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
CorruptUser
Posts: 8661
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:04 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I'm less willing to start over with Trump supporters. I want to know how they justify voting for a man who's said the things he's said, and expressed the values he's expressed. Did a lot of them just not believe it? Did they think he was just lying? Are these values that they themselves hold? If someone supports Trump, I want to know how you got passed the hurdle of voting for a man who expressed his intent to target the families of terrorists -- probably committed multiple accounts of sexual assault -- thought it was okay to peek in on naked teenage girls (some of whom were underage, btw) -- committed multiple affairs -- ruined countless businesses, stiffed contractors, described Mexican immigrants as "rapists"...


I can talk to a few of them this weekend, because apparently I'm the only one in my family that didn't vote for T-Rump. Personal info ahead regarding my family's support for the bastard.

1) There is a view that The Affordable Care Act has been the dismantling of American medicine. Most of my family is medical, myself included (sort of), though I disagree that the ACA was a net bad for the country, but I'm biased because the ACA stands for "Actuarial Careers Act".
2) There's a belief that the Democrats crippled the American economy. This is partly true, but it's nuanced and apparently they forgot just how much money Iraq cost us.
3) There's literal denial when it comes to climate change, or at least that organic fuel use is responsible. (I sometimes call fossil fuels "organic", because I view the hippies' anti-GMO view as almost as great a threat to the climate as the carbon denialists are)
4) They think T-Rump is a terrible person, yes, but think he's going to do better than Hillary. What he said and did are "minor" compared to how he runs the country. So it's sort of like having a fire department with an arsonist that puts out far more fires than he starts.
5) Varying levels of racism. Yes, my family does have bits of racism as the result of personal experiences. I like to think I'm immune, but obviously I'm not. And I have sympathy for my mother for it, because she used to get beat up in the hallways by black kids in the 1960's while the principal refused to do anything because it was easier to ignore and deny it than deal with it, so I understand where her views come from. Sister was robbed twice in her life and was (mildy) sexually assaulted last year, all by black guys. Father's not racist, is friends with Pakistanis and other "scary brown people" that are his coworkers, but he voted for T-Rump.
6) They view Obama's foreign policies as being utter disasters, which Syria and Libya undeniably are, and Hillary was the living embodiment of that foreign policy.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:07 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Opus_723
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Opus_723 » Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:06 pm UTC

Speaking as a young liberal in the Pacific Northwest, I'm not sure *I* understand the violent protests here. But I've never lived in Seattle or Portland. In the medium-sized cities, we're seeing lots of peaceful protesting, but it always seems to turn violent in the two big ones. Maybe there's just enough of a cultural difference, I don't know.

I've been west of the mountains long enough to know that Seattle and Portland are fine places, and culturally I've always felt more at home here, though I'm still not a big city person. But as a kid on the east side of the mountains all I ever saw of Portland and Seattle is chaos, and it looks terrifying on TV.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby trpmb6 » Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:07 pm UTC

So are we saying that the people who live in the counties in south east Ohio and Western Pennsylvania are racists now because they overwhelmingly supported Trump ~60-65% even after they had supported Obama overwhelmingly ~60-65%+ in 2008 and 2012? What about Michigan? They haven't voted red in a very long time.

I think for a lot of these people it came down to their jobs. Simple as that. As for his comments he made with Billy Bush. If you haven't stepped in a manufacturing plant before then trust me, you probably shouldn't ever do it. The stuff he said is paltry compared to the things I hear on the shop floor (and not all of it is said by males either). So the media blowing up about it probably only made them like him even more in a weird assbackwards way. These people don't tolerate PC stuff. As for the sexual assault allegations: I can think of 2 things. First, any time you see Gloria Alred out the Right immediately dismisses it. Especially given the timing of all the allegations. They were all clearly orchestrated for maximum political effect. Second, a lot of people thought there was a huge double standard between these allegations and the allegations of rape against Bill Clinton. Yes I understand he wasn't running for president. The allegations against trump never came close to the allegations against Bill, as far as the level of severity.

I also think there was a group of people who simply wanted to watch the left and the media squirm. I put myself in this bucket. I was, and still am, a Ted Cruz supporter. I was a #nevertrumper for a long time until I saw the Wikileaks of the Hillary Campaign wanting to push Trump as the candidate to go up against. In the end I just wanted to make them pay for taking the candidate I wanted away. They made their bed, let them lie in it now. I do have to say now though. I don't think Cruz would have beaten Hillary. The coalition of states that Trump put together would likely have not voted Cruz in. I don't see a scenario where Cruz wins Pennsylvania and Michigan. Maybe he'd get Wisconson and would have had a good shot at Ohio, Florida and North Carolina. But I don't think that gets you there. So in a sense, Trump was probably the only Republican capable of beating Clinton. The fact that the Clinton team didn't recognize this early on, or that any of us did really, speaks a lot about his campaign. I think they were a lot smarter in where they campaigned than a lot of us give credit.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8661
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:10 pm UTC

The answer for the question about protests is simple.

You have a protest. You have:
A) People who only rarely protest showing up for the issue the protest represents
and
B) People that show up to every protest they can in order to hijack it for their insane nonsense

The violent nutjobs belong to B, not A.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:12 pm UTC

Opus_723 wrote:Speaking as a young liberal in the Pacific Northwest, I'm not sure *I* understand the violent protests here. But I've never lived in Seattle or Portland. In the medium-sized cities, we're seeing lots of peaceful protesting, but it always seems to turn violent in the two big ones. Maybe there's just enough of a cultural difference, I don't know.

I've been west of the mountains long enough to know that Seattle and Portland are fine places, and culturally I've always felt more at home here, though I'm still not a big city person. But as a kid on the east side of the mountains all I ever saw of Portland and Seattle is chaos, and it looks terrifying on TV.


My experience is my cousins from Oakland California, and I'm assuming the culture kinda flows around the Pacific Northwest a bit (much like the Washington DC / Boston corridor has a culture of its own).

The basic gist of the Black Bloc culture is that your protest won't be recognized on modern TV if there's no violence. Notice that the protests in New York have been mostly ignored for the Oregon protests, and you'll see that they have a point. The TV News Crews are watching the Oregon Protesters BECAUSE they rioted.

And since the point of protesting is to draw the attention of the media, well... what they did was successful, even if it cost a few broken cars and a lot of damaged property. The more violence, the more attention you draw to your cause.

I disagree with it of course, but that's the gist of their argument. I also recognize that they're a very small subset of protesters that get a lot of attention.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:14 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby trpmb6 » Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:14 pm UTC

Opus_723 wrote:Speaking as a young liberal in the Pacific Northwest, I'm not sure *I* understand the violent protests here. But I've never lived in Seattle or Portland. In the medium-sized cities, we're seeing lots of peaceful protesting, but it always seems to turn violent in the two big ones. Maybe there's just enough of a cultural difference, I don't know.

I've been west of the mountains long enough to know that Seattle and Portland are fine places, and culturally I've always felt more at home here, though I'm still not a big city person. But as a kid on the east side of the mountains all I ever saw of Portland and Seattle is chaos, and it looks terrifying on TV.


And now imagine you live in the rust belt and all you see on TV of the big cities is rioting and violence. All you hear about is how 25 people were murdered in Chicago over the weekend and you think to yourself "GOSH that is like if our whole town got murdered in one weekend!"

That is when you will begin to understand the disconnect between The 400 or so counties who voted for Clinton and the 2400+ counties that voted for Trump. The real divide in America isn't race or gender or <insert identity politics>. The real divide is in Urban vs Rural.

Chen
Posts: 5221
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Chen » Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:17 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I'm less willing to start over with Trump supporters. I want to know how they justify voting for a man who's said the things he's said, and expressed the values he's expressed. Did a lot of them just not believe it? Did they think he was just lying? Are these values that they themselves hold? If someone supports Trump, I want to know how you got passed the hurdle of voting for a man who expressed his intent to target the families of terrorists -- probably committed multiple accounts of sexual assault -- thought it was okay to peek in on naked teenage girls (some of whom were underage, btw) -- committed multiple affairs -- ruined countless businesses, stiffed contractors, described Mexican immigrants as "rapists"...

I need some sort of explanation, here. Maybe you weren't paying attention; maybe you thought the media was lying? Okay; I can at least understand that. But if you knew these things and still voted for the man, I can't see how values matter to you. That makes me pretty afraid of you. I'd rather not be, but what other explanation -- besides ignorance -- is there?


There are a number of people who would have supported him because they do share those values. There's no doubt that some of his supporters are racists, xenophobes, misogynists or all of the above. The thing is you have other positions of the Republican party that some people also hold as valuable. Anti-Abortion, no Gay marriage, less free trade etc. No you may find those things repugnant too (well less free trade probably less so than the others), but they may have voted for Trump so that the Republicans get into power and these other things get passed. Then there are others who prefer Republican economic policies. Or a less Hawkish attitude than Clinton.

It's the problem with a de facto two-party system. You vote for the side that has some combination of factors that you deem are important to you. Or against a side who has some factors that are absolute dealbreakers for you. I mean killing terrorists families has practically zero personal impact to a HUGE number of people in the US. I can see why some people wouldn't consider that a deal breaker (even amongst those who don't actually personally agree with it).

The same situation plays out here in Quebec during our provincial elections. I may accept the Parti Quebecois' economic policy or even prefer it to the liberals, but there's no fucking way in hell I'm voting for them because of their stance on separation. Imagine now the liberals come up with their standard platform and add a "terrorist family killing" policy to it. It would be very difficult for many (myself included) to decide who to vote for here. Yes that position is morally repugnant. But probably has zero effect on my actual life. Whereas the other party has a good chance of having a largely negative effect on my life, but is in the moral right with respect to murdering terrorist's families. Pragmatism vs idealism in play. Two-party systems make this an even larger problem.

morriswalters
Posts: 6889
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:52 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:I disagree with it of course, but that's the gist of their argument. I also recognize that they're a very small subset of protesters that get a lot of attention.
There is a old media saying. "If it bleeds it leads". And it puts you in the position of believing the world is going to hell, when it ain't.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:53 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:I'm less willing to start over with Trump supporters. I want to know how they justify voting for a man who's said the things he's said, and expressed the values he's expressed. Did a lot of them just not believe it? Did they think he was just lying? Are these values that they themselves hold? If someone supports Trump, I want to know how you got passed the hurdle of voting for a man who expressed his intent to target the families of terrorists -- probably committed multiple accounts of sexual assault -- thought it was okay to peek in on naked teenage girls (some of whom were underage, btw) -- committed multiple affairs -- ruined countless businesses, stiffed contractors, described Mexican immigrants as "rapists"...

I need some sort of explanation, here. Maybe you weren't paying attention; maybe you thought the media was lying? Okay; I can at least understand that. But if you knew these things and still voted for the man, I can't see how values matter to you. That makes me pretty afraid of you. I'd rather not be, but what other explanation -- besides ignorance -- is there?


There are a number of people who would have supported him because they do share those values. There's no doubt that some of his supporters are racists, xenophobes, misogynists or all of the above. The thing is you have other positions of the Republican party that some people also hold as valuable. Anti-Abortion, no Gay marriage, less free trade etc. No you may find those things repugnant too (well less free trade probably less so than the others), but they may have voted for Trump so that the Republicans get into power and these other things get passed. Then there are others who prefer Republican economic policies. Or a less Hawkish attitude than Clinton.

It's the problem with a de facto two-party system. You vote for the side that has some combination of factors that you deem are important to you. Or against a side who has some factors that are absolute dealbreakers for you. I mean killing terrorists families has practically zero personal impact to a HUGE number of people in the US. I can see why some people wouldn't consider that a deal breaker (even amongst those who don't actually personally agree with it).

The same situation plays out here in Quebec during our provincial elections. I may accept the Parti Quebecois' economic policy or even prefer it to the liberals, but there's no fucking way in hell I'm voting for them because of their stance on separation. Imagine now the liberals come up with their standard platform and add a "terrorist family killing" policy to it. It would be very difficult for many (myself included) to decide who to vote for here. Yes that position is morally repugnant. But probably has zero effect on my actual life. Whereas the other party has a good chance of having a largely negative effect on my life, but is in the moral right with respect to murdering terrorist's families. Pragmatism vs idealism in play. Two-party systems make this an even larger problem.

I don't think anyone is unaware that many people chose because of these reasons. But, obviously, somewhere there is a point where morally you should not accept Y to get X.* Personally I think Trump passes that point so if someone considers Trump as bad as I do then I would consider it an unacceptable compromise to make.

Now there are a few non anger options:
1. They consider not that bad. The problem with this is that I don't consider it a reasonable conclusion so if I take that option it leads to other negative evaluations though not anger. I call it the looking down on them all option.
2. They consider both candidates that bad. But if you do find both of them as bad as I find Trump vote third party, neither has a good candidate but if it is a Kang vs Kodos thing it is the only option.
3.They didn't really inform themselves. Which is also somewhat of a looking down option.

Of course my opinion does not particularly matter for this as an outsider who is not direct part of the tensions. But I still wanted to point out that I don't think anybody thinks people only voted for him because of isms, but there is a point after which not considering something a dealbreaker is enough to piss someone off who considers it bad enough.

*Though of course that also depends on the Y.
Last edited by PeteP on Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:07 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Wonderbolt
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:11 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Wonderbolt » Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:00 pm UTC

PeteP wrote:Of course my opinion does not particularly matter for this as an outsider who is not direct part of the tensions. But I still wanted to point out that I don't think anybody thinks people only voted for him because of isms, but there is a point after which not considering something a dealbreaker is enough to piss someone off who considers it bad enough.

A lot of this seems to come down to how idealistic/principled vs pragmatic people want to be about it. I don't disagree with you, but I'm a massive pragmatist and take a very "well, what can you do, better figure out how to get those voters back next time instead of constantly talking about how they are really bad people in principle", but I realize that for a lot of people this is a more fundamental issue they can't just decide to ignore.

Opus_723
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Opus_723 » Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:15 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:
Opus_723 wrote:Speaking as a young liberal in the Pacific Northwest, I'm not sure *I* understand the violent protests here. But I've never lived in Seattle or Portland. In the medium-sized cities, we're seeing lots of peaceful protesting, but it always seems to turn violent in the two big ones. Maybe there's just enough of a cultural difference, I don't know.

I've been west of the mountains long enough to know that Seattle and Portland are fine places, and culturally I've always felt more at home here, though I'm still not a big city person. But as a kid on the east side of the mountains all I ever saw of Portland and Seattle is chaos, and it looks terrifying on TV.


And now imagine you live in the rust belt and all you see on TV of the big cities is rioting and violence. All you hear about is how 25 people were murdered in Chicago over the weekend and you think to yourself "GOSH that is like if our whole town got murdered in one weekend!"

That is when you will begin to understand the disconnect between The 400 or so counties who voted for Clinton and the 2400+ counties that voted for Trump. The real divide in America isn't race or gender or <insert identity politics>. The real divide is in Urban vs Rural.


Absolutely agreed.

Rural counties get almost no attention from politicians, and are constantly subject to the whims of voters in the cities. A lot of them live in excruciating poverty, and they see themselves being mocked in the popular culture as rednecks and hillbillies. Our schools are shit. My school didn't even have a teacher qualified to use the chemistry lab equipment. So even those who want to get an education are disadvantaged when it comes to getting into college. When a coal plant or lumber mill shuts down, town's get wiped out. Some of these places look post-apocalyptic.

...But it's not just that.

My wife had to serve coffee to and get hit on by a goddamned rapist every morning because the town was that small and her family didn't want her to make a scene. Her father was recently telling us about his new house, and complained about the noise from his neighbor beating his wife, and laughed like he was complaining about a barking dog. My dad was an incredibly abusive alcoholic, who nearly killed my mom on several occasions, and he was the town's social worker! He was literally the person battered women were supposed to go to for help from the government. And I found out when I got older that this was absolutely not a secret and nobody felt like it was their business to say anything.

So yeah. Some of this is the lashing out of a group of people who have been systematically ignored by the government and the culture, and are really getting screwed over. And I have seen that pain up close, I've lived that pain, and it hurts me that the Democrats haven't given them the time of day. I get it. But at the same time, a LOT of these people are very used to ignoring exactly the kind of behavior that makes Trump so disgusting, as long as it's to their advantage and/or keeps things quiet. And I got sick of that a long time ago.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1234
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JudeMorrigan » Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:16 pm UTC

Wonderbolt wrote:
PeteP wrote:Of course my opinion does not particularly matter for this as an outsider who is not direct part of the tensions. But I still wanted to point out that I don't think anybody thinks people only voted for him because of isms, but there is a point after which not considering something a dealbreaker is enough to piss someone off who considers it bad enough.

A lot of this seems to come down to how idealistic/principled vs pragmatic people want to be about it. I don't disagree with you, but I'm a massive pragmatist and take a very "well, what can you do, better figure out how to get those voters back next time instead of constantly talking about how they are really bad people in principle", but I realize that for a lot of people this is a more fundamental issue they can't just decide to ignore.

While I agree with you, I'll note that that's not *necessarily* true. There's a large enough pool of people who didn't vote that given the margins, it's entirely plausible that writing off whole groups of people in order to focus on energizing more of the potential base to vote could be a viable strategy. Please note that I am NOT saying that this is necessarily an approach that's particularly healthy for the country as a whole. (Seriously, I'm not at all a fan of leaving any group behind. Of any color, creed, etc.) Just that there is logic to it. And it is, of course, perfectly applicable to both sides.

Wonderbolt
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:11 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Wonderbolt » Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:23 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:
Wonderbolt wrote:
PeteP wrote:Of course my opinion does not particularly matter for this as an outsider who is not direct part of the tensions. But I still wanted to point out that I don't think anybody thinks people only voted for him because of isms, but there is a point after which not considering something a dealbreaker is enough to piss someone off who considers it bad enough.

A lot of this seems to come down to how idealistic/principled vs pragmatic people want to be about it. I don't disagree with you, but I'm a massive pragmatist and take a very "well, what can you do, better figure out how to get those voters back next time instead of constantly talking about how they are really bad people in principle", but I realize that for a lot of people this is a more fundamental issue they can't just decide to ignore.

While I agree with you, I'll note that that's not *necessarily* true. There's a large enough pool of people who didn't vote that given the margins, it's entirely plausible that writing off whole groups of people in order to focus on energizing more of the potential base to vote could be a viable strategy. Please note that I am NOT saying that this is necessarily an approach that's particularly healthy for the country as a whole. (Seriously, I'm not at all a fan of leaving any group behind. Of any color, creed, etc.) Just that there is logic to it. And it is, of course, perfectly applicable to both sides.

That's fair, I agree that you're right that's another possible way to go. I also strongly suspect that's not what we're seeing right now in most places, though? At least the impression I've gotten is more that people are looking for an outlet for their frustrations, rather than trying to find a reasonable course of action that'll give them a better chance in the next election. (Which is fine for the most part, tbh, I'd rather people get it out of their systems. I'll start worrying if people are still doing that a month from now, especially once interest in politics begins to fade again for a lot of people.)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:31 pm UTC

Fading away from politics is a good thing, especially for the normal person.

The truth of the matter is, we don't hold the power to change politics or policy, except once every two years or four years. Getting back to our normal lives to determine what is good / bad in our individual lives is healthy. And it will give us a fresh perspective in 2018 or 2020 as well.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1234
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JudeMorrigan » Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:36 pm UTC

Wonderbolt wrote:
JudeMorrigan wrote:
Wonderbolt wrote:
PeteP wrote:Of course my opinion does not particularly matter for this as an outsider who is not direct part of the tensions. But I still wanted to point out that I don't think anybody thinks people only voted for him because of isms, but there is a point after which not considering something a dealbreaker is enough to piss someone off who considers it bad enough.

A lot of this seems to come down to how idealistic/principled vs pragmatic people want to be about it. I don't disagree with you, but I'm a massive pragmatist and take a very "well, what can you do, better figure out how to get those voters back next time instead of constantly talking about how they are really bad people in principle", but I realize that for a lot of people this is a more fundamental issue they can't just decide to ignore.

While I agree with you, I'll note that that's not *necessarily* true. There's a large enough pool of people who didn't vote that given the margins, it's entirely plausible that writing off whole groups of people in order to focus on energizing more of the potential base to vote could be a viable strategy. Please note that I am NOT saying that this is necessarily an approach that's particularly healthy for the country as a whole. (Seriously, I'm not at all a fan of leaving any group behind. Of any color, creed, etc.) Just that there is logic to it. And it is, of course, perfectly applicable to both sides.

That's fair, I agree that you're right that's another possible way to go. I also strongly suspect that's not what we're seeing right now in most places, though? At least the impression I've gotten is more that people are looking for an outlet for their frustrations, rather than trying to find a reasonable course of action that'll give them a better chance in the next election. (Which is fine for the most part, tbh, I'd rather people get it out of their systems. I'll start worrying if people are still doing that a month from now, especially once interest in politics begins to fade again for a lot of people.)

Oh, I'm talking about the parties and candidates there more than anything else. I'm just saying I think there are perfectly pragmatic (but ultimately pretty horrible) routes along that line for them to take. I think they can coldly calculate that it makes complete sense to write off and demonize groups to fire up their own supporters. I actually think it takes a fair amount of idealism to try to succeed by doing the best one can for everyone.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:42 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:The answer for the question about protests is simple.

You have a protest. You have:
A) People who only rarely protest showing up for the issue the protest represents
and
B) People that show up to every protest they can in order to hijack it for their insane nonsense

The violent nutjobs belong to B, not A.


Yes, I used to think left-wingers had a violent protest problem. Here in PNW - May Day, BLM, and this were all bad this year. Now I am realizing there's a cohort of people who love destroying property and looting for nonpolitical reasons and they jump on these protests because that's their opportunity. In fact a lot of the peaceful protesters are there because it's "something to do" that night.
lol everything matters
-Ed

Wonderbolt
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:11 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Wonderbolt » Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:44 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:
Wonderbolt wrote:
JudeMorrigan wrote:
Wonderbolt wrote:
PeteP wrote:Of course my opinion does not particularly matter for this as an outsider who is not direct part of the tensions. But I still wanted to point out that I don't think anybody thinks people only voted for him because of isms, but there is a point after which not considering something a dealbreaker is enough to piss someone off who considers it bad enough.

A lot of this seems to come down to how idealistic/principled vs pragmatic people want to be about it. I don't disagree with you, but I'm a massive pragmatist and take a very "well, what can you do, better figure out how to get those voters back next time instead of constantly talking about how they are really bad people in principle", but I realize that for a lot of people this is a more fundamental issue they can't just decide to ignore.

While I agree with you, I'll note that that's not *necessarily* true. There's a large enough pool of people who didn't vote that given the margins, it's entirely plausible that writing off whole groups of people in order to focus on energizing more of the potential base to vote could be a viable strategy. Please note that I am NOT saying that this is necessarily an approach that's particularly healthy for the country as a whole. (Seriously, I'm not at all a fan of leaving any group behind. Of any color, creed, etc.) Just that there is logic to it. And it is, of course, perfectly applicable to both sides.

That's fair, I agree that you're right that's another possible way to go. I also strongly suspect that's not what we're seeing right now in most places, though? At least the impression I've gotten is more that people are looking for an outlet for their frustrations, rather than trying to find a reasonable course of action that'll give them a better chance in the next election. (Which is fine for the most part, tbh, I'd rather people get it out of their systems. I'll start worrying if people are still doing that a month from now, especially once interest in politics begins to fade again for a lot of people.)

Oh, I'm talking about the parties and candidates there more than anything else. I'm just saying I think there are perfectly pragmatic (but ultimately pretty horrible) routes along that line for them to take. I think they can coldly calculate that it makes complete sense to write off and demonize groups to fire up their own supporters. I actually think it takes a fair amount of idealism to try to succeed by doing the best one can for everyone.

Damn, and here I was just trying to be a cold pragmatist. :p

But I agree, and, since I'm no fan of Trump, let's hope they get there.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6829
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:20 pm UTC

Wonderbolt wrote:You don't have to be so passive-aggressive about it, and I don't personally care whether you're a Democrat or not, I'm just saying that bugging all those supporters about how racist they must be isn't going to win them any elections. It just reinforces the smug-complex a lot of people already feel towards rural white voters for being so much less educated, etc.
I apologize if anything I said implied that Trump supporters are racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, or Islamophobic; nevertheless, I think it's pretty obvious to anyone that Trump is all of these things -- and I'm struggling to understand why people who are none of these things would support him anyway.

Your response makes me skeptical that there's a way for me to ask this question without offending many Trump supporters. I'm not sure how to ask someone in a "PC" way why they thought it's okay to vote for the guy who abused his position to barge in on naked women getting dressed, or expressed his intent to murder the families of terrorists. Can you suggest to me some ways to ask these questions that won't offend Trump supporters -- or make them feel like I'm calling them racist/misogynistic/xenophobic/Islamophobic?
SlyReaper wrote:As has been said several times, there were no good options here. At least when Trump said outrageous things, there's the hope that it was just heat-of-the-moment campaign rhetoric. And that even if he had the will to do any of the things you mentioned, the rest of the government around him would restrain him. They did a pretty good job at frustrating Obama's ambitions, so they can be expected to do the same to Trump. With Clinton, there was no hope that she could ever be anything more than an avatar of established corporate interests.

I'm not saying Trump was the best choice. But I can at least understand and sympathise with people who preferred him over Clinton.
You understand and sympathize someone who equates emails, donor-issues, and a no-fly-zone in Syria with someone who literally said we have to kill the families of terrorists? Or someone who literally bragged about sexual abuse?

I can't. Maybe I'm just not clever enough to understand? Whether or not these were statements in the 'heat-of-the-moment', they still demonstrate the man's values, and I'm struggling to understand how anyone can support a man with those values when they themselves don't share them. It's one thing to vote for a candidate who's values clearly differ from yours, but this candidate's values are diametrically opposed to the values I presume most decent people hold dear.
trpmb6 wrote:As for the sexual assault allegations: I can think of 2 things. First, any time you see Gloria Alred out the Right immediately dismisses it. Especially given the timing of all the allegations. They were all clearly orchestrated for maximum political effect. Second, a lot of people thought there was a huge double standard between these allegations and the allegations of rape against Bill Clinton. Yes I understand he wasn't running for president. The allegations against trump never came close to the allegations against Bill, as far as the level of severity.
What about the allegations (which Trump himself corroberated) that Trump would abuse his authority as the owner of the beauty pageant to spy on naked teenage girls (some of whom, I again note, were underage)?

Like -- there are so many things that make Trump horrifying. It's weird to say it, but the beauty pageant stuff is actually pretty low on the list. I bring it up, though, because I presume it's something we can all agree is very reprehensible, and should make the man unelectable. He has a well-established, well-documented pattern of predating on young women. Bill Clinton is bad, but his record isn't well-documented, and he's certainly never admitted to it; Trump's record is, and he most certainly has. In fact, the man's bragged about it.

How can anyone vote for that and still say they support women? I'm genuinely asking; I want to understand how you can claim to support women while electing what appears to be a fairly well-documented, self-admitted sexual predator to office.
trpmb6 wrote: In the end I just wanted to make them pay for taking the candidate I wanted away. They made their bed, let them lie in it now.
You do realize that this is a bed we're all lying in now, right? By punishing Hillary, you've also punished everyone who finds Donald Trump scary.

As I mentioned before: If you are a creature of so little conviction that you're willing to use your vote to punish others, Donald Trump probably should have been your first choice.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:21 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Opus_723
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Opus_723 » Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:21 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Opus_723 wrote:Speaking as a young liberal in the Pacific Northwest, I'm not sure *I* understand the violent protests here. But I've never lived in Seattle or Portland. In the medium-sized cities, we're seeing lots of peaceful protesting, but it always seems to turn violent in the two big ones. Maybe there's just enough of a cultural difference, I don't know.

I've been west of the mountains long enough to know that Seattle and Portland are fine places, and culturally I've always felt more at home here, though I'm still not a big city person. But as a kid on the east side of the mountains all I ever saw of Portland and Seattle is chaos, and it looks terrifying on TV.


My experience is my cousins from Oakland California, and I'm assuming the culture kinda flows around the Pacific Northwest a bit (much like the Washington DC / Boston corridor has a culture of its own).

The basic gist of the Black Bloc culture is that your protest won't be recognized on modern TV if there's no violence. Notice that the protests in New York have been mostly ignored for the Oregon protests, and you'll see that they have a point. The TV News Crews are watching the Oregon Protesters BECAUSE they rioted.

And since the point of protesting is to draw the attention of the media, well... what they did was successful, even if it cost a few broken cars and a lot of damaged property. The more violence, the more attention you draw to your cause.

I disagree with it of course, but that's the gist of their argument. I also recognize that they're a very small subset of protesters that get a lot of attention.


Thanks. That sounds familiar now that you spell it out for me.

morriswalters
Posts: 6889
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:53 pm UTC

How about you walk up to the next Trump voter you see and ask "Why did you vote for Trump?" And listen when they respond.
Instead of, "Why did you vote for a mother raping, empty suit?"

And Clinton(Bill) had a sexual relationship in the White House with a young women who was part of his administration, with a power differential, that in today's world would make that relationship very close to rape. He lied about it and used a dictionary defense when he got caught.

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby freezeblade » Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:54 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:My experience is my cousins from Oakland California, and I'm assuming the culture kinda flows around the Pacific Northwest a bit (much like the Washington DC / Boston corridor has a culture of its own).

The basic gist of the Black Bloc culture is that your protest won't be recognized on modern TV if there's no violence. Notice that the protests in New York have been mostly ignored for the Oregon protests, and you'll see that they have a point. The TV News Crews are watching the Oregon Protesters BECAUSE they rioted.

And since the point of protesting is to draw the attention of the media, well... what they did was successful, even if it cost a few broken cars and a lot of damaged property. The more violence, the more attention you draw to your cause.

I disagree with it of course, but that's the gist of their argument. I also recognize that they're a very small subset of protesters that get a lot of attention.


I live in Oakland, about 2 miles from downtown, and I can confirm this is the general gist of the general sentiment among a (small) segment of protestors. The problem is that this segment shows up to pretty much every protest, and if you combine them with the ones who only show up to violently riot, break windows, and loot (and even smaller percentage), and the whole protest devolves into a huge clusterfuck. Combine that with militarized police, especially one who has been under federal oversight for the past decade (as Oakland has), and you've got a pretty major incident. However, one that will show up on the news, which I suppose is the point some were trying to make.

I know quite a lot of people who were in the protests over the last few days, both in Oakland, and up in Portland, and nearly all of them know the rules of not getting shot by riot police: show up early to the protest, and leave as soon as people start becoming restless, or you begin to see the first wave of cops assembling. Every protest it seems in Oakland will devolve into tear gas, broken windows, and riot shields; The key is knowing when to leave.
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6829
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:57 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:How about you walk up to the next Trump voter you see and ask "Why did you vote for Trump?" And listen when they respond.
Instead of, "Why did you vote for a mother raping, empty suit?"

And Clinton(Bill) had a sexual relationship in the White House with a young women who was part of his administration, with a power differential, that in today's world would make that relationship very close to rape. He lied about it and used a dictionary defense when he got caught.
I've had that conversation; it was with the one who thought genocide against Muslims was reasonable. I'm presuming he wasn't indicative of your average Trump supporter (God, I hope not). I'm not going out of my way to find them, though. There's a couple in this thread, so those are the ones I'd like to hear from / listen to.

And yes; I don't think anyone disputes that Bill Clinton's actions were pretty terrible. What's galling is that apparently people want more of that; in fact, they want a guy who brags about it.

Wonderbolt
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:11 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Wonderbolt » Fri Nov 11, 2016 11:07 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Your response makes me skeptical that there's a way for me to ask this question without offending many Trump supporters. I'm not sure how to ask someone in a "PC" way why they thought it's okay to vote for the guy who abused his position to barge in on naked women getting dressed, or expressed his intent to murder the families of terrorists. Can you suggest to me some ways to ask these questions that won't offend Trump supporters -- or make them feel like I'm calling them racist/misogynistic/xenophobic/Islamophobic?

No.

Because the way you ask the question already implies that they're Bad People(TM). If you want to actually know what people think, you need to get over yourself and actually ask people why they voted the way they did (at which point you'll probably hear people voice disappointment about a great many things, and you'll find that the number of people voting for Trump because he said sexist things or whatever is tiny). You don't have to agree with those priorities, but asking the question in a way that already implies that your priorities are Right and theirs are Wrong it's incredibly unsurprising that you're getting the answers you're getting.

Perhaps a bit unclear, let me rephrase the question: "I'm not sure how to ask someone in a "PC" way why they thought it's okay to vote for the woman who doesn't care about the issues we're dealing with at all, who called the people who didn't know where else to turn but Trump a 'basket of deplorables', who by all counts is pretty much the personification of the establishment we stand against. Can you suggest to me some ways to ask these questions that won't offend Clinton supporters -- or make them feel like I'm calling them shills/elitists/okay-i'm-not-good-at-this-but-you-get-the-idea-ists"

(If your instinctive response to the above is "but those things are far less terrible than my things!" you've completely missed the point.)

Hell, this doesn't even mean that one side isn't inherently more ethical than the other or whatever, it just means that what you're currently doing won't get you anywhere, and I strongly suspect that you're being dishonest with yourself by saying you just want to understand people.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5775
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Nov 11, 2016 11:34 pm UTC

If we are guilty of ignoring rural America, where are the Republicans on this issue? It's pretty convenient of them to never fight for them. Are rural poor counting anti immigration as help?

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby freezeblade » Fri Nov 11, 2016 11:48 pm UTC

If you ask a Trump supporter why they voted for Trump, of course they're not going to bring up the socially stigmatizing and terrible things Trump said before or during the campaign. You already know why they won't; because those things are not important to them, at least not enough to make them avoid voting Trump. If you bring them up first, asking them to answer for those things, they must admit that they don't care about those sets of social issues, or say that they don't believe he's said them, that he's exaggerating, etc. Which, yes, for many people who find those issues important, makes the Trump voter in the very least complacent of casual racism/sexism/bigotry. These people obviously disagree, and are offended/defensive that one would even imply that!

To be fair, I'm of this opinion as well. Every voter that has seen or heard Trump's statements, but voted for him anyway have chosen to put their issues, economic or otherwise, ahead of the issues of racism/sexism/bigotry as shown by Trump. Yes, I think that this makes them shades of terrible, in being accepting or at least complacent of Trumps actions.
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

morriswalters
Posts: 6889
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:01 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I've had that conversation; it was with the one who thought genocide against Muslims was reasonable. I'm presuming he wasn't indicative of your average Trump supporter (God, I hope not). I'm not going out of my way to find them, though. There's a couple in this thread, so those are the ones I'd like to hear from / listen to.

And yes; I don't think anyone disputes that Bill Clinton's actions were pretty terrible. What's galling is that apparently people want more of that; in fact, they want a guy who brags about it.
Bills actions were despicable. Perhaps it would have been better had he been impeached. Had they done so we might not be where we are now. But that's speculation. But absent Bill there would have been no Hillary. We made excuses for tolerating it and perhaps that was a mistake. I don't really care if you find the answer to your question or not, since I am not certain that it would be useful if you did. You have never considered that voting for Trump is much like a riot. One of those moments when the lizard takes over and robs you of your reason? Some describe it as cutting off your nose to spite your face. In the moment you don't care.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5775
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:08 am UTC

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why ... yone-else/
Nate runs a victory lap as he explains why he's the one and only wizard.
Big takeaways are the collapsed of the much vaunted third parties, and Democrat's options for the future. If the Democrats cannot take back the Midwest, they will suffer in exile until Democrats take over GA, AZ, and the mythical blue Texas. Then they will reign uncontested. At least until the next big swing.

While all this is fascinating, part of me is reading this to distract me from the fact that pence just kicked Chris Christie off the transition team.

morriswalters
Posts: 6889
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:11 am UTC

sardia wrote:While all this is fascinating, part of me is reading this to distract me from the fact that pence just kicked Chris Christie off the transition team.
Big fish eat little fish. :twisted:

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6829
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:18 am UTC

Wonderbolt wrote:No.

Because the way you ask the question already implies that they're Bad People(TM). If you want to actually know what people think, you need to get over yourself and actually ask people why they voted the way they did (at which point you'll probably hear people voice disappointment about a great many things, and you'll find that the number of people voting for Trump because he said sexist things or whatever is tiny).
You think I think people are voting for Trump because he said terrible things?

Where on earth did I give you that impression? I think people are voting for Trump despite the fact that he said terrible things. And I want to understand how they reconcile that with their own values.
Wonderbolt wrote:You don't have to agree with those priorities, but asking the question in a way that already implies that your priorities are Right and theirs are Wrong it's incredibly unsurprising that you're getting the answers you're getting.
What answers? This thread is where I'm asking these questions, and I haven't gotten a response from the people here who voted for Trump yet (not that they're obligated to reply; on top of that, it hasn't been that long since I asked anyway).
Wonderbolt wrote:Perhaps a bit unclear, let me rephrase the question: "I'm not sure how to ask someone in a "PC" way why they thought it's okay to vote for the woman who doesn't care about the issues we're dealing with at all, who called the people who didn't know where else to turn but Trump a 'basket of deplorables', who by all counts is pretty much the personification of the establishment we stand against. Can you suggest to me some ways to ask these questions that won't offend Clinton supporters -- or make them feel like I'm calling them shills/elitists/okay-i'm-not-good-at-this-but-you-get-the-idea-ists"

(If your instinctive response to the above is "but those things are far less terrible than my things!" you've completely missed the point.)
...what? My instinctive response was most certainly not that; my instinctive response was 'That's a perfectly reasonable, valid, and legitimate question; more than that, it's a question I think Hillary voters owe everyone an answer to'. You don't think so?

You think it's offensive to ask Trump supporters questions like that; I don't think it's offensive to ask Hillary supporters questions like that. I feel like we're operating from two completely different scales of what is and is not offensive, here.
Wonderbolt wrote:Hell, this doesn't even mean that one side isn't inherently more ethical than the other or whatever, it just means that what you're currently doing won't get you anywhere, and I strongly suspect that you're being dishonest with yourself by saying you just want to understand people.
I don't know how to respond to any of this. I have no idea how to phrase my concerns in such a way that they don't offend you. I am legitimately trying to understand this, and I find it upsetting that you don't think I am. I find it even more upsetting that you seem to think my question was designed to offend.

I'm legitimately scared -- a little for myself, but mostly for people I know and love who are in precarious circumstances. I'm struggling to find some sort of reassurance or explanation from Trump supporters as to why my fear is irrational. Rather than help me find a way to alleviate those fears, you're accusing me of being insensitive, smug, and artificial? How am I supposed to take this?

I might not understand how Trump supporters reconcile Trump with their own values, but I do understand why a Trump supporter might have been afraid. Do you understand how I might be afraid? Do you understand why I might want to alleviate that fear?

If not, then do me a favor: Fuck off.

Wonderbolt
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:11 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Wonderbolt » Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:32 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:If not, then do me a favor: Fuck off.

I can see that this is not going to go anywhere, so I'm going to stop talking to you about it, yeah.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6829
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:37 am UTC

Yeah; it's pretty clear you're not addressing any of what I'm actually saying; way easier for you to save face by focusing on the last thing and using it as your chance to jump out.

Because addressing people who are legitimately struggling with issues -- who are actually experiencing anxiety and fear -- that's way harder than addressing the smug caricature you've constructed in your head.

EDIT: But thank you for fucking off, at least.

Wonderbolt
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:11 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Wonderbolt » Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:50 am UTC

I'm not trying to save face. I was genuinely trying to be helpful in trying to understand people who support Trump. It was never my intention to upset you, and I apologize for doing so. I may still participate in this thread, but I will try my best not to make it sound like I'm trying to minimize your anxiety and fears, and will stop discussing this particular topic.

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Adacore » Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:57 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Where on earth did I give you that impression? I think people are voting for Trump despite the fact that he said terrible things. And I want to understand how they reconcile that with their own values.


My understanding, and I'm neither a Trump supporter nor even in the same continent as you, so I could be way off, is that many people who voted Trump either (a) believe that Clinton is a dishonest criminal (as in, really believe this, not just repeat it as rhetoric), and that Trump, while he holds some undesirable views and has said some pretty awful things, is not as bad, or (b) have one or more political issue points, such as abortion or healthcare, on which they feel they cannot in good conscience fail to support the Republican candidate, or (c) believe that Trump sees the same problems they see in the economy and will attempt to 'fix' it. For those (b) and (c) voters, I think a large number of people take the view that personal problems with a candidate are less important than being on the 'right' side of what they consider the most important issues.

Basically, it boils down to either 'Trump is awful, but Hillary is worse', or 'I have to overlook Trump's bad points because some issues are too important' for the majority of voters. Probably both, for many voters.

On a completely different topic, I was wondering how much some down-ballot measures impact the presidential vote. Most notably the marijuana legalization stuff - I note that in the states where recreational marijuana was passed (Massachusetts, Nevada, California), Clinton beat her polling numbers significantly. I'm wondering if that's partly because people who would normally not be interesting in voting went to the polls simply to vote for the marijuana question and, once there, voted for the Democratic ticket. A quick search turns up this article which appears to agree with this hypothesis, at least in theory.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6829
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:02 am UTC

Wonderbolt wrote:Not really? I was genuinely trying to be helpful in trying to understand people who support Trump. It was never my intention to upset you, and I apologize for doing so. I may still participate in this thread, but I will try my best not to make it sound like I'm trying to minimize your anxiety and fears, and will stop discussing this particular topic.
Okay. That helps, a lot. I apologize for snapping at you, in both the previous post, and the post before that; I've been a little on edge, and probably shouldn't even still be posting in this thread. I felt like you were accusing me of pretending to be afraid just to make Trump supporters look bad. You probably weren't.

Maybe I am being melodramatic. This election result has shifted my brain in a way that's left me deeply confused. I'm struggling to re-align my paradigm, and in the process, I'm deeply anxious and desperate for explanations (explanations which, honestly, might not even exist; nevermind that Trump supporters themselves might not be able to give them to me).

Either way, I appreciate you actually giving a fuck about the mental state of the person you're talking to. That's a rarity in discourse like this, and it's something I have a tremendous respect for. So, thank you for that. I'll leave this particular topic alone instead, and take a break from this thread for a while (again).

Wonderbolt
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:11 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Wonderbolt » Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:07 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Okay. That helps, a lot. I apologize for snapping at you, in both the previous post, and the post before that; I've been a little on edge, and probably shouldn't even still be posting in this thread. I felt like you were accusing me of pretending to be afraid just to make Trump supporters look bad. You probably weren't.

Maybe I am being melodramatic. This election result has shifted my brain in a way that's left me deeply confused. I'm struggling to re-align my paradigm, and in the process, I'm deeply anxious and desperate for explanations (explanations which, honestly, might not even exist; nevermind that Trump supporters themselves might not be able to give them to me).

Either way, I appreciate you actually giving a fuck about the mental state of the person you're talking to. That's a rarity in discourse like this, and it's something I have a tremendous respect for. So, thank you for that. I'll leave this particular topic alone instead, and take a break from this thread for a while (again).

Don't worry about it. :) I probably could have been nicer. I think I sometimes show a little bit of the opposite thing in discussions like this, along the lines of "If I remain cold and neutral about this it can't hurt me", when the reality is that I'm really worried about where the USA is going. I guess that means I sometimes end up coming across with the same smugness/fake-detachedness I accuse other people of. We're all trying to cope with these things in whatever way we can, I suppose.

Mambrino
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:45 pm UTC
Location: No we don't have polar bears. Except in zoos.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mambrino » Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:01 am UTC

NYTimes: Vice President-Elect Pence to Take Over Trump Transition Effort

Pence replaces Chris Christie.

I just realized that I was in full kremlnology mode reading the headline, trying to infer if this means anything. Couldn't come up with anything.

edit. Also missed that Peter Thiel has been named as a member of the transition team.

User avatar
Itassis
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:41 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Itassis » Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:27 am UTC

Can you suggest to me some ways to ask these questions that won't offend Trump supporters -- or make them feel like I'm calling them racist/misogynistic/xenophobic/Islamophobic?


The first thing I would do, and I don't think that you necessarily need this but it bears stating, is that they do not share every nuance of every stance that Trump has or has stated. That said, I still feel that asking them what were the main reasons that they had for voting for Trump, and then when they give you an explanation, is not to challenge them on it but instead keep asking questions to further understanding.

For instance, using slightly accusatory language:
'What were your thoughts when Trump said that we should kill the families of Muslim terrorists?'
'Often, the terrorist cells are related by blood; going after (interrogating, arresting, perhaps jailing) the families of known terrorists would lead to a higher proportion of captured terrorists. It would also have a chilling effect on others considering terrorism, and going after the families might even intercept some of the money that certain middle eastern nations pay to the families of the terrorists. As well, in the same vein, I do not mind it when Trump asks about the repercussions of using Nuclear weapons. I do not think he was advocating their use or threatening other countries with them, but merely trying to figure out the consequences.'

As soon as you interject after the 'higher proportions' comment, you derail and undermine the entire conversation. Most people wouldn't have the chance to write out (or edit) their views, so give a bit more lenience to them. Just respond with something like 'do you think this would be as effective as the other courses of action, like ...?' (fill in the blank here) or 'thank you for the response.' Not more condescension or bringing up a difference topic they didn't.

zhi
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 2:55 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby zhi » Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:37 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:What answers? This thread is where I'm asking these questions, and I haven't gotten a response from the people here who voted for Trump yet (not that they're obligated to reply; on top of that, it hasn't been that long since I asked anyway).


I created an account here a couple weeks back to add to the discussion, as many people seemed confused on why Hillary is viewed as poor candidate. I've voted for a democrat my entire life, and was unwilling to vote for Hillary.

While trying to add insight to why I wouldn't vote for her I was either mocked, personally attacked and misrepresented in everything I said. There not no effort at all to learn about a point if view that wasn't mindlessly supporting Hillary.

When you, and others on the left, talk about the racism, misogyny and xenophobia in America and ignore the middle east it's baffling to so many people like me on the left. We've been raping that culture for 70 years. Hillary has been a direct part of raping it for her entire political career. America's foreign policy that Hillary supported, championed and led has created all of the things you claim to hate about Trump's message on a much deeper and much more harmful level. When you talk about the hatred Trump has created in America and ignore the much greater and deeper hatred Hillary has created in the world you sound ridiculous to anyone actually championing those values for humanity. That your scope of what you think matters is only America is insulting to so many people, and that is just one of the reason they didn't show up to vote for a candidate as terrible as Hillary.

That focus on the relatively benign racism and misogyny in America while ignoring how much our privacy is suffering, education system is suffering, Gen Y is suffering, how much the middle class in America is suffering, how much our environment is suffering, how much America has made the world suffer and how Hillary's work has increased not decreased suffering on all of those things is the blindness to the harm that resulted in Trump's presidency.

When I tried to talk about all of these things, in this very community, I was met with hate and ignorance so thick it was clear that within 2 days it would be impossible to have discussion anywhere close to resembling civil discourse.

You're right to think the bigotry in America is real and that it matters. You're wrong to believe it is the only or even most significant suffering going on.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Vahir » Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:46 am UTC

Mambrino wrote:NYTimes: Vice President-Elect Pence to Take Over Trump Transition Effort

Pence replaces Chris Christie.

I just realized that I was in full kremlnology mode reading the headline, trying to infer if this means anything. Couldn't come up with anything.

edit. Also missed that Peter Thiel has been named as a member of the transition team.


Chris Christie deserves every ass-kicking he gets. He screwed over his state for his own gain, whored himself out to the midwest for a presidential bid that was doomed to fail from the start, supported Donald Trump when that bid, guess what, failed... The man is scum.

Wonderbolt
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:11 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Wonderbolt » Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:09 am UTC

Trump appears open to compromise on The Affordable Care Act - CNN

I don't really know what to think of this, it gives me a tad more confidence in my earlier thoughts that a lot of stuff said during the election was just pandering, but we'll have to see what he ends up trying to do in practice. It may just all be hot air to appease Democrats before getting rid of it (though that just feels... weird to me. Has Trump ever tried appeasing anyone ever in this way?).

(The forum autocorrects 0bamacare? Odd.)


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 21 guests