Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Trump named Time Person of the Year (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter toshiba
- Start date
Jayrod
Footballguy
Keep up the good fight, Tobias.
Maybe eventually you'll convince us what color the sky really is.
Lost jobs (actual and potential) was absolutely a huge issue for many that voted for Trump over Hillary and the country has been sharply divided for decades. Trump is the embodiment of that, not the cause.
Maybe eventually you'll convince us what color the sky really is.
Lost jobs (actual and potential) was absolutely a huge issue for many that voted for Trump over Hillary and the country has been sharply divided for decades. Trump is the embodiment of that, not the cause.
Northern Voice
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I've got cold hard data showing that voters who said the economy was their #1 issue voted for Clinton by double digits, while Trump got his support from huge margins among those who thought terrorism or immigration were our biggest problem. It's a Fox News exit poll. The same exit poll shows that people with household incomes under $50,000 also favored Clinton by double digits, and that she won among those with household incomes under $100,000 by 4% while splitting 50/50 with Trump among those over $100,000. She won among households with a member of a labor union by 9%. Trump won by a massive margin on those who thought the economy is poor, but that's kind of a chicken and egg problem, since Trump had been telling his supporters that the economy was falling apart for over a year by the time the election came around. I've also got many links to detailed Clinton policies designed to help the working class I can share if you want.
And on the question of division, that's of course ultimately a subjective opinion. But I do have data about the increase in hate crimes that coincides perfectly with Trump's candidacy as well as tons of accounts of hate crime attacks where the attackers literally cite Trump. I can pull them if you want- let me know- but I'm pretty sure you've seen them.
Those are facts. As far as I can tell you've got your subjective opinion and not much else. But I'm happy to listen if you've got more to add.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Yeah I should have left out the ombudsman thing, that was just my perception from my twitter feed and was besides the point- which is that Time has always had editorial covers and cover stories.
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
As a younger man I was referred to as the "Tree of Knowledge" by my friends, associates and peers due to my breadth and depth of information on so many topics. As I have gotten older, I am obligated to pass along what I have learned and educate the next generation. Therefore, I am now a Knowledge Dropper.
Obviously my user name is not as enlightening as a hippie QB throwing to the little girl on Full House, but it is what it is
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
If I have learned one thing on this board it is to match the ignorant and ludicrous condescension from these lefties and raise them one.
Sand
Footballguy
You're covering the entire country here. Really it was the blue collar folks in rust belt states, a much smaller demographic, that swung this election. Trump made huge (yuuuge) effort to swing those voters with talk about their specific economics. And it worked. That's what decided this election. Guys like Commish and toshiba are just out in the weeds - no clue what's really going on in this country.
Only other comment was that I figured some jackass would pretty quickly make the equivalence between Trump and Hitler. No worries - that happened pretty quick. Some of the loons on this board are wholly predictable.
Statorama
gangster
Green and Gold
Footballguy
Lol, that picture looks like the what I imagine the final reveal of Dr. Claw from Inspector Gadget would be. All that's missing is a cat.
Statorama
gangster
I was referred to as Tree Rollins, since I couldn't hit from any farther than 4 feet from the rim.
The Commish
Footballguy
Not sure this is true. She made sure she had promises out to anyone and everyone. I am far more likely to be on board with the ####ty candidate angle, but she had her policy positions covered even if they were in name only or just taking up megabytes on her webpage.
I'll also say that it doesn't really matter what national polling shows as the reasons that voters voted for X or Y. We have the EC to thank for that. All that really matters is why the voters of Wisconsin, Michigan and Penn voted for Trump. That's what turned the election. The rest is white noise similar to "but she won the popular vote".
Last edited by a moderator:
Statorama
gangster
I'm looking forward to that one dinner they have where the President roasts his favorite targets (there were a lot of clips this cycle of Obama cracking on Trump during one of those dinners - cue Trump with the "Phelps Face"). I'll be surprised if the press gives him the same leeway on jokes every other President has enjoyed.
The Commish
Footballguy
Then you're out here with us because you just said exactly what I said with regard to what settled this election. What are you talking about?TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I totally agree (except to the extent that you're limiting his pitch to economics), that was a contributing factor in the result. But that's a campaign strategy thing, not a policy thing.
I was specifically refuting the idea put forward by jonessed that Trump "won because the Democrats pushed policies that left behind a large portion of their base." That wasn't the case IMO, and the article I linked and the links within it back that up. Clinton (and the Obama administration) had plenty of policy proposals aimed specifically at working class rust belt voters with the very narrow exception of the coal industry, which frankly hasn't been part of the Dem base for over a decade now. They may have failed to connect with those voters in that particular region (or more specifically they failed to connect with the white ones), but the evidence shows that wasn't a policy issue, it was something else- allocation of campaign resources, Trump's appeal to xenophobia/Islamophobia, Voter ID laws and limitations on early voting, maybe the Flint water crisis, Clinton being an uninspiring messenger, etc, etc. There's a lot of factors that went into this result, as is usually the case when a heavy underdog pulls an upset in any arena.
Last edited by a moderator:
GrandpaRox
Footballguy
Obama divided this country like no one before.
President Donald J. Trump will be a uniter.
Where have you been the last 8 years, asleep?
GrandpaRox
Footballguy
Statorama
gangster
This is where I give Tobias a break, because he can point to a poll and it says what he's saying. But all you can do with polling is build an estimate based on whatever your sample group is. You also have to trust that the people being polled aren't lying (publicly proclaiming to vote for Clinton but secretly pulling the lever for Trump).
I kept seeing all the polls in Wisconsin giving the vote to Hillary, but wasn't getting that vibe in the streets.
GrandpaRox
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Jayrod
Footballguy
Confirmation bias. You have exit polls, a self formed conclusion about a chicken/egg problem, some "Clinton policies" which amount to exactly nothing at this point and a rise in hate crimes.
None of that is cold, hard data, facts or proof of anything like you seem to think it is. Division among race also coincides with the BLM movement and Trump was hardly a legit candidate back then. And despite exit polls, people voted for Trump because of jobs in droves and that is a fact. It was the key issue in the key regions in the key states.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
I've never seen so many people this excited about "winning" an award from a failing media company.
The left has been gloating about the decline of the white working class for years while simultaneously touting associated demographic shifts which were supposedly going to put them in the position of having a permanent lock on federal power. It has not been at all uncommon in recent years to see commenters on any number of news sources and discussion forums gleefully wishing for the rapid demise of those horrible "old white people".
These same "deplorables" have seen their standard of living decline substantially under the policies espoused by those who would joyfully see them permanently eliminated from the American political landscape. And you guys still seriously wonder why they didn't vote for you?
I have known for a long time that most of the progressives here live a serious information and cultural bubble but even I had no idea just how bad it is until the conclusion of the recent election. The evidence for how things turned out is right there in front of your faces but folks still refuse to believe it because it conflicts with your internalized narrative. To paraphrase a comment I recently read, "You've treated people like mushrooms, keeping them in the dark and shoveling s**t on them for the last eight years. There comes a time when you can no longer pee on someone's leg and still convince them that it's raining. You've reached that time."
BeaverCleaver
Footballguy
I've never seen so many people whining about someone "winning" an award from a failing media company.
toshiba
Footballguy
Please let me know where I am "out in the weeds" I didn't think I said anything too out there. I am genuinely interested in where I am not being reasonable, I am seriously trying to be open to outside perspective.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Say what you like about the various data points I've relied on, but the one thing that's clear is that you have offered far less actual data than I have.
And you also seem to have lost focus. The two questions I've discussed here are (1) refuting the idea that the Dems pushed policies that left behind a large portion of their base; and (2) that I think Trump has contributed significantly to dividing the country. Nothing you say here- or anywhere in this thread- contradicts either of those points. For example, I agree with you that lots of rust belters voted for Trump in part because they believed he would bring them more jobs. He is after all a hell of a snake oil salesmen, he's made a large chunk of his fortune bilking the middle class in one way or another. But that doesn't prove that the Dems pushed policies that left behind their base. The two are unrelated.
jonessed
Footballguy
I'm talking about white middle class voters in the rust belt. That's where she lost the election and that's where she and her policies failed to connect.
It doesn't matter if you think her policies would have been better suited for them than Trump's. Hillary either poorly communicated that or they disagreed. Politics is local, even presidential politics.
Last edited by a moderator:
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
How about when Obama portrayed all the people in Pennsylvania who lost their jobs as bitter people clinging to guns and religion and being all racists and xenophobic? Seems pretty divisive to me and exactly the type of comments that may actually drove people in those directions.
Or how about when he urged Latino voters to "punish their enemies."
Or remember the campaign video of Paul Ryan pushing an old lady in a wheelchair off a cliff?
Or how about when he won the election and gloated "We won, you lost."
How about the time he said "when they bring a knife, we bring a gun." Not exactly talk to bring us together there.
Almost forgot the time he very classily called his political opponents "Teabaggers"
Last edited by a moderator:
jonessed
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
Don't disagree....that's different than not having the policies at all though. She had policies for everyone. It wasn't a lack of policies. She had so many policies it was like putting a "I'm full of ####" tattoo on her forehead.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
In order:
1. He did this privately, so he wasn't trying to be divisive. Not his best moment, but again not intentionally divisive. Also I don't remember him calling them racists or xenophobes. Anyway, it says a helluva lot about Obama that after two presidential campaigns and eight years of presidency this gaffe at a private fundraiser is the best example of his divisiveness a you can come up with.
2. He was being divisive by telling people to vote against certain candidates because those candidates don't have their best interests in mind? Come on. Literally every politician in American history has done that. Knock it off.
3. See above. If divisiveness towards one politician is the best you can do, you've already lost the argument.
4. See above, except towards another political party instead of a single politician.
5. See above.
Sure, I wish there were no political parties and all our politicians all held hands and sung songs around the campfire and then snuggled together in tents. But that's not the world we live in. And comparing those divisive attitudes towards political opponents that virtually all politicians exhibit from time to time to Trump's blatant and repeated divisiveness towards racial/religious/ethnic minorities, as documented countless times here and pretty much everywhere else? GTFOOH. Forget about being in the same ballpark, those aren't even on the same planet.
Last edited by a moderator:
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
All this talk on what titlted the election seems like it's missing a crucial piece: at the end of the campaign, Clinton basically packed it in and made it all Trump and trusted that his self destruction was enough. In the same time frame, Trump made a HUGE push with both advertising and appearances in key spots in those swing states. Hillary made very few appearances in general throughout her campaign and barely hit a lot of the states that ended up turning the election.
In an election where a whole lot of people hated both candidates and were looking for any scrap to make a choice, a personal appearance or commercials driving a point home at the end probably made the difference.
And I'm sure for a lot of people, when Trump said that Hillary was all talk and didn't really care about the average American worker, when they saw all of his rallies and appearances all over Middle America and noticed that she made very few, it would certainly seem like he had a point. And when he said that she had been in political power for 30 years with no results for those people, the people that are still struggling probably bought what he was selling.
In an election where a whole lot of people hated both candidates and were looking for any scrap to make a choice, a personal appearance or commercials driving a point home at the end probably made the difference.
And I'm sure for a lot of people, when Trump said that Hillary was all talk and didn't really care about the average American worker, when they saw all of his rallies and appearances all over Middle America and noticed that she made very few, it would certainly seem like he had a point. And when he said that she had been in political power for 30 years with no results for those people, the people that are still struggling probably bought what he was selling.
GrandpaRox
Footballguy
Jeremy
Footballguy
TheAristocrat
Footballguy
Oooooooooo...she had policies! Hope they keep her warm at night.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
You must have missed the memo that we've heard over and over about how divisive political rhetoric is responsible for all sorts of violence and problems. We heard this after Giffords was shot. We've heard it in regards to race when politicians are accused of "dog whistles".
Sorry, but when one side is constantly referred to as bigots, racists, morons, etc, that's divisive and it's happened for way too long. The number of political talking heads and opinion writers that suddenly have admitted that they were wrong in accusing so many previous people as bigots/racists/etc because NOW it's really true is a testament to how divisive and corrosive that treatment was. And the problem with the boy who cried wolf is that there are a whole lot of people that have tuned it all out now.
Like I said, Trump isn't the cause of the divisiveness, he's the result.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Nice goalpost move. The discussion started as a comparison of Trump and Obama. I'll take this to mean you're conceding on that point.
As for the bolded- I'd say he's both, as my first post in this thread on the subject said- note that I said "capitalizing on/expanding." And if you honestly don't think that he is contributing to or expanding our divisions (which I doubt- you seem sharper than that), I suggest getting out and talking to some members of religious and ethnic minority groups, especially African-Americans, Hispanics and especially Muslims, and seeing if they agree with you. And hey, maybe check in with some gays and Jews while you're at it? Gather their thoughts on whether his selection of Pence as VP and his ties to Bannon and Alex Jones/Infowars feel divisive to them at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand
Footballguy
Just because Obama promoted (and achieved) a lot of balkanization in the country doesn't mean by any stretch that Trump will reverse that trend. If I were to guess I'd say the meter stays about where it is.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
I literally said that Trump wasn't the cause, but the result in the first post I made in here. Not sure how I'm moving the goal posts by stating the same thing.
I didn't say that he didn't have a part, but he isn't the root cause. The divide was created and existed long before Trump. He's corrosive, obscene, horrible and certainly a divider. But pretending that everything was fine until he came along is pure fantasy.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
No single thing is the root cause, and I would never have suggested that everything was fine before Trump. That's why I used the word "expand" in my first post here. I do think he's made it much much much worse, to a degree I've never seen in my lifetime.
Anyway, looks like we've found some common ground! Trump may be divisive but perhaps the FFA is the great uniter.
Sand
Footballguy
Your agreement with the assertion that Trump has allowed people to act on their divisive feelings. That is the very definition of weeds. Even a cursory inspection of this election shows that this holds no water and is just a meme to provide solace to the left, who are desperate to find a reason that the election loss was due to some evil on the other side. Those couple extra percent of folks that voted for Trump largely because HRC was a horrifically bad candidate (even worse than McCain, and that's saying something) and those people voted with their wallets.
It's so much easier to demonize than to accept blame for running a horrible candidate engineered by incredibly corrupt party apparatchiks that Democrats put in power.
toshiba
Footballguy
You kidding? That is not what I said at all. I do think that some of the language of the 2016 election gives shelter to some ideas that have otherwise been hiding away in dark corners, but I don't blame Trump for Hillary's loss. Now where did you see me saying that, because it is not true.
Hillary loss because she was a flawed candidate that couldn't appeal to enough people in the right places.
But at the end of the day I don't think the democratic party needs to change that much, this election wasn't a referendum on either side, it wasn't a landslide nor was it anything other than a close race that went one way instead of the other.
Sand
Footballguy
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
The bitter barn is bigly.
The Commish
Footballguy
Sorry Sand...it's not either/or...it's both. We had two idiots of epic proportion, both horrible in very different ways. That's not being out in the weeds. That's providing an honest assessment of where this country is.
Similar threads
