Who'll win the 2020 rematch?

[onejayhawk]

LOLs... You mean like The Clinton Foundation? Obviously that's what you meant... nicely done.

That doesn't fit. He said post-political.

If it is a rematch, I at least know who the loser will be:

Spoiler :

The American people

I'd have gone this route.

Spoiler :

J

 

[Takhisis]

Well, I'd say if any nation at all is qualified to have nukes, it would be Japan. Being the only nation to have nukes used against it would, in theory, mean they would be the least likely to actually use them since they are more aware than anyone what those weapons can do.

People who suffer an atrocity are the least likely to commit the same atrocity… no, it doesn't compute.

What has he succeeded with? Yeah, he's tried to do some of those things, but none of his attempts have been successful. Roe v. Wade still hasn't been overturned, Mexicans still aren't being mass-deported, construction on "the wall" still hasn't started, his "repeal and replace" healthcare bill is stalled in the Senate, and his travel ban has been slapped down once and is likely to be slapped down again soon. Like I said, Trump may really, really want to do all these things but the realities of life and politics in the US will keep him from being successful.

So while it may be worrying that we have a president that would even attempt to do these things, the hysteria that he will turn his promises into policy is unfounded.

The fact that he keeps failing at most of them doesn't detract from the horror that the policies he and those around you him wish to enact are retrograde and damaging in every way.

But let's think of it in another way… in a time of international terrorism, homegrown attackers, and widespread hacking, there is no FBI head. How crazy is that?

 

[onejayhawk]

People who suffer an atrocity are the least likely to commit the same atrocity.

Not historically true. Given a chance, that is often exactly what happens. There are even expressions, turnaround is fair play or payback is a female canine.

J

 

[Takhisis]

How strange of you to quote only part of a post.

 

[Sommerswerd]

That doesn't fit. He said post-political.

Outside of "currently holding an elected/political office" the phrase "Post-political" becomes entirely subjective... To wit, I distinctly remember folks on these threads... (possibly you IIRC), strenuously arguing that Donald Trump wasn't a politician and that running for office didn't make him one... only holding office could make you a politician. I remember someone actually fiercely debating me that holding office didn't make you a politician... I think the politician/non-politician in question was Clint Eastwood, but I forget who was debating me about it.

The point is that the "Post-political" is just rhetoric. The Clinton Foundation satisfies the criteria being discussed.

Not historically true. Given a chance, that is often exactly what happens. There are even expressions, turnaround is fair play or payback is a female canine.

But that was precisely Tak's point... you rushed and misinterpreted I think...

 

[Commodore]

there is no FBI head.

That's not true though. There is always someone in charge, even if they are just a fill-in until a proper replacement is appointed. This comment is the type of hysteria and fearmongering I'm getting fed up with.

 

[Commodore]

I want to press a little on this, because then what you seem to be saying is that since you got swept up, but then came to your senses... now its not OK for other people to get swept up too?

It's okay for people to get swept up, that's not the problem. The problem though, is most people don't seem to be coming to their senses and show no indication of coming to their senses anytime soon. And it's not just the anti-Trump crowd either. The same people that were all worked up over Obama and Clinton are still acting like paranoid freaks. They go on ranting about the "deep state" and how they are the ones stopping Trump from "making America great again".

I mean, how are we supposed to turn away from this very harmful trend of increasing polarization in American politics if everyone is just going to be paranoid and hysterical all the time? It creates an atmosphere where no one wants to even entertain the idea of talking things out with the opposition, and you can't come to an understanding or compromise if you aren't willing to even talk to your opponents.

 

[mrt144]

How strange of you to quote only part of a post.

It's okay for people to get swept up, that's not the problem. The problem though, is most people don't seem to be coming to their senses and show no indication of coming to their senses anytime soon. And it's not just the anti-Trump crowd either. The same people that were all worked up over Obama and Clinton are still acting like paranoid freaks. They go on ranting about the "deep state" and how they are the ones stopping Trump from "making America great again".

I mean, how are we supposed to turn away from this very harmful trend of increasing polarization in American politics if everyone is just going to be paranoid and hysterical all the time while? It creates an atmosphere where no one wants to even entertain the idea of talking things out with the opposition, and you can't come to an understanding or compromise if you aren't willing to even talk to your opponents.

That's why I love McMullin and not internet message boards.

 

[Kyriakos]

It's okay for people to get swept up, that's not the problem. The problem though, is most people don't seem to be coming to their senses and show no indication of coming to their senses anytime soon. And it's not just the anti-Trump crowd either. The same people that were all worked up over Obama and Clinton are still acting like paranoid freaks. They go on ranting about the "deep state" and how they are the ones stopping Trump from "making America great again".

I mean, how are we supposed to turn away from this very harmful trend of increasing polarization in American politics if everyone is just going to be paranoid and hysterical all the time? It creates an atmosphere where no one wants to even entertain the idea of talking things out with the opposition, and you can't come to an understanding or compromise if you aren't willing to even talk to your opponents.

One side is always the loons/terrists etc. What i am more alarmed by is that those ultra-polarized people seem to expect the future to be better yet without any lessening of polarization, or at least not from their part, cause they are right etc. This game of non-compromising/discussing right/"right" vs non-compromising/discussing left/"left" will lead to even worse things.

 

[Lexicus]

That's not true though. There is always someone in charge, even if they are just a fill-in until a proper replacement is appointed. This comment is the type of hysteria and fearmongering I'm getting fed up with.

Hysteria and fearmongering? Somehow I think you're reading Takh's post wrong. I mean, why the hell would he care whether there's an FBI head anyway? He's not a United Statesian.

 

[Grisu]

My prediction is that neither Trump nor Clinton will win their primaries. Democrats would have to be idiots to choose Clinton again.

Is there a precedent for a sitting president not winning his primary? On the other hand, there's no precedence for Trump in many things.

Either way, the Dems would have to be beyond stupid to nominate Clinton again. That brand is burned, time to move on (or is it onwards?)

 

[Commodore]

Hysteria and fearmongering? Somehow I think you're reading Takh's post wrong. I mean, why the hell would he care whether there's an FBI head anyway? He's not a United Statesian.

It was more of a shot at wherever he got his information from. His source of information obviously has him believing that the FBI is leaderless right now, which is far from the truth. There may not yet be a permanent replacement for Comey, but the FBI is certainly not without someone to call the shots and make decisions.

 

[Lexicus]

I mean, how are we supposed to turn away from this very harmful trend of increasing polarization in American politics if everyone is just going to be paranoid and hysterical all the time? It creates an atmosphere where no one wants to even entertain the idea of talking things out with the opposition, and you can't come to an understanding or compromise if you aren't willing to even talk to your opponents.

I really, genuinely believe that compromise with the Republicans is compromise with evil. What am I supposed to do? Lie to myself and say that this is okay?

It was more of a shot at wherever he got his information from. His source of information obviously has him believing that the FBI is leaderless right now, which is far from the truth. There may not yet be a permanent replacement for Comey, but the FBI is certainly not without someone to call the shots and make decisions.

Fair enough I guess, but you didn't really make that clear.

 

[Flying Pig]

Is there a precedent for a sitting president not winning his primary? On the other hand, there's no precedence for Trump in many things.

Depending on how you count things, either Franklin Pierce (elected 1852 and dumped for James Buchanan 1856) or any one of four VPs whose Presidents were assassinated and then whose parties chose not to nominate them in the following election. The most recent of those was Chester Arthur in 1884. Incidentally, none of those four went on to win - Buchanan did, but is fairly consistently rated as one of the US's worst presidents. A handful chose not to seek re-election. The most recent of those was Truman, who sought renomination in 1952 but withdrew after it became obvious that he wasn't going to win it. So either 1856, 1884 or 1952 would be good candidates for the most recent precedent.

 

[civver_764]

I really, genuinely believe that compromise with the Republicans is compromise with evil. What am I supposed to do? Lie to myself and say that this is okay?

Assuming that you really want an answer to this: be a little more open minded. Understand their rationale behind their beliefs (not what you think their rationale is). Engage with them in good faith, don't assume that they are coming from a position of malevolence. They're people just like you, and chances are they have pretty good reasons for their beliefs just like I imagine you do. When you say something like "oh they're just evil" you're not really thinking critically, you're just making yourself feel more comfortable with your viewpoints. Challenge yourself.

A little listening and understanding goes a long way, and that applies for both sides.

 

[mrt144]

Assuming that you really want an answer to this: be a little more open minded. Understand their rationale behind their beliefs (not what you think their rationale is). Engage with them in good faith, don't assume that they are coming from a position of malevolence. They're people just like you, and chances are they have pretty good reasons for their beliefs just like I imagine you do. When you say something like "oh they're just evil" you're not really thinking critically, you're just making yourself feel more comfortable with your viewpoints. Challenge yourself.

A little listening and understanding goes a long way, and that applies for both sides.

This is true and as much as it might pain us, we have to reach out with an olive branch at some point.

 

[Ryika]

It's scary though. Realizing that that good-and-evil-mentality that you've been living by for years, or decades, has been a lie can turn your whole world view upside down.

 

[Lexicus]

Assuming that you really want an answer to this: be a little more open minded. Understand their rationale behind their beliefs (not what you think their rationale is). Engage with them in good faith, don't assume that they are coming from a position of malevolence. They're people just like you, and chances are they have pretty good reasons for their beliefs just like I imagine you do. When you say something like "oh they're just evil" you're not really thinking critically, you're just making yourself feel more comfortable with your viewpoints. Challenge yourself.

A little listening and understanding goes a long way, and that applies for both sides.

Done all that. Arrived at the conclusion that the core Republican positions are either based on lies/ignorance or on values that differ so drastically with mine I fail to see how compromise is possible.

 

[mrt144]

Done all that. Arrived at the conclusion that the core Republican positions are either based on lies/ignorance or on values that differ so drastically with mine I fail to see how compromise is possible.

My uncle cut off contact with the rest of the family a few weeks ago because my mom posted something negative about Trump on Facebook.

Deep down, my fear is that the only thing some of the supporters want is to win and feel like winners and there is no compromise to be made there. What do we do with people who run away when you deliver bad news? Not even argues with you but just cuts off contact.

 

[Lexicus]

Deep down, my fear is that the only thing some of the supporters want is to win and feel like winners and there is no compromise to be made there. What do we do with people who run away when you deliver bad news? Not even argues with you but just cuts off contact.

I don't know. But to me the more worrisome thing is that so many Republicans seem to have views that I believe are not only fundamentally at odds with my own, but which also directly attack the foundations of civilized life itself. You cannot run a society on the basis that the spoils shall go to the strong, and that's what many Republicans seem to want.