-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 22, 2019, 05:49:48 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Carnival Of Sound
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Politics: 2016 Lame Duck and 2017 New Administration
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 32   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Politics: 2016 Lame Duck and 2017 New Administration  (Read 102075 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2451


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #100 on: November 29, 2016, 12:45:46 PM »

Now THAT is an absurd analogy. The story admits it is hypothetical, and goes on to say IF certain hypothetical scenarios played out a certain way (based on the third party candidates' own guesses and positioning, not on facts), THEN it could be true that the race would've turned out otherwise. Which is so obvious asbto not require even being stated. But so are literally countless other hypothetical but counter factual scenarios, as I outlined earlier.

In no way is that remotely similar to a climate change denier rejecting overwhelming evidence.

The story uses none of those words. No speculative, no hypothetical. What is absurd is your determination to argue about anything and everything! Your own actions in voting Clinton contradict your own speculation.

Seems you'd rather argue about this than address the recount question as it adds to the perception that Stein now feels a responsibility for helping elect Trump.
Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #101 on: November 29, 2016, 01:04:49 PM »

The story admits it is speculative.

Quote
It's impossible to know how an election could have gone under hypothetical scenarios ... If Johnson and Stein weren't in the race, it's also possible many of their supporters may have stayed home. But if about half of Johnson's supporters would have voted for Clinton over Trump, and if most of Stein's supporters broke for the Democrats, the electoral map would have been decidedly different.



I do like to debate, that's true. But I think you're mistaken about the article: the part I quoted (and re-quoted here for convenience) most certainly says "hypothetical," and then lays out a hypothetical outcome. Maybe I'm fucking up somewhere, as I am semi-sneakily doing all this on my phone at work...

I'll dig in more later. Because it's fun.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #102 on: November 29, 2016, 02:18:49 PM »

Now THAT is an absurd analogy. The story admits it is hypothetical, and goes on to say IF certain hypothetical scenarios played out a certain way (based on the third party candidates' own guesses and positioning, not on facts), THEN it could be true that the race would've turned out otherwise. Which is so obvious asbto not require even being stated. But so are literally countless other hypothetical but counter factual scenarios, as I outlined earlier.

In no way is that remotely similar to a climate change denier rejecting overwhelming evidence.

The story uses none of those words. No speculative, no hypothetical. What is absurd is your determination to argue about anything and everything! Your own actions in voting Clinton contradict your own speculation.

Seems you'd rather argue about this than address the recount question as it adds to the perception that Stein now feels a responsibility for helping elect Trump.

That may be the perception, but even if Stein felt that way she would be wrong since thus far no evidence suggests that she did help elect Trump. Personally, I think that she is active on this issue because she was the one candidate who actively tried to do the right thing, rather than serve the interests of others.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2016, 02:49:36 PM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #103 on: November 29, 2016, 02:54:31 PM »

I must also say, again, that I find this discussion particularly unfortunate in light of the fact that in 2008, Clinton supporters were adamant  about not supporting Obama. Indeed, in one poll 38% of Clinton supporters said they would vote for McCain over Obama. The fact that the conversation in 2016 became about how Bernie Sanders supporters and indeed Sanders himself were not quick enough to throw their support behind Clinton, then about how Stein supporters should be voting for Clinton is simply textbook hypocrisy and the gall that has been shown on this issue is off the charts. But there is a particular characteristic amongst Clinton supporters, and I can't say it's a good one, where the sentiment seems to be that she should simply be unopposed. But I find the argument very unconvincing and, also, obscenely hypocritical.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #104 on: November 29, 2016, 03:04:16 PM »

The story admits it is speculative.

Quote
It's impossible to know how an election could have gone under hypothetical scenarios ... If Johnson and Stein weren't in the race, it's also possible many of their supporters may have stayed home. But if about half of Johnson's supporters would have voted for Clinton over Trump, and if most of Stein's supporters broke for the Democrats, the electoral map would have been decidedly different.



I do like to debate, that's true. But I think you're mistaken about the article: the part I quoted (and re-quoted here for convenience) most certainly says "hypothetical," and then lays out a hypothetical outcome. Maybe I'm fucking up somewhere, as I am semi-sneakily doing all this on my phone at work...

I'll dig in more later. Because it's fun.

ORR, I was not mistaken. I correctly quoted the article. Paragraph four is where my quote (requoted above) begins. Note: hypothetical. Then it goes on to do exactly as I said, which was lay out a counterfactual outcome that could have been different if Stein AND Johnson voters had voted according to those candidates' speculation, polling, or messaging. However, their logic was this to assign those votes to Clinton:
  • Johnson said he believed his supporters would draw equally from Trump and Clinton.
  • The article said Stein "made a constant, explicit appeal to disenchanted Democrats and former supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders"

From those two debatable "facts," it said that IF those people (half of Johnson's and all of Stein's) voters had indeed voted half and half, and for Clinton, respectively, then Clinton would have won. And I say again, well, duh. But there is no reason to believe a) those two items were necessarily true, especially the first one, and b) that they would indeed vote that way if not for Johnson and Stein, respectively. That is speculative. Which is what I said. Correctly.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #105 on: November 29, 2016, 03:05:44 PM »


Seems you'd rather argue about this than address the recount question as it adds to the perception that Stein now feels a responsibility for helping elect Trump.

The reason I don't want to argue about the perception of Stein's feelings is that I can't possibly know Stein's feelings and "the perception" begs the question "among whom?" I don't care who perceives what about someone else's feelings. But I did explain my thoughts about the recount already.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #106 on: November 29, 2016, 03:10:07 PM »

The swamp is drained just a little bit more with yet another stellar, "everyman" cabinet nomination: former Goldman Sachs partner and hedge fund manager Steven Mnuchin. Finally, someone who understands Joe Average will change the culture of that revolving door between Goldman Sachs and Washing--oh. Oh, wait. Never mind.

Trump supporters are paying attention, I hope. He sure told it like it is. Nothing but the truth, straight talk. For f***'s sake.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8141



View Profile
« Reply #107 on: November 29, 2016, 03:18:23 PM »

True that Cap... Cry
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #108 on: November 29, 2016, 03:20:08 PM »

Point being, there are sufficient subgroups of non-Clinton voters who could have given Clinton a victory except for one major problem: they were voting for someone other than Clinton, which means THEY DIDN’T WANT CLINTON. They have no obligation to help Clinton supporters get their way. Everyone has a right to vote for the candidate of his or her own choice for whatever reason s/he finds persuasive. If your persuasion attempts are too weak to convince those people, that’s not their shortcoming.

Excellent point. When the supporters of the liberal establishment aren't espousing a very odd strain of anti-democratic rhetoric, they are pointing fingers at everybody else who won't get in line. This is not particularly surprising. After all, this was a presidential candidate who privately said that the US should have flat-out undermined democracy in Palestine. And it's not surprising that the fingers are being pointed elsewhere. After all, the liberal establishment and their supporters fundamentally believe that their position is the right one. So, for them, it was inconceivable that the public didn't support Clinton because she was a bad candidate. And so a bunch of other reasons have to be invented. And, as you point out, this reasons are almost comically unending. Here's one that blames it on Jon Stewart retiring:

http://tvline.com/2016/11/11/hillary-clinton-elected-president-jon-stewart-daily-show/

And furthermore, one could ask Clinton supporters why they didn't apply this same standard to themselves when she was running up against Obama in 2008?
My reasons for supporting Clinton are:
1. Not Trump.
2. The fake-scandal machine is sick and should be eradicated. I don't think she would be able to do anything about it, but the notion of a victory for the fake-scandal machine is about as negative to me as a victory for Trump. They are two sides of the same misinformation coin.
3. I think the situation of women in our culture one generation down the road would be greatly improved by the simple fact of having had a woman president.
4.  Pragmatism and not being particularly impressed that Sanders or Stein had a chance or would be effective. Johnson wasn't an option for me.

Reason 4 is not a reason to have an issue with anyone who supported Stein, Johnson or Sanders. Reason 2 isn't either, if I felt that Stein, Johnson and Sanders and their supporters were making sufficient effort to combat the fake scandals and news. It's not purely Clinton, of course. It's Obama too. And it would have been them had they gained a major party nomination or sufficient support to be competitive. It's the way the right has been operating for years, but it has now involved sufficient portions of the population that not only congressional and local and state seats, but the presidency, has been affected by it. I don't know how much time you guys spend looking at right-wing non-traditional media, but it's extreme, it's dangerous, it's a false reality, and it's popular. My understanding is that you believe this is an understandable choice by people disaffected by the economy or by government, but on that basis, the votes should have been somewhat even across ethnicities, unless one believes that only white people are disaffected by the economy or government.
I find it impossible to believe that the right-wing political-media machine is not affecting elections based on complete falsity. And maybe you guys are young, but that is not a usual circumstance. It's a new and extremely dangerous circumstance. So, to the degree that I haven't seen Sanders/Stein/Johnson supporters object vociferously and urgently to this facet of the campaign, and to the degree that I've actually seen them further it, either out of ignorance or opportunism, I'm pretty disturbed and put off by the "left" options.
For the first reason, I'm disappointed in anyone who didn't consider that a primary imperative.

CSM, what did you mean by the very last line of the quoted post? - oh - I missed your post that furthered that thought. I agree that the not-getting-behind-Obama was problematic. However, that ignores the Trump is singularly awful dimension.  And, while Clinton supporters engaged in that, Clinton herself certainly did not.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2016, 03:24:29 PM by Emily » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #109 on: November 29, 2016, 03:37:36 PM »

The fake news thing is a real, huge, and terrifying development. There have always been lies spread through elections, but in my younger days you'd hear about things like flyers being placed on cars outside of churches in South Carolina. I mean, they were smear campaigns, for sure, but they had a hard time disseminating them so broadly because that was expensive. The internet has lowered the bar for entry so much, and the incessant attack on real media has turned opinion to a false equivalence: "it's all slanted for or against one team or the other, so it's all the same. I pick this one."
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #110 on: November 29, 2016, 03:51:57 PM »

Regarding "blame", it's a pointless exercise, but of course everyone who was eligible and did not vote for Clinton in the states she lost, and everyone who did vote for Trump in those states, is responsible for the outcome.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #111 on: November 29, 2016, 03:57:09 PM »

My reasons for supporting Clinton are:
1. Not Trump.
2. The fake-scandal machine is sick and should be eradicated. I don't think she would be able to do anything about it, but the notion of a victory for the fake-scandal machine is about as negative to me as a victory for Trump. They are two sides of the same misinformation coin.
3. I think the situation of women in our culture one generation down the road would be greatly improved by the simple fact of having had a woman president.
4.  Pragmatism and not being particularly impressed that Sanders or Stein had a chance or would be effective. Johnson wasn't an option for me.

Reason 4 is not a reason to have an issue with anyone who supported Stein, Johnson or Sanders. Reason 2 isn't either, if I felt that Stein, Johnson and Sanders and their supporters were making sufficient effort to combat the fake scandals and news. It's not purely Clinton, of course. It's Obama too. And it would have been them had they gained a major party nomination or sufficient support to be competitive. It's the way the right has been operating for years, but it has now involved sufficient portions of the population that not only congressional and local and state seats, but the presidency, has been affected by it. I don't know how much time you guys spend looking at right-wing non-traditional media, but it's extreme, it's dangerous, it's a false reality, and it's popular. My understanding is that you believe this is an understandable choice by people disaffected by the economy or by government, but on that basis, the votes should have been somewhat even across ethnicities, unless one believes that only white people are disaffected by the economy or government.
I find it impossible to believe that the right-wing political-media machine is not affecting elections based on complete falsity. And maybe you guys are young, but that is not a usual circumstance. It's a new and extremely dangerous circumstance. So, to the degree that I haven't seen Sanders/Stein/Johnson supporters object vociferously and urgently to this facet of the campaign, and to the degree that I've actually seen them further it, either out of ignorance or opportunism, I'm pretty disturbed and put off by the "left" options.
For the first reason, I'm disappointed in anyone who didn't consider that a primary imperative.

CSM, what did you mean by the very last line of the quoted post? - oh - I missed your post that furthered that thought. I agree that the not-getting-behind-Obama was problematic. However, that ignores the Trump is singularly awful dimension.  And, while Clinton supporters engaged in that, Clinton herself certainly did not.

First I should say that from our discussions here, I don't necessarily consider you to be a supporter of the liberal establishment, which was who my post was largely critical of. And as for the last point, I am making a similar case regarding Clinton supporters, not about Clinton herself. I will say, though, that I'm not particularly convinced by the response that Trump is what made this particular time different. After all, both the events leading up to the election and most respected studies demonstrated that if people were particularly concerned about the unique dangers of Trump then they would have been better off backing Sanders rather than Clinton. But that's not what happened.  I'm sure it's the case that Clinton did not encourage her supporters to vote for the Republican party. And personally I am not particularly bothered by the fact that these voters didn't vote for Obama, but, to use a cliche, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and the fact that Clinton supporters are now being critical of Stein voters and Sanders supporters is disturbing.

As for your points, I agree with your first point, as I did say that if I had the chance, I would have also voted against Trump in swing states by voting for Clinton.

While I think I see your point about the fake-scandal machine, I'm not sure I fully understand. Are you saying that it was the responsibility of Sanders and Stein the counteract the fake news stories that were generally not coming from their side and their base that was directed towards their opponent? If that's the case, was Clinton responsible for making a statement about the hit pieces on Stein based largely off of fabricated information coming out of the liberal establishment? And while you note that you haven't seen Sanders and Stein (I am avoiding Johnson because I think he's a lunatic) object "vociferously and urgently to this facet of the campaign," I might counter that by saying that the best way to object to it is to promote critical thinking. And, in my view, no two opponents were doing that more than Sanders and Stein, but certainly not Trump and certainly not Clinton. I don't think you can convincingly object to deceptive media while simultaneously being outed for telling Wall Street big wigs that you have a private policy that is different from your public policy, or that the US should have been more active in undermining democracy in foreign countries. In my view, you combat distortions with honesty and critical thinking, and I think many voters out there quite rightly thought that Clinton was ineffective in doing that. I would argue that Sanders and Stein, though, were far more effective on those issues.

I agree with your third point. Just as I thought Obama's victory was symbolically important, so too would Clinton's victory. Again, though, I am speaking about a certain sector of the population who are eagerly demonizing Jill Stein, so from that quarter, I don't find the argument convincing. But, personally, I do think that it is important to have a woman be president, for the reasons that you describe, and it is a genuine scandal that there have been no women presidents historically in the country. That said, is gender reason enough to vote for someone? I might ask what effect Margaret Thatcher had on the women of England. It's hard to say - maybe it was positive, but what we know for sure is that under Thatcher, poverty skyrocketed, including three times as much child poverty, millions of children became malnourished, formerly eradicated diseases returned, etc. In that case, I would have urged voters in England to vote against Thatcher, even if there would have been a symbolic value of having a female prime minister. So I do agree that this is an important value, I also think that there are competing values that need to be considered.

As for your fourth point, I do agree that Stein would have had no chance at winning the election. But given the climate of this election, I think just about every solid study suggests that Sanders would have had a better chance at beating Trump than Clinton. However, as I noted in my post above, it's a strange symptom of the Clinton supporters to eliminate any possible opposition so Sanders had to go. It was, in my view, the wrong choice but not surprising.

At this point, though, we have to recognize the fact that Clinton got nearly as many votes as Obama did in the previous election so it becomes difficult to say for sure exactly what the strategy could have been apart from running a better candidate in a more well-functioning democratic system.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2016, 04:04:34 PM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #112 on: November 29, 2016, 04:00:10 PM »

Regarding "blame", it's a pointless exercise, but of course everyone who was eligible and did not vote for Clinton in the states she lost, and everyone who did vote for Trump in those states, is responsible for the outcome.
That, I agree with. But further, every voter (and eligible non-voter) is in part responsible for the outcome, because the outcome is the result of every vote and (eligible) non-vote.

But mostly, I think the blaming stuff is childish and counterproductive. Understanding reality and your contribution (or lack of same) to it is good. Making a point of calling out people who differed with you with "Shame! Blame!" isn't good.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #113 on: November 29, 2016, 05:56:36 PM »

Quote from: Emily
Wow. So you don't differentiate at all between news that reports actual facts, albeit with a slant, and news that is pure fiction?
Tell me what real news is, and I'll try present my case better.
Quote from: Emily
And you don't see a problem with pressing discord and destruction in the guise of "negotiation"?
I don't have a problem with his tweets. It gets people talking and if he's straight lying, he can be easily fact checked.
Quote from: Emily
It's interesting, though, that you have ONLY listened to Trump and read his version of the news. It creates a very pure image of Trump-think.
I don't follow news sites at all, I do my own research and followed both candidates on twitter. Earlier you told me that Trump only got the nomination due to extreme luck. Do you still think it was luck that allowed him to win the election?
Quote from: Emily
Do you think it makes no difference what the president does as long as he's effective in doing it?
More than one way to skin a cat. He isn't operating in the box that people are trying to place on him, and I understand how that can be upsetting. Don't think he's committed any big sins yet.
Quote from: Emily
What do you believe, not in terms of slogans but in terms of actual policy, Trump's plans are, what do you believe he'll succeed in actually doing and how do you think those policies will make things actually better?
This will either make you scoff or make you laugh, but I don't really worry about the policy. I'm sure someone more eloquent than me could make a good case for Trump's policy, but it's not my strong suit. He's super adaptable to his climate and can take constructive criticism, so I believe he'll do a good job. I'm going to bet that everything will be just fine, his policy and temperament isn't going to destroy the world and we'll keep slowly going forward. Baby steps.
Logged
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #114 on: November 29, 2016, 06:11:56 PM »

I can't give you the hard evidence you want, but just like when I predicted his win during the primaries, chalk it up to a gut feeling. He'll be good.

OK, in that case, can you possibly answer some direct questions.

His tax plan to reduce the top tier tax percentage, has historically only led to the disenfranchisement of the working class, the dissipation of the middle class, the inflation of personal debt and the inflation of national debt. The difference between Trump and these previous cases is that he wishes to impose this policy in an even more extreme fashion. What do you think is good about that?

On election day, the World Meteorological Organization released information that illustrated uncontroversially the striking man made contributions to climate change. They noted that "2016 will be the hottest year on record," that "Concentrations of major greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continue to increase to new records," and that "there was significant and very early melting of the Greenland ice sheet." Trump's decision in this case is largely to ignore this. What do you think is good about that?

Furthermore, there have already been severe consequences as a result of these major environmental changes, not the least of which being environmental migration. As the WMO point out, "in 2015 there were 19.2 million new displacements associated with weather, water, climate and geophysical hazards in 113 countries, more than twice as many as for conflict and violence." In the upcoming years, no matter what Trump says about immigration, there will be simply no way he could ever possibly adhere to those standards, at least not without killing many people. What do you think is good about that?

Trump has made no bones about his opposition to basic entrenched rights. So, for example, he has argued that he is in favour of "expanding libel laws" to target news organizations who write things about him that he doesn't like. What do you think is good about that?

In terms of international policies, most politicians propose a coherent one, whether you can agree with it or not. Trump still hasn't put forward a consistent foreign policy. What do you think is good about that?

I think all of these can be summed up by saying lets just wait and see what happens. We've only seen the trailer, the movie hasn't begun yet and there's plenty of twists and turns ahead. That's my very simplified version. I think he'll do well and that's my feeling.
Logged
♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Online Online

Posts: 10875


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #115 on: November 29, 2016, 06:12:59 PM »

Quote
This will either make you scoff or make you laugh, but I don't really worry about the policy. I'm sure someone more eloquent than me could make a good case for Trump's policy, but it's not my strong suit.
If the policy means nothing to you, then what is the reason for voting for him (or anybody, for that matter)?

Quote
I'm going to bet that everything will be just fine, his policy and temperament isn't going to destroy the world and we'll keep slowly going forward.

Depends on who you mean by "we". Those who aren't in the upper tax brackets may disagree with  you.
Logged

RIP Daniel Dale Johnston ( 1961-2019)
_______________________________________________________
Fear 2 Stop: eating all of Elon Musk's nightmares as he sleeps

"I've never heard such ear-pleasing screams before!"
___________________________________________________


"I’d rather die than owe the hospital Till I get old/ I get adrenalin straight to the heart/ like Uma Thurman overdosing kick-start/ Anaphylactic and super hypocondriactic "

^ This fake quote brought to you by "Oyster Pudding™ ....the Pudding with the Pearl inside!"
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #116 on: November 29, 2016, 06:14:02 PM »


First I should say that from our discussions here, I don't necessarily consider you to be a supporter of the liberal establishment, which was who my post was largely critical of. And as for the last point, I am making a similar case regarding Clinton supporters, not about Clinton herself. I will say, though, that I'm not particularly convinced by the response that Trump is what made this particular time different. After all, both the events leading up to the election and most respected studies demonstrated that if people were particularly concerned about the unique dangers of Trump then they would have been better off backing Sanders rather than Clinton. But that's not what happened.  I'm sure it's the case that Clinton did not encourage her supporters to vote for the Republican party. And personally I am not particularly bothered by the fact that these voters didn't vote for Obama, but, to use a cliche, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and the fact that Clinton supporters are now being critical of Stein voters and Sanders supporters is disturbing.

As for your points, I agree with your first point, as I did say that if I had the chance, I would have also voted against Trump in swing states by voting for Clinton.

While I think I see your point about the fake-scandal machine, I'm not sure I fully understand. Are you saying that it was the responsibility of Sanders and Stein the counteract the fake news stories that were generally not coming from their side and their base that was directed towards their opponent? If that's the case, was Clinton responsible for making a statement about the hit pieces on Stein based largely off of fabricated information coming out of the liberal establishment? And while you note that you haven't seen Sanders and Stein (I am avoiding Johnson because I think he's a lunatic) object "vociferously and urgently to this facet of the campaign," I might counter that by saying that the best way to object to it is to promote critical thinking. And, in my view, no two opponents were doing that more than Sanders and Stein, but certainly not Trump and certainly not Clinton. I don't think you can convincingly object to deceptive media while simultaneously being outed for telling Wall Street big wigs that you have a private policy that is different from your public policy, or that the US should have been more active in undermining democracy in foreign countries. In my view, you combat distortions with honesty and critical thinking, and I think many voters out there quite rightly thought that Clinton was ineffective in doing that. I would argue that Sanders and Stein, though, were far more effective on those issues.
I was specifically referring to Sanders and Stein supporters rather than Sanders and Stein themselves: I have not seen their supporters make a point of objecting to the dominance of fake news in this campaign and I have seen them further fake news, which was disappointing. I certainly think that they (the supporters) have a responsibility (as does everyone) to object to and to not further fake news. When I've seen Sanders supporters further fake things against Clinton, I'm sorry to say that it unfairly gave me a bad feeling about Sanders, which I tried to overcome but found difficult. But beyond supporters, yes, I think ALL candidates and in fact everybody, public or private, has a responsibility to make an effort to combat the scourge. And I was very disappointed overall at the population in general for not combatting it more strongly and at non-Clinton supporters for sitting by and watching it happen without objecting further. The fact that you don't support Clinton is not an excuse for not trying to stop something that is so extremely destructive to a system in which the government is chosen by general public elections. But yes, Stein, Clinton, Sanders, Johnson, Obama, and even Trump, as people who are or seek to be leaders in that government, that relies on informed citizens for wise selections, should be particularly active in denouncing false information.
Regarding critical thinking - there's a lot of space between someone who wants to defund public education and someone who doesn't; someone who is allied with people who explicitly put in their party platform that they don't support teaching critical thinking because it has "the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority" and someone who doesn't; someone who is a science denier and allies himself with people who want to teach creationism "alongside" evolution. Yes, Clinton is a cynic about politics (perhaps deservedly so given the treatment she's received), but to lump her with Trump in terms of education seems a bit much.
[/quote]
I agree with your third point. Just as I thought Obama's victory was symbolically important, so too would Clinton's victory. Again, though, I am speaking about a certain sector of the population who are eagerly demonizing Jill Stein, so from that quarter, I don't find the argument convincing. But, personally, I do think that it is important to have a woman be president, for the reasons that you describe, and it is a genuine scandal that there have been no women presidents historically in the country. That said, is gender reason enough to vote for someone? I might ask what effect Margaret Thatcher had on the women of England. It's hard to say - maybe it was positive, but what we know for sure is that under Thatcher, poverty skyrocketed, including three times as much child poverty, millions of children became malnourished, formerly eradicated diseases returned, etc. In that case, I would have urged voters in England to vote against Thatcher, even if there would have been a symbolic value of having a female prime minister. So I do agree that this is an important value, I also think that there are competing values that need to be considered.
I don't disagree with this in the least.
As for your fourth point, I do agree that Stein would have had no chance at winning the election. But given the climate of this election, I think just about every solid study suggests that Sanders would have had a better chance at beating Trump than Clinton. However, as I noted in my post above, it's a strange symptom of the Clinton supporters to eliminate any possible opposition so Sanders had to go. It was, in my view, the wrong choice but not surprising.

At this point, though, we have to recognize the fact that Clinton got nearly as many votes as Obama did in the previous election so it becomes difficult to say for sure exactly what the strategy could have been apart from running a better candidate in a more well-functioning democratic system.
I'm curious about the studies to which you refer. I've not seen them and based on the information I have, I don't suspect Sanders would have had a better outcome, so they must be taking something into account that I am not, or have analyzed data differently. Can you provide links?
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #117 on: November 29, 2016, 06:22:41 PM »

I can't give you the hard evidence you want, but just like when I predicted his win during the primaries, chalk it up to a gut feeling. He'll be good.

OK, in that case, can you possibly answer some direct questions.

His tax plan to reduce the top tier tax percentage, has historically only led to the disenfranchisement of the working class, the dissipation of the middle class, the inflation of personal debt and the inflation of national debt. The difference between Trump and these previous cases is that he wishes to impose this policy in an even more extreme fashion. What do you think is good about that?

On election day, the World Meteorological Organization released information that illustrated uncontroversially the striking man made contributions to climate change. They noted that "2016 will be the hottest year on record," that "Concentrations of major greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continue to increase to new records," and that "there was significant and very early melting of the Greenland ice sheet." Trump's decision in this case is largely to ignore this. What do you think is good about that?

Furthermore, there have already been severe consequences as a result of these major environmental changes, not the least of which being environmental migration. As the WMO point out, "in 2015 there were 19.2 million new displacements associated with weather, water, climate and geophysical hazards in 113 countries, more than twice as many as for conflict and violence." In the upcoming years, no matter what Trump says about immigration, there will be simply no way he could ever possibly adhere to those standards, at least not without killing many people. What do you think is good about that?

Trump has made no bones about his opposition to basic entrenched rights. So, for example, he has argued that he is in favour of "expanding libel laws" to target news organizations who write things about him that he doesn't like. What do you think is good about that?

In terms of international policies, most politicians propose a coherent one, whether you can agree with it or not. Trump still hasn't put forward a consistent foreign policy. What do you think is good about that?

I think all of these can be summed up by saying lets just wait and see what happens. We've only seen the trailer, the movie hasn't begun yet and there's plenty of twists and turns ahead. That's my very simplified version. I think he'll do well and that's my feeling.

Okay, but based on what? Because I could, say, point to the policies of Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein and specifically say why I think they'd do a good job. Furthermore, I could distinguish between the Clinton policies and the Trump policies to point out why Clinton would do a better job than Trump. So, I'm curious why you think he'd do a good job, because merely saying that you think he will is meaningless.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #118 on: November 29, 2016, 06:37:29 PM »

Quote from: Emily
Wow. So you don't differentiate at all between news that reports actual facts, albeit with a slant, and news that is pure fiction?
Tell me what real news is, and I'll try present my case better.
News based on facts, not fiction.
Quote from: Emily
And you don't see a problem with pressing discord and destruction in the guise of "negotiation"?
I don't have a problem with his tweets. It gets people talking and if he's straight lying, he can be easily fact checked.
So you are fine with the constant misinformation emanating from him and his campaign and his allies? And you're fine with him encouraging his supporters in their misinformed evaluation of, say, the effects and degree of illegal immigration and about the level of violent crime committed by illegal immigrants? And you're fine with him implying - actually straight out saying, really - that American Muslims, as a class, protect terrorists and don't cooperate with law enforcement? Don't you see that this kind of thing encourages violence? Is that really OK with you?
Quote from: Emily
It's interesting, though, that you have ONLY listened to Trump and read his version of the news. It creates a very pure image of Trump-think.
I don't follow news sites at all, I do my own research and followed both candidates on twitter. Earlier you told me that Trump only got the nomination due to extreme luck. Do you still think it was luck that allowed him to win the election?
In your own research you didn't learn that the original speech in which Clinton made the public/private remark was her talking it in the context of the Lincoln movie. That that was where the quote came from? Apparently not - because you repeated Trump's line about her "blaming" Lincoln. It's pretty clear from the original context that she meant, though it was badly worded, as she explained in the debate, that for a politician, public speaking is about ideals and goals, while the private work is about compromise, exchange and negotiation. That's just a fact of our system. It seems from things you've said here and on the other thread that your research is limited to one-sided sources.
Quote from: Emily
Do you think it makes no difference what the president does as long as he's effective in doing it?
More than one way to skin a cat. He isn't operating in the box that people are trying to place on him, and I understand how that can be upsetting. Don't think he's committed any big sins yet.


Quote from: Emily
What do you believe, not in terms of slogans but in terms of actual policy, Trump's plans are, what do you believe he'll succeed in actually doing and how do you think those policies will make things actually better?
This will either make you scoff or make you laugh, but I don't really worry about the policy. I'm sure someone more eloquent than me could make a good case for Trump's policy, but it's not my strong suit. He's super adaptable to his climate and can take constructive criticism, so I believe he'll do a good job. I'm going to bet that everything will be just fine, his policy and temperament isn't going to destroy the world and we'll keep slowly going forward. Baby steps.
No. No one more eloquent than you can make a good case for Trump's policies. So basically you just have a crush on him. OK.
Logged
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #119 on: November 29, 2016, 06:43:33 PM »

Quote from: ♩♬☮ Vegan ♯♫♩☮
If the policy means nothing to you, then what is the reason for voting for him (or anybody, for that matter)?
I'm not American, so I didn't vote. This election wasn't won on policy, so that's why I'm not invested that deeply in it, but if he stays as adaptable as he was during the campaign, I think you're country is in good, large hands. He's great at controlling a situation.

Quote
Depends on who you mean by "we". Those who aren't in the upper tax brackets may disagree with  you.
The world generally. There's been stacks of gloom and doom, talks about secret nazi factions and general hysteria. I don't think the world is gonna do a 180, 8 years from now most people will wonder what all the fuss was about.
Logged
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #120 on: November 29, 2016, 06:47:53 PM »

I can't give you the hard evidence you want, but just like when I predicted his win during the primaries, chalk it up to a gut feeling. He'll be good.

OK, in that case, can you possibly answer some direct questions.

His tax plan to reduce the top tier tax percentage, has historically only led to the disenfranchisement of the working class, the dissipation of the middle class, the inflation of personal debt and the inflation of national debt. The difference between Trump and these previous cases is that he wishes to impose this policy in an even more extreme fashion. What do you think is good about that?

On election day, the World Meteorological Organization released information that illustrated uncontroversially the striking man made contributions to climate change. They noted that "2016 will be the hottest year on record," that "Concentrations of major greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continue to increase to new records," and that "there was significant and very early melting of the Greenland ice sheet." Trump's decision in this case is largely to ignore this. What do you think is good about that?

Furthermore, there have already been severe consequences as a result of these major environmental changes, not the least of which being environmental migration. As the WMO point out, "in 2015 there were 19.2 million new displacements associated with weather, water, climate and geophysical hazards in 113 countries, more than twice as many as for conflict and violence." In the upcoming years, no matter what Trump says about immigration, there will be simply no way he could ever possibly adhere to those standards, at least not without killing many people. What do you think is good about that?

Trump has made no bones about his opposition to basic entrenched rights. So, for example, he has argued that he is in favour of "expanding libel laws" to target news organizations who write things about him that he doesn't like. What do you think is good about that?

In terms of international policies, most politicians propose a coherent one, whether you can agree with it or not. Trump still hasn't put forward a consistent foreign policy. What do you think is good about that?

I think all of these can be summed up by saying lets just wait and see what happens. We've only seen the trailer, the movie hasn't begun yet and there's plenty of twists and turns ahead. That's my very simplified version. I think he'll do well and that's my feeling.

Okay, but based on what? Because I could, say, point to the policies of Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein and specifically say why I think they'd do a good job. Furthermore, I could distinguish between the Clinton policies and the Trump policies to point out why Clinton would do a better job than Trump. So, I'm curious why you think he'd do a good job, because merely saying that you think he will is meaningless.

Based on how well he ran his campaign, his persuasion skills and his negotiating skills. For a man with no political experience, he passed the job interview with flying colours and surprised many people. I believe he'll continue to do so. It's all very fluid.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #121 on: November 29, 2016, 06:51:05 PM »

Based on how well he ran his campaign, his persuasion skills and his negotiating skills. For a man with no political experience, he passed the job interview with flying colours and surprised many people. I believe he'll continue to do so. It's all very fluid.

OK, but I'm still a bit confused. His policies suggest disaster. So are you saying that when this disaster inevitably comes, he will be really good at convincing people that he wasn't responsible? Because if that's your argument, I might agree.
Logged
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #122 on: November 29, 2016, 07:06:27 PM »

Quote from: Emily
News based on facts, not fiction.
I mean, could you list a couple?

Quote from: Emily
So you are fine with the constant misinformation emanating from him and his campaign and his allies? And you're fine with him encouraging his supporters in their misinformed evaluation of, say, the effects and degree of illegal immigration and about the level of violent crime committed by illegal immigrants? And you're fine with him implying - actually straight out saying, really - that American Muslims, as a class, protect terrorists and don't cooperate with law enforcement? Don't you see that this kind of thing encourages violence? Is that really OK with you?
Could you link me to this misinformation about illegal immigration?  I need to touch up before I comment on it.
I think the media is the biggest pot stirrer when it comes to violence. Try wearing a MAGA hat in California and see what happens, though I do think there are problems on both sides and I absolutely do not condone violence.
Have there been certain American Muslims that have protect terrorists? Well yeah, that's just the truth.

Quote from: Emily
In your own research you didn't learn that the original speech in which Clinton made the public/private remark was her talking it in the context of the Lincoln movie. That that was where the quote came from? Apparently not - because you repeated Trump's line about her "blaming" Lincoln. It's pretty clear from the original context that she meant, though it was badly worded, as she explained in the debate, that for a politician, public speaking is about ideals and goals, while the private work is about compromise, exchange and negotiation. That's just a fact of our system. It seems from things you've said here and on the other thread that your research is limited to one-sided sources.
I clearly said that was a joke, didn't I?

Quote from: Emily
No. No one more eloquent than you can make a good case for Trump's policies. So basically you just have a crush on him. OK.
I mean I'm sure I could find someone that explains it much better, but if I did would you listen?

And I still wanna know if you changed your mind about his extreme luck.
Logged
♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Online Online

Posts: 10875


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #123 on: November 29, 2016, 07:06:55 PM »

Quote from: ♩♬☮ Vegan ♯♫♩☮
If the policy means nothing to you, then what is the reason for voting for him (or anybody, for that matter)?
I'm not American, so I didn't vote. This election wasn't won on policy, so that's why I'm not invested that deeply in it, but if he stays as adaptable as he was during the campaign, I think you're country is in good, large hands. He's great at controlling a situation.

Quote
Depends on who you mean by "we". Those who aren't in the upper tax brackets may disagree with  you.
The world generally. There's been stacks of gloom and doom, talks about secret nazi factions and general hysteria. I don't think the world is gonna do a 180, 8 years from now most people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

The people who have been chosen for his cabinet,unfortunately, have not been good choices; pretty much across the board, those not in the op 1% will definitely feel the pinch, financially and otherwise.
Logged

RIP Daniel Dale Johnston ( 1961-2019)
_______________________________________________________
Fear 2 Stop: eating all of Elon Musk's nightmares as he sleeps

"I've never heard such ear-pleasing screams before!"
___________________________________________________


"I’d rather die than owe the hospital Till I get old/ I get adrenalin straight to the heart/ like Uma Thurman overdosing kick-start/ Anaphylactic and super hypocondriactic "

^ This fake quote brought to you by "Oyster Pudding™ ....the Pudding with the Pearl inside!"
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #124 on: November 29, 2016, 07:09:07 PM »

Based on how well he ran his campaign, his persuasion skills and his negotiating skills. For a man with no political experience, he passed the job interview with flying colours and surprised many people. I believe he'll continue to do so. It's all very fluid.

OK, but I'm still a bit confused. His policies suggest disaster. So are you saying that when this disaster inevitably comes, he will be really good at convincing people that he wasn't responsible? Because if that's your argument, I might agree.

No sweat. I'm saying that he'll steer away from any big disaster before it comes. There are more than 2 dimensions at play, it might look inevitable on paper, but so did a Clinton presidency.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 32   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.465 seconds with 22 queries.