USPOL August: Quoth The Donald, "Arzy more."

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL August: Quoth The Donald, "Arzy more."

Lightning Knight: Feb 24, 2012; Pray for Answer

Edmund Lava posted:

Elements of both yes, but let's not pretend they're in equal measure. Race devide has been a part of our country since its founding. The 3/5 compromise didn't come from global trade but the view that black people were lesser. We didn't fight the bloodiest conflict (up until that point) in human history over tariffs, as some claim, but the recognition of black people as people and not property.

This isn't some sudden revaluation of the downfalls of neo-liberalism, this is the end result of 240 years of American racism.

Yes, but the fiction of blacks being less than whites, and whites being superior, was created to uphold classism. Poor whites won't rise up against rich whites if they're too busy making GBS threads on blacks. Thus, racism matters, is important, and should be addressed, but it also cannot be divorced from class. That also means, however, that people will experience classism differently based on race, and racism differently based on class.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 12:18

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Josh Lyman posted:

Isn't that fund... basically taxes?

Well, treasuries to be more specific.

And then we'll default on that fund, boom free infrastructure!

Oh wait were we supposed to reveal the "default on the national debt" plan before or after the "solicit investors to finance half a trillion in new spending" plan?

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:13

Doorknob Slobber: Sep 10, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

Noam Chomsky posted:

But, wouldn't you agree that almost half of the voting population's willingness to support a Nazi in all but name is an outgrowth of a general fear, real or imagined, that the future has been stolen from that half of population?

9% of people in the US were involved in nominating Clinton/Trump. I think Trump is a direct result of the republican's(and to a lesser extent even democrats) efforts to suppress voters and the democrats neoliberal policies disenfranchising large amounts of people combined with economic policies from both parties that make people feel economically uncertain.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:17

Lid: Feb 18, 2005; And the mercy seat is awaiting,
And I think my head is burning,
And in a way I'm yearning,
To be done with all this measuring of proof.
An eye for an eye
And a tooth for a tooth,
And anyway I told the truth,
And I'm not afraid to die.

Donald Trump falters to the biting in depth journalistic mind of noted thespian Stuart Varney on Fox Business.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:19

HorseRenoir: Dec 25, 2011; Pillbug

Edmund Lava posted:

Elements of both yes, but let's not pretend they're in equal measure. Race devide has been a part of our country since its founding. The 3/5 compromise didn't come from global trade but the view that black people were lesser. We didn't fight the bloodiest conflict (up until that point) in human history over tariffs, as some claim, but the recognition of black people as people and not property.

This isn't some sudden revaluation of the downfalls of neo-liberalism, this is the end result of 240 years of American racism.

I really hate this new trend of smug white brogressives saying "well actually the rise of Trump is because the people are tired of neoliberal policies, the elites are trying to distract you with identity politics :smug:

"

Racism has existed in good financial times as well as bad, and it's not some coincidence that racist far-right movements are gaining popularity as white political dominance is waning. And then progressives wonder why minorities don't vote for the progressive candidates that consider their issues a "distraction".

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:23

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Reason posted:

9% of people in the US were involved in nominating Clinton/Trump. I think Trump is a direct result of the republican's(and to a lesser extent even democrats) efforts to suppress voters and the democrats neoliberal policies disenfranchising large amounts of people combined with economic policies from both parties that make people feel economically uncertain.

Equating turnout for a candidate in the primary elections with that candidate's support in the general election or among the public is...faulty reasoning.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:25

Huzanko: Aug 4, 2015; by FactsAreUseless

HorseRenoir posted:

I really hate this new trend of smug white brogressives saying "well actually the rise of Trump is because the people are tired of neoliberal policies, the elites are trying to distract you with identity politics "

Racism has existed in good financial times as well as bad, and it's not some coincidence that racist far-right movements are gaining popularity as white political dominance is waning. And then progressives wonder why minorities don't vote for the progressive candidates that consider their issues a "distraction".

Is pretty much what was said.

You're reading what you want to read in order to be offended by imagined "brogressives."

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:26

Lid: Feb 18, 2005; And the mercy seat is awaiting,
And I think my head is burning,
And in a way I'm yearning,
To be done with all this measuring of proof.
An eye for an eye
And a tooth for a tooth,
And anyway I told the truth,
And I'm not afraid to die.

When i think of anti neoliberal icons i too think of racist billionaire robber barons. Truly he is the death of the capitalist bourgeoisie.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:26

eviltastic: Feb 8, 2004; Fan of Britches

We all know it's a one off, but it would be hilarious if Trump's shtick of "We're going to do all of it, build great stuff, the best" drags Republicans into admitting that we need the government to do things.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:27

Amergin: Jan 29, 2013; THE SOUND A WET FART MAKES

waitwhatno posted:

I'm not trying to imply that Europe is any less on a slow march to fascism, that's not the incomprehensible part. It's that the population is ready to hand the key to the most important office in the country to a character from the Jersey Shore. He is mentally a child, that's what gets me.

The German Trump equivalent has a PhD in Chemistry and founded her own company. The French Trump equivalent has a law degree. They are all grown up people, that have shown a basic level competence and skill throughout life. Trump is a child. Even if you are a racist hick from bumfuck nowhere, you can still spot a bad lawyer, doctor or a bad cashier at a supermarket.

Most Americans are mentally children, hence why they all report that "[Trump] speaks to me, he says what I'm thinking."

The funniest part of this election is media overall doing this mental jiu jitsu trying to elaborate on why Trump is winning for every reason except: the American electorate is fuckin' dumb, y'all.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:29

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

The GOP has semi-successfully characterized the left as rich ivory tower elitists when they themselves are generally the Ivy league educated children from wealthy families. Trump being the voice of the racist proletariat isn't that unbelievable since they concurrently idolize the rich and hate them for rigging the system depending on which ideology that rich person subscribes to.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:30

sean10mm: Jun 29, 2005; It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, MAD-2R World

Amergin posted:

Most Americans are mentally children, hence why they all report that "[Trump] speaks to me, he says what I'm thinking."

The funniest part of this election is media overall doing this mental jiu jitsu trying to elaborate on why Trump is winning for every reason except: the old white male American electorate is fuckin' dumb, y'all.

Fixed. Everybody else is in the bag for Clinton.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:35

iospace: Jan 19, 2038

VitalSigns posted:

That was the funniest thing ever. And then they couldn't stop him by disavowing his racism because that's PC liberal thought control, they couldn't stop him by warning his rhetoric would be poison in the general because he's just saying what everyone's thinking and Republicans only lose when they disappoint America by not being racist enough. And they couldn't even use their media empire to expose how dangerously ignorant he is about government and foreign policy because you can't trust the media, whenever you don't like what you hear on the news it's because they're making up all their so-called facts, you gotta go with your feelings.

It was glorious.

That is probably the most accurate reasoning I've seen as to why the GOP rolled over and took it.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:35

Doorknob Slobber: Sep 10, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

HorseRenoir posted:

the rise of Trump is because the people are tired of neoliberal policies

I personally hate when white democrats claim over and over again that the democratic party isn't a party of lovely racism and classism.

Historically racist(or nationalist) populist candidates come to power during economically uncertain times. It makes sense, because while racism exists always, and certainly a partisan capitalist establishment benefits from having ideologies that divide its population along strict lines of hate, during economically certain times that hate is harder to tap in to.

In general if we didn't have laws that excluded large amounts of minority people from participating in the voting process, things like Bill Clintons 1994 crime bill and Project Exile and other things that increase the number of black and hispanic and native american felons then I imagine both parties would have to be more diverse in order to maintain a power base and we would see a great deal less overtly racist rhetoric from Trump and covertly racist rhetoric from the rest of the democrat/republican parties.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:36

emdash: Oct 19, 2003; and?

Obama going hard on Trump in a presser right now. Chyron: "obama: trump "unfit" to be president"

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:36

gregday: May 23, 2003

Radish posted:

The GOP has semi-successfully characterized the left as rich ivory tower elitists when they themselves are generally the Ivy league educated children from wealthy families. Trump being the voice of the racist proletariat isn't that unbelievable since they concurrently idolize the rich and hate them for rigging the system depending on which ideology that rich person subscribes to.

The GOP is infamous for accusing others of exactly what they do.

Which not coincidentally is also what compulsive lying, narcissist, egomaniacs do.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:36

GABA ghoul: Oct 29, 2011

So what's the worst case scenario for a Trump presidency?

He hands off all important duties to friends/highest buyers, things stay more or less the same, but the executive branch becomes totally paralyzed? I hope there are enough checks and balances to keep them from loving up too badly in case of a real crisis like an asteroid heading towards earth, China collapsing or sharks learning how to use laser weapons. US ICBM launch orders have to be verified by someone else before they go through, right?

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:37

Mecca-Benghazi: Mar 31, 2012

Well, if Donald wins we would have a Republican congress and the supreme court swings right for a generation, regardless of checks on the executive branch.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:39

Mr Interweb: Aug 25, 2004

Lid posted:

Speaking with Fox Business anchor Stuart Varney, Donald Trump proposed spending “at least double” the $275 billion opponent Hillary Clinton has pledged to spend on American infrastructure, before suggesting that “we’ll get a fund” to pay for it.

“I would say at least double her numbers, and you’re going to really need more than that,” Trump said. “We have bridges that are falling down. I don’t know if you’ve seen the warning charts, but we have many, many bridges that are in dangers of falling, and-”

“Where does that money come from?” Varney interrupted. “If that’s the number you’re talking about, where do you get that money from?”

“We’re going to go out with a fund - we’ll get a fund,” Trump responded airily. “We’ll make a phenomenal deal with the low interest rates, and we’re going to have to rebuild our infrastructure. We have no choice.”

When twice asked who would put money into that fund, Trump suggested that “people, investors” would put money into the fund. “The citizens would put money into the fund. And we will rebuild our infrastructure with that fund and it will be a great investment and it’s going to put a lot of people to work.

Have we finally found the one thing that will make the likes of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell withdraw their support for Trump? :monocle:

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:40

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

alpha_destroy posted:

"I hope Americans understand that the remarks do not represent the views of our Republican Party, its officers, or candidates."

John... John... Buddy... These are the views of your candidate.

Crows Turn Off posted:

How can he say they don't represent the views of the candidates when it is the Republican candidate saying these things?!

Jesus, McCain is spineless.

This is the new Republican damage-control strategy to try and limit the downticket bleeding.

I was listening to Diane Rehm yesterday morning (same day McCain made that statement) and they had some Republican spin doctor spouting off the same line, about how it wasn't the Republican convention, it was the Trump convention. Clearly the new talking-points memo went out yesterday.

quote:

AYRES: There's something else going on here, Susan. Normally, we have a Republican Convention and a Democratic Convention. We had a Democratic Convention. We didn't have a Republican Convention. We had a Trump convention. When the two living former Republican presidents won't show up, when the two most recent Republican presidential nominees won't show up, when the popular home state Republican governor won't show up, when most other Republican candidates won't show up, it's not a Republican Convention. It's a Trump convention.

AYRES: Even the president said, this didn't sound very Republican or very conservative. So what we've got in this election is a Democratic brand, a Republican brand and a Trump brand. And we've got three different brands going on here, but don't confuse the Trump brand with the Republican brand, because they are two fundamentally different things.

PAGE: Do Republicans have that privilege to say that the person they nominated for president doesn't represent their party?

AYRES: It is the reality of the politics right now, Susan, where the Republican brand is not the same thing as the Trump brand and that's why we're seeing the split ticket voting we were just talking about, because voters are making a distinction between the two.

https://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2016-08-01/after-the-conventions-whats-next-for-the-twenty-sixteen-race-for-president

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Aug 2, 2016

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:41

haveblue: Aug 15, 2005; Toilet Rascal

waitwhatno posted:

So what's the worst case scenario for a Trump presidency?

He hands off all important duties to friends/highest buyers, things stay more or less the same, but the executive branch becomes totally paralyzed? I hope there are enough checks and balances to keep them from loving up too badly in case of a real crisis like an asteroid heading towards earth, China collapsing or sharks learning how to use laser weapons. US ICBM launch orders have to be verified by someone else before they go through, right?

Best case, the end of US geopolitical dominance. Worst case, World War 3.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:42

Epic High Five: Jun 5, 2004

waitwhatno posted:

So what's the worst case scenario for a Trump presidency?

He hands off all important duties to friends/highest buyers, things stay more or less the same, but the executive branch becomes totally paralyzed? I hope there are enough checks and balances to keep them from loving up too badly in case of a real crisis like an asteroid heading towards earth, China collapsing or sharks learning how to use laser weapons. US ICBM launch orders have to be verified by someone else before they go through, right?

40 more years of a conservative SCOTUS, this time with a mandate to repeal everything progressive that has been passed since 1890. Dramatic erosion of libel laws and very likely a full scale conflict with Iran or the Saudis, put of course on the credit card for the next generation. All labor protections gone within 100 days, all environmental regulations eliminated or cut to nothing, and every dollar of infrastructure spending distributed Halliburton style to cronies so that we're all being electrocuted by our own showerheads while a couple guys pocket hundreds of billions of dollars in pure profit.

Oh wait, I messed up, that's the best case scenario.

Oh yeah and massive Russian expansionism and the end of the Dollar and US dominance in global affairs.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:42

HorseRenoir: Dec 25, 2011; Pillbug

waitwhatno posted:

So what's the worst case scenario for a Trump presidency?

He hands off all important duties to friends/highest buyers, things stay more or less the same, but the executive branch becomes totally paralyzed? I hope there are enough checks and balances to keep them from loving up too badly in case of a real crisis like an asteroid heading towards earth, China collapsing or sharks learning how to use laser weapons. US ICBM launch orders have to be verified by someone else before they go through, right?

A Trump presidency would have a Republican House, Republican Senate (most likely without filibusters), Republican White House, and full control of SCOTUS picks for a full generation. So no, there would not be checks and balances.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:42

sean10mm: Jun 29, 2005; It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, MAD-2R World

Mecca-Benghazi posted:

Well, if Donald wins we would have a Republican congress and the supreme court swings right for a generation, regardless of checks on the executive branch.

Yeah, it would warp the entire legal system towards fascism for the long haul, which if we avoid nuclear apocalypse or wars on multiple fronts would be the worst thing about a Trump presidency.

Luckily the demographics alone make it virtually impossible for him to win. Unlike the UK we aren't 87% non-Hispanic whites, so shitbag white old men aren't enough to vote for the apocalypse by themselves.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:43

GABA ghoul: Oct 29, 2011

Mecca-Benghazi posted:

Well, if Donald wins we would have a Republican congress and the supreme court swings right for a generation, regardless of checks on the executive branch.

But judges have to be confirmed by the Senate, right? So it can't get TOO bad, like him appointing his daughter or something.

Why would a Trump presidency lead to the GOP taking the house, aren't these totally separate elections?

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:44

emdash: Oct 19, 2003; and?

waitwhatno posted:

But judges have to be confirmed by the Senate, right? So it can't get TOO bad, like him appointing his daughter or something.

Why would a Trump presidency lead to the GOP taking the house, aren't these totally separate elections?

any circumstance where Trump wins probably coincides with a bad shift in both congressional houses

but the repubs are probably gonna hold the house regardless of whether he wins

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:46

sean10mm: Jun 29, 2005; It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, MAD-2R World

^^ Fucker

waitwhatno posted:

But judges have to be confirmed by the Senate, right? So it can't get TOO bad, like him appointing his daughter or something.

Why would a Trump presidency lead to the GOP taking the house, aren't these totally separate elections?

For Trump to win a huge number of ordinarily Democratic voters would have to switch sides, which would naturally tend to skew all the down-ticket races towards the Republicans.

Also the GOP already has the House by a large margin and is unlikely to lose it no matter what.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:47

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

waitwhatno posted:

But judges have to be confirmed by the Senate, right? So it can't get TOO bad, like him appointing his daughter or something.

Why would a Trump presidency lead to the GOP taking the house, aren't these totally separate elections?

Because if Trump wins it means voters picked him in enough places that it is very likely Republicans keep the House.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:47

Periodiko: Jan 30, 2005; Uh.

Lid posted:

When i think of anti neoliberal icons i too think of racist billionaire robber barons. Truly he is the death of the capitalist bourgeoisie.

I mean, can you imagine that? A "racist robber baron" using race to motivate poor working class people against black people against their own class interest? Golly.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:47

Pakled: Aug 6, 2011; WE ARE SMART

waitwhatno posted:

But judges have to be confirmed by the Senate, right? So it can't get TOO bad, like him appointing his daughter or something.

Why would a Trump presidency lead to the GOP taking the house, aren't these totally separate elections?

The GOP already controls the House and is likely to continue to do so for years thanks to Republican dominance in statehouses leading to gerrymandering. Even in a landslide Clinton victory, the House is almost certainly going to stay GOP.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:47

FilthyImp: Sep 30, 2002; Anime Deviant

My wish is that Trump insults a child this cycle. I don't care how, I just want him to do it.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:47

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

waitwhatno posted:

But judges have to be confirmed by the Senate, right? So it can't get TOO bad, like him appointing his daughter or something.

Why would a Trump presidency lead to the GOP taking the house, aren't these totally separate elections?

It is incredibly unlikely that a Trump Presidency would also result in a Democrat-controlled Congress.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:48

Dexo: Aug 15, 2009; A city that was to live by night after the wilderness had passed. A city that was to forge out of steel and blood-red neon its own peculiar wilderness.

waitwhatno posted:

But judges have to be confirmed by the Senate, right? So it can't get TOO bad, like him appointing his daughter or something.

Why would a Trump presidency lead to the GOP taking the house, aren't these totally separate elections?

If Trump wins that means the GOP would control, the house, the senate, the Supreme court when they get their nominees.

They are separate elections but they are all on the same ballot and if Trump gets enough R votes to win there is no way anyone voting for trump is then going to vote for a democrat house and senate member.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:48

Epic High Five: Jun 5, 2004

FilthyImp posted:

My wish is that Trump insults a child this cycle. I don't care how, I just want him to do it.

How are we classifying what he did to Jeb!?

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:49

Lid: Feb 18, 2005; And the mercy seat is awaiting,
And I think my head is burning,
And in a way I'm yearning,
To be done with all this measuring of proof.
An eye for an eye
And a tooth for a tooth,
And anyway I told the truth,
And I'm not afraid to die.

Trump wont lead to World War 3.

A war requires two sides and the side he'd be on would be neutral against Putin.

So Russia will dominate the world, there wont be a war.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:49

Dexo: Aug 15, 2009; A city that was to live by night after the wilderness had passed. A city that was to forge out of steel and blood-red neon its own peculiar wilderness.

Lid posted:

Trump wont lead to World War 3.

A war requires two sides and the side he'd be on would be neutral against Putin.

So Russia will dominate the world, there wont be a war.

It just won't be a war against Russia. It'd be against China/Europe.

Maybe Boooooth.

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:50

Have Some Flowers!: Aug 27, 2004; Hey, I've got Navigate...

Reason posted:

9% of people in the US were involved in nominating Clinton/Trump.

I think it's a mischaracterization of the process to say 'involved'. 2016 was one of the highest years in recent history for primary voter turnout (by percentage of eligible electorate).

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:50

Sulphagnist: Oct 10, 2006; WARNING! INTRUDERS DETECTED

Trump appointing Ivanka to the SCOTUS would actually probably push the SCOTUS more left since she'd be replacing Scalia and she's a young woman who's obviously voted Democrat all her life.

The problem is that the Senate has to confirm so Scalia's replacement would be a 28 year old Scalia clone. (Trump winning and the Dems taking the Senate is a virtually impossible combination.)

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:50

MacheteZombie: Feb 4, 2007

Lid posted:

Trump wont lead to World War 3.

A war requires two sides and the side he'd be on would be neutral against Putin.

So Russia will dominate the world, there wont be a war.

USA sold to the lowest bidder

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 12:18

Ash1138: Sep 29, 2001; Get up, chief. We're just gettin' started.

Lid posted:

Speaking with Fox Business anchor Stuart Varney, Donald Trump proposed spending “at least double” the $275 billion opponent Hillary Clinton has pledged to spend on American infrastructure, before suggesting that “we’ll get a fund” to pay for it.

“I would say at least double her numbers, and you’re going to really need more than that,” Trump said. “We have bridges that are falling down. I don’t know if you’ve seen the warning charts, but we have many, many bridges that are in dangers of falling, and-”

“Where does that money come from?” Varney interrupted. “If that’s the number you’re talking about, where do you get that money from?”

“We’re going to go out with a fund - we’ll get a fund,” Trump responded airily. “We’ll make a phenomenal deal with the low interest rates, and we’re going to have to rebuild our infrastructure. We have no choice.”

When twice asked who would put money into that fund, Trump suggested that “people, investors” would put money into the fund. “The citizens would put money into the fund. And we will rebuild our infrastructure with that fund and it will be a great investment and it’s going to put a lot of people to work.

Are you sure you weren't watching that episode of Seinfeld where Kramer talks about writing something off without knowing what a write-off is?

# ? Aug 2, 2016 16:51

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL August: Quoth The Donald, "Arzy more."

«‹›565 »