The New American Politics thread

[jammies]

Is it an echo chamber when everyone agrees the earth is an oblate spheroid, and mocks the Flat Earther? Is it an echo chamber when your cry of "Free Man on the Land!" is derided by all around?

Well, it *could* be we're in an echo chamber, or it could be that Trump is so mind-bendingly terrible that a general and comprehensive antipathy towards him is a reasonable position. And it could be that Clinton isn't sufficiently vilified for her sins, or it could be that she has the faults (and few virtues) of your typical career politician, which invokes apathy towards her rather than vitriol.

It's the American system that dictates a Manichaean approach to this election. It's only a false dichotomy to portray an event as a decision between two choices when it actually isn't a decision between two choices. But it is. The other candidates are irrelevant, as neither of them can win, nor can a sufficiency of votes put them in a position to broker power and have some of their policies implemented as a compromise. There is no compromise, no third way. Trump or Clinton. That's all.

Stop arguing as if it's some abstract philosophical discussion, because it's not. Trumpism isn't even a real thing, he has no positions and no platform other than vague emotional rhetoric intended to be all things to all (white) people. He is nothing but a bunco artist writ large. Clinton, on the other hand, is the establishment, she's exactly what you get as a candidate when you concentrate power long enough in an elite. Terrible, but at a far less dangerous level - a venal sinner rather than a mortal one.

Bring down the system, #### the Man, I'm all for it, but if your "revolution" is worse than the status quo, maybe hold off on that 'till an utter idiot isn't your standard-bearer. I thought Trump was a bankrupt shyster loser before he ever dreamed of being President, and I'll continue thinking that and delighting in people mocking him and hating him so long as he continues to be exactly that.

If some posters want to be contrarian due to a dramatic need to act as an iconoclast, that's certainly a different approach they're welcome to try. Don't cry about the echo chamber when almost everyone else thinks you're a loon, though, it's not us - it's you.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

^Johnson wasn't going to win anything even before his Aleppo gaffe.

Originally Posted by octothorp

Given that he's never polled higher than 16% in any of these states, those are just absurdly long odds, especially since if the race stays tight between Clinton and Trump, Johnson's support will decrease as the race goes on.

Johnson is a former two-term governor of New Mexico--a state that is both vividly blue and deeply red--and he has some appeal to the voting populace in all of the states that I listed.

In short, I think that he's got a chance in all of those states, and all he needs to do is win one of them.

Originally Posted by opendoor

Why would anyone waste their time coming up with hypotheticals that give electoral votes to a guy who is polling 25, 33, 41, and 45 points behind the leader in those 4 states respectively?

For the same reason why anyone would waste their time coming up with multiple electoral college scenarios, each of which are both plausible and implausible, depending on one's perspective, the time of day, the phase of the moon, or whatever.

All Johnson needs to do is win one of the states that I listed. And he very well may do it, present polls notwithstanding.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I disagree. There's clearly a "good vs. evil" thing going on here.

That would make you the Manichean would it not?

The language used against Trump is highly moralistic, both in situations where it's warranted and those where it isn't. This is also true of Clinton, especially when she was up against Bernie.

Interesting comment. Highly moralistic to who? To white nationalists? To the klan? To misogynists everywhere? Definitely not to anyone who believes we are created equal regardless of color, sex, sexual orientation, and so on. The morals espoused by Donald J. Trump are for those with the right color and beliefs. Sorry counselor, I don’t see anything moral about claiming that people from one religious group should be prevented from coming into the country, that members of a religion should be in a registration database and monitored, that people from another country are nothing but thieves and rapists, and so on. If you view those comments as being highly moralistic in language and intent, you may want to take a good long hard look at yourself and do some introspection. Those comments are not the beliefs or moral standards for the majority of Americans or people in developed nations.

First, what does this mean? Second, why is it "more damning"? If you have anything positive to say about Trump that's "damning"? What a horrible attitude to have.

You don’t know or recognize the meaning of sympathizer? I’m a little surprised by that to be honest. A sympathizer is one who has specific loyalties but also holds opposed, sometimes diametrically, political beliefs? You know, like communist sympathizers during the cold war, or Nazi sympathizers during WWII? These people supposedly embrace the societal norms of the place they live, and hold important familiar relations with people in the same place, yet harbor views that would ultimately destroy the standard by which they live. Sympathizers have long been viewed in many ways, but mostly negative, and some as traitors to their country. I believe this is a result of having to turn their back on those norms that have afforded them their standing, only to work to the demise of that same system.

This is downright frightening language. The alt right is already a marginalized group, they're fringe. They aren't a cancer. They're obnoxious, sure, but this hyperbolic rhetoric is exactly the problem. I'd rather they be able to be obnoxious in their own little corner of the world as they have been, doing no one any real harm, than to have people like you declare yourself the arbiter of what political groups should be eliminated from the discussion. If they're wrong, they're wrong; rebut their arguments to the extent they even have any.

Why is this frightening? That society should shun these people and marginalize them? I’m sorry, but I don’t see any value to society from people who espouse the ideals that one group of people are the highest order or humans and all other people should be subservient to them. I am not suggesting we round them up and shoot them (Shakespeare and I save that for the lawyers - just kidding man), but I am suggesting we do everything in our power to limit their access to the mechanisms that allow them to spread their misinformation and hate.

The alt right doesn't even silence anyone, much less murder them for their beliefs or sexual orientation. I don't even think that Islamist groups should be banned or whatever, just recognized for what they are and loudly and soundly rejected. If that's all you're calling for, a loud denunciation of what the alt-right actually believes, then fine, but that's not what you seem to be suggesting here.

Come on, the alt right is an outgrowth of those very groups we think are the underbelly of society. They aren’t anything new. The hate these people spew is just a watered down, more accessible from of information from hate groups. There’s a reason why the ADL, the SPLC and the FBI have identified the alt right as a hate group associated with the white power movement. The history of violence is long and proud. Just because they try and repackage it under a new name doesn’t change the stink coming off it, nor the violence associated with the movement. They have their first amendment rights, but it doesn’t mean we should not continue to take every step to marginalize and make their message so socially unacceptable that they slowly die off as society continues to evolve.

I'm still not clear on what it means. I'm sure he has some sympathy for some of the things Trump has said on this campaign, whether it's 5% or 25% or somewhere in between. Hell, I haven't looked very hard, but I bet I could find at least a few things Trump has said that I'd agree with.

Please do find something that he says that makes you agree with him. I’d like to see this list. I’d love to argue platform, but Trump has yet to fully develop a platform and actually stick with something of substance for more than a couple days. So I am honestly curious what you could find that your can agree with, adding his other comments and behavior into the mix and to the credibility of his statements.

I speak for myself. I'm on my own "side of the argument" and no one else's. Trying to tie someone to another person's views that they haven't expressed, whether it be you trying to tie me to another poster or trying to tie another poster to a candidate's views, that's completely intellectually dishonest and facile.

Listen, I really enjoy the back and forth with you. It is fun to engage in honest debate with a worthy opponent. But if you are going to take this stance, then how about you let Buster speak for himself and stop jumping in to defend him. If he truly believes half the stuff he espouses he will be able to articulate that position in some way that should make sense. So far, he makes those intellectually dishonest and facile arguments you so greatly dislike, then claims victory 20 pages later. Your continual defense of Buster gives the impression of you are believing what he is saying and you are taking his side of the argument. You may not like that, but that is the impression you leave when you speak for him.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by peter12

There is a fair amount of abuse directed my way for stating opinions that are respectable in any forum. The amount of group-think in this thread is pretty obvious.

You've got to be the most thin-skinned poster on this forum. A large percentage of your posts come across as arrogant and condescending but if any dares to call you out on it, you whine about abuse from other posters, or try to dismiss others ideas by calling them group-think.

I've got news for you. The 'group' isn't always wrong and sometimes it's fair to call a spade a spade.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by jammies

Is it an echo chamber when everyone agrees the earth is an oblate spheroid, and mocks the Flat Earther? Is it an echo chamber when your cry of "Free Man on the Land!" is derided by all around?

Well, it *could* be we're in an echo chamber, or it could be that Trump is so mind-bendingly terrible that a general and comprehensive antipathy towards him is a reasonable position. And it could be that Clinton isn't sufficiently vilified for her sins, or it could be that she has the faults (and few virtues) of your typical career politician, which invokes apathy towards her rather than vitriol.

It's the American system that dictates a Manichaean approach to this election. It's only a false dichotomy to portray an event as a decision between two choices when it actually isn't a decision between two choices. But it is. The other candidates are irrelevant, as neither of them can win, nor can a sufficiency of votes put them in a position to broker power and have some of their policies implemented as a compromise. There is no compromise, no third way. Trump or Clinton. That's all.

Stop arguing as if it's some abstract philosophical discussion, because it's not. Trumpism isn't even a real thing, he has no positions and no platform other than vague emotional rhetoric intended to be all things to all (white) people. He is nothing but a bunco artist writ large. Clinton, on the other hand, is the establishment, she's exactly what you get as a candidate when you concentrate power long enough in an elite. Terrible, but at a far less dangerous level - a venal sinner rather than a mortal one.

Bring down the system, #### the Man, I'm all for it, but if your "revolution" is worse than the status quo, maybe hold off on that 'till an utter idiot isn't your standard-bearer. I thought Trump was a bankrupt shyster loser before he ever dreamed of being President, and I'll continue thinking that and delighting in people mocking him and hating him so long as he continues to be exactly that.

If some posters want to be contrarian due to a dramatic need to act as an iconoclast, that's certainly a different approach they're welcome to try. Don't cry about the echo chamber when almost everyone else thinks you're a loon, though, it's not us - it's you.

I think when people talk about echo chambers, they are referring to this thread. Which, despite some valid points by some bright posters, actually is an echo chamber. The use of the word "troll" is a tell, by the way.

Otherwise your analysis completely misses the mark, at best, or validates the opposing view at worse.

Your entire point relies on the fact that support for Trump is irrational. Which then requires you to prove (good luck) that some huge portion of the population isn't actually making a deliberate choice, but rather that their choice is irrational.

It's the progressive version of a temper tantrum.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by Buster

Which then requires you to prove (good luck) that some huge portion of the population isn't actually making a deliberate choice, but rather that their choice is irrational.

Yes that is exactly the point. Their choice is irrational. Trump is not fit to be President and would be absolutely disastrous.

The people voting for him are irrational. Just go watch some interviews about why they're voting for him.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm still uncomfortable with the fact that New Era has claimed to be a college instructor because I've never really seen a case of more aggressive, and ignorant rhetoric on this board.

You really need to look in the mirror young squire, and check your own rhetoric. Your arrogance is only limited by what you think is your superior vocabulary. You continually try and put you and your views above anyone else, claiming everyone else is wrong at every turn. Maybe it is just the retired political scientist in you (that means a guy who can't get a job in that field) but maybe you should examine something beyond theory and philosophy to find meaning. The display of ignorance of the world around you and your fellow man is truly astonishing.

Not to insult the poster's intelligence...

Why stop now?

[PsYcNeT]

Has anyone posted the Doonesbury Trump Collection yet? Pretty telling holey moley. Say what you want about Garry Trudeau, but he nailed this stuff decades ago.

http://doonesbury.washingtonpost.com/strip/set/89

1987


1999



And many more.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by New Era

That would make you the Manichean would it not?

No? One side thinks Trump is evil - not just that he's incompetent or would make a bad president but that he's a legitimately awful person. The other side thinks the same of Clinton, but it's not the laser-focus that it is on Trump. When it was Bernie vs Clinton, there was more "she's evil and represents everything evil in government" flying around.

I am noticing these manichean attitudes. That does not "make me the Manichean". Obviously.

Interesting comment. Highly moralistic to who? To white nationalists? To the klan? To misogynists everywhere? Definitely not to anyone who believes we are created equal regardless of color, sex, sexual orientation, and so on [...] If you view those comments as being highly moralistic in language and intent, you may want to take a good long hard look at yourself and do some introspection. Those comments are not the beliefs or moral standards for the majority of Americans or people in developed nations.

Do you not understand the meaning of moralizing? You're doing it right now. This right here is moralizing - "if you have some problem with my comments, you need to take a hard look at yourself and the type of person you are". That's exactly what I'm talking about.

You don’t know or recognize the meaning of sympathizer? I’m a little surprised by that to be honest. A sympathizer is one who has specific loyalties but also holds opposed, sometimes diametrically, political beliefs?

Then this has precisely the same problem as accusing people who say they don't support Trump of supporting Trump. You're no more entitled to dictate someone else's loyalties to them than you are to dictate their beliefs or who they support. Let people speak for themselves.

You know, like communist sympathizers during the cold war, or Nazi sympathizers during WWII?

Wow. Strong parallel there. I'm sure you're not suggesting there's some equivalence. But then you go on to suggest that people who have any affinity for anything Trump says are akin to traitors working towards the downfall of the country... so I'm not sure what to think, except that once again, this is quintessential Manichean thinking.

It'll all be okay. Just repeat to yourself "these people believe their world view is what is best for the country. They are not the devil".

I am suggesting we do everything in our power to limit their access to the mechanisms that allow them to spread their misinformation and hate.

You don't get to decide whose world view should be limited. The marketplace of ideas does that. I absolutely do not trust you to do it and you're demonstrating to me exactly why right now.

There’s a reason why the ADL, the SPLC and the FBI have identified the alt right as a hate group associated with the white power movement. The history of violence is long and proud.

Wait a minute. Can you source this? Because the alt right isn't a "group". It's barely a political movement, given that it doesn't really seem to have any consistent or easily identifiable policy objectives or principles besides "let's see if we can be so outrageous as to cause the establishment to have a collective aneurysm". It's closer to a right-wing anarchy movement than anything else. So I have no clue how the FBI could have come to this conclusion.

Please do find something that he says that makes you agree with him. I’d like to see this list. I’d love to argue platform, but Trump has yet to fully develop a platform and actually stick with something of substance for more than a couple days.

Yes, this is true. I think it's calculated; he recognizes that his appeal isn't really policy-based so why waste time with policy. That's boring. Of course, this makes him completely unqualified to be President, but that doesn't change the fact that it's good strategy (or rather, the best strategy available when you're Donald Trump).

That said I don't want to spend my day trying to find things he's said that I agree with. How about this: the next time I notice something reasonable coming out of his mouth, I'll post it. I thought his response to Clinton's pneumonia thing was exactly what he should have said but I doubt that counts as it's not substantive.

Listen, I really enjoy the back and forth with you. It is fun to engage in honest debate with a worthy opponent. But if you are going to take this stance, then how about you let Buster speak for himself and stop jumping in to defend him.

I didn't defend anything he said specifically, actually. Just objected to other people's mind reading and attempting to attribute positions to him he had not expressed. If someone said, "Well, New Era, I suspect from the tenor of your posts that you are in fact a full-blown Marxist", or for a more extreme example, "I know he'll disagree with this, but I know a pedophile when I see one and New Era... well, don't believe his denials", I'd object to that too. Attributing unexpressed views or personality flaws to people is basically the dickest of dick moves in a conversation.

Your continual defense of Buster gives the impression of you are believing what he is saying and you are taking his side of the argument. You may not like that, but that is the impression you leave when you speak for him.

This is what's called smearing someone. You think Buster and his views are terrible, and in order to try to demean me, you associate my views with his as if they're interchangeable. If anything is deplorable, it's this.

Fortunately, I don't see Buster as the foaming-at-the-mouth rabid right wing nutbar you seem to think he is from your view from a lectern in a sociology department somewhere in Southern California, so it doesn't really bug me. At least you're not trying to tie me to Ann Coulter or someone like that. But if I agree with any of Buster's substantive points, I'll say so... just as I've been doing throughout this thread. I can in fact express my own views (usually at much greater length than some people would prefer). You do not get to attribute them to me.

[Izzle]

Bahaha... this idiot right here.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/12/1288752...-shocking-numb

"Interest rates are being kept low by Obama." This is jackassery of the finest quality.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I cannot believe people are giving any weight to much of what Buster is saying. If it looks like a troll, and acts like a troll....come on people, don't take the bait. Or if you do, lay the ####ing smack down like jammies did.

[peter12]

You really need to look in the mirror young squire, and check your own rhetoric. Your arrogance is only limited by what you think is your superior vocabulary. You continually try and put you and your views above anyone else, claiming everyone else is wrong at every turn. Maybe it is just the retired political scientist in you (that means a guy who can't get a job in that field) but maybe you should examine something beyond theory and philosophy to find meaning. The display of ignorance of the world around you and your fellow man is truly astonishing.

Well, it's true that I didn't get a job in my field, but I call myself a "retired political scientist" as a joke. Mainly I didn't want to spend the rest of my life surrounded by people like you.

I've never outright claimed people are wrong. You do that. All the time.

[Lanny_McDonald]

@CorsiHockeyFan

Sorry, the nested quotes are getting too hard to parse on a phone.

You clearly said there was a good versus evil thing going on here. That would make you a Manichean no matter how you want to spin it. Me? I view it as two terrible people as candidates, but putting personalities aside and choosing the best option based on their resume and experience. I don't like Clinton, but being forced to choose between the two, there is no choice; only one is qualified. Trump has said nothing about a platform that serves the nation nor fits in the world in which we live. Nothing Manichean about that.

When I was defining sympathizer I used the two examples to give you context. No, I don't see a parallel other than the conflict some people must feel as they try to deal with the obvious conflicts of supporting Trump in a multi-cultural country and in the global economy.

Yoh can find sources for classification of the alt right movement as a domestic threat on the ADL and SPLC web sites. I'd link them through, but it is tough to do on my phone. You can find similar docs in the FBI bulletins. Many of the same players that existed in the extremist RW movement are the same players in the alt right movement. Again, just because you rebrand yourself with different packaging doesn't change the contents in the box.

Hey, and first change I get to tie you to Ann Coulter you can count on me passing it up. I'm pretty sure even you have a limit as to who you would defend. ;-)

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by New Era

You clearly said there was a good versus evil thing going on here. That would make you a Manichean no matter how you want to spin it.

No, it means you misinterpreted my post. I don't think either candidate is "good" or "evil", but I think that's how they're being characterized, mutually by each other and even more so by their supporters.

I don't like Clinton, but being forced to choose between the two, there is no choice; only one is qualified. Trump has said nothing about a platform that serves the nation nor fits in the world in which we live. Nothing Manichean about that.

I agree and you're right, there isn't. When some people start calling him a racist bigot who's going to do terrible things to poor disadvantaged people, casting him as the perfect villain and his supporters as much the same, that's what I was talking about.

When I was defining sympathizer I used the two examples to give you context. No, I don't see a parallel other than the conflict some people must feel as they try to deal with the obvious conflicts of supporting Trump in a multi-cultural country and in the global economy.

Okay, but just recognize that that these people don't necessarily see that conflict the way you do, notwithstanding that you seem to think it's a simple fact.

You can find sources for classification of the alt right movement as a domestic threat on the ADL and SPLC web sites. I'd link them through, but it is tough to do on my phone. You can find similar docs in the FBI bulletins.

Okay, I'm just genuinely curious because to me, the alt right doesn't even seem to have a coherent goal or world view other than "burn it all to the ground and laugh".

Hey, and first change I get to tie you to Ann Coulter you can count on me passing it up. I'm pretty sure even you have a limit as to who you would defend. ;-)

When I was 17 I legitimately thought she was possibly the worst person on Earth. Now I recognize it for the over-the-top schtick that it is. Again, not that different than what I see from much of the alt right these days. She's made a decent living off of acting horribly.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

When I was 17 I legitimately thought she was possibly the worst person on Earth. Now I recognize it for the over-the-top schtick that it is.

Can't it be both?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Can't it be both?

No, because she clearly is not the worst person on Earth.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

I've never outright claimed people are wrong. You do that. All the time.

Sure you do. You try and hide it in your condescension towards us, but you do it. Everyone recognizes it but you. Or is that just the group think stacking up against you again?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

No, it means you misinterpreted my post. I don't think either candidate is "good" or "evil", but I think that's how they're being characterized, mutually by each other and even more so by their supporters.

I agree and you're right, there isn't. When some people start calling him a racist bigot who's going to do terrible things to poor disadvantaged people, casting him as the perfect villain and his supporters as much the same, that's what I was talking about.

Okay, but just recognize that that these people don't necessarily see that conflict the way you do, notwithstanding that you seem to think it's a simple fact.

Okay, I'm just genuinely curious because to me, the alt right doesn't even seem to have a coherent goal or world view other than "burn it all to the ground and laugh".

When I was 17 I legitimately thought she was possibly the worst person on Earth. Now I recognize it for the over-the-top schtick that it is. Again, not that different than what I see from much of the alt right these days. She's made a decent living off of acting horribly.

Fair enough. I think you are missing the level to which people in the US, especially in the south, are sympathizers to Trump's message. I wish Canadians could spend an election cycle down here to really understand how broken the process and the people have become. It is fascinating to say the least.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, because she clearly is not the worst person on Earth.

Christ Almighty you must be a joy at parties. Laugh a little my man.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Yes that is exactly the point. Their choice is irrational. Trump is not fit to be President and would be absolutely disastrous.

The people voting for him are irrational. Just go watch some interviews about why they're voting for him.

I'd argue that the vast number of arguments made on both sides are irrational. The number of voters who are actually making their choice as an entirely rational exercise is pretty small. It may be the rationally superior choice to vote for Clinton, but that doesn't change the fact that many of her supporters are supporting her without considering things any further than party affiliation, or that they personally find Trump intolerable.

I do think there is a valid rational argument to be made for Trump: such as that the effect of illegal immigration on America negatively affects the livelihoods of poorly-educated, low-income or unemployed Americans, and that this is not being seriously addressed because the corporate interests that control Washington benefit from that same illegal immigration.
The problem is that there are valid counter-arguments to that, and the rational approach would be to parse through all of the arguments and counter-arguments. And this is where the system really breaks down: with the news media turned over to heavily partisan pundits, there's nobody willing to actually weigh these arguments and see them through to their ends. Instead, these pundits espouse their partisan or emotional or very occasional rational arguments, but then any exercise in examining these arguments is replaced by simply looking for a conflicting soundbite from the other side.