|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First I wish to salute your courage in admitting here that you are Republican and that you support Trump.
Thanks.
As you might have noticed the posters here are vastly anti-Trump and more than a few are anti-Republican IMOThat said, I think you are mistaken if you believe that Trump is a Republican. What Trump is is the worst kind of opportunist and demagogue. He does not care one iota for political stances and topics. He only cares about people cheering him and maybe getting him elected. He is high on a mad power rush and will do and say anything to keep experiencing it
It does not show courage but an addict's mad cravings
And what enemies of yours are you talking about ? Because Trump is vituperating against so many people that it is hard to keep count. And I believe that many of his supporters indeed believe that he rightly denounce their own enemies. Except that if they were to compare their opinions, they would realize that they actually do not agree on who these enemies are
But Trump does not care about this....
This doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Trump is a Republican. I don't care about Republicans or the Republican party. Ron Paul is one of the few Republicans I have voted for.
You are correct that Trump is an opportunist, you are correct that he cares about people cheering him on and about winning. I completely agree that Trump is doing this for himself and his own ego.
And I don't care.
Because what he happens to be doing is completely aligned against my enemies. And as long as he is striking at my enemies, I will support and ally with him. If he chooses to betray me in the future, that makes him no different than any other politician who sells me out. I walk away if and when that happens.
As for what enemies I am talking about, I am talking about the 1%.
If you don't mind me asking, why am I your enemy?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting.
I am reminded of the Jim Hightower quote:
"The opposite for courage is not cowardice, it is conformity"
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't mind me asking, why am I your enemy?Am I speaking to George Soros, Mark Cuban or the Koch brothers?
You're speaking to a gay 16-year-old kid whom Herr Drumpf believes it's okay to treat with "gay conversion therapy."
Literally 90% of what he's doing is aligned against middle-and-lower class folks like me who just want a better country to live in. Are they your enemies?
A quick Google search shows that George Soros seems like a decent sort, Mark Cuban too. But the Koch brothers? They're not being targeted by Trump. They would benefit.
Upholding Citizens United is the devil in the details here, and it's coated with jingoism and false morality. If standing against that and loving who I love makes me your enemy, then I'm proud to consider myself as such, Mr. NPC Dave.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't mind me asking, why am I your enemy?Am I speaking to George Soros, Mark Cuban or the Koch brothers?You're speaking to a gay 16-year-old kid whom Herr Drumpf believes it's okay to treat with "gay conversion therapy."
Literally 90% of what he's doing is aligned against middle-and-lower class folks like me who just want a better country to live in. Are they your enemies?
I will respond with a quote from Scott Adams...
As a trained persuader, I can see the “Trump is Hitler” illusion for what it is. Where you might see a mountain of credible evidence to support your illusion, I see nothing but confirmation bias on your part. I have detailed that confirmation bias in other posts.Remember my rule from above. If you see something unlikely – such as a new Hitler rising in the midst of America – and I see nothing remotely like that – I’m almost certainly right and you’re almost certainly having the illusion. I say that because the person who sees the unlikely addition to reality is the one experiencing the illusion nearly every time. Trump as Hitler-in-America is an addition to reality that only some can see. It is a pink elephant. It is a classic hallucination.
A quick Google search shows that George Soros seems like a decent sort, Mark Cuban too. But the Koch brothers? They're not being targeted by Trump.
Check his Twitter feed
"I turned down a meeting with Charles and David Koch. Much better for them to meet with the puppets of politics, they will do much better!"I know this is hard to accept when you are sixteen, but be aware that the world does not revolve around you. I don't know you and I wasn't talking...
Upholding Citizens United is the devil in the details here, and it's coated with jingoism and false morality. If standing against that and loving who I love makes me your enemy, then I'm proud to consider myself as such, Mr. NPC Dave.
1. It's not an illusion, it's an allusion. Not to Godwin myself, but Hitler was dismissed by the Times in '22 as just anot her demagogue.
2. You don't have to meet with someone for them to benefit from your policies.
3. It is really annoying that you tried to shut me down because of my age, because it means you're not actually interested in a discussion. You're talking past me, and frankly I could be playing New Vegas right now. Adieu.
If this is a battle ground state, than Clinton is no doubt keeping in mind that Ralph Nader pulled 100,000 votes in another key state that Bob Gore lost by only 500. And that loss decided the election.Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush.
Democrats got Bush elected in Florida. Nader didn't force any democrats to vote for Bush, they did it themselves. If the democratic party actually took responsibility, rather then make up myths about Nader "spoiling" the election, they not be in such a sorry state.
EDIT: That is all I will say about the whole Bush/Gore Florida thing. It is ancient history, and there have been enough internet arguments about it already.
I can't leave it without a plug for "Jews for Buchanon".
And the reminder of the far more serious problem of voters illegally purged from the rolls. That had a far larger effect on the outcome than Nader or pretty much anything else.
That would be all well and dandy if the Nader influence were a neutral one. But the fact of the matter is that Nader took votes almost entirely away from Al Gore. He was given money by Republicans because they knew that's what he would do, and he took it. If only 1,000 of those Naderites hadn't taken their votes away from the Democrats, Al Gore would have been our President instead of Bush 1.0, and the Party would not have lost more of it's spine in Congress.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
As a quote to support the position that Trump isn't the next Hitler, that bit from Scott Adams is pretty useless. It cuts out all his actual arguments (the other posts he references in which he supposedly explains mountains of credible evidence away as confirmation bias), leaving nothing behind but begging the question.
"Trump isn't the next Hitler, because that's unlikely, and if only some of us believe in something unlikely, it probably isn't true."
Don't blame me, I vote traded with a Crow in florida
That would be all well and dandy if the Nader influence were a neutral one. But the fact of the matter is that Nader took votes almost entirely away from Al Gore. If only 1,000 of those Naderites hadn't taken their votes away from the Democrats, Al Gore would have been our President instead of Bush 1.0, and the Party would not have lost more of it's spine in Congress.
If this is a battle ground state, than Clinton is no doubt keeping in mind that Ralph Nader pulled 100,000 votes in another key state that Bob Gore lost by only 500. And that loss decided the election.Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush.
Democrats got Bush elected in Florida. Nader didn't force any democrats to vote for Bush, they did it themselves. If the democratic party actually took responsibility, rather then make up myths about Nader "spoiling" the election, they not be in such a sorry state.
EDIT: That is all I will say about the whole Bush/Gore Florida thing. It is ancient history, and there have been enough internet arguments about it already.
I can't leave it without a plug for "Jews for Buchanon".
And the reminder of the far more serious problem of voters illegally purged from the rolls. That had a far larger effect on the outcome than Nader or pretty much anything else.
Yes, yes. And if thousands of Jews in Palm Beach hadn't voted for Buchanon, Gore would also have been president. (Remember Buchanon is close to a neo-Nazi.) Or if 10s of thousands of mostly black, mostly Democratic voters hadn't be disenfranchised, Gore would also have been president. Hell, if Gore had been a better candidate, it wouldn't have been close enough to steal in the first place. None of those are neutral effects either.
When a vote is that close, you can point at any number of things that could have swung it the other way and say "If only". The...
Here's the thing. You're right about the Buchannon votes, you're right about the massive amount of voter disenfranchisement, and you're right about the bloody awful campaign that Gore ran. Trudaeu even lampooned it repeatedly in "Doonesbury". It's totally true that none of that is on Nader's hands.
There is however a significant difference in the case of Ralph Nader however. He made the singular decision to run when he knew that this election would be close. He knew that his campaign was going to be siphoning votes from the Democrats, and pretty much only the Democrats. The Republicans knew that as well, and they financed his campaign. He took their financing and ran with it. I've met Nader, heard him speak, and I admire his contributions, and I know that he's an exceptionally intelligent man. But, he's also rather short on the long view and his ability to compromise. He's intelligent enough to know the difference between a Gore and Bush Presidency. He's also smart enough to know that he had no chance in winning. But with all that he chose to run anyway. For his contribution to the Bush victory, he is entirely responsible, and he should have owned up to it. Even the Greens don't want anything to do with him anymore.
That's the difference between him and Bernie Sanders. Sanders chose to run as an Independent, but not in a way that would effectively siphon votes away from defeating Trump. He hung on as long as he properly could, got concessions in the Democratic Plank, and stepped aside to let the move to defeat Trump not be blocked by his intransigence.
I'm willing to start a twitter war with him....if I didn't think Twitter was stupid.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm willing to start a twitter war with him....if I didn't think Twitter was stupid.
Don't give in to the Derp Side, Obi-Tom Seitznobi.
Running Subtheme: Education Reform
Black Folk Hate White Tears and Blatant Racism More Than Charter Schools
NAACP calls for a moratorium on charter schools in this oddly titled article.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two more from the Podesta leaks:
The Intercept:
Hillary Clinton Privately Pitched Corporations on “Really Low” Tax Rate for Money Stashed Abroad
I guess that's the ol' public position/private position at work.
Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer Says Top Priority for Next Year Is Giant Corporate Tax Cut
"Revenue-starved Democratic leaders have broadly hinted they are prepared to cave, either for a “holiday” period or permanently.
"In an exchange with CNBC’s John Harwood, Schumer confirmed that the latter is in fact in the works. When Harwood asked Schumer if 'it would be a permanent lower rate, not a holiday rate,' Schumer replied, 'Yes, you can’t do a one-shot deal.'"
When I have some more free time I should look up our previous conversation from years ago, maybe, about the capital strike.
Thing is even if Clinto wins, without a Democrate majority in the Senate aren't you just looking are more political gridlock?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is even if Clinto wins, without a Democrate majority in the Senate aren't you just looking are more political gridlock?
I'll take a political gridlock than having a person who can't keep his composure for an hour with his mitts on the nuclear codes. Or the ability to appoint 1-3 judges to the Supreme Court who has clearly stated his intention to have Roe V. Wade off the books.
And if the Republicans continue to play the game of obstruction, it's going to cost them in the long run.
You shouldn't assume that if Nader hadn't been in the race that those votes would have gone to Gore, it seems intuitive, but when people were polled on justBoreGore and Bush, Bush won. Nader might have stolen more votes from Bush.
Here's the problem with that assumption. Republicans to a man HATED Nader. They still do. They even did when they were funneling campaign money to him. If you took a position survey on the bulk of Nader's supporters, you'd find that their positions on Nader's key issue all sided with Democratic candidates, on matter such as environment, election reform, consumer protection, and corporate accountability. They used Nader as a tool to hurt the Democrats just as they used all the other tools in their arsenal, being smart enough to take all the advantages they could muster.
It'd be absurd to claim that Nader's votes had a neutral effect on the total Bush vs. Gore tally.
I voted for Nader on both elections that he ran in, the safe blue state of New Jersey which went for Gore in 2000. I probably would not have done so if I was voting in Florida. And Nader should have pulled back from that state, and concentrated on getting his 15 percent from elsewhere. (in the end he only got 3 percent of the total vote.)
You shouldn't assume that if Nader hadn't been in the race that those votes would have gone to Gore, it seems intuitive, but when people were polled on justBoreGore and Bush, Bush won. Nader might have stolen more votes from Bush.Here's the problem with that assumption. Republicans to a man HATED Nader. They still do. They even did when they were funneling campaign money to him. If you took a position survey on the bulk of Nader's supporters, you'd find that their positions on Nader's key issue all sided with Democratic candidates, on matter such as environment, election reform, consumer protection, and corporate accountability. They used Nader as a tool to hurt the Democrats just as they used all the other tools in their arsenal, being smart enough to take all the advantages they could muster.
It'd be absurd to claim that Nader's votes had a neutral effect on the total Bush vs. Gore tally.
I voted for Nader on both elections that he ran in, the safe blue state of New Jersey which went for Gore in 2000. I probably would not have done so if I was voting in Florida. And Nader should have pulled back from that state, and concentrated on getting his 15 percent from elsewhere. (in the end he only got 3 percent of the total vote.)
Pretty much everything I have seen showed Nader pulling roughly evenly from Bush than from Gore.
|
|
Thing is even if Clinto wins, without a Democrate majority in the Senate aren't you just looking are more political gridlock?I'll take a political gridlock than having a person who can't keep his composure for an hour with his mitts on the nuclear codes. Or the ability to appoint 1-3 judges to the Supreme Court who has clearly stated his intention to have Roe V. Wade off the books.
And if the Republicans continue to play the game of obstruction, it's going to cost them in the long run.
Not to mention... odds are currently running about 3:1 for Democrats to retake the Senate.
Still a stretch that they could also capture the House, and they won't have a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate... so there will still be obstruction and gridlock, but Clinton should be able to make reasonable progress.
I don't know. Articles I've read said that Nader voters in Florida, when asked who they voted for in '96, an equal percentage said they voted for Clinton as said they voted for Dole, while more of them said they voted for Perot.
Ninja'ed
Thing is even if Clinto wins, without a Democrate majority in the Senate aren't you just looking are more political gridlock?I'll take a political gridlock than having a person who can't keep his composure for an hour with his mitts on the nuclear codes. Or the ability to appoint 1-3 judges to the Supreme Court who has clearly stated his intention to have Roe V. Wade off the books.
And if the Republicans continue to play the game of obstruction, it's going to cost them in the long run.
Not to mention... odds are currently running about 3:1 for Democrats to retake the Senate.
Still a stretch that they could also capture the House, and they won't have a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate... so there will still be obstruction and gridlock, but Clinton should be able to make reasonable progress.
Besides, according to Schumer, Ryan's down with giving in to the capital strike, too.
Besides, according to Schumer, Ryan's down with giving in to the capital strike, too.Thing is even if Clinto wins, without a Democrate majority in the Senate aren't you just looking are more political gridlock?I'll take a political gridlock than having a person who can't keep his composure for an hour with his mitts on the nuclear codes. Or the ability to appoint 1-3 judges to the Supreme Court who has clearly stated his intention to have Roe V. Wade off the books.
And if the Republicans continue to play the game of obstruction, it's going to cost them in the long run.
Not to mention... odds are currently running about 3:1 for Democrats to retake the Senate.
Still a stretch that they could also capture the House, and they won't have a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate... so there will still be obstruction and gridlock, but Clinton should be able to make reasonable progress.
I don't quite understand that last sentence. As I understand Ryan's already being beseiged by the hardliners who are dissapointed that he isn't matching their level of butt-headed craziness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I don't know what Citizen Lurker was referring to. It might have been a general question about gridlock, but since it came after my post about Schumer's public and Clinton's private talk about lowering the corporate tax rate so that the kleptocrats will bring their offshore money home, I chose to interpret it in regards to that and was pointing out that Schumer's already citing Ryan that they've got bipartisan support.
Digging through the links, Schumer's been working with Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) for about a year to get a similar bipartisan gift to the American capitalist class off the ground.
(Edited)
You shouldn't assume that if Nader hadn't been in the race that those votes would have gone to Gore, it seems intuitive, but when people were polled on justBoreGore and Bush, Bush won. Nader might have stolen more votes from Bush.Here's the problem with that assumption. Republicans to a man HATED Nader. They still do. They even did when they were funneling campaign money to him. If you took a position survey on the bulk of Nader's supporters, you'd find that their positions on Nader's key issue all sided with Democratic candidates, on matter such as environment, election reform, consumer protection, and corporate accountability. They used Nader as a tool to hurt the Democrats just as they used all the other tools in their arsenal, being smart enough to take all the advantages they could muster.
It'd be absurd to claim that Nader's votes had a neutral effect on the total Bush vs. Gore tally.
I voted for Nader on both elections that he ran in, the safe blue state of New Jersey which went for Gore in 2000. I probably would not have done so if I was voting in Florida. And Nader should have pulled back from that state, and concentrated on getting his 15 percent from elsewhere. (in the end he only got 3 percent of the total vote.)
I totally need to start a fundamentalist / alt-right party for the express purpose of siphoning votes away from the GOP.
Hillary Clinton's campaign employs more black women than any other presidential campaign in US history.
Found this article through the links:
Huge Split Between Older and Younger Blacks in the Democratic Primary
I was wondering to myself, a couple of pages ago, if minority, i.e., black, voters were so overwhelmingly in favor of Hillary, why all the black activists I've worked with over the past couple of years were Sanders supporters. In retrospect, though, they were all under 30.
Well, I don't know what Citizen Lurker was referring to. It might have been a general question about gridlock, but since it came after my post about Schumer's public and Clinton's private talk about lowering the corporate tax rate so that the kleptocrats will bring their offshore money home, I chose to interpret it in regards to that and was pointing out that Schumer's already citing Ryan that they've got bipartisan support.
Digging through the links, Schumer's been working with Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) for about a year to get a similar bipartisan gift to the American capitalist class off the ground.
(Edited)
They need to go the other way. If a plurality of your board hold American passports then your corporation in totality must pay US corporate tax. (I promise, those people want to keep their US passports, and they want to maintain control of their corps.)
You must pay US corporate tax for all profit earned from US sources, even if the transaction takes place outside the US.
You must pay (at the US corporate tax rate) an usury charge for all cash-flow loans from overseas corporate partners.
Yeah the 1% is really gonna hate all those tax cuts and deregulation that Trump is promising.Yeah, the idea that Trump is the enemy of the 1% is kind of mindboggling.
Well, Trump is in the 1% and these days he's his own worst enemy, so in a way...
I totally need to start a fundamentalist / alt-right party for the express purpose of siphoning votes away from the GOP.You shouldn't assume that if Nader hadn't been in the race that those votes would have gone to Gore, it seems intuitive, but when people were polled on justBoreGore and Bush, Bush won. Nader might have stolen more votes from Bush.Here's the problem with that assumption. Republicans to a man HATED Nader. They still do. They even did when they were funneling campaign money to him. If you took a position survey on the bulk of Nader's supporters, you'd find that their positions on Nader's key issue all sided with Democratic candidates, on matter such as environment, election reform, consumer protection, and corporate accountability. They used Nader as a tool to hurt the Democrats just as they used all the other tools in their arsenal, being smart enough to take all the advantages they could muster.
It'd be absurd to claim that Nader's votes had a neutral effect on the total Bush vs. Gore tally.
I voted for Nader on both elections that he ran in, the safe blue state of New Jersey which went for Gore in 2000. I probably would not have done so if I was voting in Florida. And Nader should have pulled back from that state, and concentrated on getting his 15 percent from elsewhere. (in the end he only got 3 percent of the total vote.)
It wouldn't work. Republicans pretty much have a mono-culture base. Democrats on the other hand, are always in a continual struggle to keep multiple groups under the same tent. Groups that frequently distrust or outright hate each other. It's much easier to siphon votes from a Democrat, because much of their voters are only held by tenuous ties at best.
I totally need to start a fundamentalist / alt-right party for the express purpose of siphoning votes away from the GOP.
Interesting article:
Which came out, I think, before Evan McMullin threw his hat in the ring.
It wouldn't work. Republicans pretty much have a mono-culture base.
While the Republicans are usually more unified than the Democrats, they're hardly monocultural, and this election has demonstrated that quite clearly. Trump has done a very good job of driving away the plutocratic Republicans (look, for example, at his well-publicized fews with Faux News), and he's driven a number of well-documented wedges into the religious right. He's also lost much of the personal liberty wing, and he's not doing well among the theoreticians like George Will, either. The remaining anti-Russia cold warriors are also abandoning him in droves, but there aren't many of those left.
What he's doing, of course, is doubling down on the white nationalist and redneck votes.
Whether this creates an actual opening for a religious right party, though, is questionable. It's not so much that the religious right likes Trump, or even like the entire Republican coalition. But I think they hate losing the culture war even more, and as a minor party, they would lose any shred of influence.
It wouldn't work. Republicans pretty much have a mono-culture base.While the Republicans are usually more unified than the Democrats, they're hardly monocultural, and this election has demonstrated that quite clearly. Trump has done a very good job of driving away the plutocratic Republicans (look, for example, at his well-publicized fews with Faux News), and he's driven a number of well-documented wedges into the religious right. He's also lost much of the personal liberty wing, and he's not doing well among the theoreticians like George Will, either. The remaining anti-Russia cold warriors are also abandoning him in droves, but there aren't many of those left.
What he's doing, of course, is doubling down on the white nationalist and redneck votes.
Whether this creates an actual opening for a religious right party, though, is questionable. It's not so much that the religious right likes Trump, or even like the entire Republican coalition. But I think they hate losing the culture war even more, and as a minor party, they would lose any shred of influence.
I don't need it to be a viable party. I just need it to pull 2-3% of the vote away from the GOP. Particularly in gubernatorial races.
I was wondering to myself,[...] why all the black activists I've worked with over the past couple of years were Sanders supporters.
Sampling bias.
I don't need it to be a viable party.
Whether this creates an actual opening for a religious right party, though, is questionable. It's not so much that the religious right likes Trump, or even like the entire Republican coalition. But I think they hate losing the culture war even more, and as a minor party, they would lose any shred of influence.
You don't, but prospective party members do. If they think it will only pull 2-3% of the vote away from the GOP, they will avoid it in droves, and you won't even make your 2% target.
It wouldn't work. Republicans pretty much have a mono-culture base.While the Republicans are usually more unified than the Democrats, they're hardly monocultural, and this election has demonstrated that quite clearly. Trump has done a very good job of driving away the plutocratic Republicans (look, for example, at his well-publicized fews with Faux News), and he's driven a number of well-documented wedges into the religious right. He's also lost much of the personal liberty wing, and he's not doing well among the theoreticians like George Will, either. The remaining anti-Russia cold warriors are also abandoning him in droves, but there aren't many of those left.
What he's doing, of course, is doubling down on the white nationalist and redneck votes.
Whether this creates an actual opening for a religious right party, though, is questionable. It's not so much that the religious right likes Trump, or even like the entire Republican coalition. But I think they hate losing the culture war even more, and as a minor party, they would lose any shred of influence.
Trump is pretty much an outlier. Most of the views he's espoused are ones that this current incarnation of the Republican party are perfectly happy with and have promulugated. What the party leadership is upset about is that he's gone beyond them to attacking the very apple cart that the whole process rides on. It's extremely counter productive to tell your partisans that the process is so fatally flawed that thier votes don't matter. Trump has also been undercutting the Party's efforts to expand beyond the white male base by being such an obvious overt racist instead of the nuanced subtle variety the Party prefers.
The only real issue that the Republican Party has with Trump is that he puts his ego ahead of the Party interests... far far ahead. And that he's proven himself totally unmanageable as a candidate. The Party also made one more failed assumption, that as a man of mainly bluster, he'd be content to have Mike Pence be his Cheney and manage his administration while he'd just be the face. His outright disavowal of practically every word Pence has given to the press has shown that to be a futile hope.