Election Post-Mortem

by Simon 133 Replies latest social current

  • garyneal
    It is good that you found a candidate who does not brag about sexually harassing members of YOUR sex and do not advocate unconstitutional and racist ideas against members of YOUR race.

    Please post source and links describing Trumps actual racism and no a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants until we can better vet the peaceful Muslims from the Jihadists doesn't count. Nor does tightening our immigration laws because we actually do not want open borders.

  • garyneal
    ... is that a bit like when someone says: "I have lost trust in what (insert media source here) because it is run by racist misogynists"?
    Trump's lies and advocacy of unconstitutional ideas are well-documented, as is his denial of science and support for warcrimes. I think that is why you will still rather attack Hillary and other people you do not like than face who you placed in your highest office.

    Sigh. Rather than engage in ideas you go off on the attack. Just like a regressive leftist. To be fair, I did read the article linked by Simon and I'm still not convinced that it is all going to be doom and gloom as it suggests. We only elected a president, not a dictator. Our constitution limits the powers of a president for a very good reason but it seems like the people in this country has forgotten that.

  • garyneal
    One thing that's strange is how many issues seem to have a correlation even though they shouldn't.

    You're starting to sound like a classical liberal there, Simon. Or at the very least, a centrist. I do not hold binary views on a lot of issues but it would seem like so many people on both the extreme right or the regressive left expect me to.

    I remember the other day I had a back and forth with Jamie Bowers over the issue of abortion not being considered murder but killing a pregnant woman is considered a double homicide. She lumped me in with the right wing pro lifers who do not want to give women the right to choose over what they do with their own bodies and I'm pro choice! Can one not see the inconsistency of killing a fetus in the womb being referred to as a murder unless the woman does it via abortion?

  • bohm

    garyneal: I notice that you did not question the bit about sexual harassment. Donald trump has on several occasions suggested policies including surveillance and the creation of a database of Muslims, as well as the proposal that they could not enter the country. That is violating the US constitutions' guarantee of equal protection of religious expression and the first amendments clause about freedom of religion.

    I hope you understand that suggesting the creation of a database of US citizens based on their religion is not the same as limiting immigration of non-US citizens.

    Sigh. Rather than engage in ideas you go off on the attack. Just like a regressive leftist.

    The use of these cute labels to identify the in and out group (racist misogynist homophobic white man or "regressive leftist"/SJW) would appear to exactly fit my diagnosis of the problem in my previous post.

    As to not having elected a dictator: The US could have elected Putin and he would not have been a dictator by definition, that's not the issue.

    The issue is that next president is going to be a person who flirts with the idea of limiting the freedom of the press (specifically, change legislation so that he can sue newspapers who write bad stories about him) and put his political opponents in prison. Are those values reflecting the US constitution and democratic system in your opinion?

  • JeffT

    Bohm my complaint with the news media isn't about length of time (well actually it is - if you watched US news you wouldn't know there was anything else going on in the entire world). It's about the nature of the coverage.

    The most obvious examples were the debate moderators fact checking Trump, but not so much Hilary. This isn't there job, its the other candidates job.

    The email issue was badly presented by the media. For example, Hilary got away with saying that she didn't have anything "marked" classified on the server. This is irrelevant, material is classified because of what it is, not how it was marked. I learned a lot talking to military people about classified information, that I never heard about from the media.

    read this article: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-the-unbearable-smugness-of-the-press-presidential-election-2016/

  • bohm

    JeffT: Could the reason that the media was fact-checking Trump more than Hillary be that Trump is more dishonest than Hillary?

    Regarding the emails, yes, I agree it is a bad story. I have to deal with protected data as part of my job and the precautions that have to be taken are quite clear. However, on the scale of things, how does the potentially improper configuration of an email server scale up against a candidate wanting to change the freedom of speech so as to allow him to sue newspapers that print bad stories about him?. Quite frankly, that is the kind of behavior I associate with dictatorships (and only dictatorships) and implies a serious violation and disregard of the US citizens constitutional rights to a free press.

    Imagine for a moment that Hillary had toyed with the idea of changing libel laws so as to silence discussion of her email server...

  • JeffT
    Could the reason that the media was fact-checking Trump more than Hillary be that Trump is more dishonest than Hillary?

    No. I was talking specifically about debate moderators. It isn't their job.

    It wasn't about how the server was configured. It shouldn't have been there at all, and she should not have been running classified documents through it AT ALL.

    The second President of the United States signed a law making it illegal to criticize the President, it was done at least once more that I can think of (it was the law that Rutherford et al were sent to jail for violating).

    Hilary proposed using executive orders to promote gun control, we can debate if that is a legal use of executive power. I don't think it is, and we didn't hear much about it except when the media were making fun of Trumping saying she wanted to expand gun control. http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-gun-control-proposals-to-include-executive-action-1444017603

    Hilary also proposed a no fly zone over Aleppo, this would bring us into direct military action against the Russians. I didn't hear very much about that.

    Edited to add: keep in mind, I did not vote for Trump and I'm not defending him. I didn't vote for him because I think he's ignorant and crazy. I didn't vote for Hilary because I think she's arrogant and unethical. Note: unethical does not mean crooked. I think she'd done a lot of things, that while legal, are not right. The server, and her personal finances (such as some of the Clinton Foundation accounting and the big payments for speeches to Wall Street) fall into that category.

  • flipper

    Really ? I feel that anybody upholding Trump with his negative baggage as the potential best choice we had in America to be president is an absolute dumb-ass. And I feel Hillary was a close second as well with her negative baggage.

    Look- here's the deal. Now that Trump is president-elect - it sets a dangerous precedent. Any minor white child in America can look at his " example " and see that if he gropes females and treats them in a disrespectful way , even sexually assaults them, he can run for president and get elected. If a minor white child has racial prejudice towards those with another skin color- guess what ? It may enable that minor child to be president of the United States some day !

    THAT is what electing Trump will do to minor white children under the age of 18. This idiotic country I live in that's voted and enabled a sexual predator and racist into the White House is wittingly or unwittingly enabling millions of white U.S. minor children to accept this kind of behavior as " good " because gee golly- a person could run for president and WIN with these kinds of attitudes ! Millions of U.S. citizens who are dumb as rocks don't realize what kind of dangerous Pandora's box they've opened. I truly fear for this country.

    I understand the anger of many young people demonstrating in U.S. cities right now. I'm tempted to join them. They are a hell of a lot more ethical than the guy who is supposed to represent us in the White House. I don't agree with the violence- but I understand the anger that produces the violence. I don't think we've seen the last of it either. Get your crash helmets on folks- I think we're in for a wild ride if this guy lasts out his 4 years as president

  • Finkelstein

    Noam Chomsky on Donald Trump & Hate & Fear


  • never a jw
    never a jw

    "I feel that anybody upholding Trump with his negative baggage as the potential best choice we had in America to be president is an absolute dumb-ass" fipper

    That's a lot of people, if you are referring to the general election. But it's a very small number (close to zero) if we set the clock before Trump announced he was running.

    Many Trump supporter held their nose up when they voted. They revolted against liberals who do as they say (Obamacare) and conservative politicians who don't fulfill their campaign promises. I don't think they are dumb-asses. They are just tired of the establishment and the status quo, and Trump was their only alternative.

Share this