Print

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

[Loud Whispers]

The truth has a liberal bias. Just look at global warming.

Seems prophetic of the state of truth in ameripol that no candidate is liberal

[mainiac]

Plenty of candidates believe in global warming.

[Rolepgeek]

... you might actually try reading what m wrote, rp.

When this many people dislike Clinton, 'Trump shows that the liberals have been right all along' isn't exactly a neutral standpoint.

Because the Republicans are the only ones who get people into office who do awful things, after all. There are a lot of cases where Republicans are wrong. There are also a lot of cases where Democrats are wrong. Maybe I'm wrong, but it sure as hell seems like you're saying that Trumps serves as evidence that this is the true state of the Republican party and this one candidate proves how evil they really are.

"The other side should be losing more and the fact that it's mostly even shows that our system is broken." The problem with saying that 'the truth has become a partisan proposition' is that without evidence you can't show what the truth is. If you just state 'this is what it is', then your opponents can do the same and we've gone nowhere. If our political system has an obsession with partisanship (which I don't think it does in the sense you're talking about), it's because we've become more and more partisan. This is the most polarizing election in a very very long time. Sides have been getting farther apart for a very very long time. How easy do you think it would be to find someone saying that the Democrats nominating Clinton is evidence that the Republicans have been right all along, etc. etc.? Truth is much harder than 'Oh look something that could confirm what I already believe if I look at it the right way'.

@LW: Apologies, couldn't remember who the guy who said they were gonna put money into national healthcare via bus ads and then went 'weeeellll...' was in Britain. Farage seemed like one of the leaders of the pro-Brexit side that said that.

[mainiac]

I'm not saying that liberals do no wrong.  The fact that you think liberals do wrong is some sort of evidence in this argument just shows how fundamentally you are resisting understanding what I'm actually saying.

I think that someone would be reasonable if they said that Democrats nominating Clinton shows that republicans have been right all along in thinking democratic candidates are lax on information technology security.  Because that is what you can honestly argue Clinton represents.

[Loud Whispers]

Spoiler: spoiler cos britpol @rolepgeek (click to show/hide)

@LW: Apologies, couldn't remember who the guy who said they were gonna put money into national healthcare via bus ads and then went 'weeeellll...' was in Britain. Farage seemed like one of the leaders of the pro-Brexit side that said that.

Farage worked for Leave.EU, was not an MP nor an advisor to an MP. Leave.EU was an independent political group that got no official recognition from government

The one you're looking for must be Boris who worked for Vote Leave, he toured a bus with an ad saying put the 350 membership into NHS. I think he was banking on becoming Prime Minister, but Gove suicide bombed his leadership bid so he isn't allowed to make that decision anymore, it's up to May and Hammond now

[SalmonGod]

I don't think you're comparing equal things, Rolep... I'm with mainiac on this one.  There's nothing partisan about observation of facts and trends.  You're right that Democrats get a lot of things wrong, too.  But to compare the right's dislike of Clinton with the left's dislike of Trump is not call for understanding and moderation.  It's a call to be ignorant of very real problems in our politics and culture.  I think people who say things like this don't want to emotionally process that we live among so many people who are truly represented by Trump's character.  And if you try to flip that around into something about the right's perception of Clinton and what that means for people who choose to be represented by her, it's not the same.  Because their perception of her character isn't based on reality.  And I'm saying this as one of the people who has been outspokenly not a Clinton supporter on this thread. 

If you admit that reality is politicized and politics are polarized, then you can't knock down observations of reality for being partisan.  Or else reality can never be observed, can it?

[mainiac]

I think people who say things like this don't want to emotionally process that we live among so many people who are truly represented by Trump's character.

I dont think we are.  Most people would on an individual basis be absolutely horrified by Trump.  But they aren't seeing Trump the person or Trump the leader, they are seeing Trump the partisan.  The republican party is willing to make basic human decency a partisan issue.  So it stops being "why are you accepting sexual assault?" and starts being "why are you accepting voting republican?"  But that's outrageous!  We shouldn't allow that, it is a horrible, horrible misdirection of partisanship.

[Leafsnail]

There's definitely a "floor" of how badly a candidate for either major party can do in a general election, because a lot of people will vote for their party no matter what, especially with a Supreme Court seat explicitly on the line. If a video of Trump beating a kitten to death with a shoe comes out we may be able to find out exactly what that floor is.

Hillary is also an extremely divisive figure, so there's also going to be a certain number of people who will always vote against her no matter what.

[SalmonGod]

I think people who say things like this don't want to emotionally process that we live among so many people who are truly represented by Trump's character.

I dont think we are.  Most people would on an individual basis be absolutely horrified by Trump.  But they aren't seeing Trump the person or Trump the leader, they are seeing Trump the partisan.  The republican party is willing to make basic human decency a partisan issue.  So it stops being "why are you accepting sexual assault?" and starts being "why are you accepting voting republican?"  But that's outrageous!  We shouldn't allow that, it is a horrible, horrible misdirection of partisanship.

Enough people feel they are represented by him (or the way I see it are appealed to by his character) to have made the primary produce him as the candidate.  That's a good chunk of people.  I work with several people every day who were buzzing favorably about him before most people thought he even stood a chance.  I could see plenty more of that about just in general.  Those people were not making human decency a partisan issue.  They actually liked his style.  And of the people who participated in the republican primary, they were the largest chunk.

Now the people who are just maintaining their loyalty now that he's the candidate - you're right about them.  And they will be the majority of his votes in the general election.  But this doesn't change that he has enough true supporters out there to be disturbing.

[mainiac]

They actually liked his style.  And of the people who participated in the republican primary, they were the largest chunk.

He got a plurality but not a majority in the republican primary and that was against a field whose unfavorables make Hillary Clinton look like the second coming of Pericles.  Even Marco Rubio has slightly worse favorability then Clinton right now despite much lower recognition (which makes it harder to have as many negative opinions).  And he's the popular one.

Primaries also bring out the most radical, extreme and downright weird voters.  The other candidates also put up no opposition to Trump allowing him to skate by until he had accumulated enough delegates that partisanship kicks in.

So yeah there are millions of wanna be Trumps out there but I still think it's mostly the partisanship.

[RedKing]

If a video of Trump beating a kitten to death with a shoe comes out we may be able to find out exactly what that floor is.

No, his people would just say he was doing his part to help control the pet population. Remember folks, spay or neuter your pet. Or beat their offspring to death with a shoe. The best shoe.

[Rolepgeek]

I'm not saying that liberals do no wrong.  The fact that you think liberals do wrong is some sort of evidence in this argument just shows how fundamentally you are resisting understanding what I'm actually saying.

I think that someone would be reasonable if they said that Democrats nominating Clinton shows that republicans have been right all along in thinking democratic candidates are lax on information technology security.  Because that is what you can honestly argue Clinton represents.

Apologies are due: I did overreact a bit and your post about partisanship more or less matches the way I think it goes. Shouldn't have responded when I was already on edge from other stuff, sorry.

I do believe that the answer to partisan support of Trump because Red Iz Best is not more partisanship simply in the opposite direction. I think Trump has a lot of support not just from partisanship, though, but because we've reached the national boiling point of resentment for government. Which, to be fair, doesn't just fall onto the Democrat laps, but Sanders already lost his candidacy.

Sanders vs. Trump would have been a very odd election. Anti-Establishment versus anti-establishment. Sanders probably would've ended up becoming more establishment just to separate himself from Trump, I suspect.

[mainiac]

I'm fine with people being partisans there should just be limits on what they are willing to accept on their team.

[misko27]

There's definitely a "floor" of how badly a candidate for either major party can do in a general election, because a lot of people will vote for their party no matter what, especially with a Supreme Court seat explicitly on the line. If a video of Trump beating a kitten to death with a shoe comes out we may be able to find out exactly what that floor is.

That's true, but Reagan proved that at least in terms of electoral votes, that floor is incredibly low. I'd want to call it multiple levels of floor. There's the first layer, which is just undecideds, then the independents which lean in one direction, then the mild partisans, then the regular people, etc. Nate Silver wrote about what the bottom falling out would look like here, in an article written in the 24 hours after Trump Tapes. In particular, I draw attention to this

If Trump gets stuck at 40 percent of the vote, you could wind up with an outcome like Clinton 51 percent, Trump 40 percent, Gary Johnson 7 percent, Jill Stein and others 2 percent, or something of that nature. That is, a double-digit win for Clinton, which could potentially yield somewhere around 400 votes for her in the Electoral College, and make states as exotic as Texas and Alaska competitive.

Again 40% is not terrible, but it's enough that Trump gets swept.

[Max™]

Re: Kefka music, ok, if Trump has been doing this the whole time to scorched earth the republican party, forcing it to take a long hard look at itself and actually try to work towards a goal, rather than against everything, leading to the next primary actually offering a strong and capable party of challengers for him to battle, it would be acceptable.

There is no fucking way Trump is the sort of long-term planner and deep thinker it would take to do this, honestly using terms like "planning" and "thinking" with him is verging on abuse of language itself.

The truth has a liberal bias. Just look at global warming.

*endlessly amused by this*

There's definitely a "floor" of how badly a candidate for either major party can do in a general election, because a lot of people will vote for their party no matter what, especially with a Supreme Court seat explicitly on the line. If a video of Trump beating a kitten to death with a shoe comes out we may be able to find out exactly what that floor is.

That's true, but Reagan proved that at least in terms of electoral votes, that floor is incredibly low. I'd want to call it multiple levels of floor. There's the first layer, which is just undecideds, then the independents which lean in one direction, then the mild partisans, then the regular people, etc. Nate Silver wrote about what the bottom falling out would look like here, in an article written in the 24 hours after Trump Tapes. In particular, I draw attention to this

If Trump gets stuck at 40 percent of the vote, you could wind up with an outcome like Clinton 51 percent, Trump 40 percent, Gary Johnson 7 percent, Jill Stein and others 2 percent, or something of that nature. That is, a double-digit win for Clinton, which could potentially yield somewhere around 400 votes for her in the Electoral College, and make states as exotic as Texas and Alaska competitive.

Again 40% is not terrible, but it's enough that Trump gets swept.

I like that examination strictly because that is the first time Texas has ever been called exotic. Literally ever, not just this election, but as long as it has existed.

It feels nice. In some way, I could be exotic. Thanks Nate, thate.