US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Catfish]

And then, there's jingoism

[Rockstar]

especially loudmouthed jingoism with orange hair

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Nationalism meaning:

loyalty and devotion to a nation especially : a sense of national consciousness on of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational group.

The actual meaning that Schroeder posted:
loyalty and devotion to a nation especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.
(Source)


Why do you have to lie so much, Rockstar?

[Rockstar]

It wasn't a lie dick Tracy it came from Merriam Websters online dictionary I just cut and pasted it here. If you look closely the definition you and I posted are the same damn thing.


In case you haven't noticed my quarrel was to show that nationalism and patriotism are not as President Moron stated 'opposites'. They are synonymous, similar, alike the same and furthermore neither contain hate in their definitions. The idea one is friendly and another hateful is purely political rhetoric. Though as I stated both can in their extreme forms generate wars and or stop them as well as serve a good purpose of which I gave three examples. Its OK to be German, its OK to expect another to pay their dues, and to leave a loony bin to get their pride back


Its not rocket science man

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

It wasn't a lie dick Tracy it came from Merriam Websters online dictionary I just cut and pasted it here. If you look closely the definition you and I posted are the same damn thing.

On how many drugs are you on? I even bolded the part you left out. Here it is again:
[..]exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion[..]

Why do you have to lie so much, Rockstar?

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Dowly

On how many drugs are you on? I even bolded the part you left out. Here it is again:
[..]exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion[..]

Why do you have to lie so much, Rockstar?

ahh I see what you're driving at. Apparently my cut and paste didnt work out so well when I tried removing the hyperlink in CONSCIOUSNESS.

loyalty and devotion to a nation
especially : a sense of national consciousness (see CONSCIOUSNESS sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

Great detective work with the word search dick Tracy now whats your point? It still doesnt change anything I said. That patriotism and nationalism are not as President Moron said oposites. Instead they are synomynous. Nor is hate included in the diffinition of either nationalism or patriotism.

[August]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

So now whats your point dick Tracy?

No need for name calling Bud. I think he is saying that exalting your own nation above others is the same thing as actually hating other nations. Maybe it's a translation thing.

[Platapus]

Normally I can't stand reading articles by Chris Cillizza. But this time, I think he is right on the money.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/12/polit...ump/index.html

Here's why Hillary Clinton 4.0 is a terrible idea

On Sunday, two former advisers to Hillary Clinton made a bold claim in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. Here it is:
"Get ready for Hillary Clinton 4.0. More than 30 years in the making, this new version of Mrs. Clinton, when she runs for president in 2020, will come full circle—back to the universal-health-care-promoting progressive firebrand of 1994. True to her name, Mrs. Clinton will fight this out until the last dog dies. She won't let a little thing like two stunning defeats stand in the way of her claim to the White House."






That's former Clinton pollster Mark Penn and former New York City politician Andrew Stein's view of how Clinton will run (again) and win in two years' time.


And, before you pull a muscle from rolling your eyes too hard (this is a real injury!), consider what Clinton told Recode's Kara Swisher last month about another run for the nation's top office:


"Well I'd like to be president. I think, hopefully, when we have a Democrat in the Oval Office in January of 2021, there's going to be so much work to be done. I mean we have confused everybody in the world, including ourselves. We have confused our friends and our enemies. They have no idea what the United States stands for, what we're likely to do, what we think is important, so the work would be work that I feel very well prepared for having been at the Senate for eight years, having been a diplomat in the State Department, and it's just going to be a lot of heavy lifting."

In case you are keeping track at home, that isn't a "no." Or even close to one.


You can understand why Clinton wouldn't want to totally rule out another bid. Buyer's remorse from voters who helped elect Donald Trump in 2016. The backing of an energized female base within the Democratic Party. Plus, if Joe Biden (75 years old) and Bernie Sanders (77) can run again for president, why can't she?


True enough! But here's the thing: Democrats should be rooting VERY hard against another presidential run by Clinton. That is, if they want to beat Donald Trump in 2020.


As you may remember, Clinton lost the 2016 presidential race to Trump. You might have missed it, it wasn't that big a story.
She lost that race despite these facts:

1. She was seeking to follow a popular Democratic president in office.
2. She drastically outraised and outspent Trump in all key battleground states.
3. A tape emerged just weeks before the end of the race where Trump made a laundry list of misogynistic comments.
4. Her opponent was Donald Trump.

Yes, there were mitigating factors -- most notably James Comey's decision to announce that he was re-opening the FBI investigation into her use of a private email server just days before the election. And WikiLeaks' strategic release of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee designed to embarrass the Clinton team and distract them from the task at hand.


BUT, but, but. The 2016 race was still a VERY winnable one for Clinton -- and one that most experts, polls and people expected her to win, and win easily.


And then she lost.


The roots of that defeat are pretty obvious in retrospect. People didn't like Trump. But they didn't like Clinton any better. People didn't trust Trump or think he was honest. But they felt the exact same way about Clinton.
In the end, people voted for Trump -- and, yes, Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million -- because they wanted RADICAL change. And he was that change. Clinton was, well, more of the same.


Here's a number that tells the story of that election: Almost 4 in 10 voters said that the most important thing about a candidate for them was that he or she could bring about needed change in the country. Trump got 82% of the vote among that group. Clinton got 14%.
Now, ask yourself this: What's changed? I'll answer that one for you: Not a hell of a lot.


If anything, Clinton is in a worse position, politically speaking, than she was back then. According to Gallup polling in September, just 36% of people have a favorable view of Hillary Clinton. That's down 7 points from where it stood just before the 2016 election and is tied for her lowest favorable rating ever in Gallup polling.


Why? Who knows? Some of the low regard in which Clinton is held is tied to the devastating efficacy of Trump's "Crooked Hillary" attacks. Some likely has to do with her decision to remain a vocal and high-profile critic of the president after losing. Some -- much? -- of it has to do with the fact that negative feelings about Clinton are baked into the electorate and just will never change.


That deep-seated negative opinion about Clinton is at the center of why she would be a very poor choice for Democrats in 2020. Clinton's many years in the public eye -- and the many questions raised about her time in public life -- allowed Trump to make the election a referendum on her and her baggage rather than on him and his own deep flaws as a person and a politician.


Which, interestingly enough, Penn and Stein acknowledge right at the start of their piece arguing that Clinton will run and win in 2020. The very fact that there can be a "Clinton 4.0" suggests she may have a) been around national politics too long and/or b) changed shape as a politician too many times over that multiple decade run in the public eye.


With a field packed with fresh faces -- including California Sen. Kamala Harris, who is the new No. 1 in our 2020 rankings -- the case to give Clinton a third (or fourth) bite at the apple is a tough sell.
And, remember this: Beating Trump is harder than it might look from the outside. For all of his abnormalities in office, he has demonstrated an ability to rally the Republican base like few GOP politicians before him. And he will do absolutely anything -- literally -- to win.


Democrats would do well to try a different approach than Clinton used in 2016, which, when boiled down, amounted to this: I'm running against Donald Trump, and you're certainly not going to vote for him, are you?
And they'd be well served to try a different candidate to deliver that different message -- not someone who was rejected by voters in the last presidential election even though she was running against the weakest Republican nominee in modern memory.


The third time is rarely the charm in presidential politics. Especially when you're talking about a candidate as divisive as Hillary Clinton.

The Democrats running Hillary in 2020, would go a long way to getting Trump reelected.



It was stupid for them to run her in 2016 and it will be doubly stupid to run her in 2020. But the Democrats are perfectly capable of losing in 2020 if they don't start thinking clearly.

[Rockstar]

Atleast didnt accuse him of being a liar.

What I find funny is every leader in the free world primary job is to place and advance the interest of the nation which they lead above others. Therefore by deffinition making every farking one of them a nationalist. Until that is when someone else steps on their toes. Then they cry foul and accuse the other of being a nationalist and how nationalism is filled with hate that starts wars like the 30's.

What starts wars is not when politicians redefine words. Its when the lemmings begin to belive it to be the proper deffinition.

[August]

FWIW, although I'm sure the Trump haters don't care.

Explained: The controversy over Trump not visiting one US cemetery in the rain, for another

President Trump’s scheduled visit to a cemetery with American casualties from World War I was canceled over the weekend in France, though he attended a similar event at a different cemetery the following day.
On Saturday, the President was supposed to hold a moment of silence and place a wreath to commemorate the lost personnel, however, the White House attributed the cancellation to bad weather, The Associated Press reported Saturday.
President Trump reportedly had no say in the decision, as the Marine Corps and White House Military Office made the determination collaboratively with the Secret Service that Paris’ overcast and rainy conditions posed too much risk for Marine One to fly to Aisne-Marne, which is about 60 miles northeast of Paris.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/201...Tb3ApAdODkCoaI

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

Charles de Gaulle -

''Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.''

He may have said that this way, or even quoted the guy I mean, but I am quite certain that the quote I refered to was not originally by de Gaulle. I would have remembered that.


I tried to find it, only found that this quote has been used by some more people than just de Gaulle. German president Friedrich von Weizsäcker as an exmaple, in 1989.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by August

FWIW, although I'm sure the Trump haters don't care.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/201...Tb3ApAdODkCoaI

If that's true then it's of course reasonable. But it would have been better to communicate that from the beginning though to not give critics ammunition.


Regarding the nationalism thing there might have been a shift in meanings between the US and Europe. For example when I look up the German term for nationalism I get results like this:

Übersteigertes Bewusstsein vom Wert und der Bedeutung der eigenen Nation. Im Gegensatz zum Nationalbewusstsein und zum Patriotismus (Vaterlandsliebe) glorifiziert der Nationalismus die eigene Nation und setzt andere Nationen herab....

That means "Exaggerated awareness of the value and meaning of one own nation. Nationalism glorifies one's own nation and belittles others as opposed to national consciousness and patriotism (love of one's country). "

https://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/lexi.../nationalismus


Wikipedia goes a step further and divides nationalism into two categories. Inclusive and exclusive nationalism:
/wiki/Nationalismus#Inklusiver_vs._exklusiver_Nationalis mus


(surpisingly good) Translation by google:

Including nationalisms aim to integrate all subgroups of a society, regardless of their political orientation and their cultural identity. They are committed to the values and symbols of their own nation and endorse this to other nations too. Including nationalisms refer to different characteristics of the nation positive: on the republican tradition, the democratic constitution (constitutional patriotism), welfare state, economic success or international reputation. [11]

I myself have never heard of nationalism in this context. It sounds very much like patriotism to me.

Exclusive nationalism or chauvinism is an exaggerated sense of value, which aims at the sometimes aggressive demarcation of other nations. The exaggeration of one's own nation, with the aim of uniting people and space as far as possible, is often accompanied by exclusion and discrimination, in the extreme, to the expulsion or annihilation of ethnic and other minorities, who are considered alien or harmful to the imagined national body. Examples of exclusive nationalisms include Italian fascism, German National Socialism, and ethnic cleansing after the collapse of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. The exclusive nationalism raises a "loyalty and interpretation monopoly": The individual should no longer view his religion, his home region or the ruling dynasty as the identity-forming focus of thought and action, but only the nation. [12] This claim can lead in an integral nationalism to the relativization or even devaluation of the individual: "You are nothing, your people is everything." [13] Therefore, this nationalism is classified among the political religions. [14] Since the 1970s, the term has been used almost exclusively in the sense of chauvinism. [15]

That's the definition I know. Chauvinism = nationalism (we barely use the term chauvinism in Germany though that's why I didn't think about it earlier).


So it seems that the term has different meanings in the US (inclusive nationalism) and Europe (exclusive nationalism) and that explains allot of the confusion here.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by August

FWIW, although I'm sure the Trump haters don't care. [...]

"EU nations are not allowed to visit this site."

Censorship? Conspiracy! lol
Whatever, it does not work

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Catfish

"EU nations are not allowed to visit this site."

Yep, but that's an issue with our privacy protection laws here. You can find that on many sites now.

[Catfish]

So censorship is being called privacy protection. Doublespeak at its finest

Seroiusly, on one hand privacy protecrion is good. It is unbelievable what a load of spyware you get stored on your PC just by clicking on an ebay, Google or any link. A hundred cookies etc. in no time, and then you get your "tailored" (read: spied out) advertisements, along with tailored news especially for you or the target group they think you belong to.

However this clunky implementation by the authors of said websites "following" the DPRG is a joke. Either they drew the plug entirely, or you have to "accept all", or you have to spend an hour by choosing which cookies you accept, and which not, and who shall get the information. Every fn time you get on this site.

I usually just click on "accept all" and then instantly wipe all cookies, settings and stored info with various tools. But it really is too much fuzz meanwhile. Use the net and you can be sure anything you click on or visit is being monitored, and stored. No privacy, no anonymity. And it is not that you give those informations voluntarily as with Facebook et al, it is simply taken from you.


So it is general spying like in China, only the direct results vary. Yet.