The New American Politics thread

[DuffMan]

I miss Sarah Palin

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

So what if he believes in "magical underwear". Are we not all crucifying (and rightfully so) Trump for his unconstitutional stance on banning muslims from entering the country?

I'm not sure that I understand your point. I think the reason that people worry about political leaders who believe in magical underpants is that, the theory goes, those political leaders are likely to do objectionable things like ban immigrants who dn't believe in magical underpants.

I personally think those sorts of concerns are usually overstated, but that is the concern (as I understand it.)

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by heep223

I mean, I'm pretty new here but, there is some pretty intelligent exchanges of ideas going on in multiple threads IMO. It's more the unintelligible barbs that are shouted down.

Nah, I tend to agree more with tjinaz. What you call an "unintelligent barb" I would say is a person that doesn't share in the majority of their leaning your worldview. But that doesn't make them unintelligent, and it doesn't make it so that their ideas- you couldn't learn from, even if you disagree holistically on the big picture. I think that's what Corsi's point is.

But I have definitely noticed a huge difference in how this board operates. It seems like the very large and very vocal majority, and perhaps the ones better suited to present their ideas and communicate and debate, are left leaning people. Not that this is a bad thing, but this board strikes me as exceedingly liberal, to a point that any conservative people, I could very well see being tentative to wade into a debate knowing that there will be 400 people ready to destroy them on a moment's notice.

There have been many good posters that have been banned for good or bad reasons. Some of the better ones over the years, Lanny, Cowperson, hell, even moon- are no longer here or posting. It is a very sad statement on the turn of CP.

And YET, I still think there's some good stuff here too. I 'm just saying this board would be even better with those voices too, and I wouldn't be surprised at their lack of participation because of how seemingly attacked opposing views seem to be here. I also think the thanks function has unintentionally created a very negative reaction to group think and reduction in overall site quality, as people mainly run around focusing on validation first, adding thoughts second, and not the other way around.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Nah, I tend to agree more with tjinaz. What you call an "unintelligent barb" I would say is a person that doesn't share in the majority of their leaning your worldview. But that doesn't make them unintelligent, and it doesn't make it so that their ideas- you couldn't learn from, even if you disagree holistically on the big picture. I think that's what Corsi's point is.

Nope I don't think you get what I'm saying. An example of a barb, off the top of my head, is someone who is posting that the stock market is a conspiracy, and that Facebook is like Enron because it's had good returns this year. Without any kind of rational or logical reasoning. And won't engage on the subject thoughtfully when challenged.

You seem to be implying that the vast majority of posters on this site agree with each other, and anyone who doesn't is shouted down. I vehemently disagree with this assertion, CP is full of opinions and challenges.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by heep223

Nope I don't think you get what I'm saying. An example of a barb, off the top of my head, is someone who is posting that the stock market is a conspiracy, and that Facebook is like Enron because it's had good returns this year. Without any kind of rational or logical reasoning. And won't engage on the subject thoughtfully when challenged.

You seem to be implying that the vast majority of posters on this site agree with each other, and anyone who doesn't is shouted down. I vehemently disagree with this assertion, CP is full of opinions and challenges.

I actually didn't mind the dude rambling on about questioning Facebook's valuation, because I learned from it. He ended up, I agree, not providing evidence or good logic /rationale as to his position but maybe they learnt something in that debate and eventually agreed, or maybe they just didn't have time to respond? If we continue to hammer on people who bring up, what you think, are "unintelligent barbs" then they won't post here. If that poster comes in here, he now knows that you are essentially calling him an unintelligent barb, even though he may not be. Nice.

Yes, we disagree on your second paragraph, that's my general impression, and you should have seen what this place was like a few years ago because- again just a general impression, not a hard or fast rule, but generally speaking, this site was a lot more welcoming to differing opinions. This is very off topic though, so I won't continue on. I just agree with tjinaz in general.

[RougeUnderoos]

A "barb" is an insult, not a silly belief or a silly person. Or a smart person or reasonable belief, for that matter.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

A "barb" is an insult, not a silly belief or a silly person. Or a smart person or reasonable belief, for that matter.

I'm probably qualifying as a barb here myself but I'm not sure I follow what you're stating. I'm aware heep is insulting nobama, that was my point?

[heep223]

Listen man reading all of this, my first reaction is that I will now think twice about posting in OT, because of offending the old CP guys or whatever. Kind of ironic given what you're saying. I do not have a history of being insulting or inflammatory.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Nah, I tend to agree more with tjinaz. What you call an "unintelligent barb" I would say is a person that doesn't share in the majority of their leaning your worldview. But that doesn't make them unintelligent, and it doesn't make it so that their ideas- you couldn't learn from, even if you disagree holistically on the big picture. I think that's what Corsi's point is.

But I have definitely noticed a huge difference in how this board operates. It seems like the very large and very vocal majority, and perhaps the ones better suited to present their ideas and communicate and debate, are left leaning people. Not that this is a bad thing, but this board strikes me as exceedingly liberal, to a point that any conservative people, I could very well see being tentative to wade into a debate knowing that there will be 400 people ready to destroy them on a moment's notice.

There have been many good posters that have been banned for good or bad reasons. Some of the better ones over the years, Lanny, Cowperson, hell, even moon- are no longer here or posting. It is a very sad statement on the turn of CP.

And YET, I still think there's some good stuff here too. I 'm just saying this board would be even better with those voices too, and I wouldn't be surprised at their lack of participation because of how seemingly attacked opposing views seem to be here. I also think the thanks function has unintentionally created a very negative reaction to group think and reduction in overall site quality, as people mainly run around focusing on validation first, adding thoughts second, and not the other way around.

Although I agree that this forum has become more loberal in the 10/15 years I have been posting/lurking here (as Calgary, in general has), its still a sports forum based largely in Calgary, Alberta. On the spectrum of mainstream Canadian politics, this forum still trends far to the right (IMO). Honestly, from my perspective, this is really clear.

I don't know, I'm totally prepared to admit that my own biases have coloured my perspective (if I'm way off base here).

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by heep223

Listen man reading all of this, my first reaction is that I will now think twice about posting in OT, because of offending the old CP guys or whatever. Kind of ironic given what you're saying. I do not have a history of being insulting or inflammatory.

I don't think you have a history of being insulting or inflammatory at all, I'm just pointing out an example where a person like nobama might be hesitant to come and post again mainly due to the reaction to his posts in that Facebook thread. There are lots of other posters that I can think of that do a good enough job on their own of creating an environment that isn't very welcoming, and if my posts about the general trend of this site make you think I am behaving similarly I'm sorry as that was not my intent at all. And all I was getting at is that the site as a whole did a better job before of welcoming discourse, not that it isn't still a good place to read some great viewpoints and get information.

[jammies]

I'd say the board is getting better by weeding out the contrarians and stubborn trolls. There's a difference between an opinion and having an INFORMED opinion, you learn absolutely nothing from anyone who just makes assertions with no evidence or logic to their position.

There are still plenty of conservative and even libertarian posters here. If few of them can explain their world-view in coherent, concise and logical fashion, or hold their own in an argument, well, that's not much of an endorsement for that particular world-view, is it? And in the particular case of the Republican ethos, as it's devolved starting with Reagan, there isn't much to debate as it is based on tradition, fear, and the worship of the wealthy, none of which are much open to question - you either accept that vision on faith, or not.

The so-called left has its many faults, certainly. However, these faults are mostly of excess rather than fundamental rejection of reality. At least with people who pay lip-service to the rational, you have hope. What hope is there with people who sincerely believe in the revelation of God's plan for America, or that taxes are theft, or that terrorism is more than an exceedingly remote and infinitesimal threat to their families, or all of these at once, and more?

[jammies]

Further, if you have the username "nobama", you are basing your whole internet persona on the ad hominem attack (if it's Obama, it's crap!), and you've already thrown the first firebomb in the flame war, and have little to complain about when others dismiss your arguments as noise from under a bridge.

[Swift]

'This Will Be The End Of Trump's Campaign' Says Increasingly Nervous Man For Seventh Time This Year

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Although I agree that this forum has become more loberal in the 10/15 years I have been posting/lurking here (as Calgary, in general has), its still a sports forum based largely in Calgary, Alberta. On the spectrum of mainstream Canadian politics, this forum still trends far to the right (IMO). Honestly, from my perspective, this is really clear.

I don't know, I'm totally prepared to admit that my own biases have coloured my perspective (if I'm way off base here).

It's always great for me to come here and chat politics, because even the more conservative posters on CP are relatively to the left of most people I encounter in regular everyday life here in suburban Southwestern PA.

The town I work in is nicknamed "Guntown," for God's sake.

Every time I realize the way US politics looks to the rest of the world, I feel a little bit ashamed to be from here.

[driveway]

Any country that gave the world peanut butter and Taylor Swift is alright by me.

Besides, if Trump gets elected, all the cool Americans will move to Canada. And that'll be sweet.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by driveway

Any country that gave the world peanut butter and Taylor Swift is alright by me.

Besides, if Trump gets elected, all the cool Americans will move to Canada. And that'll be sweet.

Not in my world.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by jammies

Further, if you have the username "nobama", you are basing your whole internet persona on the ad hominem attack (if it's Obama, it's crap!), and you've already thrown the first firebomb in the flame war, and have little to complain about when others dismiss your arguments as noise from under a bridge.

God I hate the anti Obama movement, I get that someone might be a conservative who doesn't like his policies but Obama has been probably the most successful president of my life time, and that includes Nixon, Reagan and Clinton. No other Presidant has had such an appalling set of negatives, a losing war that was costing trillions, an economic meltdown the like of which the world hadn't seen since the thirties and an implacably opposed congress and still he managed to shepherd the economy back to pre crash levels, pull the U.S. Out of two wars with a reasonable saving of face and introduce some form of healthcare.
If he was white Obama would be receiving grudging respect from all sides by now, it is nothing but rank and outright racism that he isn't seen as the saviour of a nation falling apart economically when he took power.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

God I hate the anti Obama movement, I get that someone might be a conservative who doesn't like his policies but Obama has been probably the most successful president of my life time, and that includes Nixon, Reagan and Clinton. No other Presidant has had such an appalling set of negatives, a losing war that was costing trillions, an economic meltdown the like of which the world hadn't seen since the thirties and an implacably opposed congress and still he managed to shepherd the economy back to pre crash levels, pull the U.S. Out of two wars with a reasonable saving of face and introduce some form of healthcare.
If he was white Obama would be receiving grudging respect from all sides by now, it is nothing but rank and outright racism that he isn't seen as the saviour of a nation falling apart economically when he took power.

Please don't try and paint him as totally positive, While I agree he got left a mess from Bush he also has made mistakes that could end up being so epic he just might go down in history as one of the worst. he got his troops out of action alright but it's now a nightmare because of the way he did it.

- Rise of ISIS is on his watch
- The Iran NUKE deal is a complete joke
- A lot of American's think he's the most anti-American president in history
- He has deteriorated any relationship with Russia and China
- His "tough talk-no action" is now a joke with world leaders

IMO, If the middle east calms down and Israel survives Iran's future bomb threats the best Obama can hope for is a memory similar to Johnson, Taft or even Coolidge as presidential favorites.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by T@T

- Rise of ISIS is on his watch
- The Iran NUKE deal is a complete joke
- A lot of American's think he's the most anti-American president in history
- He has deteriorated any relationship with Russia and China
- His "tough talk-no action" is now a joke with world leaders

Heh. None of that is particurarly strong criticism.
ISIS, maybe. The whole talk of a "weak" president is such a 'Murican talking point. It's one of the many things Russians and Americans have in common, all this worry about "looking strong".

Deteriorated relationship with China? That's pretty new to me.

Personally I'd talk more about things like
- most anti-whistleblower president in history
- drone-bombing campaign
- generally letting the military intelligence apparatus run wild

I could come up with more.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by ernie

And as is often the case when he says something so outlandish that the GOP has to get mad at him he plays the "run as an independent" card (well in this case it's the I'll stick with the party if I get treated fairly card....same thing). He does this knowing that the GOP can't afford to have him actually run as an indpendent as he will likely bleed away a couple of percent and that wouldn't be good for the GOPs chances.

Chuck Todd had (in my view) an insightful comment this morning on Morning Joe and the Today show:

The GOP establishment will let--and perhaps want---Trump to run as an Independent, on the theory that it will bring more (nominal) Republicans to the polls. The GOP will concede the White House to the Democrats (as a function of having Trump run as an Independent), but hope that the increased turnout (for Trump as an Independent) will lead to more down-ticket votes for Republicans, allowing them to retain the House (and maybe pick up a few seats in the Senate).

Thus---the GOP won't win the Presidency, but they retain enough power to jam up the system. Plus, let's be honest--sometimes it is better to be able to just criticize something than it is to have to be responsible for something.