North Carolina

[mattiasNYC]

Hopefully more people become aware of the dirty politics and throw the bums out.

People voted for a guy who bragged about grabbing women by the vagina and kissing them without permission while abusing his power (celebrity-status and wealth), has several bankruptcies under his belt, bragged about not paying taxes, got caught lying - not misleading, lying - several times, has no government experience at all, riled up the masses to mistrust Muslims and Mexicans, threatened to imprison his opponent should he win, claimed the election was rigged should he lose, doesn't believe in climate change...... and on and on.... voted that guy to the presidency... AFTER they had been told of all of the above.

Do you really think those types of people will change?

 

[mattiasNYC]

I personally find more warning signs in making broad based assumptions about my fellow citizens. To do so assumes that I am better informed about how they should live their life. That's a dangerous assumption to make, and I would argue that that mentality is much more detrimental to civility/society than the actions of a term-limited administration.

When it comes down to it, our communities, the people we are surrounded by, have much more influence on the quality of our lives than government does. We can assign 2d motives to our neighbors, or talk to them and try to understand their viewpoint.

Ok, but may I interject and make two points regarding the above, which I by the way find an admirable and humble view;

First of all, starting from the end - talking to and trying to understand the viewpoint of others is certainly something to strive for. But then what? There are plenty of Trump-voters and conservatives and republicans whose struggles I absolutely understand and whose sentiments I totally get. But that's one thing. Like I said so/then what? I've heard what you said before. I think it's certainly true and worth saying to politicians, who in this country tend to be powerful and relatively wealthy. But is that necessary to tell the citizens? Are they really not understanding the viewpoints in question?

Secondly, I actually think the US is remarkably 'backwards' when it comes to government size and regulation. So, to a fair amount of Republicans gay marriage, abortion etc are issues that define the identity of the party. But when voting according to those issues they are the ones telling others how to live. Taxation rates and trade tariffs are important issues, but they don't really amount to telling people how to live their lives. Banning gay marriage does. Discriminating in favor of one or two religions - albeit indirectly - does as well.

So I would argue that I've listened to voters and spoken to them and I've heard what they say and understood it. The representatives they've now voted into power (or who will likely be in power) have stated multiple policies that affect people other than those Trump-voters, and more than just financially. So I just don't see this "you just don't understand the voters and should listen to them" argument that is implied. We listened. We understood. And we simply disagree, tremendously.

It all just comes back to what I've said before though: If we can't use passion in arguing our case, if we can't use morality, and if we can't use facts, then what is left?

 

[Krcwell]

People voted for a guy who bragged about grabbing women by the ****** and kissing them without permission while abusing his power (celebrity-status and wealth), has several bankruptcies under his belt, bragged about not paying taxes, got caught lying - not misleading, lying - several times, has no government experience at all, riled up the masses to mistrust Muslims and Mexicans, threatened to imprison his opponent should he win, claimed the election was rigged should he lose, doesn't believe in climate change...... and on and on.... voted that guy to the presidency... AFTER they had been told of all of the above.

Do you really think those types of people will change?

Like it or not, there's a very legitimate counter-argument about Clinton.  However, I try not to label large groups of people as "those types of people", I don't find it constructive.


People voted for a guy woman who bragged about grabbing women by the ****** and kissing them without permission tried to destroy valid sexual assault accusers against her husband, but went on to say "every woman should be believed"

while abusing his her power (celebrity-status and wealth) to get fat paychecks from Wall Street and foreign interests for speeches after being Sec of State, knowing full well I will run for president

has several bankruptcies federal investigations under his her belt,

bragged about not paying taxes, getting a guy who raped an underage girl acquitted ,

got caught lying - not misleading, lying - several times (no change),

has no bad government experience at all,

riled up the masses to mistrust Muslims and Mexicans their fellow citizens

threatened to imprison his opponent should he win labeled half of America deplorable

claimed the election was rigged should he lose when she lost,

doesn't believe in used climate change to try and win over the Bernie supporters after DNC cheated against him.....

and on and on.... voted for that guy woman to the presidency... AFTER they had been told of all of the above.

Both deeply flawed candidates, I agree. A legitimate partisan argument can be made either way.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Ok, please take the following two points under serious consideration.

1: "threatened to imprison his opponent should he win labeled half of America deplorable "

Are those two are comparable to you? Do you think that calling a large group of people "deplorable" is as bad as threatening to imprison your political opponent after an election in a supposedly democratic nation. It's not only a rhetorical question, it's absolutely serious.

2: "bragged about not paying taxes, getting a guy who raped an underage girl acquitted "

a) Where can we find her literally bragging about the above?
b) Who did she get literally acquitted for having raped a girl, and when?

Again, not rhetorical questions.

I would argue that both of the above clearly show that we're far beyond truth and facts and any reasonable discourse with any type of reasonable perspective. They simply don't matter any longer. It's far easier for you to just write the above to try to equate the two than to figure out just what is true and what isn't. Here's another:


"claimed the election was rigged should he lose when she lost, "

When did she do that? What is the exact quote?




See what I'm getting at here?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Ok, please take the following two points under serious consideration.

1: "threatened to imprison his opponent should he win labeled half of America deplorable "

Are those two are comparable to you? Do you think that calling a large group of people "deplorable" is as bad as threatening to imprison your political opponent after an election in a supposedly democratic nation. It's not only a rhetorical question, it's absolutely serious.

2: "bragged about not paying taxes, getting a guy who raped an underage girl acquitted "

a) Where can we find her literally bragging about the above?
b) Who did she get literally acquitted for having raped a girl, and when?

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/

This is old news,  and his plea was bargained down to a lesser charge.

Again, not rhetorical questions.

I would argue that both of the above clearly show that we're far beyond truth and facts and any reasonable discourse with any type of reasonable perspective. They simply don't matter any longer. It's far easier for you to just write the above to try to equate the two than to figure out just what is true and what isn't. Here's another:


"claimed the election was rigged should he lose when she lost, "

When did she do that? What is the exact quote?




See what I'm getting at here?

Does that mean you concede all the rest of his counter points?

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/hillary-clinton-says-there-are-two-reasons-why-she-lost-election-and-neither-them-have-do
Former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton told donors at a Dec. 15 fundraiser in New York that she did not lose the presidency through any fault of her own. Instead, she said that it was the FBI's renewed investigation into her emails and Russian President Vladimir Putin's alleged grudge against her that won President-elect Donald Trump the White House.

I do not know the veracity of both websites but it doesn't sound like fake news.

Am I the only one weary of this?  We should all accept that neither one was an ideal candidate with high negatives on both sides. Arguing that one negative is worse than the other is subjective and the reason we hold elections.

JR

PS It may be time to start thinking about 2020... I don't think Kanye has a chance, but didn't think Trump would win this time.  ;D

 

[living sounds]

Good read:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/19/truth-is-evaporating-before-our-eyes

 

[dmp]

How did this thread go from North Carolina Politics back to the old Trump vs Clinton debate?
Boooo 

 

[Andy Peters]

getting a guy who raped an underage girl acquitted

Let's just address this one, because it's utterly false, and easiest to debunk.

Clinton was working as a legal-aid attorney, and was assigned the case of defending a man accused of raping a child. She asked to be removed from the case, a request which was denied.

She then had to do her job, which was to provide an appropriate defense for her client, which is what lawyers are required to do.

The prosecutor offered a plea deal which included jail time. Clinton, in her capacity as defense attorney, advised her client to accept the plea deal, which he did -- the guy plead guilty to the rape charge and went to jail.

How can that be considered "acquittal?"

 

[emrr]

My favorite NC related quote so far was in the NY Times I think:

I didn't expect the rock throwing to start before day one

 

[mattiasNYC]

How did this thread go from North Carolina Politics back to the old Trump vs Clinton debate?
Boooo

There' some logic to the drift, because in the US, as elsewhere, people vote for their party's candidate because they identify with the party's policies and identity.  I was replying to:

"Hopefully more people become aware of the dirty politics and throw the bums out."

by simply illustrating that it appears to be a bit optimistic a hope given recent events. People were made aware of dirty politics before the election, and instead of throwing bums out they threw a bum in. Why expect change?

 

[mattiasNYC]

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/

This is old news,  and his plea was bargained down to a lesser charge.

In other words - I was right.

Does that mean you concede all the rest of his counter points?

No, it does not.

I do not know the veracity of both websites but it doesn't sound like fake news.

And it also is 100% NOT her saying that the election was rigged.

Am I the only one weary of this?  We should all accept that neither one was an ideal candidate with high negatives on both sides. Arguing that one negative is worse than the other is subjective and the reason we hold elections.

It's about as subjective as anything else I guess. It's like comparing Trump to Hitler, right? I mean, it's all really REALLY subjective, because neither are/were ideal, so it's all subjective. Yes? Correct?

Here's the thing: We can get MUCH closer to a consensus if we discuss the underlying principles we want to support. However, we can't really discuss that because then these differences you're talking about start to appear, and it doesn't look good for a Trump supporter. You're going to say I'm misrepresenting Trump voters, but it happens frequently;

1. a claim is made which implies the underlying principle of why Clinton is a bad candidate.

2. that principle is then taken seriously and applied to Trump, showing that he's objectively worse.

3. the Trump supporter either then moves on to the next argument and ignores fact, or manages to apply the "yeah, but still" argument, as in "yeah, but still; she's worse", without then explaining how this previously important principle just went out the window and is now irrelevant when it applies to Trump.

This very thread is shaping up to be yet another example of that.

 

[dmp]

People were made aware of dirty politics before the election, and instead of throwing bums out they threw a bum in. Why expect change?

Well, in NC the Democratic won the governorship - throwing out the Republican incumbent, while the Republicans won the Senate and Pres (Burr and Trump).
Far more people decided not to vote rather than throwing  in / out a bum.
96 million: didn't vote
65 million: Clinton
62 million: Trump

 

[nielsk]

N. C. is a perfect example of the complete breakdown of all representative  institutions of democracy in the USA.
The majority of the state senate is bought and paid for by joint right wing / global corporate entities.
This was done as a test case, and deemed successful it has been pursued in several other states since.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Well, in NC the Democratic won the governorship - throwing out the Republican incumbent, while the Republicans won the Senate and Pres (Burr and Trump).
Far more people decided not to vote rather than throwing  in / out a bum.
96 million: didn't vote
65 million: Clinton
62 million: Trump

I would argue that not voting is having an effect on the outcome of the election, particularly when the system is set up in a winner-takes-all scenario. Therefore, 'not voting' is "effectively" casting a vote. In my opinion there's hardly 96 million Americans who didn't care about what the outcome would be. Subtracting those that truly didn't care, as well as those who weren't able to vote, we're left with a crowd that are in my opinion responsible for the outcome just like those who voted.

 

[Krcwell]

Ok, please take the following two points under serious consideration.

1: "threatened to imprison his opponent should he win labeled half of America deplorable "

Are those two are comparable to you? Do you think that calling a large group of people "deplorable" is as bad as threatening to imprison your political opponent after an election in a supposedly democratic nation. It's not only a rhetorical question, it's absolutely serious.

2: "bragged about not paying taxes, getting a guy who raped an underage girl acquitted "

a) Where can we find her literally bragging about the above?
b) Who did she get literally acquitted for having raped a girl, and when?

Again, not rhetorical questions.

I would argue that both of the above clearly show that we're far beyond truth and facts and any reasonable discourse with any type of reasonable perspective. They simply don't matter any longer. It's far easier for you to just write the above to try to equate the two than to figure out just what is true and what isn't. Here's another:


"claimed the election was rigged should he lose when she lost, "

When did she do that? What is the exact quote?




See what I'm getting at here?

I whipped it together on the fly, probably could have come up with better examples, but I was having more fun with the strikethroughs and red text.  ;D

My main point was that similar arguments can be made about both candidates, so it's not an "awful person vs. clean slate" argument, it's an "awful person vs awful person" argument. People chose which awful they hated less. Where I run in to trouble is when people who voted for the person you thought was more awful get bunched into "those types of people". That makes broad based assumptions about 10's of millions of your fellow citizens and strips out what is unique about each one of them. Then all that's left is an "us vs them" argument. A divided citizenry is only bad for the people.

People with the exact same information will inevitably come to different conclusions. Humans are funny like that. Have some faith that your fellow citizens have informed themselves but come to different conclusions.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Krcwell,

I actually wrote a long reply to you, and I tend to write long replies because I don't want to simplify my thoughts too much and end up giving too little information or give the wrong impression.

However, here we are, yet another discussion that ended up on this topic, and as I've said before I am now of the opinion that to a lot of people truth and facts are just irrelevant at this point. Like, we can talk about this using arguments based on emotion, or on morality, or on facts, but nothing will change. It's just a largely meaningless exchange.

So do you want to have this discussion or not? Because I don't think you do. I think you prefer to just "whip together on the fly" whatever you think is either true or true 'enough' to support your opinion rather than actually discuss those issues from a factual standpoint, let alone move it to meta-level.

So again, why should we bother with this?

 

[Krcwell]

Krcwell,

I actually wrote a long reply to you, and I tend to write long replies because I don't want to simplify my thoughts too much and end up giving too little information or give the wrong impression.

However, here we are, yet another discussion that ended up on this topic, and as I've said before I am now of the opinion that to a lot of people truth and facts are just irrelevant at this point. Like, we can talk about this using arguments based on emotion, or on morality, or on facts, but nothing will change. It's just a largely meaningless exchange.

So do you want to have this discussion or not? Because I don't think you do. I think you prefer to just "whip together on the fly" whatever you think is either true or true 'enough' to support your opinion rather than actually discuss those issues from a factual standpoint, let alone move it to meta-level.

So again, why should we bother with this?

We shouldn't bother with it. High five!

 

[mattiasNYC]

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[gyraf]

Internet forums are simply not the right vehicle for meaningful exchanges of political opinion

imo, that is

but it's still sad to watch when someone tries and fails

Jakob E.

 

[micaddict]

Internet forums are simply not the right vehicle for meaningful exchanges of political opinion

imo, that is

but it's still sad to watch when someone tries and fails

Jakob E.

Seems the moderators are not in agreement about that one.

I hear you, though.

The thing is, internet has even taken over elections themselves.
Well, both ways actually.