I would prefer it wasn't this way. But the paradigm shift Trump as created is so vast that simply assuming the truth alone will get you somewhere is naive. It's fairly obvious after Bush and now Trump that there is fairly easy way to get a large portion of middle America to vote for you. You simply lie your ass off to them. And not just run-of-the-mill politician lies, but "the moon is made of green cheese" lies.
Comey was a part of Obama's fatal-flaw. Extending olive branches to the Republicans and thinking that if you put two of their own in high-power positions (Comey and Gates) it would mollify them one bit. Say this for Republicans, when they get in power, they use it and the opposition might as well not even be there. The idea that Trump would have appointed a Democrat to the head of the FBI or as Secretary of Defense is laughable.
The major rift on this forum is between those who think Trump is a eminent danger who must be opposed and weakened by any non-violent means nescesary and those who are certainly not fans of his but think everything will generally be ok. Hardly anyone actually supports the guy. Since I fall into the former camp, my views are easily more radical in regards to the tactics used in this regard. It's not that I don't think objective truth exists, or that in any normal period of history it wouldn't be important. I'm saying I don't care if falsehoods damage Donald Trump, whose entire existence is based on a metric ton of lies and hurting other people for his personal gain. Why would I??
I also haven't been dishonest with anyone here. I readily came out and said that, on balance, the golden showers story is more likely than not, fake. I would be being less than honest with posters here if I sat and pretended I DID care if a false story damaged him. I will happily admit to a story being wrong or false. My personal views on it's eventual consequences are a totally different matter. There was a poll taken after the man walked into the DC pizzeria with a weapon after the election, that 46% of Trump voters believe in "Pizzagate", which is essentially that Hillary Clinton is involved in a child sex ring being run out the back of a DC pizza parlor. Trying to reach someone lile that with facts and reason is like trying to put out a forest fire with a glass of apple juice.
I don't think it's particularly fair to paint Trump or Bush or republicans in general as some major anti truth movement or to assume they lie more than any other politician.
If you don't recall, Trump rode into office riding a wave of revelations from wikileaks revealing a rigged primary election against Sanders, debate questions being given to Hilary in advance, the DNC and mainstream media organizations colluding with one another on stories, etc. exactly nobody got penalized but Debbie Schultz, who's punishment consisted of getting a paid position in Hilary's camp.
Trump supporters are just as mad about dishonesty in politics as you are.
I'm interested in anything that can damage him. I'm no longer even remotely worried about objective truth, because Trump's ascension has told us that such a thing doesn't matter.
That is a shame but I certainly won't try to dissuade you from your point of view.
On the other hand, no one will be able to engage you in any sort of legitimate discussion because you are not worried about objective truth.
This right here ^
Your previous comment @jjstraka34 , you are starting to sound just like that which you have been railing against for a large chunk of the thread. “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster . . . when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you” ― Friedrich Nietzsche
While we have certainly not seen eye to eye, I have made it a point to read all of your posts here. Your views challenge my own and make me think of things from different perspectives. While I certainly don't know you personally, what you have shown me in this thread is better than this.
I don't even disagree with what you are saying here, not really. There is no doubt there is a large degree of that happening, to myself and many who share my viewpoints. I feel it would be worse to deny it than simply admit it and go from there. At least then I can be honest about my own feelings.
But again, I'll reiterate. When the truth seems to have become completely obsolete, and lying is not only not punished, but most of the time not even called a lie, then that ONLY can benefit the side who is engaged in the lying. The other side is immediately at a disadvantage that is nearly impossible to overcome. I'm not personally going to spread disinformation. I have no ability nor the means to do so. However, if, by happenstance, Donald Trump (who, by the way, is the one who gave more life to the rumor by addressing it in a press conference) is bitten by the very same tactics he uses, I simply do not have it in me to be concerned about it. What is that line in "The Craft" (the movie about the teenage witches). That whatever you do shall be revisited upon you 12-fold?? Donald Trump has this coming, in spades. And, again, we don't even know the truth of anything in that Buzzfeed report. It is all up in the air at this point. I think a bigger picture here is that, even if it isn't true, no one has any real trouble BELIEVING that Donald Trump would do something like that, which is a bit of an indictment in and of itself.
The entire crux of my comment was, basically, how in the hell are you supposed to function relying soley on truth in a new world where facts simply DO NOT matter, at all?? For instance, yesterday at the press conference, Trump punished CNN by proxy for the Buzzfeed report, which they had nothing to do with, and claimed they reported the same thing. They didn't, they know they didn't, but CNN is a better target than Buzzfeed. Here is Carl Bernstein taking Kellyanne Conway (who is masterful at what Bernstein describes in this video) to task:
The Democratic party doesn't need to fight dirty. Nor should it. Despite Trump's victory, the American people still agree with the Democratic party on almost every policy issue.
No, seriously.
Most Americans want to ban or limit campaign contributions.
Most Americans want higher taxes on the wealthy.
Most Americans want Social Security and Medicare to stay, and not be privatized.
Most Americans want to end gerrymandering.
Most Americans want Obamacare to stay.
Most Americans, including NRA members, want background checks for gun purchases.
Most Americans want to invest in education.
Most Americans don't want to build a wall on the border.
Most Americans don't want torture.
Most Americans don't want to ban Muslims.
Most Americans don't want a trade war with Mexico or China.
Most Americans want to close tax loopholes.
All those ideas in blue? The Democratic party supports all of those things. The GOP opposes nearly all of them.
Most Americans want to invest in infrastructure.
Most Americans want to avoid foreign wars.
Most Americans don't want open borders.
Most Americans don't want to raise taxes on the middle class.
Most Americans don't want foreign interference in our elections.
Most Americans want presidential elections to be based on the popular vote rather than the electoral vote.
Most Americans want prison reform.
All those ideas in purple? The Democratic party and the GOP both support those things. And yes, that includes the border thing, the middle class tax thing, and the prison reform thing. We have bipartisan support for those ideas.
Most Americans want voter ID laws.
That one idea in red? The GOP supports it. The Democratic party opposes it.
I omitted debates about stuff that involves no actual legislation, like the political correctness thing. Neither party has supported laws requiring or forbidding PC speech, for instance, so that's not a policy debate.
Just because Clinton lost the presidential election doesn't mean Democrats got America all wrong. Especially not when she won the popular vote.
Here are the main issues I have with Donald Trump:
1. He talks too much. 2. He doesn't take environmentalism seriously. 3. He trusts himself more so than those who are actually qualified in the proper fields. 4. He is against nationalizing healthcare. 5. He is a fiscal conservative.
Here are the things I don't have the least bit of problem with:
1. His lack of sensitivity (boohoo get over it). 2. His vulgarity (boohoo get over it). 3. His isolationist positions and pro/neutral stance concerning Putin. 4. His protectionist positions. 5. His outsider status.
I agree with your general premise (and your formatting), but it also illustrates a huge problem. DESPITE the fact that what you outline is true, Democrats lose. They lose when they get more votes (twice) in the Presidential election because of the Electoral College, and the they lose when they get more votes nationally in congressional races because of gerrymandering. Obama won because Bush was SO bad that the country was simply not going to put another Republican in office. Then again, Republicans have won the popular vote exactly ONCE since 1992. It took Obama 8 full years to even somewhat clean up the mess of the Bush administration, to the extent that he did.
I rather think this illustrates my concerns just as much as alleviates them. You can be right, you can have more popular ideas, but you lose precisely because of how dirty the other side plays. The most effective Democratic politicians ever (at least on a domestic front) were Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. Both of whom were absolute knife fighters when it came to pursuing their aims. The Democrats haven't had someone remotely as tough since. So, barring resorting to the tactics of Republicans (which they'll never do anyway), we have to at least not look like the weak kid constantly getting his lunch money taken by the bully on the playground. Trump does project a sense of false strength and bravado (which is betrayed by his own responses anytime he even gets mildly criticized).
Trump is unpopular no doubt. But I'm not sure how much that matters when the Republicans control every branch of government. I don't know quite what it would take for the House Republicans to turn on him, but it would have to be something of the "live boy, dead girl" variety. He knows how to play the media, he knows how to play the portion of the public he needs to. He is a blank check for the far-right in America to essentially dismantle the New Deal and Great Society, which has been their goal since the Reagan Administration.
Lyndon Johnson got dumped by his own party's base. He was effective at passing legislation, but that is not the be-all-and-end-all of being an "effective politician". FDR could also be critiqued for being an autocratic tyrant (and he was, at the time and since) who cared just about as much as Trump does for the norms and niceties that had made government work up until that point. He was a populist in good part, just like Trump is.
The Democrats controlled every branch of government up until six years ago. The Republican party itself is no less a shattered mess than it was a year ago, the cracks are merely papered over by electoral victory (as was true of the Democratic Party when Carter won). The current Republican coalition is no less doomed by demographics just because Trump managed to squeeze out an unexpected boost in white support.
Why was Bush elected? Because Democrats were so weak? No, he barely squeaked by while losing the popular vote. Putting aside the details, rerun 2000 with any of a thousand minor changes and President Gore is the result (a thousand more could have Bush win without shenanigans, of course). That's not getting your lunch money taken. Clinton demolished Bush and Dole and the results were not that close (especially in the latter case).
Since the 1980s, Republicans have won three elections (two of them while losing the popular vote), and Democrats have won four. The modern Democratic coalition can and does win elections.
This is not the end of history, and shouldn't be treated as such.
If the ACA is repealed, along with it's pre-existing conditions provision, it will literally be the end of history for an estimated 36,000 people a year.
As long as it isn't anyone associated with Duke basketball, I can get on board. Which begs the question, how is it the off-topic section doesn't have a dedicated sports thread?? Same strong opinions as here but with 1/10th the acrimony.
Here are the main issues I have with Donald Trump:
1. He talks too much. 2. He doesn't take environmentalism seriously. 3. He trusts himself more so than those who are actually qualified in the proper fields. 4. He is against nationalizing healthcare. 5. He is a fiscal conservative.
Here are the things I don't have the least bit of problem with:
1. His lack of sensitivity (boohoo get over it). 2. His vulgarity (boohoo get over it). 3. His isolationist positions and pro/neutral stance concerning Putin. 4. His protectionist positions. 5. His outsider status.
You are leaving out some factors there like his disregard for the truth even when shown video footage of himself doing x,y,z he will deny it.
Other bonuses include misogyny, racism, narcicism, pettiness, need for approval, immaturity.
I agree that a certain kind of ruthless cutthroat pragmatism can work in politics, and FDR is indeed a perfect example. He was not above a blatant power grab (such as his failed court packing scheme) or a flat-out lie (such as when he promised not to send Americans into war during a re-election campaign) to accomplish his objectives. Thankfully for us and the world at large, he used those powers for good, promoting an economic recovery and dragging the country into an important war that most Americans at the time had no interest in joining.
I actually do have a great deal of respect for political acumen, and I would not call myself an idealist at all. My political heroes are FDR, Deng Xiaoping, Richard Nixon, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King, in no particular order.
But they were not all good men. Certainly Mandela and King were, but FDR was shamelessly power-hungry, Richard Nixon was an anti-Semitic paranoiac and a radical anti-Communist (and I say this as an anti-Communist myself), and Deng Xiaoping was a coward and a murderer, ordering the brutal and unnecessary massacre at Tiananmen despite his friend Zhao Ziyang's objections. But these men were all very skilled at their craft and very cunning, and they accomplished their objectives where others had failed. What good is a righteous policy if you can't actually make it happen? We have had leaders, including American leaders, who used bad methods to do good things.
That said, I simply can't see how the Democratic party could accomplish its objectives using underhanded means. How much dishonesty is really necessary when you already have a popular agenda?
I agree that a certain kind of ruthless cutthroat pragmatism can work in politics, and FDR is indeed a perfect example. He was not above a blatant power grab (such as his failed court packing scheme) or a flat-out lie (such as when he promised not to send Americans into war during a re-election campaign) to accomplish his objectives. Thankfully for us and the world at large, he used those powers for good, promoting an economic recovery and dragging the country into an important war that most Americans at the time had no interest in joining.
I actually do have a great deal of respect for political acumen, and I would not call myself an idealist at all. My political heroes are FDR, Deng Xiaoping, Richard Nixon, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King, in no particular order.
But they were not all good men. Certainly Mandela and King were, but FDR was shamelessly power-hungry, Richard Nixon was an anti-Semitic paranoiac and a radical anti-Communist (and I say this as an anti-Communist myself), and Deng Xiaoping was a coward and a murderer, ordering the brutal and unnecessary massacre at Tiananmen despite his friend Zhao Ziyang's objections. But these men were all very skilled at their craft and very cunning, and they accomplished their objectives where others had failed. What good is a righteous policy if you can't actually make it happen? We have had leaders, including American leaders, who used bad methods to do good things.
That said, I simply can't see how the Democratic party could accomplish its objectives using underhanded means. How much dishonesty is really necessary when you already have a popular agenda?
With Trump, I think you're looking at someone who is Nixon without even a fraction of Nixon's intellect. I dare say that on many issues, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton were to the RIGHT of Richard Nixon. Nixon's problem was his almost bottomless sense of paranoia and victimhood. Nixon was fascinating, but horrible, evil even (the bombing of Cambodia is simply an unforgivable atrocity). Beyond that, he forever destroyed the idea that we could ever trust our leaders again, or that we ever should have in the first place.
FDR's major shame was the Japanese internment, followed by the exclusion of African-Americans from most of the New Deal programs. Anything can be written off as "those were the times they lived in", but I can't give him a pass on those issues. However, he was a towering figure in every other way. FDR could have easily become a dictator given the situation when he came into office. That he didn't is to his credit.
Johnson was a boorish man who lied the country into a broader conflict in Vietnam, yet also was willing to sign away the South for Democrats (to this day, and indeed this is the point in history where the modern political lines start) to pass the Civil Rights Act. And in the end, at least he had the decency to step aside when he realized the disaster he had ushered us into in Southeast Asia. But Johnson was nothing compared to what Nixon and Kissinger would do in the coming years afterwards. And the sad thing is, I'd take Nixon as President right now in heartbeat over Trump.
Here are the main issues I have with Donald Trump:
1. He talks too much. 2. He doesn't take environmentalism seriously. 3. He trusts himself more so than those who are actually qualified in the proper fields. 4. He is against nationalizing healthcare. 5. He is a fiscal conservative.
Here are the things I don't have the least bit of problem with:
1. His lack of sensitivity (boohoo get over it). 2. His vulgarity (boohoo get over it). 3. His isolationist positions and pro/neutral stance concerning Putin. 4. His protectionist positions. 5. His outsider status.
You are leaving out some factors there like his disregard for the truth even when shown video footage of himself doing x,y,z he will deny it.
Other bonuses include misogyny, racism, narcicism, pettiness, need for approval, immaturity.
No, those things were left out intentionally. I was citing the things that bother me. Donald Trump has said some things that can be construed as racist - and he's an idiot for not showing better judgment. But I'm not too quick to throw out charges of racism - wanting to control the borders and deport undocumented immigrants isn't necessarily racist (though in the case of the wall it's certainly stupid). The preservation of language, borders and culture is not necessarily racist. Racism is a very serious charge and I'm not going to throw it out there just because someone said a bunch of mean shit that hurt people's feelings. Americans need to toughen up and stop taking offense so easily. Believe me - you'd know racism when you see it. Racial ignorance and racism are not the same things.
The main problem in the US isn't even the racism of any certain individual. The problem with the racism of the United States is that it is entirely structural. It's built into the very foundations of the country itself. Black Americans have only had NOMINALLY equal rights in this country for about 50 years. Slavery existed in North America for 245 years. There was another 100 years of essentially no rights and complete second-class citizenship. So that makes 345 years of systematic oppression. In my estimation, if has to take AT LEAST that long after equal rights were granted (lawfully) for those effects to start to taper off. So we have another 300 years to go.
My view of race issues is much more optimistic. For 99% of human history, 99% of our economy was based on agriculture. Yet, today, about 10% of the economy is agriculture. This was possible because the progression was exponential, not linear: the economy changed faster in the past 10 years than in the 100 years before, and the past 100 years saw more rapid economic change than the 1,000 years before that.
Science, technology, productivity, art, culture--all these things have progressed on an exponential curve. I think race issues are on the same track.
Put it this way: it took us only 2 generations to graduate from Jim Crow to a black president. Obama is older than the Civil Rights Act!
Joe Biden has been through a hell of a lot. Lost two of his kids in his life and his first wife. I think the affection Obama and Joe Biden developed for each other was perhaps the most genuine thing in politics today. I watched a video of Lindsey Graham, a very conservative Senator, when he was running in the primary, and when he was asked about Joe Biden, the guy nearly teared up just talking about him. Here's a guy who probably would have cleaned Trump's clock. His speech at the Democratic Convention was also really good.
The ironic thing is, Barack Obama and Joe Biden are, from a family values point of view, everything conservatives could hope for (outside of gay marriage and the abortion issue). Totally dedicated to their wives and children without a hint of sexual scandal. It's so jarring to go from these two to an oafish buffoon and a religious reactionary like Mike Pence. God knows Obama and Biden both have policy flaws, but I'm certain that in very short order, America will realize how good they had it for the last 8 years.
Pretty scary when the president packs his press conference show with cheering yes men and paid staffers and the only seat reserved for the press was one seat for Breitbart. Then he turns around and calls international news organization CNN fake news.
Why's he so defensive about the golden news story? Why's he so defensive about questions about his Russian ties? If there's nothing to those things why the over the top attacking of the press?
That reiterates a point I have discussed before. The people who thought Obama was going to make the country crash and burn were wrong; similarly, the people who think Trump is going to make the country crash and burn is also wrong. Ironically, the people who thought Obama was going to radically transform the nation for the better were also wrong. We never get the worst case scenario. Of course, we never get the best case scenario, either, so we are once again left with another 4 years of overly-partisan politics which serves only those in power and not the people they are supposed to be representing.
Mr. Obama ended the "wet foot, dry foot" policy for Cuban immigrants yesterday, effective immediately. On the surface, this appears to be a bizarre move given our newly-improved relations with Cuba, because it makes it more difficult for anyone trying to immigrate from there to the United States. On the other hand, this is another small fire he has set that Trump will have to put out...but to do so he cannot also have a tough stance on immigration. Still, now that relations are more normal with Cuba there is no reason to keep a separate immigration policy for them--they now have to follow the same procedures that everyone else has to follow. This may cause Florida to lean more Republican in 2018, though, but we'll just have to wait and see.
That reiterates a point I have discussed before. The people who thought Obama was going to make the country crash and burn were wrong; similarly, the people who think Trump is going to make the country crash and burn is also wrong. Ironically, the people who thought Obama was going to radically transform the nation for the better were also wrong. We never get the worst case scenario. Of course, we never get the best case scenario, either, so we are once again left with another 4 years of overly-partisan politics which serves only those in power and not the people they are supposed to be representing.
Mr. Obama ended the "wet foot, dry foot" policy for Cuban immigrants yesterday, effective immediately. On the surface, this appears to be a bizarre move given our newly-improved relations with Cuba, because it makes it more difficult for anyone trying to immigrate from there to the United States. On the other hand, this is another small fire he has set that Trump will have to put out...but to do so he cannot also have a tough stance on immigration. Still, now that relations are more normal with Cuba there is no reason to keep a separate immigration policy for them--they now have to follow the same procedures that everyone else has to follow. This may cause Florida to lean more Republican in 2018, though, but we'll just have to wait and see.
I'd actually say it was a purely political move. The reason this policy was in place for so long is because the Cuban community in Florida has always been strongly Republican. This serves the purpose of both boxing Trump in on immigration if he wants to reverse it, and holding Cuban immigrants to the same standard most of the country insists on holding Mexican immigrants to.
That reiterates a point I have discussed before. The people who thought Obama was going to make the country crash and burn were wrong; similarly, the people who think Trump is going to make the country crash and burn is also wrong. Ironically, the people who thought Obama was going to radically transform the nation for the better were also wrong. We never get the worst case scenario. Of course, we never get the best case scenario, either, so we are once again left with another 4 years of overly-partisan politics which serves only those in power and not the people they are supposed to be representing.
Mr. Obama ended the "wet foot, dry foot" policy for Cuban immigrants yesterday, effective immediately. On the surface, this appears to be a bizarre move given our newly-improved relations with Cuba, because it makes it more difficult for anyone trying to immigrate from there to the United States. On the other hand, this is another small fire he has set that Trump will have to put out...but to do so he cannot also have a tough stance on immigration. Still, now that relations are more normal with Cuba there is no reason to keep a separate immigration policy for them--they now have to follow the same procedures that everyone else has to follow. This may cause Florida to lean more Republican in 2018, though, but we'll just have to wait and see.
Due respect but Trump's behavior and unwillingness to adhere to decent behavior and norms puts him in a category all of his own.
People who thought Obama was something more or less than a normal politician have been proven wrong. Drumpf has no political experience and his behavior has been alarming. Nothing Obama did was alarming in the whole throw the rule books out the window approach that Trump is taking. To brush aside his behavior is asking for trouble. People thought Hitler was a normal politician too at first.
I don't think (or moreover, I don't know) that Trump is Hitler. That's a pretty high bar for evil. I DO know that Hitler was, in fact, dismissed in the very same ways Trump is now. Hitler in 1933 was not the Hitler who committed suicide in his bunker. He become that bad over time, after consolidating power.There is nothing to say it can't happen here. It absolutely can. History has fogrotten thar lionized American heroes like Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford were fervent Nazi supporters.
Let me first state right out this link is from a very liberal website, but the issue discussed is not really about partisan politics, but the fundamental decency of both Biden and Obama and just HOW f'd up out healthcare system is.
Biden's son was attorney general of Deleware. He could have stayed in his position and kept his healthcare, but he didn't. Biden was going to sell his home to pay for the treatment, and Obama offered to pay the costs out of his own pocket. I have some idea how much this all costs (if paid out of pocket) and trust me, you don't even want to know how much a year of cancer treatment is. But suffice to say it's more money than anyone here could hope to ever pay for if caught in that situation without insurance.
@jjstraka34 When my grandmother was diagnosed (very very late) with stage 4 ovarian cancer, our whole family had to pitch in to pay here medical bills as she never had insurance in her life. One, I repeat, ONE pill that she had to take weekly cost in the ballpark of 10,000 dollars. Obama's offer was amazing and beyond generous.
@jjstraka34 When my grandmother was diagnosed (very very late) with stage 4 ovarian cancer, our whole family had to pitch in to pay here medical bills as she never had insurance in her life. One, I repeat, ONE pill that she had to take weekly cost in the ballpark of 10,000 dollars. Obama's offer was amazing and beyond generous.
Sorry to hear that I lost two relatives in 2016 to cancer. Once you hear stage 4, unfortunately time is short (at least what I saw) and no medicine is going to do much unfortunately.
That being said, US healthcare needs SERIOUS reform. I'd like to see single payer personally like most other modern counties have.
Obamacare was meant to be step one. Get people covered (to the greatest extent possible) and eliminate pre-existing conditions. I have no doubt most of the people who voted for it would have preferred single-payer. They got what they could. I don't know if anyone else remembers the Tea Party rallies against it that summer, but I do. They got what they could in the political climate that existed. Obama spent ALL his election capital on it, and basically sacrificed the House for the next 6 years.
Trump and Republicans are saying repeal and replace, but they are simply lying to everyone about the last part. There is no replacement, and they have no intention of providing one. Kudos to Rand Paul, who I generally think is a nutcase, but who realizes how popular the program is in his state (as long as it's called something else and isn't directly associated with Obama) for voting against the initial steps toward repeal. Democrats only need to peel off 2 more Republicans in the Senate to stop this. Constituent pressure in any number of states could thwart the entire thing.
And, whatever you think of Hillary Clinton, the woman had a plan for what she wanted to do with this on day one (along with dozens of other things). She was instrumental in S-chip, and at least she had IDEAS. If Trump or Paul Ryan has the slightest clue of how to cover these 20 million people while continuing to ban pre-existing conditions, I'll eat this smart-phone.
Comments
Comey was a part of Obama's fatal-flaw. Extending olive branches to the Republicans and thinking that if you put two of their own in high-power positions (Comey and Gates) it would mollify them one bit. Say this for Republicans, when they get in power, they use it and the opposition might as well not even be there. The idea that Trump would have appointed a Democrat to the head of the FBI or as Secretary of Defense is laughable.
The major rift on this forum is between those who think Trump is a eminent danger who must be opposed and weakened by any non-violent means nescesary and those who are certainly not fans of his but think everything will generally be ok. Hardly anyone actually supports the guy. Since I fall into the former camp, my views are easily more radical in regards to the tactics used in this regard. It's not that I don't think objective truth exists, or that in any normal period of history it wouldn't be important. I'm saying I don't care if falsehoods damage Donald Trump, whose entire existence is based on a metric ton of lies and hurting other people for his personal gain. Why would I??
I also haven't been dishonest with anyone here. I readily came out and said that, on balance, the golden showers story is more likely than not, fake. I would be being less than honest with posters here if I sat and pretended I DID care if a false story damaged him. I will happily admit to a story being wrong or false. My personal views on it's eventual consequences are a totally different matter. There was a poll taken after the man walked into the DC pizzeria with a weapon after the election, that 46% of Trump voters believe in "Pizzagate", which is essentially that Hillary Clinton is involved in a child sex ring being run out the back of a DC pizza parlor. Trying to reach someone lile that with facts and reason is like trying to put out a forest fire with a glass of apple juice.
If you don't recall, Trump rode into office riding a wave of revelations from wikileaks revealing a rigged primary election against Sanders, debate questions being given to Hilary in advance, the DNC and mainstream media organizations colluding with one another on stories, etc. exactly nobody got penalized but Debbie Schultz, who's punishment consisted of getting a paid position in Hilary's camp.
Trump supporters are just as mad about dishonesty in politics as you are.
But again, I'll reiterate. When the truth seems to have become completely obsolete, and lying is not only not punished, but most of the time not even called a lie, then that ONLY can benefit the side who is engaged in the lying. The other side is immediately at a disadvantage that is nearly impossible to overcome. I'm not personally going to spread disinformation. I have no ability nor the means to do so. However, if, by happenstance, Donald Trump (who, by the way, is the one who gave more life to the rumor by addressing it in a press conference) is bitten by the very same tactics he uses, I simply do not have it in me to be concerned about it. What is that line in "The Craft" (the movie about the teenage witches). That whatever you do shall be revisited upon you 12-fold?? Donald Trump has this coming, in spades. And, again, we don't even know the truth of anything in that Buzzfeed report. It is all up in the air at this point. I think a bigger picture here is that, even if it isn't true, no one has any real trouble BELIEVING that Donald Trump would do something like that, which is a bit of an indictment in and of itself.
And that's not an assumption. It's a fact.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jun/29/fact-checking-2016-clinton-trump/
No, seriously.
Most Americans want to ban or limit campaign contributions.
Most Americans want higher taxes on the wealthy.
Most Americans want Social Security and Medicare to stay, and not be privatized.
Most Americans want to end gerrymandering.
Most Americans want Obamacare to stay.
Most Americans, including NRA members, want background checks for gun purchases.
Most Americans want to invest in education.
Most Americans don't want to build a wall on the border.
Most Americans don't want torture.
Most Americans don't want to ban Muslims.
Most Americans don't want a trade war with Mexico or China.
Most Americans want to close tax loopholes.
All those ideas in blue? The Democratic party supports all of those things. The GOP opposes nearly all of them.
Most Americans want to invest in infrastructure.
Most Americans want to avoid foreign wars.
Most Americans don't want open borders.
Most Americans don't want to raise taxes on the middle class.
Most Americans don't want foreign interference in our elections.
Most Americans want presidential elections to be based on the popular vote rather than the electoral vote.
Most Americans want prison reform.
All those ideas in purple? The Democratic party and the GOP both support those things. And yes, that includes the border thing, the middle class tax thing, and the prison reform thing. We have bipartisan support for those ideas.
Most Americans want voter ID laws.
That one idea in red? The GOP supports it. The Democratic party opposes it.
I omitted debates about stuff that involves no actual legislation, like the political correctness thing. Neither party has supported laws requiring or forbidding PC speech, for instance, so that's not a policy debate.
Just because Clinton lost the presidential election doesn't mean Democrats got America all wrong. Especially not when she won the popular vote.
1. He talks too much.
2. He doesn't take environmentalism seriously.
3. He trusts himself more so than those who are actually qualified in the proper fields.
4. He is against nationalizing healthcare.
5. He is a fiscal conservative.
Here are the things I don't have the least bit of problem with:
1. His lack of sensitivity (boohoo get over it).
2. His vulgarity (boohoo get over it).
3. His isolationist positions and pro/neutral stance concerning Putin.
4. His protectionist positions.
5. His outsider status.
I rather think this illustrates my concerns just as much as alleviates them. You can be right, you can have more popular ideas, but you lose precisely because of how dirty the other side plays. The most effective Democratic politicians ever (at least on a domestic front) were Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. Both of whom were absolute knife fighters when it came to pursuing their aims. The Democrats haven't had someone remotely as tough since. So, barring resorting to the tactics of Republicans (which they'll never do anyway), we have to at least not look like the weak kid constantly getting his lunch money taken by the bully on the playground. Trump does project a sense of false strength and bravado (which is betrayed by his own responses anytime he even gets mildly criticized).
Trump is unpopular no doubt. But I'm not sure how much that matters when the Republicans control every branch of government. I don't know quite what it would take for the House Republicans to turn on him, but it would have to be something of the "live boy, dead girl" variety. He knows how to play the media, he knows how to play the portion of the public he needs to. He is a blank check for the far-right in America to essentially dismantle the New Deal and Great Society, which has been their goal since the Reagan Administration.
The Democrats controlled every branch of government up until six years ago. The Republican party itself is no less a shattered mess than it was a year ago, the cracks are merely papered over by electoral victory (as was true of the Democratic Party when Carter won). The current Republican coalition is no less doomed by demographics just because Trump managed to squeeze out an unexpected boost in white support.
Why was Bush elected? Because Democrats were so weak? No, he barely squeaked by while losing the popular vote. Putting aside the details, rerun 2000 with any of a thousand minor changes and President Gore is the result (a thousand more could have Bush win without shenanigans, of course). That's not getting your lunch money taken. Clinton demolished Bush and Dole and the results were not that close (especially in the latter case).
Since the 1980s, Republicans have won three elections (two of them while losing the popular vote), and Democrats have won four. The modern Democratic coalition can and does win elections.
This is not the end of history, and shouldn't be treated as such.
Other bonuses include misogyny, racism, narcicism, pettiness, need for approval, immaturity.
I actually do have a great deal of respect for political acumen, and I would not call myself an idealist at all. My political heroes are FDR, Deng Xiaoping, Richard Nixon, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King, in no particular order.
But they were not all good men. Certainly Mandela and King were, but FDR was shamelessly power-hungry, Richard Nixon was an anti-Semitic paranoiac and a radical anti-Communist (and I say this as an anti-Communist myself), and Deng Xiaoping was a coward and a murderer, ordering the brutal and unnecessary massacre at Tiananmen despite his friend Zhao Ziyang's objections. But these men were all very skilled at their craft and very cunning, and they accomplished their objectives where others had failed. What good is a righteous policy if you can't actually make it happen? We have had leaders, including American leaders, who used bad methods to do good things.
That said, I simply can't see how the Democratic party could accomplish its objectives using underhanded means. How much dishonesty is really necessary when you already have a popular agenda?
FDR's major shame was the Japanese internment, followed by the exclusion of African-Americans from most of the New Deal programs. Anything can be written off as "those were the times they lived in", but I can't give him a pass on those issues. However, he was a towering figure in every other way. FDR could have easily become a dictator given the situation when he came into office. That he didn't is to his credit.
Johnson was a boorish man who lied the country into a broader conflict in Vietnam, yet also was willing to sign away the South for Democrats (to this day, and indeed this is the point in history where the modern political lines start) to pass the Civil Rights Act. And in the end, at least he had the decency to step aside when he realized the disaster he had ushered us into in Southeast Asia. But Johnson was nothing compared to what Nixon and Kissinger would do in the coming years afterwards. And the sad thing is, I'd take Nixon as President right now in heartbeat over Trump.
Science, technology, productivity, art, culture--all these things have progressed on an exponential curve. I think race issues are on the same track.
Put it this way: it took us only 2 generations to graduate from Jim Crow to a black president. Obama is older than the Civil Rights Act!
Just something to lighten the mood.
The ironic thing is, Barack Obama and Joe Biden are, from a family values point of view, everything conservatives could hope for (outside of gay marriage and the abortion issue). Totally dedicated to their wives and children without a hint of sexual scandal. It's so jarring to go from these two to an oafish buffoon and a religious reactionary like Mike Pence. God knows Obama and Biden both have policy flaws, but I'm certain that in very short order, America will realize how good they had it for the last 8 years.
Why's he so defensive about the golden news story? Why's he so defensive about questions about his Russian ties? If there's nothing to those things why the over the top attacking of the press?
https://www.truthexaminer.com/2017/01/just-in-trumps-team-reserved-just-one-seat-for-todays-press-conference-guess-who-got-it/
So he's trying to make Breitbart the official state news?
Mr. Obama ended the "wet foot, dry foot" policy for Cuban immigrants yesterday, effective immediately. On the surface, this appears to be a bizarre move given our newly-improved relations with Cuba, because it makes it more difficult for anyone trying to immigrate from there to the United States. On the other hand, this is another small fire he has set that Trump will have to put out...but to do so he cannot also have a tough stance on immigration. Still, now that relations are more normal with Cuba there is no reason to keep a separate immigration policy for them--they now have to follow the same procedures that everyone else has to follow. This may cause Florida to lean more Republican in 2018, though, but we'll just have to wait and see.
People who thought Obama was something more or less than a normal politician have been proven wrong. Drumpf has no political experience and his behavior has been alarming. Nothing Obama did was alarming in the whole throw the rule books out the window approach that Trump is taking. To brush aside his behavior is asking for trouble. People thought Hitler was a normal politician too at first.
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2017/01/13/1620179/-VP-Joe-Biden-was-going-to-sell-his-home-to-afford-his-son-s-cancer-care-until-Obama-stopped-him
Biden's son was attorney general of Deleware. He could have stayed in his position and kept his healthcare, but he didn't. Biden was going to sell his home to pay for the treatment, and Obama offered to pay the costs out of his own pocket. I have some idea how much this all costs (if paid out of pocket) and trust me, you don't even want to know how much a year of cancer treatment is. But suffice to say it's more money than anyone here could hope to ever pay for if caught in that situation without insurance.
EDIT: Merged two comments into one.
That being said, US healthcare needs SERIOUS reform. I'd like to see single payer personally like most other modern counties have.
Trump and Republicans are saying repeal and replace, but they are simply lying to everyone about the last part. There is no replacement, and they have no intention of providing one. Kudos to Rand Paul, who I generally think is a nutcase, but who realizes how popular the program is in his state (as long as it's called something else and isn't directly associated with Obama) for voting against the initial steps toward repeal. Democrats only need to peel off 2 more Republicans in the Senate to stop this. Constituent pressure in any number of states could thwart the entire thing.
And, whatever you think of Hillary Clinton, the woman had a plan for what she wanted to do with this on day one (along with dozens of other things). She was instrumental in S-chip, and at least she had IDEAS. If Trump or Paul Ryan has the slightest clue of how to cover these 20 million people while continuing to ban pre-existing conditions, I'll eat this smart-phone.