2016 US Presidential Election

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Chen
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Chen » Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:17 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote: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.


No one votes third party with intent to spoil. That's silly since its far easier to "spoil" the other side by voting for the other major party. I think the point was the third party voters likely reduced the GOP totals more than they reduced the Democrat totals.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:19 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Soupspoon wrote: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.


No one votes third party with intent to spoil. That's silly since its far easier to "spoil" the other side by voting for the other major party. I think the point was the third party voters likely reduced the GOP totals more than they reduced the Democrat totals.
I don't know if that's true, as I'm pretty sure a couple states were close by a margin that went to Johnson, so I think it cuts both ways. But what I will agree with is the notion that a lot of people who are horrified/outraged right now were talking about how both candidates were 'equally bad', and frankly, I want to give them a great heaping dallop of I FUCKING TOLD YOU SO, given how contentious a lot of my interactions with friends has been lately.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:23 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Sardia wrote:With the loss of the centrist politicians, by the same voters, how do you expect a politician to survive?

Cinton didn't lose by a lot. And they thought they were winning. Those two together suggest that they could have gone further to win, if they thought it was necessary. But that's just guesswork.

As a thought experiment: suppose the Democratic party, godless as they are, has a perfect polling oracle. They sacrifice a goat in 2015, tell it their plans for the election, and the oracle predicts this outcome.

They get worried, sacrifice an ambassador, and ask the oracle "What is the most attractive strategy that still gives us victory?"

Perhaps the oracle says," sorry, with this level of partisanship there is nothing you can do". Or was there some alternative strategy that would have worked, and still vaguely palatable? Run as republican-lite, pull as much Trump-skeptic republicans as they could? Find some Democratic governor with immigrant-bashing credentials, who could just laugh at the Wall? Run a guy?

Clone Obama and have that clone win by exciting the base. Does that person exist? Maybe. The new Jersey black senator? Michelle Obama? Democrats are light on charisma right now so it's hard to say. Data shows that few people changed their minds. Going after white people is very valuable, it's just that I don't know how the Democrats earn their votes. Would they believe Democrats when they say there program helps them? If the working whites are asking for money, it can be done. If they are asking for the bommer years again, I don't think anyone can deliver. We could lie to them, might work once or twice.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:25 pm UTC

If Clinton were actually as bad a choice as Trump then voting third party on the off chance that enough do the same would be the right decision. Like in the simpsons with Kang and Kodos, there has to be a lower border somewhere with respect to tactical voting and if there were two trumps I think the level is reached. I just don't agree with the step of equating them. But third party only has a few percent which I think is fairly normal so I don't think there is much point in bemoaning what might have been if they voted differently. (The many people not voting though… Okay there isn't much point in that either.)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:27 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Even assuming the GOP blows up, I don't know how that affects the Democrats.
... Here be dragons.


I mean, I am expecting the GOP to be a dumpster fire. Internal differences are likely to remain a big deal for them, and there'll be a lot of internal squabbling as a result.

But that's not necessarily good for Democrats, yeah. If both sides of the debate are effectively some flavor of Republican, that's mostly just further pushing them out of relevance.

EdgarJPublius wrote:From the moment he was announced as the running mate, Pence reminded me of nothing so much as Josh Freeh, the VP pick from Transmetropolitan who was grown in a vat by the Fascist wing of The Smiler's party in exchange for the nomination. One theory I've heard is that the Republicans might set Trump up for impeachment and be more willing to live with Pence in office.

Clinton keeps narrowing the gap in the popular vote. I'm not sure how many votes are left to count, but it's not gonna take much more to put her over Trump in the popular vote.

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.


I agree. Third parties probably, again, were not a spoiler. I'm already seeing rage-articles about people who voted for Harambe, tho. Even though it's incredibly improbable that those few votes would have mattered.

The Great Hippo wrote:I can think of valid reasons to vote for Pence. I can think of valid reasons to vote for Romney. I can think of valid reasons to vote for McCain.

I can't think of valid reasons to vote for Trump. If you voted for Trump, you're not voting Republican; you're voting for Horrible.


While I do agree that I see Trump as horrible, I think it's important to be able to understand why folks voted for him. Otherwise, you're literally dismissing half the voting public as incomprehensible or not worth understanding. I think this sort of attitude is playing into why the democrats lost. There was a certain arrogance on the half of the Democrat establishment that was very dismissive of others. Be it Bernie or Trump, they might have been better served by understanding than arrogance.

This is not to say that understanding is easy. It's often quite hard. It's still worthwhile.

The Great Hippo wrote:I agree that 'racist' and 'misogynist' get thrown around way too much in American politics, but I think Trump is unique in just how much effort he's put into earning those labels.

EDIT: Like, when the head of the Republican party is even saying 'yeah okay that's pretty racist', I think Democrats are allowed to say 'yeah that's pretty racist'.


Yeah, but...at this point, the Democrat party is the boy who cried wolf. Such accusations clearly have absolutely no leverage with Republican voters anymore. Any potential use was expended on much more trivial things.

Zamfir wrote:@Hippo, isn't the wall a good example of dialogue breakdown? After all, the US has actually built that wall already, both under democratic and republican administrations. The debate was never about the wall, the question was whether the wall gets build quietly with regret-faces, or loudly with fuck-you faces. Perhaps you personally oppose the wall entirely, but that was never on the menu.


This is unfortunately the case. The two parties are less distinct in actual actions that the partisans would have you believe. There's already a wall.

And for all the talk of sympathy, people invariably threaten to move to Canada, not to Mexico. Not that either will actually happen, mind, but when you get beyond words, some of the parallels are pretty clear.

Shit, my facebook feed was full of people who are extremely liberal, advocating preparing for the coming apocalypse, and posting memes about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants. It's...odd. More of a mirror image of the reaction to Obama than I thought it would be. I mean, the general grief/shock/unhappiness, sure, but I didn't expect literally using the exact same quotes and images.

The Great Hippo wrote:I don't even know how to parse this argument. Who really thinks the *comedians* are the problem with American politics? Or even *part* of the problem?


*shrug* They're a symptom, not the core problem. The comedy they sell works because people like it, and because the political system makes it work. I agree that there's a problem with dismissiveness and arrogance(among others), but I don't think it's caused by comedians. You're just seeing the rise of it in comedy as well as in culture at large.

You can get away with ignoring small groups, but if the views you're ignoring are too popular, you're dooming yourself to irrelevance. If two sides are competitive, and one competitor has superior understanding, that side's got the edge. Knowledge is literally power, and communication in politics is essential.

The Great Hippo wrote:
maybeagnostic wrote:It is not but even beyond that vitriol drives away people who don't totally agree with you. It splits people into those with you and those against you- apparently those with Hilary only make up about 1/6th of the voters while those with Trump make up a slightly bigger ~1/6th.
It is, and I suspect if you don't understand how it is, this isn't a discussion we can really have. If you don't understand how a woman can be angry toward the anti-woman climate of American politics, I'm not sure I'm capable of bringing you up to speed.


First off, women don't do so badly once they actually run. There's social barriers to them running, but once they start, they enjoy comparable amounts of success. And, if one expects women to be enraged at unfair treatment in the political arena, one would expect more rage from Republican women, who run less frequently than Democrats. This does not appear to be the case. So, your hypothesis doesn't fly.

Now, in *this* election, sure, Clinton was facing a particularly terrible candidate on this score. There was a lot of assumptions that somehow, she was fated to win because she was right, or just, or less bad or whatever. Of COURSE women, Hispanics, etc would flock to her. This now appears to have been a rather optimistic assessment. The politics of identity do not appear to be nearly as reliable as Democrats believed.

The Great Hippo wrote:I don't think all Trump supporters want to kill all Muslims, but I've met ones who do. Aside from hoping they're not the majority, what is it you suggest we do about them? How should I treat them? Should I coddle their feelings? Should I shake their hands and try not to offend them?


Talk to them. Understand them. You don't have to agree with someone to converse with them. Or you shouldn't have to, anyways.

Painting the opposition as only worthy of dismissal and insult only furthers the partisan problem. Yeah, they might believe something awful. Understand them anyways. If you then need to oppose them politically, you are better equipped to do so.

Refusing to discuss and understand primarily hurts you.

sardia wrote:
maybeagnostic wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:It's not a good place to be when you're *hoping* the president will break their campaign promises.
How about if you never seriously expected him to keep to the promises but really wanted to show a middle finger to the establishment and prove they don't control you? Putting a wild card like Trump in the White House is a dangerous way to do that but I doubt many of the people who voted for him will regret their decision until he actually does something monumentally stupid.

Test#1, Trump wants a trillion spent on infrastructure, not something popular for Paul Ryan Republicans. Does Trump rubber stamp whatever Congress gives him so long as it's titled infrastructure+ winning? Or does he fight for certain things or dollar amounts.
Alternatively, Trump signs off because it's Trump branded, and he will personally make money off of it? All three are possible.


Eh, Republicans are more than willing to spend money. Maybe they'll tool up highways, power, and pipelines, while proudly dismissing green energy. Could happen. Infrastructure spending could work out alright. Usually a good long term payoff, anyways, provided it's not highly experimental or something.

Soupspoon wrote: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.


Look, we didn't want Clinton, either. Voting for someone else entirely is how you express that. We still get one of the two, because of how voting works here, but you're missing the point. If for some reason, those voters had been forced to vote for one of the main two, they probably would not have primarily voted for Clinton.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:35 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Going after white people is very valuable, it's just that I don't know how the Democrats earn their votes. Would they believe Democrats when they say there program helps them? If the working whites are asking for money, it can be done. If they are asking for the bommer years again, I don't think anyone can deliver. We could lie to them, might work once or twice.


Democrats used to have a lot of working-class white people. Back when labor unions were a powerful force, and they focused heavily on the working man. That's now a ghost of it's former self.

The lying to them has already happened. Trade polices cost jobs. Anti-fossil fuel policies cost jobs. Yeah, they might have been very beneficial in other ways, but all the promised statistical benefits, job training, or whatever means comparatively little to someone who lost his job in a factory town because the factory closed down. Then, everyone's out of work in the same area, and there probably are no other sectors looking for that quantity of entry level whatever. The fact that someone in Silicon Valley or elsewhere benefited from the action makes little difference to them.

They've been taken for granted for a while now, and support has been steadily slipping.

User avatar
Sizik
Posts: 1225
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sizik » Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:39 pm UTC

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)?
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6328
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:42 pm UTC

I think pretty slim.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3726
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:52 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Soupspoon wrote: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.

No one votes third party with intent to spoil.
They didn't succeed in getting their third-party anywhere near to 5% (nationally, at last) so their vote didn't accomplish that. So the ones that, perhaps secondarily to that other aim, didn't want Clinton in an eventual Clinton seat and the ones that didn't want Trump but ended up in a Trump-facing one are now wondering if they did anything useful.

That's silly since its far easier to "spoil" the other side by voting for the other major party.
"No one votes to spoil", you say, and mostly I agree. But if they ended up spoiling their (perhaps very very distant) second-place choice and didn't even do anything useful by voting for their first-choice, then they've helped promote their (very very very distant) third-place/completely-unplaced choice.

I think the point was the third party voters likely reduced the GOP totals more than they reduced the Democrat totals.
Yes, that's indeec the point. My point. A vote for <neither A nor B>, like not voting at all, does reduce the numbers for your perhaps traditionally assumed stance of <A>, if that's at least part of your motivatio. But if you're truly against <A> then voting for <B> swings things twice.

If you dislike both sides absolutely equally, it naturally does not matter that both wrong candidates had a chance of benefitting by your effective abstention from the vote. If you now find yourself with the greater of the two evils that you weren't wanting... Whoops!

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5099
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Xeio » Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:57 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
They didn't succeed in getting their third-party anywhere near to 5% (nationally, at last) so their vote didn't accomplish that. So the ones that, perhaps secondarily to that other aim, didn't want Clinton in an eventual Clinton seat and the ones that didn't want Trump but ended up in a Trump-facing one are now wondering if they did anything useful.

So does this finally prove 3rd parties are dead? Two most disliked main party candidates in history and 3rd parties got nothing meaningful. <1% for Stein, <5% for Johnson. Not even easier ballot access or "federal funding" that so many people talked about.

I'm sure we'll see the same arguments in 4 years though.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6328
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:59 pm UTC

A third party trying to win National elections is dead. Third parties aren't completely dead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Progressive_Party
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:59 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Zamfir wrote:
Sardia wrote:With the loss of the centrist politicians, by the same voters, how do you expect a politician to survive?

Cinton didn't lose by a lot. And they thought they were winning. Those two together suggest that they could have gone further to win, if they thought it was necessary. But that's just guesswork.

As a thought experiment: suppose the Democratic party, godless as they are, has a perfect polling oracle. They sacrifice a goat in 2015, tell it their plans for the election, and the oracle predicts this outcome.

They get worried, sacrifice an ambassador, and ask the oracle "What is the most attractive strategy that still gives us victory?"

Perhaps the oracle says," sorry, with this level of partisanship there is nothing you can do". Or was there some alternative strategy that would have worked, and still vaguely palatable? Run as republican-lite, pull as much Trump-skeptic republicans as they could? Find some Democratic governor with immigrant-bashing credentials, who could just laugh at the Wall? Run a guy?


*Nominate someone who could win the nomination without rigging the primary?
*Don't blatantly insult your primary opponents supporters by publicly announcing that you would hire Debbie Wasserman Schultz until after the election when it doesn't matter?
*Don't engage in identity politics with Sanders' supporters by calling them "Berniebros"?
*Pick a Veep that people actually have heard of and like, or at least one that gets attention? Clinton/Warren would've done better IMHO.

None of that matters. I mean ostensibly it does, and yeah, the election was close, and a single change somewhere could easily have changed the outcome. But in the grand scheme of things those are all trivialities. The fact of the matter is that Trump should never have gotten the nomination in the first place. He should never have even gotten close. And when he did get the nomination, he should have been obliterated in a ridiculous landslide. Hillary or Bernie, email scandal or not, mistakes in strategy and resource allocation or not, that wouldn't have happened in any of those alternative universes.

The fundamental problem liberals face runs much deeper. Not just in the USA, but in Europe and the entire west.

Politics are about identity, not positions. People don't vote for a candidate because they like them, they like a candidate because they vote for them. People vote based on what their friends and family vote, based on what feels good. They vote not based on the exact candidate or nuances of policy. They vote based on what kind of world view they identify with. And this is true for almost everybody on both sides of the political spectrum.

The 19th and early 20th century socialists championed the proletariat. Their policies aimed to help the proletariat were not always the best, and were sometimes catastrophically misguided (looking at you, communism), but this was their aim, and this was also what they identified with. They sung, literally, about the nobility of the proletariat. Their goal was to uplift the masses.

Their heirs today however see the proletariat as a bunch of horrible, backwards racists. And you know, that isn't even that different from how the socialists of yore looked at the proletariat. 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. But the identity politics of the left of a 100 years ago and the left today are completely different. A 100 years ago the left wanted to uplift the masses. They saw them as, perhaps, misled, but fundamentally noble. Today, the left sees them as fundamentally terrible, but maybe salvageable if they can be made to submit to the enlightenment.

And to be completely blunt and honest, I don't think the left is factually wrong in this belief. But that's not the problem. Because like I said, politics is about identity. And telling someone they are horrible is not a good way to win their heart.

So today the left's policies may still be aimed at helping the poor and the working class. Not as much as the old socialists, is has to be said, but certainly more than the other side. But their identity politics are aimed against this group, or at least large parts of this group. And thus, no matter how much they advocate for this group, and no matter how much the other side's policies downright hurt this group, or just don't make any sense whatsoever, they still lose the vote.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3726
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:02 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Look, we didn't want Clinton, either. Voting for someone else entirely is how you express that. We still get one of the two, because of how voting works here, but you're missing the point. If for some reason, those voters had been forced to vote for one of the main two, they probably would not have primarily voted for Clinton.
I'm not saying all the wasted votes would have gone for Clinton, but if someone who ought to have been with the (R) choice, normally, was incensed enough to not-vote-for-Trump then they still got Trump. If it had been the other way round, they'd have gotten their possibly unwanted Clinton result by not supporting their own-but-hated Trump.

Basically how much abstention regret (<-needs a good portmanteau, like "Bregret" from Brexit Regret) is happening now?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
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 5:14 pm UTC

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.

And I *have* spoken to Trump supporters. I've tried to understand. I'm not sure I'm capable. I've spoken to at least one who cites the bible as a justification for genocide against the Muslims. I'm not sure how to address that; I don't think I can.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Whizbang » Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:23 pm UTC

Ridicule.

maybeagnostic
Posts: 626
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby maybeagnostic » Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:26 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:Basically how much abstention regret (<-needs a good portmanteau, like "Bregret" from Brexit Regret) is happening now?

I am not even sure there was all that much regret when Brexit happened but there was some amount of it for sure. With this election though, I haven't seen a single person claim they wish they'd voted for Hillary but didn't. I am going to go out on a (very long) limb here and say virtually everyone willing to vote for Hillary did so and it wasn't nearly enough.

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.
You are very quick to decide what people are capable or willing to understand. But then again this election has brought out a lot more looking down on people who even slightly disagree with them from Democratic voters.
Last edited by maybeagnostic on Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:27 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:26 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
Zamfir wrote:
Sardia wrote:With the loss of the centrist politicians, by the same voters, how do you expect a politician to survive?

Cinton didn't lose by a lot. And they thought they were winning. Those two together suggest that they could have gone further to win, if they thought it was necessary. But that's just guesswork.

As a thought experiment: suppose the Democratic party, godless as they are, has a perfect polling oracle. They sacrifice a goat in 2015, tell it their plans for the election, and the oracle predicts this outcome.

They get worried, sacrifice an ambassador, and ask the oracle "What is the most attractive strategy that still gives us victory?"

Perhaps the oracle says," sorry, with this level of partisanship there is nothing you can do". Or was there some alternative strategy that would have worked, and still vaguely palatable? Run as republican-lite, pull as much Trump-skeptic republicans as they could? Find some Democratic governor with immigrant-bashing credentials, who could just laugh at the Wall? Run a guy?


*Nominate someone who could win the nomination without rigging the primary?
*Don't blatantly insult your primary opponents supporters by publicly announcing that you would hire Debbie Wasserman Schultz until after the election when it doesn't matter?
*Don't engage in identity politics with Sanders' supporters by calling them "Berniebros"?
*Pick a Veep that people actually have heard of and like, or at least one that gets attention? Clinton/Warren would've done better IMHO.

None of that matters. I mean ostensibly it does, and yeah, the election was close, and a single change somewhere could easily have changed the outcome. But in the grand scheme of things those are all trivialities. The fact of the matter is that Trump should never have gotten the nomination in the first place. He should never have even gotten close. And when he did get the nomination, he should have been obliterated in a ridiculous landslide. Hillary or Bernie, email scandal or not, mistakes in strategy and resource allocation or not, that wouldn't have happened in any of those alternative universes.

The fundamental problem liberals face runs much deeper. Not just in the USA, but in Europe and the entire west.

Politics are about identity, not positions. People don't vote for a candidate because they like them, they like a candidate because they vote for them. People vote based on what their friends and family vote, based on what feels good. They vote not based on the exact candidate or nuances of policy. They vote based on what kind of world view they identify with. And this is true for almost everybody on both sides of the political spectrum.

The 19th and early 20th century socialists championed the proletariat. Their policies aimed to help the proletariat were not always the best, and were sometimes catastrophically misguided (looking at you, communism), but this was their aim, and this was also what they identified with. They sung, literally, about the nobility of the proletariat. Their goal was to uplift the masses.

Their heirs today however see the proletariat as a bunch of horrible, backwards racists. And you know, that isn't even that different from how the socialists of yore looked at the proletariat. 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. But the identity politics of the left of a 100 years ago and the left today are completely different. A 100 years ago the left wanted to uplift the masses. They saw them as, perhaps, misled, but fundamentally noble. Today, the left sees them as fundamentally terrible, but maybe salvageable if they can be made to submit to the enlightenment.

And to be completely blunt and honest, I don't think the left is factually wrong in this belief. But that's not the problem. Because like I said, politics is about identity. And telling someone they are horrible is not a good way to win their heart.

So today the left's policies may still be aimed at helping the poor and the working class. Not as much as the old socialists, is has to be said, but certainly more than the other side. But their identity politics are aimed against this group, or at least large parts of this group. And thus, no matter how much they advocate for this group, and no matter how much the other side's policies downright hurt this group, or just don't make any sense whatsoever, they still lose the vote.


Well said. I don't think I have much to contribute here.

This echos my thoughts on the issue, although you used different words / language than I would have used.

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.

And I *have* spoken to Trump supporters. I've tried to understand. I'm not sure I'm capable. I've spoken to at least one who cites the bible as a justification for genocide against the Muslims. I'm not sure how to address that; I don't think I can.


One at a time, as usual. Mention the muslims you know and talk through the issue like an adult. I've talked to white-supremacists this past election. I think I have a decent idea of what they're going for and their problems. You don't necessarily have to agree with their viewpoint.

Furthermore, the class of voters who voted for Trump is vast, far larger than anybody imagined just last week. It includes women (a group that most pollsters thought Clinton had in the bag), and even college-educated men. Step one is understanding who voted for Trump and reconnecting with them, through whatever means necessary.

At least, if you want to convince them in the 2018 or 2020 elections anyway.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:30 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:27 pm UTC

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.

User avatar
Deva
Has suggestions for the murderers out there.
Posts: 2019
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:18 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Deva » Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:29 pm UTC

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.)
Changes its form depending on the observer.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8291
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:29 pm UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:I am going to go out on a (very long) limb here and say virtually everyone willing to vote for Hillary did so and it wasn't nearly enough.

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.
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
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
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 5:33 pm UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:You are very quick to decide what people are capable or willing to understand. But then again this election has brought out a lot more looking down on people who even slightly disagree with them from Democratic voters.
I'm not a Democrat, but it does not surprise me in the least that you'd presume I am.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:34 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.)


I'll add one more thing:

#5: Rejection of liberal elitism -- calling everybody racist doesn't help. This election was as much a rejection of the liberal go-to of politicking, and probably was the biggest issue in this election. At some point, the liberal "dog-whistle" that implies connections to the KKK or whatever just stopped working on enough voters.

I guess the Trump supporter would call this a rejection of the "Politicaly Correct" (mis-spelled to avoid word filter: demonstrating the problem)
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:36 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3726
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:35 pm UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:Basically how much abstention regret (<-needs a good portmanteau, like "Bregret" from Brexit Regret) is happening now?

I am not even sure there was all that much regret when Brexit happened but there was some amount of it for sure.
We've been famous for the amount of Bregretters ("I thought I'd shake things up" or "I just wanted to send a message to Cameron") and/or Bremoaners ("So, a third of voters/quarter of the population gets to decide this one-way process for the rest of us?"). But that's our problem...

With this election though, I haven't seen a single person claim they wish they'd voted for Hillary but didn't. I am going to go out on a (very long) limb here and say virtually everyone willing to vote for Hillary did so and it wasn't nearly enough.
I've seen it said, and I suspect that it'll take the post-mortem to kick in before we know how much.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8291
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:36 pm UTC

You know, I would be bothered by people being called racist if they weren't so racist
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: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:37 pm UTC

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.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1935
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:38 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Everything else awful about Trump is less important and can heal.
Not everything else awful about Trump and Pence can heal.

Deva wrote:Brings up an immediate concern: hate crimes. Predicts parallels between this and Brexit. Spiked afterwards. Who will be the biggest targets in the United States?
May not be limited to those groups, of course. Rallied against immigrants in general. Cannot guess how people envision an illegal immigrant. (Probably varies by location.) Mistakes other religions (such as Sikhism) for Islam too.
Yes, that. A campaign full of hatred, smears and insults just won the presidency. Hatred, smears and insults have proven themselves to be the new order, and shall be proud, overt and ubiquitous.

The Great Hippo wrote:EDIT: To anyone who said Obama's election ended racism, guess what you guys, racism's back!

It's going to be pretty fucking upsetting to see white nationalist movements and the alt-right cheering, tomorrow.
Yes, that, again.

It came up screaming from the ashes of the grave to make this world a battlefield. It's got a voice that steals the courage from the brave and leaves a scar that will not heal.

Sableagle wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:If I were a Muslim-American, I would have already started making tentative plans to get myself and my family out of the States in case of a Trump victory. I'm not even joking.
I'd be registering a postal vote, sending it early and heading to Canada or Europe to wait for the result. Given the obvious parallel of a German Jew in 1938, would it be better to be home in Munich or on a hiking trip in Switzerland when you get the news?


maybeagnostic wrote:I've seen this so many times the last year- "We aren't being any worse than Trump so we get the moral high ground!" It really doesn't cut it.
For the last ... what, now? Thirteen and a half years, it's been "We aren't being any worse than [ the Taliban / al-Q / Saddam Hussein's brother's dog / ISIS / that one guy in the green and red sweater ] so we have the moral high ground, what we're doing is fine and anyone who criticises us is a traitor, lacking in patriotism and exposing the country to danger," and it apparently did cut it, at least in November '04.

Lucrece wrote:"Advocating horrible things" is exactly what frustrates me with having a conversation on this, because you pick the guy who says "bomb them to hell" and generalize that attitude to all the supporters.
... to all the supporters of the guy quoted here:
Why Donald Trump worries people in rebel-held Syria

While Trump has stopped short of calling for one, he suggested in October 2015 that the US and Gulf states should create a "safe zone" for Syrian refugees.
But a month later, Trump signaled his support for Russia's air campaign in Syria: "If [Russian President Vladimir] Putin wants to go and knock the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it 100 percent, and I can't understand how anybody would be against it."
His support of the Russian campaign -- which is known to have targeted hospitals, shops and schools -- raises serious doubts about whether he would institute a safe zone of any sorts for civilians here.


Lucrece wrote:I suggest nothing about them, because people who argue to blow up people are past the point of discourse and any time wasted on such people is a distraction.
You suggest not worrying about it at all, then, while the white hoods, loaded rifles, burning crosses, oily rags, empty beer bottles, jerry cans of fuel and "death to all muslims" signs proliferate in the street in front of the apartment building I share with a young lady from Syria and her 6- and 8-year-old children?

Lucrece wrote:They'll happily keep their ears turned to Alex Jones or Rush Limbaugh instead, who at least don't assume they're shit people.
Rush Limbaugh does assume they're shit, and talks to them as if they are shit. Specifically, he says things that he thinks shit people like to hear. He seems to be turning out to be right, because he ain't bankrupt yet.

KnightExemplar wrote:I know plenty of Trump supporters. Only... two of them... are overtly racist. The rest were interested in other things.
I know plenty of overtyly racist people, but even they're not Trump supporters. :P
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Deva
Has suggestions for the murderers out there.
Posts: 2019
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:18 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Deva » Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:39 pm UTC

Saw this again. Cannot vouch for its effectiveness. Might help someone, though.
Islamophobia Bystander.png
Changes its form depending on the observer.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:40 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Look, we didn't want Clinton, either. Voting for someone else entirely is how you express that. We still get one of the two, because of how voting works here, but you're missing the point. If for some reason, those voters had been forced to vote for one of the main two, they probably would not have primarily voted for Clinton.
I'm not saying all the wasted votes would have gone for Clinton, but if someone who ought to have been with the (R) choice, normally, was incensed enough to not-vote-for-Trump then they still got Trump. If it had been the other way round, they'd have gotten their possibly unwanted Clinton result by not supporting their own-but-hated Trump.

Basically how much abstention regret (<-needs a good portmanteau, like "Bregret" from Brexit Regret) is happening now?


You are making the assumption that people who vote Libertarian have Clinton as their second choice, and Trump as their third. This is probably not generally true. The Libertarian vote can be assumed to lean a bit Republican, and the Green vote, Democratic. Not much, perhaps, but given there's rather a lot more of the former, it's unlikely that regret among third party voters is a large factor.

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.


That's not what the post you were responding to was about. It was about hatred and such. One can recognize a problem and still approach it in many different ways. There's nothing wrong with Clinton(or anyone else) recognizing problems extent in government.

How you approach those problems can make a world of difference, though.

Edit: I also find it really odd to just assume your opposition cannot possibly understand your position. If you believe that, what is the point of discourse at all? Should we not simply slaughter those who disagree to a man, if understanding is truly impossible to achieve?

The Great Hippo wrote:And I *have* spoken to Trump supporters. I've tried to understand. I'm not sure I'm capable. I've spoken to at least one who cites the bible as a justification for genocide against the Muslims. I'm not sure how to address that; I don't think I can.


Understanding doesn't require agreement. It's a strange view, but it's not particularly hard to comprehend. Have you read the bible? Some parts of it are pretty short on tolerance. How long do you continue to discuss a view between deciding that you will never agree with it, and deciding you will never understand it?

Chen
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Chen » Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:44 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
maybeagnostic wrote:I am going to go out on a (very long) limb here and say virtually everyone willing to vote for Hillary did so and it wasn't nearly enough.

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.


It's pretty easy to say that. She lost by a pretty large number of electoral votes. Hence the people who voted for her were not enough. I suppose if you want to be pedantic, it wasn't enough of the right people to vote for her (based on location) rather than just a pure numbers thing. That was pretty much implied though since the metric for winning here is not pure numbers but rather electoral votes.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SineNomen » Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:52 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:You can still believe what you're doing is right even as you're advocating horrible things. That doesn't make those things not-horrible. What do you want me to do; pretend I'm not disgusted when a Trump supporter tells me we need to murder all Muslims? You want me to smile and shake hands with this person? "Agree to disagree"?
In most elections I would have been willing to shake hands and agree to disagree. Not this time. And the issue with that for me is that so many Trump supporters seemed to take pleasure in the fact that they could get me to the point where I can't actually respect them. How do you deal with that?


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.

Mutex
Posts: 1388
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:54 pm UTC

Does anyone remember the Futurama episode where the new president is Nixon's head mounted on a giant robot body?

We should be so lucky.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3726
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:54 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:I'm not saying all the wasted votes would have gone for Clinton, but if someone who ought to have been with the (R) choice, normally, was incensed enough to not-vote-for-Trump then they still got Trump. If it had been the other way round, they'd have gotten their possibly unwanted Clinton result by not supporting their own-but-hated Trump.
You are making the assumption that people who vote Libertarian have Clinton as their second choice, and Trump as their third.
No, I'm saying that their votes did not help anyone.

maybeagnostic
Posts: 626
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby maybeagnostic » Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:56 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
maybeagnostic wrote:I am going to go out on a (very long) limb here and say virtually everyone willing to vote for Hillary did so and it wasn't nearly enough.

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.
But the US system doesn't care about the popular vote as we see yet again. Trump is set to get about 30% more electoral votes than Hillary. Switching to majority voting might be a very good idea but it isn't something people were eager to do when they thought Hillary was winning.

The Great Hippo wrote:
maybeagnostic wrote:You are very quick to decide what people are capable or willing to understand. But then again this election has brought out a lot more looking down on people who even slightly disagree with them from Democratic voters.
I'm not a Democrat, but it does not surprise me in the least that you'd presume I am.
I just used it as shorthand for wanting to vote for Hillary. Or do you mean you didn't/wouldn't have voted for her?

Soupspoon wrote:
maybeagnostic wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:Basically how much abstention regret (<-needs a good portmanteau, like "Bregret" from Brexit Regret) is happening now?

I am not even sure there was all that much regret when Brexit happened but there was some amount of it for sure.
We've been famous for the amount of Bregretters ("I thought I'd shake things up" or "I just wanted to send a message to Cameron") and/or Bremoaners ("So, a third of voters/quarter of the population gets to decide this one-way process for the rest of us?"). But that's our problem...
Oh, I certainly saw compilations of people regretting their Brexit vote and admitting it publicly but it was still compilations of individual people not any statistically significant number. If there was a study suggesting a sizable population regretted the decision immediately after the vote, I certainly haven't come across it.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
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 5:57 pm UTC

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).

Mutex
Posts: 1388
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:58 pm UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:
Zohar wrote:
maybeagnostic wrote:I am going to go out on a (very long) limb here and say virtually everyone willing to vote for Hillary did so and it wasn't nearly enough.

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.
But the US system doesn't care about the popular vote as we see yet again. Trump is set to get about 30% more electoral votes than Hillary. Switching to majority voting might be a very good idea but it isn't something people were eager to do when they thought Hillary was winning.


If by people in this context you mean democrats, then I'm pretty sure majority voting is pretty popular amongst dems. Dems tend to have the numbers on their side but get gerry-mandered into oblivion.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3726
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:02 pm UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:Oh, I certainly saw compilations of people regretting their Brexit vote and admitting it publicly but it was still compilations of individual people not any statistically significant number. If there was a study suggesting a sizable population regretted the decision immediately after the vote, I certainly haven't come across it.

First link on a basic search... I cannot vouch for its veracity or competance or lack of bias, but its clear signs of a smoking gun. If we were encouraged to have guns. Or smoke....

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SineNomen » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:06 pm UTC

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).


You had earlier stated that if you weren't a woman you "couldn't understand" why the government is anti-woman. So what's your solution? If you shut down discussion by stating that the opposite side cannot understand a concept, where do you go from there?

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:06 pm UTC

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


I get why people feel that way... but I think a lot of moderate Republicans had no problem going for Trump because they've been called racist themselves (by a non-representative but loud fraction of liberals) for supporting Romney, McCain, Republicans in general.
lol everything matters
-Ed

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:08 pm UTC

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).


From the Trump supporters I know, the simplest explanation I can give is that its naïve to not use the tools of our enemies.

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.

From there on out, the typical voter doesn't see much difference between Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Turkey. Simple fact, most people don't pay attention to the middle east that much. So a "complicated" strategy of building up pro-Muslim support with Muslim allies (Saudi Arabia and Turkey), and then some other allies (ie: the Kurds) and then trying to have them all work together to destroy ISIS is just too much for people to discuss. Most people aren't interested in foreign policy at that level.

So they shortcut, which basically leads to the language of "Lets kill some Muslims". And trying to talk about the details with them (which they aren't interested in) only results in them claiming that we're too "Basically Decent" about the situation. And the other issue is, its very difficult to tell someone "you've got no fucking idea how the Middle East works" without them feeling like an idiot at the end.

So that's the issue with the breakdown in language.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:11 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:10 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.

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.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tirear and 13 guests