Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 4, 2018 12:36:45 GMT -5
You post like your a author trying to sell folks on the merits of purchasing your book...and here on this small site..handful of readers...and no Dems are not shaking in their skivvies.... After spending $70/80 million in fees and expenses investigating the Clintons and receiving bupkis in charges...and now Clintons well able to afford best defense...not sure there will be any charges brought against them / her...even with the Donald pushing for...Best he hopes Dems don't gain majority in house...then HE would have a worry, possible some shaking there.....IMHO. What ?? "You post like an author trying to sell folks his latest book, even on this small site, with only a handful of readers. No, Democrats aren't shaking in their skivvies. After $80 million in investigation costs, the Clintons haven't been charged with anything. And now, with the Clintons well able to afford the best defense money can buy, I doubt charges will be brought against them even with Pres. Trump pushing the issue. He should hope the Democrats don't gain a House majority. Then he'll quite possibly be the one shaking in his skivvies. In my humble opinion, that is."
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 4, 2018 12:41:35 GMT -5
What ?? "You post like an author trying to sell folks his latest book, even on this small site, with only a handful of readers. No, Democrats aren't shaking in their skivvies. After $80 million in investigation costs, the Clintons haven't been charged with anything. And now, with the Clintons well able to afford the best defense money can buy, I doubt charges will be brought against them even with Pres. Trump pushing the issue. He should hope the Democrats don't gain a House majority. Then he'll quite possibly be the one shaking in his skivvies. In my humble opinion, that is." thanks Virgil......
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 4, 2018 13:06:23 GMT -5
Oh... mercy.
Indeed, as long as one has witnesses to the beating of one's head against the wall, it shall never truly be in vain. that is one interpretation. here is another: there is a reason for the tradition of public debate, and it is not to give the stubborn and vain an audience. it is rather for the AUDIENCE to be exposed to informed opinion. i would posit that if you opinion is informed, and can be reasonably defended, that you are doing a public service by airing it. now, it is true, that there are many WOEFULLY UNINFORMED opinions that are aired here and elsewhere in public. that is because, unlike professional debate societies like the Commonwealth Club, our ranks are filled with amateurs: people who have opinions that are either fully informed or ill informed, and with debate skills that are either marginal or terrific, with little if any correlation between any of these factors. so we get wildly varying results.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 4, 2018 13:35:39 GMT -5
Oh... mercy.
Indeed, as long as one has witnesses to the beating of one's head against the wall, it shall never truly be in vain. that is one interpretation. here is another: there is a reason for the tradition of public debate, and it is not to give the stubborn and vain an audience. it is rather for the AUDIENCE to be exposed to informed opinion. i would posit that if you opinion is informed, and can be reasonably defended, that you are doing a public service by airing it. now, it is true, that there are many WOEFULLY UNINFORMED opinions that are aired here and elsewhere in public. that is because, unlike professional debate societies like the Commonwealth Club, our ranks are filled with amateurs: people who have opinions that are either fully informed or ill informed, and with debate skills that are either marginal or terrific, with little if any correlation between any of these factors. so we get wildly varying results. A worthy debate progresses from contention to contention, argument to argument, revisiting existing contentions and arguments sparingly. A message board necessitates more repetition since months can pass during and between discussions, memories need to be refreshed, participants come and go, and the readership changes gradually over time. Even so, repetition is to be regarded as a necessary evil, avoided whenever possible. This includes not only self repetition but also the repeating of arguments made by other contributors. It pertains to counterarguments as well as to arguments. In particular, spurious repetition of an argument doesn't necessitate or justify spurious repetition of a counterargument. Regardless of what our opponents do, let us strive to avoid repetition for any reason besides our reasonable belief that our opponents or the majority of our readership do not fully recall or comprehend our position.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jan 4, 2018 14:00:48 GMT -5
What ?? "You post like an author trying to sell folks his latest book, even on this small site, with only a handful of readers. No, Democrats aren't shaking in their skivvies. After $80 million in investigation costs, the Clintons haven't been charged with anything. And now, with the Clintons well able to afford the best defense money can buy, I doubt charges will be brought against them even with Pres. Trump pushing the issue. He should hope the Democrats don't gain a House majority. Then he'll quite possibly be the one shaking in his skivvies. In my humble opinion, that is." Ahh, but they are. They know they have nothing on Trump as far as the Russians. This portion of the investigation should close soon, and will focus on the democratic collusion with the Russians
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 4, 2018 14:25:46 GMT -5
A worthy debate progresses from contention to contention, argument to argument, revisiting existing contentions and arguments sparingly.
that might be true, but the SUBJECT remains constant. using every means at your disposal to defend your position is indeed normal debate strategy. worthy debate also shoots down red herring and straw man arguments with alacrity. this board treats them as if they were part of the argumentative. but that is to be expected, because....amateurs. most people here don't even recognize red herrings and strawmen when they see them.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 4, 2018 17:03:09 GMT -5
A worthy debate progresses from contention to contention, argument to argument, revisiting existing contentions and arguments sparingly. that might be true, but the SUBJECT remains constant. using every means at your disposal to defend your position is indeed normal debate strategy. worthy debate also shoots down red herring and straw man arguments with alacrity. this board treats them as if they were part of the argumentative. but that is to be expected, because....amateurs. most people here don't even recognize red herrings and strawmen when they see them. I don't dispute this, so long as we're progressing from means to means, issue to issue. But at the end of that trek, having diced every red herring, burned every straw man, and exploited every means at our disposal once, if our opponent, determined to get the last word in, resorts to repeating things he's already said, raising points we've already countered, if we have nothing new to add, we ought to hold our peace and avoid falling into the same trap. This is part and parcel of "striving to avoid repetition for any reason besides our reasonable belief that our opponents or the majority of our readership do not fully recall or comprehend our position".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 4, 2018 17:15:19 GMT -5
ah, i see what you are saying. so you are saying once you have run the debate with your opponent, there is no point in RE-RUNNING IT?
again, i am sorry to say, i still disagree. for two reasons.
one is that argumentative, thought, and even our measly little lives are not static things. we grow, we learn, we change. so although the arguERS may be the same, the arguMENT might change over time.
moreover, the AUDIENCE will change. not only in composition, but in thought. a poster who might not entertain the idea that trump is a rudderless corrupt gasbag NOW might ENTERTAIN that idea in a week, or a month, or a year. so the argument that involves that idea would sound different to that poster over that interval.
so, yeah, i really am standing by what i said, despite your objections. if you have a case to make, and you can make it reasonably, and you have the enthusiasm to do so, DO IT.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,984
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 4, 2018 18:46:41 GMT -5
"You post like an author trying to sell folks his latest book, even on this small site, with only a handful of readers. No, Democrats aren't shaking in their skivvies. After $80 million in investigation costs, the Clintons haven't been charged with anything. And now, with the Clintons well able to afford the best defense money can buy, I doubt charges will be brought against them even with Pres. Trump pushing the issue. He should hope the Democrats don't gain a House majority. Then he'll quite possibly be the one shaking in his skivvies. In my humble opinion, that is." Ahh, but they are. They know they have nothing on Trump as far as the Russians. This portion of the investigation should close soon, and will focus on the democratic collusion with the Russians Saying it will happen doesn't make it happen, no matter how many right wing talking heads are saying it at the same time.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 4, 2018 20:06:13 GMT -5
Fusion GPS is asking for the House committee to provide transcripts of their testimony from last month. the House already approved that, so that is another thing that we can all hope to see sometime soon.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 4, 2018 20:21:58 GMT -5
ah, i see what you are saying. so you are saying once you have run the debate with your opponent, there is no point in RE-RUNNING IT? again, i am sorry to say, i still disagree. for two reasons. one is that argumentative, thought, and even our measly little lives are not static things. we grow, we learn, we change. so although the arguERS may be the same, the arguMENT might change over time. moreover, the AUDIENCE will change. not only in composition, but in thought. a poster who might not entertain the idea that trump is a rudderless corrupt gasbag NOW might ENTERTAIN that idea in a week, or a month, or a year. so the argument that involves that idea would sound different to that poster over that interval. so, yeah, i really am standing by what i said, despite your objections. if you have a case to make, and you can make it reasonably, and you have the enthusiasm to do so, DO IT. In other words, "months can pass during and between discussions, memories need to be refreshed, participants come and go, and the readership changes gradually over time." We must nevertheless be reasonable in our estimation of how significantly our audience changes. How many members are new to P/CE in the past two years? Three? Out of fifty, which is 6%. I doubt the readership has changed much more than 6% over the same time period. YMAM is all but invisible to the outside world. Obviously not everybody reads every thread (I've had to explain how I have nothing to do with administrating "Virgil's Inferno" on many occasions, for example), but it's hardly necessary for everyone to read all our arguments all the time. Repeating a thesis once every 18 months is plenty. Opinions won't shift much in 18 months either unless there's new information fueling a debate. When there's new info, as long as we're debating this info for the first time (and not just using it as a pretext to regurgitate an old argument, which some posters love to do), we're not repeating ourselves.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 4, 2018 21:54:00 GMT -5
i wouldn't know. i am just a workerbee, not management.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 14:58:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2018 22:05:08 GMT -5
It's going to be a busy few days. They released Comey's original Clinton memo. Fusion gps was ordered to give up their bank records and Nunes is receiving unredacted docs and getting to interview Priestap and Ohr. And the book thing. With all this I think the solution Dems and GOP could agree upon is locking up both Clinton and Trump in the same cell and making it into a reality show. Everyone wins.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 5, 2018 0:54:21 GMT -5
Not quite... but close. You forgot the Democrat nominee... That was the "Worst candidate put forth". Remember, if not for her, Trump wouldn't have won. That's got to tell you how bad she was. No it doesn’t. It does tell you just how effective a 30 year smear campaign combined with misogny and foreign influence can be. Even at that he barely won. Even with all that help, the genital grabber could hot even win the popular vote "Crooked" wasn't a theory. She lost because Bernie supporters knew they won, but the DNC and Hillary colluded to rig the primary and steal the nomination- so they voted Trump. Now, had Bernie won the nomination, he still would have lost-- because the reality is that I'm not sure there's any way to bridge the divide in the Democratic Party. The Democrats are in the worst position they've been in in terms of political power since reconstruction. There're good reasons for the GOP to be concerned, but I'd much rather be playing their hand than the Democrats.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 5, 2018 0:57:23 GMT -5
i don't think that this line of defense is going to work. but we will have to wait and see. The DNC, Clinton, Obama, and corrupted officials in the FBI, DOJ, CIA, NSA, et al are the ones that need to worry about a "defense".
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 5, 2018 1:19:41 GMT -5
I actually think the GOP losing Congress in 2018 will help both the party and Trump out a lot. They have not looked very cohesive and their infighting has been quite public. Once they can blame everything on the democrats, they will look much more effective. I don't think that the GOP losing Congress is a foregone conclusion. That is the conventional wisdom- "Traditionally, the out of power...yada yada yada". I'm not saying I'm unconcerned about it- but I'm not sold. Allow me to present an alternative scenario- especially as it pertains to the Senate: The 2018 map favors the GOP, big time. The GOP has to defend 8 seats in the Senate, the Dems have to defend 25. Of the 8 the GOP need to defend, only 1- Dean Heller in NV- is in a state won by Clinton. Of the 25 Dems must defend- 10 are in states won by Trump, including Claire McCaskill in MO-- a state Trump won by 19 points. I agree that the wind favors the out of power party in off-year elections, but there's something else to consider: off-year elections are typically low turnout elections. The Democratic Party base just does not have a strong record of showing up in off-year elections-- and least of all their core constituencies: African Americans and Hispanic voters- both of which are enjoying MAGAnomics, by the way, and may not be motivated to oppose Trump, though they may vote against him in 2020. Then there's the myth of the blue wave. It ain't out there. The Dems have spent a lot of money trying desperately to snag a long shot seat to give themselves a shot in the arm symbolically-- but holding VA's governor's mansion (one of only a handful left) and the highly unusual AL senate race-- do not a "wave" make. We aren't going to have 33 Jones v. Moore races across the country. There's exactly NO SIGN of any sort of "Blue Wave". Whereas in 1994, 2010, and 2014 there were PLENTY of sings-- all ignored-- that the GOP wave was building. The Dems have also lost their chief weapon in the arsenal: the fake news. They simply do not have the influence they had in years gone by. The Dems are clinging to a traditional shift in voter sentiment, but even Congressional approval ratings low-- the media are lower (How bad do you have to be?). Additionally, the GOP had a clear agenda in those past wave elections. The Democrats have Russia and #Resist. Not sure that's going to cut it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 5, 2018 10:51:10 GMT -5
The DNC, Clinton, Obama, and corrupted officials in the FBI, DOJ, CIA, NSA, et al are the ones that need to worry about a "defense".
expanding your list doesn't make your point more forceful. it makes it more vulnerable.
if Trump wants to do something about the DOJ, he is at liberty to do so. he can also do minor fixes at the security and police agencies without causing much issue. if he goes further than that, i think he risks losing his job.
as far as Democrats are concerned, the DOJ is welcome to indict every Democrat in the US if it wishes.
as i said before: we'll see. but if i am to speak candidly, with no interest in placation, i think your whole obsession with the Democrats on this is ludicrious, and the corruption problems, if any, are minor.
but i am sure it is more fun to focus on all of that than the trouble your orange overlord is facing.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,468
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 5, 2018 13:06:26 GMT -5
I actually think the GOP losing Congress in 2018 will help both the party and Trump out a lot. They have not looked very cohesive and their infighting has been quite public. Once they can blame everything on the democrats, they will look much more effective. I don't think that the GOP losing Congress is a foregone conclusion. That is the conventional wisdom- "Traditionally, the out of power...yada yada yada". I'm not saying I'm unconcerned about it- but I'm not sold. Allow me to present an alternative scenario- especially as it pertains to the Senate: The 2018 map favors the GOP, big time. The GOP has to defend 8 seats in the Senate, the Dems have to defend 25. Of the 8 the GOP need to defend, only 1- Dean Heller in NV- is in a state won by Clinton. Of the 25 Dems must defend- 10 are in states won by Trump, including Claire McCaskill in MO-- a state Trump won by 19 points. I agree that the wind favors the out of power party in off-year elections, but there's something else to consider: off-year elections are typically low turnout elections. The Democratic Party base just does not have a strong record of showing up in off-year elections-- and least of all their core constituencies: African Americans and Hispanic voters- both of which are enjoying MAGAnomics, by the way, and may not be motivated to oppose Trump, though they may vote against him in 2020. Then there's the myth of the blue wave. It ain't out there. The Dems have spent a lot of money trying desperately to snag a long shot seat to give themselves a shot in the arm symbolically-- but holding VA's governor's mansion (one of only a handful left) and the highly unusual AL senate race-- do not a "wave" make. We aren't going to have 33 Jones v. Moore races across the country. There's exactly NO SIGN of any sort of "Blue Wave". Whereas in 1994, 2010, and 2014 there were PLENTY of sings-- all ignored-- that the GOP wave was building. The Dems have also lost their chief weapon in the arsenal: the fake news. They simply do not have the influence they had in years gone by. The Dems are clinging to a traditional shift in voter sentiment, but even Congressional approval ratings low-- the media are lower (How bad do you have to be?). Additionally, the GOP had a clear agenda in those past wave elections. The Democrats have Russia and #Resist. Not sure that's going to cut it. I never said it was a foregone conclusion. Didn't mean to imply it, and I'm not getting money that it will happen. I'm just saying that if it does happen the GOP can use it to their advantage to repair their reputation amongst people who aren't currently in love with them.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 5, 2018 14:42:15 GMT -5
these citations of past performances are not really relevant. there is an unusual headwind for the GOP right now. failure to recognize that is "dwelling", rather than "seeing".
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 5, 2018 14:47:38 GMT -5
Don't you kind of wish that Trump could spin his head around backward like in The Exorcist? Maybe the whoosh of air coming out of his mouth could propel the GOP forward instead of backward. Hey, you never know.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 5, 2018 15:00:39 GMT -5
I think it was difficult for the FBI/DOJ to investigate Clinton when they thought she was going to be their next boss. I support the OIG looking into the investigation to see if they followed their own guidelines. I think Trump/RNC should keep in mind that if the Democrats are in power after Trump leaves office he may look forward to a lifetime of investigations. Of course if he were a long term thinker we wouldn't be having this conversation . . . Oh, I think Trump is a long term thinker- and that is why we are here.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jan 7, 2018 10:30:51 GMT -5
Ahh, but they are. They know they have nothing on Trump as far as the Russians. This portion of the investigation should close soon, and will focus on the democratic collusion with the Russians Saying it will happen doesn't make it happen, no matter how many right wing talking heads are saying it at the same time.
So true. And double for the democrats concerning President Trump!
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,468
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 7, 2018 11:07:41 GMT -5
Saying it will happen doesn't make it happen, no matter how many right wing talking heads are saying it at the same time.
So true. And double for the democrats concerning President Trump! Also true. The liberals of America are fooling themselves on how much they think he is disliked. Also fooling themselves on how clear the evidence will be. He will have no qualms denying and lying until it goes away.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 7, 2018 12:01:15 GMT -5
So true. And double for the democrats concerning President Trump! Also true. The liberals of America are fooling themselves on how much they think he is disliked. Also fooling themselves on how clear the evidence will be. He will have no qualms denying and lying until it goes away. I give liberals a lot of shit for not living in reality, but it's surprising even to me how difficult it is these days for liberals to get their heads out of the radical alt-left DNC propaganda media impeachment porn echo chamber. Donald Trump isn't wildly popular, but "job approval" is a meaningless poll. It says nothing about whether or not a likely voter would vote to re-elect a politician. And the President's approval rating- Obama's was quite high, is, as we learned, not indicative of what voters are going to do in mid-term elections. Obama got, "shellacked" (his word, not mine) in the midterms- twice. To me, the long term trend is that the country is shifting to the right after a century of liberalism. Even younger voters are surprisingly conservative. Conservative remains the single largest ideological voting bloc and group in the country- though "liberal" is growing for the first time in a long time.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,468
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 7, 2018 12:42:29 GMT -5
The move to conservativism will fail when people realize they are working like a dog and the guy at the top is making all the money. We will get there in the next 20 years. The gap is widening and life is getting worse for the people at the bottom - no medical care, no retirement funds, no job security, full time jobs disappearing, etc. The conservatives did a good job convincing people that it was caused by liberals and the money is going to welfare receipants and illegal immigrants, but that isn't the full story. Once the republicans take away social security and Medicare, light bulbs will start appearing over some heads.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,984
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 8, 2018 8:10:55 GMT -5
The move to conservativism will fail when people realize they are working like a dog and the guy at the top is making all the money. We will get there in the next 20 years. The gap is widening and life is getting worse for the people at the bottom - no medical care, no retirement funds, no job security, full time jobs disappearing, etc. The conservatives did a good job convincing people that it was caused by liberals and the money is going to welfare receipants and illegal immigrants, but that isn't the full story. Once the republicans take away social security and Medicare, light bulbs will start appearing over some heads. I read over the weekend that Sander's democratic socialist party has 5X more members now then it did prior to the 2016 election.
This is one of my big fears with Trump - the backlash will push us right over into socialism.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,984
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 8, 2018 8:27:13 GMT -5
Also true. The liberals of America are fooling themselves on how much they think he is disliked. Also fooling themselves on how clear the evidence will be. He will have no qualms denying and lying until it goes away. I give liberals a lot of shit for not living in reality, but it's surprising even to me how difficult it is these days for liberals to get their heads out of the radical alt-left DNC propaganda media impeachment porn echo chamber. Donald Trump isn't wildly popular, but "job approval" is a meaningless poll. It says nothing about whether or not a likely voter would vote to re-elect a politician. And the President's approval rating- Obama's was quite high, is, as we learned, not indicative of what voters are going to do in mid-term elections. Obama got, "shellacked" (his word, not mine) in the midterms- twice. To me, the long term trend is that the country is shifting to the right after a century of liberalism. Even younger voters are surprisingly conservative. Conservative remains the single largest ideological voting bloc and group in the country- though "liberal" is growing for the first time in a long time. Here is some reality, based on research and not just feelings: www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2-party-affiliation-among-voters-1992-2016/
"Millennials now match Baby Boomers as the generation that represents the largest number of eligible voters in the country. While Millennials are a large and diverse cohort, there continues to be no sign of differences in partisanship among younger and older member of the generation. Similar shares of Millennials ages 18-25 (58%) and 26-35 (56%) identify as Democrats or lean towards the Democratic Party."
"Among non-white voters, the Democratic Party holds a wide advantage in leaned party affiliation and there is little difference in patterns across generations. Roughly seven-in-ten non-white voters in each generation identify as Democrats or lean Democratic."
All the dems have to do is wait while the old white folks die off to achieve a permanent majority.
Which is a shame. The GOP used to be the party that championed fiscal control. We need someone to assume that mantle. Won't be the Trumpites, as evidenced by their shameless tax gift to corporations and the rich, and the Trumpites have so soured the GOP brand name for non-whites, I'm not sure the party can recover, which will doom it as the white majority continues to shrink. I think the GOP will have to remake itself completely, publically cut itself off from the far right Trumpite radical wing, in order to have a chance to survive the next 25 years.
Not that people are happy with Dems, either. There is a strong affiliation for Independent voters - perhaps the remnants of the old fiscal conservative GOP can rebrand themselves as a 'smart government' party of fiscal reform and grab a big chunk of those 'independent' voters, as well as discontented GOP voters. They'd get my vote, anyway.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,468
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 8, 2018 9:37:45 GMT -5
Social conservatives have cost the party quite a few voters. What I don't know is if it gained them more than they lost.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jan 8, 2018 9:50:25 GMT -5
The GOP used to represent tbe fiscally conservative, small gov’t point of view.
It’s now tbe anti abortion, anti birth control, anti equal pay, Tax cuts for the rich and screw everyone else, who cares about the deficit party.
They deserve the social conservatives and the social conservatives deserve them.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 8, 2018 10:01:12 GMT -5
The move to conservativism will fail when people realize they are working like a dog and the guy at the top is making all the money. We will get there in the next 20 years. The gap is widening and life is getting worse for the people at the bottom - no medical care, no retirement funds, no job security, full time jobs disappearing, etc. The conservatives did a good job convincing people that it was caused by liberals and the money is going to welfare receipants and illegal immigrants, but that isn't the full story. Once the republicans take away social security and Medicare, light bulbs will start appearing over some heads. I read over the weekend that Sander's democratic socialist party has 5X more members now then it did prior to the 2016 election.
This is one of my big fears with Trump - the backlash will push us right over into socialism.
The larger the multiple, the less worried you should be. Large factors are usually the consequence of small denominators. It's a lot easier for an organization with 50,000 members to grow 500% than for an organization with a million members. Having said this, socialism is becoming significantly more popular among younger demographics. It may have something to do with students hitting new lows in mathematical proficiency.
|
|