Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, Lee said:

 

"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."

-- Groucho Marx

 

:P

 

I thought it was Mark Twain who said that. In fairness, though, I can certainly see Groucho saying it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pariah said:

I thought it was Mark Twain who said that. In fairness, though, I can certainly see Groucho saying it too.

 

Likewise, I could see Mark Twain saying it, too. But, a quick search seems to favor Groucho. Maybe he was quoting Twain when he said it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :snicker:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!" :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...