I like Jon Oliver but that was so over the top it was tough to make it through.
Oliver's shtick has long since ceased to be entertaining or enlightening. It's not worth anyone's time.
Give me a lot more Chappelle and zero Oliver, and I'm really good.
Yeah that makes sense, if that one issue is all that matters. If it does, then fine, go ahead and vote for him. A single-issue vote counts just like the rest of 'em, as it should.
But it does seem a little loopy, and his laughable and remarkably coincidental conversion to Christianity can only believed by the most gullible among us.
No, but Pence is a conservative christian. I don't think anyone actually believes trump is a Christian; they just think he'll appoint a supreme court justice that is more favorable for the anti-abortion movement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
Again, that's fair, if they actually believe it. But who the hell would? He has his own name-branded goods manufactured in China. He sends his own manufacturing jobs overseas and then rails against others who do the same.
Voting for this guy thinking he shares your Evangelical Christian beliefs and is concerned about manufacturing jobs for "the little guy" is to ignore what he has said and done for decades.
If I were an Evangelical Christian or an unemployed coal miner, of course I'd vote for someone who shares my beliefs and/or was going to get me my job back, despite their other flaws.
I just don't see how anyone can believe he shares those beliefs or cares about getting that job back. He has proudly been the exact opposite of a devout Christian and an enemy of the working class for his entire life.
Not to start this argument again, that's where the "these people are dumb" sentiment comes from.
It's not nice to say, not helpful, and apparently counterproductive, but if I vote for someone who blatantly mocks my most sacred beliefs and doesn't care about me or my job, then I'm pretty goddamned dumb too.
Cognitive biases are more powerful than you realize. It's dumb vs human. Cognitive biases cause really smart people to believe some really dumb things; In fact, the smarter you are, the more likely your going to believe something really dumb as you are able to make excuses for almost any position.
And in the case of voting for Trump, he spoke to these people, showed he understood their difficulties, and said he'd fix it. Hillary made excuses for it. So it was voting for a man who might do things to help vs voting for a woman that clearly wasn't going to and took them for granted. Even if trump doesn't help them at all, they are mostly in the same spot with one exception. Next election, candidates are going to pay attention to the rust belt because its now a battleground.
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Actually, it's radicals on the left who have turned away from MLK's approach to combating racism. They've turned their backs on aspiring to a colour-blind society.
You won't win over those racists you're talking about. But you need to win the fight for liberals. People who aren't racist but who also don't get hysterical over sombreros. Racists are against Black Lives Matter. But a lot of people who aren't racist have a problem with them kicking out police from a gay pride parade. Telling them to shut their mouths only drives them away.
People who aspire to a color-blind, individualistic society that values free speech and open exchange of ideas are being alienated from the left. You can condemn racism while still trying to stem the flow of liberals out of your camp. And most importantly, you can recognize how shutting out debate on a whole range of issues is alienating more and more people. Or you are going to continue losing pro-choice, educated, irrelgious, pro-gay marriage voters who have decided they'll join the camp that tells them to shut up less often. The one that feels less like a religious movement.
Here's a quote from the comments of the video I posted. It's sad that you find more pointed commentary about the state of politics today on a frickin' Youtube comment than you do in the mainstream media.
While I agree with the idea, this has very little to do with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill and Wall Street and the elite, which was the actual situation this election. This is shoehorning an explanatory narrative of yours onto a situation where it doesn't fit.
Perhaps if the Bernie crowd were the ones in control of the Democratic Party you'd have a point, but they're also being duped.
Identity politics, while an interesting topic sometimes, is not the story of this election. Nor is it the narrative/driving force behind Brexit and other similar movements. These movements are about economics and leaving behind a large swath of the population in the wake of globalization.
It's been pointed out many times that many Obama supporters in the Rustbelt switched to the Republicans: not for cultural reasons, but for economic reasons. They didn't vote for Trump because they're mad at the liberals for regressive leftism, they did it because the elite wing of the Democratic party is perceived as ignoring their economic needs. And Trump was the Molotov Cocktail at the dinner party.
Last edited by AltaGuy; 11-15-2016 at 08:07 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AltaGuy For This Useful Post:
Rust belt voters are going to be used for many elections to come because it's unlikely anyone will actually be able to deliver them jobs and hope, but that won't stop both parties from pretending like they will. Maybe Bernie would have, but with a GOP Congress and Senate probably nothing happens. But the Dems will be in prime position to win most of them back in 2020 when Trump delivers them nothing. If the Dems can get their house in order that is.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
While I agree with the idea, this has very little to do with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill and Wall Street and the elite, which was the actual situation this election. This is shoehorning an explanatory narrative of yours onto a situation where it doesn't fit.
Perhaps if the Bernie crowd were the ones in control of the Democratic Party you'd have a point, but they're also being duped.
Identity politics, while an interesting topic sometimes, is not the story of this election. Nor is it the narrative/driving force behind Brexit and other similar movements. These movements are about economics and leaving behind a large swath of the population in the wake of globalization.
It's been pointed out many times that many Obama supporters in the Rustbelt switched to the Republicans: not for cultural reasons, but for economic reasons. They didn't vote for Trump because they're mad at the liberals for regressive leftism, they did it because the elite wing of the Democratic party is perceived as ignoring their economic needs. And Trump was the Molotov Cocktail at the dinner party.
If anything, Clinton is a lot less interested in identity politics than a lot of her supporters. However, I think that the way parts of the mainstream media used identity politics to portray everyone that voted for Trump as stupid, sexist, racist, etc contributed to some of these people deciding that now was the time to throw a wrench in the system instead of in 4 years when someone better came along.
But they definitely voted against regressive leftists and for immigration reform. Immigration was a huge part of Trump's campaign and he said he would keep out the Islamists and Illegals, and liberals defending Muslims who share none of their core values against rational criticisms is what the term regressive left was coined for.
Edit:
Without the resentment built by decades of identity politics (including religious identity as used by the republican elites), there's a very real chance that republicans would have elected someone more level headed in the primaries. This person may not have been any better, but Trump has a lot of people that voted for him because 'he says what he thinks'. Only for a politician can this be an admirable thing and even then, it's only admirable when politicians repeatedly say the right things and then completely ignore them once elected. So while I agree that a deliberate protest against identity politics isn't the reason for trumps election, I think that it's usage over the past decades by republican candidates was a huge part of why people were willing to vote for him vs someone who was more level headed in the primaries
Yeah NY Mayor said that they'd wouldn't give up the info to Trump or may even delete their database that contains info on undocumented immigrants that have a city ID card.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
company banned cubicle christmas decorations this year
What do I say when someone says Merry Christmas?
When someone says "Merry Christmas", I say, "Oh, thanks, Merry Christmas to you too!" When someone says "Happy holidays", I say "Oh, thanks, you too!" When someone says, "Happy New Year!", I say, "Oh, thanks, you too!"
She played the numbers and tried fighting in battlegrounds where she thought she could make up ground. She ended up losing a pile of states she was expected to win, it's not like it was a personal vendetta against Wisconsin.
At no point did I try to suggest it was any kind of vendetta. Playing the numbers and focusing on key, swing areas, is how politicking works.
But if you completely and blatantly ignore a group and take them for granted, sooner or later they will turn their back on you.
Actually, it's radicals on the left who have turned away from MLK's approach to combating racism. They've turned their backs on aspiring to a colour-blind society.
You won't win over those racists you're talking about. But you need to win the fight for liberals. People who aren't racist but who also don't get hysterical over sombreros. Racists are against Black Lives Matter. But a lot of people who aren't racist have a problem with them kicking out police from a gay pride parade. Telling them to shut their mouths only drives them away.
People who aspire to a color-blind, individualistic society that values free speech and open exchange of ideas are being alienated from the left. You can condemn racism while still trying to stem the flow of liberals out of your camp. And most importantly, you can recognize how shutting out debate on a whole range of issues is alienating more and more people. Or you are going to continue losing pro-choice, educated, irrelgious, pro-gay marriage voters who have decided they'll join the camp that tells them to shut up less often. The one that feels less like a religious movement.
Here's a quote from the comments of the video I posted. It's sad that you find more pointed commentary about the state of politics today on a frickin' Youtube comment than you do in the mainstream media.
Good post Cliff, but didn't you just do what you guys are complaining about? You just stated that the radical left is responsible for the negative behaviors, and then lumped any liberal in the same boat, regardless of the behaviors displayed. The vast majority of liberals don't ascribe to that stuff. Frankly, there are posters in this thread that are damning liberals and using the same tactics they claim to be against. I hate the PC garbage that is being forced upon us by the radical left, but there are elements on this board that demand as much so they can attack their targets without reprisal. Is that really the free exchange of ideas you're interested in, or should we find the middle ground of the extremes and just have an open discussion free of the PC garbage?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Clinton likely did not consider challenging the advice about the rust belt because she exemplifies the wrong turn the Democratic partyade when they sold out their union base in favour of banking, business and intellectual elites.
There is certainly an argument to be made about "why" the party shifted like that (money. You need money to run a campaign) but ultimately that is the hat happened. Organized labour have seen their numbers and influence decline drastically and it coincides largely with the association of the Clintons with dnc leadership. Obviously the decline was initiated earlier than their arrival but the Clintons have never viewed organized labour as particularly significant or important and it certainly isn't sexy.
The effectiveness of COINTELPRO is a huge player in tbis but so is plain old political greed.
It was Hillary's time to be president and she leveraged every single glad hand, donation and smoky backroom handshake to get herself there, with the average American now forced to pick up the political tab.
Good post Cliff, but didn't you just do what you guys are complaining about? You just stated that the radical left is responsible for the negative behaviors, and then lumped any liberal in the same boat, regardless of the behaviors displayed. The vast majority of liberals don't ascribe to that stuff. Frankly, there are posters in this thread that are damning liberals and using the same tactics they claim to be against. I hate the PC garbage that is being forced upon us by the radical left, but there are elements on this board that demand as much so they can attack their targets without reprisal. Is that really the free exchange of ideas you're interested in, or should we find the middle ground of the extremes and just have an open discussion free of the PC garbage?
This is precisely what I pointed out you were doing on the right. And you completely missed the point due to your anger and hatred.
Step back and take a bit of your own advice.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
This is a pretty good thread (I won't post every tweet) from someone who spent a lot of time on the ground during the election, but not initially covering the election. Maybe showcases the "hidden" Trump voter.
Quote:
Chris Arnade@Chris_arnade
1. The map of counties in US that shifted to Trump, from Romney, is almost an exact map of the counties having increases in drug overdoses
Quote:
Chris Arnade @Chris_arnade 13h13 hours ago
2. That isn't just a coincidence. I "fell into" writing about Trump because I was documenting addiction & saw him resonating wherever I went
Quote:
Chris Arnade @Chris_arnade 13h13 hours ago
3. What I said about drugs then I can say about Trump now. Wherever I see hope exiting, I see Trump/drugs entering.
Quote:
Chris Arnade @Chris_arnade 13h13 hours ago
6. Drugs give people who feel outcast an identity. Drug use is very social activity, allowing people to join group that doesn't judge them
Quote:
Chris Arnade @Chris_arnade 13h13 hours ago
7. The same is true of racial identity politics. Especially Trumps campaign, which is very social, and welcomes and celebrates "outcasts"
Good post Cliff, but didn't you just do what you guys are complaining about? You just stated that the radical left is responsible for the negative behaviors, and then lumped any liberal in the same boat, regardless of the behaviors displayed. The vast majority of liberals don't ascribe to that stuff. Frankly, there are posters in this thread that are damning liberals and using the same tactics they claim to be against. I hate the PC garbage that is being forced upon us by the radical left, but there are elements on this board that demand as much so they can attack their targets without reprisal. Is that really the free exchange of ideas you're interested in, or should we find the middle ground of the extremes and just have an open discussion free of the PC garbage?
I am a liberal, though these days I have to qualify that with 'in the traditional sense,' since liberal has come to mean something fundamentally different in the last 10 years or so. And I'm all for giving anyone the opportunity to express their views and challenge mine. Nothing beats an open and free-wheeling debate. That's how we make progress. Where I draw the line is efforts to silence or suppress discourse - which is what check your privilege, no platforming, and blanket accusations of bigotry are. That isn't just a different opinion, that's a threat to the foundations of liberal democracy. I get my back up when the right tries to suppress speech, and when the left tries to. Sadly, in the last few years years I've encountered the latter far more than the former. And I'm not alone.
So more people on the centre-left need to speak up about the suppression of liberal ideals by the regressive left. The radicals get a free pass from a compliant academia, media, and liberal mainstream politicians for a variety of reasons. Guilt. Cowardice. The belief that the radicals on your side somehow counter the radicals on the other. Simple partisanship. But liberals need to recognize they're losing more than they're gaining by letting the rhetoric and tactics of the radicals go unchallenged. They're risking alienating genuine liberals, and losing the centre.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
