(11-09-2016 04:02 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 02:27 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 01:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 12:51 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But I think her "deplorables" comment was directed right at me personally, and illustrated her contempt for middle America- middle economically, middle geographically. Reminded me of Obama's "clinging bitterly" comment. The Dems need to think democratically rather than paternally and change their attitude toward Middle America.

You can think she was directing that at you, but she wasn't. She directed her remarks specifically:
"I know there are only 60 days left to make our case -- and don't get complacent, don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, well, he's done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America."
You can argue with her numbers, whether 50% of Trump supporters are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and/or Islamophobic (and I assume you will), but if you're not those things then you're part of the half not in that basket.

Go ahead and rationalize all you want, but hell yes, she was aiming that comment at the likes of OO. It was a deliberate attempt to smear and marginalize a large group based on the actions of a very few (way, way less than 50%). I'm really growing tired of leftists making blanket indictments and then saying, "oh, I was kidding," or "oh, I meant somebody else, not you," when caught. She knew the words were loaded, she used "half" to give herself deniability, but she meant "all" and we both know that.

And for the record, I voted for Hillary in the primary and did not vote for Trump in the general.

I don't know how you can plausibly suggest she meant "all" given the very next paragraph of her speech:

Quote:"But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

Secondly, the idea that it's "way, way less than 50%" is debatable, too.

Quote:Much like Trump’s alleged opposition to the Iraq War, this not an impossible claim to investigate. We know, for instance, some nearly 60 percent of Trump’s supporters hold “unfavorable views” of Islam, and 76 percent support a ban on Muslims entering the United States. We know that some 40 percent of Trump’s supporters believe blacks are more violent, more criminal, lazier, and ruder than whites. Two-thirds of Trump’s supporters believe the first black president in this country’s history is not American. These claim are not ancillary to Donald Trump’s candidacy, they are a driving force behind it.

Thanks, OONH, I had meant to add that paragraph.

Owl69: She did _not_ mean "all". That was clear from the paragraph I quoted, where she listed the specific characteristics she found deplorable. It's even more clear from the follow-up paragraph that OONH posted.

Is it fair that the basket of regulars is seen negatively by liberals simply due to its association and shared support with the basket of deplorables? My opinion - yes. If you want to debate that fairness question then fine, let's do it. But the facts aren't up for debate: 1) the deplorable subset exists, and 2) Hillary clearly called them out as a subset.

I would suggest that many of the deplorable subset are in HRC's camp. They make death threats when their candidate loses, they disrupt the opponent's rallies, and if TV reports are to be believed, they deface, and in one case torched, cars with Trump bumper stickers on them. Does not sound like what most consider civilized behaviour. It is almost as if the leader of a bunch of deplorables decided to call her opponents deplorable and felt that made her supporters spiffy clean.

As this is a sports board, I feel I should add my take on what this will do to us in the standings. We're going to drop at least one spot to #2 behind China, but beyond that I'm not sure. Russia's got a very aggressive misdirection offense and tough special teams, but their depth chart is pretty thin. I could also see India and Germany moving up in the rankings.

(11-09-2016 04:02 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Owl69: She did _not_ mean "all". That was clear from the paragraph I quoted, where she listed the specific characteristics she found deplorable. It's even more clear from the follow-up paragraph that OONH posted.

She meant for the word "deplorable" to stick. She used "half" to give herself deniability ("I didn't say all, I just said half"). She does not know, nor does she give a damn, what the actual number is, if there are any.

Quote:Is it fair that the basket of regulars is seen negatively by liberals simply due to its association and shared support with the basket of deplorables? My opinion - yes. If you want to debate that fairness question then fine, let's do it. But the facts aren't up for debate: 1) the deplorable subset exists, and 2) Hillary clearly called them out as a subset.

Hillary was clearly tying to imply guilt by association. That's not only unfair, but it ended up costing her, because it galvanized opposition. In that sense, I suppose it was fair, she got the result that she deserved.

(11-09-2016 04:02 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 02:27 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 01:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 12:51 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But I think her "deplorables" comment was directed right at me personally, and illustrated her contempt for middle America- middle economically, middle geographically. Reminded me of Obama's "clinging bitterly" comment. The Dems need to think democratically rather than paternally and change their attitude toward Middle America.

You can think she was directing that at you, but she wasn't. She directed her remarks specifically:
"I know there are only 60 days left to make our case -- and don't get complacent, don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, well, he's done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America."
You can argue with her numbers, whether 50% of Trump supporters are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and/or Islamophobic (and I assume you will), but if you're not those things then you're part of the half not in that basket.

Go ahead and rationalize all you want, but hell yes, she was aiming that comment at the likes of OO. It was a deliberate attempt to smear and marginalize a large group based on the actions of a very few (way, way less than 50%). I'm really growing tired of leftists making blanket indictments and then saying, "oh, I was kidding," or "oh, I meant somebody else, not you," when caught. She knew the words were loaded, she used "half" to give herself deniability, but she meant "all" and we both know that.

And for the record, I voted for Hillary in the primary and did not vote for Trump in the general.

I don't know how you can plausibly suggest she meant "all" given the very next paragraph of her speech:

Quote:"But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

Secondly, the idea that it's "way, way less than 50%" is debatable, too.

Quote:Much like Trump’s alleged opposition to the Iraq War, this not an impossible claim to investigate. We know, for instance, some nearly 60 percent of Trump’s supporters hold “unfavorable views” of Islam, and 76 percent support a ban on Muslims entering the United States. We know that some 40 percent of Trump’s supporters believe blacks are more violent, more criminal, lazier, and ruder than whites. Two-thirds of Trump’s supporters believe the first black president in this country’s history is not American. These claim are not ancillary to Donald Trump’s candidacy, they are a driving force behind it.

Thanks, OONH, I had meant to add that paragraph.

Owl69: She did _not_ mean "all". That was clear from the paragraph I quoted, where she listed the specific characteristics she found deplorable. It's even more clear from the follow-up paragraph that OONH posted.

Is it fair that the basket of regulars is seen negatively by liberals simply due to its association and shared support with the basket of deplorables? My opinion - yes. If you want to debate that fairness question then fine, let's do it. But the facts aren't up for debate: 1) the deplorable subset exists, and 2) Hillary clearly called them out as a subset.

Rah, rah, sis boom bah. Gooooooo team!

I think there is a general attitude toward all conservatives, especially those in flyover states, and every once in a while the facade slips and theynsay what they really think.
Whether she said half, or 12%, or most, it is clear that the elite think of themselves as a cut above, and you subscribe to this also.

i think Obama's unguarded comment to his like-mimded friends about those people clinging bitterly to their guns and religion is just another example.

Don't think she meant or was teying to put a precise ratio on it. I think she thinks we are all deplorable,stupid cowboys, except of course the ones voting for her. he threw in the half qualifier to give herself a defensible position, which you are defending on that same basis.

I suppose if Trump had said "half of them are rapists", you would feel sure he was not referring to the good illegals, or if he said 10% of the Syrian immigrants were terrorists, the presence of a numerical qualifer would mollify you?

She said that one chunk of Trump's support comes from racist, xenophobic, etc folks who respond to that part of his messaging and rhetoric, who she considers deplorable. She said another chunk of his support comes from people who feel neglected and discarded by the system and are desperate for change.

I agree with her. Take that to mean what you will, but I know what I think -- which is exactly what I've summarized above.

edit: That's meant to describe the people who actively wanted Trump during the election. It leaves out other chunks of his voters, those not that into him but who went with a lesser-of-two-evils choice, or are very party-committed, etc.

(11-09-2016 02:27 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  [quote='Owl 69/70/75' pid='13767500' dateline='1478715474']

Secondly, the idea that it's "way, way less than 50%" is debatable, too.

Quote:Much like Trump’s alleged opposition to the Iraq War, this not an impossible claim to investigate. We know, for instance, some nearly 60 percent of Trump’s supporters hold “unfavorable views” of Islam, and 76 percent support a ban on Muslims entering the United States. We know that some 40 percent of Trump’s supporters believe blacks are more violent, more criminal, lazier, and ruder than whites. Two-thirds of Trump’s supporters believe the first black president in this country’s history is not American. These claim are not ancillary to Donald Trump’s candidacy, they are a driving force behind it.

Although the article from which that paragraph comes dates from September, every single number in that paragraph comes from an article in June 2016 or earlier, when there were still other Republican candidates. The set of "Trump supporters" back then is a part, but probably not a representative part, of the set of "Trump supporters" in September, or the the set of Trump voters yesterday. One of the source articles shows this clearly, with bar graphs for Clinton, Kasich, Cruz and Trump on each question. The bar graphs for Kasich and Clinton are pretty similar, the ones for Cruz are a little different, and the ones for Trump are a lot different.

Also, one of the articles cited is a Vox article that seems particularly unscientific. The article defines various intermediate measures and somehow meshes them together to generate various second-order statistics, but it doesn't do a very good job of explaining how all that was done. One of those second-order statistics has the rather loaded name of "racial resentment", and is based on four questions, each of which could (at least in theory) be answered either way by someone who is not actually resentful.

Which doesn't prove that the "way less than 50%" claim is not debatable, but does suggest that it's debatability is not as clear as the quotation might imply.

(11-09-2016 05:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 04:02 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Owl69: She did _not_ mean "all". That was clear from the paragraph I quoted, where she listed the specific characteristics she found deplorable. It's even more clear from the follow-up paragraph that OONH posted.

She meant for the word "deplorable" to stick. She used "half" to give herself deniability ("I didn't say all, I just said half"). She does not know, nor does she give a damn, what the actual number is, if there are any.

Quote:Is it fair that the basket of regulars is seen negatively by liberals simply due to its association and shared support with the basket of deplorables? My opinion - yes. If you want to debate that fairness question then fine, let's do it. But the facts aren't up for debate: 1) the deplorable subset exists, and 2) Hillary clearly called them out as a subset.

Hillary was clearly tying to imply guilt by association. That's not only unfair, but it ended up costing her, because it galvanized opposition. In that sense, I suppose it was fair, she got the result that she deserved.

So you really hate when the left uses dog whistles but not the right, huh?

Clinton shouldn't have said what she did - both sides have a lot of people supporting them who are less than good, and dare I say deplorable. You stretching what HRC said and drawing conclusions you think are obvious. However, when someone tried to do that the other day with Trump, it was a non-starter.

Secondly, the idea that it's "way, way less than 50%" is debatable, too.

Quote:Much like Trump’s alleged opposition to the Iraq War, this not an impossible claim to investigate. We know, for instance, some nearly 60 percent of Trump’s supporters hold “unfavorable views” of Islam, and 76 percent support a ban on Muslims entering the United States. We know that some 40 percent of Trump’s supporters believe blacks are more violent, more criminal, lazier, and ruder than whites. Two-thirds of Trump’s supporters believe the first black president in this country’s history is not American. These claim are not ancillary to Donald Trump’s candidacy, they are a driving force behind it.

[/quote]

One of these poll questions bothers me.

Before I start, I'm going to repeat that I didn't vote for Trump. I've opined why he won elsewhere (provided as analysis, not justification), but I think my non-support of him as a candidate is already documented repeatedly here.

You bring up the point about polling whether someone has 'unfavorable views" of Islam, and it appears that you seem to equate that stance with other prejudicial stances. i.e., having an unfavorable view of a belief system is equal to having racist beliefs, or misogynistic beliefs)

On this point, you are painting with a very broad brush and perhaps don't really understand what the following question is asking:

"Do you have an unfavorable view of Islam?"

1. First, you can answer in the affirmative to that question and still hold to the belief in freedom of religion and defend the rights of people to believe what they want, attend a mosque without reprisals and treat them as equals under the law.

2. Having an unfavorable view of a belief system of any kind, in this case Islam, does not inherently imply having an unfavorable view of any specific individual who adheres to that belief. You can like, be friends with and otherwise freely associate with someone who adheres to a belief system you do not like or agree with. I do this all the time. Hopefully all of us on this board do so as well.

What I'm saying is that you can have an opinion about, or 'judge' a belief system without judging the individuals who nominally or actively profess to embrace that belief system, AND without infringing on their rights to practice that belief system.

3. Again talking about Islam as a belief system (and not individuals and their rights), it is highly disingenuous to imply that Trump supporters who have an unfavorable view of Islam are somehow worse than Hillary supporters. Groups that would potentially have reasons to have an unfavorable view of Islam include Hindus, feminists, people of the Jewish faith, Christians and others.

There are liberals who have unfavorable views of Islam (again, the belief system), Bill Maher a notable example, but certainly not alone. In fact, I'd contend that most liberals, particularly feminists, who claim that they do NOT have an unfavorable view of Islam (the belief system) are really trying hard to be PC and are afraid of being judged a bigot, or do not confront what Islam is as a belief system. I suspect many liberals and feminists, deep-down have an unfavorable view of Islam as a belief system as well, but would be incredibly reluctant to voice it.

Again, I think having an unfavorable view of a belief system is NOT the same as being a bigot. If you judge everyone who adheres to that belief system the same (i.e. not as individuals but as a faceless group), if you mistreat them, deny them their rights, or commit crimes against them solely because of their beliefs, then you probably ARE a bigot. But not because you have an unfavorable view of the belief itself.

I could discuss the differences between nominal Muslims, secular Muslims, and traditional Muslims (much less Shia and Sunni). I could equally discuss the differences between nominal Christians, secular Christians, and practicing Christians, and the overlaps (much less the difference between Catholic and Protestant, evangelical and fundamentalist (very different, and I use evangelical in the pre-corrupted pre-politically co-opted sense))

I think we all SHOULD be able to agree that it is wrong to prejudge an individual based on their expressed belief system and we should DEFEND their constitutional right to freedom of religion/belief.

But I've also read the Koran. In its first pages, it speaks negatively about the Jewish faith, and it repudiates a core belief of Christianity. It was written 600 years after Christ. There are teachings in the Koran that go directly against the teachings of New Testament Christianity.

As a result,

Someone who reads and believes the Koran is likely to have an unfavorable view of Christianity.

And a Christian who reads and believes the New Testament is likely to have an unfavorable view of Islam as a belief system.

So I don't think it's any indictment of 60% of Trump's followers that they have an unfavorable view of a belief system. They have a Constitutional Right to follow their own belief systems to the extent that it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

I half-apologize for taking the time to clarify these points, which should be obvious, but clearly aren't.

But it bothered me that your post seemed to equate "having an unfavorable view of Islam", with racism against African Americans, or, by implication, bigotry and prejudice in how you treat other people, including Muslims . . . . especially including Muslims I suppose.

(It would be interesting to have an intelligent discussion here about secular Muslims versus members of ISIS. I think secularization has impacted Christianity more negatively than it has impacted the Muslim faith (I suspect there would be disagreement on this point, but it would depend on definition of terms). I say this because Christianity has been co-opted by governments and used for political advantage at various points in time, as opposed to its initial spread which was based on individual conversion and belief.)

(11-09-2016 01:38 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 06:27 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Markets will drop at historic levels today I'm afraid. I hope it doesn't create too many layoffs but it might.

S&P 500
2,154.00
up 14.44 (0.67%)

Dow 30
18,495.18
up 162.44 (0.89%)

Nasdaq
5,211.78
up 18.29 (0.35%)

Sorry to burst your negative bubble.

Yeah I was surprised but I'm happy I'm wrong. I guess Trump's victory speech calmed down the stockbrokers quite a bit.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:I think there is a general attitude toward all conservatives, especially those in flyover states, and every once in a while the facade slips and theynsay what they really think.
Whether she said half, or 12%, or most, it is clear that the elite think of themselves as a cut above, and you subscribe to this also.

It's a good thing, then, that all those regular people have regular ol' Donald Trump, Working-Class Champion of the Downtrodden, in their corner, to set things back the way they used to be. Because the last thing the Founding Fathers would have wanted is elites running the country.

Look, railing against liberal snobbery is all well and good, but you elected an inherited-wealthy Manhattanite who during the campaign flew home every night in his own jet to sleep in his own bed in his own tower; who bragged incessantly about his wealth and about his trophy wives and how he was smarter than everyone else.

He also calls everyone who opposes him every insulting name under the Sun, and his rallies were packed with people proudly calling the former Secretary of State "b***h", "c**t", and so on; he and his cronies regularly retweeted white supremacists who happily threatened Jewish correspondents with death. Yet here his supporters, who love to mock the tender sensibilities of their politically correct critics, are clutching their pearls when his opponent calls this overtly racist and sexist subset of his fans "deplorable". May I escort you to the fainting couch?

The hypocrisy is staggering, and would be laughable if we weren't so busy using our great country's potential to buy tickets for a cheap carnival act.

(11-09-2016 10:18 PM)sts60 Wrote:  

OptimisticOwl Wrote:I think there is a general attitude toward all conservatives, especially those in flyover states, and every once in a while the facade slips and theynsay what they really think.
Whether she said half, or 12%, or most, it is clear that the elite think of themselves as a cut above, and you subscribe to this also.

It's a good thing, then, that all those regular people have regular ol' Donald Trump, Working-Class Champion of the Downtrodden, in their corner, to set things back the way they used to be. Because the last thing the Founding Fathers would have wanted is elites running the country.
Look, railing against liberal snobbery is all well and good, but you elected an inherited-wealthy Manhattanite who during the campaign flew home every night in his own jet to sleep in his own bed in his own tower; who bragged incessantly about his wealth and about his trophy wives and how he was smarter than everyone else.
He also calls everyone who opposes him every insulting name under the Sun, and his rallies were packed with people proudly calling the former Secretary of State "b***h", "c**t", and so on; he and his cronies regularly retweeted white supremacists who happily threatened Jewish correspondents with death. Yet here his supporters, who love to mock the tender sensibilities of their politically correct critics, are clutching their pearls when his opponent calls this overtly racist and sexist subset of his fans "deplorable". May I escort you to the fainting couch?
The hypocrisy is staggering, and would be laughable if we weren't so busy using our great country's potential to buy tickets for a cheap carnival act.

Is Trump the ideal messenger? Hell no, that's why I didn't vote for him.

But the message needed delivering, and republicans named Romney and McCain and Bush and Dole failed to deliver it when they had the chance.

Sure. I just hope the Republic survives the delivery mechanism.

I find the tone deafness on the left to be amazing. Not specifically limited to here, more generically everywhere. You just got your asses handed to you by voters who were pissed off by the stream of hyperbolic ad hominems directed at Trump and his followers (racist, sexist, misogynous, deplorable), and yet you continue to launch more off the same.

Ha, ha, ha. I'm the "left"? I'm a white, Christian, heterosexual, middle-aged man. I'm an engineer with a security clearance. I've fostered (and adopted) kids, done animal rescue, and am a volunteer firefighter. I pay my taxes. Oh, and I've been faithfully married to the same woman for over two decades, unlike those fine exemplars of conservative values Trump, Giuliani, and Gingrich. And no, I'm not a Democrat.

So you go right on talking about the righteous anger of a minority of voters - fewer than voted for Bush, fewer than voted for Romney, and fewer than voted for H. Clinton - who mocked "political correctness", but were apparently so butthurt over being called names by liberal smartypants that they elected a preening halfwit who doesn't give a rat's ass about their real problems, but will gladly fleece a new round of suckers for (a) ego-boost, (b) votes, and c) their tax dollars, in that order.

And yes, Trump is racist, sexist, misogynistic, whatever. But his central characteristic is that Trump cares only about Trump.

(11-09-2016 10:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find the tone deafness on the left to be amazing. Not specifically limited to here, more generically everywhere. You just got your asses handed to you by voters who were pissed off by the stream of hyperbolic ad hominems directed at Trump and his followers (racist, sexist, misogynous, deplorable), and yet you continue to launch more off the same.

You do know Clinton is winning the popular vote, right? So ass handed to "us" isn't really the right language when this was a way closer race than the last two elections and "we" appear to have won the popular vote...

And the thing is, the result wasn't because of what you stated. Voters (primarily middle-class white men and women) were pissed about being left behind in the recovery from the Great Recession and felt disenfranchised by BOTH political parties. If you notice though, only the Republicans allowed the outsider that was craved to run for President, and surprise, surprise, he ended up winning. The Dems forgot about this faction of the electorate and focused heavily on minority outreach, but seemed to do a mediocre job at that.

I think you overestimate how much the deplorable line helped motivate voters - those that were offended by it were already calling to "Lock Her Up!" and didn't need any more ammo. I think you overestimate the deplorable line's effect because you seem personally offended by it. Do you actually deny that there was misogyny and bigotry perpetrated by Trump? It would be an impressive bit of sticking your head in the sand to avoid the dog whistles (and some overt statements), his enabling attitude ("Get him outta here!"), and all of the videos from Trump rallies that demonstrated how misogynistic and overtly racist people, his fans and supporters, in those crowds could be.

The Dems suffered from similar issues at times (see deplorable line, Chicago Trump Rally), but it did seem to be less widespread.

She's winning the popular vote (barely) because of a huge margin in California. Which is of course irrelevant because that's not how we choose presidents.

I'm not overestimating the deplorable line, or any other line, because I don't put much emphasis on any particular line.

The essence of progressive politics is the assumption that a small group of elites can make better decisions for us than we can make for ourselves. What happened yesterday is that a large swath of middle America got pissed off at the arrogance and hubris and condescension of those elites and elected an outsider. Except he's not really an outsider, he just plays one on TV. But although he was an imperfect messenger, at best, he delivered a message that was needed.

I mocked the hypocritical outrage over the "Deplorables" comment, but in reality the whole thing is a red herring. Trump's voters hate Clinton with the ultraviolet intensity of a thousand suns, and would have found or invented something else to be livid about. A whole industry has existed for decades over manufacturing Clinton outrage; some warranted, some not, and some of it outright fantasy. "Deplorables" was merely a target of convenience.

(11-10-2016 12:06 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  She's winning the popular vote (barely) because of a huge margin in California. Which is of course irrelevant because that's not how we choose presidents.

I'm not overestimating the deplorable line, or any other line, because I don't put much emphasis on any particular line.

The essence of progressive politics is the assumption that a small group of elites can make better decisions for us than we can make for ourselves. What happened yesterday is that a large swath of middle America got pissed off at the arrogance and hubris and condescension of those elites and elected an outsider. Except he's not really an outsider, he just plays one on TV. But although he was an imperfect messenger, at best, he delivered a message that was needed.

And I never said the popular vote was relevant to who won the presidency. It is relevant to the fact that the defeat was not an ass-whooping as you suggested. Hillary won the largest percent of the votes that were cast. You throwing out that fact just because so many more people voted for her in California would be like me throwing out all of the southern states in the electoral college that went for Trump for a similar reason.

That's honestly one of the silliest things I've heard. As if people who live in California matter less than anyone else...

But I agree with your last statement, which is EXACTLY what I said in my reply to your initial assertion that the win was about the deplorable comment. The win was a big FU to the system, and it just happened that the Republican Party got lucky in landing that candidate, even though he kind of sucks.

(11-09-2016 10:18 PM)sts60 Wrote:  

OptimisticOwl Wrote:I think there is a general attitude toward all conservatives, especially those in flyover states, and every once in a while the facade slips and theynsay what they really think.
Whether she said half, or 12%, or most, it is clear that the elite think of themselves as a cut above, and you subscribe to this also.

It's a good thing, then, that all those regular people have regular ol' Donald Trump, Working-Class Champion of the Downtrodden, in their corner, to set things back the way they used to be. Because the last thing the Founding Fathers would have wanted is elites running the country.

Look, railing against liberal snobbery is all well and good, but you elected an inherited-wealthy Manhattanite who during the campaign flew home every night in his own jet to sleep in his own bed in his own tower; who bragged incessantly about his wealth and about his trophy wives and how he was smarter than everyone else.

He also calls everyone who opposes him every insulting name under the Sun, and his rallies were packed with people proudly calling the former Secretary of State "b***h", "c**t", and so on; he and his cronies regularly retweeted white supremacists who happily threatened Jewish correspondents with death. Yet here his supporters, who love to mock the tender sensibilities of their politically correct critics, are clutching their pearls when his opponent calls this overtly racist and sexist subset of his fans "deplorable". May I escort you to the fainting couch?

The hypocrisy is staggering, and would be laughable if we weren't so busy using our great country's potential to buy tickets for a cheap carnival act.

I guess it is more democratic to fly home in somebody else's jet.

Look, do not equate negatives about Clinton with positives about Trump. I didn't like him either. But he never called me deplorable. he never made fun of my guns or religion by calling me a bitter clinger. I disagree with Trump on a lot of things. He may think he is smarter than me. But he has never indicated he is better than me. Hillary has, unless you think deplorable means equal. To borrow a phrase, I am mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore. Millions like me just told Hillary we are not deplorable just because we don't agree with whatever she says.

I didn't vote FOR Trump. I voted AGAINST Hillary. why should I vote for somebody who holds me in such low regard?

Just because somebody calls me racist, or sexist, or deplorable, or a bitter clinger, doesn't mean that I AM any of those things, but the snobbery of the left as they look down their nose is getting tiresome, and the leaders of the the left are the leaders in the snobbery, and the masses of the left are following their lead.

(11-10-2016 12:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But I agree with your last statement, which is EXACTLY what I said in my reply to your initial assertion that the win was about the deplorable comment. The win was a big FU to the system, and it just happened that the Republican Party got lucky in landing that candidate, even though he kind of sucks.

Except my initial assertion was not that the win was about the deplorable comment, nor was any other assertion I made.

The deplorable comment and other hyperbolic condescending comments were just one of the ways that the system was telling people who are really hurting as a result of Obama's and the democrats' policies, basically, "let them eat cake." And you're right, they got pissed and said FU. I just worry that Trump himself is part of that ruling elite.