US Elections: Groper in Chief

[Zorral]

52 minutes ago, ummester said:

Why isn't Obama saying something to the people about this? We hasn't he made a public address disavowing violent protest?

I've seen videos people are posting on youtube, beating up Trump voters, using it as an excuse for violence. Your country needs to do something before the other side starts getting violent as well.

Why isn't trump saying anything to the people who are beating up, harassing, abusing, bullying women and girls, muslim, blacks and latinos, hmmmmmmmm?

 

[ummester]

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

Why isn't trump saying anything to the people who are beating up, harassing, abusing, bullying women and girls, muslim, blacks and latinos, hmmmmmmmm?

 

They aren't in the news as much as the kids burning Trump dolls in the streets - the aggressive protest here seems to be pretty one sided.

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

What evidence is there for this? Exit polls? The same ones which predicted a Clinton win? It's a genuine question.

He didn't get more votes from African Americans.  Many African Americans simply did not vote because Hillary made many of them feel more tired than they already feel.  NOT the same thing as 'he got more African American votes than she did.'  As I believe the poster is implying -- this is not a reply to Little Scribe but to the one Little Scribe replied to.

In the meantime though it mattersss not, Hillary continues to amp up popular vote marority as ballots continue to be counted.

 

 

[zelticgar]

6 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Why isn't trump saying anything to the people who are beating up, harassing, abusing, bullying women and girls, muslim, blacks and latinos, hmmmmmmmm?

 

They are probably not saying anything because it is a relatively small group of citizens and they are protesting in areas that essentially voted for HRC. It's a stupid temper tantrum that will hopefully fizzle out. Obama and Trump have a duty to facilitate a peaceful and orderly transition of power.

Directly addressing small protests at this stage elevates them and does not make a whole lot of sense. If it escalates then I am sure they will probably address it. For now the right action is to let it be handled by local authorities and hope for it to fizzle out. 

 

Edited to add - I was mostly addressing Ummesters point. Zorral's quote filled in by accident and i cant figure out how to fix it. Damn you quote function! 

[Zorral]

3 minutes ago, ummester said:

They aren't in the news as much as the kids burning Trump dolls in the streets - the aggressive protest here seems to be pretty one sided.

Yah, but it's everywhere.  At Penn State a buncha white guys sent out lynch text messages to the black students on campus. That's a lot of text messages and a lot of people. 

In the meantime trump reaps what he sowed.  The kind of garbage merchandise, slogans and so on aimed at Hillary at his rallies and by his supporters for over a year -- you can't stir up that kind of turd stew for that long and encourge it and expect that people won't hate you for it and will act out, right? Right?  Right, Mr. Orange Stalin?

 

[zelticgar]

2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

When you are one of the black students on the Penn State campus, getting those text messages about how lynching is in your future doesn't seem like something relatively small.  Not in this country, not with its endless history of murders, beatings and lynchings and outright torture.

 

 

I'm talking about why Trump and Obama would not want to directly reference the protests going on right now about the elections. I don't know anything about Penn State. As I said before, if it escalates to a certain level I am sure they would address it. 

[ummester]

9 minutes ago, zelticgar said:

Directly addressing small protests at this stage elevates them and does not make a whole lot of sense. If it escalates then I am sure they will probably address it. For now the right action is to let it be handled by local authorities and hope for it to fizzle out. 

I agree that directly addressing a side would be incorrect and probably incite worse but Obama could get up and say 'enough, I don't care which side you support, the civil disobedience stops now. You are embarrassing yourselves and me.'

[zelticgar]

4 minutes ago, ummester said:

I agree that directly addressing a side would be incorrect and probably incite worse but Obama could get up and say 'enough, I don't care which side you support, the civil disobedience stops now. You are embarrassing yourselves and me.'

I am sure he would do that if he needs to. My bet is that these protests will fizzle out pretty quickly. The west coast and southeast may have some issues but winter is coming and many of these protesters have limited tolerance for cold weather.  

Obama was pretty clear in his address to the nation after Trump's victory: 

In his speech, President Barack Obama spoke about the importance of having a successful transition of power. "We are now all rooting for success in uniting and leading the country. The peaceful transition of power is one of the hallmarks of our democracy."
 

I think this comment pretty much covers his views on violent protests over the results of Trump winning the presidency. 

 

 

[ummester]

Just now, zelticgar said:

I am sure he would do that if he needs to. My bet is that these protests will fizzle out pretty quickly. The west coast and southeast may have some issues but winter is coming and many of these protesters have limited tolerance for cold weather.  

Obama was pretty clear in his address to the nation after Trump's victory: 

In his speech, President Barack Obama spoke about the importance of having a successful transition of power. "We are now all rooting for success in uniting and leading the country. The peaceful transition of power is one of the hallmarks of our democracy."
 

I think this comment pretty much covers his views on violent protests over the results of Trump winning the presidency. 

 

 

Fair enough, perhaps they are taking the patient approach in the hope it fizzles.

But it's being reported all of the world and makes it look like Americans are spoiled crybabies, having a temper tantrum because they didn't get their way - surely this is embarrassing to Obama, Trump and even Hillary. Surely it's embarrassing for any American that's not having a temper tantrum.

[Kalbear]

38 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Does disliking Sec. Clinton make a woman a misogynist?

Yes, that's exactly what I said. That is the only metric possible. Of course. Clearly. 

Does misinterpreting everything anyone ever says make one a lawyer?

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, ummester said:

Fair enough, perhaps they are taking the patient approach in the hope it fizzles.

But it's being reported all of the world and makes it look like Americans are spoiled crybabies, having a temper tantrum because they didn't get their way - surely this is embarrassing to Obama, Trump and even Hillary. Surely it's embarrassing for any American that's not having a temper tantrum.

It appears to be largely understood, especially given that a) Trump lost the popular vote and b ) the protests are almost entirely peaceful in nature save the one in Portland.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yes, that's exactly what I said. That is the only metric possible. Of course. Clearly. 

Does misinterpreting everything anyone ever says make one a lawyer?

Kalbear,

I'm saying I don't buy misogyny being the primary reason for women rejecting Sec. Clinton.  I know too many strong women on the left and right who rejected her to buy that as the primary mover.  And you responded that "women can hate other women too".

How else am I supposed to interpret your meaning without asking you to clarify, which is what I did?

[zelticgar]

14 minutes ago, ummester said:

Fair enough, perhaps they are taking the patient approach in the hope it fizzles.

But it's being reported all of the world and makes it look like Americans are spoiled crybabies, having a temper tantrum because they didn't get their way - surely this is embarrassing to Obama, Trump and even Hillary. Surely it's embarrassing for any American that's not having a temper tantrum.

Americans are spoiled crybabies. And who cares what is being reported? If there is one thing everyone should have learned from this election it is that the media are all idiots and they have no idea about what the real pulse of the county is. They sold a false narrative of shitty polls and shady ass pundits. They created the bed that liberals are now lying in because they set this election up in the minds of HRC supporters as being largely a formality. They made people complacent and Trump walked right through the front door. 

If I were a democrat I would completely disavow the media, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, The View, Chelsea Handler, NYT, Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, SNL, all the major big market newspapers and many large internet forums conspiring to create a narrative that turned out to be completely false. The biggest irony of the whole ugly "disaster" is that Michael Moore was about the only one who knew what was happening. 

 

 

[ummester]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It appears to be largely understood, especially given that a) Trump lost the popular vote and b ) the protests are almost entirely peaceful in nature save the one in Portland.

Burning effigy's of someone isn't peaceful though, it's inciting violence - it verges on a threat to kill.

Also, things like this aren't peaceful:

Make's me worried someone is going to shoot Trump and the crap is going to hit the fan.

[Dr. Pepper]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Kalbear,

I'm saying I don't buy misogyny being the primary reason for women rejecting Sec. Clinton.  I know too many strong women on the left and right who rejected her to buy that as the primary mover.  And you responded that "women can hate other women too".

How else am I supposed to interpret your meaning without asking you to clarify, which is what I did?

Some women are misogynistic towards HRC/dislike HRC for misogynistic reasons.

Disliking HRC makes a woman a misogynist.

These are two different statements.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, ummester said:

Burning effigy's of someone isn't peaceful though, it's inciting violence - it verges on a threat to kill.

Also, things like this aren't peaceful:

Make's me worried someone is going to shoot Trump and the crap is going to hit the fan.

The latter is absolutely not peaceful and is horrible. The former - effigy burning - has been a longstanding understood means of protest that does not incite violence and has never been understood as a threat to kill. It has a very long history. 

And let's be really clear here - I think people on both sides are doing some pretty horrible things. I am willing to bet that it is happening all over the place, to lots of fairly innocent people. I even get it - you have no idea how many times I've wanted to tear down and obliterate the big signs saying Trump/Pence on my way to drop off my kids at school. I get that desire to violence, and given the stakes I figure it'll continue. But protesting isn't being a baby about it. It is showing that the election results are largely unfair for a whole bunch of people. That those in the cities are not being counted at the same level as those in the rural areas, and the big states don't count as much as the small ones. That is simply a directly unfair feeling, and that strikes directly at that monkey brain morality. 

[Altherion]

3 minutes ago, MorgulisMaximus said:

Also, it's completely ridiculous how the media implied Trump was anti-semetic. Many of Trumps closest friends, family (Ivanka's husband), business associates and his great mentor are Jewish.

This has really puzzled me. It's not just that her husband is Jewish, she herself converted to Judaism before they were engaged and their children are being raised Jewish. Trump has said a great number of things and you can attribute a whole lot of opinions to him, but he has never given any hint that he does not love his children and grandchildren. Furthermore, both Ivanka and her husband were instrumental in Trump's campaign and I fully expect them to remain influential. It's true that some of Trump's admirers (whom he has renounced multiple times) are antisemitic, but I find it extremely implausible that Trump will tolerate expressions from antisemitism from them anymore than Obama did. If anything, I would expect the nearly open antisemitism which has lately reared its head on college campuses to hastily retreat and return only after fully wrapping itself in its anti-Zionist mantle once more.

Regarding the protests: Scott Adams (the Dilbert cartoonist who predicted Trump's rise all the way back in the summer of 2015) has written an interesting post on why people are protesting. He blames it on cognitive dissonance:

Quote

 

This brings me to the anti-Trump protests. The protesters look as though they are protesting Trump, but they are not. They are locked in an imaginary world and battling their own hallucinations of the future. Here’s the setup that triggered them.

1. They believe they are smart and well-informed.

2. Their good judgement told them Trump is OBVIOUSLY the next Hitler, or something similarly bad.

3. Half of the voters of the United States – including a lot of smart people – voted Trump into office anyway.

Those “facts” can’t be reconciled in the minds of the anti-Trumpers. Mentally, something has to give. That’s where cognitive dissonance comes in.

 

 

[OldGimletEye]

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21710013-congress-can-constrain-only-parts-donald-trumps-economic-policy-strap-up

Quote

Congressional Republicans might moderate Mr Trump’s plan. The tax cuts Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives, wants are expensive, but much less so than Mr Trump’s (see chart). The corporate tax may end up at Mr Ryan’s proposed 20% rather than Mr Trump’s desired 15%. Mr Trump’s costly promise to offer the same rate to sole traders may not survive. Both men agree that there should be three tax rates for individuals (12%, 25% and 33%), but there will be debate over the generosity of deductions.

Debt would rise significantly even under Mr Ryan’s plan. More borrowing will give the economy a boost in the short term. Mr Ryan’s tax cuts would be much bigger than Barack Obama’s fiscal stimulus in 2009. Add in the infrastructure spending Mr Trump also wants, and the economy could get much hotter, which helps to explain the rally in financial markets on November 9th. The question is to what extent this will jeopardise America’s long-term fiscal health.

At some point when doing austerity becomes a good idea, the Republicans will claim it's spending that's the problem and not Trump's and Ryan's tax cuts.

 

Quote

Who might Mr Trump nominate to replace her? In an interview before the election Stephen Moore, an economic adviser to Mr Trump, floated several names, including Larry Kudlow, a television pundit, Art Laffer, a private-sector economist, and Martin Feldstein, an academic, all of whom served in the Reagan administration. Most conservative economists like Mr Feldstein have been calling for tighter monetary policy for years; Mr Kudlow is an exception. If Mr Trump’s nominee is to reflect Republicans’ hawkishness, the expectation of higher interest rates will hang over the economy, though that may have bigger implications for economies outside America (see article).

Larry Kudlow or Art Laffer for chairman of the FED? God this is getting really depressing.

Janet Yellen is a knowledgeable and experienced technocrat.

Kudlow and Laffer are idiots.

But, idiots getting competent people's jobs seems to be the thing this year.

[Kalbear]

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Kalbear,

I'm saying I don't buy misogyny being the primary reason for women rejecting Sec. Clinton.  I know too many strong women on the left and right who rejected her to buy that as the primary mover.  And you responded that "women can hate other women too".

How else am I supposed to interpret your meaning without asking you to clarify, which is what I did?

You didn't ask to clarify; you interpreted in the most uncharitable way you possibly could. I'm calling you on that. If you want clarification, ask for it.

You specifically stated that women disliked Clinton so that misogyny couldn't be an issue. That is false logic. Women disliking other women - especially those in power - is a classic example of misogyny. It is a case of women wanting other women to never, ever step outside of their defined gender norms. 

I don't think that the only reason Clinton lost was misogyny. I do think that misogyny contributed to her being likable, and that appears to be the primary factor in her losing, but it isn't just because she was a woman. I also think that people simply ignoring it despite the actual physical evidence about misogyny that has existed in this campaign are really interesting people.

[ummester]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The former - effigy burning - has been a longstanding understood means of protest that does not incite violence and has never been understood as a threat to kill. It has a very long history. 

Perhaps that's cultural - I couldn't imagine burning an effigy of a public figure in Australia and not having a cop tell me to stop. I could, however, imagine ranting at the top of my lungs, calling Turnbull a self interested wanker - even to his face, if I got the chance. Just not physically carrying out any actions that simulate violence, in any way.

To me the difference is very simple - you can always say whatever you want, you just can't do whatever you want. You can say (or write) you want to see Trump burn to a painful death but you can't light a fire in a public street.

7 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Regarding the protests: Scott Adams (the Dilbert cartoonist who predicted Trump's rise all the way back in the summer of 2015) has written an interesting post on why people are protesting. He blames it on cognitive dissonance:

I think these points you mentioned:

1. They believe they are smart and well-informed.

2. Their good judgement told them Trump is OBVIOUSLY the next Hitler, or something similarly bad.

3. Half of the voters of the United States – including a lot of smart people – voted Trump into office anyway.

are an important part of what's going on. People aren't angry at Trump, they are angry at their own disillusionment.