|
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. |
On December 13 2016 17:28 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 04:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I can't believe people are still calling Clinton disliked after she got as many votes as Obama in 2012...
Its like they can't believe a woman who's won the popular vote 3 times in a row could have won it because she was liked by the people. Personally I'd class unfavourabity ratings as a better judge of popularity than how many votes she recieved? Ever consider the fact that tens of millions voted for Clinton because even though they disliked her they hated Trump more? Because that is literally what happened.
If that's so then Obama's high favor rating means people wanted establishment politics.
|
On December 13 2016 18:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 17:28 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 13 2016 04:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I can't believe people are still calling Clinton disliked after she got as many votes as Obama in 2012...
Its like they can't believe a woman who's won the popular vote 3 times in a row could have won it because she was liked by the people. Personally I'd class unfavourabity ratings as a better judge of popularity than how many votes she recieved? Ever consider the fact that tens of millions voted for Clinton because even though they disliked her they hated Trump more? Because that is literally what happened. If that's so then Obama's high favor rating means people wanted establishment politics.
DOW 20,000 will do that, plenty of optimism around right now but again it's all going to benefit Wall St not Main St.
Want more proof this is the reason? Even Trumps popularity has rocketed the past five weeks, 15-20% bump in approval.
http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=16209
|
On December 13 2016 17:24 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 05:43 xDaunt wrote:
Do any of the leftist posters around here think that the media and democrats are doing themselves a favor by pushing this "Russia hijacked the election, therefore Trump shouldn't be president" narrative? Speaking for myself, I don't have any thought that the election can be turned or that that's the objective when I talk (though I think it's absurd that you can lose by 2+% of the vote and still be president). It's about making people question what motives are out there behind the scenes that are potentially coloring their opinions--why you are seeing some things on WikiLeaks but not others in this case for example--things like that. Making people understand the manipulation more for the future, to be skeptical etc, especially to look critically at Trump's double standards, falsehoods, and times when he's actually against their interests.
Well if we're talking about double standards, Trump got shit on when he said that the elections were rigged. Now the liberal narrative is "the elections were rigged". Also recounts were demanded.
Trump ain't no saint but the current "russia h4x" scandal isn't doing anyone any good either. People would do well to stop being so rabidly salty about the election and just move on with their lives. If Trump does something scandalous you can whine then, but the current stuff right now is just (salty?) media clickbait.
|
I think if there's legitimate cause to believe that foreign governments influenced the election, those should be investigated. Trump criticizing the intelligence community was a poor move.
At the same time, Democrats are fucking delusional if they think they're actually going to be able to flip the outcome of the election and that people would just take it lying down. Investigation into the issue should strictly be from a "to protect future elections" perspective. There's too much shit surrounding this one already.
|
Well foreign governments can always influence elections and stuff, it just depends on how it's done officially or not.
If it's Russian twitter bots then the fault is probably more with Twitter than anyone else.
http://heatst.com/world/how-russias-twitter-bots-and-trolls-work-with-donald-trump-campaign-accounts/
If it's more serious than that then fine, however so far as I've seen there's nothing concrete, just "mainstream media which is always 100% right!!1 1337 truth" which is looking to get some nice clicks on a new Trump scandal. After all, Trump scandals make $$$
|
On December 13 2016 18:30 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 18:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 13 2016 17:28 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 13 2016 04:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I can't believe people are still calling Clinton disliked after she got as many votes as Obama in 2012...
Its like they can't believe a woman who's won the popular vote 3 times in a row could have won it because she was liked by the people. Personally I'd class unfavourabity ratings as a better judge of popularity than how many votes she recieved? Ever consider the fact that tens of millions voted for Clinton because even though they disliked her they hated Trump more? Because that is literally what happened. If that's so then Obama's high favor rating means people wanted establishment politics. DOW 20,000 will do that, plenty of optimism around right now but again it's all going to benefit Wall St not Main St. Want more proof this is the reason? Even Trumps popularity has rocketed the past five weeks, 15-20% bump in approval. http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=16209
That doesn't really mean anything, every president's favouribility rises after the election ends.
|
Incognoto you're being absolutely facetious when you downplay the wording the liberals are using versus the lines Trump took. First off people are citing the CIA releasing a statement that Russians influenced the election, not rigged, influenced by spamming Podesta emails every day as though it was condemning. Trump cited jack shit about rigging. Next Dems didn't demand a recount, Stein did and did so via the proper protocol, and Dems supported the process legally until the request was legally denied.
Also we essentially as a nation generally concluded many of the big media is partisan as fuck and you shouldn't blindly trust media narratives yet some of you guys still continue to complain about shitty articles, what's up with that. And just because the media is shit doesn't mean it can't be right.
|
On December 13 2016 19:15 Blisse wrote:
Incognoto you're being absolutely facetious when you downplay the wording the liberals are using versus the lines Trump took. First off people are citing the CIA releasing a statement that Russians influenced the election, not rigged, influenced by spamming Podesta emails every day as though it was condemning. Trump cited jack shit about rigging. Next Dems didn't demand a recount, Stein did and did so via the proper protocol, and Dems supported the process legally until the request was legally denied.
Also we essentially as a nation generally concluded many of the big media is partisan as fuck and you shouldn't blindly trust media narratives yet some of you guys still continue to complain about shitty articles, what's up with that. And just because the media is shit doesn't mean it can't be right.
I didn't say Dems though, I said liberals. There are plenty of people who voted Democratic who supported the recount, whether it was officially endorsed by Dems or not is a moot point. I'm just pointing out that the general kneejerk reaction of a lot of people was "Trump says elections are rigged what an asshole" or "Trump says he might not accept results what an asshole" and lo and behold you get plenty of people (not all, obviously) saying that results aren't acceptable or that Russians rigged the election.
Everywhere you look there's a strong kneejerk reaction which should probably be avoided. I personally didn't flip my shit when CIA said "Russian hacks" nor did I when Trump said "elections are rigged" nor did I when Stein asked for a recount.
The kneejerk reaction itself is the thing I'm condemning here. That just plays into the hysteria, the distrust, the division, etc. The media is fueling that for their clicks and their views, making a quick buck of it. It's silliness.
I would be saying the exact same thing if Clinton had won, I honestly didn't support Clinton over Trump or Trump over Clinton, but I think that now that things are said and done, it's best to be a bit more positive rather than being salty and eating up the media's spoon-fed clickbait.
I myself have deplored for a while how biased news outlets can be, I don't see what's wrong with that. Obviously the media isn't always wrong, but tell me how credible a scale (the one you use to measure mass) would be if it were wrong half the time? Wouldn't you just get a new scale? For me, news outlet should be about portraying factual happenings in the world. Editorials, opinion pieces and speculation should be labeled as such. Today I can probably find 3 articles saying that CIA has hard proof that Russians hacked the election and 3 articles affirming that they didn't. That's pretty silly no matter how you try to dress it up.
|
On December 13 2016 19:44 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 19:15 Blisse wrote:
Incognoto you're being absolutely facetious when you downplay the wording the liberals are using versus the lines Trump took. First off people are citing the CIA releasing a statement that Russians influenced the election, not rigged, influenced by spamming Podesta emails every day as though it was condemning. Trump cited jack shit about rigging. Next Dems didn't demand a recount, Stein did and did so via the proper protocol, and Dems supported the process legally until the request was legally denied.
Also we essentially as a nation generally concluded many of the big media is partisan as fuck and you shouldn't blindly trust media narratives yet some of you guys still continue to complain about shitty articles, what's up with that. And just because the media is shit doesn't mean it can't be right. I didn't say Dems though, I said liberals. There are plenty of people who voted Democratic who supported the recount, whether it was officially endorsed by Dems or not is a moot point. I'm just pointing out that the general kneejerk reaction of a lot of people was "Trump says elections are rigged what an asshole" or "Trump says he might not accept results what an asshole" and lo and behold you get plenty of people (not all, obviously) saying that results aren't acceptable or that Russians rigged the election. Everywhere you look there's a strong kneejerk reaction which should probably be avoided. I personally didn't flip my shit when CIA said "Russian hacks" nor did I when Trump said "elections are rigged" nor did I when Stein asked for a recount. The kneejerk reaction itself is the thing I'm condemning here. That just plays into the hysteria, the distrust, the division, etc. The media is fueling that for their clicks and their views, making a quick buck of it. It's silliness. I would be saying the exact same thing if Clinton had won, I honestly didn't support Clinton over Trump or Trump over Clinton, but I think that now that things are said and done, it's best to be a bit more positive rather than being salty and eating up the media's spoon-fed clickbait. I myself have deplored for a while how biased news outlets can be, I don't see what's wrong with that. Obviously the media isn't always wrong, but tell me how credible a scale (the one you use to measure mass) would be if it were wrong half the time? Wouldn't you just get a new scale? For me, news outlet should be about portraying factual happenings in the world. Editorials, opinion pieces and speculation should be labeled as such. Today I can probably find 3 articles saying that CIA has hard proof that Russians hacked the election and 3 articles affirming that they didn't. That's pretty silly no matter how you try to dress it up.
If there is some evidence that the election might have been tampered with, I don't see the problem with a recount. There's protocols for establishing that, and Jill Stein followed them. Recounts aren't evil.
What the problem with Trump was, was his rhetoric of claiming the election was rigged BEFORE any votes had been cast. He created a narrative in which either 1) he won, or 2) the election was rigged.
As opposed to the way it played out: Hillary accepted her loss. Some evidence surfaced about potential fraud. Even if there was fraud, it wouldn't accept the general outcome of the election, but it was still a good case to investigate further with a recount. Turns out, there was nothing wrong. Hurrah, the electoral process worked as it should. Recount story over. Nobody claims anything was rigged. Except Trump, because hey, he had already claimed that (and no backsies allowed).
|
On December 13 2016 18:30 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 18:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 13 2016 17:28 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 13 2016 04:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I can't believe people are still calling Clinton disliked after she got as many votes as Obama in 2012...
Its like they can't believe a woman who's won the popular vote 3 times in a row could have won it because she was liked by the people. Personally I'd class unfavourabity ratings as a better judge of popularity than how many votes she recieved? Ever consider the fact that tens of millions voted for Clinton because even though they disliked her they hated Trump more? Because that is literally what happened. If that's so then Obama's high favor rating means people wanted establishment politics. DOW 20,000 will do that, plenty of optimism around right now but again it's all going to benefit Wall St not Main St. Want more proof this is the reason? Even Trumps popularity has rocketed the past five weeks, 15-20% bump in approval. http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=16209
http://www.businessinsider.com/stock-markets-after-trump-election-2016-12/#gold-spiked-on-election-night-but-has-steadily-tumbled-since-13
If anyone wanted more information about the fluctuating markets this was pretty straightforward.
|
On December 13 2016 18:58 TheYango wrote:
At the same time, Democrats are fucking delusional if they think they're actually going to be able to flip the outcome of the election and that people would just take it lying down. Investigation into the issue should strictly be from a "to protect future elections" perspective. There's too much shit surrounding this one already.
I agree. Oh, and continued hysteria brings about some nasty parallels. The NYT, among other outlets, are trying to accomplish exactly what they're accusing Russia of trying to do.
|
Whats the big deal about recounts anyway.
If a result is close it is basically the "normal" thing you do?
|
On December 13 2016 21:29 Velr wrote:
Whats the big deal about recounts anyway.
If a result is close it is basically the "normal" thing you do?
Because the US is so polarized that 'normal' no longer exists.
Trump said the election was rigged before a single vote got cast. Democrats said thats bullshit and now Trumpers seem to think that means that recounts are not allowed because Trump wasn't allowed to say the elections were rigged in advance, completely ignoring that they are 2 very separate things and that you can agree with one and not the other without being a hypocrite.
|
On December 13 2016 21:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 21:29 Velr wrote:
Whats the big deal about recounts anyway.
If a result is close it is basically the "normal" thing you do? Because the US is so polarized that 'normal' no longer exists. Trump said the election was rigged before a single vote got cast. Democrats said thats bullshit and now Trumpers seem to think that means that recounts are not allowed because Trump wasn't allowed to say the elections were rigged in advance, completely ignoring that they are 2 very separate things and that you can agree with one and not the other without being a hypocrite.
No, no. Democrats were like "you have to accept the vote no matter what". They had a holier than though attitude that Trump even considering the election might be rigged is the greatest sin ever committed.
And I have nothing against recounts. I find the criticism against the recount from Trump supporters now as ridiculous as the stance of the Democrats prior the election- Both sides are full of hypocrites.
|
On December 13 2016 21:46 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 21:34 Gorsameth wrote:On December 13 2016 21:29 Velr wrote:
Whats the big deal about recounts anyway.
If a result is close it is basically the "normal" thing you do? Because the US is so polarized that 'normal' no longer exists. Trump said the election was rigged before a single vote got cast. Democrats said thats bullshit and now Trumpers seem to think that means that recounts are not allowed because Trump wasn't allowed to say the elections were rigged in advance, completely ignoring that they are 2 very separate things and that you can agree with one and not the other without being a hypocrite. No, no. Democrats were like "you have to accept the vote no matter what". They had a holier than though attitude that Trump even considering the election might be rigged is the greatest sin ever committed. And I have nothing against recounts. I find the criticism against the recount from Trump supporters now as ridiculous as the stance of the Democrats prior the election- Both sides are full of hypocrites.
Because those 'holier then thou' Democrats where responding to Trump literally saying "If I lose its because the election was rigged" and "I will only accept the result if I win". A stance that undermines the basic principles of democracy?
Context is important, as always.
|
On December 13 2016 21:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 21:46 sharkie wrote:On December 13 2016 21:34 Gorsameth wrote:On December 13 2016 21:29 Velr wrote:
Whats the big deal about recounts anyway.
If a result is close it is basically the "normal" thing you do? Because the US is so polarized that 'normal' no longer exists. Trump said the election was rigged before a single vote got cast. Democrats said thats bullshit and now Trumpers seem to think that means that recounts are not allowed because Trump wasn't allowed to say the elections were rigged in advance, completely ignoring that they are 2 very separate things and that you can agree with one and not the other without being a hypocrite. No, no. Democrats were like "you have to accept the vote no matter what". They had a holier than though attitude that Trump even considering the election might be rigged is the greatest sin ever committed. And I have nothing against recounts. I find the criticism against the recount from Trump supporters now as ridiculous as the stance of the Democrats prior the election- Both sides are full of hypocrites. Because those 'holier then thou' Democrats where responding to Trump literally saying "If I lose its because the election was rigged" and "I will only accept the result if I win". A stance that undermines the basic principles of democracy? Context is important, as always.
They wanted him to accept the result no matter what. (because back then the no matter what was always Clinton winning)
Yes, context is important.
|
On December 13 2016 22:00 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 21:51 Gorsameth wrote:On December 13 2016 21:46 sharkie wrote:On December 13 2016 21:34 Gorsameth wrote:On December 13 2016 21:29 Velr wrote:
Whats the big deal about recounts anyway.
If a result is close it is basically the "normal" thing you do? Because the US is so polarized that 'normal' no longer exists. Trump said the election was rigged before a single vote got cast. Democrats said thats bullshit and now Trumpers seem to think that means that recounts are not allowed because Trump wasn't allowed to say the elections were rigged in advance, completely ignoring that they are 2 very separate things and that you can agree with one and not the other without being a hypocrite. No, no. Democrats were like "you have to accept the vote no matter what". They had a holier than though attitude that Trump even considering the election might be rigged is the greatest sin ever committed. And I have nothing against recounts. I find the criticism against the recount from Trump supporters now as ridiculous as the stance of the Democrats prior the election- Both sides are full of hypocrites. Because those 'holier then thou' Democrats where responding to Trump literally saying "If I lose its because the election was rigged" and "I will only accept the result if I win". A stance that undermines the basic principles of democracy? Context is important, as always. They wanted him to accept the result no matter what. (because back then the no matter what was always Clinton winning) Yes, context is important.
Where is this 'no matter what' coming from?
When you respond to someone saying "If I lose its because the election was rigged" and "I will only accept the result if I win" with "You need to accept the result of the election" it is not a 'no matter what'.
If Trump had been talking about 'I will ask for a recount if its close" no one reasonable would have complained about it.
His over the top "I win or rigged" rhetoric is what got the response of "No you should accept the result".
|
On December 13 2016 21:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 18:58 TheYango wrote:
At the same time, Democrats are fucking delusional if they think they're actually going to be able to flip the outcome of the election and that people would just take it lying down. Investigation into the issue should strictly be from a "to protect future elections" perspective. There's too much shit surrounding this one already. I agree. Oh, and continued hysteria brings about some nasty parallels. The NYT, among other outlets, are trying to accomplish exactly what they're accusing Russia of trying to do.
This is a bit of a weird perspective. For starters, the NYT didn't hack anything or anybody. So even if you take the stance that the NYT was trying to influence the elections and that that is the problem (hint: it isn´t), they did so through legal means.
Moreover, Russia is not a newspaper, it is a foreign nation. You seem to be playing down the problems of a foreign nation explicitly trying to influence the elections through illicit means. Why? Just because your guy won? Would it have been okay if Russia had hacked the RNC (they might have) and dumped all Priebus' emails on Wikileaks (they didn't) with the explicit goal of discrediting the RNC and Trump, in order to influence people to vote for Hillary?
|
On December 13 2016 08:16 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 08:05 kwizach wrote:On December 13 2016 07:47 LegalLord wrote:
A woman isn't a man and shouldn't try to be one. Frankly I don't see anything wrong with a female leader acting more... feminine. That sounds like gender essentialism to me, unless I'm misinterpreting. What do you mean by that? This direction in a conversation is a very deep rabbit-hole that is extremely unlikely to end well.
Yes, it's unfortunate that discussions on topics related to feminist issues are always extremely polarized online. The issue here, however, is that we should not be peddling gender stereotypes and telling women (and men) how they should or should not act based on them. We should precisely be denouncing gender stereotypes and gender essentialism for the outdated relics that they are, and stop judging people and their behavior based on gender norms. There's still a long road ahead, though, obviously.
|
So guys wanting to vote for a women that is acting/behaving/dressing/whatever like most women tend to do is now somehow a sign of them being gender essentialists?
Uhm... What?
The issue is not that you can't discuss these things "normal"... The issue is that you put yourself on a self constructed Mount Everest of moral highgrounds and put everyone not at least 99% in line with you bellow sea level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
