Twitter

Politics, Religion, Salsa Recipes, etc. Everything you shouldn't bring up at your Uncle's house.

Twitter

Postby Largent80 » Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:24 am

Is for TWITS. Especially the president

He really shows what kind of person he is whenever he picks up his phone.

Can we just get rid of it please.
User avatar
Largent80
Legacy
 
Posts: 1016
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:38 pm
Location: Magnolia, Texas

Re: Twitter

Postby RiverDog » Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:23 pm

I agree, he'd be better off if he'd at least lay off it for awhile. I'd probably get myself in trouble, too, if I broadcast to the world the very first thought that came into my mind on every subject the way he does.

But the way he sees it, it's his way to bypass the press, and he does have a point.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7297
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Twitter

Postby Seahawks4Ever » Mon Oct 16, 2017 4:10 am

It is what he tweets not that he tweets. I read a poll that said that more than 50% of Republicans would be "OK" with Trump "suspending" congress and becoming a dictator if he can't get congress to pass any of his agenda. Turn off FOX News and log off of Breitbart and Info Wars and you just MIGHT learn something. But, most who supported Trump for POTUS just cannot accept that they made a catastrophic mistake when they voted for that foul mouthed blowhard.

I can understand being duped to vote for him once, but, after what he has said and done since it painfully clear Trump is completely unfit for the office of POTUS
Seahawks4Ever
Legacy
 
Posts: 1280
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:56 pm

Re: Twitter

Postby RiverDog » Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:58 am

Seahawks4Ever wrote:It is what he tweets not that he tweets.


That's my point. I think that Twitter is a legitimate and appropriate way for a POTUS or anyone else to communicate. It's a lot easier and less invasive than holding a televised press conference.

That doesn't mean I think press conferences should be done away with. IMO it's important for any POTUS to have their feet held to the fire on a variety of subjects, and the problem with Twitter is that it's one way communication. There's no opportunity for a Q&A.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7297
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Twitter

Postby Seahawkgal » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:14 am

I agree with Rob that Twitter is garbage. Just gossip and hearsay.
Having said that; Yes, turn off FOX News BUT ALSO CNN!!! Both have their biased agendas. I hate the general News media. I don't trust or believe ANY of them. True Journalism is DEAD!
All I know is where I stand on individual ISSUES. I don't ally with a political side. I never have. Our world is so EFFED UP right now, it seriously is. Sigh. Sorry for my rant.
Seahawkgal
Legacy
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:08 am

Re: Twitter

Postby RiverDog » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:52 am

Seahawkgal wrote:I agree with Rob that Twitter is garbage. Just gossip and hearsay.
Having said that; Yes, turn off FOX News BUT ALSO CNN!!! Both have their biased agendas. I hate the general News media. I don't trust or believe ANY of them. True Journalism is DEAD!
All I know is where I stand on individual ISSUES. I don't ally with a political side. I never have. Our world is so EFFED UP right now, it seriously is. Sigh. Sorry for my rant.


I have a Twitter account, but I never use it. Nevertheless, it's good for getting an opinion out unfiltered by anyone.

I agree with you about turning off cable news, and I'll toss in NPR and talk radio with those that promote biased agendas. The only time I watch cable/network news is if there's real time breaking news, like the Las Vegas shooting, a hurricane, or on election night. Otherwise, I get most of my news off my MSN start page, which takes its articles from a variety of sources. TV news is inherently worried about ratings, and tends to show stories that can make good pictures and videos so as to attract a viewing audience and the advertising dollars that goes with it.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7297
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Twitter

Postby Aseahawkfan » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:08 pm

The man used Twitter to win an election. He's never getting off it. I never thought a 70 year old man would have used Twitter more effectively than so many of his younger competitors.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Twitter

Postby RiverDog » Tue Oct 17, 2017 1:59 pm

Aseahawkfan wrote:The man used Twitter to win an election. He's never getting off it. I never thought a 70 year old man would have used Twitter more effectively than so many of his younger competitors.


The major reason Trump won the election has nothing to do with Twitter. The major reason Trump won the presidency is because the Democrats nominated a reptile.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7297
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Twitter

Postby Aseahawkfan » Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:43 pm

RiverDog wrote:The major reason Trump won the election has nothing to do with Twitter. The major reason Trump won the presidency is because the Democrats nominated a reptile.


It's not the main reason, but Trump used Twitter to bypass the media as you already stated and rally his supporters. And it was most assuredly an effective tool in his arsenal to get his message across and helped him win the election. He's not going to stop using it, so I would get that idea out of your head. A Twitter from Trump literally sends the mainstream and online media into a frenzy garnishing him massive exposure. He's likely the most popular (not necessarily in a good way) and followed (I don't mean necessary hitting the follow key) twitterer in the world You go ahead and believe it had no effect on the election, but I believe it was one of the most effective uses of Twitter in the modern political era.

Twitter and its like are not going away any time soon. Politicians are going to have to learn to use it more effectively for the growing attention challenged and electronically addicted electorate. More and more people are using their phones to interact with the world including getting their news. Those tiny screens are tailor made for social media like Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and Youtube.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the future is blurbs and tweets and other short-form media. The era of having to know anything real is over. Book readers are shrinking. And even watchers of educational channels are shrinking. Social Media and the Internet are the future. You better know how to use it effectively to manipulate the masses. Trump has used it as effectively as anyone I've ever seen. I never saw so many stories based on tweets or tweet discussions until he was in office. It's ridiculous.

Now do I think it's going to lead to a better world? Hell no, I don't. Is it going to continue? Yes, it is. I see all these young people on their phones getting their news from social media feeds on Facebook and the like and I know it's over for the intelligent, educated American.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Twitter

Postby Largent80 » Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:12 pm

People walk through busy streets in crosswalks buried in their phones.

It is a sad state we're in. A Twatwaffle president that can't talk to anyone except through his gawd damned phone. Man, I miss integrity and Obama.
User avatar
Largent80
Legacy
 
Posts: 1016
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:38 pm
Location: Magnolia, Texas

Re: Twitter

Postby burrrton » Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:23 pm

I miss integrity and Obama.


I have *zero* doubt that Trump could violate every norm we expect from the Presidency, but Obama was hardly the epitome of integrity.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 2986
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Twitter

Postby RiverDog » Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:33 pm

Aseahawkfan wrote:It's not the main reason, but Trump used Twitter to bypass the media as you already stated and rally his supporters. And it was most assuredly an effective tool in his arsenal to get his message across and helped him win the election. He's not going to stop using it, so I would get that idea out of your head. A Twitter from Trump literally sends the mainstream and online media into a frenzy garnishing him massive exposure. He's likely the most popular (not necessarily in a good way) and followed (I don't mean necessary hitting the follow key) twitterer in the world You go ahead and believe it had no effect on the election, but I believe it was one of the most effective uses of Twitter in the modern political era.

Twitter and its like are not going away any time soon. Politicians are going to have to learn to use it more effectively for the growing attention challenged and electronically addicted electorate. More and more people are using their phones to interact with the world including getting their news. Those tiny screens are tailor made for social media like Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and Youtube.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the future is blurbs and tweets and other short-form media. The era of having to know anything real is over. Book readers are shrinking. And even watchers of educational channels are shrinking. Social Media and the Internet are the future. You better know how to use it effectively to manipulate the masses. Trump has used it as effectively as anyone I've ever seen. I never saw so many stories based on tweets or tweet discussions until he was in office. It's ridiculous.

Now do I think it's going to lead to a better world? Hell no, I don't. Is it going to continue? Yes, it is. I see all these young people on their phones getting their news from social media feeds on Facebook and the like and I know it's over for the intelligent, educated American.


Trump had less popular support (46.4%) than Romney did in 2012 (47.2%), so it's a little difficult to argue that Trump was able to motivate his base in a way that his predecessor didn't or couldn't.

The differences in popular vote percentages between Romney in 2012 and Trump in 2016 suggests that it wasn't so much that Trump's base turned out for him than it was that Hillary's base turned their backs on her as she was not able to get her base out in the same numbers that Obama was able to do just 4 years earlier. That's why I said that the main reason Trump won the election is that the Dems nominated a snake.

Twitter was a new means of communicating but IMO it did not have nearly the effect on the election that radio had for FDR in 1932 or that television had for JFK in 1960.

I'm not sure what led you to say that I was 'disappointed' in a future of tweets and blurbs, but you are mistaken. IMO it's no different than the 15 second sound bite that candidates have been using on television and radio for decades, just a different means of saying it. The nation has such a short attention span that they are subject to tweets, blurbs, sound bites, or whatever you want to call a short, 25 words or less statement.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7297
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Twitter

Postby Largent80 » Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:35 am

Rump got elected ONLY because his supporters wanted anyone BUT a politician,, and especially NOT Clinton. Twitter has nothing to do with him winning. Just dumb people(mostly low middle class) who think this person is going to help them out. Bugs says....what a bunch of Ultra Maroons.
User avatar
Largent80
Legacy
 
Posts: 1016
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:38 pm
Location: Magnolia, Texas

Re: Twitter

Postby Aseahawkfan » Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:53 pm

RiverDog wrote:Trump had less popular support (46.4%) than Romney did in 2012 (47.2%), so it's a little difficult to argue that Trump was able to motivate his base in a way that his predecessor didn't or couldn't.

The differences in popular vote percentages between Romney in 2012 and Trump in 2016 suggests that it wasn't so much that Trump's base turned out for him than it was that Hillary's base turned their backs on her as she was not able to get her base out in the same numbers that Obama was able to do just 4 years earlier. That's why I said that the main reason Trump won the election is that the Dems nominated a snake.

Twitter was a new means of communicating but IMO it did not have nearly the effect on the election that radio had for FDR in 1932 or that television had for JFK in 1960.

I'm not sure what led you to say that I was 'disappointed' in a future of tweets and blurbs, but you are mistaken. IMO it's no different than the 15 second sound bite that candidates have been using on television and radio for decades, just a different means of saying it. The nation has such a short attention span that they are subject to tweets, blurbs, sound bites, or whatever you want to call a short, 25 words or less statement.


What do you mean by popular support? Do you mean Republicans or the general popular vote? Trump is not a Republican, he's a wild card that somehow won the Republican card. You're using a very strange way to make your point. His base was not solely Republican. Romney got more popular support as you call it because he was a Republican and closer to a centrist. Trump bypassed the parties to garner support from a lot of independents using social media. He's going to be a political case study for years given what he did. He beat all the mainstream Republicans. Then he beat a powerful, well-backed Democrat. I'm still not sure he wouldn't have beat a Bernie Sanders as well. He's a little too Socialist and he's Jewish. I knew quite a few Republicans that didn't vote for Romney because he was Mormon. I have little doubt that being Jewish would have hurt Sanders. The Democrats really had no one to go against Trump. I'm still surprised the man won the Republican card, much less the shock of winning the election.

Radio and Television likely had more of an effect than social media. Social media is a powerful way to bypass the mainstream, moreso than radio or television ever was. Businesses controlled television and radio. Social media is still the wild west.

I see. You weren't disappointed. You seem to think Twitter is a good way to communicate. I hate that crap myself. The lack of educated and engaged electorate is why we're where we're at. I believe we will only remain relevant if we are making money for someone. Once the world can robotize everything, it's going to change dramatically how many people we need to maintain a functioning world. That's a ways off and I won't have to deal with it.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Twitter

Postby RiverDog » Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:54 am

Aseahawkfan wrote:What do you mean by popular support? Do you mean Republicans or the general popular vote? Trump is not a Republican, he's a wild card that somehow won the Republican card. You're using a very strange way to make your point. His base was not solely Republican. Romney got more popular support as you call it because he was a Republican and closer to a centrist. Trump bypassed the parties to garner support from a lot of independents using social media. He's going to be a political case study for years given what he did. He beat all the mainstream Republicans. Then he beat a powerful, well-backed Democrat. I'm still not sure he wouldn't have beat a Bernie Sanders as well. He's a little too Socialist and he's Jewish. I knew quite a few Republicans that didn't vote for Romney because he was Mormon. I have little doubt that being Jewish would have hurt Sanders. The Democrats really had no one to go against Trump. I'm still surprised the man won the Republican card, much less the shock of winning the election.

Radio and Television likely had more of an effect than social media. Social media is a powerful way to bypass the mainstream, moreso than radio or television ever was. Businesses controlled television and radio. Social media is still the wild west.

I see. You weren't disappointed. You seem to think Twitter is a good way to communicate. I hate that crap myself. The lack of educated and engaged electorate is why we're where we're at. I believe we will only remain relevant if we are making money for someone. Once the world can robotize everything, it's going to change dramatically how many people we need to maintain a functioning world. That's a ways off and I won't have to deal with it.


Popular vote. That should be self explanatory as I attached popular vote percentages to Romney and Trump.

Where and how Trump won the election was in the rust belt states of PA, OH, MI, and WI, and he did it with his "America first" theme that appealed to a lot of white males w/o a college degree (and not as likely to be beholden to Twitter as other groups), former auto and steel workers/families that in their eyes, saw their jobs being outsourced to foreign companies. He ran a brilliant campaign while his opponent ran an absolutely horrid campaign, as she couldn't get traditional Democratic voters to turn out for her. Blacks, for example, turned out in far fewer numbers in 2016 than they had in the recent past. The percentages of blacks that voted in 2016 decreased by a full 7% from 2012, and reversed an upward trend that started in 1996. It was the biggest change in any demographic group. That's a pretty stark fact that I'd like to present to the kneeling, protesting NFL players...there's a strong argument to be made that they, more so than any other demographic group, are the ones that allowed Donald Trump to gain the presidency.

I didn't say that I 'liked' Twitter. As I noted earlier, even though I have an account, I don't use it. The only social media I use is Facebook, and I do that to keep track of the activities of some of my long lost friends. What I am doing is acknowledging it as a communication vehicle and have equated it to the 15 second sound bite, those brief spot ads or photo ops that highlight a theme. I don't feel Twitter has dramatically changed the political landscape to the same degree that you feel it has, at least not in campaigns. Trump is using it to govern, which I don't like at all. I can see using it when he thinks he's not getting a fair shake from the press, but he's using it for far more than just bypassing the press, he's using it to spout any and every knee jerk reaction he has to news he doesn't like.

Good debate. Thanks for keeping it civil.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7297
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Twitter

Postby Hawktawk » Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:37 am

The major reason Trump won the election has nothing to do with Twitter. The major reason Trump won the presidency is because the Democrats nominated a reptile.[/quote]

This right here^^^^^
Rump won IN SPITE OF TWITTER. Currently only 21% think he should use it like he does and a majority opposed candidate trump using it but still voted for him anyway.

Klinton was a lazy reptile who didn't one time visit Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Michigan and lost all 3 by a combined 40 thousand some odd votes. A battle axe that sounded like fingers scratching on the blackboard when she spoke.
Much as I detest Trump I simply couldn't do it in the ballot booth and voted for Johnson. Had a Biden, Webb, or O'Malley been nominated I would definitely have voted democrat strictly to stop trump.
I am still astounded however that Trump polls higher than her to this day with a 37% average approval rate and his disastrous first 9 months.

Frankly as a lifelong republican I believe the country would be more stable and secure with her in office as opposed to the daily twitter storm and train wreck that the WH is currently. Ideology is the last thing on my mind at this point.

But I also believe more and more that Russia had an influence that may have tipped the scales. More is known of their targeting Facebook, twitter etc. to rip Clinton and pump Trump, Sanders, and Stein all the time.
Most curious is that the social media espionage targeted specific swing DISTRICTS AND PRECINCTS in battleground states. Libertarian Johanson was not targeted for support as it was perceived he would draw more disaffected republicans than democrats.

The administration just recently released data indicating that Russia had attempted to hack voter rolls and voting systems in 28 states including the 3 named above. Did they sway the outcome? Obviously to some degree. Millions of people saw the fake websites.
But again to address RDs point it only succeeded due to the extraordinarily weak candidate the Dems put forth. She whiffed on a gimme.

I still find it utterly chilling that our greatest geopolitical foe did everything in their power to buy a Manchurian candidate over a long period of time, compromise him with shady business deals and his own personal peccadillos recorded on film, and then do everything imaginable to elect him president of the United States.
It should infuriate every American but 37% are still cool with it. They are enabling both a madman and Vlad Putin.
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 2719
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Twitter

Postby Seahawks4Ever » Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:57 pm

The very worst part of all of that is the fact that most of the Republicans in congress are cowards at best and traitors at worst. To put their political party ahead of the country (and constitution) they swore an oath to serve. It painfully shows that they have NEVER been about being public "servants" and are in government to line their pockets. Yes, there are a few good ones, but I am REALLY disappointed in Chuck Grassely of Iowa, I once wished he was our senator, now I only see a snake of any of them Don't get me wrong, I despise most democrats and consider many of them snakes as well, but I have NEVER heard conspiring with a foreign power to destroy our great nation.

I can give a pass to many of those who voted for Trump last fall, it was a tough choice after all. BUT, after what we have witnessed (with my OWN EYES and OWN EARS) ANYONE who continues to support Trump and those who continue to prop this criminal up shall get no pass.

Traitors, your day IS coming and being tarred and feathered will be too good for you.

I have been warning people about this since the 1970's, you can imagine how much grief I have had to put up with, being called a NUT and much, much worse. I have been a very tolerant person by I simply have no time for people with small minds, and Trump and those that follow him have about as small a mind as one can get.
Seahawks4Ever
Legacy
 
Posts: 1280
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:56 pm

Re: Twitter

Postby Seahawks4Ever » Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:57 pm

The very worst part of all of that is the fact that most of the Republicans in congress are cowards at best and traitors at worst. To put their political party ahead of the country (and constitution) they swore an oath to serve. It painfully shows that they have NEVER been about being public "servants" and are in government to line their pockets. Yes, there are a few good ones, but I am REALLY disappointed in Chuck Grassely of Iowa, I once wished he was our senator, now I only see a snake of any of them Don't get me wrong, I despise most democrats and consider many of them snakes as well, but I have NEVER heard conspiring with a foreign power to destroy our great nation.

I can give a pass to many of those who voted for Trump last fall, it was a tough choice after all. BUT, after what we have witnessed (with my OWN EYES and OWN EARS) ANYONE who continues to support Trump and those who continue to prop this criminal up shall get no pass.

Traitors, your day IS coming and being tarred and feathered will be too good for you.

I have been warning people about this since the 1970's, you can imagine how much grief I have had to put up with, being called a NUT and much, much worse. I have been a very tolerant person by I simply have no time for people with small minds, and Trump and those that follow him have about as small a mind as one can get.
Seahawks4Ever
Legacy
 
Posts: 1280
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:56 pm

Re: Twitter

Postby Largent80 » Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:17 am

I CANNOT give a pass to anyone that voted for Rump. His rhetoric was everywhere for everyone to see and hear for well over a year. If that wasn't enough then those people really are dumb asses or asstriches if you will. Now the world is paying the price for their stupidity. I voted for Clinton just to try and keep this from happening. I wanted Sanders to win, but the DNC and Wasserma-Shultz used their agenda to get Clinton in and look what happened.

Like her or not, she would have been a MUCH better president than the piece of garbage and all his minions in the white now
User avatar
Largent80
Legacy
 
Posts: 1016
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:38 pm
Location: Magnolia, Texas

Re: Twitter

Postby RiverDog » Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:23 am

It would have been interesting to see what the election would have looked like had Joe Biden not lost his son to brain cancer in 2015. It's pure speculation on my part, but when Joe Biden's son died in May of 2015, it had to have taken the wind out of his sails and him out of the race for the nomination, clearing the way for Hillary to take the nomination. Biden did not have near the negatives that Clinton had and would have had the advantage of running somewhat as an incumbent, and certainly would have done better with Obama voters than did Clinton.

The Republicans were the victim of their own system. I honestly think that we had better candidates to choose from when the parties selected their nominees via a caucus system, and the smoke filled rooms, rather than what is today is almost exclusively a primary system. Hillary might not have emerged from the smoke filled room, either, as party bosses might have realized that although she might appeal more to many of them than other candidates, that she couldn't win a national election because of her negatives.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7297
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Twitter

Postby kalibane » Fri Oct 20, 2017 8:24 am

You know what's sad Riv? (at least in terms of how it reflects on our society) I think one of the biggest reasons Biden would have run roughshod over Trump is there probably would have been at least a handful of times where his off the cuff responses to Trump's infantile name calling would have drawn into sharp contrast how small a man Trump is. And unlike Marco "small hands" Rubio or Hillary "Trumped up Trickle Down" Clinton, it would have come across as authentic.

Ironically his propensity for "gaffes" that had held him back for years would have all of a sudden been an asset.
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Twitter

Postby RiverDog » Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:43 pm

kalibane wrote:You know what's sad Riv? (at least in terms of how it reflects on our society) I think one of the biggest reasons Biden would have run roughshod over Trump is there probably would have been at least a handful of times where his off the cuff responses to Trump's infantile name calling would have drawn into sharp contrast how small a man Trump is. And unlike Marco "small hands" Rubio or Hillary "Trumped up Trickle Down" Clinton, it would have come across as authentic.

Ironically his propensity for "gaffes" that had held him back for years would have all of a sudden been an asset.


Yea, Biden was prone to gaffes, alright. Although I'm not a Democrat, I've always felt a bit of sympathy for how he used to stick his foot in his mouth and felt it was a very human characteristic, one that we're all susceptible to from time to time.

I don't know how much difference that would have made against Trump's down in the gutter trash talk. His base doesn't seem to care about him breaking all the rules. But there's no doubt in my mind that Biden or ABC (anybody but Clinton) would have beaten Trump handily.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7297
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Twitter

Postby Aseahawkfan » Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:48 pm

RiverDog wrote:Where and how Trump won the election was in the rust belt states of PA, OH, MI, and WI, and he did it with his "America first" theme that appealed to a lot of white males w/o a college degree (and not as likely to be beholden to Twitter as other groups), former auto and steel workers/families that in their eyes, saw their jobs being outsourced to foreign companies. He ran a brilliant campaign while his opponent ran an absolutely horrid campaign, as she couldn't get traditional Democratic voters to turn out for her. Blacks, for example, turned out in far fewer numbers in 2016 than they had in the recent past. The percentages of blacks that voted in 2016 decreased by a full 7% from 2012, and reversed an upward trend that started in 1996. It was the biggest change in any demographic group. That's a pretty stark fact that I'd like to present to the kneeling, protesting NFL players...there's a strong argument to be made that they, more so than any other demographic group, are the ones that allowed Donald Trump to gain the presidency.


The black vote is unlikely to turn out anywhere near the numbers Obama obtained again. That's not a surprise for obvious reasons.

I didn't say that I 'liked' Twitter. As I noted earlier, even though I have an account, I don't use it. The only social media I use is Facebook, and I do that to keep track of the activities of some of my long lost friends. What I am doing is acknowledging it as a communication vehicle and have equated it to the 15 second sound bite, those brief spot ads or photo ops that highlight a theme. I don't feel Twitter has dramatically changed the political landscape to the same degree that you feel it has, at least not in campaigns. Trump is using it to govern, which I don't like at all. I can see using it when he thinks he's not getting a fair shake from the press, but he's using it for far more than just bypassing the press, he's using it to spout any and every knee jerk reaction he has to news he doesn't like.

Good debate. Thanks for keeping it civil.


I got no dog in this fight. You know how Irish Greg is feeling about the Seahawks? That's how I feel about American politics. These clowns are handing the presidency back and forth and very little changes. The only thing that makes Trump so unbearable is his narcissistic, combative. prickly personality. Once you open your eyes and look past all the stupid media crap, this is business as usual in Washington. For all the protests and other stupid things, not much has changed for many people. If Obama care is dropped, the states will start paying for healthcare again like they did before Obamacare. Illegal immigrants will keep on coming back no matter how many times they find the sad stories they paint to try to be the face of the immigration problem. Companies will get their tax breaks and the wealthy will still make more money and pay less as a percentage in taxes because our tax laws favor business and always will. It's not different in other nations regardless of how they try to paint it. The only reason Americans have more rich folk is because our wealth building engine is so much stronger than any other place in the world. The dirty secret the Democrats won't speak of that the Republicans shove in the people's faces is that productive business owners make more money for the government and society in general than the poor or middle class. You need them more than you need the poor no matter how often the people cry about income inequality. If we took a pile of money, divided it up equally an infinite number of times, income inequality would happen an infinite number of times because the 1% isn't about just the money, it's tied to a lot of other factors many of which can't be simulated by handing people more money.

And Trump doesn't care. He's going to be super rich when he's done, just like he's super rich while he's president. This is all to feed his ego. He's likely being manipulated by more political savvy people in the White House.

I'm starting to doubt anyone worthwhile even wants to run for President any longer. It doesn't pay much. It's almost guaranteed that 30 to 40% of the nation will despise you. And the amount of lies and BS that will circulate about you on the Internet and with the media has reached stupid levels. You don't have a great deal of real power. You're basically the face man for a powerful nation run by an oligarchy.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Twitter

Postby RiverDog » Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:05 am

Aseahawkfan wrote:The black vote is unlikely to turn out anywhere near the numbers Obama obtained again. That's not a surprise for obvious reasons.


It was bound to drop some, but a 7% decline is huge, and is the largest decline of any racial or ethnic demographic since '92. Black voting was higher in 2004 when Obama wasn't on the radar. Plus you have to factor into the mix that Donald Trump was perhaps the most racially divisive presidential candidate since David Duke, and that fact alone should have generated a higher turnout. Polls of non voting blacks, when asked why they didn't vote, showed that the #1 reason for them not voting was that they didn't like the candidates, which considering the rate at which blacks vote for Dems, can be translated into that they didn't like Hillary.

In other ethnic groups, ie Hispanics and Asians, voter participation remained flat, which again when you take into account Trump's very caustic attitude towards minorities and immigrants, should have resulted in a ground swell of voters flocking into Hillary's camp. In 14 of the 34 states that had Senate elections, more people voted in the Senate race than voted for POTUS.

All those stats helps to paint a very clear and unmistakable picture: The #1 reason to why we got stuck with Donald Trump is Hillary Clinton.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7297
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Twitter

Postby Aseahawkfan » Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:22 pm

RiverDog wrote:It was bound to drop some, but a 7% decline is huge, and is the largest decline of any racial or ethnic demographic since '92. Black voting was higher in 2004 when Obama wasn't on the radar. Plus you have to factor into the mix that Donald Trump was perhaps the most racially divisive presidential candidate since David Duke, and that fact alone should have generated a higher turnout. Polls of non voting blacks, when asked why they didn't vote, showed that the #1 reason for them not voting was that they didn't like the candidates, which considering the rate at which blacks vote for Dems, can be translated into that they didn't like Hillary.

In other ethnic groups, ie Hispanics and Asians, voter participation remained flat, which again when you take into account Trump's very caustic attitude towards minorities and immigrants, should have resulted in a ground swell of voters flocking into Hillary's camp. In 14 of the 34 states that had Senate elections, more people voted in the Senate race than voted for POTUS.

All those stats helps to paint a very clear and unmistakable picture: The #1 reason to why we got stuck with Donald Trump is Hillary Clinton.


I don't see that clear a picture, sorry Dog. You believe what you want, not much I can say will change it. I don't buy what you're selling. I think Trump would have beat Clinton, Sanders, and Biden. I don't think they had a Democratic candidate other than Obama that would have beat Trump. He beat all the Republican mainstream candidates too. Romney knew he would get beat and that's why he stayed out of it. Trump won because America wanted something very different this time for president. A lot of the issues Trump was pushing are very real in the minds of many Americans. Neither party's mainstream candidates were addressing them.

You also underestimate religions's effect on elections. Biden is a Catholic. Sanders is a Jew. Romney is a Mormon. In elections decided by a margin of a few percentage points, this matters. I don't care about religion myself. I know you don't care. We're both from Washington and religion is not a big decider of elections in this state. But for president, it is huge. That's why we have had exactly one non-Protestant president. JFK was a Catholic, our only Catholic president. If Obama were really a Muslim, he wouldn't have won the presidency.

This election is going to be analyzed for a while. But the reality is only Clinton had a chance to beat Trump. Any other candidate would have lost a large portion of votes due to their religious affiliation that they would not have made up elsewhere. People talk about the first black or female president, yet we have had only one Catholic president and no Jewish presidents, not even close. Religion still matters in America, not in a left leaning state like Washington, but in many states around the country, and definitely in the Rust Belt.

I know we can't go back in time, but I would have bet you money easily that religion would have played a huge role in any election if Biden, Sanders, or Romney had run. It would have been enough percentage points lost, likely more than Clinton, to secure Trump the nomination and presidency. The dislike for Jewish folk in the black community may be higher than in the white community given there has long been a general feeling that Jewish businessmen exploit and have exploited black artists and people in general for wealth. We all know there is a vocal and prominent minority (Large enough to effect national elections) dislike for Jewish folk in the white community. Not sure about Asians or Latins.

Once Trump secured the Republican nomination, Clinton was their best chance. She checked the most boxes for the voting demographic. She didn't provide a negative in the religion column, which you and a few others seem to be heavily overlooking, even though history clearly shows it is of vital importance in these tight elections.

To be quite honest, I overlooked it myself until the Romney election. I was surprised how many Republican voters didn't want to vote for him because of his Mormon background. I didn't even consider it myself. i was talking to a few people and they brought up Mormonism as a reason not to vote for him. I checked and we have not had a Mormon president. It is considered a big negative with the undecided voter from many of the states that decide these elections. Strange that religion even in 2017 plays such a pivotal role in elections, but it does, even if just a few percentage points.

Suffice it to say, Clinton was the best shot they had to beat Trump and she failed. Bill would have likely won again though. Or Obama. Trump definitely benefited from term limits.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Twitter

Postby Largent80 » Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:11 pm

^ Nope. Sanders would have easily won. And he will in 2020, calling it right now.
User avatar
Largent80
Legacy
 
Posts: 1016
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:38 pm
Location: Magnolia, Texas

Re: Twitter

Postby Aseahawkfan » Sun Oct 22, 2017 12:41 am

Largent80 wrote:^ Nope. Sanders would have easily won. And he will in 2020, calling it right now.


I take that bet. I'll gladly post how wrong I am and how right you are if I should be wrong. I don't think you'll see a Jewish president any time soon as long Israel is a prominent issue in American politics.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Twitter

Postby RiverDog » Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:01 am

Largent80 wrote:^ Nope. Sanders would have easily won. And he will in 2020, calling it right now.


I'd take that bet, too. I doubt that Sanders even comes within sniffing distance of the nomination. People forget that Sanders isn't a Democrat, he's an independent that caucuses with the Dems. That's one of the big reasons why Democratic party operatives conspired to tilt the nomination towards Hillary. Besides, Bernie will be 79 on election day in 2020, so even if he feels motivated to run, he's going to face a huge age hurdle even amongst his core supporters.

It's way, way too early to forecast who the next nominees will be for either party. We're still over a year away from the midterms, and how well some governors and Senators perform in 2018 could determine how strong a candidate they might be in 2020. At this point in the election cycle, no one outside of their home states had even heard of Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. I do suspect that Trump will face a serious challenge for the Republican nomination if he chooses to run for a 2nd term, which is not a given.

If you're looking for a Democrat to keep your eye on, watch out for Andrew Cuomo, 59 years old, 2 term Governor of New York and son of Mario Cuomo. He's a former state attorney general, served in Bill Clinton's cabinet as secretary of HUD, is a centrist with a broad base of support, won his last election by 54% and will be up for re-election in 2018.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7297
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Twitter

Postby Hawktawk » Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:57 am

I still think Pence will be running in 2020. Looking at Muellers legal team he's going for the kill.

I believe he will uncover impeachable offenses and the question will be whether the congress will go along.
Either way some people are going to challenge trump if he makes it long enough to seek a second term.
Corker, Kasich, even Pence if he doesn't want to be forever soiled as trumps enabling lapdog.
Among dems Corey Booker, Kamela Harris, I suppose Cuomo is viable, Elizabeth warren may run.
ABT
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 2719
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Twitter

Postby RiverDog » Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:56 am

Hawktawk wrote:I still think Pence will be running in 2020. Looking at Muellers legal team he's going for the kill.

I believe he will uncover impeachable offenses and the question will be whether the congress will go along.
Either way some people are going to challenge trump if he makes it long enough to seek a second term.
Corker, Kasich, even Pence if he doesn't want to be forever soiled as trumps enabling lapdog.
Among dems Corey Booker, Kamela Harris, I suppose Cuomo is viable, Elizabeth warren may run.
ABT


Pence isn't running unless Trump decides not to. If Trump were impeached or resigns under fire, Pence would be judged as guilty by association. Elizabeth Warren will be 77 on election day in 2020, so you can scratch her name, too.

The nation seems to like governors. Carter, Reagan, Bush 43, and Clinton were all governors that could run on an anti Washington platform. That's what intrigues me about Cuomo. Not very many Senators have been successful recently, with Obama being the only one since Kennedy in '62.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7297
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Twitter

Postby Aseahawkfan » Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:38 pm

I'm intrigued to see Mark Cuban run. I'm so tired of politicians that I do like having someone from the outside running, preferably someone not as petty and narcissistic as Trump.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Twitter

Postby c_hawkbob » Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:11 am

People don't seem to get it; the divide in this country isn't Left vs Right, Republican vs democrat, liberal hippie vs good old boy conservative, those are just the chew toys they give us to occupy ourselves while they go on about the business of raping the countries greatest resource: it's people.

The divide in this country is Wall Street vs Main Street, The board room vs the break room, the Ultra Rich vs those that they manipulate via a corrupt system to maintain their status as the Ultra Rich.

I fully expect that Cuban would be a better President than Trump (but that's a pretty low bar to step over, he'd have to dig to get under it), but I'd sure like to see a president whose concern is for the people of this country instead of protecting the system that made them so f*ckin rich.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: K-evil Kentucky, 42053

Re: Twitter

Postby RiverDog » Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:37 am

c_hawkbob wrote:People don't seem to get it; the divide in this country isn't Left vs Right, Republican vs democrat, liberal hippie vs good old boy conservative, those are just the chew toys they give us to occupy ourselves while they go on about the business of raping the countries greatest resource: it's people.

The divide in this country is Wall Street vs Main Street, The board room vs the break room, the Ultra Rich vs those that they manipulate via a corrupt system to maintain their status as the Ultra Rich.

I fully expect that Cuban would be a better President than Trump (but that's a pretty low bar to step over, he'd have to dig to get under it), but I'd sure like to see a president whose concern is for the people of this country instead of protecting the system that made them so f*ckin rich.


IMO we won't get that from our current 2 party system, which is one of the reasons why I voted for Johnson.

I've always felt that a businessman would make a better POTUS than a career politician, but not this businessman. Being POTUS is more than pushing buttons and throwing levers, it's serving as the country's moral compass. They don't have to be the Pope, but they do have to hold themselves to a higher standard if they are to be an effective leader of a diverse group of people. That's why that even though I didn't vote for him, I was OK with Obama. All too often, Trump lowers himself to the level of those that attack him.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7297
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Twitter

Postby c_hawkbob » Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:47 am

RiverDog wrote:
IMO we won't get that from our current 2 party system, which is one of the reasons why I voted for Johnson.

I've always felt that a businessman would make a better POTUS than a career politician, but not this businessman. Being POTUS is more than pushing buttons and throwing levers, it's serving as the country's moral compass. They don't have to be the Pope, but they do have to hold themselves to a higher standard if they are to be an effective leader of a diverse group of people. That's why that even though I didn't vote for him, I was OK with Obama. All too often, Trump lowers himself to the level of those that attack him.


Well I fundamentally disagree with you. Businesses are in the business of making money, our money. I think they are the worst choice for POTUS.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: K-evil Kentucky, 42053

Re: Twitter

Postby RiverDog » Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:13 am

c_hawkbob wrote:Well I fundamentally disagree with you. Businesses are in the business of making money, our money. I think they are the worst choice for POTUS.


I once read an autobiography about Lee Iacocca, at the time the CEO of Chrysler and generally referred to as the father of the Ford Mustang. Even though he would have ran as a Democrat, I felt that he would have made an excellent POTUS.

During my nearly 40 year career as a mid level manager, I've seen several very, very competent businessmen, one in particular that I used to work for that eventually became the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, that in my opinion would have made great Presidents. They have a level of experience that is directly related to the mechanics of government yet unattainable by about 99.5% of the population. They don't all care solely about making money. Unlike the career politician, many of them have worked their way from the bottom up, have punched a time clock themselves, shot pool with the guys after work, so they know that guy that carries a lunch pail, giving them a perspective unattainable by those that have live their entire life inside the beltway.

The problem is that we've made the Presidency an undesirable position, with fund raising, campaigning, and life in a fish bowl being very unappealing to almost anyone that does not have an over inflated ego such as the current occupant.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7297
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Twitter

Postby idhawkman » Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:53 am

RiverDog wrote:
Popular vote. That should be self explanatory as I attached popular vote percentages to Romney and Trump.



I would urge caution on bringing in the popular vote to an electoral election. Since they are two different things and require two different strategies, its hard to transpose one over the other.
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: Twitter

Postby idhawkman » Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:06 am

Aseahawkfan wrote:
And Trump doesn't care. He's going to be super rich when he's done, just like he's super rich while he's president. This is all to feed his ego. He's likely being manipulated by more political savvy people in the White House.

I"d be skeptical of this since no one seems to stay around him very long....


I'm starting to doubt anyone worthwhile even wants to run for President any longer. It doesn't pay much. It's almost guaranteed that 30 to 40% of the nation will despise you. And the amount of lies and BS that will circulate about you on the Internet and with the media has reached stupid levels. You don't have a great deal of real power. You're basically the face man for a powerful nation run by an oligarchy.


I've made this point for years, "if you are smart enough to be president, you are probably making too much money in the private sector to even consider running."

Not to Asea:
Has anyone considered that Trump tweets and starts a fire over there when he doesn't want attention somewhere else? You'll never know about it though, the msm is too busy complaining about 140 characters instead of digging for the real stories. (This thought should scare you never-Trumpists to death) Bway-ha-ha-ha-ha...
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: Twitter

Postby idhawkman » Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:11 am

Largent80 wrote:^ Nope. Sanders would have easily won. And he will in 2020, calling it right now.


Him declaring as an independent last week again and not a dem will eliminate him from the 2020 race.

I hope you have your wallet out as you will lose those bets...
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: Twitter

Postby idhawkman » Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:14 am

Hawktawk wrote:I still think Pence will be running in 2020. Looking at Muellers legal team he's going for the kill.


Have a change of heart on this in light of the recent reports? Manafort was not being investigated for his Trump campaign ties but instead for his ties to the Democrats and lobbying on behalf of the Russians along with the Podesta group. Can you say, "boomerang"?
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: Twitter

Postby Aseahawkfan » Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:19 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:People don't seem to get it; the divide in this country isn't Left vs Right, Republican vs democrat, liberal hippie vs good old boy conservative, those are just the chew toys they give us to occupy ourselves while they go on about the business of raping the countries greatest resource: it's people.

The divide in this country is Wall Street vs Main Street, The board room vs the break room, the Ultra Rich vs those that they manipulate via a corrupt system to maintain their status as the Ultra Rich.

I fully expect that Cuban would be a better President than Trump (but that's a pretty low bar to step over, he'd have to dig to get under it), but I'd sure like to see a president whose concern is for the people of this country instead of protecting the system that made them so f*ckin rich.


A politician without money will often sell his political position for increased wealth and opportunity. The idea of an altruistic leader doing what is best for the people seems a long shot and it is extremely rare, that's why our Founders are such a surprising group. They took power, then divested it among the people. A rare event in history.

You know how this works C-bob. It's a huge balancing act. We all by this point know that Socio-Capitalism (Socialism and Capitalism Mixed) is the best economic system. There is a very big balancing act of giving your citizens enough freedom and a good enough return to create business and grow the productivity and standard of life of our society and ensuring that the people are able to participate in the free market to acquire a standard of living that is worth pursuing.

The biggest problem nowadays are people arguing over the wealth gap. That is a Red Herring. You're never going to close a wealth gap when you're comparing a working citizen with the owners of multinational corporations. Businesses are no longer local or national, they're international. Their value is based on the share of the global market, not just the national market. When someone like Bill Gates owns Microsoft, Joe Blow homeowner with some stocks, bonds, and property isn't ever going to sniff the wealth value of Bill Gates. That's why this argument is so ridiculous, especially when bringing up smaller nations compared to America.

We can no longer afford to look at each other as class enemies. That has always ended badly for all involved. It's not the rich versus the poor. That type of thinking leads down a rabbit hole that goes to nowhere but destruction.

Rather we need to start asking ourselves what standard of living should we have as Americans? Once we answer that question, then we can pursue policies and tax reforms that allow for this standard of living. We need to move this discussion away from a belief in this idea of total corruption because corruption is something we will never get rid of.

We also need to acknowledge the problem of the global labor market that has been pushed on us using the multi-pronged approach of free trade agreements, outsourcing, automation, and immigration to undercut the power of unions and the wage levels of the American labor market. Many don't want to acknowledge the problem with immigration on the American middle class, but If a businessperson can obtain labor from any nation, then we are no longer competing against other Americans wanting a good American living wage. Instead we're competing against a Mexican living with a Mexican living wage that will take anything better to get out of Mexico or a Russian or Chinese person in exactly the same situation. And this is a problem that has more to it than irrational racial or national "pride."

Suffice it to say I hope at some point someone shifts the focus from the wealth gap which is insurmountable at this point to a focus on standard of living. How do we as Americans want to live? What standard of living is sufficient? How do we pay for socialized medicine if we decide to shift to that method? Do we go with socialized medicine at the cost of higher taxes for working people because that is who has to pay for it? How do we ensure sufficient jobs with wages that allow us to live a standard of living worthwhile to Americans while giving our companies enough freedom to manage labor markets that require competition against international companies that will use cheaper labor to undercut American companies on product prices? So many balls to balance to make this all work.

When economics is such an integral part of our lives, why not a businessman to manage it? You really need to have a good understanding of economics to make a nation work. Too often we elect facemen lawyers to run this nation. All it gets us nicely spoken press conferences and discussions of hippie morality rather than the hard, cold realities of economics that allow us to live much better lives. Who improved our lives more: government welfare programs or businessmen creating products and services that make our daily lives more bearable and easier?
Last edited by Aseahawkfan on Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:06 am, edited 3 times in total.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Next

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest