Trump General Discusion II

[BigMacPhisto]

I'm in the same ballpark as you, BoMac. Anything goes, but the workplace is the one environment where harassment can't be allowed because people need to make a living and your actions reflect on your employer.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

"Oh, I understand you fine. I just love hearing your answer!" The Marine snapped to attention and saluted. "Sir, see you tomorrow."

Pretty good. The schadenfreude is particularly fun given that she's been so dead set on this goal for, what, like 17 years now?

The way I feel is that the worst of the two monsters got in, but we were always going to have to wait until 2020 to get the other one out. At least Trump will be easier to remove for us liberals than trying to challenge Hillary and her sheeple in the primary.

 

[anitram]

My God can we stop re-litigating the primaries.

I notice that there are crickets in here from the Trump supporters about how the Carrier deal goes against every basic principle of conservatism. You all are now on the books as supporting corporate welfare and expecting hard working TAXPAYERS to foot the bill for companies as bribes. Well done, guys.

What Trump did there is a terrible thing in terms of economic policy. Put so well by an American Enterprise economist:

"We certainly don't want to take as our guide to creating jobs special tax breaks for a company that earned $7.5 billion in profits last year, got $6 billion in defense contracts, paid its top five executives $50 million, in order to preserve 1,000 out of 2,100 jobs," said Shapiro.

"It's essentially a transfer from the taxpayers of Indiana, who are providing these tax breaks, to the shareholders of United Technology plus those 1,000 workers. That's really not a model for creating jobs across America," he added.

As I have been saying over and over again, watch the rich get off like bandits. Trump voters in the rust belt, really, really well done. Enjoy the allocation of your tax dollars.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

There's no way you can tell me polling has stayed the same. You're trying to tell me that polling in the days of landlines and pre caller id is the same as today? There are entire demographics now that are likely not to even take a poll. Pollsters don't even have access to me.

Where was the accurate polling in these swing states? And why weren't you predicting a Trump win if they were accurate?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

You're undermining statistics. Assuming that somehow those who conduct polls have lost the ability or understanding of how to create a random sample. Older polls exhibit similar biases to newer ones. Bias isn't some personal insult to a poll. It's a qualitative factor in results.

Most robust models interpreted the polls as Clinton-Trump being roughly 70-30. Personally? Since you brought me into it... my thought process was 70-30 is high Clinton odds mixed with "how can a rational human being fall for this?"

I also repeatedly backed the domino theory. I said several times, whoever wins... will win multiple states. I even said if Trump wins, it won't be on some 271-269 tightrope battle where he wins Ohio and Clinton wins Florida blah blah blah. That's a qualitative assessment on my part -- suggesting that there's causation behind voting leaning one way (of course there is, it's why people vote).

But in all of those states... swing states alike, Trump was well within the margin of error, even when she was up 1/2/3/4 points. It wasn't impossible. It was never 98%. This discussion happened already.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Yeah, everyone on FiveThirtyEight along with myself were pointing out that the states move in unison with one another. People around here would try and argue that if it was a coin flip in Ohio and Florida, etc. that his odds would be terrible because he would need it to go his way each time when it actuality a scenario where he wins one makes him more likely to win the rest, etc. Otherwise, his chances on FiveThirtyEight would have been like 2% instead of 30%. Too many were arguing that he would need a lot of luck when all he really needed was a favorable enough national situation as states like Michigan, demographically, boded much better for him than the rest of the country.

 

[Hewson]

I'm in the same ballpark as you, BoMac. Anything goes, but the workplace is the one environment where harassment can't be allowed because people need to make a living and your actions reflect on your employer.

So harassment is fine so long as its outside the workplace?
Gotcha.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. So, yes. Let people say whatever they want.


This was great on Counterpunch, so I'll post it in full:

The Future of Identity Politics by Yvette Carnell


President Obama was supposed to
bring ‘change we can believe’. He
was supposed to pass the baton
to his heir apparent—Hillary Clinton.
Instead of clearing a path for Clinton,
however, Obama seeded it with landmines
that blew up as Clinton clumsily
sought to plant her neoliberal
flag in not-so fertile ground. So what
happened?
Even before Donald Trump’s election
victory on Tuesday, Democrats had
already lost over 900 state legislature
seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats and
13 Senate seats during Obama’s tenure.
Under President Obama, Congressional
Democrats walked the plank in the 2010
midterms after voting for an unpopular
and conservative health care plan. And
instead of throwing a lifeline to these
Democrats, Obama selfishly hoarded
what was left of his political capital
and used it for his own 2012 reelection
campaign.
Thus, laying the blame for this election
solely on Donald Trump’s nativism
or Hillary Clinton’s awkwardness
as a candidate, or even her corruption,
would be a mistake. In an attempt to
galvanize African-American voters,
Hillary Clinton intentionally framed
her candidacy as building on Obama’s
two successful terms. As it turns out,
most Americans, especially those in the
rust belt, didn’t view Obama’s tenure as
successful at all.
Obama has worked harder to
pick up support for the Trans Pacific
Partnership which, according to The
Economic Policy Institute’s estimates,
would result in the U.S. losing more
than 130,000 jobs to Vietnam and Japan
alone, than he worked to promote single
exit strategies
By Yvette Carnell
payer health care.
This election wasn’t about Obama’s
inability to connect with white working
class voters. It was about his refusal to
do anything for working class voters of
any race during his eight years in the
White House.
Some will point to gay marriage as a
victory for Obama, but much as I’m in
favor of marriage equality, rights are
not redistribution. The heroin epidemic
sweeping white communities, decreasing
life expectancies, and the increasing
number of suicides point to a reduction
in the quality of life for ordinary white
Americans. While their lives were imploding,
black Obama apologists were
accusing any white person who dared
criticize Obama of being a racist.
It’s even deeper than that though. In
2004, while giving the keynote address
at the Democratic National Convention,
Obama said there is not a blue America
and a red America, but that there is only
one America.
This central thesis has been proven
a lie. Americans have learned the hard
way that there really is a them versus an
us; the ruling elite and the rest of us. For
8 years, Obama worked for the wrong
side. He allowed Citibank to map out
his cabinet, then began bailing out Wall
Street while foreclosing on Main Street.
So the tweet from Upshot’s Nate
Cohn, revealing that “Clinton suffered
her biggest losses in the places where
Obama was strongest among white
voters” should come as no surprise.
The landmines that Hillary Clinton
set off were already buried by Obama.
The nativism buttressing Trump’s
election has triggered a wave of hysteria
in the black community, with
social media provocateurs sharing
each racial or xenophobic incident
with melodramatic fervor. This fails to
address Trump receiving a larger share
of the black and Hispanic vote than
Mitt Romney. NBC news reports that
Trump won 29 percent of the Hispanic
vote on election day, compared to Mitt
Romney’s 27 percent in 2012. Trump
won 8 percent of the black vote, compared
to Romney’s 6 percent. Viewing
Trump’s victory solely through the lens
of white nationalism is lazy thinking
that doesn’t benefit anyone. In fact, it’s
how we got here.
Trump’s election isn’t all bad either.
People beat money. The black misleadership
functionaries who red-baited
Bernie Sanders during the primaries
have no sway with this administration.
The Clintons have been vanquished.
The identity politics that worked so
well for Obama held far less sway for
Clinton. Now, our challenge is to not be
led by our fear. Our reaction matters.
African-Americans voted for Hillary
Clinton out of fear. Let’s not be driven
by our fear at this critical juncture as
well.

 

[Oregoropa]

My God can we stop re-litigating the primaries.



I notice that there are crickets in here from the Trump supporters about how the Carrier deal goes against every basic principle of conservatism. You all are now on the books as supporting corporate welfare and expecting hard working TAXPAYERS to foot the bill for companies as bribes. Well done, guys.



What Trump did there is a terrible thing in terms of economic policy. Put so well by an American Enterprise economist:







As I have been saying over and over again, watch the rich get off like bandits. Trump voters in the rust belt, really, really well done. Enjoy the allocation of your tax dollars.

You are hearing crickets because this is not a crisis. Until Trump can push through his corporate rate tax cut across the board, Him and Pence picked up the phone to negotiate a business deal with good optics for both parties involved. Carrier was in the public eye, and a move would result in a boycott, a positive move would reinforce their brand stateside. Trump also leveraged Carrier's parent company which already has (under Obama) 7 billion in federal government contracts.

This is far cry from the Obama 800 billion stimulus that mainly propped up public sector unions in lieu of the shovel-ready jobs he promised. Later Obama joked "Those shovel ready jobs weren't quite as shovel ready as we thought".

Trump made a play that at the time required some finagling through tax credits, which has been the standard operating procedure in DC for 20 years. His eventual plan is an across the board play that upends widespread cronyism within the Beltway. Trump was going to get criticism, but he valued the risk-reward in the eyes of the public and optically he has come out well ahead.

The globalization view in both parties preceding Trump is to just let companies like Carrier go. Trump is asserting himself in the economic health of the country in a way not seen since Teddy R.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[anitram]

I'm hearing crickets from you lot.

Certainly not from conservative economists or papers. This has been roundly criticized in those corners. You must not have taken a look at the National Review or WSJ in recent days.

Trump is asserting himself in the economic health of the country in a way not seen since Teddy R.

That doesn't make it any less of a wrong move. But yeah, I guess to you guys him asserting something different is good enough.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Ultimately, just let him do his job and arguing over this Carrier stuff won't really get anyone anywhere. The fact that we give out billions in government contracts to the military already makes both parties complicit in subsidizing corporate interests of a most heinous nature.

The economy will either be good for the constituents in swing states when Trump faces re-election or it will be terrible and that will determine everything. He's either going to get lucky or do some things that work or he'll have egg on his face and be bounced out of office four years from now. Nothing you can point out and nothing he can do other than getting us into another endless war will really affect how America sees him.

 

[corianderstem]

Just a little humor for your friday:

One of the most important rules of comedy: know your audience.

 

[BVS]

You're undermining statistics. Assuming that somehow those who conduct polls have lost the ability or understanding of how to create a random sample. Older polls exhibit similar biases to newer ones. Bias isn't some personal insult to a poll. It's a qualitative factor in results.

I'm not sure how you got that from my post. I'm not talking about bias in a poll, or creating a random sample.

I'm talking about the simple fact of getting people to actually answer polls. The ability to effectively reach all demographics is fading, and quickly. On the state level it's even more of a factor.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

If that were true, then polls wouldn't have become more accurate in general over the last few decades despite cellphone-only households becoming more and more common. They aren't going to be on target all the time, but again, the margin between Clinton and Trump was off by a mere 1 percent this last election. That tells you that they're still reaching the people they need to.

Obviously, polls are meaningless if they ever show a liberal challenger doing better than the corporatist queen. In that case, it's sheer bias, misleading samples ,etc. Even if the same "mistake" occurs time and again in heads-up matchups versus the Republicans.

 

[Oregoropa]

One of the most important rules of comedy: know your audience.

Unless you are Michael Richards


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BVS]

You are hearing crickets because this is not a crisis. Until Trump can push through his corporate rate tax cut across the board, Him and Pence picked up the phone to negotiate a business deal with good optics for both parties involved. Carrier was in the public eye, and a move would result in a boycott, a positive move would reinforce their brand stateside. Trump also leveraged Carrier's parent company which already has (under Obama) 7 billion in federal government contracts.

I bet you believe he's not taking his salary either? this is not how any of this went down.

Trump made a play that at the time required some finagling through tax credits, which has been the standard operating procedure in DC for 20 years. His eventual plan is an across the board play that upends widespread cronyism within the Beltway. Trump was going to get criticism, but he valued the risk-reward in the eyes of the public and optically he has come out well ahead.

Trump used a deal that was already in place, the kind that the Hannitys and Breitbarts attacked Obama for, to make him look like a hero. He didn't do shit, he has no power to do shit. This was already negotiated, Trump was the photo op.

The globalization view in both parties preceding Trump is to just let companies like Carrier go. Trump is asserting himself in the economic health of the country in a way not seen since Teddy R.

What happen to that poster who said, "we sent a man to the moon" I think we can work something out? You believe in innovation when it comes to health care law, but want to reverse in order to keep some blue collar jobs. You want to pay more for A/C units and smartphones? Yay That's what anti-globalization will get you, more expensive items and slower innovation.

Why not use that 'man on the moon' innovation to find what the jobs of the future will be and how we get training to those who need it. But no, you decided to put someone in their who will move us backward economically, socially, and our global standing. Awesome ;up:

 

[BigMacPhisto]

One of the most important rules of comedy: know your audience.

True. This is the establishment Democrats thread where the wealthy political class makes themselves feel welcoming to all genders, races and creeds while making sure the nominee won't take too much of their tax dollars and continues to promote a war hawk mindset throughout the world.

 

[BVS]

True. This is the establishment Democrats thread where the wealthy political class makes themselves feel welcoming to all genders, races and creeds while making sure the nominee won't take too much of their tax dollars and continues to promote a war hawk mindset throughout the world.

Let's be fair, sometimes we let in racists, sexists, and those that can't get past the headline.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Those terms are thrown around so often that they are effectively meaningless, hence President Donald Trump.

The establishment could have campaigned on the actual issues, but took the easy way out going with "but he says mean things!" as their platform. Thanks for Trump and good riddance to you and your ilk when we shortly take the reins of this party after decades of misuse.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

True. This is the establishment Democrats thread where the wealthy political class makes themselves feel welcoming to all genders, races and creeds while making sure the nominee won't take too much of their tax dollars and continues to promote a war hawk mindset throughout the world.

I'm not part of the wealthy Democratic establishment crowd and yet I supported Clinton. Where do I fit in?

Just a little humor for your friday:


"See You Tomorrow"



One sunny day in late January of 2017, an old man approached the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench.

He spoke to the Marine standing guard. "I would like to go in and meet with President Hillary Clinton."

"Sir, Mrs. Clinton is not President and doesn't reside here." The old man sighed and walked away.



The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Hillary Clinton".

"Sir, as I said yesterday, Mrs. Clinton is not President and doesn't reside here." The man thanked him and again walked away.



The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same Marine. "I would like to go in and meet with President Hillary Clinton."

The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man. "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mrs. Clinton. I've told you already several times that Mrs. Clinton is not the President and doesn't reside here. Don't you understand?"



"Oh, I understand you fine. I just love hearing your answer!" The Marine snapped to attention and saluted. "Sir, see you tomorrow."

It's funny because instead of having somebody in the White House who was actually prepared for the job, we'll have somebody who doesn't have the first clue about being president, and who's "overwhelmed" at just how much work it is!

Yeah. Total laugh riot, that.

Seriously, setting aside allllllllllllll the other troubling things about Trump, how does it not disturb those who voted for him that he's so woefully unprepared for being freaking president? I get people want an "outsider" nowadays and all that, but shouldn't the outsider candidate still have at least some idea of what the hell they're doing, and actually understand and prepare for the job they want to take?

 

[BVS]

Those terms are thrown around so often that they are effectively meaningless, hence President Donald Trump.

I agree they can get thrown around too much. But no, they are not meaningless, it's just most people won't have the conversation or are not equipped to have the conversation.

The establishment could have campaigned on the actual issues, but took the easy way out going with "but he says mean things!" as their platform. Thanks for Trump and good riddance to you and your ilk when we shortly take the reins of this party after decades of misuse.

You are not THIS naive.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

What exactly were Hillary's credentials anyway? Voting for the war in Iraq? Accepting corporate bribes via the foundation? Running a race-baiting campaign in 2008?

Frankly, the election of Trump and the country not having a nuclear meltdown will prove that relatively anybody that deems themselves capable can handle the job. That's a good thing as it increases the number of options for either party. Otherwise, you might as well only allow Secretary of States to run since they know so much about foreign policy (exactly why the Aleppo thing with Gary Johnson was so stupid, especially given his anti-interventionist stances).

And again, voters do not care about experience. Just what you will plan to do for them. Hello Freshman Senator to President, Barack Obama.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Those terms are thrown around so often that they are effectively meaningless, hence President Donald Trump.

The establishment could have campaigned on the actual issues, but took the easy way out going with "but he says mean things!" as their platform. Thanks for Trump and good riddance to you and your ilk when we shortly take the reins of this party after decades of misuse.

Except when somebody argues that somebody's skin color makes them more likely to commit crime, then it's not "throwing it around." That person's pretty fucking racist.

 

[BVS]

Nm

 

[anitram]

Except when somebody argues that somebody's skin color makes them more likely to commit crime, then it's not "throwing it around." That person's pretty fucking racist.

And blacksplaining with the "my problem with the black community is..."

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

What exactly were Hillary's credentials anyway? Voting for the war in Iraq? Accepting corporate bribes via the foundation? Running a race-baiting campaign in 2008?

She had a hell of a lot more political experience and knowledge than Trump. That's a basic fact. She's been in some form of political office before. She's read up on every issue under the sun. She wouldn't be coming into the White House going, "Whoa, being president looks haaaaaaaaaaaard..." the way Trump is.

People have mentioned her experience and credentials numerous times in here. Whether you agree with her or not on various issues, the fact remains that unlike Trump, she's actually legit qualified for the job.

And again, voters do not care about experience. Just what you will plan to do for them. Hello Freshman Senator to President, Barack Obama.

Or, here's a novel idea: voters could care about, y'know, BOTH of those things.

And again, Obama still had more political experience going into being president than Trump does. And he prepared for the job before taking it. He read up on all the things he needed to read up on, he studied how the job works, he actually listened to the advice and suggestions people gave him about becoming president.

That said, I would be fine with the fact that Trump hasn't held any political office of any sort prior to being president if I knew he was genuinely preparing for the job and studying all the things he needed to study/listening to the people he needed to listen to, and taking his new job even remotely seriously. I do not get that vibe from him at all. And that is very disturbing. And it should disturb his supporters, too.

 

[Danny Boy]

Frankly, the election of Trump and the country not having a nuclear meltdown will prove that relatively anybody that deems themselves capable can handle the job.

I still think there's a good chance of a nuclear meltdown in the next four years. Probably figuratively, but perhaps literally.

 

[gump]

This thread has taken quite a turn since the return of the prodigal son.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

All I ask for is an apology for making Clinton the nominee and an agreement to the plan for people to work towards having a Progressive one four years from now, but it seems like the latter is just too much to ask from the establishment and party faithful.

 

[DaveC]

i'm done pretending like i have any respect for this "progressive" scumbag.

clearly he's gone straight back to his old tricks.

clearly this is not stopping any time soon.

i can't read this sexist, racist shitspew on a daily basis anymore. interference is sadly totally ruined for me because of one horrible poster. i'm quitting, other than to finish out the football pick-em season.

bmp, you can go fuck yourself for being human scum and a total phony. you are the exact opposite of everything you claim to be and you're faker than a story from ryan lochte. fuck you for ruining this place for me after 15 years.

thanks for the memories, to the rest of you. it's been fun.

bye everyone

 

[gump]

i'm done pretending like i have any respect for this "progressive" scumbag.

clearly he's gone straight back to his old tricks.

clearly this is not stopping any time soon.

i can't read this sexist, racist shitspew on a daily basis anymore. interference is sadly totally ruined for me because of one horrible poster. i'm quitting, other than to finish out the football pick-em season.

bmp, you can go fuck yourself for being human scum and a total phony. you are the exact opposite of everything you claim to be and you're faker than a story from ryan lochte. fuck you for ruining this place for me after 15 years.

thanks for the memories, to the rest of you. it's been fun.

bye everyone

Look, I'm with you. Just use the ignore button and refrain from reading quotes and you'll be fine. I wish he was permanently banned, but clearly that's not going to happen. I do hope you stay.