Decision 2016

[Swamper]

There's no problem with people being anxious. I can understand that.

I can't, however, tolerate the hypocrisy some (some, not all), on the left are showing right now. The left has, for this whole election cycle, claimed the moral high ground and demonized all Trump supporters as racist, bigoted thugs. Don't get me wrong, there are most definitely racist, bigoted thugs who voted for Trump. To characterize every Trump supporter that way is wrong though.

And now that Trump has won, there are some (again, not all) on the left that are acting EXACTLY as I figured many Trump supporters would if Trump lost. Violent protests on the street, refusal to accept the outcome, broad generalizations and demonization (is that even a word?) of Trump and his supporters, a complete freak-out basically.

By acting this way, they're showing that their part of the left (not all the left, just their part) is no different that Trump's own extreme factions. Different vices, sure, but the same underlying problems. They've ceded the moral high ground that I , and many others, gave them during the election.

EDIT: I wouldn't even put these protests on the same level as similar protests by BLM. At least they, in some cases, are protesting an actual injustice. There's no injustice in Trump being elected. He won fair and square, as awful as it is. The protesters merely come off as sore losers.

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by Swamper

There's no problem with people being anxious. I can understand that.

I can't, however, tolerate the hypocrisy some (some, not all), on the left are showing right now. The left has, for this whole election cycle, claimed the moral high ground and demonized all Trump supporters as racist, bigoted thugs. Don't get me wrong, there are most definitely racist, bigoted thugs who voted for Trump. To characterize every Trump supporter that way is wrong though.

And now that Trump has won, there are some (again, not all) on the left that are acting EXACTLY as I figured many Trump supporters would if Trump lost. Violent protests on the street, refusal to accept the outcome, broad generalizations and demonization (is that even a word?) of Trump and his supporters, a complete freak-out basically.

By acting this way, they're showing that their part of the left (not all the left, just their part) is no different that Trump's own extreme factions. Different vices, sure, but the same underlying problems. They've ceded the moral high ground that I , and many others, gave them during the election.

EDIT: I wouldn't even put these protests on the same level as similar protests by BLM. At least they, in some cases, are protesting an actual injustice. There's no injustice in Trump being elected. He won fair and square, as awful as it is. The protesters merely come off as sore losers.

Ah, yes. These "violent" protests. They have the right to protest, and considering Trump's platform, history, and rhetoric, it's perfectly reasonable that they do so. I should hope that if the Democrats successfully nominated a person with a long history of behavior similar to Trump's, the very same people, maybe joined by others, would still protest.

You are surprisingly attached to this "sore loser" narrative in your posts recently. This post is the second in two days mocking people who are truly frustrated or enraged at the election's outcome. Try having empathy for them, instead of judgment. It's ok for people to be upset.

edit: Now you edit in garbage about BLM? Black Lives Matter does not deserve your scorn. It doesn't deserve *anybody's* scorn. Go find some links to criminal behavior associated with BLM. Good luck with that.

Honestly, the KKK is marching and you are complaining about protests by people who have legitimate concerns about their future in this country. Second day in a row that I think you should examine your own posts, and ask yourself how people reading them might perceive you.

[Swamper]

Maybe you should try to put yourself in the shoes of a Trump supporter, DS. They were put down the whole election by people like you, but they ended up coming out and carrying their candidate to victory. Now those same people that were attacking them the whole election cycle, the same people that were urging trump to accept his defeat, are out rioting and refusing to accept the reality of the election. I'm not a Trump supporter, but the sheer hypocrisy and tone-deafness of some of the people on the left right now makes me more sympathetic towards Trump supporters.

I don't know how you interpreted my point about BLM, but I was saying that some of their protests are examples of justified protest. The protests over Trump aren't justified, IMO.

[Dad_Scaper]

Oh, ok. Understood about BLM. Look again at your post on the subject, you used the pronoun "they" which I understood to be a reference to one group when you intended it to be about another.

If I was a Trump supporter, I would understand that it was a hotly contested election, that my candidate - notwithstanding my vote in his favor - did things and was supported by people who would make others nervous. I would understand their frustration and I would understand their need to protest and I would empathize with them.

If Clinton had won, I would have empathized with similar protests by Trump supporters, just as I empathize with many of those who voted for him. I don't think their votes were reasonable, as I wrote above, but I deeply empathize with people who feel disenfranchised by the wage and wealth gaps, among other frustrations. People feel left behind. I empathize with people who voted for Trump because they couldn't stand it anymore and wanted to throw a brick through the window.

I don't think it was reasonable for them to do so, by which I mean that I don't think that Trump will be any good for them, economically, or for anyone else other than (perhaps) the super-rich. But I empathize with their decision, and I would empathize with their frustration if it had gone the other way.

You want more empathy in political discourse? Be the change you want to see. Show the classiness and empathy you want to see in others.

[Raider30]

Oh come on now DS. You repeatedly try to get people to acknowledge how horrible Trumps supporters are and how he overtly encouraged/accepted, or at minimum did nothing to discourage certain groups from supporting his candidacy.

The very next day you posted your own 'I told you so' post with a link to some graffiti presumably placed by Trump supporters, yet since the election the left has clearly also been protesting, vandalizing, and using violence to show their discontent with the outcome of the election.

You place "violent" in quotes as if to cast doubt on the veracity of this claim. Yet there are numerous examples of this playing out:

http://www.infowars.com/video-high-s...-donald-trump/

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/vid...rioters-brawl/

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christi...trump-n2243997

The calls for assassination of Trump resounding over twitter.

Not to mention the vandalism occurring. I haven't seen any posts from you decrying that like the 'I told you so' post from you the other day.

Do people have a right to protest a fair election when their candidate didn't get elected? Sure they do, but that's where it ends. You don't get to block the streets, you don't get to smash windows, you don't get to assault people for having a different opinion, you don't get to shut down the other sides right to speak.

So you say this, "Show the classiness and empathy you want to see in others" while at the same time completely ignoring what is happening across the U.S. and you wonder why Swamper and others have challenged the hypocrisy of the left?




- Raider30

[Dad_Scaper]

You have lots of accusations in there, Raider, and I'll address them as best I can. Generally, I think you and I agree on almost all of what I consider the important stuff. We might disagree on some political things but we can agree on the bedrock principles.

First, I'm not condoning violence by anybody. Somebody got beaten up for voting for Trump? That's not right and I won't defend it. Investigate and prosecute.

Second, I never ever said that people voting for Trump were "terrible." That would be awful and I wouldn't say it because I don't believe it. I don't think their votes for him were reasonable, by which I mean calculated and rational means to an end, because I think he is woefully unqualified and a danger as President. I think his administration will harm those people who believed in him.

But I empathize and there are people who are my friends who voted for him, though I think their decision to do so - though they are my friends - was not supported by reason. That's my perspective, and just my perspective. No need for others to put it quite that way, or agree with me putting it that way. I'm just explaining that post above, in case that's the one you think was me calling people "terrible."

Third, we absolutely agree about people having a right to protest peacefully, and we agree that illegal behavior should be investigated and punished.

Fourth, I will say, and perhaps you would agree, that hate crimes are especially scary. Regardless of the cause of the people who perpetrate them. Does that resolve your concern about hypocrisy?

Finally, I will say that I don't expect any one conservative, or any one Trump voter, to justify or defend everything done by every other conservative, or every other Trump voter. Nor do I expect that I would be able to explain or defend every critic of conservatives, or every person who did not vote for Trump. There are messed up people everywhere, and wrong people everywhere.

[vegietarian18]

Originally Posted by dok

A good bit of perspective on drawing broad conclusions from the result.

There's plenty of truth to many of the "why Trump won" analyses, but at the same time, there's also some truth to all the things people would be saying if the returns had come in very slightly differently.

Well yes, but 2% in a national election is a lot of votes. And you could just as easily say "what if Trump got the extra 2%?". Then we'd be looking a massive Trump blowout victory. This was the outcome that happened, and the narrative will of course be based around the exact outcome that happened. And really, the exact outcome was not all that "lucky". Trump picked up massive margins in Iowa and Ohio and that geographic trend bled into the WI, MI, PA trio that no one expected him to get.

It was definitely close, but it was also fairly decisive: no single state swung the result like Florida did in 2000. I guess what I'm trying to say is what you're saying is correct, but I don't think it's helpful. It's perfectly legitimate to ask questions about why Clinton lost, because she did. The result will define the country for the next four years.

[dok]

Originally Posted by vegietarian18

Well yes, but 2% in a national election is a lot of votes. And you could just as easily say "what if Trump got the extra 2%?". Then we'd be looking a massive Trump blowout victory.

Actually, we would not. Add 2 points across the board and Trump picks up New Hampshire, and manages to win the popular vote by less than a point instead of losing it. That's literally all that changes. His EV margin would still be essentially the same as it is now, and the same as Obama's in 2012. And very few consider 2012 a blowout, despite a popular vote margin of almost 4 points.

Originally Posted by vegietarian18

This was the outcome that happened, and the narrative will of course be based around the exact outcome that happened. And really, the exact outcome was not all that "lucky". Trump picked up massive margins in Iowa and Ohio and that geographic trend bled into the WI, MI, PA trio that no one expected him to get.

"No one" is overstating it (see the Michael Moore link I posted earlier), but yeah, there was a specific demographic polling error that had a greater impact in a specific geographic area, which happened to contain several close states.

And given that exogenous factors were decisive, yes, I consider the result to be "lucky". Since I started saying this, more evidence has piled up to support my claim that he probably loses without the Comey stuff. There's been analysis suggesting that the Comey letter specifically hurt Clinton not with the rural/working class white voters (who were mostly already in the Trump camp), but with suburban college educated voters in places like the counties around Philadelphia. This was where Clinton was expected to run up the score, but the late break in undecideds there meant that she carried those counties by relatively insignificant margins.

Originally Posted by vegietarian18

It was definitely close, but it was also fairly decisive: no single state swung the result like Florida did in 2000.

There were actually 30 states that all, individually, swung the result in 2000. (And three states in 2004, including Florida and Ohio.)

Originally Posted by vegietarian18

I guess what I'm trying to say is what you're saying is correct, but I don't think it's helpful.

I definitely disagree. Given how close the election was, and how it very easily could have gone the other way if you change some non-demographic, non big-picture strategic things, it's important to consider both sides of the narrative. Repubicans do have a shrinking coalition. Winning an election the way they did here will continue to become more difficult. While Clinton lost, a female candidate is not a nonstarter. These are not insignificant things, and we'd be remiss if we didn't consider them.

Originally Posted by vegietarian18

It's perfectly legitimate to ask questions about why Clinton lost, because she did. The result will define the country for the next four years.

Obviously I agree with that.

[vegietarian18]

I do not think the focus on Comey is appropriate. I think the emails are almost brought up more by Clinton supporters who want to make the legitimate grievances people have against Clinton seem small. The emails can serve as a quick and easy way to articulate an example of those grievances, but (IMO, as someone who is not a Clinton fan) it was not that specific event that made a substantial amount of people vote for Trump over Clinton. When you make it out to be, you miss some of the deeper problems that the Democratic party has right now. We need to fix those problems for 2020

[lefton4ya]

I haven't really read this thread since day 1, but has anyone been reading the blog of Scott Adams (author of Dilbert comic strip)? He predicted over a year and a half ago that Trump would win (a couple days after he announced his bid for the Republican nomination - before anyone alse took him seriously). His basic theory has been that Trump is a great master Persuader and has used things like emotionalism and psychology, not facts and reason, as 90% of all our decisions are NOT based on reasoning and logic (that's the theory anyway). I have been reading his post over the past year and a half and at first Adams was neutral, then he endorsed Clinton, then a 3rd party, then finally Trump (at which point he disabled comments on his blog for all the flame wars he was getting that he was not getting when he endorsed Clinton or was neutral). Anyway, regardless of who you voted for, it is an interesting read (I highly suspect the author of Dilbert and How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big will compile these in to a best-selling book within the next few months), and if anything I highly recommend you read his Clown Genius and Wizard Wars posts as they explain how Trump won (they were written 15 months ago in August of 2015) by being a Wizard as exemplified by this quote:

Likewise, when you criticize Trump for being vague on policies, you should know it is intentional. The empty spaces are provided for you to fill them in with whatever you think is a good idea. For a skilled wizard, the less he says, the more you like it. The wizard lets your brain fill in all the blanks with your personal favorite flavor of awesomeness.

[vegietarian18]

Originally Posted by lefton4ya

I haven't really read this thread since day 1, but has anyone been reading the blog of Scott Adams (author of Dilbert comic strip). He predicted over a hear and a half ago that Trump would win (a couple days after he announced his bid for the Republican nomination - before anyone took him seriously). His basic theory has been that Trump is a great master Pursuader and has used things like emotionalism and psychology, not facts and reason, as 90% of all our decisions are NOT based on reasoning and logic (that's the theory anyway). I have been reading his post over the past year and a half and at first Adams was neutral, then he endorsed Clinton, then a 3rd party, then finally Trump (at which case he disabled comments on his blog for all the flame wars he was getting that he was not getting when he endorsed Clinton or was neutral). Anyway, regarless of who you voted for, it in an interesting read, and if anything I highly reccomend you read his Wizard Wars post as it explains how Trump won (it was written August 17th, 2015) by being a Wizard as exemplified by this quote:

There's a lot of bad people who were validated by a Trump win. Scott Adams should not even be considered among them. I used to believe him a little bit during the primaries when I thought Trump was calculated chaos to stick out in a crowded field. But when he stuck with the same strategy in the general election, it became obvious that Trump really was just chaos and Scott Adams was just making things up to fit his own weird worldview.

Scott Adams predicted Trump would win in a "landslide" and it would be said he was "running unopposed". None of those things are close to true. Trump is not a "master persuader", he just energized the people who already agreed with him and his opponent didn't. Scott Adams does not deserve credit for predicting this election

[dok]

Originally Posted by vegietarian18

I do not think the focus on Comey is appropriate. I think the emails are almost brought up more by Clinton supporters who want to make the legitimate grievances people have against Clinton seem small.

In this context, I don't really care to talk about whether it was a legitimate grievance or not, or whether other things she did that people don't like are legitimate grievances or not. Comey retracted the concern 8 days after he first raised it, so it doesn't seem like much of an issue. Sure, other things were more significant, I don't dispute that.

Originally Posted by vegietarian18

The emails can serve as a quick and easy way to articulate an example of those grievances, but (IMO, as someone who is not a Clinton fan) it was not that specific event that made a substantial amount of people vote for Trump over Clinton.

You can have your "IMO", but I'll stick with the analysis of the polling trends over the last two weeks and the exit polls in the key areas, which strongly suggest that the e-mail dominated news cycle moved a couple points worth of people into the Trump column. Given the effect that move had on the result, that's pretty darn "substantial".

"Focus" on Comey is appropriate in a couple ways:

• As I just said, it allows us to more easily realize how tight the result was, and that many of the things people would be saying in the wake of a narrow Clinton victory are also true
• It is important to consider that an "October surprise" probably swung the result for the first time in modern American history, and this will encourage more future October surprise efforts. If we don't want to see this become the M.O. of future campaigns then we need to think about how to make our institutions more resistant to that sort of manipulation.

Originally Posted by vegietarian18

When you make it out to be, you miss some of the deeper problems that the Democratic party has right now. We need to fix those problems for 2020

As I've repeatedly said, recognizing the very real impact of the Comey stuff doesn't mean that the other factors that were critical in Trump's win should be ignored.

EDIT: Scott Adams is a really terrible person. He likes Trump because he thinks Trump validates his extreme mysogynist views.