News Us politics - read first post before comment

[joeylittle]

Sorry, if this is rule breaking, you can delete it, if you see fit, but my conscience made me do it.

It's not rule-breaking.

I do want to remind people to read the first post in this thread. Like @Sideways pointed out,

More relevantly, Bill Clinton isn't running for President against Trump, so the relevance of that particular comparison eludes me.

...so let's not go down the Clinton v. Trump rabbit-hole.

 

[somerandomguy]

I'm having a hard time understanding why when Republicans want to attack their political rivals these days, they call them pedophiles. Oh, I forgot, because it works - as, sadly enough, numerous people on this thread prove.

Look, Hillary would have been a horrible president. She couldn't campaign worth a shit. She had to illegally take over the Democratic National Committee and even then cheat Bernie out of a fair selection process to be nominated. According to the pollsters, she was the second most loathed person to run for president ever - after Trump. By all accounts she is a person who should never be president.

But she wasn't, and isn't, a pedophile. Accusing her of that is pretty much the same as taking your assault rifle and barricading yourself in the pizza place until they show you the trafficked kids. There aren't any to show. It's just a pizza place. And you've been hoodwinked by the Infowars folks and other Trump associates, who are all laughing at you.

 

[scout86]

And you've been hoodwinked by the Infowars folks

I think this is the part of all this that bothers me the most.

I have a farrier client who's a fan of infowars. She intelligent, well educated, and she's an accountant, so I'd expect her to value high quality information. We got talking about Alex Jones and the idea that the Sandy Hook shootings were faked. She wanted to know what made me so sure it really happened. Well, how big would the conspiracy have to be? We're not just talking about a few actor/victims. You'd have to have all the first responders, all the hospitals, all the funeral homes, all the churches, AND all the media (at the very least) involved. What are the odds of pulling THAT off, with no one reveling the truth? And, it would make a great story if it was fake, so no one would pass up the headline. The whole idea is ridiculous. (She responded by saying, "he actually only said it MIGHT be fake." Seriously?!)

So, how do otherwise rational people get sucked in to all this?

I just moved from one congressional district to another. My new representative is a Republican. I just emailed him & told him that what I find most disturbing about this whole situation with the Ukraine that the president seems to be obsessed with some conspiracy theories that have been debunked, to an extent that seems to border irrational. And that I'm really disappointed that so few people in his party seem to notice or care. Really, the Republicans are the ones who have the most ability to get this mess back the rails.

 

[Friday]

But she wasn't, and isn't, a pedophile. Accusing her of that is pretty much the same as

If you’re referring to my post? What I said was that national security risks shouldn’t run countries, the same way pedophiles shouldn't run schools. And that you didn’t hit a nerve, it was simply trying to explain why something that seems obvious -but isnt- means backing up to....If it’s not obvious? Where do I start??? What would be equally obvious on a trauma board? Putting a known security risk in power over a country is like... putting a pedophile in charge of children. Bad idea. Extremely predictable consequences.

Any number of disasterous parallels could be substituted; if I said that national security risks shouldn’t run countries, the same way drunks shouldn’t drive... It’s not as good as a parallel... but I’m still not accusing her of being a drunk. Nor driving. Nor driving drunk. Drunks shouldn’t drive, because of highly predicitble consequences. Pedophiles shouldn’t run schools, because of highly predictable consequences. National security risks shouldn’t run countries, because of highly predictable consequences.

Taking words out of context, and spinning them into outrage? Is dirty pool. So my hope is that you didn’t actually read what I wrote, but skimmed and made your own assumptions of keywords. Which couldn’t be more wrong.

Both are a problem with politics, in general; dirty tricks & taking things out of context and running with them... so I also hope that attempting to clarify a bad premise can be taken in that light (and I’m more than happy to discuss either of those issues, as they exist in general or to current/relevant politics); as is the problem of proposing candidates that the midliners won’t touch with a 10 foot pole, and even party members won’t vote for (as has been the problem with both Palin/Obama & Clinton/Trump, on a scale rarely seen before in politics)... but would like to remind people what our Admin JUST warned the thread about

...so let's not go down the Clinton v. Trump rabbit-hole.

So, whilst happy to discuss either the meta, or particulars of anything current? There are too many stellar examples to explain any aspect of our political thinking to get sucked into arguing over whether or not President Harrison would have been the best or worst president, ever, if he hadn’t caught his death of cold at his inauguration. He/She Woulda, coulda, might’ave, shoulda... what’s that got to do with the price of rice in China? There’s no aspect of politics we can’t discuss without myriad current and relevant examples. Defunct examples only explain how we think, not what’s going on, so explain our thinking in a way that doesn’t throw us in that particular briar patch shouldn’t be too hard.

When there’s more examples than you can shake a stick at? No need to beat a dead horse with that stick.

 

[somerandomguy]

What I said was that national security risks shouldn’t run countries, the same way pedophiles shouldn't run schools.

Oh. If that was your point - that the private email server disqualified her from being president - you must have missed that various parts of the Trump administration have also run private email servers. Of course the Trump campaign didn't really care about the private email server. Comey was happy to make a big deal about it (of course, it didn't work out for him), but they just wanted to throw more shit at her to see what stuck. Trump and his team were really happy that they found that one, although TBF Hillary probably sealed the deal herself with the "deplorables" remark.

But enough shit stuck that he won the electoral college. So now we have a president that the military leadership actively hates, the State Department actively hates, and most government workers actively hate. He's drained the swamp all right, in the fact that many competent government employees have quit in disgust. Which of course was probably Bannon's plan all along. Congrats, it worked, and now we have a government run by incompetents.

 

[user27357]

There are too many stellar examples to explain any aspect of our political thinking to get sucked into arguing over whether or not President Harrison would have been the best or worst president, ever, if he hadn’t caught his death of cold

Let's Do talk about whether or not Herbert Hoover will be the worst president ever or if it will soon be Don. The similarities are vast and varied, most notable is their memberships in the no prior political experience club. 5 members total, 3 of them were warriors and did fairly well with the transition from leadership in a highly regulated military to the presidency, where the two civilians have not- Hoover, the man who was blamed for the great depression because he initiated tariffs to try to slow down the wall street gold rush that was going on when the fed wouldn't raise interest rates to do the same thing (it was all he could do to try to put the brakes on the market himself if I remember my American history and poly-sci correctly), and the guy who is currently upsetting apple carts in the global trade arena for what appears to be an attempt to save jobs (but that has yet to be seen).
Hoover was a scholar. He did have a theory at least. This guy? Any attempt to explain why or how tariffs will work seems to twindle off into an unfollowable rant that usually ends with a superlative of some kind. It's going to be fantastic, you won't believe it how fantastic it will be. Hoo-boy.

 

[Friday]

Congrats, it worked, and now we have a government run by incompetents.

I have no idea why you’re congratulating me, nor continuing to twist my words to suit some bullshit argument I never made, about something that was never the issue, and that I have clarified -respectfully- 3 times, now.

You want to tell me what I -and other people I know personally, and quite well, that you’ve never met- think? I tell you you’re wrong, even take the time to explain what I actually believe, and how I arrived at that conclusion... so you make up some even more outlandish bullshit, to suit your original theory? And then do it again. AND again.

Seriously, what the f*ck is wrong with you?

I can’t tell if you’re being willfully ignorant, or are just this much of a bully that demonising, dismissing, and dehumanising everyone who disagrees with your mystical magical Mindreading powers is your go to. Maybe it usually works for you to shove guilt and shame down people’s throats to get your way, but I don’t play that game. Knock it off.

 

[Ronin]

I think this is the part of all this that bothers me the most.

I have a farrier client who's a fan of infowars.
So, how do otherwise rational people get sucked in to all this?.

I think in part because it's simple.

Real conspiracies ain't. Even when you take two quite stupid individuals to it with idiotic and doomed to backfire from the start plan.

But conspiracy theories!conspiracies?
Simplify so much. Easy explanations. That one doesn't even need a news reading ability for. Much less a degree in political science.

And the longevity of logical fallacies one can circle jerk for ages.

Similar reasons people may be into gossip. It provides a sense of attunement, entertainment, mattering in otherwise too big a world, any other number of met needs.

 

[joeylittle]

@somerandomguy, @Friday: drop it.

Post #2665 reminds posters to leave Clinton out of this conversation.

Thank you.

 

[somerandomguy]

I can’t tell if you’re being willfully ignorant, or are just this much of a bully

Ok, then let me quote you.

"national security risks shouldn’t run countries"

I entirely agree with you. The biggest "national security risk" we've ever had running the country is running the country right now.

Trump's so-called business empire - and I hesitate to call the business of a man who declared bankruptcy four times and illegally refuses to let anyone see his tax returns an "empire" - has been kept afloat for years solely due to Russian cash. The Russians literally own him. There's a reason he loves Putin so much beyond the fact that he loves ALL anti-democratic strongmen - it's because Putin has his balls in a vise.

Republicans don't care. They went from hating Putin to loving him roughly five minutes after Trump won the election. Neither do they care that Trump passes U.S. security information to Putin on the regular, or that Trump believes Russian security briefs far more than our own intelligence. Putin loves it. He loves owning us.

Yeah. National security risks shouldn't run countries. Because what you get is what's happened to the United States today.

 

[Rumors]

I know what you mean, but most Republicans are firmly in the bag for Trump. They did a survey before and after the election about what people thought of Putin. Before the election, almost no one liked Putin. Afterwards, almost every Republican surveyed liked him. So people are more than willing to side with whoever they think is a winner. Trump is a big winner to Republicans.

I'm a Republican and I come from a Republican family and a mostly Republican state and I don't know anyone who likes Putin. Most every person I know, Democrat and Republican, think the Russian government is a group of corrupt individuals that poison their own people who get in the way and Putin is the ringleader... stereotyping people in that broad of manner is where politics go wrong and why people get upset.

 

[Rumors]

Republicans don't care. They went from hating Putin to loving him roughly five minutes after Trump won the election. Neither do they care that Trump passes U.S. security information to Putin on the regular, or that Trump believes Russian security briefs far more than our own intelligence. Putin loves it. He loves owning us.

Where do you get this information? You sited a poll taken in an earlier post and now you state that Trump passes US security information to Putin like this is a fact. Good god how can you say stuff like this and it not be deleted or you be banned but @Friday can't talk about factual Clinton impeachment information... if what you are saying is true, Trump would have been impeached on passing security information to Putin bc that is treason in this country.