The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by fortheglory

This forum has become a mostly left leaning progressive groupthink.

What is considered 'left' in America more more right each year I find

(I'm fairly certain Reagan was a lefty by todays standards )

[fortheglory]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

What is considered 'left' in America more more right each year I find

(I'm fairly certain Reagan was a lefty by todays standards )

I think it's just the opposite.


Democrats continue to move further and further to the left to the point where what was at one time considered to be the middle is now considered far to the right....and anyone who was right of center 25 - 30 years ago is now considered a cook fringe righty.

I for one refuse to keep moving the the "new center", which to me, is simply the same as moving to the left of where I have always been.

[miami_fan]

What is this "center" you two are speaking of when it comes to politics?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

What is this "center" you two are speaking of when it comes to politics?

I agree its good to define as the definition shifts.

In my own views, I see some stratification between foreign, economic/budget and social issues.

Personally, I'm more right on foreign, more right on economic/budget and more left on social. Admittedly, they don't mesh perfectly as my social vs budget are often at odds.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I agree its good to define as the definition shifts.

In my own views, I see some stratification between foreign, economic/budget and social issues.

Personally, I'm more right on foreign, more right on economic/budget and more left on social. Admittedly, they don't mesh perfectly as my social vs budget are often at odds.

That stratification usually is defined as lacking commitment to a side at best by the extremes on both sides, not as being a centrist.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by panerd

Trump tends to illicit that reaction. The board has always been fairly left leaning and I used to engage a lot of the boards extreme left guys because of how ridiculous the stuff they said was but right now there isn’t a whole lot to criticize about what they say about Trump. He’s a fool and has no ideology whatsoever.

Panerd, 100% respect for what you are saying here and your position and opinion on how government should function even if am I one of those "leftists" who would disagree with most of what you said in the second paragraph. So are you still okay with a Trump Presidency because he still gives you closer to what how you believe a government should be run, or are you as fed up with him as we "leftists" are?

[stevew]

Center=whatever I think is correct

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by fortheglory

This forum has become a mostly left leaning progressive groupthink.

I think it's interesting that this particular thread has become mostly a left leaning progressive groupthink. I think you could rightly say that this board leans pretty strongly left, but I also think that if you went back to read this thread at around election time you'd see a lot more posts from our conservative commenters praising his victory. A few months later, and you only see an occasional few posts from these same folks, and flash forward to now & this thread is primarily a place for all of our liberal posters to wonder at Trump's latest daily misstep, while our conservative posters stay completely silent on the man and his administration.

...one could perhaps blame that evolution on some kind of collective bullying or political fatigue, but I think the easiest explanation is that the Republican base is pretty much stuck int he same place as his party: they don't agree with much Trump does (or at least says), and their thoughts that he might be manageable or steerable have fallen away over the months, they have no desire to defend Trump's individual actions on a daily basis, but they maintain a dedication to their own conservative beliefs so all they can do is kind of suffer in silence as the 'girl they brought to the dance' drunkenly knocks all the tables to the ground.

Pretty much anywhere outside of the fox/breitbart bubble sounds like a liberal, progressive groupthink, because the liberal have endless material to work with, whereas no individual conservative wants to speak up publicly in order to defend Trump's personal beliefs and/or separate them from his administration's policy. Although my evidence is only anecdotal, I see the same thing on my Facebook feed, where the conservative noise was loud before the election, reached a peak in victory and in the few months that followed, and then has steadily trailed off until now, when even the loudest conservative meme-factories in my feed have become quiet as a church mouse. I get the impression that many conservatives have simply disconnected from this administration.

[Thomkal]

says media cannot be played-got another link Ben?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by fortheglory

I think it's just the opposite.

Democrats continue to move further and further to the left to the point where what was at one time considered to be the middle is now considered far to the right....and anyone who was right of center 25 - 30 years ago is now considered a cook fringe righty.

I for one refuse to keep moving the the "new center", which to me, is simply the same as moving to the left of where I have always been.

I don't see this at all. I mean the left in this country couldn't even pass national health care if they wanted to with a super majority. That's a staple in most first world countries.

Hillary was a fairly moderate candidate and beat out the much more left-wing candidate.

[RainMaker]

Maybe it's that some people think that opposing Trump makes you liberal. But I don't consider Trump on the right or anything. He's kind of his own person with views that change based on what he sees on Fox News.

Take the FISA bill from the other day. He opposed it early in the morning and then did a 180 an hour later. He campaigned on no tax cuts for the wealthy, getting rid of the carried interest break, and other populist ideas which he changed his mind on.

He's as far to the left as any politician in this country on trade (farther than even Bernie!). Wants to dump a trillion into infrastructure. Says he loves debt and just signed a bill that massively adds it.

I think I'm mostly in the middle. Find myself voting Republican in local races and Democrat in national ones. I have issues with both sides though and like some balance. But I oppose Trump for reasons that go beyond his policy. I just don't think he's qualified to hold the office and has been a stain on the country. I have issues with both someone like Bernie and Pence but I'd take either of them over Trump any day.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Pretty much anywhere outside of the fox/breitbart bubble sounds like a liberal, progressive groupthink, because the liberal have endless material to work with, whereas no individual conservative wants to speak up publicly in order to defend Trump's personal beliefs and/or separate them from his administration's policy. Although my evidence is only anecdotal, I see the same thing on my Facebook feed, where the conservative noise was loud before the election, reached a peak in victory and in the few months that followed, and then has steadily trailed off until now, when even the loudest conservative meme-factories in my feed have become quiet as a church mouse. I get the impression that many conservatives have simply disconnected from this administration.

This seems to hold true for most civilized online discussions (the number of which is growing smaller), but elsewhere, even speaking up a word of conservative opinions gets you labeled racist misogynistic scum. Dare provide a counterpoint to anything the left says, and you're attacked on all fronts. Hell, there are cases where it gets you fired.

It's not worth it. Trump's sure as hell not a guy worth defending. He might have a decent viewpoint more often than many will admit - despite him constantly presenting any such viewpoint in the most batshit insane manner physically possible - but he's not worth defending.

That, and the far left / militant sjw front is just beyond crazy at this point. The shit coming out of the extreme left is even more insane than the far right, and that's hard to accomplish. There's no reasoning with those people.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by fortheglory

This forum has become a mostly left leaning progressive groupthink.

Doesn’t seem like their is much actual discussion happening. Feels more like post after post of reactions to daily emotional outbursts.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

This seems to hold true for most civilized online discussions (the number of which is growing smaller), but elsewhere, even speaking up a word of conservative opinions gets you labeled racist misogynistic scum. Dare provide a counterpoint to anything the left says, and you're attacked on all fronts. Hell, there are cases where it gets you fired.

I agree to an extent. I think Trump makes it suck long term for people who are more to the right politically. The party elected an openly racist person so that's going to trickle down to the supporters of that party.

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

That, and the far left / militant sjw front is just beyond crazy at this point. The shit coming out of the extreme left is even more insane than the far right, and that's hard to accomplish. There's no reasoning with those people.

Difference is that those people have no power in this country. Insane ramblings on Twitter mean nothing.

[thesloppy]

I think that we've shifted left socially and shifted right economically over my 46-yr window. If your focus were minority rights it would be hard to argue we haven't significantly shifted to the left in the last 20 years, but we've also placed corporation and industry above the individual concern in that same period and shifted resources away from the working and middle classes.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He's as far to the left as any politician in this country on trade (farther than even Bernie!). Wants to dump a trillion into infrastructure. Says he loves debt and just signed a bill that massively adds it.

I find this facet of the Trump era particularly fascinating because it's perhaps the only thing I agree with Trump about, and it's resulted in some extreme, seemingly acrobatics from all politicians, as well as most of my friends. In between arguments about immigration and racism, I've caught friends & talking heads trying to extend that righteous indignation to the fact that Trump's trade policies will now prevent them from buying cheap Chinese shit from Walmart, which sounds ridiculous coming from those particular mouths. On the other side, watching the right try to adjust to Trump shrugging off global trade initiatives/leadership, as if that's what they wanted all along, is similarly hilarious/frustrating.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Panerd, 100% respect for what you are saying here and your position and opinion on how government should function even if am I one of those "leftists" who would disagree with most of what you said in the second paragraph. So are you still okay with a Trump Presidency because he still gives you closer to what how you believe a government should be run, or are you as fed up with him as we "leftists" are?

I don't think he is "draining the swamp" at all or running the government like a company. He governs with a very strange form of ego-stroking populism that seems to leave him with very few allies on either side of the aisle. Don't get me wrong about the only thing better from a Libetarian's perspective would be Clinton as president with a GOP Congress. Of course leading up to the election I was under no impression he would support any reducing government programs, I just didn't think he had any chance to win.

About the only thing I will agree with him is the media does have a pretty big hard-on for reporting every single thing about him, his past, etc. I wouldn't call it "fake news" like he does but the agenda is pretty apparent. I mean Obama would hang out with celebrities (including the Weinstein group) and they would fawn all over him and Trump does something similar and it's a breaking news crisis.

During the election I was firmly Gary Johnson but then preferred Hilary Clinton and just about every other candidate to Trump. Sadly this election certainly will reinforce the lessor of two evils argument for the rest of my lifetime.

[BBT]

Originally Posted by panerd

About the only thing I will agree with him is the media does have a pretty big hard-on for reporting every single thing about him, his past, etc. I wouldn't call it "fake news" like he does but the agenda is pretty apparent. I mean Obama would hang out with celebrities (including the Weinstein group) and they would fawn all over him and Trump does something similar and it's a breaking news crisis.

I have a feeling this will be the new "normal" going forward, even after Trump leaves office. While most media organizations were struggling to retain viewers/readership over the last couple of decades, FoxNews, Breitbart, and many right leaning media outlets paved the way for the "outrage" journalism that we see across all outlets now. Sadly, it works as ratings and readership are up across the board for almost every outlet as more and more people retreat to their own echo chambers.

[nol]

Originally Posted by fortheglory

I think it's just the opposite.


Democrats continue to move further and further to the left to the point where what was at one time considered to be the middle is now considered far to the right....and anyone who was right of center 25 - 30 years ago is now considered a cook fringe righty.

I for one refuse to keep moving the the "new center", which to me, is simply the same as moving to the left of where I have always been.

This is absolutely false on a legislative level and is simply a right-wing myth created to make anyone to the left of Hillary Clinton seem equal and opposite to Trump.



As you see, Democrats in Congress have become only slightly more liberal over the past few decades, and even that shift is largely due to the more conservative Southern Democrats becoming Republicans in response to the Civil Rights Movement. Someone like Bernie Sanders is not nearly as far left as Trump is to the right; someone as far to the left as Trump is to the right would be trying to abolish ICE and use its officers to forcefully expropriate the wealth of billionaires. Or raising the marginal tax rate for the highest income bracket to 90 percent in order to fund reparations for African Americans. It's either disingenuous or representative of a complete lack of imagination for anyone to think that something like nationalized healthcare is a fringe left-wing idea.

I don't doubt that you're seeing that "increased polarization" on a personal level because you now likely read more and have access to better technology, so you're exposed to opinions of people you never would have associated with before.

[PilotMan]

According to 538 and the analysis of policy alone, Trump grades out as the most conservative president since Reagan. That has nothing to do with what he has said, and everything to do with what he has done. Any consideration of him not being an R is irrelevant when he acts like one.

[Thomkal]

The false alarm in Hawaii revealed an abdication of leadership by Trump - The Washington Post

No tweets about the Hawaii missile alert to reassure people-none either I think about the mudslide victims in CA.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

The false alarm in Hawaii revealed an abdication of leadership by Trump - The Washington Post

No tweets about the Hawaii missile alert to reassure people-none either I think about the mudslide victims in CA.

Couldn't blame it on a Muslim so why bother.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by fortheglory

I think it's just the opposite.


Democrats continue to move further and further to the left to the point where what was at one time considered to be the middle is now considered far to the right....and anyone who was right of center 25 - 30 years ago is now considered a cook fringe righty.

I for one refuse to keep moving the the "new center", which to me, is simply the same as moving to the left of where I have always been.

https://news.wgbh.org/2017/03/15/pol...nly-right-wing

If you follow a lot of right wing media then it'd going to feel like everything is moving left. That's because right is trying to move further right to support the Trump administration, which as point out above, is on par with Reagan as far as conservatives go. He's also shifted further to the right since taking office, which shows that the right is moving more to the right.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethi...the-right/amp/

[cartman]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Couldn't blame it on a Muslim so why bother.

At least Arpaio was able to work the birth certificate into his discussions on the false alarm.

[kingfc22]

Don’t worry. Trump insists he’s not a racist. In fact, the least racist person ever.

[nol]

Originally Posted by panerd

About the only thing I will agree with him is the media does have a pretty big hard-on for reporting every single thing about him, his past, etc. I wouldn't call it "fake news" like he does but the agenda is pretty apparent. I mean Obama would hang out with celebrities (including the Weinstein group) and they would fawn all over him and Trump does something similar and it's a breaking news crisis.

LOL this is the definition of normalization. You seriously think it wouldn't have been a big news story if it came out that Obama had paid a porn star six figures to keep quiet about an affair? That wasn't even the stupidest Trump-related revelation this week!

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by nol

LOL this is the definition of normalization. You seriously think it wouldn't have been a big news story if it came out that Obama had paid a porn star six figures to keep quiet about an affair? That wasn't even the stupidest Trump-related revelation this week!

It this any more real than the 'Obama Birth Certificate' scandal which ran? ... I've yet to see anything overly credible in this regard .. just rumor and inuendo.

(and trust me I'd like to see something 'stick' on Trump - but I think constant rumors help no one nor the presses credibility when its under attack by Trump)

[Ben E Lou]

Word is leaking that there is disagreement from those who were in the room over whether Trump said "shithole" or "shithouse," and that's what the Cotton/Perdue "denial" statement is all about. (If these reports are correct, Cotton and Perdue are saying they heard "shithouse," not "shithole.")

What an awesome time to be alive!

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Word is leaking that there is disagreement from those who were in the room over whether Trump said "shithole" or "shithouse," and that's what the Cotton/Perdue "denial" statement is all about. (If these reports are correct, Cotton and Perdue are saying they heard "shithouse," not "shithole.")

What an awesome time to be alive!

pass the cyanide

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

Don’t worry. Trump insists he’s not a racist. In fact, the least racist person ever.

yeahyeah yada yada he's the best at being not the worst...

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Word is leaking that there is disagreement from those who were in the room over whether Trump said "shithole" or "shithouse," and that's what the Cotton/Perdue "denial" statement is all about. (If these reports are correct, Cotton and Perdue are saying they heard "shithouse," not "shithole.")

What an awesome time to be alive!

"You mean you changed your name TO Latrine?"
"Yeah, it used to be Shit House"
"That's a good change!"

[cartman]

On a tangent, when I was working in Italy, one of my very good looking Italian coworkers was reading an English book. She asked me "Greggorio, what does it mean 'to be built as if a brick shithouse'? I said, well, that describes you! She got mad and said "I am like a place where you poop?" It took a while and several outside confirmations to get the meaning across.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by cartman

On a tangent, when I was working in Italy, one of my very good looking Italian coworkers was reading an English book. She asked me "Greggorio, what does it mean 'to be built as if a brick shithouse'? I said, well, that describes you! She got mad and said "I am like a place where you poop?" It took a while and several outside confirmations to get the meaning across.

"She" got mad - tbh most English lasses would take that as an insult as well ... the connotation here is that you're muscular, fearless and ready for a rumble ... is it not the case in the US?

[cartman]

The US connotation is "very well put together"

[nol]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

"She" got mad - tbh most English lasses would take that as an insult as well ... the connotation here is that you're muscular, fearless and ready for a rumble ... is it not the case in the US?

I think cartman would say that any English lass who would take that as an insult is a bit too petite for his liking

But I’m kinda with you in that if it’s shithouse rather than just house (like the Commodores song) my mind conjures up someone who looks like Wayne Rooney.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

"She" got mad - tbh most English lasses would take that as an insult as well ... the connotation here is that you're muscular, fearless and ready for a rumble ... is it not the case in the US?

Originally Posted by cartman

The US connotation is "very well put together"

Huh. My interpretation is much closer to the UK interpretation, though I've only ever interpreted the phrase by context.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

Huh. My interpretation is much closer to the UK interpretation, though I've only ever interpreted the phrase by context.

+1

If I'm thinking of a female that's built like a brick shithouse, I'm thinking of a masculine female.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by lungs

+1

If I'm thinking of a female that's built like a brick shithouse, I'm thinking of a masculine female.

+2

There's females I have played co-ed sports with who would take as a compliment, but for the vast majority of women I know it would come off as a pretty big insult.

Originally Posted by nol

This is absolutely false on a legislative level and is simply a right-wing myth created to make anyone to the left of Hillary Clinton seem equal and opposite to Trump.



As you see, Democrats in Congress have become only slightly more liberal over the past few decades, and even that shift is largely due to the more conservative Southern Democrats becoming Republicans in response to the Civil Rights Movement. Someone like Bernie Sanders is not nearly as far left as Trump is to the right; someone as far to the left as Trump is to the right would be trying to abolish ICE and use its officers to forcefully expropriate the wealth of billionaires. Or raising the marginal tax rate for the highest income bracket to 90 percent in order to fund reparations for African Americans. It's either disingenuous or representative of a complete lack of imagination for anyone to think that something like nationalized healthcare is a fringe left-wing idea.

I don't doubt that you're seeing that "increased polarization" on a personal level because you now likely read more and have access to better technology, so you're exposed to opinions of people you never would have associated with before.

Where's the graph from? I agree with your overall point, but I'm interested what they're using as a definition of 0.0 - I can't imagine the average American hasn't gotten more progressive when it comes to things like minority rights since the 1970's let alone the 1870's, so I'm curious what they're using as a baseline. There's also the shift from when Republicans were the ones pushing for minority rights to when Democrats took over the mantle, so unless it's purely economic I'm not sure "Liberal/Conservative" on the left is an accurate definition, since the graph should be an X in that case.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by cartman

The US connotation is "very well put together"

Factually based, I think of it as a lady who is stacked. She's out there and never holds back. Very well assembled. She has everything you want in a female. With dimensions of 36/24/36, there's no way she can lose.

[Groundhog]

In Australia, it's a term that gets used a lot to describe your typical rugby player.

[nol]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Where's the graph from? I agree with your overall point, but I'm interested what they're using as a definition of 0.0 - I can't imagine the average American hasn't gotten more progressive when it comes to things like minority rights since the 1970's let alone the 1870's, so I'm curious what they're using as a baseline. There's also the shift from when Republicans were the ones pushing for minority rights to when Democrats took over the mantle, so unless it's purely economic I'm not sure "Liberal/Conservative" on the left is an accurate definition, since the graph should be an X in that case.

The first graph on the Wikipedia page for political polarization. The measurement they use (NOMINATE) is the standard for political science that quantifies how liberal or conservative a member of Congress is.

Again, the graph is a measurement of legislative polarization, and America has certainly not become much more progressive over the past few decades in terms of actual policy. Even if we were to ignore purely economic stuff like how the marginal tax rate for the top bracket in Hillary Clinton's tax plan was lower than the one in Ronald Reagan's, we just had the first presidential election without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. We haven't had any major civil rights or environmental legislation since the early 90s, for example. Also it should go without saying that if it took 100 years after the Civil War for Congress to get around to desegregating schools, neither party was pushing particularly hard for minority rights.

[bbgunn]

Correct me if I'm wrong - and Trump should not have used the word at all; no need to be crude there - but I'm having trouble seeing the inherent racism in calling those countries "shithole countries" without more context. Like, if they were talking about Macedonia or the Ukraine as well as Haiti, El Salvador, and Africa, would Trump not have used the word "shithole"? If so, then that is racism, but I have trouble inferring that. If he meant that those countries are in bad condition, then I have no trouble with that. If he said Barbados or Botswana is a "shithole country", then we have a racism issue. Haiti has serious infrastructure problems among other things. Not every African country is in bad shape, but some are.

I think the bigger issue should be that he said "Why do we need to take in people from these shithole countries?", rather than "shithole countries" by itself. To me, the former is a more racist statement than the latter, even without the word "shithole", because he's putting everybody in the country in one boat ("They're all rapists", etc.). Nobody is talking about that, but rather "shithole countries" in isolation.

[Thomkal]

So the last three Presidents did something to honor MLK. church, white house speeches with King relatives, community service etc. Trump-had a link to his weekly address where he talked about King...then went to play golf. No events, no community service, nothing.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

So the last three Presidents did something to honor MLK. church, white house speeches with King relatives, community service etc. Trump-had a link to his weekly address where he talked about King...then went to play golf. No events, no community service, nothing.

The man has done nothing but take his whole life, not a surprise at all.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by bbgunn

Correct me if I'm wrong - and Trump should not have used the word at all; no need to be crude there - but I'm having trouble seeing the inherent racism in calling those countries "shithole countries" without more context. Like, if they were talking about Macedonia or the Ukraine as well as Haiti, El Salvador, and Africa, would Trump not have used the word "shithole"? If so, then that is racism, but I have trouble inferring that. If he meant that those countries are in bad condition, then I have no trouble with that. If he said Barbados or Botswana is a "shithole country", then we have a racism issue. Haiti has serious infrastructure problems among other things. Not every African country is in bad shape, but some are.

I think the bigger issue should be that he said "Why do we need to take in people from these shithole countries?", rather than "shithole countries" by itself. To me, the former is a more racist statement than the latter, even without the word "shithole", because he's putting everybody in the country in one boat ("They're all rapists", etc.). Nobody is talking about that, but rather "shithole countries" in isolation.

Africa, Haiti and El Salvador being shitholes while needing more people from places like Norway gives away the game.

Well, that and fifty years of Trump's history.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Africa, Haiti and El Salvador being shitholes while needing more people from places like Norway gives away the game.

Well, that and fifty years of Trump's history.

Don't we also get to say that his dad was involved with the KKK? I mean, it's in his realm of reality so it's real, right?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by nol

The first graph on the Wikipedia page for political polarization. The measurement they use (NOMINATE) is the standard for political science that quantifies how liberal or conservative a member of Congress is.

Again, the graph is a measurement of legislative polarization, and America has certainly not become much more progressive over the past few decades in terms of actual policy. Even if we were to ignore purely economic stuff like how the marginal tax rate for the top bracket in Hillary Clinton's tax plan was lower than the one in Ronald Reagan's, we just had the first presidential election without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. We haven't had any major civil rights or environmental legislation since the early 90s, for example. Also it should go without saying that if it took 100 years after the Civil War for Congress to get around to desegregating schools, neither party was pushing particularly hard for minority rights.

But most NOMINATE graphs that aren't on single votes/issues tend to use two axes - one for economics and one for hot button social issues - for a reason. And of course neither party was progressive by today's standards, which is doubly why a graph that implies that Democrats from 1880-1930 were more liberal than their Republican counterparts, and 2010 Democrats is so incredibly weird that I would love to hear the explanation of what exactly it's measuring, because as far as I can tell that's not actually from any of the linked works, and it's certainly not the definitions of "Liberal" and "Conservative" as I understand them. If it's just a measure of how often those voters voted along party lines on all issues (which would be my best guess), fine, but it's such a lax and misleading labeling of the axis it makes me distrust the whole graph.

[bbgunn]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Africa, Haiti and El Salvador being shitholes while needing more people from places like Norway gives away the game.

Well, that and fifty years of Trump's history.

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Don't we also get to say that his dad was involved with the KKK? I mean, it's in his realm of reality so it's real, right?

True, true.

[nol]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

But most NOMINATE graphs that aren't on single votes/issues tend to use two axes - one for economics and one for hot button social issues - for a reason. And of course neither party was progressive by today's standards, which is doubly why a graph that implies that Democrats from 1880-1930 were more liberal than their Republican counterparts, and 2010 Democrats is so incredibly weird that I would love to hear the explanation of what exactly it's measuring, because as far as I can tell that's not actually from any of the linked works, and it's certainly not the definitions of "Liberal" and "Conservative" as I understand them. If it's just a measure of how often those voters voted along party lines on all issues (which would be my best guess), fine, but it's such a lax and misleading labeling of the axis it makes me distrust the whole graph.

There are plenty of other studies that show the same thing. If you're willing to distrust it based on the labeling (the labeling specifically says the liberal-conservative aka economic dimension, which is the one that far outweighs the other) that probably says more about you than the graph. I'm not aware of any definitions of liberal-conservative that don't revolve around how big a role the government should play in the economy, and Democrats in the 1800s were certainly more liberal in that sense.

[Edward64]

Nice timing. Git 'em when they are down and weakened.

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/16/politi...non/index.html

Special counsel Robert Mueller subpoenaed former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon last week, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

Bannon was on Capitol Hill testifying before the House Intelligence Committee when the news broke that Mueller had issued the subpoena for the now-estranged associate of President Donald Trump to testify before a grand jury.
Bannon's testimony on the Hill Tuesday was his first appearance before any of the congressional committees investigating alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election or potential coordination with Trump's associates, and it comes just days after the White House broke with Bannon over comments attributed to him disparaging Trump and the Trump family.