U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[shaun.lawson]

1 hour ago, Boris said:

But for all the good, what has stuck?  

 

Now that's an excellent question. My second biggest criticism of New Labour (after Iraq) is on PR. Labour are so tribal, they missed a historic opportunity to create a new liberal left consensus which would've prevented, forever, the right getting back in and governing by themselves.

 

But this wasn't Blair's fault. He wanted a deal with Ashdown. It was John bloody Prescott and the clueless NEC who blocked it.  One question though. If the Lib Dems had secured a referendum on PR as a quid pro quo for joining the coalition, would you have backed it? Be honest now  

 

Beyond that... (1) Labour moved to the right because the electorate rejected them four times in a row! (2) Since Blair stood down, the electorate have rejected them another three times in a row! (3) As long as we have capitalism, the left always start at a disadvantage, and almost always have to compromise in order to win. Labour getting 40% or so now is very much against the trend across Europe; only Portugal stands as a shining exception. 

Edited April 26, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Boris]

23 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

If the Lib Dems had secured a referendum on PR as a quid pro quo for joining the coalition, would you have backed it? Be honest now  

 

In 2010?  The did get a referendum on electoral rform but watered down to AV.  Would I have supported the coalition because they offered a referendum on full PR?  No.  I would have welcomed the referendum and voted for PR, but I couldn't endorse other policies of that Cameron Clegg cabal.

23 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Beyond that... (1) Labour moved to the right because the electorate rejected them four times in a row! (2) Since Blair stood down, the electorate have rejected them another three times in a row! (3) As long as we have capitalism, the left always start at a disadvantage, and almost always have to compromise in order to win. Labour getting 40% or so now is very much against the trend across Europe; only Portugal stands as a shining exception. 

 

1 - agree.  Hence New Labour and the general shift of the political narrative to the right.  It's still happening.

 

2 - Yes, but at the same time no other party has been endorsed either.

 

3 - Ironically yes, but the times they are a changin as capitalism has become what it is.  It needs a reboot, and the left may just well be the people to do so, be that under the guise of fairness but also due to the environmental issues here and set to come.  

[shaun.lawson]

Good stuff Boris, I can't argue with any of that. I fully agree about the need for a reboot too. Much as I respect Blair and New Labour's achievements, it's not what I want now at all. 

[Sharpie]

Hate to change the topic, but I saw a brief comment that Trump now acknowledges that Cohen worked on his behalf in the Stormy Daniels case, I didn't see it repeated so just putting it out. So the President was not telling the truth when he made his comments about this on the aircraft. I am shocked that a politician

 especially one in such a high position would mislead the public. Its the type of thing you could start to get concerns that it may happen again, or even worse may have happened before, shocking .

 

Edited April 26, 2018 by bobsharp

[Don Dan]

He’ll be here on the Friday the 13th July. 

So all the haters will have there chance to lob rotting fruit.

[Francis Albert]

Apparently self styled "activists" are promising protests "like we have never seen before" when Trump visits.
Why?

What exactly has he done that is unprecedentedly evil  compared to many other heads of state to visit the UK many of whom have had the full blown State Visit treatment?

Or even compared to a number of other American Presidents?

[Sharpie]

Confirmed now on TV he  has stated quite clearly that Cohen represented him in the Crazy Stormy thing.  He went on Fox news on an unscheduled interview apparently to   announce his wifes birthday today.  He then went on an extended rant about Kanye West, The Dossier and then screwed his friend and lawyer by admitting what he and Cohen have been denying.  In doing so he has really screwed Cohen who is utilising his 5th Amendment Rights to keep his documents and records secret, if I am reading things right by admitting their connection on this case there is no Client privilege and the 5th Amendment is also as they said in my past, "is oot the windae". Well done Mr President you absolute foot in the mouther.

Edited April 26, 2018 by bobsharp

[SpruceBringsteen]

36 minutes ago, Barack said:

Friday 13th? 

 

Hope his plane makes it across ok.

 

Yes. It would certainly be awful, if for instance, his plane had to make an emergency landing in remote Newfoundland where he needed to eat his own legs to survive.

 

(Not his hands, obviously. They wouldn't last him long.)

[J.T.F.Robertson]

7 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Apparently self styled "activists" are promising protests "like we have never seen before" when Trump visits.
Why?

What exactly has he done that is unprecedentedly evil  compared to many other heads of state to visit the UK many of whom have had the full blown State Visit treatment?

Or even compared to a number of other American Presidents?

 

I would think the context of "like we have never seen before" is a tongue in cheek reference to the bombastic blowhard, himself.

 

 

[Bindy Badgy]

3 hours ago, Boris said:

But for all the good, what has stuck? 

 

 

Bit before my time but wasn't the minimum wage something that New Labour brought in?

[shaun.lawson]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

Apparently self styled "activists" are promising protests "like we have never seen before" when Trump visits.
Why?

What exactly has he done that is unprecedentedly evil  compared to many other heads of state to visit the UK many of whom have had the full blown State Visit treatment?

Or even compared to a number of other American Presidents?

 

The so-called Leader of the Free World (who's really Angela Merkel nowadays, but never mind) has:

 

- Imposed a racist ban on people from many Muslim countries

 

- Described Nazis as "very very decent people"

 

- Began his political rise by inspiring the racist Birther movement

 

- Retweeted fake Britain First videos of Muslims attacking whites

 

- Openly called for Russia to hack his opponent's emails

 

- Led chants of "lock her up!" about his opponent: something we see in Banana Republics

 

- Killed horrendous numbers of civilians in Syria and Iraq

 

- Very probably colluded with Russia to be elected

 

- Indulged conspiracy theorist loons and racists like Alex Jones or David Duke

 

- Is very probably the head of an organised crime family

 

- Destroyed desperately needed progress on climate change by taking the US out of the Paris Agreement

 

- Boasted in public about sexual assault

 

- Been accused by countless other women of assaulting them too

 

- Lied through his teeth about everything under the sun: from his lawyer to cheating on his wife to the size of his inauguration crowd to the size of his electoral college win: with the effect of normalising lying about everything

 

- Overseen the incendiary move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem

 

- Done everything he could to turn the US into the trans-Atlantic equivalent of Theresa May's hostile environment

 

- Done nothing whatsoever about gun control (other than calling for teachers to be armed too)

 

- Completely ignored mass murders by white Americans

 

- Jumped all over mass murders by Muslims, whether in the US or elsewhere

 

- Ripped off and screwed over more or less anyone who's fallen foul of him in business

 

And many, many, many more.

 

Some US Presidents have been guilty of a few of the above. So have some leaders in other democracies. But no-one - no-one - in the modern democratic world has ever got anywhere near him for the sheer scale of corruption, lies, nepotism, treachery, racism, sexism, misogyny and bigotry which he stands for. He's turned his country into a global laughing stock - and given the US protects all of us, that's something we should all be very concerned about.

Edited April 26, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[The Real Maroonblood]

7 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

The so-called Leader of the Free World (who's really Angela Merkel nowadays, but never mind) has:

 

- Imposed a racist ban on people from many Muslim countries

 

- Described Nazis as "very very decent people"

 

- Began his political rise by inspiring the racist Birther movement

 

- Retweeted fake Britain First videos of Muslims attacking whites

 

- Openly called for Russia to hack his opponent's emails

 

- Led chants of "lock her up!" about his opponent: something we see in Banana Republics

 

- Killed horrendous numbers of civilians in Syria and Iraq

 

- Very probably colluded with Russia to be elected

 

- Indulged conspiracy theorist loons and racists like Alex Jones or David Duke

 

- Is very probably the head of an organised crime family

 

- Destroyed desperately needed progress on climate change by taking the US out of the Paris Agreement

 

- Boasted in public about sexual assault

 

- Been accused by countless other women of assaulting them too

 

- Lied through his teeth about everything under the sun: from his lawyer to cheating on his wife to the size of his inauguration crowd to the size of his electoral college win: with the effect of normalising lying about everything

 

- Overseen the incendiary move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem

 

- Done everything he could to turn the US into the trans-Atlantic equivalent of Theresa May's hostile environment

 

- Done nothing whatsoever about gun control (other than calling for teachers to be armed too)

 

- Completely ignored mass murders by white Americans

 

- Jumped all over mass murders by Muslims, whether in the US or elsewhere

 

- Ripped off and screwed over more or less anyone who's fallen foul of him in business

 

And many, many, many more.

 

Some US Presidents have been guilty of a few of the above. So have some leaders in other democracies. But no-one - no-one - in the modern democratic world has ever got anywhere near him for the sheer scale of corruption, lies, nepotism, treachery, racism, sexism, misogyny and bigotry which he stands for. He's turned his country into a global laughing stock - and given the US protects all of us, that's something we should all be very concerned about.

Great post.

[jake]

2 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

Good stuff Boris, I can't argue with any of that. I fully agree about the need for a reboot too. Much as I respect Blair and New Labour's achievements, it's not what I want now at all. 

Won't ask again but do you agree the redundancies at Nissan are not brexit related?

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

1 minute ago, jake said:

Won't ask again but do you agree the redundancies at Nissan are not brexit related?

 

 

 

Nmeh. Probably not. Jake 1 Shaun 0.  

 

Though of course, Brexit means that with less trade with the continent, and more expensive trade with it too, we'll be even less insulated from global conditions in the years ahead.

[jake]

1 minute ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Nmeh. Probably not. Jake 1 Shaun 0.  

 

Though of course, Brexit means that with less trade with the continent, and more expensive trade with it too, we'll be even less insulated from global conditions in the years ahead.

It's really not a case of Jake 1 Shaun 0 as if it was that it's probably Jake 1 Shaun 10.

 

But I see these scare stories about brexit constantly.

 

My vote for brexit was based on principles.

I may not have a higher education but I don't believe academia makes for higher intelligence.

 

I find it annoying as fek that the working class of northern England are dismissed as some kind of sub culture.

 

Better bow out as it's a trump thread.

 

 

[alwaysthereinspirit]

2 hours ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

Great post.

Really? Great post? Each to their own I guess.

I would have called it an interesting take more than great.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

On 4/25/2018 at 12:42, Francis Albert said:

I agree with the last sentence - there isn't some huge conspiracy with tentacles reaching everywhere that effectively runs America, if that is the definition of "deep state". But I suspect (iknow would not be too strong a word) some of those in the bureaucracies refer to do collude where interests coincide or compliment each other and that collusion sometimes extends beyond the bureaucracies to other powers including for example the media and those who fund American parties and Congressmen. Just because there are conspiracy theorists doesn't mean there aren't conspiracies.

 

Still catching up on the thread (was blissfully out of internet range for a day), but what you describe is a well-known phenomenon to most folks who watch US politics closely. It's not some deep secret that the current head of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, an organization created largely by Elizabeth Warren but deeply hated by the banks, is there to actively undermine the mission of the CFPB on behalf of those banks. Or that, again, EPA chief Scott Pruitt is an oil industry tool doing everything he can to hamstring his own agency. At the civil service level, those people are human and belong to political parties and have opinions, and within their departments those biases are well known. The company I work for now has an annually renewed contract with FEMA, and every time the personalities change we have to figure out how to make sure we're keeping the key people happy, some of which is shading a bit towards an agenda. That's just bureaucracy.

 

I think the "conspiracy" talk comes from people who want a simple, nefarious explanation for things not being the way they'd like but when explaining the sprawling, subdivided behemoth that is the US federal government, simple explanations are usually wrong. There's always some resistance within agencies to Presidential agendas, and yes it's probably higher in the Trump admin, in the way that if a china closet could it would have an anti-bull agenda.

[Maple Leaf]

2 hours ago, jake said:

It's really not a case of Jake 1 Shaun 0 as if it was that it's probably Jake 1 Shaun 10.

 

But I see these scare stories about brexit constantly.

 

My vote for brexit was based on principles.

I may not have a higher education but I don't believe academia makes for higher intelligence.

 

I find it annoying as fek that the working class of northern England are dismissed as some kind of sub culture.

 

Better bow out as it's a trump thread.

 

 

 

That's right, jake.  I believe that there is a Brexit thread kicking around someplace.

[jake]

28 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

That's right, jake.  I believe that there is a Brexit thread kicking around someplace.

Couldn't let it go about being referred to as thick maple.

And that is why I replied.

And that's why Shaun replied with fake news.

Which is why I replied with facts.

 

And that's the facts buddy.

 

 

 

?

[Ibrahim Tall]

5 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Apparently self styled "activists" are promising protests "like we have never seen before" when Trump visits.
Why?

What exactly has he done that is unprecedentedly evil  compared to many other heads of state to visit the UK many of whom have had the full blown State Visit treatment?

Or even compared to a number of other American Presidents?

Correct. Nicolae Ceausescu was given a state visit for Christ sake, no matter what anyone’s opinion of Trump may be he’s nowhere near that level.

 

[jake]

16 minutes ago, Ibrahim Tall said:

Correct. Nicolae Ceausescu was given a state visit for Christ sake, no matter what anyone’s opinion of Trump may be he’s nowhere near that level.

 

Or more recently the visit of Saudis.

 

Pre cursor to the recent chemical ali type politics of UK France and the US.

 

All of which received their royal highness.

 

But that's the left for you these days.

 

Coffee drinking fakes

[Watt-Zeefuik]

16 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

If supposedly highly intelligent people continue to dismiss the Trump victory as merely a triumph for ignorance without addressing the underlying and legitimate reasons why people voted for Trump (despite in many cases strongly disapproving of him) then Trump may well get a second term.

There is certainly no sign of a coherent opposition strategy from the Democrats (or indeed in his own party).

 

Meant to come back to this one. Ignorance is putting too fine a point on it, but no, there's no "legitimate"* reason for voting for Trump, or certainly to continue to support him now. This is like trying to come up with "legitimate" reasons for the ugly sisters to sing sectarian songs at one another. All of the purported "legitimate" reasons for singing songs taunting oppression or celebrating terrorist acts get trotted out whenever this comes up, but we all know it's garbage.

 

Only some of Trump supporters support him out of ignorance. The others support him out of cynicism, racism, or opportunism.

 

Depending on how you cut it, somewhere between 10-15% of the country is openly, actively racist and white supremacist. Another 15-20% aren't openly white supremacist but are sympathetic to those views. (https://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/676178)

 

Some are opportunists -- Republicans who want some other part of their agenda passed, like the massive tax cuts to the wealthy or their cut of defense pork, and so ignore the chaos and virulence in order to get their own agenda done. Some are cynics who say that they're all the same and it doesn't matter whom you support, and at least the game show host con man is entertaining.

 

And yes, some are just flat out addle-brained nitwits.

 

Put those all together (and account for the considerable overlap in many of those categories) and you have roughly 40% of the country. And no, I have no interest in trying to appeal to the folks who still think Trump is doing a good job. They have, through their politics, openly declared their hostility towards a considerable section of US residents, including immigrants, Muslims, black people, poor people, the disabled, not to mention the people of Syria or Yemen. No, all I have an interest in vis a vis politics and these people is to flatten them and push back against this twisted nonsense again and again until it crumbles under its own moral decay. That's the only moral option left.

 

If they see the error of their ways, renounce their support of this crap, and are willing to apologize for enabling it, then we can talk.

 

*That is unless you mean "legitimate" as in the actual, real reasons that people voted for him rather than the projected one, but based on your prior posts I'm a

[Francis Albert]

7 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

Meant to come back to this one. Ignorance is putting too fine a point on it, but no, there's no "legitimate"* reason for voting for Trump, or certainly to continue to support him now. This is like trying to come up with "legitimate" reasons for the ugly sisters to sing sectarian songs at one another. All of the purported "legitimate" reasons for singing songs taunting oppression or celebrating terrorist acts get trotted out whenever this comes up, but we all know it's garbage.

 

Only some of Trump supporters support him out of ignorance. The others support him out of cynicism, racism, or opportunism.

 

Depending on how you cut it, somewhere between 10-15% of the country is openly, actively racist and white supremacist. Another 15-20% aren't openly white supremacist but are sympathetic to those views. (https://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/676178)

 

Some are opportunists -- Republicans who want some other part of their agenda passed, like the massive tax cuts to the wealthy or their cut of defense pork, and so ignore the chaos and virulence in order to get their own agenda done. Some are cynics who say that they're all the same and it doesn't matter whom you support, and at least the game show host con man is entertaining.

 

And yes, some are just flat out addle-brained nitwits.

 

Put those all together (and account for the considerable overlap in many of those categories) and you have roughly 40% of the country. And no, I have no interest in trying to appeal to the folks who still think Trump is doing a good job. They have, through their politics, openly declared their hostility towards a considerable section of US residents, including immigrants, Muslims, black people, poor people, the disabled, not to mention the people of Syria or Yemen. No, all I have an interest in vis a vis politics and these people is to flatten them and push back against this twisted nonsense again and again until it crumbles under its own moral decay. That's the only moral option left.

 

If they see the error of their ways, renounce their support of this crap, and are willing to apologize for enabling it, then we can talk.

 

*That is unless you mean "legitimate" as in the actual, real reasons that people voted for him rather than the projected one, but based on your prior posts I'm a

You are a ... what?

 

I suppose in the next election an approach to Trumps' supporters along the lines you seem to suggest is one option. Just tell them that if they renounce all the reasons ("legitimate" or otherwise) they in your opinion voted for him, then "you will talk to them". I suspect that may not win many over and may be viewed as another reason for voting for him.

 

Putting forward a candidate who isn't hated by almost as many people as Trump is, and one who (like Bernie Sanders was) is not seen as just another establishment politician and is prepared to address some of the reasons why many are disaffected by American politics might just be a better option.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Seymour M Hersh]

If peace comes to the Korean peninsula and NK dumps it's nuclear weapons I wonder if Trump will get the Nobel Peace Prize. It would probably be awarded three ways along with the two Korean Presidents but that would be something wouldn't it?

[Boris]

30 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

If peace comes to the Korean peninsula and NK dumps it's nuclear weapons I wonder if Trump will get the Nobel Peace Prize. It would probably be awarded three ways along with the two Korean Presidents but that would be something wouldn't it?

 

Maybe 4 ways if the Chinese President is involved behind the scenes too?

 

Imagine the seethe if Trump wasn't included.  His ego would explode!

[Francis Albert]

24 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Maybe 4 ways if the Chinese President is involved behind the scenes too?

 

Imagine the seethe if Trump wasn't included.  His ego would explode!

Imagine the seethe if Trump was included. It would however be less  absurd than Henry Kissinger's award.

[Francis Albert]

57 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

If peace comes to the Korean peninsula and NK dumps it's nuclear weapons I wonder if Trump will get the Nobel Peace Prize. It would probably be awarded three ways along with the two Korean Presidents but that would be something wouldn't it?

The inclusion of his Korean policy as bringing the world to the brink of nuclear armageddon seems to have been quietly dropped fom.the list of reasons why Trump is the worst president in modern times.

[Maple Leaf]

1 hour ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

If peace comes to the Korean peninsula and NK dumps it's nuclear weapons I wonder if Trump will get the Nobel Peace Prize. It would probably be awarded three ways along with the two Korean Presidents but that would be something wouldn't it?

It sure would, but nothing surprises me any more.

 

I hope the people in Oslo read all his bellicose tweets about NK if, when, they are considering handing out any peace prize.

[Francis Albert]

43 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

It sure would, but nothing surprises me any more.

 

I hope the people in Oslo read all his bellicose tweets about NK if, when, they are considering handing out any peace prize.

They didn't seem to  pay too much attention to Kissinger's part in bombing Laos and Cambodia not to mention North Vietnam. The US dropped 50% more tonnage of bombs on Cambodia alone than they did on Japan during WW2 (including the atomic bombs) and an estimated half a million were killed. All done without Congress's approval or knowledge

 

Of course Trump's tweets are often pretty offensive. Although perhaps they made some contribution to peace at rather less cost.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Bindy Badgy]

Unexploded bombs in Laos still cause major problems. Going a bit off-topic here but if you're ever in Laos do not buy souvenirs that are advertised as being made from metal recycled from bombs. Lots of kids die collecting the raw materials.

[Maple Leaf]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

They didn't seem to  pay too much attention to Kissinger's part in bombing Laos and Cambodia not to mention North Vietnam. The US dropped 50% more tonnage of bombs on Cambodia alone than they did on Japan during WW2 (including the atomic bombs) and an estimated half a million were killed. All done without Congress's approval or knowledge

 

Of course Trump's tweets are often pretty offensive. Although perhaps they made some contribution to peace at rather less cost.

Yes, the Kissinger award was a disgrace.  Politically motivated, I would guess.

 

It's possible that Trump's belligerence pushed the North Koreans towards the negotiating table, but I think that China's influence is much more likely.

[Sharpie]

Lets not forget history, Mr Chamberlain waving an agreement while announcing Mr Hitler does not want war.  North Korea has made peaceful moves before, they did not go through with them, and continued enhancing their nuclear capability. They are not to be believed.  Although not politic al, I seem to remember a movie title being twisted to become walk softly but carry a big stick. The past decades show that power to respond with can help maintain peace, not comfortable to live in, but way better than the alernative.

[Seymour M Hersh]

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Imagine the seethe if Trump was included. It would however be less  absurd than Henry Kissinger's award.

 

And Obamas!

[Seymour M Hersh]

2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

They didn't seem to  pay too much attention to Kissinger's part in bombing Laos and Cambodia not to mention North Vietnam. The US dropped 50% more tonnage of bombs on Cambodia alone than they did on Japan during WW2 (including the atomic bombs) and an estimated half a million were killed. All done without Congress's approval or knowledge

 

Of course Trump's tweets are often pretty offensive. Although perhaps they made some contribution to peace at rather less cost.

 

Didn't bother them that their hero Obama waged war by drone either.

[Sidelight]

43 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Didn't bother them that their hero Obama waged war by drone either.

Shh...

[Boris]

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

Yes, the Kissinger award was a disgrace.  Politically motivated, I would guess.

 

It's possible that Trump's belligerence pushed the North Koreans towards the negotiating table, but I think that China's influence is much more likely.

It was reported the other day that North Koreas nuclear testing plant suffered a major earthquake. May be related too? 

[milky_26]

57 minutes ago, Boris said:

It was reported the other day that North Koreas nuclear testing plant suffered a major earthquake. May be related too? 

they suspect the mountain that it is under is unstable and likely to collapse

[Maple Leaf]

21 minutes ago, milky_26 said:

they suspect the mountain that it is under is unstable and likely to collapse

 

I think the NK economy is likely to collapse as well.  All possible factors in their sudden willingness to talk.

[Boris]

1 hour ago, milky_26 said:

they suspect the mountain that it is under is unstable and likely to collapse

Bloody hell!

 

the Chinese won't be happy at the prospect of radioactive material imploding on its border.

[Francis Albert]

6 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Didn't bother them that their hero Obama waged war by drone either.

He did it in a very dignified way.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

16 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

You are a ... what?

 

I suppose in the next election an approach to Trumps' supporters along the lines you seem to suggest is one option. Just tell them that if they renounce all the reasons ("legitimate" or otherwise) they in your opinion voted for him, then "you will talk to them". I suspect that may not win many over and may be viewed as another reason for voting for him.

 

Putting forward a candidate who isn't hated by almost as many people as Trump is, and one who (like Bernie Sanders was) is not seen as just another establishment politician and is prepared to address some of the reasons why many are disaffected by American politics might just be a better option.

 

Heh. Meant to say "I assuming that's how you meant it but correct me if I'm wrong." Not sure what happened to the rest of it.

 

I'll try to be clearer. I'm talking about people who still support Trump, not all Trump voters. Roughly 40% or a bit less of the country still supports Trump. Even a skewed electoral college win isn't possible with that kind of support. That's low enough I don't give a shit what they think any more other how to beat them. 

 

Their hostility towards basically anything I consider decent and good is so open and unrepentant that there's no longer any ethical ground for compromise. Either we beat them or we don't, but there's no collaborating with them in the state we're in.

 

And this is the feeling of the vast majority of my friends and family. Yes, I'm on speaking terms with some Trump voters -- we have some in our church -- but they're almost universally old and at least a little racist. I'll continue to engage with them because of the shared community ties but that's it. Beyond that, Trump has indelibly split the country, and seems to have done so without remorse. There's no more compromise -- we either beat them back into shadows or go to our graves still trying.

 

And I will say again because this fact seems to elude people. In 2012 Hilary Clinton had a national 60%+ approval rating. She was immensely popular. She was hated by the time the election rolled around because of an intense smear campaign against her. Yes, she handled it badly, yes she made lots of mistakes, and yes, she had some absolutely horrible positions on her record (none worse than the 2003 AUMF vote), but she was popular. If Sanders had been the nominee, the GOP was sitting on a mountain of old statements from him that were sympathetic to the USSR and other bêtes noirs that there were holding in reserve to slander him with. 

 

As it turns out, all that was needed was an utter horseshit, garbage story about an email server and people bought it by the millions.

[peter_hmfc]

He's coming for you,

he's coming for yooouuu,

Michael Sandford,

he's coming for you.

[Sidelight]

4 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

Heh. Meant to say "I assuming that's how you meant it but correct me if I'm wrong." Not sure what happened to the rest of it.

 

I'll try to be clearer. I'm talking about people who still support Trump, not all Trump voters. Roughly 40% or a bit less of the country still supports Trump. Even a skewed electoral college win isn't possible with that kind of support. That's low enough I don't give a shit what they think any more other how to beat them. 

 

Their hostility towards basically anything I consider decent and good is so open and unrepentant that there's no longer any ethical ground for compromise. Either we beat them or we don't, but there's no collaborating with them in the state we're in.

 

And this is the feeling of the vast majority of my friends and family. Yes, I'm on speaking terms with some Trump voters -- we have some in our church -- but they're almost universally old and at least a little racist. I'll continue to engage with them because of the shared community ties but that's it. Beyond that, Trump has indelibly split the country, and seems to have done so without remorse. There's no more compromise -- we either beat them back into shadows or go to our graves still trying.

 

And I will say again because this fact seems to elude people. In 2012 Hilary Clinton had a national 60%+ approval rating. She was immensely popular. She was hated by the time the election rolled around because of an intense smear campaign against her. Yes, she handled it badly, yes she made lots of mistakes, and yes, she had some absolutely horrible positions on her record (none worse than the 2003 AUMF vote), but she was popular. If Sanders had been the nominee, the GOP was sitting on a mountain of old statements from him that were sympathetic to the USSR and other bêtes noirs that there were holding in reserve to slander him with. 

 

As it turns out, all that was needed was an utter horseshit, garbage story about an email server and people bought it by the millions.

How wonderfully gracious of you to engage with Trump people in your church, even if they are old and racist. I wonder what they think of you as they gaze through defocused lenses at your meliority.

As for dividing the country, I think perhaps you should look closer to home at the continuing liberal tears, rants and violence in the wake of the Trump election. And let’s not mention the democrats uplifting of identity politics, censorship and the promoting of abortion as a vehicle for division.

And your fractured fairy tailed closing sentence is seriously comical.

[shaun.lawson]

39 minutes ago, alfajambo said:

How wonderfully gracious of you to engage with Trump people in your church, even if they are old and racist. I wonder what they think of you as they gaze through defocused lenses at your meliority.

As for dividing the country, I think perhaps you should look closer to home at the continuing liberal tears, rants and violence in the wake of the Trump election. And let’s not mention the democrats uplifting of identity politics, censorship and the promoting of abortion as a vehicle for division.

And your fractured fairy tailed closing sentence is seriously comical.

 

Well, you seem like an absolute delight.

 

But to be serious: the above exchange perfectly sums up the problem. American culture wars go back decades - but there are now two Americas. Neither side has anything in common; both sides loathe each other with a passion. There's even been research which shows that scarcely any Republicans marry Democrats nowadays, and vice versa. Same in terms of social groups too.

 

These are civil war era levels of division which raise enormous questions about the future sustainability of the US. There's no way for either side to reach out to each other. That you blame the Democrats for "the promoting of abortion as a vehicle for division" rather sums the whole thing up. (1) Such a comment or attitude is unthinkable in European politics. (2) Trump himself declared during the campaign that women who had abortions should be "punished". 

 

Do you agree with that? If you do, then Ugly American is right. There's no point engaging with people with such vile opinions. 

[Justin Z]

Yup. UA's meliority is a given here--QED. Go **** yourself if you think otherwise.

[Francis Albert]

12 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

Heh. Meant to say "I assuming that's how you meant it but correct me if I'm wrong." Not sure what happened to the rest of it.

 

I'll try to be clearer. I'm talking about people who still support Trump, not all Trump voters. Roughly 40% or a bit less of the country still supports Trump. Even a skewed electoral college win isn't possible with that kind of support. That's low enough I don't give a shit what they think any more other how to beat them. 

 

Their hostility towards basically anything I consider decent and good is so open and unrepentant that there's no longer any ethical ground for compromise. Either we beat them or we don't, but there's no collaborating with them in the state we're in.

 

And this is the feeling of the vast majority of my friends and family. Yes, I'm on speaking terms with some Trump voters -- we have some in our church -- but they're almost universally old and at least a little racist. I'll continue to engage with them because of the shared community ties but that's it. Beyond that, Trump has indelibly split the country, and seems to have done so without remorse. There's no more compromise -- we either beat them back into shadows or go to our graves still trying.

 

And I will say again because this fact seems to elude people. In 2012 Hilary Clinton had a national 60%+ approval rating. She was immensely popular. She was hated by the time the election rolled around because of an intense smear campaign against her. Yes, she handled it badly, yes she made lots of mistakes, and yes, she had some absolutely horrible positions on her record (none worse than the 2003 AUMF vote), but she was popular. If Sanders had been the nominee, the GOP was sitting on a mountain of old statements from him that were sympathetic to the USSR and other bêtes noirs that there were holding in reserve to slander him with. 

 

As it turns out, all that was needed was an utter horseshit, garbage story about an email server and people bought it by the millions.

Thanks for the clarification but I am still not clear how you interpret my use of  "legitimate reasons" on the basis of my posting history. I guess you are saying I use "legitimate reasons" to mean what you call "projected" reasons, such as American working class (particularly in the flyover States) disengagement from mainstream politics, feeling neglected and patronised by the liberal elite on the Coasts, and declining employment prospects and prosperity in contrast to the "real" reasons to which you attribute the Trump support - racism, stupidity etc.

 

I think both reasons contribute and reinforce each other.

 

In any case for any serious opposition to Trump to write off 40% of the electorate as some form of Untouchables whom it is not worth even talking to or trying to convert seems to me a ludicrous and dangerous approach in any strategy to deny Trump a second term. If Trump is at 40% and that core is considered inviolable then you can't write off the possibility he will attract another 6 to 9% which is all he needs.

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, Justin Z said:

Yup. UA's meliority is a given here--QED. Go **** yourself if you think otherwise.

Do you by any chance belong to the same Church as UA?

[SpruceBringsteen]

8 hours ago, alfajambo said:

How wonderfully gracious of you to engage with Trump people in your church, even if they are old and racist. I wonder what they think of you as they gaze through defocused lenses at your meliority.

 

"I'm glad he's not black"?

[Sharpie]

Donald Trump is not all bad, in a way, because of his surprise election as President of the United States and his ensuing alleged incompetence, lying, and other misdemeanors, I have been a regular contributor and reader of this thread.  Today because of this I learned a new word, I now at my senior age now by virtue of Google, and Websters Dictionary know what meliority means.  It was worth the effort of getting out of bed this fine morning.

[Maple Leaf]

2 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

Donald Trump is not all bad, in a way, because of his surprise election as President of the United States and his ensuing alleged incompetence, lying, and other misdemeanors, I have been a regular contributor and reader of this thread.  Today because of this I learned a new word, I now at my senior age now by virtue of Google, and Websters Dictionary know what meliority means.  It was worth the effort of getting out of bed this fine morning.

 

Same here, Bob.  I'm a bit of a logophile, so it's always a pleasant surprise to read a post with a word that's new to me, even serendipitous, you might say.

 

It's certainly a nice change from the querulous posts we normally have to contend with.