[MTS]

death rattle, on 12 November 2016 - 12:21 AM, said:

MTS, on 12 November 2016 - 12:02 AM, said:

On Grief's point, I've heard a lot of Trump voters who hate his racist, xenophobic rhetoric, but still voted for him anyway because they were comforted by the notion that Congress is not as far right as Trump is, and will thus stop any regressive domestic policies he wants to enforce (like the wall or the ban on Muslims).

This isn't quite the case. It's hard to tell because Trump's indifference to almost everybody else on Earth makes him a sort of political empty vessel -- and what's in his "heart of hearts" is not necessarily how he'll govern. As a populist, some of his promises were not nearly as far right as the GOP + Tea Party Congress. For instance, Trump claimed he wasn't gonna mess with Medicare/SS, but Paul Ryan has always been in the Privatize It camp, and it remains to be seen how this will fall out. He might just try it though. http://www.salon.com...-gut-obamacare/

Likewise Trump just indicated that he might keep two of the more popular facets of Obamacare -- the coverage for one's offspring up to 26 years old and the prohibition against refusals for preexisting conditions, whereas we know Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell want to gut the entire ACA. The fact that it doesn't make any fiscal sense whatsoever to force insurance companies to insure ill people without the vast reservoir of healthy customers won't necessarily stop Trump from doing it (though I'd wager Congress gets its way entirely, with a shrug and an "I tried" from Trump).

Edit: Ah, TS covered the latter thing.

Good point, I should have phrased it as some voters saw Congress as an effective check on some of Trump's policies they did not agree with. I imagine that's how it will go as well.

@amphibian, as far as I'm aware, that was never confirmed as true, it was just something Trump's son said to get Kasich on board for VP. It's not hard to see Trump delegating to Pence certain issues though, which could mean the ACA (like Obama + Biden with assault weapons ban).

[Tsundoku]

With regard to a Republican House blocking some/most of Trumps's possible "excesses", I have the uncomfortable feeling that they will take one look at the fact he won an election most of them had seen as unwinnable or "in spite of himself" and think "this is the way our voter base thinks, if I go against him I'll get booted in the next election", and cave to everything he wants.

I really hope I'm wrong. I also hope this more moderate Trump we're seen in the last two days is closer to the "real" Trump. Truly, it's hard to know what to think. I'm adopting a "wait and see" approach.

[Macros]

Oh he's going to deregulate the banks?
Wonderful!

[Silencer]

Macros, on 12 November 2016 - 11:20 AM, said:

Oh he's going to deregulate the banks?
Wonderful!

He really can't. They're already basically unregulated so it's not like it can get much worse.

XD

[QuickTidal]

D, on 11 November 2016 - 10:35 PM, said:

No. No he didn't.

For gods sake...here are the actual quotes (since you'd rather mock my choice of website where you can find the quotes than focus on the quotes themselves):

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best," he said. "They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

I don't care how he qualified it at the end. The words left his mouth that "they're rapists." in a paragraph of words in which he also called them criminals and drug dealers...and added at the end that he ASSUMES that some are good people. He didn't say "ALL" in any of that...but that doens't mean it's not implied in his words. It was a broad statement that has no focus...so what are we meant to glean? That he only meant some of them? What percentage of them DID he mean Drek? Just so I can figure out how mad I should be that he called ANY of them that in broad terms.

Now, can you find me a piece of media that makes the claim he said something different or embellishes it?

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 12 November 2016 - 01:35 PM

[MTS]

QuickTidal, on 12 November 2016 - 01:14 PM, said:

D, on 11 November 2016 - 10:35 PM, said:

No. No he didn't.

For gods sake...here are the actual quotes (since you'd rather mock my choice of website where you can find the quotes than focus on the quotes themselves):

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best," he said. "They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

I don't care how he qualified it at the end. The words left his mouth that "they're rapists." in a paragraph of words in which he also called them criminals and drug dealers...and added at the end that he ASSUMES that some are good people. He didn't say "ALL" in any of that...but that doens't mean it's not implied in his words. It was a broad statement that has no focus...so what are we meant to glean? That he only meant some of them? What percentage of them DID he mean Drek? Just so I can figure out how mad I should be that he called ANY of them that in broad terms.

Now, can you find me a piece of media that makes the claim he said something different or embellishes it?

To be fair, one can argue the qualifier is in the first clause: 'when Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best,' i.e. not all Mexicans are rapists, but the ones that make it across the border are by and large drug dealers, criminals or rapists. Still awful, but not extreme compared to other Republicans, like Ted Cruz:

Quote

SECURE THE BORDER

A Cruz Administration’s first priority for immigration reform will be to secure the U.S.-Mexico border. We will:

Build a wall that works. The unsecured border with Mexico invites illegal immigrants, criminals, and terrorists to tread on American soil. I will complete the wall.
Triple the number of Border Patrol agents. Securing the border is the federal government’s obligation. I will dedicate the force necessary to do that.
Increase vital aerial surveillance and other technology along the border. Adding boots on the ground is not enough. Eyes in the sky and other equipment are necessary to find and detain all illegal entrants.
Finish the biometric tracking system at our nation’s ports of entry. It is disgraceful that our federal government cannot keep track of those who enter the country. I will complete a biometric entry-exit tracking system.

Or Trump's saying that some Mexican rapists are actually pretty chill dudes, take your pick.

[End of Disc One]

How do we know he didn't say "Their rapists"?

[QuickTidal]

End of Disc One, on 12 November 2016 - 05:33 PM, said:

How do we know he didn't say "Their rapists"?

If that is an SNL Celbrity Jeopardy joke, I am totally on board!

[Tiste Simeon]

Re: the rapists comment, I figure Trump just didn't want the competition...

[Mezla PigDog]

I want to know which way Ken Bone ended up voting. Seems like such an innocent time now.

[worry]

On the notion of refusing to normalize this cretin: http://www.nytimes.c...or-refusal.html

It's not a long read, and I found the "Rhinoceros" play comparison pretty insightful.

And always this reminder:

Quote

On Aug. 19, 2015, shortly after midnight, the brothers Stephen and Scott Leader assaulted Guillermo Rodriguez. Rodriguez had been sleeping near a train station in Boston. The Leader brothers beat him with a metal pipe, breaking his nose and bruising his ribs, and called him a “wetback.” They urinated on him. “All these illegals need to be deported,” they are said to have declared during the attack. The brothers were fans of the candidate who would go on to win the Republican party’s presidential nomination. Told of the incident at the time, that candidate said: “People who are following me are very passionate. They love this country, and they want this country to be great again.”

[EmperorMagus]

So I've been arguing with a bunch of people online over Trump and his free speech bullshit for the past couple of days. Now, they are claiming that stop&frisk is not a racist practice (and by extension DT never said anything racist - the rest of the stuff he said were twisted by the media because and I quote "he doesn't use neutral language like other politicians".)

I wanted to ask, did stop and frisk ever go the SCOTUS or was it just the NY court judge that ruled it unconstitutional?


<-- still pissed off at idiots sticking their heads in the sand.

[MTS]

Just an NY judge I think. In the debates Trump said he was an 'anti-police' judge, which means a single decision rather than a vote from the Justices.

[Nicodimas]

This whole situation just screams why we need more powerful parties for more choices. It's distasteful to say least as America protests yet again on it's duly elected official. Overall, the sheer amount of postings on my FB are just really out of control about how unfair this whole process has been.....


Some perspective:

https://market-ticke...www?post=231656

I love the way denninger thinks, especially when he doesn't go on one of his rants. Kinda sad when you consider it...

[worry]

You of all people coming out as anti-protest is maybe the biggest shock of the election.

[Nicodimas]

Not really it really depends on what you are protesting?...Protesting and stripping the forefathers ideal's doesn't fit on my spectrum.


Now some humor... Err satire

http://www.cracked.c...ne-talks-about/

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 12 November 2016 - 11:52 PM

[Hairshirt]

Nicodimas, on 12 November 2016 - 11:21 PM, said:

This whole situation just screams why we need more powerful parties for more choices. It's distasteful to say least as America protests yet again on it's duly elected official. Overall, the sheer amount of postings on my FB are just really out of control about how unfair this whole process has been.....


Some perspective:

https://market-ticke...www?post=231656

I love the way denninger thinks, especially when he doesn't go on one of his rants. Kinda sad when you consider it...

Great article, thanks for posting it.

Here's an article on how both parties suppress the chance of different options.

http://thehill.com/b...-heres-the-real

[Tsundoku]

I was sort of thinking this as the polls came rolling in. Are celebrity endorsements over and done in the time of working class rage against the "establishment" and "liberal elites"?

http://www.news.com....7aa9a5c563ab52d

[worry]

Yeah, maybe. Not sure how big an effect they really have over all in the first place (this election probably a fractional net-negative tbh). If anything I think they work better for causes than candidates, because they're money-generators. So in politics, at a fundraiser they probably still matter, but in a campaign commercial? They're not gonna make the difference.

[worry]

Nicodimas, on 12 November 2016 - 11:52 PM, said:

Not really it really depends on what you are protesting?...Protesting and stripping the forefathers ideal's doesn't fit on my spectrum.

What's your answer to these concerns?


(Couple notes: I don't know who Michael Rex is. This was posted in full on the Kissing Fish FB page -- which deals w/ progressive Christian issues -- and I saw it through a couple friends. I wouldn't normally post 'viral' content here but I do think it's at least a decent summary of a point I would have made anyway, and in a more polite voice than I'm prepared to make it, so hopefully it suffices).