The big problem is not Trump. It is "Trumpism"

[Aquapod770]

(04-30-2019, 09:44 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: The INTENDED consequence of massive cuts to our nations education system over the past generation:

Uneducated Anti-Intellectuals.  Pepper in some inbreeding, social media and perceived constitutional rights...   more than one of them Henry boys gonna stick their dick in the mashed potatoes.  

Forced sterilization from birth.  Only reversible when ones responsibility is established.  That way all these toothless fatties can diddle each other all they want without the rest of society having to pick up after them.

I was curious if this was actually the case, which I figured it wasn't. 

Spoiler alert: It's not. 

In the 1980s the federal government spent between 15-20 million per year on the department of education. Spending picked up to a peak of 40 million in the 1990s. Spending has fluctuated for the past ~20 years, but has never come close to the spending of the 80s and only twice got down around 40 million. It has gotten over 100 million twice in that time span as well. If you want to talk about mishandling of funds I'm all for that. Efficient federal spending would save us billions. Maybe certain states have "massively" cut education spending, but you can't generalize that to the entire US. 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/edhistory.pdf

[Belsnickel]

(04-30-2019, 10:27 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: I was curious if this was actually the case, which I figured it wasn't. 

Spoiler alert: It's not. 

In the 1980s the federal government spent between 15-20 million per year on the department of education. Spending picked up to a peak of 40 million in the 1990s. Spending has fluctuated for the past ~20 years, but has never come close to the spending of the 80s and only twice got down around 40 million. It has gotten over 100 million twice in that time span as well. If you want to talk about mishandling of funds I'm all for that. Efficient federal spending would save us billions. Maybe certain states have "massively" cut education spending, but you can't generalize that to the entire US. 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/edhistory.pdf

This is the result of relying on terrible assessment models to help determine policy effectiveness in education. Both at the federal and state levels there is a trend of throwing money into a hole with education because of an over-reliance on outcomes based assessment that doesn't adequately analyze data that is inherently qualitative and we are very bad at quantifying.

[fredtoast]

(04-29-2019, 07:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I guess a "big problem" is in the eye of the beholder. What is the "Big Problem"?

White Nationalists and White Supremacists celebrating the policies of our President.

[fredtoast]

(04-30-2019, 08:48 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Sure, he's just the right person to come with the message that has been there for many, but in terms of a electoral strategy, swing voters are going to be more concerned with helping themselves. Democrats don't need to worry about finding ways to counter policies that border on racism, they just need to focus on medicare, social security, taxes, and jobs. "Have Trump and the Republicans policies actually helped you?"

The problem is that the nationalist movement has tied it all together.  They have convinced everyone that foreigner countries and immigrants are to blame for all the problems with jobs, taxes, health care, etc.

Over the last 40 years almost all of the new wealth created in the United Sates has gone to the top 5% of the population, yet middle class Trump followers are convinced that immigrants are to blame for their economic problems.

A good part of the growth in our economy is based on increased military spending by our government, yet Trump claims that we are forced to spend more on the military by foreign countries that won't "pay their fair share".

"Nationalism" is being used to cover for economic policies that benefit the wealthy over the middle and lower classes.

[BmorePat87]

(04-30-2019, 11:27 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The problem is that the nationalist movement has tied it all together.  They have convinced everyone that foreigner countries and immigrants are to blame for all the problems with jobs, taxes, health care, etc.

Over the last 40 years almost all of the new wealth created in the United Sates has gone to the top 5% of the population, yet middle class Trump followers are convinced that immigrants are to blame for their economic problems.

A good part of the growth in our economy is based on increased military spending by our government, yet Trump claims that we are forced to spend more on the military by foreign countries that won't "pay their fair share".

"Nationalism" is being used to cover for economic policies that benefit the wealthy over the middle and lower classes.

I think at the end of the day, that 0.3-1.0% you need in those swing states are far more focused on the economics than the nationalism. That's why Bernie also appeals to them. Trump blamed it on the swamp and immigrants. They needed someone to blame. If you blame it on cronyism, they'll buy that too. 

[*michaelsean*]

(04-30-2019, 01:01 AM)Benton Wrote: Nationalism preys on that. 

"I'd rather be Russian than a Democrat!" 

"They're [insert whatever they isn't like the group] taking our [insert whatever people want: jobs, higher wages, benefits]."

"We're not safe as long as the other side keeps supporting [insert whatever people are afraid of]."

Not sure a nationalist would say the first one.  And eff any of the right who prefer Russia and Putin.  It's like the world has been turned upside down from forty years ago.  By some.  

[*bfine32*]

(04-30-2019, 01:01 AM)Benton Wrote: Nationalism preys on that. 

"I'd rather be Russian than a Democrat!" 

"They're [insert whatever they isn't like the group] taking our [insert whatever people want: jobs, higher wages, benefits]."

"We're not safe as long as the other side keeps supporting [insert whatever people are afraid of]."

So a Nationalist would rather be from another country?




As to the rest: I'm not sure one "side" has a monopoly on those assertions.

[Benton]

(04-30-2019, 01:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So a Nationalist would rather be from another country?

No, but they want you to think their opposition is just as bad. It's not any different than Republicans calling Democrats liberals and socialists or Democrats calling Republicans fascists and nazis.

[Dill]

(04-30-2019, 08:58 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Has anyone said, "There are good Republicans and bad Republicans" yet?

Check out post # 11.  Read between the lines.

[Dill]

(04-30-2019, 12:26 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Well, of the Republicans I know, all of them say to me that they voted for Trump but with a bad taste in their mouth (anti-Hillary mostly, but a few anti-abortion people). Many who refer to him as a King Cyrus, whatever that means (I know what it means, I just think it's stupid). So I can't really gauge how many Republicans actually endorse his nationalism and racism and how many merely tolerate it.

I think the Republican party has become very skilled at desensitizing their voters to racism, such that they either don't believe in it (the idea that privilege is a myth, for example) or they actually believe the democrats are the racist party ("The southern strategy and party switch in the 60s is a myth" or "Discussing identity politics is inherently racist."). So I dunno. I understand the fear of nationalism that is breeding in the Republicna party, but from every Republican I've ever interacted with, it always seems to be about religion, hatred for Hillary specifically (and occasionally Obama) and, of course, good old fashioned money. I've not heard too many Republicans talk about how great the Wall is. I only really see that attitude on the internet.

That may, of course, be one of those situations where they say one thing and think another, but I can't really judge that. My perception has always been that it is closer to 80-20 in terms of tolerating Trump's shit vs endorsing it. And that 20% is purely from what I see online.

LOL, Your Republicans are Evangelicals, or does the Cyrus line refer to some Republicans in the national group?

Totally agree with you on the de-sensitizing part.  And defending Trump requires otherwise good people to compromise their values, not to mention standards for truthful discourse.  

[Dill]

(04-30-2019, 12:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The issue is that at the end of the day there were 2 viable candidates. It's too easy to sit on a pedestal and associate those that voted for one with everything that is wrong with that candidate, while ignoring the warts on the other. The truth is the vast majority that voted for Trump are no "worse" than those that did not. It's just the Left have to make themselves feel more enlightened. 

Well no, that's not "the truth." And once again, you illustrate the disjunct between evidence-based analysis and the easy rhetorical equivalence which dominates the Trump/post-truth era.

The candidates were in no way equal, either in terms of competence or moral rectitude. 

So those who voted for Trump either could not judge competence or morality, or they did not care because they wanted the tax cuts and SCOTUS picks, and/or hated Hillary.  So if you are defining "worse" by competent political judgement, they certainly are worse. They chose the p-grabber with all the bankruptcies and conspiracies theories over the former senator and secretary of state.

"The Left" voted for competence for the reasons everyone usually does--to put the most qualified person in the most important job in the country. The right voted for Trump to stop Hillary because Fox says the Clintons can't be trusted and get away with everything.  Plus did you see those Bill Clinton accusers Trump brought to the foreign policy debate--which his base says he won hands down and judged him ready for the presidency? All the gravitas of a WWF match.

The "pedestal" I and others are sitting on right now is the one available to everyone who prizes competence and ethical conduct in a president. That these standards have become a pedestal, and no longer the ground floor of presidential voting, is part of the problem.

[*bfine32*]

(04-30-2019, 08:19 PM)Dill Wrote: Well no, that's not "the truth." And once again, you illustrate the disjunct between evidence-based analysis and the easy rhetorical equivalence which dominates the Trump/post-truth era.

The candidates were in no way equal, either in terms of competence or moral rectitude. 

So those who voted for Trump either could not judge competence or morality, or they did not care because they wanted the tax cuts and SCOTUS picks, and/or hated Hillary.  So if you are defining "worse" by competent political judgement, they certainly are worse. They chose the p-grabber with all the bankruptcies and conspiracies theories over the former senator and secretary of state.

"The Left" voted for competence for the reasons everyone usually does--to put the most qualified person in the most important job in the country. The right voted for Trump to stop Hillary because Fox says the Clintons can't be trusted and get away with everything.  Plus did you see those Bill Clinton accusers Trump brought to the foreign policy debate--which his base says he won hands down and judged him ready for the presidency?  All the gravitas of a WWF match.

The "pedestal" I and others are sitting on right now is the one available to everyone who prizes competence and ethical conduct in a president.  That these standards have become a pedestal, and no longer the ground floor of presidential voting, is part of the problem.

The fact that you assert those that voted for Clinton "prize ethical conduct" pretty much says more than I ever could about the short-sightedness of the rest of your post. 

 

[CJD]

(04-30-2019, 08:03 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL, Your Republicans are Evangelicals, or does the Cyrus line refer to some Republicans in the national group?

Totally agree with you on the de-sensitizing part.  And defending Trump requires otherwise good people to compromise their values, not to mention standards for truthful discourse.  

The Cyrus line, as far as I can tell, means "This is a bad guy who does bad things, but he inadvertently is helping us through his bad actions." 

"Isaiah 45 celebrates Cyrus for freeing a population of Jews who were held captive in Babylon. Cyrus is the model for a nonbeliever appointed by God as a vessel for the purposes of the faithful."

It's basically a religious person's way of justifying voting for someone who is so insanely unreligious (and, in many ways, completely opposite to what religious people claim that they believe).


And yes, my Republicans use the Religion angle, for sure.

[Dill]

(04-30-2019, 08:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote:
The fact that you assert those that voted for Clinton "prize ethical conduct" pretty much says more than I ever could about the short-sightedness of the rest of your post. 

 

LOL sure, it says some of us can still tell the difference between Trump and Clinton. And some of us still can't/won't.


As for the rest of my "short-sightedness," I guess that relates to which was more competent and fit for office. And the standards for judging that.

Defending Trump continues to mean lowering standards and arguing away from evidence, dancing backwards with false equivalences.

[Dill]

(04-30-2019, 10:26 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The Cyrus line, as far as I can tell, means "This is a bad guy who does bad things, but he inadvertently is helping us through his bad actions." 

"Isaiah 45 celebrates Cyrus for freeing a population of Jews who were held captive in Babylon. Cyrus is the model for a nonbeliever appointed by God as a vessel for the purposes of the faithful."

It's basically a religious person's way of justifying voting for someone who is so insanely unreligious (and, in many ways, completely opposite to what religious people claim that they believe).


And yes, my Republicans use the Religion angle, for sure.

LOL I don't think Cyrus was bad, just not Jewish.  No childish tweets defaming women, though he did tend to brand buildings he owned.

[fredtoast]

(04-30-2019, 08:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The fact that you assert those that voted for Clinton "prize ethical conduct" pretty much says more than I ever could about the short-sightedness of the rest of your post. 

 

Hillary has been investigated by republicans more than any politician in history and never punished for anything. So what unethical conduct concerns you?

[*bfine32*]

(05-01-2019, 11:58 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Hillary has been investigated by republicans more than any politician in history and never punished for anything. So what unethical conduct concerns you?

If you want to set the guilt standard as Found guilty by an investigation. I think we can consider both "clean" but otherwise:

Her reported actions toward women accusing her husband of sexual harassment/rape.

Taking "sniper fire" in Bosnia

Her processing classified government documents from a personal server the saying she didn't know she couldn't

Having 3,000ish emails deleted from her personal computer after it had been supeanoed

Whitewater

Travelgate

Telling the public Benghazi was impulsive act while emailing her daughter and telling her it was a planned Al Quida plot

The Clinton foundation

These are but a few. The point is that you are a hypocrite if you say you "prize ethical conduct" and that's the reason you voted for Hills.

There may be other reasons one selected Hills over Trump but GTFO if you try to claim it was because of each's ethical conduct

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Here's the problem,

Donald Trump is a used car salesman.
He's the kind of salesman who will come up to you and say, "Hey, do you want a trailer hitch? Just take it off that truck and it's yours?"

Without even thinking, you are over there taking that hitch off of that truck because you can use it and now you don't need to buy one. The salesman now has a truck without a trailer hitch and he can sell it for $1000.00 more because an unsuspecting customer thinks this truck hasn't done a lot of work plus, you now owe him a favor because he gave you a trailer hitch.

[masonbengals fan]

Hillary & ethical conduct shouldn't be used in the same sentence. LOL

[fredtoast]

(05-01-2019, 12:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you want to set the guilt standard as Found guilty by an investigation. I think we can consider both "clean" but otherwise:

Her reported actions toward women accusing her husband of sexual harassment/rape.

Taking "sniper fire" in Bosnia

Her processing classified government documents from a personal server the saying she didn't know she couldn't

Having 3,000ish emails deleted from her personal computer after it had been supeanoed

Whitewater

Travelgate

Telling the public Benghazi was impulsive act while emailing her daughter and telling her it was a planned Al Quida plot

The Clinton foundation

These are but a few. The point is that you are a hypocrite if you say you "prize ethical conduct" and that's the reason you voted for Hills.

There may be other reasons one selected Hills over Trump but GTFO if you try to claim it was because of each's ethical conduct

What, no mention of her murder of Vince Foster?

Most of the things you mention above have been investigated and Hillary was cleared.  The only people who consider all of that immoral are the people who believe the rumors from the right wing echo chamber.