Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
d-usa wrote: I think if whembly lived somewhere other than MO, he would be more likely to vote for Trump. If his vote could actually impact the election and keep Hillary out of the office, he would hold his nose and fill in that circle (or however people vote in MO). But it's a pretty safe state for Trump, so voting for Johnson is pissing in the wind and won't affect the election at all.
If I thought it would make a lick of difference, I would vote for Hillary. I voted for Obama for two terms, even though I know I was just wasting ink by completing the arrow next to his name. Oklahoma is one of the reddest states, and it went for McCain, it went for Romney, and it will go for Trump. No democrat will carry this state for a long time. So I have the luxury of 'wasting' my vote on Johnson when I vote for every independent and third party candidate that I can.
Me and whembly will vote for Johnson for the same reason: because it doesn't matter who we vote for. The color of our states on the map on Election Day is already decided. If it was a close election in either state I would vote Hillary and he would vote Trump.
Oddly enough, because Texas is so red is exactly why I'll vote blue instead of...whatever colours the third parties are? Because the GOP here knows that any 3rd party vote isn't a blue vote, they won't care. At best, they might adopt or at least act sympathetic to the more red leaning ideals among the thirds to lure them in. But as long as I vote for the actual opposition, and if enough of us do the same, that can send a real message.
I understand that view point. I'm in the opposite situation where my congressional district is extremely Blue so I try to vote for Independents and Libertarians because I don't agree with the priorities of the local Dems, some of their policies are fine but the way the two big parties always jump on the hot button issue bandwagons has always bothered me. You should always vote in a way that represents yourself and your views as accurately as possible and hopefully there are enough like minded people around that you end up being mostly in the majority that's represented. It always feels bad when the people charged with representing you really don't represent you at all.
No matter what state whembly lived in I wouldn't feel inclined to internet stalk him over his PotUS vote although I'd likely still to be willing to discuss it if he were inclined to do so. If whembly did get to cast the deciding vote I wonder if Kevin Costner would still play him in the biopic?
Every. fething. Word. OUT of HRC's mouth is most likely a lie or loaded condenscending bs. Throw ontop the shady quid pro quo activities facilitated by her foundation, then yes, I'll call them out.
Well, that sentence says a lot from what you think of her, indeed. You base your opinion on the deep belief (and I insist on the word "belief") that everything she's saying has high chances to be a lie or condescending. So you seem to reject instantly the possibility she may say something that could be true or understanding.
So, since she "lied first", I guess everything about her has to be reported as shocking news, even if they are lies/"modified" versions of what happened? Is that your logic?
No. Me acknowledging that HRC is a horrible candidate isn't me "doing Trump's own job". That's me simply saying HRC is a horrible candidate.
This isn't mutual exclusive.
Furthermore, it's REALLY telling that HRC's campaign strategy is to make the election a Referendum on Trump.
She has worked in government in how many years??? Yet, ironically the strategy so far has been "yeah, but Trump!"... rather than "here's my records and belief".
Well, I agree with you about using the motto "everything but Trump" is working in her favor. I think she's using that as a strategy, and I indeed find sad the fact the debate isn't really about their programs but more about the persons. It's unfortunately the same for a lot of elections around the world.
But I think only basing yourself on that is a wrong move. It's not just that, IMHO. When reading your posts, I feel like you see the world in Black and White, and think all about Clinton is pure black, the same pure black than Trump. Is that really the case?
Huh? I brought up plenty of ridiculous Trumpisms.
Not as many about Clinton, and not reporting the same way and depth when you talk about Clinton. Didn't you notice?
I despise both Trump and Clinton... for completely different reasons.
It's understood that Trump is bad... however, the amount of effort to White Knight Clinton is something else altogether.
Oh, I see where you are going. Indeed, if you feel that Trump is universally despised, there is less incentive to report his own "treacheries" as news - you go on the assumption everyone already knows that. Thus you feel like it's more important to reveal the evil behind Clinton, because you feel too many people are supporting her like she was a perfect angel. It's maybe a caricature than I'm picturing here, but maybe it's something like that?
If so, don't you think it can be dangerous? Because that means you talk more about Clinton than Trump, and that's what people see first. It's a basis in communication - if you keep talking negatively on someone over and over, that's the first thing people will notice and remember. I know you repeated about Clinton winning eventually in the end because Trump can't possibly go in the White House. I remember it was something similar for the Brexit; everyone thought the British would vote against it, and yet in the end...it was the Brexit that was victorious, with a very short marge, sure, but still. A great cause of that was because of the misinformation/lies and confusion about what really were the consequences and how the EU really worked. By reporting endless "news" about Dark Clinton, don't you think you're actually supporting the whole Trumpeteer Electoral War Machine, since they're the one using that strategy to confuse people and make a vote for Trump "not that bad"? That's what I was talking about before.
"make it right in the eyes of others"?
There you go again...
Yes...Rereading what I wrote, I understand it was a bit too much. I apologize for that. I believe everything we're doing have consequences on our surroundings, be it on short or long term. It may be bad or good. What I believe is that we are responsible of them, even if they are not known or fully apparent at first sight. That doesn't make us monsters or angels. Just that we should be aware of this at all times.
But I digress. The way I wrote it was sounding like I was in the right and you're in the wrong. That's not the case. I don't have the right to judge you on that one. So, sorry again about that if you felt that way.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/10 14:41:40
Prestor Jon wrote: To me it can be refreshing to see somebody act like a normal person during the campaign process but Johnson isn't a strong candidate with wide appeal which is a shame because this should be a great year for third parties.
Normal people lie and cheat. They are sometimes honest about it, but not often; largely because a certain group of people rejects their honesty.
And a third Party would only make campaigns more of a mess.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Prestor Jon wrote: To me it can be refreshing to see somebody act like a normal person during the campaign process but Johnson isn't a strong candidate with wide appeal which is a shame because this should be a great year for third parties.
Normal people lie and cheat. They are sometimes honest about it, but not often; largely because a certain group of people rejects their honesty.
And a third Party would only make campaigns more of a mess.
More parties would make it less of a mess,. Right now the only national voices heard on several important issues are the two major parties that perpetuate the false narrative that everything is binary, that every issue only has 2 acceptable positions to take and that those two positions have to diametrically oppose each other. With more parties you get more viewpoints represented which encourages more of the electorate to participate because its easier to find a candidate that accurately or at least mostly represents your view. If I agree with some Democrat positions and some Republican positions on various issues whom do I vote for? Choosing one of the two leave me being a party to (no pun intended) the positions I oppose in order to be represented on the positions that I agree with. More parties would also make Congress work better because with only two parties and increasing partisanship it is extremely difficult for members of one party to cross the aisle and vote together on legislation whereas with multiple parties it's much easier for Libertarians or Greens or whomever to align their votes with either party based on the legislation being voted on. More coalition building gets more voices/viewpoints in the room which should lead to better legislation that is more representative of the people.
d-usa wrote: I think if whembly lived somewhere other than MO, he would be more likely to vote for Trump. If his vote could actually impact the election and keep Hillary out of the office, he would hold his nose and fill in that circle (or however people vote in MO). But it's a pretty safe state for Trump, so voting for Johnson is pissing in the wind and won't affect the election at all.
If I thought it would make a lick of difference, I would vote for Hillary. I voted for Obama for two terms, even though I know I was just wasting ink by completing the arrow next to his name. Oklahoma is one of the reddest states, and it went for McCain, it went for Romney, and it will go for Trump. No democrat will carry this state for a long time. So I have the luxury of 'wasting' my vote on Johnson when I vote for every independent and third party candidate that I can.
Me and whembly will vote for Johnson for the same reason: because it doesn't matter who we vote for. The color of our states on the map on Election Day is already decided. If it was a close election in either state I would vote Hillary and he would vote Trump.
Oddly enough, because Texas is so red is exactly why I'll vote blue instead of...whatever colours the third parties are? Because the GOP here knows that any 3rd party vote isn't a blue vote, they won't care. At best, they might adopt or at least act sympathetic to the more red leaning ideals among the thirds to lure them in. But as long as I vote for the actual opposition, and if enough of us do the same, that can send a real message.
I understand that view point. I'm in the opposite situation where my congressional district is extremely Blue so I try to vote for Independents and Libertarians because I don't agree with the priorities of the local Dems, some of their policies are fine but the way the two big parties always jump on the hot button issue bandwagons has always bothered me. You should always vote in a way that represents yourself and your views as accurately as possible and hopefully there are enough like minded people around that you end up being mostly in the majority that's represented.
If I thought voting third party would make any real difference, I would look deeper into them. The problem with states that are so dominated by a single party is that voting third party isn't opposing them, but more of just voting sideways to them. And the GOP in Texas needs some opposition, just like any other state dominated by a single party, as they're been running roughshod over everyone who gets in their way.
It always feels bad when the people charged with representing you really don't represent you at all.
Sadly, that's always been the case. Every politician forgets that they're supposed to represent everyone in their district, not just the people who voted for them. But it's party before country before people these days.
Prestor Jon wrote: To me it can be refreshing to see somebody act like a normal person during the campaign process but Johnson isn't a strong candidate with wide appeal which is a shame because this should be a great year for third parties.
Normal people lie and cheat. They are sometimes honest about it, but not often; largely because a certain group of people rejects their honesty.
And a third Party would only make campaigns more of a mess.
More parties would make it less of a mess,. Right now the only national voices heard on several important issues are the two major parties that perpetuate the false narrative that everything is binary, that every issue only has 2 acceptable positions to take and that those two positions have to diametrically oppose each other. With more parties you get more viewpoints represented which encourages more of the electorate to participate because its easier to find a candidate that accurately or at least mostly represents your view. If I agree with some Democrat positions and some Republican positions on various issues whom do I vote for? Choosing one of the two leave me being a party to (no pun intended) the positions I oppose in order to be represented on the positions that I agree with. More parties would also make Congress work better because with only two parties and increasing partisanship it is extremely difficult for members of one party to cross the aisle and vote together on legislation whereas with multiple parties it's much easier for Libertarians or Greens or whomever to align their votes with either party based on the legislation being voted on. More coalition building gets more voices/viewpoints in the room which should lead to better legislation that is more representative of the people.
Until we fix the current winner-takes-all voting system, and switch to an alternative system that actually incentivizes voting for other parties, we're stuck in this rut. Of course, neither party would be willing to allow such a thing to begin with, and they've invested more than enough time, money, and effort into creating enough divisions among the populace to ever allow for enough unity among the people to force such a change.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/10 15:03:58
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
BigWaaagh wrote: Before all the Libertarians waste, I mean cast, their vote for Gary Johnson here's a little bit of reality as to their candidate's qualifications.
Presidential politics is for the big boys with the chops and experience for it. It isn't pretty. It's politics at the highest, global level and it requires a politician that understands and can operate responsibly in that environment. HRC is the only adult in this room, period. The alternative is just too staggeringly stupid, childish and thin skinned to even contemplate. I think we're seeing a beginning of the two party system splinter, which I'm all for, but it's still years off and now is not the time for another Nader-like vote drain debacle.
What exactly is the correct response to Aleppo? Everybody agrees that people there are suffering but it's not something that we can fix. Syria as a whole has been a humanitarian crisis since the fighting started and it's not going to end anytime soon and when it finally does the cessation of hostilities isn't going to suddenly fix all of the destroyed infrastructure, economic crisis, famine, etc that the war has wrought.
Should we send troops to deliver aid in some kind of doomed to fail Somalia redux? Should we start a war with Russia in order to depose Assad and bring about regime change?
Is Aleppo like the new Darfur? I'm ild enough to remember back when anyone who was anyone knew that Darfur was a humanitarian crisis and we just had to DO SOMETHING about it and the conflict in Sudan. It's been over a decade and Darfur and Sudan are still a hot mess of human suffering but you don't score any points for knowing about it because we've moved on to other distractions.
I'm sure Trump's solution to Aleppo is to spew out some inane word salad of jingoistic catch phrases and we all know that won't fix anything. Hillary can't fix it either but she's probably speak about the suffering with some knowledge and detail to get empathetic voters to ignore the fact that she can't offer any solution either but can do it in a more appealing manner. Unless you think that Hillary's foreign policy acumen that had her vote in favor of invading Afghanistan and Iraq while senator and then watch Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, and Ukraine fall apart while she was running the state department will somehow miraculously provide her with the solution to the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo? I don't mean "you" to address BigWagghh solely but to everyone who's outraged over Johnson's lack of a ready reaponse to the "Aleppo?" question.
"What exactly is the correct response to Aleppo?"
Where are you coming from? Did you understand the gist of the post? Darfur...where did that come from? To paraphrase Sgt. Hulka, "Settle down Francis."
This wasn't anything having to do with offering or debating a solution. But, rather, an assessment that if you don't have a simple understanding...or awareness...of a key global flashpoint such as Aleppo..."What is Aleppo?"-GJ...then how can anyone take this individual seriously?
"...ready response to the "Aleppo?" question." HE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/10 15:07:28
d-usa wrote: I think if whembly lived somewhere other than MO, he would be more likely to vote for Trump. If his vote could actually impact the election and keep Hillary out of the office, he would hold his nose and fill in that circle (or however people vote in MO). But it's a pretty safe state for Trump, so voting for Johnson is pissing in the wind and won't affect the election at all.
If I thought it would make a lick of difference, I would vote for Hillary. I voted for Obama for two terms, even though I know I was just wasting ink by completing the arrow next to his name. Oklahoma is one of the reddest states, and it went for McCain, it went for Romney, and it will go for Trump. No democrat will carry this state for a long time. So I have the luxury of 'wasting' my vote on Johnson when I vote for every independent and third party candidate that I can.
Me and whembly will vote for Johnson for the same reason: because it doesn't matter who we vote for. The color of our states on the map on Election Day is already decided. If it was a close election in either state I would vote Hillary and he would vote Trump.
Oddly enough, because Texas is so red is exactly why I'll vote blue instead of...whatever colours the third parties are? Because the GOP here knows that any 3rd party vote isn't a blue vote, they won't care. At best, they might adopt or at least act sympathetic to the more red leaning ideals among the thirds to lure them in. But as long as I vote for the actual opposition, and if enough of us do the same, that can send a real message.
I understand that view point. I'm in the opposite situation where my congressional district is extremely Blue so I try to vote for Independents and Libertarians because I don't agree with the priorities of the local Dems, some of their policies are fine but the way the two big parties always jump on the hot button issue bandwagons has always bothered me. You should always vote in a way that represents yourself and your views as accurately as possible and hopefully there are enough like minded people around that you end up being mostly in the majority that's represented.
If I thought voting third party would make any real difference, I would look deeper into them. The problem with states that are so dominated by a single party is that voting third party isn't opposing them, but more of just voting sideways to them. And the GOP in Texas needs some opposition, just like any other state dominated by a single party, as they're been running roughshod over everyone who gets in their way.
It always feels bad when the people charged with representing you really don't represent you at all.
Sadly, that's always been the case. Every politician forgets that they're supposed to represent everyone in their district, not just the people who voted for them. But it's party before country before people these days.
Yup, that's the problem inherent to political parties, they become a middleman in between the people and their representatives and the resulting imbalance of influence leaves a good chunk of the electorate with the voice left out of governance. For whatever reason here in NC it's been easier for me find 3rd party candidates running at the state level than the local level. I can usually find a 3rd party candidate to vote for in gubernatorial elections and other state offices but for offices like county sheriff, city council etc. I end up voting for a mix of Republicans and Democrats depending on the individual candidates. It's a shame because the local level is where a party builds is power base but in a lot of down ballot races incumbents end up running unopposed.
BigWaaagh wrote: Before all the Libertarians waste, I mean cast, their vote for Gary Johnson here's a little bit of reality as to their candidate's qualifications.
Presidential politics is for the big boys with the chops and experience for it. It isn't pretty. It's politics at the highest, global level and it requires a politician that understands and can operate responsibly in that environment. HRC is the only adult in this room, period. The alternative is just too staggeringly stupid, childish and thin skinned to even contemplate. I think we're seeing a beginning of the two party system splinter, which I'm all for, but it's still years off and now is not the time for another Nader-like vote drain debacle.
What exactly is the correct response to Aleppo? Everybody agrees that people there are suffering but it's not something that we can fix. Syria as a whole has been a humanitarian crisis since the fighting started and it's not going to end anytime soon and when it finally does the cessation of hostilities isn't going to suddenly fix all of the destroyed infrastructure, economic crisis, famine, etc that the war has wrought.
Should we send troops to deliver aid in some kind of doomed to fail Somalia redux? Should we start a war with Russia in order to depose Assad and bring about regime change?
Is Aleppo like the new Darfur? I'm ild enough to remember back when anyone who was anyone knew that Darfur was a humanitarian crisis and we just had to DO SOMETHING about it and the conflict in Sudan. It's been over a decade and Darfur and Sudan are still a hot mess of human suffering but you don't score any points for knowing about it because we've moved on to other distractions.
I'm sure Trump's solution to Aleppo is to spew out some inane word salad of jingoistic catch phrases and we all know that won't fix anything. Hillary can't fix it either but she's probably speak about the suffering with some knowledge and detail to get empathetic voters to ignore the fact that she can't offer any solution either but can do it in a more appealing manner. Unless you think that Hillary's foreign policy acumen that had her vote in favor of invading Afghanistan and Iraq while senator and then watch Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, and Ukraine fall apart while she was running the state department will somehow miraculously provide her with the solution to the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo? I don't mean "you" to address BigWagghh solely but to everyone who's outraged over Johnson's lack of a ready reaponse to the "Aleppo?" question.
"What exactly is the correct response to Aleppo?"
Where are you coming from? Did you understand the gist of the post? Darfur...where did that come from? To paraphrase Sgt. Hulka, "Settle down Francis."
This wasn't anything having to do with offering or debating a solution. But, rather, an assessment that if you don't have a simple understanding...or awareness...of a key global flashpoint such as Aleppo..."What is Aleppo?"-GJ...then how can anyone take this individual seriously?
"...ready response to the "Aleppo?" question." HE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS!
What is Aleppo? Is it really a key global flashpoint? It's a city in Syria where the people are hungry and suffering deprivations because they are caught in the midst of a violent civil war. We're not sending troops into Syria anytime soon so how is it a global flashpoint for anything? Unless we have forces engaged in the fighting it's not going grow into anything bigger than an intra Syria fight. Russia is backing Assad, we're backing....who? It's not a flashpoint, it's just a sad human interest story with little if any ramifications on CONUS. The biggest US concern with Aleppo is if it becomes a source for thousands more refugees that we decide to import but that decision is one we have control over, nobody is ever going to have the power to force us to take in refugees against our will.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/10 15:16:42
I knew Aleppo was a city in Syria. I know the names of lots of cities and where they are because I have a reasonable general knowledge of geography, which I think is a good asset for a high level politician and head of state. On the whole, the acquisition and retention of knowledge is still a good thing even in the age of Google.
Back on topic, here is a very interesting article from The Economist, which I will put into a spoiler bracket to save screen space.
The TL/DR is that politicians have always fibbed but Trump is a leading exponent of a new, different quality of lying which completely disregards the truth in order to reinforce prejudices. And this is bad.
Spoiler:
Post-truth politics
Art of the lie
Politicians have always lied. Does it matter if they leave the truth behind entirely?
Sep 10th 2016 | From the print edition
Timekeeper
CONSIDER how far Donald Trump is estranged from fact. He inhabits a fantastical realm where Barack Obama’s birth certificate was faked, the president founded Islamic State (IS), the Clintons are killers and the father of a rival was with Lee Harvey Oswald before he shot John F. Kennedy.
Mr Trump is the leading exponent of “post-truth” politics—a reliance on assertions that “feel true” but have no basis in fact. His brazenness is not punished, but taken as evidence of his willingness to stand up to elite power. And he is not alone. Members of Poland’s government assert that a previous president, who died in a plane crash, was assassinated by Russia. Turkish politicians claim the perpetrators of the recent bungled coup were acting on orders issued by the CIA. The successful campaign for Britain to leave the European Union warned of the hordes of immigrants that would result from Turkey’s imminent accession to the union.
In this section
Art of the lie
A not-so-local difficulty
Bitter pills
Time to sheikh it up
Cut-price logic
Reprints
Related topics
Russia
European Union
United Kingdom
Turkey
Barack Obama
If, like this newspaper, you believe that politics should be based on evidence, this is worrying. Strong democracies can draw on inbuilt defences against post-truth. Authoritarian countries are more vulnerable.
Advertisement
Lord of the lies
That politicians sometimes peddle lies is not news: think of Ronald Reagan’s fib that his administration had not traded weapons with Iran in order to secure the release of hostages and to fund the efforts of rebels in Nicaragua. Dictators and democrats seeking to deflect blame for their own incompetence have always manipulated the truth; sore losers have always accused the other lot of lying.
But post-truth politics is more than just an invention of whingeing elites who have been outflanked. The term picks out the heart of what is new: that truth is not falsified, or contested, but of secondary importance. Once, the purpose of political lying was to create a false view of the world. The lies of men like Mr Trump do not work like that. They are not intended to convince the elites, whom their target voters neither trust nor like, but to reinforce prejudices.
Feelings, not facts, are what matter in this sort of campaigning. Their opponents’ disbelief validates the us-versus-them mindset that outsider candidates thrive on. And if your opponents focus on trying to show your facts are wrong, they have to fight on the ground you have chosen. The more Remain campaigners attacked the Leave campaign’s exaggerated claim that EU membership cost Britain £350m ($468m) a week, the longer they kept the magnitude of those costs in the spotlight.
Post-truth politics has many parents. Some are noble. The questioning of institutions and received wisdom is a democratic virtue. A sceptical lack of deference towards leaders is the first step to reform. The collapse of communism was hastened because brave people were prepared to challenge the official propaganda.
But corrosive forces are also at play. One is anger. Many voters feel let down and left behind, while the elites who are in charge have thrived. They are scornful of the self-serving technocrats who said that the euro would improve their lives and that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Popular trust in expert opinion and established institutions has tumbled across Western democracies.
Post-truth has also been abetted by the evolution of the media (see Briefing). The fragmentation of news sources has created an atomised world in which lies, rumour and gossip spread with alarming speed. Lies that are widely shared online within a network, whose members trust each other more than they trust any mainstream-media source, can quickly take on the appearance of truth. Presented with evidence that contradicts a belief that is dearly held, people have a tendency to ditch the facts first. Well-intentioned journalistic practices bear blame too. The pursuit of “fairness” in reporting often creates phoney balance at the expense of truth. NASA scientist says Mars is probably uninhabited; Professor Snooks says it is teeming with aliens. It’s really a matter of opinion.
When politics is like pro-wrestling, society pays the cost. Mr Trump’s insistence that Mr Obama founded IS precludes a serious debate over how to deal with violent extremists. Policy is complicated, yet post-truth politics damns complexity as the sleight of hand experts use to bamboozle everyone else. Hence Hillary Clinton’s proposals on paid parental leave go unexamined (see article) and the case for trade liberalisation is drowned out by “common sense” demands for protection.
It is tempting to think that, when policies sold on dodgy prospectuses start to fail, lied-to supporters might see the error of their ways. The worst part of post-truth politics, though, is that this self-correction cannot be relied on. When lies make the political system dysfunctional, its poor results can feed the alienation and lack of trust in institutions that make the post-truth play possible in the first place.
Pro-truthers stand and be counted
To counter this, mainstream politicians need to find a language of rebuttal (being called “pro-truth” might be a start). Humility and the acknowledgment of past hubris would help. The truth has powerful forces on its side. Any politician who makes contradictory promises to different audiences will soon be exposed on Facebook or YouTube. If an official lies about attending a particular meeting or seeking a campaign donation, a trail of e-mails may catch him out.
Democracies have institutions to help, too. Independent legal systems have mechanisms to establish truth (indeed, Melania Trump has turned to the law to seek redress for lies about her past). So, in their way, do the independent bodies created to inform policy—especially those that draw on science.
If Mr Trump loses in November, post-truth will seem less menacing, though he has been too successful for it to go away. The deeper worry is for countries like Russia and Turkey, where autocrats use the techniques of post-truth to silence opponents. Cast adrift on an ocean of lies, the people there will have nothing to cling to. For them the novelty of post-truth may lead back to old-fashioned oppression.
Kilkrazy wrote: I knew Aleppo was a city in Syria. I know the names of lots of cities and where they are because I have a reasonable general knowledge of geography, which I think is a good asset for a high level politician and head of state. On the whole, the acquisition and retention of knowledge is still a good thing even in the age of Google.
Back on topic, here is a very interesting article from The Economist, which I will put into a spoiler bracket to save screen space.
The TL/DR is that politicians have always fibbed but Trump is a leading exponent of a new, different quality of lying which completely disregards the truth in order to reinforce prejudices. And this is bad.
Spoiler:
Post-truth politics
Art of the lie
Politicians have always lied. Does it matter if they leave the truth behind entirely?
Sep 10th 2016 | From the print edition
Timekeeper
CONSIDER how far Donald Trump is estranged from fact. He inhabits a fantastical realm where Barack Obama’s birth certificate was faked, the president founded Islamic State (IS), the Clintons are killers and the father of a rival was with Lee Harvey Oswald before he shot John F. Kennedy.
Mr Trump is the leading exponent of “post-truth” politics—a reliance on assertions that “feel true” but have no basis in fact. His brazenness is not punished, but taken as evidence of his willingness to stand up to elite power. And he is not alone. Members of Poland’s government assert that a previous president, who died in a plane crash, was assassinated by Russia. Turkish politicians claim the perpetrators of the recent bungled coup were acting on orders issued by the CIA. The successful campaign for Britain to leave the European Union warned of the hordes of immigrants that would result from Turkey’s imminent accession to the union.
In this section
Art of the lie
A not-so-local difficulty
Bitter pills
Time to sheikh it up
Cut-price logic
Reprints
Related topics
Russia
European Union
United Kingdom
Turkey
Barack Obama
If, like this newspaper, you believe that politics should be based on evidence, this is worrying. Strong democracies can draw on inbuilt defences against post-truth. Authoritarian countries are more vulnerable.
Advertisement
Lord of the lies
That politicians sometimes peddle lies is not news: think of Ronald Reagan’s fib that his administration had not traded weapons with Iran in order to secure the release of hostages and to fund the efforts of rebels in Nicaragua. Dictators and democrats seeking to deflect blame for their own incompetence have always manipulated the truth; sore losers have always accused the other lot of lying.
But post-truth politics is more than just an invention of whingeing elites who have been outflanked. The term picks out the heart of what is new: that truth is not falsified, or contested, but of secondary importance. Once, the purpose of political lying was to create a false view of the world. The lies of men like Mr Trump do not work like that. They are not intended to convince the elites, whom their target voters neither trust nor like, but to reinforce prejudices.
Feelings, not facts, are what matter in this sort of campaigning. Their opponents’ disbelief validates the us-versus-them mindset that outsider candidates thrive on. And if your opponents focus on trying to show your facts are wrong, they have to fight on the ground you have chosen. The more Remain campaigners attacked the Leave campaign’s exaggerated claim that EU membership cost Britain £350m ($468m) a week, the longer they kept the magnitude of those costs in the spotlight.
Post-truth politics has many parents. Some are noble. The questioning of institutions and received wisdom is a democratic virtue. A sceptical lack of deference towards leaders is the first step to reform. The collapse of communism was hastened because brave people were prepared to challenge the official propaganda.
But corrosive forces are also at play. One is anger. Many voters feel let down and left behind, while the elites who are in charge have thrived. They are scornful of the self-serving technocrats who said that the euro would improve their lives and that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Popular trust in expert opinion and established institutions has tumbled across Western democracies.
Post-truth has also been abetted by the evolution of the media (see Briefing). The fragmentation of news sources has created an atomised world in which lies, rumour and gossip spread with alarming speed. Lies that are widely shared online within a network, whose members trust each other more than they trust any mainstream-media source, can quickly take on the appearance of truth. Presented with evidence that contradicts a belief that is dearly held, people have a tendency to ditch the facts first. Well-intentioned journalistic practices bear blame too. The pursuit of “fairness” in reporting often creates phoney balance at the expense of truth. NASA scientist says Mars is probably uninhabited; Professor Snooks says it is teeming with aliens. It’s really a matter of opinion.
When politics is like pro-wrestling, society pays the cost. Mr Trump’s insistence that Mr Obama founded IS precludes a serious debate over how to deal with violent extremists. Policy is complicated, yet post-truth politics damns complexity as the sleight of hand experts use to bamboozle everyone else. Hence Hillary Clinton’s proposals on paid parental leave go unexamined (see article) and the case for trade liberalisation is drowned out by “common sense” demands for protection.
It is tempting to think that, when policies sold on dodgy prospectuses start to fail, lied-to supporters might see the error of their ways. The worst part of post-truth politics, though, is that this self-correction cannot be relied on. When lies make the political system dysfunctional, its poor results can feed the alienation and lack of trust in institutions that make the post-truth play possible in the first place.
Pro-truthers stand and be counted
To counter this, mainstream politicians need to find a language of rebuttal (being called “pro-truth” might be a start). Humility and the acknowledgment of past hubris would help. The truth has powerful forces on its side. Any politician who makes contradictory promises to different audiences will soon be exposed on Facebook or YouTube. If an official lies about attending a particular meeting or seeking a campaign donation, a trail of e-mails may catch him out.
Democracies have institutions to help, too. Independent legal systems have mechanisms to establish truth (indeed, Melania Trump has turned to the law to seek redress for lies about her past). So, in their way, do the independent bodies created to inform policy—especially those that draw on science.
If Mr Trump loses in November, post-truth will seem less menacing, though he has been too successful for it to go away. The deeper worry is for countries like Russia and Turkey, where autocrats use the techniques of post-truth to silence opponents. Cast adrift on an ocean of lies, the people there will have nothing to cling to. For them the novelty of post-truth may lead back to old-fashioned oppression.
From the print edition: Leaders
It's always ends badly when self serving narcissists play on peoples' preference for affirmation over information. I'm still not sure if Trump's shock to the political system will help lead to improvements or make things worse.
Polonius wrote: I think the back and forth illustrates the more specific point, which is that liberal policies tend to disproportionately help lower status individuals, while conservative principles disproportionately help higher status ones.
That's an awfully wide brush Polonius... and I'm not going to get into the discussions over abortions since we'll know it'll derail this thread.
I stand by it. Can you think of any conservative positions that disproportionately help lower status people? I might be missing some, but I struggle to come up with any.
What do you mean by "lower status people"?
The poor?
The poor is a very vague term, but it works. I'd encompass the destitute, the working poor, and the lower middle class. The upper middle class has been doing great (and has been growing), which is one of the reasons the middle middle class is disappearing. If you want a fact that doesn't fit any politicians talking points, it's that more of this country than ever has a high paying, professional job and lives in self segregated suburbs and neighborhoods. But I digress.
There are other ways a person is lower status, just look at the laundry list of protected classes. Blacks and latinos are lower status compared to white and arguably Asians. Christians (including catholics and Mormons) and Jew are higher status compared to other religions, although this is more of a fringe issue much of the time. Obviously straight people are higher status than queer people of nearly any persuasion. You do have the niche issue of able bodied compared to disabled (especially those mentally disabled) And finally men are higher in status than women.
I don't think that every policy hits all of these, or even any of them. But when you look at a platform and see policies that consistently benefit the well off, men, and white folk, I think you can draw a conclusion that the party is mostly interested in advancing the interests of those that already have status and power.
I'm not saying this is based on bigotry, it's simple tribalism. The arguments are made based on property rights, and individual decisions, etc, but they all serve a common purpose: to keep economic and political power in the hands of those that have it. That's what conservatism does, by maintaining a traditional social order.
If you want to know how Trump got the GOP nomination, look at the demographics of his polling numbers. He does better than HRC with Men, with Whites, with the better off, and interestingly, those without college educations. The center of that Venn diagram are members of every majority, having no advanced education, yet are better off than average.
Please understand that I'm not having a "go" with you.
I see where you're coming from with all this, but I think you nailed it that it's simple tribalism. Everyone feels the need to "have a voice" and will gravitate to their candidate/party.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/10 17:44:56
Every. fething. Word. OUT of HRC's mouth is most likely a lie or loaded condenscending bs. Throw ontop the shady quid pro quo activities facilitated by her foundation, then yes, I'll call them out.
Well, that sentence says a lot from what you think of her, indeed. You base your opinion on the deep belief (and I insist on the word "belief") that everything she's saying has high chances to be a lie or condescending. So you seem to reject instantly the possibility she may say something that could be true or understanding.
So, since she "lied first", I guess everything about her has to be reported as shocking news, even if they are lies/"modified" versions of what happened? Is that your logic?
Well... to be fair, I'm pretty much like that towards all politicians. I'm a Missourian and our "Show Me State" motto is alive and well...
It's something else althogether when she flat-out lied such as:
-Current email saga, that I spent considerable time on here...
-And my biggest bugaboo is Hillary's actions over what transpired in Benghazi, who repeatedly lied to us, and to the survivors/widows over their caskets. It takes a special kind of politician to essentially piss on their graves like that.
What's the MOST shocking thing to me, is that she keeps violating the first rule of holes...
No. Me acknowledging that HRC is a horrible candidate isn't me "doing Trump's own job". That's me simply saying HRC is a horrible candidate.
This isn't mutual exclusive.
Furthermore, it's REALLY telling that HRC's campaign strategy is to make the election a Referendum on Trump.
She has worked in government in how many years??? Yet, ironically the strategy so far has been "yeah, but Trump!"... rather than "here's my records and belief".
Well, I agree with you about using the motto "everything but Trump" is working in her favor. I think she's using that as a strategy, and I indeed find sad the fact the debate isn't really about their programs but more about the persons. It's unfortunately the same for a lot of elections around the world.
But I think only basing yourself on that is a wrong move. It's not just that, IMHO. When reading your posts, I feel like you see the world in Black and White, and think all about Clinton is pure black, the same pure black than Trump. Is that really the case?
Same pure black as Clinton? Not really...
But, that doesn't mean Trump isn't bad. In fact, he's horrible.
It's just that in this election, I'm refusing to participate in the "lesser evil" mindset between Clinton and Trump.
Huh? I brought up plenty of ridiculous Trumpisms.
Not as many about Clinton, and not reporting the same way and depth when you talk about Clinton. Didn't you notice?
Sure. I can see that you could be mistaken to take that in consideration.
I despise both Trump and Clinton... for completely different reasons.
It's understood that Trump is bad... however, the amount of effort to White Knight Clinton is something else altogether.
Oh, I see where you are going. Indeed, if you feel that Trump is universally despised, there is less incentive to report his own "treacheries" as news - you go on the assumption everyone already knows that. Thus you feel like it's more important to reveal the evil behind Clinton, because you feel too many people are supporting her like she was a perfect angel. It's maybe a caricature than I'm picturing here, but maybe it's something like that?
If so, don't you think it can be dangerous? Because that means you talk more about Clinton than Trump, and that's what people see first. It's a basis in communication - if you keep talking negatively on someone over and over, that's the first thing people will notice and remember. I know you repeated about Clinton winning eventually in the end because Trump can't possibly go in the White House. I remember it was something similar for the Brexit; everyone thought the British would vote against it, and yet in the end...it was the Brexit that was victorious, with a very short marge, sure, but still. A great cause of that was because of the misinformation/lies and confusion about what really were the consequences and how the EU really worked. By reporting endless "news" about Dark Clinton, don't you think you're actually supporting the whole Trumpeteer Electoral War Machine, since they're the one using that strategy to confuse people and make a vote for Trump "not that bad"? That's what I was talking about before.
On a offtopic discussion forum where the clientele are hobbyist who plays tabletop wargames from all over the world, I'm secure in the knowledge that my ranting & ravings isn't going to add one iota to "Trupeteer Electoral War Machine".
But to your point, no I realy don't think its dangerous because I'm waaaaaaaaay past the acceptance stage that Clinton is going to be our next President. Which is going to suck donkey balls.
If, and I really stress the "if", Trump perseveres and becomes our next President, it's STILL going to suck balls... maybe not donkey's balls, just a different set of 'nads that would be bad for different reasons.
"make it right in the eyes of others"?
There you go again...
Yes...Rereading what I wrote, I understand it was a bit too much. I apologize for that. I believe everything we're doing have consequences on our surroundings, be it on short or long term. It may be bad or good. What I believe is that we are responsible of them, even if they are not known or fully apparent at first sight. That doesn't make us monsters or angels. Just that we should be aware of this at all times.
No worries.
It's really extension that 'Elections has Consquences'.
But I digress. The way I wrote it was sounding like I was in the right and you're in the wrong. That's not the case. I don't have the right to judge you on that one. So, sorry again about that if you felt that way.
I despise both Trump and Clinton... for completely different reasons.
It's understood that Trump is bad... however, the amount of effort to White Knight Clinton is something else altogether.
Oh, I see where you are going. Indeed, if you feel that Trump is universally despised, there is less incentive to report his own "treacheries" as news - you go on the assumption everyone already knows that. Thus you feel like it's more important to reveal the evil behind Clinton, because you feel too many people are supporting her like she was a perfect angel. It's maybe a caricature than I'm picturing here, but maybe it's something like that?
From my observation, Trump is universally despised here on Dakka. Asides from some of the more fringe posters, no one here supports him. The same cannot be said for Clinton though. There are plenty who are giving Clinton's more egregious failings a total pass because of "not Trump/Republican/whatever". Now for folks like myself, or Whembly, there isn't much of a point in discussing Trump here because it's pretty much universally agreed he's dogshit. It's the fawning over Clinton that catches our eye, and why we speak out about it more.
If you were to check my facebook page, for example, you'd see that the only political postings I make are about Trump. I'm largely a conservative person, and as such, a lot of people in my life are conservative. Many of them do support Trump. So in an online setting where he is "popular" I do target him.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/10 18:22:35
"What is Aleppo? Is it really a key global flashpoint? It's a city in Syria where the people are hungry and suffering deprivations because they are caught in the midst of a violent civil war. We're not sending troops into Syria anytime soon so how is it a global flashpoint for anything? Unless we have forces engaged in the fighting it's not going grow into anything bigger than an intra Syria fight. Russia is backing Assad, we're backing....who? It's not a flashpoint, it's just a sad human interest story with little if any ramifications on CONUS. The biggest US concern with Aleppo is if it becomes a source for thousands more refugees that we decide to import but that decision is one we have control over, nobody is ever going to have the power to force us to take in refugees against our will." - Prestor Jon
You're so far off the point of my post that you're becoming ridiculous.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/10 19:00:53
BigWaaagh wrote: You're so off the point of my post that you're ridiculous.
Is your point that GJ should have known about Aleppo and had a response ready because it would be a discussion topic for any presidential candidate? I can understand that take but I also think that presupposes that every candidate and every campaign has the same priorities regarding the same issues. Outside of this thread I can't think of any discussion I've had with friends, family or coworkers wherein Aleppo came up and I can't recall the last time it was a predominate headline in any of the local papers. GJ is probably targeting voters with opinions and priorities similar to his own and if that means Aleppo doesn't get mentioned much on his campaign stops it's no wonder he didn't have much knowledge on it. I doubt GJ's campaign has much of a budget to work with so his staff may not be that good and he's certainly not used to a lot of media attention and sure doesn't shine in the spotlight. I can think of plenty of issues that would be a higher priority for voters and likely Libertarian voters than Aleppo so I don't see the value in being upset that GJ isnt the polished politician policy wonk that nobody ever claimed he was.
HRC:
"To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call 'the basket of deplorables.' Right?" the Democratic presidential nominee told donors at the event. "Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that and he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric."
She added: "Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable. But they are not America."
Clinton said Trump's other supporters "are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change."
I'm not a fan of any candidate "lumping" the American public into pigeon holes, but calling out the unsavory group(s) that have thrown support behind Trump is a bit more than slightly different from Romney slamming 47% of the American population.
Don't forget Whembly, there are plenty here who are going to agree with her.
Edit: Nevermind... someone beat me to it...
But half? That's just dumb.
It's obvious to me that the overwhelming majority of the people who plan to vote for Trump in this country, simply can’t stand HRC. Many of those people supported other candidates in the primary. They have simply decided that what they’re left with is better than HRC.
BigWaaagh wrote: You're so off the point of my post that you're ridiculous.
Is your point that GJ should have known about Aleppo and had a response ready because it would be a discussion topic for any presidential candidate? I can understand that take but I also think that presupposes that every candidate and every campaign has the same priorities regarding the same issues. Outside of this thread I can't think of any discussion I've had with friends, family or coworkers wherein Aleppo came up and I can't recall the last time it was a predominate headline in any of the local papers. GJ is probably targeting voters with opinions and priorities similar to his own and if that means Aleppo doesn't get mentioned much on his campaign stops it's no wonder he didn't have much knowledge on it. I doubt GJ's campaign has much of a budget to work with so his staff may not be that good and he's certainly not used to a lot of media attention and sure doesn't shine in the spotlight. I can think of plenty of issues that would be a higher priority for voters and likely Libertarian voters than Aleppo so I don't see the value in being upset that GJ isnt the polished politician policy wonk that nobody ever claimed he was.
Had a response ready? He had a response ready and it was "What is Aleppo?" There's simply no issue here. For a POTUS candidate of any ilk, that is an unacceptable answer. Don't know? Get out of the race. Want to focus on other more constituent relevant issues? Go back to being a governor and leave the big leagues, that have big issues to grapple with, to the big boys.
Also, he's a POTUS candidate, not you, your family or your buddies, so that's an absurd comment. If you and the water cooler gang don't talk about Federal Reserve monetary policy, totally fine, but if you're being nominated for President of the Federal Reserve, I'd expect something more on the subject than "What is...?" Unacceptable, regardless of party affiliation. The Syrian Civil War, of which Aleppo is the face, touches on just about every point of debate in this POTUS election. Sorry, once again, but that level of cluelessness at this level of politics is unacceptable and frankly, dangerous. Quit making excuses for his lack of qualification.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/09/10 22:08:59
Hillary Clinton expressed “regret” Saturday for saying half of Republican presidential rival Trump’s supporters could be put into a "basket of deplorables."
Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, said in her apology that she was “grossly generalistic” in criticizing Trump supporters, using that same phrase Friday night when attacking them at a New York fundraiser.
“That's never a good idea,” she said Saturday.
“Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it,” Clinton said Friday. “There are people like that and he has lifted them up.”
Clinton, in her apology also said: “I regret saying ‘half’ -- that was wrong. But let's be clear, what's really ‘deplorable’ is that Donald Trump hired a major advocate for the so-called ‘alt-right’ movement to run his campaign and that David Duke and other white supremacists see him as a champion of their values.”
I think if you're arguing over what the exact ratio of bigotry is in a political movement, you're missing the point.
I think it's good politics, actually. For the first time in a long while, the appeal of a candidate to some of the nastier bigots is pretty uncontested. So while everybody can clutch their pearls at HRC claiming it's "half" of Trumps support, it's also reminding everybody that it's a pretty fervent part of the support.
What I was kind of surprised it is the way she stated it, as "deplorables." Not word you hear a lot, and I think she's finally doing some campaigning. She's making her case that her opponent is most popular with the some of the most openly regressive people.
Hillary Clinton expressed “regret” Saturday for saying half of Republican presidential rival Trump’s supporters could be put into a "basket of deplorables."
Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, said in her apology that she was “grossly generalistic” in criticizing Trump supporters, using that same phrase Friday night when attacking them at a New York fundraiser.
“That's never a good idea,” she said Saturday.
“Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it,” Clinton said Friday. “There are people like that and he has lifted them up.”
Clinton, in her apology also said: “I regret saying ‘half’ -- that was wrong. But let's be clear, what's really ‘deplorable’ is that Donald Trump hired a major advocate for the so-called ‘alt-right’ movement to run his campaign and that David Duke and other white supremacists see him as a champion of their values.”
It's hilarious to see some of the individuals in this thread who have posted about "politics being a bloodsport" getting their knickers in a knot over Clinton making statements like this when we have a political candidate who has done much, much nastier during this election season.
Polonius wrote: I think if you're arguing over what the exact ratio of bigotry is in a political movement, you're missing the point.
I think it's good politics, actually. For the first time in a long while, the appeal of a candidate to some of the nastier bigots is pretty uncontested. So while everybody can clutch their pearls at HRC claiming it's "half" of Trumps support, it's also reminding everybody that it's a pretty fervent part of the support.
What I was kind of surprised it is the way she stated it, as "deplorables." Not word you hear a lot, and I think she's finally doing some campaigning. She's making her case that her opponent is most popular with the some of the most openly regressive people.
I still think it's a gaff...
But, to make lemonades out of lemons, this can be turned around to an advantage. Namely, that HRC would rather talk about anything than her emails scandals... if she can spark the media into debating the proportion of racists among Trump's base, then no one is talking about her scandals?
I think the bigger issue, is that why isn't HRC curb stomping Trump.
It's obvious to me that the overwhelming majority of the people who plan to vote for Trump in this country, simply can’t stand HRC. Many of those people supported other candidates in the primary. They have simply decided that what they’re left with is better than HRC.
It's obvious to you because you want it to be.
Anecdotally, nearly every Trump supporter I know is either racist, sexist, homophobic, or hates Muslims and it's usually a combination of those. I've said this time and time again on this forum and most people just fething ignore it: there are lots racist people in most areas of this country. I mean lots. In every position on the social ladder and political spectrum. I know life-long Democrats that refused to vote for Obama because they "won't vote for a n____r" and now only vote Republican. My uncle who spent a career working for the federal government thinks that the only thing Dylann Roof (the Charleston church shooter) did wrong was kill those people in a church. I work with a guy that wouldn't let his son go to a friends house because their parents "were fags." He was also incredulous to the idea that I would allow my daughters to be left in the care of their gay uncle. This guy also also thinks that sexual harassment or assault is perfectly fine; he asked me the other day if I had ever grabbed a girl's ass at a party because she was hot (I responded that I was raised to treat people with respect). I work with another guy that is "proudly homophobic," which were seriously his words. This same guy said he's pro-abortion to keep blacks from having too many kids. I know another guy thinks Muslims shouldn't be allowed in the US at all, regardless of their citizenship, because they're going to "take over" everything. This same guy has also said numerous times that he wished someone had assassinated the President already and hopes Hillary dies before November. I know another guy that is proudly racist. He told me that his daughter (whom like most racists, instilled it into her at a young age) had a friend over and was making inappropriate racial comments and the girl asked him if he was racist and he said, "Yes. Yes I am." He's fething proud of the fact that him and his buddies used to beat the gak out of black kids when they were young. Another buddy of mine pulls down his lower lip every time he mentions black people or makes monkey noises. These are people just in my sphere in suburban Northern Virginia, which more or less leans liberal and has one (if not the) highest per capita income in the country, not some Podunk town in the middle of nowhere (where my cousin lived in Georgia was exponentially worse).
However, the truth is that lot of racist people aren't outwardly racist, which is how most of them, like myself, were brought up. It's not polite to be racist to someone's face, that kind of stuff is reserved for the home. You're taught that there are exceptions to the rule, which made no sense to me when I heard my dad use every racist term under the sun but then we'd hang out with the black family that lived down the street from us. When I asked him about it, he told that they're "different." I was "taught" the difference between a black person and 'a n____r" and it took until high school for me to figure out that my family had a fethed up way of looking at people. Another thing that is common nationally and supported by research is idea that white people will say they believe in racial equality, but that stops when it comes to who they let into their neighborhoods, their homes, their families, their lives. Twenty-eight percent of white people think that homeowners should be allowed to discriminate when selling their home and 25% oppose their family members marrying a black person. Twenty percent of white people said their ideal neighborhood had only other white people, 25% said their ideal neighborhood had no blacks in it, and 1 in 3 wanted no Hispanics or Asians in their neighborhood. Even in my town of Leesburg, there was an uproar over school rezoning because kids from the more expensive (and white) areas would be attending a new school closer to the "poorer" (but not really, there's just more Hispanic people there) part of town. Most of them probably wouldn't flat out admit that's why they were upset, but there's no question that it was the underlying theme.
It seems to me that the a lot of people won't identify as racist (which ironically, is one of the most offensive things you can say to a racist) and a lot of people don't see themselves as racist... they just don't want non-white people in their lives, homes, jobs, schools, or neighborhoods.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/10 21:35:10
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Not in the US system. In the US system a third national party would probably create more gerrymandering and, because it would almost certainly be the Libertarians, lead to more conservative losses. This would only serve to further alienate conservative voters as many of them would turn to the Libertarians due to economics while still carrying socially conservative beliefs.
Right now the only national voices heard on several important issues are the two major parties that perpetuate the false narrative that everything is binary, that every issue only has 2 acceptable positions to take and that those two positions have to diametrically oppose each other.
That isn't the narrative either Party has created on issues which are important at the national level and, in most cases, they actually are binary.
Current defense spending should continue v. Less defense spending should occur. Medicare/Medicaid should be privatized v. No it shouldn't be. The IRS should be disbanded v. No it shouldn't be. Etc.
