Jump to content
downzy

US Politics/Elections Thread

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

That's not showing you what you think it's showing you.

Trump flipping counties isn't indicative of voters switching from Democrat to Republican.  It just means that the people who did voted in the 2016 election for that county voted for Trump over Clinton in a county that previously went to Obama in 2012.

It doesn't measure who actually voted and whether they previously voted for Obama and were now voting for Trump.

Take Wayne County in Michigan.  In 2012 a total of roughly 815,000 people voted.  In 2016, the total of voters for the county was around 775,000.  That's a difference of 40,000 votes in a district that overwhelmingly votes for the Democrat nominee.  Trump won Michigan by 13,000 votes.  Had the 40k voters not stayed home, Clinton would have won Michigan.

Again, the link you've provided doesn't illustrate flipped voters, it indicates flipped counties.  Counties can flip either because voters chose to go with the candidate from a different party or they can flip because voters decide to stay home and not vote.  That's what happened in many swing-states: Democratic and independent voters who lean democratic stayed home.  

While true that Trump was able to convert 9 percent of former Obama voters, it's also true that Clinton was able to convert 5 percent of Romney voters:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html

The problem for Trump only gets worse as you look at younger voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

You are coming at this from an Academic/Foreign point view, not  a  generic  American point of view which is exactly why the establishment lost

Clinton lost because most people thought Clinton was going to win and didn't want to bother standing in line to vote for a candidate they didn't love.  That's why Clinton lost.

2 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

I said he did not take drastic steps to end it

First, you didn't say that:

"Under Obama and Bush the US has been involved in 2 wars that should never have been fought in the first."

Second, the Iraq War (or the presence of the massive military build-up installed by his predecessor) ended within his first administration. 

2 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Travel through the rust belt states and see the damage that Washington DC  has caused for the past 60 years. Maybe you will understand then. This what I am trying to get through you

And how has Trump helped these areas?  Are manufacturing jobs roaring back?  Sure, unemployment has dropped in many of these states (which was the dominant trend long before Trump won), but how many of those jobs are comparable to the ones lost?  Hint: not many.  (this criticism also applies to Obama as well - most jobs lost during the financial crisis were not replaced with similar paying jobs but lower paying, with fewer or no benefits and less job security).  

2 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Trump is absolutely not qualified to be President. AND THAT'S WHY THEY VOTED FOR HIM! They would rather a complete outsider with no experience in government  destroy the political status quo then someone like Hillary or Joe continue the same old same old because they are the system.

Then they're fucking dumb.  The President isn't solely responsible for the economy, but also foreign diplomacy, the largest and most potent military on the planet, and administering and executing the federal bureaucracy that so many Americans depend on to get by.  That's akin to saying, "I don't like how shitty airline travel has gotten over the last thirty years, so I want a bartender with zero flight experience to fly the plane."  And you wonder why I have zero sympathies who can't see past their own nose when it comes to this kind of stuff.

2 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Americans have wanted change for a long time. They were promised hope and change in 2008 and got zilch.

Again, a lot of nonsense.  America didn't start a major war or invasion during Obama's two terms; millions of Americans received access to health insurance that had long been denied them, federal employees saw overtime pay for the first time, two of three of America's largest car manufacturers were saved thanks to the auto-bail outs (saving millions of direct or indirect jobs), wall street and the banks were regulated to help prevent similar financial crises Americans and the rest of the world saw in 2008 and 2009.  I could go on.  To say there was no change is nonsense.  Did the country suddenly become a land of honey and rainbows?  Of course not.  But to suggest that there wasn't any change is to ignore what actually happened during Obama's two terms in office.  Never mind the drastic turn around in the economy, particularly in Obama's second term (despite constant obstruciton by Republicans on federal taxation and spending).

2 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

You are right when you say its easy solutions to complex problems. But people want change now

Who are these people and are they toddlers?  Because you're essentially describing the mindset of a toddler (I have a two year old and thank god we don't run our home according to her warped sense of reality).

2 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

As for Impeachment. If you honestly believe that the squad is not holding Pelosi hostage and forced her hands and will not hurt her in 2020 come back to me next year.

Most people have tuned out. They don’t care if Trump allegedly solicited info on Biden. They want to know if they will be able to keep their home.

Again, if Pelosi was the kind of person who was going to be pushed towards impeachment it would have happened a long time ago.  You're reaching here and either ignorant of who Pelosi is or in denial of how serious Trump's actions are to the national security of the country along with the dangers of a run away executive who can do whatever he wants.

If most people have tuned out and don't care then they don't get to complain when everything goes to shit and the next President who's not an idiot is able to do in America what Erdoğan did in Turkey or Putin did in Russia with respect to democratic norms and traditions.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, downzy said:

Again, a lot of nonsense.  America didn't start a major war or invasion during Obama's two terms; millions of Americans received access to health insurance that had long been denied them, federal employees saw overtime pay for the first time, two of three of America's largest car manufacturers were saved thanks to the auto-bail outs (saving millions of direct or indirect jobs), wall street and the banks were regulated to help prevent similar financial crises Americans and the rest of the world saw in 2008 and 2009.  I could go on.  To say there was no change is nonsense.  Did the country suddenly become a land of honey and rainbows?  Of course not.  But to suggest that there wasn't any change is to ignore what actually happened during Obama's two terms in office.  Never mind the drastic turn around in the economy, particularly in Obama's second term (despite constant obstruciton by Republicans on federal taxation and spending

If  You do not understand the  Middle Of America. Get off your academic thinking and get to  a sceneario in which you see your entire livelihood disappear and don't want to see it destroyed any longer. That's the whole point of this 

 

5 hours ago, downzy said:

hen they're fucking dumb.  The President isn't solely responsible for the economy, but also foreign diplomacy, the largest and most potent military on the planet, and administering and executing the federal bureaucracy that so many Americans depend on to get by.  That's akin to saying, "I don't like how shitty airline travel has gotten over the last thirty years, so I want a bartender with zero flight experience to fly the plane."  And you wonder why I have zero sympathies who can't see past their own nose when it comes to this kind of s

 Again Understand the mayhem that was caused by Wall Street and Washington in the 80s-2000s. This documentary provides a clear path from the 08 crises to Occupy Wall Street and Bernie. It also describes the beginning of the tea party and the Rise of Trump

 

5 hours ago, downzy said:

Clinton lost because most people thought Clinton was going to win and didn't want to bother standing in line to vote for a candidate they didn't love.  That's why Clinton lost

U are partly correct and partly wrong  Clintons campaign thought that the democratic strongholds would help her. She did not understand the people she was trying to win over and did not see the anger from a middle class  and working class had  at Washington and failed to control it

5 hours ago, downzy said:

Second, the Iraq War (or the presence of the massive military build-up installed by his predecessor) ended within his first administration.

Iraq war  did end but we are still in Afghanistan and the Middle East and will likely never get out.

5 hours ago, downzy said:

Who are these people and are they toddlers?  Because you're essentially describing the mindset of a toddler (I have a two year old and thank god we don't run our home according to her warped sense of reality).

I am describing the mindset of someone who has been screwed over by the political machine time and time again and seen their savings disappear, homes were taken away from the, and jobs shipped overseas. That's the whole point I am trying to make

 

5 hours ago, downzy said:

Again, if Pelosi was the kind of person who was going to be pushed towards impeachment it would have happened a long time ago.  You're reaching here and either ignorant of who Pelosi is or in denial of how serious Trump's actions are to the national security of the country along with the dangers of a run away executive who can do whatever he wants.

 We will see in 2020 how this will affect her party.   If I am wrong I am wrong and I will admit it, but if I am right we will come back to this conversation

5 hours ago, downzy said:

And how has Trump helped these areas?  Are manufacturing jobs roaring back?  Sure, unemployment has dropped in many of these states (which was the dominant trend long before Trump won), but how many of those jobs are comparable to the ones lost?  Hint: not many.  (this criticism also applies to Obama as well - most jobs lost during the financial crisis were not replaced with similar paying jobs but lower paying, with fewer or no benefits and less job security).  

If the economy is in any way going into a recession. Trump will not get a second term the economy staying strong is essential to his 2020  It's up to them to decide. But Obama did preside over a recover the worst one after recession ever. But Obama can take credit for SOME of the recession but we are so far removed from any of his polices having an effect on it.  The record-breaking unemployment did start until the last couple of years. But we do not know the quality of those jobs. But we will find out in 2020

Edited by Gibsonfender2323

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

 Again Understand the mayhem that was caused by Wall Street and Washington in the 80s-2000s. This documentary provides a clear path from the 08 crises to Occupy Wall Street and Bernie. It also describes the beginning of the tea party and the Rise of Trump

I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be upset as a result of corporate greed and ambivalence in Washington.  But anyone who still supports him considering he's done nothing or little to really change anything, I see such support as something other than anger at wall street fat cats or ineffective representatives and bureaucrats.

To still support Trump today has little to nothing to do with the financial crisis or the winds of globalization knocking people down.  It's all about tribe.  It's why Republicans can't even acknowledge that what Trump did was wrong.  They're being intellectually dishonest.  It's one thing to say what Trump did was wrong but suggest it's not an impeachable offence (though I would argue otherwise), it's another for Republicans and Trump supporters to claim the high ground and excuse that he did nothing wrong.  It's horse shit and everyone knows it.  It's about ensuring your "team" stays on top at the expense of the other team regardless of what's true.  It's why I've wasted a significant amount of my time fact checking most of you what write.  You don't really seem to care what the facts actually are.  You just seem more interested in furthering your point.  Fuck the truth.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
 
 
4
26 minutes ago, downzy said:

I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be upset as a result of corporate greed and ambivalence in Washington.  But anyone who still supports him considering he's done nothing or little to really change anything, I see such support as something other than anger at wall street fat cats or ineffective representatives and bureaucrats.

To still support Trump today has little to nothing to do with the financial crisis or the winds of globalization knocking people down.  It's all about tribe.  It's why Republicans can't even acknowledge that what Trump did was wrong.  They're being intellectually dishonest.  It's one thing to say what Trump did was wrong but suggest it's not an impeachable offence (though I would argue otherwise), it's another for Republicans and Trump supporters to claim the high ground and excuse that he did nothing wrong.  It's horse shit and everyone knows it.  It's about ensuring your "team" stays on top at the expense of the other team regardless of what's true.  It's why I've wasted a significant amount of my time fact checking most of you what write.  You don't really seem to care what the facts actually are.  You just seem more interested in furthering your point.  Fuck the truth.  

Come back to me in 2020. If I am wrong I am wrong, but if I am right I will say I told you so.  I am not disputing the facts of what Trump did. Go to Ohio and the rust belt and ask around.  They do not give a shit about the Ukraine Scanda   Do you know who cares? The Coastal Elites that were so wrong about 2016 and why Trump won and the Burecaurts who will do anything to stay in power.  It's happening all over the world. The Populists are rising up  Canada, The UK, Turkey, Philippines, France, and Brazil.  People are getting pissed off at their Government being so bloated and corrupt and are rising up. The governments are not listening. Look at what happened in the UK today the populists are so pissed off.  Insult them and demean them all you want but they are the majority of populations and will make or break Trump next year. You are severely underestimating my point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, I am not a Trump die-hard and won't vote next year because I know how my state will go. I am just observing what I see in my country and most people have tuned out.  Trump will be either Re-Elected or Defeated based  on these points

1. Has he   made my life better

2. What  will the other guy do for me 

3. What future in this country do I have or my children have.

The only people who can afford to pay attention to this impeachment saga are those who are political people and make money doing it, The Media and Academics. People who live in the rust belt and the middle of the country are focused on putting food on the tables and making sure their kids will have a future. That's my point 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

The only people who can afford to pay attention to this impeachment saga are those who are political people and make money doing it, The Media and Academics. People who live in the rust belt and the middle of the country are focused on putting food on the tables and making sure their kids will have a future. That's my point 

I get your point.  It's the one you keep making.

But I honestly don't think you're correct for two reasons.  First, if Obama had done half of what Trump had done, you can bet your ass that "middle America" would be all for impeachment.  This has nothing to do with kitchen sink issues.  It's tribalism, pure and simple.

My second rebuttal, that I have made many times, is then if all that matters for middle America is food on the table, then why should America be a democracy at all?  You're essentially saying that Americans really don't care about democracy so long as they perceived standards of living are met.  So if America became a dictatorship tomorrow but most Americans saw an improvement in their living standards, most would be okay with it.  And you might be right, but that doesn't speak much to the country as a whole.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, downzy said:

My second rebuttal, that I have made many times, is then if all that matters for middle America is food on the table, then why should America be a democracy at all?  You're essentially saying that Americans really don't care about democracy so long as they perceived standards of living are met.  So if America became a dictatorship tomorrow but most Americans saw an improvement in their living standards, most would be okay with it.  And you might be right, but that doesn't speak much to the country as a whole.  

The American K-12 educational system has been systematically dismantled with the intention of keeping us as dumb as possible

It's by design, not by flaw

When wine moms can suddenly start opting their kids out of standardized testing because 1. Jesus and 2. Something they saw on Dr. Phil, we are past the point of no return

Edited by TheSeeker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, downzy said:

I get your point.  It's the one you keep making.

But I honestly don't think you're correct for two reasons.  First, if Obama had done half of what Trump had done, you can bet your ass that "middle America" would be all for impeachment.  This has nothing to do with kitchen sink issues.  It's tribalism, pure and simple.

My second rebuttal, that I have made many times, is then if all that matters for middle America is food on the table, then why should America be a democracy at all?  You're essentially saying that Americans really don't care about democracy so long as they perceived standards of living are met.  So if America became a dictatorship tomorrow but most Americans saw an improvement in their living standards, most would be okay with it.  And you might be right, but that doesn't speak much to the country as a whole.  

Because it's better than in a tyranny. The government is for the people by the people. If the current government doesn't mee people's standard of living they will elect a new one.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Because it's better than in a tyranny. The government is for the people by the people. If the current government doesn't mee people's standard of living they will elect a new one.

And that's exactly my point.  If you don't put a check on a run-away executive branch, democracy is not long to survive.

Trump used tax payer funds appropriated congress in an effort to undermine his likely political opponent in his re-election bid.  If that becomes accepted behaviour that doesn't warrant impeachment and removal from office, then let's just get this over with and bring on tyrannical rule.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, downzy said:

I get your point.  It's the one you keep making.

But I honestly don't think you're correct for two reasons.  First, if Obama had done half of what Trump had done, you can bet your ass that "middle America" would be all for impeachment.  This has nothing to do with kitchen sink issues.  It's tribalism, pure and simple.

My second rebuttal, that I have made many times, is then if all that matters for middle America is food on the table, then why should America be a democracy at all?  You're essentially saying that Americans really don't care about democracy so long as they perceived standards of living are met.  So if America became a dictatorship tomorrow but most Americans saw an improvement in their living standards, most would be okay with it.  And you might be right, but that doesn't speak much to the country as a whole.  

Tribalism is part of the human experience. It's just being held in check in the West at the moment. Go somewhere like the Middle East and you'll see it in it's natural state.

I think this would be true of any society. People care about their family, being able to make a living, and being able to live in a safe neighborhood. If a regime can provide these things, people will take that over a regime that can't but has separation of powers at the federal level. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This smear campaign on TYT's Cenk Uygur over his 2000's 'hot or not' thing is ridiculous. This is the second smear attack on him, at least this time its not by his own virtue signalling staff at Justice Democrats!! Seems Sanders even withdrew his endorsement of Cenks Congressional run over it. 

I mean I actually never liked Cenk much. Especially next to Anna Kasparian and Emma Vigeland who are way smarter and also sexy af.

... There goes my political career. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump indeed has a magic wand. 

4 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Doctored Photo^^

Clearly not doctored. 

22197894-7789101-image-m-313_15762379276

Edited by Silent Jay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2019 at 9:17 PM, Gibsonfender2323 said:

  It's happening all over the world. The Populists are rising up  Canada, The UK, Turkey, Philippines, France, and Brazil.  People are getting pissed off at their Government being so bloated and corrupt and are rising up. 

I’m curious what Canadian populist you are referring too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Silent Jay said:

ELrWO4VWkAEulZs?format=png&name=small

Hillary Clinton, who may still run in 2020, had a botched plastic surgery. She looks frightening, it's like she's totally a different person.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7789101/Hillary-Clinton-72-looks-incredibly-youthful-event-Broadway.html

... You know that humanity is facing a climate crisis right?? I mean, botox fails?? Please get your head in the game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a good example of where progressives need to be careful:

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/17/2020-free-community-college-086315

Free college is a great ideal, but if your only concern is removing the costs of education from the equation, you're going to have a real problem on your hands.

America's current post-secondary education system isn't designed for everyone to go to college.  It's just not.  It would be great if it were, but it would take a tremendous amount of planning, resources and commitment over a sustained period of time (likely a generation or two) before you open the doors for anyone and everyone.

The hard reality is that college is a gamble that needs to be weighed against the costs, potential payoff, and the kind of person looking for their path after high school.  Not everyone is geared or wired for a four year college degree. 

Sanders and others who think the problem of inequality can be fixed by simply removing the cost barrier are not being responsible in their policy prescriptions.

That's to say nothing about the gross unfairness of free education for anyone who just spent $50k-$200k over the past decade or two to get their degrees.

Something needs to be done, but populist appeals like this one are going to make the problem worse, not better.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, downzy said:

I think this is a good example of where progressives need to be careful:

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/17/2020-free-community-college-086315

Free college is a great ideal, but if your only concern is removing the costs of education from the equation, you're going to have a real problem on your hands.

America's current post-secondary education system isn't designed for everyone to go to college.  It's just not.  It would be great if it were, but it would take a tremendous amount of planning, resources and commitment over a sustained period of time (likely a generation or two) before you open the doors for anyone and everyone.

The hard reality is that college is a gamble that needs to be weighed against the costs, potential payoff, and the kind of person looking for their path after high school.  Not everyone is geared or wired for a four year college degree. 

Sanders and others who think the problem of inequality can be fixed by simply removing the cost barrier are not being responsible in their policy prescriptions.

That's to say nothing about the gross unfairness of free education for anyone who just spent $50k-$200k over the past decade or two to get their degrees.

Something needs to be done, but populist appeals like this one are going to make the problem worse, not better.  

Also you'll have degree inflation where you have just made the value of a degree much less than it even is now.

The key is getting the costs down. There needs to be some type of cost controls put on colleges.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Also you'll have degree inflation where you have just made the value of a degree much less than it even is now.

The key is getting the costs down. There needs to be some type of cost controls put on colleges.

If Sanders and progressives want to provide free post-secondary education, the American system needs to resemble the Germany system where most high school students are directed to trade or specialty schools.  Paying for BA degrees will cripple the post-education system and do nothing to help those who do end up graduating.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If college is in fact, as its detractors say, a mere production line fabricating middle management then having equal access makes perfect sense to me.

If college is a hub of intellectualism with aims to advance society, as Bernie Bros claim, then I would ask them to be more interactive with and critical of the realities of how the US creates and maintains its wealth to the extent that it can provide free tuition to such a large population. Same students who support BDS (as do I) will reap all the rewards of US policy? Including its support of Israel? Including its ecocide?

This 'Me and the good I can do if given the freedom to' attitude is a personalized retelling of neoliberalism. And this iteration of a demand for free tuition is the shrinking middle class refusing to loose its privileges.

 

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×