2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Oct 27, 2016 5:37 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Nixon.

Its no small secret he started the war on drugs because he didn't like hippies or black people.
I post edited to add "comparable" in front of demagogue just after you posted.

It's no small secret, but it was still largely a secret; Nixon wasn't in the business of publicly advocating war crimes or tearing his party apart. Nixon RESIGNED, remember? Can you imagine Trump resigning? Hell no; he won't even secede a lost election. He'd drag everyone down with him.

Nixon was a demagogue, but not to this level, and not with this degree of destructiveness and volatility.


Nixon used the spying apparatus of the USA to spy on his political opponents in an attempt to hold onto power. When it became obvious that he was doing it, Nixon then commanded his lieutenants to shred all documents and erase the evidence. Nixon only resigned when the #1 man at the FBI has been working against him the entire time, and he leaked information to the press under the name "Deepthroat". If it weren't for Deepthroat, the American people would have never known about it and Nixon would have gotten away with it.

When Nixon's lieutenants thought what he was doing was immoral, Nixon fired them and then promoted the next-in-line until he found someone who agreed with him. IIRC, he went through something like 3 Attorney Generals in a short period of time, as they were all morally opposed to Nixon's shenanigans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

I don't think Trump would do such a thing. Nixon was far more dangerous than Trump ever would be. In part because Congress now has powers to prevent another president from having similar abuses. (Although said powers have not really been tested yet)
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Thu Oct 27, 2016 5:44 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Oct 27, 2016 5:44 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:I don't think Trump would do such a thing. Nixon was far more dangerous than Trump ever would be.
In the same way that a James Bond villain is more dangerous than Starscream, sure; he knew what he was doing. But I'm arguing that one of the impacts Trump has is to legitimize his behavior as politically reasonable; Nixon hid his nastiness, but Trump is *selling* it. And people are buying it.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Oct 27, 2016 5:46 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:I don't think Trump would do such a thing. Nixon was far more dangerous than Trump ever would be.
In the same way that a James Bond villain is more dangerous than Starscream, sure; he knew what he was doing. But I'm arguing that one of the impacts Trump has is to legitimize his behavior as politically reasonable; Nixon hid his nastiness, but Trump is *selling* it. And people are buying it.


I guess its too late to complain about that, as its already happening.

EDIT: More specifically, it has been happening since before Trump. Do note that Ted Cruz filibustered so that he can shut down the government a few years ago and hold the government employee's paychecks as ransom so that he can get what he wanted. And there are a huge number of people who enjoyed that.

Trump didn't start this behavior.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Oct 27, 2016 5:51 pm UTC

Well, yes and no; I guess that's kind of my point? If (hopefully, and now more likely, when) Trump loses in a landslide -- it sends a strong message about what such an approach ultimately nets you (failure). Of course, we've already seen how far you can get on Trump-ism; the mistake might be that he didn't adapt to fit his opponent. I'd rather that not be the lesson learned ("Trump-ism is a valid strategy in the primaries"), but it's better than the lesson we learn if Trump *wins*.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:04 pm UTC


Nixon was a demagogue, but not to this level, and not with this degree of destructiveness and volatility

Is demagogue really a good description of Nixon? The guy's public image was far from rabble-rousing. More a slightly-old-fashioned conservative father figure. Our image in hindsight is coloured by the paranoid bigot you could hear on the tapes, but that came as a surprise at the time. It's not what he campaigned on.

GodShapedBullet
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:59 pm UTC
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby GodShapedBullet » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:04 pm UTC

One of the things that kind of bums me out about this election is we don't really seem set up to learn good lessons from it. The GOP is badly in need of introspection and self-criticism and are lead by a candidate who is really, really bad at that, and everyone else can easily ignore their own faults by saying "hey, at least we aren't Trump."

What's the point of staring into the abyss if it isn't a learning experience?

I think maybe Glenn Beck learned something?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:08 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Well, yes and no; I guess that's kind of my point? If (hopefully, and now more likely, when) Trump loses in a landslide -- it sends a strong message about what such an approach ultimately nets you (failure). Of course, we've already seen how far you can get on Trump-ism; the mistake might be that he didn't adapt to fit his opponent. I'd rather that not be the lesson learned ("Trump-ism is a valid strategy in the primaries"), but it's better than the lesson we learn if Trump *wins*.


Its less important to defeat awful strategies and more important to support good strategies. There are an infinite number of awful, divisive strategies that will split and polarize Americans.

The Republican messaging was very clear on why the Republicans lost the 2012 election. http://goproject.gop.com/RNC_Growth_Opp ... k_2013.pdf . The question is why didn't the "Autopsy" work in 2016, and what can be done to make it work?

Some awful politician will rise to power in the next 4 years. I guarantee it. It may not be Trump, but it will be somebody.

Zamfir wrote:

Nixon was a demagogue, but not to this level, and not with this degree of destructiveness and volatility

Is demagogue really a good description of Nixon? The guy's public image was far from rabble-rousing. More a slightly-old-fashioned conservative father figure. Our image in hindsight is coloured by the paranoid bigot you could hear on the tapes, but that came as a surprise at the time. It's not what he campaigned on.


My understanding of Demagoguery is that its appealing to base emotions.

Read up on the Checkers Speech: Nixon was alleged to have taken illegitimate funds for his campaign. In it, Nixon said he was going to keep his little puppy dog, winning the hearts of Americans while opening admitting that he's accepted lots of gifts for his campaign. THAT is how you do good demagoguery. Its more insidious than Trump, and its why Nixon was able to get further.

Nixon sold himself on "feels". The feels are different than Trump's feels, but mastering the emotions of the populace is what makes a Demagogue.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:14 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:14 pm UTC

The autopsy missed the depth of anti-establishment feeling out there, and the subsequent loss of control the establishment would experience.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:15 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The autopsy missed the depth of anti-establishment feeling out there, and the subsequent loss of control the establishment would experience.


Its causing a death spiral however. Anti-establishment sentiment are driving out the sane candidates and are only leaving behind the crazies. Its quite worrisome for the GOP.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6802
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:16 pm UTC

GodShapedBullet wrote:One of the things that kind of bums me out about this election is we don't really seem set up to learn good lessons from it. The GOP is badly in need of introspection and self-criticism and are lead by a candidate who is really, really bad at that, and everyone else can easily ignore their own faults by saying "hey, at least we aren't Trump."

What's the point of staring into the abyss if it isn't a learning experience?

I think maybe Glenn Beck learned something?

Staring into the abyss isn't suppose to be a good thing. When you stare into the abyss, you're suppose to become just as bad, if not worse, than the thing you are fighting.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:17 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:Is demagogue really a good description of Nixon? The guy's public image was far from rabble-rousing. More a slightly-old-fashioned conservative father figure. Our image in hindsight is coloured by the paranoid bigot you could hear on the tapes, but that came as a surprise at the time. It's not what he campaigned on.
When I think of Nixon as a demagogue, I'm thinking of his commercials, which were pretty fear-inducing -- and some of his speeches, which called to mind basic fears of the violence of America's inner cities spilling out to destroy us all.

I don't think he was a strong demagogue, but he definitely had some demagoguery in his campaigning. And while you could argue most candidates do, I think Nixon was particularly adept at it.

(Though, looking now, I realized I misattributed the infamous Daisy ad to him -- rather than Lyndon -- which may be part of why he's solidified as fear-mongering in my mind)

@KnightExemplar: Maybe, but -- presuming Trump loses -- I don't think they'll be as volatile and caustic as Trump. And I see that as a big positive; Nixon is horrible, but at least you can pressure him into working with you. A guy like Trump will go down kicking and screaming and drag everyone he can with him. Politics is about maintaining bridges; Trump is a professional bridge-burner.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:17 pm UTC

Yup.

The establishment needs to both appeal to the disaffected voters within it's own base AND the minorities they have previously neglected.

I mean, strictly speaking, they don't need to appeal to everybody...but they have to at least build a semi-decent coalition, and the old lines are troublesome.

GodShapedBullet
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:59 pm UTC
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby GodShapedBullet » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:21 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Staring into the abyss isn't suppose to be a good thing. When you stare into the abyss, you're suppose to become just as bad, if not worse, than the thing you are fighting.


Oh, didn't know I couldn't use that metaphor that way. I'll try "standing at the brink of the abyss" next time.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:25 pm UTC

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... days-to-go
Bloomberg wrote:Instead of expanding the electorate, [campaign chairman Steve] Bannon and his team are trying to shrink it. “We have three major voter suppression operations under way,” says a senior official. They’re aimed at three groups Clinton needs to win overwhelmingly: idealistic white liberals, young women, and African Americans.


Did the trump campaign just admit to voter suppression? ... this can't get crazier.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:45 pm UTC

As elaborated here, that person appears to be using "voter suppression" to mean ad efforts aimed at demoralizing potential voters, not the placing of actual impediments to voting (as the term is usually understood). Although they may well be doing that too.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Thu Oct 27, 2016 8:39 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote: The question is why didn't the "Autopsy" work in 2016, and what can be done to make it work?
I think the more import autopsy for this election will actually be the democrats.

There was so much about this election that was unusual for them, that they could take away a large number of different lessons. The lessons learn might involve keeping the energetic voters they acquired in this election.

Democrats will want to challenge that narratives that Trump used.
GodShapedBullet wrote:Oh, didn't know I couldn't use that metaphor that way.
Actually, I think staring into the abyss is unavoidable, just that one should be careful when doing it. I don't think one is supposed to ignore the abyss and hope it goes away.

Hmmm... maybe I should actually read Neitzche and Lovercraft and then create a flowchart on abyss gazing. Or maybe we'reworking the metaphor to hard.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Thu Oct 27, 2016 8:49 pm UTC

Quizatzhaderac wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote: The question is why didn't the "Autopsy" work in 2016, and what can be done to make it work?
I think the more import autopsy for this election will actually be the democrats.
Although I do think the Democratic post mortem will be interesting, I don't think any post mortem will be as interesting as the one GOP will have to deal with.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:05 pm UTC

First item to Dems. Understand email.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:07 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
Quizatzhaderac wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote: The question is why didn't the "Autopsy" work in 2016, and what can be done to make it work?
I think the more import autopsy for this election will actually be the democrats.


Although I do think the Democratic post mortem will be interesting, I don't think any post mortem will be as interesting as the one GOP will have to deal with.


Well, if Hillary loses, there will be a hell of a postmortem.

KnightExemplar wrote:The Republican messaging was very clear on why the Republicans lost the 2012 election. http://goproject.gop.com/RNC_Growth_Opp ... k_2013.pdf . The question is why didn't the "Autopsy" work in 2016, and what can be done to make it work?


I'm kind of shocked at how insightful and forward-thinking that document is. The authors did a first-class job. I'm tempted to say that the reason the Autopsy didn't work (probably) is because they didn't follow most of its recommendations.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:10 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:First item to Dems. Understand email.


Heh, fair.

I do think both autopsies have the potential to be very interesting. That said, a loss probably encourages more soul searching than a win. So, only one is likely to be truly good. Statistics says Clinton has odds on winning, so it seems more likely that the Republican autopsy will be juicy, but it's not a guarantee. A fluke Trump victory would result in a lot of horror for the Democrats, I think.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:14 pm UTC

The thing is from the RNC perspective even if Trump does win, there will be a hell of post mortem because it's not all that good for them. Sure they have the presidency, but your party just elected someone who has no loyalty to the party and a willing to throw them under the bus as needed. The GOP is probably better off as a party if Trump loses, but barely, so as not to lose too many house and senate seats. The last thing the RNC needs is its own president being willing to throw them under the bus.
Last edited by Dark567 on Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:18 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

KittenKaboodle
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:36 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KittenKaboodle » Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:18 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:As elaborated here, that person appears to be using "voter suppression" to mean ad efforts aimed at demoralizing potential voters, not the placing of actual impediments to voting (as the term is usually understood). Although they may well be doing that too.


Well, Trump has been televised telling his supporters to go to "certain neighborhoods" and "observe" "if you know what I mean"

I guess that does allow "plausible deniability" , but since Trump has been insisting the election is rigged, maybe he knows what he is talking about?

Since this thread has been Godwin'ed several times already, here is another:

"All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie"

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:23 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:The Republican messaging was very clear on why the Republicans lost the 2012 election. http://goproject.gop.com/RNC_Growth_Opp ... k_2013.pdf . The question is why didn't the "Autopsy" work in 2016, and what can be done to make it work?


I'm kind of shocked at how insightful and forward-thinking that document is. The authors did a first-class job. I'm tempted to say that the reason the Autopsy didn't work (probably) is because they didn't follow most of its recommendations.


Jeb (Bilingual Spanish / English candidate), Rubio (Hispanic), and Cruz (Hispanic), Bobby Jindal (Indian / Punjabi), Carly Fiorina (Female), Ben Carson (African American).

Republicans tried diversity for 2016. Its easy to forget because of Trump, but they really did try.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:30 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Jeb (Bilingual Spanish / English candidate), Rubio (Hispanic), and Cruz (Hispanic), Bobby Jindal (Indian / Punjabi), Carly Fiorina (Female), Ben Carson (African American).

Republicans tried diversity for 2016. Its easy to forget because of Trump, but they really did try.
The GOP leaders/elders/elites etc. know they are on the losing side of a demographic trend and attempting to course correct, but their own constituencies won't let them. I'd go so far to say that part of the Trump phenomenon is the GOP white base rejecting the RNC and GOP establishment attempts to focus attention on other demographics, and making the base feel less relevant.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

elasto
Posts: 3760
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:32 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Jeb (Bilingual Spanish / English candidate), Rubio (Hispanic), and Cruz (Hispanic), Bobby Jindal (Indian / Punjabi), Carly Fiorina (Female), Ben Carson (African American).

Republicans tried diversity for 2016. Its easy to forget because of Trump, but they really did try.

Were those people seen as authentic by those groupings though? The only one of those I recall even attempting to reach out to a marginal group was Jeb.

Tokenism is not the same thing as diversity.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:38 pm UTC

I mean, it's a cinch that they all tried to be more open to minorities than Trump. The electorate DID pick the least inclusive candidate available.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:49 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Jeb (Bilingual Spanish / English candidate), Rubio (Hispanic), and Cruz (Hispanic), Bobby Jindal (Indian / Punjabi), Carly Fiorina (Female), Ben Carson (African American).

Republicans tried diversity for 2016. Its easy to forget because of Trump, but they really did try.

Were those people seen as authentic by those groupings though? The only one of those I recall even attempting to reach out to a marginal group was Jeb.

Tokenism is not the same thing as diversity.


Cruz and Ben Carson seemed to be token candidates who didn't connect to their respective groups.

The rest of the bunch were Republicans and also represented their minority group pretty well IMO. No, they didn't connect to people like a Democrat would have, but Bobby Jindal was certainly openly Punjabi through the process.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

elasto
Posts: 3760
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:55 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Cruz and Ben Carson seemed to be token candidates who didn't connect to their respective groups.

The rest of the bunch were Republicans and also represented their minority group pretty well IMO. No, they didn't connect to people like a Democrat would have, but Bobby Jindal was certainly openly Punjabi through the process.

Really? What policies were they promising to advance if elected that were specifically tailored towards their respective minority grouping?

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:02 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Cruz and Ben Carson seemed to be token candidates who didn't connect to their respective groups.

The rest of the bunch were Republicans and also represented their minority group pretty well IMO. No, they didn't connect to people like a Democrat would have, but Bobby Jindal was certainly openly Punjabi through the process.

Really? What policies were they promising to advance if elected that were specifically tailored towards their respective minority grouping?

Did you read the doc?

RNC Growth and Opportunity Project wrote:As stated above, we are not a policy committee, but among the steps Republicans take
in the Hispanic community and beyond we must embrace and champion comprehensive
immigration reform. If we do not, our Party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core
constituencies only. We also believe that comprehensive immigration reform is consistent
with Republican economic policies that promote job growth and opportunity for all.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:05 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:The Republican messaging was very clear on why the Republicans lost the 2012 election. http://goproject.gop.com/RNC_Growth_Opp ... k_2013.pdf . The question is why didn't the "Autopsy" work in 2016, and what can be done to make it work?


I'm kind of shocked at how insightful and forward-thinking that document is. The authors did a first-class job. I'm tempted to say that the reason the Autopsy didn't work (probably) is because they didn't follow most of its recommendations.


Jeb (Bilingual Spanish / English candidate), Rubio (Hispanic), and Cruz (Hispanic), Bobby Jindal (Indian / Punjabi), Carly Fiorina (Female), Ben Carson (African American).

Republicans tried diversity for 2016. Its easy to forget because of Trump, but they really did try.


Diversity in candidates isn't the same as diversity in message. This passage really stood out to me. I have to admit I wasn't following a lot of the campaigns of the marginal Republican candidates that closely, but I don't recall hearing any of them ever use this sort of language.
But if we are going to grow as a Party, our policies and actions must take into account that the
middle class has struggled mightily and that far too many of our citizens live in poverty. To people
who are flat on their back, unemployed or disabled and in need of help, they do not care if the help
comes from the private sector or the government — they just want help.

Our job as Republicans is to champion private growth so people will not turn to the government
in the first place. But we must make sure that the government works for those truly in need, helping
them so they can quickly get back on their feet. We should be driven by reform, eliminating, and
fixing what is broken, while making sure the government’s safety net is a trampoline, not a trap.
As Ada Fisher, the Republican National Committeewoman from North Carolina, told us, “There are
some people who need the government.”

Our policies must lead people to a better life through a thriving, growing private sector that works for
the middle class, and those in need. As Senator Marco Rubio said, “What people who are struggling
want more than anything is a chance — a chance to make it in life.”

The Republican Party must be the champion of those who seek to climb the economic ladder of life.
Low-income Americans are hardworking people who want to become hard-working middle-income
Americans. Middle-income Americans want to become upper-middle-income, and so on. We need
to help everyone make it in America.

We have to blow the whistle at corporate malfeasance and attack corporate welfare. We should
speak out when a company liquidates itself and its executives receive bonuses but rank-and-file
workers are left unemployed. We should speak out when CEOs receive tens of millions of dollars
in retirement packages but middle-class workers have not had a meaningful raise in years.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:08 pm UTC

Did the party recruit either Cruz or Carson? Who selected them? Can they be tokens if they self select?

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yablo » Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:08 pm UTC

I really like Ben Carson - everything but his tax plan. As for Trump, he wasn't the only one talking about the issues during the primary season, but he was the loudest one, and what he said resonated with a large number of people. He managed to secure the nomination with the elites of both major parties and the mainstream media actively doing everything they could to stop him.

I like a lot of the things Trump says, even if I don't always like the way he says them. Trump may be an unbelievable asshole at times, but at least he's real. Hillary Clinton is by far the least genuine person I've seen in a long time. Everything about her rubs me the wrong way.

This is a big election for so many reasons. In my opinion, much bigger than who ultimately wins the presidency is the question of the future of the Supreme Court and the interpretation of the Constitution. If Hillary wins, she's virtually guaranteed to appoint justices - at least one, and possibly as many as three - who will distort the image of this country so far beyond what it was intended to be that it will be unrecognizable, and it may never recover.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:19 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:Diversity in candidates isn't the same as diversity in message. This passage really stood out to me. I have to admit I wasn't following a lot of the campaigns of the marginal Republican candidates that closely, but I don't recall hearing any of them ever use this sort of language.


Eh, they kind of tried.

In fairness, they didn't try especially well, but...I'd argue that they did better than Republicans historically have. Incremental progress. Not that it bought them anything. Those advocating more inclusive immigration reform did not benefit from doing so.

Yablo wrote:I really like Ben Carson - everything but his tax plan.


Kind of a religious nutter, too. Yes, a well meaning fellow who was quite likeable, but he had some odd ideas.

Yablo wrote:I like a lot of the things Trump says, even if I don't always like the way he says them. Trump may be an unbelievable asshole at times, but at least he's real. Hillary Clinton is by far the least genuine person I've seen in a long time. Everything about her rubs me the wrong way.


Many of Trump's promises would be pretty palatable if they were coming from anyone other than Trump.

I mean, sure, Clinton's untrustworthy, but...Trump doesn't have a great record either. There's little reason to think he will give two craps about fulfilling promises once elected. He's shifted positions enough times in the past that he can't be trusted not to shift again whenever it's convenient. So, even when he announces a perfectly reasonable position, leaving aside his obnoxious delivery, it doesn't actually mean anything other than that a staffer told him it would help.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:25 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:This is a big election for so many reasons. In my opinion, much bigger than who ultimately wins the presidency is the question of the future of the Supreme Court and the interpretation of the Constitution. If Hillary wins, she's virtually guaranteed to appoint justices - at least one, and possibly as many as three - who will distort the image of this country so far beyond what it was intended to be that it will be unrecognizable, and it may never recover.
"intended to be" what a bizarre thing to say about a country. Not "will change it for the worse" but "will change it in ways some people centuries ago didn't intend". A country isn't a work of art where you don't just change the work of someone else. For countries the goal is creating the best country for its citizens, not to uphold some original vision. I think I will never understand the thing some americans have going on with the founding fathers and stuff. Why would anyone give a fuck what a country was intended to be?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:46 pm UTC

PeteP wrote:
Yablo wrote:This is a big election for so many reasons. In my opinion, much bigger than who ultimately wins the presidency is the question of the future of the Supreme Court and the interpretation of the Constitution. If Hillary wins, she's virtually guaranteed to appoint justices - at least one, and possibly as many as three - who will distort the image of this country so far beyond what it was intended to be that it will be unrecognizable, and it may never recover.
"intended to be" what a bizarre thing to say about a country. Not "will change it for the worse" but "will change it in ways some people centuries ago didn't intend". A country isn't a work of art where you don't just change the work of someone else. For countries the goal is creating the best country for its citizens, not to uphold some original vision. I think I will never understand the thing some americans have going on with the founding fathers and stuff. Why would anyone give a fuck what a country was intended to be?


Because he's talking about courts.

In America, there are three branches of government:
* Legislative writes and/or changes the laws.
* Executive implements the laws.
* Judicial interprets the laws.

When it comes to the courts, there is much debate over what "interprets" really means. The fundamental concept is simple: when laws are written, they can last for centuries. The 1st Amendment was written in 1791, over 200 years ago. Nonetheless, the full "intent" of the law constantly is up to debate. So, we appoint people called "Justices" who argue over these issues. Since judges are supposed to be apolitical, they are appointed for life.

From a conservative's point of view, the job of the judge is to interpret the law as it was originally intended. If new laws are needed, the legislature should write them. We shouldn't be using the 14th Amendment to grant Abortion rights to Americans. Where the fuck does it say in the 14th Amendment anything about abortion? And since was "passing laws" somehow fundamentally against "due process" ??

When it comes to judges... interpreting the law as it was originally intended helps keep the democracy working. Otherwise, it means that a group of unelected individuals can effectively write laws without any check or balance.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:53 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yablo » Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:52 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I mean, sure, Clinton's untrustworthy, but...Trump doesn't have a great record either. There's little reason to think he will give two craps about fulfilling promises once elected. He's shifted positions enough times in the past that he can't be trusted not to shift again whenever it's convenient. So, even when he announces a perfectly reasonable position, leaving aside his obnoxious delivery, it doesn't actually mean anything other than that a staffer told him it would help.

I think something similar could be said about Clinton if you replace the word "staffer" with "donor".

PeteP wrote:"intended to be" what a bizarre thing to say about a country. Not "will change it for the worse" but "will change it in ways some people centuries ago didn't intend". A country isn't a work of art where you don't just change the work of someone else. For countries the goal is creating the best country for its citizens, not to uphold some original vision. I think I will never understand the thing some americans have going on with the founding fathers and stuff. Why would anyone give a fuck what a country was intended to be?

When I say "intended," I mean that the entire structure of the nation was debated, planned, and framed in a political and social experiment which was to go a long way toward changing the face of the world. It was intended to be a place where citizens could be free to do what they liked as long as they didn't harm another's mind, body, possessions, or livelihood. It was intended to be a place where people had no need to rely on or fear their government.

I have a great respect for many of the founding fathers for their insight and what they were able to accomplish. There may be a mythology and reverence surrounding them, but I don't know anyone who puts them on a level too far above folk hero.

I wholeheartedly believe that if Hillary Clinton wins and has her justices confirmed, the Supreme Court will willfully and irresponsibly misinterpret the Constitution of the United States, the document which serves as the backbone and frame of the nation. The Obama Justice Department has already significantly eroded my trust in and respect for the FBI, and Hillary Clinton is sure to push that even further.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:54 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:When I say "intended," I mean that the entire structure of the nation was debated, planned, and framed in a political and social experiment which was to go a long way toward changing the face of the world. It was intended to be a place where citizens could be free to do what they liked as long as they didn't harm another's mind, body, possessions, or livelihood. It was intended to be a place where people had no need to rely on or fear their government.

I have a great respect for many of the founding fathers for their insight and what they were able to accomplish. There may be a mythology and reverence surrounding them, but I don't know anyone who puts them on a level too far above folk hero.


You probably should look into the early history of our founding fathers, especially the Alien and Sedition acts. The early founding fathers were grossly hypocritical in their implementation of the bill of rights.

Frankly speaking, we do a better job today of protecting rights than John Adams did. Simple fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

I wholeheartedly believe that if Hillary Clinton wins and has her justices confirmed, the Supreme Court will willfully and irresponsibly misinterpret the Constitution of the United States, the document which serves as the backbone and frame of the nation. The Obama Justice Department has already significantly eroded my trust in and respect for the FBI, and Hillary Clinton is sure to push that even further.


Liberals generally do that, to the benefit of their goals however. I can't necessarily say I'm against Civil Rights or other major decisions brought on by liberal judges. But I generally prefer a conservative court which purely interprets the laws as they were originally intended.

I can morally agree with the decision for gay marriage to be legal in the USA for example. But I strongly disagree with the procedure to bring it about through the Supreme Court.

--------

I'm also not really sure what the Justice Department / FBI has to do with the Supreme Court. Justice Department is basically police / FBI / DEA. They're a separate entity.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 27, 2016 11:04 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I mean, sure, Clinton's untrustworthy, but...Trump doesn't have a great record either. There's little reason to think he will give two craps about fulfilling promises once elected. He's shifted positions enough times in the past that he can't be trusted not to shift again whenever it's convenient. So, even when he announces a perfectly reasonable position, leaving aside his obnoxious delivery, it doesn't actually mean anything other than that a staffer told him it would help.

I think something similar could be said about Clinton if you replace the word "staffer" with "donor".


Oh, fair enough. But observing that the opposition is also problematic doesn't resolve the lack of trustworthiness of a candidate.

And if they can't be trusted to back their words, then the positions they espouse matter surprisingly little. Ultimately, if you care about right wing issues, Trump remains an extremely poor candidate. Neither is really an acceptable choice. Clinton isn't going to help you, and you can't rely upon Trump to help you. Sure, he'll promise whatever to get your vote, but he can't be relied upon after that. If history is any guide, he's likely already forgotten about whatever promises he's made you.

Can you defend Trump as a candidate *without* resorting to attacking Clinton?

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yablo » Thu Oct 27, 2016 11:05 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:You probably should look into the early history of our founding fathers, especially the Alien and Sedition acts. The early founding fathers were grossly hypocritical in their implementation of the bill of rights.

Frankly speaking, we do a better job today of protecting rights than John Adams did. Simple fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

I'm familiar with them and understand them on a basic level, so I get what you mean, but these acts were drafted by Congress, signed by a President, and interpreted by a Supreme Court. While many of those people, notably John Adams, were founding fathers as we know them, this all happened after the Constitution was written. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson opposed the acts and took the fight down to a state level.

It actually does speak very well to my point about a Hillary Clinton-appointed court though. Like Adams, when the Supreme Court is heavily on your side, you can shape the country on a huge scale for generations.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Oct 27, 2016 11:17 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:You probably should look into the early history of our founding fathers, especially the Alien and Sedition acts. The early founding fathers were grossly hypocritical in their implementation of the bill of rights.

Frankly speaking, we do a better job today of protecting rights than John Adams did. Simple fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

I'm familiar with them and understand them on a basic level, so I get what you mean, but these acts were drafted by Congress, signed by a President, and interpreted by a Supreme Court.


The Supreme Court only interprets laws that are brought before it. I don't believe that the Alien and Sedition acts were ever brought forward to the Supreme Court, as Congress rewrote the law as soon as Jefferson got elected.

Under today's laws and court, the act is clearly grossly unconstitutional and against the 1st Amendment. But who is one to argue against John Adams? A man who literally wrote the prototype? John Adams always wanted a "Declaration of Rights"... well... at least until he became President. Then fuck the first amendment, amirite?


Yablo wrote:It actually does speak very well to my point about a Hillary Clinton-appointed court though. Like Adams, when the Supreme Court is heavily on your side, you can shape the country on a huge scale for generations.


Well, for about 8 years in John Adam's case. So its actually a really bad example. I'm simply noting the hypocrisy of the early presidents. Because the point of America (and this is true since the beginning), is that we have a peaceful transition of power. Different people with different ideals will decide the future of this country at different times... decided by a voting contest.

That's the only truth that has remained consistent throughout the entire multi-century history of the USA. The Supreme Court may grow or shrink, in both power and numbers. Congress and the Presidency may similarly change with the times. Even political parties come and go. The people may get antsy about war and we may even change our values and sacrifice our own rights for an offchance of getting an advantage during a war. (See the Office of Censorship or Japanese Internment camps).

But we always come back to the election and use this as a means of changing power between people.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: KittenKaboodle and 13 guests