Jpowers

Not the new Donald Trump Presidency thread

32,179 posts in this topic

Just now, T-Falcon said:

I thought you Leftist hated our founding fathers and documents and Constitution and all that jazz. I figured you would appreciate.

I was under the impression that the right were the true defenders of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. Why is it that you guys never seem to know much about either?

Statick and Door Gunner like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe somebody could explain to me why a person who loses the popular vote is more legitimate as president than the person who won the popular vote?

Their arguments imply that the majority vote is an inherently less legitimate means of choosing a president than a system where the person not chosen by the public is the president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bristled at the suggestion of abolishing the EC at first, because I'm not a big fan of huge structural changes to how we allocate votes, but given how skewed the results have become, and the fact that we have the entire legislative branch based on proportional representation (which even THEN is skewed towards low population states), I think I'd be fine with it, provided it goes through the normal amendment process.

Leon Troutsky and Door Gunner like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Carl Showalter said:

First, I've been saying he's "not-too-bright" and the like, not that he's a "total dumb***."  To the extent I've said something like the latter before, I assure you it was hyperbole.

Second, it's not coincidence.  He picks fights in very public ways because that's what he's always done.  He's obsessive and impulsive, and craves attention and verification-of-his-genius above basically everything else..  And he fawns over dictators not as part of some scheme, but because he likes that they can do whatever the **** they want and sees himself similarly. 

And what I've just described also describes basically how he's always been and the people he's fawned over.  What you're describing would be completely out of character for him, as if at age 70 he just became this other person whose compulsive narcissistic rants for attention are something more than that, more than what they've always been.

Like I've said, the apparatus around him is basically exactly as you have described.  But there is little evidence that he has ever been capable of the kind of systemic, subtle, thoughtful actions that you're attributing to him, yet you seem to think everyone else has it wrong about him.  He's no more what you describe than he is what the right-ring describes (some crime fighting genius super man), he is exactly who he has always been.  Just now he's doing it from the White House.

He himself is constantly changing the "apparatus" around him, and what the **** would it matter if he's getting some ideas second-hand if he's using those ideas? You're talking like you have to preserve the idea that he's just a rich Fox News grandpa incapable of the kind of deception I've described, so the important thing here isn't that he used the liberal media and Russiagate to weaken enthusiasm for the Democrats in a way that'll be imperceptible to the left; the important thing is he didn't think of it himself.

Which I say is evidence of the success of his disinformation campaign; He could get so much of the left so invested in the belief that he's dumber than dog****, that even after the Mueller report came out, liberals refused to put 2+2 together, because that'd mean Trump played them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

I was under the impression that the right were the true defenders of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. Why is it that you guys never seem to know much about either?

Ouch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Statick said:

Ouch.

The level of ignorance among the right wingers about basic Constitutional facts is kind of amazing.  Wasn’t it just yesterday that we found out they don’t actually know what the Constitution says about the US Census and counting of people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leon Troutsky said:

The level of ignorance among the right wingers about basic Constitutional facts is kind of amazing.  Wasn’t it just yesterday that we found out they don’t actually know what the Constitution says about the US Census and counting of people?

I've always said that right-wingers don't read.

They need people to tell them ****. And when you got one ignoramus telling another ignoramus what something said that they didn't read or comprehend, it never ends well.

Leon Troutsky and Andrews_31 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Serge said:

He himself is constantly changing the "apparatus" around him, and what the **** would it matter if he's getting some ideas second-hand if he's using those ideas? You're talking like you have to preserve the idea that he's just a rich Fox News grandpa incapable of the kind of deception I've described, so the important thing here isn't that he used the liberal media and Russiagate to weaken enthusiasm for the Democrats in a way that'll be imperceptible to the left; the important thing is he didn't think of it himself.

Which I say is evidence of the success of his disinformation campaign; He could get so much of the left so invested in the belief that he's dumber than dog****, that even after the Mueller report came out, liberals refused to put 2+2 together, because that'd mean Trump played them.

Again, all I've said is that the easiest explanation for his behavior is that he's exactly as he's always been.  You're suggesting a level of subtlety and thoughtfulness he's really never displayed.  And in the process, you're assigning causation to him for the things that happen after he acts like he's always acted, but without showing a causal relationship (and when, in fact, he's acted just the opposite, e.g., shining light on and undermining his agenda through the exact same outbursts and fights that occasionally mask the agenda)..  And, you keep giving this "dumber than dog****" response to me, when I literally just clarified, again, that I've only called him "not-so-bright," not as some drooling moron.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like literally, you're giving him credit for things of which there is no evidence he is capable or willing to do, while ignoring his exact same behavior for the 20 years before he became president.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, eatcorn said:

I bristled at the suggestion of abolishing the EC at first, because I'm not a big fan of huge structural changes to how we allocate votes, but given how skewed the results have become, and the fact that we have the entire legislative branch based on proportional representation (which even THEN is skewed towards low population states), I think I'd be fine with it, provided it goes through the normal amendment process.

If we went through the amendment process no one could argue it. But that's not what they are doing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Gritzblitz 2.0 said:

My own crazy view is that instead of getting rid of the EC, which isn't going to happen, maybe we should consider returning the role of the presidency to what it was originally intended instead of the quasi-monarchcy that it's slowly been morphed into. 

The executive branch was never intended to wield the power it does currently. But that's been the product of years of partisanship and ruling parties shortsightedly giving their own president powers without consideration that the other party will eventually wield those powers at some point. 

 

This may be the greatest post in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Carl Showalter said:

Again, all I've said is that the easiest explanation for his behavior is that he's exactly as he's always been.  You're suggesting a level of subtlety and thoughtfulness he's really never displayed.  And in the process, you're assigning causation to him for the things that happen after he acts like he's always acted, but without showing a causal relationship (and when, in fact, he's acted just the opposite, e.g., shining light on and undermining his agenda through the exact same outbursts and fights that occasionally mask the agenda)..  And, you keep giving this "dumber than dog****" response to me, when I literally just clarified, again, that I've only called him "not-so-bright," not as some drooling moron.

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Carl Showalter said:

Like literally, you're giving him credit for things of which there is no evidence he is capable or willing to do, while ignoring his exact same behavior for the 20 years before he became president.  

I'm suggesting a human level of subtlety and thoughtfulness for someone that's always played up a public persona. Someone capable of learning things and implementing strategies. Someone capable of thinking of themselves in the eyes of someone else. Why would it matter if he was the one to figure it out or if Steve Bannon or someone explained to him what he needed to do in 2016? If he's not a drooling moron, he could understand everything I've said here, and be able to implement ideas like manipulating the media the way I've described, even if he didn't think of any of it first. So what the **** does it matter what he acted like 20 years ago? He knows how to act today to get what he wants out of the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, The Legendary SB said:

Would this be a good time to bring up the ad hominem thing?  ;)

And this one is right from Trout's playbook:

Circumstantial ad hominem points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. It constitutes an attack on the bias of a source.

He knows he's doing it but does it anyway.  

No, that's called an assumption. Not being able to comprehend what you read isn't usually seen as a character flaw. Reading something and then purposely ignoring its meaning is a character flaw.

Also, for me to use ad hominem against you, that would mean I'd have to call you out as a moron.

 

Door Gunner and Leon Troutsky like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10
 Advanced issues found
 
 
11
2 hours ago, achilles return said:

six months out from iowa, that kind of horse-racing just feels like theater. it feels like fivethiryeight justifying it's own existence.

am i supremely confident in sanders' chances? of course not, there's a reason i hope warren hangs around as well. but i just saw a poll that had him second in iowa and first in new hampshire, and i genuinely believe that the likely voter models could be underestimating his potential. i also feel like the dedication of his grassroots support gives him the best ground game of anyone in the primaries.

but the bottom line is - it's early. way too early to be dancing on anyone's grave.

No one is using likely voter models at this point. And cherry picking polls is never a good look. The grassroots support hasn't been as strong as it was in 2016. I thought Bernie would wipe the floor in fundraising, but Buttigieg and Warren outraised him. Bernie's grassroots support has not been as strong as his launch day suggested it would be. 

Disagree. I could have told you Swallwell had zero chance before he dropped out. Around 14+ candidates are going to hit the wall that is the new debate threshold. Booker, Beto, and maybe Klobuchar are the only ones who should feel confident about making it. Castro and Yang are 50/50 shots and the rest have little to no chance.

That doesn't apply to Bernie, but no one is dancing on anyone's grave. Just pointing out based on current standings and historical data, Bernie is not in the strongest position for someone with his name recognition.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Co-author of Trump’s ‘Art of the Deal’ says the book should be reclassified as fiction

“If I had to rename 'The Art of the Deal' I would call it 'The Sociopath,'" Schwartz said. "He has no conscience. He has no guilt.... He does not experience the world in the way an ordinary human being would." 
 

 

I am starting to think this guy is just pulling our legs.

No way can he be this dense and up Trumps rump! 

Leon Troutsky likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, The Legendary SB said:

Would this be a good time to bring up the ad hominem thing?  ;)

And this one is right from Trout's playbook:

Circumstantial ad hominem points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. It constitutes an attack on the bias of a source.

He knows he's doing it but does it anyway.  

:lol:

Responds to someone saying that rightwingers don’t read by posting something he didn’t read.

Statick likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, T-Falcon said:

If we went through the amendment process no one could argue it. But that's not what they are doing. 

What they are doing is constitutional and legal.  Why do you have a problem with legally changing the allocation of EC votes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Statick said:

No, that's called an assumption. Not being able to comprehend what you read isn't usually seen as a character flaw. Reading something and then purposely ignoring its meaning is a character flaw.

Also, tor me to use ad hominem against you, that would mean I'd have to call you out as a moron.

 

Also, calling someone a moron is not an ad hominem fallacy.  Saying “that person’s argument is wrong because he’s a moron” is an ad hominem fallacy.

SB keeps proving the assertion that rightwingers don’t read.

Statick likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leon Troutsky said:

What they are doing is constitutional and legal.  Why do you have a problem with legally changing the allocation of EC votes?

How is being done and the reason it's being done the way it is is to stop Trump in 2020 not for a "fairer" system. This will absolutely backfire and we will essentially get states giving their electoral votes to whoever the majority party is in that states and elections won't matter at all.  Once you go down that road of just giving electoral to whoever to make sure one candidate or another wins, you can't put that genie back in the bottle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@achilles return, not asking this to be condescending, but just curious...have you ever read Nate Silver’s book “The Signal and the Noise”?  If you haven’t, it might give some insight into how he thinks about things and his approach to qualitative analysis.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, T-Falcon said:

How is being done and the reason it's being done the way it is is to stop Trump in 2020 not for a "fairer" system. This will absolutely backfire and we will essentially get states giving their electoral votes to whoever the majority party is in that states and elections won't matter at all.  Once you go down that road of just giving electoral to whoever to make sure one candidate or another wins, you can't put that genie back in the bottle. 

Most of those states signed on to that pact before 2016, IIRC.  

And it’s not to stop Trump.  It’s to make sure that the majority of voters get their preferred choice of presidents.  The new system could actually help Trump in 2020 or it could hurt him.  I’ve seen no evidence either way yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

Most of those states signed on to that pact before 2016, IIRC.  

And it’s not to stop Trump.  It’s to make sure that the majority of voters get their preferred choice of presidents.  The new system could actually help Trump in 2020 or it could hurt him.  I’ve seen no evidence either way yet.

:shrug: then try it and see how it shakes out, but don't say you weren't warned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, T-Falcon said:

:shrug: then try it and see how it shakes out, but don't say you weren't warned.

Considering over 65% of American support it, I think it’ll be fine. 

George, SC, and Kansas are considering legislation to join the pact.  I don’t think they’re doing it to stop Trump in 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Considering over 65% of American support it, I think it’ll be fine. 

George, SC, and Kansas are considering legislation to join the pact.  I don’t think they’re doing it to stop Trump in 2020.

Sure what could possibly go wrong with changing up the election process of a country that has enjoyed the peaceful transition of power for over 200 years for something else without it even being an official change. No way this could go terribly wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now