(11-16-2016 02:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/d...li=BBnbcA1

Thanks for posting. Interesting article that hits on pretty much all the themes we've hit on. My takeaway? Pretty much that we've all been right and wrong, which isn't too surprising.

People did not vote for Donald Trump because of racism or homophobia or xenophobia or sexism or misogyny or Islamophobia. If anything, I think each iff those allegations probably cost him votes, which is of course why they were alleged.

They voted for Donald Trump because they are tired of smug, arrogant, and condescending democrats pissing on their leg and telling them it's raining.

(11-15-2016 02:13 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  On a somewhat different subject, now that it's "after the election" Trump will release his tax returns like he said, right?

I am glad he did not release any before the election during the campaign. I hope the previous precedent for doing so is broken in future elections. If there are additional things that people wish to be disclosed, I would hope they amend the campaign informational filings to reflect that. Many less sophisticated voters who don't understand the tax laws in place and the reasons for them get riled up about perfectly legitimate deductions.

I'd actually prefer a blanket prohibition for all candidates releasing tax returns during a campaign (they could release them after if they wished) to stop the witch hunt mentality and penalties for those who might leak them. Beef up the financial disclosures instead.

What specific information that was not in the campaign filings and disclosures do you think was so vital that would have changed how you voted (and I'm guessing you did not vote for Trump, so would that have changed?)

(11-16-2016 07:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 02:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/d...li=BBnbcA1

Thanks for posting. Interesting article that hits on pretty much all the themes we've hit on. My takeaway? Pretty much that we've all been right and wrong, which isn't too surprising.

I felt there were things in there that each side could cherry pick if they so desired.

(11-15-2016 06:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 06:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Clearly, if I said half of all Clinton's supporters are dupes or idiots, everybody here would know I was not speaking of them.

If you said in one basket you have race-baiters, violent reactionaries, etc. and in the other people who are reasonable and just looking for a better government I would know you weren't. I mean, I know who and what I am and who and what is sometimes affiliated with the party.

I guess I should have defined the other half, as Clinton did.

Half of Clinton's supporters are elitists who think they are superior to the rest of the country and should prevail in all things, and half are just sincere dupes or idiots who just want a better world.

Better now?

It's nice to see the Rice Quad space get some more active use than it seemingly historically has. Hope we can see many more participating here to get additional diversity of viewpoints, or to agree or disagree with what has already been posted.)

(11-16-2016 09:58 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  It's nice to see the Rice Quad space get some more active use than it seemingly historically has. Hope we can see many more participating here to get additional diversity of viewpoints, or to agree or disagree with what has already been posted.)

I think that's one thing we can all agree on!

(11-16-2016 09:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 06:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 06:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Clearly, if I said half of all Clinton's supporters are dupes or idiots, everybody here would know I was not speaking of them.

If you said in one basket you have race-baiters, violent reactionaries, etc. and in the other people who are reasonable and just looking for a better government I would know you weren't. I mean, I know who and what I am and who and what is sometimes affiliated with the party.

I guess I should have defined the other half, as Clinton did.

Half of Clinton's supporters are elitists who think they are superior to the rest of the country and should prevail in all things, and half are just sincere dupes or idiots who just want a better world.

Better now?

No. Clinton didn't use any disparaging remarks about the other basket.

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

Where did she say anything about them being dupes or idiots? Isn't the language above what most of us having been saying about a lot of the Trump voters?

(11-15-2016 05:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 02:52 PM)I45owl Wrote:  I am just saying that there are a lot of people that anti-semitism does appeal to, and I think the Trump campaign deliberately exploited that. I think it is in line with the "mexican rapist" and "muslim ban".
...
But, there are those that believe in the cosmopolitan elite (Jews) that secretly run the world, and they are certainly encouraged by singling out Jews in that kind of ad. As an isolated incident, it wouldn't concern me, but the campaign seems to have mainstreamed the appeal to the neo-nazi crowd.

I doubt very seriously that the "neo-Nazi crowd" was sufficient in number to have constituted the margin of victory in a single state that Trump won. So if that was their approach, it was a very stupid one.

Hillary didn't lose because of neo-nazis, she lost because a lot of people think her ideas suck. This is the problem with the liberal intelligentsia. You are so convinced of the superiority of your ideas that you find it impossible to grasp the notion that people could vote against you because your ideas suck. No, it has to be something else--racism or sexism or xenophobia or homophobia or whatever.

Wrap your head around it--your ideas suck.

I dislike Obama, not because he is a black man, but because his ideas suck.
I dislike Hillary, not because she is a woman, but because her ideas suck.
I dislike Trump, not because he is a misogynist or a racist or a homophobe (I believe none of those things about him), but because his ideas suck, specifically his ideas about Muslims and Mexicans and free trade.
I disliked GWB, not because he lied, but because his ideas sucked (at least the ones he exhibited in the white house; I actually thought the pre-presidential GWB had some good ideas).
I liked Bill Clinton, despite the fact that he was a misogynist, because he had some ideas that didn't suck.

And there may very well be racists or xenophobes or misogynists or sexists who agree with me. But they don't agree with me because they are racists or any of those other things, and the fact that they do agree doesn't make me any one of those things.

My list would be:
I dislike Obama, not because he is a black man, but because his ideas suck.
(I accepted his presidency, and at least thought it would be helpful to have a black person as President to show that anything is truly possible in this country. Unfortunately, this president, Barack Obama, used his position and specifically chose to make this an even more racially divided and embittered country when he could have chosen to do the opposite. I think that's the real shame of the Obama Presidency.) I was an early supporter of Alan Keyes, and was interested in Ben Carson early on, but realized he didn't have the authority or personality I felt was needed to be effective in a Presidential role, although he is a fabulously intelligent man who I wish would reconsider serving in the trump administration (apparently he turned down a job offer recently.) I went to see Jesse Jackson speak at a campaign rally back when he was running, not because I agreed with everything he said, but because he was an impressive speaker and I respected that he put himself out there. I have worked with and have personally recruited many black people in the conservative and, yes, even tea party, movements. I believe we will one day see a black republican as President, and it may come sooner than many think. But I want it to be because he has the best ideas and is the best candidate, NOT because he is black or it's "his turn."

I dislike Hillary, not because she is a woman, but because her ideas completely suck more than any other nominee I can remember.
(I would love to have a woman President someday. But One that became President because she had superior ideas and did not trade/expect to be voted in just because she was a woman, which is a demeaning and misogynistic attitude that helps no one. The real misogynists are the Hiliary voters who said "I'm voting for her because it's time to have a woman.")

I like Trump (but not as much as I might have liked a better Republican candidate), even if he occasionally exhibits lack of tact and bluntness in his expressions that some incorrectly extrapolate to mean he is a misogynist or a racist or a homophobe (I believe none of those things about him), but because his ideas of dismantling the atrocity of the ACA, which is a "disaster" for just about everyone, his ideas on the economy and corporate taxes and making America a leader again, which will create prosperity and opportunity for many more than the last 8 years did, business and not getting suckered on trade deals in the name if free trade that is anything but for America, seem generally agreeable to me, and I think they would be good for our country and all it's people, black, white, women, hispanic, asian, indian, polish, christian, jewish, muslim(peaceful), etc... I know several LEGAL Mexican Americans who specifically resent the millions of ILLEGAL Mexicans causing the problem by their behavior. I am aware of self-designated peaceful muslims who have a problem with and are against the terrorism caused by some of those who share their belief system and voted for Trump.

I generally disliked GWB, because he needlessly and hypocritically expanded government overreach and debt showing there was little difference between him and the tax and spend Democrats he was supposedly against. But he was way better than Gore would have been, who I believe would have wrecked the economy in new and even more destructive ways than what happened. I would have rather have had McCain back in 2000, and I believe the Iraq and Sept 11 things would have gone down much differently than they ended up.

I tolerated Bill Clinton, though I disliked him, despite the fact that he was a misogynist, a creep, a confirmed sexual predator, a confirmed adulterer and an all-around douche, because the economy ran somewhat decently in spite of him (and somewhat due to his accounting tricks), although he did help put in place the policies that ended up creating the financial and real-estate bubble that was inevitable due to his administrations actions.

I liked Ross Perot and voted for him the first time he ran. I believe if people had listened to what he was saying instead of the SNL parody of him (which I did find entertaining) and Congress had passed some of his ideas, we would be a stronger, safer, more fair-minded and more decently behaved country with little to no debt, far stronger and more respected world leader, and we would have completely avoided the housing and financial meltdowns we have and will again experience. I hope Trump takes some of his ideas and applies them to today.

(11-16-2016 10:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 09:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 06:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 06:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Clearly, if I said half of all Clinton's supporters are dupes or idiots, everybody here would know I was not speaking of them.

If you said in one basket you have race-baiters, violent reactionaries, etc. and in the other people who are reasonable and just looking for a better government I would know you weren't. I mean, I know who and what I am and who and what is sometimes affiliated with the party.

I guess I should have defined the other half, as Clinton did.

Half of Clinton's supporters are elitists who think they are superior to the rest of the country and should prevail in all things, and half are just sincere dupes or idiots who just want a better world.

Better now?

No. Clinton didn't use any disparaging remarks about the other basket.

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

Where did she say anything about them being dupes or idiots? Isn't the language above what most of us having been saying about a lot of the Trump voters?

So if I'm not a deplorable, I must be in the hopeless group? I didn't need for my life to be different, not worried about losing a kid to heroin, etc. I'm sure not in a dead end.

\So which half am I in?

(11-16-2016 10:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 10:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 09:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 06:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 06:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Clearly, if I said half of all Clinton's supporters are dupes or idiots, everybody here would know I was not speaking of them.

If you said in one basket you have race-baiters, violent reactionaries, etc. and in the other people who are reasonable and just looking for a better government I would know you weren't. I mean, I know who and what I am and who and what is sometimes affiliated with the party.

I guess I should have defined the other half, as Clinton did.

Half of Clinton's supporters are elitists who think they are superior to the rest of the country and should prevail in all things, and half are just sincere dupes or idiots who just want a better world.

Better now?

No. Clinton didn't use any disparaging remarks about the other basket.

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

Where did she say anything about them being dupes or idiots? Isn't the language above what most of us having been saying about a lot of the Trump voters?

So if I'm not a deplorable, I must be in the hopeless group? I didn't need for my life to be different, not worried about losing a kid to heroin, etc. I'm sure not in a dead end.

\So which half am I in?

Well, do you feel like the government has let you down and you're desperate for change?

(11-16-2016 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Well, do you feel like the government has let you down and you're desperate for change?

I do. My main thought on Barak Obama's 2012 win was "I can't believe I have to suffer through four more years of this economic approach that I completely disagree with, and four more years of a health law that I absolutely refuse to participate in." I looked at Hiliary as much as a 3rd-term Obama, but with even more harmful policies that would damage our country beyond repair.

I understand many on the other side probably feel the same about the next four years. I happen to think they might be surprised by the economic growth and opportunity. Of course, they will have to take more personal responsibility and choose to participate. That may be too big a leap for some to choose to make.

We can't afford the government the size it's at. The idea we need to grow government revenues is a very false one to me. Even with growth in the economy (and I hope there will be dramatic growth) we need to shrink government revenues and shrink all that government is doing and seeking to do so we can have people do those things and instead seek a much bigger non-profit sector take up the slack instead of government. Power belongs to the people themselves, not the government. That is my biggest disagreement with the Left.

(11-16-2016 11:11 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Well, do you feel like the government has let you down and you're desperate for change?

I do. My main thought on Barak Obama's 2012 win was "I can't believe I have to suffer through four more years of this economic approach that I completely disagree with, and four more years of a health law that I absolutely refuse to participate in." I looked at Hiliary as much as a 3rd-term Obama, but with even more harmful policies that would damage our country beyond repair.

I understand many on the other side probably feel the same about the next four years. I happen to think they might be surprised by the economic growth and opportunity. Of course, they will have to take more personal responsibility and choose to participate. That may be too big a leap for some to choose to make.

We can't afford the government the size it's at. The idea we need to grow government revenues is a very false one to me. Even with growth in the economy (and I hope there will be dramatic growth) we need to shrink government revenues and shrink all that government is doing and seeking to do so we can have people do those things and instead seek a much bigger non-profit sector take up the slack instead of government. Power belongs to the people themselves, not the government. That is my biggest disagreement with the Left.

At least I have proof that some people who are rationale thinkers can look at the entire "basket of deplorables" quote and place themselves into the other basket because they aren't racist.

(11-16-2016 11:11 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  I looked at Hiliary as much as a 3rd-term Obama

More like 5th-term Hillary.

Still, with the way things are shaking out, that likely would have been better than 1st-term Donald. Alas.

(11-16-2016 11:33 AM)Wiessman Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 11:11 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  I looked at Hiliary as much as a 3rd-term Obama

More like 5th-term Hillary.

Still, with the way things are shaking out, that likely would have been better than 1st-term Donald. Alas.

We don't really know. None of us on either side. I am choosing to have hope. He wasn't my #1 pick, but the best of what we had to choose from in the end, and I wanted my vote to count in the final decision this time. I am hoping that he doesn't start up all the usual Right-wing tricks either. Just pass and implement the agenda that's been talked about for decades and see how it does. I would love term limits as well, one thing they conveniently declined to pursue from the "Contract with America."

(11-16-2016 11:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 11:11 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Well, do you feel like the government has let you down and you're desperate for change?

I do. My main thought on Barak Obama's 2012 win was "I can't believe I have to suffer through four more years of this economic approach that I completely disagree with, and four more years of a health law that I absolutely refuse to participate in." I looked at Hiliary as much as a 3rd-term Obama, but with even more harmful policies that would damage our country beyond repair.

I understand many on the other side probably feel the same about the next four years. I happen to think they might be surprised by the economic growth and opportunity. Of course, they will have to take more personal responsibility and choose to participate. That may be too big a leap for some to choose to make.

We can't afford the government the size it's at. The idea we need to grow government revenues is a very false one to me. Even with growth in the economy (and I hope there will be dramatic growth) we need to shrink government revenues and shrink all that government is doing and seeking to do so we can have people do those things and instead seek a much bigger non-profit sector take up the slack instead of government. Power belongs to the people themselves, not the government. That is my biggest disagreement with the Left.

At least I have proof that some people who are rationale thinkers can look at the entire "basket of deplorables" quote and place themselves into the other basket because they aren't racist.

I will take that as a compliment. I don't really care if she or anyone else considers me a deplorable or whatever. Sticks and stones. My vitriol towards the lady is because she appeared to me to represent almost everything wrong with how to go about leading America. I think it's a shame she had to taint the whole thing with going completely overboard with the 'first woman' stuff. It was a disservice to women and girls and their hopes to be treated truly equally.

I hope we do have a woman President someday. Just one with good ideas who cares more than just about herself and her history book notation. And a woman strong enough to fearlessly oppose most of Hiliary's policies and positions and who could actually defend them rationally.

Interesting. Don't recall this scale of thing being done to President-elect Obama. Where's the tolerance for diversity?

http://www.ajc.com/news/local/anti-trump...gt7z6U5KP/

(11-16-2016 11:33 AM)Wiessman Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 11:11 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  I looked at Hiliary as much as a 3rd-term Obama

More like 5th-term Hillary.
Still, with the way things are shaking out, that likely would have been better than 1st-term Donald. Alas.

Quite frankly, I would prefer 7th term Bill to anything we have had since, particularly if republicans control both houses of congress.

That preference is based upon the assumption that 3rd and 4th and 5th and 6th and 7th term Bill would be more like 1st and 2nd term Bill than like 2008 and 2016 Bill. But I think they would have.

(11-16-2016 02:15 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Interesting. Don't recall this scale of thing being done to President-elect Obama. Where's the tolerance for diversity?

http://www.ajc.com/news/local/anti-trump...gt7z6U5KP/

Not much different than this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...-1.1191812

Only difference here is someone used a giant projector.

(11-16-2016 02:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/d...li=BBnbcA1

I was actually going to post that one. One of us is in the wrong bubble. ;-)