The 2016 US American Election Thread

[Senator Clay Davis]

Without comment because what is there to say?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Of course. For example, the right supports police intervention and opposes black lives matter because they're racist.
The right is anti-illegal immigration and in favour of border security because they're racist.
The right is all about tax cuts because they hate the poor and want to keep the rich getting richer (and they're also racist).
The right is concerned about voter fraud because they're racist.
The right is anti-refugee because they're bigoted.
The right opposes abortion because they're misogynists.
The right opposes gun control legislation because they care more about being able to shoot guns than peoples' lives.

Basically, they're just terrible human beings.

Right-wingers, we'll Republicans, consistently fail to articulate the arguments that they reject. I actually think Libertarians do a better job of this - how much of Ron Paul's platform is mainstream GOP now?

[PsYcNeT]

I'm the old white lady holding up the "LACKS FOR RUMP" sign.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Right-wingers, we'll Republicans, consistently fail to articulate the arguments that they reject. I actually think Libertarians do a better job of this - how much of Ron Paul's platform is mainstream GOP now?

This is absolutely a complete falsehood, and spoken out of pure ignorance.

You are saying that there are no conservative intellectuals?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Without comment because what is there to say?

To be fair the dude next to her holding the same sign is black.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'm the old white lady holding up the "LACKS FOR RUMP" sign.

Ever since I got married, I've never lacked for rump.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

You are saying that there are no conservative intellectuals?

Find any at Wreck Beach?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is absolutely a complete falsehood, and spoken out of pure ignorance.

You are saying that there are no conservative intellectuals?

There is a lack of republican intellectuals who promote their politics views

[Senator Clay Davis]

I suppose I left out the possibility her name is Sheila Black and that it is, in fact, "Blacks for Trump".

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is absolutely a complete falsehood, and spoken out of pure ignorance.

You are saying that there are no conservative intellectuals?

There are, but none of them are successfully speaking to the majority. Instead, the right gets represented by hacks like Hannity, Limbaugh and Levant, or worse, crackpots like Jones and Trump, or outright bigots like the Brietbart posse.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is absolutely a complete falsehood, and spoken out of pure ignorance.

You are saying that there are no conservative intellectuals?

That's a bit harsh. The groundlings of the GOP, certainly the average guy at a Trump rally, probably couldn't even identify what the Democrats' policy arguments even are, aside from a vague reference to a desire to take their guns and allow everyone to have abortion and use the wrong bathroom, mixed in with a bunch of conspiracy theories.

Obviously there are conservative intellectuals, but it's been a long time since those people would be what you'd think of when you think "Republican Party".

[Gozer]

The right opposes abortion because they're misogynists.

Let's take abortion, because taking them all is overwhelming.

In his infamous comments, Todd Akin said "if it's a legitimate rape, women can shut that whole thing down."

This is not the words of a man who is dumb, or had put no thought into the matter. This claim has specious support in the medical community, and its the type of rationization that a thoughtful politician would have to make for his position to be cohesive.
It's not a case of Trump not knowing the answer and making something up, this was the religious right's best answer.
And the lesson they learned was to stop talking about it in public - not to actually have an argument of ideas.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Of course. For example, the right supports police intervention and opposes black lives matter because they're racist.
The right is anti-illegal immigration and in favour of border security because they're racist.
The right is all about tax cuts because they hate the poor and want to keep the rich getting richer (and they're also racist).
The right is concerned about voter fraud because they're racist.
The right is anti-refugee because they're bigoted.
The right opposes abortion because they're misogynists.
The right opposes gun control legislation because they care more about being able to shoot guns than peoples' lives.

Basically, they're just terrible human beings.

Are there those elements on the right? Yes. But that doesn't mean the left only points to those things or doesn't understand the policies of the right...when there is actually policy. And that's the problem. "No immigration" isn't really a policy.

A policy discusses why that course of action is the correct action and uses data and facts to support it. A rebuttal will do the same thing and one can then decide where they line up. But yes right now the no immigration from muslim countries/no refugees right now is a bigotted policy because it is not rooted in evidence and completely ignores what the refugee process is about. It is based on fear. Same with illegal immigration from mexico. The right isn't bringing facts to the table. They are sputing hyperbole and falsehoods (42 falsehoods yesterday it seems from the leader himself).

The right, btw, doesn't oppose gun control outright. The very large majority of Americans on both sides believe there should be more but they vary in degrees (universal background checks to proper storage to limiting types of guns to banning them altogether). Problem is you can't have that conversation with the fringe and very vocal right (just as you can't have a conversation with the fringe and vocal left) and it is that vocal fringe right (the NRA) that controls that conversation because politicians fear retribution. Fearing retribution for doing what the bulk of americans want. Pretty disgusting. And that is something that BOTH sides are guilty of but the right more so as that is where the NRA lives and thrives. They have provided them a platform just as they are now providing a platform for the alt-right as they like to call themselves. I call them racists because that is what they are.

Voter fraud...again no evidence supports any mass voter fraud that can turn an important election. Sure there are some local mayoral races that can get affected but at state and federal levels it just isn't feasible or regular. Again the fear is not rooted in reality. It becomes bigoted when the nominee of a party starts calling for his disciples to monitor voting areas on election day where your opponent is massively stronger than you. Low and behold it's in high minority population areas.

etc etc etc.

IMO while certainly not a great candidate Clinton at least tried to talk policy this election and done so consistently. It's part of the reason she won the debates. The right hasn't tried to talk policy. The ones that tried to in the nomination process (Bush and Kasich) were put on the discard pile early because they weren't entertaining enough.

And that's the problem with the GOP. They went with someone who doesn't actually have ideas, can't communicate them if he did, peddles in random fears and it allows the vocal idiots a platform. And yes they are idiots. They are not prepared to actually have a rational discussion about anything and it has infected the party as a whole and resulted in a do nothing congress who has one goal and one goal only: to block anything. They have no will to actually discuss and come to mutually agreeable (or distasteful) solutions. And certainly the left is guilty of it as well but the left is the party with a presidential mandate right now and for the last 8 years.

The bottom line is that the GOP has a platform that does not recognize the equality of all people. They really don't. They don't have a nominee that believes in the equality of all people. And if you don't have that belief how the hell are you going to avoid being called a bigotted or misogynistic party? The work and laws you will put in place stem from the platform and the ideals in that platform.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is absolutely a complete falsehood, and spoken out of pure ignorance.

You are saying that there are no conservative intellectuals?

I'm talking about GOP policy makers: they suck.

Who am I to admire? Paul Ryan?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krug....co/hZMLdNvsCn

[peter12]

Originally Posted by GGG

There is a lack of republican intellectuals who promote their politics views

Not true.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's a bit harsh. The groundlings of the GOP, certainly the average guy at a Trump rally, probably couldn't even identify what the Democrats' policy arguments even are, aside from a vague reference to a desire to take their guns and allow everyone to have abortion and use the wrong bathroom, mixed in with a bunch of conspiracy theories.

Obviously there are conservative intellectuals, but it's been a long time since those people would be what you'd think of when you think "Republican Party".

Well, anyway, you could say the same about the grassroots showing up at Clinton rallies. Truth be told, average people don't know or care much about politics.

Well, I think what we are seeing now is a complete divorce between trademarked conservatism, and the populist roots of the party.

There are intellectuals with clear links to the party - Yuval Levin, Charles Murray, George Will.

And there is a massive patchwork quilt of intellectuals that discuss ideas that in the collective be termed "conservatism."

I'd recommend people check out "The Imaginative Conservative," or "The American Conservative, or "The New Atlantis" if they are interested at all in figuring out the thoughtful basis for conservative political positions. I mean, heck, the National Review is great.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by peter12

Not true.

[peter12]

So far off the mark again. So far.

[photon]

What's the payout for betting on a electoral college tie and McMullin being named president? I want to bet $10.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Let's take abortion, because taking them all is overwhelming.

In his infamous comments, Todd Akin said "if it's a legitimate rape, women can shut that whole thing down."

Thank you for one example of a stupid thing one republican said.

Here's the thing. I'm pro-choice. However, the reason that pro-life people on the right are pro-life is not because they want to subjugate women. It's because they think abortion is killing babies. That is not a crazy view of the world, because it's hard to decide when a fetus or baby suddenly has moral value. There's no particularly good answer to the question, "why is it suddenly no longer okay to kill this thing after it's been developing for X weeks?" It's a difficult moral question with reasonable positions on both sides. I understand their concerns on this point.

The same, to varying degrees, goes for all of the other positions. Even the voter fraud thing, I think, is a matter of the GOP cynically trying to position itself to more easily win elections rather than to disenfranchise poor minorities because they're a bunch of racists.