2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[foreverlax]

We've had this discussion before. Using your all-or-nothing logic, isolationism must be a complete withdrawal into Fortress America.
Nothing less will satisfy your absolutist definition. You do not acknowledge nuance.
That's why (even before Trump) I used " isolationist tendencies".

I'm not giving you an absolutist definition. Not even close. I'm telling you how words work.

Here's the definition: a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.

At some point, a word doesn't fit. Nothing about that definition fits what Trump is doing. Or the next President, for that matter, and I don't even have to know who the President is. Yep, even Bernie.

It's the wrong word, and doesn't come close to communicating what you're trying to communicate.

imho -- it's fair to say that Trump is an isolationist compared to W, HRC, & the NeoCons. He has so far been limited in his ability to act upon his isolationist instincts because of the situations he inherited & the advise he has received from his national security establishment upon whom he must still rely. He also followed through on his pledge to repair & strengthen the military

Did he hit Syria when they didn't attack the US? Did Trump reinforce NATO positions?

There is nothing isolationist about what he's doing.

Pick a better word that fits. Show me this nuance that you think you have, yet I don't.....

How about "pragmatic globalism"?

He also thinks "American Nationalism" is somehow different than all other Nationalism, nothing racial or ethnic or tribal about it...

Since we're arguing semantics, how do you define "America's" race or ethnicity? Generally W.A.S.P......using the expression "Judeo-Christian" as a descriptor is dumb.

If you define American Nationalism by the race and ethnicity it consists of, American nationalism is most certainly different than nationalism in countries that have any one supermajority race or ethnicity.

[kramerica.inc]

We've had this discussion before. Using your all-or-nothing logic, isolationism must be a complete withdrawal into Fortress America.
Nothing less will satisfy your absolutist definition. You do not acknowledge nuance.
That's why (even before Trump) I used " isolationist tendencies".

I'm not giving you an absolutist definition. Not even close. I'm telling you how words work.

Here's the definition: a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.

At some point, a word doesn't fit. Nothing about that definition fits what Trump is doing. Or the next President, for that matter, and I don't even have to know who the President is. Yep, even Bernie.

It's the wrong word, and doesn't come close to communicating what you're trying to communicate.

imho -- it's fair to say that Trump is an isolationist compared to W, HRC, & the NeoCons. He has so far been limited in his ability to act upon his isolationist instincts because of the situations he inherited & the advise he has received from his national security establishment upon whom he must still rely. He also followed through on his pledge to repair & strengthen the military

Did he hit Syria when they didn't attack the US? Did Trump reinforce NATO positions?

There is nothing isolationist about what he's doing.

Pick a better word that fits. Show me this nuance that you think you have, yet I don't.....

How about "pragmatic globalism"?

He also thinks "American Nationalism" is somehow different than all other Nationalism, nothing racial or ethnic or tribal about it...

Since we're arguing semantics, how do you define "America's" race or ethnicity?

If you define American Nationalism by the race and ethnicity it consists of, American nationalism is most certainly different than nationalism in countries that have any one supermajority race or ethnicity.

You define it by the laws put in place against those folks. This country was founded on it. That’s just the truth. 3 female black slaves were brought here in 1619, they where raped on the way over. The rest is history. What were the ships that landed in England and France carrying slaves before those countries were founded and when did the government first put in place laws or policies based on race? You can look it up in US History for the North American date.

Founded sure. But what are the country's current laws?

If you are referring to American Nationalism during 1619 I would agree. If you are discussing American Nationalism, during any other time, the "American Nationalism" (Or INSERT COUNTRY HERE Nationalism) is defined by the country's race/ethnic makeup at the time being discussed and the laws of the time in question.

So American Nationalism today is completely different than the American Nationalism of 1619.

[Typical Lax Dad]

We've had this discussion before. Using your all-or-nothing logic, isolationism must be a complete withdrawal into Fortress America.
Nothing less will satisfy your absolutist definition. You do not acknowledge nuance.
That's why (even before Trump) I used " isolationist tendencies".

I'm not giving you an absolutist definition. Not even close. I'm telling you how words work.

Here's the definition: a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.

At some point, a word doesn't fit. Nothing about that definition fits what Trump is doing. Or the next President, for that matter, and I don't even have to know who the President is. Yep, even Bernie.

It's the wrong word, and doesn't come close to communicating what you're trying to communicate.

imho -- it's fair to say that Trump is an isolationist compared to W, HRC, & the NeoCons. He has so far been limited in his ability to act upon his isolationist instincts because of the situations he inherited & the advise he has received from his national security establishment upon whom he must still rely. He also followed through on his pledge to repair & strengthen the military

Did he hit Syria when they didn't attack the US? Did Trump reinforce NATO positions?

There is nothing isolationist about what he's doing.

Pick a better word that fits. Show me this nuance that you think you have, yet I don't.....

How about "pragmatic globalism"?

He also thinks "American Nationalism" is somehow different than all other Nationalism, nothing racial or ethnic or tribal about it...

Since we're arguing semantics, how do you define "America's" race or ethnicity?

If you define American Nationalism by the race and ethnicity it consists of, American nationalism is most certainly different than nationalism in countries that have any one supermajority race or ethnicity.

You define it by the laws put in place against those folks. This country was founded on it. That’s just the truth. 3 female black slaves were brought here in 1619, they where raped on the way over. The rest is history. What were the ships that landed in England and France carrying slaves before those countries were founded and when did the government first put in place laws or policies based on race? You can look it up in US History for the North American date.

Founded sure. But what are the country's current laws?

If you are referring to American Nationalism during 1619 I would agree. If you are discussing American Nationalism, during any other time, the "American Nationalism" (Or INSERT COUNTRY HERE Nationalism) is defined by the country's race/ethnic makeup at the time being discussed and the laws of the time in question.

So American Nationalism today is completely different than the American Nationalism of 1619.

We were talking about historical context. I used 1619 as a starting point. You can go back further or more recently. You can go back as recent as 1972 when job discrimination became illegal. That’s 1972, not 1862..... Our President was sued for housing discrimination in the 1970s as well, no?So, a reasonable assessment of American Nationalism may be defined as our way of life from 1619 - 1972..... unless you are saying the when we think of what it means to be American it starts from 1972 to present? That is what you are going with? Why did we have all these folks talking about a "Tea" Party recently....

[Trinity]

Why has Bernie used his brief moment in the lead to rehabilitate Fidel Castro?

[ggait]

Why has Bernie used his brief moment in the lead to rehabilitate Fidel Castro?

Because he is trying to hand Florida's electoral votes to Trump?

Most candidates go along a track of emerge, then rise, then due diligence, then go down/sideways/further up.

Up until now, Bernie really hasn't been subject to the due diligence phase in either 2016 or 2020. Because (until two weeks ago) he was stuck behind Hillary/Biden and had no chance to win.

So the diligence phase may just be starting for Bernie. Although (a la Trump), it may be too late. And it may not matter. Like Trump, Bernie may have that "take him seriously not literally" thing going on.

We all know that Bernie is never going to get M4A and free college enacted. Just like Trump was never going to get a wall built and paid for by Mexico. But both Bernie and Trump are very clear to their supporters the direction they would try to go.

[Trinity]

So pick from Russian choice A or Russian choice B? Now would be a good time for vanity, zombie candidates to head on home.

[youthathletics]

Mayor Pete channeling his inner BHO: https://www.instagram.com/p/B8_sgPOHPNz/

#plagiarism

[MDlaxfan76]

We've had this discussion before. Using your all-or-nothing logic, isolationism must be a complete withdrawal into Fortress America.
Nothing less will satisfy your absolutist definition. You do not acknowledge nuance.
That's why (even before Trump) I used " isolationist tendencies".

I'm not giving you an absolutist definition. Not even close. I'm telling you how words work.

Here's the definition: a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.

At some point, a word doesn't fit. Nothing about that definition fits what Trump is doing. Or the next President, for that matter, and I don't even have to know who the President is. Yep, even Bernie.

It's the wrong word, and doesn't come close to communicating what you're trying to communicate.

imho -- it's fair to say that Trump is an isolationist compared to W, HRC, & the NeoCons. He has so far been limited in his ability to act upon his isolationist instincts because of the situations he inherited & the advise he has received from his national security establishment upon whom he must still rely. He also followed through on his pledge to repair & strengthen the military

Did he hit Syria when they didn't attack the US? Did Trump reinforce NATO positions?

There is nothing isolationist about what he's doing.

Pick a better word that fits. Show me this nuance that you think you have, yet I don't.....

How about "pragmatic globalism"?

He also thinks "American Nationalism" is somehow different than all other Nationalism, nothing racial or ethnic or tribal about it...

Since we're arguing semantics, how do you define "America's" race or ethnicity?

If you define American Nationalism by the race and ethnicity it consists of, American nationalism is most certainly different than nationalism in countries that have any one supermajority race or ethnicity.

America has more than 3 centuries defined by a supermajority of those who would self-define as white and Christian. English speaking, Eurocentric. That majority is now demographically threatened for the first time in our nation's history. However, my objection to Nationalism is not based in any sort of racial definition (albeit, it's definitely what a whole lot of the supporters of "nationalism" really mean), but rather in the second half of the definition below:

Identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

The history of all nationalist movements is really ugly. They all define themselves in opposition to the Other and they self-justify any and all actions to their own interest, regardless of consequences to others.

I'm all for pride in one's nation, culture, history, etc...indeed 'patriotism'. And there's a heck of a lot of such to take pride in about America, including our philosophical embrace of diversity and the rights of the minority and the individual, while acknowledging our imperfect history of implementation of such ideals.

But American Nationalism is a road to hell...for someone.

[old salt]

I'm all for pride in one's nation, culture, history, etc...indeed 'patriotism'. And there's a heck of a lot of such to take pride in about America, including our philosophical embrace of diversity and the rights of the minority and the individual, while acknowledging our imperfect history of implementation of such ideals.

That looks like a pretty good description of American Nationalism. It has lasted this long. It will endure as we become a majority minority nation.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I'm all for pride in one's nation, culture, history, etc...indeed 'patriotism'. And there's a heck of a lot of such to take pride in about America, including our philosophical embrace of diversity and the rights of the minority and the individual, while acknowledging our imperfect history of implementation of such ideals.

That looks like a pretty good description of American Nationalism. It has lasted this long. It will endure as we become a majority minority nation.

It’s aspirational.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm all for pride in one's nation, culture, history, etc...indeed 'patriotism'. And there's a heck of a lot of such to take pride in about America, including our philosophical embrace of diversity and the rights of the minority and the individual, while acknowledging our imperfect history of implementation of such ideals.

That looks like a pretty good description of American Nationalism. It has lasted this long. It will endure as we become a majority minority nation.

Nope, what I wrote was American Patriotism...not Nationalism.

I get it that some want to sugarcoat that word, perhaps to just feel better, but it's a really dangerous concept and should be rejected at every turn. It's plenty easy to just use Patriotism instead, if that's what is actually meant.

I can't tell whether you actually know better and are just wanting to pretend this isn't based in bigotry (and indeed that's what motivates you) or whether you are truly clueless, a sort of stubborn Pollyanna. But the latter is just stupid and however much else we don't agree on, that's not been my impression of you.

[ggait]

Interesting read from a couple of academics on how electable Sander might be as compared to a moderate Dem.

They say that Bernie would trade weakness among suburban swing voters for big strength among young voters. Problem is that young "voters" historically don't vote at high rates. So Bernie's apparent good electability as shown in polls may be a mirage.

If you drive even a small number of likely swing voters to Trump, then Bernie would need a youth turnout mega-tsunami to make up for it. Could happen, but not likely.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... rates-data

[Typical Lax Dad]

Interesting read from a couple of academics on how electable Sander might be as compared to a moderate Dem.

They say that Bernie would trade weakness among suburban swing voters for big strength among young voters. Problem is that young "voters" historically don't vote at high rates. So Bernie's apparent good electability as shown in polls may be a mirage.

If you drive even a small number of likely swing voters to Trump, then Bernie would need a youth turnout mega-tsunami to make up for it. Could happen, but not likely.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... rates-data

Young people like Bernie. I don’t understand it. My colleague is a Republican town officials. The voter registrar told him his son switched to Democrat and he asked his son about it and his son told him he is supporting Bernie. His father didn’t know his son was even paying attention. My daughter likes Bernie. She is not really political.

[old salt]

I'm all for pride in one's nation, culture, history, etc...indeed 'patriotism'. And there's a heck of a lot of such to take pride in about America, including our philosophical embrace of diversity and the rights of the minority and the individual, while acknowledging our imperfect history of implementation of such ideals.

That looks like a pretty good description of American Nationalism. It has lasted this long. It will endure as we become a majority minority nation.

Nope, what I wrote was American Patriotism...not Nationalism.

I get it that some want to sugarcoat that word, perhaps to just feel better, but it's a really dangerous concept and should be rejected at every turn. It's plenty easy to just use Patriotism instead, if that's what is actually meant.

I can't tell whether you actually know better and are just wanting to pretend this isn't based in bigotry (and indeed that's what motivates you) or whether you are truly clueless, a sort of stubborn Pollyanna. But the latter is just stupid and however much else we don't agree on, that's not been my impression of you.

Is Chris Matthews a bigot because he likened Bernie's surge to the fall of Paris in 1940 ? ...or is he anti-Semitic ?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... _1940.html

[Trinity]

He’s stupid.

[old salt]

[holmes435]

Young people like Bernie. I don’t understand it.

He's an anti-establishment candidate who is pushing policies that would help them short and long-term. They also see the photos of him getting arrested fighting for civil rights and other memes like that. This is one of the first times in the US where kids don't have the prospect of a better life than their parents. They're looking for hope and change.

There were a lot of young people in the Yang Gang, but that petered out.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm all for pride in one's nation, culture, history, etc...indeed 'patriotism'. And there's a heck of a lot of such to take pride in about America, including our philosophical embrace of diversity and the rights of the minority and the individual, while acknowledging our imperfect history of implementation of such ideals.

That looks like a pretty good description of American Nationalism. It has lasted this long. It will endure as we become a majority minority nation.

Nope, what I wrote was American Patriotism...not Nationalism.

I get it that some want to sugarcoat that word, perhaps to just feel better, but it's a really dangerous concept and should be rejected at every turn. It's plenty easy to just use Patriotism instead, if that's what is actually meant.

I can't tell whether you actually know better and are just wanting to pretend this isn't based in bigotry (and indeed that's what motivates you) or whether you are truly clueless, a sort of stubborn Pollyanna. But the latter is just stupid and however much else we don't agree on, that's not been my impression of you.

Is Chris Matthews a bigot because he likened Bernie's surge to the fall of Paris in 1940 ? ...or is he anti-Semitic ?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... _1940.html

not a fan of Mathews but I don't think he was looking to project an anti-semitic thought with that analogy; frankly I'm not sure even why comparing Bernie's big victory in Nevada, with no one laying a glove on him in the debate, with the the fall of Paris to the Nazis without a fight in the streets would somehow suggest "anti-semitic" or even a "bigot". How do you even find that notion?

[old salt]

I'm all for pride in one's nation, culture, history, etc...indeed 'patriotism'. And there's a heck of a lot of such to take pride in about America, including our philosophical embrace of diversity and the rights of the minority and the individual, while acknowledging our imperfect history of implementation of such ideals.

That looks like a pretty good description of American Nationalism. It has lasted this long. It will endure as we become a majority minority nation.

Nope, what I wrote was American Patriotism...not Nationalism.

I get it that some want to sugarcoat that word, perhaps to just feel better, but it's a really dangerous concept and should be rejected at every turn. It's plenty easy to just use Patriotism instead, if that's what is actually meant.

I can't tell whether you actually know better and are just wanting to pretend this isn't based in bigotry (and indeed that's what motivates you) or whether you are truly clueless, a sort of stubborn Pollyanna. But the latter is just stupid and however much else we don't agree on, that's not been my impression of you.

Is Chris Matthews a bigot because he likened Bernie's surge to the fall of Paris in 1940 ? ...or is he anti-Semitic ?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... _1940.html

not a fan of Mathews but I don't think he was looking to project an anti-semitic thought with that analogy; frankly I'm not sure even why comparing Bernie's big victory in Nevada, with no one laying a glove on him in the debate, with the the fall of Paris to the Nazis without a fight in the streets would somehow suggest "anti-semitic" or even a "bigot". How do you even find that notion?

Matthews felt the need to apologize.
https://deadline.com/2020/02/msnbc-chri ... 202866277/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... wrong.html

[njbill]

Interesting read from a couple of academics on how electable Sander might be as compared to a moderate Dem.

They say that Bernie would trade weakness among suburban swing voters for big strength among young voters. Problem is that young "voters" historically don't vote at high rates. So Bernie's apparent good electability as shown in polls may be a mirage.

If you drive even a small number of likely swing voters to Trump, then Bernie would need a youth turnout mega-tsunami to make up for it. Could happen, but not likely.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... rates-data

Agreed, an interesting read. Thoughtful. The author makes some good points. I certainly share the concerns that many have about Bernie’s electability. He is far from my top candidate, but I would vote for him (holding my breath) over Trump without hesitation.

A couple of counter-points to what was said in the article. To begin with, I am not interested in national polls; I think they are immaterial. I am only interested in battleground polls. Bernie is currently beating Trump to a greater degree than are the other candidates in at least Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Haven’t seen polls from Arizona, Florida, or North Carolina. Would be interested in seeing those.

The article says that you can’t rely on polls because voters don’t necessarily vote consistently with what they have told pollsters. Well, that says polls are inaccurate. Generally, they are, however. So I think this is a pretty significant shortcoming in the article. Also, I think it is fair to say that young voters are probably the least likely group to respond to pollsters. That says, perhaps, that there are a lot more young voters out there than is currently reflected in the polls.

Another thing, some Bernie voters voted for Trump in 2016. Some of those Bernie/Trump 2016 voters will return to Bernie in 2020. Hard to quantify that, but it makes sense to me.

Yes, it is true that young voters typically don’t go to the polls. But will 2020 be different? There are reasons to think so if Bernie is the nominee. Again, difficult or impossible to quantify at this point.

The article makes no mention of the fact that there could be a huge number of voters out there who will vote for anyone to get rid of Trump, and that some number of these voters are people who don’t typically vote. Again, impossible to quantify at this point.

I agree with what the article says that Bernie would lose some number of moderate Republican/Independent voters. Some would vote for Trump, some would stay home, some would leave the “president” selection blank, some would write in someone. My focus group of one, my 65-year-old sister who lives in the Philadelphia suburbs and is a moderate Republican, supports this point. She would vote for Biden, but not for Bernie. She says she wouldn’t vote for Trump. She voted for Hillary. She does not think Bernie could win Pennsylvania.

In Pennsylvania, not getting the moderate Republican/Independent vote, even if the voters don’t vote for Trump, could really hurt Bernie. Another thing about Pennsylvania: it is not a young state. So would massive young voter turnout be enough? Don’t know. Black voter turnout in Pennsylvania will also be key. Bernie should do pretty well there, but will it be enough? Don’t know.

All of the candidates have significant weaknesses in particular voting blocks. Bernie’s are the subject of a lot of discussion now because he is in the lead. While some of the other candidates probably would do better with moderate Republicans, they won’t do as well with young voters. They probably wouldn’t energize voter turn out to the extent Bernie would. Some candidates won’t do as well as Bernie with black voters.

As I have said before, we have a long way to go. We haven’t even gotten to Super Tuesday yet. Things will look different on November 3 than they do now at the end of February. How different remains to be seen. But I don’t think things will look as bleak on election day as some think they do now.