|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
From my perspective, this is what’s going on...
Big chunk of rural/Midwest/“country” people feel like the world doesn’t make sense anymore and mainstream media hates them.
—>
Trump comes out and validates them in a way no other politician has. Yes he’s rich, but he goes out of his way to say “yes I believe in the conspiracy theories too, yes I believe the different colored people are ruining America too, yes I eat KFC and McDonalds every night too.” Even though he’s taking advantage of them, mentally/emotionally he really is one of them.
—>
The aforementioned demographic takes a liking to him. Mainstream media lays into him.
—>
With every attack of the mainstream media/liberals, it further cements the idea that he is one of them. “All those other people look down on him just like they look down on us, and they’re trying all sorts of slimy ways to take him down like ‘impeachment’ and ‘collusion”.
—>
Other Republicans shrug and say “eh, it’s weird, but he’s doing what a Republican president should so whatever.”
Also, Republicans as a whole are now becoming viewed/treated the same way as Cletus, so they’ll be more, not less, likely to become Trump acolytes for the reasons described.
These people don’t define America by democracy, immigration and multiculturalism. They define it by burgers/hot dogs, football, tractors, fast food chains, Jesus, and “getting things done”. Trump single-handedly dragged this definition from dying irrelevancy and put them in the spotlight both politically and culturally. They will never ever abandon him at this point, and would likely welcome him serving as many terms as he wants.
|
That “big chunk” isn’t actually very big though, and it gets smaller by the day, particularly in proportion to the opposing demographics. All of what is going on now is very much a phenomena taking place at the edge of a transition that is inevitable. That doesn’t mean stuff couldn’t get worse in the interim, rather that there is hope.
|
On October 04 2019 22:22 farvacola wrote:
That “big chunk” isn’t actually very big though, and it gets smaller by the day, particularly in proportion to the opposing demographics. All of what is going on now is very much a phenomena taking place at the edge of a transition that is inevitable. That doesn’t mean stuff couldn’t get worse in the interim, rather that there is hope.
I agree, both that it is getting smaller proportionally, and that things will get worse. They won’t allow themselves to go with a whimper anymore, not after what Trump has given them. There will be violence. His base will allow themselves to be his personal army.
I’d put my money on Trump losing the election though, in a manner similar to how he won it. He’ll seem like a front runner to the end, and unexpected voter turnout from groups that are historically low will work against him and seal the deal, specifically from young voters and (potentially) disenfranchised voters.
|
|
|
On October 04 2019 23:11 JimmiC wrote:
I was thinking last night (and I'm not sure how you do it this political climate) the US really needs a investigative department that is not politicized that is always investigating corruption. Trump has basically admitted it, and given the positions he has given his children and their spouses, and how others got their postings I could see a bunch of other stuff come out. But the fact check from cnn on Biden's son in China sounds pretty boarder line, like I wouldn't call it completely free and clear without more investigation. It certainly could be, and maybe even probably will be. But I would feel a lot better if some non appointed by a politician, not party aligned separate organization was investigating this stuff. I think there is likely a lot of somewhat dirty politicians and a few covered head to toe in dirt.
Maybe the good that could come from Trumps presidency is rooting out of corruption from the entire political landscape in America. Right now since it is so partisan the reps only look at the Dems and the Dems only look at the Reps. And the supporters of those parties believe that any corruption found is just a political attack from an opponent and that they are probably doing worse themselves. If some group was actually investigating everyone it would have more credibility. And if it could get a few people from each side maybe others wouldn't be so quick to do it themselves.
Right now there appears to be no accountability, just finger pointing across the isles.
And no I'm not saying both parties are equally bad, or anything like that. I'm saying that under the current system even if someone like Trump does get impeached you are only going to get a maximum of 60% of the people agreeing maybe less. And I don't think there will be a trickle down effect of rooting out more corruption because that is not the goal right now, the goal is just to remove Trump.
No political will, organization would be toothless, public won’t care, etc.
Corruption is as American as hot dogs. It’s only a problem for people if they get caught, or someone they don’t like is benefiting at their expense. It’s equivalent to speeding or cutting in front of someone in a theme park line.
|
This one made me chuckle. A lot. Especially since just earlier he argued he didn't care about political opponents or biden's career but just corruption.
https://twitter.com/EamonJavers/status/1180135362750009346?s=20
On October 04 2019 22:22 farvacola wrote:
That “big chunk” isn’t actually very big though, and it gets smaller by the day, particularly in proportion to the opposing demographics. All of what is going on now is very much a phenomena taking place at the edge of a transition that is inevitable. That doesn’t mean stuff couldn’t get worse in the interim, rather that there is hope.
It does not though? Even in the midterms, the turnout was a lot larger than usual including on the Republicans side, and his approval rating is still lower than 50 but does not go down.
|
Biden in 4th place in fundraising paints a pretty clear picture. Even booty is ahead of Biden. Sanders flexing hard, heart is now supercharged, overflowing with excess blood. Expect hyper-masculine SSJ Bernie at the next debate.
I'll be on the look out for Bernie to be saying stuff like "Kamala, with all due respect, please shut your hole and listen when I speak".
I really need Warren and Bernie to be posing together and being somewhat buddy buddy more than they are right now. Warren sending dinner to Bernie's staff the day of Bernie's procedure was solid. I have no plans to support Warren until Bernie is effectively eliminated. But I'm not gonna ride Bernie's stupid bus if he pulls a 2016 again and starts getting salty about losing and dragging the whole thing out. I will decide when I stop supporting Bernie.
I could totally understand Bernie raging against the Clinton machine, but if Warren ends up being the nominee, I will not entertain binary reasoning showing that since she is significantly less revolutionary than Bernie, she is just more of the same. She isn't. We can have higher resolution thinking than that. If Clinton was a 5, Bernie is a 100 and Warren is a 60. Bernie giving the finger to a 5 makes a lot more sense than a 60.
As it stands, I still think Bernie has a chance but the momentum just isn't there right now. That being said, I am expecting he will greatly outperform polls when the first primaries roll around. I don't think any of the polls correctly predict Bernie's performance, just like 2016. He has a fundamentally different movement than Warren and others.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/464383-the-hills-campaign-report-biden-posts-lackluster-third-quarter-fundraising
Third quarter fundraising numbers:
Bernie Sanders: $25.3 million (I greatly enjoy the fact that the socialist accrues the most wealth. mmph, it fuels me)
Elizabeth Warren: $24.6 million
Pete Buttigieg: $19.2 million
Joe Biden: $15.2 million
Kamala Harris: $11.6 million
Andrew Yang: $10 million
|
|
|
Is Trump a more popular version of Nixon?
|
On October 05 2019 02:13 IgnE wrote:
Is Trump a more popular version of Nixon?
On what metrics? This current guy is bucking any and every trend, so it's hard to say imo. I don't think Nixon was this blatantly corrupt and incompetent in the least.
|
On October 05 2019 02:13 IgnE wrote:
Is Trump a more popular version of Nixon?
I don't think our modern political climate/situation in the information age etc etc can be compared to anything pre-Obama. Its just so different, its not worth comparing.
|
I am convinced Nixon would have been able to get a 4 or 5 on an AP government exam. I am not sure Trump could muster a 2. While they're both crooks, they're very different kinds of crooks.
Nixon also had a pretty extensive career with the Republican party and served as vice president for 8 years while Trump was donating to Democrats 16 years before being elected. Even ignoring history comparing their political roles and careers seems foolhardy.
|
On October 05 2019 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2019 02:13 IgnE wrote:
Is Trump a more popular version of Nixon? I don't think our modern political climate/situation in the information age etc etc can be compared to anything pre-Obama. Its just so different, its not worth comparing.
Nixon used his Presidential powers to spy on and retaliate against political opponents. It’s fairly comparable. I don’t see why we should see the “information age” as such a radical break.
|
On October 05 2019 03:40 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I am convinced Nixon would have been able to get a 4 or 5 on an AP government exam. I am not sure Trump could muster a 2. While they're both crooks, they're very different kinds of crooks.
Nixon also had a pretty extensive career with the Republican party and served as vice president for 8 years while Trump was donating to Democrats 16 years before being elected. Even ignoring history comparing their political roles and careers seems foolhardy.
Nixon is definitely smarter than Trump. But Trump has a common-man appeal that offsets that. Trump can be more open about it, but it would be frightening to see what a 21st century Nixon could do. Maybe Ted Cruz could be that.
|
On October 05 2019 04:03 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2019 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On October 05 2019 02:13 IgnE wrote:
Is Trump a more popular version of Nixon? I don't think our modern political climate/situation in the information age etc etc can be compared to anything pre-Obama. Its just so different, its not worth comparing. Nixon used his Presidential powers to spy on and retaliate against political opponents. It’s fairly comparable. I don’t see why we should see the “information age” as such a radical break.
All about how you define the boundary conditions of your analysis. If we say "Within the context of using presidential powers to retaliate against political opponents, is Trump a more popular version of Nixon?", you get a different answer than your original post.
|
On October 05 2019 04:05 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2019 03:40 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I am convinced Nixon would have been able to get a 4 or 5 on an AP government exam. I am not sure Trump could muster a 2. While they're both crooks, they're very different kinds of crooks.
Nixon also had a pretty extensive career with the Republican party and served as vice president for 8 years while Trump was donating to Democrats 16 years before being elected. Even ignoring history comparing their political roles and careers seems foolhardy. Nixon is definitely smarter than Trump. But Trump has a common-man appeal that offsets that. Trump can be more open about it, but it would be frightening to see what a 21st century Nixon could do. Maybe Ted Cruz could be that.
If only Nixon had been more restrained the US would have had bipartisan-supported mandatory employer sponsored healthcare with a public option by the end of the 1970s. It's such a damn shame. I wonder if future generations look back at any of the things that almost happened under Trump but were derailed by his egoism/abuse the same way (maybe the infrastructure work)?
|
On October 05 2019 03:40 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I am convinced Nixon would have been able to get a 4 or 5 on an AP government exam. I am not sure Trump could muster a 2. While they're both crooks, they're very different kinds of crooks.
Nixon also had a pretty extensive career with the Republican party and served as vice president for 8 years while Trump was donating to Democrats 16 years before being elected. Even ignoring history comparing their political roles and careers seems foolhardy.
There was a presidential candidate written answers thing for the last election. Trump was undoubtedly the worst by a mile.
Most of the candidates wrote paragraph or multi-paragraph answers to each question. Trump had one or two sentence answers to everything, almost irrespective of issue complexity, so I would be very surprised if he could write a proper essay answer on any AP topic that would warrant a 2.
|
On October 05 2019 02:13 IgnE wrote:
Is Trump a more popular version of Nixon?
Are you implying Nixon wasn't popular? Or using popular in its sense of "of the people"? In either case it doesn't seem factual.
|
On October 05 2019 05:13 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2019 03:40 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I am convinced Nixon would have been able to get a 4 or 5 on an AP government exam. I am not sure Trump could muster a 2. While they're both crooks, they're very different kinds of crooks.
Nixon also had a pretty extensive career with the Republican party and served as vice president for 8 years while Trump was donating to Democrats 16 years before being elected. Even ignoring history comparing their political roles and careers seems foolhardy. There was a presidential candidate written answers thing for the last election. Trump was undoubtedly the worst by a mile. Most of the candidates wrote paragraph or multi-paragraph answers to each question. Trump had one or two sentence answers to everything, almost irrespective of issue complexity, so I would be very surprised if he could write a proper essay answer on any AP topic that would warrant a 2. when your appealing to the 'dumber' side of the audience snappy 1-2 sentence answers to complex problems are better, even if they are complete bullshit.
And unless you saw them write those answers, I would assume they all had their staff do it.
|
On October 05 2019 04:06 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2019 04:03 IgnE wrote:On October 05 2019 02:37 Mohdoo wrote:On October 05 2019 02:13 IgnE wrote:
Is Trump a more popular version of Nixon? I don't think our modern political climate/situation in the information age etc etc can be compared to anything pre-Obama. Its just so different, its not worth comparing. Nixon used his Presidential powers to spy on and retaliate against political opponents. It’s fairly comparable. I don’t see why we should see the “information age” as such a radical break. All about how you define the boundary conditions of your analysis. If we say "Within the context of using presidential powers to retaliate against political opponents, is Trump a more popular version of Nixon?", you get a different answer than your original post.
my bad i thought that was the implication since thats what all this impeachment conversation is about
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
