ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
Please drop this silly argument. Turnout rate among African American voters was 57.7% in 2016, as compared to 62.1% in 2012. If you counted every African American voter who voted in 2012 but stayed home in 2016 as a vote for Trump in 2016, HRC still would have won the African American vote in 2016 by an overwhelming majority.
I am not counting people who don't vote, as votes for trump.
I am saying, like most political analysts said after the 2016 elections, that the drop in turnout of blacks was very significant for HRC election loss and was plausible linked to the fact that a portion of blacks dislike her much more than they dislike the average democrat candidate.
That 4.4% drop, in a demographic which is approx 12% of all adults (so 0.5% average loss of votes) might look small to you but in a very close election it can make or break a candidate.
For example, there are more than 1m adult blacks in Michigan, and Trump won that state by 11k votes. Going by the exit poll proportions, HRC lost 40k black votes there (not saying toward trump, just saying they didn't vote at all instead of voting democrat): that would have been enough to flip the state.
you have no basis for any of this though. one side wants freedoms for all people and equality, and the other side simply doesn't. slow labored incremental steps towards the former doesn't mean the progressives "cannot ever be satisfied".
this is a dumb rightwing talking point strategy to try and stop all change because everything cant be changed at once. smart people dont get tripped up by it.
Ye sure the party of lockdowns, vaccine mandates on the threat of losing your job and ability to access public places, and ever-increasing regulations with the excuse of the environment wants "freedom for all people".
What's your, or the Democratic party, regulation endgame for example?: can you list which environmental regulations you would like to introduce which don't exist today, that when achieved, will make you say "I solemnly swear on the life of my children I will never ask for an additional extra piece of environmental regulation for the rest of my life?"
Because we on the other side (not necessarily all republicans, just people who hate regulations) think they are already too many and would like a massive reduction of current regulations, EPA, FDA abolition and a constitutional amendment introduced to ban the federal government from legislation on many topics (which would actually just require clarifying the commerce clause as being very narrow as intended by the framers of the constitution) and a full non-delegation doctrine in place (federal agencies should never have the power to introduce new regulations no matter how small with no exception, the totality of freedom-limitating rules should pass through congress).
People in Category B very often are not deciding between voting for for the Democrat or the Republican, but rather are deciding between voting for only one of the two major party candidates -- let's day Biden -- or sitting out/voting third party.
Sure that type is massive compared to the other. Another thing people probably miss is thinking the voter switching back and firth fairly regularly, in so much they exist, is centrist. Over the last 30 years these voters will be quite conservative demographically (white, male, over 50, bachelors degree max) and politically. That's just another way of saying in a good year for republicans, they get about the popular vote % democrats get in a bad year for them. And in a good year for democrats, they get a popular vote % republicans have not seen in over 30 years.
Regulations are necessary because people are shits and will destroy everything they can if left unchecked.
If you don't have a regulation saying that industries can't dump toxic waste into rivers, guess what? They will dump toxic waste into rivers.
Trump killing the border bill legit pisses me off
The bill was far from perfect. But if you actually care about the border more than you care about politics you pass this bill and then work on passing a tougher one
But Trump thinksn it's a win for biden and basically threatens house members to kill it and they oblige
So dumb
Ye sure the party of lockdowns, vaccine mandates on the threat of losing your job and ability to access public places, and ever-increasing regulations with the excuse of the environment wants "freedom for all people".
What's your, or the Democratic party, regulation endgame for example?: can you list which environmental regulations you would like to introduce which don't exist today, that when achieved, will make you say "I solemnly swear on
enjoying the environment is freedom for people and their descendants. environmental regulations are just less freedoms for corporations. lol. that's such a weird thing to try and insert into this argument. corporations aren't actually people no matter how much the legal fiction of citizens united that was created out of thin air granted them. the world you long for is a corporation owned shithole.
do you think it's "freedom" to push children into working at 14 like a bunch of states are removing the regulations due to corporate lobbying? are you that bad guy from zoolander? "they want to work in the mines!"
Trump killing the border bill legit pisses me off
The bill was far from perfect. But if you actually care about the border more than you care about politics you pass this bill and then work on passing a tougher one
But Trump thinksn it's a win for biden and basically threatens house members to kill it and they oblige
So dumb
yeah equally i hope when trump loses the election, Biden tears up the border deal because it's **** and no reason to do it anymore.
Regulations are necessary because people are shits and will destroy everything they can if left unchecked.
If you don't have a regulation saying that industries can't dump toxic waste into rivers, guess what? They will dump toxic waste into rivers.
That should not be a federal issue though, as it's clearly not intended to be one in the constitution.
Democrats want it to be federal because otherwise republican controlled states would regulate less, more sensibly, with different tradeoff considerations between the economy and the environment, and that would put enormous pressure on Democratic states to regulate less or risk losing a ton of business.
So democrats, undemocratically, want to decide for everyone because if every state as per the constitution was left free to decide, they would have problems implementing their worldview.
The fact they are doing it with an agency created by Nixon is just one of many elements showing these topics aren't necessarily partisan.
Notice that democrats fully understand these things when it's about abortion (now without federal guarantees) or drug legalizations (the feds shouldn't have any power to determine a substance is illegal nationwide, FDA has go to with EPA).
As usual, people are talking about swing voting in a muddy way. Browser, chez, and others are defining a swing voter as someone who is capable of voting for Democrat or a Republican and has done so in the past. Let's call this Category A.
Rickroll's study seems to be defining a swing voter as an undecided voter, or a voter who is capable of being swayed by campaign events, in a specific election. Let's call this Category B.
The number of p
thank you, wish more people were like you
i feel it was pretty obvious we were talking about b all along, primarily because we're talking about swinging an election right now, and right now the A category is irrelevant, if anyone tells you they are still unsure about whether they'd vote for biden or trump then they are not being honest
That should not be a federal issue though, as it's clearly not intended to be one in the constitution.
Democrats want it to be federal because otherwise republican controlled states would regulate less, more sensibly, with different tradeoff considerations between the economy and the environment, and that would put enormous pressure on Democratic states to regulate less or risk losing a ton of business.
So democrats, undemocratically, want to
just a gameplan for the absolute shittiest place to live ever. and the red states would suffer the most because their governments would be lax and even more corrupt. we've already seen this with that poop train where the corrupt alabama government took money from new york to sell out their citizens.
just so short sighted and unaware of reality. this is why the libertarian "utopia" lasted like 3 months and got overrun by bears in 2004.
yeah equally i hope when trump loses the election, Biden tears up the border deal because it's **** and no reason to do it anymore.
Biden is isolationist and anti-immigration instinctively. He'll take refugees in, if necessary, on humanitarian grounds but he's no fan of Americans competing with immigrants for jobs.
just a gameplan for the absolute shittiest place to live ever. and the red states would suffer the most because their governments would be lax and even more corrupt. we've already seen this with that poop train where the corrupt alabama government took money from new york to sell out their citizens.
just so short sighted and unaware of reality. this is why the libertarian "utopia" lasted like 3 months and got overrun by bears in 2004.
And then everyone can actually live in a place where the values underpinning government are as close as their own as possible which is what the American dream has always been about. Centralization of Power denies that, state rights allowing incredible difference among the 50 states allow more variance, so more people can find a place more similar to their preferences.
Oregonians (or people moving to Oregon) can regulate every aspect of their existence as much as they want to save polar bears, and they have a fundamental inviolable right to do so, but Texans (or people moving to Texas) have a right to say "I don't agree and the opinion of people in Oregon should never matter to decide which regulations apply here".
That would be the desirable endgame for all parties, except undemocratic violent people who want to impose their political preference to people far away from them.
Oh and btw, the same should apply inside a state... The state of Texas shouldn't be allowed to decide if alcohol is banned or not, and how much is taxed, rather counties should.
the progressives want to move, but when that happens they still lament things are bad, so why did we move to begin with?
normal people look at a situation, dislike something, ask for changes, and when they accomplish what they want *they are satisfied*.
I am complaining about the idea that a group of people exists, that has unlimited requests for change and cannot ever be satisfied no matter how much society moves toward their requests.
that's
Actually it's known standard human psychology to be constantly unsatisfied with the way things are, even if they had just gotten something they wanted.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...
I wouldn't call it psychopathic, but the mindset you call normal is actually atypical.
Actually it's known standard human psychology to be constantly unsatisfied with the way things are, even if they had just gotten something they wanted.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...
I wouldn't call it psychopathic, but the mindset you call normal is actually atypical.
We also have strong pulsions biologically be violent in generally to further our aims, yet I don't think you forgive people who fall prey to those pulsions with "it's standard human psychology", and I think you would consider those acting on those pulsions more than most, psychopathic.
And then everyone can actually live in a place where the values underpinning government are as close as their own as possible which is what the American dream has always been about. Centralization of Power denies that, state rights allowing incredible difference among the 50 states allow more variance, so more people can find a place more similar to their preferences.
Oregonians (or people moving to Oregon) can regulate every aspect of their
this whole idea is so dumb in a modern world. states rights made sense when it took 4 days to get from new york to virginia maybe. i can travel by car across 7-8 states in a day, it's just a hilariously dated idea. and you're saying you want it to even be counties which is even worse. lol.
the framers weren't super geniuses that created some plan so amazing to weather time. they were just a group of white guys that thought it was okay to own other people.
I am not counting people who don't vote, as votes for trump.
I am saying, like most political analysts said after the 2016 elections, that the drop in turnout of blacks was very significant for HRC election loss and was plausible linked to the fact that a portion of blacks dislike her much more than they dislike the average democrat candidate.
That 4.4% drop, in a demographic which is approx 12% of all adults (so 0.5% average loss of votes) m
No one said a 4.4% drop was insignificant. It obviously was significant in a close election. My point was that there was absolutely no empirical support for this statement by you:
this whole idea is so dumb in a modern world. states rights made sense when it took 4 days to get from new york to virginia maybe. i can travel by car across 7-8 states in a day, it's just a hilariously dated idea. and you're saying you want it to even be counties which is even worse. lol.
the framers weren't super geniuses that created some plan so amazing to weather time. they were just a group of white guys that thought it was okay t
centralization of power was a threat when they wrote the constitution, and is a bigger threat today (because technology allows for more nefarious uses of that concentrated power by the entity wielding it).
it is an inherent threat and I hoped people on the left understood that when the power of the federal state moved into Trump hands temporarily.
how can you feel calm and relaxed with federal powers encroaching on states, when you are literally one bad election away from those powers being used against you and your family?
do you realize SCOTUS decisions to the right don't penalize you too much because state rights allow democrat led states to still legislate in a way that is proper for your values?
framers understood that crucial lesson of history, and tried to concoct a nation which had both the positives of size, impossible for any single state to achieve, and avoided some of the most nefarious risk of power centralization. in that they were in fact geniuses, and it's not random that the country which came out of the constitution they wrote is the most prosperous in world history
We also have strong pulsions biologically be violent in generally to further our aims, yet I don't think you forgive people who fall prey to those pulsions with "it's standard human psychology", and I think you would consider those acting on those pulsions more than most, psychopathic.
Wanting more actually advances society as well as the well being of individuals, which is why it has been selected for.
Being violent towards other humans obviously harms society and others; always wanting more doesn't hurt anyone else.
Wanting more actually advances society as well as the well being of individuals, which is why it has been selected for.
Being violent towards other humans obviously harms society and others; always wanting more doesn't hurt anyone else.
always wanting more hurts people immensely, for example because it creates a permanent strife in society, while we could cohabit much more easily if every conversation started with "things are exceptionally good and even if we don't change absolutely anything we are still living in the best moment in human history and we should be glad for that".
ask yourself why violence has been selected for if you believe wanting more obsessively has been selected for (and not happen randomically as the side product of some other, pro-survival trait) the same should be true of all human behavioral pulsions.
centralization of power was a threat when they wrote the constitution, and is a bigger threat today (because technology allows for more nefarious uses of that concentrated power by the entity wielding it).
it is an inherent threat and I hoped people on the left understood that when the power of the federal state moved into Trump hands temporarily.
how can you feel calm and relaxed with federal powers encroaching on states, when you are liter
the framers had no idea what a society of 350+ million people would look like that you could also traverse in a single afternoon by air travel. they had no idea what "arms" would become. it only made sense for virginia to have a different law than maryland when i didnt travel through both of them in an afternoon by car. some of the framers even thought the constitution should be rewritten every so often, because they somewhat understood what they didn't know. some of them also stuck a whale bone up their penis and died.
the risk of "power centralization" is that certain areas don't get to become their own corrupt little fiefdoms through voter suppression/intimidation to then discriminate freely.
First of all, I think the term "Trump hater" is overly simplistic. There's a lot of horrible humans in the world like him and I don't care for any of them. But what really gets me is that I live in a society where a significant portion of the population adore and look up to someone that literally has no positive human characteristics. He's bad in every possible way and yet so many people put someone like that on a pedestal. It's a stain
Well said.
centralization of power was a threat when they wrote the constitution, and is a bigger threat today (because technology allows for more nefarious uses of that concentrated power by the entity wielding it).
it is an inherent threat and I hoped people on the left understood that when the power of the federal state moved into Trump hands temporarily.
how can you feel calm and relaxed with federal powers encroaching on states, when you are liter
The prosperity is in large part due to America’s geography and astonishing natural resources
always wanting more hurts people immensely, for example because it creates a permanent strife in society, while we could cohabit much more easily if every conversation started with "things are exceptionally good and even if we don't change absolutely anything we are still living in the best moment in human history and we should be glad for that".
ask yourself why violence has been selected for if you believe wanting more obsessively has been
I do not believe violence in humans has been selected for. Violence and strife is lower in humans than in nearly all other hominids, and it has continued to go down for all of human history. I've just been reading a book about the reasons humans become more moral through evolutionary history, "The Goodness Paradox" by Richard Wrangham. For pure history and statistics of violence reduction, see "The Better Angels Of Our Nature" by Steven Pinker. You are correct that we are living in the best time in human history, and the reason it got that was is because of the constant strive to make things better.
I do not believe violence in humans has been selected for. Violence and strife is lower in humans than in nearly all other hominids, and it has continued to go down for all of human history. I've just been reading a book about the reasons humans become more moral through evolutionary history, "The Goodness Paradox" by Richard Wrangham. For pure history and statistics of violence reduction, see "The Better Angels Of Our Nature" by Steven
the reason is technology which accumulates in a Lamarckian way, while the DNA stays very close to that of the genocidal founders of our species (especially but not uniquely in Europe).
we can track several bottlenecks in male DNA proving a small amount of males murdered all others and took women from different tribes, many many times in history, and we are all descendant from them.
this is probably the most researched example of such events
but the "rape (kidnapping) of Sabine women" in early roman history is just the washed up story of just the same dynamic as well.
