I am all for lies, intolerance, hatred and contempt dying, who isn't. :) Which was my point when I wrote that liberals have to stop the name-calling and shaming. The intellectual level in this campaign has overall been incredibly low, something that both sides have contributed to.
Would be interesting to read an example of such mainstream media articles, because the ones I've read have been fairly clear on that point.
For America, deportation is a moral problem more than anything else. Along with a loss of manpower. Though they don't seem to care too much about either.
Costa86 · Member since
How can you go from Barack Obama to Donald Trump? Trump has just appointed a white supremacist, Stephen Bannon, as chief strategist at the White House. What a fucking disaster.
Obama was a good man and an ok president. Trump is a bad man and he's going to be a very bad president.
ParisNair · Member since
Just watched Bill Maher. Going by that show, the Dems have not learnt anything at all. The contempt for the other is still there, and just seems like they are being bad losers.
Oscar J · Member since
Well, liberals have every reason to be very unhappy with this election result. Many are not just unhappy but also afraid.
ParisNair · Member since
Being unhappy is one thing. Calling for changing of the system just because you lost, is behaving like a bad loser.
magicalfreddiemercury · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]ParisNair wrote: [/b] Being unhappy is one thing. Calling for changing of the system just because you lost, is behaving like a bad loser.[/QUOTE]
It's not about being a bad loser, it's about justifiable fear. Denials of that only make the fear worse since it seems to normalize the rise and expression of hate, which began during trump's campaign and has steadily increased since election day.
I'm curious what you're referring to regarding "changing the system". If you're referring to the change.org petition to the Electoral College asking them to consider voting for Clinton, that's not changing the system. That's actually forcing the system to work as it was intended. Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 1 million - and counting. On the other side, trump has a a fraud trial coming up in a week or so in which he'll have to testify in his defense, he's chosen a white nationalist for a top position in his administration, and he was completely oblivious to the responsibilities of POTUS - to the point where President Obama will be assisting with the transition (oh, the irony). All of this is just cause for the Electors to seriously consider how they cast their vote in December.
This article is dated pre-election, but I think it explains the EC very well.
The change that Bill Maher was asking for, was dismantling the EC.
I don't think it is sound logic that because Hillary won the popular vote so she should be president. It is not so simple.
If the allegations of fraud did not disqualify Trump from running for President, then it should not be used as cause for disqualifying him from becoming President.
The killing of Afrcan-Americans by none other than cops in uniform did not prompt anyone to coin the phrases "Obama's America" or "Obama's Cops".
I agree that Trump's election rhetoric and language has emboldened the "extreme elements" in American society. But it is a fact that a lot of these folks did vote Democratic earlier and swtiched to Trump this time. By not looking into what made them change their mind, and instead dismiss them as simply racist and such won't help.
magicalfreddiemercury · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]ParisNair wrote:[/b]
The change that Bill Maher was asking for, was dismantling the EC.
I don't think it is sound logic that because Hillary won the popular vote so she should be president. It is not so simple.
If the allegations of fraud did not disqualify Trump from running for President, then it should not be used as cause for disqualifying him from becoming President.
The killing of Afrcan-Americans by none other than cops in uniform did not prompt anyone to coin the phrases "Obama's America" or "Obama's Cops".
I agree that Trump's election rhetoric and language has emboldened the "extreme elements" in American society. But it is a fact that a lot of these folks did vote Democratic earlier and swtiched to Trump this time. By not looking into what made them change their mind, and instead dismiss them as simply racist and such won't help.
[/QUOTE]
I do agree with you in part. I don’t think completely dismantling the Electoral College is wise. Ultimately, it was meant to be a kind of tourniquet, if you will, against human stupidity. And I don’t think Clinton’s win of the popular vote, alone, is enough to say the EC should choose her. Neither do I think anyone should dismiss the clear divide between the people and government. That exists, and has to be addressed once the immediate threat of a Donald presidency has been dealt with.
That is where the EC comes in. An honest look at the man – at his words and actions from the past, during his campaign and now, since Election Day – should not just give them pause, it should terrify them. It should force them to consider the negative impact he’s already had and would have going forward – and not just on individuals, but on the country as a whole. If they were to do their jobs correctly, they would weigh all of that with Clinton’s strong lead in the popular vote (now 1 million plus and still counting), and help protect us from ourselves. Of course, I realize there's little chance of that actually happening.
Beyond that, there’s no denying Trump has roused bigotry and racism – and more. Racist acts of violence and vandalism are being carried out, in his name, by his supporters, in nearly every state, in streets, in schools, in parks, on subways... My own governor – of the very Blue state of NY – has had to set up a hotline for people to report related instances of violence and intimidation. Can we accuse all of trump’s supporters of racism? No. But we know they all eagerly supported a man who embodies it.
Donna13 · Member since
I guess if I could make a change to our election process, it would be to include a "none of the above" or a "voting against" option, which would then knock out the unacceptable candidates and start the process over.
Also, the two party system hasn't been working for us. For example, a voter may agree with the Republicans on tax issues and military spending and with the Democrats on social and environmental issues. Having the two sides creates gridlock. Abolishing the two political parties would be great. Then everyone would have to run on their own ideas and views instead of following the party's ideas.
Saint Jiub · Member since
"And if California slides into the ocean. Like the mystics and statistics say it will."
... Trump would win the popular vote by about 2,000,000 votes.
If only LA county was excluded from the voting results, Trump would have won the popular vote by 200,000 votes.
If the "granola" vote is excluded, Trump wins the popular vote...
If you take away his racism, his proto-fascism, and his climate change denialism, he'd almost be a semi-presentable president. Almost.
Anyway, he's going to be president now, and what this has shown very clearly is that the feelings and thoughts of white redneck manual workers cannot be ignored, nor should they. In their masses they felt like Trump was the only one who was listening to them, who spoke about their problems, and who vowed to restore economic prosperity in their areas of work.
The less educated voted for Trump, just like they voted for Brexit. That is not to say that the educated didn't also vote for Trump - they did. But it's not them who got him elected.
Oscar J · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Panchgani wrote: [/b] "And if California slides into the ocean. Like the mystics and statistics say it will."
... Trump would win the popular vote by about 2,000,000 votes.
If only LA county was excluded from the voting results, Trump would have won the popular vote by 200,000 votes.
If the "granola" vote is excluded, Trump wins the popular vote...
The less educated voted for Trump, just like they voted for Brexit. That is not to say that the educated didn't also vote for Trump - they did. But it's not them who got him elected.[/QUOTE]
It's the result of neoliberal globalism and the attitude of the left, or what the left has become, that got Trump elected.
I'd concluded that before I saw this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs
This too:
"Roger Scruton assesses some of the reasons behind Donald Trump's victory.
And he asks why many who intended to vote for Donald Trump would not have confessed to their intention.
"They wanted change," writes Scruton. "A change in the whole agenda of government".
Listen here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b081tkmc
This guy makes some very good points, in this "The left are no longer liberal" video: http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/maajid-nawaz/maajid-the-left-is-no-longer-liberal/
In fact, there's quite a bit of commentary regarding the rise of right wing thinking and the cause of it.
It's happening all across Europe too (as well as Australia), with the rise in popularity of Le Pen in France, and amoungst other examples, this in Germany: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/04/mecklenburg-vorpommern-german-anti-immigrant-party-strong-regional-election-exit-polls-merkel
If by "they" - the "less educated", you mean the working class who've been shafted to the point where they have nothing to lose, then it's understandable they'd be willing to take a risk on a leave vote, rather than more of the same when they can't even afford to buy new clothes for their kids.
On top of that, the so called "liberal" media haven't helped matters, such as The Independent, and The Guardian, that they've spent so much time looking down their nose at the working class. They barely bother to hide their contempt at times.
But it wasn't only the uneducated who voted for Brexit. There's plenty of very well educated people who don't wish to be a part of the E.U.
I recall not long before the referendum, the E.U calling upon all E.U members to go "soft" on the so called "sharing economy", one of the worst forms of capitalism (which lowers income for all involved, whilst it ruins peoples small independent businesses - aside from those at the top, of course). Uber being one of those. They need to be regulated for many reasons, including that of safety - which is finally happening in London, along with them losing a court battle, which means they'll have to pay drivers minimum wage and holiday pay.
The working class have been screwed over in all sorts of ways, what with mass migration forcing down income. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12063052/Mass-migration-driving-down-wages-offered-to-British-jobseekers.html
"Post truth" doesn't seem to care too much about that though.
When people are pushed down and crushed, and looked down upon, mocked, dismissed, shut down by being called names when those people have genuine and very real concerns, sneered at for being "uneducated".... then they'll have their say at the polling station.
I didn't vote either way, but there's more to it than the safe-in-their-jobs journalists, and your average sneering urbanite Independent reader would like anyone to believe.
Although, it seems as though the press are finally starting to come around. I guess they have to, with the shift that's going on...
