Trump Slams Allies in favor of Putin (again)...

[Benton]

(07-20-2018, 11:41 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I have been told in the forum: If you didn't vote for Hillary in a state Trump won then you voted for Trump. So welcome to the world of the Trump supporter.

That kind of logic will keep us electing the same handful of people.

[Belsnickel]

(07-20-2018, 11:41 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I have been told in the forum: If you didn't vote for Hillary in a state Trump won then you voted for Trump. So welcome to the world of the Trump supporter.

(07-20-2018, 02:40 PM)Benton Wrote: That kind of logic will keep us electing the same handful of people.

In a first-past-the-post, plurality wins, system, then voting for a third-party or independent is a throw-away vote. Until we change our electoral system, it will remain that way.

[hollodero]

(07-20-2018, 11:32 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I agree with this.  I'd also point out that Trump didn't undergo a radical personality shift once he was elected.  he's been this way from the beginning, he's what people voted for.  Disagree with the people who voted for him all day, it doesn't change the fact that Trump didn't pull some kind of bait and switch routine.  He's giving us what we asked for when we elected him. 

That's true, though I want to mention that there were many voices that tried to explain how a person grows with the job, especially with that one, and that Trump will become more "presidential" at some point. So, some lived in an Illusion, I'd say. Others voted for him because they couldn't vote for liberals in general or for Hillary in particular (this one I'm even sympathetic with).
That's not the same as "asking for" a Trump in office. I'm certain many did ask for it.

(07-20-2018, 11:32 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There are Dem members of Congress calling this "treason".  This is an enormous accusation to make.

It is, and I don't think that's a good idea to say. I want to add though that Trump wondered loudly if not clapping for his state of the union wasn't treason. The tone changed, and Democrats are in a bad spot. They either recognize the shift and play along - being open to hyperbole accusations - or they don't, being open to critizism of being weak and losers and owned by Trump.

With that I'm not saying this is right, they rather should aim for exactly guys like you, who have a realistic view on Trump and therefore seem gettable. How I also think that the Maxine Waters people aren't sufficient reason to vote for System Trump instead is explained in length already.

(07-20-2018, 11:32 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Treason is a capital offense.  Throwing around the accusation because of one statement, ill advised as it may have been, is the height of hyperbolic bullshit.  The problem for Trump's opponents, and their supporters, is that the overreact to his extreme statements.  In so doing they actually come off looking worse than Trump in many, if not most cases.  It's why you see so many Trump voters sticking with Trump and the uncommitted aren't joining "La Resistance".

Yeah I wondered that already :) Nah, I get that. I feel you're reducing the democrats to the leftist wing a little though. Which isn't that much fairer as equating the Republicans with Breitbart.

(07-20-2018, 11:32 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If the Dems advanced a more cogent and coherent counter to Trump they would probably be able to win over voters like myself.  Instead they appear to be going in the far opposite direction with calls to abolish ICE, have open borders, calls for socialism and other far left proposals that are going to turn moderates of all stripes off in droves.

Again, most democrats don't do all that (ICE, I don't know, I don't even have an opinion on that). And I never heard a call for "open" borders, but maybe there are. It's not common democrat Policy, and neither is socialism. Sanders and that one pretty NY Lady are still quite fringe, are they not.

(07-20-2018, 11:32 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, it absolutely would, which makes me think there's less credibility to these accusations.  If Trump was in Putin's pocket then they're both playing this badly.  Putin is a bad person in many ways, but he is not stupid.  If Trump really was his puppet then he's pulling the strings in a horribly ill advised manner.

Yeah that is a really fair point. One would think, don't be so obvious! But then I think of Comeys testimony and the sentence no one but me recognized obviously. The Russian attacks weren't particularly disguised. Comey said "noisy", something like strikingly noisy. There are some other examples, like giving mails the title "Russia - clinton - private and confidential". Or kill a Russian with a Russian nerve agent, and all these things. That's not what they learned in spy school.
Why do I bring that up - because my theory is that Putin doesn't even intend to hide the strings away. He wants to be obvious, he wants the world to see and half of the Americans (maybe also Europeans, but honestly you're more important) to not believe it anyway. Making the other side crazy, resulting in what is reality now. Maximum discord sowed. Putin can't be too dissatisfied with how that plays out, can he.

(07-20-2018, 11:32 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But it all gets back to one of our previous discussions, how do we deal with Russia from this point forward?  Do we further isolate them, push them further towards China, punish them with more sanctions or do we seek some form of rapprochement?  (Lots of French in this reply!) 

With Russia, ever since you made some well-argued points, I don't know really what to do. I don't mind Russia at all, I mind Putin and the constant propaganda attack. Aside fro all else like US meddling and hashtag campaigns and whatnot, witnessing the bots (it's gotten really bad here in recent months) and extrapolating their overall efforts (it's even gotten bad on sites I attend, which aren't that much of an important target) kind of makes me a hardliner that wants to sit Putin out, isolate him, abandon the free net principle and lock down all Russian IPs and whatnot. Rapprochement as some kind of reward for bad deeds doesn't sit well with me.

What should we reasonably do? I don't know. I guess we already tried to negotiate lifting sanctions in exchange for stuff and it didn't work, I can't believe no one ever tried that approach. I also don't want to appease Putin and hope he has a change of heart in return. NATO was maybe a mistake, but that ship has mostly sailed and rowing back now (like Trump did when calling Montenegrinians so aggressive and hence dangerous, which I can assure you they are not, never mind they are only few) in this situation would be an awful signal too. I think the conclusion reached in our last debate (well, you reached it, I just agreed) isn't half bad, but I don't really 100% think it works that way.

I know Trump isn't the right man to solve it. Also for the record, I think he is in Putin's pocket, for no other explanation makes any lasting sense to me. I don't expect agreement, but if the Howard Stern explanation makes senste to you, mine isn't absurd either.

[hollodero]

(07-20-2018, 02:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In a first-past-the-post, plurality wins, system, then voting for a third-party or independent is a throw-away vote. Until we change our electoral system, it will remain that way.

That one really needs to be mentioned again and again. The voting system is the root of the problem, and I am puzzled why, after being confonted with a Hillary vs. Trump choice, there's no huge cry for reform.

[Belsnickel]

(07-20-2018, 03:15 PM)hollodero Wrote: That one really needs to be mentioned again and again. The voting system is the root of the problem, and I am puzzled why, after being confonted with a Hillary vs. Trump choice, there's no huge cry for reform.

Because the system is against us on this. Not enough people know this and know how to fix it to make a difference, and the politicians won't do it unless there is a huge movement to make it happen because it takes away their power.

[GMDino]

(07-20-2018, 03:15 PM)hollodero Wrote: That one really needs to be mentioned again and again. The voting system is the root of the problem, and I am puzzled why, after being confonted with a Hillary vs. Trump choice, there's no huge cry for reform.

Because the majority still like their candidate.  Really that's it.  

I do believe it will change, over time, as the next generation gets more involved.  More third (4th?) parties will emerge and use social media to gain larger followings to compete with the "big 2" we have now.

[*bfine32*]

(07-20-2018, 03:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because the system is against us on this. Not enough people know this and know how to fix it to make a difference, and the politicians won't do it unless there is a huge movement to make it happen because it takes away their power.

Ironically enough. The best chance for a legitimate 3rd Party would have been for the RNC to withdraw support of Trump. But they were not going to cut their own throats.

[hollodero]

(07-20-2018, 03:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Ironically enough. The best chance for a legitimate 3rd Party would have been for the RNC to withdraw support of Trump. But they were not going to cut their own throats.

I don't think so. It would have handed Hillary the win and the right would rightfully have reached the conclusion to not try that again.

Would have worked if there was one huge nation-wide ballot box (or at least no "winner takes all" system) and a run-off election.

[Belsnickel]

(07-20-2018, 03:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Ironically enough. The best chance for a legitimate 3rd Party would have been for the RNC to withdraw support of Trump. But they were not going to cut their own throats.

(07-20-2018, 03:32 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't think so. It would have handed Hillary the win and the right would rightfully have reached the conclusion to not try that again.

Would have worked if there was one huge nation-wide ballot box (or at least no "winner takes all" system) and a run-off election.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. You would've seen Clinton win. Our electoral system prevents any real chance for a third-party, especially for POTUS, but it also makes the odds strongly against it in most levels and branches of our government.

[*bfine32*]

(07-20-2018, 03:32 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't think so. It would have handed Hillary the win and the right would rightfully have reached the conclusion to not try that again.

Would have worked if there was one huge nation-wide ballot box (or at least no "winner takes all" system) and a run-off election.

Of course Hills would have won; that's why I said the RNC would not cut their own throat. But I think Trump would have made a dent as an Independent (no pun intended) and could have paved the way for change.

[hollodero]

(07-20-2018, 04:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course Hills would have won; that's why I said the RNC would not cut their own throat. But I think Trump would have made a dent as an Independent (no pun intended) and could have paved the way for change.

Maybe, but I doubt it. In the end, all would revert back to the two parties, that's what the system ensures, duality. Any third party will be closer to one side and hence at some point be accused of handing the win to the common foe. Rightfully accused, in a sense.

I can't see that principle getting thrown over, and I call Ross Perot as witness to that. If you want a third party, you need to have a different way of voting. That's the far more obvious path than hoping for some bizarre party split.

[samhain]

(07-20-2018, 04:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, that's pretty much it. You would've seen Clinton win. Our electoral system prevents any real chance for a third-party, especially for POTUS, but it also makes the odds strongly against it in most levels and branches of our government.

They still have nightmares about Ross Perot.  After that election, there's no way they were going to let a right-wing populist go out there and poach votes from the Republican nominee.  

Let's be honest.  Hillary was an abysmal candidate, but were any of the non-Trump Republicans much more exciting?  Would any of them have energized the base like Trump did?  No way in hell.  They'd have stood zero chance against Hillary plus a 3rd party challenger, or Hillary alone more than likely.  They were all just as stale and boring (and even in some cases easily disliked) as she was.

[hollodero]

(07-20-2018, 05:29 PM)samhain Wrote: Let's be honest.  Hillary was an abysmal candidate, but were any of the non-Trump Republicans much more exciting?  Would any of them have energized the base like Trump did?

Oh Ben Carson was a damn energizer bunny. Also Rubio made a dick joke to get coverad for once. There was some potential, in the end most guys just were too decent to be energizing. Their fault, really. Please clap.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-20-2018, 02:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In a first-past-the-post, plurality wins, system, then voting for a third-party or independent is a throw-away vote. Until we change our electoral system, it will remain that way.

Not if you get enough of the vote to get in debates. That was my hope this election.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-20-2018, 05:29 PM)samhain Wrote: They still have nightmares about Ross Perot.  After that election, there's no way they were going to let a right-wing populist go out there and poach votes from the Republican nominee.  

Let's be honest.  Hillary was an abysmal candidate, but were any of the non-Trump Republicans much more exciting?  Would any of them have energized the base like Trump did?  No way in hell.  They'd have stood zero chance against Hillary plus a 3rd party challenger, or Hillary alone more than likely.  They were all just as stale and boring (and even in some cases easily disliked) as she was.

No most of the other Republicans would be seen as mostly boring. Kasich is your classic moderate Republican but just doesn’t have the charisma.

[Belsnickel]

(07-20-2018, 08:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Not if you get enough of the vote to get in debates. That was my hope this election.

Even then it won't make a difference. That pesky Duverger is hard at work here in the US. Sure, it isn't a guarantee and it could be broken, but there are too many things in play to prevent it.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-20-2018, 08:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Even then it won't make a difference. That pesky Duverger is hard at work here in the US. Sure, it isn't a guarantee and it could be broken, but there are too many things in play to prevent it.

It would make a difference for having a voice to call the other two parties out. I’m guessing there is some money involved as well but I don’t know what you have to do to receive funding.

[samhain]

(07-20-2018, 08:48 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No most of the other Republicans would be seen as mostly boring. Kasich is your classic moderate Republican but just doesn’t have the charisma.

Except maybe Michelle Bachamann.  She's totally batshit nuts.  Still not nearly as media-savvy as DJT, though.  

[*Nately120*]

(07-20-2018, 08:58 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It would make a difference for having a voice to call the other two parties out.  I’m guessing there is some money involved as well but I don’t know what you have to do to receive funding.

I was under the impression that a party had to get 5% of the popular vote, but I don't see why they couldn't just move the goalposts and deny that as soon as it happens, anyways.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-20-2018, 09:36 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I was under the impression that a party had to get 5% of the popular vote, but I don't see why they couldn't just move the goalposts and deny that as soon as it happens, anyways.

Did we say 5? Some moron at corporate, I mean headquarters, forgot the 1. It’s 15%. Sorry about the confusion.