2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 15, 2016 8:36 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
(turns out pregnancies are expensive; who knew?), and while the ACA replaced age-sex with just age (transferring wealth from young males to young females, but old females to old males)

I have read a study that claimed that nearly 50% of the parents involved in pregnancies is a man.


Yes, but as a matter of practicality, men are less hampered by them. Biology isn't particularly fair on this point. Gm's got a point about that being an overuse of whopping for this context, but in practice, it's obvious that the guy isn't going to experience additional care for pregnancy.

So, you're going to see costs distributed unequally. At least, that's the case thus far. Not impossible to change, but let's not pretend that just because a man is involved with a pregnancy, that he always bears an equal share of the costs.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Tue Nov 15, 2016 8:44 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Lucrece wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
Lucrece wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
Lucrece wrote:Next time leave the celebrities at home. Some pampered millionaire withg an overpaid job in entertainment telling people who to vote for certainly did not help Clinton.

It made her look like she was in cahoots with Hollywood elites. People who are not particularly popular in the country as a whole, or popular for the wrong reasons because they most certainly are not respected.
You gotta admit, though -- it's kind of weird how well that turned out to work for Trump.

I mean, aside from 'Hollywood elite', you pretty much just described Trump to a tee.



Hollywood is pretty key. Some anti-Semitism and anti-California sentiment mixed in. You can't get more unpopular than Hollywood and San Francisco. The dens of decadence.

Think of it as when Nevada legislation moved to open up legal prostitution for male escort services, and the representatives for the female escort business objected to the legislation, saying it would besmirch their brand. Because male escort = fag stuff, and men paying for beautiful women is just such a natural thing.

Major levels of cognitive dissonance.


I get that there's antisemitism, but how does that factor into Trumpistan?

Also, that Nevada thing doesn't sound right. Why would the ladies object; what business are they losing, in even an indirect way?



Ladies are not the average owners of female escort services. These are strip clubs, and legal brothels which are mostly owned by men (straight ones at that).

gmalivuk wrote:
Lucrece wrote:Think of it as when Nevada legislation moved to open up legal prostitution for male escort services, and the representatives for the female escort business objected to the legislation, saying it would besmirch their brand. Because male escort = fag stuff, and men paying for beautiful women is just such a natural thing.
Do you have a citation or something that anything remotely like this is actually what happened?

Because based on what I've read and what sex workers I know have said, that sounds an awful lot like something you maybe just made up.



http://www.towleroad.com/2009/12/homoph ... ay+news%29

http://www.ontopmag.com/article/4997/Ga ... rostitutes

Seems you've read very little. It only took a fucking google search.

Opposition to the change came from the group that lobbies on behalf of such establishments, the Nevada Brothel Owners Association.

George Flint, a former minister who represents the group, called the change “repugnant” in a carefully worded statement before regulators that left little doubt he was referring to sex between men. Female prostitutes are allowed to service both men and women.

“Some may feel it's a repugnant thing to do or something that does not have the appetite of the state as a whole,” Flint said.

According to its website, the Nevada Brother Owners Association represents 29 establishments in the state and employs nearly 1,000 female sex workers.

“We've worked hard for years to make the traditional brothel business in this state socially acceptable and something we can be proud of that most Nevadans accept,” Flint added. “We have some concerns that this can be diluted by what Ms. Bobbi Davis wants to try.”

Flint warned that the board's decision would bring about disaster.

“It was inevitable with Pearl Harbor we'd have a problem there someday, and we've known this would be a problem too,” he said.

Davis told the paper she might add men to her establishment as early as next month.


Even brought out the part of interest for you, in case you're too hung up on what your sex worker friends say.
A male representative of an association of brothel owners objected, while a female brothel owner pushed for the change in the first place.

That's hardly "the representatives for the female escort business", which I (and apparently everyone else who read your post) took to mean, you know, at least one or two people actually representing any female escorts. That's like saying "the representatives of the acting business" to describe one guy who lobbies for film studio executives.

Don't get snippy with me when you're the one who communicated badly.


A female brothel owner faced opposition of an association that represents many brothels in Nevada. It's like saying a single lawyer argued in front of SCOTUS for DOMA when the American Bar Association opposed it.

Maybe some psychologists endorse conversion therapy for homosexuals, but I'll take the APA to be the consensus position.

I'll get snippy when you suck at admitting the fact you accused someone of making shit up with some snide remark involving personal anecdotes, as if your sex worker friends were any more a representative sample of brothel owners, which is what my original post involved.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:01 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
(turns out pregnancies are expensive; who knew?), and while the ACA replaced age-sex with just age (transferring wealth from young males to young females, but old females to old males)

I have read a study that claimed that nearly 50% of the parents involved in pregnancies is a man.


Except it's the mom that gets the bill, or more specifically, the mom's health plan, which goes back to the employer. This means that employers will reduce women's wages by this amount. Want to solve this portion of the gender wage gap? Make natal care covered by Medicare and take it out of the equation entirely. Wouldn't be the first ridiculously expensive care that Medicare automatically covers prior to age 65.

gmalivuk wrote:Since when is 10% "whopping"?


When we are talking about 10% of hundreds of billions of dollars every single year?

And it's 10% of the gap, not 10% overall.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:26 pm UTC

Except it's the mom that gets the bill, or more specifically, the mom's health plan, which goes back to the employer.
Well in this case why isn't a married mans wage lower, doesn't his insurance cover his wife? I believe they call that a family plan.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:39 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Except it's the mom that gets the bill, or more specifically, the mom's health plan, which goes back to the employer.
Well in this case why isn't a married mans wage lower, doesn't his insurance cover his wife? I believe they call that a family plan.


In the modern day, I don't think the nuclear family is a universal expectation. And generally, adding dependents to a family plan instead of having a single plan *does* increase cost. Maybe not by all of it, but most people will see significant increases. Regardless of that, you'd expect to see a non-zero number of people *not* on family/dependent plans getting pregnant, and in that case, women are more likely to get stuck with the cost than men.

The more you really look at insurance, the less fair and reasonable it all seems, for the most part.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:49 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:Also it depends whether CU meant 10% as a percentage of the total: 79% + 10% = 89% of what a man earns, or as a percentage of a percentage: 79% + (10% of 21% = 2.1%) = 81.1%.
The claim was 10% of the gap, or 2.1% for white women.

I don't care about the total that works out to, because if they're able to pay 100% of a man's salary for a man, then they should be able to pay the same amount for a woman (even if that did work out to only 97.9% as a salary, it would be quite an improvement).
- - -
Lucrece: your original claim was badly worded, to the point that everyone who read it understood it differently from what you intended. Brothel owners, even if they were unanimously opposed to the change are still not "the representatives for the female escort business". They're representatives for the brothel-owning business, which is not the same thing.

What I had previously read, what SWs I know have said (including those who know a fuckton more about policy than you likely do), *and* what you yourself helpfully quoted in your response to me, all corroborate my initial impression that the thing you appeared to be saying was bullshit.

It turns out that's because you communicated poorly rather than because you made it up, but it was still bullshit.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Nov 15, 2016 11:24 pm UTC

Except it's 10% here, 15% there, 12% in this place, 33% somewhere else. You don't get to just say "make it equal!" and viola, fix'd! You need to figure out what each cause of the gap is, and then create a multi-faceted solution for the whole thing.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Nov 15, 2016 11:55 pm UTC

My point was just in response to your "whopping 10%" claim. Even if it's 10% of "hundreds of billions" of dollars, those hundreds of billions are still just a small fraction of the total amount already being paid in wages and salaries.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 16, 2016 5:23 am UTC

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/us/po ... ition.html
President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition was in disarray on Tuesday, marked by firings, infighting and revelations that American allies were blindly dialing in to Trump Tower to try to reach the soon-to-be-leader of the free world. Two officials who had been handling national security for the transition, former Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan and Matthew Freedman, a lobbyist who consults with corporations and foreign governments, were fired. Both were part of what officials described as a purge orchestrated by Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and close adviser.

The dismissals followed the abrupt firing on Friday of Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, who was replaced as chief of the transition by Vice President-elect A Wet Rag Stuffed Into a Tailpipe. Mr. Kushner, a transition official said, was systematically dismissing people like Mr. Rogers who had ties with Mr. Christie. As a federal prosecutor, Mr. Christie had sent Mr. Kushner’s father to jail. Eliot A. Cohen, a former State Department official who had criticized Mr. Trump during the campaign but said after his election that he would keep an open mind about advising him, said Tuesday on Twitter that he had changed his opinion. After speaking to the transition team, he wrote, he had “changed my recommendation: stay away.”

He added: “They’re angry, arrogant, screaming ‘you LOST!’ Will be ugly.”

What the fuck is going on?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Nov 16, 2016 5:25 am UTC

Welcome to the next four years,
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Nov 16, 2016 5:44 am UTC

I actually hope Trump is terrible. Like, so terrible that he gets impeached in his first year. And Pence has a heart attack. That'd mean we'd have president, umm... Paul Ryan. Fuck. Ok, he dies from an infection from kissing a baby, and we get... Mitch McConnell. Double-fuck.

Ok, I really hope Trump's image has been just a joke a joke all along, hahaha, and his president turns out like Jesse Ventura where he actually accomplishes a lot of common sense things that improve the country overall, even if the political establishment hates him.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:23 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Mutex wrote:Also it depends whether CU meant 10% as a percentage of the total: 79% + 10% = 89% of what a man earns, or as a percentage of a percentage: 79% + (10% of 21% = 2.1%) = 81.1%.
The claim was 10% of the gap, or 2.1% for white women.

I don't care about the total that works out to, because if they're able to pay 100% of a man's salary for a man, then they should be able to pay the same amount for a woman (even if that did work out to only 97.9% as a salary, it would be quite an improvement).
- - -
Lucrece: your original claim was badly worded, to the point that everyone who read it understood it differently from what you intended. Brothel owners, even if they were unanimously opposed to the change are still not "the representatives for the female escort business". They're representatives for the brothel-owning business, which is not the same thing.

What I had previously read, what SWs I know have said (including those who know a fuckton more about policy than you likely do), *and* what you yourself helpfully quoted in your response to me, all corroborate my initial impression that the thing you appeared to be saying was bullshit.

It turns out that's because you communicated poorly rather than because you made it up, but it was still bullshit.


By everybody you mean 1 other person? You just didn't bother to read, my post was perfectly clear in delineating the stance of a male homophobe resenting women and gay men gaining the same sexual opportunities straight men and lesbians have, not a female sex worker. I don't know why the fuck you keep bringing your SW friends (who I assume are from Nevada as well and intimately familiar with the policy discussions that happened there) to talk policy when they're not the ones who lobby the Nevada legislature; wealthy, politically influential brothel owners/madams like those who belong to that association do. The other article even provided concerns from more than that guy from the association, if you bothered to read it.

Just swallow your shitty pride and have some shame about falsely accusing someone of fabricating a story when that very story shows in the two top search results in Google that you couldn't bother to look up because you were too busy getting hot and bothered about some perceived slight against female sex workers.

By all means do ask your SW friends to make an account and speak for themselves on this policy you say they know more than I do. Somehow I have the suspicion you'll have problems producing those friends you speak to before you go calling people liars.

On Friday, the Nevada State Board of Health approved new guidelines that allow men to work in the state's brothels. Previously, men were barred from the profession because state guidelines required all prostitutes to undergo cervical testing for sexually transmitted diseases. Officials on Friday agreed to alter the wording to include urethral exams for men.


Brothel owners were brought up because of that specific legislation. Go figure, asking the brothel owners association about male prostitution in brothels seems like a relevant point. Brothels are pretty fucking convenient places to offer escort services as it turns out, and said brothels are legally protected with regulated health exams (which the legislation sought to address, since health exams were only provided for female escorts/prostitutes, but no health exams were provided for males).
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Mambrino
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:45 pm UTC
Location: No we don't have polar bears. Except in zoos.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mambrino » Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:01 am UTC

Summary of Trump Transition disarray, by the courtesy of BBC. Summary speculation: Trump's son-in-law Kushner does not like Christie (because Christie was attorney general in 2004 when son-in-law's father was found of guilty of several charges shortly summarized as "corruption" in New Jersey).

Nepotist leaders sometimes can be effective (did I mention Napoleon) in spite of nepotism. At least, regarding some of their objectives. Or maybe I'm the hopeless optimist.

Nevertheless, I'm wondering if we can start to use "Berlusconi" as a verb. Or possibly adjective?

edit. Also, why are we discussing brothels.
Last edited by Mambrino on Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:06 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:05 am UTC

Mambrino wrote:Summary of Trump Transition disarray, by the courtesy of BBC. Summary speculation: Trump's son-in-law does not like Christie.

Nepotist leaders sometimes can be effective (did I mention Napoleon) in spite of nepotism. At least, regarding some of their objectives. Or maybe I'm the hopeless optimist.

Nevertheless, I'm wondering if we can start to use "Berlusconi" as a verb. Or possibly adjective?



Trump and Christie have pretty similar alpha personalities, so I'm not surprised Christie ended up on the chopping block. Trump is the kind of petty man who would be threatened by a reflection in the mirror.

And quite frankly, it is satisfying to see Christie, who gets off on bullying common citizens with his bully pulpit, see kissing so much ass and only end with shit in the mouth to show for it.

Seeing all these assholes humiliated before Clown in Chief is one of the few good things to come out of these dreadful election results.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Nov 16, 2016 10:59 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:Just swallow your shitty pride and have some shame about falsely accusing someone of fabricating a story when that very story shows in the two top search results in Google that you couldn't bother to look up because you were too busy getting hot and bothered about some perceived slight against female sex workers.

By all means do ask your SW friends to make an account and speak for themselves on this policy you say they know more than I do. Somehow I have the suspicion you'll have problems producing those friends you speak to before you go calling people liars.
Wow.

So, I was on the fence regarding my opinion on you; consider me no longer on the fence.

(For whatever it's worth -- to anyone else reading this, not Lucrece -- I can certainly confirm that no, gmal isn't making up imaginary SWs who expressed skepticism over Lucrece's post.)

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1895
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby natraj » Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:01 pm UTC

what no that was me i'm a sex worker and i have been around this forum for-ever and i had been eye-rolling at lucrece's post i just didn't want to derail the election thread with a whole lot of stuff about sex work cuz boy do i have thoughts about sex work.

but yeah like... it was brothel owners themselves who pushed for the change to the regulations and one professional lobbyist who was moralizing about Teh Gays so w/e.

also brothels (under legalization) are hella inconvenient places to do escorting which is why even in nevada the lion's share of sex work is still done illegally.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:09 pm UTC

"Hey, so there's this asshole on the Internet who is angry with me for calling his poor communication a lie. Do you think you could join this webcomic discussion forum to back me up against his crushing criticisms?"

Yeah, no, that's not a conversation I see any need to have, just to prove to you that I'm not inventing the other people I know with a better grasp of sex work laws and policies than you have. (And no, none of them to my knowledge currently reside in Nevada. But as the only state with legalized full-service sex work, Nevada has policies useful for sex workers elsewhere to know about.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 16, 2016 3:34 pm UTC

I read Lucerce's post as intended. It didn't seem at all strange to me.

I can see in retrospect how it could be misinterpreted, I guess...but honestly, the kind of person who claims something will "besmirch their brand" are invariably management types, not actual workers. And obviously' Lucerce is decrying this viewpoint. I'm not sure how pointing out that other people also disagree with this viewpoint undermines anything. The attitude he describes totally exists out there, after all.

Seriously, ya'll started accusing him of making stuff up, as if nobody in the industry could possibly be a hypocrite. Every industry has people like that. And it was just an example of a viewpoint. I mean, if you are trying to contend that traditionally liberal states do not contain such people, cheers, good luck with tilting at that windmill. But at this point, to someone not engaged in that specific line of conversation, and thus didn't really have a side, it just looks like gmalivuk is pissed about being wrong.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Wed Nov 16, 2016 3:37 pm UTC


Time to end this line of conversation

GodShapedBullet
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:59 pm UTC
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby GodShapedBullet » Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:56 pm UTC

It's kind of weird because the dude ran TO BE THE PRESIDENT, but I am really proud of Ben Carson for categorically turning down any role in Trump's administration, citing lack of administrative experience.

That Trump was floating the idea of Carson running the Department of Education was such a bizarre suggestion. Ben Carson's sole qualification to run the Department of Education is having an education, which qualifies you as much as eating a sandwich gives you the experience to run the Department of Agriculture.

I know Dr. Carson has a lot of education, but I have eaten a lot of sandwiches.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Wed Nov 16, 2016 5:14 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I actually hope Trump is terrible. Like, so terrible that he gets impeached in his first year. And Pence has a heart attack. That'd mean we'd have president, umm... Paul Ryan. Fuck. Ok, he dies from an infection from kissing a baby, and we get... Mitch McConnell. Double-fuck.

Ok, I really hope Trump's image has been just a joke a joke all along, hahaha, and his president turns out like Jesse Ventura where he actually accomplishes a lot of common sense things that improve the country overall, even if the political establishment hates him.


Oh, no, none of that. You lot voted him in for four years. You lot get four years of him. Middle East disasters, collapsing international relations, whatever the heck he's going to do to the economy, the works. Then, in 2020, you get to try again. Maybe, if you really collectively deserve it, you'll get another four years of him.

When 2020 does loom ahead of you, try to remember that a significant part of your population saw the wave of hate crimes on the news and cheered for them. It's important to outnumber those people at the polls in every state.

...

Today I learned that Trump called his firstborn son, born to his first wife, Donald Junior and his first daughter Ivanka, which is a Russian-style "affectionate nickname version" of Ivana, his first wife's name. Combine that with: "She has the best body. If we weren't related, I might be dating her." Think it over.

CREEPY AS HELL, isn't it?

Maybe not as alarming as the crescent moon badges and serial number tattoos kind of stuff, but ... ick.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 16, 2016 5:34 pm UTC

GodShapedBullet wrote:It's kind of weird because the dude ran TO BE THE PRESIDENT, but I am really proud of Ben Carson for categorically turning down any role in Trump's administration, citing lack of administrative experience.

That Trump was floating the idea of Carson running the Department of Education was such a bizarre suggestion. Ben Carson's sole qualification to run the Department of Education is having an education, which qualifies you as much as eating a sandwich gives you the experience to run the Department of Agriculture.

I know Dr. Carson has a lot of education, but I have eaten a lot of sandwiches.


The guy's ethical. He believes some strange things, but I respect the guy all the same.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:16 pm UTC

Oh stuff it, most of us did not vote for Trump, myself included. He won because the media wouldn't shut up about him in order to humiliate the Republicans, which made him win the primary because something like 75% of the coverage went to just one idiot, then the media changed its tune about Trump and did nothing but hatchet jobs (admittedly, they didn't have to embellish too much), the American public thought they were being manipulated and the American public HATES being manipulated, so a bunch of people voted for Trump out of spite.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:27 pm UTC

Welp, school near me decided that walking outta school to protest Trump wasn't quite enough, and really, they should beat up a kid for wearing a Trump hat. Ambulance called, but not dead or anything.

People explicitly endorsing violence is getting a bit out there. Protest, sure. And yeah, I get how a violent few always get blamed on everyone. But when your protest is explicitly calling for violence, and people in the mob then do violence, it's hard to claim innocence.

Bits like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-benn/sorry-liberals-a-violent-_b_10316186.html seem odd. I mean, we literally have liberals beating people up and flying the Nazi flag*. At some point, I feel like you have to stop, look in the mirror, and ask yourself if you're the bad guy. It ain't most people, but there's a few that are definitely going way too far.

*http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/11/san-francisco-homeowner-flies-nazi-flag-to-protest/

Mutex
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:46 pm UTC

To be fair he raised the nazi flag to imply that Trump is fascist.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:48 pm UTC

Sure. And his reasoning of "I was trying to compare him to Mussolini, but the Italian flag isn't as cool" seems legit. :roll:

Mutex
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:49 pm UTC

Um, yes? Not sure what you're saying here. It's dumb, sure, but I don't think he's lying.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:53 pm UTC

I don't think he's lying.

However, at the point where you're justifying flying the Nazi flag because it's a better flag...you should maybe step back and re-evaluate how you got there.

Same, same, dragging people from cars or beating children. Or endorsing the same.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:00 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I don't think he's lying.

However, at the point where you're justifying flying the Nazi flag because it's a better flag...you should maybe step back and re-evaluate how you got there.

Same, same, dragging people from cars or beating children. Or endorsing the same.


I'm personally having a lot of Schadenfreude recently because of this.

Liberals claimed that Trump supporters would riot and would never support Clinton. Come a few weeks later, we learn the opposite is also true.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Chen » Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:33 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:I'm personally having a lot of Schadenfreude recently because of this.

Liberals claimed that Trump supporters would riot and would never support Clinton. Come a few weeks later, we learn the opposite is also true.


Yeah the hypocrisy is strong here. Just on my random Facebook feed I've seen a number of "revolution" or "rebellion" memes, articles etc, when a couple weeks ago these were the same people freaking out at how Trump's supporters would be causing a riots or revolting after he hadn't yet said he would accept election results.

Wonderbolt
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:11 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Wonderbolt » Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:39 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Bits like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-benn/sorry-liberals-a-violent-_b_10316186.html seem odd. I mean, we literally have liberals beating people up and flying the Nazi flag*. At some point, I feel like you have to stop, look in the mirror, and ask yourself if you're the bad guy. It ain't most people, but there's a few that are definitely going way too far.

The people beating up Trump supporters probably don't identify as liberals. I've seen them overwhelmingly be extreme-left people who constantly shit on liberals. I had to quit twitter because I actually have quite a few extreme-lefty no-longer-friends who went all "grr liberals who think violence against fascism isn't justified" and I'm just sitting here like "I don't think anything along those lines, I just don't think normalizing violence against people who voted Trump and calling them fascists is a good idea".

And then these same people go "ALL PROTESTS ARE PEACEFUL AND IT'S ALL THE POLICE'S FAULT FOR INSTIGATING" and I just want to bash my head against the wall.
</rant>
Last edited by Wonderbolt on Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:40 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:40 pm UTC

I absolutely grant that that is a thing. I'm seeing a lot more third party supporters bemoaning Trump.
KnightExemplar wrote:Liberals claimed that Trump supporters would riot and would never support Clinton. Come a few weeks later, we learn the opposite is also true.
To be fair, violence is occurring both ways, and one violent protest does not for a whole movement make. This is a consideration I granted Trump supporters, but they proved that violence was pretty normal at their rallies.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:44 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I absolutely grant that that is a thing. I'm seeing a lot more third party supporters bemoaning Trump.
KnightExemplar wrote:Liberals claimed that Trump supporters would riot and would never support Clinton. Come a few weeks later, we learn the opposite is also true.
To be fair, violence is occurring both ways, and one violent protest does not for a whole movement make. This is a consideration I granted Trump supporters, but they proved that violence was pretty normal at their rallies.


And the difference is, Trump changed his language as soon as people at his rallies began to get violent.

I know, because I've listened in on a lot of his rallies. There hasn't been a similar reckoning from the liberal side with regards to the riots in Oregon, or the teenager who was beaten up by (other teenage) Clinton supporters at his school.

Well... in part because Clinton and/or Sanders have never made that mistake to begin with. So I dunno who I'm really complaining about... maybe just... the jackasses in general.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:50 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Well... in part because Clinton and/or Sanders have never made that mistake to begin with. So I dunno who I'm really complaining about... maybe just... the jackasses in general.


Right, it's definitely not everyone involved. Just a specific minority of people that are really eager for violence for some reason. The vast majority of any crowd, I think, are usually quite content to be far away from such things.

Sanders has been very vocal in calling for non-violence, I believe. I haven't heard as much about Clinton, but at a minimum, I don't think she's called for it. It's other folks doing that.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:01 pm UTC

The key things to look for is the leadership instigating violence or encouraging it. If so, get them to stop. If not, have the leadership explain firmly that violence isn't allowed or OK. If both already spoke out against violence, it gets much trickier. Who's being violent, how much violence is there? Is it coverage? Etc etc.If we are hanging rednecks from trees, then yes very big deal. If it's just a minor police action, no big deal.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ame ... s-anymore/
This is a bigger deal. The country is too big, we can't have untrusted institutions. If everyone thinks the government is for scumbags, only scumbags will want to work there.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:12 pm UTC

I mean, really, who does trust all of them?

There's some that have trust. Most of the time, people don't even think of the areas that don't have problems. We don't worry about the post office failing to deliver mail, or the roads suddenly being undrivable. But if you've had to deal with the VA, you probably hate the VA. And there's legitimate reasons for not trusting law enforcement, sometimes. Depends on who you are, which agency you're talking about, etc. But the bad instances get the attention. So, asking "Do you trust the police" is complicated. Someone not wanting to answer yes...I get that.

Trust in newspapers...yeah, it's a little too obvious that they skew things for ratings. Sure, it's always happened, but it can't be hidden nowadays. We have the internet. It's obvious.

Less trust in banks after the financial crash? Again, that makes perfect sense.

The problem isn't that the US lacks trust. The problem is that a lot of these don't deserve trust.

GodShapedBullet
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:59 pm UTC
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby GodShapedBullet » Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:56 pm UTC

I peeked at the Gallup study that 538 is talking about because I was curious what exactly they meant by trust. I trust congress in some ways but not others. Mostly I trust them to be a body composed of a bunch of well-meaning humans who are trying their best given pressure from a lot of competing interests. But the Gallup study is asking about whether you have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence. Certainly, I wouldn't say I have a great deal of confidence.

One of the heartening things about those graphs is the idea that public trust in institutions can appreciably increase as well as decrease. In the moment, it feels like we are in a terrible tailspin of eroding trust that we'll never be able to pull out of, so it is nice to know it is demonstrably possible, even if there is no expectation that things are going to turn around any time soon.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:00 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:And the difference is, Trump changed his language as soon as people at his rallies began to get violent.
This is a fascinating thing to say. I don't mean this to be combative, but my understanding is that literally the opposite happened - Trump not only encouraged violence at his rallies from the get go, but it was like 4-5d after the election results came in that he said "Stop the violence", vaguely, not specifically to his supporters.

There is an enormous divide in what realities we all live in based on our media consumption, and I don't mean that to imply that you aren't living in reality.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:40 pm UTC

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/shy ... sed-trump/
. Trump did not out perform his polling because of the Bradley effect. Trump won because his base coalesced around him.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:55 pm UTC

The false equivalence brigade love to go on endlessly about the small handful of violent acts against Trump supporters in the past week. Meanwhile literally hundreds of hate crimes have been reported against the sorts of people white supremacists typically shit on, much of it accompanied by explicitly pro-Trump messages.

And sure, Trump eventually said "stop it". It was both as sincere and as effective as the owner of an aggressive dog saying the same thing an hour or two after intentionally releasing the dog into a crowd of people. Trump knew the kind of violent racism his supporters were capable of, and did nothing to discourage it before it happened, instead arguably encouraging it throughout and after his campaign. (You don't call people drug dealers and rapists to discourage violence against them, and you don't appoint white nationalists to positions of power to send a strong message to other white supremacists that you disapprove of their tactics.)

People are currently protesting the election of a dangerous demagogue whose policies and supporters constitute a credible threat to their lives and liberties. People protesting Obama did so because they believed conspiracy theories about where he was born (Trump's conspiracy theories, that is). People were planning to protest Clinton because they again believed Trump's conspiracy theories about a rigged election and voter fraud. Furthermore, they were talking about refusing to accept the validity of the election, whereas people protesting now mostly accept that Trump is genuinely the president-elect and are protesting against him on that basis. (#NotMyPresident, as far as I've seen, is mostly a statement that Trump in no way represents them, not a statement that he wasn't elected according to the laws and precedents of the United States.)

It's just more false-equivalence nonsense if you think the protests are the same, or if you think the threat of a Trump presidency is no more real than the "he'll take our guns" nonsense people believed about Obama.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests