POTUS 2016, part 3

If you wish to raise new topics on News, Current Events & Politics, please do so at Dhamma Wheel Engaged.
Locked

Who would you like to see winning the presidency of the U.S.?

Hillary Clinton - (Dem.)
38
47%
Donald Trump - Mike Pence (Rep.)
21
26%
Gary Johnson - Bill Weld (Libertarian)
8
10%
Jill Stein (Green)
14
17%
 
Total votes: 81

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 6316
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by SDC »

Cittasanto wrote:
SDC wrote:I found the article to be self-indulgent. Cittasanto owes me ten minutes of my life back. :tongue:
I can see how it comes accross as self indulgent, and will work on the time transfer. :juggling:
Eh, just give me 5 not the full 10. I'm sure I owe you a few from over the years. :smile:
chownah
Posts: 8960
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by chownah »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
Cittasanto wrote:Trump's nasty woman quote came after Clinton commented about trump evading tax. So was tit for tat rather than an example.
And I've also heard Donald Trump at one of his rallies refer to someone as a "nasty man", but of course, you won't hear about that on the news because it doesn't fit with the narrative being pushed by the mainstream media.

Metta,
Paul. :)
I guess not every time trump calls someone nasty is considered newsworthy. Are you surprised by this? Perhaps there are people that trump has commented on that are not considered important enough for any sort of comment to be newsworthy?(edit: Evidentaly the man he labeled this way was not very newsworthy or else you would have remembed his name and put it here.)

On the other hand, seems like anything said in a presidential debate is newsworthy...and I do believe that trump labeled clinton as nasty during at least one debate and possibly more. Trump's labeling of clinton as a nasty woman is arisen to the level of la meme, I'm reasonably sure he did this consciously. Sometimes this is called a sound bite. Many people don't want to think too much and you can better implant a nugget of your message into their brain with a sound bite than an intelligent discussion......trump knows this for sure....a lot of his style when speaking in public is designed to create a sound bite which is augmented by his visual bite; the unraised index finger, the thumb to index finger sign ususally associated with "ok", etc. These are trump's mudras. Powerful stuff when you want to imprint on a receptive mind. (Now people will laugh and say I am trying to suggest that trump uses mind control.....but isn't political campaigning mostly about a sort of mind control?)
chownah
Last edited by chownah on Wed Nov 16, 2016 3:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
chownah
Posts: 8960
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by chownah »

Cittasanto wrote:Hi Chownah,
much of what you have said there is agreeing with the quote. then for some reason disagreeing.
Trump won the election and neither the article nor the quote claimed this one political campaign gave rise to the Alt Right.
Trump's nasty woman quote came after Clinton commented about trump evading tax. So was tit for tat rather than an example.

Kind Regards
Cittasanto
I can't follow what you are saying here. I'm not even completely sure what quote you are referring to but I guess it is the one about the establishment not taking liberty etc. seriously. If that is it then I admitted right at the bottom that the post was not a very good one so I'm not surprised if what I wrote was hard/impossible to follow.
In short my view is that it is someone who says "because you have not shown as much concern for liberty etc. as I think is appropriate it can be clearly seen that you do not take liberty etc. seriously." This is false logic and implant in the gullible mind that in fact that person does not take liberty etc. seriously which leads them to misconstrue that persons commitment to liberty et al.
As to trump's nasty woman comments....look at my reply to retrofuturist. Trump did not use the term one time....he used it often. Tit for tat does not justify the tit or the tat.....it is often a sign of lack of something of importance to say.
chownah
User avatar
Kamran
Posts: 460
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:14 am

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Kamran »

US will never be as competitive in the World Economy as it once was.

Demographic and cultural changes in the US are irreversible.

But many (especially 40-60 yr old whites) can't accept or adapt to the new reality.

....so they elect a politician that promises to use the only thing that the US has left....its large market and military....to harass other nations in a vain attempt to prop up the Americans egos.
"Silence gives answers"

Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6636
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Cittasanto »

chownah wrote:
The Establishment bears much of the blame. Had they been serious about defending humanism, liberalism and universalism, the rise of the alternative right might have been arrested. All they had to do was argue for common humanity in the face of black and feminist identity politics, for free speech in the face of the regressive Left’s censorship sprees, and for universal values in the face of left-wing moral relativism.

Instead, they turned a blind eye to the rise of tribal, identitarian movements on the Left while mercilessly suppressing any hint of them on the Right. It was this double standard, more than anything else, that gave rise to the alternative right. It’s also responsible, at least in part, for the rise of Donald Trump.
The first paragraph has a really deplorable statement: "Had they been serious about defending humanism, liberalism and universalism, the rise of the alternative right might have been arrested."
Noam Chomsky once said If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. This is a sentiment shared by many. And other such quotes include I don't like what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it.

The reason censorship is such an issue is because governments have a vested interest in controlling the population, getting people in line... And if a group advocates censorship, media bias, restrictions to the press, and the establishment goes along with it (as it has been and is what is being referred to in the quote when it says "Had they been serious about defending...") they are doing so for their own interest in quelling criticism. Because any law which prohibits challenges to ideas or what can be said can be applied to everyone, not just to the people they want them applied to. These groups and the establishment are not serious about defending anything other than their own interests, and as such are not serious about defending others liberties....
It is deplorable on two counts:
1. It claims that the establishment was not serious about defending humanism, liberalism, and universalism which certainly is an assumption here given that the only thing offered in its support is not having taken what the author considers to be adequate action. Personally I would agree to the proposition that the establishment SHOULD HAVE taken action against the excesses of some of its constituents but I DO NOT AGREE that from this we have substantiated the statement that the establishment does not take defending humanism, liberalism, and univeralism seriously....only that they failed in supporting those ideals.
Adequite action would be to not support restrictions to these. But there is plenty of evidence to show people have lied about and exagerated things out of all proportion in a claim of victimhood when in reality they are the main perpetraitors of actual violence and harrassment. as an example on a number of occasions a youtuber known as Thunderf00t has been doxedand his employer contacted with claims about him that were unfounded trying to get him fired. and other cases where people were assaultedbecause someone didn't like something.
These things have happened and continue to happen because the establishment have allowed it to happen and held a double standard.
This is an especially bad statement because in this regard it is very easy to slightly alter the meaning of the statement into an adhominem attack on the individuals who make up the establishment for instance clinton was portrayed as not taking these things to heart by many as encourage by trump often calling her a "nasty woman".
This does not equate. The context of Trump Calling Clinton a nasty woman was directly after Clinton said trump would try to find loopholes in her tax plan to not pay tax. tit for tat statement.
2. The idea that if in the middle of a political campaign they had simply taken humanism, liberalism and universalism more seriously it might have halted the rise of the alt-right seems to miss the mark. The alt right has been around for a long time although the various factions where not so closely tied as they are presently perceived. The alt-right did not arise as a result of this election. The alt-right arose from the fear, uncertainty, and doubt of many americans. Also this idea seems to deny that trumps rhetoric had an effect on its own which I think it certainly did. Even the empty headed rantings of sarah palin helped give rise to the alt right. The alt right did not arise because of deficiencies in the left. Absent the deficiencies of the left and let orators play to the alt right without opposition and the alt right will flourish.
the article and quote make no claim that the alt right formed during this election. so I see no point in what you are saying here.
Having given the two items let me say the if the establishment had more carefully and more thoroughly taken care of business regarding excesses in their own house while this would not have stopped the rising of the alt right it would have brought more establishment voters to the polls.
So after disagreeing with the quote you are now agreeing with it. so the two points are meaningless. Let me be clear here, the alt right formed from different groups on the right that found a common goal and coherency through a shared distaste for the double standard. The Alt Right isn't like the democratic party or another group because it is an umbrella term for the rights reaction and responce to something.
Now as to the second paragraph:
This paragraph is much better than the first in my view. I have only one negative comment which is that it is not the double standard which gave rise to the alt right. It is the double standard which to a greater or lesser degree lost the election for them specifically.
I am understanding this slightly differently now, but why can't both be true? the alt right coalesced from identity politics on the left... and clinton lost due to voter turnout because the left oponentsof identity politics... didn't vote for her, or voted elsewhere?

Kind Regards
Cittasanto
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6636
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Cittasanto »

Kamran wrote:US will never be as competitive in the World Economy as it once was.

Demographic and cultural changes in the US are irreversible.

But many (especially 40-60 yr old whites) can't accept or adapt to the new reality.

....so they elect a politician that promises to use the only thing that the US has left....its large market and military....to harass other nations in a vain attempt to prop up the Americans egos.
Did you look at the exit poll stats?the republicans are only up one point in that demographic from romney. regarding minorities Trump was up 8,9, & 11 points from romney. Data does not support your assertion.

Kind Regards
Cittasanto
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by lyndon taylor »

Hitler had his rabid supporters, too.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by lyndon taylor »

A Jewish response to Trumps presidency;

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-an ... bout-trump
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6636
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Cittasanto »

Trump Supporters are the violent ones... right? I am not hearing of Trump supporters doing this, would be interested to hear if they are.

Kind Regards
Cittasanto

Edit found some info on trump supporters violence but no videos.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
cjmacie
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:49 am

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by cjmacie »

.
Speaking of socialism... :popcorn:

"The myth of the reactionary white working class" (World Socialist Web Site)

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/1 ... s-n12.html
User avatar
m0rl0ck
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:51 am

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by m0rl0ck »

Image
“The truth knocks on the door and you say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so it goes away. Puzzling.” ― Robert M. Pirsig
Phena
Posts: 477
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 6:40 am

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Phena »

U.S. Hate Crimes Surge 6%, Fueled by Attacks on Muslims

A prelude of what's to come under Trump and his racist supporters.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6636
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Cittasanto »

Phena wrote:U.S. Hate Crimes Surge 6%, Fueled by Attacks on Muslims

A prelude of what's to come under Trump and his racist supporters.
Your link is heavily flawed because
1- it is last years data
2- it is using speculation based on perception rather than the data collected.

This is a list of hate/potential hate crimes related or potentially related to the election including some which are hoaxes by state.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/trump-hat ... eo-photos/

Kind Regards
Cittasanto
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
chownah
Posts: 8960
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by chownah »

Cittasanto wrote:
Phena wrote:U.S. Hate Crimes Surge 6%, Fueled by Attacks on Muslims

A prelude of what's to come under Trump and his racist supporters.
Your link is heavily flawed because
1- it is last years data
2- it is using speculation based on perception rather than the data collected.

This is a list of hate/potential hate crimes related or potentially related to the election including some which are hoaxes by state.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/trump-hat ... eo-photos/

Kind Regards
Cittasanto
It is last years data. The title of the article is based on last years data I think. Why is this a flaw. This year is not over so this years data can not be reported.

Can you bring a quote from the article as an example of speculation based on perception? Clearly the article contains more than just the data and its analysis and to me it seems that what else was given contains stuff with varying levels of speculation. I mostly screen what I read for speculation expecially surrounding these sorts of issues because speculation seems to run rampant on all sides of most issues and this screening sort of assigns a reliability factor to stuff.....so it is difficult for me to know just what kind of stuff you are talking about.
chownah
User avatar
rowboat
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:31 am
Location: Brentwood Bay

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by rowboat »

Hi, Chownah. You might find this more on target: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/201 ... n-election
Rain soddens what is covered up,
It does not sodden what is open.
Therefore uncover what is covered
That the rain will not sodden it.
Ud 5.5
Locked