The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Wandering Yid
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
There's one issue with people saying that Trump won the election: he didn't.
...and before RobSpur unsheathes his keyboard to enter battle once more, this is NOT about the popular vote vs electoral vote. What this is about is something far more straightforward: the Democrats lost.
The simplest way to break it down is to look at the votes the five Democrat candidates received in the last three elections:
2008: Obama received 69.5m votes
2012: Obama received 65.9m votes
2016: Hillary Clinton received 63.7m votes
That's a loss of near as makes no difference 6m voters in the space of eight years, yet in that time there wasn't a sudden 6m increase in Republican voters, those 6m stayed at home - and regardless of what the current narrative is beating us over the head with, it has nothing to do with Trump being dismissed as a far-right crackpot who has no idea how to govern, it's because the Democrats themselves alienated their core support.
The first way they alienated their core support was by having Hillary stand as a candidate, even though for the past couple of decades she has always been a highly divisive figure even within the Democratic party, let alone the electorate - meaning that if she was on the ticket to be POTUS, that would have played into the hands of the Republicans who could play up to the large swathes of the American people who already hate her while at the same time weakened the potential Democrat support base as there's a fair number of their support who also hate her.
The second way they alienated their core support was the way the Democrats stitched up Bernie Sanders, most obviously by misrepresenting the lead Hillary had by always including the superdelegates when reporting on the number of delegates the two candidates had, giving the impression that Hillary had an insurmountable lead even though the superdelegate vote does not count until the DNC, as superdelegates are allowed to change their vote right up until the last minute - and these misleading figures were the ones that the news networks more often than not reported, creating the story that Hillary was odds-on winner when that was hardly the case.
When you look at the margins of victory in some states, it becomes clear just how badly installing Hillary as their candidate backfired, for example
Pennsylvania: less that 60,00 votes difference (20 electoral votes)
Alaska: less than 40,000 votes difference (3 electoral votes)
Wisconsin: less that 30,000 votes difference (10 electoral votes)
Michigan: less than 15,000 votes difference (16 electoral votes)
That's a total of 49 electoral votes, or to put it another way the electoral vote would have looked like this
Republican: 257
Democrat: 281
...and before RobSpur unsheathes his keyboard to enter battle once more, this is NOT about the popular vote vs electoral vote. What this is about is something far more straightforward: the Democrats lost.
The simplest way to break it down is to look at the votes the five Democrat candidates received in the last three elections:
2008: Obama received 69.5m votes
2012: Obama received 65.9m votes
2016: Hillary Clinton received 63.7m votes
That's a loss of near as makes no difference 6m voters in the space of eight years, yet in that time there wasn't a sudden 6m increase in Republican voters, those 6m stayed at home - and regardless of what the current narrative is beating us over the head with, it has nothing to do with Trump being dismissed as a far-right crackpot who has no idea how to govern, it's because the Democrats themselves alienated their core support.
The first way they alienated their core support was by having Hillary stand as a candidate, even though for the past couple of decades she has always been a highly divisive figure even within the Democratic party, let alone the electorate - meaning that if she was on the ticket to be POTUS, that would have played into the hands of the Republicans who could play up to the large swathes of the American people who already hate her while at the same time weakened the potential Democrat support base as there's a fair number of their support who also hate her.
The second way they alienated their core support was the way the Democrats stitched up Bernie Sanders, most obviously by misrepresenting the lead Hillary had by always including the superdelegates when reporting on the number of delegates the two candidates had, giving the impression that Hillary had an insurmountable lead even though the superdelegate vote does not count until the DNC, as superdelegates are allowed to change their vote right up until the last minute - and these misleading figures were the ones that the news networks more often than not reported, creating the story that Hillary was odds-on winner when that was hardly the case.
When you look at the margins of victory in some states, it becomes clear just how badly installing Hillary as their candidate backfired, for example
Pennsylvania: less that 60,00 votes difference (20 electoral votes)
Alaska: less than 40,000 votes difference (3 electoral votes)
Wisconsin: less that 30,000 votes difference (10 electoral votes)
Michigan: less than 15,000 votes difference (16 electoral votes)
That's a total of 49 electoral votes, or to put it another way the electoral vote would have looked like this
Republican: 257
Democrat: 281
I don't criticise the accuracy or quality of your analysis.
But to me this is just another way of burying heads in the sand.
It's not about whether the election result was due to the electoral college system, or whether it's actually the democrats not getting as many as votes as before that tipped it, or the pollsters being wrong, or turnout not being as hoped for.
The plain and simple fact is that 62 million Americans voted for Donald Trump to be their president.
That's a lot of people to ignore.
But we're supposed to ignore the 63.7m people who didn't vote for Trump to be president?
That sounds like burying heads in sand to me.
Not when you consider that they have been listened to for years, and are still listened to almost universally now.
They didn't vote because they hadn't been listened to and aren't being listened to. The 62m did.
62 million of 324 million Americans voted for Trump.
I appreciate that the whole population isn't eligible to vote, but 20% of the populace still doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement.
I appreciate that the whole population isn't eligible to vote, but 20% of the populace still doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement.
17% of the population of ireland voted for independence from the UK in 1937. They're still independent.
I think that you're over-emphasising how many people actually voted for Trump himself, rather than the party.
The Republicans and Democrats both have substantial numbers of loyal voters who will never switch sides or go 3rd party.
Add in the Christian fundamentalist anti-abortion lot, the gun lobby and a a few other groups and the one that you're focused on is quite small.
He got less than Romney. What did that tell us about disaffected voters?
What message is there in that for us to learn?
So the good guys hate trump himself, but don't have an issue with the people who elected him ?
How about the republican members who voted for him to represent the Republican party, ahead of all the other candidates ?
Do they represent hate, and shouod we hate them for representing hate, or are they ok too ?
Having lived in the states for over four years, I know that there are millions of dyed in the wool republicans.
I kid you not when I say that if Hitler were reincarnated and was somehow the republican candidate for president, millions of them would still vote for him.
I didn't watch much of the Republican primaries, but from what I read he wiped the floor with the other candidates.
A lot of his rhetoric was crass and false though, so that is an issue, in my opinion.
Claiming that Ted Cruz's dad was involved in JFK's death should've had him laughed out of the building, for example.
Do some of the Republican members represent hate? Yes. That's not new to Trump's time in the party, though.
Their view on things like gay marriage tell you how some of them think.
I've no idea what percentage of them it is.
To me it comes down to who has a right to be listened to, and who doesn't.
In the BBC interview of the alt right members today, there's a guy who says that his main concern is that he does not feel like a part of the country any more because he's white.
Now, if he was a black guy who said it was because he's black, there would be huge sympathy. The item would be presented as if it's a disgrace that this man is left to feel so disinfranchised.
But because it's a white guy, he's considered racist and full of hate, and just some scmubag who should be ignored.
What jusitifcation is there for that ?
Why shouldnt he be listened to, and his concerns adressed ?
It's all very well saying that white people in america whi consider themselves disaffected on account of their race are in a minority, but so were the black guys who felt themselves (and were) the victims of wrongful discrimination and alienation (and in their case abuse). What would have happened if their concerns were ignored because they were just a minority ?
In the BBC interview of the alt right members today, there's a guy who says that his main concern is that he does not feel like a part of the country any more because he's white.
Now, if he was a black guy who said it was because he's black, there would be huge sympathy. The item would be presented as if it's a disgrace that this man is left to feel so disinfranchised.
But because it's a white guy, he's considered racist and full of hate, and just some scmubag who should be ignored.
What jusitifcation is there for that ?
Why shouldnt he be listened to, and his concerns adressed ?
It's all very well saying that white people in america whi consider themselves disaffected on account of their race are in a minority, but so were the black guys who felt themselves (and were) the victims of wrongful discrimination and alienation (and in their case abuse). What would have happened if their concerns were ignored because they were just a minority ?
It depends on why anyone doesn't feel like they're a part of the country, not who they are or their race.
What were his reasons?
Noone asked or cared. He was just some whitey racist scmubag.
That's my point really, and fair play to you for asking. As I said originally, this is the approach imo that is needed to being people togethor, rather than push them apart and just blame the other side.
Do you have a link to it? I had a browse around and I don't seem to be able to find it.
There's an interview with Richard Spencer, but I assume that's not what you mean.
He did win. By the rules of the USA electoral process.
<Nothing to see here, move along>
There are many people who are bigoted, prejudiced, racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic etc, but extreme (and usually irrational and unacceptable) views are suppressed by government by the imposition of laws and the reinforcement of civilised society's values through political debate etc. That is the case even when those extreme views are represented by a significant number in society. Democracy isn't always about accepting what the prevailing views or wishes may be. We rely on government to do what is right.
But now we have a rise in extremist views and seemingly a willingness by government to tolerate those views - both here and in the U.S. Terrorism has undoubtedly brought about an increase in xenophobia and this has proved to be the best political ticket for any aspiring politicians. It was the biggest card Trump played - and the likes of Farrage and the Brexiteers here. Brexit may or may not be a good idea; but voting for it for xenophobic reasons is just crass - and you won't convince me that the voters who swung the balance in the referendum voted as they did for any other reason.
It's not a question of being a left wing sympathiser or not; it's a matter of knowing what's right and reasonable. Trump is an extremist, a loose cannon, a politician with no experience who is too pig- headed and arrogant to take advice. The fact that people voted for him doesn't make him any more suitable for the job of President or any less of a concern for those who question his credentials.
But now we have a rise in extremist views and seemingly a willingness by government to tolerate those views - both here and in the U.S. Terrorism has undoubtedly brought about an increase in xenophobia and this has proved to be the best political ticket for any aspiring politicians. It was the biggest card Trump played - and the likes of Farrage and the Brexiteers here. Brexit may or may not be a good idea; but voting for it for xenophobic reasons is just crass - and you won't convince me that the voters who swung the balance in the referendum voted as they did for any other reason.
It's not a question of being a left wing sympathiser or not; it's a matter of knowing what's right and reasonable. Trump is an extremist, a loose cannon, a politician with no experience who is too pig- headed and arrogant to take advice. The fact that people voted for him doesn't make him any more suitable for the job of President or any less of a concern for those who question his credentials.
Last edited:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38069469
Ok. It's the guy speaking @ 1.40
In the context of the video, I would suggest that he is depicted simply as a "deplorable".
My view is that he deserves better. That something has caused his disenfranchisement, and that his attendance at that event is an indication that something has gone wrong. That he hasnt been listened to or understood. I would arue that he shouldnt simply be dismissed, and that his concerns should be listened to and adressed, and if that means potentially impacting on someone else's conflicting concerns, then it should not automatically be presumed that the conflicting concern should prevail.
He seems to be basing it purely on race, though. That's his concern and the only point that he brings up.
I'm aware that it's a short video and his point might be edited out of context, though.
This was at a conference where people were throwing the Nazi salute and making similar statements.
Hail victory? Translate that into German and what do we get? Sieg Heil. Hmm...
Everyone there might not agree with this stuff. You can see why people might get that impression, though.