snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Soapbox Derby

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 29 August 2018, 05:51 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,161
Default

I think having anyone in the White House who was willing to be on the ticket with, or closely associated with, Trump would be utterly terrible, but still better than the status quo. Pence would be trying to accomplish terrible policies, and might be more competent in doing so. But I think there would be a not insignificant reduction in the chances of:

The US using nuclear weapons
The US further cozying up to Russia
The US having compromised elections
A voted-out lame duck president stirring up violence among the populace
Threats or more of invading our (previous) allies
Senseless trade wars
(Further) destruction of alliances and treaties

If Democrats take only one house, they can place roadblocks, but will have less ability to reverse things Trump has done, or divest him of powers he is exercising by Congress's delegation. From what I recall, I think Pence is an extremist, but at least more stable/less insane (that I know of). There would still need to be a strong check on anything he tried to accomplish, but less chance of waking up to find out we'd invaded Mexico.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 29 August 2018, 06:06 PM
ChasFink's Avatar
ChasFink ChasFink is offline
 
Join Date: 09 December 2015
Location: Mineola, NY
Posts: 840
Soapbox

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Credence View Post
I think it is at least a possibility that, if the Democrats take back the House, Trump will resign in order to avoid future prosecution. If Republicans see that Trump drags them down in the midterms, and Mueller turns in a report that would recommend indictment for anyone other than the President, they may tell him that if he resigns now, Pence can pardon him. If he sticks it out, eventually he will be out of office and he will be indicted pretty much the next day.
Even faced with this, I really doubt Trump would ever resign. His pride is already forcing him to say and tweet ridiculous things despite good advice to the contrary. He has backed down on a few rare occasions, but even then words stick in his throat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zylly View Post
The other big thing is that while he's terrible, Pence is a predictable kind of terrible. We have a decent idea of what he wants and what he'll do, rather than the unpredictability of Trump.
Agreed. It's not so much a competent evil thing so much as the enemy you know. Trump is so off-kilter and oblivious to what his job description is he can't be known.

Quote:
Originally Posted by E. Q. Taft View Post
I think a Pence presidency with the Democrats taking at least one house of Congress is something we can live with. At the very least, we would avoid the international embarrassment of a President who uses Twitter like a spoiled 14-year-old.

Also, I think Pence would at least pretend to deplore white supremacists, who Trump continues to embolden.
I honestly don't think Pence (consciously) supports White supremacy. There's a lot of things he believes in that I don't, and if a vague idea that America is a White Christian nation is one of them, it wouldn't be the worst.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 29 August 2018, 11:15 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,380
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChasFink View Post
I honestly don't think Pence (consciously) supports White supremacy.
Even if not: how about Christian supremacy?

For certain definitions of "Christian", of course.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 30 August 2018, 02:04 AM
St. Alia St. Alia is offline
 
Join Date: 06 October 2010
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 877
Default

I think the kind of thinking that "well, at least it's not as bad as what we have" is how we got into this mess. That is not an ok solution, IMO.

I listened to this today. https://www.npr.org/2018/08/29/64268...eaning-winners

I don't like hearing this, but I think it's very true. And I know why it happened a lot of the time- thinking that small change, any change, is better than none- when faced with the obstruction of conservatives and the lock step they work in, but it really entrenched things like institutionalized racism (we can go back to right after the Civil War for missteps on that).
Quote:
A lot of well-meaning liberals — and it's going to, it hurts to hear this — but a lot of well-meaning liberals paved the road for Trump. And they did so in two ways. First of all, by peddling a lot of pseudochange instead of actually fixing the American opportunity structure, instead of actually repairing the American dream over the last 30 to 40 years — by doing that, they allowed some of the biggest problems in this country to fester for decades and not be solved.
And the result of the problems that have become entrenched are people believing things like Trump saying "only he can fix it"...
Quote:
One of the most disturbing things to me in reporting this book is I started to realize that a lot of Donald Trump's language and intellectual moves, if that is not an exaggeration, actually took root in the so-called philanthro-capitalists of the last generation. So when President Trump says "only I can fix it," that idea doesn't start with him. That's actually something that has been pushed by these private-sector change agents for years [that] they are especially capable of solving social problems. When Donald Trump says, "Yeah, yeah, I manufactured stuff in China and Mexico, but that's going to help me figure out how to make sure that never happens again," again, that is a move that America's plutocrats have been making for a long time. "The arsonists are the best firefighters.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 30 August 2018, 03:04 PM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,603
Ponder

Re: the above NPR piece about an interview with the author of Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World. I think the author nails it, though I wish the posted interview went into more detail/examples.

I am particularly uncomfortable with this attitude that we need to cut taxes and let people give more to charity, as that would totally happen in an efficient manner that addresses the most pertinent social ills. Seeing how government is ridiculed as inefficient compared to the actions of well-meaning individuals who "know better."

That line of argument seems disingenuous to me, but it does such a good job of weaving itself into a pretty picture that it’s hard to unravel and lay bare its faults. Because whose going to argue with a billionaire CEO giving away their riches? Their greedy workers? It fits part and parcel with Ayn Rand's objectivism a I t seems like an elegantly simple solution to all our problems at first glance,but only if you consider it from a single, not even highly subjective, but outright manipulated POV.

Last edited by ASL; 30 August 2018 at 03:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 30 August 2018, 03:09 PM
Darth Credence's Avatar
Darth Credence Darth Credence is offline
 
Join Date: 28 October 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 3,545
Default

Ah, yes, it is the liberals' fault for not fixing all of these problems. Why not the conservatives' fault for not fixing the problems - conservatives have had as much or more power over the government over the last 30 to 40 years. Oh, wait, they want the problems to exist, so they are clearly not responsible for the problems. It is only if you don't want a problem to exist but don't fix it that you are at fault. Sure.

Are there some people that claim to be liberal that fit what they are saying in that link? Sure. But does that mean that it is the liberals' fault that Trump exists? NFBSK no. It may mean that the "winners" they are talking about are at least partially at fault, whether they donate to Democrats or Republicans. But a large part of the blame has to go to those who actually fight for the death of the American dream, and those who believe in people like Trump when they say that their business experience makes them the only one who can save them.

Every time I read or hear one of these think pieces explaining how liberals or progressives or Democrats or whatever are responsible for Trump and his ilk, all I can think is that the liberals most responsible are the ones who keep writing these pieces - the liberals who say we need to understand the other side more and not be smug. I don't think they shoulder much of the blame, but when one side will ignore everything that they have claimed to hold dear to vote for someone who will either lower their taxes, oppress brown people or women, or just to "own" the libs, making the argument that it is the fault of the side not doing that is not helping. It is going to cause some people to just not vote, and it is going to cause some people to waste a vote on someone who cannot possibly win.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 30 August 2018, 03:35 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,100
Default

Thank you Darth for saying what I wanted to say in a more elegant and thoughtful response. (All I had so far was, "That is complete horse****!"). The only thing I would add is that the article is dancing close to, if not hitting it, the perfect being the enemy of the good. The people who make the small thing that helps but does not fix may be doing all that they have the power to do. Rather than do nothing, they do what they can.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 30 August 2018, 07:01 PM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,603
Reading

That is not the main thrust of the piece. Perhaps you should actually give it a look, rather than just reacting to a couple quotes?

Do you not see the problem with billionaires who accumulate vast sums of money, perhaps on their workers' backs, then deign to give some, even most of it up to their favorite charities, all while being touted as a libertian-ideal of how the government is wasteful and if only taxes were lower, more people would have money to donate without all the government bloat and overhead?

Step 1) make people homeless.
Step 2) donate half of your money to homeless shelters.
Step 3) bask in the warm glow of attention.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 30 August 2018, 07:17 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,100
Default

I read the whole thing, I commented on the part I have a strong disagreement with.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 30 August 2018, 07:30 PM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,603
Default

Sorry, I’m a little on edge for some reason. It was... presumptuous to.... presume you didn’t.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 30 August 2018, 08:15 PM
Darth Credence's Avatar
Darth Credence Darth Credence is offline
 
Join Date: 28 October 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 3,545
Default

I also read the whole thing, and included that I can see what they are saying about the people they call "winners", i.e. billionaires.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 31 August 2018, 02:18 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,397
Mouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
It may well be driving some of them out of the party altogether.

But the ones in Congress seem to be mostly voting in lockstep; not acting divided at all. And we're losing some of the few who didn't always.
Yeah, if there's division in the GOP, I haven't really seen it. So far the only GOP politicians who have criticized Trump, waited until they were retiring and no longer had to worry about getting reelected. It is good to criticize Trump, but this is hardly a sterling display of courage on their part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
Pence would be trying to accomplish terrible policies, and might be more competent in doing so. But I think there would be a not insignificant reduction in the chances of:

The US using nuclear weapons
The US further cozying up to Russia
The US having compromised elections
A voted-out lame duck president stirring up violence among the populace
Threats or more of invading our (previous) allies
Senseless trade wars
(Further) destruction of alliances and treaties
That's about how I feel about it. Pence would be terrible, but he's less likely to bring about a nuclear holocaust as a result of something he tweeted while on the toilet, and I can't believe our standards for presidents are so low that that's an accomplishment, rather than the bare minimum requirement of the job. Then again, Trump couldn't say "Nazis are bad," which is one of the easiest moral statements ever, so here we are.

Pence is terrible, but unlike Trump, he does have actual experience in politics. He was governor of Indiana before becoming vice, and while he was a terrible governor, at least, he knows the nature of politics is a far different cry from any other job; you can't run the government like a business, because they are two different institutions with different responsibilities and rules.

But the way I see it, while Trump's in power, we fight him. If he's kicked out of office and Pence winds up in power, we fight Pence. Though if Pence, I don't know, has a visit from three ghosts, gets switched with his mirrorverse counterpart, or is replaced with a Skrull shapeshifter, and actually becomes a decent person who doesn't long for a Christian Taliban, then we'll leave him alone.

Regarding the NPR article, I've written many missives about the failings of the DNC, so I'll try not to get too long with this, but some of the failures of the DNC are due to a poorly defined philosophy.

The GOP is repugnant, but they do have a solid philosophy that they are willing to shout from the highest rooftops and most citizens, regardless of their political status, could probably describe. Granted, beneath all the talk of God and country, it comes down "I've got mine. Get yours!" but still. Most would know that the GOP is staunchly Christian Conservative, supports businesses and policies that favor them, and stuff like that.

Whereas the DNC has been kind of drifting around for a while. To the extent their philosophy can be described, it is Centrist. But Centrism isn't really a philosophy. Centrism is nothing. Centrism is pretty much a shifting set of beliefs defined by what everyone else supports, and has no ideas of its own.

As such, the DNC message winds up being "Vote us and things won't get worse," which is true, but it's not the kind of inspirational voice that makes people sit up and pay attention. I have my issues with the Republican-lite policies of President Obama, but his first presidential campaign with the whole "Hope and Change" slogan/marketing, was a masterful usage of this. Campaign on the idea of radical hope, rather than just telling voters that things won't get worse.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01 September 2018, 12:51 AM
Zylly Zylly is offline
 
Join Date: 24 June 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 160
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouse View Post
As such, the DNC message winds up being "Vote us and things won't get worse," which is true, but it's not the kind of inspirational voice that makes people sit up and pay attention. I have my issues with the Republican-lite policies of President Obama, but his first presidential campaign with the whole "Hope and Change" slogan/marketing, was a masterful usage of this. Campaign on the idea of radical hope, rather than just telling voters that things won't get worse.
I've occasionally referred to the Democrats' chief message as being "We're not them", with them meaning the GOP. And for me, that's enough, because I find the GOP platform pretty repugnant.

The Democrats definitely have things they stand for. Civil Rights, a social safety net, protections against corporations, clean energy, compassion and consideration for all people, whether they be citizens or not... But they seem very reluctant to articulate these or transform it into any kind of meaningful message.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01 September 2018, 01:59 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 9,257
Baseball

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zylly View Post
The Democrats definitely have things they stand for. Civil Rights, a social safety net, protections against corporations, clean energy, compassion and consideration for all people, whether they be citizens or not... But they seem very reluctant to articulate these or transform it into any kind of meaningful message.
I'm not sure the Democrats stand for all that;

- civil rights, agreed
- social safety net, limited. Mostly comes in when it will get them points.
- protections against corporations, not really. More like prevention of rampant corporatism. I haven't seen them do anything to protect the US from corporations (or its citizens)
- clean energy, no. Only in the sense that it sounds nice. They have done little to push this, and it only comes out as messaging.
- compassion and consideration for all people..., to a very limited degree. They look like they are doing so because they contrast themselves to the GOP, but I don't think they have this as a tenet of their party policy. It seems very opportunistic compassion

What they do stand for (in my opinion):

- the individual is a full member of society
- regions of the country differ, and need to be governed differently
- progress cannot be made at the expense of working Americans
- the US is one player in a multi-dimensional world, not the only player

Good post Zylly, keep on contributing.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01 September 2018, 02:03 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UEL View Post
- the US is one player in a multi-dimensional world, not the only player
And they don't have to win. Republicans under Trump are acting like it's them against the rest of the world and they have to win every encounter (or claim a win). They can't just work together for the common good.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01 September 2018, 02:08 PM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,603
Ponder

Quote:
Originally Posted by UEL View Post
What they do stand for (in my opinion):

- the individual is a full member of society
- regions of the country differ, and need to be governed differently
Eh... those first two seem more like republican platitudes about why we shouldn't have any sort of social safety net and why democrats are evil (for wanting to use the big bad federal government to impose their will on states and take our guns away).
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01 September 2018, 02:19 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 9,257
Baseball

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL View Post
Eh... those first two seem more like republican platitudes about why we shouldn't have any sort of social safety net and why democrats are evil (for wanting to use the big bad federal government to impose their will on states and take our guns away).
You are right. It was my choice of words.

The first one, individual, counts for the fact that certain individuals are lesser in the eyes of the GOP. For example the Democrats would say LGBTQ, POC, immigrants as individuals have just as much a role in society as otherwise "true" Americans, whereas the GOP would relegate them to annoyances rather than contributors.

The second one was more an attempt to point out that the GOP tries to remain monolithic with adherence to one voice, one religion, one social view, one economic view. And the Democrats are more of a less defined movement instead of a hierarchy.

But your criticism was bank on. My word choice was ambiguous.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 03 September 2018, 02:29 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,397
Mouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zylly View Post
I've occasionally referred to the Democrats' chief message as being "We're not them", with them meaning the GOP. And for me, that's enough, because I find the GOP platform pretty repugnant.

The Democrats definitely have things they stand for. Civil Rights, a social safety net, protections against corporations, clean energy, compassion and consideration for all people, whether they be citizens or not... But they seem very reluctant to articulate these or transform it into any kind of meaningful message.
You’re right and the thing is, most Americans, when polled, overwhelmingly support so-called Liberal causes and probably everything else you’ve listed. Yet the DNC is oddly reluctant to voice any of this, preferring to operate under the idea that we live in a Center-Right nation, thus conceding the fight before its ever begun.

The GOP have made it clear that they will never be willing to work with you and they will always hate you no matter how much you moderate in an attempt to appease them. Stop trying to make them like you, stop pursuing people who will never vote for you, and proclaim your liberal status from the mountaintops. Because it was really stupid that you let the Right turn the word “liberal” into a slur and the support shown to recent, more outspoken Liberal candidates proves that the public is more open to liberal beliefs than you might think.

Heck, it must be eternally frustrating to the Right, how Socialism is gradually losing its power as a slur. They rant and rave about how Universal Healthcare is Socialism! only for the next generation to be like, “You mean with Socialism, I get free college and healthcare? Wow, Socialism sounds awesome!”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue View Post
And they don't have to win. Republicans under Trump are acting like it's them against the rest of the world and they have to win every encounter (or claim a win). They can't just work together for the common good.
That’s true. The GOP is currently operating under the idea that triumphs in world affairs mean “the other side falls to its knees in worship or we bomb it to Hell!” The idea of both sides sitting down, having a discussion where they lay out their disagreements and from there, manage to work out an agreement that solves the problem without any saber-rattling, is appalling to them. They were throwing such hissies about the agreement Obama worked out with Iran, enough that they devoted a great deal of time and energy to breaking it. Even though our own State and Defense departments were saying, “This is working. Iran is actually obeying the terms and have dismantled their plants and gotten rid of much of their nukes. Reneging on this would be an incredibly dumb idea,” the GOP was all, “Bomb Iran!” because they can’t possibly conceive of a victory on the global stage without dropping bombs on people.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 03 September 2018, 10:43 PM
Zylly Zylly is offline
 
Join Date: 24 June 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 160
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouse View Post
The GOP have made it clear that they will never be willing to work with you and they will always hate you no matter how much you moderate in an attempt to appease them. Stop trying to make them like you, stop pursuing people who will never vote for you, and proclaim your liberal status from the mountaintops.
I have a very good friend who once said that every time the Democrats try to step across the aisle and work with the GOP, the GOP say "nope!" and take one more step back.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 04 September 2018, 01:32 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,397
Mouse

As I have said many times, “reaching across the aisle” and bipartisanship are fine ideals, but they only work when both sides are made of adults who, despite differing opinions, genuinely want to work together and get stuff done. It doesn’t work when one side is made up of adults and the other side is a doomsday cult made up of demon toddler spite children willing to burn everything down out of spite.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen likely to cooperate as his attorneys leave case, so DawnStorm Soapbox Derby 7 13 June 2018 07:13 PM
Sean Hannity is the client whose identity Michael Cohen wanted kept secret Psihala Soapbox Derby 10 17 April 2018 08:16 PM
Martin Shkreli is found guilty of three of eight securities fraud charges E. Q. Taft Moot Court 37 13 March 2018 11:49 AM
Arizona's Sheriff Joe Arpaio to face criminal charges over immigration patrols Psihala Moot Court 5 26 October 2016 07:57 AM
Former Uber driver pleads guilty to rape, assault charges A Turtle Named Mack Moot Court 0 12 November 2015 01:58 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.