[Discussion] 2016 Presidential Elections Vote-All

The US Presidential Elections catch-all. All discussion related to the ongoing campaigns can go here.

Trophy Husband wrote:

While I don't agree with MattDaddy I respect his choice, and I wish others would be more considerate of his opinions, as I'd like to see him continue in this thread. I haven't seen him say anything about being against LGBT rights. Unfortunately at this time, if you're pro-life there isn't a candidate who has a pro-life platform that is also forward thinking when it comes to the LGBT community. Most of us probably don't agree with all of our candidates ideas so we vote based on what's most important to us. If stopping abortions is what's important to a person than I would expect them to vote accordingly.

And if he's going to reveal his choice here, with people who are actively harmed by it, he gets to see the human consequences of it.

MattDaddy wrote:

I would be willing to discuss things further, but every time I have tried, you have done nothing but lash out in anger. If this group is really serious about wanting to improve things you care about, you have got to stop crucifying every person who comes in here with a different view.

The attitude of "you are a bigot, you are culpable, I don't give a damn about your motives" is why you lost on Tuesday.

Are you being "crucified"? I don't see anyone nailing you to anything. I do see your views are being rejected and pushed back against.

Why is it that so many people who hold abhorrent views get so thin skinned about people disagreeing with them?

Meanwhile this is already happening.

This is already happening.

This already happened.

He's already calling the protests against him"unfair."

And all of that doesn't even cover some of the stuff I've already seen posted in the thread.

Also, we didn't lose the election because people rightly called bigots what they are (namely bigots) but for a host of other reasons. Here are three that all had significantly more impact than some people being crybabies about being called out on their bigotry:

-The electoral college. The majority of voters wanted Clinton, but not all votes are created equal (and guess whose votes are less equal?)
-The repealing of the Voting Rights act, which lead to 300,000 people being unable to vote in WI, as well as a host of trouble in other states.
-Large portions of the country not being ready for a woman to be in charge

Demyx wrote:

How is this not "I'm free to not care about trans people's basic human rights if they make me uncomfortable in a forums thread"?

It's perfectly clear the way he has written it. Labeling others as bigots, racists, sexists, *phobes, etc. is no way to persuade them or even to put your argument forth every time you meet someone who disagrees with you. Would you listen to someone that does nothing but berate you at every point? Its not that people don't care, but maybe taking a different approach will be more fruitful.

But by doing so, he's working under the assumption that a clump of cells is more important than a fully-formed adult. I believe that all demyx, freyja et al are asking us that he acknowledge that.

(BTW, totally not in mod mode)

liquid wrote:
Demyx wrote:

How is this not "I'm free to not care about trans people's basic human rights if they make me uncomfortable in a forums thread"?

It's perfectly clear the way he has written it. Labeling others as bigots, racists, sexists, *phobes, etc. is no way to persuade them or even to put your argument forth every time you meet someone who disagrees with you. Would you listen to someone that does nothing but berate you at every point? Its not that people don't care, but maybe taking a different approach will be more fruitful.

To paraphrase:

We tried being nice and they killed us anyway. Now you're left with the pissed off cockroach motherf*ckers.

liquid wrote:
Demyx wrote:

How is this not "I'm free to not care about trans people's basic human rights if they make me uncomfortable in a forums thread"?

It's perfectly clear the way he has written it. Labeling others as bigots, racists, sexists, *phobes, etc. is no way to persuade them or even to put your argument forth every time you meet someone who disagrees with you. Would you listen to someone that does nothing but berate you at every point? Its not that people don't care, but maybe taking a different approach will be more fruitful.

And here comes the Tone Police.

liquid wrote:
Demyx wrote:

How is this not "I'm free to not care about trans people's basic human rights if they make me uncomfortable in a forums thread"?

It's perfectly clear the way he has written it. Labeling others as bigots, racists, sexists, *phobes, etc. is no way to persuade them or even to put your argument forth every time you meet someone who disagrees with you. Would you listen to someone that does nothing but berate you at every point? Its not that people don't care, but maybe taking a different approach will be more fruitful.

Speaking for myself, I don't care about persuading someone who has announced with their views that people I care about deeply don't deserve to exist. I'm not here to persuade them, that's not my agenda. My agenda is to fight them, and to do everything I can to keep the people in my community safe and their rights intact.

The people I want to persuade are the people outside of that, the roughly 50% of eligible voters who didn't vote for Trump. The 25% that did, some will see the error of their ways on their own, and that's all well and good, but they've already made it painfully clear that they don't care about facts, reason, or rationality. As far as I know, they can't be persuaded. But they can - and must - be pushed back against.

Trophy Husband wrote:

If stopping abortions is what's important to a person than I would expect them to vote accordingly.

At the cost of the rights of others?

Being a single issue voter is fine. Anti-abortion? I have problems with that but ok, that's your issue. Fine. This isn't the thread for that conversation.

But if your single issue is riding a wave of hate into office, that does not absolve you from anything else that administration does.

In the last 3 days there has been many calls for unity and understanding coming from the side that won.

Yet again, the US is asking the people who are in danger to just go along with things and not be upset.

Basic human rights are threatened. Quality of life is threatened. The KKK is throwing a damned victory parade today.

Sometimes being a responsible person means putting what you want on the back burner for the sake of the country. Electing trump was NOT the responsible decision, single issue voter or not.

People are scared. Don't ask them to understand when you've had a hand in putting them in danger.

FWIW, I don't absolve Stein or Johnson voters either. Nice protest, you guys. Welcome to the next 4 years.

Fun stuff in the last 3 days already.

Malor wrote:
Kannon wrote:

I mean, honestly, I will admit to some annoyance that empty red dirt is more important than packed blue cities because of the electoral college. It's the reality, but it's also really... annoying.

Despite the terrible outcome here, I'm pretty okay with it. Population alone shouldn't be the sole determiner of political power. If it is, if it's pure majority rule, then the cities take total control, and the needs of the people feeding the cities are largely ignored. The electoral college, in essence, gives more of a voice to people who use land to make their living, and that doesn't bother me too much. They're very, very important to a country's overall health.

First and foremost, we have to feed ourselves, and making sure the people that feed us are well-represented isn't such a terrible thing.

As someone who have had a hard time grasping the idea of giving some voters more weight than others (coming from an very - for better or worse - homogeneous country) I must say I have started to understand the benefits of an EC system in the US - even if not convinced it outweigh the problems. It can be reasonable to weight underrepresented groups higher. After all a tenet of democracy is also supposed to be protection of minorities.
However, it ought to be perfectly doable to keep the part about weighting rural state voters somewhat higher than others, while also getting rid of the Winner takes it all aspect, which just seems insanely undemocratic and discourages voter participation outside of the swing states. It seems to be considered a package though.

liquid wrote:
Demyx wrote:

How is this not "I'm free to not care about trans people's basic human rights if they make me uncomfortable in a forums thread"?

It's perfectly clear the way he has written it. Labeling others as bigots, racists, sexists, *phobes, etc. is no way to persuade them or even to put your argument forth every time you meet someone who disagrees with you. Would you listen to someone that does nothing but berate you at every point? Its not that people don't care, but maybe taking a different approach will be more fruitful.

YES. Yes I would.

I was raised in a racist, sexist, homophobic environment. Reading about the real pain of oppressed minorities was a big part of opening my eyes. A lot of the things I've read make me uncomfortable. A lot of the things I've read put some of the blame on me. That doesn't mean I get to dismiss it because they didn't say it nice enough.

However, it ought to be perfectly doable to keep the part about weighting rural state voters somewhat higher than others, while also getting rid of the Winner takes it all aspect, which just seems insanely undemocratic and discourages voter participation outside of the swing states.

Maine voted to implement Ranked Choice Voting, so at least there's that glimmer of hope that other states will catch on.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

Speaking for myself, I don't care about persuading someone who has announced with their views that people I care about deeply don't deserve to exist. I'm not here to persuade them, that's not my agenda. The people I want to persuade are the people outside of that, the roughly 50% of eligible voters who didn't vote for Trump. The 25% that did, some will see the error of their ways on their own, and that's all well and good, but they've already made it painfully clear that they don't care about facts, reason, or rationality. As far as I know, they can't be persuaded. But they can - and must - be pushed back against.

But how do you know this is what their views are? I am sure that many people that voted for Trump did so because of different policies that have nothing to do with LGBT issues but if you don't engage with people in a way that is respectful or at the very least civil (no labeling and name calling) you will never know and even worse - find out that they might agree with you. Or they just disliked Clinton more. Many people are one-issue voters.
But all this "you voted X which might affect me negatively so I don't care about your motives you are just as guilty" will get nothing done. And I see it all over social media.

Instead, what you gain by actually talking and listening to people is at the very least raising issues that you care about with them. And if it is as bad as some fear it might be, you can get allies to help you fight against that, even though you might have disagreed about economy, foreign policy or even other social issues.

oilypenguin wrote:
Trophy Husband wrote:

If stopping abortions is what's important to a person than I would expect them to vote accordingly.

At the cost of the rights of others?

Anytime an issue has more than one side and it gets "decided" there will be losers. The cost to those losers is usually subjective. You don't get to do whatever you want because of your feels. Society has never worked that way and it would be exceptionally dangerous if it did.

MattDaddy wrote:

If you are going to draw a dotted line between my vote and your suffering, then I will draw a similar line between you and the death of every healthy unborn child past 3 months (my own personal line in the sand) due to abortion.

Well, if you're going to try to win by virtue of quantity, I'm going to draw a dotted line between your vote and every single person who are at risk of having their Constitutional rights stripped by the policies promised by the Republicans (as opposed to the number of unborn children the Republicans made any real effort to save when they controlled the executive and legislative branch during most of Bush Jr's tenure).

Your comments imply strongly that you don't care about all citizens or even all unborn children; rather, that you only care about the "right" unborn children and citizens.

You won. Try taking personal responsibility (you know, the "conservative" mantra) and be the "better man". Instead, your attitude since Tuesday towards the legitimately fearful members of this community disgusts me -- and no, this isn't an example of a "liberal echo chamber"; I've stood up for right-leaning members of this community many times, you included.

Because of my 'feels'?

The incoming administration has pledged to make my life a living hell and I should just suck it up and say 'oh well I suffered a subjective democratic loss because of my feels let's carry on with the republic now'?

MattDaddy wrote:
Freyja wrote:

I'm not absolving you of that. I don't give a damn about your motives, you're culpable.

Are you going to pay my medical bills when I'm denied insurance coverage for being trans? Pay my rent when I'm fired for it? Cover my legal fees to shore up my inheritance rights when my marriage is dissolved? Watch my back when I use a public restroom?

If all of those answers aren't yes, then all the "I'm not a bigot" protesting in the world doesn't matter. You enabled real, material harm to my ability to survive, sit with that discomfort.

I thought about this post a lot last night, a I need to respond.

If you are going to draw a dotted line between my vote and your suffering, then I will draw a similar line between you and the death of every healthy unborn child past 3 months (my own personal line in the sand) due to abortion.

I would be willing to discuss things further, but every time I have tried, you have done nothing but lash out in anger. If this group is really serious about wanting to improve things you care about, you have got to stop crucifying every person who comes in here with a different view.

The attitude of "you are a bigot, you are culpable, I don't give a damn about your motives" is why you lost on Tuesday.

I think that when everything calms down, we need to take a deep hard look at our liberal actions and acknowledge that Matt is right here. The "f*ck you" vote is why we lost on Tuesday. We have been saying for MONTHS that the Republican party needs to have a good long think about how it got to where it is - probably not a bad idea that we take our own advice.

Gremlin wrote:

Random thought: I'm beginning to suspect that one group uses "racist" to insult and shame, and another group uses "racist" as a label of a condition or systemic state. And both groups are talking past each other.

I'd first quote something from that Matt Taibbi article I think you linked to:

"When [Trump] talks, I actually understand what he's saying," a young Pennsylvanian named Trent Gower told me at a Trump event a month ago. "But, like, when fricking Hillary Clinton talks, it just sounds like a bunch of bullsh*t."

I think there is one group that responds to people being insulted and shamed when they mistakenly think they're being called racists with "Actually, it's about how systemic racism makes you just a passive racist, not an active one" and another who thinks "everyone does realize this was an election, not a vocabulary test, right?"

What we need to find is a way to talk about race without sounding like elites. Pushing back against racism should sound like the most natural, populist thing in the world. Not like we're trying to win a debate on an internet forum.

Guess what: Hillary lost because enough Americans decided she was just arguing semantics. f*ck.

liquid wrote:

But all this "you voted X which might affect me negatively so I don't care about your motives you are just as guilty" will get nothing done. And I see it all over social media.

If you vote "cake for some, poison for others", you don't get to sit back afterwards and claim it was only ever about the cake.

liquid wrote:
TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

Speaking for myself, I don't care about persuading someone who has announced with their views that people I care about deeply don't deserve to exist. I'm not here to persuade them, that's not my agenda. The people I want to persuade are the people outside of that, the roughly 50% of eligible voters who didn't vote for Trump. The 25% that did, some will see the error of their ways on their own, and that's all well and good, but they've already made it painfully clear that they don't care about facts, reason, or rationality. As far as I know, they can't be persuaded. But they can - and must - be pushed back against.

But how do you know this is what their views are? I am sure that many people that voted for Trump did so because of different policies that have nothing to do with LGBT issues but if you don't engage with people in a way that is respectful or at the very least civil (no labeling and name calling). Or they just disliked Clinton more. Many people are one-issue voters.
But all this "you voted X which might affect me negatively so I don't care about your motives you are just as guilty" will get nothing done. And I see it all over social media.

Instead, what you gain by actually talking and listening to people is at the very least raising issues that you care about with them. And if it is as bad as some fear it might be, you can get allies to help you fight against that, even though you might have disagreed about economy, foreign policy or even other social issues.

Trump and Pence have been very clear in their views. They have announced, quite loudly, who they are and what they intend to do. If someone voted for him anyway, whether out of ignorance or because they had one issue that they felt was more important the lives and rights of others, then sorry but I don't gain anything by listening to them.

I have already raised issues I care about with them, and they voted to step on my neck. And I can "get allies" in other places. These people already have their allies - the KKK is with them. Stormfront is with them. The alt-right is with them. Thanks but no thanks. I'll look other places for allies.

bandit0013 wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:
Trophy Husband wrote:

If stopping abortions is what's important to a person than I would expect them to vote accordingly.

At the cost of the rights of others?

Anytime an issue has more than one side and it gets "decided" there will be losers. The cost to those losers is usually subjective. You don't get to do whatever you want because of your feels. Society has never worked that way and it would be exceptionally dangerous if it did.

In the last 3 days there has been many calls for unity and understanding coming from the side that won.

Yet again, the US is asking the people who are in danger to just go along with things and not be upset.

Basic human rights are threatened. Quality of life is threatened. The KKK is throwing a damned victory parade today.

Sometimes being a responsible person means putting what you want on the back burner for the sake of the country. Electing trump was NOT the responsible decision, single issue voter or not.

People are scared. Don't ask them to understand when you've had a hand in putting them in danger

Come on now. No one is doing what they want. Real people are scared. They should be scared.

Is anyone saying, "go get your gun?"

NO. They're saying, "organize" and "get documentation while you can" and "protest."

I wonder if the winning minority of people would be so reasonable or if they'd just go buy more guns.

Interesting data point. I was watching some sports stuff on TV a few days before the election. I don't really watch TV except for sports so I don't see many commercials.

The Trump commercial they played in Ohio was all about how Globalization was harming American workers, how our infrastructure is crumbling (it is), etc etc make America Great Again.

The Clinton commercial was basically - Trump is an asshole. Our children are watching.

While the Clinton commercial pulled Trump quotes etc and did indeed solidify that he is an asshole, it didn't really provide any policy reasons for anyone to vote for her. Especially given what we know about the economic situation and feelings of the working class in the rust belt.

So as much as Freyja and MattDaddy are arguing, it seems to me that Clinton tried the Freyja approach and it didn't result in a win.

Well, the election is over which means this thread has served its purpose.

A reminder to folks that when you create a new thread you establish the scope of discussion. As moderators it's our job to help keep things on target. So if there's specific issues or things you want to talk about you can make threads devoted to that.

This has been an especially rough election cycle and it's been a long haul for many of us. Take care of yourselves, take a break if you need to and make sure you connect with people you love.