2017 Republican Thread

[caulfield12]

Uh, her 30 years of public service and campaign platform kinda made it clear.

 

Yes, but the disconnect from 1992 Hillary and the 2016 version was that everyday Americans no longer thought she was one of them. Bernie, they knew he was firmly on their side and who the enemy was...she simply became captured by the establishment, in the same way it happened to Dole or McCain.

 

All the smoke around the Clinton Foundation, the speeches to big banks....that only increased the disconnect. She could no longer sell the idea that they were broke, like she used to her advantage after leaving the White House in 2001.

Edited January 26, 2017 by caulfield12

[Soxbadger]

Why are you guys fighting about Clinton in the Republican thread?

 

Fighting about Clinton is about the least important thing that anyone could discuss.

[Reddy]

Why are you guys fighting about Clinton in the Republican thread?

 

Fighting about Clinton is about the least important thing that anyone could discuss.

I could NOT agree more. There's literally no point in talking about the election anymore.

[caulfield12]

I could NOT agree more. There's literally no point in talking about the election anymore.

 

 

Well, that's not necessarily true if you want to apply the lessons learned to 2018/20...like Nate Silver and his team are in the processing of doing.

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/how-global-gag-r...-174753327.html

 

Oh well. Back to the abortion/global gag order argument. That's good for a moralistic response from brett at least.

 

 

MSI (Marie Stopes Intl.) projects that with the loss of USAID for its contraception and family planning services, there will be as many as 2.1 million additional abortions in the areas it serves during the next three years.

 

In a statement from the U.N. Foundation, an organization that connects the goals of the U.N. with NGOs around the world on issues on female empowerment, UNF CEO Kathy Calvin said: “This action will do more than change policy; it will make it more difficult for millions of girls and women to access the contraception and health care they need to determine their futures.”

 

When the policy was last enacted, during the George W. Bush administration, health care clinics in many countries were forced to close, and outreach services for the most vulnerable populations were eliminated, Calvin said. Millions of people around the globe were left without critical health services, including maternal and child health care, HIV testing and counseling, and contraceptives, including condoms. “Without these life-saving services, more women and infants died due to pregnancy-related complications,” she said.

 

In fact, banning abortions doesn’t reduce abortion, according to several studies conducted by the World Health Organization. Cutting access to contraception increases pregnancy rates and the incidence of illegal, makeshift and unsafe abortion practices.

 

But the cut goes far beyond health care access, said van Min. Once basic screenings and contraception and exams aren’t accessible, a domino effect begins for women, and in turn, communities.

Edited January 26, 2017 by caulfield12

[CrimsonWeltall]

Uh. This is fundamentally untrue. They had one slogan: Stronger Together

 

I followed the election pretty closely and never would have guessed this. "Love Trumps Hate" seemed to be more prominent.

 

Why did Trump want to be President???

 

Because everything sucks (especially foreigners who commit tons of crime/terrorism and terk all our jerbs through illegal immigration/trade) and we need to MAGA.

 

Hillary's message seemed to be that everything is mostly okay and she'll be more of the same. Bleh,

[southsider2k5]

You don't know how much your opinion means to me as resident hard-line GOPer and Reddy fan favorite.

 

Yet how many times have you responded to it?

[southsider2k5]

Why are you guys fighting about Clinton in the Republican thread?

 

Fighting about Clinton is about the least important thing that anyone could discuss.

 

The clear lesson should be there for finding a candidate that isn't just the next in line. No one wants the John McCain or Hillary Clinton. People today want to be inspired. It was propelled Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump into office. They had the ability to fire their bases up. Learning the lesson of why she lost is very important if the Dems want to take back the White House in 4 years. In reality that campaign should have already started.

[southsider2k5]

I followed the election pretty closely and never would have guessed this. "Love Trumps Hate" seemed to be more prominent.

 

 

 

Because everything sucks (especially foreigners who commit tons of crime/terrorism and terk all our jerbs through illegal immigration/trade) and we need to MAGA.

 

Hillary's message seemed to be that everything is mostly okay and she'll be more of the same. Bleh,

 

My first guess was "I'm with her"

[Soxbadger]

The clear lesson should be there for finding a candidate that isn't just the next in line. No one wants the John McCain or Hillary Clinton. People today want to be inspired. It was propelled Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump into office. They had the ability to fire their bases up. Learning the lesson of why she lost is very important if the Dems want to take back the White House in 4 years. In reality that campaign should have already started.

 

I agree, but more I was getting at this is the completely wrong place to be discussing it. I was trying to protect Republican's "safe" space. I kid, but seriously it just seemed like this argument was spilling over into the Republican thread and I thought maybe its time to say something.

[Balta1701]

The clear lesson should be there for finding a candidate that isn't just the next in line. No one wants the John McCain or Hillary Clinton. People today want to be inspired. It was propelled Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump into office. They had the ability to fire their bases up. Learning the lesson of why she lost is very important if the Dems want to take back the White House in 4 years. In reality that campaign should have already started.

Here's the basic problem with this logic: you're using Donald Trump as an example of successfully firing up his base, when he:

1. Lost the popular vote badly

2. Would have lost in a blowout, with a bigger vote difference than the 2012 election, had it not been for the intervention of the FBI and crimes committed by a foreign power to aid him

3. Might very well have lost despite the others had it not been for voter suppression laws

4. Might very well have lost despite all the others had the media not gone along with #2.

 

How much of a lesson can you take from a race decided by the FBI director as much as anything else?

[Reddy]

Here's the basic problem with this logic: you're using Donald Trump as an example of successfully firing up his base, when he:

1. Lost the popular vote badly

2. Would have lost in a blowout, with a bigger vote difference than the 2012 election, had it not been for the intervention of the FBI and crimes committed by a foreign power to aid him

3. Might very well have lost despite the others had it not been for voter suppression laws

4. Might very well have lost despite all the others had the media not gone along with #2.

 

How much of a lesson can you take from a race decided by the FBI director as much as anything else?

I'm so glad you said it, but it's what I was thinking. Agreed 100%

[southsider2k5]

Here's the basic problem with this logic: you're using Donald Trump as an example of successfully firing up his base, when he:

1. Lost the popular vote badly

2. Would have lost in a blowout, with a bigger vote difference than the 2012 election, had it not been for the intervention of the FBI and crimes committed by a foreign power to aid him

3. Might very well have lost despite the others had it not been for voter suppression laws

4. Might very well have lost despite all the others had the media not gone along with #2.

 

How much of a lesson can you take from a race decided by the FBI director as much as anything else?

 

By all means then, the Dems should keep doing what they are doing because everything is fine. I mean it isn't like they have lost the House, the Senate, and the Presidency in the last eight years.

[Reddy]

By all means then, the Dems should keep doing what they are doing because everything is fine. I mean it isn't like they have lost the House, the Senate, and the Presidency in the last eight years.

You love drawing false conclusions don't you?

 

Where did Balta say Dems should keep doing what they're doing? We need to learn from the Tea Party and the Kochs, and focus on grassroots campaigns and races for local offices like schoolboard, town council, state legislature, etc, so we can undo the gerrymandering.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Reddy

[southsider2k5]

You love drawing false conclusions don't you?

 

Where did Balta say Dems should keep doing what they're doing? We need to learn from the Tea Party and the Kochs, and focus on grassroots campaigns like schoolboard, town councils, state legislatures, etc, so we can undo the gerrymandering.

 

Balta just literally told me that it wasn't the Democrats fault the lost the election. By all means, keep on the same path then.

[illinilaw08]

By all means then, the Dems should keep doing what they are doing because everything is fine. I mean it isn't like they have lost the House, the Senate, and the Presidency in the last eight years.

 

Honestly, what we've seen over the last 8 years is the gap between urban and rural voters continuing to grow. Cities are reliably blue. Rural areas are reliably red, and the way districts are drawn has a major impact on the color of the House. The Dems need to provide a more effective message to rural voters on healthcare and jobs if they have any hope of getting back the House in the near future.

[Reddy]

You're supposed to say we when talking about the country not when talking about your political preference. This bipartisan stuff is absolutely awful for the people. Divide and conquer.

I can actually say 'we' whenever I'd like. To me, you're a 'them', and I'm just fine with that.

[southsider2k5]

Honestly, what we've seen over the last 8 years is the gap between urban and rural voters continuing to grow. Cities are reliably blue. Rural areas are reliably red, and the way districts are drawn has a major impact on the color of the House. The Dems need to provide a more effective message to rural voters on healthcare and jobs if they have any hope of getting back the House in the near future.

 

I really believe where they have been getting hit the hardest is the graying generation that grew up in an era where generations of their families before them were able to work in the same job for a generation that provided a middle class income, insurance, and a retirement. Nothing great, but comfortable if you were decently smart about it. So they went through thinking that they would be able to do the same, and then the world completely changed on them. Automation, free trade, and federal restrictions just completely destroyed entire industries that generations build their lives around. It has left dead and decaying towns in its wake. I was born and raised in one myself and have watched its decay and rot with a front row seat. The people that Trump has been able to turn into his camp more than anything were people who lost that comfort, and for some ungodly reason have bought into this idiot's siren song. They have watched as their grandparents and parents jobs have gone to China, and they have wanted someone who was willing to speak their language of anger and disgust over it, and not a realistic voice telling them that this is reality in the 21st century.

 

That is a long way of totally agreeing with you on the idea that jobs really is something that a party could make a killing on in the electoral column.

[StrangeSox]

What is a non-partisan rationale for voter suppression laws and opposition to them?

 

Is the idea that the requirement to show an ID disproportionately affects the left? I have never put any time into learning this stuff. Perhaps it's more than having an ID and I don't understand it but that seems like not much of an issue. Everyone I know has an ID.

 

It's not just voter ID, there are also changes to polling places and times that disproportionally negatively impact voters who are likely to be Democratic. Voter roll purges as well that sweep up legitimate people.

 

Poor people and poor minorities in particular are less likely to have the types of ID's required by these laws, and you'll also see all sorts of dubious political ads targeting minority voters that threaten various legal things that may or may not be true. The intent is to depress turnout.

 

The main thing with these laws is that there's zero evidence they're even necessary.

 

[Reddy]

What is a non-partisan rationale for voter suppression laws and opposition to them?

 

Is the idea that the requirement to show an ID disproportionately affects the left? I have never put any time into learning this stuff. Perhaps it's more than having an ID and I don't understand it but that seems like not much of an issue. Everyone I know has an ID.

Yes, it disproportionately affects the left. Why do you need a driver's license if you live in an inner city with a public transit system? Or what if you're elderly and don't drive and no longer have a license?

 

Statistics:

 

Latinos are the biggest losers. Their turnout is 7.1 percentage points lower in general elections and 5.3 percentage points lower in primaries in strict ID states than it is in other states. Strict ID laws lower African American, Asian American and multi-racial American turnout as well. In fact, where these laws are implemented, white turnout goes up marginally, compared with non-voter ID states.

 

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe...snap-story.html

[Reddy]

Never said you couldn't say it whenever you want. Just underlining the fact that the ideologues are everything that's wrong with politics in this country and likely the process that allowed someone like Trump to get an opening.

 

The government is free to grab more power and continue its expansion because the people are more concerned with their team winning than the livelihood of the country. The government is the opposition not the people who share different opinions than you. American politics since 2001 are divide and conquer to a tee.

I've spent all morning reading facebook posts from Trump supporters saying people like me, and anyone involved in the protests aren't "real americans"

 

The other side uses "us" and "them" just as much as the left. Let's get off that high horse.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Is the idea that the requirement to show an ID disproportionately affects the left? I have never put any time into learning this stuff. Perhaps it's more than having an ID and I don't understand it but that seems like not much of an issue. Everyone I know has an ID.

 

The voter ID laws are rarely limited to simply adding ID. They often remove early voting, make registration more difficult, enact stronger purges of voting rolls (that just happen to purge eligible voters), and shut down polling stations.

 

In North Carolina, legislators literally did research on voting practices by race. Then they went to work limiting all the ones used disproportionately by black people under the guise of stopping fraud. There was one voting practice used disproportionately by white people, which also happens to be the method of voting most vulnerable to fraud: mail-in voting. They left that alone.

[illinilaw08]

I really believe where they have been getting hit the hardest is the graying generation that grew up in an era where generations of their families before them were able to work in the same job for a generation that provided a middle class income, insurance, and a retirement. Nothing great, but comfortable if you were decently smart about it. So they went through thinking that they would be able to do the same, and then the world completely changed on them. Automation, free trade, and federal restrictions just completely destroyed entire industries that generations build their lives around. It has left dead and decaying towns in its wake. I was born and raised in one myself and have watched its decay and rot with a front row seat. The people that Trump has been able to turn into his camp more than anything were people who lost that comfort, and for some ungodly reason have bought into this idiot's siren song. They have watched as their grandparents and parents jobs have gone to China, and they have wanted someone who was willing to speak their language of anger and disgust over it, and not a realistic voice telling them that this is reality in the 21st century.

 

That is a long way of totally agreeing with you on the idea that jobs really is something that a party could make a killing on in the electoral column.

 

I spent the holidays at a retirement community in AZ with the in-laws. People of that generation all largely have nice pensions that are funding their retirement. This is anecdotal, but the people I spoke to out there were all quite surprised to learn that you basically need to have a government job to have any form of a pension now. My generation's retirement plans are dependent on either (1) having disposable income to invest in the market or (2) an employer providing a 401(k); and (3) the market actually performing (which fortunately it has over the last 8 years).

[Reddy]

How so?

 

I just don't get how there was never a necessity to have an ID to vote from the get go. How do they moderate if people already voted? How they do they know an individual is a legal citizen from that state? Don't poor conservatives typically live out in the sticks and poor liberals typically live in big cities? I would imagine it's easier to get an ID in the south side of Chicago than it would be in Appalachia no? People really think these policies are the reason Trump won by 77 electoral votes?

Have you like... never voted? When you register to vote you're in the big ole booklet. If you're not registered, you're not in the booklet. It's.... it's really simple.

[Jenksismyhero]

Here's the basic problem with this logic: you're using Donald Trump as an example of successfully firing up his base, when he:

1. Lost the popular vote badly

2. Would have lost in a blowout, with a bigger vote difference than the 2012 election, had it not been for the intervention of the FBI and crimes committed by a foreign power to aid him

3. Might very well have lost despite the others had it not been for voter suppression laws

4. Might very well have lost despite all the others had the media not gone along with #2.

 

How much of a lesson can you take from a race decided by the FBI director as much as anything else?

 

I read this and literally imagine you as Trump complaining about his media coverage. Just a bunch of sour grapes.

[StrangeSox]

How so?

 

I just don't get how there was never a necessity to have an ID to vote from the get go. How do they moderate if people already voted? How they do they know an individual is a legal citizen from that state? Don't poor conservatives typically live out in the sticks and poor liberals typically live in big cities? I would imagine it's easier to get an ID in the south side of Chicago than it would be in Appalachia no? People really think these policies are the reason Trump won by 77 electoral votes?

 

It may not be easier to get that id of you live in the city and they've shut down the local dmv's and severely limited the hours. These are things that have happened and will continue to happen.

 

Voter suppression plays a role in politics. Saying "it caused this outcome" in a particular case is hard to say with certainty, but while you chose to highlight the EV margin, that obscures that the number of votes he won those states by was really only a handful, about 80k.

 

There's lots of stuff out there on how this type of voter suppression works in theory and in practice.