Trumpism: Page 52 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

Trumpism

Burnwinter

mdgoonah41 wrote:
the idea that bernie was a pure, unimpeachable character who would have breezed through the election and rolled over trump is naive.

The argument is that Clinton lost because of a few leaked emails, isn't it? Pretty fragile brand.

It's all what-ifs and speculation, but there are sound reasons to believe Sanders could have fared better against Trump, from polls both before and after the election, to the way his profile operated and his relationship to the Democrats. Many, many editorials from reputable writers in mainstream and academic venues agree.

So I'll agree with you, let's not go back through the argument. The only thing we know for certain is that Clinton's candidacy, and campaign, were utterly dire failures.

I don't even like Sanders as a politician much—no one in the US political landscape appeals to me—but the stubborn refusal to see that Trump's victory hinged on a fundamentally illusory sense of his transformative potential, a sense that certainly wasn't offered by Clinton, bothers me.

mdgoonah41

Burnwinter wrote:
mdgoonah41 wrote:
the idea that bernie was a pure, unimpeachable character who would have breezed through the election and rolled over trump is naive.

The argument is that Clinton lost because of a few leaked emails, isn't it? Pretty fragile brand.

It's all what-ifs and speculation, but there are sound reasons to believe Sanders could have fared better against Trump, from polls both before and after the election, to the way his profile operated and his relationship to the Democrats. Many, many editorials from reputable writers in mainstream and academic venues agree.

So I'll agree with you, let's not go back through the argument. The only thing we know for certain is that Clinton's candidacy, and campaign, were utterly dire failures.

I don't even like Sanders as a politician much—no one in the US political landscape appeals to me—but the stubborn refusal to see that Trump's victory hinged on a fundamentally illusory sense of his transformative potential, a sense that certainly wasn't offered by Clinton, bothers me.

clinton was a very flawed candidate, id never say otherwise. part of the reason clinton lost the election is that minorities did not turn out in numbers for her like they did for obama. but at the same time, sanders had drastically less support from that demographic than clinton did. if sanders was the candidate, it is highly unlikely he'd have brought in more white working class voters than he'd have lost in terms of depressed turnout from minorities.

Burnwinter

Ah Jesus, let's not go there. There is really no point! I don't agree with your views at all, but fair play. 🙂

mdgoonah41

yes there is no point in re-litigating the 2016 primary. the statistics show that sanders had trouble with minority voters, especially older minorities. clinton ran a bad campaign. she was also the target of unfair misogynistic attacks. which greatly bothers me. sanders would have struggled in the general election for other reasons. he might have still beat trump, but we have no idea because we don;t know what would have come out against him. it doesnt matter now.

the issue here is russian interference. not just propaganda, but also that they tried to actually alter voter rolls. its a big deal. it matters. we cant undo 2016, but we need to make sure that 2018 and 2020 aren't impacted, and that what trump and his campaign did is properly covered. what they did was despicable, and they should be punished for it in 2018 and 2020.

flobaba

It isn't a big deal. Your crying about it doesn't make it so.

Forgive me, but I get the feeling you're just deeply butt hurt by the Trump presidency. The US does this to other nations as well. In fact we are probably the worst offenders, and I've never seen you cry foul. If Clinton had won despite their interference you wouldn't be here discussing this. So what's the big deal?

mdgoonah41

flobaba wrote:
It isn't a big deal. Your crying about it doesn't make it so.

Forgive me, but I get the feeling you're just deeply butt hurt by the Trump presidency. The US does this to other nations as well. In fact we are probably the worst offenders, and I've never seen you cry foul. If Clinton had won despite their interference you wouldn't be here discussing this. So what's the big deal?

this is completely wrong.

on the last page i said that US interference in foreign elections is wrong and is inexcusable.

im "butthurt" because trump is aiming to take healthcare away from 20 million people, roll back reproductive rights, and roll back rights for the LGBTQ community. id expect any decent human being would be appalled by those things, but ive been surprised many times over the last year.

ive also said that clinton ran a bad campaign and was a flawed candidate. a foreign government interfering with US elections is a big deal. my "crying about it" has nothing to do with it.

arsedocmd

Emails. Them emails. This the biggest irony ever or what 😆

flobaba

mdgoonah41 wrote:
flobaba wrote:
It isn't a big deal. Your crying about it doesn't make it so.

Forgive me, but I get the feeling you're just deeply butt hurt by the Trump presidency. The US does this to other nations as well. In fact we are probably the worst offenders, and I've never seen you cry foul. If Clinton had won despite their interference you wouldn't be here discussing this. So what's the big deal?

this is completely wrong.

on the last page i said that US interference in foreign elections is wrong and is inexcusable.

im "butthurt" because trump is aiming to take healthcare away from 20 million people, roll back reproductive rights, and roll back rights for the LGBTQ community. id expect any decent human being would be appalled by those things, but ive been surprised many times over the last year.

ive also said that clinton ran a bad campaign and was a flawed candidate. a foreign government interfering with US elections is a big deal. my "crying about it" has nothing to do with it.

All the issues you have listed are common to the Republican Party - it's not a Trump thing.

My point is Russian government influence/ interference isn't new in American politics, perhaps this time it was just more expansive than it had been previously. Election interference isn't new. Obama knew about it, didn't say a word. It happens ALL THE TIME. Again, if Clinton had won instead of Trump, despite her flaws as a candidate I'm quite certain you wouldn't be here making a mountain of it. If you say you would, then fair enough.

y va marquer

[size=medium]When Papa is the monster under your bed.... [/size]

mdgoonah41

yes, i would have a problem with any government interfering in the US elections.

the obama criticism doesn't really hold up for a few reasons:

he wanted to say something. he knew if he came out and said it in a singular statement, it would be viewed as him putting his thumb (whole hand) on the scale in favor of clinton. which might have caused other issues.
he wanted the congressional republicans to sign on to a joint statement outlining what russia was trying to do, which was to clearly help republican candidates in 2016. mcconnell said he would not be part of the disclosure. which put obama in a bind

you can argue that obama should have just bit the bullet and put it all out there. im not sure how that would have impacted things, for better or worse. republicans have put party over country. its problematic, to say the least. if the roles were reversed, i would be critical of democrats. im a progressive person, obviously i am strongly opposed to the republican party's retrograde policies. but im also a pragmatic, rational person. when a democrat does something stupid, im not afraid to say its stupid.

mdgoonah41

The Obama administration has been debating for months how to respond to the alleged Russian intrusions, with White House officials concerned about escalating tensions with Moscow and being accused of trying to boost Clinton’s campaign.

In September, during a secret briefing for congressional leaders, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) voiced doubts about the veracity of the intelligence, according to officials present.

According to several officials, McConnell raised doubts about the underlying intelligence and made clear to the administration that he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.

Some of the Republicans in the briefing also seemed opposed to the idea of going public with such explosive allegations in the final stages of an election, a move that they argued would only rattle public confidence and play into Moscow’s hands.

McConnell’s office did not respond to a request for comment. After the election, Trump chose McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao, as his nominee for transportation secretary.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html

Bold Tone

mdgoonah41 wrote:
yes, i would have a problem with any government interfering in the US elections.

the obama criticism doesn't really hold up for a few reasons:

he wanted to say something. he knew if he came out and said it in a singular statement, it would be viewed as him putting his thumb (whole hand) on the scale in favor of clinton. which might have caused other issues.
...

You must have been smiling when you typed that.
Michelle Obama was Clintons strongest weapon in her campaign and certainly wasn't backwards in coming forward.

The main reason Obama couldn't raise the roof is regime change was at the heart of US policy in Syria after Yemen, Libya, Algeria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Ukraine, etc.
http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/the-cia-reads-french-theory-on-the-intellectual-labor-of-dismantling-the-cultural-left/
c/o Jones interesting articles

y va marquer

Michelle Obama’s support for Clinton was tepid until Trump’s proclivity for sexual abuse was laid bare with the release of the tapes.

I always saw Michelle's advocacy of Hilary as anti-Trump in orientation, born out of a primal disgust at who he is, as opposed to being inspired by any great belief in Clinton.

The fact is that in this election, we have a candidate for president of the United States who, over the course of his lifetime and the course of this campaign, has said things about women that are so shocking, so demeaning that I simply will not repeat anything here today. And last week, we saw this candidate actually bragging about sexually assaulting women. And I can’t believe that I’m saying that a candidate for president of the United States has bragged about sexually assaulting women.

And I have to tell you that I can’t stop thinking about this. It has shaken me to my core in a way that I couldn’t have predicted. So while I’d love nothing more than to pretend like this isn’t happening, and to come out here and do my normal campaign speech, it would be dishonest and disingenuous of me to just move on to the next thing like this was all just a bad dream.

This is not something that we can ignore. It’s not something we can just sweep under the rug as just another disturbing footnote in a sad election season. Because this was not just a “lewd conversation”. This wasn’t just locker-room banter. This was a powerful individual speaking freely and openly about sexually predatory behavior, and actually bragging about kissing and groping women, using language so obscene that many of us were worried about our children hearing it when we turn on the TV.

Sadly, pathetically, our misogynistic world didn't see it the same way as Michelle and so many more of us.

mdgoonah41

that was my memory of the speeches she gave as well. she criticized his repugnant personality and actions. she wasn't talking about the details of russia hacking the election and trying to prop him up. if im not remembering her mentioning that in her speeches (or barack mentioning it in his speeches) id be happy to have someone show me the clips.

Bold Tone

Going off on a tangent but i'll bite.
Disliking Hillary Clinton does not equal mysogyny.
I'm convinced Elizabeth Warren would've beaten him.
It was one hell of an achievement for Clinton to lose to this ogre.

y va marquer

Bold Tone wrote:
Going off on a tangent but i'll bite.
Disliking Hillary Clinton does not equal mysogyny.
I'm convinced Elizabeth Warren would've beaten him.
It was one hell of an achievement for Clinton to lose to this ogre.

Missing the point completely.

I wasn't talking about people hating Clinton because she was a woman or Trump being elected because he was running against a woman.

I meant that ignoring Trump's misogyny is, at worst, misogyny.
At best it points towards a belief that what he said wasn't "all that bad" which suggests that kind of s*** is seen as acceptable.

I know there are millions of men who don't think like that - they're not the problem - but the ones who do are a rather huge problem and it's not an uncommon characteristic in those who hold positions of power and influence.

Bold Tone

y va marquer wrote:
Bold Tone wrote:
Going off on a tangent but i'll bite.
Disliking Hillary Clinton does not equal mysogyny.
I'm convinced Elizabeth Warren would've beaten him.
It was one hell of an achievement for Clinton to lose to this ogre.

Missing the point completely.
...

Deliberately as you chose to miss mine completely as well.
My comment was specifically aimed at Md's reason for Obama's reticence in challenging the Russians and you came in with an old debate that has been done to death and, to be honest, i don't think anyone disputes.

mdgoonah41

obama (barack and michelle) had no qualms attacking trump, his character and his many missteps. presidents, vice presidents and other admin officials in the past have weighed in on upcoming elections. that is completely different than coming out, holding a press conference, and saying "russia is actively meddling in our election right now and trying to get trump elected"....just read that sentence and think about the implications of saying it. that is why obama wanted congressional republicans to stand in unity against russia and put the cards on the table before the election so the american people knew what was happening. but the potential downside was also pretty easy to see. obama speaks out, clinton wins the election, and republicans cry foul and seek to break the system even more than it is.

there are plenty of people on the left who think that would have been preferable. and honestly, seeing gorsuch get onto the supreme court in what was a stolen seat, makes me wonder if they are correct. but i dont know that they are. obama, in a weird way, was protecting clinton as much as hurting her by not saying anything without republican support. republicans put party over country in 2016, and they are still doing it now.

again, this isn't about changing the outcome of 2016. this is about realizing what happened, admitting that what happened was a big deal, and making sure it does not happen again in 2018 and 2020. republicans were complicit during the 2016 election, they are still carrying weight for trump. they helped cover this up. they are still making excuses. the truth should be published, carefully and thoroughly, and republicans should pay for it in 2018, in what should be fair and free protected elections that aren't hacked by russia, china or any other foreign entity.

im not sure why that is such a controversial stance. again, i have never said that clinton ran a great campaign and it was stolen from her. she didn't run a great campaign. that said, podesta's emails being weaponized, and then comey's actions, probably cost her 1% of the vote, and that 1% of the vote shifted the election to trump. should she have still won? yeah, sure. i bet she would have done things differently in certain places. that doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed and shouldn't be punished. it is fairly clear that, given what we know now, the trump campaign broke federal election laws.

y va marquer

@ Bold Tone

If your comment was specifically aimed at countering md's assertions regrading Barack Obama's "reticence in challenging the Russians" why then did you introduce Michelle Obama into the conversation?

Apologies for missing the point but it was far from clear to me (I don't deliberately choose to miss people's points).

As for the old " debate that has been done to death and, to be honest, i don't think anyone disputes" - yes they do, that's the point - packing away the whole issue of Trump's misogyny in those terms suggests that it's not that big a deal.

y va marquer

For the record, a central tenet of Trumpism is the acceptance of casual misogyny and sexism, therefore in a thread dedicated to Trumpism it's not a debate that will ever get old.

« Previous Page Next Page »