Choices

[FredRydr]

28076

[carlos.q]

Great cartoon! In our case (Puerto Rico) we have the same problem but for different reasons. Washington just appointed a 7 person Fiscal Control Board that will effectively govern our island for the next ten or so years. So now the choice is between 6 candidates for governor one of which will become, quite literally, a colonial puppet.

[jar]

Interesting Times. May we live through them.

[Jon Szanto]

I have a lot of nice pens. I can't find a single one that brings me any joy this morning. No delight. I can't find any music to lift my spirits either.

[fountainpenkid]

I have a lot of nice pens. I can't find a single one that brings me any joy this morning. No delight. I can't find any music to lift my spirits either.
I'm struggling to push past the consuming effect of this terrifying news as well. My whole campus is somber today.

[jar]

November 5th is Guy Fawkes Day...

[Monkey]

I have a lot of nice pens. I can't find a single one that brings me any joy this morning. No delight. I can't find any music to lift my spirits either.

I'm with you. I played a game for about an hour, that was a little distraction. Watched a favorite show with dinner. But the rest of the day has been just... I can't even comprehend this.

[VertOlive]

Do what I did 8 years ago when I didn't like what I got. Keep an open mind. Do your life. Make things better where and for whom you can. It will be OK.

[Jon Szanto]

Do what I did 8 years ago when I didn't like what I got. Keep an open mind. Do your life. Make things better where and for whom you can. It will be OK.

I may make that attempt. A bigger issue is that I have many friends who will potentially be impacted to a far greater extent than anyone in the past. I live 10 miles from the border with Baja California. I have a few Muslim friends. There are a number of people that are terrified, justifiably, and I simply haven't been able to process this. Not to mention the potential for far-reaching and long-lasting effects.

If it was only about *me*, I'd either deal with it, act out, or off myself. I worry about others, I worry about the next generations.

Not since Bobby Kennedy was assassinated while running for the office (nomination) have I come close to feeling as I do today.

All that aside, thank you for offering advice - I know it is heartfelt.

[HughC]

A $20 trillion debt ensures a degree of fiscal responsibility will be in play. This means reducing govt. expenditure, increasing govt. income and stimulating the economy in a balanced way and it means at some point there will be pain for a lot of people, and a lot that voted Trump, if the future is to look better. Hopefully cool heads will prevail and such nonsensical policies like a trade war with China don't eventuate as it affects everyone negatively. Whacking a tariff on Chinese products ( the US is Chinas biggest export market) means Americans pay more for a lot of things that won't be made in the US again anyway and hitting the poorest hardest. A wall won't be built because the Mexicans won't pay and it's a useless piece of infrastructure for the US to waste money on that could be better spent elsewhere. We all better hope Trump does at least a half decent job and appoints quality advisors.

[dneal]

Neither candidate was anywhere near a good choice to me, but it's hardly the apocalyptic choice portrayed by the professional and social media.

I'm simply enjoying the opportunity to wrap myself in a big comfy blanket of Schadenfreude.

[Jon Szanto]

We all better hope Trump does at least a half decent job and appoints quality advisors.

Yeah, right. Get real: In Donald Trump’s cabinet from hell, corporatism and cronyism run rampant — and Sarah Palin may be there, too (http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/in-donald-trumps-cabinet-from-hell-corporatism-and-cronyism-run-rampant-and-sarah-palin-may-be-there-too/)

[Lady Onogaro]

I have a lot of nice pens. I can't find a single one that brings me any joy this morning. No delight. I can't find any music to lift my spirits either.
I'm struggling to push past the consuming effect of this terrifying news as well. My whole campus is somber today.

Mine, too. And then we had this happen: http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/crime/2016/11/09/ul-student-robbed-wallet-hijab-near-campus/93572808/

[Jon Szanto]

I have a lot of nice pens. I can't find a single one that brings me any joy this morning. No delight. I can't find any music to lift my spirits either.
I'm struggling to push past the consuming effect of this terrifying news as well. My whole campus is somber today.

Mine, too. And then we had this happen: http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/crime/2016/11/09/ul-student-robbed-wallet-hijab-near-campus/93572808/

Believe it or not, I heard about that incident. Discouraging yet unsurprising.

In the last weeks running up to the election, I felt I needed to revisit a place in our past, so I went to the local library and checked out the series "The Civil War" by Ken Burns. I did so to remind myself what it was like to have a nation so divided against itself that... well, you know what happened. I'm not certain we're there yet, but if the hateful things continue, who knows? And it's all been given the A-Ok! by the President-elect.

[Lady Onogaro]

Someone also tagged the front of the library with Trump's name and "no more safe spaces" ( l don't even know what you that is supposed to mean.) The staff went out and chalked a nicer message over it and the other stuff was cleaned up as best they could. But University Police is pretty lame here.

Sent from my HUAWEI Y336-A1 using Tapatalk

[HughC]

We all better hope Trump does at least a half decent job and appoints quality advisors.

Yeah, right. Get real: In Donald Trump’s cabinet from hell, corporatism and cronyism run rampant — and Sarah Palin may be there, too (http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/in-donald-trumps-cabinet-from-hell-corporatism-and-cronyism-run-rampant-and-sarah-palin-may-be-there-too/)

We don't know yet, we will in time. At the end of they day they have to be judged on their actual performance in the job not what people think before the fact. I would prefer them to do a good job than a poor job.

[jar]

Ike appointed a conservative Supreme Court Justice (by the way it was a recess appointment) by the name of Warren. He also appointed Conservative Justices notably a guy named Harlan that ended up supporting Civil Rights and Equal Protection and Due Process and the prohibition of Religious Tests by States and opposing censoring free speech and ...

And then he went on to appoint that thorn in Reagan's side Brennan as well as Potter Stewart. (but Whitaker turned out to be a dud).

People often turn out to be far different than expected.

[dneal]

I have a friend whose wife was born in E. Germany. She became a U.S. Citizen earlier this year. Here are three FaceBook posts that are particularly poignant and relevant.

November 8th

On one hand, I have been more than frustrated with both presidential candidates and I was reluctant to support either extreme end of the spectrum. On the other hand, I was too proud to sit out my first election as a U.S. Citizen. I VOTED! Proud to be an American.

November 9th

Well, it's done. I wasn't going to be thrilled either way but no matter how we feel about it now we have to make room in our hearts and our minds that it could be good. The world is not ending. For those who want to leave the States now: go ahead, I'll help you pack. It's still a country like no other with people like no other.

November 10th

It doesn't matter what I think about Trump but one thing I can tell you is that he is not what drives us apart. You are. You are the problem. Many of you throw worse fits about the outcome of this election than my preschooler. Get over it and unite. The media paints this apocalyptic picture of Trump's presidency but fact is, the American people elected a president, not a dictator. He doesn't have any more rights than any other president in history. What are you so afraid of?
You want to embrace diversity? Start by accepting and tolerating that not everyone thinks and feels like you do. This is a great country and anything can happen but you all need to get on board and show some respect. Stop the sarcasm and the stupid memes and be kind.

[Jon Szanto]

People often turn out to be far different than expected.

On a more regular basis, though, they are the people they have portrayed themselves to be.

[dneal]

People often turn out to be far different than expected.

On a more regular basis, though, they are the people they have portrayed themselves to be.

Just don't confuse that with what others have portrayed them to be, which is more often the case.

[Jon Szanto]

People often turn out to be far different than expected.

On a more regular basis, though, they are the people they have portrayed themselves to be.

Just don't confuse that with what others have portrayed them to be, which is more often the case.

Thanks. I've had plenty of time to investigate these people on my own, from a number of sources. These aren't unknowns. I treat this stuff as seriously as a heart attack.

[HughC]

And the alternative to a democratic process is ? What's more important, the right to vote and participate in the process or the outcome ? The cornerstone of democracy is, of course, being able to participate. People who don't like Trump shouldn't direct their anger at him. What did he do wrong? He ran a campaign that worked, that's exactly what you're meant to do to win and the voters went with him. They should direct their anger at the Democrat party, the party that failed to deliver a strong candidate, a party out of step with voters, a party that rejected their Trump equivalent, Bernie Sanders, to appease the party heavyweights. That's who failed.

[fountainpenkid]

And the alternative to a democratic process is ? What's more important, the right to vote and participate in the process or the outcome ? The cornerstone of democracy is, of course, being able to participate. People who don't like Trump shouldn't direct their anger at him. What did he do wrong? He ran a campaign that worked, that's exactly what you're meant to do to win and the voters went with him. They should direct their anger at the Democrat party, the party that failed to deliver a strong candidate, a party out of step with voters, a party that rejected their Trump equivalent, Bernie Sanders, to appease the party heavyweights. That's who failed.
This is ridiculous. Trump ran a successful campaign on the worst possible things. That's something that merits anyone's anger.

[dneal]

People often turn out to be far different than expected.

On a more regular basis, though, they are the people they have portrayed themselves to be.

Just don't confuse that with what others have portrayed them to be, which is more often the case.

Thanks. I've had plenty of time to investigate these people on my own, from a number of sources. These aren't unknowns. I treat this stuff as seriously as a heart attack.

I'm not sure who exactly you are referring to with "these people". If you mean both candidates, then I'm curious about the rationale that Hillary would have been an acceptable choice.

Neither would have been my pick. Neither would have destroyed the country (IMHO).

[HughC]

And the alternative to a democratic process is ? What's more important, the right to vote and participate in the process or the outcome ? The cornerstone of democracy is, of course, being able to participate. People who don't like Trump shouldn't direct their anger at him. What did he do wrong? He ran a campaign that worked, that's exactly what you're meant to do to win and the voters went with him. They should direct their anger at the Democrat party, the party that failed to deliver a strong candidate, a party out of step with voters, a party that rejected their Trump equivalent, Bernie Sanders, to appease the party heavyweights. That's who failed.
This is ridiculous. Trump ran a successful campaign on the worst possible things. That's something that merits anyone's anger.

It reflects what happened in a DEMOCRATIC process. Whether you or I like how he ran his campaign ( and I don't btw) the truth is that enough people who vote did. I do think that Trump won not on what he said ( who actually believed a lot of his "wild" claims anyway?) but more that he wasn't one of the "establishment", anyway there's a lot of reflecting to be done and if his words where the winning words then it points to some deep social issues that need addressing. Don't criticize the outcome, learn from it.

The question for you is why didn't Clinton win ?

[Jon Szanto]

Hugh, I am sure this has gone off-track because *my* initial comments were vague. Pointedly so.

I'm not talking about the political process, or the Democratic process at work in particular. No, I'm simply talking about my inability to conceive how an absolutely loathesome person such as Donald J. Trump could be acceptable to 25.9% of the eligible voters of the United States, regardless of the other candidates, regardless of other factors. I have such great respect for the office, and absolutely no respect whatsoever - antipathy, actually - towards it's next occupant.

In fact, I wasn't particularly looking for answers at the moment. I'm sick at heart, and sick to my stomach, and venting. Not much more than that. I have many friends that will be directly and very much negatively impacted by what this administration is gearing up for, and frankly not in the state of mind for theoretical discussions on higher matters. I wish I was, because it would mean I was past the disgusted feeling.

In the end, this is - at it's most fundamental essence - a win for bigotry, hatred, xenophobia, and a loss of faith in truth. In facts.

Yeah, we obviously need to find out how this came to occur. In the meantime, I'm ill about the whole thing, and am very much not looking forward to the amount of work, angst, and fighting in the years to come to counteract what is sure to come.

As you can see, I'm rambling. I probably shouldn't be posting, not here at least. But I am. I don't want to become angry with any of you, I really don't. So I'll just leave this pathetic text, and let you all discuss this stuff in the abstract. I've got to figure out how to deal with the reality of the situation, on the ground.

And, just as I leave, I see the following come up in my feed. On top of all the nauseating, hate-filled posts, I notice that one is a crime that occurred today at San Diego State University. In my city. In a strongly blue area. It's just the beginning, because the new regime has legitimized the worst, most base behaviors imaginable. Hate has been normalized.

This is Day One. (https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656)

[dneal]

Jon - Did you miss the rioting from the not-Trump-supporters? Did you miss the video of the individual in Chicago being drug from his car and beaten, while the thugs yelled "that's what you get for voting for Trump!".

Is the new regime legitimizing those worst, most base behaviors imaginable?

Neither side is free from prejudice or hate. One side demonstrably acts physically and violently, and seems to think it's ok. Normalized indeed.

[Jon Szanto]

Dneal: Of course I didn't miss them. I'm certain more will happen, as the fabric starts to rend. Mark my words, though, the trend has been from the beginning that, as much as you will attempt to point to counter-examples, the actions coming from the alt-right, the Trump supporters, and the poor little white men who have been so put upon in the last few decades will massively outweigh any actions to the contrary.

None of it is good. But it started, and has been completely validated, by Donald J. Trump himself. It is at his feet.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTACH1eVIaA

[dneal]

Jon - Let me just get this out of the way since it will come up eventually, as I’ll get falsely portrayed as some stereotype due to the opinions I post.

I’m not a Trump supporter. If I had to take a quiz, I would probably rate as a Rand Paul type Libertarian. I’m fiscally conservative and socially “mind your own effin’ business and leave people alone”.

I’m a middle aged white male who was raised in rural Missouri. I have a degree in Philosophy that I earned at an HBCU. I’ve spent 30 years of my life in the military, 10 of those years stationed in Europe and have a couple of combat tours. I am a realist who understands that horror, violence and even death are lurking very closely under the facade of human civilization. I value truth and Emersonian self-reliance. I value human life. I subscribe to MLK’s “content of character” argument. I value the ideas of decency, honor, and integrity and have contempt for stupidity, selfishness, corruption and plain ole bullshit. That just scratches the surface of the complexity of my humanity.

With respect - Writing off Trump supporters as a bunch of “poor little white men”, validating a viewpoint based of a dozen pictures on a Twitter feed while dismissing violent protests from self-centered little shits is disingenuous. It’s an over-simplistic line of thinking that is being rebutted almost hourly in well-argued opinion pieces (many of them from liberal sources). Your attached video of Trump does not provide evidence of him advocating or supporting hatred or violence. He’s merely pointing out the level of support he has compared to his then primary rivals, using a poor example.

There is clear evidence of the left intentionally inciting violence, and even paying for it to happen. There is growing evidence that these violent protests are also organized (e.g.: the photos and videos of a dozen busses present the same day as the Austin, TX protest). The “poor little white men” don’t do this, which is why you didn’t see this sort of thing both times Obama was elected.

From the CNBC article Sorry, uncovering America’s racist underbelly wasn’t why Trump won (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/sorry-uncovering-americas-racist-underbelly-wasnt-why-trump-won-commentary.html)…


Millions of Americans, especially those in the Washington establishment, woke up on Wednesday feeling shocked and hurt by the surprise election of Donald Trump to the White House. But like every failure or painful turn in life, it will mean nothing and lead to nothing but hurt feelings unless these wounded Americans learn a real lesson today and become tomorrow's wise. To do that, they must accept and learn the real reason Trump won.

First, they need to ignore the prevailing angry explanations that are all off the mark. The first incorrect reason many of us began hearing well before Election Day was that Trump was being bolstered by overt racists and more nuanced "alt-right" haters who were acting like a springboard after eight years of an African-American in the Oval Office. That theory went further to insist that Trump's hard-line stance against illegal Mexican immigrants invigorated a nascent nativist hatred movement.

But the facts simply didn't bear that out throughout the election and now we know that even more based on the fact that Trump did five points better than Mitt Romney among black voters and two points better among Latinos. Trump's victory is simply not the result of some kind of burgeoning race war.

There’s much more thoughtful analysis in that piece, and the argument notes that the large portion of middle-class America has been doing worse during Obama’s 8 years. This was Michael Moore’s argument, or even more simplistically put by James Carville/Bill Clinton: “It’s the economy, stupid”.

Along that line of thinking is this interesting piece from the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2016/11/10/im-a-muslim-a-woman-and-an-immigrant-i-voted-for-trump/?postshare=7001478817476412&tid=ss_fb) titled “I’m a Muslim, a woman and an immigrant. I voted for Trump”


This is my confession — and explanation: I — a 51-year-old, a Muslim, an immigrant woman “of color” — am one of those silent voters for Donald Trump. And I’m not a “bigot,” “racist,” “chauvinist” or “white supremacist,” as Trump voters are being called, nor part of some “whitelash.”
—snip—
I am a single mother who can’t afford health insurance under Obamacare. The president’s mortgage-loan modification program, “HOPE NOW,” didn’t help me. Tuesday, I drove into Virginia from my hometown of Morgantown, W.Va., where I see rural America and ordinary Americans, like me, still struggling to make ends meet, after eight years of the Obama administration.

Another very interesting read.

There is much use of the term “echo-chamber” in the last couple of days, referring to those who are (and have been) only reading/listening to those things that support their worldview, and that’s why everyone was so shocked to see Trump win so handily. While I understand the disappointment that comes from “your guy” losing, your last few posts seem to me to be indicating this problem.

So I’ll leave you with this last piece, from The Blaze (http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/opinion-dear-anti-trump-protesters-this-temper-tantrum-is-truly-embarrassing/) (which is “Glenn Beck” and highly conservative, for our international friends). Perhaps a little harsh, but if you ignore that and pay attention to the content you’ll see that it contains some hard truths.


Yeah, well you don’t always get what you want, friends. Maybe it’s time you learn that. And yes, you are free to protest legitimate election returns, just as you’re free to protest rain clouds and Charley horses and flat soda. You’re also free to descend from your studio apartment in Chicago or New York and announce to the news cameras that all of these people you know nothing about, who live in parts of the country you probably couldn’t even identify on a map, are racist and hateful and stupid because they didn’t happen to vote for Hillary Clinton.

You’re free to do all of those things, but that doesn’t make them mature or reasonable decisions.
If you are perhaps looking for a more mature and reasonable way to react to an undesirable election outcome, I’d suggest the following for future reference:

1) Mobilize on election day and vote for the candidate you like.

2) Put in the work ahead of time to advance your candidate and your vision for America.

3) Before you get to either of the above two steps, it may help to nominate a candidate who isn’t under multiple FBI investigations.

These are the steps adults typically follow. Children, on the other hand, stomp their feet and cry.*It’s up to you which group you decide to join. But no matter what, Donald Trump will still be president. You may as well come to terms with it.

Derek

[dneal]

And it turns out it would have been much easier to just post this latest Mike Rowe piece. I think he's America's new Paul Harvey or something...



Hey Mike. You’ve been very quiet. Everything OK? I just wanted you to know that I voted for you. I was also hoping you might explain what the hell happened on Tuesday, and say something to make me feel better about my fellow man. Thanks,
Carol Savoy

Hi Carol
Last Friday, my dog posted a video that featured a man licking a cat with the aid of a device that’s designed for the specific purpose of making it easier for people to lick their cats.I’ve been silent ever since, because frankly, I couldn’t think of a better way – metaphorical or otherwise - to express my feelings about this election cycle. The entire country it seems, has been preoccupied with finding a way to lick a cat without actually putting their tongue on it.

Too oblique? Too weird? Ok, how about this analysis:

Back in 2003, a very unusual TV pilot called Dirty Jobs, Forrest-Gumped its way onto The Discovery Channel and found an audience – a big one. For Discovery, this was a problem. You see, Dirty Jobs didn’t look like anything else on their channel. It wasn’t pretty or careful. It took place in sewers and septic tanks, and featured a subversive host in close contact with his 8-year old inner child who refused to do second takes. Everyone agreed that Dirty Jobs was totally “off-brand” and completely inappropriate for Discovery. Everyone but the viewers. The ratings were just too big to ignore, so the pilot got a green-light, and yours truly finally got a steady gig.

But here's the thing - Dirty Jobs didn’t resonate because the host was incredibly charming. It wasn’t a hit because it was gross, or irreverent, or funny, or silly, or smart, or terribly clever. Dirty Jobs succeeded because it was authentic. It spoke directly and candidly to a big chunk of the country that non-fiction networks had been completely ignoring. In a very simple way, Dirty Jobs said “Hey - we can see you,” to millions of regular people who had started to feel invisible. Ultimately, that’s why Dirty Jobs ran for eight seasons. And today, that’s also why Donald Trump is the President of the United States.

I know people are freaked out, Carol. I get it. I’m worried too. But not because of who we elected. We've survived 44 Presidents, and we'll survive this one too. I’m worried because millions of people now seem to believe that Trump supporters are racist, xenophobic, and uneducated misogynists. I'm worried because despising our candidates publicly is very different than despising the people who vote for them.

Last week, three old friends – people I’ve known for years - each requested to be “unfriended” by anyone who planned on voting for Trump. Honestly, that was disheartening. Who tosses away a friendship over an election? Are my friends turning into those mind-numbingly arrogant celebrities who threaten to move to another country if their candidate doesn’t win? Are my friends now convinced that people they’ve known for years who happen to disagree with them politically are not merely mistaken – but evil, and no longer worthy of their friendship?

For what it’s worth, Carol, I don’t think Donald Trump won by tapping into America’s “racist underbelly,” and I don’t think Hillary lost because she’s a woman. I think a majority of people who voted in this election did so in spite of their many misgivings about the character of both candidates. That’s why it’s very dangerous to argue that Clinton supporters condone lying under oath and obstructing justice. Just as it’s equally dangerous to suggest a Trump supporter condones gross generalizations about foreigners and women.

These two candidates were the choices we gave ourselves, and each came with a heaping helping of vulgarity and impropriety. Yeah, it was dirty job for sure, but the winner was NOT decided by a racist and craven nation – it was decided by millions of disgusted Americans desperate for real change. The people did not want a politician. The people wanted to be seen. Donald Trump convinced those people that he could see them. Hillary Clinton did not.

As for me, I’m flattered by your support, but grateful that your vote was not enough to push me over the top. However, when the dust settles, and The White House gets a new tenant, I’ll make the same offer to President Trump that I did to President Obama – to assist as best I can in any attempt to reinvigorate the skilled trades, and shine a light on millions of good jobs that no one seems excited about pursuing. http://bit.ly/2fG1SxI

Like those 3 million “shovel ready” jobs we heard so much about eight years ago, the kind of recovery that Donald Trump is promising will require a workforce that’s properly trained and sufficiently enthused about the opportunities at hand. At the moment, we do not have that work force in place. What we do have, are tens of millions of capable people who have simply stopped looking for work, and millions of available jobs that no one aspires to do. That's the skills gap, and it's gotta close. If mikeroweWORKS can help, we're standing by.

If not, I suppose we'll just have to find another way to lick the cat.

Mike

[HughC]

Well Derek there's a lot there to digest !!

[fountainpenkid]

"There is clear evidence of the left intentionally inciting violence, and even paying for it to happen. There is growing evidence that these violent protests are also organized (e.g.: the photos and videos of a dozen busses present the same day as the Austin, TX protest). The “poor little white men” don’t do this, which is why you didn’t see this sort of thing both times Obama was elected."

That is a vast misrepresentation--the overwhelming amount of protests held in the past few days have been non-violent. Of course, I am just as disgusted as anyone when I do see instances of violent retaliation (like a few men grabbing a Trump supporter from his car and beating him up yesterday), but the claim that Trump supporters feel (and in some cases are) targeted must be presented along with just as supportable (if not more so) claim that minorities of all sorts are too--racist graffiti, chants, physical assault...all of these things have happened to a number of people in these first days since his election--and almost always, the perpetrators connect themselves directly to Trump. If one assumes the best, we can only assume that in his power-hungry glee, he failed to realize how his hateful words, policies, and innuendos all would justify the actions of real people and how his promotion of violence would do the same. It was his campaign, not the left, that has just created the ultimate echo chamber, furthering a narrative based on falsehoods.

[dneal]

"There is clear evidence of the left intentionally inciting violence, and even paying for it to happen. There is growing evidence that these violent protests are also organized (e.g.: the photos and videos of a dozen busses present the same day as the Austin, TX protest). The “poor little white men” don’t do this, which is why you didn’t see this sort of thing both times Obama was elected."

That is a vast misrepresentation--the overwhelming amount of protests held in the past few days have been non-violent. Of course, I am just as disgusted as anyone when I do see instances of violent retaliation (like a few men grabbing a Trump supporter from his car and beating him up yesterday), but the claim that Trump supporters feel (and in some cases are) targeted must be presented along with just as supportable (if not more so) claim that minorities of all sorts are too--racist graffiti, chants, physical assault...all of these things have happened to a number of people in these first days since his election--and almost always, the perpetrators connect themselves directly to Trump. If one assumes the best, we can only assume that in his power-hungry glee, he failed to realize how his hateful words, policies, and innuendos all would justify the actions of real people and how his promotion of violence would do the same. It was his campaign, not the left, that has just created the ultimate echo chamber, furthering a narrative based on falsehoods.

I didn't say the majority of protests were violent. I was speaking to the protests that were violent. It's an important distinction and why it's not a misrepresentation on my part. It is a misrepresentation on yours though - i.e.: a straw man argument.

I also didn't say Trump supporters feel threatened. I simply asked about the opposing perspective, namely the incident in Chicago. I do find it odd that it is only now that the two viewpoints must be juxtaposed. I don't recall seeing the other side of the coin in the previous posts (including yours).

I see pictures of swastikas. I don't know who painted those. It could very well be some hateful, racist individual. Suggesting that line of vitriol is representative of the entirety of Trump's supporters, or simply Trump's viewpoint is ignorant and unsupportable. It could also very well be a "false flag" of sorts, used by anti-Trumpers to foment anger. There is evidence of that sort of thing in the past. Either way, it represents a small portion of either population.

If you compare what Trump said to what the media said he said, you will perhaps find they do not match. "...in his power-hungry glee, he failed to realize how his hateful, words, policies, etc..." is hyperbole, but you make accusations of misrepresentation. Et Tu fountainpenkid?

[fountainpenkid]

"There is clear evidence of the left intentionally inciting violence, and even paying for it to happen. There is growing evidence that these violent protests are also organized (e.g.: the photos and videos of a dozen busses present the same day as the Austin, TX protest). The “poor little white men” don’t do this, which is why you didn’t see this sort of thing both times Obama was elected."

That is a vast misrepresentation--the overwhelming amount of protests held in the past few days have been non-violent. Of course, I am just as disgusted as anyone when I do see instances of violent retaliation (like a few men grabbing a Trump supporter from his car and beating him up yesterday), but the claim that Trump supporters feel (and in some cases are) targeted must be presented along with just as supportable (if not more so) claim that minorities of all sorts are too--racist graffiti, chants, physical assault...all of these things have happened to a number of people in these first days since his election--and almost always, the perpetrators connect themselves directly to Trump. If one assumes the best, we can only assume that in his power-hungry glee, he failed to realize how his hateful words, policies, and innuendos all would justify the actions of real people and how his promotion of violence would do the same. It was his campaign, not the left, that has just created the ultimate echo chamber, furthering a narrative based on falsehoods.

I didn't say the majority of protests were violent. I was speaking to the protests that were violent. It's an important distinction and why it's not a misrepresentation on my part. It is a misrepresentation on yours though - i.e.: a straw man argument.

I also didn't say Trump supporters feel threatened. I simply asked about the opposing perspective, namely the incident in Chicago. I do find it odd that it is only now that the two viewpoints must be juxtaposed. I don't recall seeing the other side of the coin in the previous posts (including yours).

I see pictures of swastikas. I don't know who painted those. It could very well be some hateful, racist individual. Suggesting that line of vitriol is representative of the entirety of Trump's supporters, or simply Trump's viewpoint is ignorant and unsupportable. It could also very well be a "false flag" of sorts, used by anti-Trumpers to foment anger. There is evidence of that sort of thing in the past. Either way, it represents a small portion of either population.

If you compare what Trump said to what the media said he said, you will perhaps find they do not match. "...in his power-hungry glee, he failed to realize how his hateful, words, policies, etc..." is hyperbole, but you make accusations of misrepresentation. Et Tu fountainpenkid?

On the last point, I agree. I miswrote. I meant something more along the lines of "attention-seeking" rather than "power hungry." Apologies.

[Bold2013]

Not to completely derail this train but... to have real positive change in this country we need a third party president

[Jon Szanto]

Not to completely derail this train but... to have real positive change in this country we need a third party president

I have no reason to disagree, but that isn't ever going to happen until we have a 3rd party (and more) with elected representation at the local, state, and national level. Having a party that only sends up a presidential bid is not representative of anything. It needs to be broadly based and have strong, grass roots support. They have to have members in communities all over the country.

Then we'll see. We need more options, but they have to be serious options.

[dneal]

Not to completely derail this train but... to have real positive change in this country we need a third party president

I think you've got the wrong answer to the right question. The fact is, no third party candidate can win the presidency because the system is built to prevent that. Setting aside the fact that the parties, media and political machines won't allow it; you have to get a majority (more than half) of electoral votes. Nader to Stein, Perot to Paul can't do this.

Interestingly, you had two cases of "third party" candidates trying a different route: an insurgency. The corrupt political machine ultimately prevented Bernie's success, but Trump was able to destroy it.

The real problem with the idea of a third party president is that a president can't do anything without congress.

[HughC]

And the obvious hasn't been missed by Sanders.

"Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media," said Sanders in a statement. "To the degree that Mr Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him."

"The Democratic Party has to be focused on grassroots America and not wealthy people attending cocktail parties," Sanders told The Washington Post.

I also note, as predicted, team Trump is running away from some of their least desirable/nonsensical "promises"/policies.

[dneal]

And the obvious hasn't been missed by Sanders.


I hope not. There have been many variations of this idea since the morning after the election.

Only a few people really got it, a long time before election day. Ann Coulter, Scott Adams (writer of Dilbert), and Michael Moore. Everybody else laughed at the thought that Hillary could lose.

[DaveT]

As the election got closer I kept saying to myself and others "Are these 2 choices the best America has to offer?" I hope that they are not. I really think we could have done better when we chose the final 2. Both were way too polarizing. Both had way too many things for the opposition to hate. And most people feel neither had positive traits.

Most people in this election cast a vote against the other person, not a vote in favor of their choice. I hope future elections will be more about the candidates vision for our country. And people vote in favor of a candidate instead of trying to keep the other out of office.

[Bold2013]

Well I didn't waste a vote on either of those two. My top two priorities in who I vote for: do they have integrity and will they make the government smaller.

[Jon Szanto]

Well I didn't waste a vote on either of those two. My top two priorities in who I vote for: do they have integrity and will they make the government smaller.

So you wasted a vote somewhere else. No matter the warm feeling it gave you, the consequences are now here with us. Anything that aided the election of the incoming administration has furthered their goals. The effects of this are already being felt far and wide, and will likely have ramifications for decades to come, with the probability that a nation has been diminished, if not ruined.

That's just my take on it all.

[HughC]

Well Jon this at least gives a name to it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/11/16/oxford-dictionaries-word-of-the-year-perfectly-sums-up-life-rig/?utm_hp_ref=au-homepage

[dneal]

Well Jon this at least gives a name to it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/11/16/oxford-dictionaries-word-of-the-year-perfectly-sums-up-life-rig/?utm_hp_ref=au-homepage

The definition of “post-truth” (adj.) is: “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”

This notion applies to much more than Trump or Brexit. The "professional" media only advances their viewpoint, and other sources consist of little more than click-bait. It doesn't matter what your political viewpoint is, there's a source to oblige the confirmation of your bias.

Rational discourse has been replaced by hyperbole. Competing viewpoints are ridiculed, discounted or shouted down. One person's "free speech" is another's "hateful rhetoric". Both sides are guilty.

"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain

[FredRydr]

[QUOTE=HughC;189172]...The "professional" media only advances their viewpoint....

Unfortunately, starting with this premise already stacks the argument. The best newspapers rely on traditional journalist ethics and do their fact-checking, and they print their corrections regularly. Departure from those traditions can have serious consequences (e.g., Rolling Stone and U. of Va.). When reporters cheat and are caught making things up, out they go with their careers impacted accordingly (e.g., New York Times and Jayson Blair). If one buys into the broad brush that the media is corrupt and can never be trusted, then I cannot imagine where we are supposed to get our information. Online rumor? Blog posts? The government? FPN? As for me, I rely on some research, but chiefly on the traditional press and my common sense.

Fred

[dneal]

The "professional" media only advances their viewpoint....

Unfortunately, starting with this premise already stacks the argument. The best newspapers rely on traditional journalist ethics and do their fact-checking, and they print their corrections regularly. Departure from those traditions can have serious consequences (e.g., Rolling Stone and U. of Va.). When reporters cheat and are caught making things up, out they go with their careers impacted accordingly (e.g., New York Times and Jayson Blair). If one buys into the broad brush that the media is corrupt and can never be trusted, then I cannot imagine where we are supposed to get our information. Online rumor? Blog posts? The government? FPN? As for me, I rely on some research, but chiefly on the traditional press and my common sense.

Fred

It's not a premise, it's an assertion.

I'm not just talking about blatant lies. I'm talking about inclusion or omission of facts, and/or word choices designed to shape an opinion; or "editorializing". That has migrated from the editorial page to the front page.

As to "where do we get our information", you don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You just have to be able to recognize bias, or assess credibility and then make a decision. We used to call this "critical thinking", although I'm happy with your use of "common sense". I'm naturally skeptic.

I didn't sacrifice journalistic integrity at the altar of the ratings or circulation. They did.

[Jon Szanto]

I am well aware of inherent biases and agendas in virtually all traditional media. As such, I tend to get my information through aggregate reading, and combining a number of sources and delivery systems to ascertain for myself, as best I can, what the actuality is.

The problem these days is that there is literally no systematic way to consider the veracity of the alternative media, be they left or right oriented. There is no long-standing tradition of accuracy in reporting, and no means of holding them accountable. Beyond that... 20, 30, 50 years ago, it would have been literally impossible to create, on the fly, fake newspapers of large dissemination. Traditional news sources - newspapers, radio networks, etc - required resources and personnel to make it all happen. Today, there is no barrier to entry at all. An unknown person can put up a 'news' site on the net and start broadcasting 'news', and all lines between coherent, verifiable, and accountable journalism has been lost. It is next to impossible to judge, among the universe of data flowing at us, 24/7, what is the reality of the world anymore.

I still believe, because of investment and infrastructure, that many of the older media outlets in broadcast and print media continue to have a lot more to lose if they play too fast and loose with the truth, with the facts. As such, I will continue to rely on them with the caveat that I apply my critical thinking and filters. I will continue to do my research and due diligence. However, the results of the election show a vast sea of people who are under-educated and all too susceptible to flat-out distortion of reality, fake news, lies, and worse. Between that and the normalization of repellent behaviors and actions, I have a great concern that we may never be able to return to a more intelligent electorate and considerate populace. An even greater concern will be that our situation will become far worse before it ever, if at all, starts to heal.

Sobering times. NOT normal.

[Jon Szanto]

Food for thought on media and politics:

Edward Snowden: Falling For Facebook Fake News Is A ‘Sad Indictment Of Our Democracy’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/edward-snowden-facebook-fake-news_us_582dcc8ce4b099512f812d34

“People are definitely dumber”: Thanks to Facebook, a viral fake-news writer is making $10,000 a month
http://www.salon.com/2016/11/17/people-are-definitely-dumber-thanks-to-facebook-a-viral-fake-news-writer-is-making-10000-a-month/

[FredRydr]

It's not a premise, it's an assertion.
Actually, it's an averment.

Fred

[dneal]

It's not a premise, it's an assertion.
Actually, it's an averment.

Fred

A premise is a statement from which something is inferred. An assertion is a statement of fact or belief. An averment is a statement that comes with an offer of proof. I made an assertion.

[Bold2013]

Democrats and republican today are practically the same group working together to stay in power and line their own pockets. Big government, socialism and the destruction of decency.

Third party has won in the past...

[Bold2013]

Smart people without integreity take advantage of foolish people

[FredRydr]

An averment is a statement that comes with an offer of proof. I made an assertion.
In retrospect, I'll accept that (as if this matters). I had anticipated some semblance of proof.

Fred

[dneal]

An averment is a statement that comes with an offer of proof. I made an assertion.
In retrospect, I'll accept that (as if this matters). I had anticipated some semblance of proof.

Fred

I think it's self evident.

[jar]

Democrats and republican today are practically the same group working together to stay in power and line their own pockets. Big government, socialism and the destruction of decency.

Third party has won in the past...

Hopefully we will see a large increase in socialism in the future.

[Jon Szanto]

An averment is a statement that comes with an offer of proof. I made an assertion.
In retrospect, I'll accept that (as if this matters). I had anticipated some semblance of proof.

Fred

I think it's self evident.

I think you need to be careful in matters like that. One person's obvious is another person's you have got to be kidding me.

[Jon Szanto]

Democrats and republican today are practically the same group working together to stay in power and line their own pockets. Big government, socialism and the destruction of decency.

Third party has won in the past...

Hopefully we will see a large increase in socialism in the future.

Promise me you won't be holding your breath. I like you, and I like reading your writings, so I need you alive.

[FredRydr]

I think it's self evident.
Ahh, there's your problem! Boy that sounds familiar, and everyone knows it, right? Alas, belief in "self evident" is the natural result of the lack of critical thinking.

I'll continue to read the traditional press despite the increased cost, thank you very much.

Fred

[dneal]

I think it's self evident.
Ahh, there's your problem! Boy that sounds familiar, and everyone knows it, right? Alas, belief in "self evident" is the natural result of the lack of critical thinking.

I'll continue to read the traditional press despite the increased cost, thank you very much.

Fred

I'm not sure what your problem is with me, but I'd appreciate it if you dialed back the attitude and stop misrepresenting my posts.

[dneal]

An averment is a statement that comes with an offer of proof. I made an assertion.
In retrospect, I'll accept that (as if this matters). I had anticipated some semblance of proof.

Fred

I think it's self evident.

I think you need to be careful in matters like that. One person's obvious is another person's you have got to be kidding me.

I agree that this is often the case. The liberal cries foul with "Faux News" and the conservative cries foul with the "Clinton News Network", and both claim their source is unbiased.

I think it's pretty obvious that Fox News, National Review and the New York Post, for example lean right; and CNN, Salon and the New York Times leans left. I think it's also obvious that the majority of outlets sensationalize their articles in order to increase ratings and circulation.

Are you trying to say none of that is self-evident, or obvious?

[Jon Szanto]

Are you trying to say none of that is self-evident, or obvious?

"None"? Of course not. But not all, and not maybe to the degree with which you are proposing. You come across with your proposal as if there is literally no room for disagreement or alternative viewpoints, and that one must agree in whole. You apply the term self-evident across the board, and yet it is still only your judgement, your opinion.

I happen to think it is self-evident that we have just elected a racist, misogynistic, xenophobic cretin for president, based on all available evidence, but I am very well aware that not all people view it that way, both in degree and in totality. It matters not that - to me - it is as plain as day. But I already had a post about how I am aware of the leans and biases in various news sources and how I deal with it, it is just that I don't necessarily expect that it is, in some fashion, so blindingly obvious that everyone will immediately agree with my stance, as well.

[dneal]

Are you trying to say none of that is self-evident, or obvious?

"None"? Of course not. But not all, and not maybe to the degree with which you are proposing. You come across with your proposal as if there is literally no room for disagreement or alternative viewpoints, and that one must agree in whole. You apply the term self-evident across the board, and yet it is still only your judgement, your opinion.

I happen to think it is self-evident that we have just elected a racist, misogynistic, xenophobic cretin for president, based on all available evidence, but I am very well aware that not all people view it that way, both in degree and in totality. It matters not that - to me - it is as plain as day. But I already had a post about how I am aware of the leans and biases in various news sources and how I deal with it, it is just that I don't necessarily expect that it is, in some fashion, so blindingly obvious that everyone will immediately agree with my stance, as well.

Honestly, I've gone back and re-looked my posts and I just don't see that I'm being absolute in my posts. I realize that "tone" doesn't come across in a written format, and I've tried to include "I think" and "IMHO" to say exactly that it's just my opinion. Can we have a discussion on opinions without trying to turn it into an argument that needs won?

Maybe it's still too early for those whose disappointment with the results, or fear for the future still weighs heavily. I'm just not emotionally involved with the result.

Anyway, here's a paraphrasing of another favorite Twain quote that is perhaps relevant.

"The easy confidence with which I know another man's [political view] is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also."

[FredRydr]

...stop misrepresenting my posts.
I never have.

Fred

[dfo]

As a pacifist, I felt the most disgust immediately after the primaries, when both parties selected candidates holding similar beliefs about using drones (around 30 people are killed per week and there are usually civilian victims). The last president who ran as an isolationist was over 100 years ago. Oh how we have progressed...

[fountainpenkid]

Just for fun: I recently wrote a mini tone poem whose programme is abstracted from the 2016 election. Give it a listen here: https://soundcloud.com/will-platt-2/tone-poem-for-piano-trio

[dneal]

...stop misrepresenting my posts.
I never have.

Fred

Sure you have.

In the 2nd amendment thread, you took my post (http://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/13414-The-US-2nd-Amendment?p=170747&viewfull=1#post170747), then you truncated it (http://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/13414-The-US-2nd-Amendment?p=171288&viewfull=1#post171288) and created a straw man to then argue (http://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/13414-The-US-2nd-Amendment?p=171446&viewfull=1#post171446) that a reiteration was a tautology.

[HughC]

...stop misrepresenting my posts.
I never have.

Fred

Sure you have.

In the 2nd amendment thread, you took my post (http://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/13414-The-US-2nd-Amendment?p=170747&viewfull=1#post170747), then you truncated it (http://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/13414-The-US-2nd-Amendment?p=171288&viewfull=1#post171288) and created a straw man to then argue (http://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/13414-The-US-2nd-Amendment?p=171446&viewfull=1#post171446) that a reiteration was a tautology.

Fairdinkum....

[Scrawler]

Interesting Times. May we live through them.

I hope so, because I really want to see what happens next.

[FredRydr]

Variety newspaper wrote: "Like many newspapers, the Scottish Sunday Herald included Donald Trump’s inauguration in its TV listings for the week. But, as noticed by social media users on Sunday morning, it did so in a, well, unconventional way."

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2OX2lwXAAAyo-Z.jpg

Fred

[RNHC]

That's funny, right there.