The Election Results Thread

[sol]

One half of the country had better step out of their bubble and start finding some fucking common ground with the other half of the country that has felt its been ignored and marginalized for the better part of a decade or the self-fulfilling prophecy will come to pass and no progress will be had

Hilarious.  You could have said the exact same thing in 2008, when the country supported Democrats much more overwhelmingly than they now support Republicans.  But rather than seeking common ground, Republicans immediately doubled down on full obstructionism, pledging complete gridlock.  They literally shut down the US government in protest.

It's pretty rich to see those same folks now expecting Democrats to suddenly forgive and forget.  By all rights, Democrats should now publicly say they will oppose anything and everything Trump tries to do.  They should filibustered or reject every appointment (CFPB anyone?) and vote to reject every appropriation bill if Congress doesn't advance their minority pet agenda.  After it gets built, they should vote to defund the wall 68 times even though it is the president's signature accomplishment.

Republicans have zero room to talk about expecting cooperation, after the last 8 years.

[mm1970]

One half of the country had better step out of their bubble and start finding some fucking common ground with the other half of the country that has felt its been ignored and marginalized for the better part of a decade or the self-fulfilling prophecy will come to pass and no progress will be had

Hilarious.  You could have said the exact same thing in 2008, when the country supported Democrats much more overwhelmingly than they now support Republicans.  But rather than seeking common ground, Republicans immediately doubled down on full obstructionism, pledging complete gridlock.  They literally shut down the US government in protest.

It's pretty rich to see those same folks now expecting Democrats to suddenly forgive and forget.  By all rights, Democrats should now publicly say they will oppose anything and everything Trump tries to do.  They should filibustered or reject every appointment (CFPB anyone?) and vote to reject every appropriation bill if Congress doesn't advance their minority pet agenda.  After it gets built, they should vote to defund the wall 68 times even though it is the president's signature accomplishment.

Republicans have zero room to talk about expecting cooperation, after the last 8 years.

My own new Senator essentially said just that.

[Lagom]

I think it's clear we're at an impasse. The Trumpers will never accept anything but their current worldview. The rest of us have all been hoodwinked, of course. Doesn't matter that there are literally many dozens of clips of Trump expressing extreme misogyny, inciting/abetting hate, appealing to bigotry, etc. They were all taken out of context! It doesn't matter that Pence and almost literally every name in his potential cabinet are either true-believing Evangelical extremists, police state supporters, and/or climate change deniers. It doesn't matter that his likely secretary of state wants to bring back McCarthy-style witch hunts (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/newt-gingrich-house-un-american-activities-committee/index.html).

It doesn't matter that all of the above is easily verifiable fact, absent any spin whatsoever. The Trumpers have an answer for everything, naturally. Perhaps they think none of the above is a problem, but more likely they think somehow these facts are the result of spin. Their candidate has no flaws other than he's "crude." Indeed, it appears anyone who doesn't support Trump, even those that dislike the Democratic party and would prefer not to vote for it (aka me), are the ones residing in an echo chamber. Not much more needs to be said, it seems.

[Jack]

...his campaign was based in part on stoking bigotry among his base...

Of course it was.  So was Clinton's.  Attacking LGBT people and police are both deplorable, but the "win at all costs" philosophy of both major parties leads to those results.

Quit lying. Clinton's campaign did not attack "police." The only ones attacked were criminal jackbooted thugs who happen to wear blue uniforms and commit their offenses under the color of law. The only thing "deplorable" would be defending them instead of stripping that uniform from them!

[MDM]

...his campaign was based in part on stoking bigotry among his base...

Of course it was.  So was Clinton's.  Attacking LGBT people and police are both deplorable, but the "win at all costs" philosophy of both major parties leads to those results.

Quit lying. Clinton's campaign did not attack "police." The only ones attacked were criminal jackbooted thugs who happen to wear blue uniforms and commit their offenses under the color of law. The only thing "deplorable" would be defending them instead of stripping that uniform from them!

Ok, resorting to Poe's law here because http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/17/two-philly-officers-shot-latest-ambush-attack-police/, etc.

[Chris22]

I think it's clear we're at an impasse. The Trumpers will never accept anything but their current worldview. The rest of us have all been hoodwinked, of course. Doesn't matter that there are literally many dozens of clips of Trump expressing extreme misogyny, inciting/abetting hate, appealing to bigotry, etc. They were all taken out of context! It doesn't matter that Pence and almost literally every name in his potential cabinet are either true-believing Evangelical extremists, police state supporters, and/or climate change deniers. It doesn't matter that his likely secretary of state wants to bring back McCarthy-style witch hunts (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/newt-gingrich-house-un-american-activities-committee/index.html).

It doesn't matter that all of the above is easily verifiable fact, absent any spin whatsoever. The Trumpers have an answer for everything, naturally. Perhaps they think none of the above is a problem, but more likely they think somehow these facts are the result of spin. Their candidate has no flaws other than he's "crude." Indeed, it appears anyone who doesn't support Trump, even those that dislike the Democratic party and would prefer not to vote for it (aka me), are the ones residing in an echo chamber. Not much more needs to be said, it seems.

Come on man, you don't think that exact post could be written by "Trumpers" about Clinton supporters just by changing the names?  Your first line is especially ironic given that the prevailing opinion from the left seems to be "Trump voters just vote for him because they're ignorant uneducated morons."

[mm1970]

Doesn't matter that there are literally many dozens of clips of Trump expressing extreme misogyny, inciting/abetting hate, appealing to bigotry, etc. They were all taken out of context!

This just astounds me.  There is no "context", unless it was someone saying "it would be wrong for someone to say XXX", and you clipped out the "it would be wrong to".

Oh, he was making a joke?  Hardly.  Not. Fucking. Funny.

[Lagom]

I think it's clear we're at an impasse. The Trumpers will never accept anything but their current worldview. The rest of us have all been hoodwinked, of course. Doesn't matter that there are literally many dozens of clips of Trump expressing extreme misogyny, inciting/abetting hate, appealing to bigotry, etc. They were all taken out of context! It doesn't matter that Pence and almost literally every name in his potential cabinet are either true-believing Evangelical extremists, police state supporters, and/or climate change deniers. It doesn't matter that his likely secretary of state wants to bring back McCarthy-style witch hunts (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/newt-gingrich-house-un-american-activities-committee/index.html).

It doesn't matter that all of the above is easily verifiable fact, absent any spin whatsoever. The Trumpers have an answer for everything, naturally. Perhaps they think none of the above is a problem, but more likely they think somehow these facts are the result of spin. Their candidate has no flaws other than he's "crude." Indeed, it appears anyone who doesn't support Trump, even those that dislike the Democratic party and would prefer not to vote for it (aka me), are the ones residing in an echo chamber. Not much more needs to be said, it seems.

Come on man, you don't think that exact post could be written by "Trumpers" about Clinton supporters just by changing the names?  Your first line is especially ironic given that the prevailing opinion from the left seems to be "Trump voters just vote for him because they're ignorant uneducated morons."

?

I am not on particularly on the left, nor have I ever expressed that opinion about Trump supporters in general. In fact, on this very forum I have empathized with them, especially those in lower-middle class middle America.

But anyone reading this thread with a remotely open mind will see nothing by denial and deflection from the Trump supporters that have shown up. They can't admit a single flaw in him, no matter what evidence is presented.  I mean literally that's what's happening, so I find your post to be what's especially ironic. It's really quite remarkable. I will happily go on all day about Clinton's flaws, if it makes you feel better.

[TexasRunner]

I think it's clear we're at an impasse. The Trumpers will never accept anything but their current worldview. The rest of us have all been hoodwinked, of course. Doesn't matter that there are literally many dozens of clips of Trump expressing extreme misogyny, inciting/abetting hate, appealing to bigotry, etc. They were all taken out of context! It doesn't matter that Pence and almost literally every name in his potential cabinet are either true-believing Evangelical extremists, police state supporters, and/or climate change deniers. It doesn't matter that his likely secretary of state wants to bring back McCarthy-style witch hunts (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/newt-gingrich-house-un-american-activities-committee/index.html).

It doesn't matter that all of the above is easily verifiable fact, absent any spin whatsoever. The Trumpers have an answer for everything, naturally. Perhaps they think none of the above is a problem, but more likely they think somehow these facts are the result of spin. Their candidate has no flaws other than he's "crude." Indeed, it appears anyone who doesn't support Trump, even those that dislike the Democratic party and would prefer not to vote for it (aka me), are the ones residing in an echo chamber. Not much more needs to be said, it seems.

Come on man, you don't think that exact post could be written by "Trumpers" about Clinton supporters just by changing the names?  Your first line is especially ironic given that the prevailing opinion from the left seems to be "Trump voters just vote for him because they're ignorant uneducated morons."

?

I am not on particularly on the left, nor have I ever expressed that opinion about Trump supporters in general. In fact, on this very forum I have empathized with them, especially those in lower-middle class middle America.

But anyone reading this thread with a remotely open mind will see nothing by denial and deflection from the Trump supporters that have shown up. They can't admit a single flaw in him, no matter what evidence is presented.  I mean literally that's what's happening, so I find your post to be what's especially ironic. It's really quite remarkable. I will happily go on all day about Clinton's flaws, if it makes you feel better.

That is simply not true.

I'll certainly admit that he's lewd and crass.  And definitely misogynistic to the extent that most (dare I saw all) men are.  But insofar as labeling him a racist its your cognitive dissonance that painted that picture.  Trump won 8% of the black vote.  If he is nearly as racist as he has been painted, why did 1.4 million black voters pick him?
...

[LadyStache in Baja]

Come on man, you don't think that exact post could be written by "Trumpers" about Clinton supporters just by changing the names?  Your first line is especially ironic given that the prevailing opinion from the left seems to be "Trump voters just vote for him because they're ignorant uneducated morons."

Lagom,
I agree with Chris22.  Have you watched Fox news?  Ever?  All day long it talks about the corrupt and terrible Democrats, led by their Crooked queen.  All the terrible facts you mention above literally do NOT show up in their newsfeeds or on their Fox news.  In other words, they are looking at a completely separate set of articles, news clips, and videos. 

They think the way they do because of the media they consume, and guess what, so do you and I.  In today's Facebook world, the news we consume is incredibly biased and we only see what supports our current world view.  People used to consume a more balanced diet of biased news, now we tend to consume only Right or only Left.

And that's why its so hard to understand each other.  The left has spent no time sitting with the Right's worldview, and vice versa. 

Of course nobody in their right mind who has consumed news that highlights "clips of Trump expressing extreme misogyny, inciting/abetting hate, appealing to bigotry, etc." would vote for him.  Here's the thing, his voters literally did not see those clips.

They saw clips that talk about how premiums are rising with Obamacare, and Clinton is more of the same.  They saw clips of how much money Clinton got paid by big banks to do speeches.  And clips of suspicious links between favors and Clinton Foundation donations.  They saw clips of Clinton referring to themselves (hard-working Americans!) as a Basket of Deplorables.  That is what they saw, and that is ALL they saw. 

They did not see that in addition to the stuff in your newsfeed, and weigh the arguments, weigh the set of facts and decide to vote for a misogynist, racist, fascist. 

This is not to see that I agree with them.  I am worried about climate change.  And I voted for Sanders in the primary.  I'm just trying to point out where his voters are coming from (the majority...yes, a tiny radical part of them are racist misogynists, but they are not reflective of the whole). 

Something must be done about our MEDIA!  You want to know what is wrong with our country?  It is not the basket of deplorables.  This is what is wrong with our democracy:

"Since the beginning of 2016, ABC’s World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News have devoted just 32 minutes to issues coverage, according to Andrew Tyndall.

Differentiating issues coverage from daily campaign coverage where policy topics might be addressed, Tyndall defines issues coverage by a newscast this way: “It takes a public policy, outlines the societal problem that needs to be addressed, describes the candidates' platform positions and proposed solutions, and evaluates their efficacy.”

And here’s how that kind of in-depth coverage breaks down, year to date [as of October 2016], by network:

ABC: 8 minutes, all of which covered terrorism.

NBC: 8 minutes for terrorism, LBGT issues, and foreign policy.

CBS: 16 minutes for foreign policy, terrorism, immigration, policing, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

And this remarkable finding from Tyndall [emphasis added]:

No trade, no healthcare, no climate change, no drugs, no poverty, no guns, no infrastructure, no deficits. To the extent that these issues have been mentioned, it has been on the candidates' terms, not on the networks' initiative."
--src: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/26/study-confirms-network-evening-newscasts-have-abandoned-policy-coverage-2016-campaign/214120

I have to repeat this, in a shouting bold voice once more because it's so fucking irresponsible: "Since the beginning of 2016, ABC’s World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News have devoted just 32 minutes to issues coverage".  IN A FUCKING YEAR!

In Jesus's words, forgive that Basket of Deplorables, and those ivory tower celebrity liberals, because "they know not what they do".   :(

[Lagom]

@PriestTheRunner - What? Your quote is just you saying he's crude. You excuse his misogyny, so no credit there. You also excused even the crudeness in another post, referencing "jokes" and "tough New York tough-guy talk." I stand by my statement.

@LadyStache - I don't disagree with pretty much any of that. I have frequently and publicly empathized with the core Trump voters. It's the ones who pretend to have carefully considered all angles (i.e. the ones in this thread) that I take issue with.

[pbkmaine]

I am much more worried about Pence than Trump, to be honest. Pence has said his role model is Dick Cheney. Aside from his stands on women's reproductive rights, sex education and gay "conversion therapy", he does not believe that humans evolved from apes, tobacco causes cancer, the climate is changing.

[LeRainDrop]

I am much more worried about Pence than Trump, to be honest. Pence has said his role model is Dick Cheney. Aside from his stands on women's reproductive rights, sex education and gay "conversion therapy", he does not believe that 1) humans evolved from apes, tobacco causes cancer, the climate is changing.

I agree with you PBK.  I can at least rationalize on Trump that he has been putting on a show to win the election and will hopefully return to more pragmatic governance and moderate thinking.  Trump is scary because we don't really know what he'll do, but Pence is especially scary because we do know and it's so bad.

[Northwestie]

Guess who is in the running for head of the Interior Department?  Sarah Palin.  Holy shite.

[Lagom]

Indeed. One thing the Trump supporters have yet to respond to in this thread, the travesty that is his likely cabinet. I'm with you guys. If he at least had non-psycho Republicans as advisors, I would be more willing to be cautiously optimistic. I suppose there's still time for this to change.

[AlanStache]

Guess who is in the running for head of the Interior Department?  Sarah Palin.  Holy shite.

Shit, does that mean we have to call snowmobiles "snow machines" again?

[Northwestie]

First, for Secretary of the Interior, some campaign aides have said that they are looking into Sarah Palin. Yes, that Sarah Palin, one of the most grossly unqualified politicians to ever enter the public eye, who understands nothing about science, and who has open contempt for nature and wildlife. The same Sarah Palin who couldn’t find her way out of a wet paper bag without an oil company drilling an opening for her. Or have you already forgotten about “Drill, baby, drill”?
 
But don’t worry: Apparently Palin isn’t Trump’s first choice. That belongs to Forrest Lucas, an oil executive, because of course. And don’t worry about Palin, either, as Trump has expressed an interest in having her on his cabinet somewhere anyway. Unless he finds a spot for J. R. Ewing first.

As for the second spot I want to focus on, I hope you’re sitting down.

Who would make a better Secretary of Education than… Ben Carson?

Answer: Practically every human being on Earth.

Remember Ben Carson? While he may be a retired neurosurgeon (and by all accounts an excellent one), he has some decidedly terrible views on science. Unless maybe I’m wrong, and evolution really is satanic and the Big Bang really is a fairy tale. But I’m pretty sure they aren’t.
 
So yes, seriously, Trump is considering putting a creationist in charge of this great nation’s education program. The same guy who hypocritically said, “To willfully ignore evidence that you have for some ideological reason is wrong,” and “I just don't have that much faith [in the Big Bang, evolution, and global warming], but [scientists] are welcome to believe whatever they want to believe. I'm welcome to believe what I want to believe."

Sigh. No, you’re not welcome to deny facts, Dr. Carson. Unless, of course, Trump puts you in a position where you have the imprimatur of the Presidency to do so.

To be fair, Trump has also said he’ll diminish or cut the Education Department entirely, so yay?

As for everything else, it just gets worse. Trump picked Myron Ebell, a climate change denier, to head up his EPA transition team. That’s no surprise, as he had already chosen a climate change denying crackpot, Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), as his energy advisor during the campaign.

Trump, of course, has stated repeatedly that climate change is a hoax (then denied he said it, despite the tweet still being in his timeline). He has said he’ll end all federal renewable energy development, he’ll pull the US out of the Paris climate change agreement, and he’ll kill every environmental safeguard the Obama Administration put into place.

Mind you, these are just names being floated around; he may go with different people. But not entirely different; I’m sure the ones he picks will be just as mustache-twirlingly villainous and incompetent for their designated jobs as the names we’ve already heard.

The bigger picture isn’t hard to see here; Trump will be a disaster for the nation, for the climate, and for the world. And he’s still over a month out from taking the reins. This is a nightmare, and one we won’t be able to wake up from for a long time. All we can do now is stay aware, make our voices heard, and hope that nothing he does is irrevocable. There is some hope, but we'll have to work hard to mitigate any damage a Trump presidency will inevitably do.

[accolay]

How about Jamie Dimon for Treasury Secretary?
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/10/donald-trump-advisors-considered-jpmorgans-jamie-dimon-for-treasury-secretary-sources.html

[Northwestie]

Lovely reactions:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/countless-acts-of-hate-have-been-carried-out-since-trumps-win_us_5825ee38e4b02d21bbc86211

[frugalnacho]

UNSUBSCRIBE

[accolay]

I mean, how do I even have a conversation with this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-fan-msnbc-rant_us_5825b067e4b0c4b63b0c2a53

[TrulyStashin]

quit trying to pretend this is about racism or sexism, and LEARN SOMETHING for once!

Like the republicans after 2012 learned they had to be more inclusive in order to expand their voter base? 

The only lesson to be learned here is that bigoted demagoguery is an efficient motivator of a bigoted electorate.  I have never been more ashamed of my countrymen.

I'm ashamed of them too.

But you're wrong: Trump didn't win because of his bigotry; he won because of his populist anti-establishment message. Democrats need to understand that! You know how for the last several elections -- including the Republican primary -- Democrats were laughing it up about how out-of-touch the establishment Republicans were? Well, they were just looking at themselves through a funhouse mirror. If they don't realize that (and toss the Clinton faction out on their ear and do a hard turn to port in favor of Bernie-esque polices, whether championed by Bernie himself or by some other suitable progressive, such as Elizabeth Warren), they are going to be utterly screwed for at least the next eight years.

The fact that Trump's anti-establishment message was packaged with the bigotry should have destroyed his support as a matter of principle, but it didn't and that's the disgusting part. I'm disgusted not by the complete monsters who actually agreed with Trump's bigotry -- their worthlessness was already well-established and thus could be ignored -- but by the otherwise-moral people who failed to repudiate it because they cared more about their goddamn bread and circuses.

This, exactly.

Trump won because some Americans are racist and endorsed his bigotry AND because many, many more Americans overlooked it or think it won't matter.  As a result, he has unleashed the evil forces that are the root of America's greatest tragedies. 

To those who think it won't matter..... What if you're wrong?

Is it okay if:


Muslims are banned entry
American Muslims are surveiled without probable cause
A deportation force begins identifying, arresting and deporting illegal immigrants
SCOTUS overturns the right to privacy, resulting in: LGBT-Americans losing the right to marry and women losing the right to buy birth control or have an abortion
Journalists are sued over their negative coverage
DOJ and the FBI investigate, pursue and prosecute Trump's political opponents and dissidents

He has made promises that cannot be kept -- Rust Belt industrial jobs are not coming back.  When his voters begin to realize they were conned and their anger wells up, how will he handle it?  If racism, homophobia, misogyny worked for him this time.  Will he double-down in the future?

History tells us over and over again that hate is viral and cannot be easily contained or managed.

[chad]

My main worry about Trump has always been that he would behave like an authoritarian: ruling by executive order, installing loyalists in the military leadership, using regulatory authority to destroy businesses and media corporations he dislikes, and so on.

I've never been certain he'd do these things, but he has said he would do them, and to me this is what makes sense to be afraid of even if you're a conservative (as I am).

So I ask: what are the early signs that he will or will not end up going down this authoritarian path?

One sign might be who he nominates to the supreme court. Another might be how he reacts to the inevitable obstruction he'll run into from democrats in the senate. If he makes a reasonable nomination to the supreme court (as he's promised to do), maybe that is a sign that he's willing to have executive orders hemmed in a bit. And, if he reacts to obstruction in the senate by making compromises or applying political pressure (rather than running around congress with executive orders), that's a good sign that he intends to stick with the constitutional framework.

[onlykelsey]

My main worry about Trump has always been that he would behave like an authoritarian: ruling by executive order, installing loyalists in the military leadership, using regulatory authority to destroy businesses and media corporations he dislikes, and so on.

I've never been certain he'd do these things, but he has said he would do them, and to me this is what makes sense to be afraid of even if you're a conservative (as I am).

So I ask: what are the early signs that he will or will not end up going down this authoritarian path?

One sign might be who he nominates to the supreme court. Another might be how he reacts to the inevitable obstruction he'll run into from democrats in the senate. If he makes a reasonable nomination to the supreme court (as he's promised to do), maybe that is a sign that he's willing to have executive orders hemmed in a bit. And, if he reacts to obstruction in the senate by making compromises or applying political pressure (rather than running around congress with executive orders), that's a good sign that he intends to stick with the constitutional framework.

Yeah, that's my worst fear, as well.  I have been thinking about how to counter that in the last few days... ACLU donations?  calls to Congresspeople?

[chad]

I honestly don't think there's much that can be done if Trump is determined enough.

I'm actually relieved that republicans captured both houses, since I think that a democratic senate would have been even more frustrating for Trump and more likely to push him in the direction of authoritarianism.

For the record, I blame both Bush and Obama for repeatedly abusing executive authority. They really set a dangerous precedent, and now Trump himself has said that the way is paved for this sort of abuse.

[TexasRunner]

Is it okay if:

Muslims are banned entry  -Yes.  They aren't citizens.  If they are from a anti-American geo-political area, they don't have any right to come into this country.  Get over it.
American Muslims are surveiled without probable cause  -Thanks to Obama, they already are... Or did you forget about NSA?...
A deportation force begins identifying, arresting and deporting illegal immigrants  -DT has brough his position down to those who break laws here (and not just by being here.  Show me, speicifally, where this can be found in his policies.  Take a hint. It. Isn't. There.
SCOTUS overturns the right to privacy, resulting in: LGBT-Americans losing the right to marry and women losing the right to buy birth control or have an abortion  -It takes "compelling evidence" to overturn a precedent.  Having a new set of judges isn't compelling evidence.  Besides, he will be replacing Scalia, the furthest right judge you could imagine.  Nothing will be different (unless other judges die off / are replaced).
Journalists are sued over their negative coverage   -If a "journalist" is committing slander with no basis in fact, then yes they should be sued.
DOJ and the FBI investigate, pursue and prosecute Trump's political opponents and dissidents   -Really?...  If you are talking about HRC, it ain't gonna happen.

I can't really believe how these views aren't discussed.

[Northwestie]

The fact that Trump's anti-establishment message was packaged with the bigotry should have destroyed his support as a matter of principle, but it didn't and that's the disgusting part. I'm disgusted not by the complete monsters who actually agreed with Trump's bigotry -- their worthlessness was already well-established and thus could be ignored -- but by the otherwise-moral people who failed to repudiate it because they cared more about their goddamn bread and circuses.

This, exactly.

Trump won because some Americans are racist and endorsed his bigotry AND because many, many more Americans overlooked it or think it won't matter.  As a result, he has unleashed the evil forces that are the root of America's greatest tragedies. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very dissapointed in the vulgal language and race to the bottom with Trump.  He is a vile person.

[dragoncar]

Are you kidding me?  He literally said "that would be a shame but I haven't heard about it"...  Then he tried to steer the conversation by turning to something more positive.  That isn't his failure but rather the media taking a 'nothing' event and making something out of it.  If you want a similar example, remember the outcry that Trump didn't denounce the KKK "quick enough" when he was on a talk show.

No, I'm not kidding you -- this is my whole point.  He sticks out the support "that's a shame but my supporters are certainly passionate" and then later "clarifies" that he doesn't support violence.

Similar to the excuse given about the above video of him "inciting violence."  I'll punch you in the face, no wait I'm only joking.  His violent followers will hear the first part and his non-violent followers will hear the second part.

And what you see as a stamp of approval, I see as the nominee not wanting to alienate his own supporters.  What you said ("I personally think protesting a rally is kinda a dick move") is something I see as the equivalent of Trump saying "maybe he should have been roughed up".  It is the same sentiment-  plus you gotta remember that the Drumf is from New York, viewing him in that context is important.

Yeah, he doesn't want to alienate his racist supporters.  He's not being racist per se, he's just fine with his voters being racist as long as they get him elected.

I completely agree!  But as you even noted above, I don't see him "not denouncing" violence based on the quotes.  I do see cognitive dissonance and the media skewing things into something they are not.

Are you saying I have cognitive dissonance?  Because I'll have you know that I've scored three Lamberts on the Adams dissonance resistance scale.  I also have one of the highest IQs, so please don’t feel so stupid or insecure... it’s not your fault.

[TexasRunner]

Are you kidding me?  He literally said "that would be a shame but I haven't heard about it"...  Then he tried to steer the conversation by turning to something more positive.  That isn't his failure but rather the media taking a 'nothing' event and making something out of it.  If you want a similar example, remember the outcry that Trump didn't denounce the KKK "quick enough" when he was on a talk show.

No, I'm not kidding you -- this is my whole point.  He sticks out the support "that's a shame but my supporters are certainly passionate" and then later "clarifies" that he doesn't support violence.

Similar to the excuse given about the above video of him "inciting violence."  I'll punch you in the face, no wait I'm only joking.  His violent followers will hear the first part and his non-violent followers will hear the second part.

I highlighted the relevant portions.  He opened with it being a shame.  As in shameful.  The left's point that he didn't denounce it "harder" isn't going to get much sympathy from the right.

And what you see as a stamp of approval, I see as the nominee not wanting to alienate his own supporters.  What you said ("I personally think protesting a rally is kinda a dick move") is something I see as the equivalent of Trump saying "maybe he should have been roughed up".  It is the same sentiment-  plus you gotta remember that the Drumf is from New York, viewing him in that context is important.

Yeah, he doesn't want to alienate his racist supporters.  He's not being racist per se, he's just fine with his voters being racist as long as they get him elected.

Not what I said.  I was pointing out motivation.  Besides... as I noted above, Trump started out by saying "That would be a shame", not sure how much clearer he could be than that.

I completely agree!  But as you even noted above, I don't see him "not denouncing" violence based on the quotes.  I do see cognitive dissonance and the media skewing things into something they are not.

Are you saying I have cognitive dissonance?  Because I'll have you know that I've scored three Lamberts on the Adams dissonance resistance scale.  I also have one of the highest IQs, so please don’t feel so stupid or insecure... it’s not your fault.

No need to get huffy.  I was addressing that towards the left in general and the media specifically (as in, I don't think they intentionally skew his words to be more extreme than they are, but cognitive dissonance pushes them into that territory).

[Jack]

Are you kidding me?  He literally said "that would be a shame but I haven't heard about it"...  Then he tried to steer the conversation by turning to something more positive.  That isn't his failure but rather the media taking a 'nothing' event and making something out of it.  If you want a similar example, remember the outcry that Trump didn't denounce the KKK "quick enough" when he was on a talk show.

No, I'm not kidding you -- this is my whole point.  He sticks out the support "that's a shame but my supporters are certainly passionate" and then later "clarifies" that he doesn't support violence.

Similar to the excuse given about the above video of him "inciting violence."  I'll punch you in the face, no wait I'm only joking.  His violent followers will hear the first part and his non-violent followers will hear the second part.

I highlighted the relevant portions.  He opened with it being a shame.  As in shameful.  The left's point that he didn't denounce it "harder" isn't going to get much sympathy from the right.

And what you see as a stamp of approval, I see as the nominee not wanting to alienate his own supporters.  What you said ("I personally think protesting a rally is kinda a dick move") is something I see as the equivalent of Trump saying "maybe he should have been roughed up".  It is the same sentiment-  plus you gotta remember that the Drumf is from New York, viewing him in that context is important.

Yeah, he doesn't want to alienate his racist supporters.  He's not being racist per se, he's just fine with his voters being racist as long as they get him elected.

Not what I said.  I was pointing out motivation.  Besides... as I noted above, Trump started out by saying "That would be a shame", not sure how much clearer he could be than that.

Trump was using a rhetorical technique called apophasis.

I'll be charitable: I won't talk about what an asshole Trump is for using apophasis to incite violence and then disclaim responsibility. I also won't address how woefully ignorant his supporters are when they don't recognize the tactic. I won't question their parentage or disparage their schooling; that would be mean and totally uncalled-for.

And of course, any claim alleging that I insulted PriestTheRunner or anyone else just now would be totally and categorically false.

(But seriously: it really would be. I'm just trying to make a point.)

[AlanStache]

"That would be a shame..."

Clearly one set of words can be heard in many ways, Trump is a master of this. 

"Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know," Trump said. "But I tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if Hillary gets to put her judges in, right now we're tied."

Tony Soprano saying the same thing as Balki from "Perfect Strangers" can get a totally different meaning. 

[TexasRunner]

Trump was using a rhetorical technique called apophasis.

I'll be charitable: I won't talk about what an asshole Trump is for using apophasis to incite violence and then disclaim responsibility. I also won't address how woefully ignorant his supporters are when they don't recognize the tactic. I won't question their parentage or disparage their schooling; that would be mean and totally uncalled-for.

And of course, any claim alleging that I insulted PriestTheRunner or anyone else just now would be totally and categorically false.

(But seriously: it really would be. I'm just trying to make a point.)

Yes and no...  It isn't exactly apophasis because he didn't bring it up in that instance (he was asked the question), but yes he uses that a lot.

[RangerOne]

Unfortunately, crying wolf like the person who made up a story about two men attacking her and stealing her wallet and hijab on Wednesday doesn't help anyone. 

I believe the LGBT kids who committed suicide felt real pain.  I believe that, if those kids had a better appreciation of the very low likelihood that Trump/Pence will bring to fruition any of the extreme things Trump/Pence have been accused of planning to implement, said kids would not have felt as much pain.

...his campaign was based in part on stoking bigotry among his base...

Of course it was.  So was Clinton's.  Attacking LGBT people and police are both deplorable, but the "win at all costs" philosophy of both major parties leads to those results.

Thank you for this (yet again) well-reasoned post MDM. Instead of stoking fear and blasting the horrors that could (but largely most likely won't) happen, perhaps supporters of LGBT supporters should step out of their bubble and help concerned citizens find positive action and understanding of the low likelihood of drastic changes to their daily lives in the near future. 

Trump won. He's the president, and his party have majorities in both the Senate and the HOR. One half of the country had better step out of their bubble and start finding some fucking common ground with the other half of the country that has felt its been ignored and marginalized for the better part of a decade or the self-fulfilling prophecy will come to pass and no progress will be had with President Trump, either.

I'll certainly admit that he's lewd and crass.  And definitely misogynistic to the extent that most (dare I saw all) men are.  But insofar as labeling him a racist its your cognitive dissonance that painted that picture.  Trump won 8% of the black vote.  If he is nearly as racist as he has been painted, why did 1.4 million black voters pick him?...

Edit - And before you try to disagree with that, go back through the last couple pages of the thread and carefully note which posts asked questions or provided information that you completely ignored. Cognitive dissonance is certainly uncomfortable, but sometimes we have to face our demons.

And can you point out what, exactly, I'm ignoring?

My point is, the image of Trump that has been painted by the media and the destructive campaigning by both sides has resulted in a bitter election where we have riots and people polling for the electoral college to abandon our government's structure.  There is a window, right now, for the democratic party to step out of the echo chamber and find common ground that will advance the nation as a whole- but it only happens if people realize Trump isn't the Hilteresque monster that he is painted as. 

Just out of curiosity, did you watch his victory speech?  It might surprise you.

  One would think that with so much evidence of Trump's calling for violence and hate and racisim, there would be more links and videos of him saying these things directly...

Just out of curiosity, did you watch his victory speech?  It might surprise you.

Everyone knows what he said in his victory speech. It was all over the news, even if I hadn't watched it. I was glad he tried to be presidential for once, but that doesn't change anything about the damage that now needs to be undone......

Clearly we all need to collaborate if we want to move forward productively, but as already been pointed out ad naseum, we know Republicans  in congress are vehemently opposed to reaching across the aisle and the incoming administration appears at least as unwilling to try. One need only read through the info on probable cabinet members to see the picture there.

And the bubble stays in tact, safely contained in the echo chamber of similar opinions and sound bites taken protectively out of context.

Clearly Trump is in some or large part a whiplash to marginalization under the Neoliberals and Obama. The  left pushed too hard for too long to silence and shut down dissenting view points instead finding compromise and common ground they built up minorities versus the rest of America. As left leaning, atheist 30 something millennial I believe now that most of that is true.

But because Trump is part of an ugly response to that force (baring the good reasons for supporting him like anti-trade and pro working class), it becomes less likely he will be able to do anything to heal a divide. He plays nice sometimes but he is a very petty man and he can't keep his mouth shut. You don't have to sound bite Trump, he does it for you when he is tweeting his every thought.

It is a rare thing that handing a person a ton of power and fame will make them a better person. Trump, at least in public life, has never been a particularly good person or inspiring leader so there is next to zero reason to expect it now. We can hope for the best but you have to be realistic.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

I'm just excited that everyone acknowledges the Patriot Act is bad again.

[bacchi]

I'm just excited that everyone acknowledges the Patriot Act is bad again.

He said that he's in favor of the Patriot Act less than a year ago. Is he now against it?

http://truthinmedia.com/trump-supports-reauthorizing-patriot-act-nsa-metadata-collection/

[dragoncar]

I completely agree!  But as you even noted above, I don't see him "not denouncing" violence based on the quotes.  I do see cognitive dissonance and the media skewing things into something they are not.

Are you saying I have cognitive dissonance?  Because I'll have you know that I've scored three Lamberts on the Adams dissonance resistance scale.  I also have one of the highest IQs, so please don’t feel so stupid or insecure... it’s not your fault.

No need to get huffy.  I was addressing that towards the left in general and the media specifically (as in, I don't think they intentionally skew his words to be more extreme than they are, but cognitive dissonance pushes them into that territory).

Interesting that you found my response huffy.