Topic: Trumpmageddon

[Ali]

I am disappointed to see people using the term SJW on these forums. On the internet, of all places.

Social JUSTICE Warrior. If that sounds like a bad thing to you, you should strongly reconsider. If you feel comforted by Trump's illiterate jingoism, you should strongly reconsider. If you think people have no reason to be frightened, you should strongly reconsider. If you don't see the racism and misogyny, it is either because you choose not to or because you are a racist misogynist.

You're the ones that future generations will look back on in utter bewilderment. How could ostensibly decent people have been so wrong?

EDIT: To comply with forum rules, I have replaced abusive language in the above post with the phrase "strongly reconsider". Yes, it has affected the scansion.

[dactylopus]

Having become President and commander of the armed forces...

... So, all around a fun few years ahead.

Best post.

*Gets Flame Shield up*

I'm actually glad (and relieved) Trump won.

I have no idea why.

Trump supporters, in my opinion, are objectively self-identified terrible people.

[Snarky]

... And some, I assume, are good people.

Putting my mod hat on for a second: Emotions are clearly running high over this, but let's keep in mind a couple of the forum rules:

• Respect other people; posters and non-posters alike. It's understood that the tone of some threads can get heated, and that some things are said jokingly, but harassment, offensive remarks or swearing at people will not be tolerated.
• No threats or aggressive hate speech.

Some of us may want to edit our posts to comply with the first point in particular.

[Radiant]

The really sad thing here is the swathes of society who genuinely should have been outraged by what Trump said on the campaign trail not turning out to vote.  About 51% of the US population is female, which alone should have lost Trump the election.  But it is an indisputable fact that many of those women just didn't seem bothered enough to vote against him.  Indeed, over 50% of white women supposedly voted for him (source).  Although not as large a segment of the population, the same could be said for target minorities (same article).  I don't want to be the guy that blames the victim, but if someone treats you worse than dirt and then you vote for him, then you're kinda the author of your own misfortune.

I've seen this sort of thing before, and it keeps baffling me. For instance, in my country we have a (tiny minority) religious conservative party that, among other things, wants to revoke women's voting rights. And somehow women still vote for them. How strange is that?

[Blondbraid]

The really sad thing here is the swathes of society who genuinely should have been outraged by what Trump said on the campaign trail not turning out to vote.  About 51% of the US population is female, which alone should have lost Trump the election.  But it is an indisputable fact that many of those women just didn't seem bothered enough to vote against him.  Indeed, over 50% of white women supposedly voted for him (source).  Although not as large a segment of the population, the same could be said for target minorities (same article).  I don't want to be the guy that blames the victim, but if someone treats you worse than dirt and then you vote for him, then you're kinda the author of your own misfortune.

I've seen this sort of thing before, and it keeps baffling me. For instance, in my country we have a (tiny minority) religious conservative party that, among other things, wants to revoke women's voting rights. And somehow women still vote for them. How strange is that?

Maybe they've convinced themselves that everything will be better for them that way, if they want to be housewives with lots of kids and married to a rich man and cannot possibly imagine a woman wanting something else?
There are many historical examples of people working for causes seemingly against their rights, for example I've read that some of the house-slaves in the south was actually for slavery, because they were clothed and fed and allowed to order around the plantation slaves working on the fields. When the Nazis occupied Europe, many locals collaborated with them, even in the Slavic countries despite slavs being considered inferior by the Nazis. Some people will be content in servitude as long as there is someone below them to kick.

But for all his flaws, at least Trump has never said that he wanted to take away women's voting rights.

[Scavenger]

... And some, I assume, are good people.

Something I'm genuinely curious about, is whether or not voting for someone who would marginalise and dehumanise vast swaths of people, remove their lifelines, remove their protections, potentially leading to their murder by neglect or hate, can disqualify you from being a good person.

I mean, yeah, nobody is inherently a good or bad person, but surely doing something like this, very arguably a violent act against marginalised people, is not a good act? Donald Trump has spent the entire election bragging about destroying and subjugating people, about murdering families, chomping at the bit to use nukes on them, cheering on the deportation of people living in the United States, dividing people, choosing a vice president who is unquestionably evil as well and will enact legislation that would subjugate LGBT folk and destroy our delicate environment because of his unhinged beliefs....

... is it out of the question for me to say that every voter that decided on Trump has, unwittingly or not, performed a great and terrible evil upon this world? That, even if for the majority of the time, they were good people, at the moment they decided to put that X, to press that button, they were being awful people?

I'm used to having to take sides, and have to defend my and my loved ones' basic humanity against people, who, because of their "opinions" (which they will harp on forever as being sacred, as opposed to my right to life), want us dead or exiled. I don't want to have to do that here as well, Snarky. This isn't a case of me not being satisfied because the other team won, I'm legitimately terrified of what they, or bigots empowered by his presidency, might do to my American friends.

[Snarky]

... is it out of the question for me to say that every voter that decided on Trump has, unwittingly or not, performed a great and terrible evil upon this world? That, even if for the majority of the time, they were good people, at the moment they decided to put that X, to press that button, they were being awful people?

I'm used to having to take sides, and have to defend my and my loved ones' basic humanity against people, who, because of their "opinions" (which they will harp on forever as being sacred, as opposed to my right to life), want us dead or exiled. I don't want to have to do that here as well, Snarky. This isn't a case of me not being satisfied because the other team won, I'm legitimately terrified of what they, or bigots empowered by his presidency, might do to my American friends.

I can't answer the bigger philosophical question, but I think that as far as forum rules are concerned, you can certainly express your view that certain actions or attitudes are terrible. Stuff like "I find what you say outrageous and offensive" is fine. "Fuck you, you worthless piece of shit! Your kind deserve to be shot!" ... not so much.

As for needing to defend people's basic humanity; like I posted above, we will not tolerate "aggressive hate speech", but neither is this forum a "safe space" where potentially offensive views are automatically prohibited. Expressing support for someone who has made statements that might not be acceptable on this forum is a difficult case to deal with, particularly when that person is the President of the United States. I'm afraid I don't think it's something we can or should prohibit.

[Jack]

I don't know what the big mystery is here. Trump won, not because of his campaign, but critically because of hillary.

If generation snowflake wants to blame anyone, they should turn their eyes to their beloved mainstream media, who nurtured trump when they thought (like everyone) that he was a clown that had no chance of winning. Colluding with the DNC, they then marginalised sanders, the true favourite, and promoted the hell out of hillary.

They insisted on lifting up the most openly corrupt female politician in history. They absolutely insisted on it, going so far as to break several laws and the contract of public trust.

They tried to steal an election, and now everyone is paying for it.

[Atelier]

Social JUSTICE Warrior. If that sounds like a bad thing to you, you can fuck right off. If you feel comforted by Trump's illiterate jingoism, you can fuck right off. If you think people have no reason to be frightened, you can fuck right off.

Yeah, in my post I was ranting about those people who pick up a cause just for the sake of picking it up. Nobody here is doing that. It was super off-topic so I apologise that you misunderstood me.

[Ali]

I also apologise for misunderstanding.

They insisted on lifting up the most openly corrupt female politician in history.

The key word in this sentence is 'female'.

[Danvzare]

The key word in this sentence is 'female'.

They had a black president, I'm sure they wouldn't mind a female one. Unless America is secretly more sexist than they are racist, but I'm fairly sure it's the other way around.

[Jack]

The key word in this sentence is 'female'.

And that's more drivel directly from the MSM.

If you don't like me you're a mysogynist/antisemite/racist!!!

That person becomes untouchable, which is nothing but a political ploy.

After posting I actually wanted to amend that "most openly corrupt politician in history". I mean, there's actual documents in this case.

[Andail]

Yeah I think we all need to try to be civil, but that also includes allowing others to criticise a certain politician without accusing them of "regurgitating the campaign of the losing side" or being "social justice warriors" which apparently is a thing that a) exists and b) is negative.

I'm certainly one for trying to understand the opinions and ideas of an opposing side, and I've read a number of articles already explaining or at least trying to explain Trump's appeal and why he won.

I understand that there's this large, silent mass of people - often rural, often working-class, often older - who feel ignored and neglected, who feel that loud, urban, young, well-connected minorities get all the attention, while they themselves feel ever more distanced from the political elite.

Here's what I don't get:
How did Trump get to be their champion? I mean, I'd totally understand if there emerged a person with a working class background, a hard-working, stand-up guy, decent and straightforward in his rhetoric, one who represented good old-fashioned family values and all that.

Instead you've gone with a person who inherited millions of dollars from his father, built himself a tower with golden fountains and spent all of his time rubbing shoulders with the absolute financial elite, travelling the world in a private jet. Is that the personification of the American dream?

[Ali]

And that's more drivel directly from the MSM.

If you don't like me you're a mysogynist/antisemite/racist!!!

My rule is more like: if you don't like women/jews/black people you're a mysogynist/antisemite/racist. (Though there is an amazing intersection between mysogynists/antisemites/racists and people I don't like.)

You absolutely should remove the word female from that sentence, because her femaleness is utterly irrelevant to her level of corruption. You're probably right that Clinton lost more than Trump won. But the idea that she is any more corrupt than other career politicians with her prominence and experience is a conspiratorial fantasy with misogynist overtones.

I admire Andail and others for trying to understand the white, disenfranchised, less educated, white, lower-middle class, white communities that came out for Trump. But we've been tolerating and indulging the 'valid concerns' of ignorant, culturally atavistic white folk since the 2008 crash (which had bugger all to do with immigrants) and that's given us Brexit and Brexit x5. Hopefully not the first two links in a dangerous chain-reaction.

[Jack]

But the idea that she is any more corrupt than other career politicians with her prominence and experience is a conspiratorial fantasy with misogynist overtones.

People who don't believe her level of corruption is shared by all career politicians with her prominence and experience are living in a conspiratorial fantasy?



So you really don't care what they do. Just what they say?

[Ali]

I'm no fan of Clinton, she is way too far to the right for me. But the idea that she is exceptionally corrupt in comparison with the men who have previously held the office of President takes a spoonful of sexism to go down.

Anyway: https://xkcd.com/386/

[Radiant]

But the idea that she is exceptionally corrupt in comparison with the men who have previously held the office of President takes a spoonful of sexism to go down.

Here is some research on the topic.

[Snarky]

The "corruption" allegations are so fruitless to discuss (just like allegations that the nomination or election was "rigged") because most people make no distinction between widely different things.

On one end of the spectrum there's the point of view that having a moderate or centrist position on economic policy, where you think the financial industry is an important pillar of the country's economy and you have to work with them, is by definition corrupt. A bit further along you have the argument that big donors can influence policy, because they gain access to politicians (people in Congress have to spend hours every day on fundraising, talking on the phone with people who they're trying to get to give them money) and can influence their thinking that way, and because they can filter out politicians whose views they don't like by not supporting them (or even supporting their opponents). Is that corrupt?

Then you have the idea of politicians or former politicians trading on their fame, status and network to make money. Is that corrupt?

You can certainly think that it's grubby and not how the system ought to work, but none of this is illegal, and it's pretty much universal in Washington. Yes, the Clintons are part of that system, because they've had to be to come as far as they have, but pretending that it makes Hillary Clinton "the most openly corrupt politician in history" is nonsense. Where was all this outrage when John "Keating Five" McCain ran? And which of the candidates wanted to overturn Citizens United again?

When you get to claims of actual criminal corruption, the evidence gets incredibly flimsy, and you're stuck with a long chain of hostile assumptions and recursive conspiracy theories. There are some ethical lapses and times when she or those around her should have been more careful to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, but in each case the closer you look at it the more you find that there's nothing there. Unfortunately she's the victim of a 30-year-long hate campaign that has convinced much of the American people not to trust her, and she's not helped by her instinctive defensiveness and awkward and stiff public persona.

[dactylopus]

... And some, I assume, are good people.

...Some of us may want to edit our posts to comply with the first point in particular.

My apologies.  I do not mean any offense to anyone in particular.  I just don't see how anyone with a conscience could, in their right mind, support this obviously evil megalomaniac.  And I think that those who did should look themselves in the mirror and really think about what kind of person they want to be.

Now I'm not saying that Trump is the next Hitler or anything, just that he is very clearly a loathsome human being.  Anyone who would align themselves with him must therefore be horrible themselves.

... is it out of the question for me to say that every voter that decided on Trump has, unwittingly or not, performed a great and terrible evil upon this world? That, even if for the majority of the time, they were good people, at the moment they decided to put that X, to press that button, they were being awful people?

I honestly don't believe that it is out of the question.  There is nothing actually good about Trump.  Yes, he speaks his mind, but it cannot be a commendable trait when he continually spews hateful drivel.  If you support this man, you are validating all of this hate speech.  How can you be considered a good person in doing so?  I'll agree that these people may otherwise be good people, but that's like saying that any hate group is made up of otherwise good people when you overlook all of their terrible qualities.

I'm no fan of Clinton, she is way too far to the right for me. But the idea that she is exceptionally corrupt in comparison with the men who have previously held the office of President takes a spoonful of sexism to go down.

I agree that Clinton is too far to the right.  She was, in my opinion, the best Republican candidate in the race.  But despite all of her flaws, she is still preferable to Trump by a wide margin on so many issues that it's ridiculous that there are even people who disagree with that fact.  And I have heard a lot of people who are otherwise Democrats opposing Hillary for simply being female.  That's something that should not be happening, and it saddens me to no end that we are still living in a world where plainly wrong opinions like this even continue to exist.  The fact that they are open about it, and that the view is prevalent in some areas, is more than disheartening, it's frightening.

So my opinion is that Clinton and the Democrats stole this election from Bernie Sanders and handed it to Trump and his under-educated, hateful troll supporters.  Also, once again the Electoral College has failed America.

[Radiant]

And I have heard a lot of people who are otherwise Democrats opposing Hillary for simply being female.

Yes. To me, one of the most surprising results of this election is that the majority of white females (and about one-third of non-white females) voted for trump. All issues of policy aside, I would expect the consideration of "the first female president" vs. "someone who publically endorses sexual harassment" to have a bigger impact than that.