(11-14-2016 04:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 02:10 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  That so many people decided that the hate and racism and misogyny was not a deal breaker.

Or maybe they decided that the hate and racism and misogyny weren't real. This is the point I keep trying to make and you keep ignoring. For 8 years, disagreements with Obama have been met with the race card. Hell, you tried to throw the race card at me in this very thread over comments that had nothing to do with race. Then Hillary comes along and if you disagree with her, it's because you hate women. Then allegations of misogyny are made against Trump, in many cases by the same people who defended Bill Clinton to the hilt when he had a lot more than unsubstantiated allegations against him. People simply got tired of it. And the more you keep making the same allegations, the more you piss off the people who are tired of it.

I don't like Obama, and I don't like Hillary, because they have terrible ideas. Whether he is black or she is female has nothing to do with it. I would dislike a white male with the same ideas. Hell, I voted for Hillary against Bernie in the primary because I thought Bernie's ideas were worse than heres and it was imperative to stop someone with Bernie's ideas. For the record I think Trump's ideas--at least his big three of build a wall, keep out Muslims, and build trade barriers--are awful, and that's why I did not vote for him. But at least he was playing the role of outsider raging against the machine, and I can surely understand how that appealed to some.

We have this privileged elite ruling class, mostly around the DC/NY area but spread nationwide, who seem to think that it's their God-given right to manage everyone else's business, because they can do it so much better than we can for ourselves. Their thoughts and ideas are so much superior to everyone else's that no reasonable person could oppose them on ideas--it has to be race or sex or some other form of irrational hatred.

Well, here's from me to that elite group of snobs--I dislike you intensely, because your ideas suck. And I don't appreciate your attempts to ram them down my throat. Not even a tiny bit. And it's not because you are black or female or Muslim or God knows what that I dislike--it's because you are f-ing a-holes. Mid-America just sent exactly that same message.

I don't recall "throwing the race card" at you, but then I'm not sure I even know what qualifies.

You keep throwing out this straw man. I don't know anyone who thinks all opposition to Obama's policies is racial, for example. I do know that from some it IS racial. We just had another public official put on leave because they tweeted that they were glad we'd no longer have "an ape in heels" for first lady. Was birtherism not racial? Are you seriously going to tell me the Trump campaign wasn't intentionally appealing to racism and bigotry? We wouldn't be having this conversation if it was President-elect Kasich. I mean sure, we'd have some common elements but the outrage and fear that some people are feeling wouldn't be there.

At a protest last night in Austin, pro-Trump counter-protesters had signs saying "F--- Your Feelings!" Why is it that only the feelings of the poor oppressed white males matter? I really can't figure out if you and OO are being disingenuous when you act like Trump did not run a hateful, divisive campaign based on bigotry. He did. He crossed many lines that in a civilized country should not be crossed.

So I stand by my original statement that I do not understand how someone who was not a racist, a bigot, a misogynist could vote for him. I really don't. I accept that many did. I just don't understand how they can reconcile it. It's not like voting for someone despite disagreeing on TPP.

(11-15-2016 10:26 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(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.

My concern with Trump from early on (before the media was discussing dog whistles) is that Trump seemed to deliberately appeal to racists and the basket of deplorables (I can use the phrase...I'm not running for office) to build an early base, and the subtle undertones of appeal to racist sentiments continued all the way through the end of the campaign. I can't say that I know enough about Trump to say that he is a racist himself. At best, he has innocently continued to retweet "racial realists" (hereafter abbreviated to "racists" by removing a few select letters)... somewhere in the middle is the possibility that he is a latent KKK and/or neo-Nazi who's been clever enough to conceal his activities... at worst, he has cynically chosen to appeal to a part of the electorate that the democrats really can't effectively compete for, and he's done it by following a Machiavellian/KKK script that reads "how to appeal to and energize the white working class electorate using standard racist memes to appeal to a mainstream audience".

In that light, the Mexican Rapists is almost straight out of The Prince. The "Muslim ban" is a tribal us versus them appeal, regardless of the merits or lack thereof. The appeal to protectionism (who'd have thunk that - absent a political campaign - Trump would rail against free trade?) is enough to overcome whatever influence political unions might have on their members (who I imagine support unions because (1) they have to, and (2) to the extent that it benefits them... but at the same time, fundamentally despise the union itself). The Soros/Yellin/??? ad at the end of the campaign also sought to put a wedge between "international elite" and the American working class... as a dual purpose, antisemitic undertones may benefit the ultimate turnout. I think it's the latter... I don't think Trump repeatedly got into this mess of re-tweeting racists by accident.

My concern is that the last 3-4 presidential elections reinforce the value of politicians that purposefully divide the populace by using or appealing to race. Worse, is that the American electorate seems to seek out narcissists for POTUS.

Who said that Cthulu for President was only a joke?

edit: I'm still catching up to the thread and just saw this comment, which stands in contrast to my conclusion above (and I don't think it is one sided - I think the Democratic party is very much to blame in creating and exploiting racial divides) ...

(11-08-2016 11:41 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  In all three of those cases he has peddled lies (fake crime stats, myths about Muslims celebrating 9/11 in NJ, lies about vigils for the killer of the Dallas police officers, etc.) in order to stoke hatred and anger toward minority groups.
That is just flat out wrong, and a classic ploy of demagogues and authoritarians and I hope to god today's results show that that's not who we are as a people.

(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.

The problem with applying reason to incendiary comments is that you've already lost control of the situation when you're in a position of trying to explain what you meant. It shows the same basic contempt for the electorate that Romney's 49% (or binder full of women) did, and that's at a juncture where you have narcissists trying to show some humility and deceive enough people into thinking that the candidate actually respects them and is concerned about their individual welfare that they can ascend to office and move on to pursuing their own agendas.

(11-09-2016 02:18 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Saw a tweet last night from a right-leaning pundit, as the results started showing things much tighter than expected: "Any other Republican would have beaten her. Any other Democrat would have beaten him."

I have been telling friends and family that both parties tried their best to lose the election... it's just that Trump sucked at it a little bit more than Hillary did.

I can agree with the last paragraph. Although by Election Day i had resigned myself to Empress Hillary. I, for one, would not have been demonstrating in the streets. You have elections, you accept the results or ask for a recount.

As for the racism/sexism, I guess we will see when he starts making appointments. If they are all white men, it makes the racist/sexist point. If not...not.

(11-14-2016 04:28 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 02:10 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  That so many people decided that the hate and racism and misogyny was not a deal breaker.

That's one way of looking at it, but not a very productive line of thinking for Democrats. I'm sure you've seen lots of articles with headlines like this, but this is the best one I've read:

What So Many People Don’t Get About the U.S. Working Class

Yes, I was actually going to post that one. The democrats do need to think on this issue quite a bit - I don't actually disagree with OO and Owl69 on that. But it has to be done while without appealing to those same -isms. That's the tough one. You can add anti-intellectualism in there too. I don't think we (Americans) need to indulge that any more than we already do.

(11-14-2016 05:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 02:10 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  te]

No, I believe it was a strategy to appeal to racism and racial resentment in more direct and blatant ways than Republicans had dared.

so you do think it was a deliberate choice. No wonder you cling so bitterly to the "intentional" descriptor.

Sigh. Yes, it was a deliberate choice. He was condemned repeatedly by *other Republicans* for it.

Latino vote

"Rural white voters, he explained, aren’t the only ones frightened by the specter of feminism, Muslim immigrants and L.G.B.T. rights. “For many Hispanic Americans, the cultural changes of the past 15 years have been very hard. Trump, for many, is a return to the mother’s womb.”


"While a clear majority of the state’s Latinos cast their votes for Clinton, plenty of others responded to Trump’s hostility toward undocumented immigrants."

Please note the use of "undocumented immigrants". Apparently many Hispanics saw his comments the same way I did.

FTR, I think the Wall is stupid, and I don't advocate wholesale deportation. I do think we need to get control of our borders.

(11-15-2016 11:09 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 02:10 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  te]

No, I believe it was a strategy to appeal to racism and racial resentment in more direct and blatant ways than Republicans had dared.

so you do think it was a deliberate choice. No wonder you cling so bitterly to the "intentional" descriptor.

Sigh. Yes, it was a deliberate choice. He was condemned repeatedly by *other Republicans* for it.

I guess we will disagree on that.

(11-14-2016 05:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess we won't convince each other. I will continue to regard the left as classist snobs, and you can continue to regard me and my friends as morally bankrupt Yahoos.

I don't believe I've said that about you or your friends, but it seems important to you to believe I (or other 'leftists') did, so OK.

(11-14-2016 05:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  best of luck to you and yours in all your endeavors.

To you as well.

(11-15-2016 11:02 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 04:28 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 02:10 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  That so many people decided that the hate and racism and misogyny was not a deal breaker.

That's one way of looking at it, but not a very productive line of thinking for Democrats. I'm sure you've seen lots of articles with headlines like this, but this is the best one I've read:

What So Many People Don’t Get About the U.S. Working Class

Yes, I was actually going to post that one. The democrats do need to think on this issue quite a bit - I don't actually disagree with OO and Owl69 on that. But it has to be done while without appealing to those same -isms. That's the tough one. You can add anti-intellectualism in there too. I don't think we (Americans) need to indulge that any more than we already do.

wow, what an interesting article. Thanks for posting the link. I especially agree with the following quote:

Quote:The dream is not to become upper-middle-class, with its different food, family, and friendship patterns; the dream is to live in your own class milieu, where you feel comfortable — just with more money. “The main thing is to be independent and give your own orders and not have to take them from anybody else,” a machine operator told Lamont. Owning one’s own business — that’s the goal. That’s another part of Trump’s appeal.

I think that is what many don't get--that people are happy with who they are, they would just like more money and independence, not more government programs and less control over their lives, which appears to be all the Democratic Party thinks they should have.

And, importantly, if one of the goals is owning your own business, you do *not* want the government and regulators in there over-regulating and impeding your creativity, ability to make your own money and run your business the way you want. That is among the big reasons why so many hated Obamacare. People of all backgrounds by and large want to be left alone in this country to live their own lives and chase their own different dreams. The government has gotten way too involved in impeding that.

(11-15-2016 11:15 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess we won't convince each other. I will continue to regard the left as classist snobs, and you can continue to regard me and my friends as morally bankrupt Yahoos.

I don't believe I've said that about you or your friends, but it seems important to you to believe I (or other 'leftists') did, so OK.

Not you personally, but it is clear the party you support and defend does. Been that way a long time. Tired of it. Apparently, so are millions of others.

Imagine, a liberal telling me my feelings are invalid. Important to "believe"? Is that dismissive, or what?

(11-15-2016 08:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 11:05 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 03:08 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  George HW Bush was the last Republican to become president winning the popular vote.

Actually W won the popular vote in 2004.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...tion,_2004



w

If you will notice --- JAAO was *VERY* careful and particular in how he phrased this. The term he used was "become". GWB did not "become" president in 2004. He was re-elected.

I almost bit on the same troll line. Hate to say, but this type of phrase parsage reeks of "depends on what is is".....

LOL, yes, I was trying to conceal my top secret knowledge of the 2004 election.

Incumbents are generally favored in presidential elections, all else being equal. (At least according to conventional wisdom - but conventional wisdom has taken quite a beating lately...) But we've had three presidents this century, all three initially elected without an incumbent running. The Democratic candidate won the popular vote all three times. The EC elected the Republican two of those three times.

If that keeps happening, I think it's an issue for the health of our democracy, and would be if it was happening in the other direction as well.

(11-14-2016 02:10 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  That so many people decided that the hate and racism and misogyny was not a deal breaker.

That so many decided that the absolute contempt for 18 USC 1983 (f) inter alia relating to the storage and transmission of confidential information, the underlying reason for the private server was absolute contempt for the Public Records Act and a really misguided attempt to circumvent those pesky FOIA requests, and some actions that could be readily construed as obstruction of justice in their handling post-server relevation (with a nice tasty side of rapid and incessant lies about it tending to show the necessary requisite intent for obstruction)....

But lets just gloss over those and just keep repeating "racism and sexism" is the main and only issue facing the voters.....

JAAO -- the main problem is the mainstream left absolutely screamed bloody murder over Reagan, Papa Bush, Dole, Baby Bush, McCain, and Romney as evil racists and sexists. In fact, relating to Romney, I seem to remember the Biden quote to the African American group he was speaking to as "He [Romney] will put you back in chains."

I mean, we are talking *Romney*. The problem is with those cards being played ever gd incessantly (even against a pretty good guy like Romney), they tend to lose their punch. And the people you aim them against at some point will tell the people saying that to go jump off a cliff. Looks like they just did.

And you seemingly continue to do so. Just saying.

Hell Im more of a libertarian (little L) than anything else. To be blunt, in the last 8 years in Silicon Valley I have had at least 10 people say to my face that I am a racist (literal words) b/c I did not like Obama's health policy simply based on my Chicago-school economic viewpoints.

Have had two people in Austin since I moved back a yer and a half ago say literally the same thing. Im kind of resigned that I will probably never vote Democratic for a long time due to this singular behavior (before I had broken about 65-35 in presidential elections).

But I am tired of the myna-birdlike fixation of the left to brand anything that they dont see eye to eye with as "racist" or "sexist" as knee-jerk autonomic response.

I will grant you that Trump is a creep, a narcissist, and a thin-skinned a-hole with very little mouth control. But sorry, I for one have had it with the knee jerk reaction served up by the left since the Cambrian. Perhaps if the Dems hadnt nominated probably the most corrupt individual since Nixon to vie for the office it might have been different in my case.

But I see one hot steaming pile of (word that means suboptimal that rhymes with "pit") candidate compared to another hot steaming pile of (word that means suboptimal that rhymes with "pit") candidate, it doesnt behoove one side to needle me about what a racist a-hole I am for not believing in their hot steaming pile, in addition to the continuous litany of the same I have personally experienced for the last 8+ years.

When the left runs against any Republican next time dont commit the two-fer of nominating someone who should belong in the pen (numerous times in her career, some more explicitly than others), then tell me what a terrible person I am ad nauseum for not either : a) agreeing with the minority race president; and/or b) falling in love with their hot steaming pile as opposed to the other equally as vile pile.

At least when I have conversation with that other side these days (with which I have a lot of disagreements with), they dont incessantly brand me as a "heretic" (or whatever the hell passes for their knee jerk demeaning label that they automatically use to dismiss someone's viewpoint....)

Just remember that yes, there are a LOT of issues with the Donald. But you really dont seem to understand that to a large swath that Hills is JUST as contemptible in her actions, and that the side that Hills plays for continuously harps on how evil, ugly, racist, sexist, (and every other -ist there is for that matter) those who do not agree with them in lockstep are.

(11-15-2016 10:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As for the racism/sexism, I guess we will see when he starts making appointments. If they are all white men, it makes the racist/sexist point. If not...not.

I guess my point is that it bothers me more that he'd appeal to racists in order to get elected than it would if he is an actual died in the wool racist. I think we've seen already how flexible he is on principles when it comes to serving his goals, and I think those goals have more to do with narcissism than any kind of ideal.

PBS's Gwen Ifill dead at 61.

Wow. I didn't know she was that sick. 1955-2016. RIP.

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/pbs-newshours-g...06327.html

(11-15-2016 11:54 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 10:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As for the racism/sexism, I guess we will see when he starts making appointments. If they are all white men, it makes the racist/sexist point. If not...not.

I guess my point is that it bothers me more that he'd appeal to racists in order to get elected than it would if he is an actual died in the wool racist. I think we've seen already how flexible he is on principles when it comes to serving his goals, and I think those goals have more to do with narcissism than any kind of ideal.

Could be. I for one hope his principles are flexible, as I disagree with him on a lot of things. I hope he goes more pragmatic than a stupid wall or blanket deportation.

FTR. here is the OO plan. Part one: Allow a 60 day amnesty for those here illegally to start the process to become legal in some recognized way. Once this process is started, deportation is off the table for them, as long as they continue the process. Allow a process for the kids brought and raised here to apply for a legal status (not neccesarily citizenship)
Part Two: After the 60 days is up, zero tolerance for new illegals and any old illegals who did not bother or care to become legal. Beef up the Border Patrol and support them.
Part three: Require employers to make a 20% withholding for all those who are in the process of becoming legal. Of course, they can get most of it back when they file their taxes.

I am sure this would need a lot of tweaks, but i want to be fair to those already here without just giving up on immigration enforcement.

(11-14-2016 04:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 02:10 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  That so many people decided that the hate and racism and misogyny was not a deal breaker.

Or maybe they decided that the hate and racism and misogyny weren't real. This is the point I keep trying to make and you keep ignoring. For 8 years, disagreements with Obama have been met with the race card.

A third possibility is that they didn't make any kind of conclusion on whether it was real or not, but definitely reacted to perceived political correctness.

I think many people aren't very good at recognizing obvious references to white supremacist language or rhetoric (see examples of overtly anti-semetic comments on this site below). Lining up Soros, Yellen and whoever else it was in a sinister video is subtle, but the Trump campaign has unapologetic-ally played to both sides way too many times for there to be no intent, IMHO.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-779939-post-132...id13269918
http://csnbbs.com/thread-783411-post-133...id13368108

(11-15-2016 11:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 02:10 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  That so many people decided that the hate and racism and misogyny was not a deal breaker.

That so many decided that the absolute contempt for 18 USC 1983 (f) inter alia relating to the storage and transmission of confidential information, the underlying reason for the private server was absolute contempt for the Public Records Act and a really misguided attempt to circumvent those pesky FOIA requests, and some actions that could be readily construed as obstruction of justice in their handling post-server relevation (with a nice tasty side of rapid and incessant lies about it tending to show the necessary requisite intent for obstruction)....

But lets just gloss over those and just keep repeating "racism and sexism" is the main and only issue facing the voters.....

JAAO -- the main problem is the mainstream left absolutely screamed bloody murder over Reagan, Papa Bush, Dole, Baby Bush, McCain, and Romney as evil racists and sexists. In fact, relating to Romney, I seem to remember the Biden quote to the African American group he was speaking to as "He [Romney] will put you back in chains."

I mean, we are talking *Romney*. The problem is with those cards being played ever gd incessantly (even against a pretty good guy like Romney), they tend to lose their punch. And the people you aim them against at some point will tell the people saying that to go jump off a cliff. Looks like they just did.

And you seemingly continue to do so. Just saying.

Hell Im more of a libertarian (little L) than anything else. To be blunt, in the last 8 years in Silicon Valley I have had at least 10 people say to my face that I am a racist (literal words) b/c I did not like Obama's health policy simply based on my Chicago-school economic viewpoints.

Have had two people in Austin since I moved back a yer and a half ago say literally the same thing. Im kind of resigned that I will probably never vote Democratic for a long time due to this singular behavior (before I had broken about 65-35 in presidential elections).

But I am tired of the myna-birdlike fixation of the left to brand anything that they dont see eye to eye with as "racist" or "sexist" as knee-jerk autonomic response.

I will grant you that Trump is a creep, a narcissist, and a thin-skinned a-hole with very little mouth control. But sorry, I for one have had it with the knee jerk reaction served up by the left since the Cambrian. Perhaps if the Dems hadnt nominated probably the most corrupt individual since Nixon to vie for the office it might have been different in my case.

But I see one hot steaming pile of (word that means suboptimal that rhymes with "pit") candidate compared to another hot steaming pile of (word that means suboptimal that rhymes with "pit") candidate, it doesnt behoove one side to needle me about what a racist a-hole I am for not believing in their hot steaming pile, in addition to the continuous litany of the same I have personally experienced for the last 8+ years.

When the left runs against any Republican next time dont commit the two-fer of nominating someone who should belong in the pen (numerous times in her career, some more explicitly than others), then tell me what a terrible person I am ad nauseum for not either : a) agreeing with the minority race president; and/or b) falling in love with their hot steaming pile as opposed to the other equally as vile pile.

At least when I have conversation with that other side these days (with which I have a lot of disagreements with), they dont incessantly brand me as a "heretic" (or whatever the hell passes for their knee jerk demeaning label that they automatically use to dismiss someone's viewpoint....)

Just remember that yes, there are a LOT of issues with the Donald. But you really dont seem to understand that to a large swath that Hills is JUST as contemptible in her actions, and that the side that Hills plays for continuously harps on how evil, ugly, racist, sexist, (and every other -ist there is for that matter) those who do not agree with them in lockstep are.

I was talking to some friends before the election and brought up this point. One thing I said was that, if anything, I was hoping that the upcoming election was going to teach the Dems what a real-a**hole looked like, and the party and its supporters would stop over-reacting to every candidate on the right. Because as you stated (and as Owl69 has with regards to regular right wingers), the comments about inflammatory language/actions/ideas lose their punch when they are repeated ad nausea about candidates who really aren't that bad. I mean, while it was kind of funny, Romney got raked over the coals for his "binder of women" comment which wasn't bad. The worst thing he said was the 47% line, which was just as bad as the deplorables. But he did not deserve some of the flame-throwing from the left, and the bloviating, orange, race bating turd of a president-elect proved that.

But by giving all Republican challengers such a raw deal in the past, when someone showed up who actually used xenophobia and race-baiting language to drive a significant amount of the momentum behind his campaign, as others have said, people were tired of it.

I don't think right wingers are generally much better about focusing on the issues their opponents put forth, but they do a better job of not universally striking the same chord, over, and over. Except, I do get tired of hearing how every single liberal is a socialist or a Marxist on a routine basis.

I was really looking forward to four years of being told my every disagreement with President Clinton was because I just couldn't stand a woman in charge. It would be a welcome change from the last eight, when all my disagreements with Obama were attributed to me just not being able to accept that a black man was President.

I knew this was going to be an "I told you so" election, no matter who won.

(11-15-2016 12:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I knew this was going to be an "I told you so" election, no matter who won.

In other words you are saying "I told you so that this would be an I told you so election?" Cute.

(11-15-2016 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 12:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I knew this was going to be an "I told you so" election, no matter who won.

In other words you are saying "I told you so that this would be an I told you so election?" Cute.

Except I forgot tell anybody.

(11-15-2016 12:17 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Lining up Soros, Yellen and whoever else it was in a sinister video is subtle, but the Trump campaign has unapologetic-ally played to both sides way too many times for there to be no intent, IMHO.

If you're trying to convince me that Trump is anti-Semitic, it's going to take a lot more than putting Soros and Yellen and whoever else in a video. I know Soros is Jewish, but only because of the stories about how he ratted out his fellow Jews to the Nazis. I had no idea Yellen was Jewish, and frankly couldn't care less. I can't even remember who whoever else was, let alone whether he/she is Jewish.

People are pissed off at Soros, not because he is Jewish, but because he is an evil human being who seems to be dedicated to destroying western economies. People are pissed off at Yellen, not because she is Jewish, but because she represents the establishment that so many feel has screwed them.

This is the problem that the left doesn't seem to get. The more you try to marginalize legitimate complaints by passing them off as racism or sexism or xenophobia or whatever, the more you are going to piss off the people who are complaining. There are legitimate people who have legitimate and honestly-held complaints and who are tired of being marginalized, and they turned against you big time in this last election. And as long as you maintain your holier-than-thou condescension, all you're going to accomplish is pissing them off even more.