|
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 05 2016 01:37 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 01:32 biology]major wrote:On December 05 2016 01:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 04 2016 23:58 RealityIsKing wrote:
Nope, the entire Trump hate is purely conjured up because people's ideology that they want Hillary in because she is a women and started calling Trump racists when he said he doesn't want illegal immigrants which is xenophobic at best.
Then people just utilizes confusing languages with emotional fallacies that have no facts attached to them to paint Trump in a certain tone resulting in naive people buying the narratives.
Let's face it, the identify politics have to stop from the leftists in order for people to take them seriously again because at this point, the journalists at CNN, MSNBC, etc. should be ashamed of themselves as their biases were off the chart during the campaign. There were hundreds of reasons not to support Trump that have nothing whatsoever to do with identity politics. If anything, the fact that MSM focused on identity politics helped Trump, because few media outlets pointed out he pushed vacuous non-plan after unimplementable garbage after fundamental policy misunderstanding. I mean, there's a reason Trump probably would have lost an election held right after the last debate, and it has nothing to do with identity politics. Her debate performances were weak, only in this thread do people somehow consider them to be a success. Ignore Trump for a moment, she was supposed to be a policy wonk and have deep knowledge on key issues including immigration, foreign policy, tax structure. All we heard were generalities and standard political rhetoric. If you don't have any charisma or charm, then just completely avoid that game and stick to the issues and explain with your deep understanding why nation building is a good idea, why deporting millions of people is a bad idea, or why the tax code right now is unfair to the middle class. She could have easily done this next to the apparent simpleton that is Trump, but it wasn't there. In the end she wasn't even able to display her policy wonk skills. No, she very clearly won the debates; even most of the Trump voters in here acknowledged that (so did the post-debate polls). We all just underestimated how strong the anti-trade/rural working class vote would come through for Trump given that most everyone focused on Hispanics as the swing demographic.
Won the debate in a traditional sense? Yeah sure. Do you think it was Trump's knowledge and understanding of the major issues facing the USA that got him elected? No, obviously not, but people trusted that he knew exactly where the problems were and that much was certain. He also related to people way better than HRC, so with that being said he never had a chance against her in a traditional debate. My point is that she should have explained herself clearly and displayed her knowledge, and just accept her robot self. For income inequality, a democrat favorite talking point she never once even cited numbers on how lopsided the distribution of wealth is. From that she could have explained how Trump's tax structure is flawed and idealistic. She has so much knowledge from being in probably every major FP discussion, knowing the pros and cons of each decision, and did absolutely nothing to display that. So congrats I guess, she beat Trump, but let's be honest, there are several posters in this thread who could have beaten Trump in a political debate so not really an accomplishment. Trump isn't playing the "I know more than you" game, he's playing the "I'm going to make you look bad" game.
|
On December 05 2016 01:37 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 01:32 biology]major wrote:On December 05 2016 01:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 04 2016 23:58 RealityIsKing wrote:
Nope, the entire Trump hate is purely conjured up because people's ideology that they want Hillary in because she is a women and started calling Trump racists when he said he doesn't want illegal immigrants which is xenophobic at best.
Then people just utilizes confusing languages with emotional fallacies that have no facts attached to them to paint Trump in a certain tone resulting in naive people buying the narratives.
Let's face it, the identify politics have to stop from the leftists in order for people to take them seriously again because at this point, the journalists at CNN, MSNBC, etc. should be ashamed of themselves as their biases were off the chart during the campaign. There were hundreds of reasons not to support Trump that have nothing whatsoever to do with identity politics. If anything, the fact that MSM focused on identity politics helped Trump, because few media outlets pointed out he pushed vacuous non-plan after unimplementable garbage after fundamental policy misunderstanding. I mean, there's a reason Trump probably would have lost an election held right after the last debate, and it has nothing to do with identity politics. Her debate performances were weak, only in this thread do people somehow consider them to be a success. Ignore Trump for a moment, she was supposed to be a policy wonk and have deep knowledge on key issues including immigration, foreign policy, tax structure. All we heard were generalities and standard political rhetoric. If you don't have any charisma or charm, then just completely avoid that game and stick to the issues and explain with your deep understanding why nation building is a good idea, why deporting millions of people is a bad idea, or why the tax code right now is unfair to the middle class. She could have easily done this next to the apparent simpleton that is Trump, but it wasn't there. In the end she wasn't even able to display her policy wonk skills. No, she very clearly won the debates; even most of the Trump voters in here acknowledged that (so did the post-debate polls). We all just underestimated how strong the anti-trade/rural working class vote would come through for Trump given that most everyone focused on Hispanics as the swing demographic.
If you believe in the fallacy of "appealing to emotions", then she won the debates.
Hillary, during the debate was constantly bringing about how Trump is divisive, racists, sexist, etc.
She had zero substances on policies, Trump specified how he would change the Obama care and how he would deal with Russia and how he plans on encouraging domestic companies to keep investing here.
Instead Hillary's plan was all about getting "tough" with the Russians and how Trump is this and that, which by the way are 100% debunked and unsubstantiated.
Trump clearly won the debates.
|
If you'd all stop getting emotional ......
1) Good/Bad are no categories for Politicians.
2) Anti-XY does not define anything
3) "Trump/Hillary-Hate" got you / Us in this mess in the first place. Its Politics, not Apple vs Samsung you Idiots.
Trump has no experience in politics. Hillary has.
Trump has no staff of political advisors
Trump has a huge conflict, his politcs can benefit or hurt his personal financial interests, even though he does not actively manage them himself. And the "Trump" branding is not like a managed investment you can hand over to an employee and tell him to shut up about for 4 years.
Trump can not make Coal and Gas suceed at the same time, Trump can not "git jabs back from the chinese" and nuke TPP at the same time...
Hillary is a Robot.
|
On December 05 2016 02:28 KT_Elwood wrote:
Trump can not make Coal and Gas suceed at the same time
Yes, this is true. However, what will happen is that a lot of the coal industry will likely be repurposed for natural gas extraction and refinement. Already large players are buying up old coal fields for the purpose of extracting natural gas from them. New plants, pipelines, refineries, and other infrastructure are being built in the old rust belt areas to support the natural gas industry. In short, we are very likely going to see an economic resurgence in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania during the Trump administration -- particularly as Trump embraces American energy production in a way that Obama and the democrats never would -- which is likely going to create some structural problems for democrats in future elections. The big blue wall in the Midwest may be a thing of the past.
|
On December 05 2016 02:25 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 01:37 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 01:32 biology]major wrote:On December 05 2016 01:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 04 2016 23:58 RealityIsKing wrote:
Nope, the entire Trump hate is purely conjured up because people's ideology that they want Hillary in because she is a women and started calling Trump racists when he said he doesn't want illegal immigrants which is xenophobic at best.
Then people just utilizes confusing languages with emotional fallacies that have no facts attached to them to paint Trump in a certain tone resulting in naive people buying the narratives.
Let's face it, the identify politics have to stop from the leftists in order for people to take them seriously again because at this point, the journalists at CNN, MSNBC, etc. should be ashamed of themselves as their biases were off the chart during the campaign. There were hundreds of reasons not to support Trump that have nothing whatsoever to do with identity politics. If anything, the fact that MSM focused on identity politics helped Trump, because few media outlets pointed out he pushed vacuous non-plan after unimplementable garbage after fundamental policy misunderstanding. I mean, there's a reason Trump probably would have lost an election held right after the last debate, and it has nothing to do with identity politics. Her debate performances were weak, only in this thread do people somehow consider them to be a success. Ignore Trump for a moment, she was supposed to be a policy wonk and have deep knowledge on key issues including immigration, foreign policy, tax structure. All we heard were generalities and standard political rhetoric. If you don't have any charisma or charm, then just completely avoid that game and stick to the issues and explain with your deep understanding why nation building is a good idea, why deporting millions of people is a bad idea, or why the tax code right now is unfair to the middle class. She could have easily done this next to the apparent simpleton that is Trump, but it wasn't there. In the end she wasn't even able to display her policy wonk skills. No, she very clearly won the debates; even most of the Trump voters in here acknowledged that (so did the post-debate polls). We all just underestimated how strong the anti-trade/rural working class vote would come through for Trump given that most everyone focused on Hispanics as the swing demographic. If you believe in the fallacy of "appealing to emotions", then she won the debates. Hillary, during the debate was constantly bringing about how Trump is divisive, racists, sexist, etc. She had zero substances on policies, Trump specified how he would change the Obama care and how he would deal with Russia and how he plans on encouraging domestic companies to keep investing here. Instead Hillary's plan was all about getting "tough" with the Russians and how Trump is this and that, which by the way are 100% debunked and unsubstantiated. Trump clearly won the debates.
I'm, uh; not sure what to say here.
You're posting stuff that' just plain thoroughly wrong and has been disproven time and again.
Trump is the one appealing to emotions far moreso than hillary. Hillary has FAR FAR more substance on policies, which has been well established time and again.
Your claim on trump winning the debates is simply false. You have no basis for that, given how well and more thoroughly the issue has been addressed by better sources.
Posting stuff that's been demonstrated false repeatedly, while merely asserting it is true without providing any explanation, isn't helpful, and isnt' truth based. It's just propagandistic lie-repeating.
You'd need to address the far more detailed and sourced critiques and posts that have been made.
|
On December 05 2016 02:41 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 02:25 RealityIsKing wrote:On December 05 2016 01:37 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 01:32 biology]major wrote:On December 05 2016 01:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 04 2016 23:58 RealityIsKing wrote:
Nope, the entire Trump hate is purely conjured up because people's ideology that they want Hillary in because she is a women and started calling Trump racists when he said he doesn't want illegal immigrants which is xenophobic at best.
Then people just utilizes confusing languages with emotional fallacies that have no facts attached to them to paint Trump in a certain tone resulting in naive people buying the narratives.
Let's face it, the identify politics have to stop from the leftists in order for people to take them seriously again because at this point, the journalists at CNN, MSNBC, etc. should be ashamed of themselves as their biases were off the chart during the campaign. There were hundreds of reasons not to support Trump that have nothing whatsoever to do with identity politics. If anything, the fact that MSM focused on identity politics helped Trump, because few media outlets pointed out he pushed vacuous non-plan after unimplementable garbage after fundamental policy misunderstanding. I mean, there's a reason Trump probably would have lost an election held right after the last debate, and it has nothing to do with identity politics. Her debate performances were weak, only in this thread do people somehow consider them to be a success. Ignore Trump for a moment, she was supposed to be a policy wonk and have deep knowledge on key issues including immigration, foreign policy, tax structure. All we heard were generalities and standard political rhetoric. If you don't have any charisma or charm, then just completely avoid that game and stick to the issues and explain with your deep understanding why nation building is a good idea, why deporting millions of people is a bad idea, or why the tax code right now is unfair to the middle class. She could have easily done this next to the apparent simpleton that is Trump, but it wasn't there. In the end she wasn't even able to display her policy wonk skills. No, she very clearly won the debates; even most of the Trump voters in here acknowledged that (so did the post-debate polls). We all just underestimated how strong the anti-trade/rural working class vote would come through for Trump given that most everyone focused on Hispanics as the swing demographic. If you believe in the fallacy of "appealing to emotions", then she won the debates. Hillary, during the debate was constantly bringing about how Trump is divisive, racists, sexist, etc. She had zero substances on policies, Trump specified how he would change the Obama care and how he would deal with Russia and how he plans on encouraging domestic companies to keep investing here. Instead Hillary's plan was all about getting "tough" with the Russians and how Trump is this and that, which by the way are 100% debunked and unsubstantiated. Trump clearly won the debates. I'm, uh; not sure what to say here. You're posting stuff that' just plain thoroughly wrong and has been disproven time and again. Trump is the one appealing to emotions far moreso than hillary. Hillary has FAR FAR more substance on policies, which has been well established time and again. Your claim on trump winning the debates is simply false. You have no basis for that, given how well and more thoroughly the issue has been addressed by better sources. Posting stuff that's been demonstrated false repeatedly, while merely asserting it is true without providing any explanation, isn't helpful, and isnt' truth based. It's just propagandistic lie-repeating. You'd need to address the far more detailed and sourced critiques and posts that have been made.
I'm left speechless here.
Trump have been constantly saying how our GDP is not growing and how our roads/inner cities are breaking down and how he plans on fixing them and how awful Obamacare is which Hillary praises it.
Hillary went off on how divisive Trump is which was, simply, cringeworthy.
You have to be focusing on the facts instead of making points that have been debunked.
And this is not even including on how Hillary Clinton have corrupted the entire system for her own selfish gain.
|
It's not "eco friendlyness" that lead to jobs going to china, it's the simple fact that chinese workers are cheaper and profit margins, for people like trump, are better if you buy a 800$ Iphone made and shipped for 50. Maximizing shareholder-Value moved the jobs, not "getting out of coal".
|
On December 05 2016 02:49 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 02:41 zlefin wrote:On December 05 2016 02:25 RealityIsKing wrote:On December 05 2016 01:37 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 01:32 biology]major wrote:On December 05 2016 01:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 04 2016 23:58 RealityIsKing wrote:
Nope, the entire Trump hate is purely conjured up because people's ideology that they want Hillary in because she is a women and started calling Trump racists when he said he doesn't want illegal immigrants which is xenophobic at best.
Then people just utilizes confusing languages with emotional fallacies that have no facts attached to them to paint Trump in a certain tone resulting in naive people buying the narratives.
Let's face it, the identify politics have to stop from the leftists in order for people to take them seriously again because at this point, the journalists at CNN, MSNBC, etc. should be ashamed of themselves as their biases were off the chart during the campaign. There were hundreds of reasons not to support Trump that have nothing whatsoever to do with identity politics. If anything, the fact that MSM focused on identity politics helped Trump, because few media outlets pointed out he pushed vacuous non-plan after unimplementable garbage after fundamental policy misunderstanding. I mean, there's a reason Trump probably would have lost an election held right after the last debate, and it has nothing to do with identity politics. Her debate performances were weak, only in this thread do people somehow consider them to be a success. Ignore Trump for a moment, she was supposed to be a policy wonk and have deep knowledge on key issues including immigration, foreign policy, tax structure. All we heard were generalities and standard political rhetoric. If you don't have any charisma or charm, then just completely avoid that game and stick to the issues and explain with your deep understanding why nation building is a good idea, why deporting millions of people is a bad idea, or why the tax code right now is unfair to the middle class. She could have easily done this next to the apparent simpleton that is Trump, but it wasn't there. In the end she wasn't even able to display her policy wonk skills. No, she very clearly won the debates; even most of the Trump voters in here acknowledged that (so did the post-debate polls). We all just underestimated how strong the anti-trade/rural working class vote would come through for Trump given that most everyone focused on Hispanics as the swing demographic. If you believe in the fallacy of "appealing to emotions", then she won the debates. Hillary, during the debate was constantly bringing about how Trump is divisive, racists, sexist, etc. She had zero substances on policies, Trump specified how he would change the Obama care and how he would deal with Russia and how he plans on encouraging domestic companies to keep investing here. Instead Hillary's plan was all about getting "tough" with the Russians and how Trump is this and that, which by the way are 100% debunked and unsubstantiated. Trump clearly won the debates. I'm, uh; not sure what to say here. You're posting stuff that' just plain thoroughly wrong and has been disproven time and again. Trump is the one appealing to emotions far moreso than hillary. Hillary has FAR FAR more substance on policies, which has been well established time and again. Your claim on trump winning the debates is simply false. You have no basis for that, given how well and more thoroughly the issue has been addressed by better sources. Posting stuff that's been demonstrated false repeatedly, while merely asserting it is true without providing any explanation, isn't helpful, and isnt' truth based. It's just propagandistic lie-repeating. You'd need to address the far more detailed and sourced critiques and posts that have been made. I'm left speechless here. Trump have been constantly saying how our GDP is not growing and how our roads/inner cities are breaking down and how he plans on fixing them and how awful Obamacare is which Hillary praises it. Hillary went off on how divisive Trump is which was, simply, cringeworthy. You have to be focusing on the facts instead of making points that have been debunked. And this is not even including on how Hillary Clinton have corrupted the entire system for her own selfish gain.
I find the tone-deafness of democrats and people like zlefin to be really amusing. What you listed above is very clearly what Trump campaigned on, and Hillary and the democrats never clearly presented cognizable counter proposal. All they gave in response to Trump's message of economic hope was a litany of "it will never work!" And that's still all that that we're getting, in addition to the obvious sour grapes from successes such as the Carrier deal. It's pretty clear to me that the democrats haven't yet figured out that they need a new playbook.
|
What's the point of debating RiK on who won the debates? It seems clear at this point that the answer to that question is 1) quite obvious, and 2) completely inconsequential. The debate is pretty unproductive anyway, since it's just arguing in broad and disputed generalities, like "Hillary didn't talk about policy." That's just a bald assertion that most of us here disagree with, so the only real answer is "yeah she did," and then the debate stalls and everyone starts calling the other side biased or disingenuous.
How about we talk about what's going on now and in the foreseeable future, neither of which, for better or worse, involve Hillary Clinton.
|
I mean, regardless of what people personally believe about debate performances, every national and state poll showed significant movement in favor of Clinton after the debates (typically Trump losing voters to Johnson). Even the Latimes poll-which was ultimately biased by some five points in favor of Trump-showed a neutral race after the third debate.
To me that means that people did not believe Trump had a handle on policy and thus we should not consider this a policy mandate, but what do I know.
|
Hillary won the debates overall, but Trump won on the most important issues, which proved decisive.
|
On December 05 2016 03:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 02:49 RealityIsKing wrote:On December 05 2016 02:41 zlefin wrote:On December 05 2016 02:25 RealityIsKing wrote:On December 05 2016 01:37 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 01:32 biology]major wrote:On December 05 2016 01:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 04 2016 23:58 RealityIsKing wrote:
Nope, the entire Trump hate is purely conjured up because people's ideology that they want Hillary in because she is a women and started calling Trump racists when he said he doesn't want illegal immigrants which is xenophobic at best.
Then people just utilizes confusing languages with emotional fallacies that have no facts attached to them to paint Trump in a certain tone resulting in naive people buying the narratives.
Let's face it, the identify politics have to stop from the leftists in order for people to take them seriously again because at this point, the journalists at CNN, MSNBC, etc. should be ashamed of themselves as their biases were off the chart during the campaign. There were hundreds of reasons not to support Trump that have nothing whatsoever to do with identity politics. If anything, the fact that MSM focused on identity politics helped Trump, because few media outlets pointed out he pushed vacuous non-plan after unimplementable garbage after fundamental policy misunderstanding. I mean, there's a reason Trump probably would have lost an election held right after the last debate, and it has nothing to do with identity politics. Her debate performances were weak, only in this thread do people somehow consider them to be a success. Ignore Trump for a moment, she was supposed to be a policy wonk and have deep knowledge on key issues including immigration, foreign policy, tax structure. All we heard were generalities and standard political rhetoric. If you don't have any charisma or charm, then just completely avoid that game and stick to the issues and explain with your deep understanding why nation building is a good idea, why deporting millions of people is a bad idea, or why the tax code right now is unfair to the middle class. She could have easily done this next to the apparent simpleton that is Trump, but it wasn't there. In the end she wasn't even able to display her policy wonk skills. No, she very clearly won the debates; even most of the Trump voters in here acknowledged that (so did the post-debate polls). We all just underestimated how strong the anti-trade/rural working class vote would come through for Trump given that most everyone focused on Hispanics as the swing demographic. If you believe in the fallacy of "appealing to emotions", then she won the debates. Hillary, during the debate was constantly bringing about how Trump is divisive, racists, sexist, etc. She had zero substances on policies, Trump specified how he would change the Obama care and how he would deal with Russia and how he plans on encouraging domestic companies to keep investing here. Instead Hillary's plan was all about getting "tough" with the Russians and how Trump is this and that, which by the way are 100% debunked and unsubstantiated. Trump clearly won the debates. I'm, uh; not sure what to say here. You're posting stuff that' just plain thoroughly wrong and has been disproven time and again. Trump is the one appealing to emotions far moreso than hillary. Hillary has FAR FAR more substance on policies, which has been well established time and again. Your claim on trump winning the debates is simply false. You have no basis for that, given how well and more thoroughly the issue has been addressed by better sources. Posting stuff that's been demonstrated false repeatedly, while merely asserting it is true without providing any explanation, isn't helpful, and isnt' truth based. It's just propagandistic lie-repeating. You'd need to address the far more detailed and sourced critiques and posts that have been made. I'm left speechless here. Trump have been constantly saying how our GDP is not growing and how our roads/inner cities are breaking down and how he plans on fixing them and how awful Obamacare is which Hillary praises it. Hillary went off on how divisive Trump is which was, simply, cringeworthy. You have to be focusing on the facts instead of making points that have been debunked. And this is not even including on how Hillary Clinton have corrupted the entire system for her own selfish gain. I find the tone-deafness of democrats and people like zlefin to be really amusing. What you listed above is very clearly what Trump campaigned on, and Hillary and the democrats never clearly presented cognizable counter proposal. All they gave in response to Trump's message of economic hope was a litany of "it will never work!" And that's still all that that we're getting, in addition to the obvious sour grapes from successes such as the Carrier deal. It's pretty clear to me that the democrats haven't yet figured out that they need a new playbook.
I'm not tone-deaf; and nothing I'm saynig is really relevant to tone anyways; it's about FACTS.
If something won't work, that's an extremely important fact; and it should be heeded more. sadly it is not, and some chose to ignore them.
and calling it sour grapes is just such an inaccurate stretch; at least for the many of us who presented far more clear, cogent, and cautionary responses on it.
Hillary also presented numerous detailed proposals on things; I'll grant they were not pushed as clearly as they should've been; but they were there.
RiK -> I'm ignoring your nonsense pending discussion in the feedback thread/moderator decisions.
edit: he seems to have been banned, so just ignoring his nonsense entirely then.
|
On December 05 2016 03:10 xDaunt wrote:
Hillary won the debates overall, but Trump won on the most important issues, which proved decisive.
Though we certainly did all underestimate how much support Trump would get for his position on some of those issues.
|
On December 05 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 03:10 xDaunt wrote:
Hillary won the debates overall, but Trump won on the most important issues, which proved decisive. Though we certainly did all underestimate how much support Trump would get for his position on some of those issues.
And those positions on those issues stem from fear, hate, and a general lack of education... Hopefully things we can improve upon in the future.
|
On December 05 2016 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:10 xDaunt wrote:
Hillary won the debates overall, but Trump won on the most important issues, which proved decisive. Though we certainly did all underestimate how much support Trump would get for his position on some of those issues. And those positions on those issues stem from fear, hate, and a general lack of education... Hopefully things we can improve upon in the future.
How does voting to support your industry "stem from fear, hate, and a general lack of education?" Seems fairly rational to me.
|
It does stem from lack of education when he makes promises about reviving industry and pulling manufacturing back when it is an impossibility....unless they are willing to work for Chinese level wages? Americans priced themselves out of competitive labor in this global economy and automation is slamming from the other side. Trump peddled promises to try to prop up dying industries like coal. All that gets you is an even more labored transition away from it. It shows lack of awareness of the bigger picture for a desperate grasp of short term gain (something even I doubt Trump can deliver on a large scale). So basically its a lose lose where they won't see much short term gain and they are also damaging the long term.
|
On December 05 2016 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:10 xDaunt wrote:
Hillary won the debates overall, but Trump won on the most important issues, which proved decisive. Though we certainly did all underestimate how much support Trump would get for his position on some of those issues. And those positions on those issues stem from fear, hate, and a general lack of education... Hopefully things we can improve upon in the future.
The "your an idiot if you don't agree with this interpretation of how things should be" so-called "intellectual high ground" certainly doesn't help in that regard. Disagreement with that sentiment was also bigger than people gave and continue to give credit for.
|
On December 05 2016 03:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:10 xDaunt wrote:
Hillary won the debates overall, but Trump won on the most important issues, which proved decisive. Though we certainly did all underestimate how much support Trump would get for his position on some of those issues. And those positions on those issues stem from fear, hate, and a general lack of education... Hopefully things we can improve upon in the future. How does voting to support your industry "stem from fear, hate, and a general lack of education?" Seems fairly rational to me.
What Slaughter said, plus let's not pretend that the majority of Trump supporters were coal miners worried about losing their jobs... Unless by "industry" you're referring to the business of whitewashing/ Christianwashing/ straightwashing/ malewashing America. How RiK can say it was cringeworthy that Trump was accused of being divisive... Well, that's just cringeworthy.
|
On December 05 2016 04:07 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:10 xDaunt wrote:
Hillary won the debates overall, but Trump won on the most important issues, which proved decisive. Though we certainly did all underestimate how much support Trump would get for his position on some of those issues. And those positions on those issues stem from fear, hate, and a general lack of education... Hopefully things we can improve upon in the future. The "your an idiot if you don't agree with this interpretation of how things should be" so-called "intellectual high ground" certainly doesn't help in that regard. Disagreement with that sentiment was also bigger than people gave and continue to give credit for.
I agree that it's important to attempt a sincere dialogue with those who have different beliefs, but at the same time there are other situations where I feel the need to say "You know what? No, there's no legitimacy to the conspiracies that Obama is a Muslim and Hillary is an alien and transsexuals just care about raping kids in bathrooms and gay couples are destroying the sanctity of marriage and all Muslims are terrorists and women should be objectified and all Hispanics are rapists and all blacks are murderers or drug dealers." Interpretations and opinions and beliefs aren't inherently worthy of respect just because they exist; they earn respect only if they're grounded in fact and reality. We shouldn't shrug and say that two different opinions are necessarily equal in terms of respectability.
|
On December 05 2016 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 04:07 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:10 xDaunt wrote:
Hillary won the debates overall, but Trump won on the most important issues, which proved decisive. Though we certainly did all underestimate how much support Trump would get for his position on some of those issues. And those positions on those issues stem from fear, hate, and a general lack of education... Hopefully things we can improve upon in the future. The "your an idiot if you don't agree with this interpretation of how things should be" so-called "intellectual high ground" certainly doesn't help in that regard. Disagreement with that sentiment was also bigger than people gave and continue to give credit for. I agree that it's important to attempt a sincere dialogue with those who have different beliefs, but at the same time there are other situations where I feel the need to say "You know what? No, there's no legitimacy to the conspiracies that Obama is a Muslim and Hillary is an alien and transsexuals just care about raping kids in bathrooms and gay couples are destroying the sanctity of marriage and all Muslims are terrorists and women should be objectified and all Hispanics are rapists and all blacks are murderers or drug dealers." Interpretations and opinions and beliefs aren't inherently worthy of respect just because they exist; they earn respect only if they're grounded in fact and reality. We shouldn't shrug and say that two different opinions are necessarily equal in terms of respectability.
I'm doubtful that either Trump or his voters can truly be represented with those beliefs. I otherwise agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
