US Politics returns: the post-Election thread

[Altherion]

8 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

Oh no, someone might actually write articles about how the President is actually appointing terrible people with terrible opinions to office!  What will I do!

You misunderstand. It's not the facts of the transition that bother me, it's the sensationalization of those facts as well as of everything else surrounding Trump. Case in point: here's an article about Trump going to have dinner without notifying the press.

[Mexal]

10 minutes ago, Altherion said:

You misunderstand. It's not the facts of the transition that bother me, it's the sensationalization of those facts as well as of everything else surrounding Trump. Case in point: here's an article about Trump going to have dinner without notifying the press.

This is a problem though. There is a reason every president has a dedicated, protective press pool. Trump's spokesman told the press pool that he was staying in Trump Tower then shortly after, he went for dinner. As a result, reports start showing up, some of which were inaccurate and then you have people contradicting each other all over the place. This is avoided with a press pool. Here is another article on it for why it's important. We really don't want a situation where Trump starts freezing out the press pool then the press in general and misinformation gets thrown around everywhere.

[MerenthaClone]

7 minutes ago, Altherion said:

You misunderstand. It's not the facts of the transition that bother me, it's the sensationalization of those facts as well as of everything else surrounding Trump. Case in point: here's an article about Trump going to have dinner without notifying the press.

The press literally hounded Clinton for weeks because she did the same.  It was part of their general ire towards her and was only replaced by when Trump announced a press briefing that turned out to be an advertisement for his new hotel opening.  But still.  You're kind of right, I'd prefer if instead of an amused and shocked tabloid tone they went all-in on abject horror.

[SerPaladin]

18 minutes ago, Weeping Sore said:

Really not a huge leap. Is there a better euphemism we should be using for him?

I think he sees the white supremacists as useful dupes. I think Bannon and Milo and others conjure Brietbart as a counterbalance to the Occupy and BLM types. Is it distasteful that they encourage the support of those folks? Yup, you might even call it deplorable, but they would like that. I dropped my support of the republicans this year when I thought the Tea Party were ascendant, the Alt-Right makes Teapublicans look sensible.

Edited: I went and read a couple left wing sites for examples of his racism. They have one quote from an ex wife during a divorce proceeding, regarding a school that they kept the kids in after the divorce. That's pretty slim evidence, no one is that buckled down and message conscious.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Fuck it, I'm all in. The Rock 2020. He may not be any more qualified than Trump, but he's less crazy.

[SerPaladin]

3 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Fuck it, I'm all in. The Rock 2020. He may not be any more qualified than Trump, but he's less crazy.

Trump broke the glass ceiling for "WWE Hall of Famers", so the Rock could certainly be president. A shame George "The Animal" Steele missed his chance.

[DunderMifflin]

58 minutes ago, SerPaladin said:

 

 

It would give Republicans some cool kids vote they need.

 

 

[butterbumps!]

17 minutes ago, SerPaladin said:

I think he sees the white supremacists as useful dupes. I think Bannon and Milo and others conjure Brietbart as a counterbalance to the Occupy and BLM types. Is it distasteful that they encourage the support of those folks? Yup, you might even call it deplorable, but they would like that. I dropped my support of the republicans this year when I thought the Tea Party were ascendant, the Alt-Right makes Teapublicans look sensible.

Edited: I went and read a couple left wing sites for examples of his racism. They have one quote from an ex wife during a divorce proceeding, regarding a school that they kept the kids in after the divorce. That's pretty slim evidence, no one is that buckled down and message conscious.

What about this distinction is important in your view -- That he may not personally be a white nationalist in his heart, but actively nurtures bigoted thought and courts white nationists, who see him as a thought leader for their hate causes.   I can maybe see a point if you want to try to drive a wedge between the leader and the followers he is duping to support his "real" causes, but why make this distinction, or be aggravated that it's not being made?

[Jaxom 1974]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

 

On a related note, I'm starting to realize (with slowly dawning horror) that the media is not going to let up. After a year of Trump: The Election, we are now being treated to a couple of months of Trump: The Transition. Trump appoints a white nationalist to some post! Trump demotes Christie! Trump fires Christie's minion! Trump's son-in-law involved in transition infighting! The latter is currently the front page article for CNN and contains absolutely no information beyond what had already been reported (although it does give them an excuse for a picture of a very well dressed couple). And after that, there will of course be Trump: The Presidency. They can't keep this up for four years, can they?

A reality television star is about to put his butt into a chair in which better men have sat.  And you're complaining that the regular media is doing their job?  Perhaps if Access Hollywood were to be put in charge of the presidential press corp...

[MerenthaClone]

5 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

What about this distinction is important in your view -- That he may not personally be a white nationalist in his heart, but actively nurtures bigoted thought and courts white nationists, who see him as a thought leader for their hate causes.   I can maybe see a point if you want to try to drive a wedge between the leader and the followers he is duping to support his "real" causes, but why make this distinction, or be aggravated that it's not being made?

If anything, I think actively encouraging shitty behavior that you don't personalyl believe in but will benefit you is worse.  At least the bigot is acting from a position of (sometimes willful) ignorance.  The proposed "uses bigotry for personal gain" concept means that Bannon et al know what they're doing is wrong but don't care, unlike said dupe.  Small comfort to anyone harmed by either, but I'd find the bigot less personally objectionable. 

[Dr. Pepper]

30 minutes ago, SerPaladin said:

I think he sees the white supremacists as useful dupes. I think Bannon and Milo and others conjure Brietbart as a counterbalance to the Occupy and BLM types. Is it distasteful that they encourage the support of those folks? Yup, you might even call it deplorable, but they would like that. I dropped my support of the republicans this year when I thought the Tea Party were ascendant, the Alt-Right makes Teapublicans look sensible.

Edited: I went and read a couple left wing sites for examples of his racism. They have one quote from an ex wife during a divorce proceeding, regarding a school that they kept the kids in after the divorce. That's pretty slim evidence, no one is that buckled down and message conscious.

Have you never read Breitbart?  Go look at quotes from Bannon about anti-Semitism in the blog he chaired as well as within the alt-right movement itself.  He embraces it.  He may not be on a stage explicitly stating racist stuff, but he joyfully provides a platform for it.  There's no ignoring this unless you think this is ok.  

[polishgenius]

39 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Fuck it, I'm all in. The Rock 2020. He may not be any more qualified than Trump, but he's less crazy.

I'm going for Ronda Rousey 2020, seeing as she'll probably be retired from MMA by then and she's a Bernie Sanders supporter.

Admittedly, she is as crazy as Trump, but...

[Weeping Sore]

And here's Bannon strongly implying that non-whiteness is a problem no matter how talented the individual...(the below culled from hours of interviews with Trump transcribed and quoted today in Slate)

One of the rare times Trump reportedly disagreed with Bannon was on the issue of highly educated foreign tech workers coming into this country on visas, during which the Breitbart boss seemed ready to argue that there are too many Silicon Valley leaders of Asian and South Asian descent.

Last November, for instance, Trump said he was concerned that foreign students attending Ivy League schools have to return home because of U.S. immigration laws.

“We have to be careful of that, Steve. You know, we have to keep our talented people in this country,” Trump said. He paused. Bannon said, “Um.”

“I think you agree with that,” Trump said. “Do you agree with that?”

Bannon was hesitant.

“When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think . . . ” Bannon said, not finishing the sentence. “A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.”

Trump said he would build a border wall, but still wanted to let highly educated foreign students who graduate from U.S. colleges to be able to stay in the country.

“I still want people to come in,” Trump said. “But I want them to go through the process.”

Bannon said: “You got to remember, we’re Breitbart. We’re the know-nothing vulgarians. So we’ve always got to be to the right of you on this.”

“Oh, that’s OK,” Trump said.

[Jaxom 1974]

Question for those better at knowing these things: a die hard Trumper who I know is countering the argument of the million plus popular votes for Clinton over Trump by arguing that there is a great number of overseas absentee ballots that won't be counted because it isn't necessary...but those votes would counter and Hillary popular vote leads...

I guess the question is this: do they not count those? And more than a million votes from overseas...?

[BloodRider]

7 hours ago, ummester said:

It's why the majority of people are turning against it, it pushed too hard.

You don't know what that word means.

[DunderMifflin]

1 hour ago, SerPaladin said:

7 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I'm going for Ronda Rousey 2020, seeing as she'll probably be retired from MMA by then and she's a Bernie Sanders supporter.

Admittedly, she is as crazy as Trump, but...

Rousey vs Rock would be incredible.

 

 

[Weeping Sore]

5 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Question for those better at knowing these things: a die hard Trumper who I know is countering the argument of the million plus popular votes for Clinton over Trump by arguing that there is a great number of overseas absentee ballots that won't be counted because it isn't necessary...but those votes would counter and Hillary popular vote leads...

I guess the question is this: do they not count those? And more than a million votes from overseas...?

Of course they count those. And they skew Democratic, a tendency that is mitigated somewhat by ballots from military bases abroad. But if its true that there are that many left to be counted they will only make Hillary's popular vote lead larger.

[Kalbear]

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think folks from all sides engage in name calling.  I'm suggesting it is counterproductive and I've heard people here, from time to time, argue that emotional arguments are as valid as rational ones.  Name calling is a method used in emotional argumentation.  I'm suggesting everyone, especially people I agree with, back off the emotional throttle and embrace rational discourse.

You also suggested that it was unfair to 'guilt' people into voting for a candidate who could win, yet that remains one of the most effective ways to actually get people to vote.

Republican voters overwhelmingly voted for Trump not at all based on rational choices but because they felt better about him. Engaging them rationally would not help. 

I do agree that yelling at people rarely changes their mind - though I've also said repeatedly that yelling at people is showing others who aren't inclined to yell that you've got their back, and that's very important (especially in this day and age). In fact, let's go there. You see someone shouting racial threats at someone. Do you calmly go over and rationally explain to them why they're wrong?

[Guy Kilmore]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You also suggested that it was unfair to 'guilt' people into voting for a candidate who could win, yet that remains one of the most effective ways to actually get people to vote.

Republican voters overwhelmingly voted for Trump not at all based on rational choices but because they felt better about him. Engaging them rationally would not help. 

I do agree that yelling at people rarely changes their mind - though I've also said repeatedly that yelling at people is showing others who aren't inclined to yell that you've got their back, and that's very important (especially in this day and age). In fact, let's go there. You see someone shouting racial threats at someone. Do you calmly go over and rationally explain to them why they're wrong?

I know try not to engage the person doing the yelling, but the person being yelled at.  I ignore the yeller and ask the other person if they are alright, have a normal conversation about the weather (or a marvel movie, those are always good to talk about) and get the person to a safe place.

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

It's

Racial resentment party explains Trump's victory, but notably, largely white districts in the mid West and Pennsylvania that backed Obama heavily in 2008, and a bit less in 2012, voted for Trump this time.  And, Trump did better among minorities than either Romney or McCain did.

The 'better with minorities' thing appears to be based entirely on exit polls, and in the case of Hispanics that appears to be completely inaccurate. 

There were also a lot of reported voters who were disillusioned by Obama's strong talk on race in the second term; his talk about Trayvon Martin being 'his son' apparently upset a lot of voters who went against him. My suspicion is that there is simply going to be a backlash against any president in office, period.