US Politics Thread

[brokenshoelace]

Gotta think Hillary put this to bed after the debate last night. I don't think much of her at all, and in fact, as far as foreign policy goes, she scares me, but she clearly destroyed him in the debate, quite masterfully I might add.

 

[Federberg]

^I agree on all counts. As his wife pointed out, he's easily egged on, and fell into all the traps HRC set. Quite why a 70 year old who's easily baited should be within a mile of the US Presidency has always escaped me, but hopefully enough Americans will stand up and be counted. I still have a sliver of fear because of the Brexit experience, but perhaps that's only relevant when the polling is close, the gap just seems to keep widening now.

 

[britbox]

 

[Federberg]

Watching this new allegation of Trump misconduct, I find myself shaking my head.

I'm no deplorable, but I have to say this is getting a bit much. I'm almost starting to feel sorry for Trump (almost). Apparently Trump walked up to her when she was leaving Flushing Meadows at the 98 US Open. He made a comment about her legs to some guys he was with then he held on to her arm and got a bit of side boob. Look, I'm not saying what he did was right, but the way they got the press in for this, the lead up to her allegations took ages. Just seems a bit OTT in this case. Look, guys shouldn't put their hands on a woman uninvited, even if it's just her arm (unless she is saying that he specifically intended to touch her breasts, and that wasn't clear from what she said), but this seems entirely different to forcibly french kissing a woman or putting your hand up her skirt.

 

[calitennis127]

Thing is, I don't care much for politics, so I do believe I'm posing the right question, as I couldn't care less about the state of the Republican party. I do however, care about the state of humanity. And millions of people WILL vote for Trump because they are Trump supporters (I'm sure the total number of people who flat out like him is easily in the millions). People want to vote for an unqualified sexual predator who openly and daily advocates violence, racism and misogyny. It's pretty sad.

LOL.....what a stupid comment. Trump does not "openly and daily advocate violence, racism and misogyny." The only violence that took place at his rallies took place because of paid Soros-funded and Clinton-funded agitators. As for racism, if it is "racist" to call for a secure border, then all the countries in your region of the world are also racist, as is Mexico, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, and dozens of others. There are at minimum 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States presently. That is a massive violation of U.S. law and sovereignty - so much so that Hillary Clinton herself called for the deportation of illegal immigrants during the 1990s!

 

[calitennis127]

Authoritarian, invasion of Crimea, little-man complex, homophobe...

Please don't generalize about "little men". Not all of them have a complex about being short. That is very sexist of you to say that. I hate when people generalize like that.

 

[calitennis127]

There are still tons and tons of openly racist people in this country. That will probably always be the case. Trump was always going to appeal to them regardless of what party he was running as. But my theory is that he has appealed to the "closet" racists the most, he has played on their "fears" and given a strong voice to them. That's what has caused the over-the-top support.

I do think all the videos and sexual assault chatter will end up being his undoing. Many people will still vote for him because they've already committed to it in their heads, many will vote for him simply because he is the Republican candidate, but there will be a lot of people who now can't bring themselves to vote for him after this.

Twisted, why don't you define "racism"? Does racism mean not watching the NBA? If so, then Moxie is the Grand Wizard of the KKK. Does racism mean prohibiting illegal immigration? If so, then Mexico and India are viciously racist countries. Does racism mean not agreeing with the policies of the Democratic Party in the inner cities? If so, then all rational, well-informed people are racist.

 

[calitennis127]

Wait, they didn't vote him in. He marched in with an army. You really OK with that? And Putin has manipulated his "elected" status, putting a puppet in for his interim. Also he's a thin-skinned, barely-veiled brown shirt. I'm surprised that none of that disturbs you.

Moxie, you are a first-rate Russophobe. You have irrational fear of Russia and Putin, just like the Washington DC establishment. Do you have any Russian friends? Do you know any Russian people? Maybe if you did you would not be stirring up so much anti-Russian venom without reason.

 

[calitennis127]

You don't know anything about what Hillary Clinton gives a shit about. I'm not confusing you will a Republican voter. I'm well-aware that you come at this from the outside. But it isn't parochial to understand that Obama has been mistaken for a Muslim, and accused of being soft on terrorists. I think it's amazing that he hasn't closed Gitmo, too, but you might try understanding why it's not just a matter of Presidential decree.

Obama is not a Muslim but culturally he is prejudiced against the Western world in favor of the Muslim world. He retained an indelibly Islamic middle name despite converting to Christianity in order to make a cultural statement. And he absolutely has been "soft" on the global jihadist movement overall, in that he has encouraged further Islamic immigration to the West and ideologically defended Islam with a passion. Thus, his words and deeds have emboldened jihadist movements throughout the world. His 8 years in office have helped the global jihad become an even greater menace with long-lasting staying power.

 

[calitennis127]

There has been a backlash after the 2 terms of Barack Obama, and the rather swift cultural changes, like marriage equality.

With this statement alone, Moxie demonstrates the inherent totalitarianism of the left. Moxie and the Democratic Party have more in common with Maoists and Communist mass murderers than they do the hard-working entrepreneurial people who built America into a great power. For Moxie, Obama's agenda was completely good, so the only way that someone could possibly get in the way of it is if - hold on a minute, let's say it together - they are RACIST. Yes, that's it. The only way anyone could disagree with the stammering mediocrity known as Barack Hussein Obama is if he is racist, which means that said individual has a cold heart, evil intentions, and would stomp on kittens if he could. Moxie's mindset is thoroughly intolerant and totalitarian. She defines her opposition not merely as wrongheaded but as evil simply for disagreeing with her.

As for the second part of Moxie's little jab, the Trump movement has nothing to do with a reaction against gay marriage. Trump and Peter Thiel both came out in defense of LGBT rights at the Republican convention. Trump's support has nothing to do with that particular issue, whatever one thinks of it. To say that Trump is getting support because of opposition to gay marriage is preposterous and not based on any facts. Trump has hardly even discussed the issue, and when he has, he has been on the left.

I don't believe it's so much overt racism with a lot of people as much it is an assumption of white privilege, if you take the distinction. (Not that either notion is very nice, but I am giving a bit of a pass to cultural assumptions.)

No, I don't take the distinction. White privilege, by the left's own definitions, is an accusation against white society for being unfair and unjust toward minorities, in the past and in the present. Saying that Trump's supporters are not overtly racist but that they express white privilege is simply a case of you trying to be tactful in accusing your opponents of racism and therefore moral inferiority. There is no distinction.

Trump has played on what are really economic problems to create racial and ethnic divides.

Moxie, look, I have debated you for years now. I really do not think you are a stupid person or a bad person. I think you are misinformed, but I do not think you are dumb. However, this has to be the single dumbest statement I have ever read from you. Either you were too lazy to think it through before you typed it or you were being dishonest. I think the former is the case, but allow me to just say this: the racial and ethnic divides in America long preceded Trump. To say that he created them is absolutely preposterous.

Furthermore, the hypocrisy in what you as a leftist Democrat are saying is astounding. The Democrats have exploited black poverty for the last 40-50 years in order to get 90%-plus of the black vote as a protest against white society. That pretty well fits the definition of "playing on economic problems to create racial and ethnic divides." The Democrats are now doing the same thing with the Latino vote. These divides have existed for years. Trump did not create them.

 

[calitennis127]

Clinton is spending $ in TX. Here is Nate Silver's electoral map, and he's been the best at predicting the last 2 election cycles:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

The question is if it will be enough of a mandate to squelch notions of "rigging," (which is ludicrous, btw.) At this point, Trump appears to be making no attempt at reaching out to undecided voters, only to shoring up his base. My mother, ever the Oracle, says that he's priming them for his Media empire, TrumpTV in conjunction with Breibart, or whatever, post-defeat. Mark her words.

If anything, disenfranchisement is more likely to happen to minority voters, since this is our 1st presidential election since the Voting Rights Act was essentially neutered by the Supreme Court in 2013. Trump is using racially-coded language to stir people up to monitor the polls on a vigilante basis, and some of his people are taking this to heart. They really can't, though, and any attempt would be a federal offense. I hope that our election day is peaceful, as so the transition.

There have been numerous cases of voter fraud documented in recent elections. The major media are covering it up simply because it has worked in favor of the Democrats.

 

[calitennis127]

^yup I go to Nate Silver's website all the time. Thoughts on the final debate? All I'm hearing here is he refused to say that he would accept the result. Even undecideds have to question the lack of patriotism and the attack on core American principles surely?

Federberg, once again, this is a case of Trump's rhetorically challenged answers allowing the media to attack him in a petty way. Trump has his moments where he speaks well, but for the most part he talks like he is in 7th grade. Hence, the confusion.

What Trump was trying to say but didn't articulate in the best manner was not that he won't respect the outcome of the election merely for losing but that he will contest the results if he learns of cases of voter fraud. There were numerous reports of voter fraud in 2012 in Chicago, St. Louis, and Philadelphia and there have been recent news reports about massive voter fraud orchestrated by the Democratic party in Indiana. Because of these concerns, he will be willing to contest the election if he sees evidence that this occurs in the coming weeks. Trump was not questioning the principle of peaceful transition of power.

However, I must say that it is quite ironic that leftists are so shocked by what they allege Trump said. They don't like violent transitions of power? If so, this shows how little they know about Latin America because Latin American history in the last two centuries is rife with violent exchanges of power. I wonder if they would be so fond of Latin America if they learned that little historical tidbit.

How ironic.

 

[Federberg]

Federberg, once again, this is a case of Trump's rhetorically challenged answers allowing the media to attack him in a petty way. Trump has his moments where he speaks well, but for the most part he talks like he is in 7th grade. Hence, the confusion.

What Trump was trying to say but didn't articulate in the best manner was not that he won't respect the outcome of the election merely for losing but that he will contest the results if he learns of cases of voter fraud. There were numerous reports of voter fraud in 2012 in Chicago, St. Louis, and Philadelphia and there have been recent news reports about massive voter fraud orchestrated by the Democratic party in Indiana. Because of these concerns, he will be willing to contest the election if he sees evidence that this occurs in the coming weeks. Trump was not questioning the principle of peaceful transition of power.

However, I must say that it is quite ironic that leftists are so shocked by what they allege Trump said. They don't like violent transitions of power? If so, this shows how little they know about Latin America because Latin American history in the last two centuries is rife with violent exchanges of power. I wonder if they would be so fond of Latin America if they learned that little historical tidbit.

How ironic.

You're a Trump watcher. Can you clarify something for me. The word he keeps using, is he saying "Bigly" or "Big League"?

 

[brokenshoelace]

LOL.....what a stupid comment. Trump does not "openly and daily advocate violence, racism and misogyny." The only violence that took place at his rallies took place because of paid Soros-funded and Clinton-funded agitators. As for racism, if it is "racist" to call for a secure border, then all the countries in your region of the world are also racist, as is Mexico, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, and dozens of others. There are at minimum 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States presently. That is a massive violation of U.S. law and sovereignty - so much so that Hillary Clinton herself called for the deportation of illegal immigrants during the 1990s!

Please, watch the "good old days" video, and tell me how that's not advocating violence. When Trump makes a statement like, "in the good old days, these protesters would get smacked in the face," how is that not advocating violence?

“Maybe [the protester] should have been roughed up." Is a direct quote from Trump.

It is not racist to call for a secure border... but it is racist to say that most of the Mexican immigrants are rapists, drug dealers and murderers (he literally said that before saying "some of them are nice, good people... I assume"). And that's just one example off the top of my head. And please check his history of racial discrimination in his business practices. These are indisputable facts.

So that answers the above, which interestingly, didn't attempt to refute Trump's blatant misogyny, likely because it appeals to certain people, curiously enough.

 

[Federberg]

Please, watch the "good old days" video, and tell me how that's not advocating violence. When Trump makes a statement like, "in the good old days, these protesters would get smacked in the face," how is that not advocated violence?

“Maybe [the protester] should have been roughed up." Is a direct quote from Trump.

It is not racist to call for a secure border... but it is racist to say that most of the Mexican immigrants are rapists, drug dealers and murderers (he literally said that before saying "some of them are nice, good people... I assume." And that's just one example off the top of my head. And please check his history of racial discrimination in his business practices. These are indisputable facts.

So that answers the above, which interestingly, didn't attempt to refute Trump's blatant misogyny, likely because it appeals to certain people, curiously enough.

I completely agree. And that's just looking at his more direct comments. There's a huge amount of dog whistle stuff which seems racist to me. Not least appealing to his base to watch for voting irregularities in areas which are predominantly minority constituencies. I was watching a documentary recently about how the whole issue of welfare has been racialised. When poor minorities weren't permitted access to the welfare system there was no stigma attached, but the moment that changed the whole issue became toxic. Hankering for the good old days is a clear reference to a time where minorities were marginalised. What's the endgame here? Apartheid?

 

[Federberg]

Quite an interesting read...

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a49738/apprentice-candidate-remembers-trumps-sexism/

 

[Tennis Fan]

Thing is, I don't care much for politics, so I do believe I'm posing the right question, as I couldn't care less about the state of the Republican party. I do however, care about the state of humanity. And millions of people WILL vote for Trump because they are Trump supporters (I'm sure the total number of people who flat out like him is easily in the millions). People want to vote for an unqualified sexual predator who openly and daily advocates violence, racism and misogyny. It's pretty sad.

It's downright embarrassing for the nation as a whole.

 

[Tennis Fan]

I completely agree. And that's just looking at his more direct comments. There's a huge amount of dog whistle stuff which seems racist to me. Not least appealing to his base to watch for voting irregularities in areas which are predominantly minority constituencies. I was watching a documentary recently about how the whole issue of welfare has been racialised. When poor minorities weren't permitted access to the welfare system there was no stigma attached, but the moment that changed the whole issue became toxic. Hankering for the good old days is a clear reference to a time where minorities were marginalised. What's the endgame here? Apartheid?

What is lesser known is who is actually getting welfare. The red states are the poorest and the most uneducated and sadly they don't realize that they're voting against their own interests because they think it's the "other guy." Most of these people rely on Fox who spouts this rhetoric in their ears on a daily basis and heaven forbid that they should fact check anything. It's so sad. It's what makes politics so depressing. Most people have no idea how the political system even works. Those are the ones with the biggest mouths--spouting ignorance.

 

[Federberg]

What is lesser known is who is actually getting welfare. The red states are the poorest and the most uneducated and sadly they don't realize that they're voting against their own interests because they think it's the "other guy." Most of these people rely on Fox who spouts this rhetoric in their ears on a daily basis and heaven forbid that they should fact check anything. It's so sad. It's what makes politics so depressing. Most people have no idea how the political system even works. Those are the ones with the biggest mouths--spouting ignorance.

Yes I've always found that interesting. When you look at the fastest growing wealthy states, the bulk are actually under the control of democrats. That's actually tough for me to understand, being a small government guy. Lot's to ponder about the complexity of the American political economy

 

[Tennis Fan]

Yes I've always found that interesting. When you look at the fastest growing wealthy states, the bulk are actually under the control of democrats. That's actually tough for me to understand, being a small government guy. Lot's to ponder about the complexity of the American political economy

Small government guy? I've always wondered what people mean by that.