatever the fuck else you want. The bottom line is this: it should not have been close, it should have been a blowout. Based on the relative policy positions Hillary was definitely better positioned to win. Given Trump's temperament and qualifications or lack thereof, he should have lost by at least a 5 percent margin. But it's not the tiny little things that caused her to be vulnerable - it's the large scale scumminess that opened the door to a mildly different kind of scum.
On July 10 2017 00:57 ChristianS wrote: Is the concept of multiple sufficient causes really still beyond people? Here's 3 points. Does anyone disagree with any of these three?
1) Hillary lost the election. 2) It was really close. 3) We don't really know how much sexism is out there or how much it affected people's votes.
If these three points are granted it's just plain dumb to boldly proclaim "sexism didn't cost her the election" or "it wasn't that she was a woman, it was x y z." It's entirely possible that in a hypothetical universe where sexism wasn't present she would have won. That doesn't mean your x y z wouldn't have made the difference too, but if you're responding to Kwark's comment, it's not crazy to think that the dems would have a better chance with an old white guy.
You could make the exact same argument for Russia, or Comey, or deplorables, or whatever the fuck else you want. The bottom line is this: it should not have been close, it should have been a blowout. Based on the relative policy positions Hillary was definitely better positioned to win. Given Trump's temperament and qualifications or lack thereof, he should have lost by at least a 5 percent margin. But it's not the tiny little things that caused her to be vulnerable - it's the large scale scumminess that opened the door to a mildly different kind of scum.
Yes, it should have been a blowout. The fact that it wasn't shows us that the US is a shittier place then we hoped it was.
The fact that in this country, one party could nominate Donald Trump, and the other party would essentially take the view of "what's the worst candidate we could possibly get away with?"... yeah, definitely a demerit for the US as a whole.
Too bad "the other party" overshot on candidate badness and just straight up lost to Trump.
and legal is back to harping on clinton falsely yet again; can't you just let it go legal? clinton may have come up organically in the thread, but what you're doing is just bringing up the same ol' false spiel over and over, and it's very unhelpful and incredibly tiresome, and brings nothing new to the thread; all you do is force people to rehash the same old arguments over and over.
On July 10 2017 00:57 ChristianS wrote: Is the concept of multiple sufficient causes really still beyond people? Here's 3 points. Does anyone disagree with any of these three?
1) Hillary lost the election. 2) It was really close. 3) We don't really know how much sexism is out there or how much it affected people's votes.
If these three points are granted it's just plain dumb to boldly proclaim "sexism didn't cost her the election" or "it wasn't that she was a woman, it was x y z." It's entirely possible that in a hypothetical universe where sexism wasn't present she would have won. That doesn't mean your x y z wouldn't have made the difference too, but if you're responding to Kwark's comment, it's not crazy to think that the dems would have a better chance with an old white guy.
You could make the exact same argument for Russia, or Comey, or deplorables, or whatever the fuck else you want. The bottom line is this: it should not have been close, it should have been a blowout. Based on the relative policy positions Hillary was definitely better positioned to win. Given Trump's temperament and qualifications or lack thereof, he should have lost by at least a 5 percent margin. But it's not the tiny little things that caused her to be vulnerable - it's the large scale scumminess that opened the door to a mildly different kind of scum.
Yes, it should have been a blowout. The fact that it wasn't shows us that the US is a shittier place then we hoped it was.
I'm glad you're coming around to my point of view))
On July 10 2017 00:57 ChristianS wrote: Is the concept of multiple sufficient causes really still beyond people? Here's 3 points. Does anyone disagree with any of these three?
1) Hillary lost the election. 2) It was really close. 3) We don't really know how much sexism is out there or how much it affected people's votes.
If these three points are granted it's just plain dumb to boldly proclaim "sexism didn't cost her the election" or "it wasn't that she was a woman, it was x y z." It's entirely possible that in a hypothetical universe where sexism wasn't present she would have won. That doesn't mean your x y z wouldn't have made the difference too, but if you're responding to Kwark's comment, it's not crazy to think that the dems would have a better chance with an old white guy.
You could make the exact same argument for Russia, or Comey, or deplorables, or whatever the fuck else you want. The bottom line is this: it should not have been close, it should have been a blowout. Based on the relative policy positions Hillary was definitely better positioned to win. Given Trump's temperament and qualifications or lack thereof, he should have lost by at least a 5 percent margin. But it's not the tiny little things that caused her to be vulnerable - it's the large scale scumminess that opened the door to a mildly different kind of scum.
Yes, it should have been a blowout. The fact that it wasn't shows us that the US is a shittier place then we hoped it was.
I'm glad you're coming around to my point of view))
Ha, hardly. Pretty sure I made that point back when the election results came in.
And its not your 'The US isnt great' standpoint I have issue with, its the complete 180 dive into Kremlin propaganda.
EPT
who did that
