News 2016 U.S. Presidential election - the highs and lows

Mischief said:
Thanks, MadamS! :)
Click to expand...
Most welcome, doll. :hug: Anytime. Always glad to help.

And though it may seem a touch awkward for me to say this, I am super proud of you! :jump:

45093-Believe-There-Is-Good-In-The-World.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: KLS52 and Amy SF
Dedalus said:
Your vote is yours - you owe it to no one. That being said - I wish that all those people who voted 3rd party would begin organizing right now for the next election. If there is ever going to be a viable 3rd party, people are going to have to roll up their sleeves and get to work forwarding the movement. People think their individual vote is like the ****ing holy grail. A third party will need the teeth of millions to get beyond the measly 3-10 % they pull now. Using your vote as a protest / spoiler to voice your discontent with the system is useless if you're not going to get up off your couch and actually do something.
Click to expand...
They also need to have viable, qualified candidates. Neither Stein nor Johnson was near qualified to run the country. It wasn't a matter of people being afraid to vote 3rd party, it was that their weren't any qualified candidates to vote for. If Sanders had run 3rd party, that might have made a difference.
 
@Mischief In fact, you've inspired me! :) I think I'm gonna take a page from your book and find something to do that is positive & pro-active & helpful to others.... and maybe get a bit a soul-soothing for myself.

I am bookmarking this site to delve into deeper when I have more time....

df99d8_fdcdd2f0138b44a0995be71bff8ddb4a~mv2.jpg
mimuslimcouncil

Oh, and this looks promising! CrossRoads Anti-Racism Organizing & Training
^^^ just signed up for their e-newsletter ^^^ :up:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PTree15 and Amy SF
Mischief said:
Voting for someone who mocks the disabled, who quite calculatingly sows the seeds of bigotry and prejudice and then nurtures them, all to get power, who demeans women verbally and physically and boasts about sexually assaulting them - I think that that is something of which to be ashamed. And I think that not bothering to vote to keep such a person out of the presidency is not a whole lot better, no matter how one tries to justify it to oneself.
Click to expand...
I think vote-shaming is a mistake. It won't garner more support for your cause. In order to defeat Trump in four years, we'll need some of the people who voted for him this go-around. People who voted for Barack Obama in previous elections. People who would have gladly voted for Bernie Sanders in this election, without hesitation. People who disliked Trump but really disliked Hillary Clinton. These are people that we can reason with, but we can't do that if we shame them or call them dumb racists.
 
Amy SF said:
You came back to VV just to say this? Have you even been following the news at all in the last year? The Neo Nazis, KKK and White Lives Matter crowd got their president. How can you be so blind to the ugly racism directed at President Obama and his family for the past eight years? The Republicans set out to obstruct everything he did simply because of his skin color.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt the Republicans are against him because of his skin color. Maybe some but not the majority. Maybe they want to stop him because he has screwed over the working class in this country over the last 8 years. I am not racist. I voted for the man in 2008 and was very excited to see him win that election. And then his hope and change turned out to be pretty much turd soup. I didn't vote for him in 2012 and it had nothing to do with the color of his skin.

Certainly some judgmental people here painting everyone in a certain area of the country or who voted a certain way with the same brush. You'd think people here would be so quick to judge, since we get judged all the time simply for being vegan or vegetarian or an AR activist.

And not picking on you, I just happened to hit quote and this post and didn't feel like going back to find the other posts. I am really not good at the multiquote thing.
 
Calliegirl said:
They also need to have viable, qualified candidates. Neither Stein nor Johnson was near qualified to run the country. It wasn't a matter of people being afraid to vote 3rd party, it was that their weren't any qualified candidates to vote for. If Sanders had run 3rd party, that might have made a difference.
Click to expand...

You realize that many, many people also thought Hillary was unqualified don't you? I am guessing more people thought she was unqualified than had even heard of Gary Johnson. I ran into many in my local area that weren't going to vote at all because they "didn't like either choice." They didn't even realize there were other choices. By the way, many of the anti-Obama folks in 2008 also claimed "he's not qualified". So I guess if you don't like someone you just say "they're not qualified". It would have been nice, especially since he was on the ballot in all 50 states, if he had been allowed to debate and then people could have made their own decision on whether or not he was qualified. But the DNC would have that. Just like they wouldn't allow Bernie a shot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shyvas
Spang said:
I think vote-shaming is a mistake. It won't garner more support for your cause. In order to defeat Trump in four years, we'll need some of the people who voted for him this go-around. People who voted for Barack Obama in previous elections. People who would have gladly voted for Bernie Sanders in this election, without hesitation. People who disliked Trump but really disliked Hillary Clinton. These are people that we can reason with, but we can't do that if we shame them or call them dumb racists.
Click to expand...

Well, actually we don't need a single Trump voter. We need some of the people who didn't bother to vote. There are, after all, tens of millions of them.

We'll get quite a few Trump voters as a matter of course. Not because they've thought things through, or realized what Trump is, but because a considerable segment of the population approaches the business of running the country the same way that they approach their wardrobe and their gadgets - they feel the need to get the newest shiny thing that comes along. That's why it's such an uphill battle for any given party to keep the Presidency for more than two terms.
 
Mischief said:
Well, actually we don't need a single Trump voter. We need some of the people who didn't bother to vote. There are, after all, tens of millions of them.
Click to expand...
You, and others, are shaming anyone who didn't vote for Hillary Clinton. That's about 175 million people. That's not a good idea.
 
"When we analyze exactly why people voted the way they did, we understand that legitimate frustrations and feelings of alienation run very deep, especially among marginalized working class communities. The so called 'rust-belt' states that historically provided the Democrats with a 'Blue Firewall' have been penetrated because of neo-liberal trade policies that have widened the gulf between rich and poor and have contributed to the deindustrialization of their communities- exactly the kind of policies that HRC has continuously supported throughout her career. There is absolutely no way anyone can honestly and seriously blame third party voters (and even then one will see that the Libertarian candidate pulled more from Trump than Clinton than the Greens did from Clinton). The D’s decided that a pro-establishment candidate with deep corporate ties was somehow an answer to those frustrations. The fact that Wall Street is lamenting an apparent Clinton loss is really a reflection of where most of the financial aristocracy’s alliances lied; the very people that have wrought economic misery for millions." --Alex Rosales
 
Amy SF said:
The destruction of the middle class was begun under Reagan, by the way.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's when neoliberalism gained prominence in the United States. H.W., Clinton, W. and Obama all continued the same neoliberal policies. Trump will, too. Hillary Clinton would have.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: FortyTwo
Wooh. Well. That's a lot. Okay, let me attempt this.

Spang said:
I don't think any third-party voters actually believed that their candidate could realistically win the election. I also don't think shaming people is the best way to get them on board.
Click to expand...

You're not wrong at all. I believe that too. My question is: why would you ever, in a million years, vote for someone who you knew had absolutely no chance of winning?

As much as third party voters like to deny it, spoiler candidacy is a very real phenomenon and has cost the popular candidate the election many times before.

I've seen a lot of back and forth about whether or not the amount of support Stein got would have actually carried Clinton through to beat Donald, whether or not the Libertarians would have voted Republican without Johnson anyway, etc. But to me that doesn't change the fact that third party voters felt disgruntled enough by the election that they gambled with the lives of minorities on a chance they knew they didn't have, to make a statement they knew wouldn't truly come across.

Maybe it's an unpopular opinion, but I genuinely believe that people are only as good as their actions. Motivation means squat. I can empathize with the reasons third party voters made that choice, but I will never understand it, nor do I think it was anything other than a mistake made by those who really did know better and chose to ignore that.

beancounter said:
You mean like the popular vote?...
Click to expand...

Believe me, with this, you are absolutely preaching to the choir. We disagree on a hell of a lot, but I think I speak for both of us when I say that the electoral college is an outdated, broken system and does no one of any political leaning any good.

But that still doesn't address my main point: From "he's dangerous" to "just give Trump a chance" is a complete heel turn.

It has nothing to do with the peaceful transfer of power and everything to do with the political class just treating the rest of us like a bunch of pawns that can be easily manipulated.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we live in a country that would tear Obama apart for saying the slightest thing about this now that Donald's won. Look at how long the whole basket of deplorables thing was dragged out, while nobody is even discussing the fact that Donald was accused unilaterally and realistically of multiple rapes, including one against an underage girl. I agree that politicians should be taking a stand against this, and I'm of course disappointed that we didn't get some big fiery speech from Obama about how this was a loss for the country and we need to keep moving forward in spite of our garbage President-elect. But I also can recognize that to do so in this political ecology without the protection afforded to Donald (I almost called it Plot Armor, we are living in the most bizarre iteration of reality where everything feels like fiction all the time) would be akin to painting yourself as an enemy of democracy.

A few weeks from now the Trumps and Clintons are going to be hanging out at their exclusive country club shooting the breeze and laughing at the unwashed masses.
Click to expand...

I don't know how much I buy that. Hillary Clinton is obviously not my first choice for anything, but I wouldn't be surprised if she totally backs out of politics at this point. I mean, to put that much effort into something like this, and to still lose to Donald... Whatever you think of the woman, holy **** has that got to sting.

Mischief said:
So Obama's supposed to go on TV these week and say, "Be afraid. Be very afraid"?

Tell me what good is that going to do? It would set the markets into a tailspin, and then the GOP (and probably you too) would say: "This is Obama's fault. He just caused a major economic freefall."
Click to expand...

Yeah... I definitely get the disappointment and anger at the fact that politicians aren't making a bigger deal out of this mess (I mean, I abandoned hope in an entire country, so think of me what you will too) but causing even more panic is probably not the best thing right now.

MadamSarcastra said:
And now, if you'll excuse me, I'm getting the hell out of this pressure-cooker. :p
Click to expand...

I admire this attitude. Wish I could figure out how to do that!

Wolfie said:
You realize that many, many people also thought Hillary was unqualified don't you? I am guessing more people thought she was unqualified than had even heard of Gary Johnson. I ran into many in my local area that weren't going to vote at all because they "didn't like either choice." They didn't even realize there were other choices. By the way, many of the anti-Obama folks in 2008 also claimed "he's not qualified". So I guess if you don't like someone you just say "they're not qualified". It would have been nice, especially since he was on the ballot in all 50 states, if he had been allowed to debate and then people could have made their own decision on whether or not he was qualified. But the DNC would have that. Just like they wouldn't allow Bernie a shot.
Click to expand...

Except the fact of Clinton's qualification is pretty blatant. Hell, even Donald admits she has experience, even if he insists it's "bad experience." I didn't like John McCain when he ran, but I have no illusions as to his qualification. Hell, even Mittens gets a pass on that parameter. Clinton is, objectively, more qualified and experienced than either of them, let alone the dumpster fire of a Klansman we just handed the White House.

Meanwhile, Jill Stein tried and failed to run for Governor of Massachusetts, and Gary Johnson barely knows how taxes work. It's not really a contest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KLS52
Spang said:
Yes, that's when neoliberalism gained prominence in the United States. H.W., Clinton, W. and Obama all continued the same neoliberal policies. Trump will, too. Hillary Clinton would have.
Click to expand...

This is just plain silly. If you can't differentiate between these individuals and their policies, then no wonder we're in the pickle we're in.

You talk about privilege all the time, but you're blind to it in yourself. If you were a Dreamer, you wouldn't say that Donald's policies are the same as Hillary's. If you were a black person or a Latino or a woman wearing a hijab walking down the street, you wouldn't say it. If you truly cared about the environment, you wouldn't say it either. I could continue the list, but there's really no point in speaking to the deaf.
 
Last edited:
FortyTwo said:
Maybe it's an unpopular opinion, but I genuinely believe that people are only as good as their actions. Motivation means squat.
Click to expand...

Motivation is only meaningful to the extent that it allows someone to learn from their mistakes, and to not repeat them in the future.

A cop who shoots an unarmed black man because a heightened sense of fear engendered by a racist society caused him to imagine a gun where there was none may feel deep remorse, which might lead him to re-examine his assumptions and worldview and not repeat his mistake.

A cop who shoots an unarmed black man because he's angry that the man "disrespected" him by not obeying orders quickly enough is highly unlikely to feel remorse, and will continue victimizing people over whom he has power.

However, if the first cop feels no remorse, if he instead continues to justify the rightness of his decision to himself, he's going to continue to be as much of a danger as the second cop.

The victims themselves will be dead either way; their killers' motivations are meaningless to them.

But to me that doesn't change the fact that third party voters felt disgruntled enough by the election that they gambled with the lives of minorities on a chance they knew they didn't have, to make a statement they knew wouldn't truly come across.
Click to expand...
This. This exactly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amy SF
Top Bottom
Back