(11-10-2016 10:50 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 08:57 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Yeah I was surprised but I'm happy I'm wrong. I guess Trump's victory speech calmed down the stockbrokers quite a bit.

He's also expected to gut Dodd-Frank, which is ironic given that he railed against Wall Street and Clinton's ties to it in the campaign.

I understand your shock and how you might feel. Many people were just a shocked 4 and 8 years ago with an upstart candidate with very little political experience and zero real-life experience other than government who came out of nowhere to become President. Many would have been shocked if Hiliary were to have been elected, and be feeling exactly as you appear to right now. We survived Obama. He had a chance to bring the country together but appears to have utterly wasted it and left many things much worse for too many Americans who were marginalized and forgotten. Trump says he will do different, and remember those people. Let's see what he does.

Either way, if we could survive Obama's socialism and W's ignorance, we can survive Trump, too. Who knows, he might actually get things moving and make things better. I can tell you around me, a LOT of business people are suddenly interested in hiring and building and spending their money again. I think you might be pleasantly surprised. And if not, find a DECENT candidate to run next time. No more: Because it's a woman, blue person with stripes and polka dots, green person, space-alien, etc... How about because they are a superior candidate, not overly attached to the establishment, and best represent your ideas?

(11-09-2016 06:21 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(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.

I didn't read this particular article, but I remember one during the primaries where Trump voters had much higher scores on a variety of various measures of racial resentment/animosity than Republicans who supported other candidates. And indeed, the non-Trump Republicans were not significantly different than Democrats. Many of those Republicans held their nose and still voted for Trump in the general.

There was a similar report the other day regarding misogyny. If I can remember where I read it I'll post it. But we'll have to wait a bit for the peer reviewed academic journal articles. :-)

(11-09-2016 08:25 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  One of these poll questions bothers me.

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?"

That appears to be a biased and seemingly bigoted poll question; it pre-supposes the "correct" answer in its very asking.

A more fair question might have been:

"What is your view of Islam?

(11-10-2016 10:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-t...tion-2016/

Journalists love mocking Trump supporters. We insult their appearances. We dismiss them as racists and sexists. We emote on Twitter about how this or that comment or policy makes us feel one way or the other, and yet we reject their feelings as invalid.

...


But much of that starts from the assumption that Trump voters are backward, and that it’s our duty to catalogue and ultimately reverse that backwardness. What can we do to get these people to stop worshiping their false god and accept our gospel?

...


This is all a “whitelash,” you see. Trump voters are racist and sexist, so there must be more racists and sexists than we realized. Tuesday night’s outcome was not a logic-driven rejection of a deeply flawed candidate named Clinton; no, it was a primal scream against fairness, equality, and progress. Let the new tantrums commence!


...

That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get in line.

What a great article - the press corps would do well to read Hillbilly Elegy by JD Vance. Does a great job of showing why poor whites are in their situation partially because of government neglect and partially due to their own personal decisions.

(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.

The cheap carnival act is over after 8 years.

Maybe what is staggering is that we elected the richest President in our short history, but the second richest was....George Washington (adjusted for inflation) the Founder of our Country, and the one who first willingly stepped aside and relinquished his power, when many around him wanted to make him an actual King. Don't know why having wealth absolutely necessitates not being able to be sympathetic to people who don't. And remember, the vote granted by the Founding fathers WAS somewhat to the elites: landowners. While the mechanism was later expanded through using the framework of the Constitution, (Amendments properly ratified by the states, not executive orders galore like we've witnessed for the last 8 years), it can be argued that many of the Founding Fathers had no intention of granting universal suffrage. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with them, just being honest about what was going on at the time of the Founding Fathers.

I have infinitely more respect for a person who calls me an insult to my face than one who rants and raves in private after I leave while kissing up to me when she thinks I'm around.

I think Trump generally cares. We will now see if that is really so. Not to say he's completely understanding, since he has been rich his whole life. I was of no doubt that Hiliary did NOT care, but only sought to use, and clearly thought and acted like she was above the law. To me, that is a big difference.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:I find the tone deafness on the left quite incredible.

The last few posts by left leaning posters

I don't speak for RiceLad15, but I'm still amused that I'm getting lumped in with "the left". Or "left-leaning" (I see what you did there).

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:...on here are full of exactly the same language that prompted flyover country to tell the ruling elite to go straight to hell on Tuesday. The longer and harder you cling to your notions that Hillary lost to a coalition of racists and misogynists and xenophobes, the more you are going to piss off the people who actually voted for Trump. I didn't, so you're not offending me, but I am mystified that you have so much difficulty picking up on what just happened.

Clinton lost to a coalition of a lot of people. Some don't like her policies. Some - a lot, it looks like - simply hate her. Some would hate her no matter what. But they've been relentlessly told to hate her for decades, based on some things that are hers to own, some things that are true but hypocritically not a problem when others did it, and some things that are absolute crackpot conspiracy fantasies.

And a lot of them are racists and misogynists and xenophobes. I don't know the exact percentages. I don't claim you're one of them. But don't try to bull**** me by telling me that the candidate joyfully embraced by the KKK and the American Nazi Party and the every-Muslim-is-a-terrorist crowd, and who's constantly echoed the memes of white supremacists and the Jew-haters, doesn't have a big constituency of racists and xenophobes. That's laughable.

And don't tell me Mr. "Great Piece of A**", who bragged about sexual assault and whose fans do a brisk trade in "Trump That B***h" and "She's a C**t" T-shirts, doesn't have a big constituency of misogynists. Because that's laughable too. And we haven't even got to the "women shouldn't be in positions of leadership" group.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:People did not oppose Obama because he was a black man. They opposed him because his ideas suck.

The second part is arguable. I've deleted my longer response, that's another thread.

But as for the first part, as Ronald Reagan said - and here you have to picture me shaking my head sorrowfully - "there you go again". Claiming that Obama wasn't opposed because he's black is flat-out ludicrous. I've heard and seen some of the invective hurled at him and his family. We've seen the "birther" conspiracy, cheered on by Trump as a way to get attention and enthusiastically embraced by a lot of explicitly racist people. And guess what, a lot of them are Trump voters. Imagine that!

Please listen to me very carefully here: I do not claim all opposition to Clinton was due to racism, xenophobia, and/or misogyny. I didn't say they're all, or even most, that way - and Clinton didn't either. Go drag that strawman somewhere else. But a significant amount of Trump's followers are exactly in one or more of those categories - enough, I'm convinced, to put him over the top in electoral votes.

Guess what? I, too, find the "all opposition to Obama is racist", and "all opposition to Clinton/support for Trump is [ racist | xenophobic | misogynist ]" claims irritating and simplistic. But there is a partial truth to them. What you write sounds as if you're saying they're categorically untrue, or at least so small a percentage as to be insignificant. That's equally irritating, because it's flat-out incompatible with observed reality.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Hillary was not the most qualified presidential candidate ever, not by a long shot. She was Forrest Gump. She stood around watching a lot of history being made over the years, but she didn't do much of the making. Except maybe the ridiculous "Reset" button incident.

Sure, "most qualified ever" is hyperbole. But the Forrest Gump comparison is ridiculous. Like her or not, like her politics or not - and I am mixed in both categories - she is a very intelligent woman who worked her ass off. She did accomplish some useful things legislatively. She was praised for her ability to work across the aisle by Republican colleagues in the Senate. She was widely respected as SoS by world leaders. But none of that matters, because whatever legitimate beefs you have with her are mixed inextricably with the frothing contempt whipped up by her political opponents over a quarter-century - and only recently embraced for political gain by Trump, who a few years ago called her "terrific" and said she did "a good job" as SoS.

You lecture us "on the left" (I'm not) about ridiculous black-and-white viewpoints, but you're merely substituting one cartoon for another.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Middle America got tired of the liberal elites pissing on their legs and telling them it was raining.

I get the core of your argument, I really do. I spent a lot of time working in West Virginia and the economic pain is easy to see. It's also pretty obvious that the boom in extractive technology for oil and natural gas has killed coal dead, way more than any regulation, and that promises that King Coal and all his jobs are coming back, once them damn gov't bureaucrats are called off, is absolute cynical pandering bull****.

But Clinton's plans for retraining and developing new jobs in new technologies are evidently what's really oppressing the guys out of work. Maybe those plans would have worked, maybe not. But instead, we're all in now for the promise that the federal government will somehow magically overcome deep market forces to renew (pardon the pun) a terminally ill industry. Oh, the delicious Soviet-style irony.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:That is all.

Sure, but there's some problems with that:

- "Middle America" has had no problem with the conservative elites pissing, etc. on them for decades.

- Now that they're tired of that too, they're all in for an elite of one - Donald Trump - pissing on their legs and telling them it's raining.

- But wait, we're told, a lot of people don't buy into Trump either - they just want to send a message, a big middle finger to the establishment.

So they way they've chosen to do that is to elect a petulant, pathologically narcissistic, willfully ignorant, semicoherent, thin-skinned serial sexual abuser and tax dodger, who has run business after business into the ground and stuck the taxpayers and investors and contractors with the bill. You know, the guy whose chief advisers are a mix of liars-for-hire, white supremacists, and Kremlin stooges and outright agents (and whose big business lately has been with Russia - imagine that!). The one who's encouraged nuclear proliferation, wants to turn NATO into a protection racket, has explicitly said he'll order our military to commit acts that are explicitly illegal - you know, war crimes. The one whose policies, if fully implemented, have been widely evaluated to cause a national and global recession, cost millions of jobs, and run up the deficit by eleventy trillion dollars. The guy who told us little people - Middle America and effete coastal snobs all - that we don't get to see his tax returns out of concern for our safety, because we'd be blinded or driven insane if we witnessed his fiscal genius in its unfiltered glory.

Good plan!

I agree with you - no sarcasm here - that a message needed to be delivered. Now here comes the sarcasm part:

I'll sleep better at night, knowing that the message is being delivered by a guy with all the qualities outlined above, but even better, known for his angry 3 AM Twitter rants, - now new! improved! with nuclear command authority.

God help us all.

(11-09-2016 10:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(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.

+1. Agreed.

(11-09-2016 10:18 PM)sts60 Wrote:  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.

Hey, it's not like he eats kale. That's the sort of elitism that would be impossible to overlook.

(11-10-2016 12:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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.

With all due respect, you and Owl69 and others really seem to *want* to feel like you personally have been insulted. The deplorables comment was specifically about "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic" and she then explicitly made the point that others supporting trump have legitimate concerns.

Earlier in the thread I mentioned the blatantly anti-semitic ad and most of you were either claiming it wasn't anti-semitic or that it wasn't a big deal. But something Obama said about being "bitter" a couple elections ago, that's still a reason to be enraged. After all, a little anti-Semitism has never hurt anyone, right? No one ever persecutes Jews. But white Christian males? The most oppressed group on earth.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:I didn't vote FOR Trump. I voted AGAINST Hillary.

Do you mind, then, if I ask for whom you did vote? That is, whose name you marked or selected on the ballot?

(11-10-2016 10:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  "...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. "



Paraphrasing:

You could put half of Hillary's supporters into what I call the basket of "entitled snobs".
Right? The ones who think they are intellectually and morally superior, -you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that.

Well, if you think you are not an entitled snob who thinks he is intellectually and morally superior to those poor dolts who voted Trump, then ignore that. Clearly I wasn't talking about you, just those people standing with you.

Some liberals, especially on the coasts, are elitists. As a midwesterner/adopted Texan I've often made the point to my fellow Dems that references to flyover country and the like are highly counter-productive. (Though those comments are also made by Republican coastal elites.) It's valid for you to call them out on it when they do it.

But your position is that I can't call out trump supporters or Trump himself if they make racist comments because I might hurt your feelings (even though you're not even a Trump supporter)?

And as an aside, racism and elitism are not equivalent sins. People haven't been lynched for using the wrong fork. Same logic applies to the other -isms.

(11-10-2016 12:07 AM)sts60 Wrote:  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.

Oh, you mean kind of like the other side felt about Reagan and Bush? Remember?

Funny how all those 'war is not the answer' signs disappeared when Obama was expanding the wars, no? Bet'cha they'll come back now, so all's good, right?

Think of it this way: It's on us now.

1. Carson and Price and Gingrich are gonna have a heck of a job unburying people from the atrocity of ACA while trying to keep the economy on an even keel and get it churning towards growth again. It's going to take time, and it won't go back to what it was before, so in a way, you did effect some measure of change there, just not the right ones for America.
2. The Right has the upper hand on the Court system right now, but will still likely have to deal with some measure of Democrat Senate approval. It will also take time for the effects of those appointments to engage themselves into the modern argument.
3. Will they actually, finally build the wall and start protecting the US with real borders like every other country in the world, including European countries and Mexico itself (those racists!). Maybe they can extend the wall halfway up into California and across to 'Frisco while they're at it to help with those extra popular voters thrown in (parts of Colorado and Oregon may need one as well.)
4. NAFTA needs to be addressed and either scrapped or heavily renegotiated by an admin that puts American workers interests first. Will they take care of this?
5. The Iran deal needs to go. We should try to get our money back, too. Countries and governments that embody the d eath to America motto should have their starbucks coffee privileges with the president revoked.
6. The $20 billion to help school choice become a reality for ALL citizens, rich and poor needs to happen. The public education system is beyond broken and it shows in crime and poor communities.
7. Tax reform needs to happen yesterday. America's business should get back to building and creating the strongest, most innovative businesses. Leave the "business of government is more government" to countries like Russia and North Korea. Lower the corporate rate significantly and allow a repatriation window of opening for US overseas assets to bring them back here if invested here.
8. Close the VA down and let Vets get healthcare form a doctor of their choice.

That's a good starting list.

(11-10-2016 11:45 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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.

With all due respect, you and Owl69 and others really seem to *want* to feel like you personally have been insulted. The deplorables comment was specifically about "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic" and she then explicitly made the point that others supporting trump have legitimate concerns.

Earlier in the thread I mentioned the blatantly anti-semitic ad and most of you were either claiming it wasn't anti-semitic or that it wasn't a big deal. But something Obama said about being "bitter" a couple elections ago, that's still a reason to be enraged. After all, a little anti-Semitism has never hurt anyone, right? No one ever persecutes Jews. But white Christian males? The most oppressed group on earth.

that was you who could hear the dog whistle when nobody else could?

What Obama said was:

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations"

And it was not said publicly, but in a meeting with like-minded supporters.

Exactly the same sentiment as in Hillary's basket of deplorables comment, directed at the same groups of people - rural conservatives in "flyover' states.

I am a rural conservative in a flyover state. Why should I feel that I am, of course, naturally, excluded from the disdain?

it's not that I "want" to feel insulted. That statement itself fits right in with the disdain. Clearly, no intelligent person could feel insulted unless they "wanted" to, right? But I do feel insulted, and lots of other people do too, and I would bet they provided the margin in many states - Iowa, Wisconsin, the entire midwest. Stop treating half the electorate like they are dolts, and maybe some of them will come back to your thinking, that the rest of them are racist dolts, deplorable and ignorable.

(11-10-2016 11:45 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  With all due respect, you and Owl69 and others really seem to *want* to feel like you personally have been insulted.

No, not at all, and that's not even remotely close to what we are saying.

You just don't get it, do you? I really don't understand the tone deafness on the left.

From Jon_C on another board:

When all the non-racist, non-homophobic, non-misogynist, non-bigoted, everyday, ordinary people get so sick of your calling them racists, homophobic, misogynist, bigots that they go out and vote down your candidate, do you:

A. Reevaluate your personal conduct and strategy for convincing people to share your political views, or

B. Call them racists, homophobes, misogynists, and bigots, and yell at them even more.

Calling Trump racist, homophobic, misogynist, and bigoted seemed to a lot of people just like you were doing it to them. That is why your candidate lost.

STS, JAAO and RiceLad,

I get where you're coming from. You woke up with not only a president you didn't want (that happens to a lot of people every election), but to someone you find repugnant. And it was completely unexpected because the intelligentsia was so far out in left field in their projections.

I have it much better. I knew going into the election I was going to be sick to my stomach on Wednesday. The Libertarian Candidate was a faux Libertarian (and frankly clueless on foreign policy), so I had to find a write-in to even vote.

Given the choices, I'm astonished so few in Harris County voted write-in to begin with. Given all the comments about the 'lesser of two evils' on both sides, I'm guessing that at least 60% and maybe more of the votes cast in Harris County on Tuesday were pragmatic, rather than principled votes. Less than 500 people on Tuesday (more with early balloting and mail-in) bothered to take the time to look through the write-in candidates to find someone they could vote for in good conscience over the clown show we had from the Top 3 candidates.

I get it. I wasted my vote. In this election I can live with that.

You can choose to rant and rail about it. Or you can choose hope.

Gravy quoted President George W. Bush from his speech at the Memorial Service for the slain Dallas police officers here recently. The quote itself was paraphrased from similar quotes, but I like Bush's much better. I think that quote has application here (frankly, I think that quote ought to be on all of our mirror's every morning when we wake up, as a reminder):

'Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions'

We've certainly seen bad examples of speech from the President-elect. I tend to believe he's led a sheltered life in some respects. He has focused on his businesses. He has certainly been 'unsheltered' running for this office, and he cannot return to being sheltered, not as President. I choose to believe that he is entering the office with good intentions. I also choose to believe that the office itself has a transforming effect on the people that occupy it. I choose to believe that our Constitution has checks and balances built in and that everyone in Washington will work together for the good of the country.

The media is playing up the tears and anger and protests. All of those things may be cathartic . . . . . but emotion in the long run, is not a substitute for reason and cooperative effort.

One of the posters here recently linked to a story of how a college student had completely changed the mind of a young white supremacist who had grown up indoctrinated into a belief system. He did this not by ostracizing the young man, but by reaching out to him. The poster hailed the man as a hero, and I suppose he was, as well as wise and courageous. But the other side of the coin was that the former white supremacist who disavowed his beliefs was also heroic, wise and courageous too.

If we want the best out of our President, we will work with him to realize that best. If we want him to fail, well, we can work at that too.

What will get the best out of Trump, or any President, will be the people around him.

(11-10-2016 01:12 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  STS, JAAO and RiceLad,

I get where you're coming from. You woke up with not only a president you didn't want (that happens to a lot of people every election), but to someone you find repugnant. And it was completely unexpected because the intelligentsia was so far out in left field in their projections.

I have it much better. I knew going into the election I was going to be sick to my stomach on Wednesday. The Libertarian Candidate was a faux Libertarian (and frankly clueless on foreign policy), so I had to find a write-in to even vote.

Given the choices, I'm astonished so few in Harris County voted write-in to begin with. Given all the comments about the 'lesser of two evils' on both sides, I'm guessing that at least 60% and maybe more of the votes cast in Harris County on Tuesday were pragmatic, rather than principled votes. Less than 500 people on Tuesday (more with early balloting and mail-in) bothered to take the time to look through the write-in candidates to find someone they could vote for in good conscience over the clown show we had from the Top 3 candidates.

I get it. I wasted my vote. In this election I can live with that.

You can choose to rant and rail about it. Or you can choose hope.

Gravy quoted President George W. Bush from his speech at the Memorial Service for the slain Dallas police officers here recently. The quote itself was paraphrased from similar quotes, but I like Bush's much better. I think that quote has application here (frankly, I think that quote ought to be on all of our mirror's every morning when we wake up, as a reminder):

'Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions'

We've certainly seen bad examples of speech from the President-elect. I tend to believe he's led a sheltered life in some respects. He has focused on his businesses. He has certainly been 'unsheltered' running for this office, and he cannot return to being sheltered, not as President. I choose to believe that he is entering the office with good intentions. I also choose to believe that the office itself has a transforming effect on the people that occupy it. I choose to believe that our Constitution has checks and balances built in and that everyone in Washington will work together for the good of the country.

The media is playing up the tears and anger and protests. All of those things may be cathartic . . . . . but emotion in the long run, is not a substitute for reason and cooperative effort.

One of the posters here recently linked to a story of how a college student had completely changed the mind of a young white supremacist who had grown up indoctrinated into a belief system. He did this not by ostracizing the young man, but by reaching out to him. The poster hailed the man as a hero, and I suppose he was, as well as wise and courageous. But the other side of the coin was that the former white supremacist who disavowed his beliefs was also heroic, wise and courageous too.

If we want the best out of our President, we will work with him to realize that best. If we want him to fail, well, we can work at that too.

What will get the best out of Trump, or any President, will be the people around him.

I completely agree with this. And I hope to God that the Dems do not pull the same stunt that the Reps have done for the past 8 years and try to make Trump a one-term president by digging their heels in the ground as hard as possible on almost every single issue.

I hope they can pick their battles on when to compromise and when to dig in, and that the compromise is much more frequent. As Obama said in his speech after Trump won, it is a baton race and he is going to try and set his successor up for success. Hopefully the rest of the elected officials do not try and undermine him at EVERY opportunity (just some of them, I mean, they do have vastly different opinions on some topics).

(11-10-2016 12:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  that was you who could hear the dog whistle when nobody else could?

No, that was the one heard by the ADL, every Jewish person I know, and which made the Jewish Republican organization feel the need to issue a statement.

But this is a good example of the hypocrisy - it's OK for you to still be enraged by the "bitter clingers" comment from a previous election but we're not allowed to comment on the racism, sexism, misogyny, anti-Semitism, or other bigotry from the president-elect.

(11-10-2016 12:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What Obama said was:

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations"

And it was not said publicly, but in a meeting with like-minded supporters.

Exactly the same sentiment as in Hillary's basket of deplorables comment, directed at the same groups of people - rural conservatives in "flyover' states.

I am a rural conservative in a flyover state. Why should I feel that I am, of course, naturally, excluded from the disdain?

it's not that I "want" to feel insulted. That statement itself fits right in with the disdain. Clearly, no intelligent person could feel insulted unless they "wanted" to, right? But I do feel insulted, and lots of other people do too, and I would bet they provided the margin in many states - Iowa, Wisconsin, the entire midwest. Stop treating half the electorate like they are dolts, and maybe some of them will come back to your thinking, that the rest of them are racist dolts, deplorable and ignorable.

I get why you were insulted by the original Obama quote. I don't blame you. But again, her (admittedly awkward and poorly worded) statement condemned racism, etc. as deplorable but said other supporters had legitimate concerns. If a statement doesn't fit with your persecution complex, you don't get to declare what the person actually meant to make it fit.

(11-10-2016 01:53 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  that was you who could hear the dog whistle when nobody else could?

No, that was the one heard by the ADL, every Jewish person I know, and which made the Jewish Republican organization feel the need to issue a statement.

But this is a good example of the hypocrisy - it's OK for you to still be enraged by the "bitter clingers" comment from a previous election but we're not allowed to comment on the racism, sexism, misogyny, anti-Semitism, or other bigotry from the president-elect.

(11-10-2016 12:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What Obama said was:

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations"

And it was not said publicly, but in a meeting with like-minded supporters.

Exactly the same sentiment as in Hillary's basket of deplorables comment, directed at the same groups of people - rural conservatives in "flyover' states.

I am a rural conservative in a flyover state. Why should I feel that I am, of course, naturally, excluded from the disdain?

it's not that I "want" to feel insulted. That statement itself fits right in with the disdain. Clearly, no intelligent person could feel insulted unless they "wanted" to, right? But I do feel insulted, and lots of other people do too, and I would bet they provided the margin in many states - Iowa, Wisconsin, the entire midwest. Stop treating half the electorate like they are dolts, and maybe some of them will come back to your thinking, that the rest of them are racist dolts, deplorable and ignorable.

I get why you were insulted by the original Obama quote. I don't blame you. But again, her (admittedly awkward and poorly worded) statement condemned racism, etc. as deplorable but said other supporters had legitimate concerns. If a statement doesn't fit with your persecution complex, you don't get to declare what the person actually meant to make it fit.

I see this is your first time on the internet. Haha

(11-10-2016 01:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 11:45 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  With all due respect, you and Owl69 and others really seem to *want* to feel like you personally have been insulted.

No, not at all, and that's not even remotely close to what we are saying.

You just don't get it, do you? I really don't understand the tone deafness on the left.

From Jon_C on another board:

When all the non-racist, non-homophobic, non-misogynist, non-bigoted, everyday, ordinary people get so sick of your calling them racists, homophobic, misogynist, bigots that they go out and vote down your candidate, do you:

A. Reevaluate your personal conduct and strategy for convincing people to share your political views, or

B. Call them racists, homophobes, misogynists, and bigots, and yell at them even more.

Calling Trump racist, homophobic, misogynist, and bigoted seemed to a lot of people just like you were doing it to them. That is why your candidate lost.

Actually, I hear a lot of this being discussed on "the left" just maybe not in places you venture. Even heard an extensive discussion of it on NPR yesterday, while most Dems were still in shock.

You seem to be completely tone deaf in how downplaying or outright contemptuously dismissing the concerns of others about said -isms alienates those targeted. It's almost comical, for example, how many white people think they get to decide what African-Americans are allowed to be upset about and how they are allowed to protest.

Trump's rhetoric on Muslims has been extremely heated and hateful at times. But calling him out on it is the real problem somehow?

Rick, I think I know the "conversion" example you mentioned (both went to a college in Florida, IIRC), and the quote is an excellent one.

And, as I am an optimistic Owl - even though I'm not OptimisticOwl (for which I'm sure he is duly grateful), I want to believe that Mr. Trump is suitably sobered and ennobled by the role, and behaves with a magnanimous and intelligent and attentive eye to balancing the needs of the nation, our allies, and the world around us.

But that's not the track record of Donald Trump. He has established himself as damn near a perfect exemplar of narcissism and greed and spite and ignorance and mendacity and incompetence and gluttony in various incarnations, and for just about any position of his, I can provide you one or more counterexamples in word or deed. This isn't the usual political flip-flopping: this isn't Clinton clumsily switching over to oppose TPP. Just about every politician does this to some extent, and to some extent it is forgivable as part of the reality of political life.

No, this is a man whose only inviolate principle is that his ego must be served. Yes, he is racist and misogynistic, and has tapped the thick vein of xenophobia to advance his aims, but his absolute core characteristic is his brittle narcissism.

That, along with his other characteristics I've already enumerated, and the vindictive and hateful gang with which he has surrounded himself, does not help my optimism.

But I will hope and pray that things turn out all right, and will fight to keep things from really going off the rails. I'm not into blind opposition just to destroy the other guy. Remember when Obama was first elected? Mitch (spit) McConnell explicitly set the Republican Congressional agenda as one of willful and across-the-board obstruction. "Our number one goal", he said, "is to make Barack Obama a one-term President." Not "work with him where we can, oppose him where necessary, and find compromises for the good of the country." Just obstruct, deny, attack and otherwise gum up the works so that nothing could be done in a scorched-Earth effort to destroy the opposition.

I despise such cynical, amoral, selfish partisanship. I know there are those opposed to Trump who want to do the same thing. That's wrong. I am heartened to see that Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren have already reached out to work with him on infrastructure and jobs; he may respond positively to such invitations. In fact, there is a small but finite chance he will be effectively co-opted by the Democrats to pass some of their favorite legislation; he may do it just to "give the middle finger" to the Republican "elite".

Who can say for sure? His own party leadership repeatedly had to assure nervous Republicans that it would be OK because they'd be able to restrain him. About a fifth of his supporters polled said that he was likely to start a nuclear war, and they were voting for him anyway. What a confidence builder!