Decision 2016

[Raider30]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

When did you see a hate crime from BLM invoking the name of a President or the President Elect?

Regardless, I don't concede that BLM is a hate group. But that's a different discussion for a different time. It is not crazy talk (or hate talk) to try to implement their goals. You may not like their goals and I may not like them (all) either, and I get that police are needlessly villified, but it's a long jump from their stated goals to swastika-painting neo-Nazi.

The argument you are making is that things done in the name of Trump are in some way his fault. Clearly that line of thinking can easily be applied to the out of control protesters associated with BLM. Good for the goose is good for the gander and all that...

Raider30

[Sherman Davies]

Originally Posted by Raider30

And what level exactly would you assign to some of the stuff that has come out of BLM?

If by "stuff" you mean some members of BLM referring to police who shoot innocent citizens as "pigs," I don't assign that to be any level of "bad." BLM criticizing cops (who chose their profession) for failing to live up to the admittedly tough standards of their job is not at all analogous to skinheads and neo-Nazis hating blacks, Jews, LGBT, etc... (who do not choose to be born to their respective groups) If you're not equating the two I apologize for misunderstanding you, but if you are I have no idea how you square that in your mind.

[All Your Pie]

Originally Posted by Raider30

The argument you are making is that things done in the name of Trump are in some way his fault. Clearly that line of thinking can easily be applied to the out of control protesters associated with BLM. Good for the goose is good for the gander and all that...

Raider30

I think you are misunderstanding the point. Stating a fact and assigning blame are different things. It is evidenced that Trump's candidacy and election are an inspiration to right-wing fringe groups which might stir them to action or violence. Is this Trump's personal fault? That's debatable, but it also doesn't matter. What does matter is the fact that active, emboldened neo-nazis place certain groups within this country in actual danger. If that can't be acknowledged, I have to wonder why.

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by Raider30

The argument you are making is that things done in the name of Trump are in some way his fault.

I didn't say it's his fault. My only point, which is one I hope you and I can agree on, is that the neo-Nazis and other white supremacists who have vocally supported him, and who have been represented in his campaign materials and on his campaign staff, will have no place in his administration.

I wasn't saying anything other than what I said. I think you've already agreed with the above, so there is really no need for us to argue about this point.

[Raider30]

Originally Posted by Sherman Davies

If by "stuff" you mean some members of BLM referring to police who shoot innocent citizens as "pigs," I don't assign that to be any level of "bad." BLM criticizing cops (who chose their profession) for failing to live up to the admittedly tough standards of their job is not at all analogous to skinheads and neo-Nazis hating blacks, Jews, LGBT, etc... (who do not choose to be born to their respective groups) If you're not equating the two I apologize for misunderstanding you, but if you are I have no idea how you square that in your mind.

"Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em up" - Pigs(cops) in a blanket(body bag), fry 'em up(put them there).

Your overly general characterization of people shot by police as "innocent citizens" indicates to me that this is sensitive subject with you and perhaps you and I should simply agree to disagree, or if you want you can PM me.

Either way it was not my intent to push your buttons or otherwise cause you to be upset. If that was the case then I am sorry.

The context of mentioning BLM was in response to the notion that some people are responsible for others actions. Not to form an equivalency between their ideas and those of a neo-nazi, however, the thought occurs to me that there are similarities in the way both groups wrongly label entire categories of people.

Regards,

- Raider30

[Raider30]

Originally Posted by dok

No. Trump has not encouraged those people or championed the causes those people care about, and those people don't feel empowered by his election.

Heh, quite the contrary, they CLEARLY felt empowered by his election to go out and commit the crimes they did.

- Raider30

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by Raider30

The context of mentioning BLM was in response to the notion that some people are responsible for others actions. Not to form an equivalency between their ideas and those of a neo-nazi, however, the thought occurs to me that there are similarities in the way both groups wrongly label entire categories of people.

This is a whole other conversation, but I think there is lots of room for common ground between BLM and law enforcement. For instance, I know some police on the street who want body cameras, and I suspect BLM would like that change, too.

I am on the side of defending police far, far more often than I am on the side of defending BLM, but I don't see them as (always) opposed. It's a tricky conversation, but it's possible.

[Rich10]

Originally Posted by dok

That's a fair assessment of many Trump supporters. There's also the social conservatives who were primarily motivated by the supreme court, but those are probably less common where you live.


However, most people you (and I) describe are not the ones that were holding out late in the campaign.

Yes, I don't run across too many social conservatives in NY. lol I thought that this was interesting.
https://gma.yahoo.com/5-missteps-may...opstories.html#

Another article on the same topic:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...cid=spartandhp

Michael Moore's explanation for the Trump victory.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news...cid=spartandhp
"Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club, and stood there in front of the Ford Motor executives, and said, 'If you close these factories as you're planning to do in Detroit and build them in Mexico, I'm going to put a 35 percent tariff on those cars when you send them back, and nobody is going to buy them.' It was an amazing thing to see. No politician, Republican or Democrat, had ever said anything like that to these executives. And it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The Brexit states. ... Whether Trump means it or not is kind of irrelevant because he's saying the things to people who are hurting. And it's why every beaten-down, nameless, forgotten working stiff, who used to be part of what was called the middle class, loves Trump. He is the human Molotov cocktail that they've been waiting for. The human hand grenade that they can legally throw into the system that stole their lives from them. And on Nov. 8, Election Day, although they've lost their jobs, although they've been foreclosed on by the bank, next came the divorce and now the wife and kids are gone, the car's been repo'd, they haven't had a real vacation in years, they're stuck with the sh--ty Obamacare bronze plan, where you can't even get a f---ing Percocet. They've essentially lost everything they had, except one thing. The one thing that doesn't cost them a cent and is guaranteed to them by the American Constitution: the right to vote. They might be penniless, they might be homeless, they might be f---ed over and f---ed up, it doesn't matter. Because it's equalized on that day: a millionaire has the same number of votes as the person without a job, one. "

[dok]

Moore's most impressive feat was essentially calling the final electoral map... in July.

Spoiler Alert!

"And this is where the math comes in. In 2012, Mitt Romney lost by 64 electoral votes. Add up the electoral votes cast by Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It’s 64. All Trump needs to do to win is to carry, as he’s expected to do, the swath of traditional red states from Idaho to Georgia (states that’ll never vote for Hillary Clinton), and then he just needs these four rust belt states. He doesn’t need Florida. He doesn’t need Colorado or Virginia. Just Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And that will put him over the top. This is how it will happen in November."

OK, he got Florida wrong, but that's still pretty close.

But anyway, I basically agree with the points you're making but I'm unsure if you're making them as a counterpoint to what I've said or as an additional explanation. As I said to vegie, all of these things can be simultaneously true. Trump appealed to a certain slice of the electorate in a unique way, and that was critical to his victory. But this does not change the fact that his critical wins in WI/MI/PA were very close, and the decisions of late breaking undecideds was critical in all three. And it seems fairly clear that those late undecideds were influenced by the news cycle of the last two weeks of the campaign, which was unambiguously anti-Clinton.

If the news cycle of the last 10 days is more about Trump, or just neutral, then the break of undecideds is less extreme, and that probably makes the ~1% difference that swings all three of those states.

[vegietarian18]

I mean, I still believe low Clinton turnout is the most important factor. Just based on the reaction in the country, I think more people would have wanted Clinton, if you polled every single person. But Trump energized his smaller base, and Clinton took hers for granted. Clinton drastically underperformed in total votes relative to Obama, and Trump did about the same relative to McCain and Romney. While the other factors of late undecideds swinging Trump certainly gave Trump the win, the biggest takeaway should be that the Democratic strategy did not work. They didn't have a message, they didn't have an inspiring candidate (even though she could have been the first female president, which is a pretty inspiring thing!), and they were too confident that the other side would self-destruct. It never should have come down to undecideds, and it never should have come down to the final news cycle. They made safe choices (like, as you mentioned, Kaine) because they thought they could. Even if you want to argue that Clinton could have won this election with the strategy she took, she wouldn't have won it decisively. Personally, I'm going to look at the actual outcome, to see that my personal feelings of disconnect with the Democratic party are shared by many others. I really hope that they learn from this, and have honest primaries and an honest message in the future.

This election had a pair of pretty bad defeats for the concept of families controlling the presidency. A Bush and Clinton ran with unprecedented infrastructure and support from their establishment, and lost to Donald Trump. People clearly do not want their leaders chosen based on their family name.

[Sherman Davies]

Originally Posted by Raider30

"Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em up" - Pigs(cops) in a blanket(body bag), fry 'em up(put them there).

Your overly general characterization of people shot by police as "innocent citizens" indicates to me that this is sensitive subject with you and perhaps you and I should simply agree to disagree, or if you want you can PM me.

To my knowledge, every case we've heard of or seen in the past few years which started the BLM movement has involved an innocent citizen or a crime that was a non-capital offense. There'd be no nationwide movement if we just had a few instances of cops shooting murder suspects.

Originally Posted by Raider30

Either way it was not my intent to push your buttons or otherwise cause you to be upset. If that was the case then I am sorry.

The context of mentioning BLM was in response to the notion that some people are responsible for others actions. Not to form an equivalency between their ideas and those of a neo-nazi, however, the thought occurs to me that there are similarities in the way both groups wrongly label entire categories of people.

No worries, I wasn't upset. I'm just glad you weren't making an equivalency between the two. However, I disagree that there's necessarily anything wrong with labeling groups of people, if membership in those groups was chosen consciously and voluntarily. I don't feel in the wrong calling all Klansmen "bigots," or calling racist and corrupt cops "pigs," because I am labeling them based on their stated ideas, whereas I would feel in the wrong calling a gay person a "f****t" for (hopefully) obvious reasons.

Sorry for the slight derail, everyone.

[Ranior]

Originally Posted by vegietarian18

I mean, I still believe low Clinton turnout is the most important factor. Just based on the reaction in the country, I think more people would have wanted Clinton, if you polled every single person. But Trump energized his smaller base, and Clinton took hers for granted. Clinton drastically underperformed in total votes relative to Obama, and Trump did about the same relative to McCain and Romney.

While this may yet turn out to be true, you simply do not yet have the evidence for this. Votes are still being turned in, and many provisional ballots and last minute mailed in ballots will be counted in the coming days and weeks. Already Trump and Clinton are both nearing 60 million votes, and more will come in. You really can't know what the turnout was yet until more data comes in. In 2012 this also happened--Obama gained about 4 million total votes off of what was first reported on the Wednesday morning after the election. Every cycle this happens. You just can't look at the numbers today and state with any certainty yet that the Democratic turnout wasn't as high as 2012 and 2008. (It likely was, as Obama certainly seemed to energize voters more, but we don't have the data to back up this yet).

I really hope that they learn from this, and have honest primaries and an honest message in the future.

Implying that somehow the democrats rigged the primaries and campaigned with a dishonest message?