2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ku-klux-klan-parade-north-carolina-donald-trump-celebration-president-elect-white-supremacists-alt-a7410671.html

The Hitler comparisons aren't looking so hysterical and overblown at this point

All the bigots voted for Trump

does not mean

All who voted for Trump are bigots.

Try to avoid this narrative. It is self perpetuating and useless, and extremely divisive considering that Trump has actually managed to go and win the thing!

Christy42

B0jangles wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ku-klux-klan-parade-north-carolina-donald-trump-celebration-president-elect-white-supremacists-alt-a7410671.html

The Hitler comparisons aren't looking so hysterical and overblown at this point

Trump needs to strongly go against them and make it clear he doesn't agree with them. They feel impowered from his victory. I know many here have mentioned supporting Trump without these groups but you have to accept that they feel he is on their side. It would send a clear message if he showed he didn't approve of their messages. Especially given how many see him after a divisive campaign.

It would also serve to protect many citizens who are worried about an increase in racist attacks following the election as they seem to be spurned on by them feeling racism has gone mainstream. Showing it isn't would reduce the number of attacks.

If he doesn't then there are a few protests I could get behind as people could go out in protest of these groups and their views to try and show that a lot of people don't agree with these people.

B0jangles

Deleted User wrote: »

All the bigots voted for Trump

does not mean

All who voted for Trump are bigots.

Try to avoid this narrative. It is self perpetuating and useless, and extremely divisive considering that Trump has actually managed to go and win the thing!

I never said anything like that, (but thanks for the instructions on how to post BTW, very kind of you!). I'm pointing out that the platform Trump ran on was extremely appealing to racists and bigots.

That is inarguable.

26000 Elephants

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Correct!

It is not unconstitutional.

Correct again!

"Any class of aliens" could include Muslim aliens

aaaaand NOW, you have made it unconstitutional.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There's been a fair bit of back-and-forth on whether or not it would be constitutional. Which seems like a way of dodging around the much more fundamental point: is it right?

If the statement "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States..." is acceptable, how about these:

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Buddhists entering the United States..."

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Italians entering the United States..."

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Libertarians entering the United States..."

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Africans entering the United States..."

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of homosexuals entering the United States..."

Arguing about whether any of those things is constitutional is missing the point, which is that all of them are abhorrent.

26000 Elephants

20Cent wrote: »

How would they know someone's religion?
A cunning loophole.
Are you a Muslim?
No.

The camel might give it away.

Seriously, what you say exposes the silliness of the idea. Even if Trump decided to ride roughshod over the Bill of Rights, it would still be a largely toothless piece of legislation. And I can already hear the gun lobby saying "Goddamn, we could be next..."

As Trump would say, "Not going to happen. Big Time."

Its just another example of his naivety.

Fr Tod Umptious

K-9 wrote: »

Well Tod, a gracious speech after winning an election is a low marker to be setting. That is usually how we rate those who lost!

This is a guy who was encouraging people to monitor voting centers and saying the whole electoral system was rigged if he lost.

For a guy who tells it like it is he sure sends out mixed messages. But to be condemning a few small scale riots after how he has conducted his election race, well that looks like a sore winner tbh.

But as low as that marker may be many here were not expecting him to reach it, and certainly hoping he would not.

As for the "small scale riots" many here would be calling them "large scale" and everything else under the sun had he lost and his supporters were involved in such actions.

26000 Elephants

oscarBravo wrote: »

Arguing about whether any of those things is constitutional is missing the point, which is that all of them are abhorrent.

I agree, but as you can see from the previous posts, there are many here who think its perfectly right to exclude people based on religion, and I'm sure they would have no problem to extend that to race, sexual orientation or nationality.

Thats why its important to be able to argue against them, legally.

RobertKK

So over 2 million people have signed a pledge asking the electors in the electoral college to vote for Hillary instead of Trump when they meet next month.
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8276723/petition-electoral-college-vote-hillary-clinton-president/

I thought it was only Trump supporters who were suppose to be the only people who would not accept the result of the election.
They are doing themselves no favours.

20Cent

I can understand the protesters though.

Must be a very scary time for Muslim and Latino Americans.
It's already open season on them, the president says discriminations is ok.

Reports of students chanting "build the wall", "you're going to be deported", racist graffiti in schools etc

They don't have the option to just accept the situation and move on. They are living it and have to stand up for themselves however they can.

RobertKK

Christy42 wrote: »

Trump needs to strongly go against them and make it clear he doesn't agree with them. They feel impowered from his victory. I know many here have mentioned supporting Trump without these groups but you have to accept that they feel he is on their side. It would send a clear message if he showed he didn't approve of their messages. Especially given how many see him after a divisive campaign.

It would also serve to protect many citizens who are worried about an increase in racist attacks following the election as they seem to be spurned on by them feeling racism has gone mainstream. Showing it isn't would reduce the number of attacks.

If he doesn't then there are a few protests I could get behind as people could go out in protest of these groups and their views to try and show that a lot of people don't agree with these people.

His campaign last week called them repulsive.

26000 Elephants

RobertKK wrote: »

So over 2 million people have signed a pledge asking the electors in the electoral college to vote for Hillary instead of Trump when they meet next month.
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8276723/petition-electoral-college-vote-hillary-clinton-president/

I thought it was only Trump supporters who were suppose to be the only people who would not accept the result of the election.
They are doing themselves no favours.

I wasn't even aware that that was a thing.

But your surprise that we have caught your fleas is amusing.

seamus

RobertKK wrote: »

I thought it was only Trump supporters who were suppose to be the only people who would not accept the result of the election.
They are doing themselves no favours.

That was Trump himself to be fair, who would not commit to accepting the outcome of the election.

Nothing to do with supporters; there will always be people who don't want to accept the outcome of any vote and will try to have it overturned.

The hypocrisy here would be if Hillary was canvassing electors to change their vote.

RobertKK

20Cent wrote: »

I can understand the protesters though.

Must be a very scary time for Muslim and Latino Americans.
It's already open season on them, the president says discriminations is ok.

Reports of students chanting "build the wall", "you're going to be deported", racist graffiti in schools etc

They don't have the option to just accept the situation and move on. They are living it and have to stand up for themselves however they can.

Trump won a higher percentage of the Latino vote than Romney did.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

So over 2 million people have signed a pledge asking the electors in the electoral college to vote for Hillary instead of Trump when they meet next month.
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8276723/petition-electoral-college-vote-hillary-clinton-president/

I thought it was only Trump supporters who were suppose to be the only people who would not accept the result of the election.
They are doing themselves no favours.

Well, I'm not behind this move myself, but it's part and parcel of the electoral system, and quite legal, so why wouldn't they work the system? The wisdom of the founding fathers and all that, eh?

TheOven

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[/b]

You see this is the part I don't get and its the part that another poster referred to when she/he said (and I'm paraphrasing here) they love this board because even though people were wrong in their assessment of the lie of the land in the US they still believe they were right.

Trump has made two public appearances since he won the election.

The first time was his victory speech, which most people here expected to be a ungracious gloat, it wasn't, it was as well delivered as anything you would get from Clinton or Obama.

The other was his visit to the White House, again people were expecting, hopeing perhaps, that of would be a mess and Trump look bad, but again they were wrong, Trump was there for 90 minutes and came out singing the prases of Obama etc.

And now we have this, some hypothetical assessment that armed milita would be mobilised if he lost.
Trump would have done none of that, nor would his supporters.

Its BS of the highest order, and its only a smoke screen because people hete are embarrassed by these "Not my president" fools.
Rather than condemn them they come up with some hypothetical "whataboutery" about Trump losing.

Trump is one of the sharpest tools in the box, but people are afraid to admit that.

He said it was rigged if he didn't win and his supporters were talking about armed revolution. I'm sure they wouldn't have done it due to a lack of balls but people aren't creating the idea out of thin air, it comes directly from what his supporters said. Glad to see you think his supporters are full of it!

Fr Tod Umptious

TheOven wrote: »

He said it was rigged if he didn't win and his supporters were talking about armed revolution. I'm sure they wouldn't have done it due to a lack of balls but people aren't creating the idea out of thin air, it comes directly from what his supporters said. Glad to see you think his supporters are full of it!

But its the deflection.

The response to the protests is "oh it would have been worse IF Trump lost."

Trump didn't lose so its a moot point.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

A CNN exit poll showed:
46% wanted the next president to be more conservative.
18% more liberal
Most of the rest wanted something similar to Obama.

Trump will put conservative judges on the Supreme Court which is good.
When it comes to illegal immigrants, there are rules and regulations there for a reason. The people who make excuses for these people, would you like thousands of illegals entering Ireland and we not knowing who they are? A country should know who is inside their borders. Trump has a responsibility to deal with it.
Obama's administration has been kicking out lots of illegals, but Trump seemed to have the backing of the people who deal with immigration, as it is a problem.
He needs to see what can and cannot be done.
Ahortion should be restricted.
He needs to do away with Obamacare for something that is affordable and works.
There is already a wall along some parts of the Mexican border, given people were arrested in Mexico who were not Mexican but who were terrorists looking to enter the US via the border, there is a case that something more secure is needed.

I like how Jake Tapper on CNN yesterday said Trump believes the US got involved in too many countries abroad militarily, which many veterans agreed with, but Hillary didn't.
I feel the US has made many situations worse rather than better by the use of military in recent times. So if Trump pulls away from neocon policy, he could become a good president. He has a lot of messes that are there today from people who actively supported neocon policy, that need to be cleaned up which has made the terrorism problem far worse.

As one of the more active Trump supporters (or in your case, anti-Clinton advocates I guess is more accurate! ), thanks for giving a fairly detailed and direct answer. I waited for the reply to see if any other Trump fans knew what they wanted from him as president, I'll post that again in a few hours in case some missed it as unless I missed any, you were the only one to do so.



My issue with the illegal immigrants idea is less to do with the humanitarian aspect which will always be divisive, but more of a pragmatic one - a lot of these people work in skilled roles, and so like-for-like replacement is not going to be a realistic option quite regularly. Furthermore, while I understand the issue regarding how illegal immigrants impact wages, getting rid of them all ASAP rather than over a longer period of time present a big problem, as companies then have to pay their staff substantially more or so bust, which can have a knock of effect. Take construction for example, known to have a larger level of illegals than both - if a company is in the process of doing a renovation job/extension/etc let's say to a restaurant, but all of a sudden lose a chunk of their workforce (illegals), they either go bust or have to pay new (legal) staff significantly more. Now 'fair enough, tough on them' you might say - but the issue then becomes what happens in either scenario?

In the first where they go bust, their legal workforce are also left out of a job which means where you had let's say 15 members of staff plus the owner, 11 of whom were legal and 4 illegal, you lose anywhere from 12-16 sources of income tax (many illegals do pay taxes) and replace it with 12 people on welfare, which is clearly a large net loss when multiplied out across the country.

In the second instance where they replace their illegal staff with legal staff, they then either go bust anyway or have to significantly increase the cost of their services in order to stay afloat. Before getting into the issue of how affordable (or unaffordable) this becomes for those needing construction jobs done, it also creates the issue... what about the cafe/restaurant? They're left with a half complete job that they cannot afford to have finished, which is a major problem for a business that could threaten the jobs of all the people working their also if they cannot afford to pay the increased amount. On top of that, service industries like that also have a high number of illegals, so if they had a few they would also need to replace them all with legal staff, thus making it harder again for them to keep afloat before even factoring that in. Either the construction company or the restaurant going bust is very likely to cause the other to do so as well, doubling the impact of creating a dangerous domino effect. Either way, they are very likely going to need to pass this increased cost on to the customer which leads to a lot of complaints about the cost of living compared to wages and so on.

I don't necessarily mind someone saying to get rid of 10.9mn illegal immigrants (8.3mn in work from what I have read), so much as I think looking to do so in the space of four years or less is a very dangerous proposition in my opinion, economically speaking. The quite likely end result of this is getting rid of around 8.3mn illegals, and putting many more millions of jobs (on top of those 8.3mn) in very serious jeopardy in order to do so. A net loss of jobs like that in such a short time would be incredibly economically crippling.

RobertKK

You know the way Trump is sexist and had the first woman ever to manage a winning presidential campaign for him, and you know how he hates the LGBT community by hiring Peter Thiel who is openly gay to be part of his transitional team.
Shouldn't Trump have avoided all this to live up to the stereotype that some people want to believe?
Sexist, homophobic...

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

His campaign last week called them repulsive.

They called the newspaper repulsive. They also don't seem to have gotten the message which is scary. He started this when he started calling Mexican's rapists so I expect him to do some serious work to fix it. It is his job to ensure that the people understand that isn't what he is about and right now that isn't the case.

I don't see how it matters what percentage of latino's voted for him compared to Romney. He needs to stop the potential for an uptick in racist attacks.

Remember it is all about whether or not people feel safer! (I don't believe that last line whichever Trump associate said was an idiot for it but hey if they believe it is important they should try and make it that way).

RobertKK

Christy42 wrote: »

They called the newspaper repulsive. They also don't seem to have gotten the message which is scary. He started this when he started calling Mexican's rapists so I expect him to do some serious work to fix it. It is his job to ensure that the people understand that isn't what he is about and right now that isn't the case.

I don't see how it matters what percentage of latino's voted for him compared to Romney. He needs to stop the potential for an uptick in racist attacks.

Remember it is all about whether or not people feel safer! (I don't believe that last line whichever Trump associate said was an idiot for it but hey if they believe it is important they should try and make it that way).

It went further than that.
The Trump campaign also said “views do not represent the tens of millions of Americans who are uniting behind our campaign.”

That is disassociating themselves from the KKK.

People can be irrational about feeling safe. I live alone, late last night as I went to bed I played Dominique by the singing nun, it kinda scared me as I thought of American Horror Story and the Asylum where the song was played constantly...it was irrational fear, but the mind can create irrational fear.

Fr Tod Umptious

RobertKK wrote: »

You know the way Trump is sexist and had the first woman ever to manage a winning presidential campaign for him, and you know how he hates the LGBT community by hiring Peter Thiel who is openly gay to be part of his transitional team.
Shouldn't Trump have avoided all this to live up to the stereotype that some people want to believe?
Sexist, homophobic...

Just like that well known racist George W Bush had two African American secretaries of state.

TheOven

RobertKK wrote: »

You know the way Trump is sexist and had the first woman ever to manage a winning presidential campaign for him, and you know how he hates the LGBT community by hiring Peter Thiel who is openly gay to be part of his transitional team.
Shouldn't Trump have avoided all this to live up to the stereotype that some people want to believe?
Sexist, homophobic...

Im not racist, I have a black friend.

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

It went further than that.
The Trump campaign also said “views do not represent the tens of millions of Americans who are uniting behind our campaign.”

That is disassociating themselves from the KKK.

People can be irrational about feeling safe. I live alone, late last night as I went to bed I played Dominique by the singing nun, it kinda scared me as I thought of American Horror Story and the Asylum where the song was played constantly...it was irrational fear, but the mind can create irrational fear.

The feeling safe bit was a joke at the Trump team. I specified that I was not serious about it.

I saw what it said, I thought the repulsive line was stronger but it is best to have both I suppose.
It is a technical statement from his campaign. It came late and most importantly of all it hasn't reached those who might perpetrate these attacks in his name (even if he would rather it otherwise). He needs to be clear on this because people don't see it this way. Obviously a formulated statement from his campaign team was not near sufficient to counterattack his own previous words.

Jawgap

RobertKK wrote: »

You know the way Trump is sexist and had the first woman ever to manage a winning presidential campaign for him, and you know how he hates the LGBT community by hiring Peter Thiel who is openly gay to be part of his transitional team.
Shouldn't Trump have avoided all this to live up to the stereotype that some people want to believe?
Sexist, homophobic...

Lets be clear about this, Kellyanne Conway was there as campaign manager for the last 3 months of a campaign that began 17 months ago!

Her achievement is worth lauding but it should not be idealised, or enlarged beyond what it was in reality- she was instrumental in getting him over the line, but she didn't have much to do with getting him in the race and keeping in the race - she was like the winger who scores the try in the corner, they may get the plaudits but the ball went through a lot of hands to get there.

Jawgap

I wonder which other world leaders are so precious about the press covering them.....

Donald Trump blocks press access, in defiance of long standing practices

Donald Trump is keeping Americans in the dark about his earliest conversations and decisions as president-elect, bucking a long-standing practice intended to ensure the public has a watchful eye on its new leader.

Mr Trump on Thursday refused to allow journalists to travel with him to Washington for his historic first meetings with President Barack Obama and congressional leaders. The Republican's top advisers rebuffed news organisations' requests for a small "pool" of journalists to trail him as he attended the meetings.

Every president and president-elect in recent memory has traveled with a pool of journalists when leaving the White House grounds.

CMOTDibbler

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Just like that well known racist George W Bush had two African American secretaries of state.

Was that ever said about Dubya?

It's not something I've ever heard about him. Anything I've ever heard is that he's a genuinely nice guy and very far from being racist or misogynist. The only negative thing that ever was said about him personally was that he wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and often had trouble getting his worms out.

Jawgap

RobertKK wrote: »

It went further than that.
The Trump campaign also said “views do not represent the tens of millions of Americans who are uniting behind our campaign.”

That is disassociating themselves from the KKK.

People can be irrational about feeling safe. I live alone, late last night as I went to bed I played Dominique by the singing nun, it kinda scared me as I thought of American Horror Story and the Asylum where the song was played constantly...it was irrational fear, but the mind can create irrational fear.

Whatever his denunciation or renouncement of their endorsement, they seem pretty stoked about his election....

KKK Donald Trump ‘Victory Parade’ In North Carolina Fuels Further Outrage Over US Election

Fr Tod Umptious

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Was that ever said about Dubya?

It's not something I've ever heard about him. Anything I've ever heard is that he's a genuinely nice guy and very far from being racist or misogynist. The only negative thing that ever was said about him personally was that he wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and often had trouble getting his worms out.

Do you remember Hurricane Katerina and where he was branded a racist for not doing more to help New Orleans ?

"Black people are mad because they feel the reason for the slow response is because those people are black and they didn't support George Bush," said Ron Walters, a professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland. "And I don't expect that feeling to go away anytime soon."

No one questions that whites have been moved by the suffering of blacks, and vice versa. But amid images of black looters, some sympathy threatens to give way to anger and disdain.

The hurricane's racial conflict took on political overtones Friday, as black leaders blasted the Bush administration's slow response and asked whether race played a part.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson charged that race was "at least a factor" in the slow response.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/race-an-issue-in-katrina-response/

Bush was a southern white Republican therefore a racist in many many people's eyes.

Skylinehead

K-9 wrote: »

How do they work out each state's electoral college vote? I assume it is based on population?

In Ireland we've PR with a minimum of 3 seats per constituency. There has to a minimum of 1 seat per minimum 20,000 people, maximum 30,000 though that may have changed in the last electoral update.

The electoral college is biased towards smaller states it seems, due to all states getting 2 senators. California has one electoral vote for every 711,000 people, while Wyoming gets one electoral vote for every 195,000 people. That's a fairly large gap, surely it would be better based purely off population?

Amerika

They say a picture is worth a thousand words…



This is why the electoral college is necessary. It helps to insure the interests, wants, and needs of a few urban areas don’t hurt the nation as a whole.

K-9

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But its the deflection.

The response to the protests is "oh it would have been worse IF Trump lost."

Trump didn't lose so its a moot point.

Clinton pointedly said she and her supporters should support and cherish the democratic process, despite losing.

Trump was saying it was rigged and people should monitor voting before anybody had voted.

I don't know, some people seem to know a hell of a lot about Trump despite ignoring what we know about him over the years.

Now, because he was gracious for 2 minutes after becoming President we are to ignore him being a sore loser all his life. Hell, he calles the Emmy's rigged!

seamus

Jawgap wrote: »

I wonder which other world leaders are so precious about the press covering them.....

Donald Trump blocks press access, in defiance of long standing practices

To be fair, if he dislikes the press then having no press is better than having "Trump's hand-picked press". At least he's consistent in continuing his tradition of ignoring all tradition. I'd have to say that's the only thing I like him for. The whole notion of tradition around the presidency is just monarchy by another name. Holding onto the pomp and ceremony just because people like it, is silly.

That doesn't excuse his refusal to release tax returns of course. Having an open and honest financial history seems like a pretty big prerequisite for being in charge.

Amerika wrote: »

This is why the electoral college is necessary. It helps to insure the interests, wants, and needs of a few urban areas don’t hurt the nation as a whole.

Actually it illustrates to me exactly why the electoral college is flawed. It places more value on land than it does on population and allows for a tyranny of the minority.

If America was serious about having a bonafide democratic president it would use either direct election (which would be silly IMO), or maintain the electoral college, but use proportional representation.
Or even better do away with the presidential election and have the president elected in by the house of representatives from within their pool.

Skylinehead

Amerika wrote: »

They say a picture is worth a thousand words…



This is why the electoral college is necessary. It helps to insure the interests, wants, and needs of a few urban areas don’t hurt the nation as a whole.

But in the current electoral college, it a) ensures that the needs of a few swing states decide the entire election and b) places a disproportionate amount of influence with rural areas. You say in other systems urban areas would get that influence, but more people live there. And people should decide elections.

I'm not sure what the solution is, bit of a balancing act between ensuring that everyone is represented equally and that minority areas are heard. I don't think either are completely satisfied in the current system.

johnnyskeleton

Amerika wrote: »

They say a picture is worth a thousand words…



This is why the electoral college is necessary. It helps to insure the interests, wants, and needs of a few urban areas don’t hurt the nation as a whole.

How many electors do those areas have though?

My understanding is that the electoral college system comes from a time when tabulating the results of a nationwide general election would be difficult and the physical meeting of the electors was an event of significance? The number of electors per state is broadly reflective of the population distribution.

The senate, on the other hand, with 2 senators per state, ensures that the interests of the States, as opposed to the population, are given equal voice.

Sofa Spud

Ok, I've had a few days to digest what happened and there's something that's being, well, either bugging me or something I've realised - not sure yet which...

The reaction of the media and the folks protesting in the streets has been a bit of an eye opener. This was a democratic election and one side clearly won. Granted, Hillary may well have a very slight edge in the popular vote, but 42 states had a swing to the right and Trump did pretty well across a lot of demographics and very well in some. The people spoke and gave a clear answer. As paralysingly scary as it may be that he not only has control of the White House, but also both chambers of Congress and soon the Supreme Court for a very long time to come, it was the democratic decision of the people. We can't blame the media, as most of it was against him, most of his party was against him and he had almost no 'establishment' backing him. He still won. Why?

As hard as it is to accept what happened, burning stuff in the street or having emotional monologues on late night TV just, to me as I think about it, highlights how it's not just the right that likes to live in their own 'bubble of bullsh!t' as Bill Maher always likes to mock the right with.

I think we have to accept that the 'liberal media' (a term that irritates, but I'm using it as a catch-all and not an insult) were cocooned in their own insular bubble - they did not want to contemplate that Trump had a valid voice, therefore they lampooned him, they looked to polls and reports that supported their world view and ignored the reality of what was happening.
A very large swathe of the US had been ignored for too long by the economic system and by the media, and they latched on to the guy that voiced their frustrations, that listened to them and was ready to fight for them.

You may have heard the phrase 'the media took him literally and his followers took him seriously'. The media and establishment jumped on him for every brain-fart and word salad that portrayed him as a narcissistic clown but to his followers, that had felt ignored for so long, he was someone that's not part of the establishment and he's on their side, ready to listen, ready to fight for them and speak like they feel.

Hillary's 'basket of deplorables' remark was one that a lot of us probably reacted to as 'yeah, she's right, look at all the small minded racist idiots, falling for Trump's bluster', but all that did was confirm to his supporters that they are being ignored by the establishment and drew them closer to him, willing to ignore all the crazy and racist stuff he came out with - hence the remark that the media took him literally, but his followers took him seriously.

His rise to power cannot just be blamed on him pandering to the worst elements of the American psyche - he certainly used inflammatory rhetoric that was divisive and yes, deplorable, but the feelings that he reached out to were symptomatic not just of an economic system that has increasingly failed large areas of the states, but also a media and culture that ignored them almost completely, except for the 'crazies' on the internet and, yeah, Fox News too...

So when I see people protesting in the streets or late night hosts giving almost tearful monologues, my reaction is not, weirdly, to agree with their righteous indignation, as I would have expected to, but instead my reaction is one of frustration that they just don't get it. My frustration is that I have to acknowledge that I too have being living in a bubble, one where I could blame the crazies and Fox News for creating the Trumpeters and that he exploited that ignorance for his own narcissistic ends. I have to realise that that's a way too simplistic view of what happened.

Trump tapped into a real rage and frustration that exists, that was fomented not just by the right wing media but it was also a reaction to a status quo created by a liberal media and establishment that left them feeling ignored, ridiculed and which they blame for killing their American Dream. Their beliefs and economic situation were sneered at and finally someone came along and cried bullsh!t, I'm on your side, we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore. That's why 'Make America Great Again' resonated so strongly with them - not because they are small minded idiots, not because they are incapable of critical thinking - but because of deep seated feelings of being left behind and marginalised in a system and culture that disregards their needs and lives. The more the media and even the Republican hierarchy attacked Trump, the more convinced they were that they had their champion and they were going to support him no matter what. That's why all of the pussy gate and racist stuff made no difference. That's why, when he complained about the system being rigged and pointing to the press-pool at rallies, they cheered him on and were determined to vote.

For the first time, they felt that they had someone on their side that cared about them, spoke to them without condescending to them and would fight for them. So when liberals are shaking their heads at what has happened, they (we) need to pull those same heads out of the bubble and look at why it happened.

Maybe we will realise that Trump wasn't just the obnoxious symptom of a negative discourse caused by a toxic right-wing media and was instead maybe, just maybe, the cure for a culture and environment where the media and establishment had become too complacent and so wrapped up in their own self-righteous bubble that they were incapable of seeing how people different from them were actually living....

I'm not for a second condoning Trump's more outrageous remarks, my point is that this cannot be blamed solely on unthinking right-wing nut-jobs, or the crazy side of the net or a lack of critical thinking that was discussed on this thread last week. It's more than that. It's a reaction to a complacent status quo that has been created by liberals too. I try to be a glass half full kinda guy when looking at something dismal, and my hope is that his election might be a wake-up call for everyone, and hopefully not an excuse for everyone to run for their bunkers. When you have voters in the rust-belt turn to Trump in such numbers, potentially voting against their economic self-interests, it's not just because he's telling them what they want to hear and they're too stupid to realise it. It's a clear indication that they have been left behind by both parties and they see Trump as their only hope. Bernie fed into that feeling of frustration, but as we saw, he was never going to be allowed to win, so Trump filled that gap.

Whether real or not, liberal culture certainly feels like it has become intolerant of others views - that's maybe due to the echo chamber effect of the net - but it can feel like Liberal thinking has morphed from being an open-minded world view into a narrow ideology that is just as confining and intolerant of criticism as we always viewed conservatives. There also seems to be a growing sense of entitlement when it comes to views and beliefs - look at the millennial Bernie or Busters and how they reacted by insisting they wouldn't vote for Hillary and would instead vote for Trump, the polar opposite. 'Safe Places' on college campuses where they can be protected from hearing views, from being 'triggered' by people with views different to theirs. This has driven the whole 'it's time to get rid of political correctness' dialogue and liberals need to realise that there is a valid point being made here - using derogatory words to describe people that are different is wrong, plain and simple, but when political correctness begins to impact freedom of speech and thought, it's going too far and when it goes too far, the reaction will also go too far. Everything, on both sides of the cultural and economic divide, has become too rigid and complacent and Trump's election was a reaction to that.

So, that's what has been bugging me - it's not just the right that have gotten it wrong - the liberal/progressive/left have to take some of the blame too. We have gone too far as well, representing a narrow point of view that can be just as rigid and intolerant of others as we have always liked to blame the right/conservatives for being. This needs to be a wake up call for everyone - we have to recognise that the status quo, of which the left is just as much a part of as the right, has to change and potentially change radically. Lets see what happens....

TheOven

Amerika wrote: »

They say a picture is worth a thousand words…



This is why the electoral college is necessary. It helps to insure the interests, wants, and needs of a few urban areas don’t hurt the nation as a whole.

You mean the areas with the largest population and pay the most in taxes get less of a say and the rural areas can harm the nation as spite towards the urban areas.

Bass Reeves

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Ok, I've had a few days to digest what happened and there's something that's being, well, either bugging me or something I've realised - not sure yet which...

The reaction of the media and the folks protesting in the streets has been a bit of an eye opener. This was a democratic election and one side clearly won. Granted, Hillary may well have a very slight edge in the popular vote, but 42 states had a swing to the right and Trump did pretty well across a lot of demographics and very well in some. The people spoke and gave a clear answer. As paralysingly scary as it may be that he not only has control of the White House, but also both chambers of Congress and soon the Supreme Court for a very long time to come, it was the democratic decision of the people. We can't blame the media, as most of it was against him, most of his party was against him and he had almost no 'establishment' backing him. He still won. Why?

As hard as it is to accept what happened, burning stuff in the street or having emotional monologues on late night TV just, to me as I think about it, highlights how it's not just the right that likes to live in their own 'bubble of bullsh!t' as Bill Maher always likes to mock the right with.

I think we have to accept that the 'liberal media' (a term that irritates, but I'm using it as a catch-all and not an insult) were cocooned in their own insular bubble - they did not want to contemplate that Trump had a valid voice, therefore they lampooned him, they looked to polls and reports that supported their world view and ignored the reality of what was happening.
A very large swathe of the US had been ignored for too long by the economic system and by the media, and they latched on to the guy that voiced their frustrations, that listened to them and was ready to fight for them.

You may have heard the phrase 'the media took him literally and his followers took him seriously'. The media and establishment jumped on him for every brain-fart and word salad that portrayed him as a narcissistic clown but to his followers, that had felt ignored for so long, he was someone that's not part of the establishment and he's on their side, ready to listen, ready to fight for them and speak like they feel.

Hillary's 'basket of deplorables' remark was one that a lot of us probably reacted to as 'yeah, she's right, look at all the small minded racist idiots, falling for Trump's bluster', but all that did was confirm to his supporters that they are being ignored by the establishment and drew them closer to him, willing to ignore all the crazy and racist stuff he came out with - hence the remark that the media took him literally, but his followers took him seriously.

His rise to power cannot just be blamed on him pandering to the worst elements of the American psyche - he certainly used inflammatory rhetoric that was divisive and yes, deplorable, but the feelings that he reached out to were symptomatic not just of an economic system that has increasingly failed large areas of the states, but also a media and culture that ignored them almost completely, except for the 'crazies' on the internet and, yeah, Fox News too...

So when I see people protesting in the streets or late night hosts giving almost tearful monologues, my reaction is not, weirdly, to agree with their righteous indignation, as I would have expected to, but instead my reaction is one of frustration that they just don't get it. My frustration is that I have to acknowledge that I too have being living in a bubble, one where I could blame the crazies and Fox News for creating the Trumpeters and that he exploited that ignorance for his own narcissistic ends. I have to realise that that's a way too simplistic view of what happened.

Trump tapped into a real rage and frustration that exists, that was fomented not just by the right wing media but it was also a reaction to a status quo created by a liberal media and establishment that left them feeling ignored, ridiculed and which they blame for killing their American Dream. Their beliefs and economic situation were sneered at and finally someone came along and cried bullsh!t, I'm on your side, we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore. That's why 'Make America Great Again' resonated so strongly with them - not because they are small minded idiots, not because they are incapable of critical thinking - but because of deep seated feelings of being left behind and marginalised in a system and culture that disregards their needs and lives. The more the media and even the Republican hierarchy attacked Trump, the more convinced they were that they had their champion and they were going to support him no matter what. That's why all of the pussy gate and racist stuff made no difference. That's why, when he complained about the system being rigged and pointing to the press-pool at rallies, they cheered him on and were determined to vote.

For the first time, they felt that they had someone on their side that cared about them, spoke to them without condescending to them and would fight for them. So when liberals are shaking their heads at what has happened, they (we) need to pull those same heads out of the bubble and look at why it happened.

Maybe we will realise that Trump wasn't just the obnoxious symptom of a negative discourse caused by a toxic right-wing media and was instead maybe, just maybe, the cure for a culture and environment where the media and establishment had become too complacent and so wrapped up in their own self-righteous bubble that they were incapable of seeing how people different from them were actually living....

I'm not for a second condoning Trump's more outrageous remarks, my point is that this cannot be blamed solely on unthinking right-wing nut-jobs, or the crazy side of the net or a lack of critical thinking that was discussed on this thread last week. It's more than that. It's a reaction to a complacent status quo that has been created by liberals too. I try to be a glass half full kinda guy when looking at something dismal, and my hope is that his election might be a wake-up call for everyone, and hopefully not an excuse for everyone to run for their bunkers. When you have voters in the rust-belt turn to Trump in such numbers, potentially voting against their economic self-interests, it's not just because he's telling them what they want to hear and they're too stupid to realise it. It's a clear indication that they have been left behind by both parties and they see Trump as their only hope. Bernie fed into that feeling of frustration, but as we saw, he was never going to be allowed to win, so Trump filled that gap.

Whether real or not, liberal culture certainly feels like it has become intolerant of others views - that's maybe due to the echo chamber effect of the net - but it can feel like Liberal thinking has morphed from being an open-minded world view into a narrow ideology that is just as confining and intolerant of criticism as we always viewed conservatives. There also seems to be a growing sense of entitlement when it comes to views and beliefs - look at the millennial Bernie or Busters and how they reacted by insisting they wouldn't vote for Hillary and would instead vote for Trump, the polar opposite. 'Safe Places' on college campuses where they can be protected from hearing views, from being 'triggered' by people with views different to theirs. This has driven the whole 'it's time to get rid of political correctness' dialogue and liberals need to realise that there is a valid point being made here - using derogatory words to describe people that are different is wrong, plain and simple, but when political correctness begins to impact freedom of speech and thought, it's going too far and when it goes too far, the reaction will also go too far. Everything, on both sides of the cultural and economic divide, has become too rigid and complacent and Trump's election was a reaction to that.

So, that's what has been bugging me - it's not just the right that have gotten it wrong - the liberal/progressive/left have to take some of the blame too. We have gone too far as well, representing a narrow point of view that can be just as rigid and intolerant of others as we have always liked to blame the right/conservatives for being. This needs to be a wake up call for everyone - we have to recognise that the status quo, of which the left is just as much a part of as the right, has to change and potentially change radically. Lets see what happens....

This is brillant analysis of the outcome. Sofa Spud has an understanding of how we are getting to a situation where those taht are left behind are more or less say a pox on all you houses.

RobertKK

The CEO of Grubhub sent an email to employees saying that basically said people who voted for Trump voted for hateful politics, and anyone who works for Grubhub and voted for hateful politics should send in their resignation.
The Grubhub CEO said he stood for tolerance :pac:

People magazine put a picture of Trump on the cover of their magazine with the words "President Trump", a number of Hollywood Celebs have now said they will boycott People Magazine.

The question is, who are the fascists here?
One company criticising it's employees who voted for Trump and saying they should resign.
The celebrities who are so far up their own backsides that the words "President Trump" is so bad they say they will boycott a magazine.

For the record, there has been fascist behaviour in my opinion from a small amount of supporters from both the Hillary and Trump support base.

20Cent

RobertKK wrote: »

The CEO of Grubhub sent an email to employees saying that basically said people who voted for Trump voted for hateful politics, and anyone who works for Grubhub and voted for hateful politics should send in their resignation.
The Grubhub CEO said he stood for tolerance :pac:

People magazine put a picture of Trump on the cover of their magazine with the words "President Trump", a number of Hollywood Celebs have now said they will boycott People Magazine.

The question is, who are the fascists here?
One company criticising it's employees who voted for Trump and saying they should resign.
The celebrities who are so far up their own backsides that the words "President Trump" is so bad they say they will boycott a magazine.

For the record, there has been fascist behaviour in my opinion from a small amount of supporters from both the Hillary and Trump support base.

Not buying a magazine is fascist but banning a religion from a country isn't.
trumpworld 2016.

Bass Reeves

Amerika wrote: »

They say a picture is worth a thousand words…



This is why the electoral college is necessary. It helps to insure the interests, wants, and needs of a few urban areas don’t hurt the nation as a whole.

Skylinehead wrote: »

But in the current electoral college, it a) ensures that the needs of a few swing states decide the entire election and b) places a disproportionate amount of influence with rural areas. You say in other systems urban areas would get that influence, but more people live there. And people should decide elections.

I'm not sure what the solution is, bit of a balancing act between ensuring that everyone is represented equally and that minority areas are heard. I don't think either are completely satisfied in the current system.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

How many electors do those areas have though?

My understanding is that the electoral college system comes from a time when tabulating the results of a nationwide general election would be difficult and the physical meeting of the electors was an event of significance? The number of electors per state is broadly reflective of the population distribution.

The senate, on the other hand, with 2 senators per state, ensures that the interests of the States, as opposed to the population, are given equal voice.

This is where the EU is failing. It is dominated by the countries with big population densities. There is no checks and balances between state and Commission. EU parliment has little or no power. We now see the weakness of how a comission( equivlent to the US execuitive but virtually unelected, makes decision that impact on ordinary people lives with out any counter balance. A parliment that is virtually toothless and a council of minster taht meets maybe twice a year.

K-9

There is an annoying section on the liberal left and then you have the alt right types.

Those defining and labeling those on the other side based on extremes is the problem, always was. There's no room for centrists any more.

B0jangles

Trump's presidency is almost certainly going to be truly terrible and destructive for many social and economic reasons, some of which might be fixable but if he holds firm to his Climate Change denialism and appoints the people he already has in mind to various key points, then he could actually cause environmental damage on a global scale that simply cannot be undone.

Catastrophic is not a strong enough word for what may be coming.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/11/trump-presidency-a-disaster-for-the-planet-climate-change

The ripples from a new American president are far-reaching, but never before has the arrival of a White House administration placed the livability of Earth at stake. Beyond his bluster and crude taunts, Donald Trump’s climate denialism could prove to be the lasting imprint of his unexpected presidency.

“A Trump presidency might be game over for the climate,” said Michael Mann, a prominent climate researcher. “It might make it impossible to stabilize planetary warming below dangerous levels.”

Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, added: “This is an unmitigated disaster for the planet.”

Trump has vowed to sweep away the climate framework painstakingly built over Barack Obama’s two terms. At risk is the Paris climate accord, which only came into force last week, and Obama’s linchpin emissions reduction policy, the Clean Power Plan.

At a pivotal moment when the planet’s nations have belatedly banded together to confront an existential threat, a political novice who calls global warming a “bull****” Chinese-invented hoax is taking the helm at the world’s foremost superpower.

“Millions of Americans voted for a coal-loving climate denier willing to condemn people around the globe to poverty, famine and death from climate change,” said Benjamin Schreiber, climate director at Friends of the Earth US. “It seems undeniable that the United States will become a rogue state on climate change.”

US conservatives are already rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of a bonfire of regulation. Trump wants the US to exit the Paris deal, which commits nations to keeping the global temperature rise below a 2C threshold, potentially setting off a cataclysmic domino effect where other countries also drop out or ease off efforts to decarbonize. The 2C limit, which was already a stern challenge, now appears perilous.


The Clean Power Plan, the main tool to cut American emissions, is also targeted for elimination, along with billions of dollars in clean energy funding. Republicans will also turn off the tap of aid flowing to developing nations already struggling with climate change-driven sea level rise, heatwaves and drought.

Bitterly contested fossil fuel projects such as the Keystone development and the Dakota Access pipeline, which has caused unprecedented uproar among native American tribes, would likely be waved through, with Trump promising to “lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks to allow these vital energy infrastructure projects to go ahead”.

Environmentalists are already aghast at Trump’s presidential preparations. He has appointed Myron Ebell, director at a conservative thinktank, to oversee transition plans for the Environmental Protection Agency, which Trump has casually earmarked for abolition. Ebell has said global warming is “nothing to worry about” and that the Clean Power Plan is “illegal”.

Shortlists drawn up for key Trump administration posts have also raised alarm. Oil billionaire Harold Hamm is being touted as energy secretary, while former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin could make a stunning comeback as interior secretary, putting her in charge of US public lands, including treasures such as Yellowstone and Yosemite national parks. Palin is an enthusiastic proponent of oil and gas drilling, describing the fossil fuels as “things that God has dumped on this part of the Earth for mankind’s use”.

26000 Elephants

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Maybe we will realise that Trump wasn't just the obnoxious symptom [...] and was instead maybe, just maybe, the cure .

If Trump is the cure, I think the disease is starting to look very attractive.

I applaud your well written piece, you do get in to the why's and wherefores of his election. But do you not think that many countries have been here before? The 'disease' that is identified and needs curing? The demagogue who arrives claiming to have that cure? But the cure ends up causing more suffering for those who were convinced they were afflicted.

Trumps election was built upon a tissue of lies, false rumours, invective and an unrelenting campaign to paint the opponent as a criminal. And as for the Hoover-esque intervention of Comey - I can guarantee that will be the subject of a congressional committee in the future. All the while several questions about his own history went unanswered. A multi billionaire who resonated with the working classes. The anti establishment hero who then proceeds to stock his cabinet with establishment die-hards from the world of finance.

And a look like a rabbit caught in the headlights when he enters the White House.

I think Johnnie Rotten said it best

CMOTDibbler

Bass Reeves wrote: »

This is where the EU is failing. It is dominated by the countries with big population densities. There is no checks and balances between state and Commission. EU parliment has little or no power. We now see the weakness of how a comission( equivlent to the US execuitive but virtually unelected, makes decision that impact on ordinary people lives with out any counter balance. A parliment that is virtually toothless and a council of minster taht meets maybe twice a year.

You seem to know very little about the EU and how it works.

MEPs have a lot more power since the Lisbon Treaty. Smaller countries get significantly higher weighting by population than larger ones. It's not perfect, but it's certainly not as you describe it.

RobertKK

20Cent wrote: »

Not buying a magazine is fascist but banning a religion from a country isn't.
trumpworld 2016.

Islam will not be banned in the US.

I guess you find Europe fascist given the deal the EU made with Turkey.

The EU allowed in many terrorists in 2015 with uncontrolled immigration from countries with phenomenal terrorist problems.

We have to see what Trump actually does. There are many good reasons for severe restrictions on immigration from countries with such a huge terrorist problem.
Strangely the countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar who fund so much of the terrorism have not been leading in taking in immigrants.

You never addressed a company telling it's employees to resign if they voted for Trump.

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

Strangely the countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar who fund so much of the terrorism have not been leading in taking in immigrants.

Are there any other human rights cues you think we should be taking from Saudi and Qatar?

You never addressed a company telling it's employees to resign if they voted for Trump.

Neither side has a monopoly on douchebaggery.

Fr Tod Umptious

20Cent wrote: »

Not buying a magazine is fascist but banning a religion from a country isn't.
trumpworld 2016.

No religion is banned from the US, but a CEO is firing people for their political beliefs in the name of "tolerance"

That's f**ked up.

RobertKK

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are there any other human rights cues you think we should be taking from Saudi and Qatar? Neither side has a monopoly on douchebaggery.

Wouldn't we expect Europe to deal with European problems?

These problems are in the backyard of the Saudis in the middle east, too busy funding the Clintons perhaps pay for play foundation, rather than help people close to them.

Who voted to put the Saudis on the UN human rights council?

CMOTDibbler

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

No religion is banned from the US, but a CEO is firing people for their political beliefs in the name of "tolerance"

That's f**ked up.

Indeed it is.