2016 Election Thread

[mikecgrimes]

 

Ted Cruz is a whack job.  And he accomplished nothing.  And he'll continue to accomplish nothing.

 

He couldn't even appear to be the sane alternative to Trump.  

 

I see.  The fact the Jeb Bush wing of the party opposes him is somehow a failure on his part?  It's not as if those of us who voted for him no longer exist because Trump won.  He won a record # of votes outside of Trump and in 2020 we'll try again.  John McCain George Bush and Mitt Romney are not "wack jobs" they didn't do any of us any good.  I'll take my wack job you can have your wack job and in 2020 we'll go at it again.  We have to win twice against a voting base that is not in our favor but I'd argue that doesn't make us "wack jobs" just people who want meaningful change.

[TheLeviathan]

Cruz doesn't want meaningful change, he wants a regressive, simpleton version of life. His party hates him because he is a fraud. The sooner your party recognizes that he is the face of your decline in influence.

 

He embodies all that the majority of Americans can't stand about the GOP.

[Mike Sixel]

The divide between rural and urban......how do you close it?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The divide between rural and urban......how do you close it?

Dunno. As long as Evangelicals continue to whip up their base into a fervor over social issues, I don't think the divide can be closed.

 

Maybe at some point Evangelicals run out of issues to whip up their base after they've lost every social battle?

[TheLeviathan]

 

The divide between rural and urban......how do you close it?

 

Honestly?  We may need a section of the population to die off to usher in a change.  But that's probably 10-15 years away.

[TheLeviathan]

Also, not to steal Bark's thunder (but hopefully to join the choir!) maybe it bears repeating what parts of the world needs progressive ideas more than any other.  And how many people die every year while their leadership caters to fanatics.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Honestly?  We may need a section of the population to die off to usher in a change.  But that's probably 10-15 years away.

That will help but given how white rural America is doing badly, I think there's a good chance we see religious fervor replaced with authoritarian fervor.

 

This election cycle has been so depressing. I understand why people of color are frustrated. I understand why white rural America is frustrated. They both have legitimate reasons to feel screwed over by the system.

 

What I don't understand is why both segments of society have gone about finding their answers so differently. In the 30s, America came somewhat close to aligning based on class/stature and not race. That's how democracy should work. If you slight enough people to reach a majority they align and, damn it all, they do something about it.

 

Instead, white America has reinvested in some pretty scary tenets of authoritarianism. It's just so damned depressing. I can't understand why those people don't look around, see people who only look like them with no coalition from other demographics, and realize that maybe their ideas are wrong. If no one outside your group wants to align with you, then there's almost certainly something wrong with your motivations.

[TheLeviathan]

Part of the problem is that neither side participates well enough in politics (or in the right way) to effect any meaningful change.  Both sides pit each other against the other to keep themselves in power.  

 

Most of our problems are largely shared, if we took the time to consider it carefully.

[Mike Sixel]

Well, let's also admit that both sides have spent years trying to brainwash people into fervently believing in certain things as gospel.......like government is evil, or the rich don't care about you. Some of this has evolved into worshiping certain ideas as being as true as your beliefs about God.

 

And, for many, they only talk to people and watch/listen to news that reinforces those beliefs as gospel (in some cases, literally gospel). That tends to lead to what we are witnessing in terms of the divide culturally right now.

 

To me, the saddest is the poor on the right, who love the idea of the USA, but for some reason can't see that every time we lose freedom, or we blame "others" for our problems, we are actually fighting against what the USA is supposed to be.

[TheLeviathan]

John Cena hit it out of the park yesterday I thought.  

 

You're right, the bases on both sides have become so entrenched in believing that the other side is out to get their way of life that we have a total disconnect in dialogue.  And it's not getting better.  Take that message above to heart and work to help your fellow American.  Contrary to popular belief, it need not come at anyone's expense.  (But for a remaking of the way we collect revenue for government use and, very importantly, how we spend it as well)

[mikecgrimes]

 

Honestly?  We may need a section of the population to die off to usher in a change.  But that's probably 10-15 years away.

 

Gosh darn extremists with there aliveness.  This one probably deserves an explanation point!

 

[mikecgrimes]

I like that the moderators jump in when someone says something slightly critical except when people get super excited that maybe people that disagree with them have died or will eventually die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Start banning people.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I like that the moderators jump in when someone says something slightly critical except when people get super excited that maybe people that disagree with them have died or will eventually die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Start banning people.

Let it go. I'm done having this conversation, have said as much multiple times, yet you continue to bring it up at every opportunity. Next time I hear even a peep about that ****ing Scalia thread, the person who brought it up gets banned for good.

[Brock Beauchamp]

So, it happened. The FBI has deemed Clinton careless, possibly inept, but not criminal.

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/05/484785586/fbi-recommends-no-charges-for-hillary-clinton-in-email-server-case

[Mike Sixel]

 

So, it happened. The FBI has deemed Clinton careless, possibly inept, but not criminal.

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/05/484785586/fbi-recommends-no-charges-for-hillary-clinton-in-email-server-case

 

According to my friends on the right, this just proves all democrats (not republicans at all) are corrupt, btw. Innocent until proven guilty be damned, they (without seeing much evidence, really) know she is evil and broke the law.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Gosh darn extremists with there aliveness.  This one probably deserves an explanation point!

 

If they were open to rethinking their positions I'd hope for that, but such has been the case for a long time.

 

The voting bloc 55 and older just doesn't change opinion, so meaningful progress past their antiquated views generally has to wait until they die off.  I mean, I'd love it if there was an alternative, but there isn't.  (And, I've tried, love my grandparents but there isn't much I can do but shake my head in dismay when I try to have a political conversation.)

[DaveW]

 

 

To me, the saddest is the poor on the right, who love the idea of the USA, but for some reason can't see that every time we lose freedom, or we blame "others" for our problems, we are actually fighting against what the USA is supposed to be.

 Well said, the poor right  time and time again are the easiest to "brain wash" with "AMERICAH!!" rhetoric, so much so that they will often be vehemently opposed against their own interests.

i.e. the guy making 25k a year who is opposed to a minimum wage increase, yes, he already may make more than minimum wage, but can't understand how it will possibly increase his wages moving forward as well. Ditto with the people who are vehemently against social programs, yet some day may need them.

The left clearly has some issues as well, but they don't seem to use the same tricks to get the poor to vote against their own self interests IMO note: of course I admit I am biased being a hippie liberal douche to begin with

[DaveW]

 

 

According to my friends on the right, this just proves all democrats (not republicans at all) are corrupt, btw. Innocent until proven guilty be damned, they (without seeing much evidence, really) know she is evil and broke the law.

She clearly made some mistakes, but that is what people do, they make mistakes, she didn't break any laws, thus, she isn't going to get indicted/prosecuted. Of course that whole thing gets lost int he political spin. (Corruption!!!!)

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

According to my friends on the right, this just proves all democrats (not republicans at all) are corrupt, btw. Innocent until proven guilty be damned, they (without seeing much evidence, really) know she is evil and broke the law.

I don't like Clinton much - I don't despise her but to me, she represents a lot of things wrong with the system - but the right's pure hatred of the woman borders on unbelievable.

 

She's portrayed as evil and corrupt but when viewed objectively, it appears she's simply a cog in a system that increasingly fails to serve its people.

 

And it's damned unfortunate she somehow managed to worm her way into being our "best" option because the other side is offering up a guy who is literally a caricature of a presidential candidate.

[PseudoSABR]

 

According to my friends on the right, this just proves all democrats (not republicans at all) are corrupt, btw. Innocent until proven guilty be damned, they (without seeing much evidence, really) know she is evil and broke the law.

I can't believe people just ignore the necessity of criminal intent.  There just never was any, and if corruption would have played a hand it would have been with an indictment.

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

I can't believe people just ignore the necessity of criminal intent.  There just never was any, and if corruption would have played a hand it would have been with an indictment.

 

you can't believe that people that have been told for 20 years that this woman is evil aren't buying it when someone says she's not?

[PseudoSABR]

 

you can't believe that people that have been told for 20 years that this woman is evil aren't buying it when someone says she's not?

I can believe it, but I can't believe it.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Let it go. I'm done having this conversation, have said as much multiple times, yet you continue to bring it up at every opportunity. Next time I hear even a peep about that ****ing Scalia thread, the person who brought it up gets banned for good.

 

What thread?  When did I say anything about that thread?  This is about people excited over the death of those they disagree with.  If you need to ban me for this cool if not don't bring up that name as clearly it's a problem.

[mikecgrimes]

 

If they were open to rethinking their positions I'd hope for that, but such has been the case for a long time.

 

The voting bloc 55 and older just doesn't change opinion, so meaningful progress past their antiquated views generally has to wait until they die off.  I mean, I'd love it if there was an alternative, but there isn't.  (And, I've tried, love my grandparents but there isn't much I can do but shake my head in dismay when I try to have a political conversation.)

 

Political thought is cyclical.  Yes some are more willing to change then others but some have been around the block long enough to know what they stand for.  55 is an awfully young threshold BTW.  I see what your saying in some sense but people the generation behind you might not agree with you, it's always been that way and it's not always in one direction.

[Mike Sixel]

 

What thread?  When did I say anything about that thread?  This is about people excited over the death of those they disagree with.  If you need to ban me for this cool if not don't bring up that name as clearly it's a problem.

 

I didn't read that as excited as all......just that it might take that to get the divide between urban and country decreased. A matter of fact, not a value judgement. But, I may have read that wrongly.

[mikecgrimes]

 

I didn't read that as excited as all......just that it might take that to get the divide between urban and country decreased. A matter of fact, not a value judgement. But, I may have read that wrongly.

 

Fair enough but there's another way to say that, you could instead of talking about death bring up the changing views of the new crop of younger voters

[PseudoSABR]

 

Fair enough but there's another way to say that, you could instead of talking about death bring up the changing views of the new crop of younger voters

We'll all work on being more politically correct when speaking about those with antiquated views...

[Craig Arko]

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

 

-- Max Planck, originator of modern quantum theory

[Mike Sixel]

 

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

 

-- Max Planck, originator of modern quantum theory

 

Like fat vs sugar?

[Craig Arko]

 

Like fat vs sugar?

That's not science, that's marketing.