2016 POTUS Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,732
Man you have a habit of writing crap like that. Your personal opinion with a trap insult if people don't agreed. I can tell you I used to think the same as you on this but in talking to black friends of mine they all felt this has been brewing for years and has finally come to a head. Why now? I think it's mostly about technology. Now everyone is carrying around a video camera. Not the case 10 years ago.
You are acting like ten years ago race relations were just the same. Sorry, don't buy it. Video cameras etc. may have made it worse. Twitter is a cesspool for idiotic race-baiting and quit honestly a forum for radicals to have their place to have their voices "heard".

That is specifically what I have referred to. Not as big is not the same as saying it didn't exist. Of course it did.

First, it was Trayvon Martin. Then Ferguson. The Charleston murders. Then a bunch of random people by cops in just the last calendar year.

The rift has grown immensely just in the past year.

Now it is getting worse where the bleating and moaning that white-lash is responsible.

Too bad, should have voted with the same passion that they were when they were organizing BLM protests.

Nah, much easier to continue to be victims. Now it's Trump I guess.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,698
You are acting like ten years ago race relations were just the same. Sorry, don't buy it. Video cameras etc. may have made it worse. Twitter is a cesspool for idiotic race-baiting and quit honestly a forum for radicals to have their place to have their voices "heard".

That is specifically what I have referred to. Not as big is not the same as saying it didn't exist. Of course it did.

First, it was Trayvon Martin. Then Ferguson. The Charleston murders. Then a bunch of random people by cops in just the last calendar year.

The rift has grown immensely just in the past year.

Now it is getting worse where the bleating and moaning that white-lash is responsible.

Too bad, should have voted with the same passion that they were when they were organizing BLM protests.

Nah, much easier to continue to be victims. Now it's Trump I guess.
I can tell you, Obama hasn't helped quell this.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Aren't we kind of back to Hillary? Maybe she wins if she actually represents any policies that appeal to those feeling left out.

I know she was going to get around to becoming a populist and reject her entire record and lifetime of avowed support for globalism just as soon as she won, but I don't think anyone bought it.
I never said she was going to become a populist I thought she would end up being a little farther left than Obama.

Due to the pull of the party and I was saying she might not get
a chance at another term because that would not be good enough.
But the original point was that this election was a rejection of the democratic policies of the last 8 years and I don't agree with that looking at what Trump was running on.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,732
Ron Paul: What populism is really about



By Ron Paul


Updated 3:51 PM ET, Wed November 9, 2016


Editor's Note: Ron Paul is a former congressman from Texas and three-time presidential candidate. He's currently the host of "The Ron Paul Liberty Report." The views expressed are his own.


(CNN) — "Populism" was one of the big buzzwords of this election cycle. It was largely attached to the presidential campaigns of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, with both candidates referred to as "populists" despite having distinctly different political philosophies. Still, they both used the approach -- with success -- to tap into the deep dissatisfaction of the average American voter. For Donald Trump, populism has paid off well: In a shock to the political establishment, Trump has ridden populism straight to the White House. But we must understand what populism is really all about.

Populism has traditionally been understood to include trade protectionism, low interest rates, and government welfare to the poor and middle classes. The philosophy is meant to appeal to the common person, as opposed to establishment elites. Populism has historically seen a revival when economic conditions have deteriorated for the average person while the elites continue to prosper.

Demagogues rush to use the dreadful economic conditions to their political advantage. However, the solutions offered by so many opportunistic politicians aren't really solutions at all. The proposals are always laced with promises that government will "do something" to fix the problem.

Unfortunately, most people still fail to understand that the economic pain they are suffering is the government's doing in the first place. Government monetary, economic and trade policies lie at the root of the problem. The lack of a free market, sound money and genuine private property rights inhibit the return of economic prosperity. This widespread lack of understanding leads those who fall for the siren song of populism down a road of perpetual disappointment.

The problems created by government meddling cannot be cured with more government meddling. Cause and effect have yet to be overturned. Nevertheless, more intervention seems to be the only item on the menu, no matter which party happens to hold the reins of power. The option of peeling government away from our lives is rarely presented to the American public beyond some occasional, and insincere, campaign rhetoric.

Populism is contagious, and once it catches on both conservatives and liberals rush to capitalize on the moment. They both promise to rescue the middle class from the scoundrels who have been in charge. The situation is framed as the people versus the privileged class, and if such a fight is not properly understood it has the potential to create even greater harm for everyone.

Despite what the demagogues often proclaim, economic distress is not the result of free markets. It is brought about by layers of government regulation, a central bank that tries to "run the economy" by counterfeiting money and manipulating interest rates, and the fanatical idea that the United States should run the world militarily.

Something has to change, but the solution cannot be further government involvement in our economic lives and liberties.

The only real "populism" worth thinking about is that which the ideas of liberty provide. If one really cares about the middle class and poor, more government meddling can no longer be an option. Instead, we must consider the tremendous economic benefits that a true free market would provide. In a free society, there would be no bailouts to the too-big-to-fail banks, artificially low interest rates, crony regulations or coveted government contracts. Cozying up to power would be a thing of the past since such power centers would cease to exist. America's disastrous foreign policy of regime change and armed "liberation" would be tossed into the dustbin of history where it belongs. The practice of aggression at home and overseas leads a country to disaster.

The essence of the liberty movement is the embrace of the nonaggression principle. One may never use aggressive force against one's neighbor for any reason. One may also never use government force to aggress against one's neighbor. Government cannot act as your proxy to expropriate the property of others. Force, if it is to be used at all, is for the purpose of defending yourself from an aggressor.

More government, and more of the same, will end. A different philosophy must be adopted that will truly serve the rich, poor, and middle-class alike. It is a philosophy of liberty and peace. There are many encouraging signs that Americans are coming in our direction on this. Our movement is growing.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
The rift was not nearly as big up until the last couple of years. If you deny that, you are a fool.

The riots in Charlotte, etc., did not help anything.
My point was that things got worse because the moderate MLK route was not working and getting very little attention.

Things definitely got worse and there were reasons for that, chiefly these issues being ignored.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Jesus fucking Christ, you asked me how about we have an open and honest discussion about race. I said, I'm game. Then you took it off in another direction about how Trump ran his campaign. I'm not speaking to that. You brought that into the discussion. I simply said I was game for that discussion.
I did not take it in a different direction.

The way Trump ran his campaign is part of the conversation that's needed how and why did his race baiting get such a rise from so many of his supporters.

You don't understand how Trump could be part of a conversation of race after everything he said and tweeted?

You were the one commenting along with him on how all inner cities were war zones so yeah he is a big part of any conversation.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,732
My point was that things got worse because the moderate MLK route was not working and getting very little attention.

Things definitely got worse and there were reasons for that, chiefly these issues being ignored.
Attention? What did that attention get? Oh yeah, it gave an easy target to use to enflame and Trump rode that wave right in.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Because Obama has been president and therefore is the face of the party.

Not sure what relevance the rest of your post is. We're talking about voters unhappy with the way things have been, so they voted for the other party. Happens all the time.
Obama has a higher positive rating than Trump so that kind of dispels that myth.

This was not so much about party as it was about Hillary that much is very apparent.

And how in the hell is Trump now the symbol of the Republican party this is the 1st time I have seen that from you.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
You are acting like ten years ago race relations were just the same. Sorry, don't buy it. Video cameras etc. may have made it worse. Twitter is a cesspool for idiotic race-baiting and quit honestly a forum for radicals to have their place to have their voices "heard".

That is specifically what I have referred to. Not as big is not the same as saying it didn't exist. Of course it did.

First, it was Trayvon Martin. Then Ferguson. The Charleston murders. Then a bunch of random people by cops in just the last calendar year.

The rift has grown immensely just in the past year.

Now it is getting worse where the bleating and moaning that white-lash is responsible.

Too bad, should have voted with the same passion that they were when they were organizing BLM protests.

Nah, much easier to continue to be victims. Now it's Trump I guess.
WOW.

Still going to that card huh.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Attention? What did that attention get? Oh yeah, it gave an easy target to use to enflame and Trump rode that wave right in.
I don't even now what you are talking about?

I know just sit in the corner and shut up we will get to that stuff eventually, right?

Now BLM is the reason for Trump.:picard
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Ron Paul: What populism is really about



By Ron Paul


Updated 3:51 PM ET, Wed November 9, 2016


Editor's Note: Ron Paul is a former congressman from Texas and three-time presidential candidate. He's currently the host of "The Ron Paul Liberty Report." The views expressed are his own.


(CNN) — "Populism" was one of the big buzzwords of this election cycle. It was largely attached to the presidential campaigns of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, with both candidates referred to as "populists" despite having distinctly different political philosophies. Still, they both used the approach -- with success -- to tap into the deep dissatisfaction of the average American voter. For Donald Trump, populism has paid off well: In a shock to the political establishment, Trump has ridden populism straight to the White House. But we must understand what populism is really all about.

Populism has traditionally been understood to include trade protectionism, low interest rates, and government welfare to the poor and middle classes. The philosophy is meant to appeal to the common person, as opposed to establishment elites. Populism has historically seen a revival when economic conditions have deteriorated for the average person while the elites continue to prosper.

Demagogues rush to use the dreadful economic conditions to their political advantage. However, the solutions offered by so many opportunistic politicians aren't really solutions at all. The proposals are always laced with promises that government will "do something" to fix the problem.

Unfortunately, most people still fail to understand that the economic pain they are suffering is the government's doing in the first place. Government monetary, economic and trade policies lie at the root of the problem. The lack of a free market, sound money and genuine private property rights inhibit the return of economic prosperity. This widespread lack of understanding leads those who fall for the siren song of populism down a road of perpetual disappointment.

The problems created by government meddling cannot be cured with more government meddling. Cause and effect have yet to be overturned. Nevertheless, more intervention seems to be the only item on the menu, no matter which party happens to hold the reins of power. The option of peeling government away from our lives is rarely presented to the American public beyond some occasional, and insincere, campaign rhetoric.

Populism is contagious, and once it catches on both conservatives and liberals rush to capitalize on the moment. They both promise to rescue the middle class from the scoundrels who have been in charge. The situation is framed as the people versus the privileged class, and if such a fight is not properly understood it has the potential to create even greater harm for everyone.

Despite what the demagogues often proclaim, economic distress is not the result of free markets. It is brought about by layers of government regulation, a central bank that tries to "run the economy" by counterfeiting money and manipulating interest rates, and the fanatical idea that the United States should run the world militarily.

Something has to change, but the solution cannot be further government involvement in our economic lives and liberties.

The only real "populism" worth thinking about is that which the ideas of liberty provide. If one really cares about the middle class and poor, more government meddling can no longer be an option. Instead, we must consider the tremendous economic benefits that a true free market would provide. In a free society, there would be no bailouts to the too-big-to-fail banks, artificially low interest rates, crony regulations or coveted government contracts. Cozying up to power would be a thing of the past since such power centers would cease to exist. America's disastrous foreign policy of regime change and armed "liberation" would be tossed into the dustbin of history where it belongs. The practice of aggression at home and overseas leads a country to disaster.

The essence of the liberty movement is the embrace of the nonaggression principle. One may never use aggressive force against one's neighbor for any reason. One may also never use government force to aggress against one's neighbor. Government cannot act as your proxy to expropriate the property of others. Force, if it is to be used at all, is for the purpose of defending yourself from an aggressor.

More government, and more of the same, will end. A different philosophy must be adopted that will truly serve the rich, poor, and middle-class alike. It is a philosophy of liberty and peace. There are many encouraging signs that Americans are coming in our direction on this. Our movement is growing.
Well written and right on target.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,470
Obama has a higher positive rating than Trump so that kind of dispels that myth.

This was not so much about party as it was about Hillary that much is very apparent.

And how in the hell is Trump now the symbol of the Republican party this is the 1st time I have seen that from you.
Are you retarded?
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,470
This comes pretty close to how I feel.



http://www.crossingbroad.com/2016/11/so-how-did-this-happen.html


So How Did This Happen?

Kyle Scott - November 9, 2016

So let’s just get this out of the way up front: I voted for Hillary Clinton. Not because I like her – I don’t – but because there are a few issues on which I’m on her side and the prospect of Donald Trump being president scared the shit out of me. I consider myself an independent and think my beliefs fall generally in-line with many millennials. I think everyone should have the right to own a gun, but it should be much tougher to get one and there should be limits on what it can do. I think climate change is a real thing and there’s no reason why there shouldn’t eventually be solar panels on every roof and that the Republicans in the pocket of big oil are shameful and literally ruining the world for their own gain. I think taxes and regulation are too high and unfairly impact the middle class. I think there should be more competition in the healthcare marketplace and I’m already fed up with Obamacare. I think American military dominance is ultimately the thing that keeps us safe and that idealistic liberals are way too naive and fail to understand that simple dynamic. I’m torn on abortion– I think women should have the option, in certain cases, but that we’re way too callous about it, and the first time you see your unborn child on an ultrasound, your opinion changes in some way. You can disagree with me on any of those things. I don’t hate you. I tell you only so you can see where I’m coming from here and that I really didn’t have a horse in this race and seriously considered writing in “my balls” on the ballot, because I really hated both of these candidates.

So how did Trump win? The media, the Democrats, the Republicans, the establishment… no one saw this coming. They underestimated the hurt and struggle for many in this country. They keyed on the hate and the vocal minority of Trump supporters and failed to account for the many, many reasonable others who found something in his message, which was largely the same message Bernie Sanders had. Whether it was the unemployed factory worker, the bigoted hunter, the guy who just saw his health insurance go up 30%, the anti-Hillary moderate, or one of the millions of people on both sides of the aisle who were upset with the status quo, Trump hit on something for many people. The media simultaneously gave him a voice and then acted shocked that anyone was listening. They continuously underestimated and misunderstood what made his message stick.

I’m not defending Donald Trump. I think he’s crazy and I’m terrified that he’s going to be our president. I watched his entire speech last night with my jaw unhinged. But couched in many of the crazy, racist, sexist, xenophobic, hurtful, dumb things he said, there were some accurate observations on the way our country functions. There wasn’t some grand conspiracy for Hillary, but there is a complicit virtuous cycle, an ecosystem of politics, media, lobbying and business that enabled her candidacy to become a foregone conclusion. People hop in and out of politics and the media and back and again. The revolving door is a real thing brilliantly described in Mark Leibovich’s This Town, an incredible (and funny) book about the ridiculousness of Washington D.C. She was a terrible candidate. People simply don’t like her. They wanted change and she represented the complete opposite. It didn’t help that she was perceived as a lying crook. But the establishment and media never questioned her inevitable candidacy. She probably would’ve lost to Bernie Sanders if the Democratic party didn’t bury the primary debates on Friday nights, something the media never questioned and simply accepted. They bought into the Clinton hype machine and failed to consider the endless supply of information (and disinformation) available and the fact that people don’t need the mainstream media to shape their opinions anymore. It’s not just niche cases– everyone has some independent website they read, documentary they like, or podcast they listen to that is free to question the way things are in a way the media doesn’t.

Bernie, whether you agree with his politics or not, hit on many of the same issues that Trump did, and, unlike most ultra liberals, isn’t staunchly anti-gun due to being from Vermont and probably would’ve appealed to many Trump voters. In other words– he probably would’ve won. Hillary essentially had to cheat to beat him. And it shows you just how terrible of a candidate she was that couldn’t then beat a guy who is widely considered and accepted to be a sexist, racist asshole.

Many people feel that Trump won because he’s a sexist, racist asshole, or because Hillary is a woman and the country is still sexist. I think both of the claims ring hollow. I’d argue Trump won despite those things. Sure, there are many people to whom he appealed because of his hateful rhetoric, but there were likely as many, if not more people who were turned off by it and didn’t vote for him as a result. Remember, he went down in the polls after the pussy comment. Never mind the fact that he trounced, like, 10 other guys (and 1 woman) en route to earning the nomination. Hillary was the only one who even came close. In fact, she got more votes than he did. He won because of a silly quirk, or bug, or feature, whatever, in our election system. So the notion that he won because he’s a sexist, racist asshole, I think, is wrong. And Hillary likely earned more votes than she lost because she’s a woman, just like Barack Obama earned more votes than he lost because he’s black. It actually says something positive about our country that the “issue” of Hillary being a woman rarely came up, even by the most awful Trump supporters. In fact, it was the Hillary campaign that kept harping on the topic with applause lines that often rang hollow.

It was frustrating to watch last night exasperated media members – including some on FOX News – who couldn’t believe what was happening. Setting aside the errors in polling and such, the mainstream media is extremely disconnected from the average American, and not only did they fail to account for the real hurt many of them are feeling, but they also further incensed many of the more extreme Trump supporters by playing right into his claims of media bias, complicit-cy and conspiracy. If you set aside the hateful rhetoric and his laughable delivery and just read his words, some of what Trump said in the debates – mostly about the economy, healthcare and trade – made sense. If you could separate Trump the character from his policy, when he actually had one, there were some things to like about Trump the candidate. The media, however, couldn’t do that and focused almost exclusively on Trump the character. I’m not saying he didn’t give them plenty of fodder, but sometimes they went too far. The media worked itself into a lather trying to find anything on Trump. I follow a ton journalists on Twitter. Too many. I’ve been doing this for six years and over that time have followed countless reporters in all verticals and from publications big and small, local and international, mainstream and independent, and I can’t tell you how many times I saw a Tweet containing a hollow bit about Trump. The enterprising liberal who tweeted it thought they had stumbled upon the smoking gun that would bring him down. Often times, it was nonsense, some self-righteous reaction to a relatively mundane factoid about Trump or his family. They were mostly too frivolous to even recall individually, but one story about Trump licensing his name to developers and not actually taking on the risks of development himself at some of his properties really stood out. That wasn’t some gotcha moment– it was simply a description of a common business practice. The liberal media, most of which wouldn’t understand simple capitalism if it hit them in the smug fucking face, smeared Trump over stuff like this, not understanding that they both sounded like idiots and were further fueling his main supporters. Keying on the failures of Trump’s merchandising and branding efforts showed an even greater misunderstanding of how business works. John Oliver’s famous rant, while fun, skewered Trump for failures in things that totally don’t matter– Trump Water, Trump Steaks, and Trump Magazine. These weren’t his main business ventures, they were licensed branding plays. Trump’s company didn’t actually bottle water, source steaks, or run magazines, you fucking idiots, it simply lent his name out (for profit) to someone else who did. There was plenty to dissect about Trump’s business and personal failures, but these ancillary bullshitties served as absurd distractions and often made the media look foolish and biased. Even the stuff that sort of mattered, like Trump not releasing his tax returns or bankrupting his businesses, wasn’t as hurtful to him as the media thought it was. Trump admitting that he took a massive loss and used it to not pay taxes for years is the sort of brutal don’t-give-a-fuck honesty that appealed to his supporters. To them, he exposed a system that needed exposing. The effort to discredit Trump over everything torpedoed the real reporting that largely showed he was unfit to be president. It became hard to decipher what was a meaningful story and what was just hysteric noise to tear him down. The media piled on, to Trump’s benefit, and never stopped to consider what it was in his message that actually appealed to people, pumping up the walking definition of an establishment candidate in the process. Way to go.

Believe it or not, the best explanation of this phenomena came from Michael Moore. FOX News, of all places, commended him last night for spotting this and eloquently explaining it in his TrumpLand movie… or performance. He understood that disenfranchised blue-collar folks who would otherwise vote Democrat saw something in Trump, whose message, as hollow as it may turn out to be, trumped (sorry) Hillary’s stellar ground game. I think I’m registered as an independent, but I had briefly registered as a Democrat in 2008 so I could vote in that primary (for Barack Obama). I got no less than four calls and two text messages yesterday asking if I planned to vote for Hillary. Their effort was downright impressive. I thought it was what would put her over the edge. And yet, it still wasn’t enough to compete with Trump’s reach and his understanding of modern communication. The traditional mechanisms no longer apply. Trump can reach the world with a few taps of his small fingers. He can compel every cable news channel to broadcast his speeches live. He appealed directly to voters.

Of course, the scary part, is that Russia helped him along the way. Hillary’s emails were fair game once they came out, but the fact that it was likely Russia who helped make them public is downright frightening. And hey remember that story from yesterday about the guy who turned up dead in the Russian consulate? Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. I don’t even want to think about that one.

Hillary was a more experienced and capable candidate. She may be a liar, she may have committed a crime, but she was ultimately more fit to be president. Her speech today showed it. That Hillary, the sincere, genuine one who actually demonstrated that she cares about others, would’ve won. But she was establishment to a fault. She couldn’t get out of her own way. She was too rehearsed, too much of a careful candidate in an election that was looking for the exact opposite. I believe there are things she cares deeply about, but it was hard to tell what they were because everything she said and did was focus-grouped to the point of being offensive. Trump, on the other hand, shot from the hip. He told it like it is, or how he thought it should be. The fact that he was an imperfect candidate who made mistakes actually endeared him to many otherwise intelligent people.

The fact is, this whole election was fucked. Everyone missed something. We were given lousy choices and got a lousy outcome because few realized who was lousier. Fingers crossed we didn’t just blow up the whole damn thing.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Let them, they are just deluding themselves as they go farther and farther down the rabbit hole towards irrelevance.
There is a point however where this needs to cease because not only are they deluding themselves but left unchecked it will become an accepted and legitimate position for those who are in disagreement to feel it is their right to be disobedient.

I didn't get my way I'm not going to conform.
 

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
Waiting for big government to be great again when Giuliani is attorney general and goes after the states with legal pot.

(R) Law and order
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Waiting for big government to be great again when Giuliani is attorney general and goes after the states with legal pot.

(R) Law and order
Actually historically big government has usually immenated more from the Democrats than the Republicians. Republicans have had bigger spending.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom