Liberals’ fake news panic proves they can’t handle the truth

[Captain N]

See, I can't neccesary agree with this idea of him being gone in 4 years because Bush proved you can be very unliked and get two terms. And, if they don't find anyone better, I smell a new age John Kerry from the Democrats.

Americans don't change leaders during times of war. This had absolutely nothing to do with Bush not being liked.

[Theodarzna]

I don't care how bad the Republicans are. You are framing the debate as if there is a problem exclusively with Democrats and that is why they lost the election. I am claiming that the Democrats lost specifically because of who they chose and the poor quality of senior leadership of the party. You are saying there is a fundamental problem with the message, and I am saying that the issue is far more one of personality.

The debate is about Democrats primarily.

Let me ask you, has pointing out the utter atrociousness of the Republicans won Hillary the White House? The Democrats the Senate? The House?

I think by now Democrats should at least be aware that simply screaming that the other party is awful doesn't translate into votes for the Democrats.

- - - Updated - - -

See, I can't neccesary agree with this idea of him being gone in 4 years because Bush proved you can be very unliked and get two terms. And, if they don't find anyone better, I smell a new age John Kerry from the Democrats.

If their post-election reaction is any indication in 2020 we will hear "Make America even Greater!" and he will win reelection as the Democrats once again learn jack shit, get creamed in the census redistricting and are kept out of power for 10 more years.

[buck008]

The debate is about Democrats primarily.

Let me ask you, has pointing out the utter atrociousness of the Republicans won Hillary the White House? The Democrats the Senate? The House?

I think by now Democrats should at least be aware that simply screaming that the other party is awful doesn't translate into votes for the Democrats.

But it very much has worked for Republicans. Why do you think that is?

[Altariaz]

If 2016 has taught us anything it is that people define democracy as getting what they want. If they win an election, it was fair. If they lose, it was rigged. Democracy is in crisis, says the Left, because, from America to Britain to Italy and beyond, the people keep making the wrong choices.

Take the United States. Donald Trump’s victory was a surprise – we get that. It was narrow, for sure. And it was controversial – no doubt. But it happened.

The Left are just sore losers.

[Ragedaug]

The debate is about Democrats primarily.

Let me ask you, has pointing out the utter atrociousness of the Republicans won Hillary the White House? The Democrats the Senate? The House?

I think by now Democrats should at least be aware that simply screaming that the other party is awful doesn't translate into votes for the Democrats.

This is what I wonder if they DNC (and their media partners) can come to realize. At this point I don't think there's anymore hateful rhetoric they can toss towards Republicans then what they've already done, and they are already not winning. So since there is no where left to amp it up, and since they won't back down, all they can/will do is double down on the same strat and wonder why it's not working.

[Dextroden]

Americans don't change leaders during times of war. This had absolutely nothing to do with Bush not being liked.

And there's a fair amount of armed conflict going on. That might save him if he doesn't go against my expectations and keeps us out there playing 3d chess.

[Cyberowl]

See, this kills me. Would you roast the team of people responsible for Tai Chi-ing all the shit that comes out of Hillary's mouth? What makes them despicable? Because they work for Trump? Because people with unsavory positions voted for them and some are politicians?

Outside of some extreme rarities, people aren't evil. Uncaring is the term that we are looking for in regards to certain members of the assembling Republican set.

Conway isn't stupid, she knew the lies she was spinning. She twisted every word into a tactical advantage, ignoring the consequences. She did her part in fueling fanatics and extremists.

Well, when one is trying to win an election is there anything objectively wrong with going after the largest voting bloc?

Consider Trump actually did BETTER than McCain or Romney among non-White ethnic groups,

AND Hillary lost White Women as well.

I get it, you want this to be a "FUCKING CISHET WHITE MEN!!!! GRRRRRRRRR!!!!" But that misses the entirety of the point. That is a comforting delusion.

Dude, I explicitly said there was nothing wrong with his tactic, and no, I'm not some SJW ranting about social issues. Get lost if you wanna put words into my mouth.

[Captain N]

And there's a fair amount of armed conflict going on. That might save him if he doesn't go against my expectations and keeps us out there playing 3d chess.

But wasn't the argument made that it was Hillary that was going to send us to war....so now which is it?

Is Trump going to do whatever Putin asks him because he thinks he's a great leader...or is he going to dissolve relations with Russia and do the exact thing Republicans cried that Clinton was going to do?

Because it seriously sounds like you're pushing for the US to go to war just to make sure Trump gets a second term.

[Dextroden]

If 2016 has taught us anything it is that people define democracy as getting what they want. If they win an election, it was fair. If they lose, it was rigged. Democracy is in crisis, says the Left, because, from America to Britain to Italy and beyond, the people keep making the wrong choices.

Take the United States. Donald Trump’s victory was a surprise – we get that. It was narrow, for sure. And it was controversial – no doubt. But it happened.

The Left are just sore losers.

That's been the truth for awhile. Every time Bush and Obama won, everyone doubted the legitimacy. Even when it was as bad as Romney went down.

- - - Updated - - -

But wasn't the argument made that it was Hillary that was going to send us to war....so now which is it?

Is Trump going to do whatever Putin asks him because he thinks he's a great leader...or is he going to dissolve relations with Russia and do the exact thing Republicans cried that Clinton was going to do?

I don't see him escalating a war with Russia. Now playing bodyguard in exchange for real estate with whoever offers the best deal. That is completely possible.

[Ragedaug]

The dems shouldn't insult the republicans in the next election, because clearly a lot of them are super thin-skinned and get triggered really easily just for being called deplorable.

This goes for any contest really. Why go out of your way to motivate the other team? Very poor tactics.

[NYC17]

Show me where gerrymandering has caused one side or the other to never lose power, even though the side out-of-power has more voters.

I already said I don't like it when either side does it. I think it's dumb. That said, I don't think the DNC gerrymandering in 2020 will cause them to never lose power.

What's shocking? If your guess is correct and I don't know what I'm talking about then you would be shocked? Or is that sarcasm, basically saying that anyone who disagrees with you obviously doesn't know what they are talking about, so you would actually not be shocked? So if it turns out that I do know what I'm talking about you would actually be shocked? If so, since you don't know me, why would you be shocked either way?

Why would I have to show you that? It's a strawman argument created by you, as if permanent control is somehow the only negative outcome of gerrymandering. Sorry brotha, you're going to have to be a tad bit more objective if you want to have this discussion. Absolutes don't interest me.

It most definitely was sarcasm, as up until this point in time you have displayed that you don't understand gerryrmandering, it's effects, and why "never losing power" isn't the only thing to be concerned about.

So to play your little game, the term shocking was the mechanism by which i sarcastically reiterated you apparent ignorance of the subject. If you wish to take it literally, or apply it literally, so we can go down the rabbit hole of the meaning of words, sarcasm, and it's commonly accepted usage, well, that's not as interesting to me as you actually knowing, or attempting to know, what you're talking about. Hint:"seeing it flip too many times" does not count.

[Ragedaug]

I don't see him escalating a war with Russia. Now playing bodyguard in exchange for real estate with whoever offers the best deal. That is completely possible.

This is what I'm seeing. We don't have to worry about Trump starting wars, it'll be more about him abusing his position to make personal business deals around the globe. The thing the Right is upset with the Clinton's for doing with their Foundation is what Trump will be doing.

Meanwhile, the media is going to make such a big deal about every single non-event tweet Trump makes that no one will care when Trump does something actually deplorable, being inundated with non-story stories.

[Captain N]

I don't see him escalating a war with Russia. Now playing bodyguard in exchange for real estate with whoever offers the best deal. That is completely possible.

So basically give Putin what he wants.

[Ragedaug]

Even more so when it's against the side that throws a hissyfit over "happy holidays" and the color of their starbucks cups.

Yeah, even more so for every side of every single contest. It's dumb / stupid to motivate the other team. Like if the other team is the GOP - dumb to motivate them. If the other team is the DNC - still dumb to motivate them. So yeah, it's especially dumb to motivate anyone on the other side of a close contest.

[Dextroden]

So basically give Putin what he wants.

Dude. The money is with SA, UAE and Qatar.

[Captain N]

Dude. The money is with SA, UAE and Qatar.

Oh you mean those countries in the middle east that Trump has already said we should "Bomb the shit out of and give their oil to Exxon"?

So your idea for Trump's second term is to do what Bush did -- Invade the Middle East but in this time acting as a bodyguard for Russia.

[Theodarzna]

This is what I wonder if they DNC (and their media partners) can come to realize. At this point I don't think there's anymore hateful rhetoric they can toss towards Republicans then what they've already done, and they are already not winning. So since there is no where left to amp it up, and since they won't back down, all they can/will do is double down on the same strat and wonder why it's not working.

That might be a whole other problem for Dems, they've been crying wolf for ages.

A New York Times article from last September that went viral only recently: Crying Wolf, Then Confronting Trump. It asks whether Democrats have “cried wolf” so many times that nobody believes them anymore. And so:

When “honorable and decent men” like McCain and Romney “are reflexively dubbed racists simply for opposing Democratic policies, the result is a G.O.P. electorate that doesn’t listen to admonitions when the genuine article is in their midst”.

I have a different perspective. Back in October 2015, Star Slate Codex wrote that the picture of Trump as “the white power candidate” and “the first openly white supremacist candidate to have a shot at the Presidency in the modern era” was overblown. I said that “the media narrative that Trump is doing some kind of special appeal-to-white-voters voodoo is unsupported by any polling data”, and predicted that:

If Trump were the Republican nominee, he could probably count on equal or greater support from minorities as Romney or McCain before him.

Now the votes are in, and Trump got greater support from minorities than Romney or McCain before him. You can read the Washington Post article, Trump Got More Votes From People Of Color Than Romney Did, or look at the raw data (source)



Trump made gains among blacks. He made gains among Latinos. He made gains among Asians. The only major racial group where he didn’t get a gain of greater than 5% was white people. I want to repeat that: the group where Trump’s message resonated least over what we would predict from a generic Republican was the white population.

Nor was there some surge in white turnout. I don’t think we have official numbers yet, but by eyeballing what data we have it looks very much like whites turned out in equal or lesser numbers this year than in 2012, 2008, and so on. [EDIT: see counterpoint, countercounterpoint]

The media responded to all of this freely available data with articles like White Flight From Reality: Inside The Racist Panic That Fueled Donald Trump’s Victory and Make No Mistake: Donald Trump’s Win Represents A Racist “Whitelash”.

There is no evidence that Donald Trump is more racist than any past Republican candidate (or any other 70 year old white guy, for that matter). All this stuff about how he’s “the candidate of the KKK” and “the vanguard of a new white supremacist movement” is made up. It’s a catastrophic distraction from the dozens of other undeniable problems with Trump that could have convinced voters to abandon him. That it came to dominate the election cycle should be considered a horrifying indictment of our political discourse, in the same way that it would be a horrifying indictment of our political discourse if the entire Republican campaign had been based around the theory that Hillary Clinton was a secret Satanist. Yes, calling Romney a racist was crying wolf. But they are still crying wolf.

[Wells]

Consider Trump actually did BETTER than McCain or Romney among non-White ethnic groups,

Exit polling for minority voters is well within the already high margin of error for exit polling, by and large.

I get it, you want this to be a "FUCKING CISHET WHITE MEN!!!! GRRRRRRRRR!!!!" But that misses the entirety of the point. That is a comforting delusion.

For someone who bitches constantly about caricatures of Trump voters you're patient god damn zero for shitty behavior in that regard.

[Ragedaug]

Why would I have to show you that? It's a strawman argument created by you, as if permanent control is somehow the only negative outcome of gerrymandering. Sorry brotha, you're going to have to be a tad bit more objective if you want to have this discussion. Absolutes don't interest me.

It most definitely was sarcasm, as up until this point in time you have displayed that you don't understand gerryrmandering, it's effects, and why "never losing power" isn't the only thing to be concerned about.

So to play your little game, the term shocking was the mechanism by which i sarcastically reiterated you apparent ignorance of the subject. If you wish to take it literally, or apply it literally, so we can go down the rabbit hole of the meaning of words, sarcasm, and it's commonly accepted usage, well, that's not as interesting to me as you actually knowing, or attempting to know, what you're talking about. Hint:"seeing it flip too many times" does not count.

I dunno. I told you why I don't think gerrymandering is at big a deal as people make it out to be (though it should be illegal). I figured I should provide you an opportunity to show me why it is such a big deal, like give me one example of where it paid off. I figured you were such a gerrymandering expert that wouldn't be a problem for you.

[Dextroden]

Oh you mean those countries in the middle east that Trump has already said we should "Bomb the shit out of and give their oil to Exxon"?

So your idea for Trump's second term is to do what Bush did -- Invade the Middle East but in this time acting as a bodyguard for Russia.

You think he'll be an even bigger idiot and actually attack them? He wants that oil, but he's going to strike a deal.

He is not a "Freedom through bombs" president. He is a "Shrewd businessman" president.