Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I'm not sure what else they can do since now only a simple majority is needed.

You make the Repubs pay a political price for it, at least.  And you make Repubs like Collins in Maine, and Murkowski in Alaska, and Hellier in NV and Gardner in Colorado answer to their constituents if they vote to confirm someone likely to oppose Roe, or marriage equality, or affirmative action.  You beg, borrow, plead, and get people marching in the streets You use every procedural trick you have to slow down the confirmation until the Senate is in lame duck sessions, and then.....provided the Dems have magically managed to pull Senate control (and I still don't think that's likely...ESPECIALLY now, since this will motivate the Repubs to vote in Nov)...you let your Republican colleagues know that they will be SHUT OUT of normal business on EVERYTHING if they vote before the new Senate is seated. Total and complete blackout...and that the new Senate Majority WILL use the nuclear option to make that happen (even if it's a bluff).
 
But...the Dems aren't going to do that.  They've proven over and over again they're pretty much spineless. They refuse to take a principled stand.  They'll make some speeches.  They'll feign some outrage.  They'll talk to pundits for a few weeks and bang their fists on a few desks.

Then they'll politely roll over and die.

That's what they do.  They don't seem to realize the Repubs have changed the rules of the game, and the Dems are still playing by the old ones.

At the VERY least the Dems need to make sure there is a political price paid by the Repubs, and a steep one.  But I don't think they're capable of even that, til they get their heads out of their asses and show up to play.

Pretty much verbatim what Bill Maher has been saying for awhile. We haven't learned to play dirty yet. We always want to take the high road and that isn't working anymore. If the democrat voters would just show the fuck up especially in a midterm year they will not only take the house but the senate too. You think there's literally any chance of one or two republicans with a conscience left to prevent confirmation?

Some dems have learned how to play dirty, such as Maxine Waters telling people to harass people who work for the administration and other progressive types who are willing to harasss public figures in a personal way at their homes, restaurants and movie theaters. That's uncalled for regardless of what political party  you identify with. So far we have seen a few isolated incidents, but  if this becomes more common its really going to get ugly.

[tim_m]

I'm not sure what else they can do since now only a simple majority is needed.

You make the Repubs pay a political price for it, at least.  And you make Repubs like Collins in Maine, and Murkowski in Alaska, and Hellier in NV and Gardner in Colorado answer to their constituents if they vote to confirm someone likely to oppose Roe, or marriage equality, or affirmative action.  You beg, borrow, plead, and get people marching in the streets You use every procedural trick you have to slow down the confirmation until the Senate is in lame duck sessions, and then.....provided the Dems have magically managed to pull Senate control (and I still don't think that's likely...ESPECIALLY now, since this will motivate the Repubs to vote in Nov)...you let your Republican colleagues know that they will be SHUT OUT of normal business on EVERYTHING if they vote before the new Senate is seated. Total and complete blackout...and that the new Senate Majority WILL use the nuclear option to make that happen (even if it's a bluff).
 
But...the Dems aren't going to do that.  They've proven over and over again they're pretty much spineless. They refuse to take a principled stand.  They'll make some speeches.  They'll feign some outrage.  They'll talk to pundits for a few weeks and bang their fists on a few desks.

Then they'll politely roll over and die.

That's what they do.  They don't seem to realize the Repubs have changed the rules of the game, and the Dems are still playing by the old ones.

At the VERY least the Dems need to make sure there is a political price paid by the Repubs, and a steep one.  But I don't think they're capable of even that, til they get their heads out of their asses and show up to play.

Pretty much verbatim what Bill Maher has been saying for awhile. We haven't learned to play dirty yet. We always want to take the high road and that isn't working anymore. If the democrat voters would just show the fuck up especially in a midterm year they will not only take the house but the senate too. You think there's literally any chance of one or two republicans with a conscience left to prevent confirmation?

Some dems have learned how to play dirty, such as Maxine Waters telling people to harass people who work for the administration and other progressive types who are willing to harasss public figures in a personal way at their homes, restaurants and movie theaters. That's uncalled for regardless of what political party  you identify with. So far we have seen a few isolated incidents, but  if this becomes more common its really going to get ugly.

I don't mean start harassing people. That's wrong, i just mean play by the same rules the republicans are using to win. If we want to win we can't keep being nice and taking the high road. The rules have changed.

[tim_m]

Anyone else hearing that Justice Kennedy was possibly bribed to retire? Any validity there? Also, it seems satellite images are showing NK upgrading their nuke sites.

If a supreme court justice can be bribed, our democracy is over as we know it. I haven't heard of anything like that.

But I have heard NK was upgrading their nuke sites. That certainly puts any agreement even a preliminary one in jeopardy.

Apparently it is his son, he has connections to Deutch that somehow involves the Russians and a loan to Trump. Huge conflict of interest. I saw the NK thing coming. The agreement and i use the term loosely wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Anyone else hearing that Justice Kennedy was possibly bribed to retire? Any validity there? Also, it seems satellite images are showing NK upgrading their nuke sites.

If a supreme court justice can be bribed, our democracy is over as we know it. I haven't heard of anything like that.

But I have heard NK was upgrading their nuke sites. That certainly puts any agreement even a preliminary one in jeopardy.

Apparently it is his son, he has connections to Deutch that somehow involves the Russians and a loan to Trump. Huge conflict of interest. I saw the NK thing coming. The agreement and i use the term loosely wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

Kennedy's son bribed him? I'd like to see the link to that news story 

[tim_m]

Anyone else hearing that Justice Kennedy was possibly bribed to retire? Any validity there? Also, it seems satellite images are showing NK upgrading their nuke sites.

If a supreme court justice can be bribed, our democracy is over as we know it. I haven't heard of anything like that.

But I have heard NK was upgrading their nuke sites. That certainly puts any agreement even a preliminary one in jeopardy.

Apparently it is his son, he has connections to Deutch that somehow involves the Russians and a loan to Trump. Huge conflict of interest. I saw the NK thing coming. The agreement and i use the term loosely wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

Kennedy's son bribed him? I'd like to see the link to that news story 

No, it appears it was some kind of loan it seems. Not sure about its validity. But if true it makes you wonder about his decision to retire. http://www.businessinsider.com/anthony-kennedy-son-loaned-president-trump-over-a-billion-dollars-2018-6

Here's the NYT article that mentions it too. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/us/politics/trump-anthony-kennedy-retirement.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Don't think there's much there, making a direct connection is a stretch.

But it is likely under 6 degrees from Kevin Bacon. 

[tim_m]

You never know, its hard to be surprised by anything these days.

[pilferk]

Some dems have learned how to play dirty, such as Maxine Waters telling people to harass people who work for the administration and other progressive types who are willing to harasss public figures in a personal way at their homes, restaurants and movie theaters. That's uncalled for regardless of what political party  you identify with. So far we have seen a few isolated incidents, but  if this becomes more common its really going to get ugly.

1) Did you read what she actually wrote or are you just parroting the conservative talking points and the overly apologetic dems (who are demonstrating exactly my point)?  Because they were overall pretty tame:

"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents,"

Honestly, I'd hardly raise that to the level of harassment.  And if you WOULD, then you should be taking serious issue with some Repub policies which essentially allow harassment FROM the bully pulpit OF/DIRECTED AT private citizens/companies, or the harassment of OTHER citizens by members of the Republican party/conservatives.  Considering the kinds of things Trump has said and done....with nary a peep from his supporters in protest....bitching about Waters relatively tame comments smacks of hypocrisy. Of course, when you're the focus, it feels kinda different, huh?

2) The irony of members of the party that elected Trump to kill PC...who call the opposition party "snowflakes"....then crying about being put in a position where THEY have to actually face the repercussions of that is amusing.  Again, it's a little difference when the lens it turned in the other direction. "Snowflakes", indeed.....melting when confronted with those that disagree and actually stand up to them, and challenge their ideals through action.

3) If you don't like the consequences of supporting an administration who lies constantly, who has taken on polices that are VERY personal and effect peoples daily lives, which they view as discriminatory or racist or misogynist or just plain evil .....then don't support an administration who props up those policies. In addition, the SC just made a decision that, though narrow, basically sets up anyone being able to refuse service to someone based on "religious" grounds.  Given that, I think it's wholly appropriate to do that if your moral code vehmenently disagrees with doing business with that person.  If/When that person would like to files suit, and get the SC to rethink that decision.....I'm all for that, too.

To be clear, I am not for following people around and literally harassing them.  But nor am I totally against creating a public spectacle and making them uncomfortable for the political choices they've made. If the "snowflakes" can't handle that, they might want to examine their principles.  We reap what we sow.   And I am for a business owner (for right now) choosing who they want to do business with (because it'll force the courts to revisit the issue, to be honest).

Edited to add an interesting, and pertinent, article:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-maxine-waters-democrats-trump-pelosi-0629-20180628-story.html

[pilferk]

Don't think there's much there, making a direct connection is a stretch.

But it is likely under 6 degrees from Kevin Bacon. 

The times does a pretty good job drawing the lines and connecting the dots.

Do I think Kennedy had anything to do with Trump, directly, or was influenced in his votes on SCOTUS? No, probably not.  His votes haven't gotten considerably more conservative since Trump was elected.

Do I think it looks improper for his kid to be so closely related to Trump's finances? Yes.

As was inviting Ivanka to the court as a guest, given those relationships.

This is the problem with Trump not ACTUALLY divesting of his business interests.  It creates improper conflicts like these.  Even if there isn't anything improper....it doesn't matter.  There is the appearance that there could be, and there is a potential to be.

And it wouldn't surprise me that, when faced with the party pressure, and then the heads up that this article was going to run, that Kennedy just decided it was best to retire than to face the scrutiny and public attention it would bring.  MANY SCOTUS judges feel that any kind of hint of a scandal is worthy of resignation or retirement, since they feel the attention should be on the law, and the decisions, vs the members of the court.

[pilferk]

1) Did you read what she actually wrote or are you just parroting the conservative talking points and the overly apologetic dems (who are demonstrating exactly my point)?  Because they were overall pretty tame:

"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents,"

Honestly, I'd hardly raise that to the level of harassment. 

Then you didn't keep reading.

Maxine Waters followed this up by saying....

"The people are going to turn on them. They're going to protest. They're going to absolutely harass them until they decide that they're going to tell the President, 'No, I can't hang with you.'"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-officials/index.html

Maxine Waters can claim that she didn't "intend" to incite violence, but the result is eventually going to be EXACTLY that.  Staging an organized protest is one thing, but it is NEVER a good idea to show up on the fly and harass any individual person.  No political points are going to be made; rather, the result will be sheer panic, especially when a politician's friends/family/children are with them and they end up getting harassed too -- because you KNOW that some idiots are going to do that.

Not to mention more idiots that may very well start harassing total strangers because they mistake them for the politicians in question.  And the civil unrest created bystanders rushing up because they're just trying to see what's going on, resulting in a mob scene that could easily result in injuries and arrests.  Someone eventually is going to get hurt, shot, or killed, and then Waters and her supporters are going to play dumb on how/why it happened.  I highly doubt that it will have any measurable effect on Trump cabinet members or supporters.  It's just going to serve to create more hostility and widen the already staggeringly wide gap that exists between Americans.

Don't agree with Trump's policies?  Fine, but leave it political.  Advising people to take an inch is always going to cause them to take a mile, and harassing people is ALWAYS going to lead to bad places -- especially the more "right" the culprits think they are.

Those were not in her initial remarks. They were part of a follow up interview on msnbc and are, again, taken out of context given the question posed.

Shes predicting, not inciting. Its also obvious what she meant.....given The Red Hen context.

And if you want "the other side" to be civil, it starts with civility.

When the trumpers show outrage at his hostility and harassment, they can complain about "the other side" refusing to do business or associate with them. Til then, all it does is make them hypocrits. Again, they elected the guy who campaigned on killing PC. This is what that death looks like. They are getting what they wanted/voted for.

You don't think it will have a measurable effect on Trumps cabinet and supporters? I think you are wrong.....and I think it already has.

Cant take the heat? Turn down your own fucking stove.

[pilferk]

Wow, how stunningly irrelevant your entire post was!     You entirely missed the point of my post.

If you think that....you need to work on your reading comprehension. Read it again.

Nice try, but simply dismissing something because it inconviently obliterates the point you tried to make....using a quote that was not part of her initial remarks out of context...doesnt actually make it less relevant.

If you miss the halcyon days of civility and political discourse...know it was not the dems who ended them. And if you expect them to maintain those staples while hostility and harrassment is targeted at them, and while people vote for those perpetuating it because the rah rah tribalism gets their blood pumping, you are being naive and unrealistic.

Sure, its easier for the repubs to beat up on doormats....

Her initial comments absolutely WERE an incitement.  When you encourage people to confront others on the fly at any location you find them, that absolutely is a bold incitement to harass and will eventually result in violence.  I don't care what "the other side" has done.  It is always a bad idea regardless of how "right" you think you are, and how "wrong" you think the other side is.

No, they were a call (and a reletively tame one) to action. And they are being overblown to try to make a political point (and because repubs are scared they will actually be held accountable so want to foster outrage to head that off).

Chants of "lock her up" and calls to knock people's blocks off are incitement. Calls for minor acts of civil disobediance (like heckling), and refusals to associte/do business with those espousing hatred, misogyny, discrimination, and general bad behavior are not.

Ms Waters was simply calling for dems to hold people accountable for despicable, deplorable actions. Not violence, and not even a tenth of what Trump has called for.

And not caring what "the other side" has done is precisely the hypocrisy i am talking about. Thank you for confirming it.

Hypocrisy. Its whats for dinner.

[Bridge]

If you think that....you need to work on your reading comorehension. Read it again.

My reading what?  Sorry I did read that again and didn't get it.   

[pilferk]

The funny thing is, you already agreed with me.... this was your quote....

be clear, I am not for following people around and literally harassing them

But you seem to lack the understanding that this is EXACTLY what will result from Maxine Waters' comments.  She is NOT suggesting an organized, peaceful protest.

No, I didnt.

I agree: following people around and harassing them is bad.

I dont agree thst is what Ms Waters was espousing. Nor that its what the logical progression of those comments are. Its not, and it isnt.  Taking it that far is dramatic hand wringing fueled mostly by political motives.

You are trying to apply something of a a slippery slope logical fallacy here. If this, then this thing will definitely have to happen.

She didnt call for violence or targeted, systemic harassment. She called for something like societal shunning or scarlet lettering.

Freedom of association, and all that.

[pilferk]

If you think that....you need to work on your reading comorehension. Read it again.

My reading what?  Sorry I did read that again and didn't get it.   

Responding via phone means small buttons and typos.

[Bridge]

Responding via phone means small buttons and typos.

Yeah, but when you lecture me on reading comprehension and then can't spell comprehension, you're kinda asking for it....   

I agree: following people around and harassing them is bad.

I dont agree thst is what Ms Waters was espousing. Nor that its what the logical progression of them are. Its not, and it isnt.  Taking it that far is dramatic hand wringing fueled mostly by political motives.

You are trying to apply something of a a slippery slope logical fallacy here. If this, then this thing will definitely have to happen.

She didnt call for violence or targeted, systemic harassment. She called for something like societal shunning or scarlet lettering.

Freedom of association, and all that.

I'm going on past events as well.  There have been numerous instances in very recent memory where Democrats have claimed they were practicing civil disobedience or peaceful protesting that led to violence due to their OWN actions, instigations, or participation.  This could easily result in exactly the same manner and I hardly find it unreasonable to assume that.

[pilferk]

Yeah, but when you lecture me on reading comprehension and then can't spell comprehension, you're kinda asking for it....   

If the best you got is typo correcting resulting from "phone fingers", I am 100% ok with that...especially when, oddly enough, you got the point regardless.

Though...I wasnt correcting your spelling or grammar, so I think your sense of irony might also need

I agree: following people around and harassing them is bad.

I dont agree thst is what Ms Waters was espousing. Nor that its what the logical progression of them are. Its not, and it isnt.  Taking it that far is dramatic hand wringing fueled mostly by political motives.

You are trying to apply something of a a slippery slope logical fallacy here. If this, then this thing will definitely have to happen.

She didnt call for violence or targeted, systemic harassment. She called for something like societal shunning or scarlet lettering.

Freedom of association, and all that.

I'm going on past events as well.  There have been numerous instances in very recent memory where Democrats have claimed they were practicing civil disobedience or peaceful protesting that led to violence due to their OWN actions, instigations, or participation.  This could easily result in exactly the same manner and I hardly find it unreasonable to assume that.

For example?

The only recent dem protest I can think of that turned violent is Charlottesville. And if you say there were very fine people on both sides, and the dems instigated anything.....thats all the context I will need to head this off at the pass.

I can think of far more acts of protest and civil disobedience...from the womens march to march for their lives to sit ins outside congressional offices over healthcare to heckling a cabinet member in a mexican restaurant (because of the irony) to...oh, idk, a restaurant refusing press sec service....that have NOT resulted in violence or harm to say that it IS reasonable to logically conclude violence is not a foregone or even likely outcome.

[pilferk]

https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/politics/7934145/free-speech-rally-boston-anti-nazi-counter-protest

This was covered earlier in this very thread.  As another poster pointed out at that time, all the havoc wreaked at this event was by various different factions of liberals.

As for Charlottesville.... there were no "very fine" people on either side there, but I also used the word "participate", not just "instigate".

In Charlottesville, There were very fine people on the dem/lib side protesting nazis and white supremicusts, peacefully, til the other side ran over a young woman.  No instigation. No participation. Any other narrative is an alternate fact laden obfuscation of the truth.

As for the article: Lololololololol! Yup, sounds terribly violent.

TV cameras showed a group of boisterous counter-protesters on the Common chasing a man with a Trump campaign banner and cap, shouting and swearing at him. But other counter-protesters intervened and helped the man safely over a fence into the area where the conservative rally was to be staged.

Yet Saturday's showdown was mostly peaceable, and after demonstrators dispersed, a picnic atmosphere took over with stragglers tossing beach balls, banging on bongo drums and playing reggae music.

Dems neither instigated or participated in widespread acts of violence in that protest (or in Charlottesville). 

I know it was a conservative darling on fox and overblown when it happened....again, to further the radical violent "antifa" storyline..but....nope.

You literally just made my point for me. Thanks, I guess?

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I don't care if its a dem or republican, no one should be harassing anybody when they're off the clock spending time with their family or doing things like eating dinner out somewhere.  This is what Maxine Waters was promoting & these are tactics the Nazi brownshirts and Stalin era KGB used on people.  Try to keep in mind these are fellow Americans  we are talking about even if you disagree with them.

 

 

[pilferk]

I don't care if its a dem or republican, no one should be harassing anybody when they're off the clock spending time with their family or doing things like eating dinner out somewhere.  This is what Maxine Waters was promoting & these are tactics the Nazi brownshirts and Stalin era KGB used on people.  Try to keep in mind these are fellow Americans  we are talking about even if you disagree with them.
 

The people effected by these deplorable policies don't get to go "off the clock".

The people singled out by this administration for ridicule and condemnation, who are then harassed on social media and IRL by this administrations supporters, don't get to go "off the clock". 

Neither should those making the decisions leading to those polices or firing off that ridicule and condemnation be allowed to go "off the clock". I have no issue with making them feel the same level of urgency, or being made to feel as uncomfortable, as the policies they promote make those effected by them feel.

When you have an American president bullying and harassing private companies and individuals, threatening them, and targeting them (or attempting to target them) with specific harmful policy BASED ON PERSONAL GRUDGES, and you stand back and say nothing, you have zero room to complain when the opposing viewpoint decides to fight back by doing things like heckling and refusing to offer service to them.

Incivility breeds incivility.  This is what YOU voted for.  YOUR side doesn't get to act with unfettered incivility while the other side has to put on the kid gloves.  When the focus shifts to "your team", suddenly the death of PC doesn't seem like quite as good of an idea, does it?

Again, Senator: When you come here every day and condemn the hateful speech, harassment, and divisive rhetoric of the guy you voted for, rather than defend him and the policies that are leading to this...THEN you get to be taken seriously when you bitch about the other side making folks directly associated with the administration (since that's what we're talking about here) mildly uncomfortable in their daily lives.

Til then, the hypocrisy drowns any real outrage you might be feeling.

Edit: I also invoke Goodwin's law, here.

And in case you missed it:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-maxine-waters-democrats-trump-pelosi-0629-20180628-story.html

Also, lets not whitewash previous political upheaval in this country.  It has often been accompanied by very similar acts of civil disobedience and direct interaction with those in power.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/29/opinion/civility-protest-civil-rights.html

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I don't care if its a dem or republican, no one should be harassing anybody when they're off the clock spending time with their family or doing things like eating dinner out somewhere.  This is what Maxine Waters was promoting & these are tactics the Nazi brownshirts and Stalin era KGB used on people.  Try to keep in mind these are fellow Americans  we are talking about even if you disagree with them.
 

The people effected by these deplorable policies don't get to go "off the clock".

The people singled out by this administration for ridicule and condemnation, who are then harassed on social media and IRL by this administrations supporters, don't get to go "off the clock". 

Neither should those making the decisions leading to those polices or firing off that ridicule and condemnation be allowed to go "off the clock". I have no issue with making them feel the same level of urgency, or being made to feel as uncomfortable, as the policies they promote make those effected by them feel.

When you have an American president bullying and harassing private companies and individuals, threatening them, and targeting them (or attempting to target them) with specific harmful policy BASED ON PERSONAL GRUDGES, and you stand back and say nothing, you have zero room to complain when the opposing viewpoint decides to fight back by doing things like heckling and refusing to offer service to them.

Incivility breeds incivility.  This is what YOU voted for.  YOUR side doesn't get to act with unfettered incivility while the other side has to put on the kid gloves.  When the focus shifts to "your team", suddenly the death of PC doesn't seem like quite as good of an idea, does it?

Again, Senator: When you come here every day and condemn the hateful speech, harassment, and divisive rhetoric of the guy you voted for, rather than defend him and the policies that are leading to this...THEN you get to be taken seriously when you bitch about the other side making folks directly associated with the administration (since that's what we're talking about here) mildly uncomfortable in their daily lives.

Til then, the hypocrisy drowns any real outrage you might be feeling.

Edit: I also invoke Goodwin's law, here.

And in case you missed it:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-maxine-waters-democrats-trump-pelosi-0629-20180628-story.html

Also, lets not whitewash previous political upheaval in this country.  It has often been accompanied by very similar acts of civil disobedience and direct interaction with those in power.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/29/opinion/civility-protest-civil-rights.html

Actually I don't come here every day.

You cant even agree that  harassing people is not a good idea! Physically getting into someone's face when they are spending time with their family wont accomplish changing anything in this administration. Trump's policies didn't lead to this, that is a simple and politically convenient conclusion. Its more about stoking the fires of hatred toward him.  The bullying tactics will heat up the rhetoric to the boiling point and if this keeps up, eventually someone is going to get seriously hurt or possibly killed.  Democrats will literally have blood on their hands if this escalates.  ( and not all democrats are for these tactics, a few such as Chuck Schumer have come out against this).

Just because I voted for Trump doesn't mean my point is less valid.  I await your pretentious response.