[QuickTidal]

D, on 11 November 2016 - 05:34 PM, said:

There's also lots of misinformation from the left about Trump.

There is? I'm pretty sure most of the things he's been accused of... he's done, on camera or on audio.

Let's face facts, the left didn't really need to invent shit about him, and I'll argue that they mostly didn't. Unless you can point me otherwise?

[D'rek]

QuickTidal, on 11 November 2016 - 05:50 PM, said:

D, on 11 November 2016 - 05:34 PM, said:

There's also lots of misinformation from the left about Trump.

There is? I'm pretty sure most of the things he's been accused of... he's done, on camera or on audio.

Let's face facts, the left didn't really need to invent shit about him, and I'll argue that they mostly didn't. Unless you can point me otherwise?

I dunno, how many times did the left proclaim that "Trump said Mexicans are rapists", as an example?

[QuickTidal]

D, on 11 November 2016 - 07:01 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 11 November 2016 - 05:50 PM, said:

D, on 11 November 2016 - 05:34 PM, said:

There's also lots of misinformation from the left about Trump.

There is? I'm pretty sure most of the things he's been accused of... he's done, on camera or on audio.

Let's face facts, the left didn't really need to invent shit about him, and I'll argue that they mostly didn't. Unless you can point me otherwise?

I dunno, how many times did the left proclaim that "Trump said Mexicans are rapists", as an example?

Again, this is all stuff that he actually said. It's documented. When speaking about Mexicans in the United States (AKA immigrants from there)...he said they are criminals and rapists. Those words left his mouth.

http://www.huffingto...4b0c818f618904b

[Grief]

D, on 11 November 2016 - 04:28 PM, said:

Grief, on 11 November 2016 - 11:34 AM, said:

This isn't to say that every single Trump voter is racist, misogynist, xenophobic or whatever else. But I would agree with the above argument that they've nonetheless endorsed rhetoric and ideas that are. And in the fashion of 'telling it like it is' and looking for the common sense explanation -- if it walks like a racist, talks like a racist, and votes like a racist then perhaps it is a racist. Saying 'not all Trump supporters' is all well and good but 'not all' is an incredibly low bar. Is it 'not many'? When millions of people vote for a campaign which is loudly and proudly xenophobic, isn't it a bit ridiculous for the left to start shuffling around emphasizing every other factor and shouting about how you can't call Trump supporters racists? At least it's understandable coming from the people who voted for him. Is it that uncomfortable to admit the possibility that millions of people might vote for racist rhetoric because they agree with it?

The problem I have with the arguments that they are "endorsing" the racism and misogyny, and that this is sooooo inexcusable is that this implies the voter in question had other options.

This ain't an Australian, German, Swedish, or even Phillipino election, where if you mostly agree with one candidate but dislike their character you may instead find enough common ground with one of the many other candidates to switch to them. If your political views align heavily with the GOP, but you don't like Trump's comments on women your only alternate choices is to vote for someone who is completely opposite to your political beliefs or throw your vote away.

I think that's totally understandable. Not an ideal situation, to be sure, but understandable. And the overwhelming majority of interviews I've heard with Trump voters have been of this nature.

If your political views align heavily with the GOP but you dislike Trumps character, you did have an opportunity to vote for other candidates whose political views aligned heavily with the GOP during the republican primary. It may be a two party system, but Trump was still chosen by voters from a field of other republican candidates.

If I vote for a candidate, I'm endorsing their platform. I don't get to pick and choose; a vote is a vote. It's not like you can give someone 0.75 of a vote because you only agree with three quarters of what they stand for. Let's say I vote Conservative (knowing their other policies) because I like their energy policy; they then cut social support for the poor. It would be a cowardly sham for me to turn around and tell them "well I'm sorry to hear about that but I didn't endorse that at all". I knew that was their stance when I voted for them, and I'm the one that gave them the power to enact it. Just because you might not endorse something in an ideal world doesn't mean that in reality you haven't endorsed it. If you're uncomfortable with a candidate's character but prefer their policies, you are choosing your priorities; you're deciding that it's more important to endorse certain policies than it's a problem that you're also endorsing that character. It doesn't make it any less of an endorsement. Candidates are endorsed as a whole. If they weren't you wouldn't have people on the radio justifying their vote by explaining that the parts they care for outweigh the parts they don't in the first place.

How inexcusable it is can be debated (I didn't particularly make this point, never mind saying that it's soooooo anything). Personally there's not much about the republican platform that I think excuses it, but the platform doesn't appeal to me anyway.

D, on 11 November 2016 - 04:28 PM, said:

If every Trump voter has to be called on for "endorsing" the negative parts of Trump's campaign, then doesn't every Clinton voter has to be called on for "endorsing" the negative parts of Clinton's campaign?

Sure, but it depends on context. I'm not saying that that people don't compromise; I'm saying that just because you've compromised doesn't mean you haven't endorsed the whole platform all the same, and that we can still judge compromises (we do it all the time after all). Personally, compromising to vote Clinton strikes me as considerably better than compromising to vote Trump. I'd rather endorse Clinton's neoliberalism for the benefit of not endorsing Trump's xenophobic nationalism than vice versa.

D, on 11 November 2016 - 04:28 PM, said:

How can you be an American, living your whole life in this system, and not be open to the idea of understanding that other Americans are going to have different values and make their compromises differently than you do? And then because they made a different compromise than you feel you would have made if some of your values were changed to match theirs, you simply villify the whole bunch, shut down all conversation with them, and stick to a bunch of easy excuses (the same excuses of the last few elections, of course) for why "those people" are that way and there's no point trying to understand them? No wonder you never seem to make any progress.

I assume this isn't directly addressing me given that I'm not American. Yet it's entirely possible to understand that everyone is making compromises without thinking that all compromises are equal. Compromisation is not magic; just because someone is compromising doesn't mean that their actions are justified by that alone. You can still look at compromises people are making -- the priorities they're deciding upon -- and feel that some compromises are unsupportable or immoral. I also haven't said that there's no point trying to understand it.

Regardless, my initial point was more aimed at trends in leftist analysis than anything else. It was meant to be less "all Trump supporters have endorsed a racist platform" than "if a markedly xenophobic campaign is met with a lot of success, perhaps it's because xenophobia appeals to a lot of people".

[worry]

Ain't that the waking nightmare though? A post-election discourse in which people insist on the pretense that our differences with Trump are political opinions? Like people are this mad, hurt, shocked, and disappointed because a Republican won, and not because a white supremacist won? It's all politics again, I suppose. When we invite black, Hispanic, gay, and Muslim Americans back to the table to renegotiate their American-ness, their basic humanity, one would hope they keep it civil.

[Morgoth]

D, on 11 November 2016 - 05:34 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 11 November 2016 - 04:42 PM, said:

The problem with that argument is that most of the criticism of Hillary from the right, at least the loudest criticisms, are mostly baseless conspiracies, whereas the main criticism of Trump seems to be directly based on things he's demonstrably said.

I'm not sure I agree with that. There's definitely lots of baseless conspiracies and misinformation from the right about Clinton. There's also lots of misinformation from the left about Trump. I'm not sure I agree that these constituted "the loudest criticisms". Kind of a moot argument... there's no way to measure the "loudest".

As Quicktidal said, your example of Trump is hardly misinformation. As to Clinton, one can simply look to the three main "scandals", Bengazi, the emails and the Clinton Foundation. All three have been shown again and again (look at any factcheck service if you need to be convinced), to be entierly without teeth. There was a segment on the emails on This American Life recently, which was very good, too (act 1). https://www.thisamer.../601/transcript

[Gorefest]

At least Trump seemed to mellow as soon as he got elected. So in line with the current post-Brexit question on whether we will get a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit, the world can now ask if we will get a hard Trump or a soft Trump.

[Gorefest]

Sadly, that comment may only appeal to British folk....

[D'rek]

QuickTidal, on 11 November 2016 - 07:46 PM, said:

D, on 11 November 2016 - 07:01 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 11 November 2016 - 05:50 PM, said:

D, on 11 November 2016 - 05:34 PM, said:

There's also lots of misinformation from the left about Trump.

There is? I'm pretty sure most of the things he's been accused of... he's done, on camera or on audio.

Let's face facts, the left didn't really need to invent shit about him, and I'll argue that they mostly didn't. Unless you can point me otherwise?

I dunno, how many times did the left proclaim that "Trump said Mexicans are rapists", as an example?

Again, this is all stuff that he actually said. It's documented. When speaking about Mexicans in the United States (AKA immigrants from there)...he said they are criminals and rapists. Those words left his mouth.

http://www.huffingto...4b0c818f618904b

No. No he didn't. And its hilarious you linked a Huffington Post listicle to support it. Here's a politifact article on it for you instead.

There is a HUGE difference between saying "some of the people who come into the U.S. from Mexico are rapists" versus saying "all Mexicans are rapists". It's not even a question of larger context, there's no way to reasonably interpret what he said in that oh-so-famous rally speech as "all Mexicans are rapists".

And yet, the media, pundits, and even the freaking Democrat VP nominee decided to deliberately misinterpret it that way and continuously try to bash his campaign with the notion that he said all mexicans are rapists.

If I said "some Canadians who play lacrosse don't like poutine, but I assume some do", then apparently I said "all Canadians dislike poutine".


@Grief, yeah no none of that was really addressed at your arguments. Anyways, the thing is *obviously* people "on the left" who are against xenophobia, are feminist, are pro-gay-rights, are in favour of the separation of church and state, yadda yadda.. well of course we are going to think compromising into voting for a xenophobic/misogynist/demagogic candidate is worse than compromising for a neoliberal/hyperestablishmentarian candidate.

But I refuse to simply decide that because I have more leftist values (by U.S. standards) that the way I weight *my* values in compromising between candidates is somehow more legitimate or more universally correct and should be applied as a universal moral to how everyone else weights their values and makes a compromise.

If compromising into voting for a misogynist xenophobe is "too far"... well then can't someone say compromising for a cronied, wall-street-owned candidate is "too far" as well?

By principle, you wouldn't want to "endorse" either candidate, and since there is no viable 3rd candidate you just... what? Don't vote and hope they both decide to resign for no reason?

Without major electoral reform, I just don't see what possible good comes out of the "you shouldn't vote for any candidate with major character flaws because then you're endorsing all their bad behaviour". It just gives either side another reason to feel smug in their self-assurance that *their* superior morals entail that they've followed this principle but their opposite side have not.

Morgoth, on 11 November 2016 - 09:47 PM, said:

D, on 11 November 2016 - 05:34 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 11 November 2016 - 04:42 PM, said:

The problem with that argument is that most of the criticism of Hillary from the right, at least the loudest criticisms, are mostly baseless conspiracies, whereas the main criticism of Trump seems to be directly based on things he's demonstrably said.

I'm not sure I agree with that. There's definitely lots of baseless conspiracies and misinformation from the right about Clinton. There's also lots of misinformation from the left about Trump. I'm not sure I agree that these constituted "the loudest criticisms". Kind of a moot argument... there's no way to measure the "loudest".

As Quicktidal said, your example of Trump is hardly misinformation. As to Clinton, one can simply look to the three main "scandals", Bengazi, the emails and the Clinton Foundation. All three have been shown again and again (look at any factcheck service if you need to be convinced), to be entierly without teeth. There was a segment on the emails on This American Life recently, which was very good, too (act 1). https://www.thisamer.../601/transcript

"Without teeth" meaning... what exactly? I don't think a lot of people ever actually thought she'd intentionally sabotaged Benghazi or whatever the crazies were spouting. I imagine the average GOP voter certainly didn't expect she had done anything that would actually be indictable... but they were nevertheless very uncomfortable with all the conflict-of-interest/wall-streeet-and-foreign-power-cozying that kept coming up.

Being a cultural elite who cares more about protecting Goldman Sachs than actually serving average citizens is a major character flaw for a prospective president, one that some people *could* find just as damning as, say, being a xenophobe. I'm not saying those character flaws necessarily *should* be equally bad... but whatever my relative weighting of them is I don't necessarily think everyone in the world should automatically have the same weighting as me, either, and why would I want to just handwave away everyone who has a different relative weighting of them as being inexcusable vermin that there is no point in even trying to talk to or reach common ground with?

[MTS]

The 22nd Amendment changed that after FDR though. It's a hard limit of two terms. Obama won't want to run again though, so it's a moot point.

[worry]

What if instead of using poutine in your example you said "Some Canadians who play lacrosse are rapists. Not all of them, but enough of them that if a team of lacrosse players enters your community it would be entirely rational of you to believe there's a good chance you or someone you love will be raped. In that light, if you elect me I will deport 11 million lacrosse players regardless of whether they're rapists or not."

[HoosierDaddy]

I think there is a lot of miscommunication here. I grew up in a conservative state, still live in a conservative rustbelt state. I have many friends that are conservative, work in a small business with conservative owners and employees.
I don't mind conservatives. I disagree, but it is what it is. I've talked to them all my life and I'm frequently the go to "ask HD why he likes this politician", "explain why you can support this", "who is going to win the Democrat nomination?"

I'm perfectly fine with that. I wouldn't have been devastated by McCain or Romney. I wouldn't have been pleased, but not overly upset. This difference is in the degrees to which Trump's ideological statements (which are clear as day and if you watched him speak you know it) will position to set back all Progressive gains made in the past 45 years, including: women's basic reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, gay-marriage, kill any immigration reform, damage our reputation around the world, etc.

Jeb, Marco, Kasich, hell even Cruz were disgusted by Trump and they supposedly are in the same "party."

You speak of these elites as if Donald Trump IS NOT ONE OF THEM. HE IS. All his policies are good for his own bottom line as they line up with Goldman Sachs as well. Did he campaign about breaking up the banks? No. Did he campaign on social welfare for the working class people who need it the most? No. He campaigned on getting rid of the "other" that are taking their jobs in Mexico, China, India; all things that he has actively participated in.

So, it's not just the Xenophobia, Misogyny, Sexual Assaults; it's also the clear disingeniousness of nearly every single thing he has sad.

He can't bring back manufacturing jobs. That ship has sailed. Renewable energy (unlike coal) is the only way to actually avoid a climate disaster, but he's anti-climate change.

The ONE area where I believe him is in cancelling NAFTA. It did help exacerbate the inevitable move of American industry from the Rust Belt to other regions of the world where labor is much cheaper. But it just exacerbated it, it was inevitable.

I won't even get into the birtherism, Comey, Wikileaks, "LOCK HER UP!", bs that doesn't really matter. Those are all real things he said above. Real policies he has said he'll back.

I hope it was all an act. I fear it wasn't. Who knows: that's the only silver lining. No one can believe a single word that comes out of his mouth.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 11 November 2016 - 11:15 PM

[HoosierDaddy]

MTS, on 11 November 2016 - 10:36 PM, said:

The 22nd Amendment changed that after FDR though. It's a hard limit of two terms. Obama won't want to run again though, so it's a moot point.

Technically you can serve 10 years. LBJ finished out Kennedy's '63, '64 after he was assassinated (2 years), won election from '65 to '68, and CHOSE not to rerun. He could have ran and been president from '69 to '72.

Basically, if you are a VP for less than 3 years, you can still have 2 full terms as an elected president.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 11 November 2016 - 11:15 PM

[Grief]

D, on 11 November 2016 - 10:35 PM, said:

But I refuse to simply decide that because I have more leftist values (by U.S. standards) that the way I weight *my* values in compromising between candidates is somehow more legitimate or more universally correct and should be applied as a universal moral to how everyone else weights their values and makes a compromise.

This seems a bit too morally relativist. Given that you do weight your own values, presumably you do believe that some ideals and actions are better than others. Presumably your reasons for doing so aren't simply because of those values being more leftist.

D, on 11 November 2016 - 10:35 PM, said:

By principle, you wouldn't want to "endorse" either candidate, and since there is no viable 3rd candidate you just... what? Don't vote and hope they both decide to resign for no reason?

Wouldn't you want to endorse whichever candidate you think is better than the other? It's also not as though the vote itself is the be-all and end-all of the political process. You can get involved at earlier stages, or take political in ways outside of the electoral system (protesting the two-party system, for example).

[Tiste Simeon]

Well, it has begun...

http://www.independe...t-a7412621.html

[MTS]

HoosierDaddy, on 11 November 2016 - 11:14 PM, said:

MTS, on 11 November 2016 - 10:36 PM, said:

The 22nd Amendment changed that after FDR though. It's a hard limit of two terms. Obama won't want to run again though, so it's a moot point.

Technically you can serve 10 years. LBJ finished out Kennedy's '63, '64 after he was assassinated (2 years), won election from '65 to '68, and CHOSE not to rerun. He could have ran and been president from '69 to '72.

Basically, if you are a VP for less than 3 years, you can still have 2 full terms as an elected president.

Interesting, did not know that. Makes sense though. Apt was asking about Obama's case, which is what I was referring to.

On Grief's point, I've heard a lot of Trump voters who hate his racist, xenophobic rhetoric, but still voted for him anyway because they were comforted by the notion that Congress is not as far right as Trump is, and will thus stop any regressive domestic policies he wants to enforce (like the wall or the ban on Muslims). To them, that gamble is better than a Clinton presidency (though Clinton would be in much the same boat as Trump vis-a-vis Republican Senate and House mostly in disagreement with her, so they're still making a tacit decision of 'wrong' vs. 'very wrong').

This post has been edited by MTS: 12 November 2016 - 12:03 AM

[MTS]

Tiste Simeon, on 12 November 2016 - 12:00 AM, said:

Well, it has begun...

http://www.independe...t-a7412621.html

It will be interesting to see how the Republicans handle a President that is so unpredictable.

In a related article to that (a prediction about Trump's eventual impeachment for a more compliant Pence), it noted that 90% of GOP voters ended up voting for Trump, which is incredible. Just goes to show how much politics is like sports - you support your team regardless of their players or their performance, because fuck barracking for Collingwood Hillary!

(sorry Loki )

This post has been edited by MTS: 12 November 2016 - 12:12 AM

[worry]

MTS, on 12 November 2016 - 12:02 AM, said:

On Grief's point, I've heard a lot of Trump voters who hate his racist, xenophobic rhetoric, but still voted for him anyway because they were comforted by the notion that Congress is not as far right as Trump is, and will thus stop any regressive domestic policies he wants to enforce (like the wall or the ban on Muslims).

This isn't quite the case. It's hard to tell because Trump's indifference to almost everybody else on Earth makes him a sort of political empty vessel -- and what's in his "heart of hearts" is not necessarily how he'll govern. As a populist, some of his promises were not nearly as far right as the GOP + Tea Party Congress. For instance, Trump claimed he wasn't gonna mess with Medicare/SS, but Paul Ryan has always been in the Privatize It camp, and it remains to be seen how this will fall out. He might just try it though. http://www.salon.com...-gut-obamacare/

Likewise Trump just indicated that he might keep two of the more popular facets of Obamacare -- the coverage for one's offspring up to 26 years old and the prohibition against refusals for preexisting conditions, whereas we know Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell want to gut the entire ACA. The fact that it doesn't make any fiscal sense whatsoever to force insurance companies to insure ill people without the vast reservoir of healthy customers won't necessarily stop Trump from doing it (though I'd wager Congress gets its way entirely, with a shrug and an "I tried" from Trump).

Edit: Ah, TS covered the latter thing.

This post has been edited by death rattle: 12 November 2016 - 12:23 AM

[amphibian]

Terez said above that Trump canvassed for VP candidates saying he'd give them foreign policy and domestic policy to run. That might mean Pence gets to take a crack at the ACA - which means yeah, it could get gutted.

[Terez]

I don't believe I said that.