Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

DreamsBurnDown

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

If the DNC consume the next 18 months relentlessly attacking Trump and failing to present their vision for the future to the American public, they will lose the 2020 election. I say that as an American who wants to see Trump defeated in 2020. The way forward is selecting the best candidate in a professional manner, present a sensible platform to the American people and get 100% behind the candidate.

Good post but this part struck me. I work with a guy from the Bible belt and he was arguing in the staffroom that the Democrats need to up the anti-Trump rhetoric big time if they want to win.

I simple asked him what Sanders was campaigning on and he knew. He knew most of what Trump was promising as well. He voted for Clinton and actually couldn't remember what her platform was. It was remarkable that all he could remember was her anti-Trump stance.

Anyways, I think I convinced him that the Democrats mostly ignoring Trump and actually getting the population excited about something would be a lot better than the same stuff that didn't work before. These investigations are going to ruin them if they keep media focus on them.

FrostyJack

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

But I have explained what hysteria is in this context, it's calling half the electorate "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic", as HRC did during the 2016 campaign, the only thing she missed was calling them "fascist" for emphasis. It is half the electorate btw, as how do those who would normally vote Republican, or might lean towards Republican, know which half HRC was referring to? Do you really think labeling half the electorate as "fascists" is going to help a Democratic nominee get elected?

If you support a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic rhetoric then you are a deplorable, Trump supporters generally do, so she was correct in her assertion. Was it the correct strategy to win more voters, probably not.

Referencing what nutter alt-right sites claimed about HRC is about as relevant as referencing what nutter alt-left sites claim about Trump, most normal people pay no attention. I don't recall Trump or his campaign calling HRC or Democrats "paedophiles" during the campaign, the main thrust of his attacks was the email controversy, something the FBI investigated and found her to be "extremely careless" in her handling of sensitive material.

Alt-right sites like Fox News, the largest network in the country? HC was bashed for decades on Fox and other mainstream right wing news sites with conspiracies from Seth Rich death to Uranium One, all baseless. Just look what they have about AOC and the likes now, it is non-stop mudslinging and gaslighting.

The reason HRC lost, which some progressive Democrats still can't get their head around, is she was a very poor candidate. She ran a very low energy campaign and assumed she would win the same swing states Obama won simply because she was a Democrat. It was tremendous arrogance not to visit Wisconsin for example, and just assume she would win there. Hopefully Democrats have learned that lesson for 2020, and nominate a candidate with high energy and a high likability rating.

She was far from ideal, but you maybe aware that Hilary won 3 million more votes and only lost the swing states by around 78k, which isn't too bad for a low energy campaign. The election was lost by a combination of factors such as Comey announcing there was an investigation into Clinton and not Trump, just before the election, Russian direct targeting of swing states, DNC and Podesta email leaks and so on. There was a midterm election a few months ago also, which the Democrats did well in. You can criticise Trump and run on policies and ideas, it isn't one or the other.

When you say "ordinary people", do you mean ordinary Americans? I'm curious to know what you base this on, are you an American or have you spent lots of time there? Americans in general, including ordinary Americans, are strongly independent and if there's one thing they resent it's been being told what to think. It's one of the reasons left wing politics has never caught in in the US, as the left loves to lecture people on how they should think. It also loves to label people and if there's another thing "ordinary" Americans don't like, it's been labelled.

Both sides like to label. I would argue the right relies on identity politics way more then the Democrats. The fact the call them far left is an example of this.

If the DNC consume the next 18 months relentlessly attacking Trump and failing to present their vision for the future to the American public, they will lose the 2020 election. I say that as an American who wants to see Trump defeated in 2020. The way forward is selecting the best candidate in a professional manner, present a sensible platform to the American people and get 100% behind the candidate.

The 2nd part is correct, you can also point out Trump's crimes, corruption and gaffs at the same time.

FrostyJack

FrostyJack wrote:

Both sides like to label. I would argue the right relies on identity politics way more then the Democrats. The fact the call them far left is an example of this.

You just called fox news alt-right. Pot/kettle

FrostyJack

Deleted User wrote: »

You just called fox news alt-right. Pot/kettle

He said only alt right sites pushed the conspiracy theories, I said "Alt-right sites like Fox News, the largest network in the country?", asserting he was calling it an alt-right site, not me.

DreamsBurnDown

FrostyJack wrote: »

If you support a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic rhetoric then you are a deplorable, Trump supporters generally do, so she was correct in her assertion. Was it the correct strategy to win more voters, probably not.

Close to half the electorate voted for Trump, so you are labeling half the US electorate as racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobia and Islamophobic? It's not just the wrong strategy to win more voters, it's the way to lose an election.

Are all the white women who voted for Trump deplorables? More white women voted for Trump than Clinton, are they all sexist?

I think you're missing the central argument. Obama won handily in 2008 and 2012, including winning most of those flyover states where the deplorables live. The DNC simply choose to run an unpopular candidate against an unpopular Republican candidate and it backfired.

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He was on the campaign trail. He said he loved WikiLeaks in the context of them exposing Hillary. Today he is saying he knows little about them in the context of what they and Assange are accused of.

There is no gotcha here. Well, none of note anyway.

Turns out Hillary knows little or nothing about Hot Sauce either.

Aka Wikileaks was just a covfefe boy...

RIGOLO

Deleted User wrote: »

Good post but this part struck me. I work with a guy from the Bible belt and he was arguing in the staffroom that the Democrats need to up the anti-Trump rhetoric big time if they want to win.

I simple asked him what Sanders was campaigning on and he knew. He knew most of what Trump was promising as well. He voted for Clinton and actually couldn't remember what her platform was. It was remarkable that all he could remember was her anti-Trump stance.

Anyways, I think I convinced him that the Democrats mostly ignoring Trump and actually getting the population excited about something would be a lot better than the same stuff that didn't work before. These investigations are going to ruin them if they keep media focus on them.

Many Trump supporters have been saying that for over 2 years, the DNC never ran on a policy, they only ran on an Anti-Trump message.

Its too late now for them to turn ship.

Trump has already accomplished so much on REAL issues, the economy, regulation reform, jail reform, small buisness investment support, trade deals, the list goes on and on .

Other than AOCs Green New Deal, the left dont have any policys left they can run on, that Trump hasnt already made inroads on.

For them to jump on one of Trumps policys now will just be an endorsement of Trump Administration, and in the debate all the progress the TRump admin has made (that was ignored by the main stream media in their 2 year Mueller madness) will be laid out for all to see.

Now if only the same thing was applied to forums.
Instead of all this anti-Trump rhetoric from the left, imagine if hte left actually put forward THEIR policys on issues in a forum.

The DNC ran on a 'we arent Trump campaign' , without putting forward much ideas of their own, same as this forum in many ways.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

Fox News has news people and conservative opinion people and are very open about who is what
CNN msnbc nbc do not differentiate as transparently as Fox News
They will label pro democrat opinion people news people when they are obviously not

If the liberal news channels and papers were just to be more open and honest and declare when it is liberal opinion and real news then the “fake” news label trump loves would lose its power

Christy42

RIGOLO wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Good post but this part struck me. I work with a guy from the Bible belt and he was arguing in the staffroom that the Democrats need to up the anti-Trump rhetoric big time if they want to win.

I simple asked him what Sanders was campaigning on and he knew. He knew most of what Trump was promising as well. He voted for Clinton and actually couldn't remember what her platform was. It was remarkable that all he could remember was her anti-Trump stance.

Anyways, I think I convinced him that the Democrats mostly ignoring Trump and actually getting the population excited about something would be a lot better than the same stuff that didn't work before. These investigations are going to ruin them if they keep media focus on them.

Many Trump supporters have been saying that for over 2 years, the DNC never ran on a policy, they only ran on an Anti-Trump message.

Its too late now for them to turn ship.

Trump has already accomplished so much on REAL issues, the economy, regulation reform, jail reform, small buisness investment support, trade deals, the list goes on and on .

Other than AOCs Green New Deal, the left dont have any policys left they can run on, that Trump hasnt already made inroads on.

For them to jump on one of Trumps policys now will just be an endorsement of Trump Administration, and in the debate all the progress the TRump admin has made (that was ignored by the main stream media in their 2 year Mueller madness) will be laid out for all to see.

Now if only the same thing was applied to forums.
Instead of all this anti-Trump rhetoric from the left, imagine if hte left actually put forward THEIR policys on issues in a forum.

The DNC ran on a 'we arent Trump campaign' , without putting forward much ideas of their own, same as this forum in many ways.

This is revisionism of the highest order.

In the 2016 campaign Hillary had a pretty detailed policy website on what she would do. Whatever else you say about her, she really understood policy and how to implement them. It was her thing but it was nowhere near as entertaining as Trump making up schoolboy nicknames so people didn't bother looking it up.

Trump had a wall, "healthcare will easy" and I will bring back jobs (though left the detail of it to the imagination). That is not a policy driven campaign.

Aside from that his entire campaign was about locking up his opponent, hating foreigners (Mexican are rapists, well some I guess are good people), Muslim ban. He still has little policy outside of trying to reverse whatever Obama did.

FrostyJack

DreamsBurnDown wrote:

Close to half the electorate voted for Trump, so you are labeling half the US electorate as racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobia and Islamophobic? It's not just the wrong strategy to win more voters, it's the way to lose an election.

Close to half the electorate didn't vote. Voter suppression, GRU activities, complacency and lazy were a large factor in this, not just because Clinton was a bad candidate.

DreamsBurnDown wrote:

Are all the white women who voted for Trump deplorables? More white women voted for Trump than Clinton, are they all sexist?

Not sexist but deplorable none the less. They were either ignorant or turned a blind eye to all his indiscretions to vote for him. The tape on the bus should have turned any normal women away from him, the culture of women that do this are the same ones that say boys will boys when they hear about alledged rapes on campus. Other factors are women tend to vote the same lines as their spouse and presuming white males terrified of women in power or foreigners would vote for Trump this would mean they were more likely to vote GOP. There are lots of other socioeconomic factors why that was the result but that is the jist.

rossie1977

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

If the liberal news channels and papers were just to be more open and honest and declare when it is liberal opinion and real news then the “fake” news label trump loves would lose its power

There is no liberal mainstream news channels or papers in the US

Take the NY Times https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/opinion/center-democrats-identity-politics.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/opinion/democratic-socialism-alexandria-ocasio-cortez.html

mcmoustache

rossie1977 wrote: »

There is no liberal mainstream news channels or papers in the US

Take the NY Times https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/opinion/center-democrats-identity-politics.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/opinion/democratic-socialism-alexandria-ocasio-cortez.html

If you view racist scaremongering as normal, middle of the road centrist, everything that isn't racist scaremongering starts to look decidedly lefty.

Christy42

Christy42 wrote: »

This is revisionism of the highest order.

That to me is really far too strong a word for what was being talked about.

Sanders and Trump were on it the whole time regarding what they intended to do.

I followed the entire thing and saying she had a website doesn't cover for the fact that she wasn't getting her message out. I'd imagine many in this forum would struggle to list a few things from her platform.

So accusing people of revisionism is out of order imo. It's borderline accusing of someone of lying which I was banned for recently.

hill16bhoy

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

But I have explained what hysteria is in this context, it's calling half the electorate "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic", as HRC did during the 2016 campaign, the only thing she missed was calling them "fascist" for emphasis. It is half the electorate btw, as how do those who would normally vote Republican, or might lean towards Republican, know which half HRC was referring to? Do you really think labeling half the electorate as "fascists" is going to help a Democratic nominee get elected?

Study after study has showed Trump's support was motivated more by race than anything else.

And we can see it with our own eyes. There has never been a presidential candidate in living memory who has nakedly appealed to racial prejudice like Trump. Nobody else even comes remotely close.

Trump's campaign and presidency was and is "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic". It's nakedly so. You appear to be saying that people should stay completely silent about that.

Is this the case?

Should Trump's naked anti-Semitism and racism be continually called out as such?

Should this be condemned as naked anti-Semitism, for instance?

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Referencing what nutter alt-right sites claimed about HRC is about as relevant as referencing what nutter alt-left sites claim about Trump, most normal people pay no attention. I don't recall Trump or his campaign calling HRC or Democrats "paedophiles" during the campaign, the main thrust of his attacks was the email controversy, something the FBI investigated and found her to be "extremely careless" in her handling of sensitive material.

Do you recall them shouting "lock her up"?

Is that "demonization"?

Is shouting for your political opponent to be locked up based on nothing except hatred, and encouraging baying crowds to shout the same words louder, is that what is supposed to happen in a democracy?

Is that "deplorable"?

Is continually branding your opponent "Crooked Hillary" demonization? Well?

Fox News is the most watched cable news network in the US. This is not alt-right media. This is firmly in the mainstream.

Trump's racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and Islamophobia is firmly in the mainstream.

To attempt to dismiss this as "alt-right nutter" stuff is to betray a blindness that can only be wilful.

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

The reason HRC lost, which some progressive Democrats still can't get their head around, is she was a very poor candidate. She ran a very low energy campaign and assumed she would win the same swing states Obama won simply because she was a Democrat. It was tremendous arrogance not to visit Wisconsin for example, and just assume she would win there. Hopefully Democrats have learned that lesson for 2020, and nominate a candidate with high energy and a high likability rating.

There are loads of reasons Clinton lost, not one reason, as you claim. True, she didn't run a particularly good campaign.

But Comey's intervention 10 days beforehand was key, for example, while he stayed completely silent that her opponent was being investigated into ties to Russia.

But the question I asked was: was Clinton the victim of a systematic campaign of demonization and vilification by the Republican party and media?

The answer, of course, is yes she was, unquestionably. Do you agree with this?

What this campaign designed to push floating voters to the Republican candidate or get the Democratic base to not turn up? Of course it was.

Was it successsful? Yes.

So, given that we've seen such a fact-free campaign of demonization and vilification actually does work, and we've seen it many times over the years in US politics, why are you suggesting that merely calling out Trump for what he is should be off-limits?

Since when are facts off-limits in politics?

What is it about people that voted for Trump in 2016 that you think makes them so uniquely immune to facts - you're the person suggesting this, by the way, not me.

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

When you say "ordinary people", do you mean ordinary Americans? I'm curious to know what you base this on, are you an American or have you spent lots of time there? Americans in general, including ordinary Americans, are strongly independent and if there's one thing they resent it's been being told what to think. It's one of the reasons left wing politics has never caught in in the US, as the left loves to lecture people on how they should think. It also loves to label people and if there's another thing "ordinary" Americans don't like, it's been labelled.

I'm not sure what it is about the words "ordinary people" you have a problem with, or consider "labelling".

Do you think the average Trump voter has a sense of "independence"? Does Trump encourage a sense of "independence" in his supporters?

Do you think Trump encourages his supporters to think critically?

Where is this "sense of independence" among Trump's support? Because every single thing we know about Trump's support says the exact opposite.

Do you think Trump "told his supporters what to think"? Unquestionably yes, he did, and does. No candidate in US presidential history has ever told people what to think more than he did, and does.

Or is what you say about "people being told what to think" in reference to "left-wing politics" merely a right wing trope that you unthinkingly trotted out to excuse unthinking, prejuduced reaction to abhorrent prejuduce being correctly called out?

Because that's certainly what it seems like.

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Calls for impeachment now are brain dead. It's not just Republicans, but most Democrats don't support impeachment. Even during the Mueller probe when a lot of Democrats presumed a much stronger judgement against Trump, there was literally no support when impeachment was raised. There is less now, so calls for impeachment are coming from a tiny minority who will have next to zero impact on the next election.

The question is: Is it the right thing to do?

Is it right that Trump's continuing decades of flagrant corruption should be blown out in the open?

Or is it right that, as you suggest, it should be simply swept under the carpet and forgotten about because, hey, "strategy", or something?

Which is a bigger threat to democracy? Confronting flagrant corruption or refusing to confront it?

That's another rhetorical question.

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

If the DNC consume the next 18 months relentlessly attacking Trump and failing to present their vision for the future to the American public, they will lose the 2020 election. I say that as an American who wants to see Trump defeated in 2020. The way forward is selecting the best candidate in a professional manner, present a sensible platform to the American people and get 100% behind the candidate.

What part of going after Trump precludes having an attractive, progressive, radical platform?

What political campaign in history has not attacked its opponents? Could you name me a few, perhaps?

Did, say, Fine Gael in 2011 neglect to point out what a shambles the Fianna Fail government had been?

Did Ronald Reagan lay off Jimmy Carter in 1980, because? What about Bill Clinton in 1992?

Or Tony Blair's Labour in 1997 or Cameron's Tories in 2010?

You claim to want to see Trump defeated yet speak pretty much entirely through his framing.

hill16bhoy

mcmoustache wrote: »

If you view racist scaremongering as normal, middle of the road centrist, everything that isn't racist scaremongering starts to look decidedly lefty.

This can't repeated enough.

hill16bhoy

Deleted User wrote: »

That to me is really far too strong a word for what was being talked about.

Sanders and Trump were on it the whole time regarding what they intended to do.

I followed the entire thing and saying she had a website doesn't cover for the fact that she wasn't getting her message out. I'd imagine many in this forum would struggle to list a few things from her platform.

So accusing people of revisionism is out of order imo. It's borderline accusing of someone of lying which I was banned for recently.

The whole point of the way Trump operates is that he controls the narrative through bull****, bluster and shouting.

Again, classic fascist technique.

He doesn't allow you to get your message out, because he'll just say something ludicrous to attract media attention.

Media can never get enough of idiocy. Look at the way Mark Francois has transformed himself from an unknown backbench MP into the "Brexit Bulldog" in a matter of weeks, merely by shouting stupid, inflammatory nonsense.

Sanders might be identified with policy now, but if he goes up against Trump, that would quickly change because Trump will change the narrative to make the campaign about everything except policy. Whoever the Democratic candidate is will face a massive, sustained demonization campaign. That is certain.

hill16, we're kind of talking about different things and it's quite off-topic so let's leave it be.

Christy42

Deleted User wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

This is revisionism of the highest order.

That to me is really far too strong a word for what was being talked about.

Sanders and Trump were on it the whole time regarding what they intended to do.

I followed the entire thing and saying she had a website doesn't cover for the fact that she wasn't getting her message out. I'd imagine many in this forum would struggle to list a few things from her platform.

So accusing people of revisionism is out of order imo. It's borderline accusing of someone of lying which I was banned for recently.

Certainly Hillary could have done a better job getting her message out. Trump successfully focused discussion towards personal battles and well people obviously didn't want the heavy policy campaign. Else they would have read the damn site. Policy is a complex matter covering a wide range of subjects and generally does not work as a speech (though the speech can highlight bits). Saying healthcare will be easy is not policy. It is a random slogan.

However I will happily call people out on revisionism if they start claiming Trump won because he was more focused on policy. Trump was always on the attack because if he ever focused on himself it would all fall to pieces. The next campaign will be similar. It will deflect questions about Trump to attacks on his opponent.

everlast75

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The whole point of the way Trump operates is that he controls the narrative through bull****, bluster and shouting.

Again, classic fascist technique.

He doesn't allow you to get your message out, because he'll just say something ludicrous to attract media attention.

Media can never get enough of idiocy. Look at the way Mark Francois has transformed himself from an unknown backbench MP into the "Brexit Bulldog" in a matter of weeks, merely by shouting stupid, inflammatory nonsense.

Sanders might be identified with policy now, but if he goes up against Trump, that would quickly change because Trump will change the narrative to make the campaign about everything except policy. Whoever the Democratic candidate is will face a massive, sustained demonization campaign. That is certain.

Sure he's already at it!

"Creepy Joe", "Pocahontas", slagging Beto about his hand movements (irony died when that happened).

He did the same thing in the Republican primaries; Low energy Jeb, Little Marco, Lyin' Ted etc etc.

He is a 72 year old man calling people schoolyard nicknames. Its beyond embarrassing. And his followers lap it up.

Manic Moran

So, it is tax season, and the filing deadline is Monday. I have my final returns from the tax accountant as of last night.

In 2018, I lived almost entirely in California, one of the States where it is viewed that residents get penalized by the reformed federal tax structure due to the cap on the state tax deduction. I worked primarily from home, but the deductions for people who generally work remotely (unreimbursed business expenses) were also deleted from the system. Both of these increased my relative tax liability over 2017. There is now a cap on the mortgage interest deduction, which will also disproportionally affect taxpayers in high cost states like California, but my mortgage is not sufficiently large to trigger it.

However, the tax rate for my bracket dropped substantially, and the child deduction went up. So best I can determine, this meant that notwithstanding the federal reform hitting Californians harder than most, my overall federal tax bill (well, mine and the wife, we filed jointly, but i’m the major earner) seems to have gone down by about 2.3-2.8% of my income. The CPA also mentioned that the filings are simpler this year.

I’m certainly not complaining about having thousands more dollars in my pocket at the end of the year. I suspect there are a good number of less unhappy taxpayers as a result, many of whom probably live in lower cost of living swing states. (Nobody is ever happy about paying tax). In the next election cycle, being able to say “look at your tax bill under us, and compare with what it was before” can be a powerful argument.

I’ll see if I can’t come up with a more exact comparison after I get home. (Business trip, currently on ‘plane)

everlast75

everlast75 wrote: »

Sure he's already at it!

"Creepy Joe", "Pocahontas", slagging Beto about his hand movements (irony died when that happened).

He did the same thing in the Republican primaries; Low energy Jeb, Little Marco, Lyin' Ted etc etc.

He is a 72 year old man calling people schoolyard nicknames. Its beyond embarrassing. And his followers lap it up.

Not just followers apparently..

How pathetic is this?

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1116674849093636098?s=19

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

So, it is tax season, and the filing deadline is Monday. I have my final returns from the tax accountant as of last night.

In 2018, I lived almost entirely in California, one of the States where it is viewed that residents get penalized by the reformed federal tax structure due to the cap on the state tax deduction. I worked primarily from home, but the deductions for people who generally work remotely (unreimbursed business expenses) were also deleted from the system. Both of these increased my relative tax liability over 2017. There is now a cap on the mortgage interest deduction, which will also disproportionally affect taxpayers in high cost states like California, but my mortgage is not sufficiently large to trigger it.

However, the tax rate for my bracket dropped substantially, and the child deduction went up. So best I can determine, this meant that notwithstanding the federal reform hitting Californians harder than most, my overall federal tax bill (well, mine and the wife, we filed jointly, but i’m the major earner) seems to have gone down by about 2.3-2.8% of my income. The CPA also mentioned that the filings are simpler this year.

I’m certainly not complaining about having thousands more dollars in my pocket at the end of the year. I suspect there are a good number of less unhappy taxpayers as a result, many of whom probably live in lower cost of living swing states. (Nobody is ever happy about paying tax). In the next election cycle, being able to say “look at your tax bill under us, and compare with what it was before” can be a powerful argument.

I’ll see if I can’t come up with a more exact comparison after I get home. (Business trip, currently on ‘plane)

Lowering taxes and increasing borrowing does seem to be part of the Republican strategy here. Not like Trump will have to deal with the consequences. Would be interesting to see if those swing states are getting the benefit. You mention lower cost of living so I suspect lower paid.

Fianna Fail won an election here on the promise of no tax. It won the election. The policy didn't quite work!

Manic Moran

Christy42 wrote: »

. Would be interesting to see if those swing states are getting the benefit. You mention lower cost of living so I suspect lower paid.

I don’t see why not. The lower tax brackets (18,000-$150,000) dropped 3%, so the raw tax bill will be lower, and they are far less likely to be affected by the deduction caps. Mortgages in excess of $750k are not particularly uncommon in San Francisco, but relatively rare in Mikwaukee.

peddlelies

rossie1977 wrote: »

There is no liberal mainstream news channels or papers in the US

Take the NY Times

Two opinion pieces aren't going to convince anyone. There's a reason why conservatives call the New York Times a liberal outlet, that's because they lean liberal, and in my opinion have become far more slanted in the past three years.

They haven't endorsed a Republican since 1956.

hill16bhoy

I do find it utterly laughable the way the terms "liberal" and "left-wing" are equated in the US - that itself is proof of how far to the right the "midpoint" of US politics skews.

Midpoint being a very different thing from centre.

I mean seriously, in what sort of country are issues such as gay marriage or abortion, or the objection to glorification of pro-slavery figures, seen as "left-wing" issues? These are human rights issues and it just proves how bat**** crazy vast swathes of the right have become that they are painted as "left-wing" issues.

DreamsBurnDown

FrostyJack wrote: »

Not sexist but deplorable none the less. They were either ignorant or turned a blind eye to all his indiscretions to vote for him. The tape on the bus should have turned any normal women away from him, the culture of women that do this are the same ones that say boys will boys when they hear about alledged rapes on campus.

You mean the way white women voted for Clinton when it was well established he was a similar womanizing scumbag? Or the women who voted Ted Kennedy into office in MA for five terms, after he left a woman to die in the car he drove into a lake, and didn't report it for nine hours? Clinton is still held in high regard by most Americans, even though he was accused of rape and by today's standards had non consensual sex with Monica Lewinsky. Trump hasn't been accused of rape, which Bill Clinton was. I assume you believe Juanita Broaddrick? If you don't then we have to discount all those who have accused Trump of inappropriate behavior, as most of them have far less evidence than Ms Broaddrick.

The evidence is that American voters have long given up expecting morality or ethics from their politicians, and actually find it quite ridiculous for one side to claim the high moral ground while ignoring indiscretions on their own side. The three Virigina Democrats are still in office and their indiscretions (sexual assault and wearing blackface) have been swept under the carpet.

The problem with these discussions is the conformation bias of those who can't see or at least admit that Trump (when it comes to sexual morality) is no different to those they hold in higher regard, JFK, Ted Kennedy, Clinton, etc. If we are going to demand moral behavior from our politicians we have to be at least consistent.

The Nal

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Or the women who voted Ted Kennedy into office in MA for five terms, after he left a woman to die in the car he drove into a lake, and didn't report it for nine hours?

Probably belongs in some conspiracy forum but he wasn't in the car when it went into the water.

Left the party with her, pulled over for some "fun", spotted by a cop, fled on foot to avoid an adultery/drink driving scandal, left her to drive back alone, she went into the water. He found out about it the next morning.

But yeah, your point still stands.

peddlelies

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I mean seriously, in what sort of country are issues such as gay marriage or abortion, or the objection to glorification of pro-slavery figures, seen as "left-wing" issues? These are human rights issues and it just proves how bat**** crazy vast swathes of the right have become that they are painted as "left-wing" issues.

Personally I have no issue with gay marriage, no real standpoint either way on abortion and certainly wouldn't object to pro-slavery figures being vilified.

I would however classify the gender movement, the "being overweight is fine/sexy" movement and the white privilege/guilt reparations campaigns among other things as batshít crazy and certainty not human rights issues.

You know some campuses in the US had "no whites days" where white people were being punished for simply being born that way. It's radical ideological indoctrinating nonsense and dangerous, and not only that, it is commonplace across college campus culture. It's not the right who are pushing many of these toxic movements.

peddlelies

The Nal wrote: »

Probably belongs in some conspiracy forum but he wasn't in the car when it went into the water.

Left the party with her, pulled over for some "fun", spotted by a cop, fled on foot to avoid an adultery/drink driving scandal, left her to drive back alone, she went into the water. He found out about it the next morning.

His testimony and this article(or any I've just googled) say differently. Am I missing something?

https://www.history.com/news/ted-kennedy-chappaquiddick-incident-what-really-happened-facts

"Late on the night of July 18, 1969, a black Oldsmobile driven by U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy plunged off the Dike Bridge on the tiny island of Chappaquiddick, off Martha’s Vineyard, landing upside down in the tidal Poucha Pond. The 37-year-old Kennedy survived the crash, but the young woman riding with him in the car didn’t."

Kennedy later claimed he dove repeatedly “into the strong and murky current” to try and find Kopechne before making his way back to the cottage. He then drove back to the scene with his cousin, Joseph Gargan, and aide Paul Markham, who both tried in vain to reach Kopechne. But rather than report the accident to the police at that time, Kennedy returned to his hotel in Edgartown. As a result, Mary Jo Kopechne remained underwater for some nine hours until her body was recovered the next morning."

DreamsBurnDown

hill16bhoy wrote: »

You claim to want to see Trump defeated yet speak pretty much entirely through his framing.

Yes, I want to see Trump defeated, and am actively campaigning for one of the Democratic nominees.

Trump is up to 45% approval rating in the latest Gallop poll out today, a +5% increase. The economy is doing very well, unemployment is low, small business is thriving, the majority of people are paying less tax than they did a year ago. Anyone thinking Trump will be easily defeated in 2020 needs to wake the **** up.

Yes, attack Trump on policy but be sure you have alternative policy that sounds sensible, and can be implemented without bankrupting the country. The evidence is that sitting presidents get reelected in a good economy, there's absolutely no reason to suppose or hope this time will be any different.

If the answer to Trump pointing to the good economy, no new wars, ISIS decimated, lower taxes, no rockets fired by rocketman since 2017, etc. is "racist, sexist, homophobe", Democrats will lose in 2020.