Maybe Trump will not be such a terrible president.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Where is your data showing that all the people who said they'd leave the country if Trump was elected are actually in the process of leaving, or even genuinely intend to?

What? How on earth can you equate the two? One was a *********** election promise!

Amazing how Trump supporters are making excuses in advance for their great leader. "Oh, no he didn't really mean that. All good"

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

And then what, when you realise that their concerns are based on nonsense but they won't change their minds? Cater to them anyway? Build a fake alien craft so you can vindicate their beliefs?

What do you mean by "cater to them?" What do you think they're asking for?

[Stacko]

Originally Posted by lionking

What? How on earth can you equate the two? One was a *********** election promise!

Amazing how Trump supporters are making excuses in advance for their great leader. "Oh, no he didn't really mean that. All good"

Everyone should stop trying to predict anything with regard to this man. Look how these turned out:

He's just running for publicity.
He'll get bored and quit.
He'll hit his ceiling.
The delegates won't allow it.
The voters will stop him.

And coming soon, he won't do what he said.

[Delphic Oracle]

Plus this hand-wringing over tone of discussion is laughable when coming from the same side of the aisle as those who declare LGBT "abominations," who conclude that anyone struggling in a world that is blatantly rigged in favor of entrenched wealth are "lazy moochers," who proudly declare 1/4 of the worlds population to be "savages," etc, etc.

Yes, the "uninformed" claim sticks when people fall for things like:

"lowering taxes on the wealthy will bring jobs roaring back into the country"

"global warming is a myth"

"there is a war on christianity"

"industrial pollutants in our air and water pose no public health risk"

"private interests with a profit motive can deliver basic quality-of-life services more efficiently and at lower cost than a public program"

[Delphic Oracle]

So yeah, take away the homophobes, islamaphobes, and those who collect public benefits (red states take more from federal programs than they pay in taxes) while simultaneously insisting they be taken away because of "welfare queens" out of the mix...

How much support is really left for the (repeatedly proven) failed economic policies that have no real goal other than to further enrich the already absurdly wealthy?

It's one thing to deride ignorance, but compared to the shrewd and calculated duping of ignorant people into going along with their own destruction?

There's no comparison.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

There's a pretty significant difference between telling someone that they are incorrect and wrong... and tossing the additional "ignorant people who want to watch the world burn" and "no better than" and all the other unnecessary derision that has been heaped on top of that lack of education.

There's a world of difference between telling someone that they are wrong and uninformed and mocking them as being too stupid to merit respect.

FWIW - your individual comments have been rather mild. But would you characterize NoahFence, fuelair, and ponderingturtle as simple "pointing out that they don't know things"?

First, thank you for not lumping me in with the more vitriolic posters. That said, it's easy to condemn a couple of angry frustrated posters here for mocking people when you disagree with them, as you are here with the ones you name. But, the flip side of that is posters like logger, The Big Dog, bigred, applecored, and more. If you are unfamiliar with their work, several are quite prolific posters in the USA Politics section, and several have started recent threads there mocking "liberals". The mocking, insults and derision are done by both sides, so how can we condemn only one side for it?

eta: Ninja'd by a much more concise Delphic Oracle in post #198

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

What do you mean by "cater to them?" What do you think they're asking for?

Proof that aliens are at area 51, in my example. What would you do?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

And again, this is why democrats lost.

You are insisting that the opinions and voices of HALF the country don't count, aren't worth listening to, and should have no say. Talk about violations of civil liberties! Talk about disenfranchisement! Holy cow, you are seriously standing by your claim that HALF the people in this country should be ignored simply because you think you know better than them. This is exactly the sort of arrogance and elitism that caused democrats to lose this election.

A big point you are wrong about here, Trump didn't win half the country. Trump didn't even win half the voters. He got 47% of the 55% of registered voters who participated.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

So yeah, take away the homophobes, islamaphobes, and those who collect public benefits (red states take more from federal programs than they pay in taxes) while simultaneously insisting they be taken away because of "welfare queens" out of the mix...

How much support is really left for the (repeatedly proven) failed economic policies that have no real goal other than to further enrich the already absurdly wealthy?

It's one thing to deride ignorance, but compared to the shrewd and calculated duping of ignorant people into going along with their own destruction?

There's no comparison.

...that look rednecks get when they realize they still have their guns but their heath insurance and welfare checks are gone

[marplots]

Originally Posted by wareyin

A big point you are wrong about here, Trump didn't win half the country. Trump didn't even win half the voters. He got 47% of the 55% of registered voters who participated.

That seems like a statistically significant sample. It's enough to justify the "half the country" estimate.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

No, I'm not asking you to give opposing viewpoints everything they want. Nor am I expecting you to give respect to individuals who treat you poorly.

I am, however, asking that you don't assume that anyone and everyone who voted against your candidate holds that viewpoint. Don't cast everyone who didn't vote your way as demons and vilify the entire group of people.

FFS, I didn't vote for your candidate. I really, strongly, dislike Clinton. If I were in a different state, I might actually have voted for Trump as the lesser evil in my personal opinion. Not because I like him, not because I support what a small portion of asshat republican idiots spew with respect to gender, race, or sexuality. Simply because in my personal opinion, Clinton is *worse*.

Does that magically transform me into a homophobic gay-basher that you feel justified spewing vitriol at?

I didn't realize that speech, too, is now a one way street. Not only do you demand I agree to your curtailment of my civil rights, but if I complain about it it's 'spewing vitriol'. While you, of course, continue to insist I respect your opinions. I'm so glad for you that you are able to decide which candidate is the lesser of two evils. However, one of the things you decided is regrettable but not important enough to keep you from choosing your candidate happens to be me and everyone like me. I count for less in your opinion than an email server. That's good to know. I feel I understand you much more clearly than I did, and I will give you all the respect you merit.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I count for less in your opinion than an email server.

Ouch.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I count for less in your opinion than an email server.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Ouch.

To be fair though, an email server ain't nothing. I couldn't set one up. I mean, it's not worth disenfranchising an entire class of people, but, well... I might want to mull it over a bit.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by marplots

That seems like a statistically significant sample. It's enough to justify the "half the country" estimate.

What? He didn't even get half the vote. 53% of the votes were for someone else.

eta: also, this isn't random polls for a "statistically significant" sample to work. This is self-selected by actually registering, and further self-selected by those who then chose to vote. Assuming that those who voted for Trump represent half of the country is a bad assumption.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by wareyin

What? He didn't even get half the vote. 53% of the votes were for someone else.

eta: also, this isn't random polls for a "statistically significant" sample to work. This is self-selected by actually registering, and further self-selected by those who then chose to vote. Assuming that those who voted for Trump represent half of the country is a bad assumption.

What's the alternative assumption? No sampling is going to be perfect. I think the evidence is strongly in favor of the claim.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by marplots

What's the alternative assumption? No sampling is going to be perfect. I think the evidence is strongly in favor of the claim.

To be clear, you are claiming that the 47% of registered voters who voted for Trump represent those who did not vote for Trump? And you can't see the problem with this claim?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by wareyin

To be clear, you are claiming that the 47% of registered voters who voted for Trump represent those who did not vote for Trump? And you can't see the problem with this claim?

I think he's saying that, if those who didn't vote voted, the proportions would have been similar.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

I think he's saying that, if those who didn't vote voted, the proportions would have been similar.

And I'm saying that using a self-selected sample will not be representative of the population at large.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Just for clarity... should I assume that everything you ever say should be taken dead literally, and that you never ever exaggerate or embellish your sentiments? I just want to make sure I respond appropriately to all of your future posts, in light of how you operate.

I see, they were just kidding. They didn't mean it literally, just hyperbole to get those rally juices flowing.

Or maybe they meant exactly what they said.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

I see, they were just kidding. They didn't mean it literally, just hyperbole to get those rally juices flowing.

Or maybe they meant exactly what they said.

Neither option is really all that admirable, so it's funny watching people try to rationalize it away.

Also:

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” -unknown

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Proof that aliens are at area 51, in my example. What would you do?

Why are they asking you to provide proof? Where is this conversation even taking place? What does this have to do with the people who voted for Trump?

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Why are they asking you to provide proof? Where is this conversation even taking place? What does this have to do with the people who voted for Trump?

It is being suggested that beliefs should be "respected" as if they are on par with facts. Failure to do so, furthermore, then results in blame for the results of putting people in charge who have no qualifications for decision-making on the shoulders of those who failed to show said respect.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

There's a pretty significant difference between telling someone that they are incorrect and wrong... and tossing the additional "ignorant people who want to watch the world burn" and "no better than" and all the other unnecessary derision that has been heaped on top of that lack of education.

There's a world of difference between telling someone that they are wrong and uninformed and mocking them as being too stupid to merit respect.

FWIW - your individual comments have been rather mild. But would you characterize NoahFence, fuelair, and ponderingturtle as simple "pointing out that they don't know things"?

I agree with that. There is a world of difference between rational discourse, and name calling. One might point out a falsehood uttered by someone else without calling them "Lyin' Ted", or that someone lacks experience without calling them " Little Marco", or talk about the appearance of someone holding a position that prizes appearance without calling them "Miss Piggy".

One form indicates a respect for one's fellow man, the other indicates contempt.

Which form do you think won out on Tuesday?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Why are they asking you to provide proof? Where is this conversation even taking place? What does this have to do with the people who voted for Trump?

It seems you missed the analogy the first time. I'm saying that when people cannot and will not listen or be reasonable about their baseless concerns, there's little to do except cater to those concerns, or ignore them.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by lionking

Amazing how Trump supporters are making excuses in advance for their great leader. "Oh, no he didn't really mean that. All good"

It's the only way to justify having voted for someone who said so many stupid and hateful things.

And frankly, I think they are right. He won't fulfill most of the promises he made. He can't.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

It's the only way to justify having voted for someone who said so many stupid and hateful things.

And frankly, I think they are right. He won't fulfill most of the promises he made. He can't.

I hope you are right, but who will stop him? Not the lily-livered Republicans, who rolled over at every opportunity. Not his cabinet, with luminaries like his son, Guiliani, Gingritch, Carson (maybe) and any number of other lickspittals.

He doesn't care for public opinion or the media. The way he has dodged legal bullets for years means he's unlikely to fear the judiciary.

Who's going to stop him?

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by lionking

Who's going to stop him?

He simply has no reason to do those things. He had reasons to make the promises, he has no incentive or reason to fulfill them

For example: Why build a wall? Does it profit him in any way? If not, then I don't see it happening. He will beef up border enforcement a bit and call it a day. Maybe a photo opp next to the existing barrier in a border town (with a fresh coat of paint) but I doubt even that.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Ahh... so currently, their voices should be ignored? Their opinions don't count?

Welcome to "Teach the Controversy". I'm sure the creationists will be glad to know that you support teaching "both sides of the debate", since it doesn't matter which one is actually, provably right. All opinions should be respected.

For the record, no, the opinions of people who are flat wrong do not and should not count. The opinions of people who do not believe that black people are human, who believe that gays are all child molesters and deserve to be killed, who believe that a woman's proper place is subservient to men are not people who should have their opinions respected.

If someone is telling me that I'm not fully human, that I do not deserve full human rights, and as an American citizen, do not deserve to have the full rights of an American citizen, then I don't really care whether he's doing so to be inflammatory or truly believes it, the fact is that he's calling for my human and civil rights to be taken away. Mine and people like me.

The fact that someone like that even considers it worth his time to pander to the lowest, bases of human nature and behaviour says enough about him to keep me from ever considering such a person qualified to lead the supposed most powerful nation on earth.

Going into this election, my choices were basically between someone who cheated at the game but at l;east shared a few of my values, and someone who egged on lynch mobs and rapists. I don't want either one, but I know which one I'm going to be safe walking home alone at night under.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I didn't realize that speech, too, is now a one way street. Not only do you demand I agree to your curtailment of my civil rights, but if I complain about it it's 'spewing vitriol'. While you, of course, continue to insist I respect your opinions. I'm so glad for you that you are able to decide which candidate is the lesser of two evils. However, one of the things you decided is regrettable but not important enough to keep you from choosing your candidate happens to be me and everyone like me. I count for less in your opinion than an email server. That's good to know. I feel I understand you much more clearly than I did, and I will give you all the respect you merit.

Lol. Well, let's start with some of your assumptions here, and break this down:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Not only do you demand I agree to your curtailment of my civil rights,

Which of your civil rights have I curtailed, or even suggested should be curtailed? Please find evidence from me that supports your insinuation.

What? Can't find any? Yeah, maybe you should try to get to know your opponent instead of just trying to set that strawman alight so enthusiastically.

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

but if I complain about it it's 'spewing vitriol'.

By all means, please feel free to complain. I'm all for complaints. But the things being said by other people in this thread, to whom I was directing my comment, actually do qualify as ;spewing vitriol'.

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

While you, of course, continue to insist I respect your opinions.

Which opinions am I insisting you respect?

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I'm so glad for you that you are able to decide which candidate is the lesser of two evils.

Yes, it's nice that each of us has that right, isn't it? And it's nice that our views of the lesser evil don't even have to agree! Hell, some of us even got to select from the lesser of 4 evils! How refreshing that was.

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

However, one of the things you decided is regrettable but not important enough to keep you from choosing your candidate happens to be me and everyone like me.

Oh, do tell - what are people like you? And in what way did I ignore you in my decision-making?

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I count for less in your opinion than an email server. That's good to know.

And on what assumption are you basing such outrage?

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I feel I understand you much more clearly than I did, and I will give you all the respect you merit.

Edited by Agatha:

Edited breach of rule 0 and 12

+++


I didn't vote for Trump. I think he's an asshat. But I also didn't vote for Clinton. I think she's even less trustworthy - at least I know exactly what kind of underhanded snake Trump is, he's an obvious and transparent snake. Clinton on the other hand, is the woman who stuck with her philandering, unfaithful, pig of a husband not out of love but out of political aspiration - not because she has any care for the people of this country, but because she is desperately hungry for power - exactly the kind of person I DON'T want running the country. I voted third party, because I sincerely and deeply dislike both of the candidates put forth by the completely retarded political fractions in this country.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

It is being suggested that beliefs should be "respected" as if they are on par with facts. Failure to do so, furthermore, then results in blame for the results of putting people in charge who have no qualifications for decision-making on the shoulders of those who failed to show said respect.

And it shows a profound disregard for the real reason that Trump won the election.

Trump won because he ran at a time when disgust with establishment politics was at an all-time high; and he was savvy enough to tap into that disgust, and appeal to the lowest-common-denominator attitude of much of the uneducated parts of the country. He spoon-fed them all the scapegoats and abdication of personal responsibility that they wanted. "If you're unemployed, it's not because you're under-educated, it's because the Mexicans are stealing your job, so we're gonna build a wall! If you're not getting laid, it's not because you're an unpleasant person, it's because women are stuck-up dykes, so we're gonna put them in their place! If you're scared of the world, it's not because you're mired in fearmongering religious fundamentalism, it's because the evil Muslims/Blacks/Queers are really out to get you and your children, so we're gonna bomb them and lock them up and kick them out of the country!"

Clinton's problem was that, despite having the superior policy platform, she was too tone-deaf to realize what was going on, and played the "mama knows best" establishment politician. Despite that, she still managed to pick up the overwhelming majority of the minority, GLBT, educated, and youth vote; where she fell down was the under-educated white working-class male, and uneducated bible-belt white female voters; religious right and swing voters. Her intellectual appeal was less effective there than Trump's lowest-common-denominator appeal.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I didn't vote for Trump. I think he's an asshat. But I also didn't vote for Clinton. I think she's even less trustworthy

Less trustworthy than 39%? Please.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

He simply has no reason to do those things. He had reasons to make the promises, he has no incentive or reason to fulfill them

For example: Why build a wall? Does it profit him in any way? If not, then I don't see it happening. He will beef up border enforcement a bit and call it a day. Maybe a photo opp next to the existing barrier in a border town (with a fresh coat of paint) but I doubt even that.

The problem is that most of this stuff isn't up to Trump anyway, it's up to Congress.

What Trump has done is effectively placed himself in a position to be a rubber stamp to all of the lowest-common-denominator, xenophobic, sexist, anti-GLBTQ legislation that a now GOP-dominated congress can come up with, and stack the Supreme Court with justices who will similarly rubber-stamp any opposition cases that manage to come their way.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I didn't vote for Trump. I think he's an asshat. But I also didn't vote for Clinton. I think she's even less trustworthy - at least I know exactly what kind of underhanded snake Trump is, he's an obvious and transparent snake. Clinton on the other hand, is the woman who stuck with her philandering, unfaithful, pig of a husband not out of love but out of political aspiration - not because she has any care for the people of this country, but because she is desperately hungry for power - exactly the kind of person I DON'T want running the country. I voted third party, because I sincerely and deeply dislike both of the candidates put forth by the completely retarded political fractions in this country.

And yet she's supported universal healthcare, has come around to supporting GLBTQ rights, she supports equality for women and programs to assist them, and supports a lot of other liberal policies and programs. Things that Trump and his supporters actively oppose. There are some things she's still on the wrong side of, but she's still far more progressive than Trump could ever imagine being. I complained about her, and would have much rather had Bernie Sanders (who I fully believe would have beaten Trump handily); but I voted for her because she was by far the better choice.

I don't really care that you supported third parties, they were, as usually, completely irrelevant to this election. But you are badly misrepresenting the differences between the candidates.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by lionking

What? How on earth can you equate the two? One was a *********** election promise!

Amazing how Trump supporters are making excuses in advance for their great leader. "Oh, no he didn't really mean that. All good"

What was even more disturbing and disgusting was that those were the same people saying they liked Trump because "he speaks his mind, he says it like it is". When they realized just how awful and hurtful and divisive the things he was saying were, they changed their tune, but they didn't change their mind.

That, right there, is America in a nutshell. I really wish Cascadia wasn't a total pipe dream.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by luchog

The problem is that most of this stuff isn't up to Trump anyway, it's up to Congress.

What Trump has done is effectively placed himself in a position to be a rubber stamp to all of the lowest-common-denominator, xenophobic, sexist, anti-GLBTQ legislation that a now GOP-dominated congress can come up with, and stack the Supreme Court with justices who will similarly rubber-stamp any opposition cases that manage to come their way.

This is a real problem. Agreed.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Neither option is really all that admirable, so it's funny watching people try to rationalize it away.

Also:

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” -unknown

Reminds me of the Turing Test. If you can't tell the difference, does it really matter?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by luchog

Welcome to "Teach the Controversy". I'm sure the creationists will be glad to know that you support teaching "both sides of the debate", since it doesn't matter which one is actually, provably right. All opinions should be respected.

For the record, no, the opinions of people who are flat wrong do not and should not count. The opinions of people who do not believe that black people are human, who believe that gays are all child molesters and deserve to be killed, who believe that a woman's proper place is subservient to men are not people who should have their opinions respected.

If someone is telling me that I'm not fully human, that I do not deserve full human rights, and as an American citizen, do not deserve to have the full rights of an American citizen, then I don't really care whether he's doing so to be inflammatory or truly believes it, the fact is that he's calling for my human and civil rights to be taken away. Mine and people like me.

The fact that someone like that even considers it worth his time to pander to the lowest, bases of human nature and behaviour says enough about him to keep me from ever considering such a person qualified to lead the supposed most powerful nation on earth.

Going into this election, my choices were basically between someone who cheated at the game but at l;east shared a few of my values, and someone who egged on lynch mobs and rapists. I don't want either one, but I know which one I'm going to be safe walking home alone at night under.

I had a very long and passionate post written out, then my interwebs burped and ate it. Ah well, it's probably for the best.

Everyone votes their own issues. There are many, many people who believe that your issues are important issues, but for whom they aren't the highest priority. You didn't make their most important issues your top priority either. We each vote the issues that we hold most dear, and we each vote strategically to protect those values. I think you';re out of line to assume that everyone who voted for Trump actually voted for what Trump represents. A very large number of them voted against Clinton, and voted against what they perceive as a threat to their values and their issues. Some of us voted against both of those retards - especially since there was no question of who would win our state.

FFS luchog, you're in my neck of the woods. Do you really think that Washingtonians are going to spontaneously mutate into slavering thugs with a penchant for stringing up gay people? Do you think that somehow our state will just lose it's mind and set Capitol Hill on fire? You think the solstice parade will run with blood from all of the rampant homophobes that spring up from underneath our toadstools? Hell, if for some bizzare reason our federal government decides to violate a supreme court decision and make gay marriage illegal**, do you actually think that our state is going to do anything other than flip them a giant peninsula-shaped middle finger?


**Edit: because " make gay marriage gay" just sounds like far too much fun than this thread can handle!

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Less trustworthy than 39%? Please.

Less trustworthy in different ways. One person lies a lot about stupid things that are obvious. The other lies less often, but lies about important things.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

No, I'm not asking you to give opposing viewpoints everything they want. Nor am I expecting you to give respect to individuals who treat you poorly.

I am, however, asking that you don't assume that anyone and everyone who voted against your candidate holds that viewpoint. Don't cast everyone who didn't vote your way as demons and vilify the entire group of people.

FFS, I didn't vote for your candidate. I really, strongly, dislike Clinton. If I were in a different state, I might actually have voted for Trump as the lesser evil in my personal opinion. Not because I like him, not because I support what a small portion of asshat republican idiots spew with respect to gender, race, or sexuality. Simply because in my personal opinion, Clinton is *worse*.

Does that magically transform me into a homophobic gay-basher that you feel justified spewing vitriol at?

No. It just means you feel a bigot with virtually no redeeming qualities whatsoever was the lesser of two evils. Fair enough.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by luchog

And yet she's supported universal healthcare, has come around to supporting GLBTQ rights, she supports equality for women and programs to assist them, and supports a lot of other liberal policies and programs. Things that Trump and his supporters actively oppose. There are some things she's still on the wrong side of, but she's still far more progressive than Trump could ever imagine being. I complained about her, and would have much rather had Bernie Sanders (who I fully believe would have beaten Trump handily); but I voted for her because she was by far the better choice.

I don't really care that you supported third parties, they were, as usually, completely irrelevant to this election. But you are badly misrepresenting the differences between the candidates.

I would have voted for Sanders if given the choice, regardless of my views on fiscal responsibility. And if I'd been in a different state, I might have voted differently. As it is, I had the luxury of voting my conscience simply because there was no question that Clinton would win WA.