US Elections: Never Trust a Man with Orange Eyebrows

[DunderMifflin]

Hillary is too big to jail

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, theguyfromtheVale said:

... and if he succeeds?

I don't think he will. Even if this goes to trial, everyone is going to be watching it. And I am betting their will be no conviction.

And it will take up an enormous amount of Trump's time and will be politically costly for him.

[mormont]

28 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, Jonathan Pie's commentary has no basis in fact?

I don't know, I haven't listened to it. I have no idea who the heck he is or what his commentary is or why I should care about it. I'm guessing it agrees with your views in some way and that you perceive that it disagrees with the view I just expressed. I'm not sure why that would matter to me.

My view: the people who bear responsibility for Trump's election are the people who voted for him. That seems to me to be pretty uncomplicated and should be utterly uncontroversial. It is how democracy actually works.

It's actually pretty patronising to Trump voters, far more patronising than any treatment they allegedly suffered from 'smug liberals', for people now to sit around pontificating about why their free democratic choice was actually somebody else's fault because they were too ignorant to know better or whatever. They knew what they were voting for and voted for it anyway. They bought it. They own it. End of story.

19 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Let me rephrase then.

Until someone does that, we will not know. If someone has done that, and the answer supports your position, then you (or anyone else like larry above) can assert that Trump won simply because a chunk of the Democratic base stayed home.

I haven't asserted any such thing, myself. I was just wondering why you seemed to think this was some ineffable mystery.

[DunderMifflin]

I think a lot of the let's blame the left for losing to Trump is coming from self identified leftists.

Meaning they feel their team lost. When you lose a game you don't blame the other team for beating you, the normal attitude is "we fucked up, how are we going to adjust for next game"

[The guy from the Vale]

Still, I find it extremely irritating that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell never faced charges over provably deceiving the US populace into an unjust war and the introduction of torture, but somehow Hillary Clinton is about to be charged over stuff that has been investigated without any evidence for decades now. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, theguyfromtheVale said:

Still, I find it extremely irritating that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell never faced charges over provably deceiving the US populace into an unjust war and the introduction of torture, but somehow Hillary Clinton is about to be charged over stuff that has been investigated without any evidence for decades now. 

I do too.

But, daring Trump to prosecute Hillary puts Trump and Conservatives in a bind. If they don't they lose a lot with their own base.

If they proceed, then it will not be seen as legitimate by half the population and most of the international community. I'm willing to gamble they will come out with egg on their face.  And much of Trump's political capital might be destroyed in the process.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

47 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Not quite. But isn't it interesting that the responsibility for the election of a habitual liar, fraudulent businessman, unexperienced know-nothing, raging racist and sleazy sexist somehow lies with the disenfranchised majority that voted against him, instead of the minority that voted for him and in spite of their defeat in the popular vote ended up with all the levers of power due to the vagaries of randomly drawn borders?

In no way shape or form am I defending Trump.  Nor is Pie.  The point I agree with him on is that if the "scream that 'you're stupid'" methodology some on the left are employing is counterproductive why keep using that methodology?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

35 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Still, I find it extremely irritating that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell never faced charges over provably deceiving the US populace into an unjust war and the introduction of torture, but somehow Hillary Clinton is about to be charged over stuff that has been investigated without any evidence for decades now. 

Why is this important now when it has barely been mentioned over the last 8 years?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

In no way shape or form am I defending Trump.  Nor is Pie.  The point I agree with him on is that if the "scream that 'you're stupid'" methodology some on the left are employing is counterproductive why keep using that methodology?

Well, I'd prefer rationale discourse. But, that doesn't seem to work either.

I don't know what else to do. If somebody just keep insisting that the only legitimate sources of information is Fox News and Breitbart and some meme they read of Facebook,I'm not sure what else there is left.

I'm completely stumped.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Well, I'd prefer rationale discourse. But, that doesn't seem to work either.

I don't know what else to do. If somebody just keep insisting that the only legitimate sources of information is Fox News and Breitbart and some meme they read of Facebook,I'm not sure what else there is left.

I'm completely stumped.

You don't have to win over everyone, just the reasonable ones who also happen to be tired of being lumped in with racists because they fall to the right of the political aisle.  That's not a large number bit it doesn't have to be a large number to create a win in this environment.

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You don't have to win over everyone, just the reasonable ones who also happen to be tired of being lumped in with racists because they fall to the right of the political aisle.  That's not a large number bit it doesn't have to be a large number to create a win in this environment.

And why should reasonable centrist people get upset if somebody calls the Fox News and Brietbart only crowd a bunch of nitwits? Is there any real dispute about this?

It's not like just liberals are saying that. There are some pretty prominent conservatives or center right people that have gotten pretty worried over the Republican Parties antics of late.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mormont,

If you haven't watched this you should:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/alwaysquestionauthority.com/2016/11/10/us-political-commentary-president-trump-how-and-why-jonathan-pie-☮/amp/?client=safari

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And why should reasonable centrist people get upset if somebody calls the Fox News and Brietbart only crowd a bunch of nitwits? Is there any real dispute about this?

It's not like just liberals are saying that. There are some pretty prominent conservatives or center right people that have gotten pretty worried over the Republican Parties antics of late.

OGE,

Does it matter why if it costs votes?  That sounds like doubling down on methodology that is counterproductive.

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

OGE,

Does it matter why if it costs votes?  That sounds like doubling down on methodology that is counterproductive.

Well, if ridiculing the wacko of the wacko cost votes, I guess we must be pretty much fucked.

So moderate center right people are going to get upset for calling wackos wacko.

Like really, we should say the Brietbart and Fox News crowd really has a lot of legitimate points?

Supposing we have actual factual and logical arguments to make against the Fox News and Brietbart crowd. Are center right people going to get offended over that too?

[butterbumps!]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, Jonathan Pie's commentary has no basis in fact?

The one worthwhile thing he says in that video is that both sides have to communicate better with each other.  Though that reciprocity issue is totally pushed aside by his carrying on about how this is all the left's fault.  That one sentence about the reciprocal angle to this, which may have even been an unintentional misspeak on his part is what he should have focused on.  

Scot, these people actually are wrong.   Their anger at "elites" and "the system" and whatever else may be authentic, but it's not valid.   We have not been wrong to have been pointing out morally backwards and factually incorrect beliefs.   Simply pointing out fallacious and/ or morally compromised positions with more honey by the left does not mean that those whose beliefs are being criticized wouldn't lash back about us know-it-all patronizing elites who think we're better than them or think we know better than them.   Their issue rests in the fact that we think they are wrong.   And they are.   They've been willingly consuming extremely compromised narratives, told to distrust us unAmerican elites, and to see all criticism of one's beliefs as criticism of the whole individual or groups of individuals.  The punditry being skewered right now wasn't about casting personal aspersions on individual Americans; things like the Daily Show were about pointing out corrupted and false belief systems as being corrupt and false.  They can't tell the difference between what makes the MSM "biased" (the choice of stories it tends to report on, factually) and the outrageously conspiratorial, fabricated "facts" reported by their preferred news outlets.  Their echo chambers have been vilifying us and telling them not to trust anyone else for ages; that's not on the Left, and no amount of honey overcomes this, because at the end of the day, people just don't want to be wrong.

[Fez]

 

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Not too many conservatives did that. However, through some pieces in the Atlantic, it was pretty well established that there were many townships of steadfast, lifelong Democrats who did vote Republican.

As I said in the past, Pennsylvania is not that hard to fathom flipping (although till the end I was thinking Philly would compensate for most of the lost voters). Wisconsin to me is the real puzzle, Michigan not so much.

Just to reiterate, I think the Democratic strategy of racking up urban totals as a way to offset rural votes is probably too narrow and fraught with peril.

There actually were a fair number of establishment Republicans who voted Clinton; among other things she won Orange County and Fort Bend, which never happens, and even though she lost Wisconsin overall she actually lost "crucial Waukesha county" by less than Obama did. And she won the usual bellweather counties in several swing states, including Loudon, VA (which is mostly the homes of the Republican establishment in DC), which is why earlier very on on Tuesday night things were looking pretty positive.

Problem was, it wasn't nearly enough to make up for her losses elsewhere, obviously; except maybe Virginia. Her margin of victory there might be Republican supporters, although I haven't seen the data to be sure.

[LongRider]

33 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why is this important now when it has barely been mentioned over the last 8 years?

It is important now and it was then.  Where was our lovely media calling Obama out on this, and for not prosecuting tortures and investigating and sending some indictments over the to the 'too big to jail' bank and financial folks who crashed the economy?

Oh, I remember, they were too busy reporting on those pesky Occupy Wall Street protesters being repressed, arrested and cleaned away. 

[Dolorous Gabe]

12 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

The one worthwhile thing he says in that video is that both sides have to communicate better with each other.  Though that reciprocity issue is totally pushed aside by his carrying on about how this is all the left's fault.  That one sentence about the reciprocal angle to this, which may have even been an unintentional misspeak on his part is what he should have focused on.  

Scot, these people actually are wrong.   Their anger at "elites" and "the system" and whatever else may be authentic, but it's not valid.   We have not been wrong to have been pointing out morally backwards and factually incorrect beliefs.   Simply pointing out fallacious and/ or morally compromised positions with more honey by the left does not mean that those whose beliefs are being criticized wouldn't lash back about us know-it-all patronizing elites who think we're better than them or think we know better than them.   Their issue rests in the fact that we think they are wrong.   And they are.   They've been willingly consuming extremely compromised narratives, told to distrust us unAmerican elites, and to see all criticism of one's beliefs as criticism of the whole individual or groups of individuals.  The punditry being skewered right now wasn't about casting personal aspersions on individual Americans; things like the Daily Show were about pointing out corrupted and false belief systems as being corrupt and false.  They can't tell the difference between what makes the MSM "biased" (the choice of stories it tends to report on, factually) and the outrageously conspiratorial, fabricated "facts" reported by their preferred news outlets.  Their echo chambers have been vilifying us and telling them not to trust anyone else for ages; that's not on the Left, and no amount of honey overcomes this, because at the end of the day, people just don't want to be wrong.

Thank you for this.

I actually really like Jonathan Pie's videos but I completely agree with your assessment. I keep seeing people post it on social media and have so far chickened out of engaging them in debate on it because I can't quite articulate my opinion on it properly.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

The one worthwhile thing he says in that video is that both sides have to communicate better with each other.  Though that reciprocity issue is totally pushed aside by his carrying on about how this is all the left's fault.  That one sentence about the reciprocal angle to this, which may have even been an unintentional misspeak on his part is what he should have focused on.  

Scot, these people actually are wrong.   Their anger at "elites" and "the system" and whatever else may be authentic, but it's not valid.   We have not been wrong to have been pointing out morally backwards and factually incorrect beliefs.   Simply pointing out fallacious and/ or morally compromised positions with more honey by the left does not mean that those whose beliefs are being criticized wouldn't lash back about us know-it-all patronizing elites who think we're better than them or think we know better than them.   Their issue rests in the fact that we think they are wrong.   And they are.   They've been willingly consuming extremely compromised narratives, told to distrust us unAmerican elites, and to see all criticism of one's beliefs as criticism of the whole individual or groups of individuals.  The punditry being skewered right now wasn't about casting personal aspersions on individual Americans; things like the Daily Show were about pointing out corrupted and false belief systems as being corrupt and false.  They can't tell the difference between what makes the MSM "biased" (the choice of stories it tends to report on, factually) and the outrageously conspiratorial, fabricated "facts" reported by their preferred news outlets.  Their echo chambers have been vilifying us and telling them not to trust anyone else for ages; that's not on the Left, and no amount of honey overcomes this, because at the end of the day, people just don't want to be wrong.

Butterbumps,

Pragmatically, does it matter if you are "right" but your method of showing you are right so offends people who should support you that they choose to support someone else or just stay home?

[zelticgar]

12 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

The one worthwhile thing he says in that video is that both sides have to communicate better with each other.  Though that reciprocity issue is totally pushed aside by his carrying on about how this is all the left's fault.  That one sentence about the reciprocal angle to this, which may have even been an unintentional misspeak on his part is what he should have focused on.  

Scot, these people actually are wrong.   Their anger at "elites" and "the system" and whatever else may be authentic, but it's not valid.   We have not been wrong to have been pointing out morally backwards and factually incorrect beliefs.   Simply pointing out fallacious and/ or morally compromised positions with more honey by the left does not mean that those whose beliefs are being criticized wouldn't lash back about us know-it-all patronizing elites who think we're better than them or think we know better than them.   Their issue rests in the fact that we think they are wrong.   And they are.   They've been willingly consuming extremely compromised narratives, told to distrust us unAmerican elites, and to see all criticism of one's beliefs as criticism of the whole individual or groups of individuals.  The punditry being skewered right now wasn't about casting personal aspersions on individual Americans; things like the Daily Show were about pointing out corrupted and false belief systems as being corrupt and false.  They can't tell the difference between what makes the MSM "biased" (the choice of stories it tends to report on, factually) and the outrageously conspiratorial, fabricated "facts" reported by their preferred news outlets.  Their echo chambers have been vilifying us and telling them not to trust anyone else for ages; that's not on the Left, and no amount of honey overcomes this, because at the end of the day, people just don't want to be wrong.

You are living in an alternate reality. Your premise is that of two options - Hillary and Trump, one if purely correct and one is purely incorrect. This is simply not how things work. There is no right or wrong here, it is all shades of gray. This is the underlying issue that Pie is talking about. 

Regarding Pie's assertion that it is all the lefts fault - He is not validating anything Trump did. He is simply breaking down the error of accepting the false narrative that HRC was a good candidate which ultimately depressed votes.