Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[entropy]

Talent.. Agree with your thoughts on Trump's appeal. I also read a good article from a left magazine where one of their reporters was in the Midwest and decided to interview republicans. One of the consistent themes was the lack of trust in DC and corruption. Trump was liked because he was an outsider and he couldn't be bought.

Why we went radical right with his comments about Muslims I don't know.... Very silly and if he was serious about being president, he lost it. It's almost like he wants the dems to win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[iam416]

I'm not so sure his comments on blocking immigration "until we figure shit out" are fatal. So, on one hand there's Trump with his remarks. On the other hand there's the Ds who do all they can do to tiptoe around the issue of islamic terrorism.

Look, we all agree that there's plenty of good muslims and a few jihadist assholes. The question is how you target your message and what plays best with the electorate. Is it better to target the jihadist assholes and catch some good folks as collateral damage? Or is it better to defend the good muslims and risk getting another jihadist attack? The peace-time American sentiment is obviously the latter, but the former gains traction if there's a felt threat amongst the electorate. Another attack or two and we'll be squarely in on the Trump side of things.

The Ds are one more domestic attack from being in a world of trouble. Their "blame the guns" response is, IMO, viewed by the majority of Americans as feckless whistling past the graveyard. And they'll sure as shit trot out the same lines if it happens again all the while warning against the high risk of "islamophobia". That shit won't play.

[The Oracle]

Like most things(all things), there's more than one reason or way to fix things. "Blaming the guns" is a A reason, not the reason. That's what bugs me so fucking crazy about politics and why I tend to make fun of it rather than take it seriously, if both sides would actually put their precious feelings aside and work together to fix shit, it would be worth diving into a little bit more.

[hack]

OP doesn't know much about horses, but probably agrees with you about the guy on it. Like many women OP seems to be aroused by displays of power.

[Wild Hoss]

Well, I disagree on the two separate parties thing. Or, alternatively, I think the Ds are herding more cats than the Rs.

IMO, the Ds come across as ambivalent, at best, toward working class/poor white folks. I see them continually amping up their identity politics game and, IMO, it does them no favors with voters that SHOULD be D. For example, it's one thing for your "coastal Ds" to flog themselves over their "privilege;" it's another to do it in such broad terms as to include a families in, say, Chillicothe, Ohio firmly on "the draw" and mired in shit spiral of despair. But those folks are punchlines. These are people that voted for Hillary in 2008 (when she had more f'n primary votes than Obama) and the ones Obama mocked as clinging to their "guns and religion."

So when it comes to the Ds I think there's a wing of the party that has no fucking interest in this particular class of voter. I think that Obama would be front and center on that cause. I think traditional Ds do care about them. But, unfortunately for the Ds, they're not a group-think lock-step bloc that the Ds can occasionally pander to and then ignore. It frustrates me a bit because those are votes they CAN win.

I think, unfortunately, Trump has tapped into this group -- the HS educated white demographic. And he does it by being irreverent. He literally won't kowtow to the "elites" in any way shape or form. You catch him in an absurd lie, he won't walk it back one lick. He'll tell you to fuck off. That's appealing to a lot of people, IMO. Especially those who probably feel mocked and marginalized. I dunno -- it's a possible partial explanation. Heh.

But I'd really like to see the Ds tamp down shameless identity politics and put some effort into big tenting working class/poor white folks. Poor is poor. If you're a fucking progressive poor ought to know no racial distinction.

I think we?re saying more or less the same thing here; there are a lot of people in mid-America who ought to be voting blue, but aren?t.

I do agree that there is cat herding in both parties, but I don?t agree its more severe on the D side; the Dems aren?t the party with an internal insurgency that?s literally knocking people out of office. That said, if the Dems were to recruit the demographic you mention, there?d probably be more of it betyween said demo and the ?elites?, IDK. Its JMO, but I think the GOP has more strenuous internal philosophical gymnastics in play. The Ds are doing a poor job of taking advantage.

That said, a ?cleansed? GOP, free of its evangelicals and Tea Party nuts, might be a nightmare for the Democrats. There are plenty of us who don't like the far left turn things are taking in the D party either. A middle-right party is something that, as a Lefty, I would at least give a serious look at despite their corporate shillism, as nobody is perfect. Can?t have your pudding if you don?t eat your meat.

[iam416]

Like most things(all things), there's more than one reason or way to fix things. "Blaming the guns" is a A reason, not the reason. That's what bugs me so fucking crazy about politics and why I tend to make fun of it rather than take it seriously, if both sides would actually put their precious feelings aside and work together to fix shit, it would be worth diving into a little bit more.

Guns is "a" reason very, very far down on the list. When I hear the "blame guns" argument I want specific laws that would have prevented the crime they're demagogue-ing. No gun law stops San Bernardino. France has hugely restrictive gun laws and no 2nd Amendment.

I'm all for a conversation to amend the Constitution. That's the appropriate venue to REALLY address the issue. Grandstanding mass murders claiming that additional unspecified laws would have stopped it is frivolous absent specific proposals and explanations as to how those laws would have saved the day.

On the other end the spectrum, keep those two fuckwads out of the country WOULD HAVE STOPPED the San Bernardino murders. And being jihadist muslim wasn't "a" reason for it, it was THE reason for it. As we lawyers say, proximate cause vs "but-for" causation. Religion=proximate cause. Waking up in the morning, have access to a car, having access to guns, etc="but for" causation.

[iam416]

I think we’re saying more or less the same thing here; there are a lot of people in mid-America who ought to be voting blue, but aren’t.

I do agree that there is cat herding in both parties, but I don’t agree its more severe on the D side; the Dems aren’t the party with an internal insurgency that’s literally knocking people out of office. That said, if the Dems were to recruit the demographic you mention, there’d probably be more of it betyween said demo and the “elites”, IDK. Its JMO, but I think the GOP has more strenuous internal philosophical gymnastics in play. The Ds are doing a poor job of taking advantage.

That said, a “cleansed” GOP, free of its evangelicals and Tea Party nuts, might be a nightmare for the Democrats. There are plenty of us who don't like the far left turn things are taking in the D party either. A middle-right party is something that, as a Lefty, I would at least give a serious look at despite their corporate shillism, as nobody is perfect. Can’t have your pudding if you don’t eat your meat.

Yeah, I guess if you think the Ds have given up on white voters in general, then they are herding cats so much. There's general progressive mission alignment. I don't think that's the case, though. I think they have to focus on working class white voters and therein lies the conundrum I mentioned.

As for party re-alignment, I was once a party-line D, but I'd rate myself firmly independent at the moment. A center-right party divorced from active involvement in certain social issues (planned parenthood, gay stuff) would easily carry my vote. Income inequality, #blacklivesmatter, "catastrophic" environmental concerns, free college, the "war on women", etc carry zero weight with me. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing a viable R option. And I tend to view Hillary as ruthlessly pragmatic which is fine by me.

[Wild Hoss]

Look, we all agree that there's plenty of good muslims and a few jihadist assholes. The question is how you target your message and what plays best with the electorate. Is it better to target the jihadist assholes and catch some good folks as collateral damage? Or is it better to defend the good muslims and risk getting another jihadist attack? The peace-time American sentiment is obviously the latter, but the former gains traction if there's a felt threat amongst the electorate. Another attack or two and we'll be squarely in on the Trump side of things.

Man, its like you?re reading my mind here. I mean, I get what Obama is trying to do...keep a lid on the Islamophia that?s bubbling below the surface. One can scarcely imagine what some of these ME organizations would like to see more than the images of Americans dancing in front of burning mosques being broadcast on AJ.

But the response comes across as being too tepid...there has to be something of a nod given to people?s concerns, even if its just rhetoric. And lets be honest, that?s all that we can really do...putting battalions back on the ground in Iraq isn?t going to fly. Americans want to see something done without committing to doing anything painful, expensive, or lasting longer than two days. It a balancing act, no question about it, but Barack is teetering over.

[iam416]

There are issues that Obama was made for...or rather issues that align with his core beliefs. When he's talking about cops killing black folks he talks with passion, conviction and doesn't much care about dancing around the feelings of the police. I disagree with this, but you can see it clear as day. He's being honest and he's not pulling any punches.

When he has to talk about terrorism, it pains him. He doesn't want to talk unequivocally. He doesn't want to talk with conviction and anger. He tends to drift toward condescension in reminding us all that muslims are good people and, at his worst, equivocating jihadists with christian crimes committed centuries ago. He wants to put the blame on us, in part, for tolerating guns. He has no interest in leading on this issue -- that's what comes across to me. It frustrates him to no end that he has to deal with it. It's made him look foolish on countless occasions, the most recent when he stood in Paris after San Bernardino and said things like "SB" just don't happen here.

Anyway, he's not a "rah rah" patriot kinda guy. And so you get the response you've seen. IMO, at least.

[Hannibal]

Trump's lasting impact is that he has shown that you can break the taboos of political correctness without the doomsday consequences that have been predicted time and time again. This is because those taboos were imposed on society by a shrill minority. The only question is whether any long term feasible Republican candidates are paying close enough attention to take away that lesson. The entire Republican Party has been useful idiots in this regard. Completely clueless. Since the end of the Reagan era the Republicans have been entirely unable to recognize when they have an actual rhetorical advantage and they have been completely gutless pussies as a result. They have also been terrified of employing ideological rhetoric to gain an advantage. They are like battered wives cowering in a corner saying "please don't hurt me. Please don't call me a racist". If I were a Democrat I would be laughing my ass off at how cowardly and gullible the Republican leadership is, and how utterly tone deaf they continue to be. Being vocally opposed to illegal immigration is a no-brainer winning issue for the Republicans and none of them will even adopt that position in a cynical, calculating manner. The establishment-endorsed candidates are polling at 10% or less and there is no introspection taking place at all as a result. I don't know what would change that. Maybe a brokered convention for an unsupported candidate who goes on to lose a 49 state landslide would do the trick?

[Jeff Buchanan]

.......On the other end the spectrum, keep those two fuckwads out of the country WOULD HAVE STOPPED the San Bernardino murders. And being jihadist muslim wasn't "a" reason for it, it was THE reason for it. As we lawyers say, proximate cause vs "but-for" causation. Religion=proximate cause. Waking up in the morning, have access to a car, having access to guns, etc="but for" causation.

This may be one of the most novel and illuminating things you have contributed to this forum. As much as I detest your osu side, this is good stuff.

I've been shocked at some of the revelations regarding the San Bernadino terrorist attack with regard to huge red flags missed or seen and ignored by those that should have picked up on them and done something. IOW, it isn't access to weapons that allowed this to happen it is both the citizenry who knew something wasn't right with these two and the local law enforcement people who couldn't connect the dots ..... not because the dots weren't there but because they are incompetent.

I've been saying this since he said it. Trump is mostly correct regarding his comments about keeping shit like Farook and Malik from entering the US or, if they do, keeping track of them. While the way he said what he said was clearly inflammatory and low hanging fruit to exploit for his opponents, he has the right idea .... I believe he just articulated it inappropriately. Can't do that.

The signs that these two fucks were getting ready to carry out a Jihadist attack with the intent of killing large numbers of innocent people in a terrorist attack were there. They were there even when these two entered the US and that alone is disgraceful.

Aside from an effective and stringent immigration and boarder control, one of the bulwarks of Israeli efforts, mostly successful, to stop these kinds of things from happening in their country is creating an informed citizenry who take seriously the likelihood of terrorist attack in their neighborhood. The IDF and it's counterpart in the public sector, the Israeli Police, are trained to listen to the public, consider their reports of questionable activity as leads and investigate.

Not going to happen to me is one of the reactions to the San Bernadino atrocity that has to stop. It CAN HAPPEN in your neighborhood and to your kids. You see shit happening or hear something that doesn't look quite right, report it. Ignoring clear signs about Farook's and Malick's actions, Facebook posts and comments from people that knew them actually happened. Just as important, protect US boarders. As much as I am in favor of American openness and providing hope and opportunity for the oppressed of the world, it is that very sentiment that the Jihadists exploit.

I'm less concerned at this point in our history about arm waving about privacy rights than I am about a nuclear weapon being detonated inside NYC. The US has the means and so does the rest of the world to identify potential Jihadists and kill the criminally active ones and keep track of those that might follow their ideology with the intent of committing the kind of atrocious crimes that the likes of Farook and Malick committed.

[Wild Hoss]

There are issues that Obama was made for...or rather issues that align with his core beliefs. When he's talking about cops killing black folks he talks with passion, conviction and doesn't much care about dancing around the feelings of the police. I disagree with this, but you can see it clear as day. He's being honest and he's not pulling any punches.

When he has to talk about terrorism, it pains him. He doesn't want to talk unequivocally. He doesn't want to talk with conviction and anger. He tends to drift toward condescension in reminding us all that muslims are good people and, at his worst, equivocating jihadists with christian crimes committed centuries ago. He wants to put the blame on us, in part, for tolerating guns. He has no interest in leading on this issue -- that's what comes across to me. It frustrates him to no end that he has to deal with it. It's made him look foolish on countless occasions, the most recent when he stood in Paris after San Bernardino and said things like "SB" just don't happen here.

Anyway, he's not a "rah rah" patriot kinda guy. And so you get the response you've seen. IMO, at least.

Seems a bit harsh IMO, but to each his own; I certainly cannot convince anybody that another person speaks with enough passion for their liking. I have always felt that Barack?s cultural experience with guns is quite different from the ?Green Acres? version of most every other president, and his experience with the Muslim community is definitely so. Both would manifest in some way.

Personally, I think Trump is correct...but he can stomp around rhetorically as a candidate in areas where the president simply cannot. Said or unsaid, we should be blocking all immigration from ME nations. We didn?t let just any Tom, Dick or Harry from Kiev move here back when I was a kid. Same logic applies IMO.

[Wild Hoss]

Trump's lasting impact is that he has shown that you can break the taboos of political correctness without the doomsday consequences that have been predicted time and time again.

Big difference between breaking political correctness (Not just a left-wing phenomena BTW) and just being a boorish jackass who lowers the level of discourse to the point its indistinguishable from the Jerry Springer Show.

[hack]

a little old, but a classic in honor of Star Wars..

https://youtu.be/1RGohIKxc9M

HYSTERICAL!!! Thanks for posting it.

[Hannibal]

Big difference between breaking political correctness (Not just a left-wing phenomena BTW) and just being a boorish jackass who lowers the level of discourse to the point its indistinguishable from the Jerry Springer Show.

Indeed, there is, but the taboos in this case were so strong that the only person capable of breaking them was this man that you describe. The loonier and more entrenched political correctness becomes, the more outrageous the personality required to overcome it.