US Presidential Election 2016

[pink_triangle]

28 minutes ago, LJS said:

So its OK to run an offensive & unpleasant campaign if you aren't going to be able to actually do the horrid things you promised?

The irony of it is that we are relying on the the man who got to power in part by opposing the dishonesty of the Washington elite, being every bit as dishonest as them

No it's not OK and he wouldn't have got my vote, but we are where we are. He now has to try and clear up the mess he made. I agree it's a very strange dynamic as they discusses on the npr podcasts that many people voted for him because they didn't believe him!

[zahidf]

 

[feral chile]

2 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

No it's not OK and he wouldn't have got my vote, but we are where we are. He now has to try and clear up the mess he made. I agree it's a very strange dynamic as they discusses on the npr podcasts that many people voted for him because they didn't believe him!

Not really, it's the same people who voted brexit when they didn't really want to leave the EU.

they think they're voting an anti-politician vote.

They think they're voting against political corruption, and for the ordinary man.

Same as they voted for Farage, because these people aren't speaking in a politically correct manner, and they know they're sincere in their hatred, that somehow makes them trustworthy.

[feral chile]

 

 

'we have to create a world where Donald Trump isn't necessary'

Edited November 13, 2016 by feral chile

[pink_triangle]

14 minutes ago, zahidf said:

 

That's what happens when you put a republican in power, I'm not sure it's something particular to Trump

[pink_triangle]

17 minutes ago, feral chile said:

The difference is, Corbyn condemned people saying terrible things. I don't know if May did, I'd certainly expect her to. They weren't mirroring or saying terrible things first.

You condemned Corbyn as a poor leader for not being able to break the internet saying nasty things to the PLP.

Corbyn never said nasty things. a lot of the time, the people saying nasty things weren't saying that much nasty, and denied being momentum supporters, as had been claimed.

Corbyn certainly refused to condemn specific people, but he was certainly vocal in condemning abuse.

I have no doubt Corbyn is a nicer bloke than Trump. As I said I look at things different in the UK. I am more desperate for a labour government as I have more invested. I want Corbyn to act in a way that helps labour get more votes and I believe some of his supporters act in a way which loses votes across the electorate.

[LJS]

I seem to be getting tarred with Neil's "all trumpets are racist" brush and possibly "all brexiteers are racist" too.

I do not believe either of these statements. I don't even believe that all racists are Trumpets.

What I do believe is that Trump ran a campaign which, at the very least, played upon peoples fears and prejudices and there was a clear racist element to this. It seems clear that many people were attracted to this & it contributed to their decision to vote Trumpet. I am quite happy to label these people as racist.

I am sure Neil & PT are right when they say that many other voters' prime reason for voting Trumpet was different  - it might have been the promise to repatriate jobs, it might have been the promise to sort out the inner cities or it might have been just the general Make America Great Again stuff. For many I am sure it was a protest vote against what they see as the government not working for the "little man."  I can even ignore the fact that all these promises are, to varying degrees, undeliverable and accept that people who voted Trumpet for these reasons are not racist. 

BUT, they could not have been unaware of the nastier side to Trumpet's campaign but decided it was OK to turn a blind eye to it. So whilst they may not be racist, they would appear not to think racism (&all the other isms) is not a big deal. I find it worrying that half of those who voted in the most powerful nation on earth are either racist or prepared to condone racism. 

OK I guess there may be some as well who, whilst deploring Trumpet's racism, thought where a politician stores her e mails is a more worrying issue. I don't know how I would describe these people - misguided perhaps?

I think it was PT who made a point about the need to win round the people who voted Trumpet and that insulting them is not the way to do this. I completely agree and were I trying to win these people round I would not be telling them they were racist or condoning racism. On eFest however I feel comfortable giving my genuine view on them & i'm keeping my fingers crossed that by doing so I am not jeopardising Michelle Obama's chances in 2020.

Neil is very keen on holding those who voted for Corbyn responsible for the alleged consequences of their actions. Equally with those of us who favour Scottish independence. I agree with him. If I end up penniless & jobless & living in a cave because Scotland has gone down the tubes after independence, I will indeed bear some of the responsibility for that. All I am suggesting is that, amongst many other factors the people who voted Trumpet will be partly responsible for whatever horrors he goes on to perpetrate.

 

 

[lost]

so I'm guessing this is islamophobic:

 

[LJS]

3 hours ago, feral chile said:

I posted this in another thread:

 

I have kind of mixed feeling about this stuff. While I deplore the bile that the mail & express peddle & my instinctive reaction was to give a small cheer when I heard that Lego were no longer going to fling money at the Daily Mail, a moments thought reveals that this can all work the other way too and it risks businesses trying to exert editorial control which is clearly not necessarily a good thing. 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/17/peter-oborne-telegraph-hsbc-coverage-fraud-readers

Like so many things its not simple. 

[zahidf]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

I have kind of mixed feeling about this stuff. While I deplore the bile that the mail & express peddle & my instinctive reaction was to give a small cheer when I heard that Lego were no longer going to fling money at the Daily Mail, a moments thought reveals that this can all work the other way too and it risks businesses trying to exert editorial control which is clearly not necessarily a good thing. 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/17/peter-oborne-telegraph-hsbc-coverage-fraud-readers

Like so many things its not simple. 

Its very different though. The mail are making up lies about asylum seekers. If they stopped that, wouldnt be any add boycottig.

 

 

[feral chile]

6 minutes ago, LJS said:

I have kind of mixed feeling about this stuff. While I deplore the bile that the mail & express peddle & my instinctive reaction was to give a small cheer when I heard that Lego were no longer going to fling money at the Daily Mail, a moments thought reveals that this can all work the other way too and it risks businesses trying to exert editorial control which is clearly not necessarily a good thing. 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/17/peter-oborne-telegraph-hsbc-coverage-fraud-readers

Like so many things its not simple. 

i thought that was the point. That they already do.

And this was a way for consumers to ultimately exertcontrol - through lego, and through the newspapers.

I liked the idea of it, because with any democracy, you've got top down but also bottom up.

i firmly believe that we're told what to want by narratives, and this is a way to push things in the opposite direction, to force consumer power onto the press/companies, rather than vice versa.

Think how differently the public would react if we were having heart rending stories about how hard others have it compared to us, and what a great country we were to be taking them in, and how proud we should be of paying a bit more so that people could have a chance of life free from fear, etc.

instead we get Benefits Street and the like.

And the tax credit turnaround - after years of being told we had to cut benefits, suddenly we had the money to keep things as they were. If there hadn't been a public backlash, that money would have gone elsewhere, and the narrative would still have been that we couldn't afford not to make cuts.

Edited November 13, 2016 by feral chile

[LJS]

10 minutes ago, lost said:

so I'm guessing this is islamophobic:

 

I notice he is only going to protect them against Islamic extremists. I'm guessing they are probably more worried about threats closer to home.

As with so many things,we will need to wait & see how things pan out, although some of the early appointments to his transition team don't seem to encourage much optimism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-pence-assault-lgbtq-equality_us_58275a17e4b02d21bbc8ff9b

(note: I don't post the above link as fact but to give one side of the story, like I say we will need to wait & see how things pan out.)

[zahidf]

Spot on here

 

[feral chile]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

I notice he is only going to protect them against Islamic extremists. I'm guessing they are probably more worried about threats closer to home.

As with so many things,we will need to wait & see how things pan out, although some of the early appointments to his transition team don't seem to encourage much optimism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-pence-assault-lgbtq-equality_us_58275a17e4b02d21bbc8ff9b

(note: I don't post the above link as fact but to give one side of the story, like I say we will need to wait & see how things pan out.)

Exactly. In British media, naming the race of a mugger say, has been called out as racist for years.

Are all homophobes Islamic? No? Then it's racist.

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Its very different though. The mail are making up lies about asylum seekers. If they stopped that, wouldnt be any add boycottig.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, feral chile said:

i thought that was the point. That they already do.

And this was a way for consumers to ultimately exertcontrol - through lego, and through the newspapers.

I liked the idea of it, because with any democracy, you've got top down but also bottom up.

i firmly believe that we're told what to want by narratives, and this is a way to push things in the opposite direction, to force consumer power onto the press/companies, rather than vice versa.

As I said, my initial reaction was positive, I just think it's a double edged sword - What if pro- Brexit campaigners persuaded some other big company to stop advertising in the Guardian?  

It has the potential to be a double edged sword is all I'm saying. I'm certainly not supporting the lies & bigotry perpetrated by the Mail.

[lost]

6 minutes ago, LJS said:

I notice he is only going to protect them against Islamic extremists. I'm guessing they are probably more worried about threats closer to home.

As with so many things,we will need to wait & see how things pan out, although some of the early appointments to his transition team don't seem to encourage much optimism.

Well that was exactly my point. When he says something bad about a minority group he definitely means it whilst when he says something good he definitely doesn't mean it and is only saying it to attack a different group and we look for something that proves that.

We all take our own prejudices into things like this. Apply extra scrutiny to certain statements or actions whilst are happy to immediately dismiss other ones out of hand to fit in with our world view.

[feral chile]

1 minute ago, lost said:

Well that was exactly my point. When he says something bad about a minority group he definitely means it whilst when he says something good he definitely doesn't mean it and is only saying it to attack a different group and we look for something that proves that.

We all take our own prejudices into things like this. Apply extra scrutiny to certain statements or actions whilst are happy to immediately dismiss other ones out of hand to fit in with our world view.

He was saying something bad about Muslims.

Or do you think Britain first is a responsible group?

[lost]

2 minutes ago, feral chile said:

He was saying something bad about Muslims.

Or do you think Britain first is a responsible group?

I'm not going to play my minority is more oppressed than yours. I can think shooting up gay clubs and isis throwing gay men off buildings is bad without supporting Britain first.

[feral chile]

8 minutes ago, lost said:

Well that was exactly my point. When he says something bad about a minority group he definitely means it whilst when he says something good he definitely doesn't mean it and is only saying it to attack a different group and we look for something that proves that.

We all take our own prejudices into things like this. Apply extra scrutiny to certain statements or actions whilst are happy to immediately dismiss other ones out of hand to fit in with our world view.

You didn't listen carefully enough.

'Americans' being targeted by a 'hateful foreign ideology'.

do you really think he'd have said this if it had been Americans attacking 'foreigners'?

This is more of the same - the threat of foreigners to home grown Americans.

So, since he didn't promise to protect members of the gay community, American or not, from all abuse, whether perpetrated by americans or not, and since he specified the nationality of the attackers, and the victims, then yes, the speech was indeed racist.

Edited November 13, 2016 by feral chile

[feral chile]

he didn't mention any of these attacks, did he?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_States

A lot of the accused claim in their defence that the victim had made unwanted sexual advances towards them.

Lucky women don't think like that, or there'd be no men left standing.

(ok, not many  )

Edited November 13, 2016 by feral chile

[lost]

26 minutes ago, feral chile said:

 

So, since he didn't promise to protect members of the gay community, American or not, from all abuse, whether perpetrated by americans or not, and since he specified the nationality of the attackers, and the victims, then yes, the speech was indeed racist.

Yes I know that view and I remember this story and some of the outrage on twitter over here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/10/police-apologise-for-allahu-akbar-use-in-mock-manchester-attack

Some people my argue trying to remove any hit of racial, religious or sexist bias from every statement you make is ridiculous and why the left is suck a laughing stock and un-electable at the moment. Not me obviously.

this one was even better:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/19/british-army-under-fire-for-racist-tweet-that-showed-a-soldier-w/

I credit the majority of people in this country with enough intelligence that you can say something like the people who carried out 9/11 were muslims and they subscribed to a certain ideology within islam without everybody suddenly thinking all muslims want to kill them. 

Edited November 13, 2016 by lost

[feral chile]

17 minutes ago, lost said:

Yes I know that view and I remember this story and some of the outrage on twitter over here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/10/police-apologise-for-allahu-akbar-use-in-mock-manchester-attack

Some people my argue trying to remove any hit of racial, religious or sexist bias from every statement you make is ridiculous and why the left is suck a laughing stock and un-electable at the moment. Not me obviously.

this one was even better:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/19/british-army-under-fire-for-racist-tweet-that-showed-a-soldier-w/

And some people may argue that including the nationality is inflammatory.

If you really can't see that Trump is still spouting the same old racist stuff in his supposed defence of the gay community......

Have you been reading any of the stuff on the fears of people around transgendered individuals using public toilets in America?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/04/28/transgender-bathroom-bills-discrimination/32594395/

LJS: I see your point - this article mentions how Christians are lobbying Target for their inclusive bathrooms.

Note, lost - American Christian fundamentalists, classed as a hate group by some.

is trump going to protect people against them, too?

Edited November 13, 2016 by feral chile

[lost]

3 minutes ago, feral chile said:

 

Have you been reading any of the stuff on the fears of people around transgendered individuals using public toilets in America?

 

Yes they had a lady from a prominent feminist group on channel 4 arguing against it and saying if you still have a penis your a potential rapist. I don't really see that as a right vs left issue. 

[feral chile]

15 minutes ago, lost said:

Yes they had a lady from a prominent feminist group on channel 4 arguing against it and saying if you still have a penis your a potential rapist. I don't really see that as a right vs left issue. 

It's not, necessarily.

what's that gopt to do with trump and your comments earlier?

it's Christian fundamentalists who are making the biggest deal over this.

not Islamic fundamentalists.

So trump's comments are inflammatory. he's interested in the foreign threat, and if some foreigners are threatening some Americans, that's a cause to support.

i haven't heard him condemning american bigots for their hate filled ideology.

[feral chile]

1 hour ago, lost said:

Well that was exactly my point. When he says something bad about a minority group he definitely means it whilst when he says something good he definitely doesn't mean it and is only saying it to attack a different group and we look for something that proves that.

We all take our own prejudices into things like this. Apply extra scrutiny to certain statements or actions whilst are happy to immediately dismiss other ones out of hand to fit in with our world view.

I'll try another point.

do you think that getting rid of Muslims will prevent attacks on gay people?

https://www.rt.com/viral/346502-orlando-lgbt-muslims-reaction/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/muslim-view-lgbt-people-spotlight-orlando-attack-051407437.html

http://americansfortruth.com/about/

 

?