Politics and Porn

[Bramblethorn]

So it's impossible for the people who don't fit into those categorizations to feel disenfranchised?

"Disenfranchised" means being deprived of some right, in particular the right to vote and have political representation.

Examples of actual disenfranchisement in the USA:

- Voter rolls being purged in ways that mistakenly identify people - especially black people - as convicted felons. (Given the racial leanings of the US criminal justice system, I'd argue that laws that prevent felons from voting are also an example of racially-biased disenfranchisement.)
- Voter ID laws that make it harder for poor folk to register (especially in black or other minority districts), excused by claims about non-existent forms of voter fraud.
- Limiting polling options (booths, access to early/postal voting, etc. etc.) in ways that conveniently happen to make it harder for majority-Democrat groups to vote.
- Flagrant gerrymandering that makes some people's votes far more influential than others, leading to absurdities like that time when a candidate who led the popular vote by 3 million couldn't win the EC.

People being unable to get a job isn't "disenfranchisement", though such groups are sometimes targeted for disenfranchisement. And "feeling disenfranchised" (because the Trumps of the world have told you over and over again that migrants/blacks/whoever are Terking Yer Jerbs) is not the same as being disenfranchised.

Do I really need to remind you that before Bill C got involved, Detroit was a prosperous manufacturing hub not that long ago?

Er... no, it wasn't. The decline of Detroit started back when Bill was in law school, if not earlier.

I was a kid living in another country at the time, and I still remember Detroit being a by-word for "urban decay" by the mid-1980s. It's not a coincidence that Robocop (1987) and The Crow (film 1994, but first written 1981) both featured Detroit as a gang-ridden dystopia.

Not 'buying' their argument of economic anxiety is, to put it politely, dishonest. Especially when Hillary C made her selling point status quo and more corporate hegemony. I'd agree that Trump is now demonstrating to be even more blatantly corrupt that her now that he's in office, but we're discussing the campaign right now.

There's no "now that he's in office" about it. The evidence was there for all to see. Trump has been a public figure for decades and he had a long record of crooked dealings. His refusal to release tax returns was a gigantic neon sign saying "LOOK AT ME, I'M DOING SOMETHING CROOKED" for anybody who wasn't working hard to find excuses not to care about that.

Meanwhile, Trump fans are out there buying $500 Ivanka shoes to show their support. Tell me how that's coming from a place of "economic anxiety"?

Not to say that a whole lot of them aren't genuine deplorables, or that they are equally as hurt as the demographics you mentioned, but for you to (seemingly) imply that Trump's voters are overwhelmingly xenophobic, racist, sexist, and entitled is disgustingly partisan and sounds a lot like the words of a genuine child who's pissed because they didn't get the toy they wanted.

But of course, they're the entitled ones.

Give me a break.

Trump ran on a platform of bigotry, racial and otherwise. He vilified Mexicans, Muslims, and plenty of other groups, and he has a long track record of racist pronouncements. He boasted about "grabbing women by the pussy" and when a Fox host didn't give him adequate deference he started making cracks about her being on her period.

People who saw that and voted for it anyway are racist sexist xenophobes. Or perhaps they're just selfish assholes who are okay with racism, sexism, and xenophobia, as long as they get something out of it. (Though it's not like he was even offering any halfway-plausible economic fixes; fucksake, this is a guy who's been bankrupt six or seven times.)

I don't care about the distinction. Fuck both those groups, separately and together. They voted for hate and bigotry, because the fucker tickled their tummies for a few months. They won because the system was rigged in their favour - not only the electoral things mentioned above, but also Comey's last-minute intervention.

If any of those voters really want to play the "we didn't know how bad he was!" card... well, (1) they need to do some serious thinking about how they managed to miss the MASSIVE WARNING SIGNS, and (2) they need to own up to their screwup and clear about what they're doing to make amends for fucking things up for everybody else. And then I will stop calling those particular people names.

I have no time for this "calling racists racist is just as bad as racism" bullshit. I have no time for people who think I ought to be polite to the folk who just voted to declare open season on my loved ones in the USA. (And in the longer run, to screw us all over via climate change, assuming 45 can somehow resist the temptation to start dry-humping the big red button.)

 

[Blue]

[..]

And I'm not saying Trump voters are the nicest or most informed people in the world. Just that not accepting that 'economic anxiety' was a big contributing factor to his win is preposterous. Heck the rust belt 'fell' because a large portion of previous Obama voters who were expected to stick with the Democrat switched to Trump.

Otherwise, I thought disenfranchisement meant something different (neglected is essentially what I was thinking of) and I've never seen Robocop.
Yeah, people in Michigan aren't being disenfranchised. Sorry.

But,
If people voted for him because his bigotry appeals then obviously they're bigots. But saying that for ignoring that and voting for other reasons makes them bigoted too is dumb. So the logic is that by voting for somebody then you're endorsing everything they supposedly stand for? So everybody who voted for Clinton is pro-corruption, loves war crimes, wants to militarily escalate with Russia and themselves is a bigot since she has quite a spotty track record when it comes to those actually disenfranchised black people and the LGBT.
Please. You can say everybody who voted for him is deplorable but then you've got to say that everybody who's voted for pretty much any other politician in the world is deplorable too. To varying degrees obviously.

~ ~ edit ~ ~

Oh, the Comey thing. A talking point, not actually true. Polls showed that the email controversy wasn't even a big issue with voters and Clinton got a bump up in the polls when he finally put the nail in it. So there's actually an argument to be made that Comey inadvertently slightly assisted her.

 

[Bramblethorn]

But,
If people voted for him because his bigotry appeals then obviously they're bigots. But saying that for ignoring that and voting for other reasons makes them bigoted too is dumb. So the logic is that by voting for somebody then you're endorsing everything they supposedly stand for?

No. But when you vote for a candidate who's massively more bigoted than his opponent, and has made several planks in his platform from that bigotry, you're making a statement about your priorities. Maybe that statement is "I'm a bigot"; maybe it's just "I'm willing to fuck vulnerable people over in the hope of a payday".

So everybody who voted for Clinton is pro-corruption, loves war crimes, wants to militarily escalate with Russia and themselves is a bigot since she has quite a spotty track record when it comes to those actually disenfranchised black people and the LGBT.

False equivalence.

You're right that Hillary has a flawed record. Plenty of Black people detest her for her "superpredator" remarks and associated history. But those same people still recognised that Trump was much, MUCH worse on such issues; there's a reason Hillary picked up 88% of voters from that demographic, vs. just 8% for Trump, and why David fucking Duke views Trump's election as a triumph. The story on LGBT issues is pretty similar.

(As I said a while back in this or some other thread: I haven't seen evidence to suggest that Trump has innate hostility towards LGBT people. But he's surrounded himself with folk who do, he's made himself dependent on their support, and he's already shown that he's comfortable with selling out LGBT folk to get that. His history with Roy Cohn is telling.)

When you have a choice between two evils, the good choice is to pick the less evil of the two.

Oh, the Comey thing. A talking point, not actually true. Polls showed that the email controversy wasn't even a big issue with voters and Clinton got a bump up in the polls when he finally put the nail in it. So there's actually an argument to be made that Comey inadvertently slightly assisted her.

Fivethirtyeight disagrees with you, as does Princeton Election Consortium. Both identify a late anti-Clinton shift in polls, coinciding with the Comey announcement.

Further discussion:
http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/1/11/14215930/comey-email-election-clinton-campaign
http://www.mediaite.com/online/nate...ly-become-president-if-not-for-comeys-letter/

 

[tryn2Bgood]

Wow. Some really strong and passionate opinions on the US election. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like most of the comments are from people that do not live in the US. I do live in the US and actually did A LOT of work for the campaign for the past year and a half. The area I live in was split pretty evenly between Trump and Clinton. But I would just like to add a few things to this debate.

It is 100% true that most major media was biased against Trump and did not cover the campaign fairly, objectively, or competently.

I don't know any Trump supporters that are deplorable, racist, or sexist. They are hard-working Americans, concerned about their families, healthcare, the safety of our country and it's economic future. No different than the attributes of the Clinton supporters. The main difference between either group of supporters is their belief in which candidate would be able to achieve the best results. Of course, there are certain issues that resonated more with each group, but I would not downgrade anyone from either side. To place them in such derogatory catagories and label them based on their political affiliation is simple ignorance.

"Trump boasted about grabbing women by their pussies": I will admit that was an inappropriate comment. And the excuse that it was "locker room banter" was not an acceptable defence. The problem is, it also 'is' an understandable defence. Many men, respectable men, would, or have at some point, participated in such banter. So have women. Is it still offensive? Sure. Did it carry enough weight to 'really matter'? Nope. (Trump 'boasted' about it - B. Clinton actually 'did it' while he was the President. Hell, he even shoved a cigar up one!)

Unfortunately, there is a lot of corruption within the government. None more apparent than during both B and H Clinton's time in office. THAT was one of the factors that lead to Trump's win.

Trump did NOT run on a platform of bigotry, racial or otherwise. He ran on a platform of 'making America great again' (bringing back jobs and better trade deals), 'draining the swamp' (government corruption), securing the borders, and better healthcare, among many other issues. THOSE were important issues and a key reason he gained such momentum during the campaign.

Trump was not 'politically correct' in his language. Which is the main reason he got labeled with all those derogatory terms used in some of these comments. He was not a 'politician', which hurt AND helped him.

Just to make it clear, I am not advocating for Trump here. I'm simply pointing out how the recent campaign ACTUALLY occured. And to be honest, A LOT of people's voted for Trump because he was not Hilary, and vice versa.

I think it is also fair to point out that much of the 'deplorable' behavior came from the side of Clinton supporters, before and after the election. (Trying to sabotage Trump rallies by inserting violent protesters, and many, NOT peaceful, protests and marches post election.) During the campaign, Hilary tauted MANY celebrity endorsements, using free concerts as campaign rallies. Media coverage of Katy Perry and Miley Cyrus knocking door to door for her ground campaign - even if it was only for a couple hours in college dorms. Clinton had President Obama, The First Lady, Former President Clinton (her husband), and her VP running mate holding several of their own rallies for her. Trump had only himself, VP running mate, and family members holding rallies. Gerrymandering was not a factor. In fact, the voting districts in place were traditionally more to the benefit of Democrats. Yet . . . Trump still won the election. That says something to me. I cannot predict how this new administration will fair in the years to come. But, no matter who I voted for, I will support and respect our President. The results are in. There is no need to protest. And I fully support a united nation and all its inhabitants!

 

[Blue]

No. But when you vote for a candidate who's massively more bigoted than his opponent, and has made several planks in his platform from that bigotry, you're making a statement about your priorities. Maybe that statement is "I'm a bigot"; maybe it's just "I'm willing to fuck vulnerable people over in the hope of a payday".

I don't (and didn't, ever) believe for a second that Trump's baggage would include a net economic benefit for working Americans or intellectual enlightenment of the unwashed masses. But I would bet that in the minds of maybe half of his voters their mental scales of justice would be weighing the benefit of expected financial recovery after years of neoliberalism and corporate hegemony, against the cost of offending a few million Latinos and women. Not to say that is the actual scenario one should weigh, but the one perceived by his voters.

If it were actually as simple as that perception I have no doubt that both you and me would have donned the red caps for at least a day. Just 'cause you're more informed than them when it comes to your priorities doesn't mean they're...

"People who saw that and voted for it anyway are racist sexist xenophobes. Or perhaps they're just selfish assholes who are okay with racism, sexism, and xenophobia, as long as they get something out of it."

..

False equivalence.

You're right that Hillary has a flawed record. Plenty of Black people detest her for her "superpredator" remarks and associated history. But those same people still recognised that Trump was much, MUCH worse on such issues; there's a reason Hillary picked up 88% of voters from that demographic, vs. just 8% for Trump, and why David fucking Duke views Trump's election as a triumph. The story on LGBT issues is pretty similar.

(As I said a while back in this or some other thread: I haven't seen evidence to suggest that Trump has innate hostility towards LGBT people. But he's surrounded himself with folk who do, he's made himself dependent on their support, and he's already shown that he's comfortable with selling out LGBT folk to get that. His history with Roy Cohn is telling.)

When you have a choice between two evils, the good choice is to pick the less evil of the two.

Yeah, agreed. But that's not my point. It's not about equivalence, you implied in your quote up there that people who voted Trump, even if they're not bigots and racists, are as good as bigots and racists. Or at least 'ok' with it. So that means everybody who voted for Hillary either supports or is ok with [list of morally dubious statements and actions done by Hillary].

Fivethirtyeight disagrees with you, as does Princeton Election Consortium. Both identify a late anti-Clinton shift in polls, coinciding with the Comey announcement.

Further discussion:
http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/1/11/14215930/comey-email-election-clinton-campaign
http://www.mediaite.com/online/nate...ly-become-president-if-not-for-comeys-letter/

Looked further into this and yeah I'm wrong again.
I'll not bother with the gory details but the conclusion I got from it is that she received a bump but made a very small net loss in her poll projections from the series of events, only an average of 0.1%, hardly worth noting. But the announcement apparently flipped a lot of undecided/abstaining voters to Trump's side and most likely caused a highly anomalous spike in popularity of 2.9% in 3 days.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

 

[Bramblethorn]

Wow. Some really strong and passionate opinions on the US election. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like most of the comments are from people that do not live in the US.

I am a US citizen and voter. I was born in the USA, I've spent a lot of time there, and I have MANY friends there. I take a very strong interest in US politics.

You are right in thinking that I don't currently live in the USA, but if you're suggesting that I'm therefore not knowledgeable enough to comment about this stuff, please consider yourself corrected.

I don't know any Trump supporters that are deplorable, racist, or sexist.

Jeff Sessions. Steve Bannon. Richard Spencer. David Duke. Alexandre Bissonnette. etc. etc. etc.

Trump himself spent a good deal of his own money campaigning for the execution of five black and Latino teenagers who turned out to be innocent of the crime of which they were accused.

Trump's administration has more time lamenting fictional massacres in Bowling Green and Sweden than in denouncing white terrorists like Bissonnette and Adam Purinton.

"Trump boasted about grabbing women by their pussies": I will admit that was an inappropriate comment. And the excuse that it was "locker room banter" was not an acceptable defence. The problem is, it also 'is' an understandable defence. Many men, respectable men, would, or have at some point, participated in such banter.

Men who brag about sexually assaulting women are not "respectable". They're misogynist scum. End of.

So have women. Is it still offensive? Sure. Did it carry enough weight to 'really matter'? Nope. (Trump 'boasted' about it - B. Clinton actually 'did it' while he was the President. Hell, he even shoved a cigar up one!)

Uh... Trump boasted about it as a thing he had done. Clinton's record is repellent, but at least he didn't think it was something to brag about.

The fact that it wasn't considered important enough to matter says something about Trump's supporters.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of corruption within the government. None more apparent than during both B and H Clinton's time in office. THAT was one of the factors that lead to Trump's win.

Reminder that Trump has accumulated more and bigger corruption scandals in his first month in office than the Obama administration managed in eight years. This should come as no surprise to anybody who's followed his business history, or noted his unwillingness to release tax returns.

Trump did NOT run on a platform of bigotry, racial or otherwise. He ran on a platform of 'making America great again' (bringing back jobs and better trade deals),

...in which he relied heavily on a narrative of "these foreigners are Taking Our Jobs".

'draining the swamp' (government corruption), securing the borders

That's what's known as dog-whistle politics: when you talk about "securing borders", racists understand that it means "keep the brown people out".

, and better healthcare, among many other issues. THOSE were important issues and a key reason he gained such momentum during the campaign.

"Better healthcare" is not something that he (or any other Republicans) had an actual plan for, as can be seen by the political chaos that's developing as Congressmen start to realise that they can't repeal the despised Obamacare without also repealing the ACA that's been a lifeline for many of their constituents.

I think it is also fair to point out that much of the 'deplorable' behavior came from the side of Clinton supporters, before and after the election. (Trying to sabotage Trump rallies by inserting violent protesters,

[citation needed]

Gerrymandering was not a factor.

Trump won the presidency with three million fewer votes than Clinton. That is pretty much the DEFINITION of a gerrymander.

 

[Nezhul]

Trump won the presidency with three million fewer votes than Clinton. That is pretty much the DEFINITION of a gerrymander.

Heh, after the election I heard the numbers 800 000. Now it's 3 million. Wait a couple of month and it turns out that 90% of americans were actually FOR clinton, but then Russian hackers just switched the results!

 

[tryn2Bgood]

You are right in thinking that I don't currently live in the USA, but if you're suggesting that I'm therefore not knowledgeable enough to comment about this stuff, please consider yourself corrected.

***I did not suggest you were not knowledgeable enough to comment. I AM suggesting that there is a difference between forming an opinion based on your friends (whom, I assume, share your viewpoint), info reported by the media (biased or otherwise) and actual participation and interaction with everyday Americans from both parties.***



Jeff Sessions. Steve Bannon. Richard Spencer. David Duke. Alexandre Bissonnette. etc. etc. etc.

***I did not say racists did not exist within the Trump supporters. I said that I don't KNOW any of them. My point being, categorizing all Trump supporters as racists is incorrect. Sadly, racism exists everywhere. Are you going to declare that not one of Clinton's supporters are racist?***



Uh... Trump boasted about it as a thing he had done. Clinton's record is repellent, but at least he didn't think it was something to brag about.

***Trump did not brag about it as a thing he had actually done. You are interpreting it that way. Review the words he said in context. Also, how do you know what Clinton thinks is something to brag about? There are plenty of White House aides that would strongly disagree with you. I cannot cite this for you; I KNOW them.***



Reminder that Trump has accumulated more and bigger corruption scandals in his first month in office than the Obama administration managed in eight years. This should come as no surprise to anybody who's followed his business history, or noted his unwillingness to release tax returns.

***Trump's tax returns are irrelevant. They were all filed on time with the IRS. He has been audited several times. No discrepancies or anything illigal was found. And if you want to argue that he 'cheated' on them, that would also be incorrect. Did he utilize the laws in place to his advantage? Sure. That's what everyone does when they file their taxes.***


...in which he relied heavily on a narrative of "these foreigners are Taking Our Jobs".

***If you are not a citizen, or do not live in said country, than you are a 'foreigner'. Why is that word offensive? Also, if you have the capability to produce the goods or services needed or consumed in your country, and have a population that needs a job, why wouldn't you want to merge the two? Americans need large companies to stay in America rather than flee to another country for monetary benefit. ***



That's what's known as dog-whistle politics: when you talk about "securing borders", racists understand that it means "keep the brown people out".

***What point are you trying to make here? That racist people draw their own conclusions about the meaning of phrases? Okay. I won't argue with that. Rational people understand it to mean "securing the borders". What do you think it means?

Border rules and immigration laws have already been in effect for quite some time. The enforcement of them has been the issue.***


"Better healthcare" is not something that he (or any other Republicans) had an actual plan for, as can be seen by the political chaos that's developing as Congressmen start to realise that they can't repeal the despised Obamacare without also repealing the ACA that's been a lifeline for many of their constituents.

***That is untrue. There were many plans for better healthcare before 'Obama-care' was enforced. Undoing the problem will take some work.***



[citation needed]

***There is several audio, video, and email evidence to support this. I do not have the time or will to support this.***



Trump won the presidency with three million fewer votes than Clinton. That is pretty much the DEFINITION of a gerrymander.

(So...I don't know how to break the quote into different sections to reply here, so some of my comments are mixed in the quote above. Sorry 'bout that)

The definition of gerrymandering is intentionally drawing the lines for voting districts to give one party the majority advantage over the other. That was not the case in this election. In fact, past voting history suggested that Clinton would have had the advantage here.

There is a reason for using the Electoral votes instead of the Popular votes to determine the winner. Ex: Let me just use religion as a platform. If you have 1000 people confined to 3 churches, all being influenced by the ideas and environment of those churches - and 900 of those people vote for 'cheese', and then you have 800 people spread out through 40 churches, all under different influences - and 700 of those people voted for 'milk' instead of cheese - it would be correct to say that 1000 people voted for cheese and only 800 people voted for milk. It would be incorrect, however, to say that the majority of religions prefer cheese over milk. Get it?

 

[tryn2Bgood]

Heh, after the election I heard the numbers 800 000. Now it's 3 million. Wait a couple of month and it turns out that 90% of americans were actually FOR clinton, but then Russian hackers just switched the results!

Do you have some internal knowledge on this Russian conspiracy theory that the rest of us don't? Just kidding, but that theory has actually been suggested by some people in the US.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Nezhul]

Don't you think that's a problem with YOU, not the situation?

But again, to each their own. I'm not going to resume this discussion. I just saw the point of view that I could relate with and answered the post. Clearly, you just want to brush off her experience / thoughts / response as to something that's rare and strange, still insisting that most women get scared shitless by strangers approaching them. I'm not going to argue with you anymore about it. I've said all I could on topic already, it's all just going on repeat now.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Bramblethorn]

(I have Nezhul on ignore, but I see from quoted text that he's confused about how US elections work. If he doesn't feel like looking up the information for himself I'm happy to answer his question, at the same rates I quoted earlier.)

(So...I don't know how to break the quote into different sections to reply here, so some of my comments are mixed in the quote above. Sorry 'bout that)

<quote>quoted text goes here</quote> but replace the <>s with []s.

You can also do <quote=AuthorName>, again replacing with square brackets, to show the quotee's name.

***I did not suggest you were not knowledgeable enough to comment. I AM suggesting that there is a difference between forming an opinion based on your friends (whom, I assume, share your viewpoint), info reported by the media (biased or otherwise) and actual participation and interaction with everyday Americans from both parties.***

You would be wrong in that assumption. The majority of my friends - like the majority of the voting public - would have preferred Hillary. But I have friends from elsewhere in the political spectrum, including several Republicans (though at least one of them couldn't stomach DJT and voted for Hillary) as well as a couple of libertarians.

One of my best friends was an evangelical of the James Dobson persuasion. We had pretty much nothing in common politically, but we had a shared sense of humour and she was a very loyal friend. I stayed with her every time we visited the USA, and she'd spend hours telling me about Obama's satanic affiliations and how FEMA was building death camps for Christians. Our friendship was strong enough to survive that; what it didn't survive was when she started sending me white-supremacist propaganda.

Living outside the USA also provides a useful perspective on US politics. An awful lot of US politics is people saying "we can't do X, there's no way to make it work" oblivious to the fact that plenty of other countries have already managed to do that thing. US politics also involves a fair bit of outright lying about how things work in other countries (e.g. the attempts to portray Sweden as some sort of nightmare wasteland of black rapists).

And of course, it's very helpful in being able to assess US foreign policy - for example, Trump's repeated screwups on the relationship with Australia have shown quite astounding incompetence.

side note: I get twitchy when people start talking about "everyday Americans" because it mostly seems to be used as a subtle way of saying that some kinds of Americans don't really count, or as a way to say "straight, white, not one of those weirdos". Especially in a BDSM forum we should be cautious about equating "normal" to "good".

***I did not say racists did not exist within the Trump supporters. I said that I don't KNOW any of them. My point being, categorizing all Trump supporters as racists is incorrect. Sadly, racism exists everywhere. Are you going to declare that not one of Clinton's supporters are racist?***

Racism is pervasive. Hillary herself has done racist things. That doesn't mean everybody is equally bad so we should just ignore it. Trump repeatedly appealed to racism in his campaigning, one of the racists I named is an influential member of his staff, and racist groups like the KKK are delighted that he won - that should tell us something.

Put it another way: how do your Black friends feel about the election result?

The definition of gerrymandering is intentionally drawing the lines for voting districts to give one party the majority advantage over the other. That was not the case in this election. In fact, past voting history suggested that Clinton would have had the advantage here.

There have been two occasions in living memory when a presidential candidate lost the popular vote but won the EC. Both times that's been in the Republicans' favour.

In fact, the very existence of the EC is a historical gerrymander. When you have a whole country trying to elect somebody to fill a single position, the obvious way to do that is to ignore state/territory boundaries altogether and just go by popular vote. It's straightforward and it means that every voter counts equally. So why not do the simple, sensible thing instead of this peculiar system that's vulnerable to things like faithless electors?

Well, back when the EC was created, Southern states had large slave populations, and relatively small white populations. At the time, slaves couldn't vote, so a popular vote would've given a lot of influence to the North.

So the Southern representatives argued for an electoral-college system where each state would count according to its total population, slaves included. They certainly didn't want their slaves voting! But white Southerners did want to be able to add the weight of their slaves to their own vote.

In the end they settled on a compromise where slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for EC purposes (likewise for determining how many federal representatives each state elected), which still meant that white Southerners got more influence per-capita than their Northern counterparts.

So, yeah, the EC's boundaries and weighting began their existence as a gerrymander designed to give one demographic influence out of proportion to their numbers.

The "Three-Fifths Compromise" was abolished with the Thirteenth Amendment, which increased Southern representation back to what the Southerners had originally argued for - but while black Southerners do now have a legal right to vote, voter suppression still achieves a weaker version of what slavery used to do.

Looking at the House: in 2012 the Democrats won a majority of the popular vote (50.6%) but only 46.2% of the seats. There was a similar discrepancy in 1996: Democrats won the popular vote by a very small majority (50.03%), but only got a minority of the seats (about 47.6%).

So between Presidency and House, that's four times in recent history where Democrats won a majority of the two-party votes, but the Republicans ended up in power. I went back as far as 1960 without ever finding a case where it played out the opposite way.

There is a reason for using the Electoral votes instead of the Popular votes to determine the winner. Ex: Let me just use religion as a platform. If you have 1000 people confined to 3 churches, all being influenced by the ideas and environment of those churches - and 900 of those people vote for 'cheese', and then you have 800 people spread out through 40 churches, all under different influences - and 700 of those people voted for 'milk' instead of cheese - it would be correct to say that 1000 people voted for cheese and only 800 people voted for milk. It would be incorrect, however, to say that the majority of religions prefer cheese over milk. Get it?

To me, the take-home from that is that 1000 people voted for cheese, 800 voted for milk, and therefore cheese is more popular and should be elected to... whatever it is that we're voting for here.

I agree that in that example, the majority of religions probably voted for milk, but that's irrelevant. Elections are supposed to represent the will of people.

Plus, "the majority of religions" is easily gameable. Just split those three big churches into a hundred small ones, and now you have a majority of religions preferring cheese.

Trump did not brag about it as a thing he had actually done. You are interpreting it that way. Review the words he said in context.

TRUMP: I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything.

BUSH: Whatever you want.

TRUMP: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

He is CLEARLY talking about his own behaviour there.

Trump's tax returns are irrelevant. They were all filed on time with the IRS. He has been audited several times. No discrepancies or anything illigal was found. And if you want to argue that he 'cheated' on them, that would also be incorrect. Did he utilize the laws in place to his advantage? Sure. That's what everyone does when they file their taxes.

Actually, we don't know that "no discrepancies were found", because the IRS doesn't automatically release that kind of information.

But in any case, you're missing the point. It has been standard practice for a very long time that Presidential candidates disclose their tax returns. That's NOT about tax evasion; it's so the voting public can get a picture of the candidate's financial interests.

If Trump felt his returns were irrelevant, he could have said so and let people make up their own minds about that. He didn't. He promised many, many times that he was going to release them (while offering false reasons for why he couldn't do it just yet). Then he reneged on those promises after the election.

Does that sound like the behaviour of a man with nothing to hide?

If you are not a citizen, or do not live in said country, than you are a 'foreigner'. Why is that word offensive?

It signals racism because it's using foreigners as a scapegoat rather than deal with the real economic problems - which are complex, and not amenable to catchy sloganeering.

Technology destroys old jobs and it creates new ones.

Borrowing an example from "Hidden Figures": once upon a time, "computer" was a job, not a tool: lots of people were employed to perform mathematical calculations by hand. Then IBM & co. started developing mechanical computers, and within a few years all the human computers were out of a job - but there were plenty of new jobs programming the mechanical ones. In fact, because the new kind of computer is so powerful, there are far more jobs in programming than there ever were in old-school "computing".

But in the short run, somebody is out of a job, and that's most certainly bad for them. However, the solution to that is not to protect the old way of life (ban IBM! Keep human computers employed!) but to find ways to adapt: maybe the old "computers" can retrain and learn how to program the new kind? Or maybe the new computers have created so much wealth for our country that we can use some of that new-found wealth to support the people who would be losing out from change?

The issue with trade is pretty much the same. Trade only happens when BOTH sides have something the other wants, and when both see that trade as advantageous. (Simplifying a bit here - there are exceptions to that, but it's true enough for the sake of this discussion.)

For example: Mexico exports avocados to the USA. You can look at that as "taking away jobs from US avocado growers", and that's true as far as it goes... but it doesn't go very far. Mexico isn't sending those avocados to the USA out of charity, or because they hate US avocado growers. They're selling them because it earns US dollars, which they can then use to buy something else from the USA.

As it happens, Mexico has a pretty good climate for growing avocados, and the USA has a manufacturing industry that's pretty good at making heavy machinery - John Deere etc. So if Mexico grows the avocados and USA makes the tractors, we end up with more avocados total AND more tractors total than if each country tried to be completely self-sufficient. Trade means there's more of everything to go around, which should be a win-win for everybody.

As with job changes due to technology, the problem is that the benefits aren't distributed so well at the individual level. If some US avocado farmer loses $1m due to competition from Mexico, it's not a lot of comfort for him to hear that US manufacturing profited by $2m from the trade. (And quite likely he won't hear about it at all, because people tend to look at their small part of the economy rather than thinking about the bigger picture.)

Once again, the best solution would be not to resist that change, but to find ways of distributing the benefits better. Unfortunately politics in general, and US politics in particular, is very poorly suited to doing so.

Also, if you have the capability to produce the goods or services needed or consumed in your country, and have a population that needs a job, why wouldn't you want to merge the two?

Nobody needs a job. Nobody gets up in the morning thinking "I have too much free time, if only there was some way I could get rid of it, and maybe wear myself out at the same time."

What people need, and want, is stuff: food, clothes, a place to eat, good health, a nice TV, etc. etc.

Of course, somebody has to make that stuff, and we need some way to allocate it. So the traditional solution is to couple these things together: by doing a job, you earn the money to buy stuff that other people have produced.

If I invent a robot that does the work of 1000 people... the world should be better off. There's just as much stuff to go round as there was before, and we don't have to work as hard for it. It only becomes a problem because we've lost sight of the fact that having a job is a means to happiness, not an end.

We're getting to the point where there aren't enough meaningful jobs to go around, because automation does a lot of stuff that used to be handled by human labour. Our response to that should be to celebrate it, and find a way to share the benefits around, rather than making up pointless busy-work just to satisfy the dogma that material comforts must be earned.

There are many ways that could be achieved. So when politicians argue instead for protectionism with an undertone of "those brown people are STEALING YOUR JOBS", yeah, I think they're playing to racism.

What point are you trying to make here? That racist people draw their own conclusions about the meaning of phrases?

No; I'm arguing that certain candidates use certain phrases with the intention of playing to those racists, because they know very well how they'll be interpreted.

Okay. I won't argue with that. Rational people understand it to mean "securing the borders". What do you think it means?

Just about everybody in the world considers themselves a "rational person" regardless of how irrational their behaviour and positions might be.

In a rational world, "securing the borders" would mean taking action that significantly improves security - i.e. people's safety. The measures we've seen in the last month are at best useless and often counterproductive in that regard.

That is untrue. There were many plans for better healthcare before 'Obama-care' was enforced. Undoing the problem will take some work

Yep, there are many plans. That's the mess I'm talking about. There isn't a plan that Republicans have agreed on.

footnote: I will probably have to drop out of this discussion, because I've just had a large batch of contracting work come in and that cuts into my forum time. Apologies for bailing, it's not your fault!

 

[tryn2Bgood]

side note: I get twitchy when people start talking about "everyday Americans" because it mostly seems to be used as a subtle way of saying that some kinds of Americans don't really count, or as a way to say "straight, white, not one of those weirdos". Especially in a BDSM forum we should be cautious about equating "normal" to "good".

Put it another way: how do your Black friends feel about the election result?


Nobody needs a job. Nobody gets up in the morning thinking "I have too much free time, if only there was some way I could get rid of it, and maybe wear myself out at the same time."

What people need, and want, is stuff: food, clothes, a place to eat, good health, a nice TV, etc. etc.

First of all, when I use words 'every day Americans' I meant that literally. (People who live in America on a daily basis) At no point did I mean 'normal' or 'good'. Please don't miconstrue my words.

You asked, "How do my black friends feel about the election result?" Seriously? Some of them are happy about it; some of them are not happy about it. Same goes for my white friends. And also my Latino friends. What are you trying to say?Do you think no black people voted for Trump? I don't understand the point you are trying to make here.

You said, "NOBODY needs a job. What people need, or want, is food, clothes..." We're just arguing semantics here. How do you propose they obtain food, clothes, shelter, a nice TV? Barter and trade? What are they trading? Corn they grew themself? Then their 'job' could be considered a corn grower per that transaction. What are they bartering? Babysitting services in exchange for a new 70" flatscreen? For that transaction, their job is a babysitter. A stay-at-home mom might not so to work every day, but being a mom is a big 'job'. However, she would not be able to provide for her children without some other means of household income. (Her husband probably has a job - he, most definitely, 'needs' one if he wants to support his family) So, sorry . . .I have to disagree with your stance that nobody needs a job.

It's perfectly fine with me if you have to abandon this discussion. I think we've both said enough. Have a nice night/day!

 

[KimGordon67]

Initially I was not going to participate in this thread because I thought it was about porn in politics, which I will admit to knowing little to nothing about. I checked it out anyway . . . Maybe I could learn something. But as I read through the thread, I noticed most of the posts were pertaining to women and their reactions to strange men approaching them (amoung other things) and I felt like I should add a few comments.

A few details about myself that may or may not lend relevance to what I am about to share: I am a woman over 40. College educated. Published author (I have a book coming out next spring - fiction based on real events. 100% of the proceeds will go to domestic violence charities) I do volunteer counseling at a crisis center. I own my own business, but have also done contract work for the government. (Almost my entire family works for the gov) I have written training manuals and given presentations for businesses on such matters as workplace conduct and sexual harassment. I have traveled a lot, mostly eastern half of the US. That being said:

Regarding posts by Nezhul: There is very little I disagree with. But I would like to correct one particular opinion where he shared a comment with Meekme apologizing for any ordeal that she may have gone through, but doubted that most women have had anything like that happen to them. In fact, the complete opposite of that is true.

Not all, but, ALMOST all, of the women I know personally have experienced some form of sexual abuse by someone very close to them (step-parents or the equivalent, distant relatives, teachers, very close friends of the family, close coworkers, boyfriend/girlfriend, etc) Women AND men have been victims to such crimes. But it is more prevalent with women because they are the 'weaker sex' - more easily overpowered.

Most sexual crimes are committed by people who are close to the victim. Many more than sexual crimes reported by strangers. There are a number of reasons for this, and to explain them all would take too much of this post. Also, most of these crimes go unreported. Again, too many reasons to list.

However, MOST of the women I know from these situations lead perfectly happy and healthy lives. Yes, there are always lingering effects of such trama, but we learn how to successfully manage them. That being said, many survivors have a much harder time trusting people they get close to, rather than a stranger. (Strangers we can keep at arms length; people close to us have the potential to hurt us.)

Also note that statistics are bullshit. The data is rarely accurate. Polling pools are censured. Research data is incomplete. Hundreds of factors influence the results. And most basically, people lie. So, my observations are based on personal experiences and interactions.

Now, regarding the topic of women being approached by strange men on the street: EVERYONE should be cautious around strangers or in unfamiliar situations or places. Normal precautions should always be taken. I would advise everyone to participate in a self defence course and educate themselves on reducing the risks of being targeted. Empower yourself with the skills and knowledge learned! But, it is equally important not to live in fear of those things!

As far as women being 'freaked out' by being approached by strange men, I have not found that to be a problem at all. Yes, there are some instances where a guy creeps you out. You are probably correct to avoid those people. Your intuition usually guides you in the right direction.

I have been approached by, literally, over a thousand men. I have had some negative experiences (The guy was outright crude in his comments, some were too straight forward, some awkward, some left me feeling a little uneasy) but I have never been attached by a stranger. I'm not saying it doesn't happen in this world. Obviously, it does. But, in general, everyday life is not that dangerous. (At least not the part of the world I live in) I don't presume to know how everyone in the world feels. But, I , and the women I know, do not have a problem with strange men approaching them. Of course, it does depend on the situation and the manner in which you are approached.

Also, I noticed some comments about being offended when a strange man tells you that you are beautiful, pretty, etc. Why would that offend you? Because they don't know you? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right? Most of the time it is just meant as a compliment. But, be offended if you want to, I guess.

Some personal examples below:

Strange man approaches me while I'm pumping gas. (Happens a lot) he wants to borrow money? I make an excuse and they leave. Different guy wants my phone number? I say: "Sorry, but I'm already taken". He says, "Too bad", and leaves. Different guy says,"Hey, don't I know you from somewhere? What's your name?". I say, "No, sorry. Don't think so". He persists, "No, I'm sure we've met before." I respond, "Yeah, I get that a lot, but I'm sure we havent. Sorry." Most guys realize they're wasting their efforts and leave nicely.

I'm in line at Starbucks. An attractive man behind me says,"Has anyone ever told you how beautiful you are?"
Assessment: He appears to be a nice guy giving me a compliment
Response: "All the time. Thank you." I smile and move forward to place my order. He chuckles but does not pursue it any further. No harm done.

I approach the counter at an easy order restaurant and ask the guy for a refill of ice water. He says, "Sure, anything for a pretty girl like you." Assessment: The guy is an idiot. It's an inappropriate comment because he is at work and me being 'pretty' or not should have no bearing on whether I get my cup of water. Reaction: I stare at him with that look and wait patiently for my water.

I'm in my car at a stoplight. Guy next to me smiles, rolls his window down and asks for my phone number. Assessment: The guy is 'really fucking hot'. He's giving off good and confident vibes. I'm interested. Response: I give him my phone number. (Maybe not the smartest thing to do, but when he called me, we met up at a public place during the day. Several of my friends had the details of where I would be; I called them if there were any changes in plans. We had several dates like this before moving forward. We ended up dating for about 8 months.)

Strange guy approaches me on the street. He's eyefucking me, liking his lips while asking me out. Assessment: The guy's a dick and just looking to get laid. Response: I decline with a quick 'no thanks', head into the nearest store and wait until he leaves before I do.

I've also met a few guys at the park. Their football lands near the blanket I'm reading on. They strike up a conversation. We meet a a bar later on for drinks, along with a few of my own friends. We have a fun time socializing, but that's it. My point is: Every situation calls for a quick assessment and response. Some people are worth getting to know. Everyone is a stranger until you get to know them. Stay within your comfort zone, but don't fear everyone because bad things CAN happen at any point in our lives. (Doesn't mean they're destined to though.) And I would be much more inclined to date a stranger I met on the street before I would ever meet up with someone I met online.

As for the views on politics that were mentioned: I have to agree with most of Nezhul's responses. There is A LOT of corruption in government. Which highly contributes to the reasons Trump won the election. The public will NEVER have all the information the government does, thus are unable to fully understand why certain decisions are made. That's not to say we shouldn't try to stay informed and always stand up for the rights you are willing to fight for.

Regarding the people who have been fired for watching porn at work: They're fucking stupid and deserved it! As do the people watching videos of cute cats or playing Angry Birds. It's called work for a reason.

And . . .Bramblethorn does seem like she likes to argue with Nezhul. But the lesson on grammer and punctuation wasn't needed. I think you misread his comment. Clearly, he understands how to use a comma.

Okay, that's it. Hate me and disect my post if you kike. Your opinion count too ☺

I've been thinking about this for a while. I can't remember if it was me or someone else who used the term 'freaked out', but if it was me, I was probably over-stating things a tad, and maybe that led to the whole interpretation of women being 'scared to leave their houses'. Clearly this is not the actual case, and in fact I'm vehemently refuse to play by the 'rules' that women are meant to follow, e.g. I always walk home alone at night if the logistics of my life make that the most sensible option.
However, Tryn, I think your points kind of support my argument, rather than counter it (if that's what you were doing? I'm not entirely positive). In all of the encounters you describe above, you engage in some sort of assessment that includes risk assessment. Obviously the personal risk assessment you engage in is, in part, based on your personal experiences, and your narrative implies that none of these encounters have had a particularly negative outcome. That's not the case for me and quite a lot of women - I've been dragged off the street by a stranger (I fought back and ran, but it still wasn't a pleasant experience), and I've been groped on public transport in a very unpleasant way when I was something like 14.
The other point I'd make is that the assessments you describe - which, as I've said, inevitably include some element of risk assessment - are the kind of thing that pretty much ONLY women have to engage in. (No doubt some guy will chime in to prove me wrong, but I think we can pretty safely say that, statistically speaking, approaches made by one gender to another gender in a public setting are overwhelmingly hetero men approaching women.) The 'smile' one is a classic example - a guy tells a woman to 'smile' because she looks a bit glum. The likelihood that he's going to say that to another mopey guy is pretty slim.

These encounters make a LOT of women uncomfortable. Obviously others are OK with them, and in some instances, valued relationships have ensued. I guess it's a cost/benefit equation really - is the benefit of those relationships (and the self esteem boost that some women apparently get from this) worth the cost of the discomfort that many other women experience going about their lives in public places? I don't think anyone (and this isn't personally directed, just a general observation) telling either group of women they're wrong to feel either happy or unhappy about the encounters is particularly helpful.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Nezhul]

you are going down to basics. As I said before, EVERYBODY do risk assessment when meeting new people. There's not one person who will meet a new guy or girl in ANY environment, and will not do a risk assessment. From basics, like looks, body language, facial expression - to others like the setting you meet in or the words they say.

You will always do this "risk assessment" that you are talking about.
Meet someone in the street? You evaluate risks.
Meet new co-workers on your first day at the job? You evaluate risks.
Go into public transport - you evaluate the risks of everyone around you.
Walking doen the street - you will evaluate everyone you see.
Meet a friend's Best friend at the party? You still evaluate the risks.
A relative? Guess what, it doesn't make him/her less risky!
The list can go on forever.

What you said, what I disagreed with strongly, what tryin2Bgood disagrees with - is that risk assessment when being approached by a guy on the street - is anything special. It's not - not for a lot of women I know, and not in my experience. Not in tryin2Bgood's experience either. I can relate with that.

You argue it makes the woman deeply uncomfortable, and that's, again, what I disagree with, what trying2Bgood is trying to relay to you.
There are numerous encounters in the day-to-day life of an average woman (or man) that are more scary than a guy who liked your looks and wants to get to know you better.

I never said there are no women who are afraid of such things. But then again, there are people who will be afraid of almost anything. There are people who will be afraid if you are tall, regardless where you meet them and what are the circumstances. You ask for directions on the street - BAM! Chances are you just made someone feel terror for a brief moment.
The fact that such poor people exist - is not the reason to stop interacting with anyone AT ALL. Such people exist, yes. Like 1% of them. It's their problem that they learn how to deal with - they rarely expect everyone around to change their day-to-day behavior for them.

There. Shit. I'm dragged into this discussion again, but your blindness is almost startling. You see what you want to see.
I guess I'll make an effort and try not to post again. It's useless anyway.

 

[tryn2Bgood]

I've been thinking about this for a while. I can't remember if it was me or someone else who used the term 'freaked out', but if it was me, I was probably over-stating things a tad, and maybe that led to the whole interpretation of women being 'scared to leave their houses'. Clearly this is not the actual case, and in fact I'm vehemently refuse to play by the 'rules' that women are meant to follow, e.g. I always walk home alone at night if the logistics of my life make that the most sensible option.
However, Tryn, I think your points kind of support my argument, rather than counter it (if that's what you were doing? I'm not entirely positive). In all of the encounters you describe above, you engage in some sort of assessment that includes risk assessment. Obviously the personal risk assessment you engage in is, in part, based on your personal experiences, and your narrative implies that none of these encounters have had a particularly negative outcome. That's not the case for me and quite a lot of women - I've been dragged off the street by a stranger (I fought back and ran, but it still wasn't a pleasant experience), and I've been groped on public transport in a very unpleasant way when I was something like 14.
The other point I'd make is that the assessments you describe - which, as I've said, inevitably include some element of risk assessment - are the kind of thing that pretty much ONLY women have to engage in. (No doubt some guy will chime in to prove me wrong, but I think we can pretty safely say that, statistically speaking, approaches made by one gender to another gender in a public setting are overwhelmingly hetero men approaching women.) The 'smile' one is a classic example - a guy tells a woman to 'smile' because she looks a bit glum. The likelihood that he's going to say that to another mopey guy is pretty slim.

These encounters make a LOT of women uncomfortable. Obviously others are OK with them, and in some instances, valued relationships have ensued. I guess it's a cost/benefit equation really - is the benefit of those relationships (and the self esteem boost that some women apparently get from this) worth the cost of the discomfort that many other women experience going about their lives in public places? I don't think anyone (and this isn't personally directed, just a general observation) telling either group of women they're wrong to feel either happy or unhappy about the encounters is particularly helpful.

I would never in a million years tell anyone how they 'should' feel about anything. Everyone is different. And everyone is perfectly entitled to feel however they feel. There is no standard on acceptable emotions via any given circumstances. So, please understand that I would never discount how YOU feel. At the same time, it is also fair to acknowledge that not everyone feels that way.

My intention wasn't to counter your argument on risk and assessment either. Every situation in life calls for some type of assessment before reaction, whether you realize it or not. When you open the oven to take out the lasagna your brain (because it has been trained) automatically makes the assessment that it is too hot and your reaction is to grab an oven mitt before you touch it (in order to protect yourself). Before you cross the street, you look both ways to assess if it is safe to cross. Most of the assessments we make on a daily basis come naturally. Almost all of us are taught as small children that strangers are bad. Some kids are taught to yell "stranger danger" and run away. Get to someplace safe - with an adult you know and trust. That's good advice for kids, but not practical for adults. And often times, it's difficult to retrain your brain to assess the situation differently. ie: Many women are still scared of strangers. Not that they are 'wrong' but just not equipt to handle the conflict of their previous 'training'. That's why I'm an advocate for empowering yourself with the knowledge and tools/training to confidently live life to the fullest. I also understand that there are other events and factors that make this more difficult than it is for others. Bit everyone has the CHOICE to live however they want. And not to sound harsh, but you are 'choosing' to be afraid. There are a lot of ways to overcome any issues. You may never be completely comfortable with it, but at least not as deeply effected. And thats okay. It your choice how you want to deal with it.

This seems to be an issue for woman more than men because of the 'weaker sex' scenario. Most men can easily overpower a woman due to size and strength alone. But there are instances where woman have been the dangerous predator too. It certainly isn't an equal issue, but neither is the pain of childbirth. That's just life.

As far refusing to play by the rules that women are meant to follow, that's your choice. I would not walk down the street at night alone, nor would I advise anyone else to unless it were absolutely necessary. And even then, take appropriate precautions. However, I don't know all the details either - is it well lit? Are there a lot of other people around? How far do you have to walk? Again, the situation would call for an assessment. And these precautions aren't taken out of fear, but out of strength.

 

[Netzach]

Wow. Some really strong and passionate opinions on the US election. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like most of the comments are from people that do not live in the US. I do live in the US and actually did A LOT of work for the campaign for the past year and a half. The area I live in was split pretty evenly between Trump and Clinton. But I would just like to add a few things to this debate.

It is 100% true that most major media was biased against Trump and did not cover the campaign fairly, objectively, or competently.

I don't know any Trump supporters that are deplorable, racist, or sexist. They are hard-working Americans, concerned about their families, healthcare, the safety of our country and it's economic future. No different than the attributes of the Clinton supporters. The main difference between either group of supporters is their belief in which candidate would be able to achieve the best results. Of course, there are certain issues that resonated more with each group, but I would not downgrade anyone from either side. To place them in such derogatory catagories and label them based on their political affiliation is simple ignorance.

"Trump boasted about grabbing women by their pussies": I will admit that was an inappropriate comment. And the excuse that it was "locker room banter" was not an acceptable defence. The problem is, it also 'is' an understandable defence. Many men, respectable men, would, or have at some point, participated in such banter. So have women. Is it still offensive? Sure. Did it carry enough weight to 'really matter'? Nope. (Trump 'boasted' about it - B. Clinton actually 'did it' while he was the President. Hell, he even shoved a cigar up one!)

Unfortunately, there is a lot of corruption within the government. None more apparent than during both B and H Clinton's time in office. THAT was one of the factors that lead to Trump's win.

Trump did NOT run on a platform of bigotry, racial or otherwise. He ran on a platform of 'making America great again' (bringing back jobs and better trade deals), 'draining the swamp' (government corruption), securing the borders, and better healthcare, among many other issues. THOSE were important issues and a key reason he gained such momentum during the campaign.

Trump was not 'politically correct' in his language. Which is the main reason he got labeled with all those derogatory terms used in some of these comments. He was not a 'politician', which hurt AND helped him.

Just to make it clear, I am not advocating for Trump here. I'm simply pointing out how the recent campaign ACTUALLY occured. And to be honest, A LOT of people's voted for Trump because he was not Hilary, and vice versa.

I think it is also fair to point out that much of the 'deplorable' behavior came from the side of Clinton supporters, before and after the election. (Trying to sabotage Trump rallies by inserting violent protesters, and many, NOT peaceful, protests and marches post election.) During the campaign, Hilary tauted MANY celebrity endorsements, using free concerts as campaign rallies. Media coverage of Katy Perry and Miley Cyrus knocking door to door for her ground campaign - even if it was only for a couple hours in college dorms. Clinton had President Obama, The First Lady, Former President Clinton (her husband), and her VP running mate holding several of their own rallies for her. Trump had only himself, VP running mate, and family members holding rallies. Gerrymandering was not a factor. In fact, the voting districts in place were traditionally more to the benefit of Democrats. Yet . . . Trump still won the election. That says something to me. I cannot predict how this new administration will fair in the years to come. But, no matter who I voted for, I will support and respect our President. The results are in. There is no need to protest. And I fully support a united nation and all its inhabitants!

I live here and always have.


It is 100 percent true that the media being "biased against Trump" is 100 percent bullshit. See how easy that was? You can declare something to be true all day long and that doesn't make it so.

Maybe 100 percent of Trump voters aren't racists. But they are happy to throw everyone who isn't white under the bus. Maybe they're not 100 percent homophobic transphobic trashfires. But they DO NOT CARE enough about whether children are safe at school to stand up for them. Maybe they're not 100 percent garbage humans who don't care about the disabled. But they're happy to ignore that the candidate mocks disabled people and doesn't care if they have adequate healthcare to live independent and dignified (ugh, as if medicaid in its current state is dignified) lives. So you may not WANT that, but you're OK with that as long as nobody but YOUR guys use private email servers. Got it.

Because THE CLINTONS are worse than throwing out any norms with a mafia-embdedded poseur who can't run a casino. Fake news? Then everyone in NYC has been fake news for OVER 35 YEARS. That's a LONG hit piece. Oh, sorry, I'm in a liberal bubble, you guys in flyover all that time know the REAL Godly Jesusy Trump. I'd have voted for Nixon's talking skull before I dumped my country into these incompetent little hands, but whatever, you'll find out soon enough.

That's not just a polite difference of opinion, that is hostility. That is starting off with the assumption that there is nothing worth protecting about someone in these classes, and when I sit down to try and have any kind of discussion with people who are fine with people who 1. aren't sure I'm a human (your guy Bannon) and 2. are OK with that - then I've debased myself as a human.

That's the end of civility before the discussion even started, as far as I'm concerned. And I wasn't the one who prevented that civility, I'm just trying to be, here.

It's political correctness to you, but it's basically a refusal to acknowledge anyone but straight white men as full human beings, and I don't care to sit down and have milk and cookies over that starting point with ANYbody.

 

[Netzach]

Wait, encapsulate this TLDR for me - are men actually explaining to women that one has to do cost/benefit analysis before going out and existing, like there is one woman alive who does not already know this from like, the age of 3 onward, probably?

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Netzach]

No, women are saying that and men are saying 'ah dictums us too' and saying we are loco if we feel think we have reason to feel uncomfortable EVEN though many here have cited or indirectly referred to having basis for doing so.

We are also being told we are blind and not prepared to
Listen and having stuff we have said said back to us. So I am not rushing out for a hearing or sight test

Hi Netzach. ( Gianbattista with a name change, you didn't like me but I respected you)

Oh. Bwahaha. Whatevs. Hi, like the tapestry av!

 

[Bramblethorn]

The results are in. There is no need to protest.

I would never in a million years tell anyone how they 'should' feel about anything. Everyone is different. And everyone is perfectly entitled to feel however they feel. There is no standard on acceptable emotions via any given circumstances. So, please understand that I would never discount how YOU feel.

Except for the people who are distressed about the election results and feel there's a need to protest, I guess?

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Netzach]

So it's impossible for the people who don't fit into those categorizations to feel disenfranchised? Do I really need to remind you that before Bill C got involved, Detroit was a prosperous manufacturing hub not that long ago? Not 'buying' their argument of economic anxiety is, to put it politely, dishonest. Especially when Hillary C made her selling point status quo and more corporate hegemony. I'd agree that Trump is now demonstrating to be even more blatantly corrupt that her now that he's in office, but we're discussing the campaign right now.

Not to say that a whole lot of them aren't genuine deplorables, or that they are equally as hurt as the demographics you mentioned, but for you to (seemingly) imply that Trump's voters are overwhelmingly xenophobic, racist, sexist, and entitled is disgustingly partisan and sounds a lot like the words of a genuine child who's pissed because they didn't get the toy they wanted.

But of course, they're the entitled ones.

Disenfranchised in the literal sense, as was pointed out, you know - the way that matters if you care about the constitutionally guaranteed right to vote.

Detroit had fallen from full city functionality long before Bill C had left Arkansas, please actually read. Or something.

No I'm genuinely pissed because I've seen swastikas in my own neighborhood where I never in my life did before 11/9 and you assholes are acting like this is coincidence or better yet Jews Did Themselves. That's just one small reason, but I'd like to start there.

The attitudes in this thread re: women and men are basically echoed here. You have a literal tsunami of hate and bullshit unleashed on citizens, BY citizens, and the answer's going to be "well 3 Trump supporters got beat up" when they shot and killed someone for "looking" Iranian and being Indian. Or it's not our fault. Or it's fake and you're making it up.

It's a disgusting starting premise, so I'm not going to pretend it's not.

You can call me a child, call it a tantrum, and whatever you want. Show your colors, be my guest.