i've been watching a bunch of Ken Burns documentary series lately, and I'm struggling to imagine the serious tone of those narrators and historical pieces translating into the future... like when somebody 25-30 years from now tries to make a documentary like that about this time, the actual footage of the president speaking will just look and sound ridiculous. all the speeches of nixon and JFK and johnson seemed professional at least, regardless of your position on vietnam or anything else.
My family's first niece is turning 2 in March. I love her to absolute pieces, and in just a couple years when she starts to comprehend the general idea of a single person being the head of one of the 3 branches of government, and when she starts to learn about all the past presidents, she'll inevitably make her way to Trump. And I swear to god I have absolutely no idea how I'm supposed to handle it. Say what you want about Bush Jr., say what you want about previous administrations, you could at least look at them and debate the pros and cons of what they were able to accomplish, but with Trump I genuinely don't know how we're going to explain it to up and coming generations.
Trump is something so completely off-balance, something so vehemently disrespectful, so sadistic and depressing and unfathomable to government as we know it, but we'll eventually be the ones to answer for our mistakes years down the road as a country. And frankly, I have absolutely no idea how I'll handle it.
You tell her the truth. That good-intentioned people who thought they were smart were manipulated by the bad-faith, hostile acts of a foreign government perpetrated by online disinformation campaigns scientifically developed to trigger certain emotional responses in certain segments of our population. And that it worked. And that this is why she needs to be careful when she uses the Internet, and is why she needs to think for herself and educate herself so she doesn't fall victim to the lies and crimes of others. Teach her that the Internet is a tool just like any other, and if she doesn't use it properly, she could seriously hurt herself. Tell her you wouldn't let her use a chainsaw without proper supervision or training, so you won't let her use the Internet without proper supervision or training.
Tell her that Trump was aberration - a representation of the worst of our country, which was brought to the forefront because another country wanted to tear us down to their level. And tell her that it doesn't represent the majority, not even close. Tell her to look at Trump as an example of why this country was founded, why the protections against the government in our Constitution are so important, and why it's important to participate in our democracy. And tell her that what makes our country great is that, while we may trip up or go the wrong direction at times, we nonetheless have the potential and capacity for great change, and that it's up to her and her generation to make sure this amazing experiment of a country moves closer and closer to fulfilling the aspirations set forth by our founders and ancestors.
Edit: The fact that this comment has brought the propagandists and the brainwashed out of the woodwork is just further proof of the veracity of my statements. Keep em coming, comrades. The more you post, the more you prove me right. This wouldn’t strike such a chord with you if there weren’t truth behind it.
Edit 2: To anyone who thinks blaming Russia is the wrong choice, you severely underestimate how effective their tactics were. These tactics were engineered using the scientific method and a complex understanding of psychology. They effectively figured how to use the Internet for inception purposes, and it worked. To think otherwise is, quite frankly, naive and dangerous. Trump simply would not have won without that effort being so effective. That’s the indisputable fact of the matter. And that’s why blame falls primarily on Russia. Refusing to blame them as the major force behind this is exactly what Putin would want, as well...
Also note how I never said to blame Russia and no one else. Of course racism and classism are huge problems in our society and there are other things to blame. But those existed before 2016 just as much as they did during the election. Fox News was always this way, the GOP was always this way, corporate influence was always this way. Trump would not have won simply because we are a racist, classist society. But what would have stopped him from winning was if Russia didn’t manipulate and brainwash a massive portion of our population. If we’re ever going to come together as Americans, we need to forgive those good people who were brainwashed. And that’s going to take some careful thought on our part to mete out the good-intentioned brainwashed from the bad-intentioned racists and fascists. But that’s not a story to tell your sons and daughters, because that’s not their fight (yet) - that’s still our fight. This was a suggestion on how to heal our country, and it has to start with teaching our children that our country isn’t full of horrible people because it’s not.
I think we need to be prepared for many more Trumps to come.
1) Look at the string of Republican presidential ticket candidates, wholly unqualified, ignorant to the core, and willfully deceitful. 2008 Sarah Palin, 2012: Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain; 2016 Ben Carson, Donald Trump. Each of these candidates spent time at the top of Republican polls (or were on the ticket), despite a litany of bigoted, bizarre, and deceitful statements and positions... Slavery was good for black people! Dropping income tax to 9% for rich people isn't an economic death spiral, it will increase tax revenue!
Re watch a primary debate with Trump and the other Republican candidates from 2016. Watch them all try and one up each other on how big a war crime they want to commit until Trump blows them all out of the water calling for murdering family members of accused terrorists and assassinating world leaders--while Republican voters cheer. He's a step further, not an outlier. Rinse and repeat for immigration, taxes, and climate change.
The problem isn't Trump. There is a reason he's got 80-90% approval among Republican voters. He's one of many, and more are coming down the pipe.
Trump wasn't the result of a Russian disinformation campaign. That may have helped, but the system is sick. He's not the disease, he's s symptom. Whether Russia got onto Facebook and shared some fake news or not, they simply did more of what Americans were already doing: self selecting into information silos and tribes.
The hope is that Trump has been so bad that Americans have the willpower to elect something wholly different and that the Democrats actually have the stomach to go full throttle and put safeguards and reforms in place that protect against this happening again and fix a lot of the issues that cause the population to become like this whole resisting the lure of easy money from corporate America.
That means education need to be fixed, the drug war needs to end, privacy laws and a digital bill of rights, the willpower to stand up to huge conglomerates and push for a middle class and strong jobs with decent salaries for American citizens, tax policy that encourages all of this and discourages a 1% that's growing wealth faster than the middle class, universal healthcare, undoing the Citizens United decision, etc.
It means resisting neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism and letting them die. That means no more Hillary Clintons. That was a huge mistake and miscalculation that should have been obvious when Obama destroyed her in 2008. Running her was very stupid and huge consequences, but if it leads to a progressive awakening, it was worth it. America needs a progressive moment.
Also Reddit knew what was happening in 2016 and chose to ignore it because the head honcho (u/spez) is a Trump supporter who actively and knowingly promoted propaganda.
I'd sooner give my money to Facebook.
Edit: it seems there isn't good evidence that u/spez is a Trump supporter, but still fuck him for knowingly allowing propaganda to flourish on Reddit.
Actually, after a bit more research it seems that there is a conspiracy theory that u/spez is a Trump supporter, but I can't seem to find any solid evidence to back that up.
He is definitely a free-speech nihilist who takes a Zuckerburg-esque approach to content moderation and taking responsibility for the actions of his company, but I can't find any primary sources of him actually using pro-Trump rhetoric.
So my bad for spreading unconfirmed conspiracy theories, but still fuck that guy for the things he has done.
There's another conspiracy theory I enjoyed that posited his motivations for doing that.
By publicly demonstrating that any individual user's comments could be edited by an administrator, he provided a potential legal defense for comments that violated the law.
Bernie lost by 3 million votes. He wouldn't have won that primary regardless of what happened and it's his fault for not having more coherent policies.
I voted for him because I thought he'd be a better leader than Hillary but he was farrrr from a perfect candidate.
He lost the primary thanks to the southern firewall and pure name recognition. Thousands of mostly black voters down there had no idea who Bernie Sanders was, but they all know the name Clinton.
I don't know why you were downvoted, this is the correct answer. Bernie got killed in the south. If he had done well in South Carolina, the Dem primary would have been a entirely different ballgame.
The good thing now, Bernie has the name recognition and black voters know his record and history and his approval ratings are very high. This cycle he has a good chance to take the nomination if he decides to run.
If you look at the numbers the race was over for him after Super Tuesday. No candidate ever came from behind to make up as big of a deficit he had after that and the GAO just widened from there to higher levels.
He would have won the presidency though because he doesn't have a two decade old hate caboose tied to his name. I see comments like yours all the time making an assumption that a loss in the primaries would have been a loss in the general election.
I've never thought W had malice in his heart. The man was simply not as willful as the demon occupying the vice president seat while he was president. W honestly thought he was doing the right thing for others. That said, the man had his moments where I seriously questioned his intelligence. He made the ultimate pawn for Cheney.
There's as much actual science supporting aspartame being dangerous (aside from people with a rare genetic disorder) as there is supporting vaccines being dangerous.
Bush also thought God was speaking to him, he was massively deluded
But I don't make excuses for anyone with no basic sense of morality. If you're listening to Cheney and doing the awful shit he wants, I don't think you deserve much credit.
With that being said, it is important to recognize that it's never just the president. Bush had a whole network of awful neocons in his administration, and in the media supporting him. Many have found their way into Trump's WH.
I think this quote sums up the Bush administration well:
People like you are still living in what we call the reality-based community. You believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you are studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors, and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.
The ones who "hear" him better, are perceived to be better Christians.
One time we had a medical emergency in my congregation during the pastor's sermon.
Pandemonium ensued as the ambulance removed him from the Church, congregants sprinted to the altar to pray for his survival. Tears and wailing, someone concluded he had a heart attack and we all were asked to pray fervently for him to survive the heart attack.
The Pharisees occupying the altar were praying loudly so that we could all hear how much they loved God.
The next week dude was back in Church. He had eaten some bad turkey and had food poisoning.
Nobody was embarrassed! In fact, many claimed their prayer had saved the guy.
I was, um, less than impressed. Even as a 12 year old boy I could see through their bullshit. Only one of many events that lead to becoming atheist.
Christian here. If you’re hearing actual voices, see a doctor. Christians believe God speaks in a “still, small voice” through the Holy Spirit. This “speaking” is more like a peace felt through meditation and prayer. An affirming peace. We also believe God reveals Himself through scripture to us.
So, if you read your Bible, pray, and give room for God to “speak” to you in those times, you can live a fulfilling and peaceful life.
It’s hard to blame the invasion of Iraq on a Bush and his spirituality. There was a lot of bloodlust in the air for like a decade after 9/11. I was 21 when it happened, and I still agreed with invading Iraq at the time. Looking back, I see it was wrong and entirely misguided by anger and bad intelligence.
Let’s not pretend these guys are more than just people. They fail and screw up simple concepts. Democrats and Republicans alike. Donald Trump is an outlier. A self-centred, vainglorious, and hollow little man. His life has been spent in pursuit of money, sex, and power (and he wouldn’t necessarily deny that if it was asked of him in a praising manner). There is little question that he will be remembered as the worst, most divisive, and most morally deficient POTUS in history.
Ridding ourselves of his stink will take a century.
Christians have their own cultural language. When God “speaks” to someone, almost nobody actually is claiming to hear an audible voice or whatever.
The inside joke is that we speak “Christianese”. Dumb joke, but we are somewhat aware that some of our communication works against us.
Keep in mind, Bush is from our parent’s generation and that kind of cultural Christian stuff translates perfectly in that demographic. For the younger crowd, it doesn’t. Hence why the media didn’t have a field day with his statements. They’re old, too.
Reddit is a hard place to be as a Christian. Most of my family is deeply religious, though I have floated to agnostic. It gets to me seeing the range of hate, to condescending remarks, to just dismissive views. Here they're painted as idiotic, sheepish relics and fanatics, at times. That is even within a thread decrying the intolerance and ignorance in our government.
I look at my family of loving, educated, successful people and see this. Glad you were able to give the viewpoint as a Christian without a down votes train.
Here they're painted as idiotic, sheepish relics and fanatics, at times.
I wonder why. Couldn't possibly be that it's a ridiculous, unscientific, unfalsifiable, escapist fantasy borne out of fear and ignorance, could it? Couldn't possibly be because that ridiculous belief and others like it are directly responsible for untold amounts of suffering in the world. No. Absolutely not.
Christian here. If you’re hearing actual voices, see a doctor. Christians believe God speaks in a “still, small voice” through the Holy Spirit. This “speaking” is more like a peace felt through meditation and prayer. An affirming peace. We also believe God reveals Himself through scripture to us.
I'd like to introduce you to this True Scotsman who is a friend of mine.
TL;DR there is no single group called "Christians" and there as such can be no all-encompassing statements about what "they" believe, not in anywhere near as specific a manner as you attempt.
So are you one of these unrepsented different Christians that doesn’t believe in what I wrote?
Or are you just some guy that looks for opportunities to demonstrate the “True Scotsman” bit as much as he/she possibly can?
Because I outlined some pretty basic Christian stuff that transcends denominations. I never said “True Christians”, and I never implied you have to do any of the things listed in order to demonstrate “true Christianity”. I explained a thought pattern recognized by Christians almost universally. The reason I explained it like that was to offer insight into a pattern or thought-process those outside of faith may be unfamiliar with.
So: No True “True Scotsman” user would mess up the “True Scotsman” as much as you just did. Truly.
Believing in your magical sky daddy (for whom there is this much evidence, by the way: zero) really does appear to have frazzled your delicate little logic circuits. See here:
Christians believe God speaks in a “still, small voice” through the Holy Spirit.
This is a direct claim and there are many self-labelled christians who would be a bit bamboozled at the specificity of the "still, small voice". This: a very literal "no true scotsman" as you've made a claim about "Christians" which does not pertain to all who identify as such, by any stretch. I'm going to need that sentence again so let's refer to it as $SuperWellSpicySentence from here on in.
This “speaking” is more like a peace felt through meditation and prayer.
Another direct claim about an experiential and metaphysical thing which is just, I mean, come on my guy. Every single christian experiences this in this way? Insert $SuperWellSpicySentence here.
Claiming to "talk to" or "hear" a made up sky ghost is mental illness in itself.
And let's face it, if this god exists, then the blame for all the deaths in every war, and every murder, etc. Etc lies squarely on the god. You can't blame the president, as he was made to do it by the god. After all, he's supposedly omnipotent, all powerful, and all knowing... so he either caused it to happen, or purposely decided to not stop it from happening. Either way, he's an asshole. Or, he's not as powerful as claimed, and then he's just a liar.
But, you know, he works in mysterious ways... so mysterious that it's almost like he doesn't exist.
The sad part is that history has shown that the easiest way to win an election in America is by simply fooling the American people... And Americans are easily fooled.
This is why Fox News is such huge tool in the Republican political machine. There are tons of people that just watch Fox News and go on Facebook for news. I bet a lot of those Russian dis-info ads on Facebook were tailored to people that already watched Fox News.
Control what people see on TV and the Internet and you can easily fool a huge amount of people. Now you can see why Trump supporters seem so deluded, they've been fed Republican propaganda, presented as fact, for years. Before any election, Fox News will pump out emotionally charged stories to get people to the polls. They know the best way to get people to vote in their favor is to rile them up, so they just manufacture something.
When people are emotionally charged they become less critical of information presented as fact. Fox News has figured out the best way to fool Americans is manufacturing a crisis, real or imaginary, and then saying that it's the Democrats fault and that only the next Republican candidate can save you. It's a tactic that, sadly, has been working for them.
The Democrats need to take off the kid gloves and start treating the Republicans like the con artists they are. Call them out at every opportunity about their greed and hypocrisy. Expose them. Point out every single awful thing they have ever supported and make sure it's all over TV and the Internet; If you want to win a battle, you must be on the battlefield.
This is the only way things are going to change at this point, the Republicans have entrenched themselves and made it clear they are not going to give up an ounce of power without a fight.
lmao I definitely didn't vote Bush or Trump. The damn conclusions people draw when you say anything that suggests you aren't out for blood for the opposite party here. Pathetic.
Ignoring the nuance of people's lives and calling them fools is not an effective way to educate or communicate with them. People get caught up in feeling superior and the divide deepens :(.
Such a naive perspective, as if malice can be gauged by appearances. He committed a warcrime by invading a sovereign nation because - at least in part - "[Saddam] tried to kill [his] dad". Even if you don't subscribe to this presupposition Dubya committed the USA to an unprovoked war and is unquestionably a war criminal. The relative and all-too-apparent maliciousness of his veep does not mitigate that damning fact.
Such a naive perspective, as if malice can be gauged by appearances.
I think the real naivete is concluding that I went used appearance alone to form my opinion. Especially considering I made no mention of appearance, nor did I use the word "seem".
Yes, the responsibility for said war crime rests on him due to the fact that he was the sitting president when it happened. Regardless of his actual hand in it happening, coerced or not, the one in charge always holds that responsibility. Cheney played the situation better and his will was exercised. He convinced Bush that what Bush was doing was the right thing.
I'm not saying Bush is innocent of said crime. I merely believe he had no mens rea. It's just that is irrelevant when we're talking about the grand stage of geo-politics.
I presumed appearances because anyone who was of sufficient age and maturity, and of complete use of their higher faculties, and paid even a little attention to the build-up to that warcrime would not have the impression that Bush was somehow convinced or coerced to do anything. In my experience those who do think that Bush was some kind of pawn are generally swayed by his bumbling, country-boy personna rather than anything that he actually said or did before and during his presidency.
The truth is Bush was a pampered scion of a notoriously sketchy family dating back to at least Preston Bush. If a similar defense for a similar hypothetical warcrime were offered to Bill Clinton, he of exceedingly modest lineage, you might have a point. But Dubya performed exactly as a spoiled, divorced from repercussions son-of-aristocracy was expected to perform.
As for your assertion that mens rea is irrelevant on the grand stage of geo-politics, it's thinking like that that fuels populism and the rise of authoritarian leaders like Trump. I'd suggest you take a refresher on the Nuremberg precedents before you spout off any further about how criminal intent doesn't matter.
The pompous arrogance of "surely anyone of sufficient intelligence would agree with me" does nothing to support an argument. Lose that habit.
As for your mens rea response, you've clearly misinterpreted what I said. What I said was that it doesn't matter if you do or don't have a guilty mind at that level, you're still responsible for what happens when you're in charge. Yay for your intellect.
We don't disagree very much. You need to chill with the snobby bullshit. Throwing words like populism, trump, and nuremberg at me because I'm not calling for blood is laughably ironic.
Selfishness and malice are two different things. My claim is the man was not in it to hurt for the sake of hurting. Every president cares about their legacy. W didn't want to be remembered as the POTUS that just rolled over and let his country get picked on with impunity after 9/11. He didn't want to be remembered as the POTUS that took no action, exercised no proactivity in preventing it from happening again. Also, the entire nation was begging for something to be done after it happened. War support was extremely high. If the overwhelming majority of the nation says "yes, go to war", what is our representative supposed to do? Tell us to go fuck ourselves? With Cheney whispering all this in his ear, he absolutely thought what he was doing was right, selfish or not.
A likely response is that his family benefited tremendously from the policy that was implemented after and therefore that proves malice. I really don't see how it proves that. His family took advantage, yes. He, the person, the pawn, still had the weight of the world bearing down on him. Even if he had absolutely nothing to gain personally, and mind you he personally gained much less than the rest of the vultures taking advantage (please dont try to spin this like I'm saying he gained nothing), he'd still have chosen action. Chosen war. One could argue that the nation chose for him anyway. That is not malice. Argue shortsightedness. Argue incompetence. Argue that he's a tramp. But malice? Evil? You're reaching. Likely because of emotion.
I'm not saying he did the right thing after all, what with my 20/20 hindsight vision. But I do believe any "benevolent" sitting president would fuck up their response to a completely unprecedented situation that 9/11 put us in. No human can know the perfect response or action. Except you, maybe.
If the overwhelming majority of the nation says "yes, go to war", what is our representative supposed to do? Tell us to go fuck ourselves?
YES! Politicians are supposed to do what's best for the country, not mindlessly parrot the mood of the moment.
This is what's wrong with politics today (not just in the USA, everywhere). It used to be that politicians had an opinion and a vision of where to take a country, and if you agreed with that vision you would vote for them.
Now they'll just rehash whatever the majority thinks, however unsavory their opinions, because then the majority will vote for them. Integrity be damned, I want votes!
If you don't get votes, how can you continue to do what is right if the nation wants you to do something else? I'm starting to sympathize with Palpatine a bit as I write this.
So wait - you’re saying in a democracy the job of our elected representatives is to tell their constituency to fuck off when they feel strongly about an issue?
Presumably the populace agreed with their viewpoints when they were elected. I would expect them to hold on to those viewpoints once they are in government and not bend over without resistance when a different mood grabs the public. Principles that can be thrown overboard just to appease voters are not worth having.
That's who Bush is. If you don't see anything wrong it's not snobbery on my part to say you're absolutely and completely wrong.
Is it an emotional response to see someone so divorced from reality and willfully, blithely ignorant to the consequences of his willful, premeditated, and utterly criminal actions as Bush was before, during, and still is? You're goddamn right I'm emotional. Similarly it's going to be an emotional response to anyone who wishes to whitewash Bush's crimes, or his manifest character deficiencies. Telling me that I'm just some unserious emotional-type, like that wasn't the go-to dismissive put-down by all the blinkered idiots during the run-up to the war, is really just icing on the cake now. You're telling me to fuck off? It's me and countless others like me who were right during the run-up to the war, and continue to be right to this day. WE are the ones who should be telling others to fuck right off. So please, after you if you don't mind.
Dear Messieurs Biernini and Onfire. Thank you both for a thoroughly enjoyable exchange. Well written, passionate, thoughtful and intelligent discourse from both of you. I assume from the content that you are both Americans and I find it reassuring. There may be hope for you fuckers yet; you and your sad, divided, and heavily propagandized union.
Not even a little bit on the same side. There's evidence and the rule of law, and there's appearances and gut feelings. I'm arguing the former, my adversary the latter. Appearances and gut feelings are what made Trump president, with a significant assist from Putin. If Putin is winning it's because people choose to believe their fictions (like Bush's lack of maliciousness) over reality (Bush is a war criminal, ergo malicious).
I recently visited the LBJ museum and was struck by this quote of his they had on a wall: “A President's hardest task is not to do what is right, but to know what is right.”
Having lived and seen through what was the greatest con-job to perpetrate one of the greatest crimes against the peace since WWII you'll pardon me if I come off a bit superior to those who still choose to wallow in ignorance about it all.
I’m not saying Iraq was justified or in any way a good idea, but is a country ruled by an oppressive dictator really a “sovereign nation” in the full sense of the word?
As normal as you can be for a third generation Skull and Bones member/politician and the great grandson of the guy that took over a company for one of the Rockafellers. Might as well say Louis XVI was just a normalish but goofy guy
I mean, yall act like he did it alone. You forget that congress voted on that shit, including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, and Dianne Feinstein. Seems like the only big name these days that didn't vote for it was Bernie Sanders.
For clarity, I'm pretty left leaning, but we can't ignore our own complicity. And to blame only the Republicans and Bush seems wrong when many of the Democrat "power players" voted for the war too.
And in the Senate, the Democrats had the majority. They could have stopped it.
Yeah I recognize that. But It seems like they voted without all the information Bush had. Maybe I just don't want to believe that many people supported such an infamous moment in US history
Yes, they voted not only with insufficient information, but with patently wrong information that was created from thin air to influence theirs and the public's perception. i.e. yellowcake wmds
Yeah I hear you man, I lived through that bullshit, which is why it annoys me when people push all the blame onto one side. Fuck tons of people were in favor and supportive of that shit, from both sides of the aisle, at least at the start. Politicians and normal Americans alike.
Unfortunately the lesson hasn't been to be more careful or act more responsibly, it's been to shift blame. We don't own up to our mistakes, we explain how our mistakes are someone elses fault. 2019 America is still living with that.
The one good thing about Trump is that we're all talking about politics so much more, I just wish people would drop the "label identity" politics.
did you live through it? because over 100,000 iraqi civilians didn't even live through the first few weeks.
no blame shifting needed. this was bush and his administration's war and only revisionists would ever say otherwise. they falsified evidence and lied to the american people and congress to invade. so please spare me your arguments about who voted in favor of it. they even outed a cia agent in pursuit of this war.
and as far as acting more responsibly and being more careful, that's the exact opposite of what republican administrations have done for 25 years.
Oh I see you missed basic government in school. Here's "Ben's Guide to the Government", brought to you by the U.S. Government.
Now, only Congress has the ability and responsibility to "Declare War". Luckily for us, "revisionists" have a hard time changing history in the U.S. and we have clear records to show that the Democratic Party controlled the Senate at this time, and that the majority voted for the war.
Now it's Congress's job to act as a check on the Presidency, and not just do whatever the President says. They had plenty of information on hand, as well as access to the military, CIA and other intelligence networks.
So our Democratic Senate chose not to do their due diligence and instead voted to authorize military action in Iraq.
done for 25 years.
25 years ago Bill Clinton was in office, and he held the office until 18 years ago. Bush was the only real Republic administration in a 25 year span. Trump is a Republican now, but he's changed his affiliation 5 times in 30 years.
In a 2004 interview, Trump told CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat," explaining: "It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans. Now, it shouldn't be that way. But if you go back, I mean it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats [...] But certainly we had some very good economies under Democrats, as well as Republicans. But we've had some pretty bad disaster under the Republicans."[24] In a July 2015 interview, Trump said that he has a broad range of political positions and that "I identify with some things as a Democrat."
Are you really going to be a pedant about this? You should be aware by now that the left-right spectrum is contextual with no clear definition. What is left to one country can be right to another.
So you are going to be a pedant about this. Ok then.
The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties, from equality on the left to social hierarchy on the right. Left-wing politics and right-wing politics are often presented as opposed, although a particular individual or group may take a left-wing stance on one matter and a right-wing stance on another; and some stances may overlap and be considered either left- or right-wing depending on the ideology.[1] In France, where the terms originated, the Left has been called 'the party of movement' and the Right 'the party of order'.[2][3][4][5] The intermediate stance is called centrism and a person with such a position is a moderate or centrist.
There are several problems with the the left-to-right spectrum. One is that the uses and definitions of the terms vary considerably between different cultures and contexts, since they are dependent on the political and economic status quo. For example, in authoritarian countries such as the USSR or China and even in democratic countries such as Hungary, hard-liners have sometimes been described as "conservatives," while proponents of the free market were regarded as progressive reformers, essentially the opposite of how the left and right wings of a spectrum would be labelled in the United States.
It is very likely that most Europeans rely on the European definitions of right and left, labor and capitalist, and liberal and conservative when they read about the politics in the United States; and Americans rely on their definitions when trying to understand European politics. The problem is that these terms, for the most part, have completely different meanings on the opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean.
And then, pedantry aside, let's debunk your actual point that "these people aren't leftists".
Clinton's 2015 Crowdpac rating was −6.4 on a left-right scale, where −10 is the most liberal and 10 is the most conservative.[12] The score is an aggregate of primarily campaign contributions but also votes and speeches.[12] This represents a slight rightward shift from her 2008 rating of −6.9.[12]
Clinton is rated a "Hard-Core Liberal" according to the OnTheIssues.org scale, which is based on her public statements on social and economic issues.[13] According to FiveThirtyEight's review of this and other analyses, "Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate",[14] slightly more liberal than Barack Obama, "as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders".[14] A New York Times analysis found that Clinton and Bernie Sanders voted the same 93 percent of the time in the two years they shared in the Senate (2007–2009), but also noted key areas of disagreement which possibly reflected "political calculations by Mrs. Clinton, who was preparing for a presidential run in 2008"[15]
Clinton "was the 11th most liberal member of the Senate" according to DW-NOMINATE, a multidimensional scaling method based on legislative votes.[16]
So it would seem your personal bias has skewed your outlook on the left-right scale, which proves my exact point, that it's all contextual. Someone who isn't as leftist to you is still leftist to many others.
The difference is also extremely relevant to the point you were trying to make, since leftists didn't support the war.
Is this a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, really? No true leftist would support the war!
You literally pasted something that describes Clinton as a "Hard-Core Liberal" in your defense of Clinton being a leftist despite supporting a resource war in the Middle East.
How are you so bad at this?
Instead of actively seeking out wikipedia articles to misinterpret, may I recommend not using words until you know what they mean?
.....aaaafter Hussein repeatedly turned away UN nuclear weapons inspectors which was a violation of the '91 cease fire agreement. Why do people always forget this?
Did you forget that there were UN inspectors working in Iraq who were forced out by the 2003 invasion?
Iraq invited weapons inspectors back in in late 2002. In January 2003, UN inspectors said that they had found no weapons and no active program.
Saddam was deceitful, and he did WISH he still had WMD.
But US intelligence knew before and after the invasion that the whole reason Iraq wanted WMD in the first place was to counter Iran, not to use them against America.
Iraq invited weapons inspectors back in in late 2002. In January 2003, UN inspectors said that they had found no weapons and no active program.
But why didn't he just let them in in the first place? It looked to me that he had something to hide, and once that was no longer the case, he let them back in.
Saddam did have something to hide. Weakness. After the invasion, the US got archival tapes of Saddam's classified conversations. They show a tinpot dictator in a bad position scrambling to keep up appearances.
We should have learned from experience that some adversaries toy with us out of weakness, not strength. In the 1950s, the Soviets knew they lagged far behind the United States in military and economic power. Fearful that Washington would exploit any perceived weakness, the Kremlin—especially its leader, Nikita Khrushchev—systematically lied to exaggerate Soviet military power. At an air show in 1955, the Soviet air force flew a handful of long-range bombers in several circles over Western defense attaches to create the image of a huge force. During the Suez Crisis of 1956, Moscow threatened to launch nuclear missiles at Paris and London if they did not stop their invasion of Egypt. The Soviets did not have any deployed intermediate-range missiles at the time. In 1958 and ‘59 Khrushchev asserted that the Soviet Union was producing intercontinental ballistic missiles “like sausages.” In fact, the first two such Soviet missiles weren’t in place until early 1960. In the end, this strategy backfired for Khrushchev. His scare tactics only spurred the United States to build more bombers and missiles.
Saddam’s tapes show the same self-defeating logic at work in Baghdad. By the mid-1990s, Saddam hadn’t any WMD capabilities to speak of; still, Iraq continued to harass and lie to U.N. weapons inspectors. Saddam wanted international sanctions to end and may have hoped to jump-start his WMD programs once they had, but in the meantime he just didn’t want the world to know how weak he was.
Like I said, he was deceitful, and US intelligence knew it. They also knew he was unlikely to have any kind of an arsenal that could threaten the U.S., and even less likely to want to provoke the most powerful nation in the world.
That was what Brent Scowcroft, George H.W. Bush's national security advisor, said before the invasion:
there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed, Saddam’s goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them. He is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes and leave Baghdad as the return address. ....Saddam is a familiar dictatorial aggressor, with traditional goals for his aggression. There is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression.
He's not stupid, he attended the Phillips Academy then graduated from Yale and later Harvard. The folksy speech habits and texan drawl are an affection to drum up votes (note how his siblings speak, they grew up in the exact same areas). Don't get me wrong, Cheney is a gigantic asshole, but his purpose was to act as a political lightning rod for George. George knew exactly what he was doing.
Yeah. If you go back and look at his old debates, you clearly see that he didn't come across as the idiot he later would more portray himself as. Either it was a conscious choice, or he suffered a secret stroke.
Um, what? Bush Jr was more than happy to invade other countries and then give out no-bid contracts to companies owned or run by his friends. Millions of people died because of it. Bush sent people to Gitmo.
Saying W was a pawn really downplays the fact that he is the prodigal son of the most powerful dynasty in american history, not some ‘aww shucks I’m doing my best’ rancher.
Cheney wasn’t ‘controlling’ him. Bush was the lazy frat boy that got an executive job at his Dad’s company, and Cheney was the middle manager running the department for him and letting him smile and point charts at the quarterly board meetings.
His family owned the slave ships and have been pieces of shit ever since.
So hang his fathers. I'm sure alot of us have an ancestor or 2 that whipped a slave more than once. Guess that means we can conclude ourselves evil now for something that happened before we were born.
The man was book smart (kinda). His political success was realized through the potency of his name and or course whatever influence you believe his brother governor had over the florida votes(which, assuming that's what happened, would have happened whether W ordered it or not. Jeb and HW wanted their family in the white house). He's responsible for what his administration did, sure. I just don't think it's appropriate to denounce him as evil. Incompetent or naive are better descriptions.
Bush is a fucking war criminal who slaughterd a million innocent iraqis over fake WMDs. Bush is not a fucking innocent mislead child he was the president. He knew exactly what he was doing. Can't bilieve you are making excuses for a mass murderer.
Why wouldn't you? All the resulting violence was a direct cause of the US destroying Iraq. If you burn my house down and I die of cold. You sill killed me.
"On Friday, 14 September 2007, ORB International, an independent polling agency located in London, published estimates of the total war casualties in Iraq since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.[1] At over 1.2 million deaths (1,220,580), this estimate is the highest number published so far. From the poll margin of error of +/-2.5% ORB calculated a range of 733,158 to 1,446,063 deaths. " = First Paragraph
Because the sectarian violence was something they perpetrated? It's not the cold tgat killed people. It's bullets and car bombs. It's not like they had no choice but to kill people not in the same religious sect as themselves.
Second, independent polling agencies like the one you posted dont count bodies. Iraq Body Count, U.N. and other organizations are way, way lower. When you have a "calculated range" of 700k to 1.2million, you're not dealing with anything remotely scientific.
I fail to see what I've said that constitutes an "excuse". I've said multiple times in this conversation that he's responsible for what happened when he's in charge.
I'm on your side but no he didn't order a million civilians to be killed, that's ridiculous. They died indirectly from infrastructure being destroyed and from fleeing cities. Presenting lies as truth hardens the opposition.
Yeah, but he was supposed to be a leader. Whether he intended to or not, his actions or lack thereof were ill advised, so let's not sugar coat it either and forget what happened.
Bush light went after Saddam for terrible reasons based on false justifications. WMD's aside, he had a rather personal bone to pick with a man that "tried to kill his dad one time". We are destined to repeat this cycle of war when figures like Bush rise to power.
Whatever harm Bush Sr caused after pulling out of the Gulf and leaving insurgents he had encouraged to rise up against Saddam to his mercy, Bush light's efforts in Iraq were substantially more costly. I don't know what the metrics are in terms of casualties for the Iraq war, the impact on Iraqi civilians, the soldiers that came home with various forms of psychological and physical trauma, but it simply doesn't compare to Dad's. Bush Sr had mere hundreds of US casualties in Kuwait compared to tens of thousands of Iraqi's.
When you're comparing shades of grey, sure, Bush looks pretty good in comparison to Cheney's black, but even Cheney showed humanism regarding his daughter's sexuality. Anyways, Bush had his own unique blend of malice and ignorance and pride, complete with daddy-issues of his own.
Perhaps the US would have been better off with Gore. Perhaps in a parallel universe we are bounds ahead in tackling the true "interNational Emergency", our disastrous impact on the environment, our perpetual engagement in global conflicts, our refusal to accept we are in dire need of a renewed ethos and sense of human meaning and purpose as religions around the world crumble.
But nope. Here we are in 2018 and a fucking reality TV star is in power, and is holding the government hostage for a asinine desire to invest billions of dollars into "medieval technology".
Bush was not an idiot, he played the part to appeal to his voters, he was a villain in every sense of the word. As much as Trump is a cancer, Bush did way more damage to the world with his wars and the aftermath we're still dealing with. Let's not revise history because of Trump.
You really think he thought he was doing right by the people of New Orleans’ 9th Ward? Katrina showed us all what a complete lack of empathy Bush has for anyone that doesn’t share his privilege. Before running for President, W executed more people than any previous governor of Texas - and he was proud of that. I read an interview with him back in 98, where he made a thinly-veiled threat at the (British) journalist that wa along the lines of “you better be nice. We have ways of dealing with people like that in Texas”. I don’t care if it was Cheney who dreamt up the policies, Bush was a terrible president - a trust-fund kid who’d fucked up almost every business enterprise he’d attempted before getting into politics. He didn’t care whether he was doing the right thing for anyone but himself and his dad’s friends. I’m sure he loves that everyone now just blames Cheney and Rumsfeld for all that was wrong with his disastrous presidency.
That man has always been an asshole.
This whitewashing war criminals shit is so gross. He invaded a sovereign country with the scantest justification and was in command as war crimes were committed. Don't let him off the hook.
Stop trying to whitewash W. He was a war criminal, and he's way smarter than anyone gives him credit for. Michelle Obama can gtfo with her stupid piece of candy.
I agree with you and actually liked him. He looked to advisors because he was willing to admit that he didn't know everything. Unfortunately, they all seemed to be horrible. However, I was in highschool at the time, so that might have been rose colored glasses.
W also had one of the most unexpected and terrible events this nation has seen happen in his first year as president. Post 9/11 his presidency was a series of bad reactionary policy largely driven by stalwart cold war Hawks in his administration. Despite this it is obvious he is a decent man and I say that as someone who voted against him twice.
To his credit he actually suggested a fairly reasonable solution to illegal immigrants before Congress shot it down. Paths to citizenship and guest worker programs and all of that. Too bad it never got implemented.
Worse still, they can now see what they can get away with; how much lying and deception people will stomach. He's still in office and he still has a lot of support. Nobody in power is thinking "it seems to have upset a number of people, so let's reel it back next time". The bar has shifted so much higher that any drop back to candidates that appear more respectful, mature and less deceitful will feel like a win to the people. Whereas in reality, the next wave will still be worse than where we were before Trump actually got in. It's the boiling frog analogy being played out on the American people in real life.
Their ideas are becoming less popular though. Trump may signify the capitulation of the Republican push especially if he and other Republicans are found guilty of colluding with Russia, which is looking more and more likely.
What does popularity matter when you can still control the government while losing the popular votes? We see this across the country in state and national elections.
This is a slippery slope fallacy and there's evidence to suggest that it's probably not true.
For starters, the vast majority of voters who like that batch of politicians are older people who will all be dead in 20-30 years.
Secondly, global warming efforts have been kicking up across the world at quickening rates despite trumps efforts. So, even if we get another trump it's debatable how much damage he can do.
Third, maybe 90% of republicans liked trump at first, but his ratings have dipped across the board since he got elected. And, it's still a good possibility that he will be impeached, which will smear the entire party.
Granted, nobody can tell the future, but I hope we move to a multi party system after the Republican party falls into shambles with age and absurdity.
We might get a few more quack job presidents but I doubt this will be a regular thing.
The problem wasn't Trump. The problem was never trump.
The problem was that the asshat who decided to undervalue and undersell trump as a manageable asset has not been caught and publically crucified.
Because, from a german perspective here, trump does something no democrat has a counter to. He treats politics like business.... and it seems to work.
Want an example? When therte were the first hints of trump pulling troops back, I knew it was for the wall. Even a small number. All a test balloon for the wall.
The way it is going? Let mer present a gameplan.
Trump says there are some bad hombres amongst the crowd. A truthism since bush made american politics run fear based, and obama did jack shit to remove the fear standard. Americans are so dulled to alert levbel red or orange, because they have seen it so often. It has been used too often, too quickly, and nobody said no, because it was convenient.
The democrats can't asrgue with that, so instead of dropping the equally true response "You would get the same number of rapists drugdealers and murderers, if you compared 100 randomly chosen americans", they went with, heh, look at this idiot, there are NONE of these in there. At this point, the democrats have lost, because the only thing he now has to do is find some.If you happen to klnow the guy who came up with that standpoint, call hiom out, he is most likely the person who has gift wrapped Trump 4 more yxears by getting the democrats to swallow that. Introduce a brick to his fingers, and stomp on them a couple of times, so he can never write. NOW, we enter the future.
Trump gets his wall. this is immutable, because he held the generalist viewpoint. And america has run for too long on the fear of the other to suddenly change that. Democrats should be beaten korean style for assuming trump would not get that. Trump, in his business mind, sees a slogan, not an immutable political law. a law is immutable, a slogan can be repurposed. He knows, that the fear of the other, that 8 years of obamas reign of terror have wrought, can be repurposed, if you give them a lesser target. How about immigration?
Note how at this point, Every single one of you screams out, with their pussy hats waving in the air, how the wall does not work, and it does not solve immigration. The trick is, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO; because pablo running with his family in a brisk jog over the border was never the problem. How? Read on.
The wall gets built, and trump does something strange. He reallocates guard from the checkpoints away, and clusters them in certain areas of the wall. The democrats will go, holy shit, he is retarded, he has lost his damn sense, Drumpf..... Wait for the punchline, and see if yopu are still laughing. Because trump is getting numbers. And the same scientific institutes that worked for you questioning 100 "randomly chosen" americans can take the numbers that trump gets, and make them work for him. And this is where the first democrats see the wind changing. because the numbers you simply get when you give those wall and border people the ressources they need.... amazing. Remember, don't scream now, it never was about paco, after all, even trump loves his illegal immigrants.... the issue was about the other. Ther dangerous other, the other thjat we can't trust, whom we can't even negotiate with..... That other that was the explanation for so much obama strategy, you can't go kill him off, can't even touch him, without dismanteling ther fearbased obama legacy. THAT was the goal. And your reluctance to talk sense and make a measured point, and your insistancve to copy clickbait points from your whore friends in the clickbased oligarchjy media just giftwrapped and paied wholesale for this.
Because now trump sits there, smirking, on a pile of 400 illegals with cartell connections, some of whom had a shootout, and he will show america what the democrats had been hiding. There will be border patroll going throughj, and just talking how democrats reduced their funding, and how now, they don't even know where to start,..... I mean, they have now a fuinctioning wall, and all, but too little people to man it..... And the democrats can't say shit about it. Grabbed by the collective cunt, they will be speechless, because that is precisely not what their friends in the media had taught them. Suddenly, he has border patroll on his side.
But he is not finished. he will go off, and go, my fellow americans, as the last legacy of the obama years, we wage the senseless wars in the middle east. When a simple increase in funding, that the democrasts could not kill immediatelly, we caught this many more criminals. Dangerous hombres. I have therefore decided to retreat the troops from their deployments overseas in the various wars of terror, that my predescessor started, and since this is an emergency, work against the terror that is flowing over our border with mexico. Wellcome home, guys, I know this isn't afghanistan or syria, but starbucks should be tons better. The military budget, thanks to this, will be reduced by rougly half, and the country will be in the best shape possible. The troops will now, instead opf halfway across the world, be guarding american soil against the same nebulous enemy. But this enemy is at least grippable, and its name is cartells.
And you think I had forgot paco? Paco who only wants to have his family over in america? Paco gets rediscovered, the same way germans get rediscovered after ww2. The first country the nazis invaded was germany. We will have the war against the cartells trying to murder american citizens as much closer to reality then you want. Because the mexicans will be all for that, and will openly welcome any action against the cartells. Trump at this point has done a complete victory, so he can be gentle on paco. paco is the real victim here. So, he accepts paco, and his family too, speeding up the process for them to become legal immigrants from 10 to 2 years, or something. Plus, the federal aid and such that was supposed to go to the middle east is way better spent helping mexico, because the best defense is a stronmg ally. Isn't that what the democrats allways wanted?
The big rig will be, that if the democrats protest against making the cartells an enemy in the war on terror, and putting al quaida on the backburner, the only thing needed to puiblically crucify and / or lynch democrats is a simple tweet wondering out loud, who leaned out of the window and made sanctuary cities possible, knowing fullö well they would be used by terrorist cartell members. Who knew full well that defunding the border security would lead to miore terrorists coming in the soft underbelly of america? Who was against his election, because "it would not sit well with the mexicans", and did everything you could to force him to not clamp down on the border? Because you masy be screaming, you may be shouting, but the law of large numbers dictates, one of your guys, some time, took money from cartell associated things. Maybe They have the Cartells on tape, bragging about how they have this and that democrat in theior pocket, and that's that. IF you get caught cooperating with or having cooperated with cartells, even if it was to get more refugees out, guess what? AUMF, NSA, immunity is gone, and you go off to guantanamo bay, to explain to bubba under severely enhanced interrogation who exactly paid you how much to commit high treason and sell out the security of your own country. Oh, don't worry, but 2-3 arrests inmto, the investigation will mysteriously stall, and honestly, who wants to ipen up that investigation, I mean, we will release mopnthly reports that top forces of the democrats were caught red handed taking money from the cartells, as insiders say, but sadly, the investigations results will not be published yet, unless the democrats risk a fat lip.
End result? Stronger ties with mexico, but still a leash on them because of the pure number of mexican accademics, doctors and such, that fled to america. You want them to move back? Well, we will bill you for the taxces, for public utilities, ect, that they have used up while they lodged with us. War against terror now only defending the home zone, and strengthening the feeling of disillusioned soldiers who were told they were defending americas freedom in countries halfway around the world they could barely pronounce. Now, they defend america in americas backyard against the evil terrorists of the cartells. The democrats? Castrated, and very quiet, else people remember that one embarrassing incident where they found out that one highranking democrat up in the chain took money from terrorists, and the investigation results could be handed in. Paco and his family? Oh, they are still trying, but now they are on a two year waiting list. wuith extradited process. The members of the caravasn however? Lets just say that it is impossible that they have not paid of cartells, so.... Yea.... we gonna need special rendition against all members of the caravan because of suspected terrorist connections, and for state security. Who's laughing now, bitches?
If you debate him on numbers, he will pull up numbers. If you argue his numbers are wrong, he will show you his numbers, and you won't be able to debate them.
All it takers to beat him, from the perspective of this thoroughly disillusioned german, is to admit that maybe, he had a point, and maybe, this point needs to be talked over.
step 1: Anyone who paints trump as incompetent, deranged, or full of personal problems, and who is unwilling to back his claims up, or who is willing to cooperate with the media who do not back their claims up, fire their asses, and disassociate yourselves from them as fast as possible. No matter how well you like them, they can survive a while on their own. Conquering Trump is the bigger problem. If people are unwilling to back the most qualified candidate to conquer trump, refuse to back them. If people resist, let them have accidents weightlifting, or swimming, for all I care. Just make sure nothing those people do or say will come back at you. Those people are directly responsible for trumps rise top power, and should not be let anywhere near a mike while they have anything on them that associates yourself with them.
Step 2: Any time someone suggests a strategy, that essentially forces trump to do something, it goes straight into the playbook of accepted. This is a huge part of his bag of tricks. If you use trick A against him, you no longer can complain if he uses trick A right back at you. Or, you look like a hypocrite, whioch is entirely more dangerous, because it gives trump the role of "defender against deranged hypocrites who want rules for me that they don't have to abide by. " And he is masterfull at using that. THus, dump your "designated candidates", for one season. Give them sidelined jobs, unimportant positions, funnel a bit of that money you were using on special projects to them. Just make it sure that if they even show up close to that election campaign , a cadre of young bernie fans will work them over with baseball bats, no matter if they are a noname, noodlehair mac saudi, or hillary clinton herself. They are barred from even appearing on the playing field till the first states are a week away from actually voting. Instead, what I want to see on the democrat side is 128 new presidential runs. Two from every state, and if you can't find two, the us overseas protectorates get the leftovers. Tournament style. back off the smokey backroom method of having designated candidates. Let them stand by themselves. Have every weekend some debate. One against one, with new topics. Let america vote whom it wants to back. Also, if there is even a hint of count manipulation, redo the debate, in internet livestream. If there is a shadow of a doubt that your nominee is a plant by the elites, you have already lost. IF he or she is litterally the will of the people, who the fuck can say anything against that?
Step 3: Remove every single conspiracy theorist from your platform, and fill the vacant spots with people with ideas. IF you know, that mueller can bring the whole card house down, when he releases, because your friends in the media have told you..... take their word for it, and focus on your ideas. Have actual breadth of vision. Try out new shit. Have a candidate who argues for mandatory social justice courses for state legislators. The most damaging thing the democrats could possibly do is go out into the electoral season with Trump Derangement Syndrome, and only that, on all their talking cards. You will get ripped to shreds. Instead, use it for passions. Use it for the new generation of lawmakers. Orcasio Cortez is good, but where is the fucking rest? Only David "So there I was, minding my own business.." Hogg shows up? Get together, and if neccessary do the same thing as when looking for a designated driver. You take everyone who can drive aside, send the guys with busted cars back, the guys with a police record back, the guys who plan to get too wasted, ect.... Only with you, you take every democrat with aspirations, you test him on having actual ideas, actual new stuff, actual standing with his constituents, and then with the ones a few districts over..... gameify it, make it wild and new, let traditional enemy states face off against each other, but try something new. If neccessary, bribe them to stand for pres. You need as many wildly varying candidates as possible.
The worst thing, the absolute worst, is that you continue as usual. Same sad faces, same sad scandals, same helpless flailing of "I am persecuted, i AM the good guy, Go get him, waaaa. ". What you want is not adult manbabies, what you want is fighters. No more protectorism, no more ancient political dynasty, everybody starts at the bottom. In order to rule it out that someone, even the democrat council of backroom smokers, interferes, make it random, and as wide as possible. Believe firmly in the idea, that democracy is like evolution, the survival of the best idea. Use your considerable might to squash the people who play dirty to gloss over their lack of new ideas. Jump on them, and have mobs beat them through the streets, tarred and feathered. What you get if you keep to that regimen is a fighter , someone that has survived a vicious circle, and who has found broad acceptance. In order to make it fair, the top 4 spots get invited to the DNC debates for the main round of americas next nominee. And I guarantee you, this nominee will beat Trump standing up, sitting down, and for good measure, having a nap in the next room.
What you want is a fighter, not some sort of decrepit long pork substitute, that thinks he deserves the nomination because of his name, and his connection. Instead, base it on new and improved ideas. Actually ask, and don't take the word of the political experts sponsored by the media oligarchy as gold. You want to trust experts? Simple, grab their rating in 2016. How late were they able to prognose a Trump win? If they only managed after the election, fire them, and don't pay them. Listen to the experts, even if they are weird ones, that managed to predict 2016. Learn from your mistakes. Actually see this as an election you have to fight all the way, inch for inch, every single bit.
If you start into this with 4 older legacy democrats, and occasio cortez, you have lost before you opened your mouth.
If you actually set democracy, not legacy first, if you set broad sweeping participation first, and most importantly if you only deal blows that you yourself would be comfortable taking, and for the rest of it, focus on ideas, you have it made. Because this is when the democrats won. Whern america wanted to be better then it was. Not because it was easy, but because it was hard. Because it was a challenge. The republicans won when america needed a win. When it hung by a silken strand, and all options were open, but fear was in the air, it was a clear win for the republicans.
What you need is to take fear out. Focus on being better then you were. actually have a few heads rolling.
IF you accept any democratic candidate that tries to put fear back on the table, and at the same time gets the brilliant idea to publically underestimate and/or undervalue trump, just walk over to the republicans, and ask if they want their four more years giftwrapped. You don't even need to run, they allready won the election.
It's kind of telling, really, that this is, when you get down to it, a big ol' fantasy where the democrats finally stop laughing at Trump, where they are the ones who don't take the statistics seriously, where they are the ones under ongoing investigations of corruption, where the democrats looks stupid and foolish and Trump and the Republicans look smart and save the day.
Hey, I am a german with no horse in the race. I just watch american politics with the intensity of a sports better. I am what one of your greatest writers called a political addict.
You want my personal opinion?
Look at the fact that all their investigation, all their scandals, all their "now we have him" moments have missfired, and have not gotten him out yet. I mean, we are talking about the same people who got President Clinton down, because he got a blowjob in the oval office. If they had anything that would stick, and they had any kind of certainty, they would bring it as soon as possible, and force the republicans with their back to the cliff to take two steps back. We are talking about the worlds largest propaganda machine, aimed at the throat of ONE man.
One man who is, if we believe the media, a retard of the biggest category. Who has self admitted character faults on top of character faults. Who is, according to the press , in the pocket of russia, so far that only stunning and brave democrats can expose him.
And you can't topple that?
THAT is shamefull. THAT is what I look at, and I am, ready to believe this like I am ready to believe that wrestling is not entirely scripted.
In my personal fantasy? Have Trump for the Republicans, Clinton for the Democrats, and Sanders for an independant ticket with socialistic overtones. THAT would be a good race to bet on, because that would be an actual fight.
Most likely? The democrats are going to laugh at trump, because of the twitter pressure, they will laugh past him actually getting the sucesses under his belt that they hounded him with in 2016 for "not having political experience", they will act like it is 2016, and they will catapult Trump in his four more years, because they refuse to believe anything has changed. And instead of believing in "May the best idea win, lets just get Trump away from the window", we will get the democrats eliminating all competition, and then complain that people still donm't vote for them.
Have fucking ideas, even if they are ideas like occasio cortez going "tax the super rich 70 %".
Have David Hogg run for the democratic ticket.
Have the weed democrats argue for general legalisation of recreational weed.
Make way for a new generation.
The strong point of the democrats has allwas been that they had the long lasting solutions, the betterment of society, because they were better. The democrats were good candidates to bet on when america was well fed, content, and wanted to see itself better.
The republican strongpoint was fear, because as soon as fear was introduced, they were unbeatable.
If you act like a retard, because "The republicans are doing it too", don't be surprised when they beat you with experience.
All that will do to me, is that I will lose an euro or three because I hoped that the democrats would get their asses in line, see what has worked against Trump, and what hasn't, and react accordingly.
1.1k
u/BreezyWrigley Jan 09 '19
i've been watching a bunch of Ken Burns documentary series lately, and I'm struggling to imagine the serious tone of those narrators and historical pieces translating into the future... like when somebody 25-30 years from now tries to make a documentary like that about this time, the actual footage of the president speaking will just look and sound ridiculous. all the speeches of nixon and JFK and johnson seemed professional at least, regardless of your position on vietnam or anything else.