Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[PassedOut]

I retweet tweets I find interesting. Even really stupid or extremist people occasionally make interesting observations. If Satan (or even Hillary) made an interesting observation, or linked an interesting article, I'd retweet him.

Of course you choose your retweets to reflect your interests and to entertain your followers! A couple of recent ones from the cesspool:

 

Jonathan Ferguson Retweeted

 

James Edwards ‏@JamesEdwardsTPC · Nov 23

 

The left literally has terrorists in its camp that they never feel obligated to "disavow." The right needs similar discipline.

 

 

Jonathan Ferguson Retweeted

 

James Edwards ‏@JamesEdwardsTPC · Nov 28

 

I'm old enough to remember when whites could hold meetings without harassment and cancellations. #WhiteCivilRights

Just some random tidbits pulled from one cesspool into another.

[mikeh]

I appreciate what you're saying. Even though I mentioned the word "arrogant" in two of my posts, I don't think you are arrogant, you seem like one of the more reasonable posters. However, someone who didn't know that may read your posts as being arrogant, and I was pointing that out.

 

However, I would like to address one point. I'm not trying to disprove what you're saying, in fact the way I'm using what you said may be a bit surprising.

 

 

 

I'd like to propose a scenario. Bill & Tom are running a business together. Bill keeps the books. At one point, Tom says he is bringing in a professional auditor to examine the books. That night their main office burns down. Bill claims that he was looking at both sets of books which are normally locked in a fireproof safe when fire suddenly broke out and Bill ran out of the building leaving all evidence of any financial transactions to be lost forever. What would you think?

 

Another scenario: Spouses Harry and Sally are out for a walk. Something Harry says makes Sally think that Harry is cheating on Sally. Sally demands to see Harry's cellphone because its GPS will show where Harry's been. Harry "accidentally" drops the cell phone down a well.which destroys it. What would you think?

 

If in the second one, you think Harry's getting Sally a Mercedes Benz for her birthday and doesn't want Sally to know that he went shopping at that dealership, then you are a hopeless romantic. And you are also quite gullible. And naive. And probably intellectually lazy. Now it's possible that Harry didn't go to his ex-girlfriend's as Sally expected. Maybe he went to his secretary's apartment. Maybe he went to a casino. Maybe he went to buy drugs. Maybe he went to see a divorce lawyer. But wherever he was, it was somewhere that he really didn't want her to know about. And it was probably something really bad.

 

Same in Scenario 1. Maybe Bill really was trying to make sure all the figures were OK and got really unlucky that a fire just happened to break out and he didn't think to grab one of the books on his way out. Far more likely is that Bill had something to hide, and it was something so serious that burning his main office down was not as bad as having what he wanted hidden exposed.

 

I hope that any of you that have a lick o' sense came to the same conclusions that I did in these scenarios, at least one of them. And if John was trying to tell you, say in scenario 2, that you were both silly and stupid to think that Harry had done something wrong, what would you think of their credibility? Would you not think that John was being both arrogant and wrong? Would you have a hard time believing other things that John told you on faith?

 

In each case, the person who is suspected of trying to hide something really bad has done it in such a way that (a) we will never know what it was he was hiding, and (b) he made sure we would never know - and having us suspect him was better for him than having us actually find out.

 

Now let's bring that scenario to real life. Just as Bill in Scenario 1 and Harry in Scenario 2 did, Hillary upon finding out that her emails were going to be subpoenaed, made sure they would never see the light of day. We will never ever know what she was hiding, but anybody with a lick of sense would equate it to one of the above scenarios. Only somebody gullible or naive or intellectually lazy or all of the above would assume otherwise. However, most of the liberals and the Democratic Party said "nothing to see here." Some even went so far as to say "You are stupid to believe that she's hiding anything." You can understand how anybody with a lick o' sense would now assume that anything else that came from anyone who said "nothing to see" was also not credible. That means that when they talk about climate change, it doesn't matter if they have a raft of scientific proof, the normal person that isn't in the know says "Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me." They know that the liberals have told them that they would be stupid to think Hillary is hiding something and by saying that, they have lost all faith in the liberals' credibility. So now they think that the climate change is a crock too. When the liberals point out that there is still rampant hiring discrimination, the standard response from the thinking but ignorant voter is going to be "Poppycock. It's that Hillary's not hiding anything all over again." Now when I started looking through articles, I found to my surprise that there is rampant hiring discrimination. I'm pretty sure it's true. But your average voter is not going to do the research I did, even though it took only a couple of hours. They are going to say, "The same people that told me that Hillary wasn't hiding anything and I'd be stupid to think otherwise are telling me that there is still racially biased hiring practices. You think I'm going to believe them? Haaeeellll nooo! I'll just believe my trusted Fox News; they haven't tried to tell me anything so outrageous!"

 

If only millennial votes counted, Hillary wins almost every state. When I mentioned lick o' sense, it doesn't apply there. Those are the people that might believe that Harry was trying to hide what Sally's birthday gift was. Those are the people that don't think Hillary's hiding anything. Those poor naive gullible kids just believe what their liberal professors tell them because they apparently haven't had enough life experience to equate it to Scenario 1 or Scenario 2. So, rather than think for themselves, they take the intellectually lazy way out and just believe what they are told.

 

Now, I'm not sure if you (Winston) was one of the ones that said someone would be stupid to think Hillary was hiding something but I have heard that a lot of times from left-leaning posters this fall. You have to understand how most Americans think. Even if she wasn't hiding anything, you have to understand that most Americans that think for themselves are going to think she was, and not believe much of anything said by somebody that insists otherwise. Especially when they are being told that they are stupid for thinking something that makes sense to them.

What an amazing waste of words to try to explain something you don't understand.

 

HRC was not subpoenaed, as far as I know, and as far as the FBI knows, to disclose every single email. She was legally allowed to NOT disclose strictly personal emails. She even identified how many emails she withheld.

 

Do you for one minute think that the FBI, which went out of its way to help elect Trump, would have cleared her of ANY wrongdoing had the evidence been that she had destroyed evidence compellable under subpoena?

 

I know...all your right wing sources repeat and repeat and repeat this lie, and so you believe it. Try THINKING for one moment. Try looking for an objective reality.

 

Here is what happened.

 

In 2014 an aide to Clinton gave instructions to have deleted emails over 60 days old that had NO government connection or reference. By error, this was not done.

 

Months later, the Benghazi investigation (which the Republicans admitted was a political stunt) subpoenaed emails relating to Libya.

 

Then the person responsible for deleting the old, non-government emails, realized that he had screwed up and so did what he had been told to do months before.

 

This deletion occurred after the subpoena but did NOT involve a single email that was disclosable in response to the subpoena.

 

You need not believe me or the Washington Post or any other 'liberal' source. You are invited to believe the republican Director of the FBI who repeatedly exceeded the normal bounds of his authority to attack and harm Clinton.

 

He had no right to call her 'careless', He was asked to see whether there was evidence of criminal wrongdoing. There was none. That is all he was supposed to say. Prosecutors and police officers investigating other alleged criminals generally abide by that rule, but (especially with hindsight)it is obvious that this guy had an agenda.

 

He was under zero obligation to report to Congress that the FBI was investigating an unrelated matter and had found evidence of Clinton emails.

 

But that is beside the point. The point is that, yet again, you blindly accept as reality something that literally 5 minutes of effort on Google would prove to be false.

 

You are a fool. You have been caught in mindlessly repeating lie after lie, even when the slightest effort would have revealed the truth. You just don't care.

 

Here is a challenge for you.

 

LOOK for the truth on the timeline on these emails.

 

I know...you will say that of course Clinton's people lied about this, and they lied so well that the FBI, with all of its resources, was unable to prove it. If so, then I remind you of my long-past reference to invincible ignorance.

 

Or worse, you will go to your usual fake news sites and regurgitate more lies. You clearly don't understand this: simply because a group of malicious assholes repeat a lie time and time again, and you like the way it makes you feel, doesn't make it true!

[mikeh]

I see the difference because I see Jon's content as being the (almost) lone voice in the wilderness.

 

On BGG, where the Water Cooler equivalent is about 2/3 liberal; 1/3 conservative, Jon's posts would be welcomed by some and expanded upon. While 2/3 of the users would try to dis him as you do here, 1/3 of the users will not only agree with much of his content but help find articles to back him up.

 

However, to call his content "advertising" seems a bit of a stretch. To most rational people, for him to be advertising, he would need to hope to find somebody on this site to purchase a product or service for him or to do work for him. As far as I know, he's not trying to do that.

 

Because most of you are like minded, you all think his posts are nonsense and your posts are all truth-based because you are the knowledgeable ones. If you were on BGG with the same posts, you would get a lot of agreement, but 1/3 of the users would call you the uninformed and brainwashed liberals and would post to articles to back themselves up. And many of them are better at it than I am (not too hard :) ) and more intelligent and more educated than I am.

 

My belief is that if Jon isn't harming anybody that he is entitled to free speech. He hasn't threatened anybody and hasn't intentionally tried to hurt anybody. He hasn't used derogatory words like n***** (to my knowledge, the only time I've seen that word is when the left-leaning posters are talking to me.) He is not advocating Nazism, fascism, or the mantra of the KKK. Most of you strongly disagree with him but that is no reason not to let him speak.

 

Now, his freedom of speech does not give him the right to make you listen. You can choose to ignore any posts of his or in which he is quoted. However, he is very adamant that he is right. You and your posse are also very adamant that you are right. While I tend to agree with more of what he says than what you say politically, I am questioning some of my beliefs so I'm not adamant. But what I believe is irrelevant, but what is relevant is that the Water Cooler is not a safe space for snowflakes None of you seem like the snowflakes that are proliferating our college campuses so I will respectfully request that you don't try to emulate them. If you can honestly show that he is in fact using this site to advertise to readers of this forum, then I will reconsider the position shown in this post.

Did you follow the link to his website?

 

If so, do you stand by what you have written?

 

If not, do so and then come back and praise him some more. If you are that sick. Or, if you are as decent as you claim to be, maybe for once let reality influence your opinions. It might become a habit, then who knows? You might become a liberal, lol.

[Kaitlyn S]

You want your 'safe space' and you want to be able to hurl nasty insults continually. I'm fine with EITHER, but not with BOTH. Pick one.

Why should they be the ones to choose?

[y66]

Matt Yglesias argues that the best way for Democrats to defeat Trump is to focus on how his policies will hurt working-class people, rather than hitting the president-elect for his outlandish temperament and clownish behavior.

 

Populists in office thrive on a circus-like atmosphere that casts the populist leader as persecuted by media and political elites who are obsessed with his uncouth behavior while he is busy doing the people’s work. To beat Trump, progressives will need to do as much as they can to get American politics out of reality show mode.

 

Luigi Zingales is an idiosyncratic economics professor at the University of Chicago who’s been deeply interested for years in issues related to how corruption and crony capitalism can undermine free markets. His interests in this field derive in part from his understanding of the course of events in his native Italy, where back in the early 1990s an uncouth businessman named Silvio Berlusconi managed to kick aside the leadership of the country’s traditional center right and then install himself as prime minister.

 

Back in 2011, Zingales presciently wrote that the country should be glad that Trump decided not to run for president because he had enormous potential as a Berlusconi-like figure who would mix business connections, media savvy, and discontent with existing political parties into a potent cocktail.

 

He explained that Berlusconi governed successfully as a “pro-business” figure who helped incumbent businesses entrench their positions, without pursuing reforms that would encourage competition and growth:

 

How, then, did Berlusconi get elected and reelected? He created an unlikely coalition between the business elite, which supports him for fear of the alternative, and the poor, who identify with him because he appeals to their aspirations. In a country where corruption and lack of meritocracy has all but killed the hope of intra-generational mobility, citizens chose to escape from reality and find consolation in dreams. Berlusconi adeptly fosters the illusion that he can turn everyone else into billionaires. His political career is something like Trump’s Apprentice program, only on a national scale.

 

In a post-election op-ed, Zingales revisited these themes and observed that the two politicians who beat Berlusconi in elections — former Prime Minister Romano Prodi and current Prime Minister Matteo Renzi — had two important things in common: “Both of them treated Mr. Berlusconi as an ordinary opponent. They focused on the issues, not on his character. In different ways, both of them are seen as outsiders, not as members of what in Italy is defined as the political caste.”

 

The strategy Zingales recommends is, of course, roughly the opposite of what Democrats wound up doing in 2016. They nominated one of the most experienced major party nominees of all time, a consummate insider, and then she ran a campaign that was very heavily focused on the notion that Trump was simply unfit to serve as president.

 

This strategy has been the subject of a million pixels’ worth of recriminations, but as Tara Golshan has written, it’s no mystery why Clinton stuck with it: Her data was telling her it was working.

 

And, indeed, both exit polls and post-election polls confirm that in one sense it really did work — Trump is the least popular president-elect on record, with underwater favorable ratings and about 2 million fewer votes than his main opponent.

 

But he has, in fact, won the election and has already embarked on beginning the business of governing the nation. To the extent that he actually goes out and does something shocking and terrible, he should, of course, be criticized. But the tendency of his critics — and much of the mainstream press — to go into hyperventilating mode over things like his Twitter war with the cast of Hamilton or the New York Times can be counterproductive.

 

As Zingales writes, opposition that’s grounded in Trump’s norm-violating personal behavior risks “crown[ing] Mr. Trump as the people’s leader of the fight against the Washington caste.”

 

The Trump era has featured frequent plaintive cries from liberals who just can’t understand how honorable, decent Republicans could support a man who openly courts Vladimir Putin, tweets attacks on individual journalists, poses with taco bowls as Hispanic outreach, and engages in massive financial conflicts of interest.

 

But Republican Party elected officials, whether you agree or disagree with them, have some pretty clear reasoning. They were obviously uncomfortable with making Trump their party’s standard-bearer, but having won both the nomination and the general election, he is now pursuing a very recognizable version of the GOP’s partisan agenda. Trump has indicated his desire to implement:

 

• 
   
  
• Repeal of the Affordable Care Act, stripping health insurance away from millions while reducing taxes on the wealthy
  
• Large additional tax cuts geared primarily to the wealthy
  
• A massive rollback of social safety net programs aimed at low-income households
  
• A massive rollback of air pollution and climate change regulations
  
• A sharp reduction in Wall Street regulation
  
• Overturning Roe v. Wade
  
• These are all big things that are politically difficult to accomplish. But the results of the 2016 election give the Republican Party a chance to implement most of them. That’s a rare and valuable political opportunity that the GOP’s elected officials have decided they would like to seize, even if it means ignoring or downplaying some of Trump’s other problems or eccentricities.
  

Of course, if Republicans decide they want to change course on this and start reeling Trump in, Democrats should happily join them and cooperate in a bipartisan drive against lawlessness, corruption, and subversion of American foreign policy by the government of Russia. But as long as Republicans are backing Trump, ignoring his partisan agenda in order to avoid normalizing Trump is an enormous danger because it ignores the main reason Trump is able to get away with abnormal behavior.

 

A November 22 Quinnipiac poll revealed both the risks and the opportunities currently facing Democrats. It showed that attacks on Trump’s character have set in, and most people agree that Trump is not honest and not levelheaded. But it also showed that a majority believe he will create jobs, that he cares about average Americans, and that he will bring change in the right direction. Yet at the same time, Quinnipiac also finds that most voters favor legal abortion, oppose tax cuts for the wealthy, oppose deregulation of business, and oppose weakening gun control regulation.

 

Which is to say that the most normal, blandly partisan parts of Trump’s agenda are also among the least popular. And yet Trump’s support for them is what immunizes him from Republican criticism and oversight over the abnormal stuff. Defending the basic norms of American constitutional government is important, but doing it as a partisan agenda won’t work — it turns off Trump’s core supporters and signals to wavering ones that his opponents are focused on abstractions rather than daily life. As long as Trump is enjoying the lockstep support of congressional Republicans, his opponents need to find ways to turn attention away from the Trump Show and focus it on his basic policy agenda and the ways in which it touches millions of people.

Time to turn attention away from the Trump Show and focus on his basic policy agenda and the ways in which it touches millions of people? Good idea.

[Winstonm]

I appreciate what you're saying. Even though I mentioned the word "arrogant" in two of my posts, I don't think you are arrogant, you seem like one of the more reasonable posters. However, someone who didn't know that may read your posts as being arrogant, and I was pointing that out.

 

However, I would like to address one point. I'm not trying to disprove what you're saying, in fact the way I'm using what you said may be a bit surprising.

 

 

 

I'd like to propose a scenario. Bill & Tom are running a business together. Bill keeps the books. At one point, Tom says he is bringing in a professional auditor to examine the books. That night their main office burns down. Bill claims that he was looking at both sets of books which are normally locked in a fireproof safe when fire suddenly broke out and Bill ran out of the building leaving all evidence of any financial transactions to be lost forever. What would you think?

 

Another scenario: Spouses Harry and Sally are out for a walk. Something Harry says makes Sally think that Harry is cheating on Sally. Sally demands to see Harry's cellphone because its GPS will show where Harry's been. Harry "accidentally" drops the cell phone down a well.which destroys it. What would you think?

 

If in the second one, you think Harry's getting Sally a Mercedes Benz for her birthday and doesn't want Sally to know that he went shopping at that dealership, then you are a hopeless romantic. And you are also quite gullible. And naive. And probably intellectually lazy. Now it's possible that Harry didn't go to his ex-girlfriend's as Sally expected. Maybe he went to his secretary's apartment. Maybe he went to a casino. Maybe he went to buy drugs. Maybe he went to see a divorce lawyer. But wherever he was, it was somewhere that he really didn't want her to know about. And it was probably something really bad.

 

Same in Scenario 1. Maybe Bill really was trying to make sure all the figures were OK and got really unlucky that a fire just happened to break out and he didn't think to grab one of the books on his way out. Far more likely is that Bill had something to hide, and it was something so serious that burning his main office down was not as bad as having what he wanted hidden exposed.

 

I hope that any of you that have a lick o' sense came to the same conclusions that I did in these scenarios, at least one of them. And if John was trying to tell you, say in scenario 2, that you were both silly and stupid to think that Harry had done something wrong, what would you think of their credibility? Would you not think that John was being both arrogant and wrong? Would you have a hard time believing other things that John told you on faith?

 

In each case, the person who is suspected of trying to hide something really bad has done it in such a way that (a) we will never know what it was he was hiding, and (b) he made sure we would never know - and having us suspect him was better for him than having us actually find out.

 

Now let's bring that scenario to real life. Just as Bill in Scenario 1 and Harry in Scenario 2 did, Hillary upon finding out that her emails were going to be subpoenaed, made sure they would never see the light of day. We will never ever know what she was hiding, but anybody with a lick of sense would equate it to one of the above scenarios. Only somebody gullible or naive or intellectually lazy or all of the above would assume otherwise. However, most of the liberals and the Democratic Party said "nothing to see here." Some even went so far as to say "You are stupid to believe that she's hiding anything." You can understand how anybody with a lick o' sense would now assume that anything else that came from anyone who said "nothing to see" was also not credible. That means that when they talk about climate change, it doesn't matter if they have a raft of scientific proof, the normal person that isn't in the know says "Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me." They know that the liberals have told them that they would be stupid to think Hillary is hiding something and by saying that, they have lost all faith in the liberals' credibility. So now they think that the climate change is a crock too. When the liberals point out that there is still rampant hiring discrimination, the standard response from the thinking but ignorant voter is going to be "Poppycock. It's that Hillary's not hiding anything all over again." Now when I started looking through articles, I found to my surprise that there is rampant hiring discrimination. I'm pretty sure it's true. But your average voter is not going to do the research I did, even though it took only a couple of hours. They are going to say, "The same people that told me that Hillary wasn't hiding anything and I'd be stupid to think otherwise are telling me that there is still racially biased hiring practices. You think I'm going to believe them? Haaeeellll nooo! I'll just believe my trusted Fox News; they haven't tried to tell me anything so outrageous!"

 

If only millennial votes counted, Hillary wins almost every state. When I mentioned lick o' sense, it doesn't apply there. Those are the people that might believe that Harry was trying to hide what Sally's birthday gift was. Those are the people that don't think Hillary's hiding anything. Those poor naive gullible kids just believe what their liberal professors tell them because they apparently haven't had enough life experience to equate it to Scenario 1 or Scenario 2. So, rather than think for themselves, they take the intellectually lazy way out and just believe what they are told.

 

Now, I'm not sure if you (Winston) was one of the ones that said someone would be stupid to think Hillary was hiding something but I have heard that a lot of times from left-leaning posters this fall. You have to understand how most Americans think. Even if she wasn't hiding anything, you have to understand that most Americans that think for themselves are going to think she was, and not believe much of anything said by somebody that insists otherwise. Especially when they are being told that they are stupid for thinking something that makes sense to them.

 

The crux of the matter is really simple if you stop and think - your claim is Hillary deleted incriminating e-mails, yet Hillary was using her private server. The issue the FBI had was that classified information could have been sent on her server.

 

So, what do you think she would have been trying to hide in the deleted e-mails, classified documents she sent over her server? What is your claim, that she was committing treason? That is ridiculous.

 

Here is a better question to ask yourself. Would a 30-year veteran of politics, an incredibly smart attorney, politically savvy, have tried to hide incriminating e-mails in such a slipshod method - after a subpoena had been issued? No, if there was something nefarious in her plans she would have had a much better plan for disposing incriminating information that telling an aid to delete personal emails.

 

M issue is not why you think Trump voters thought Hillary crooked by why do you think she was crooked? If you believe your scenario shows why, I think your thinking is too superficial and encourage you to dig deeper.

[Kaitlyn S]

For credibility issues, it's not as important what I think as what many in fly over country think. I can imagine the following dialogue in millions of households in Middle America:

 

Maw: You can't convince me that that woman doesn't belong in jail.

Paw: I know, it's disgraceful. And that professor of Emily's - trying to corn-vince her that the obvious ain't so. I knew we shoulda insisted on Kansas State instead of sending her out to Californey with all those loony tunes.

Maw: Listen to this crazy woman on The View. Cain't see what that b*tch is hiding.

Paw: They's must be in Colorado smokin' the wacky t'bakky if they expect anyone to buy the hogwash they is selling.

Maw: They's almost had me corn-vinced that maybe these gay people should have some rights but now that I hear this utter nonsense about Hillary wiping servers clean and not hidin' nutin', I just cain't trust anything they is saying. Maybe Preacher Billy-Bob is right about them gays and these crazy b*tches is wrong.

Paw: I knows they is wrong. And they's so smug! They act like we gots no brains when really they's the ones who knows Nuttin! You just cain't believe these dang liberals about anything. I think the drugs got to em and they's just not right anymore.

Maw: Lawd a mighty I just ain't belivin' anything they say anymore.

[Elianna]

First off, I do not think you are stupid - far from it. I think you are naive and gullible and maybe (as I was in my 30s and 40s), intellectually lazy.

 

You seem to easily buy into conspiracy ideas - can you tell me what "local bigwigs" means in the real world? Have you volunteered to work in voter registration or worked in a polling place? Do you really have an idea of the inner workings of the actual vote and the safeguards that are established. Can you name (not even a person but a position) in local city government that has the power to overcome the real safeguards in place to protect the integrity of elections, i.e., name your "bigwig", and explain how he or she might accomplish that without resorting to fictional conspiracies?

 

I have wasted a lot of time online debating with the religious about their beliefs - and what I find quaint about your ideas is that they borrow the exact same argument - that if an idea cannot be disproved 100% then it must have some merit - as much as 50% merit as an opposing idea.

 

That argument was nonsense in a religious setting and gains no traction when applied to politics instead.

 

What you have to show to make a case is first, a likely and realistic scenario where a single illegal voted, then explain how and why that scenario would be recreated 3 million times in California, and then explain the motivation that would cause those 3 million to carry out such an organized plan of action, and how all 3 million avoided detection.

 

And even with all that, you would just reach the level of making a reasonable claim. You should be too smart for the positions you take - and I think you are. There is another motivation that drives your choices - I think it is faith, a religious-like belief in conservative policies. But even then, when the preachers start to lie, it should be time to call them out.

 

I actually looked this up, and according the New Haven Independent, it DOES seem that in 2011 the mayor advocated letting undocumented people vote IN LOCAL ELECTIONS. This is a very far cry from voting in National Elections. And yes, in many places they happen on the same ballot, but it should be fairly easy to separate the local races from the national ones, and therefore have people vote in local elections like for mayor and dogcatcher and such. Now this was five years ago, so I'm not sure it's germane to the claim that 3 million undocumented workers voted in California. (And "I'm not sure" is an underbid of my feelings if that's not clear.)

[mikeh]

For credibility issues, it's not as important what I think as what many in fly over country think. I can imagine the following dialogue in millions of households in Middle America:

 

Maw: You can't convince me that that woman doesn't belong in jail.

Paw: I know, it's disgraceful. And that professor of Emily's - trying to corn-vince her that the obvious ain't so. I knew we shoulda insisted on Kansas State instead of sending her out to Californey with all those loony tunes.

Maw: Listen to this crazy woman on The View. Cain't see what that b*tch is hiding.

Paw: They's must be in Colorado smokin' the wacky t'bakky if they expect anyone to buy the hogwash they is selling.

Maw: They's almost had me corn-vinced that maybe these gay people should have some rights but now that I hear this utter nonsense about Hillary wiping servers clean and not hidin' nutin', I just cain't trust anything they is saying. Maybe Preacher Billy-Bob is right about them gays and these crazy b*tches is wrong.

Paw: I knows they is wrong. And they's so smug! They act like we gots no brains when really they's the ones who knows Nuttin! You just cain't believe these dang liberals about anything. I think the drugs got to em and they's just not right anymore.

Maw: Lawd a mighty I just ain't belivin' anything they say anymore.

We can only persuade those with whom we deal. I don't care about the silly stereotypes you reference. You claim to be a thinking person. Prove it.

 

Who knows: maybe you have friends and family who think you are smart and informed. If you start actually showing an interest in reality, maybe they will as well. Exponential math is a powerful thing.

 

Anyway, you are engaging in a cheap, disingenuous attempt to avoid having to admit that it is YOU who are the uninformed spouter of simplistic memes. It is YOU who wants to engage us is a real debate.

 

I am going to infer that maybe, just maybe, you are beginning to wake up.

[diana_eva]

For credibility issues, it's not as important what I think as what many in fly over country think.

 

Mike, Winston, etc. are talking to you though, and unless you are the voice of Maw and Paw I don't understand why you keep repeating that it doesn't matter what you think. Do you think Maw and Paw are right? Then you are Maw and Paw. If you don't think they are right, just say what YOU think and why. Nobody else in this thread pretends to be a representative of entire groups.

[kenberg]

Matt Yglesias argues that the best way for Democrats to defeat Trump is to focus on how his policies will hurt working-class people, rather than hitting the president-elect for his outlandish temperament and clownish behavior.

 

 

Time to turn attention away from the Trump Show and focus on his basic policy agenda and the ways in which it touches millions of people? Good idea.

 

For convenience I copy the link here rather than the quoted passage. The linked article has further links. It's very useful but it gets deep fast.

 

For example, his first bulleted point:

Repeal of the Affordable Care Act, stripping health insurance away from millions while reducing taxes on the wealthy

has a link ( already highlighted I now see) to

http://www.vox.com/2...price-obamacare

which has a link to

http://tomprice.hous...0Act%202015.pdf

 

As I say, it is useful but it gets deep.

 

The ACA is complicated. And repealing the ACA is only the first clause in the above sentence.

 

Now what has Trump said? He is going to repeal the ACA and replace it by something "really terrific". Who can object to really terrific? And so we get back to Trump the person. I don't believe a word he says.

 

I do agree that we are being jerked around. Trump sees an advantage to doing this, Jon, as far as I can tell, does it for the sheer pleasure of it.

 

What to do? Well, that depends on who, on when, and on goals. And it depends, more than just a little, on what we think of members of Congress. The Republicans obviously have a lot of control. Not complete perhaps, but a lot. They can ram a lot of things through and if it all comes down to party line votes I expect they will do just that. The voters expect them to do so. Senate rules about filibusters can be changed, and anyway I do not favor Democrats taking their cue from Republican intransigence of the past eight years. So where does this leave us? Not anywhere good.

 

I generally put some faith in clarity and honesty. To as large an extent as possible, I hope that the likely consequences of various proposed changes can be laid out. And that's where honesty and clarity will be of extreme importance. If the planned changes still have the support of the people, then I expect that we will be making those changes. On the other hand, if some of the consequences don't look so good, and if Congress and the President say they are going to do them anyway because they have the power and that's that, then there will be another election in 2018.

 

I realize this is not exactly an optimistic view. Realism often conflicts with optimism.

I think that the Hamilton brouhaha is a fine example of the approach the cited article is trying to discourage. Lots of publicity, absolutely no effect. Or at least no positive effect. We will see what actually can be done.

[Winstonm]

For credibility issues, it's not as important what I think as what many in fly over country think. I can imagine the following dialogue in millions of households in Middle America:

 

Maw: You can't convince me that that woman doesn't belong in jail.

Paw: I know, it's disgraceful. And that professor of Emily's - trying to corn-vince her that the obvious ain't so. I knew we shoulda insisted on Kansas State instead of sending her out to Californey with all those loony tunes.

Maw: Listen to this crazy woman on The View. Cain't see what that b*tch is hiding.

Paw: They's must be in Colorado smokin' the wacky t'bakky if they expect anyone to buy the hogwash they is selling.

Maw: They's almost had me corn-vinced that maybe these gay people should have some rights but now that I hear this utter nonsense about Hillary wiping servers clean and not hidin' nutin', I just cain't trust anything they is saying. Maybe Preacher Billy-Bob is right about them gays and these crazy b*tches is wrong.

Paw: I knows they is wrong. And they's so smug! They act like we gots no brains when really they's the ones who knows Nuttin! You just cain't believe these dang liberals about anything. I think the drugs got to em and they's just not right anymore.

Maw: Lawd a mighty I just ain't belivin' anything they say anymore.

 

This either reflects your reasoning or it doesn't. If it doesn't then it is pointless. I know who won the election. I am trying to find out - and in so doing force you to address - your own reasoning in believing Hillary guilty of some crime.

 

I do not do this to support Hillary; nor do I do this to embarrass you; my reason is to encourage within all of us critical thinking skills. Without critical thinking skills, we are totally dependent for our beliefs on whomever is most deft at blowing smoke up our arses - and then we pass it on by blowing our own second-hand smoke that when inhaled causes an equal amount of damage to independent thought.

 

So, in conclusion, I am only encouraging you to think independently rather than repeatedly blowing second-hand smoke.

[Winstonm]

Matt Yglesias argues that the best way for Democrats to defeat Trump is to focus on how his policies will hurt working-class people, rather than hitting the president-elect for his outlandish temperament and clownish behavior.

 

 

Time to turn attention away from the Trump Show and focus on his basic policy agenda and the ways in which it touches millions of people? Good idea.

 

I think this misses the point entirely. The people who voted for support* Trump appear to be uninterested in facts - they want to hear reinforcement of beliefs they are bombarded with daily, from radio talk shows and right wing websites and neighborhood bars and church gatherings. I think the only way to defeat them is to overwhelm them with greater numbers. In other words, reasoning with them is a useless exercise. From what I observed, Republicans who did not support Trump for the most part did not vote for him, though in the privacy of a voting booth they may have supported the Party candidate.

 

*Edited to clarify

[hrothgar]

I think this misses the point entirely. The people who voted for Trump appear to be uninterested in facts - they want to hear reinforcement of beliefs they are bombarded with daily, from radio talk shows and right wing websites and neighborhood bars and church gatherings. I think the only way to defeat them is to overwhelm them with greater numbers.

 

Or just wait for enough of them to die

[Winstonm]

I actually looked this up, and according the New Haven Independent, it DOES seem that in 2011 the mayor advocated letting undocumented people vote IN LOCAL ELECTIONS. This is a very far cry from voting in National Elections. And yes, in many places they happen on the same ballot, but it should be fairly easy to separate the local races from the national ones, and therefore have people vote in local elections like for mayor and dogcatcher and such. Now this was five years ago, so I'm not sure it's germane to the claim that 3 million undocumented workers voted in California. (And "I'm not sure" is an underbid of my feelings if that's not clear.)

 

There is little doubt that some local elections can be compromised - although I would say it is much more difficult now that it was say in 1950, prior to the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act. Some areas of the country (Chicago and Lousianna, to name 2) have a sordid history when it comes to local politics.

 

That said, interfering with a national election is a different ballgame.

 

Also, simply because someone advocated a position does not mean he encouraged illegal activity - any more than Trump advocating for a return to waterboard torture is a war crime. People, even mayors, can express an opinion and even advocate for that opinion. But did any illegals actually vote in that mayoral election? Is there any evidence that the mayor in question tried to aid any illegal immigrants to vote illegally? These are the questions that need to be asked.

[kenberg]

I think this misses the point entirely. The people who voted for Trump appear to be uninterested in facts - they want to hear reinforcement of beliefs they are bombarded with daily, from radio talk shows and right wing websites and neighborhood bars and church gatherings. I think the only way to defeat them is to overwhelm them with greater numbers.

 

My response here is predictable. I believe it is a mistake to lump large numbers of people, and this applies to practically any large number of people, together. A mistake factually, and a mistake tactically. Overwhelm them by greater numbers? Of course, in a democracy how else? But how do you get the greater numbers?

 

I no doubt need to, as Cherdano said a few pages back, give it a rest. And perhaps I will try. But I really think that writing off everyone who voted for Trump as being beyond the reach of reason is a serious error.

[cherdano]

But I really think that writing off everyone who voted for Trump as being beyond the reach of reason is a serious error.

I agree. We can point out that some things Trump said are racist. We can also point out that taking away health insurance from 20 million is a bad idea. I hope Ken allows us to do both of these!

[Winstonm]

My response here is predictable. I believe it is a mistake to lump large numbers of people, and this applies to practically any large number of people, together. A mistake factually, and a mistake tactically. Overwhelm them by greater numbers? Of course, in a democracy how else? But how do you get the greater numbers?

 

I no doubt need to, as Cherdano said a few pages back, give it a rest. And perhaps I will try. But I really think that writing off everyone who voted for Trump as being beyond the reach of reason is a serious error.

 

Ten years ago I would have agreed.

[y66]

But I really think that writing off everyone who voted for Trump as being beyond the reach of reason is a serious error.

No doubt. How strange that Winstonm, who claims his goal is "not to sell a narrative but to encourage all of us to adopt critical thinking as our foundation for forming beliefs", has decided that everyone who voted for Trump is beyond the reach of data, facts, reasonable arguments and policies that address their problems in credible ways. This is about issues, not clowns and beauty pageants. Yglesias is not missing the point. Winstonm is. So is almost the entire media.

[kenberg]

I agree. We can point out that some things Trump said are racist. We can also point out that taking away health insurance from 20 million is a bad idea. I hope Ken allows us to do both of these!

 

 

Permission granted.

 

It's the holiday season.

[Al_U_Card]

No doubt. How strange that Winstonm, who claims his goal is "not to sell a narrative but to encourage all of us to adopt critical thinking as our foundation for forming beliefs", has decided that everyone who voted for Trump is beyond the reach of data, facts, reasonable arguments and policies that address their problems in credible ways. This is about issues, not clowns and beauty pageants. Yglesias is not missing the point. Winstonm is. So is almost the entire media.

A common error if you allow yourself to get exasperated. When repetition fails to convince and then apoplectic name-calling gets nowhere, getting discouraged is easier than revising information and position. The MSM is just lazy (desperate?) and issues ARE critical, especially finding the pertinent ones and not just favorite memes. Accepting other viewpoints as potentially as valuable (if not more so) as our own is a start because it helps to find common ground between opposing camps.

[y66]

Speaking of interesting alternative points of view, here's Tyler Cowen's take on the Carrier deal from NPR's Is Trump's Deal With Carrier A Form Of Crony Capitalism?

 

On what kind of message the Carrier deal sends

 

Cowen: We're supposed to live under a republic of the rule of law, not the rule of men. This deal is completely nontransparent, and the notion that every major American company has to negotiate person-to-person with the president over Twitter is going to make all business decisions politicized.

 

We don't know exactly what the company is getting. There's plenty of talk that the reason Carrier went along with the deal was because they were afraid their parent company would lose a lot of defense contracts, so this now creates the specter of a president always being willing to punish or reward companies depending on whether or not they give him a good press release.

 

On United Technologies, Carrier's parent company

 

Cowen: They do a lot of defense contracting; it's at least 10 percent of their revenue. Carrier from the state of Indiana was already offered the tax break before the election. They turned it down. Now all of a sudden Trump is president, Bernie Sanders is telling Trump to threaten the defense contracts of the parent company. And now all of a sudden the company takes the deal, and Trump is known for being somewhat vindictive.

 

On crony capitalism

 

Cowen: Trump and Bernie Sanders, for all of their populist talk, their actual recipes in both case lead to crony capitalism ... a system where businesses who are in bed with the government and who give the president positive press releases are rewarded and where companies who oppose or speak out against the president are in some way punished.

More from Cowen at marginalrevolution.com. Sharp guy. Decent chess player. I enjoyed his take on the Carlsen-Karjakin match. Please don't anyone use this as an excuse for hijacking this thread.

[Kaitlyn S]

Mike, Winston, etc. are talking to you though, and unless you are the voice of Maw and Paw I don't understand why you keep repeating that it doesn't matter what you think. Do you think Maw and Paw are right? Then you are Maw and Paw. If you don't think they are right, just say what YOU think and why. Nobody else in this thread pretends to be a representative of entire groups.

I had to laugh at the irony of the whole credibility thing - I was told that I lost credibility when I posted about Hillary being involved with murders. I was convinced that this is unlikely, and am taking the stance that it is unlikely with my conservative friends. Now I'm losing credibility with them (their point being that it's so obvious that Hillary was involved with murders and I'm trying to convince them otherwise, so what other lies am I propagating?)

[Winstonm]

No doubt. How strange that Winstonm, who claims his goal is "not to sell a narrative but to encourage all of us to adopt critical thinking as our foundation for forming beliefs", has decided that everyone who voted for Trump is beyond the reach of data, facts, reasonable arguments and policies that address their problems in credible ways. This is about issues, not clowns and beauty pageants. Yglesias is not missing the point. Winstonm is. So is almost the entire media.

 

You are confused between Trump voters and Trump supporters. Look at the tweet page for Jon and you will find that Trump supporters think that Republicans who did not support Trump are "traitors". Do you really think you can reason with those kinds of people? I hope that Trump voters will someday wake up - but then I remember that Germany and Austria welcomed Hitler with open arms, and it leaves me deeply concerned about the efficacy of reasoning.

[Kaitlyn S]

You are confused between Trump voters and Trump supporters. Look at the tweet page for Jon and you will find that Trump supporters think that Republicans who did not support Trump are "traitors". Do you really think you can reason with those kinds of people? I hope that Trump voters will someday wake up - but then I remember that Germany and Austria welcomed Hitler with open arms, and it leaves me deeply concerned about the efficacy of reasoning.

I'd like to think that if I saw any Hitler-like antics, I would start a campaign of friends and acquaintances writing to congressmen to put a stop to it.