Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_TParticipantAnother thing about this that is often overlooked: The (secular) Pascal’s Wager aspect.
If the Climate skeptics are correct, and we go ahead and make huge changes to radically improve our environment, what’s the worst thing that could happen? A much cleaner, safer, healthier, more sustainable and livable world for all life.
If the Climate skeptics are wrong, and we do nothing, we’re fucked. And we’ve already lost half of all wildlife to pollution since 1970. That’s already happened. Estimates say we’ll lose 2/3rds by 2020, and . . . by 2030, we’ll need two entire earths to handle natural resource needs for the planet. If everyone in the world behaved like average Americans in their consumption and environmental footprint, we’d need four entire earths.
Billy_TParticipantAre we dead either way?
link:http://www.climatecentral.org/news/physics-climate-election-2016-20862
w
v
“It is hard to fight an enemy that has outposts in your head.”
Sally KemptonAs long as we keep the capitalist system in place, yes. Naomi Klein finally reached that conclusion in her last book, This Changes Everything.
Billy_TParticipantMan, I love that quote! Have never seen it before. But it’s so . . . . cosmically aware. With a little bit of comically aware to boot.
Billy_TParticipantbnw,
Heard Chris Christie last night admit — and he’s not the only person from Trump’s circle to do this — they didn’t think they were ahead going into the race either. Their own internal polling had them behind. He said their polling did have them a point or two better than the public polls. But still behind.
It’s a mistake to view the polling as some kind of conspiracy against Trump. Remember, it also includes right-wing polling like Fox News and Rasmussen. They had Clinton winning going in, and at times in this race, up by double digits. It’s also quite possible that a commanding lead, even a steady one, provokes apathy and drives down voter participation. That helps Trump.
(Overall voting was down from 2012. As of this morning, seven million fewer Dems showed up, apparently. I didn’t catch the most recent totals for Trump, yet, but since he lost the popular vote, and he doesn’t even have as many as Romney’s losing total, it’s likely GOP turnout was down, too.)
Very few people, across the political spectrum, predicted a Trump victory. This guy was one of them:
Whenever I looked into the methodology of polls that showed Hildabeast so far ahead I always noticed an absurd oversampling of democrat voters. That and the fact that she couldn’t draw any crowds on her own once she got the nomination while Trump filled every venue everywhere in this nation to overflowing for a year and a half, and as I posted months ago that when I traveled I only saw Trump signs everywhere and many of those signs were home made. Thats why I never believed the polls that said he was behind.
If Democratic turnout had reached 2012 levels, that methodology would have been more than solid. And that’s how they typically do it. They go based upon the previous election breakdown, and update for population increases. What ended up happening — at least from what we know now — is that fewer (by 7 million) Dems turned up at the polls than they did for Obama in 2012. That’s why the polling was wrong. Not because of the way they set up the (sampling) differences between the parties.
And, remember, Clinton won the popular vote. Trump got fewer total votes. And I’m guessing, when all the counting is finished, she’s going to have a nearly 2 point advantage there.
As for crowds. Historically, those have been poor indicators for elections. Sarah Palin, for instance, would draw huge crowds in some places for John McCain. But Obama beat them decisively. Of course, he did pretty well in that realm too. But I don’t think we can make accurate assessments about a country this diverse, this large, if we go by partisans turning out for speeches.
That’s my take, anyway.
-
This reply was modified 8 years ago by
Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantbnw,
Heard Chris Christie last night admit — and he’s not the only person from Trump’s circle to do this — they didn’t think they were ahead going into the race either. Their own internal polling had them behind. He said their polling did have them a point or two better than the public polls. But still behind.
It’s a mistake to view the polling as some kind of conspiracy against Trump. Remember, it also includes right-wing polling like Fox News and Rasmussen. They had Clinton winning going in, and at times in this race, up by double digits. It’s also quite possible that a commanding lead, even a steady one, provokes apathy and drives down voter participation. That helps Trump.
(Overall voting was down from 2012. As of this morning, seven million fewer Dems showed up, apparently. I didn’t catch the most recent totals for Trump, yet, but since he lost the popular vote, and he doesn’t even have as many as Romney’s losing total, it’s likely GOP turnout was down, too.)
Very few people, across the political spectrum, predicted a Trump victory. This guy was one of them:
Billy_TParticipantThanks, WV.
Lots of good stuff in that article.
Like:
It goes without saying that Trump is a sociopathic con artist obsessed with personal enrichment: the opposite of a genuine warrior for the downtrodden. That’s too obvious to debate. But, just as Obama did so powerfully in 2008, he could credibly run as an enemy of the D.C. and Wall Street system that has steamrolled over so many people, while Hillary Clinton is its loyal guardian, its consummate beneficiary.
Trump vowed to destroy the system that elites love (for good reason) and the masses hate (for equally good reason), while Clinton vowed to manage it more efficiently. That, as Matt Stoller’s indispensable article in The Atlantic three weeks ago documented, is the conniving choice the Democratic Party made decades ago: to abandon populism and become the party of technocratically proficient, mildly benevolent managers of elite power. Those are the cynical, self-interested seeds they planted, and now the crop has sprouted.
Of course there are fundamental differences between Obama’s version of “change” and Trump’s. But at a high level of generality — which is where these messages are often ingested — both were perceived as outside forces on a mission to tear down corrupt elite structures, while Clinton was perceived as devoted to their fortification. That is the choice made by Democrats — largely happy with status quo authorities, believing in their basic goodness — and any honest attempt by Democrats to find the prime author of last night’s debacle will begin with a large mirror.
Going through the rest of it, etc.
I have no doubt the Dems will draw the wrong lesson from this. They’ll just try to be more like the GOP. That’s been the pattern since the mid-1970s, when they began their slow, then faster, that really fast trek rightward.
Billy_TParticipantIn short, the GOP had it within their power to make the recession of 2007/8 move into recovery a great deal faster than it did. They had it within their power to make that recovery far less concentrated at the top. The Dems did as well, but just for Obama’s first two years, and that would have required GOP acceptance, which it never granted. That would have required an absence of GOP filibusters and holds, etc.
So, now we get Trump/2017, and I’m betting the GOP shifts gears to follow that pattern. “Deficits don’t matter,” as Cheney said, will again be the new mantra. Or they’ll just hide them from the public some way. But this is a bit like some black hat bringing the grid to its knees, and then swooping in later to “save” it. The GOP never should have tried to sabotage the economy to begin with. If they hadn’t, there wouldn’t have been a tea party faux-uprising or much of any room for Trump this year.
Time for both parties to go. They have both been thoroughly discredited beyond repair or redemption.
Billy_TParticipantOne very dangerous aspect of this country, W, was made all the more apparent by Trump:
Too many Americans want to be led by the nose. Too many Americans are okay with baby fascists like Trump, if that person has the requisite elements for a cult of personality. It’s more than obvious that nothing he said went beyond sloganeering. He never put forth HOW he would do anything. Apparently, his audience just didn’t care. He just kept repeating his slogan-mantras and his bot crowds ate it up.
At the risk of jumping into this conversation way too early (I haven’t read beyond this point yet, and it is a long thread that I opened several hours ago, and may be even longer now), I have to say that I think this oversimplifies the Trump supporters. This is a broad brush here, Billy, and like all broad brushes, it coats too many people with insufficient color.
I believe Trump supporters have a legitimate gripe.
I don’t believe Trump will address their grievances with policies. I believe he just throws word salad at them. But the Trump supporters are not wrong about everything. And I think Trump THINKS he will help them, like all narcissists, he believes whatever he happens to be saying at any given moment, but like many fools, he thinks that what is best for him is best for everybody. So he will do what is best for billionaire real estate developers and tell the cameras that it will make everybody better off, but that is just the way narcissists think. They don’t actually have the ability to see things from other people’s points of view. That what he says aligns with the grievances of rural white men is totally an accident. Not a conviction of principle. But I don’t think he is a master deceiver leading dummies around with slight of hand. I don’t agree with that perception at all.
Zooey,
I think you misread me. I said “too many Americans,” not “all Trump supporters.” And while the part in bold may have been a general summation, and not a critique of what I said, no way do I think Trump is a “master deceiver.” I see him as a used-car salesman and snake-oil guy who just happened to be born with a silver spoon. I don’t think he has the intelligence or creativity to “master” anything. Which is one of the reasons why I do put so much onus on those of his supporters who have fallen blindly for what he peddles.
He’s not that good. In fact, his shtick is so easy to see through, immediately, it shocked me and millions of others that he got the GOP nom, much less won the presidency. The vast majority of his campaign was based on easily debunked lies, third-rate, lunatic-fringe innuendo and paranoid delusions. I honestly didn’t think he could possible fool enough Americans to “win.”
And, cuz I always feel the necessity to balance that with the usual: “Clinton was a terrible candidate, and the Democratic Party powers that be are terrible too.” But I honestly think that if we could find that mythical beast, the truly objective human, he/she couldn’t help but conclude the GOP and Trump are worse. Significantly worse, in fact.
Billy_TParticipantThe silver lining is that…hopefully…the progressives who are mad as hell and motivated with Bernie’s run (and many kept at it through the election) will take the mantle and keep fighting and can now do so without the DNC cockblocking them.
Cuz…fuck the corporate sellout DNC. They’ve been slamming progressives…even co-opting the progressive moniker while taking on virtually no actual progressive positions…even engaging in slimy character assassination that would make Karl Rove proud…all so that they could keep those corporate bucks rolling in.
Margin call, bitches.
Now is the time to get to do the REAL, Progressive work and hopefully not have to deal with any more DNC, centrist interference.
In my view, it’s past time for progressives, too. They’re better than centrists, who are in turn better than wingnuts. But we need stronger medicine than progressivism, and that needs to come from the anticapitalist, radical egalitarian left.
Our only real hope to achieve social justice is to shit-can the current economic system entirely, IMO. It’s also the only way we’re going to be able to save this planet for wildlife and ourselves.
-
This reply was modified 8 years ago by Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantbtw, just a quick google pulls up the fact that Clinton did campaign in front of factory workers. All politicians do. I’ve never seen an election where they don’t.
With stops to highlight jobs and manufacturing, Clinton/Kaine campaign buses across Pennsylvania
Here’s just one of them.
They all do this, Mac. What counts is who has the best plan for action, and that’s outside the duopoly, not inside it. Trump isn’t an outsider.
Billy_TParticipantLet’s be clear.
I’m not defending Trump. Nor do I think he was virtuous in all of this. The opposite of that, actually.
But… TWO people stood outside of factories that have closed or were about to close and spoke DIRECTLY to the worries and concerns of workers.
BERNIE…and…Trump.
Of course it was all a show.
But think about it. Clinton didn’t even care enough to do the show part…
But, again, Mac, Trump has never, not once, “spoken to their [economic] concerns.” He’s just lied to them, over and over and over again, blaming everyone but the people who actually make those decisions:
Rich businessmen like him. He has always shipped jobs overseas. He has a long history of stiffing his employees, his contractors and sub-contractors, welching on his debts, and paying zero in taxes . . . while using the loss of OTHER people’s money to count as his own writeoffs. He’s gone bankrupt six times! How many people lost their jobs because of that?
He’s against raising the minimum wage. He’s against a living wage. He’s against Single Payer and Free Public Colleges and every single aspect of Sanders’ plank.
It doesn’t matter that Clinton is a soft neoliberal in this case. Trump is a hard neoliberal, and will sign bills crafted by hard neoliberal Republicans like Paul Ryan.
In short, it’s simply not at all logical for a working class or a middle class person who wants some economic justice to choose Trump. Stein or the Socialist candidates (like Alyson Kennedy), if they’re on the ballot in one’s state, yeah. But no way should they pick a Republican first.
Regardless, I am heartened by the large, seriously energized anti-Trump protests tonight, breaking out in several major cities. I hope this leads to a real leftist movement for true change, stronger than Occupy, stronger than anything we’ve seen to date.
Billy_TParticipantAnd Mac,
Just to be on the safe side. None of the above is about you. I consider you an online friend going waaay back.
It’s me being being angry with an outcome that would have sucked either way . . . but Trump winning is a hell of a lot worse than Clinton winning, in my view.
Broken arm versus amputation. Something like that.
Hope all is well with you and yours.
Billy_TParticipantI don’t disagree with that…mostly.
He put himself on the hook in his first speech that at the very least, he’s going to focus on infrastructure. If he does that, as we know, it’ll amount to stimulus and will jump start the economy.
It’s essentially using Bernie’s plan and I don’t doubt that as Trump has done on many occasions, he’ll do a call back to this because he’s a real estate guy and it’s what he knows.
He’ll outsource the social policy and even foreign policy which already is giving me the willies.
So, yeah, on a ton of stuff, both of them sold the people a bill of goods. Problem was that on ONE thing, he didn’t lie. And it turned out to be one thing that a LOT of Americans really, really care about. Doesn’t mean his plan is worth a damn.
But…he at least had the guts to call shit…shit.
And in THIS election… that was the difference. The turd with a piece of corn in it versus the turd without….
Yes, Mac. He did lie about it. He lied about the reasons why we’re struggling economically. He told his followers it’s the fault of the government and other countries and workers from other countries. In reality, it’s the fault of American corporations and people like Trump. They’re the folks who have sold out American workers. They’re the folks who craft our trade deals so they can keep doing this. They’re the folks who make sure governments work together on behalf of Big Capital and screw workers.
But Trump never said any of that. Instead, he tried to blame it all on Clinton, as if the GOP wasn’t even there. As if the GOP didn’t actually have a much larger part in the passage of those trade deals than the Dems. And, again, he never held Corporate America responsible for any of it, or himself — a guy who outsources ALL of his manufacturing overseas.
Almost as ugly were his lies regarding unemployment levels, which, again, he blamed entirely on Obama and Clinton. He told his supporters — and they repeat this — that the real unemployment rate is 42% and it’s all Clinton’s fault. As in, if you look at any group of ten Americans, 4.2 of them are supposedly unemployed.
I have honestly never, ever in my life seen someone lie as often and with as much reckless abandon as Trump. He makes HRC look like a saint in comparison, and she’s obviously not.
Anyway, it’s a done deal. But I think this is safe to take to the bank: Trump and the GOP are going to make life worse for Americans, not better. And the survival of the planet’s ecosystems are now threatened more than they’ve ever been — and neither party was doing what was needed on that score.
Billy_TParticipantAnd honestly, anyone who entertains “anyone who voted for Trump is a racist” is part of the problem.
No one is saying that here, Mac. To me, though, it’s beyond obvious that Trump captured white resentment, bigly, white-backlash and white-identity politics to a degree we haven’t seen since George Wallace. That’s not a “smear,” as I think X suggested. It’s Trump’s own words, his own actions, the words of his kids, and his choice in campaign manager — Steve Bannon. Hooking up with the alt-right demonstrates how important he thought white nationalist ideology was to his success.
No one forced him to do that. He could easily have left all of that fear-mongering out of his rallies. He never had to start his Birther campaign, add the “Mexicans are rapists and pouring over the borders” bullshit, and then ramp it up to full-blown Nazism with the call to ban all Muslims, shut down their mosques and force them to register.
And his supporters LOVED hearing this shit.
That list goes on and on. Now, folks might have a case that he “really was speaking to their economic anxieties, not racial resentment” if he had left that other garbage out, and if his policies actually dealt with those anxieties. But they don’t. Not in the slightest. Well, actually, they do. They make them a thousand times worse.
It’s not about economics. It’s about fear of the Other. Economics is just cover for that, IMO.
Btw, Clinton won a majority of voters making less than 50K.
Billy_TParticipantI don’t think that, Billy. I think X is onto something.
I live in Central Florida and the visceral hatred for the establishment is palpable. I KNEW Trump was going to win Florida WEEKS ago. It was so clear.
Last week, Trump would hold rallies and thousands would attend. Clinton held a rally north of Tampa without any of the big name surrogates…so no FLOTUS, no POTUS, no Joe Biden, no Katie Perry, etc. She drew LESS THAN 300. Are you kidding me? In the final week of one of the most contentious campaigns in our nation’s history in perhaps the most contested swing state…she couldn’t get 300 supporters to show up for a rally??? Really???
Lots of people in the rust belt and the deep south have been deeply impacted by NAFTA, CAFTA and other really horrible trade deals. I’ve talked with plenty of people, Dems, Reps and totally not political people at all who felt compelled to vote for Trump because they felt that if someone didn’t do something about these trade deals, their children would be part of a permanent underclass.
What the Dems failed to do is focus on the economy and the real issues. Hillary couldn’t because she believes in the very mechanisms that caused many of these ills and will cause further damage. And the Democratic political machine wasn’t willing to do what the RNC did and go hands off and let the people decide from day one.
Are there some racists who are Trump supporters? Yes. Have many racists used this to come out from cover and put their beliefs and behaviors on display? Yes.
Doesn’t change that the fights are the same as they were before and with the aging population, if the Republicans want to start a culture war with this aging, browning population, they really risk a severe swing to the left (which is what Susan Sarandon was talking about).
I get the alt-right concern and racist concerns and as someone with a trans child, I’m already reading stories of trans/gay hate crimes and people who are just being complete racist assholes. To say I’m concerned is an understatement. I’m IN this fight to the last cell of my body.
But it wouldn’t have been this way if the fucking Dems had actually believed in democracy in a real way. Yet another reason why my HATE for Clinton is REAL.
We have President Trump because she was too ambitious to allow for a fair fight that might have allowed for a President Sanders.
The large rallies are largely due to white-backlash against the “browning of America.” The economic factor is a red herring, because the person they support, and the party he chose, are even more aggressively against workers, etc. As bad as the Dems are on the economy — and they’re terrible — Trump and the GOP will be worse. The GOP already is. They want to double down on trickle down, and they’ll pass that and more. All of it. There is no stopping them now.
No stopping their assault on unions. No stopping them making “right to work” a federal law. No stopping them privatizing away what’s left of FDR’s New Deal. No stopping them privatizing Medicare and Medicaid, along with getting rid of every single workplace safety and environmental protection on the books.
So, yeah, people should be damn pissed off at the Dems for going back on their own FDR legacy, instead of adding to it and updating it. They should be damn pissed off for what they did to Sanders. But choosing Trump and the Republicans as some kind of “populist” answer to all that is beyond absurd, and I just don’t believe it’s not about fears of the Other. Trump began his campaign that way and never wavered.
He has no economic plan beyond warmed over Chicago School. Sorry, not buying the “We’re hurting so we want the billionaire to save our economy!” angle.
Billy_TParticipantYup. Good points Mack.
I got a feelin I aint gonna be able to get health insurance
once Trump gets going. I was able to get it for the first time
under Obama. Course it didnt actually ‘cover’ anything. Still.
Ah well.w
vMine is going to be gone, too. And I have stage four cancer — since 2003. Chemo visits are roughly $30K now. One day of it. Just. Four. Hours. And it’s typically every other month when I have my two-year regimens. So that’s twelve of them, give or take.
$30K per treatment. No insurance, and I’m literally homeless if I need chemo again.
All kinds of problems with the ACA, and Single Payer is a thousand times better. But it was actually worse before it for people with preexisting conditions.
Billy_TParticipantX,
First of all, I’m not a Dem. I mentioned that before, remember? I despise both parties, and I voted for Stein.
Second: if you just dismiss an NYT article, which collected those studies, linked to them, and you refuse to look at the studies, then there’s not much point in debating this. You’ve chosen upfront not to believe something that has mountains and mountains of evidence to show it’s true. Yes, strong majorities of Trump supporters have truly odious views on race, gender, sexuality and a host of other topics, and far too many ascribe to nutjob conspiracy theories peddled by folks like Alex Jones. It really doesn’t matter to me if you refuse to accept that. It’s true whether or not you do.
Third: Not saying you’re doing this, necessarily, but whenever I hear someone on the right say “I’m out in the real world,” it’s almost always code for “Stupid liberals!! Come down from the clouds and get a real job! Be like us conservatives! Real, hard-working, independent Mericans, who don’t get help from noboddy nohow, just like Dan’l Freakin Boone!!” If that’s not your intent, please forgive the rant.
Regardless, I wouldn’t take it as gospel that the people you encounter don’t harbor despicable views just because they don’t talk about it. Most people don’t let others know if they hold abhorrent worldviews.
Anyway, I think this is another one of those “agree to disagree” moments.
Hope all is well, Dude.
I know you’re not a Dem. When I point to the polar opposites in response to something you say, I’m referring to dems because that was the only other real option. Stein and Johnson never had a prayer, as you well know. So I’m not addressing or inferring your viewpoints. We can now proceed with that understanding, yeah?
Second: I just won’t read the NYT. I find them to be disingenuous at the least. Corrupt and liars at worst.
Third: That’s not what I meant. I have nothing but respect for anyone who’s passionate about their beliefs and will defend them vigorously. That obviously includes you. When I said “I’m out in the real world”, I meant, I’m out there collecting my own real-time data and not relying concentrated or possibly skewed polling. So, also, understand – going forward – that I don’t view you as someone who’s my enemy or someone who’s delusional or lesser than me. And sure, people I encounter may wear a mask and are only saying what I wanna hear (because I am quite the ominous presence lol). But that doesn’t negate my point that there are people from all walks of life, who are affiliated with both parties, who are horrible and harbor horrible thoughts. I just reject the notion that 25 million hard working Muricans can be put in a basket so neat and tidy-like. And if you think Hillary said the wrong thing there, then why are you trying to qualify it now?
All is always well, m’man.
I’m livin’ the dream.Fair enough. And thanks for the civility and clarification.
Again, I do think she made a huge mistake in saying it. There isn’t a defense for it, really, and I think she paid the price. Punch upward, not down. Just saying that it’s not without basis, though perhaps not with regard to the number you posit. She never quantified it, so who knows how many people she was thinking about. But you’re right. We can’t lump people into baskets like that. And someone running for the presidency should know better. Like, um, Trump with his comments about Muslims and Mexicans and retweeting neo-Nazi tweets with bogus stats about black on white crime . . .
Did I already say I despise both parties?
;>)
Billy_TParticipantI agree with pretty much all of that. Except for #4. I don’t think Trump had any desire whatsoever to destroy the GOP. He wanted to use it to get to his end goal, and despite the surface kabuki of enmity, it’s a real tell that Trump supporters elected and reelected establishment Republicans all over the country. They reelected 99% of their incumbents.
If Trump had really been this great “change agent,” with the intent to “blow shit up,” he would have told his supporters to “kick the bums out!” All of them. Instead, they voted for them in lock-step.
A repeat of the phony tea-party “uprising against the establishment.”
But, yeah. Good list from Moore.
Billy_TParticipantHa. Yeah, some of us around here have been hoping for years
that Texas would secede from the Union and become the Nation Of Texas.
And take their electoral votes with them.w
vIf Texas seceded, the quality of our K-12 education would improve dramatically. It plays a ginormous, critically negative role in text books.
“We don’t want no critical thinking down here!”
Also, remember the Alamo? PoCs likely do. Mexico had abolished slavery in 1829. When Texas conquered that territory and took it away from the Mexican government — who had taken it away from Native peoples before that — slavery was reestablished. Encoded in law again, etc. Rather than being this glorious thing — Texas “independence” — it made life horrifically worse for tens of millions.
Billy_TParticipantSome other links:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-race-idUSKCN0ZE2SW
These charts show exactly how racist and radical the alt-right has gotten this year
Thanks, Billy, but I don’t wanna do a whole bunch of homework right now. I’m out there in the real world and I speak to a lot of people on a daily basis. In North and South Carolina. I speak to liberals and conservatives, independents and libertarians, and even some people who couldn’t give a shit about politics at all. I’m not getting a lot of racial overtones out of people I speak to. And usually racists don’t care about offending anyone. They’re kind of proud of it. I’m gonna say that a great many of Trump’s supporters are just tired of being duped. I will say that many people I speak do are in agreement with his immigration policies, though. They want undocumented immigrants to leave, but they’re not opposed to them coming back legally so that they can be vetted (unrealistic) and contribute to the economy (in the form of being tax payers). Would that make them racist? Because that’s the DNC’s very stance on people who take that position.
X,
First of all, I’m not a Dem. I mentioned that before, remember? I despise both parties, and I voted for Stein.
Second: if you just dismiss an NYT article, which collected those studies, linked to them, and you refuse to look at the studies, then there’s not much point in debating this. You’ve chosen upfront not to believe something that has mountains and mountains of evidence to show it’s true. Yes, strong majorities of Trump supporters have truly odious views on race, gender, sexuality and a host of other topics, and far too many ascribe to nutjob conspiracy theories peddled by folks like Alex Jones. It really doesn’t matter to me if you refuse to accept that. It’s true whether or not you do.
Third: Not saying you’re doing this, necessarily, but whenever I hear someone on the right say “I’m out in the real world,” it’s almost always code for “Stupid liberals!! Come down from the clouds and get a real job! Be like us conservatives! Real, hard-working, independent Mericans, who don’t get help from noboddy nohow, just like Dan’l Freakin Boone!!” If that’s not your intent, please forgive the rant.
Regardless, I wouldn’t take it as gospel that the people you encounter don’t harbor despicable views just because they don’t talk about it. Most people don’t let others know if they hold abhorrent worldviews.
Anyway, I think this is another one of those “agree to disagree” moments.
Hope all is well, Dude.
Billy_TParticipantBilly_TParticipantAs for Hillary’s comment. Judging from surveys taken of GOP viewpoints on a range of subjects, including whether or not slavery should have been abolished, I think her comment was spot on as far as percentages go.
25 million people think that way?
It depends on the topic, but, yeah. Research tells us this. At least half have truly odious views on a host of things. Hell, twenty percent said Lincoln should never have freed the slaves. A quarter said Obama was the anti-Christ.
Not saying the Dems don’t have issues with certain percentages. They do. They’re just lower. And Trump’s followers were easily the most racist among the rest of the Republican field:
Measuring Donald Trump’s Supporters for Intolerance
There are hundreds of articles on the subject if you google it:Excerpt:
Exit poll data from the South Carolina primary revealed that nearly half the Republicans who turned out on Saturday wanted undocumented immigrants to be deported immediately. Donald Trump won 47 percent of those voters.
Voters were asked if they favored temporarily barring Muslims who are not citizens from entering the United States, something Mr. Trump advocates, and 74 percent said they did. He won 41 percent of that group.
. . . .
Possibly more surprising are the attitudes of Mr. Trump’s supporters on things that he has not talked very much about on the campaign trail. He has said nothing about a ban on gays in the United States, the outcome of the Civil War or white supremacy. Yet on all of these topics, Mr. Trump’s supporters appear to stand out from the rest of Republican primary voters.
. . .
According to P.P.P., 70 percent of Mr. Trump’s voters in South Carolina wish the Confederate battle flag were still flying on their statehouse grounds. (It was removed last summer less than a month after a mass shooting at a black church in Charleston.) The polling firm says that 38 percent of them wish the South had won the Civil War. Only a quarter of Mr. Rubio’s supporters share that wish, and even fewer of Mr. Kasich’s and Mr. Carson’s do.
Nationally, further analyses of the YouGov data show a similar trend: Nearly 20 percent of Mr. Trump’s voters disagreed with Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which freed slaves in the Southern states during the Civil War. Only 5 percent of Mr. Rubio’s voters share this view.
The article has links to the studies. Best viewed on the website itself.
Billy_TParticipantThis just doesn’t surprise me at all. It would actually shock me if Trump isn’t another Dubya, but worse. Neocon in foreign policy. Hard-neoliberal in economics. He doesn’t even have Dubya’s levels of “restraint” or curiosity about the world.
Billy_TParticipantX,
She at least gave one.
Trump threw hissy fits BEFORE the election was even decided, telling us he was going to take his football and go home if he didn’t win. The whiny little baby said he wouldn’t accept any result unless he won.
(The guy has the emotional age of a pre-schooler.)
So, if things had turned out a bit differently, would he have had enough class to make that speech? I kinda doubt it.
Perhaps, but I also understood what he was talking about when he said those things about the peaceful transfer of power. It was demanded of him to accept any outcome, regardless of how it came to be. Who does that? He was under no obligation to blindly accept the results if it came to pass that there was some shenanigans going on.
I do agree about his emotional development. That, and his lack of tact are the things I don’t like about him. But he started to show some restraint and maturity as the campaign went on. It wasn’t perfect, but it was improving. Gotta remember he’s not a politician. But even that (being a politician) doesn’t mean you’re somehow infused with class and tact. Remember Rubio making fun of Donald’s hands, and implying it had a correlation to his dick? Or how Hillary pandered to her elitist celebrity friends by calling half of Donald’s base (some 25+ million people) deplorables and irredeemable?
X,
I never saw anyone demand that he blindly accept the election results. I saw them asking him a simple question about a normal election result of him losing. I then saw his campaign handlers spin that into all of those caveats. Initially, it was just a very basic question about accepting the results of your standard issue election. He said no, not unless he won — which followed endless lies about the election being “rigged.”
As for Hillary’s comment. Judging from surveys taken of GOP viewpoints on a range of subjects, including whether or not slavery should have been abolished, I think her comment was spot on as far as percentages go. She just shouldn’t have said it. It wasn’t smart, and I said that to Democratic Party diehards I know, which pissed off more than a few. It’s not smart to punch down. She should have focused solely on Bannon, Breitbart, Alex Jones and the rest of the alt-right power structure/lunatic fringe — if she was going to talk about them at all. Focus on the far-right power structure in general. Punch up, not down. It may be that that particular comment helped rally Trump’s white-backlash troops even more. But, who knows?
November 9, 2016 at 4:57 pm in reply to: The thugs won; the people lost, including Trump's supporters. #57322Billy_TParticipantI have a clear conscience too. BTW Trump should have won by even more but the system is rigged.
The GOP holds a majority of the states and has passed umpteen measures designed to restrict voting by likely Dem voters, as well as those who won’t vote for either party. If the system is “rigged” for anyone, it’s rigged for Trump and the Republicans.
And, again, Trump is losing the popular vote. He’s likely to lose it by 300,000 or more.
He has zero “mandate.” He just has a ton of bluster, BS and empty promises.
Bnw, I guarantee you’re going to be one very disappointed supporter in the not too distant future. Kinda like many an Obama supporter in 2009 who thought he’d govern as a “progressive,” and watched him do that from the center-right instead.
Perhaps though I’ll never be as disappointed as you.
I didn’t support either candidate from the duopoly, bnw. I voted for Jill Stein, as I did in 2012. I was waaaay beyond “disappointed” long before this election. Disappointed that America is insane enough to want either party in charge.
You chose to back the Republican party, as did your fellow Trump voters. It’s not being remotely “anti-establishment” to vote for every GOP candidate and send 99% of your incumbents back to DC.
As is always the case with each new iteration of right-wing “populism,” your side of the aisle just solidifies and strengthens the existing power structure, with cosmetic changes at the top. If you and your fellow Trumpsters had really wanted to “drain the swamp” or “throw a brick through the window” of the establishment, you wouldn’t have cast a single vote for those incumbents.
Billy_TParticipantI think both candidates had acceptance and concession speeches already prepared before the election was called. She was probably too emotional early this morning to do anything but make the phone call to trump.
Could be. I just really didn’t buy it while I was hearing it.
But then again, maybe I’m just too biased.X,
She at least gave one.
Trump threw hissy fits BEFORE the election was even decided, telling us he was going to take his football and go home if he didn’t win. The whiny little baby said he wouldn’t accept any result unless he won.
(The guy has the emotional age of a pre-schooler.)
So, if things had turned out a bit differently, would he have had enough class to make that speech? I kinda doubt it.
Billy_TParticipantThis is going to change a lot in the next two weeks or so. Vote totals usually do. But this looks like it’s the latest:
Clinton: 59,739,748 votes (47.7%)
Trump: 59,520,091 votes (47.5%)Neither candidate has majority support, and Clinton has more total votes than Trump.
Also, neither, at least so far, has even reached Romney’s losing totals for 2012. And after four more years of additional population, that shouldn’t be the case.
Obama: 65,915,795 Romney: 60,933,504
Both Trump and Clinton had high negatives which would depress vote totals. (My apology to zn for only answering with a one-liner that was to the point.)
Now you’re talking, bnw. Both Trump and Clinton have high negatives. Record-setting high negatives. Remember, it wasn’t until Republicans decided to tally around him that he could come anywhere close to even a plurality of support. He didn’t have it in the GOP nomination period, ever. He could only manage pluralities among Republicans then, which obviously means no majorities nationwide.
Plus, overwhelming numbers of blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, Jews and Muslims voted against him. Again, the numbers will change a bit over the course of the next few weeks, but it looks like Trump couldn’t crack 30% with any minority, and he got roughly just 11% of the black vote. His support isn’t widespread. But he got the turnout from his own white-backlash base he needed to win the EVs, but not the popular vote.
Billy_TParticipantMy guess is few people here will go out of their way to see it, but I think you should. Just watched it and it surprised me.
For most of this campaign, when I tuned in to see her, I found her to be rather wooden, with her shields up, mostly incapable of connecting on a human level with her audience. Too wonky, etc. Not really all that comfortable in her own skin, etc.
But this speech, which may be her last in public? She did connect. The crowd seemed to be really moved. Her tone was just right, IMO, and her words were gracious and, at least relative to her political peers, “classy.” If Clinton had been like this from the start, I think we might have had a different election result.
I heard it on the radio, and that was ultimately my medium of choice. I don’t even like to look at her, because she oozes condescension and elitism in her facial expressions. I imagine it was different this time if she has truly been humbled. It sounded good though. It sounded inspirational. But it also sounded very scripted, and it seems to me that’s the very reason she didn’t address her supporters last night. Nothing to say from her heart, so someone whipped up a speech for her to use the next day in order to manufacture some feelings. I don’t think she cares one iota about the people she claims to “love”.
Just being honest. I trust that’s what you were looking for.
X,
Thanks. Of course, honesty, definitely. I think if you watched her, and saw the crowd, you’d think she was finally letting down her guard and speaking from the gut — at least as much as she’s capable of doing this.
As for caring or not caring about people. That’s obviously going to be in the eyes of the beholder. I think public policies matter a hell of a lot more than that, and her public policy ideas are better than Trump’s or the GOP’s. No where near good enough. Not by light years. But better.
Do you think Trump really gives a damn about anyone but himself? I don’t. I’ve never seen a single indication that he does. He has no history of demonstrating any “love” for others, and a ton of evidence shows he’s only in this for himself and no one else.
So it boils down to a choice between two con-artists in a sense, neither of whom likely gives a shit about us. But who has the better public policy ideas? Trump gave us silly, kindergarten-level slogans, not actual policy, so it’s hard to say. But we know where the GOP stands on the issues, and their policies are pure D poison for us and the planet. The Dems are no great shakes either, as mentioned. They fall waaaaay short. But the GOP is aggressively against workers, consumers and citizens in general, and especially the environment.
It’s a choice between a broken arm and an amputation, in my view.
Billy_TParticipant“”””My guess is few people here will go out of their way to see it, but I think you should. Just watched it and it surprised me.
For most of this campaign, when I tuned in to see her, I found her to be rather wooden, with her shields up, mostly incapable of connecting on a human level with her audience. Too wonky, etc. Not really all that comfortable in her own skin, etc.
But this speech, which may be her last in public? She did connect. The crowd seemed to be really moved. Her tone was just right, IMO, and her words were gracious and, at least relative to her political peers, “classy.” If Clinton had been like this from the start, I think we might have had a different election result.”””
Many thought the same thing on Gore’s concession speech in 2000.
————–
I have a personal pet-peeve. I keep hearing over and over that Hillary Clinton is a “policy WONK”. Shes virtually ALWAYS painted as a real intellectual wonk.I dont see her that way at all. I see her as someone cultivating that particular image, and then more subtly cultivating an image of a “policy wonk who is trying hard to be more than that”.
I dont consider her an intellectual. I consider her a privileged, ambitious, politician who has access to a gazillion think-tanks full of pollsters, number-crunchers, propagandists, media experts, fashion consultants, and campaign co-ordinators.
I think she’s more of a ‘figurehead’ than a ‘Bill Walsh type’ in other words.
Just my opinion.
w
vWV,
I don’t consider her an intellectual, either. Generally speaking, I don’t think “wonky” equates to that. A person who knows a ton about plastic model cars, for instance, and can spout tons of stats about make, model, year, etc. etc. can sound really “wonky,” but wouldn’t really rate as an “intellectual.” Of course, they might be that too. But the ability to relay stats, even esoterica, about this or that, isn’t a sign, IMO.
So I separate surface expertise from being an actual intellectual. That goes much, much deeper. That said, behind the scenes, away from the public, she very well might be too. I really have no idea. But I’ve never associated policy wonkery with that.
Just sayin’.
Billy_TParticipantThis is going to change a lot in the next two weeks or so. Vote totals usually do. But this looks like it’s the latest:
Clinton: 59,739,748 votes (47.7%)
Trump: 59,520,091 votes (47.5%)Neither candidate has majority support, and Clinton has more total votes than Trump.
Also, neither, at least so far, has even reached Romney’s losing totals for 2012. And after four more years of additional population, that shouldn’t be the case.
Obama: 65,915,795 Romney: 60,933,504
-
This reply was modified 8 years ago by
-
AuthorPosts
