It should be noted that BC is in an election cycle at the moment so Clark might just be pandering to voters who remember how hard these tariffs hit the last time. It is also very hard to take a Liberal at their word during an election as they will say and do anything to get elected (at least here in Ontario, and seems recently, Federally).
It's also in Trudeau's court to act, however, Clark really painted him into a corner as reducing global greenhouse gases is a priority for the federal government, yet starting/continuing a trade war with the US is also a stupid thing to do. Whatever the federals do, their opposition can nail them for not keeping their promises. Very lose-lose.
If you ever feel that Trump is just too eloquent then pray that Boris Johnson becomes the next British PM. He has just referred to the leader of the opposition Corbyn as a 'mugwump'. Apparently one meaning of this could be that Corbyn is head of an international cabal of sorcerers...in the world of Harry Potter.
Fascinating article about how the French Election would turn out if they used a US-like system. All indications are that LePen is headed for a big defeat in May (fingers-crossed). However, if you artifically give weight to certain areas of France like our Electoral College, suddenly she is on a path to possible victory.
I keep hearing about how deeply unpopular the Democratic Party is. But losing Presidential Elections in America is not a necessarily a sign of "popularity" in any sense of actual numbers. The Democrats have lost ONE popular vote in the Presidential Election over the last 3 decades.
Good thing France doesn't disenfranchise their voters like the US system artificially does. They won't have to deal with a unhinged person who lost the popular vote hijacking the job.
This comes on the heels of reporting in both Reuters and Politico that Trump, quote, "I loved my previous life, I thought it would easier". What kind of person goes into this job thinking that, with that kind of mentality??
It explains, so, so much. Most of the success he has HAD in real estate has been due to the fact that he would threaten to sue people who didn't have the financial means to combat him legally. When this wasn't the case (Atlantic City) he was an abject failure. Trump is good at one thing: branding himself. He came into his fame in the Robin Leech, Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, Gordon Gecko '80s. He was a living personification of "Greed is Good", and he turned it into a brand. Years later he would play a fake billionaire on TV. And he can spot a mark from a mile away.
What he can't do is run a country. He is finding that Congress and World Leaders are apparently immune to his "negotiating skills" (as if he ever had any in the first place). He has now struck out TWICE on Obamacare Repeal, even after a last ditch effort in the past few days to get it in under the 100 day mark (since he is obsessed with the optics of it). He literally does not care what is in the bill, he simply wants a win. Yet he can't punch it through his own Congress.
He tried to engineer a government shutdown, as a shakedown, threatening to withhold Obamacare funds if Congress didn't submit to demands for money for a wall he promised Mexico was going to pay for. It was like threatening to light himself on fire. Then he took to Twitter yesterday to blame Democrats. #1 Democrats have NO power in DC right now. None. There is no blame to be taken by them on ANY policy issue right now. #2 since this started in the 90s, Republicans have been the ones itching for government shutdowns each time. And #3, Democrats are seen, for good or ill, as the party that BELIEVES in government, so no one is going to buy the idea that they are the ones who want to shut it down.
In the end, he backed down. Again, nothing but sound and fury, signifying nothing. He seemed to change his stance on NAFTA 3 times in the last 48 hours, saying he was going to withdraw from it, backing down after brief phone calls with the leaders of Mexico and Canada, and changing his mind again by the afternoon. He said in an interview with the Washington Examiner he was looking into breaking up the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (what???). He said yesterday he is both a globalist and a nationalist. He knows nothing. He can't get a significant bill on healthcare or taxes anywhere near passage. His two major Executive Orders on the Muslim Ban and Sanctuary Cities have been swatted down by judges all across the country. And his approval ratings are roughly 20 points lower than every President since JFK after 100 days.
Donald Trump thought Washington and the country would morph around him after his victory, simply bending to his will. And he had no back-up plan. It may be what happens in New York Real Estate, but not here. Trump's problem is he is such a massive narcissist that he believes every bit of his own hype, and is positively incapable of not believing it.
Oh, and just for kicks, the US economy grew at 0.7% in the first quarter, which is the lowest in 3 years.
On Transylvania University campus in Lexington, Kentucky, a man entered a popular coffee shop with several knives, looking to kill Democrats. The assailant, Mitchell W. Adkins, appears to have a history of publicly protesting what he considered the mistreatment of conservatives on college campuses.
Three people were injured during this vicious assault on Democrats including one student who was struck with a machete. Adkins was stopped by security before he was able to hurt any more people but based on his arsenal of weapons it is clear this was a Republican terrorist attack meant to inflict casualties on Democrats.
“A guy came in, banged something, a hatchet or an ax, on the table and said ‘the day of reckoning has come.'" Tristan Reynolds, the editor of Transylvania’s student paper said, “he asked somebody what their political affiliation was, they said ‘Republican’ and the guy said ‘you are safe.” And then I realized what was going on and started getting people out."
I'm not holding my breath for Trump to address this brutal right wing terrorist attack, are you?
I think it would be fair at this point to agree that there are elements across the board looking to engage in violence. As far as general hooliganism on college campuses, I guess you can lean towards that being the left. But then you have the Milo supporter who shot a protester in Seattle, this attack in Kentucky just posted. I remember before the election two Trump supporters standing outside a Virginia Democratic headquarters all day with guns strapped over their shoulder. Of course we have the Planned Parenthood shooter who was without question influenced by right-wing propaganda. What I'm getting at, is there is a certain element of lethality on the later ones that goes beyond sucker punches.
But, for the sake of the thread, I have no doubt we could, just like posting videos of either side acting like insane people, we could constantly find stories of violent interactions or intentions to prove our points. It will likely get us nowhere. This is a violent country, always has been, and it is awash in guns and political division. It's a wonder the body count is as low as it is.
Good god, Trump called Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" again at an NRA speech. Forget the minor controversy from back in the day of whether or not Elizabeth Warren was qualified to identify herself as part Native American based on her family history. This is a deliberate racial slur, from the sitting President of the United States. It's not that this kind of thing was fine when he was campaigning either, but Native Americans are citizens in the country HE is now in charge of, and this is so far beyond disgusting that I don't even know what to say about it. What a revolting piece of garbage this man is.
I think it would be fair at this point to agree that there are elements across the board looking to engage in violence. As far as general hooliganism on college campuses, I guess you can lean towards that being the left. But then you have the Milo supporter who shot a protester in Seattle, this attack in Kentucky just posted. I remember before the election two Trump supporters standing outside a Virginia Democratic headquarters all day with guns strapped over their shoulder. Of course we have the Planned Parenthood shooter who was without question influenced by right-wing propaganda. What I'm getting at, is there is a certain element of lethality on the later ones that goes beyond sucker punches.
But, for the sake of the thread, I have no doubt we could, just like posting videos of either side acting like insane people, we could constantly find stories of violent interactions or intentions to prove our points. It will likely get us nowhere. This is a violent country, always has been, and it is awash in guns and political division. It's a wonder the body count is as low as it is.
I have no idea why you are letting them off the hook after posts and posts of "omg the left is so violent look at what they're doing on college campuses, the right never does anything wrong".
Then a crazy guy right wing person attacks people on a college campus and you want to "both sides" things about it.
I think it would be fair at this point to agree that there are elements across the board looking to engage in violence. As far as general hooliganism on college campuses, I guess you can lean towards that being the left. But then you have the Milo supporter who shot a protester in Seattle, this attack in Kentucky just posted. I remember before the election two Trump supporters standing outside a Virginia Democratic headquarters all day with guns strapped over their shoulder. Of course we have the Planned Parenthood shooter who was without question influenced by right-wing propaganda. What I'm getting at, is there is a certain element of lethality on the later ones that goes beyond sucker punches.
But, for the sake of the thread, I have no doubt we could, just like posting videos of either side acting like insane people, we could constantly find stories of violent interactions or intentions to prove our points. It will likely get us nowhere. This is a violent country, always has been, and it is awash in guns and political division. It's a wonder the body count is as low as it is.
I have no idea why you are letting them off the hook after posts and posts of "omg the left is so violent look at what they're doing on college campuses, the right never does anything wrong".
Then a crazy guy right wing person attacks people on a college campus and you want to "both sides" things about it.
Not so much that, just that I know it's going to turn into a never-ending back and forth. Someone will post an article about some more anarchists on a college campus, we'll point to something like this, and.....idk really. I agree this incident in Kentucky is FAR worse than anything we've seen at Berkeley, simply because this guy's intent seemed to be to literally KILL Democrats. I mean, this is the very definition of terrorism, but it will never get called that because it was a young, white male who was the alleged perpetrator. What is described is what the Columbine shooters did (if I remember right, there has been so many school shootings it's hard to remember). Asking people if they were Republican or Democrat and literally MOVING ON from people who answered to the former and trying to seek out those of that later.
But, what's going to happen is someone is going to talk about the Dallas shooter during the BLM protest, or we'll have to listen to why this is no worse than San Bernadino or Orlando or anything else. I don't AGREE there is anything analogous to this from liberals (as far as I know), but it's going to be spun that way. And when the argument turns into "my side is trying to kill people less than your side", that's a pretty bad place to be I guess.
I don't think you shouldn't have posted it, I think it's important. I'm just not sure it's going to change anyone's mind about the current situation. People like this guy in Kentucky are universally written off as "lone wolves" while any smattering of violent protests on the left are framed as a massive problem that is endemic of liberals in general. I mean, basically, I already know the arguments.
But I agree with you. This is far worse than anything I've heard about at college campuses. On the scale of violence, attempting to KILL members of the opposing party is not the same as sucker-punching someone, setting a trash can on fire, or hell, even hitting someone with a bike lock (though that COULD kill someone). This is premeditated attempted murder of strangers.
I have no idea why you are letting them off the hook after posts and posts of "omg the left is so violent look at what they're doing on college campuses, the right never does anything wrong".
Then a crazy guy right wing person attacks people on a college campus and you want to "both sides" things about it.
Maybe because that is the correct response?
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." - (possibly, but probably not) Gandhi
What is described is what the Columbine shooters did (if I remember right, there has been so many school shootings it's hard to remember). Asking people if they were Republican or Democrat and literally MOVING ON from people who answered to the former and trying to seek out those of that later.
That was Columbine, and IIRC without looking it up, I believe the students asked their victims if they believed in God. Might have been Jesus, or faith or something. Something religious. Also IIRC from last time I looked up the details of the massacre, I think they only did it to a few students.
My deal is it seems this Republican had listened to one too many right wing speeches about the assault on the first amendment or some crap on college campuses.
He had internalized this supposed conflict so much that he literally was trying to murder Democrats. The right wing's hateful hyperbolic messaging is really dangerous.
My deal is it seems this Republican had listened to one too many right wing speeches about the assault on the first amendment or some crap on college campuses.
He had internalized this supposed conflict so much that he literally was trying to murder Democrats. The right wing's hateful hyperbolic messaging is really dangerous.
I mean, there IS evidence of this happening. The murder of George Tiller years ago happened in no small part because of Bill O'Reilly getting on TV every night for years calling him a "baby killer" despite operating a perfectly legal medical clinic. Carly Fiorina and other Republicans just straight up lying and using the doctored Planned Parenthood videos as proof led DIRECTLY to the shooting of the PP Clinic in Colorado. The people who committed these acts got their information somewhere, and it came from FOX News and right-wing radio. I never really posted about it, but what about the Indian man killed in Kansas where the gunman said "get out of my country" before commencing with the murder?? You're telling me that ISN'T linked to the rhetoric Trump put in the air??
I mean, I just did a Google Search on "left-wing killers" going out of my way to find examples like this (and I haven't even mentioned Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph, the Olympic bomber). I suppose you could throw in the Dallas shooter (I guess). But even if you take someone who looked to have no set political beliefs at all (the Tuscon shooter Jared Loughner), it doesn't seem a coincidence he shot a Democratic congresswoman. Jo Cox, in England, was shot by a right-wing proponent of Brexit, because she opposed it. The only example I can find is the assassination of a far-right Dutch politician in 2002 who was killed for the explicitly stated left-wing views of his assassin.
So, most of the DEADLY violence does come from the right, usually tied to Anti-abortion or militia groups, where it simply devolves into actual flat-out terrorism (though it is never called that). Feel free to present other examples if I have missed some, by all means, as this post was done withe a cursory Google search of a couple of keyword phrases like "left-wing killer" or "right-wing politician killed". But isn't it just possible that the party that defends guns to the ends of the Earth MIGHT also be the one that attracts those who are more likely to use them for such acts??
Floyd Lee Corkins who shot folks at the Family Research Council because of the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Fresno terrorist, Elliot Rodger the mass shooter, the three organizers who planned an acid attack on the Deploraball (pro trump pre election meeting at RNC), all provably left wing and all far, far more recent than 2002. Would you call the group that kidnapped and tortured a mentally disabled kid due to anti trump, anti white bias terrorists as well? I don't want to expand the definition without cause.
You say your did your googles but your googles are coming out highly selective to the point where you're not even bringing up one valid story when there are plenty of examples.
Floyd Lee Corkins who shot folks at the Family Research Council because of the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Fresno terrorist, Elliot Rodger the mass shooter, the three organizers who planned an acid attack on the Deploraball (pro trump pre election meeting at RNC), all provably left wing and all far, far more recent than 2002. Would you call the group that kidnapped and tortured a mentally disabled kid due to anti trump, anti white bias terrorists as well? I don't want to expand the definition without cause.
You say your did your googles but your googles are coming out highly selective to the point where you're not even bringing up one valid story when there are plenty of examples.
They would all qualify except for Elliot Rogers, who from everything I have read was motivated by hatred of women who wouldn't sleep with him. Honestly, I'm willing to bet that's where alot of these guys start having their problems.
The Chicago case is demonstrative (and I've talked about this before) in that those 4 are going to serve LONG prison sentences, almost certainly (as they should). And then we had the case of a white, high school football player who did the exact same thing to a black boy, and literally didn't get a DAY of jail time. Some probation and less community service than I was required to do for my my Catholic Confirmation in High School.
I will grant Corkins and the Fresno shooter. This sort of illustrates my original point. I asked for examples I may have missed and you kindly provided them. I knew they'd be there if the discussion opened up, and now we'll just trade jabs discussing who has more dangerous nutcases.
The murder of George Tiller years ago happened in no small part because of Bill O'Reilly getting on TV every night for years calling him a "baby killer" despite operating a perfectly legal medical clinic.
So, most of the DEADLY violence does come from the right, usually tied to Anti-abortion or militia groups, where it simply devolves into actual flat-out terrorism (though it is never called that).
An anti-abortion protester was gunned down shortly after Tiller's murder, but it didn't get nearly as much media coverage or generate as much debate.
He had internalized this supposed conflict so much that he literally was trying to murder Democrats. The right wing's hateful hyperbolic messaging is really dangerous.
Just like the left's hyperbolic hateful messages that led to this:
Can we also say, since the left are the open borders advocates, that most terrorist incidents involving immigrants are also their fault? That would stand to reason to me, considering terrorism is a big reason for conservatives to advocate for stricter immigration controls from countries with organized factions who want us dead while the left considers that unacceptable and racist.
Recently, someone also mentioned the Electoral College and how it disenfranchises voters. I disagree entirely and argue that it works to make sure all areas of the country had representation rather than one or two major cities with their own unique politics that are totally different from the rest of the country. Look at the electoral map broken down by county. Nearly the ENTIRE COUNTRY was pro-Trump except for a mere handful of highly dense, populated areas.
It's a weak justification for losing, and Trump's explanation was right. If winning the popular vote meant winning the presidency, he would have altered his strategy and campaigned differently.
Yeah, and here we go.....this game is just pointless. I mean, so now I'm supposed to sit here and answer for what adolescents are doing in disparate high schools across the country. And we were talking about murders in the last set of posts, but it doesn't matter. This is absolutely no different than the "I'll post videos of dumb conservatives" followed by "I'll post videos of dumb liberals". And this is what I was getting at last night. Not that @smeagolheart didn't have a point, but that it was going to open up an endless Pandora's Box of Youtube clips and news links where we'd need a white board to keep of tally of who did what to whom, and a grading scale of whether a murder counts for 10 points while a school beating counts for 3 or 4, and whether a campus trash can fire counts for a half or full point.
Nearly the ENTIRE COUNTRY was pro-Trump except for a mere handful of highly dense, populated areas.
Geographically, most land went to Trump. But more people went to Clinton. Which of those things is most important?
I don't think your vote should be worth any less just because you live in a densely populated area. Every vote should be equal.
As far as @jjstraka34's point goes... Yes. We've already traded examples of dumb conservatives and dumb liberals and it has led nowhere. @Nonnahswriter pointed out the same thing.
Trash-talking the other side contributes nothing to the discussion.
Not just most land, most states. How do you think the majority of states, and counties, and communities would feel constantly being dictated to by a few small circles who don't share in their experience and thus aren't in tune with their problems and concerns and thus have no ability to represent them, even if they tried?
Don't you think that might make them feel angry, disenfranchised, and unrepresented, and rightfully so? Don't you think that would fuel a secession movement that would have real grievances?
The likely outcome of that is civil war or two americas. Neither of which are in the best interests of anyone.
Can we also say, since the left are the open borders advocates, that most terrorist incidents involving immigrants are also their fault? That would stand to reason to me, considering terrorism is a big reason for conservatives to advocate for stricter immigration controls from countries with organized factions who want us dead while the left considers that unacceptable and racist.
Recently, someone also mentioned the Electoral College and how it disenfranchises voters. I disagree entirely and argue that it works to make sure all areas of the country had representation rather than one or two major cities with their own unique politics that are totally different from the rest of the country. Look at the electoral map broken down by county. Nearly the ENTIRE COUNTRY was pro-Trump except for a mere handful of highly dense, populated areas.
It's a weak justification for losing, and Trump's explanation was right. If winning the popular vote meant winning the presidency, he would have altered his strategy and campaigned differently.
The map looks like this every year. And it's pretty easy to say you would have "altered your strategy" in hindsight. How would he have done that?? By somehow getting more votes in San Francisco and Seattle, or the Twin Cities, or Chicago?? On the flip-side, would Hillary have done any better in the middle of Nebraska or Oklahoma?? The answer to both is no. Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million, and by over 2 percentage points. And I'm also aware that many people think it is just fine that someone can lose by such a wide-margin and actually win. Of course, that's because it's only ever happened to Democrats, and twice in the last 16 years mind you. As I stated recently, the Republicans have one exactly ONE popular vote since 1988. Yet they've maintained the Presidency nearly half that time. Pretty neat deal.
Much like our healthcare system compared to the rest of the world, our Election system from the President to the House to the Senate is antiquated nonsense. And of course that highly dense, populated areas went for Hillary. That's where most people live. It's called civilization, where people congregate and coexist in large numbers in a single spot. All different types of people. The idea that the vote of people in the cities should count LESS because they are all grouped together is one of the most bizarre right-wing arguments to come out of this election.
Now, you can say rural areas will get ignored without the Electoral College, that it would favor how they vote in cities. Maybe that's true. But at least it's based on ACTUAL people who ACTUALLY live somewhere. As it stands now, it's RURAL areas who have disproportionate power in the Electoral College, and it's all based on artificial weight. As I've said at least half a dozen times, if California had the same weight of Electoral votes as Wyoming, they would have 199. They actually have 55.
So it's actually not weak justification for losing. It's an uphill battle every single time for Democrats. The Republicans are spotted a lead every time simply based on there NOT being a popular vote.
Antiquated nonsense isn't an argument, it's an opinion and value judgement.
"Of course highly dense, populated areas went for Hillary. That's where most people live. It's called civilization."
Isn't an argument either, it's condescending but empty of content and only states the obvious.
The idea of the Electoral College giving representation to smaller states that otherwise wouldn't have it isn't a "right wing argument to come out of this election", it was one of the merits of the system as stated by the Founders of this country.
Using the right strategy for the end goal is common sense, there's no reason why he wouldn't do so if the rules were different. "Easy to say in hindsight" doesn't actually contend the fact of this relatively simple observation.
It isn't an uphill battle for democrats, it's that democrats don't represent huge swaths of this country, and frankly actively demonize them on a regular basis. That's not the fault of the system.
Not just most land, most states. How do you think the majority of states, and counties, and communities would feel constantly being dictated to by a few small circles who don't share in their experience and thus aren't in tune with their problems and concerns and thus have no ability to represent them, even if they tried?
Don't you think that might make them feel angry, disenfranchised, and unrepresented, and rightfully so? Don't you think that would fuel a secession movement that would have real grievances?
The likely outcome of that is civil war or two americas. Neither of which are in the best interests of anyone.
If you are going to colour a map that represents votes going towards a politician or party, colouring it where every vote is represented is a better indication than who actually won the vote, or else someone could take all of America and colour it blue. (Which they do whenever they announce Hillary won the popular vote.
All that light purple that is surrounded by that bright middle mass in the middle is close to even split. That's a huge chunk of the land/population that feels like they have no representation.
Antiquated nonsense isn't an argument, it's an opinion and value judgement.
"Of course highly dense, populated areas went for Hillary. That's where most people live. It's called civilization."
Isn't an argument either, it's condescending but empty of content and only states the obvious.
The idea of the Electoral College giving representation to smaller states that otherwise wouldn't have it isn't a "right wing argument to come out of this election", it was one of the merits of the system as stated by the Founders of this country.
Using the right strategy for the end goal is common sense, there's no reason why he wouldn't do so if the rules were different. "Easy to say in hindsight" doesn't actually contend the fact of this relatively simple observation.
It isn't an uphill battle for democrats, it's that democrats don't represent huge swaths of this country, and frankly actively demonize them on a regular basis. That's not the fault of the system.
I suppose "coastal elites" and "San Francisco values" have been terms of endearment this whole time and I just missed the signs......
For what it's worth, it is the Senate, not the Electoral College, that was designed to empower states with lower populations. States get 2 senators so they can strike down legislation that unfairly benefits one state at the expense of another. The Senate, which is divided evenly between the states, is a check on the House of Representatives, which is dominated by the most populous states.
But the Electoral College was designed solely to prevent popular elections, because the Founding Fathers did not believe the average voter was competent enough to choose the president (which might seem an odd sentiment, but not all of the Founding Fathers' ideas persisted to the current day). Instead, voters would choose representatives who would then, based on their best judgment, elect a president. Elites, not the common man, were supposed to be in charge of that choice.
These days, however, electors vote along party lines almost without fail; political parties choose people who do not think independently to serve as their electors. The names of electors--the people we're actually voting for in every presidential election--are not even listed on the ballot. The original purpose has been lost.
For what it's worth, it is the Senate, not the Electoral College, that was designed to empower states with lower populations. States get 2 senators so they can strike down legislation that unfairly benefits one state at the expense of another. The Senate, which is divided evenly between the states, is a check on the House of Representatives, which is dominated by the most populous states.
But the Electoral College was designed solely to prevent popular elections, because the Founding Fathers did not believe the average voter was competent enough to choose the president (which might seem an odd sentiment, but not all of the Founding Fathers' ideas persisted to the current day). Instead, voters would choose representatives who would then, based on their best judgment, elect a president. Elites, not the common man, were supposed to be in charge of that choice.
These days, however, electors vote along party lines almost without fail; political parties choose people who do not think independently to serve as their electors. The names of electors--the people we're actually voting for in every presidential election--are not even listed on the ballot. The original purpose has been lost.
Because those people get excoriated and lambasted when they DO vote against their party's nominee, and some states have even outlawed them voting for anyone BUT their nominee.
Comments
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/christy-clark-calls-on-ottawa-to-ban-coal-exports-after-softwood-lumber-duties/article34822276/
It should be noted that BC is in an election cycle at the moment so Clark might just be pandering to voters who remember how hard these tariffs hit the last time. It is also very hard to take a Liberal at their word during an election as they will say and do anything to get elected (at least here in Ontario, and seems recently, Federally).
It's also in Trudeau's court to act, however, Clark really painted him into a corner as reducing global greenhouse gases is a priority for the federal government, yet starting/continuing a trade war with the US is also a stupid thing to do. Whatever the federals do, their opposition can nail them for not keeping their promises. Very lose-lose.
Fascinating article about how the French Election would turn out if they used a US-like system. All indications are that LePen is headed for a big defeat in May (fingers-crossed). However, if you artifically give weight to certain areas of France like our Electoral College, suddenly she is on a path to possible victory.
I keep hearing about how deeply unpopular the Democratic Party is. But losing Presidential Elections in America is not a necessarily a sign of "popularity" in any sense of actual numbers. The Democrats have lost ONE popular vote in the Presidential Election over the last 3 decades.
Summary of the AP Interview
It explains, so, so much. Most of the success he has HAD in real estate has been due to the fact that he would threaten to sue people who didn't have the financial means to combat him legally. When this wasn't the case (Atlantic City) he was an abject failure. Trump is good at one thing: branding himself. He came into his fame in the Robin Leech, Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, Gordon Gecko '80s. He was a living personification of "Greed is Good", and he turned it into a brand. Years later he would play a fake billionaire on TV. And he can spot a mark from a mile away.
What he can't do is run a country. He is finding that Congress and World Leaders are apparently immune to his "negotiating skills" (as if he ever had any in the first place). He has now struck out TWICE on Obamacare Repeal, even after a last ditch effort in the past few days to get it in under the 100 day mark (since he is obsessed with the optics of it). He literally does not care what is in the bill, he simply wants a win. Yet he can't punch it through his own Congress.
He tried to engineer a government shutdown, as a shakedown, threatening to withhold Obamacare funds if Congress didn't submit to demands for money for a wall he promised Mexico was going to pay for. It was like threatening to light himself on fire. Then he took to Twitter yesterday to blame Democrats. #1 Democrats have NO power in DC right now. None. There is no blame to be taken by them on ANY policy issue right now. #2 since this started in the 90s, Republicans have been the ones itching for government shutdowns each time. And #3, Democrats are seen, for good or ill, as the party that BELIEVES in government, so no one is going to buy the idea that they are the ones who want to shut it down.
In the end, he backed down. Again, nothing but sound and fury, signifying nothing. He seemed to change his stance on NAFTA 3 times in the last 48 hours, saying he was going to withdraw from it, backing down after brief phone calls with the leaders of Mexico and Canada, and changing his mind again by the afternoon. He said in an interview with the Washington Examiner he was looking into breaking up the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (what???). He said yesterday he is both a globalist and a nationalist. He knows nothing. He can't get a significant bill on healthcare or taxes anywhere near passage. His two major Executive Orders on the Muslim Ban and Sanctuary Cities have been swatted down by judges all across the country. And his approval ratings are roughly 20 points lower than every President since JFK after 100 days.
Donald Trump thought Washington and the country would morph around him after his victory, simply bending to his will. And he had no back-up plan. It may be what happens in New York Real Estate, but not here. Trump's problem is he is such a massive narcissist that he believes every bit of his own hype, and is positively incapable of not believing it.
Oh, and just for kicks, the US economy grew at 0.7% in the first quarter, which is the lowest in 3 years.
On Transylvania University campus in Lexington, Kentucky, a man entered a popular coffee shop with several knives, looking to kill Democrats. The assailant, Mitchell W. Adkins, appears to have a history of publicly protesting what he considered the mistreatment of conservatives on college campuses.
Three people were injured during this vicious assault on Democrats including one student who was struck with a machete. Adkins was stopped by security before he was able to hurt any more people but based on his arsenal of weapons it is clear this was a Republican terrorist attack meant to inflict casualties on Democrats.
“A guy came in, banged something, a hatchet or an ax, on the table and said ‘the day of reckoning has come.'" Tristan Reynolds, the editor of Transylvania’s student paper said, “he asked somebody what their political affiliation was, they said ‘Republican’ and the guy said ‘you are safe.” And then I realized what was going on and started getting people out."
I'm not holding my breath for Trump to address this brutal right wing terrorist attack, are you?
http://www.kentucky.com/news/local/crime/article147344794.html
But, for the sake of the thread, I have no doubt we could, just like posting videos of either side acting like insane people, we could constantly find stories of violent interactions or intentions to prove our points. It will likely get us nowhere. This is a violent country, always has been, and it is awash in guns and political division. It's a wonder the body count is as low as it is.
Then a crazy guy right wing person attacks people on a college campus and you want to "both sides" things about it.
But, what's going to happen is someone is going to talk about the Dallas shooter during the BLM protest, or we'll have to listen to why this is no worse than San Bernadino or Orlando or anything else. I don't AGREE there is anything analogous to this from liberals (as far as I know), but it's going to be spun that way. And when the argument turns into "my side is trying to kill people less than your side", that's a pretty bad place to be I guess.
I don't think you shouldn't have posted it, I think it's important. I'm just not sure it's going to change anyone's mind about the current situation. People like this guy in Kentucky are universally written off as "lone wolves" while any smattering of violent protests on the left are framed as a massive problem that is endemic of liberals in general. I mean, basically, I already know the arguments.
But I agree with you. This is far worse than anything I've heard about at college campuses. On the scale of violence, attempting to KILL members of the opposing party is not the same as sucker-punching someone, setting a trash can on fire, or hell, even hitting someone with a bike lock (though that COULD kill someone). This is premeditated attempted murder of strangers.
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." - (possibly, but probably not) Gandhi
My deal is it seems this Republican had listened to one too many right wing speeches about the assault on the first amendment or some crap on college campuses.
He had internalized this supposed conflict so much that he literally was trying to murder Democrats. The right wing's hateful hyperbolic messaging is really dangerous.
I mean, I just did a Google Search on "left-wing killers" going out of my way to find examples like this (and I haven't even mentioned Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph, the Olympic bomber). I suppose you could throw in the Dallas shooter (I guess). But even if you take someone who looked to have no set political beliefs at all (the Tuscon shooter Jared Loughner), it doesn't seem a coincidence he shot a Democratic congresswoman. Jo Cox, in England, was shot by a right-wing proponent of Brexit, because she opposed it. The only example I can find is the assassination of a far-right Dutch politician in 2002 who was killed for the explicitly stated left-wing views of his assassin.
So, most of the DEADLY violence does come from the right, usually tied to Anti-abortion or militia groups, where it simply devolves into actual flat-out terrorism (though it is never called that). Feel free to present other examples if I have missed some, by all means, as this post was done withe a cursory Google search of a couple of keyword phrases like "left-wing killer" or "right-wing politician killed". But isn't it just possible that the party that defends guns to the ends of the Earth MIGHT also be the one that attracts those who are more likely to use them for such acts??
You say your did your googles but your googles are coming out highly selective to the point where you're not even bringing up one valid story when there are plenty of examples.
The Chicago case is demonstrative (and I've talked about this before) in that those 4 are going to serve LONG prison sentences, almost certainly (as they should). And then we had the case of a white, high school football player who did the exact same thing to a black boy, and literally didn't get a DAY of jail time. Some probation and less community service than I was required to do for my my Catholic Confirmation in High School.
I will grant Corkins and the Fresno shooter. This sort of illustrates my original point. I asked for examples I may have missed and you kindly provided them. I knew they'd be there if the discussion opened up, and now we'll just trade jabs discussing who has more dangerous nutcases.
Just like the left's hyperbolic hateful messages that led to this:
...and this:
...and this:
Recently, someone also mentioned the Electoral College and how it disenfranchises voters. I disagree entirely and argue that it works to make sure all areas of the country had representation rather than one or two major cities with their own unique politics that are totally different from the rest of the country. Look at the electoral map broken down by county. Nearly the ENTIRE COUNTRY was pro-Trump except for a mere handful of highly dense, populated areas.
It's a weak justification for losing, and Trump's explanation was right. If winning the popular vote meant winning the presidency, he would have altered his strategy and campaigned differently.
I don't think your vote should be worth any less just because you live in a densely populated area. Every vote should be equal.
As far as @jjstraka34's point goes... Yes. We've already traded examples of dumb conservatives and dumb liberals and it has led nowhere. @Nonnahswriter pointed out the same thing.
Trash-talking the other side contributes nothing to the discussion.
Don't you think that might make them feel angry, disenfranchised, and unrepresented, and rightfully so? Don't you think that would fuel a secession movement that would have real grievances?
The likely outcome of that is civil war or two americas. Neither of which are in the best interests of anyone.
Much like our healthcare system compared to the rest of the world, our Election system from the President to the House to the Senate is antiquated nonsense. And of course that highly dense, populated areas went for Hillary. That's where most people live. It's called civilization, where people congregate and coexist in large numbers in a single spot. All different types of people. The idea that the vote of people in the cities should count LESS because they are all grouped together is one of the most bizarre right-wing arguments to come out of this election.
Now, you can say rural areas will get ignored without the Electoral College, that it would favor how they vote in cities. Maybe that's true. But at least it's based on ACTUAL people who ACTUALLY live somewhere. As it stands now, it's RURAL areas who have disproportionate power in the Electoral College, and it's all based on artificial weight. As I've said at least half a dozen times, if California had the same weight of Electoral votes as Wyoming, they would have 199. They actually have 55.
So it's actually not weak justification for losing. It's an uphill battle every single time for Democrats. The Republicans are spotted a lead every time simply based on there NOT being a popular vote.
"Of course highly dense, populated areas went for Hillary. That's where most people live. It's called civilization."
Isn't an argument either, it's condescending but empty of content and only states the obvious.
The idea of the Electoral College giving representation to smaller states that otherwise wouldn't have it isn't a "right wing argument to come out of this election", it was one of the merits of the system as stated by the Founders of this country.
Using the right strategy for the end goal is common sense, there's no reason why he wouldn't do so if the rules were different. "Easy to say in hindsight" doesn't actually contend the fact of this relatively simple observation.
It isn't an uphill battle for democrats, it's that democrats don't represent huge swaths of this country, and frankly actively demonize them on a regular basis. That's not the fault of the system.
https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/comment/828566#Comment_828566
If you are going to colour a map that represents votes going towards a politician or party, colouring it where every vote is represented is a better indication than who actually won the vote, or else someone could take all of America and colour it blue. (Which they do whenever they announce Hillary won the popular vote.
All that light purple that is surrounded by that bright middle mass in the middle is close to even split. That's a huge chunk of the land/population that feels like they have no representation.
Nothing is Black and White, or Red and Blue.
But the Electoral College was designed solely to prevent popular elections, because the Founding Fathers did not believe the average voter was competent enough to choose the president (which might seem an odd sentiment, but not all of the Founding Fathers' ideas persisted to the current day). Instead, voters would choose representatives who would then, based on their best judgment, elect a president. Elites, not the common man, were supposed to be in charge of that choice.
These days, however, electors vote along party lines almost without fail; political parties choose people who do not think independently to serve as their electors. The names of electors--the people we're actually voting for in every presidential election--are not even listed on the ballot. The original purpose has been lost.