The New American Politics thread

[Senator Clay Davis]

Does he ever have any non-creepy pics with her, or can he just not help himself? Wonder what Melania thinks.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by nik-

To be fair, while obviously in poor taste, that guy that shot her was legitimately crazy and had an issue with Giffords long before this ad.

I don't want to derail this thread with a debate about these events, but the timeline doesn't support that. Palin introduced the map on March 23, 2010, to go with her "Don't retreat, instead - RELOAD" narrative. Days later Giftords' office was vandalized. Her opponent kept up the violent rhetoric going with a fundraiser, "Remove Gabrielle Giffords from office - shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly." Loughner purchase his Glock 19 on November 30, 2010. Giffords was gunned down on January 8, 2011.

Loughner was definitely suffering from some sort of mental condition, but he thought this through. He purchased the gun well in advance, practiced with the weapon, and left a note on his MySpace page, believing he would not survive his attack. This was premeditated and well planned out. The only question is how much influence did the media have on his decisions leading up to the events of January 8th? I think we would be burying our heads in he sand to believe the media did not influence him in any way.

Any way, the whole incident was yet another tradgedy that likely shouldn't have happened for many reasons.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Does he ever have any non-creepy pics with her, or can he just not help himself? Wonder what Melania Michelle Obama thinks.

fyp

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by nik-

To be fair, while obviously in poor taste, that guy that shot her was legitimately crazy and had an issue with Giffords long before this ad.

a·bet
əˈbet
verb
encourage or assist (someone) to do something wrong, in particular, to commit a crime or other offense.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by New Era

I don't want to derail this thread with a debate about these events, but the timeline doesn't support that. Palin introduced the map on March 23, 2010, to go with her "Don't retreat, instead - RELOAD" narrative. Days later Giftords' office was vandalized. Her opponent kept up the violent rhetoric going with a fundraiser, "Remove Gabrielle Giffords from office - shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly." Loughner purchase his Glock 19 on November 30, 2010. Giffords was gunned down on January 8, 2011.

Loughner was definitely suffering from some sort of mental condition, but he thought this through. He purchased the gun well in advance, practiced with the weapon, and left a note on his MySpace page, believing he would not survive his attack. This was premeditated and well planned out. The only question is how much influence did the media have on his decisions leading up to the events of January 8th? I think we would be burying our heads in he sand to believe the media did not influence him in any way.

Any way, the whole incident was yet another tradgedy that likely shouldn't have happened for many reasons.

His issues with her went back to 2007

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-phone-message

Again I'm not absolving the ad from being ridiculous (and unfortunately par for the course for them) but I don't think it's a catalyst in this event.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

a·bet
əˈbet
verb
encourage or assist (someone) to do something wrong, in particular, to commit a crime or other offense.

Yeah, maybe, but no one knows for sure. That guy was a wackjob. Not just in the dismissive sense that these shooters are addressed as, but a legitimate, on anti-psychotics meds, wackjob.

In general it would just be preferable to not take this hyper aggressive tone when dealing with politics. The aftermath of this election is going to be tense, considering all the seeds being sown.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Obama is laying the wood to Trump right now in his speech. Obama the surrogate might be the key to this election, his popularity continues to rise as his potential replacements continue to look poor, so him getting out there trashing Trump and pumping Hillary up will be a big factor coming in.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Obama is laying the wood to Trump right now in his speech. Obama the surrogate might be the key to this election, his popularity continues to rise as his potential replacements continue to look poor, so him getting out there trashing Trump and pumping Hillary up will be a big factor coming in.

Does it matter though? Is Trump actually winning any new voters, or just getting the people who were going to vote Republican no matter what, held their nose and their support temporarily because of Trump, but in the end are going red anyway?

[Drak]

Originally Posted by nik-

Does it matter though? Is Trump actually winning any new voters, or just getting the people who were going to vote Republican no matter what, held their nose and their support temporarily because of Trump, but in the end are going red anyway?

It matters for luring independents. it also matters that Democrats not be complacent and get out and vote.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Obama is laying the wood to Trump right now in his speech. Obama the surrogate might be the key to this election, his popularity continues to rise as his potential replacements continue to look poor, so him getting out there trashing Trump and pumping Hillary up will be a big factor coming in.

Yeah, the recent economic numbers indicating a rise in household income for middle-class, and an overall decrease in inequality are an amazing boon to Clinton.

Dirty tricks aside, her health is all that is holding her back.

[peter12]

Yes you have, you just can't admit it. And you're right. I have chosen a side in the culture war. The one where EVERYONE has equal rights and access to those mechanisms which allow for freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You know, like John Locke envisioned.

No, I really haven't chosen a "side." I mean, yes, I am generally a kind of conservative, I suppose, but I hope you notice that I try to take positions that are civilized, and reasoned.

I understand that things are bad down in the USA, but I don't think the apocalyptic tone of the Left is helping things at all.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, I really haven't chosen a "side." I mean, yes, I am generally a kind of conservative, I suppose, but I hope you notice that I try to take positions that are civilized, and reasoned.

I understand that things are bad down in the USA, but I don't think the apocalyptic tone of the Left is helping things at all.

Wait, isn't Trump the one saying that America is currently a disaster? There's so many things broken, it's terrible, terrible.

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by Buster

This is a woman who wants to sit at a desk where her husband got a hummer or ten.

I'm thinking personal dignity is not her top priority.

I think that is one of the dumbest posts I've ever read on CP.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

I understand that things are bad down in the USA, but I don't think the apocalyptic tone of the Left is helping things at all.

Come on Peter, the tone is horrible from both sides.

The liberals with the whole sky is going fall the minute Trump takes office stuff is BS. We know that he shouldn't do much harm domestically as that is on congress. Our relationships with our trade partners and allies is a different story, but hopefully with the right cabinet that can be marginalized as well. It all depends on the selections, which based on his selection of campaign officials, is a scary proposition.

The conservatives have been just as bad, and I would argue worse considering one major reason. They've been bad because they paint Clinton as an agent of great change. If anything, she is more of the status quo, which is what the majority of the candidates the Republicans put forward would have been too. They paint Clinton to be this big enemy of business, when in fact she is just as tight with big business and Wall Street as any of our politicians. I don't see her doing much different from what Trump would do to be honest with you. Where the conservatives go off the rails is all this talk about 2nd amendment remedies. That is not the way our discourse should be at any time. Sedition just isn't an action I consider American. Sure, it is the minority, but so is the sky is falling component on the other side of the aisle. Suggesting supporters start shooting, and that segment of the population is armed to the teeth, is a dangerous course of action to suggest.

[peter12]

Come on Peter, the tone is horrible from both sides.

The liberals with the whole sky is going fall the minute Trump takes office stuff is BS. We know that he shouldn't do much harm domestically as that is on congress. Our relationships with our trade partners and allies is a different story, but hopefully with the right cabinet that can be marginalized as well. It all depends on the selections, which based on his selection of campaign officials, is a scary proposition.

Hey, whoa, whoa. Here we go again. Just because I mention the Left, doesn't mean that I don't see the same thing happening on the Right. I can't even listen to 5 seconds of some of the lunacy that comes out of Glenn Beck's mouth or that other guy or that other guy.

The conservatives have been just as bad, and I would argue worse considering one major reason. They've been bad because they paint Clinton as an agent of great change. If anything, she is more of the status quo, which is what the majority of the candidates the Republicans put forward would have been too. They paint Clinton to be this big enemy of business, when in fact she is just as tight with big business and Wall Street as any of our politicians. I don't see her doing much different from what Trump would do to be honest with you. Where the conservatives go off the rails is all this talk about 2nd amendment remedies. That is not the way our discourse should be at any time. Sedition just isn't an action I consider American. Sure, it is the minority, but so is the sky is falling component on the other side of the aisle. Suggesting supporters start shooting, and that segment of the population is armed to the teeth, is a dangerous course of action to suggest.

Well, depends on the Republicans being named, I suppose. A lot of conservative intellectuals from almost all of the main American conservative journals were talking about Clinton as status quo a long time ago.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

I understand that things are bad down in the USA, but I don't think the apocalyptic tone of the Left is helping things at all.

Especially when that apocalyptic tone creeps into the language of the left in Canada, who act as though only their vigilance is preventing Canada from criminalising abortion and homosexuality, and who seem almost eager to import America's racial problems into Canada so they can enjoy the same kind of virtue-signalling their counterparts in the U.S. employ. We have enough problems in Canada without importing a toxic culture war and mindlessly polarized politics. Turn off the friggin' Daily Show and spend a bit of time learning about what's actually happening in Canada.

Personally, I'm not all that interested in American politics. Especially the partisan, day-to-day gotcha stuff that dominates the headlines. I'm more interested in American history. I'll enjoy reading about this campaign 20 years from now once the heat has cooled and we have some perspective on it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Especially when that apocalyptic tone creeps into the language of the left in Canada, who act as though only their vigilance is preventing Canada from criminalising abortion and homosexuality, and who seem almost eager to import America's racial problems into Canada so they can enjoy the same kind of virtue-signalling their counterparts in the U.S. employ. We have enough problems in Canada without importing a toxic culture war and mindlessly polarized politics. Turn off the friggin' Daily Show and spend a bit of time learning about what's actually happening in Canada.

Personally, I'm not all that interested in American politics. Especially the partisan, day-to-day gotcha stuff that dominates the headlines. I'm more interested in American history. I'll enjoy reading about this campaign 20 years from now once the heat has cooled and we have some perspective on it.

I am find a lot of the social, cultural, and economic trends surrounding this election to be totally fascinating. The election itself, couldn't even tell you how little I care.

[FlameOn]

Guccifer 2.0 has released a second batch of hacked DNC documents. DNC immediately blames Trump and the Russians. More damage control incoming.

The hacker persona Guccifer 2.0 has released a new trove of documents that allegedly reveal more information about the Democratic National Committee's finances and personal information on Democratic donors, as well as details about the DNC's network infrastructure.

The cache also includes purported memos on tech initiatives from Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine’s time as governor of Virginia, and some years-old missives on redistricting efforts and DNC donor outreach strategy.

DNC interim chair Donna Brazile immediately tied the leak to GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.

"There’s one person who stands to benefit from these criminal acts, and that’s Donald Trump," she said in a statement Tuesday night, adding that Trump has "embraced" Russian President Vladimir Putin and "publicly encouraged further Russian espionage to help his campaign."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...nc-docs-228091

[Buster]

Man, the Dems sure love their conspiracy theories.

They've turned a bunch of 12 year olds in their parents basements into the Alt Right.

And Russia is responsible for everything else.


Scott Adams
‏@ScottAdamsSays
I demand that Russia release Clinton's health records. The public has a right to know. #Trump #Clinton

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Buster

This is a woman who wants to sit at a desk where her husband got a hummer or ten.

I'm thinking personal dignity is not her top priority.

Hang on you need to get roasted a little bit more for this. This has been by far your worst post on this site. Not only does it not make any sense, I'm actually stunned you haven't been suspended / banned for it. I'm actually still a little stunned you wrote this...!

In all seriousness I don't really want you to get suspended, I have enjoyed the fact there is a variant opinion in here even if I don't really agree with it. I've just seen people get suspended for what I would consider much less. It's pretty misogynistic.

Anyway I read and re-read your sentence to make sure I think I understand it's even what you wrote or meant to write... but wow. It's the most illogical ridiculous thing I've read in here for a long time. How exactly are you connecting those dots?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

First of all, no - there's no "objective" answer to the question "what makes a good president".

I would say that Clinton is the obviously better choice, and it's not at all close, but that is contingent on my criteria for what makes a good president. The right choice is always going to be subjective. It only becomes objective when you assume that the standards by which a candidate should be judged are X, Y and Z, which no one is really going to agree on. Granted, most of us can agree that whatever X Y and Z are, Trump fails all three, but that doesn't make Clinton the objectively right choice.

Second and more importantly, that's not what I was talking about. Haidt has three central theses, and a bunch of other interesting points that he makes, but probably the central one is that human beings use reason and evidence only as a supplement to their intuitive moral beliefs. Essentially, decide what they think and then look for justification, rather than approaching an issue by asking "let's look at the evidence for either side and decide which I agree with". The Coates article was predictably awful given who wrote it, but those for whom it reflects their already-ingrained views thought it was important and interesting. Of course they did.

You've mistaken the alt-right for ultra-right-wing nationalists. These are different things.

That's not to say there isn't some overlap, because there is, but they are distinct movements. If you want to understand who the alt right is you basically need to look at their descriptions of themselves and what they stand for... except that the problem is that you can't really trust their own accounts because there's a decent chance any such self-description is going to be full of trolling braggadacio. There are a few articles that actually describe the phenomenon without virtue signalling if you look around.

Okay make me a case for trump then. Create an X, Y, and Z that a person could see as the keys to being a good president. Then explain to me how Donald Trumps will be superior to the X, Y, and Z criteria.

Or explain to me a universe where at the end of 4 years America or sections of America will be better off with a Trump president then with a Clinton president.

Shouldn't we be able to come up with a situation where trump could be better if in fact it was possible or shouldn't a trump supporter somewhere be able to make this case.

Has anyone ever made the Trump is better than Hillary case?