Trump Part VIII

[BVS]

I had a lengthy post in response to some of what was thrown at me above but Interference ate it. So I'll instead link to this. That's right guys ... it's time for some game theory.

Trump Conspiracy Tweetstorms Are The Infowars Of The Left

If there are any that believe a meddling was the only reason Hillary lost, that it absolves anything, and there was nothing else she could have done can join the ranks of the right and left that fall for fake news.

Anyone who puts ideology over fact, right or left, shouldn't be voting. They are the ones that gave us Trump.

 

[PhilsFan]

There are many! And they're almost all establishment/pundit class Democrats. Many of them spout the same stuff that I see in this thread decrying leftists.

 

[BVS]

There are many! And they're almost all establishment/pundit class Democrats. Many of them spout the same stuff that I see in this thread decrying leftists.

I know they exist, I'm not denying that.

But I'm still not convinced there was any big "decrying leftists" in here.

 

[anitram]

Unfortunately the reality of US politics is that "leftists" probably as defined by Pfan have zero chance of governing similarly to how the freedom caucus has little chance of governing. Until and unless there is a multi-party system which appears to be a non-starter for the establishment for obvious reasons but even more disappointingly a non-starter for many establishment type voters, you are going to be stuck with what you have now. And in that context, it's foolish to allow perfect to be the enemy of good.

Even in the scenario where you have a billionaire (absolute requirement) like Bloomberg or somebody running as an independent candidate for president, it won't really matter so long as the Congress is made up of two parties which (a) hate each other and (b) have little to no incentive to help an independent president achieve anything for which they may not personally get credit.

I understand to an extent American reticence about parliamentary democracies and how they can devolve into endless elections and fragile coalitions which make governance hard, but truthfully, how good is the governance system in the US now? It's one party in power and the other obstructing.

 

[BVS]

And in that context, it's foolish to allow perfect to be the enemy of good.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I had a lengthy post in response to some of what was thrown at me above but Interference ate it. So I'll instead link to this. That's right guys ... it's time for some game theory.

Trump Conspiracy Tweetstorms Are The Infowars Of The Left

it's not as simple as "it's all the russian's fault" just like it's not as simple as "she was a terrible candidate."

i don't even know if anyone here even puts the russian interference as the prime reason for her defeat. outrage at a presidential candidate (and no potus) colluding with a foreign adversary does not automatically mean that you feel clinton was all bunnies and rainbows.

she was a flawed candidate from day one. i don't think you can point to a single candidate on either side of the election who wasn't flawed. even my ideal candidate in mike bloomberg has serious issues that he would have to answer to and address - from stop and frisk to income equality.

i simply have a few major problems with the anti-Hillary, anyone else would have beat trump line of thought.

1) flawed candidate does not mean she was a bad candidate. the woman was highly qualified for the job, probably more qualified than her husband was when he was elected. she was a multi-term senator from one of the largest states in the nation, and a highly respected secretary of state. her and her husband's foundation was among the most highly respected and well run non-profits in the world, and produced real, meaningful change in some of the poorest undeveloped regions of the world. this doesn't change that she had faults, that she had issues connecting with people, that her "deplorable" comment was incredibly harmful with the section of the electorate that ultimately sunk her, nor does it change that the democratic party misjudged the influence of the rural white vote in the rust belt region, nor does it hide the fact that the DNC has largely ignored the plight of white rural Americans in the rust belt and Appalachia, and has done next to nothing on the public stage to help fight the incredible opiate addiction problem in that region. but...

2) Clinton was dominating every major poll at the time the Comey letter came out. the letter brought her numbers back down to within the margin of error. it's hardly crazy to believe that she would have won, probably be a comfortable margin, if not for the release of the letter. that doesn't change that she had flaws, nor does it take her and the DNC off the hook for ignoring the rust belt. but 10 days out from election day, despite all the faults, she held a dominating lead. one event changed that.

3) there is no way to know how Sanders would have performed when finally faced with the spotlight and vetting that comes from being on the big stage. clinton never fully attacked his weak points during the debates, for fear of alienating his base. he never faced the public scrutiny she did. it's impossible to know how he would have fared once the spotlight was fully on him. parts of the republican war book on sanders have leaked out, and it wasn't pretty. could he have survived through that? maybe. faced up against trump? yea, maybe he could. i think the best argument for Sanders over Clinton was that there would have been no Sanders Comey letter, but it's impossible to know if there wouldn't have been something else.

 

[BEAL]

I think a lot of the frustrations in here are because of the lack of solutions proposed by someone like Bernie. I think 99% of us in here would like to see universal health coverage.

But how do we accomplish that? Are we OK with higher taxes? Are we OK with regulations on corporations causing some unemployment (right or wrong on the corporation doing so).

When Bernie was asked how he would break up the banks, he said he didn't know.

This is a very diverse nation, and IMO I feel like we need to govern in the middle. Those that don't feel something like the government shouldn't be involved in healthcare has a right to voice that opinion, and I would like to hear it....assuming it's not the same old talking points. And vice versa from the other side. Denmark being the example doesn't cut it either. I don't feel it's fair to compare nordic countries to the USA

It would just be nice to have discussions on solutions, and to find middle ground when the answers just aren't so obvious or easy.

 

[BEAL]

it's not as simple as "it's all the russian's fault" just like it's not as simple as "she was a terrible candidate."

i don't even know if anyone here even puts the russian interference as the prime reason for her defeat. outrage at a presidential candidate (and no potus) colluding with a foreign adversary does not automatically mean that you feel clinton was all bunnies and rainbows.

she was a flawed candidate from day one. i don't think you can point to a single candidate on either side of the election who wasn't flawed. even my ideal candidate in mike bloomberg has serious issues that he would have to answer to and address - from stop and frisk to income equality.

i simply have a few major problems with the anti-Hillary, anyone else would have beat trump line of thought.

1) flawed candidate does not mean she was a bad candidate. the woman was highly qualified for the job, probably more qualified than her husband was when he was elected. she was a multi-term senator from one of the largest states in the nation, and a highly respected secretary of state. her and her husband's foundation was among the most highly respected and well run non-profits in the world, and produced real, meaningful change in some of the poorest undeveloped regions of the world. this doesn't change that she had faults, that she had issues connecting with people, that her "deplorable" comment was incredibly harmful with the section of the electorate that ultimately sunk her, nor does it change that the democratic party misjudged the influence of the rural white vote in the rust belt region, nor does it hide the fact that the DNC has largely ignored the plight of white rural Americans in the rust belt and Appalachia, and has done next to nothing on the public stage to help fight the incredible opiate addiction problem in that region. but...

2) Clinton was dominating every major poll at the time the Comey letter came out. the letter brought her numbers back down to within the margin of error. it's hardly crazy to believe that she would have won, probably be a comfortable margin, if not for the release of the letter. that doesn't change that she had flaws, nor does it take her and the DNC off the hook for ignoring the rust belt. but 10 days out from election day, despite all the faults, she held a dominating lead. one event changed that.

3) there is no way to know how Sanders would have performed when finally faced with the spotlight and vetting that comes from being on the big stage. clinton never fully attacked his weak points during the debates, for fear of alienating his base. he never faced the public scrutiny she did. it's impossible to know how he would have fared once the spotlight was fully on him. parts of the republican war book on sanders have leaked out, and it wasn't pretty. could he have survived through that? maybe. faced up against trump? yea, maybe he could. i think the best argument for Sanders over Clinton was that there would have been no Sanders Comey letter, but it's impossible to know if there wouldn't have been something else.

For all her faults, just imagine how things would be different right about now. Of course the GOP would be opening up their 4 billionth investigation into Bengazhi and emails, but the nation can survive that.

The only part I could see being about the same is Foreign Affairs/Policy. North Korea would still be doing stupid shit. Syria and Middle East would still be a mess. The difference in my head at least is we'd not be on the verge of going to war in those countries.

But the level of complete bullshit/scandals coming out daily from a Clinton administration would be much, much smaller (aside from the Right Wing echo chamber).

I doubt Clinton would have a 34% approval rating too

 

[BoMac]

Bannon is out of the National Security Council.

 

[womanfish]

i still don't know what neoliberalism means. or why Adrian Chen is more informed than actual testimony in front of Congress:



keep in mind, the "Bernie Bros" were victims in all this -- they were as manipulated as any on the right. this isn't to say that there was anything wrong with candidate Sanders, or that they were wrong to prefer his message, or even to think that he would be a more effective general election candidate.

I think you are being far too kind. How were Bernie Bros victims??? Everyone was presented with the same information. Berniebots just were stupid and naive enough to believe it instead of doing actual fact checking.

I was one that would present actual facts to these types of people, but anything that was contrary to their propaganda was dismissed and anyone who disagreed was a neo-liberal, oligarch, shill, paid troll, etc...

Bernie bros were most certainly not the victims, reasonable people that looked for facts about all candidates were the victims.

 

[BVS]

Bannon is out of the National Security Council.

This is a good thing, perhaps the first good move Trump has made, yet it has me suspicious.

 

[Irvine511]

Targets of disinformation? Maybe that's a more accurate term.

 

[BEAL]

Wonder what the real reason is? They gave an answer about how it was always just temporary assignment to help with Flynn

But it's probably more that Trump got tired of the losing and had to blame someone.

I expect Ivanka to take over Bannon's spot

 

[anitram]

Yeah, more likely that Ivanka/Jared are flexing their muscle.

Remember when this all ends, they have to maintain their extremely expensive lifestyle somehow. Not good for crazy Daddy to be killing their brand.

 

[PhilsFan]

Unfortunately the reality of US politics is that "leftists" probably as defined by Pfan have zero chance of governing similarly to how the freedom caucus has little chance of governing. Until and unless there is a multi-party system which appears to be a non-starter for the establishment for obvious reasons but even more disappointingly a non-starter for many establishment type voters, you are going to be stuck with what you have now. And in that context, it's foolish to allow perfect to be the enemy of good.

Even in the scenario where you have a billionaire (absolute requirement) like Bloomberg or somebody running as an independent candidate for president, it won't really matter so long as the Congress is made up of two parties which (a) hate each other and (b) have little to no incentive to help an independent president achieve anything for which they may not personally get credit.

I understand to an extent American reticence about parliamentary democracies and how they can devolve into endless elections and fragile coalitions which make governance hard, but truthfully, how good is the governance system in the US now? It's one party in power and the other obstructing.

I disagree that leftism is demanding perfection of the Democrats. It's certainly not like Sanders is perfect. But if we cannot even acknowledge that capitalism and social justice are at odds on a number of fronts, we're never going to get anywhere. The current model is unsustainable, and Sanders was the only one this last election cycle even having that conversation, let alone taking a side on it.

 

[BoMac]

‘If I have to get a lawyer, I will’: Trump voter upset the border wall will put her house on Mexico side

 

[anitram]

According to Pat Bell of River Bend, she voted for Trump but never supported his border wall plan, and now she may have to get a lawyer because her home will no longer be in Texas.

What an idiot.

Adios!

 

[Iggy Fizz]

What an idiot.

Adios!

no kidding! Darwin award or what???

 

[Vlad n U 2]

The invention of the "Bernie Bro" is easily one of the most cringe inducing creations of the 2015/16 election build up. And a good reason why I try not to visit this place more than occasionally.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

The invention of the "Bernie Bro" is easily one of the most cringe inducing creations of the 2015/16 election build up. And a good reason why I try not to visit this place more than occasionally.

By invention, are you referring to the slander campaign of painting a lowly, uninformed, sexist image on anyone who supported Bernie Sanders?

Or are you saying that these exaggerated stereotypes were actually a real problem?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I mean, it there was a catchy phrase that went with Hillary people probably would have said that a lot, too.

 

[Irvine511]

The invention of the "Bernie Bro" is easily one of the most cringe inducing creations of the 2015/16 election build up. And a good reason why I try not to visit this place more than occasionally.

It was a real, defined thing, inasmuch as PUMAs existed in 2008. The influence of social media was also vastly more powerful in 2016. We can and should always point out the ways in which individuals are different from groups, but politics is about assembling groups, and understanding and predicting how people will vote. It's easy to cry offense at stereotyping, but harder to acknowledge the ways in which we all get manipulated by people paid to do as much.

The revisionism is disappointing. I'm sorry this isn't a safer space for you.

 

[Irvine511]

I mean, it there was a catchy phrase that went with Hillary people probably would have said that a lot, too.

KILLary
SHILLary
HITLERY

There was lots of stuff out there that could have made us all put duct tape over our mouths and collapse in tears at the convention at the galactic unfairness of it all, had things gone the other way.

 

[dazzledbylight]

If you all would like to do some fingers-crossing for those of us here in NYS, we are 2 votes shy (sorry, don't know if Assembly or Senate duh) of having single-payer health care!

If NYS can get it right, then it might be the real beginning of it going Federal.

SP started in one Providence of Canada and went from there!

 

[dazzledbylight]

As far I've come to understand and I could be wrong neo-liberalism is more globalist than traditional liberalism. Liberalism would probably still support some kind of tariffs, and certainly would support the return of more unionism. I don't know if NL would support the privatization of Social Security etc ( fuck that).

I've thought of it as being more economically conservative than original USA liberalism.

I myslf am not a NL. Tho I'd vote for them over a Republican or conservative.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

By invention, are you referring to the slander campaign of painting a lowly, uninformed, sexist image on anyone who supported Bernie Sanders?

Or are you saying that these exaggerated stereotypes were actually a real problem?

The former. That's not to say that anyone who supported Bernie is/was immune from sexist attitudes, of course.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

I'm sorry this isn't a safer space for you.

Why thanks for the concern, Irvine.

As far I've come to understand and I could be wrong neo-liberalism is more globalist than traditional liberalism. Liberalism would probably still support some kind of tariffs, and certainly would support the return of more unionism. I don't know if NL would support the privatization of Social Security etc ( fuck that).

I've thought of it as being more economically conservative than original USA liberalism.

I myslf am not a NL. Tho I'd vote for them over a Republican or conservative.

Hm, I get you, but neoliberalism transcends political parties. It's not exclusively a Democrat thing, and you will find many of these types in the Republican party too. In the same sense that sections of Labour/Tories in the UK, and Labor/Liberal in Aus are like this.

 

[womanfish]

It was a real, defined thing, inasmuch as PUMAs existed in 2008. The influence of social media was also vastly more powerful in 2016. We can and should always point out the ways in which individuals are different from groups, but politics is about assembling groups, and understanding and predicting how people will vote. It's easy to cry offense at stereotyping, but harder to acknowledge the ways in which we all get manipulated by people paid to do as much.

The revisionism is disappointing. I'm sorry this isn't a safer space for you.

Well said.

Berniebro was not a "creation", it was a label that fit quite rightly on a certain subset of Bernie supporters.
The actual most cringe inducing "creation" was the phrase "lesser of two evils" to describe Clinton and Trump. For the simple fact that there isn't one shred of reality in that statement.
But Berniebro was quite apropos. The majority of Bernie supporters may not fit that label, but many did.

 

[BVS]

Undocumented Man Whose Wife Voted For Trump Has Been Deported | The Huffington Post

 

[womanfish]

So Nunes stepping aside.
I'm assuming this is a play from the White House. Make this guy fall on his sword, giving the appearance of caring about fairness and honesty, but really just to quell the calls for an independent investigation, where actual information might be uncovered.

ugh