The electorate disagrees with you. Hillary didn't spend enough time speaking to issues that concerned whites.
You're moving your goalposts. It's a long way from "Clinton lost the white vote" to "Democrats treat whites as the enemy." You complain about people spinning the facts to match narratives, but have you taken a second look at your narrative? That the liberal elite are cynically demonizing "white people" as a group for some reason despite still being mostly white themselves? Could it possibly be that what was actually happening was very different, and you just can't see it because you're too wrapped up in your projected hate for and sanctimonious condemnation of them?
Let's look at just one example. You like so many others have fixated on the "deplorables" comment, but for all your fixation you missed what Clinton actually said in it. She was quite specific. And not in an obfuscatory after-the-fact "clarification" a la Trump, but right in the speech itself:
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that."
Not mentioned? White people. Neither explicitly nor in implication.
So she's saying that half of those 59 million people racist, xenophobes, Islamophobes, etc. and you're quoting the whole thing to me to show how it isn't ridiculous? When was the last time we saw such a generalization? Could it be when Trump called all Mexicans, all Mexican immigrants, all illegal immigrants from Mexico, most illegal immigrants from Mexico criminals, rapists, etc.?
'To be grossly generalistic' 'half' is very different than 'most' with no 'grossly generalistic'. Trump's statement was not only saying more than half fit the relevant description, but he presented it as a perfectly accurate representation, while Clinton qualified here representation as a simplification.
Trump's statement is also less justifiable because it can be easily disproven, by the fact illegal immigrants have a lower crime rate than ordinary citizens (the data has been linked to several times on these threads). While Clinton's statement is on an extremely difficult quality to accurately measure, which makes being openly generalistic pretty reasonable when the point was not about the numbers but the types of people.
Are Islamophobes deplorable? Yes or no?
If you attack random Muslims on the street or discriminate against them, yes. But in general I do not use this word.
Discriminate against them like by banning them from coming to the USA or deporting them en mass?
If you attack random Muslims on the street or discriminate against them, yes. But in general I do not use this word.
Three quarters of Republicans support banning Muslims from entering the country, so I guess your complaint is that Clinton missed the mark by 25 percentage points when she said "half"?
If you attack random Muslims on the street or discriminate against them, yes. But in general I do not use this word.
Three quarters of Republicans support banning Muslims from entering the country, so I guess your complaint is that Clinton missed the mark by 25 percentage points when she said "half"?
What was the determination of 'republican', because if it's only consistent republican voters, you got to add the usual third party voters, non voters and democrat voters who turned to Trump who also support this law.
Its been ages since I have been back on this forum, but I think its a perfect metaphor for the election it became an echo chamber and the dissenting voices for the most part left for elsewhere so its shocking for the left to find out people just dont like them very much.
Regarding the "are the alt-right a group of white supremacists" question, Glenn Beck has your back. That's Glenn "Obama runs with Crime Inc. to destroy the constitution" Beck, and that's only like the eighth strangest thing to happen this week.
Seriously tho, the Breitbart (owned and edited by Bannon) "Establishment Conservative's Guide to the Alt-Right" mentions American Renaissance and VDARE as intellectual centers of the organization, and straight up describes the movement as one of "racial realism", which is to say a movement based on segregating and/or sterilizing people based on their race.
Dudes, I'm not grubbing through conspiracy theories for tenuous links, this stuff is proudly displayed on Bannon's site.
Its been ages since I have been back on this forum, but I think its a perfect metaphor for the election it became an echo chamber and the dissenting voices for the most part left for elsewhere so its shocking for the left to find out people just dont like them very much.
Clinton won the popular vote by like 1 million votes, and a sizable fraction of Trump's voters have said they only voted for him because they wanted to signal their desire for some kind of change, and that most of the voters didn't believe or agree with Trump's race-baiting and misogyny tho.
What was the determination of 'republican', because if it's only consistent republican voters, you got to add the usual third party voters, non voters and democrat voters who turned to Trump who also support this law.
I think it's party registration. Among independents, it's 52%, so still more than half. They also have other crosstabs. For example, among those who identify as "extremely conservative", 81% support a ban on Muslims entering the country. Among those who identify as "somewhat conservative", 82% support it, but with fewer in the "strongly support" category. For comparison, only 6%, 10% and 30% of those who identify as extremely, somewhat and leaning liberal respectively support such a ban.
Yes, but people like Ellen DeGeneres do not fall under this category.
What the non sequitur...? Nobody has said that DeGeneres is racist, or deplorable, or a Trump supporter. In fact, I'm pretty confident she isn't any of those things.
No. She ignored the midwest and all those deplorable hicks that "cling to God and guns." She's paying for it now.
So let's review. We saw exactly what she meant by "deplorable" in her own words. You agreed with her that these people are indeed deplorable. We also saw what she had to say about those in the Midwest who aren't "deplorable". You agreed that her statement was clearly understandable. And at the end of all that... you just go back to this stock line? One that's directly contradicted by what you just saw and acknowledged?
You are repeating a cliché. It's a story with a pleasingly simple moral of hubris and karmic justice, one you heard somewhere and liked well enough to substitute for reality. You have no facts to back it up. When we look at the facts, as we did here, the story falls apart. For all the value it adds to this conversation, you might as well be saying that Clinton lost because she gave in to the Dark Side of the Force when Sand People killed her mother. Do better. Think better.
Yes, but people like Ellen DeGeneres do not fall under this category.
What the non sequitur...? Nobody has said that DeGeneres is racist, or deplorable, or a Trump supporter. In fact, I'm pretty confident she isn't any of those things.
No. She ignored the midwest and all those deplorable hicks that "cling to God and guns." She's paying for it now.
So let's review. We saw exactly what she meant by "deplorable" in her own words. You agreed with her that these people are indeed deplorable. We also saw what she had to say about those in the Midwest who aren't "deplorable". You agreed that her statement was clearly understandable. And at the end of all that... you just go back to this stock line? One that's directly contradicted by what you just saw and acknowledged?
You are repeating a cliché. It's a story with a pleasingly simple moral of hubris and karmic justice, one you heard somewhere and liked well enough to substitute for reality. You have no facts to back it up. When we look at the facts, as we did here, the story falls apart. For all the value it adds to this conversation, you might as well be saying that Clinton lost because she gave in to the Dark Side of the Force when Sand People killed her mother. Do better. Think better.
Here is what you aren't respecting Blinking: You might be purely correct here, that her message was not meant to be conveyed like that to intellectuals. The problem is that there were plenty of people who did feel like they were being grouped in with the "deplorable". Even if Clinton herself did not do anything, a lot of people on the left took issue with her speech, and that of many of her supporters. So yes, I think those comments costed her the election, even if they were completely misunderstood in context and a factor of it does go back to that problematic behavior on the left.
Here is what you aren't respecting Blinking: You might be purely correct here, that her message was not meant to be conveyed like that to intellectuals. The problem is that there were plenty of people who did feel like they were being grouped in with the "deplorable". Even if Clinton herself did not do anything, a lot of people on the left took issue with her speech, and that of many of her supporters. So yes, I think those comments costed her the election, even if they were completely misunderstood in context and a factor of it does go back to that problematic behavior on the left.
I think those comments were a symptom of what cost Hillary Clinton the election, and even your analysis plays into the larger picture. While a single gaffe can be costly *Aleppo*, to pin the results on a single cause in its essence shrinks the conversation around other factors that could have been just as important. And also, I don't think this can be reiterated enough, Donald Trump has completely redefined the gaffe because his entire campaign can be summed with falling up a flight of stairs.
Honestly... I feel like the reopening (and then closing again) the email scandal played a much larger role in her defeat than the new media would have you believe.
The problem is that there were plenty of people who did feel like they were being grouped in with the "deplorable".
But why? To be perfectly honest, if someone said to me "half of the people in a group you identify with are horrible people", my first reaction would be "but I'm not in that half!" Because nobody wants to think of themselves as being horrible.
My expectation would be that 100% of the Trump supporters would consider themselves to be part of the 50% that Hillary wasn't calling "deplorables". That they think Hillary was calling them out, to me, says something about what they think of themselves.
I don’t think any analysis around the question “Why didn’t more R’s vote Hillary” will get anywhere. They’re Republican. The real questions are:
1) Did those comments alienate any likely voters, and if so, why? If Trump’s campaign is any indication, then disparaging your opponent and his/her voters actually gets your base to respond.
2) What was the actual turnout for each party?
3) Assuming equal percentages of turnout, is the Democrat voter base still large enough to carry an election, or is it shrinking? In short, is there any actual dependency on undecided/unaffiliated voters for Dems to win a national election?
The problem is that there were plenty of people who did feel like they were being grouped in with the "deplorable".
But why? To be perfectly honest, if someone said to me "half of the people in a group you identify with are horrible people", my first reaction would be "but I'm not in that half!" Because nobody wants to think of themselves as being horrible.
My expectation would be that 100% of the Trump supporters would consider themselves to be part of the 50% that Hillary wasn't calling "deplorables". That they think Hillary was calling them out, to me, says something about what they think of themselves.
I mean, this is where we get into tricky territory because I don't think there is an "optimal" answer to that question. There were however TONS of people on social media, articles, celebrities who basically said anyone who even considered voting Trump was a racist.
There was definitely a "white lash" swing to it.
There was a failure to excite in the Democratic Party.
There are people who aren't loyal to a party who felt Clinton did not represent their best interests, and Trump *might* (I don't think this is correct, but I know quite a few people who do)
People who were sick of voting establishment
I don't even think this is a perfect storm. Obama was more of a "shake things up" president (even though I feel he ended up being more status quo, whether his fault or not). Romney who was the last "establishment" Republican to run did not get his base excited. The e-mail scandal had a large effect, and made it feel like another "untouchable politician".
I think the Democrats have to go more grassroots next election. They need a shake-up that represents good change, rather than some "tried and true" politician.
In an Oct. 6 complaint to the Federal Election Commission, the Campaign Legal Center argued that Robert and Rebekah Mercer—a father-daughter duo who give generously to conservative causes and candidates—broke federal campaign laws by paying Bannon for his work so the campaign wouldn’t have to shoulder the cost. Robert Mercer is a reclusive billionaire hedge-fund manager, and his daughter oversees much of his political giving. She’s also on Trump’s transition team.
The Campaign Legal Center says the new FEC filings undergird their case against the Mercers. Those filings cover the final weeks before Election Day, up until Nov. 5, and they show that a super PAC funded largely by the Mercers—Make America Number 1—paid Bannon’s moviemaking company, Glittering Steel, $187,500 during that window of time. The super PAC cut Glittering Steel five checks from Oct. 1 to Nov. 5: one for $40,500, one for $50,000, one for $37,500, one for $34,500, and one for $25,000.
EDIT: I might just start cutting and pasting sections from links because I feel like I'll have a lot that needs mentioning over the next few years.
Despite all the news being generated by the change of power underway in Washington, there is one story this week that deserves top priority: Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. On Tuesday, the director of the National Security Agency, Admiral Michael Rogers, was asked about the WikiLeaks release of hacked information during the campaign, and he said, "This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect." He added, "This was not something that was done casually. This was not something that was done by chance. This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily."
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach told Reuters in an interview yesterday that Donald Trump‘s policy advisors are considering implementing a registry for anyone that comes into the United States from Muslim nations as part of Trump’s “extreme vetting.”
Former Navy SEAL and Trump supporter Carl Higbie spoke with Megyn Kelly about this tonight and said there is certainly precedent for action like this to be taken.
Kelly brought up the criticism that this is a slippery slope and that a system like this could end up being abused.
Higbie made it clear he thinks the vast majority of Muslims are not bad people, but because there are some who align with an “extreme ideology,” it would be wise to “keep tabs” on people coming into the country from certain places.
“We’ve done it with Iran back a while ago,” he said, “we did it during World War II with the Japanese.”
Kelly bewilderedly responded, “Come on, you’re not proposing we go back to the days of internment camps, I hope.”
He said he is not and merely made the point he was trying to point to precedent, which led Kelly to say this:
“You can’t be citing Japanese internment camps as precedent for anything the president-elect is gonna do!”
This is the only postmortem I've found anywhere that's been worth reading. Nothing I haven't said a thousand times before, but ad hominem thinkers might be more inclined to believe it if Scott Alexander says it:
This is the only postmortem I've found anywhere that's been worth reading. Nothing I haven't said a thousand times before, but ad hominem thinkers might be more inclined to believe it if Scott Alexander says it:
Lol, this is incredibly poor analysis. Take for example this section:
2. Is Trump getting a lot of his support from online white nationalists and the alt-right?
No, for the same reason.
The alt-right is mostly an online movement, which makes it hard to measure. The three main alt-right hubs I know of are /r/altright, Stormfront, and 4chan’s politics board.
Nevermind that Trump's campaign CEO and now chief strategist is the also the chairman of Breitbart, which he himself calls "the platform for the alt-right".
I don't understand how you can read this and actually take it seriously.
This is the only postmortem I've found anywhere that's been worth reading. Nothing I haven't said a thousand times before, but ad hominem thinkers might be more inclined to believe it if Scott Alexander says it:
Yeah, I can see where he’s coming from. A few months before the election in the Trump thread, the question was floated what basis people have to actually believe that Trump has that kind of nativist agenda. And still, I’ve always thought it was a mistake to focus on things that Trump has recanted, or don’t form his actual position on issues. But, the answer was still that there were many legitimate items of concern about constitutional protections, such as listed then:
Quote from Jusstice »
1) Denying right of entry into the US for all Muslims - This is the biggest concern, because it was actually a policy proposal coming from his campaign.
2) The suggestion that he would find a way to deprive education to, or even deport, the US-born children of illegal immigrants
3) The idea of building a wall between the US and Mexico
4) His expressed approval for the way the Japanese Internment camps were set up during WWII
5) His claim that he would target and kill the families of terrorists
6) The government claiming the power to close mosques
7) Expanded censorship of the internet
8) Expansion of the laws against libel to include prior restraint
The above doesn’t amount to ‘overt white supremacy’ in my mind, but it does amount to something. Exactly what that is might be sufficient to dissuade someone from voting for him, it might not be enough for someone else, and for a third person, it might be enough to get them to come out of their shell and raise an alarm against racism, in general. But, it doesn’t amount to ‘overt white supremacy’, no.
Was it a mistake for the left-leaning media to make the election about identity politics instead of the fact that Trump is incompetent? Yeah, probably. But from everything written to generate clicks, to all the talk about the “glass-ceiling”, to what the media lazily writes out of habit, there’s not much left that isn’t identity politics. I still think it’s what the whole issue of the election represented to most Democrats, in fact. I think that point of his can be agreed upon.
But another thing he seems to be admitting himself, ‘white supremacy’ isn’t literally about white supremacy. There is a near-zero number of people who believe that policy should be based on some notion that the Northern European ethnicity is genetically superior to other groups. So when people respond to the same rhetoric, they are actually responding to something else. They’re expressing their emotions rather than making a statement of their beliefs on reality. They’re cheering for the group that they see themselves as part of, and against the people they perceive as threats to that group. It’s not about the literal contents of any belief system.
This happens all the time. For example, the Nazi’s are most known today for the mass murders of the Holocaust. But, most members of the Nazi party did not know about the holocaust as it was happening. What they did do was respond to rhetoric about the “others” of society taking their jobs, so forth. And today, there are still people who identify as “neo-Nazi” as a matter of self-expression, despite the fact that most actual Nazi’s would disavow what their government did.
The same thing also with the US confederacy. Those states would not have seceded from the US, if not for slavery. But much has been made of the fact that the majority of people in the South did not own slaves at that time. What they did respond to was nativist rhetoric about how an outside group from Washington was taking away their way of life. And to this day, there are many, many people who hoist the confederate flag, nearly zero of who would implement slavery.
Those are the facts of history, and if those fearful of Trump have one thing in common, it’s the apprehension that he sounds eerily like those figures of history who have ushered in human rights atrocities. It’s not literally about ‘white supremacy’. It’s about something ephemeral, but is nevertheless highly dangerous no matter how you quantify it. A lot of evil has been done in the name of following orders, paying the bills, so on. And this sounds too much like a prelude to that.
Well where to start... or continue the circle as so many of these threads do when 'debating' with the left. But as Crashing00 has said "ad hominem thinkers", which was most of Hillary's campaign to attack Trump. I think a lot of people are getting over the medias/lefties tactics of always going for the character instead of coming up with an argument of their own, they are losing the intellectual rigger they once had. Calling Trump a racist for building a wall is one example of this, the purpose of the wall is to stop criminal rapist drug smugglers coming to America, you can still cross the boarder legally. It would be better to come with with another solution to stop these illegals rather than call out racist.
Obama was a problem for Hillary as he did not offer no real change for blacks, Hillary would have done the same for women. It is actually sexist voting for Hillary because she would be the first WOMAN president.... but yeah it is all talk for the left and not much action, well normally make it worse to create a more dependent class for more voters. This can be seen in the Higher populated more dependent areas voting Hillary while the freer more productive areas voting Trump. What if this is the problem, cities taking up too many resources and not producing enough?
I guess Hillary won the popular vote, this would be from the highly densely populated city areas. This is also where most of the protests are occurring and higher crime rates. Trump won by more areas/seats, in producing country areas with no protests and lower crime rates. These protests are not right, they are allowable but still not right. If they were anarchists they would have been protesting the election not the result as the media has reported. They are sad leftie communists, or some might have even been paid by Hillary's supporters (conspiracy :O). But Trump is better than Hillary in that we don't need to go to WW3 with Russia. But if these communist protesters wanted they could go fight with Hillary's supporters team in Syria.
So in all Trump partly won from all the name calling from the left, people are getting sick of it, its overtaking the universities/collages. And maybe partly from things like Wikileaks and Hillary's Emails which would be an interesting debate on its own... or maybe more 'here look at this' type thing haha.
But Trump is better than Hillary in that we don't need to go to WW3 with Russia
not standing up to *****heads on the international stage is a good thing apparently?
Calling Trump a racist for building a wall is one example of this, the purpose of the wall is to stop criminal rapist drug smugglers coming to America, you can still cross the boarder legally.
most illegal immigrants to the USA enter legally and then don't leave so a wall won't help, illegal immigrants tend to be better behaved than the general population because they're trying to avoid police attention (and as a result tend to get taken advantage of by their employers and/or local criminals because who the hell will they complain to), most US rapists are white (probably because of the higher population) but no-one seems to give a ***** about outlawing white people (these have already been linked in the Trump thread). Also, Trump has been called a racist because members of his council are saying they've been inspired by the Japanese internment camps the USA set up during WWII (previous page link) and also the Bannon thing.
well normally make it worse to create a more dependent class for more voters.
the US unemployment rate is the lowest it's been for like eight years tho
And maybe partly from things like Wikileaks and Hillary's Emails which would be an interesting debate on its own... or maybe more 'here look at this' type thing haha.
mfw hillary was proven not guilty like six times but no-one ever talks about the time Trump tried to get a group of black kids executed for a rape they didn't commit.
Your posts do not support love and/or peace, I suggest you change your avatar to something other than Vash the Stampede.
This may have already been said before, but I think people (not necessarily directed at anyone in this discussion) are misusing ad hominem. You're only committing the ad hominem fallacy if you attempt to counter a person's argument by denigrating their character. So if Donald Trump says we need to deport all the immigrants, and you respond with, "You're racist!" then that's ad hominem.
And surely this is how a lot of arguments go. But I think (perhaps) most of the time, someone attacks Donald Trump's character on the basis of, he's going to be the face of this country, and he's going to have to interact with other foreign leaders. His character is very relevant to these issues, because it's a good way to predict his behavior.
Ad hominem just means that "bad" people can be right about things. That's it. And I'm not trying to undersell the importance of that truth, it's a good thing for everyone to be aware of, but it has its limitations. Character actually matters a lot. It just can't be used to directly contradict someone on a specific point.
So when someone says, "I don't want a president who mocks disabled people," you can't accuse them of ad hominem. They're not using that as a counterargument to his opinions on trade, or his immigration policies. They're saying that someone with this temperament should not be in a position of power, or shouldn't be chosen to represent a nation. You can disagree with that, but you can't use ad hominem to do so.
Trump has designated Jeff Sessions as his attorney general nominee, a man who's nomination to the federal courts didn't even make it out of committee because of his racist comments.
You're only committing the ad hominem fallacy if you attempt to counter a person's argument by denigrating their character. So if Donald Trump says we need to deport all the immigrants, and you respond with, "You're racist!" then that's ad hominem.
An ad hominem attack is when you attack the person rather than their argument.
An ad hominem fallacy is when you use an ad hominem attack to dismiss the argument.
"You're racist!" -> ad hominem attack, not in itself problematic.
"You're racist, so I don't have to listen to what you have to say" -> ad hominem fallacy, bad debate strategy.
Note that something like "your arguments about X are both racist and counter-factual because Y" is a legitimate response.
It contains a legitimate response. It also contains an ad hominem attack. If you think about it from the perspective of your opponent, what is more likely to convince *them* that they are wrong:
"Your argument about X is racist. It is also wrong because Y".
-or-
"Your argument is wrong because Y".
From a persuasion standpoint, the first assertion immediately puts your opponent into "defensive" mode and shuts down their willingness to listen to what you have to say. It's worth noting that this is true even if the first assertion is undeniably correct.
It contains a legitimate response. It also contains an ad hominem attack. If you think about it from the perspective of your opponent, what is more likely to convince *them* that they are wrong:
"Your argument about X is racist. It is also wrong because Y".
-or-
"Your argument is wrong because Y".
From a persuasion standpoint, the first assertion immediately puts your opponent into "defensive" mode and shuts down their willingness to listen to what you have to say. It's worth noting that this is true even if the first assertion is undeniably correct.
Saying "your argument is racist" is by definition not an ad hominem, because it's an attack on the argument, not on the person.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
'To be grossly generalistic' 'half' is very different than 'most' with no 'grossly generalistic'. Trump's statement was not only saying more than half fit the relevant description, but he presented it as a perfectly accurate representation, while Clinton qualified here representation as a simplification.
Trump's statement is also less justifiable because it can be easily disproven, by the fact illegal immigrants have a lower crime rate than ordinary citizens (the data has been linked to several times on these threads). While Clinton's statement is on an extremely difficult quality to accurately measure, which makes being openly generalistic pretty reasonable when the point was not about the numbers but the types of people.
Discriminate against them like by banning them from coming to the USA or deporting them en mass?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Three quarters of Republicans support banning Muslims from entering the country, so I guess your complaint is that Clinton missed the mark by 25 percentage points when she said "half"?
What was the determination of 'republican', because if it's only consistent republican voters, you got to add the usual third party voters, non voters and democrat voters who turned to Trump who also support this law.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Seriously tho, the Breitbart (owned and edited by Bannon) "Establishment Conservative's Guide to the Alt-Right" mentions American Renaissance and VDARE as intellectual centers of the organization, and straight up describes the movement as one of "racial realism", which is to say a movement based on segregating and/or sterilizing people based on their race.
Dudes, I'm not grubbing through conspiracy theories for tenuous links, this stuff is proudly displayed on Bannon's site.
Clinton won the popular vote by like 1 million votes, and a sizable fraction of Trump's voters have said they only voted for him because they wanted to signal their desire for some kind of change, and that most of the voters didn't believe or agree with Trump's race-baiting and misogyny tho.
Art is life itself.
I think it's party registration. Among independents, it's 52%, so still more than half. They also have other crosstabs. For example, among those who identify as "extremely conservative", 81% support a ban on Muslims entering the country. Among those who identify as "somewhat conservative", 82% support it, but with fewer in the "strongly support" category. For comparison, only 6%, 10% and 30% of those who identify as extremely, somewhat and leaning liberal respectively support such a ban.
https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/set/banning-muslims-entering-us-june-2016#party-id
So let's review. We saw exactly what she meant by "deplorable" in her own words. You agreed with her that these people are indeed deplorable. We also saw what she had to say about those in the Midwest who aren't "deplorable". You agreed that her statement was clearly understandable. And at the end of all that... you just go back to this stock line? One that's directly contradicted by what you just saw and acknowledged?
You are repeating a cliché. It's a story with a pleasingly simple moral of hubris and karmic justice, one you heard somewhere and liked well enough to substitute for reality. You have no facts to back it up. When we look at the facts, as we did here, the story falls apart. For all the value it adds to this conversation, you might as well be saying that Clinton lost because she gave in to the Dark Side of the Force when Sand People killed her mother. Do better. Think better.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Here is what you aren't respecting Blinking: You might be purely correct here, that her message was not meant to be conveyed like that to intellectuals. The problem is that there were plenty of people who did feel like they were being grouped in with the "deplorable". Even if Clinton herself did not do anything, a lot of people on the left took issue with her speech, and that of many of her supporters. So yes, I think those comments costed her the election, even if they were completely misunderstood in context and a factor of it does go back to that problematic behavior on the left.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
I think those comments were a symptom of what cost Hillary Clinton the election, and even your analysis plays into the larger picture. While a single gaffe can be costly *Aleppo*, to pin the results on a single cause in its essence shrinks the conversation around other factors that could have been just as important. And also, I don't think this can be reiterated enough, Donald Trump has completely redefined the gaffe because his entire campaign can be summed with falling up a flight of stairs.
What is the larger picture? I'm... not entirely sure. It's too early to tell. That's going to take time and a lot of research by people smarter than me. For example, voter turnout was not as abysmal as people were making it out to be last week.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
My expectation would be that 100% of the Trump supporters would consider themselves to be part of the 50% that Hillary wasn't calling "deplorables". That they think Hillary was calling them out, to me, says something about what they think of themselves.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
1) Did those comments alienate any likely voters, and if so, why? If Trump’s campaign is any indication, then disparaging your opponent and his/her voters actually gets your base to respond.
2) What was the actual turnout for each party?
3) Assuming equal percentages of turnout, is the Democrat voter base still large enough to carry an election, or is it shrinking? In short, is there any actual dependency on undecided/unaffiliated voters for Dems to win a national election?
4) If so, what issues did those voters turn on?
I mean, this is where we get into tricky territory because I don't think there is an "optimal" answer to that question. There were however TONS of people on social media, articles, celebrities who basically said anyone who even considered voting Trump was a racist.
There was definitely a "white lash" swing to it.
There was a failure to excite in the Democratic Party.
There are people who aren't loyal to a party who felt Clinton did not represent their best interests, and Trump *might* (I don't think this is correct, but I know quite a few people who do)
People who were sick of voting establishment
I don't even think this is a perfect storm. Obama was more of a "shake things up" president (even though I feel he ended up being more status quo, whether his fault or not). Romney who was the last "establishment" Republican to run did not get his base excited. The e-mail scandal had a large effect, and made it feel like another "untouchable politician".
I think the Democrats have to go more grassroots next election. They need a shake-up that represents good change, rather than some "tried and true" politician.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
EDIT: I might just start cutting and pasting sections from links because I feel like I'll have a lot that needs mentioning over the next few years.
[link]
Reminder: the GOP were told about Russian attempts to mess with the USA in September, decided to investigate Clinton repeatedly instead.
[link]
Art is life itself.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Lol, this is incredibly poor analysis. Take for example this section:
Nevermind that Trump's campaign CEO and now chief strategist is the also the chairman of Breitbart, which he himself calls "the platform for the alt-right".
I don't understand how you can read this and actually take it seriously.
Yeah, I can see where he’s coming from. A few months before the election in the Trump thread, the question was floated what basis people have to actually believe that Trump has that kind of nativist agenda. And still, I’ve always thought it was a mistake to focus on things that Trump has recanted, or don’t form his actual position on issues. But, the answer was still that there were many legitimate items of concern about constitutional protections, such as listed then:
The above doesn’t amount to ‘overt white supremacy’ in my mind, but it does amount to something. Exactly what that is might be sufficient to dissuade someone from voting for him, it might not be enough for someone else, and for a third person, it might be enough to get them to come out of their shell and raise an alarm against racism, in general. But, it doesn’t amount to ‘overt white supremacy’, no.
Was it a mistake for the left-leaning media to make the election about identity politics instead of the fact that Trump is incompetent? Yeah, probably. But from everything written to generate clicks, to all the talk about the “glass-ceiling”, to what the media lazily writes out of habit, there’s not much left that isn’t identity politics. I still think it’s what the whole issue of the election represented to most Democrats, in fact. I think that point of his can be agreed upon.
But another thing he seems to be admitting himself, ‘white supremacy’ isn’t literally about white supremacy. There is a near-zero number of people who believe that policy should be based on some notion that the Northern European ethnicity is genetically superior to other groups. So when people respond to the same rhetoric, they are actually responding to something else. They’re expressing their emotions rather than making a statement of their beliefs on reality. They’re cheering for the group that they see themselves as part of, and against the people they perceive as threats to that group. It’s not about the literal contents of any belief system.
This happens all the time. For example, the Nazi’s are most known today for the mass murders of the Holocaust. But, most members of the Nazi party did not know about the holocaust as it was happening. What they did do was respond to rhetoric about the “others” of society taking their jobs, so forth. And today, there are still people who identify as “neo-Nazi” as a matter of self-expression, despite the fact that most actual Nazi’s would disavow what their government did.
The same thing also with the US confederacy. Those states would not have seceded from the US, if not for slavery. But much has been made of the fact that the majority of people in the South did not own slaves at that time. What they did respond to was nativist rhetoric about how an outside group from Washington was taking away their way of life. And to this day, there are many, many people who hoist the confederate flag, nearly zero of who would implement slavery.
Those are the facts of history, and if those fearful of Trump have one thing in common, it’s the apprehension that he sounds eerily like those figures of history who have ushered in human rights atrocities. It’s not literally about ‘white supremacy’. It’s about something ephemeral, but is nevertheless highly dangerous no matter how you quantify it. A lot of evil has been done in the name of following orders, paying the bills, so on. And this sounds too much like a prelude to that.
Obama was a problem for Hillary as he did not offer no real change for blacks, Hillary would have done the same for women. It is actually sexist voting for Hillary because she would be the first WOMAN president.... but yeah it is all talk for the left and not much action, well normally make it worse to create a more dependent class for more voters. This can be seen in the Higher populated more dependent areas voting Hillary while the freer more productive areas voting Trump. What if this is the problem, cities taking up too many resources and not producing enough?
I guess Hillary won the popular vote, this would be from the highly densely populated city areas. This is also where most of the protests are occurring and higher crime rates. Trump won by more areas/seats, in producing country areas with no protests and lower crime rates. These protests are not right, they are allowable but still not right. If they were anarchists they would have been protesting the election not the result as the media has reported. They are sad leftie communists, or some might have even been paid by Hillary's supporters (conspiracy :O). But Trump is better than Hillary in that we don't need to go to WW3 with Russia. But if these communist protesters wanted they could go fight with Hillary's supporters team in Syria.
So in all Trump partly won from all the name calling from the left, people are getting sick of it, its overtaking the universities/collages. And maybe partly from things like Wikileaks and Hillary's Emails which would be an interesting debate on its own... or maybe more 'here look at this' type thing haha.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Crimes happen where people live. Tear up the front page. Also, no-one has ever protested a president before (that was sarcasm).
the guy who made up that story came clean that it was fake because he was scared how few Trump supporters fact check.
not standing up to *****heads on the international stage is a good thing apparently?
most illegal immigrants to the USA enter legally and then don't leave so a wall won't help, illegal immigrants tend to be better behaved than the general population because they're trying to avoid police attention (and as a result tend to get taken advantage of by their employers and/or local criminals because who the hell will they complain to), most US rapists are white (probably because of the higher population) but no-one seems to give a ***** about outlawing white people (these have already been linked in the Trump thread). Also, Trump has been called a racist because members of his council are saying they've been inspired by the Japanese internment camps the USA set up during WWII (previous page link) and also the Bannon thing.
the US unemployment rate is the lowest it's been for like eight years tho
mfw hillary was proven not guilty like six times but no-one ever talks about the time Trump tried to get a group of black kids executed for a rape they didn't commit.
Your posts do not support love and/or peace, I suggest you change your avatar to something other than Vash the Stampede.
Bonus random example of why voting Trump was a bad idea: his transitional council is mostly lobbyists, and is therefore more of a swamp than the current administration. [link]
wait no, I already used that. How about: Trump takes credit for stopping an industrial move that wasn't going to happen, was "relying on information gleaned from an article posted on a website of a shop that sells business cards and door hangers."
Or another option: Trump is heavily implied to have bribed Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, leading her to drop actions against Trump University.
A fourth: Donald Trump is apparently too busy to show up to lawsuits against him, is instead going on a victory tour. Note that re-arranging trials and delaying investigations is a system Trump industries have used to escape legal repercussions on multiple occasions. (linked in previous thread)
Art is life itself.
And surely this is how a lot of arguments go. But I think (perhaps) most of the time, someone attacks Donald Trump's character on the basis of, he's going to be the face of this country, and he's going to have to interact with other foreign leaders. His character is very relevant to these issues, because it's a good way to predict his behavior.
Ad hominem just means that "bad" people can be right about things. That's it. And I'm not trying to undersell the importance of that truth, it's a good thing for everyone to be aware of, but it has its limitations. Character actually matters a lot. It just can't be used to directly contradict someone on a specific point.
So when someone says, "I don't want a president who mocks disabled people," you can't accuse them of ad hominem. They're not using that as a counterargument to his opinions on trade, or his immigration policies. They're saying that someone with this temperament should not be in a position of power, or shouldn't be chosen to represent a nation. You can disagree with that, but you can't use ad hominem to do so.
An ad hominem fallacy is when you use an ad hominem attack to dismiss the argument.
"You're racist!" -> ad hominem attack, not in itself problematic.
"You're racist, so I don't have to listen to what you have to say" -> ad hominem fallacy, bad debate strategy.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Art is life itself.
It contains a legitimate response. It also contains an ad hominem attack. If you think about it from the perspective of your opponent, what is more likely to convince *them* that they are wrong:
"Your argument about X is racist. It is also wrong because Y".
-or-
"Your argument is wrong because Y".
From a persuasion standpoint, the first assertion immediately puts your opponent into "defensive" mode and shuts down their willingness to listen to what you have to say. It's worth noting that this is true even if the first assertion is undeniably correct.
Saying "your argument is racist" is by definition not an ad hominem, because it's an attack on the argument, not on the person.