U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[J.T.F.Robertson]

23 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.

 

15 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

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.

 

Allow me to complete the hat-trick.  

 

Also to start another with "querulous".

 

Edited April 28, 2018 by J.T.F.Robertson

[Sharpie]

10 minutes ago, J.T.F.Robertson said:

 

 

Allow me to complete the hat-trick.  

 

Also to start another with "querulous".

 

 

I will leave that one the other was a stroke of genius for me.

[Bridge of Djoum]

38 minutes ago, J.T.F.Robertson said:

 

 

Allow me to complete the hat-trick.  

 

Also to start another with "querulous".

 

 

4 hours ago, Justin Z said:

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

KB is getting to High-brow these days. **** this, I'm out.

[Ulysses]

14 hours ago, alfajambo said:

.....as they gaze through defocused lenses at your meliority.

 

If UA is humble enough to settle for meliority, that is a matter for UA.

 

Some of us *******s around here prefer to bask in our optimity. 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

18 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.

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.

 

Oh spare me. Obama and WJ Clinton both spent untold amounts of breath trying to argue for a unified country. For their troubles Clinton got impeached over an affair (oh the days) and Obama got told he wasn't a US citizen.

 

Yes, let's do look closer to home about violence in the wake of the Trump election. I've mentioned I'm a Ph.D. student (well, candidate as of last week, but anyway) at the University of Virginia. That's in Charlottesville. You want to talk about violence, let's talk about the alt-right enabled by the President showing up with now well-documented plans to run down counter-protestors with cars, and in fact doing so and killing one and maiming a half dozen more. In response the President declared there were "fine people on both sides" (despite the "Unite the Right" rally consisting almost entirely of white nationalists and explicitly racist and genocidal organizations). 

 

What were they there to kill people over? The possible removal of a statue of a traitor to the United States from a park (it's still there FWIW).

 

And I'm sure it will give alwaysthereinspirit the vapors, but we know have material proof that the Parkland shooter was a white supremacist. 

 

The President has made it openly clear that he intends to do harm to, strip rights from, devalue the lives of, and otherwise increase the misery of a wide range of Americans. His remaining supporters either shrug or cheer them on.

 

Whether I am better than anyone else is entirely beside the point. The point is that Francis keeps repeating something he thinks is a deep thought that somehow it's my job to go be sympathetic to these people. And I'm saying, no, that's a waste of time. People can change their minds, and unlike a very small but vocal minority of Trump supporters I'm not out to actually kill off my political opponents, I just want to stop them destroying the country. Once we've done that, we can have a kumbayah moment and a good cry.

 

As to the octogenarians in my church who still support Trump, the most vocal one is prone to bring up robots and Xena: Warrior Princess in Sunday school. He's also argued with me before that slavery wasn't that bad because we did people a favor by bringing them to America (raping, maiming, torturing, stealing children, and massacring along the way). Also, like almost all of the Trump supporters I know, he has plenty of money and isn't some poor struggling worker.  So yes he's old, racist, entitled, and a bit batty. And I do my best to love and respect him because that's what scripture calls us to do but do forgive me if I'm not convinced by his political arguments.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

10 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

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.

 

Your posting history, primarily on this thread, has you asserting that people voted for Trump because they've been ignored by the political system and were economically struggling. This ignores the fact that Trump's support was strongest in wealthier income groups, that Clinton won people who make < $50k/year, that questions of anti-black racial resentment were the best predictor of who would vote for Trump, or the study that came out this week that loss of social status was the primary motivator for Trump voters.(http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/04/18/1718155115) Trump won some of the wealthiest, most urbane counties in the country (including Staten Island, one of the boroughs of New York City, by over 15 points). In short, people *are* asking the "tough questions" you keep insisting on, but empirical results continuously produce a different answer than the one you think is correct, so instead you go back to saying that nobody's asking the right question.

 

As to whether there's any hope of changing minds, well, one part of it is that Trump supporters are tilted towards older white men who don't have a college degree but are nonetheless currently economically secure (http://news.gallup.com/poll/205832/race-education-gender-key-factors-trump-job-approval.aspx), so they're just by nature of age probably a bit stuck in their ways. But the other reason is, FFS, if you're still a Trump supporter after the last 2.5 years, what's the point in trying to change your mind? As Trump himself said, sadly accurately, he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and he'd retain a decent core of his support.

 

But please tell me more about how I don't understand the flyover states. My mother is only from southeastern Arkansas, I grew up in western North Carolina (deep in the Appalachians), went to college in Minnesota, and have lived the majority of my life in a city recovering from the loss of its signature industry, tobacco. But hey, I'm sure from your perspective as a Scot can tell me more about what middle America is *really* like than, you know, my life living in middle America. Go on then.

[peter_hmfc]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/green-day-fans-launch-campaign-make-american-idiot-top-of-the-charts-for-donald-trumps-july-visit-to-a3826246.html

 

 

Get buying.

[Maple Leaf]

21 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.

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.

 

I have to say, aj, that this post is surprising.  Personal attacks are not your usual style.

 

And the fact that you continue to verbally support Trump is even more surprising.  He is clearly an adulterer, a thief, a liar, and covets other men's wives.  By my estimate, that violates four of the Commandments.  He's a rich man, and you and I both know what the Bible says about rich men.  

 

Why the support for this vile man?

[shaun.lawson]

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

He's a rich man, and you and I both know what the Bible says about rich men.  

 

Why the support for this vile man?

 

Good posts from Ugly American above - especially on Trump's biggest constituency being rich white men. Which begs the rather key question asked by Maple Leaf here. Why do so many American Christians completely ignore what the Bible says about rich men and heaven? 

[Francis Albert]

5 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Good posts from Ugly American above - especially on Trump's biggest constituency being rich white men. Which begs the rather key question asked by Maple Leaf here. Why do so many American Christians completely ignore what the Bible says about rich men and heaven? 

I stand to be corrected but I don't think UA was saying Trump's biggest constituency is rich white men. I have no doubt rich white men as a sector had the highest percentage  of votes for Trump but that is a different thing and hardly surprising for any Republican candidate. (This does of course on how you define "rich" - I am assuming it doesn't just mean better than the average or median level or middle class but ... well, rich).

 

As for why Christians ignore what the bible says ... well first they, as we all know, habitually do, and second the bible can be interpretated in so many self-serving ways. Such as that the statement about the camel and the eye of the needle was merely saying how much more difficult it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven and so how much more a rich man should be praised for achieving that feat.

Edited April 29, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

10 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

Your posting history, primarily on this thread, has you asserting that people voted for Trump because they've been ignored by the political system and were economically struggling. This ignores the fact that Trump's support was strongest in wealthier income groups, that Clinton won people who make < $50k/year, that questions of anti-black racial resentment were the best predictor of who would vote for Trump, or the study that came out this week that loss of social status was the primary motivator for Trump voters.(http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/04/18/1718155115) Trump won some of the wealthiest, most urbane counties in the country (including Staten Island, one of the boroughs of New York City, by over 15 points). In short, people *are* asking the "tough questions" you keep insisting on, but empirical results continuously produce a different answer than the one you think is correct, so instead you go back to saying that nobody's asking the right question.

 

As to whether there's any hope of changing minds, well, one part of it is that Trump supporters are tilted towards older white men who don't have a college degree but are nonetheless currently economically secure (http://news.gallup.com/poll/205832/race-education-gender-key-factors-trump-job-approval.aspx), so they're just by nature of age probably a bit stuck in their ways. But the other reason is, FFS, if you're still a Trump supporter after the last 2.5 years, what's the point in trying to change your mind? As Trump himself said, sadly accurately, he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and he'd retain a decent core of his support.

 

But please tell me more about how I don't understand the flyover states. My mother is only from southeastern Arkansas, I grew up in western North Carolina (deep in the Appalachians), went to college in Minnesota, and have lived the majority of my life in a city recovering from the loss of its signature industry, tobacco. But hey, I'm sure from your perspective as a Scot can tell me more about what middle America is *really* like than, you know, my life living in middle America. Go on then.

To get the personal stuff out the way first. I didn't say you didn't understand the flyover States let alone imply I  knew them better than you. I have only visited a dozen of them, each  fairly fleetingly, over the last 40 years (which from my experience having spent more time on the Coasts it probably means I know them better than many Americans!) but of course I don't "know" them. My views are largely based on reading impeccably liberal anti Trump sources - mainly the Guardian, New Yorker and New York Review of Books and their writers and journalists reporting from the mid-west. The first academic study you reference dismisses journalist reporting as you would expect as non-rigorous, but that is my source and more people's sources than academic studies. I doubt that academia is in any event unanimous in its analysis ... if so it would be a first.

 

I hope the fact that Trump's support is strongest in wealthier income groups was not something that any academic wasted too much time in concluding - he was after all the Republican candidate! And I know where Staten Island is and I know it is a relatively rich and predominantly white Republican enclave within the largely Democratic city of New York ... so again Trump's success there was hardly a surprise or in itself significant. The more interesting question is why Clinton's support was not stronger than it was in the less wealthy income groups. The study reveals some interesting if hardly novel "predictors" like loss of status (personal and national), loss of white population majority, racism of course, and so on but doesn't seem to be much help in relation to the issue I was addressing - what can Trump's opponents, particularly Democrats, do to prevent or minimise the risk of a second Trump term. The analysis of voting patterns for 2012 and 2016 pays little heed to the fact that Romney in 2012 opposed Barack Obama and Trump in 2016 opposed Hillary Clinton.

 

I still maintain the Democrats cannot dismiss 40% of the electorate as Untouchable. In a way Hillary's "identity politics" which focused on women, LBGTs, African Americans, Hispanics etc at least gave some the impression of doing just that.

 

(Incidentally on a slightly different point I would not have voted for Trump or ever would, nor did I vote for Brexit. But the complaint from the left and remainers about the division of society, including Shaun's characteristically overwrought invocation of the possibility of the total breakdown of American society amounting to  a new Civil War is ironic given the point blank refusal of those who lost the election and referendum to accept the results.)

[Francis Albert]

12 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

Oh spare me. Obama and WJ Clinton both spent untold amounts of breath trying to argue for a unified country. For their troubles Clinton got impeached over an affair (oh the days) and Obama got told he wasn't a US citizen.

 

Yes, let's do look closer to home about violence in the wake of the Trump election. I've mentioned I'm a Ph.D. student (well, candidate as of last week, but anyway) at the University of Virginia. That's in Charlottesville. You want to talk about violence, let's talk about the alt-right enabled by the President showing up with now well-documented plans to run down counter-protestors with cars, and in fact doing so and killing one and maiming a half dozen more. In response the President declared there were "fine people on both sides" (despite the "Unite the Right" rally consisting almost entirely of white nationalists and explicitly racist and genocidal organizations). 

 

What were they there to kill people over? The possible removal of a statue of a traitor to the United States from a park (it's still there FWIW).

 

And I'm sure it will give alwaysthereinspirit the vapors, but we know have material proof that the Parkland shooter was a white supremacist. 

 

The President has made it openly clear that he intends to do harm to, strip rights from, devalue the lives of, and otherwise increase the misery of a wide range of Americans. His remaining supporters either shrug or cheer them on.

 

Whether I am better than anyone else is entirely beside the point. The point is that Francis keeps repeating something he thinks is a deep thought that somehow it's my job to go be sympathetic to these people. And I'm saying, no, that's a waste of time. People can change their minds, and unlike a very small but vocal minority of Trump supporters I'm not out to actually kill off my political opponents, I just want to stop them destroying the country. Once we've done that, we can have a kumbayah moment and a good cry.

 

As to the octogenarians in my church who still support Trump, the most vocal one is prone to bring up robots and Xena: Warrior Princess in Sunday school. He's also argued with me before that slavery wasn't that bad because we did people a favor by bringing them to America (raping, maiming, torturing, stealing children, and massacring along the way). Also, like almost all of the Trump supporters I know, he has plenty of money and isn't some poor struggling worker.  So yes he's old, racist, entitled, and a bit batty. And I do my best to love and respect him because that's what scripture calls us to do but do forgive me if I'm not convinced by his political arguments.

I have never suggested anyone should be "sympathetic" to Trump supporters and my thought (which is simply that Trump's opponents should try to attract some votes away from Trump) I think is about as far from a deep thought as you can get.

 

Edited April 29, 2018 by Francis Albert

[shaun.lawson]

52 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I have never suggested anyone should be "sympathetic" to Trump supporters and my thought (which is simply that Trump's opponents should try to attract some votes away from Trump) I think is about as far from a deep thought as you can get.

 

 

Yet the special elections are confirming that that's what they're doing. OK, previous stay-at-home Democrats are turning out now; but the middle 10% or so (the famous 'independents') have always decided US elections, and they're hurtling away from Trump at a rate of knots. The sum total of all that is we could be looking at a 15% swing towards the Dems come November; and at least 10%. 

[Francis Albert]

42 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Yet the special elections are confirming that that's what they're doing. OK, previous stay-at-home Democrats are turning out now; but the middle 10% or so (the famous 'independents') have always decided US elections, and they're hurtling away from Trump at a rate of knots. The sum total of all that is we could be looking at a 15% swing towards the Dems come November; and at least 10%. 

That is good news. But mid-term elections are not always a good "predictor" of general elections nor does it mean that the Democrats don't need to have a strategy for winning the 2020 Presidential election - getting the right candidate and attracting more "traditional" Democratic voters than they did in 2016. Don't get me wrong - I very much hope they do.

[Maple Leaf]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

That is good news. But mid-term elections are not always a good "predictor" of general elections nor does it mean that the Democrats don't need to have a strategy for winning the 2020 Presidential election - getting the right candidate and attracting more "traditional" Democratic voters than they did in 2016. Don't get me wrong - I very much hope they do.

 

I think that's the Dems biggest challenge.  Trump, for all his faults, will have the advantage of name recognition, just like all incumbents.

 

Who will the Dems put forward to challenge him?  Joe Biden?  Elizabeth Warren?  Can't see either of them winning in a head-to-head with Trump.

[Eldar Hadzimehmedovic]

5 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

I think that's the Dems biggest challenge.  Trump, for all his faults, will have the advantage of name recognition, just like all incumbents.

 

Who will the Dems put forward to challenge him?  Joe Biden?  Elizabeth Warren?  Can't see either of them winning in a head-to-head with Trump.

 

Not a prediction but it would be the sweetest thing if Warren wiped him out. 

[Francis Albert]

48 minutes ago, Eldar Hadzimehmedovic said:

 

Not a prediction but it would be the sweetest thing if Warren wiped him out. 

Might be sweet but Hillary Mk2 (or even arguably Hillary plus) would not necessarily do the trick. Her ludicrous synchronised arm waving stage appearance in matching twin piece suits last time around probably lost Hillary votes.

Edited April 29, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Maple Leaf]

4 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Might be sweet but Hillary Mk2 (or even arguably Hillary plus) would not necessarily do the trick. Her ludicrous synchronised arm waving stage appearance in matching twin piece suits last time around probably lost Hillary votes.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, but it's a sad reflection on our society that a woman can lose votes based on her appearance, while a fat man with orange make-up and absurd hair can win enough votes to become President.

[shaun.lawson]

8 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

I think that's the Dems biggest challenge.  Trump, for all his faults, will have the advantage of name recognition, just like all incumbents.

 

Who will the Dems put forward to challenge him?  Joe Biden?  Elizabeth Warren?  Can't see either of them winning in a head-to-head with Trump.

 

I can. I remain convinced that Biden would've won two years ago, because he'd never have lost the rust belt, and fully understands where the Democrats have gone wrong in recent years.

 

The thing about the US system, though, is it's quite common for someone to emerge in the 18 months before a Presidential election almost out of nowhere. Bill Clinton was one such example: no-one gave him a prayer at the start of the primaries. But it also makes it difficult for the opposition party to stand for something distinctive during the first half of the electoral cycle. Note how the Republicans morphed from Tea Party madness in 2010 to the relatively moderate Mitt Romney two years later.

 

In any case: all this is to presuppose Trump will still be President come November 2020. I highly doubt he will be tbh. 

[Sidelight]

On ‎29‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 01:52, Ugly American said:

 

Oh spare me. Obama and WJ Clinton both spent untold amounts of breath trying to argue for a unified country. For their troubles Clinton got impeached over an affair (oh the days) and Obama got told he wasn't a US citizen.

 

Yes, let's do look closer to home about violence in the wake of the Trump election. I've mentioned I'm a Ph.D. student (well, candidate as of last week, but anyway) at the University of Virginia. That's in Charlottesville. You want to talk about violence, let's talk about the alt-right enabled by the President showing up with now well-documented plans to run down counter-protestors with cars, and in fact doing so and killing one and maiming a half dozen more. In response the President declared there were "fine people on both sides" (despite the "Unite the Right" rally consisting almost entirely of white nationalists and explicitly racist and genocidal organizations). 

 

What were they there to kill people over? The possible removal of a statue of a traitor to the United States from a park (it's still there FWIW).

 

And I'm sure it will give alwaysthereinspirit the vapors, but we know have material proof that the Parkland shooter was a white supremacist. 

 

The President has made it openly clear that he intends to do harm to, strip rights from, devalue the lives of, and otherwise increase the misery of a wide range of Americans. His remaining supporters either shrug or cheer them on.

 

Whether I am better than anyone else is entirely beside the point. The point is that Francis keeps repeating something he thinks is a deep thought that somehow it's my job to go be sympathetic to these people. And I'm saying, no, that's a waste of time. People can change their minds, and unlike a very small but vocal minority of Trump supporters I'm not out to actually kill off my political opponents, I just want to stop them destroying the country. Once we've done that, we can have a kumbayah moment and a good cry.

 

As to the octogenarians in my church who still support Trump, the most vocal one is prone to bring up robots and Xena: Warrior Princess in Sunday school. He's also argued with me before that slavery wasn't that bad because we did people a favor by bringing them to America (raping, maiming, torturing, stealing children, and massacring along the way). Also, like almost all of the Trump supporters I know, he has plenty of money and isn't some poor struggling worker.  So yes he's old, racist, entitled, and a bit batty. And I do my best to love and respect him because that's what scripture calls us to do but do forgive me if I'm not convinced by his political arguments.

Irrespective of my interpretation of your comments made, the rhetorical tone of my opening salvo was unnecessary in its construct. I was conscious of its illegitimacy of form from the moment of send. I am sorry.

Disgrace, deception and distortion is free to view on all facets of the great political divide, here specifically your country.

Misconception perhaps, but I view your contributions as determinedly one sided. An excuse maybe, but as a consequence I pen the unnecessary.

Perhaps I view you as the ‘Scott Brown’ of the Shed. We deny his quality, but we like to kick him because of it.

 

[Ulysses]

8 hours ago, alfajambo said:

Irrespective of my interpretation of your comments made, the rhetorical tone of my opening salvo was unnecessary in its construct. I was conscious of its illegitimacy of form from the moment of send. I am sorry.

Disgrace, deception and distortion is free to view on all facets of the great political divide, here specifically your country.

Misconception perhaps, but I view your contributions as determinedly one sided. An excuse maybe, but as a consequence I pen the unnecessary.

Perhaps I view you as the ‘Scott Brown’ of the Shed. We deny his quality, but we like to kick him because of it.

 

 

 

 

A so-called apology where you make a snidey, nasty comment and then blame the guy who was your target.

 

Nice one Alfa; how very ****ing Christian of you.  Bet you feel better about your "apology" already.

 

 

 

[Ulysses]

16 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

I can. I remain convinced that Biden would've won two years ago, because he'd never have lost the rust belt, and fully understands where the Democrats have gone wrong in recent years.

 

The thing about the US system, though, is it's quite common for someone to emerge in the 18 months before a Presidential election almost out of nowhere. Bill Clinton was one such example: no-one gave him a prayer at the start of the primaries. But it also makes it difficult for the opposition party to stand for something distinctive during the first half of the electoral cycle. Note how the Republicans morphed from Tea Party madness in 2010 to the relatively moderate Mitt Romney two years later.

 

In any case: all this is to presuppose Trump will still be President come November 2020. I highly doubt he will be tbh. 

 

 

I think Biden would have given a better account of himself, that's for sure.  The reality is that the Democrats ran a candidate who unified their opposition and divided their own side.  She also made the election about Trump rather than about the issues; not once in the campaign did we hear her vision for America's future, particularly its economic future.

 

That said, it was the turn of the Republicans to win - barring a major catastrophe the 2016 election was theirs to lose.

 

Why do you think Trump will not be President in November 2020?  Succinctly, please.

[shaun.lawson]

10 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

Why do you think Trump will not be President in November 2020?  Succinctly, please.

 

Because I think he'll either be charged by Mueller and/or impeached following a Democratic tidal wave in November. 

 

I'd query what you said above though. Not about Hillary: every GOP candidate made it about Trump, then she just did the same too! But about the Republicans... who've won the popular vote once since 1988. So much of their immigration policy now appears to be a desperate attempt to make America white again; to change the demographic make-up of an electorate which doesn't favour their medium and long term prospects at all.

Edited April 30, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Ulysses]

2 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Because I think he'll either be charged by Mueller and/or impeached following a Democratic tidal wave in November. 

 

Ah here, I think you're being very naive.

[shaun.lawson]

8 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Ah here, I think you're being very naive.

 

Well - if there's a Dem tidal wave, I don't see what's to stop it happening. But maybe you're being naive too? Because following a tidal wave, I think the GOP would turn against him as well. It's no great secret that they'd almost all prefer President Pence, after all. 

 

I wonder what people thought at the equivalent stage of Watergate? Brezhnev was famously astonished that Nixon was forced out. He couldn't get his head around it! But there are huge numbers of parallels. 

Edited April 30, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[shaun.lawson]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

 

A so-called apology where you make a snidey, nasty comment and then blame the guy who was your target.

 

Nice one Alfa; how very ****ing Christian of you.  Bet you feel better about your "apology" already.

 

 

 

 

Harsh. I chuckled at his Scott Brown analogy, because it was an excellent back-handed compliment.

 

Two quick anecdotes, which I'm sure you'll be delighted to see me type.  The other day, I was talking with someone about FOX News - what a joke they are, bunch of liars, etc etc. He has the same politics as me, but replied "MSNBC and CNN are almost as bad. Have you seen Rachel Maddow lately, for example?"

 

He had a point. So did someone I chatted with on the day of the 2012 election, in a conversation I can't quite get out of my head. I'd been ranting about the Republicans like I so often do about the Tories. He was an old school friend who'd lived in the US for some years, desperately wanted Obama to win, but said "Shaun, stop that. It doesn't achieve anything. The country is so so divided - what's the point of adding to it?"

 

He was right. My political sympathies are entirely with Ugly American. I'd be at my wits' end if I lived there. But what alfajambo said wasn't exactly wrong (just overly personal in tone): because it's only a reflection of what half the US thinks about liberals. 

Edited April 30, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[shaun.lawson]

37 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Ah here, I think you're being very naive.

 

Why?

[Maple Leaf]

42 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Because I think he'll either be charged by Mueller and/or impeached following a Democratic tidal wave in November. 

 

I'd query what you said above though. Not about Hillary: every GOP candidate made it about Trump, then she just did the same too! But about the Republicans... who've won the popular vote once since 1988. So much of their immigration policy now appears to be a desperate attempt to make America white again; to change the demographic make-up of an electorate which doesn't favour their medium and long term prospects at all.

 

Although either of those is possible, they're unlikely to happen, imo.

 

While the Mueller investigation has roped in a shoal of smaller fish, there's no indication, that I've heard, that Trump himself is in the cross-hairs.  And even if Mueller does uncover some illegal act, that in itself might not be enough to initiate impeachment.

 

Impeachment is just a fancy name for saying he has been charged with an offence that warrants removal from office.  A simple majority in The House is all that's required for that to happen, and the Dems might very well have such a majority after November.  Impeachment leads to a trial, and the trial is conducted by the Senate.  A two-thirds majority is required for conviction.  I very much doubt if the Dems will have such a majority after the mid terms. Unless some outrageous act like treason is uncovered, Trump will serve his full term.

[shaun.lawson]

10 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Although either of those is possible, they're unlikely to happen, imo.

 

While the Mueller investigation has roped in a shoal of smaller fish, there's no indication, that I've heard, that Trump himself is in the cross-hairs.  And even if Mueller does uncover some illegal act, that in itself might not be enough to initiate impeachment.

 

Impeachment is just a fancy name for saying he has been charged with an offence that warrants removal from office.  A simple majority in The House is all that's required for that to happen, and the Dems might very well have such a majority after November.  Impeachment leads to a trial, and the trial is conducted by the Senate.  A two-thirds majority is required for conviction.  I very much doubt if the Dems will have such a majority after the mid terms. Unless some outrageous act like treason is uncovered, Trump will serve his full term.

 

That there's been no public indication that Trump is in the crosshairs is a deliberate plank of Mueller's strategy. He's picking individuals off one by one, steadily moving up the chain - and in each case, he gets higher again by flipping them. As I'm quite sure he will with Michael Cohen.

 

Saying that "Trump is not presently a suspect" is not the same as saying "he won't become so at a later date once we have all the info". And of course, he's also trying to entice Donnie into incriminating himself in an interview. Mueller's that impressive a chess player that I'm expecting him to find something which forces Trump into an interview tbh.

 

On the two-thirds requirement: sure. But Trump's no-one's idea of a natural Republican, and he drives them almost as crazy as the Democrats. Meaning it'd be a question of public opinion. If Trump's ratings fall far enough (which they haven't thus far, but only because Mueller's found nothing which incriminates him yet), there's more than a few Republican Senators who'd flip - because Pence serves them so much better. 

 

Softly softly catchy monkey, in other words. And I don't know about you - but I have a very hard time imagining the President of the United States getting off scot free from a charge not only of obstruction of justice, but also of money laundering... especially if that was done with the co-ordination of Russian banks. 

Edited April 30, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Maple Leaf]

19 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Harsh. I chuckled at his Scott Brown analogy, because it was an excellent back-handed compliment.

 

Two quick anecdotes, which I'm sure you'll be delighted to see me type.  The other day, I was talking with someone about FOX News - what a joke they are, bunch of liars, etc etc. He has the same politics as me, but replied "MSNBC and CNN are almost as bad. Have you seen Rachel Maddow lately, for example?"

 

He had a point. So did someone I chatted with on the day of the 2012 election, in a conversation I can't quite get out of my head. I'd been ranting about the Republicans like I so often do about the Tories. He was an old school friend who'd lived in the US for some years, desperately wanted Obama to win, but said "Shaun, stop that. It doesn't achieve anything. The country is so so divided - what's the point of adding to it?"

 

He was right. My political sympathies are entirely with Ugly American. I'd be at my wits' end if I lived there. But what alfajambo said wasn't exactly wrong (just overly personal in tone): because it's only a reflection of what half the US thinks about liberals. 

 

It's an indicator of how screwed up the USA is when the target of the Republicans is liberalism.  I suppose they had to find someone to direct their hate towards after the collapse of Communism, but is liberalism really so bad?

 

What is liberalism is the US?  Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, women's rights, civil rights, protection of the environment, social services for the needy.  What's wrong with all of that?  I suppose that same-sex marriage could be thrown in there too, but what's the matter with that either?

 

The word naive has been kicked around on this thread today.  Maybe it's me that's naive.

[shaun.lawson]

47 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

It's an indicator of how screwed up the USA is when the target of the Republicans is liberalism.  I suppose they had to find someone to direct their hate towards after the collapse of Communism, but is liberalism really so bad?

 

What is liberalism is the US?  Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, women's rights, civil rights, protection of the environment, social services for the needy.  What's wrong with all of that?  I suppose that same-sex marriage could be thrown in there too, but what's the matter with that either?

 

The word naive has been kicked around on this thread today.  Maybe it's me that's naive.

 

I couldn't agree more with you. But the difference lies in European/Canadian and American conceptions of freedom. The first = freedom from (fear, want, bigotry, squalor, etc). The second = freedom to (bear arms; live entirely as you'd wish; live inside a woman's body from the moment of conception; say what you want, regardless of how offensive it might be... and all without interference from government on issues of, for example, taxation or religion).

 

All of which dates back as far as the revolution - and in fact, a lot further still. American conceptions of liberty are based on classically English ones (as with most things, it was our fault to begin with). And it's also why the Confederacy is still remembered so fondly by many in the south - because as they see it, the tyranny of government stopped them manifesting their destiny by owning slaves, treating black people as sub-human etc.

 

It's ludicrous, I know - and barely has any resemblance to reality, in which these self-proclaimed rugged individuals wouldn't have got anywhere at all without school, transport, roads, food, police, paramedics, healthcare - and most wouldn't have got rich without the Bank of Mom and Pop and/or access to dodgy tax avoidance schemes either. But the ideology underlying it remains extraordinarily powerful: which means that to a typical American conservative, liberals want to take their freedoms away, and have the government pay for everything too.

Edited April 30, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Harsh. I chuckled at his Scott Brown analogy, because it was an excellent back-handed compliment.

 

 

It's not in the least bit harsh.  Unfortunately over the last few years Alfa's line of debate has been to abuse people and then offer a so-called apology, only to repeat the trick the next time he takes exception to what someone says.   If you think he hates atheists, you should see what he has to say about "the wrong kind of Christians".

 

Anyway, it's not about Alfa, any more than it's about your ego. 

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Although either of those is possible, they're unlikely to happen, imo.

 

While the Mueller investigation has roped in a shoal of smaller fish, there's no indication, that I've heard, that Trump himself is in the cross-hairs.  And even if Mueller does uncover some illegal act, that in itself might not be enough to initiate impeachment.

 

Impeachment is just a fancy name for saying he has been charged with an offence that warrants removal from office.  A simple majority in The House is all that's required for that to happen, and the Dems might very well have such a majority after November.  Impeachment leads to a trial, and the trial is conducted by the Senate.  A two-thirds majority is required for conviction.  I very much doubt if the Dems will have such a majority after the mid terms. Unless some outrageous act like treason is uncovered, Trump will serve his full term.

 

This.  The removal of Trump from office - whether by health, impeachment or voluntary exit - has been a central fantasy of some of his opponents since he was elected.

 

It's not gonna happen.

[shaun.lawson]

8 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

This.  The removal of Trump from office - whether by health, impeachment or voluntary exit - has been a central fantasy of some of his opponents since he was elected.

 

It's not gonna happen.

 

Bookmarked. And time will tell.  

[Ulysses]

1 minute ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Bookmarked. And time will tell.  

 

It will not happen, and time is already telling.

 

Trump's approval ratings are low, but higher than they were before Christmas.  The likelihood is that a new Congress will have a neck and neck Senate and a House with a small to moderate Democrat majority.  So not enough to unseat Trump, but just enough for him to blame them for a lack of progress on a wide variety of issues in the run up to the 2020 elections.  The Democrats will respond with "it's not us, it's Trump", thereby handing him the same advantage that they gave him in 2016.  He might lose in 2020, or there's a slim chance he'd not run again, but he has no reason to bail before the election and he won't be unseated by anyone else.

[shaun.lawson]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

It will not happen, and time is already telling.

 

Trump's approval ratings are low, but higher than they were before Christmas.  The likelihood is that a new Congress will have a neck and neck Senate and a House with a small to moderate Democrat majority.  So not enough to unseat Trump, but just enough for him to blame them for a lack of progress on a wide variety of issues in the run up to the 2020 elections.  The Democrats will respond with "it's not us, it's Trump", thereby handing him the same advantage that they gave him in 2016.  He might lose in 2020, or there's a slim chance he'd not run again, but he has no reason to bail before the election and he won't be unseated by anyone else.

 

And Mueller?

[Ulysses]

8 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

And Mueller?

 

Mueller will pick off some minor players, that's all.  The very best possible outcome (from an anti-Trumpist point of view) of Mueller is that he could get embroiled in a protracted civil legal battle with Trump's lawyers which would last beyond November 2020 and which might not succeed anyway.  That would damage Trump (to the extent that anything negative actually damages Trump), but would not unseat him.  The other possibility is that the Cohen raid will lead to moves to indict several people associated with Trump's businesses, and possibly Trump himself, for matters outside of the "Russia collusion" issue, but again that's something that is unlikely to unseat Trump before his term of office is finished.

 

Not going to happen.

[jake]

2 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Mueller will pick off some minor players, that's all.  The very best possible outcome (from an anti-Trumpist point of view) of Mueller is that he could get embroiled in a protracted civil legal battle with Trump's lawyers which would last beyond November 2020 and which might not succeed anyway.  That would damage Trump (to the extent that anything negative actually damages Trump), but would not unseat him.  The other possibility is that the Cohen raid will lead to moves to indict several people associated with Trump's businesses, and possibly Trump himself, for matters outside of the "Russia collusion" issue, but again that's something that is unlikely to unseat Trump before his term of office is finished.

 

Not going to happen.

I have to laugh.

 

 

[Sidelight]

3 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

It's not in the least bit harsh.  Unfortunately over the last few years Alfa's line of debate has been to abuse people and then offer a so-called apology, only to repeat the trick the next time he takes exception to what someone says.   If you think he hates atheists, you should see what he has to say about "the wrong kind of Christians".

 

Anyway, it's not about Alfa, any more than it's about your ego. 

Please back up your assertions with factual examples, or make a redaction.

To suggest that I hate atheists or other Christians and have made comment in that context is simply a disregard to the truth.

Yes, I have had a few differences of opinion and misunderstanding of meaning with UA over the years. I position myself in the category of one of his least favoured posters. However if ever it seemed that I had over stepped the mark, I would offer a sincere apology, and vice versa.

To suggest that my Scott Brown analogy was a snide, nasty comment is a complete misrepresentation of reality. It was an attempt to give an honest understanding to the ‘Shed’ relationship I feel I have with UA. I don’t often agree with what he says, but he says it well type scenario is much closer to the mark.

 

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by alfajambo

[Ulysses]

2 minutes ago, alfajambo said:

Please back up your assertions with factual examples, or make a redaction.

To suggest that I hate atheists or other Christians and have made comment in that regard is simply a disregard to the truth.

Yes, I have had a few differences of opinion and misunderstanding of meaning with UA over the years. I position myself in the category of one of his least favoured posters. However if ever it seemed that I had over stepped the mark, I would offer a sincere apology, and vice versa.

To suggest that my Scott Brown analogy was a snide, nasty comment is a complete misrepresentation of reality. It was an attempt to give an honest understanding to the ‘Shed’ relationship I feel I have with UA. I don’t often agree with what he says, but he says it well type scenario is much closer to the mark.

 

 

 

When you run out of road you get abusive, and follow that up with an "apology", or worse a "sincere apology".  Then you rinse and repeat.

 

Your "sincere apology" this time was accompanied by an excuse to make out it was his fault, not yours.

 

If you don't mean to make a genuine apology, don't post a sham apology.  No-one in this life will think any better or you for posting sham apologies, and since that's the only life you'll ever have.......

[jake]

3 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

This.  The removal of Trump from office - whether by health, impeachment or voluntary exit - has been a central fantasy of some of his opponents since he was elected.

 

It's not gonna 

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

When you run out of road you get abusive, and follow that up with an "apology", or worse a "sincere apology".  Then you rinse and repeat.

 

Your "sincere apology" this time was accompanied by an excuse to make out it was his fault, not yours.

 

If you don't mean to make a genuine apology, don't post a sham apology.  No-one in this life will think any better or you for posting sham apologies, and since that's the only life you'll ever have.......

Get a grip Uly ffs.

[Ulysses]

Meanwhile back on topic, the word is that younger voters don't like Trump, but are becoming less likely to vote for the Democrats.

 

 

Reuters: Democrats lose ground with millennials - Reuters/Ipsos poll

[Ulysses]

4 minutes ago, jake said:

 

 

jake, you need to stop obsessing.

[Ulysses]

I'm sure this is old news to people who watch the American political scene closely, but.....

 

 

.....I hadn't noticed that the Trump campaign paid out money to cover some of Michael Cohen's legal costs.

 

 

The Hill: Trump campaign covered some of Cohen's legal costs

[SpruceBringsteen]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

Meanwhile back on topic, the word is that younger voters don't like Trump, but are becoming less likely to vote for the Democrats.

 

 

Reuters: Democrats lose ground with millennials - Reuters/Ipsos poll

 

Naively hoped that this meant they were finally beginning to realise that a straight choice between centre right and right is no choice at all - then I read the link.

 

I'll never understand this country. 

[JackLadd]

I just think all his angry tweets and outbursts about Mueller/Comey are because he has plenty to hide.  An innocent individual would open the books and want to be cleared fully.  Trump wants to shut it down, hinder and obstruct the investigation. A mob boss as Comey says. 

[Sharpie]

I have shown actual interest in United States Presidents for may years now, the first I remember was a kindly sort of old man in a wheelchair, who seemed to be a close friend of our of the day hero Churchill.  I have watched a few go by since then, some good some not so good and some bad.  But all had something about them good or bad that you knew they were the President and in their own way acted accordingly. I cannot say I have that view of the President of today, he is the3 epitomy of everything I do not like, primarily he is a liar, can't stand them, he is a bully, he called McCain a man who suffered greatly in the service of his Country, Trump a draft dodger called him a coward, if that is not a classic case of pot calling kettle black, oops not a word that Trump really likes especially talking about people who come from shitholes.

 

Tonight I watched the Fake news stations, the story going the rounds is that General Kelly described the Presidcent as unhinged, he also it is reported called him on numerous occasions an idiot, this goes with another previous aide referring to the President as a moron. The rumor of course is that Kelly is on the way out, Trump does not want anyone filling that position as it to him is restrictive. I listened to his rant on Fox News the other morning, I would say it was the performance of a man who if not unhinged is becoming perilously close.  I watched his Michigan speech on Saturday, again a rambling repetitive speech , the only interesting thing I found was the wee boy behind him who seemed to have a runny nose that he swiped dry with the back of both hands which he then used a hand washing motion to clean them off, that was actually in comparison to Trump quite interesting and productive for the wee boy.

 

I confess again my absolute personal dislike for the man, I also confess my failure to have any answer regarding alternative because I am sure probably for different reasons that Hillary Clinton would have as President raised my ire also.  I have felt and still do that Trump will be hard pressed to complete his term in Office, basically for fifteen months I have watched the nightly news and each night there is something new or confirmation of some present scandal, mistep, or lie, or change of mind re a policy or direction.  He is causing dissent in the White House, he is putting stresses on loyalties, and worse still his pre Presidency days, and scandals are coming fast and furious, and an ambitious and reasonably young and competent lawyer who strikes me as the classic ambulance chaser, is digging  and digging and just if he keeps going may hit gold.

 

 

 

[Maple Leaf]

2 hours ago, JackLadd said:

I just think all his angry tweets and outbursts about Mueller/Comey are because he has plenty to hide.  An innocent individual would open the books and want to be cleared fully.  Trump wants to shut it down, hinder and obstruct the investigation. A mob boss as Comey says. 

That's correct.

 

I've said it before, the Mueller investigation is Trump's best bet for proving his innocence.  So why does he want to shut it down?  

[Jambo-Jimbo]

3 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

That's correct.

 

I've said it before, the Mueller investigation is Trump's best bet for proving his innocence.  So why does he want to shut it down?  

 

And also his supporters want it shut down as well, a few of them are on this thread.

 

Serious allegations have been made against their man/team/campaign, yet it seems that few if any want it investigated, why?  Why is that?

Surely they'd want a thorough investigation to prove their man's innocence, because if he/his campaign was totally innocent, just imagine the political capital the Republicans could gain over the Democrats by levelling all this at the Democrats door, it would guarantee a second term and make the Democrats unelectable for years to come.

 

But Trump just wants to obstruct, undermine and shut down any investigation into him, whereas, I'd have thought, if you were innocent, one would welcome, open up and fully cooperate with any investigation, which at the end of the day could prove what you were claiming all along, and that's your innocence.   

 

[Justin Z]

11 hours ago, SpruceBringsteen said:

 

Naively hoped that this meant they were finally beginning to realise that a straight choice between centre right and right is no choice at all - then I read the link.

 

I'll never understand this country. 

 

It has a propaganda machine unlike any the world has ever seen, and that's why you get ideas like "Republicans are better stewards of the economy" spreading far and wide.