Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Old Man]

Wow, Lord Diadem (not our "Lord Diadem", the new account created 25 minutes ago) is pretty irked.  I'm starting to wonder where the anger is coming from.  Did he have a traumatic experience with a faith based organization?

[Iuz the Evil]

8 minutes ago, Old Man said:

Wow, Lord Diadem (not our "Lord Diadem", the new account created 25 minutes ago) is pretty irked.  I'm starting to wonder where the anger is coming from.  Did he have a traumatic experience with a faith based organization?

Yeah, grumpy about FBOs for sure. Meh, I find that I can bear his ire with great fortitude. 

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even when it differs from my own (and therefore is clearly wrong). 

[Old Man]

I like to shorten that to "Everyone is entitled to my opinion".

[BoloOfEarth]

1 hour ago, Old Man said:

Wow, Lord Diadem (not our "Lord Diadem", the new account created 25 minutes ago) is pretty irked.  I'm starting to wonder where the anger is coming from.  Did he have a traumatic experience with a faith based organization?

 

I think we should all pray for him.

[Hermit]

1 hour ago, BoloOfEarth said:

 

I think we should all pray for him.

"FUNNY, but WRONG"- Steve Martin

[Pariah]

2 hours ago, BoloOfEarth said:

I think we should all pray for him.

 

This is almost certainly the funniest and most brilliant thing I will read all day.

[Simon]

Apparently that was the third time I’ve banned that person...they keep creating new accounts.

 

I’d look into a more permanent solution when I get back from London, but I’m just not sure that I care...

 

Plus side, I’m consistent in my banning.

[Doc Democracy]

You’re in London?  And you didn’t think to drop in, say hello and get a tour of the Palace?  I am devastated!!!

 

🙂

 

A tour would be easy to deliver if you are close to Westminster though....

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, Simon said:

Apparently that was the third time I’ve banned that person...they keep creating new accounts.

 

I’d look into a more permanent solution when I get back from London, but I’m just not sure that I care...

 

Plus side, I’m consistent in my banning.

 

It might help your bans follow through if you put a little more English on them.

[Hermit]

On the political side of news

 

Kamala Harris has dropped out

[megaplayboy]

1 hour ago, Hermit said:

On the political side of news

 

Kamala Harris has dropped out

She was my preferred candidate, so this is disappointing.  More disappointing--the only major American party with more than token demographic diversity(imo), the Democratic Party, will have, as of today, 6 white candidates on stage at the next debate in December.  Including one candidate who effectively bought his way onto the stage.  The only candidate of color who qualified just dropped out, and two other appealing candidates of color, Castro and Booker, are struggling to get any traction.  There's only one female candidate with a meaningful chance of winning out there as well.  And the progressive candidates' relative appeal triggered a backlash from the wealthy donor class, including having a multibillionaire parachute in at the last minute to try to buy his way to victory like the other guy who is trying it.  And the base electorate seems to have bought the media-promoted notion that only a moderate white guy stands any chance of beating Trump this time, which I think is going to lead to a spectacularly wrong-footed general election strategy.  So I'm a bit depressed at the moment.  

[Lord Liaden]

You know, I can't really blame Americans who voted for Donald Trump the first time. I appreciate the frustration many of them had with the status quo, the appeal of a political outsider who talked like a populist, and sold a line they wanted to hear. I never bought it myself, but I get why many people were at least willing to give him a chance. Nobody could have foreseen the magnitude of how he would screw things up.

 

But at this point everyone in the world has had years to perceive who Donald Trump really is, what he wants, and where he's leading the United States. I apologize if this sounds harsh... but if Americans re-elect him, they truly will deserve the government they get. I will have pity for them, but not as much as for the rest of us, who will have had no hand in his election but will have to deal with him anyway.

[Hermit]

11 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

You know, I can't really blame Americans who voted for Donald Trump the first time. I appreciate the frustration many of them had with the status quo, the appeal of a political outsider who talked like a populist, and sold a line they wanted to hear. I never bought it myself, but I get why many people were at least willing to give him a chance. Nobody could have foreseen the magnitude of how he would screw things up.

 

But at this point everyone in the world has had years to perceive who Donald Trump really is, what he wants, and where he's leading the United States. I apologize if this sounds harsh... but if Americans re-elect him, they truly will deserve the government they get. I will have pity for them, but not as much as for the rest of us, who will have had no hand in his election but will have to deal with him anyway.

 

I don't blame anyone a bit for being angry at Americans who vote him in a second time. I know I would. IF (ANd i sure as heck pray it doesn't) it happens, I'm going to see it as a moral and ethical collapse on a grand scale.

 

That said, our Electoral College and Winner takes all system means that he could without the majority of voters wanting him. It happened before.

Hopefully turn out will be greater next time, and the apathetic stirred to action

 

[Pariah]

The first step, in my opinion, is to get past the entire idea of the popular vote. Yes, perhaps it should have something to do with the election of the President, but the fact is it doesn't and never has. The President is and always has been elected by the States.

 

So if the Democrats want to win the White House, they need to focus on winning States--especially States that Mr. Trump won last time around. Which means yes, they're going to have to try to appeal to middle class white males, at least to some extent. I feel like the Democratic strategy in 2016 was to try to win the election by appealing to everybody other than middle class white males. We see how that turned out.

 

It also means that the Democratic candidate can't publicly write off everyone who disagrees with them as 'Deplorables' or something similar. I was astonished when Secretary Clinton made that comment. Had she learned nothing from Mitt Romney's 47% comment the previous election?

 

The Democratic party tends to be more idealistic than the Republican counterparts--or at least that's how it's usually perceived--but Democrats also need to be pragmatic. Yes, there are changes to be made. But you're going to have to win the White House first. That is the first order of business. Everything else can wait until that's resolved.

 

I still remember when Bill Clinton went on Arsenio Hall's talk show and played saxophone. Arsenio said something like, "Finally a Democrat who can blow something other than an election." The 2020 election is the Democratic Party's to lose. Please don't blow it.

[Iuz the Evil]

1 hour ago, Pariah said:

The first step, in my opinion, is to get past the entire idea of the popular vote. Yes, perhaps it should have something to do with the election of the President, but the fact is it doesn't and never has. The President is and always has been elected by the States.

 

So if the Democrats want to win the White House, they need to focus on winning States--especially States that Mr. Trump won last time around. Which means yes, they're going to have to try to appeal to middle class white males, at least to some extent. I feel like the Democratic strategy in 2016 was to try to win the election by appealing to everybody other than middle class white males. We see how that turned out.

 

It also means that the Democratic candidate can't publicly write off everyone who disagrees with them as 'Deplorables' or something similar. I was astonished when Secretary Clinton made that comment. Had she learned nothing from Mitt Romney's 47% comment the previous election?

 

The Democratic party tends to be more idealistic than the Republican counterparts--or at least that's how it's usually perceived--but Democrats also need to be pragmatic. Yes, there are changes to be made. But you're going to have to win the White House first. That is the first order of business. Everything else can wait until that's resolved.

 

I still remember when Bill Clinton went on Arsenio Hall's talk show and played saxophone. Arsenio said something like, "Finally a Democrat who can blow something other than an election." The 2020 election is the Democratic Party's to lose. Please don't blow it.

This is, in my opinion, spot on. I have been horrified by the debates in this context, the positions espoused by candidates are not in my opinion likely to win hearts and minds in Wisconsin, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc. 

 

Democrats need to worry a lot less about New York and California. They'll win those states walking away. They need to win the darned election, and to do that they need to appeal more broadly to the midwestern states and yes, even to white, middle class voters. 

[Lord Liaden]

You know, I get the pragmatic considerations, the need for politicians to get their foot in the door by appealing to a wide swath of the public. I really do get it.

 

But I'm so sick of politicians who tailor every remark to please who they're talking to! I'm fed up with being sold plans and promises that I know aren't really going to be carried through once they get in office. I long for people running for office who say what they mean and mean what they say, so I know where they actually stand. I want someone with a vision, a purpose, other than tweaking taxes and pork-barreling local issues. I may not agree with a particular vision, but at least that will earn my respect.

 

I keep thinking of an exclamation from fictional British Prime Minister Jim Hacker, of the legendary political satire TV series Yes, Prime Minister: "I am the people's leader! I must follow them!"

[Old Man]

1 hour ago, Iuz the Evil said:

 

 

Democrats need to worry a lot less about New York and California. They'll win those states walking away. They need to win the darned election, and to do that they need to appeal more broadly to the midwestern states and yes, even to white, middle class voters. 

 

You'd think they already would appeal to white middle class voters.  Fixing healthcare, reducing the deficit, and addressing climate change are part of the platforms for virtually every non-billionaire Democratic candidate.  I'd compare it to the GOP's proposals, if I'd heard of any.  I get the impression that they're just peachy with the status quo.

[Zeropoint]

18 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

You know, I can't really blame Americans who voted for Donald Trump the first time. I appreciate the frustration many of them had with the status quo, the appeal of a political outsider who talked like a populist, and sold a line they wanted to hear. I never bought it myself, but I get why many people were at least willing to give him a chance. Nobody could have foreseen the magnitude of how he would screw things up.

 

But at this point everyone in the world has had years to perceive who Donald Trump really is, what he wants, and where he's leading the United States. I apologize if this sounds harsh... but if Americans re-elect him, they truly will deserve the government they get. I will have pity for them, but not as much as for the rest of us, who will have had no hand in his election but will have to deal with him anyway.

 

Trump's presidential term hasn't revealed anything about him that we didn't already know. I absolutely can and do blame Americans who voted for him the first time, because we--the nation, collectively--had all the information we needed to know exactly who and what he was. The people who voted for him did so out of either a willful and culpable choice to remain ignorant of his qualities, or awareness of those qualities couple with a decision that those qualities were either excusable or even desirable. No one is in a position to say, "Yeah, he's bad, but I didn't know." We all knew. The people who voted for him knew what they were voting for.

[Pariah]

In large part, I think the people who voted for Donald Trump were voting for "Anyone but Hillary Clinton".

 

Well, we certainly got that.

 

And really, that's what makes the results so perplexing. I mean, I've seen several elections where one party's entire strategy seems to have been, "Well, at least we're not the other guy". 

 

The Democrats used it in 2004: "Vote for me because I'm not George W Bush."

 

The Republicans used it in 2012: "Vote for me because I'm not Barack Obama."

 

It didn't work either time.

 

So why did it work in 2016? Because both sides were doing it.

 

Republicans: "Don't vote for crooked Hillary!"

 

Democrats: "You couldn't possibly be stupid enough to vote for Donald Trump."

 

Something had to give.

 

I would love, more than my capacity for words can express, to have an election where the candidates focused on principles and issues and solutions to problems and not on the flaws, real or perceived, of the other candidate and/or party.

 

I also realize that the probability of having such an election right now is somewhat less than that of monkeys spontaneously flying out of my dorsal orifice. And like those hypothetical monkeys, candidates, presidential and otherwise, are going to fling scatological material at one another because they think that's what we, the voters, want to see.

 

They think this because they've spent years, even decades, telling us that this is what we should want to see.

 

 Some days I genuinely despair for the future of our country, and our world.

[Old Man]

You’re absolutely right in that Hillary played to not lose. I kind of can’t blame her given the commanding lead she showed in the polls, but history suggests that the way to win is to inspire your voters (or at least whip them into a frenzy). 

[Pattern Ghost]

I wonder what effect the polls had on Democratic voter turn out, whether they led to people becoming too complacent, and whether they helped energize the other side.

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, Zeropoint said:

 

Trump's presidential term hasn't revealed anything about him that we didn't already know. I absolutely can and do blame Americans who voted for him the first time, because we--the nation, collectively--had all the information we needed to know exactly who and what he was. The people who voted for him did so out of either a willful and culpable choice to remain ignorant of his qualities, or awareness of those qualities couple with a decision that those qualities were either excusable or even desirable. No one is in a position to say, "Yeah, he's bad, but I didn't know." We all knew. The people who voted for him knew what they were voting for.

 

On that I would have to respectfully disagree. Yes, we knew he was selfish, we knew he was ignorant, we knew he was inflammatory, we knew he wasn't moral. As so many people commented during the last presidential election, in those regards he didn't seem all that different from his rival and many other politicians. If I was American I would have voted for Hillary Clinton over the Donald, because at least she was competent for the job.

 

But no one actually knew in advance that, when provided with expert information and advice on a range of issues of which he knew nothing, Trump would ignore it in favor of his "instincts." No one knew he would believe fringe media conspiracy theories over information from the most extensive intelligence service in the world. No one knew that he would deny basic human compassion to people based on their country of origin, and arguably, the color of their skins. No one knew that he would deliberately inflame the social and racial divisions within American society to his own benefit. No one knew that he would try to blatantly ignore and even cast into disrepute elements of the Constitution. No one knew that he would withdraw America from multiple commitments to the international community negotiated by his predecessors, seemingly because he wanted to claim he got "a better deal." No one knew that he would alienate long-standing American allies while cozying up to the country's rivals.

 

In hindsight, the pattern is clear, and the seeds were already planted. We got Trump, but we never bargained for how much Trump we would get.

[Zeropoint]

13 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

But no one actually knew in advance that, when provided with expert information and advice on a range of issues of which he knew nothing, Trump would ignore it in favor of his "instincts."

 

But we did know of his strong anti-intellectualism and the way he managed to run more than one casino into bankruptcy and the way he managed to make a New York real estate business have worse ROI than an index fund. We knew he didn't care for best practices and that this disdain hurt his operations.

 

15 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

No one knew he would believe fringe media conspiracy theories over information from the most extensive intelligence service in the world.

 

His fixation on the Central Park Five and his continuing insistence on their guilt after their exoneration clearly demonstrated his refusal to accept evidence.

 

20 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

No one knew that he would deny basic human compassion to people based on their country of origin, and arguably, the color of their skins. No one knew that he would deliberately inflame the social and racial divisions within American society to his own benefit.

 

Uh . . . I can only assume that you, not being American, didn't pay much attention to his presidential campaign. His virulent racism was quite openly displayed. We watched him "inflame the social and racial divisions within American society to his own benefit" during that campaign. That was his main strategy.

 

23 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

No one knew that he would try to blatantly ignore and even cast into disrepute elements of the Constitution.

 

His disregard for the law was evident. I don't know why anyone would expect that he'd treat the Constitution any differently.

 

24 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

No one knew that he would withdraw America from multiple commitments to the international community negotiated by his predecessors, seemingly because he wanted to claim he got "a better deal."

 

He was well known as a fraudster and someone who refused to honor agreements when there was a financial benefit to be had. New York contractors made no secret of including a "Trump tax" in their dealings with him to ensure they got paid enough up front, because they knew he'd refuse to pay the rest of the bill after the work was done.

 

26 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

No one knew that he would alienate long-standing American allies while cozying up to the country's rivals.

 

I'll give you . . . half of this. It's true that we didn't know just how much power Russia has over him, but we did know he was in bed with them.

 

28 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

In hindsight, the pattern is clear, and the seeds were already planted. We got Trump, but we never bargained for how much Trump we would get.

 

Like the snake in the old story, we knew what he was when we picked him up. Anyone who expected him to dramatically change who he is and how he operates just because he got elected was a fool.

[Lord Liaden]

I think the distinctions you and I are making are not in quality, just in magnitude. All the stuff you point out is true, but I still maintain the lengths to which Trump would go, and the depths he would stoop to, weren't predictable. But I understand your position, and I can't say it's not supportable.

[Old Man]

Yes, I think everyone was shocked to see how much Trump we actually got.  Still, prior to the election, we all knew that he was:

 

- Deeply in debt to the Russians.

- A serial philanderer.

- A publicly admitted sexual assaulter, with credible allegations of child rape dating back to his time with Epstein.

- A serial fraud and business failure.

- Openly racist.

 

Any one of these should have been an automatic disqualification.  However, for some voters, these qualities are apparently features, not bugs.