The New American Politics thread

[GGG]

On the social side though everyone of them has been anti-Gay, Anti-choice, Anti Civil rights, Anti-path to citizenship.

If you are on the wrong side and I think there is an actual wrong side of those issues then does it really matter who the candidate is. You can't even get to the economic / safety net issues which you can debate if fundamentally the party doesn't get out of the 1950's. So they get demonized. Its not a good way to moderate the debate but the lack of moderation isn't necessarily do to media coverage.

The primary process lends itself to being taken over by extremes so to not get primaried in house and senate races you need to vote and speak right. This creates the pool of presidential candidates who also have to run extreme right.

So really until the republican's decide to join the present and recognize individual rights it doesn't really matter who the candidate is. The positions that candidate represents are extreme conservative positions. On those fronts Trump isn't worth than those previous candidates. He's just bat #### crazy on top of it.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Buster

This post should be stickied.

I don't consider myself a Trump supporter, and my intent is regularly mi-understood in that regard.

This sums up my view very well:



If we convince everyone that Trump is a racist, white-power, KKK-bred lunatic, then what happens when one of those actually shows up?

I'll tell you in 100 days.

I'll say this about George W Bush - he looks like Eisenhower next to this fraud.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by jammies

I'm still waiting for Buster to explain how calling Hillary a compulsive liar and warmonger is justified while calling Trump a racist is inaccurate, unfair, and possibly symptomatic of terminal SJW.

I expect I'll be waiting a long, long time.

I'm quoting this just in case Buster has jammies on block and that's the reason he's not replying to it as opposed to him just not having decent rebuttal.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm quoting this just in case Buster has jammies on block and that's the reason he's not replying to it as opposed to him just not having decent rebuttal.

I don't think you can block people, can you?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Buster

I don't think you can block people, can you?

Crap. "Ignore." I'll get you next time, Semantics Man!

[Buster]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Crap. "Ignore." I'll get you next time, Semantics Man!

haha. I don't think you can ignore OR block, can you?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Buster

haha. I don't think you can ignore OR block, can you?

Yeah, there's an ignore list you can put posters on.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Something no one would have predicted even a month ago: Trump is giving a speech and none of Fox, CNN or MSNBC are covering it.

[Street Pharmacist]

I do not believe however, that this is a uniquely liberal media problem. In fact, I'd argue the republican media is guilty of more offenses, though that could devolve into an winnable argument as it's impossible to prove. There are plenty of "Obama is not a Christian and wants to help the terrorists" stuff out there.

This is not even just a media problem, it's an advertising problem. Why are Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity rich? They really have nothing useful to offer and they do not pertain to be entertainers so they shouldn't be benefiting from entertainment dollars. It's an eyeballs problem

[jammies]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

This is a good point and merits additional discussion

You would think someone wanting to at least appear credible would address this question. It's not like he - apparently - is short on time or extra electrons to fling at the internet. It's a puzzle, all right, and perhaps even a conundrum!

I wouldn't want to speculate on his motives for ignoring his own sad hypocrisy, so I'm just asking questions here. Is it embarrassment? Lack of intellectual honesty? Hubris? Cognitive dissonance so intense as to render him unable to process his own errors? Sexy donkeys in lingerie? Or all of the above, even?

[Swift]

Trump is going for the "no, you are!" comeback

Hillary Clinton “lacks the judgment, temperament and moral integrity to lead this country,” declared Donald Trump at his rally in Iowa.
Chants of “lock her up” from the audience.
“She’s pretty close to unhinged. She’s like an unbalanced person,” said Trump.

[Swift]

Also...

“I don’t throw babies out, believe me. I love my children, I love babies, believe me,” he said in a singsong voice.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm quoting this just in case Buster has jammies on block and that's the reason he's not replying to it as opposed to him just not having decent rebuttal.

It's the latter. Pure speculation of course.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by jammies

You would think someone wanting to at least appear credible would address this question. It's not like he - apparently - is short on time or extra electrons to fling at the internet. It's a puzzle, all right, and perhaps even a conundrum!

I wouldn't want to speculate on his motives for ignoring his own sad hypocrisy, so I'm just asking questions here. Is it embarrassment? Lack of intellectual honesty? Hubris? Cognitive dissonance so intense as to render him unable to process his own errors? Sexy donkeys in lingerie? Or all of the above, even?

This is a curious situation isn't it. I too would hate to speculate on the motives of someone who engaged in such an oddly obvious and dare I say malicious method of posting. It would almost be as if that person was intentionally ignoring addressing both sides of their alleged ideological coin whilst swearing up and down that they were fair and balanced. Fair and balanced, you know that would be a good tag line for a news network.

[PsYcNeT]

When that doo-doo Trump punk points a finger like a stump tell him step off; I'm doin the hump.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by jammies

You would think someone wanting to at least appear credible would address this question. It's not like he - apparently - is short on time or extra electrons to fling at the internet. It's a puzzle, all right, and perhaps even a conundrum!

I wouldn't want to speculate on his motives for ignoring his own sad hypocrisy, so I'm just asking questions here. Is it embarrassment? Lack of intellectual honesty? Hubris? Cognitive dissonance so intense as to render him unable to process his own errors? Sexy donkeys in lingerie? Or all of the above, even?

It's just that I don't do requests. So nothing more exciting than that.

If you raise a point in which I am interested, I'll respond. Otherwise I just skip.

So if I'm ignoring you, and me engaging you is important to your ego, then you just have to be more interesting!

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I think Buster and Corsi (as do I) would agree with this:






http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ource=facebook

Wait, is this different from what the Republicans do, or what the RW media do? This is politics and both sides engage in this, non-stop. I mean, "Obama's been the worst President in history!"

Also, I love how they blame the rise of Trump on journalists when it is the weak leadership in the Republican Party that made him possible. Anyone with half a brain could have squished Trump early, but the Republicans couldn't find a capable politician to run against him, mostly because they are a party bereft of effective politicians. Lay the blame where it is deserved. The Republicans failed to develop a quality candidate the public could believe in. Period.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by New Era

Wait, is this different from what the Republicans do, or what the RW media do? This is politics and both sides engage in this, non-stop. I mean, "Obama's been the worst President in history!"

Yep. The Atlantic article also made this point.

Also, I love how they blame the rise of Trump on journalists when it is the weak leadership in the Republican Party that made him possible.

It is possible to have multiple concurrent contributing causes for an event.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by New Era

Wait, is this different from what the Republicans do, or what the RW media do? This is politics and both sides engage in this, non-stop. I mean, "Obama's been the worst President in history!"

Also, I love how they blame the rise of Trump on journalists when it is the weak leadership in the Republican Party that made him possible. Anyone with half a brain could have squished Trump early, but the Republicans couldn't find a capable politician to run against him, mostly because they are a party bereft of effective politicians. Lay the blame where it is deserved. The Republicans failed to develop a quality candidate the public could believe in. Period.

There are clearly lies and propaganda on both sides of the aisle.

However, there is a third category: those whose mission seems to be to destroy actual discourse. They want to salt the earth when it comes to having reasonable discussions. I know you don't agree with this proposition, but these people seem to come uniquely from the left: Reza, Glen Cenk et al.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It is possible to have multiple concurrent contributing causes for an event.

People should write this on their arm, so as not to forget it.