Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know better than that, and so so does everybody else. It is highly significant that the winner of the popular vote has been denied victory in the election, especially as this is the second time it has happened in a still young century with the same party being the beneficiary on each occasion.
Clinton was not denied victory in the election.
Gore was not denied victory in the election.
If the popular vote were the way we choose our Presidents, then the campaigns would be *very* different.
Let's take California as an example. Trump had zero chance of winning California's electoral votes so he largely ignored it - he expended little money and less effort, and Clinton won by a landslide (61.6% to 33.0%).
If instead the popular vote mattered, Trump would have campaigned in California to win the voters he could. He would not have won the popular vote in California, of course, but he would have picked up a few hundred thousands votes.
And, of course, Clinton would have pursued votes in "safe" Trump states.
How would the popular vote have turned out? Beats me. All we know is it didn't matter to the candidates, so they did not pursue it, and hence reporting on it is useless and irrelevant.
People who deride "poltiical correctness" forget that it was a movement to reduce and avoid conflict. To use neutral terms, rather than inflammatory terms. You can throw away political correctness if you want, but do not expect there to be no consequences. The protests are exhibit #1 of that. If you run a very inflammatory campaign, expect people to hate you more than usual.
I agree. Trump used "dog whistle" coded terms all through his campaign and is still at it. His supporters can claim that he is innocent but that is not the case. Many took the cue and amplified it. If we hope to return our national discourse to some semblance of normal conversation there has to be limits and boundaries on what is said or written. Those rules have been thrown out on right-wing talk radio for years to the point that the alt-right is deaf to rational and respectful debate. These rules were thrown out during the heated campaign but now have to be restored on both sides if we expect to find a way forward. There are consequences for hurtful or antagonistic words. Black churches and mosques are being burned; swastikas are appearing on buildings; police are being ambushed; businesses damaged; KKK is marching in North Carolina.
On Hillary's behalf, she was quick to state regret over the use of "half" are "deplorables". Trump hasn't retracted or indicated any regret for his attacks on dozens of people. Being a TV celebrity means never having to say you're sorry....it's just a script.
On anonymous forums, such as this one, there are few safeguards to support rational discussion. Some people get it and some do not and some never will. I suspect a few people get an emotional rush or maybe even a surge of endorphins by sticking their verbal thumb in someone's eye. That's why these treads tumble out of control.
Clinton was not denied victory in the election.
Gore was not denied victory in the election.
If the popular vote were the way we choose our Presidents, then the campaigns would be *very* different.
Let's take California as an example. Trump had zero chance of winning California's electoral votes so he largely ignored it - he expended little money and less effort, and Clinton won by a landslide (61.6% to 33.0%).
If instead the popular vote mattered, Trump would have campaigned in California to win the voters he could. He would not have won the popular vote in California, of course, but he would have picked up a few hundred thousands votes.
And, of course, Clinton would have pursued votes in "safe" Trump states.
How would the popular vote have turned out? Beats me. All we know is it didn't matter to the candidates, so they did not pursue it, and hence reporting on it is useless and irrelevant.
But isn't this exactly the point and why we need to take another look at the system? In a democracy shouldn't who got the majority vote be the winner? If you're a Republican in California your vote doesn't count. California will never go red. If you're a Democrat in Alabama your vote doesn't count. The candidates know it and ignore the states that are a sure bet or a no chance in hell for them. They spend all their time in a few swing states because those states are going to determine the election. Is that fair? I don't think so. I want my vote to count equally no matter what state I live in.
People who deride "poltiical correctness" forget that it was a movement to reduce and avoid conflict. To use neutral terms, rather than inflammatory terms. You can throw away political correctness if you want, but do not expect there to be no consequences. The protests are exhibit #1 of that. If you run a very inflammatory campaign, expect people to hate you more than usual.
I can start calling Mexicans, wetbacks. That was a term used a lot when I was a kid. If I say that, I should not expect to get NO reaction from people of Mexican heritage.
Pope Francis said when referring to people who insult others religions, "They are provocateurs. And what happens to them is what would happen to Dr Gasparri if he says a curse word against my mother. There is a limit.”
You can, by all means, say provocative things. Do not think there will not be consequences.
I do not think that is what people mean when they say they are tired of the PC crap. There is political pc and personal pc. I'm not looking to refer to Mexicans as wetbacks. Not even. But you are right. It was a movement to reduce and avoid conflict. However, we are rebelling against it being used to the point of us being weak and afraid. Can't offend anyone. That is what we are tired of.
For example. No, we don't want to take in 100,000 Syrian refugees. Democrats do. I think it's not good for America or Americans. But it's not PC to voice that. You are attacked for thinking differently. How cruel and mean to not want to help these people. I am not a cruel uncaring person but I believe you don't need to go into someone else's home to take care of their house when your own has no power or food. We have to many homeless, too many forgotten veterans, and too many neglected elderly not being taken care of. So at least for myself and people I associate with, this is the real issue.
I'm on the left and I don't condone violence from my side. I think the peaceful protests are just fine, but not the violence or rioting. A lot of others feel the same way that I do. It makes all of us look bad.
And it's not a foolish argument. While it may be irrelevant I think a lot of us are just annoyed that the right is acting like it's so ridiculous to protest or be unhappy about the result when we know for sure they wouldn't have accepted it quietly either.
Unless you can see the future there's no way you can know that the radical Right would have reacted with violent riots in many cities. All we can go by is the way they have reacted to all the Democrat elections in the past fifty years.
Seems most all have been relatively nonviolent.
These people are young and they haven't had much experience accepting taking turns. When I was in my thirties and Reagan won I thought the world would come to an end. Silly me. Our government is designed to prevent any one branch from holding all the power (though it hasn't exercised that option in the last years.)
It is in poor form and unprecedented for people in this country to react this way to an election. Social issues, yes.
It's unfortunate that they quit teaching civics in school because I see so much misunderstanding about the way our election process and government works. I fear that lack of knowledge leads to misunderstandings and anger.
If we need to better understand each other the solution lies in both sides closely examining what the other objects to and modifying that behavior rather than arguing that theirs is the only correct way.
The younger generations haven't been offered much of a chance to learn that. They have been fed a continuous diet of liberal ideas along with the notion that anything less is bad. It's a pity and it's a lie.
I can see that by reading the relationships forum. Someone upsets you? Say they are bad people and leave them. People could benefit from learning healthy interpersonal skills.
As liberals so often remind me, to be a great nation there has to be room and respect for everyone. Even Mr. Trump. Sigh.
How can you not see that your post is doing the exact same thing??
Are you really so blinded by hatred that you don't see people on the "right" saying the exact same deplorable things about people on the "left"? And vice versa? You don't have to even leave CD to find plenty of examples.
When someone tells my kids their parents voted for Hillary, they say "OK".
When my kids told their classmates their parents voted for Trump, they were harassed to the point I had to talk to school principal.
When all I hear is "can't respect you for supporting this bigoted nazi" instead of an honest conversation, I move on.
I don't hate anyone, but I am sick and tired of being called names and told to shut up because I am "either an idiot, a bigot, or both" (quote).
In my personal experience, there's far more anti-Trump haters than pro-Trump ones. But this may depend on where you live. However, the Anti-Trump crowd seems far more likely to gang up on their opponents in the worst way possible for voting for the wrong candidate.
I do not think that is what people mean when they say they are tired of the PC crap. There is political pc and personal pc. I'm not looking to refer to Mexicans as wetbacks. Not even. But you are right. It was a movement to reduce and avoid conflict. However, we are rebelling against it being used to the point of us being weak and afraid. Can't offend anyone. That is what we are tired of.
For example. No, we don't want to take in 100,000 Syrian refugees. Democrats do. I think it's not good for America or Americans. But it's not PC to voice that. You are attacked for thinking differently. How cruel and mean to not want to help these people. I am not a cruel uncaring person but I believe you don't need to go into someone else's home to take care of their house when your own has no power or food. We have to many homeless, too many forgotten veterans, and too many neglected elderly not being taken care of. So at least for myself and people I associate with, this is the real issue.
The number of potential refugees was 10,000, not 100,000.
With all due respect, I don't think anyone is offended if we say, "We should take care not to accept very many refugees."
It's all the stuff about Muslim bans, Muslims being bad people etc...
I'm a little charitable to Donald Trump. in that if you read the transcripts, much of what he said that people interpret as racist is just vague and unintelligible. Ie: his quote on Mexicans being rapists. Here is is in context.
Quote:
When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they’re killing us economically.
Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.
It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably— probably— from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast.
A lot of that is just plain unclear, almost gibberish at times. At certain points he's responding to something in the crowd. If you read Trump's words rather than listen to them, it's like that, a lot.
So people interpret it how they want. The bigger problem is that the racists of the country interpret in terms THEY want to see, and Donald Trump did not reject that support.
[quote=redguard57;46194799]The number of potential refugees was 10,000, not 100,000. That is not correct. 10,000 was Obama's initial number. At a rally in Dallas Hillary said she wanted to increase it to 65,000. So still not good.
With all due respect, I don't think anyone is offended if we say, "We should take care not to accept very many refugees."
Trump said it. Of course he along with his supporters are xenophobes.
It's all the stuff about Muslim bans, Muslims being bad people etc...
quote]
My point is..It is simply not about being able to call people derogatory names.
The number of potential refugees was 10,000, not 100,000.
With all due respect, I don't think anyone is offended if we say, "We should take care not to accept very many refugees."
It's all the stuff about Muslim bans, Muslims being bad people etc...
I'm a little charitable to Donald Trump. in that if you read the transcripts, much of what he said that people interpret as racist is just vague and unintelligible. Ie: his quote on Mexicans being rapists. Here is is in context.
A lot of that is just plain unclear, almost gibberish at times. At certain points he's responding to something in the crowd. If you read Trump's words rather than listen to them, it's like that, a lot.
So people interpret it how they want. The bigger problem is that the racists of the country interpret in terms THEY want to see, and Donald Trump did not reject that support.
Did the Democrats reject the support of people demonstrating with Mexican flags, screaming "Make California Mexico again" ? They actually beat people up for supporting Trump.
What about the support of racists from BLM ? They also beat people up for (allegedly) supporting Trump. I can post a few links to some very gruesome and disturbing videos.
How about the militant protesters dragging people from their cars & setting cars on fire ? Yes, the Dems basically said "don't do that".
Trump is not a racist. He's never been a racist. He is abrasive, rude, and very probably used to be an aggressive womanizer (although he doesn't hold a candle to Bill Clinton). His opponent is a corrupt, two-faced professional politician, bought by Wall Street, war mongering, thinks her connections make her above the law, had sold favors to terrorist-supporting nations while holding one of the top positions in the country, continues a political dynasty (which is a bad thing for democracy) and is completely out of touch with a very large part of the country, whom she has a very visible disdain for. She's also the status quo candidate - and for many this is a bad status quo, the continuing slide down the economic drain.
Both sides have supporters who are honest, hardworking, decent people. Both sides have supporters who are bigoted dangerous thugs. If anything, the Democrats spent more efforts pandering to their thugs in the past several years, stirring up the racial tension and hatred towards white people and police. Don't see them distancing themselves from the Ferguson witch hunt.
I didn't vote for Trump because I am bigoted. I didn't even vote for him because I like him (not really). He was a better candidate, and a chance to see the change in the direction this country has been heading into for the past three decades. The direction that abandoned a very large part of the middle class and told them they were no longer relevant, embraced predatory trade practices, promoted racial tension, turned the once-independent media into pure propaganda, and allowed the same two families to take turns holding the top positions in government since the early 80s.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
