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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Thu Nov 17, 2016 9:21 pm UTC

Oh, good. During his acceptance speech, the glowing review Trump gave Carson was cringeworthy. All it takes is to look up the interview between Chris Cuomo and Carson to get a glimpse of his contempt.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Nov 17, 2016 9:39 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Oh, good. During his acceptance speech, the glowing review Trump gave Carson was cringeworthy. All it takes is to look up the interview between Chris Cuomo and Carson to get a glimpse of his contempt.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/15/politics/ ... index.html

Strange. I was hearing Carson as a pick of the Department of Education... "Health and Human Services" makes more sense, but Carson has declined that position officially.

In any case, you definitely don't have to worry about Carson.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:01 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Oh, good. During his acceptance speech, the glowing review Trump gave Carson was cringeworthy. All it takes is to look up the interview between Chris Cuomo and Carson to get a glimpse of his contempt.

When someone endorses Trump, he heaps praise on them in return. When someone criticizes Trump, he attacks them back, even if it's the same person. It's a simple pattern.
lol everything matters
-Ed

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:07 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Lucrece wrote:Oh, good. During his acceptance speech, the glowing review Trump gave Carson was cringeworthy. All it takes is to look up the interview between Chris Cuomo and Carson to get a glimpse of his contempt.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/15/politics/ ... index.html

Strange. I was hearing Carson as a pick of the Department of Education... "Health and Human Services" makes more sense, but Carson has declined that position officially.

In any case, you definitely don't have to worry about Carson.


"Dr. Carson feels he has no government experience, he's never run a federal agency. The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency."

lol, and all the same he ran in the primaries to be president. These people are the gift that keeps on giving. Thank goodness he's going to be far removed from governance. Probably because he still wants to run again for the presidency later when he and Marco Rubio aren't utterly drowned out by a personality like Trump's.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

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 » Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:10 pm UTC

I was linked to this post that presents, let's say, curious viewpoint on Trump's racism and our (the left wing) reaction to it. The media (and others) are still crying wolf on Trump

A couple excerpts to highlight the main points and blogger's main line of reasoning:

4. Aren’t there a lot of voters who, although not willing to vote for David Duke or even willing to express negative feelings about black people on a poll, still have implicit racist feelings, the kind where they’re nervous when they see a black guy on a deserted street at night?

Probably. And this is why I am talking about crying wolf. If you wanted to worry about the voter with subconscious racist attitudes carefully hidden even from themselves, you shouldn’t have used the words “openly white supremacist KKK supporter” like a verbal tic.

...

Let me say this for the millionth time. I’m not saying Trump doesn’t have some racist attitudes and policies. I am saying that talk of “entire campaign built around white supremacy” and “the white power candidate” is deliberate and dangerous examination. Lots of people (and not just whites!) are hasty to generalize from “ISIS is scary” to “I am scared of all Muslims”. This needs to be called out and fought, but it needs to be done in an understanding way, not with cries of “KKK WHITE SUPREMACY!”

...

If you insist that Trump would have to be racist to say or do whatever awful thing he just said or did, you are giving him too much credit. Trump is just randomly and bizarrely terrible. Sometimes his random and bizarre terribleness is about white people, and then we laugh it off. Sometimes it’s about minorities, and then we interpret it as racism.

...

Why am I harping on this?

I work in mental health. So far I have had two patients express Trump-related suicidal ideation. One of them ended up in the emergency room, although luckily both of them are now safe and well. I have heard secondhand of several more.

Like Snopes, I am not sure if the reports of eight transgender people committing suicide due to the election results are true or false. But if they’re true, it seems really relevant that Trump denounced North Carolina’s anti-transgender bathroom law, and proudly proclaimed he would let Caitlyn Jenner use whatever bathroom she wanted in Trump Tower, making him by far the most pro-transgender Republican president in history.

I notice news articles like Vox: Donald Trump’s Win Tells People Of Color They Aren’t Welcome In America. Or Salon’s If Trump Wins, Say Goodbye To Your Black Friends. MSN: Women Fear For Their Lives After Trump Victory.

Vox writes about the five-year-old child who asks “Is Donald Trump a bad person? Because I heard that if he becomes president, all the black and brown people have to leave and we’re going to become slaves.” The Star writes about a therapist called in for emergency counseling to help Muslim kids who think Trump is going to kill them. I have patients who are afraid to leave their homes.

Listen. Trump is going to be approximately as racist as every other American president. Maybe I’m wrong and he’ll be a bit more. Maybe he’ll surprise us and be a bit less. But most likely he’ll be about as racist as Ronald Reagan, who employed Holocaust denier Pat Buchanan as a senior advisor. Or about as racist as George Bush with his famous Willie Horton ad. Or about as racist as Bill “superpredator” Clinton, who took a photo op in front of a group of chained black men in the birthplace of the KKK. Or about as racist as Bush “doesn’t care about black people!” 43. He’ll have some scandals, people who want to see them as racist will see them as racist, people who don’t will dismiss them as meaningless, and nobody will end up in death camps.

Stop fearmongering. Somewhere in America, there are still like three or four people who believe the media, and those people are cowering in their houses waiting for the death squads.

...

Stop making people suicidal. Stop telling people they’re going to be killed. Stop terrifying children. Stop giving racism free advertising. Stop trying to convince Americans that all the other Americans hate them. Stop. Stop. Stop.


However, I don't wholly agree on the whole line of thought, e.g. numbers of subreddit subscribers are probably his weakest point, he should look into how much of the populace gets their news from sources like Breitbart. But nevertheless, the whole post is certainly food for thought.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6995
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:42 pm UTC

It seems pretty likely that Trump is not uniquely racist in the David Duke kind of way; he's more like somebody's loud, obnoxious relative with really uncomfortable, unexamined views on race. But Bannon is a new kind of low, and I think the fear is that Trump's malleability (combined with his ignorance) serves as an excellent entry vector for much scarier mother fuckers (like Bannon) to step into power.

On top of that, Trump is pretty volatile and unpredictable, and that has people (rightly) scared.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11032
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:44 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Lucrece wrote:Oh, good. During his acceptance speech, the glowing review Trump gave Carson was cringeworthy. All it takes is to look up the interview between Chris Cuomo and Carson to get a glimpse of his contempt.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/15/politics/ ... index.html

Strange. I was hearing Carson as a pick of the Department of Education... "Health and Human Services" makes more sense, but Carson has declined that position officially.

In any case, you definitely don't have to worry about Carson.


"Dr. Carson feels he has no government experience, he's never run a federal agency. The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency."

lol, and all the same he ran in the primaries to be president. These people are the gift that keeps on giving. Thank goodness he's going to be far removed from governance. Probably because he still wants to run again for the presidency later when he and Marco Rubio aren't utterly drowned out by a personality like Trump's.


The actual reason is obviously that Carson doesn't wish to work with Trump. He's merely finding a polite way to decline.

And just because he believes himself unsuited for Education doesn't mean he's unsuited for everything. It's not actually dishonest, even if other reasons exist.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Thu Nov 17, 2016 11:23 pm UTC

Mambrino wrote:I was linked to this post that presents, let's say, curious viewpoint on Trump's racism and our (the left wing) reaction to it. The media (and others) are still crying wolf on Trump

A couple excerpts to highlight the main points and blogger's main line of reasoning:

Spoiler:
4. Aren’t there a lot of voters who, although not willing to vote for David Duke or even willing to express negative feelings about black people on a poll, still have implicit racist feelings, the kind where they’re nervous when they see a black guy on a deserted street at night?

Probably. And this is why I am talking about crying wolf. If you wanted to worry about the voter with subconscious racist attitudes carefully hidden even from themselves, you shouldn’t have used the words “openly white supremacist KKK supporter” like a verbal tic.

...

Let me say this for the millionth time. I’m not saying Trump doesn’t have some racist attitudes and policies. I am saying that talk of “entire campaign built around white supremacy” and “the white power candidate” is deliberate and dangerous examination. Lots of people (and not just whites!) are hasty to generalize from “ISIS is scary” to “I am scared of all Muslims”. This needs to be called out and fought, but it needs to be done in an understanding way, not with cries of “KKK WHITE SUPREMACY!”

...

If you insist that Trump would have to be racist to say or do whatever awful thing he just said or did, you are giving him too much credit. Trump is just randomly and bizarrely terrible. Sometimes his random and bizarre terribleness is about white people, and then we laugh it off. Sometimes it’s about minorities, and then we interpret it as racism.

...

Why am I harping on this?

I work in mental health. So far I have had two patients express Trump-related suicidal ideation. One of them ended up in the emergency room, although luckily both of them are now safe and well. I have heard secondhand of several more.

Like Snopes, I am not sure if the reports of eight transgender people committing suicide due to the election results are true or false. But if they’re true, it seems really relevant that Trump denounced North Carolina’s anti-transgender bathroom law, and proudly proclaimed he would let Caitlyn Jenner use whatever bathroom she wanted in Trump Tower, making him by far the most pro-transgender Republican president in history.

I notice news articles like Vox: Donald Trump’s Win Tells People Of Color They Aren’t Welcome In America. Or Salon’s If Trump Wins, Say Goodbye To Your Black Friends. MSN: Women Fear For Their Lives After Trump Victory.

Vox writes about the five-year-old child who asks “Is Donald Trump a bad person? Because I heard that if he becomes president, all the black and brown people have to leave and we’re going to become slaves.” The Star writes about a therapist called in for emergency counseling to help Muslim kids who think Trump is going to kill them. I have patients who are afraid to leave their homes.

Listen. Trump is going to be approximately as racist as every other American president. Maybe I’m wrong and he’ll be a bit more. Maybe he’ll surprise us and be a bit less. But most likely he’ll be about as racist as Ronald Reagan, who employed Holocaust denier Pat Buchanan as a senior advisor. Or about as racist as George Bush with his famous Willie Horton ad. Or about as racist as Bill “superpredator” Clinton, who took a photo op in front of a group of chained black men in the birthplace of the KKK. Or about as racist as Bush “doesn’t care about black people!” 43. He’ll have some scandals, people who want to see them as racist will see them as racist, people who don’t will dismiss them as meaningless, and nobody will end up in death camps.

Stop fearmongering. Somewhere in America, there are still like three or four people who believe the media, and those people are cowering in their houses waiting for the death squads.

...

Stop making people suicidal. Stop telling people they’re going to be killed. Stop terrifying children. Stop giving racism free advertising. Stop trying to convince Americans that all the other Americans hate them. Stop. Stop. Stop.


However, I don't wholly agree on the whole line of thought, e.g. numbers of subreddit subscribers are probably his weakest point, he should look into how much of the populace gets their news from sources like Breitbart. But nevertheless, the whole post is certainly food for thought.

Yeah saw that somewhere but imo the author engages in a tiny bit of selective reading/hearing.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Nov 18, 2016 12:38 am UTC

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wha ... ts-do-now/
Tldr. Complete in this order. Find a better salesman. Balance civil rights with improving the lot of the working class. Win governorships. Win everything else until the swing voters get sick of you.

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 » Fri Nov 18, 2016 1:02 am UTC

By the way, should the thread title be changed now that the election is over, and we are going to discuss the aftermath for the next 4 years?

elasto
Posts: 3481
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Fri Nov 18, 2016 1:12 am UTC

Jason Miller, communications director for the Trump transition team, has released this statement in response to reports that the incoming administration has been considering a register for Muslims arriving in the US:

"President-elect Trump has never advocated for any registry or system that tracks individuals based on their religion, and to imply otherwise is completely false."


Is it correct that Donald Trump has “never advocated for any registry or system that tracks individuals based on their religion”?

Here’s what he told NBC News in November last year:

Donald Trump “would certainly implement” a database system tracking Muslims in the United States, the Republican front-runner told NBC News on Thursday night.

“I would certainly implement that. Absolutely,” Trump said in Newton, Iowa, in between campaign town halls.

When asked whether Muslims would be legally obligated to sign into the database, Trump responded, “They have to be – they have to be.” Later, Trump was repeatedly asked to explain the difference between requiring Muslims to enter their information into a database and making Jewish people register in Nazi Germany. He responded four times by saying: “You tell me.”


All I'll say to DJT supporters is: Integrity matters for a reason. Maybe you don't care that Trump and his representatives bare-faced lie. But maybe they'll eventually lie about something you do care about.

Ok so it wasn't a great choice this year. Maybe iyo Clinton would have been little better. Everyone across the political spectrum who cares about integrity in their politicians should work hard to ensure that next time around the choices are better. This should never be allowed to happen again...

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 » Fri Nov 18, 2016 1:20 am UTC

Mambrino wrote:By the way, should the thread title be changed now that the election is over, and we are going to discuss the aftermath for the next 4 years?

We're gonna be talking about the aftermath for the rest of our short lives.
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
CorruptUser
Posts: 9927
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:37 am UTC

The worst part is that, with the exception of that Breitbart douche, Trump is surrounding himself by Republican insiders. Now Romney is going to be secretary of state? So much for sticking it to the man by voting Trump...

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4517
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Nov 18, 2016 8:39 am UTC

elasto wrote:All I'll say to DJT supporters is: Integrity matters for a reason. Maybe you don't care that Trump and his representatives bare-faced lie. But maybe they'll eventually lie about something you do care about.

Ok so it wasn't a great choice this year. Maybe iyo Clinton would have been little better. Everyone across the political spectrum who cares about integrity in their politicians should work hard to ensure that next time around the choices are better. This should never be allowed to happen again...


Honestly, I think saying that Trump is lying about this sort of thing is implying a level of deliberate deceit that might not be there. I'm struggling to find the right descriptor for him; I think he simply doesn't care about truth or consistency in action. He has no values or principles other than self-promotion.

elasto
Posts: 3481
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Fri Nov 18, 2016 11:06 am UTC

That's a difference that makes no difference.

The end result of all this is going to be the public having even less faith in politicians than before.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6995
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 18, 2016 11:48 am UTC

I'm too lazy to grab a non-mobile link, but Stewart had an interview with Charlie Rose where he points out (as others have in this thread) that we have a long, complex history of presidents expressing extremely racist views. I think that's fair, and worth mentioning.

I also think, though, that a lot of this past terribleness was hidden in plain sight; it was there, and pretty obvious to anyone who had to deal with it, but there was just enough "plausible deniability" to avoid discussing it in mainstream.

Trump made it mainstream. He didn't even play lip-service to hiding it. And I can see how that's both terrifying and refreshing at the same time; to have a candidate who's got the same absurdly racist opinions as most presidents, but isn't actually keeping those opinions quiet behind closed doors.

It might also explain (in part) why there wasn't a *huge* anti-Trump turnout among minorities (not that there wasn't some spike); like, the only difference between this guy's brand of racism and Nixon's is that Nixon was smart enough to keep it (mostly) to himself. If you perceive all the candidates as pretty bad re: race, you're probably not going to get bent out of shape over the one who's at least being straightforward about it. You kind of know where you stand with Trump.

Of course, there's also the fact that Trump is, without question, one of the most incompetent nominees ever put into office. By any measure I can think of. But competence is hard to measure or demonstrate -- especially when you're rich.

(That's the other part of this that bothers me; Trump's election validates the idea that rich people in America are usually rich because they're highly competent. That's just not true. In America, wealth produces more wealth, even if you suck at managing wealth. And even if you *are* competent, that doesn't mean you're necessarily competent in a way that benefits the American economy; see speculative investors)

EDIT: Making bigotry mainstream is also how I think Trump (accidentally) short-circuited the political process re: media. We've gotten so used to treating "deniable" bigotry as full-on bigotry -- even pointing at shit that might not qualify for the purposes of generating political capital -- that when blatant, full-on bigotry happens, we no longer have a proper lexicon to address it with.

That's a really complex problem, though. In cases where people are just using accusations of bigotry for political capital, okay -- it's obvious we need to stop doing that. But treating "deniable" bigotry like full-on bigotry seems pretty reasonable to me; does it really matter that you're cloaking it in "PC" language?

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7427
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Fri Nov 18, 2016 12:53 pm UTC

But treating "deniable" bigotry like full-on bigotry seems pretty reasonable to me; does it really matter that you're cloaking it in "PC" language?

If you decide that deniable bigotry is mostly the same as full-in bigotry, then what's the special objection to Trump?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6995
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 18, 2016 1:20 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:If you decide that deniable bigotry is mostly the same as full-in bigotry, then what's the special objection to Trump?
That's kind of where I am re: why some people might not see Trump as a big deal; maybe they don't see much difference between deniable bigotry and outright bigotry. Maybe, in some sense, it can even be a relief -- finally, a candidate who doesn't try to hide their terribleness. I imagine it might sometimes be easier to deal with that than someone who's extremely "political" (remember Hillary's response to the black lives matter movement during one of the debates? It was extremely tepid).

For me, the special objection is that Trump is absurdly incompetent -- as a business owner, a politician, and a diplomat. On top of that, I'm concerned about how he normalizes bigotry; on one hand, it might help make the problem of bigotry more clear and obvious if people follow Trump's example. On the other hand, if the problem is *big* enough, we might find out that the only thing standing between Muslims and anti-Muslim laws was that the supporters for those laws didn't realize how much support they *actually* had.

That's kind of a scary thought.

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 419
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby zmic » Fri Nov 18, 2016 2:02 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Why is the Muslim Ban #5 on his list of things to do in the first 100 days?

Trump still wants to ban Muslims from this country. He just learned how to hide the language so that people don't freak out as much. You don't even have to go very far to see that Trump plans to implement racist policies as soon as possible.


The US is not doing it's part in accepting Syrian refugees in the first place. More 1 million Syrian refugees are in Western Europe. Under Obama, the US have admitted 10,000. So Trump may reduce the number from "negligible" to "nothing". Oh the outrage.

elasto
Posts: 3481
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Fri Nov 18, 2016 2:09 pm UTC

Outright bigotry is strictly worse than behind closed doors bigotry for one key reason: People who hold views that they know are shameful will tend to hold back. People who feel no shame will see no reason not to follow through. Witness, for example, how much worse people behave when they feel anonymous eg. on the net or as part of a mob.

So we've entered a doubly-bad time: We have a president who has abandoned the convention that being a bigot is bad - so who knows what he will do - and we have a population who likewise feel released from the shackles of social niceties.

At a low level, life is about to get a whole lot more unpleasant for minorities. At the highest level, human rights are probably going to take a big backward step.

We've entered a post-truth world, but, and in some ways this is worse, we appear to have entered a post-shame one too.
Last edited by elasto on Fri Nov 18, 2016 2:24 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Fri Nov 18, 2016 2:13 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:It might also explain (in part) why there wasn't a *huge* anti-Trump turnout among minorities (not that there wasn't some spike); like, the only difference between this guy's brand of racism and Nixon's is that Nixon was smart enough to keep it (mostly) to himself. If you perceive all the candidates as pretty bad re: race, you're probably not going to get bent out of shape over the one who's at least being straightforward about it. You kind of know where you stand with Trump.


This is literally what Malcolm X said IRT politics being a choice between a wolf and a fox.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6995
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 18, 2016 2:41 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Outright bigotry is strictly worse than behind closed doors bigotry for one key reason: People who hold views that they know are shameful will tend to hold back. People who feel no shame will see no reason not to follow through. Witness, for example, how much worse people behave when they feel anonymous eg. on the net or as part of a mob.
Is it shame, or is it concern that people are just too "sensitive"?

I've dealt with a lot of people who express racist sentiments when they feel safe, but won't, otherwise. In my (highly limited) experience, shame had nothing to do with it; they just thought they existed in a culture where their views would be received with hostility.

Discovering that it's permissible to express those views publicly doesn't necessarily modify the problem; it just provides us with an opportunity to measure the scope of the problem. I can see why some people feel like the outrage is more of a white thing than anything else: "Yes, we live in a country where views like Trump's are pervasive. Welcome to America; this is, and always has been, a thing. All Trump did was make it REALLY hard to for white people to keep pretending otherwise."

(Not to imply that there aren't plenty of not-whites who are outraged)
Dr34m(4+(h3r wrote:This is literally what Malcolm X said IRT politics being a choice between a wolf and a fox.
Right; and, well, I'd like to think one positive here is that democrats will stop taking the votes of black people (and pretty much every other minority, really) for granted, but -- we'll see.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Fri Nov 18, 2016 2:49 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

elasto
Posts: 3481
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Fri Nov 18, 2016 2:49 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I've dealt with a lot of people who express racist sentiments when they feel safe, but won't, otherwise. In my (highly limited) experience, shame had nothing to do with it; they just thought they existed in a culture where their views would be received with hostility.

Unless it escalates further, suffering hostility - whether passive aggressive or just outright aggressive - tends to cause feelings of embarrassment and shame. Those feelings then cause you to want to conform to social expectations.

You can be shamed without having done anything wrong - from major stuff like being the victim of spousal violence or child sexual abuse - to minor stuff like making a fashion faux-pas or leaving your fly undone.

It's annoying but it's a critical portion of society functioning smoothly. And now it's socially 'ok' to be a bigot, so more people will be not just saying bigoted things but doing bigoted things.

Make no mistake, the world is a worse place today than it was yesterday.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Nov 18, 2016 2:54 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
elasto wrote:Outright bigotry is strictly worse than behind closed doors bigotry for one key reason: People who hold views that they know are shameful will tend to hold back. People who feel no shame will see no reason not to follow through. Witness, for example, how much worse people behave when they feel anonymous eg. on the net or as part of a mob.
Is it shame, or is it concern that people are just too "sensitive"?

I've dealt with a lot of people who express racist sentiments when they feel safe, but won't, otherwise. In my (highly limited) experience, shame had nothing to do with it; they just thought they existed in a culture where their views would be received with hostility.

Discovering that it's permissible to express those views publicly doesn't necessarily modify the problem; it just provides us with an opportunity to measure the scope of the problem. I can see why some people feel like the outrage is more of a white thing than anything else: "Yes, we live in a country where views like Trump's are pervasive. Welcome to America; this is, and always has been, a thing. All Trump did was make it REALLY hard to for white people to keep pretending otherwise."

(Not to imply that there aren't plenty of not-whites who are outraged)
Dr34m(4+(h3r wrote:This is literally what Malcolm X said IRT politics being a choice between a wolf and a fox.
Right; and, well, I'd like to think one positive here is that democrats will stop taking the votes of black people for granted, but -- we'll see.

Prove that statement. You're learning the wrong lesson from this election. If anything, Democrats took whites for granted and were expecting black to make up for them. Minorities took Democrats for granted is more true.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wha ... ts-do-now/
Democrats took the Midwest for granted.
Do Democrats have a coalition problem? A lot of post-election analysis has basically set up the Democrats’ choice as between courting non-white/college-educated voters and making more of a play to white voters without a college degree. That seems like a false choice in a lot of ways.

harry: Who says you just need to go after one voting bloc? You probably cannot gain a ton with both, but different states require different messaging.

micah: But it does seem like some Democrats had believed that the country’s growing diversity would guarantee them a winning coalition. That always seemed wrong, and especially does so now. But do they need to make more of a play to working-class whites?

clare.malone: Short answer: Yes, they do. But that doesn’t mean abandoning minority voters.

harry: What they cannot do is ignore whites without a college degree. Clinton didn’t visit Wisconsin once. She made only a last-minute push in Michigan.


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/t ... cia-231599
Anyway, Trump is filling his spots with loyalists, which coincidentally, also means a very establishment administration... For limited definitions of establishment. He has bad opinions, but they're only GOP bad. Not Trump bad.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6995
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 18, 2016 2:59 pm UTC

I think shame implies some sense of guilt? I accept that my understanding of the word might not be wholly accurate, however.
elasto wrote:Make no mistake, the world is a worse place today than it was yesterday.
Maybe, but maybe the lesson here isn't that Trump is the problem; maybe the lesson is that it's been getting worse day by day for a while -- and because of Trump, a lot of people who have been oblivious to the problem are only now starting to see the full scope of it.

@sardia: I think democrats took a lot of people for granted? Not just minorities. I was focusing on black people only because of the comment about Malcolm X.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3375
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Nov 18, 2016 3:24 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Anyway, Trump is filling his spots with loyalists, which coincidentally, also means a very establishment administration... For limited definitions of establishment. He has bad opinions, but they're only GOP bad. Not Trump bad.

But I thought he knew all the best experts! He knows people I've never even heard of! I am dissapoint...

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Nov 18, 2016 3:39 pm UTC

PeteP wrote:
Mambrino wrote:I was linked to this post that presents, let's say, curious viewpoint on Trump's racism and our (the left wing) reaction to it. The media (and others) are still crying wolf on Trump

A couple excerpts to highlight the main points and blogger's main line of reasoning:

Spoiler:
4. Aren’t there a lot of voters who, although not willing to vote for David Duke or even willing to express negative feelings about black people on a poll, still have implicit racist feelings, the kind where they’re nervous when they see a black guy on a deserted street at night?

Probably. And this is why I am talking about crying wolf. If you wanted to worry about the voter with subconscious racist attitudes carefully hidden even from themselves, you shouldn’t have used the words “openly white supremacist KKK supporter” like a verbal tic.

...

Let me say this for the millionth time. I’m not saying Trump doesn’t have some racist attitudes and policies. I am saying that talk of “entire campaign built around white supremacy” and “the white power candidate” is deliberate and dangerous examination. Lots of people (and not just whites!) are hasty to generalize from “ISIS is scary” to “I am scared of all Muslims”. This needs to be called out and fought, but it needs to be done in an understanding way, not with cries of “KKK WHITE SUPREMACY!”

...

If you insist that Trump would have to be racist to say or do whatever awful thing he just said or did, you are giving him too much credit. Trump is just randomly and bizarrely terrible. Sometimes his random and bizarre terribleness is about white people, and then we laugh it off. Sometimes it’s about minorities, and then we interpret it as racism.

...

Why am I harping on this?

I work in mental health. So far I have had two patients express Trump-related suicidal ideation. One of them ended up in the emergency room, although luckily both of them are now safe and well. I have heard secondhand of several more.

Like Snopes, I am not sure if the reports of eight transgender people committing suicide due to the election results are true or false. But if they’re true, it seems really relevant that Trump denounced North Carolina’s anti-transgender bathroom law, and proudly proclaimed he would let Caitlyn Jenner use whatever bathroom she wanted in Trump Tower, making him by far the most pro-transgender Republican president in history.

I notice news articles like Vox: Donald Trump’s Win Tells People Of Color They Aren’t Welcome In America. Or Salon’s If Trump Wins, Say Goodbye To Your Black Friends. MSN: Women Fear For Their Lives After Trump Victory.

Vox writes about the five-year-old child who asks “Is Donald Trump a bad person? Because I heard that if he becomes president, all the black and brown people have to leave and we’re going to become slaves.” The Star writes about a therapist called in for emergency counseling to help Muslim kids who think Trump is going to kill them. I have patients who are afraid to leave their homes.

Listen. Trump is going to be approximately as racist as every other American president. Maybe I’m wrong and he’ll be a bit more. Maybe he’ll surprise us and be a bit less. But most likely he’ll be about as racist as Ronald Reagan, who employed Holocaust denier Pat Buchanan as a senior advisor. Or about as racist as George Bush with his famous Willie Horton ad. Or about as racist as Bill “superpredator” Clinton, who took a photo op in front of a group of chained black men in the birthplace of the KKK. Or about as racist as Bush “doesn’t care about black people!” 43. He’ll have some scandals, people who want to see them as racist will see them as racist, people who don’t will dismiss them as meaningless, and nobody will end up in death camps.

Stop fearmongering. Somewhere in America, there are still like three or four people who believe the media, and those people are cowering in their houses waiting for the death squads.

...

Stop making people suicidal. Stop telling people they’re going to be killed. Stop terrifying children. Stop giving racism free advertising. Stop trying to convince Americans that all the other Americans hate them. Stop. Stop. Stop.


However, I don't wholly agree on the whole line of thought, e.g. numbers of subreddit subscribers are probably his weakest point, he should look into how much of the populace gets their news from sources like Breitbart. But nevertheless, the whole post is certainly food for thought.

Yeah saw that somewhere but imo the author engages in a tiny bit of selective reading/hearing.
Selective reading/hearing? TINY?

The interpretations in this Crying Wolf article are so assbackwards my head is spinning. A less than 5% gain in white vote between Romney and Trump means that Trumps message resonated the least amongst white voters??? How in the FUCK can you come to that conclusion?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11032
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Nov 18, 2016 4:19 pm UTC

Mambrino wrote:By the way, should the thread title be changed now that the election is over, and we are going to discuss the aftermath for the next 4 years?


Eh, until the next election season, anyways.

CorruptUser wrote:The worst part is that, with the exception of that Breitbart douche, Trump is surrounding himself by Republican insiders. Now Romney is going to be secretary of state? So much for sticking it to the man by voting Trump...


In practice, this is what always happens. If you have no people on staff with political experience, it's going to be very hard to actually get anything done.

The Great Hippo wrote:For me, the special objection is that Trump is absurdly incompetent -- as a business owner, a politician, and a diplomat.


He's really not. Yeah, he's not Warren Buffet as a business owner or anything, but plenty of business owners tank everything and lose all their money. That's not even weird as a result. He's just somewhere in the middle. Not a great person, maybe, but not on the extreme end of terrible. As a politician, well...there's almost no track record to judge him on.

I think the evaluations of his character keep bleeding over into how people see him in other areas.

The Great Hippo wrote:
elasto wrote:Outright bigotry is strictly worse than behind closed doors bigotry for one key reason: People who hold views that they know are shameful will tend to hold back. People who feel no shame will see no reason not to follow through. Witness, for example, how much worse people behave when they feel anonymous eg. on the net or as part of a mob.
Is it shame, or is it concern that people are just too "sensitive"?

I've dealt with a lot of people who express racist sentiments when they feel safe, but won't, otherwise. In my (highly limited) experience, shame had nothing to do with it; they just thought they existed in a culture where their views would be received with hostility.


Yeah. I think the power of shaming people is sometimes over-estimated. It mostly just seems to make enemies of people. Yeah, they may walk away from *that* confrontation, but that doesn't mean they've converted to your way of thinking, or that you've "won". They've just written you off as someone to talk to about it.

elasto wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:I've dealt with a lot of people who express racist sentiments when they feel safe, but won't, otherwise. In my (highly limited) experience, shame had nothing to do with it; they just thought they existed in a culture where their views would be received with hostility.

Unless it escalates further, suffering hostility - whether passive aggressive or just outright aggressive - tends to cause feelings of embarrassment and shame. Those feelings then cause you to want to conform to social expectations.


No. The standard reaction to hostility is fight or flight. They may argue, or they may exit, but that doesn't mean they conform to your expectations, just because you yelled at them.

This strange, strange idea is central to why the left is failing in the US, I think. Haranguing people isn't at all the same as persuading them.

sardia wrote:Prove that statement. You're learning the wrong lesson from this election. If anything, Democrats took whites for granted and were expecting black to make up for them. Minorities took Democrats for granted is more true.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wha ... ts-do-now/
Democrats took the Midwest for granted.


There are multiple lessons. Taking the Midwest for granted, while dismissively referring to it as fly-over country was probably an error, yes. It's far from the only one.

I note that fivethirtyeight's assessment is very similar to my earlier pessimism. It's good to see other people looking at the 2018 map and seeing what's in store.

The idea that you can just segment messaging out for every state has limits, though. Sure, you can focus on portions of your platform with more appeal there, but if you're airing contradictory ads in different areas, we have the internet now. You're going to get lit up for that. A big part of performance was of course, Clinton just not going to rural areas. You can't win if you don't try.

This assessment though, is short on actual actions. Yeah, yeah, gains in power are typically correlated with not holding the white house, giving us the pattern of back and forth swings...but that doesn't actually change the 2018 map. It's going to be a mess. Just putting trust in that correlation without significantly changing what you're actually doing seems misguided.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Nov 18, 2016 4:22 pm UTC

zmic wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Why is the Muslim Ban #5 on his list of things to do in the first 100 days?

Trump still wants to ban Muslims from this country. He just learned how to hide the language so that people don't freak out as much. You don't even have to go very far to see that Trump plans to implement racist policies as soon as possible.


The US is not doing it's part in accepting Syrian refugees in the first place. More 1 million Syrian refugees are in Western Europe. Under Obama, the US have admitted 10,000. So Trump may reduce the number from "negligible" to "nothing". Oh the outrage.


And Obama was raising the number to 100,000. I bet that's not going to happen under Trump.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1686
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election (if there is one)

Postby Sableagle » Fri Nov 18, 2016 4:30 pm UTC

Liri wrote:
Mambrino wrote:By the way, should the thread title be changed now that the election is over, and we are going to discuss the aftermath for the next 4 years?

We're gonna be talking about the aftermath for the rest of our short lives.

Changed topic. Alarmist enough for everyone?

Pretty much everything that goes horribly wrong (or astonishingly right) from this time last year to Hallowe'en 2020 is relevant, right?
LaserGuy wrote:
elasto wrote:All I'll say to DJT supporters is: Integrity matters for a reason. Maybe you don't care that Trump and his representatives bare-faced lie. But maybe they'll eventually lie about something you do care about.

Ok so it wasn't a great choice this year. Maybe iyo Clinton would have been little better. Everyone across the political spectrum who cares about integrity in their politicians should work hard to ensure that next time around the choices are better. This should never be allowed to happen again...


Honestly, I think saying that Trump is lying about this sort of thing is implying a level of deliberate deceit that might not be there. I'm struggling to find the right descriptor for him; I think he simply doesn't care about truth or consistency in action. He has no values or principles other than self-promotion.

Brownian? An unbalanced rocket with a busted gyro? A gopher on PCP and LSD trapped in a pinball machine?
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9927
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Nov 18, 2016 5:02 pm UTC

"Brownian" is too esoteric; most people are not in physics or finance.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6995
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 18, 2016 5:11 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:He's really not. Yeah, he's not Warren Buffet as a business owner or anything, but plenty of business owners tank everything and lose all their money. That's not even weird as a result. He's just somewhere in the middle. Not a great person, maybe, but not on the extreme end of terrible. As a politician, well...there's almost no track record to judge him on.

I think the evaluations of his character keep bleeding over into how people see him in other areas.
The belief that Trump is not an incompetent businessman is one of the weirder ongoing myths surrounding this campaign. I'll compile a list later when I'm less busy, but seriously -- he had some early success in real estate; everything thereafter was a series of failures, bailouts, and other people's good ideas. Things didn't turn around for him until he focused on branding over actual business -- and there's some evidence that wasn't even him; it probably was his daughter.

His father had to bail him out several times (once, illegally). His companies have declared bankruptcy like, what -- five times? He has a history of refusing to pay his contractors. He lost money on *casinos* -- before casinos were even losing. He had his own casinos competing against each other.

Frankly, anyone who owns a business ought to find Trump's success to be deeply insulting. How many times do you have to throw a guy a life preserver before you accept that he has no idea how to swim?

elasto
Posts: 3481
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Fri Nov 18, 2016 5:14 pm UTC

Power can corrupt the most honest man. And Trump aint no honest man.

Guys like this will have their work cut out...

Much of official Washington is wondering whether Trump will implement the agenda that won him the presidency. Some of Trump’s defenders, like tech investor Peter Thiel, contend that Trump should not be taken literally.

But the Democratic senator from Oregon shows no signs of interest in that discussion. As perhaps the Democratic party’s premier civil libertarian on Capitol Hill, his anticipation of the Trump administration starts from the perspective that the president-elect will govern as he campaigned: against Muslims, against immigrants, for torture, for surveillance. Wyden, from his perch on the intelligence committee, is preparing for a four-year battle.

“We’re going to have to make sure now that a political agenda doesn’t replace a set of constitutional priorities. That’s the heart of it,” Wyden said in an interview with the Guardian this week.

Wyden is one of the few national politicians who can plausibly claim to have fought national security abuses and championed civil liberties with equal vigor in the George W Bush and Barack Obama administrations. He is far more comfortable discussing policies or proposals than he is discussing personalities, opting to refer to Trump simply as the president-elect.

“You look at some of what the president-elect has to say and it certainly ought to be a wake-up call from the standpoint of potential abuse of power,” Wyden said.

A quote sticking in Wyden’s mind these days is one Trump issued in July after the Democratic National Committee hack, which US intelligence has blamed on Russia. Trump, discussing his political opponents, mused: “Honestly, I wish I had that power. I’d love to have that power.” By 20 January, it will no longer be hypothetical.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11032
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Nov 18, 2016 5:15 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:He's really not. Yeah, he's not Warren Buffet as a business owner or anything, but plenty of business owners tank everything and lose all their money. That's not even weird as a result. He's just somewhere in the middle. Not a great person, maybe, but not on the extreme end of terrible. As a politician, well...there's almost no track record to judge him on.

I think the evaluations of his character keep bleeding over into how people see him in other areas.
The belief that Trump is not an incompetent businessman is one of the weirder ongoing myths surrounding this campaign. I'll compile a list later when I'm less busy, but seriously -- he had some early success in real estate; everything thereafter was a series of failures, bailouts, and other people's good ideas. Things didn't turn around for him until he focused on branding over actual business -- and there's some evidence that wasn't even him; it probably was his daughter.

His father had to bail him out several times (once, illegally). His companies have declared bankruptcy like, what -- five times? He has a history of refusing to pay his contractors. He lost money on *casinos* -- before casinos were even losing. He had his own casinos competing against each other.

Frankly, anyone who owns a business ought to find Trump's success to be deeply insulting. How many times do you have to throw a guy a life preserver before you accept that he has no idea how to swim?


He's not some paragon of success. He's made money, overall, but not ludicrously so.

"Other peoples good ideas" isn't a hit against him. That's totally normal for business.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6995
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 18, 2016 5:22 pm UTC

Look up the Taj Mahal debacle; some of the stupidity on display is almost cartoonishly bad.

It's not bad to listen to other people's ideas -- but if the best thing we can say about a businessman is that he occasionally uses someone else's good idea, that's a pretty bad sign.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11032
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Nov 18, 2016 5:25 pm UTC

He made some errors, certainly. Everyone does.

Business is usually a matter of who makes the least errors, rather than a litany of stunning ideas or whatever Hollywood portrays it as. In focusing on failed businesses, there is naturally some cherry picking to get the instances with more failure, since...that's why they failed. Looking at how he handles things overall, it's not amazing, and certainly not how he sells himself, but neither is it abysmal. Many people have done worse.

Ideas, on their own, are usually utterly worthless to business.

The best description of Trump in regards to business is mediocre.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6995
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 18, 2016 5:42 pm UTC

So, I'll try to put together a list of Trump's bad business decisions later today, but before I do -- Tyndmyr, I'm getting the sense you're not going to change your mind regardless of what evidence is provided. To help reassure me otherwise, can you give me some examples of things you think makes someone a terrible businessman?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6100
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Nov 18, 2016 5:47 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Business is usually a matter of who makes the least errors, rather than a litany of stunning ideas or whatever Hollywood portrays it as. In focusing on failed businesses, there is naturally some cherry picking to get the instances with more failure, since...that's why they failed.


That's not even an oversimplification, that's just wrong. Businesses fail for a lot of reasons, businesses succeed for a lot of reasons. The idea that it rests mainly on the shoulders of some businessman is just laughable. Can they fuck it up? Sure, but they can also do everything right and fail, and everything wrong and succeed. It's just as much about luck as anything, as your business is dependent on the entire economy, which is a constantly changing and chaotic system.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11032
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Nov 18, 2016 5:52 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:So, I'll try to put together a list of Trump's bad business decisions later today, but before I do -- Tyndmyr, I'm getting the sense you're not going to change your mind regardless of what evidence is provided. To help reassure me otherwise, can you give me some examples of things you think makes someone a terrible businessman?


Particularly terrible results. Usually, such a person starts a business with the best of intentions, but in a short time, has no successful business remaining, and having put everything into this attempt, has no fallback, and owns no businesses at all after it craters. It's a pretty typical path.

Small businesses, for instance, typically lose about half in the first five years, and by the end of ten years, only a third of them are still standing. Most of those people do not manage to pivot to another, more profitable business, and simply return to working for someone else. Big business is a little easier, but you can still lose giant piles of money in a heartbeat, and it's pretty common to do so.

People act like the S&P or Dow Jones is an average of all businesses, rather than a carefully selected basket of the most successful.

Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Business is usually a matter of who makes the least errors, rather than a litany of stunning ideas or whatever Hollywood portrays it as. In focusing on failed businesses, there is naturally some cherry picking to get the instances with more failure, since...that's why they failed.


That's not even an oversimplification, that's just wrong. Businesses fail for a lot of reasons, businesses succeed for a lot of reasons. The idea that it rests mainly on the shoulders of some businessman is just laughable. Can they fuck it up? Sure, but they can also do everything right and fail, and everything wrong and succeed. It's just as much about luck as anything, as your business is dependent on the entire economy, which is a constantly changing and chaotic system.


Believing that success is a result of chance, rather than your own efforts, is strongly correlated with a lack of success. Not a post-hoc rationalization, merely, either. You can measure beforehand, have a person attempt some undertaking(also applies to other areas as well), and those who believe that it rests on them do better. You and I have been down this path before, if memory serves.

Yes, rationally, there's always an element of dependencies on others in everything, but a focus on that ignores that many factors are under your control, and mistakes can and do routinely doom businesses, particularly if you make many of them. With a sample set as large as Trumps, you can confidently rule out that he is actually an extremely exceptional master of business, luck or not. His businesses mostly made money overall, but not exceptionally so, and his scale is mostly explained by initial advantages.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6995
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 18, 2016 5:59 pm UTC

So, say, if someone failed so spectacularly at a business that was (otherwise) in the midst of a major boom that they had to receive an illegal multi-million dollar bailout just to avoid losing everything (and still eventually lost the business) -- and there was a very clear line we could trace from the failure of the business to the decisions this person made -- you'd consider that evidence of being terrible at business? If this person also, at this time, refused to pay contractors, misled/lied to his investors, and competed with *himself* -- would that also be evidence?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Zamfir and 18 guests