What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Kepler said:
I repeat, moderate Democrats and liberal Democrats should be able to find compromise positions on issues. I assume Hillary will be the nominee, so I am rooting for her to advocate for and then execute the best possible policies for this country. We can take advantage of the Clintons' experience and ruthlessness in campaigning but also win on policy. I actually think it won't be that much of a stretch to pull Hillary to the left on domestic policy because she strikes me as considerably more liberal than Bill on women's issues, the environment, and class issues, while perhaps being somewhat more to the right on racial issues. On foreign policy, I think she's a Cold War liberal JFK type which, well, we're probably not going to improve upon in the current climate where everybody from both parties is hiding under the bed.
Click to expand...


Kep, forget about Hillary. She's irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Simply put, image matters. That's all I'm getting across, no matter who you support. Responding to nonsense matters. This goes for anybody. I'd rank them as:

1) Issues
2) Image
3) Messaging aka ability to respond to nonsensical attacks.

If you don't have all 3, you're screwed.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Rover said:
The Donald's contribution to society is not his current poll lead over the rest of the clown car. Its that he's bringing the radical, extreme, racist, sexist, bitter angry old white dude vote front and center. He's not even trying to hide it and the lamestream media can no longer avoid it...
Click to expand...
All the more reason to think he's in this to help Hillary. He's become so very comical in his proclomations that he may as well be Montgomery Brewster (Brewster's Millions).
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

St. Clown said:
All the more reason to think he's in this to help Hillary. He's become so very comical in his proclomations that he may as well be Montgomery Brewster (Brewster's Millions).
Click to expand...

Hey, anything's possible! ;) I think its more of he got into this on a lark for his own amusement, and then is as befuddled as the rest of us at his poll numbers. But, why not just ride it out and see where it goes?

I am amused by stories though of how he's forcing people like Jebbers! to the right. Its a big leap to assume that Bush wasn't there already on a lot of these issues. Yes, I'm sure Jeb's focus in mainly on tax cuts for the 1%, but how do we know he doesn't really support building a wall and mass deportations but was just keeping that quiet or pandering for the benefit of the media all these years?

Another good example is gay marriage. As best I can tell, all 17 candidates are against it in some form or another. The political press would have us believe most are just pandering to the social conservative base. I say maybe they ARE the social conservative base, and truly don't like gays. God forbid pundits cover that angle, but who's to say these people are all secret social moderates? Who's to say ANY of them are?
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Rover said:
Hey, anything's possible! ;) I think its more of he got into this on a lark for his own amusement, and then is as befuddled as the rest of us at his poll numbers. But, why not just ride it out and see where it goes?

I am amused by stories though of how he's forcing people like Jebbers! to the right. Its a big leap to assume that Bush wasn't there already on a lot of these issues. Yes, I'm sure Jeb's focus in mainly on tax cuts for the 1%, but how do we know he doesn't really support building a wall and mass deportations but was just keeping that quiet or pandering for the benefit of the media all these years?

Another good example is gay marriage. As best I can tell, all 17 candidates are against it in some form or another. The political press would have us believe most are just pandering to the social conservative base. I say maybe they ARE the social conservative base, and truly don't like gays. God forbid pundits cover that angle, but who's to say these people are all secret social moderates? Who's to say ANY of them are?
Click to expand...

Rover

RE: Your last paragraph. Isn't it possible to be against SSM but still be friendly/neutral to the homosexual crowd?
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

So you are friendly/neutral to them but want to deny them basic rights as human beings?

Let me see if I can put this in as easy a way to understand as possible...NO! No you cannot be friendly towards a people but then basically deny that they are in fact people. If they are a people they have rights. You dont want them to have those rights. You are not friendly towards them. Period, end of story.

That is of course your right, but you cant have it both ways.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

joecct said:
Isn't it possible to be against SSM but still be friendly/neutral to the homosexual crowd?
Click to expand...

No. "I'm fine with you -- just so long as you know you're a lesser human being" is being neither friendly nor neutral. It's the same attitude of the 50s southern white who said "I'm fine with Negros who know their place."

Bigotry is insidious because most bigots don't know they're bigots. It's really hard to wrap our minds around our own ideas being bigoted because we try to be good people, so if we knew a notion was bigoted of course we wouldn't hold it! :)

Maybe the problem is with calling someone a "bigot" in the first place. It might be far easier to say that an idea is bigoted, which moves it from being a moral failing to just an error of observation. People don't get nearly as defensive when you say "you're wrong" as opposed to when you say, "you're bad."
 
Handyman said:
So you are friendly/neutral to them but want to deny them basic rights as human beings?

Let me see if I can put this in as easy a way to understand as possible...NO! No you cannot be friendly towards a people but then basically deny that they are in fact people. If they are a people they have rights. You dont want them to have those rights. You are not friendly towards them. Period, end of story.

That is of course your right, but you cant have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Then we'll disagree until the cows come home.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Silicon Valley as the Dems' own source of Deranged Billionaires.

Right now, the populists have numbers on their side, as well as much of the media. The recent New York Times expose on Amazon’s brutal management practices reveals a deep discord between the media mouthpieces of the political Left and their usual capitalist heroes from the information economy.

The biggest challenge for the tech oligarchs is that their rise has come as class divisions have widened, and inequality has grown. The benefits to society of the current technology wave – outside of being able to more conveniently waste time on your phone – whether in terms of creating jobs (outside of the Bay Area) or boosting productivity, appear largely limited.

Yet given what many find the unattractive nature of the Republican alternative, one can expect the oligarchs to seek out a modus vivendi with the populists. They could exchange a regime of higher taxes and regulation for ever-expanding crony capitalist opportunities and political protection. As the hegemons of today, Facebook and Google, not to mention Apple and Amazon, have an intense interest in protecting themselves, for example, from antitrust legislation. History is pretty clear: Heroic entrepreneurs of one decade often turn into the insider capitalists of the next.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

joecct said:
Rover

RE: Your last paragraph. Isn't it possible to be against SSM but still be friendly/neutral to the homosexual crowd?
Click to expand...
I think if your position is that you're friendly/neutral to homosexuals, you are against SSM on religious grounds but you recognize their legal right to marry and don't attempt to restrict those legal rights (or any of their other rights) in any way, that would be ok.
 
SJHovey said:
I think if your position is that you're friendly/neutral to homosexuals, you are against SSM on religious grounds but you recognize their legal right to marry and don't attempt to restrict those legal rights (or any of their other rights) in any way, that would be ok.
Click to expand...
Good point. I couldn't care less what someone *thinks* - it only matters how he *acts* (including speaking as an action, of course).
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

LynahFan said:
Good point. I couldn't care less what someone *thinks* - it only matters how he *acts* (including speaking as an action, of course).
Click to expand...

I'd put it a different way. If somebody's all wrapped up in not believing in gay marriage because of the Magic Book or because Mommy and Daddy told me to believe this and Mommy and Daddy are perfect don't you say they're NOT!!!!11!, but at the same time they recognize they live in a diverse world where their moral fantasies don't equal other people's realities, that's better than some cynical politician who has absolutely no objection to gays marrying because he's lived in towns of more than 35 people and read more than five books in his life but still thumps the tub for Defense of Marriage because it gets the hayseeds to vote for him. The former guy, well, he has a birth defect or a bad childhood or whatever, but he's living with it and not spreading his disease around, whereas the latter guy, just f#ck that guy, he's a monster.

So in that respect, I agree.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

joecct said:
Rover

RE: Your last paragraph. Isn't it possible to be against SSM but still be friendly/neutral to the homosexual crowd?
Click to expand...

Expanding on Hovey's correct points, I'm fine with people of faith, and I mean really of faith not sunshine christians who haven't been to church for decades but think voting Republican makes them religious, not agreeing with SSM provided they support an equivalent designation that confers all the same rights. I don't agree that position, but I get it. My grandmother is against SSM and its not out of anger. The issue moved too fast for a 90+ year old woman.

But, if you asked all 17 of these candidates where they stand on gays adopting foster children for example, I bet you'll get some real interesting insight into what they do and don't believe...
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

joecct said:
Then we'll disagree until the cows come home.
Click to expand...

How very Christian of you. What you are proposing with your question sounds like those guys that think they arent racist because they dont hate Blacks who play for their favorite sports team.
 
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

So John Oliver's segment on SSM and basic human rights was pretty good.

But it was kind of depressing to go onto GPL after watching that and reading someone who thinks being LGBT means you have a mental illness.

**** man... Just ****.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top