Politics

[Stereodude]

John McCain thinks that with Trump at the top of the ticket, it's possible he'll lose his seat in Arizona because of Hispanic (well, Mexican, anyway) turnout.

That might just be the best reason I've heard of yet to support Trump and make sure he's at the top of the ticket!

 

[Mercutio]

That might just be the best reason I've heard of yet to support Trump and make sure he's at the top of the ticket!

I have a hard time believing you'd rather have an extra Democrat in the Senate compared to a hawkish Republican with the gravitas of a former Presidential run behind him.

 

[Stereodude]

I have a hard time believing you'd rather have an extra Democrat in the Senate compared to a hawkish Republican with the gravitas of a former Presidential run behind him.

Hawk? John McCain is a turncoat. Since when is having a failed Presidential run a resume enhancer? On most of the important issues, replacing John McCain with a democrat would make no difference.

 

[Mercutio]

Hawk? John McCain is a turncoat. Since when is having a failed Presidential run a resume enhancer? On most of the important issues, replacing John McCain with a democrat would make no difference.

It might be just as well said that he walked back some of the wingnut crap he had to say to win the GOP Primary Beauty Pageant, but of course he inflicted Sarah Palin on a national audience, so I suppose some things just can't be forgiven. But hey, if you're willing to give up a Senate seat over whatever the True Scotsmen are saying over at Newsbusters and Redstate, I'm sure the Dems will be happy for the extra vote when they're trying to get judges appointed.

 

[jtr1962]

Considering most legislation Congress passes is bad for the average working people in the country a federal gov't that basically can't get anything done because they're in gridlock is a benefit, not a problem.

Compared to most of the legislation the NYC City Council passes what Congress passes seems erudite by comparison. The latest gem they inflicted on us is a 5 cent tax on plastic grocery bags.

 

[ddrueding]

Compared to most of the legislation the NYC City Council passes what Congress passes seems erudite by comparison. The latest gem they inflicted on us is a 5 cent tax on plastic grocery bags.

That's nothing. Here plastic bags are banned and paper bags are $0.10. We use our own anyway, but this kind of thing is why there are so many laws (and lawyers).

 

[timwhit]

Plastic bags are banned in Chicago as well.

 

[Chewy509]

In Political news, Australia gets to vote for a new Federal Government on 02-July-2016. And the lies ads to get elected have already started...

 

[timwhit]

We've been talking about this election in the US since 2013 and it doesn't happen until November.

 

[Chewy509]

I guess we're lucky in that regard, we only get a few months to ponder who the next dictator beloved emperor will be...

 

[ddrueding]

Attended the Leon Panetta institute lecture this evening. Fun times.

[video=youtube_share;CNXcN1NRd94]https://youtu.be/CNXcN1NRd94[/video]

 

[ddrueding]

More suggestions on how Trump and Sanders managed to get so much support despite the best efforts of their respective parties:

[video=youtube_share;5tu32CCA_Ig]https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig[/video]

 

[timwhit]

This is the best explanation I have read yet on why people vote from Trump.

 

[ddrueding]

Perhaps the main parties losing control will eventually be enough to force a change to the system. Making votes more than a binary choice is the only way to prevent both sides from running towards the extremes.

 

[Stereodude]

This is the best explanation I have read yet on why people vote from Trump.

Yup, Trump's supports are Nazis. I knew it.

Because believing the fact that the current two parties are driving the country over the cliff makes you a protectionist nut job in search of your "Hiltler" aka Donald Trump.

Edit: It's not possible that the current system is broken and needs fixing, or that the country is headed in the wrong direction. Everything is A-okay. Illegal immigration is great. Corporatism is fine. Bringing people into the country by the 10's of thousands who hold views contrary to the principles the vast majority of the country holds and have no intent to assimilate is a sound strategy. Wage stagnation for the middle class is normal. Runaway gov't spending is okay and not a problem. 0% interest rates are good. Everything is just fine.

 

[Mercutio]

No one in this thread or in timwhit's linked article used the term Nazi, SD.

 

[Handruin]

Well, there's Godwin's law for ya.

 

[Howell]

No one in this thread or in timwhit's linked article used the term Nazi, SD.

Actually the word appears twice in the article. Three paragraphs in I was pretty sure it would come up.

 

[Stereodude]

No one in this thread or in timwhit's linked article used the term Nazi, SD.

Did you actually read it? The word is most certainly in there. Twice... You'd have to be quite dense not read the article, and not see the correlation they authors are attempting to draw throughout the entire article.

 

[Mercutio]

It did not stand out to me. But hey, if the racist, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-intellectual shoe fits, maybe you all could pull back on some of that rhetoric to make the comparison a little more remarkable than it presently is.

 

[Stereodude]

It did not stand out to me. But hey, if the racist, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-intellectual shoe fits, maybe you all could pull back on some of that rhetoric to make the comparison a little more remarkable than it presently is.

And this is why political discussions on any forum are generally forbidden... "You all" can't debate ideas so you resort to name calling in an attempt to stigmatize the opposition. You can't explain why illegal immigration is good and something that should be promoted. You can't explain why importing people who can't be given background checks and who have significantly higher susceptibility to radicalization is a good idea and should be expanded. You can't explain why they're good ideas that are beneficial to the country. So you instead attempt to use the guise of political correctness as a weapon to flagrantly mischaracterize the people who disagree with you with the same old tired worn out charges of the various "isms" that aren't true.

 

[Howell]

It did not stand out to me. But hey, if the racist, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-intellectual shoe fits, maybe you all could pull back on some of that rhetoric to make the comparison a little more remarkable than it presently is.

Talk about a knee-jerk, anti-intellectual response.

I'm am not as insulted by the article as SD seems to be. The fundamental basis of their argument is a no-brainer; when people feel the life-style they are comfortable with is threatened they will resist, and look for a leader to help them. But the assignment of motivation they think they have found needs for more research. The authors admit that they searched for an alternative description than Authoritarianism and could not come up with a better one. As I read the similes the author/acedemics chooses to use it is clear there is an interpretive agenda.

"What these changes have in common is that, to authoritarians, they threaten to take away the status quo as they know it — familiar, orderly, secure — and replace it with something that feels scary because it is different and destabilizing, but also sometimes because it upends their own place in society. According to the literature, authoritarians will seek, in response, a strong leader who promises to suppress the scary changes, if necessary by force, and to preserve the status quo."

It is a dangerous path to assign motivations to others.

 

[Stereodude]

I'm am not as insulted by the article as SD seems to be.

I'm not insulted by it. I thought it was funny, in a sad and pathetic way. It's just a perfect example of typical clueless mainstream elite thinking based on imagined caricatures of people they thumb their noses at. They think everything is fine because they're insulated from the mess they're creating for everyone else. They just assume that the concerns of the masses are baseless and are based in various "isms". They do their best to stigmatize their political opponents in the grandest possible way by trying to convince their readers that those supporting Trump would be Nazis supporters if it was the late 1930's, or are just like Nazis. Because I mean who likes the Nazis? You can't really get much more distasteful or despicable than Nazis...

I was a bit surprised that timwhit thought it was a reasonable think piece worthy of mentioning though since it's so over the top in an intellectually vapid way. It reads like an obvious satire piece I'd expect to find on The Onion.

 

[Mercutio]

And this is why political discussions on any forum are generally forbidden... "You all" can't debate ideas so you resort to name calling in an attempt to stigmatize the opposition.

The GOP presidential nominee said without any tempering qualification that Mexicans are rapists. Is that somehow not racist? The party as a whole also believes, according to its longstanding platform, that women and homosexuals should be denied rights. That's the club to which republicans belong, and it's not incorrect to characterize the party as a whole in that fashion. If you really want, I can go look up the actual adopted party platform from the 2012 convention, but I'm not casting any greater aspersion than can be derived from looking at actual positions adopted by the party itself.

 

[Stereodude]

The GOP presidential nominee said without any tempering qualification that Mexicans are rapists. Is that somehow not racist?

You'd have to be intentionally obtuse to make that claim. That's not what he said and you know it. He didn't say all Mexicans are rapists.

Since some illegal immigrants from Mexico have in fact committed rape and the other crimes he attributed to illegals, there's nothing untrue about his statements. Instead of debating illegal immigration and explaining how it's good and benefits the US (because you'll lose the debate spectacularly) you try to stigmatize him and call him a racist to get him to cower in fear and shut up. Well, that tactic doesn't work with Trump. He doesn't run to the microphones, act guilty, apologize, and beg for forgiveness and that's a large part of why so many people like him.

The party as a whole also believes, according to its longstanding platform, that women and homosexuals should be denied rights. That's the club to which republicans belong, and it's not incorrect to characterize the party as a whole in that fashion. If you really want, I can go look up the actual adopted party platform from the 2012 convention, but I'm not casting any greater aspersion than can be derived from looking at actual positions adopted by the party itself.

I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about... Yes, most Republicans would like to deny the women "right" to kill their unborn children in most if not all cases. Just like they want to deny someone the "right" to break into your apartment and kill you. Wow, that makes them such bad people. To your second point, society denies people "rights" all the time. Society denies the "rights" of pedophiles to have sex with children. Society denies the "rights" of psychopaths to kill people. Society denies the "rights" of polygamists to marry multiple people. Just because you don't like where some people draw the lines of social & societal mores as to which "rights" they will deny others doesn't mean they're guilty of a bunch of "isms".

 

[Mercutio]

Trump says stupid things and doesn't apologize. Here's the actual quote in question, though Mr. Trump has a history making insulting offhand remarks about Hispanics.

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

That's an awfully broad and undiplomatic brush for someone who wants to hold the highest elected office in the US. You don't think that's a racist remark?

For the rest, the GOP as a whole needs to recognize that the majority of the USA is not white, male and Christian any longer. If you don't want access to family planning services (you immediately jumped on abortion, but hey, how about access to Plan B, HPV vaccines or hormonal birth control?), to participate in a gay marriage or to use a bathroom where a trans person might one day relieve themselves, don't. But recognize that some people do want those things and your beliefs are not more important than their rights. Turns out, being against those things - which ARE matters of legal right, either by legislation or judgment, is a good way to get called out for misogyny and homophobia. If you choose to take those remarks as insults, stop associating with the people who keep adopting those ideas as policy positions. If you're proudly bigoted, at least own up to it.

 

[Stereodude]

That's an awfully broad and undiplomatic brush for someone who wants to hold the highest elected office in the US. You don't think that's a racist remark?

Of course not. His summary of illegal immigrants from Mexico wasn't factually in error, nor was it based on on an underlying irrationally based hatred of Hispanics. Illegal immigration is not a benefit to the US. It should be stopped. It has nothing to do with the ethnicity of who is coming. It has everything to do what they do once here, and the negative economic impact they have on US society as a whole.

For the rest, the GOP as a whole needs to recognize that the majority of the USA is not white, male and Christian any longer. If you don't want access to family planning services (you immediately jumped on abortion, but hey, how about access to Plan B, HPV vaccines or hormonal birth control?), to participate in a gay marriage or to use a bathroom where a trans person might one day relieve themselves, don't. But recognize that some people do want those things and your beliefs are not more important than their rights. Turns out, being against those things - which ARE matters of legal right, either by legislation or judgment, is a good way to get called out for misogyny and homophobia. If you choose to take those remarks as insults, stop associating with the people who keep adopting those ideas as policy positions. If you're proudly bigoted, at least own up to it.

This is akin to the old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. The premise of your scenario is inherently flawed and incorrect, and therefore the two possible outcomes from it are irrelevant based on their foundation and don't merit further discussion.

 

[jtr1962]

I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about... Yes, most Republicans would like to deny the women "right" to kill their unborn children in most if not all cases. Just like they want to deny someone the "right" to break into your apartment and kill you. Wow, that makes them such bad people. To your second point, society denies people "rights" all the time. Society denies the "rights" of pedophiles to have sex with children. Society denies the "rights" of psychopaths to kill people. Society denies the "rights" of polygamists to marry multiple people. Just because you don't like where some people draw the lines of social & societal mores as to which "rights" they will deny others doesn't mean they're guilty of a bunch of "isms".

The Republicans lost me when they were taken over by the religious right and their obsession with abortion, birth control, and so forth. With all the problems facing this country it frankly annoys me that we waste so much time debating what are at best fringe issues. It annoys me even more when some Republicans are actually against abortions even in the cases of rape or incest. So someone who didn't even plan to have a baby should be forced to have the child of someone who raped them? That's just cruel. The Republicans should stick to what they're best at, which is fiscal conservatism. They and the Democrats both should ditch the social engineering. Unless there's some good reason to regulate something for the overall well-being of society government should just keep its two cents out.

On so-called pedophiles, nowadays you have some helicopter parents who just as soon raise the age of consent to something like 25. In my opinion we should drop it down to 12 or 13, like they already do in lots of other countries. We've defined down pedophilia in this country to include having sex with people who are technically underage but still physically resemble adults more than children. Again, this is more social engineering nonsense which largely has no societal benefit. Same thing with the drug wars and laws against prostitution. People want this stuff. Banning it just creates a black market which enriches shady criminals instead of legitimate business people. Government can't legislate morality. It should stop trying.

I agree with you 100% on the illegal immigration. Regardless of what percent of Mexicans are really rapists, the fact is the majority coming here really have no skills this country needs. I've read the biggest downside of stopping illegal immigration would be a shortage of gardeners and maids. That's fine. I'm tired of hearing those stupid leaf blowers at 8AM because people here are too lazy to do their own gardening. When it costs more because we can't get cheap labor maybe more people will take care of their own lawns.

 

[jtr1962]

... or to use a bathroom where a trans person might one day relieve themselves...

There is a good reason some people are against this. What's to stop me from using the women's room just to sneek a peak and saying my "gender identity" is female? These transgender bathroom laws in my opinion are opening a huge door for voyeurs. Then again, given some of the people passing them, that might well be their intent.

All that said, if we were a less prudish society we would probably have mostly unisex public toilets and this would be a complete nonissue.

 

[Mercutio]

There is a good reason some people are against this. What's to stop me from using the women's room just to sneek a peak and saying my "gender identity" is female? These transgender bathroom laws in my opinion are opening a huge door for voyeurs. Then again, given some of the people passing them, that might well be their intent.

All that said, if we were a less prudish society we would probably have mostly unisex public toilets and this would be a complete nonissue.

There is zero evidence of this happening. Ever. Women getting violated by gender-conforming (cisgendered) males in bathrooms? Sure. But explicitly trans people perving on ladies? Please find some evidence of this happening. And there are already relevant laws for dealing with those issues, regardless of one's plumbing. Bathrooms are fraught issues for anyone who isn't gender conforming for whatever reason. Why make it more difficult for ANYONE to take a leak in peace? The ideal outcome here is actually wide acceptance of unisex bathrooms.

When was the last time you saw anyone older than 18 months old less than fully clothed in a public bathroom, anyway?

 

[jtr1962]

There is zero evidence of this happening. Ever. Women getting violated by gender-conforming (cisgendered) males in bathrooms? Sure. But explicitly trans people perving on ladies? Please find some evidence of this happening. And there are already relevant laws for dealing with those issues, regardless of one's plumbing. Bathrooms are fraught issues for anyone who isn't gender conforming for whatever reason. Why make it more difficult for ANYONE to take a leak in peace? The ideal outcome here is actually wide acceptance of unisex bathrooms.

I'm just saying this has been one of the reasons some people have come out against it. Obviously unisex bathrooms are a better answer here but the general prudishness of American society has prevented their widespread adoption.

When was the last time you saw anyone older than 18 months old less than fully clothed in a public bathroom, anyway?

More times than I care to think about. This is NYC. Sometimes people let it all hang out (literally). For example (caution: NSFW).

 

[Howell]

I'm not opposed to completely unisex bathrooms but I don't think my wife would go for it. In fact I can't think of any female I know going for it.

 

[Will Rickards]

SD,

Which ideas do you want to debate?

I think you'll find we're all probably in agreement on the things that are wrong.
We just differ on the proposals on how to solve them. And whether the candidates will actually solve them.

Do you really think anyone is in favor of illegal immigration? You keep bringing it up but I think maybe your premise there is flawed.

 

[Stereodude]

Do you really think anyone is in favor of illegal immigration? You keep bringing it up but I think maybe your premise there is flawed.

Yes, there are absolutely people who support it. At a very bare minimum there are hundreds of them who support it in Congress. Elected Democrats and party leaders support it because it's a long term voter campaign drive to give them permanent majorities nationally like they have in California. Some of the rank and file voters might not support it but they have no problem voting for people who do while they complain about their wages stagnating.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/11/bernie-sanders-says-us-must-welcome-more-illegal-i/
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/immigration-reform/

We just differ on the proposals on how to solve them. And whether the candidates will actually solve them.

Of course the candidates won't solve them. They're mostly lying to get elected. People are hoping trump, not being a politician is actually different.

Authoritarian confessions...

 

[Howell]

The recent WikiLeaks deserves some discussion; particularly the breakdown of independent journalism.


DNC member killing horses for insurance money.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/578
DNC making fun of black womans name.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/17942
DNC telling each other, “I love you too. no homo.”
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/425
DNC requesting a pull an MSNBC commentary segment.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6107
DNC controlling the narrative with time released stories.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12450
DNC conspiring to create false Trump information and release with Reuters.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7102
DNC Hillary supporters infiltrated Sanders campaign.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4776
DNC members going to complain to Morning Joe producers about his mentioning of a “rigged system.”
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8806
DNC discussing their relationship with NBC/MSNBC/CNN and how to get better treatment.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13762
Super PAC paying young voters to push back online Sanders supporters. Paid shills.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz having an off the record meeting in MSNBC President Phil Griffin’s office.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8867
DNC being messed with by the Washington Examiner.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5304
DNC discussing Hillary’s policies as unfeasible.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/519
$200k for a private dinner with Hillary.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/17287
Offering to send interns out to fake a protest against the RNC.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13366
Faking outrage and pasting in a video later.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7102
A mole working inside of the Sanders campaign.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7793
Bringing up Sanders religion to scare the southern voters.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11508
Possible money laundering by moving money back and forth to bypass legal limits.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6230
Politico writer sending his stories to the DNC before he sends them to his editor.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808
DNC feeding CNN the questions they want to be asked in interviews.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4077
Creating a fake job ad for a Trump business to paint him as a sexist.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803
Hillary funding 2 million dollars in a cooridanted campaign in battleground states to win back the Senate.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7784
DNC is upset that their “allies” didn’t send in protestors so they sent out interns.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13366
“Clinton Foundation quid-pro-quo worries are lingering, will be exploited in general.”
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351
$50,000 – Lawrence Benenson.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/14700
Daily Fundraising Report for the DNC.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2875
Content & Social Strategy Discussion.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7512
Re: BuzzFeed and DNC connection.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10933
Draft linking news articles about trump to use as negative press.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7586
Fwd: State Dinner Countdown.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/1901
Some chick is angry she hasn’t been given more stuff from the Obama administration…might be interesting to follow up.
Re: State Dinner Countdown.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2946
Tim O’Brien: Trump’s Fixation on Inflating his Net Worth is a Cause for Concern.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4496
RE: May Fundraising Numbers.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5615
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7720
Hillary for America Raised $26.4 Million in April, Began May with More than $30 Million Cash on Hand.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13986
Re: For approval: Trump supporter graphics.
https://www.wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/788
Press talking points, states Hillary is their candidate, dated May 5, 2016. More of a smoking gun than the ambiguous talk in the emails themselves.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/fileid/5254/2728
Consultant calling megyn kelly a bimbo. Has PDF attached that says the same.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6087
DNC trying to get away with violating the Hatch Act.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/20148
Democrats using interns to organize fake “protests.”
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13830
RE: Action on DNC tomorrow (Immigration Raids).
https://www.wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/9736

 

[ddrueding]

Seems pretty clear who Putin would rather have as US President.

http://www.defenseone.com/technolog...influence-election-american-president/130163/

 

[Howell]

Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[jtr1962]

Seems pretty clear who Putin would rather have as US President.

http://www.defenseone.com/technolog...influence-election-american-president/130163/

I tend to think Putin would rather have Hillary as President. Trump with his America first rhetoric strikes me as someone who would have his finger on the nuclear button from day one.

 

[Stereodude]

You'll notice no one is denying anything in the leaked e-mails. Instead we're all supposed to focus on how the bad Russians are responsible.

 

[snowhiker]

I'm sure if the RNC email servers were hacked we'd find the same type of emails. Different sides of the same coin.