Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9038 total)
98 online now:
Aussie, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 95 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,688 Year: 3,334/14,102 Month: 275/724 Week: 33/91 Day: 1/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 541 of 4573 (801052)
03-02-2017 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 540 by Genomicus
03-02-2017 9:03 PM


Re: Trump only deporting criminals and "bad hombres"? It's a lie.
Genomicus:

quote:
Well, Lady Liberty is okay because she immigrated "the right way."

By having a bunch of men pay for her?

While the original owners kept her sister?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by Genomicus, posted 03-02-2017 9:03 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(6)
Message 636 of 4573 (803192)
03-26-2017 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 635 by marc9000
03-26-2017 1:32 PM


Re: Reality
marc9000 writes:

quote:
And now, all the Democrats have to do is oppose anything Trump/Republicans want to do. Is there really any difference?

Yes. Both logistically and practically.

The logistical aspect is that Congress was in Republican hands with a Democratic President. Thus, the Republicans knew that they wouldn't get what they wanted and thus could grandstand and showboat and not actually try to do anything. Their entire playbook was spectacle.

They've had seven years to come up with a "repeal and replace" bill. Why did they try to do it in 60 days? Oh, that's right: Because it was never about healthcare. It was never about the actual job of running a country. It was all for show.

The practical matter is that Democrats in government behave differently than Republicans do. When you have one faction which proudly states that they think government is incapable of doing anything right, then they will act that way when in government. The other faction thinks that government is sometimes the only entity capable of doing something and thus, they will act that way when in government. That's why, for example, Sanders is introducing a Medicare-for-all bill. It's why when the Democrats were in charge and were passing the Affordable Care Act, it took two years and the bill that was put forward was made available for everyone, including the public, to read and comment upon before it was passed.

The Democrats are in the minority, but they are still behaving as if they have a job to do and are working to do it, even though they know that the Republicans will be against anything and everything they suggest due to their inability to let anybody think that they "caved to the Democrats." It's a bit like the way both McCain and Trump claimed that they had these wonderful plans that would solve our problems...but no, they aren't going to tell us what they are now. You'll have to wait until they get elected.

Um...if it is such a wonderful plan, spit it out! Of course, it turns out that it was all just hype, but that's the Republicans for you.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 635 by marc9000, posted 03-26-2017 1:32 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 653 by marc9000, posted 03-27-2017 7:59 PM Rrhain has responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 650 of 4573 (803231)
03-27-2017 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 631 by Percy
03-25-2017 1:45 PM


Re: Trump Approval Rating
Percy writes:

quote:
People who can't afford $2500 for healthcare are being taxed an additional $1200 and receiving nothing in return. That's not right and should be fixed.

It already has been: It's called "premium assistance" and "Medicaid." When you sign up for health insurance through the ACA, you can request to have assistance in paying for the premiums based upon your income.

And if you are poor enough, you will be eligible for Medicaid...

...assuming your state was kind enough to expand Medicaid coverage. The Supreme Court deigned that the mandated expansion of Medicaid was unconsitutional and that states should be allowed to opt out. That isn't something Congress or the President can fix (at least, not simply...if they abandoned the entire system and went with a Medicare-for-all plan, that would be a way.)

Remember, it was the Republicans in Congress that gutted the funding mechanisms for the ACA. The penalty makes perfect sense...so long as the plan to fund it is robust.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 631 by Percy, posted 03-25-2017 1:45 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 651 by Percy, posted 03-27-2017 6:26 PM Rrhain has responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(2)
Message 652 of 4573 (803240)
03-27-2017 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 651 by Percy
03-27-2017 6:26 PM


Re: Trump Approval Rating
Percy responds to me:

quote:
Yes there are subsidies

Which means you need to be very careful about the argument you are about to make. Is it an actual example that happens in real life?

quote:
but if, say, a family of two makes $48,000/year (after deductions) and cannot afford the $2500 for the cheapest possible ACA insurance, the penalty will be $1200, for which they receive nothing in return. About 6.5 million people paid a penalty averaging $470 for the 2015 tax year (How Many Americans Paid the Obamacare Tax Penalty in 2016).

You need to read your own source or even better, the actual law. A two-person family earning $48,000 is eligible for subsidies. Plus, you have ignored the other costs involved by not having insurance. It's not merely the $1200 but the other costs for medical care that must now be paid out of pocket. If such a couple cannot afford the 9.67% of annual income for health insurance (offset by subsidies), then they're not going to be able to afford any medical treatment of any kind (the average ER bill is more than $1200 and the average hospital stay is $10,000) and we have a much bigger problem. Remember, one of the biggest problems with the old system was bankruptcy: The leading cause of bankruptcy in the US, accounting for more than half of all bankruptcies, is medical care. And that includes people who have insurance.

If the ACA had better funding mechanisms, then the subsidies would be more and be available to more people. Of course, at that point, we'd have to wonder why we're half-assing it and switch to single-payer, universal coverage paid for with taxes.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 651 by Percy, posted 03-27-2017 6:26 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 658 by Percy, posted 03-28-2017 7:37 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(7)
Message 662 of 4573 (803279)
03-28-2017 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 653 by marc9000
03-27-2017 7:59 PM


Re: Reality
marc9000 responds to me:

quote:
There's no grandstanding and showboating going on with Democrats today? As they celebrate their latest victory of prolonging the status quo?

That you think being happy that people are not going to die is "grandstanding and showboating" says a lot.

Oh, of course there's political posturing on both sides, but let us not play dumb and engage in false equivalency, shall we?

quote:
I'd say they tried to do it in 60 days because Trump wanted it done in 60 days.

But Trump wasn't involved. They had seven years to come up with a plan and they scrapped it all to come up with yet another one and only gave themselves a couple months to do it? After all, Trump was saying all during the campaign that he had a "wonderful" plan. It was going to cover everyone.

Where was it?

And when it became clear that he didn't actually have a plan, why didn't Congress simply say, "No, this is complicated. It's going to take more time"? Of course, that leads to the question of "Seven years isn't enough time?" There was no guarantee that Trump was going to win. Surely they were working on a better way to provide actual health care to people no matter what, right? I mean, that is their job, isn't it? To write laws no matter who is in the White House? The Republicans may have this silly rule that no bill will come before the House unless a majority of Republicans support it, but the Democrats don't.

quote:
It was Trump's mistake

How could it be? He didn't write the bill. He just wanted his name on it. You know, like everything else in his "empire." He doesn't actually build it...he just puts his name on it.

quote:
he actually thought making deals with politicians was slightly similar to making deals in the free-market private sector with people who actually have some brains.

Which is why it is stupid to try to run business like a government: With government, you have to deal with people who have all the brains and don't seem to take too kindly to their constituents dying on them.

quote:
They believe the government is capable of doing plenty of things right, those things are outlined in the constitution. Healthcare isn't in there.

Except it is. Let us not play dumb and pretend that the Constitution is a laundry list. Does the government have the right to create an atomic bomb? It's not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Should we dismantle our nuclear array post haste?

Hint: What do the words "general welfare" mean to you? It's mentioned twice in the Constitution. Can you tell us where? No...you don't get to look it up. From memory: Where does the Constitution talk about the power of government to provide for the general welfare?

quote:
Sometimes? Or all the time, despite what the 10th amendment says?

Someone doesn't understand what the 10th Amendment means. Given that you've already shown you don't know what the Constitution says about general welfare and how it isn't a laundry list, this is not surprising.

Hint: Article 6.

quote:
Sanders free-for-alls

Hold it right there:

First, you were just asking about the difference between the two parties. Now that you've been shown the difference (Republicans when they're out of power don't actually try to do their job while Democrats do), you're complaining that there really is a difference?

Second, "free"? Who said anything about "free"? You do realize that it will be paid for, yes? That's part of the contract you signed when you accepted citizenship in this country. Taxes aren't free.

quote:
Democrats tax and spend bills

Of course. Things need to be paid for. This is in direct contrast to Republicans that spend even more profligately than Democrats but cut taxes and thus ensure that nothing gets paid for. That's right: If you truly cared about cutting spending, you want to vote for the Democrats. They are much more fiscally responsible. If the Congress had merely rubber-stamped Reagan's budgets, the deficit would have been billions of dollars bigger than it actually turned out to be. Clinton delivered a surplus, you'll recall. And Obama reversed the hemorrhaging of Bush with his two undeclared wars...you did remember that Bush kept the Afghanistan and Iraq wars off the books, yes?

But, back to the point: You tax people to raise the money that you then spend on the services to be enjoyed by the people which is why they paid those taxes in the first place.

Are you about to say that you would rather spend $8000/year in "premiums" because to pay $4000 in "taxes" is anathema? In the end, is it really simply the word being used? You're going to pay for it no matter what. Do you really want to pay twice as much for worse outcomes simply because it isn't a "tax"?

quote:
are all for one reason, to increase the size and scope of government.

Incorrect:

To provide for the general welfare as mandated by the Constitution and demanded by the populace since it has become apparent that only the government can effectively manage the problem.

quote:
Can you describe any action the Democrats have attempted over the past....20 years that attempt anything that doesn't make the government bigger, first and foremost?

Yes.

Can you?

If you can't, why not? Have you considered the possibility that you are parroting talking points you don't understand?

Hint: Don't you find it interesting that in all the 8 years of Obama, we had the longest sustained period of private sector job growth? Now, there truly is a festive clue in there. Let's see if you can find the important words in that sentence.

Bonus hint: What is missing from that sentence? That is, something specific is called out, but there is a very obvious complementary part that isn't mentioned at all.

And that's just a start.

quote:
Yes, they caved to the Democrats in allowing the ACA

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you?

You seem to have forgotten that the ACA passed without any Republicans. Not one Republican voted for the ACA. So whence cometh your claim that they "caved"?

quote:
and now the people are increasingly aware of its unsustainability.

No, the ACA is quite sustainable. First, we need to rollback the Republicans sabotaging of the funding (have you forgotten Rubio's comments?) and then make a few tweaks. What would be better is a single-payer, universal coverage like Medicare for All, but that's a separate issue.

quote:
Democrats continue to think their only job now is to block everything the Republicans want to do

But the only thing the Republicans want to "do" is to roll back all of the progress we've made. So, of course the Democrats are going to fight it. They've seen the disaster and are working to avoid it. When someone argues that we don't need the umbrella because we aren't getting wet, you fight them. Did you forget Jindal's sneering about "volcano monitoring"...only to have a volcano erupt in Alaska?

Or should we go back to the Gilded Age? Oh, wait...don't tell me...you have completely forgotten the Bush II years, haven't you? The country went straight from Clinton to Obama with no intervening presidency in between, right?

quote:
even though the voters have them in the minority.

Actually, the voters have them in the majority. More people voted for Democrats, both for the presidency and for Congress, than for the Republicans. However, due to the Electoral College, the will of the people was thwarted with regard to the presidency and due to gerrymandering, the will of the people was thwarted with respect to Congress. And that goes for state legislatures, too.

quote:
As we saw, Hillary got the majority vote for the presidency, but that's only because the inner-city mobs came out to vote.

Oh...I see...they don't count. Trump got more votes if you don't count all the people who voted for Clinton because hey, those votes don't count.

quote:
They're not intelligent enough to come out for the mid-term elections. They don't know enough about how our country works to do that.

Indeed, Democrats have a problem with mid-terms. Their campaign focus on presidential elections leads to them having the structural bias against Democrats exacerbated when it comes to non-presidential elections. Remember: More people vote for Democrats than Republicans, even in non-presidential elections, and yet somehow Republicans manage to get seated in direct contradiction to the will of the people.

quote:
Why should they make anything public before they have to?

Because it would be evil to withhold a solution to a problem that is causing people to die. If you see a problem and you know how to fix it, then "right now" is the time you have to tell us what it is.

quote:
It only would give the Democrats more time and ability to block it.

Why would they block it if it were a solution to the problem? After all, now that everybody knows about it and can see what a wonderful solution it is, they'll vote for people who would implement the solution. But that assumes that your congresscritter is evil and wouldn't implement the solution straight away. If they're actually good people, they'll get to work on it right away which will make everybody's job easier.

Besides, McCain got re-elected to the Senate and it's been in Republican control for quite some time. Why's he holding back? Surely with Republican control of Congress they could override any presidential veto, which would be stupid considering the solution is so wonderful.

And thus, we're back to healthcare: Majorities in both the House and Senate and they still couldn't manage to get a bill passed.

This is what happens when you elect people who think government can't do anything: They'll fulfill their own prophecy.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 653 by marc9000, posted 03-27-2017 7:59 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 675 by marc9000, posted 03-31-2017 11:01 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(3)
Message 932 of 4573 (814977)
07-14-2017 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 931 by Taq
07-13-2017 5:46 PM


Re: Wait...what?????
Taq writes:

quote:
It is their stupidity in covering up a crime that never happened

Except Trump, Jr. just admitted to the crime. It is a violation of the FEC to accept "anything of value" from a foreign source with regard to the campaign:

Contributions and donations may not be solicited,14 accepted, or received from, or made directly or indirectly by, foreign nationals who do not have permanent residence in the United States (i.e., those without green cards). This prohibition encompasses all US elections; including federal, state and local elections. 11 CFR 110.20(b).

14The term "solicit" means, "to ask that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value, whether [it] is to be made or provided directly, or through a conduit or intermediary." 11 CFR 110.20(a)(6) and 300.2(m).

The courts have determined that "anything of value" is not limited to money.

Said source does not need to be an official member of the government but merely any person. By being told that a Russian source wishes to talk to you in order to give you information regarding your political opponent (specifically, "part of Russia and its government support for Mr. Trump"), that is "something of value" that you have agreed to take. That you are claiming that you didn't find it valuable is irrelevant, for that is conspiracy. As many have pointed out, if you go to a bank to rob it only to find that there isn't any money there, you're not off the hook. Trump, Jr. actively and enthusiastically sought assistance from a foreign source with regard to the campaign. That's a violation of FEC regulations and against the law.

And, of course, since every time the Trumps have talked about this particular meeting, they have lied about it (first, there was no meeting, then there was but it wasn't about the Clinton campaign, then it was but it quickly shifted to the Magnitsky Act, then it was a meeting that anybody would have taken), why should we believe the claim that there wasn't anything of substance given and that Trump only found out about it a couple days ago (that last one has already been proven a lie)? About the only thing that suggests there wasn't anything of substance was the fact that right at that time, Trump gave a speech where he said he was about to drop some dirt on Clinton...and then never did.

But now we find out that Sessions just settled with the very same Russian lawyer regarding a money laundering lawsuit for pennies...a lawsuit brought on by Preet Bharara who was fired by the Trump administration...just two days before it was to go to trial. The scheme was to launder money through the purchase of Manhattan real estate. Now, Trump has significant real estate holdings and I am certainly not suggesting that this scheme directly involved him. If it had, the DoJ would certainly have known about it by now considering that they were about to go to trial and they would have said something. But we cannot overlook the fact that this fraud scheme was uncovered by a Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, who has conveniently died in prison, and it is because of this fraud scheme that the Magnitsky Act was put into place to begin with...which, again, was being fought by the very same lawyer that Trump, Jr. met with and was the lawyer fighting the fraud scheme. In fact, she had to step out of the Trump, Jr. meeting in order to make a court appearance regarding this case. So this certainly lends some credence to the idea that Trump is in bed with Russian oligarchs and has engaged in money laundering for them (I think it was Eric Trump who pretty much admitted it in his previous statements about how much business they have done with the Russians) and thus while this case may not have directly involved Trump, pursuing it may have eventually included him.

And by the way, this is precisely the modus operandi of how Russians recruit people: First, you send someone who isn't directly connected with the government (deniability) in order to feel out the asset and see if they are amenable to being exploited. You don't give away the farm right away because if the asset isn't going to play, you've exposed yourself. And let us not forget that right after this meeting is when the Trump campaign started setting up the back channel lines of communication with the Russians.

So in the end, Trump, Jr. has directly admitted to a crime while Trump, Sr. has said it is "standard politics" to engage in this crime and that he would have done it if he were told about it. The question is just how far people are willing to go in pursuit of consequences. Remember, Paul Ryan insists that Trump is "new to this" and thus doesn't know what he's doing.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 931 by Taq, posted 07-13-2017 5:46 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 933 by Taq, posted 07-14-2017 11:00 AM Rrhain has not yet responded
 Message 934 by JonF, posted 07-14-2017 11:00 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 939 of 4573 (815043)
07-14-2017 7:12 PM


And now it turns out that there were more people in the meeting than Trump, Jr. originally claimed (yet another lie). It appears that an actual Russian hacker was there. A hacker with ties to Putin who was involved in a hacking of a mine company. And it seems that they had actual names to give to the Trumps.

The conspiracy nut inside me is wondering if this is all just a ploy by Mueller to get them involved in an accessory-after-the-fact charge.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(2)
Message 966 of 4573 (816001)
07-27-2017 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 962 by New Cat's Eye
07-26-2017 9:59 AM


Re: Sessions
New Cat's Eye writes:

quote:
I'd love to see Sessions get fired.

The problem is that no matter how bad the current situation is, changing it up simply means it'll get worse.

Impeach Trump and Pence becomes the president and he's even more vindictive...and actually has some competence in running government. You don't really think that Trump's tweet about kicking out trans people from the military came from him talking to generals, did you? No, that was Pence (he was behind the anti-trans legislation that failed in Congress a couple weeks ago...and was actively getting three new anti-trans pieces of legislation into the pipeline.)

Get rid of Sessions and you can pretty much guarantee that Mueller will get fired. Trump's pissed that Sessions recused himself? Didn't he pay attention to the confirmation hearings? That was one of the things they asked Sessions about: Since you were part of Trump's election team, will you recuse yourself from the investigation into Russian involvement in the election? Trump can't fire Mueller directly. That's for the AG's office to do. Sessions can't do it because he's recused himself and it was Deputy AG Rosenstein who appointed him so he's not going to do it, either. And third in line, Brand, doesn't seem likely to do it, either. So the only way to get rid of Mueller is to get rid of Sessions and appoint a new AG. But, Trump seems to have enough sense (at least for now) to know that he can't fire Sessions directly, so he's trying to make it difficult for Sessions to remain so he'll quit. And he's hoping to do so when the Senate is in recess so he can make a recess appointment of someone who will be "loyal" and fire Mueller.

And let's not forget how Spicer was replaced with Scaramucci.

There isn't anybody in Trump's administration that doesn't have an even worse person waiting in the wings to take over, all the way up to and including Trump.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 962 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2017 9:59 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 973 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-31-2017 2:31 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(3)
Message 1225 of 4573 (821067)
10-02-2017 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1221 by RAZD
09-30-2017 3:26 PM


Re: People who voted for Hillary were tricked, and we are all paying for it
RAZD writes:

quote:
She was selected, nominated and elected by the corporate controlled DNC, not by people.

BWAHAHAHAHA! You're still plying that nonsense here, too.

No, Clinton won by winning more votes than Sanders did. In fact, she trounced Sanders more than she trounced Trump. In raw numbers, Clinton got 4M more votes than Sanders...she beat Trump by 3M. In a smaller race populated mostly by those who would consider themselves "liberal," she beat her competition by a wider margin both percentage-wise and raw numbers-wise.

So I take it all those people who voted for her are shills, right? Elizabeth Warren was a shill for the DNC and a stooge to Wall Street, right?

quote:
Curiously I predicted in July that if the DNC picked Hillary that she would lose to Trump.

Curiously, you were wrong. She beat Trump. She got the second largest number of votes in history.

quote:
The reason I did so was because of the independent vote

Which, as I explained in the other thread, is meaningless. "Independent" simply means, "I vote liberal/conservative, I just don't want to join the party." People like me. I am certainly not a Democrat, but I have never voted for a Republican. This idea that independents routinely switch back and forth between parties is a myth. It's part of the media obsession with horse races.

When you break down the vote based upon political ideology, Clinton won both liberals and moderates.

And that's why she won the vote.

quote:
The independent voters were cut out of most primaries, and so we did not get their voices in selecting a candidate.

Your cognitive dissonance is showing again, RAZD. That is simply factually incorrect.

Clinton won more of the open contests than Sanders did: 14 to 10. Here's the breakdown:

Four open caucuses of which Bernie won all 4.
Two semi-open caucuses of which Bernie won 1 and Clinton won 1.
Seventeen open primaries of which Bernie won 5 and Clinton won 12.
One semi-open primary which Clinton won.
Eleven closed caucuses of which Bernie won 6 and Clinton won 5.
One semi-closed caucus which Bernie won.
Fourteen closed primaries of which Bernie won 2 and Clinton won 12.
Nine semi-closed primaries of which Bernie won 4 and Clinton won 5.

She beat Sanders plain and simple, fair and square. During the middle of the election season when you still had a lot of states left to go, people were making the claim that Sanders was beating Clinton in certain types of elections. But after all was said and done, Clinton trounced him. Sanders only beat Clinton in caucuses. In primaries, both open and closed, she kicked his ass, 30 to 11.

But wait, those votes don't count, right? I mean, if you don't count California and New York, Trump won the popular vote, right? You do understand that that is the argument you're making, yes? If you don't count the people who voted for Clinton, then Sanders won.

And if it's cognitive dissonance when Trumpers try to pull that bullshit, what does that make it when you try to pull it, RAZD?

quote:
Nobody is entitled to my vote just because the other candidate is worse. The person that is entitled to my vote is the one who earns it.

True.

But as we've seen in the other thread (and this one), you seem to be infected with a severe case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome caused by the cognitive dissonance you have regarding Clinton and "neolibs."

Is Elizabeth Warren a "neolib"? Is she a shill for Wall Street? Because she signed off on Clinton's Wall Street plan. Was Sanders a "neolib"? He and Clinton had a 93% concordance in the Senate.

quote:
In the long run it doesn't -- burn or starve.

Do you really think Gorsuch would be on the Supreme Court if Clinton had been elected?

Would Puerto Rico be begging the government for aid if Clinton had been elected?

Would we be on the verge of war with North Korea if Clinton had been elected?

Would there be a travel ban if Clinton had been elected?

Would DACA be on the verge of repeal?

Would we be trying to withdraw from the Paris agreement?

Would we have had the standards for investigating rape on college campuses changed?

Your "they're the same" attitude would be precious if it weren't so dangerous. Your cognitive dissonance is massive in this matter, RAZD.

Would we have a serious possibility of throwing 32 million people off of health insurance?

You really think Keystone would have been vetoed by McCain or Romney?

Simply looking at the economy, the lower and middle classes always do better under Democratic administrations and Congresses than under Republican ones.

Your cognitive dissonance really has you on this matter.

quote:
Neither candidate saw climate change as a challenge, neither candidate saw income inequality as a major problem, neither candidate saw a minimum living wage as critical, neither candidate would commit to universal healthcare for everyone.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

You really believe that, don't you?

On the contrary, Clinton had proposals for all of those things. Climate change, income inequality, minimum wage, *and* universal health care. Or did you forget that Clinton tried to get universal coverage back in 1993? You remember...that was the same year Sanders was first elected to the House. Now, he was trying for single-payer while she was trying for a managed insurance plan, but they were both insistent upon universal coverage.

Wait...don't tell me you've confused "universal coverage" with "single-payer," have you? Single-payer is one way to do it, but it isn't the only way. Germany, Belgium, Austria, Luxembourg, Greece, South Korea, and Switzerland all have insurance mandates like what we tried to do with the ACA (though they do it better). New Zealand, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, Australia, Ireland, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Israel have a "two tier" setup where the government provides a basic catastrophic plan and you pay for supplemental coverage.

And recall, France has the best health care outcomes in the world and yet still spends half of what we do. Would you be willing to have the French system even though it isn't single-payer? It's universal coverage, but it isn't single-payer. Is that OK?

Because that's the "difference" between Clinton and Sanders: They both want the same result of universal coverage. They just have different ideas about how to go about it. And as Clinton has recently said, Medicare for All is fine...so long as you can explain how you're going to do it. This would affect not only the people being covered but also the people employed by the insurance companies (what sort of work are they going to do now?) as well as the medical providers. You do understand how Medicare reimburses doctors, don't you? I went over it here in another post. There are some practitioners who don't accept Medicare. What will happen to them? What will happen to their patients?

There are answers to these questions. But to be honest, Sanders hasn't bothered to address many of them. There's a reason the ACA took a year-and-a-half to finally get to a vote with dozens of hearings. By all means, let's discuss Medicare for All (that was the original plan before the Republicans blocked it)...it's probably going to take a year-and-a-half to do it if not more given that we have to manage the transition off of private insurance and move toward co-insurance (because a lot of people are going to need Part B and Part D co-insurance.)

quote:
And yet it did not make any difference, did it?

Except it did. The voter suppression in Wisconsin was over 200,000. And how many votes did Clinton lose that state by? What about Pennsylvania? Michigan?

quote:
people did not vote for Hillary ... because she did not earn their votes.

Except they did. She got the second largest number of votes in history and beat Trump by 3 million votes.

Except she did. Every single thing you have claimed she didn't care about, she actually had a detailed plan for. She was pretty much spot on the candidate you would have wanted...if only your cognitive dissonance didn't stand in the way.

Blaming others for your failure to get past your dissonance is a fool's game and it doesn't help to achieve anything you want.

And by the way: It's DemocratIC Party. There is no such thing as the "Democrat Party." But, that's just more of your dissonance, so we can't really blame you too much.

You don't get change voting in such a way that the guaranteed enemy wins. When you have a choice between the guaranteed enemy and the unreliable friend, it is obvious which one to choose.

Back in the 90s, you may have heard of a bit of legislation called "DOMA." The Defense of Marriage Act. It was passed overwhelmingly in both houses of Congress and signed by a Democrat. However, it wouldn't have passed if it hadn't been for the majority of Democrats voting for it.

But here's the thing: The only people who voted against it were Democrats, Sanders, and a lone Republican...Steve Gunderson, who's gay. So while the Democrats were certainly not our friends, they were not the guaranteed enemy. Flash forward to the current state of affairs regarding marriage equality:

The Republicans are still overwhelmingly against it. But the Democrats have figured it out and are now overwhelmingly for it. We didn't get there by abandoning the unreliable friend. For crying out loud, Obama went back to "let the states decide." He was for marriage equality when he was still just a politico in Chicago. But when he ran for President, he pulled back and said that he was against it, wanted "states to decide," though he opposed a national amendment. But then he flopped back from his flip after Biden forced his hand.

Should gay people have dumped him because of that? Should they have voted for McCain or Romney? Do you honestly think it didn't matter? Remember, that was a 5-4 decision. Would it really have happened if Kagan and Sotomayor had not been on that court?

I think I can speak for gay people regarding this: Fuck you, RAZD. Fuck you and your privileged, straight, white ass for this "it's all the same," bullshit.

And yes, I'm making it personal. I get the feeling that you'll do OK, RAZD. Your privilege will keep you around until the next election cycle comes. But there are many people who aren't so privileged. Suppose the ACA goes away. Exactly how many people are then going to die because they didn't have health insurance? Before the ACA, it was tens of thousands per month. More than 30,000 people died every month because they didn't have health insurance and thus couldn't pay for the medical treatment they needed to stay alive.

So for you to come along and say that it "doesn't make any difference," well, fuck you, RAZD.

I will not be a martyr for your temper tantrum. I am not going to die because you can't handle not getting everything you want. This is not hyperbole. People are literally going to die because of Trump. We're already seeing it happen in Puerto Rico.

I'm sure they'll understand that their deaths are for a greater cause so that you can be proud that you didn't "sell out."


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1221 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2017 3:26 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(2)
Message 1239 of 4573 (821137)
10-03-2017 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1231 by Stile
10-02-2017 3:34 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Stile writes:

quote:
And now the Democrats get a message that Hillary (and any other "not good enough" candidate they personally prefer) won't cut it.

Question: What made Clinton "not good enough"?

Because if we take RAZD as an example, she was almost spot on the candidate he wanted. She had a plan to do all of the things he said he wanted. So why wasn't she "good enough"?

quote:
What if they simply didn't like Hillary and liked someone else like Jill or Bernie better?

If their vote is partly responsible for why Trump carried their state, then they are responsible for Trump winning their state.

I live in California. We are solidly blue and Trump wasn't going to win the state so we have more leeway when it comes to "sending a message."

For people who lived in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, that ability to "send a message" doesn't exist. You need to pay attention to not merely who you are voting for but also what final effect your vote will have. If your vote results in the person you didn't want winning to win, then you are responsible for that person winning.

"Because I can't get everything I want, I'll vote such that I get nothing." OK. And who do you think is responsible for you getting nothing of what you want?

quote:
Then, if they did vote for Hillary... and Hillary won... wouldn't that be incredibly stupid?

Nope. Instead, it would be incredibly smart. Because instead of getting none of what they want, they'd be getting some. Instead of having an administration that will *NEVER* listen to them and will *NEVER* consider their wants and possibly change, they will have an administration that might listen to them and might consider their wants and possibly change.

It's why DOMA fell less than 20 years after it was enacted with a majority of Democrats. Should gay people have simply abandoned the field to the Republicans? Note, the fight isn't over. The Justice Department just went before the courts to argue that discrimination against gay people is legal. Yeah, gay people can get "married," but that doesn't mean any state has to provide the benefits of marriage to them. Yeah, gay people can't be stoned in the streets, but that doesn't mean public accommodations have to treat them equally.

Do you really think Clinton would have the Justice Department make that argument? Should gay people who voted in such a way that they helped Trump win be happy that they didn't "sell out"?

Or, more accurately, should the gay person who is under threat of being evicted from their homes, losing their jobs, being denied services from both the government and the public square, be OK with someone who didn't "sell out" their vote?

Should the people dying in Puerto Rico right now be proud to be martyrs for your cause to "send a message" to Democrats?

quote:
It's short-sighted and can easily be seen as "a waste" (since your actual views got washed away and presumed to be something they're not).

That is completely backwards. To vote such that the person you least wanted winning is the one to win is clearly a waste precisely because your actual views are now washed away and presumed to be something they're not.

You think Trump is going to listen to people who didn't vote for him?

Do you not understand the point behind a primary? That's where you "send the message." To do it at the general is to shoot yourself.

quote:
But, voting for someone you want in office out of the available candidates is never a childish vote.

It is when it results in you losing everything you gained. I really want to know: Should the people dying in Puerto Rico be proud to be martyrs to those who were "sending a message"?

quote:
It sends a message about what you, as a voter, want to see in office.

Yep.

It sends a message that you'll shoot yourself and take everybody down with you if you don't get everything you want.

It sends a message that you don't care about the consequences of your actions or how many peoples' lives are hurt so long as you get to remain pure.

Heaven forbid you should do any of the dirty work of politics. If you don't like the candidates you have now, where were you a dozen years ago when they were starting their political careers? *THAT* is where you send your message. By the time they get to the top of the national ticket, it's too late.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1231 by Stile, posted 10-02-2017 3:34 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1248 by Stile, posted 10-03-2017 11:46 AM Rrhain has responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 1240 of 4573 (821138)
10-03-2017 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1235 by RAZD
10-02-2017 4:20 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
RAZD writes:

quote:
but the real question is why the DNC/Hillary did not attract their votes.

Well, part of it is people like you who have misrepresented her platform.

quote:
However, rather than dwell on this the DNC should be actively looking for win issues for 2018. So far all they have is medicare for all ... provided by Bernie.

Ahem. Seems you have the same problem with the DNC that you do with Clinton:

You don't know what they're doing, so you assume they aren't doing anything. Whose fault is that?

Let's see...there's raising the minimum wage, protecting and expanding unions, three months paid family leave, protecting and expanding Social Security, reversing the disastrous pre-funding mandate on the Post Office, infrastructure, climate change, incentives for green energy, protect and expand the CFPB, removing the Confederate Flag from government holdings, ending the private prison system, protecting DREAMers, and on and on and on.

Why don't you know about any of this? Indeed, part of the problem is that the DNC isn't messaging it well. But part of it is that nobody wants to hear it. When we have the disaster that is Trump, the focus is on preventing the fire from spreading. And let's not forget the media that doesn't want to hear it. It doesn't play into the narrative that Democrats "don't have any win issues."

To take it back to the election: Clinton gave a lot of policy speeches during her campaign. But I bet you never heard about them because the media, rather than cover them, spent their time broadcasting an empty podium with a countdown clock for when Trump was going to speak.

There's a reason Clinton won the election with the second largest vote take in history.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1235 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2017 4:20 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(2)
Message 1241 of 4573 (821139)
10-03-2017 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1236 by Taq
10-02-2017 5:00 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Taq writes:

quote:
Overall, if Dems want to win they are going to have to move towards the center on social issues, IMHO. Society is moving really, really fast and it makes rural America, and Rust Belt America specifically, nervous about where the country is going. They want to know that they haven't been forgotten as once persecuted groups find themselves on equal footing. If there is one thing Hillary showed us is that you can't win the election by relying on a 3 million vote lead from urban America.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Democrats win when they actually stand up for the principles they claim they stand for. There's a reason that marriage equality is now a majority-held position when just twenty years ago, it was a big loser. It's because gay people fought and forced people to deal with it. They did *NOT* accept "civil unions." They took them where they could because it's better to have something than nothing, but that never stopped the fight for full equality.

And note, it isn't over. We are still fighting to have that equality recognized as actual, full-bore equality. The Justice Department just argued in court that it is legal to discriminate against gay people. That the right to get married doesn't actually include any of the rights associated with marriage (among other things).

What makes "rural America" nervous about where the country is going is the dog-whistles and fear-mongering put forward by the conservatives. We have seen it for centuries:

A plate of a dozen cookies are put on the table. The rich guy snatches 11 of them, turns to the middle-class guy and says, "That poor guy is trying to steal your cookie."

*THAT* is the biggest problem. People have this idea that the reason coal jobs are vanishing is because Democrats have some sort of vendetta against coal when the simple fact of the matter is that mining today is not the same as it was before. Rather than blame automation and a shift in energy schemes (natural gas), they blame "liberals" who are "giving away our jobs" to "."

The majority of conservatives think that they are going to be affected by the Estate Tax. Why? Because the conservatives told them they were. So when they come along and say that there is a "war on Christmas" and that "Christians are being persecuted," they believe it, too.

It isn't true, though.

So your advice that Democrats should pay lip-service to Republican lies is precisely the wrong thing to do.

It simply ensures that the lie lives on. Immigrants did not take your job. Suppose we were to do what Trump wants and manage to deport them all. When you still don't have a job, who are you going to blame next? You think they're going to finally wise up to the idea that it wasn't "immigrants took my job!" but rather something else? That the problem is something much less emotional and concrete like economic policy and Reaganomics that incentivized profits over people?

When you have people who are incapable of conceiving that "liberal" does not mean "communist," catering to that foolishness does you no favors.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1236 by Taq, posted 10-02-2017 5:00 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1253 by Taq, posted 10-03-2017 12:32 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(3)
Message 1265 of 4573 (821215)
10-03-2017 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1248 by Stile
10-03-2017 11:46 AM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Stile responds to me:

quote:
quote:
Question: What made Clinton "not good enough"?

I don't know the specifics, that's why I put it in quotations.

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you?

We've already seen this attempt to avoid responsibility from RAZD. He literally has no idea what Clinton's positions were, but he's sure they weren't what he wanted.

Even though they were.

And yet he complains about Clinton not having "earned" his vote. Every single criterion he has put forward has had Clinton on his side, and yet she's still not "good enough."

Don't you think you should determine what a candidate actually stands for before you start claiming they aren't "good enough"?

Especially when your vote will result in the election of a candidate who will guarantee you get nothing? The general election is too late for you to "send a message." At that point, people are going to literally die as a result of how you vote. For you to say that you refuse to "compromise" means you are actively working to kill people.

And no, that is not hyperbole.

quote:
As much as everyone else is.

Yep. You act like the fact that other people voted in such a way as to result in Trump getting elected somehow absolves you of any responsibility for your vote that resulted in Trump getting elected.

quote:
quote:
For people who lived in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, that ability to "send a message" doesn't exist.

This is false.

So I guess the message is, "We're OK with you dying. We stayed 'pure.'" There's a reason they are called "swing states."

If you decide to "send a message" that directly results in people dying, then you are responsible.

quote:
And it only makes sense if there will never be another election.

Is the voting over forever?


For the people who are going to die because of your vote, yes. The voting is over forever. I'm sure the people in Puerto Rico are proud to be martyrs for your precious "message."

quote:
I don't understand your questions.

And that is why you fail. There is a direct connection between who you vote for and public policy that gets enacted by those who won the election. The Justice Department right now is arguing before the courts about anti-discrimination laws, saying that they do not protect gay people.

The Fifth Circuit just denied a stay on Mississippi's right-to-discriminate law which means it goes into effect on Friday. Gay people can be denied services by anybody, both government and private parties. And that's because people voted for Republicans who put those justices on the court.

Would Clinton be doing the same thing as Trump? Would Clinton's Justice Department be arguing that gay people have no right to be free from discrimination? Would Clinton's Justice Department be fighting to enact Mississippi's law? When they wind up kicked out of their houses, have the police and rescue workers refuse to help them, have their children taken away, should the take solace that those people who voted to allow the conservatives who enacted those policies and set up those judges remained true to their convictions?

quote:
I'm just saying it's possible to want to think about the next election instead of this one.

Except you weren't paying attention to the previous one. If you don't like the candidates you have now, where were you a dozen years ago when the current candidates were starting their run? Because for many people, there is no "next election." That's why you grab for everything you can now *and*then* work for the next election. You don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You understand that ensuring that you lose everything you hold dear is a stupid plan when you can get some of it.

When gay people were looking for marriage equality, the states tried to buy them off with "civil unions." They were taken...but that never stopped the fight for full equality. Why? Because some people were never going to live to see full equality and they needed all the benefits they could get *NOW.* To vote in such a way that you get NOTHING out of some benighted sense of purity is to condemn people to misery.

If you in your privileged state are capable of surviving until the next election, good on ya.

Not everybody has that luxury.

quote:
It's possible to want to send a message so that the candidates are better for the next election instead of choosing the lesser-of-two-evils this election.

Yeah. It's called a "primary." You've heard of it, haven't you? It's called "writing your Congressman" between elections. You've heard of that, too, haven't you? It's called "getting involved." Surely you've heard of that, haven't you?

Waiting until the general election to "send a message" is foolish.

quote:
Are you trying to say that such a position is impossible and unreasonable for anyone to hold?

At the general election? Yes.

The time for sending messages is before people lives are on the line.

quote:
I agree that your statement accurately describes a wasted vote.

So why are you defending it? People who voted such that Trump won are responsible for it. To say that they "shouldn't have to choose," that they are noble for "sending a message," etc. is to deny responsibility for their actions. People are literally going to die because of it. For them, there is no "next election." They don't have the privilege of being able to absorb the disastrous policies being enacted.

But hey...you didn't "sell out," so they should be proud to be martyred for your message, right?

quote:
I'm talking about voting such that you send a message to the democrats that Hillary wasn't a good enough option.

Why wasn't she good enough?

If you can't articulate why, then you don't get to say that she wasn't. Which means you don't have any justification for "sending a message."

Not that there is any justification for that. The time to send a message was back in the primaries. It was back in 2000 when she first ran for Congress.

quote:
Hillary lost. Trump won.

Except she didn't lose. She won. By about 3M votes. The second largest take in history. The only reason she wasn't seated was due to the peculiarities of the Electoral College.

But she won the election.

quote:
But this is irrelevant to my point about future elections.

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you?

What do you think is the point of talking to your elected officials between the time they are elected in this cycle and the time of the next election? That's right...it's to get them to change their ways before the next election comes around so that you can have more people to elect who are on your side. There will still be differences among candidates, but wouldn't it be nice if the people you were voting for in the primary were 93% in agreement?

You know...like Clinton and Sanders were? If Sanders was amazing and Clinton was the devil, then that means that 7% is exceedingly important...which means you're a single-issue voter.

Or, more likely as RAZD's example shows us, you don't actually know what the positions of the candidates are but are going off media hype that needs to have a horse race.

quote:
I think it's quite obvious that "a message" can be sent at the primary or the general.

Indeed...if you decide to send that message in the general, the message is that you don't give a fuck about your fellow citizens. You're privileged enough to survive until the next election and anybody else who can't make it is just SOL. The message is that you'd rather get nothing than something simply because you're unhappy that you can't get everything.

quote:
But I also must admit that it is louder at the general.

When the next election is now sabotaged because of what you did in this election, your message may be loud, but it's a death rattle, not a rallying cry. For someone who went on and on about "next election," you are extremely short-sighted.

Or do you not understand how things like districting and voter rights work in the US? Remember: Wisconsin's voter suppression was more than 200,000 votes. Do you really think the Republicans that were elected are going to do something about that?

quote:
You send a message that "Hillary is not good enough, we want a better candidate."

That's what the primary is for.

And she trounced Sanders even harder than she trounced Trump. So clearly, she was "good enough."

Unless you can explain why she wasn't.

quote:
You seem to be saying that no gay person would ever have another issue ever again if Hillary beat Trump.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm saying that gays wouldn't have to be starting over from scratch if Clinton were elected. I'm saying gays wouldn't be actively losing ground. I'm saying that if Gore had been elected instead of Bush, if Clinton had been elected instead of Trump, we wouldn't have Alito, Roberts, and Gorsuch on the court.

For someone who talks about the "next election," you seem to be awfully short-sighted.

quote:
You seem to be saying that no hurricane will ever hit Puerto Rico again if Hillary beat Trump.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm saying that Clinton would not have waited to waive the Jones Act just because the victims weren't white or didn't vote for her. I'm saying Clinton would have one-third of FEMA's leadership positions unfilled. I'm saying Clinton's budget wouldn't slash FEMA.

The disaster is going to happen. The question is how are you going to respond. Do you really think Trump's response was "good enough"?

quote:
Therefore, a message to the Democrats to "get better candidates" has reasonable value.

That's not the message that was sent, though.

Instead, the message was, "I got mine, fuck you."

How Libertarian of you.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1248 by Stile, posted 10-03-2017 11:46 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1266 by Stile, posted 10-04-2017 9:29 AM Rrhain has responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(2)
Message 1298 of 4573 (821457)
10-08-2017 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1266 by Stile
10-04-2017 9:29 AM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Stile responds to me:

quote:
My point is that voting 3rd party is an "acceptable" thing to do.

When it results in the exact opposite of your goals getting put into power, then it is anything but "acceptable."

Actions have consequences and to try and avoid them by saying that you were staying pure is of little concern to those who are going to die because of your actions.

When you understand this, perhaps you can try to focus your arguments on the actual point: By voting in such a way that the Republican won, you directly, consciously, and deliberately voted to make things worse and you don't get to say that you were being "pure" and expect the dead people to accept that.

For it is unacceptable.

quote:
Your point only makes sense against my argument if you can show that all gays will never lose ground in the future, at any time, if Hillary was elected this past election.

Incorrect. Your rebuttal of "but things might not be perfect" only makes sense if you are expecting perfection. The question is: Are things going to get worse or will they at least maintain the status quo if not get better?

We've already seen that things are getting worse. Sessions just revoked Title VII protections for gay people. As of Friday, it is legal to discriminate against gays in the 5th Circuit. The Justice Department is now arguing that this policy should be extended to the entire country.

The idea that the fight is not over is no rebuttal to the idea that the fight is still raging and given the choice between a guaranteed enemy and an unreliable friend, it is clear that you do everything you can to prevent the guaranteed enemy from getting into power. You then realize that you still have more work to do to replace the unreliable friend with a more reliable one.

For someone who kept going on and on about seeing beyond the now, you are being exceedingly short-sighted.

quote:
This only makes sense if you can show that no one would ever die because Hillary was in office. Or, at least, less.

And what do you think we have been witnessing? CHIP just expired. 9 million children are going to be without health insurance. While the active repeal of the ACA has been thwarted, the budget is set to cut all of its funding, destroy Medicare and Medicaid, and gut the safety net.

Do you honestly expect that people aren't going to die as a result?

quote:
Since people have always died, and always some at the fault at whoever's-been-in-office... your point doesn't carry much weight.

Oh, fuck you. You clearly aren't interested in any sort of serious discussion. Of course people are going to die. The question is: Is the government going to hasten it along?

When you understand this, perhaps you can try to focus your arguments on the actual point: By voting in such a way that the Republican won, you directly, consciously, and deliberately voted to make things worse and you don't get to say that you were being "pure" and expect the dead people to accept that.

For it is unacceptable.

quote:
It's quite possible (and reasonable) for someone to believe there will be less dead in the future if they get the Democrats to be less corrupt and better and choosing candidates.

By allowing Republicans to be in charge? Exactly how many distinct and specific examples of differences between the Republicans and Democrats do you need before it becomes clear that by voting in such a way that the Republicans come to power, you are directly, consciously, and deliberately voting to make things worse and you don't get to say that you were being "pure" and expect the dead people to accept that.

For it is unacceptable.

quote:
I'm talking about "the future" not *only* "the next election."

Try to address my argument: I'm pointing out that the consequences of your vote means that there won't be a future for many people. You can whine about your desire to "send a message" all you want, but it isn't going to help the people who died specifically and directly because of what you did.

The time to send the message, the time to fix "the future" was back in the past. They're called "primaries." They're called "local elections." By the time you get to a presidential election, it's too late. You tried to send your message but it didn't take. So, you grab everything that you can take right here and now and redouble your efforts in the locals so that by the time the primaries come around, you'll have a stronger candidate.

Your argument is that because you don't have the perfect candidate, it's "acceptable" to allow the worst one to win.

And it isn't.

quote:
Wrong again.

Nice try, but I'm still spot on. You got yours. You'll manage to survive this just fine. After all, you're not in the US (and yes, I knew that...do you honestly not understand the concept of generalized "you"? After all, you're talking about an election that you didn't take part in. If you're willing to talk about it, then you're willing to be used as an example as if you were actively part of it.)

So how pleasant for you that you don't have to suffer the actions of Trump.

I do.

I'm one of those people who just might die because of Trump. And no, that is not hyperbole.

So let me say it again, Stile: Fuck you. Fuck you and your privileged ass and your "acceptable" claptrap. I will not be a martyr to your hissy fit. Anybody who seems to think that I should just accept the results of their vote because it allowed them to maintain their "purity" and "send a message" can take a flying leap off. This is not a game.

quote:
Unfortunately for you, you don't get to define the message of someone else.

Except, sometimes I do.

Especially when people are refusing to accept the consequences of their actions. My life is now at risk because some people decided to "send a message."

And that message was received loud and clear: They got theirs, screw everybody else.

You're so wrong about what you're trying to argue for and what the actual consequences of your actions are...I hope you finally pull your head out of your ass.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1266 by Stile, posted 10-04-2017 9:29 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1320 by Stile, posted 10-11-2017 9:28 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 773 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 1299 of 4573 (821458)
10-08-2017 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1284 by New Cat's Eye
10-05-2017 8:50 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
New Cat's Eye writes:

quote:
How would you know except in hindsight?

The idea that the only way one could have known that Trump would be a disaster is in "hindsight" is to be disingenuous at best.

quote:
Whether or not the point is worth the risk is up to the individual, and they should decide how they cast their vote - given the information they have at the time.

The recent exchange between Kimmel and Trump is pretty telling.

Trump tweeted out that he's wounded to the core at how he's being treated by late night talk shows and demanded "equal time."

Kimmel then responded saying that yeah, Trump should quit his job and Kimmel would give him the entire show.

So Trump, Jr. tried to make a jab by bringing up the Weinstein sex scandal.

Kimmel then responded, "You mean that big story from the failing, liberal, one-sided @nytimes? I think it is disgusting."

Trump, Jr. then tried to shame Kimmel by insinuating he should actually cover it in his monologue since it's such a horrible thing...

...at which point Kimmel reminded Trump, Jr. about Trump's "grab 'em by the pussy" moment.

So I ask you: Given the information we had at the time, exactly how could one claim that they thought Trump was fit to be elected?

How on earth is this "hindsight"? He directly and explicitly said exactly what he was going to do...and now he's doing it. Did the people in the border towns that are now under threat of having their property seized for "the wall" not really think he was going to do it? Well...according to them, that's precisely right: They didn't believe he was going to do what he said he was going to do and thus voted for him.

For crying out loud, he started his campaign, it was to call Mexicans rapists. As Maya Angelou said, "When someone shows you who they are believe them; the first time."

Trump is precisely what he appeared to be.
Trump is the GOP.
The GOP is Trump.

There is no "hindsight" involved.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1284 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-05-2017 8:50 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1301 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-08-2017 12:00 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021