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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Nov 14, 2016 10:11 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:
PeteP wrote:
http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044 Found the oppo stuff on sanders in point two interesting, anyone know anything about the nuclear waste thing?
Damn, Eichenwald has been amazing this campaign season.


I thought Point one was quite solid...anyone paying attention could tell that Clinton was actually getting the voters, and Sanders was doomed. It's slightly weakened by the fact that people are less concerned with the DNC specifically, and more with the establishment at large...so things like superdelegates pledging for Clinton early were lambasted well before the point of no return. Granted, it doesn't change the fact that Sanders lost, but Clinton definitely was the establishment favorite, even if the rigging hyperbole greatly exceeds reality.

Point two, describing Clinton's firewall is, in hindsight, not very persuasive given the vote results. Now, at the time, Democrats couldn't really have known the outcome, but in writing a retrospective piece, it's really odd to note that minorities favored Clinton as if that is unusual. When Trump is pulling a larger proportion of minorities than previous Republicans, that says something about the appeal of the Democratic nominee. This doesn't mean that Sanders woulda crushed it, but the specific logic here is tenuous. Would have been much better to just go to the research, much of which is extremely persuasive.

Not sure why the dude is raging against Stein and third party voters, either. Green party got a lot less than Libertarian. If anything, third party voters may have slightly hurt Trump's performance, relative to a world in which those options didn't exist. And, in any case, there is nothing unethical about someone who voted Green being unhappy with Trump. I'd kind of expect that, actually. If he could constrain himself to bashing people who are protesting who didn't vote at all, he might have a point, but while he claims he's upset about democrats being deceived, he doesn't bother to connect the Bernie narrative with his hatred of third party folks. A handful of people voting for Stein is not a very significant reason why the Democrats lost.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Wonderbolt » Mon Nov 14, 2016 10:11 pm UTC


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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Nov 14, 2016 10:19 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Dark567 wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote: Pulling from the straight up Republican bucket is also helpful, but it's a lot harder. You probably can't reach the evangelicals. Or the tea partiers. Both of those overlapping segments are people who have much less overlap with the Democratic party. You've gotta target other ones.

Here's a coupla other potentials, if the fairly small Libertarian faction does not appeal:
1. Big Business. Republicans have traditionally represented this, but it's gotten a *lot* fuzzier. PACs and the like are getting much more even, and candidates like Clinton have significant pull with them already. You can go more this way. It'd have roughly zero appeal for the greens, and in actual votes, it might not be strong, but it will have dollars. Dollars are useful.

Honestly, I think all these groups shouldn't be completely out of reach. Right now going forward I would trust Clinton to balance the budget more than Trump(Tea party) and Hillary is way more of a Christian traditionally than Trump is.


It's not so much merely being religious yourself, as it is catering to religious issues.

If you want to attempt to roll back gay marriage and abortion, then yeah, maybe you can appeal to the religious right.

I don't think you can do that without blowing up the whole party, though. At some point, you have to stop and ask exactly what's worth giving up to preserve what, and if you're giving up those things, you have to ask what exactly the Democrats are fighting for after all.

Tyndmyr, you're asking Democrats to shut out for a decade until we out breed Republicans. That's a tall order, and it gets harder with voter suppression/obstacles being passed by GOP legislation.

I think the best near term case is Trump Fucks up. Or if we are lucky, people realize what they're asking of the US government isn't practical. We aren't willing to heavily subsidize skilled uneducated whites to a thriving life. We can stop poverty, but we can't bring back the boomer age.


Nah. I'm merely discarding the option of "hate gays and abortion until the religious sorts like ya'll" as a viable strategy. Other options exist, that one just doesn't work out well at all.

People keep lauding the "Trump fucks up" narrative. They did it in the primary, and again in the general, and now, many people seem confident that he'll be out on his ear in a bit. At some point, you have to stop and realize that this prediction method isn't working out. The "he's so awful, he's GOT to fail" logic doesn't work. Fundamentally, it's a strategy that assumes that your opposition will make unforced errors that cost them the game. Not that you have to play better...for some reason, they're just going to play worse.

That strategy is guaranteed to fail. It's *very* hard to get rid of a seated president. Expecting it'll happen is unlikely. Sheer numbers basically dictate that the Republicans pick up seats galore in the midterms. The SC will slide more red. Maybe not drastically, but you're gonna get one justice replaced, and statistically more. And right now, state houses are overwhelmingly red, and will probably not become less so in the midterm.

So, 2020 is going to be, in political terms, *more* red skewed than now. Gerrymandering won't be solved, because why would they?

What happens if Trump *doesn't* fuck up badly enough to lose(however badly that is, which...I don't even know)? If your strategy is merely "hope that doesn't happen", you don't actually have a strategy.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Mon Nov 14, 2016 10:47 pm UTC

Sanders isn't perfect, what with his anti-GMO science stance and repeating the same false statistic of women earning 79 cents for every man's dollar. He spouts some ignorant shit now and then.

But one thing you can trust Bernie not to do is fucking appoint slimy dipshits like Reince Priebus (or whatever his fucking weird name is spelled as) and Ben Carson.

Ben Carson, the guy who doesn't believe in evolution and who questions climate change, as the go to guy for his Education policy.

I voted Clinton, but I agree when Bernie says her campaign is essentially a piece of shit. It neglected a metric fuckton of states because it wasn't the 15 states people focus on, and she failed wholeheartedly at reaching out to working class whites while making much of her campaign a theater about immigration and refugees.

Didn't Democrats learn from Republicans how profitable it can be to avoid social issues when they're pretty split across the country? As soon as gay marriage started picking up in popularity, Republicans were much more discrete about trying to undermine it.

Democrats should be the same about social issues, and instead dedicate air time to discussing economic policy.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Nov 14, 2016 10:47 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:What happens if Trump *doesn't* fuck up badly enough to lose(however badly that is, which...I don't even know)? If your strategy is merely "hope that doesn't happen", you don't actually have a strategy.
They are still in the denial stage, they haven't moved to acceptance yet. Trump on the other hand has the Presidency, now we get to see what is what and who is who. In two years he'll have a RECORD.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Nov 14, 2016 10:58 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:What happens if Trump *doesn't* fuck up badly enough to lose(however badly that is, which...I don't even know)? If your strategy is merely "hope that doesn't happen", you don't actually have a strategy.
They are still in the denial stage, they haven't moved to acceptance yet. Trump on the other hand has the Presidency, now we get to see what is what and who is who. In two years he'll have a RECORD.

It's not so much denial as lack of short term options. Democrats can try competing for white middle class votes, and maintain their coalition. No guarantee it will work, and it's very dependent on Trump fucking up. incumbent advantage is a harsh mistress.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Nov 14, 2016 11:06 pm UTC

I think if Trump doesn't fuck up majorly and actually happens to run the country well (despite his odds), then he deserves to remain President for another 4 years. I think its highly unlikely given the circumstances. But if he's a good man and runs things well... why not have him for another few years?

But yeah, he's probably going to screw things up to varying degrees. The question is what news will people trust? Will people have an open mind? Will we all be able to see his Presidency for what it is? Both the good and the bad... partisanship is high and distrust in media sources only grows and grows over time.

I was hoping that this past election would mend some wounds now that its over, but it doesn't seem like people will have an open mind about this... either on the left or the right. That's the problem that needs to be addressed.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Nov 14, 2016 11:43 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:What happens if Trump *doesn't* fuck up badly enough to lose(however badly that is, which...I don't even know)? If your strategy is merely "hope that doesn't happen", you don't actually have a strategy.
They are still in the denial stage, they haven't moved to acceptance yet. Trump on the other hand has the Presidency, now we get to see what is what and who is who. In two years he'll have a RECORD.

It's not so much denial as lack of short term options. Democrats can try competing for white middle class votes, and maintain their coalition. No guarantee it will work, and it's very dependent on Trump fucking up. incumbent advantage is a harsh mistress.
Trump hasn't taken office. Elections are two years away and no consensus exists as to why Clinton went bust. They need to get their heads around the concept of a Trump Presidency. They need to identify the Trump voter in a more revealing way than as "angry white people". Why is he angry and what can we do to make him less so.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Nov 14, 2016 11:53 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Why is he angry and what can we do to make him less so.
What if the only way to make him less angry is to deport all illegal immigrants, ban Muslim immigration, put Hillary Clinton in jail, murder the families of terrorists, stop acting like black lives matter, withdraw from NATO, and build an actual wall (and make Mexico pay for it)?

Like, okay: I'm more than willing to accept that not all Trump supporters are racists. I'm willing to accept that every Trump supporter who's spoken up here has complicated reasons for supporting him (reasons that go beyond what Trump actually said).

But here's a scary thought: What if there's no subtext here? What if there's no hidden meaning or secret truth for us to ferret out? What if the majority of Trump supporters elected Donald Trump because they wanted precisely what he said?

I'm not really sure how to work with someone who wants the things Donald Trump talks about. I mean, sure, that's something we have to do moving forward -- compromise is the lifeblood of democracy. But if this is what we're dealing with, we've already essentially lost. If the dialogue is about how best to placate half a country that wants crazy horrible things, we're going to end up with a lot of crazy horrible things.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:18 am UTC

There is always a subtext.
The Great Hippo wrote:I'm not really sure how to work with someone who wants the things Donald Trump talks about.
Your arguments to this point appear to be some version of my moral position is better than yours, if I am not misunderstanding you. Good luck with that. I personally would want to know all there is to know about who voted for him in addition to the why. I want to know who can be peeled away from him. Who can be changed and who can't. I refuse to see the Trump voter as a indivisible, monolithic block. And the answer to that would be key for me, because it lets me be efficient in unseating him. I don't have to change everyone's mind. I just have to change the minds that are changeable. And one component of that is to understand why polling didn't catch how close it really was.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:27 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:Your arguments to this point appear to be some version of my moral position is better than yours, if I am not misunderstanding you. Good luck with that.
If the moral position is "We should kill the families of terrorists", then yes -- I have a better moral position than that. I think anyone who doesn't has a very dysfunctional sense of morality.

I'm very willing to explain to people why killing the families of terrorists is morally repugnant; I'm happy to make my arguments persuasive and gentle. But if that's what someone genuinely believes, I'm not really sure any amount of words is going to convince them. Once you've hit a point like that, I'm not sure how you back down from it.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:28 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:28 am UTC

Next time leave the celebrities at home. Some pampered millionaire with an overpaid job in entertainment telling people who to vote for certainly did not help Clinton.

It made her look like she was in cahoots with Hollywood elites. People who are not particularly popular in the country as a whole, or popular for the wrong reasons because they most certainly are not respected.
Last edited by Lucrece on Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:34 am 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.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:31 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:Next time leave the celebrities at home. Some pampered millionaire withg an overpaid job in entertainment telling people who to vote for certainly did not help Clinton.

It made her look like she was in cahoots with Hollywood elites. People who are not particularly popular in the country as a whole, or popular for the wrong reasons because they most certainly are not respected.
You gotta admit, though -- it's kind of weird how well that turned out to work for Trump.

I mean, aside from 'Hollywood elite', you pretty much just described Trump to a tee.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:35 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Lucrece wrote:Next time leave the celebrities at home. Some pampered millionaire withg an overpaid job in entertainment telling people who to vote for certainly did not help Clinton.

It made her look like she was in cahoots with Hollywood elites. People who are not particularly popular in the country as a whole, or popular for the wrong reasons because they most certainly are not respected.
You gotta admit, though -- it's kind of weird how well that turned out to work for Trump.

I mean, aside from 'Hollywood elite', you pretty much just described Trump to a tee.



Hollywood is pretty key. Some anti-Semitism and anti-California sentiment mixed in. You can't get more unpopular than Hollywood and San Francisco. The dens of decadence.

Think of it as when Nevada legislation moved to open up legal prostitution for male escort services, and the representatives for the female escort business objected to the legislation, saying it would besmirch their brand. Because male escort = fag stuff, and men paying for beautiful women is just such a natural thing.

Major levels of cognitive dissonance.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Tue Nov 15, 2016 1:04 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Your arguments to this point appear to be some version of my moral position is better than yours, if I am not misunderstanding you. Good luck with that.
If the moral position is "We should kill the families of terrorists", then yes -- I have a better moral position than that. I think anyone who doesn't has a very dysfunctional sense of morality.

I'm very willing to explain to people why killing the families of terrorists is morally repugnant; I'm happy to make my arguments persuasive and gentle. But if that's what someone genuinely believes, I'm not really sure any amount of words is going to convince them. Once you've hit a point like that, I'm not sure how you back down from it.
Whatever it takes to get you through the day. But politically it doesn't matter. Because it isn't the point. The point is that winning gives you the power to make your position policy. Trump voters don't have to care about what you think. You didn't win.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 15, 2016 1:07 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
Lucrece wrote:Next time leave the celebrities at home. Some pampered millionaire withg an overpaid job in entertainment telling people who to vote for certainly did not help Clinton.

It made her look like she was in cahoots with Hollywood elites. People who are not particularly popular in the country as a whole, or popular for the wrong reasons because they most certainly are not respected.
You gotta admit, though -- it's kind of weird how well that turned out to work for Trump.

I mean, aside from 'Hollywood elite', you pretty much just described Trump to a tee.



Hollywood is pretty key. Some anti-Semitism and anti-California sentiment mixed in. You can't get more unpopular than Hollywood and San Francisco. The dens of decadence.

Think of it as when Nevada legislation moved to open up legal prostitution for male escort services, and the representatives for the female escort business objected to the legislation, saying it would besmirch their brand. Because male escort = fag stuff, and men paying for beautiful women is just such a natural thing.

Major levels of cognitive dissonance.


I get that there's antisemitism, but how does that factor into Trumpistan?

Also, that Nevada thing doesn't sound right. Why would the ladies object; what business are they losing, in even an indirect way?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Nov 15, 2016 1:10 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:Think of it as when Nevada legislation moved to open up legal prostitution for male escort services, and the representatives for the female escort business objected to the legislation, saying it would besmirch their brand. Because male escort = fag stuff, and men paying for beautiful women is just such a natural thing.
I was not familiar with this; hearing it makes me feel like I need a shower just to wash off the scum of that perspective.
morriswalters wrote:Whatever it takes to get you through the day. But politically it doesn't matter. Because it isn't the point. The point is that winning gives you the power to make your position policy. Trump voters don't have to care about what you think. You didn't win.
Right; I get that that's your point -- it has nothing to do with my point. So I guess we're both good here -- with our two completely independent, unrelated points!

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Tue Nov 15, 2016 1:44 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:But one thing you can trust Bernie not to do is fucking appoint slimy dipshits like Reince Priebus (or whatever his fucking weird name is spelled as) and Ben Carson.


Apart from being Republican, what is people's beef with Reince Prebius? He was the relatively sane and boring pick, and apparently less slimy than his 3 DNC counterparts...
lol everything matters
-Ed

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Tue Nov 15, 2016 1:48 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Your arguments to this point appear to be some version of my moral position is better than yours, if I am not misunderstanding you. Good luck with that.
If the moral position is "We should kill the families of terrorists", then yes -- I have a better moral position than that. I think anyone who doesn't has a very dysfunctional sense of morality.

I'm very willing to explain to people why killing the families of terrorists is morally repugnant; I'm happy to make my arguments persuasive and gentle. But if that's what someone genuinely believes, I'm not really sure any amount of words is going to convince them. Once you've hit a point like that, I'm not sure how you back down from it.
This was what you responded to. And I disagree. By framing the the question in that manner, as a matter of morals, the only responses possible force "them" to accept your superior ethics or be labeled the villain. I'm pointing to this as dysfunctional place to act as the starting point of the discussion you say you want. Whatever they might truly believe, how would you ever know? Anger blocks the conversation. And these are inherently political conversations. I'm uncertain of any context in which these discussions can be labeled differently. However, whatever. I'll take your response as ending whatever you want to call this.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Nov 15, 2016 2:06 am UTC

I'm really not sure how to respond? I don't think someone who wants to kill the families of terrorists is a villain; I just think they have terrible morals. I'm saying I don't know how to address that problem, because someone who thinks we should do that is probably not going to be convinced to back down or compromise -- and it's not an issue I'm willing to compromise on, either. And if they outnumber people like me, they're probably going to win.

Like, what's your complaint, here -- that I think murdering families is bad, and people who think it's good are wrong? Do you think I should be more open-minded about the pro-murder stance? O.o

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 15, 2016 2:58 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I'm really not sure how to respond? I don't think someone who wants to kill the families of terrorists is a villain; I just think they have terrible morals. I'm saying I don't know how to address that problem, because someone who thinks we should do that is probably not going to be convinced to back down or compromise -- and it's not an issue I'm willing to compromise on, either. And if they outnumber people like me, they're probably going to win.

Like, what's your complaint, here -- that I think murdering families is bad, and people who think it's good are wrong? Do you think I should be more open-minded about the pro-murder stance? O.o

There's a lot to be said about the simplistic worldview where there are bad guys and good guys. It's very useful way to attack a lot of problems. Drug destroying your town? Shoot the bad guys and put them away.
Terrorists spawning from those towns? Flatten the town. Short, sweet, and catchy. You don't need to think about political turmoil, or public sentiment fueling strife. You only have bad guys and good guys.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 15, 2016 3:31 am UTC

There's also the cost/benefit analysis that comes in. You could spend an extra hundred million on smart bombs and better intel, or better yet use that money to set up a bunch of charities to win the hearts and minds of the people... or you could save the money with barrel-bombs. But money is not unlimited, and every million spent on bombs and intel is a million not spent on neo-natal care or extra-curricular activities for elementary schools.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Nov 15, 2016 3:36 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:Think of it as when Nevada legislation moved to open up legal prostitution for male escort services, and the representatives for the female escort business objected to the legislation, saying it would besmirch their brand. Because male escort = fag stuff, and men paying for beautiful women is just such a natural thing.
Do you have a citation or something that anything remotely like this is actually what happened?

Because based on what I've read and what sex workers I know have said, that sounds an awful lot like something you maybe just made up.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 15, 2016 3:37 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:There's also the cost/benefit analysis that comes in. You could spend an extra hundred million on smart bombs and better intel, or better yet use that money to set up a bunch of charities to win the hearts and minds of the people... or you could save the money with barrel-bombs. But money is not unlimited, and every million spent on bombs and intel is a million not spent on neo-natal care or extra-curricular activities for elementary schools.

bwahahhaahha. Come now CU, you know that's not how our policy works( most of the time). Anyway, Midterms, Democrat's goal should be chipping away/taking the House back.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Tue Nov 15, 2016 3:49 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Like, what's your complaint, here -- that I think murdering families is bad, and people who think it's good are wrong? Do you think I should be more open-minded about the pro-murder stance? O.o
I find I don't care one way or the other. I don't accept you as my moral superior.

@Sardia
Trump is an empty suit who hasn't done anything yet. There are good reasons to fear Trump, vacant threats about murdering terrorists families isn't in my top ten. It's noise. The argument against collective punishment has always been it doesn't work. The Israeli's have been practicing a version of it for years. I haven't noticed it working there.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 15, 2016 4:28 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:Like, what's your complaint, here -- that I think murdering families is bad, and people who think it's good are wrong? Do you think I should be more open-minded about the pro-murder stance? O.o
I find I don't care one way or the other. I don't accept you as my moral superior.

@Sardia
Trump is an empty suit who hasn't done anything yet. There are good reasons to fear Trump, vacant threats about murdering terrorists families isn't in my top ten. It's noise. The argument against collective punishment has always been it doesn't work. The Israeli's have been practicing a version of it for years. I haven't noticed it working there.

He's an empty suit with advisors that are whispering into his ear. That's not an empty suit anymore.Look at who's he hiring, that's what you should expect.
Newt Gingrich
Reince Priebus
Rudi Guiliani
Ken Blackwell (Homos are homos by choice)
Myron Ebell (global warming denier in charge of EPA)

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Tue Nov 15, 2016 5:28 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Lucrece wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
Lucrece wrote:Next time leave the celebrities at home. Some pampered millionaire withg an overpaid job in entertainment telling people who to vote for certainly did not help Clinton.

It made her look like she was in cahoots with Hollywood elites. People who are not particularly popular in the country as a whole, or popular for the wrong reasons because they most certainly are not respected.
You gotta admit, though -- it's kind of weird how well that turned out to work for Trump.

I mean, aside from 'Hollywood elite', you pretty much just described Trump to a tee.



Hollywood is pretty key. Some anti-Semitism and anti-California sentiment mixed in. You can't get more unpopular than Hollywood and San Francisco. The dens of decadence.

Think of it as when Nevada legislation moved to open up legal prostitution for male escort services, and the representatives for the female escort business objected to the legislation, saying it would besmirch their brand. Because male escort = fag stuff, and men paying for beautiful women is just such a natural thing.

Major levels of cognitive dissonance.


I get that there's antisemitism, but how does that factor into Trumpistan?

Also, that Nevada thing doesn't sound right. Why would the ladies object; what business are they losing, in even an indirect way?



Ladies are not the average owners of female escort services. These are strip clubs, and legal brothels which are mostly owned by men (straight ones at that).

gmalivuk wrote:
Lucrece wrote:Think of it as when Nevada legislation moved to open up legal prostitution for male escort services, and the representatives for the female escort business objected to the legislation, saying it would besmirch their brand. Because male escort = fag stuff, and men paying for beautiful women is just such a natural thing.
Do you have a citation or something that anything remotely like this is actually what happened?

Because based on what I've read and what sex workers I know have said, that sounds an awful lot like something you maybe just made up.



http://www.towleroad.com/2009/12/homoph ... ay+news%29

http://www.ontopmag.com/article/4997/Ga ... rostitutes

Seems you've read very little. It only took a fucking google search.

Opposition to the change came from the group that lobbies on behalf of such establishments, the Nevada Brothel Owners Association.

George Flint, a former minister who represents the group, called the change “repugnant” in a carefully worded statement before regulators that left little doubt he was referring to sex between men. Female prostitutes are allowed to service both men and women.

“Some may feel it's a repugnant thing to do or something that does not have the appetite of the state as a whole,” Flint said.

According to its website, the Nevada Brother Owners Association represents 29 establishments in the state and employs nearly 1,000 female sex workers.

“We've worked hard for years to make the traditional brothel business in this state socially acceptable and something we can be proud of that most Nevadans accept,” Flint added. “We have some concerns that this can be diluted by what Ms. Bobbi Davis wants to try.”

Flint warned that the board's decision would bring about disaster.

“It was inevitable with Pearl Harbor we'd have a problem there someday, and we've known this would be a problem too,” he said.

Davis told the paper she might add men to her establishment as early as next month.


Even brought out the part of interest for you, in case you're too hung up on what your sex worker friends say.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 15, 2016 5:44 am UTC

Oh, I thought it was the women themselves that were protesting.

Somehow this is worse. Because when I think upstanding members of the community with unshakable morals, I totally think of seedy Nevada pimps.

And back to Trumpistan, Trump has no idea how much the President makes says he'll take only a $1 salary. I'll bet 5 times that 1) the donations will go to one of his non-charities and 2) he'll still keep the tax write-off.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Tue Nov 15, 2016 5:54 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Oh, I thought it was the women themselves that were protesting.

Somehow this is worse. Because when I think upstanding members of the community with unshakable morals, I totally think of seedy Nevada pimps.

And back to Trumpistan, Trump has no idea how much the President makes says he'll take only a $1 salary. I'll bet 5 times that 1) the donations will go to one of his non-charities and 2) he'll still keep the tax write-off.


He'll probably continue to charge the government for housing his security details in hotels owned by him. After all, if he can avoid paying his taxes, he can find a way to funnel government expense into the salary he says he's forgoing.

His entire transition team is a collection of favors paid out. At least Peter Thiel is part of this crazy transition team, so some of it will be less shitty.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:10 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:Like, what's your complaint, here -- that I think murdering families is bad, and people who think it's good are wrong? Do you think I should be more open-minded about the pro-murder stance? O.o
I find I don't care one way or the other. I don't accept you as my moral superior.

@Sardia
Trump is an empty suit who hasn't done anything yet. There are good reasons to fear Trump, vacant threats about murdering terrorists families isn't in my top ten. It's noise. The argument against collective punishment has always been it doesn't work. The Israeli's have been practicing a version of it for years. I haven't noticed it working there.

He's an empty suit with advisors that are whispering into his ear. That's not an empty suit anymore.Look at who's he hiring, that's what you should expect.
Newt Gingrich
Reince Priebus
Rudi Guiliani
Ken Blackwell (Homos are homos by choice)
Myron Ebell (global warming denier in charge of EPA)
Yes. Those are way better reasons to fear a Trump Presidency..

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:33 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Oh, I thought it was the women themselves that were protesting.

Somehow this is worse. Because when I think upstanding members of the community with unshakable morals, I totally think of seedy Nevada pimps.

And back to Trumpistan, Trump has no idea how much the President makes says he'll take only a $1 salary. I'll bet 5 times that 1) the donations will go to one of his non-charities and 2) he'll still keep the tax write-off.


He'll probably continue to charge the government for housing his security details in hotels owned by him. After all, if he can avoid paying his taxes, he can find a way to funnel government expense into the salary he says he's forgoing.

His entire transition team is a collection of favors paid out. At least Peter Thiel is part of this crazy transition team, so some of it will be less shitty.

That's the incredible thing about symbolic politics. You don't have to do anything of substance, just send a message.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dem ... taught-me/
There's bad news and good news here. The main takeaway is that you can run anybody, and everyone who's in your party will vote for you. This frees you to run anyone and focus on what coalition you wasn't/can get. Bad news, demographics won't be the Democrats salvation. That doesn't mean Democrats won't take Texas n Georgia, but it's not guaranteed.
Last edited by sardia on Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:47 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:44 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
Lucrece wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
Lucrece wrote:Next time leave the celebrities at home. Some pampered millionaire withg an overpaid job in entertainment telling people who to vote for certainly did not help Clinton.

It made her look like she was in cahoots with Hollywood elites. People who are not particularly popular in the country as a whole, or popular for the wrong reasons because they most certainly are not respected.
You gotta admit, though -- it's kind of weird how well that turned out to work for Trump.

I mean, aside from 'Hollywood elite', you pretty much just described Trump to a tee.



Hollywood is pretty key. Some anti-Semitism and anti-California sentiment mixed in. You can't get more unpopular than Hollywood and San Francisco. The dens of decadence.

Think of it as when Nevada legislation moved to open up legal prostitution for male escort services, and the representatives for the female escort business objected to the legislation, saying it would besmirch their brand. Because male escort = fag stuff, and men paying for beautiful women is just such a natural thing.

Major levels of cognitive dissonance.


I get that there's antisemitism, but how does that factor into Trumpistan?

Also, that Nevada thing doesn't sound right. Why would the ladies object; what business are they losing, in even an indirect way?



Ladies are not the average owners of female escort services. These are strip clubs, and legal brothels which are mostly owned by men (straight ones at that).

gmalivuk wrote:
Lucrece wrote:Think of it as when Nevada legislation moved to open up legal prostitution for male escort services, and the representatives for the female escort business objected to the legislation, saying it would besmirch their brand. Because male escort = fag stuff, and men paying for beautiful women is just such a natural thing.
Do you have a citation or something that anything remotely like this is actually what happened?

Because based on what I've read and what sex workers I know have said, that sounds an awful lot like something you maybe just made up.



http://www.towleroad.com/2009/12/homoph ... ay+news%29

http://www.ontopmag.com/article/4997/Ga ... rostitutes

Seems you've read very little. It only took a fucking google search.

Opposition to the change came from the group that lobbies on behalf of such establishments, the Nevada Brothel Owners Association.

George Flint, a former minister who represents the group, called the change “repugnant” in a carefully worded statement before regulators that left little doubt he was referring to sex between men. Female prostitutes are allowed to service both men and women.

“Some may feel it's a repugnant thing to do or something that does not have the appetite of the state as a whole,” Flint said.

According to its website, the Nevada Brother Owners Association represents 29 establishments in the state and employs nearly 1,000 female sex workers.

“We've worked hard for years to make the traditional brothel business in this state socially acceptable and something we can be proud of that most Nevadans accept,” Flint added. “We have some concerns that this can be diluted by what Ms. Bobbi Davis wants to try.”

Flint warned that the board's decision would bring about disaster.

“It was inevitable with Pearl Harbor we'd have a problem there someday, and we've known this would be a problem too,” he said.

Davis told the paper she might add men to her establishment as early as next month.


Even brought out the part of interest for you, in case you're too hung up on what your sex worker friends say.
A male representative of an association of brothel owners objected, while a female brothel owner pushed for the change in the first place.

That's hardly "the representatives for the female escort business", which I (and apparently everyone else who read your post) took to mean, you know, at least one or two people actually representing any female escorts. That's like saying "the representatives of the acting business" to describe one guy who lobbies for film studio executives.

Don't get snippy with me when you're the one who communicated badly.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:56 pm UTC

Also, when I read that post, I took it to mean sex-workers, not a representative for the owners of the brothels; that's partly on me, though (I glossed right over the "representative" bit).

It's still repugnant, but it's much less surprising.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 15, 2016 4:24 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:What happens if Trump *doesn't* fuck up badly enough to lose(however badly that is, which...I don't even know)? If your strategy is merely "hope that doesn't happen", you don't actually have a strategy.
They are still in the denial stage, they haven't moved to acceptance yet. Trump on the other hand has the Presidency, now we get to see what is what and who is who. In two years he'll have a RECORD.

It's not so much denial as lack of short term options. Democrats can try competing for white middle class votes, and maintain their coalition. No guarantee it will work, and it's very dependent on Trump fucking up. incumbent advantage is a harsh mistress.


They're in a tough spot, true. But they don't have to take a strategy that relies on Trump fucking up. Trump appealed to people by an avenue that had traction that was traditionally ignored. If Democrats can find a different one, and stop ignoring that one, they can make headway.

KnightExemplar wrote:I think if Trump doesn't fuck up majorly and actually happens to run the country well (despite his odds), then he deserves to remain President for another 4 years. I think its highly unlikely given the circumstances. But if he's a good man and runs things well... why not have him for another few years?


Sure, in the abstract. But in practice, a good bit comes down to partisanship. People are quick to forget errors on their side. What kind of error would be major enough to shake those who have faith in him right now? You'd need something really bad, I think. Look at single term presidents of late, and see what got 'em. Probably the most applicable is Bush's broken "read my lips, no new taxes" promise. That was particularly explicit, and about something people care about. Vaguer policy shifts happen all the time, under every president, and do not appear to suffice to unseat an incumbent.

Now, Trump's maybe a little less secure, because he didn't actually have the popular vote, but that didn't seem to be a factor for Dubya.

morriswalters wrote:Trump hasn't taken office. Elections are two years away and no consensus exists as to why Clinton went bust. They need to get their heads around the concept of a Trump Presidency. They need to identify the Trump voter in a more revealing way than as "angry white people". Why is he angry and what can we do to make him less so.


Eh, white probably isn't most essential identifier. As mentioned, Trump had better minority appeal than Romney. Sure, you've got much of the usual Republican skew, but over-focusing on that identifier misses other factors, I think. Mostly, I'm agreeing with you. They need to examine in detail how they lost.

Granted, I thought the post-election analysis last time by the Republicans was good, and then they did fine with Trump, who incorporated basically none of it. Hmmm.

The Great Hippo wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Why is he angry and what can we do to make him less so.
What if the only way to make him less angry is to deport all illegal immigrants, ban Muslim immigration, put Hillary Clinton in jail, murder the families of terrorists, stop acting like black lives matter, withdraw from NATO, and build an actual wall (and make Mexico pay for it)?


Simple answers are often wrong. Or at least, they miss important nuance. Politics are complicated. There's always subtext, history, and competing ideologies at play. The entire nation doesn't want the same thing. What constitutes a Republican voter may not even be the same from state to state. It's often tempting to distill stuff down to catchy slogans, sound bites, or whatever, but there's always complexity there in practice. Yeah, some people probably do want these things, or at least some of them. But not all people want literally the worst aspects of a candidate. That's never true. People vote for many reasons. You gotta tease these things apart and figure out how to deal with 'em.

If you start treating most of the country as a basket of deplorables who are not worth speaking to, you ain't gonna win there votes. And then you get none of what you want.

Also, withdrawing from NATO hasn't really been treated like a goal. Getting other countries to pay their fair share of NATO costs is a goal. This is far more reasonable.

Lucrece wrote:Next time leave the celebrities at home. Some pampered millionaire with an overpaid job in entertainment telling people who to vote for certainly did not help Clinton.

It made her look like she was in cahoots with Hollywood elites. People who are not particularly popular in the country as a whole, or popular for the wrong reasons because they most certainly are not respected.


Also, said celebrities, if they want to do endorsements, should probably refrain from ridiculous promises like moving to Canada. That's a credibility killer right there. I mean, sure, celebrities are people, they get to talk politics too, but if you're using your publicity to make your side sound dumb, you're doing it no favors.

The Great Hippo wrote:I'm really not sure how to respond? I don't think someone who wants to kill the families of terrorists is a villain; I just think they have terrible morals.


What's the difference?

For what it's worth, I believe people endorsing such a view seriously likely do so on utilitarian grounds. If it results in fewer dead people overall, bam, you've got a classic trolley problem. Ethically, it's not particularly novel. And it's a view that *has* been used a fair bit. Probably can't just avoid dealing with it.

I'm not endorsing it, mind you, but yeah, I think understanding ethical systems that are wildly different from your own is essential. You should absolutely attempt to fully understand other systems without assuming your own is necessarily better. AFTER you understand it, then you can judge it.

In practice, I think a more common explanation is that people love cheerleading for their side, so it's cheered just because everyone's anti-terrorism. Being anti-terror isn't a particularly edgy position to take, and adding hyperbole allowed him to appear "tougher" on it.

CorruptUser wrote:And back to Trumpistan, Trump has no idea how much the President makes says he'll take only a $1 salary. I'll bet 5 times that 1) the donations will go to one of his non-charities and 2) he'll still keep the tax write-off.


Honestly, the salary is small potatoes to him. It's a cheap PR stunt. The salary is a tiny part of the cost of the President.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JudeMorrigan » Tue Nov 15, 2016 4:47 pm UTC

So ... the two leading candidates for State are apparently Giuliani and John Fucking Bolton.

/headdesk

(Corker would be a *perfectly* reasonable option.)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 15, 2016 5:29 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Sanders isn't perfect, what with his anti-GMO science stance and repeating the same false statistic of women earning 79 cents for every man's dollar. He spouts some ignorant shit now and then.


You forgot anti-Nuclear. That is a big deal for me.

As far as gender wage gap, it's a thing, but the real problem when dealing with that problem is that you won't see the people blathering on about the wage gap with any understanding of how statistics works. What are the causes and how much? For instance, how much does the increased cost of administering pensions and health insurance for women impact that wage gap? Because health insurance alone accounted for a whopping 10% of the gap (turns out pregnancies are expensive; who knew?), and while the ACA replaced age-sex with just age (transferring wealth from young males to young females, but old females to old males), and you aren't going to solve the gap without addressing the underlying issues.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Nov 15, 2016 5:35 pm UTC

Since when is 10% "whopping"?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

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 » Tue Nov 15, 2016 7:33 pm UTC

As a pay rise, it would be. As a discount on a pair of shoes, it's not whopping but still registers. As an inaccuracy in a politician's claim, it doesn't even register.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

Mutex
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Tue Nov 15, 2016 7:51 pm UTC

Also it depends whether CU meant 10% as a percentage of the total: 79% + 10% = 89% of what a man earns, or as a percentage of a percentage: 79% + (10% of 21% = 2.1%) = 81.1%.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Tue Nov 15, 2016 7:53 pm UTC

(turns out pregnancies are expensive; who knew?), and while the ACA replaced age-sex with just age (transferring wealth from young males to young females, but old females to old males)

I have read a study that claimed that nearly 50% of the parents involved in pregnancies is a man.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests