Disunion of the States: AmExit

[August1991]

I was thinking about Abraham Lincoln, and Hillary Rodham Clinton. And I was thinking about the future.

What constitutes a "nation"?  What is "identity"?

In my personal experience, Americans are individuals. There is no "collective America". 

=====

I predict a future "AmExit". Hillary Rodham is no Abraham Lincoln.

 

.  

Edited October 16, 2016 by August1991

[August1991]

On 10/14/2016 at 0:10 AM, August1991 said:

I was thinking about Abraham Lincoln, and Hillary Rodham Clinton. And I was thinking about the future.

What constitutes a "nation"?  What is "identity"?

In my personal experience, Americans are individuals. There is no "collective America". 

=====

I predict a future "AmExit". Hillary Rodham is no Abraham Lincoln..  

In 1972, McGovern won only 40% of the vote - but Nixon tried to accommodate this minority. He went to China.

In 2016, Trump will win about 45% of the vote - and America's "coastal, progressive left" will heckle, satirize, deride this minority as ignorant fools.

=====

Yet, Vietnam is now selling shoes to Walmart and despite Nixon & Mao, Deng Xiao Ping ultimately decided China's future.

=======

IMHO, President Hillary Rodham Clinton must completely disavow her comments about many ordinary people.. as Lincoln did.

Edited October 18, 2016 by August1991

[sharkman]

It is a divide created by the left for the most part.  Their disdain for anybody who holds different views is alarmingly starting to remind me of pre WWII racism and bigotry.  What was old is new again.  And the hate among the left for Israelis is flat out scary.

Edited October 18, 2016 by sharkman

[bush_cheney2004]

Liberal "support" for Hillary Clinton, even in Canada, means the unlikely embrace of American neoconservative foreign policy, just as Obama largely continued and doubled down on previous Bush administration policies.   As long as the message is packaged well, the underlying military and economic actions are acceptable.   

[kimmy]

2 hours ago, sharkman said:

It is a divide created by the left for the most part.  Their disdain for anybody who holds different views is alarmingly starting to remind me of pre WWII racism and bigotry.  What was old is new again. 

Oh yeah, but the deep south bible-thumpers have such a live-and-let-live outlook for people who don't share their views.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, kimmy said:

Oh yeah, but the deep south bible-thumpers have such a live-and-let-live outlook for people who don't share their views.

 

The deep south is a plenty good outlook for Canadian snowbirds and expats. 

[Moonlight Graham]

On 2016-10-14 at 0:10 AM, August1991 said:

What constitutes a "nation"?  What is "identity"?

In my personal experience, Americans are individuals. There is no "collective America". 

I think Americans feel nationalism because they're all Americans.  Waving flags and singing anthems etc.  They all share love for America.  They're a patriotic country.  They've never been unified in terms of political views or class etc.

Quote

I predict a future "AmExit". Hillary Rodham is no Abraham Lincoln.

Catchy! Exit from what? Itself?

[BC_chick]

22 hours ago, August1991 said:

In 2016, Trump will win about 45% of the vote - and America's "coastal, progressive left" will heckle, satirize, deride this minority as ignorant fools.

[...]

IMHO, President Hillary Rodham Clinton must completely disavow her comments about many ordinary people.. as Lincoln did.

In her defense she said half his supporters are a basket of deplorables, so that cuts it down to 22.5%.  

Secondly, apparently her figures were pretty close.

[sharkman]

13 hours ago, kimmy said:

Oh yeah, but the deep south bible-thumpers have such a live-and-let-live outlook for people who don't share their views.

-k

Is your argument that since the red necks, etc., do it too that it's okay for the progressive left to be bigoted and racist?  I don't quite follow.  The progressive left is supposed to be superior to the backwards thinking hill billys with love and acceptance for any lifestyle(well not polygamy yet but I'm sure that's on the agenda) but when you peel off the plastic veneer, they're pretty much the same.  

[BubberMiley]

7 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Is your argument that since the red necks, etc., do it too that it's okay for the progressive left to be bigoted and racist?  I don't quite follow.  The progressive left is supposed to be superior to the backwards thinking hill billys with love and acceptance for any lifestyle(well not polygamy yet but I'm sure that's on the agenda) but when you peel off the plastic veneer, they're pretty much the same.  

Is your argument that the progressive left has created this divide or that the progressive left is just as bad as the regressive right, but they're supposed to be superior? I don't quite follow.

[Boges]

As with talks about Quebec separation. Much of the standard of living these disaffected places experience are attributable to money shared with the nation as a collective. 

I'm sure states like Alabama and Mississippi would be no better than 3rd world countries on their own. 

[Argus]

17 hours ago, sharkman said:

It is a divide created by the left for the most part.  Their disdain for anybody who holds different views is alarmingly starting to remind me of pre WWII racism and bigotry.  What was old is new again.  And the hate among the left for Israelis is flat out scary.

No, it's a divide created by the Republican Party and other so-called conservatives over the past thirty years, with the rise of talk radio demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and the way Republicans have catered to them and flattered them. The Republican base has become convinced, because talk radio and hard core TV like FOX tells them so, that America has been going into the dumpster, and it's all the fault of foreigners and liberals and faggots and 'elites'. Nothing Trump talks about is new. Republicans have been vowing to their base all-out war against opponents for some time. No compromise or cooperation with the evil unAmericans has become their motto. Even Trump's ridiculous claims that the election is being rigged is just a carryover from the Republican leadership's widespread claims of voter fraud (which is virtually non-existent) over the past some years so they could impose as drastic voter ID laws as they could get away with to keep minorities and poor people from voting. 

The other day John McCain, in another naked appeal to the hard-core, said that if elected he would refuse to accept ANY nomination for the supreme court from Clinton.  And he's a 'moderate', compared to Trump.  Whats that but an insistence that any government other than a Republican government is illegitimate? Total opposition. Scorched earth. Our way or the highway. Of course the crowd bayed their approval. A poll taken last month showed two thirds of Republicans were opposed to ANY compromise with Democrats in the house for any reason. This is the base the Republicans have been steadily building for the last 30 years with more and more catering to ignorance and extremism and intolerance and a rabid insistence that any views other than their own were unacceptable and unAmerican.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Argus

[August1991]

On 10/19/2016 at 0:40 PM, Argus said:

.... Even Trump's ridiculous claims that the election is being rigged is just a carryover from the Republican leadership's widespread claims of voter fraud (which is virtually non-existent) over the past some years so they could impose as drastic voter ID laws as they could get away with to keep minorities and poor people from voting. 

In November 2000, Al Gore did not accept the results on election night. Gore ultimately accepted the results when the Supreme Court decided in December.

During the debate, Donald Trump said that he would do exactly the same as Gore in fact did. But you (and much of the American "elite") prefer to see things differently.

=====

I have no desire to defend Donald Trump. But people like Al Gore, Bill Clinton get a free pass while others, not part of the "cool" crowd, do not.

I just see a huge "AmExit" in the coming years.

Edited October 21, 2016 by August1991

[cybercoma]

It's pretty clear that Gore accepted the results of the election after the mandatory recount in Florida. It's not that difficult to say you will accept the results of the election, period, full stop. A recount is a recount, it's not a rejection of the results; it's verifying the results. Saying he doesn't know if he'll accept the election results is unprecedented. Not once during the process did Gore reject anything.

[Wilber]

A loser requesting a recount in a close riding is common place in our elections. I have never heard a candidate claim an election was rigged.

[Guest]

I also don't believe Gore seeded distrust of the election process or encouraged talk of rebellion and assassinations. Despite open talk of overthrowing the government in the event of a GOP loss at his rallies, Trump doesn't speak out against it. At least Mike Pence shuts down that kind of dangerous and delusional BS at his speaking engagements.

[cybercoma]

Just to be clear here, Bush won Florida by 537 votes, securing the electoral college there. The recount was mandatory under Florida state laws. Gore did not reject the results nor did he request a recount. Once the results of that recount were complete, he conceded, without question. There is no comparison to Trump. Gore never went around the country for weeks saying the election is rigged and refusing to say he will accept the results. Gore accepted the results fully and completely once they were known.

Edited October 21, 2016 by cybercoma

[Argus]

10 hours ago, August1991 said:

In November 2000, Al Gore did not accept the results on election night. Gore ultimately accepted the results when the Supreme Court decided in December.

During the debate, Donald Trump said that he would do exactly the same as Gore in fact did. But you (and much of the American "elite") prefer to see things differently.

Don't be absurd. The circumstances are not the least bit similar. The US election rested on who won Florida, a race that was so close it was 'won' by Bush by 534 votes. Any race that close automatically triggers a recount. If the recount had been allowed to go on it might have resulted in Gore winning Florida, and he would then be president. The Supreme Court stopped the recount on a variety of technical grounds and so Bush became president.

Trump is saying there is widespread voter fraud, even before the election is held, all without any evidence, and that media favoritism means the entire election is 'rigged', and that as such he won't accept the results unless he wins.

 

[cybercoma]

You'll have to forgive Argus for repeating me nearly word-for-word. He has me on ignore.

[August1991]

14 hours ago, Argus said:

Trump is saying there is widespread voter fraud, even before the election is held, all without any evidence, and that media favoritism means the entire election is 'rigged', and that as such he won't accept the results unless he wins.

No, Trump merely said that he would look at the situation when it occurs.

That is exactly what Al Gore did.

=====

Maybe Argus, we should start judging politicians by their actions instead of by their words.

In general in life, that's how I judge people.

I see a growing divide (an AmExit) between the Mark Twains of this world, and the Matt Damons.

Edited October 22, 2016 by August1991

[Bonam]

Russia offers to monitor the US election:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/21/politics/russia-us-election-monitors/

[cybercoma]

5 hours ago, August1991 said:

No, Trump merely said that he would look at the situation when it occurs.

That is exactly what Al Gore did.

That's absolutely wrong. Trump refused to say he would accept the results. Gore didn't reject the results ever. He accepted them when the legally mandated recount was put to a stay by Republican judges in Florida. If anyone in history had the right to reject an election, it was Gore.

[cybercoma]

4 hours ago, Bonam said:

Russia offers to monitor the US election:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/21/politics/russia-us-election-monitors/

We saw how they handle elections. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/9124044/Alleged-ballot-box-stuffing-filmed-at-Russian-polling-station.html

I bet Trump would love that.
 

[kimmy]

9 hours ago, August1991 said:

No, Trump merely said that he would look at the situation when it occurs.

That is exactly what Al Gore did.

 

It's highly disingenuous to suggest that Trump is simply waiting to see whether there will be recounts. He and his boosters and surrogates have been talking about voter fraud and rigged machines since long before the voting even started, talking about dead people voting, talking about people in "inner cities" who are "going to vote 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 times", urging Republicans to go out to the polls and "monitor" them to prevent fraud. (when black dudes in Black Panther costumes go out to "monitor" polls, that's scary voter intimidation. when white dudes in militia-man costumes go out to "monitor" the polls, that's democracy in action!)

Trump and his surrogates and his allies in the alt-right media have been at it for months, explicitly encouraging their voters to doubt and disregard the results of the vote.

Trump called for revolution and urged people to "march on Washington" after Obama beat Romney in 2012, and now after spending all this energy convincing his followers to believe that the election results have been created by large-scale fraud, there is genuine reason to wonder if he will once again reject the results of the vote.

9 hours ago, August1991 said:

 

Maybe Argus, we should start judging politicians by their actions instead of by their words.

In general in life, that's how I judge people.

I see a growing divide (an AmExit) between the Mark Twains of this world, and the Matt Damons.

And I suppose that in this little dichotomy the Trump supporters are "the Mark Twains of this world"?

If that's what you're suggesting, I think it's hilarious an laughable. Mr Clemens would have a field day making light of this campaign in general and of Trump and the rubes who've bought into his granfalloonery. If Mark Twain were alive today, we would probably get an amazing work of satire out of this campaign. Instead the best we can probably hope for is a Parker and Stone Broadway musical.

 -k

[?Impact]

7 hours ago, cybercoma said:

We saw how they handle elections.

 

Much better to have the Canadians monitor it, we can send in Michael Sona