Ten oz Posted January 18, 2017 Posted January 18, 2017 It shows how creepy money can make some people. I'm absolutely blown away that Eisenhower's party has gotten in bed with a dictator who so emulates (and admires) WWII Western Axis leadership and their tactics. And screw that whole "Red Scare" bs argument. Putin isn't the USSR of the 50s. Standing against Putin the Thug, Putin the Dictator, isn't standing against communism. It is about racism. Pro Aryan beliefs are seeded throughout Western and Eastern Europe well as Northern America. The allure of lands belonging to whites, traditions of a nation having white ownership, whites being the heartland of society, and etc are ones that have many sympathizers and to an extent it seems to transcend borders. In my opinion when the Republican party embraced pro segregation bigots after the Civil Rights Act they made a calculated mistake. As a result it is no coincidence that during & following the successful service of our first non-white male president we have seen the GOP erode into facsim. The Tea Party primary and bullied traditional republicans over the last couple of midterms and have successfully created a party that isn't interested in governing the United States of America but rather are more interested in changing it fundamentally. This is basically a cold burning coup. The GOP has lost the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 general elections yet somehow control every branch of the federal govt and the majority of the individual state seats.
ecoli Posted January 19, 2017 Posted January 19, 2017 It is about racism... The GOP has lost the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 general elections yet somehow control every branch of the federal govt and the majority of the individual state seats. I am highly skeptical of this narrative. With highly visible exceptions, people are not more racist than they were 4 years ago. Trump got smaller percentage of the white vote than Romney, while the Democrats lost a significant amount of minority turnout compared to Obama, and have lost 10 million voters overall. Republicans have certainly benefited from asymmetric power granted to less populous states, as well as redistricting... But don't forget that Obama had a D majority Congress when he got elected, and a lot of ink was spilled over how the GOP was finished. Somehow, nothing major got done before the midterms and now people are tolling the bell for the Democratic party. A few (hundred) thousand people vote instead of staying home and the narrative in 2016 would be completely different.
Ten oz Posted January 19, 2017 Posted January 19, 2017 I am highly skeptical of this narrative. With highly visible exceptions, people are not more racist than they were 4 years ago. Trump got smaller percentage of the white vote than Romney, while the Democrats lost a significant amount of minority turnout compared to Obama, and have lost 10 million voters overall. Republicans have certainly benefited from asymmetric power granted to less populous states, as well as redistricting... But don't forget that Obama had a D majority Congress when he got elected, and a lot of ink was spilled over how the GOP was finished. Somehow, nothing major got done before the midterms and now people are tolling the bell for the Democratic party. A few (hundred) thousand people vote instead of staying home and the narrative in 2016 would be completely different. What the voting demographics were this year isn't totally clear yet. The data is still being collected. I have seen a lot of different numbers on a few different site which are typically reliable. That said it what we do have indicates Trump did much better with key what voting demographics than previous Republican candidates. "Trump’s margin among whites without a college degree is the largest among any candidate in exit polls since 1980. Two-thirds (67%) of non-college whites backed Trump, compared with just 28% who supported Clinton, resulting in a 39-point advantage for Trump among this group." http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/ In my post you responded to I also mentioned the Tea Party movement and the shift in the Republican Party following the 1960's. This trend has been a long time forming.
DrmDoc Posted January 19, 2017 Posted January 19, 2017 Yet again, more evidence of Mr. Trump nominating wolves to guard the sheep and what happens when delusional sheep elect wolves to lead them.
swansont Posted January 19, 2017 Posted January 19, 2017 A few (hundred) thousand people vote instead of staying home and the narrative in 2016 would be completely different. Or not being denied their right to vote by all of the maneuvering after the VRA was gutted. 2
Willie71 Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 It is about racism. Pro Aryan beliefs are seeded throughout Western and Eastern Europe well as Northern America. The allure of lands belonging to whites, traditions of a nation having white ownership, whites being the heartland of society, and etc are ones that have many sympathizers and to an extent it seems to transcend borders. In my opinion when the Republican party embraced pro segregation bigots after the Civil Rights Act they made a calculated mistake. As a result it is no coincidence that during & following the successful service of our first non-white male president we have seen the GOP erode into facsim. The Tea Party primary and bullied traditional republicans over the last couple of midterms and have successfully created a party that isn't interested in governing the United States of America but rather are more interested in changing it fundamentally. This is basically a cold burning coup. The GOP has lost the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 general elections yet somehow control every branch of the federal govt and the majority of the individual state seats. There are conflicting reports on the role if racism in this election. It's definitely one of the major issues, but the democrats are focusing on the racism and McCarthyism and ignoring the economic motivators created by neoliberalism. I went back to posts from November because I thought I posted this video before. Apoarently I didn't, or it's in a different thread. This is the best explanation I have seen regarding the effects of third way democratic policies worldwide. Mark Blyth is well spoken, and well informed. The democrats need to address this issue if they want to regain relevance in upcoming elections, something they are doing horribly at imho.
Sensei Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 Idiocracy sequel on air today 20 January 2017 the world premiere, this time in the real life..
Ten oz Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 Or not being denied their right to vote by all of the maneuvering after the VRA was gutted. This is an under addressed aspect to this election. The VRA was gutted in 2013. This was the first general election since. Nurmerous voting laws were changed in serveral keys states. In discussing the data (percentage of voter turnout, demographics, education, etc) there tend to be broad positions taken about how people overall voted. However it really varies state by state. Some states saw increases in voter turnout while other states saw a drop in turnout. No simple narrative about which groups voted and why is accurate to all states. What does seem more clear is that states which were targeted with new voting laws had lower turnout and it appears to have been by designed. In terms of data collection though numbers are still coming in so I suppose we will know a lot more in a few months. There are conflicting reports on the role if racism in this election. It's definitely one of the major issues, but the democrats are focusing on the racism and McCarthyism and ignoring the economic motivators created by neoliberalism. I went back to posts from November because I thought I posted this video before. Apoarently I didn't, or it's in a different thread. This is the best explanation I have seen regarding the effects of third way democratic policies worldwide. Mark Blyth is well spoken, and well informed. The democrats need to address this issue if they want to regain relevance in upcoming elections, something they are doing horribly at imho. I am a little familiar with these views but do not agree with them. Western Society for all its good is also predominantly white and initially earned its position in the world through violence and not merely philosophy. White in Western culture there are those who believe Western Culture (white judeo-christian) is simply better than all other cultures on earth. Those who feel that way seem to reflexively reject those living in Islamic nations as savages (terrorists) and don't view the emerging markets like China and India to be suitable cultures which they such have to compete globally with. Clearly that attitude doesn't represent a majority. I believe most are oblivious to it. As a children in grade school I was taught that the United States was not only the greatest country on earth but was more or less the only free country on earth. The implication being that we were better and everyone wishes they could be here. As I grew up I came to realize how ignorant that view of the world was. Not everyone grow up to realize it isn't true. Now and adult I know people here in the States who regularly mischaracterize other cultures and refuse to travel outside the country for free that every place that isn't the U.S. is a dangerous place. Western civilization is majority white. Always has been. As a result the views of whites is never ignored. So if that group I mention above, the ones who do not view other cultures as equal, cry wolf about economic motivators rather than racial ones they will be heard. They arguments addressed. The world is not a perfect place. They are and will always be legitimate arguments to be made about trade, taxes, employment, and etc. Which also means there will also be cover for those who have racial agendas but are looking to mask them is a more legit debate.
MigL Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 Immigrants ( I am one ) tend to vote for their way of life with their feet ( or planes/boats ). If my parents didn't think the 'western' ( or white Judeo-Christian ) way of life was the best, they would have gone somewhere else. Similarly, if Muslims or Orientals didn't think our way of life is better, why are they coming to the West in such numbers ? Have you noticed the large numbers pouring into southern Europe ? Do they think they're going to a 'worse' place ? Reminds me of all the tourists who go to Cuba and say what a wonderful place it is, meanwhile the people who live there are braving shark infested waters on inner tubes to get to Miami. But who knows, now that Fidel is dead and Donald is President that will change. And did you see President Donald dance ? That's one white guy who definitely can't dance.
Ten oz Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 Immigrants ( I am one ) tend to vote for their way of life with their feet ( or planes/boats ). If my parents didn't think the 'western' ( or white Judeo-Christian ) way of life was the best, they would have gone somewhere else. Similarly, if Muslims or Orientals didn't think our way of life is better, why are they coming to the West in such numbers ? Have you noticed the large numbers pouring into southern Europe ? Do they think they're going to a 'worse' place ? Reminds me of all the tourists who go to Cuba and say what a wonderful place it is, meanwhile the people who live there are braving shark infested waters on inner tubes to get to Miami. But who knows, now that Fidel is dead and Donald is President that will change. And did you see President Donald dance ? That's one white guy who definitely can't dance. Admitting that sexism exists doesn't mean all men are evil. Acknowledging that western civilization has a violent history of racial bias that has produced the dichotomy that currently exists doesn't make any specific western country a "worse" place to live. Of course someone living someplace poor would prefer to live someplace rich. Of course people without opportunity will risk things to obtain opportunity. Saying western civilization has a political bias towards vetting the arguments of white ahead of others doesn't change the fact western civilization is wealthy and contains more opportunity. We can admit to not being perfect without resorting to self hatred. 1
DimaMazin Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 America needs to defeat Islamic State, but is incapable without Putin. Is it Great America ? Rather Trump needs Putin to defeat democracy in USA.
RiceAWay Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 To play advocate Phi - I would say that not ALL info should be released about everything. In the name of national security and protection for those in office I would think that the government should be allowed to block certain infomations if they have concerns.. Maybe... I think that you're correct but you have to have ethical, moral people making these decisions. Did you note that the Democrats attacked the Russians for "attempting to throw the American election process" DESPITE Wikileaks saying that it wasn't the Russians but an insider? These Democrats wanted a war so badly that they would invent a purpose for one. As for Russia hacking the US businesses and government where ever possible. The US has been hacking every single country friend or foe as they gained use of the Internet. How DARE anyone in this country suggest that we shouldn't have to take the same precautions against this sort of thing that we've forced on everyone else? Bush started and Obama doubled down on tapping every single communications source in this country and the entire world until Citizens United took Obama all the way the Supreme Court who found the government's actions to be unconstitutional for US citizens and requiring a court order in every single case. Yes the world can be a dangerous place. We inserted viruses into the centrifuges of Iran and North Korea to cause them to break down and slow the their production of nuclear weapons. We discovered that Obama used every office of the US government to assault political opposition. And we must always remember that every war since WW I was started with Democrat control unless you count the response of the US to 9/11 which EVERY party leader approved. Whenever you hear a politician beating a war drum you have to pay attention. Eisenhower warned us in the 50's that we HAD to watch the Military/Industrial complex and that seems to have slipped off of the radar.
Ten oz Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 I think that you're correct but you have to have ethical, moral people making these decisions. Did you note that the Democrats attacked the Russians for "attempting to throw the American election process" DESPITE Wikileaks saying that it wasn't the Russians but an insider? These Democrats wanted a war so badly that they would invent a purpose for one. Who is Julian Assange accountable to? It is intellectually upside down to champion unaccountable and unknown sources in the name of openness and transparency. As an organization we do not know who is part of Wikileaks, their finiancials, sources, motives, or etc. We literally just had an election where one candidate released years of tax records, a tens of thousands of emails, went before Congressional hearings, was investigated by the FBI, and additionally had members of her campaigned hacked and thousnads of more emails realesed and somewhere that candidate of said to lack transparency. That candidate was attacked by an anonymous group accountable to one and a rival candidate who released no tax records, no emails, wasn't investigated, and whom willifully assisted in misdirecting the U.S. electorate byblaming China, without reason for the hacks. The whole situation is preposterous.
MigL Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 I find it strange that everyone is outraged by the hacks on the DNC, but no one is outraged that they reveal the collusion to award the nomination to H Clinton over B Sanders. That would be similar to you looking through your wife's phone, finding that she's having an affair, and she then gets mad at you for violating her trust by snooping through her phone. Now, I've made it clear I dislike D Trump, but a few of the things he says do make sense... All these women ( led by privileged celebrities who are used to getting their own way ) who marched in protest yesterday should, maybe, have gotten off their asses and voted. Those extra votes may have made a difference and we wouldn't be in this situation. Maybe they should have cared BEFORE the election. -2
Acme Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 ...Now, I've made it clear I dislike D Trump, but a few of the things he says do make sense... All these women ( led by privileged celebrities who are used to getting their own way ) who marched in protest yesterday should, maybe, have gotten off their asses and voted. Those extra votes may have made a difference and we wouldn't be in this situation. Maybe they should have cared BEFORE the election. Erhm... how do you know they didn't vote? Oh that's right; Donny said so. 1
Ten oz Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 1 - I find it strange that everyone is outraged by the hacks on the DNC, but no one is outraged that they reveal the collusion to award the nomination to H Clinton over B Sanders. That would be similar to you looking through your wife's phone, finding that she's having an affair, and she then gets mad at you for violating her trust by snooping through her phone. 2 - Now, I've made it clear I dislike D Trump, but a few of the things he says do make sense... All these women ( led by privileged celebrities who are used to getting their own way ) who marched in protest yesterday should, maybe, have gotten off their asses and voted. Those extra votes may have made a difference and we wouldn't be in this situation. Maybe they should have cared BEFORE the election. 1 - A party nomination is just that, a party nomination. One doesn't have to be a member of a major party to run for office. Sanders has held elected office as an Idependent for decades. He, Sanders (an Independent), chose to run for the Democrartic nomination well aware of the rules regarding super delegates. I don't see evidence of a major conspiracy in the fact that as a party the DNC had a preference for a Democrat to win. Had such rules been in place for the Republican Party we probably would have ended up with a far less divisive and more well vetted Republican nominee. The systems are not perfect but all candidates entered understanding the rules. Sanders could have ran his own campaign as Jill Stein and Gary Johnson did and avoided the DNC all together. 2 - Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes! More people voted for her than for Trump. She also won womens votes by about 10 points. So it is fair to assume most of the women who marched on Washington did vote. 1
MigL Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 Well, if they did vote, they got outvoted by others whose vote is just as valid. So how about getting on with running the country and minimizing the damage D Trump does without descending into anarchy. ( or have you and Madonna been plotting to blow up the White House together ) And unfortunately the election rules have less to do with popular vote than Electoral College votes. If you want to amend the constitution, knock yourself out, but until then, D Trump won the election ( and I had to take 3 people out for $300 in drinks and lunch having bet against him ) -1
Acme Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) Well, if they did vote, they got outvoted by others whose vote is just as valid. So how about getting on with running the country and minimizing the damage D Trump does without descending into anarchy. ( or have you and Madonna been plotting to blow up the White House together ) And unfortunately the election rules have less to do with popular vote than Electoral College votes. If you want to amend the constitution, knock yourself out, but until then, D Trump won the election ( and I had to take 3 people out for $300 in drinks and lunch having bet against him ) No, they got out electoral colleged. As Ten oz pointed out, trump was outvoted. This is not contesting he won the election. What I am contesting is your 'if they did vote' and 'All these women ( led by privileged celebrities who are used to getting their own way ) who marched in protest yesterday should, maybe, have gotten off their asses and voted.' Millions of women -and men- protested; how many were not celebrities? Edited January 23, 2017 by Acme
Phi for All Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 All these women ( led by privileged celebrities who are used to getting their own way ) who marched in protest yesterday should, maybe, have gotten off their asses and voted. I knew you were a closet Trumpet. You haven't fooled anyone with your denials. This is one of the saddest things I've ever read from you.
MigL Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 Assume anything you want Phi. But as the voter turnout for this so important election was only about 58 % what would be your conclusion ? EXACTLY ! More than 40% of American voters didn't give a damn ! -3
Acme Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 Assume anything you want Phi. But as the voter turnout for this so important election was only about 58 % what would be your conclusion ? EXACTLY ! More than 40% of American voters didn't give a damn ! So trumpian a response. The issue here is your parroting trump's tweetment 'Why didn't these people vote?'. Never mind if there is any evidence of the protesters' voting records or that anyone bothered to even check. Just say whatever contrary crap comes to mind. Good grief! The morning political shows were a circus as trumpian surrogates got pissy when asked by journalists why crowd size was so important to little hand Donny that he was pissy. To quote Jerry Seinfeld, 'why don't we just have a big pee party!?' LOL 1
MigL Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) Never mind if there is any evidence ????? Google the voter turnout for the election ! Then put your sanctimonious attitude on display. At least the Brits had the common decency to blame themselves after the foolish Brexit vote. Americans elected Trump, directly or by NOT voting, and are now refusing to take responsibility. Edited January 23, 2017 by MigL
Acme Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 Never mind if there is any evidence ????? Google the voter turnout for the election ! Then put your sanctimonious attitude on display. Dude! I'm not questioning voter turnout in general, it's trump's -and now your- assertion that those in the womens' march didn't vote that I'm questioning. "Hey everybody, grab a bucket, we're going up to Jerry's. It's a pee party!" 2
zapatos Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 Dude! I'm not questioning voter turnout in general, it's trump's -and now your- assertion that those in the womens' march didn't vote that I'm questioning. "Hey everybody, grab a bucket, we're going up to Jerry's. It's a pee party!" Exactly. Reread your posts MigL. You are moving the goalposts.
MigL Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 You're right Zapatos, I may be. But you Americans let this happen, and bitching and complaining afterwards won't get you anywhere. Normally I wouldn't care as its not my country, but we all know what a huge influence American politics and policies have on Canada. The other thing I find interesting is that those same people jumping on me, like Phi and Ten oz ( don't recall if Acme shared their view ), were always advocating opening channels of communication with the Ayatollas of Iran, or Kim Jung In of Korea, or Saddam Hussein, etc. Yet they think D Trump simply cannot be reasoned with. I think your scales of 'reasonableness' are slightly skewed.
Recommended Posts