Friends of the Secular Café: Forums
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Talk Freethought
Rational Skepticism Forum
EvC Forum: Evolution vs. Creation
Living Nonreligion Discussion Forum
The Round Table (RatPags)
Talk Rational!
Blogs
Blue Collar Atheist
Camels With Hammers
Ebonmuse: Daylight Atheism
Nontheist Nexus
The Re-Enlightenment
Rosa Rubicondior
The Skeptical Zone
Watching the Deniers
Others
Christianity Disproved
Count Me Out
Ebon Musings
Freethinker.co.uk
 
       

Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Politics & World Events

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02 Nov 2017, 02:16 PM   #679255 / #26
Greatest I am
Senior Member
 
Greatest I am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,912
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

Just the fact that Trump won at all I think is evidence of that. As well as Clinton's main selling point was being a woman.
So you must see the Republicans holding their noses and voting for Trump for gender reasons instead of quality of character. Right?

Regards
DL
__________________
God is a cosmic consciousness .
Telepathy the key.
Our next evolution. No choice.
Greatest I am is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 Nov 2017, 02:03 AM   #679291 / #27
Hermit
Metierioric fail
 
Hermit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 6,101
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
I think it's young voters who put Trump in the White House.
Look up facts, then think.

You are completely correct in that I didn't look it up. But that graphic doesn't prove what you think it does. What you need to do is find corresponding numbers for the election before it, and compare them. Here they are:

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/poll...ps-voted-2012/

This one proves it. So I was slightly wrong. So Internet hasn't primarily changed the voting (and information gathering) behaviour of young people. It's changed the behaviour of everybody all at once. Which actually makes perfect sense. Silly of me not to think of it.
Please note what statement I was objecting to. I quoted it. You quoted it back. Apparently that's not enough, so here it is again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
I think it's young voters who put Trump in the White House.
The effect of the internet generally and its social media components in particular would make for an interesting discussion, but I was not addressing it here at all.
Hermit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 Nov 2017, 10:34 AM   #679304 / #28
DrZoidberg
Senior Member
 
DrZoidberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
I think it's young voters who put Trump in the White House.
Look up facts, then think.

You are completely correct in that I didn't look it up. But that graphic doesn't prove what you think it does. What you need to do is find corresponding numbers for the election before it, and compare them. Here they are:

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/poll...ps-voted-2012/

This one proves it. So I was slightly wrong. So Internet hasn't primarily changed the voting (and information gathering) behaviour of young people. It's changed the behaviour of everybody all at once. Which actually makes perfect sense. Silly of me not to think of it.
Please note what statement I was objecting to. I quoted it. You quoted it back. Apparently that's not enough, so here it is again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
I think it's young voters who put Trump in the White House.
The effect of the internet generally and its social media components in particular would make for an interesting discussion, but I was not addressing it here at all.
You presented evidence that I was wrong. I agreed that I was wrong, and changed my original statement to match the new evidence. Now I have a different argument. Similar. But still different.
__________________
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg
DrZoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 Nov 2017, 11:10 AM   #679305 / #29
DrZoidberg
Senior Member
 
DrZoidberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

Just the fact that Trump won at all I think is evidence of that. As well as Clinton's main selling point was being a woman.
So you must see the Republicans holding their noses and voting for Trump for gender reasons instead of quality of character. Right?

Regards
DL
Of course not. Way too simplistic an interpretation of my argument. Here's what I think has happened.

Before the Internet journalists would inform voters. There's a hierarchy of journalists. Lower rung journalists control higher rung journalists. So even if there are left wing newspapers and right wing newspapers they still had to publish what was true. Or scandal. The obviously doesn't apply to tabloids. But normal newspapers targeted at people who gave a shit were largely true. The same mechanic applies to tv-news. The main source of information for the uneducated.

Then the Internet came. Now instead of newspapers being the main source of information it is shared stories on Facebook. Newspapers moved on-line, and the new metric of truth was how many clicks you got. Sounding true, became more important than actually being true.

The Internet also allowed for news outlet to better cater news reporting to the consumer. With the Internet we all got the news we wanted to read. Today quality news is only produced by a handful of newspapers. New York Times, Washington Post, (London) Times, the Economist, Al Jazeera, BBC, and probably some other that I've forgotten. The rest is pretty much tabloids today.

And then came along fake news as well. These were newspapers who would write anything to generate clicks. Researchers are still working on figuring out what impact these have had. But I think it's more than we are comfortable with. The so called "Truther" movement is huge. They've got tonnes of conferences all the time. 100% loony bullshit.

Shitty news is cheaper to produce than quality news. It's just harder than ever to spread quality news reporting. It is getting increasingly drowned in bullshit. That spreads cynicism. I think we're increasingly assuming we're being lied to by politicians.

Politics will of course adapt to this. If it matters less and less what they actually think and do, other stuff becomes more important. So gimmics.

I think most people who voted Republican did so because they've always voted Republican. Those aren't interesting. It's the swing voters that are interesting. And I think those are swayed by simplistic arguments and gimmicks. These are Dunning-Kruger paradox victims. People who think they're the educated elite, but are in fact morons.

I think political correctness as gone too far. Especially in the USA. A lot of people think that. Not voting for a woman is a expression of that. So it wasn't so much that they're misogynistic. As an expression of a reaction against the assumption that they're misogynistic if they didn't vote for a woman. Nobody likes to be told what to think. Nobody likes to hear, "either you vote for me, or you're a terrible person". That isn't what Hillary said. But I think that is what people heard.

We think in dichotomies. Trump was the opposite of that. He clearly wasn't afraid to speak his mind. So he got to represent, non-PC. I think he also cashed in on his reality TV star fame from the show he ran... whatever that was. Forgot the name of it. He had a no bullshit image.

My main point is that whatever they wanted to do with the economy and whatnot, got lost in the gimmicks. Got lost in whatever they got to represent. I think it's pretty obvious. Trump's election promises were both dumb and unrealistic... he still got elected. People who voted for him obviously didn't care about his platform.

Anybody who knows anything about economy knows that American jobs in industry weren't lost to Mexico and China. They were lost to automation. He made promises on this that anybody reading a regular newspaper could have told him are dumb. But people clearly weren't reading them.
DrZoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 Nov 2017, 01:18 PM   #679310 / #30
Shake
Mostly harmless
 
Shake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Posts: 1,255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
I think most people who voted Republican did so because they've always voted Republican. Those aren't interesting. It's the swing voters that are interesting. And I think those are swayed by simplistic arguments and gimmicks. These are Dunning-Kruger paradox victims. People who think they're the educated elite, but are in fact morons.
(emphasis mine)
What Clinton and her apologists have ignored is the people who were two-time Obama voters who turned around and voted for Trump. The greater analysis of this is that she ran a shitty campaign, counting on those non-interesting voters who always vote the same. She made a critical mistake in assuming she'd have the Rust Belt and so didn't even go there and tell those people that Trump was lying to them about being able to bring their jobs back. People seemed to respond better to a false message than no message at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
I think political correctness as gone too far. Especially in the USA. A lot of people think that. Not voting for a woman is a expression of that. So it wasn't so much that they're misogynistic. As an expression of a reaction against the assumption that they're misogynistic if they didn't vote for a woman. Nobody likes to be told what to think. Nobody likes to hear, "either you vote for me, or you're a terrible person". That isn't what Hillary said. But I think that is what people heard.
As part of her lousy campaign, she spent very little time talking about what she was for and more time about how bad the Donald was. How'd that work out for you, Hill?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
We think in dichotomies. Trump was the opposite of that. He clearly wasn't afraid to speak his mind. So he got to represent, non-PC. I think he also cashed in on his reality TV star fame from the show he ran... whatever that was. Forgot the name of it. He had a no bullshit image.
The Apprentice. One thing he excels at is framing: he framed himself as a no BS kind of guy who could get things done. He took down his GOP opponents 1-by-1 by attacking them in a similar fashion. Then he kept defying the odds and common sense: he won't win a state ... he won a state. Well, we won't keep winning ... he kept winning. Well, he won't get the nomination ... he got the nomination. At this point, the Clinton campaign should have gotten serious. She could have run nonstop ads talking about what her plans were and how that was going to improve everyone's lives. She also failed to capitalize on the popularity of the issues Sanders was pushing. She paid them mere lip service and people could tell she was a phony. When he got the nomination and began to face off against her, he framed her as part of the establishment elite. Making no qualms about his own wealth, he pushed the fact that he was an outsider, while Hillary couldn't be more of a Washington insider, and thus part of the problem. People ate it up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
My main point is that whatever they wanted to do with the economy and whatnot, got lost in the gimmicks. Got lost in whatever they got to represent. I think it's pretty obvious. Trump's election promises were both dumb and unrealistic... he still got elected. People who voted for him obviously didn't care about his platform.
He made a lot of bold promises, and of course he was lying, but he said whatever he needed, to whatever audience he was speaking to get them to rally behind him.

I'd slightly disagree that they didn't care about his platform. He didn't really have one, in reality. People were suffering with job losses, not satisfied with healthcare, worried about illegal immigrants, terrorism, etc., and he sold them on the promise that he would return America to some "great" status of nostalgia which may have existed to some extent at some time, but is really just a dream.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Anybody who knows anything about economy knows that American jobs in industry weren't lost to Mexico and China. They were lost to automation. He made promises on this that anybody reading a regular newspaper could have told him are dumb. But people clearly weren't reading them.
He was counting on people not checking into the facts. He told coal miners he'd bring their jobs back in spite of the fact that coal has already be in decline, never to return to its former glory. If Hillary wanted to reach out to the unemployed, she could have pushed the rising green energy sector or the need to invest in our infrastructure and all of the potential jobs could be provided by the $1 trillion which Bernie wants to invest.

But let's also look at the fact that on Election Day, he had around a 60% disapproval rating (a number he's still around today), and she couldn't beat him. That speaks as much to a failure on her part as it does to his success.
Shake is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 Nov 2017, 02:03 PM   #679316 / #31
DrZoidberg
Senior Member
 
DrZoidberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shake View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
I think most people who voted Republican did so because they've always voted Republican. Those aren't interesting. It's the swing voters that are interesting. And I think those are swayed by simplistic arguments and gimmicks. These are Dunning-Kruger paradox victims. People who think they're the educated elite, but are in fact morons.
(emphasis mine)
What Clinton and her apologists have ignored is the people who were two-time Obama voters who turned around and voted for Trump. The greater analysis of this is that she ran a shitty campaign, counting on those non-interesting voters who always vote the same. She made a critical mistake in assuming she'd have the Rust Belt and so didn't even go there and tell those people that Trump was lying to them about being able to bring their jobs back. People seemed to respond better to a false message than no message at all.
But you're assuming that American voters are a bunch of children who will vote for anybody who gives them attention. You have an even lower view of voters than I do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shake View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
I think political correctness as gone too far. Especially in the USA. A lot of people think that. Not voting for a woman is a expression of that. So it wasn't so much that they're misogynistic. As an expression of a reaction against the assumption that they're misogynistic if they didn't vote for a woman. Nobody likes to be told what to think. Nobody likes to hear, "either you vote for me, or you're a terrible person". That isn't what Hillary said. But I think that is what people heard.
As part of her lousy campaign, she spent very little time talking about what she was for and more time about how bad the Donald was. How'd that work out for you, Hill?
Who gives a shit? If stuff like this matters, the election system is already an entertaining performance piece rather than the comparison of policies.

And call me crazy... but the Donald was bad. It was pretty clear what kind of person he was before the election. He did exactly what he said he would. Nobody should have been surprised. I find it baffling that his approval rating could go down. That assumes that people thought he'd be better than he turned out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shake View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
We think in dichotomies. Trump was the opposite of that. He clearly wasn't afraid to speak his mind. So he got to represent, non-PC. I think he also cashed in on his reality TV star fame from the show he ran... whatever that was. Forgot the name of it. He had a no bullshit image.
The Apprentice. One thing he excels at is framing: he framed himself as a no BS kind of guy who could get things done. He took down his GOP opponents 1-by-1 by attacking them in a similar fashion. Then he kept defying the odds and common sense: he won't win a state ... he won a state. Well, we won't keep winning ... he kept winning. Well, he won't get the nomination ... he got the nomination. At this point, the Clinton campaign should have gotten serious. She could have run nonstop ads talking about what her plans were and how that was going to improve everyone's lives. She also failed to capitalize on the popularity of the issues Sanders was pushing. She paid them mere lip service and people could tell she was a phony. When he got the nomination and began to face off against her, he framed her as part of the establishment elite. Making no qualms about his own wealth, he pushed the fact that he was an outsider, while Hillary couldn't be more of a Washington insider, and thus part of the problem. People ate it up.
But you're talking about politics as if it's a game show. Who cares about any of this? This is not the reason he won.

What is interesting to answer isn't how he framed himself. But why he managed to frame himself the way he did and get away with it. Back in the pre-Internet days, the regular press would have exposed him and torn him to shreds. Well... they did. But nobody cared. His supporters weren't reading those news sources. When he made obviously ridiculous claims they were taken as truths, because they were only reading news sources that were re-enforcing what they already believed.

How many of your friends on Facebook share news stories? How many are outraged of stuff they read? How often are is there constructive arguments. Almost never. Because Facebook is not a place for reasoned debate. It's where you go to get your priors validated. Yet, there is where we get our news from today.

I remember a similar effect when Obama won.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shake View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
My main point is that whatever they wanted to do with the economy and whatnot, got lost in the gimmicks. Got lost in whatever they got to represent. I think it's pretty obvious. Trump's election promises were both dumb and unrealistic... he still got elected. People who voted for him obviously didn't care about his platform.
He made a lot of bold promises, and of course he was lying, but he said whatever he needed, to whatever audience he was speaking to get them to rally behind him.

I'd slightly disagree that they didn't care about his platform. He didn't really have one, in reality. People were suffering with job losses, not satisfied with healthcare, worried about illegal immigrants, terrorism, etc., and he sold them on the promise that he would return America to some "great" status of nostalgia which may have existed to some extent at some time, but is really just a dream.
Ok. But a politician is his platform. If he doesn't have won he shouldn't be able to win. Yet he did. So it's not that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shake View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Anybody who knows anything about economy knows that American jobs in industry weren't lost to Mexico and China. They were lost to automation. He made promises on this that anybody reading a regular newspaper could have told him are dumb. But people clearly weren't reading them.
He was counting on people not checking into the facts. He told coal miners he'd bring their jobs back in spite of the fact that coal has already be in decline, never to return to its former glory. If Hillary wanted to reach out to the unemployed, she could have pushed the rising green energy sector or the need to invest in our infrastructure and all of the potential jobs could be provided by the $1 trillion which Bernie wants to invest.

But let's also look at the fact that on Election Day, he had around a 60% disapproval rating (a number he's still around today), and she couldn't beat him. That speaks as much to a failure on her part as it does to his success.
Which I think proves my point. In the pre-Internet days we knew that journalists checked their facts. Today... I don't know how many links I've read in that have been linked in Internet posts that look legit but are instantly killed after a Snope check. I mean... Jihadwatch. I've seen people continually link to them even though anybody with any interest in facts should know that that's a fake news site. I mean... Trump put Breitbart in his fucking government. One of the worst offenders of fake news. While at the same time Trump accused CNN of being fake news.
DrZoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 03 Nov 2017, 08:16 PM   #679342 / #32
Shake
Mostly harmless
 
Shake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Posts: 1,255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shake View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
I think most people who voted Republican did so because they've always voted Republican. Those aren't interesting. It's the swing voters that are interesting. And I think those are swayed by simplistic arguments and gimmicks. These are Dunning-Kruger paradox victims. People who think they're the educated elite, but are in fact morons.
(emphasis mine)
What Clinton and her apologists have ignored is the people who were two-time Obama voters who turned around and voted for Trump. The greater analysis of this is that she ran a shitty campaign, counting on those non-interesting voters who always vote the same. She made a critical mistake in assuming she'd have the Rust Belt and so didn't even go there and tell those people that Trump was lying to them about being able to bring their jobs back. People seemed to respond better to a false message than no message at all.
But you're assuming that American voters are a bunch of children who will vote for anybody who gives them attention. You have an even lower view of voters than I do.
I was able to vote in the 1988 elections as my first votes. I've also worked in food service and seen the reality TV show mentality permeate society. So forgive me for not having a high opinion of voters. I mean, Roy Moore was kicked out of the Alabama Supreme Court and voters put him back in. Now they're trying to send him to the Senate. No, I don't have a high view of them. Also, let's consider that there are many informed, intelligent potential voters who make the (poor) choice to not vote because they're fed up with the system or are jaded by the system and think their votes don't matter. I think we have the potential to be better, but right now, no, I don't particularly trust the electorate to do the right thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shake View Post

As part of her lousy campaign, she spent very little time talking about what she was for and more time about how bad the Donald was. How'd that work out for you, Hill?
Who gives a shit? If stuff like this matters, the election system is already an entertaining performance piece rather than the comparison of policies.
I would agree that this maybe shouldn't matter, but it does, to this electorate. If the "comparison of policies" were important, Hillary would have won in a landslide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
And call me crazy... but the Donald was bad. It was pretty clear what kind of person he was before the election. He did exactly what he said he would. Nobody should have been surprised. I find it baffling that his approval rating could go down. That assumes that people thought he'd be better than he turned out.

But you're talking about politics as if it's a game show. Who cares about any of this? This is not the reason he won.
No, it's exactly why he won. He's already flipped on several issues, so you can't say that he's done "exactly what he said he would." He's tried to do some things which he talked about on the campaign trail and has failed miserably at getting much of anything done yet. When an excited yell by Howard Dean years ago ended his campaign years ago, it was not about the "comparison of policies."

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
What is interesting to answer isn't how he framed himself. But why he managed to frame himself the way he did and get away with it. Back in the pre-Internet days, the regular press would have exposed him and torn him to shreds. Well... they did. But nobody cared. His supporters weren't reading those news sources. When he made obviously ridiculous claims they were taken as truths, because they were only reading news sources that were re-enforcing what they already believed.
Yes, but, he had also framed much of the mainstream media as "fake news," so any real journalists there, no matter what facts they presented, were written off by many Trump supporters who took on faith what their fearless leader said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
How many of your friends on Facebook share news stories? How many are outraged of stuff they read? How often are is there constructive arguments. Almost never. Because Facebook is not a place for reasoned debate. It's where you go to get your priors validated. Yet, there is where we get our news from today.
Actually, I have quite a few friends who share news stories on Facebook, and still others who do present constructive arguments. I'll give you that Facebook specifically, and the internet in general has become an echo chamber for many people.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shake View Post

He made a lot of bold promises, and of course he was lying, but he said whatever he needed, to whatever audience he was speaking to get them to rally behind him.

I'd slightly disagree that they didn't care about his platform. He didn't really have one, in reality. People were suffering with job losses, not satisfied with healthcare, worried about illegal immigrants, terrorism, etc., and he sold them on the promise that he would return America to some "great" status of nostalgia which may have existed to some extent at some time, but is really just a dream.
Ok. But a politician is his platform. ... <unintelligible> ... Yet he did. So it's not that.
Were you not paying attention? He didn't have a solid platform. It shifted depending on who his audience was at any given time. Otherwise, it was the vague MAGA. My other point was, what was Hillary's platform? Stronger together? What the fuck does that mean? Only about 25% of her advertising was on policy, the rest were cliches and platitudes and saying, "we're not him." Had she focused more on policy, she'd have mopped the floor with him, because as we've both said, his platform was shit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shake View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Anybody who knows anything about economy knows that American jobs in industry weren't lost to Mexico and China. They were lost to automation. He made promises on this that anybody reading a regular newspaper could have told him are dumb. But people clearly weren't reading them.
He was counting on people not checking into the facts. He told coal miners he'd bring their jobs back in spite of the fact that coal has already be in decline, never to return to its former glory. If Hillary wanted to reach out to the unemployed, she could have pushed the rising green energy sector or the need to invest in our infrastructure and all of the potential jobs could be provided by the $1 trillion which Bernie wants to invest.

But let's also look at the fact that on Election Day, he had around a 60% disapproval rating (a number he's still around today), and she couldn't beat him. That speaks as much to a failure on her part as it does to his success.
Which I think proves my point. In the pre-Internet days we knew that journalists checked their facts. Today... I don't know how many links I've read in that have been linked in Internet posts that look legit but are instantly killed after a Snope check. I mean... Jihadwatch. I've seen people continually link to them even though anybody with any interest in facts should know that that's a fake news site. I mean... Trump put Breitbart in his fucking government. One of the worst offenders of fake news. While at the same time Trump accused CNN of being fake news.
And this proves my point: he framed the previously accepted MSM as "fake news" and gave credibility to loonies like those at Breitbart. This spoke to a sizeable portion of his base. Yes, many of us who knew better were able to see this. Also, as we now know, the DNC under Clinton's influence, sabotaged the primaries to ensure her victory. This served to further alienate progressives and split their support. Many who had supported Bernie felt betrayed, and while some held their noses and voted for her in an attempt to keep Trump out, many others either went 3rd party or just didn't vote at all (for president). As I believe I also already mentioned, her neglect of certain areas of the country doomed her by giving up electoral votes in places where she simply assumed she would win. Well, as we know, that didn't work out so well for her.
Shake is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 06 Nov 2017, 01:56 PM   #679426 / #33
DrZoidberg
Senior Member
 
DrZoidberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shake View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shake View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
I think most people who voted Republican did so because they've always voted Republican. Those aren't interesting. It's the swing voters that are interesting. And I think those are swayed by simplistic arguments and gimmicks. These are Dunning-Kruger paradox victims. People who think they're the educated elite, but are in fact morons.
(emphasis mine)
What Clinton and her apologists have ignored is the people who were two-time Obama voters who turned around and voted for Trump. The greater analysis of this is that she ran a shitty campaign, counting on those non-interesting voters who always vote the same. She made a critical mistake in assuming she'd have the Rust Belt and so didn't even go there and tell those people that Trump was lying to them about being able to bring their jobs back. People seemed to respond better to a false message than no message at all.
But you're assuming that American voters are a bunch of children who will vote for anybody who gives them attention. You have an even lower view of voters than I do.
I was able to vote in the 1988 elections as my first votes. I've also worked in food service and seen the reality TV show mentality permeate society. So forgive me for not having a high opinion of voters. I mean, Roy Moore was kicked out of the Alabama Supreme Court and voters put him back in. Now they're trying to send him to the Senate. No, I don't have a high view of them. Also, let's consider that there are many informed, intelligent potential voters who make the (poor) choice to not vote because they're fed up with the system or are jaded by the system and think their votes don't matter. I think we have the potential to be better, but right now, no, I don't particularly trust the electorate to do the right thing.


I would agree that this maybe shouldn't matter, but it does, to this electorate. If the "comparison of policies" were important, Hillary would have won in a landslide.


No, it's exactly why he won. He's already flipped on several issues, so you can't say that he's done "exactly what he said he would." He's tried to do some things which he talked about on the campaign trail and has failed miserably at getting much of anything done yet. When an excited yell by Howard Dean years ago ended his campaign years ago, it was not about the "comparison of policies."


Yes, but, he had also framed much of the mainstream media as "fake news," so any real journalists there, no matter what facts they presented, were written off by many Trump supporters who took on faith what their fearless leader said.


Actually, I have quite a few friends who share news stories on Facebook, and still others who do present constructive arguments. I'll give you that Facebook specifically, and the internet in general has become an echo chamber for many people.



Were you not paying attention? He didn't have a solid platform. It shifted depending on who his audience was at any given time. Otherwise, it was the vague MAGA. My other point was, what was Hillary's platform? Stronger together? What the fuck does that mean? Only about 25% of her advertising was on policy, the rest were cliches and platitudes and saying, "we're not him." Had she focused more on policy, she'd have mopped the floor with him, because as we've both said, his platform was shit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shake View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Anybody who knows anything about economy knows that American jobs in industry weren't lost to Mexico and China. They were lost to automation. He made promises on this that anybody reading a regular newspaper could have told him are dumb. But people clearly weren't reading them.
He was counting on people not checking into the facts. He told coal miners he'd bring their jobs back in spite of the fact that coal has already be in decline, never to return to its former glory. If Hillary wanted to reach out to the unemployed, she could have pushed the rising green energy sector or the need to invest in our infrastructure and all of the potential jobs could be provided by the $1 trillion which Bernie wants to invest.

But let's also look at the fact that on Election Day, he had around a 60% disapproval rating (a number he's still around today), and she couldn't beat him. That speaks as much to a failure on her part as it does to his success.
Which I think proves my point. In the pre-Internet days we knew that journalists checked their facts. Today... I don't know how many links I've read in that have been linked in Internet posts that look legit but are instantly killed after a Snope check. I mean... Jihadwatch. I've seen people continually link to them even though anybody with any interest in facts should know that that's a fake news site. I mean... Trump put Breitbart in his fucking government. One of the worst offenders of fake news. While at the same time Trump accused CNN of being fake news.
And this proves my point: he framed the previously accepted MSM as "fake news" and gave credibility to loonies like those at Breitbart. This spoke to a sizeable portion of his base. Yes, many of us who knew better were able to see this. Also, as we now know, the DNC under Clinton's influence, sabotaged the primaries to ensure her victory. This served to further alienate progressives and split their support. Many who had supported Bernie felt betrayed, and while some held their noses and voted for her in an attempt to keep Trump out, many others either went 3rd party or just didn't vote at all (for president). As I believe I also already mentioned, her neglect of certain areas of the country doomed her by giving up electoral votes in places where she simply assumed she would win. Well, as we know, that didn't work out so well for her.
I've always identified as a cynic. But I'm naive compared to you. I so hope you are wrong. Because I would feel bad if American voters are this incredibly stupid.
DrZoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 06 Nov 2017, 03:40 PM   #679436 / #34
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
I've always identified as a cynic. But I'm naive compared to you. I so hope you are wrong. Because I would feel bad if American voters are this incredibly stupid.
They are completely mindless. Think of all this "dark money" shit. The only reason it matters is because a majority of the electorate apparently believes every fucking thing they see in a commercial on TV. And now on facebook, twitter, etc. Money, or the lack thereof, should be irrelevant to politics.

If people could think for themselves, or at least do their own research, political ads would have absolutely no effect on anything.

And that goes for all other types of advertising as well. I take great pride in having never seen a commercial of any kind for decades, having muted, blocked, or fast-forwarded-past every fucking one of them in every medium. In the cases where I can't do that, such as newspapers who block ad-blockers, I do without.

They can keep their brainwashing, political or commercial, to themselves.
__________________
Moe: "Why don't you get a toupee with some brains in it?" <whack!>

Last edited by Jackrabbit; 06 Nov 2017 at 05:35 PM.
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 07 Nov 2017, 10:14 AM   #679477 / #35
DrZoidberg
Senior Member
 
DrZoidberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
I've always identified as a cynic. But I'm naive compared to you. I so hope you are wrong. Because I would feel bad if American voters are this incredibly stupid.
They are completely mindless. Think of all this "dark money" shit. The only reason it matters is because a majority of the electorate apparently believes every fucking thing they see in a commercial on TV. And now on facebook, twitter, etc. Money, or the lack thereof, should be irrelevant to politics.

If people could think for themselves, or at least do their own research, political ads would have absolutely no effect on anything.

And that goes for all other types of advertising as well. I take great pride in having never seen a commercial of any kind for decades, having muted, blocked, or fast-forwarded-past every fucking one of them in every medium. In the cases where I can't do that, such as newspapers who block ad-blockers, I do without.

They can keep their brainwashing, political or commercial, to themselves.
But if they're mindless then nothing matters. Then it's all morally relative. Why discuss politics at all? I think your interest in politics proves that you don't truly believe what you are saying.
DrZoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 07 Nov 2017, 01:15 PM   #679491 / #36
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
I've always identified as a cynic. But I'm naive compared to you. I so hope you are wrong. Because I would feel bad if American voters are this incredibly stupid.
They are completely mindless. Think of all this "dark money" shit. The only reason it matters is because a majority of the electorate apparently believes every fucking thing they see in a commercial on TV. And now on facebook, twitter, etc. Money, or the lack thereof, should be irrelevant to politics.

If people could think for themselves, or at least do their own research, political ads would have absolutely no effect on anything.

And that goes for all other types of advertising as well. I take great pride in having never seen a commercial of any kind for decades, having muted, blocked, or fast-forwarded-past every fucking one of them in every medium. In the cases where I can't do that, such as newspapers who block ad-blockers, I do without.

They can keep their brainwashing, political or commercial, to themselves.
But if they're mindless then nothing matters. Then it's all morally relative. Why discuss politics at all? I think your interest in politics proves that you don't truly believe what you are saying.
Of course we can discuss politics. We just can't implement any of it because of the Legion of Morons who aren't actually discussing politics, other than to parrot what political ads tell them is true.
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 07 Nov 2017, 01:48 PM   #679494 / #37
DrZoidberg
Senior Member
 
DrZoidberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
I've always identified as a cynic. But I'm naive compared to you. I so hope you are wrong. Because I would feel bad if American voters are this incredibly stupid.
They are completely mindless. Think of all this "dark money" shit. The only reason it matters is because a majority of the electorate apparently believes every fucking thing they see in a commercial on TV. And now on facebook, twitter, etc. Money, or the lack thereof, should be irrelevant to politics.

If people could think for themselves, or at least do their own research, political ads would have absolutely no effect on anything.

And that goes for all other types of advertising as well. I take great pride in having never seen a commercial of any kind for decades, having muted, blocked, or fast-forwarded-past every fucking one of them in every medium. In the cases where I can't do that, such as newspapers who block ad-blockers, I do without.

They can keep their brainwashing, political or commercial, to themselves.
But if they're mindless then nothing matters. Then it's all morally relative. Why discuss politics at all? I think your interest in politics proves that you don't truly believe what you are saying.
Of course we can discuss politics. We just can't implement any of it because of the Legion of Morons who aren't actually discussing politics, other than to parrot what political ads tell them is true.
Politics is the art of the possible. If you can't implement it, you're not doing politics. It's just a waste of your time.
DrZoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 07 Nov 2017, 02:31 PM   #679500 / #38
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
They are completely mindless. Think of all this "dark money" shit. The only reason it matters is because a majority of the electorate apparently believes every fucking thing they see in a commercial on TV. And now on facebook, twitter, etc. Money, or the lack thereof, should be irrelevant to politics.

If people could think for themselves, or at least do their own research, political ads would have absolutely no effect on anything.

And that goes for all other types of advertising as well. I take great pride in having never seen a commercial of any kind for decades, having muted, blocked, or fast-forwarded-past every fucking one of them in every medium. In the cases where I can't do that, such as newspapers who block ad-blockers, I do without.

They can keep their brainwashing, political or commercial, to themselves.
But if they're mindless then nothing matters. Then it's all morally relative. Why discuss politics at all? I think your interest in politics proves that you don't truly believe what you are saying.
Of course we can discuss politics. We just can't implement any of it because of the Legion of Morons who aren't actually discussing politics, other than to parrot what political ads tell them is true.
Politics is the art of the possible. If you can't implement it, you're not doing politics. It's just a waste of your time.
Absolutely. I have reached the point where I really don't care what happens to this country any more, if it is so determined to self-destruct. If they want to jump off a cliff so badly, I'll give them a pizza for the trip down.

Last edited by Jackrabbit; 07 Nov 2017 at 03:09 PM.
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 07 Nov 2017, 03:59 PM   #679512 / #39
Greatest I am
Senior Member
 
Greatest I am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,912
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
Of course we can discuss politics. We just can't implement any of it because of the Legion of Morons who aren't actually discussing politics, other than to parrot what political ads tell them is true.
Even if intelligent people get the one they vote for into office, the likelihood of implementing the legislation they want is slim.

http://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-...6e71b014efbf27

What is required is an honest politician and I am not sure if such an animal exists.

A politicians first duty is to get elected and it looks like only the corrupt or corruptible get into office.

Regards
DL
Greatest I am is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 07 Nov 2017, 04:12 PM   #679514 / #40
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,311
Default

True, but one party actually does things I agree with and the other invariably does things I am totally against. Apparently the former don't need to hear from me.
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 07 Nov 2017, 04:27 PM   #679516 / #41
Greatest I am
Senior Member
 
Greatest I am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,912
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
True, but one party actually does things I agree with and the other invariably does things I am totally against. Apparently the former don't need to hear from me.
That link looked at all parties elected in their time frame but if your party is an exception, keep voting for it.

Regards
DL
Greatest I am is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 08 Nov 2017, 11:56 AM   #679588 / #42
DrZoidberg
Senior Member
 
DrZoidberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

But if they're mindless then nothing matters. Then it's all morally relative. Why discuss politics at all? I think your interest in politics proves that you don't truly believe what you are saying.
Of course we can discuss politics. We just can't implement any of it because of the Legion of Morons who aren't actually discussing politics, other than to parrot what political ads tell them is true.
Politics is the art of the possible. If you can't implement it, you're not doing politics. It's just a waste of your time.
Absolutely. I have reached the point where I really don't care what happens to this country any more, if it is so determined to self-destruct. If they want to jump off a cliff so badly, I'll give them a pizza for the trip down.
You're making my head hurt. You DO care. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. You're in the "politics and world events" sub-forum. If you didn't care you'd stay away from any discussion in this sub-forum. You have already proven yourself wrong.
DrZoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 08 Nov 2017, 05:35 PM   #679636 / #43
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
Of course we can discuss politics. We just can't implement any of it because of the Legion of Morons who aren't actually discussing politics, other than to parrot what political ads tell them is true.
Politics is the art of the possible. If you can't implement it, you're not doing politics. It's just a waste of your time.
Absolutely. I have reached the point where I really don't care what happens to this country any more, if it is so determined to self-destruct. If they want to jump off a cliff so badly, I'll give them a pizza for the trip down.
You're making my head hurt. You DO care. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. You're in the "politics and world events" sub-forum. If you didn't care you'd stay away from any discussion in this sub-forum. You have already proven yourself wrong.
Discussion on an internet board has no effect on anything. I mean I don't plan on taking any kind of action. Fuck those sacks of shit that caused the situation we are in.
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 08 Nov 2017, 08:44 PM   #679680 / #44
DrZoidberg
Senior Member
 
DrZoidberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

Politics is the art of the possible. If you can't implement it, you're not doing politics. It's just a waste of your time.
Absolutely. I have reached the point where I really don't care what happens to this country any more, if it is so determined to self-destruct. If they want to jump off a cliff so badly, I'll give them a pizza for the trip down.
You're making my head hurt. You DO care. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. You're in the "politics and world events" sub-forum. If you didn't care you'd stay away from any discussion in this sub-forum. You have already proven yourself wrong.
Discussion on an internet board has no effect on anything. I mean I don't plan on taking any kind of action. Fuck those sacks of shit that caused the situation we are in.
Talking about it at all is caring. Things you don't care about you ignore completely. You're not ignoring this discussion. You keep replying = care.
DrZoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 09 Nov 2017, 02:06 AM   #679722 / #45
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
Absolutely. I have reached the point where I really don't care what happens to this country any more, if it is so determined to self-destruct. If they want to jump off a cliff so badly, I'll give them a pizza for the trip down.
You're making my head hurt. You DO care. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. You're in the "politics and world events" sub-forum. If you didn't care you'd stay away from any discussion in this sub-forum. You have already proven yourself wrong.
Discussion on an internet board has no effect on anything. I mean I don't plan on taking any kind of action. Fuck those sacks of shit that caused the situation we are in.
Talking about it at all is caring. Things you don't care about you ignore completely. You're not ignoring this discussion. You keep replying = care.
Then this is my last post in this thread, which will be followed by unsubscribing from it.
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Politics & World Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
 
Ocean Zero by vBSkins.com | Customised by Antechinus