|
Peven Stan posted:a fascist jugend movement depends on the relative fitness and strength of the youth. this is why fascists have their own boxing gyms in a lot of european nations so they can build up the ranks of the street fighting youth. Their forearms could out arm wrestle us all.
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:00 |
|
|
Inglonias posted:Yeah but I can't stand the taste of alcohol and being drunk is also scary. man are you in wrong subforum
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
Now that Obamacare's dead (unfortunately) will that shut the GOP up about it already and maaaybe stop filibustering for governmental shutdowns?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
quote:What's more likely - Trump-hating moderate Republicans staying home on election day, or Trump-hating moderate Republicans voting third party?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Now that Obamacare's dead (unfortunately) will that shut the GOP up about it already and maaaybe stop filibustering for governmental shutdowns? What do you mean? There's no way that Obama is not going to veto that bill, and the Senate does not have enough votes to override.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:You can't bleat about "gun culture" *and* claim they aren't a group, dumbass In case you haven't noticed, the approach to politics of the so-called average Fox News viewer has been so wildly much more successful in getting their agenda pushed than anything the American left has tried in 80-odd years that it may just be time to take some pages out of their book. Secondly I didn't claim they weren't a group, yes of course in the dictionary sense gun owners are literally a group of people. You are misusing the word "tribalism." It's not "gun owners" that I stand opposed to, it's the easy availability of deadly weapons. I have no prejudice against whatever people out there own guns, and typically tribalism isn't used to refer to discriminating against somebody's voluntary associations anyway. Is standing in vehement opposition to, say, PETA tribalism? Or is it just a statement of differing strong beliefs? What about the KKK? Is strongly, emotionally opposing them tribalism?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
foobardog posted:What do you mean? There's no way that Obama is not going to veto that bill, and the Senate does not have enough votes to override. And then they'll have to actually pass an appropriations bill without using reconciliation... 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Now that Obamacare's dead (unfortunately) will that shut the GOP up about it already and maaaybe stop filibustering for governmental shutdowns? Except Obama is going to veto the poo poo out of the bill and the right doesn't have enough votes to overturn it. It's yet more empty posturing, and everybody knows it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
liberals won't support the same media strategy as conservatives. Air America was widely publicized but failed. Every network that's tested the waters has found the viewership wanting. There's a lot of theories about this, but my own is that the conservative media strategy fundamentally depends on both outrage and blaming people to sustain its audience numbers. Some might say inciting hate. Liberals can be as outraged as conservatives, but the blame/hate game only worked when there was a focal point that most liberals could agree on - Dubya. Attempts to blame the general populace at best turn people off (depressing audience numbers) and at worst start the circular firing squad. Successful liberal media has focused on comedy or being insightful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:liberals won't support the same media strategy as conservatives. Air America was widely publicized but failed. Every network that's tested the waters has found the viewership wanting. I think in general Liberals want to be told they're smart and reasonable, conservatives want to be told they're right and principled. However, at this point the time to appeal to the liberal's sense of reasonableness is over. I think few people have some belief that Republicans and other conservatives can be reasoned or bargained with. But, I'm probably underestimating how much people pay attention and are susceptible to the "both are the same, why can't they get along????" nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
PUGGERNAUT posted:What's more likely - Trump-hating moderate Republicans staying home on election day, or Trump-hating moderate Republicans voting third party?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
stinkles1112 posted:In case you haven't noticed, the approach to politics of the so-called average Fox News viewer has been so wildly much more successful in getting their agenda pushed than anything the American left has tried in 80-odd years that it may just be time to take some pages out of their book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:
There is no getting off Donald Trump's Wild Ride. It never ends and only gets faster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 08:10
|
|
I wanna get off this ride now please.
|
The Left can't emulate Fox News, because facts have a liberal bias, and liberals have a factual bias. It's hard for the left to produce pleasing, easy to accept lies like the right does without completely undermining their message.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:There is no getting off Donald Trump's Wild Ride. It never ends and only gets faster. I'm hoping to fall out of this yooge hole in the floor on the next bump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Do you just look at second amendment case law and just go "nah?" Oh are you unaware of this? It's been well established that fishmech lives in his own alternative reality when it comes to amendments he doesn't like, particularly the 2nd for whatever reason. It's his trigger. Don't engage. foobardog posted:I think in general Liberals want to be told they're smart and reasonable, conservatives want to be told they're right and principled. However, at this point the time to appeal to the liberal's sense of reasonableness is over. I'm split on this. On the one hand liberals have tried to be the cool headed ones during the WAR ON TERROR phase, especially under Bush. On the other hand you have Bernie Sanders pushing the no-fly/no-guns list thing now after being the only guy except for Rand Paul who cared about the NSA so none of it makes sense anymore. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 08:18
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
i'm curious, what do people think we should do about a hypothetical guy who went to Syria to fight for ISIL and is entering the USA? or at least (someone) thinks that's what he did. what are we going to do, have a court that declares anyone who we think joined ISIL criminals in absentia?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:The Left can't emulate Fox News, because facts have a liberal bias, and liberals have a factual bias. It's hard for the left to produce pleasing, easy to accept lies like the right does without completely undermining their message. In particular the left has a fractured vision of the future based on the current state of pluralism. Environmentalism, race/gender relations, economic policy and more all tug different parts of the left harder. So you can't just shorthand the left's end goal in the same way that "relive the 1950s/1850s except only the 'good' parts" like works so well for the right. It is the fundamental nature of being pro-change. TheDeadlyShoe posted:i'm curious, what do people think we should do about a hypothetical guy who went to Syria to fight for ISIL and is entering the USA? Border agents can pretty much deny any non-citizen entry for that. Citizens we should probably handle through the justice system, like we have forever. Not the first time foreign trained spies have tried to enter our land. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 08:33 on Dec 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
Anyone who thinks they can predict how the general would go if Trump wins the nomination is deluding themselves. Basically everything that political scientists know about the primary process points to the fact that a Trump nomination is unthinkable and impossible. If it comes to pass that he is the nominee, we'll be in completely uncharted territory. Throw out the whole rulebook. lol forever at people thinking they can predict voting patterns or turnout with any sort of accuracy in that kind of situation. No, let go of your illusions of understanding and just strap in for the madness. (He still won't be the nominee though).
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 09:14
|
|
|
A Bag of Milk posted:Anyone who thinks they can predict how the general would go if Trump wins the nomination is deluding themselves. Basically everything that political scientists know about the primary process points to the fact that a Trump nomination is unthinkable and impossible. If it comes to pass that he is the nominee, we'll be in completely uncharted territory. Throw out the whole rulebook. lol forever at people thinking they can predict voting patterns or turnout with any sort of accuracy in that kind of situation. No, let go of your illusions of understanding and just strap in for the madness. (He still won't be the nominee though). He would be an extreme outsider who probably got the nomination with a plurality but not even majority of support from his party. I don't see why traditional models that factor in the ultimate upper limit likability of a candidate would suddenly fail. I think we have a decent idea on the demographics that he could possibly mobilize (white men) with the X factor that he could mobilize basically every other demographic against him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 09:22
|
|
|
The only way anyone votes Trump for President is if he runs as an Independent, in which case you should go all in on President Clinton 2.0 happening because he'll leech every crazy-rear end bigot that doesn't vote for whomever is left holding the Republican nom.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I'm split on this. On the one hand liberals have tried to be the cool headed ones during the WAR ON TERROR phase, especially under Bush. On the other hand you have Bernie Sanders pushing the no-fly/no-guns list thing now after being the only guy except for Rand Paul who cared about the NSA so none of it makes sense anymore. My guess is that Sanders is not going to be all that on civil liberties the same he's not all that on race issues or foreign issues. He's more of a dove than Clinton on both respects, but my guess is that he sees this as a completely low risk political move that would increase his appeal to moderates (particularly on foreign issues where Clinton is very strong) while only alienating some of his base. Like they're there for the socialism, and he's the only game in town right now, so they'll suck it up. I was more referring to the voters in the parties. Basically, liberal voters want to feel like they've come through a long process where their decision is a balance between their desires and the political climate. They don't want to be told what to believe, they want to figure it out. Conservatives on the other hand want to be vindicated in their general views. A person saying they agree with them and tearing apart those who disagree makes them feel great. Mind you, these are all general psychological desires we have, just that there are certain tendencies of people towards politics based on their ideology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:He would be an extreme outsider who probably got the nomination with a plurality but not even majority of support from his party. I don't see why traditional models that factor in the ultimate upper limit likability of a candidate would suddenly fail. I think we have a decent idea on the demographics that he could possibly mobilize (white men) with the X factor that he could mobilize basically every other demographic against him. The general is an eternity away, and Trump could easily rebrand himself in that time. He's skilled at that sort of thing and knows he'll be playing to a different crowd in the general. Or not, he could just remain exactly the same. It's a definite possibility he could win white women. Romney did easily. Or he could just crash and burn. Or win.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:The Left can't emulate Fox News, because facts have a liberal bias, and liberals have a factual bias. It's hard for the left to produce pleasing, easy to accept lies like the right does without completely undermining their message. Except when it comes to vaccines apparently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
A Bag of Milk posted:The general is an eternity away, and Trump could easily rebrand himself in that time. He's skilled at that sort of thing and knows he'll be playing to a different crowd in the general. Or not, he could just remain exactly the same. It's a definite possibility he could win white women. Romney did easily. Or he could just crash and burn. Or win. I don't agree that he's good a rebranding. He's politically fluid but that's different. His brand has stayed the same as a loud mouthed font of "common sense", which has limited appeal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 09:50
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Except when it comes to vaccines apparently. I know there are left wing vax deniers but are there more than the right wing vax deniers?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 09:51
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:The majority of Republicans, definitely. I never thought I'd say this, but I long for the days of Palin She said equally dumb, insane poo poo but it was somehow funnier, and she didn't get a free pass from the press for it edit - imagine how much fun a Palin/Bachmann ticket would be for 2016 right? Epic High Five fucked around with this message at 10:02 on Dec 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 09:57
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:I know there are left wing vax deniers but are there more than the right wing vax deniers? Probably an equal number considering the energy crystal healing types or whatever. And even if not, the left has like 99% of the anti-nukers. The rest are all coal miners living in Kentucky.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 09:59
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:And even if not, the left has like 99% of the anti-nukers.  It's really unfortunate too, because proliferation of modern fast breeder reactors would solve a lot of issues. The issue is a complete non starter from the left, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
A Bag of Milk posted:Anyone who thinks they can predict how the general would go if Trump wins the nomination is deluding themselves. Basically everything that political scientists know about the primary process points to the fact that a Trump nomination is unthinkable and impossible. If it comes to pass that he is the nominee, we'll be in completely uncharted territory. Throw out the whole rulebook. lol forever at people thinking they can predict voting patterns or turnout with any sort of accuracy in that kind of situation. No, let go of your illusions of understanding and just strap in for the madness. (He still won't be the nominee though).
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 12:03
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It's going to be hrod vs. Ted "Motherfucking" Cruz vs. (I) The Donald. The best part of this scenario is that Hillary would almost certainly grab 400+ EVs, but the down-ticket would be a bloodbath for Democrats. Veto-proof majority in the House, and I'd say the Senate as well any other year, but probably not 2016 thank goodness. Two questions: (1) Why would a theoretical (I) Trump voter not just fill out all of the (R) boxes on their ballot? Why would the down ticket races be a bloodbath? Depressed voter turnout in addition to Trump splitting the ticket? (2) Veto-proof majority means nothing if the president is of the same party, correct? Is there a deeper meaning, or were you just characterizing the size of the Democratic majority in this scenario?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It's going to be hrod vs. Ted "Motherfucking" Cruz vs. (I) The Donald. The best part of this scenario is that Hillary would almost certainly grab 400+ EVs, but the down-ticket would be a bloodbath for Democrats. Veto-proof majority in the House, and I'd say the Senate as well any other year, but probably not 2016 thank goodness. Grundulum posted:Two questions: The 1992 election might be a good example of why the down-ticket races wouldn't necessarily benefit. Even with Perot splitting the vote, the Dems still lost a bit in the house and gained little in the Senate. You'd need Trump to start fielding his own group's candidates or completely make the Republican brand toxic to help the dems down-ticket. I think it'd actually be better down-ticket if Trump was the nominee, as people would associate the party with him and be more likely to vote anti-Republican or not vote at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 13:39
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Two questions: I am pretty sure he's saying the Democrats would get their asses handed to them in downticket races from the combination of Republican voters and the crazy-rear end bigots getting out the vote for Trump and filling R down the rest of the ballot. That also makes his "veto-proof House majority" comment make sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
hi liter posted:Is this fascism yet? There's aren't organized parties or violent young trump supporters or any insane religious fervor, but it feels like fascism. A democratic president puts Muslim American citizens on a kill list and then blows them up extra-judiciously - "meh" A republican candidate suggests a moratorium on Muslim entry - "JACK BOOTED THUGGERY!!! HITLER!!!" Like, it's a dumb idea but please tone down the hysterics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I am pretty sure he's saying the Democrats would get their asses handed to them in downticket races from the combination of Republican voters and the crazy-rear end bigots getting out the vote for Trump and filling R down the rest of the ballot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:A democratic president puts Muslim American citizens on a kill list and then blows them up extra-judiciously - "meh" Hmm, what could be the difference between a muslim and all muslims?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:A democratic president puts Muslim American citizens on a kill list and then blows them up extra-judiciously - "meh" Yeah pretty sure the only people criticising Obama for assassinating Al-Awlaki were left-wing Democrats and Rand Paul. The GOP and the Tea Party have been resolutely pretending Obama didn't do that and then criticising him for not doing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
Quote of the morning, "You know how you make America great again? By telling Donald Trump to go to hell." ~ Lindsey Graham
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Quote of the morning, "You know how you make America great again? By telling Donald Trump to go to hell." ~ Lindsey Graham Hmm, nnnnnope doesn't make up for being Lindsey Graham.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:00 |
|
|
It's hilarious how hard everyone is trying to discredit Trump. Some of the things he is suggesting, like having a list of immigrants and what religion they practice, are things that we are probably already doing. I mean, Americans are fine with the government keeping lists of ever website every citizen views, and keeping the track of every cell phone call ever made but somehow its reprehensible to propose that we track what foreign visitors are doing? 100% guarantee we're already doing that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 14:55
|
|
