|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jun 20, 2018 16:59:19 GMT -5
Here's your good faith, right here: Separating kids from their parents is INHUMAN!!! (( Trump corrects his policy, allowing parents and kids to be held together )) Detaining children with their families is INHUMAN!!! If I was the Lone Ruler of the Universe, there wouldn't be any borders. There wouldn't be much of any government, either. But for goodness sake, Trump is playing these people like a fiddle. This is the price you pay when you are so completely ensconced inside an opinion bubble, you don't even realize it is there. The Democratic Party has no serious policy on immigration or border security. They have allowed their reflexive anti-Trumpism to paint themselves into a political corner. They are now in a position where ANY border enforcement makes them Nazis. How can a political party be so blind? Literally from the day Trump announced his campaign, he talked, in very harsh terms, about getting tough on immigration. And he won!
If there is such a thing as a rational approach to politics, when you lose an election you look at your policies and your messaging and re-calibrate. In the case of the Democrats and 2016, it seems pretty obvious: They got too cozy with Wall Street and Silicon Valley. They got too permissive on immigration. They got way ahead of the country on trans bathrooms and wedding cakes and such. They fell into a pattern of sneering at people who drive pickups and watch NASCAR. Simple rule: If you come across as having a warm, loving, accepting opinion of Guatemalans illegally crossing the border, while simultaneously coming across as having nothing but loathing and contempt for WalMart shoppers, you're doing politics wrong. Not to worry. Rachel Maddow will come on the television and tell you all about what a great person you are, and how contemptible those WalMart shoppers are, and you can spend another day pretending it's them, not you. In all of that, the Democrats drifted away from (to use a term from a generation ago) the "Reagan Democrats". And they lost Pennsylvania and Ohio and Michigan and Wisconsin. In response, not a bit of introspection. It was just all "Russians" (which, as an aside, is shaping up to be the biggest political own-goal in history) and collusion and porn stars and everything else. No one in their right mind can possibly be surprised that Trump is actually getting tough on immigration. It's not like he kept his intentions a secret. Maybe the Democrats should stop focus-testing their messaging over wine and cheese in Pacific Heights and realize that they are significantly out of touch with the public on this issue. Just one problem with that: Trump lost the popular vote. More people voted for Hillary than Trump. So reverse everything you said, own it, and, per your own advice, change your ways.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jun 20, 2018 17:02:56 GMT -5
Just one problem with that: Trump lost the popular vote. More people voted for Hillary than Trump. So reverse everything you said, own it, and, per your own advice, change your ways. Forgot that one. "BUT SHE WON THE POPULAR VOTE!!". I think that came before "THE RUSSIANS" even. I remember when the media was certain of a Clinton victory and sneered at Trump for suggesting the possibility of vote irregularities. Heh. You know what they call the candidate who wins the popular vote but loses in the Electoral College? The loser.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jun 20, 2018 17:04:04 GMT -5
Here's your good faith, right here: Separating kids from their parents is INHUMAN!!! (( Trump corrects his policy, allowing parents and kids to be held together )) Detaining children with their families is INHUMAN!!! If I was the Lone Ruler of the Universe, there wouldn't be any borders. There wouldn't be much of any government, either. But for goodness sake, Trump is playing these people like a fiddle. This is the price you pay when you are so completely ensconced inside an opinion bubble, you don't even realize it is there. The Democratic Party has no serious policy on immigration or border security. They have allowed their reflexive anti-Trumpism to paint themselves into a political corner. They are now in a position where ANY border enforcement makes them Nazis. How can a political party be so blind? Literally from the day Trump announced his campaign, he talked, in very harsh terms, about getting tough on immigration. And he won!
If there is such a thing as a rational approach to politics, when you lose an election you look at your policies and your messaging and re-calibrate. In the case of the Democrats and 2016, it seems pretty obvious: They got too cozy with Wall Street and Silicon Valley. They got too permissive on immigration. They got way ahead of the country on trans bathrooms and wedding cakes and such. They fell into a pattern of sneering at people who drive pickups and watch NASCAR. Simple rule: If you come across as having a warm, loving, accepting opinion of Guatemalans illegally crossing the border, while simultaneously coming across as having nothing but loathing and contempt for WalMart shoppers, you're doing politics wrong. Not to worry. Rachel Maddow will come on the television and tell you all about what a great person you are, and how contemptible those WalMart shoppers are, and you can spend another day pretending it's them, not you. In all of that, the Democrats drifted away from (to use a term from a generation ago) the "Reagan Democrats". And they lost Pennsylvania and Ohio and Michigan and Wisconsin. In response, not a bit of introspection. It was just all "Russians" (which, as an aside, is shaping up to be the biggest political own-goal in history) and collusion and porn stars and everything else. No one in their right mind can possibly be surprised that Trump is actually getting tough on immigration. It's not like he kept his intentions a secret. Maybe the Democrats should stop focus-testing their messaging over wine and cheese in Pacific Heights and realize that they are significantly out of touch with the public on this issue. Just one problem with that: Trump lost the popular vote. More people voted for Hillary than Trump. So reverse everything you said, own it, and, per your own advice, change your ways. Sorry, Jim, your side lost. Hillary got a lot of popular votes in a few states but that isn't the way the President gets elected. Obviously, if Democrats understood how the system works rather than trying to get around it, they would have done something different but they didn't so they lost. Get over it.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jun 20, 2018 17:08:08 GMT -5
Well, I guess it will be a few days before we hear of all the negative effects of keeping the families TOGETHER in the detention centers means that this executive order is yet another heinous crime committed by the administration (tongue firmly planted in cheek for anybody unfamiliar with internet sarcasm). Expecting Democratic support for Trump/Republican/Conservative immigration policies is not realistic. It was a hotly contested issue long before Trump decided to hold children hostage to get the wall. Now that political pressure has forced Trump to reverse his 6 week old? policy on breaking up families, the original disagreements remain. Nothing’s changed. Nothing’s been fixed. The only good that’s come out of this whole thing is the satisfaction of watching a bully back down. Trump is no more than the gasbag coward we already knew he was.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Jun 20, 2018 17:11:03 GMT -5
Just one problem with that: Trump lost the popular vote. More people voted for Hillary than Trump. So reverse everything you said, own it, and, per your own advice, change your ways. Forgot that one. "BUT SHE WON THE POPULAR VOTE!!". I think that came before "THE RUSSIANS" even. I remember when the media was certain of a Clinton victory and sneered at Trump for suggesting the possibility of vote irregularities. Heh. You know what they call the candidate who wins the popular vote but loses in the Electoral College? The loser. “Suggesting the possibility of vote irregularities” is such a pretty substitute for uncategorically claiming three million fraudulent votes were cast in California, doubling down, and never coming up with a shred of evidence to back it up.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jun 20, 2018 17:11:38 GMT -5
Just one problem with that: Trump lost the popular vote. More people voted for Hillary than Trump. So reverse everything you said, own it, and, per your own advice, change your ways. Forgot that one. "BUT SHE WON THE POPULAR VOTE!!". I think that came before "THE RUSSIANS" even. I remember when the media was certain of a Clinton victory and sneered at Trump for suggesting the possibility of vote irregularities. Heh. You know what they call the candidate who wins the popular vote but loses in the Electoral College? The loser. I’m not arguing the validity of his electoral win. But don’t change the subject. Trump lost the people’s vote. Your whole argument in your earlier post is nothing but BS, and if you can’t apply that whole argument to yourself in light of who had the most popular support, then you never believed what you wrote in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jun 20, 2018 17:16:54 GMT -5
Forgot that one. "BUT SHE WON THE POPULAR VOTE!!". I think that came before "THE RUSSIANS" even. I remember when the media was certain of a Clinton victory and sneered at Trump for suggesting the possibility of vote irregularities. Heh. You know what they call the candidate who wins the popular vote but loses in the Electoral College? The loser. I’m not arguing the validity of his electoral win. But don’t change the subject. Trump lost the people’s vote. Your whole argument in your earlier post is nothing but BS, and if you can’t apply that whole argument to yourself in light of who had the most popular support, then you never believed what you wrote in the first place. I'm talking about before the election, when Democrats from Obama on down mocked and ridiculed Trump's preemptive claims of vote irregularities. Then they lost. Turns out the shoe fit perfectly on the other foot. But none of that matters. The Democrats problem (well summarized by Jim's invocation of the popular vote) is that winning California in 2020 by an even greater margin than they won in 2016 will do them no good. They seem bound and determined to appeal to the tonier enclaves of Sacramento and Silicon Valley before they deign to consider the interests of the citizens of Pennsyltucky.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jun 20, 2018 17:19:27 GMT -5
Forgot that one. "BUT SHE WON THE POPULAR VOTE!!". I think that came before "THE RUSSIANS" even. I remember when the media was certain of a Clinton victory and sneered at Trump for suggesting the possibility of vote irregularities. Heh. You know what they call the candidate who wins the popular vote but loses in the Electoral College? The loser. I’m not arguing the validity of his electoral win. But don’t change the subject. Trump lost the people’s vote. Your whole argument in your earlier post is nothing but BS, and if you can’t apply that whole argument to yourself in light of who had the most popular support, then you never believed what you wrote in the first place. It's a national election, decided by a complex system designed to ensure a national consensus government. The popular vote means nothing. That's by design. If Democrats want to win national elections, they need to figure out how to sell their candidate in places like Michigan and Wisconsin. The open borders stuff is selling in the Bay Area and in the recently gentrified areas of Brooklyn. Not so much in Ohio.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jun 20, 2018 17:35:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jun 20, 2018 17:36:27 GMT -5
can't delete the duplicate post but was trying to figure out why the video didn't pre-load.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jun 20, 2018 17:38:09 GMT -5
can't delete the duplicate post but was trying to figure out why the video didn't pre-load.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jun 20, 2018 17:50:57 GMT -5
I’m not arguing the validity of his electoral win. But don’t change the subject. Trump lost the people’s vote. Your whole argument in your earlier post is nothing but BS, and if you can’t apply that whole argument to yourself in light of who had the most popular support, then you never believed what you wrote in the first place. I'm talking about before the election, when Democrats from Obama on down mocked and ridiculed Trump's preemptive claims of vote irregularities. Then they lost. Turns out the shoe fit perfectly on the other foot. But none of that matters. The Democrats problem (well summarized by Jim's invocation of the popular vote) is that winning California in 2020 by an even greater margin than they won in 2016 will do them no good. They seem bound and determined to appeal to the tonier enclaves of Sacramento and Silicon Valley before they deign to consider the interests of the citizens of Pennsyltucky. I guess I can see why you don’t want to admit how full of it you are on your original point. It’s probably painful, so I’ll let it drop. IMO, the smart money was always on playing the electoral college. I never would have guessed that Trump would have been the one to win the electoral college - a body that was put in place to prevent “stupid” votes by the “stupid” populace - but he did. As far as that goes, I support Trump’s win as much as I would have if Hillary had lost the popular vote but won the electoral college. (Note: I put “stupid” in quotes because it’s not the right word. For a minute there it was just a placeholder, but on second thought I think I’ll leave it. I’m sure you get the point either way.) Democrats have their work cut out for them. Pennsylohtucky is an issue, as you pointed out, but so is the liberal base, an area that wanted Bernie, not Hillary. Hillary wasn’t leftist enough for many and apparently couldn’t make the false promises needed to woo the middle-of-the-road working class. Oh, and she failed to excite black voters. Bernie might be back for another go at it, but in a perfect world, IMO, I’d be casting my vote for Elizabeth Warren.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Jun 20, 2018 17:55:41 GMT -5
Almost forgot: Trump didn’t claim “voting irregularities,” he said, repeatedly, that if he didn’t win, the system was rigged. No wonder. He had Russians working for him. He had Comey. The only way he could possibly lose was if Hillary had a bigger scam working, one that even the Russians and the FBI didn’t know about. And Trump was right. Nothing but spectacular rigging could have changed preordained results.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 20, 2018 18:06:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 20, 2018 18:12:04 GMT -5
Well, in a perfect (or at least less imperfect) world, Elizabeth Warren would have been willing to run. Though I suspect that she, like Bernie, is more effective in the Senate. Left-schmeft, this old liberal/union guy has long settled for whichever candidate can operate in a reasonably professional manner, get along with what passes for the left-ish coalition in the US, rein in the money-changers in the temple, and not scratch his balls in public. The national GOP has suffered a shortage of such figures for the last couple decades.
As for all the popular-versus-electoral-college talk, what's annoying is that Trump & Co. go on as though the EC win were a yuge popular mandate, when what it was a matter of leveraging. (Which may have been a master stroke or just the stars and PR coming together in a particular way.) The GOP has gerrymandered itself into a corner--those safe districts are also vulnerable to leveraging by the yahoo wing of the party via primaries. They wanted to unleash that demographic, and now they're stuck with them. Unfortunately, so are the rest of us.
(Yeah, I'm an elitist. I believe in competence, honesty, paying attention, and not getting my world view via the equivalent of the local boozer. My blue-collar parents me that.)
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 20, 2018 18:23:04 GMT -5
""As the son of a Polish holocaust survivor, the images and sounds of this family separation policy is heart wrenching," Cohen wrote. "While I strongly support measures that will secure our porous borders, children should never be used as bargaining chips."
Michael fuckin' Cohen y'all!
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Jun 20, 2018 18:27:38 GMT -5
Well, in a perfect (or at least less imperfect) world, Elizabeth Warren would have been willing to run. Though I suspect that she, like Bernie, is more effective in the Senate. Left-schmeft, this old liberal/union guy has long settled for whichever candidate can operate in a reasonably professional manner, get along with what passes for the left-ish coalition in the US, rein in the money-changers in the temple, and not scratch his balls in public. The national GOP has suffered a shortage of such figures for the last couple decades. As for all the popular-versus-electoral-college talk, what's annoying is that Trump & Co. go on as though the EC win were a yuge popular mandate, when what it was a matter of leveraging. (Which may have been a master stroke or just the stars and PR coming together in a particular way.) The GOP has gerrymandered itself into a corner--those safe districts are also vulnerable to leveraging by the yahoo wing of the party via primaries. They wanted to unleash that demographic, and now they're stuck with them. Unfortunately, so are the rest of us. (Yeah, I'm an elitist. I believe in competence, honesty, paying attention, and not getting my world view via the equivalent of the local boozer. My blue-collar parents me that.) I'll presume, then, that you voted for the reasonably professional, rather patrician, even-toned GHW Bush over Dukakis. (Sorry, I'm reading his biography by Meacham, which is pretty okay...but doesn't live up to the reviews.)
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 20, 2018 18:44:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 20, 2018 19:28:43 GMT -5
Trump came to the table in good faith? Trump came to this table with an executive order that created the problem, spent several days lying, claiming it was the fault of a nonexistant Democrat’s law, not his policy, that created the problem, then, when public opinion got negative enough, reversed his executive order with a second executive order, proving it was his doing and his to undo all along. So taking unilateral action while blaming your actions on those who had nothing to do with the situation is coming to the table in good faith? Your capacity for self-deception is stunning. Bullshit. Where were you 3 or 4 months ago?
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jun 20, 2018 19:34:10 GMT -5
"If Democrats want to win national elections, they need to figure out how to sell their candidate in places like Michigan and Wisconsin. The open borders stuff is selling in the Bay Area and in the recently gentrified areas of Brooklyn. Not so much in Ohio."
Except for the anti-elitist undertone, I agree. The Democratic Party needs to recognize that permitting immigration is a choice.
|
|