Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

**** Elections thread *****

Page 51 of 111 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361101 ... LastLast
Results 3,751 to 3,825 of 8309
  1. #3751
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Trump is not wrong when he says US gets killed on trade. It's not too much because of differentiation in tariffs (there doesn't seem to be as much of that), but is mostly about differentiation in regulation. This is one reason why I'm skeptical about Trump being able to really fix trade. Fixing trade would mean deregulating industry domestically. But maybe it can be done. RGDP growth would skyrocket.
    There's a way to drastically increase the trade we do with other countries. Bring our costs down on what it costs to do trade with us, this is why I'm opposed to the tariff's, as Trump did in fact propose on the campaign trail, which is the only evidence we have at this moment on how he will govern.

    But here's the other thing. We're at a crossroads in this country.

    If we wanted to get much more trade, we can bring the cost down of goods in this country and therefore attracting countries to trade with us, by simply paying the American worker significantly less than they make now. We can choose to have American workers wages compete with the workers wages in say, France, Germany, Canada and The Netherlands, or we can have American workers wages compete with the workers wages of countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ivory Coast, and Sri Lanka.
  2. #3752
    I really hate our faggoty national anthem.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  3. #3753
    bigred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,437
    Location
    Nest of Douchebags
    After days of researching, reading articles from the other side, articles on why the DNC lost, etc, I am still struggling with a few things.

    1) It's often been cited that Obama has ruined the economy and Trump is here to fix it but it seems like unemployment rates are low. We have the 6th highest GDP in the world and we're the second largest manufacturer. So when I read generalized statements that Trump is going to fix the economy, I'm scratching my head. Can someone clarify what he's going to fix? Can someone show me statistics to support this "declining economy" trump is going to fix?

    2) I've tried. I really have tried...to understand the backlash against Hillary. I think she's a crook but so is Donald Trump. You don't get to these places of power by being honest. On top of being a crook, he's also a racist, xenophobe, and misogynist. Despite exploring avenues and going back and forth for days, I still come to the conclusion that a vote for Donald trump is a vote for racism, xenophobia, and misogyny. Whether you're directly one of those attributes (the Republican minority) or simply enabling it by ignoring it (the Republican majority, imo), you voted for it. Say what you want about voting out corruption, you're enabling racism, xenophobia, and misogyny (in my opinion). Can someone counter this argument? To me, voting for lower tax rates and more money in your pocket over the welfare of your fellow Americans (i.e. women, Muslims, and other minorities) is not American, short sighted, and unethical. Help me understand why Trump supporters are not racists. I've spent the last week researching it with the hypothesis that they're not, but I'm back to where I am. Whether it's direct racism or racism by enablement or indifference, it's still racism.

    I'll acknowledge the DNC lost because it failed to appeal to the economic concerns of a major part of America. However, I feel that acknowledgement is somewhat in conflict with my #1. It also depresses me that economy seems to be a higher value than human rights. Maybe it's my liberal elitism because I've had so many amazing opportunities and I've never known what it's like to be be fiscally challenged.

    I am truly trying to make sense of things. I don't want to hate on people who voted for Trump. Hate's a waste of my time. But I can't understand it. I really can't.
    LOL OPERATIONS
  4. #3754
    1) If you think that Trump won because people were dissatisfied with the economy, you're probably asking the wrong people. Democratic pundits might use this as one excuse, but it really doesn't explain things for the reasons you mentioned. The main issues identifed by voters were immigration and terrorism.

    2) I think the idea that America has voted for racism is appealing to those who are looking for an explanation, but it's also wrong. To accept that, you'd have to believe they weren't racist four or eight years ago when they elected Obama, but then something changed. Seems unlikely.

    A better explanation might be that Trump was able to make color an issue in a way that Obama didn't and Obama's opponents couldn't for obvious reasons.


    Research by Harvard political scientist Ryan Enos suggests that when confronted with different racial groups, even liberal white voters turn rightward. In one study, Enos sent pairs of native Spanish-speaking Latino men to ride commuter trains in Boston, surveyed their fellow riders' political views both before and after, and also surveyed riders on trains not used in the experiment as a control.

    "The results were clear," Enos wrote in a Washington Post op-ed. "After coming into contact, for just minutes each day, with two more Latinos than they would otherwise see or interact with, the riders, who were mostly white and liberal, were sharply more opposed to allowing more immigrants into the country and favored returning the children of illegal immigrants to their parents’ home country. It was a stark shift from their pre-experiment interviews, during which they expressed more neutral attitudes."

    Enos’s commuter train experiment is Trump’s electoral strategy in a nutshell.
    from: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...-did-trump-win
  5. #3755
    It's also important to realise no one actually knows why, if they did they'd win every election going.

    We're at a time pretty much world wide where immigration is being used as the excuse for lots of things and as a result people are moving more towards the right in their voting. It isn't just an America thing it's happening in the vast majority of places. To try and then assign all the reasons on relatively localised issues and get a correct answer is always going to throw up a lot of falseness.

    Another thing is people aren't all that logical about issues and don't put in the research to determine how true things are. If you keep repeating something you're more likely to believe it's true (part of the explanation as to my first point) whether it is or is not true. How people feel is much more important than the actual truth & those feelings need to be explained. It's much easier to blame smaller groups of people than yourself or those running the show.

    That and Clinton is awful.
  6. #3756
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    We're at a time pretty much world wide where immigration is being used as the excuse for lots of things and as a result people are moving more towards the right in their voting. It isn't just an America thing it's happening in the vast majority of places.
    Funny that Canada seems to have gone the other way than the rest of the Western world on that count. Don't know why that is though.


    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    That and Clinton is awful.
    This plus a million. Imagine if Obama had been allowed to run again.
  7. #3757
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  8. #3758
    Quote Originally Posted by bigred View Post
    After days of researching, reading articles from the other side, articles on why the DNC lost, etc, I am still struggling with a few things.

    1) It's often been cited that Obama has ruined the economy and Trump is here to fix it but it seems like unemployment rates are low. We have the 6th highest GDP in the world and we're the second largest manufacturer. So when I read generalized statements that Trump is going to fix the economy, I'm scratching my head. Can someone clarify what he's going to fix? Can someone show me statistics to support this "declining economy" trump is going to fix?

    2) I've tried. I really have tried...to understand the backlash against Hillary. I think she's a crook but so is Donald Trump. You don't get to these places of power by being honest. On top of being a crook, he's also a racist, xenophobe, and misogynist. Despite exploring avenues and going back and forth for days, I still come to the conclusion that a vote for Donald trump is a vote for racism, xenophobia, and misogyny. Whether you're directly one of those attributes (the Republican minority) or simply enabling it by ignoring it (the Republican majority, imo), you voted for it. Say what you want about voting out corruption, you're enabling racism, xenophobia, and misogyny (in my opinion). Can someone counter this argument? To me, voting for lower tax rates and more money in your pocket over the welfare of your fellow Americans (i.e. women, Muslims, and other minorities) is not American, short sighted, and unethical. Help me understand why Trump supporters are not racists. I've spent the last week researching it with the hypothesis that they're not, but I'm back to where I am. Whether it's direct racism or racism by enablement or indifference, it's still racism.

    I'll acknowledge the DNC lost because it failed to appeal to the economic concerns of a major part of America. However, I feel that acknowledgement is somewhat in conflict with my #1. It also depresses me that economy seems to be a higher value than human rights. Maybe it's my liberal elitism because I've had so many amazing opportunities and I've never known what it's like to be be fiscally challenged.

    I am truly trying to make sense of things. I don't want to hate on people who voted for Trump. Hate's a waste of my time. But I can't understand it. I really can't.
    First I'd like to say that this election did in fact mostly have to do with race, more than economics. They'll play it off as an election over economics, because it's the least morally indefensible path to take on this matter.

    I didn't vote for Trump, but I can answer the racial/misogynist/ethnicist aspect of it, as a White Male. When I grew up in school, while we had black classmates, and we were nice to them and all, I can say I did at least, engage in "soft-racism". Most White people can't even agree on what racism is exactly, unless it's extremely overt, and even then you'll get defenders of the racist. But they'll flat out deny anything is racist if it's not extremely overt.

    One reason Whites teach their kids not to say "nigger" around Black people, isn't that we're trying to reduce racism in our society. It's because it plays our hand face up when it's that overt. "Soft racism is much harder to detect..

    Most Whites, they'll be friendly to minorities to their faces, wave hi to their Muslim neighbors, and be nice to the parents of color who have children at the White parents school. But in the back of our heads I'm sure there is some sense of "I'm superior to you".

    I use to be racist/misogynist/ethnicist and hated gays, but it was much more "soft" than outright visiting KKK websites and so on and so forth. I often engaged in soft-racism, and when no one was around, occasionally in overt-racism.

    I remember when I was 14 my friend and I were eating at a Chinese restaurant, and he saw a Black man and White woman with each other, and he passively disagreed with their relationship. Bear in mind, this guy is not a KKK member, but he's also 18 at the time. And then he told me some words that have stuck with me my entire life, he said "Thank God, I'm White". There was a lot of wisdom in that statement based on how there is somewhat of a caste system in our society even if it's more difficult to see. The Whites being at the top of the caste system, we'll flatly deny that our society is racist at all, look at Michael Jordan, look at Lebron James, look at Oprah, they're all very successful Black people, ergo, we're not a racist society.

    I eventually reformed, to the best of my ability, my former racist/misogynist/ethnicist/hatred of gays, ways of life. I'm much more Egalitarian than I use to be. I still haven't rooted it out entirely, I think deep down were all racist in some way or another. I at least guard against it, but some people embrace it. I like engaging in self-reflection and character development. Trump is a President, who seems to have never engaged in self-reflection or character development his entire life.

    Also I have the advantage in that my Dad, was an Equal Employment Opportunity Arbitrator for the Corp of Engineers in Human Resources, He valued "fairness" far more than anything else at his job, so prejudices against people over their race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation, or even disability's, he could not have tainting his decisions, if he wanted to perform his job correctly and as fairly as possible.
    Last edited by JimmyS1985; 11-13-2016 at 11:55 AM.
  9. #3759
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyS1985 View Post
    One reason Whites teach their kids not to say "nigger" around Black people, isn't that we're trying to reduce racism in our society. It's because it plays our hand face up when it's that overt.
    When the fuck did I get this talk?
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  10. #3760
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    When the fuck did I get this talk?
    Maybe we never got a specific talk about it, but I think there's a healthy dose of it being implied, even without being verbalized.
  11. #3761
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyS1985 View Post
    I use to be racist/misogynist/ethnicist and hated gays, but it was much more "soft" than outright visiting KKK websites and so on and so forth. I often engaged in soft-racism, and when no one was around, occasionally in overt-racism.
    What does this mean? because it sounds like the original sin of white, straight maleness that Shanker Vidantham (not spelled right) keeps talking about.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  12. #3762
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyS1985 View Post
    Maybe we never got a specific talk about it, but I think there's a healthy dose of it being implied, even without being verbalized.
    I've lived in whitesville during most of my upbringing and younger life, and we learned the sticks-and-stones side of things.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  13. #3763
    I'm very happy you're investigating with an open mind and asking these great questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by bigred View Post

    1) It's often been cited that Obama has ruined the economy and Trump is here to fix it but it seems like unemployment rates are low. We have the 6th highest GDP in the world and we're the second largest manufacturer. So when I read generalized statements that Trump is going to fix the economy, I'm scratching my head. Can someone clarify what he's going to fix? Can someone show me statistics to support this "declining economy" trump is going to fix?
    The economy is significantly weaker at this point in the business cycle than it has been in other recoveries. Even with low unemployment, inflation is still low. Interest rates are still near bottom, and every attempt the Fed makes at raising them lowers growth expectations. If the business cycle were to down slope, which happens every ~10 years or so, the ability for the Fed to respond is far weaker than it has been in memory and even in 2008. The employment gains the economy has made are proportioned more towards part-time work than usual.

    Obama's recovery has been a bad one because it has been weaker than typical recoveries. The recovery has happened despite what he's done, not because of it. His fiscal policies have only hurt us, and the growth we've had can be almost entirely summed up by expansive monetary policy and expanded fracking. The Midwest is particularly upset because they see the infrastructure of bad economic policies. Even though they partly misdiagnose the reason why manufacturing has changed, they are not wrong in that government policies have caused a good deal of harm in the area. As a side note, the short on manufacturing is that, yeah, it may be have high output today, but that's because capital is replacing labor. This benefits investors and the world, but hurts the laborers. What has not been done, yet needs to be done, is deregulate labor and industry so that capital is not so attractive relative to labor. That's not necessarily on Obama, though. Unions and voters in those states favor big regulation without realizing it's the primary factor they can affect that changes the quantity demanded of their labor.

    2) I've tried. I really have tried...to understand the backlash against Hillary. I think she's a crook but so is Donald Trump. You don't get to these places of power by being honest.
    If Trump is a crook, we don't know it. He might be, but we just do not know so. With Hillary, we know so. Comey's testimony revealed her criminality. He recommended not prosecuting for what is best described as political purposes. Generals have been prosecuted for much less than what she did. Her husband is also a confirmed sexual predator.

    On top of being a crook, he's also a racist, xenophobe, and misogynist.
    I was one of the many who heard what he said, heard what others said about it, and agreed that he was indeed racist and sexist. But I was wrong. We can examine what he said and find that he was never discussing race nor disparaging women. He never attacked citizens. By contrast, Hillary attacked citizens quite a bit.

    I'm not sure what to recommend. It took me about a month of reading Scott Adams to shift from the view that Trump was the most bigoted person to run for president, and I was only open to the idea because I was interested in understanding Trump since I knew I was going to vote Republican or nobody. You've expressed that you do not like Adams, so I'm not sure what specifically I can say. Of those who discuss Trump in a positive light, he is just about the most palatable.

    One thing I will say is that as the months roll by, keep this in mind. I think you'll see that Trump doesn't do any of the bigoted stuff he has been accused of.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 11-13-2016 at 12:37 PM.
  14. #3764
    I can't even listen to Trump speak on the radio or on tv. I'm going to do a whole lot less tv watching these next 4 years, the guy speaks on like a 3rd or 4th grade level. And politifact ranks 85% of his statements are at best a half truth, and at worst, mostly false, false, and liar liar pants on fire.

    If 85% of what the President of the United States says is practically a lie if not an outright lie, I just won't listen to him.

    He reminds me of President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho, which was funny watching his State of the Union speech, but when it's reality, it quickly loses it's humor and can become scary.

    I just hope when the wealthy receive their tax cuts, they'll start creating jobs, raising workers wages, and creating businesses here. Didn't really happen under Bush considering he only created like 2 million jobs in his 8 years, hopefully this time Trump won't fail us.
  15. #3765
    A note on racism, sexism, and your garden variety bigotry: our society out to lunch on what those things are. Racism is when you think somebody is a certain way because of his race. It is not even about making an observation that associates with race, even though probably 99.9999% of people (including me) tend to think it is. The "out to lunch" goes far beyond this. Things have gotten so ridiculous that it has become instinctive to equate national identity with race (only some of them), religion with race (only some of them), and to keep double standards the name of the game.

    In one of the cases with Trump, he discussed Mexico. Mexico is not a race; it's a nation-state. He discussed it in the context of illegal migration. At other times he discussed how he loves Mexicans (which the hoaxing media called a racist dog whistle) and how he thinks a judge with Mexican heritage might have a conflict of interest when ruling over a case with Trump (which is true). The hoaxing media lied and said Trump thinks being Mexican means you can't be a good judge.

    One of the reasons for Trump supporters' enthusiasm is that we're tired of being told we're bigots when we're not. Our society has gotten to the point that accusations of bigotry almost always define bigotry incorrectly and almost always come from a source of virtue signalling and professional victimhood. I've been called a bigot on this very forum for those reasons. We want to discuss the issues. All of us want this. But it can't happen when having an opinion elicits an immediate response of bigotry.

    Clinton supporters are smart and well-meaning people. They're not ones who get this wrong. The hoaxing media is the one that gets this wrong. They lie and push an agenda of divisiveness. They do everything they possibly can to explain everything through the lens of righteous good guys and bigoted bad guys. Our culture is reaping the consequences of their hoaxes.
  16. #3766
    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyS1985 View Post
    I can't even listen to Trump speak on the radio or on tv. I'm going to do a whole lot less tv watching these next 4 years, the guy speaks on like a 3rd or 4th grade level. And politifact ranks 85% of his statements are at best a half truth, and at worst, mostly false, false, and liar liar pants on fire.
    Politifact is biased. I've seen it rate something Sanders has said as true and when Trump said the same thing it was rated as false.

    I just hope when the wealthy receive their tax cuts, they'll start creating jobs, raising workers wages, and creating businesses here. Didn't really happen under Bush considering he only created like 2 million jobs in his 8 years, hopefully this time Trump won't fail us.
    Allow me to ask for caution on this issue. That tax policies of Republicans benefit the wealthy and hurt the non-wealthy is a myth. "Trickle down" was a hoax, but it's a part of our common vernacular because the media ran with it.
  17. #3767
  18. #3768
    “We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign,” the letter reads. “You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.”
    That's about as far from an apology as it gets. Trump's pants are on fire again. Time to change the password.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 11-13-2016 at 01:41 PM.
  19. #3769
    My guess is that Trump's way of healing and uniting the country will be to continually tell everyone how great he is and how they should all get behind him.
  20. #3770
    Trump has done more in 4 days to unite the country than Obama did in 7+ years. Under budget, ahead of schedule.
  21. #3771
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Trump has done more in 4 days to unite the country than Obama did in 7+ years. Under budget, ahead of schedule.
    Lol ya i can tell. All those rioters are people who love Trump.
  22. #3772
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Lol ya i can tell. All those rioters are people who love Trump.
    The country is not yet more united, but it will be.
  23. #3773
    If he wants to unite people, he should start sending positive messages about something besides himself.
  24. #3774
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    If he wants to unite people, he should start sending positive messages about something besides himself.
    He does. You're not seeing it on account of cognitive dissonance.
  25. #3775
    It's also that the media doesn't show it. Trump spent a good deal of time trying to be the uniter, but the media only showed anything that can be construed as divisive.
  26. #3776
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    He does. You're not seeing it on account of cognitive dissonance.
    Give me some examples of what he's done to unite people.

    There was the one tweet about protesters having passion for the country, somewhat diminished though since it followed a tweet blaming the media for the protests.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 11-13-2016 at 02:26 PM.
  27. #3777
    Actually his acceptance speech was also pretty good.

    But it seems now he's back on form. Openly lying about NYT, tweeting how everyone loves him...

    Edit: I guess it's hard for him to tell people 'it's a great country, now let's pull together' when he's been telling them it's not and it needs him to save it.

    Edit2: Oh and I guess he said some nice things about Obama and his wife. Though that's pretty much what you'd expect anyone in his position to do, so not sure he deserves any praise for that.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 11-13-2016 at 02:30 PM.
  28. #3778
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    tweeting how everyone loves him...
    This is the perfect example. You're primed to see this and interpret it the way you did.

    The purpose of the Bush, Romney, Kasich tweets are to speak positively of those who openly antagonized him. Kasich voted against him, Romney did that and more, Bush too. Trumps tweets are thanking them for changing position and supporting him now, even though it's after the fact, and are also directed at their supporters into the fold. His comments align very well with the ideal of bringing people together and making things more positive.

    Just the other day you made a comment about Trump's enemies list. Implicated from this is that he should be predicted to attack his chief enemies. Kasich, Bush, and Romney are at the top of his chief "enemies" (the very top). And what did Trump do today? He made peace with them.
  29. #3779
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    This is the perfect example. You're primed to see this and interpret it the way you did.
    You're primed to view it favourably for Trump.


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The purpose of the Bush, Romney, Kasich tweets are to speak positively of those who openly antagonized him.
    Assuming those tweets are the truth (which is questionable), there's another interpretation: It's that he's trying to say everyone (like the NYT) is eating humble pie now and telling him he's great. Classic Trump.
  30. #3780
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    You're primed to view it favourably for Trump.
    I am. Being human means being irrational. The best I can do is try to recognize it and correct for it when it poses a problem.
  31. #3781
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Just the other day you made a comment about Trump's enemies list. Implicated from this is that he should be predicted to attack his chief enemies. Kasich, Bush, and Romney are at the top of his chief "enemies" (the very top). And what did Trump do today? He made peace with them.
    ...or a perfect way to stick the needle in, especially if he just made up those phone calls. It's not like it's beyond him to do that obviously.
  32. #3782
    There's something called the "fake because". It's when somebody comes to a decision "because" some reason, yet they were already pre-suaded in that direction in the first place and were subconsciously looking for a reason to make the decision. One of the ways I experienced this with myself is when I was asking members of this forum for input on a new laptop. There was a point where I knew that my line of questioning for MMM was pre-suading myself to go with his recommendation, and it was one particular reason he made that was my "fake because" for when I finally decided to buy the one he recommended.

    Anyways, Scott Adams had a great line on this. A month or so ago he endorsed Trump for the first time. His expressed rationale for why was because Clinton favored a very high estate tax that Adams felt would wrongfully take from what he had already paid taxes on. On his periscope, somebody asked him, "was this your fake because?" and he replied "have you learned nothing from me? Everything is a fake because."
  33. #3783
    I'll see your fake because and raise you a hard determinism.

    If you accept that the mind and brain are the same thing, everything you do is ultimately the result of patterns of neural firing in your brain. Therefore you have no more control over your decisions than you have over which neurons fire when. IOW, free will, including the freedom to make up your own mind, is an illusion.

    Gazzaniga did some interesting experiments on split-brain patients in the 60s (70s?) that showed that when you disconnect the two halves of the brain and get the side without language (generally the right hemisphere) to do something while hiding it from the side with language, you can ask the person after why they did it and the side with language will just make up some random bullshit story.
  34. #3784
    It's crazy.
  35. #3785
    I know. I love it

    Not exactly what I was talking about, but still pretty cool:

  36. #3786
    LOL

  37. #3787
    Quote Originally Posted by bigred View Post
    To me, voting for lower tax rates and more money in your pocket over the welfare of your fellow Americans (i.e. women, Muslims, and other minorities) is not American, short sighted, and unethical.

    It also depresses me that economy seems to be a higher value than human rights. Maybe it's my liberal elitism because I've had so many amazing opportunities and I've never known what it's like to be be fiscally challenged.
    I forgot to respond to this earlier.

    Human rights are more than the perceived oppression of a particular group. The smallest "minority," after all, is the individual. Taxation is an important issue when it comes to human rights. Economics is one of the most important, as one of the things that most empowers the powerless is a growing economy with more opportunities to succeed.

    If Republicans were trying to oppress groups of people, that would be a big problem. But we're not. The media tells everybody we are, but the media is not telling the truth. In fact, one of the drivers of the Trump movement was that the left and the media have become over the last few years a bastion of suppression of free speech. Free speech is about as human rights as it gets. Back in the 00's, we all experienced what it was like having some basic freedoms subverted by the Religious Right (*cough* poker *cough*), but today it's the Regressive Left telling men that we're complicit in the made up idea of "rape culture", telling whites that things can only be racist if it's whites doing them, telling women that all their problems are because of men and society, and telling everybody that illegal behavior and terrorism pose no threat to the western way of life. The Regressive Left got so ridiculous over these few years that Caitlin Jenner went from hero to bastard the moment she voiced support for Cruz, and Peter Thiel is "not a gay man" because he supports Trump.

    The Trump coalition is the coalition of people the Regressive Left proclaimed monsters.
  38. #3788
    Brilliant by Trump.

    Instead of deporting illegals he's going to jail a tonne of them which means that instead of the below minimum wage level of earnings they'd usually get they'll get a solid 11c a day.

    Shame about the supreme court nonsense you seem to have going on in your country, surely person views shouldn't really come that into it. Both in terms of who is getting put in there and those who are in the supreme court.
  39. #3789
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    Brilliant by Trump.

    Instead of deporting illegals he's going to jail a tonne of them which means that instead of the below minimum wage level of earnings they'd usually get they'll get a solid 11c a day.
    The funny thing is that his "dealing with illegals" is really just going to be about not obstructing existing law. Also, it will hopefully include penalizing sanctuary cities by way of withholding funds. Regarding the deportation and jailing, it will just be of those who have committed crimes other than illegal immigration, and they will be treated according to the law. Probably those with dependent families will be jailed and those without will be deported.

    Shame about the supreme court nonsense you seem to have going on in your country, surely person views shouldn't really come that into it. Both in terms of who is getting put in there and those who are in the supreme court.
    What do you mean?

    BTW Ginsburg definitely should step down. Her comments on Trump have shown partiality. Can't have it.
  40. #3790
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    Shame about the supreme court nonsense you seem to have going on in your country, surely person views shouldn't really come that into it.
    Well, the tricky thing is that a supreme court justice can be completely impartial, but it's still his/her job to interpret the law and that justice's entire legal philosophy can coincidentally align with a left or right agenda. It's unavoidable.
  41. #3791
    I'm aware it's unavoidable it's just a shame it is that way.
  42. #3792
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Hey, arguments over judicial interpretation are the backbone of america. Get off my lawn
  43. #3793
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Hey, arguments over judicial interpretation are the backbone of america. Get off my lawn
    It isn't having the argument that's the shame. That is very important. The issue is that the winner of the argument is basically predetermined by the people chosen to take part in the argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The funny thing is that his "dealing with illegals" is really just going to be about not obstructing existing law. Also, it will hopefully include penalizing sanctuary cities by way of withholding funds. Regarding the deportation and jailing, it will just be of those who have committed crimes other than illegal immigration, and they will be treated according to the law. Probably those with dependent families will be jailed and those without will be deported.
    But those existing laws aren't necessarily good things in the first place hence why they somewhat get ignored.
    Last edited by Savy; 11-15-2016 at 01:40 AM.
  44. #3794
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Regarding the deportation and jailing, it will just be of those who have committed crimes other than illegal immigration, and they will be treated according to the law. Probably those with dependent families will be jailed and those without will be deported
    I don't follow this. What do they now when they catch an illegal robbing a gas station, set him free?

    IOW, how is Trump's plan different from what happens currently?
  45. #3795
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    BTW Ginsburg definitely should step down. Her comments on Trump have shown partiality. Can't have it.
    Baloney. She's a SCJ, you can't make her resign because she didn't like your guy.
  46. #3796
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Baloney. She's a SCJ, you can't make her resign because she didn't like your guy.
    I'm pretty sure wuf would say the same thing if ginsburg was shown to be partial to Trump.
  47. #3797
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    But those existing laws aren't necessarily good things in the first place hence why they somewhat get ignored.
    The laws are ignored for political reasons, in part because people think they are not good laws like you suggest. This shouldn't be confused with whether or not they are actually good.
  48. #3798
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    I'm pretty sure wuf would say the same thing if ginsburg was shown to be partial to Trump.
    And I'd still say you can't if someone wanted to sack her for it. If you want to make her resign for having a political bias, you have to make them all resign.
  49. #3799
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Baloney. She's a SCJ, you can't make her resign because she didn't like your guy.
    Can't make her resign. But the view that jurists should present no political opinions is highly respected by scholars. The law is meant to be interpreted based on constitutional and legal principles, period. Ginsburg did something widely considered very, very bad by stepping outside of those bounds.

    It's not her fault (sarcasm). She was just following the message she was getting from her political alignment and from her party, that it's okay to break the rules as long as you're fighting against Literal Hitler.
  50. #3800
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    And I'd still say you can't if someone wanted to sack her for it. If you want to make her resign for having a political bias, you have to make them all resign.
    Nobody suggested that. She broke the rules by demonstrating partiality, not because she in possession of an opinion.
  51. #3801
    Trump now tweeting how great the electoral college is. Guess he forgot how much of a 'disaster' he said it was before he won.

    Also says he would have campaigned differently if it were about popular vote. Guess he forgets the other guys would have done the same thing.
  52. #3802
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Nobody suggested that. She broke the rules by demonstrating partiality, not because she in possession of an opinion.
    The FBI director broke the rules by making an investigation public days before the election. Turned out he had nothing. So he should resign too right?

    Not saying what she said wasn't inappropriate, I'm saying it's not enough to force her to resign.
  53. #3803
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I don't follow this. What do they now when they catch an illegal robbing a gas station, set him free?
    One example is that there are laws or common practices in sanctuary cities that don't consider immigration status relevant, so illegal alien criminals don't get identified and deported. These cities can be penalized for breaking federal law.
  54. #3804
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    The FBI director broke the rules by making an investigation public days before the election. Turned out he had nothing. So he should resign too right?

    Not saying what she said wasn't inappropriate, I'm saying it's not enough to force her to resign.
    FBI is not a judge. These are two totally different arenas of ethics.
  55. #3805
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    One example is that there are laws or common practices in sanctuary cities that don't consider immigration status relevant, so illegal alien criminals don't get identified and deported. These cities can be penalized for breaking federal law.
    That doesn't answer my question. What do they do with an illegal alien caught committing a crime?
  56. #3806
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Trump now tweeting how great the electoral college is. Guess he forgot how much of a 'disaster' he said it was before he won.
    I've been on both sides of the issue too. It's almost like looking at what people say on the surface doesn't tell us much.

    Also says he would have campaigned differently if it were about popular vote. Guess he forgets the other guys would have done the same thing.
    Indeed, and given that he won the popular votes in the states they both campaigned in, we'd be wise to predict a national popular vote win in his favor had this been a national popular vote election.
  57. #3807
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    FBI is not a judge. These are two totally different arenas of ethics.
    You're making a different set of rules for one area of law versus another.

    Regardless, why should she be forcibly muted as a judge? Are we expected to believe SCJs are apolitical? It's not like she made these statements and then had to try a case with Trump as the defendant.

    Also, I don't believe you would be upset had Clinton won and a SCJ had come out against her. Comey's obvious bias (one that actually affected the outcome of the election in a very real and possibly decisive way) and your defending of it are a case in point.
  58. #3808
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I've been on both sides of the issue too. It's almost like looking at what people say on the surface doesn't tell us much.
    I don't know what your history is, but as far as Trump is concerned, it's very difficult to see it as anything but hypocrisy


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Indeed, and given that he won the popular votes in the states they both campaigned in, we'd be wise to predict a national popular vote win in his favor had this been a national popular vote election.
    Not at all. The more time he spends in NY, CA, etc., the less time he spends in FL, OH, etc., You can't have him gaining votes by campaigning in some places without losing votes by not campaigning in other places.
  59. #3809
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    That doesn't answer my question. What do they do with an illegal alien caught committing a crime?
    The illegal isn't "caught" because the authorities either de jure or de facto do not account for that information.

    There are other things, but frankly this is not my area of expertise. I have seen many reports of illegals being in custody for crime and authorities having the legal obligation to deport them yet them not being deported.
  60. #3810
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Not at all. The more time he spends in NY, CA, etc., the less time he spends in FL, OH, etc., You can't have him gaining votes by campaigning in some places without losing votes by not campaigning in other places.
    Huh? This doesn't follow from you premise.
  61. #3811
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Huh? This doesn't follow from you premise.
    He can't be everywhere at once. If he's out campaigning and winning over voters in one state, he can't be doing it in another at the same time. So if he spends the whole campaign in CA, NY, and IL and gains 10m votes in those places, he won't have been gaining those 10m votes from campaigning in FL, OH, NC.
  62. #3812
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    You're making a different set of rules for one area of law versus another.
    Law scholars, not me. This is such an important ethical consideration that in WA, on the ballots, candidates for court positions are not even allowed to provide political opinion. Ginsburg did something law scholars tend to think of in ethically disqualifying ways.

    Regardless, why should she be forcibly muted as a judge? Are we expected to believe SCJs are apolitical? It's not like she made these statements and then had to try a case with Trump as the defendant.
    She'll give ruling on many pieces of legislation he signed.

    Also, I don't believe you would be upset had Clinton won and a SCJ had come out against her.
    My opinion is irrelevant. And you can't know that. Even if it was my all time favorite jurist who said that, I still think the damage done to the legal system by allowing such partiality would be immense.

    Comey's obvious bias (one that actually affected the outcome of the election in a very real and possibly decisive way) and your defending of it are a case in point.
    Comey's not a judge. Two different sets of ethics.
  63. #3813
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    He can't be everywhere at once. If he's out campaigning and winning over voters in one state, he can't be doing it in another at the same time. So if he spends the whole campaign in CA, NY, and IL and gains 10m votes in those places, he won't have been gaining those 10m votes from campaigning in FL, OH, NC.
    Your premise was that the opposition would campaign differently too for a national election. Since Trump beat her where they campaigned, your premise is not a counter.
  64. #3814
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Law scholars, not me. This is such an important ethical consideration that in WA, on the ballots, candidates for court positions are not even allowed to provide political opinion. Ginsburg did something law scholars tend to think of in ethically disqualifying ways.
    Maybe so. Still can't force her to resign for it whether scholars think she should or not. Just like you can't make Comey resign for what he did.
  65. #3815
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Your premise was that the opposition would campaign differently too for a national election. Since Trump beat her where they campaigned, your premise is not a counter.
    Ya, that's correct. Ok let's start over.

    Let's assume his campaigning advantage over Clinton is what won him the vote in certain states, and not something else. So when campaigning, Trump always won over more voters each day than Clinton did when she campaigned.

    Let's oversimplify and say that for every day Trump spends in a particular state, 25k more people decide to vote for him. Let's say Clinton is much less effective, and only gets 10k more voters for every day she spends. So if they both spend a day in the same state Trump is making 15k votes profit (25k-10k). If Trump spends a day in one state and Clinton spends it in another he makes a 25k profit in one state and a 10k loss in the other. But in terms of popular vote, he still made 15k profit.

    Make sense now? It doesn't matter whether he's gaining a 15k profit every day in CA or in OH. It's still 15k.

    Edit: It's also not necessarily the case that because they both campaigned in close states and he won them, it was because he had a campaigning advantage. He might have been winning those states already and still have won them if neither candidate had campaigned in them.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 11-15-2016 at 04:13 PM.
  66. #3816
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It's almost like looking at what people say on the surface doesn't tell us much.
    Ya, hard to read what he meant after the election in 2012.

    He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!

    The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy

    The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation
  67. #3817
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Ya, that's correct. Ok let's start over.

    Let's assume his campaigning advantage over Clinton is what won him the vote in certain states, and not something else. So when campaigning, Trump always won over more voters each day than Clinton did when she campaigned.

    Let's oversimplify and say that for every day Trump spends in a particular state, 25k more people decide to vote for him. Let's say Clinton is much less effective, and only gets 10k more voters for every day she spends. So if they both spend a day in the same state Trump is making 15k votes profit (25k-10k). If Trump spends a day in one state and Clinton spends it in another he makes a 25k profit in one state and a 10k loss in the other. But in terms of popular vote, he still made 15k profit.

    Make sense now? It doesn't matter whether he's gaining a 15k profit every day in CA or in OH. It's still 15k.
    The profit would be larger in larger and more dense regions.

    National campaigns would change so much. Areas of focus, messages, etc., all would undergo major changes.
  68. #3818
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The profit would be larger in larger and more dense regions.

    National campaigns would change so much. Areas of focus, messages, etc., all would undergo major changes.
    All the campaigning was done in dense regions. No-one holds a rally on a farm in Wyoming.
  69. #3819
    Also, all the evidence shows he won the rural areas and got crushed in the cities. Density would hurt him more than help him.
  70. #3820
    Here's to hoping he disbands the White House Press Corps. And to hoping that he never again goes on any of the shows that shilled for the DNC. And to hoping the only debates he agrees to in 2020 are online and on non-shill networks. Wallace can moderate one.

    If we are to stand a chance against the virus of identity politics, it will take a strong stance against media corruption.
  71. #3821
    Apparently there's more going on with the "lobbyists in his transition team" thing than it seems. A whole bunch have been purged. It appears even Christie has been dumped. Good riddance. Here's to hoping it's true.
  72. #3822
    I'm putting Sanders at a smallish favorite to take the nomination next cycle. Then lose the general. He could have won this time, but next time Trump will have so much credibility on some of Sanders' key issues and the media shills won't be as pronounced and a ton of moderate and values-conservatives who normally vote Republican but didnt this time will be swayed to Trump. It would take somebody like Warren or Booker to beat Trump. You know, because of how they can get the "identity politics" vote.
  73. #3823
    If the White House Press Corps is kept, the Press Secretary should be a tag team of Katrina Pierson and Sheriff Clarke.

    I'd watch Sheriff Clarke stomp the media over new episodes of Game of Thrones any day (kidding).
  74. #3824
    bigred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,437
    Location
    Nest of Douchebags
    Ugh. This thread is like werewolf. I don't have enough time or internet access to keep up. Bigred posts incoming. Recognize I won't be available to quick responses.
    LOL OPERATIONS
  75. #3825
    BankItDrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    8,291
    Location
    Losing Prop Bets
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I'm putting Sanders at a smallish favorite to take the nomination next cycle. Then lose the general. He could have won this time, but next time Trump will have so much credibility on some of Sanders' key issues and the media shills won't be as pronounced and a ton of moderate and values-conservatives who normally vote Republican but didnt this time will be swayed to Trump. It would take somebody like Warren or Booker to beat Trump. You know, because of how they can get the "identity politics" vote.
    I'd wager Trump is out after 4 years.

    Wager?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •