President Trump: Part II

[TragicMonkey]

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?

You've just described Trump's supporters, not Clinton's. Except for the word "deplorable" of course, because being four syllables that one is well beyond Trump's vocabulary.

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?

Ditto. Do you imagine that scolding people on this board for being mean to you and your friends is going to make them say "golly! I should be nicer to the white supremacists, the people who call Michelle Obama 'an ape', the people who say 'Mexicans are rapists' and admit to 'grabbing pussies'?" Do you imagine that you're making a case for Trump, for Trump's supporters, or for being accommodating to those who do not return the kindness? Your beloved Trump voters want to dismantle healthcare, destroy the environment, enact racist and xenophobic legislation, and drag America backwards by forty or fifty years of progress. No, we should not be "nice" to them. They are decidedly not "nice" to us.

So if for whatever reason, be it a Christ-y philosophy or just pure contrariness, you can be as nice as you like to them. Go ahead, turn the other cheek to them, it'll give Trump more opportunity for sexual assault. I have no qualms in returning the enmity of those who merit it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?'.

Translation: "If you don't support me, you're irredeemably deplorable"

Do you not understand that it's an attempt to change people's minds through shame and derision?

Do you really think that's an appropriate message for a politician? "If you support the other guy, it makes you just as bad as the very worst of his supporters, and all of your reasons and views are irrelevant because you're just a disgusting person for liking the other guy"

 

[Beelzebuddy]

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.

And what was that point? I would like to hear you say it, please. Botched or not, what message do you think she was trying to convey, and would you agree with that message?

I think much of the problem in American politics these days boils down to a complete refusal to even attempt to see things from another's point of view.

Translation: "If you don't support me, you're irredeemably deplorable"

No, that's wrong. Please read the sentence or two I highlighted in her text.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Clearly they disagree with me, and with many others. That is obvious

The reason for the disagreement, however, is what concerns me. It's the presumption that they know someone else's mind and heart better than that person does. It's the presumption that they have so much clearer an understanding of things that they're convinced of their own righteousness and any disagreement with their caricatured interpretation is all wrong.

Here's a perfect example. For the last dozen posts you have avoided stating your position. Yet over and over again you expect people to sort through gawd knows how many pages to find it, if it is even there.

This game is common in the forum, telling people you've already stated something, wasting keystrokes and posts repeating the same thing. You could save yourself all these words telling us we don't know your position by simply telling us what it is.

Did you vote for Trump? Don't lie. Are you sorry you didn't vote for Clinton? Don't lie. Are you or are you not one of the people responsible for Trump POTUS? Don't make excuses.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

So?

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

So?

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.

Then what I asked earlier was valid. Were you conned by Trump, did you believe in his fantasy?

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?

You can't be serious.

Trump was not actively alienating people?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is bad reasoning. If it's considered inappropriate to note that Clinton's popular vote margin was less than the popular vote margin for her in CA, then it's also inappropriate to try to say that Trump only won the EC vote by three states.

Analogy fail, big time. Suggests you still don't understand why the CA voters argument is fallacious.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

By that logic, I suppose I should just quit reading anything you have to say.

Then again... the fact that insults turn people away and make them stop listening is exactly the point I'm trying to make here. Can you extend your own response to other people, or are you the only one whose sentiment counts?

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.

But you aren't blaming Trump supporters. You're blaming anyone who didn't support Clinton, and you're not listening to any of their reasons. You're overwriting their reasons with what you believe of them. You are treating all of them - regardless of whether they supported Trump or not - as if they are deplorable. You are doing exactly the thing that I'm telling you had a role in turning people away from Clinton.

Exactly the same thing.

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.

You are not listening.

We have been telling you that your tactic does not work. Your tactic will not win people to your side. If you wish to win the next election, you need to change your tactics. Learn from your mistakes, and take pains to make sure the Democratic party doesn't repeat them in the future.

I have not said that Clinton supporters are horrible. I have said that Cinton's supporters tactics are horrible and that they are ineffective and contributed to Clinton's loss.

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?

Baloney. You haven't bothered to ask me my position. You've instead insisted that you know my opinion and proceeded to lambaste me for what you imagine them to be.

I haven't blamed anyone. I am not at all sorry for my vote. I feel no obligation to give an "excuse" for my vote, there is no reason to excuse it. I'm quite satisfied that I voted for a third party because I am fully disgusted with the state of US partisanship.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And anyone who uses insults, mockery, and derision as a debate tactic is a bully.

FFS, look at all the spite and hurt feelings being tossed around on ISF lately. Which "side" is doing all the tossing? How many people has it won over?

***coughTrumpcough***

 

[TragicMonkey]

You can't be serious.

Trump was not actively alienating people?

In Emily's Cat's world, these are the openminded, intelligent people who deserve our respect and kindness:

http://theslot.jezebel.com/masshole-charged-with-hate-crimes-for-kicking-muslim-ai-1791701683

And for criticizing him we're the bad guys.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Do you imagine that scolding people on this board for being mean to you and your friends is going to make them say "golly! I should be nicer to the white supremacists, the people who call Michelle Obama 'an ape', the people who say 'Mexicans are rapists' and admit to 'grabbing pussies'?" Do you imagine that you're making a case for Trump, for Trump's supporters, or for being accommodating to those who do not return the kindness? Your beloved Trump voters want to dismantle healthcare, destroy the environment, enact racist and xenophobic legislation, and drag America backwards by forty or fifty years of progress. No, we should not be "nice" to them. They are decidedly not "nice" to us.

The number of false assumptions in there is really appalling. How do you square your portrayal of me here with the history of posts and positions I've taken on ISF?

So if for whatever reason, be it a Christ-y philosophy or just pure contrariness, you can be as nice as you like to them. Go ahead, turn the other cheek to them, it'll give Trump more opportunity for sexual assault. I have no qualms in returning the enmity of those who merit it.

The problem is that you're applying it without consideration for merit. You're applying enmity to anyone who didn't vote for Hillary. Even more so, you're applying enmity to anyone who disagrees with trying to garner support through mockery, derision, and name-calling.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You know what? I agree with you. It was bogus. Nevertheless, it was a weapon the Repubs used against Clinton that could not have been used against any other Democratic nominee. Clinton was qualified to be President, and she might have become a good one, but she was a flawed candidate who ran a weak campaign against a dangerous demagogue. And now here we are.

So what the GOP used it? They used a slew of character assassination techniques, they've been doing it against the Clintons since the 80s.

Your claim was the phony 'under indictment' should have disqualified Clinton. What a load of dung. By that criteria all the GOP has to do is make up fake charges against a candidate to get them out of the race.


Speaking of alt-realities, somehow I found myself further back in the thread. Sorry.

 

[Giz]

Did you vote for Trump? Don't lie. Are you sorry you didn't vote for Clinton? Don't lie. Are you or are you not one of the people responsible for Trump POTUS? Don't make excuses.

I wasn't expecting a Spanish Inquisition!


(Seriously, the behaviour of some hardcore Clintonistas is becoming cult like. There's no attempt at reasoning or seeing the other side. It's a matter of calling the other side EVIL and signalling theological PURITY via holy online flaming)

 

[CapelDodger]

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".

And Clinton's supporters loved it. If she'd kept up that tone she might have encouraged more people to come out and vote against Trump; not for her, but that hardly matters. The people she "alienated" were those she referred to - Trump supporters. Screw them.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And what was that point? I would like to hear you say it, please. Botched or not, what message do you think she was trying to convey, and would you agree with that message?

The message she was trying to get out is that her side needs to reach accross the aisle to some of Trump's supporters.

She truly failed to get that message out. And I have to sift through some enormously offensive judgments in order to get to it.

BTW - why do you feel justified in trying to make me play your game? This sort of heavy-handed "you need to prove you understand it" crap is just that - crap. I answer in the spirit of perhaps making headway here, but it's overall in ineffective strategy.

I think much of the problem in American politics these days boils down to a complete refusal to even attempt to see things from another's point of view.

I'm not sure there's a pot large enough to go with that kettle.

No, that's wrong. Please read the sentence or two I highlighted in her text.

Yeah, no. That's my translation of what Ethan Thane Athen (to whom I was responding) interpreted her message as:

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?'.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Translation: "If you don't support me, you're irredeemably deplorable"

Do you not understand that it's an attempt to change people's minds through shame and derision?

Do you really think that's an appropriate message for a politician? "If you support the other guy, it makes you just as bad as the very worst of his supporters, and all of your reasons and views are irrelevant because you're just a disgusting person for liking the other guy"

You've just deliberately misunderstood it again. She did not say they were deplorable or they'd be deplorable if they joined Trump's supporters, she even sympathised with the other 'half' of his supporters and specifically said she wanted to reach out to them. She did point out how scummy some of the things Trump said were and how scummy some of the people who relate to them were and that should be a wake up call for the more decent ones to realise what they were, perhaps inadvertantly, supporting in their desperation and hopelessness.

Now if the things she was referring to were a difference in detail on economic policy or whatever then your 'translation' would have a point, but the things she was referring to were actual, incontestably scummy things Trump had said / done.

Mind you, if you want to accuse me of describing anyone who voted for Trump as deplorable then I'll happily own that...with the mild concession that some of them may have been more innocent but thick as pig ****. But then I'm not a politician.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The number of false assumptions in there is really appalling. How do you square your portrayal of me here with the history of posts and positions I've taken on ISF?

I don't care about you and your history. I'm reading what you're writing right here, right now, and responding to it. That's how it works. I'm not your friend, I'm not obligated to make exceptions and excuses for you, and say "well, she may be saying horrible things now but she's a good person at heart".

The problem is that you're applying it without consideration for merit. You're applying enmity to anyone who didn't vote for Hillary. Even more so, you're applying enmity to anyone who disagrees with trying to garner support through mockery, derision, and name-calling.

No, I'm not. I'm didn't say a thing about "anyone who didn't vote for Hillary". I'm talking about you and those like you who are defending Trump voters. I don't care that you didn't vote for Clinton. I'm talking about what you're saying in this thread, and disagreeing with it.

As for "mockery, derision, and name-calling" you're the one perched on your high horse here, scolding people for not giving Trump supporters the respect you demand they be shown. Based on what? Your feelings. I don't share those feelings so you cannot order me to act as if I do. I do not award respect where it is not merited.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Here's a perfect example. For the last dozen posts you have avoided stating your position. Yet over and over again you expect people to sort through gawd knows how many pages to find it, if it is even there.

This game is common in the forum, telling people you've already stated something, wasting keystrokes and posts repeating the same thing. You could save yourself all these words telling us we don't know your position by simply telling us what it is.

I have stated my point repeatedly in this thread. I have stated it repeatedly to you directly. There comes a point where it's clear that you are not reading my posts.

Did you vote for Trump? Don't lie. Are you sorry you didn't vote for Clinton? Don't lie. Are you or are you not one of the people responsible for Trump POTUS? Don't make excuses.

How the hell can you fail to see how incredibly offensive your approach is? You've already convinced yourself that you know the answer, based on absolutely nothing but your own assumptions. You've pulled a belief out of your backside, and are now pre-emptively accusing me of lying.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Analogy fail, big time. Suggests you still don't understand why the CA voters argument is fallacious.

It's fallacious for exactly the same reason that "3 states gave trump the EC win" is fallacious.

 

[Emily's Cat]

***coughTrumpcough***

Seriously, take a step back. Aside from logger, you haven't been met with spite and derision from conservatives. You, and several other liberals, have been quite liberal in throwing around insult, insinuation, and spite for the past month and a half.

Enough so that you're actively attacking me, insinuating that I'm dumb, that I was conned, that I'm too stupid to see what's really going on... because I didn't vote for Clinton. Regardless of the fact that I also didn't vote for Trump, you have been actively blaming me for the election outcome. You are exhibiting so much emotion here, that you can't even seem to grasp the actual point being made: that alienating and insulting people doesn't win them to your point of view, and that the Democratic party and it's supporters should strongly consider changing their tactics in the future.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... But you aren't blaming Trump supporters. You're blaming anyone who didn't support Clinton,

Yep.

and you're not listening to any of their reasons.

Nope. I know the reasons. She's effectively been falsely portrayed, people bought the lies.

We have been telling you that your tactic does not work. Your tactic will not win people to your side.

Uhhh, did you miss the memo, Trump is now POTUS. Why should I be courting people who helped Trump get elected?

If you wish to win the next election, you need to change your tactics. Learn from your mistakes, and take pains to make sure the Democratic party doesn't repeat them in the future.

I'm going to stop you right here. Your posts suggest you do on understand how peoples' beliefs are manipulated to win an election. I suggest you read up on marketing and propaganda if you are planning to lecture people who understand those techniques how they need to be nice to people and that will win them elections.

Take a look at Karl Rove's Playbook. And then go back and take a good look at how Trump alienated one group of people after another. Your cognitive dissonance re Clinton vs Trump criticizing different groups is astonishing.

Baloney. You haven't bothered to ask me my position. You've instead insisted that you know my opinion and proceeded to lambaste me for what you imagine them to be.

I haven't blamed anyone. I am not at all sorry for my vote. I feel no obligation to give an "excuse" for my vote, there is no reason to excuse it. I'm quite satisfied that I voted for a third party because I am fully disgusted with the state of US partisanship.

IOW, if you weren't in a solid blue state, you helped Trump whether you admit it or not.

As for not bothering to ask, seriously? I do believe I asked at least 4 times which you avoided answering. But no matter, now we know. You didn't think Trump was a big enough threat to vote against him. Have you changed that belief yet?