2016 US Presidential Election

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6797
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:23 am UTC

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

Pence replaces Chris Christie.

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

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


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

Think outside your hate. It means the moderate republican Christie just got booted in favor of an ultra conservative like Pence. Christie is a bully, but he's a moderate. It's a sign of the times, if you aren't rich, you're just gonna get less services.

I think trade and environmental concerns are pretty for sure dead, 90% chance. ACA is definitely going to cover less people than before 80% chance.

hollow
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:24 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby hollow » Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:36 am UTC

Long time lurker, figured I'd pipe up with my two cents.

I voted Trump because of Clinton's stance on Gun Control. I am not interested in another AWB, or for our gun laws to move towards UK or Australia examples. Not a single other issue in this election affected me personally, at least short term. And while I agreed with Clinton on more issues, and that Trump as a person is pretty ugly, none of that sits above my want of 2nd ammendment freedom. Call me selfish if you want, it's probably true. But don't be surprised when gun owners don't support a candidate that pushes for gun control.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:58 am UTC

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

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

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

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

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

You're right to think the bigotry in America is real and that it matters. You're wrong to believe it is the only or even most significant suffering going on.
For me, Hillary represents the status quo of a horribly broken system -- a cry of "STAY THE COURSE!" while we're hurtling toward the abyss. I voted for her with reluctance; I've supported third party candidates for most of my adult life. I would have joyfully voted for Sanders if he was available (he was the first major party candidate in a long while who struck me as being close to my own views). I'm definitely not a fan, and -- aside from casting a reluctant vote -- I would not call myself a supporter. I'd definitely understand if someone didn't vote for her.

I agree that bigotry is neither the biggest problem -- nor the only problem -- going on in America. I think if you view it through that lens, you flatten the world into a simple, ridiculous place. Our problems are complex: They involve issues like poverty, the justice system, education, the military industrial complex, and much, much more.

I'm still a little sad you used the word 'benign' to describe racism and misogyny. I don't think you need to care about racism or misogyny; you should focus on what you think is important. I do think you need to recognize that people are dying because of those things, however. Calling them 'benign' would be as disrespectful as me calling Hillary Clinton's run as Secretary of State 'benign'. They're not the most important things, and they're not the only things; nevertheless, they are still things -- and certainly not benign things.

Anyway, I hope the above helps clarify to you that I in no way believe what you thought I believe.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby zhi » Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:34 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I'm still a little sad you used the word 'benign' to describe racism and misogyny.


zhi wrote:When you, and others on the left, talk about the racism, misogyny and xenophobia in America and ignore the middle east it's baffling to so many people like me on the left...relatively benign racism and misogyny in America


That you again misrepresent what I say is incredibly insulting. I hope this was a mistake in you not taking the time to read what I wrote instead of actively trying to misrepresent me.

The Great Hippo wrote:Anyway, I hope the above helps clarify to you that I in no way believe what you thought I believe.

If you believe those things, I don't understand how you are confused about why someone would vote for Trump.

However, this point needs to be made entirely clear when talking about who people voted for. Trump didn't beat Hillary. Hillary beat herself. People didn't show up in large numbers to vote for Trump, he basically had the same number of votes as McCain and Romney. Hillary had 6-10 million less votes than Obama during his elections.

A large number of people voted for Trump because he was on the republican Ticket and for no other reason. Some number of people voted for Trump because they hated Hillary more. Other people voted because their values prioritize the harm Hillary has done higher as higher than what he has done (which is pretty objectively true, even if he might cause more harm with a presidency than she would), other people voted because domestic policy isn't the primary domain of the president foreign policy is and Hillary failed the world massively at every chance to show she was 'qualified' lead out foreign policy. Then quite a few more reasons, and then a very small number of people voted because of his appeal to bigotry.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:56 am UTC

zhi wrote:That you again misrepresent what I say is incredibly insulting. I hope this was a mistake in you not taking the time to read what I wrote instead of actively trying to misrepresent me.
I'm sorry; I didn't think the world 'relatively' made much of a difference, there. I mean, benign means 'gentle and kindly'; I don't think misogyny and racism in America are benign in any sense -- not even in a 'relative' one. Regardless, as long as you do recognize that people are dying, I don't think we're really disagreeing.

I also don't recall misrepresenting anything you've said prior to this? I'm sorry that you feel like everyone here has been dismissive toward anything that's not resoundingly pro-Hillary. I'm also sorry you feel as if you've been mocked, personally attacked, and misrepresented in everything you said. Glancing back at your previous posts and the responses to them, though, I don't see it. Maybe it's a tonal issue? I'm sometimes bad at picking up tone on the internet. I certainly don't think I mocked or personally attacked you.

Anyway, I think there was always a level of skepticism toward Hillary -- possibly even contempt. I suspect most people here would have loved to see Sanders win, and see Hillary as kind of a regrettable choice (or even non-choice).
zhi wrote:If you believe those things, I don't understand how you are confused why someone would vote for Trump.
I'd rather not discuss that; I've already mentioned it's a topic I'm going to just stay away from (though apparently, I decided not to stay away from this thread!). I mostly just wanted to address your misrepresentation of my position re: Hillary.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Nov 12, 2016 5:05 am UTC

Beeb on hate crimes post trump

Interesting that some of the cases are hoaxes, but I suppose that's to be expected. Stay safe everyone. If going outside, stay in groups with friends, unless you are black because a group of black guys is a gang and we can't have those. Also, if black, be sure to avoid carrying anything that resembles a gun, such as toy guns, Bebe guns, sticks, wallets, pears, cellphones, bags of groceries, roast beef sandwich wrapped in tinfoil, small children, purses, car keys, pens, sex toys, comic books, or skittles. If you do not have a gun, an officer will provide you with one shortly after the bullets arrive.

/sarcasm

I wish that I was making up more than just a third of that gun like object list.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Wonderbolt » Sat Nov 12, 2016 5:08 am UTC

Is there any data on hate crimes going down again once people got used to the Brexit thing? That's... kinda my hope here, and I'm not actually sure it's based on anything.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby zhi » Sat Nov 12, 2016 5:16 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
zhi wrote:That you again misrepresent what I say is incredibly insulting. I hope this was a mistake in you not taking the time to read what I wrote instead of actively trying to misrepresent me.
I'm sorry; I didn't think the world 'relatively' made much of a difference, there. I mean, benign means 'gentle and kindly'; I don't think misogyny and racism in America are benign in any sense -- not even in a 'relative' one. Regardless, as long as you do recognize that people are dying, I don't think we're really disagreeing.

You don't think there is much of a difference between bigotry in the Middle East and America?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 12, 2016 5:30 am UTC

zhi wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
zhi wrote:That you again misrepresent what I say is incredibly insulting. I hope this was a mistake in you not taking the time to read what I wrote instead of actively trying to misrepresent me.
I'm sorry; I didn't think the world 'relatively' made much of a difference, there. I mean, benign means 'gentle and kindly'; I don't think misogyny and racism in America are benign in any sense -- not even in a 'relative' one. Regardless, as long as you do recognize that people are dying, I don't think we're really disagreeing.

You don't think there is much of a difference between bigotry in the Middle East and America?
Regardless of what the difference is, those who have experienced misogyny and/or racism in America firsthand would likely not appreciate having their experiences described as 'relatively benign'. It's an inappropriate choice of words, that's all.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby zhi » Sat Nov 12, 2016 5:39 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Regardless of what the difference is, those who have experienced misogyny and/or racism in America firsthand would likely not appreciate having their experiences described as 'relatively benign'. It's an inappropriate choice of words, that's all.

Regardless of truth lets focus on feelings, got it. The reluctance of the left to deal in reason and truth is another part of Hillary's failure.

Public and private opinions, 'America is great', 'most qualified candidate to ever run for president', and so so many more.

My mistake for coming back here. Good luck feeling your way through finding out why people didn't vote for Hillary as you certainly aren't willing to discuss it with facts.

User avatar
Isaac Hill
Systems Analyst????
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Middletown, RI

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Isaac Hill » Sat Nov 12, 2016 5:44 am UTC

So, a man who responds very poorly to criticism will now have the job where everybody blames you for everything.

I've already started. My commute to work is usually pretty smooth, but once in while there's a mile long traffic back up at the entrance. Wednesday was one of those days, and as I sat there in line, I thought, "Thanks, Trump!". I felt better.


Thinking about that Cracked article, maybe Trump's supporters don't expect him to be a good President so much as they've given up on there being a good President for people like them. Voting for the unqualified guy purely because me makes the establishment squirm doesn't have much of a downside if you're screwed anyway.

For all the talk analyzing of Trump's appeal, does it matter? 2016's ultimate outsider, tell-it-like-it-is demagogue got the same number of votes as 2008's war hero/Washington insider and 2012's embodyment of blandness. It looks like the Republicans could nominate anyone and get 60 million votes.

Republican candidate: "I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."
60 million voters: "He's his own man! Let's vote for him!"

He'd do well in Wisconsin.


The issue is more the 5 million people who voted Obama '12 but stayed home in '16. Democratic voters may be more numerous, but Republican voters are more committed. It's the same reason Democrats do poorly in the midterms. That also means that Democratic politicians have a harder time getting their careers started, since their downballot candidates can't count on the voters to show up.

I've seen comments from people who didn't vote because Clinton didn't do enough to earn their vote. That's absurd. There are three possibilities here.

a) A better candidate would've caused these voters to show up, vote for President, and leave the rest of their ballot blank. This doesn't happen; if it did, Congressional seats woudn't change hands due to Presidential coattails.

b) These voters did the necessary research into the downballot candidates, figured out which ones they like, but didn't bother to vote for them since they didn't like Clinton. This doesn't happen; anyone who cares enough to research downballot candidates is going to show up.

c) A better candidate would've caused these voters to show up, vote for President, and fill out the rest of the ballot without thinking that much about it. This is what does happen, and means that these people are perfectly capable of voting for candidates that don't inspire them. If you're OK with voting for a town councilman or state senator you've never even heard of, you can be OK with voting for a President you're not thrilled about.

Obama was swept into office in 2008 by a crowd that claimed to support him, but never had his back. They didn't have his back in the 2010 or 2014 midterms, which made his job much harder. They didn't have his back this week, and now much of what he's done could be erased. This has got to be discouraging to Democratic candidates. Why bust your ass for a group that won't help you at all?

People like to say, "I vote for the person, not the party". But, the person needs the party to get things done.
Alleged "poems"
that don't follow a rhyme scheme
are not poetry

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 12, 2016 5:47 am UTC

zhi wrote:Regardless of truth lets focus on feelings, got it. The reluctance of the left to deal in reason and truth is another part of Hillary's failure.
I'm sorry; I think I failed to convey what my point was: The reason people who have experienced misogyny and/or racism in America would not appreciate it being described as 'relatively benign' is because those experiences include beatings, torture, brutalization, rape, murder, and more. No one has a monopoly on pain and suffering; describing American bigotry as 'relatively benign' implies that American bigotry is incapable of sinking to the same depths we find everywhere else. The rate of occurrence might be dramatically different, but that doesn't mean those occurrences aren't sometimes just as harrowing.

Also, while truth and reason are very important things to me (perhaps the most important things!), I'm also deeply concerned about how people feel. I don't think focusing on feelings is a failure; if anything, I think it's a strength. I'm sorry you don't feel similarly.
zhi wrote:Public and private opinions, 'America is great', 'most qualified candidate to ever run for president', and so so many more.

My mistake for coming back here. Good luck feeling your way through finding out why people didn't vote for Hillary as you certainly aren't willing to discuss it with facts.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I suspect you'll probably be happier elsewhere. Good luck.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby zhi » Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:09 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
zhi wrote:Regardless of truth lets focus on feelings, got it. The reluctance of the left to deal in reason and truth is another part of Hillary's failure.
I'm sorry; I think I failed to convey what my point was: The reason people who have experienced misogyny and/or racism in America would not appreciate it being described as 'relatively benign' is because those experiences include beatings, torture, brutalization, rape, murder, and more. No one has a monopoly on pain and suffering; describing American bigotry as 'relatively benign' implies that American bigotry is incapable of sinking to the same depths we find everywhere else.

It can imply a lot of things. What it obviously means in this case is the depth of the average bigotry and the prevalence of it. To suggest it my statement means anything else is actively trying to dodge the point and your misrepresentation of it.


Also, while truth and reason are very important things to me (perhaps the most important things!), I'm also deeply concerned about how people feel. I don't think focusing on feelings is a failure; if anything, I think it's a strength. I'm sorry you don't feel similarly.

How did you conclude I don't care about feelings? You've successfully baited me into one more post, this time not just with straw-men but with false accusations, well done! Let civil discourse die right?

When feelings prevent someone for being able to understand reality we should certainly focus on them, that is a greatly unhealthy circumstance. Feelings also allow us to often assess harm.

Anyone whose feelings got hurt by my statement about the relative of harm of bigotry between America and the Middle East falls into the former. Should we be aware of those feelings, certainly, that way we can help them read what I actually wrote rather than what you have misrepresented twice in two incredibly disingenuous ways, and we can help them see that while they are hurting other people are too and their pain matters as well.

That when I was talking about the bigotry on a cultural level you brought it down to this is exactly the blindness to harm I was speaking to in my first post and why you are so confused about why someone might vote for Trump. There are lots of types of suffering in the world and until you accept that, and that they aren't all equal on a individual or societal level and until you can speak about those differences genuinely and honestly (which you displayed you can not do here) I'm sure you will remain confused.

Good bye.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6797
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:28 am UTC

Isaac Hill wrote:So, a man who responds very poorly to criticism will now have the job where everybody blames you for everything.

I've already started. My commute to work is usually pretty smooth, but once in while there's a mile long traffic back up at the entrance. Wednesday was one of those days, and as I sat there in line, I thought, "Thanks, Trump!". I felt better.


Thinking about that Cracked article, maybe Trump's supporters don't expect him to be a good President so much as they've given up on there being a good President for people like them. Voting for the unqualified guy purely because me makes the establishment squirm doesn't have much of a downside if you're screwed anyway.

For all the talk analyzing of Trump's appeal, does it matter? 2016's ultimate outsider, tell-it-like-it-is demagogue got the same number of votes as 2008's war hero/Washington insider and 2012's embodyment of blandness. It looks like the Republicans could nominate anyone and get 60 million votes.

Republican candidate: "I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."
60 million voters: "He's his own man! Let's vote for him!"

He'd do well in Wisconsin.
The issue is more the 5 million people who voted Obama '12 but stayed home in '16. Democratic voters may be more numerous, but Republican voters are more committed. It's the same reason Democrats do poorly in the midterms. That also means that Democratic politicians have a harder time getting their careers started, since their downballot candidates can't count on the voters to show up.

I've seen comments from people who didn't vote because Clinton didn't do enough to earn their vote. That's absurd. There are three possibilities here.

a) A better candidate would've caused these voters to show up, vote for President, and leave the rest of their ballot blank. This doesn't happen; if it did, Congressional seats woudn't change hands due to Presidential coattails.

b) These voters did the necessary research into the downballot candidates, figured out which ones they like, but didn't bother to vote for them since they didn't like Clinton. This doesn't happen; anyone who cares enough to research downballot candidates is going to show up.

c) A better candidate would've caused these voters to show up, vote for President, and fill out the rest of the ballot without thinking that much about it. This is what does happen, and means that these people are perfectly capable of voting for candidates that don't inspire them. If you're OK with voting for a town councilman or state senator you've never even heard of, you can be OK with voting for a President you're not thrilled about.

Obama was swept into office in 2008 by a crowd that claimed to support him, but never had his back. They didn't have his back in the 2010 or 2014 midterms, which made his job much harder. They didn't have his back this week, and now much of what he's done could be erased. This has got to be discouraging to Democratic candidates. Why bust your ass for a group that won't help you at all?

People like to say, "I vote for the person, not the party". But, the person needs the party to get things done.
Isaac, don't get caught up in the raw numbers. For one thing, the country is constantly growing, so the number of voters should increase every election, all else equal. You need to think of it in terms of percentage of voters based off voter turnout. A basic example of raw voting numbers failing is Coastal blue states, and the very Red states. In each case, HIllary ran up the score despite not getting any closer to being the president. In addition, voters from the opposing party are dis-incentivized from voting, unlike swing states, which more accurately represent voter turnout since they are more important, which means they have higher turnout.

Why support white people? Because they are high propensity to vote demographic. You let all those minorities vote with Obama levels of support, or increase voter turnout by 20%, and then we'll see every politician clamoring for their support. The trickier part is how to have a broad coalition that includes minorities and those white people. Maybe you can't serve both factions well, and one side gets the short end of the stick. Too bad there's no evangelical mirror group for Democrats.That's a way better way to glue together a party. You just toss them a bone on one small high value issue, and you get their votes for life, freeing up party resources on other groups.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:32 am UTC

zhi wrote:It can imply a lot of things. What it obviously means in this case is the depth of the average bigotry and the prevalence of it. To suggest it my statement means anything else is actively trying to dodge the point and your misrepresentation of it.
If you shoot one man -- then light twenty men on fire -- it would be misleading to describe the shooting as a 'relatively benign' act of violence. Certainly, the family of the man who was shot would feel differently! That's the distinction I'm talking about. I realize you feel like I've misrepresented you; I apologize for that, but I don't think my point is at all unreasonable or unfair.

I find it strange how important it is (?) to you to explain how 'relatively benign' is not an inappropriate description of American bigotry. I don't think my statement merits this much discussion; rather, I think you could just say 'Well, that's not how I meant it, but I'll keep in mind that's how some people might take it' -- and we'd be done.

Is part of the issue here that you think I'm accusing you of bigotry via your word-choice? If that's the concern, I assure you that's not the case; I just think your word-choice was inappropriate, as it implies things you did not intend to imply.
zhi wrote:How did you conclude I don't care about feelings? You've successfully baited me into one more post with false accusations, well done! Let civil discourse die right?
I didn't say I don't think you care about feelings. I said I don't think focusing on feelings is a failure. I said this in response to your statement ('Regardless of truth lets focus on feelings'). My point was that it isn't necessarily a failure to focus on feelings -- even over truth and reason. This is something you apparently disagree with ("Regardless of truth lets focus on feelings", "The reluctance of the left to deal in reason and truth is another part of Hillary's failure").

My intent was not to bait you into another post; I sincerely believe this place isn't a good fit for you, and I genuinely wish you luck elsewhere.

Would it help you if I refrained from replying to any more of your posts? I'm happy to do that.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:21 pm UTC

Wonderbolt wrote:Is there any data on hate crimes going down again once people got used to the Brexit thing? That's... kinda my hope here, and I'm not actually sure it's based on anything.

Yes, but not as far as they went up.

Race and religious hate crimes rose 41% after EU vote

There were 3,886 such crimes logged in July 2015, rising to 5,468 in July this year, according to the Home Office.

It said the sharp increase declined in August but has "remained at a higher level than prior to the EU referendum".
Brexit caused lasting rise in hate crime, new figures show

The rise in post-Brexit hate crime reports peaked at nearly 60 per cent and is still 14 per cent higher than at the same point last year, new figures show.

The latest figures released by the National Police Chiefs’ Council show that in the week following the vote to leave the EU the number of incidents rose by 58 per cent.
Britain sees large rise in hate crimes, mainly racist incidents

There were 52,528 hate crimes in the 12 months to March, up 18 percent on the year before, with the Home Office (interior ministry) suggesting that the increase was due to more victims coming forward and police becoming better at identifying such offences.

Separate government figures based on statistics over the last three years from the annual Crime Survey, which collates figures from interviews with the public, suggested there were an estimated 222,000 hate crimes on average per year.

All strands of hate crime saw noticeable rises, but the greatest increase was in the number of religiously motivated offences, up 43 percent on the previous year.
Eastern Europeans ‘particularly targeted’, Hogan-Howe reports, with more than 2,300 offences recorded in period after referendum

Monitoring presented at the hearing by the London mayor’s evidence and insight team showed a 16% increase in hate crime in the 12 months to August. It also showed that in the 38 days after the referendum there were more than 2,300 recorded race-hate offences in London, compared with 1,400 in the 38 days before the vote.

Figures from the National Police Chiefs’ Council showed a 49% rise in hate crime incidents to 1,863 in the last week in July in England, Wales and Northern Ireland compared with the previous year.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:21 pm UTC

Isaac Hill wrote:[all of it]

I agree completely. I really wonder if it's something missing in the cultural education of the current youngest (voting) generation. Or maybe this always happens, that it takes young voters a few election cycles to remember to, y'know, actually vote in midterms because Congress is important, too. And by then they're crotchety older Conservatives. America.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10258
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby addams » Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:50 pm UTC

What about the Electoral College.
What a weird system.

This explains a little.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3wLQz- ... .289817558

This explains a little more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXJuVvuNN1Y

Some Policy Wonks talking about the Electoral College.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN2ESsXPUwE
Last edited by addams on Sat Nov 12, 2016 7:14 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

iamspen
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby iamspen » Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:51 pm UTC

hollow wrote:I voted Trump because of Clinton's stance on Gun Control...


It's neat that you voted for a package that included rampant racism, bigotry, misogyny, xenophobia, and homophobia because you're oh-so-afraid of a magical bogeyman that might come and take all your gunz.

It's cool that you validated and emboldened the hate groups that were the engine of the Trump campaign just so you can be sure you can buy a rifle that's, let's be honest, is entirely useless to civilians beyond just looking cool.

It's awesome that no one but you matters and nothing but your guns are important.

You don't at all represent everything that's wrong with our electorate and our culture, don't worry.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:12 pm UTC

You know with the narrow margins Comeys email stuff might have actually been enough to change the result. So he got a rep president and won't get replaced so I guess he can count it as good move.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:15 pm UTC

Iam, YOU need to accept responsibility. All you did was just insult the other side and call them a racist. It's that crap that turns off the opposition and more importantly, causes accusations of racism to lose their impact.

iamspen
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby iamspen » Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:20 pm UTC

I didn't call him a racist. I called him out on his myopic outlook on this election. One doesn't have to be a bigot to be complicit in legitimizing bigoted behavior, and that's exactly what electing Trump has done.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:35 pm UTC

And do you think for five seconds that voting for Hillary doesn't "legitimize party corruption"? That voting for her "legitimizes disastrous interventionist foreign policy that has killed half a million Syrians and forced millions more into exile"? That voting Hillary "legitimizes rape culture by silencing victims" (ok, so would Trump)?

Or perhaps there are REASONS people are so fed up with the system that they'd vote for someone who promised to burn it down? That they've consumed media where they are the one demographic that's ok to insult? That various trade and economic policies have deprived them of the few jobs they had, and the remaining ones are farming and construction; the jobs illegal immigrants will do? That they've had the same crappy schools that the inner cities have with the same amount of drug problems, but no one even pretends to care about them? That any attempt to complain is met with "oh shut up, you're white so you have privilege" etc? Have you ever considered that maybe simply dismissing these people and their problems for decades is the reason they won't vote for you?

And before you ask, I voted GayJay; I "legitimize" "not paying much attention to foreign affairs". As opposed to Stein, legitimizing anti-science and worse.

iamspen
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby iamspen » Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:45 pm UTC

If you can't tell how vast the space is between mild party corruption and an openly racist and bigoted society is, you've rationalized beyond the point where I can even know how to engage you in this discussion.

Hillary Clinton would not have been an ideal President. Donald Trump and his supporters threaten to rip apart the very fabric of American culture and society.

And don't you dare complain about Clinton's corruption even as Trump contacts Wall Street's shadiest banker to lead the economy, a YE creationist to head the Department of Education, and a climate change and science denier to chair the EPA.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:59 pm UTC

First, Id much rather have Hills than Trump. Voted Gayjay because my state was going Hillary no matter what, so I protested by voting for someone I liked more than her. And if my state was a swing state where the candidate won with less than 50% of the vote, it's not the third party voters at fault but YOU AND YOUR SHITTY CANDIDATE.

If we are going to talk about legitimizing racism and whatever, well I have VERY nasty new for you. Reality doesn't matter for that. Clinton could've been squeaky clean, but the Republican smears turned her into the monster. And then voting in the squeaky clean person would STILL have legitimized corruption, because to everyone else, THE CORRUPT PERSON WON. Same with trump. Could've been the least racist person on the planet, but this narrative of him being a racist is all it takes to legitimize racism if he won. That's part of why exaggerating his racism (which is there) is JUST as much a cause of the "legitimizing racism" as is his own racism.

iamspen
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby iamspen » Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:04 pm UTC

Edit: We're bickering over things that we mostly agree on because we don't like each others' tone. I think it should stop before it gets to the point where we risk genuinely disliking each other, so I apologize for letting by frustration with others turn into anger towards you.
Last edited by iamspen on Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:09 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:08 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:You keep on rationalizing, buddy. I've got some pussies to grab and some Mexicans to call rapists and some teenagers to watch get changed and some 10-year-old girls to call sexy.


You go do that, don't learn from your mistakes, and the next 8 years of trump will just fly by.

iamspen
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby iamspen » Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:18 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:You go do that, don't learn from your mistakes, and the next 8 years of trump will just fly by.


I had intended to edit my previous reply before you posted again. Apologies.

But I would still like to respond to this. I'm not suggesting Democrats didn't make mistakes. They should have had this election in the bag and they fouled it up bigly. That doesn't mean I shouldn't resent those who ignored the racist and xenophobic undertones and misogynistic overtones of the Trump campaign, especially those who get defensive about not being racist and bigoted themselves, because it's not like it wasn't obvious what they were voting for.

My initial response was frustration that the user in question had allowed a single issue to inform his decision when there were vast arrays of other, more legitimate* issues on the table, and that he was (presumably) willing to overlook the potential cultural damage a Trump Presidency brings with it for his own relatively petty issue.

*That doesn't mean gun control isn't a legitimate issue, I only mean that it's not something that has been particularly easy to pass even amongst the most leftist governments in America; realistically, the gun nuts aren't going to be forced to stop being gun nuts no matter who is President or who controls Congress.

hollow
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:24 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby hollow » Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:01 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:
It's neat that you voted for a package that included rampant racism, bigotry, misogyny, xenophobia, and homophobia because you're oh-so-afraid of a magical bogeyman that might come and take all your gunz.

It's cool that you validated and emboldened the hate groups that were the engine of the Trump campaign just so you can be sure you can buy a rifle that's, let's be honest, is entirely useless to civilians beyond just looking cool.

It's awesome that no one but you matters and nothing but your guns are important.

You don't at all represent everything that's wrong with our electorate and our culture, don't worry.


I mean, strawmanning is fun and all, but we could also take a look at the meat of the point. I'm all for helping people, underprivileged or not, but not when it means losing something I care about. I would gladly transport you and your canned goods to a charity drive if asked, and would probably even chip in, but not if you outright tell me you will steal two of my tires while we're there. It might be worth a thought about whether gun control could be set aside for a few years. Drop the gun control for a while, and I'll join in on your cause. If, later on, we manage to get things a bit better for everyone, maybe toss it back up on the to-do list. You'd lose my support, sure, but what was accomplished in the meantime is still accomplished.

The main purpose of my post was to illustrate that there are reasons for people to have voted Trump that have nothing to do with racism or the related. My choice was "vote in support of people I'll never meet" or "vote in support of myself". It shouldn't be hard to figure that one out, but it didn't have to be like that to start with.

And yes. Hillary's favorable comments towards Australian laws, her support of the now-expired AWB, and zero back-peddling gives no impression that her claim of respecting the 2nd amendment holds any meaning; there is a reasonable, non-conspiracy-theory expectation that gun control would rise with her election. Whether or not you personally agree with magazine limits or bans on mostly aesthetic attachments, the important thing is that many gun owners are unwilling to compromise on this.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:07 pm UTC

hollow wrote:I mean, strawmanning is fun and all, but we could also take a look at the meat of the point. I'm all for helping people, underprivileged or not, but not when it means losing something I care about. I would gladly transport you and your canned goods to a charity drive if asked, and would probably even chip in, but not if you outright tell me you will steal two of my tires while we're there. It might be worth a thought about whether gun control could be set aside for a few years. Drop the gun control for a while, and I'll join in on your cause. If, later on, we manage to get things a bit better for everyone, maybe toss it back up on the to-do list. You'd lose my support, sure, but what was accomplished in the meantime is still accomplished.

The main purpose of my post was to illustrate that there are reasons for people to have voted Trump that have nothing to do with racism or the related. My choice was "vote in support of people I'll never meet" or "vote in support of myself". It shouldn't be hard to figure that one out, but it didn't have to be like that to start with.

And yes. Hillary's favorable comments towards Australian laws, her support of the now-expired AWB, and zero back-peddling gives no impression that her claim of respecting the 2nd amendment holds any meaning; there is a reasonable, non-conspiracy-theory expectation that gun control would rise with her election. Whether or not you personally agree with magazine limits or bans on mostly aesthetic attachments, the important thing is that many gun owners are unwilling to compromise on this.
I completely understand someone who sees gun control as a serious issue. What I don't understand is how it could be a deal-breaker.

Like, am I missing something? Guns are a hobby. You're allowed to be passionate about your hobbies; hell, you're allowed to make them central to who you are. But I sure as shit wouldn't consider it a deal-breaker if a politician was pushing for tighter regulations on the content of comic books or video-games. I'd think that's stupid, and consider it an extremely big point against them -- but a deal-breaker? Of course not.

EDIT: Like, how big of an issue is gun control for you? For others? To put this another way: How utterly horrible would the anti-gun-control candidate have to be before you said, "Yep, okay, no new regulations is really important, but it's not worth electing this guy"?

hollow
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:24 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby hollow » Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:23 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I completely understand someone who sees gun control as a serious issue. What I don't understand is how it could be a deal-breaker.

Like, am I missing something? Guns are a hobby. You're allowed to be passionate about your hobbies; hell, you're allowed to make them central to who you are. But I sure as shit wouldn't consider it a deal-breaker if a politician was pushing for tighter regulations on the content of comic books or video-games. I'd think that's stupid, and consider it an extremely big point against them -- but a deal-breaker? Of course not.


It might be because I live in a blue state, where we're constantly getting this kind of thing pushed. It's always "We need magazine limits", or "We need to restrict accessories" or "Assault-rifle sounds scary we should ban them*". I'll not get any further into it than that (as there is a thread for that sort of thing), but suffice to say that I agree with none of it. I'm sick of it, all of it. I don't want my state to be like California. I don't want the nation to be like California. I don't lie when I say that I would side with the left on so many issues, but when it comes at the expense of (what I believe to be) my natural rights, I'm stuck with an unfortunate choice. Like I said before, if it's down to supporting myself or people I've never met, I'm going to be selfish.

Counter-Edit:
The Great Hippo wrote:EDIT: Like, how big of an issue is gun control for you? For others? To put this another way: How utterly horrible would the anti-gun-control candidate have to be before you said, "Yep, okay, no new regulations is really important, but it's not worth electing this guy"?

I don't know that I have a good answer to that, because I'm not sure I know myself. Certainly, promises of a grand war with a first nation, or guarantees of death squads shooting up "unnecessaries" would do it*, but all that gives me is an upper limit. As to your first question, guns are indeed a main issue for me. As admittedly someone who doesn't have to deal with racism or any phobia, pressure on my right to bear arms is the biggest issue I feel I face. And while I certainly agree that others have gotten a shorter end of the stick than I, in many different ways, it doesn't mean I'm willing to shed my stick to help them. Especially when we could both have our fair sticks, if only the two weren't so bundled together.

*And no, I don't think an elected Trump will mean ether.
Last edited by hollow on Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:46 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6797
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:33 pm UTC

screen-shot-2016-11-09-at-4-10-35-pm.png
CorruptUser wrote:
iamspen wrote:You keep on rationalizing, buddy. I've got some pussies to grab and some Mexicans to call rapists and some teenagers to watch get changed and some 10-year-old girls to call sexy.


You go do that, don't learn from your mistakes, and the next 8 years of trump will just fly by.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wha ... nts-makes/
Here's the thing, if Hillary was 2 percent better, she would have won easily. And that makes me wonder, where do the single issue second amendment voters live? Assuming they live in swing States, The Democrats could keep the same coalition, but co-opt the old NRA group that existed before the grass roots took it over.

It's not a very safe coalition, but it's better than tearing apart the coalition that Democrats spent years cultivating. Are there other groups that are liberal save for single issue? Abortion? Farmers?
[img]
http://i0.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.fi ... 1150&ssl=1
[/img]
Re emphasizing support for unions was the usual prescription but that seems unlikely without 8 years of Trump. And the GOP is chipping away at unions. Democrats need to steal a group that Republicans control. Cubans?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:40 pm UTC

hollow wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:I completely understand someone who sees gun control as a serious issue. What I don't understand is how it could be a deal-breaker.

Like, am I missing something? Guns are a hobby. You're allowed to be passionate about your hobbies; hell, you're allowed to make them central to who you are. But I sure as shit wouldn't consider it a deal-breaker if a politician was pushing for tighter regulations on the content of comic books or video-games. I'd think that's stupid, and consider it an extremely big point against them -- but a deal-breaker? Of course not.


It might be because I live in a blue state, where we're constantly getting this kind of thing pushed. It's always "We need magazine limits", or "We need to restrict accessories" or "Assault-rifle sounds scary we should ban them". I'll not get any further into it than that (as there is a thread for that sort of thing), but suffice to say that I agree with none of it. I'm sick of it, all of it. I don't want my state to be like California. I don't want the nation to be like California. I don't lie when I say that I would side with the left on so many issues, but when it comes at the expense of (what I believe to be) my natural rights, I'm stuck with an unfortunate choice. Like I said before, if it's down to supporting myself or people I've never met, I'm going to be selfish.
Okay; I can understand being deeply frustrated with the dialogue, and not even wanting to look at the candidate who's pushing in the wrong direction. I sometimes feel the same way with candidates on issues like evolution versus creationism -- an issue that is extremely important to me (as education was actually the field I initially tried to enter). The moment a candidate starts talking about compromise, I'm usually already rolling my eyes as I make my way out of the room.

But there's a point where I'm going to stop rolling my eyes -- and that point depends on how bad the other candidate is. If Joe Schmoe thinks we need a real dialogue about creationism in the classroom, I'm going to really hate him... but if Jill Schlub wants to literally light half the country on fire, I'm going to sigh, put aside one of my core issues, and try to work with Joe Schmoe. Because yeah, he's bad, but at least he's not a lunatic.

I guess that's what confounds me about this? There is no issue so dear to me that I'm not willing to put it aside for the sake of dealing with a larger problem. I understand it's exhausting to compromise with people who are clearly out of touch with everything you care about -- good grief, I understand that. But compromise is the lifeblood of society; it's the lifeblood of our government. If you can't compromise on this, I feel like there's no possibility of moving forward; you're always going to just support whichever candidate is anti-gun-control. Which means you're not a voter anymore: You're a demographic.

(Which is weirdly parallel to the situation black people are in with Democrats; Democrats rely on their votes, because what else are black people going to do? Vote Republican?)

Like -- from my POV, it doesn't look like you're being selfish -- it looks like you're being self-destructive. Part of this might be because I've never owned a gun; part of it might be that there are a lot of things I consider to be my 'core' issue (it sounds like this is your one main core issue).

I realize this is a very tricky question, and you don't need to answer, but: How bad would an anti-gun control candidate have to be before you decided you weren't going to vote for them?

EDIT: Beg your pardon, I see only now you edited an answer into your previous post!

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6797
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:52 pm UTC

Spoiler:
The Great Hippo wrote:
hollow wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:I completely understand someone who sees gun control as a serious issue. What I don't understand is how it could be a deal-breaker.

Like, am I missing something? Guns are a hobby. You're allowed to be passionate about your hobbies; hell, you're allowed to make them central to who you are. But I sure as shit wouldn't consider it a deal-breaker if a politician was pushing for tighter regulations on the content of comic books or video-games. I'd think that's stupid, and consider it an extremely big point against them -- but a deal-breaker? Of course not.


It might be because I live in a blue state, where we're constantly getting this kind of thing pushed. It's always "We need magazine limits", or "We need to restrict accessories" or "Assault-rifle sounds scary we should ban them". I'll not get any further into it than that (as there is a thread for that sort of thing), but suffice to say that I agree with none of it. I'm sick of it, all of it. I don't want my state to be like California. I don't want the nation to be like California. I don't lie when I say that I would side with the left on so many issues, but when it comes at the expense of (what I believe to be) my natural rights, I'm stuck with an unfortunate choice. Like I said before, if it's down to supporting myself or people I've never met, I'm going to be selfish.
Okay; I can understand being deeply frustrated with the dialogue, and not even wanting to look at the candidate who's pushing in the wrong direction. I sometimes feel the same way with candidates on issues like evolution versus creationism -- an issue that is extremely important to me (as education was actually the field I initially tried to enter). The moment a candidate starts talking about compromise, I'm usually already rolling my eyes as I make my way out of the room.

But there's a point where I'm going to stop rolling my eyes -- and that point depends on how bad the other candidate is. If Joe Schmoe thinks we need a real dialogue about creationism in the classroom, I'm going to really hate him... but if Jill Schlub wants to literally light half the country on fire, I'm going to sigh, put aside one of my core issues, and try to work with Joe Schmoe. Because yeah, he's bad, but at least he's not a lunatic.

I guess that's what confounds me about this? There is no issue so dear to me that I'm not willing to put it aside for the sake of dealing with a larger problem. I understand it's exhausting to compromise with people who are clearly out of touch with everything you care about -- good grief, I understand that. But compromise is the lifeblood of society; it's the lifeblood of our government. If you can't compromise on this, I feel like there's no possibility of moving forward; you're always going to just support whichever candidate is anti-gun-control. Which means you're not a voter anymore: You're a demographic.

(Which is weirdly parallel to the situation black people are in with Democrats; Democrats rely on their votes, because what else are black people going to do? Vote Republican?)

Like -- from my POV, it doesn't look like you're being selfish -- it looks like you're being self-destructive. Part of this might be because I've never owned a gun; part of it might be that there are a lot of things I consider to be my 'core' issue (it sounds like this is your one main core issue).

I realize this is a very tricky question, and you don't need to answer, but: How bad would an anti-gun control candidate have to be before you decided you weren't going to vote for them?
Hippo, you're missing the point of single issue voters. It's not gun control, it was blue collar jobs that was the single issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/busin ... on-it.html
Look, desperate people, they want Trump to step in and stop Carrier, a factory from moving to Mexico. Will Trump actually call Carrier's CEO and tell him to stop? No, but he might do protectionist policies that hurt the US more. Will these union guys applaud if the rest of the country subsidizes them? (probably) Will Trump follow through? Will it work? Will it work but everyone else suffers as tariffs are passed?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6577
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sat Nov 12, 2016 5:03 pm UTC

I think the amount the tariffs would have to be to stop jobs from going to Mexico is higher than will ever be implemented, and in the end very few will benefit, and many only indirectly. I think other policies they are going to implement are going to cut demand which will actually hasten the movement of blue collar jobs to Mexico and China, which won't come back when the demand does since they are already on the market for cheaper than what we can produce.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Sat Nov 12, 2016 5:05 pm UTC

sardia wrote: Hippo, you're missing the point of single issue voters. It's not gun control, it was blue collar jobs that was the single issue.


There's more just one category of "Single Issue" voter, indeed each potential issue has it's own classification of "Single Issue". I know a guy who's Single Issue is Gun Control. I've seen arguments around the internet with single issue voters with their panties in a twist over homosexual marriages. Every issue that generates enough passion to -be- an issue will generate a class of "Single Issue" voters.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 12, 2016 5:15 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Hippo, you're missing the point of single issue voters. It's not gun control, it was blue collar jobs that was the single issue.
I am literally talking to a Trump voter right here who is literally talking about gun control as their single issue.

I get that you're addressing macro-level stuff; I'm not. I'm just trying to understand why this one particular person feels the way they do.
hollow wrote:I don't know that I have a good answer to that, because I'm not sure I know myself. Certainly, promises of a grand war with a first nation, or guarantees of death squads shooting up "unnecessaries" would do it*, but all that gives me is an upper limit. As to your first question, guns are indeed a main issue for me. As admittedly someone who doesn't have to deal with racism or any phobia, pressure on my right to bear arms is the biggest issue I feel I face. And while I certainly agree that others have gotten a shorter end of the stick than I, in many different ways, it doesn't mean I'm willing to shed my stick to help them. Especially when we could both have our fair sticks, if only the two weren't so bundled together.

*And no, I don't think an elected Trump will mean ether.
Maybe that last bit is one of the more important bits. Like, if I were to put a number to how likely I think a Trump-inspired cataclysm would be -- well, it would be a bullshit number, but let's call it '2%'. It sounds like you'd rate it at something like 0.02% (if that). So maybe that's part of the divide for me; the idea that someone could put a 2% chance of cataclysm below an issue like gun control is strangely perverse, but for you, it's more like putting a 0.02% chance of cataclysm below gun control (which seems way more reasonable).

I still don't think I get the obsession with the right to bare arms; it seems like a lot of passion poured into what -- to me -- appears to be just a fun hobby. Maybe it's an identity thing? It's weird (for me) to think of guns as an integral part of one's identity -- even to the point of becoming identity politics? But while I don't understand why guns are so deeply important, I can at least understand why you assessed it as being of greater importance than Trump's presidency -- because however terrible he is, you're confident that the system is capable of holding back the brunt of that terrible. Is that a fair summary?

(Also, I do think reducing your political identity to one core issue is dangerous -- not just because it reduces you to a demographic, but because it collapses all sense of complexity or nuance, lending itself naturally to extremism. But again, this sounds like something way outside of my experience set)

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Nov 12, 2016 5:18 pm UTC

But there's a point where I'm going to stop rolling my eyes -- and that point depends on how bad the other candidate is.
That point depends on who you are and what you believe in, good or bad. if you believe that abortion is murder than Trump grabbing pussies may be worth it to stop it. And so on ad nauseum.

@ Sardia
I'm reminded of Howard Beale's speech in Network.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 12, 2016 5:25 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:That point depends on who you are and what you believe in, good or bad. if you believe that abortion is murder than Trump grabbing pussies may be worth it to stop it. And so on ad nauseum.
Right, but my point is that if you think Joe Schmoe is for murdering fetuses -- and you think Jill Schlub is for murdering everyone -- obviously, Joe Schmoe is the candidate you need to work with. Or in other words, no matter how intense your single issue is, there should be a point where you're willing to put it aside for the greater good.

I can understand pro-life voters who supported Trump a little more readily, because -- for them -- the stakes are ridiculously high. I still disagree with them, but I can see how, from their frame of reference, their vote makes perfect sense. But if pro-lifers support Jill Schlub over Joe Schmoe, I now can't understand -- because Jill's going to murder all the fetuses anyway. The only real difference is that Jill will make abortions illegal right before the killing starts.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mambrino » Sat Nov 12, 2016 5:27 pm UTC

NYTimes on Trump transition team, they also have list of possible candidates for cabinet positions, but most of this seems to be rumors, not hard facts.

However:

NYTimes wrote:One of the influences on Mr. Trump could come from an unlikely quarter: President Obama. Meeting in the Oval Office on Thursday, Mr. Trump said he looked forward “to dealing with the president in the future, including counsel.” A day later, in interviews with The Wall Street Journal and “60 Minutes,’’ he said he had decided to retain elements of Mr. Obama’s landmark health care law after their conversation — a hint, at least, that he might govern less radically than he had campaigned.

...

Mr. Trump is drawing mainly from a pool of trusted aides and supporters, according to people familiar with the campaign. On Friday, he named three of his grown children — Ivanka, Donald Jr. and Eric — as well as his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to his transition team, an arrangement that rang alarm bells in Washington because they will also manage his businesses. The Trump family, it is clear, will wield unusual power in the composition of an administration that is already shaping up as remarkable for its clannishness.


The first quoted bit is interesting. [90 min chat with Obama, and he is changing his mind!?] The second, too, but in a different way. I'm not too familiar with American political clans that probably would be a more apt comparison, but I'm suddenly reminded of Napoleon, who was famous of appointing his various family members as kings of European countries.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests