Democratic senator "hopes Trump is assassinated"

[GMDino]

(08-19-2017, 12:52 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Face it the dems have become the party of violence.   It's a shame because that's not how most traditional democrats believe but the leftists drag them along

Is this backed up by some kind of study or survey or fact or just personal opinion based on biases and beliefs?

[BmorePat87]

That's terrible. She should lose her job.

[6andcounting]

First time I read this story I assumed the click bait headline would be a sensationalized spin from the evidence in the actual article.

She's the lunatic that gets all the public attention because of her position, but we're forgetting the thousands of unhinged morons that will undoubtedly still vote for her next election assuming she doesn't agree to resign due to pressure and/or serving a prison sentence.

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-19-2017, 09:21 AM)hollodero Wrote: Many don't seem to take it that seriously. Ah, didn't change the outcome, or: ah, every country does things like that. Qúite relaxed in the face of a full-scale Russian propaganda attack on many levels. And to many western countries, although he's not that successful here in Europe. It's not for a lack of trying, but - just my guess - people here see things more awarely.
Almost every hearing starts with these words, inncluding Comey's: The important thing is what Russia did, it isn't exaggerated, in fact it gets lost in the Trump debate. First thing Comey said (at least something among these line), first thing almost everyone says. (Except for Sessions of course, who as AG never had any briefing about Russia.)

Well I guess I wouldn't necessarily say it's a lack of awareness on the parts of Americans but more so a lack of care, like you said.  However, I don't think it's a lack of care because Americans are ignorant of it, but rather because some of us don't see the Russia story as a huge threat to our democracy in terms of them being involved with swaying the election process. Whether that's a good or bad thing or whether we're wrong in thinking that, honestly I don't know. What I feel personally is that a lot more Americans would be critical of Russia if they had somehow hacked the votes and made Donald Trump president.

I think that's the biggest problem about the whole Russia thing is that it had to do with Russia getting involved with and "influencing" our election. Problem is, no one could prove who was influenced by what and whether that "influence" really effected the outcomes. When you constantly try to tell someone that they voted for Trump because Russian propaganda brainwashed them, that's not something that's going to go over well, and that's basically what the media was doing. It severely undermines other reasons that people might have voted Trump that goes beyond the "fake news" stories because these people get thrown into this "Russian propaganda" bin when it really may have been the policies or promises made by the candidates that ultimately led someone to vote one way or another and really didn't have much to do with personal stories concerning either candidate.

Quote:OK. I don't intend to defend CNN more as I want to. Yes they can be annoying, yepp they have their three subjects they pass on from anchor to anchor as breaking news, now Cooper's take, now Blitzer's take, and so on. I guess it's inbuilt somehow. People that zap in for the news want the biggest news, no matter if it was already talked about in length. That being said. My small country has state-run TV (not recommended) and some private stations, but there's one thing I can say: If our chancellor had ever tweeted a meme like that against any news station, he would get grilled for it too. It isn't actually normal to declare war on the media like that. With Trump, one probably gets used to things like that. There are big things all the time. But I still don't, I can fully understand making a big thing out of tweeting this meme. Because it's amazing. I guess a majority in your country sees it similarly. That's why I say, if coverage is too much or ridiculous always is a subjective call.

I wouldn't say you're wrong in calling it a subjective matter. But I think it's important to discuss whether what's "subjective" has any objective merit. The argument extends to the point of what is it that a news station is supposed to provide to the public. What would you say that is? I would say it's news. Problem is, CNN barely reports news. They report something about Trump and spend hours sharing their opinion about the exact same thing. That's the biggest problem I see in all of it.

The issue isn't that CNN reports on Trump, it's that they spend hours debating about how they feel about what he's said or done. Basically it's less about reporting news and more about reporting their feelings, which is why I call it ridiculous because they call themselves a news station when they're more of an opinion station. If they were to just come out and say that they care less about the news and more about presenting their opinions then I believe I would have less of a problem with it. But instead they like to parade themselves around as a "news station" with the "most up to date news" when their "news" primarily consists of something Trump tweeted and them sharing their opinion about it.

Quote:In all fairness. That is a misrepresentation about what they do. A tweet about his breakfast wouldn't be covered, he tends to tweet way more spectacular things than that. This General pershing tweet alone. What is a news outlet supposed to do with that, ignore it because the Trump news time is already used up? I really don't think so.

And if you're referring to the "he gets two scoops and everyone else just one", then I have to say, I have heard more from people on the right about that than actual coverage.

No, I understand they don't report on what he eats for breakfast, I was just saying that a lot of what they report on concerning his tweets is as important as reporting on what he ate for breakfast. Take again for example the WWE tweet that they spent days talking about. They tried so hard to make this a big story that they spun Trumps tweet as a tweet that was meant to incite violence against CNN and it's employees. What??? All Trump did was tweet a funny WWE video and they spun it into another "Trump is inciting violence" episode.

You mentioned the General Perishing tweet. What do you think was so grand about that? Because honestly I have no idea.

Quote:Oh Jeez, where to start. The Mika [Brz... whatever, just Mika] attack. It's really disgusting, at least that's what I feel, too disgusting to just let slide as the new normal. Attacking senators, calling them "Flake" and whatnot. Attacking Sessions. Attacking crooked Hillary (even way after the election, he can't let go)... and it goes on and on, I really don't want to make a list. These all are newsworthy. Crooked Hillary statements are presidential statements, team Trump itself says as much. So of course they need coverage. It can't be the course of action to just get used to these and finally let them slide as Trump just being a cyber bully.
Maybe some, crroked Hillary doesn't get reported any more. But you have to talk about the Mika tweet.

Should Tump be personally attacking people? No. But I don't see how that amounts to "We should report all of his personal attacks for hours because it's wrong". Of course it's wrong, but reporting that Trump tweeted someone is ugly or whatever and then spending hours talking about how it's wrong is neither news nor informing of anything about Trump's character. People know who Trump is, They know who they voted for. If everyone cared about what trump was saying they wouldn't have voted for him.

People want to know what it is that Trump is doing as president to effect the American people. All of this "Trumps said something nasty about someone" is an opportunity to indulge in laughing at the president. The news anchors even say it themselves. They literally sit there and laugh about what they're talking about and say it's "so much fun to talk about his tweets". I'm not making that up, it's what they've actually said and done multiple times. That doesn't sound like outrage to me, it sounds like mockery. mockery is not news or outrage. Sure if they want to sit there and make fun of the president go ahead, but they're not doing the American public any service in terms of reporting news that's actually important.

And people who have voted for Trump have shared their opinions on it multiple times when they've come on CNN. They say "I don't like the things that Trump says about other people, but thats's not why I voted for him. I voted for him because of the things he promised and because of how he said he'd get things done". So then, if that's the case why can't CNN spend more time talking about the things that Trump is trying to get done. I know why, because they don't want to. It's not as fun to talk about the laws Trump is passing or trying to pass. It's more fun to sit their and laugh at his ridiculous tweets and act like they actually matter to anyone other than Trump and CNN.

Quote:lol... 
I guess everybody has his take.
Here's the thing, I don't blame CNN for being annoying with their Trump coverage. I blame Trump for being Trump.
As said, the alternative would be to declare having a misinforming bully president is the new normal. I for one am not there yet and never want to be there. And therefore I'm all for calling out every misinformation and every personal attack coming from the president, even if he just aims for that, even if it's getting all Trump in the news. 

I only want to take out one specific take, because I really spend too much time defending CNN... 

See but that's the thing. My intention is not to turn this into a "Is it CNN's fault or it iTrumps fault?" discussion. My point here is that I believe both Trump and CNN are having a pissing contest and CNN is falling for Trump's tactics of keeping himself in the news as much as possible and further alienating the public. As I said earlier, even CNN's own news anchors were saying that they were getting tired of talking about Trumps tweets and wanted to talk more about policy and other things that should be in the news.

I will admit that CNN has started to report on Trumps tweets and Russia a little less over the last month or so, which is great, but I don't think it's because Trump has gotten less ridiculous, but its instead because CNN is actually starting to concede that they were reporting on Trump just a lot too much. The interesting thing is that the coverage of Trump started to dwindle after CNN realized they screwed up and reported an actual fake news story about Trump's former advisor Scaramucci which said he had ties to Russia which led to CNN having to issue a public apology and three of its employees resigning.

Quote:...I get that. But maybe that guy watches too much news. I said it, it's a one-hout show per anchor, going through the biggest news. Blitzer can't say, oh that is important, but it was already covered by another anchor, let's report something else then. That's not how it works. I'm the first to say the whole CNN format isn't ideal.

But again they're not really reporting anything. They report Trump's tweets and then spend the majority of the air time debating it. That's CNN's fault. You said you don't think their format is ideal, and I agree for the very fact that their format is less about reporting news and more about sharing their feelings about Trump.

Quote:Then again, many people in the US definitely don't seem to get that he is a "low life d-bag". Over 30% still believe he's a heck of a president and a fine person, deep down in his heart or whatever. I don't blame CNN for that either. If any, I blame FOX for that. When you see CNN as agenda-driven, you have to see FOX (at least parts of FOX) as a Trump propaganda outlet. 
Then again, I still can't grasp that your country voted for that guy. I am biased.

People voted for him because it came down to what Trump made them believe and what he promised the American people. It wasn't about Rosie O'dennel, it wasn't about groping women, it wasn't about saying criminals were coming from Mexico. If it was, Mexican's and women wouldn't have voted for him. They voted for him because they felt that he would make their life better than Hillary or anyone else would.

Quote:--- didn't this thread start with you complaining CNN didn't cover the Trump assassination tweet?

Yes.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-19-2017, 01:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: Is this backed up by some kind of study or survey or fact or just personal opinion based on biases and beliefs?

Backed by words and actions

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(08-19-2017, 09:21 AM)hollodero Wrote: I still can't grasp that your country voted for that guy.

For what it's worth, most of the country did not vote for him. Don't blame all of us.

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-20-2017, 12:14 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: For what it's worth, most of the country did not vote for him. Don't blame all of us.

Most of the country didn't vote for anyone.

[StLucieBengal]

Looks like she isn't long for her job.

"The Senator needs to resign, or we will make the decision for her."

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(08-20-2017, 01:11 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Most of the country didn't vote for anyone.

OK. And thy should still not be blamed for the election of Donald Trump.

But....most voters didn't vote for him either....

[Fan_in_Kettering]

(08-20-2017, 01:42 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: But....most voters didn't vote for him either....

In the 2016 World Series, the Cleveland Indians scored more total runs than the Chicago Cubs. However, that's not how the World Series is won.

[*jason*]

(08-20-2017, 02:22 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: In the 2016 World Series, the Cleveland Indians scored more total runs than the Chicago Cubs. However, that's not how the World Series is won.

Yes. But that's not what blows hollodero's mind.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(08-20-2017, 02:22 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: In the 2016 World Series, the Cleveland Indians scored more total runs than the Chicago Cubs. However, that's not how the World Series is won.

Not sure what the relevance is, but it's a super cool bit of trivia.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-19-2017, 09:21 AM)hollodero Wrote: Then again, I still can't grasp that your country voted for that guy. I am biased.

It's actually not that hard to understand, which is exactly why I predicted it would happen.  I had a long discussion with a friend at work about this after the news that Bannon had been shitcanned.  Let me start off by saying I will be speaking in generalizations with the understanding from me, and hopefully everyone reading, that we are all aware of this and can process the argument as adults.  there are several factors that, combined, explain Trump's election.

The past fifteen years have brought profound social change.  Same sex marriage is legal, homosexuals can openly served in the military, etc.  These steps were both logical and predictable, people saw them coming and, like them or not, were able to prepare themselves for the eventuality.  Very recently there has been a huge push to acknowledge transgender people in the same way.  People who might have been troubled by homosexual gains in the civil rights area are going to be more affected by this as it wasn't a long time coming, it happened very quickly.  Still, I think if it had "stopped" there we wouldn't have seen a huge backlash.  Then the idea of there being no gender gained steam.  People were "non-binary", children were marked as "x" for gender on their birth certificate, children were given life altering treatments to make them a different gender.  Coupled with this was an undertone of condescension, from a minority to be sure but it did exist, against "cis" genders, especially "cis" straight men.  This was all a bridge too far for many who, in some ways justifiably, thought to themselves where this this end?  How far are we going to go down this path?  This pushed people directly towards the candidate who promised to take us back to a time when none of this was a consideration.

The racial make up of the United States is changing.  Whites will no longer be the majority in the not so distant future.  This, in itself, would not cause undue concern for most.  However, there was again an undertone of condescension, and sometimes outright hostility, towards white people and "white society".  Again, this was mainly directed at white men.  You see it being expressed right now in the desire to destroy monuments to the founding fathers.  It has been expressed in college campuses like Missouri and Evergreen state (google Evergreen state no white people day if you are unfamiliar with this).  This kind of behavior and speech has led many to believe that the very fabric of the country they grew up in, and feel strongly about, is under attack by people who want to utterly destroy it.  While the fear is overblown it does have some rationale.  The groups that propagate this fear are small, but they are not insignificantly small.  They are certainly larger than the nazis that have so recently dominated the news.  Couple this with the fact that any criticism of this kind of extremism is branded as racist or an attempt to maintain the white male patriarchy.  This also drove people to the candidate who had no time for any of the above and openly mocked it, again promising to return us to a time in which this kind of thing did not occur.  I absolutely maintain that Obama being elected did not cause this concern at all, it is coincidental and easy for some to point to as a causal factor.

Lastly, you have the economic factor.  This is easiest to explain.  Clinton wanted more of the same and Trump professed an end to outsourcing, making American jobs for American citizens his priority.  Whether he did it, was going to do it, or ever will the very fact that he professed it made him infinitely more preferable than Clinton to many.


Human nature being what it is Trump's election was not a surprise to me.  The instant calls for his impeachment and mudslinging from the left (which I realize they are not alone in) merely reinforced everything above, justifying the decision they made as the right one.  This is why I think removing Trump from office, without 100% ironclad proof, will cause irreparable damage to the United States, damage from which we may not recover.  I hope this made some sense and clarified why so many made a choice you find inexplicable.

[Belsnickel]

(08-20-2017, 03:24 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Not sure what the relevance is, but it's a super cool bit of trivia.

Actually, it is a rather interesting way to describe the Electoral College. The World Series is a best of 7. If one team wins 5-3, 4-2, 3-2, and 2-1, they win the series even though the other team may have won 8-2, 5-1, 6-0. Think of each game as a state, and runs as the popular vote. It's not a perfect analogy, because the population of the state plays a factor, but it works on some level.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(08-20-2017, 04:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Actually, it is a rather interesting way to describe the Electoral College. The World Series is a best of 7. If one team wins 5-3, 4-2, 3-2, and 2-1, they win the series even though the other team may have won 8-2, 5-1, 6-0. Think of each game as a state, and runs as the popular vote. It's not a perfect analogy, because the population of the state plays a factor, but it works on some level.

Oh, I got what he's saying, and you're right, it's an interesting way to describe the electoral college.

It just seemed like he thought I was objecting to the electoral college, which I was not.

[Beaker]

If something happened to trump, pence isnt much better.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(08-20-2017, 11:28 PM)Beaker Wrote: If something happened to trump, pence isnt much better.

Pence is far worse. He has legislative experience and may be able to get some things done. 

[hollodero]

(08-20-2017, 10:59 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Well I guess I wouldn't necessarily say it's a lack of awareness on the parts of Americans but more so a lack of care, like you said.  However, I don't think it's a lack of care because Americans are ignorant of it, but rather because some of us don't see the Russia story as a huge threat to our democracy in terms of them being involved with swaying the election process. Whether that's a good or bad thing or whether we're wrong in thinking that, honestly I don't know. What I feel personally is that a lot more Americans would be critical of Russia if they had somehow hacked the votes and made Donald Trump president.

I think that's the biggest problem about the whole Russia thing is that it had to do with Russia getting involved with and "influencing" our election. Problem is, no one could prove who was influenced by what and whether that "influence" really effected the outcomes. When you constantly try to tell someone that they voted for Trump because Russian propaganda brainwashed them, that's not something that's going to go over well, and that's basically what the media was doing. It severely undermines other reasons that people might have voted Trump that goes beyond the "fake news" stories because these people get thrown into this "Russian propaganda" bin when it really may have been the policies or promises made by the candidates that ultimately led someone to vote one way or another and really didn't have much to do with personal stories concerning either candidate.

That makes a lot of sense. The problem here, I guess, is the perception of the Trump voter. It's actually not what CNN (I guess) intends to do - tell Trump voters they've been tricked by a con man and his foreign helpers (although I personally think that's exactly what happened). They talk about it as a matter of national security issue - and becausae it damages Trump and makes for catchy stories. It's CNN, after all. But the first point also holds merit.

The Russian propaganda attacks do have, as it seems, some real potential and operate with some very advanced sociological knowledge. Sentiments are initiated, talking points established, people get microtargeted with fake news. It's a form of selective advertising and is opinion-shaping by a foreign power with vital interest to destabilize western societies. That's not a conspiracy. Neither is the Russians hacking the DNC and playing politics with the stolen Emails, of course.

Now as with any voter base, there are the reasonable voters and the unreasonable ones. The reasonable had good reason to vote for Trump, the unreasonable ones believed Hillary had killed dozens of people, sold uranium to Russia for personal gain, gave a stand down order at Benghazi and whatnot. This is not an unsignificant number of Trump voters who believe these stories. They were willing to believe Obama was a Kenyan muslim who hated America. These are the targets, and there are many, these are just the facts shown in many polls. A news organization not mentioning Russian influence and the possible effectiveness of it just to not offend a reasonable Trump voter isn't a news organization.
It's not just about the elction outcome. It's also how your society gets shaped. Russia intends to shape it on the principles of mistrust and discort, because a divided adversary isn't quite as adversarial.

(08-20-2017, 10:59 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I wouldn't say you're wrong in calling it a subjective matter. But I think it's important to discuss whether what's "subjective" has any objective merit. The argument extends to the point of what is it that a news station is supposed to provide to the public. What would you say that is? I would say it's news. Problem is, CNN barely reports news. They report something about Trump and spend hours sharing their opinion about the exact same thing. That's the biggest problem I see in all of it.

OK, I will shorten my answers a bit to say what applies to many of your points: I do not really disagree. I do not want to end up defending CNN more than I want to, and I've reached this point. Is this news? I wouldn't necessarily say so, I just always thought of it as the American way. No major news station in the US seems any different. I actually don't like CNN at all, I often can't stand it, the 8 windows with 8 little heads in it all giving out the typical talking points... that's not news as I see it, that's just confusing people. But it's who they are, they didn't become that way by Trump.
And they are sensationalists, and there's probably too much Trump talk.

Here's what I have to say about Trump and CNN: What I see is on the one side a news organization working in the described manner, reporting, digging for scoops, for sensationalism. And a president who feeds them, voluntarily or nivoluntarily, with major outrages, major blunders, major misinformation, major disbehaving. Yep, he feeds them. But from the outside, who do you blame for that situation: The journalists doing what's their job, or the president of the United States doing something which isn't his job. I blame Trump.

(08-20-2017, 10:59 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: You mentioned the General Perishing tweet. What do you think was so grand about that? Because honestly I have no idea.

General Pershing is rumored to have buried a muslim enemy soldier with a pig. That's not verified. Trump also more or less invented the myth that Pershing gathered 50 muslims, dipped 50 bullets in pig's blood and shot 49 of them. The 50th, he sent home to "his people" to tell them about it. And that was the end of Islamic terror, they were so goddamn scared of the blood bullets,Pershing knew how to handle them. That's what Trump talked about earlier and wanted us to research.

So - that's the reaction of the US president to an act of Islamic terror in Spain. This story of bullets dipped in pig's blood. Should we take that as a suggestion, or what? As response to terror, Trump reminded us all of this story, this stupid fairy tale for a really dark islamophobic child, this absurd tale that has no basis in reality whatsoever, and besides the fact that rounding up and shooting muslims is against any convention and against any sense of humanity also includes silly legends like muslims can't be in touch with pigs (ridiculous) and the notion that one would go back to "his muslim people" and terror would again stop for 35 years.
To say bringing up this stories is highly inappropriate is sugercoating it. It's as outrageous as it is stupid. The world takes notice.

(08-20-2017, 10:59 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: People want to know what it is that Trump is doing as president to effect the American people. All of this "Trumps said something nasty about someone" is an opportunity to indulge in laughing at the president. The news anchors even say it themselves. They literally sit there and laugh about what they're talking about and say it's "so much fun to talk about his tweets". I'm not making that up, it's what they've actually said and done multiple times. That doesn't sound like outrage to me, it sounds like mockery. mockery is not news or outrage. Sure if they want to sit there and make fun of the president go ahead, but they're not doing the American public any service in terms of reporting news that's actually important.

And people who have voted for Trump have shared their opinions on it multiple times when they've come on CNN. They say "I don't like the things that Trump says about other people, but thats's not why I voted for him. I voted for him because of the things he promised and because of how he said he'd get things done". So then, if that's the case why can't CNN spend more time talking about the things that Trump is trying to get done. I know why, because they don't want to. It's not as fun to talk about the laws Trump is passing or trying to pass. It's more fun to sit their and laugh at his ridiculous tweets and act like they actually matter to anyone other than Trump and CNN.

Yeah... I mean, sure, but isn't part of the problem that Trump doesn't get done much? When healthcare was on its way, CNN sure talked healthcare a lot. But Trump doesn't get much done, he doesn't put serious ideas forward, ideas for legislation, major policies... he'd rather tweet, blunder around, insult everyone but Putin and keep fighting with the fake news. But again, not overly defending CNN, if you want to see it that way they sure take the bait willingly. But there's not much Trump does policy-wise which they neglect. A little help for veterans here, a little rolling back net neutrality there, some cutting back environment protection... and of course the stock market, which always makes me wonder if republican white-collar voters know they actually don't own stocks. (And that the stocks would also rise if they get paid less and work longer hours with less safety concerns, if their water could get poisoned easily etc, but I digress).
What exactly is Trump trying to get done what CNN neglects? (That isn't a sarcastic question)

(08-20-2017, 10:59 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: People voted for him because it came down to what Trump made them believe and what he promised the American people. It wasn't about Rosie O'dennel, it wasn't about groping women, it wasn't about saying criminals were coming from Mexico. If it was, Mexican's and women wouldn't have voted for him. They voted for him because they felt that he would make their life better than Hillary or anyone else would.

Sure, people probably didn't vote for him because he was an indecent, narcissistic, classless human being. What's stunning is that so many people didn't mind.
I managed to understand that many Trump voters just found bigger issues for themselves. What is hard to digest is how many people still keep believing that Trump makes their life better, after so many things have turned out to be fairy tales already. Like Mexico paying for a wall. Like that he wants great healthcare for everyone for a fraction of the cost and that he knows exactly how to do it. That he will drain any swamp. The only thing he's got going is that less Mexicans want to live in Trump country and that he has managed to keep the economic growth going, which is something Hillary would probably have managed as well. Yet, I read that 6 out of 10 Trump supporters will never, ever change their approval of him no matter what. FOX openly asks so what if he's a criminal, who actually cares, because everything is so great now. That's the other astonishing thing here.

[hollodero]

(08-20-2017, 12:14 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: For what it's worth, most of the country did not vote for him. Don't blame all of us.

I know. I would never do that, my mind is a bit more sophisticated than that. I'm stunned that's all.
And you have no idea what my country is voting for. We have elections soon, and things look grim. Blaming others for their voting record would quickly fall on my head.

I also give Trump voters a year to come around and admit the choice wasn't all that marvellous... although after 200 days it's hard to keep that going, but well.
That there still isn't a broad movement to fundamentally change politics and the voting system though... that's on all of you.

[hollodero]

(08-20-2017, 03:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's actually not that hard to understand, which is exactly why I predicted it would happen.  I had a long discussion with a friend at work about this after the news that Bannon had been shitcanned.  Let me start off by saying I will be speaking in generalizations with the understanding from me, and hopefully everyone reading, that we are all aware of this and can process the argument as adults.  there are several factors that, combined, explain Trump's election.

As adults, how boring. I start by being so adult as to apologize for postponing my answer to you. Busy day.

(08-20-2017, 03:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The past fifteen years have brought profound social change.  Same sex marriage is legal, homosexuals can openly served in the military, etc.  These steps were both logical and predictable, people saw them coming and, like them or not, were able to prepare themselves for the eventuality.  Very recently there has been a huge push to acknowledge transgender people in the same way.

Which seems like the right thing to do.

(08-20-2017, 03:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: People who might have been troubled by homosexual gains in the civil rights area are going to be more affected by this as it wasn't a long time coming, it happened very quickly.  Still, I think if it had "stopped" there we wouldn't have seen a huge backlash.  Then the idea of there being no gender gained steam.  People were "non-binary", children were marked as "x" for gender on their birth certificate, children were given life altering treatments to make them a different gender.  Coupled with this was an undertone of condescension, from a minority to be sure but it did exist, against "cis" genders, especially "cis" straight men.  This was all a bridge too far for many who, in some ways justifiably, thought to themselves where this this end?  How far are we going to go down this path?  This pushed people directly towards the candidate who promised to take us back to a time when none of this was a consideration.

That sure is an explanation. It isn't an "excuse", and I'm sorry for this word, for every Trump voter can rightfully say that they need no excuses, especially not for a foreigner, especially not for a foreigner whose own country votes right-wing populism in higher totals of population percentage.
That the "everybody" parts of the constitution should also include transgenders and their rights seems obvious, doesn't it. In principle. You're a very principled person, argued - rightfully so - the same thing for Nazis, so you won't disagree. So that shouldn't be the problem, and if it is there should be feedback. That "people have no gender" seems a bit exaggerated, doesn't it? No one takes defining yourself as a male person away, transgenders are extreme minorities, as are children with sex changes (something I have a hard time not to consider as taking it a bit too far, in the sense that children should not make these decisions, should also not get breast imlants and all other things that one might see as cutting down their freedom). But for the rural, republican population transgender children are hardly something they have to digest in their everyday life. That they can serve in the military - well, that should be their right. And if someone disagrees, I couldn't say he disagrees for love of the constitution.

For the other part, I can not really come around to not consider this a bit whiny. Snow-flaky. A straight white male isn't really heavily mocked. And there are things like affirmative action, which I understand is a dicey topic, but whites are not really discriminated against on a broad scope. And seeing it that way looks like being over-sensitive. Or like a reaction of losing actual privilege.

(08-20-2017, 03:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The racial make up of the United States is changing.  Whites will no longer be the majority in the not so distant future.  This, in itself, would not cause undue concern for most.  However, there was again an undertone of condescension, and sometimes outright hostility, towards white people and "white society".  Again, this was mainly directed at white men.  You see it being expressed right now in the desire to destroy monuments to the founding fathers.

Just so I get this right: You consider tearing down statues as an attack on the white race? If so - I disagree. I don't really follow this monuments story, for that's a bit too American to really understand. But aren't the statues in question mainly (I even thought exclusively) about Confederate heroes - that often were erected not in their time, but as a counter-measurement to the civil rights movement? Lee isn't exactly a founding father, and I didn't catch that statues of Jefferson et al. were called in question - even though Trump suggested as much.

(08-20-2017, 03:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It has been expressed in college campuses like Missouri and Evergreen state (google Evergreen state no white people day if you are unfamiliar with this).  This kind of behavior and speech has led many to believe that the very fabric of the country they grew up in, and feel strongly about, is under attack by people who want to utterly destroy it.

Yes, your colleges and many students there seem to suck (as do ours). I can grasp that one wouldn't want the candidate these people want. Which would again lead me to a rant against the two-party system, but I will hold back on that one.
Just one thing, this "want to destroy America" is rhetorics that to me takes things too far. They want to change it, but I guess they still don't hate their country. It's a talking point I often hear from the right wing, but I don't think it holds merit.

(08-20-2017, 03:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: While the fear is overblown it does have some rationale.  The groups that propagate this fear are small, but they are not insignificantly small.  They are certainly larger than the nazis that have so recently dominated the news.  Couple this with the fact that any criticism of this kind of extremism is branded as racist or an attempt to maintain the white male patriarchy.  This also drove people to the candidate who had no time for any of the above and openly mocked it, again promising to return us to a time in which this kind of thing did not occur.  I absolutely maintain that Obama being elected did not cause this concern at all, it is coincidental and easy for some to point to as a causal factor.

Again, if I'm being honest I would consider people feeling overly attacked because of college kids and ultra-feminists and whoever else falls in the groups you described as snowflakey.
Still an explanation.

(08-20-2017, 03:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Lastly, you have the economic factor.  This is easiest to explain.  Clinton wanted more of the same and Trump professed an end to outsourcing, making American jobs for American citizens his priority.  Whether he did it, was going to do it, or ever will the very fact that he professed it made him infinitely more preferable than Clinton to many.

But aside from national debt, all economic numbers at the end of Obama's term looked positive... more of the same doesn't seem like the worst thing that could happen. I understand the "forgotten worker", I just think that if the forgotten worker goes republican, said worker truely is very naive. Not only because jobs that time deemed more and more obsolete do not come back, coal mining will vanish just like building carriages vanished at some time. But also because the republicans are corporation-friendly, which throughout history never translated into worker-friendly. Just as corporate gains never translate into higher wages and better working conditions; more often the opposite causes the gains in the first place. That might be the leftist talking out of me, sure. But I feel many vote against their own interest, as I said many don't own stocks and rather had clean water and all these things republicans aren't feverishly fighting for. But OK.

- One of my own explanations were quite simpler than all of yours: The way your system is built, there's a change in the president's color every 8 years, at least that push is high and gets stronger all the time. A democrat's candidate has a hard time not standing for "more of the same" if the predecessor was a democrat, and people always want "change". I think Trump won because after 8 years of Obama, it was again time for the swing that always comes.

(08-20-2017, 03:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Human nature being what it is Trump's election was not a surprise to me.  The instant calls for his impeachment and mudslinging from the left (which I realize they are not alone in) merely reinforced everything above, justifying the decision they made as the right one.  This is why I think removing Trump from office, without 100% ironclad proof, will cause irreparable damage to the United States, damage from which we may not recover.  I hope this made some sense and clarified why so many made a choice you find inexplicable.

I agree, impeachment should be air-tight, otherwise it will create a martyr legend.
- And while I might expain the choice, what I do not get, actually, is the huge loyalty to him. So many "always Trumpers" around no matter what, 6 out of 10 CNN says.  Amongst so many other things, he openly admitted that his healthcare plan would mainly hurt his own electorate. Yes, he said, without any remorse. How a forgotten worker and all the others on the Trump train still could believe Trump gives anything about him is beyond me. The classical "always republican" is easier to get, although I would expect more pushback from the party and its affiliates by now. A censor would have been in order for some time now (an earlier instance being the Nordstrom tweet).