|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
If the Democrats continue playing identity politics games and expect that it will get them elected, then they will have learned nothing from this loss.
There is a path forward, but that path is not Hillary Clinton.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 10 2016 05:24 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:21 Buckyman wrote:On November 10 2016 05:12 Grumbels wrote:
Or the FBI or the media that created a ridiculous email scandal based on almost nothing.
I saw some analyses that the DNC was to blame for supporting a 'scandal-ridden, unpopular candidate' in Clinton, but I find that weird. Pretty much all her scandals are based on GOP slander or social media whisper campaigns, and much of what makes her unpopular is sexist prejudice against the first female candidate.
Funny, some of my other circles have been criticizing the media for not covering the important aspects of the (multiple) email scandals. Like, say, testifying to the FBI that she never bothered to learn what the rules for handling classified information were. Or the Huma Abedin state department emails that apparently got purged from her private server when they should have been turned over. Or the leaked messages coordinating some violations of campaign finance laws. Or the leaked messages implicating her in further violations of campaign finance laws prior to the official start of her campaign. these are all presumably national security issues. but when you've got multiple former CIA directors coming out to support hillary or bash Trump, that should be a hint on this issue, no?
I think that just played into the narrative that Clinton is corrupt and above the law.
|
California can pay for their part of the wall with their marijuana tax, which should be what, about 1 billion annually?
Pretty small drop in the bucket considering California's economy but pretty awesome none the less. Pot sales look like they account for about .3% of Colorado's GDP. The best part about legalizing it is probably in regards to law enforcement. 20,000 less charges pressed per year, lot more people staying out of prison, good shit. I'm kinda excited for moving back there.
|
On November 10 2016 05:40 Tachion wrote:
California can pay for their part of the wall with their marijuana tax, which should be what, about 1 billion annually?
Pretty small drop in the bucket considering California's economy but pretty awesome none the less. MJ sales look like they account for about .3% of Colorado's GDP. The best part about legalizing it is probably in regards to law enforcement. 20,000 less charges pressed per year, lot more people staying out of prison, good shit. I'm kinda excited for moving back there.
Texas and Arizona have the lion's share of border lands. And they have taken border control quite seriously.
Since 15 years ago, as a result of the previously mentioned border control, illegal crossings have plummeted to less than half of what they were back then. It's working, mostly.
Marijuana legalization makes sense. Legalize and regulate, instead of pushing people to crime.
|
On November 10 2016 05:40 Tachion wrote:
California can pay for their part of the wall with their marijuana tax, which should be what, about 1 billion annually?
Pretty small drop in the bucket considering California's economy but pretty awesome none the less. Pot sales look like they account for about .3% of Colorado's GDP. The best part about legalizing it is probably in regards to law enforcement. 20,000 less charges pressed per year, lot more people staying out of prison, good shit. I'm kinda excited for moving back there.
Why would California, one of the bluest states in the union ever invest in a ridiculous border wall? Especially considering they have a gigantic ongoing water problem and are pushing hard for green energy which seems like the likely use of their pot tax dollars.
|
On November 10 2016 05:37 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:26 Grumbels wrote:
Who is citing the alt-right as instrumental to the election? She is. It's basically the underlying assumption of her Twitter rant. Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:26 Grumbels wrote:
For my part I'm just aware of the fact that the alt-right is Trump's most loyal group of supporters and is a toxic group of characters that are now empowered thanks to his victory. And furthermore, nobody that voted for Trump can actually articulate a good reason for why they're supporting him, all rational arguments immediately fall apart. It is only the alt-right that truly understands his message: soothing resentful white men that they are more important than the rest of the world, as is their birthright. That's not Trump's message either. The reality is he never had one. He was improving his way through the campaign trail and contradicted himself 1759607 times along the way. But since he didn't have a feasible plan or ideology to sell, he gave the public vague catchphrases and promises that they could interpret as anything. Most of his supporters are reacting to him on an emotional level, not an intellectual one. Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:26 Grumbels wrote:
I'm sorry if using the word alt-right makes me literally Joe McCarthy during the red scare, I hope history won't demonize me too much. I wasn't trying to insult you. I'm pointing out that her screed follows the same pattern as the other movements I mentioned. The only difference is that since the "conspirators" couldn't have been the elite by definition (since whether they want to admit it or not, they would constitute her and much of her audience), they must be a grassroots movement. And yet they share the same traits as the "Masons" and "Papists" and "commies": living among us yet undetectable, morally abhorrent, possessing the power to influence world events without description as to the extent of their power, and existing at every level of society.
I haven't figured out why we care about this tweeter (twit?). Can't we just conclude the discussion by saying that her original tweet was wrong, or at least a gross simplification, and stop this whole back and forth?
|
On November 10 2016 05:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:03 oneofthem wrote:
btw for the straight economic determinists out there, trump had good turnout in rural areas with good economic performance too.
it's not as simple as desperate people, but also a culture of anxiety and resistance against perceived injustice. a variety of data to support this, some from before the election. Like I have been saying, there's a tremendous cultural element to this election. Just look at the media coverage regarding the election today. The basic story that they're reporting is that Trump won thanks to a bunch of uneducated, racist, white male idiots. And this negative attitude towards Trump and the types of people that voted for Trump has been pervasive from the top down on the left for years. Hell, you need look no further than this thread to see the rampancy of this unfounded and ridiculous narrative.
Will they fix the politics of electorate disparagement in time for 2018, will Trump/congressional leadership mess up so massively they walk back into the Senate, or will it take 1-3 more elections to tone down the divisive rhetoric?
|
On November 10 2016 05:36 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:30 Ghostcom wrote:On November 10 2016 05:11 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 05:07 Ghostcom wrote:On November 10 2016 05:00 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 04:56 WhiteDog wrote:On November 10 2016 04:51 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 04:46 WhiteDog wrote:On November 10 2016 04:33 207aicila wrote:
Curious if anyone here has seen this series of tweets (there are more, and more interesting ones from her in the replies) and what your thoughts are.
It's definitely a trend that's been growing a lot recently on the internet but I always assumed it's more of a fringe internet minority and nothing something likely to leave a significant impact. And people like this girl are partly responsible for this. If people have shitty ideas, then engage with them and discuss. There's reason to everything : the moral kabbal that some people in the left created in the last few years participated in the appearance of the "alt right". On a campus, you should discuss everything with everyone. Her twitter feed is a beautiful exemple of cognitive bias. "Those white men, they're sexist and racist and hating on us, and they elected him for that" : no, it's the economy stupid. I don't disagree with problems of communication in a general sense, but have you see alt-right places like /r/the_donald and 4chan? You're basically arguing that people should try and have reasonable discussions over Twitch Chat, except in this case everyone else in chat hates what you have to say on principal alone. You can't have a reasonable argument on the internet in a place like a twitch chat or reddit where trolling is the rule, but in a class room or on a college campus, in face to face interactions, you can talk with anyone. When you insult someone and assimilate everything he or she says to his/her caracteristics (men or women, white or not, etc.) you lose all chance to actually engage in a good discussion. Yeah, and I think that's where we agree. But from my perspective the alt right is a movement that's deeply seeded in online communities and has a much weaker physical presence. Someone who's actively on US campuses may disagree with that (would be interested to hear about it). Anyways with that perceptions that's why I scoff at the idea of engaging the alt right, the only forms they seem to occupy as an organizational force are ones where trolling is the rule. Part of the reason for the lack of physical presence is probably because of the way they are met with an instantaneous attempt at shaming them to silence if they ever dare speak up in public. Further, can you even blame them considering the complete and utter lack of introspection from "progressives" like the ones whose twitter was linked? (Note: I use "" to denote that I don't actually consider her progressive). That's a very circular logic, "I'm afraid to express my movement in public because my movement online is mostly about trolling and harassment". Of course no one is going to take a movement seriously when their only public expressions as individuals are harassing women, trolling, and other unsavory acts and their more official channels tend to be regarded as some of the most skewed reporting available. Like can you show me some positive things the alt-right stands for? I'm sorry if I didn't explain the logic well enough. The concept is essentially that whenever you make something forbidden you don't extinguish it, you merely drive it underground where it'll stew and develop on its own - including communication forms. What has happened over the past decade is that divergent opinions have become more and more forbidden and ridiculed (note, I'm not talking about "Hitler did nothing wrong"-stuff - I'm talking about pretty much any topic from immigration to what we eat). This creates a sub-culture for those who actually want to discuss these things - and the best place for discussing controversial opinions just so happens to be the internet as no one knows who you are. Please note I won't pretend this is some profound insight - its pretty much history repeating itself. I have however literally no idea about what the alt-right stands for. I wouldn't even know where to start or end with defining the "movement" - in fact I doubt it can even legitimately qualify as such. Yeah, but again I feel like you're conflating a pretty reasonable idea with an alt-right movement that doesn't really embody those ideas. From everything I've seen (going all the way back to before Gamergate) the alt-right movement has always been largely about lashing out & harassing (women especially) and really not much else. Like the closest thing I've ever seen to an alt right message is "alpha males rule". At best it's a reactionary movement to the idea of stuff like safe spaces, but instead of reacting to those concepts it's reacted to the reasons why people push for those concepts (and hence reduces itself to harassment and what not). But again it's hard to get perspective because the movement is just a shapeless mass of anger rather than some organized entity.
I think you are misrepresenting at least part of those that have been described as alt-right in the media by claiming they are all about harassment. But as it is such a hard to define group I doubt we will get much closer to it. I think Gamergate was (much like this election) a great example of an echo chamber effect - to the point where no one can really agree on what triggered it all: Being angry at girls playing games or a corrupt gaming (review) industry. Both sides probably has merit.
|
California went Clinton 61% to 33%. There seems to be protesting now because lots of Californians really don't think Trump represents their idea of a president - probably like how the Rust Belt people didn't think Obama did either. Crazy times.
|
On November 10 2016 05:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:21 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2016 05:03 oneofthem wrote:
btw for the straight economic determinists out there, trump had good turnout in rural areas with good economic performance too.
it's not as simple as desperate people, but also a culture of anxiety and resistance against perceived injustice. a variety of data to support this, some from before the election. Like I have been saying, there's a tremendous cultural element to this election. Just look at the media coverage regarding the election today. The basic story that they're reporting is that Trump won thanks to a bunch of uneducated, racist, white male idiots. And this negative attitude towards Trump and the types of people that voted for Trump has been pervasive from the top down on the left for years. Hell, you need look no further than this thread to see the rampancy of this unfounded and ridiculous narrative. Will they fix the politics of electorate disparagement in time for 2018, will Trump/congressional leadership mess up so massively they walk back into the Senate, or will it take 1-3 more elections to tone down the divisive rhetoric?
Wait for them to calm down and stop blaming Bernie Sanders supporters for their loss, then we will see where things go.
|
On November 10 2016 05:43 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:40 Tachion wrote:
California can pay for their part of the wall with their marijuana tax, which should be what, about 1 billion annually?
Pretty small drop in the bucket considering California's economy but pretty awesome none the less. Pot sales look like they account for about .3% of Colorado's GDP. The best part about legalizing it is probably in regards to law enforcement. 20,000 less charges pressed per year, lot more people staying out of prison, good shit. I'm kinda excited for moving back there. Why would California, one of the bluest states in the union ever invest in a ridiculous border wall? Especially considering they have a gigantic ongoing water problem and are pushing hard for green energy which seems like the likely use of their pot tax dollars.
I wasn't being serious, I just wanted to bring up cali's legalization and threw in something topical :p
|
On November 10 2016 05:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:03 oneofthem wrote:
btw for the straight economic determinists out there, trump had good turnout in rural areas with good economic performance too.
it's not as simple as desperate people, but also a culture of anxiety and resistance against perceived injustice. a variety of data to support this, some from before the election. Like I have been saying, there's a tremendous cultural element to this election. Just look at the media coverage regarding the election today. The basic story that they're reporting is that Trump won thanks to a bunch of uneducated, racist, white male idiots. And this negative attitude towards Trump and the types of people that voted for Trump has been pervasive from the top down on the left for years. Hell, you need look no further than this thread to see the rampancy of this unfounded and ridiculous narrative.
The "uneducated idiot" part is pretty easy to make an argument for. Only an uneducated idiot population would elect a man without a plan. A TV personality, at that.
|
On November 10 2016 05:44 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:36 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 05:30 Ghostcom wrote:On November 10 2016 05:11 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 05:07 Ghostcom wrote:On November 10 2016 05:00 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 04:56 WhiteDog wrote:On November 10 2016 04:51 Logo wrote:On November 10 2016 04:46 WhiteDog wrote:On November 10 2016 04:33 207aicila wrote:Curious if anyone here has seen this series of tweets (there are more, and more interesting ones from her in the replies) and what your thoughts are. https://twitter.com/SiyandaWrites/status/796286719058382848It's definitely a trend that's been growing a lot recently on the internet but I always assumed it's more of a fringe internet minority and nothing something likely to leave a significant impact. And people like this girl are partly responsible for this. If people have shitty ideas, then engage with them and discuss. There's reason to everything : the moral kabbal that some people in the left created in the last few years participated in the appearance of the "alt right". On a campus, you should discuss everything with everyone. Her twitter feed is a beautiful exemple of cognitive bias. "Those white men, they're sexist and racist and hating on us, and they elected him for that" : no, it's the economy stupid. I don't disagree with problems of communication in a general sense, but have you see alt-right places like /r/the_donald and 4chan? You're basically arguing that people should try and have reasonable discussions over Twitch Chat, except in this case everyone else in chat hates what you have to say on principal alone. You can't have a reasonable argument on the internet in a place like a twitch chat or reddit where trolling is the rule, but in a class room or on a college campus, in face to face interactions, you can talk with anyone. When you insult someone and assimilate everything he or she says to his/her caracteristics (men or women, white or not, etc.) you lose all chance to actually engage in a good discussion. Yeah, and I think that's where we agree. But from my perspective the alt right is a movement that's deeply seeded in online communities and has a much weaker physical presence. Someone who's actively on US campuses may disagree with that (would be interested to hear about it). Anyways with that perceptions that's why I scoff at the idea of engaging the alt right, the only forms they seem to occupy as an organizational force are ones where trolling is the rule. Part of the reason for the lack of physical presence is probably because of the way they are met with an instantaneous attempt at shaming them to silence if they ever dare speak up in public. Further, can you even blame them considering the complete and utter lack of introspection from "progressives" like the ones whose twitter was linked? (Note: I use "" to denote that I don't actually consider her progressive). That's a very circular logic, "I'm afraid to express my movement in public because my movement online is mostly about trolling and harassment". Of course no one is going to take a movement seriously when their only public expressions as individuals are harassing women, trolling, and other unsavory acts and their more official channels tend to be regarded as some of the most skewed reporting available. Like can you show me some positive things the alt-right stands for? I'm sorry if I didn't explain the logic well enough. The concept is essentially that whenever you make something forbidden you don't extinguish it, you merely drive it underground where it'll stew and develop on its own - including communication forms. What has happened over the past decade is that divergent opinions have become more and more forbidden and ridiculed (note, I'm not talking about "Hitler did nothing wrong"-stuff - I'm talking about pretty much any topic from immigration to what we eat). This creates a sub-culture for those who actually want to discuss these things - and the best place for discussing controversial opinions just so happens to be the internet as no one knows who you are. Please note I won't pretend this is some profound insight - its pretty much history repeating itself. I have however literally no idea about what the alt-right stands for. I wouldn't even know where to start or end with defining the "movement" - in fact I doubt it can even legitimately qualify as such. Yeah, but again I feel like you're conflating a pretty reasonable idea with an alt-right movement that doesn't really embody those ideas. From everything I've seen (going all the way back to before Gamergate) the alt-right movement has always been largely about lashing out & harassing (women especially) and really not much else. Like the closest thing I've ever seen to an alt right message is "alpha males rule". At best it's a reactionary movement to the idea of stuff like safe spaces, but instead of reacting to those concepts it's reacted to the reasons why people push for those concepts (and hence reduces itself to harassment and what not). But again it's hard to get perspective because the movement is just a shapeless mass of anger rather than some organized entity. I think you are misrepresenting at least part of those that have been described as alt-right in the media by claiming they are all about harassment. But as it is such a hard to define group I doubt we will get much closer to it. I think Gamergate was (much like this election) a great example of an echo chamber effect - to the point where no one can really agree on what triggered it all: Being angry at girls playing games or a corrupt gaming (review) industry. Both sides probably has merit.
I can agree with reality? I was there on twitter already following the relevant people as the movement formed, I read the initial tweets and posts before the 'movement' even had a name. I followed the journalists that the so called scandal focused on and read their relevant coverage of the relevant developers. I don't really need other people to try and dispute what I saw first hand and really that's all that I've ever seen from people who defend Gamergate.
It was about harassment of women who make artsy games that co-opted a bunch of people who were conned into thinking it was about corrupt gaming reviews (which in turn does make the group partially about that, but never as its core).
|
Despite losing Tuesday's presidential election, Hillary Clinton appears to be on pace to win the popular vote, an ironic twist in an election in which her opponent repeatedly said the system was rigged against him.
Just two days before Election Day, Republican businessman Donald Trump tweeted: "The Electoral College is a disaster for a democracy."
As it turns out, without the Electoral College, Trump probably wouldn't be the president-elect.
A day after Election Day, Clinton held a narrow lead in the popular vote, according to unofficial results tallied by The Associated Press. With nearly 125 million votes counted, Clinton had 47.7 percent of the vote and Trump had 47.5 percent.
Yahoo
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 10 2016 05:39 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:03 oneofthem wrote:
btw for the straight economic determinists out there, trump had good turnout in rural areas with good economic performance too.
it's not as simple as desperate people, but also a culture of anxiety and resistance against perceived injustice. a variety of data to support this, some from before the election. Just saying I'm not a straight economic determinists. But anyway, can you develop a little on the bold part ? I'm interested to know what you mean exactly.
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/15/12462760/trump-resentment-economic-anxiety
i dont really read vox that much i just googled the racial resentment study and here seems like a good summary of the data and arguments
|
On November 10 2016 05:43 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:37 CosmicSpiral wrote:On November 10 2016 05:26 Grumbels wrote:
Who is citing the alt-right as instrumental to the election? She is. It's basically the underlying assumption of her Twitter rant. On November 10 2016 05:26 Grumbels wrote:
For my part I'm just aware of the fact that the alt-right is Trump's most loyal group of supporters and is a toxic group of characters that are now empowered thanks to his victory. And furthermore, nobody that voted for Trump can actually articulate a good reason for why they're supporting him, all rational arguments immediately fall apart. It is only the alt-right that truly understands his message: soothing resentful white men that they are more important than the rest of the world, as is their birthright. That's not Trump's message either. The reality is he never had one. He was improving his way through the campaign trail and contradicted himself 1759607 times along the way. But since he didn't have a feasible plan or ideology to sell, he gave the public vague catchphrases and promises that they could interpret as anything. Most of his supporters are reacting to him on an emotional level, not an intellectual one. On November 10 2016 05:26 Grumbels wrote:
I'm sorry if using the word alt-right makes me literally Joe McCarthy during the red scare, I hope history won't demonize me too much. I wasn't trying to insult you. I'm pointing out that her screed follows the same pattern as the other movements I mentioned. The only difference is that since the "conspirators" couldn't have been the elite by definition (since whether they want to admit it or not, they would constitute her and much of her audience), they must be a grassroots movement. And yet they share the same traits as the "Masons" and "Papists" and "commies": living among us yet undetectable, morally abhorrent, possessing the power to influence world events without description as to the extent of their power, and existing at every level of society. I haven't figured out why we care about this tweeter (twit?). Can't we just conclude the discussion by saying that her original tweet was wrong, or at least a gross simplification, and stop this whole back and forth?
We care because it exemplifies a complete lack of introspection - the same which was evident throughout Clintons campaign. It wasn't the entire reason she lost, but it was definitely part of it. Claiming she lost because she is a woman or that this election was decided based on racism showcases how deaf Clinton and her supporters were to the complaints of the average Trump supporter. I think the cracked article (am I really writing this?) explained it decently.
|
On November 10 2016 05:46 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +Despite losing Tuesday's presidential election, Hillary Clinton appears to be on pace to win the popular vote, an ironic twist in an election in which her opponent repeatedly said the system was rigged against him.
Just two days before Election Day, Republican businessman Donald Trump tweeted: "The Electoral College is a disaster for a democracy."
As it turns out, without the Electoral College, Trump probably wouldn't be the president-elect.
A day after Election Day, Clinton held a narrow lead in the popular vote, according to unofficial results tallied by The Associated Press. With nearly 125 million votes counted, Clinton had 47.7 percent of the vote and Trump had 47.5 percent. Yahoo
That is really funny. Thank you.
|
On November 10 2016 05:24 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:21 Buckyman wrote:On November 10 2016 05:12 Grumbels wrote:
Or the FBI or the media that created a ridiculous email scandal based on almost nothing.
I saw some analyses that the DNC was to blame for supporting a 'scandal-ridden, unpopular candidate' in Clinton, but I find that weird. Pretty much all her scandals are based on GOP slander or social media whisper campaigns, and much of what makes her unpopular is sexist prejudice against the first female candidate.
Funny, some of my other circles have been criticizing the media for not covering the important aspects of the (multiple) email scandals. Like, say, testifying to the FBI that she never bothered to learn what the rules for handling classified information were. Or the Huma Abedin state department emails that apparently got purged from her private server when they should have been turned over. Or the leaked messages coordinating some violations of campaign finance laws. Or the leaked messages implicating her in further violations of campaign finance laws prior to the official start of her campaign. these are all presumably national security issues. but when you've got multiple former CIA directors coming out to support hillary or bash Trump, that should be a hint on this issue, no?
Trump is less interested in using the CIA to destabilize other nations and less interested in fighting Russia. So I'm not surprised that former CIA directors of which probably a lot were active in the cold war don't like him.
|
On November 10 2016 05:46 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +Despite losing Tuesday's presidential election, Hillary Clinton appears to be on pace to win the popular vote, an ironic twist in an election in which her opponent repeatedly said the system was rigged against him.
Just two days before Election Day, Republican businessman Donald Trump tweeted: "The Electoral College is a disaster for a democracy."
As it turns out, without the Electoral College, Trump probably wouldn't be the president-elect.
A day after Election Day, Clinton held a narrow lead in the popular vote, according to unofficial results tallied by The Associated Press. With nearly 125 million votes counted, Clinton had 47.7 percent of the vote and Trump had 47.5 percent. Yahoo
She won the most populous states other than Texas, this isn't surprising.
The Republicans consistently lose the popular vote in mid term elections too. It doesn't matter though because they've successfully gerrymandered so many states that losing the house is almost impossible for them right now.
There are more people in this country that support Democrats than Republicans, it has been that way for a long time and the data supports it very clearly.
Thing is, the way our system is set up, that doesn't matter.
|
On November 10 2016 05:48 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 05:43 Acrofales wrote:On November 10 2016 05:37 CosmicSpiral wrote:On November 10 2016 05:26 Grumbels wrote:
Who is citing the alt-right as instrumental to the election? She is. It's basically the underlying assumption of her Twitter rant. On November 10 2016 05:26 Grumbels wrote:
For my part I'm just aware of the fact that the alt-right is Trump's most loyal group of supporters and is a toxic group of characters that are now empowered thanks to his victory. And furthermore, nobody that voted for Trump can actually articulate a good reason for why they're supporting him, all rational arguments immediately fall apart. It is only the alt-right that truly understands his message: soothing resentful white men that they are more important than the rest of the world, as is their birthright. That's not Trump's message either. The reality is he never had one. He was improving his way through the campaign trail and contradicted himself 1759607 times along the way. But since he didn't have a feasible plan or ideology to sell, he gave the public vague catchphrases and promises that they could interpret as anything. Most of his supporters are reacting to him on an emotional level, not an intellectual one. On November 10 2016 05:26 Grumbels wrote:
I'm sorry if using the word alt-right makes me literally Joe McCarthy during the red scare, I hope history won't demonize me too much. I wasn't trying to insult you. I'm pointing out that her screed follows the same pattern as the other movements I mentioned. The only difference is that since the "conspirators" couldn't have been the elite by definition (since whether they want to admit it or not, they would constitute her and much of her audience), they must be a grassroots movement. And yet they share the same traits as the "Masons" and "Papists" and "commies": living among us yet undetectable, morally abhorrent, possessing the power to influence world events without description as to the extent of their power, and existing at every level of society. I haven't figured out why we care about this tweeter (twit?). Can't we just conclude the discussion by saying that her original tweet was wrong, or at least a gross simplification, and stop this whole back and forth? We care because it exemplifies a complete lack of introspection - the same which was evident throughout Clintons campaign. It wasn't the entire reason she lost, but it was definitely part of it. Claiming she lost because she is a woman or that this election was decided based on racism showcases how deaf Clinton and her supporters were to the complaints of the average Trump supporter. I think the cracked article (am I really writing this?) explained it decently.
Can you really mix up someone offering a reason as them blaming the entire thing on that reason? Like there's clearly a dozen if not more reasons why Clinton lost and all of them worked together to make it happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
