Trumpism: This is what PUSHBACK looks like

[Ray From Cleveland]

'Publicly funded' doesn't take the money out of politics. It just puts the existing government in charge of distributing the money for politics. I'm not seeing how that's an improvement. And it could make matters much worse. It essentially puts the existing regime in charge of deciding who is allowed to challenge it politically.

The government should be responsible for setting up and enforcing the rules of the game to make sure the playing field is as fair as possible. They are the league and the officials. Not the managers and players

Right. But the problem is, if you put government in charge of financing elections, one of the "teams" is making the rules. Any chance they'll tilt the rules to favor themselves?

well yeah, that’s the tricky thing with campaign reform... the teams playing the game also make the rules... Problem is both sides that are making the rules are up to their necks in donors and deals so how do we get them to fix the system by biting the hands that feed them? Term limits and regulating PACs and lobbyists could help... I think the public would overwhelmingly support many reforms, we just need a few courageous legislators to engage a very public campaign and layout a smart plan.

Remember how we got PAC's in the first place. McCain's Campaign Finance law.

Do you think PACs are a good thing?

Not at all. That's why I pointed out how we went from bad to worse. There is really no way to take money out of politics unfortunately. They will find a way around it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's not just identity BS. It is globalism, elitism, centralism etc.

And of course Americans being in control of the nation. It's no accident that Trump's signature chant is "Build the wall!".

Let us not forget a certain amount of backlash against milquetoast Republicans. President Bush (the second one) used to drive me batshit with the way it was impossible to support or defend him on anything because he would immediately pull the rug out from under you by trying to conciliate with the Dems for no particular reason. And that's along with literally decades of waiting for the GOP in Congress to manufacture a complete set of testicles amongst the whole bunch of them.

I didn't even vote for Trump because I thought he was a little too "lowest common denominator", but I can't deny a certain amount of satisfaction at seeing politicians on the right actually showing some spine.

 

[mudwhistle]

While I'm sure as hell no fan of Trump, or many of his fans, I think I'm understanding this whole thing more now. Unfortunately, I think it's pretty clear the Democratic Party hasn't learned a fucking thing.

As people like Matthews and Carville and Bloomberg and Manchin try to sound the alarm bells for the party, it's clear that the party has been taken over by the loonies who insist that PC and Identity Politics are at the core of the party's worldview.

To put this as succinctly as I can, I think Trumpism is PUSHBACK against years and years of weaponized PC and Identity Politics. It's a primal scream of pent-up frustration. Burn it down, While much of it is pretty ugly to me, I do understand it, because I don't think that much of what the hardcore leftists who are in control of the party is actually American liberalism. I was called a racist for being against the ACA.

I warned about it long before Trump came down the elevator. I just didn't know how strong it would be.

June 23, 2013:

Always nice to see pushback against the PC Police.

November 14, 2015:

Spin & deflect for the PC-Protected religion, and you'll get the pushback you deserve. Tough shit. Be responsible for your words.

July 27, 2013:

Looks like the PC Police are seeing that their phony "you're a racist" schtick isn't scaring some folks like it used to. It's still relatively effective, but the pushback is getting stronger. Hopefully the momentum will continue, and they'll have to actually engage in intellectually honest conversation for a change.

This doesn't mean that the Democrats will lose in November. I sure don't know. But I think I do understand this.

Sources:
Post 199: Should Dean's life be ruined for saying the N-word 30-40-50 years ago?
Post 49: The French people have some serious balls
Post 135: How Obama Poisoned Race Relations in America

Uh.....how long do you expect the "Silent Majority" to remain silent???

Define "Silent Majority".

Moderates.

Moderates are all over the place politically. This is a lazy response. Maybe you'd be taken seriously if you didn't rely on meaningless one-word responses.

Actually it very meaningful.
Not everyone is a big-mouthed partisan.
Matter of fact...most aren't.

 

[Slade3200]

The government should be responsible for setting up and enforcing the rules of the game to make sure the playing field is as fair as possible. They are the league and the officials. Not the managers and players

Right. But the problem is, if you put government in charge of financing elections, one of the "teams" is making the rules. Any chance they'll tilt the rules to favor themselves?

well yeah, that’s the tricky thing with campaign reform... the teams playing the game also make the rules... Problem is both sides that are making the rules are up to their necks in donors and deals so how do we get them to fix the system by biting the hands that feed them? Term limits and regulating PACs and lobbyists could help... I think the public would overwhelmingly support many reforms, we just need a few courageous legislators to engage a very public campaign and layout a smart plan.

Remember how we got PAC's in the first place. McCain's Campaign Finance law.

Do you think PACs are a good thing?

Not at all. That's why I pointed out how we went from bad to worse. There is really no way to take money out of politics unfortunately. They will find a way around it.

True... money will always follow power but we can always work to make systems better. While a pure and fair and influence free system is not realistic we can move towards that direction. Wouldn’t it be nice if our politicians didn’t have to spend half their time fund raising and wouldn’t it be nice if campaigns didn’t have to get launched years in advance of the election?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

While I'm sure as hell no fan of Trump, or many of his fans, I think I'm understanding this whole thing more now. Unfortunately, I think it's pretty clear the Democratic Party hasn't learned a fucking thing.

As people like Matthews and Carville and Bloomberg and Manchin try to sound the alarm bells for the party, it's clear that the party has been taken over by the loonies who insist that PC and Identity Politics are at the core of the party's worldview.

To put this as succinctly as I can, I think Trumpism is PUSHBACK against years and years of weaponized PC and Identity Politics. It's a primal scream of pent-up frustration. Burn it down, While much of it is pretty ugly to me, I do understand it, because I don't think that much of what the hardcore leftists who are in control of the party is actually American liberalism. I was called a racist for being against the ACA.

I warned about it long before Trump came down the elevator. I just didn't know how strong it would be.

June 23, 2013:November 14, 2015:July 27, 2013:This doesn't mean that the Democrats will lose in November. I sure don't know. But I think I do understand this.

Sources:
Post 199: Should Dean's life be ruined for saying the N-word 30-40-50 years ago?
Post 49: The French people have some serious balls
Post 135: How Obama Poisoned Race Relations in America

Uh.....how long do you expect the "Silent Majority" to remain silent???

Define "Silent Majority".

Moderates.

Moderates are all over the place politically. This is a lazy response. Maybe you'd be taken seriously if you didn't rely on meaningless one-word responses.

Actually it very meaningful.
Not everyone is a big-mouthed partisan.
Matter of fact...most aren't.

It's not meaningful to me, because you haven't defined anything. You're being obtuse on purpose.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The government should be responsible for setting up and enforcing the rules of the game to make sure the playing field is as fair as possible. They are the league and the officials. Not the managers and players

Right. But the problem is, if you put government in charge of financing elections, one of the "teams" is making the rules. Any chance they'll tilt the rules to favor themselves?

well yeah, that’s the tricky thing with campaign reform... the teams playing the game also make the rules... Problem is both sides that are making the rules are up to their necks in donors and deals so how do we get them to fix the system by biting the hands that feed them? Term limits and regulating PACs and lobbyists could help... I think the public would overwhelmingly support many reforms, we just need a few courageous legislators to engage a very public campaign and layout a smart plan.

Remember how we got PAC's in the first place. McCain's Campaign Finance law.

Do you think PACs are a good thing?

Not at all. That's why I pointed out how we went from bad to worse. There is really no way to take money out of politics unfortunately. They will find a way around it.

There's one way to take money out of politics. Limit government power, and thereby make politicians less valuable.

 

[Olde Europe]

well yeah, that’s the tricky thing with campaign reform... the teams playing the game also make the rules... Problem is both sides that are making the rules are up to their necks in donors and deals so how do we get them to fix the system by biting the hands that feed them? Term limits and regulating PACs and lobbyists could help... I think the public would overwhelmingly support many reforms, we just need a few courageous legislators to engage a very public campaign and layout a smart plan.

How do you do that with a Supreme Court stuffed with corporate lackeys equating organized, legalized, systematic bribery of public officials with "speech"? It'd be nice to find "a few courageous legislators" (remember "McCain-Feingold", and what a fiasco that was?), but they won't help you there.

 

[Slade3200]

Right. But the problem is, if you put government in charge of financing elections, one of the "teams" is making the rules. Any chance they'll tilt the rules to favor themselves?

well yeah, that’s the tricky thing with campaign reform... the teams playing the game also make the rules... Problem is both sides that are making the rules are up to their necks in donors and deals so how do we get them to fix the system by biting the hands that feed them? Term limits and regulating PACs and lobbyists could help... I think the public would overwhelmingly support many reforms, we just need a few courageous legislators to engage a very public campaign and layout a smart plan.

Remember how we got PAC's in the first place. McCain's Campaign Finance law.

Do you think PACs are a good thing?

Not at all. That's why I pointed out how we went from bad to worse. There is really no way to take money out of politics unfortunately. They will find a way around it.

There's one way to take money out of politics. Limit government power, and thereby make politicians less valuable.

That was said in the 80s and massive deregulation in the financial industry occurred... two decades later we experience a bubble burst in the housing market because of massive corruption and abuse in our mortgage loan industry leading to the largest recession since the Great Depression

 

[Slade3200]

well yeah, that’s the tricky thing with campaign reform... the teams playing the game also make the rules... Problem is both sides that are making the rules are up to their necks in donors and deals so how do we get them to fix the system by biting the hands that feed them? Term limits and regulating PACs and lobbyists could help... I think the public would overwhelmingly support many reforms, we just need a few courageous legislators to engage a very public campaign and layout a smart plan.

How do you do that with a Supreme Court stuffed with corporate lackeys equating organized, legalized, systematic bribery of public officials with "speech"? It'd be nice to find "a few courageous legislators" (remember "McCain-Feingold", and what a fiasco that was?), but they won't help you there.

Yes, ground breaking reform there... we got Super PACs and get to hear each candidate say they “approve this message!”

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Right. But the problem is, if you put government in charge of financing elections, one of the "teams" is making the rules. Any chance they'll tilt the rules to favor themselves?

well yeah, that’s the tricky thing with campaign reform... the teams playing the game also make the rules... Problem is both sides that are making the rules are up to their necks in donors and deals so how do we get them to fix the system by biting the hands that feed them? Term limits and regulating PACs and lobbyists could help... I think the public would overwhelmingly support many reforms, we just need a few courageous legislators to engage a very public campaign and layout a smart plan.

Remember how we got PAC's in the first place. McCain's Campaign Finance law.

Do you think PACs are a good thing?

Not at all. That's why I pointed out how we went from bad to worse. There is really no way to take money out of politics unfortunately. They will find a way around it.

There's one way to take money out of politics. Limit government power, and thereby make politicians less valuable.

Less power, yes. Less money, no. They will still be making policy based on who gave them what, even if they have less options to do so.

 

[Cecilie1200]

well yeah, that’s the tricky thing with campaign reform... the teams playing the game also make the rules... Problem is both sides that are making the rules are up to their necks in donors and deals so how do we get them to fix the system by biting the hands that feed them? Term limits and regulating PACs and lobbyists could help... I think the public would overwhelmingly support many reforms, we just need a few courageous legislators to engage a very public campaign and layout a smart plan.

Remember how we got PAC's in the first place. McCain's Campaign Finance law.

Do you think PACs are a good thing?

Not at all. That's why I pointed out how we went from bad to worse. There is really no way to take money out of politics unfortunately. They will find a way around it.

There's one way to take money out of politics. Limit government power, and thereby make politicians less valuable.

Less power, yes. Less money, no. They will still be making policy based on who gave them what, even if they have less options to do so.

True, but if they have very little to make policy ABOUT, and very little government largesse to pass around, there is much less incentive for anyone to give them anything.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Right. But the problem is, if you put government in charge of financing elections, one of the "teams" is making the rules. Any chance they'll tilt the rules to favor themselves?

well yeah, that’s the tricky thing with campaign reform... the teams playing the game also make the rules... Problem is both sides that are making the rules are up to their necks in donors and deals so how do we get them to fix the system by biting the hands that feed them? Term limits and regulating PACs and lobbyists could help... I think the public would overwhelmingly support many reforms, we just need a few courageous legislators to engage a very public campaign and layout a smart plan.

Remember how we got PAC's in the first place. McCain's Campaign Finance law.

Do you think PACs are a good thing?

Not at all. That's why I pointed out how we went from bad to worse. There is really no way to take money out of politics unfortunately. They will find a way around it.

True... money will always follow power but we can always work to make systems better. While a pure and fair and influence free system is not realistic we can move towards that direction. Wouldn’t it be nice if our politicians didn’t have to spend half their time fund raising and wouldn’t it be nice if campaigns didn’t have to get launched years in advance of the election?

That's like when a person running for city council or Mayor yap about too high of pay for those positions. Yet once in those positions, they never bring up the subject again.

It's hard to get people to vote against themselves, especially those who want to try and make it their career. But I'm less worried about them than I am the bureaucrats. Those nameless faceless people make laws, fines, and taxes against the citizens, and even act as a scapegoat for the politicians that want to have laws against us and take no responsibility for them. If there is any disappointment I have about Trump, it's that he never addressed that problem. Maybe he will in his second term. I hope so. Bureaucrats strip us of liberty all the time, and we can't get rid of them.

 

[mudwhistle]

Uh.....how long do you expect the "Silent Majority" to remain silent???

Define "Silent Majority".

Moderates.

Moderates are all over the place politically. This is a lazy response. Maybe you'd be taken seriously if you didn't rely on meaningless one-word responses.

Actually it very meaningful.
Not everyone is a big-mouthed partisan.
Matter of fact...most aren't.

It's not meaningful to me, because you haven't defined anything. You're being obtuse on purpose.

No.....the phrase "Silent Majority" was coined when I was in school in the 70s and late 60s.

I'm just telling you what it means.

Imagine what this country would be like if every swinging dick and soccer mom got a chance to voice their opinions on a national level.

 

[Slade3200]

Remember how we got PAC's in the first place. McCain's Campaign Finance law.

Do you think PACs are a good thing?

Not at all. That's why I pointed out how we went from bad to worse. There is really no way to take money out of politics unfortunately. They will find a way around it.

There's one way to take money out of politics. Limit government power, and thereby make politicians less valuable.

Less power, yes. Less money, no. They will still be making policy based on who gave them what, even if they have less options to do so.

True, but if they have very little to make policy ABOUT, and very little government largesse to pass around, there is much less incentive for anyone to give them anything.

A country as large as ours with the worlds strongest military and economy will never have that “little” to manage

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Define "Silent Majority".

Moderates.

Moderates are all over the place politically. This is a lazy response. Maybe you'd be taken seriously if you didn't rely on meaningless one-word responses.

Actually it very meaningful.
Not everyone is a big-mouthed partisan.
Matter of fact...most aren't.

It's not meaningful to me, because you haven't defined anything. You're being obtuse on purpose.

No.....the phrase "Silent Majority" was coined when I was in school in the 70s and late 60s.

I'm just telling you what it means.

Imagine what this country would be like if every swinging dick and soccer mom got a chance to voice their opinions on a national level.

I already knew what it meant, I just wanted to see what your definition might be. To me it's an ever changing concept, not anything reliable for repeatable results. 'Moderates' is an easy, safe non-answer. You can't pin down this majority block of voters to any specific party, but they are always directly responsible for the outcome of elections. So the majority is only 'silent' until they aren't, which is around the time they vote.

 

[dblack]

The question is, how is that possible?

Publicly-funded elections. Term limits.
.

'Publicly funded' doesn't take the money out of politics. It just puts the existing government in charge of distributing the money for politics. I'm not seeing how that's an improvement. And it could make matters much worse. It essentially puts the existing regime in charge of deciding who is allowed to challenge it politically.

The government should be responsible for setting up and enforcing the rules of the game to make sure the playing field is as fair as possible. They are the league and the officials. Not the managers and players

Right. But the problem is, if you put government in charge of financing elections, one of the "teams" is making the rules. Any chance they'll tilt the rules to favor themselves?

well yeah, that’s the tricky thing with campaign reform... the teams playing the game also make the rules... Problem is both sides that are making the rules are up to their necks in donors and deals so how do we get them to fix the system by biting the hands that feed them? Term limits and regulating PACs and lobbyists could help... I think the public would overwhelmingly support many reforms, we just need a few courageous legislators to engage a very public campaign and layout a smart plan.

I've always seen "publicly funded" as a bit of a misnomer. We're really talking about government funded elections, and that injects a very obvious conflict of interest. The dominant powers in government will do whatever they can to limit competition. Government funded elections would turn into the same kind of mess we see with gerrymandering.

 

[dblack]

Do you think PACs are a good thing?

Not at all. That's why I pointed out how we went from bad to worse. There is really no way to take money out of politics unfortunately. They will find a way around it.

There's one way to take money out of politics. Limit government power, and thereby make politicians less valuable.

Less power, yes. Less money, no. They will still be making policy based on who gave them what, even if they have less options to do so.

True, but if they have very little to make policy ABOUT, and very little government largesse to pass around, there is much less incentive for anyone to give them anything.

A country as large as ours with the worlds strongest military and economy will never have that “little” to manage

We can work to make it less. We won't get "money out of politics" until we get "politics out of money". ie as long as politicians have the power to make or break financial interests with the stroke of a pen, those interests will find a way to influence their decisions.

 

[Slade3200]

Publicly-funded elections. Term limits.
.

'Publicly funded' doesn't take the money out of politics. It just puts the existing government in charge of distributing the money for politics. I'm not seeing how that's an improvement. And it could make matters much worse. It essentially puts the existing regime in charge of deciding who is allowed to challenge it politically.

The government should be responsible for setting up and enforcing the rules of the game to make sure the playing field is as fair as possible. They are the league and the officials. Not the managers and players

Right. But the problem is, if you put government in charge of financing elections, one of the "teams" is making the rules. Any chance they'll tilt the rules to favor themselves?

well yeah, that’s the tricky thing with campaign reform... the teams playing the game also make the rules... Problem is both sides that are making the rules are up to their necks in donors and deals so how do we get them to fix the system by biting the hands that feed them? Term limits and regulating PACs and lobbyists could help... I think the public would overwhelmingly support many reforms, we just need a few courageous legislators to engage a very public campaign and layout a smart plan.

I've always seen "publicly funded" as a bit of a misnomer. We're really talking about government funded elections, and that injects a very obvious conflict of interest. The dominant powers in government will do whatever they can to limit competition. Government funded elections would turn into the same kind of mess we see with gerrymandering.

What specifically are we talking about with publicly funded? No outside money and the same campaign resources given to all candidates?

 

[Mac1958]

While I'm sure as hell no fan of Trump, or many of his fans, I think I'm understanding this whole thing more now. Unfortunately, I think it's pretty clear the Democratic Party hasn't learned a fucking thing.

As people like Matthews and Carville and Bloomberg and Manchin try to sound the alarm bells for the party, it's clear that the party has been taken over by the loonies who insist that PC and Identity Politics are at the core of the party's worldview.

To put this as succinctly as I can, I think Trumpism is PUSHBACK against years and years of weaponized PC and Identity Politics. It's a primal scream of pent-up frustration. Burn it down, While much of it is pretty ugly to me, I do understand it, because I don't think that much of what the hardcore leftists who are in control of the party is actually American liberalism. I was called a racist for being against the ACA.

I warned about it long before Trump came down the elevator. I just didn't know how strong it would be.

June 23, 2013:

Always nice to see pushback against the PC Police.

November 14, 2015:

Spin & deflect for the PC-Protected religion, and you'll get the pushback you deserve. Tough shit. Be responsible for your words.

July 27, 2013:

Looks like the PC Police are seeing that their phony "you're a racist" schtick isn't scaring some folks like it used to. It's still relatively effective, but the pushback is getting stronger. Hopefully the momentum will continue, and they'll have to actually engage in intellectually honest conversation for a change.

This doesn't mean that the Democrats will lose in November. I sure don't know. But I think I do understand this.

Sources:
Post 199: Should Dean's life be ruined for saying the N-word 30-40-50 years ago?
Post 49: The French people have some serious balls
Post 135: How Obama Poisoned Race Relations in America

Uh.....how long do you expect the "Silent Majority" to remain silent???

I have no idea!
.

Funny, now answer the question.

Provide your definition of the term and I'll provide an answer.
.

 

[Slade3200]

Not at all. That's why I pointed out how we went from bad to worse. There is really no way to take money out of politics unfortunately. They will find a way around it.

There's one way to take money out of politics. Limit government power, and thereby make politicians less valuable.

Less power, yes. Less money, no. They will still be making policy based on who gave them what, even if they have less options to do so.

True, but if they have very little to make policy ABOUT, and very little government largesse to pass around, there is much less incentive for anyone to give them anything.

A country as large as ours with the worlds strongest military and economy will never have that “little” to manage

We can work to make it less. We won't get "money out of politics" until we get "politics out of money". ie as long as politicians have the power to make or break financial interests with the stroke of a pen, those interests will find a way to influence their decisions.

Government by definition has power over people through the legal process. Money will always follow power. There is no getting around it. Only thing to do is continue to regulate it in the best and most effective ways possible. Find a hole plug the hole. Rebuild the boat if we can find a better design