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.
Kilkrazy wrote: Clinton needed a positive slogan that would fit on a T shirt.
#ImWithHer
This slogan was intended to mean something along the lines of "I am with the forces of goodness and progress and inclusivity and generally the right side of history" where all of those things were supposedly embodied/personified by Hillary Clinton. (Arrow pointing forward = cross in the H.)
I thought that was a terrible slogan.
#Won'tGrabYourP%$#y
#Hasn'tFiledForBankruptsy15Times
#NotRacist
#ActuallyHasAPlan
hahahahahaha
i can't believe that we just elected a guy who said so much racist and sexist crap...
i hope that he is not as bad as he seems to be...
i have a feeling that the guy is more full of hot air than anything else...
what worries me is Pence...
looking in that guy's eyes, you can see that he just dying to get stuck in with the Bible thumping...
Christian Fundamentalism is not supposed to be mixing with government...
wuestenfux wrote: People should be nervous.
It's hard to say atm how large the gap will be between what he was saying and what he will be doing.
Like any politician he will say exactly what his audience want to hear, and do exactly whatever he pleases regardless.
Hopefully the Legeslative and Judicial branches can keep him in check though.
Indeed. But still there are some "projects" that can be executed mostly without the other powers.
Globalization cannot be stopped only interrupted by a backward minded leader.
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
The smug style plays out in private too, of course. If you haven't started one yourself, you've surely seen the Facebook threads: Ten or 20 of Brooklyn's finest gather to say how exasperated they are, these days, by the stupidity of the American public.
"I just don't know what to do about these people," one posts. "I think we have to accept that a lot of people are just misinformed!" replies another. "Like, I think they actually don't want to know anything that would undermine their worldview."
They tend to do it in the comment section, under an article about how conservatives are difficult to persuade because they isolate themselves in mutually reinforcing information bubbles.
Trump capturing the nomination will not dispel the smug style; if anything, it will redouble it. Faced with the prospect of an election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the smug will reach a fever pitch: six straight months of a sure thing, an opportunity to mock and scoff and ask, How could anybody vote for this guy? until a morning in November when they ask, What the feth happened?
Nothing is more confounding to the smug style than the fact that the average Republican is better educated and has a higher IQ than the average Democrat. That for every overpowered study finding superior liberal open-mindedness and intellect and knowledge, there is one to suggest that Republicans have the better of these qualities.
Most damning, perhaps, to the fancy liberal self-conception: Republicans score higher in susceptibility to persuasion. They are willing to change their minds more often.
The Republican coalition tends toward the center: educated enough, smart enough, informed enough.
It is central to the liberal self-conception that what separates them from reactionaries is a desire to help people, a desire to create a fairer and more just world. Liberals still want, or believe they still want, to make a more perfect union.
Whether you believe they are deluded or not, whether you believe this project is worthwhile in any form or not, what I am trying to tell you is that the smug style has fundamentally undermined even the aspiration, that it has made American liberalism into the worst version of itself.
It is impossible, in the long run, to cleave the desire to help people from the duty to respect them. It becomes all at once too easy to decide you know best, to never hear, much less ignore, protest to the contrary.
It's worth a read if you think it's mastery of the facts and isolationist fact-free bubbles that are the problem.
Well, it kinda is the problem. It's just more widespread than people generally appreciate.
The ones who most ardently will grind their teeth about "fact-free bubbles" and wring their hands over a "post-truth society", should take a long hard look at themselves and consider if they themselves has not also been living in a bubble of their own. But unfortunately, most of them won't.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/11 14:17:01
wuestenfux wrote: People should be nervous.
It's hard to say atm how large the gap will be between what he was saying and what he will be doing.
Like any politician he will say exactly what his audience want to hear, and do exactly whatever he pleases regardless.
Hopefully the Legeslative and Judicial branches can keep him in check though.
Indeed. But still there are some "projects" that can be executed mostly without the other powers.
Globalization cannot be stopped only interrupted by a backward minded leader.
He would actually gain some respect from me if he disrupted rampant unchecked globalization that not only is hurting this country but is actively oppressing half the planet for profit. Liberalized globalism is every bit as racist as Trump is said to be except it actually is killing people.
Ugh, the guy put in charge of education thinks the pyramids where built to store grain, doesn't believe in evolution or climate change and things creationism should be taught in schools.
KommissarKiln wrote: I was really hoping that we'd get a further push in the direction of renewable energy sources, but it looks like we'll be doubling down on fossil fuels. With the rate at which we will be depleting fossil fuels, and the rate at which, for example, solar panels will be made more efficient for cheaper, I'm hoping it'll economical to switch over at a large scale relatively soon-- 10 to 20 years? But with this "not believing in climate change nonsense," I feel this could be stalled for some time longer.
An interesting thing I saw today on this: coal is dying. Maybe the republican party will take enough bribes from coal companies to hand out subsidies to keep the coal plants running a while longer, but cleaner energy is becoming a winning plan even from the point of view of a purely selfish energy company CEO.
Thanks for the link, an interesting read. I'll certainly want to look into the topic further, but that article was a nice start.
Manchu wrote:
Spinner wrote: I don't see how it's a moralistic beatstick; it's true.
That's what everyone says about the beatstick they're wielding. But look I'm not going to engage in campaign trail arguments after the election is done. I have no interest in making a counterargument against why people should not vote for Trump. For one thing, if I wanted to do that I should have been in here from June through October. For another thing, I didn't vote for Trump. The only thing still relevant about the "voting for Trump is evil" arguments is that dejected HRC supporters are still making them, now to each other rather than to undecideds. I guess it's just early days. The next argument is simper, "Trump is evil." on a lighter note, I have already seen HRC supporter co-opting the upcoming Star Wars movie for this purpose. "I rebel."
Oh, please, no. I want to watch movies to enjoy the movie. I don't want to see people use them to push political agendas. That's already been done heavily with The Force Awakens, given the "controversy" that was the identities of protagonist leads (female, black, and possibly homosexual? I'm still not sure about the latter). I didn't see why there had to be a big fuss about it, Daisey Ridley et al had fine performances and these identities didn't really come into play much, except possibly for Rey's tough, independent lifestyle. Unless government mooks start wearing plastic-y body armor with skull-like masks and the government starts systematically exterminating magic space monks with laser swords, I'd like to see movies how disestablishmentarians would like to see religion: kept away from government.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/11 14:32:05
Prestor Jon wrote: I'm not saying people can't have valid negative feelings about Trump winning I'm encouraging people to temper those feelings with the reality of the limitations of executive power. Be sad, be angry, be disappointed, be upset but don't be freaking out because you think Trump is going to send federal JBTs to come get you.
I'm with you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zywus wrote: The ones who most ardently will grind their teeth about "fact-free bubbles" and wring their hands over a "post-truth society", should take a long hard look at themselves and consider if they themselves has not also been living in a bubble of their own. But unfortunately, most of them won't.
The thing is...belief is truth.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/11 14:39:19
tneva82 wrote: But on unrelated note can anybody give rough estimate what's the LEAST amount of voters you would theoretically need to become president? Due to the way elections in USA work you don't need to have most votes(unlike in Finland. If you don't get more votes than others you don't get to be president). You just need to win enough states to get that 270 votes and states can be won by 1 vote. Rest of the states can be 0 votes.
No need to start calculating but if somebody would have some sort of ballmark?Just idle curiosity.
The entire video is worth watching but the relevant part about taking advantage of the Electoral College is at the 4:25 mark. Keep in mind that, as unfair as the system is right now, it is extremely unlikely that the scenario presented in the video would happen (something the video acknowledges as well).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/11 14:40:20
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."
But on unrelated note can anybody give rough estimate what's the LEAST amount of voters you would theoretically need to become president.
1.
If that's 100% of the votes you'll win.
Actually, even if there was 100% voter turnout you could still win the election with ZERO votes. Remember, we don't elect the President directly with our votes. Our votes are basically just "suggestions" for the electoral college. Hypothetically enough of them could totally ignore their states' voters and nominate a guy that didn't get a single vote.
As I was watching a bit of Thursday night football, I had a profound realization.
Being a Democratic supporter is like being a Minnesota Vikings fan. No matter how much they seem to have it together and the right players, they still find a way to screw it up and not win a Super Bowl.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Manchu wrote: I think it is ridiculous to assert that premise, which can only be meaningful in the abstract, necessarily has anything to do with why people cast a vote for Trump.
It doesn't matter what their reasons for voting for Trump were. Even if you voted for Trump because you thought his economic plan was better (lol) your vote was still a statement that it's ok to accept racism if that's the price you have to pay to get what you want. Or it's ok that the vice president thinks that abusing gay people until they pretend to be straight (or commit suicide trying) as long as Clinton's email server is properly punished. You don't get to pick out some of Trump's policies and discard the stuff you don't like, if you vote for Trump you're voting for his racism along with everything else.
Keep banging on that drum Peregrine... it's only going to help Trump's 2020 re-election.
It turns out a clear statement, even if it is a pretty obvious lie, will draw more support than a series of individual policies with no specific vision. For all the talk about how different this election was, in this one case perhaps this is the oldest lesson of all.
Well said Sebs. What I took away is that desperate people would rather believe the convenient lie, than the sausage making of policy to deal with actual truths.
In retrospect, it is incredibly obvious. I just didn't really want to believe that people would see through the convenient lie, and then vote for it anyway. i guess I was living in my own world of cognitive dissonance, and I was really wrong about it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/11 15:00:23
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Easy E wrote: Well said Sebs. What I took away is that desperate people would rather believe the convenient lie, than the sausage making of policy to deal with actual truths.
In retrospect, it is incredibly obvious. I just didn't really want to believe that people would see through the convenient lie, and then vote for it anyway. i guess I was living in my own world of cognitive dissonance, and I was really wrong about it.
I don't think you're giving them enough credit, to be honest. They know $30/hour manufacturing jobs aren't coming back.
Only about 30% of people who voted thought Donald Trump was qualified to be president. A huge portion of people who voted for Donald Trump did not think he was qualified to do the job.
They didn't go all in on him because they believed his lies about restoring American manufacturing. They bought into him because the federal government has ignored them for decades and they have been left behind by the prosperity created by tech jobs. Things for the "coastal elite" have gotten better, things for them have gotten worse. Government doesn't work for them.
This is them chucking a bomb into the system, not buying the snake oil.
Easy E wrote: Well said Sebs. What I took away is that desperate people would rather believe the convenient lie, than the sausage making of policy to deal with actual truths.
In retrospect, it is incredibly obvious. I just didn't really want to believe that people would see through the convenient lie, and then vote for it anyway. i guess I was living in my own world of cognitive dissonance, and I was really wrong about it.
I don't think you're giving them enough credit, to be honest. They know $30/hour manufacturing jobs aren't coming back.
Only about 30% of people who voted thought Donald Trump was qualified to be president. A huge portion of people who voted for Donald Trump did not think he was qualified to do the job.
They didn't go all in on him because they believed his lies about restoring American manufacturing. They bought into him because the federal government has ignored them for decades and they have been left behind by the prosperity created by tech jobs. Things for the "coastal elite" have gotten better, things for them have gotten worse. Government doesn't work for them.
This is them chucking a bomb into the system, not buying the snake oil.
What every liberal who didn't see this coming needs to understand
Many will say Trump won because he successfully capitalized on blue collar workers' anxieties about immigration and globalization. Others will say he won because America rejected a deeply unpopular alternative. Still others will say the country is simply racist to its core.
But there's another major piece of the puzzle, and it would be a profound mistake to overlook it. Overlooking it was largely the problem, in the first place.
Trump won because of a cultural issue that flies under the radar and remains stubbornly difficult to define, but is nevertheless hugely important to a great number of Americans: political correctness.
More specifically, Trump won because he convinced a great number of Americans that he would destroy political correctness.
I have tried to call attention to this issue for years. I have warned that political correctness actually is a problem on college campuses, where the far-left has gained institutional power and used it to punish people for saying or thinking the wrong thing. And ever since Donald Trump became a serious threat to win the GOP presidential primaries, I have warned that a lot of people, both on campus and off it, were furious about political-correctness-run-amok—so furious that they would give power to any man who stood in opposition to it.
I have watched this play out on campus after campus. I have watched dissident student groups invite Milo Yiannopoulos to speak—not because they particularly agree with his views, but because he denounces censorship and undermines political correctness. I have watched students cheer his theatrics, his insulting behavior, and his narcissism solely because the enforcers of campus goodthink are outraged by it. It's not about his ideas, or policies. It's not even about him. It's about vengeance for social oppression.
Trump has done to America what Yiannopoulos did to campus. This is a view Yiannopoulos shares. When I spoke with him about Trump's success months ago, he told me, "Nobody votes for Trump or likes Trump on the basis of policy positions. That's a misunderstanding of what the Trump phenomenon is."
He described Trump as "an icon of irreverent resistance to political correctness." Correctly, I might add.
What is political correctness? It's notoriously hard to define. I recently appeared on a panel with CNN's Sally Kohn, who described political correctness as being polite and having good manners. That's fine—it can mean different things to different people. I like manners. I like being polite. That's not what I'm talking about.
The segment of the electorate who flocked to Trump because he positioned himself as "an icon of irreverent resistance to political correctness" think it means this: smug, entitled, elitist, privileged leftists jumping down the throats of ordinary folks who aren't up-to-date on the latest requirements of progressive society.
Example: A lot of people think there are only two genders—boy and girl. Maybe they're wrong. Maybe they should change that view. Maybe it's insensitive to the trans community. Maybe it even flies in the face of modern social psychology. But people think it. Political correctness is the social force that holds them in contempt for that, or punishes them outright.
If you're a leftist reading this, you probably think that's stupid. You probably can't understand why someone would get so bent out of shape about being told their words are hurtful. You probably think it's not a big deal and these people need to get over themselves. Who's the delicate snowflake now, huh? you're probably thinking. I'm telling you: your failure to acknowledge this miscalculation and adjust your approach has delivered the country to Trump.
There's a related problem: the boy-who-cried-wolf situation. I was happy to see a few liberals, like Bill Maher, owning up to it. Maher admitted during a recent show that he was wrong to treat George Bush, Mitt Romney, and John McCain like they were apocalyptic threats to the nation: it robbed him of the ability to treat Trump more seriously. The left said McCain was a racist supported by racists, it said Romney was a racist supported by racists, but when an actually racist Republican came along—and racists cheered him—it had lost its ability to credibly make that accusation.
This is akin to the political-correctness-run-amok problem: both are examples of the left's horrible over-reach during the Obama years. The leftist drive to enforce a progressive social vision was relentless, and it happened too fast. I don't say this because I'm opposed to that vision—like most members of the under-30 crowd, I have no problem with gender neutral pronouns—I say this because it inspired a backlash that gave us Trump.
My liberal critics rolled their eyes when I complained about political correctness. I hope they see things a little more clearly now. The left sorted everyone into identity groups and then told the people in the poorly-educated-white-male identity group that that's the only bad one. It mocked the members of this group mercilessly. It punished them for not being woke enough. It called them racists. It said their video games were sexist. It deployed Lena Dunham to tell them how horrible they were. Lena Dunham!
I warned that political-correctness-run-amok and liberal overreach would lead to a counter-revolution if unchecked. That counter-revolution just happened.
There is a cost to depriving people of the freedom (in both the legal and social senses) to speak their mind. The presidency just went to the guy whose main qualification, according to his supporters, is that he isn't afraid to speak his.
As someone who finds leftist political correctness nauseating, while I wish that were true, I very much doubt it. I think the left caring more about 0.05% of the population's preferred pronouns than 40% of the population's economic stability played a role, but not a big one.
Foreign policy aside, I'm not a Trump fan, but it has been amusing to see the backlash in the UK's 'liberal' newspapers.
I think if they had their way, they'd vote for a new American electorate
And another thing, American liberal newspapers are blaming us for Trump because of Brexit. They claim we got the ball rolling or something.
I can assure all American dakka members that the USA was the last thing on my mind when I cast my leave vote.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Manchu wrote: I think it is ridiculous to assert that premise, which can only be meaningful in the abstract, necessarily has anything to do with why people cast a vote for Trump.
It doesn't matter what their reasons for voting for Trump were. Even if you voted for Trump because you thought his economic plan was better (lol) your vote was still a statement that it's ok to accept racism if that's the price you have to pay to get what you want. Or it's ok that the vice president thinks that abusing gay people until they pretend to be straight (or commit suicide trying) as long as Clinton's email server is properly punished. You don't get to pick out some of Trump's policies and discard the stuff you don't like, if you vote for Trump you're voting for his racism along with everything else.
That's exactly what people do. All the people I know who voted for Trump did so because they're primarily one issue voters. People held their nose and voted Trump for the sake of 2A rights or to get the right justices nominated to SCotUS, or to fix the economy or whatever. That's what most of the people I know do on election day, hold their nose and vote for the lesser of 2 evils. When you choose to vote for the lesser of 2 evils you're acknowledging that you're voting for evil it's just a degree of evil that you can rationalize supporting based on the primacy you place on a specific issue.
The first election I was eligible to vote in was in 2000 and the Lesser of Two Evils philosophy was in full effect then. In 2004 we had the awesomely hilarious and poignant South Park episode Douche vs Turd Sandwich, because at that point the cultural zeitgeist in the US had entrenched in our minds that Election Day is the day we're confronted with a horrible choice between two terrible options and we just hold our nose, sacrifice some dignity and principles and vote for whichever candidate we feel is a slightly smaller and less stinky pile of gak.
For various reasons Republicans have been holding their noses and voting for compromise candidates for years, its the big reason why the right wing echo chamber keeps clamoring for more pure conservative candidates and decrying the impurity of candidates as a key factor in losing elections. Trump is just the most recent example of Republicans voting for a flawed candidate.
Democrats do their share of voting for The Lesser of Two Evils too. This time around step backward from the hopefulness of Obama and the genuine principledness of Bernie to the blatant unscrupulous lust for power and corporatism of Hillary was just too stinky for enough Democrats to hold their nose and vote for Clinton just because she wasn't as bad as Trump.
As someone who finds leftist political correctness nauseating, while I wish that were true, I very much doubt it. I think the left caring more about 0.05% of the population's preferred pronouns than 40% of the population's economic stability played a role, but not a big one.
It's not so much about the left caring about stuff that the "silent majority" finds silly or unimportant.
It's the arrogance with which people are treated that, as Soave expresses it "aren't up-to-date on the latest requirements of progressive society"
Seaward wrote: Only about 30% of people who voted thought Donald Trump was qualified to be president. A huge portion of people who voted for Donald Trump did not think he was qualified to do the job.
They didn't go all in on him because they believed his lies about restoring American manufacturing. They bought into him because the federal government has ignored them for decades and they have been left behind by the prosperity created by tech jobs. Things for the "coastal elite" have gotten better, things for them have gotten worse. Government doesn't work for them.
This is them chucking a bomb into the system, not buying the snake oil.
Basically reason #5, as Michael Moore, of all people, predicted.
It turns out a clear statement, even if it is a pretty obvious lie, will draw more support than a series of individual policies with no specific vision. For all the talk about how different this election was, in this one case perhaps this is the oldest lesson of all.
Well said Sebs. What I took away is that desperate people would rather believe the convenient lie, than the sausage making of policy to deal with actual truths.
In retrospect, it is incredibly obvious. I just didn't really want to believe that people would see through the convenient lie, and then vote for it anyway. i guess I was living in my own world of cognitive dissonance, and I was really wrong about it.
I don't quite agree with that, although having a clear message remains incredibly important.
But I think a lot of the vote was for "change", and to a lot of people, Clinton did not represent it. Nor do I think Trumps vision for change is a lie. I just don't know if his change will be productive for that particular constituency.
Easy E wrote: Well said Sebs. What I took away is that desperate people would rather believe the convenient lie, than the sausage making of policy to deal with actual truths.
In retrospect, it is incredibly obvious. I just didn't really want to believe that people would see through the convenient lie, and then vote for it anyway. i guess I was living in my own world of cognitive dissonance, and I was really wrong about it.
I don't think you're giving them enough credit, to be honest. They know $30/hour manufacturing jobs aren't coming back.
Only about 30% of people who voted thought Donald Trump was qualified to be president. A huge portion of people who voted for Donald Trump did not think he was qualified to do the job.
They didn't go all in on him because they believed his lies about restoring American manufacturing. They bought into him because the federal government has ignored them for decades and they have been left behind by the prosperity created by tech jobs. Things for the "coastal elite" have gotten better, things for them have gotten worse. Government doesn't work for them.
This is them chucking a bomb into the system, not buying the snake oil.
I agree that it was mostly an effort at bomb -throwing at the system. it was the white-working class version of rioting.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/11 16:10:12
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
As someone who finds leftist political correctness nauseating, while I wish that were true, I very much doubt it. I think the left caring more about 0.05% of the population's preferred pronouns than 40% of the population's economic stability played a role, but not a big one.
Yeah, Donald Trump doesn't exist because of "political correctness." The article I posted a few pages back written by Robert Reich highlights exactly why he was elected; the Democratic Party forgot the working class and the elite party leaders shunned their (less inflammatory) version of Trump in favor of Clinton. The Republican Party, whose policies have also forgotten the middle class, attempted to do the same thing with Trump because it was clear they preferred Jeb! over the eventual nominee.
Of course, I don't believe that Trump really cares about the working class, considering his a former big city-Democrat elitist, but maybe he'll learn to (or at least inspire others to get with the program). And on a side note, conservatives who complain about "political correctness" often fail to address their side's safe space: the right wing, "love it or leave it," #AllLivesMatter, #BlueLivesMatter, "arrest all the cry-babby protestors" internet echo chamber.
Hyperpartisans on both sides of the aisle strive to insulate themselves from ideas that might challenge their thinking, which helps no one.
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."
This stuff is still funny, Trump won, it's the liberals fault.
We didn't want to vote for him, but those liberals made us do it.
We just voted for him in the primaries and in the election, because those liberals forced us to.
will the GOP ever man up and take responsibility for anything it does? I doubt it and expect the liberals will still be blamed for everything that happens over the next 4 years.
Manchu wrote: I think it is ridiculous to assert that premise, which can only be meaningful in the abstract, necessarily has anything to do with why people cast a vote for Trump.
It doesn't matter what their reasons for voting for Trump were. Even if you voted for Trump because you thought his economic plan was better (lol) your vote was still a statement that it's ok to accept racism if that's the price you have to pay to get what you want. Or it's ok that the vice president thinks that abusing gay people until they pretend to be straight (or commit suicide trying) as long as Clinton's email server is properly punished. You don't get to pick out some of Trump's policies and discard the stuff you don't like, if you vote for Trump you're voting for his racism along with everything else.
That's exactly what people do. All the people I know who voted for Trump did so because they're primarily one issue voters. People held their nose and voted Trump for the sake of 2A rights or to get the right justices nominated to SCotUS, or to fix the economy or whatever. That's what most of the people I know do on election day, hold their nose and vote for the lesser of 2 evils. When you choose to vote for the lesser of 2 evils you're acknowledging that you're voting for evil it's just a degree of evil that you can rationalize supporting based on the primacy you place on a specific issue.
And that's really the truth, and I am more than willing to acknowledge that as someone on the liberal spectrum that wanted Hillary to win.
Plenty of people are anti-racism, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-trade compacts, anti-etc. During the 2012 election I saw a statement by the Catholic Church about people voting for liberals, and it was basically "It's okay to vote for candidate who are pro-choice, as long as the reason you are voting for them isn't that they are pro-choice" . I look at people who voted for Trump the same way, It's okay to have voted for Trump as long as you didn't vote for him because of racism/sexism/homophobia".
I won't lie, as a father of biracial children I am extremely worried that having Trump win has moved racism back towards being an acceptable thing and I am worried that it has legitimized the alt-right and empowered groups like the KKK who were able to watch their guy win.
But I don't feel like I can really blame that on the vast majority of people who voted for Trump. I think the blame for that falls almost exclusively on Trump, who didn't do very much of anything to denounce these groups and their view point and instead pandered to them, as well as his campaign at large. I do think a lot of racists voted for Trump, but I don't think that voting for Trump automatically makes you a racist.
sirlynchmob wrote: This stuff is still funny, Trump won, it's the liberals fault.
We didn't want to vote for him, but those liberals made us do it.
We just voted for him in the primaries and in the election, because those liberals forced us to.
will the GOP ever man up and take responsibility for anything it does? I doubt it and expect the liberals will still be blamed for everything that happens over the next 4 years.
...and that how we got President Trump.
You keep on being you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/11 16:32:26
You know, come to think of it, Donald got his daily briefings to consist solely of articles that said nice things about him...he shunned interviews where he didn't get softballed...he gets cranky and throws Twitter-tantrums if someone says something he didn't like...
Hey, uh, if you voted Republican? You just elected the Safe Space Candidate.
Also, are we going to pretend like people on the right don't make smug Facebook posts complaining about silly liberals or the kids today? Really? 1/3 of all Facebook statuses are smug, passive-aggressive barbs aimed at that one person you sort of remember. Bonus points if it has a poorly-written misused meme.
Seaward wrote: Only about 30% of people who voted thought Donald Trump was qualified to be president. A huge portion of people who voted for Donald Trump did not think he was qualified to do the job.
They didn't go all in on him because they believed his lies about restoring American manufacturing. They bought into him because the federal government has ignored them for decades and they have been left behind by the prosperity created by tech jobs. Things for the "coastal elite" have gotten better, things for them have gotten worse. Government doesn't work for them.
This is them chucking a bomb into the system, not buying the snake oil.
Basically reason #5, as Michael Moore, of all people, predicted.
Funny that you reference Moore, who can't get his facts straight because of his own political leanings. See item #1 and the "failure" of "trickle down econonomics" or "Reagonomics", and dare to compare.
So basically it was working until Bush Sr. came round. Market unease at being unsure of policies? Bush's own opposition to the policies? A little bit of everything. The problem with the world today is that people can't simply let something that works go without trying to "fix" it. They should take a cue from the 1911A1, and just leave certain designs alone.
Seaward wrote: Only about 30% of people who voted thought Donald Trump was qualified to be president. A huge portion of people who voted for Donald Trump did not think he was qualified to do the job.
They didn't go all in on him because they believed his lies about restoring American manufacturing. They bought into him because the federal government has ignored them for decades and they have been left behind by the prosperity created by tech jobs. Things for the "coastal elite" have gotten better, things for them have gotten worse. Government doesn't work for them.
This is them chucking a bomb into the system, not buying the snake oil.
Basically reason #5, as Michael Moore, of all people, predicted.
Funny that you reference Moore, who can't get his facts straight because of his own political leanings. See item #1 and the "failure" of "trickle down econonomics" or "Reagonomics", and dare to compare.
So basically it was working until Bush Sr. came round. Market unease at being unsure of policies? Bush's own opposition to the policies? A little bit of everything. The problem with the world today is that people can't simply let something that works go without trying to "fix" it. They should take a cue from the 1911A1, and just leave certain designs alone.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/11 16:33:34
" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever." 
