CharonY Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 I don't see this as being something Trump has brought. Lets not forget that the Republican Party tried to make Sarah Palin Vice President 8yrs ago. Not forget the Tea Party rallies of 09' and 10' where sign of President Obama depicted as a monkey were numerous. 2016's chants of "lock her up" were terrible yet not surprising coming from the same group of people that claimed President Obama was a secret Muslim. The difference with Trump is that he didn't ask them to tone it down. McCain corrected the record when they called President Obama a Muslim, Romney acknowledge that President Obama was an American citizen, but Trump was willing to wade into the filth. To me calling Trump a magnet excuse conservatives, lets them off the hook. Implies they have been fooled or mislead and I don't believe that is the case. Trump is a reflection of the politics they have been promoting. People like tar are not taken in by Trump, haven't been tricked, this is who they are and I hope progressive learn that. It is conservatives broadly and not merely Trump that is the problem. I would not exclusively focus on hate. While it is the most egregious element, I would hope that most didn't actually buy into the hate, yet were at least indifferent (if not sympathetic) to it. There is quite a bit of undirected rage at the establishment, represented by career politicians. What many have not realized is that in business you get to lie, too.
MigL Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 Since you addressed me personally Phi, youopened the door, so I will respond. I have never supported Trump. If you recall, 15 months before the election, I was a Clinton supporter. But don't let the facts get in the way of your warped narrative. The voter turnout was 58%, so roughly 29.5% voted for Clinton while 28.5 voted for Trump, who won by Electoral College votes. I don't know what that tells you, but what it tells me is that 70.5% of eligible voters are either happy that Trump won because they voted for him, or they couldn't care less because they didn't vote. Now you call those voters 'vacuous, stupid' people, and you call me the hateful one. No sense letting the facts get in the way of your warped narrative. You've always associated everything bad with 'conservatism', even bad driving ( I guess Insurance companies have it all wrong ). Is it any wonder then that nothing 'conservative' will ever be good for you. That is the definition of a bias, is it not ? You also like to apply labels to people, like you have to me, several times. Very divisive is it not ? Come to think of it, by your definition, these are Conservative traits. Maybe you should look in a mirror when you spout off about other people, but no sense letting that get in the way of your warped narrative. Unlike you I have a great deal of respect for the American people and don't call them names when they have a different opinion than I do. I choose to believe that the people have a reason for voting ( or not voting ) the way they did, no matter what I might think about Trump. And If you and the rest of the 'intellectual' and entertainment snobs don't recognize those reasons, the same thing will happen again in 4 yrs time. AMERICANS WANT A VOICE IN THEIr GOVERNMENT. Or you can choose to ignore it as tha would get in the way of your warped narrative. 2
CharonY Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) Actually I would rather interpret it as that many Americans are disenfrenchised or uninterested in politics period. The reason being that a) presidential voter turnout was low at least in the last century or so, with a high point in 1960 of ~63%. In that regard the turnout was actually relatively high (lowest was in the 20s with less than 50%. In recent years turnout has been steadily increasing since 1996 with a dip in 2012. b) midterm elections consistently had worse turnout, not even reaching 50% (2014 was 35%). So the turnout in tiself does not seem to be terribly diagnostic. (Edited, looked at the wrong numbers). Edit: that is to say even in extreme times such as during WWII turnout was not much higher, as such it would have been somewhat informative if the turnout 2016 had been. Though Obama 2008 did show a peak. It has been discussed that this is also a part of the electorial voting system, in which non-swing states often report low turnouts as the political minority simple does not bother anymore. Edited January 24, 2017 by CharonY
Phi for All Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 I have never supported Trump. If you recall, 15 months before the election, I was a Clinton supporter. But don't let the facts get in the way of your warped narrative. I didn't say you supported him as POTUS. The voter turnout was 58%, so roughly 29.5% voted for Clinton while 28.5 voted for Trump, who won by Electoral College votes. I don't know what that tells you, but what it tells me is that 70.5% of eligible voters are either happy that Trump won because they voted for him, or they couldn't care less because they didn't vote. Now you call those voters 'vacuous, stupid' people, and you call me the hateful one. No sense letting the facts get in the way of your warped narrative. It's always the same with you, MigL. You're so smart in so many ways, but you seem to purposely miscomprehend opposing stances to yours. I didn't say Trump voters were vacuous and stupid. I said you chose to defend (and agree with) a statement Trump made about the women's marchers not voting, which portrays these women as vacuous and stupid. IS THIS CLEARER NOW? You've always associated everything bad with 'conservatism', even bad driving ( I guess Insurance companies have it all wrong ). Is it any wonder then that nothing 'conservative' will ever be good for you. That is the definition of a bias, is it not ? You also like to apply labels to people, like you have to me, several times. Very divisive is it not ? Come to think of it, by your definition, these are Conservative traits. Maybe you should look in a mirror when you spout off about other people, but no sense letting that get in the way of your warped narrative. You've always misrepresented my stance on conservatism. I don't think it's bad, I think it's part of every decision making process. What I've always railed against is identifying your whole self as being that way. It's not true, and I think it's ultimately detrimental. Like only having a hammer in your toolbox. IS THIS CLEARER NOW? Unlike you I have a great deal of respect for the American people and don't call them names when they have a different opinion than I do. I choose to believe that the people have a reason for voting ( or not voting ) the way they did, no matter what I might think about Trump. And If you and the rest of the 'intellectual' and entertainment snobs don't recognize those reasons, the same thing will happen again in 4 yrs time. AMERICANS WANT A VOICE IN THEIr GOVERNMENT. Or you can choose to ignore it as tha would get in the way of your warped narrative. Well this intellectual snob doesn't think they'll find a voice with a billionaire sociopath populist who freezes out media who question him.
rangerx Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) AMERICANS WANT A VOICE IN THEIr GOVERNMENT. Where I come from, we call that "all talk and no action" Voter apathy is a political tool often exploited by the winner of any given election. I've always been of the position that if you don't vote don't complain. I'd suspect most of the protesters voted, hence don't buy into the narrative they didn't. Voting for the losing side does not invalidate one's issues or concerns. It only minimizes them somewhat compared to other priorities or mandates. You're a Canadian. Just because a liberal became PM in the last cycle doesn't strip you of your beliefs, nor your right to dissent. Am I right? Edited January 24, 2017 by rangerx
Ten oz Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 @ MigL, not everyone who wants to vote is able to. Numerous obstacles are intentionally put in place and it isn't the same throughout the country. Simple saying everyone who didn't vote didn't care isn't accurate.
waitforufo Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 IOW, you're arguing against people who obviously don't care how they win so long as they do, and are very proud of that. The ethics of the situation are lost on them. I other words, the Democrats nominated a candidate so terrible that she lost the election to Donald Trump. The hilarity of the situation is lost on them.
Phi for All Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 I other words, the Democrats nominated a candidate so terrible that she lost the election to Donald Trump. The hilarity of the situation is lost on them. A terrible candidate by those criteria wouldn't have won the popular vote. A LOT is lost on you.
waitforufo Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 A terrible candidate by those criteria wouldn't have won the popular vote. A LOT is lost on you. Please name a president who was elected by the popular vote. My hope is that more Democrats, liberals and progressives move to California, Illinois, and New York so that Republicans and conservatives win more presidential elections. The true bonus in such a situation will be watching the never ending temper tantrums of the left. A spectacle that never stops bringing joy to the right.
Phi for All Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 I'm sure Canada and Mexico are off of their list as possible alternatives to the US. Both countries require identification to vote. How could they possibly move to such evil countries? I was in Guadalajara last year and got the lowdown on this one. Mexico used to have a horrible problem with election abuse, unlike the US where it's just a made up scare tactic (like the rampant uptick in crime we supposedly had). They had to do something to bring back faith in democracy, and the ID cards did the trick. Also unlike what they've tried to do in the US, the Mexican voter ID is sort of the gold standard of IDs, right under a passport and definitely better than a driver's license. Please name a president who was elected by the popular vote. I know you think it's funny to watch people run into the goalposts when you move them like that. It's one thing to lose an election, but a terrible candidate doesn't win the popular. But hey, it's just critical reasoning, after all.
rangerx Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 The true bonus in such a situation will be watching the never ending temper tantrums of the left. A spectacle that never stops bringing joy to the right. The same can be said about your pre-election posts. The post election trolling hasn't changed much either.
DrmDoc Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 Arrest of journalists and Trump's ban on reports by government agencies to media, yet more evidence of how quickly our country is goose-stepping towards Totalitarianism under this administration.
waitforufo Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) Arrest of journalists and Trump's ban on reports by government agencies to media, yet more evidence of how quickly our country is goose-stepping towards Totalitarianism under this administration. So you believe that on his inauguration day, "in the hours around Trump’s swearing-in as president", President Donald Trump had so much influence on the capitol police force as to orchestrate these arrests? Bit of a stretch don't you think? Edited January 25, 2017 by waitforufo
swansont Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 Now here I thought that any mention of election abuse was simply a tactic to suppress votes. I mean come on, the burden of acquiring an identification to enable voting is extremely high, particularly to the poor. I guess Mexico doesn't have any poor people. That's true in the US (partly by design, because voter suppression is part of the GOP plan). Can you show that it's true in Mexico? From Ike's farewell address. Hate to break it to you but Ike's been dead for quite some time. Quoting his views on science has no bearing on current events.
dimreepr Posted January 25, 2017 Author Posted January 25, 2017 So you believe that on his inauguration day, "in the hours around Trump’s swearing-in as president", President Donald Trump had so much influence on the capitol police force as to orchestrate these arrests? Bit of a stretch don't you think? Not really, how far would you go to impress the new boss?
DrmDoc Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) So you believe that on his inauguration day, "in the hours around Trump’s swearing-in as president", President Donald Trump had so much influence on the capitol police force as to orchestrate these arrests? Bit of a stretch don't you think? I presume you understand the nature of Totalitarianism? Unwarranted arrests of journalists and censorship of government reporting are well recognized symptoms of an emerging Totalitarian regime. The action of capitol police on inaugural day and censorship of information are rightist efforts emboldened under this administration that you most certainly would have railed against under the previous administration. If you do understand Totalitarianism and you understand how vital a free press and access to information is to our democracy, then you should be concerned. Additionally, closing our borders (e.g., building a wall, banning immigration, restricting international commerce, etc.) and reopening black sites that permit the torture of prisoners are further indications that our government is quickly approaching the wrong side of freedom. Edited January 25, 2017 by DrmDoc 1
rangerx Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 I presume you understand the nature of Totalitarianism? Unwarranted arrests of journalists and censorship of government reporting are well recognized symptoms of an emerging Totalitarian regime. The action of capitol police on inaugural day and censorship of information are rightist efforts emboldened under this administration that you most certainly would have railed against under the previous administration. If you do understand Totalitarianism and you understand how vital a free press and access to information is to our democracy, then you should be concerned. Mr. waitforufo claims to be a staunch constitutionalist, especially where the 2nd Amendment is applied. Given the outspoken disregard for the 1st (not to mention interspersed trolling) I'd suggest credulity outstrips credibility on any issue. If there was ever a case to be made about public policy becoming captive to the scientific-technological elite, the EPA is perfect. Putting a gag order on the post Obama EPA has my full approval. 1
DrmDoc Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 Mr. waitforufo claims to be a staunch constitutionalist, especially where the 2nd Amendment is applied. Given the outspoken disregard for the 1st (not to mention interspersed trolling) I'd suggest credulity outstrips credibility on any issue. I agree.
swansont Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 ! Moderator Note After some staff discussion we've decided to close this. There are too many different conversations going on, and now that it's post-inauguration, there are new issues that can be discussed, which would just get mired along with the rest. Some recent discussions will be/have been split off to continue. If you have a new topic to discuss regarding the president and/or policies, please start up a new thread and try to keep the focus fairly narrow. 1
Recommended Posts