**** Elections thread *****

[Jack Sawyer]

Trump never said Mexico would pay for construction

I just don’t understand this statement and this is what kills me about people who support Donald Trump. He clearly says something, expressly so, and then the supporters will fervently state he never did it. As if the rest of the world is crazy.



What did he say there? Am I taking his rhetoric out of context? Was it a body and voice double that said it instead of the real Trump? Is Mexico going to be paying for something other than construction, according to Trump's own statement? If this has already been addressed in the other posts leading up to this one, sorry, but I guess you can see how frustrated some people can get with a dude who's says things and then people claiming he never said those exact things.




Edit:

It does sound like Trump is saying payment for the wall by Mexico will be more explicit. Options are that it comes as a part of a deal involving Mexico or sanctions on any variety of transactions that Mexico benefits from. I certainly think there is a ton of wiggle room here. Mexico benefits on the order of tens of billions annually by some of its citizens acting illegally in the US.

There, that's better. But how did you not know that for certain in the first instance? Why did I have to quote you? It is not possible, to me, that anyone that is a remote supporter of Trump could ever state that he never said he would make Mexico pay for that god damned mythical wall.

This is not an ad hominem attack against you wufwugy, so I hope you don't take it that way. But I feel that we are entering an age in which facts are irrelevant. it's about what one believes, apparently. And that becomes fact. And in turn, fuck actual facts.

It's ridiculous, shameful, disgraceful, but it's also reality, so I guess I'll have to find a way to deal with it.

[wufwugy]

I just don’t understand this statement and this is what kills me about people who support Donald Trump. He clearly says something, expressly so, and then the supporters will fervently state he never did it. As if the rest of the world is crazy.



What did he say there? Am I taking his rhetoric out of context? Was it a body and voice double that said it instead of the real Trump? Is Mexico going to be paying for something other than construction, according to Trump's own statement? If this has already been addressed in the other posts leading up to this one, sorry, but I guess you can see how frustrated some people can get with a dude who's says things and then people claiming he never said those exact things.




Edit:



There, that's better. But how did you not know that for certain in the first instance? Why did I have to quote you? It is not possible, to me, that anyone that is a remote supporter of Trump could ever state that he never said he would make Mexico pay for that god damned mythical wall.

This is not an ad hominem attack against you wufwugy, so I hope you don't take it that way. But I feel that we are entering an age in which facts are irrelevant. it's about what one believes, apparently. And that becomes fact. And in turn, fuck actual facts.

It's ridiculous, shameful, disgraceful, but it's also reality, so I guess I'll have to find a way to deal with it.

It appears this is something lost in translation. In the video, Trump says Mexico will pay for the wall. I have said many times that he said Mexico will pay for the wall. I think that Trump's plans include Mexico paying for the wall. Antagonists have been claiming that Trump is an oathbreaker because he is getting a wall constructed without (before) Mexico paying for it. He never said that the wall would not be built except by using Mexico's money. It is within reason for the US to build the wall with its own resources and then extract resources from Mexico some way or another. This fits perfectly into Trump's claim that he will get Mexico to pay for the wall. We have not entered territory where Trump is doing something he said he wouldn't.

Sure, I'll get back to you on this quite shortly. Derivative Financial instruments AFAIK do not make the little people, aka the working class, rich. For the quants though, that’s another story.


Needless to say I do not have a high regard for Wall Street, but I will back up my reasoning and opinion with actual facts rather than anecdotes. But, another time/

Derivatives aren't that relevant here. On a side note, financial derivatives are probably beneficial to average people because they likely provide greater stability to financial markets. They're really just diversification. The way they went wrong several years back was when the government greatly promoted risky lending and risky derivative construction. Still, the derivatives were more a symptom of the problem than a cause since the cause had to do with the government incentivizing banks to act in ways they normally would not.

[Poopadoop]

You can be rich and still represent a special interest, it's not an either/or situation. The Goldman Sachs and Tillerson nominees are good examples.

[wufwugy]

You can be rich and still represent a special interest, it's not an either/or situation.

That's true.

The Goldman Sachs and Tillerson nominees are good examples.

The question is what are the reasons to say those are conflicts greater than normal and greater than otherwise?

[Poopadoop]

The question is what are the reasons to say those are conflicts greater than normal and greater than otherwise?

No-one is arguing such appointments are creating greater conflicts than would otherwise exist; they're pretty much the status quo. The argument is that maintaining the status quo in this case is diametrically the opposite of 'draining the swamp'

[wufwugy]

I don't think being rich or being a part of any particular company represents status quo. His cabinet picks are very different from the status quo in a big way, but it's also in the sort of way that liberals tend to not think is important. If you ask me, Sanders would have been a continuation of this status quo to a great degree, but his supporters would think that otherwise.

The distinction I'm getting at is that Trump is bringing in private citizens who do not have the same sorts of ties and agendas that those who have been politicians or worked in government office most of their lives have. I don't view corporations as evil, but the left generally does, and to them these appointments are worse than the status quo. They'd be happier with even deeper government insiders, just ones that agree with them on what government should do.

The left tends to think the swamp is wealthy who influence the government with money. The right tends to think the swamp is politicians that sell policy to the highest bidder. Each view is valid in isolation, but I fall on the right because I think only one of these views holds up when scrutinized more fully.

[Poopadoop]

I don't think being rich or being a part of any particular company represents status quo. His cabinet picks are very different from the status quo in a big way, but it's also in the sort of way that liberals tend to not think is important. If you ask me, Sanders would have been a continuation of this status quo to a great degree, but his supporters would think that otherwise.

The distinction I'm getting at is that Trump is bringing in private citizens who do not have the same sorts of ties and agendas that those who have been politicians or worked in government office most of their lives have. I don't view corporations as evil, but the left generally does, and to them these appointments are worse than the status quo. They'd be happier with even deeper government insiders, just ones that agree with them on what government should do.

The left tends to think the swamp is wealthy who influence the government with money. The right tends to think the swamp is politicians that sell policy to the highest bidder. Each view is valid in isolation, but I fall on the right because I think only one of these views holds up when scrutinized more fully.

Ok fair enough. But the real issue to me is whose interests are being represented? It's hard for me to believe former employees of Goldman Sachs and Rex Tillerson are going to act in the best interests of anyone besides the wealthy.

If the new government makes decisions that directly benefit the wealthy at the expense of other classes, that is to me an instance of corruption, since the members of gov't and their ilk directly benefit as a result. It's not the same brand of corruption as taking bribes for giving out contracts, but it's corruption nonetheless. And if the goal of 'draining the swamp' is ridding D.C. of corruption then it hasn't succeeded just because one type of corruption has been replaced with another.

[wufwugy]

I certainly think it is important to make sure that those picks don't have the kinds of conflicts of interests that would pervert their incentives.

[Jack Sawyer]

Derivatives aren't that relevant here. On a side note, financial derivatives are probably beneficial to average people because they likely provide greater stability to financial markets. They're really just diversification. The way they went wrong several years back was when the government greatly promoted risky lending and risky derivative construction. Still, the derivatives were more a symptom of the problem than a cause since the cause had to do with the government incentivizing banks to act in ways they normally would not.

Credit Default Swaps are derivatives, no? These were at the heart of the economic collapse of '08, no? The people who caused this got barely slaps on the wrist, and a *stern* Hillary saying “cut it out, boys”, right? Trump’s cabinet is full of Goldman Sachs people now, right?


Forgive me that I can’t really see how any imaginary financial constructs can be beneficial to anyone ever again/

[Jack Sawyer]

I certainly think it is important to make sure that those picks don't have the kinds of conflicts of interests that would pervert their incentives.

Just as an example.



Rachel Maddow hasn't done real journalism in a long time. Maybe Trump getting elected actually wake some people the fuck up. Vid will most likely be taken down shortly, as it has been getting taken down quite often.


Plus, you asked about donors being appointed. Here is but a few.

[wufwugy]

Credit Default Swaps are derivatives, no? These were at the heart of the economic collapse we just had, no? The people who caused this got barely slaps on the wrist, and a *stern* Hillary saying “cut it out, boys”, right? Trump’s cabinet is full of Goldman Sachs people now, right?


Forgive me that I can’t really see how any imaginary financial constructs can be beneficial to anyone ever again/

Assigning responsibility to the problems in the financial markets that reached zenith in 08 to derivatives (including CDS's) is like assigning responsibility of a forest fire on the trees. CDS's are not inherently risky and they do not inherently increase the risk that investors are willing to take on. That which increased these risks, which led to the housing recession of early 08 (but not necessarily the financial collapse in the fall), was most likely government policies that rewarded the taking on of risk in unusually high ways.

One of the main purposes of derivatives is to create greater stability through things like diversification. And they do that. What happened in the 00's was that the government pushed for riskier and riskier derivatives that banks otherwise would not have taken on. Derivatives certainly should be scrutinized, just like everything should be. But the narrative that they have inherent flaws that necessarily lead to overleveraging has very little backing.

[wufwugy]

Just as an example.



Rachel Maddow hasn't done real journalism in a long time. Maybe Trump getting elected actually wake some people the fuck up. Vid will most likely be taken down shortly, as it has been getting taken down quite often.

Does she present evidence for the crux of her argument, which is at 6:35 to 7:20? The portion is constructed in such a way that without documentation that Exxon said what she said Exxon said, it is likely fabricated. Her entire argument depends on that portion not being fabricated. The best we can derive from the facts presented is that the dictator made what changes he wanted and that included Exxon. It very well could be that Exxon and Tillerson acting poorly, but this video does not present that.

Plus, you asked about donors being appointed. Here is but a few.

I'm looking for more. Information that says Trump has any number of donors in his cabinet tells us nothing. For example, if Trump was selective with the denominator in who he accepted donations from (he was), it makes sense that there would be more donors in his cabinet. There being anywhere from zero to 100% donors in a cabinet does not tell us what level of integrity or lack thereof exists in the offices.

[supa]

Just skimming this thread I have a few points about the wall. Firstly trump very clearly said mexico would pay for it. I'm not sure I consider that a lie as much as overly optimistic but I think we'll find over the coming months that he'll be found to have been over optimistic on many issues that will have major impacts on america.

My real opinion is that the walk will never be built. He's already back tracked by saying some of it could be fencing and added to what already exists. Mainly I expect a small portion of wall to be built as a photo opportunity and all his supporters will be delighted.

But really what good do we think the wall will do? People have been coming over that border for a long time and gotten increasingly better at it. Living and working in the construction industry in southern California I know first hand how well a Mexican can dig. This is not me being stereotypical, these guys take pride in how well they do their jobs. Look at the tunnels used for drug trafficking. These people will find a way.

More so what purpose does halting illegal immigration serve us? Farms in California are already seeing an up to 20% production loss due to not having enough workers. Does it make sense to have loss of production and profit simply to keep out the people willing to do the work?

Lastly, and sorry if this got ranty, why do we put so much blame on the immigrants? In the 80s Reagan opened the floodgates by decriminalizing the hiring of undocumented workers. Now everyone is pissed that so many came in an effort make a better lives for themselves and their families. It's like be took a sledgehammer to our water faucet at then got mad at the water for flooding the living room. Where we need to look if we're concerned about immigration is to those who are illegally hiring, tax evading and lowering wages across the board. You gotta fix the source of the leak before you can dry the carpet.

[wufwugy]

More so what purpose does halting illegal immigration serve us? Farms in California are already seeing an up to 20% production loss due to not having enough workers. Does it make sense to have loss of production and profit simply to keep out the people willing to do the work?

There isn't necessarily production loss from lowered immigration. What's been happening over the years is that jobs that would normally be done by American youths and the low-skilled are being done by illegals. Youths aren't doing them anymore because they're being put through college at bloated rates and high school is taking more focus in order for that to happen. There are many ways in which this is bad for our society (and those youths), but I'll mention just one here: in this pathway they develop far fewer skills and we are ending up with greater debt and lower production than we otherwise would. The low-skilled non-youth that would be doing these jobs are not doing them today because of welfare benefits (which includes college as well) that make them better off by not working in the first place.

Lastly, and sorry if this got ranty, why do we put so much blame on the immigrants? In the 80s Reagan opened the floodgates by decriminalizing the hiring of undocumented workers.

He did the wrong thing. The vast problem we have today rests in large part on his shoulders. His policy created the unintended consequence of incentivizing even more illegal migrants.

Now everyone is pissed that so many came in an effort make a better lives for themselves and their families.

It undermines American society as well as Mexican society. A wall (that works) would be a wonderful thing for Mexico and its citizens, because this would force the government to be more accountable and to fix its own problems instead of being subsidized by the production brought back from the US.

[wufwugy]

Prediction: Trump cares more about getting Mexico to pay for the wall than he does most goals. It'll be very big and very obvious when it happens. He'll make sure of that.

[boost]

Quoted from Shitposting thread.

Yup, sounds pretty dodgy to me. I think the last time every intelligence agency agreed on something it was Saddam having WMD.

I also think MSNBC is turning into the left's Fox News. I guess they deserve one.

Still, Trump sounded kind of dumb there.

Interesting take.. but I don't follow you to the same conclusion. I think that by the very nature of the intelligence community, there simply isn't much that can be known in situations like this. I'm inferring that you think the intelligence community failed in regards to getting us into Iraq. But the very opposite could be true, or it could have been a good plan that didn't quite work out, or it could be a long game move. Our various bureaucracies are actually the parts of the government that we should expect long game moves from, especially ones, like intelligence, who are well insulated from the election cycle.

The following isn't a belief that I hold, but just a possibility, and I know it sounds callous given what's happening in the world now, but think long game: "shaking things up" (with an idea of how things will settle and an ability to nudge them towards that when they don't) in the middle east could be the tipping of the first domino that leads to a more peaceful and prosperous 2100. By 2000, a working theory could have been that we no longer need to prop up dictators, that our values are sufficiently self evidently superior that we don't have to play dirty like we did during the cold war.

Of course, there is no way to know what their plan was, what their objectives actually were and are-- but I'd say that we similarly can't know that they failed, and extrapolate from their failure to inform our judgements on their current and future actions*.

*just to make it crystal clear, this is not a generality that should be applied to almost any entity, this is a special case concerning intelligence communities, and specifically the (I hope) most powerful one in operation.

[Poopadoop]

Sounds like pretty tortuous logic to me.

If I get you right then either:

a) Intel was right about WMD and Saddam somehow disposed of the evidence without leaving a trace.

b) Intel reached the right conclusion about WMD given the evidence they had, but expressed it with an undeserved high level of confidence.

c) Intel was lying, but it's because they were playing the 'long game' to facilitate the removal of a dictator.


a) is implausible imo; b) makes them sound like idiots; and c) is an interesting idea but probably gives them too much credit. And I don't mean credit for being forward thinking visionaries, I mean credit for having such pure motives as making the world a better place.

We need to ask ourselves who benefited from the war in Iraq going ahead? Those are the people who most likely pushed the buttons. Intel's role was to serve as a ministry of propaganda, providing a false narrative that would bring the public around to supporting the war.

[boost]

The last one is what I was implying is a plausible reality. It's not that I think it's highly probable, but looking at things sideways like this can show how difficult it is to judge the actions of the intelligence community.

I think my point was that you were supposing a set of goals as the premise for critiquing the agencies as incompetent, and so even if their goals are more nefarious, if you don't know what they are, the criticism is unsupported.

As for your claim as to their motives based on who benefitted, I'm not dismissing this as implausible, but with the available evidence it is highly speculative and conspiratorial. Looking for motive is a great place to start; financial gain is a great motivator; confirmation of motive does not amount to guilt.

[Poopadoop]

The last one is what I was implying is a plausible reality. It's not that I think it's highly probable, but looking at things sideways like this can show how difficult it is to judge the actions of the intelligence community.

What do you mean by 'sideways'?

I think my point was that you were supposing a set of goals as the premise for critiquing the agencies as incompetent, and so even if their goals are more nefarious, if you don't know what they are, the criticism is unsupported.

On the contrary, I think they're highly competent. Just not necessarily (or only) at their stated job. An undisputed part of their role is the dissemination of propaganda. I think it's naive to believe that propaganda couldn't also be targeted at their own citizens. The WMD episode may be a case in point, as you acknowledge.

Intel also represents an ideal formula for propaganda: "How do you know this?" "Intel told us." "What is the evidence?" "Can't tell you, it's top secret." Thus, arguments can be posited and spread without being backed up by anything of substance.

As for your claim as to their motives based on who benefitted, I'm not dismissing this as implausible, but with the available evidence it is highly speculative and conspiratorial. Looking for motive is a great place to start; financial gain is a great motivator; confirmation of motive does not amount to guilt.

I'm not saying my explanation is the only possible one. That's the difference between me and a tin-hatter.

I'm saying it's consistent with events. And to bring us to the present, unless there is published evidence that I haven't seen, the current situation vis-a-vis Russian hacking is analogous to the situation regarding WMD in that arguments are being made and vigorously promoted without evidence.

[boost]

By sideways, I just mean to look at it from a novel perspective.

And, yeah, I don't think we really disagree much, if at all. I meant it more as a complimentary alternative, not a proof of why you're wrong.

I do like to think that it's the intelligence community in the drivers seat and the oil industry tagging along/doing their bidding when the spooks need it, but that mostly comes down to how I'd prefer the world to be.

[Poopadoop]

I do like to think that it's the intelligence community in the drivers seat and the oil industry tagging along/doing their bidding when the spooks need it, but that mostly comes down to how I'd prefer the world to be.

It is fun to speculate about, but it seems unlikely we'll ever know for sure.

[BananaStand]

Just skimming this thread I have a few points about the wall. Firstly trump very clearly said mexico would pay for it. I'm not sure I consider that a lie as much as overly optimistic but I think we'll find over the coming months that he'll be found to have been over optimistic on many issues that will have major impacts on america.

I'm really not trying to be condescending here. I just sort of have a *gut feel* about what I think the average age around here is, and I'm wondering if that colors some of the opinions here. So I'll ask..... is this the first time you've been "old enough" to really pay attention to an election where a new president was elected?

Trump is nowhere near the first candidate to adjust his plans as he changes gears from campaigning, to governing. Obama told us "If you like your plan, you can keep it". Bush Sr promised "Read my lips, no new taxes". And I think a good portion of America was let down when exactly zero of Clinton's State of the Union addresses included a saxophone solo.

Campaigning and Governing are wildly different things, and it's totally unrealistic to hold every candidate to every letter of every promise he makes. In Trump's case, that really should have been obvious from the get go. It's unfair to accuse Trump supporters of defending his "flip flops" by ignoring facts (scroll up to the top of this page to see what i mean).

Trumps statements during the campaign were openings for negotiations, nothing more. The same can be made for ANY campaign "promise" made by any candidate, ever. Intelligent people know this. They know not to take everything Trump says literally.

Compare the strategy of bold, easy-to-grasp, campaign promises to the more conservative, less-committal approach used by Mitt Romney. Mitt vowed to eliminate some tax deductions, rather than raise taxes. He never named those deductions. So there was a vacuum, and the media rushed to fill it. I vividly remember a 60 minutes interview where they asked Mitt which deductions he would be cutting, and Mitt couldn't say. So instead, they just put the camera on the interviewer who rattled off the most popular deductions "Are you cutting the mortgage interest deduction? Child Care? dependents?".

The real answer, is that Mitt had no idea. His plan was to LEAD. His plan was to reach out to congress, present the problem, get their input, trade ideas, and eventually write a bill that helps America. How could he answer the question when the answer still requires input from 435 congressman and 100 senators?? That's democracy folks....and believing in it cost Mitt Romney the election.

My real opinion is that the walk will never be built. He's already back tracked by saying some of it could be fencing and added to what already exists. Mainly I expect a small portion of wall to be built as a photo opportunity and all his supporters will be delighted.

But really what good do we think the wall will do? People have been coming over that border for a long time and gotten increasingly better at it. Living and working in the construction industry in southern California I know first hand how well a Mexican can dig. This is not me being stereotypical, these guys take pride in how well they do their jobs. Look at the tunnels used for drug trafficking. These people will find a way.

Agree and disagree with this. I know that if I were living in poverty in Mexico, struggling to provide for my family, and held down by a corrupt government, I would find a way into America. If you told me that all I had to do was cross a river and I could have a job, a place to live, and make enough money support my family easily.....well then Sir, you simply cannot build a wall big enough to intimidate me. I'll get over by catapult if I have to.

Now, that all sounds fine and noble. But odds are pretty good I will get caught. There a lot of miles of border to cover, and it takes a lot of manpower to do it. If you replace some of that manpower with 25 feet of reinforced concrete and barbed wire, then you can divert resources to other things, like seeking out tunnels and disarming catapults.

If someone gets caught running across the desert, they can just try again tomorrow. If their tunnel gets filled in....they have to start a whole new tunnel. You can't just buy catapults at the corner store.

More so what purpose does halting illegal immigration serve us? Farms in California are already seeing an up to 20% production loss due to not having enough workers. Does it make sense to have loss of production and profit simply to keep out the people willing to do the work?

Yes, the farm industry will probably be the most affected by halting illegal immigration, but your argument there is really really glib. Halting immigration doesn't necessarily have to debilitate the agricultural industry. Obviously, if the government isn't spending money on education, healthcare, and other services for illegals, then it should be pretty easy to come up with some money for subsidies and grants that will help keep farms profitable. Also, we could easily enhance or expand our seasonal work visa programs to minimize any "loss of production". I could go on, but the point is, you can't hold the farms hostage.

Please please please, be careful not use "halt illegal immigration" and "secure the border" interchangeable. The former is merely one of many consequences of the latter action. And securing the border most definitely "serves us". Regardless of their intentions, or how much money they make for farmers, every illegal immigrant is consuming American resources, while making much less, if any, contribution back to society. Many don't pay taxes, and much of their income leaves the country. That's a cancer on our economy, which is already losing ground among others in the world. Halting that, most definitely serves a purpose.

Not to mention....if a simple farm worker can get across the border, so can a terrorist. Security is kinda important.

Lastly, and sorry if this got ranty, why do we put so much blame on the immigrants? In the 80s Reagan opened the floodgates by decriminalizing the hiring of undocumented workers. Now everyone is pissed that so many came in an effort make a better lives for themselves and their families. It's like be took a sledgehammer to our water faucet at then got mad at the water for flooding the living room. Where we need to look if we're concerned about immigration is to those who are illegally hiring, tax evading and lowering wages across the board. You gotta fix the source of the leak before you can dry the carpet.

So, Reagan's intent was to also "secure the border" simultaneously along with the amnesty. The promise that he made to the American people is that after we decriminalize these folks...there won't be any more. He promised it was a 'one time thing'. It's hard to say exactly what happened between then and now. But the border was not secured.

Today the biggest obstacle to securing the border, that I see, is the sentiment among the left that any kind of border enforcement is racist. There are folks who think the term "illegal immigration" is a pejorative on par with the "n" word. It's really tough to pin that on Reagan.

I think Trump's goal in this negotiation is to fulfill what Reagan promised. I think he wants to secure the border. If he can tell America "Yes there are 12 million illegal immigrants in this country, but I can assure you that number will never get any bigger", that would be an incredible victory.

After that, there will probably be deportations. Folks with significant criminal histories are going to be given a bus ticket home. And that's probably gonna cause some tears. You're gonna see folks saying "Don't send Jose away from his family" while other folks say "If Jose cared about his family, he wouldn't be in a gang". And that little mini-tragedy will play out on every local news outlet, in every city, for a few months. Cable news pundits will love it because they have something to talk about, and after a few months, we can move on.

At that point, I think you'll see the country coalesce around a humanitarian sentiment that says "Ok, no new people are coming in, all the bad people have been sent home, let's just end this. The 8 million or however many people that are left, can stay. Let's get them on the books, integrated, and move on from this whole mess".

^If that happened, would you consider Trump a failure because he promised to deport everybody, and only fulfilled a fraction of his promise?

Or could you zoom out, look at the entire picture, the entire process, the overall success and say "Damn...that Trump is a really fucking good negotiator".

[wufwugy]

Average age in the commune is a bit higher than one would expect. Most of us found this forum many years ago.

[BananaStand]

Average age in the commune is a bit higher than one would expect. Most of us found this forum many years ago.

Fair enough, but the last time we changed POTUS was many years ago too. This isn't meant as an insult, I'm just wondering how much experience folks here have actually watching, and paying attention to a campaign transform into government. I'm 36. So I pretty much remember '08, and '00. If you're younger than I am, you probably remember less, and thus recent deviations from campaign promises might be perceived as more egregious than they really are. With some more experience and historical context, I think it's easier to accept that campaign promises are the openings for negotiations, not do or die guarantees.

[wufwugy]

Fair enough, but the last time we changed POTUS was many years ago too. This isn't meant as an insult, I'm just wondering how much experience folks here have actually watching, and paying attention to a campaign transform into government. I'm 36. So I pretty much remember '08, and '00. If you're younger than I am, you probably remember less, and thus recent deviations from campaign promises might be perceived as more egregious than they really are. With some more experience and historical context, I think it's easier to accept that campaign promises are the openings for negotiations, not do or die guarantees.

You're being too reasonable. It's easy for people to understand this when their guy wins and call it hypocrisy/corruption when the other guy wins.

[Poopadoop]

You're being too reasonable. It's easy for people to understand this when their guy wins and call it hypocrisy/corruption when the other guy wins.

Speaking from experience wuf?

[surviva316]

Speaking from experience wuf?

Not sure if you're aware, but wuf was a massive, raging liberal when Obama was elected. Like as crazed as he is about Ben Garrison and Scott Adams now, he used to be as much of a ThinkProgress and TYT Stan then.

[wufwugy]

Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup. Glad somebody remembers. I was but a babe in the theater of politics, culture, and history then.

[Poopadoop]

Not sure if you're aware, but wuf was a massive, raging liberal when Obama was elected. Like as crazed as he is about Ben Garrison and Scott Adams now, he used to be as much of a ThinkProgress and TYT Stan then.

So he believed all the hopey-changey stuff back then too? Awww.

[supa]

I'm really not trying to be condescending here. I just sort of have a *gut feel* about what I think the average age around here is, and I'm wondering if that colors some of the opinions here. So I'll ask..... is this the first time you've been "old enough" to really pay attention to an election where a new president was elected?

Trump is nowhere near the first candidate to adjust his plans as he changes gears from campaigning, to governing. Obama told us "If you like your plan, you can keep it". Bush Sr promised "Read my lips, no new taxes". And I think a good portion of America was let down when exactly zero of Clinton's State of the Union addresses included a saxophone solo.

Campaigning and Governing are wildly different things, and it's totally unrealistic to hold every candidate to every letter of every promise he makes. In Trump's case, that really should have been obvious from the get go. It's unfair to accuse Trump supporters of defending his "flip flops" by ignoring facts (scroll up to the top of this page to see what i mean).

Trumps statements during the campaign were openings for negotiations, nothing more. The same can be made for ANY campaign "promise" made by any candidate, ever. Intelligent people know this. They know not to take everything Trump says literally.

Compare the strategy of bold, easy-to-grasp, campaign promises to the more conservative, less-committal approach used by Mitt Romney. Mitt vowed to eliminate some tax deductions, rather than raise taxes. He never named those deductions. So there was a vacuum, and the media rushed to fill it. I vividly remember a 60 minutes interview where they asked Mitt which deductions he would be cutting, and Mitt couldn't say. So instead, they just put the camera on the interviewer who rattled off the most popular deductions "Are you cutting the mortgage interest deduction? Child Care? dependents?".

The real answer, is that Mitt had no idea. His plan was to LEAD. His plan was to reach out to congress, present the problem, get their input, trade ideas, and eventually write a bill that helps America. How could he answer the question when the answer still requires input from 435 congressman and 100 senators?? That's democracy folks....and believing in it cost Mitt Romney the election.



Agree and disagree with this. I know that if I were living in poverty in Mexico, struggling to provide for my family, and held down by a corrupt government, I would find a way into America. If you told me that all I had to do was cross a river and I could have a job, a place to live, and make enough money support my family easily.....well then Sir, you simply cannot build a wall big enough to intimidate me. I'll get over by catapult if I have to.

Now, that all sounds fine and noble. But odds are pretty good I will get caught. There a lot of miles of border to cover, and it takes a lot of manpower to do it. If you replace some of that manpower with 25 feet of reinforced concrete and barbed wire, then you can divert resources to other things, like seeking out tunnels and disarming catapults.

If someone gets caught running across the desert, they can just try again tomorrow. If their tunnel gets filled in....they have to start a whole new tunnel. You can't just buy catapults at the corner store.



Yes, the farm industry will probably be the most affected by halting illegal immigration, but your argument there is really really glib. Halting immigration doesn't necessarily have to debilitate the agricultural industry. Obviously, if the government isn't spending money on education, healthcare, and other services for illegals, then it should be pretty easy to come up with some money for subsidies and grants that will help keep farms profitable. Also, we could easily enhance or expand our seasonal work visa programs to minimize any "loss of production". I could go on, but the point is, you can't hold the farms hostage.

Please please please, be careful not use "halt illegal immigration" and "secure the border" interchangeable. The former is merely one of many consequences of the latter action. And securing the border most definitely "serves us". Regardless of their intentions, or how much money they make for farmers, every illegal immigrant is consuming American resources, while making much less, if any, contribution back to society. Many don't pay taxes, and much of their income leaves the country. That's a cancer on our economy, which is already losing ground among others in the world. Halting that, most definitely serves a purpose.

Not to mention....if a simple farm worker can get across the border, so can a terrorist. Security is kinda important.



So, Reagan's intent was to also "secure the border" simultaneously along with the amnesty. The promise that he made to the American people is that after we decriminalize these folks...there won't be any more. He promised it was a 'one time thing'. It's hard to say exactly what happened between then and now. But the border was not secured.

Today the biggest obstacle to securing the border, that I see, is the sentiment among the left that any kind of border enforcement is racist. There are folks who think the term "illegal immigration" is a pejorative on par with the "n" word. It's really tough to pin that on Reagan.

I think Trump's goal in this negotiation is to fulfill what Reagan promised. I think he wants to secure the border. If he can tell America "Yes there are 12 million illegal immigrants in this country, but I can assure you that number will never get any bigger", that would be an incredible victory.

After that, there will probably be deportations. Folks with significant criminal histories are going to be given a bus ticket home. And that's probably gonna cause some tears. You're gonna see folks saying "Don't send Jose away from his family" while other folks say "If Jose cared about his family, he wouldn't be in a gang". And that little mini-tragedy will play out on every local news outlet, in every city, for a few months. Cable news pundits will love it because they have something to talk about, and after a few months, we can move on.

At that point, I think you'll see the country coalesce around a humanitarian sentiment that says "Ok, no new people are coming in, all the bad people have been sent home, let's just end this. The 8 million or however many people that are left, can stay. Let's get them on the books, integrated, and move on from this whole mess".

^If that happened, would you consider Trump a failure because he promised to deport everybody, and only fulfilled a fraction of his promise?

Or could you zoom out, look at the entire picture, the entire process, the overall success and say "Damn...that Trump is a really fucking good negotiator".

So yeah, not to try to qualify myself but I'm probably the oldest guy around here. Actually old enough to remember, albeit barely, Reagan campaigning in 80. That certainly doesn't mean I'm the smartest cat here nor does it mean I have much experience in politics. My generation kind of ignored the that shit and are probably the most significant reason we find ourselves in the hate political shit storm we find ourselves in.

Yes, you are being condescending but it's FTR man. I've been gone for a while but was around for long enough to know that if I couldn't handle it I certainly shouldn't be postin in a political thread in the community lol.

Your points are valid and we'll said though. The one point that I would mainly argue against is that this election is the same as any in regard to campaigning versus governing. There is so much difference between this election and previous ones. You're obviously a smart guy and see it as well as anyone else. It isn't necessary to draw correlations to other president elects because they don't exist. Trump is a completely new animal.

Also I'm not sure it's wise or even valid to defend or allow a new president to use the precedent set by former potus' for not sticking to their campaign promises. They are really promises are reread they not?

[Poopadoop]

One thing to note is that Trump presented himself as a non-politician, anti-establishment type. By doing this he may have raised the expectation that he would act contrary to typical elected-official-behavior by keeping his promises. Whether the people who believed that and voted accordingly were gullible fools is another question.

[BananaStand]

The one point that I would mainly argue against is that this election is the same as any in regard to campaigning versus governing. There is so much difference between this election and previous ones. You're obviously a smart guy and see it as well as anyone else. It isn't necessary to draw correlations to other president elects because they don't exist. Trump is a completely new animal.

Also I'm not sure it's wise or even valid to defend or allow a new president to use the precedent set by former potus' for not sticking to their campaign promises. They are really promises are reread they not?

One thing to note is that Trump presented himself as a non-politician, anti-establishment type. By doing this he may have raised the expectation that he would act contrary to typical elected-official-behavior by keeping his promises. Whether the people who believed that and voted accordingly were gullible fools is another question.

So help me understand this. Are you guys saying you WANT a totalitarian dictatorship?

I think the precedent applies Trump, and will apply to anyone who ever becomes president after him. A president doesn't just take the oath, and then wave his hands making all his promises come true. He has to lead the other two branches of government toward the same conclusion. In a representative democracy, no one should ever bat 1.000

A president who does bat 1.000 is a dictator, and we have a robust system of checks and balances to prevent that. Trump is NOT above them.

There are 435 members of congress, 100 senators, and 9 supreme court justices. That's a lot of people to convince. And the debate will happen publicly so that it can be scrutinized and influenced by public discourse, and the press. There's no way anyone, Trump or otherwise, is going to win every single battle, and never give any ground to the other side.

Obama promised to close Gitmo. He's got 9 days left and there's still like 40 something guys down there. It's probably not gonna happen.

Did he try? Probably? Did he try really really hard? Probably. Did he manage to reduce the number of detainees significantly? Yes, absolutely. Would you call that a campaign promise fulfilled? Or would you say he just told a crooked lie to win the campaign?

So I think people really gotta have realistic expectations regarding campaign promises, and actively try to perceive them merely as openings for negotiations, and not fascist edicts.

I think just about everyone in this country could use a refresher on 8th grade civics. Bernie promised a lot of "magic wand" solutions that would likely never get through congress, and people embraced them as if all their problems would be magically solved once he gets in office.

Idealogical demagogue's make bad leaders. Good leaders make compromises.

[Poopadoop]

So help me understand this. Are you guys saying you WANT a totalitarian dictatorship?

Not sure how you got from 'he should keep his promises' to 'we want a dictator'. Nice way of painting us though.

I think the precedent applies Trump, and will apply to anyone who ever becomes president after him. A president doesn't just take the oath, and then wave his hands making all his promises come true. He has to lead the other two branches of government toward the same conclusion. In a representative democracy, no one should ever bat 1.000

A president who does bat 1.000 is a dictator, and we have a robust system of checks and balances to prevent that. Trump is NOT above them.

There are 435 members of congress, 100 senators, and 9 supreme court justices. That's a lot of people to convince. And the debate will happen publicly so that it can be scrutinized and influenced by public discourse, and the press. There's no way anyone, Trump or otherwise, is going to win every single battle, and never give any ground to the other side.

Obama promised to close Gitmo. He's got 9 days left and there's still like 40 something guys down there. It's probably not gonna happen.

Did he try? Probably? Did he try really really hard? Probably. Did he manage to reduce the number of detainees significantly? Yes, absolutely. Would you call that a campaign promise fulfilled? Or would you say he just told a crooked lie to win the campaign?

So I think people really gotta have realistic expectations regarding campaign promises, and actively try to perceive them merely as openings for negotiations, and not fascist edicts.

Another way of looking at it is that politicians should understand all of this and stick to promises that they have a reasonable chance of being able to follow through on. Closing Gitmo was a reasonable promise, imho. Building a wall and making Mexico cough up $8b for it was not, imho.

[wufwugy]

So he believed all the hopey-changey stuff back then too? Awww.

I wasn't of the hopey changey brand. I was a Ron Paul guy in 2008. Didn't vote for Obama.

It's more like sometime in 2009 I jumped on the oh so enticing "oppressors vs oppressed" bandwagon. Chieftess Fibbing Goof, Paul "I Dunked My Economics PhD In The Toilet" Krugman, and Comrade Sanders were my favorite people in the world.

By 2013, I had seen Krugman contradict himself enough that I began looking elsewhere regarding economics. That was pretty much the first time I stepped outside of the echo chamber of the left in years.

[wufwugy]

We may be at the precipice of the opening of the floodgates of revealing the fake news organizations as fake news.

This story broke yesterday but it was so young that nothing succinct had been written on it, so I didn't post it. Here's a decent synopsis of what's happened so far. I'll add that the person who claims to be the author on /pol/ whose troll intel agencies picked up claims to be making moves with a lawyer to confirm it was him, as well as this accusation that Russia is blackmailing Trump has been covered by just about every fake news organization by now (CNN, Vox, etc).

It'll be interesting to see just how much of what the intel agencies and fake news organizations released/reported on was a troll.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017...erfable-trump/

[wufwugy]

I'll also add that the story doesn't make sense on the surface. How exactly is Obama going to stay in a hotel known to be tapped by Putin's government? How is he going to stay in a hotel that isn't thoroughly debugged in the first place? How is anybody going to know which room he stayed in, you know, since the administration will definitely rent out multiple rooms, maybe even the whole floor, for obvious security purposes?

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

Three good points (if not shopped, which they probably aren't).

https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/819021921849327616

[Poopadoop]

I think the key point of evidence in all this is whether or not Trump ordered pizza on the night in question. If we can find that out, we'll know if the story is true or fabricated.

[wufwugy]

Bingo.

[Jack Sawyer]

Sorry, I started to answer you earlier, but life




Here goes

Does she present evidence for the crux of her argument, which is at 6:35 to 7:20? The portion is constructed in such a way that without documentation that Exxon said what she said Exxon said, it is likely fabricated. Her entire argument depends on that portion not being fabricated. The best we can derive from the facts presented is that the dictator made what changes he wanted and that included Exxon. It very well could be that Exxon and Tillerson acting poorly, but this video does not present that.

Sure I could look into that particular story a bit more just for you wuf, as I personally find it fascinating. The moral as of now is this: you can’t let the wolf in charge of guarding the sheep.




Edit: More info came to light about this dude recently, including $500B (That’s half a $T!) and Putin etc. Exxon being Exxon, their foreign policy never fails to amaze.

I'm looking for more. Information that says Trump has any number of donors in his cabinet tells us nothing. For example, if Trump was selective with the denominator in who he accepted donations from (he was), it makes sense that there would be more donors in his cabinet. There being anywhere from zero to 100% donors in a cabinet does not tell us what level of integrity or lack thereof exists in the offices.

It tells us that if you are a donor to him, you get rewarded in quite direct ways. If you supported him financially, you get rewarded with whatever position you want. You just pick and choose that which suits your own agenda best. This is corruption on a blatant and unheard of level, at least in my opinion and it would shock me if just a few people would agree with this position.




If you fill a cabinet full of people who, with whatever sums, have contributed to your campaign, does that not indicate the most direct pay to play politics ever to you? Pay to play at its finest. Just asking.




Pay me and I let you in, to fulfill whatever position is most beneficial to you. Is that not as direct of a corrupt method as there has ever been? Well at least to me, it looks as if this is the longest practical joke gag there has ever been, being played on the unfortunate American people




Sidenote:


Rick Perry as the energy secretary? Are you fucking kidding me? It was one of the departments he wanted to eliminate had he been president, and he even actually forgot it was one of them when asked during the 2012 primaries

But there are much more serious reasons to be concerned about this nomination. In terms of qualifications, Mr. Perry, a former governor of Texas, doesn’t come close to his immediate predecessors. He would follow President Obama’s two energy secretaries: first, Steven Chu, a Nobel laureate physicist, and then Ernest J. Moniz, a distinguished nuclear physicist from M.I.T.




There are reasons the appointment of scientists to this position was and is particularly appropriate, especially now. While investment in new sources of energy (a subject on which both Mr. Chu and Mr. Moniz are experts) is a part of the energy secretary’s portfolio, by far the largest part of the department’s budget involves the stewardship of nuclear weapons, and research and development associated with the nuclear weapons complex. Moreover, the Department of Energy is the chief source of support for research in the physical sciences in the United States, providing far more money than the National Science Foundation, and supporting, among other things, fundamental inquiry in areas ranging from particle physics to cosmology.

C'mon bruh, come on now

[wufwugy]

My previous post on this addresses those concerns. I recommend returning to them.

Per Rick Perry, the reasons he was selected are because the Energy Department is a mess due to bloat and misuse. We need a manager who understands energy on the economic level who has a fierce desire to cut waste.

[wufwugy]

omg I love this:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...m-a-big-raise/

If they want it to pass, there's no way it wouldn't. It's unassailable given how much Democrats love raising minimum wages. They'd have to attack their own ideology to attack it.

It could also help put to bed the idea that raising minimum wage is good for low skill workers, since if effective, the policy would be pricing out low skill foreign labor. Also the legislation is a good idea since it would make domestic more productive. There's a lot of argument among economists on trade and immigration these days. A first order logic assessment of them is that more open is better, but higher order logic suggests openness is good only up to a point.

[BananaStand]

Another way of looking at it is that politicians should understand all of this and stick to promises that they have a reasonable chance of being able to follow through on.

Sure....that SOUNDS good, but it presumes that voters are smart enough to tell the difference between a reasonable promise, and a total fantasy.

The Bernie movement proves that they aren't.

[Poopadoop]

it presumes that voters are smart enough to tell the difference between a reasonable promise, and a total fantasy.

You're explaining why false promises work. That's a different thing than holding someone accountable for making them.

The Bernie movement proves that they aren't.

As does the Trump movement, apparently.

[wufwugy]

They're not promises unless they're promises. Campaigners rarely make promises. The voting public sets up their own pain by framing that which is clearly an agenda as instead promises. Trump adds an element that other politicians haven't yet: negotiation setup. His agenda will sound more extreme than normal because of this, but he will also get more done because of this. His voting base tends to view him as having an agenda and using negotiation tactics, instead of through the "promise" lens.

[wufwugy]

Furthermore, the "promise" lens probably is prevalent due to outsiders looking in. Dems don't understand what Repubs think, and vice versa. When people who don't get Trump or his voters look in, they see Trump making all sorts of promises. But Trump supporters never saw it that way in the first place. The only promise they think he made to them is that he would not betray them the way virtually every other Republican for over a decade has. That which constitutes betrayal is more complex than just not getting done something he said he would get done. Only to outsiders does it look so simplistic. The same is true vice versa.

[wufwugy]

The same is true vice versa.

Example: even though Obama said he was against gay marriage, very few of his supporters thought he was telling the truth. There's a whole lot more going on between a politician and those who vote for him than appears on the surface.

[Poopadoop]

It's not as complicated as you make it out to be. An agenda is stating an aim and/or general direction for policy, a promise is a more specific way of saying how you plan to fulfill that agenda.


Saying "We need to be tough on immigration" is stating an agenda.

Saying "I'm gonna build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it" is making a promise.


Saying "I want to get rid of corruption in government" is stating an agenda.

Saying "I'm gonna drain the swamp" is making a promise.


Saying "I plan to be tough on corrupt politicians" is stating an agenda.

Saying "I'm going to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton" is making a promise.


You can't take the specific promise and argue that it really means the underlying agenda. They're not the same thing. As I said before, if you promise your wife a new car for her birthday, given her an old beater, make her pay for it, and then tell her she wasn't meant to take the promise literally but is instead supposed to be happy 'cause she got a car, you'll be sleeping on the couch for a while.

Further, if what you say were true (i.e., if people really believed the promise was a metaphor for the agenda), you wouldn't need to make the promise and open yourself up to allegations of being a liar by those who 'misunderstood' you, rather you simply state the agenda.

Some proportion of voters are gullible fools who believe the specific promises. They don't all twist the logic around such that a specific promise is really meant to stand for a broader agenda. That has nothing to do with being a republican, democrat, or anything else.

[wufwugy]

It's not as complicated as you make it out to be. An agenda is stating an aim and/or general direction for policy, a promise is a more specific way of saying how you plan to fulfill that agenda.


Saying "We need to be tough on immigration" is stating an agenda.

Saying "I'm gonna build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it" is making a promise.


Saying "I want to get rid of corruption in government" is stating an agenda.

Saying "I'm gonna drain the swamp" is making a promise.


Saying "I plan to be tough on corrupt politicians" is stating an agenda.

Saying "I'm going to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton" is making a promise.


You can't take the specific promise and argue that it really means the underlying agenda. They're not the same thing. As I said before, if you promise your wife a new car for her birthday, given her an old beater, make her pay for it, and then tell her she wasn't meant to take the promise literally but is instead supposed to be happy 'cause she got a car, you'll be sleeping on the couch for a while.

Further, if what you say were true (i.e., if people really believed the promise was a metaphor for the agenda), you wouldn't need to make the promise and open yourself up to allegations of being a liar by those who 'misunderstood' you, rather you simply state the agenda.

Some proportion of voters are gullible fools who believe the specific promises. They don't all twist the logic around such that a specific promise is really meant to stand for a broader agenda. That has nothing to do with being a republican, democrat, or anything else.

View this within the context of politics and it changes. Each of those "promises" are not unconditional. Supporters of candidates tend to understand that while detractors do not.

The special prosecutor is a great example of this. Even though Trump said he's thinking about a special prosecutor, many of his supporters are anticipating that he will not do so due to the politics of the situation. People want to win. It's not that they want their "promises" fulfilled, but they want to win. Because winning > keeping "promises", many Trump supporters think it would be better if there is no special prosecutor and the issue just disappears. The belief is that Trump would be more capable of doing good if the Clinton thing took up zero capital.

Breaking promises doesn't matter. Breaking trust is what matters, and breaking trust is not as simple as "he said he would do something yet he didn't do it" (although that can be an element of breaking trust).

[wufwugy]

Some "promises" are big enough that breaking them would break trust. But it's still about the agenda and effort. Like the wall. If he doesn't try really hard yet it doesn't get built, he won't have broken trust but he will have broken enthusiasm and lost most capital and probably lose reelection.

[wufwugy]

As far as the actual breaking of promises, I suspect few will be broken. He will build the wall and Mexico will pay for it. Pay no attention to naysayers who say this promise has already been broken; their mental facilities are broken.

[BananaStand]

It does seem a tad early to be talking about broken promises considering he still hasn't been sworn in.

Also seems that despite Trump being vague, the MSM seems to think they can shove words in his mouth and paint a narrative that says mexico actually has to write a check.

There are probably countless economic tools that can swing the cash flow between US and Mexico. He'll use one of them. It probably won't be Mexico showing up at the border and humbly handing over a sack of cash.

[BananaStand]

Is it a coincidence that ever since Trump started making claims about Mexico paying for a wall, the peso has gone down the toilet?

[wufwugy]

Nupe.

Trump's hawkishness on Mexican illegals has been bad for the peso because Mexico depends quite heavily on repatriations from illegals.

[wufwugy]

Non-pro-Trump post:

The right-wing is making the same mistake the left did after Obama's first win. That mistake is thinking that the Democrat Party is doomed, won't recover, etc.. The exact same was believed of the GOP in 09. Even after the 2010 congressional stomping, it was widely believed the GOP couldn't take the WH no matter what.

Now the tables are turned even further in that the GOP has greater power now than the Dems did in 09 (when we include state legislatures/executives, and possibly courts). The reason the GOP rebounding so heavily was because of Obama's failure of a presidency. This means that for the right-wing to be correct that the Dems are "doomed", it will all depend on how well Trump and the GOP does. If they do very well, we'll get 8 years of Trump and most likely at least 4 years of his successor Republican. If he does not do well, the Dems will begin to rebound quickly and are likely to win 2024. In fact the Dems are in a much better spot to win 2020 if Trump doesn't deliver than the GOP was in 2012.

[wufwugy]

If Trump doesn't deliver, Booker, Sanders, or Warren will beat him. If he does well, they will lose to him.

[wufwugy]

If Trump doesn't deliver, Booker, Sanders, or Warren will beat him. If he does well, they will lose to him.

I should add that this was not true for Obama. His coalition was racist and ideological. Trump's coalition is more merit-based than that. His coalition will vanish if he doesn't deliver spectacularly. Obama could have shit on a picture of Abraham Lincoln on national news and probably still won.

[wufwugy]

Carson's words about how to fix urban problems are not looking good. He seems to be banking on there being more jobs for people on welfare to go to and isn't keen on reforming welfare. Hopefully this is just his words not telling the whole story, because that approach will not work. It's all about incentives, and that which would work is reforming welfare so that it's tied to work in such a way that more work results in more betterment and less work results in less betterment. If the Trump administration does not use this approach, it will fail inner city employment situation.

[Poopadoop]

What does Steve Harvey say?

[wufwugy]

He's trying to rebuild his image by befriending Trump now. Didn't say much of substance.

[BananaStand]

The right-wing is making the same mistake the left did after Obama's first win. That mistake is thinking that the Democrat Party is doomed, won't recover, etc.. The exact same was believed of the GOP in 09.

I don't know man, I'm not sure it's the "same". I mean, right now the Dems are shitting all of the GOP for not having an Obamacare replacement ready. To that I say..."Well Dems, maybe they wanna let you guys have a say?"

Dems lost because of 8 years that seek to entitle lower class folks at the expense of the working middle class. And they maintained that by condemning any resistance as "racist", "misogynist" and whatever else was in Hillary's basket. If they plan to recover, they really have to break away from that. Unfortunately for them, alot of the names being thrown out for 2020 are old school octogenarians

Do you not agree that if the dems run Elizabeth Warren in 2020, they are pretty much toast in all three branches of gov't?

Maybe the Dems did percieve the end of the GOP in 2009, but that's because their leader Obama harbors this delusional philosophy where he believes that by winning the election...the entire country would automatically adopt his ideology. He literally believed that the mere act of his election, would heal the middle east. At least that's what I saw.

Remember when Barry shut down John McCain during some meeting about the health care law? "John...you lost!"

It was only after they were shut out, shut down, and shit on that the GOP became "the party of no". I think they believed they were making a patriotic protest against excessive government power. But when filtered through the media, their movement became colored with much more villainy than it really deserved.

Jill Stein's recount stunt was just sad.

[Poopadoop]

He's trying to rebuild his image by befriending Trump now. Didn't say much of substance.

It's very magnanimous of Trump to indulge him. Most P.E. have better things to do.

[BananaStand]

So this pretty much explains why the Dems are in the shape they are in.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/521035448...#sp=show-clips

[wufwugy]

I don't know man, I'm not sure it's the "same". I mean, right now the Dems are shitting all of the GOP for not having an Obamacare replacement ready. To that I say..."Well Dems, maybe they wanna let you guys have a say?"

For the most part I think they're gonna have to lose even harder in 2020 for eyes to begin opening. But you may be right. There are some fundamental differences between left and right thought processes. The left may be fundamentally less capable of recovery (since it's a purist SJW ideology at its core) than the right.

Dems lost because of 8 years that seek to entitle lower class folks at the expense of the working middle class. And they maintained that by condemning any resistance as "racist", "misogynist" and whatever else was in Hillary's basket. If they plan to recover, they really have to break away from that. Unfortunately for them, alot of the names being thrown out for 2020 are old school octogenarians

I agree, but I think their bench is better than the GOP's was for 2012. If Trump has a lackluster presidency and the Dems run Booker, it could get ugly for the GOP.

Do you not agree that if the dems run Elizabeth Warren in 2020, they are pretty much toast in all three branches of gov't?

I think she's a better candidate than Clinton was. She energizes the base big time. They like her even more than they like Sanders.

However, I'm not sure she has the fortitude to wage the war of presidential politics. Also she's goofy. That one sticks.

Maybe the Dems did percieve the end of the GOP in 2009, but that's because their leader Obama harbors this delusional philosophy where he believes that by winning the election...the entire country would automatically adopt his ideology. He literally believed that the mere act of his election, would heal the middle east. At least that's what I saw.

I don't know what he was thinking. A part of me believes the theory that he's pro-Islamism and anti-west and wanted Middle East chaos. The evidence for this is shaky, but man his possible Freudian slip of "my Muslim faith" and the sheer "incompetence" of overturning dictatorships and letting chips fall as they may suggest his agenda is different than the declared.

It was only after they were shut out, shut down, and shit on that the GOP became "the party of no". I think they believed they were making a patriotic protest against excessive government power. But when filtered through the media, their movement became colored with much more villainy than it really deserved.

That is a good point. Part of the GOP was on board at first. It's not like now where the PEOTUS is Literal Hitler.

[BananaStand]

I agree, but I think their bench is better than the GOP's was for 2012. If Trump has a lackluster presidency and the Dems run Booker, it could get ugly for the GOP.

I think you're making the same mistake that the Dems made in this election. Booker, Warren, or Jesus Horatio Christ could run in 2020 and will still lose unless they have a message that hits the working middle class. They don't have one. And their behavior since the election shows that they just don't get it. Popular vote whining, recounts, russia. None of that shows me that anyone on the left "got the message".

But c'mon, regardless of who runs, I can't see Trump losing another election. If he really does badly, and doesn't think he can win, he won't run again. He'll say "i've done all i can, I've done a great job. Such a great job. I almost can't believe how good of a job I've done. It was so good, I don't think I can do it again" And that will be that.

If his first four years are good enough to run again...he'll win. He's proven that he's in a league of his own when it comes to dominating the media and winning a campaign. I don't care if his platform was topless teachers and taxpayer funded casinos on the moon. I wouldn't bet against the guy.

[Savy]

He'll say "i've done all i can, I've done a great job. Such a great job. I almost can't believe how good of a job I've done. It was so good, I don't think I can do it again"

Definitely wouldn't say the bold bit that's loser speak. The rest he would.

[wufwugy]

So this pretty much explains why the Dems are in the shape they are in.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/521035448...#sp=show-clips

Their organizing principle is anti-western-values. I don't know where this comes from or why it exists (but I have a hypothesis). It's a very weird ideology too since it embraces contradictory elements, like it's very pro-Marxism as well as pro-Islamism even though those are each incompatible with the other.

My hypothesis is that this all comes from white guilt. We are brainwashed from the very beginning of our lives by media and schools that whites are to be ashamed of their race due to slavery, and the unintended consequences of this are people trying to tear down white culture no matter how unconnected to slavery (or even race) it is.

[wufwugy]

I think you're making the same mistake that the Dems made in this election. Booker, Warren, or Jesus Horatio Christ could run in 2020 and will still lose unless they have a message that hits the working middle class. They don't have one. And their behavior since the election shows that they just don't get it. Popular vote whining, recounts, russia. None of that shows me that anyone on the left "got the message".

But c'mon, regardless of who runs, I can't see Trump losing another election. If he really does badly, and doesn't think he can win, he won't run again. He'll say "i've done all i can, I've done a great job. Such a great job. I almost can't believe how good of a job I've done. It was so good, I don't think I can do it again" And that will be that.

If his first four years are good enough to run again...he'll win. He's proven that he's in a league of his own when it comes to dominating the media and winning a campaign. I don't care if his platform was topless teachers and taxpayer funded casinos on the moon. I wouldn't bet against the guy.

You could be right. I certainly don't think the Dems have anywhere close to a good shot if Trump does very well. His presidency would have to suck for them to have a shot IMO.

[wufwugy]

Their organizing principle is anti-western-values. I don't know where this comes from or why it exists (but I have a hypothesis). It's a very weird ideology too since it embraces contradictory elements, like it's very pro-Marxism as well as pro-Islamism even though those are each incompatible with the other.

My hypothesis is that this all comes from white guilt. We are brainwashed from the very beginning of our lives by media and schools that whites are to be ashamed of their race due to slavery, and the unintended consequences of this are people trying to tear down white culture no matter how unconnected to slavery (or even race) it is.

We're seeing this type of thing in Germany now. They have Holocaust guilt or Nazi guilt or whatever they call it, and it propels them to embrace idiotic social justice that is likely to screw them for the rest of the country's existence. Contrast this to Poland, which has no guilt and instead due to being obliterated so severely by all sides in previous wars, knows the importance of securing national culture. The Visegrad Group is going places these days IMO.

[BananaStand]

Is this fake news? Or is this REALLY the state of race relations in this country.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...QHf?li=BBnb7Kz

So Lewis goes on national TV and basically says "I think Russia had their thumb on the scale, and so Trump's win is not legitimate." Ok. Nevermind how naive and ignorant that is. He's entitled to free speech. So is Trump. And as far as I can tell, Trump's response amounted to "Hey, focus on your own job"

Now we have the new york times using that exchange to publish a racist diatribe against trump.

These two quotes are especially heinous as they imply that Trump's response deliberately chose to ignore a civil rights movement that happened 50 years before Lewis' interview.

Mr. Trump, through Twitter, is giving the world access in real time to his unvarnished thoughts, which Mr. Neal called “raw, unsophisticated, ignorant and uninformed.”

“He doesn’t care that people think the civil rights movement was important,” Mr. Neal said. “He doesn’t feel the need to perform some sort of belief that it is important.”

“they heard what he said about John Lewis, which was tantamount to spitting in our face,” he said. “What you’re telling black people is that all the things John Lewis directly was involved in that resulted in the legislation that we are fighting to maintain and make permanent, you consider nothing.”

Trump made a 140 character response to a direct attack on his presidency, from a sitting member of congress.

And now the NYT publishes 20 paragraphs about how Trump's real message is to dismiss the significance of the civil rights movement??

Help me understand this

[wufwugy]

Is this fake news? Or is this REALLY the state of race relations in this country.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...QHf?li=BBnb7Kz

So Lewis goes on national TV and basically says "I think Russia had their thumb on the scale, and so Trump's win is not legitimate." Ok. Nevermind how naive and ignorant that is. He's entitled to free speech. So is Trump. And as far as I can tell, Trump's response amounted to "Hey, focus on your own job"

Now we have the new york times using that exchange to publish a racist diatribe against trump.

These two quotes are especially heinous as they imply that Trump's response deliberately chose to ignore a civil rights movement that happened 50 years before Lewis' interview.





Trump made a 140 character response to a direct attack on his presidency, from a sitting member of congress.

And now the NYT publishes 20 paragraphs about how Trump's real message is to dismiss the significance of the civil rights movement??

Help me understand this

For decades, the media in the US has been about social justice. They are Marxist and during the Cold War were largely pro-communist. The culture of the media has not changed since then, only their strategies. The tool that turns a society from healthy to a Marxist Utopia like communism involves class warfare. The media still uses the bourgeoisie vs proletariat classism, but that hasn't stuck in the US character like it did in Russia. The media doesn't want to use the fascist approach to social justice by way of nationalism because American national character is pro-capitalist, so that wouldn't work. The strategy shift unique to the US media is race. This innovation of classism allows them to dissemble American culture piece by piece since American culture is historically associated with white skin color and slavery was associated with black skin color, yet being "white" or "black" was mostly about culture instead of color, except when it came to slavery (if you want more on this, I can explain. It's fascinating stuff).

This neo-classism of race-baiting at every turn is the tool the media has used to further its Marxism. They've successfully framed white people and mainstream culture as bad, and have convinced any who have any type of issue with a white person or with the mainstream culture that it's *truly* because of racism. This galvanizes the person into the non-white camp, while embracing mainstream culture puts them in the white camp (there are many historical examples of this and contemporary as well). The propaganda is so intense today that black conservatives are considered more white than black (it's merely because they take on a "white" role). Another example is how black urban students get harassed and assaulted when trying to succeed in school due to trying to be "white." Anyways, I'm sidetracking here.

This neo-classism tool of race-baiting has been used successfully to usher in a tremendous amount of Marxist ideals to the society. The welfare state having grown from nothing to the vastness it is now is just one example. The version of social justice the Soviets used couldn't topple the US character, neither could the version of social justice the Nazis used. But this version of racism is doing so successfully. Given that the media is mostly made up of social justice proponents, racism is their agenda.

It should be added that race isn't the only thing they use; it's just the most powerful. They create divisions on gender and sexual orientation (and political Islam) too. The gender related stuff is important since it's all about destruction of the family, the main barrier between here and a Marxist Utopia. I won't get into it more unless you want.

[BananaStand]

I won't get into it more unless you want.

You've already gone beyond the call of duty sir. My plea to "help understand this" was mostly rhetorical.

It seems crazy to me to leap from "Hey, make your district better" to "The civil rights movement was a waste of time". I'm not about to counter that by leaping to conclusions about a mainstream conspiracy towards Marxism.

one of the quotes I referenced was from Al Sharpton. That guy really doesn't care about ushering in a Marxist Utopia. He's just advertising. He's part of a cottage industry that conjures up racial outrage and uses it as a business opportunity. Guys like him, Ben Crump, Keith Ellison, and the Johnny Cochrans of the world are exploiting racial injustice to benefit their own careers and/or get rich.

I guess that explains the NY Times here too. The words "Trump" + "racist" = money.

[wufwugy]

You've already gone beyond the call of duty sir. My plea to "help understand this" was mostly rhetorical.

It seems crazy to me to leap from "Hey, make your district better" to "The civil rights movement was a waste of time". I'm not about to counter that by leaping to conclusions about a mainstream conspiracy towards Marxism.

one of the quotes I referenced was from Al Sharpton. That guy really doesn't care about ushering in a Marxist Utopia. He's just advertising. He's part of a cottage industry that conjures up racial outrage and uses it as a business opportunity. Guys like him, Ben Crump, Keith Ellison, and the Johnny Cochrans of the world are exploiting racial injustice to benefit their own careers and/or get rich.

I guess that explains the NY Times here too. The words "Trump" + "racist" = money.

That's definitely true. It isn't like the agenda is explicit at every corner. Sharpton is in it for the money. The push towards Marxism is explicit in some ways but is mostly descriptive from the outside. Most in the media don't know that what they're doing is social justice and some who do think social justice is good.

Also, calling it Marxism is basically understanding them better than they understand themselves. They don't call themselves SJWs, Marxists, or fascists even though they have the same ideology. They don't call themselves those because they are ignorant. Just like fascism was rebranded from being a sibling of communism to diametrically opposed, many today have rebranded history and inadvertently push towards a return to a Marxist Utopia.

[JKDS]

If the civil rights movement was important, then how can Lewis be described as "all talk, no action?"

Isn't trump minimizing this man's contributions by saying as such? Are you surprised that all of Lewis's accomplishments are brought up in response?