"I can't Hate Donald Trump"
I Can’t Hate Donald Trump.
I do hate the Republicans who’ve enabled his remarkable popularity.
An interesting take on Trumps supporters at Slate.
Many have been struck by the overwhelming whiteness of Trump’s campaign, not least the small number of self-identified “white nationalists” who’ve rallied around his campaign. I would argue that the Trump coalition illustrates how whiteness as a category is so expansive as to be almost meaningless. The Scots-Irish or “American” whites who see Trump as their champion are profoundly different from the metropolitan whites who dominate the upper echelons of U.S. society—so much so that the convention of lumping them together as “white” detracts far more from our understanding of how they fit into our society than it adds to it. J.D. Vance, author of Hillbilly Elegy, a forthcoming book on the place of Appalachian whites in modern America, estimates that roughly one-quarter of whites belong to the Scots-Irish tribe that has embraced Trump. If we were to separate out these Americans as a race or ethnicity unto themselves, Vance writes, we would finds rates of poverty and substance abuse that would shock our national conscience. But we don’t generally collect detailed statistics on the Scots-Irish. We don’t have a clear sense of how their labor force participation or disability rates compare to those of other Americans, including other white Americans. And so their experiences and their collective traumas blend into whiteness, where they can be safely ignored. Whites are privileged, after all.
A timely anecdote:
In my daughter's "share and tell" time in class, the girl right before her shared that no one should vote for Donald Trump. This caused my daughter to share that the other day, we drove by a homeless man with a sign reading, "Give me $1 or I'm voting for Trump." Everyone else in the class yelled, "NOooooo!"
So rest assured, he has absolutely none of the hippie-school-second-grader vote.
But back to the thread topic... what ethnicity are these "metropolitan whites," if not significantly Scots-Irish? Is the argument that they're all German/French/Italian?
He says the Republicans supporting Trump come from lower socio-economic counties than Republicans supporting other candidates, and have a higher percentage of Scots-Irish voters. The Scots-Irish in urban areas have a different life experience, higher education and higher income, so lumping them all together as white doesn't explain the split. In fact white is meaningless as a demographic.
I come from a part of the Nation where whites are working class Republicans and blacks are welfare class Democrats. My area is strongly invested in Trump. I admit this worries me because people are voting based upon sound bites and knee jerk reactions.
The idea of Donald Trump at the head of the world's most powerful fiscal-military machine is fucking terrifying.
The idea of Donald Trump at the head of the world's most powerful fiscal-military machine is fucking terrifying.
I totally agree with you.
The idea of Donald Trump at the head of the world's most powerful fiscal-military machine is fucking terrifying.
My only glimmer of saving grace in this bizzaro event , is that he's not a really a Republican, that's just a tactical flag of convenience, if he got in he wouldn't be beholden to the old GOP conservative tea partiers in the way the next two or three possible candidates would.
That's true, however he would be like Putin, rich, famous, gigantic ego, and lots of deadly toys.
He's got the whole world in his hands,
he's got the whole wild world in his hands
He's got the whole wild world in his hands,
he's got the whole world in his hands
He's got the little bitty baby in his hands,
he's got the little bitty baby in his hands
He's got the little bitty baby in his hands,
he's got the whole world in his hands
He's got the whole world in his hands...
Trump defined who believe what Rush Limbaugh, Laura Schlessinger, and Ann Coulter have told them what to believe.
Everybody have a cup of chamomile tea and relax. Trump has this.
I saw a lot of movies as a kid about America being anti-fascist, looks like I needed a better filter.
Didn't go well the last time.
[YOUTUBE]TGc2nN9OguQ[/YOUTUBE]
The idea of Donald Trump at the head of the world's most powerful fiscal-military machine is fucking terrifying.
The only thing more terrifying than Trump as president would be Hillary as president.
You find her more frightening?
I don't think Hillary would push the button, but I can picture Trump doing it.
She's manipulative and secretive and all that stuff, but Trump is an impulsive loose cannon.
I don't get why people find Hilary so scary. I don't think she has displayed any more or less of the qualities and/or flaws than the presidents you've already had.
I do think the fact she is female is a factor. I don't mean that you are sexist for finding her scary - I do however think the particular aspects of her character that are deemed frightening would be less frightening in a guy. Those character traits and ways of dealing are too out of kilter with our unconscious expectations of what a woman is.
When I look at the stuff some presidents and top tier male politicians have got up to without that in any way frightening off the voters and compare it to Hilary's record, I am slightly baffled by the rap she gets.
First of all, Trump would never push the button; it doesn't make business sense and he's enough of a business man to know how to force things to change through economic policies. He is a classic trash talker, a gar mouth.
If he is elected it will be more of the same crazy trainwreck it has always been with trump. I actually think the country's financial situation will improve because Trump's reputation is more important to him than wealth, per se. Bush, on the other hand had a track record of taking over businesses and then sucking all the cash out of them and leaving them bankrupt. He didn't care about his reputation, it was all about the cash grab and all flat out lying was the norm.
Trump's big feather in his cap would be making the US financially sound, not out of any altruistic principal but so he could claim bragging rights. And can you deny that bragging is one of his top, if not the top, activities of his?
Hilary, on the other hand is a habitual liar, Wall Street is her BFF, and is just another politcal corporate tool. I, personally, couldn't give a fuck about what sex she is and it's precisely that "she has displayed more or less of the qualities and/or flaws than the presidents [we]'ve already had" that makes me terrified. Our country cannot withstand another term of American politics, I mean corporate pandering. The country is being bled dry and really our only hope would be Bernie or Trump for two very different reasons and admittedly, very different outcomes, neither of which I see as pandering to corpocracy.
it's precisely that "she has displayed more or less of the qualities and/or flaws than the presidents [we]'ve already had" that makes me terrified.
Ok. I can see that makes sense.
Though as toher being a habitual liar - Trump seems to have that same quality. And he seems as happy to brag without having earned bragging rights as he is with having earned them. Some of his business ventures have been great successes. Some have been collossal failures of judgement losing himself and others vast sums of money.
Best hope his presidency catches him when he is making good investment decisions, rather than those that have left the people who trusted him bankrupt.
The only thing more terrifying than Trump as president would be Hillary as president.
Both seem bent on continuing the neo-con foreign policy which is brutalizing the mid-east and pushing us into a hot conflict with Russia.
Hilary, on the other hand is a habitual liar, Wall Street is her BFF, and is just another politcal corporate tool.
That sounds like Trump.
Some of his business ventures have been great successes. Some have been collossal failures of judgement losing himself and others vast sums of money.
Has he made any great business decisions since the 80s, other than "The Apprentice"? And how involved is he with the actual business side of making that show?
I actually think the country's financial situation will improve because Trump's reputation is more important to him than wealth, per se. Bush, on the other hand had a track record of taking over businesses and then sucking all the cash out of them and leaving them bankrupt. He didn't care about his reputation, it was all about the cash grab and all flat out lying was the norm.
Wow. That 'sucking all the cash out' and 'leaving them bankrupt' is Trump's history. How did his history suddenly change?
George Jr and Trump are both Ivy League business school graduates embedded with the same concept of business: make profits at the expense of the product and counter-parties.
Wow. That 'sucking all the cash out' and 'leaving them bankrupt' is Trump's history. How did his history suddenly change?
George Jr and Trump are both Ivy League business school graduates embedded with the same concept of business: make profits at the expense of the product and counter-parties.
I thought Trump just lost investor money by making mistakes as opposed to stripping all the assets, lining his and his cronies pockets and then shuttering the place.
It always seemed like Trump tried to recover from his failures as opposed to Bush who seemed to count failures as success.
In any case, he's not my first choice for president. I don't think he even makes the top 100 list of my preferred presidents, but then neither does Hilary.
Sanders would have been a better candidate. Clinton's only fresh from a demographic perspective, her politics and tactics aren't. Sanders seems to have an actual set of belliefs and some genuinely new ideas and approaches.
Socialism/communism is not new at all.
Neither has worked anywhere they have been tried.
I thought Trump just lost investor money by making mistakes as opposed to stripping all the assets, lining his and his cronies pockets and then shuttering the place.
Trump demonstrates a tremendous negotiation skill. That is his asset. His ego and need to enrich himself (in money, power, publicity, etc) at expense of others is a severe weakness.
In a TV show called "Good Wife", an Illinois Governor runs for president. In Iowa, his rallies are poorly attended. However a one man band, with customized and creative songs signing praises of that Governor, keeps appearing. Professional campaign managers are appalled - keep trying to distance themselves from this one man band.
In a Caucus, if a candidate's corner does not have enough supporters, then he is eliminated. The Governor is short supporters. That one man band appears causing many to move to the Governor's corner. He could not be a better campaign promoter.
Why did professional campaign managers not see it? Same applies to what Trump is doing. Professionals would never attempt what Trump has done for the same reason professionals would distance themselves from that one man band. What works is not necessary understood in all environment. This environment is chock full of hate and disgust when the facts do not justify it. That creates volatility.
When so many foolishly believe ISIS is a greater personal threat than a car crash, then logic and experience no longer applies. Many in history prospered in such conditions such as Joseph McCarthy and Hugo Chavez.
Trump demonstrates another assent. He is made of teflon.
The only thing more terrifying than Trump as president would be Hillary as president.
YES YES YES!!! That vile woman has no interest in anyone or anything other than her own power.
I do think the fact she is female is a factor.
To some perhaps, but to the vast majority its her lack of character and her repeated bullshit from the time of white water to the present. She hasn't made a good decision since saying yes to Bill. Without him and his name she would be NOTHING.
Socialism/communism is not new at all.
Neither has worked anywhere they have been tried.
here here ...
Won't someone please think about the First Spouse we'll have to look at for the next 4-8 years!
[ATTACH]55489[/ATTACH][ATTACH]55490[/ATTACH]
People keep listing reasons to dislike Hillary, where Trump is even more so.
Socialism/communism is not new at all.
Neither has worked anywhere they have been tried.
Come on, how is this relevant to our current presidential election cycle? Serious, honest question.
Won't someone please think about the First Spouse we'll have to look at for the next 4-8 years!
Um, third spouse for Trump.
Come on, how is this relevant to our current presidential election cycle? Serious, honest question.
You might have noticed that we have a true blue, dyed-in-the-wool socialist running for President. And you will have a tough time convincing me that the Democratic party is not already there with the GOPe flirting with them from outside the window.
Oh, who's a "true blue, dyed-in-the-wool socialist"? Can't be Clinton, Wall Street/Big Banks don't pay socialists to give speeches. Must be Bernie. So Bernie's a "true blue, dyed-in-the-wool socialist"? No wonder the 1% hate him, he might delay their march to 1890.
Sheesh, she doesn't hate Donald Trump in a thread titled "I can't Hate Donald Trump" that you started. Then, just because she says something about somebody else, you're all "Oh, who's a..., Can't be..., Must be..., So..., and No wonder...
Fussy...fussy...fussy! :p:
Sanders would have been a better candidate.
Hopefully "will be", not "would have been".
Socialism/communism is not new at all.
Neither has worked anywhere they have been tried.
You might have noticed that we have a true blue, dyed-in-the-wool socialist running for President. And you will have a tough time convincing me that the Democratic party is not already there with the GOPe flirting with them from outside the window.
Supporting the middle class is NOT socialism. You've drunk the Kool Aid, Pam.
Whether or not you agree with Sanders or believe that he's more moderate in reality, it is a fact that Bernie himself says that he is an avowed socialist. Those are his own words.
I've heard him refer to himself as a "democratic socialist." I don't recall ever hearing him say he was a plain old "socialist." Not saying he hasn't, just that I've never seen it.
I think in the pigeonholes of a lot of people's minds, the word "socialist" fits in the same slot as "communist" or "marxist." And "democratic socialist" gets shorted to just "socialist" and dumped in there as well. I see a need for education on the meaning of the different words. But these are somewhat complicated ideas that take more explaining than can fit on a captioned facebook picture. I'm not volunteering to do the explaining, because I don't know the subject well enough to teach it. And as a rule, people resent being lectured.
Over-simplified slogans seem to resonate, and I think "Bernie wants to send my kids to college while [insert opponent here] wants to send them to war." is a decent one.
"I don't think that means what you think it means", would be appropriate in this election. I think a certain label means X, you think a certain label means Y, neither of us knows what a candidate thinks it means. :(
I think in the pigeonholes of a lot of people's minds, the word "socialist" fits in the same slot as "communist" or "marxist." And "democratic socialist" gets shorted to just "socialist" and dumped in there as well. .
This drives me round the bend. The idea that Bernie Sanders is somehow on the same political page as the old soviet union is just crazy.
Sure, but is the solution for him to be a representative for "see, 'socialism' isn't a bad word," or "no no no, I'm nothing like you're thinking, I'm this other term over here."
And in case anyone hasn't yet seen John Oliver's recent take on it:
[YOUTUBE]DnpO_RTSNmQ[/YOUTUBE]
Yeah but (Rule #1, Always precede with a yeah but) Oliver is a ferriner, he doesn't understand American values, nor the shorthand we use to miscommunicate. ;)
Who says Trump doesn't have foreign affairs experience.
Hopefully "will be", not "would have been".
Supporting the middle class is NOT socialism. You've drunk the Kool Aid, Pam.
What is "the middle class"? I think I saw a show about it on the History Channel.
This drives me round the bend. The idea that Bernie Sanders is somehow on the same political page as the old soviet union is just crazy.
Sure, but is the solution for him to be a representative for "see, 'socialism' isn't a bad word," or "no no no, I'm nothing like you're thinking, I'm this other term over here."
And in case anyone hasn't yet seen John Oliver's recent take on it:
[YOUTUBE]DnpO_RTSNmQ[/YOUTUBE]
I've heard him refer to himself as a "democratic socialist." I don't recall ever hearing him say he was a plain old "socialist." Not saying he hasn't, just that I've never seen it.
I think in the pigeonholes of a lot of people's minds, the word "socialist" fits in the same slot as "communist" or "marxist." And "democratic socialist" gets shorted to just "socialist" and dumped in there as well. I see a need for education on the meaning of the different words. But these are somewhat complicated ideas that take more explaining than can fit on a captioned facebook picture. I'm not volunteering to do the explaining, because I don't know the subject well enough to teach it. And as a rule, people resent being lectured.
Over-simplified slogans seem to resonate, and I think "Bernie wants to send my kids to college while [insert opponent here] wants to send them to war." is a decent one.
I love you guys but seriously, you need to get out more. You are clearly out of touch with the US population. You know that whole 1% wealthy thing where they have all the money? Well there is something similar called intelligence inequality (not education but intelligence) where 1% of the population had all the intelligence, Dwellars are highly represented in that group, So stop trying to ascribe qualities like the ability to think to the intellectual hoi polloi. They aren't equipped to do the things you want them to.
You may think I am joking. I am not. Most people are fucking stupid, ignorant, or uneducated. Often all three.
Most people are fucking stupid, ignorant, or uneducated. Often all three.
One need only view the number of millenniums who smoke cigarettes. Then deny they were easily brainwashed.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/10/only-one-trump-fan-has-ever-been-charged-for-assaulting-protesters.html
link to story with accounts and videos of assaults by supporters of trump.
another recent story with video shows a black man being escorted up the stairs by several men in uniforms, they appear to be sheriff deputies, and the man being escorted is sucker punched with an elbow to the eye by willie nelson's ugly stunt double, McGraw, who was quoted as saying he deserved to be killed, we don't know who he is, the next time we see him he might be a terrorist.
The show "Inside Edition" spoke to McGraw after he punched Jones.
"Yes, he deserved it," McGraw said in an interview. "The next time we see him, we might have to kill him. We don't know who he is. He might be with a terrorist organization."
footfootfoot, you have thoroughly harshed my mellow today.
I don't challenge one word of your post, but, fuck. Thanks a lot buddy.
Some people advise that there is an EQ, Emotional Quotient which is capacity of individuals to recognize their own, and other people's emotions, to discriminate between different feelings and label them appropriately, and to use emotional information to guide thinking and behavior
I am of strictly average EQ, I like to imagine, and I'm sure we dwellars fall across the range of it
I imagine being more emotionally connected would allow us to better see who can be trusted and who is a dangerous liar or narcissist; and it would not surprise me to find that EQ makes for a better predictor of successful Presidencies than IQ
... Most people are fucking stupid, ...
Now, I have to get back to perusing the forums. And I was up viewing threads until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the Cellar dwellars. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: Just because sometimes "I'm with stupid -->" does not mean I've had sexual relations with stupid, I never indicated to anybody that I'm fucking stupid, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to posting replies for Cellar dwellars. Thank you.
I used to think the vast majority of Americans were reasonable rational people.
Sure, we had wackos and racists but they were a small minority.
The things I'd see in the TV man on the street bits, and on the internet, were a cull of a lot of material.
But shit like this really embarrasses me because now I think it's representative of way too many people...
Now, I have to get back to perusing the forums. And I was up viewing threads until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the Cellar dwellars. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: Just because sometimes "I'm with stupid -->" does not mean I've had sexual relations with stupid, I never indicated to anybody that I'm fucking stupid, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to posting replies for Cellar dwellars. Thank you.
Then again, sexobon, you're not most people.
;)
I used to think the vast majority of Americans were reasonable rational people.
Sure, we had wackos and racists but they were a small minority.
The things I'd see in the TV man on the street bits, and on the internet, were a cull of a lot of material.
But shit like this really embarrasses me because now I think it's representative of way too many people...
Brilliant!
I work with a kid with severe anxiety and a learning disability. This week we had to talk about Drumpf, because thanks 'Merica. It was a good exercise for him/us to consider whether a nutjob as President has any actual effect on his/our life. We interact with and are effected by the people closest to us in far more profound ways. To have a President this coarse who apparently hates large sections of humanity would be a national embarrassment and will probably kill a lot of foreigners but the effect on his/our life/lives will be minimal unless Drumpf's supporters start rounding people up... which of course he has promised to do.
I doubt things will be much different from
this if Strumpf wins.
(follow thread @ link)
I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: Just because sometimes "I'm with stupid -->" does not mean I've had sexual relations with stupid,
How did Monica Lewinsky get into this thread?
The idea of Donald Trump at the head of the world's most powerful fiscal-military machine is fucking terrifying.
It's important to remember, then, that the President of the United States is not the head of very much at all.
(a list of why that is, has been edited out here, for the sanity of the reader)
And no matter who is elected, there is always a tremendous amount of power within the people themselves, which is hard to see sometimes. President Anyone with only 30% support of the people is close to entirely powerless.
True.
He could still do an awful lot of damage, though.
He is selling fear of the present and the dream of a golden past, and he is giving permission to say the unsayable , no matter how damaging to individuals and communities. He is ramping up the hate-mongering and normalising physical aggressiveness.
So they tell me. I don't follow it all that much. I see the headlines, but I don't always trust them.
It's important to remember, then, that the President of the United States is not the head of very much at all.
The entire economy of India is worth $2 trillion. A president with little intelligence and who almost lost his reelection not only did massive damage to the American economy. He even spent almost $3 trillion on a war that had no purpose - to kill hundreds of thousands (and their leader) who were not a threat. And massacred 5000 American servicemen in the process. He had little power to do anything productive. But he clearly did massive damage to America, to its credibility, so so many world wide treaties, to America's respect all over the world, and made it clear to Putin that it is best to not trust America.
America can be so stupid as to elect another George Jr with names such as Cruz or Trump.
For someone without that much power, he still managed to destroy maintenance of most everything in America, construction of new schools, infrastructure, innovations, new markets, and so many other things that made America great. While turning a potential surplus into a massive national debt. Fortunately he had so little power that he did not put Social Security into the stock market. So there were limits to his destruction.
That all required, and got, congressional approval.
Fortunately he had so little power that he did not put Social Security into the stock market.
Which President were you talking about?If Trump becomes president and them becomes the idea of what America stands for, I'm pretty sure you're all standing in shit up to your armpits.
Australia has had some pretty crappy options leader wise over the last few years, but I take some small comfort in the fact that we can't destroy the world through our mistakes.
He is creating such divisiveness within your community that it's frightening to watch. How it can even be legal for him to tell people to punch other people for whatever he thinks is right just boggles my mind.
He's going to make Sarah Palin the Ambassador to Australia.
If Trump becomes president and them becomes the idea of what America stands for, I'm pretty sure you're all standing in shit up to your armpits.
Australia has had some pretty crappy options leader wise over the last few years, but I take some small comfort in the fact that we can't destroy the world through our mistakes.
He is creating such divisiveness within your community that it's frightening to watch. How it can even be legal for him to tell people to punch other people for whatever he thinks is right just boggles my mind.
This!
He's going to make Sarah Palin the Ambassador to Australia.
Ha!
Wait, is this joke on them or us?
He is creating such divisiveness within your community that it's frightening to watch.
Make no mistake. That divisiveness has been breeding for three decades.
This is the steam valve letting off pressure. You aren't seeing the explosion from it. It's still building up... faster than ever.
"I can't hate Donald Trump" oh but it's required now; it's the whole point; we are watching the people in a glorious celebration of hate, and they LOVE it. Season of hate, people are really having a ball wallowing in it. Orgasm of hate.
It's fucking disgusting.
POLITICS IS NOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT HATE.
THIS IS WHY I'M OUT OF IT. IT'S KILLING US.
He is creating such divisiveness within your community that it's frightening to watch. How it can even be legal for him to tell people to punch other people for whatever he thinks is right just boggles my mind.
Many who know violence justifies a belief have not increased. But this is what the Republican insiders did not understand. Limbaugh, Hannity, Paul, (even Sarah Palin), etc were recruiting these people with their rhetoric. Suddenly a concentration of easily manipulated mindsets are tapped by politicians who preach childish rhetoric to a group inspired only by emotions. Republican insiders declared an 'all hands on deck' reaction to derail this threat. Too little too late. A large body of Republicans know punching someone in the face is justified. They are now collected in the Party that wants to stifle stem cell research, health and environment regulations, improved international relations, solutions to the Middle East, any spending even on infrastructure and other need national development, international treaties, and even the closing of Guantanamo. They love extraordinary rendition, big guns, more Middle East wars, gestapo torture tactics, hate of minorities and immigrants, and both Trump and Cruz.
A 70 year old man punched a demonstrator who was being removed from a Trump rally by the police. The police charged that demonstrator with violence. News video so exposed this attitude that police had to go out three days later to arrest that attacker. Emotion justified their response. New video force them to act as logical adults.
A U of Virginia professor describes what attracts these type. "Jesse Helms understood before anyone else that the proverbial angry white male feels the most aggrieved, and is therefore the most likely to vote." A Senator that promoted racism, hate, and obtainsd power by defining 'good vs evil' was always popular among these types. People who fear. People who can be told what to fear; therefore know it must be true - facts be damned. The Republican party has now become a magnet for these types.
Delaware Republicans even disposed of their long time and popular Senator to vote for a 'witch'. The emotional are that easily manipulated.
Same people know violence and insults proves one is right. Their numbers have not increased. But they were collected by a Republican party that did not realize (or care) who they were recruiting. In the tradition of Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, and the Council of Conservative Citizens, they are flocking to rhetoric that even admired a Georgia state flag that promoted hate.
These adults, who are still children, have always existed in same numbers. But having been concentrated in an organization that can mobilize them, suddenly a divisiveness that has always existed has become apparent.
Republican party insiders did not realize what they had created. Are shocked that fear and hate inspires these people. Divisiveness has not increased. It has only become concentrated where it can be tapped for political gain. It always existed.
He's going to make Sarah Palin the Ambassador to Australia.
That would be awesome. Australians would have a field day with her. Maybe she can look off the east coast and see NZ. Then we can all give her shit for saying so.
Make no mistake. That divisiveness has been breeding for three decades.
This is the steam valve letting off pressure. You aren't seeing the explosion from it. It's still building up... faster than ever.
THIS IS WHY I'M OUT OF IT. IT'S KILLING US.
OK, maybe I mis-spoke. Trump has given license to all the red neck, KKK, violence loving freaks to act on their previously somewhat censured ideas of what's acceptable in good company. If I were a black person, or any minority group I'd be running out to buy a gun right now because sure as shit there'll be an increase in hate crimes once Trump is elected.
I know it was said about Bush, but this time it really is true. I see a future where minority groups are rounded up and placed in 'camps' and anyone who disagrees with this process will be shot either legally or not.
You lot are in so much trouble. You're just inviting Russia and China to save the world from you.
Oh, and while the rest of the world has it attention diverted, who knows what the hell Islamic extremists and North Korea will get up to.
He's going to make Chuck Norris an Ambassador-at-Large.
It's fucking disgusting.
It is. People need to check themselves. I'd say folks love Trump because he scares the hell out of people and the left loves hating him and his supporters cuz its nice and self righteous. The demographic reality that whites will soon be the largest plurality of people but not the majority is making people crazy. I'd rather we accept reality and find our way through but it looks like it'll be nothing but ugliness for a while.
It looks like we want divisive candidates.
Seems like the favorable/unfavorable lines should be mirror images of each other. Hillary's are not, especially years ago. I wonder if previous polls had a lot of "I don't know who she is" answers, and now everyone knows who she is.
Learn from history. Observe Silvio Berlusconi to fear what these types can do if elected ... and reelected. When convicted of crimes, he simply had laws changed.
Another example was Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Also popular when emotions prove a presidential candidate superior.
This is America. In America you can't even pull off a two-bit burglary of DC office space without losing all of your POTUS power and having to resign in deep disgrace.
This is America. In America you can't even pull off a two-bit burglary of DC office space without losing all of your POTUS power and having to resign in deep disgrace.
That POTUS did so many things that even his supporters finally had enough. Watergate was simply a straw that broke the camel's back. How many tens of thousands of American servicemen did he massacre on a war that he and Henry Kissinger agreed could not be won? Done only for one reason. He did not want to be the first American president to lose a war. A Watergate burglary was minuscule by comparison.
We know that Trump can promote violence and mayhem even in his pep rallies. Clearly a crime. And nobody will prosecute him. So that must make him presidential material.
OK, well, I think everyone else got my point.
You know what's scary? What's scary is the millions of Trump supporters who don't even realize they've been co opted by an unreal Reality show that might very well affect their actual Reality.
What gets me is how the #1 explanation given for supporting him is that he "tells it like it is", when he is the poster child for
this book (warning - potentially NSFW book title).
Bullshitting, as he notes, is not exactly lying, and bullshit remains bullshit whether it's true or false. The difference lies in the bullshitter's complete disregard for whether what he's saying corresponds to facts in the physical world: he "does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are."
He tells it like simple minded people who cannot be bothered to do more than vote from their gullets, absent of facts, insight or any rational thought process, want to hear. He's "a chicken in every pot" candidate for the new Millenium. A wall in front of every Mexican. Permission to just go crazy and kick the shit of out of anyone who doesn't agree with you. He's a crazy SOB.
You know, there's one other outcome of Trump being president that has just occured to me, and that is that there could well be a military coup or uprising of the people if the liberal minded people were pushed far enough into a corner.
That would be interesting to see (not in a blood and guts way. I just mean in how it might play out).
Still glad I'm not an American at the moment though. None of the options are good.
Liberals are, as a rule, rather laid back and such. It's the Right Wing NeoCon folks who are more likely to spawn a revolution, at least, in this country.
Now, back to my drink and bong.
Yes I know Els, but if things get bad enough, people will fight. Maybe it wont be the liberals. Maybe it'll be a faction of the conservatives. Or the minority groups that will be marginalised (at the least). Who knows. My point is you lot might be planting the seeds for another civil war if you elect Trump.
Trump has proved everything we've claimed about America's freedoms was delusion. He's exposed the ugly underbelly we've always denied.
I was trying to imagine Trump as president and him dealing with the glacial pace of bureaucracy and wondered if, like in the Apprentice, he would start screaming at senators, congressmen, other staffers, "You're fired!"
Then I imagined that he would eventually fire the house, senate, and cabinet and restock the vacant positions with bright eyed apprentices with no political connections what so ever and for a brief moment I fantasized that America might just survive its oligarchic faux democracy.
Then I realized I was driving and had dozed off.
gotta have a dream
If I remember correctly, those who had a dream did not run for president. (And still got shot.)
Really interesting Washington Post article on how thinking about death (not just through threats of terrorism, but the concept of mortality in general) makes people support Donald Trump more.
(Click the
first result on the page to avoid the paywall.)
Hmm... I'm closer than probably any of you, and I don't like him.
I think his appeal is people disgusted with politics and the government will clutch at any candidate that says something, anything, they can agree with.
Manny orders vanilla, Moe orders chocolate, and Jack orders strawberry.
Trump say I like Neapolitan (vanilla, chocolate and strawberry).
Manny, Moe, and Jack all think, he's like me.
Yeah, but you don't dwell on it. You're a ray of sunshine to everyone you meet. ;)
That there, that's a weird connection.
(he does have an undead look to him though)
The key to a successful Trump campaign is having a VP running mate that people can have confidence in just in case Trump goes over the top as President and gets himself impeached. With that kind of insurance, people will take a chance. If Trump picks a mini-me or lapdog, as he has done in business, he's most likely all washed up in politics.
Clinton doesn't have designs on a strong VP. Anyone who would fit the bill either wouldn't want to work for her; or, she wouldn't want them ... she wouldn't want anyone who would butt heads with Bill either.
Either The Donald has to step up to the plate with a two person team that people can expect a good game from even if one is ejected; or, Club of One Hillary has to foul out (e.g. prosecuted for the email scandal) before the public at large will be drawn into the do-nothing GOP ballpark.
If Trump screws up his VP selection (you can take the candidate out of Wall Street; but, you can't take Wall Street out of the candidate) AND Clinton is prosecuted for mishandling government information (like Petraeus); then, I'm writing in McBoatface (
polls never lie)!
Yesterday during his ongoing meltdown, Trump conducted a conference call with his surrogates, and told them to double down on attacking the Trump University judge. One of the surrogates (Jan Brewer?) said that she had received a memo the day before instructing her not to discuss Trump U. To which Trump purportedly replied:
Originally Posted by Trump
Are there any other stupid letters that were sent to you folks? You guys are getting sometimes stupid information from people who aren't so smart.
Trump starts a fire, pours gas on it, then throws his own team under the nearest bus. Classy guy. I can't see any VP candidate or cabinet member this guy picks not suffering the same fate.
Trump starts a fire, pours gas on it, then throws his own team under the nearest bus. Classy guy. I can't see any VP candidate or cabinet member this guy picks not suffering the same fate.
Never forget how an extremist obtains office. Preach to adults who are still children. These adults only 'know' from what they feel - their emotions. Facts are only obtained later to justify their feelings.
'I am a liberal' or 'I am a conservative' means entertaining emotions - not thinking like an adult.
Trump is not preaching to moderates. Moderates do not have a conclusion until after facts are learned. Trump does not need moderates. More than enough extremists (people who need not waste time learning facts) exist to get him nominated.
Worse, view the Republican finalists. Most are extremists. More than enough 'adult who are still children' existed to support other extremists - including Ted Cruz.
Many adults only 'know' from what they feel - just like a child. A third grader respects another who is good at insulting. That is a child making a decision from his 'feelings'. This party primary season has demonstrated how many 'children who are easily brainwashed' exist in both parties.
They only represent what we the people wanted. Let's not forget another lesson. How many had so much contempt for the American soldier as to waste 5000 in Iraq for no purpose? There are that many adults who still think like children. Hitler called them his brown shirts.
... and the other asshole voted for it.
All that being said, Trump is still better than the political whore behind door #2.
... and the other asshole voted for it.
All that being said, Trump is still better than the political whore behind door #2.
Yeeaah, well, I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there. Donald J. Trump is a politically uneducated, narcissistic, racist, and immature
jackass!
OF course he is. Still ... better than the other asshat.
The other asshat is a female but that is absolutely the only thing that makes her different from 70 years of exactly the same polanimal© who have gone before. While that might be distasteful, it is a known quantity.
Hillary just wants it so she can give Bill a Presidential pardon. :haha:
50/50, she might have him executed.
What if she named him as VP? Everyone would shit themselves.
I don't know because I don't follow it and I don't talk to people about it
but it really seems to me that this guy has broken the code.Griff, that seems pretty accurate.
UT, it's true. Think of all the free press Trump has gained from howls of righteous indignation to his posturing. I hate black jellybeans. That's racist!
OF course he is. Still ... better than the other asshat.
Explain...
logically.
'
I don't know because I don't follow it and I don't talk to people about it but it really seems to me that this guy has broken the code.
That makes sense. A lot of defenses of the Donald seem to start at non-pc. I think I understand that people resent adjusting their language... I don't quite understand the label pc all the time though.
I don't quite understand the label pc all the time though.
A common thread in UT's citation is that Political Correctness means learning facts before having a conclusion. Many before Trump used these same techniques. Racism in the deep south meant a Governor could be popular by simply inspiring people with emotions. A 'them verses us' emotion is a powerful and successful tool to manipulate many who want to be told how to think with only soundbytes. Those evil 'politically correct' people want facts and reasons - not emotion. Those 'politically correct' people were labeled intellectuals or 'do goody liberals' or 'righteous atheists'. All labels to inspire more emotion. The 'them' did not use emotions to see what was really true. Just another way of inspiring followers with a 'them verses us' mentality.
Sen Joseph McCarthy used a same concept to become popular and powerful. His followers also knew he was right because emotion said so. Who were the enemies of McCarthyism? People who first learned facts. That required thinking logically - contrary to what McCarthy supporters did.
How ironic that George Wallace would endorse integration. Was he a racist? Maybe not. But once emotion would no longer inspire supporters, he had to change tactics. Ironically it worked.
Since McCarthy and others did it so long ago, then many forget how easily power can be obtained by inspiring the emotional. By preaching to people who find power in their feelings. Who regard conclusions based in first learning facts as 'political correctness'.
Political Correctness is not facts, it's majority(and sometime minority) consensus of what is polite and proper behavior in public. It's about imposing the majority opinion on everyone, which is as un-American in the eyes of the founding fathers as you can get. They took great pains to write the Constitution in a way to prevent doing that legally, especially by the government.
I think Griff wanted was the dictionary definition.
The avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.
-- Oxford Dictionaries
I meant that when I hear complaints from the right about pc it sounds like they want public officials to put those people in their place by using the N word or going back to denouncing homosexuality in press conferences. The reality is we all have the right to use the words we want but everyone else still has the right to label us for the asshole we are when our words expose beliefs that the wider culture no longer accepts.
Obviously it gets out of line on college campuses because campuses are experimental places where kids experiment with ideas, humans are largely stupid, and lefty professors do often want censorship. It can go too far interfering in conversation about important topics like immigration, but in the wider culture it generally it isn't that. It's people trying to put others back in their place. When pc goes too far by limiting ideas you can argue it on free speech grounds and usually without being a douche.
Kids ARE experimenting with ideas, and that where change often comes from.
There are some kids at my daughter's high school who have very specific desires about which pronouns you can use when referring to them. And my daughter has learned to respect their wishes so much that now she doesn't ever want to presume which pronoun she can use when referring to ANYONE until she hears from that person which pronoun they want others to use. It results in convoluted sentence structure when she's talking about someoen with unknown preferences. She explained this to my wife and I matter-of-factly, not as a complaint. She was fine with it.
So the kids today, or at least this liberal group in this high school, are bending over backwards to show respect for one another. It makes me both proud and horrified. They are losing an efficiency in language and it's basically about making other people changing their behavior to suit you, but it's also about showing compassion and basic human decency.
It all seems a little weird to me in my generation. I must be getting to be a dinosaur. Not enough of one to support Trump though.
... I must be getting to be a dinosaur. ...
Then I'm not going to refer to you using any pronouns 'cause you might be a Trannyosaurus Rex.
@Griff: Acknowledged.
@glatt: Yer not old. The younger generation is simply making sure future generations are too damn sensitive to deal with life.
Just another form of youth rebellion against the elders status quo, putting their stamp on the world. Damn whippersnappers think their generation is unique, think they will fix the ills of society. :crone:
I think they're in for a rude awaking, when they find out they made things different, but not better. I hope to fuck I'm wrong.
They may make things incrementally better but I see where stuff like pronoun usage for people you don't know really isn't manageable. My main point is that most pc complaints are really about how the complainant wants to be a bigot without being called on it.
My main point is that most pc complaints are really about how the complainant wants to be a bigot without being called on it.
So you are saying (in this case) that PC is about perspective of the outsider who wants to have a different opinion without being accused of being anti-social.
Curious are the many interpretations of PC including one from the Oxford dictionary. Perspective can completely change meaning of the phrase 'political correctness'.
when I hear complaints from the right about pc it sounds like they want public officials to put those people in their place by using the N word or going back to denouncing homosexuality in press conferences
really? do they
say that, or is it more nuanced and you have to interpret what you see through your own informed lens.
Because the piece says it's more nuanced:
As a Southerner myself, two things I've maintained for years about Southerners (which generalizes to a bulk of today's conservatives) are
- They have a complicated relationship with race (which generalizes to identity politics), and
- They can change, but not as fast as progressive liberals want them to.
To the first of these points, most conservatives are not quite racist, but they hold attitudes and say things that more racially sensitive people would see as racist. The great fall of buttercream mogul Paula Deen, and its borderline-insane conservative backlash, makes a great example. This distinction is subtle but important, and a huge part of it lies in realizing that conservatives, often at some considerable personal effort, do not see themselves as racist and often actively try not to be.
It's like, the new polite society heard Deen and said, "Hey that's racist". The not quite so fashionable people heard Deen and said "WTF, that's nothing; we know her, she speaks our language and she is not a racist. And if that's what gets you fired from, geez, not only basic cable, but the whole general public? We don't even know where we
are any more."
I'll tellya, being from around here, and that means in the big connected metropolitan area (and on the Internet, frankly), Pittsburgh feels 10 years behind when I visit it. I can't imagine what Birmingham is like.
It's not bragging. It's not like Philadelphia is any magically better. The people face the same problems. Because all our polite talk hasn't really solved very much, if one cares to admit it. The ghetto remains the ghetto. The poor remain poor. Empathy is still at a premium. But we sure do like to feel better about *ourselves* for it all.
And aren't the Trump voters, as a bloc, the people we get to feel we're better than? And we the fashionable have a strange way of
convincing people, the only way we know is
shaming them.
And now, when I see the fashionable people mocking, shaming, getting angry, repeating things over and over, and having nothing else for a topic of conversation, I think, this is going exactly how you want it to go. You actually want this shaming. It is making you feel superior. You LOVE it. There is JOY in your voice and in your words. And with your voice and words you will elect Trump.
They may make things incrementally better but I see where stuff like pronoun usage for people you don't know really isn't manageable. ...
But, but, if their contribution is to talking the talk, then it's up to
someone else to make walking the walk better now isn't it.
The main complaint about political correctness is that it's a placebo for the masses. It's too easily abused by individuals and groups to inflate their importance by mislabeling differences as intolerance and fear as hate.
Let people say what they want to say within reason so their opinions aren't driven underground with their actions to follow, especially in the political arena. I'll make my own decisions about when lines are crossed.
That's one of the differences between Clinton and Trump: Clinton tries to use political correctness to tell people what to think. Clinton appeals to the human drones. Trump tells people what he thinks and leaves it up to them. Clinton is part of the problem. That doesn't mean Trump is the solution; but, his communication style has gained him traction that even the rest of the GOP doesn't have.
The bottom line is that the less pc there is, the more frank the discussions and the more likely resulting change will be lasting change. That's the pc complaint.
Discussions of PC most often center about race, which is a distraction from both race and PC-ness.
If I see someone in a wheelchair I say they are crippled. Right away someone says, no-no, they are "handicapped", but another jumps in, they're "motion restricted". Whoa stop, they are "locomotion attenuated". By the time everybody settles on an acceptable terminology, everyone is butt hurt and it's way passed bed time. Meanwhile nothing of value has been discussed, and whenever I hear any of those terms I automatically translate to cripple in my head.
If you are bored, and want to kill a lot of time while making a lot of enemies, describe someone retarded. :rolleyes: Recently in an automotive forum, a guy was describing an ignition timing problem, saying it was acting retarded. Right away two people jumped on his shit for using that word. Mindless reaction, no brain involved... retards.
really? do they say that, or is it more nuanced and you have to interpret what you see through your own informed lens.
Because the piece says it's more nuanced:
You are right as it is a gut reaction not knowledge of fact. My internalized examples are from Trump folks I presume feel threatened by changing demographics, a 2D cartoon of reality much like the cartoon of the Bernie supporter as a millennial free-rider.
If you are bored, and want to kill a lot of time while making a lot of enemies, describe someone retarded. :rolleyes: Recently in an automotive forum, a guy was describing an ignition timing problem, saying it was acting retarded. Right away two people jumped on his shit for using that word. Mindless reaction, no brain involved... retards.
This one is especially fascinating to me because it is still very much a legitimate medical diagnosis. Little known fact, "moron," "idiot," and "imbecile" also used to be medical terms, with specific associated IQ levels. They updated the terminology when those words became common pejoratives, but now the pejorative rejection moves so fast, medicine can't keep up. Your kid has a diagnosis of mental retardation, just don't read his file out loud in public...
When I was in Grad school it was still Mental Retardation but we just said MR because kids do have ears. It changed to Intellectual Disability with the DSM-V following the Fed Gov change over. I serve a teenager with Down's who was being mocked as a "retard" in his high school hallways, of course he calls himself nigga, so turnabout I guess.
Ah, I didn't know that was one of the changes in the DSM-V! Good to know. Pretty sure there's still an American Medical Association diagnosis code for MR, but there are also diagnosis codes for Aspergers and PDD-NOS even though those don't exist in the DSM-V either. Takes awhile for everyone to catch up with each other.
But isn't bunching a variety of different problems with their unique solutions, into one catch all heading, confusing for everyone? Or is this for the insurance companies and paper pushers, but not really affecting doctors?
I serve a teenager with Down's who was being mocked as a "retard" in his high school hallways, of course he calls himself nigga, so turnabout I guess.
How does this apply to political correctness? Are you saying this is the result of PC?
The conversation has drifted, tw.
The conversation has drifted, tw.
- more like fell off a cliff. Donald Trump probably hates that. He is no long the topic.
But isn't bunching a variety of different problems with their unique solutions, into one catch all heading, confusing for everyone? Or is this for the insurance companies and paper pushers, but not really affecting doctors?
That's why my daughter officially got vision therapy for her strabismus, not her autism; and takes anti-inflammatories for her enterocolitis, not her autism; and takes Mucinex for her allergies, not her autism... We don't really understand the overall heading anyway, so it doesn't matter how we group it. Most of the symptoms are already covered by other diseases anyway.
Yeah, every kid is an individual, sometimes the label can actually get in the way of proper treatment other times it helps people change course if they're working the problem wrong.
tdub: A white kid appropriating the "N" word usually runs afoul the pc police but this kid with a disability has his reasons, none of which will likely keep him safe from crossing the wrong group of people.
Ah, I didn't know that was one of the changes in the DSM-V! Good to know. Pretty sure there's still an American Medical Association diagnosis code for MR, but there are also diagnosis codes for Aspergers and PDD-NOS even though those don't exist in the DSM-V either. Takes awhile for everyone to catch up with each other.
Yay for bureaucracies and ever changing goalposts. ;)
tdub: A white kid appropriating the "N" word usually runs afoul the pc police but this kid with a disability has his reasons, none of which will likely keep him safe from crossing the wrong group of people.
How do I get Turrets syndrome. Then I can say anything I want.
So, Trump accepts tonight and the talkin' heads are asking (other talkin' heads) 'what do you want to hear him say in his speech?'.
I want to hear...
*that he's gonnna leave me alone
*that's he gonna do his damnedest to restrain Congress and the Supreme Court so they'll leave me alone
*that my failures are mine to suffer alone and my successes are mine to enjoy alone
...then...
I wanna hear him talk about how he's gonna make that happen.
That would be a good start...not holdin' my breath anything he sez tonight will approach that.
I know for a fact nuthin' Clinton sez during her acceptance will come near what I'd like.
Johnson mebbe could say things I wanna hear, but he's got a a snowball's chance of gettin' the Big Chair.
Well henry? What did you think of his speech?
Missed it...got caught up in playin' Lego Star Wars: The Force Awakens with the kid...from the snippets and analysis I've heard between then and now it seems I didn't mss much.
Well here it is if you want to watch and report back.
I'd be interested in your feedback.
[YOUTUBE]qVlsHee7xK4[/YOUTUBE]
I'll take a gander later today or tomorrow...bein' hounded by a ten year old right now.
I'll take a gander later today or tomorrow...bein' hounded by a ten year old right now.
Being stalked by a ten year old? Does he have a gun (real or virtual)?
Never got 'round to watchin' the video...the ten-year stalked me like a feral cat, shot me dead with his bb gun, and ate my heart.
The corpse of me read Trump's speech this morning.
Meh, boils down to this: 'This is what's wrong, this is who to blame, me and mine are gonna fix things up all spiffy-like'.
My crystal ball (which I just got back from the shop) sez Clinton's speech (usin' different words, you understand) will be the same.
She'll preach a bit on what a grand success Obama has been, of course, and promise to do an even more bang-up job, but -- mostly -- it'll be 'bad shit caused by bad guys which I'll clean up'.
Nuthin' nowhere from any one promisin' to leave me be.
Read the text of Mrs. Clinton's speech this morning.
What I came away with: 'I'm a better Republican than Donald Trump.'
There are always more votes in the middle than at either end. She figures if the Bernie supporter are kicking her to the curb, then maybe she should try to scoop up some in the middle.
Are there really that many middle-of-the road, undecided, folks to harvest?
there are, but they're unlikely to vote. I think there are a LOT of people whose level of engagement and interest/ability for critical thinking are insufficient to impel them to choose, to make the effort to have a preference. But this bar is much lower than actual voting, if you don't give a shit, you're not gonna vote either.
I'm one of those in the middle people and I'm invested enough in voting, but not for either of those two whorish hags the R's and D's have trotted out. I'll be supporting Gary Johnson.
As an aside - - - I'm shocked that no one seems to give a rats ass that the D's basically got caught colluding and fixing an election. What was the penalty for the architect? She got hired by the one who Orchestrated the whole thing. Next up? Perhaps running the Clinton Foundation.
Damn, but all the hypocrites that do nothing but point fingers at the other team are REALLY QUIET about this whole cheating thing.
The thing is, this isn't an election year where you can cry hypocrisy, because no one's even pretending to be fair or balanced. The vast majority of Hillary supporters aren't really supporting Hillary, they're just terrified of Trump. And they recognize (correctly, I suspect) that any scandal against her works against their better interest. In a normal year, they'd quibble, "Ah, it's just Republican spin, it didn't really happen that way." This year, most would say, "Yeah, she totally stole the election. Doesn't matter; don't care."
Honestly, I wasn't terrified of him until he picked Pence. I had been suspecting this whole time that he was really the moderate-to-liberal douchebag he's always been (see: supporting Democrats in the past, blowing off the Evangelicals, calling for legalization of marijuana, etc.) and was waiting on his VP pick to prove that, especially considering that the VP will be running everything if he's elected (Trump
admitted as much, though now that it looks bad he denies it, of course.)
With a VP I liked, I honestly would have voted for him, because I have major, major problems with Hillary. Now I'm up shit creek, praying that Hillary magically gets knocked out and Bernie somehow still comes from behind. Bernie's an idealist whose ideas are mostly ridiculous and could never be implemented, but I would expect Congress to prevent any from really passing. And I would hope the same would be true of Trump... but seeing how the Republicans have now fallen in line behind him, I don't think they would. And if Trump would pick Pence as VP, I am scared shitless of the Supreme Court nominations he'd make.
All of which is meaningless philosophical musing, because I live in a die-hard red state. Although with the Hispanic vote growing every year, they say Texas could become a swing state in another generation or so. But for now, my vote means nothing. I'll still do it, but it means nothing.
#FeeltheJohnson... Join Griff and I.
The lesser of two evils is still evil, or in this case a bloviating douchebag.
He seems to be arguing with dead soldiers now. Normally I'd say game over but with Hillary on the other side... This has become the race to suppress your opponents vote totals.
"I'm shocked that no one seems to give a rats ass that the D's basically got caught colluding and fixing an election."
Lots of folks care, I think, but know nuthin' will come of it.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Randomocracy
Randomocracy is a theoretical form of government in which members of the government are chosen by random draft, instead of campaigning for office. It is based on Douglas Adams' famous comment that anyone who wants to wield power probably shouldn't be allowed to. It is similar to the system portrayed in "The Lottery in Babylon," by Jorge Luis Borges.
Positive aspects of Randomocracy
It will result in vastly greater representation among lower-class economic castes, as opposed to the current system, where everyone is represented by wealthy white male lawyers and bankers.
Possibly, legislation that is readable by humans will be passed.
Since nobody campaigns for office, the enormous expenditure of effort and money of political campaigns will be obsolete.
Common Criticisms of Randomocracy
With all legislators only serving a single term, accountability for bribery and corruption will be drastically reduced. With no need to campaign for reelection, legislators might accept bribes with both hands, since the primary pressure of accountability via ballots would be eliminated
Members of unpopular beliefs might be installed to office.
Me: not seein' any downside.
You are, generally speaking, an isolationist by nature, Henry--not just politically, but in your personality and day-to-day life. To put it bluntly, I don't think you get out much. Anyone who has spent a fair amount of time dealing with The Public on a large scale would see one big downside to your plan, and that is the preponderance of Dumb Fucking Idiots in this world. And I don't mean people who hold different political beliefs, or people who prioritize things differently than I do. I mean genuine, horrendous, stupid and immoral by any standard, Dumb Fucking Idiots.
Put a basic, basic intelligence assessment as a threshold requirement for Randomocracy eligibility, and maybe I could be swayed. But legislation readable by humans could not be passed by people whose heads happen to be too far up their asses to think reading or writing anything is worthwhile, and there are more people out there like that than you think.
"I don't think you get out much."
Ahem...my work has me out and about every day, in the company of people everyday.
#
"Dumb Fucking Idiots..."
...make up more than 90% of any population you care to name...not seein' how installin' morons by random selection will get us any worse of a result than the way we do it now (installin' morons who win popularity contests).
Laws are written to be precise. Granted, sometimes (often) they are written with maliciously precise loopholes for particular interest groups, but the vast majority of boilerplate legalese that adds pages to laws is there because the shorter, more readable version was misinterpreted in a clever way, and the law needed to be clarified. And, unfortunately, an extreme amount of clarification can become obfuscation.
I can see a downside. I assume many others to too.
Anyone installed by lottery or other such means would likely immediately devolve into a corrupt banana republic legislator, grabbing as much money as they could while the gettin' was good.
The federal government is one giant hog trough full of cash, and anyone who gets access to it will grab as much as they can for themselves, followed by doling some out to the peons they purport to represent, be they the poor, the disabled, the elderly, whomever. Look at any nonreligious charity (and some of those too).
The ones at the top always seem to make six and seven figure salaries, don't they? QED.
I ALMOST feel sorry for Paul Manafort right now...almost.
Here's a current view into Trump campaign headquarters:
"Anyone installed by lottery or other such means would likely immediately devolve into a corrupt banana republic legislator, grabbing as much money as they could while the gettin' was good."
Sure, many would, just as they do now, under the current system.
The simple solution: adjudication (and initial restraint)
A plain language law might say 'don't shoot guns within the city limits'...certainly some schmuck will come along and test it, looking for, or creating, a loophole...turning one plain sentence into twenty pages of jargon (to clarify the original sentence) is one way to go, but it might be better, where there's dispute, to allow adjudication (folks present their arguments, the arbiter assesses arguments with the law as standard, then he rules).
Certainly, as time goes, any law will accrete interpretations, amendments, qualifiers, etc. but it seems more natural to allow circumstance to to guide that process than trying to cram everything in from the start.
And, of course, hesitancy on the part of law makers to create new law in the first place would be a nice thing. 'Do we really need a law for this?' is a serious question that, it seems, a great many law makers ignore or give only a passing thought to.
The law is created, then adjudicated, then enforced as we know from watching the opening to Law & Order...
So random person can create law, and it starts the loophole arguments over what is a gun, and what is firing; but also, there are a whole set of changes that happen to any previous city laws about guns, as well as what laws are at state, county, federal level and how they interoperate.
If the interpretation of the law is to be part of it, then the body of decisions has to be followed, and things previously ruled upon have to be studied, with repercussions for judges if this doesn't happen.
Pretty soon interpretation is more complicated than the law itself, and you have a battle between law and interpretation of law. Making the law more complicated clears some of the interpretation before it happens, so the law is not immediately rendered meaningless.
I think this is all first-year law student stuff, but I also believe if I send an application to Dickinson Law School, they will sneeze on it and send it back to me. They sneezed on my undergrad app back in the day.
Certainly, as time goes, any law will accrete interpretations, amendments, qualifiers, etc. but it seems more natural to allow circumstance to to guide that process than trying to cram everything in from the start.
That's what boilerplate is; the natural accumulation of interpretations, amendments, qualifiers, etc, that have proven necessary on old laws, applied to new ones, so we don't have to go through all of that again.
It should never be easy to pass laws, so: 'going through all that again' should be required...startin' from scratch every damn time.
"All that" being a poorly worded law that requires years of additional legislation to bring it to the point we could have started with if we applied the lessons learned to begin with.
Yours is a prescription for more legislation, not less.
Itchin' to nuke someone.*
“I have to follow up with that, but I’ll be very careful here. Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump, and three times he asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked, at one point, ‘If we have them, why can’t we use them?” Scarborough said.
[SIZE=1]* Grain of salt level: Scarborough[/SIZE]
"All that" being a poorly worded law that requires years of additional legislation to bring it to the point we could have started with if we applied the lessons learned to begin with.
-----
Yeah, that's my mistake: when I say 'all that' I mean each and every bit of legislation ought to start from scratch, 'all that' being the process from start. That is: the cake of law ought to be made from scratch, not bought, ready-made, at the grocery.
So: if law makers had to seriously consider the need of a law (instead of just assuming that need, or being told there's a need), and if law makers had to start from the beginning on every bit of law (instead of assuming precedents [call it zero-based law making]), there would probably be fewer laws passed and those that were passed would probably address legit needs instead of momentary/cultural/special interest whims.
So: if law makers had to seriously consider the need of a law (instead of just assuming that need, or being told there's a need), and if law makers had to start from the beginning on every bit of law
Those are completely orthogonal. Sure, there are laws that shouldn't exist. But once it's been decided that the law should exist, I don't see how it helps things to deliberately leave massive loopholes that centuries of experience have shown us.
Because even if the legislators don't, the bad actors will. All they have to do is look at all the boilerplate that was left off of the new law, and do that. They don't even have to make up new ways around the law.
, not bought, ready-made, at the grocery.
That being said, if "the grocery" is a special interest think tank that submits ready-made laws with carefully designed loopholes, rather than boilerplate that has naturally grown from years of legislative clerks drafting law (legislators themselves seldom have much to do with the actual drafting), then I agree.
Seems to me, within the American framework, the only boilerplate we need concern ourselves with is the Constitution (itself a concise codification and distillation of 'centuries of experience'). Start there, that's the table (the only one you can use), or mebbe the basic recipe (from which you cannot deviate)...go collect your fixings...make that cake from scratch.
#
"orthogonal"
Nice word...lots of meanings.
If laws were written like the Constitution, then every case would need to be decided by the Supreme Court.
So what?
That's what the courts (local all the way up to the highest) are for: to adjudicate.
Look how much they want to talk about anything other than the reality that their party cheated...
Does that surprise you?
I'm not surprised at all democrat powers -- the folks most strident about the goodness of 'democracy' -- have no faith in the democratic process (no faith in 'the people'), and I'm not surprised -- when those powers are caught monkeyin' around -- they don't wanna talk about it.
Me?!?!?!?!?!
Hell no. They've got nothing and they know it. She is literally indefensible.
She is literally indefensible.
So some administrators in the DNC decided to support Hilary. That proves to wacko extremists that the entire DNC and Hilary are evil. "Fuck the facts and details. Only my emotions and wacko extremist rhetoric prove it must be true."
Moderates among us can watch wackos post more cheapshot attacks. Defined is a difference between an adult (who first learns facts) from wackos who are experts because their political emotions (and Cruz, Rush, and Ann Coulter say so) prove it is true.
Let the cheapshot attacks resume. Since that is what these recent posts are about. Emotions blame all as evil because a few somebodies cast support towards their preferred Democrat. Amazing how wackos can disparage all because a few had an opinion.
Wackos are so easily manipulated as to even deny promoted a of massacre of almost 5000 American soldiers when reality was clearly distorted and is know well known to have been 'sexed up'.
Who will be so wacko as to take the bait?
"Fuck the facts and details. Only my emotions and wacko extremist rhetoric prove it must be true.
Finally the realization that we have all known for years. Knowing and identifying your problem is the first step. Good for you.
Now fuck off and go back to pretending I don't exist. Its better for EVERYONE.
[YOUTUBE]wbkS26PX4rc[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBEWIDE]wbkS26PX4rc[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
[YOUTUBE]OdMWpvvnk2Q[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBEWIDE]OdMWpvvnk2Q[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
And one more just for fun ...
If she wasn't running against Trump, those videos might have a point.
Except claiming that being a defense attorney is a bad thing. That's silly.
And the lesbian stuff was pretty unpleasant.
Trump is an ass. He's a problem as well.
I cannot fathom how anyone can really support either one of them on their merit.
I can understand the "We'll he/she is better than her/him." Neither of them are good candidates.
Trump proposes using the Second Amendment to prevent Clinton from appointing judges if she wins.
"If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks," he said at a rally in Wilmington, N.C., to boos from the crowd. "Although the Second Amendment people ... maybe there is, I don't know."
A Trump spokesman later claimed:
"Donald Trump was obviously talking about American voters who are passionate about their Second Amendment rights and advocating they use that power at the ballot box,"
Unfortunately for that explanation, the original quote was in a post-ballot-box context.
It's the Republicans' fault for catering to racists and reactionaries for decades, and not solving the very real class/economic problems of their own demographic.
It's the Democrats' fault for helping Hillary get the nomination when they knew her numbers against Trump weren't nearly as good as Bernie's.
There are only two things that prevent a Trump presidency now.
1.) Democrats let Hillary get indicted (as she could be, if they really wanted to) and let Bernie have the nomination after all.
2.) Republicans find a likeable, high-visibility conservative Republican to run on a third-party ticket, split the R vote and knowingly let Hillary win.
Neither one is going to happen. Trump is going to win. And it's going to be everyone's fault.
He won't take anything but Utah. (And by take, I don't mean win, I just mean eke Trump out of any lead.) But that might be enough, if the article is right.
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
Didn't go well the last time.
Actually, up until they shot him, Reagan seemed to be doing a real good job of living up to his promises. But, after that incident, he seemed to be a different person. Even then, his legacy is better than any president since (IMNSHO).
A lot of people benefitted from his economic programs (tax cuts in particular), even though they ridiculed the concepts behind them (trickle-down economics).
And, it does seem from a neo-con worldview (which isn't mine) that eliminating the Soviet Union as a world-wide threat to freedom could be similar to "making America great again..."
But, I am not a fan of any country or other political establishment being "great". "Great" may be okay in sports, or in the educational achievement of students, but when a country or politician calls for "greatness" it is generally a call for war.
In politics how "great" you are is defined by who you can defeat.
GHW Bush (Crazy George II) made sure to prove our "greatness" by attacking and/or invading more coutries than any US President since World War II. His son George W (Crazy George III) followed up by taking over both Afghanistan and Iraq. What a disaster that has been for the American people (and economy) that have had to pay for all of that warfare.
We're all paying for it now in increased taxation with reduced incomes. (Did you ntice the box on your 1040 to check if you choose to not support the war? Neither did I. That sort of tyranny is seldom voluntary.)
But the bottom line is that we, any of us who voted, have given our blessing to everything that has been done in our names, with our mandate, because we have agreed in advance, by casting our votes, that whatever the winners and all of their minions do it okay by us.
That's a contract that I can't sign again. So I have become a Veto-Voter.
El Veto-Voter
www.HaltVote.com But the bottom line is that we, any of us who voted, have given our blessing to everything that has been done in our names, with our mandate, because we have agreed in advance, by casting our votes, that whatever the winners and all of their minions do it okay by us.
First, when one does not vote, then one tells leaders to only listen to extremists. If a voter goes to polls and checks off no names, even that is a vote against extremists. Politicians make decisions based upon who bothers to go to the polls. Does not matter if he is a greatest moderate in Congress. He will still vote with extremists if fewer people go to the polls.
Second, Tip O'Neill, House Speaker and Congressman even back in Kennedy's time said it best. Best administration he saw was 1st Administration Reagan. Worst administration he saw was 2nd Administration Reagan. What idiot would listen to some ill-respected Colonel as his military adviser. That's when (and because) over 200 American Marines were killed in Lebanon.
The people who did so much for Reagan (ie the Troika) left after four years - exhausted. What followed were power hungry and far less competent people - including and not limited to Oliver North.
George Sr was a superb leader. For example where was a massive recession created by war? Nixon spent money we did not have in 1968 (continued a war he knew we could not win to protect his legacy). As a result, a severe recession was 1975-1980s. George Jr spend almost $3 trillion on Mission Accomplished in 2003. Never forget the resulting recession he created before, on and after 2007.
George Sr was a competent president. Desert Storm (liberation of Kuwait) was paid for by the entire world. Even S American countries contributed. Largest contributor was Japan. As a result, that war did not create a severe downturn.
Of course it took Margaret Thatcher, Colin Powell and Brent Scowcroft (among others) to undo lies by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, and other neocons (later known as Project for a New American Century). Therefore that war was justified, met all criteria necessary for war, and did not create a massive recession. A major difference between responsible leadership and failed leadership often traceable to the people that a leader consults and brings with him into office.
Does not matter who you voted for. We all decided to send almost 5000 American soldiers to a useless death in Mission Accomplished. Does not matter who you voted for. We all are responsible for their deaths, a resulting recession, and other resulting problems. Trying to deny that is simply a cop out. We all did it - no matter what any one personally believed or said. And we all pay the price (decaying infrastructure, increasing military budgets, loss of jobs) because of what we all decided to do a decade earlier. It takes many years for such mistakes to have consequences.