2016 US Presidential Election

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11022
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:40 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:As mentioned, racism isn't a binary, and everyone suffers from it. Are all of Clinton's voters not racist? Of course not! But a vote for her doesn't indicate disregard for marginalized groups. A vote for Trump, does.


Depends entirely on what you label as a marginalized group, and what bit of history or words you're looking at. Clinton's hardly perfect on this score.

So yeah, to some people, voting for Clinton was unthinkable because of her actions towards various marginalized groups. They're not racist. They merely have different priorities than you. Even within what particular actions offend them more.

Remember, Trump may have promised a wall, but Clinton literally voted to build one.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8119
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:42 pm UTC

I don't understand why you think "different priorities" and "being racist" are mutually distinct? How is that an explanation? But whatever.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11022
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:48 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:I don't understand why you think "different priorities" and "being racist" are mutually distinct? How is that an explanation? But whatever.


They're not mutually exclusive. However, they are different things.

Yes, someone can totally have different priorities than you, personally, do, and yet not be a racist.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:53 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:As mentioned, racism isn't a binary, and everyone suffers from it. Are all of Clinton's voters not racist? Of course not! But a vote for her doesn't indicate disregard for marginalized groups. A vote for Trump, does.


What about if a hypothetical voter just found the classified emails thing more important?

Not that I agree with them mind you, but I bet you a lot of "Trump-supporters" are really just anti-Hillary voters. I'd definitely have to know more about the individual before calling them "racist" or not.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

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 8:54 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:What about if you just found the classified emails thing more important?
If you prioritize whether or not she used an email server inappropriately over whether or not Trump is a multifaceted bigot, I think you've pretty much told me all we need to know and explained yourself quite succinctly, really.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

cphite
Posts: 1253
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:59 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:As mentioned, racism isn't a binary, and everyone suffers from it. Are all of Clinton's voters not racist? Of course not! But a vote for her doesn't indicate disregard for marginalized groups. A vote for Trump, does.


Trump won 8% of the black vote, which is obviously a very small number... but actually exceeds the 6% that Romney got. He won 29% of the Latino vote; which is again small, but still higher than what Romney got. And Romney actually did very well (relatively speaking) with those groups, for a republican.

The point is, despite all of the rhetoric and charges of racism, Trump did extremely well (again, relatively speaking) with minority voters. I don't believe that'd be the case if those folks truly believed he was going against their interests.

I've said from the beginning, and I still maintain, that what won Trump the election was that people are simply pissed off at what government in the US has become. They're tired of the broken promises, the lying and stealing, and the blatant double standards. These are the reasons I've heard constantly from people over the past year, whether they were friends or strangers or whatever. I know people who were adamant Bernie Sanders supporters who ended up voting for Trump, despite Trump being so utterly opposite Sanders.

I couldn't bring myself to vote for him; he's just too fucking appalling. But I completely get why someone who doesn't necessarily share his views, might hold their nose and vote for him.

What we saw last night was the ultimate protest vote. It was a giant "fuck you" to the establishment. Certainly there are people who actually like Trump and the awful shit that he peddles - and they aren't all white people - but what really put him over the top was the sheer number of people saying "Fuck this shit, we need to try something else."

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11022
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:59 pm UTC

Again, I think that Vox article is extremely relevant.

The immediate dismissal of people merely for having different values is literally going to destroy the Democrat party if not addressed.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:00 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:As mentioned, racism isn't a binary, and everyone suffers from it. Are all of Clinton's voters not racist? Of course not! But a vote for her doesn't indicate disregard for marginalized groups. A vote for Trump, does.
And why is it that minorities didn't go all out for HRC? Or why did some choose not to vote. One common complaint is that Democrats are good at using the black vote but not so good at delivering on their promises. It's simple to call out Trump supporters as racists but the reality isn't all that clear.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:00 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:What about if you just found the classified emails thing more important?
If you prioritize whether or not she used an email server inappropriately over whether or not Trump is a multifaceted bigot, I think you've pretty much told me all we need to know and explained yourself quite succinctly, really.


Either that, or maybe those people do not believe Trump to be a bigot.

Which as far as I can tell, most Trump supporters think the media is overstating his bigotry, and they're distrustful of the characterization. IIRC, the question of "is X racist" was posed in some polls and most Trump supporters do not think he is.

-----

The more and more I think about it... the strategy of saying "you're racist" and then shaming people into believing that they're racist is a profoundly stupid strategy. Doesn't matter what you think, it is clearly not a methodology of proper discourse. So find a better strategy if you want to politically make a difference next time.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:03 pm UTC

Multifaceted bigot does not preclude you from the presidency. Most of our presidents have been exactly that. You could even be a chauvinist like Bill Clinton or John Edwards and still have a political career. Hell, you could be a Kennedy.

Social issues simply don't dominate the reasons to vote for a large sector of the populace. And for most people the big picture is whether someone's trading/labor policies align with your values or not.

66% of white women voted for him. That's a fairly large number of women who simply didn't buy the "misogynist" label. I personally found him to be a complete chauvinist, but I'm self-aware enough to notice that this is my individual moral judgement informed by a perception not shared by everyone.

What constantly dogs Democrats/Republicans is the assumption that people share their values. We had Prop 8 pass with a large african american and white democrat family head vote; we assumed wrongly that because they were traditionally Democratic demographics, that they'd see a question of values similarly as we did. And it cost us.

It's rather difficult to break that metropolitan bubble.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8119
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:12 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Yes, someone can totally have different priorities than you, personally, do, and yet not be a racist.

Oh yeah, of course! 100% agreement! I just don't think that's the case here.

cphite wrote:The point is, despite all of the rhetoric and charges of racism, Trump did extremely well (again, relatively speaking) with minority voters. I don't believe that'd be the case if those folks truly believed he was going against their interests.

You're assuming people who aren't white can't be racist, that's wrong, that's not true. People of color can be racist. Just as LGBTQ people can be homophobic, and women can be misogynist. "People of color voted for him so he can't be that racist" shows a misunderstanding of racism, frankly.
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
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:21 pm UTC

Image

https://twitter.com/yanagiz

D Yanagizawa-Drott

Professor | Department of Economics | University of Zurich

Surprise, surprise, Democrat voters are a lazy fucking bunch who make lots of social media posts but don't bother to vote.

Zohar wrote:
cphite wrote:The point is, despite all of the rhetoric and charges of racism, Trump did extremely well (again, relatively speaking) with minority voters. I don't believe that'd be the case if those folks truly believed he was going against their interests.

You're assuming people who aren't white can't be racist, that's wrong, that's not true. People of color can be racist. Just as LGBTQ people can be homophobic, and women can be misogynist. "People of color voted for him so he can't be that racist" shows a misunderstanding of racism, frankly.



Of course, but the idea that Hispanics voted for Trump for racist reasons is preposterous. I live in Florida and have also been to Texas and California. The Hispanics who voted for Trump did so from buying the idea that he's a competent financial leader.

The Clinton camp unfortunately spent too much campaign time fighting over identity politics instead of informing these people how inept at business management Trump was.
Last edited by Lucrece on Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:25 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Mutex
Posts: 1324
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:21 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:66% of white women voted for him. That's a fairly large number of women who simply didn't buy the "misogynist" label. I personally found him to be a complete chauvinist, but I'm self-aware enough to notice that this is my individual moral judgement informed by a perception not shared by everyone.


Where did you see that 66% of white women voted for him? The surveys I saw were 70% against him, although I believe that was women in general. (EDIT: And when I think about it, if close to 100% of non-white women voted for Hillary, that actually more or less adds up.)

Lucrece wrote:
Spoiler:
Image


https://twitter.com/yanagiz

D Yanagizawa-Drott

Professor | Department of Economics | University of Zurich

Surprise, surprise, Democrat voters are a lazy fucking bunch who make lots of social media posts but don't bother to vote.


To be fair, the blue bar is larger than the red one. Democrats have become almost as fucking lazy as the GOP, electoral college did the rest.
Last edited by Mutex on Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:32 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

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 9:23 pm UTC

edit: http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls the cnn exit polls say 53% white woman.

Btw http://i.imgur.com/cFGgJDq.jpg Trump didn't get more votes than the last rep candidate (less in fact), Clinton just got significantly less than the last dem candidate. didn't read lucreces post first.
Last edited by PeteP on Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:27 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6099
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:25 pm UTC

I don't think minorities got out and voted for Trump, I think some always supported him, and many of the rest didn't vote (Lucrece's chart supports this). Hillary did poor among Latino women - and I don't think that's because they preferred Trump.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... inton-lost
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8119
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:29 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Of course, but the idea that Hispanics voted for Trump for racist reasons is preposterous. I live in Florida and have also been to Texas and California. The Hispanics who voted for Trump did so from buying the idea that he's a competent financial leader.

That's not what I said, I didn't say they voted him because of racism. And I really don't have the energy to further explain myself.
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
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:31 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
Lucrece wrote:66% of white women voted for him. That's a fairly large number of women who simply didn't buy the "misogynist" label. I personally found him to be a complete chauvinist, but I'm self-aware enough to notice that this is my individual moral judgement informed by a perception not shared by everyone.


Where did you see that 66% of white women voted for him? The surveys I saw were 70% against him, although I believe that was women in general.

Lucrece wrote:
Spoiler:
Image


https://twitter.com/yanagiz

D Yanagizawa-Drott

Professor | Department of Economics | University of Zurich

Surprise, surprise, Democrat voters are a lazy fucking bunch who make lots of social media posts but don't bother to vote.


To be fair, the blue bar is larger than the red one. Democrats have become almost as fucking lazy as the GOP, electoral college did the rest.


The original twitter feed exit polls I cannot find, but I'll take PeteP's exit poll since I saw that one later as well.

Image

Adding to this as well since I saw the maddening repetition by CNN en Espanol (Latin American version) where the anchor said Trump was elevated by UNEDUCATED whites.

Which was obviously not true, and unlike the above graph I linked I constantly saw the breakdown of education by whites who voted for Trump but nobody ever examined the breakdown of education for non-whites who voted for Clinton as a tool to disenfranchise people's vote (because obviously people without college degrees are stupid and their votes count less :roll: ).
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

elasto
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:35 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Image

Surprise, surprise, Democrat voters are a lazy fucking bunch who make lots of social media posts but don't bother to vote.

That chart is a poster child for how to deliberately mislead, also. Note how the y-axis doesn't start at zero...

Most people wont notice and will think Dem voting is down by 1/2 or even 2/3rds when in fact it's down by about 1/7 - which is explained much more simply by how inspirational Obama was than how 'lazy' 2016 Dem voters are...
Last edited by elasto on Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:36 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Mutex
Posts: 1324
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:36 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:The original twitter feed exit polls I cannot find, but I'll take PeteP's exit poll since I saw that one later as well.

Image

Adding to this as well since I saw the maddening repetition by CNN en Espanol (Latin American version) where the anchor said Trump was elevated by UNEDUCATED whites.

Which was obviously not true, and unlike the above graph I linked I constantly saw the breakdown of education by whites who voted for Trump but nobody ever examined the breakdown of education for non-whites who voted for Clinton as a tool to disenfranchise people's vote (because obviously people without college degrees are stupid and their votes count less :roll: ).


According to that graph he was elevated by whites in general, but especially by uneducated whites. Which isn't quite the same but not far off.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SlyReaper » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:39 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:As mentioned, racism isn't a binary, and everyone suffers from it. Are all of Clinton's voters not racist? Of course not! But a vote for her doesn't indicate disregard for marginalized groups. A vote for Trump, does.

Nonsense. A vote for Trump doesn't indicate anything in particular except finding him less objectionable than Clinton. It might be because they perceive Clinton as irredeemably corrupt. It might be because they feel let down by the status quo and think Trump is more likely to change something. It might be because they're racist. You can't just assume the last one because of their vote.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

maybeagnostic
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby maybeagnostic » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:41 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:And that choice (which they have every right to do!), is racist.
I agree with everything else you said up to this point but this last step of your reasoning goes too far. The way I understand your position and correct me if I am wrong, everything short of putting protection of minorities as their most important issue makes a voter racist and being racist is the worst thing a voter can be. So someone who felt Trump might better address the industry or employment problems of their region is racist because they value that over the rights of immigrants. Someone who thought Hillary's foreign policy is too hawkish and thought Donald Trump is less likely to embroil the country in a protracted overseas war is racist because they don't think it should be the US' job to try and sort out complex societal and tribal conflicts in the Middle East. Someone who felt their issues haven't been addressed properly by either party in the last several elections and thought Trump was the only way to vote against the establishment is homophobic because gay rights aren't an important policy direction for them and/or sexist because defending abortion is not a priority.

It might be a pretty charitable way to interpret potential motivations but I wouldn't call any of these racist... misguided maybe, I doubt Trump will deliver good solutions on any of them but its not like Hillary was going to either. Now that Republicans control every level of federal government and many state governments, maybe they'll even get around to getting stuff done which not everyone dreads.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

Mutex
Posts: 1324
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:48 pm UTC

I understand Zohar is saying that racism is a continuum, and the less you value fighting racism as a priority, the more racist you are.

arbiteroftruth
Posts: 432
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:44 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby arbiteroftruth » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:53 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:I understand Zohar is saying that racism is a continuum, and the less you value fighting racism as a priority, the more racist you are.


That's not a very helpful use of the word though. Because it forces you to either claim that protecting minorities must always be the absolute top priority in all circumstances, or else seriously answer the question "what is the most moral amount of racism to have" with an answer other than zero. "Racism" when used this way becomes no longer an inherently negative thing.

cphite
Posts: 1253
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:56 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
The point is, despite all of the rhetoric and charges of racism, Trump did extremely well (again, relatively speaking) with minority voters. I don't believe that'd be the case if those folks truly believed he was going against their interests.


You're assuming people who aren't white can't be racist, that's wrong, that's not true. People of color can be racist. Just as LGBTQ people can be homophobic, and women can be misogynist. "People of color voted for him so he can't be that racist" shows a misunderstanding of racism, frankly.


I'm not assuming anything of the sort.

My assumption is that his numbers were driven by people who are dissatisfied with the direction of government, and who saw him - rightly or wrongly - as someone who would change that direction.

I base this in large part on the fact that I've heard so many people saying just that.

Additionally, if you look at exit polling, there is a strong correlation between people who express dissatisfaction with government, and people who voted for Trump - and this correlation holds across all races and even across party lines. There is also a strong correlation between people who said that neither candidate was qualified to be president (both for experience and for temperament) and people who voted for Trump.

You are making the assumption that the only reason a person of color could vote for Trump is that they're racist, or at the very least because they're willing to disregard racism. But there are a lot of people of color who don't consider him a racist at all. I don't agree with those people (just for the record) but they're out there nonetheless.

Racism might well be a factor, probably is one. But frankly, I think the biggest reason he won is that people are sick of what's happening with the US government. There are a whole lot of people out there who no longer believe that their government represents them anymore, or even cares to.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4513
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:03 pm UTC

On a different note, I was just reading an article earlier today that added another somewhat depressing point to this whole affair. Due to Republican obstructionism in Congress in the last year or two in particular, Obama has been advancing his agenda quite a bit through executive order. While this has actually allowed him get some things done, executive orders suffer from the flaw that they can be immediately revoked by his successor. This means that thing like

forestalling deportation of minor children of illegal immigrants, implementing the Syrian refugee program, strengthening regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, applying the Family Medical Leave Act to same-sex couples, and increasing wages for government contractors


could be changed on Trump's first day of office.

[edit]One of the Wikileaks emails apparently shows that the Clinton campaigned wanted to intentionally elevate the extreme right candidates in the Republican field (identified and Trump, Cruz, and Carson) in order to drag the whole party further to the right and make it more unpalatable to the general electorate.
Last edited by LaserGuy on Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:07 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yablo » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:04 pm UTC

arbiteroftruth wrote:That's not a very helpful use of the word though. Because it forces you to either claim that protecting minorities must always be the absolute top priority in all circumstances, or else seriously answer the question "what is the most moral amount of racism to have" with an answer other than zero. "Racism" when used this way becomes no longer an inherently negative thing.

It's the same way with acceptable pollution from an economics standpoint. You're either 100% against any form of pollution, or you have to admit there is a level which you can consider not only acceptable, but optimal. If there is a level of pollution which allows the greatest benefit to humanity as a whole when all its associated negatives are taken into account, that is optimal pollution. I would hate to think there might be an "optimal" level of racism, but unless racism is the number one priority in all circumstances, as you say, that seems to imply there is such an optimum.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

Mutex
Posts: 1324
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:06 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:
arbiteroftruth wrote:That's not a very helpful use of the word though. Because it forces you to either claim that protecting minorities must always be the absolute top priority in all circumstances, or else seriously answer the question "what is the most moral amount of racism to have" with an answer other than zero. "Racism" when used this way becomes no longer an inherently negative thing.

It's the same way with acceptable pollution from an economics standpoint. You're either 100% against any form of pollution, or you have to admit there is a level which you can consider not only acceptable, but optimal. If there is a level of pollution which allows the greatest benefit to humanity as a whole when all its associated negatives are taken into account, that is optimal pollution. I would hate to think there might be an "optimal" level of racism, but unless racism is the number one priority in all circumstances, as you say, that seems to imply there is such an optimum.

There'll be a point where reducing racism further gets diminishing returns, yeah. I don't think we're at that point yet, personally.

EDIT: You're ok with the idea of racism being a continuum though, surely? Aren't "being slightly less likely to buy something from a black salesman" and "advocating genocide against all non-whites" different things?
Last edited by Mutex on Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:12 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Vahir » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:10 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Racism might well be a factor, probably is one. But frankly, I think the biggest reason he won is that people are sick of what's happening with the US government. There are a whole lot of people out there who no longer believe that their government represents them anymore, or even cares to.


Yes, which is why the Republican establishment was eradicated this election. Oh wait, those guys still got elected.

Dissatisfaction might be a reason but it's hardly the biggest one.

elasto
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:37 pm UTC

One deeply disappointing aspect is how Republican obstructionism in the legislatures has been rewarded - even though in many cases the legislation that the Dems wanted to pass would have benefitted the very working classes who have ended up deserting them. Imagine if a much more genuine reform of the health service had been possible, for example.

If the Dems had played dirty in the way the Reps did, they might have got more done and been more rewarded for it by these key voters.

For those of us who believe in grown-up, conciliatory, consensus-based, pragmatic politics - as Obama clearly did especially early in his first term - it's a dark day.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1686
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 10:39 pm UTC

cphite wrote:They're tired of the broken promises, the lying and stealing, and the blatant double standards. These are the reasons ... of people saying "Fuck this shit, we need to try something else."
Well, they did about as well at that as a bishop on a chessboard trying out a different-coloured square.

SlyReaper wrote:
Zohar wrote:As mentioned, racism isn't a binary, and everyone suffers from it. Are all of Clinton's voters not racist? Of course not! But a vote for her doesn't indicate disregard for marginalized groups. A vote for Trump, does.

Nonsense. A vote for Trump doesn't indicate anything in particular except finding him less objectionable than Clinton. It might be because they perceive Clinton as irredeemably corrupt. It might be because they feel let down by the status quo and think Trump is more likely to change something. It might be because they're racist. You can't just assume the last one because of their vote.

It indicates that the voter's perceived likely level of harm to members of certain groups, discrimination against whom is racism, matters less to that voter than the expected likely benefits to member's of the voter's own groups. If someone honestly believes that everyone in the USA will be far better off under Trump than under Obama or Clinton and votes on that basis, then no, that's not racism. If someone honestly believes that black people will be stopped and searched more, unarmed black teenagers will be shot for jogging more often, Muslims will be rounded up and deported with only what they can wear or carry on their heads (because they'll have their hands up), Jews' accounts will be opened to public scrutiny, Hindus will be forced to eat barbecued beef every Fourth of July and/or anyone with at least one Japanese great-grandparent will be rounded up, interned in a concentration camp and used as slave labour and doesn't care because he or she is none of those and expects to be $5,000 a year better off, and votes on that basis, yeah, that's racist. Killing the [__________] and taking their money because you hate them is racist. Killing the [__________] and taking their money because you want to buy your children nice toys is also racist.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

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 10:46 pm UTC

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

"The wages of smug is Trump."

Interesting read though I think the author is a tiny bit smug talking about all those foolish smug people unable to comprehend the situation.^^

elasto
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:51 pm UTC

Another deeply disappointing aspect is that apparently Trump believes that climate change is a hoax (a hoax devised by the Chinese, bizarrely enough).

If America says 'f*ck it' to any attempt to reduce greenhouse emissions, and causes other major polluters like China to throw their hands up in the air as well, it could conceivably set humanity back a decade or more, which could be pretty catastrophic over the medium term.

It's all very well saying that much of politics and economics is just opinion, but climate change is about as established a science as anything is.

It's appalling just how fashionable it is to be anti-science these days, especially amongst Americans who really ought to know better.
Last edited by elasto on Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:59 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 788
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby MartianInvader » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:57 pm UTC

I have an honest question for Trump supporters.

My wife is Turkish, we're expecting our second daughter in March, and as with our last daughter, we were planning on having her parents come and stay with us for a few months after the baby's born and a few months out of the next couple years to help out. Now that we've elected a president who has proposed a ban on all Muslims entering the country, do you think I should be worried that my in-laws won't be able to visit their granddaughter? Why or why not?
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6252
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:59 pm UTC

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368 ... t-100-days
Trump releases his 100 day plan, then McConnell takes his favorites. Says "not on my watch" to the rest. Trump needs to realize who thinks is in charge here and who's in charge there. Is he gonna compromise? Start a fight? Nobody can trust Trump's words so nobody knows.

Also, we have establishment Republicans who were elected alongside outsider Trump. What kind of mandate is this?

Martian invader
The cold enforcers of government will come for you. If you look like an angel, you might get an exception. Or maybe Trump forgets about you. Who knows.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 788
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby MartianInvader » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:02 pm UTC

Thanks sardia, for an honest dialogue between factions that have shown nothing but be scorn and ridicule towards each other. You're really helping to heal the painful divides in our country.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:08 pm UTC

MartianInvader wrote:I have an honest question for Trump supporters.

My wife is Turkish, we're expecting our second daughter in March, and as with our last daughter, we were planning on having her parents come and stay with us for a few months after the baby's born and a few months out of the next couple years to help out. Now that we've elected a president who has proposed a ban on all Muslims entering the country, do you think I should be worried that my in-laws won't be able to visit their granddaughter? Why or why not?


My cousin married a Muslim. She's a close cousin of mine, attended the wedding ceremony and everything. Learned about "Signing the Contract", used Henna tattoos during the party, the whole nine yards. A cool experience that I hope I can remember for the rest of my life.

My mother is a Trump supporter. She was at this wedding, she had Henna on her and was interacting through all of these Muslim customs. True, this particular cousin is on my Dad's side of the family, but that doesn't change the fact that my mother supported Trump this whole time. Let that sink in. My mom is unable to see the problem with regards to Muslim visas despite having a muslim officially in our extended family, and after attending a Muslim wedding and meeting a lot of them.

-----

The issue is rather simple. Trump supporters do not believe him to be as racist as the media made him out to be. It is straight up impossible for me to convince my mother that Trump is bigoted, without somehow implying she by extension is also bigoted. At that point, I drop the subject because its not really worth it making my mom feel bad over politics.

I severely doubt that this line of discussion is useful at all. Again, shaming a Trump supporter isn't going to work because that's the media's image of him, and not really who he is as a person.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:13 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 788
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby MartianInvader » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:11 pm UTC

I don't really care if he's racist at this point. What I care about is how likely he is to follow through on his campaign promise to ban all Muslims entering the country (you can argue this is a security policy and not a racist policy if you want, again I don't care). Or how likely he is to do something similar, eg cancel Turkish/other national Visas or make them prohibitively hard to renew.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:16 pm UTC

MartianInvader wrote:I don't really care if he's racist at this point. What I care about is how likely he is to follow through on his campaign promise to ban all Muslims entering the country (you can argue this is a security policy and not a racist policy if you want, again I don't care). Or how likely he is to do something similar, eg cancel Turkish/other national Visas or make them prohibitively hard to renew.


Trump supporters don't necessarily think he means to ban all Muslims, based on my interaction with them. (A lot of Trump supporters say he's just exaggerating, or that's how he talks.) Some other Trump supporters think that the Supreme Court, Senate, and House will prevent him from making such laws.

There are really a whole bunch of ways to rationalize away this conundrum you proposed.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Mutex
Posts: 1324
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:17 pm UTC

Turkey is too much of an important global partner in the Middle East to piss off.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6252
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:17 pm UTC

MartianInvader wrote:I don't really care if he's racist at this point. What I care about is how likely he is to follow through on his campaign promise to ban all Muslims entering the country (you can argue this is a security policy and not a racist policy if you want, again I don't care). Or how likely he is to do something similar, eg cancel Turkish/other national Visas or make them prohibitively hard to renew.

We don't know. He doesn't want new refugees but he has been vague. If he got a positive response, he goes further. If he gets backlash, he backs off. Neither is predictive of his actually policy. Look at his first 100 days plan. It says extreme vetting. Nobody knows what it means, but it sounds tough.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests