President Trump: Part II

[wareyin]

That's so incredibly sophomoric and lacking in reason that I don't even know where to begin.

1) There are a monumental volume of independent voters in the US. By "independent" I don't mean individual head count, I mean not associated with one party or another. Middle-of-the-road folks. *Most* voters in the US are not registered with either major party.

2) Neither major party represents all of the views of those independent voters. Each represents a different, and usually non-intersecting set of issues.

3) Those independent voters frequently find themselves juggling competing values. They value some of the ideals of the Democrats, but they also value some of the ideals of the Republicans. In any given election, the decision of who to vote for comes down to a combination of which candidate represents the larger volume of that voter's values AND which candidate is most likely to be able to deliver on those values AND which specific values they feel are most important to them and/or most at jeopardy at that point in time.

4) If one candidate is actively alienating those people, then their value-weight for them will reduce, leading to a shift to the other side.

Failure to call people names isn't necessarily going to win them to your side... but actually calling them names and insulting them is very likely to drive them away.

How can this be so hard for you guys to understand?

The only ones Clinton actively alienated were half of those who already supported Trump. Why must you keep repeating this false narrative that independents were insulted?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I do find it darkly amusing that the right and its apologists have to blame other people even for their own votes. Hillary made them vote for Trump by saying a mean thing! Didn't they pretend to be for personal responsibility at one time? And now it's 'don't criticize me! I had no choice! Feelings!'

Seriously?

You have a candidate who actively alienated a large swath of voters, who strongly implied that their voices should not count, and who delivered a message that she believed they were both "not american" and "irredeemably deplorable". She sent a message that she would NOT represent their interests, nor would she even consider their interests worthy of her consideration. Add to that, her strongest supporters actively mocked, ridiculed, and insulted anyone who disagreed with them. Her supporters went out of their way to make it clear that they believe that anyone who disagreed with them was unworthy of consideration and shouldn't have a say.

That's a lot more than "hurt feelings". Why on earth would anyone vote for a candidate that they feel will actively work against their interests, and who they perceive as intending to purposefully disenfranchise them as members of this nation?

There is absolutely no rational reason that you should expect them to support her. All of your bluster on this is appeals to emotion and yet more attempts to shame and deride people into agreeing with your viewpoint. How is that working out for you?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Of course there were multiple factors. Offending people who were almost certainly voting for trump anyway is waaaaay down on the list.

Problem is, your ideological powerhouse offended people who were undecided. They offended people whose only "sin" was that they weren't frothing-at-the-mouth Hillary supporters.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, no and no.

Unless you use a double standard her flaws were no different than almost any other average politician.

No, the fact she won by almost 3 million votes belies your assessment her campaign was weak.

You just bought the lies and you are still buying them.
Again, I agree to disagree. We see this situation differently and I don't see either of us moving toward the other's POV anytime soon.

And yet again... There's no attempt to understand the perspective. All you've done is to insult and deride someone who disagrees with you. It couldn't possibly be that his viewpoint differs from yours. The only possible explanation is that he's too dumb to see that he's been conned. The only possible explanation is that he's stupid and ignorant... and you can't manage to see the problem with your approach?

That is EXACTLY the kind of derisive shaming that I have been trying to point out.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If you took the time to read the posts of mine you keep quoting, you would know that I did not call all right wing people deplorable.

I'm not even sure if it's worth posting this, as you'll no doubt quote it and say I called all right wing people deplorable again.

What exactly do you think you've been saying?

So how will you compromise with and work together with Trump's torture squads? The pincers will be only red hot, not white hot?

I think you're misunderstanding me. There _is_ no compromise with the extremists, only with other moderates who disagree with you. Left-leaning moderates and right-leaning moderates can reach agreements. Ideologues cannot.

I'm not sure there are any right-leaning moderates left. At least on the US left-right scale.

Given that us non-Trumpians are constantly told that we can't ever understand what makes Trump voters into Trump voters, I thought this article was interesting. It's about a young Trump voter eloquently explaining why he voted for Trump. Turns out it has to do with him feeling that his community and peers are in dire straits economically, in spite of data showing that reality doesn't support his feelings.

It would seem that alternative reality is pervasive among Trump voters. In light of this, the biggest task for those of us living in the real world will be to bring enough of these people into reality to stop the ongoing madness.

I don't think that's accurate. I think you are constantly told that belittling and insulting them is not the best way to win the next election.

It's not belittling to describe reality. It's simply describing reality.

 

[Upchurch]

And yet again... There's no attempt to understand the perspective. All you've done is to insult and deride someone who disagrees with you. It couldn't possibly be that his viewpoint differs from yours. The only possible explanation is that he's too dumb to see that he's been conned. The only possible explanation is that he's stupid and ignorant... and you can't manage to see the problem with your approach?

That is EXACTLY the kind of derisive shaming that I have been trying to point out.

Our of curiosity, do you believe in an objective reality where some statements are True (with a capital letter) and some are False (also with a capital letter)?


ETA: I ask, because if one does believe in objective reality, there are some issues where perspective is not relevant. Inauguration attendance numbers, to borrow one of Trump's favorite subjects, is not a matter of opinion or perspective. (Although, amusingly, how those numbers are perceived is a matter of perspective.) I think we can all agree that the 2009 inauguration crowd was objectively larger than the 2017. Likewise, Trump and Spicer have insisted that the objective Truth is a lie. Correct?

 

[Emily's Cat]

For the near hopeless cases who still buy propaganda from the Washington Pest, here's a bit of perspective about what went on at State.

Thank you, that was a helpful outline of the situation.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, we'll put you and Emily's cat in the category, "don't blame us, not our fault we bought the phony propaganda about Clinton and didn't realize just how bad Trump was. We blame Clinton."

FFS. How many times to I have to tell you that I did not vote for Trump? So yes, STOP BLAMING ME.

My refusal to accept your derision and childish mockery as a valid debate tactic does NOT imply that I supported Trump. Holy cow, you seem incapable of actually understanding any of the points I'm trying to make. Instead, it seems you'd much rather repeat ad-nauseum how stupid and ignorant you believe I am. Because what? It's impossible for you to accept other people's reasons and viewpoints as valid? Does only your own opinion count as correct?

 

[Emily's Cat]

My hopes for one thread of normalcy crashed again.

Perhaps you should consider adding to normalcy rather than sowing discord.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Seriously?

You have a candidate who actively alienated a large swath of voters, who strongly implied that their voices should not count, and who delivered a message that she believed they were both "not american" and "irredeemably deplorable". She sent a message that she would NOT represent their interests, nor would she even consider their interests worthy of her consideration. Add to that, her strongest supporters actively mocked, ridiculed, and insulted anyone who disagreed with them. Her supporters went out of their way to make it clear that they believe that anyone who disagreed with them was unworthy of consideration and shouldn't have a say.

That's a lot more than "hurt feelings". Why on earth would anyone vote for a candidate that they feel will actively work against their interests, and who they perceive as intending to purposefully disenfranchise them as members of this nation?

There is absolutely no rational reason that you should expect them to support her. All of your bluster on this is appeals to emotion and yet more attempts to shame and deride people into agreeing with your viewpoint. How is that working out for you?

Could you do me a favor? Could you look up the entire paragraph from which the "deplorables" sentence is taken, and rephrase in your own words what you think Hillary's point is?

[ETA] You know what, I don't think you will, so I looked it up for you. What do you think Hillary's getting at by the following? Would you agree or disagree with it?

I know there are only 60 days left to make our case — and don’t get complacent, don’t see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think well he’s done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? (Laughter/applause)

The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

[ETAA] You know what I'll just highlight the important bit.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The irony of this post after you have repeated your often corrected 'Clinton insulted half the country' claim is quite humorous.

I have also subsequently ammended my statement, if you recall.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... The fact that there seems to be an "I voted for Trump but he isn't my fault" movement at the moment is very telling.

Yes, it is very telling. Explains all this dragging out old Clinton laundry, "it's someone else's fault I didn't have a better choice."

Never mind what Trump is now is exactly what he was a year ago. No one who has been paying an ounce of attention should be surprised by the events of this week.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think you could probably put Emily's Cat and myself in a category, just not one with your creatively spun description.

Do tell, just what is this category?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not calling for any great sacrifice. Just saying that next time:
- don't run a deeply flawed candidate (yes, yes, I agree that she wasn't as flawed as Trump)
- Don't insult the people who aren't already signed up with you

That's simple sales advice. But I guess self-righteous sneering is more fun.

What good is it now to remind people the smear campaign against Clinton was baseless? Trump is in the White House. And when the GOP leadership in the Congress get rid of Trump as they most surely are already plotting, we'll have 'Pro-Life and proud of it Pence'.

What we could have had is lost. Yes, why should I let the people off the hook who gave us Trump? Why should I not push back against the lie Clinton was flawed when the facts are not that she was flawed, but that she was unable to effectively counter the smear campaign.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The only ones Clinton actively alienated were half of those who already supported Trump. Why must you keep repeating this false narrative that independents were insulted?

Because you're incorrect, it is not a false narrative.

The only ones that she *intended* to address where half of the people who supported Trump.

The split in support was close to 50/50. So about half of the people supported Clinton and half supported Trump. The polls represent the views of the nation as a whole, including independents. In fact, the polls are supposed to represent the views of the nation as a whole including people who don't vote. The implication is that half of the people who support the other side are all irredeemable deplorables.

That equates to an implied quarter of the country being irredeemable deplorables.

Have you actually taken a moment to think about the implication of those terms? Irredeemable - as in there's no hope for them. They can't be reasoned with, there's no saving them, just go ahead and write them off. Deplorable - as in they're so completely odious that no right-minded person would have anything to do with them, the worst of the worst.

The net effect of that message is that approximately 1 in 4 people in the US is so incredibly odious and without hope of salvation that they're not worth bothering with. The message, the impact of that statement, is that 1 in 4 people in the US should be ignored and shouldn't be allowed to have a seat at the table.

You can rationalize it all you want. You can say "oh, she's only talking about Trump supporters", and try to hand-wave away the impact of her statement. Maybe that works for you. But it doesn't change how her message was perceived. It doesn't reduce the alienation inherent in her message.

And it doesn't reduce the derision and shaming that her supporters employed toward other people during this election, using her own statements as ammunition. They spun the Reuters/Ipsos poll and Clinton's statement in order to lambaste anyone who showed disagreement with them, and to accuse those who didn't share their support of Hillary as being one of those deplorables.

And it sure as hell doesn't overshadow the fact that ONE-THIRD of her own supporters fit the same description, something that is conveniently overlooked and ignored in the zeal to paint those not bought in to their rhetoric as being unworthy of a voice.

 

[dudalb]

Our of curiosity, do you believe in an objective reality where some statements are True (with a capital letter) and some are False (also with a capital letter)?


ETA: I ask, because if one does believe in objective reality, there are some issues where perspective is not relevant. Inauguration attendance numbers, to borrow one of Trump's favorite subjects, is not a matter of opinion or perspective. (Although, amusingly, how those numbers are perceived is a matter of perspective.) I think we can all agree that the 2009 inauguration crowd was objectively larger than the 2017. Likewise, Trump and Spicer have insisted that the objective Truth is a lie. Correct?

George Orwell would have a lot of fun with Donald Trump.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Our of curiosity, do you believe in an objective reality where some statements are True (with a capital letter) and some are False (also with a capital letter)?

Yes, I agree that there is an objective reality where some types of statements can be either True or False (or unknown).

ETA: I ask, because if one does believe in objective reality, there are some issues where perspective is not relevant. Inauguration attendance numbers, to borrow one of Trump's favorite subjects, is not a matter of opinion or perspective. (Although, amusingly, how those numbers are perceived is a matter of perspective.) I think we can all agree that the 2009 inauguration crowd was objectively larger than the 2017. Likewise, Trump and Spicer have insisted that the objective Truth is a lie. Correct?

Trump is a buffoon. Objective counts of attendance are not open for interpretation, it's not a matter of perception.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Totally bemused by the claim that Clinton saying half of those voting for Trump were deplorable is what lost her the election. Mind you, I was totally bemused by the fuss made of it at the time - indeed I don't think she should have backtracked on it, she should have stuck by it. Yes, in a general sense you could argue that insulting floating voters is a bad call, but she didn't do that - she absolutely did not do that. She pointed out the company those, presumably more reasonable voters would be keeping and supporting, if they voted for Trump. Basically 'Do you really want to run with that gang?'.

She did not call anyone considering voting Trump a deplorable, she pointed out to them how deplorable some of his supporters were (half is a term often thrown around loosely but even taken literally means she was saying half are not deplorable). Why is that so hard to understand?

If you don't think you are deplorable, you should be asking yourself why you'd support a man who says and stands for such deplorable things.

The rest of the civilised world is horrified at what you've done. Sadly, for the type of Americans who voted for Trump, you probably think that's some bizarre badge of honour.

For those making pathetic excuses that this was Clinton's fault for not being better*, give it a rest. At least logger and Bigdog are owning their actions.

*Yup, tainted a bit by Hubby's infidelities, lacking a bit in charisma (but interestingly hugely respected outside America) but still so far superior a candidate to Trump that this should have made no noticeable difference with any sane and educated electorate.

Ah, nice Friday rant. That was cathartic. Now to watch The Last Leg for some professional ranting from Adam Hills.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Could you do me a favor? Could you look up the entire paragraph from which the "deplorables" sentence is taken, and rephrase in your own words what you think Hillary's point is?

[ETA] You know what, I don't think you will, so I looked it up for you. What do you think Hillary's getting at by the following? Would you agree or disagree with it?


[ETAA] You know what I'll just highlight the important bit.

I've read, and re-read, and re-re-read the actual transcripts several times. It's been posted several times.

I understand what she was trying to say. I can infer what her point was. But it doesn't excuse the fact that she referred to a very large swath of people as being both irredeemable and deplorable.

While leveling this incredibly offensive judgment at half of Trump's supporters (which translates to approximately a quarter of the nation in terms of perceived impact) she also conveniently ignores that one-third of her own supporters are also irredeemable deplorables.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It wasn't my thread. Perhaps you should take a moment to actually look more closely before you rush to judgement and assume your moral superiority?

As far as verbiage maybe being a turn-off... why don't you go ahead and read your own post a few times, and consider it in light of what has been said by other people in this thread?

Why should I read a thread that started with an insult in the title"?


What makes you think your posts are worth savoring?

I do blame Trump supporters. I do blame people who falsely believed the unsupportable lies about how bad Clinton was. Either you voted for Clinton or you helped get a mentally ill narcissist elected (barring people in solidly blue states that didn't vote Clinton). That is a fact.

I am the one calling people on their hypocrisy here who are saying how horrible Clinton and her supporters are for denigrating people who would vote for a racist, misogynist, bigot, all the while telling Clinton supporters how horrible they are.

I asked you to state your position, you have yet to do so. If you didn't vote for Clinton, what's your version of your excuse? Are you sorry about your vote? Why are you still blaming other people instead of stating your own position?