This morning...

[waterfalls212434]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Nope, the simple is you.

 

when the insults start the argument is lost, you want to get personal with me pal Ill just laugh in your face and be on my merry way  

Edited November 17, 2016 by waterfalls212434

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

when the insults start the argument is lost, you want to get personal with me pal Ill just laugh in your face and be on my merry way  

I apologise, but you laid out the most simplistic of arguments and cast that as your own insult onto all Trump voters. 

It's via simplistic labelling by both sides that society is ploughing deeper and deeper into the shit.

[grumpyhack]

So many political leaders proclaim themselves as 'One Nation' yet very few of them have ever lived outside their own rarified bubble  Their roadshow might breeze into small town or village Britain or the US but usually the visits are so carefully planned and orchestrated that they only meet the converted and rarely get their hands dirty encountering the dispossessed.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, grumpyhack said:

So many political leaders proclaim themselves as 'One Nation' yet very few of them have ever lived outside their own rarified bubble  Their roadshow might breeze into small town or village Britain or the US but usually the visits are so carefully planned and orchestrated that they only meet the converted and rarely get their hands dirty encountering the dispossessed.

Unfortunately in the US election, that was more Clinton than Trump.

Not that Trump doesn't live in his own privileged bubble, but he did manage to create a perception of enough difference with the normal politician to help attract the votes he needed to win.

[zahidf]

What its really like with Muslim registration

 

 

[arcade fireman]

To call all Trump voters racist is of course inaccurate. However to say a majority of Trump voters are bigoted (pejorative word but I would define intolerant of either other races, religions, cultures, same sex relationships, women in power or a combination of the above) isn't that much of a stretch.

25% of the electorate voted for Trump. 13% would then be a majority of that. The vast majority of people in that category will have gone out and voted for Trump, especially given he received backing from the most extreme far right fringes of American society, the KKK etc - people who would never usually endorse any major party candidate.

Also remember this is America we are talking about, not this country. And most of the American faces we see on the TV or indeed most of us will have met in our lives (unless any of us have lived out in the sticks in the States) are from the coasts and/or major cities and not representative of the American population as a whole. I really don't think it's a stretch to say 15-20% of the American population match that description, and an overwhelming majority would have voted for Trump. 

Is it the reason why Trump won? Of course not, the picture is much more complicated. There's no way of proving it either way but I don't think it's an unreasonable estimate. 

Certainly this pretence that Trump won solely because of these "left behind" communities is also only telling a small part of the story though. Indeed lower incomes voted for Clinton more than Trump, whereas those on more than $50,000 per year voted for Trump 49-47. It may have tipped Trump over the edge, but let's not tiptoe around the idea that a lot of Trump's supporters are just outright vile, nasty people. 

Edited November 17, 2016 by arcade fireman

[waterfalls212434]

Also I know this isnt related to trump but this seems to be the `politics` thread of the minute and it is in relation to brexit.

did anyone see this http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/eu-brexit-associate-citizenship-member-states-theresa-may-freedom-of-movement-a7415936.html

maybe a glimmer of hope for those who want to stay eu citizens when we do actually brexit. An mep has forwarded (and received a huge amount of support for) a motion to allow British citizens who want to remain a part of the eu to do so.....itd plainly need some kind of fee to take part in and some reworking of various agreements but worth doing I reckon for many if it went through, id certainly take advantage of it especially if it meant my children remained EU citizens as well with the associated rights.

Ironic thing is though a lot of brexiters have got all worked up about it......even if it doesn't affect them what so ever they dont want ANY uk citizens to be part of the eu.....which just goes to show its more about `controlling` people then anything else for those with this attitude.

Edited November 17, 2016 by waterfalls212434

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, zahidf said:

What its really like with Muslim registration

No one is suggesting it's a nice thing, not even Trump.

Trumps gave a justification for it which can be argued over, but it's very definitely not about targeting Muslims just because they're Muslims and hated for being Muslims.

It's not a first step towards death camps or anything else of the more wacky claims, just as it wasn't when George Bush introduced the same register.

"Many" were deported last time? "Some" were arrested? Would those be, perhaps, those who had no legal right to be in the country and those with an outstanding warrant for illegal activities? Cos if these things happened nothing was said at the time and nothing was said in the many years since, but now these big claims are being made (rather similar to the big claims of death camps and the other stupidities).

When the person presenting this stuff here has already shown himself to be HUGELY untrustworthy with his claims, I can no longer trust a single thing he presents in support of his humungous exaggerations - and I'm someone 100% sympathetic towards the overall angle of his displeasure. Just think how it works with someone of different thinking.

Just a thought, but If 'the left' want to make the whole thing a waste of Trump's time, they're able to very easily by registering themselves as Muslims. A register of tens of millions of ordinary Americans that are supposedly Muslims is fuck all use to anyone, even Trump.

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, arcade fireman said:

 

To call all Trump voters racist is of course inaccurate. However to say a majority of Trump voters are bigoted (pejorative word but I would define intolerant of either other races, religions, cultures, same sex relationships, women in power or a combination of the above) isn't that much of a stretch.

 

You might be right. Then again, your mass labeling of them all as bigots is....? Bigoted. Do you think 'the other side' can't also recognise a bigot?

But more than that, it's insulting the people 'on the other side' who are needed on 'your side' if the worst of Trump is to be stopped. 

Why might you think they'd stand side by side with people who have already dismissed them as worthless people?

I saw some words last night, that i thought nailed it, much better than me saying its a popularity contest. And that was someone saying it was an unpopularity contest, and an unpopularity contest that Clinton won. 

[arcade fireman]

Just now, eFestivals said:

You might be right. Then again, your mass labeling of them all as bigots is....? Bigoted. Do you think 'the other side' can't also recognise a bigot?

But more than that, it's insulting the people 'on the other side' who are needed on 'your side' if the worst of Trump is to be stopped. 

Why might you think they'd stand side by side with people who have already dismissed them as worthless people?

I saw some words last night, that i thought nailed it, much better than me saying its a popularity contest. And that was someone saying it was an unpopularity contest, and an unpopularity contest that Clinton won. 

Some of the Trump supporters definitely need to be won over. But a majority of people who voted Trump will never be drawn to the side which promotes a fairer, more equal and diverse society. 

And of course there's a fundamental difference between what I'd be saying frankly as someone posting on an internet message board from the UK (where my words have no impact) and what I'd say in public if I was a leading Democratic politician in the US.

It is not bigoted to call people bigots if you can justify it. Some Trump supporters could be won over, but many would never be. 

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, arcade fireman said:

especially given he received backing from the most extreme far right fringes of American society, the KKK etc - people who would never usually endorse any major party candidate.

endorsed Reagan: http://news.groopspeak.com/the-kkk-endorsed-ronald-reagan-see-how-he-responded/

endorsed Bush: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.arts.int-fiction/yrjFEIUJzOU

And some even endorsed Obama. http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a4719/racists-support-obama-061308/

It looks like you're as off-target as it's possible to be in your take of USA politics.

Edited November 18, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

Some of the Trump supporters definitely need to be won over. But a majority of people who voted Trump will never be drawn to the side which promotes a fairer, more equal and diverse society. 

That's perhaps true. After all, they're Republican voters, who don't and never have supported a fairer, more equal and diverse society.

But it's all about Trump being the devil and different, yeah?

 

Quote

It is not bigoted to call people bigots if you can justify it. Some Trump supporters could be won over, but many would never be. 

But you can't. You labelled them all as bigots merely on the basis that they haven't voted for your approved candidate. You've decided their reasons for them, and have decided their reasons are only motivated by the bad.

It's much like labelling all tory voters in the UK as people who are determined to denigrate the lives of the disabled in every and all circumstances on the basis of the tories having reduced financial support for the disabled in specific circumstances.

Edited November 18, 2016 by eFestivals

[arcade fireman]

21 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

http://news.groopspeak.com/the-kkk-endorsed-ronald-reagan-see-how-he-responded/

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.arts.int-fiction/yrjFEIUJzOU

And some even endorsed Obama.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a4719/racists-support-obama-061308/

It looks like you're as off-target as it's possible to be in your take of USA politics.

The odd Obama supporter is clearly an anomaly. And change "never" to "not usually". But the vocal and loud support Trump has got amongst the far right hasn't been paralleled by any Presidential candidate this generation that's for sure. 

[arcade fireman]

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

That's perhaps true. After all, they're Republican voters, who don't and never have supported a fairer, more equal and diverse society.

But it's all about Trump being the devil and different, yeah?

 

But you can't. You labelled them all as bigots merely on the basis that they haven't voted for your approved candidate. You've decided their reasons for them, and have decided their reasons are only motivated by the bad.

It's much like labelling all tory voters in the UK as people who are determined to denigrate the lives of the disabled in every and all circumstances on the basis of the tories having reduced financial support for the disabled in specific circumstances.

That's just false equivalence bullshit though. This election is entirely different to any others in U.K. or US history. I'm not one to label Tory voters or Brexit voters so   bringing that up is nonsense. The two differences are that even the Tory voting strongholds are generally  much more tolerant places than the Republican heartlands in the US. And neither of those campaigns were run like Trump's.

I'm not even labelling all Trump voters. Im saying it's entirely possible, even probable that a majority of those voting for him would be intolerant of other races, cultures, sexualities, having a woman President etc. I am then applying the pejorative word to them "bigot" in the same way it's defined in the Oxford English Dictionary, no less.

Would I be saying this in public were I a Democrat senator trying to win back voters? Of course not. But that doesn't mean it's not a fair comment.

Edited November 18, 2016 by arcade fireman

[eFestivals]

19 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

And change "never" to "not usually".

Still wrong. The KKK are a political organisation. It's extremely usual for them to endorse one of the major candidates in a political contest.

19 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

But the vocal and loud support Trump has got amongst the far right hasn't been paralleled by any Presidential candidate this generation that's for sure. 

That's true, but the BNP endorsed UKIP. Does that make UKIP irrevocably the same as the BNP?

 

I think, my comment below nails it for where you're going wrong...

40 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It's much like labeling all tory voters in the UK as people who are determined to denigrate the lives of the disabled in every and all circumstances on the basis of the tories having reduced financial support for the disabled in specific circumstances.

... because while some of those tory voters might agree with denigrating the lives in the disabled in all circumstances, some will only support those sorts of measures in the sorts of specific circumstances that existed for the tories to do it, while plenty won't support anything of the tories plans for the disabled, and are voting tory for entirely different reasons altogether while still thinking them the best option of their vote against the offered alternatives..

You're deciding that because there's a particular aspect of Trump you don't like, everything about Trump and all of his supporters are about that and just that.

It's stupidly simplistic, and of the level of stupidity that the Trumpers are accused of having.

Edited November 18, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

I'm not even labelling all Trump voters. Im saying it's entirely possible, even probable that a majority of those voting for him would be intolerant of other races, cultures, sexualities, having a woman President etc. I am then applying the pejorative word to them "bigot" in the same way it's defined in the Oxford English Dictionary, no less.

All tory voters hate the disabled.
All tory voters think all benefits are only for scroungers.
All tory voters want to reduce your working conditions.
All tory voters want lower taxes for the rich and higher taxes for the poor.
All tory voters support nuclear weapons.
All tory voters want Syria bombed.
All tory voters are against the NHS.
All tory voters support brexit.
Etc, etc, etc.

Edited November 18, 2016 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

No one is suggesting it's a nice thing, not even Trump.

Trumps gave a justification for it which can be argued over, but it's very definitely not about targeting Muslims just because they're Muslims and hated for being Muslims.

It's not a first step towards death camps or anything else of the more wacky claims, just as it wasn't when George Bush introduced the same register.

"Many" were deported last time? "Some" were arrested? Would those be, perhaps, those who had no legal right to be in the country and those with an outstanding warrant for illegal activities? Cos if these things happened nothing was said at the time and nothing was said in the many years since, but now these big claims are being made (rather similar to the big claims of death camps and the other stupidities).

When the person presenting this stuff here has already shown himself to be HUGELY untrustworthy with his claims, I can no longer trust a single thing he presents in support of his humungous exaggerations - and I'm someone 100% sympathetic towards the overall angle of his displeasure. Just think how it works with someone of different thinking.

Just a thought, but If 'the left' want to make the whole thing a waste of Trump's time, they're able to very easily by registering themselves as Muslims. A register of tens of millions of ordinary Americans that are supposedly Muslims is fuck all use to anyone, even Trump.

 

http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.753884

 

Thats the plan on the left from some. Hope that idea spreads!

[eFestivals]

oh zahidf, did you see that the ADL have issued a statement that says...

WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY ANTI-SEMITIC STATEMENTS FROM BANNON.

You must be particularly clever to know with certainty that he's anti-semetic to the extent of being "a literal nazi".

Yup, the same page also points out that Breitbart has run lots of not nice 'alt-right' stuff, both before Bannon was there and since he's left, but a commercial 'Newspaper' needs an audience and Fox has shown where it's easy to get one. Despicable politics, but very smart commercially, cos (I don't know about others) but I hadn't even heard of Breitbart 6 months ago, but now according to some (you) it's the most important and influential news outlet in the USA.

And, it seems, Bannon is in Trump's team not to introduce death camps as you were suggesting, but to make sure policy benefits the commercial interests of Trump, carrying on his commercial life of enriching himself and those he works for.

And yep, that's a very good idea from the ADL - tho one which hasn't needed me to have an organisation trumpet it to me. Some of us can think for ourselves.

Edited November 18, 2016 by eFestivals

[The Nal]

13 hours ago, arcade fireman said:

To call all Trump voters racist is of course inaccurate. However to say a majority of Trump voters are bigoted (pejorative word but I would define intolerant of either other races, religions, cultures, same sex relationships, women in power or a combination of the above) isn't that much of a stretch.

25% of the electorate voted for Trump. 13% would then be a majority of that. The vast majority of people in that category will have gone out and voted for Trump, especially given he received backing from the most extreme far right fringes of American society, the KKK etc - people who would never usually endorse any major party candidate.

Also remember this is America we are talking about, not this country. And most of the American faces we see on the TV or indeed most of us will have met in our lives (unless any of us have lived out in the sticks in the States) are from the coasts and/or major cities and not representative of the American population as a whole. I really don't think it's a stretch to say 15-20% of the American population match that description, and an overwhelming majority would have voted for Trump. 

Is it the reason why Trump won? Of course not, the picture is much more complicated. There's no way of proving it either way but I don't think it's an unreasonable estimate. 

Certainly this pretence that Trump won solely because of these "left behind" communities is also only telling a small part of the story though. Indeed lower incomes voted for Clinton more than Trump, whereas those on more than $50,000 per year voted for Trump 49-47. It may have tipped Trump over the edge, but let's not tiptoe around the idea that a lot of Trump's supporters are just outright vile, nasty people. 

"Majority of Trump supporters are bigoted" is a huge huge assumption. And its wrong too. 

Some here are assuming that the majority of people voted for Trump for reasons like immigration, his stance on Muslims etc. Trump is a Republican so people are voting for less government, less regulation, competition in the markets, let the states make their own decisions etc. His mandate is for less government. 

People should be a lot more concerned about what he may do with NAFTA, the Paris climate agreement, NATO and so on as opposed to "dog whistle" politics or whatever other bullshit is being thrown about from a few sound bites he used to get elected.

I've lived out in the sticks a couple of times and people support their party. The democrats are the devil to a lot of people. Messing with health care, gun laws, raising taxes etc. Voting for a twat like Trump is an easy decision if thats the other option. 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, The Nal said:

"Majority of Trump supporters are bigoted" is a huge huge assumption. And its wrong too. 

and just as bigoted.

 

[grumpyhack]

It's still very dis-spiriting to hear Trump's plans being discussed.

[zahidf]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

oh zahidf, did you see that the ADL have issued a statement that says...

WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY ANTI-SEMITIC STATEMENTS FROM BANNON.

You must be particularly clever to know with certainty that he's anti-semetic to the extent of being "a literal nazi".

Yup, the same page also points out that Breitbart has run lots of not nice 'alt-right' stuff, both before Bannon was there and since he's left, but a commercial 'Newspaper' needs an audience and Fox has shown where it's easy to get one. Despicable politics, but very smart commercially, cos (I don't know about others) but I hadn't even heard of Breitbart 6 months ago, but now according to some (you) it's the most important and influential news outlet in the USA.

And, it seems, Bannon is in Trump's team not to introduce death camps as you were suggesting, but to make sure policy benefits the commercial interests of Trump, carrying on his commercial life of enriching himself and those he works for.

And yep, that's a very good idea from the ADL - tho one which hasn't needed me to have an organisation trumpet it to me. Some of us can think for ourselves.

I didnt see that from the ADL. Big switch from what they said about Trumps campaign video. And other Jewish organisations and historians disagree.

Much like the express and mail, i dont see pretending to be bigoted to make money less morally bad as actually being bigoted.

Bannon to help Trump's commercial interests??? So much for draining the swamp.

 

Your last paragraph is odd. So, organisations shouldnt suggest and organise resistance in that way, and allow people to think of it themselves???

Edited November 18, 2016 by zahidf

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

I didnt see that from the ADL. Big switch from what they said about Trumps campaign video. And other Jewish organisations and historians disagree.

Much like the express and mail, i dont see pretending to be bigoted to make money less morally bad as actually being bigoted.

Bannon to help Trump's commercial interests??? So much for draining the swamp.

Trump won on a lie? Who knew?

Even plenty who voted for him knew. Despite all of that they still thought he was better than having Clinton as president.

Others are hoping that some of what he said might turn out to be true, such as more and better jobs. He at least offered the hope of more and better jobs by making that one of the many things he said - which is more than his opponent did.

The campaign is over, Trump won. We have to deal with what he does, not what he might have said to win.

And, without approving of them, the only "terrible" things he looks perhaps likely to do domestically is to continue the Obama policy of deporting illegals involved in other crime (and only the ones involved in crime), and to re-introduce the Muslim register which was first introduced by GW Bush.

These are of course at the more extreme end of the spectrum, but they are very definitely not outside of the normal scope of American politics - as proven by their existence prior to Trump.

 

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Your last paragraph is odd. So, organisations shouldnt suggest and organise resistance in that way, and allow people to think of it themselves???

Nope, I'm merely pointing out that some people had worked it out before the professionals took an age to get round to suggesting it.

Probably like you they were too wrapped up in hyperbole to start thinking.

[stuartbert two hats]

Over the last few day and months I've been thinking a lot about the seeming chasm that has made itself starkly evident in the western world because of the narrow, but real victories of Brexit and Trump.  Although there has always been "left and right" or "liberals and conservatives", the sheer gap in comprehension between the two sides seems larger than ever.  Despite being very different in subject matter, there appear to be clear parallels between the EU Referendum and the US Elections in the inability of the two sides from being able to communicate.

I've attempted to distil these thoughts down to a few bullet points on what might and might not be helpful behaviour.  Apologies for all the "quotation marks"

 

What won't help:

• Calling everyone who voted for Brexit or Trump a stupid bigot.
• Arguing endlessly with each other about exactly how bad things are.
• Burying your head in the sand and crying about things that are going to happen.
• Calling anyone stupid.  It's cathartic, but ultimately destructive behaviour.
• Don't reflexively sign every petition you see that confirms your worldview. 
• Treating "the other side" as a monolith (see video below), and even worse accusing "them" of being hypocritical when it turns out that members of the other side actually hold conflicting views.  

What might help:

 

• Having those difficult conversations with friends and relatives from the "other side of the divide". Brexiters, Tories, Trump sympathisers.  Try to really understand their point of view.  Don't hate "the haters", understand them.
• Believe that the vast majority of people are fundamentally good. Or rather that they at least see themselves as good.
• Listen.  
• Put your views across in a measured, calm way that takes the other's perspective as a starting point, not as the ultimate evil.
• Find achievable goals that will make a positive impact.  
  • Don't campaign for Article 50 not to be invoked, since that will fail. Perhaps campaign for a "softer Brexit".
    • For example, Membership of the European Economic Area was mentioned by some Leave campaigners as a good option during the campaign, before the Referendum was taken as a mandate to close our borders.  Don
    • However, this is just an example, EEA membership campaigning may be 
• Controversially, do use your voice. If you've found a well thought out, constructive campaign to get behind, then by all means sign that petition.  It's very easy to criticise on-line "clicktivism", but it your have a busy life, then that may be the only voice you have.  It may seem useless, but your voice does count.  Use it, but wisely and respectfully.
• Focus on the future.  Focus on doing good.  

 

What have I missed?  What have I got wrong?

Edited November 18, 2016 by stuartbert two hats
Formatting

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Over the last few day and months I've been thinking a lot about the seeming chasm that has made itself starkly evident in the western world because of the narrow, but real victories of Brexit and Trump.  Although there has always been "left and right" or "liberals and conservatives", the sheer gap in comprehension between the two sides seems larger than ever.  Despite being very different in subject matter, there appear to be clear parallels between the EU Referendum and the US Elections in the inability of the two sides from being able to communicate.

I've attempted to distil these thoughts down to a few bullet points on what might and might not be helpful behaviour.  Apologies for all the "quotation marks"

 

What won't help:

• Calling everyone who voted for Brexit or Trump a stupid bigot.
• Arguing endlessly with each other about exactly how bad things are.
• Burying your head in the sand and crying about things that are going to happen.
• Calling anyone stupid.  It's cathartic, but ultimately destructive behaviour.
• Don't reflexively sign every petition you see that confirms your worldview. 
• Treating "the other side" as a monolith (see video below), and even worse accusing "them" of being hypocritical when it turns out that members of the other side actually hold conflicting views.  

What might help:

 

• Having those difficult conversations with friends and relatives from the "other side of the divide". Brexiters, Tories, Trump sympathisers.  Try to really understand their point of view.  Don't hate "the haters", understand them.
• Believe that the vast majority of people are fundamentally good. Or rather that they at least see themselves as good.
• Listen.  
• Put your views across in a measured, calm way that takes the other's perspective as a starting point, not as the ultimate evil.
• Find achievable goals that will make a positive impact.  
  • Don't campaign for Article 50 not to be invoked, since that will fail. Perhaps campaign for a "softer Brexit".
    • For example, Membership of the European Economic Area was mentioned by some Leave campaigners as a good option during the campaign, before the Referendum was taken as a mandate to close our borders.  Don
    • However, this is just an example, EEA membership campaigning may be 
• Controversially, do use your voice. If you've found a well thought out, constructive campaign to get behind, then by all means sign that petition.  It's very easy to criticise on-line "clicktivism", but it your have a busy life, then that may be the only voice you have.  It may seem useless, but your voice does count.  Use it, but wisely and respectfully.
• Focus on the future.  Focus on doing good.  

 

What have I missed?  What have I got wrong?

Nice post.