Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
"The democrats are pretty damn centrist, and I'm worried at least some of them will look at Trump as a good opportunity to beat down any notions of bringing back (at least in spirit) the new deal democrats, and that's certainly the case with the GOP."
Maybe, but I think the bifurcated political climate kind of makes that unlikely. Brand name matters just as much as ideology — if you act like a Republican, you get voted out and replaced by an actual Republican.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."In the hypothetical scenario that Ryan got to be president you guys will have dodged a Bullet Bill.
Not just in the sense of Trump not being president, but that Ryan will probably be weak and unpopular. Trump's base won't rally around him and if he thinks that most Americans want to live in the Ayn Rand distopia he envisions for the country, he's in for a very rude awakening.
edited 12th Jan '17 10:57:58 PM by Draghinazzo
I think a lot of his supporters were cherry-picking the things they liked while convincing themselves that he didn't actually mean everything else. Hence all that talk of not taking him literally or something.
Maybe some of them are starting to realize that maybe the stuff they didn't like wasn't just talk.
I wonder if the election would have turned out differently if more people were aware that Obamacare is just a nickname for the ACA.
edited 12th Jan '17 11:49:04 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedI wouldn't discount the possibility of chunks of his base breaking away once they start to see what a disaster he is, but that would be at least partially contingent on that information ever reaching their ears. So long as the bulk of his supporters keep getting their news from Fox or Breitbart, they'll stay in their bubbles.
What's perhaps of more concern to me is the fact that, depending on how successful they are in implementing American authoritarianism, it may not matter one whit whether his base likes him or not.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."edited 12th Jan '17 11:55:59 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedAre we sure that statue's gold? There are any number of reasons it could be yellow...
(Joking aside, though - he's already livid, and I dread to think of what he's going to do in a week's time once he has the power to take revenge on the people he perceives as having humiliated him. In particular the press and the IC.)
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."@M84: I believe the phenomenon you're referring to is what an Atlantic article wrote about in "Taking Trump Seriously, Not Literally."
One article I've read about the consequences for our democracy had an interesting take on it.
It would be a big mistake to think that he won because people believed him. Had they believed him they would hardly have voted for him: putting a man like Trump in charge really would spell the end for American democracy, because it would have left him free to do his worst.
People voted for him because they didn’t believe him. They wanted change but they also had confidence in the basic durability and decency of America’s political institutions to protect them from the worst effects of that change.
They wanted Trump to shake up a system that they also expected to shield them from the recklessness of a man like Trump. How else to explain that many people who reported themselves alarmed by the idea of a Trump presidency also voted for him? The Clinton camp made a basic error in choosing to target Trump’s obvious character flaws as the reason to keep him out of the White House. It’s not as if those flaws were hidden.
For his supporters they were already baked in: harping on them did nothing except make it sound like the Democrats were crying wolf. If this guy were as dangerous as they say, would he really be a serious candidate for president? Yet he must be a serious candidate for president for them to be saying he’s so dangerous. QED he’s not as dangerous as they say.
And a response to that article that is much less optimistic:
If he is right, then Trump was elected in some colossal mistake right out of an O. Henry short story. But among his most ardent supporters in the blighted areas of the Rust Belt, it is possible they felt the entire system had failed them and they had nothing left to lose. Indeed, one of the striking characteristics of some Trump supporters is a kind of embittered nihilism and a perverse glee at bringing down the system. These, of course, are by no means all of his voters, although they may have been enough to make the difference.
edited 13th Jan '17 12:22:07 AM by Eschaton
![]()
![]()
Well, it makes more sense than the idea that it somehow helps poor people.
![]()
"The author shows either a remarkable ability to infer the thought processes of an unemployed Kentucky laborer without health insurance,..."
So said laborer thinks things will improve for them if they vote Red again?
That one "Voting Republican" pic springs to mind...
edited 13th Jan '17 1:03:40 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedThe new North Dakota governor expects the Dakota Access pipeline to be built anyway now that a Trump administration is looming
. Also, the protest site is on a floodplain?
"Respect" is a two way street, and there's not a middle ground between facts and lies. Something is true or it is not, and one's ideology doesn't change that. I won't respect someone who clings to a lie because they're so invested in a point of view that they can't change. Nor is there a centrist position between "racist" and "not racist".
We can certainly have a debate about the best way to address our problems as a society, but if we can't agree on basic things like how facts are arrived at, we won't get anywhere.
edited 13th Jan '17 5:02:20 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Honestly if someone voted for Trump because a bunch of nerds and college brats on the Internet said mean things, their skin is so thin, it's see through.
And I thought political correctness was fetch now. Why do I have to watch what I say about the right when they sure as sin say whatever shit they want to say about the left?
Again, as many times I've asked before, how come the left have to be held to a higher standard as far as manners go? Honestly, which you would you have said to you? "You might held bigoted views" or "You're a Godless baby killer."
edited 13th Jan '17 5:04:05 AM by NoName999
I'll always be the first one to reject the way in which people will attempt to give equal weight to both viewpoints - forced equivalency is a very dangerous thing - but at the same time, it's also important to remember that "racist" and "not racist" is not a binary position. Pretty much everyone in our society has internalized some degree of prejudice whether they like it or not, whether they're cognizant of it or not.
I know that's not what you were saying, and I agree with your point - there's no acceptable centrist position when it comes to systems of institutionalized oppression. No amount of oppression is an okay amount. I just wanted to point out that the phrasing there could be interpreted in such a way as to imply that there's a stark, easily detectable dichotomy between "racist" and "not racist."
Also, yeah - it's damned difficult to have a civilized discussion with the opposite side when they might as well be living in their own reality. Their own reality where Obamacare and the ACA are different things, the environment is hunky-dory, Russia are our pals, and minorities deserve what they get. When two viewpoints are, for all intents and purposes, diametrically opposed and utterly incompatible, and they're also operating on two completely different sets of facts, having a conversation can be a Herculean task. Not an impossible one, mind, but not an easy or an altogether pleasant one.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."
Yeah.
"Your facts are wrong. Your ideology is bankrupt and won't work. The people you look to for leadership are con men who habitually sell out your interests while pandering to your prejudices."
"You're a Commie kike-loving cuck n-word baby-killer. Emails Benghazi speeches."
These two things are not equivalent.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!""Russia meddled in our election with the intention of installing their own morally-bankrupt stooge, so that they can pursue their long-term goals of eradicating democracy and destroying our ecosystem. This was an act of war and our nation's sovereignty has been compromised - with the rest of the world soon to follow. For the sake of human civilization and the future of life on Earth, all the nations of the world must stand to oppose them and their destructive ideology."
"Hey, if that's what it took to take down Hillary. E-mails, y'know."
"Putin murders journalists and political dissidents."
"I like him better than Obama."
I wish that any of this was the slightest exaggeration, but it's not. And I am forced to admit that, as much as I admire the principle, I find it difficult to muster any respect for the kind of people who hold these views and live in these bubbles.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."As I understand it, the protesters have enough leverage to tie the whole thing up in legal battles for the next four years, if they choose to go that route. That doesn't mean ETP won't just keep building illegally, though, it's not like the government will do much to stop them.
from the article:
Anyone else getting a yuuuge Suspiciously Specific Denial vibe from Trump in the last couple days? He's tweeting about the leak again.
It's also incredibly disconcerting that he himself is repeatedly using the phrase "FAKE NEWS" (always in all-caps, of course). It's one thing when his loyal followers use it, but he's actively encouraging more of it by doing it himself. Complete distrust in any and all institutions except Trump's Twitter account doesn't lead anywhere good.

Christ.
So just to drive home the significance of this, assuming it's all true - American intelligence officials have actually taken to warning foreign governments that they should steer clear of sharing information with the US, because the president-elect may be compromised.
The fact that they're apparently expressing a certain degree of "we're so fucked" sentiment doesn't inspire a lot of morale, either.
So, Trump has more or less vowed to gut US intelligence agencies once he assumes office - mostly out of petty revenge. How difficult and/or impossible would it be for him to do this? (Putting aside how potentially disastrous this could be.)
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."