|
|
Post by John Chanin on Nov 24, 2016 17:08:12 GMT
I suppose following the utter humiliation of #NeverTrump and the 'true conservatives' (heh), Trump's election win, the appointments of Bannon and Sessions, and the prospect of a more populist and nationalist GOP going forward, that really is the best you can hope for. We shall see of course, but perhaps a reminder about such predictions is order for one of our leading purveyors of rubbish predictions about Trump. #NeverTrump was a principled stance and so Trump's election is not a humiliation for those who took such a stance. Yes the GOP is going to become more populist and nationalist for the next few years and that is a tragedy for America but ironically it will be most tragic for those states that swung sharply to Trump. America's great strengths have always been its optimism and confidence, its willingness to embrace the challenges of a changing world. Your populism is nothing but a whine about how unfair the modern world is, about how America deserves the economic conditions of yesterday to last indefinitely. You foolishly believe that the forces of globalisation can be turned back by a strongman president and protectionist trade policies when all that it will do is economically harm America more and more. Like those on the Utopian left you are indulging in fantasies rather than engaging with harsh realities. Maybe you don't care, perhaps you and your ilk will be happy as long as white people can be convinced to vote on racial lines and blame somebody else for all the faults of the nation. It is a pathetic and squalid vision that betrays America's wonderful history but then blaming others for failure is so much easier than actually working to succeed. That's a bit of a rant Richard, but from a different political perspective I agree with you about the modern world and American optimism.
What is truly pathetic is all the Republicans who opposed Trump from a principled point of view, and are now sucking up to him, looking for power, position, and money from the new administration. Twas ever thus of course, as humans are mostly greedy and unprincipled, but it surprises me even for American conservatives.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 24, 2016 17:26:09 GMT
However principled #NeverTrump may have been, it failed in its objectives; it was wholly inconsequential in fact, and not a few of its members have since gone cap in hand to Trump. If that isn't humiliation, then I don't know what is. #NeverTrump was never a united movement and it never had any objectives, it was a statement that the people in question would not vote for Trump in any circumstances. Most of those people also refused to vote for Clinton. I shan't bother burning down the various strawmen, but I must congratulate you on providing an excellent example of the There Is No Alternative to free trade, free markets and liberalism discourse that has so spectacularly run out of road this year. The simple fact is that there are alternatives, no matter how unpalatable they may be to you, and more and more people, whether animated by an economic system that no longer works for them, by cultural concerns, or simply by their preference to not become a racial minority in the country that their ancestors built, are becoming willing to look at and vote for them. 'The forces of globalization', etc. are not like earthquakes, hurricanes or other natural phenomena to which we are but helpless spectators. They are the fruit of political and economic choices. And people are now waking up to that. Free markets and free trade are not inevitable, backwards looking countries are perfectly free to go down the road of protectionism and state control if they wish. It is however a terrible mistake for them to do so. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 24, 2016 17:32:50 GMT
What is truly pathetic is all the Republicans who opposed Trump from a principled point of view, and are now sucking up to him, looking for power, position, and money from the new administration. Twas ever thus of course, as humans are mostly greedy and unprincipled, but it surprises me even for American conservatives. Well many of them only opposed him out of principle when they thought he would lose. A distinction needs to be drawn of course between those who are actively seeking favour from him with those like senators Flake and Sasse who opposed him but accept the reality that he is President and that they work with him on areas where they agree. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,656
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Nov 24, 2016 18:17:47 GMT
To be fair, while a high percentage of senior GOP figures refused to endorse or vote for Trump, only about 5% of GOP voters followed them. It really was the GOP voters who let the side down, not the GOP establishment. Arguably the GOP establishment has no choice now but to re-engage, otherwise Trump will fill all positions of power with relatives and Breitbart lunatics.
|
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Nov 24, 2016 18:32:01 GMT
#NeverTrump was a principled stance and so Trump's election is not a humiliation for those who took such a stance. Yes the GOP is going to become more populist and nationalist for the next few years and that is a tragedy for America but ironically it will be most tragic for those states that swung sharply to Trump. America's great strengths have always been its optimism and confidence, its willingness to embrace the challenges of a changing world. Your populism is nothing but a whine about how unfair the modern world is, about how America deserves the economic conditions of yesterday to last indefinitely. You foolishly believe that the forces of globalisation can be turned back by a strongman president and protectionist trade policies when all that it will do is economically harm America more and more. Like those on the Utopian left you are indulging in fantasies rather than engaging with harsh realities. Maybe you don't care, perhaps you and your ilk will be happy as long as white people can be convinced to vote on racial lines and blame somebody else for all the faults of the nation. It is a pathetic and squalid vision that betrays America's wonderful history but then blaming others for failure is so much easier than actually working to succeed. That's a bit of a rant Richard, but from a different political perspective I agree with you about the modern world and American optimism.
What is truly pathetic is all the Republicans who opposed Trump from a principled point of view, and are now sucking up to him, looking for power, position, and money from the new administration. Twas ever thus of course, as humans are mostly greedy and unprincipled, but it surprises me even for American conservatives.
I suppose it could simply be argued that it is in everyone's interest to have as many sensible people as possible in Trump's Administration. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2016 7:21:47 GMT
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,790 
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Nov 25, 2016 12:09:47 GMT
Some more Televisioncoverages from FOX: NBC: CBS: CNN (available are also local coverages from Atlanta and Phoenix): PBS: FUSION: ABC: RT (Putin's channel; with L.King, J.Ventura and right-/left-wing outsiders): CBC (Canada): BBC: |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2016 17:20:15 GMT
Quelle surprise...  |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 25, 2016 23:58:51 GMT
Just imagine going back to 1986 and telling people that in 30 years time the US right would be significantly more sympathetic to Russia than the US left.
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,656
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Nov 25, 2016 23:59:14 GMT
PropOrNot. Lol. That noise you can hear is the sound of petards being constructed all over the place...
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,051
|
Post by jamie on Nov 26, 2016 11:27:46 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 17:37:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by slicesofjim on Nov 27, 2016 0:30:02 GMT
If the Democrats pick her for 2020, either Trump will be a two term president or Pence will secure his first full term. It will show that they've learned nothing. A politician that sways with the breeze, and associates herself with very disreputable movements on university campuses. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 27, 2016 1:23:29 GMT
Rohrabacher is one of the most pro-Russian voices in congress. I would heartily welcome his nomination.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,051
|
Post by jamie on Nov 27, 2016 10:38:50 GMT
If the Democrats pick her for 2020, either Trump will be a two term president or Pence will secure his first full term. It will show that they've learned nothing. A politician that sways with the breeze, and associates herself with very disreputable movements on university campuses. I disagree. She would be facing a Republican incumbent who has been elected on a platform which he either can't possibly deliver or won't deliver because it's so awful. Many of the Trump voters this year will want 'change' and in a few years time Trump will be the establishment to them. Gillibrand is basically Clinton without the personification of being an insider and all the baggage she accrued over the years. Even as a Clinton supporter I can recognise that her baggage relating to her emails, Benghazi etc, were probably her downfall this election and she would have won easily if none of them had occurred (Clinton was quite popular until early 2015, then collapsed for the following 6 months). You will have to elaborate on the last point, I've read she opposes sexual assault on campuses but can't see anything where she supporting anything 'disreputable'. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,656
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Nov 27, 2016 10:40:07 GMT
The Democrats, before the election: "Implying this election might be determined by fraud is very dangerous and harms our democracy" The Democrats, after the election: "This election might have been determined by fraud" |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 27, 2016 11:01:02 GMT
The Democrats, after the election: "This election might have been determined by fraud" In fairness to the Democratic leadership they have largely ignored the nonsense about the election being rigged but their reward for that was to watch their supporters give $5 million to the appalling Jill Stein. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,051
|
Post by jamie on Nov 27, 2016 11:25:30 GMT
The Democrats, after the election: "This election might have been determined by fraud" In fairness to the Democratic leadership they have largely ignored the nonsense about the election being rigged but their reward for that was to watch their supporters give $5 million to the appalling Jill Stein. How much do the recounts cost? If they cost less than she is raising, then wouldn't someone have pointed that out? |
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,957
|
Post by mondialito on Nov 27, 2016 11:27:28 GMT
If the Democrats pick her for 2020, either Trump will be a two term president or Pence will secure his first full term. It will show that they've learned nothing. A politician that sways with the breeze, and associates herself with very disreputable movements on university campuses. I disagree. She would be facing a Republican incumbent who has been elected on a platform which he either can't possibly deliver or won't deliver because it's so awful. Many of the Trump voters this year will want 'change' and in a few years time Trump will be the establishment to them. Gillibrand is basically Clinton without the personification of being an insider and all the baggage she accrued over the years. Even as a Clinton supporter I can recognise that her baggage relating to her emails, Benghazi etc, were probably her downfall this election and she would have won easily if none of them had occurred (Clinton was quite popular until early 2015, then collapsed for the following 6 months). You will have to elaborate on the last point, I've read she opposes sexual assault on campuses but can't see anything where she supporting anything 'disreputable'. I am torn on Gillibrand. On paper, she seems capable of beating Trump or Pence, but then so did Hillary Clinton. She hasn't been in federal politics nearly as long as Clinton and would be nowhere near as complacent as Clinton was in the general election. However, the fact the linked story refers to Gillibrand possibly tapping up the same donors that make up the Clintons' contact book do show why she may yet be a flawed candidate. She can flip flop on issues (pro-gun when representing a rural hunting district in the House, less so when in the Senate) and may come across as yet another elitist telling people what they think they want to hear. I think we need to see what the Democrats do over the next four years. If they rebuild from the ground up, then those concerns need not be the millstone around her neck the way Clinton's problems were, if not, it will look like a top-down operation which people will reject. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,051
|
Post by jamie on Nov 27, 2016 11:53:13 GMT
I am torn on Gillibrand. On paper, she seems capable of beating Trump or Pence, but then so did Hillary Clinton. She hasn't been in federal politics nearly as long as Clinton and would be nowhere near as complacent as Clinton was in the general election. However, the fact the linked story refers to Gillibrand possibly tapping up the same donors that make up the Clintons' contact book do show why she may yet be a flawed candidate. She can flip flop on issues (pro-gun when representing a rural hunting district in the House, less so when in the Senate) and may come across as yet another elitist telling people what they think they want to hear. I think we need to see what the Democrats do over the next four years. If they rebuild from the ground up, then those concerns need not be the millstone around her neck the way Clinton's problems were, if not, it will look like a top-down operation which people will reject. I think Gillibrand is the sort of safe choice many Democrats will want, especially if the alternative candidate is a Democrat version of the Tea Party in 3 years time. As mentioned before, I think she would be a much better candidate electorally than Hillary. Up until 2015 Hillary was viewed as a good candidate, it's only really the emergence and daily coverage of supposed scandals which caused her to drop in support. As long as Gillibrand doesn't have any skeletons in the closet, she would do fine. Agreed she is a flip-flopper, but her relatively short and low key legislative career may help her, as opposed to Clinton's high profile policy changes eg; Iraq War. |
|
