Meenzer 14136 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Naah. The people didn't get the best so they had to vote for the worst. That's how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 This is an interesting one - 30% of the people who voted Trump don't agree with "most" of his policies. Now, I would normally point to this to reinforce my point about people wanting change more than anything else (and I think it still supports this), but at the same time it mentioned that 17% of Trump voters said Obama did an ok job. Which doesn't sound like the kind of thing someone who really wanted change would say. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/16/meet-the-pro-obama-donald-trump-voters-there-are-plenty-of-them/?utm_term=.9f3ba8426b19 I think there's two possibilities one for and one against my view. In the against, there's misogyny. It could be that a lot of people simply didn't like Clinton because she's a woman. I would say her personality could also be a factor here but tbf, Trump wins the 'awful' personality stake by any objective measure, I would argue. In the for, it's the fact that even though they thought Obama did ok, they didn't want more of the same. I personally think Obama was a good president, so I can see this argument. Although I'll stress that my view on this is perhaps different to the people who voted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26793 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Well until another viable rationale comes along for it, I'm considering it likely. Why do you think that specific 17% voted for him then? I'll also point out that there was a 16% swing to Trump from working class people who voted for Obama. Could those people have voted for Sanders? Is that unlikely? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-voters-who-heavily-supported-obama-switched-over-to-trump/2016/11/10/65019658-a77a-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html?utm_term=.15fc0867d11f This is a good article that demonstrates Hillary consistently lost to Sanders in working class areas, lost to Obama in the primaries before this one in the same areas, and that these areas went and turned to Trump in 2016. Despite having voted Democrat every election since 1972, in the case of one of them in their case study. I mean come on. Why are you guys so determined to protect these failed, washed up losers? The centreground simply didn't care, and this nightmare happened on its watch. Washed up losers? That's quite a Trumpesque phrase. These people voted for Trump because they believed his wild promises. They believed he would bring their jobs back from overseas, that the streets would be safer, that there would be less people around who didn't look like them. Bernie wasn't promising that. He was putting forward a kinder society and that isn't what a lot of people wanted. The thing is that a lot of poor Americans don't view themselves as poor. They see themselves as hardworking, true Americans. Even if they haven't got a job. Hence why a lot of them voted for Trump even when it was against their own interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18038 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I think I've mentioned mind, that the UN...or maybe it was the EU... was discussing giving them human rights. Which would be an intriguing development. Damn that EU. Letting robots take our jobs and now giving them human rights. Honestly Rayvin, you don't half talk some crap sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Naah. The people didn't get the best so they had to vote for the worst. That's how it works. Um, that's how it appears to work. Please note, I'm citing things. You guys are just blithely rejecting everything I'm saying on the basis of fuck all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Damn that EU. Letting robots take our jobs and now giving them human rights. Honestly Rayvin, you don't half talk some crap sometimes. FFS https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/12/give-robots-personhood-status-eu-committee-argues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Washed up losers? That's quite a Trumpesque phrase. These people voted for Trump because they believed his wild promises. They believed he would bring their jobs back from overseas, that the streets would be safer, that there would be less people around who didn't look like them. Bernie wasn't promising that. He was putting forward a kinder society and that isn't what a lot of people wanted. The thing is that a lot of poor Americans don't view themselves as poor. They see themselves as hardworking, true Americans. Even if they haven't got a job. Hence why a lot of them voted for Trump even when it was against their own interests. Bernie was promising jobs - he was promising some quite similar things, just with a progressive stance backing it. Did you read the fucking article man? It clearly says that local Democrats in these areas were dismayed that the Clinton campaign decided to push the attack on Trump on the basis of misogyny and so on rather than addressing the economic issues that had won these areas for the Democrats every time for the past 40 years. If that's not Hillary's fault - and keep in mind that these are the areas that lost her the Presidency, then whose fault is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18038 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) Washed up losers? That's quite a Trumpesque phrase. These people voted for Trump because they believed his wild promises. They believed he would bring their jobs back from overseas, that the streets would be safer, that there would be less people around who didn't look like them. Bernie wasn't promising that. He was putting forward a kinder society and that isn't what a lot of people wanted. The thing is that a lot of poor Americans don't view themselves as poor. They see themselves as hardworking, true Americans. Even if they haven't got a job. Hence why a lot of them voted for Trump even when it was against their own interests. Sanders was perceived as too left wing for the gig. Don't underestimate the American hatred of socialism, ffs most couldn't stand the notion of the Affordable Healthcare Act. Would have been interesting to see which side the dreaded American MSM would have backed in a stand off. Probably Trump. Everyone thought Clinton would win comfortably right up until election day. But I'm not even convinced Sanders was the better candidate even with the benefit of hindsight. Edited January 31, 2017 by Renton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18038 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 FFS https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/12/give-robots-personhood-status-eu-committee-argues It's been discussed as a notional possibility should robots ever be developed with human levels of consciousness. Which, if you know much about AI, will not happen in our life times. It's completely irrelevant to this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 It's been discussed as a notional possibility should robots ever be developed with human levels of consciousness. Which, if you know much about AI, will not happen in our life times. It's completely irrelevant to this discussion. Er...agreed. But since AH came and made the point in jest, I threw in the random factoid about this just for the hell of it. It was never intended as a furthering of the discussion. Which is patently obvious, surely. Here's the post you replied to: I think I've mentioned mind, that the UN...or maybe it was the EU... was discussing giving them human rights. Which would be an intriguing development. What made you think that I was furthering a discussion about Trump with that? I mean, I know my views are being rounded on at every opportunity here, but come on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18038 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Er...agreed. But since AH came and made the point in jest, I threw in the random factoid about this just for the hell of it. It was never intended as a furthering of the discussion. Which is patently obvious, surely. Here's the post you replied to: What made you think that I was furthering a discussion about Trump with that? I mean, I know my views are being rounded on at every opportunity here, but come on It's not going to happen thus century though, so was a distraction. You suggested it was imminent. However, automation is a huge issue which Trump will not be able to address. I'm going to a seminar this week about robot surgeons. They're not on consultant salaries yet though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26793 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Bernie was promising jobs - he was promising some quite similar things, just with a progressive stance backing it. Did you read the fucking article man? It clearly says that local Democrats in these areas were dismayed that the Clinton campaign decided to push the attack on Trump on the basis of misogyny and so on rather than addressing the economic issues that had won these areas for the Democrats every time for the past 40 years. If that's not Hillary's fault - and keep in mind that these are the areas that lost her the Presidency, then whose fault is it? Bernie wasn't promising the same jobs as Trump was my point and one which was obvious to anyone reading my post not blinded by rage. The DNC and Hillary's team wanted to keep her fairly central. The polling showed that it was a winning tactic. The polls were wrong. Nearly every politician' policies and tactics are as much shaped by polls as vice versa. Now have a twix and calm down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) It's not going to happen thus century though, so was a distraction. You suggested it was imminent. However, automation is a huge issue which Trump will not be able to address. I'm going to a seminar this week about robot surgeons. They're not on consultant salaries yet though. I certainly didn't intend to suggest it was imminent. I literally just threw it out there because I thought it was interesting! To be fair to you guys, I don't know why I keep getting pulled into this, and it must be getting tiresome. I keep thinking 'I'll leave it there' but sometimes you guys post things that I think are just so flagrantly wrong that I can't help myself Bernie wasn't promising the same jobs as Trump was my point and one which was obvious to anyone reading my post not blinded by rage. The DNC and Hillary's team wanted to keep her fairly central. The polling showed that it was a winning tactic. The polls were wrong. Nearly every politician' policies and tactics are as much shaped by polls as vice versa. Now have a twix and calm down. I'm not raging - I enjoy fierce debate though As I said mind, I should step back a bit. I've posted articles, I've cited my evidence, if you still reject it after appraising them then fine. I can't see any significant counter evidence to the contrary being made though. Just baseless claims. I do genuinely think I have demonstrated in the past that I'm prepared to be 'convinced' with the right evidence. However, I accept that none of you are likely going to want to bother sourcing your arguments since you all have jobs and such, so this really is all a bit futile on my side. Edited January 31, 2017 by Rayvin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14899 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 It's officially a coup....according to MSM anyway... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-michael-moore-coup-us-steve-bannon-sally-yates-rule-of-law-a7554556.html?cmpid=facebook-post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 20140 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) Well until another viable rationale comes along for it, I'm considering it likely. Why do you think that specific 17% voted for him then? I'll also point out that there was a 16% swing to Trump from working class people who voted for Obama. Could those people have voted for Sanders? Is that unlikely? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-voters-who-heavily-supported-obama-switched-over-to-trump/2016/11/10/65019658-a77a-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html?utm_term=.15fc0867d11f This is a good article that demonstrates Hillary consistently lost to Sanders in working class areas, lost to Obama in the primaries before this one in the same areas, and that these areas went and turned to Trump in 2016. Despite having voted Democrat every election since 1972, in the case of one of them in their case study. I mean come on. Why are you guys so determined to protect these failed, washed up losers? The centreground simply didn't care, and this nightmare happened on its watch. Socialism is a dirty word in the US. I don't think a proper red like sanders would stand a chance, unfortunately. Ditto Corbyn here. Edited January 31, 2017 by Dr Gloom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14136 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 To me it mirrors the oft-quoted "people would vote for the Greens if it was all about the policies". It's one thing to agree with the principles in theory and quite another to vote for them in practice. Also, if it's accepted that Trump's victory was due partly to hammering Hillary as "crooked" over and over again until enough people bought into the message, imagine what he'd have done with a progressive socialist like Sanders. The poor bugger would have been firmly on the wrong side of the buzzword war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26793 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 As I said mind, I should step back a bit. I've posted articles, I've cited my evidence, if you still reject it after appraising them then fine. I can't see any significant counter evidence to the contrary being made though. Just baseless claims. I do genuinely think I have demonstrated in the past that I'm prepared to be 'convinced' with the right evidence. However, I accept that none of you are likely going to want to bother sourcing your arguments since you all have jobs and such, so this really is all a bit futile on my side. You have linked to very limited evidence of anything and used it to back up your own baseless suppositions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) You have linked to very limited evidence of anything and used it to back up your own baseless suppositions. I see. Presumably I should be looking for your evidence for you? EDIT - scratch that, you're saying you want more evidence than I've already given you, in actual fact. It's pointless though isn't it, because you won't give it the time of day anyway. Hence, I note that this is a futile task for me I guess I get something out of sounding ideas out, maybe that gives me something back. Edited January 31, 2017 by Rayvin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18038 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Group hug is required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26793 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Unlike you I have examined the evidence presented in relation to the points you've made and the two don't back each other up. Source: https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/iwsgb/n065/p00043-p00046.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I think all that's required is that CT comes back so we can all unify around his ridiculous views rather than mine. Or I could learn to just shut the fuck up about politics and limit my discussions to football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Unlike you I have examined the evidence presented in relation to the points you've made and the two don't back each other up. Source: https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/iwsgb/n065/p00043-p00046.pdf I have totally lost the will for this now and as curious as I am about what relevance the methodology used in the statistical analysis of bird migration patterns has, I'll just concede the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26793 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 20140 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I think all that's required is that CT comes back so we can all unify around his ridiculous views rather than mine. Or I could learn to just shut the fuck up about politics and limit my discussions to football your views aren't ridiculous. parky's views are ridiculous. i think sometimes something has to be called for what it is though. i see way too much soul searching and self flagellation among my liberal elite friends - you'd love them. whether it's blaming the west for the rise of islamofacism, or blaming the left for the rise of trump and farage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26793 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I don't know at what point I should stop being surprised by the childishness of these tweets. Still more childish than this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now