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
mikenz66
Posts: 16307
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by mikenz66 » Sat Dec 24, 2016 11:34 pm

Sorry, why should I waste my time with random videos like this one? It's just another example of someone making sweeping generalisations about other groups, which I thought you were against...

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6623
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Cittasanto » Sun Dec 25, 2016 12:26 am

mikenz66 wrote:Sorry, why should I waste my time with random videos like this one? It's just another example of someone making sweeping generalisations about other groups, which I thought you were against...

:anjali:
Mike
Sorry, I had added an addendum which took a while as I had to leave my computer and I can not remember which video is most relevant. I belive it is the one with leftist fear mongering in the title
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: 16307
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by mikenz66 » Sun Dec 25, 2016 12:35 am

Yes, he's smart at manipulation of the media. That's obvious. But I thought you were talking about making sweeping generalisations, which all kinds of people of all political persuasions do, including many who support Trump.

It's never much of an argument to find some person, or some article, making sweeping generalisations, and using that to argue that anyone who agrees with some of their ideas is wrong. But that's the level of discourse we often see, here and elsewhere. Luckily it's usually rather easy to spot, and therefore ignore.

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6623
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Cittasanto » Sun Dec 25, 2016 1:22 am

mikenz66 wrote:Yes, he's smart at manipulation of the media. That's obvious. But I thought you were talking about making sweeping generalisations, which all kinds of people of all political persuasions do, including many who support Trump.

It's never much of an argument to find some person, or some article, making sweeping generalisations, and using that to argue that anyone who agrees with some of their ideas is wrong. But that's the level of discourse we often see, here and elsewhere. Luckily it's usually rather easy to spot, and therefore ignore.

:anjali:
Mike
No, but generalities can be useful, crime statistics and local knowledge can help. knowing violent crime doesn't mean only armed crime or that unarmed doesn't mean non-violent can help law enforcement. or interviewers understanding the need to ask questions some say are victim blaming helps. None of that goes beyond the logical end. And I don't believe the first video (after rewatching) goes further with its generalities than necessary as not everyone in the media or left is doing this so only those who are can be understood to be meant.

Another example is trump supporters themselves. it is obvious only trump supporters voted for trump. but not all trump supporters believed he was going to build a wall. A-it is financially restrictive, and B-it is security restrictive (you can not see them coming). plus some actually saw Trump as the least of two evils. A war with Russia is a bad idea and everything Hilary said indicated a war with Russia, yet Trump can be understood to be either war mongering or puffing his chest out not meant to be taken 100% literally.
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: 16307
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by mikenz66 » Sun Dec 25, 2016 2:16 am

OK, then. Have a great Christmas!

Best Wishes
:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2803
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.

Buddha Vacana
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:16 am

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.

Phena
Posts: 470
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: 3352
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: 6623
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: 7376
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

Buddha Vacana
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:16 am

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.

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3352
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: 6623
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: 6623
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

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 27 guests