|
I just watched 3 lanes of anti-trump protesters stream by my window for nearly four minutes straight, chanting "gently caress Donald Trump" and "not my president" in LA.
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
Big protest in Los Angeles tonight. Demonstraters marching by for over 4 minutes, taking up the full breadth of the street. Shouting "not my president" and "gently caress donald trump". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pALWkcns8k
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Listen, if you are going to keep banging on this, at least learn how to do basic algebra and calculate what those favorable Hillary ratings add to. Hint, her "victory" on economic issues amounted to a statistical margin of error. So did trumps margin of victory in the swing states.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Of course. Thing is, Hillary didn't trounce Trump on economics. Half the population of swing states thought he was better than her. And since most people considered economy the most important factor, it was the pivotal area where Hillary ultimately lost despite getting a technical Pyrrhic victory. She wasn't able to pull ahead in her strongest area, and therefore she died the death of a thousand cuts by losing favorability in all the other, much smaller categories that would have been meaningless on their own. Clinton won on the economy and won big on foreign policy--her strongest area. Trump won big on immigration and terrorism. How did Trump do so well on immigration and terrorism? Whipping up fear of brown people. That's what caused a surge of turnout among white voters without a college degree, and that's what caused Trump to win.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:That seems pretty clearly to be saying "Trump won because of racism" Sexism too. Maybe appeals to racism and sexism are effective and the lesson of this election will be figuring out how to counter them effectively. Then again, Hillary lost by 100,000 votes in 3 swing states so maybe demographics will be enough in 4 years.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Clinton got a smaller percentage of the Latino vote than Obama. You can't wait for demographics to win elections for you. Not only is it a lovely plan in the short term, but in the long term those "demographics" might not vote the way you want. And then you're hosed. They'll vote with us if we keep representing their interests. But that means actively and vocally fighting against racism. A surefire way to lose these votes would be to constantly assert with no evidence that racism was not a big factor in this election. Main Paineframe posted:"Demographics" assumes that the Dems have a complete lock on minorities and that they would never ever vote for a Republican. Taking them for granted and assuming they will always turn out en masse for Dems is precisely the problem. If African-Americans don't feel like the Dems have an answer for "hey, the police can literally be murder black people in public and face no repercussions", they're not going to be very motivated to fight through all the GOP's voter suppression bullshit to go vote. That's certainly not what happened this year. Democrats went all in on pluralism in a way they never did even during Obama's years. Maybe that's what caused the non-college educated white backlash.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Thank god you've switched over to racism was just a big factor, and not the only or biggest factor. I'm sorry you made some hysterical assumptions about my post earlier I guess? Racism might be the biggest factor. Sexism might be the biggest factor. loving emails might be the biggest factor. We don't know, and we probably never will with any degree of certainty.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Boon posted:Why do you think this? Wow it's almost like racism is a systemic issue which might affect all those concerns for non-white people.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Clinton got a smaller percentage of the black and Latino vote than Obama did. Mostly due to black and latino men. Interesting, that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Boon posted:^^ Because the study gave them choices and the respondents ranked them. Racism was not one of the choices.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Boon posted:Well then let's look at one that DOES specifically address that idea - you'll find the result about half-way down the list. Even further down the list towards the bottom you'll find treatment of LGBT 71% of latinos said racism was a major concern. 86% said the economy. The next poll item shows that Latinos prefer Hillary by 60 points on race, and by 16 points on the economy. So despite the fact that 15% less latinos think race is a major issue, those who do think it's a major issue are much more likely to vote for democrats. quote:correct answer is to find what motivates people to a greater extent than racism and how to long-term guide society towards a path of societal identity rather than to magic the racism out of them but you're a loving idiot so. What if racism is the primary motivating factor for many people? What if it's something we can't just ignore and expect our magical socialist utopia to appear?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Remember that we can't know how many votes Hillary got because like 7 million of them haven't been counted, and they are mostly in places like NY, California and Washington. If she wins these votes 2 to 1 she'll meet or exceed obama's 2012 total. https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/507455/
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:His total at this point, or his total after his remaining voters were counted? The latter
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:I think people are disappointed he didn't start singing The Internationale but the only people really screaming about it are Clintonistas trying to feel better about getting chased out of their own party It's not surprising that the instant Bernie is given actual power in the Democratic Party he gets off his high horse and embraces neoliberal incrementalism.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:How does Sessions compare to John Ashcroft on the horrible scale?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
the black husserl posted:the left coast is going to absolutely despise the feds, because you can guarantee that Sessions is going to send in the DEA to shut down their legal weed operations Cali is going to riot when Sessions tries to deport millions of people.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Do y'all understand how our public institutions came to be? Hatred of identities. We got social security because it took from minorities to give to white women. We got school lunches and national fire codes out of hatred for catholics. We got a standardized rail gauge out of hatred for southerners. We got prohibition out of a hatred for germans, and repealed it out of a hatred for women. Trump is the extinction spike of white male privilege. We just underestimated how strong it would be. You respond to a tantrum by entrenching, not by negotiating.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Trump nominates Jefferson Beauregard Sessions to be attorney general. People be like hey stop talking about racism, dumb democrats!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Extinction doesn't loving control 3/4ths of state government, both houses of Congress, the judiciary, and the executive, you dumb loving loser. You respond to a tantrum by doubling down and tantruming harder. That's how you WIN. Good luck out-Trumping Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Meet your new secretary of education, Michelle Rhee. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...still-open.html Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Republicans posted:Secretary of Education is kind of a nothing position and Michelle Rhee would be an easy optics win. If Sessions was a signal about trump's intentions regarding Muslims and immigration, Michelle Rhee is a signal about charter schools and public sector unions. There's quite a lot Trump could do at the federal level to gently caress with public school funding.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
N. Senada posted:What would the optics be for a Democrat who is offered a position in the new administration to publicly reject it? That's why trump might pick a terrible loser with zero prospects like Michelle Rhee.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
deathbysnusnu posted:The only question I really have about her is she a creationist? We're going to go balls out on full charter school voucher madness no matter what. No, but curriculum decisions get made at the state level.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Maybe some working class men (of color) made self-destructive voting decisions due to sexism.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:I don't think so... Why not?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Telephones posted:lol get hosed with this nonsense. It's not productive to make these accusations. Sexism is obviously a motivating factor in the US electorate, the question is how many people were motivated by sexism.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Do you have any evidence for it? What, that sexism exists and influences voting behavior? icantfindaname posted:Considering the poltical science literatute suggests women face little or no electoral disadvantage due to their gender I'd say not much Does that political science literature isolate the three swing states that Hillary lost because she won the popular vote by a significant margin.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:I think since you're the one making the claim you have to come up with evidence as to why you think these barbers trying to make a living are actually sexist bros. I'm providing exactly as much evidence as people asserting that economic concerns or hillary's personality motivated people's voting behavior.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
Telephones posted:Sexism is real and I accept that. What effect it has on the outcome of elections, I don't know. However bringing it up in response to the suggestion that people are in fact motivated by economic issues is not worthwhile. If it is sexism motivating people to abstain, you basically only have one good option: don't run a woman candidate. Your other option is to just go ahead and fire off explicit accusations of sexism. These are people that convincingly voted against their own economic interests by voting for trump or 3rd party or abstaining. Perhaps this irrational, self-destructive behavior was influenced by something deep and subconscious like sexism?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So you have evidence for it? Or are you going to say "Duh it MUST be true!!!" for the fifth time? What convincing evidence has been offered for any of the theories discussed itt?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Maybe they didn't think that voting Trump over Clinton was actually harmful to their self-interest? Tight Booty Shorts posted:He SPECIFICALLY claimed that these black barbers maybe were sexist. Yes, I am suggesting these black men had a self-interest in the patriarchy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Well, there's convincing evidence directly contradicting this theory in particular, most other stuff is unprovable Again, that's not dispositive, Hillary won a clear majority of votes nationally. None of that data takes into account the electoral college, and it certainly doesn't prove that Hillary's campaign wasn't hurt by sexism.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:You could maybe say Trump's open sexism made him more popular among sexists, but saying that Hillary's election chance was hurt because of sexism is a different thing, which is again, proven false with actual science The title of that actual science 538 article you linked is literally "Why We Don't Know how much Sexism is Hurting Clinton's Campaign" quote:But that doesn’t mean there is no sexism, said Schneider, Dolan, and other political scientists. And it doesn’t mean sexism isn’t having an impact on elections. Instead, sexism may be inconsistently affecting women who run for political office, depending on factors such as which job a specific woman is running for, what’s happening in the world when she runs, and her personality and history. In current U.S. society, sexism doesn’t often take the form of a mustachioed villain cackling about his refusal to vote for any woman ever. It’s more likely to play out in nuanced and complex ways.2 And those nuances are difficult for the current science to capture.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It proves that the average woman candidate's campaign isn't hurt by sexism. I guess you could argue that public image of Hillary is uniquely sexist, but I don't really buy that. And I'm not sure what any of the stuff about her winning more votes or the EC has anything to do with anything The average woman candidate isn't running for presiden. I'm wary of generalizing Sarah Palin's experience getting elected governor of Alaska to Hillary's campaign and concluding sexism had nothing to do with any of it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:I sure am glad people love to pointlessly conjecture about something that doesn't even have a data set that can be used to extract a meaningful conclusion from. If there are insufficient data to prove your point or the opposite of your point, the next step is to usually Do A Study instead of saying Maybe I'm Right. I will concede that it's possible for people to make conscious, self-interested and strictly rational decisions that are informed by sexism. The suggestion men of color who made a sexist choice were irrational was my attempt to shield them from that kind of indictment but I shouldn't have.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The second half of that article is a giant cop out saying there's no measurable evidence for it, but it's still sexist that people dislike Hillary. If there's no evidence, IMO, it's entirely fair to dismiss the idea quote:Do you accept that if sexism were a major influence in electoral politics, it would be empirically measurable? Yes. I am also confident the current state of empirical evidence does not rule out the suggestion that sexism may have influenced the last presidential election.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:And so, progress was made. Now it's your turn to apologize for refusing to believe black men could be sexist. Or did you miss the point of that exchange?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:The fact that you were willing to weaken your own argument just to protect black men is the most noble goddamn thing I've ever heard. It's a shame that soldiers get medals but not brave people like you It doesn't weaken my argument, it strengthens it. The big words may have confused you.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:You guys ever consider *puts flashlight under face and says in a spooky voice* people looked past the fact that she was a woman and thought she was a terrible candidate based on the issues Have you considered that confirmation bias is a thing?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:I was going to leave it alone since you made it halfway, but now I'm not. Yes, some POC votes were influenced by sexism. I've never suggested all POC who voted against trump were motivated by sexism, I did suggest that working class POC who voted for Trump voted against their own interests. I don't think any of these are controversial statements.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 06:42
|
|