General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 95

i mean what in the flying fuck are you doing when SE Cupp calls you on something and shes fucking right what on jesus titty christ earth.

 

12:30 "are mexicans latino? yes? thank you!" lmao he thinks thats a fucking smoking gun jesus i cant

 

I didn't know where else to post this but as an animal lover, I wanted to post it for others to read.

Never forget: Last 9/11 Ground Zero search dog dies at age 16

 

A Mexican citizen may not identify as Latino btw.

 

no i know, i just feel like he has no idea how any of these structures work (esp since the guy, for the millionth time, is an American citizen natively) and i dont see how that line of thinking was going to get him anywhere

 

Oh, I wasn't correcting you so much as offering a complimentary criticism.

I think the most understated issue is that Trump's words undermine the integrity of the legal system by insinuating that, because of his ethnic heritage, a federal judge is consciously working not in adherence to and in the interest of the State, but in the interest of a foreign sovereign nation. That's a lofty accusation akin to treason and sure as hell better be backed up with findings. Trump should be getting hit a lot harder on this issue, and the potential damage done to this district judge's reputation.

Just this morning, a federal judge sentenced one of our clients who is a documented worker from Mexico. If we'd have made any overture towards judicial bias on the basis of the judge being white, an inference much more historically justifiable, it would likely result in sanctions. Luckily, the judge was awesome but nevertheless.

 

Okay. California not being kind to Bernie. It's done.

 

I'm being kinda lazy TBH but curious and low on free time at the moment: what evidence is out there to confirm or debunk the notion that Trump, despite the rhetoric, is just using tactics that are the equivalent of internet trolling combined with acting/persona to gain popularity? We already know he is making use of reality TV showmanship and hateful rhetoric to get the idiot, simpleton, ignorant, racist, bigot, masculist, etc vote, but what hard evidence if any out there confirms or debunks the notion of what he is saying most of the time being in conflict with his true personality and policies in 2016? And is there any concrete evidence that proves what all of his actual policies would be? Whether they are as advertised or in maybe in reality more humanitarian and less crazy-sounding and harmful? Basically, going totally on facts and not what he says, how likely it is that Trump, if elected, will suddenly take off his asshat and become a sensible, capable, positive, etc politician?

 

This will sound naive but couldn't Trump be hit with a suit for slander and libel? He's basically defaming this judge, saying he can't do his job as a judge because of his race.

 

I mean, he could, but it wouldn't be successful. He isn't purporting to make a factual statement that can be proven false, just an inference of potential bias. He's basically calling the judge a racist and, if that were actionable, we'd start seeing defamation suits being filed by Trump on reporters and media personalities by the minute.

 

So wait, is Sanders out of the race now? I know Trump is the Rep. nomination but is Clinton the Dem?

 

Yes, yesterday was the last round of primaries. She scored enough delegates. The Dem Conference later this summer will officially declare her the party's nominee.

 

He hasn't conceded but yeah it's officially Hillary unless she gets indicted or dies

 

Thanks.

I'm 32 and have never voted in an election, I think I might do that this year. Same goes for my wife who has never voted either.

 

If I recall correctly, when he entered the race you had mentioned something to the effect of his role in the primary being to round up leftists and progressives, bring them into the Democratic primary, and get them to vote for the centrist after he bows out (please correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth). Do you think he has followed suit, or actively challenged HRC / the DNC?

I don't buy into the "change the party from the inside!" narrative as being sincere or possible. But I do think that perhaps his role has been to expose these institutions and show that a more leftist message and platform can see success. I think/hope that he has inspired folks to get engaged who won't be otherwise, and acknowledge the difference between the left and the Democratic Party.

Tl;dr: I want to believe !

 

Technically there is one primary left, Washington DC, and the alternative for Bernie is to convince enough super delegates to back him at the convention. Clinton isn't the nominee until the super delegate votes are counted, though it's highly unlikely they will switch to Sanders.

 

Long term i think sanders has demonstrated that the future of the democratic party is decidedly not in the mold of clintonian politicking. His share of the youth vote is straight up unbelievable, and i think thats a major issue the DNC isn't really addressing publicly right now but will in a couple cycles when all of a sudden this huge block of what is traditionally their base is much further to the left than they've been in the last twenty-odd years. the future of the party (and the country) is to the left, sanders is just the first indication of that shift imo, and so his failure isn't even that, it's just a taste of what's to come.

kind of indirectly and probably poorly responding to the second half of your post more than anything

 

I'm seriously torn between Trump and Hillary. Both have interesting ideas but also views that I don't share. I also have a feeling Trump is in for a serious reality check if he wins, and this persona will stop real quick.

 

I would say don't vote for the racist, but it looks like that is all that is an offer of one prefers to vote for either candidate.

 

Hah, a while back I said along the lines of "can't wait to decide between a racist with no policy experience and one with extensive policy experience"

it's all so bad.

 

It's not, nor has ever really been, a "persona" though. Some light googling will do wonders. Hard to turn something off when it is an inherent part of your identity. It's just who he is.

 

Trump has stated in a book a while back that he puts on this act of a blustering blowhard because he knows it will get attention.

It's like the "hey look at me!" mentality and it works. There are a lot of people in this country that will vote for him because they think he's funny, or "real".

The ONLY reason I'd consider voting for Trump is because he wants to bring a lot of jobs back into the US that currently reside overseas. But the part he may not realize is that it isn't completely up to him to do this, and whatever jobs he may want to create here, the companies have to be willing in the first place.

I don't know, the whole thing is just weird. Clinton is the "safe" bet since she was in the White House for 8 years already, so there's that, and I don't really know too much about her except for the email scandal thing.

Oh and Trump wants to abolish the health care structure that Obama put in place, and I'm down for that because it personally affects me. I make too much money to benefit from "Obamacare", and private insurance prices are through the roof because of it. So I'd either pay $800/month for Obamacare with high deductibles and shitty fees, or I'd pay about $1500-2000/ month privately which costs an arm and a leg.

If I were to quit or get laid off, I'd be able to get healthcare...how the fuck does that make sense?

 

He could still perform that function and that is something that has typically happened in the DNC. However, his candidacy came at a time in which the legitimacy of major parties has significantly been diminished, thus allowing it to exceed the normal parameters of past left-wing candidates; it struck a core of voters who saw Clintonite liberalism for what it was, i.e., an orientation towards business and racist, homophobic, sexist, right-wing politics more generally. As Ryan said, that matters. For example, welfare reform and the crime bill of the early 90's became an issue again, and people have shown both were failures on a number of levels. This goes beyond Bernie as a person and represents a more fundamental shift. The battle will be fought out within and without the DNC, and my suspicions are that Bernie will argue for the former. Our job, then, is to articulate that it is impossible to change the party from within and hasten the schisms developed by his candidacy. The distinctions between what we want and what the Democratic Party wants to do have been demonstrated, not only on a policy level but in the way that the entire primary was run, so we need to make the argument that the future for the left lies elsewhere.

 

So this gets into "troll theory" a bit and is partly opinion based as there's no way right now to objectively measure Trump's intelligence.

I hold that "it's just a joke" or "I'm speaking ironically" or "I said that to prove a point" are deflections frequently used as damage control after somebody says something racist, sexist, etc. If somebody employs such an excuse, it's become my habit not to tolerate it and to call them out. First, because it has no merit; there are countless ways to achieve literally anything without being overtly, intentionally offensive. Second, because it doesn't matter how you intend something; it matters how it's largely interpreted. One may not be responsible for radical, improbable interpretations that 1% of the population has in response to a comment, but one is responsible when the vast majority have a simple interpretation, because that message (intentionally or not) is spreading that idea and the speaker must take responsibility for that.

For these reasons, Internet trolls and Trump shouldn't get off the hook as they frequently do. Words have consequences, and words spoken with a shoddy excuse of shitty satire don't excuse that.

Beyond that, I'm inclined to believe that Trump is not a troll. Most generously, he might be playing to racist beliefs in order to gain popularity or notoriety as a candidate. Even if that's the case, he's manipulating and promoting awful ideas, and that doesn't negate the fact that those ideas are being accepted as simple truth by many supporters (the idea that ALL of them are in some kind of long con, not taking the ideas seriously, is simply impossible). What Trump says as a figurehead arguably is only important in that it influences what Trump supporters believe as a population (ignoring the idea he might be the most powerful man in the world).

Even if Trump flips on a dime upon election, besides tanking his approval and chances of reelection and ability to work bipartisan or really partisan at all (thus negating the con), that doesn't dispense the huge ball of sincere hatred, violence, and bigotry he's contributed to popularizing among his supporters. He is, in my opinion, still 100% culpable because his words and actions contributed to that ideology gaining momentum and support (not that it wasn't always there). Similarly, trolls may ironically state things, but even if they have "innocent troll" intentions (they don't), they develop ideologies that are taken seriously, rendering all "good" intentions sullied by the fact that they basically should fucking know better. This is amplified by the fact that a potential president and world leader should know better and have a functioning understanding of how ideas spread, minds are shaped, actions have consequences, etc.


Now, all this is premeditated on the idea that Trump is playing a veiled game. Frankly, I don't think he is. I think he's a racist, sexist, rich idiot who is surrounded by yes men, and who realized he can gain enormous power and wealth by sharing his truly-held racist, sexist, idiotic ideas with a public who believes it's no longer racist, sexist, and idiotic but patently is. So even if I'm wrong and this is all some genius long con, it's still 100% reprehensible and I will never support it.

Sorry for the rant, haha. I've developed these ideas through a frustrating relationship with the internet, where such excuses are often found and often bullshit. Hope this answers your questions or at least provides food for thought.

 

don't forget the supreme court...

I also don't see a significant difference between someone who "pretends" to be a blustering blowhard and someone who actually is. One is an idiot and the other is a malicious idiot. Neither are fit for public office.