Bernie supporters not voting for Hilary.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:27 pm

You make a good argument.

I don't have a problem voting for Hillary if someone sees that as a purely instrumental decision in the larger goal of stopping Trump. Despite what Cash says I think it's abundantly clear that Trump (and the GOP) is a much bigger threat than Hillary for a whole host of reasons, and one can say that without having to downplay Hillary's transcendent awfulness. I've been thinking of voting for her for a while, but I guess you just cemented it.

Just a couple questions:

1) If the Republicans had nominated someone relatively sane and normal, like Mitt Romney or John McCain or Marco Rubio, and they were up against Hillary Clinton, would you still consider her the "lesser evil"? Or would you still vote for her because you think we need to do our part to kill the power of the GOP under any circumstances, even when they front a candidate arguably better than the Dems?

2) If by some catastrophe Trump somehow wins, and it turns out that a large number of young people either chose to vote for a third party or stayed home instead of voting for Clinton, on which group would you put the primary blame for a Trump win? (Besides Trump voters.) The young people who refused to help Hillary, or all the Democrats who nominated someone as clearly awful as Hillary in the first place?

I agree with your stuff about people being too resigned to awful things, just because they apparently feel they can't do anything about it. Your example reminds me of all the left-wingers who actually scolded Hillary Clinton for saying that half of Trump supporters belong in a "basket of deplorables" a few weeks ago... I think it's analogous. To me, I was thinking if you actually have a problem with insulting obviously awful people, you're a pretty worthless leftist. I actually couldn't believe "leftists" had a problem with her saying that... and yet, I probably shouldn't have been.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:42 pm

Cassius Clay wrote:Though, the one good thing about Trump is that he wasn't very good at dog-whistling, and finally exposed the GOP for what it is. Being a narcissist that can't play well with others, he just came in and shamelessly exploited the hate on the right for his own benefit, but at the long-term expense of the GOP strategy. They used to be more subtle with it, used to be easier to rationalize; I wonder how evangelicals are rationalizing their support for Trump now. But since Trump straight up "gave the game away" like no one has ever before, it may finally wake a lot of folks up and motivate/unify people to stamp out the hate vote on the right - we need to save the US from itself. America(and, really, the rest of the world) cannot continue to be held hostage by the petulant, self-destructive, narcissistic right.

Do you know who is doing the most effective job in canceling out that effect right now? Hillary Clinton. While intelligent people everywhere are seeing the Trump phenomenon for what it is, as bringing the rot within the GOP to full light and exposing it for all to see, she's spent a good chunk of the last few months trying to "other"-ize Trump and present him as some entirely unique aberration, some bizarre fluke within the Republican Party. She's trying to bring "moderate" Republican voters and centrist Republican bigwigs into her fold, and the best strategy she seems to see for that is to make sure they can effectively distance themselves from his awfulness, to isolate him by presenting him as "not a real Republican" or "not a real conservative".

With Trump, she now has an absolutely golden opportunity to expose the GOP for the awfulness that it is, to say, "This is what happens to you when you court the worst of humanity for several decades. This is all on you. The chickens have finally come home to roost. I'm basically your worst nightmare, and you would have been able to easily defeat me if your voters hadn't given in to insane racism and xenophobia and nominated Trump due to decades of being inculcated with it. Trump's rise wouldn't have been possible without you; he's all your responsibility." Or something like that. Instead she's doing the opposite. She's trying as hard as she possibly can to get "moderate" Republican votes, and she's completely ignoring her two biggest liabilities: leftists and millennials. And it's so shitty because she doesn't need to do that. She doesn't need Republican votes. She needs Sanders voters and young votes. She's courting Republicans and covering up their awfulness simply because she chooses to. No other reason. It shows what kind of person she is.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 1:46 am

I think she's trying to unite the country rather than reinforce the hateful political divide - doing so might help her win, but at the cost of an even more angry and fragmented US. I'm sure she knows that she would have an easier time focusing solely on the leftists and millennials and trying to secure that vote, but she's pushing instead for reconciliation and finding common ground and appealing to the better natures of those on the right, even though it may very well cost her the election. I agree that she doesn't need Republican votes, and probably knows she's unlikely to get them, but I think she wants the Republicans to come back into the fold and draw them out from that cesspool of hate, and to convince them to disassociate themselves from Trump even if he wins. There's a longer term strategy at play here beyond just this election, and I consider this a point in her favour rather than against.

Whereas Trump is doing almost the opposite and playing up the divide, saying things he knows will piss off the Dems and pandering to the lowest common denominator of the GOP. His actions stirring up the frustrations and rallying the worst parts of the right are going to have long-lasting consequences even if Clinton wins, and I think she's trying to alleviate that where she can because there's more than the presidency at stake.

EDIT: Relevant to what Cassius wrote: http://johnpavlovitz.com/2016/04/09/thank-donald-trump/

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 2:45 am

I think she's trying to unite the country rather than reinforce the hateful political divide - doing so might help her win, but at the cost of an even more angry and fragmented US. I'm sure she knows that she would have an easier time focusing solely on the leftists and millennials and trying to secure that vote, but she's pushing instead for reconciliation and finding common ground and appealing to the better natures of those on the right, even though it may very well cost her the election.

That is an extraordinarily charitable interpretation. I don't think she deserves that level of charity.

If she simply ignored the "moderate" Republicans and focused instead on millennials and those on her left, she wouldn't be reinforcing anything. She's be doing the strategically intelligent thing while not burnishing and romanticizing war criminals, neocons, and soft bigots.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:09 am

I'll answer these questions in two months.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:13 pm

http://theweek.com/articles/654462/how- ... hould-kill

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:36 pm

And since she has no integrity or even any strategic political intelligence to speak of, she's not going to do it. She's pathetic.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:03 pm

Watch your fucking mouth.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:07 pm

She's... deplorable. I hope she slowly dies in extreme agony.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:17 pm

Best case scenario - Clinton wins and is impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate within three months of taking office. President Kaine then appoints Bernie as his VP. Kaine resigns the day after Sanders confirmation. Meanwhile a Mexican cartel attacks a brothel near the border because the owner owes them money and during the attack Donald Trump and Bill Clinton are killed and Hillary laughs about it immediately before choking to death. Hopefully there is some way to work in the deaths of Newt Gingrich, Nancy Pelosi, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz and Charles Schumer.

Boomer · Post by **Boomer** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:36 am

Derived Absurdity wrote:She's... deplorable. I hope she slowly dies in extreme agony.

She might be the worst president we've ever had, and that's saying something considering who has been in office the past 8 years.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:45 am

Well, I'm not sure about that. Reagan, Jackson, Wilson, Truman, Bush Jr. She will certainly have some stiff competition there. But she will definitely be extremely bad. Bottom five, probably.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:49 am

And innocent children all over the world will continue being slaughtered then she'll win a second term. The Republicans can't dare use that against her because they also want to slaughter innocent children. So they'll continue harping about things like her e-mails because that is so much more important than the lives of children.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:15 am

meh, I've seen lots of Republicans saying they won't vote for her because she's responsible for killing millions of children, though further investigation reveals they mean abortions.

meanwhile: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2828749

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 12:09 pm

@anakin Yea, a lot of right-wing propaganda has infiltrated the left...looking like that "horseshoe" theory. I'm not sure what's happening, but I vaguely saw the connection between the far left and right before the campaign, but it's become a lot more apparent to me now. I'm doing some investigating to find out what the hell is going on.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 12:25 pm

Boomer · Post by **Boomer** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:05 pm

Cassius Clay wrote:@anakin Yea, a lot of right-wing propaganda has infiltrated the left...looking like that "horseshoe" theory. I'm not sure what's happening, but I vaguely saw the connection between the far left and right before the campaign, but it's become a lot more apparent to me now. I'm doing some investigating to find out what the hell is going on.

You already nailed it with the horseshoe theory.

Fanaticism is fanaticism, no matter what ideology is behind it.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:17 pm

True. But there's something specifically going on in this election that I'm trying to wrap my head around. I'm seeing patterns and I'm trying to figure out if I'm crazy.

This election has exposed a major gap in worldview that I have with people I thought basically saw things the same way.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:18 pm

Anybody here ever been a 9/11 truther?

Boomer · Post by **Boomer** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:30 pm

Nah. I used to argue against truthers on the Loose Change board on IMDb back in the day because it was blatantly obvious what a steaming pile of crap that was, and I do have a couple friends who believe it, but other than that I barely give it any thought anymore.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 6:51 pm

Okay... I feel compelled to state what I thought was obvious: the horseshoe theory is complete bunk. There is zero evidence for it, and it's just something fence-sitting centrists on the Internet made up to make themselves feel better about not ever taking a principled stand on anything.

Where's that one comic from xkcd? It applies here.

"Personally, I find leftists just as annoying as the alt-right."
"Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both."

It's the definition of the false equivalence fallacy.

And I'd also like to know what this right-wing propaganda that has infiltrated the left is. That Hillary has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent children? Because that's not propaganda, bro, that's true. She's been responsible for the deaths of children in Libya. In Honduras. In Yemen. In Haiti. In Mexico. In South Sudan. And she will be for those in Syria when she gets in office. And probably Columbia as well. As well as countless others. That's not right-wing propaganda, because the right gives even less of a shit about the lives of foreign children than your average liberal. It's only "the left" who is raising the alarm about this. But yeah, where is this right-wing propaganda? As soon as a leftist starts accusing Hillary of murdering Vince Foster, you let me know.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 7:37 pm

The next time some right-wing conspiracy kook tells you that Hillary personally killed somebody just say "No, but Laura Bush did."

On another note, the thing that has always bothered me about 9-11 conspiracy theorists, as opposed to most other conspiracy theory fuckwits, is the large number of them that are atheists - the same people who don't believe in God because of the lack of evidence.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 7:43 pm

If you want to know the real problem infecting the left, it's anti-Semitism. So many 9/11 truthers are leftists who hated Bush/Cheney and America in general and who thought "Israel" helped bring down the towers. Many leftists think Israel has almost supernatural powers and that it's behind basically everything bad that happens in the world. Just thinly-disguised "the Jews control everything" nonsense.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 7:48 pm

I've always been a little suspicious of people who claim to oppose Israel the nation and not Jews themselves. I mean, it sounds perfectly plausible but most of the people I've seen make such a claim simply come across as though they are trying to hide their bigotry.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:00 pm

Yeah, I think quite a lot of them are. Anyone who passionately and vocally hates Israel should raise alarm bells. Obviously not everyone who passionately and vocally hates Israel is anti-Semitic, but the correlation is close enough that suspicion is always warranted.

And it sucks, because often you have to pick and choose. If someone strongly dislikes Israel, there's always the possibility that they're anti-Semitic, but if someone supports Israel over Palestine, my mind always assumes that they're simply Islamophobic. I can't think of any good reason to not support Palestine other than simple Muslim-hating. It sucks that bigotry is so ingrained that you can usually just safely assume it's driving the opinions of most people. I used to get annoyed when people accused anyone who criticized Israel of anti-Semitism, but, I mean, often it's a justified assumption.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:04 pm

I don't care about the actual "theoretical" validity of the horseshoe theory. I only care about the patterns I've seen...and how it eerily seems to reflect horseshoe theory. I know all too well what a false equivalence is. I've had to push back against plenty of 'em...and I'm familiar with the psychological benefit people get from taking the "middle ground" and feeling superior enough to lecture "both sides". That's not what's going on here. I'm seeing too many "leftists" saying weird shit that sounds very right-wing(anti-semitism being one). I'll present my case when I finish my investigation.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Sat Oct 15, 2016 12:24 am

The racial/gender divide in supported candidates could be a clue; while it may be selfish, it's likely harder to place as much importance on the threat of other countries being bombed by Clinton if a Trump presidency means that most of one's family and social circle will almost definitely be harassed, assaulted, deported or possibly murdered (and where this election has already seen a rise in such incidents due to white supremacists feeling enabled by Trump). Concern for the safety of one's own community is typically a conservative trait. Whereas those who aren't immediately part of those marginalized groups are thus more able to take a broader utilitarian view of overall threat to the world at large and consider the total lives at risk. Although tbh I doubt Trump would be any less willing to bomb everything, or start a world war for that matter.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Oct 15, 2016 12:37 am

I get that. That doesn't mean Hillary's effects on other countries aren't important. And I already said I'm voting for Hillary. Most of the damage of a Trump presidency will be from the social and cultural ripple effects his success will result in independent of anything he will do as an individual.

I still don't know what this has to do with right-wing propaganda.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Sat Oct 15, 2016 2:21 am

Yep, I know. I was thinking more about the similarities between left and right, which may be behind similar views getting expressed on both sides.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:11 am

Thoughts on this? http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-t ... lks-about/

Sort of a counter: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... ic-anxiety

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:09 am

Anakin McFly wrote:Sort of a counter: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... ic-anxiety

Wow... I don't say this very often about Vox, but that was actually a great article. It said almost everything that needed to be said, and very well. Especially about leftists who try to tie the failure of neoliberalism to the rise of Trump... because that is very trendy right now.

I do think people need to acknowledge the extent of the suffering of rural whites, and empathize with them. Because it truly is horrific. I know from first-hand experience, at least partly. But, as the article said, we need to stop sympathizing with them choosing Trump as their champion. Not only is it extremely paternalistic and condescending, it covers up the much deeper (and obvious) rot infecting them, just to service coastal and urban liberals' needs to feel good about themselves. It actually is a legitimate case of virtue-signalling, as well as perhaps contrarianism.

I think the debate on whether economic anxiety or racism led to the rise of Trump was always sort of silly. It was never either/or; it was always that economic distress allowed underlying problems like racism and tribalism to amplify and fester. If I wanted to take a sympathetic interpretation, I could speculate that the over-focusing on poverty and economic distress by liberals and the left to explain Trump is partly a correction/reaction to the years and decades of them ignoring and mocking rural poverty; they're sort of trying to make up for it. In the beginning I thought that, but now it's become so repetitive and overbearing and fanatical that now I think it's just a willful blind spot.

That being said, I reiterate that people should take rural poverty seriously. Here's a good article on it (I think... I read it back in May): https://morecrows.wordpress.com/2016/05 ... cessariat/

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:10 am

Thanks for the article!

Not only is it extremely paternalistic and condescending

Yep.

I could speculate that the over-focusing on poverty and economic distress by liberals and the left to explain Trump is partly a correction/reaction to the years and decades of them ignoring and mocking rural poverty; they're sort of trying to make up for it. In the beginning I thought that, but now it's become so repetitive and overbearing and fanatical that now I think it's just a willful blind spot.

I think it's a mix of both, as well as not wishing to so easily demonise and write off a whole group of people as motivated mainly by racial hatred, because reality is often more complex. It's not as though the left is less racist, they're just more subtle about it. There was a survey on how Republicans are actually less subconsciously racist despite being more overtly racist, and vice versa for Democrats, which was interesting but feels accurate.

Meanwhile I saw someone compare Trump to Voldemort and Clinton to Umbridge.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:23 pm

Regarding articles that try to give reasons for Trump's support(other than hate)...even if there are a variety of factors involved, they rub me the wrong way. As one person put it:

Ah, another beautifully written, deeply reported piece about understanding Trump voters, with no mention of what they would bring if he won.

It's wrong because it sends this message:

that the inner-lives of trump voters are more valuable than the actual lives of trump's targets.

Plus so many people keep saying that nobody cares about poor whites, yet that's the excuse people use to explain racism from the GOP base. If poor whites are ignored, that should be brought up on it's own...not used as a sort of apologia for racism.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:32 pm

Liberals have a reputation for demonizing and generalizing conservatives as racist white trash, which they are now trying to shed with Trump by being all sympathetic and compassionate instead, but instead of being "nuanced" or whatever they think they're being they've just turned extremely patronizing, which they also have a reputation for. This is an instance where an entire group of people have basically handed liberals a golden opportunity to accurately demonize them as racists, but liberals aren't taking it. Well, most of them, anyway. It's extremely frustrating.

Where was that survey? I have an extremely hard time believing Republicans are less subconsciously racist than Democrats. I do know there's not a huge gulf between the two. I don't really trust surveys/studies which purport to measure implicit/subconscious racism.

That comparison is... interesting. I also heard someone compare Clinton to a regular Gotham crime boss and Trump to the Joker.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:47 pm

Cassius Clay wrote:Regarding articles that try to give reasons for Trump's support(other than hate)...even if there are a variety of factors involved, they rub me the wrong way. As one person put it:

Ah, another beautifully written, deeply reported piece about understanding Trump voters, with no mention of what they would bring if he won.
It's wrong because it sends this message:

that the inner-lives of trump voters are more valuable than the actual lives of trump's targets.
Plus so many people keep saying that nobody cares about poor whites, yet that's the excuse people use to explain racism from the GOP base. If poor whites are ignored, that should be brought up on it's own...not used as a sort of apologia for racism.

My problem is nobody gives a fuck about poverty, period. It never even came up in the three debates. No one gives a fuck about black poverty and no one gives a fuck about Latino poverty and no one gives a fuck about Native American poverty and no one gives a fuck about white poverty. You don't have to sympathize with poor whites and excuse/justify/downplay/apologize for their racism to recognize that that's a problem, and anyone who thinks you do is a piece of shit. Is it possible to say that rural (white) poverty is a serious problem and also say that that doesn't excuse or explain their racism? Because a lot of people seem to have trouble with that concept.

I can have disgust for upper-class liberals who mock and dismiss the ravages of poverty while also having disgust for many of the people who live in that poverty. I don't care how poor you are, there's no justification for supporting Trump. Period. It's the fucking poor whites who have been the biggest stumbling block to alleviating the poverty of black people and Hispanics. If they can't fucking sympathize with black people in poverty, why should I sympathize with them? And people need to stop excusing them by saying "oh well, they just bought the propaganda". No. There's only so much stupidity and callousness I can tolerate before I lose any sympathy for you. Fuck them.

There are no good guys here.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:58 pm

Is it possible to say that rural (white) poverty is a serious problem and also say that that doesn't excuse or explain their racism? Because a lot of people seem to have trouble with that concept.

I agree. But if their poverty is brought up as an explanation for racist support of Trump, that's an excuse. There are people who do that kind of doublethink, where they'll claim they aren't making excuses for racism..but use poverty as an explanation.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:28 pm

Derived Absurdity wrote:Liberals have a reputation for demonizing and generalizing conservatives as racist white trash, which they are now trying to shed with Trump by being all sympathetic and compassionate instead, but instead of being "nuanced" or whatever they think they're being they've just turned extremely patronizing, which they also have a reputation for. This is an instance where an entire group of people have basically handed liberals a golden opportunity to accurately demonize them as racists, but liberals aren't taking it. Well, most of them, anyway. It's extremely frustrating.

The interesting thing is that even if they've changed from smug mocking of poor whites to infantilizing poor whites...either way, they still use poverty as the scapegoat/excuse for racism. Before it was..."racism only exists in those stupid, poor white communities"...now, "awww, those poor whites are only racist 'cause economic anxiety."

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:34 pm

Truth.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Tue Oct 18, 2016 3:08 am

Where was that survey? I have an extremely hard time believing Republicans are less subconsciously racist than Democrats. I do know there's not a huge gulf between the two. I don't really trust surveys/studies which purport to measure implicit/subconscious racism.

It was somewhere on the Implicit Association Test's website, I think. I went back to try and find it but it's a horribly designed website. This is the closest, showing high levels of implicit racism along the east coast: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... n-know-it/ - I think the original page that image came from mentioned something about the party differences.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:15 pm

ok, so Jill Stein needs to officially die in a fire now

just sayin'

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:37 pm

She's not qualified to be the mayor of a town with a population of one.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:14 pm

She is legitimately not very smart, and she is just as dishonest and principle-less as Clinton and Trump.

Is this election year some kind of record for the shittiest presidential candidates of all time? All four major candidates were astonishingly awful.