US Elections - furniture shopping with disaster

[DunderMifflin]

24 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

The unifying theme of Trump supporters, just as it is with the Republican Party, is white resentment.

Back in the day, the Demoractic Party had a Dixiecrat problem. Now the Republican Party has a Dixiecrat problem.

The Republican Party needs to deal with it's Dixiecrat Problem. But, I'm not hopeful that it will.

I was only refering to the very limited sample size of Trump voters that I personally know, which the comment I was responding to was about. Which is in no way unified by any sort of white anything.

The majority of people I deal and interact with on a daily basis are not white people so just mathematically I'm not going to be seeing "white power" when I see a Trump voter. 

 

 

[TheKitttenGuard]

So, many Trump surrogates and their posters are bringing up the 2000 election as some means to justify Trump's actions. People can point to some of Al Gore's supporters and I am sure a few Democratic representatives had some harsh feelings but the dragging of Gore's through the mud is disgusting.  Gore did not question the process before the election and waited for the recount like any sensible person would of.  When the S.C made its decision he than conceded. It was a highly praiseworthy that is being twisted for a man who is the most petty and think skinned person to have ever run in modern politics. This is just vile.

 

[OldGimletEye]

10 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I was only refering to the very limited sample size of Trump voters that I personally know, which the comment I was responding to was about. Which is in no way unified by any sort of white anything.

The majority of people I deal and interact with on a daily basis are not white people so just mathematically I'm not going to be seeing "white power" when I see a Trump voter. 

Yes, yes, of course, every Trump supporter is just a "principled conservative".

LOL.

[DunderMifflin]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Yes, yes. of course, every Trump supporter is just a "principled conservative".

LOL.

I don't even know what you mean here.

Most people I know that actually do care about racism beyond virtue signaling on the internet and are affected by it see both these candidates as a vote to keep white people on top.

[aceluby]

3 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I don't even know what you mean here.

Most people I know that actually do care about racism beyond virtue signaling on the internet and are affected by it see both these candidates as a vote to keep white people on top.

This backward logic again?  

[IheartIheartTesla]

21 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

In May, two of my partners made a bet at the partners meeting.  One partner here in NY bet that Hillary Clinton would win 60% of the popular vote.  The other, in Chicago took the other side of the bet.  The stakes were to fund a bowling party for the associates in our department.  I was entirely certain that this party would be in NY.  While I still think it is probably going to be here, I am not entirely certain anymore.

I presume the other side of the bet was that Clinton would not get 60% of the bet....

Even McGovern got almost 40% of the vote, and that was when the electorate was less polarized than now. (as did Goldwater in '64).

[Maithanet]

26 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

In May, two of my partners made a bet at the partners meeting.  One partner here in NY bet that Hillary Clinton would win 60% of the popular vote.  The other, in Chicago took the other side of the bet.  The stakes were to fund a bowling party for the associates in our department.  I was entirely certain that this party would be in NY.  While I still think it is probably going to be here, I am not entirely certain anymore.

I'm confused.  Are you saying that you are somewhat confident that the NY side of the bet will win and Clinton will indeed get 60% of the popular vote?  Because while Clinton is polling well, she has never even gotten close to 60% in a national poll.  Getting 60% in a presidential race is virtually impossible in this day and age.  Did you mean to say 50%?  Because Clinton could get there, it's probably going to be close.

[DunderMifflin]

Just now, aceluby said:

This backward logic again?  

 

Just now, aceluby said:

 

 

Just now, aceluby said:

 

Ill be sure to inform them of how backwards you think their logic is. I'm sure it will change so much of their thinking.

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

Yes. But education and income, while related, aren't the same thing. Trump's base is definitely non-college educated white males, with other white males and non-college educated white females buttressing that support.

The takeaway, for me, is that Trump's base represent the economically better off among non-college educated voters.

They live in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn.  Their names are Scotch, Irish and Italian names.  This is a traditionally working class neighborhood, that has, since the wars among all three, formidably resisted both integration by African Americans and immigration from any other groups, including -- which in Brooklyn is quite something -- any of the variety of Jewish groups.  There are entire streets in Bay Ridge that are lined, house after house, with trump - pence signage.

 

[sologdin]

25 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I'm confused.  Are you saying that you are somewhat confident that the NY side of the bet will win and Clinton will indeed get 60% of the popular vote?  Because while Clinton is polling well, she has never even gotten close to 60% in a national poll.  Getting 60% in a presidential race is virtually impossible in this day and age.  Did you mean to say 50%?  Because Clinton could get there, it's probably going to be close.

NY funding the party means that NY loses and HRC does not hit 60%?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 minute ago, sologdin said:

NY funding the party means that NY loses and HRC does not hit 60%?

Correct.  Though every time I try to clarify I get a 500 error.  Interesting.. . . I'm generally confident the party will be in NY.  But from there being like 0% chance of the opposite happening, I now see it at like 2%

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

2 hours ago, Equilibrium said:

Having watched the debate, recorded in my own time, not about to get up in 3 AM just to watch it, I must say they were much more subdued this time, no Trump put downs (he tried one, it was bad and ineffective) or Hillary's witticisms (she tried a few, bad as usual)

I have to say this, as aside from climate change and foreign interventions I don't really care do Americans have right to carry military weapons or have abortions as long as they don't fuck the world up for everyone else. While climate change wasn't even mentioned, we know Trump is denier to the max, Hillary pays lip service but is not likely to do anything significant (fracking, Keystone XL, etc.) 

Foreign policy did come up. Hillary's insistence on no-fly zone is plain scary, a bad/worse scenario, Putin is bound to test the zone, if for anything so he can bill it somewhere else, it's a win/win for him, while US either stand by with billions of hardware needed to enforce it while Russian jets carry on, which would be epic embarrassment and waste of money or they down few of them and wait for inevitable retaliation.

I've been following Clinton's no fly zone argument for a year now, all the while current US administration and military dismissed the idea, and she lives in the fantasy world in which Russians won't fly (where they have as much right to fly, and more than US) just because she said so. Sanders warned of this and lately I have read Dr. Stein says it as well. 

How can you support her? Do you really think some Syrians are worth global conflict? And would no-fly zone even benefit those Syrians? Some will say Trump is this and Trump is that, you don't have to support Trump either. Johnson not knowing what is Aleppo makes him far less likely he will start WW3 over it, so that is a plus in my book, and Dr. Stein really seems nice and she really cares about the environment(she is not anti-vax, those are lies, check famous mainstream fact checkers, like snoopes, they all say it it a lie). 

Assuming you aren't Miodrag, I think this post is worth responding to.

1. All that stuff that doesn't matter to you does matter to us.

2. I'm of two minds on Syria. One hand, I don't see any further military interventions in the Middle East turning out well. On the other hand, fuck Assad, and fuck Russia. Ideal case for me would be to let Russia help Assad reassert martial law over Syria, and when the Syrians inevitably get pissed, all that jihadist resentment is pointed at Russia instead of the US.

3. While I don't think Hillary will actually go so far as to start shooting at Russians, I don't like the level of brinksmanship with a nuclear armed state that this implies. But many people in this thread have already stated that they're uncomfortable with Hillary's hawkishness.

4. A Trump administration would start out friendlier with Russia, that doesn't mean he's less likely to intervene or destabilize the world. He's said that more countries, like Saudi Arabia, Japan and South Korea should have nukes. He said that he's bomb the shit out of ISIS, and he'd target the families of terrorists. He doesn't support the war the War in Iraq (though he did), only because we didn't take their oil, and we didn't win. And given his long history of flying into a rage at petty insults, do you really want him controlling the most powerful military force in world history?

5. I'm not sold on the idea that ignorance leads to better foreign policy outcomes.

6. Stein might not be anti-vax, but she's certainly pandering to those people. She also against GMO's, and nuclear power, and all the other hallmarks of "Movement Environmentalists" who have been spectacularly ineffective and self-defeating in Washington State.  It's the type of environmentalism that's more about signaling virtue than actually getting results.

 

[mormont]

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

They live in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn.  Their names are Scotch, Irish and Italian names.  This is a traditionally working class neighborhood, that has, since the wars among all three, formidably resisted both integration by African Americans and immigration from any other groups, including -- which in Brooklyn is quite something -- any of the variety of Jewish groups.  There are entire streets in Bay Ridge that are lined, house after house, with trump - pence signage.

I'm not at all questioning whether these particular voters are working class. I'm saying that there's a distribution of income even among the working class - or, to be more accurate, among those with no experience of higher education.

There could be a racial element at play here, since so many of the non-white non-college educated voters are voting Democrat. If their income tends to be lower, then logically the average income of a non-college educated Trump supporter will tend to be higher than that of a non-college educated Clinton supporter.

 

(Incidentally, it's 'Scots': 'Scotch' is a drink. ;))

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

3 hours ago, Ariadne23 said:

But, from what I remember reading, Trump voters are disproportionately from areas that have been economically impacted, even if, as individuals, they are better off than average. Significantly. 

OTOH, for all I know, they could still be people who've lost a lot of wealth or income recently; perceptions are relative.

Side note: I've still never had any individual person tell me they're voting for Trump. I have a hard time envisioning the Trump voter.

My brother and most of my cousins. It's quite sad really.  Not too surprised at most, but my one cousin and her husband are both better educated than most of our family, so I was surprised by her Trump support

[Castel]

15 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Assuming you aren't Miodrag, I think this post is worth responding to.

1. All that stuff that doesn't matter to you does matter to us.

2. I'm of two minds on Syria. One hand, I don't see any further military interventions in the Middle East turning out well. On the other hand, fuck Assad, and fuck Russia. Ideal case for me would be to let Russia help Assad reassert martial law over Syria, and when the Syrians inevitably get pissed, all that jihadist resentment is pointed at Russia instead of the US.

3. While I don't think Hillary will actually go so far as to start shooting at Russians, I don't like the level of brinksmanship with a nuclear armed state that this implies. But many people in this thread have already stated that they're uncomfortable with Hillary's hawkishness.

4. A Trump administration would start out friendlier with Russia, that doesn't mean he's less likely to intervene or destabilize the world. He's said that more countries, like Saudi Arabia, Japan and South Korea should have nukes. He said that he's bomb the shit out of ISIS, and he'd target the families of terrorists. He doesn't support the war the War in Iraq (though he did), only because we didn't take their oil, and we didn't win. And given his long history of flying into a rage at petty insults, do you really want him controlling the most powerful military force in world history?

5. I'm not sold on the idea that ignorance leads to better foreign policy outcomes.

6. Stein might not be anti-vax, but she's certainly pandering to those people. She also against GMO's, and nuclear power, and all the other hallmarks of "Movement Environmentalists" who have been spectacularly ineffective and self-defeating in Washington State.  It's the type of environmentalism that's more about signaling virtue than actually getting results.

 

5 is one of the most ludicrous things I hear. It's like...I don't even want to call it "random guy on the street logic" cause it's probably worse than the usual intuitive "if I can balance my checkbook" style thinking.

The president is suspended in a web of a variety of powerful interests. Not knowing what the fuck you're talking about is horrific in terms of allowing you to effectively set the agenda. There are all sorts of internal interests attempting to push you one way or another (Cheney did it, Obama got it when he tried to pull back from bombing Assad) and if you're totally unable to judge the information coming in you will be fucked.

And 1. is relevant.Sure, I don't like the idea of a no-fly zone but I think it's worth considering that the rest of the US isn't for a complete pullback, especially when ground troops are not on the horizon and hundreds of Americans aren't dying overseas. When ISIS-inspired or supplied terrorists shoot the shit out of some event, I think most people want to hear that something is being done, especially if they can hear it without hearing 'oh, we're going to occupy this place'. Which is what they're hearing now, and have been hearing for years.

Sure, some people react very badly to even the word "Syria". But I don't think that a president can ever remove his attention from foreign affairs. If you throw in an isolationist president I'm willing to bet they get the shit beat out of them on foreign policy, and I don't think it'd be an ineffective attack. 

[S John]

I have to agree on the Syria 'no-fly' zone.  The Syrian conflict is an epic disaster for the region, but doing anything that might allow the Syrian conflict to become ground zero for a war between the US and Russia seems incredibly stupid to me.  Your average American sitting on the far side of the Atlantic has basically nothing to fear from ISIS or Syrian refugees or Assad, so let's provoke Russia over it?  

Whether or not the USA likes the outcome of Russia becoming involved in Syria, they did it, and they did it before America could do anything about it.  The answer is not to go in there and throw military weight around just for the sake of opposing Putin and risk turning a regional shit-show into a global one.  

I'm going to vote for Clinton, but that kind of interventionist standing truly worries me about her.   

[Mexal]

This guy is insane. We know this but jesus.

 

[Maya Mia]

3 hours ago, Fez said:

And roughly 5% of African Americans are going to vote for Trump, there will always be exceptions. But Clinton is winning among college-educated white women, which Democrats haven't done in decades, and is roughly tied among college-educated white men. Trump is winning among non-college educated white women (though by a much smaller margin than usual) and by non-college educated white men (by a larger margin than usual). 

 

Yes there are always exceptions, and really my specific industry is dominated by college educated white men.  But it is almost everybody I know in this industry.  The few women are not talking (neither am I), there is one gentleman that I am pretty sure won't vote for Trump, and one LGBT who I know is a Clinton supporter.

 

To give an idea of the demographics of my industry - a recent conference with about 100 people attending had 5 women (two were girlfriend/spouse), 1 minority (Cuban) and white men. The presentation was quite boring, so I actually counted.

My point is the perception of Trump supporters are uneducated does not bear out in my life at all.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

38 minutes ago, Zorral said:

They live in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn.  Their names are Scotch, Irish and Italian names.  This is a traditionally working class neighborhood, that has, since the wars among all three, formidably resisted both integration by African Americans and immigration from any other groups, including -- which in Brooklyn is quite something -- any of the variety of Jewish groups.  There are entire streets in Bay Ridge that are lined, house after house, with trump - pence signage.

 

You forgot the Norwegians if any are left in Bay Ridge. And there are enough Lebanese in the neighborhood now as well. Bay Ridge is also expensive as fuck so I imagine that's why at least now you don't see many African-Americans in the neighborhood. Lots of people are getting priced out of the neighborhood. 

Staten Island votes the same way, Trump did better in my congressional district than anywhere else in the country. 

[Mexal]

10 minutes ago, Maya Mia said:

Yes there are always exceptions, and really my specific industry is dominated by college educated white men.  But it is almost everybody I know in this industry.  The few women are not talking (neither am I), there is one gentleman that I am pretty sure won't vote for Trump, and one LGBT who I know is a Clinton supporter.

To give an idea of the demographics of my industry - a recent conference with about 100 people attending had 5 women (two were girlfriend/spouse), 1 minority (Cuban) and white men. The presentation was quite boring, so I actually counted.

My point is the perception of Trump supporters are uneducated does not bear out in my life at all.

And that makes sense because of the people you surround yourself around. But if you look across the country, it's quite different and there are enough studies to show that.