Ducks Attack Message Board Forum
http://www.ducksattack.com/forum/

Kerr and Popovich talk politics
http://www.ducksattack.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=30053
Page 5 of 5

Author:  Groundswell [ Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Kerr and Popovich talk politics

Duck07 wrote:
Groundswell wrote:
You spend all your time trying to convince everybody you're working on some 4th level that is way beyond the Sheepole, and the grand culmination of all your intellect is that you voted for Trump to try and bring down whatever it is you think you're bringing down. At this point in the thread, I don't think I have to enter into your gotcha game.

Naw, I'm on the 36th Chamber with Rza.

I'm not playing a gotcha game either but if your uncomfortable with this feel free to ignore it but how does a vote for Hillary in the previous election change anything in a substantial way for the better going forward with those specific issues you mentioned? Sometimes a step back is necessary to go 2 steps forward but I don't even think it's as bad as "a step back" like the way others have taken this. The real problem with Trump is that he rips the facade off the American Empire and it makes it much harder to support the actions of the state.

The focus should be on going forward with real and substantive ideas but instead we get identity politics/issues that shout and overwhelm discussion by focusing on symptoms and not causes.


Been busy, and haven't been able to get around to this thread. So one thing I reject is the idea that the election is a bi-nary trap. There were 25 applicants for the job. State after state has to vote the applicant in. I'll set the Hillary vs. Bernie stuff aside. There were a number of GOP candidates who I would have been find with. The presidential vote is a boring one in the sense that our only job is to find the person we think will represent the country well. We all get ginned up thinking that presidential elections are going to change everything. They really aren't meant for that. It's our responsibility to size the candidates up and think about which one is the safe pick. I know people will want to think differently, and that magically they can change the world and the entire world economy and affairs with their vote, but that seems to me to be naive and not the job we're assigned when electing a president. We got this big production here, let's screw it up as little as possible. And if any single one of us went into the most important interview we could imagine ourselves ever having and held our hands up and started talking about the size of our package, the second the interview was over we would be known as "the insane candidate", and it would be end of story. For whatever reason, in the paranoid times we live in, Trump convinced people he alone could change everything. That takes a good deal of cultural psychosis.

Author:  Groundswell [ Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Kerr and Popovich talk politics

UofDuck wrote:
lukeyrid13 wrote:
In the long run, how much does it really matter who wins the presidential election? I would say some of the strongest political pulls are: gun control, abortion, gender/race issues, military/war and immigration.

How much has been done and/or changed on those issues in the past 20 years? The left had control of the house, senate and Obama in office and nothing was changed in gun reform. The right had Bush(strong anti-abortion) in office and the house and senate and nothing was done in regards to Roe vs. Wade. Bush spent a ton of money on the military namely money spent in the Middle East but then Obama maintained those troops and costs.
Lukey, you’ve missed the 800 lb gorilla, which is the economy. It’s the largest motivator to voters and Trump offered a difference to voters. As far as Groundswell goes, he can call Trump orange, insane, embarrassing... or whatever adjective makes him feel better, but people often vote with their wallets and that should scare the holy crap out of him.

Lastly, Trump says the very things middle America says. That may irk and offend the left, but it’s reality. He calls corrupt, failing, 3rd world countries s#*^ holes (which is how most blue collar folks view the 3rd World) and the left is whipped into a “race” frenzy. I suspect his comment was not race related, but a lazy way of pointing out that 3rd world corruption and disarray is a big mess. Was it the politically correct way to say it? Nope. And it offended the left big-time. But his words are representative of many Americans. When the left becomes abhorred at these things and react with outrage, they are unknowingly alienating a lot of folks.

In the end, as 07 pointed out, a lot of folks wanted change and voted in an “outsider” who isn’t politically correct to act as a grenade. That was his very slogan. Drain the Swamp. Certainly that is a cocktail that creates outrage to those who have been in power, or were comforted by status-quo, and it sure is a different look to adjust to. The question is, will America adjust?


The economy is the #1 voting issue in every presidential election. Has been for 40 years, and maybe has been in every presidential election. Even when the economy is good, 75% of people say the economy is the #1 issue. Oddly, the economy was in good shape when the election rolled around. Years and years of economy growth. What's weird is Trump convinced voters he was a populist. Remember, he won by a total of 77,000 votes spread across 5 states. Any number of factors could have been part of his win on that small a scale. I've read a number of articles arguing that wallet issues weren't the deciding factor. Look at this thread here--coupled with the Trump voters I've talked to IRL. Most of the time it's single issue voting, and the chance to overturn Roe vs. Wade, or the "grenade" vote to blow up Washington, or immigration. I have never talked to a single Trump voter who used "wallet" issues as a reason, nor could explain how Trump was the best candidate to make them happen. I will grant you that if the economy is humming along when the next election rolls around it's going to make Trump much tougher to beat.

See how Trump convinced people he was a populist is that he race baited and elite baited and Washington baited. Fear of the future. Bring extraction industries back, stop technology and bring back factory jobs, screw the countries who have been taking advantage of us. He was speaking in dog whistles. And then his spin people spun it around--quite an impressive strategy--by harping on the fact that "Liberals" didn't understand regular folks. "And that's why you lost the election". It was a trick, and people fell for it. Resentment politics. This rich New Yorker who used mobsters to save him from several bankruptcies somehow convinced people he was looking out for the average Joe. It's ludicrous.

I would say fear and paranoia played a much larger role than wallet issues because wallet issues have always been there. Again, it's a much more complicated stew and hardly the 800 lb. gorilla.

BTW, calling Trump insane doesn't make me feel any better. It's a descriptor. I do feel better calling him the orange dude though.

Author:  lukeyrid13 [ Sun Feb 25, 2018 1:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Kerr and Popovich talk politics

^ i agree with your sentiment that Trump was able to convince the average Joe he cared about them when in fact he's the most narcissistic president rivaled only by Clinton perhaps. In that same vein, the left always talks about how they are the only ones who care about minorities (Asians and east Indians not included for some reason) but what does the left do differently or care about differently?

In the end, it's all a bunch of talking points and spew that's thrown out and empty promises left unfulfilled and then we do it all over again 4 years later.

Author:  FlDuckFan [ Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Kerr and Popovich talk politics

I think this President thing is an impossible job to begin with. In the end we got a guy who is more like the common person then we care to recognize. Aside from being rich we all know a guy who's almost exactly like Trump. (i.e. watches to much TV, cares mostly about what affects him and little past that.) Lukey is right to though, we ran two of the most narcissistic candidates that I can remember. People need to take the primaries more seriously if you ask me.

Author:  lukeyrid13 [ Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Kerr and Popovich talk politics

FlDuckFan wrote:
I think this President thing is an impossible job to begin with. In the end we got a guy who is more like the common person then we care to recognize. Aside from being rich we all know a guy who's almost exactly like Trump. (i.e. watches to much TV, cares mostly about what affects him and little past that.) Lukey is right to though, we ran two of the most narcissistic candidates that I can remember. People need to take the primaries more seriously if you ask me.


That's the problem with a popular vote; is that we as a society are too naive and inundated with so much marketing that everyone just is drawn to the name that they know. Thus you see names like: Jed bush, Trump and Chris Christie making it into the final grouping when none of them are good politicians but are a known quantity.

When it comes time to trim the list in primaries, who really going to research the difference between: Christie, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz when you can just check the name you know in Trump. Same could be said for Clinton being the choice on the left when Bernie would have assuredly beaten Trump but both voters and the DNC just went with the name they knew better.

Author:  FlDuckFan [ Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Kerr and Popovich talk politics

lukeyrid13 wrote:
FlDuckFan wrote:
I think this President thing is an impossible job to begin with. In the end we got a guy who is more like the common person then we care to recognize. Aside from being rich we all know a guy who's almost exactly like Trump. (i.e. watches to much TV, cares mostly about what affects him and little past that.) Lukey is right to though, we ran two of the most narcissistic candidates that I can remember. People need to take the primaries more seriously if you ask me.


That's the problem with a popular vote; is that we as a society are too naive and inundated with so much marketing that everyone just is drawn to the name that they know. Thus you see names like: Jed bush, Trump and Chris Christie making it into the final grouping when none of them are good politicians but are a known quantity.

When it comes time to trim the list in primaries, who really going to research the difference between: Christie, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz when you can just check the name you know in Trump. Same could be said for Clinton being the choice on the left when Bernie would have assuredly beaten Trump but both voters and the DNC just went with the name they knew better.



I actually believe the problem for the Republican party was that too many ran for the nomination. When you have 12 people running you can easily win with 30% of the vote and then get stuck with someone the majority didn't want in the first place. As for the Democrats, they never ran a real candidate. Hillary is/was a bad choice that's why she lost to Obama the first time.

Page 5 of 5 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/