Author Topic: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting  (Read 92928 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24813
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3255 on: August 13, 2018, 12:57:34 PM »
^ Sadly, this is true.  Trump spent enough time REPEATEDELY discrediting any media slightly left of centre, and now he has the base in the palm of his hands.  You tell a lie enough times, it becomes the truth.  Hopefully the 'not-his-base' camp is a little more objective.

They're not, though, that's the problem.

Oh I agree... there is a large group of far lefty's that will blow everything about Trump out of perspective and proportion thanks to the MSM.  I'm just (naively??) hopeful that the middle group is the largest group, and carries some modicum of objectivity.  To steal the sentiment from The Great Debate.... 25% of people are all over what MSM says about Trump; 25% brush aside everything the MSM says; and 50% aren't sure what to think / think somewhat objectively.  Maybe?  Please?
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13577
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3256 on: August 13, 2018, 01:13:25 PM »
^ Sadly, this is true.  Trump spent enough time REPEATEDELY discrediting any media slightly left of centre, and now he has the base in the palm of his hands.  You tell a lie enough times, it becomes the truth.  Hopefully the 'not-his-base' camp is a little more objective.

They're not, though, that's the problem.

Oh I agree... there is a large group of far lefty's that will blow everything about Trump out of perspective and proportion thanks to the MSM.  I'm just (naively??) hopeful that the middle group is the largest group, and carries some modicum of objectivity.  To steal the sentiment from The Great Debate.... 25% of people are all over what MSM says about Trump; 25% brush aside everything the MSM says; and 50% aren't sure what to think / think somewhat objectively.  Maybe?  Please?

Well, I'm with you on that, Jingle.  Really, and even down to the "starting to worry for my own sanity that it's not naÔve" hopefulness that some sort of reason will out here.   I don't know if midterms will tell us, I don't know if 2020 will tell us, but I do know - well, feel really strongly - that it's not about the typical reactionary politics.  We are NOT "just one moderate liberal away from normality again".   Because the 25% sides are so entrenched at this point that decent, good (in every sense of the word) candidates are getting chewed up and spit out as a normal part of the process.   Cruz, Clinton, Trump, Sanders... none of the "top four" were without significant compromise on a non-policy level.   Are these four REALLY the best of the best that America has to offer?   Where is the next John Kennedy?  Where is the next Abraham Lincoln?   Where is the next John Adams? 

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11871
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3257 on: August 13, 2018, 01:28:56 PM »
I heard an interesting point made on talk radio the other day when it came to the 'accomplishments' / Laws of Obama and now Trump. This man was making the point that the laws that we see that have legs and that are the most successful obviously are the laws that were crafted and championed with partisanship support.

It's been some time since that's happened and his point was driving towards the fact that being that obama's 'legacy' was largely accomplished with zero support from the Repubs.....it was a mish mash of crafty process maneuvering and executive orders.....trump was able to run against those moves and then subsequently win, get in and begin to dismantle what obama placed into law.

Now whether we get 4 or 8 years of trump who knows....but one thing is for certain.....the next Dem President will do the exact same thing to trumps 'legacy' and the laws he's craftily gotten into place or executive ordered. BECAUSE....he isn't getting partisan support either.

Unless we can get a true leader in the White House I just don't see how this 'back and forth' ends anytime soon. Don't know what that leader 'looks' like right now.....or how, he/she manages to get both sides to knock it off and focus on the country rather than party....but something HAS to give sooner or later, right?
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20176
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3258 on: August 13, 2018, 01:35:23 PM »
I just don't see how you get bi partisan support when one half is saying "Get rid of mpg goals for automakers and get all of our coal plants back online" while the other is saying "we need to power this country with technology that doesn't pollute our air and water sources, and doesn't fill out atmosphere with heat trapping gases"

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26890
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3259 on: August 13, 2018, 01:39:44 PM »
I heard an interesting point made on talk radio the other day when it came to the 'accomplishments' / Laws of Obama and now Trump. This man was making the point that the laws that we see that have legs and that are the most successful obviously are the laws that were crafted and championed with partisanship support.

It's been some time since that's happened and his point was driving towards the fact that being that obama's 'legacy' was largely accomplished with zero support from the Repubs.....it was a mish mash of crafty process maneuvering and executive orders.....trump was able to run against those moves and then subsequently win, get in and begin to dismantle what obama placed into law.

Now whether we get 4 or 8 years of trump who knows....but one thing is for certain.....the next Dem President will do the exact same thing to trumps 'legacy' and the laws he's craftily gotten into place or executive ordered. BECAUSE....he isn't getting partisan support either.

Unless we can get a true leader in the White House I just don't see how this 'back and forth' ends anytime soon. Don't know what that leader 'looks' like right now.....or how, he/she manages to get both sides to knock it off and focus on the country rather than party....but something HAS to give sooner or later, right?

All very true. However, I don't think it's fair to assume a leader even has that ability. We romanticize (and rightfully so) Lincoln, and Kennedy, and Adams, and Nixon, etc as people who could inspire nations. I wouldn't be too surprised if any of those men would have 0 effect on bipartisanship. Sadly, the real work lies with the politicians, and not just the leader.

That said, you DO need a leader who, unlike Trump, isn't actively creating as huge of a divide as possible. Obviously Obama couldn't do that. I haven't seen any potentials who would have made much of an impact, unless they ran on virtually no platform at all and thus had nothing that anyone was upset about. Which would be pointless.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11871
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3260 on: August 13, 2018, 01:42:43 PM »
I Just don't see how you get bi partisan support when one half is saying "Get rid of mpg goals for automakers and get all of our coal plants back online" while the other is saying "we need to power this country with technology that doesn't pollute our air and water sources, and doesn't fill out atmosphere with heat trapping gases"

You get the one half to convince the major players in the 'fossil fuel' market that the gig is up....we're collectively turning the page on fossil fuels and that they need to revamp their industries to support the technologies of the future and that don't kill our planet. You'd need the other half to agree to allow $$$ incentive's to those companies to persuade them to pursue the changeover of product line  (despite them already being loaded beyond belief.) 
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3261 on: August 13, 2018, 01:45:22 PM »
I Just don't see how you get bi partisan support when one half is saying "Get rid of mpg goals for automakers and get all of our coal plants back online" while the other is saying "we need to power this country with technology that doesn't pollute our air and water sources, and doesn't fill out atmosphere with heat trapping gases"

But Chino, since the inception of this country, we've had issues just as polarizing, where each side was so convinced that they were "obviously" 100% right and the other side was "obviously" 100% wrong.  The problem is that, by and large, both sides refuse to listen to, acknowledge, and compromise with the other.  The system works when you can say to your opponent, "I think you are 100% wrong, objectively and subjectively, but I will accord you the common respect and dignity owed to you as my fellow man and listen to your perspective, and fight with every bit of my being to find some sort of common ground so that we can move forward."
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11871
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3262 on: August 13, 2018, 01:46:56 PM »
I haven't seen any potentials who would have made much of an impact, unless they ran on virtually no platform at all and thus had nothing that anyone was upset about. Which would be pointless.

It's going to have to be someone that isn't in the picture at the moment. A 'random' person who with the exploits of todays social media....could galvanize the nation so to speak......from the outside of the mess that is D.C. I really believe there is a Historic turning point that is possible, that there can be that moment in American history where someone just steps up with an 'enough is enough' attitude and allows 'we the people' to actually be heard and in the words of Rage Against the Machine.....take the power back.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26890
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3263 on: August 13, 2018, 01:48:20 PM »
I haven't seen any potentials who would have made much of an impact, unless they ran on virtually no platform at all and thus had nothing that anyone was upset about. Which would be pointless.

It's going to have to be someone that isn't in the picture at the moment. A 'random' person who with the exploits of todays social media....could galvanize the nation so to speak......from the outside of the mess that is D.C. I really believe there is a Historic turning point that is possible, that there can be that moment in American history where someone just steps up with an 'enough is enough' attitude and allows 'we the people' to actually be heard and in the words of Rage Against the Machine.....take the power back.

Sadly, I think you are 100% wrong, objectively and subjectively, but I will accord you the common respect and dignity owed to you as my fellow man and listen to your perspective, and fight with every bit of my being to find some sort of common ground so that we can move forward.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13577
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3264 on: August 13, 2018, 02:00:54 PM »
I just don't see how you get bi partisan support when one half is saying "Get rid of mpg goals for automakers and get all of our coal plants back online" while the other is saying "we need to power this country with technology that doesn't pollute our air and water sources, and doesn't fill out atmosphere with heat trapping gases"

You get bipartisan support when you don't frame it that way.   

George W. Bush - you remember, the cokehead oil-man that conned his way into the White House so he could get daddy revenge against Saddam? - presided over emissions standards for the rail industry.  If you think the NRA is a powerful advocate, you haven't seen the Class I railroads when it comes to regulatory oversight of the industry.  They have fleets of 30K or more locomotives (at over $3.5M a pop) invested, and will invest MILLIONS into software and operational innovations that save even a fraction of a gallon of fuel for those fleets.   The emissions standards at Tier II and Tier III could be achieved that way, but Tier IV required technology that literally had not been invented at the time.   

It got through.   And one company (just so happened, mine, though I had nothing to do with the technology side) developed an engine that was/is the most efficient engine of it's kind ever developed, and which meets the Tier IV criteria.   It was done collaboratively, and with a respect for and in collaboration with the entities that actually had to implement these, and who risked having to overhaul their ENTIRE FLEET to meet the standards.   It was phased in over time.  It included opportunities for the industry to weigh in and comment at the development went on.   It also allowed for a phased-in implementation of the new technology (Tier IV locos can cost upwards of 50% over their Tier II and Tier III predecessors).

Contrast this with some of the more recent initiatives, where politicians brag about "taking on" this industry or that, and who brag about "change you can believe in" and "being an outsider".    There was no even pretense of Bernie Sanders meeting with Wall Street and developing reasonable compromises over the regulation of the banking industry.    It was just more "they're criminals and need to be hung in the streets" rhetoric.  How do you compromise with that? 

What you can't do is be all in on "regulations will fix all problems, fuck the market place" or be all in on "the market place will fix all problems, fuck regulations", but it takes a step beyond that.   The regulations that do get implemented can't undermine the market, and vice versa, and that's where these things fail.   I guarantee you that Exxon has no fundamental problem with nuclear power or clean energy; what they have a problem with is having their entire multi-billion dollar infrastructure rendered obsolete by the stroke of a pen of someone who hasn't worked an honest day in their lives.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13577
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3265 on: August 13, 2018, 02:06:13 PM »
I Just don't see how you get bi partisan support when one half is saying "Get rid of mpg goals for automakers and get all of our coal plants back online" while the other is saying "we need to power this country with technology that doesn't pollute our air and water sources, and doesn't fill out atmosphere with heat trapping gases"

But Chino, since the inception of this country, we've had issues just as polarizing, where each side was so convinced that they were "obviously" 100% right and the other side was "obviously" 100% wrong.  The problem is that, by and large, both sides refuse to listen to, acknowledge, and compromise with the other.  The system works when you can say to your opponent, "I think you are 100% wrong, objectively and subjectively, but I will accord you the common respect and dignity owed to you as my fellow man and listen to your perspective, and fight with every bit of my being to find some sort of common ground so that we can move forward."

Because "compromise" has become a dirty word.   In this age of "you're either with us or against us", there's no room for middle ground.  In a society that treats people that don't actively and vocally reject things like "racism" as actual racists, the notion of coming in and BOTH SIDES losing right out the gate is a non-starter.    It's perceived as weak, and perceived as duplicitous.   But the reality is, it's the only way a society of 320 million people are going to find a common ground.   

Remember when the mantra was "tolerance"?   Yeah, so do I.  It doesn't just apply to identity politics. 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20752
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3266 on: August 13, 2018, 02:39:15 PM »
You guys are talking about whether or not a leader could bring back an age of bipartisanship. You're overlooking the fact that we the people won't accept that anymore. Some of us can sit here and type about how grand it would be, but in the modern America this is the new normal. As Stadler pointed out after his amazingly lifelike description of Dumbass, we've made it personal and of existential import. The next guy who comes along campaigning on the platform of restoring civility will get his ass handed to him by whichever guy screams "fuck civility" the loudest. "We don't need kindness! We need action! Action to prevent people like my opponent from destroying our way of life!"
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26890
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3267 on: August 13, 2018, 05:19:49 PM »
That's very true. American values have changed. Thoughtfulness and empathy is no longer valued.

We don't want the nice guy. We want strength. Unbridled strength. We want the guy who will kick the door in and demand that everyone do what he says. A guy that insults everyone who is beneath him, to show their weakness, who says anything they want, who bangs the big boobed secretaries and doesn't give a god damn about any of it. Because anything less than that is being a pussy, and America is no place for pussies.

Hyperbolically speaking, of course.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2018, 05:26:08 PM by Adami »
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24813
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3268 on: August 13, 2018, 07:40:30 PM »
I just read an article about America entering the era of negative partisanship, with this picture summing it all up:



Values are more skewed to be AGAINST the other party at all costs.  6 years ago, the Republican candidate called Russia the #1 geopolitical enemy, with Republicans cheering him on.  Now... rather be Russian than Democrat.  Hatred of the other party above all else.  Everyone would rather have their party's candidate in office, however unorthodox and unqualified, than any kind of other party candidate.  The other party is the cultural enemy, hostile to people ďlike you,Ē and therefore must be defeated at all costs.  What's sad is that negative partisanship isnít really about policy; itís about identity.  US politics is more about identity than anything else now.

I agree with Gary, it's going to take something/someone completely different, and imo, a generational transition - meaning, it ain't going to be vastly different in December, or 2020, and maybe not until 2028 or so..  Baby boomers that still retain much of the political control are not going to make that change.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2018, 08:43:01 PM by jingle.boy »
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 27964
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3269 on: August 13, 2018, 08:26:23 PM »
Yep, it's sad what it has come to.  Americans who want us to flourish should be rooting for the president to do well no matter who it is, but it is not like that.  Generally speaking, Republicans badly wanted to see Obama fail, just like Democrats want to see Trump fail.  It's sad. 

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6475
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3270 on: August 13, 2018, 10:37:46 PM »
I've struggled with this myself. Of course I want what is best for my family, my community, and my country. But does that mean I would be happy if that was achieved by means I disagree with? Does that mean I was wrong, and they were right? And if so, am I mature and wise enough to admit that and accept that?
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline lonestar

  • DTF Executive Head Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 16531
  • Gender: Male
  • First Follower
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3271 on: August 14, 2018, 07:56:56 AM »
Yep, it's sad what it has come to.  Americans who want us to flourish should be rooting for the president to do well no matter who it is, but it is not like that.  Generally speaking, Republicans badly wanted to see Obama fail, just like Democrats want to see Trump fail.  It's sad. 

Yup...as long as we keep looking at it like a competition, one side will always end up losing.
Quote from: nightmare_cinema
So should lonestar and I have babies or something now, is that how this works?
Dang, you're easily the coolest fogey I know of

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13577
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3272 on: August 14, 2018, 08:48:15 AM »
That's very true. American values have changed. Thoughtfulness and empathy is no longer valued.

We don't want the nice guy. We want strength. Unbridled strength. We want the guy who will kick the door in and demand that everyone do what he says. A guy that insults everyone who is beneath him, to show their weakness, who says anything they want, who bangs the big boobed secretaries and doesn't give a god damn about any of it. Because anything less than that is being a pussy, and America is no place for pussies.

Hyperbolically speaking, of course.

Mad respect, but you missed the point entirely.    No one REALLY wants "insults", "big boob bangin'" or "non-pussies"; however, some of us are willing to tolerate that to get what we really want, which is more akin to what el Barto said.    This notion that people WANT these bad things is exactly what I'm harping on when I talk about the "moralizing", and the "if you don't vociferously fight back, you're accepting" quagmire.   I'm a victim of (serial) infidelity.  I don't "want" that in my leaders.  I don't find it "admirable" or any other word you might put in there.  I find it cowardly and weak, to be honest.   But if I have a choice between my least favorite candidate and an almost optimal candidate (but marred by infidelity), guess what?  What goes on in that person's bedroom is their bidness.   I'd vote for Bill Clinton in a HEARTBEAT right now - even over-looking my personal peccadillo, "perjury" - because the greater good is more important than my morals.   

That's what this really comes down to (and by the way, I blame a large part of this on social media):  we now operate on the mantra of "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you!".  We are now firmly in the "what's good for me is all that matters" territory, and it doesn't work that way. 

Funny how when Obama joins a "choom gang" and does coke, it's "refreshing" and "honest", when Clinton violates a woman and a cigar in one fell swoop it "doesn't impact his ability to lead", but when Trump does it, he's a moral degenerate and society is going to hell in a hand basket.    It is, but it isn't because Trump can't keep his hands off bleached blondes with big cans.   (And I only note that to point out that the "moralizing" isn't some altruistic believe in higher integrity, but simply a means to shame and bully those that don't see things our way.)

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3273 on: August 14, 2018, 08:56:59 AM »
I couldn't agree more, Stadler.

Interesting that you mention voting for Bill if he were running.  That gives me pause.  What if hypothetically, Bill ran against Trump next election?  Who would I vote for?  To me, it's still a lesser of two evils calculus.  And to me, I think I would probably still have to vote against the Dems.  But it is a much harder decision.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13577
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3274 on: August 14, 2018, 09:04:42 AM »
I just read an article about America entering the era of negative partisanship, with this picture summing it all up:



Values are more skewed to be AGAINST the other party at all costs.  6 years ago, the Republican candidate called Russia the #1 geopolitical enemy, with Republicans cheering him on.  Now... rather be Russian than Democrat.  Hatred of the other party above all else.  Everyone would rather have their party's candidate in office, however unorthodox and unqualified, than any kind of other party candidate.  The other party is the cultural enemy, hostile to people ďlike you,Ē and therefore must be defeated at all costs.  What's sad is that negative partisanship isnít really about policy; itís about identity.  US politics is more about identity than anything else now.

I agree with Gary, it's going to take something/someone completely different, and imo, a generational transition - meaning, it ain't going to be vastly different in December, or 2020, and maybe not until 2028 or so..  Baby boomers that still retain much of the political control are not going to make that change.

I'm pretty sure you only used that because it made your point clearest, but let's not excuse the Dems from this.  If you're not on the Progressive Identity Politics train, you're "deplorable".   If the President isn't someone you personally (and that's important, though I don't mean you, Jingle) approve of, they're "NOT MY PRESIDENT!" and you must resist.    We forget that McConnell's refusal to even give Garland a hearing - wrong, in my opinion - was SCHUMER'S idea.  He laid it out as a perfectly acceptable means of handling a lame duck Presidency.  The whole gamesmanship with the Senate and "filibusters" were brought to a head by Harry Reid.   Again, not trying to further the partisanship but showing that both sides have a hand in this and a responsibility for it (By the way, sorry for the aside, but I just had a dizzying wave of deja vu come over me). 

You are, I believe, 100% correct (though we might quibble with what that means on the ground) that U.S. politics is more about identity than anything else right now. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13577
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3275 on: August 14, 2018, 09:24:29 AM »
I couldn't agree more, Stadler.

Interesting that you mention voting for Bill if he were running.  That gives me pause.  What if hypothetically, Bill ran against Trump next election?  Who would I vote for?  To me, it's still a lesser of two evils calculus.  And to me, I think I would probably still have to vote against the Dems.  But it is a much harder decision.

Well, I'm trying to be as authentic as I can be (not implying you are not; this isn't a zero sum game).   I value economics - broadly speaking, not just Trumpian "stock market performance" - more than anything else; I deeply believe that all the "human rights" advances in the world are going to fail if the underlying society isn't economically sound.   There's a reason the poorer countries in the world are also the more egregious offenders when it comes to human rights.  Desperate people do desperate things.   We can't assure "healthcare as a human right" if the people paying for it aren't sound enough economically to shoulder the load (and no, that's not the Mark Cubans of the world; if we attempt to put the bill for the entire country on the top 1%, it's going to be amazing how many rich people actually live in the Channel Islands).   

It is a hard decision in the sense that there is a lot of baggage with Bill (the perjury, the "Clinton legacy", etc.) but economically, I think he had one of the best "balances" between free market opportunity and social responsibility.  He wasn't on a mission to punish anyone, or teach anyone a lesson.   

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24813
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3276 on: August 14, 2018, 10:58:03 AM »
I'm pretty sure you only used that because it made your point clearest, but let's not excuse the Dems from this.

Yes.  I'm not excusing Democrats, but highlight the Right here because they are seemingly more vociferous in their opposition of the other party.  'I'd rather be a member of a hostile nation that even my own leader 6 years ago (Mitt) claimed was a meaningful threat' is a little more ... aggressive ?? ... than say 'I'm moving to Canada if Trump wins'.  It wasn't "I'm moving to Canada i the Republicans win".  This shirt/message is exclusively about the party, whereas I believe much of the opposition from the left is due to the actions and behaviours of Trump (or others), not just because he represents the Republican party.  In the current environment, Republicans are quick to dismiss or rationalize ANY slight against Trump - big or small.  Conversely, Democrats are quick to attack any slight - big or small - against Trump.
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13577
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3277 on: August 14, 2018, 11:37:12 AM »
I'm pretty sure you only used that because it made your point clearest, but let's not excuse the Dems from this.

Yes.  I'm not excusing Democrats, but highlight the Right here because they are seemingly more vociferous in their opposition of the other party.  'I'd rather be a member of a hostile nation that even my own leader 6 years ago (Mitt) claimed was a meaningful threat' is a little more ... aggressive ?? ... than say 'I'm moving to Canada if Trump wins'.  It wasn't "I'm moving to Canada i the Republicans win".  This shirt/message is exclusively about the party, whereas I believe much of the opposition from the left is due to the actions and behaviours of Trump (or others), not just because he represents the Republican party.  In the current environment, Republicans are quick to dismiss or rationalize ANY slight against Trump - big or small.  Conversely, Democrats are quick to attack any slight - big or small - against Trump.

We're going to have to agree to disagree.  Calling 30 million people "deplorable" because they prioritize issues differently than you do (maybe; Clinton has no credibility with me when it comes to these issues) is pretty aggressive.   I know some here continually question my bringing it up ("She was in front of an LGBT crowd, begging them to be tolerant!") but it's not about that.   She was only asking for tolerance for those that were ultimately going to be brought into the fold.  That's not tolerance.   That's patience, and almost as condescending as the "deplorable" part.   Plus there's the implied permission to bully, shame and ridicule those that didn't "come on board".  They were explicitly called "irredeemable".   

I also respectfully disagree with the dismissal of party.   What was the response to the idea of "repeal and replace?   "Republicans" want to see sick people die!   There's the implication that if you're for stricter immigration controls - we don't even have to go as far as the wall - you're a racist, who doesn't care about the children!   

Jingle, I don't say it much here, because people here are respectful and more cogent than that, but that is one of the very few things that I actually find offensive "IRL".  I REALLY don't offend easily at all.   Not to say I don't hurt, but I don't  get offended, it's just my wiring.  But that - and being called "stupid" - are as close as it comes.   It's part of that "all or nothing" moral mentality that you see from the left so much more often today than you used to.   You're not apoplectic about  someone being behind a chain link fence?  ANIMAL!   BABY KILLER!  I was responding on Quora the other day - my post was something akin to "hey, why don't we try some real political analysis instead of the childish "Drumpfs" and "tRumps" and Trumproast" and any of the other not at all clever little personal digs you can make about someone you didn't vote for?" and I got into a (very good, very mature) discussion with someone that self-identified as "black, gay Christian", and someone else posted "Why are you talking to this bigot?" (about me).   Thankfully, the guy was cool and said "that's not how I read this", but still.   I said nothing outrageous.  I said nothing that was outright derogatory or ad hominem.   It was, perhaps, less than 100% blindly accepting of the Democrat platform and the LGBT agenda (the underlying point was about how "acceptance" and "tolerance" are not the same thing, and how you can demand "tolerance" but only ask for "acceptance") but it wasn't even close to "bigoted".   

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20752
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3278 on: August 14, 2018, 11:45:47 AM »
I also respectfully disagree with the dismissal of party.   What was the response to the idea of "repeal and replace?   "Republicans" want to see sick people die!   There's the implication that if you're for stricter immigration controls - we don't even have to go as far as the wall - you're a racist, who doesn't care about the children!   
What was the response to the suggestion of tightening background checks on gun purchases? "Dems wanna take mah guns!" How about reforming immigration rather than wasting money on a wall? "Libs want open borders so immigrants can take over the country!" Loosening the penalties on non-violent drug offenders? "Lefties want to let the criminals out so they'll vote democrat!" There's no shortage of people on the right willing to use bullshit rhetoric to demonize the other side. You keep talking about the moralization of politics from the left as if you've never seen the comments section after an article on FOX.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13577
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3279 on: August 14, 2018, 03:01:22 PM »
I also respectfully disagree with the dismissal of party.   What was the response to the idea of "repeal and replace?   "Republicans" want to see sick people die!   There's the implication that if you're for stricter immigration controls - we don't even have to go as far as the wall - you're a racist, who doesn't care about the children!   
What was the response to the suggestion of tightening background checks on gun purchases? "Dems wanna take mah guns!" How about reforming immigration rather than wasting money on a wall? "Libs want open borders so immigrants can take over the country!" Loosening the penalties on non-violent drug offenders? "Lefties want to let the criminals out so they'll vote democrat!" There's no shortage of people on the right willing to use bullshit rhetoric to demonize the other side. You keep talking about the moralization of politics from the left as if you've never seen the comments section after an article on FOX.

I'm very clearly saying that both sides are the problem.  There is also no shortage of people here pointing out the contributions of the right.   I don't feel as though I have anything new to add there that hasn't been already said, but without comment it seems as if the "right" is the only side throwing mud. 

The problem, of course, is that the left has the media helping to soften the splat. 

Case in point:  SHS press junket today.  One reporter repeatedly kept asking her to "guarantee" that Trump never said the N-word, ever.    SHS did what she could: "He never said it in front of me.  I have not seen anything like that.  I would have heard about it if  he had.  Yadda yadda yadda."   "But can you GUARANTEE".  "No I can't guarantee, but he never said it... " (I don't have to type it out; you can read what I wrote).

Then, not more than 20 minutes after the press conference?  http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-latest-sanders-cant-guarantee-trump-hasnt-used-n-word/ar-BBLUo9i?ocid=ientp

How is that elevating the conversation?  How is that sending the message that it's counter-productive to make every situation a "gotcha" of the other guy at every opportunity?  How is that not making this all a sick game of "I know you are but what am I?"   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13577
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3280 on: August 14, 2018, 03:11:00 PM »
Sorry for the multiple posts, but to your last sentence el barto, the left DOES moralize more.   The right isn't reducing EVERY issue to a moral one.  "Obummer's gonna take ma guns" isn't moralizating, it's just being stupid and not understand the real argument. Saying "we're going to be overrun by immigrants" isn't moralizing, it's just being stupid and not understanding how the process works.   There's no "morality" to being a xenophobe.   Calling someone "deplorable" is.   Implying that someone's vote shouldn't count because of the possibility of a racial component is.   Denying someone rights because of an idea you find repugnant is.   

I'm not suggesting that the Republicans have NEVER done this; quite the opposite. During the days of the Moral Majority, that was the modus operandi.  But the Republican party (rightfully) figured out that that doesn't work (more non-MM people voted for Mondale than pro-MM voted for Reagan in '84), and they've backed away from it.   It's that exact same dynamic that torpedoed Clinton in November.  But the Dems seem to be doubling down on it, rather than seeing the folly of trying to bully and shame people into seeing things their way. 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20752
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3281 on: August 14, 2018, 04:21:43 PM »
Sorry for the multiple posts, but to your last sentence el barto, the left DOES moralize more.   The right isn't reducing EVERY issue to a moral one.  "Obummer's gonna take ma guns" isn't moralizating, it's just being stupid and not understand the real argument. Saying "we're going to be overrun by immigrants" isn't moralizing, it's just being stupid and not understanding how the process works.   There's no "morality" to being a xenophobe.   Calling someone "deplorable" is.   Implying that someone's vote shouldn't count because of the possibility of a racial component is.   Denying someone rights because of an idea you find repugnant is.   

I'm not suggesting that the Republicans have NEVER done this; quite the opposite. During the days of the Moral Majority, that was the modus operandi.  But the Republican party (rightfully) figured out that that doesn't work (more non-MM people voted for Mondale than pro-MM voted for Reagan in '84), and they've backed away from it.   It's that exact same dynamic that torpedoed Clinton in November.  But the Dems seem to be doubling down on it, rather than seeing the folly of trying to bully and shame people into seeing things their way.
I think there's both moralizing and generalizing going on with the examples I gave. Do you deny that the right has, for decades now, cast the liberals as something between "generally week" and "a bunch of candy-asses?" Are we not seeing many inferences right now that the left hates America and wants to see it destroyed? Those are both an underlying foundation of the criticisms we're seeing as well as an inference, and I'd have to call them attacks on character that are at least somewhat moral in nature. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13533
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3282 on: August 15, 2018, 04:30:17 AM »
There's a significant portion of the voting population that votes solely on abortion alone - if that's not a "moralization" of a voter base I don't know what is.
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20176
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3283 on: August 15, 2018, 05:47:02 AM »
Sorry for the multiple posts, but to your last sentence el barto, the left DOES moralize more.   The right isn't reducing EVERY issue to a moral one.  "Obummer's gonna take ma guns" isn't moralizating, it's just being stupid and not understand the real argument. Saying "we're going to be overrun by immigrants" isn't moralizing, it's just being stupid and not understanding how the process works.   There's no "morality" to being a xenophobe.   Calling someone "deplorable" is.   Implying that someone's vote shouldn't count because of the possibility of a racial component is.   Denying someone rights because of an idea you find repugnant is.   

I'm not suggesting that the Republicans have NEVER done this; quite the opposite. During the days of the Moral Majority, that was the modus operandi.  But the Republican party (rightfully) figured out that that doesn't work (more non-MM people voted for Mondale than pro-MM voted for Reagan in '84), and they've backed away from it.   It's that exact same dynamic that torpedoed Clinton in November.  But the Dems seem to be doubling down on it, rather than seeing the folly of trying to bully and shame people into seeing things their way.
I think there's both moralizing and generalizing going on with the examples I gave. Do you deny that the right has, for decades now, cast the liberals as something between "generally week" and "a bunch of candy-asses?" Are we not seeing many inferences right now that the left hates America and wants to see it destroyed? Those are both an underlying foundation of the criticisms we're seeing as well as an inference, and I'd have to call them attacks on character that are at least somewhat moral in nature.

It really bothers me how democrats have been given the label of being "evil". You can disagree with how to go about implementing the policies many of them want, but how can someone call wanting healthcare for all, affordable education, equality in the work place, laws that could mitigated gun related deaths, livable wages, and protecting our only home from pollution and harm to be "evil"? It's freaking stupid.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13577
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3284 on: August 15, 2018, 08:41:54 AM »
Sorry for the multiple posts, but to your last sentence el barto, the left DOES moralize more.   The right isn't reducing EVERY issue to a moral one.  "Obummer's gonna take ma guns" isn't moralizating, it's just being stupid and not understand the real argument. Saying "we're going to be overrun by immigrants" isn't moralizing, it's just being stupid and not understanding how the process works.   There's no "morality" to being a xenophobe.   Calling someone "deplorable" is.   Implying that someone's vote shouldn't count because of the possibility of a racial component is.   Denying someone rights because of an idea you find repugnant is.   

I'm not suggesting that the Republicans have NEVER done this; quite the opposite. During the days of the Moral Majority, that was the modus operandi.  But the Republican party (rightfully) figured out that that doesn't work (more non-MM people voted for Mondale than pro-MM voted for Reagan in '84), and they've backed away from it.   It's that exact same dynamic that torpedoed Clinton in November.  But the Dems seem to be doubling down on it, rather than seeing the folly of trying to bully and shame people into seeing things their way.
I think there's both moralizing and generalizing going on with the examples I gave. Do you deny that the right has, for decades now, cast the liberals as something between "generally week" and "a bunch of candy-asses?" Are we not seeing many inferences right now that the left hates America and wants to see it destroyed? Those are both an underlying foundation of the criticisms we're seeing as well as an inference, and I'd have to call them attacks on character that are at least somewhat moral in nature.

I don't deny that at all.  As I've said, I believe this is a bipartisan problem.   Some like to think I'm just passive-aggressively poking at the left, but I'm not at all giving a pass on the right either.

I do, though, see a difference.   I'm not talking about the fringe element of either party.  At the outer 20% or so, yuo can find anything.  I'm talking about the mainstream, the "Establishment" if you will, using these techniques.  John Kasich is not saying "We have a moral obligation to pass tax cuts."    Hillary IS judging you as "deplorable" if you don't see the light and come to her way of thinking.    John Cornyn is not saying "We have a moral obligation to reduce regulations on businesses."   Chris Murphy IS saying "we have a moral obligation to restrict gun ownership."    Right here in my state:  David Stemerman (who lost mightily, I might add; YAY!) is not saying " We have a moral obligation to take on unions and reduce government pensions" (that's the issue of the moment here).   Jahana Hayes (National Teacher of the Year winner under Barack Obama, who campaigned for her, and who will be the Dem nominee for her district's U.S. Representative) IS saying "we have a moral obligation to make Congress "look like us"."    I'm not sure what that means since I'm not a racist, but nonetheless.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13577
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3285 on: August 15, 2018, 08:50:37 AM »
Sorry for the multiple posts, but to your last sentence el barto, the left DOES moralize more.   The right isn't reducing EVERY issue to a moral one.  "Obummer's gonna take ma guns" isn't moralizating, it's just being stupid and not understand the real argument. Saying "we're going to be overrun by immigrants" isn't moralizing, it's just being stupid and not understanding how the process works.   There's no "morality" to being a xenophobe.   Calling someone "deplorable" is.   Implying that someone's vote shouldn't count because of the possibility of a racial component is.   Denying someone rights because of an idea you find repugnant is.   

I'm not suggesting that the Republicans have NEVER done this; quite the opposite. During the days of the Moral Majority, that was the modus operandi.  But the Republican party (rightfully) figured out that that doesn't work (more non-MM people voted for Mondale than pro-MM voted for Reagan in '84), and they've backed away from it.   It's that exact same dynamic that torpedoed Clinton in November.  But the Dems seem to be doubling down on it, rather than seeing the folly of trying to bully and shame people into seeing things their way.
I think there's both moralizing and generalizing going on with the examples I gave. Do you deny that the right has, for decades now, cast the liberals as something between "generally week" and "a bunch of candy-asses?" Are we not seeing many inferences right now that the left hates America and wants to see it destroyed? Those are both an underlying foundation of the criticisms we're seeing as well as an inference, and I'd have to call them attacks on character that are at least somewhat moral in nature.

It really bothers me how democrats have been given the label of being "evil". You can disagree with how to go about implementing the policies many of them want, but how can someone call wanting healthcare for all, affordable education, equality in the work place, laws that could mitigated gun related deaths, livable wages, and protecting our only home from pollution and harm to be "evil"? It's freaking stupid.

It IS stupid, but let's not go too far, bud.  First, as you well know, the devil is in the details.  I want "livable wages" - meaning, in the free market, people able to earn enough to feed and shelter their families - but I do not at all support the program now called "a living wage" where we pay people a bare minimum.   That doesn't mean I want people to starve, or die or live in the street.  I want healthcare for all, but I do not at all support the basic tenets of the ACA, where we FORCE people to pay for coverage, where we allow premiums to sky rocket, where we cut multi-billion dollar deals with the pharmaceutical companies and where we do almost nothing to actually cut the costs that are inherent in the multi-level system with almost zero accountability.   I don't mind "laws that mitigate gun-related deaths", but I personally want laws that mitigate DEATHS, regardless of how they are caused, and I also think that "mitigating gun related deaths" has nothing - or at least very little - to do with laws that control guns.

This is the point I'm trying to make, but on the opposite side.  You're aghast that your progressive platforms are called "evil", well, so am I, because I want those very same things, we just don't see eye-to-eye on how to get there.  Because I don't ascribe to your methodology, doesn't make me a "Nazi baby-killer" (and as I've noted before, I've been called that for my views.)   

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24813
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3286 on: August 15, 2018, 09:45:00 AM »
Some like to think I'm just passive-aggressively poking at the left, but I'm not at all giving a pass on the right either.

Perhaps not, but if you had to pay a nickle for every time that you used Hilary/deplorable as part of your argument, while earning a nickle for every time you brought up Trump/Mexican's are rapists, you'd still have a helluva bill to pay.

Surely even you can recognize that your views are consistently skewed to the right.  No judgment, just calling out the observation.
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20752
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3287 on: August 15, 2018, 11:15:38 AM »
There's a significant portion of the voting population that votes solely on abortion alone - if that's not a "moralization" of a voter base I don't know what is.
Christ, where the hell did you come from?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24813
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3288 on: August 15, 2018, 12:26:30 PM »
There's a significant portion of the voting population that votes solely on abortion alone - if that's not a "moralization" of a voter base I don't know what is.
Christ, where the hell did you come from?

December apparently.
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13577
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #3289 on: August 15, 2018, 12:41:53 PM »
Some like to think I'm just passive-aggressively poking at the left, but I'm not at all giving a pass on the right either.

Perhaps not, but if you had to pay a nickle for every time that you used Hilary/deplorable as part of your argument, while earning a nickle for every time you brought up Trump/Mexican's are rapists, you'd still have a helluva bill to pay.

Surely even you can recognize that your views are consistently skewed to the right.  No judgment, just calling out the observation.

HERE they are, yes.  I've covered this before.  When you have 15 people yapping about "Trump/Mexicans/Rapists" you don't need me adding to the cacophony.

This isn't something I'm terribly proud of or happy about (and I almost wrote about it but at the time it was too fresh and too personal) but I got into a fight with my dad about a week ago.  I LOVE my dad, he's my hero and role model, and now, at 50, one of my best friends.    But last week he started in on the Trump this, and economy that, and I made mention that there are two sides to every story(I honestly forgot the exact issue we were talking about) and he went off on me.  "What are you, a goddamn Hillary supporter?  You know she killed four people in Benghazi".   And I'm like, Dad, please.  That's not what we're talking about here.  If she did that, and she's guilty of it, let's use our established justice system and bring her to justice.   There are clearly other things going on here (he's 80) but the point is, the reality is, you're talking to a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, anti-death penalty, economic conservative who's willing to concede the point on single payer.    I didn't vote for Trump, and I won't in 2020.  I had a huge problem with the Republicans around the end of the Bush era, primarily because I thought the party was in the Stone Ages with respect to identity politics.   Not to say they have to accept PC white-washing and roll over like the Dems have - and I say that not from a partisan perspective, but from the perspective of my allegiance to self-accountability - but they do have to bring that aspect of the party into the 21st Century (and they have, to some degree).  I didn't vote for him but I saw the promise of Barack Obama and grudgingly thought that it had the potential be a new era of American politics once the frivolity of "free gas" (I say as euphemism) wore off.    I blew that call, though I still love the enthusiasm and hope.    It was, dare I say, audacious, but unfortunately, it's not enough.  ;)   

Jingle, increasingly, I'm convinced that two parties CANNOT adequately address the needs of 320 million people.  They just can't.   Right now, though, a Republican is in power, and the primary force we're looking at is the reactionary one from the left.   Right now that's where my criticism is focused.    Sure, end of the day, I'm far more likely to vote Republican than Democrat, but none of it is blind party.    I wish I had a better example than "deplorable", but it's just the best one there is;  the problem is, when you use "Hillary" it almost invariably clouds the underlying point.