November 9 2016

[Celerity]

I think Trump supporters will quickly become disillusioned when he turns out not to be the messiah they've built him up to be. His opponents will also quickly find out that it isn't the end of the world and he won't be as bad as he has been built up to be.

Obama was elected on a change campaign with a majority in the house and senate. The world didn't end then. All of our problems weren't magically fixed either.

One group is just feeling what the other group felt eight years ago. It sucks, but it won't be nearly as bad/good as people think.

[egreir]

[Vaerick]

Two things I noticed on the acceptance speech. Trumps family looked WAY uncomfortable/deer in headlights/ scared- specifically Mrs Pence vs Mrs Trump. Also, the choice of end song- You can't always get what you want- kind of surprising anyone would want that to close their presidential acceptance speech.

Worst case Trump will be the full fledged dictator that we expect him to be, but I think enough people will already be on "watchdog" mode that he wouldn't be able to get too hardcore (my hopes anyway). My hope is that the machinations of government limp along long enough to reveal what he is to his own people, and reveal what his most fervent supporters are, and will put the matter to rest going forward. There is a dying segment in America that is of the nastier line of thinking compared to most, and what we saw was the last hoorah from that specter. They will be unlikely to muster it again in 4 years and certainly not in 8. The thing that keeps me positive is that Bernie won by and large the vast support of the rising generation, and that Trump won the support of those on the way out. Essentially, what that means is, we just have to -exist- long enough for a few more to get weeded out. Bright days are still on the horizon. 

[Erelei]

I don't believe it's as simple as believing republics view Trump as the messiah / savior. I think it's more like, "We voted for the lesser of two evils, and he prevailed."

That said, this isn't a statement saying that either were evil or one is more evil than the other. It just doesn't make sense that the whole of the republican community some how had a hard on for their candidate. It's sad that he was the choice, but most are going to respond, "At least it wasn't Hillary". 

Hillary crucified herself, IMHO.

[Vaerick]

Definitely agree there. I think the number of people who actually wanted either one of them was a very small minority, which honestly begs the question if the current system doesn't need some tweaking. MSM sure botched the thing though, as this was a pretty big shock for everyone and Newsweek (I believe) gave Trump a paper in the vein of "Dewy beats Truman". One positive thing to take away- this will hopefully kill the notion in the future about rigged elections (specifically the general, the primaries are rigged in favor of the establishment). Also bet you Republicans add superdelegates just as fast as they can. 

As for Hillary, it still blows my freaking mind that, in the year of the hated "establishment", they would infact nominate THE establishment figure. The single most entrenched politician from the most entrenched political family. They'll blame Berners before long, but when push comes to shove, she was a bad buy and they knew it and tried to sell it anyway.

[Fool_Hardy]

When its all counted and examined through the lenses of history, the world will see America did not choose to elect Trump, they chose to not elect HRC.

Its funny, America just Trumped Washington, for those of you who know the game, Americans are tired of going NIL

And franky, to many Americans, a vote for HRC was a vote to stay the course, and most American vessels(households) are sinking even if slowly.

Change was inevitable. To you Sanders supporters, a shame your movement did not bring about the necessary change.

[Zavero]

1 hour ago, Celerity said:

I think Trump supporters will quickly become disillusioned when he turns out not to be the messiah they've built him up to be. His opponents will also quickly find out that it isn't the end of the world and he won't be as bad as he has been built up to be.

Obama was elected on a change campaign with a majority in the house and senate. The world didn't end then. All of our problems weren't magically fixed either.

One group is just feeling what the other group felt eight years ago. It sucks, but it won't be nearly as bad/good as people think.

Well said, in my opinion.

[FatMike]

1 hour ago, Vaerick said:

Two things I noticed on the acceptance speech. Trumps family looked WAY uncomfortable/deer in headlights/ scared- specifically Mrs Pence vs Mrs Trump. Also, the choice of end song- You can't always get what you want- kind of surprising anyone would want that to close their presidential acceptance speech.

Worst case Trump will be the full fledged dictator that we expect him to be, but I think enough people will already be on "watchdog" mode that he wouldn't be able to get too hardcore (my hopes anyway). My hope is that the machinations of government limp along long enough to reveal what he is to his own people, and reveal what his most fervent supporters are, and will put the matter to rest going forward. There is a dying segment in America that is of the nastier line of thinking compared to most, and what we saw was the last hoorah from that specter. They will be unlikely to muster it again in 4 years and certainly not in 8. The thing that keeps me positive is that Bernie won by and large the vast support of the rising generation, and that Trump won the support of those on the way out. Essentially, what that means is, we just have to -exist- long enough for a few more to get weeded out. Bright days are still on the horizon. 

Pretty bold faced statement there. I don't see how anyone could believe a "dying segment" with a "nastier line of thinking" segment of the population got him elected. He took the Reagan Democrats and that is what won it for him. Not "nasty". The majority of the working class won him the election, not the "dying". 

[Fool_Hardy]

Food for thought.

Why do we think this way?

In Aabahran, our fantasy world, we do not act as divisively as we do in real life concerning politics.

Consider this, the Democrats and Republicans are like two sects of the same Cabal, Temporum And Mystic, Praetorian and Sigil.

While the Democrats involve themselves with more peaceful goals focused on a better future, the Republicans are more likely to get under your skin in an abrasive way seeking immediate change.

Both sides are on the same team. Both sides think they offer the right process for a better tomorrow.

We do not see the negative attitude between subcabals that we see on this forum about D's and R's.

Be at peace my brothers and sisters. Play for the same Nation.

[Manual Labour]

52 minutes ago, Fool_Hardy said:

While the Democrats involve themselves with more peaceful goals focused on a better future, the Republicans are more likely to get under your skin in an abrasive way seeking immediate change.

This statement is riddled with bias and inaccuracy.

53 minutes ago, Fool_Hardy said:

Both sides are on the same team. Both sides think they offer the right process for a better tomorrow.

True.

54 minutes ago, Fool_Hardy said:

Be at peace my brothers and sisters. Play for the same Nation.

Hard to do in a two party system which will naturally drive a thick wedge through a nation.

[Ambroas]

8 hours ago, Fool_Hardy said:

While the Democrats involve themselves with more peaceful goals focused on a better future, the Republicans are more likely to get under your skin in an abrasive way seeking immediate change.
 

 

The problem isn't how they approach a situation the problem is they aren't allies.  They see each other as enemies as much as they see other countries or terrorist.  Politicians aren't just in it to defend the world from evil like Knight they're in it for money, power, fame and those reasons are sometimes more important than the country to people on both sides.

[Vaerick]

12 hours ago, FatMike said:

Pretty bold faced statement there. I don't see how anyone could believe a "dying segment" with a "nastier line of thinking" segment of the population got him elected. He took the Reagan Democrats and that is what won it for him. Not "nasty". The majority of the working class won him the election, not the "dying". 

It's pretty well clear when you look at the age of the voters. Trump won by and far with older folks who tend to vote in higher numbers. On the other hand, Bernie had a solid hold over people under 35 (something in the neighborhood of 70%), and also to some extent Clinton did too. If you look at the map, if only people under 35 voted it would have been a blue shutout with red taking all of like 4 states I believe. The fact is, the younger generation is not inclined to give a fuck about race, sexual orientation, abortions, drug prohibition, and various other things that the Republicans are concerned about. When you couple that with the fact that the Millennial generation is the largest by number (but not by voter, yet), this is the last shot the Trump-mindset has. Why? Because in even just four years a vast number of Trump's supporters will, quite literally, be dead, where as the Millennial pool, which again, is vastly different from republicans in general, is only growing in political power. In fact, I'll have to dig it up, but I'm pretty sure that this divide in the latest generation is the most significantly one sided in American history. 

Trump won for a number of reasons. Most significantly he was anti establishment, and the people were craving that like a bad nic fit. Furthermore, a lot of people did not like HRC, giving him a better shot. Then there was the timing. Rarely does one party get 3 terms, and almost never 4 or more. And finally, he was going to get a lot of support simply by being republican (sort of, not really lol). But. He would not even have lasted long enough to get there without a very virulent and ugly segment of the population. The outright racists(kkk, white nationalists, neo nazi's). The people who incorrectly strike at things like science (the ignorant). The people who think it's their right to shit on other peoples rights and dictate what others should do (totalitarians). And the  "religious" right, who are by and large hypocritical shitheels. Every day that goes by though, those groups are hemorrhaging members.

So yes. Trump won the battle, but he and the Republicans in general lost the war. It's only a matter of time. Infact, ideally, it won't even just be the republican party that dies, but both. The number of independents has never been larger, by total population and millennials specifically.

[Cydare]

So was working security down town today... note that this is after Trump's been fairly, democratically elected, with a large margin of success.  There was a huge anti-Trump rally, where people brought signs and painted "Fuck Trump" or "Love Trump Hate" on their shirts.  They started shouting "Not Our President" (which, since they are legal citizens, of course isn't even remotely true), and paraded around Seattle.  The cops escorted them until they became rowdy up in the Capitol Hill area, and then used pepper balls to disperse them.  They were rude, noisy, angry, and childish -- many of them were your average rebel, covered in tattoos, piercings, with upside-down crosses on their black tank-tops and neon-colored dye in their hair.

And then five people got shot a block from my building and we had to lock down.  Still don't know who shot who or why.  Cops are looking for the suspect.

If in fact these were the kinds of people that wanted Hillary, I can say with a certain confidence that I am happy that I voted for Trump.  If they don't really represent the kinds of people that wanted Hillary, then I am sorry for the mature Hillary supporters that have to have these animals in their camp.

[Pali]

Technically, his margin's only large via electoral college votes - thus far, he's lost the popular vote by 200,000, though there remain a number to add and this may soon change a bit.  So, those who hate the Electoral College but are relieved we have Trump... have a bit of a conundrum to work through.  

 

Supporters on any side of a political issue are going to have their uglier representatives.  I can, if you like, provide examples of Trump supporters being racist, sexist, and violent, but that won't get us anywhere and is nothing more than a claim of guilt by association.  Let's not try to have a contest of which side has the better citizens now, please.

[Cydare]

I didn't vote for him based on his constituents.  I voted for him based on values (and a distinct lack of a candidate who's values better aligned with my own).  I like that he wants to get rid of Common Core, I like that he dislikes abortion, I like that he supports gun rights, I like that he supports home schooling rights... the list goes on. Now, he could just not do any of that stuff, and completely switch agendas, or just do nothing, and ... who knows!  Who cares.  I couldn't simply abstain because I dislike them both.  It was either him or her.  So, I aligned with the one who I shared the most in common with.

The racist/bigot/sexist stuff is pure ad hominem nonsense, when directed at him, or likewise when directing personal attacks on character towards Hillary.  It's just political poo-pooing used to win a campaign -- so let's say Trump is all those things, sure (for the record, I don't believe he is).  Good.  Now that's out of the way.  We're going to have to deal with the policies and values now, and the real hard questions of government and stop just attacking Trump's character. 

[Vaerick]

I dunno. I still think he's a 2 bit con man. I don't think he cares about anything you listed off. Dude was a democrat for years. And as for being a sexist bigot.. I mean just listen to his Howard Stern tapes. Just because someone is accused in politics doesn't mean it isn't true   He is a shit heel. Whether or not you can look past that (as most politicians are shitheels), it is the truth. He is a billionaire (supposedly) playboy asshat. He doesn't have policies and values.  If you listen to his speeches it's like the kid who got called to the front to give the book report, but never actually read the book so he just speaks in circles:

So. I read Huckleberry Finn last night, and just let me start by saying what a wonderful book this was. I mean, just tremendously valuable. Have you seen this book? It's a beautiful thing. I mean really, I don't think any student could get by without this beautiful thing of a book. I mean, after reading this book, which I certainly did- every page - and boy did I understand it. I understood it better than anyone ever. Not only do my kids ask me for help when reading this amazing, beautiful book, but all their little friends too. In short it's a great book, that no one understands better than I, and I encourage all other Americans to just try and read this tremendous literature. Thank you.

The man's not fit to deliver a book report, let alone be president.



As for supporters. I'll take protesters before I take the KKK, Neo Nazi's etc.

[Pali]

6 hours ago, Cydare said:

The racist/bigot/sexist stuff is pure ad hominem nonsense, when directed at him, or likewise when directing personal attacks on character towards Hillary.

I don't agree.  A candidate's character is very much a legitimate concern and worth analyzing and discussing.  When someone says bigoted things, describing them as a bigot is not an ad hominem - the ad hominem fallacy only comes into play if one is dismissing a claim by attacking the source in irrelevant ways.  If I said that Trump's economic agenda is bad because he's a bigot, that's an ad hominem because his bigotry and his economic platform are unrelated.  If I say that I think Trump is willing to play on racism and sexism as a way to gain votes, this is not an ad hominem - it is just an evaluation of his character and actions he is willing to take, which are relevant concerns in a Presidential candidate.

[Manual Labour]

But Pali didn't you pretty much say in another post Hillary is a pretty bad person/candidate but you voted for her because of her stance on climate change?

If not maybe I misread or misunderstood and you actually think she is a fine role model and public official.

[Cydare]

No... The reason it's all ad hominem is because people are dismissing his politics via attacks on his character.  You can't deal with his policies by what is essentially nothing more than calling him names.  It was never relevant if he was a bigot, sexist, or racist in the first place.  What mattered then, and what matters now, is how he is going to dispense government.  The thing is, he has explained his rationale repeatedly; calling him a bigot, sexist, or racist is a disgusting cop-out made by people who, in my understanding, have traded reason for emotional hype.  Even if there were good evidence that he were those things (which there honesty isn't, but I understand that radical "Tumblr-ism" has completely mutilated the definitions of these words), it would not result in a good argument against his policies.

But, like I said before, let's just grant that he is a bigot, a racist, and a sexist.  I have no problem one way or the other personally.

Cool.  Done.  Now that we've got that superfluous crap out of the way, it's time to go down the list of his policies, one by one, and figure out if they're good or not, why, and what better policies would be.

[Kyzarius]

Cydare, his policies are horrible. 

Have you read his "first 100 days" proposal?

He plans to cut taxes significantly while taking on several high cost items.  This happened before, remember the Bush tax cuts?  If trump is successful in passing his tax plan, we will be heading straight towards another recession as his tax cuts are even bigger and focused highly on the top end.  People like me will love it for how it hits my dividends and business taxes, he plans to cut my business taxes in half.  But then again we will be the only ones able to handle it when cost of goods sky rockets from what he is planning to do to our trade deals.  In a time when cost of living is outstripping wages all over the country, dissolving the trade deals he is claiming he wants to would see that get even worse. 

Additionally It reads like a slash and burn sale on the environment.  Clean Coal really? Shale and oil, when we are currently unable to even store everything we have.  I hear he even plans to put Palin in charge of the interior.  That is some scary stuff. 

It also blatantly shows he has no idea how our government really functions.  

Most of what he wants to do is so far outside of presidential power it is frightening that he is considering it possible.   The guy needs to spend a year taking political science before he even begins his presidency.  

The wall is a good example, fund the wall? The President doesn't author that kind of legislation.  The President doesn't get to just pass legislation that funds projects.  He can propose it of course, but its not just "going to happen"

From a policy standpoint he is a total mess, has always been.  But thats ok, I will just pocket my tax free dividends, collect my burden free interest, take advantage of the new finance and business tax loopholes and hunker down.  I have a strong feeling folks are in for some serious buyers remorse.  

 

That and the people who didnt bother voting, another subject there man...48% of the country? that is disgusting.  But hey, I bet they wake up by mid terms. 

[Pali]

You don't think a President being sexist or racist is relevant?  Honestly, I find that a shocking position to hold.  Presidents are more than policy-making robots, they are representatives of the country as a whole, the face we present to the world, and role models for children to look up to.  They have to make decisions in real time that can and will be influenced by their beliefs - desegregation of the military happened because we had a President order it.  I agree that saying a policy he proposes is bad because he's racist is an ad hominem, but when the topic under discussion is his character and not his policies, then discussing his willingness to stir racial animosities to attract votes is absolutely relevant.  And his character is a significant part of the objection to him - were he Romney with the same policies, I would still oppose him, but the election would not horrify me as this one has.

[FatMike]

So you could have stomached the liar, the cheater, the pay to player, the in the pockets of foreign governments candidate? And you think that she would have been a good example to hold up as a representative of our country? A role model for my child to grow up and act like.....I don't think so. I wouldn't have voted for her if she paid me simply because who the hell can trust anything that comes out of her mouth or "email".

[Cydare]

Fat Mike nailed it.  You can dismiss anyone based on character analysis, especially in the nasty marketing business which is campaigns for president.  Politicians go and find the flaws about one another without offering solutions, Trump knew it, and he used the system brilliantly to win.  He told everyone straight up: he went into it intending to win.  How do you win in politics?  Do what he did.  Hillary, according my personal value system, is far worse than Trump on a level of character.  Far worse.  But I don't care about that -- I care that her values and her policies do not represent mine.

Kyzarius, you hit it on the head too.  I'm sick of hearing all this ad homenim garbage, thank you for actually bringing up stuff that actually matters: policies and plans of dispensing government... not pointless, out-of-proportion character analysis on people we already know are imperfect.  Some of his solutions are ridiculous or seem somewhat hard to implement, but his intentions are rational.  Now he will need help from his staff, and from us (in a sense) to come up with the right solutions.

[Pali]

31 minutes ago, FatMike said:

So you could have stomached the liar, the cheater, the pay to player, the in the pockets of foreign governments candidate? And you think that she would have been a good example to hold up as a representative of our country? A role model for my child to grow up and act like.....

I'm not saying there aren't valid character-based attacks that can be levied at Clinton - there are - but that is not what I am discussing here.  What I am discussing is the validity of using character as a judgment in selecting a candidate.  Cydare has been arguing it is not a valid metric, I've been disagreeing.  You are welcome to consider Clinton's character to be worse than Trump's, though it won't surprise you that I disagree, but that isn't what I've been discussing these last couple posts.  I'm done with trying to change minds on the merits of the candidates; the election is done, there is no point to it.

 

11 minutes ago, Cydare said:

You can dismiss anyone based on character analysis

I do not agree.  Nobody dismissed Bernie because of character analysis, nor Obama, nor Republicans like Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney.  There are significant differences between politicians when it comes to character, and I think it a grave mistake to conflate all politicians in this area.

[Cydare]

... My point this entire time is that you should never dismiss someone based on character analysis.  Please don't quote what I said out of context.  You can, you shouldn't.

The election is done, minds won't change, and they shouldn't change based on whether someone is a bigot or not.  We are purely in the realm of the dispensation of government now... watch what Trump signs, how quickly he signs it, and his staff.  Like a hawk.  I will be, because I want to know just how many things he said about what he wanted to do are true.