Maybe Trump will not be such a terrible president. - Page 10

luchog · 14th November 2016, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I've always found that one of the more bizarre arguments against Clinton.

Particularly since most anti-Clinton types who didn't support Trump were supporters of Bernie Sanders, who is, guess what, a career politician since at least 1972.

Belz... · 14th November 2016, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by sts60

Personally, I'm more offended by people who go through spouses like Kleenex, like Groper-Elect Trump and senior advisers like Giuliani and Gingrich.

But you go right ahead and feel virtuous because you voted against the experienced, monogamous candidate.

Positively surreal, isn't it?

luchog · 14th November 2016, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Do you believe that 1/4 of the population is "deplorable" and "irredeemable"?

Deplorable? Quite possibly more than that, given the prevalence of anti-GLBTQ sentiment and legislation in most of the US. Not to mention the widespread racism, sexism, and other bigotry; nor the profound anti-intellectualism common to all levels of American culture; particularly in the highly-religious regions of the country. I'm not sure how you fail to see that considering why fora like this exist.

Irredeemable? No one is irredeemable, but a great many of them are actively opposing any change toward a more progressive, liberal, and tolerance society.

Quote:

Do you believe that it is in any way acceptable to treat people in that fashion regardless of what you might believe of them?

When necessary, yes. I don't believe in coddling and pandering to racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, or religious fanatics.

luchog · 14th November 2016, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I do, however, maintain that he does NOT owe his election to all the millions of bigots that democrats have assumed exist out there.

Well, it's hard to counter deeply held beliefs with actual evidence, especially when people ignore the evidence. The prevalence of religious fanaticism and alt.med woo is a pretty solid illustration of that fact.

Quote:

It would probably be worthwhile to find support for your viewpoint that is representative of the vote, not of the polls from more than 6 months ago.

You didn't bother to actually look at the links, did you? You do know what an "exit poll" is, right?

luchog · 14th November 2016, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Either they didn't know about trumps bigotry or did not view it as a deal breaker. Pick which one it is, being uneducated or tacit endorsement of bigotry those are really your only options.

Listening to NPR in the run-up to the election, the amount of denialism and cognitive dissonance in the Trump supporting crowd was astonishing. On the one hand they'd talk about how "refreshing" it was to have a candidate who was "willing to speak his mind". Then, when he started spewing racist and sexist garbage, they turned around and insisted that "that's just rhetoric, he doesn't really mean it."

They may not be directly racist, but they were perfectly happy to excuse racist rhetoric and give their tacit support to it (and IMO a great deal of them were very likely in denial about their own racism as well).

Of course, that's not including the equal number of interviewees who expressed similarly racist and sexist comments.

sts60 · 14th November 2016, 12:01 PM

By the way, Emily's Cat, did you criticize Obama for his lack of experience when he first ran for President?

Delphic Oracle · 14th November 2016, 12:09 PM

You can deny the blue-collar issue all you want. But a 5% swing in the rust belt would have landed us an entirely different result. A mere 1 in 20 people in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan.

The labor wing was an integral component of the Democratic coalition. I've worked trade skills at various times in my life. Yes, there's a lot of latent bigotry there. However, they will happily vote for a champion of equality if they think it will alleviate the pain in their wallets. We happily accepted that arrangement for decades. We enacted many policies that eroded (but certainly didn't eliminate) inequality because of this. Sometimes getting what you want depends on keeping your tongue in check.

Let me, as an unabashed progressive, turn this around on some of you.

Maybe if your desire to continue the march of progress in these areas was more important to you than your conspicuous virtue signalling and the smug sense of satisfaction you get from spewing moralistic judgments at others, this wouldn't have happened.

By the way, if you feel a bit incensed at that and are feeling a knee-jerk reaction starting to develop from deep inside you to tell me off...you might be closer to understanding how we lost this thing.

We can't govern based on our wise, benevolent, enlightened, and 'superior' values if we don't have the votes to govern to begin with. That's the reality of politics.

ETA: the labor wing AND the progressive wing (telling environmental activists concerned about the future of our species on this planet to "get a life" doesn't exactly win support) both being cut out of the coalition leaves what can basically be described as a fringe coalition of minority groups beating the drum of identity politics. We've now become exactly what we were jeering about, a shrinking party clinging to a few remaining enclaves and districts.

Belz... · 14th November 2016, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

You can deny the blue-collar issue all you want.

Or, we can ask for evidence for the claim. How about that?

fuelair · 14th November 2016, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

If I were Obama I'd be tempted to slip laxatives into Trump's coffee. Or PCP. Or both!

Definitely both!!!!!

Delphic Oracle · 14th November 2016, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Or, we can ask for evidence for the claim. How about that?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...ization-231223

"Nationally, Clinton outperformed Trump among union households by just 8 percent, the smallest Democratic advantage since Walter Mondale’s failed campaign against Ronald Reagan in 1984. For a more recent perspective, President Barack Obama won union households by 18 percent in 2012."

So there's a 10-point slide nationwide.

"Clinton’s poor performance among union households appeared to especially damage her in crucial Midwestern states. Obama won Ohio in 2012, besting Romney in those households by 23 percentage points. Clinton actually lost Ohio’s union households to Trump by 9 points, according to exit polls. The state went to Trump."

A ~~14-point~~ 31-point slide in a critical state. (ETA: math fail)

"Michigan would have been an easy victory any other year — Democrats had won the state since 1992 — but it’s currently still too close to call. Exit polls show Clinton holds only a 13 percent advantage among union households there. Obama beat Romney in union households by a whopping 33 percent in 2012. A similar scenario played out in Wisconsin this year, another state that went to Trump."

A 20-point slide in a democratic stronghold.

Belz... · 14th November 2016, 12:29 PM

...and?

The claim was, the way I understood it, that regular joes were angry at the establishment and felt ignored by it. That's what I'm asking evidence for.

fuelair · 14th November 2016, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Wow. No. The offensive assumptions in here are part of the problem.

Do you not understand that this attitude from you is exactly why democrats lost this election? You have decided that because I didn't vote of your preferred candidate, I am a bigot who doesn't care about gay people? You've decided that because I didn't do what you wanted me to do, I'm sanguine about the potential risk to others? That's ridiculous and extraordinarily insulting.

That's twice now that you've felt justified impugning me solely because you've assumed that a lack of a vote for your guy gives you that right. This is in direct opposition to my actual opinions, and to the viewpoints I have consistently expressed on this board.

I will ask you to politely redirect your ire and to interact with me based on my own opinions and my own behavior. Stop presuming that you can treat me with disrespect, derision, and hatred just because I didn't like your political candidate.

At the moment I am more feeling sorry for you - nothing I said was meant to start a fight with good people. Trump is not and never will be good people. His white house people will never be good people. The republicker senators and representatives that will work to ruin this country are not good people. And the people who are not simply misguided and mislead by the Trumpers but actually are racists, homophobes, anti-women, etc. are not good people. None of them should represent the US but now they will.

Thus I have no interest in their continued existence and will not care if same does not occur. They deserve the same that came to Hitler and his followers -and all their like.

ETA. And to be very clear, I do not remotely dislike you and I am pretty sure you realize that. I do not in any way consider you a bad person and disagree vehemently with anyone who does!!!!!

ponderingturtle · 14th November 2016, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

You can deny the blue-collar issue all you want. But a 5% swing in the rust belt would have landed us an entirely different result. A mere 1 in 20 people in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan.

The labor wing was an integral component of the Democratic coalition. I've worked trade skills at various times in my life. Yes, there's a lot of latent bigotry there. However, they will happily vote for a champion of equality if they think it will alleviate the pain in their wallets. We happily accepted that arrangement for decades. We enacted many policies that eroded (but certainly didn't eliminate) inequality because of this. Sometimes getting what you want depends on keeping your tongue in check.

Let me, as an unabashed progressive, turn this around on some of you.

Maybe if your desire to continue the march of progress in these areas was more important to you than your conspicuous virtue signalling and the smug sense of satisfaction you get from spewing moralistic judgments at others, this wouldn't have happened.

That there are large swaches of the country that are unattractive to moving industry to? Sure and the industry that is there is not going to be like it was 30 years ago. It is more productive with a lot less people. The fact is that there are a lot of towns that no longer make economic sense and they will go away or end up being supported solely on subsidies. But that is too much truth for them.

Delphic Oracle · 14th November 2016, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

You can deny the blue-collar issue all you want.

Or, we can ask for evidence for the claim. How about that?

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

...and?

The claim was, the way I understood it, that regular joes were angry at the establishment and felt ignored by it. That's what I'm asking evidence for.

Goalposts?

Belz... · 14th November 2016, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Goalposts?

No, we may simply not be talking about the same thing. It was never my impression that "unions" were the disenfranchised party, here.

Delphic Oracle · 14th November 2016, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

That there are large swaches of the country that are unattractive to moving industry to? Sure and the industry that is there is not going to be like it was 30 years ago. It is more productive with a lot less people. The fact is that there are a lot of towns that no longer make economic sense and they will go away or end up being supported solely on subsidies. But that is too much truth for them.

The truth you are unwilling to accept is that the truth doesn't matter if you want to win and if you don't win, it doesn't matter how right you are.

ponderingturtle · 14th November 2016, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

The truth you are unwilling to accept is that the truth doesn't matter if you want to win and if you don't win, it doesn't matter how right you are.

And they will be happy when they lose their health care. And medicare becomes privatised as well. That is what they voted for.

Or are they going to be whiny people who don't understand a thing about personal responsibility like this guy.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...12-column.html

He was all personal responsibility until the check came do then he was all "bail me out".

When people have decided to reject the truth what are you supposed to do?

Delphic Oracle · 14th November 2016, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And they will be happy when they lose their health care. And medicare becomes privatised as well. That is what they voted for.

Or are they going to be whiny people who don't understand a thing about personal responsibility like this guy.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...12-column.html

He was all personal responsibility until the check came do then he was all "bail me out".

When people have decided to reject the truth what are you supposed to do?

Whatever it takes to win, even if that means courting people who disagree with you to do so.

Because if you are out of power and incapable of defending anyone anyways, what difference does it make?

Minoosh · 14th November 2016, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

That is why he wants to lower the bar on libel suits. Haven't you paid any attention to trumps official policies?

It's just not going to fly. And I'm not sure Trump has any "official" policies or any policies at all for that matter.

Trump agrees that he's a sexual predator. There's no grounds for a libel suit and it would be exceedingly stupid of him to pursue one. I think he's shrewd enough to know that.

Spindrift · 14th November 2016, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

It's just not going to fly. And I'm not sure Trump has any "official" policies or any policies at all for that matter.

Trump agrees that he's a sexual predator. There's no grounds for a libel suit and it would be exceedingly stupid of him to pursue one. I think he's shrewd enough to know that.

Plus the current libel laws protect him from the asinine things he says.

Belz... · 14th November 2016, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by Spindrift

Plus the current libel laws protect him from the asinine things he says.

Isn't he going to "open up" those libel laws to go after journalists and comedians?

Delphic Oracle · 14th November 2016, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

No, we may simply not be talking about the same thing. It was never my impression that "unions" were the disenfranchised party, here.

Well, exit polling doesn't have a category for "labor" or for "regular joes" so I'm using the closest possible data within reach.

Do you have data to support your position?

Minoosh · 14th November 2016, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Spindrift

Plus the current libel laws protect him from the asinine things he says.

Good point.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Isn't he going to "open up" those libel laws to go after journalists and comedians?

He doesn't have the power.

Pterodactyl · 14th November 2016, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Whatever it takes to win, even if that means courting people who disagree with you to do so.

Because if you are out of power and incapable of defending anyone anyways, what difference does it make?

Agree with this, but also I don't think the concerns about racism, sexism, whatever-ism du jour, were dichotomous with voters to the extent that some liberal types are portraying after this election. A blue-collar voter in Ohio might simply not be that enthralled with who gets to use which bathroom in North Carolina or who makes cakes for whom in Arizona when he used to have a good job building Jeep Cherokees and now he's working at Lowe's for half as much and fewer benefits while his hard-earned skills uselessly diminish with age.
A likely-empty promise from one candidate still amounts to more attention than the outright derision offered by the other.

Not worrying much about the plight of some marginalized group some other place and instead focusing on your own self interests might be selfish ultimately, but that doesn't make it racist. It doesn't even make it unreasonable.

Regnad Kcin · 14th November 2016, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Yeah, that's the same reason why I dislike neurosurgeons and physicists. How DARE they know more about their field than I do?

How do you know that? How do you know why she stayed with him? For all you know they managed to put it behind them and move on.

Thank you. On both points.

ponderingturtle · 14th November 2016, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Whatever it takes to win, even if that means courting people who disagree with you to do so.

Because if you are out of power and incapable of defending anyone anyways, what difference does it make?

How do you court people who disagree with reality? What they want simply isn't possible.

Delphic Oracle · 14th November 2016, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Pterodactyl

Agree with this, but also I don't think the concerns about racism, sexism, whatever-ism du jour, were dichotomous with voters to the extent that some liberal types are portraying after this election. A blue-collar voter in Ohio might simply not be that enthralled with who gets to use which bathroom in North Carolina who makes cakes for whom in Arizona when he used to have a good job build Jeep Cherokees and now he's working at Lowe's for half as much and fewer benefits while his hard-earned skills uselessly diminish with age.
A likely-empty promise from one candidate still amounts to more attention than the outright derision offered by the other.

Not worrying much about the plight of some marginalized group some other place and instead focusing on your own self interests might be selfish ultimately, but that doesn't make it racist. It doesn't even make it unreasonable.

We are as one.

:9

He validated their plight. That's the difference.

What was Bill's most memorable campaign line?

"I feel your pain"

Then he got elected and signed NAFTA into law...

phiwum · 14th November 2016, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

The message that you (and many other democrats in this thread) are sending is that if people disagree with you, they're dumb, ignorant, deserving of scorn, and should be ignored.

That's a very short-sighted, exclusionary, and full-of-fail song to be singing.

Just to be clear, I'm not a Democrat. I'm a registered independent and don't have particular loyalty to either party, though I've preferred the Democratic candidate the last several presidential elections.

I don't claim that the Trump voters ought to be ignored, but sure, I'll happily agree that damn near anyone who voted for Trump has acted remarkably ignorantly in this respect. I say "damn near", because I suppose there might be some circumstances in which that vote is in one's interest.

I include my family in this judgment. I am embarrassed by the fact that they have been hornswaggled by a transparent charlatan. I don't claim that they are rubes in every respect, but yes, they made a horrible choice in this election.

phiwum · 14th November 2016, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Spindrift

That's not what he said. It's not the act of disagreeing. It's when the disagreement is based on ignorance and the ignorant refuse to be educated. When people think reality is a matter of opinion then yes their opinion should be ignored.

Actually, I didn't say that their opinion should be ignored. I said that these decisions shouldn't be defended, but that's not the same thing.

Delphic Oracle · 14th November 2016, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

<snip>
I don't claim that the Trump voters ought to be ignored, but sure, I'll happily agree that damn near anyone who voted for Trump has acted remarkably ignorantly in this respect. I say "damn near", because I suppose there might be some circumstances in which that vote is in one's interest.

"And some, I assume, are good people.” -Trump

Think about it.

phiwum · 14th November 2016, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Wrong.

can we get an animated .gif for that?

Let's not. Let's instead take the time to defend the claim that someone else is wrong and explain ourselves.

Regnad Kcin · 14th November 2016, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by sts60

Yeah. That's why you don't go to a career doctor for your health, or a career mechanic for your car's.

And why you're clearly upset with career politicians like Mike Pence and Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and...

Seriously, this is a stupid argument. She's been a two-term U.S. Senator and Secretary of State. That's called "experience". Trump has no experience in national service and has repeatedly demonstrated he does not understand how the Federal government operates. But that's OK; after all, he didn't know anything about airlines and look how successful he was with Trump Shuttle.

And now you're the judge of what people do in their marriages, and an expert on exactly what went on between the Clintons.

Personally, I'm more offended by people who go through spouses like Kleenex, like Groper-Elect Trump and senior advisers like Giuliani and Gingrich.

But you go right ahead and feel virtuous because you voted against the experienced, monogamous candidate.

Hear, hear!

Joecool · 14th November 2016, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by luchog

Particularly since most anti-Clinton types who didn't support Trump were supporters of Bernie Sanders, who is, guess what, a career politician since at least 1972.

Ironically, I think Bernie Sanders would have beaten Trump if he had run instead of Clinton.

.

Spindrift · 14th November 2016, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

Actually, I didn't say that their opinion should be ignored. I said that these decisions shouldn't be defended, but that's not the same thing.

Sorry for misrepresenting what you said.

phiwum · 14th November 2016, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

"And some, I assume, are good people.” -Trump

Think about it.

Sorry, I don't get your point.

Perhaps I should be clear on one point: Having an unqualified, short-tempered and ADD president is a very bad thing for most Americans. For a few in special circumstances (his family is an obvious example), a Trump presidency will be a boon.

I don't think that this is comparable at all to your quote from Trump.

phiwum · 14th November 2016, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by Spindrift

Sorry for misrepresenting what you said.

No problem. You were responding to a post which had misrepresented what I said.

Delphic Oracle · 14th November 2016, 02:04 PM

*double post*

Delphic Oracle · 14th November 2016, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

Sorry, I don't get your point.

Perhaps I should be clear on one point: Having an unqualified, short-tempered and ADD president is a very bad thing for most Americans. For a few in special circumstances (his family is an obvious example), a Trump presidency will be a boon.

I don't think that this is comparable at all to your quote from Trump.

I agree, he'll be a disaster.

My point is that blistering criticism of wide swaths of people who's circumstances you seem unwilling to understand is not mitigated by a half-sentence qualifier at the end.

ETA: Okay, now I see your intent was to indicate a few rich people might benefit. I was coming at it from the reasoning of people who believed voting for him to be in their benefit.

ponderingturtle · 14th November 2016, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

I include my family in this judgment. I am embarrassed by the fact that they have been hornswaggled by a transparent charlatan. I don't claim that they are rubes in every respect, but yes, they made a horrible choice in this election.

How about the KKK? they really like his policies.

ponderingturtle · 14th November 2016, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

"And some, I assume, are good people.” -Trump

Think about it.

There is rather a big difference, one is categorizing people by their actions not their origin. I figure lots of them are nice people, they are just nice people who are comfortable voting for misogynistic racists.

14th November 2016, 11:44 AM	#361
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 16,201	Originally Posted by Segnosaur I've always found that one of the more bizarre arguments against Clinton. Particularly since most anti-Clinton types who didn't support Trump were supporters of Bernie Sanders, who is, guess what, a career politician since at least 1972.
	__________________ When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.

14th November 2016, 11:46 AM	#362
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Originally Posted by sts60 Personally, I'm more offended by people who go through spouses like Kleenex, like Groper-Elect Trump and senior advisers like Giuliani and Gingrich. But you go right ahead and feel virtuous because you voted against the experienced, monogamous candidate. Positively surreal, isn't it?
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

14th November 2016, 11:48 AM	#363
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 16,201	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Do you believe that 1/4 of the population is "deplorable" and "irredeemable"? Deplorable? Quite possibly more than that, given the prevalence of anti-GLBTQ sentiment and legislation in most of the US. Not to mention the widespread racism, sexism, and other bigotry; nor the profound anti-intellectualism common to all levels of American culture; particularly in the highly-religious regions of the country. I'm not sure how you fail to see that considering why fora like this exist. Irredeemable? No one is irredeemable, but a great many of them are actively opposing any change toward a more progressive, liberal, and tolerance society. Quote: Do you believe that it is in any way acceptable to treat people in that fashion regardless of what you might believe of them? When necessary, yes. I don't believe in coddling and pandering to racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, or religious fanatics.
	__________________ When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.

14th November 2016, 11:51 AM	#364
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 16,201	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat I do, however, maintain that he does NOT owe his election to all the millions of bigots that democrats have assumed exist out there. Well, it's hard to counter deeply held beliefs with actual evidence, especially when people ignore the evidence. The prevalence of religious fanaticism and alt.med woo is a pretty solid illustration of that fact. Quote: It would probably be worthwhile to find support for your viewpoint that is representative of the vote, not of the polls from more than 6 months ago. You didn't bother to actually look at the links, did you? You do know what an "exit poll" is, right?
	__________________ When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won. Last edited by luchog; 14th November 2016 at 11:57 AM.

14th November 2016, 11:56 AM	#365
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 16,201	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Either they didn't know about trumps bigotry or did not view it as a deal breaker. Pick which one it is, being uneducated or tacit endorsement of bigotry those are really your only options. Listening to NPR in the run-up to the election, the amount of denialism and cognitive dissonance in the Trump supporting crowd was astonishing. On the one hand they'd talk about how "refreshing" it was to have a candidate who was "willing to speak his mind". Then, when he started spewing racist and sexist garbage, they turned around and insisted that "that's just rhetoric, he doesn't really mean it." They may not be directly racist, but they were perfectly happy to excuse racist rhetoric and give their tacit support to it (and IMO a great deal of them were very likely in denial about their own racism as well). Of course, that's not including the equal number of interviewees who expressed similarly racist and sexist comments.
	__________________ When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.

14th November 2016, 12:01 PM	#366
sts60 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,683	By the way, Emily's Cat, did you criticize Obama for his lack of experience when he first ran for President?
sts60 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,683

14th November 2016, 12:09 PM	#367
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,288	You can deny the blue-collar issue all you want. But a 5% swing in the rust belt would have landed us an entirely different result. A mere 1 in 20 people in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. The labor wing was an integral component of the Democratic coalition. I've worked trade skills at various times in my life. Yes, there's a lot of latent bigotry there. However, they will happily vote for a champion of equality if they think it will alleviate the pain in their wallets. We happily accepted that arrangement for decades. We enacted many policies that eroded (but certainly didn't eliminate) inequality because of this. Sometimes getting what you want depends on keeping your tongue in check. Let me, as an unabashed progressive, turn this around on some of you. Maybe if your desire to continue the march of progress in these areas was more important to you than your conspicuous virtue signalling and the smug sense of satisfaction you get from spewing moralistic judgments at others, this wouldn't have happened. By the way, if you feel a bit incensed at that and are feeling a knee-jerk reaction starting to develop from deep inside you to tell me off...you might be closer to understanding how we lost this thing. We can't govern based on our wise, benevolent, enlightened, and 'superior' values if we don't have the votes to govern to begin with. That's the reality of politics. ETA: the labor wing AND the progressive wing (telling environmental activists concerned about the future of our species on this planet to "get a life" doesn't exactly win support) both being cut out of the coalition leaves what can basically be described as a fringe coalition of minority groups beating the drum of identity politics. We've now become exactly what we were jeering about, a shrinking party clinging to a few remaining enclaves and districts.
	Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 14th November 2016 at 12:14 PM.

14th November 2016, 12:10 PM	#368
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle You can deny the blue-collar issue all you want. Or, we can ask for evidence for the claim. How about that?
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

14th November 2016, 12:17 PM	#369
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey If I were Obama I'd be tempted to slip laxatives into Trump's coffee. Or PCP. Or both! Definitely both!!!!!
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581

14th November 2016, 12:26 PM	#370
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,288	Originally Posted by Argumemnon Or, we can ask for evidence for the claim. How about that? http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...ization-231223 "Nationally, Clinton outperformed Trump among union households by just 8 percent, the smallest Democratic advantage since Walter Mondale’s failed campaign against Ronald Reagan in 1984. For a more recent perspective, President Barack Obama won union households by 18 percent in 2012." So there's a 10-point slide nationwide. "Clinton’s poor performance among union households appeared to especially damage her in crucial Midwestern states. Obama won Ohio in 2012, besting Romney in those households by 23 percentage points. Clinton actually lost Ohio’s union households to Trump by 9 points, according to exit polls. The state went to Trump." A ~~14-point~~ 31-point slide in a critical state. (ETA: math fail) "Michigan would have been an easy victory any other year — Democrats had won the state since 1992 — but it’s currently still too close to call. Exit polls show Clinton holds only a 13 percent advantage among union households there. Obama beat Romney in union households by a whopping 33 percent in 2012. A similar scenario played out in Wisconsin this year, another state that went to Trump." A 20-point slide in a democratic stronghold.
	Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 14th November 2016 at 01:01 PM.

14th November 2016, 12:29 PM	#371
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	...and? The claim was, the way I understood it, that regular joes were angry at the establishment and felt ignored by it. That's what I'm asking evidence for.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

14th November 2016, 12:32 PM	#372
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Wow. No. The offensive assumptions in here are part of the problem. Do you not understand that this attitude from you is exactly why democrats lost this election? You have decided that because I didn't vote of your preferred candidate, I am a bigot who doesn't care about gay people? You've decided that because I didn't do what you wanted me to do, I'm sanguine about the potential risk to others? That's ridiculous and extraordinarily insulting. That's twice now that you've felt justified impugning me solely because you've assumed that a lack of a vote for your guy gives you that right. This is in direct opposition to my actual opinions, and to the viewpoints I have consistently expressed on this board. I will ask you to politely redirect your ire and to interact with me based on my own opinions and my own behavior. Stop presuming that you can treat me with disrespect, derision, and hatred just because I didn't like your political candidate. At the moment I am more feeling sorry for you - nothing I said was meant to start a fight with good people. Trump is not and never will be good people. His white house people will never be good people. The republicker senators and representatives that will work to ruin this country are not good people. And the people who are not simply misguided and mislead by the Trumpers but actually are racists, homophobes, anti-women, etc. are not good people. None of them should represent the US but now they will. Thus I have no interest in their continued existence and will not care if same does not occur. They deserve the same that came to Hitler and his followers -and all their like. ETA. And to be very clear, I do not remotely dislike you and I am pretty sure you realize that. I do not in any way consider you a bad person and disagree vehemently with anyone who does!!!!!
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581	Last edited by fuelair; 14th November 2016 at 12:34 PM.

14th November 2016, 12:35 PM	#373
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,155	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle You can deny the blue-collar issue all you want. But a 5% swing in the rust belt would have landed us an entirely different result. A mere 1 in 20 people in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. The labor wing was an integral component of the Democratic coalition. I've worked trade skills at various times in my life. Yes, there's a lot of latent bigotry there. However, they will happily vote for a champion of equality if they think it will alleviate the pain in their wallets. We happily accepted that arrangement for decades. We enacted many policies that eroded (but certainly didn't eliminate) inequality because of this. Sometimes getting what you want depends on keeping your tongue in check. Let me, as an unabashed progressive, turn this around on some of you. Maybe if your desire to continue the march of progress in these areas was more important to you than your conspicuous virtue signalling and the smug sense of satisfaction you get from spewing moralistic judgments at others, this wouldn't have happened. That there are large swaches of the country that are unattractive to moving industry to? Sure and the industry that is there is not going to be like it was 30 years ago. It is more productive with a lot less people. The fact is that there are a lot of towns that no longer make economic sense and they will go away or end up being supported solely on subsidies. But that is too much truth for them.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

14th November 2016, 12:44 PM	#374
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,288	Originally Posted by Argumemnon Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle You can deny the blue-collar issue all you want. Or, we can ask for evidence for the claim. How about that? Originally Posted by Argumemnon ...and? The claim was, the way I understood it, that regular joes were angry at the establishment and felt ignored by it. That's what I'm asking evidence for. Goalposts?

14th November 2016, 12:46 PM	#375
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle Goalposts? No, we may simply not be talking about the same thing. It was never my impression that "unions" were the disenfranchised party, here.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

14th November 2016, 12:46 PM	#376
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,288	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle That there are large swaches of the country that are unattractive to moving industry to? Sure and the industry that is there is not going to be like it was 30 years ago. It is more productive with a lot less people. The fact is that there are a lot of towns that no longer make economic sense and they will go away or end up being supported solely on subsidies. But that is too much truth for them. The truth you are unwilling to accept is that the truth doesn't matter if you want to win and if you don't win, it doesn't matter how right you are.

14th November 2016, 12:51 PM	#377
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,155	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle The truth you are unwilling to accept is that the truth doesn't matter if you want to win and if you don't win, it doesn't matter how right you are. And they will be happy when they lose their health care. And medicare becomes privatised as well. That is what they voted for. Or are they going to be whiny people who don't understand a thing about personal responsibility like this guy. http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...12-column.html He was all personal responsibility until the check came do then he was all "bail me out". When people have decided to reject the truth what are you supposed to do?
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

14th November 2016, 12:58 PM	#378
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,288	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle And they will be happy when they lose their health care. And medicare becomes privatised as well. That is what they voted for. Or are they going to be whiny people who don't understand a thing about personal responsibility like this guy. http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...12-column.html He was all personal responsibility until the check came do then he was all "bail me out". When people have decided to reject the truth what are you supposed to do? Whatever it takes to win, even if that means courting people who disagree with you to do so. Because if you are out of power and incapable of defending anyone anyways, what difference does it make?

14th November 2016, 01:12 PM	#379
Minoosh Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 12,120	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle That is why he wants to lower the bar on libel suits. Haven't you paid any attention to trumps official policies? It's just not going to fly. And I'm not sure Trump has any "official" policies or any policies at all for that matter. Trump agrees that he's a sexual predator. There's no grounds for a libel suit and it would be exceedingly stupid of him to pursue one. I think he's shrewd enough to know that.

14th November 2016, 01:15 PM	#380
Spindrift Time Person of the Year, 2006 Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Right here! Posts: 19,246	Originally Posted by Minoosh It's just not going to fly. And I'm not sure Trump has any "official" policies or any policies at all for that matter. Trump agrees that he's a sexual predator. There's no grounds for a libel suit and it would be exceedingly stupid of him to pursue one. I think he's shrewd enough to know that. Plus the current libel laws protect him from the asinine things he says.
	__________________ I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black. Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon

14th November 2016, 01:21 PM	#381
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Originally Posted by Spindrift Plus the current libel laws protect him from the asinine things he says. Isn't he going to "open up" those libel laws to go after journalists and comedians?
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

14th November 2016, 01:26 PM	#382
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,288	Originally Posted by Argumemnon No, we may simply not be talking about the same thing. It was never my impression that "unions" were the disenfranchised party, here. Well, exit polling doesn't have a category for "labor" or for "regular joes" so I'm using the closest possible data within reach. Do you have data to support your position?

14th November 2016, 01:28 PM	#383
Minoosh Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 12,120	Originally Posted by Spindrift Plus the current libel laws protect him from the asinine things he says. Good point. Originally Posted by Argumemnon Isn't he going to "open up" those libel laws to go after journalists and comedians? He doesn't have the power.

14th November 2016, 01:30 PM	#384
Pterodactyl Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 1,246	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle Whatever it takes to win, even if that means courting people who disagree with you to do so. Because if you are out of power and incapable of defending anyone anyways, what difference does it make? Agree with this, but also I don't think the concerns about racism, sexism, whatever-ism du jour, were dichotomous with voters to the extent that some liberal types are portraying after this election. A blue-collar voter in Ohio might simply not be that enthralled with who gets to use which bathroom in North Carolina or who makes cakes for whom in Arizona when he used to have a good job building Jeep Cherokees and now he's working at Lowe's for half as much and fewer benefits while his hard-earned skills uselessly diminish with age. A likely-empty promise from one candidate still amounts to more attention than the outright derision offered by the other. Not worrying much about the plight of some marginalized group some other place and instead focusing on your own self interests might be selfish ultimately, but that doesn't make it racist. It doesn't even make it unreasonable.
	Last edited by Pterodactyl; 14th November 2016 at 01:40 PM.

14th November 2016, 01:34 PM	#385
Regnad Kcin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: New York Posts: 10,192	Originally Posted by Argumemnon Yeah, that's the same reason why I dislike neurosurgeons and physicists. How DARE they know more about their field than I do? How do you know that? How do you know why she stayed with him? For all you know they managed to put it behind them and move on. Thank you. On both points.
	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

14th November 2016, 01:35 PM	#386
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,155	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle Whatever it takes to win, even if that means courting people who disagree with you to do so. Because if you are out of power and incapable of defending anyone anyways, what difference does it make? How do you court people who disagree with reality? What they want simply isn't possible.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

14th November 2016, 01:36 PM	#387
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,288	Originally Posted by Pterodactyl Agree with this, but also I don't think the concerns about racism, sexism, whatever-ism du jour, were dichotomous with voters to the extent that some liberal types are portraying after this election. A blue-collar voter in Ohio might simply not be that enthralled with who gets to use which bathroom in North Carolina who makes cakes for whom in Arizona when he used to have a good job build Jeep Cherokees and now he's working at Lowe's for half as much and fewer benefits while his hard-earned skills uselessly diminish with age. A likely-empty promise from one candidate still amounts to more attention than the outright derision offered by the other. Not worrying much about the plight of some marginalized group some other place and instead focusing on your own self interests might be selfish ultimately, but that doesn't make it racist. It doesn't even make it unreasonable. We are as one. :9 He validated their plight. That's the difference. What was Bill's most memorable campaign line? "I feel your pain" Then he got elected and signed NAFTA into law...
	Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 14th November 2016 at 01:38 PM.

14th November 2016, 01:42 PM	#388
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,714	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat The message that you (and many other democrats in this thread) are sending is that if people disagree with you, they're dumb, ignorant, deserving of scorn, and should be ignored. That's a very short-sighted, exclusionary, and full-of-fail song to be singing. Just to be clear, I'm not a Democrat. I'm a registered independent and don't have particular loyalty to either party, though I've preferred the Democratic candidate the last several presidential elections. I don't claim that the Trump voters ought to be ignored, but sure, I'll happily agree that damn near anyone who voted for Trump has acted remarkably ignorantly in this respect. I say "damn near", because I suppose there might be some circumstances in which that vote is in one's interest. I include my family in this judgment. I am embarrassed by the fact that they have been hornswaggled by a transparent charlatan. I don't claim that they are rubes in every respect, but yes, they made a horrible choice in this election.
	Last edited by phiwum; 14th November 2016 at 01:48 PM.

14th November 2016, 01:44 PM	#389
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,714	Originally Posted by Spindrift That's not what he said. It's not the act of disagreeing. It's when the disagreement is based on ignorance and the ignorant refuse to be educated. When people think reality is a matter of opinion then yes their opinion should be ignored. Actually, I didn't say that their opinion should be ignored. I said that these decisions shouldn't be defended, but that's not the same thing.

14th November 2016, 01:46 PM	#390
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 5,288	Originally Posted by phiwum <snip> I don't claim that the Trump voters ought to be ignored, but sure, I'll happily agree that damn near anyone who voted for Trump has acted remarkably ignorantly in this respect. I say "damn near", because I suppose there might be some circumstances in which that vote is in one's interest. "And some, I assume, are good people.” -Trump Think about it.

14th November 2016, 01:46 PM	#391
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,714	Originally Posted by NoahFence Wrong. can we get an animated .gif for that? Let's not. Let's instead take the time to defend the claim that someone else is wrong and explain ourselves.

14th November 2016, 01:47 PM	#392
Regnad Kcin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: New York Posts: 10,192	Originally Posted by sts60 Yeah. That's why you don't go to a career doctor for your health, or a career mechanic for your car's. And why you're clearly upset with career politicians like Mike Pence and Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and... Seriously, this is a stupid argument. She's been a two-term U.S. Senator and Secretary of State. That's called "experience". Trump has no experience in national service and has repeatedly demonstrated he does not understand how the Federal government operates. But that's OK; after all, he didn't know anything about airlines and look how successful he was with Trump Shuttle. And now you're the judge of what people do in their marriages, and an expert on exactly what went on between the Clintons. Personally, I'm more offended by people who go through spouses like Kleenex, like Groper-Elect Trump and senior advisers like Giuliani and Gingrich. But you go right ahead and feel virtuous because you voted against the experienced, monogamous candidate. Hear, hear!
	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

14th November 2016, 01:47 PM	#393
Joecool Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,615	Originally Posted by luchog Particularly since most anti-Clinton types who didn't support Trump were supporters of Bernie Sanders, who is, guess what, a career politician since at least 1972. Ironically, I think Bernie Sanders would have beaten Trump if he had run instead of Clinton. .
Joecool Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,615

14th November 2016, 01:50 PM	#394
Spindrift Time Person of the Year, 2006 Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Right here! Posts: 19,246	Originally Posted by phiwum Actually, I didn't say that their opinion should be ignored. I said that these decisions shouldn't be defended, but that's not the same thing. Sorry for misrepresenting what you said.
	__________________ I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black. Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon

14th November 2016, 01:51 PM	#395
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,714	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle "And some, I assume, are good people.” -Trump Think about it. Sorry, I don't get your point. Perhaps I should be clear on one point: Having an unqualified, short-tempered and ADD president is a very bad thing for most Americans. For a few in special circumstances (his family is an obvious example), a Trump presidency will be a boon. I don't think that this is comparable at all to your quote from Trump.