Donald Trump 2018

[HenryJames 66,077]

 

[bad_teammate 13,201]

10 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

My point was about voting and the effect on political parties. 

You seem to be very, very out of the loop regarding our current political process.

Howso? Explain.

No one who is a truly-on-the-fence independent is going to see something like that and swing on it. If anything, it's a frame on the issue of healthcare that gives independent voters an emotional lens onto the issue beyond what they incessantly hear from Republicans AND Democrats which is almost entirely soulless. The people who react strongly against that framing of the healthcare issue are naturally conservative (either right-right or center-right) and if you bother to read the reactions you will see they come from right-right and center-right posters, who are concern trolling.

As for pants-wetting centrists and center-leftists, they're losers and we shouldn't give a crap what they think about rhetoric's impact on electoral chances and policy implementation likelihoods. Might as well ask Aggies about national championships.

If liberal progressives want to win, they need to speak plainly and truthfully. Any attempt to restrict access to healthcare is an attempt to kill vulnerable people. Hell, that's not even a left/right issue. Plenty of racist deplorables would agree with the bolded statement it if delivered in the right tone by the right voice (and if the polysyllabic word "vulnerable" were replaced with "sick and poor" or something). Why do you think Republicans are now having to swear up-and-down to protect the coverage of those with pre-existing conditions?

People out in the real world hate the vague, BS language of DC pundits.

[Guest Lobo]

I voted mainly for Libertarian and Democrats this past week.  I still don't understand how the most heavily regulated state issue, health care, falls under the purvey of the President?  

[yoladu 4,094]

Has there ever been a point in our history where the Legislative Branch was this weak?

One party has no power. The other party has power, but are cucks*. 

The President is taking FULL ADVANTAGE.

 

 

* or they are held captive by a minority base, of their own making, in which they must swallow hard and kowtow to.

 

Edited November 1, 2018 by yoladu

[Francisco 2.0 32,395]

Probably, but there was a depression going on and Roosevelt just decided to say fuck it, I'm gonna do it.

 

 

[Brisketexan 105,151]

A nice glimpse into understanding Trump and his supporters.  And the distinction noted in the article is an important one: while there is typically SIGNIFICANT overlap between racial identity (say, white pride) and racial animus (that is, racism against brown folks), they are two distinct phenomena.

The Economist has a great piece on it this month:

Identity politics are stronger on the right than the left:

 

The Republican Party is increasingly unified around whiteness

 

From the print edition | Oct 31, 2018

IN THE POPULAR imagination, identity politics is the stuff of queer-studies seminars and Hillary Clinton rallies. The excesses of intolerant university students raging against misogyny, racism and homophobia have been rigorously catalogued. Rather less attention has been paid to the appetite for a different kind of identity politics—one centred around whiteness and championed by President Donald Trump. This kind of right-leaning identity politics is more potent than the left-leaning version. There is no single cause which unifies the Democratic Party like the sense among some white voters that their status as top dogs is threatened, which binds the Trumpian Republican Party together.

For evidence of this, look no further than the president’s closing arguments a week before the mid-term elections on November 6th. Worried about the damage that a Democratic wave in the mid-terms could wreak, Mr Trump has fed his base an artery-clogging diet of red meat. Recently leaked news that his administration is planning to rip up Obama-era rules on the treatment of transgender people was a poke in the eye for political correctness. The president has also seized on the useful image of a caravan of Central American migrants heading to the southern border.

Mr Trump and his allies have claimed that the caravan is an “invasion” harbouring, among other things, criminals, “Middle Easterners” (apparently meaning terrorists) and “diseases” such as leprosy. (At least the last of these can be deterred by a course of antibiotics.) To deal with a slow-moving procession trudging through Mexico and weeks away from reaching the border, Mr Trump is sending 5,200 troops—double the number currently fighting Islamic State in Syria—and announced they will be followed by perhaps 10,000 more. He also floated the idea of abolishing birthright citizenship by executive order. The fact that the text of the 14th Amendment bars such action is no matter, since the point is to sway those white voters who are apprehensive about their future position in a country where, demographers suggest, they may find themselves in the minority within their lifetimes.

Political scientists have spent three years puzzling over the psychological impulses that propelled Mr Trump to power. Hostility towards blacks, Muslims and immigrants was a significant predictor of support for Mr Trump, even in the Republican primaries. But academics have often overlooked the importance of whiteness itself. When this is measured—by asking questions about reverse discrimination and how important being white is to one’s identity—white consciousness is in some cases an even better predictor of support for Mr Trump than lukewarm feelings about blacks or Hispanics (see chart). Though there is some overlap, concern over white identity is distinct from racial animus, notes Ashley Jardina of Duke University, who is writing a book on the subject. Ms Jardina’s data show that whites can be concerned about their status without harbouring much hostility against non-whites.

Though people with high scores on white identity are hostile to immigration, they are also strong supporters of Social Security (federal pensions) and Medicare, the government health-insurance programme for the elderly. Unlike means-tested programmes, such as cash welfare or food stamps, these schemes are seen as benefiting white Americans after a life of hard work. Mr Trump broke with Republican orthodoxy when he promised no cuts in the programmes, while also driving a hard line against immigration of all kinds.

Diana Mutz, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, analysed survey data from 2012 and 2016 and found that losses in financial status did not predict support for Mr Trump, but a feeling of threatened status (whether white, Christian or male) was a strong predictor. According to recent polling from the Public Religion Research Institute, 76% of Republicans agree that “the American way of life needs to be protected from foreign influence”, and 61% think that “the impact of the US becoming non-white by 2045 will be mostly negative”. Four in five Republicans support barring Muslim immigrants and building a wall on the Mexican border.

The Trump formula has an effect further down the ballot too. Antonio Delgado, a black Rhodes Scholar and Harvard Law School graduate who is running for Congress in upstate New York, has faced attack ads labelling him a “big-city rapper” (Mr Delgado has occasionally handled a microphone). Chris Collins, a Republican incumbent indicted for insider trading, released a campaign ad simply showing his (white) Democratic opponent speaking Korean. Duncan Hunter, another Republican incumbent under indictment, has said that his (Christian) opponent of Arab descent was working to “infiltrate” Congress through a “well-orchestrated plan” supported by the Muslim Brotherhood. Mr Hunter also has qualms about the “radical Islamist propaganda being pushed on our kids in the San Diego school district.”

The Republican Party has either tolerated or funded such campaign rhetoric. The only candidate repudiated by some party members is Steve King, a congressman from Iowa, after he endorsed a white-supremacist candidate for Toronto’s mayorship and gave an interview with a far-right Austrian website. Mr King has a history of questionable comments, including saying: “We can’t restore our civilisation with somebody else’s babies.” Similar themes are frequently echoed on Fox News, the conservative news outlet favoured by the president. Laura Ingraham, a presenter, declared: “It does seem like the America we know and love doesn’t exist any more”, because of “massive demographic changes”.

In the past political scientists thought that racial appeals needed to be coded in order to work. Today they are not, and that does not seem to matter. Mr Trump began his political career by suggesting that Barack Obama was a Kenyan Muslim who received an Ivy League education only because of affirmative action. Messrs Collins, Hunter and King are all favoured to win their elections.

The graphic that went with it was quite illuminating:

 

 

In summary, the ethos of the party of Trump is "FEAR" because....the supporters of Trump are afraid.  They are afraid of losing status.  Nevermind that I think that's a bit ridiculous - our country is beautifully shallow, meaning that the greatest determinant of "status" is $$$$$$.  And as long as white folks are healthily represented among the economic upper classes -- and they will be for a LONG TIME -- then the fear is over jack squat.  And, layer on to the fact that the white working class, which coasted for decades on the historical anomaly that was the post-WWII order (a strong, undamaged America with an incredible manufacturing base, dealing with a busted-up remainder of the world), is facing an end to that incredible advantage that we had....well, there's reason for anxiety.  Of course, it's a LAZY anxiety, the kind that looks for someone else to blame, and conveniently chooses the closest available easy, weak target to blame (seriously, little Guatemalans -- come one, my daughter could beat up the average Gautemalan).

Thought this was really interesting, and compactly-written insight, wanted to share.

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19,191]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

A nice glimpse into understanding Trump and his supporters.  And the distinction noted in the article is an important one: while there is typically SIGNIFICANT overlap between racial identity (say, white pride) and racial animus (that is, racism against brown folks), they are two distinct phenomena.

The Economist has a great piece on it this month:

 

The graphic that went with it was quite illuminating:

 

 

In summary, the ethos of the party of Trump is "FEAR" because....the supporters of Trump are afraid.  They are afraid of losing status.  Nevermind that I think that's a bit ridiculous - our country is beautifully shallow, meaning that the greatest determinant of "status" is $$$$$$.  And as long as white folks are healthily represented among the economic upper classes -- and they will be for a LONG TIME -- then the fear is over jack squat.  And, layer on to the fact that the white working class, which coasted for decades on the historical anomaly that was the post-WWII order (a strong, undamaged America with an incredible manufacturing base, dealing with a busted-up remainder of the world), is facing an end to that incredible advantage that we had....well, there's reason for anxiety.  Of course, it's a LAZY anxiety, the kind that looks for someone else to blame, and conveniently chooses the closest available easy, weak target to blame (seriously, little Guatemalans -- come one, my daughter could beat up the average Gautemalan).

Thought this was really interesting, and compactly-written insight, wanted to share.

 

More proof that white people are the biggest threat to the country.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

14 hours ago, Goredho said:

Not a lawyerly type, but could it be simply to provoke a fight over the 14th that ultimately gets decided upon by the Supreme Court that is now in firm conservative control?

The reason the Supreme Court never has had to interpret the 14th amendment with respect to birth citizenship is because for 150 years nobody dumb enough came along to challenge it. But we’ve got trump  orange monkey leader and his merry band of morons now so of course it’s become an issue. 

[Brisketexan 105,151]

Just now, Fudge Nuggets said:

More proof that white people are the biggest threat to the country.

Only the pissing-their-pants-scared ones.

Again, irony of irony -- the snowflakes.

Seriously, if you're not terrified of losing status (which, if you are a competent person capable of achieving independent success, you shouldn't be), then these fears don't motivate your political beliefs at all.  To be the classic Trumpian is to be very, very afraid.  You know....snowflakes.

[hobbes2702 13,037]

Yea I don’t really want to hear anyone else say this dude isn’t a racist. This fucking press conference is fucking insane

[hayden_horn 11,362]

this fucker is talking immigration now

"large number of people that are tough, have attacked mexican authorities. turn back now, because they are wasting their time"

except to turn around and head home means death.

[hayden_horn 11,362]

hahahahaha holy fucking shit

"we are deploying troops to the border. they will do the job. best military in the history of the world, and it's not depleted now like it was when i took over."

wtf? it was never depleted you shitgibbon.

also, "many in the caravan have refused help from mexican authorities, indicating that they are not real refugees."

un-huh.

[hobbes2702 13,037]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

this fucker is talking immigration now

"large number of people that are tough, have attacked mexican authorities. turn back now, because they are wasting their time"

except to turn around and head home means death.

His most adolf-y speech yet

[hayden_horn 11,362]

this guy is just a flat fucking liar

[mdmost 43,004]

Our fine men and women in uniform are really going to enjoy sitting at the border for a couple weeks waiting for the dreaded Brown Caravan of Doom to arrive. 

[hayden_horn 11,362]

"we are building tent cities, we have lots of tents, we won't be releasing them into our country, we will hold them until trial, because maybe 3% show up for their trial."

that's a lie, isn't it? i thought i read somewhere that it's something like 3% that DON'T show up.

whatever.

let's build a bunch of camps with tents. we can call them...concentration camps, where we can isolate these animals.

 

[hobbes2702 13,037]

At what point do you take him off the air because he is simply saying so many outright fabrications and lies?

[hayden_horn 11,362]

"these aliens have disappeared into our country." over and over here.

"they are given one phrase by lawyers, who want a fee or something, which begins a 3.5 year asylum process."

yes, that phrase is "i seek asylum"

and let's leave aside that these people are actually running away from the MS-13 boogeymen that he commonly invokes.

i'm not sure how anyone can think this guy isn't a virulent racist and ethnofascist.

[hobbes2702 13,037]

This speech is worse than Charlottesville

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

that's a lie, isn't it? i thought i read somewhere that it's something like 3% that DON'T show up.

Correct, I think it’s 95% with the ankle monitors show up.

[hayden_horn 11,362]

it's not just people coming in, it's drugs, it's human trafficking. they steal women.

he's intentionally conflating this with the caravan, full of women and children trying to ESCAPE gangs and human trafficking.

"go home. you are wasting your time." fuck this guy.

[retread 2,951]

What a sad for our country. 40% of our citizens will stand up and dance on their couches when they hear his words on the nightly news.

[jimmyjazz 45,962]

DOTUS:  secret feminist

[hayden_horn 11,362]

hahaha, holy shit

"once they arrive, the democratic party wants to offer them free healthcare, free welfare, and the right to vote. and in many cases, you are footing the bill, because they have major medical problems before they get here."

jesus christ, this fucking guy

[hobbes2702 13,037]

Well I don’t know what else to say. If you don’t want to be called a white supremicist then don’t be a white supremicist and tell us about it

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

[hayden_horn 11,362]

"end the rampant abuse of our asylum system."

how many asylum seekers did we have last year?

also, this caravan, like the one last year, will actually legally present themselves at a port of entry, like he is outlining. what problem is he solving?

also, the democrats are "open borders obstructing" whatever the fuck that means

[hayden_horn 11,362]

Quote

A total of 84,989 persons2
 were admitted to the United
States as refugees during 2016. The leading countries of
nationality for refugees admitted during this period
were the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Syria, and
Burma. During 2016, 20,455 individuals were granted
asylum,3 including 11,729 individuals who were
granted asylum affirmatively by DHS4
 and 8,726 individuals
who were granted asylum defensively5
 by the
Department of Justice (DOJ). The leading countries of
nationality for persons granted either affirmative or
defensive asylum were China, El Salvador, and
Guatemala. Travel documents were issued to 5,490 individuals
who were approved for derivative asylum,
allowing their admission to the United States.

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Refugees_Asylees_2016_0.pdf

now he's lying that under obama they were separating children from parents. LIE LIE LIE, nothing matters.

[hobbes2702 13,037]

He is literally saying the military will shoot someone if they throw a rock.

[hayden_horn 11,362]

oh boy, trump saying that if carvaners throw rocks at the military, we will consider it a firearm.

if he authorizes live fire on this caravan, he should be immediately impeached and removed from office.

i can't even believe what is happening. he's claiming that this is an invasion.

[Stilicho 1,397]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

oh boy, trump saying that if carvaners throw rocks at the military, we will consider it a firearm.

if he authorizes live fire on this caravan, he should be immediately impeached and removed from office.

i can't even believe what is happening. he's claiming that this is an invasion.

Pearls aren't going to clutch themselves, you know.

[hayden_horn 11,362]

our facilities are being overrun. 

"remember this, president obama separated children from parents, and i just upheld the same law."

another bald-faced lie. this guy is unbelievable. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

I’m really glad MSNBC isn’t broadcasting any of this.

Theyre talking Oprah

[Mo Horn 8,848]

Anybody want to give any odds that the response from every other Republican is silence. Nah, no odds on a sure thing. 

[hayden_horn 11,362]

hahaha, wtf.

"women don't want these people in our country, if you think about what women want, they want security, and they don't want these people in this country."

 

[hayden_horn 11,362]

Just now, Mo Horn said:

Anybody want to give any odds that the response from every other Republican is silence. Nah, no odds on a sure thing. 

maybe some concern. a furrowed brow here and there. the sucking sound you are hearing is the soul of the republican party oozing down the drain.

[jimmyjazz 45,962]

4 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

if he authorizes live fire on this caravan, he should be immediately impeached and removed from office.

At this rate, the caravan won't be here until 2020 anyway.

[Mo Horn 8,848]

So racism and misogyny in one speech. Ops normal

[Chooky 13,307]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

11.  That guy blowing leaves out of the parking lot is from Guatemala and he's here TO KILL YOU!!!

[HenryJames 66,077]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

At this rate, the caravan won't be here until 2020 anyway.

Kenyans would have been here last week.

[lemonlime 5,503]

At what point should the military refuse these orders?  He's sending troops in a giant political stunt for a nonexistent threat, just made up in an attempt to win an election.  And it sounds like, although I'm not watching this shit show, that he wants them to perhaps fire on asylum seekers.  None of this constitutes lawful orders.

[Chooky 13,307]

Holy shit!  I just laugh gagged.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

At what point should the military refuse these orders?  

Yesterday 

[retread 2,951]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Of course Chuck Todd is going open with footage of Trump propaganda.

I do not care for Chuck Todd.

[Gil Bang 25,960]

 

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

15 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

At what point should the military refuse these orders?  He's sending troops in a giant political stunt for a nonexistent threat, just made up in an attempt to win an election.  And it sounds like, although I'm not watching this shit show, that he wants them to perhaps fire on asylum seekers.  None of this constitutes lawful orders.

JCS shouldn't refuse orders unless they're asked to fire on civilians. They should advise that this is a terrible idea, but there's nothing there yet to warrant disobeying your C&C. Disobeying orders because you think they're against your political affiliation is a bad precedent to set. With all the bullshit that Trump is doing we'll have enough problems in the future and we don't need to add the threat of a military not giving a shit about the chain of command to the list.

[Brisketexan 105,151]

3 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

JCS shouldn't refuse orders unless they're asked to fire on civilians. They should advise that this is a terrible idea, but there's nothing there yet to warrant disobeying your C&C. Disobeying orders because you think they're against your political affiliation is a bad precedent to set. With all the bullshit that Trump is doing we'll have enough problems in the future and we don't need to add the threat of a military not giving a shit about the chain of command to the list.

This.

If/when he orders US troops on US soil to fire on unarmed civilians, that will be an illegal order, and should be refused.  Not until then.  

Edited November 1, 2018 by Brisketexan

[lemonlime 5,503]

1 minute ago, SimonBolivar said:

JCS shouldn't refuse orders unless they're asked to fire on civilians. They should advise that this is a terrible idea, but there's nothing there yet to warrant disobeying your C&C. Disobeying orders because you think they're against your political affiliation is a bad precedent to set. With all the bullshit that Trump is doing we'll have enough problems in the future and we don't need to add the threat of a military not giving a shit about the chain of command to the list.

I'm not saying that the orders should be disobeyed because of anyone's political affiliation.  I'm saying that they (maybe) should be disobeyed because he is deploying the military for a political stunt to try and win an election.  He is deploying more troops than are in Afghanistan to the border for a wholly made up threat, in an attempt to score political points. That's the stuff of dictatorships.  

At the very least, Mattis should be resigning over this.

[retread 2,951]

Tapper cited a statistic saying that about 75% of immigrants show up for their court dates. I think I've also read that 90%+ number that Hugo cited for immigrants that wear ankle bracelets.

A continuous string of lies. That was really repugnant.

Edited November 1, 2018 by retread