The New American Politics thread

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The rise of Trump has quite a bit to do with the failure of the left to address a whole bunch of issues honestly, and instead simply treat everyone who doesn't agree with them like moral cretins. Trump's support, particularly its adamantine quality in so far as it seems immune to accusations of sexism or racism or anti-muslim bigotry, is in large measure a backlash against those attitudes. Obama does bear some responsibility in that area.

You're going to have to expand a whole lot more on that for me to believe it. I'm with you on the left's "wishy washy" positions that ignore obvious issues in an attempt to be mostly superior, ie Islam and the radicalism within. Where you're way off base in my opinion is where you think Obama is in any position to inform the left on where they should stand. He's a centrist president that whose role is to define the American position.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Itse

I really don't see how that's in any way on Obama. Obama himself is generally extremely respectful of opposing opinions, even really stupid ones that are presented in offensive ways. Much more so than any other US politician than I think I've ever seen.

Stuff like this.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/01/...ist-terrorism/

Or this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ve-been-raped/

I agree with you that he's by no means an alarmist, but he's really not done anything to rein in the vast contingent of people who support him who have gone completely off the reservation the past four years. He's often been part of the problem. I'm not pointing the finger at him, I've been part of the problem too in years past, but to suggest that given his position he bears no responsibility whatsoever is in my view misguided.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The rise of Trump has quite a bit to do with the failure of the left to address a whole bunch of issues honestly, and instead simply treat everyone who doesn't agree with them like moral cretins. Trump's support, particularly its adamantine quality in so far as it seems immune to accusations of sexism or racism or anti-muslim bigotry, is in large measure a backlash against those attitudes. Obama does bear some responsibility in that area.

His support is immune to accusations of sexism, racism, or anti-muslim bigotry because many of his supporters are sexists, racists, and anti-muslim bigots.

They don't mind the labels. They fit. They aren't going to abandon him because of them.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

His support is immune to accusations of sexism, racism, or anti-muslim bigotry because many of his supporters are sexists, racists, and anti-muslim bigots.

They don't mind the labels. They fit. They aren't going to abandon him because of them.

First, even if you're a racist, you generally recoil at being CALLED a racist. Except in this case, because they seem to see Trump as immune to those sorts of accusations. So if your supposition is that his supporters see him being called a bigot and think to themselves, "Yeah? So what, I'm a racist sexist bigot too, I don't mind those labels", I don't know what to tell you except that I think that's nuts.

Second, these accusations have become so broadly used and on such a hair-trigger basis that they've become suspect. I actually doubt that there are enough truly racist people in the USA to be able to buoy a candidate to the extent Trump has been buoyed. Much as some people would like to think there are Nazis around every corner so that they have a bogeyman to fight, most people are actually decent human beings. So I disagree with your main point, unless you're expanding the definition of racist, sexist, or anti-muslim bigot to such a degree as to rob it of any real meaning.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

First, even if you're a racist, you generally recoil at being CALLED a racist. Except in this case, because they seem to see Trump as immune to those sorts of accusations. So if your supposition is that his supporters see him being called a bigot and think to themselves, "Yeah? So what, I'm a racist sexist bigot too, I don't mind those labels", I don't know what to tell you except that I think that's nuts.

Yeah, that's fair enough. Then I guess they just dismiss it as the lamestream media, "political correctness", and Trump just "telling it like it is" and don't even recognize obvious racism, sexism, and bigotry. If a person doesn't recognize what he's said to/about women, about Mexican immigrants, and Muslims as anything but sexism, racism, and anti-Muslim bigotry, they are either fine with it or too stupid to see it.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I actually doubt that there are enough truly racist people in the USA to be able to buoy a candidate to the extent

That would be nice, but he doesn't exactly have overwhelming or mainstream support, and there are enough truly racist people in every country to get behind a candidate like him.

Or maybe his supporters are just not paying attention at all? Hell, the guy is a proud philanderer who has been married three times. A casino owner, a liquor salesman, a narcissistic braggart who doesn't know the first thing about Christianity and scoffs at Christian principles, and apparently he has the support of millions of evangelicals. That doesn't make sense.

He's a silver-spoon Manhattan real estate tycoon who hires illegal immigrants, takes a dump in a gold toilet on his private jet and calls people who don't have a lot of money losers, and apparently some working class people think he's got their best interests at heart. That doesn't make sense either.

So really, who knows?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Stuff like this.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/01/...ist-terrorism/

Or this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ve-been-raped/

The Federalist? Seriously?

And you're putting that "one in five women" statistic on Obama?

Seriously Corsi. I thought you considered yourself more of a rationalist. That's some seriously terrible argumentation, and stretching the facts really, really far.

Also, how could you possible have any idea on whether or not he's tried to rein that in? You couldn't. You just made that up because it suits your opinion.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

First, it's a typical reaction to attack the source. I don't read the federalist, for what it's worth. I don't really care if it has some reputation. The fact is that the white house censored a certain term that it has itself avoided using, when used by another country's leader. It's simply the case that Obama has declined to acknowledge that Islamism is a problem, has frequently said things like "ISIS is not Islamic" or "This attack has nothing to do with Islam"... this is just one example of that. When you lie to people, treat them like idiots, or try to hush up some important issue, they tend to rebel. This is why anti-holocaust denial laws seem to have produced a cottage industry of holocaust denial (not to mention the attendant ultra-right wing nationalism) in Europe. It's counter-productive. With respect to the second statistic it was just another example of him using poor information to further an agenda. Good intentions, I'm with you on the policy, but stop lying to people, stop hyperbolizing. I've said it before; this is why Milo Yiannopoulos has hundreds of thousands of twitter followers.

As to this:

Also, how could you possible have any idea on whether or not he's tried to rein that in? You couldn't. You just made that up because it suits your opinion.

Aside from at one point calling out coddled students last fall, he has had absolutely nothing to say publicly on the left behaving in an insane fashion. That's how you rein in the crazies when you're the President and the leader of the presumably liberal major political party: you tell them to knock it off. We know his rhetoric has been the sort referenced above, which is highly problematic. So yeah, we know he hasn't reined in this strain of thought within the left. We'd notice if he gave a speech.

Are you suggesting that he's waging some secret campaign against the worst elements within his political ideological wing without anyone noticing?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Aside from at one point calling out coddled students last fall, he has had absolutely nothing to say publicly on the left behaving in an insane fashion. That's how you rein in the crazies when you're the President and the leader of the presumably liberal major political party: you tell them to knock it off. We know his rhetoric has been the sort referenced above, which is highly problematic. So yeah, we know he hasn't reined in this strain of thought within the left. We'd notice if he gave a speech.

So, he's respectful towards his opponents, but he should call out his supporters?

Are you suggesting that he's waging some secret campaign against the worst elements within his political ideological wing without anyone noticing?

This hyperbole kind of underline how ridiculous you're being. None of what you're saying makes sense to an extent that there would be a sensible response to it. It's just a fantasy of how things work vs. an opinion of how things should work, both built in your own head.

There's no arguing that from the outside. You're simply pointing out things that don't exist and use the lack of existence as "proof".

[Senator Clay Davis]

Ted Cruz is organized, if disgusting. This is why he's almost getting into lock territory to be the nominee. Certainly he's ensuring that if Trump doesn't win on the first ballot, Trump basically can't win and Cruz basically can't lose.

The New York businessman easily won last month's Arizona primary taking 47 percent to Cruz's 25 percent, scooping up all 58 of the state's delegates. That's nearly 5 percent of the 1,237 Trump needs for the nomination, and they're tied are to him on the first ballot.

But Cruz, exploiting deep opposition to Trump among grassroots Republicans, has been far more active in Arizona than Trump, insiders say. He's recruiting candidates for the available 55 delegate slots, that along with the other three delegate positions filled by party leaders, would be allowed to vote for him in a multi-ballot contested convention.

Cruz, out of all the campaigns, has the most folks on the ground and has been the most organized," Michael Noble, a Republican consultant in Arizona who is neutral, told the Washington Examiner on Friday.

"Trump has no real organization in Arizona," added GOP strategist Sean Noble (no relation) in an email exchange. "Cruz will get most/all Arizona delegates on second ballot."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cr...stom_click=rss

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Ted Cruz is organized, if disgusting. This is why he's almost getting into lock territory to be the nominee. Certainly he's ensuring that if Trump doesn't win on the first ballot, Trump basically can't win and Cruz basically can't lose.



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cr...stom_click=rss

Yeah, I'd definitely bet on Cruz winning right now. Certainly better odds than Trump. I can see Cruz get close to a majority of delegates loyal to him. But if he's short by a few hundred, with a lot of the balance being party loyalists, then it's interesting...

What if we see something like 1000 Cruz loyalists, 600 Trump loyalists, 300 Kasich loyalists, and 500 party loyalists? The establishment might first see if they can get enough weight behind Kasich to turn this around, and only if that fails, use Cruz as a fallback plan.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Aside from at one point calling out coddled students last fall, he has had absolutely nothing to say publicly on the left behaving in an insane fashion.

Can you give me examples of the bolded part so that I can follow your argument?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

^Sure, lots over the past 2-3 years especially, but give me some time on that one as it requires some googling and I'm going to be pretty busy over the next couple of hours.

Originally Posted by Itse

So, he's respectful towards his opponents, but he should call out his supporters?

Sure. Respectfully and rationally. "This is not what we stand for as liberals", something to that effect.

This hyperbole kind of underline how ridiculous you're being. None of what you're saying makes sense to an extent that there would be a sensible response to it.

WTF are you even talking about? You're very frustrating to talk to, I'm not sure if it's an ESL thing, but what hyperbole? I asked you a question. You said there's no way for us to know if Obama's been reining in the crazy elements on our side of the political spectrum. I asked if you were suggesting he was doing it secretly without anyone knowing. Is that what you're saying?

It's just a fantasy of how things work vs. an opinion of how things should work, both built in your own head.

I have no idea what this means. I know how I think things should work, how political discourse should be conducted and what I want us to stand for as liberals, and I've made that pretty clear on this board. You haven't given me any reason to suggest they should work differently. As for me having some fantasy about "how things work", again, what in the hell are you talking about?

There's no arguing that from the outside. You're simply pointing out things that don't exist and use the lack of existence as "proof".

Seriously what does this mean? It's so bloody irritating to try to respond to this kind of thing. What am I pointing out that "doesn't exist"? Are you suggesting that there is absolutely no problem of a contingent on the left going off the reservation?

[AltaGuy]

Must admit, I'm also very interested in Corsi's demonstration of the "Left" going way off kilter. So far off kilter that Trump isn't the Right's problem, but is somehow the fault of the Left?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Not saying that at all. There's never one root cause for anything in a complex system like a 300 million person democracy (to say nothing of how it's tied in to Europe and other places in the world). I'm saying that the left bears some responsibility for the fact that he gets any traction at all, by ceding topics and refusing to even have the conversation, particularly on the terrorism stuff.

[GGG]

The general concept of really the Tea Parties rise and Trumps is that you have a group of poor people in small urban centers, predominantly white with low education who used to be able to have reasonably successful lives.

With the loss of manufacturing and the increase in STEM jobs they have been left behind in the job market despite in improving in larger urban centers.

Then you have the media talking about things that are icky that were always well hidden in the smaller urban centers. So you have a group of people looking for someone to blame who feel that they are losing the country that they identify with.

So you have people suffering economically and being told they are bigots when they express their opinion. They are looking for something.

And when someone comes along who gives them someone to blame and says the things out loud that they think of course they are going to rally behind him.

So did the left create "trumpism" not really but the country becoming more and more liberal combined with globalization has left people feeling like outsiders which is a prime condition for a leader to take advantage of.

[peter12]

I think it's a bit narrow, and indeed, arrogant, to say that Trump's rise has something to do with the inadequacy of the left. As if to say that the only good policy prescriptions come out of the left.

[ernie]

Call me biased...I likely very much am. But having lived down here for nearly 7 years now in a highly conservative area I would say, yes, many people feel very much like outsiders as the country does become more liberal.

That said, a good chunk of those people are quite frankly wrong in their opinions and they SHOULD be outsiders. These are the ones that have grabbed onto Trump. Not saying they shouldn't have the right to have a voice but I shudder to think what will happen if they truly get into power. Tying up congress and the senate is one thing. Power is quite another.

That said I think the Trump train is losing steam. He's only just realized what any other candidate has known for years...you need to organize. He just very recently hired someone to lead up a strategy to get the delegate votes.

The good news is I think he loses the nomination. The bad news is that Cruz will win it and he's not much better. In fact I think he might be worse on an actual policy level (he has them for one thing). Even if he's more professional this is not a guy anyone who isn't a very right wing, white, evangelical christian should want nominating justices.

[Nehkara]

Here's my thoughts on how Sanders could win the Democratic Nomination, strictly in pledged delegate terms.

You can do your own calculations on the Democratic race here: http://demrace.com/

(Click to embiggen)

[Senator Clay Davis]

Wow that's an even more impossible path than the path Nate found. I mean at best Wisconsin is looking like a 10 point win for Bernie, and you have 20 as the margin (Nate has 16 for instance). So lets say it is a 10 point win...that's just more delegates that have to be made up somewhere else. California going 2:1 for Bernie? Not happening, again best case there is probably a 10 point win, which itself is probably a less than 1% chance of happening.

The easiest, and probably only path, for Bernie Sanders being the Democratic nominee is the following:

Today - July 25: Pray every night for a Hillary Clinton indictment
July 25 -28: Pray they don't have Biden waiting in the wings to easily take all of Hillary delegates

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Wow that's an even more impossible path than the path Nate found. I mean at best Wisconsin is looking like a 10 point win for Bernie, and you have 20 as the margin (Nate has 16 for instance). So lets say it is a 10 point win...that's just more delegates that have to be made up somewhere else. California going 2:1 for Bernie? Not happening, again best case there is probably a 10 point win, which itself is probably a less than 1% chance of happening.

The easiest, and probably only path, for Bernie Sanders being the Democratic nominee is the following:

Today - July 25: Pray every night for a Hillary Clinton indictment
July 25 -28: Pray they don't have Biden waiting in the wings to easily take all of Hillary delegates

Bernie has regularly outperformed the polling. I think he will win by 15-20 tomorrow night.

California is quite liberal and climate change is obviously a huge deal for that state. I think Bernie will do fantastic there.