Respectful discussion and debate #3- the election of 2016 (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

I suspect that when it's all said and done more will be written about 2016's election than any we've had since 1968. Currently I have started reading Matt Taibbi's Insane Clown President, a collection of his essays for Rolling Stone from last year, with a new introduction. Taibbi is a very good political "gonzo" journalist, in the tradition of Hunter S. Thompson, and he poses some very good questions. I'm not sure- yet- that I subscribe to all of his answers, but his questions are important.  Among them: 

1. Given 16 other experienced candidates of all political stripes, from establishment to anti-establishment, why did Republican voters choose the inexperienced Donald Trump? (Adding my own query to this: if it was simply a matter of anti-GOP establishment fervor, then why Trump over Cruz, who had been a Tea Party champion for years in the Senate?)

2. Why didn't Trump's initial gaffes (calling Mexicans rapists, disparaging John McCain's POW status, insulting Meghan Kelly, etc etc.) not eliminate him early on? Why did his support among conservatives increase after each of these, any one of which would have destroyed any traditional candidate?

3. Why did the media play every Trump speech in it's entirety during the campaign, while only showing small glimpses of Bernie Sanders, the other "insurgent" candidacy? And if Bernie had received the media exposure of Donald Trump, could he have won the Democratic nomination? And if he had, would he have defeated Donald Trump in the general election? 

4. Why did Hillary's team (and most of the pollsters) get Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania so wrong? 

Obviously there are tons more to discuss here. Taibbi, whom I suspect is a Bernie fan, is very critical of the Clinton team for being aloof, arrogant, and not getting it. He is nearly as critical of the mainstream media for the same. I'm hoping we can have some discussion here about all of these issues, without the name calling and insults from both sides that seem to permeate any other threads. And again, I'm especially interested in hearing from Trump fans. 

 

[tommyboy]

1) trump most dominant

2) nobody cared

3) media is stupid and lazy and corrupt

4)  ditto for clinton team

 

[McGarnicle]

1. Name recognition, alpha-male-ness (the bullying of the other candidates was seen as winning against them by his intended base of supporters), and he was the only one willing to say un-PC things at a time when his base was sick and tired of PC culture & identity politics. He was the only authentic candidate to those people.

2. As mentioned above, the authenticity was attractive, and the gaffes were easily forgiven as a by-product of being unpolished and unfiltered. Also calling Mexicans rapists was hardly a gaffe. This resonated with his base immediately. 

3. The Trump speeches were good for ratings. I doubt Sanders had a chance regardless of any variables including media exposure, because Hillary owned the superdelegates and had a stranglehold on the establishment DNC people, the teacher's unions etc.

4. I think it was the hubris that those voters were in the bag and of course anyone with common sense would vote for her over Trump. I can't think of any other reason. And it was the conventional wisdom we heard ad nauseum by the media and pollsters. 

 

[McGarnicle]

To add to #3, Sanders got less coverage because the media was overwhelmingly in the tank for Hillary.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

With regards to #3, I think one reason the media gave Trump so much exposure was because they thought it would destroy his candidacy.

 

[The Commish]

I'll give my opinion on the whole thing.  Trump was no different than any other GOP politician outside of one important characteristic and one important pandering decision.  The characteristic?  "He isn't PC".  The pandering decision?  "He chose to pander to ALL the fringe groups where other GOPers in the past would pick one and make it their niche.  The reality is "He isn't PC" is more accurately described as, he's completely ill-informed of how government works.  He doesn't have a ####### clue how it works.

His pandering comes naturally, and I'm not confident he even knew he was pandering.  He's that guy at the party telling everyone what they want to hear so they will be his friend.  The reason his gaffes didn't hurt him is because they were gaffes to the political types, but his supporters so them as valid positions.  This should tell us all where the country REALLY is on these topics.  This wasn't news to some of us, but there seems to be a large portion of the country that is shocked by the number of racist, sexist, bigoted people we really do have.  That, of course, is a byproduct of sweeping them under the rug and not addressing them directly for decades.  Legislation doesn't change the heart.

The media does what they do.  The put on the television screen anything that will get eyeballs on their channel.  It's been mildly entertaining to see the backlash our media's been experiencing. Part of me is in the "finally, people are starting to get it" camp and part of me is in the  camp where NOW they are bagging on the media because of, well TRUMP!  There is a ton of responsibility that lies at the feet of our media IMO.  If they were doing their job, our political landscape could be a lot different and not just in terms of Trump.

I don't think there is much more Bernie could have done, other than to start earlier and focus more on the south?  He'd still have to defy all odds in defeating the Clinton machine and the DNC.  I am grateful for what he's done to expose the inner workings of the DNC, but I don't think there was anything he could have done to beat Hillary or the DNC.  My only hope is that people paid attention and remember this in the midterms.  

To your final question, I think the simple answer is "arrogance".  The people in those states told her several times she needed to be paying more attention, but she didn't listen apparently.  Of course we'll never know that for certain, but the lack of physical presence is telling.  Bernie winning the state of Michigan from under her is the ultimate validation of those telling her she needed to spend more time there, but she was there how many times over the course of the campagin?  Less than 5?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

1.  Whether on purpose, which I doubt, or simply by being an animal of the same stripe, which I believe, Trump was able to tap into the social media style of communication that seems to be infecting just about every single aspect of our daily lives.  And he wasn't facing 16 people.  Only about 5 were really true contenders. George Pataki was never getting the nomination. He was shooting for, at best,  a VP spot or a cabinet post if he was able to navigate some support as others fell out of the race.

His media exposure helped too. And we really can't discount the desire of a very large part of the country wanting to tell the JEB Bush style politician to just go to help already. Trump was willing to do that.  And of course once it boiled down to facing Clinton, the hatred of her have him a boost.

1a.  Ted Cruz is awesome in small doses. He isn't a national figure. He doesn't have the gravitas for it. Trump does, I don't think we can deny that.  And Cruz wasn't comfortable being as visceral as Trump was.

2. Because he was telling the people that tell us how we should think to go eff themselves.  He wasn't polished and the polished guys got us into this mess.  Whatever this mess was.

3. Trump is more entertaining and sells more ads. Bernie looks like that crazy professor no one likes.   The media both wanted to sell ad space and felt the need to talk about him because he was playingby such a different playbook that they had no choice.

Looking back now, I don't think Bernie beats Trump. I could be wrong.

4. For the very reason that Trump won. Because they actually operated in the bubble that most of Trumps support wanted to pop.  They took it for granted because Trump was so bad, but they didn't understand that it a very different fight than what they were fighting.  Hillary was a boxer expecting the Marquis de Queensbury rules and Trump was going full MMA.  She pivoted too late and the language and rules of the election were the size of the octagon and not the weight of the gloves she was wearing.

Eh, what do I know.  I'm still just flummoxed that this is real and not a dream.

 

[timschochet]

To add to #3, Sanders got less coverage because the media was overwhelmingly in the tank for Hillary.

I don't believe this is the case. Certainly they doubted that Bernie could win, but that's not the same as being in the tank for Hillary. If they were truly in the tank, why were we inundated with stories about emails, about the Clinton Foundation, about her inability to "connect" to voters? And these were during the primary season, not just the general campaign. 

But let's say they were in the tank for her. As you pointed out, Trump's speeches got TV play because they achieved high ratings. But why wouldn't Bernie's speeches have received high ratings? 

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I don't believe this is the case. Certainly they doubted that Bernie could win, but that's not the same as being in the tank for Hillary. If they were truly in the tank, why were we inundated with stories about emails, about the Clinton Foundation, about her inability to "connect" to voters? And these were during the primary season, not just the general campaign. 

But let's say they were in the tank for her. As you pointed out, Trump's speeches got TV play because they achieved high ratings. But why wouldn't Bernie's speeches have received high ratings? 

This the Howard Stern Truism of Trump.

Trumps got play because half liked him and wanted to hear what he would say.  And half hated him and wanted to hear what he would say. 

Look at our board. How many lefties have now pegged everyone not a Democrat as a Trump person.  He was giving all of those people proof that they were right and the GOP and it's voters were dumb racist sexist scum. Everyone got the same thing from his speeches.  Confirmation.

 

[shader]

I suspect that when it's all said and done more will be written about 2016's election than any we've had since 1968. Currently I have started reading Matt Taibbi's Insane Clown President, a collection of his essays for Rolling Stone from last year, with a new introduction. Taibbi is a very good political "gonzo" journalist, in the tradition of Hunter S. Thompson, and he poses some very good questions. I'm not sure- yet- that I subscribe to all of his answers, but his questions are important.  Among them: 

1. Given 16 other experienced candidates of all political stripes, from establishment to anti-establishment, why did Republican voters choose the inexperienced Donald Trump? (Adding my own query to this: if it was simply a matter of anti-GOP establishment fervor, then why Trump over Cruz, who had been a Tea Party champion for years in the Senate?)

2. Why didn't Trump's initial gaffes (calling Mexicans rapists, disparaging John McCain's POW status, insulting Meghan Kelly, etc etc.) not eliminate him early on? Why did his support among conservatives increase after each of these, any one of which would have destroyed any traditional candidate?

3. Why did the media play every Trump speech in it's entirety during the campaign, while only showing small glimpses of Bernie Sanders, the other "insurgent" candidacy? And if Bernie had received the media exposure of Donald Trump, could he have won the Democratic nomination? And if he had, would he have defeated Donald Trump in the general election? 

4. Why did Hillary's team (and most of the pollsters) get Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania so wrong? 

Obviously there are tons more to discuss here. Taibbi, whom I suspect is a Bernie fan, is very critical of the Clinton team for being aloof, arrogant, and not getting it. He is nearly as critical of the mainstream media for the same. I'm hoping we can have some discussion here about all of these issues, without the name calling and insults from both sides that seem to permeate any other threads. And again, I'm especially interested in hearing from Trump fans. 

I think the fact that there were 16 is why he won in the first place.  Having 16 shows that you don't have a plan or a clue.  

 

[McGarnicle]

I don't believe this is the case. Certainly they doubted that Bernie could win, but that's not the same as being in the tank for Hillary. If they were truly in the tank, why were we inundated with stories about emails, about the Clinton Foundation, about her inability to "connect" to voters? And these were during the primary season, not just the general campaign. 

But let's say they were in the tank for her. As you pointed out, Trump's speeches got TV play because they achieved high ratings. But why wouldn't Bernie's speeches have received high ratings? 

I would bet money that the majority of reporters & staff at CBS, NYT, WAPO, MSNBC & CNN were for Hillary from the start. They still had to report negative newsworthy stuff about her as part of covering the election, though I would hardly say we were inundated, if we compare her negative coverage to Trump's.

 

[timschochet]

 The reason his gaffes didn't hurt him is because they were gaffes to the political types, but his supporters so them as valid positions.  This should tell us all where the country REALLY is on these topics.  This wasn't news to some of us, but there seems to be a large portion of the country that is shocked by the number of racist, sexist, bigoted people we really do have.  That, of course, is a byproduct of sweeping them under the rug and not addressing them directly for decades.  Legislation doesn't change the heart.

This is the only part of your analysis that I MIGHT take issue with. I say might because of course I've had the same thoughts myself, but then I dismiss them as prejudiced. When confronted with the two choices: 

1. There's a lot of people who agreed with Trump in his racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.

2. There's few people who actually agreed with Trump on these issues, but they were willing to ignore them because they preferred Trump for other reasons. 

... I have tried to lean toward #2. Simply put, I don't want to believe #1 is true. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Yup, I watched every Trump thing I could even though there was no way in a million years I would ever vote for him.  I don't think conservatives had the same thirst for Bernie info.

 

[-OZ-]

I think the fact that there were 16 is why he won in the first place.  Having 16 shows that you don't have a plan or a clue.  

Agreed but backwards - nobody had a clue here, which caused 16 candidates.  He got the pub and is known by almost everybody.  

The liberal media attacking him helped feed the beast.

 

[IC FBGCav]

With regards to #3, I think one reason the media gave Trump so much exposure was because they thought it would destroy his candidacy.

I think they wanted him to run against HRC.

 

[Da Guru]

Every thread should start with "Respectful Discussion"

 

[shader]

Agreed but backwards - nobody had a clue here, which caused 16 candidates.  He got the pub and is known by almost everybody.  

The liberal media attacking him helped feed the beast.

Well yeah that's true too.  He was more well known than any of the other 15 guys, none of the others were "favorites", the media probably promoted him for ratings, never dreaming he'd win....and there you go.

 

[The Commish]

 The reason his gaffes didn't hurt him is because they were gaffes to the political types, but his supporters so them as valid positions.  This should tell us all where the country REALLY is on these topics.  This wasn't news to some of us, but there seems to be a large portion of the country that is shocked by the number of racist, sexist, bigoted people we really do have.  That, of course, is a byproduct of sweeping them under the rug and not addressing them directly for decades.  Legislation doesn't change the heart.

This is the only part of your analysis that I MIGHT take issue with. I say might because of course I've had the same thoughts myself, but then I dismiss them as prejudiced. When confronted with the two choices: 

1. There's a lot of people who agreed with Trump in his racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.

2. There's few people who actually agreed with Trump on these issues, but they were willing to ignore them because they preferred Trump for other reasons. 

... I have tried to lean toward #2. Simply put, I don't want to believe #1 is true. 

I don't live in a portion of the country that affords me that option Tim  

His racist, sexist and bigoted comments were lapped up around here.  It was a driving force here, no question.  It was followed closely by "not Hillary".  Anecdotes, sure.  But if you're looking closely at the fabric of America, it's easy to see how racist and sexist we really are.

 

[timschochet]

Many conservatives that I have read here and elsewhere paint a rather simplistic picture which is: the elites living in California and the big cities back east (of which I am one) don't "get" the heartland/flyover country anymore. We ignored it for too long. Democrats spent too much time interested in fighting battles that weren't important to "regular folks" (like gay marriage and transexual rights) while ignoring economic hardships. Trump represented a rebellion against all of this.

How true is this theory? 

 

[jon_mx]

2.  I think the media grossly underestimates how feed up people are with political correctness and tired everyone being so offended.    The pundits and experts all sit around their talk shows looking for something to be offended about everyday, while the average guy does not care.  In fact, people respect someone brave enough to thumb their nose at all these whiny little talking heads who think their opinion means more than everyone else's. 

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Many conservatives that I have read here and elsewhere paint a rather simplistic picture which is: the elites living in California and the big cities back east (of which I am one) don't "get" the heartland/flyover country anymore. We ignored it for too long. Democrats spent too much time interested in fighting battles that weren't important to "regular folks" (like gay marriage and transexual rights) while ignoring economic hardships. Trump represented a rebellion against all of this.

How true is this theory? 

Very.

He's a empty suit but he was the only one selling. 

 

[wikkidpissah]

If Palin had stayed on task, she would have beat Obama in 2012. Trump's a hilariously coincidental extension of that. Forty percent of America want to know precisely what to think and everything to kick ###. The other 60% are all over the map and aint no one herded them cats yet. Populist, neo-fascist victory. nufced

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Is this mostly a why trump thread instead of one that focuses on Hillary too?  I know the last question mentions Hillary but seems to be mostly about why trump. 

 

[IC FBGCav]

2.  I think the media grossly underestimates how feed up people are with political correctness and tired everyone being so offended.    The pundits and experts all sit around their talk shows looking for something to be offended about everyday, while the average guy does not care.  In fact, people respect someone brave enough to thumb their nose at all these whiny little talking heads who think their opinion means more than everyone else's. 

I think many of those people mistake political correctness with common decency.  

 

[timschochet]

2.  I think the media grossly underestimates how feed up people are with political correctness and tired everyone being so offended.    The pundits and experts all sit around their talk shows looking for something to be offended about everyday, while the average guy does not care.  In fact, people respect someone brave enough to thumb their nose at all these whiny little talking heads who think their opinion means more than everyone else's. 

There's something to this. One thing that Taibbi notes- after Trump made his comments about John McCain, the GOP leadership all called on him to apologize (including Sean Spicer). Trump refused to apologize, and simply claimed he never said what he had said. The media was astonished- they had Trump on tape. Here was Trump lying about what he said.

But it increased his popularity among conservatives. Not because of his original comments, but because he refused to apologize. That impressed them, per Taibbi. So I really think you make a good point here. 

 

[jon_mx]

I think many of those people mistake political correctness with common decency.  

That may very well be true.  But when the pendulum swings too far one way, it usually swings back too far the other way. 

 

[timschochet]

Is this mostly a why trump thread instead of one that focuses on Hillary too?  I know the last question mentions Hillary but seems to be mostly about why trump. 

The first 2 questions are about Trump (which I think is fair since he was the winner); question 3 is really about Bernie, and the last question is about Hillary. 

But certainly if you believe that this election was more about Hillary losing than Trump winning you're welcome to make that argument. It may be very valid. 

 

[-OZ-]

I don't live in a portion of the country that affords me that option Tim  

His racist, sexist and bigoted comments were lapped up around here.  It was a driving force here, no question.  It was followed closely by "not Hillary".  Anecdotes, sure.  But if you're looking closely at the fabric of America, it's easy to see how racist and sexist we really are.

As a current resident of Alabama, yep.  Not in huntsville, it's like a whole different world here, but travel over 10 minutes away and we hear banjoes.

 

[McGarnicle]

This is the only part of your analysis that I MIGHT take issue with. I say might because of course I've had the same thoughts myself, but then I dismiss them as prejudiced. When confronted with the two choices: 

1. There's a lot of people who agreed with Trump in his racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.

2. There's few people who actually agreed with Trump on these issues, but they were willing to ignore them because they preferred Trump for other reasons. 

... I have tried to lean toward #2. Simply put, I don't want to believe #1 is true. 

I've been pretty surprised many times when talking to family members and acquaintances when they would let their guard down and admit to racist or sexist beliefs. These are people I'd never in a million years predict would hold those views. My own natural cynicism about human beings aside, I think #1 is more true than you think just because of what I've witnessed. And as you've pointed out many times (and gotten blasted for), how truly enlightened and tolerant can you really be if you're willing to overlook bigotry and misogyny in a presidential candidate? There's a human inclination to believe I'm a good person and most other people are fundamentally good too, which prevents a thorough and objective examination of that dissonance. 

 

[The Commish]

Many conservatives that I have read here and elsewhere paint a rather simplistic picture which is: the elites living in California and the big cities back east (of which I am one) don't "get" the heartland/flyover country anymore. We ignored it for too long. Democrats spent too much time interested in fighting battles that weren't important to "regular folks" (like gay marriage and transexual rights) while ignoring economic hardships. Trump represented a rebellion against all of this.

How true is this theory? 

I don't think it's limited to "conservatives" Tim.  There are plenty liberals who feel like they aren't represented either.  I haven't felt like I am represented in any meaningful way on a national level for a very long time.  What do you label a person who believes that the government should be all in on our military/veterans, education, infrastructure and healthcare?  Those people who understand that "free choice" is required from a societal perspective even though they don't agree with it personally and can't understand how someone sees it as an option.  Those people who think the government is wasting it's time in the marriage business.  Those people who think our tax structure is completely antiquated and in need of a paradigm shift.   Those people don't have a home in today's political landscape.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I don't think it's limited to "conservatives" Tim.  There are plenty liberals who feel like they aren't represented either.  I haven't felt like I am represented in any meaningful way on a national level for a very long time.  What do you label a person who believes that the government should be all in on our military/veterans, education, infrastructure and healthcare?  Those people who understand that "free choice" is required from a societal perspective even though they don't agree with it personally and can't understand how someone sees it as an option.  Those people who think the government is wasting it's time in the marriage business.  Those people who think our tax structure is completely antiquated and in need of a paradigm shift.   Those people don't have a home in today's political landscape.

Yeah, but that makes 2.  A few more people and we have more support than the Whig party.

 

[timschochet]

As a current resident of Alabama, yep.  Not in huntsville, it's like a whole different world here, but travel over 10 minutes away and we hear banjoes.

But what do you mean by this, exactly?

If I stepped in a time machine and traveled back to Alabama in the year 1967- 50 years ago- I would find white residents of the state largely in favor of segregated schools, water fountains, busses- I would hear them tell me that white people were morally and mentally superior to blacks. They wouldn't want any black players on the Alabama football team. 

Surely all that has changed. So what do you mean when you claim they are racist nowadays? 

 

[The Commish]

I don't think it's limited to "conservatives" Tim.  There are plenty liberals who feel like they aren't represented either.  I haven't felt like I am represented in any meaningful way on a national level for a very long time.  What do you label a person who believes that the government should be all in on our military/veterans, education, infrastructure and healthcare?  Those people who understand that "free choice" is required from a societal perspective even though they don't agree with it personally and can't understand how someone sees it as an option.  Those people who think the government is wasting it's time in the marriage business.  Those people who think our tax structure is completely antiquated and in need of a paradigm shift.   Those people don't have a home in today's political landscape.

Yeah, but that makes 2.  A few more people and we have more support than the Whig party.

Let's do this GB  

 

[shader]

There are a lot of racist people in the South.  I can't speak for other parts of the country, because I haven't lived anywhere else.

Unfortunately, this is the case.  Just 50 years ago, black people used separate water fountains, for crying out loud.  

This history is really apparent when you get to parts of the South where you haven't had a lot of "move-ins".  For instance, where I live currently is a very transient area.  I have no idea how many native Tennesseans live in my neighborhood.  Not a lot, I'd say.

But when you go 30 minutes out of the city, you have people that were born and raised.  There are grandparents who lived in a time when segregation was the norm.  To be fair, this affects the attitudes of people of all races.  It's very sad, but yes you'd have to be a fool not to admit that racism exists in the South.

As for the rest of the country, I'll let you guys be honest about whether or not it exists there or not.  I'd imagine to some degree or another, it exists everywhere. 

 

[timschochet]

I don't think it's limited to "conservatives" Tim.  There are plenty liberals who feel like they aren't represented either.  I haven't felt like I am represented in any meaningful way on a national level for a very long time.  What do you label a person who believes that the government should be all in on our military/veterans, education, infrastructure and healthcare?  Those people who understand that "free choice" is required from a societal perspective even though they don't agree with it personally and can't understand how someone sees it as an option.  Those people who think the government is wasting it's time in the marriage business.  Those people who think our tax structure is completely antiquated and in need of a paradigm shift.   Those people don't have a home in today's political landscape.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's the same. Sure you feel like you're not represented- but it's different, I believe, with conservatives- it's not just misrepresentation, it's an emotional feeling of "you guys think you're so much smarter than we are". 

 

[Kiddnets]

As an independent who didnt vote for Trump (or Hillary) I watched this train wreck from neutral ground.  I honestly dont think it was Trump embracing per se but a final rejection of Hillary.  It was death by 1,000 cuts....she was so corrupt and flawed yet so arrogant.  They were all acting like it was an inevitable coronation....when Bernie actually became a threat they disposed of him in an even more corrupt way....it was mind boggling that the media just gave her a big pass.  

The other issue is this new holier than thou Dems philosophy.....instead of comparing positions and policies it's anyone who could possibly not be a Dem is now a racist, anti-woman, hating bigot...What the heck?!  I've spoken to a ton of people that voted Trump but would never admit it....you can't treat people like this and expect to get away with it....it's not getting any better...instead of stepping back and analyzing what the failure was to adjust policies we get constant marches and more divisive name calling/labeling.....how the heck can Dems be outraged at Trump's executive orders when Obama did the same thing?  And dont think Im giving the Right a pass on refusing to do anything with Obama like children the past 8 yrs......it's unreal - Until Washington is truly sick of every 4-8 yrs veering to extremes, it's time to sit down and actually compromise....doubt it will happen though....what a shame.  

 

[shader]

But what do you mean by this, exactly?

If I stepped in a time machine and traveled back to Alabama in the year 1967- 50 years ago- I would find white residents of the state largely in favor of segregated schools, water fountains, busses- I would hear them tell me that white people were morally and mentally superior to blacks. They wouldn't want any black players on the Alabama football team. 

Surely all that has changed. So what do you mean when you claim they are racist nowadays? 

Well it's different.  Obviously things have improved.  But in the south, many churches still are segregated by race.  Many neighborhoods are as well.  There are "white areas" of town and "black areas" of town.  It shouldn't be this way, and of course there are no rules on this, but it does tend to happen, by and large.

I see it a lot when it comes to school systems.  Well meaning white parents want their kids to go to "good schools".  If a school has a lot of minority (of any color) kids, it's seen as less than desirable.  Many times the parents don't even realize they are being racist, they just want their kids to go to school with other rich kids, etc.  

 

[timschochet]

Every thread should start with "Respectful Discussion"

It really shouldn't be necessary. 

 

[timschochet]

Well it's different.  Obviously things have improved.  But in the south, many churches still are segregated by race.  Many neighborhoods are as well.  There are "white areas" of town and "black areas" of town.  It shouldn't be this way, and of course there are no rules on this, but it does tend to happen, by and large.

I see it a lot when it comes to school systems.  Well meaning white parents want their kids to go to "good schools".  If a school has a lot of minority (of any color) kids, it's seen as less than desirable.  Many times the parents don't even realize they are being racist, they just want their kids to go to school with other rich kids, etc.  

We had forced busing in the 70s to prevent this. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

1) trump most dominant

2) nobody cared

3) media is stupid and lazy and corrupt

4)  ditto for clinton team

I was gonna post that this seemed like the least likely of the three topics so far to produce "respectful discussion and debate."  And then this was the first reply.

 

[skol asylum]

1. Name recognition, alpha-male-ness (the bullying of the other candidates was seen as winning against them by his intended base of supporters), and he was the only one willing to say un-PC things at a time when his base was sick and tired of PC culture & identity politics. He was the only authentic candidate to those people.

2. As mentioned above, the authenticity was attractive, and the gaffes were easily forgiven as a by-product of being unpolished and unfiltered. Also calling Mexicans rapists was hardly a gaffe. This resonated with his base immediately. 

3. The Trump speeches were good for ratings. I doubt Sanders had a chance regardless of any variables including media exposure, because Hillary owned the superdelegates and had a stranglehold on the establishment DNC people, the teacher's unions etc.

4. I think it was the hubris that those voters were in the bag and of course anyone with common sense would vote for her over Trump. I can't think of any other reason. And it was the conventional wisdom we heard ad nauseum by the media and pollsters. 

Authenticity? I see what you mean but to me Trump is as phony as they come. 

 

[McGarnicle]

I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's the same. Sure you feel like you're not represented- but it's different, I believe, with conservatives- it's not just misrepresentation, it's an emotional feeling of "you guys think you're so much smarter than we are". 

It would be less of an issue if they actually did their ####### jobs instead of bickering with each other like children. Health care could've been solved long ago if the two parties put their best & brightest in a room to cobble something together, then take joint ownership of implementing it and fixing it along the way as necessary. Instead they'd rather let the other side twist in the breeze, attacking any solution they present so they can use it for reelection campaign fodder.

 

[shader]

We had forced busing in the 70s to prevent this. 

Many school districts here have similar.  But the prevalence of private schools is becoming bigger and bigger and the problem is re-emerging.

I will say that honestly it's more of a social thing now.  Parents with wealth want their kids to go to school with similar kids.

I may be over generalizing here.  I can't obviously speak for an entire large town.  But I personally see discrimination behind the motives of many of the parents.  Maybe it's social discrimination and not as much racism.  They certainly would never admit it's racism...

 

[Da Guru]

It really shouldn't be necessary. 

You are correct but things turn ugly and off topic pretty quick at times.

 

[timschochet]

I was gonna post that this seemed like the least likely of the three topics so far to produce "respectful discussion and debate."  And then this was the first reply.

It's been fine so far. And tommyboy's responses, while curt, weren't disrespectful of anybody here. 

 

[IC FBGCav]

There are a lot of racist people in the South.  I can't speak for other parts of the country, because I haven't lived anywhere else.

Unfortunately, this is the case.  Just 50 years ago, black people used separate water fountains, for crying out loud.  

This history is really apparent when you get to parts of the South where you haven't had a lot of "move-ins".  For instance, where I live currently is a very transient area.  I have no idea how many native Tennesseans live in my neighborhood.  Not a lot, I'd say.

But when you go 30 minutes out of the city, you have people that were born and raised.  There are grandparents who lived in a time when segregation was the norm.  To be fair, this affects the attitudes of people of all races.  It's very sad, but yes you'd have to be a fool not to admit that racism exists in the South.

As for the rest of the country, I'll let you guys be honest about whether or not it exists there or not.  I'd imagine to some degree or another, it exists everywhere. 

USA.   I lived in PA until I was 27 and going on 20 years in Raleigh.   People are the same everywhere.   Just because you have a different geographic location does mean things change, the only exception might be a big city where you are forced to interact with different people on a daily basis but for the most part people live in their own little bubbles.

 

[McGarnicle]

Authenticity? I see what you mean but to me Trump is as phony as they come. 

Of course, I was referring to his unvarnished un-PC rhetoric (being charitable here) and his brash & abrasive tone. And I'm taking the viewpoint of a Trump voter when using the term.

 

[Phase of the Game]

I was gonna post that this seemed like the least likely of the three topics so far to produce "respectful discussion and debate."  And then this was the first reply.

There was nothing wrong with his reply.

 

[timschochet]

I think that when Trump fans refer to his authenticity they're really talking about his style and crudeness, which is so different from politicians. I don't believe they're speaking about his honesty. 

 

[McGarnicle]

I remember when Obama promised exactly this, to put the smartest people in one room, put it on CSPAN so everyone could see who was paid for by lobbyists, and make them figure out a system that actually worked for people. That hollow promise was the closest we'll ever get to a something decent. Sadly, it got replaced by "we have to pass it to see what's in it" and throwing in exceptions and line-items that broke the thing one at a time in order to add single votes to the total to get it passed by 1 vote. "It works, but not in Nebraska! But then we win by 1. So, hooray it's great!"

Forget it, it's over now. The system can't be fixed. My advice to everyone is just save your own money so you can pay for #### your own damn self when it hits the fan.

The republicans decided from day 1 to obstruct at every turn, and the democrats are doing the same now. I don't know if it's possible to get much accomplished in the current climate, but they sure as hell won't even try. We can be assured of that.