I voted this morning

[highfigh]

Based on what you have just said, if David Duke ran for president on the same platform of changing up Washington, and the Republicans had elected him, then it would be OK that people had voted for him

It might be a parallel situation, but it's not the same- the KKK is about Whites being superior, vetting people who may be coming in and causing problems through terrorism is about being careful. Why would we select only one group? Because only one group is blowing people up, killing 50-100 people in clubs, shooting up Parisian music events, influence by ISIS/AlQaeda, etc. Should we interrogate little old women? Probably not, but if we want to stop this, we have to check everyone. If you deny that profiling works, your head is in the sand. The KKK may have endorsed him, but he's not a member and AFAIK, never has been- big difference. I don't see anywhere that he was courting their endorsement, either.

 

[cel4145]

It might be a parallel situation, but it's not the same- the KKK is about Whites being superior, vetting people who may be coming in and causing problems through terrorism is about being careful. Why would we select only one group? Because only one group is blowing people up, killing 50-100 people in clubs, shooting up Parisian music events, influence by ISIS/AlQaeda, etc. Should we interrogate little old women? Probably not, but if we want to stop this, we have to check everyone. If you deny that profiling works, your head is in the sand. The KKK may have endorsed him, but he's not a member and AFAIK, never has been- big difference. I don't see anywhere that he was courting their endorsement, either.

It is the same in that you can't vote for part of what a candidate stands for or what he has done, as you implied. A vote is for the whole package.

Now I guess some people might argue that they didn't believe that Trump had a white nationalist agenda. Emphasis on "didn't." Trump just appointed Sessions to AG, which is a personal affront to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious minorities. Coupled with his appointment of Bannon as his top advisor, pretty hard to describe Trump as a President who is trying to represent everyone equally.

 

[shadyJ]

ShadyJ, I'm none too happy with Trump either, but I think you've got more than a little carried away here. Taking a wrecking ball to the entire country? Textbook fascism? A long diatribe comparing the election to politics before WWII? Measuring the well-being of the working-class population by the DJIA? I'm not sure what you have your finger on the pulse of, but it doesn't feel like the US.

I was trying to look at the election from a more historically analytical perspective; I am not interested in preaching or blaming, however I am not going to pull punches or dance around anyone's feelings for actions less than intelligent.

I would absolutely describe Trump as a textbook fascist, and I don't see how you are missing that. In fact, his approach to politics is so clearly fascistic it can almost be called a bland fascism. There is no attempt to hide it, unlike previous Republican politics. Demonize outsiders, criminalize domestic political opposition, impossible promises of restoring glory of bygone days, courting racial supremacists, the list goes on. Read this and compare it to Trump's political campaign. It's almost like Trump used that as a 'to do' list. How can you say Trump didn't run on Fascism when Republicans were chanting "lock her up" at their own convention? How much more naked can Fascists get (aside from outright labeling themselves fascists)? The politics that led to WW2 are instructive, but it is a lesson that the USA never fully learned. That is my view, which I have held long before Trump ever thought of entering politics. One mistake I made was that I thought the failure of the Bush administration had overall dampened America's taste for far-right politics; holy sh!t, was I wrong about that!

Also, while the working class well-being might not have a direct correlation with market indicators, there most certainly is a correlation, because if the market tanks, the working class will surely suffer. 2008 wasn't that long ago fer christs sake!

 

[Chu Gai]

So, you voted for Hillary, ShadyJ?

 

[KEW]

So, you voted for Hillary, ShadyJ?

That would be an interesting poll:

Did you:
1) Vote for Hillary
2) Vote against Trump
3) Vote against Hillary
4) Vote for Trump

It would be interesting to see how many were enthusiastic about either of these candidates vs fearful of the alternative.

 

[Rickster71]

Based on what you have just said, if David Duke ran for president on the same platform of changing up Washington, and the Republicans had elected him, then it would be OK that people had voted for him

Based on what you said, if the Democrat party was pro slavery, the party of the KKK and writers of the Jim Crow laws, the Democrats would reelect another Democrat..
YES.. THEY DID IT FOR 140 YEARS

 

[shadyJ]

So, you voted for Hillary, ShadyJ?

I intended to vote for Hillary on election day, but a personal matter prevented me from going anywhere or doing anything, so I wasn't able to vote. My state is solid blue, so thankfully my vote would have been more of a statement than anything that would help decide an outcome.

 

[highfigh]

It is the same in that you can't vote for part of what a candidate stands for or what he has done, as you implied. A vote is for the whole package.

Now I guess some people might argue that they didn't believe that Trump had a white nationalist agenda. Emphasis on "didn't." Trump just appointed Sessions to AG, which is a personal affront to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious minorities. Coupled with his appointment of Bannon as his top advisor, pretty hard to describe Trump as a President who is trying to represent everyone equally.

Ultimately, the vote doesn't reflect anything other that that single choice, but your argument about Trump supporters not believing he has that agenda also applies to people who just can't bring themselves to believe Hillary is trustworthy. Not trying to create a strawman argument, but it really applies. They may want her as POTUS because she's a woman, but they have to admit her character has serious flaws, too.

I can't think of a single candidate for any office that is seen as 'The perfect package'.

Sessions can be replaced if he does anything stupid- he wasn't elected, so it only takes adequate pressure on POTUS. If he has skeletons in his closet, they should come out when he's vetted and if they do, I would ask why they weren't found sooner. Goes for Bannon, too. If they're dirty, they need to go and their party affiliation doesn't matter.

 

[highfigh]

That would be an interesting poll:

Did you:
1) Vote for Hillary
2) Vote against Trump
3) Vote against Hillary
4) Vote for Trump

It would be interesting to see how many were enthusiastic about either of these candidates vs fearful of the alternative.

The polls showed 70% don't believe Hillary is trustworthy, Trump poll results showed him as 15% more truthy.

This is the reason I posted "It's election day- let the retching begin" last Tuesday.

 

[cel4145]

I was trying to look at the election from a more historically analytical perspective; I am not interested in preaching or blaming, however I am not going to pull punches or dance around anyone's feelings for actions less than intelligent.

I would absolutely describe Trump as a textbook fascist, and I don't see how you are missing that. In fact, his approach to politics is so clearly fascistic it can almost be called a bland fascism. There is no attempt to hide it, unlike previous Republican politics. Demonize outsiders, criminalize domestic political opposition, impossible promises of restoring glory of bygone days, courting racial supremacists, the list goes on. Read this and compare it to Trump's political campaign. It's almost like Trump used that as a 'to do' list. How can you say Trump didn't run on Fascism when Republicans were chanting "lock her up" at their own convention? How much more naked can Fascists get (aside from outright labeling themselves fascists)? The politics that led to WW2 are instructive, but it is a lesson that the USA never fully learned. That is my view, which I have held long before Trump ever thought of entering politics. One mistake I made was that I thought the failure of the Bush administration had overall dampened America's taste for far-right politics; holy sh!t, was I wrong about that!

Also, while the working class well-being might not have a direct correlation with market indicators, there most certainly is a correlation, because if the market tanks, the working class will surely suffer. 2008 wasn't that long ago fer christs sake!

No matter what we agree to call him--fascist, alt-right, or white nationalist--the threat is very real.

Did anyone else pick up today on the fact that Mike Pompeo is the Koch Brothers' Congressman from the district where Koch Industries headquarters resides?

"Congressman Mike Pompeo was the single largest recipient of campaign funds from the Koch Brothers in 2010. After winning election with Koch money, Congressman Pompeo hired a Koch Industries lawyer to run his office. According to The Washington Post, Congressman Pompeo then introduced bills friendly to Koch Industries while Koch hired outside lobbyists to support them."

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-koch-brothers-favorite-congressman-will-be-in-charge-of-the-cia/

This just keeps getting better and better.

 

[Chu Gai]

I intended to vote for Hillary on election day, but a personal matter prevented me from going anywhere or doing anything, so I wasn't able to vote. My state is solid blue, so thankfully my vote would have been more of a statement than anything that would help decide an outcome.

Understood. I also was unable to vote. I'm curious if you fell into the camp of which one was least objectionable. As for myself, I was of the position that Hillary's actions would serve to further undermine global stability and that she has spent years to circumvent record keeping laws to enrich her family and cohorts. From wilkileaks I learned that there's an unhealthy, pervasive collusion between the media, Democrats, and the entertainment industry willing to more than look the other way so long as they could benefit themselves.

 

[shadyJ]

While I was not excited about her, I don't think she would have been all that bad, and certainly miles better than Trump. Her so-called scandals are nothing compared to the shady stuff Trump has been up to his whole life. I think her concern for her legacy and the knowledge that everything she would have done would be under a hypercritical magnifying glass would have kept her from anything horrendous.

As for the collusion between Democrats and media, that is not some kind of conspiracy. People who go into communications tend to be liberal arts majors, who will of course lean liberal. And, of course, they land jobs in media positions, given their major. It is a tendency of that personality type. Just like law enforcement leans right, it is a natural occupation for that personality type, not some kind of right-wing conspiracy.

As for Hillary undermining global stability, I have a difficult time believing that your real opposition to Hillary was that she would undermine global stability, when she ran against a guy that wants to pull the USA out of NATO as a stooge of Putin and wants to place huge tariffs in eastern manufactured goods. Nothing Hillary would plausibly have done are a tenth as destabilizing any one of a dozen foreign policies advocated by Trump.

 

[Chu Gai]

While I was not excited about her, I don't think she would have been all that bad, and certainly miles better than Trump. Her so-called scandals are nothing compared to the shady stuff Trump has been up to his whole life. I think her concern for her legacy and the knowledge that everything she would have done would be under a hypercritical magnifying glass would have kept her from anything horrendous.

I disagree and don't see what I consider to be her (and her husband's) transgressions as 'so-called'. Rather I consider them a manipulation of public trust for personal gain. IMO, the actions of the Clinton charities have as their ultimate goal their significant self-enrichment by manipulating companies and foreign interests in a pay for play scenario while paying token lip service to their publicly stated goals. As for her concern about her legacy as a driving force to keep her on the up and up, I only see a person who looks to blame anything and everything on everyone else. There is no personal accountability and so long as the magnifying glass is held by a doting and intensely rationalizing press that seeks not to serve the public interest, I hold that the scrutiny will be non existent.

As for the collusion between Democrats and media, that is not some kind of conspiracy. People who go into communications tend to be liberal arts majors, who will of course lean liberal. And, of course, they land jobs in media positions, given their major. It is a tendency of that personality type. Just like law enforcement leans right, it is a natural occupation for that personality type, not some kind of right-wing conspiracy.

They lean liberal or to the left because the institutions slant it that way and perpetuate a particular way of looking at things. Holding a different opinion is counterproductive, discouraged, and punished. When a party has questions telegraphed to them, written for them in advance, stories edited in collaboration, the fix is in.

As for Hillary undermining global stability, I have a difficult time believing that your real opposition to Hillary was that she would undermine global stability, when she ran against a guy that wants to pull the USA out of NATO as a stooge of Putin and wants to place huge tariffs in eastern manufactured goods. Nothing Hillary would plausibly have done are a tenth as destabilizing any one of a dozen foreign policies advocated by Trump.

I don't consider how Europe has fallen for the mass invasion a sign of stability. Nor do I see RESET as having been particularly effective. Arab Spring turned out to be a fiasco. ISIS is suffering setbacks like Mosul but is emminently healthy and active elsewhere around the world. IMO, you misunderstand the foreign policies that have been advocated by Trump and don't recognize that they are bargaining positions - negotiating tactics. If I don't like where we are in four years I'll vote accordingly but I've been waiting for something to shake up DC for a long time.

 

[lovinthehd]

I find it very hard to even think that Clinton would be less stabilizing than Drumpfy on anything international....cripes he barely knows where factories that make his crap in are located in (remember the nice visit he had with Letterman for his crappy ties).

 

[shadyJ]

Chu, I don't think the press is nearly as friendly to the Clintons as you believe. Many of the so-called scandals that the press was all over turned out to be a whole lot of nothing, yet somehow they get so much air time compared to so many of Trump's legitimate scams. Every other day a new wikileaks document dump from the DNC, courtesy of Russia, and it gets so much air time, but nothing in it has anything that would constitute a scandal. The fact that Russia interfered with a US election is far more damning and more demanding of action than anything Clinton has done. We got owned bad by Russia, and we were sold out to them by the Republicans. I read a headline today that said "Angela Merkel is now leader of the free world", and it's true. With a clown like Trump coming into office, our prestige and status as a nation is already diminished, and he hasn't even been inaugurated yet.

 

[cel4145]

They lean liberal or to the left because the institutions slant it that way and perpetuate a particular way of looking at things. Holding a different opinion is counterproductive, discouraged, and punished. When a party has questions telegraphed to them, written for them in advance, stories edited in collaboration, the fix is in.

To a certain extent there is some liberal bias with some media. But keep in mind bias is a subjective evaluation, and the Americans on the right have been told over and over again that the media is biased. So of course confirmation bias kicks in. I tend to think that the majority of media tries to be more objective than the right believes.

 

[Rickster71]

Here is a link that provides a huge list of of incidents of media bias.
Specific examples of biased news coverage: http://akdart.com/med6.html
The unrealized problem with psychological manipulation is that some think they're immune to it, simply because they view themselves as too intelligent to be fooled.

 

[Chu Gai]

I find it very hard to even think that Clinton would be less stabilizing than Drumpfy on anything international....cripes he barely knows where factories that make his crap in are located in (remember the nice visit he had with Letterman for his crappy ties).

Clinton vowed to continue Obama's legacy. If you consider how destabilized Europe is now, the Middle East in turmoil and ruin, it's hard to imagine it getting any worse.

 

[Chu Gai]

Chu, I don't think the press is nearly as friendly to the Clintons as you believe. Many of the so-called scandals that the press was all over turned out to be a whole lot of nothing, yet somehow they get so much air time compared to so many of Trump's legitimate scams. Every other day a new wikileaks document dump from the DNC, courtesy of Russia, and it gets so much air time, but nothing in it has anything that would constitute a scandal. The fact that Russia interfered with a US election is far more damning and more demanding of action than anything Clinton has done. We got owned bad by Russia, and we were sold out to them by the Republicans. I read a headline today that said "Angela Merkel is now leader of the free world", and it's true. With a clown like Trump coming into office, our prestige and status as a nation is already diminished, and he hasn't even been inaugurated yet.

It's always interesting my friend how two people can view the same events and come up with different interpretations. I'm not looking back in time to Whitewater and all that. One need only look who was as well as who wasn't invited to Podesta's dinner party. These sort of things weren't atypical.
Of note are John Mcafee's comments that the origin of the leaks was Iran and that it was trivial to spoof country of origin. Whether you call it a scandal or a peak at how business was done, it's unsettling especially to Bernie. Also when Assange was asked how come it was all Democrats he replied there was nothing of import elsewhere. Regardless who it was that turned the light on I'm glad someone did. Dirty pool.

 

[everettT]

Media bias is not a myth. Simple searches can reveal many ways it's prevalent including lack of coverage on issues, to coordination for approval of news story's prior to publication. It's impossible to discern by only reading or watching certian publications or news channels. Opinion columns and shows are one thing but investigative journalism is a problem.