[D'rek]

death rattle, on 10 November 2016 - 10:50 PM, said:

You're right. And it's not at all inconceivable. It's just inexcusable.

Sure. And the other side thinks its not inexcusable, and that the compromises the left made with their candidate are inexcusable. Obviously (eye-roll) your opinion is correct, and the 50% of your population that have different opinions of what is and isn't inexcusable are just filthy mongrels who don't deserve to be taken seriously. Have fun with that, I'm sure you won't be stuck in a perpetually ultra-polarized political divide for the next fifty years (just like you have been for the last fifty years) if you maintain that attitude!

[worry]

The divide here isn't political differences or cost-benefit analyses of two opposing but reasonable candidates; it's whether it's okay to sacrifice marginalized people to ease your (economic, racial, sexual, etc.) anxiety. Electing Trump was, make no mistake about it, an act of human sacrifice. So yeah, I'm fine with saying there's a right and wrong side of that divide and I'm on the right side. I didn't call anybody a mongrel (I don't think anyone here did or even came close), and I certainly didn't claim Trump voters shouldn't be taken seriously. I take them very seriously.

[Nicodimas]

I'm confused. The left loves government. So we do this whole voting thing...they of all people understand the rules and how this works. Modern government give us two* choices. <i think there should be like 5...but whatever..i don't count>

Their pick, their team does not win. They hold mass exoduses and riot's...because there team doesn't win. Do they really expect there team to win each time? It's childish to protest the winning of the other team...

If my team doesn't win..I would be asking..where did we fail. The other team won...because my team...fed up..lacked here and here. You need to do a analysis...of maybe...abandoning, driving costs up, failure to deliver..whatever . I don't understand as if you can't be honest..you ain't gonna fix the problem. Maybe that's what we deserve though...a party that just doesn't face it's failures and grow.

That's the worst thing in my mind ever. remember the other side won....you need to assess and counter and grow..

The government that won...is in control now. If your not comfortable with that...you need to maybe..listen and understand what's going on with other people..than what your own world-view states.

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 11 November 2016 - 07:39 AM

[MTS]

Nicodimas, on 11 November 2016 - 07:38 AM, said:

I'm confused. The left loves government. So we do this whole voting thing...they of all people understand the rules and how this works. Modern government give us two* choices. <i think there should be like 5...but whatever..i don't count>

Their pick, their team does not win. They hold mass exoduses and riot's...because there team doesn't win. Do they really expect there team to win each time? It's childish to protest the winning of the other team...

I'm sorry what?

Quote

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump 6 Nov 2012
We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!

https://www.facingso...f-violence.html

One of the most galling things about politics - the rank hypocrisy and short-term memories. Although I do agree that there does need to be more attempts to understand different worldviews.

This post has been edited by MTS: 11 November 2016 - 08:23 AM

[Morgoth]

To be fair, Trumps campaign did hire a prominent Breitbart executive to run parts of their campaign. So there's clearly a substantial Alt-right/neo nazi aspect to the Trump campaign, and -one would think - presidency.

[Tiste Simeon]

My favourite:

[Aptorian]

I like this guys passion:

[Grief]

Meh, I saw that the other day and while I think it makes certain good points -- Hillary is not that left wing by European standards, and the left should be able to capitalise politically on things such as massive wealth inequality but have't (largely because it's not pushing in a socialist enough direction) -- it then falls into a ton of cliches (overly PC lefties etc etc; the same core "tell it like it is" thing really) and ends up being trite (he starts by ranting about some sort of out of touch liberalism and ends with... a vague call for dialogue). Honestly I think it plays into a right-wing narrative. They end up sounding not all that disimmilar from the people on the right trying to justify how they couldn't possibly be racist at all except with the words "I'm a liberal but" tacked on in front. It's no surprise that I saw it on reddit with plenty of "I'm a Trump supporter and it's exactly this; it's not in any way shape or form about bigotry it's actually just about..." style comments. The Noami Klein article about neoliberalism linked earlier has something of the same problem. There's a bit of a trend of liberal autopsies of the election (and Brexit, and other such things) where each person basically seems to take their pet peeve with 'the left' (be it globalist neoliberalism or "political correctness gone mad") and explains how the loss was totally about that.

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?

I don't want to boil it down this single issue and state that the loss was only about that. Nor do I want to deny that anger against the rich elite and many other things were major factors in the result. But I don't think people can really complain simultaneously about the left not calling a spade a spade, and about the left calling them racists when they endorse racism.

[Terez]

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

The Naomi Klein article about neoliberalism linked earlier has something of the same problem. There's a bit of a trend of liberal autopsies of the election (and Brexit, and other such things) where each person basically seems to take their personal peeve with 'the left' (be it globalist neoliberalism or "political correctness gone mad") and explains how the loss was totally about that.

Klein definitely veered far into her pet issues in that article, but generally she's right, and that can be demonstrated fairly well by documented phenomenon throughout this election season. Those who voted to nominate Hillary chose to ignore the populist mood of the nation; the only factor as important as that one was Hillary's unpopularity, but the two are hardly unrelated. Hillary lost the youth vote by truly staggering margins in the primary, and she suffered from low youth turnout in the general. These young voters were interviewed extensively about their reasons for supporting Bernie, though of course it was always obvious what the difference between the two candidates was.

I'm reminded of all the smug Hillary pushers in the media who, as an attempt to offer the Berners a consolation prize of sorts, admitted that Bernie's "revolution" was "the future of the party". Sit back kiddies; the adults have this one under control.

[QuickTidal]

D, on 10 November 2016 - 10:45 PM, said:

I think a lot of people and media "on the left" have been sticking their fingers in the ears and shouting "la la la la la la Trump voters must be neanderthalic misogynistic racists there's no other explanation la la la la la la la la la la la la".

Huh? I've never gotten that vibe from it at all. Sure there are lots of voters of his who might indeed fit that category...but I'm sure a lot more are just normal everyday people who: hated Hillary, want to thumb their nose at the existing establishment, believe in those less volatile objects on his platform (globalism, immigration, healthcare ect.) or have some other reason for voting for him.

The point of the article that I linked to was that those people don't want to own the racist, sexist, and homophobic crap along with it. Scalzi had evidence in the fact that so many Trump supporters tweeted him or emailed him with "explanations" why they voted as they did and why they aren't those labels or don't believe in the notions behind such labels.... And his reply was a simple. "that's fine, but you voted for a racist, sexist homophobe, climate change denier, whether you like that or not." It sounds lil they DON'T like that, and aren't fond of that paintbrush. That's all that's at issue here. Trump supporters came at him saying they weren't racist or sexist. And he was merely pointing out that they supported someone who has shown that he is whether they like that or not.

D, on 10 November 2016 - 10:45 PM, said:

...as if it's just soooo inconceivable that an ordinary right-wing person might feel it is reasonable to accept a misogynistic candidate because they are the candidate that best adheres to their major political and economic beliefs like healthcare reform, immigration tightening, or global security.

Is it reasonable? I don't think that's a word that applies here. "Necessary to them" is a better phrase to replace that with...as reasonable doesn't enter into it.

D, on 10 November 2016 - 10:45 PM, said:

...you know, the same way an ordinary left-wing person might feel it is reasonable to accept a corrupt candidate because they are the candidate that best adheres to their major political and economic beliefs like environmental protectionism, education, or reproductive rights.

Which corrupt candidate is this you nebulously speak of? Let's not beat around the bush.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 11 November 2016 - 02:04 PM

[MTS]

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

Is it that uncomfortable to admit the possibility that millions of people might vote for racist rhetoric because they agree with it?

Of course it is. For many on the left (who are on average younger, mind you), and many on the right I imagine, there is a latent notion that despite all the problems in the world, humanity is in the best shape it has ever been historically. We're freer, more egalitarian, more tolerant, more prosperous than we have ever been.

And to a certain extent that's true.

That's why a lot of politicians and the media, the 'elite' (particularly on the left), were absolutely horrified by Trump's campaign. It's why they fixated on it as a cancer of American democracy, to the tune of $3bn in coverage. Even Fox News joined in the revulsion, with the alt-right a lone exception. This isn't even mentioning the average left-wing voter.

The reason many thought Trump couldn't win is that it was assumed his values were so out of touch with modern society that he couldn't possibly win enough votes to become the nominee, much less President. And yet here we are.

So in this tolerant age, it's not surprising that many look at alternate reasons to explain his rise, like globalisation, neoliberalism and the demise of the middle class. That's fair as well, because it's ridiculous to assume everyone voted on Trump's immigration platform. Some voted Republican because, well, they're Republican. Doing otherwise though, Americans are faced with the notion that as a society, they might be closer to the 1960s than they thought.

That's also been proved true right across the Western world as well, from Britain to France, Germany, Austria, even poor Australia, where I'm apparently being swamped by Muslims even as I type this. #stoptheboats #jobsandgrowth

[End of Disc One]

Terez, on 10 November 2016 - 11:01 PM, said:

The story of this election is really simple: enthusiasm gap. Turnout is everything. There are very few people who will vote for either party interchangeably, so power swings are all about who shows up to vote.

Yep. The only two candidates that people were genuinely excited about this time were Sanders and Trump (though the Trump enthusiasm scares me). In 2008 it was Obama. Someone elsewhere pointed out that the last time the boring candidate won was 1988 with George HW.

As an independent who would prefer Hillary over Trump, I think people need to stop attacking the resigned voters who chose Trump. If there's an "enemy" here, it's the enthusiastic Trump supporters who won't be swayed. The "liberal elite" has this problem with attacking anyone who isn't on their side as racist, misogynistic, etc., when no one agrees on what constitutes racism, misogyny, etc. People have reasons for thinking how they think, and that doesn't make anyone a bad person. For example, the immigration issue that was a big part of discussion this election cycle, is a non-issue in most rural areas. Basically, the goal of civil rights movements should be to convince the other side. If you just attack those who aren't on your side, nothing will get accomplished. Try to understand where other people are coming from so you can speak to them.

This post has been edited by End of Disc One: 11 November 2016 - 03:21 PM

[amphibian]

I have zero faith in the ability of Donna Brazile, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and/or Howard Dean to put together better campaigns.

Rahm Emanuel is a terrible mayor and a bad person, but he understands how to get elected better than most. The Obama staffers who ran Hillary's campaign also did ludicrous things like choosing not to campaign in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Fuckin' blue wall, my ass.

For all the craziness the Trump campaign people engaged in on the airwaves, they understood how to get their base solid and pick up the possibles better than Clinton's people did. The voter suppression stuff coming about as a result of the dismantling of the Voting Rights Act also undoubtedly played a part in this.

I hope both Clintons walk far, far away from the party going forwards. I also hope Michelle Obama does not run because I do not think she would win without having had a couple Senate terms and also because I hope she makes a ton of money doing what she likes, rather than run for office she doesn't seem to want.

Basically, I'm up for Warren in 2020 or someone else. Not Corey Booker tho.

[Aptorian]

Would Barack Obama be allowed to run for a third term as a president after he's been out of office or is there some 8 year limit on your time in office?

[Tiste Simeon]

Would he want to?

[Terez]

The two-term limit is for life, not just consecutive.

[D'rek]

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.

For example, The Current had a Mexican-American woman on yesterday who works as a civil servant in D.C., and she voted Trump despite misgivings over his rhetoric and misogyny because she felt that her healthcare insurance bills were climbing too much and that her hometown was suffering a lot of negative effects of illegal immigration, and she felt Trump and the GOP were going to fix/ameliorate those issues while Hillary and the Democrats would not. Nothing about hating Clinton (she barely even mentioned Clinton) or email scandals or even breaking the status quo. Just this was the viable candidate that best fit her political views (out of 2).

Now maybe the media I follow has been super skewed and they've just happened to get all their interviews with a very, very small subset of Trump voters who are reasonable people making compromises, and 99% of them really are simply uneducated racist women-haters. But I don't believe that that's the case.

QuickTidal, on 11 November 2016 - 01:52 PM, said:

Which corrupt candidate is this you nebulously speak of? Let's not beat around the bush.

Clinton, obviously. Some people seem to genuinely feel that the actions (or lack thereof, in the failure-to-disclose cases) of her, the donations with the Clinton Foundation, the DNC email leaks, etc, are actual corrupt practices (advertently or otherwise).

Someone on the right could easily make the same argument being made here in reverse: that simply by voting for Clinton you are "endorsing" every bad characteristic she has or represents, and it is totally inexcusable to endorse such behaviour. 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?

I'm sure the vast majority of Clinton voters didn't like everything about her, either, and would rather not have voted for a candidate who won the primaries through DNC cronyism, be under threat of indictment for incompetent behaviour during her tenure as Secretary of State, etc etc etc... but just like the right they didn't exactly have any other viable options to vote for, did they?

The two-candidate system is inherently reliant on pretty much every single voter making compromises when choosing, because with only 2 candidates and over a year of campaigning there's practically zero chance you'll 100% agree with any given candidate. 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.

[Morgoth]

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.

[amphibian]

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

For example, The Current had a Mexican-American woman on yesterday who works as a civil servant in D.C., and she voted Trump despite misgivings over his rhetoric and misogyny because she felt that her healthcare insurance bills were climbing too much and that her hometown was suffering a lot of negative effects of illegal immigration, and she felt Trump and the GOP were going to fix/ameliorate those issues while Hillary and the Democrats would not. Nothing about hating Clinton (she barely even mentioned Clinton) or email scandals or even breaking the status quo. Just this was the viable candidate that best fit her political views (out of 2).

Now maybe the media I follow has been super skewed and they've just happened to get all their interviews with a very, very small subset of Trump voters who are reasonable people making compromises, and 99% of them really are simply uneducated racist women-haters. But I don't believe that that's the case.

I think we're also seeing people come up with reasons to vote after they made the decision to vote that way, and possibly making the decision to vote on reasons other than what they are saying now. It's the problem with polling or surveying people - many of them will lie or give answers that aren't actually what motivates them to do what they do because they know they're about to be publicized in some way and that this isn't a private confession.

Maybe this woman really did vote that way or maybe she is covering up her real reasons, which may be nonsensical or even downright racist. It's why political campaigns are often steered by a combination of data science and gut feelings about the validity of the data being scienced.

[D'rek]

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".

amphibian, on 11 November 2016 - 04:57 PM, said:

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

For example, The Current had a Mexican-American woman on yesterday who works as a civil servant in D.C., and she voted Trump despite misgivings over his rhetoric and misogyny because she felt that her healthcare insurance bills were climbing too much and that her hometown was suffering a lot of negative effects of illegal immigration, and she felt Trump and the GOP were going to fix/ameliorate those issues while Hillary and the Democrats would not. Nothing about hating Clinton (she barely even mentioned Clinton) or email scandals or even breaking the status quo. Just this was the viable candidate that best fit her political views (out of 2).

Now maybe the media I follow has been super skewed and they've just happened to get all their interviews with a very, very small subset of Trump voters who are reasonable people making compromises, and 99% of them really are simply uneducated racist women-haters. But I don't believe that that's the case.

I think we're also seeing people come up with reasons to vote after they made the decision to vote that way, and possibly making the decision to vote on reasons other than what they are saying now. It's the problem with polling or surveying people - many of them will lie or give answers that aren't actually what motivates them to do what they do because they know they're about to be publicized in some way and that this isn't a private confession.

Maybe this woman really did vote that way or maybe she is covering up her real reasons, which may be nonsensical or even downright racist. It's why political campaigns are often steered by a combination of data science and gut feelings about the validity of the data being scienced.

Yeah, could very well be the case. The notion that people act more reasonable than their real or even subconscious values in a press interview (and at the same time act much worse on social media ) resonates.