PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[Lanny_McDonald]

What do people think of the Safety Pin campaign? I've seen this and wondered to myself about its efficacy in sending a message. This response kind of nailed some of my thoughts on it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b02b1f5257a36a

[taco.vidal]

Originally Posted by New Era

What do people think of the Safety Pin campaign? I've seen this and wondered to myself about its efficacy in sending a message. This response kind of nailed some of my thoughts on it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b02b1f5257a36a

Way to lump in all white people into one group. Similar to all Mexicans being rapists or all Muslims being terrorists.

[2Stonedbirds]

I think the Huffington Post is tearing itself apart at the seams trying to figure out how they could've been so hoodwinked by the DNC yet remain completely oblivious to the pulse of the general population. Now they are in full on damage control, as Im sure "there is still hope" is the message they have been instructed to relay.

A great portion of those evil racist white people that elected for Trump put Obama in power for two terms. He couldn't have gained power without white votes. But now all the whites are racist? Derp ok.

Huffington Post can take the race baiting, demographic blaming page they were handed from the DNCs playbook and shove it straight up their ass.

Hillary didn't lose the race because racism. She lost because the people rejected the Democratic Party.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

I think the Huffington Post is tearing itself apart at the seams trying to figure out how they could've been so hoodwinked by the DNC yet remain completely oblivious to the pulse of the general population. Now they are in full on damage control, as Im sure "there is still hope" is the message they have been instructed to relay.

A great portion of those evil racist white people that elected for Trump put Obama in power for two terms. He couldn't have gained power without white votes. But now all the whites are racist? Derp ok.

Huffington Post can take the race baiting, demographic blaming page they were handed from the DNCs playbook and shove it straight up their ass.

I don't disagree with the site, I was curious about the issue. I've seen a few people wearing safety pins on their shirts/lapels and was wondering what other people thought? What about the issue that they are trying to bring awareness to? To me it is a hollow gesture.

One more thing, this Safety Pin campaign was not started as a response to Trump. It was started as a response to Brexit and the racism displayed after the vote. It was adopted in the US to counter Trump's racism. I also don't see it as casting all white people in one group.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Hillary didn't lose the race because racism. She lost because the people rejected the Democratic Party.

Eh, there are lots of things that could be considered decisive. I mean, if you simply eliminated the ballot of every racist who voted, she would have won.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Eh, there are lots of things that could be considered decisive. I mean, if you simply eliminated the ballot of every racist who voted, she would have won.

There is no one reason why Clinton lost or Trump won. You could argue that the thing that won this election was low information voters making uniformed decisions at the ballot box, and that would be the most accurate assessment possible. Or you could argue that disenfranchised Bernie voters elected Trump. Both are great reasons but not the only reason that the election was lost or won. This particular election will be studied and argued over for decades to come. I don't think we'll ever come to a conclusion as to how it was won or lost.

[2Stonedbirds]

I think in their panic that stems from the complete state of disarray they are in, that they will take any show of solidarity, no matter how innocuous, and attempt to turn it into an issue of race/class when that was clearly never the intent. The issue here isnt about safety pins, its about a party sponsored news outlet festering public dissent over easily identifiable markings where dissent currently doesn't exist. It's incitement disguised as an opinion piece.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by New Era

There is no one reason why Clinton lost or Trump won. You could argue that the thing that won this election was low information voters making uniformed decisions at the ballot box, and that would be the most accurate assessment possible. Or you could argue that disenfranchised Bernie voters elected Trump. Both are great reasons but not the only reason that the election was lost or won. This particular election will be studied and argued over for decades to come. I don't think we'll ever come to a conclusion as to how it was won or lost.

I read that in some states, more people showed up to the polls and voted on referendum issues than voted for the president. That means a lot of people voted, but just not for a presidential candidate. This may have been the difference in a few states like Michigan, which was decided by 11,000 votes and the referendum issue voting suggests that a lot of the people who didn't choose were liking left leaning.

The Dems failed to inspire anyone and I think it reflected turnout. Conservatives/Republicans tend to benefit from lower turnouts. The lack of African American voting likely made a huge difference. Not just the ID issues, but that their wait times tend to be longer. It's one thing to take an hour off of work to vote, but when you have to wait a long time, some people just don't have time for that.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Eh, there are lots of things that could be considered decisive. I mean, if you simply eliminated the ballot of every racist who voted, she would have won.

If she also enjoyed the level of support from the black community that Obama had she would have won. I also think a great number of Dems stayed home because they had news outlets like huffpo telling everyone its a foregone conclusion, 99% and all that lead up to that, and simply stayed home. In the ensuing shell shock, the complicated answer of boiling down a demographic to achieve the outcome that had been touted throughout the campaign, ie "its all racism folks, polls are lopsided, it will be rejected" is what we get, when the issue is the Dems simply didn't energize their base. "Polls are for dogs." The failure is on them. Would Bernie have proven to overpower the racism? Or would he have been the voice Americans were seeking that would've retained power for the Dems and then racism wouldn't be what we are talking about today?

[CliffFletcher]

Democrats have a substantially lower voter turnout than Republicans in mid-term elections. Basically, their voter base is less committed and less engaged than the Republicans. Whatever demographic trends they have in their favour are pretty much cancelled out by their lower turnout. They can't count on an Obama-type boost every election.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Democrats have a substantially lower voter turnout than Republicans in mid-term elections. Basically, their voter base is less committed and less engaged than the Republicans. Whatever demographic trends they have in their favour are pretty much cancelled out by their lower turnout. They can't count on an Obama-type boost every election.

There's the election in a nutshell. Bernie had amazing support from ordinary people, the same type of ordinary people who voted for Trump. They don't have millions in campaign donations, they maybe have a few bucks and a vote. That's what this election was about.

Another Clinton wasn't enough to rally the troops, despite what all the polls and news agencies claimed.

[jayswin]

It may be silly on part, but I honestly wonder how much the success of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart combined and the shows that tried to replicate it, along with Bill Maher have had an effect on getting to this point?

Imo, these shows, especially the Daily Show, created (or heightened) a bit of a culture amongst American liberals and casual political followers of "beating down" anything/anyone that is perceived to be wrong. And as is the case with all these shows, the "wrong" is constantly Republicans.

Combine that with the rise of social media and all of a sudden everyone was a Jon Stewart online.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

There's the election in a nutshell. Bernie had amazing support from ordinary people, the same type of ordinary people who voted for Trump. They don't have millions in campaign donations, they maybe have a few bucks and a vote. That's what this election was about.

Another Clinton wasn't enough to rally the troops, despite what all the polls and news agencies claimed.

So, does that mean the Democrats learn something from this election and run someone that will appeal to the common man? I can't help but think that Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker would completely fire up the Democratic base and reach a lot of disenfranchised moderate Republicans. Kamala Harris would be an outstanding pick as well, but I think she needs more seasoning.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by jayswin

It may be silly on part, but I honestly wonder how much the success of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart combined and the shows that tried to replicate it, along with Bill Maher have had an effect on getting to this point?

Imo, these shows, especially the Daily Show, created (or heightened) a bit of a culture amongst American liberals and casual political followers of "beating down" anything/anyone that is perceived to be wrong. And as is the case with all these shows, the "wrong" is constantly Republicans.

Combine that with the rise of social media and all of a sudden everyone was a Jon Stewart online.

I think the problem is that with social media everyone is insulating themselves from information they don't want to see or hear. I've read several articles that indicate the number one source of information for most voters in this election cycle was driven by Facebook. Of course Facebook is not the primary source of information, but what it does is allow the shaping of information that hits you and your circle of friends. Small bubbles of information were created and limited what information people saw. I believe that this had a greater impact on this cycle than any other media issue.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

The problem that people who were/are anti-Trump is that if you belittle and ostracize everyone who supported Trump...you drive more energy into their efforts. Its counter productive.

Listen, engage, try to convince people with reasonable perspective...frothy rage and insults that ostracize others WON'T HELP

Also, I think that the only reasonable way of ditching Trump is funding and supporting legal efforts that could lead to impeachment (Trump U, sexual assault trials)...THOSE are realistic opportunities to change things.

Protesting the electoral college AFTER the result is foolish (everyone knew that this outcome of was possible) and yelling about Trump's personal issues is a waste of time (It's been said people).

Dumb ass tactics, IMHO

This might be the best post in the thread.

[GirlySports]

if the democrats keep blaming the FBI and the voters they will not get anywhere.

Two DNC leaders fired during the campaign tells you everything.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by photon

From Trump's transition website:

All media must apply for new press credentials.

https://www.greatagain.gov/news/press-information.html

I've been trying to figure out if that's typical or not without much luck.

This should surprise no one.

The election results show a huge distrust of the average joe when it comes to the media. Previously spoken about in the thread are "news" outlets that became the "newsiness" equivalent of Colbert's "truthiness". They stopped being journalists and became entertainers, or biased moles.

Yeah, i'd say that all press have to apply for new credentials. And if you don't want to be a journalist, then step aside and let someone else who wants to report the news take your spot. Go be a blogger.

[photon]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Another Clinton wasn't enough to rally the troops, despite what all the polls and news agencies claimed.

Clinton has more votes than any presidential candidate other than Obama, ever. It's more about the distribution of votes than the number of votes. Some of that are people in the Midwest that voted for Obama based on his change message, and those people voted for Trump's change message.

Some of it was Trump's appeal to a group of voters that usually doesn't get out and vote like they did because they usually don't have a voice for their, uh, ideas.

[GirlySports]

the population has grown

and Dubya got 62 million votes in 2004

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

Way to lump in all white people into one group. Similar to all Mexicans being rapists or all Muslims being terrorists.

Oh geez, do you need a safe space?

All Mexicans are rapists, all Muslims are terrorists, and white people elected Trump. Yep, it's all the same.