Trumpism: This is what PUSHBACK looks like

[jc456]

So you were triggered by the mere presence of the word "democracy" and went on the attack?

In a nutshell!

These guys know their cult leader wouldn't exist with democracy.

we are a republic. but hey, thanks for showing your ignorance on time.

 

[dblack]

'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?

I guess that's the question. I'm not proposing 'publicly funded' elections, so what does it mean to you?

 

[dblack]

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

You can mitigate it. The problem is, that requires less government. And neither of our major parties is into "less government". Certainly not when they're in power.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

By their nature, moderates & independents will never be as loud, dishonest, hypocritical, aggressive or nasty as wingers.

Moderates & independents know that the best ideas result from the innovation that comes from collaboration and communication.

So wingers will always be louder, they'll always get more attention, they'll always break more things. We can only try to hold them accountable for your words and actions, and hope that they either improve their behaviors or find another hobby.

That's on us. We're not doing a very good job right now. And the increasing hate and divisions are a result. We're definitely losing.
.

 

[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:

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.
.

Maybe you'll have better luck than I did.

 

[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.

By their nature, moderates & independents will never be as loud, dishonest, hypocritical, aggressive or nasty as wingers.

Moderates & independents know that the best ideas result from the innovation that comes from collaboration and communication.

So you guys will always be louder, you'll always get more attention, you'll always break more things. We can only try to hold you accountable for your words and actions, and hope that you either improve your behaviors or find another hobby.

That's on us. We're not doing a very good job right now. And the increasing hate and divisions are a result. We're definitely losing.
.

I've considered myself a part of the moderate voting demographic my whole life. Calling out wingers here is my masochist lizard brain at work, I guess.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

By their nature, moderates & independents will never be as loud, dishonest, hypocritical, aggressive or nasty as wingers.

Moderates & independents know that the best ideas result from the innovation that comes from collaboration and communication.

So you guys will always be louder, you'll always get more attention, you'll always break more things. We can only try to hold you accountable for your words and actions, and hope that you either improve your behaviors or find another hobby.

That's on us. We're not doing a very good job right now. And the increasing hate and divisions are a result. We're definitely losing.
.

I've considered myself a part of the moderate voting demographic my whole life. Calling out wingers here is my masochist lizard brain at work, I guess.

They have 90% of the energy, caused by their zealotry.

The problem is that so much of our group is more concerned with who the Kardashian girls are banging that what the nutters are doing to the country.
.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

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.

By their nature, moderates & independents will never be as loud, dishonest, hypocritical, aggressive or nasty as wingers.

Moderates & independents know that the best ideas result from the innovation that comes from collaboration and communication.

So you guys will always be louder, you'll always get more attention, you'll always break more things. We can only try to hold you accountable for your words and actions, and hope that you either improve your behaviors or find another hobby.

That's on us. We're not doing a very good job right now. And the increasing hate and divisions are a result. We're definitely losing.
.

I've considered myself a part of the moderate voting demographic my whole life. Calling out wingers here is my masochist lizard brain at work, I guess.

They have 90% of the energy, caused by their zealotry.

The problem is that so much of our group is more concerned with who the Kardashian girls are banging that what the nutters are doing to the country.
.

I certainly hope that's not the majority case. Then again, I've always said the movie 'Ideocracy' is more of a documentary than a comedy.

 

[dblack]

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.

Right. The problem is finding politicians willing to vote to make themselves less valuable.

 

[The Irish Ram]

It's a primal scream of pent-up frustration.

^
A shot across the bow. Well said Mac. Well said...

 

[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???

I have no idea!
.

Funny, now answer the question.

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

Already did on this thread.
Try looking for it.

 

[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.

Right. The problem is finding politicians willing to vote to make themselves less valuable.

There are people who run on the concept of limited government. There are people who would be willing to run for that purpose. We the voters need to be willing to work for that and resist the urge to say, ". . . except for MY sacred ox."

 

[JoeB131]

Publicly-funded elections. Term limits.

We have term limits, they are called "elections". When someone talks about "term limits", it's because they don't like someone in someone else's district serving 40 years.

As for Publicly funded elections, we have those, too. Every loser in the primaries will claim his federal matching funds, but the person who gets the nomination will end up rejecting them and spending unlimited amounts of money.

Unless you are willing to publicly fund Tulsi Gabbard at the same level that Bloomberg and Trump can self-finance, that's just a stupid idea.

Now, there are some REAL reforms we could do.

1) Eliminate the Electoral College and replace it with a open election where a runoff is required if no one tops 50%. This would allow third parties to grow. They'd still be fringe nuts, but they'd be able to get their ideas out there.

2) Shorten the damned election season. Seriously, these guys are pretty much running the minute the previous election ends. Primaries in August, Conventions in September, Election in November and a run-off in December if needed.

Now, Vichy Mac seems to think that third parties are a panacea. He obviously hasn't studied Europe or Israel, where these fringe third parties are often pandered to to make up ruling coalitions.

 

[JoeB131]

Such a fucking commie and you don't even know it.

Who is exploiting the business for a risk-free, steady paycheck?

The reason why these paychecks are "Risk free" is because we have agencies like OSHA and the EPA making sure they are risk free. I'm pretty sure if left to their own devices, the Capitalists would have us going back to THIS shit.

 

[dblack]

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.

Right. The problem is finding politicians willing to vote to make themselves less valuable.

There are people who run on the concept of limited government. There are people who would be willing to run for that purpose. We the voters need to be willing to work for that and resist the urge to say, ". . . except for MY sacred ox."

Do you see that happening? I don't think democracy can get us out of this one.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

...but to a less burdensome extent.

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Right. The problem is finding politicians willing to vote to make themselves less valuable.

There are people who run on the concept of limited government. There are people who would be willing to run for that purpose. We the voters need to be willing to work for that and resist the urge to say, ". . . except for MY sacred ox."

Do you see that happening? I don't think democracy can get us out of this one.

Do I see what happening? The majority of people waking up from their jaded, apathetic lethargy and realizing that all the things they bitch about can be traced back to them and their own passivity?

I think it's possible.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

The majority of people waking up from their jaded, apathetic lethargy and realizing that all the things they bitch about can be traced back to them and their own passivity?

I think it's possible.

It's called greed. I believe there are two common phrases that have been rendered all but obsolete anecdotes in current American society.

1. He who has the gold makes the rules.
2. The fish rots from the head.

I think both are perfect descriptors of our current society. You are free to try and to figure out why.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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, ...

It is also push back on Globalism, Open Borders, Anti-Christian populism, Big Government Statism, and Everlasting Wars on _________ that are designed to never fix problems, only to manage them to maximize funding over time.

 

[dblack]

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, ...

It is also push back on Globalism, Open Borders, Anti-Christian populism, Big Government Statism, and Everlasting Wars on _________ that are designed to never fix problems, only to manage them to maximize funding over time.

Pushback may be the intent behind people voting for Trump, but intentions don't really matter.