Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Old Man]

You realize I agree that the ID requirement is bad, right? (Just checking.)

 

Yes, I am just piling on.  ID requirements are one of my (many) pet peeves.

[csyphrett]

Christie is out of the transition team. Jeff Sessions and Pence are in. Sessions's long time aides are running the transition, and working on a viable solution to the Mexican Wall

CES

[薔薇語]

There were "Bernie Bros"

 

 

NSFW- Language and a bit over the top. 

 

 

Soar.

[TheDarkness]

Idle speculation that plays far too well into this narrative of finding a boogieman. Some over simplified reason to blame others for why Sec. Clinton lost. It couldn't have been her character, policies, or campaign message - No, there must be sexists, so many that it caused her to lose! Nevermind there is no data to suggest it nor a personal will to work it. Vague speculation is enough.

 

When there is actual data to support implying your fellow citizens are sexist, let's talk. But this tired old tactic of implying Racism and sexism at every turn must end. And it is an implication. These loose lip speculations breed mistrust and full faced lies.

 

Soar.

You do realize the alt-right was founded by white nationalists? There's not even a historical question on that. The founder is a white nationalist, it began in two white nationalist websites, and many of the movers and shakers in it are still white nationalists.

 

If you can't even define a white nationalist founded movement that includes a huge number of white nationalist groups as probably being racist, should you be the boss of when someone can mention racism?

 

Further, is it really unprompted to question what role racism played in the first election since Jim Crow in which the winning candidate openly courted a group, founded by white nationalists for white nationalism, and used that group in influencing the election? AND when that group basically made a moderate veteran Republican decide not to run as a third party candidate after they sent his family members pictures of his adopted daughter, who is not white, in a gas chamber?

 

No one is saying all his voters are racist.

 

But you can hardly claim that it is unwarranted to speculate on what role racism played.

 

Hell, when endorsed by major white nationalist organizations, he did not come out and denounce them, he only made a denouncement when PROMPTED by a journalist after the SECOND endorsement, unlike, say, Reagan, who tore white nationalists a new one as soon as they announced their support.

 

And, considering that white nationalists now think that Trump was just playing politics in his denouncement, and considering that he was quoting white nationalists on Twitter, there's a point where there's sufficient cause to speculate.

[Pattern Ghost]

Yes, I am just piling on.  ID requirements are one of my (many) pet peeves.

 

Gotcha.

 

Could you point me to an example of voter suppression by Democrats?  Thanks!

 

 

It's such a basic tactic, you'd have to be negligent to ignore it. Kind of like deflating footballs. Here's an article from 538 on some Democratic tactics:

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-democrats-suppress-the-vote/

[megaplayboy]

That...seems kinda apples and oranges to me.

[TheDarkness]

That...seems kinda apples and oranges to me.

It actually is similar. The main point is, controlling the schedule for some elections, in which school unions, for example, are most impacted, means that the union members and teachers will definitely vote, because it's an issue they are mobilized for, but few other blocs will be so energized for.

 

Granted, that's for more local politics. At the national level, that doesn't apply. So, apples and oranges in that sense, if that was what you were meaning.

 

Interesting article.

[megaplayboy]

It actually is similar. The main point is, controlling the schedule for some elections, in which school unions, for example, are most impacted, means that the union members and teachers will definitely vote, because it's an issue they are mobilized for, but few other blocs will be so energized for.

 

Granted, that's for more local politics. At the national level, that doesn't apply. So, apples and oranges in that sense, if that was what you were meaning.

 

Interesting article.

But there's no barrier to people actually voting. It's more that people don't show up as much. You can say the same thing about midterms, where turnout is only around 40 percent, and the voter mix favors older, whiter, and more conservative voters.

[TheDarkness]

But there's no barrier to people actually voting. It's more that people don't show up as much. You can say the same thing about midterms, where turnout is only around 40 percent, and the voter mix favors older, whiter, and more conservative voters.

If you know that people statistically don't show up as much at certain times, and you schedule elections for those times because you know a bloc of YOUR people will show up for one, it is manipulative.

 

Probably voter suppression is the wrong word. Actually, totally wrong. I get your point!

[Ranxerox]

There are so many horrifying things about the Trump victory that it is hard to focus on just one, but his promise to repeal the Johnson Amendment fills me with the most dread.

 

Most of his campaign promises in my mind are pretty iffy. They are things that can be filibustered by the Democrats, fail to pass even through even a Republican controlled congress, get struck down by the courts, take years and years to implement or simply be forgotten by Trump himself like all those promises he has made to investors and contractors over the years.

 

Repealing the Johnson Amendment is different, though.  It is literally something that he can do in his first hundred days.  Even if the measure to repeal it gets filibustered by the Dems in the Senate, he can simply do it by executive order.  He can leave the law on the book but instruct the IRS to stop using its resources to enforce it, and this would be perfectly within his rights as POTUS.  It is not particularly different from what Obama did with is Dream Act or the decision to have DEA back off of states that legalized marijuana.

 

So that is what we have to look forward to, pastors telling there flock from the pulpit that they are going to go to hell if they vote Democrat and that he expects them to all get and do everything they can to get Congressman Joe Gaybasher reelected for for a 5th term.  

 

There is a saying that if you mix water and raw sewage that you get sewage, and that if you mix religion and politics you get politics.  That is what we have to look forward to from the pulpits on Sundays,  raw sewage.  I mean politics.  I mean both,

[Clonus]

If you know that people statistically don't show up as much at certain times, and you schedule elections for those times because you know a bloc of YOUR people will show up for one, it is manipulative.

 

Probably voter suppression is the wrong word. Actually, totally wrong. I get your point!

 

I think a bigger issue is that ultimately a 40/60 split doesn't make the point that "The Democrats" are doing it.  Since after all, that means a lot of Republicans are doing it and a lot of Democrats are opposing it.  The article's use of "far more likely" is overstatement.  

[Ternaugh]

A video that Cracked.com posted back in June (Warning: NSFW language):

 

[Badger]

Idle speculation that plays far too well into this narrative of finding a boogieman. Some over simplified reason to blame others for why Sec. Clinton lost. It couldn't have been her character, policies, or campaign message - No, there must be sexists, so many that it caused her to lose! Nevermind there is no data to suggest it nor a personal will to work it. Vague speculation is enough.

 

When there is actual data to support implying your fellow citizens are sexist, let's talk. But this tired old tactic of implying Racism and sexism at every turn must end. And it is an implication. These loose lip speculations breed mistrust and full faced lies.

 

Soar.

 

 

The Dems will either have to move forward and adapt or keep going with this "never my fault" attitude.  It was a shock, so I understand somewhat, but being conservative-leaning and looking at it from that side, blame it on everything but themselves can only help the conservatives.  Clinton got beat partly, probably mostly for her (or appearance thereof-whichever fits one's narrative) corruption.  Less people were enthused for her because of that.

 

I'm also frankly tired of many Dem politicians condescending arrogance.  "he cant possibly find fault with our policies, he must be KKK-loving, woman-hating homophobe who beats homeless people on the weekend." 

[Badger]

Could you point me to an example of voter suppression by Democrats?  Thanks!

 

A few years ago, the Black Panthers were at a polling place brandishing clubs.  Pretty sure you can find it without difficulty.

 

Not counting the alleged voter ID suppression, could you provide one done by GOP to make it even?

[Badger]

A video that Cracked.com posted back in June (Warning: NSFW language):

 

 

 

I was saying that over a year ago.  He speaks like a "conservative" who gets all his talking points on GOP opinions from the list of "conservative stereotypes".

[Iuz the Evil]

The Dems will either have to move forward and adapt or keep going with this "never my fault" attitude. It was a shock, so I understand somewhat, but being conservative-leaning and looking at it from that side, blame it on everything but themselves can only help the conservatives. Clinton got beat partly, probably mostly for her (or appearance thereof-whichever fits one's narrative) corruption. Less people were enthused for her because of that.

 

I'm also frankly tired of many Dem politicians condescending arrogance. "he cant possibly find fault with our policies, he must be KKK-loving, woman-hating homophobe who beats homeless people on the weekend."

Not totally unfair, save for the timing. So basically "get better candidates"?

 

Nobody I've heard who seems credible in the slightest is claiming trump won because of his strong grasp of policy or a national consensus on his positions. The DNC needs to learn from this, to be sure, but being more like the GOP/Trump seems like a terrible idea, other than finding a way to energize their voters.

 

I did like the "take him seriously/literally" example upthread. Stealing that, was very good.

 

Edit: And maybe don't have the FBI comment as Comey did next time. That could actually have implications in the future practically speaking for vetting and retention of key administration positions. Why would you risk it?

[薔薇語]

President Elect Trump has proposed a new federal student debt program. Students would be allowed to cap debt at 12.5% and gain forgiveness at 15 years. This is compared to the current 10% at 20 years plan.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/10/13/trump-just-laid-out-a-pretty-radical-student-debt-plan/

 

I don't know how valuable this will be though. I know that just looking at my own personal finances, I would not actually pay off my debt any faster nor reduce the amount of debt I have paid. And I am also on the higher end of loans. With a decent income.

 

Soar.

[薔薇語]

Nick Adams, director of the GLAAD Transgender Media Program, told BuzzFeed News that there were "unconfirmed reports that some trans people died by suicide in the hours following the election," though at that point it was "not possible to substantiate those rumors." He added that "it's important that mainstream media outlets and people on social media do not spread incomplete or inaccurate information about suicides, as it can lead others to attempt self harm."

 

http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/12/trans-teen-suicide-spike-post-election

 

In essense rumors and loose lip speculation has run rampant. And in the case of suicide, such "news" stories DO increase suicide rates.

 

 

Soar.

[Iuz the Evil]

Nick Adams, director of the GLAAD Transgender Media Program, told BuzzFeed News that there were "unconfirmed reports that some trans people died by suicide in the hours following the election," though at that point it was "not possible to substantiate those rumors." He added that "it's important that mainstream media outlets and people on social media do not spread incomplete or inaccurate information about suicides, as it can lead others to attempt self harm."

 

http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/12/trans-teen-suicide-spike-post-election

 

In essense rumors and loose lip speculation has run rampant. And in the case of suicide, such "news" stories DO increase suicide rates.

 

 

Soar.

So are we equating speculating about suicide (btw, suicide hotlines lit up after the election result. That's a straight up fact - and I also agree that there are reporting guidelines around suicide that are intended to mitigate this, in line with the statement provided) with evaluating the associations and statements of Trump?

 

I'm genuinely curious about this. You've got a guy who has many, many demonstrable associations and statements that are in line with the aforementioned xenophobic, homophobic, sexist, racist ideology being speculated about having an influence on the election. How should we talk about that? Or should we not?

[薔薇語]

When we start making over-emotional and/or accusational statements we put are planting the seeds of something that can't yield healthy fruit. This post election discussion is planting a lot of bad seeds. We aren't taking the time to check if something is true or if there is at least some data to back a statement up before letting it slip. "I heard a LGBT person killed themselves" becomes "10 LGBT people killed themselves" in this telephone game we call social media. It is like how Mega still believes in "Bernie Bros" long after the fact. "I am curious to see whether there was a hidden "gender penalty for Clinton in the Senator Sanders campaign" seems like an interesting idle thought. But one with no evidence but a LOT of emotion. And that is all it takes to provoke motivated (bias) reasoning to find any shred of evidence to prove a point - and it doesn't matter. 

The issue of Suicide is far stronger a case here than the 'gender gap'. That is true. It was probably unwarranted of me to link the two. The consequence of one is that people take it as a social cue to actually kill themself, and the other just inspires greater and unwarranted animosity among us. These memes that everyone who didn't support Sec. Clinton is a racist and/or sexist must stop. Idle speculation about how many of them there are should stop until you actually have some evidence for it and not just raw emotion. 

So, when is it appropriate to talk about talk about such things? When there is hard evidence. When do we talk about a spike in suicides? When there is evidence there is a spike in suicides. When we do we start saying Sec. Clinton lost because of millions of sexist voters? When there is evidence.

 

Soar.

[TheDarkness]

When we start making over-emotional and/or accusational statements we put are planting the seeds of something that can't yield healthy fruit. This post election discussion is planting a lot of bad seeds. We aren't taking the time to check if something is true or if there is at least some data to back a statement up before letting it slip. "I heard a LGBT person killed themselves" becomes "10 LGBT people killed themselves" in this telephone game we call social media. It is like how Mega still believes in "Bernie Bros" long after the fact. "I am curious to see whether there was a hidden "gender penalty for Clinton in the Senator Sanders campaign" seems like an interesting idle though. But one with no evidence but a LOT of emotion. And that is all it takes to provoke motivated (bias) reasoning to find any shred of evidence to prove a point - and it doesn't matter. 

 

The issue of Suicide is far stronger a case here than the 'gender gap'. That is true. It was probably unwarranted of me to link the two. The consequence of one is that people take it as a social cue to actually kill themself, and the other just inspires greater and unwarranted animosity among us. These memes that everyone who didn't support Sec. Clinton is a racist and/or sexist must stop. Idle speculation about how many of them there are should stop until you actually have some evidence for it and not just raw emotion. 

 

So, when is it appropriate to talk about talk about such things? When there is hard evidence. When do we talk about a spike in suicides? When there is evidence there is a spike in suicides. When we do we start saying Sec. Clinton lost because of millions of sexist voters? When there is evidence.

 

Soar.

So, whose standard of evidence? You seem to be deciding that, but your standard, in one metric already, is not shared by most on either side of the political aisle, and is at odds with the actual facts and any definition of reasonable standards.

 

Perhaps if you don't like a topic, you could simply just not like the topic. This does not equate to an argument of such validity that the topic is decided, because it isn't.

 

It's easy to characterize something as 'over-emotional and accusational' to discount it. But you yourself responded to a statement that was, in essence, "alt-right, a movement founded by white nationalists for white nationalism, and whose arguments stem from white nationalism, is white nationalist, and Bannon, who provides their strongest media source, is either an opportunist, or shares views with white nationalists, and Trump, by making use of this, created a problem" into an over-emotional accusation that I was unfairly calling people racists, when, in fact, the above are actually statements of fact. You further used anecdotal evidence, you know some people who are alt-right and don't think they were racists, as your sole trump.

 

I clarified that I did not doubt that was true. Which does not change who founded alt-right, who it's main voices are, and that the very, very few of those voices who do not claim to be white nationalists are, in almost every case, putting forward the exact views of the white nationalists, minus outright stating they are white nationalists.

 

Any thorough search of alt-right sources, be it theirs or their critics, will confirm EVERY statement I just made.

 

If we can't call people who call themselves white nationalists, white nationalists, based solely on some anecdotal evidence of someone else having the bad judgment of associating themselves with a white nationalist movement, who can we call white nationalists?

 

I'm only reiterating this to point out that you are not in a place to be arbiter on discussions of race if you cannot allow even self-avowed white nationalists to be referred to as racists. A discourse on race that cannot address actual racists is not a sensible thing.

[Pattern Ghost]

I think we should all take a moment to reflect on how far we've come as a nation, that we've finally elected our first orange president. And his pet tribble.

[Iuz the Evil]

I was thinking that basically, great. So given that I'm satisfied there's plenty of evidence of the white nationalist underpinnings of significant campaign elements, xenophobia, sexism and so forth we apear to be good to go.

 

Carry on.

[Pattern Ghost]

Don't worry, he has an unimpeachable character.

[TheDarkness]

I think we should all take a moment to reflect on how far we've come as a nation, that we've finally elected our first orange president. And his pet tribble.

And who suffers most under the oompa loompas?

 

The children.