2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6874
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:13 pm UTC

SineNomen wrote:You had earlier stated that if you weren't a woman you "couldn't understand" why the government is anti-woman.
No. That's not what I said. Go back and re-read my post.

EDIT: Or don't; I don't think understanding what people are saying is a priority of yours.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:14 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby trpmb6 » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:14 pm UTC

Deva wrote:
SineNomen wrote:Reading the last few posts, I'd like to ask you all if you can fathom some non derogatory reasons why someone would vote for Trump. Or, in your minds, there are only the most terrible of reasons to pick him?

Referenced some already. May or may not be accurate.
1. Changing markets/globalization. Benefitted some more than others. Proves difficult for some to switch. Built towns around some fading industries. Example: coal miners.
2. Guns. Matters a lot to some people. Worried about losing them.
3. Abortion. Concerns religious-types more, generally. Bases votes entirely off it, undoubtedly.

4. Less personal responsibility. Might stray into derogatory territory. (Separated it somewhat, consequently.) Probably contains people who are failing or did, by their standards. Feels good to blame someone else. (Doubts awareness of it. Is not unique to one side, certainly. Struggles to identify personal shortcomings. Includes very obvious ones too.)


Chief among the reasons why he appealed to the rust belt is this:

Many of the pundits last night noted something I noticed as well; white blue collar male Americans voted like a minority group this election. For several election cycles this group has been alienated by both parties. Some who are union felt a certain fealty to the Democrats and voted Obama (See the south eastern counties of Ohio who went 65% Obama and went 65% Trump this time). They finally had a candidate who spoke to them on a single issue that matters to them. Their jobs that have been disappearing. Lost in all the noise of the tech explosion is the fact that NAFTA did in fact destroy the rust belt manufacturing centers. Trump targeted them, drawing huge crowds every time he visited them. That's all he had to do to win. Throw in his support for the other issues to ensure the remaining block of loyal republicans don't rebel and you end up with a strong electoral victory.

He didn't need the popular vote. No reason for him to. He was never going to win California so it doesn't matter if he had 45% vote there or if he ended up with 20% vote. Still the same electoral math. In this sense I actually have begun to wonder if Trump is far more brilliant and cunning than I ever thought possible (I mean come on he comes off as a big doop when he talks). But I wonder if he really understood the demographics and the electoral math that gave him the victory last night. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but I generally don't believe in coincidences..

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:16 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:He didn't need the popular vote. No reason for him to. He was never going to win California so it doesn't matter if he had 45% vote there or if he ended up with 20% vote. Still the same electoral math. In this sense I actually have begun to wonder if Trump is far more brilliant and cunning than I ever thought possible (I mean come on he comes off as a big doop when he talks). But I wonder if he really understood the demographics and the electoral math that gave him the victory last night. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but I generally don't believe in coincidences..


Welcome back? I thought you raegquaat. Feeling better today?

In any case, I don't believe Trump was "brilliant". Trump simply moved with the groups that responded to his message. Trump responded and amplified the crowds, and the crowds responded to and amplified Trump.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6874
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:18 pm UTC

I apologize; this election coincided with some bad events in my life and I'm left in an emotionally volatile state. I'm going to leave this thread alone until/unless I feel better.

I'm sorry for any nastiness.

elasto
Posts: 3128
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:24 pm UTC

Just heard a good point made elsewhere:

One thing we should all be heartened by is that Brexit and now Trump has shown that voting matters and can make a difference.

A huge part of the Brexit-Trump saga was rooted in working/middle class anger over decades of stagnant wage growth - where globalisation caused corporations to grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice while most ordinary folk rotted away, seemingly forgotten.

Previously they might have felt that resistance was futile; But Brexit-Trump has shown it is not.

While I think in both cases their trust has been hopelessly misplaced (is leaving the EU really going to raise the quality of life for ordinary people? Is the billionaire narcissist Trump really going to fight for the common man?) there may yet rise popular leaders who actually do advocate for the common man - and Trump-Brexit shows that such a person can indeed win...
Last edited by elasto on Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:26 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:25 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I apologize; this election coincided with some bad events in my life and I'm left in an emotionally volatile state. I'm going to leave this thread alone until/unless I feel better.

I'm sorry for any nastiness.


If you're feeling down in this election, here are a few tips.

1. The nastiness of this election was going to cause either "them" or "us" to feel bad. And the fact of the matter is, "They" have felt bad ever since 2008 when Obama was elected. They felt like a stranger to their own country and that the country was walking away from them. But despite their negativity in 2008, we all know that we didn't walk away from our friends in 2008 (despite them feeling like that), and they will not walk away from us in 2016. America is stronger than that, despite the language and discourse through this last debate.

2. We do make fun of each other and hype up elections, but at the end of the day, it is American culture and tradition to come together no matter the terms. I distinctly remember the Bush election, and the liberal response to that situation is almost identical to the Trump response we are seeing today. Similarly, I remember 2008 and Republicans were literally calling Obama the anti-Christ who'd bring down the Apocalypse. Funny how things have swapped 8 years later, is it not?

3. Your friends will still be your friends, your boss will still be your boss, your children will still be your children. Your church / Mosque / Synagogue will still hold mass next Sunday (or Saturday), Your personal life will not be majorly affected by this election, aside from maybe the pro-Trumpers feeling a bit happier about this situation. We forum members will still disagree and discuss news stories next week. Your local culture (and internet culture) will be very similar whether it is Trump or Clinton in the White House, for a large variety of reasons.

What Trump will do is mostly national issues and foreign policy, issues that are very far removed from your personal life.

4. This too will pass.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7560
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:28 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Zohar wrote:You know, I would be bothered by people being called racist if they weren't so racist


I know plenty of Trump supporters. Only... two of them... are overtly racist. The rest were interested in other things.

"Not being racist" isn't a thing you can do by inaction. You have to actively work against it. Voting for Trump means they don't care enough about having an overtly racist president. Which means they're racist, to an extent. It's not a binary condition! People don't need to deny it! I'm racist sometimes, how could I not be, seeing the culture surrounding us? But they could have chosen to be less racist, and they didn't.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:30 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Zohar wrote:You know, I would be bothered by people being called racist if they weren't so racist


I know plenty of Trump supporters. Only... two of them... are overtly racist. The rest were interested in other things.

"Not being racist" isn't a thing you can do by inaction. You have to actively work against it. Voting for Trump means they don't care enough about having an overtly racist president. Which means they're racist, to an extent. It's not a binary condition! People don't need to deny it! I'm racist sometimes, how could I not be, seeing the culture surrounding us? But they could have chosen to be less racist, and they didn't.


The election demonstrated that this line of thinking you're saying no longer holds power in the current political discourse.

You have to find a better message if you expect to win 2018 or 2020. Calling the opposing party racist and demeaning them until they agree with you simply isn't going to work (even if you apply self-deprecating language as part of the process)
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

GodShapedBullet
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:59 pm UTC
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby GodShapedBullet » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:33 pm UTC

SineNomen wrote:As this election is oft-compared to the rise of fascism, do you want to risk the future just because some people were mean to you? Or that you hate their postions?

If you truly feel that your position is right and you have evidence on your side, there is no harm in trying to unilaterally discuss things civily. You might just change someone's mind to not support what you find so abhorrent. So how do you deal with it? You just share what you think is right and you don't give up. You continue to respect others even if it is one sided.

As was mentioned earlier, the smarmy mocking comedians that have come to represent the face of the left is not winning any friends. How do you deal with it? You be the bigger person, you be the adult and continue to fight for what you believe in. You believe in democracy and the basic fact that everyone would like to think they are doing the best thing for the right reasons.

I created an account here to be a one trick pony, with one issue: can I bring my political opposites back to the discussion table so we can work together? Or is it a lost cause, with the minute that you say you aren't for open borders, socialism, or government regulated speech you literally become a member of the Nazi party. Lord knows I dare not breach the subject with my liberal friends in real life. It is sad to me that I can value their friendship over my own viewpoints, and that they clearly do not feel the same way. This is part of my grand experiment to find how to get people to speak civily to each other again.


From a strategic standpoint, I agree with you quite a lot. Thank you for posting this.

I spent a lot of time this year talking calmly and politely to political opposites online. It's hard. Did it make a difference? I'd like to think so, but it might not have. People are pretty hardened in their views.

I am terrified that the problem is self-perpetuating. The easier it is to talk to people who agree with you, so that's what you do, and you get worse at it, and it gets even harder to talk to people who don't. Very very tough, and it feels like there aren't enough grown-ups who want to pull out of the cycle.

I'm sorry you aren't able to talk politics with your friends. Though I wonder how well you are practicing optimal listening yourself. "Literally a member of the Nazi party" is certainly hyperbole, no? It's possible you aren't taking their feedback charitably? But then, it is also possible they aren't giving it charitably.

The other issue, which places a huge burden on the left, is the sense that endorsement of any of Trump's policies is an endorsement of Trump. And an endorsement of Trump seems so tied in with an endorsement of Islamophobia, racism, incompetence, and pettiness.

But I certainly don't mean to be lecturing you, and I am sorry if I was. Thank you for continuing to work toward better dialogue in America.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:35 pm UTC

GodShapedBullet wrote:Though I wonder how well you are practicing optimal listening yourself. "Literally a member of the Nazi party" is certainly hyperbole, no?


It is not. A large chunk of this thread has people constantly comparing Trump to Hitler.

I've done my part with trying to find a more realistic comparison (I've been trying to compare Trump to Nixon this whole thread for example). But I can say for sure, in my circle of friends (as well as in this very thread), people typically compare Trump and his supporters to Hitler.

-------

At very least, the liberal media has been trying to label not only Trump as racist, but even implies that his supporters are racist. (Clinton's "Basket of Deplorables" was a major mistake) That's not going to work anymore. We can't just shame people into agreeing with us.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

GodShapedBullet
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:59 pm UTC
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby GodShapedBullet » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:39 pm UTC

It is really our own fault for not having a more robust menu of fascists to compare Trump to.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10173
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:42 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:No, I'm saying that their votes did not help anyone.


By a such a standard, neither did Clinton voters' votes.

The Great Hippo wrote:Tyndmyr: I'm a pacifist who believes in striving to be as harmless as I can, so killing someone is not an option. Neither is ridiculing or dismissing them. Inevitably, I just end up feeling horrible.

I also find it upsetting that you think I *decided* I can't understand this. My major in college was genocide in history. It's something I've struggled to understand for a very long time. I know certain parts of the bible are intolerant; I still do not understand why anyone would want to do this (and considering how long I've struggled over this subject, I don't think it's something you're going to help me solve).


Because it works. At least, within specific contexts. Depends on what you value.

The "killing everyone" is a hyperbolic example...what I'm asking is if someone literally cannot ever understand a position, then what value is communication? What, precisely, do you do? Voting, politics, etc...all of these things to some degree displace violence. That's why we have them, and that's why the system's important, and anarchy is garbage.

Understanding and communication are usually helpful for the cause of peace. Not always sufficient, sure, but humans naturally fear the incomprehensible other. The path of abandoning understanding leads to conflict. It's a rare fight in which the enemy is not insulted, villainized, degraded, and dehumanized before the killing starts.

The state of partisanship in the US is not so very different from more violent conflicts. We merely have vote counts instead of body bags. So far, at least.

Zohar wrote:"Not being racist" isn't a thing you can do by inaction. You have to actively work against it. Voting for Trump means they don't care enough about having an overtly racist president. Which means they're racist, to an extent. It's not a binary condition! People don't need to deny it! I'm racist sometimes, how could I not be, seeing the culture surrounding us? But they could have chosen to be less racist, and they didn't.


So? Most people are voting for exactly one candidate. A vote for them does not mean they share every trait. It merely means they evaluate the total package as less bad than the other option. And view third party candidates as unviable options.

Someone can see Trump as racist, dislike that, but dislike other things about Clinton more. That doesn't make them a racist. It just means they have different priorities than you.

KnightExemplar wrote:The election demonstrated that this line of thinking you're saying no longer holds power in the current political discourse.

You have to find a better message if you expect to win 2018 or 2020. Calling the opposing party racist and demeaning them until they agree with you simply isn't going to work (even if you apply self-deprecating language as part of the process)


This is also true.

If the democrats do not adapt to their failures, they're only going to do increasingly worse. I mean, imagine a world in which they fixate on all of Trumps errors, and in 2020, run a candidate that stands for little but insulting Trump. Trump probably wins, then. Both midterms are a dead loss for the Democrats. The party literally just goes away. They're on the ropes. They *have* to acknowledge and fix at least some of their errors, or they're doomed.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1238
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:43 pm UTC

GodShapedBullet wrote:It is really our own fault for not having a more robust menu of fascists to compare Trump to.

Honestly ... it's a pretty lazy comparison. If one *really* wants to compare him to a fascist, Mussolini is at least a bit better. Berlusconi is the far more obvious negative comparison though. Although I kind of dug the Clodius comparison a friend broke out the other day. :p

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5658
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Angua » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:44 pm UTC

Is there evidence of the other though? I'm seeing a lot of people saying that it was calling Trump's supporters racist that drove them to vote, but seriously, does anyone have any evidence to back that up? Or is it just that people want to lay the blame on the 'liberals' because the idea that such a large proportion of the population is going to not care whether or not they are acting racistly no matter what isn't very palatable.

Sure, no one likes being called a racist. I haven't seen anything to back up the idea that not calling people racist would have changed anything though. I can call fish 'sea kitten's' all I want, I somehow doubt that's going to stop people from going fishing if they want to.
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

GodShapedBullet
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:59 pm UTC
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby GodShapedBullet » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:45 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:
GodShapedBullet wrote:It is really our own fault for not having a more robust menu of fascists to compare Trump to.

Honestly ... it's a pretty lazy comparison. If one *really* wants to compare him to a fascist, Mussolini is at least a bit better. Berlusconi is the far more obvious negative comparison though. Although I kind of dug the Clodius comparison a friend broke out the other day. :p


I was especially a fan of the Lex Luthor comparison myself, as long as you are ignoring that Trump isn't a supergenius and assuming the fun hot take assumption that his true goal wasn't the presidency.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1238
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:49 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:The election demonstrated that this line of thinking you're saying no longer holds power in the current political discourse.

You have to find a better message if you expect to win 2018 or 2020. Calling the opposing party racist and demeaning them until they agree with you simply isn't going to work (even if you apply self-deprecating language as part of the process)


This is also true.

If the democrats do not adapt to their failures, they're only going to do increasingly worse. I mean, imagine a world in which they fixate on all of Trumps errors, and in 2020, run a candidate that stands for little but insulting Trump. Trump probably wins, then. Both midterms are a dead loss for the Democrats. The party literally just goes away. They're on the ropes. They *have* to acknowledge and fix at least some of their errors, or they're doomed.

The ascendance of the Bernie-supporting wing of the party seems very likely to me. I think a lot will depend on how charismatic a character in that mold they can find. Bernie himself will really be too old by that point, and I'm not sure experience means much beyond providing material to be attacked with at this point. It'll set up an old-school authoritarianism vs. socialism debate. That's ... probably not a great thing all-around.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 774
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby MartianInvader » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:52 pm UTC

SineNomen wrote:I created an account here to be a one trick pony, with one issue: can I bring my political opposites back to the discussion table so we can work together? Or is it a lost cause, with the minute that you say you aren't for open borders, socialism, or government regulated speech you literally become a member of the Nazi party. Lord knows I dare not breach the subject with my liberal friends in real life. It is sad to me that I can value their friendship over my own viewpoints, and that they clearly do not feel the same way. This is part of my grand experiment to find how to get people to speak civily to each other again.

Okay, I'll start, speaking as a liberal. I've felt that, ever since some time in 2008-2010, anything I try to say to a someone on the far-right is simply and totally ignored. It doesn't matter how I make my argument - whether I try to use facts, appeal to expert opinions, or show historical examples - I've felt that conservatives simply put their fingers in their ears when I speak and only listen to the opinions of like-minded individuals, whether in the media or in social circles. I think this has led to the dismissive attitude of the left - the feeling is that if you can't talk to a group of people, what's the point of trying to have a conversation with them?

Okay, you go. What bothers you about politics these days?
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7312
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:53 pm UTC

I've done my part with trying to find a more realistic comparison

Berlusconi. Really, there is no better match. Ostentatious rich guy speaking to the commoners against the leftist elite, scandalous adulterer representing the Moral Majority, flashy clown whose antics add to his media popularity. Ethnic nationalist. Mate of Putin. Tax fraud who gets away with it and is secretly admired for that.

Edit: ninjaed

morriswalters
Posts: 6949
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:54 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:I'm not sure how you can say that seeing as how she won the popular vote. It's a fact more people wanted her as president than wanted Trump.
In a nutshell, Presidents aren't elected by popular vote.
Zohar wrote:You know, I would be bothered by people being called racist if they weren't so racist
Since you don't and can't know many of the millions who evidently voted for Trump, what you are effectively doing is saying all Trump voters are racist, which in it's own way is very similar to saying all Jews are money grubbers. It's simplistic and it's a stereotype.
SineNomen wrote:Lord knows I dare not breach the subject with my liberal friends in real life. It is sad to me that I can value their friendship over my own viewpoints, and that they clearly do not feel the same way. This is part of my grand experiment to find how to get people to speak civily to each other again.
If you can't speak to your friends then why would you think that you could speak to strangers?
KnightExemplar wrote:ISIS is literally genociding, murdering, raping, and pillaging. This is a simple fact of how they are conducting themselves in Mosul and other parts in the Syrian / Iraqi conflict. To combat them successfully would mean killing all of the ISIS members, because they can't be otherwise reasoned with.
That is an interesting take on the problem, if you are serious. In terms of killing ISIS, good luck with that. They don't wear tatts that tell you who they are. They look just like the people around them and the mindset can exist without immediately translating into overt membership.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10173
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:55 pm UTC

Angua wrote:Is there evidence of the other though? I'm seeing a lot of people saying that it was calling Trump's supporters racist that drove them to vote, but seriously, does anyone have any evidence to back that up? Or is it just that people want to lay the blame on the 'liberals' because the idea that such a large proportion of the population is going to not care whether or not they are acting racistly no matter what isn't very palatable.


There's a lot of rage against the liberals on the right. Various memes about how they overuse identity politics in various ways are nigh-universal.

If you're not aware of that, I have to assume you have very few conservative friends. It's really pervasive. Probably not the only source of antipathy, of course, but it's definitely a factor.

So, both sides are yelling at/past each other basically constantly, and there's a *great* deal of literal fear and hatred on both sides. If memory serves, something like 4 of 10 of each side views the others as literally dangerous enemies. This attitude just feeds on itself, with both sides constantly justifying further insults, ignoring, rage, etc based on "they do the same".

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:56 pm UTC

GodShapedBullet wrote:As was mentioned earlier, the smarmy mocking comedians that have come to represent the face of the left is not winning any friends.

"The wages of smug is Trump."
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:58 pm UTC

Angua wrote:Is there evidence of the other though? I'm seeing a lot of people saying that it was calling Trump's supporters racist that drove them to vote, but seriously, does anyone have any evidence to back that up? Or is it just that people want to lay the blame on the 'liberals' because the idea that such a large proportion of the population is going to not care whether or not they are acting racistly no matter what isn't very palatable.

Sure, no one likes being called a racist. I haven't seen anything to back up the idea that not calling people racist would have changed anything though. I can call fish 'sea kitten's' all I want, I somehow doubt that's going to stop people from going fishing if they want to.


Well, what I am saying is perhaps being called racist in the past weakened the sting of being called racist now. Framing Trump as a racist (whether completely true or partly exaggerated) was the right move but didn't work as well as it might have.

Lost in today's analysis: Trump did slightly better among black and Hispanic voters than Romney. Younger Hispanics lean less to the left... Hillary only won 54% of Hispanic Millennials according to this exit poll. Ouch, she was probably counting on better...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/08/politics/ ... olls-2016/
lol everything matters
-Ed

SineNomen
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:40 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SineNomen » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:00 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:Speaking for myself, it very much depends on what you mean by those terms. I mean, there *should* be plenty of room for reasonable discussion on open borders. And I've had reasonable conversations on the topic with conservatives. But if someone starts tar entire ethnic or religious groups, things can go to very bad places very quickly. On socialism - there are certainly reasonable discussions to be had. But I've known plenty of conservatives who not only treat it as an a priori evil but whose definition of the term so ridiculously broad that it practically becomes "government-related thing that I don't like". I'm afraid I'm honestly not sure what you mean by "government regulated speech". I don't know of any liberals who are for that.

As far as it goes, I'm a blue dot in a very red state, and there are lots of topics I simply won't broach with my conservative friends. Or that I feel I have to sit and bite my tongue when they bring up. I'm afraid that demonizing the political other is not an overly partisan trait.


Fair enough. I'm a red dot in California, so I'm just used to the opposite. However, my profession is a conservative echo chamber, and I'm not a big fan of nodding heads, either. Just want someone I can argue with and get into it, then grab a beer afterwards! My wife, her family, and my family are ultra conservative, so there is no point talking with a more extreme version of myslef.

As far as government related speech, I'm specifically talking about hate speech, in any of its forms. To me the only speech that should be prosecuted would present clear and present danger (fire in a crowded theater, I'm gonna kill you with the gun I have, etc). I'm frankly horrified about what goes on in Europe in terms of prosecution for words and gestures. I do not want that for where I live.

morriswalters wrote:If you can't speak to your friends then why would you think that you could speak to strangers?


If I piss you guys off, no great loss. If someone were to post my real views in public I would lose buisness, so I'd rather discuss things with strangers. Also, it's practice on how to breach the subject with my left leaning friends.

User avatar
CelticNot
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 3:18 pm UTC
Location: A Little North of the Great Albertan Desert

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CelticNot » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:01 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:...what I'm asking is if someone literally cannot ever understand a position, then what value is communication?


I've mostly stayed out of this - not my country, after all - but this line troubles me to some degree, because this suggests that when communication has failed due to an impasse (where neither side will budge on their own beliefs), cooperation becomes impossible. The only options then seem to be going separate ways (difficult when you're talking about countries), or for one side to subjugate the other in some way (which, in effect, a contentious winner-takes-all election like this one does, by effectively enforcing the will of one side over the other for a period of time). Am I missing an alternative here?
This sig for rent. Rates negotiable.

GodShapedBullet
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:59 pm UTC
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby GodShapedBullet » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:02 pm UTC

CelticNot wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:...what I'm asking is if someone literally cannot ever understand a position, then what value is communication?


I've mostly stayed out of this - not my country, after all - but this line troubles me to some degree, because this suggests that when communication has failed due to an impasse (where neither side will budge on their own beliefs), cooperation becomes impossible. The only options then seem to be going separate ways (difficult when you're talking about countries), or for one side to subjugate the other in some way (which, in effect, a contentious winner-takes-all election like this one does, by effectively enforcing the will of one side over the other for a period of time). Am I missing an alternative here?


Take turns, I suppose, which we are arguably doing.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5658
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Angua » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:03 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Angua wrote:Is there evidence of the other though? I'm seeing a lot of people saying that it was calling Trump's supporters racist that drove them to vote, but seriously, does anyone have any evidence to back that up? Or is it just that people want to lay the blame on the 'liberals' because the idea that such a large proportion of the population is going to not care whether or not they are acting racistly no matter what isn't very palatable.


There's a lot of rage against the liberals on the right. Various memes about how they overuse identity politics in various ways are nigh-universal.

If you're not aware of that, I have to assume you have very few conservative friends. It's really pervasive. Probably not the only source of antipathy, of course, but it's definitely a factor.

I am aware of that. I'm saying that saying it's the liberals' fault for not being softly softly enough is not founded in fact, as I don't see any evidence that a softly softly approach would have changed that.

My dad's family is from the Deep South, I am well aware of what conservatives think of liberals, thank you very much.
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

elasto
Posts: 3128
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:05 pm UTC

Via Twitter:

As I'm stopped at a gas station this morning, a group of guys yell over: "Time to get out of this country, Apu!"

Day 1.


Also

A student of mine reported that her Muslim neighbors woke up to a sign that said "You can leave now." Also in the Bay Area.
Last edited by elasto on Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:07 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

SineNomen
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:40 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SineNomen » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:07 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
SineNomen wrote:You had earlier stated that if you weren't a woman you "couldn't understand" why the government is anti-woman.
No. That's not what I said. Go back and re-read my post.

EDIT: Or don't; I don't think understanding what people are saying is a priority of yours.


This forum moves too fast for me to read on a cellphone :cry:

I'm referring to this:

The Great Hippo wrote:Tyndmyr: I don't think I'm capable of explaining to you why a woman is justified in feeling as if the American government is anti-women, either. I suspect it's something you could not understand.


I apologize for misreading your post! Still though, going to say that when you state that something can't be explained and further it couldn't be understood, where does discussion then go?

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1238
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:11 pm UTC

SineNomen wrote:
JudeMorrigan wrote:Speaking for myself, it very much depends on what you mean by those terms. I mean, there *should* be plenty of room for reasonable discussion on open borders. And I've had reasonable conversations on the topic with conservatives. But if someone starts tar entire ethnic or religious groups, things can go to very bad places very quickly. On socialism - there are certainly reasonable discussions to be had. But I've known plenty of conservatives who not only treat it as an a priori evil but whose definition of the term so ridiculously broad that it practically becomes "government-related thing that I don't like". I'm afraid I'm honestly not sure what you mean by "government regulated speech". I don't know of any liberals who are for that.

As far as it goes, I'm a blue dot in a very red state, and there are lots of topics I simply won't broach with my conservative friends. Or that I feel I have to sit and bite my tongue when they bring up. I'm afraid that demonizing the political other is not an overly partisan trait.


Fair enough. I'm a red dot in California, so I'm just used to the opposite. However, my profession is a conservative echo chamber, and I'm not a big fan of nodding heads, either. Just want someone I can argue with and get into it, then grab a beer afterwards! My wife, her family, and my family are ultra conservative, so there is no point talking with a more extreme version of myslef.

As far as government related speech, I'm specifically talking about hate speech, in any of its forms. To me the only speech that should be prosecuted would present clear and present danger (fire in a crowded theater, I'm gonna kill you with the gun I have, etc). I'm frankly horrified about what goes on in Europe in terms of prosecution for words and gestures. I do not want that for where I live.

Gotcha. Speaking only for myself - I'm ok with the idea of something being hate speech warranting harsher punishment if that thing is already illegal. For example, I'd be ok with treating erecting a burning cross on someone else's lawn getting harsher punishment than building a generic bonfire on someone's lawn without permission. But I fully support folk like the KKK being able to exist, march, recruit, etc. so long as they're not breaking other laws. I reserve the right to counter-protest or tell them exactly what I think of them, of course. But I wouldn't want to make their very existence illegal. This may just be a byproduct of my living my entire life in the South, but I feel that's not an extraordinary opinion of mine as a registered Democrat and self-professed liberal.

GuidoFawlkes
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby GuidoFawlkes » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:16 pm UTC

The great part of this is, the rest of the world never need look up to America ever again.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10173
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:17 pm UTC

Angua wrote:I am aware of that. I'm saying that saying it's the liberals' fault for not being softly softly enough is not founded in fact, as I don't see any evidence that a softly softly approach would have changed that.

My dad's family is from the Deep South, I am well aware of what conservatives think of liberals, thank you very much.


It's not just the words.

The vox article referenced above is excellent. You really can't deny that the Democratic party basically threw working class folks under the bus. The smug attitude is part of it. The ignoring their concerns is part of it. It would likely take a great deal more than toning down the insults to win them back, at this point, sure. But you really can't even start trying if you're fixated on insulting them constantly.

Insulting them more is not going to fix the problem for next election.

CelticNot wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:...what I'm asking is if someone literally cannot ever understand a position, then what value is communication?


I've mostly stayed out of this - not my country, after all - but this line troubles me to some degree, because this suggests that when communication has failed due to an impasse (where neither side will budge on their own beliefs), cooperation becomes impossible. The only options then seem to be going separate ways (difficult when you're talking about countries), or for one side to subjugate the other in some way (which, in effect, a contentious winner-takes-all election like this one does, by effectively enforcing the will of one side over the other for a period of time). Am I missing an alternative here?


Outside perspectives are good, I think.

Yes, if cooperation is utterly impossible, and continued contact is assured, conflict will result. However, I believe communication breaks down for reasons other than irreconcilable beliefs. Sometimes people *could* communicate better, and simply do not. Communication with people who agree with you is pleasant and easy, thus why we have echo chambers. Communicating with those you disagree strongly with is hard, but that's how you avert conflict.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3556
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby EdgarJPublius » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:21 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin.

All these are states (by the figures so far available to me, at least) where Third Party votes exceeded the difference between the top two candidates. Either direction. Might be interesting to know.


The vast majority of those are for Johnson, who is generally more likely to be a spoiler for Trump than Clinton, though there are some number of Berners who defected to the libertarians when Bernie didn't get the nom. I doubt that 3rd party votes significantly impacted the outcome, but it'll take better data than we currently have to call it for sure.

So the spoiling didn't work then, did it. If these people didn't want Trump, they did the wrong thing to not get Trump.


Those people most likely didn't want Clinton more than they didn't want Trump, or else they would have voted for her.
Can't even say I blame them, all the options were awful.


Clinton has surpassed Trump in the popular vote tally. It looks very much like the Electoral college tally will differ pretty substantially from the popular vote. Exciting stuff.

PeteP wrote:
Sizik wrote:What are the chances of faithless electors swinging the vote away from Trump (whether it be to a Hillary majority, or no majority resulting in a House vote)?

You might get one or two, hell maybe five, but enough to change the result? I doubt it. And that is good imo the electors deciding the election wouldn't be very democratic.Well I guess that is in a way their role in the system, but nobody actually intends to entrust their decision to an elector, nobody pays more attention to them then which party they belong ts, it is just a step that was never removed. Though I guess the outrage about it happening might led to ec reforms. Or violence.


They'd be voting with the popular vote, so it actually would be more democratic than the actual result.

trpmb6 wrote:He didn't need the popular vote. No reason for him to. He was never going to win California so it doesn't matter if he had 45% vote there or if he ended up with 20% vote. Still the same electoral math. In this sense I actually have begun to wonder if Trump is far more brilliant and cunning than I ever thought possible (I mean come on he comes off as a big doop when he talks). But I wonder if he really understood the demographics and the electoral math that gave him the victory last night. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but I generally don't believe in coincidences..



I've long said that you don't become the leader of a whole country by being as dumb as is popularly ascribed to people like Bush or Trump. Even in hereditary monarchies and dictatorships, nobody 'stumbles' into the seat of power without some measure of cunning and self-awareness, if only for purposes of self-preservation. Trump's oft-mocked vocabulary was honed in reality TV to appeal to mass-market audiences, even his physical mannerisms that people made fun of weren't as bad as, say, Nixon's inability to stay cool on camera. His string of failed business ventures all failed in ways that benefited, or at least did not harm, him. Trump's sparse policy positions were targeted squarely at the disaffected and oft-ignored demographic that happened to control a huge chunk of electoral votes. that wasn't an accident either, what political leanings he had expressed before the election do not map easily to the positions that got him elected, he didn't change those beliefs on a whim.

Doesn't anybody remember The Usual Suspects? the greatest trick the devil ever pulled wasn't convincing the world he didn't exist, it was convincing the world he was incompetent and non-threatening. Maybe if Lucas had gone through with the 'Darth Jar-jar' idea, we would have been better prepared for Trump.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

elasto
Posts: 3128
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:30 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:Doesn't anybody remember The Usual Suspects? the greatest trick the devil ever pulled wasn't convincing the world he didn't exist, it was convincing the world he was incompetent and non-threatening.

I wonder if we've moved into an era of polls not being self-fulfilling but actually the opposite?

With both Brexit and Trump, I wonder how much there was an element of people feeling free to vote Brexit/Trump as a protest all the while reassured that they won't actually win because the polls say so. And, likewise, people not bothering to vote Remain/Clinton through complacency for the same reason - the polls say she'll win anyway so why waste a couple of hours?

There have now been three badly wrong polls in a row: The Tories were not predicted to win a majority at the election either. While the electoral college system complicates things, why are the pollsters seemingly getting it so badly wrong?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:32 pm UTC

GodShapedBullet wrote:It is really our own fault for not having a more robust menu of fascists to compare Trump to.


We're in a country that literally had slaves and fought a civil war to keep them.

The racism and nationalism that applies to America is going to be better seen through an American lens, instead of trying to compare it to foreigners.

Anti-immigration waves come and go with the times. The All American "Know Nothing" party, which reached power just before the Civil war as defenders of slavery and against the invading Catholic Polish immigrants has far more similarities to Trump and his supporters than Hitler. And American-style war operations in WW2 weren't exactly angelic. The office of censorship, internment camps, huge anti-Japanese sentiment... we can stick to American examples just fine really.

I think that's the first mistake yall are making. Trump isn't "fascist", he's distinctly American. Just a part of America I personally disagree with. And the anti-immigrant pro-American protectionist stance is definitely a wave that comes and goes with the times.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5857
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:59 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:Doesn't anybody remember The Usual Suspects? the greatest trick the devil ever pulled wasn't convincing the world he didn't exist, it was convincing the world he was incompetent and non-threatening.

I wonder if we've moved into an era of polls not being self-fulfilling but actually the opposite?

With both Brexit and Trump, I wonder how much there was an element of people feeling free to vote Brexit/Trump as a protest all the while reassured that they won't actually win because the polls say so. And, likewise, people not bothering to vote Remain/Clinton through complacency for the same reason - the polls say she'll win anyway so why waste a couple of hours?

There have now been three badly wrong polls in a row: The Tories were not predicted to win a majority at the election either. While the electoral college system complicates things, why are the pollsters seemingly getting it so badly wrong?

The polls aren't that far off. It's within the standard polling error. The bigger crime is the herding behavior at the end.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8875
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:12 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:Marx famously said that religion is opium for the masses. That's not very kind to religion, but it's not very kind to the masses either. He's basically calling them addicts whose brains are too addled to know what's good for them.


That quote requires a lot of context for the modern reader. In Marx's day, Opium was the extra-strength painkiller that was used for surgery rather than a recreational drug. He wasn't referring to the religious as junkies and religion as an addiction, but rather that the proletariat's lot in life was filled with so much pain that they had to turn to strong painkillers in order to keep their sanity.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7560
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:15 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:You have to find a better message if you expect to win 2018 or 2020. Calling the opposing party racist and demeaning them until they agree with you simply isn't going to work (even if you apply self-deprecating language as part of the process)

I'm not saying this is the winning strategy. There are many true things about humans that we don't say during an election. It doesn't change the fact that it's true.

Tyndmyr wrote:So? Most people are voting for exactly one candidate. A vote for them does not mean they share every trait. It merely means they evaluate the total package as less bad than the other option. And view third party candidates as unviable options.

Someone can see Trump as racist, dislike that, but dislike other things about Clinton more. That doesn't make them a racist. It just means they have different priorities than you.

It's obvious they have different priorities. It's obvious it's not a priority for them to promote the welfare of marginalized groups. It's obvious it's not a priority for them to fight against racism. And people are allowed to have their own priorities, and I'm allowed to say "Hey, that's racist".

morriswalters wrote:Since you don't and can't know many of the millions who evidently voted for Trump, what you are effectively doing is saying all Trump voters are racist, which in it's own way is very similar to saying all Jews are money grubbers. It's simplistic and it's a stereotype.
As I mentioned above, the millions of people who voted for him have a set of priorities that does not include marginalized people. If protecting marginalized people was important enough, they wouldn't have voted for Trump, in the primaries or in the national elections. But they have. And that choice (which they have every right to do!), is racist. Your analogy to antisemitic stereotypes is inaccurate. I'm not saying those people did something I have no evidence of. The only evidence I have is they supported someone who promises to promote hateful agendas, and the only conclusion is they don't consider that an important enough reason not to vote for him.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:26 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote: And remember, the Bundy Militia were just acquitted a few weeks ago. So a lot of people are still pro-State rights and distrustful of the Federal Government.
The federal government directly owns 2/3rds of the land in Nevada, which does give it much more control over the Nevada than other states.

I'm not much of a state right's person, and I'm pretty anti-militia, but that does seem to make a screwy power dynamic.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10173
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:30 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:So? Most people are voting for exactly one candidate. A vote for them does not mean they share every trait. It merely means they evaluate the total package as less bad than the other option. And view third party candidates as unviable options.

Someone can see Trump as racist, dislike that, but dislike other things about Clinton more. That doesn't make them a racist. It just means they have different priorities than you.

It's obvious they have different priorities. It's obvious it's not a priority for them to promote the welfare of marginalized groups. It's obvious it's not a priority for them to fight against racism. And people are allowed to have their own priorities, and I'm allowed to say "Hey, that's racist".


That doesn't make them necessarily racist, though. Sure, at least some of his supporters definitely are racist, but certainly not all.

Prioritizing racism anywhere but first doesn't make you a racist.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7560
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:35 pm UTC

As mentioned, racism isn't a binary, and everyone suffers from it. Are all of Clinton's voters not racist? Of course not! But a vote for her doesn't indicate disregard for marginalized groups. A vote for Trump, does.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests