BenningRoadSkin

Miami Herald: I’m done trying to understand Trump supporters. Why don’t they try to understand me?

Recommended Posts

Fear of someone abusing a system of accountability should not preclude us from enacting that system. Instead it should motivate us to create further checks and balances around that potential for abuse. While also signalling to us that we have a way of doing things politically and societally that needs to be improved.

Are humans capable of creating a department or organization that is wholly devoted to ethics and the truth? Can the integrity of that organization maintain itself long enough for people to actually trust and rely on it? To give it the teeth it needs to actually hold government or the media or whoever accountable?

I wonder sometimes, how do we motivate the right people to seek office and keep out the wrong ones? Those who actually care about the country and want the best for it, rather than these con-men, parasites, and extremists.

Trump was the absolute dumbest response to the corruption and terrible culture that is pervasive in Washington. But, that choice was a genuine reaction to that issue for many people. An issue that still very much needs to be handled.

Hopefully, we're getting some good people motivated to seek office in November.



 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

"abuse" is in the eyes of the beholder.


Eh, sure there can be a subjective component, but if we're being intellectually honest, the majority of instances of abuse will be quite clear.

Using the EPA, to create or remove rules that enrich companies at the expense of the environment is an abuse or misuse of it's designed function. Repeatedly lying over and over again as the President is an abuse or misuse of the public's trust. Gutting the CFPB and dropping it's various investigations into auto-lending, student loans, and other issues are an abuse and and misuse of it's mandate.

The clearer the function or intent of an organization, the easier it is to recognize when they diverge from it.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

The clearer the function or intent of an organization, the easier it is to recognize when they diverge from it.

Agreed.  Any entity responsible for oversight will have limited resources and will need to pick their battles versus nitpicking every little thing, biting off more then it can chew.  Some of what's going on is so damn obvious, it starting there would go a long way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my gawd, I’m at a middle school girl’s soccer game, and there is a low IQ loud-mouth wearing a the classic red “Make America Great Again” shirt...if I end up in jail you all know why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Oh my gawd, I’m at a middle school girl’s soccer game, and there is a low IQ loud-mouth wearing a the classic red “Make America Great Again” shirt...if I end up in jail you all know why.

If you end up in jail over this - it means you were the even lower IQ asshole. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nonniey said:

If you end up in jail over this - it means you were the even lower IQ asshole. 

Made it out without going to jail.

The game came down to PK shootout and as one of our girls was walking up to take her shot he yells, “DONT FLOP!!”

At that point her grandmother yelled back, “Shut up asshole!!”

lol!!!

I didn’t even get in any trouble!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Made it out without going to jail.

The game came down to PK shootout and as one of our girls was walking up to take her shot he yells, “DONT FLOP!!”

At that point her grandmother yelled back, “Shut up asshole!!”

lol!!!

I didn’t even get in any trouble!

Glad to hear it.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 5, 2018 at 1:18 PM, tshile said:

 

Pretty much everyone on the left who thought she was a great option to be president. 

 

It’s not a tiny few, and assault weapons are not the only guns people are talking about. 


A great option? No. Better than Trump? HELL YES.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Oh my gawd, I’m at a middle school girl’s soccer game, and there is a low IQ loud-mouth wearing a the classic red “Make America Great Again” shirt...if I end up in jail you all know why.

Kick her ass Asbury!!!

 

edit: Oh, it was a dude.

Edited by Sacks 'n' Stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Kick her ass Asbury!!!

 

edit: Oh, it was a dude.

Oh yeah, just envision your classic MAGAt now give him an Amish bowl haircut, and have him yelling about soccer and taunting 12 year old girls.

Awesome....

 

Sadly, we have had “parent issues” every time we play in that county. The first time my son played there for High School his team bus had to have a police escort out! 

But yeah, tell me why I should work to understand those people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Mad Mike said:


A great option? No. Better than Trump? HELL YES.

 

That's nonsense. There were a ton of people on the left who went on and on about how awesome of a candidate she was. There are some that still do.

 

To many she was the natural successor to Obama, incredibly smart, an excellent resume, would advocate for the party platform well, and all the negatives were simply GOP conjured attacks with no merits, the result of 20 years of an attack campaign on the Clinton family.

 

They were all-in on Clinton for president before the primaries even started. Much of the DNC was too. That's why there was no real opposition to her. Sander's ability to do well (caucuses or not) was a complete shock to them, and many of them still view his campaign as the reason why she didn't fulfill her role as heir apparent.

 

Edited by tshile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

She was (and still is) a good candidate. It was missed by the powers that be the level of disconnect between her and the likely voters. Part of that is her own doing. Part of it is a 30 yr spin by right-wing media. Either way, she still got 2.9+ million more votes than the winner. Hard to do that when you're a bad candidate.

 

Why are we still talking about HRC? Trump, is that you? 😁

Edited by The Evil Genius
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democrat primary structure (super delegates)has been in place since 1982 in different composition of the super delegates. From a Wikipedia article.

 

Following a series of meetings held from August 1981 to February 1982, the Hunt Commission issued a report which recommended the set aside of unelected and unpledged delegate slots for Democratic members of Congress and for state party chairs and vice chairs (so-called "superdelegates").[16] With the original Hunt plan, superdelegates were to represent 30% of all delegates to the national convention, but when it was finally implemented by the Democratic National Committee for the 1984 election, the number of superdelegates was set at 14%.[17]Over time this percentage has gradually increased, until by 2008 the percentage stood at approximately 20% of total delegates to the Democratic Party nominating convention.[18]

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

 

So Sanders tried to hijack the Democrat Party primary structure that has existed for decades, and who is a registered Independent before and since the 2016 election cycle. When he registered as a Democrat, he signed up to run within existing rules. When he wasn't getting the results he wanted, he threw a tantrum and stamped his little feet, and the result was hijacking the party platform, half heartedly endorsing Clinton after trashing her during the primaries, giving more ammunition to Republicans. 

 

Apparently there's a committee to revisit the primary rules for 2020. I hope that doesn't **** with the nomination and give the election to Trump again.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is obviously plenty of blame to go around (even to HRC) for the 2016 election. But make no mistake, had Biden ran..there wouldn't be any talk about the DNC favoring one candidate over the other. It's because HRC won the nom over the Berners that this talk exists.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Berners still live in the fantasy land that a far Leftwing Socialist Progressive was ever going to sway the Centrist voter. He absolutely would have gotten 110% of the UCLA, Berkley, and NYU drum-circle vote, but if you want to talk about the Midwestern middle class voter feeling ignored by Clinton...boy howdy imagine their response to nominee Bernie.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

The Democrat primary structure (super delegates)has been in place since 1982 in different composition of the super delegates. From a Wikipedia article.

 

Following a series of meetings held from August 1981 to February 1982, the Hunt Commission issued a report which recommended the set aside of unelected and unpledged delegate slots for Democratic members of Congress and for state party chairs and vice chairs (so-called "superdelegates").[16] With the original Hunt plan, superdelegates were to represent 30% of all delegates to the national convention, but when it was finally implemented by the Democratic National Committee for the 1984 election, the number of superdelegates was set at 14%.[17]Over time this percentage has gradually increased, until by 2008 the percentage stood at approximately 20% of total delegates to the Democratic Party nominating convention.[18]

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

 

So Sanders tried to hijack the Democrat Party primary structure that has existed for decades, and who is a registered Independent before and since the 2016 election cycle. When he registered as a Democrat, he signed up to run within existing rules. When he wasn't getting the results he wanted, he threw a tantrum and stamped his little feet, and the result was hijacking the party platform, half heartedly endorsing Clinton after trashing her during the primaries, giving more ammunition to Republicans. 

 

Apparently there's a committee to revisit the primary rules for 2020. I hope that doesn't **** with the nomination and give the election to Trump again.

 

I can't speak for everyone but for myself, I'm not saying the DNC broke the rules and cheated Sanders.  I'm saying the DNC rules themselves are wrong.  Yes, Sanders knew the rules and agreed to them.  I don't think anyone is arguing that he didn't.  What "we" are saying is the rules themselves are wrong.  Had the SuperDelegates at least waited until close to the convention to "pick", that would have at least looked more fair.  But the whole way it went down gave me, the voter, the impression that the DNC cares less about following the will of their voters in the primary and more about picking who the party wants.

 

Now I don't think the idea of Super Delegates is all bad.  I could see it being a check sort of like the Electorial College is supposed to be.  They should follow the will of the people 99% of the time and only be there to overrule it when the people obviously make a bad choice.  Like what the EC SHOULD HAVE done for Trump.    And if the GOP had a Super Delegate system, they could have stopped Trump from being the nominee to begin with.  So that system isn't all bad.  It's just that the way the DNC used it looked bad, at least to the Independent voters. 

8 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

The Berners still live in the fantasy land that a far Leftwing Socialist Progressive was ever going to sway the Centrist voter. He absolutely would have gotten 110% of the UCLA, Berkley, and NYU drum-circle vote, but if you want to talk about the Midwestern middle class voter feeling ignored by Clinton...boy howdy imagine their response to nominee Bernie.

My mom, a lifelong Democrat, said if it came down to Trump vs Sanders, she would vote Trump.  I almost fell out of my chair.  Granted this was pretty early in the campaign before every saw how completely bat**** crazy Trump is.  I do know she voted for Hillary though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the wiki article linked above, the structure evolved from the 1968 election.

 

After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, at which pro-Vietnam War liberal Hubert Humphrey was nominated for the presidency despite not running in a single primary election, the Democratic Party made changes in its delegate selection process to correct what was seen as "illusory" control of the nomination process by primary voters.[15] A commission headed by South Dakota Senator George McGovern and Minnesota Representative Donald M. Fraser met in 1969 and 1970 to make the composition of the Democratic Party's nominating convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast in primary elections.

 

So the delegate structure evolved from 1969 to the present. 

 

Was it perfect? No. Did Hillary get her ducks in a row IAW the then extant delegate structure? Yes. She worked on her experience and knowledge to get the nomination legally. 

 

I don't want to hear anything else about why a guy outside of the system somehow wasn't treated fair by that system that he tried to hijack.  He ****ed up a centrist platform by skewing it left because he threw tantrums because he couldn't break the rules in his favor. The ultimate old white guy demanding his way. Wah wah wah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

Either way, she still got 2.9+ million more votes than the winner. Hard to do that when you're a bad candidate.

 

This line of analysis is so poor.

 

% of voting population is what matters.

Where those votes are is what matters.

 

The whole narrative from the left about her results is complete bull****. She performed poorly for a democrat. Trump performed poorly for a republican. She lost to him.

 

"most votes ever!"

 

says the people who don't understand how elections work.

Edited by tshile
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

Why are we still talking about HRC? Trump, is that you? 😁

 

I think it's important to not let the left skate away from the 2016 election with more of: it's everyone's fault but ours, hilliary is/was awsome!

 

because it's nonsense and the results prove they're living in a land of make believe.

 

and if they don't pull their heads out of their asses Trump is going to win reelection.

 

and if there's anything close to as bad as having to deal with Trump winning reelection, it will be listening to you all **** about it again for another 4 years.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And he only won by 77,000 votes.

 

More people wanted Hillary than Trump but Republicans played by the Electoral College rules and won. 

 

We can talk about the Republicans supressing votes elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weren't you just complaining about folk complaining about established rules?

:kiss-smileys:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Electoral college a system literally designed to circumvent the will of the people in the case of a wholly unqualified candidate being elected....FAILED to do its singular responsibility.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Electoral college a system literally designed to circumvent the will of the people in the case of a wholly unqualified candidate being elected....FAILED to do its singular responsibility.

 

Despite his many obvious faults I don't see him as unqualified....much less wholly. 

 

I've always thought the Electoral system was in place to guarantee elections and transfer of power though....you know, in case someone disrupted/corrupted voting in states.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.