2020 Elections

[nebo113]

There will be no concession speech or hints from Mitch McConnell about conceding as long as Elaine Chao is Secretary of Transportation.

Chuckling!

[ciao_yall]

If she had the same lack of filter Donald Trump has, she might have said "I landed a job for $97,000 a year on the taxpayer's dime for doing almost nothing, for having an affair with Willie Brown. When you're 29, beautiful and went to the right schools and know the right people, you can do that.' And one could 'that's gross', but you couldn't say it isn't true.

If she had been a man, s/he might have said "I landed a job for $97,000 a year on the taxpayer's dime for doing almost nothing for being a guy who seemed to have a lot of potential. When you're 29, handsome and went to the right schools and know the right people, you can do that without even having to sleep with anyone.' And one could 'that's gross', but you couldn't say it isn't true.

There. FTFY.

[writingprof]

If she had the same lack of filter Donald Trump has, she might have said "I landed a job for $97,000 a year on the taxpayer's dime for doing almost nothing, for having an affair with Willie Brown. When you're 29, beautiful and went to the right schools and know the right people, you can do that.'

She should have said that!  It would have helped her!  "At least he's real" earned Trump a ton of votes in his career.  Meanwhile, Harris is one of those awful frauds who believe nothing, focus-group every syllable, and achieve wokeness by renouncing their entire lives up to the present.  (Biden is, too; they're made for each other.) 

[Kron3007]

If she had the same lack of filter Donald Trump has, she might have said "I landed a job for $97,000 a year on the taxpayer's dime for doing almost nothing, for having an affair with Willie Brown. When you're 29, beautiful and went to the right schools and know the right people, you can do that.'

She should have said that!  It would have helped her!  "At least he's real" earned Trump a ton of votes in his career.  Meanwhile, Harris is one of those awful frauds who believe nothing, focus-group every syllable, and achieve wokeness by renouncing their entire lives up to the present.  (Biden is, too; they're made for each other.)

What has worked for Trump may backfire on most.  However, you are calling her a fraud who believes in nothing etc., implying that she does this more than Trump?

Trump used to be for gun control...but waffled
Trump has probably never been in a church...but now does bible photo ops
Trump literally has gold plated sinks (as tacky as it is)....Yet speaks of the "elites"

On a relative scale, Harris and Biden are pretty solid (even if they are Jello...).

[marshwiggle]

If she had the same lack of filter Donald Trump has, she might have said "I landed a job for $97,000 a year on the taxpayer's dime for doing almost nothing, for having an affair with Willie Brown. When you're 29, beautiful and went to the right schools and know the right people, you can do that.'

She should have said that!  It would have helped her!  "At least he's real" earned Trump a ton of votes in his career.  Meanwhile, Harris is one of those awful frauds who believe nothing, focus-group every syllable, and achieve wokeness by renouncing their entire lives up to the present.  (Biden is, too; they're made for each other.)

What has worked for Trump may backfire on most. 

This has fascinated me since 2016. It's not that Trump supporters don't know that he lies; it just doesn't matter that much. My theory is that his emotions are genuine.

For example, his talk of "bad hombres" from Mexico resonantes; not because most immigrants are bad, but because some are, and it's legitimate for people to admit that. (As a reminder, the 9/11 terrorists didn't sneak over the border from Mexico or Canada; they were legally in the US. It is completely reasonable to ask whether improved screening measures could prevent future events like that.)

Contrast this with politicians who, not wanting to be called racist or Islamaphobic, will avoid any serious discussion of the problem. The emotion they display is manufactured, because everything they say and do is chosen for effect. Voters get that.

Indeed, I would say one of the things that made Obama popular was that he seemed to come across with genuine respect even for people who didn't agree with him. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, came across as extremely manufactured. The "deplorables" comment was entirely in keeping with trying to appeal to specific voters, rather than a candid response in the heat of the moment.

TL;DR People are more trusting of someone who seems transparent but unscripted than of someone who appears to be completely following a predetermined agenda.

Question: Did Trump ever disparage voters who didn't vote for him? He villified opponents, and made accusations of fraud, but I can't recall him attacking voters themselves, which Clinton and others ("If you don't vote for me, you ain't black") had no problem doing.

[Hegemony]

This is proving to be a fascinating discussion of what kinds of values motivate people.

Pro-Trump: A really important thing is that he doesn't ridicule people who didn't vote for him.
Anti-Trump: A really important thing is that he separates immigrant families and keeps their kids in cages.

I don't know whether Trump actually ridiculed Democrat voters. He did ridicule the disabled, women opponents ("blood coming out her ... whatever"), and so on. But not specifically because they were Democrat voters. More because they were opponents in certain categories — if that's a valid distinction.

[marshwiggle]

This is proving to be a fascinating discussion of what kinds of values motivate people.

Pro-Trump: A really important thing is that he doesn't ridicule people who didn't vote for him.
Anti-Trump: A really important thing is that he separates immigrant families and keeps their kids in cages.

I don't know whether Trump actually ridiculed Democrat voters. He did ridicule the disabled, women opponents ("blood coming out her ... whatever"), and so on. But not specifically because they were Democrat voters. More because they were opponents in certain categories — if that's a valid distinction.

Well, if the Democrats want to potentially get more votes in 20204, then it would be something they could try without having to change any policies; just not scolding voters for even thinking of not voting "correctly".

[Kron3007]

If she had the same lack of filter Donald Trump has, she might have said "I landed a job for $97,000 a year on the taxpayer's dime for doing almost nothing, for having an affair with Willie Brown. When you're 29, beautiful and went to the right schools and know the right people, you can do that.'

She should have said that!  It would have helped her!  "At least he's real" earned Trump a ton of votes in his career.  Meanwhile, Harris is one of those awful frauds who believe nothing, focus-group every syllable, and achieve wokeness by renouncing their entire lives up to the present.  (Biden is, too; they're made for each other.)

What has worked for Trump may backfire on most. 

This has fascinated me since 2016. It's not that Trump supporters don't know that he lies; it just doesn't matter that much. My theory is that his emotions are genuine.

For example, his talk of "bad hombres" from Mexico resonantes; not because most immigrants are bad, but because some are, and it's legitimate for people to admit that. (As a reminder, the 9/11 terrorists didn't sneak over the border from Mexico or Canada; they were legally in the US. It is completely reasonable to ask whether improved screening measures could prevent future events like that.)

Contrast this with politicians who, not wanting to be called racist or Islamaphobic, will avoid any serious discussion of the problem. The emotion they display is manufactured, because everything they say and do is chosen for effect. Voters get that.

Indeed, I would say one of the things that made Obama popular was that he seemed to come across with genuine respect even for people who didn't agree with him. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, came across as extremely manufactured. The "deplorables" comment was entirely in keeping with trying to appeal to specific voters, rather than a candid response in the heat of the moment.

TL;DR People are more trusting of someone who seems transparent but unscripted than of someone who appears to be completely following a predetermined agenda.

Question: Did Trump ever disparage voters who didn't vote for him? He villified opponents, and made accusations of fraud, but I can't recall him attacking voters themselves, which Clinton and others ("If you don't vote for me, you ain't black") had no problem doing.

I think the whole Trump [phenomenon is very interesting and will undoubtedly be the source of a lot of study and reflection.  I have met a couple different brands of trump supporters, those who recognize he is dishonest and dont like his general behavior but like his policies (usually tax breaks, de-regulation, etc.), and others who claim he is the most/only honest politician.  I can understand the first group (although I disagree), it is the second group that I have a hard time reconciling.  I have even met a number of Canadians that fall in the second group and long for a Trump of the North.

As a Canadian, I have long known that I cannot predict or understand the American Electorate.  However, it seems to me that what matters more in the US is the personality of the candidate rather than how well you think they would understand policy and make sound calls for the country.  I first realized this when Bush was elected as I didnt think he would stand a chance.  It is almost like Americans elect the person they would prefer to have a beer with rather than lead their country. 



 

[marshwiggle]

As a Canadian, I have long known that I cannot predict or understand the American Electorate.  However, it seems to me that what matters more in the US is the personality of the candidate rather than how well you think they would understand policy and make sound calls for the country.  I first realized this when Bush was elected as I didnt think he would stand a chance.  It is almost like Americans elect the person they would prefer to have a beer with rather than lead their country. 

Yes, the "beer test" seems to be a distinctly American thing. The closest we've come is Trudeaumania (V 1.0 and 2.0), but even those don't last very long.  I can't remember which (American) writer it was, but he pointed out the long-standing disdain for "cerebral" people and the embrace of the "action-oriented" leader.

[mahagonny]

As a Canadian, I have long known that I cannot predict or understand the American Electorate.  However, it seems to me that what matters more in the US is the personality of the candidate rather than how well you think they would understand policy and make sound calls for the country.  I first realized this when Bush was elected as I didnt think he would stand a chance.  It is almost like Americans elect the person they would prefer to have a beer with rather than lead their country. 

Yes, the "beer test" seems to be a distinctly American thing. The closest we've come is Trudeaumania (V 1.0 and 2.0), but even those don't last very long.  I can't remember which (American) writer it was, but he pointed out the long-standing disdain for "cerebral" people and the embrace of the "action-oriented" leader.

Googling around, I found several items of interest regarding the DJT odyssey. When he was younger and not yet in office he came across less angry, combative and more creative in his thoughts. One was an interview with Larry King in which he said Oprah Winfrey would be his favorite as a running mate (racist?); a David Letterman interview where he thought Mike Tyson should be released from prison early, perform at Trump's facility and raise millions be donated to rape victims (racist?); a Jordan Peterson interview where he says Donald Trump is clearly highly intelligent.
Other: obviously father Fred was a driven, severe man who liked  young donald because he had the right stuff to be forged in the image of his mega- businessman father. A brother, Fred, was not of their temperament, retiring more than competitive, and drank himself to premature death. It took Donald years to understand how Fred Sr's rejection of brother Fred was so destructive, but he did finally get it and regret his part in it.

[Kron3007]

As a Canadian, I have long known that I cannot predict or understand the American Electorate.  However, it seems to me that what matters more in the US is the personality of the candidate rather than how well you think they would understand policy and make sound calls for the country.  I first realized this when Bush was elected as I didnt think he would stand a chance.  It is almost like Americans elect the person they would prefer to have a beer with rather than lead their country. 

Yes, the "beer test" seems to be a distinctly American thing. The closest we've come is Trudeaumania (V 1.0 and 2.0), but even those don't last very long.  I can't remember which (American) writer it was, but he pointed out the long-standing disdain for "cerebral" people and the embrace of the "action-oriented" leader.

I have a hard time seeing a lot of our leaders being electable in the US. 

As far as Justin goes, he does have nice hair and such but I don't think that was the driving force behind his wins.   

[Kron3007]

As a Canadian, I have long known that I cannot predict or understand the American Electorate.  However, it seems to me that what matters more in the US is the personality of the candidate rather than how well you think they would understand policy and make sound calls for the country.  I first realized this when Bush was elected as I didnt think he would stand a chance.  It is almost like Americans elect the person they would prefer to have a beer with rather than lead their country. 

Yes, the "beer test" seems to be a distinctly American thing. The closest we've come is Trudeaumania (V 1.0 and 2.0), but even those don't last very long.  I can't remember which (American) writer it was, but he pointed out the long-standing disdain for "cerebral" people and the embrace of the "action-oriented" leader.

Googling around, I found several items of interest regarding the DJT odyssey. When he was younger and not yet in office he came across less angry, combative and more creative in his thoughts. One was an interview with Larry King in which he said Oprah Winfrey would be his favorite as a running mate (racist?); a David Letterman interview where he thought Mike Tyson should be released from prison early, perform at Trump's facility and raise millions be donated to rape victims (racist?); a Jordan Peterson interview where he says Donald Trump is clearly highly intelligent.
Other: obviously father Fred was a driven, severe man who liked  young donald because he had the right stuff to be forged in the image of his mega- businessman father. A brother, Fred, was not of their temperament, retiring more than competitive, and drank himself to premature death. It took Donald years to understand how Fred Sr's rejection of brother Fred was so destructive, but he did finally get it and regret his part in it.

Yes, DJT definitely seems like he has evolved into the thing that he is.  Perhaps part of aging?

However, just because he said Oprah would be a good running mate and wanted to do a fund raiser with Tyson dosnt mean he is not racist.  This is like the claim that having a black friend means you cant be racist.   

[marshwiggle]

However, just because he said Oprah would be a good running mate and wanted to do a fund raiser with Tyson dosnt mean he is not racist.  This is like the claim that having a black friend means you cant be racist.   

Absent explicit virtue-signalling, is there anything that can establish a person as non-racist? Or since one can't prove a negative, is everyone provisionally guilty so that over time their "racist-liklihood score" goes down unless/until they do something inappropriate? And are there "inappropriate" things that aren't explicitly racist, but which are nevertheless wrong?

[mahagonny]

As a Canadian, I have long known that I cannot predict or understand the American Electorate.  However, it seems to me that what matters more in the US is the personality of the candidate rather than how well you think they would understand policy and make sound calls for the country.  I first realized this when Bush was elected as I didnt think he would stand a chance.  It is almost like Americans elect the person they would prefer to have a beer with rather than lead their country. 

Yes, the "beer test" seems to be a distinctly American thing. The closest we've come is Trudeaumania (V 1.0 and 2.0), but even those don't last very long.  I can't remember which (American) writer it was, but he pointed out the long-standing disdain for "cerebral" people and the embrace of the "action-oriented" leader.

Googling around, I found several items of interest regarding the DJT odyssey. When he was younger and not yet in office he came across less angry, combative and more creative in his thoughts. One was an interview with Larry King in which he said Oprah Winfrey would be his favorite as a running mate (racist?); a David Letterman interview where he thought Mike Tyson should be released from prison early, perform at Trump's facility and raise millions be donated to rape victims (racist?); a Jordan Peterson interview where he says Donald Trump is clearly highly intelligent.
Other: obviously father Fred was a driven, severe man who liked  young donald because he had the right stuff to be forged in the image of his mega- businessman father. A brother, Fred, was not of their temperament, retiring more than competitive, and drank himself to premature death. It took Donald years to understand how Fred Sr's rejection of brother Fred was so destructive, but he did finally get it and regret his part in it.

Yes, DJT definitely seems like he has evolved into the thing that he is.  Perhaps part of aging?

However, just because he said Oprah would be a good running mate and wanted to do a fund raiser with Tyson dosnt mean he is not racist.  This is like the claim that having a black friend means you cant be racist.   

You win. I am not going to argue that this person is or is not a racist. It's a fool's errand. We who are white are all racist. It either jumps out at you or lurks deep in the subconscious thoughts, shows itself in some little barely noticed gesture, results in the wrong person getting hired, etc or somewhere in between. I get it. Sign me up for the next regularly scheduled soul-cleansing confessional.
Nevertheless, liberal media was, once again, very wrong about what would happen in this election. given all of Trump's liabilities, it should have been a landslide and a blue tidal wave. Except the left is the right's best friend when it comes to peeling off votes.
Trumpism, as Pat Buchanan wrote recently, is going to be around for a while because it has been a predictable response to a dumb, dishonest mass phenomenon, using the racism bogeyman to demonize anyone who doesn't promote the liberal platform and sensibility. this was in full swing long before DJT became anyone in politics.
Half the nation, frankly, thinks you and the rest of academia full of crap, supercilious, insufferable. This will continue for the near future.

[Kron3007]

However, just because he said Oprah would be a good running mate and wanted to do a fund raiser with Tyson dosnt mean he is not racist.  This is like the claim that having a black friend means you cant be racist.   

Absent explicit virtue-signalling, is there anything that can establish a person as non-racist? Or since one can't prove a negative, is everyone provisionally guilty so that over time their "racist-liklihood score" goes down unless/until they do something inappropriate? And are there "inappropriate" things that aren't explicitly racist, but which are nevertheless wrong?

Well, I think all humans are inherently bias and this includes towards various different groups of people.  I suppose I dont think anyone is could be considered completely non-racist as such, and it is really just a question of the degree of racism.  It's like when people talk about media outlets or scientists being unbiased, I see this as impossible.  All we can do is minimize racism and bias. 

In the case of Trump, I dont know how racist he is.  Based on his statements and actions he seems quite prejudice, but it is hard to tell in his case because many of these may have actually just reflected his own personal interests (ie. he might have just said there are good people on both sides because it benefited him politically).  I think with Trump, he dosnt really care about a lot of issues he fights for (gun rights, anti-abortion, conservative judges) but they help him personally so he plays the part.

That being said, saying you have a black friend hardly means you are not racist, just that you are not racist to the point you could not be friends with black people.