US Politics: Hindsight on 2020

[Dr. Pepper]

16 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

this might sound really stupid and facile, but I wonder if a lot of this could be bridged by someone of influence just speaking very directly to them in language they understand and makes them feel listened to.  basically doing what Trump did, but without distorting reality or relying on quick fix promises or appeal to their baser instincts.

I get this is easier said than done, but when you look at this, how ferociously these Trumpkins stick to their guy and purposely distort reality to fit their voting choice despite all logic and decency, it kind of reeks of desperation to me.   I mean, people who are just so desperate for.....something, that they'll move heaven and earth to maintain their support for the notorious con man who dangles just a little attention on them.   Which is to say that I wonder how much of this adherence to fake news and distrust of MSM is due to inferior intellect on their parts that they throw themselves behind the worst possible candidate in terms of making their lives (or anyone's) better versus a desperate move to mitigate the cognitive dissonance.

The Glen Beck issue I've already pointed out.  He was someone of influence for them, spoke in language they understood and on things they understood.  They've turned hard against him once he went even slightly off the crazy train of misinformation and conspiracy theory.  Who else would there be who not only has influence in those groups, doesn't actually already believe the crazy bullshit, isn't a raging bigot, and can speak their language?  Everyone I'm thinking of right now is part of the problem and if they aren't, then they have no influence on those groups of people.  

[Stannis is the man....nis]

In all honesty we've should of seen this coming. We've had so many warning sings over the past couple years with Gamergate, the freak out over the new Ghostbusters, the freak out over Finn being the first thing we seen in the Star Wars trailer, the freak out over that Super Bowl commercial with the national anthem in multiple languages, etc..

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

This is just a doubling down of the same kind of problematic line drawing and half truth.

I'm not going to go through the whole thing, because the pattern simply repeats, but it's worth calling out a few examples for the purpose of demostration.

I posted the most comprehensive list I could find without spending a ton of time. Of course there are going to be some examples that aren't perfect or even irrelevant, but as you yourself said they admit it. 

14 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

 

So, ignoring for a second the fact that there are so few white supremacists in this country and that their views are held as abhorent by such a large segment of the population, that some sort of machiavellian approach to an outreach to them makes no practical sense, here is where this all becomes problematic.

 

I couldn't find any numbers on roughly how many white nationalist there are in the U.S., and I doubt there's any good data, but the number of groups is not insignificant:

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2016/active-hate-groups-united-states-2015

Also consider that there a lot of people who might not fit the mold of a white nationalist while at the same time sharing a lot of their views. 

20 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

First, the majority of those points essentially boil down to 'white supremacist groups praise Trumps immigration policy'.  Hardly an indication that he's advocating white supremacy.  Sometimes a candidates views are going to align with groups that they do not endorse.

Hence why I said he's signaling to them. Like I said about Bannon, who knows if he actually is a white nationalist, but he's happy to play to their beliefs. 

22 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

 

First, this isn't even a tweet from Trump.  Second, it's a re tweet fo McDonald, but it has nothing to do with his anti semitic views.  But at least here they admit it.  

 

Off-topic, but retweets are generally viewed as an endorsement. I agree that is a bad example, but there are plenty of good ones in my link too, and some of them indicate that he would had to seek the twitter handle out to even see them. Why is he reading what they're tweeting?

25 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

 

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/

Yeah, I can't get on board with this. Dog whistles are very real and well documented, and in this case they're so obvious it's kind of stunning that anyone would even try to deny it. 

[butterbumps!]

26 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

The Glen Beck issue I've already pointed out.  He was someone of influence for them, spoke in language they understood and on things they understood.  They've turned hard against him once he went even slightly off the crazy train of misinformation and conspiracy theory.  Who else would there be who not only has influence in those groups, doesn't actually already believe the crazy bullshit, isn't a raging bigot, and can speak their language?  Everyone I'm thinking of right now is part of the problem and if they aren't, then they have no influence on those groups of people.  

I think there's different types of Trump voters, though.  The ones going after Beck right now are the irredeemable deplorables, the miserable Alt Right trolls.   No one is ever going to reason with them, just toss them aside.   

But there's a lot of other ones.   The ones who believe racism is wrong, but would agree with the statement "All Lives Matter," or believe in traditional gender roles, who need some convincing.   And others who really did want change, or who just can't fathom not voting for the "R" on the ballot, or concerned about stagnant wages, or resent coastal elites-- who were all way too damn comfortable voting for bigotry, I hasten to add, but who didn't vote because of it.   I think these groups can maybe be reasoned with, and grew comfortable with fake news because they almost had to in order to support a candidate I have to assume most know on some level is complete shit.   Are these people also rejecting Beck handily?   

ETA:  maybe a better question is whether Beck necessarily had this non-irredeemable group's trust in the first place?   

[BloodRider]

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

As an academic spending a lot of time trying to figure out the difference between perception and objective truth I ask myself the same question.

I used to believe that it was possible to fight misperception with information... But fighting misinformation with information sounds like a lost cause.

This is enough of a problem to be a threat to democracy itself...

Its more than that tho.  Trump literally made mockery of being informed, and replaced it with empty promises.  It could be whatever the voter wanted it to be because there was nothing that he said that was of substance or if it was was not so outrageous it could not be dismissed as hyperbole.  Clearly the way forward to to continue to be devoid of substance, while telling people that the closes are the best clothes.  They are terrific clothes.  Fit for an emperor.

[Swordfish]

54 minutes ago, mormont said:

As I've noted before, for some people it just ain't real bigotry until they actually set fire to those crosses.

This is utterly ridiculous and reductionist nonsense.

I have not claimed he hasn't said or done objectionable things.

I think the problem is that in certain circles, the bar here has been set dangerously low, and the willingness to ascribe bigoted motivations to things that are innocuous, inadvertent, or just generic idiocy is pretty much off the charts.  Call it echo chamber, call it identity poiltics, call it whatever you want.  Hell, ignore it if you want.  But then don't expect different results, and don't expect to not be held accountable for these attitudes, directly or indirectly.

 

 

 

[BloodRider]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Gingrich is out:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article115388678.html

He's a great choice. He's a lot like Sherrod Brown.

I have no real objections to Pelosi per se, but it is time to clean house.  Like a bank with a new CEO - doesn't matter how well you did in the past, you know the old execs got to go.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

50 minutes ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

I think its safe to assume Trump will have passionate opposition throughout his term. Alex Jones will be  a Trump attack dog, savaging the Clintons , sjw's, mainstream media, etc. To be fair to Jones, he has said he will be watching Trump to ensure Trump doesn't get infected by the 'goblins'. If Jones decides Trump has become a goblin then there will be an epic split and Jones will turn on Trump. 

 

 

Those dreadful and terrifying "Social Justice Warriors!!!"... will Alex Jones and his magic Tin Foil hats be able to protect us???

[Dr. Pepper]

4 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

I think there's different types of Trump voters, though.  The ones going after Beck right now are the irredeemable deplorables, the miserable Alt Right trolls.   No one is ever going to reason with them, just toss them aside.   

But there's a lot of other ones.   The ones who believe racism is wrong, but would agree with the statement "All Lives Matter," or believe in traditional gender roles, who need some convincing.   And others who really did want change, or who just can't fathom not voting for the "R" on the ballot, or concerned about stagnant wages, or resent coastal elites-- who were all way too damn comfortable voting for bigotry, I hasten to add, but who didn't vote because of it.   I think these groups can maybe be reasoned with, and grew comfortable with fake news because they almost had to in order to support a candidate I have to assume most know on some level is complete shit.   Are these people also rejecting Beck handily?   

I'm not entirely sure.  But I assume those people are probably also watching Bill O'Reilly and he's part of the problem.  Actually a major part of the problem. I know one of those Trump voters you describe.  A person who thinks racism is nasty but also thinks blacks are lazy and that BLM is a black nationalist group and posts Blue Lives Matter and All Lives Matter on their facebook.  To me, these seem like the hardest ones to reason with, tbh, because they simply can't get through the race (or gender or sexuality) issue.  If there's a black president, they reason, then racism is dead and any discussion of it existing is just purposely divisive.  

I DON'T KNOW.  It's maddening and very troubling.  Anytime I think "Oh hey, a possible solution!" I realize that it probably won't work because of the topic or because the misinformation industry has already worked it's way into that area.  

[BloodRider]

9 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

This is utterly ridiculous and reductionist nonsense.

I have not claimed he hasn't said or done objectionable things.

I think the problem is that in certain circles, the bar here has been set dangerously low, and the willingness to ascribe bigoted motivations to things that are innocuous, inadvertent, or just generic idiocy is pretty much off the charts.  Call it echo chamber, call it identity poiltics, call it whatever you want.  Hell, ignore it if you want.  But then don't expect different results, and don't expect to not be held accountable for these attitudes, directly or indirectly.

Swordfish, you are the new breed of RJW!  Normalize it, you cry!  There is no identity politics save white identity politics, amirite?

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, felice said:

I'd be surprised if he bothers to stand for reelection. He's gotten what he wanted, which was the ego boost of winning the election; actually running the country is a burden that he's unlikely to enjoy, and running again would just risk losing with nothing new to gain.

Oh, I don't know. Reagan proved that the presidency can be quite manageable if you delegate enough (especially when you don't have a good grasp of complex issues). And Trump may stand to gain more than we can imagine from his position. People think him not taking the $400k salary is a good sign, but for a cynic, it might just mean that he plans to make much much more.
And even if he doesn't want to stand for reelection, there will always be friends of his who will gain from his reelection and will pressure him into doing so.

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

North Korea is probably safe from US aggression since they really do have nukes and don't have any Muslims.  I would say Iran is more likely, although the Russians probably wouldn't like that.  So maybe Libya?  Bonus points for not being in the Middle East and therefore not repeating the mistakes of old! 

Iran seems a tough nut to crack militarily speaking, though it does have a great prize (tons of oil), and is the archenemy of the Saudis.
I wouldn't rule out North Korea though. The fact that it pretends to have nukes could play against it, Kim-Jong-un is a perfect antagonist for Trump (probably wouldn't know when to back down too), taking down the last "Communist" dictatorship on earth would look great -at least on paper, and China may not keep protecting it for very long at this rate.
I guess Lybia and Syria are also possible, depending on how the situation in those countries evolves. Also, I wouldn't rule out an "outsider" like Yemen...

[Swordfish]

25 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I posted the most comprehensive list I could find without spending a ton of time. Of course there are going to be some examples that aren't perfect or even irrelevant, but as you yourself said they admit it. 

I couldn't find any numbers on roughly how many white nationalist there are in the U.S., and I doubt there's any good data, but the number of groups is not insignificant:https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2016/active-hate-groups-united-states-2015

Well..  The KKK numbers somewhere around 3000 members.  I think it's fair to exptrapolate that the numebrs are fairly small unless there's evidence to the contrary.

 

Quote

Also consider that there a lot of people who might not fit the mold of a white nationalist while at the same time sharing a lot of their views. 

There might be.  There might not be.  What specific views are you talking about here?

Because the views pertaining specifically to white nationalism are not widely popular.  I might enjoy the same coffeee as a white nationalist.  That doesn't make me one.

Quote

Hence why I said he's signaling to them. Like I said about Bannon, who knows if he actually is a white nationalist, but he's happy to play to their beliefs. 

Signaling implies intent.  I don't think there's a strong case for intent to court white nationaiists here, for reasons I've already talked about.

He may or may not be, but he's clearly not 'advocating white supremacy'

Quote

Off-topic, but retweets are generally viewed as an endorsement. I agree that is a bad example, but there are plenty of good ones in my link too, and some of them indicate that he would had to seek the twitter handle out to even see them. Why is he reading what they're tweeting?. 

Probably not.  Does he seem like the kind of guy who pays attention to these kinds of details and does a lot of deep thinking before he reacts?

He's shown over and over that he;s impulsive, particularly when threatened, why we would consider his tweets as the exception to this rule where he is doing research and critical thinking to come up with some subtle secret shout outs to a group that virtually no one wants the support of?  It makes zero sense.

 

And retweets are generally viewed as an endorsement of the CONTENT of the tweet, not necessarily of the PERSON who originally tweeted them.

Quote

Yeah, I can't get on board with this. Dog whistles are very real and well documented, and in this case they're so obvious it's kind of stunning that anyone would even try to deny it. 

No.  They really aren't. This is one of those things that seems to be true because it's repeated so often.

 

I think in the end, all of this 'openly racist' 'advocates white supremecy' stuff only served as a distraction, and undermined the credibility of discussion of the issues that make him unfit to be president.

[DraculaAD1972]

45 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Lol, 'savaging the clintons'.... why would they need to do that, and why would he need an 'attack dog' with most federal and state govt in his pocket?  Seriously, how the fuck do you guys plan on blaming liberals when you have control of the entire government?  Not that you won't try, but jesus.  How about focusing on what you guys will actually try to accomplish instead of where to place blame when this catastrophe blows up the world economy?

 

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Those dreadful and terrifying "Social Justice Warriors!!!"... will Alex Jones and his magic Tin Foil hats be able to protect us???

Well there is a move now underway to blackllist Breitbart and infowars as 'fake' news sites. Ironic seeing as those sites backed the winning horse while the msm got it so wrong. The ideological battle has just begun. 

[Week]

Just now, DraculaAD1972 said:

 

Well there is a move now underway to blackllist Breitbart and infowars as 'fake' news sites. Ironic seeing as those sites backed the winning horse while the msm got it so wrong. The ideological battle has just begun. 

How does backing the winning horse reflect the veracity of their news coverage? I don't think you know what "ironic" means.

[Stannis is the man....nis]

2 minutes ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

 

Well there is a move now underway to blackllist Breitbart and infowars as 'fake' news sites. Ironic seeing as those sites backed the winning horse while the msm got it so wrong. The ideological battle has just begun. 

Aren't they already? 

[Squab]

6 minutes ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

 

Well there is a move now underway to blackllist Breitbart and infowars as 'fake' news sites. Ironic seeing as those sites backed the winning horse while the msm got it so wrong. The ideological battle has just begun. 

How do you expect the Republicans to take advantage of a blind spot big enough to get bush elected twice and trump once if places like twitter, facebook and other media aren't allowed to become ideological echo chambers?

[OldGimletEye]

7 minutes ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

Well there is a move now underway to blackllist Breitbart and infowars as 'fake' news sites. Ironic seeing as those sites backed the winning horse while the msm got it so wrong. The ideological battle has just begun. 

Also, the Volkischer Beobachter backed Hitler. What's your fuckin point? 

This kind of nuttiness makes me greatly fear for our democracy.

[Maithanet]

21 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Iran seems a tough nut to crack militarily speaking, though it does have a great prize (tons of oil), and is the archenemy of the Saudis.
I wouldn't rule out North Korea though. The fact that it pretends to have nukes could play against it, Kim-Jong-un is a perfect antagonist for Trump (probably wouldn't know when to back down too), taking down the last "Communist" dictatorship on earth would look great -at least on paper, and China may not keep protecting it for very long at this rate.
I guess Lybia and Syria are also possible, depending on how the situation in those countries evolves. Also, I wouldn't rule out an "outsider" like Yemen...

This is off topic, but North Korea has nukes.  Their first nuclear test was in 2006, and they've had five tests in all.  They are still working on ICBMs, but they have missiles that can reach South Korea and Japan, and could likewise reach any invasion fleet we might send.  

[Squab]

16 minutes ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

 

Well there is a move now underway to blackllist Breitbart and infowars as 'fake' news sites. Ironic seeing as those sites backed the winning horse while the msm got it so wrong. The ideological battle has just begun. 

if we cant get these kind of sites banned for thoughtcrime, we can always shame them into insignificance by calling them racist bigots or homophobes. This is sure to ostracize them enough that their opinions cannot be heard.

I've even heard at universities there are fascists allowing deplorables to address people on campus. I think it important we not forget that universities are our recruiting ground and we need to be vigilant against these words and ideas.

[Darzin]

2 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I think I was idealistic and naive enough to believe that eventually information could fight misinformation.  Then I've been reading a lot of Glen Beck interviews about how his audience has violently turned against him, and largely because (1) he opposes Trump and (2) had many positive things to say about a Michelle Obama speech.  Glen Beck was the leader in creating a huge new audience of conspiracy theorists, he probably contributed to Breitbart becoming nearly mainstream.  He seems to now be recognizing the things he's done wrong and so his audience thinks he's a liburrral sellout. 

 

Yeah I actually think Glenn Beck is really trying to do the right thing. He actually believed in the principles of limited government and respect. I think this campaign had been quite a shock for him, but he's slowly been breaking with the audience for a while. I think the first big break was when he had his charity go help the central american kinds on the border and give them food and toys. Glenn pointed out that opposing immigration didn't mean losing compassion and that these where just kids. His audience still freaked out and if you read the comments on the blaze people still mention it Glenn Beck is still very conservative, but he believes in the stated goals of mainstream conservatism way to much to  be happy with Trump. he may have been crazy in the past but unlike so many of the conservative commentators he's not a hypocrite. Which I feel deserves some respect.