2016 United States Election
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46135
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Re: 2016 United States Election
C_G is probably referring to Hillary's relationship with the late Senator Robert Byrd, who as a young man in the 1940's was a member of the KKK, although since he died in 2010 he obviously did not endorse her in this election, and later in his life renounced his earlier views regarding race and segregation.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Re: 2016 United States Election
False Equivalency.Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:Both the leading candidates had a KKK endorsement, so the only way to vote for a candidate not endorsed by the KKK was to vote 3rd party.
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude
Re: 2016 United States Election
This attitude is a recipe for utter disaster for our country going forward, imo. You're saying that the only legitimate way to react to Trump is the way you reacted to him; anyone who looks at the world differently than you do -- there is something wrong with them. What is bigotry? It's identifying a group of people without knowing them as individuals, making assumptions about them because they're members of that group, and deciding they're beneath you. There's only one place this attitude can lead -- to more polarization and more hatred. Do you even care to understand why vast numbers of your fellow countrymen voted for Trump? Or do you think you already know? Or doesn't it matter to you, because they're obviously scum, not human beings?RoseMorninStar wrote:I find it very difficult that anyone can support a racist, sexist, bigot for the highest office in the land and then claim they are not racist, sexist, and bigoted. They are supporting it and condoning it. Not much difference.
Last edited by Cerin on Fri Nov 11, 2016 1:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
Re: 2016 United States Election
Where does this idea that Trump supporters were (or are) angry at "those at the top" of the money pile come from? I keep seeing this and the more I think about it the less sense it makes. Are people confusing Trump for Sanders? Trump rallies weren't filled with changes about income inequality. They weren't chanting about the 1%. They weren't even chanting about big banks and Wall Street. What they were chanting was "Build the wall" and "Lock her up". That's what got them excited - absurd, base irrationality based on fear and conspiracy - and a man willing to indulge their desire to be base.Cerin wrote:Yes, this is most emphatically a rejection of the elite ruling order in this country. It is a thumb to the nose, a raised middle finger, an attempt to throw a spanner into the works that have smoothly been humming along for decades enriching those at the top and leaving the rest of the country behind.
You yourself admit that this is ultimately little more than "a raised middle finger" and yet you expect something besides a contemptuous attitude? Give me a break.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
Re: 2016 United States Election
yovargas, you obviously didn't have the compete picture of what Trump was talking about around the country during the campaign.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
- Cenedril_Gildinaur
- Posts: 1076
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 7:01 pm
Re: 2016 United States Election
Nope, I'm referring to Mr. Quigg. Even the attempts to use Snopes to say it is false actually say "unproven".Voronwë the Faithful wrote:C_G is probably referring to Hillary's relationship with the late Senator Robert Byrd, who as a young man in the 1940's was a member of the KKK, although since he died in 2010 he obviously did not endorse her in this election, and later in his life renounced his earlier views regarding race and segregation.
Since KKK membership isn't public record, we can't tell if Quigg really is the leader of the KKK in California or not.
If one can condemn a candidate for unasked for endorsements, then one can condemn a candidate for unasked for endorsements. It is actually pretty equivalent.Inanna wrote:False Equivalency.Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:Both the leading candidates had a KKK endorsement, so the only way to vote for a candidate not endorsed by the KKK was to vote 3rd party.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams
-- Samuel Adams
- Impenitent
- Throw me a rope.
- Posts: 7260
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:13 am
- Location: Deep in Oz
Re: 2016 United States Election
Cerin, whatever the primary reason given be Trump voters for their choice, they can't deny they made the choice for the whole package.
On Facebook Jewel posted an excellent exposition on this:
"I think you can very easily make the argument that a lot people who voted for Trump are not and would not actively be racist to another person in their day-to-day lives. I live among Trump voters, and the ones I live among are lovely and kind and perfect neighbors. They are what nearly anyone would describe as good people, me included. As are, I think, the majority of the people who voted for Trump.
But the fact remains that in voting for Trump, they voted for racism: It was right there in the package deal, front and center, and hard to miss. They voted for it anyway. And you may argue that voting for racism as part of a larger package deal does not a racist make, and I wouldn’t necessarily disagree, as far as what people do to others in their personal and day to day lives. But voting for racism will make personal, day-to-day life harder for the targets of that racism. Two days after the election, we’re already seeing that."
The whole article:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2016/11/10/t ... of-racism/
Posting on phone via Tapatalk
On Facebook Jewel posted an excellent exposition on this:
"I think you can very easily make the argument that a lot people who voted for Trump are not and would not actively be racist to another person in their day-to-day lives. I live among Trump voters, and the ones I live among are lovely and kind and perfect neighbors. They are what nearly anyone would describe as good people, me included. As are, I think, the majority of the people who voted for Trump.
But the fact remains that in voting for Trump, they voted for racism: It was right there in the package deal, front and center, and hard to miss. They voted for it anyway. And you may argue that voting for racism as part of a larger package deal does not a racist make, and I wouldn’t necessarily disagree, as far as what people do to others in their personal and day to day lives. But voting for racism will make personal, day-to-day life harder for the targets of that racism. Two days after the election, we’re already seeing that."
The whole article:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2016/11/10/t ... of-racism/
Posting on phone via Tapatalk
Mornings wouldn't suck so badly if they came later in the day.
Re: 2016 United States Election
Then please enlighten me. The only thing I hear people talking about is trade but I absolutely believe that Trump could have said literally anything or nothing about trade and it wouldn't have changed one single damn thing about what happened.Cerin wrote:yovargas, you obviously didn't have the compete picture of what Trump was talking about around the country during the campaign.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
Re: 2016 United States Election
Well then, there isn't much point in discussing actual facts with you, is there?
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
Re: 2016 United States Election
Does that mean trade was the only thing you were going to bring up too?
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
Re: 2016 United States Election
I don't recall you posting an actual fact in this thread, backed with a quote or link or ANYTHING other than your opinion. It is quite possible that I missed it, in which case I apologize.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Re: 2016 United States Election
Ha. Wouldn't it be amazing if this could ever actually happen:
Electoral College: Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19
Electoral College: Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
- Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Re: 2016 United States Election
Cerin, it's perfectly reasonable to disdain Trump for his stoking of bigotry and racial/religious paranoia, before you even get to his attitude and actions toward women. I'm incapable of regarding any of this as a side issue. It is not something to be thoughtfully weighed in the balance with his statements on trade. Particularly for people like me who are much more likely to benefit from Trump's ideas on trade than to be harmed by his followers' bigotry.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Re: 2016 United States Election
I was relieved that Clinton didn't win.
I was shocked and appalled that Trump won.
Not a very fun election for people like me. It was going to suck either way.
If I had lived in a swing state, I would have seriously considered voting for Clinton. Since I live in a very blue state, I could just vote for one of the single digit candidates.
***********
The thing about calling Trump voters racist is that it's counter-productive. Even if you can prove it. Feel free to imagine quotes around *prove*. Big scary ones.
Calling people racist won't shame them into voting differently next time. It will just make them defensive. It confirms the feeling that they chose the side that listens to their concerns over the side that thinks it knows better than them. It confirms the feeling that they indeed have just successfully rebelled against the elites.
It is also beyond doubt that a lot of people picked Trump for reasons that had nothing to do with race. A lot of these people might have been in play for Clinton if her message had been better, if she had spoken to their anxieties about the future.
Here's the thing, and I think most here will not believe it, but I think it's absolutely true. I think the explanation for Trump breaking through the blue wall and winning Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania is encapsulated in the first twenty minutes of the first debate. As I watched I thought he won those first twenty minutes -- resoundingly, easily. He had a resonant, populist message centered around trade and the decay of traditional blue collar jobs. He pretty convincingly tied Clinton to unpopular trade policies. And Clinton had no effective response to this. She had no populist message of her own that could appeal to people anxious about their economic future.
And then the next 70 minutes of the debate happened, which was the usual shitshow for Trump. He was baited into emotional, unfocused and sometimes offensive responses and he had no command of the facts. By the end of the debate Clinton had won overall. I thought so, and the experts thought so, and even the public, apparently, thought so. The poll movement after the debate seemed to confirm this.
And yet -- and yet -- it seems clear now, in hindsight, that this populist message of Trump's did resonate. It was implicit in his campaign slogan. It was implicit, also, in his promise to build a wall, since people who come to this country illegally would potentially be in the same job pool as them and their children, and harm their economic prospects. And then Trump was relatively disciplined over the final two weeks of the campaign, giving people who were turned off by his usual offensiveness an opening to come back to him. And many of them did. Clinton never gave them a reason not to. And that's why she lost.
I was shocked and appalled that Trump won.
Not a very fun election for people like me. It was going to suck either way.
If I had lived in a swing state, I would have seriously considered voting for Clinton. Since I live in a very blue state, I could just vote for one of the single digit candidates.
***********
The thing about calling Trump voters racist is that it's counter-productive. Even if you can prove it. Feel free to imagine quotes around *prove*. Big scary ones.
Calling people racist won't shame them into voting differently next time. It will just make them defensive. It confirms the feeling that they chose the side that listens to their concerns over the side that thinks it knows better than them. It confirms the feeling that they indeed have just successfully rebelled against the elites.
It is also beyond doubt that a lot of people picked Trump for reasons that had nothing to do with race. A lot of these people might have been in play for Clinton if her message had been better, if she had spoken to their anxieties about the future.
Here's the thing, and I think most here will not believe it, but I think it's absolutely true. I think the explanation for Trump breaking through the blue wall and winning Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania is encapsulated in the first twenty minutes of the first debate. As I watched I thought he won those first twenty minutes -- resoundingly, easily. He had a resonant, populist message centered around trade and the decay of traditional blue collar jobs. He pretty convincingly tied Clinton to unpopular trade policies. And Clinton had no effective response to this. She had no populist message of her own that could appeal to people anxious about their economic future.
And then the next 70 minutes of the debate happened, which was the usual shitshow for Trump. He was baited into emotional, unfocused and sometimes offensive responses and he had no command of the facts. By the end of the debate Clinton had won overall. I thought so, and the experts thought so, and even the public, apparently, thought so. The poll movement after the debate seemed to confirm this.
And yet -- and yet -- it seems clear now, in hindsight, that this populist message of Trump's did resonate. It was implicit in his campaign slogan. It was implicit, also, in his promise to build a wall, since people who come to this country illegally would potentially be in the same job pool as them and their children, and harm their economic prospects. And then Trump was relatively disciplined over the final two weeks of the campaign, giving people who were turned off by his usual offensiveness an opening to come back to him. And many of them did. Clinton never gave them a reason not to. And that's why she lost.
Re: 2016 United States Election
Third stage of grief is bargaining.yovargas wrote:Ha. Wouldn't it be amazing if this could ever actually happen:
Electoral College: Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19
I don't know -- if the Trump campaign was as disorganized about picking their electors as they were about other things ( such as preparing for the debates ) then maybe a few could be flipped.
Re: 2016 United States Election
It means that since you have declared that facts will have no impact on your beliefs, there would be no point in me providing links to articles, even if I were willing to spend time doing your research for you. Which I'm not.yovargas wrote:Does that mean trade was the only thing you were going to bring up too?
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
Re: 2016 United States Election
Do campaigns pick electors? Or is it the job of the parties? Or, given that the Presidential candidates are effectively their respective parties' leaders, is there even a difference?
ETA: So I work for an American subsidiary of a German company. If trade deals get ripped apart to save American jobs, does that mean I lose my American job?
ETA: So I work for an American subsidiary of a German company. If trade deals get ripped apart to save American jobs, does that mean I lose my American job?
When you can do nothing what can you do?
- axordil
- Pleasantly Twisted
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: Black Creek Bottoms
- Contact:
Re: 2016 United States Election
Okay, looking at the actual numbers: Trump got roughly the same number of votes Romney lost with, but Hilary got 5 million fewer votes than Obama did in 2012.
The results didn't come about because tons of people changed parties, or because rural voters were determined to send a message, or any other of the punditry being bandied about. Democrats simply didn't vote for Hilary, whether because they were meh about her, or GOTV failed, or they thought they had it won. Period, full stop.
The results didn't come about because tons of people changed parties, or because rural voters were determined to send a message, or any other of the punditry being bandied about. Democrats simply didn't vote for Hilary, whether because they were meh about her, or GOTV failed, or they thought they had it won. Period, full stop.
Re: 2016 United States Election
Yes, it is reasonable to disdain Trump for these reasons. I think it is dangerous and wrong to assume that everyone who voted for Trump is a bigot and/or condones bigotry, and therefore regard them with the same disdain. That could only mean that one considers one's own perspective to be the only legitimate one. This seemed to me to be what Rose was saying.Primula Baggins wrote:Cerin, it's perfectly reasonable to disdain Trump for his stoking of bigotry and racial/religious paranoia, before you even get to his attitude and actions toward women.
That is well and good. Others are not you. They may react differently. Do we allow that others may react differently than we do, or don't we? That's what I'm wondering.I'm incapable of regarding any of this as a side issue. It is not something to be thoughtfully weighed in the balance with his statements on trade.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
- Cenedril_Gildinaur
- Posts: 1076
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 7:01 pm
Re: 2016 United States Election
Bad example, and actually feeds into what Faramond was writing about, but even more so.Frelga wrote:In case you are not feeling angry enough or have any doubts what Trump's victory means
https://twitter.com/kayleighcat/status/ ... 4358536192
Police: Lafayette student lied about being robbed of wallet, hijab by Trump supporters
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams
-- Samuel Adams