2016 US Presidential Election

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5534
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:11 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Thesh wrote:Personally, I think protectionism can be good policy to slow the death of an industry and give time to transition. I think it's a horrible policy to pick and choose individual companies at random for the sake of publicity. I mean, there is no plan for a transition, so this is entirely temporary (and I would bet with all that government money, you can easily afford the investment to automate most of the money away). A better way is either a wage subsidy, which cuts costs without hurting regional cash flow, and directly targets labor, or industry-level subsidies to prevent specific industries. The level of potential corruption if someone like Trump, who isn't even divesting his company, is allowed to pick and choose individual companies for free government money is staggering (plus "sorry, you backed Clinton, we won't save your jobs").

Thesh, there's not many instances of Clinton voters not getting subsidies beyond the standard, gut social safety net. For one thing, liberal voters still do coexist with conservative voters. You can't target a liberal factory without hitting a conservative worker.
What's more likely to happen is subsides might shift from green jobs to subsidies to dirtier industries. Besides, those are future voters, why antagonize the only swing voters in the country?



Huh?
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5858
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Dec 01, 2016 6:01 pm UTC

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pol ... e-degrees/
The sole source of error is the pollsters did not have weights for education levels. National polls were dead on, but the state polls failed this time. (due to not weighting by education levels).

PS do actual people without a college education find the them term uneducated whites offensive? Seems to be motivated by Basic Human Decency. It would be ironic if the group wasn't so important electorally.

cphite
Posts: 1166
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Thu Dec 01, 2016 6:01 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:
cphite wrote:You fail to understand how an act that would make it illegal to burn the flag is relevant to Trump's proposal to make it illegal to burn the flag?

Thank you for demonstrating my point.


I fail to see why a previous proposal for this Bad Thing(tm) justifies has any relation to peoples "heads explode".


The term "heads exploding" is in reference to the shock that these folks would demonstrate - real or feigned - when confronted with the fact that their own candidate supported the same thing that they're currently railing against as outrageous. I wasn't suggesting that any actual heads would be exploding in any literal sense.

KnightExemplar wrote:Cphite assumes that Clinton was your hero(ine)


I assume that a lot of the people freaking out about Trump's statement were Clinton supporters, or at least Clinton voters. Hero (or heroine) not so much.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Dec 01, 2016 6:13 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
Vahir wrote:
cphite wrote:You fail to understand how an act that would make it illegal to burn the flag is relevant to Trump's proposal to make it illegal to burn the flag?

Thank you for demonstrating my point.


I fail to see why a previous proposal for this Bad Thing(tm) justifies has any relation to peoples "heads explode".


The term "heads exploding" is in reference to the shock that these folks would demonstrate - real or feigned - when confronted with the fact that their own candidate supported the same thing that they're currently railing against as outrageous. I wasn't suggesting that any actual heads would be exploding in any literal sense.
As has already been pointed out to you, an act that would make it illegal to burn the flag for the specific purpose of intimidation or terrorism is not the same as an that would make it illegal to burn the flag period.

KnightExemplar wrote:Cphite assumes that Clinton was your hero(ine)


I assume that a lot of the people freaking out about Trump's statement were Clinton supporters, or at least Clinton voters. Hero (or heroine) not so much.
And I assume that a lot of the people who selected "Clinton" on their ballots were voting against Trump.
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)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Dec 01, 2016 6:30 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Cphite assumes that Clinton was your hero(ine)


I assume that a lot of the people freaking out about Trump's statement were Clinton supporters, or at least Clinton voters. Hero (or heroine) not so much.


I certainly voted for Clinton.

It didn't mean I liked her. I just found her a better candidate than Trump. I can list off tons of things that I don't like about Clinton. Similarly, most Trump supporters I know haven't "drunk the Kool-Aid", and seem to be pretty open about Trump's failings (Open about them and IMO, offering fallacies for why they don't apply. But hey, most people know to acknowledge his failings.)

There are exceptions of course. I can think of about 3 or 4 Trump supporters I know who were 100% "Trump will save America" types.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

morriswalters
Posts: 6950
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Thu Dec 01, 2016 6:45 pm UTC

sardia wrote:PS do actual people without a college education find the them term uneducated whites offensive? Seems to be motivated by Basic Human Decency. It would be ironic if the group wasn't so important electorally.
It isn't descriptive. Would you like me to repeat that? It is also elitist. But in the relative scheme of things it's better than Cracker.

I like 538 but don't get too ginned up by what he says. Take this choice.
the national polls are going to wind up having been pretty good (they showed her winning by 3 to 4 percentage points, and she’ll eventually win by about 2 points). The state polls? Not so hot.
Since the state polls are the only important polls, the measurement of the popular vote didn't mean anything. Measure what wins not the popularity contest.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10175
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Dec 01, 2016 6:58 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:The problem here is that these Carrier or Nissan deals are reactive, even symbolic, not structural. Oh fuck, company X is leaving and it looks bad and we don't want that, do something. Think in advance. Our region is highly dependent on a few large employers, is there a way to diversify? Talk with those employers about long term stability, what do they need to commit to long term plans?


Thinking in advance is preferable for almost anything along these lines, but sadly, things don't tend to attract much attention, win many votes, etc until after they're a disaster. There's political hay to be made in putting out fires, and fairly little in carefully averting them.

sardia wrote:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pollsters-probably-didnt-talk-to-enough-white-voters-without-college-degrees/
The sole source of error is the pollsters did not have weights for education levels. National polls were dead on, but the state polls failed this time. (due to not weighting by education levels).

PS do actual people without a college education find the them term uneducated whites offensive? Seems to be motivated by Basic Human Decency. It would be ironic if the group wasn't so important electorally.


Sure, lots of people do. There is a sentiment among many people that being educated and having a college degree are not exactly the same things. The trades, for instance, pay well, and someone might well pursue one of them, and still be smart and knowledgeable.

To an extent, it kind of *is* Basic Human Decency(also, god, I hate word filters). I mean, at a broad statistical level, college is going to be a decent proxy for education even if you include other forms of post graduate education...but nobody wants the label. I suppose there's also room for talking about different kinds of knowledge, and how well colleges cover everything today...but by and large, there seems to be at least an element of PC language involved here.

cphite
Posts: 1166
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Thu Dec 01, 2016 7:20 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
cphite wrote:
The term "heads exploding" is in reference to the shock that these folks would demonstrate - real or feigned - when confronted with the fact that their own candidate supported the same thing that they're currently railing against as outrageous. I wasn't suggesting that any actual heads would be exploding in any literal sense.


As has already been pointed out to you, an act that would make it illegal to burn the flag for the specific purpose of intimidation or terrorism is not the same as an that would make it illegal to burn the flag period.


To which I already responded, practically any instance of burning the flag could be construed as an attempt to intimidate someone.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:09 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
cphite wrote:
The term "heads exploding" is in reference to the shock that these folks would demonstrate - real or feigned - when confronted with the fact that their own candidate supported the same thing that they're currently railing against as outrageous. I wasn't suggesting that any actual heads would be exploding in any literal sense.


As has already been pointed out to you, an act that would make it illegal to burn the flag for the specific purpose of intimidation or terrorism is not the same as an that would make it illegal to burn the flag period.


To which I already responded, practically any instance of burning the flag could be construed as an attempt to intimidate someone.
Just like how if you choose to ignore (lack of) motive and planning any homicide could be construed as premeditated. That doesn't mean an act to make murder one a capital offense is the same as an act to make every manner of homicide punishable by death.
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
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6874
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:15 pm UTC

We can at least all agree that it's a fundamentally stupid law, right? Since burning flags is not, in of itself, any more intimidating than burning an effigy of the president?

(I guess this means you couldn't wrap your presidential effigy in a flag before you burn it?)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:37 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
cphite wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
cphite wrote:
The term "heads exploding" is in reference to the shock that these folks would demonstrate - real or feigned - when confronted with the fact that their own candidate supported the same thing that they're currently railing against as outrageous. I wasn't suggesting that any actual heads would be exploding in any literal sense.


As has already been pointed out to you, an act that would make it illegal to burn the flag for the specific purpose of intimidation or terrorism is not the same as an that would make it illegal to burn the flag period.


To which I already responded, practically any instance of burning the flag could be construed as an attempt to intimidate someone.
Just like how if you choose to ignore (lack of) motive and planning any homicide could be construed as premeditated. That doesn't mean an act to make murder one a capital offense is the same as an act to make every manner of homicide punishable by death.


Gmalivuk: Police Officers enforce the law. Not you.

Cphite's point is that the law would have made Police Officers start clamping down on those who were burning flags. Maybe judges will come about and start trying to figure out the finer details of whether or not someone was "intimidating someone" or not... but the point of the law, as written, was to clamp down on flag burning in and around 2005 or so.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6874
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:46 pm UTC

Right, and like, however this law was structured, in the end, the result would likely be the same: Police officers arresting people for burning flags.

The very existence of the term ("flag burning") in our law books would lead to people being arrested for it regardless of the circumstances. And unless you think there's something particularly dangerous about burning flags (as opposed to, say, burning crosses), that's an extremely stupid and dangerous distinction to make.

I'm comfortable condemning a politician for supporting such a law.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Dec 02, 2016 1:14 am UTC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

Frank Luther Mott defines yellow journalism in terms of five characteristics:[4]
1.scare headlines in huge print, often of minor news
2.lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings
3.use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudoscience, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts
4.emphasis on full-color Sunday supplements, usually with comic strips
5.dramatic sympathy with the "underdog" against the system.


The more things change... the more things stay the same.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trum ... nsibility/
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

morriswalters
Posts: 6950
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Dec 02, 2016 1:40 am UTC

I'm comfortable condemning a politician for supporting such a law.
It was one vote away in the Senate from being sent to the states as a Constitutional amendment in 2006.
KnightExemplar wrote:The more things change... the more things stay the same.
Like a lot of other things it is much easier today.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5660
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Angua » Fri Dec 02, 2016 1:46 am UTC

'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5534
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Dec 02, 2016 1:57 am UTC

So it looks like Trump is going to start fucking up US-India relations already:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 730980.cms
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5858
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Dec 02, 2016 1:58 am UTC


I know you're being sarcastic if you thought Trump wouldn't be happier if General "Mad Dog" was his secretary of defense. The only thing to make it better if it turned out that Mad Dog was actually a blonde with giant tits.

Thesh wrote:So it looks like Trump is going to start fucking up US-India relations already:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 730980.cms

Trump lavishes praise on everyone...until you don't do what he wants. Then he's a dark stalker, with police powers, and the ability to pardon. The bigger mistake here is that Pakistan leaked it.

Regarding Trump's Carrier deal, how is he implementing this deal? Is this a promise for congressional action?

User avatar
moody7277
Posts: 523
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:06 pm UTC
Location: Extreme south Texas

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby moody7277 » Fri Dec 02, 2016 3:16 am UTC

sardia wrote:Regarding Trump's Carrier deal, how is he implementing this deal? Is this a promise for congressional action?


For the next little while, the VP-elect is also the governor of Indiana, so that's probably how.
The story of my life in xkcdmafia:

Tigerlion wrote:Well, I imagine as the game progresses, various people will be getting moody.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5534
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Dec 02, 2016 4:02 am UTC

Well, I think it's starting to look like the Trump Organization is going to outsource its hotel staff to China. I think it's time for the master negotiator to step in and pressure them into keeping the jobs here, just like he did for Carrier.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1238
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JudeMorrigan » Fri Dec 02, 2016 1:33 pm UTC


Don't read too much into the nickname, he's actually a pretty heartening pick:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... _pick.html

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5858
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Dec 02, 2016 1:46 pm UTC

Meh, Donald is insistent on having noncivilians control the military. It breaks the protocol that only civilians should be in charge.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dem ... rnorships/
Democrats can't count on trump dragging down GOP governorships. Only 36%of the variability is explained by presidency. :-(
The upside is that Democrats can win in GOP strongholds, but it also means that GOP governors will only be kicked out for failing. In either case, every promising candidates of the Democrats has to be diverted to the governor races. And that means Democrats have to play offense in 2018.

It is too early to see any changes to the Democrats platform though.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 955
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Fri Dec 02, 2016 4:38 pm UTC

Pat McCrory is being the sorest of sore losers in NC. In a state that went for Trump and re-elected a Republican senator, he lost. That's pretty damning. That's the one silver lining we have here.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5858
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Dec 02, 2016 5:42 pm UTC

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/tru ... ob-market/
Trump comes to power with a strong behind him. Expect to see Trump reaping the credit for this shortly. Now that he's in charge, the unemployment numbers are now legit.

There's a good chance that Trump will ride this to a second term. 60%. Now that they are in charge, will the doom and gloom message continue? It's bad to be in charge while shit talking the economy, but the fear is useful for control.

User avatar
moody7277
Posts: 523
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:06 pm UTC
Location: Extreme south Texas

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby moody7277 » Fri Dec 02, 2016 6:56 pm UTC

sardia wrote:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-will-benefit-from-obamas-strong-job-market/
Trump comes to power with a strong behind him. Expect to see Trump reaping the credit for this shortly. Now that he's in charge, the unemployment numbers are now legit.

There's a good chance that Trump will ride this to a second term. 60%. Now that they are in charge, will the doom and gloom message continue? It's bad to be in charge while shit talking the economy, but the fear is useful for control.


I'm already figuring that Trump's re-election slogan in 2020 is going to be "Keep America Great."
The story of my life in xkcdmafia:

Tigerlion wrote:Well, I imagine as the game progresses, various people will be getting moody.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Fri Dec 02, 2016 7:01 pm UTC

sardia wrote:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-will-benefit-from-obamas-strong-job-market/
Trump comes to power with a strong behind him. Expect to see Trump reaping the credit for this shortly. Now that he's in charge, the unemployment numbers are now legit.

There's a good chance that Trump will ride this to a second term. 60%. Now that they are in charge, will the doom and gloom message continue? It's bad to be in charge while shit talking the economy, but the fear is useful for control.

Don't worry if you have convinced people that the situation was really really bad you can constantly make great strides while everything is still horrible and needs more of your fixing!

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Dec 02, 2016 7:54 pm UTC

Just posting something that was in another thread (the Gamergate Thread). Its basically turned into a Trump topic, so I think it belongs here instead.

LaserGuy wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:KrytenKoro: you do not hold a monopoly on "caring" for issues. I care and that's why I respond at all. On Gamergate, my caring level has greatly diminished in the past two years however. I'll reserve my hyperventilating for the actual Donald Trump topic.

As for the rest of your post: Ad Hominem is literally a fallacy of irrelevance. "Donald Trump is racist" is a fallacy. There are far stronger arguments to be used against him. But at the end of the day, "This man is racist" was the #1 overriding message from the media to the point of absurdity.


It's only a fallacy if you're deflecting argument against one of his policies by pointing out that he is racist. If your talking about his character, trustworthiness, or general fitness to be president of the United States, then it is relevant.


There are roughly two kinds Trump supporters I've come across.

1. Truly racist types -- One of my uncles who've I've talked to in person... and another anonymous person who happened to be a white-supremisist. In the case of my uncle, calling Donald Trump "racist" to them resulted in them basically saying "So what?? Here's a Jew Joke". In the white-supremisist case, it resulted in him saying "I'm a white supremisist. You'll never understand my viewpoint because you only see me as a racist". A racist person doesn't give a fuck about electing a racist type.

2. Non-racist types -- My mother would be in this case, a Trump supporter but I don't see her as racist. As an Asian-American immigrant, my mother has faced workplace discrimination in her previous employer and worked on a multi-year racial discrimination case against them. I have absolutely no ability to describe the issues of race and racism to her. My mother has experienced it first-hand and taught me about the importance of fighting against racism.

Now with that said, she definitely voted for Trump. No need for me to say this, but my mother is basically immune to the "but he's a racist" kinds of lectures. After all, who am I to lecture my mom on the basis of racism in this country? She already knows that crap, so that's just a subject that I'm not going to be able to "break through" to my mother on.

-----------

"Donald Trump is racist" is completely ineffective as a method of communication and/or debate. Racists don't care, and the non-racists don't deserve the lecture.

The next election needs to have superior arguments that can break through and communicate past the Right / Left divide. Whatever strategies come up for 2020, it will have to be a lot better than "But Trump is racist".
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Fri Dec 02, 2016 7:56 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6874
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Dec 02, 2016 7:56 pm UTC

KnightExemplar, LaserGuy was just pointing out that you used ad hominem incorrectly (which is correct, you applied it incorrectly). "Donald Trump is a racist, therefore we should not elect him" is not ad hominem. It might be an ineffective argument, but it's not a fallacious one.

EDIT: I am amused that a context exists where I can start a sentence with "KnightExemplar, LaserGuy was just..."

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1236
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Fri Dec 02, 2016 8:18 pm UTC

It sounds like the opening of a chapter, possibly in a Marvel or DC gn: "Knight Exemplar LaserGuy was just, fair, honourable and brave. For years, he stood against evil for the sake of those unable to protect themselves, the innocent and helpless of the city. That was before ... " ... and then Batman and Spiderman would have to team up to take him down of something.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Dec 02, 2016 8:48 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:"Donald Trump is racist" is a fallacy.
No, it really really isn't.

Regardless of whether it's true, relevant, or used in a logically valid broader argument, an atomic sentence like that cannot by itself be a fallacy.

(Also, as mentioned before, *everyone* who voted for Trump chose a racist (perceived) solution to their problems, which is a racist choice. The lecture might be ineffective because people of all political persuasions prefer to ignore arguments about their own shortcomings, but that doesn't mean it's undeserved.)
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)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Dec 02, 2016 9:11 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:(Also, as mentioned before, *everyone* who voted for Trump chose a racist (perceived) solution to their problems, which is a racist choice. The lecture might be ineffective because people of all political persuasions prefer to ignore arguments about their own shortcomings, but that doesn't mean it's undeserved.)


GMal, do you have any experience successfully holding a conversation with real life to turn them away from Trump while lecturing them that they are a racist?

Honest question. Because if you have had success with this strategy, I'd definitely like to hear how it happened. Because I've "been that guy" and tried it multiple times. Its worked literally never. The only people who are willing to hear that Trump was racist were other people who already agreed upon that fact.

Otherwise, people I've known become immediately defensive and possibly even shut-down the argument (ie: the case of my clearly racist Uncle who deflected to a generic Jew joke).

But you're welcome to share your experience if its ever gone a different way. I know that my anecdotes aren't bulletproof, and if you've had a different experience, I am definitely interested in hearing about it.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6874
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Dec 02, 2016 9:17 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:GMal, do you have any experience successfully holding a conversation with real life to turn them away from Trump while lecturing them that they are a racist?

Honest question. Because if you have had success with this strategy, I'd definitely like to hear how it happened. Because I've "been that guy" and tried it multiple times. Its worked literally never. The only people who are willing to hear that Trump was racist were other people who already agreed upon that fact.

But you're welcome to share your experience if its ever gone a different way. I know that my anecdotes aren't bulletproof, and if you've had a different experience, I am definitely interested in hearing about it.
Gmal isn't talking about successful strategies; he's talking about whether or not voting Donald Trump constitutes a racist choice.

Maybe saying "Donald Trump is a racist choice" is an ineffective way to get people to not vote Donald Trump. But that doesn't make the statement wrong. Just because an argument isn't persuasive doesn't mean it's incorrect.

EDIT: I should add, I don't know if I agree that Donald Trump is a racist choice -- mostly because it seems hard to describe a vote as 'racist'. But the point isn't that gmaviluk's argument is right; the point is that its lack of persuasiveness does not make it wrong.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5643
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Fri Dec 02, 2016 9:24 pm UTC

moody7277 wrote:I'm already figuring that Trump's re-election slogan in 2020 is going to be "Keep America Great."
There isn't going to be an election. As Trump keeps tweeting about rigged elections, people continue to lose faith in the actual workings of this democracy. In 2018 a few more Republicans get in, and finally control the house and senate. As 2020 nears there will be some sort of (convenient) crisis, and Trump will call off elections and declare himself Supreme Leader For Life, so that it can be dealt with. Since people's faith in our democracy has been eroded by four years of fake news about election fraud, people won't mind.

I give a 90% chance that it doesn't actually happen this way. But 10% is too much.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
moody7277
Posts: 523
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:06 pm UTC
Location: Extreme south Texas

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby moody7277 » Fri Dec 02, 2016 9:56 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
moody7277 wrote:I'm already figuring that Trump's re-election slogan in 2020 is going to be "Keep America Great."
There isn't going to be an election. As Trump keeps tweeting about rigged elections, people continue to lose faith in the actual workings of this democracy. In 2018 a few more Republicans get in, and finally control the house and senate. As 2020 nears there will be some sort of (convenient) crisis, and Trump will call off elections and declare himself Supreme Leader For Life, so that it can be dealt with. Since people's faith in our democracy has been eroded by four years of fake news about election fraud, people won't mind.

I give a 90% chance that it doesn't actually happen this way. But 10% is too much.

Jose


Thus ends the USA?
The story of my life in xkcdmafia:

Tigerlion wrote:Well, I imagine as the game progresses, various people will be getting moody.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5534
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Dec 02, 2016 10:06 pm UTC

With Donald Trump and a large Republican presence focusing on anti-worker policies, I think by 2020 there will be too much bullshit for anyone, right or left, to accept it no matter how much propaganda they pump out.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

morriswalters
Posts: 6950
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Dec 02, 2016 10:15 pm UTC

There isn't going to be an election.
It looks vaguely like a conspiracy theory in the making.

@KnightExemplar
The fallacy you're looking for is the "fallacy of the single cause".

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5643
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Fri Dec 02, 2016 10:18 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:It looks vaguely like a conspiracy theory in the making.
That's what they want you to think. :)

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5534
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Dec 02, 2016 10:47 pm UTC

Trump might face more backlash than I was expecting:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/s ... ism-232139

EDIT:

Also, not sure if the whole Trump owning shares in United Technologies who owns Carrier thing has been mentioned:

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/12/02/ ... mpany.html

EDIT 2: Looks like it's a bond, not shares.
Last edited by Thesh on Fri Dec 02, 2016 10:59 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5643
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Fri Dec 02, 2016 10:56 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Trump might face more backlash than I was expecting:
Trump faces and has faced enormous backlash throughout his campaign. It doesn't sink him. He gets people to line up behind him, despite all the backlash. That's the scary part. That's what tells me this isn't an ordinary "my party lost" situation.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5534
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:01 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Thesh wrote:Trump might face more backlash than I was expecting:
Trump faces and has faced enormous backlash throughout his campaign. It doesn't sink him. He gets people to line up behind him, despite all the backlash. That's the scary part. That's what tells me this isn't an ordinary "my party lost" situation.

Jose


Well, Republicans were generally behind him leading up to the general, and the only criticism or concern was about stuff that doesn't really matter to them, like whether or not Donald Trump sexually assaulted women.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5858
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:51 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
ucim wrote:
Thesh wrote:Trump might face more backlash than I was expecting:
Trump faces and has faced enormous backlash throughout his campaign. It doesn't sink him. He gets people to line up behind him, despite all the backlash. That's the scary part. That's what tells me this isn't an ordinary "my party lost" situation.

Jose


Well, Republicans were generally behind him leading up to the general, and the only criticism or concern was about stuff that doesn't really matter to them, like whether or not Donald Trump sexually assaulted women.

The Republicans are in a tough*spot in that they aren't willing to sabotage themselves just to stop Trump's"minor" corruption. Or minor authoritarianism. It would hurt their attempts to make in roads into blue States.
A lot of blue States still believe in the supposed benefits of two party government, unlike many red States.

*Too much power/plenty

I read more into Trump's carrier deal. If I read it right, there was the standard level offer of money and tax breaks, but carrier refused. The initial deal was offered before Trump was ever involved. Trump offered a carrot and a stick, So it's not like he only paid them off. It's still dumb.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests