Elerond
Members
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Elerond
-
-
Hillary was an outrageously bad candidate but still nearly won. The large majority of the country still votes the party line no matter how awful their candidate. In general, the independents bounce back and forth every 8 years after they finally get tired of the failed promises of the current administration or are simply bored with it and want a different flavored bubblegum. But, I will say that Trump's victory, without any media support whatsoever, is pretty substantial. Will it revolutionize anything? Probably not, but it's still unique, to say the least. Trump had media's support. There wasn't day during his campaign that media didn't speak about him. Media talked about him so much that his nearly non-existing plans to realize his promises were washed away by nonsensical sensationalist headlines. His lack of candidates in government jobs was realized after he won his campaign. And press successfully made people forgot what kind policies people in Trumps inner circle have, people who will most likely play part in new government. So some of the media smeared him and some plainly supported him but nobody seem to actually really questioning his ability to lead the country, which made him equal to Clinton when it come in choice as leader and then people had to only decide which one they hate more. In comparison to someone like Gary Johnson, Trump had media support, but I didn't expect to have to explain. Both the left wing and right wing media outlets were out against Trump from the start, and as others have pointed out, they're still slow to get why Trump was elected, doubling down on pro right or left talking points. No such thing as bad news fits here. It's like the more the elites tried to slam Trump, the more the independents supported him. So yeah, he won without major media backing of any sort, which was my point. But he had major media outlets that backed him, they didn't necessary promote him, but they did their best to villainize Clinton. Media outlets published articles after articles, how Clinton is traitor, criminal, distrustful, corrupt, old, sick, weak, woman, bad speaker, robot, lizard person, and so on. So major media didn't necessary promote Trump, but they did excellent job to make Trump look like lesser evil next to Clinton. Which is clear media backing even though it gives media houses excuse that they didn't directly supported Trump. When you add to this the fact that these same media outlets constantly release articles about Trump and his candidacy, and doing so making sure that people are aware that Trump exist and is the option for the Clinton. Of course there was also media organizations that demonized Trump and advocated Clinton as the lesser evil option, which is big part why there is now people protesting in the streets against Trump. Although Clinton did gather more media outlets that were willing to say that they support her presidency than Trump.
-
Clinton seem to have made history, by becoming as candidate that won with highest margin the popular vote and still lost the election. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/opinion/clintons-substantial-popular-vote-win.html?_r=1 By the time all the ballots are counted, she seems likely to be ahead by more than 2 million votes and more than 1.5 percentage points, according to my Times colleague Nate Cohn. She will have won by a wider percentage margin than not only Al Gore in 2000 but also Richard Nixon in 1968 and John F. Kennedy in 1960.
-
Hillary was an outrageously bad candidate but still nearly won. The large majority of the country still votes the party line no matter how awful their candidate. In general, the independents bounce back and forth every 8 years after they finally get tired of the failed promises of the current administration or are simply bored with it and want a different flavored bubblegum. But, I will say that Trump's victory, without any media support whatsoever, is pretty substantial. Will it revolutionize anything? Probably not, but it's still unique, to say the least. Trump had media's support. There wasn't day during his campaign that media didn't speak about him. Media talked about him so much that his nearly non-existing plans to realize his promises were washed away by nonsensical sensationalist headlines. His lack of candidates in government jobs was realized after he won his campaign. And press successfully made people forgot what kind policies people in Trumps inner circle have, people who will most likely play part in new government. So some of the media smeared him and some plainly supported him but nobody seem to actually really questioning his ability to lead the country, which made him equal to Clinton when it come in choice as leader and then people had to only decide which one they hate more.
-
As others pointed out, right to protest is not a right to riot. Rioting, vandalism, etc. are crimes and those who participate in those crimes should be punished according to law. But denying people right to protest because some protesters break the law is just same rhetoric where people demand that all guns should be banned because some gun owners us their guns to murder other people.
-
Right to protest is vital part of democratic system, because it gives people that aren't satisfied with results by system ability to express their dissatisfaction and disagreement with direction that system is steering the country. It is one of the reasons why freedom of the speech is one of the most important rights that people have in democracy. So my question is why do you all hate democracy so much?
-
They are only thing that can give any information how different demographics voted, as votes themselves can't be traced back to people who casted them.
-
Those "millenials" (people born 1980s to 2000) that cared to vote majority 55% voted Clinton according to exit polls. But yet again most of them didn't vote. Although millenial white people voted for trump 48% versus 43% to Clinton. But youth turn out for GOP nominee was fourth-lowest since 1972. 8% of millenials that vote voted third party candidate, up form 3% in 2012. 19% of all voters were millenials. Compared to Obama, Clinton lost millenial votes, but Trump didn't gain any compared to Romney, meaning that millenials that Clinton lost voted third party candidate instead of Trump. Had only millennials voted, Clinton would've won the election in a landslide, with 473 electoral votes to Trump's 32.
-
It seems that only demographic segment where Trump lost voters compared to Romney was white women, which may come to bite republicans in future considering that white women is single largest demographic group in US. Even though Clinton and Democrats have clearly lost more support among people, they aren't currently in power and those that are in power are the ones that need to make people happy, their opposition needs only to undermine people in power and offer alternative in election.
-
Rigged system they say States that passed voting restrictions saw decreased turnout, flipped to Trump http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/states-new-voting-restrictions-flip-trump-article-1.2866395?utm_content=buffereb48e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw
-
Guardian decided to play the role that Fox has done past 8 years, as Fox can't be trusted anymore to do their job as party that they support is in the control.
-
https://twitter.com/i/moments/796396412325871616 Theory why Clinton didn't win. It also make me think that she is speaking about this forum
-
Wyoming, which has population bit less than 600k has three electoral votes, so about 1 vote per 200k people California, which has population of about 39 145 000 has 55 electoral votes, which is about 1 vote per 700k people.
-
Source? Anyhow, another interpretation: http://brilliantmaps.com/if-only-x-voted/ Above maps are based on poll results before election not actual results.
-
It seems that 47% of eligible voters didn't bother to vote. So at least there is lot of people that people can blame for next 4 years. No need for self-reflection It also seems that only ethnicity group that matters in US is whites.
-
Until the actual election results I would have agreed with your friend because my experience is many people, including some forum members, did seem almost obsessed with the email scandal But I would ask your friend when was Trump homophobic, because I can recall when he demonstrated other forms of bigotry but not homophobia ? When he chose Pence, who is openly and actively against LGBT rights and protections and who thinks that conversion therapy is not just okay but better target for governmental funding than AIDS prevention, you know that he isn't big supporter of LGBT people.
Do they also include VP that in interviews tells that if they win election they will as soon as they get in office start to remove LGBT protections, rights, including same sex couples to marry?
You forgot that people that didn't vote, also vote for Trump. Except if you live in area where Clinton won, then you voted for Clinton if you didn't vote for Trump. That was the first group listed m8. Anyways it looks like Clinton may have won the popular vote. This just gets better and better. Sorry I am just blind. It is nice to see that yet again candidate for establishment and democratic party that rigged the election loses election by winning popular vote because of rules by establishment.
You forgot that people that didn't vote, also vote for Trump. Except if you live in area where Clinton won, then you voted for Clinton if you didn't vote for Trump.
It seem that best case scenario has happened. Trade agreements and cheap foreign labor supporters now control house, senate and president's office.
Now we're back fun-time pondering! What's in for Trump to run and deliberately lose? What will he gain? Lets go in conspiracy rabbit hole and presume that conspiracy theorists are right Then there would be several things that Trump would gain by losing purposefully First he would have corrupt president that is willing to use her office to help her friend in office Clinton already has big part of governmental official in her pocket. Trump is facing criminal charges and tax fraud charges etc. and he wants them to go away Trump will get direct line to White House and influence its decision without needing to sacrifice his businesses like he would need in case that he becomes president. Presidential campaign has again made Trump relevant which is probably good for his reality tv shows. and so on.
The problem there isn't specifically too much information though, it's people cherry picking only information that fits their preconceived positions or not being equipped to filter it. Either can and does happen even when there isn't huge amounts of information. People who lack time or critical faculties can always go to a news site to get a filtered appraisal anyway, doesn't mean that that should be the only option for any complicated subject. And you have to ask what the alternative is. I'd far rather have too much information than too little, and the idea of having someone deciding the Goldilocks Zone of information for me does not appeal. I don't really want Fox News or CNN deciding which emails are relevant or whether climate change exists because I know perfectly well what their positions will be irrespective of what reality actually is. Cherry picking is possible when there is so much information that person can't reasonably spent enough time to internalize it themselves, so they turn to somebody else that has that time and they trust will tell them what that information contained. Which usually means that there is high change that they will get only parts of information that fits their preconceived positions about subject which makes them more likely ignore any information from other sources that goes against what their trusted sources say. Meaning that we are currently living scenario that you speak about, where Fox News, CNN etc. instances decide what emails are relevant and whether climate change exist, because most people don't themselves have time, resources, knowledge, and energy to look these subjects so they will listen somebody that they think will tell them "the most important details" about those things. Although locking away the information is not the solution, but I don't think that how things current run is way to go either. I don't also have comprehensive solution give out. But I would recommend that people don't only trust singular source or sources that all game from same origin, but instead look wider range of sources. Also people should avoid just following someone else's ideas if they don't understand and agree with them. "Citizens have an obligation to become informed about public issues, to watch carefully how their political leaders and representatives use their powers, and to express their own opinions and interests." - Larry Diamond
Climate change is a topic that shows how information overload can make information obscure and how people can't comprehend all the information that they get and usually seek somebody that gives shorter, simpler and straightforward answers. It is topic where people have hard time to tell what is false and what is truth, which is why conversations of said topic are usually more based people precognitive notions about subject than actual facts and studies. And where people's opinions about subject seem to be on same line as scientific studies about subject. It is probably subject where I see even people appeal to authority even in circles that should be experts. In short climate change topic in my opinion is excellent example how too much information, especially badly structured and presented information can make that information meaningless and leaving people on mercy of lobbyists.
Excellent assessment, I wish I could make points in this way. I try but sometimes I just cant articulate my view in the way you have done In summary this is my view of Wikileaks, exactly how you have summarized it I agree with you and Elrond there is an adgenda behind all this. And yes Wikileaks is showing the whole world private information that it's agents stole by hacking into private server's and e-mail accounts. However, that does not make any of that information untrue. And there is so much data the argument that the information lacks context just does not hold water. The problem lies in that there is just too much data. By leaking hundreds of thousands emails that mostly contain nothing of importance, they create data block than isn't verifiable by any common person, because it take month probably years for person just to read all that information let alone alone check if all those emails are real. And then when somebody highlights one email from that pile, it is very difficult to check if if it is only email about subject or tone of earlier and later correspondence between same parties or parties from same circles. In other words there is so much information that for most people that read about wikileaks emails, it would be same if emails that aren't highlighted by somebody didn't exist because they will never read them. Drowning people on too much information is what big law firms nearly always do in tv series (and probably in some extent in real life) all the time by sending every unnecessary document with documents that opposition actually wants in order to hide those documents from their opposition. So one could ask why people use tactics that are meant to obscure and hide information if they want to inform people. Drowning people in too much information gives impression that you don't hide anything from them even though you are doing just opposite, because if people can't get information because there is too much noise then people are just in same place when there was just silence.
