POTUS 2016, part 3

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
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
robertk
Posts: 2453
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by robertk » Tue Dec 27, 2016 7:07 am

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/26/op ... le.com.kw/

Donald J. Trump won the white working-class vote over Hillary Clinton by a larger margin than any major-party nominee since World War II. Instead of this considerable achievement inspiring introspection, figures from the heights of journalism, entertainment, literature and the Clinton campaign continue to suggest that Mr. Trump won the presidency by appealing to the bigotry of his supporters. As Bill Clinton recently said, the one thing Mr. Trump knows “is how to get angry white men to vote for him.”

This stereotyping of Trump voters is not only illiberal, it falsely presumes Mr. Trump won because of his worst comments about women and minorities rather than despite them.

User avatar
Buddha Vacana
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:16 am
Location: Avignon, France
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Buddha Vacana » Tue Dec 27, 2016 7:45 am

I will take this quote, since it is taken as representative of the controversial statements you point out as inaccurate.
robertk wrote:As Bill Clinton recently said, the one thing Mr. Trump knows “is how to get angry white men to vote for him.”
Many Trump supporters describe themselves as "angry", and proudly rally under the banner of anger. Have a look:

The angry patriot movement over a million likes

Angry Patriots about 100,000 likes

Angry American patriots about 85,000 likes

In this video, (never mind the misleading caption) the host asks "Who is mad as hell?" and everyone raises their hand. "Everybody? What are you so angry at?"

Go on any Trump fans page and you will see a plethora of posts just like this one:

Image

But I cannot say that the majority of those who voted for Trump are like this or like that. Neither can you, unless you can point to reliable, scientific polls. I suspect many feel like they have been lied to and cheated.
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Phena
Posts: 467
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 6:40 am

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Phena » Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:20 am

robertk wrote:Donald J. Trump won the white working-class vote over Hillary Clinton by a larger margin than any major-party nominee since World War II.
And now that he has their votes he will drop them like a brick for the big end of town. Trump has no affinity with, or care of the working class. They were just part of his election strategy, by manipulating their fear and discontent and thereby illiciting their votes, most crucially in the key rust belt seats.

For those paying just a modicum of attention and who aren't Trump supporters, it will be obvious by his cabinet pick for Sec. of Labor, Andrew F. Puzder, the fast food outlet CEO, what his intentions are for the working class. Puzder is an outspoken critic of the labour reforms of Obama, such as the minimum wage increase, extension of overtime pay, paid sick leave for contractors, etc.

Here's a good indication of Puzder's attitude:
Speaking to Business Insider this year, Mr. Puzder said that increased automation could be a welcome development because machines were “always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there’s never a slip-and-fall or an age, sex or race discrimination case.”
Quite an alarming comment from a man who is about to be Sec. of Labor and is vastly at odds with Trump's pre election "promise" of job creation for the working class.

It's now pretty clear (if you are paying any attention and are not a duped Trump supporter) it will be tax cuts for the rich and the working class (aka the working poor) can go take a leap.

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 2974
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Mr Man » Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:25 am

Cittasanto wrote: Obama can not be criticised without it being racist, Hilary can not be criticised without it being sexist...
When everything is bigoted simply because the person it is aimed at is black, female... then it loses all effect.
But that is not the case. So your point is actually a falsehood.

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6530
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Cittasanto » Tue Dec 27, 2016 4:21 pm

Mr Man wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: Obama can not be criticised without it being racist, Hilary can not be criticised without it being sexist...
When everything is bigoted simply because the person it is aimed at is black, female... then it loses all effect.
But that is not the case. So your point is actually a falsehood.
Here is one example and it is not the only one for Obama, Jimmy Carter also claimed it in 2009
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geo ... ics-racist
I shall bring your attention to 1 & 5 for Hillary. One was her foreign government donations, not big businesses donations primarily. And big business was an issue for her because of cronyism and being bought.
Number 5 how many emails were deleted?
Number 7 her race played on her gender handing out 'women cards'.
http://www.salon.com/2016/08/25/subtle- ... n_partner/

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: 6444
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by chownah » Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:57 am

Mr Man wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: Obama can not be criticised without it being racist, Hilary can not be criticised without it being sexist...
When everything is bigoted simply because the person it is aimed at is black, female... then it loses all effect.
But that is not the case. So your point is actually a falsehood.
You are not being specific on where the falsehood lies. Is it a falsehood that obama can not be criticised without it being racisit or is it a falsehood that when everything is bigoted simply because the person it is aimed at is black, female... then it loses all effect?....or both...or is the falsehood somewhere else?

I'm having difficulty understanding Cittasanto's points too. Maybe all this is crystal clear to everyone else and only I am having difficulties.
chownah

User avatar
Buddha Vacana
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:16 am
Location: Avignon, France
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Buddha Vacana » Wed Dec 28, 2016 6:13 am

Apparently, there are nasty liberal journalists, which seems to justify voting for a narcissistic sociopath who wanted to render torture legal and who wants to boost nuclear proliferation.
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 2974
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Mr Man » Wed Dec 28, 2016 7:58 am

chownah wrote:
Mr Man wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: Obama can not be criticised without it being racist, Hilary can not be criticised without it being sexist...
When everything is bigoted simply because the person it is aimed at is black, female... then it loses all effect.
But that is not the case. So your point is actually a falsehood.
You are not being specific on where the falsehood lies. Is it a falsehood that obama can not be criticised without it being racisit or is it a falsehood that when everything is bigoted simply because the person it is aimed at is black, female... then it loses all effect?....or both...or is the falsehood somewhere else?

I'm having difficulty understanding Cittasanto's points too. Maybe all this is crystal clear to everyone else and only I am having difficulties.
chownah
Hi chownah
It is a falsehood to say that anyone who criticises Obama is immediately labelled as a racist or for Clinton a sexist.

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6530
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Cittasanto » Thu Dec 29, 2016 12:05 pm

Buddha Vacana wrote:Apparently, there are nasty liberal journalists, which seems to justify voting for a narcissistic sociopath who wanted to render torture legal and who wants to boost nuclear proliferation.
People voted for reasons you may not understand, such as "Best of a bad bunch." It is easily argued Trump is doing something other than you think he is literally doing. Please watch the first video I shared in a recent post.

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: 6530
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Cittasanto » Thu Dec 29, 2016 12:09 pm

Mr Man wrote: Hi chownah
It is a falsehood to say that anyone who criticises Obama is immediately labelled as a racist or for Clinton a sexist.
I look forward to the rebuttal of my last response to you.
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
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 18284
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by retrofuturist » Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:40 pm

Greetings,

Some recent posts have been split off into...

Reactions to Steve Martin's tribute to Carrie Fisher

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead" - Thomas Paine

chownah
Posts: 6444
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by chownah » Fri Dec 30, 2016 3:12 am

Mr Man wrote:
chownah wrote:You are not being specific on where the falsehood lies. Is it a falsehood that obama can not be criticised without it being racisit or is it a falsehood that when everything is bigoted simply because the person it is aimed at is black, female... then it loses all effect?....or both...or is the falsehood somewhere else?

I'm having difficulty understanding Cittasanto's points too. Maybe all this is crystal clear to everyone else and only I am having difficulties.
chownah
Hi chownah
It is a falsehood to say that anyone who criticises Obama is immediately labelled as a racist or for Clinton a sexist.
Thanks for the reply. It is good that you have said "ANYONE who criticizes" as it allows for the widest sorts of criticisms ("the tie you chose is awful") and so it begs someone to define the "who" of the arguement and that "what" of the criticism. I think you reply could be improved if you also addressed the "who" of "who is making the determination of racist of sexist. The discussion now does not restrict this determination to any particular group of people but is left open as a universal generalization....that EVERYONE does that. I think we can all agree that not EVERYONE does that and that there do exist some people who will do that although I might think that the number of people who do that is very very small and you might think that the number of people who would do that is of moderate size and cittasanto might think that the number is hugely large. In any case, this is an issue which, if explored, might benefit the discussion and get us onto the same page or at least in the same novel.
chownah

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 2974
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Mr Man » Fri Dec 30, 2016 7:27 am

Cittasanto wrote:
Mr Man wrote: Hi chownah
It is a falsehood to say that anyone who criticises Obama is immediately labelled as a racist or for Clinton a sexist.
I look forward to the rebuttal of my last response to you.
Hi Cittasanto
I wasn't going to give one.

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6530
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Cittasanto » Fri Dec 30, 2016 11:18 am

Mr Man wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
Mr Man wrote: Hi chownah
It is a falsehood to say that anyone who criticises Obama is immediately labelled as a racist or for Clinton a sexist.
I look forward to the rebuttal of my last response to you.
Hi Cittasanto
I wasn't going to give one.
I didn't think you could.
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
Buddha Vacana
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:16 am
Location: Avignon, France
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Buddha Vacana » Fri Dec 30, 2016 11:56 am

I think he is simply tired of having to argue over the obvious.
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 2974
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Mr Man » Fri Dec 30, 2016 11:58 am

Buddha Vacana wrote:I think he is simply tired of having to argue over the obvious.
Exactly

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6530
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Cittasanto » Fri Dec 30, 2016 2:10 pm

Mr Man wrote:
Buddha Vacana wrote:I think he is simply tired of having to argue over the obvious.
Exactly
I'm yet to see an argument other than claiming falsehoods.
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
mikenz66
Posts: 15172
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by mikenz66 » Fri Dec 30, 2016 9:11 pm

Cittasanto wrote:
Mr Man wrote:
Buddha Vacana wrote:I think he is simply tired of having to argue over the obvious.
Exactly
I'm yet to see an argument other than claiming falsehoods.
Your logic seems to be flawed. You claim that certain people cannot be criticised without the criticisms being labelled racist or sexisit and support it by finding some examples where opponents of certain people have been called racist or sexist. That just proves that some criticisms have been attacked by some people, not that all criticisms have been attacked as racist or sexist.

That's all I have to say on that. It would be a waste of time to continue to debate it, as Mr Man and Buddha Vacana have indicated.
Bob Dylan wrote:Half of the people can be part right all of the time
Some of the people can be all right part of the time
But all of the people can’t be all right all of the time
I think Abraham Lincoln said that

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours”
I said that
:coffee:
Mike

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6353
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Mkoll » Fri Dec 30, 2016 9:17 pm

Putin waits for Trump

Awww...what a lovely couple...they're just so cute together...

:stirthepot:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

User avatar
Buddha Vacana
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:16 am
Location: Avignon, France
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Buddha Vacana » Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:41 am

Image
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests