• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't even know what liberal and conservative mean any more. Outside of being pro guns, anti-choice, a phobia of homosexuals and people of a different color or religion, I don't have a clue. There was a time it meant being fiscally conservative and a free markets advocate but that time has past.

//Note. Hopefully everyone grooves on the wavelength that we aren't talking about any technical dictionary or Political Science 101 technical definition of liberal/conservative but to broader, loosely defined social movements that just default to using the terms, fair? //

The end of basically any economic future for the rural areas, and a questionable economic future that doesn't involved an hour plus of commuting for the suburban areas, and a total lack of concern or caring from anyone in power about it.

The rural areas are dying. I will argue, with every ounce of strength in my being, against pretty damn close to literally every way that the rural areas (Again "Orange Man Bad" I know, I know, don't need to be reminded) have choose to react to this, as dangerous, hateful, stupid, and short-sited but I will not do a disservice to honesty and pretend it's not true.

Way back when the whole Trump... thing first happened I happened (I can't directly link it because it's got a naughty word in in the URL) David Wong wrote an article for Cracked.com entitled "How Half of American Lost Its (Censored) Mind" and broke it down.

1. It's not about blue states and red states, it's about urban and rural.
2. City people are from a goddamn different planet then rural people.
3. The rural areas have been beating to (censored)
4. All the economic recovery is pointed at the cities.

I blame the Rural areas for literally everything they are currently doing... except for the base fact of being angry in the first place.

This is why all the liberal threats against the rural people are so laughable. They've got nothing to lose, you can do nothing to them.

"Trump is gonna start a war!" Hell half of them are living in a goddamn post-apocalypse already.

"Trump is gonna tank the economy" Oh I'm sorry is the factory that was the only business in my town and shutdown 20 years ago somehow going to make less money?

You can dismiss all of this as some sort of stealth pro-Trump screed if you must, but I lived in these place. The places where the last business to open was the Dollar General a decade back (an actual real namebrand Dollar General if you're lucky, a knockoff most of the time), where when a "name" business closes and shutters its doors it not gonna get turned into a twee hipster micro-brewery or vintage vinyl record store in a few month it's just gone forever, and that one pothole has been on main street literally your entire life. A place where when stuff leaves it never comes back. When stuff breaks it stays broken. Watching everything around you just die and decay.

There's a line in an old country song. "Honey you know the world ain't round. It drops off sharp at the edge of town. Baby you know the world must be flat. Because we people leave town they never come back."

The despair eats you goddamn alive. And you can't complain. You're not allowed. You're just a dumb redneck who sleeps with his sister and does meth.

To use the example Wong did in the article I mentioned it's the feeling when a Category 5 Hurricane plows through the entire heartland of the country but there's more thinkpieces written about the plight of goddamn shelter dogs in New Orleans then about anyone who affected that lived outside of the Mardi Gras parade route. "Oh who cares about a bunch of rednecks losing their mobile homes? I only care about devastation in places that have a CSI spinoff."

And then as I said earlier you turn on the TV and an ultra-rich liberal who flew in his private jet to stand in an auditorium with other ultra-rich liberals so they can hand each other gold statues about how awesome they are stands there in his suit that cost more then all the money you will ever make in your life and takes time out of his day to tell you that you are the problem and put on a big showy display of proving who among them wants to understand you the least.

It breaks something in you. I know. I was never "there" but I came close. Like David Wong said in the article I accept the fact that had I not escaped, and I use that term deliberately, from rural life I'd probably be a Trump supporter. And again everything makes sense if we see Trump as a brick with the words "Are you listening to us now?" written on in thrown through our window. Just because their message is every possible variation of wrong doesn't change that. It doesn't mean we have to listen to them, but we do have to "listen" to them or this isn't going to get better.

I've never stop opposing the kind of raw, stupid, reflexive hatred we're seeing from the Trumpers... but that's not the same thing as not "getting" it. Not condoning it, not understanding, not accepting it but "getting" it.
 
Last edited:
HRC is responsible for everything Trump does?

That's a really stupid question. In the part of his post I quoted and was therefore obviously responding to, Stegnosaur was talking about the media's behavior, not Trump's. And even in regards to that, what part of "in part" do you not understand?
 
That's a really stupid question. In the part of his post I quoted and was therefore obviously responding to, Stegnosaur was talking about the media's behavior, not Trump's. And even in regards to that, what part of "in part" do you not understand?

Sorry, but your comment was pretty stupid - as if it was up to HRC to pick Trump as her opponent.
 
Stop it, just stop it.

Why? It's a FACT that she didn't get as many votes as, say, Obama did. That's a sign that she wasn't particularily popular. Trump was even less so, perhaps, but that doesn't change the FACT.

Maybe you weren't energized

Who gives a toss whether I was energised or not? What does it have to do with anything?

but millions of women and others were.

What a strange comment. What does it have to do with what I posted? Do you seriously believe that my post means that nobody voted for her? If not, why did you post this? And what does gender have to do with it?

She won by almost 3 million votes.

Small correction: she lost.

Trump won by cheating

You have no way of knowing whether he would've won absent any Russian meddling.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but your comment was pretty stupid

Perhaps. But it still wasn't what your previous post claimed.

as if it was up to HRC to pick Trump as her opponent.

I didn't say it was up to her. Obviously Trump himself was a very major player in his own primary success.

I said she promoted Trump during the primaries. And she did. I don't think she intended Trump to be her opponent. But to the extent that media promotion helped Trump secure his victory (which was Stegnosaur's claim, not mine), Hillary did play a role in that.
 
Sorry, but your comment was pretty stupid - as if it was up to HRC to pick Trump as her opponent.

You laugh. It's gotten completely overshadowed (and really, really stupid sounding with the benefit of hindsight) but I remember the "Trump is a plant to create an opponent so incredibly over the top that nobody could lose to him" conspiracy theory getting some traction right before the election. Even Jeb Bush hinted at it during the primaries.

Political Pundit Allen Ginzburg went so far as to say if someone was deliberately trying to run as an un-electable candidate it would be functionally indistinguishable from what Trump was doing.

Trump was a registered Democrat until 2004, had supported Hillary Clinton politically in the past, and had donated large amounts of money to the Clintons. And during the general election campaign literally everytime a scandal would start to effect Clinton, Trump would do something... Trump. I mean it was almost too perfect.

And then the election happened and... yeah.
 
Political Pundit Allen Ginzburg went so far as to say if someone was deliberately trying to run as an un-electable candidate it would be functionally indistinguishable from what Trump was doing.


There was a comedy video on YouTube that portrayed the campaign as an elaborate prank by Trump and a pair of comedy writers.

"Everyone is going to think this is so funny when we finally reveal the joke."
...
"Did he remember to imply that Mexicans are rapists?"
"He didn't just imply it; he flat out said it."
...
"Campaign staff? When did we get a campaign staff?"
...
Trump calling them on the phone, sobbing hysterically. "I don't wanna be President!"
...
Staring at each other in numb horror. "People are going to think this is funny when we reveal the joke ... right?"
 
I'm just getting tired of getting reminded every 5 seconds that Hillary won the popular vote as if the EC is some concept that suck up on her and took her by surprise.

Funny, I have been getting tired of conservative pundits saying a million and one variations of, "The American people chose Trump to be President!", with no mention of Clinton or the fact that by even the most generous standards it would have to be called a close race.
 
Funny, I have been getting tired of conservative pundits saying a million and one variations of, "The American people chose Trump to be President!", with no mention of Clinton or the fact that by even the most generous standards it would have to be called a close race.

Well if you want to go that route 108 million Americans voted for "It doesn't matter, I'd rather stay home and wash the dog."

You can zoom the scale in and out until you land on one where the number work for you if you want but you can't invoke "The Popular Vote" without acknowlding that the popular vote isn't very popular.

Hillary Clinton didn't win 48.2% of the American vote. She won 27% of it.
 
Well if you want to go that route 108 million Americans voted for "It doesn't matter, I'd rather stay home and wash the dog."

You can zoom the scale in and out until you land on one where the number work for you if you want but you can't invoke "The Popular Vote" without acknowlding that the popular vote isn't very popular.

Hillary Clinton didn't win 48.2% of the American vote. She won 27% of it.

And Trump got about 26%. I mean, he won the election with the help of a bunch of things lining up just right, no doubt about that. But I keep seeing right-wing commentators going for the whole "We must trust the President, he is the people's leader, Democrats are traitors for questioning him, blah, blah, blah...". Sentiments that they did not have for the previous President.
 
And Trump got about 26%. I mean, he won the election with the help of a bunch of things lining up just right, no doubt about that. But I keep seeing right-wing commentators going for the whole "We must trust the President, he is the people's leader, Democrats are traitors for questioning him, blah, blah, blah...". Sentiments that they did not have for the previous President.

Let's just cut the difference here and admit that it's been a long time since any politician really earned the right to claim they speak for the people.

Even the greatest politician of our generation, whoever it may be, achieved a level of "You're of lesser of two evils as picked by the people who bothered to show up which wasn't a lot."
 
Well, the President wasn't really supposed to speak for the people, but for the Union.

I think one of the greatest, most toxic misunderstandings of American politics has been the elevation of the Presidency to some sort of mythical overlordship of the nation. He's not. He's really just Congress's agent for carrying out policy in certain domains relating to the Union as a whole:
- Treaty negotiation
- Trade negotiation
- National security
- Waging of war
- Execution of federal law in federal jurisdictions

Beyond that, his only real superpower is the "bully pulpit"; i.e., his celebrity status and resultant power as an influencer of public opinion.

Which was much more significant in Teddy Roosevelt's time, since there weren't that many celebrities who could command the resources and cachet of the US presidency to get their message out.

But we live in the Information Age. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of celebrities with a comparable pulpit, and comparable influence over public opinion. Everyone from Oprah Winfrey to Julian Assange has a pulpit just as bully as the President's.
 
If we picked the President based on popular vote that would men something.



Hillary was playing the EC game the same as Trump, she just lost it.



I'm sure Hillary Clinton energized millions of women in states she already was going to win.
It wasn't Trump playing the EC game, it was the strategists behind him. The Conservatives in other democracies are also taking traditional working class votes from the Left to the Right. Clinton, though, should have seen this coming.
 
It wasn't Trump playing the EC game, it was the strategists behind him. The Conservatives in other democracies are also taking traditional working class votes from the Left to the Right. Clinton, though, should have seen this coming.

I'm still amused by the implications of "Russian interference." In order for Putin's ad buy to have a decisive, targeted effect on the election in certain key states, he must have had better polling data, better analysts, and better campaign strategists than Hillary Clinton.
 
I'm still amused by the implications of "Russian interference." In order for Putin's ad buy to have a decisive, targeted effect on the election in certain key states, he must have had better polling data, better analysts, and better campaign strategists than Hillary Clinton.
Your amusement is misplaced. The ads pale in comparison to the Wikileaks drip-drip-drip down the stretch.
 
Your amusement is misplaced. The ads pale in comparison to the Wikileaks drip-drip-drip down the stretch.

The Wikileaks drip was a known element, though.

Going into November, Hillary knew about all of the following:
- The decades-long Republican smear campaign* and its effect on her overall popularity
- The Wikileaks drip
- The email server investigation (minus Comey's last minute surprise)
- The Benghazi controversy
- The electoral map
- The American system of presidential elections

There were a few key things she didn't know about:
- The variance between the polls and reality
- Putin's swing state ad buy
- Comey's surprise

Given how narrow Trump's victory was, had she known about any of those things and taken action, she probably would have won. Even not knowing about Putin's ad buy, campaigning in those states would probably have put her over the top anyway.
 
I'm still amused by the implications of "Russian interference." In order for Putin's ad buy to have a decisive, targeted effect on the election in certain key states, he must have had better polling data, better analysts, and better campaign strategists than Hillary Clinton.
All Putin would need in order to tip the election from an even playing field to an uneven playing field would be a lack of foreign active measures in support of the candidate whom Putin did not support.

To the best of my knowledge, nothing akin to Russia's hacking and dumping operation happened to the RNC or any other GOP orgs.

Again, to the best of my knowledge, nothing akin to the Internet Research Agency's social media microtargeting campaign was being run by foreign actors in support of HRC.
 
Last edited:
I'm still amused by the implications of "Russian interference." In order for Putin's ad buy to have a decisive, targeted effect on the election in certain key states, he must have had better polling data, better analysts, and better campaign strategists than Hillary Clinton.
Why exactly are you assuming that Putin would have had to have better polling data/analysts/etc.?

He was throwing a monkey wrench into U.S. politics. It was a low-risk/high-return strategy. He didn't need any special information or skills; just mess things up as much as possible. If Hillary wins? At least America is more divided than before. If Trump wins? Its an added bonus.

The Wikileaks drip was a known element, though.
I doubt very much that the Democrats knew there internal communications were going to be leaked before hand.

And why exactly does it matter if its a 'known element' or not? An illegal campaign tactic is unfair, whether its known ahead of time or not.
Going into November, Hillary knew about all of the following:
- The decades-long Republican smear campaign* and its effect on her overall popularity
- The Wikileaks drip
- The email server investigation (minus Comey's last minute surprise)
- The Benghazi controversy
- The electoral map
- The American system of presidential elections

There were a few key things she didn't know about:
- The variance between the polls and reality
- Putin's swing state ad buy
- Comey's surprise

Given how narrow Trump's victory was, had she known about any of those things and taken action, she probably would have won. Even not knowing about Putin's ad buy, campaigning in those states would probably have put her over the top anyway.
Why exactly are you assuming any politician will be able to magically change voter's minds "if they just knew about them"?
 
I'm still amused by the implications of "Russian interference." In order for Putin's ad buy to have a decisive, targeted effect on the election in certain key states, he must have had better polling data, better analysts, and better campaign strategists than Hillary Clinton.

That doesn't follow in any way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom