(11-11-2016 02:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Coincidental that both these men had it take off on them versus the same opponent?

IMO, the answer to that is "no"

(11-11-2016 02:32 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Coincidental that both these men had it take off on them versus the same opponent?

IMO, the answer to that is "no"

I think it is coincidental, but only because I think Obama in '08 would have beaten most other Dems that would have challenged him. I don't think there is a long list of opponents who could have beaten him if Hillary was replaced as opposed to how the same would likely have been true for Trump.

(11-11-2016 02:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:32 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 02:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Coincidental that both these men had it take off on them versus the same opponent?

IMO, the answer to that is "no"

I think it is coincidental, but only because I think Obama in '08 would have beaten most other Dems that would have challenged him. I don't think there is a long list of opponents who could have beaten him if Hillary was replaced as opposed to how the same would likely have been true for Trump.

I agree with this.

I think the common thread is that Hillary did not have a theme, rallying cry or purpose for running . . . other than she wanted to be President.

Obama wanted to be President as well, but he had a message (like Trump's). Trump had a message as well. I hope, for his sake, that he wanted to be President. Because he's up to his neck in it now.

Rice grad James Bridenstine is being considered apparently for both the head of NASA as well as the Secretary of the Air Force.

(11-11-2016 12:04 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I guess here's a fundamental question that might reveal this whole thread to be pointless.
For those of you angry about the "deplorables" comment. I get that you feel it was unfairly applied to you.
However, do you agree or disagree that the Trump campaign intentionally appealed to and garnered support for:
racism
bigotry
Islamophobia
xenophobia
sexism
misogyny

Disagree.

This is not to say that I do not have significant problems with Trump. It's just that these aren't where I have a problem with him. I don't think Trump "intentionally appealed to or garnered support for" any of those things. Again, I think the attitude on the left has been to find words that it can use to marginalize anyone who disagrees, rather than debating the issues intelligently and reasonably. I disagree with Trump's proposals to deal with refugees and illegal immigrants and free trade. But I don't think his motivations are racist or Islamophobic or xenophobic. I think the problems are real; he's just proposing the wrong actions to deal with them.

(11-11-2016 03:17 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Rice grad James Bridenstine is being considered apparently for both the head of NASA as well as the Secretary of the Air Force.

Hm. A quick look suggests he may be in the climate science denial camp. Perhaps he's in the running to oversee the smothering of NASA's research into climate and solar-terrestrial interactions. Or he can go to USAF to help enforce the edict that DoD, that bastion of liberalism, not spend any money planning to deal with climate change.

Wait a minute. They're talking about putting a squid in charge of the Air Force? Even a flying squid?

Okay to amplify the points I made in bold below, please reference the following taken from this article:

Referenced Article

I quote:

"But ugly attitudes don’t simply fall out of the sky, eternal and inflexible. A new paper from economists Rob Johnson and Arjun Jayadev looks at economic downturns from 1979 to 2014, and finds a tight correlation between unemployment and racism ― the higher the unemployment rate, the more ubiquitous the discrimination. A 2014 study from New York University psychologists found that racial animosity hardens under economic scarcity. Last year, three German economists found that “far-right” political parties almost always make significant gains after a financial crisis.

This doesn’t mean that economic insecurity is the sole cause of racism, but it does suggest that it can be a cause. They call it the Rust Belt for a reason. If Democrats want to stamp out the views that made President Trump possible, they will have to do a better job delivering economic gains to working people."

Post WWI Germany should be a permanent example of this in our minds.

It's also why "Don't those people know that in three years they will be no better off than they are today." is the wrong response, no matter who is president.

(11-11-2016 01:34 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 12:04 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  However, do you agree or disagree that the Trump campaign intentionally appealed to and garnered support for:

racism
bigotry
Islamophobia
xenophobia
sexism
misogyny

They haven't been concerned about them, they haven't courted them, they really haven't tried to include them in their vision for America. How could the ABC commentators have truthfully been lamenting "why, why, why do they believe the things Trump has told them? Do they really believe he can help them? What will they do in 3 years when nothing has changed with regard to their lot in life?", when the DNC hasn't aggressively addressed those issues with the same gusto they focus on the problems of the inner city poor? Have the last 8 years (and more obviously, to be fair) done anything to change their lot in life?

The soul searching articles/editorials I referenced in a separate thread finally acknowledge this.

I understand your fears and concerns about the six -isms, -obias, and - ys you list in your thread.

When people feel economically secure and not fearful, there's less room for those problems to fester. That was the answer to inner city problems: improve opportunities and quality of life.

As James Carville famously put it: "It's the economy, stupid."

(11-09-2016 10:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 09:43 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  First, I voted write-in, and evidently was only one of less than 500 in Harris County on election day to do so. I could not bring myself to vote for someone who frequently lies and their main reason for running was to be President. I could not vote for Trump who was, and is, largely unqualified, and an affront to moral decency (sorry, that's not debatable). Gary Johnson was an unqualified loon. At that point I was too tired to consider Jill Stein . . . but just, . . . .no.

The people at the precinct were clueless (truly) on what I needed to type in to make sure my ballot counted. Had to call the Harris County Clerk to verify that what I typed in was sufficient to have my vote counted.

Watching the national news media (some of whom were literally on the verge of tears at times, some who actually got angry at points in the evening) drove home exactly why Trump won, and why 2004 repeated itself for the Democrats.

1. Hillary. Had the Democrats run Joe Biden, I think they win the Presidency. He has his issues, but he comes across as a decent man. And a decent candidate beats Trump (and by decent, I mean someone who exhibits regularly the attributes of basic human decency). It's why Bernie Sanders DESERVED the Democratic nomination. It was not because Hillary was a woman. It is because she is the consummate career politician, and her public/private persona and her willingness to say and do anything to satisfy ambition could not be hidden after 24 years in the limelight. No one trusted her, and the extent to which the DNC took measures to assist her win the nomination was appalling. For some reasons, the Democrats thought that only Trump voters would be holding their nose while voting. Those on the far, far left must be true believers indeed.
2. East Coast Media. I'm not sure I would call it bias, because Trump was such a flawed candidate on many levels. But it was obvious they favored Trump. Anyone who watched the ABC election returns and couldn't see the anguish and disbelief throughout the night and thinks there wasn't favoritism is kidding themselves. The issue is that the media came to their conclusions early and frankly decided that there is only one possible 'right answer' and that everyone else saw it also. They don't see how it comes across: we know better, we live in a state (or DC) which is going to go overwhelmingly Democrat, we surround ourselves only with people who think like us, and we are going to help guide you to make the right decision.
3. Hillary had no identifiable agenda or plan. Nothing that stood out. Whereas Trump had "Make America Great Again" which the Dems mocked, at least it was identifiable to a constituency the Dems have ignored (and I'm not talking about the 1/2 of 1% that some here are worried about). Again, Hillary has been at this so long that I think the real agenda was transparent to everyone, or at least this is what they saw: on a personal note "2016: It's My Turn" or pandering "OK, We've had an African-American President, Let's Check Another Box"
Those are not good reasons, unless you're part of the DNC. We WILL have a woman president someday, but it will be someone who is elected because they have an identifiable message, or at least a message that translates outside the DNC.
4. The talking heads kept noting that Trump was overwhelmingly winning with non-college white males. It was clearly stated as an indictment. It's the Dems dog whistle for racist morons.
They would then turn around and lament "What do they think Trump is really going to be able to do for them" On ABC, this was the refrain over and over. There only answer was that he represented change.
What they failed to grasp is that the fact they view Trumps appeal to that demographic (which is quite large) as an indictment, and because the far left Dems concentrated on the coast do view them flyover America as populated by 'deplorables' is exactly why they voted Trump.
They kept asking what Trump was going to do for them. What they should've stopped and asked themselves is what Hillary has EVER given that group besides lip service. When she used the term "deplorable", she wasn't addressing any constituency of Trump's (and he got Latino votes, and other demographic votes, at least enough to win) other than 'less than college educated', white, male America.

Not a one of the talking heads stated how the Dems would help this constituency improve their standard of living.

In fact, they went to so far as to say "What will these voters do when nothing changes for them?"

Basically, this is their lot in life, to be left behind, it's their deserved fate (implied - it's their own fault, they're deplorable after all)

If the Democrats invested the time and effort that LBJ put into the Great Society into that demographic (and not necessarily Great Society programs - maybe a focus on better education and access to college - Bernie hit on that big time. But it seemed like the DNC's version of that was targeting making it affordable for the kids already there or who had amassed student debt. The Trump demographic certainly didn't feel it was directed at them.

I was shocked. After 2004, I should not be. The DNC's ability to misread large swaths of the electorate is well documented.

For weeks I had been saying that Trump was the only Republican Hillary could beat.

Now the reality may have been that Hillary is the one Democrat that Trump could beat (albeit Kaine was even worse, IMO).

Well said, Rick. As I was telling my nephew late night when he pointed out the "Not cpllege educated" demographic to me, think of that demo as 'working class", not "stupid racists".

I am a college educated white male of partial Hispanic descent and many hispanic family members. his comment about "rapists" were offensive to me, but I recognized he was talking about illegal immigrants and not Mexicans, as the media tried to play it. 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 have to watch the evil/corrupt MSM and how they attempt to twist things. I know you know that too. You're great guy and a smart one too.

Make the others smart to O O.

(11-11-2016 07:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 11:38 PM)JOwl Wrote:  We agree that the denominator is many verbalized disagreements with Obama from you over the last 8 + years. I counted a numerator of one suggestion of racial bias, you said a numerator of a few. Thus I noted that I thought our numbers roughly agreed with each other.
Those ratios are certainly much closer to each other than your original claim that _every_ time you publicly disagree with Obama you get called a racist.
Hey man, I hear your pain. It hurts that you've been called a racist so many times. But don't take it out on the Quad. This is your safe space, they don't call you those names here.

We should probably both reread my first comment. What I said was that whenever i criticize Obama, "very quickly" some leftist plays the race card. That implies a few rounds back and forth, and then here comes the race card. The denominator isn't huge in this room because there haven't been many exchanges that lasted that long in here. This place has been pretty dead for 2-3 years, so most of my political discussions have been on other politically-themed boards.

But this whole exchange has sort of epitomized what I'm trying to say. You responded to my post by claiming that I have been "attacking Obama ceaselessly for the last 8 and a half years on this very Quad," and then pointing to there specific comments of mine as being either racially charged or otherwise ad hominem attacks. I have criticized Obama consistently because i think he's wrong, but not "ceaselessly." I've come far closer to criticizing David Bailiff ceaselessly than I have Obama, at least on the Rice board.

And the three comments have none of the meaning that you attempt to attribute to them. The street hustlers and drug dealers to whom I compared Obama's mannerisms and gestures were virtually all, if not all, white. Chance the Gardner was portrayed by Peter Sellers, who when last I checked was English (although I will concede IIRC had his skin darkened in the movie), and the comparison was to the very element that the movie satirized--the uncritical fawning with which followers responded to every word out of his mouth, no matter how wrong headed and stupid. And the "comparison to Hitler" (who was white) was a comment that the scene at Mile High Stadium reminded me of Nuremberg, which it did and still does.

It's this tendency to seize upon every critical comment and push it toward some sort of sinister ulterior meaning, mostly racism in the case of Obama or sexism in the case of Hillary, that pisses off people who offer well-intended criticism. You're responding to my comments by restating them to suit your narrative, instead of paying attention to what I actually wrote. I don't think you realize that you're doing it, and I certainly don't think you have any idea how badly that kind of arrogant condescension plays with those at whom it is directed. People are tired of these kinds of responses, and those people voted against your candidate on Tuesday.

Chance the Gardner could probably have come up with a better health care plan than Obamacare. But when anyone like me tried to point out the obvious problems, the response was, oh no, it's all going to work, Obama said so. Republicans just voted against it en masse because the black man proposed it. So far, virtually no part of it has worked as advertised. That's what I meant by the Chance the Gardner comment.

Do you really not believe that the staged setting at Mile High was a bit over the top? You could have responded with, yes, that was a bit much, but instead had to launch into the Hitler allegation.

I really don't think you get it. I hope the left doesn't get it for a while, frankly, because I don't like the direction that you would lead the country, and without the votes of middle America you're going to have a hard time pushing very far down that road.

This last comment does not imply in any way, shape, or form that I like where Trump and the republicans would lead the country.

Your claim was that every time you criticize Obama, you get called a racist. Every time.

Our discussion clarifies that your claim is a lie: You've made 400+ posts (link) on the quad that mention Obama, on 90+ separate threads (link). So let's assume at least 90 criticisms (or cut that in half, whatever). By your statement, you've been accused of racism a few times.

And to clarify, I pointed to the "street hustler" discussion not to call you a racist, or to re-litigate that debate (although I still fondly recall the PM discussion where you had twisted into claiming the comment was a fair policy criticism and not an unfair personal attack), but only to make it clear that I was not claiming that you had _never_ had comments attributed (or misattributed) to racial motivations here on the Quad.

And further: I formally and publicly retract my statement of "racial overtones", given that your experience with "drug dealing street hustlers" has been mostly with white ones.

(11-11-2016 01:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Oh, sure, there is racism and racists on the right, but they are not THE right.

A statement exactly in line with Hillary's.

(11-11-2016 01:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  They both died, each at age 97, having never voted for a Republican in their lives. They were my (former) in-laws. She was a seventh grade drop out and picked cotton as a child, due to the poverty of her family. He was a CB in WWII. Blue collar all the way.

I don't know if they voted or not that year. I divorced their daughter in 1984, and saw them only sporadically after that. If they did, I am sure it would have been STD (Straight Ticket Democrat). They would have seen staying home as the only other possible alternative. He was in really bad health by then, so it could be either. He had previously told me he would stay home rather than vote for a (n-word).


True story: A few days before the Nixon-McGovern election, we were at their house, and there was politics on the news. Out of nowhere, my father-in-law said " I sure hope Nixon wins. He's the best man in this election." Amazed, I said 'Albert, I never thought you would ever vote for a Republican". He replied "Oh, I'm not going to vote for him." Being young and naive, I asked "But why not, if you think he is the best man?' he looked at me like I was the stupidest person in the world, and answered, in a tone of voice like he was talking to a dog, "Well, if I did that I couldn't vote a straight ticket, could I?"

When we visited, he and I could only talk sports. Politics and religion were to be avoided (very devout fundamentalist Baptists, and I was an atheist at that time).

Sorry to hear they passed. My father-in-law and I can talk politics, up to a point. He's a die-hard union electrician (although the union has gone to hell in the decade since he retired, apparently), hunter, and deeply committed Republican who has Fox News on for the entirety of our visits to their house at the holidays. Despite his penchant for pushing the buttons of his feminist, vegetarian daughter, he clearly loves and respects her very much, and that's enough for me.

(11-11-2016 01:35 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Substantively, this is probably more fitting for the Trump Administration thread, but it's sort of snarky, so I figured I'd post here since we've all got our knickers in a twist here already.

It took me a long time to believe that Trump actually wanted to be President. Now, I am beginning to wonder if he's thinking *%&! What have I done?

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/donald-...1788862854

Did you see that 2012 Tweet-storm from Trump, the one where he thought Obama was going to win the Presidency by taking the electoral college while Romney was going to win the popular vote? (For reference, this was shortly after the election was called for Obama, because it was clear he would win California, etc, but there were still lots of votes from out west that hadn't yet been counted and included in the popular vote tally on the newscasts.)

Anyway, here are the relevant Tweets:

Donald Trump, via Twitter, 11/6/2012 Wrote:"He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!"
"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!"
"We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!"
"More votes equals a loss...revolution!"
"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201...goper.html

So here's my thinking, I mean, lots of people are saying, I don't know, but plenty of people have said Trump just wanted to win the election, not actually be President. I think I've finally cracked it! Trump's been playing the ultimate long game, and playing it so very well...
Step 1: Tweet storm in 2012, calling out the Electoral College as bull****.
Step 2: Win the Presidency via the Electoral College in 2016... while losing the popular vote.
Step 3: Stage a one-man revolt on 1/20/2017: refuse to be sworn in as President.
Step 4: Mic drop.

(11-11-2016 02:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Coincidental that both these men had it take off on them versus the same opponent?

I wondered on Thursday if this "common opponent" came up during that closed door meeting.

Donald Trump, 60 Minutes interview 11/13/2016 Wrote:I hated– well, you know, I’m not going to change my mind just because I won. But I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win. There’s a reason for doing this because it brings all the states into play. Electoral College and there’s something very good about that. But this is a different system. But I respect it. I do respect the system.

Step 3.a. complete.

(11-13-2016 08:16 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

Donald Trump, 60 Minutes interview 11/13/2016 Wrote:I hated– well, you know, I’m not going to change my mind just because I won. But I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win. There’s a reason for doing this because it brings all the states into play. Electoral College and there’s something very good about that. But this is a different system. But I respect it. I do respect the system.

Step 3.a. complete.

Pass a law changing the electoral college and make it retroactive?

The next 4 years are going to be interesting.

(11-13-2016 08:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-13-2016 08:16 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

Donald Trump, 60 Minutes interview 11/13/2016 Wrote:I hated– well, you know, I’m not going to change my mind just because I won. But I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win. There’s a reason for doing this because it brings all the states into play. Electoral College and there’s something very good about that. But this is a different system. But I respect it. I do respect the system.

Step 3.a. complete.

Pass a law changing the electoral college and make it retroactive?

Would have to be an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote. Passing a Federal law changing the method of assigning electors runs afoul of the Tenth Amendment. The states could do it themselves (and slowly are; see the National Public Vote Interstate Compact), but all run afoul of the clauses on ex post facto laws (Article I, Section 9, clause 3 for Congress; Article I, Section 10 for the states).

It's a fun thought, though.

(11-13-2016 08:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-13-2016 08:16 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

Donald Trump, 60 Minutes interview 11/13/2016 Wrote:I hated– well, you know, I’m not going to change my mind just because I won. But I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win. There’s a reason for doing this because it brings all the states into play. Electoral College and there’s something very good about that. But this is a different system. But I respect it. I do respect the system.

Step 3.a. complete.

Pass a law changing the electoral college and make it retroactive?

Passing laws? What are you, part of the establishment?

Nah, just jukin' and dekin'; a little word salad burying his real beliefs next to a statement of (ha!) respect for the system. It's his head fake before tearing the rim off and bringing the whole system down on 1/20/17.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/w...li=BBnbcA1

"To paint everyone who voted for Trump as a racist, or homophobe, or woman-hater, or to stuff half of them into a basket labeled "deplorable," to use Hillary Clinton's infelicitous term, ignores and delegitimizes a deeply held sense of abandonment.

"Everyone who voted for Trump is being called names," said Janet Flanigan, 54, as she stood outside a Thai restaurant and sushi bar in the courthouse square in Newnan, Ga., a former cotton town about 40 miles southwest of Atlanta. "We're called redneck, ignorant, racist, haters."

To about half the voters Hiliary was the better candidate of the two main parties. To about half the voters Trump was the better choice of the two main parties. Either of those groups was going to wake up the next morning to find it extremely difficult to understand how so many could have voted for the other candidate. Perhaps if the press hadn't colluded so heavily in its bias toward one candidate at the expense of doing its job the effect would have been softened.

More of those who voted for Trump have experienced that feeling before in one or both of the past two elections, and are thus familiar with how it feels. Apparently, those who "won" last time, have little concept or idea how to handle a loss, based on reading the press for the last week plus. I don't recall, however, widespread disorder, rioting, destruction etc...that some areas seem to be experiencing now back in either of the last two elections from those whose candidate was not successful.

Nor do I recall the blatant and pervasive disassociation and highly unprofessional journalistic near-hostility and open and biased partiality in story after story for the winning candidate that lasted days and into the following weeks, and seems to show little sign of abating. A free and even-handed press used to be an important component of our Republic, but it seems those days are long gone.

I would venture to guess that had the outcome been reversed, a smug ''told you so" and "go away, losers" attitude and bias would have been equally as prevalent in the press toward a Trump defeat this time, as well as severe condemnation and demands for swift and merciless justice and prosecution for anyone who dared riot or cause disruption post-election for a Trump who lost in the face of Mighty Hiliary.

However, the collective behavior of the supporters from the left we have been witnessing, that is a mystery to me.

(11-11-2016 01:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 12:04 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I guess here's a fundamental question that might reveal this whole thread to be pointless.

For those of you angry about the "deplorables" comment. I get that you feel it was unfairly applied to you.

However, do you agree or disagree that the Trump campaign intentionally appealed to and garnered support for:

racism
bigotry
Islamophobia
xenophobia
sexism
misogyny

Intentionally appealed to: Disagree

That, to me, is just mind boggling. I'm not saying that it was 100% of his campaign or support. But to argue that it was 0%?