Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

Wow. American-Chinese trade war going against the whole idea of WTO? This is entertaining. This can screw lives of billions but should it happen than we will have a very not boring 2017.

Man, 2017 would probably have been not boring by dint of scientific and medical advances, and the beginnings of really starting the fight to future proof infrastructure. That would have been a much nicer not boring.

And neo, there's a lot more than the LGBT population that doesn't deserve to get saddled with pence. They'd just probably be one of the hardest hit.

[smjjames]

Because Crashmaster does like Trump, just like Covenant and half the people who got banned. These discussions are blatantly coming from a patronizing stance of "I can't let these braindead lefties know I want to Make America Great Again, so I'll just JAQ' off while subtly praising Trump until they learn better".

"If only closed minds came with closed mouths." You can keep your thinly veiled personal attacks and your one-sided circle-JURQ of a thread and stew in it by yourselves then.

Yes, lets keep an open mind here, but we can still be able to discuss things while being civil.

So, Laura Ingraham is being seriously considered as press secretary. I don't know all that much about her, but from what I do know and have read, she is a Clinton hater and is also a hater of the liberal media, or is more critical of other media. Seems like someone who would clash heavily with the WH press pool.

[Neonivek]

May I add a 5th Shadowlord?

5: It is Americans who take advantage of the Illegal Immigrants and generally do what they can to attract them.

People blame the illegal immigrants for something that is largely NOT their fault... Mostly so the Americans don't have to look into the mirror.

Better yet the American economy relies on them.

[smjjames]

Also, according to this, Mike Huckabee is now rumored as a choice for Secretary of Commerce.

[Neonivek]

Also, according to this, Mike Huckabee is now rumored as a choice for Secretary of Commerce.

That good or bad?

[smjjames]

Also, according to this, Mike Huckabee is now rumored as a choice for Secretary of Commerce.

That good or bad?

I'd probably err on the not-so-great, but I really don't know. The Secretary of Commerce deals with promoting American businesses and industries, and the only thing business related I can find on wiki is that he thinks Wal-Mart "is the case study in the genius of the American marketplace".

[Wolfhunter107]

Also, according to this, Mike Huckabee is now rumored as a choice for Secretary of Commerce.

That good or bad?

The man evidently wants to replace all current taxes with a single national sales tax. Make of that what you will.

[Frumple]

Y'can see some of his economic related statements here, if you care to. Some stuff that could stand more or less on its own (not saying good or bad, just separate), others fairly bog standard GOP drown it in a bathtub stuff. Pretty much zero experience with business or commerce, though, which isn't exactly a point for.

[smirk]

~~

Yup, his racism is pretty easy to spot. I appreciate that not all of his supporters are racist, but the caveat is that either A: They truly don't think he's racist, which means they're disturbingly deaf and/or blind, or B: They took a look at Trump and decided that his racism wasn't a deal-breaker for them. And that second one is a mindset I still struggle to picture; how someone could think that he's so good and/or Clinton is so bad that even out-and-out racist xenophobic rhetoric doesn't tip the scales.

Also, according to this, Mike Huckabee is now rumored as a choice for Secretary of Commerce.

That good or bad?

Honestly not sure. He's mostly known for being a hard-core theocrat, so maybe he'll ban all of our ungodly usury?

[smjjames]

Also, according to this, Mike Huckabee is now rumored as a choice for Secretary of Commerce.

That good or bad?

The man evidently wants to replace all current taxes with a single national sales tax. Make of that what you will.

That's not what that Cabinet positon deals with though. I'd have to look more into what the Secretary of Commerce does as wiki is barebones (hardly any bone either) of info.

Y'can see some of his economic related statements here, if you care to. Some stuff that could stand more or less on its own (not saying good or bad, just separate), others fairly bog standard GOP drown it in a bathtub stuff. Pretty much zero experience with business or commerce, though, which isn't exactly a point for.

Early indications are that he'll choose loyalists over experience, but Secretary of Commerce is one of those that are going to have to be okay'd by the Senate.

[Frumple]

General economic growth promotion, is what one does. Both foreign and domestic.

Powers, I couldn't say much about, but there's a handful of pretty damn important organizations (inspections, ferex) under the department of commerce's purview, and presumably if nothing else the SoC would have some degree of control over those.

[Lord Shonus]

Yup, his racism is pretty easy to spot. I appreciate that not all of his supporters are racist, but the caveat is that either A: They truly don't think he's racist, which means they're disturbingly deaf and/or blind, or B: They took a look at Trump and decided that his racism wasn't a deal-breaker for them. And that second one is a mindset I still struggle to picture; how someone could think that he's so good and/or Clinton is so bad that even out-and-out racist xenophobic rhetoric doesn't tip the scales.

A lot of people seem to believe that Trump's more controversial statements are "now that I have your attention" type of rhetoric - you say something outrageous to get people to look at you, then talk more sensibly. Others appear to be under the impression that they are cherry-picked, out of context, or manipulated to make them worse than they are. Still more think that it was pandering - everybody knows that there's a hard-core racist element in the body politic, and many even among those who consider it a cancer that should be purged accept the value of trying to swing it to your support.

The first group may be on the right track. Trump's showing more moderation and less hubris since he won the election - commending the anti-him protestors for being "passionate" about the country would have been a masterstroke if it hadn't been for his earlier tweet, for example. The second group is wrong, but honestly wrong instead of being deluded. It is only the third group that I consider to be a real problem - tolerating racists and bigots as a matter of principle is one thing, thinking that it is good to falsely embrace their views for gain is another.

[wierd]

Sorry to butt in, but I just read an interesting piece at wapo.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/08/a-new-theory-for-why-trump-voters-are-so-angry-that-actually-makes-sense/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_2_na

It apparently predates the election by just a tiny bit, but seems to be spot on with what I have also observed in rural america.

Just putting it here because the question of "why" still seems to be getting asked.  Fits in very nicely with my position of "people are fed up with the ineffectiveness, inattention, and hysterionic shit of the left." For why trump had a groundswell there.

[Shadowlord]

Yup, his racism is pretty easy to spot. I appreciate that not all of his supporters are racist, but the caveat is that either A: They truly don't think he's racist, which means they're disturbingly deaf and/or blind, or B: They took a look at Trump and decided that his racism wasn't a deal-breaker for them. And that second one is a mindset I still struggle to picture; how someone could think that he's so good and/or Clinton is so bad that even out-and-out racist xenophobic rhetoric doesn't tip the scales.

A lot of people seem to believe that Trump's more controversial statements are "now that I have your attention" type of rhetoric - you say something outrageous to get people to look at you, then talk more sensibly. Others appear to be under the impression that they are cherry-picked, out of context, or manipulated to make them worse than they are. Still more think that it was pandering - everybody knows that there's a hard-core racist element in the body politic, and many even among those who consider it a cancer that should be purged accept the value of trying to swing it to your support.

The first group may be on the right track. Trump's showing more moderation and less hubris since he won the election - commending the anti-him protestors for being "passionate" about the country would have been a masterstroke if it hadn't been for his earlier tweet, for example. The second group is wrong, but honestly wrong instead of being deluded. It is only the third group that I consider to be a real problem - tolerating racists and bigots as a matter of principle is one thing, thinking that it is good to falsely embrace their views for gain is another.

If #1 is true then Trump is #3, and you just lambasted everyone in #3. #imjustsaying

[Lord Shonus]

There's a difference between the two. When you're pandering you have to keep it up to maintain effectiveness, while if you're just trying to be shocking to get people to start listening you're going to drop it and count on actually making sense to keep that attention. There's some signs that Trump is doing the latter.