The Bigly 2016 US Presidential Election Thread, Part XV - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-27-2016, 07:09 AM   #136
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,399
Local Time: 10:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axver View Post
I don't agree with this. Never rely on your opponent to "marginalise and ghettoise themselves". Do it for them.


One could say that the Obama "give 'em enough rope" theory is what has gotten us to this point -- the GOP facing the biggest electoral defeat in a generation, and the discrediting of the entire party in the minds of many, many voters.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 08:25 AM   #137
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 54,932
Local Time: 02:38 AM
How many innocent people get damaged in that strategy? Sure it'll be great if he gets destroyed but how many Muslims have been bashed by white nationalists throughout his campaign?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________

__________________
cobl04 is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 08:56 AM   #138
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,399
Local Time: 10:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobl04 View Post
How many innocent people get damaged in that strategy? Sure it'll be great if he gets destroyed but how many Muslims have been bashed by white nationalists throughout his campaign?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


I'm not sure I understand. Like, actual bashing? Or, does provoking Trump to attack the Khan family actually work to create more sympathy and understanding for Muslims because he's such a raging asshole and these are literally the most sympathetic people alive and we see actual Muslim bashing as it happens? I saw Hillary's Kahn ad (which I'll try to find) the other morning and was honestly in tears at the end of it. When we see actual Muslim bashing in the media, a somewhat abstract concept is made very real, and most normal people -- maybe people who have never met a Muslim -- are going to say, "oh, well, I want no part in that." Though it came at some political cost, there was also benefit to using the "deplorable" line. Donald Trump and his supporters really do support deplorable ideas and policies.

When it comes to governance, I don't think Obama has been passive, or hasn't fought for legislation, or hasn't hit back against critics, or isn't twisting the knife in these final few weeks of his presidency.

What he's done is be patient, play the long game, and build what has been a very successful presidency. Not perfect, there's plenty of room for criticism, and we're all depressed that the GOP is a suicide cult. But change has happened.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 09:02 AM   #139
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 55,763
Local Time: 11:38 AM
Martin Shkreli has promised to release his copy of the unreleased Wu Tang album if Trump wins. So maybe there's reason to vote for Trump after all
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 09:07 AM   #140
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,239
Local Time: 11:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
Martin Shkreli has promised to release his copy of the unreleased Wu Tang album if Trump wins. So maybe there's reason to vote for Trump after all

It was him? HE bought the album?
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 10-27-2016, 09:23 AM   #141
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 55,763
Local Time: 11:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
It was him? HE bought the album?
Of course it was. Would you expect anyone else?
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 09:38 AM   #142
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,239
Local Time: 11:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
Of course it was. Would you expect anyone else?

__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 10-27-2016, 09:50 AM   #143
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,307
Local Time: 10:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kieran McConville View Post
Right-ho, you sure told me, man!
sorry, i wasn't trying to "tell you", but i certainly was being a bit flippant laying in bed after a long day.

my point was that in the 30s, during the great depression and before world war 2, "the left" in the united states was a very different beast, and communist parties were active and important parts of that side of politics that a leftist politician would absolutely have to court. publicly embracing wealth would have instantly lost him millions of votes. FDR was a shrewd politician and surely knew this, and took advantage of it.

today, outside of some of the most hardcore of bernie bros (who wouldn't vote for hillary if they had a gun to their heads anyways), we don't have any communists in mainstream american politics. to stand any realistic chance in today saying "i hate money" would be political suicide, because it would all flow to your opponent. you literally can't do anything in politics without the backing of the wealthy.

that being said, FDR most certainly was not pure of heart. i am quite certain that this was a public political statement for the benefit of his consitutents rather than any truly held belief. i don't have time to do this before work but i'm sure with a cursory amount of digging it wouldn't be too hard to find evidence of FDR deeply in bed with big business. he would have needed to be. you need a lot of money to become president, and you always have, point blank.

this is not a new phenomenon. politics and money have been completely intertwined since at least the days of the gracchus brothers and their assassination for attempting land reform to benefit the poor. pretending otherwise is just idealism.
__________________
DaveC is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 10:24 AM   #144
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,206
Local Time: 10:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Electorally, absolutely.

But not when it comes to actual governance.
Who is talking about Treaty of Versailles-ing them??

If they suffer an absolutely crushing defeat, then maybe they will split (into the crazies and a more moderate corporatist party headed by Romney et al) or they will try to clean house which they refused and/or failed to do thus far. The reason that they have had the luxury of remaining obstructionist and non-compromising is because they have been winning elections aside from the presidency. This is thanks to gerrymandering. Yes, the new census in a few years will set them back but dealing crushing defeat after defeat after defeat may speed that up.

I say that as somebody who could very likely be persuaded to vote for a centrist (gasp! even corporatist) party because in truth, they typically don't care about pursuing socially conservative issues and are sometimes needed to get the debt in order in a responsible way.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 10-27-2016, 10:36 AM   #145
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,195
Local Time: 09:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
It's an absolute fact.
Obama seemed to still be able to accomplish some left leaning things even with the obstructionists in congress.

Maybe it's not as absolute as you think.

Also, complaining about obstructionists is one thing, extrapolating that to "she must be stopped" is quite another.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 10:38 AM   #146
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,399
Local Time: 10:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Who is talking about Treaty of Versailles-ing them??

BMP is talking about crushing them, no compromise, no surrender, no middle ground.

i am absolutely in support of crushing electoral defeats. i'm not in favor of furthering political trench warfare. i am also someone who is now, apparently, more of a centrist than a progressive, and, like you, could stomach a Romney-type, at least from a financial standpoint, for the reasons you lay out.

the new census is our biggest hope. that, and the need for people to actually turn out in the midterms. to my mind, that's Obama's biggest failure.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 10:40 AM   #147
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,307
Local Time: 10:38 AM
i gotta say i'm loving all the world war one metaphors going on in here lately. [/historian]
__________________
DaveC is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 11:36 AM   #148
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,399
Local Time: 10:38 AM
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 12:51 PM   #149
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
iron yuppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,393
Local Time: 09:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
If they suffer an absolutely crushing defeat, then maybe they will split (into the crazies and a more moderate corporatist party headed by Romney et al)
This is the most likely scenario IMO. The interests of the business types who don't want social intervention and the financial illiterates who want dramatic social intervention are too conflicting to fit within the parameters of one party anymore. When you try to bridge the gap between the two, you get a monstrous hybrid like Trump.
__________________
iron yuppie is offline  
Old 10-27-2016, 01:25 PM   #150
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,195
Local Time: 09:38 AM
Going back to this notion that Hillary is just going to cave into Republican demands in the hopes of getting something done: she got to witness the results of that approach under Obama's first term. She knows exactly what she's getting into, and I doubt she'll waste as much time extending the olive branch before she takes on Obama's 2nd term approach of identifying what she can do as the executive, and (probably more effectively than Obama given her connections) work to support congressional and senatorial candidates to flip seats, while pressing the issue to the public.

Given her history of withstanding constant inquisitions and attacks from the right, I really don't know where this notion came from that she's a pushover who just wants to make people happy.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com