Russia Likely Did Swing Votes For Donald Trump

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

EA,

According to you nothing is a thing unless you define it as such. You're so full of [deleted] I can smell you through this computer.

Additionally, I'm citing experts from Harvard, Yale, the federal government, and whatever I can Google (just like you, you fatuous hack).

Anyway. I'm not jealous of a bigot, a racist, and Marxist in disguised as whatever version of whatever political ideology you're presenting at the moment, either.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I will take that as a no.

Because you would see that you have no idea what you are even talking about.

I have been to Southern California, yes. I'm just not ignorant enough to think this would somehow make me more qualified to opine on the economic impact of immigration on wage growth in the United States than economists who are experts in the matter.

I can say that your belief that your in your reasoning with your personal experience being superior to actual academic research is a major symptom in what's currently wrong with America, though.

Yes, Markk. Unless you live in white bread ivory tower Wisonsin and you're a social worker "by choice" you can't possibly understand what it's like to live where you actually live and work.

Holy [deleted] is this guy on something?

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Yes, Markk. Unless you live in white bread ivory tower Wisonsin and you're a social worker "by choice" you can't possibly understand what it's like to live where you actually live and work.

Holy [deleted] is this guy on something?

- Doc

If you want to adopt the stance that residents of Southern California are the real experts on the economics of immigration due to their degree in "living in places," it should be noted that So-Cal is radically opposed to Markk's views on immigration, which he is no doubt aware of. This is problematic for that position. Though, I suppose that would put us in store for some additional qualifiers that make it so people specifically most likely to agree with Markk are the only ones who can speak from a place of knowledge.

Incidentally, care-giving for the intellectually disabled, the primary area that my job interacts with, has a heavy proportion of immigrants in its labor force where I live. The "if only you knew what it was like to be around immigrant labor" stance is ridiculous when compared to my actual experience, but no need to go down that rabbit hole when the whole basis for the argument is silly.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

EA,

I know it hurts you deeply when someone disagrees with you. It's a deep, emotional, turbulent time in your life when someone doesn't buy what you're selling. You're so desperate to be taken seriously you're equating giving handouts to illegal immigrants (that right there ought to tell you something) with Markk's real-world living, authentic, experiential reality.

But nope. Not [deleted] EA, folks! He lives in Wisconsin, makes sure poor people are getting free stuff, and somehow is a expert on affairs that are happening in Southern California, or, well, everywhere actually.



Look. If you want to keep using poor people, people of color, and illegal immigrants as bludgeoning devices for your little personal social justice war you like to wage on this board by all means knock yourself out. Personally I think you're disgusting for the lies you've told about you and your relationship with minorities just to score an internet point. If I were a minority I certainly wouldn't want some CIS-gendered, het, white male "libertarian" (or whatever you want us to believe in the moment about yourself) using me to score a rhetorical point. It's offensive, but you don't really care about that do you?

Disgusting.

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

Don't know, man. I guess I'm pragmatic in that I favor people who I think will get things done in the general right direction because that seems to be the best that we can really expect. And all the high ideal claims and dug-in heel resistance doesn't impress me if it hasn't been proven to lead to results. Personally, I thought Bernie was basically a conservative candidate, appealing to people's nostalgia for a time when the middle class was growing in numbers and economic strength that we could all get back to if we just go back to post WWII levels of taxation on the wealthy. It sounds easy, it sounds appealing, it sounds...like a false promise.

I'm not sure I really buy the Clinton would have gotten more done argument. GOP obstructionism would have been the same for any Democrat.

I don't have a fantasy that Bernie would have gotten much done either. But I do think he'd have moved the Overton Window even further to the left, which is something I think the country desperately needs. I actually think he's done a lot of that already.

Hey Schmo,

I don't intend to argue we can know that one would have accomplished more as president than the other. If the first tier argument is that Clinton was the best qualified candidate of the pool pursuing the job in 2016, then looking at how she compared to other peers pursuing the same job in past related jobs seems a reasonable consideration that can be looked at fairly objectively. If one just looked at their roles and actions as Senators I think in Sanders we see someone who postures and authors grandiose named bills that don't make it out of committee. He was somewhat abrasive with both Democrats and Republicans which is an appealing contrarian position in a post-modern cynical world. I appreciate that in comedians and writers. I don't appreciate that in people in charge of important things. Clinton worked on bipartisan legislation, represented her constituents post-9/11 in important meaningful ways, and even as a favored target of the Right-wing Media she was largely respected by her peers in the Senate. I don't know, man. I think much of the Clinton hate comes down to people feeling disenfranchised and she represented the establishment to them which took on many forms and expressions.

Now, I think your comment touches on something that brings up an interesting question about the role of the President of the United States in the 21st century. Are they really expected to do more than represent the brightest, clearest lines of the ideology they embody? And their staff and corresponding allies in the legislature are the ones who bear the burden of trying to get something done that moves things in that direction? History could support the idea that this is what the Presidency has become, in my opinion. At least beginning with Bush II to Obama and now Trump, there's a case to be made. But then we could also look at that same timeline as representing a disintegration of the effectiveness of the Federal Government in dealing with a fast-paced evolving modern world increasing filled with parties somewhere between indifferent to outright hostile resentment of the US's position in the world. And we're oscillating between electing different versions of an alpha leader to deal with this to the point we have a guy who played a superstar boss on reality TV.

I guess if we no longer believe being President involves responsibilities with consequences, then it can be about branding. Trump's the king of selling a brand and I don't think I'm alone is saying I don't think it's working out particularly great that we didn't collectively consider the substance behind that brand substantially enough that he was able to beat a field based on the rules as they existed that were all far less qualified to play a superstar boss. But if that's the job description, Trump WAS the most qualified.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hey Schmo,

I don't intend to argue we can know that one would have accomplished more as president than the other. If the first tier argument is that Clinton was the best qualified candidate of the pool pursuing the job in 2016, then looking at how she compared to other peers pursuing the same job in past related jobs seems a reasonable consideration that can be looked at fairly objectively. If one just looked at their roles and actions as Senators I think in Sanders we see someone who postures and authors grandiose named bills that don't make it out of committee. He was somewhat abrasive with both Democrats and Republicans which is an appealing contrarian position in a post-modern cynical world. I appreciate that in comedians and writers. I don't appreciate that in people in charge of important things.

Now, I think your comment touches on something that brings up an interesting question about the role of the President of the United States in the 21st century. Are they really expected to do more than represent the brightest, clearest lines of the ideology they represent? And their staff and corresponding allies in the legislature are the ones who bear the burden of trying to get something done that moves things in that direction? History could support the idea that this is what the Presidency has become, in my opinion. At least beginning with Bush II to Obama and now Trump, there's a case to be made. But then we could also look at that same timeline as representing a disintegration of the effectiveness of the Federal Government in dealing with changing and fast-paced change in an evolving modern world increasing filled with parties somewhere between indifferent to outright hostile resentment of the US's position in the world. And we're oscillating between electing different versions of an alpha leader to deal with this to the point we have a guy who played a superstar boss on reality TV.

I guess if we no longer believe being President involves responsibilities with consequences, then it can be about branding. Trump's the king of selling a brand and I don't think I'm alone is saying I don't think it's working out particularly great that we didn't collectively consider the substance behind that brand substantially enough that he was able to beat a field based on the rules as they existed that were all far less qualified to play a superstar boss.

This was a really good post, and I wish the Trump supporters on this forum would read it a few times over. Take Xi Jinping, for example. If you really wanted someone to promote your national interests then this is the guy to do it. Here's his wiki entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping

We elect a guy like Donald Trump, and China gets Xi Jinping. They're in excellent hands if you're talking about leadership. While we get MAGA, they get the Chinese Dream:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Dream

It'll be interesting to see where each of our countries are at in 50-100 years. This is why we needed someone like Hillary in the office. Someone that could understand our domestic needs and how the relate to our international relationships with Europe, Africa, and Asia.

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

This was a really good post, and I wish the Trump supporters on this forum would read it a few times over. Take Xi Jinping, for example. If you really wanted someone to promote your national interests then this is the guy to do it. Here's his wiki entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping

We elect a guy like Donald Trump, and China gets Xi Jinping. They're in excellent hands if you're talking about leadership. While we get MAGA, they get the Chinese Dream:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Dream

It'll be interesting to see where each of our countries are at in 50-100 years. This is why we needed someone like Hillary in the office. Someone that could understand our domestic needs and how the relate to our international relationships with Europe, Africa, and Asia.

- Doc

Some years back I read an eye-opening book titled The Fourth Revolution written by a couple of editors from The Economist.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/book ... ridge.html

It has it's flaws, but one of the scariest points it made was that the west is locked into a worldview that suggests we have found the right way to do things and are calcifying our approaches rather than seeking innovation. Whereas, countries like China have made social experimentation almost the rule with an approach much more open to just finding what works best rather than what adheres most closely to some mythical ideal.

It left me far more pessimistic for the future of the US in a world that may be closing the door on Western European ascendance and returning to the more historic condition where China was the more advanced and successful culture on the globe. Stepping back, it's hard to argue against the case if world history were a play then we might not be the protagonists so much as we're leaving ACT 2 and are into ACT 3 of a story where China plays the central protagonist. Not that this is necessarily true. It's just our Western perspective of history is a heavily edited version of humanity's story.

[_Some Schmo]

Hey Schmo,

I don't intend to argue we can know that one would have accomplished more as president than the other. If the first tier argument is that Clinton was the best qualified candidate of the pool pursuing the job in 2016, then looking at how she compared to other peers pursuing the same job in past related jobs seems a reasonable consideration that can be looked at fairly objectively. If one just looked at their roles and actions as Senators I think in Sanders we see someone who postures and authors grandiose named bills that don't make it out of committee. He was somewhat abrasive with both Democrats and Republicans which is an appealing contrarian position in a post-modern cynical world. I appreciate that in comedians and writers. I don't appreciate that in people in charge of important things. Clinton worked on bipartisan legislation, represented her constituents post-9/11 in important meaningful ways, and even as a favored target of the Right-wing Media she was largely respected by her peers in the Senate. I don't know, man. I think much of the Clinton hate comes down to people feeling disenfranchised and she represented the establishment to them which took on many forms and expressions.

I'm OK with agreeing to disagree on this, given we'll never really know. You make some great points.

I am certainly of the opinion that most of the hate directed Clinton's way is irrational. My biggest beefs with her had to do with her relationship with big business and what I perceived to be a hawkish nature. I don't think she's a wanton murderer.

Now, I think your comment touches on something that brings up an interesting question about the role of the President of the United States in the 21st century. Are they really expected to do more than represent the brightest, clearest lines of the ideology they embody? And their staff and corresponding allies in the legislature are the ones who bear the burden of trying to get something done that moves things in that direction? History could support the idea that this is what the Presidency has become, in my opinion. At least beginning with Bush II to Obama and now Trump, there's a case to be made. But then we could also look at that same timeline as representing a disintegration of the effectiveness of the Federal Government in dealing with a fast-paced evolving modern world increasing filled with parties somewhere between indifferent to outright hostile resentment of the US's position in the world. And we're oscillating between electing different versions of an alpha leader to deal with this to the point we have a guy who played a superstar boss on reality TV.

I guess if we no longer believe being President involves responsibilities with consequences, then it can be about branding. Trump's the king of selling a brand and I don't think I'm alone is saying I don't think it's working out particularly great that we didn't collectively consider the substance behind that brand substantially enough that he was able to beat a field based on the rules as they existed that were all far less qualified to play a superstar boss. But if that's the job description, Trump WAS the most qualified.

No, I don't think that's the only role of the President in the 21st century, although given the intransigence in Congress these days, it feels like that's all the President can do.

I think the President has always been a thought leader, in addition to his other responsibilities.

Here's my formulation - it may not be accurate, but absent the evidence of it happening, all I can do is speculate: I like Bernie in the role of presiding over a Congress who won't do anything largely because of the disruption to Washington he would represent. Drumpf was elected purportedly to "shake things up in Washington." Many people were turned off by Clinton because to them, she represented the status quo (I admit I'm one of those people). Drumpf has certainly shaken things up, but not in a positive way, unless you count the cultural awakening we seem to be experiencing right now.

I wonder if we'd still have had similar movements under Bernie. I'm not convinced, but what I'm almost positive of is that none of it would have happened under Clinton. We'd still be moving farther toward massive inequality and the slow death of the middle class would inch ever closer.

Anyway, I suppose the kind of shake up in Washington I was looking for is more closely represented by what Bernie was pushing.

Yes, Clinton would have been a competent president. I don't doubt that. I'm just not convinced she was best suited for the job at this time, although I understand why some people do.

[_Kishkumen]

If one just looked at their roles and actions as Senators I think in Sanders we see someone who postures and authors grandiose named bills that don't make it out of committee.

I consider that a very legitimate concern.

[_Markk]

I have been to Southern California, yes. I'm just not ignorant enough to think this would somehow make me more qualified to opine on the economic impact of immigration on wage growth in the United States than economists who are experts in the matter.

I can say that your belief that your in your reasoning with your personal experience being superior to actual academic research is a major symptom in what's currently wrong with America, though.

When was the last time you were in So Ca. and where did you go...Disneyland, Knot's Berry Farm, or Sea World? I am sure those with a HS diploma who work at these places, make much more becasue of illegal immigration. E.A. It has changed dramatically in even the last ten years.

by the way, how many illegal immigrants do you have in your neighborhood? I would so much love to give some of you folks here a tour of what our country is assimilating into, you have absolutely no idea. But I'll tell you who does not live in these neighborhoods...the politicians that pander for their votes, and people like you. You preach liberalism and live conservative in your little bubble giving a few dollars each year and then write if off.

Anyways, send me the link that supports your assertion.