Great victory over political correctness and leftist propaganda

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Ultron, Nov 9, 2016.

  1. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    It's also a strawman to say that Trump's not a racist because Islam isn't a race. He's racist for many other reasons.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    That isn't how logic works. The person making the claim provides the evidence and the logic. If the claimant doesn't provide good evidence, the person pointing out the flaws hasn't done anything wrong by not re-making the case for the claimant.

    But it is an additional strawman for you to misrepresent the argument made: he didn't say (in that line anyway) that Trump isn't a racist, he merely said that the strawman doesn't make him one.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I was just defaming you, for once again posting ignorance about US politics, media, and political factions, that you were corrected on months ago.
    That may be within reason a fair description of the vote, actually. Not the motive of it, but a reasonable description of the situation.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    It's a tragedy to begin with that the only "relief valve" vulgarities that carry any shock-value potency today are those revolving around ethnic, misogynistic, and sexual preference slurs. Due to that territory being what's left which still receives a significant attribution of [ideological] sacredness from censors, pink-slip dispensers, and outrage from mass media and soapbox platforms.

    Which isn't to say that being called a "bastard" or a "SOB" back in 1955 on live television, via a mistakenly off-air blooper perpetrated by some Klocko the Clown on a children's show, wouldn't have been similarly offensive in the context of that Old School of Taboo for that era. But at least "bastard" or "SOB" didn't seem to inherently spill beyond the specific individual they were directed at to a general community of people, gender, or orientation.

    Today, even in truly angry rather than gratuitous discourse, either expression amounts to little more than Jed Clampett declaring someone a "gosh-dern varmint". Former shock-value standards have become otiose as a result of ubiquitous overuse and the collapse of any well-regarded "sacred" turf they once violated that made breaching such an appalling act of ill manners.

    On the flip side of the postmodern brand of prudishness, something like the "N_word" is no longer casually tossed around like in a late '50s, '60s, and '70s movie flick (excluding those made by non-white producers / directors). But by the same token that current elevation of shock-value potency for those neo-prude, trigger-switch words has made them all the more attractive to those who seek emotional "relief valves" and words for gratuitous vulgarity. Or their way of throwing a coconut pie or flashing a finger at the sacred (an ideologically preachy, fussy, indignant species of sacred -- rather than, say, religious).
  8. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Donald Trump complained repeatedly that many of the polls were biased against him.

    Here's the last Monday national polls from Real Clear Politics:

    Bloomberg Clinton +3
    IBD/TIPP Trump +2
    CBS Clinton +4
    Fox Clinton +4
    Reuters/Ipsos Clinton +3
    ABC/Wash Post Clinton +4
    Monmouth Clinton +6
    Economist/Yougov Clinton +4
    Rasmussen Clinton +2
    NBC/SM Clinton +6
    LATimes/USC Trump +5
    Gravis Clinton +4

    I'm not convinced that there was any kind of conspiracy. Fox and Rasmussen are pollsters associated with the Republicans, and they had Clinton ahead.

    But something obviously went wrong with the pollsters' sampling methods.
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    He also claimed that the election process was rigged.
    Is he going to stand by that claim?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I certainly believe he is no more then a ego inflated braggart and his rather disgraceful vulgar way of bragging and speaking of women, is what most men leave behind in their teenage years.
    As a successful business man, he is obviously beyond peer, but not knowing his history, one would ask how his success was achieved.
    Is he going to build his wall, and make Mexico pay for it? How?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Is he going to stop Muslim immigration to his country?
    Is he going to condone violence against any voice raised in opposition to him and his policies?
    Or was/is he just a lying braggart as I said previously, telling lies and appealing to the closet racists, gun lobbyists, misogynists, and homophobics that society in general breed?

    My first reaction to the result/s was perhaps I am dreaming?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    as I said yesterday, in Australia we have a saying, "Only in America"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    My reaction today after a night's sleep was, what will he, or what is his view of NASA and science in general?

    Trump has previously said global warming is a Chinese conspiracy and said women should be punished for having abortions.
    Trump’s campaign website makes no mention of environmental issues. He’s described man-made climate change as a hoax and in May 2016 said he would “cancel” the Paris Agreement. He opposes environmental regulations, arguing they are economically damaging.

    He wants to drastically cut funding to the Environmental Protection Agency and has reportedly selected Myron Ebell, a well-known climate change sceptic, to lead his EPA transition team. In November 2012 he claimed the Chinese had invented global warming to hurt the United States.

    Trump has been described as “the first anti-science president” in US history by Michael Lubell, director of public affairs for the American Physical Society. Speaking to Nature, he warned the consequences of Trump’s victory for the scientific community would be “very, very severe”.

    are thin at best. He’s said the US “must have programs such as a viable space program and institutional research that serve as incubators to innovation and the advancement of science and engineering in a number of fields”, while in the same breath suggested tax cuts will reduce science funding. His policies on immigration could also have a damaging effect on scientific research in the US.

    “I will free Nasa from the restriction of serving primarily as a logistics agency for low-Earth orbit activity,” Trump said at a rally in Sanford, Florida, in October 2016. “Instead, we will refocus its mission on space exploration. Under a Trump Administration, Florida and America will lead the way into the stars.” Trump believes in a “substantially expanded” public-private partnership to increase investment in space and drive economic growth. “Human exploration of our entire solar system by the end of this century should be Nasa’s focus and goal,” he said.
    more at link......
  10. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    No, but it is a backlash against being called a racist for things like "micro-aggressions". The word racism has been thrown around so much people are sick to death of it.

    Certainly this had something to do with it. Obama seemed more concerned with stirring up racial animus and dictating which bathrooms people used rather than dealing with important issues.

  11. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    About suspect polls: I'm already used not to trust polls. The most obvious cases in Europe have been a Greek referendum about acceptance of the result of negotiations with the EU, and the Brexit.
  12. birch Valued Senior Member

    Probably one of the first social shifts will be more under- the- radar racial discrimination in hiring practices against minorities. Thats usually the case when the right have the upper-hand. Or they may feel more comfortable trying it.

    The thing though is i dont see how this is going to work out for the neocons and the extreme right as they think trump is some endorsement for racism. There are many minorities in america especially a large hispanic and african-american base who also (strangely) voted for him. Are they just happier now that he is elected they can all carry guns and kill eachother and spout racism? I sure am puzzled by the hispanic votes.
  13. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Yeah, Trump is pretty much a white Rosa Parks.
  14. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Maybe chalk it up to their poor access to polling what they consider the barbarians without a college education, as well as their premature declaration of the latter's falling numbers and influence in coming decades.

    I mean, it's not like questioning the scruffy characters (stereotypes) who would visit honky-tonks in the big city will truly provide an accurate reflection and measurement of what's transpiring in the apocalyptic wastelands between large metropolitan centers and the West and Northeast coasts. Even the traditional Republican elite only grudgingly gives the badlanders respect because they have to. And closer to the grassroots (yet still haute couture) Fox survey people may be similarly reluctant and indolent to soil themselves with actual physical vicinity and mobile / landline communications contact with Walmart folk.
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    I think you have that backwards. Republicans in North Carolina dictated which bathrooms people could use. Obama said "people can figure it out on their own."

    Do you have trouble deciding which bathroom to use? If so, I can see you supporting HB2.
  16. birch Valued Senior Member

    Nevermind. I get it. Its very simple. They see trump the glamorous rich mogul making america rich, therefore enriching them. Social and environmental issues be damned, its money first. Of course.
  17. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    I do have a problem with this though, Obama does not control the regressive left, rather the regressive left have gotten so out of hand that he had to bend to them, sort of a tail that wags the dog situation, or a cordycept to an ant.

    There are two ways this could go: the regressive left will be targeted as the problem amongst democrats and disposed of, or now with any moderating power of the Clintons out of the way and with populist like Warren and Bernie more than willing to cower to the regressives, the regressives could take over the democrats and when the next political cycle of democrat rule comes (after say the disaster of trump) we could get something even worse then trump.
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2016
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    One country.
    One mind.
    Let us heal our wounds and proceed hand in hand stronger together.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    You need to be a bit careful there, as "bias" has a scientific meaning that applies here. A systemic error is a bias in the data.

    But like you suggest, not necessarily an on-purpose political bias/conspiracy.

    While news outlets do have a tendancy to cheerlead for polls that fit their political biases, that is a fairly minor issue since there are so many polls out there that are at least reasonably respected.
    But the scientifc bias/error in the polls is an ongoing and different and probably more serious issue.

    The leading theory I've seen is that Republicans don't trust pollsters and so don't respond or respond to them accurately.

    What is (to me) likely more problematic is the calibration of the polls. See, just asking people if they are going to vote isn't accurate enough, so the pollsters have to use historical data to calibrate the results against historical voting patterns. Obviously, that is particularly problematic in elections that don't match the historical patterns.

    The calibration issue came to the forefront in 2000 and/or 2004 (can't remember exactly) with the conspiracy theories about Bush stealing the election(s). People misundersood the re-calibrating of the exit poll data as an attempt to hide a rigged election, assuming incorrectly that exit polls stand on their own, when in fact they do not.
  20. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Missed this before:
    Several of those answers are not mutually exclusive and a more rationally worded version of #3 is certainly true along with others.
    Yazata likes this.
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That wasn't the issue with that "calibration" - the exit poll data was "re-calibrated" to match the machine count, not assumptions about who had and had not voted, been polled, etc.

    And yes, in a couple of places it clearly indicated some kind of vote rigging in the machines. It was correlated with machine type and supervision, for example - it was unnecessary in polling places that kept paper records of the votes, polling places supervised by Democratic administrations, etc. In those places the exit polls as originally calibrated matched the vote count very well.
    No, it isn't. Newspaper editors do tend to be liberal, but not particularly leftist, and no more so than equivalently educated and informed people in general.
    You again post fiction directly contradicted by easily found physical fact. Why is this dependence on fictional accounts so strongly correlated with Republican Party voting in general and support for Trump in particular?
  22. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Considering the nonstop slamming of Trump and his supporters in the media as the scum of the earth and "a basket of deplorables", I think the "shy Trump voter" theory is quite reasonable. Many Trump supporters may have been too embarrassed to admit to pollsters that they were voting for Trump.
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    What total proportion/percentage of Muslims in the world would be terrorists, in your opinion?
    And what total proportion of current Muslim immigrants to United States would be terrorists?

    Do these statistics justify banning all Muslim immigration to the United States?

Share This Page