US Elections: Post-Mortem Blame Games

[S John]

3 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Exactly, Putin has the world in a situation that is pretty great for him at the moment. An isolationist US, an EU that is falling apart.. perfect for him. He doesn't need to do much else. But his whole strategy is based on not being predictable and doing things that don't make sense.

I'm interested to see how Trump handles the situation in Syria.  I have to say that I REALLY did not like Clinton's plan.  Or Obama's for that matter. 

[TheKitttenGuard]

12 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I've really struggled to find any commentary anywhere from a Trump supporter.. I think this is all part of the echo chamber of the internet where you only interact with people you agree with. Which is part of the reason this happened I think. I found this comment on Quora which I think was actually really good and got to the heart of what a lot of people felt.

https://www.quora.com/How-did-Donald-Trump-win-the-2016-US-Presidential-Election/answer/Jon-Davis-10?srid=21rH

You can find it but they will be on more Right and Extreme Right sites.

The Right had been very successful in creating an alternate source of News which in the U.S Roots in Talk Radio. For some correct and many incorrect reasons they just ignore the rest of Establish media outside anything Murdoch owns (and that is becoming too tame for them).

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Just now, SerPaladin said:

I joke with real world friends that when something controversial happens, I flip between MSNBC and Fox News. Anything both of them are saying is reality, and everything else is spin.

On the web, you'd do well to have a spectrum of news and analysis sources. Townhall.com is a wretched hive to me, you'd probably need a hazmat suit to open it, but that's what the far right is saying. There are sites further to the right, but that's tinfoil hat territory.national Review used to be my source for "sane conservative" analysis, but that ship sailed a few years ago.

If all you look at are those who agree with you, you're gonna be surprised in life. That's a side effect of all the tribalism.

Yeah in the UK I look at the Guardian ( possibly the most insipid left leaning hippie rag going) and the Telegraph ( a disgusting right wing site designed for rich white old people)... the truth is somewhere in between, or maybe not at all. I think its vital because you see people on each side get fanatical about their opinion, with no idea whether what they are saying is right or not at all, because they are never challenged. Sometimes I even say things, sometimes on here, just to see what other peoples reactions are to it, or to challenge other peoples opinions, because I think its really important to do that. 

I even looked at Breibart the other day.. that was gross.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Castel said:

They go by Congressional districts right? Doesn't that open the door for gerrymandering to sift up to the White House? 

I think so.  That just makes the Gerrymandering issue a much larger and more serious one.  I got into a huge flame war with SWOTM over my advocacy of ending Gerrymandering.  He favors it because it is the method that allows many minority candidates to be elected to the HofR.  I pointed out that the creation of "minority majority districts" scrubs other districts of their natural minority constitutants.  

I'd love to see Proportional Representation adopted on a State by State basis for apportionment of members of the House of Representatives in the future.  Then proportional allocation of Electoral College votes in the Presidential election.

[DraculaAD1972]

Good news for the UK. Trump has invited Theresa May to visit Washington to affirm the special relationship and talk about trade deals. Contrast this to Obama's comment about the UK being at the back of the queue.

[Ariadne23]

5 minutes ago, zelticgar said:

I added a smiley face to the original post so people understand it is a joke. Seriously, you must be fun to hang out with at a dinner party.  I think me reminding my kids that guys can be creeps is a lot less damaging than psycho Clinton parents creating a boogie man out of Trump and then complaining they don't know how to speak to their kids about it. 

Were you this offended by what I said, or are you really responding to the other poster who said it was "creepily paternalistic?" 

I thought I made it clear that I understood you were joking. I also have concerns about the effects those types of seemingly-harmless jokes have on women.

The whole "feminists are so serious, ugh" thing has been around since Beavis and Butthead met Daria, so that's not a new tactic to me, but you might consider making it less familiar to you, even if it is how you really feel.

But besides that, I really was trying to be nice about what I was saying, but I can see how it might feel like being nitpicked, and if there was a less offensive way I could have said it, I apologize for not taking the time to figure that out and say it that way.

[butterbumps!]

4 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It doesn't matter how good a candidate is, if people won't vote for that candidate on ideological grounds. That's presumably why a large minority of women voted for Trump.

I'm not sure how your response relates to what I said.    That doesn't invalidate what I cited as being painful for many women.   Especially considering that the ideology in question was so toxic and the campaign so anti-woman.   

[Chaldanya]

nvm

[Future Null Infinity]

Poor mexicans  the early victims of Trump, their peso is plummeting to a historic record

[Rhom]

44 minutes ago, Nasty Fragile Bird said:

Wouldn't it be funny if in January, after Trump is sworn in, the Russians announce that, yup, they did hack Democratic e-mails to help out their buddy Trump?

Couldn't you see that fox Putin doing that to really put the US in turmoil, and while a royal slanging match goes on in the US, they invade the Ukraine?  When there isn't  a legitimate US President in power, or at least, one with a roiling thunderhead sitting on top of him?

That would knock out Trump and Pence both, wouldn't it?  Who's next in line, Ryan?  or McConnell?

I still don't understand this line of thought.  Maybe (probably) it was the Russians behind the hack... but what they exposed was actual election fraud perpetrated by the Democrats against a member of their own party!  It was telling that every time a new WikiLeaks release hit, you had Podesta doing his best "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" act and yelling "LOOK!!!  OVER THERE!!!! RUSSIANS!!!!!"  Never once acknowledging the boogie man in the room that the stuff being released was true and deceitful.

Honestly, I don't care where it came from. The Russians attempted to interfere with our election by revealing how certain individuals actually interfered.

To steal a line from Hillary herself, "At this point, what does it matter?"

[drawkcabi]

My $.02:

Forgive me if I repeat anything other posters have all ready said, I can't keep up with this thread or these threads.

Let me begin by bringing up a term that when used derogatorily, is despised by most here: Social Justice Warrior. Let me say that I think championing social justice is noble and I support it, want to ally myself with any who are fighting for it, but I also believe there is an extreme type of SJW out there that isn't a true SJW but a faux one. But I also think it says something that I feel like I need to walk on eggshells bringing this up here for fear of getting my head chewed off.

In a time when we've recently had:

Comedians proclaim they will no longer play college venues due to how they are treated and restricted, and not just the more edgy ones but Jerry Seinfeld FFS.

College professors under fire not for trying to quell the speech of students but for defending their own free speech.

Milo Yiannopoulos, who I think is a major asshat, but when thinking of an appearance he made at college I don't think of the bullshit he said but of the annoying person Jigglypuff (where I know I should not but can't help but giggle snort at the moniker she was given) who wouldn't even let him spew his bullshit at a venue he was invited to.

Someone cheapens the term "sexual harassment" by screaming it at a man who does not touch her, does not go near her, does not interact with her until she interacts with him, only tells her his name is "Hugh Mungus".

Another person shouts sexual harassment at someone for only saying "Hello" to her as she walks by.

Someone throws a fit at a Lift driver (of Asian heritage as if that should matter) and is offended by a hulu girl statue on his dashboard.

Halloween costumes and every day stylistic choices like wearing dreadlocks are made into big issues and termed "cultural appropriation".

A movie comes out where respected, established or, at the least, non political critics (Richard Roeper, AVGN) are charged with bigotry and or misogyny for simply not liking or not wanting to see it, when in their entire arguments they never claimed they didn't like it because it starred women. Also, while it can't be decidedly proven it has been suggested by more than a few that other critics felt afraid to honest review for fear of backlash.

 

Aside from the issue of free speech rights, I'd agree with anyone who said these incidences should take a far back seat to the issues of real misogyny, racism, homophobia, bigotry, and prejudice. However in part due to social media and the internet making it much easier to learn about these incidences and the frequency they're happening, they take on a collective weight.

I know I am very susceptible to the clickbaity nature of it all on YouTube. I think that's why when I go on YouTube I get all these "recommended for you" videos by people like Sargon of Akkad, Undoomed, tl;dr, Bearing, Mundane Matt and others. Who, by the way, have all copied off each other by having these stupid semi-animated avatars they've created to do their talking for them. Only Mundane Matt of them all I don't think is a complete jerk and who I can agree with maybe up to 50% of the time, also the only one of the ones I mentioned that doesn't have one of those stupid avatars (I just find them annoying, but I digress).

Here's my point though. These YouTube content makers, they are secular and with many of their views I'd call them liberal. They just have found a niche going after SJW. And they are very popular. So many of their videos have thousands of "likes" compared to maybe a few hundred "dislikes". If you wade through the cesspool of YT comments you see so many people coming off as having similar mindsets.

 In 2012 we had react compilations of Republican, GOP, or Romney voters upset at the results of that election that many of us (ashamedly raises hand) took a measure of delight in seeing them in pain. This time I don't see many videos titled Clinton voters or Democrat voters or Progressive voter react compilations but a great many SJW react ones.

Now all during this election season, whoever got the nomination, whether it was O'Malley, Bernie, or HRC, I knew I'd be voting for them against any of the GOP candidates and most definitely Trump. I never once wavered or hesitated from that train of thought.

But I also remember thinking to myself months before the election, maybe even years before, the liberal base are turning people off. Now, do I also think and have thought that many are taking advantage of these incidences to let their true bigotry and prejudices shine? Absolutely! The KKK, Stormfront people, many of the Alt+Right would never, not a snowball's chance in hell, would ever have been a Democrat/Progressive/Liberal voter. But I do believe that there have been some liberal voters that have been turned off by so much leftist bullshit. I need to reiterate that I personally believe that this left bullshit takes a WAY far back backseat to the Alt+Right, racist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynist bullshit. I get irritated when I see some of the bullshit on the left, I get sick when I see it on the right. What I feel is that there are those that maybe are not (or wouldn't be) racist or misogynistic, they've gotten too frustrated with the crap on the left, have taken it too personally, and have sided with the other side because they now hold a grudge against these faux SJW's.

I think these types of people are fair minded, liberal minded, but have gotten their sense of fairness skewed because maybe being white and straight and mostly men it has impeded their realization of the depths of unfairness minorities still face. What I don't know is if they are significant or insignificant to why HRC lost, I can only give my conjecture which also includes a belief that in the post election Democratic post mortem should seriously be looked at.

The Democrats, liberals, progressives, should not have to feel the need to cater to these "lost souls" to put their needs in front of the needs of other minorities, but I think it would behoove them to acknowledge that their side has gone way over the line in some instances. I think that would go a LONG way to mending some fences.

I don't know where that line is exactly, I don't know where it should be divided between what is reasonable and unreasonable. Condemning blackface or wanting the Washington Redskins to change their name, between that on one side and wanting no one to dress up as an Indian for Halloween or condemning a white kid wearing dreadlocks on the other, for me there's a clear demarcation. But there are more nuanced arguments and questions that can make it less clear. I think having discussions about it and maybe some acknowledgement would behoove us.

There are many true social justice warriors out there, more than faux ones, but by not speaking against or making it an effort to reign it in sometimes, it could be encouraging the extreme side to grow. To believe that if speaking out for the right to be called a they or ze or hir is good then speaking out to take away someone's right not to believe that is even better.

There needs to be some ownership on the left for the more extreme activists. Many hated the "Not all men" meme, there shouldn't be a "Not all progressives" meme when someone says all white people are racist because they are white or other extreme views espoused.

Again, other societal problems do take precedence, but if you don't want 2016 to happen again maybe this needs to be looked at, not catered to, but at least acknowledged.

[Whitestripe]

Zelt:  I am very concerned about what I have to tell my children when they ask me why Trump said he is going to allow guns on school grounds. 

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

38 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think so.  That just makes the Gerrymandering issue a much larger and more serious one.  I got into a huge flame war with SWOTM over my advocacy of ending Gerrymandering.  He favors it because it is the method that allows many minority candidates to be elected to the HofR.  I pointed out that the creation of "minority majority districts" scrubs other districts of their natural minority constitutants.  

I'd love to see Proportional Representation adopted on a State by State basis for apportionment of members of the House of Representatives in the future.  Then proportional allocation of Electoral College votes in the Presidential election.

Wouldn't that just strip districts of the ability to choose someone frim their own community to represent them?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, drawkcabi said:

My $.02:

Forgive me if I repeat anything other posters have all ready said, I can't keep up with this thread or these threads.

Let me begin by bringing up a term that when used derogatorily, is despised by most here: Social Justice Warrior. Let me say that I think championing social justice is noble and I support it, want to ally myself with any who are fighting for it, but I also believe there is an extreme type of SJW out there that isn't a true SJW but a faux one. But I also think it says something that I feel like I need to walk on eggshells bringing this up here for fear of getting my head chewed off.

In a time when we've recently had:

Comedians proclaim they will no longer play college venues due to how they are treated and restricted, and not just the more edgy ones but Jerry Seinfeld FFS.

College professors under fire not for trying to quell the speech of students but for defending their own free speech.

Milo Yiannopoulos, who I think is a major asshat, but when thinking of an appearance he made at college I don't think of the bullshit he said but of the annoying person Jigglypuff (where I know I should not but can't help but giggle snort at the moniker she was given) who wouldn't even let him spew his bullshit at a venue he was invited to.

Someone cheapens the term "sexual harassment" by screaming it at a man who does not touch her, does not go near her, does not interact with her until she interacts with him, only tells her his name is "Hugh Mungus".

Another person shouts sexual harassment at someone for only saying "Hello" to her as she walks by.

Someone throws a fit at a Lift driver (of Asian heritage as if that should matter) and is offended by a hulu girl statue on his dashboard.

Halloween costumes and every day stylistic choices like wearing dreadlocks are made into big issues and termed "cultural appropriation".

A movie comes out where respected, established or, at the least, non political critics (Richard Roeper, AVGN) are charged with bigotry and or misogyny for simply not liking or not wanting to see it, when in their entire arguments they never claimed they didn't like it because it starred women. Also, while it can't be decidedly proven it has been suggested by more than a few that other critics felt afraid to honest review for fear of backlash.

 

Aside from the issue of free speech rights, I'd agree with anyone who said these incidences should take a far back seat to the issues of real misogyny, racism, homophobia, bigotry, and prejudice. However in part due to social media and the internet making it much easier to learn about these incidences and the frequency they're happening, they take on a collective weight.

I know I am very susceptible to the clickbaity nature of it all on YouTube. I think that's why when I go on YouTube I get all these "recommended for you" videos by people like Sargon of Akkad, Undoomed, tl;dr, Bearing, Mundane Matt and others. Who, by the way, have all copied off each other by having these stupid semi-animated avatars they've created to do their talking for them. Only Mundane Matt of them all I don't think is a complete jerk and who I can agree with maybe up to 50% of the time, also the only one of the ones I mentioned that doesn't have one of those stupid avatars (I just find them annoying, but I digress).

Here's my point though. These YouTube content makers, they are secular and with many of their views I'd call them liberal. They just have found a niche going after SJW. And they are very popular. So many of their videos have thousands of "likes" compared to maybe a few hundred "dislikes". If you wade through the cesspool of YT comments you see so many people coming off as having similar mindsets.

 In 2012 we had react compilations of Republican, GOP, or Romney voters upset at the results of that election that many of us (ashamedly raises hand) took a measure of delight in seeing them in pain. This time I don't see many videos titled Clinton voters or Democrat voters or Progressive voter react compilations but a great many SJW react ones.

Now all during this election season, whoever got the nomination, whether it was O'Malley, Bernie, or HRC, I knew I'd be voting for them against any of the GOP candidates and most definitely Trump. I never once wavered or hesitated from that train of thought.

But I also remember thinking to myself months before the election, maybe even years before, the liberal base are turning people off. Now, do I also think and have thought that many are taking advantage of these incidences to let their true bigotry and prejudices shine? Absolutely! The KKK, Stormfront people, many of the Alt+Right would never, not a snowball's chance in hell, would ever have been a Democrat/Progressive/Liberal voter. But I do believe that there have been some liberal voters that have been turned off by so much leftist bullshit. I need to reiterate that I personally believe that this left bullshit takes a WAY far back backseat to the Alt+Right, racist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynist bullshit. I get irritated when I see some of the bullshit on the left, I get sick when I see it on the right. What I feel is that there are those that maybe are not (or wouldn't be) racist or misogynistic, they've gotten too frustrated with the crap on the left, have taken it too personally, and have sided with the other side because they now hold a grudge against these faux SJW's.

I think these types of people are fair minded, liberal minded, but have gotten their sense of fairness skewed because maybe being white and straight and mostly men it has impeded their realization of the depths of unfairness minorities still face. What I don't know is if they are significant or insignificant to why HRC lost, I can only give my conjecture which also includes a belief that in the post election Democratic post mortem should seriously be looked at.

The Democrats, liberals, progressives, should not have to feel the need to cater to these "lost souls" to put their needs in front of the needs of other minorities, but I think it would behoove them to acknowledge that their side has gone way over the line in some instances. I think that would go a LONG way to mending some fences.

I don't know where that line is exactly, I don't know where it should be divided between what is reasonable and unreasonable. Condemning blackface or wanting the Washington Redskins to change their name, between that on one side and wanting no one to dress up as an Indian for Halloween or condemning a white kid wearing dreadlocks on the other, for me there's a clear demarcation. But there are more nuanced arguments and questions that can make it less clear. I think having discussions about it and maybe some acknowledgement would behoove us.

There are many true social justice warriors out there, more than faux ones, but by not speaking against or making it an effort to reign it in sometimes, it could be encouraging the extreme side to grow. To believe that if speaking out for the right to be called a they or ze or hir is good then speaking out to take away someone's right not to believe that is even better.

There needs to be some ownership on the left for the more extreme activists. Many hated the "Not all men" meme, there shouldn't be a "Not all progressives" meme when someone says all white people are racist because they are white or other extreme views espoused.

Again, other societal problems do take precedence, but if you don't want 2016 to happen again maybe this needs to be looked at, not catered to, but at least acknowledged.

Drawkcabi,

Great post.  The lose of nuance in favor of political purity shoudl concern us all, in my opinion.

[Castel]

My 2 cents:

I maintain that significant parts of the country could really give less of a shit about things like the Ghostbuster kerfuffle,and I think this election has proven that many of these top comedian-pundits that are idolized on the Left may be gods to leftist Millenials but plenty of other people don't give a shit. Everyone is using this election as an opportunity to legislate issues that are dear to their heart ("Democrats lost cause they did this thing I didn't like) but not necessarily important to the actual places the race swung at all. Or rather, there's little evidence for it. The Democratic party doesn't actually belong to those people, anymore than the GOP belongs to some of the more secular people with degrees they can appeal to in the suburbs, or all of the policy types from the GWB administration that threw everything they had at Trump. It's one piece of the puzzle.

Now, it's the exact sort of thing people who visit this sort of webforum care about and notice,so they'll export that unto the results of the election cause it better makes their case, but it is dubious, as things stand. 

I might change my mind if a lot of evidence comes out of this (we can go over the exit polls in the pivotal states) but it seems to me that everyone thinks that they're writing a sober 2012 post-Romney-loss post-mortem when what's happening is far more reactionary.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

Wouldn't that just strip districts of the ability to choose someone frim their own community to represent them?

Yup.  But that's a feature not a bug.  I don't think local politics belong on the national level.  I think allowing Dan Rostinkowski to pimp the brand new fire engines he provided to his neighborhood in Chicago to get re-elected is terrible.  We should stop creating political fiefdoms.  I'd like to end the Single member District.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Mr Fixit said:

The most damning thing is that the polls have been indicating that much all along! Sanders almost always polled much better vs Trump as opposed to Clinton (around 10+% vs Clinton's couple percent ahead of Trump). And still, the media and the establishment peddled their BS story of Bernie being "unelectable" while HRC is a de facto slam dunk.

I'll make a deal. You find me an article anywhere that said Clinton's victory was a 'de facto slam dunk' and I'll find you polls that show Krypto the Wonder Dog polled better than Clinton against Trump.

Neither will mean anything, of course, because polls about things that didn't happen are worthless. Nobody, including you, has any idea what a poll about Trump vs Sanders would look like after months of Trump calling him a communist, asking questions about his health, questioning his temperament, and digging up whatever unfortunate past utterances he could find. Check this article out, for example:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/polls_say_bernie_is_more_electable_than_hillary_don_t_believe_them.html

It's long, but here are some points.

Quote

 

Last year, Gallup asked Americans: “If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be socialist, would you vote for that person?” Forty-seven percent of respondents said they would, but 50 percent said they wouldn’t. Every other kind of candidate tested in the Gallup poll—black, Mormon, gay, Muslim, atheist—garnered majority support, probably because the question stipulated that the candidate had already been nominated by “your party.” Only a socialist nominee was rejected. Among Democrats, a socialist was the only type of nominee who didn’t get 60 percent support.

Polls in swing states show the same pattern. In New Hampshire, 20 percent of likely Democratic primary voters said a “Democratic socialist” president would be unacceptable. In Virginia, 52 percent of all voters said they’d be less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who “was a Democratic-Socialist.” The phrase was a net loser with every audience. Two out of three Democrats didn’t care, but among those who did, the percentage who said they’d be less likely to vote for such a candidate (15 percent) slightly exceeded the percentage who said they’d be more likely (12 percent).

 

If lessons are to be learned for the future, I'm strongly sceptical that 'nominating a more left-wing candidate' is the right one.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yup.  But that's a feature not a bug.  I don't think local politics belong on the national level.  I think allowing Dan Rostinkowski to pimp the brand new fire engines he provided to his neighborhood in Chicago to get re-elected is terrible.  We should stop creating political fiefdoms.  I'd like to end the Single member District.

I have mixed feelings about pork but I'll tell you it has it's merits. My districtusually votes Republican so the Democrats in the city council and state legislature don't give us our fair share to punish us for being naughty children. And federal money has been put to good use here. Switching that up would make it impossible to get what we need and it just creates a different kind of fiefdom. 

[Zorral]

From the previous thread Dundermuffin said: 

Quote

 

Slavery never became illegal, the state took it over. Slavery only became legal for the individual.

It's clearly pointed out that the government can still own slaves, it never became illegal.

 

Totally wrong.

Nor was the buying and selling of women and children and raising them for sale still in place by anyone or any institution.

But that loophole in the Constitution about those imprisoned, certainly allowed in many ways what happened to keep African Americans in the south exploited and used for unpaid labor.  See Angola Prison for one thing which is still running, made from a plantation owned by the biggest slave trader in the history of the Antebellum south -- where he raised little children for eventual sale. It was called Angola then too.  All this allowed for our present day corporate incarceration for profit system.

 

 

[Fragile Bird]

33 minutes ago, Rhom said:

I still don't understand this line of thought.  Maybe (probably) it was the Russians behind the hack... but what they exposed was actual election fraud perpetrated by the Democrats against a member of their own party!  It was telling that every time a new WikiLeaks release hit, you had Podesta doing his best "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" act and yelling "LOOK!!!  OVER THERE!!!! RUSSIANS!!!!!"  Never once acknowledging the boogie man in the room that the stuff being released was true and deceitful.

Honestly, I don't care where it came from. The Russians attempted to interfere with our election by revealing how certain individuals actually interfered.

To steal a line from Hillary herself, "At this point, what does it matter?"

Lol, I guess I am showing my age. I find it almost unbelievable that no one gives a shit if the Republican Party presidential candidate or his entourage was in communication with the Russian government and everything that you could imply from that.

i don't recall ever hearing that the Republican platform included closer ties with Russia. I have been told by friends since I started talking about this a mere hour or two ago that the American people don't give a flying fuck if the Russians interfered with their election. It just seems soooooo unbelievable that this wouldn't trigger demands for, ya know, impeachment or something.

I mean, this is the guy who said he had absolutely no ties with any Russians. Me? I don't even know Putin.