Bed

New Prez

Recommended Posts

Since the election is over, what are your thoughts? 

Just wanted to say I've been pretty good at holding back all year. It's a touchy subject, and I realize my employers can check my facebook and other social media if they so do choose. My boss is very vocal at work and I've so far did pretty well remaining neutral at work and on social media. 

I don't want to go into a blame game, but I thought this thread might serve as some sort of place to find some closure, anonymously, since I'm sure many backlogged.

I've been very observant since the beginning of the primary, and the most interesting thing - I mean, corruption aside - is that the internet, twitter, facebook, google, reddit, etc. were very politically controlled despite claiming to be a free domain. Talking about political censorship. Not only that, but superpacs were invested in online botting anywhere on the internet. So when you go to online articles, you might find botted comment sections. It was really annoying not know what was what.

Edited by Bed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moved to General Discussion.

It's been interesting having a year on Sparkbomb where there wasn't a thread discussing politics and the Presidential race and such.

I think I'll simply repeat what I said on Facebook last night...

---

As human beings, we survive. Despite all adversity, we survive. That it what it means to be human.

There was no good choice today. Our decision was between the corruption of the system and the decadence of society. Some have hope tonight only because we don't know what to expect. As a people, our responsibility has become to check those that we have elected to office. This isn't limited to our future President. It includes our senators, representatives, governors, judges, and people at all levels of government.

Fundamentally, many of us want the same things. We don't find any joy at seeing others suffering or living in poverty. Our disagreement comes from deciding the best way to approach these problems. During this election cycle, two candidates arose from the disgust that many of us have with our system. One has won the election. The other failed to win the nomination of his party. Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have radically different views, but both emerged as symptoms in response to the same disease in our culture.

Today is not the end. Nor is tomorrow. Nor next month, nor next year, nor four years from now. Whatever the storm that lies ahead, whether the potential of a fascist dictator, whether the imminent war with Russia, whether the impending economic recession, we will survive.

The question is: do we merely survive, or do we live?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shattered Rift said:

The question is: do we merely survive, or do we live?

Well, so far - President Trump hasn't done much, so I'd like to see what he does first. 

Edited by Bed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am kinda glad that our forum wasn't too caught up in the politics. It felt nice to be on a "social media" where I didn't have to hear about each side as to which one was more evil than the other.

I am a liberal living in a very conservative state, so I try not to stir up things at work or whatnot. However, I did notice that my Facebook is was very vocally for Hillary (could just be who I am friends with) as well as reflected in the polls and media outlets. Yes, we were all shocked and stunned when Trump won when so much media had a guarantee win for Hillary, however, post-election, I took into consideration that those who voted for Trump, the silent few who aren't as engaged with social media as the younger generation (or a term I like to avoid "millennials") are. The United States is still made up of a lot of hard-working, blue collar people who could care less what the media thinks or how computers work or to participate in online polls. I think there was such an upheaval of "Trump is going to lose" in the media that some of the Hillary supporters might have sat back and the Trump supporters strongly went to the polls. As much as I don't want to credit Trump for anything, but I do recognize with him being a celebrity of sorts, he understands how to work the media and the entire campaign. He knew that being a shocker and a crazy person was publicity no matter what. The unfortunate thing is that even though Hillary seem to have won all the debates and have more experience, her criminal background seemed to be more of a threat than Trump's misogynistic and xenophobic character.

The other sad part for me is that my parents, who are immigrants from Asia, sided with Trump. I tried to ask their reasons, but what I got out of it was that he was a celebrity and a businessman. They didn't know much about Hillary. She didn't create as loud of a stir as Trump did. I don't remember if my parents liked the Clintons or not back in the 90s, but I guess they're weren't too fond of Obama either.

I honestly don't think Trump will undo everything that we have progressed so far on. I don't think he will reverse Roe v. Wade, nor gay marriage, or anything else. I have faith in our government's checks and balances (even though they're all Republican now) to keep him in check. I do sympathize with all my friends that feel threatened by his win or the vast disappointment of the parents who told their daughters they can be anything, even president. It is unfortunate the campaign attitude that Trump has taken to get him to become President and I don't consider him a role model for anyone. Presently, our government has been majorly run by corporations, as much as we want to think they're for the people. We will now see how the government will run under a person of true corporate mindset.

In the past, every election ends like this...with one side rejoicing and one side greatly disappointed. One side thinking we have elected Satan and the other side thinking we have elected a Solution. Right now, it's all very fresh, but it too will pass. However, I do want reform on both our primaries and electoral college voting systems, as we seen them as deeply flawed this election. Popular vote should have equated to presidency, but it doesn't.

Anyway, it is what it is. My Facebook post yesterday was about how it's the responsibility of each individual to love more and one man does not make our nation "great". We make our nation great and we don't have to reflect the values of the one who "leads" us.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will preface by saying we had 4 choices, not 2. The only reason the other 2 didn't stand a chance is because everyone always tells each other third parties don't stand a chance. I am being harassed by a lot of Clinton supporters (and I use the term loosely because it's clear from their words they were just anti-Trump) because my third-party vote was part of a very small number of votes actually cast that they wrongly assume would have gone to Clinton if Johnson and Stein weren't running. Exit polls have proved it wouldn't have helped, and that Clinton lost because 6 million Democrats stayed home relative to recent elections (Trump got about as many votes as McCain, who lost by a landslide).

Clinton is corrupt. Her party and her opponents both recognize that. I said months ago that Trump is the only one she stood a chance against, and some of the leaked emails from the DNC show her campaign agreed. We may never know if most of what her campaign is accused of is real, but we have a proud admission that her campaign did collude with media in her favor, and evidence of numerous other issues. We will have a woman as President in my lifetime, but it will require someone who won't get caught so badly. If she had inspired people for the future, the 6 million would have shown up to vote. The talk of role models stopped being relevant at the primary.

Trump, I was told early on, is a racist. I looked at the claimed evidence, and it was hardly convincing to me (and I already disliked him). If you can't convince the middle, you won't convince your opposition. Throw in the "super predator" clip floating around, and it created a scenario where anything the Left accused Trump of was "another lie". Everything evil thing you believe Trump represents is fiction, from the perspective of those who supported him, so it isn't a "win for racism, sexism" etc.

Personally, having gone over the evidence, he is a misogynist, but not as much as Bill Clinton still is. He also doesn't care about the issues. His worse "plans" were all hasty fluff intended to seem like common sense to a segment of the population and be ignored by another segment. He is no better than Clinton in terms of dishonesty. He lacks her connections, but he has shown the same willful disregard for ethics.

It came down to whose base would show up. Neither of them were particularly inspiring, but the Republican votes have a higher idle than the Democrat votes. It's why Democrats in modern times push to get more people to the polls while Republicans only say the words - more Democrat voters tend to stay home if not motivated.

I don't like Trump, but he has the same constraints as Obama, with a Republican party that isn't happy about him taking control over their convention from him. Unlike 2008, he won't have a generally cooperative supermajority to push through what he wants. And anything that happens in the next 18 months will be blamed on Trump's administration, and there's a good chance in 2 years he will be against a Democrat controlled Congress. It won't be 4 years of rapidly advancing social progress, but none of the inevitable regressive legislation is going to hold up in the Supreme Court, so it's not going to be the backward slide many fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full disclosure: I'm a journalist, and liberal (the who do you side with tests going around during the primaries always gave me Sanders first and Clinton second.) I agree with everything Zilary said. Inu, I may not agree with everything you said (I do some), but I respect your opinion :) 

For my part, so much of this election was about behavior.

Being a journalist, albeit at a small community paper, I can honestly say we played the election as fairly as possible. We have both liberals and conservatives in our newsroom (more liberals than conservatives, admittedly, though our advertising department is primarily conservative), and I believe everything we did related to the election was as ethical as possible. No one tried to deliberately spin anything. We covered every candidate that came to our area. We're just trying to live our lives and do our jobs.

I realize that when people complain about "the media" they are often talking about big network TV, national news and such, but those stereotypes do a lot of damage to the reputation of smaller outfits who do try to be fair. We've gotten endless calls about our "bias" against Trump, when we're just printing the things he said. I was seriously tempted to clip out all the "anti-Clinton" articles we ran -- and people seemed to forget we ran -- and send them to people who called to complain.

The thing that shook me up the most personally this election (not that my issues are more important that anyone else's) is seeing Trump supporters at rallies wearing shirts with the C-word on them and shirts saying that all journalists should be hanged. HANGED. For doing a job protected by our constitution. And that's just a small thing, my little experience, compared to the way many minorities must feel every day of their lives from dealing with stuff like that.

I also monitor the comment section at our newspaper, and throughout the election I saw vile things said every day. Taking politics out of it, purely looking back at my record of those who ended up banned (all for hate speech and racial slurs, we don't ban for much else) -- they were all fervent Trump supporters. The type of people who failed to see the irony is saying, "All (rude word for liberals) do is call people names!" 

I'm not saying that liberals can't be cruel -- they can and do -- but politics aside, the abhorrent behavior I saw during this campaign, a majority of which was from Trump supporters, astounded me. That's what worries me. How do we heal that? Can we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Zilary said:

However, I did notice that my Facebook is was very vocally for Hillary (could just be who I am friends with) as well as reflected in the polls and media outlets. Yes, we were all shocked and stunned when Trump won when so much media had a guarantee win for Hillary, however, post-election, I took into consideration that those who voted for Trump, the silent few who aren't as engaged with social media as the younger generation (or a term I like to avoid "millennials") are.

In the past, every election ends like this...with one side rejoicing and one side greatly disappointed. One side thinking we have elected Satan and the other side thinking we have elected a Solution. Right now, it's all very fresh, but it too will pass. However, I do want reform on both our primaries and electoral college voting systems, as we seen them as deeply flawed this election. Popular vote should have equated to presidency, but it doesn't.

 

A strong campaign strategy that was used in this election is showing a false image of how strong a candidate is... Signs of weakness usually shows lost in faith and as a result, the vote may sway to an alternative. Such cases are shown in the race between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, for example, virtually every media outlet reported SuperDelegates with the official delegate count. Because Hillary somehow accumulated almost all of the SuperDelegate's support before the primary started, she was always ahead by 400+ "delegates" making sure that Sanders can never surpass her count. The false image is that Super-Delegates don't vote until the convention, so mixing these counts was a bias view that Clinton is a stronger candidate. The idea is that more people will vote for the stronger candidate to go against the prospect of a Trump presidency, and so she will appear even more stronger due to this snowball effect.

Because of close media relations, the media conglomerate was so fixated in censoring negative stories about Clinton that they effectively elevated how well Clinton would do against Trump. Not only that, but the sheer bias of polling samples (non-rural) were in effect. The inflexibility to change strategies from primary to general blind sighted many.

5 hours ago, Zilary said:

In the past, every election ends like this...with one side rejoicing and one side greatly disappointed. One side thinking we have elected Satan and the other side thinking we have elected a Solution. Right now, it's all very fresh, but it too will pass. 

From where I am, It was definitely the lesser of the two evils type of thing. A lot of us were hoping to elect Clinton just to remove her. She's under a lot of investigations, and wikileaks and the independent FBI sources dropped a lot of bombs that can be used.

4 hours ago, InuyashaOhki said:

Trump, I was told early on, is a racist. I looked at the claimed evidence, and it was hardly convincing to me (and I already disliked him). If you can't convince the middle, you won't convince your opposition. Throw in the "super predator" clip floating around, and it created a scenario where anything the Left accused Trump of was "another lie". Everything evil thing you believe Trump represents is fiction, from the perspective of those who supported him, so it isn't a "win for racism, sexism" etc.

Personally, having gone over the evidence, he is a misogynist, but not as much as Bill Clinton still is. He also doesn't care about the issues. His worse "plans" were all hasty fluff intended to seem like common sense to a segment of the population and be ignored by another segment. He is no better than Clinton in terms of dishonesty. He lacks her connections, but he has shown the same willful disregard for ethics.

One of the frustrating part of this election is how much free media Trump got. His strategy was to say outrageous remarks, then appear to be victimized by it. When you talk to a lot of extreme trump supporters, it all comes down to victimization. Whenever Trump opened his mouth, all these people jumped on a new hit story - Trump said this and that. The main stream media went nuts with Clinton, and not only did the MSM lose credibility, but Trump's outrageous behavior and remarks also faded away. Sometimes I wished the MSM would be more harsh on Clinton, just to make it seem less bias and real at least, but it was so obviously unrelenting. 

3 hours ago, thelilbear said:

I realize that when people complain about "the media" they are often talking about big network TV, national news and such, but those stereotypes do a lot of damage to the reputation of smaller outfits who do try to be fair. We've gotten endless calls about our "bias" against Trump, when we're just printing the things he said. I was seriously tempted to clip out all the "anti-Clinton" articles we ran -- and people seemed to forget we ran -- and send them to people who called to complain.

The thing that shook me up the most personally this election (not that my issues are more important that anyone else's) is seeing Trump supporters at rallies wearing shirts with the C-word on them and shirts saying that all journalists should be hanged.

The options to obtain information is limited with main stream, and naturally it's hard to know about something if its censored. It is important to have multiple ways to validate information and that people do compare sources. Journalists can express and say anything they want, but the trend these days is that journalism has reached a point where ratings and click-bait is more important than the actual content. Issues are blown out of proportions, and coverage is based on satire. Sadly, the popularity of a certain media outlet are based on the reader's desire for entertainment. I'm not taking any side, ti's just an observation.

However, during this election, a lot of campaign strategies involves misinformation, gotcha-interviews, fear-mongering, smear-pieces, just some of the nastiest things. One easy way to validate articles is to check the response from other people that may have checked other places, but even the comment sections are taken over by SuperPacs. 

Honestly, I think I think it's just this election that pulled out every trick there is to such an extreme, and sadly the more balanced media outlets are overshadowed by so many hit-articles.

Edited by Bed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Bed said:

I think it's important to hold certain media accountable - with TV, radio, etc. The options to obtain information is limited with main stream, and naturally it's hard to know about something if its censored. It is important to have multiple ways to validate information and that people do compare sources. Journalists can express and say anything they want, but the trend these days is that journalism has reached a point where ratings and click-bait is more important than the actual content. Issues are blown out of proportions, and coverage is based on satire. Sadly, the popularity of a certain media outlet are based on the reader's desire for entertainment. 

However, during this election, a lot of campaign strategies involves misinformation, gotcha-interviews, fear-mongering, smear-pieces, just some of the nastiest things. One easy way to validate articles is to check the response from other people that may have checked other places, and even the comment sections are taken over by SuperPacs. 

Honestly, I think I think it's just this election that pulled out every trick there is to such an extreme, and sadly the more balanced media outlets are overshadowed by so many hit-articles. 

Well said. Misinformation and cherry-picking sources is a huge problem. I teach writing part-time and I try to stress this for my students. And it's getting harder and harder to differentiate between objective sources and biased sources. Almost anyone can make a respectable-looking website these days. I often use The Onion as an example in my classes, and then I show them literallyunbelievable.org (collects people's reactions to Onion articles, and is both funny and depressing).

A few days before the election, someone from another department walked in and said, "I only watch (certain news station.) They're the only ones that aren't biased."

Of course, what she really means is that they are the only news station telling her what she wants to hear. That attitude is so damaging -- the (sometimes willful) inability to judge any news source fairly.

A contributing factor is certainly that some members (not all!) of older generations (baby boomers, gen X, even older millennials like me*) did not grow up with this media and aren't savvy enough with it to make those distinctions (and believe every chain mail they get). Of course there are young people who aren't media savvy either, but it's so pervasive in our lives now and will continue to get more so. It'll be interesting to see what happens in a few decades when most people alive have grown up with technology. 

Something I found neat: I use Google Drive in my classes. When I started teaching remedial writing 6-7 years ago, there would be maybe one or two people in my class who knew what Gmail was or how to use Google Docs. I had to block out a whole period to get them to sign up and show them how it works. Now, it's rare that I get a student that doesn't already have it, whether I'm teaching American or Saudi Arabian students.

* ETA: Technically, I'm right at the crossover between Gen X and millennials, which is also known as "The Oregon Trail" generation, so of course I prefer that :)

Edited by thelilbear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, hey a CGP Grey video! Interesting that you didn't post his updated version of the video, though. ;)

4 hours ago, InuyashaOhki said:

I will preface by saying we had 4 choices, not 2. The only reason the other 2 didn't stand a chance is because everyone always tells each other third parties don't stand a chance. I am being harassed by a lot of Clinton supporters (and I use the term loosely because it's clear from their words they were just anti-Trump) because my third-party vote was part of a very small number of votes actually cast that they wrongly assume would have gone to Clinton if Johnson and Stein weren't running. Exit polls have proved it wouldn't have helped, and that Clinton lost because 6 million Democrats stayed home relative to recent elections (Trump got about as many votes as McCain, who lost by a landslide).

I used to think this, very strongly. What I didn't realize at the time (and didn't learn until several years later) is that our voting system actually encourages and reinforces a strict two-party system (really, all I was ever told about was the spoiler effect, which by itself is not sufficient to ensure only two parties). If ever a third party arises (well, one with any significant influence), it arises only to displace one of the existing two parties (this has happened many times) which then disappears. The fix is simple (well, there are many options, but several are simple), but unfortunately many don't see voting reform as an important issue, and we may never be able to move out of a strict two party system. CGP Grey has an excellent video briefly explaining the innate problems with our voting systems, and he has two others talking about possible replacements: alternative vote (also known as instant runoff voting or IRV) and single transferable vote. These vote systems wouldn't be the best possible voting systems (alternative vote and single transferable vote both do not ensure a candorcet winner), but they would be vastly superior to our current voting system in many ways (most notably, STV would reduce the effect of gerrymandering and both STV and IRV eliminate the spoiler effect and reduce the incentive to vote strategically).

This all being said, I've always been in favor of voting third party in our current system. My current reason for liking it is that despite the spoiler effect being detrimental to voters in the short term (the candidate they dislike the most is more likely to be elected), it applies pressure to the major party they would otherwise be voting for to become more inline with the third party's policies (which is the best the average voter can get for influence in our system unless they're part of the beginning of a new party that displaces one of the old two).

Edited by Rexozord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bed said:

One of the frustrating part of this election is how much free media Trump got. His strategy was to say outrageous remarks, then appear to be victimized by it. When you talk to a lot of extreme trump supporters, it all comes down to victimization. Whenever Trump opened his mouth, all these people jumped on a new hit story - Trump said this and that. The main stream media went nuts with Clinton, and not only did the MSM lose credibility, but Trump's outrageous behavior and remarks also faded away. Sometimes I wished the MSM would be more harsh on Clinton, just to make it seem less bias and real at least, but it was so obviously unrelenting. 

The free media he got is a lot of why I feel big media was intentionally trying to influence the election. He would never have been more than a weird footnote in the primary if he hadn't been constantly on TV while his opponents were largely ignored. But, as noted in some of the leaked emails, the campaign knew he was the easiest for her to beat. Whether the two talked or not, the media couldn't have failed to realize the same thing.

I would also agree their all-too-generous treatment of Clinton made it seem like anything they reported was straight from someone at the DNC's PR wing. Instead of reporting on how a staffer actually got caught providing debate questions to Clinton before the debate, there were articles on why the emails didn't matter. Whenever a scandal on her side came up, all the reporting would be about a similar type of scandal on Trump's side. There were reports on the Clinton scandals, of course, but they were buried in the links, and far fewer.

When they went to exposés on how deplorable Trump voters were, while ignoring proven attempts to pay for violence by Clinton supporters, there really wasn't any hope of convincing anyone to switch sides.

5 hours ago, thelilbear said:

I'm not saying that liberals can't be cruel -- they can and do -- but politics aside, the abhorrent behavior I saw during this campaign, a majority of which was from Trump supporters, astounded me. That's what worries me. How do we heal that? Can we?

I've been called a few names, but no one has ever threatened me over my choice not to vote Trump. I've been very vocal about not voting for him, but I've learned to be careful who I tell that I wasn't going to vote for Clinton either.

I'm going to assume what you're not seeing is a factor of perspective. I see the people who hate me. You see the people who hate you. We don't see the people who hate the groups that oppose us because they're "justified" or they're "not all that wrong", or they're simply not doing it when we're around because we're not the targets. There was a LOT of hate, property damage and violence towards Trump supporters. Part of the reason the polls were off was likely because of this. I'm in a red state, and even here, a lot of the people around me were afraid to say who they supported until after the election. People not afraid of offending others, not afraid of alienating family members over politics, and who have no trouble with lighting questionable fireworks off cigarettes sticking out of their mouths - but they're afraid of telling people who they're voting for. It doesn't surprise me at all that some of them rallied behind a loud-mouthed, offensive idiot rather than sit back and be called "deplorables", have their property damaged in the night over what sign was in the yard, or have their employers called with false claims about them.

1 hour ago, Rexozord said:

This all being said, I've always been in favor of voting third party in our current system. My current reason for liking it is that despite the spoiler effect being detrimental to voters in the short term (the candidate they dislike the most is more likely to be elected), it applies pressure to the major party they would otherwise be voting for to become more inline with the third party's policies (which is the best the average voter can get for influence in our system unless they're part of the beginning of a new party that displaces one of the old two).

The spoiler effect is largely a myth. It's been shown time and again that not enough of the voters pulled from either of the major candidates would have voted for a specific one of them otherwise to have made the difference. Just as with this election, there were a few states where Clinton lost by about 2% and Johnson, or Johnson plus Stein barely had enough to cover that difference, and I've been getting harassed over being part of that difference (even though my state wasn't anywhere near that close). Yet the exit polls show that Johnson's supporters wouldn't have gone with Clinton in large enough numbers to have changed the result. I vote for a third party when I find the other two options worse (Governor, President, Representative) because I want the third party to start to look like a viable alternative. Like you, IRV seems like a better option to me, but the shakeup of having the Republicans go away and the Libertarians take their place, for example, would be a huge benefit to the country. But unlike in history when one party died out on its own, the two parties are helping each other. How many politicians have you seen take a position that their own party's voters don't care at all about, but horribly upsets the other party?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, InuyashaOhki said:

I'm going to assume what you're not seeing is a factor of perspective. I see the people who hate me. You see the people who hate you. We don't see the people who hate the groups that oppose us because they're "justified" or they're "not all that wrong", or they're simply not doing it when we're around because we're not the targets. There was a LOT of hate, property damage and violence towards Trump supporters.

I'm not saying that there wasn't violence, name calling, and hatred from both sides throughout the country -- and I'm sure it varied depending on what part of the country we all live in. We got many calls from people about Clinton and Trump signs missing/stolen, for example. I saw several Trump signs disappear on my street, several times. There was a distinct lack of empathy and civility from people on both sides.

That's why I offered the example of the newspaper comments as a more objective example. It often got heated and nasty on both sides, but the ones who resorted to hate speech and racial/gay slurs were always Trump supporters. For context, I live in a county that was 52 percent for Obama in 2012, and 58 percent for Trump. We swung like crazy.

I don't think it can be denied that xenophobia/racist comments were part of his campaign. I mean, the North Carolina KKK is going to rally in celebration of his victory. And yes, I know there are protests throughout the country -- as a response to the same xenophobic/racist elements of his campaign. 

1 hour ago, InuyashaOhki said:

It doesn't surprise me at all that some of them rallied behind a loud-mouthed, offensive idiot rather than sit back and be called "deplorables", have their property damaged in the night over what sign was in the yard, or have their employers called with false claims about them.

And given the things that Trump said, it doesn't surprise me that people would rally behind Clinton even given her faults and establishment politics. That also goes both ways. That's one thing this election definitely made voters do, no matter who you supported -- decide what major issues/flaws they were willing to compromise on when it came to supporting a candidate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, thelilbear said:

I don't think it can be denied that xenophobia/racist comments were part of his campaign. I mean, the North Carolina KKK is going to rally in celebration of his victory. And yes, I know there are protests throughout the country -- as a response to the same xenophobic/racist elements of his campaign. 

I think I heard these racist and xenophobic comments, but I can't seem to pinpoint one in the context that's narrated. And being endorsed by the KKK is out of his control. It's his fault that he said those comments, which painted him as a racist, but as far as endorsement - he's entirely independent of it.

The instances I heard these comments were when he called illegal immigrants, Mexicans, crossing over to America, rapists, criminals, etc... Now, I don't want to defend him because his comment didn't really have substance. But to me, he was trying to give reason to reinforce his wall idea. I knew right away what his intent was because he was talking about the wall, but how it was executed was terrible. Not to say he should get immunity for a mistake like this, and he should've corrected right away. I've heard several times where he tries to defend accusations of racist/xenophobic, saying that he likes mexican-americans, and he's not racist, etc. So at least he denies it. This is not to say he should be branding all illegal immigrants from mexico rapists, that's just wrong.

The other instance is that he wanted to temporarily stop Muslims from seeking refuge in the U.S. during terrorist attacks. This was his response to the terror attack in Europe. This idea was too ambiguous to where it crossed as xenophobic/racist. I don't like the idea, but as far as I can tell, he doesn't want potential terrorists to enter the U.S. based on xenophobia. Maybe if he detailed areas or sources of terrorism, but dunno.

Edited by Bed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bed said:

Well, so far - President Trump hasn't done much, so I'd like to see what he does first. 

His first 100 days are likely to look something like this.

9 hours ago, Zilary said:

However, I do want reform on both our primaries and electoral college voting systems, as we seen them as deeply flawed this election. Popular vote should have equated to presidency, but it doesn't.

The popular vote absolutely should not determine the Presidency, and I should think that anyone who actively plays Werewolf can quickly see why that's a bad idea. (I don't have enough time to finish this post properly, so I'm going to have to cut this part well short. I think a discussion of the electoral college is the thing I would value most in this thread, though.)

7 hours ago, thelilbear said:

I'm not saying that liberals can't be cruel -- they can and do -- but politics aside, the abhorrent behavior I saw during this campaign, a majority of which was from Trump supporters, astounded me. That's what worries me. How do we heal that? Can we?

Online is a different ball game. The loudest voices get heard while the quiet often remain silent. One could argue that that point extended to the election itself (since all of us were fairly certain Hillary would take the victory). As for in person, we're seeing similar trouble in the protests/rioting that has followed the election. The fundamental problem, in my eyes, is the continuing push towards one's opinion being absolute truth. Or, to phrase it religious terminology, the sin of pride becoming more widespread in society. Many people are valuing themselves and their liberty and their decisions above the freedom of others.

Also, just want to publicly give you kudos on a lot of points you made throughout your posts regarding the media and such. Hitting the Like button didn't feel like it would be supportive enough, so here's this. :)

 

Note to self: I left off with Rex's post because I want to watch those videos first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bed said:

I think I heard these racist and xenophobic comments, but I can't seem to pinpoint one in the context that's narrated. And being endorsed by the KKK is out of his control. It's his fault that he said those comments, which painted him as a racist, but as far as endorsement - he's entirely independent of it.

The instances I heard these comments were when he called illegal immigrants, Mexicans, crossing over to America, rapists, criminals, etc... Now, I don't want to defend him because his comment didn't really have substance. But to me, he was trying to give reason to reinforce his wall idea. I knew right away what his intent was because he was talking about the wall, but how it was executed was terrible. Not to say he should get immunity for a mistake like this, and he should've corrected right away. I've heard several times where he tries to defend accusations of racist/xenophobic, saying that he likes mexican-americans, and he's not racist, etc. So at least he denies it. This is not to say he should be branding all illegal immigrants from mexico rapists, that's just wrong.

The other instance is that he wanted to temporarily stop Muslims from seeking refuge in the U.S. during terrorist attacks. This was his response to the terror attack in Europe. This idea was too ambiguous to where it crossed as xenophobic/racist. I don't like the idea, but as far as I can tell, he doesn't want potential terrorists to enter the U.S. based on xenophobia. Maybe if he detailed areas or sources of terrorism, but dunno.

When asked about them in a CNN interview, he claimed to not know anything about the white supremacist groups, or David Duke, so he couldn't respond. Why not immediately disavow them? Even if he didn't know anything about them, they're white supremacist groups. He later blamed it on a bad earpiece, though he repeats white supremacy a few times so it's clear he knew what they were talking about.

Whether or not he did, the fact is that the KKK saw something in him that made them endorse him.

I'm not going to get into a long list, but here's a few more examples:

He also claimed the judge handling his Trump University case was biased toward him because the (American) judge had Mexican heritage -- implying the judge couldn't do his job because of his background. Paul Ryan pointed out that's basically the textbook definition of a racist comment in an interview.

Pence denounced Trump's call to ban all Muslims from entering the country as offensive and unconstitutional. (Side note and full disclosure: CNN reported that 60,000 Saudi Arabian students were attending US universities in 2015, "the fourth biggest group of foreign students in the US." I taught/teach some of those students and I do believe having these students here, seeing how Americans live and experiencing our country while we learn about theirs, is immensely valuable to cultural understanding between the two countries. So I do have a bias especially on this point. YMMV.)

And then there are his comments like "I have a great relationship with the blacks" and the stuff about "the Muslims," even "I love the Mexicans!" Calling any ethnic group "the ________" is tone deaf and generalizing.

(I verified these before I posted this, but I can find the links to the interviews on YouTube if anyone wants sources).

I do believe he believes he's not a racist. Do I think he's a super, terrible KKK-loving racist? No, I don't. But he plants enough seeds of dissension, enough suspicion of people of differing religions, colors, etc. that it inspires people like the KKK. That's very dangerous.

2 hours ago, Shattered Rift said:

The fundamental problem, in my eyes, is the continuing push towards one's opinion being absolute truth. Or, to phrase it religious terminology, the sin of pride becoming more widespread in society. Many people are valuing themselves and their liberty and their decisions above the freedom of others.

Also, just want to publicly give you kudos on a lot of points you made throughout your posts regarding the media and such. Hitting the Like button didn't feel like it would be supportive enough, so here's this. :)

Aw thank you! 

I agree with your point as well, and I hope that this election cycle does serve as a wake up call for people that we need to keep caring about others, and value other's opinions and needs. That we need to make an effort to understand those who live, believe and think differently from us, because that's what will keep us progressing as a people and a country. I mean that as a non-partisan statement -- it's clear both/all sides need to work on that.

 

Edited by thelilbear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rexozord said:

I used to think this, very strongly. What I didn't realize at the time (and didn't learn until several years later) is that our voting system actually encourages and reinforces a strict two-party system (really, all I was ever told about was the spoiler effect, which by itself is not sufficient to ensure only two parties). If ever a third party arises (well, one with any significant influence), it arises only to displace one of the existing two parties (this has happened many times) which then disappears. The fix is simple (well, there are many options, but several are simple), but unfortunately many don't see voting reform as an important issue, and we may never be able to move out of a strict two party system. CGP Grey has an excellent video briefly explaining the innate problems with our voting systems, and he has two others talking about possible replacements: alternative vote (also known as instant runoff voting or IRV) and single transferable vote. These vote systems wouldn't be the best possible voting systems (alternative vote and single transferable vote both do not ensure a candorcet winner), but they would be vastly superior to our current voting system in many ways (most notably, STV would reduce the effect of gerrymandering and both STV and IRV eliminate the spoiler effect and reduce the incentive to vote strategically).

Thanks for linking these videos. (I really miss our active debate forum. :()

Hm... I'm going to chew on these a bit longer before discussing them specifically, but my main issue is still what should(?) be the obvious one (and was why I immediately posted earlier, rather than waiting until I had time to make a full post): why is it still always the popular vote being discussed? The separation between popular representation and senatorial representation (I forget the proper word) has always been the most impressive compromise/solution to the flaw of pure democracy: if more people live in my house than live in your house, I rule over you, and vice versa if more people live in your house. Just replace houses with States and the analogy is simple to understand. This becomes even more important when we consider the social implications, and I'd appreciate someone pointing out if I'm wrong or if there's long-term consequences that I'm not seeing with my short-term logic. I also don't know how to phrase this delicately, so I'll opt for bluntness. Rural people are more frequently religious and more frequently have more children (ie, higher population growth). City people are more frequently homosexual and usually have fewer children (ie, lower population growth). The long-run balance should ultimately shift in favor of the countryside. Meanwhile, both of these "houses" have very different needs in their representation.

I understand that our historical State lines and congressional districts and such were all influenced by the parties of their day, but that has also historically resulted in a balanced vote on the most important of subjects (in their day). Even now, while Hillary Clinton leads the popular vote, she leads it by less than 0.2%. When considered only in the context of the two main parties, is there any reason not to view that as a success of the existing system?

4 hours ago, Bed said:

The instances I heard these comments were when he called illegal immigrants, Mexicans, crossing over to America, rapists, criminals, etc... Now, I don't want to defend him because his comment didn't really have substance. But to me, he was trying to give reason to reinforce his wall idea. I knew right away what his intent was because he was talking about the wall, but how it was executed was terrible. Not to say he should get immunity for a mistake like this, and he should've corrected right away. I've heard several times where he tries to defend accusations of racist/xenophobic, saying that he likes mexican-americans, and he's not racist, etc. So at least he denies it. This is not to say he should be branding all illegal immigrants from mexico rapists, that's just wrong.

The other instance is that he wanted to temporarily stop Muslims from seeking refuge in the U.S. during terrorist attacks. This was his response to the terror attack in Europe. This idea was too ambiguous to where it crossed as xenophobic/racist. I don't like the idea, but as far as I can tell, he doesn't want potential terrorists to enter the U.S. based on xenophobia. Maybe if he detailed areas or sources of terrorism, but dunno.

These are essentially the questions waiting at the door. During his campaign, Trump spoke candidly and with blatant and extreme promises. However, each time he releases his actual plan it ends up being relatively practical and well thought out (depending on your political leaning, to be sure, but within the range of a Republican candidate). What I keep wondering is what his supporters will do if he takes the more moderate approach. Will reform pacify them, or will they demand the extreme? Will it be enough if the Mexican border is secured (through the use of many different approaches, including a wall only in some places), or will they demand a wall the whole way? I've been assuming the former (as I assume most people are more practical and reasonable than not), but I'm also wondering how many of his supporters are all-or-nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shattered Rift said:

What I keep wondering is what his supporters will do if he takes the more moderate approach. Will reform pacify them, or will they demand the extreme? Will it be enough if the Mexican border is secured (through the use of many different approaches, including a wall only in some places), or will they demand a wall the whole way? I've been assuming the former (as I assume most people are more practical and reasonable than not), but I'm also wondering how many of his supporters are all-or-nothing.

The ones I've talked to have more or less forgotten the wall. But everyone I know who supported him in the primary did so for the same reason they did in the general election - the other main candidate.

5 hours ago, thelilbear said:

I don't think it can be denied that xenophobia/racist comments were part of his campaign.

Why don't you think it can be denied? Were the suspect comments actually xenophobic or racist, or did they require someone explaining the xenophobia into them? Was the context left with it, or was it taken out of context and re-contextualized in a narrative? As I said, I went over this evidence as someone who doesn't like Trump. It didn't hold up to scrutiny. Finding the original context kills most of it. The so-called "coded speech" is in a code made up by the narrator. And, as Bed pointed out, he has no control over who asserts support for him any more than Clinton does.

It's important to pay attention to the whole story, not just stop when it reinforces your point of view. The KKK support of Trump is a prime example. He rejected their support and their leader switched his support to Clinton, claiming she had a "hidden agenda" that he was getting behind.

4 hours ago, thelilbear said:

That's why I offered the example of the newspaper comments as a more objective example. It often got heated and nasty on both sides, but the ones who resorted to hate speech and racial/gay slurs were always Trump supporters.

I notice you mention 3 specific things coming from Trump supporters. 1. Hate speech. 2. Racial slurs. 3. Gay slurs. Trump supporters are stereotyped as being white, heterosexual, non-minority. Why would a Clinton supporter to make a gay slur against a group they perceive to be heterosexual? You've set criteria for differentiating them that isn't remotely objective. Take something more objective that can apply to the perceptions of both groups. For example, how many threatened violence? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, InuyashaOhki said:

Why don't you think it can be denied? Were the suspect comments actually xenophobic or racist, or did they require someone explaining the xenophobia into them? Was the context left with it, or was it taken out of context and re-contextualized in a narrative? As I said, I went over this evidence as someone who doesn't like Trump. It didn't hold up to scrutiny. Finding the original context kills most of it. The so-called "coded speech" is in a code made up by the narrator. And, as Bed pointed out, he has no control over who asserts support for him any more than Clinton does.

This is your perspective. We apparently have differing views on what racism is. You might not feel that its racism. Many of his supporters don't (I know you don't support him). I do. Many people who don't support him do. I should have said it can't be denied to those who feel that implicit and covert racism is a huge problem in this country. Likewise, you can't speak for everybody with how you personally take the evidence. In an attempt to be balanced in my response, I gave Paul Ryan's and Pence's reactions as examples -- two conservatives who both felt what Trump said was wrong.

8 hours ago, InuyashaOhki said:

It's important to pay attention to the whole story, not just stop when it reinforces your point of view. The KKK support of Trump is a prime example. He rejected their support and their leader switched his support to Clinton, claiming she had a "hidden agenda" that he was getting behind.

That's the whole story?

First, to clarify: David Duke is not the same man as the man who endorsed Clinton.

The man who endorsed Clinton was reported KKK Grand Dragon William Quigg. The stories about it I read demonstrate that he's of questionable legitimacy and that all of the resulting press on it stems from comments he gave in one article, but if you find other credible sources that show differently, please share. As a summary of what I've found, here's the Snopes article: http://www.snopes.com/kkk-endorses-hillary-clinton/

One man is an anomaly. Are there others that endorsed her?

Do you know of any evidence that Clinton was asked about this group? If so, did she waffle?

The white supremacists/groups who endorsed Trump include (just to name a few):

David Duke

The American Nazi Party: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/07/american-nazi-party-leader-trump-opportunity

Andrew Anglin, owner of the neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer -- I am not linking to that site, but feel free to go on and read their glowing articles.

There are times he or his campaign denounced these endorsements, which is good and proper. But his words, actions, and policies clearly speak to these people.

8 hours ago, InuyashaOhki said:

I notice you mention 3 specific things coming from Trump supporters. 1. Hate speech. 2. Racial slurs. 3. Gay slurs. Trump supporters are stereotyped as being white, heterosexual, non-minority. Why would a Clinton supporter to make a gay slur against a group they perceive to be heterosexual? You've set criteria for differentiating them that isn't remotely objective. Take something more objective that can apply to the perceptions of both groups. For example, how many threatened violence? 

So what I'm reading here is that hate speech, racial slurs and gay slurs are invalid reasons to support/not support an candidate, because they aren't "fair." That ignores the fact that there are people of color and LGBT people that supported Trump and makes the assumption that liberals don't know that. Were the POC/LGBT who supported Trump subject to significant amounts of hate speech and slurs? Please cite sources if so.

This also presupposes that liberals couldn't create their own new slurs for widespread use about white, heterosexual, non-minority people. Nothing's stopping them.

Edited by thelilbear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, thelilbear said:

I do believe he believes he's not a racist. Do I think he's a super, terrible KKK-loving racist? No, I don't. But he plants enough seeds of dissension, enough suspicion of people of differing religions, colors, etc. that it inspires people like the KKK. That's very dangerous.

Agreed. When you're under the spotlight like that, you should show some level of restraint. I found the way he talks to be really familiar. I remember in middle school and high school, as a minority, that it wasn't such a big deal that students would say things bordering racist and xenophobic, so maybe I think I have some sort of understanding or some tolerance. I know that white supremacy exists from my experience and even black supremacy in a specific area I lived, and probably in large too. In contrast, the newer culture in the big cities are more tamed and growing. From maybe the perspective of someone that finds that their culture is being eaten alive, I can see how what Trump says is somewhat of a release. 

On the bright side, I observed that younger and younger people are tapped into the culture that shows some restraints. I think one of the major driving force for this change is the internet. I didn't have internet back in the days, and exposure to such a culture was isolated. Now, no matter where you are, internet is usually very accessible, and if you see how much kids these days are glued to their social media, it's telling that the future will have people that are a bit more united. So as far as planting seeds and white supremacy, I think - at least the future generation, what trump says in the next 4 years, I don't think it will have a dramatic effect. There will be consequences, but I think we're able to get pass it. 

In other news, Trump chose a climate change skeptic to lead the EPA transition. *face-palm* 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bed said:

On the bright side, I observed that younger and younger people are tapped into the culture that shows some restraints. I think one of the major driving force for this change is the internet. I didn't have internet back in the days, and exposure to such a culture was isolated. Now, no matter where you are, internet is usually very accessible, and if you see how much kids these days are glued to their social media, it's telling that the future will have people that are a bit more united. So as far as planting seeds and white supremacy, I think - at least the future generation, what trump says in the next 4 years, I don't think it will have a dramatic effect. There will be consequences, but I think we're able to get pass it. 

Likewise, I think the current state of television, and to lesser degree movies, reflects a lot of progress. When they aren't trying to reboot everything just because the can :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignoring everything else, Trump is extremely concerning to me for his views on environmental issues. The idea of trashing the environment for money, selling off federal land (e.g., national parks) for resource exploitation, ignoring climate change are all extremely short sighted and dangerous views for the executive branch to endorse and implement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like there's a new video up. Note that I'm posting before watching. Will likely edit in thoughts below.

Edit: Ah, good, he addressed the city vs metro issue. And made a much better case than in the previous video. Though, again, I think he brushes off the fact that it's not about States vs People. It's about creating a balance between the two. And yes, the Electoral College could fail at doing so in the future. But so far it hasn't, and it's maintained a surprisingly tight balance.

I suppose there's always the option of requiring an outright winner to take both a majority of States by population /and/ a majority of States by representation. But this goes back to the Constitution's current approach that in a non-majority scenario it's determined purely by a plurality of representation of States with no bearing on population.

Edited by Shattered Rift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah... Not going to be accused of racism just because I disagree with your assessment. You have defined right-thinking in terms of your own worldview, and you are defending your opinion by tearing down those around you. I made the mistake of pointing out your blindspot, but I will not be your strawman to prop up your othering of everyone who didn't support your politician.

I am out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, InuyashaOhki said:

Yeah... Not going to be accused of racism just because I disagree with your assessment. You have defined right-thinking in terms of your own worldview, and you are defending your opinion by tearing down those around you. I made the mistake of pointing out your blindspot, but I will not be your strawman to prop up your othering of everyone who didn't support your politician.

I am out.

I did not accuse you of racism. I said, "We apparently have differing views on what racism is. You might not feel that its racism." I did not say that you were racist. I said you might have a different view of what racism is.

I don't see how I am "tearing down those around me." I honestly thought we were having a intriguing debate, but I must've misread your feelings/intentions toward this conversation. I apologize because I did not intend to hurt your feelings. Though I do think it's short-sighted to rage quit and accuse me of thinking in terms of my worldview, without considering that you could be doing the exact same thing. 

Sorry to everyone else for having to endure this. I misconstrued the situation. Won't happen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2016 at 3:03 PM, thelilbear said:

Sorry to everyone else for having to endure this. I misconstrued the situation. Won't happen again.

Don't worry about it Lilbear. When I pressed the button to create this topic, I experienced a moment where all the images of forum warfare flashed before me. I imagined many of us critically damaged by Trump Logic, and Trump Words. Bigly was one of them. In the end, only Rift survived.

On 11/10/2016 at 9:42 PM, Shattered Rift said:

These are essentially the questions waiting at the door. During his campaign, Trump spoke candidly and with blatant and extreme promises. However, each time he releases his actual plan it ends up being relatively practical and well thought out (depending on your political leaning, to be sure, but within the range of a Republican candidate). What I keep wondering is what his supporters will do if he takes the more moderate approach. Will reform pacify them, or will they demand the extreme? Will it be enough if the Mexican border is secured (through the use of many different approaches, including a wall only in some places), or will they demand a wall the whole way? I've been assuming the former (as I assume most people are more practical and reasonable than not), but I'm also wondering how many of his supporters are all-or-nothing.

There's a chance he can't strike a good deal and the wall never happens. I think Trump is reasonably alert at bad deals since he's had his experience in his own businesses. If he can make Mexico pay a good portion, then it might work out. I question the Wall as a solution, but I've never looked at the studies done for this issue to say much about it. If there was a solution that involved easier assimilation or a moral way to help the families... I don't know. As far as actually building an effective wall, he's lowballing the cost greatly. Setting up the construction in the middle of nowhere would be an extreme effort.

As far as his promises, it appears he's soften up in some areas, which I feel is hopeful. For example, he's not planning to completely remove the affordable care act, and will be replacing it with something that might be a better deal? 

Now if only he can accept climate change measures, then people would be less critical of him. The trick is not get the far right too angry for retracting his positions... so far doesn't look good. I am betting that he doesn't think it's a hoax and only said it to get points. 

Edited by Bed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now