|
Post by islington on Dec 14, 2020 14:06:58 GMT
And, of course, I would put the left's denigration of the 2010-2015 government here in the same category. "Most right-wing government in history" they said It's like setting yourself up as a weather-forecasting seer and going on unvaryingly to predict (regardless of the season of the year or any other consideration) that tomorrow it will snow.
Sooner or later, you'll be right; but it doesn't make you a meteorological genius.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2020 14:14:40 GMT
As this thread finally wends to its end, almost four years after its start, I'd like to revisit the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" and say to anyone who has ever used it: Now do you see what we were on about? Do you finally see that it doesn't matter if Trump's actual policies were or were not within the range of what might be expected from a Republican President? It does matter that decent people felt that Trump was or is their best option, but that doesn't outweigh the bigger point that for four years the USA has been led by a man who has undermined its constitution, taken a wrecking ball to two-party politics, and damaged the whole concept of The West as an alliance of like-minded democracies; that it remains to be seen how quickly any of this can be repaired, if at all. This, these last couple of months of trying to lie and cheat to save D Trump's fat arse, with a bunch of sycophants and weasels colluding out of fear of a mob of morons, is what we were on about. The derangement was in anyone who tried to pretend none of it really mattered. We are extremely lucky that while he would have liked to be ‘Der Trumper’ of the US, with the end of 2 term limit, etc etc, in the end it was his lack of intelligence & his incompetence that primarily stopped him. We may not be so lucky next time around.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,483
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 14, 2020 14:19:12 GMT
Even if true, it pales in comparison with the often genuinely unhinged abuse many self styled "sensible centrists" unleashed on the Labour party and its leader come 2015-19.
Going back to Trump, however - I did actually think some of the invective against him in the 2016 election campaign and indeed the following four years was at times rather OTT (remember how some claimed GWB would rather call martial law than hand over power to Obama, for example?) and it was also notable how certain "moderate" types often seemed more bothered by his (lack of) "table manners", rather than the substance of what he was doing. But what has happened since last month's elections has surely gone some way to proving some of those seemingly overwrought statements actually contained a great deal of truth. Lots of us semi-joked how he would genuinely be unable to process an election defeat, few actually imagined he would try to insist black was white so blatantly and shamelessly.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 14, 2020 15:03:31 GMT
Even if true, it pales in comparison with the often genuinely unhinged abuse many self styled "sensible centrists" unleashed on the Labour party and its leader come 2015-19. Going back to Trump, however - I did actually think some of the invective against him in the 2016 election campaign and indeed the following four years was at times rather OTT (remember how some claimed GWB would rather call martial law than hand over power to Obama, for example?) and it was also notable how certain "moderate" types often seemed more bothered by his (lack of) "table manners", rather than the substance of what he was doing. But what has happened since last month's elections has surely gone some way to proving some of those seemingly overwrought statements actually contained a great deal of truth. Lots of us semi-joked how he would genuinely be unable to process an election defeat, few actually imagined he would try to insist black was white so blatantly and shamelessly. Well, if you're thinking of Jeremy Corbyn, then I think many on the political right would argue that he was such a departure from Labour's traditional style of leadership that it was right to attack him in the strongest terms.
But if you were thinking of Ed Miliband, I'd agree completely. He may have had his tiny faults, but it was absurd to suggest, as much of the conservative media did, that he was the reincarnation of Marx, Engels and Stalin rolled into one.
Crying 'wolf!' is not the preserve of the left.
|
|
|
Post by mrhell on Dec 14, 2020 17:56:24 GMT
It's not a prize for the best person but the most noteworthy. Almost all newly elected presidents have won it then or won it later (and also earlier for Eisenhower) bar Hoover.
Do you not think the doctor who told the world, "Hey, I've found this new disease in Wuhan", and then got punished for it by the CCP, and then caught it and died...did something more noteworthy than a guy who isn't even president this year? Or what about the two people who invented a new vaccine that's already being used, and will ultimately save tens of millions of lives? Noteworthy?
I don't make the decisions.
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Dec 15, 2020 20:20:40 GMT
One of Trump's frequent drumbeats was that he "got more votes than any president in history" as though this was something extraordinary, but he's actually the 16th losing candidate to achieve this.
1796 Burr 1812 Clinton 1828 Adams 1840 Van Buren 1844 Clay 1852 Scott 1868 Seymour 1876 Tilden 1880 Hancock 1884 Blaine 1888 Cleveland 1896 Bryan 1916 Hughes 1920 Cox 2004 Kerry 2020 Trump
It was a fairly common occurrence until the 20th century, happening in 13 of 28 POTUS elections up to that point. This, to a large extent, reflected the rapidly growing US population at that time. In recent times it is a rarity, with Kerry the first to achieve it in 84 years. Trump is the fourth outgoing president to do it and the first since Grover Cleveland in 1888.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,483
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 16, 2020 12:42:28 GMT
Even if true, it pales in comparison with the often genuinely unhinged abuse many self styled "sensible centrists" unleashed on the Labour party and its leader come 2015-19. Going back to Trump, however - I did actually think some of the invective against him in the 2016 election campaign and indeed the following four years was at times rather OTT (remember how some claimed GWB would rather call martial law than hand over power to Obama, for example?) and it was also notable how certain "moderate" types often seemed more bothered by his (lack of) "table manners", rather than the substance of what he was doing. But what has happened since last month's elections has surely gone some way to proving some of those seemingly overwrought statements actually contained a great deal of truth. Lots of us semi-joked how he would genuinely be unable to process an election defeat, few actually imagined he would try to insist black was white so blatantly and shamelessly. Well, if you're thinking of Jeremy Corbyn, then I think many on the political right would argue that he was such a departure from Labour's traditional style of leadership that it was right to attack him in the strongest terms.
So where would you draw the line there, if at all - eg is saying "they want to reopen Auschwitz" remotely acceptable about anyone save an actual confirmed neo-Nazi?
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 16, 2020 14:32:29 GMT
Yes, fair enough. I think I meant 'unusually strong terms' rather than 'the strongest terms'.
I think it's reasonable that particular fire is directed at insurgent candidates, such as Messrs Corbyn and Trump (who have more in common than their respective admirers might like to think). This is because it's usually much less clear what an insurgent candidate means to do if elected: is the radical rhetoric actually no more than that, or does the candidate intend some kind of drastic upending of the existing system?
With a more conventional, centrist candidate, on the other hand, it's usually much clearer how he or she is likely to govern.
Now, I think it would be fair to say that I have a fairly conventional and centrist approach to politics; and I admit that insurgent politicians make me uneasy. Nevertheless, I've come to accept that they are necessary: without them, the political culture becomes static and complacent. So we need insurgent politicians to give things a jolt, however uncomfortable centrists like me may find it. And while I think insurgents are likely to come under heavier attack than more conventional politicians, they are still entitled to a fair hearing.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Dec 18, 2020 17:14:04 GMT
Bump: reminder from 19 months ago You lot aren't Avengers fans. Smh In other news. Look at Bet-oh go.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Dec 18, 2020 17:34:43 GMT
I have been considering what the result "should" have been, according to the following rules: (a) the total turnout in 2020 is the same as what it actually was (b) the voters are so horrified by what Trump is like, and what he has done, that Trump does not get any new voters. He only gets the same number of popular voters as he did in 2016. (c) the increase in turnout therefore goes entirely to Biden. (d) to make the calculation simple, it ignores the complications of voters who have died since 2016, or new young voters coming of age who couldn't vote in 2016. For the purpose of the calculation, we assume that these two groups cancel each other out (in other words, voters aged 18-22 are "allowed" to vote for Trump in sufficient numbers to cancel out the Trump voters who have died). The result is: Biden 92,500,788 Trump 62,984,828 Biden 58.4% Trump 39.8% Biden 438, Trump 100 The surprising bits are Idaho and Montana, where Biden wins essentially because there was a big increase in turnout overall. The closest result is that Trump wins Kansas by 297 votes.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Dec 18, 2020 18:03:52 GMT
And, to be fair: the other way round: (a) the total turnout in 2020 is the same as what it actually was (b) the voters are so fed up with Biden / Clinton / "the Establishment" that Biden does not get any new voters. He only gets the same number of popular voters as Clinton did in 2016. All new voters are excited and enthused about how Trump has stirred things up / drained the swamp etc. (c) the increase in turnout therefore goes entirely to Trump. (d) to make the calculation simple, it ignores the complications of voters who have died since 2016, or new young voters coming of age who couldn't vote in 2016. For the purpose of the calculation, we assume that these two groups cancel each other out (in other words, voters aged 18-22 are "allowed" to vote for Biden in sufficient numbers to cancel out the Clinton voters who have died). Trump 89,632,100 Biden 65,853,514 Trump 56.6% Biden 41.6% Trump 407 Biden 131 The closest result is that Trump wins Connecticut by 827 votes.
|
|
Izzyeviel
Lib Dem
I stayed up for Hartlepools
Posts: 3,279
|
Post by Izzyeviel on Dec 18, 2020 18:43:32 GMT
And, to be fair: the other way round: (a) the total turnout in 2020 is the same as what it actually was (b) the voters are so fed up with Biden / Clinton / "the Establishment" that Biden does not get any new voters. He only gets the same number of popular voters as Clinton did in 2016. All new voters are excited and enthused about how Trump has stirred things up / drained the swamp etc. (c) the increase in turnout therefore goes entirely to Trump. (d) to make the calculation simple, it ignores the complications of voters who have died since 2016, or new young voters coming of age who couldn't vote in 2016. For the purpose of the calculation, we assume that these two groups cancel each other out (in other words, voters aged 18-22 are "allowed" to vote for Biden in sufficient numbers to cancel out the Clinton voters who have died). Trump 89,632,100 Biden 65,853,514 Trump 56.6% Biden 41.6% Trump 407 Biden 131 The closest result is that Trump wins Connecticut by 827 votes. Trump supporters are claiming he actually won California... even your optimistic Trump map can't flip it to him.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,524
Member is Online
|
Post by john07 on Dec 18, 2020 18:56:53 GMT
And, to be fair: the other way round: (a) the total turnout in 2020 is the same as what it actually was (b) the voters are so fed up with Biden / Clinton / "the Establishment" that Biden does not get any new voters. He only gets the same number of popular voters as Clinton did in 2016. All new voters are excited and enthused about how Trump has stirred things up / drained the swamp etc. (c) the increase in turnout therefore goes entirely to Trump. (d) to make the calculation simple, it ignores the complications of voters who have died since 2016, or new young voters coming of age who couldn't vote in 2016. For the purpose of the calculation, we assume that these two groups cancel each other out (in other words, voters aged 18-22 are "allowed" to vote for Biden in sufficient numbers to cancel out the Clinton voters who have died). Trump 89,632,100 Biden 65,853,514 Trump 56.6% Biden 41.6% Trump 407 Biden 131 The closest result is that Trump wins Connecticut by 827 votes. Trump supporters are claiming he actually won California... even your optimistic Trump map can't flip it to him. Trump didn’t just win California. He won it BIG!
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Jan 3, 2021 10:34:40 GMT
Just putting this here, but Mike Smithson has backed Kamala Harris (Jnr Senator from California) as the potential Dem nominee in 2020. See HereWould have been very profitable to back her and then trade it.
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,232
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jan 3, 2021 18:34:34 GMT
President Trump truly gets worse, I hope somebody taped the conversation or kept contemporaneous notes.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Jan 3, 2021 18:41:54 GMT
President Trump truly gets worse, I hope somebody taped the conversation or kept contemporaneous notes. The conversation was taped, and boy is it bad, I mean really bad, as in bad enough that he could go to jail for this.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 3, 2021 18:49:40 GMT
President Trump truly gets worse, I hope somebody taped the conversation or kept contemporaneous notes. The conversation was taped, and boy is it bad, I mean really bad, as in bad enough that he could go to jail for this. Maybe, like Nixon, it will be the tapes that get him in the end.
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jan 3, 2021 19:10:59 GMT
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 22,336
|
Post by mboy on Jan 3, 2021 19:13:17 GMT
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 22,336
|
Post by mboy on Jan 3, 2021 19:16:57 GMT
President Trump truly gets worse, I hope somebody taped the conversation or kept contemporaneous notes. The conversation was taped, and boy is it bad, I mean really bad, as in bad enough that he could go to jail for this. With the Dirty Dozen senators having just nailed themselves to trump's mast, it would be beautiful if the ship went down now...
|
|