Why is there like 3 pages about Hillary. She's not doing anything other than selling a book. Completely irrelevant.
Talk about Trump spending 111 days of his first year at a Trump property. Profiteering off the Presidency, cutting his own taxes bigly at the expense of the middle class and then not releasing his tax returns is way more of a problem than selling a book
Also the silly upvoting game unfortunately has made me conclude you've fallen into tribal mentality
You know, maybe I have changed.
When you first came to this forum, I praised you as a new conservative voice who was always respectful and always focused on substantive, concrete issues, providing citations and keeping the thread trained on real events and problems. On multiple
once you take personal attacks out the equation, you can see people like @jjstraka34 and @vanatos disagree on virtually every single tiny point, and still be perfectly respectful and friendly. It's the reason I still feel optimistic about the future of politics and our country.
we can't stereotype our political opponents based on a few vocal extremists... For every liberal extremist, there are a hundred people like @smeagolheart and @jjstraka34. For every conservative extremist, there are a hundred people like @Balrog99 and @vanatos.
@vanatos for one has been very diligent about providing sources, and people take his posts very seriously.
I went out of my way to welcome you as a valuable member of the discussion and encouraged you to keep contributing to the thread.
Even though I disagreed with you about every political issue. Even though we were on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Because the important thing, to me, was that you were making posts that advanced the discussion, and that you didn't resort to insults or personal attacks.
So what changed? Was it reading a bunch of anti-Trump posts in this thread that swayed my judgment?
No, I've read plenty of anti-Trump posts in numerous other places, long before this Christmas kerfuffle. And for those who aren't aware, I was one of Trump's first defenders in this thread, way back when.
Did I get tired of moderating the discussion in a neutral manner?
No, I actually re-read the entire thread once just to take notes on the matter so the other moderators would have a bird's eye view of the thread and its trajectory for 200 pages. I've invested countless hours in studying this thread and making sure I understand the people involved.
Did I forget who you are? Did I forget all of your productive posting earlier on in this thread?
No, I remembered. In fact, I'm the guy who told all the other moderators about how great a poster you've always been, and made sure they understood my high opinion of you.
So what changed?
I don't see the serious, productive, substantive posts I came to expect from @vanatos anymore. Instead I see everything I've tried to discourage in this thread for the past 400 pages. From accusations of dishonesty to demands for silencing @jjstraka34 and other anti-Trump posters...
The problem isn't 'encouragement', the problem is posters posting in bad faith. ... And no one is under any illusion that this isn't purposefully done.
To be quite frank i'd suggest: -Splitting off another thread called 'criticism and why you hate Trump' so people can at least post in a thread that is honest with their intentions. -Start a new clean thread, because many people don't want to touch this thread with a 10 foot pole with its absurd bias, spam and tribal posting. -Stop participating in threads you moderate because you give the semblance of a conflict of interest -Tell people to knock off the obvious spam to evidently derail a thread so badly that literally no other other country or their politics has a chance of discussion because the intent is to flood it with so much anti-trump articles no one can read or talk about anything else.
...to demands for apologies and assumptions that people cannot stand honesty...
As a moderator, you should publicly apologize because you are wrong, the problem isn't even that it is untrue, the problem is that you don't like its brutal honesty.
...making public accusations of breaking the Site Rules, when the Site Rules specify that only private reports are acceptable...
It's been an hour since my last comment. Just checking to see if the spam timer has expired, or if I need to wait til 8:39 pm Central Standard time to make a new post. Has anyone received a copy of the new ground rules for debate yet??
Basically stop spamming anti-Trump articles with the intention of purely wanting a one-sided discussion on this thread against Trump would be nice.
Thanks.
...denigrating other forumites' rhetoric, and claiming amusement at their silly antics...
moderators going on/off is a conflict of interest, the main thing is the appearance of possible conflict of interest, i have no problem with it because im fine with casual discussion, but pretending it isn't is intellectually dishonest.
...suggesting other forumites are oblivious, and laughing at them again...
I don't see the point in you discussing over something when you get some of the basic details wrong so flagrantly. ... Understand? the entire premise of your articles logic and yours simply rests on this flaw. You don't know what a Chief Counsel is.
...accusing people of ignorance four times in four separate comments...
you actually proved my point, and continue to do so whenever you whine and complain about it lol. ... You don't want any discussion with an alternative opinion, in no way can you defend mob pressure behavior displayed here as encouraging discussion. ... Merry Christmas, I wish you well in your future discussions haha.
I just finished watching “The Hunt for Red October” again. There’s a line where the National Security Advisor tells Jack Ryan, “I’m a politician. When I’m not kissing babies I’m stealing their lollipops.” I think all politicians, (except Joe Biden :-) ) act this way to some extent.
The reality in the US is that we have a two-party system. If there is any chance to have your opinion counted, you need to be a Democrat or a Republican. I just find that my ideology aligns more with Democrats than with Republicans. I like the idea of universal health care and not a border wall. I feel strongly about protecting a woman’s right to choose even though my mother had an abortion and took away my chance to have a younger sibling. She made the right choice for my brother and me. As a single mom that already had two kids it was rough. I’m sure it still haunts her though.
I’m also a small business owner that takes income as pass through to my personal return. This means I get a big tax break as long as my taxable is less than $315k, as I am providing services. I would prefer 13 million people having health care.
I also feel that Obama was a giant limp “Richard”. He squandered his congressional majority trying to appease Republicans that were never going to side with him. I feel that 2008 was Hillary’s time. Yes, she’s flawed like all of us but she knows how to get stuff done. She would have made her Supreme Court Pick as a recess appointment and to hell with Mitch McConnell. She would have rammed through single payer or at least something that looked less like Romneycare.
The bin Laden raid was totally badass. I give Obama mad props for that one.
I think that Trump is also flawed like all of us, but he doesn’t know how government works. He was a New York liberal most of his adult life. All he wanted was to be accepted by Manhattan elites. One day he decided to go the other way and he’s been embraced by, umm, non-elites. So he’s running with it as far as it will take him. I think it will be his downfall. We’ll see.
@vanatos an honest question, if you will indulge an infrequent poster. How do you account for the 3 million more votes Hillary received in the general? Was Hillary just able to hoodwink 3 million more people than Trump was able to hoodwink? And what is your opinion on the electoral college? Does it have a place in our modern democracy?
I’ve followed this thread from day one, but can’t recall if you discussed these items. Forgive me if I’m asking for old info.
"This is what changed, @vanatos. You didn't used to write like this."
I find myself agreeing with @semiticgod here (believe it or not). I used to like reading your posts @vanatos but when you were contributing months ago you were posting your own snippets and many of them were good reads. Trump doesn't need you to defend him. He's a big boy. I'd like to see more of those old posts and less trying to make up for lost time.
I'm not knocking you personally (I actually like having you on the forum) so please don't take this the wrong way...
@vanatos an honest question, if you will indulge an infrequent poster. How do you account for the 3 million more votes Hillary received in the general? Was Hillary just able to hoodwink 3 million more people than Trump was able to hoodwink? And what is your opinion on the electoral college? Does it have a place in our modern democracy?
I’ve followed this thread from day one, but can’t recall if you discussed these items. Forgive me if I’m asking for old info.
It's been a while but I believe he posited the rigged election with illegal votes angle. Correct me if I am wrong.
It describes tactics the GOP has used to justify lawless behavior for decades with specific examples and quotes from political figures.
The current accusations of Mueller are ridiculous but are consistent with tactics that the right has been engaged in for decades. In GOP hyperbole the only impartial justice figures are Republicans. So any Democrat or independent is attacked as totally biased! Then there are several examples cited from Watergate to Reagan where Conservative lawmen let their own go or covered up criminal activity for them. Sound familiar?
Mueller is a Republican but conservative media is already conditioned by years of attacks to accept criticism of anyone investigating the GOP.
Unfortunately Democrats have meekly allowed this narrative to continue to today.
It is ironic the GW Bush feared he would win the popular vote but lose the electoral college. And Republican politicians at the time were outraged preemptively spinning the story. Ray LaHood, a Republican member of the House from Illinois, declared that it “would be an outrage” if Gore assumed office if he lost the popular vote. Chris Matthews also felt strongly, saying that “knowing him as we do, [Gore] may have no problem taking the presidential oath after losing the popular vote to George W. Bush.” Isn't it strange we heard no such positions from the GOP in 2016.
Clinton’s impeachment was overseen by Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert, an enthusiastic adulterer and child molester, respectively occurred after four years of investigation. While the Whitewater investigation was over after nine years. Today we have Conservatives having a melt down for the one year of investigation into Trump.
@vanatos an honest question, if you will indulge an infrequent poster. How do you account for the 3 million more votes Hillary received in the general? Was Hillary just able to hoodwink 3 million more people than Trump was able to hoodwink? And what is your opinion on the electoral college? Does it have a place in our modern democracy?
I’ve followed this thread from day one, but can’t recall if you discussed these items. Forgive me if I’m asking for old info.
It's been a while but I believe he posited the rigged election with illegal votes angle. Correct me if I am wrong.
Oh, that would be disappointing. From a non-partisan perspective, such a massive amount of voter fraud should be concerning to everyone and warrant at least a small investigation. I assume since no investigation happened that there was no evidence of voter fraud.
@bleusteel: Pretty much. Trump's claim of millions of fraudulent votes was just him refusing to admit defeat, even on a legally insignificant issue like the popular vote. In-person voter fraud is vanishingly rare--I believe the single or double digits for 2016 (mostly for Trump, not that it matters with such a small number). Most people aren't willing to commit an easily detectable felony in broad daylight just to cast one vote. The more common voter fraud is done by mail, and even that's very rare.
There was an abortive effort to investigate for voter fraud but the states, both red and blue, largely refused, not wanting to entrust the federal government with voter data that's historically been held by the states.
Trump preemptively called the election rigged before he ended up winning. He did so from the stage at a Presidential Debate. He was quite literally implying the election was only valid if he won. Which is very much the same line of thinking as "only Republicans can make Supreme Court picks".
@vanatos an honest question, if you will indulge an infrequent poster. How do you account for the 3 million more votes Hillary received in the general? Was Hillary just able to hoodwink 3 million more people than Trump was able to hoodwink? And what is your opinion on the electoral college? Does it have a place in our modern democracy?
I’ve followed this thread from day one, but can’t recall if you discussed these items. Forgive me if I’m asking for old info.
It's been a while but I believe he posited the rigged election with illegal votes angle. Correct me if I am wrong.
Oh, that would be disappointing. From a non-partisan perspective, such a massive amount of voter fraud should be concerning to everyone and warrant at least a small investigation. I assume since no investigation happened that there was no evidence of voter fraud.
I think I'm detecting a little tongue in cheek here.
Trump should have said what I would have said, "Oh well, I won with the cards I was dealt." If he had tried to win the popular vote he probably would've lost the election. Instead he didn't bother trying to win over anybody on the coasts. Smug Hillary took the consolation prize. Maybe it'll sell a few books for her...
Trump preemptively called the election rigged before he ended up winning. He did so from the stage at a Presidential Debate. He was quite literally implying the election was only valid if he won. Which is very much the same line of thinking as "only Republicans can make Supreme Court picks".
@vanatos an honest question, if you will indulge an infrequent poster. How do you account for the 3 million more votes Hillary received in the general? Was Hillary just able to hoodwink 3 million more people than Trump was able to hoodwink? And what is your opinion on the electoral college? Does it have a place in our modern democracy?
I’ve followed this thread from day one, but can’t recall if you discussed these items. Forgive me if I’m asking for old info.
It's been a while but I believe he posited the rigged election with illegal votes angle. Correct me if I am wrong.
Oh, that would be disappointing. From a non-partisan perspective, such a massive amount of voter fraud should be concerning to everyone and warrant at least a small investigation. I assume since no investigation happened that there was no evidence of voter fraud.
I think I'm detecting a little tongue in cheek here.
Trump should have said what I would have said, "Oh well, I won with the cards I was dealt." If he had tried to win the popular vote he probably would've lost the election. Instead he didn't bother trying to win over anybody on the coasts. Smug Hillary took the consolation prize. Maybe it'll sell a few books for her...
Maybe a little :-)
I think you would be smug too if nearly every single poll said you were going to win. It’s not like she was manufacturing her numbers. She definitely took areas of the country for granted and it cost her. C’est la vie.
Trump preemptively called the election rigged before he ended up winning. He did so from the stage at a Presidential Debate. He was quite literally implying the election was only valid if he won. Which is very much the same line of thinking as "only Republicans can make Supreme Court picks".
You're right - I totally forgot about that.
So many crazy things come out of his mouth, it's easy to get them all jumbled together and forget which conspiracy or boast or insult came in what order.
On the topic of that election's legitimacy... Many regard its result as being influenced by Coney's statement along with the phenomenon of 'fake news' stories spread on social media, possibly promoted by Russian and other foreign actors. I was interested to notice a historical example that 'fake news' and claims of foreign intervention are not new. The British election in 1924 was strongly influenced by a (probably forged) letter from Russian Communists. It was published in the Daily Mail, if any of you are familiar with that source .
The effects of this intervention were long lasting, as the losing party struggled to tackle some of the underlying issues relating to their defeat in favour of conspiracy theories. A parable from the past? (Or at least a warning to not only blame the Russians for the crisis of centrism we currently have to deal with.)
@vanatos an honest question, if you will indulge an infrequent poster. How do you account for the 3 million more votes Hillary received in the general? Was Hillary just able to hoodwink 3 million more people than Trump was able to hoodwink? And what is your opinion on the electoral college? Does it have a place in our modern democracy?
I’ve followed this thread from day one, but can’t recall if you discussed these items. Forgive me if I’m asking for old info.
It's been a while but I believe he posited the rigged election with illegal votes angle. Correct me if I am wrong.
Oh, that would be disappointing. From a non-partisan perspective, such a massive amount of voter fraud should be concerning to everyone and warrant at least a small investigation. I assume since no investigation happened that there was no evidence of voter fraud.
I think I'm detecting a little tongue in cheek here.
Trump should have said what I would have said, "Oh well, I won with the cards I was dealt." If he had tried to win the popular vote he probably would've lost the election. Instead he didn't bother trying to win over anybody on the coasts. Smug Hillary took the consolation prize. Maybe it'll sell a few books for her...
Maybe a little :-)
I think you would be smug too if nearly every single poll said you were going to win. It’s not like she was manufacturing her numbers. She definitely took areas of the country for granted and it cost her. C’est la vie.
They both took areas of the country for granted. Trump didn't campaign in the coasts, someone just said it, and clinton didn't campaign in the rust belt. Trump won because of the over-representation under-populated states in the Electoral college. Lessons learned and we're stuck with a guy who is significantly unpopular. There's all kinds of lessons to learn from the election.
Some highlights- - Racism and sexism are very much alive in society. - Powerful men have been abusing women so often that there is often systemic cover up or acceptance by people that think that these powerful men are acting in their interest. - Democrat or Republican you can't take things for granted that your state is red or blue forever.
Stacking your primary though things like super delegates can uplift the establishment pick. That can be good or bad. In this case it was bad BOTH ways. - Stacking your primaries prevents a rogue element from taking over your party, this worked against Bernie Sanders. Republicans didn't have such safeguards in their Primary, so they got Donald Trump.
Russian propaganda was a real factor. It had an impact. People believed it and helped spread fake Russian news. We are still finding out to what extent Trump and Trump's people were involved.
- Hillary Clinton was a bad pick this year because people were looking for change. She was not a change candidate, with her resume she was an establishment candidate. She had also been the victim of two decades of Republican attacks. I believe this could have been overcome - if she'd had more Charisma and people had been drawn to her. Trump certainly seems able to convince his voters that he is beyond criticism. - Actually the things about Trump and his habits could fill it's own section.
Donald Trump has always been loathsome. The reason it became a bigger issue (his character) is because a US Presidential race is the biggest magnifying glass on Earth, aside from the one put on the actual President.
Donald Trump is a con-man. He and his father were fined for refusing to rent to African-Americans in the '70s. He is straight-up guilty of housing discrimination. He has been stiffing construction contractors for decades, as a matter of business practice because he knew he had more legal resources than they did. He is almost certainly not just sexist, but a misogynist.
Obama, from a character stand-point, was everything the right CLAIMED they wanted during the Clinton years. A loving, faithful husband and father. Almost always polite, calm, gregarious and funny. People, even after a year will look at the pictures or video of the Obamas in the White House, and lament what was lost and where we are now. They KNEW they had to be 5x better at these functions of state and the (somewhat) superficial optics of the office because of the burden of being the first African-American family to live in that building. They were, again, everything the right-wing has been preaching about what the black nuclear family should be for decades. And they were hated for it anyway. And they replaced them with the Romanovs. An Administration that is nothing but a nepotistic grift.
Beyond that, a poll came out the other day that showed Hillary Clinton's approval rating at 36%. And my immediate reaction was......approval of WHAT?? The way she plays Lego with her granddaughter?? Where she takes walks?? She doesn't have a job or position that can be approved or disapproved of, unless you disapprove of the very idea that she continues to exist. If someone asked me what my thoughts on Michael Dukakis or Mitt Romney was in a poll, I'd respond "what the hell are you talking about"?? And this is nothing but a reflection of the fact that the right-wing media has been covering the LOSER of the Presidential Election for an entire year afterwards as if she actually won. Because, more than any other politician I have ever seen, Donald Trump can only exist as a successful entity if he has a domestic political foil. He is defined by being a hate conductor.
I was thinking about your point about Hillary's approval rating... and it almost makes more sense if we were talking about an iconic character such as Batman or Sherlock Holmes. One tendency of some narratives about political figures seems to be to construct them in a way so that one agrees or disagrees with their ethos, rather than analyse their actual record. Iconic characters aren't noted for changing much after all (and those which do fade away...). This strategy chimes quite well with tl;dr culture! By defining himself in a zero sum universe against Clinton Trump secures a decent rump base... and I do know intelligent and personable people who voted for Trump (and to Leave the EU for that matter). Their reason - I hate the Clintons (and Cameron for that matter). Of course this won't work on most people most of the time...
Equally as stupid picking Hillary as a candidate. Literally the only person who could have lost to Trump. Sorry, NOT the party of geniuses any more than the Republicans. You may not like how or why people vote the way they do, but next time stick your damned fingers in the air, instead of your heads in the sand before you choose a candidate. Liberal arrogance caused our current situation just as much as white middle class angst.
there is nothing intelligent about casting a protest vote and voting out of hate. that is, by definition, a behavior not guided by intellect, but by impulse. it's registers somewhere close to "boooo"
there is nothing intelligent about casting a protest vote and voting out of hate. that is, by definition, a behavior not guided by intellect, but by impulse. it's registers somewhere close to "boooo"
It's just as valid a reason as any other. Sorry... If I voted for Trump because I loved the part in his hair or his leathery orange skin drives me wild those are also valid reasons to vote for him. Unless you're suggesting we do a poll test to make sure people are voting for the right reasons I'd get off that high horse. I actually am quite intelligent and voted AGAINST Hillary. Valid reason as far am I'm concerned. The hardest part for you folks on the left in this forum to understand is the fact that I'd do it again if she ran in 2020.
I'm not an anomaly either. You're not going to win with reasoned arguments, or fear mongering about climate change, or shaming people into thinking they're homophobes or racists. Pick a candidate who makes people feel good about themselves and this country and you'll have a winner. Obama won with hope and change. Hillary lost on hopeless and the same...
At present the Conservatives argue that Russian interference only matters if it is succesful.... . So whilst losing an election as a result of foreign interference is bad, for the winners dealing with a flawed 'will of the people' can also be somewhat problematic in the long term. (Referendum is a bit different to an election of course.) Foreign interference like this takes advantage of existing weak points in democratic systems and their outcomes, underming them without offering a viable alternative model.
At present the Conservatives argue that Russian interference only matters if it is succesful.... . So whilst losing an election as a result of foreign interference is bad, for the winners dealing with a flawed 'will of the people' can also be somewhat problematic in the long term. (Referendum is a bit different to an election of course.) Foreign interference like this takes advantage of existing weak points in democratic systems and their outcomes, underming them without offering a viable alternative model.
The part of the article where it mentions the echo chambers people surround themselves with was particularly disturbing to me. It's dead on when the author asserts that this makes targeted propaganda easy to disseminate. That's one reason I like this thread. I can shout out my views to the world and unless @WarChiefZeke or @vanatos are around I don't get echoes, I get crickets. That doesn't bother me because I like learning how other people think and why they think that way. I'm probably weird, or maybe I'm storing all that info away in the back of my mind so I can use it to TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!
there is nothing intelligent about casting a protest vote and voting out of hate. that is, by definition, a behavior not guided by intellect, but by impulse. it's registers somewhere close to "boooo"
For 'protest' votes it depends upon the context. In a country where there are more than two parties running for election, protest votes (i.e. votes for a third party) can sometimes take an overall majority away from the winning party and maybe get them to rethink their policies accordingly.
there is nothing intelligent about casting a protest vote and voting out of hate. that is, by definition, a behavior not guided by intellect, but by impulse. it's registers somewhere close to "boooo"
It's just as valid a reason as any other. Sorry... If I voted for Trump because I loved the part in his hair or his leathery orange skin drives me wild those are also valid reasons to vote for him. Unless you're suggesting we do a poll test to make sure people are voting for the right reasons I'd get off that high horse. I actually am quite intelligent and voted AGAINST Hillary. Valid reason as far am I'm concerned. The hardest part for you folks on the left in this forum to understand is the fact that I'd do it again if she ran in 2020.
I'm not an anomaly either. You're not going to win with reasoned arguments, or fear mongering about climate change, or shaming people into thinking they're homophobes or racists. Pick a candidate who makes people feel good about themselves and this country and you'll have a winner. Obama won with hope and change. Hillary lost on hopeless and the same...
you are strawmanning. i don't care about any of the things you are saying here, lke "valid reason", whether you are "an anomaly" etc; i don't even know what that means. i have said that impuse and reaction-based behavior is not a sign of intellect.
to be "an intelligent person" is one thing, but to act intelligently in a concrete situation, a specific context, is something completely different.
the whole construction that you are employing - justifying voting for trump by saying that "intelligent people" also voted for trump and particularly implying that their behavior - protest vote, or 'voting against' signifies greater intelligence relative to other trump voters who were enthralled by his persona is fallacious in every possible sense.
- intelligent people can fall prey to charismatic authority - the fact that some intelligent people voted for trump doesn't mean precisely anything in terms of whether it was better to vote trump or clinton - intelligent people, when they act intelligently, act, not react - intelligent people, when they act intelligently, tend to project outcomes and will not accept any random consequence ("i'll just vote for this guy because i hate that guy" - NOT intelligent)
there is nothing intelligent about casting a protest vote and voting out of hate. that is, by definition, a behavior not guided by intellect, but by impulse. it's registers somewhere close to "boooo"
It's just as valid a reason as any other. Sorry... If I voted for Trump because I loved the part in his hair or his leathery orange skin drives me wild those are also valid reasons to vote for him. Unless you're suggesting we do a poll test to make sure people are voting for the right reasons I'd get off that high horse. I actually am quite intelligent and voted AGAINST Hillary. Valid reason as far am I'm concerned. The hardest part for you folks on the left in this forum to understand is the fact that I'd do it again if she ran in 2020.
I'm not an anomaly either. You're not going to win with reasoned arguments, or fear mongering about climate change, or shaming people into thinking they're homophobes or racists. Pick a candidate who makes people feel good about themselves and this country and you'll have a winner. Obama won with hope and change. Hillary lost on hopeless and the same...
you are strawmanning. i don't care about any of the things you are saying here, lke "valid reason", whether you are "an anomaly" etc; i don't even know what that means. i have said that impuse and reaction-based behavior is not a sign of intellect.
to be "an intelligent person" is one thing, but to act intelligently in a concrete situation, a specific context, is something completely different.
the whole construction that you are employing - justifying voting for trump by saying that "intelligent people" also voted for trump and particularly implying that their behavior - protest vote, or 'voting against' signifies greater intelligence relative to other trump voters who were enthralled by his persona is fallacious in every possible sense.
- intelligent people can fall prey to charismatic authority - the fact that some intelligent people voted for trump doesn't mean precisely anything in terms of whether it was better to vote trump or clinton - intelligent people, when they act intelligently, act, not react - intelligent people, when they act intelligently, tend to project outcomes and will not accept any random consequence ("i'll just vote for this guy because i hate that guy" - NOT intelligent)
So you're saying that only intelligent people voted for Hillary? No wonder she lost...
You're not going to win with reasoned arguments, or fear mongering about climate change, or shaming people into thinking they're homophobes or racists. Pick a candidate who makes people feel good about themselves and this country and you'll have a winner. Obama won with hope and change. Hillary lost on hopeless and the same...
Interesting perspective. To me, the right wins and their main selling points are based on fear mongering. To me, they blame immigrants for taking your jobs! And tell ya every Muslim is a terrorist! And there's a war on Christmas!
Obama did win on hope and change. Then the GOP was out there in the streets (or on Fox News anyway) saying he was a Kenyan Muslim out to take away your guns. More fear mongering...
The left tries to sell a positive message of an inclusive future. It doesn't always resonate especially in hard times. I guess they do fear monger some against Republicans desires to take away their freedoms (voting, gay rights under attack).
But anyway I see the Right as Conservatives they are either conserving what they already have or trying to go backwards to 30, 100, or two hundred years ago on policy. I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that Trump is selling a positive message, it's all negative. Immigrants are taking your jobs, only I can stop then. North Korea only I can do it. Muslims only me. Etc.
Democratic policy under Obama and Clinton to a degree was a positive message with Corporate friendly policy throwing the people a few bones every now and then. They be like "hey everyone, Republican Healthcare!" and then bail out Wall Street.
Comments
Talk about Trump spending 111 days of his first year at a Trump property. Profiteering off the Presidency, cutting his own taxes bigly at the expense of the middle class and then not releasing his tax returns is way more of a problem than selling a book
When you first came to this forum, I praised you as a new conservative voice who was always respectful and always focused on substantive, concrete issues, providing citations and keeping the thread trained on real events and problems. On multiple repeated occasions over and over I went out of my way to welcome you as a valuable member of the discussion and encouraged you to keep contributing to the thread.
Even though I disagreed with you about every political issue. Even though we were on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Because the important thing, to me, was that you were making posts that advanced the discussion, and that you didn't resort to insults or personal attacks.
So what changed? Was it reading a bunch of anti-Trump posts in this thread that swayed my judgment?
No, I've read plenty of anti-Trump posts in numerous other places, long before this Christmas kerfuffle. And for those who aren't aware, I was one of Trump's first defenders in this thread, way back when.
Did I get tired of moderating the discussion in a neutral manner?
No, I actually re-read the entire thread once just to take notes on the matter so the other moderators would have a bird's eye view of the thread and its trajectory for 200 pages. I've invested countless hours in studying this thread and making sure I understand the people involved.
Did I forget who you are? Did I forget all of your productive posting earlier on in this thread?
No, I remembered. In fact, I'm the guy who told all the other moderators about how great a poster you've always been, and made sure they understood my high opinion of you.
So what changed?
I don't see the serious, productive, substantive posts I came to expect from @vanatos anymore. Instead I see everything I've tried to discourage in this thread for the past 400 pages. From accusations of dishonesty to demands for silencing @jjstraka34 and other anti-Trump posters... ...to demands for apologies and assumptions that people cannot stand honesty... ...making public accusations of breaking the Site Rules, when the Site Rules specify that only private reports are acceptable... ...insulting comments... ...sarcastic dismissals of other people's complaints... ...denigrating other forumites' rhetoric, and claiming amusement at their silly antics... ...accusing people of being dishonest again... ...suggesting other forumites are oblivious, and laughing at them again... ...telling people you don't take them seriously... ...more sarcastic insults... ...non-sarcastic insults... ...laughing, once again, at the people you clearly do not respect... ...more insults... ...accusations of dishonesty... ...accusing people of ignorance... ...accusing people of ignorance again... ...accusing people of ignorance for the third time in a row... ...accusing people of ignorance four times in four separate comments... ...accusing people of being willfully ignorant... ...laughing at people yet again, accusing people of trying to shut down the conversation, and then laughing at them once more... ...more insults... ...and more accusations of dishonesty. This is what changed, @vanatos. You didn't used to write like this.
The reality in the US is that we have a two-party system. If there is any chance to have your opinion counted, you need to be a Democrat or a Republican. I just find that my ideology aligns more with Democrats than with Republicans. I like the idea of universal health care and not a border wall. I feel strongly about protecting a woman’s right to choose even though my mother had an abortion and took away my chance to have a younger sibling. She made the right choice for my brother and me. As a single mom that already had two kids it was rough. I’m sure it still haunts her though.
I’m also a small business owner that takes income as pass through to my personal return. This means I get a big tax break as long as my taxable is less than $315k, as I am providing services. I would prefer 13 million people having health care.
I also feel that Obama was a giant limp “Richard”. He squandered his congressional majority trying to appease Republicans that were never going to side with him. I feel that 2008 was Hillary’s time. Yes, she’s flawed like all of us but she knows how to get stuff done. She would have made her Supreme Court Pick as a recess appointment and to hell with Mitch McConnell. She would have rammed through single payer or at least something that looked less like Romneycare.
The bin Laden raid was totally badass. I give Obama mad props for that one.
I think that Trump is also flawed like all of us, but he doesn’t know how government works. He was a New York liberal most of his adult life. All he wanted was to be accepted by Manhattan elites. One day he decided to go the other way and he’s been embraced by, umm, non-elites. So he’s running with it as far as it will take him. I think it will be his downfall. We’ll see.
I’ve followed this thread from day one, but can’t recall if you discussed these items. Forgive me if I’m asking for old info.
"This is what changed, @vanatos. You didn't used to write like this."
I find myself agreeing with @semiticgod here (believe it or not). I used to like reading your posts @vanatos but when you were contributing months ago you were posting your own snippets and many of them were good reads. Trump doesn't need you to defend him. He's a big boy. I'd like to see more of those old posts and less trying to make up for lost time.
I'm not knocking you personally (I actually like having you on the forum) so please don't take this the wrong way...
I found this article very interesting
https://theintercept.com/2017/12/20/republican-attacks-on-robert-mueller-are-absurd-but-the-gop-has-been-lawless-for-decades/
It describes tactics the GOP has used to justify lawless behavior for decades with specific examples and quotes from political figures.
The current accusations of Mueller are ridiculous but are consistent with tactics that the right has been engaged in for decades. In GOP hyperbole the only impartial justice figures are Republicans. So any Democrat or independent is attacked as totally biased! Then there are several examples cited from Watergate to Reagan where Conservative lawmen let their own go or covered up criminal activity for them. Sound familiar?
Mueller is a Republican but conservative media is already conditioned by years of attacks to accept criticism of anyone investigating the GOP.
Unfortunately Democrats have meekly allowed this narrative to continue to today.
It is ironic the GW Bush feared he would win the popular vote but lose the electoral college. And Republican politicians at the time were outraged preemptively spinning the story. Ray LaHood, a Republican member of the House from Illinois, declared that it “would be an outrage” if Gore assumed office if he lost the popular vote. Chris Matthews also felt strongly, saying that “knowing him as we do, [Gore] may have no problem taking the presidential oath after losing the popular vote to George W. Bush.” Isn't it strange we heard no such positions from the GOP in 2016.
Clinton’s impeachment was overseen by Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert, an enthusiastic adulterer and child molester, respectively occurred after four years of investigation. While the Whitewater investigation was over after nine years. Today we have Conservatives having a melt down for the one year of investigation into Trump.
There was an abortive effort to investigate for voter fraud but the states, both red and blue, largely refused, not wanting to entrust the federal government with voter data that's historically been held by the states.
Trump should have said what I would have said, "Oh well, I won with the cards I was dealt." If he had tried to win the popular vote he probably would've lost the election. Instead he didn't bother trying to win over anybody on the coasts. Smug Hillary took the consolation prize. Maybe it'll sell a few books for her...
I think you would be smug too if nearly every single poll said you were going to win. It’s not like she was manufacturing her numbers. She definitely took areas of the country for granted and it cost her. C’est la vie.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinoviev_letter
The effects of this intervention were long lasting, as the losing party struggled to tackle some of the underlying issues relating to their defeat in favour of conspiracy theories. A parable from the past? (Or at least a warning to not only blame the Russians for the crisis of centrism we currently have to deal with.)
Some highlights-
- Racism and sexism are very much alive in society.
- Powerful men have been abusing women so often that there is often systemic cover up or acceptance by people that think that these powerful men are acting in their interest.
- Democrat or Republican you can't take things for granted that your state is red or blue forever.
Stacking your primary though things like super delegates can uplift the establishment pick. That can be good or bad. In this case it was bad BOTH ways.
- Stacking your primaries prevents a rogue element from taking over your party, this worked against Bernie Sanders. Republicans didn't have such safeguards in their Primary, so they got Donald Trump.
Russian propaganda was a real factor. It had an impact. People believed it and helped spread fake Russian news. We are still finding out to what extent Trump and Trump's people were involved.
- Hillary Clinton was a bad pick this year because people were looking for change. She was not a change candidate, with her resume she was an establishment candidate. She had also been the victim of two decades of Republican attacks. I believe this could have been overcome - if she'd had more Charisma and people had been drawn to her. Trump certainly seems able to convince his voters that he is beyond criticism.
- Actually the things about Trump and his habits could fill it's own section.
I'm not an anomaly either. You're not going to win with reasoned arguments, or fear mongering about climate change, or shaming people into thinking they're homophobes or racists. Pick a candidate who makes people feel good about themselves and this country and you'll have a winner. Obama won with hope and change. Hillary lost on hopeless and the same...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/22/moscow-clash-exposes-tory-dilemma-over-russian-meddling-claims
At present the Conservatives argue that Russian interference only matters if it is succesful....
to be "an intelligent person" is one thing, but to act intelligently in a concrete situation, a specific context, is something completely different.
the whole construction that you are employing - justifying voting for trump by saying that "intelligent people" also voted for trump and particularly implying that their behavior - protest vote, or 'voting against' signifies greater intelligence relative to other trump voters who were enthralled by his persona is fallacious in every possible sense.
- intelligent people can fall prey to charismatic authority
- the fact that some intelligent people voted for trump doesn't mean precisely anything in terms of whether it was better to vote trump or clinton
- intelligent people, when they act intelligently, act, not react
- intelligent people, when they act intelligently, tend to project outcomes and will not accept any random consequence ("i'll just vote for this guy because i hate that guy" - NOT intelligent)
Obama did win on hope and change. Then the GOP was out there in the streets (or on Fox News anyway) saying he was a Kenyan Muslim out to take away your guns. More fear mongering...
The left tries to sell a positive message of an inclusive future. It doesn't always resonate especially in hard times. I guess they do fear monger some against Republicans desires to take away their freedoms (voting, gay rights under attack).
But anyway I see the Right as Conservatives they are either conserving what they already have or trying to go backwards to 30, 100, or two hundred years ago on policy. I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that Trump is selling a positive message, it's all negative. Immigrants are taking your jobs, only I can stop then. North Korea only I can do it. Muslims only me. Etc.
Democratic policy under Obama and Clinton to a degree was a positive message with Corporate friendly policy throwing the people a few bones every now and then. They be like "hey everyone, Republican Healthcare!" and then bail out Wall Street.