What's really going on out in the country? Why

[Quidnon?]

Fake news, on the other hand, is news that is *made up* by the "journalist" or agency publishing the news. They know it to be false but disseminate the information anyway.

Pretty easy to distinguish, really.

-W

That just sounds like the Onion, to me.  Anyway, I don't trust any reporting on anything, until enough time has passed that a number of different agencies have had the chance to look at the claims made and either verify or debunk them.  The truth tends to come out eventually, but so many people are influenced by the early reporting claims and never really come around to understand that they were deceived by either biased conjecture or outright lies (from sources or journalists, doesn't matter).  It is all damaging to the public.  The "hands up, don't shoot" thing led directly to rioting in Ferguson, among other places.  Do you still believe that happened?

[MrMoogle]

Fake news, on the other hand, is news that is *made up* by the "journalist" or agency publishing the news. They know it to be false but disseminate the information anyway.

Pretty easy to distinguish, really.

-W

That just sounds like the Onion, to me.  Anyway, I don't trust any reporting on anything, until enough time has passed that a number of different agencies have had the chance to look at the claims made and either verify or debunk them.  The truth tends to come out eventually, but so many people are influenced by the early reporting claims and never really come around to understand that they were deceived by either biased conjecture or outright lies (from sources or journalists, doesn't matter).  It is all damaging to the public.  The "hands up, don't shoot" thing led directly to rioting in Ferguson, among other places.  Do you still believe that happened?

The timeline doesn't really fit that narrative for Ferguson.  Rioting was already going on by the time media showed up.  It more likely had to do with the fact that his body was lying on the street for hours.  It could have increased or prolonged rioting, but that's hard to prove. 

[waltworks]

That just sounds like the Onion, to me.

Yes, that's exactly right. Good work, you now understand "fake" and "false".

-W

[Quidnon?]

That just sounds like the Onion, to me.

Yes, that's exactly right. Good work, you now understand "fake" and "false".

-W

More snark.  Should I get out some dictionary definitions for you?  Perhaps starting with the word "synonym"?  Respect your elders.

[waltworks]

Not at all, I thought I just explained the "fake" and "false" distinction.  You apparently now understand it, so I think you are on the path to maybe being a more savvy consumer of media. Journalism gets stuff wrong all the time (that's why you can read retractions and corrections in basically every day's issue of the NYT, for example.) When journalists make stuff up, that's totally different than being lied to or making an honest mistake.

I'm unsure what you mean by the respecting elders thing, though.

-W

[NoStacheOhio]

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/muslim-woman-reported-trump-supporter-attack-made-story-article-1.2910944

Yet another fake news incident, about a fake hate crime.

That isn't fake news.

Pizzagate is fake news. This is a teenager lying to her parents and having it blow up in her face.

Not this article, silly; the news articles that faithfully reported her story as a hate crime.

Still not fake news.

It was false news.  If reporting of falsehoods with a presumption of accuracy isn't fake news, what would you call fake news?

When a source lies or gives you incorrect information, and you unwittingly report it, that's an error and merits a retraction or correction. Maybe some sort of chewing out from your editor about verifying facts.

When you intentionally make up blatant bullshit for either political or economic gain, that's journalistic malpractice and merits instant retraction of everything you've ever reported and permanent exile from the profession.

Part of the problem is that people who think the NYT is a shitty liberal news source that isn't worth the paper on which it's printed tend to get their news from sites where the writers have no qualms about fabricating quotes, statistics, events, etc.

[NoStacheOhio]

Respect your elders.

Don't be a dick.

[Quidnon?]

Respect your elders.

Don't be a dick.

Perhaps you should show me.

[waltworks]

If anything, I'd think the "elder" here would be me, with a long history of actually providing useful information (including here). But I don't demand respect, I figure I'll just be helpful (and occasionally snarky, when it's deserved) and earn it.

If you decide all news is untrustworthy, you're basically just on the road to nihilism (say what you will about national socialism...) I prefer the "does it make sense for Hillary Clinton, a ~70 year old woman, to have sexual appetites involving small children at pizza parlors as part of a massive conspiracy that could only be uncovered by 12 year olds on 4chan?" sort of filter, personally. But that's just me.

-W

[Quidnon?]

If anything, I'd think the "elder" here would be me, with a long history of actually providing useful information (including here). But I don't demand respect, I figure I'll just be helpful (and occasionally snarky, when it's deserved) and earn it.

I was reffering to actual age, not length of membership, but I'll admit that I was just guessing that you are younger than myself.

If you decide all news is untrustworthy, you're basically just on the road to nihilism (say what you will about national socialism...)

Well, I just learned a new word today.  I would not agree that I'm nihilist based upon what I just read.  I do think that life has a useful meaning, and that there is an objective morality that can be discovered.  I just don't think that, practically speaking, those ideals mean all that much.  Sometimes crazy crap happens, and it's nobody's fault; and other times crazy crap happens, and it was someone's fault.  I certainly believe that everyone has a purpose in life, even if the majority is to be a warning to others.

I prefer the "does it make sense for Hillary Clinton, a ~70 year old woman, to have sexual appetites involving small children at pizza parlors as part of a massive conspiracy that could only be uncovered by 12 year olds on 4chan?" sort of filter, personally. But that's just me.

I don't know what you are talking about here.  I'm guessing you are talking about the pizza-gate thing I heard a few times around this forum, but I know nothing of it.  Again, I don't pay that much attention to media, it's usually a waste of my life.  Do you care to provide details?  Or is it worth it to you?

[waltworks]

I'm glad I could help again broaden your horizons. Welcome. Hopefully you can learn from the ER portions of the forum as well!

-W

[Metric Mouse]

I'm glad I could help again broaden your horizons. Welcome. Hopefully you can learn from the ER portions of the forum as well!

-W

:D This is why I love this forum: such diverse sets of experiences to broaden my perspectives. Thank you for your positive contributions to all subjects, Walt.

[MrMoogle]

When a source lies or gives you incorrect information, and you unwittingly report it, that's an error and merits a retraction or correction. Maybe some sort of chewing out from your editor about verifying facts.

When you intentionally make up blatant bullshit for either political or economic gain, that's journalistic malpractice and merits instant retraction of everything you've ever reported and permanent exile from the profession.

Part of the problem is that people who think the NYT is a shitty liberal news source that isn't worth the paper on which it's printed tend to get their news from sites where the writers have no qualms about fabricating quotes, statistics, events, etc.

Honestly, this can get messy.  How do you know the fake news writers don't have a source? 

[ender]

Honestly, this can get messy.  How do you know the fake news writers don't have a source?

Media nowadays is far more concerned with being first to report than with accurate news.

It's an unfortunate side effect of having no consequences for blatantly lying, not bothering to fact-check their sources, and otherwise not doing due diligence prior to reporting.

[Syonyk]

It's all about the clicks.

Facts just get in the way.

[Lagom]

Indeed. Now we can all just believe whichever source best fits our worldview and claim to have done "research!" What a wonderful society we live in.

[GuitarStv]

Respect your elders.

Don't be a dick.

Perhaps you should show me.

His dick?  How would that help?

[Metric Mouse]

Indeed. Now we can all just believe whichever source best fits our worldview and claim to have done "research!" What a wonderful society we live in.

The whole world would be like the CNN Money section!

[NoStacheOhio]

Honestly, this can get messy.  How do you know the fake news writers don't have a source?

Media nowadays is far more concerned with being first to report than with accurate news.

It's an unfortunate side effect of having no consequences for blatantly lying, not bothering to fact-check their sources, and otherwise not doing due diligence prior to reporting.

Because they've said as much. WaPo interviewed two guys who sit in their living room and make up stories. Same with the kids in the Balkans.

[paddedhat]

Indeed. Now we can all just believe whichever source best fits our worldview and claim to have done "research!" What a wonderful society we live in.

  I have actually parted ways with some older friends due to this. They retire, have too much time available, and waste it getting sucked into the right wing propaganda machine. A few years in, they are spouting nonsense, and are secure in the knowledge that the crazy horseshit they spew is factual, since they spend vast amounts of time online, "researching" their positions. If you even bother to counter their delusions with factual rebuttals from quality conservative sources, they dismiss it as tainted. It's really a fascinating mess to observe.

[Metric Mouse]

Indeed. Now we can all just believe whichever source best fits our worldview and claim to have done "research!" What a wonderful society we live in.

  I have actually parted ways with some older friends due to this. They retire, have too much time available, and waste it getting sucked into the right wing propaganda machine. A few years in, they are spouting nonsense, and are secure in the knowledge that the crazy horseshit they spew is factual, since they spend vast amounts of time online, "researching" their positions. If you even bother to counter their delusions with factual rebuttals from quality conservative sources, they dismiss it as tainted. It's really a fascinating mess to observe.

This is a common reaction in believers of debunked conspiracy theories. Reading about doomsday cults, and the believers reactions when the end of the world doesn't arrive on the prophesized date, is fascinating. Even when faced with obvious, overwhelming evidence to the contrary (in this example the world didn't actually end; there's no arguing this) the believers actually INCREASE their adherence to the prophecy. I know quite a few liberals who are displaying this kind of behavior as well, in response to this year's election results. It's quite an interesting trend to observe.

[matchewed]

Respect your elders.

Don't be a dick.

Perhaps you should show me.

His dick?  How would that help?

Instant respect?

[GuitarStv]

Respect your elders.

Don't be a dick.

Perhaps you should show me.

His dick?  How would that help?

Instant respect?

Ding ding ding, we have a wiener!  :P

[TexasRunner]

Just don't trust him with any cell phones or email accounts...  lol!

[infogoon]

I have actually parted ways with some older friends due to this. They retire, have too much time available, and waste it getting sucked into the right wing propaganda machine. A few years in, they are spouting nonsense, and are secure in the knowledge that the crazy horseshit they spew is factual, since they spend vast amounts of time online, "researching" their positions. If you even bother to counter their delusions with factual rebuttals from quality conservative sources, they dismiss it as tainted. It's really a fascinating mess to observe.

Cable news is brain poison. I know many people who have been transformed from genial retirees into paranoid rage machines by a combination of being homebound and Fox News.

[waltworks]

Its not just fox news. I have seen people form political opinion by watching MTV's "get out the vote", and listening to advice from moviestars. Due diligence is required.

You may be showing your age here a little... just fyi, young people do not pay any attention to MTV anymore. It was cool when I was in high school, and I am not going to admit how long ago that was...

-W

[RangerOne]

Indeed. Now we can all just believe whichever source best fits our worldview and claim to have done "research!" What a wonderful society we live in.

  I have actually parted ways with some older friends due to this. They retire, have too much time available, and waste it getting sucked into the right wing propaganda machine. A few years in, they are spouting nonsense, and are secure in the knowledge that the crazy horseshit they spew is factual, since they spend vast amounts of time online, "researching" their positions. If you even bother to counter their delusions with factual rebuttals from quality conservative sources, they dismiss it as tainted. It's really a fascinating mess to observe.

This is a common reaction in believers of debunked conspiracy theories. Reading about doomsday cults, and the believers reactions when the end of the world doesn't arrive on the prophesized date, is fascinating. Even when faced with obvious, overwhelming evidence to the contrary (in this example the world didn't actually end; there's no arguing this) the believers actually INCREASE their adherence to the prophecy. I know quite a few liberals who are displaying this kind of behavior as well, in response to this year's election results. It's quite an interesting trend to observe.

What false truth's are your liberal friends holding onto? Just out of curiosity. That the world would crumble if Trump got elected?

[waltworks]

Right but young people are not the largest segment of voters. I'm talking people in their mid 30's to late 40's.

Peopel in the their 30-40s watch MTV?!?

Dude, seriously, you have lost touch with "young" people.

-W

[RangerOne]

MTV still exists? So glad the days of channel surfing and cable TV are nearly dead.

[Metric Mouse]

What false truth's are your liberal friends holding onto? Just out of curiosity. That the world would crumble if Trump got elected?

Trump's call to Taiwan is going to start a war with China.

Trump will begin a nuclear war at the drop of his hat.

Putin hacked election machines to elect Trump; a recount of votes will prove this.

The electoral college will vote in a different candidate.

The Trump campaign is purposefully keeping National Mall permits from a group of women who wish to demonstrate there.

Trump's election will be the single deciding factor in +2 degrees C global warming.

I mean, not super crazy stuff, but pretty clearly not backed by evidence/downright disprovable.

[MasterStache]

What false truth's are your liberal friends holding onto? Just out of curiosity. That the world would crumble if Trump got elected?

Trump's call to Taiwan is going to start a war with China.

Trump will begin a nuclear war at the drop of his hat.

Putin hacked election machines to elect Trump; a recount of votes will prove this.

The electoral college will vote in a different candidate.

The Trump campaign is purposefully keeping National Mall permits from a group of women who wish to demonstrate there.

Trump's election will be the single deciding factor in +2 degrees C global warming.

I mean, not super crazy stuff, but pretty clearly not backed by evidence/downright disprovable.

False truths or simply prophesying? I don't know your friends as you do of course. But don't we all tend to prophesize especially during a political election? Now if they are out there building underground bomb shelters and such, perhaps there is a bit more truth to there opinions. Although quite honestly, I wouldn't blame them for doing that considering Trump's rhetoric on nuclear weapons and his tendency to be very reactive in nature.

[matchewed]

What false truth's are your liberal friends holding onto? Just out of curiosity. That the world would crumble if Trump got elected?

Trump's call to Taiwan is going to start a war with China.

Trump will begin a nuclear war at the drop of his hat.

Putin hacked election machines to elect Trump; a recount of votes will prove this.

The electoral college will vote in a different candidate.

The Trump campaign is purposefully keeping National Mall permits from a group of women who wish to demonstrate there.

Trump's election will be the single deciding factor in +2 degrees C global warming.

I mean, not super crazy stuff, but pretty clearly not backed by evidence/downright disprovable.

False truths or simply prophesying? I don't know your friends as you do of course. But don't we all tend to prophesize especially during a political election? Now if they are out there building underground bomb shelters and such, perhaps there is a bit more truth to there opinions. Although quite honestly, I wouldn't blame them for doing that considering Trump's rhetoric on nuclear weapons and his tendency to be very reactive in nature.

Wouldn't that demonstrate conviction rather than truth?

[Quidnon?]

Is this entire forum like this?   With two groups of people, with sincere ideological worldviews, that are completely incompatible with one another?  Or is there just a very vocal minority that dominates these discussions?  This is at least the third political thread I've read in offtopic today that reads like two sets of people that are barely speaking the same language.  This has got to be the most politically polarized forum (that wasn't deliberately political in nature) that I have ever seen.  This forum might be the best example of two distinct cultures that, no longer, coexist within the US I have ever seen.

These are honest questions, btw.  I keep seeing some of the same names pop up, but that doesn't mean that these people don't represent the quiet forum member, either.

While I agree that if your only experience on this forum is to have read these recent political threads, which represent a tiny minority of both the threads and the number of posters in this forum, you might form this opinion, you are definitely being hyperbolic. I also question how closely you've actually read the threads, versus simply noticing the more strident posts and extrapolating wildly. In between (and sometimes even within) the very present vitriol, there has been lots of thoughtfulness.

This forum is and always has been a haven for minimalists and FIRE enthusiasts, with varying definitions of what either means, of course. People here value happiness over material things. Many are vocally passionate about their politics, but most are not. Your "honest" question is unnecessarily leading and presumptuous, and clearly indicates that you haven't actually explored what this forum has to offer. I hope you didn't mean it that way and only wanted to express worry that you were about to join a toxic community. I assure you that you are not.

That's true.  I only read the first page & last pages, and extrapolated.

Nope.  My original impression was definitely correct.  At least among the regular posters I've encountered in the Off Topic section, and still willing to actually talk politics at all, this forum is not just polarized; it's got to be the most hard-left-liberal site on the internet that I have ever been exposed to, including Facebook, which alone says everything.  This forum is far and away from a safe space for anyone of my own political persuasion, and if there are any conservatives left on this forum, they must have been conditioned to stay away from the Off Topic section.  I've been in debates with liberal arts majors that were less hostile than some people here.

[jim555]

I would disagree with you about this board being mostly liberal.  Countless times threads have been hi-jacked by the "taxation is theft" posters, the folks who try to convince everyone that any time you receive something from the government it is unethical and/or immoral.

[Quidnon?]

I would disagree with you about this board being mostly liberal.  Countless times threads have been hi-jacked by the "taxation is theft" posters, the folks who try to convince everyone that any time you receive something from the government it is unethical and/or immoral.

Would you describe yourself as liberal, Jim?

[Kris]

I think in Quidnon's definition, "hard left" equals "having liberals in the population."

[Lagom]

OK, I think "the most hard-left liberal site on the internet" is where we can officially label Quidnon? a troll. I was willing to engage in good faith when he first appeared and posted some "concerns" that this board was polarized and unfriendly to the right. While we very obviously have quite a few conservative and libertarian posters, I would agree the forum does lean left and it's always nice to hear more principled and thoughtful views from the right. But by now it's pretty obvious that he sees nothing but his agenda and will (by his own admission) not even read, much less consider evidence that contradicts that agenda.

Quindnon?, even if you're not a troll, please feel free to leave us to our "hard-left" liberal ways. You clearly think you've found the truth and will not change your mind on anything for any reason, so there is nothing more for you here.

[Quidnon?]

OK, I think "the most hard-left liberal site on the internet" is where we can officially label Quidnon? a troll.

You have repeatedly accused me of "trolling", yet you are the one that is making comments solely to provoke a reaction.  Wouldn't that make you the troll?  Besides that, you edited my comment.  I said the most hard-left liberal site on the internet that I have ever personally encountered.  Are you trying to 'fact check' my internet experiences?

I was willing to engage in good faith when he first appeared and posted some "concerns" that this board was polarized and unfriendly to the right.

Bullshit.  This had to have been a front.  You never engaged in any good faith debate.  At least Kris is fairly honest that she doesn't consider my opinions worthy of consideration.

While we very obviously have quite a few conservative and libertarian posters,

Really?  Who might they be?  And if they are still members, why don't they post in the political threads anymore?  Doesn't that prove out my point?

I would agree the forum does lean left and it's always nice to hear more principled and thoughtful views from the right. But by now it's pretty obvious that he sees nothing but his agenda and will (by his own admission) not even read, much less consider evidence that contradicts that agenda.

I admitted that I don't read all of it, not that I don't read any of it.  Contrary to your opinion of me, I actually don't have an agenda here other than to learn more about how to retire earlier than otherwise.  I regret ever getting into a political discussion with any of you.  It seems to me that the only thing that you would consider to be "principled and thoughtful views from the right" are those that agree with yours, conservatives in name only.

Quindnon?, even if you're not a troll, please feel free to leave us to our "hard-left" liberal ways. You clearly think you've found the truth and will not change your mind on anything for any reason, so there is nothing more for you here.

I'm not a troll, and that is about the most offensive thing that you could have said to me.

[Radagast]

Ok, lets be honest here. This forum is about 45% left, 25% libertarian, 10% right, and 20% moderate. Perhaps I understate the moderates because they don't talk as much. If you think this forum is centrist you lean left. If you think it is the most liberal place on the internet you are towards the right. However, it does seem vocal righties are occasionally banned while vocal lefties generally persist.

A few weeks ago I went to my parent's Christmas party and met a lot of older people from out in the country. One was a retired college math professor from a Montana ranching family, this election must have been hard on him because he seemed like a member of the dying strain of classic northern liberal libertarian. One was a prospecting geologist trying to sell royalties for mining claims to rare earth elements in Illinois, zinc (I think) in Nevada, and gold and some others around. He did not seem especially conservative but I bet he went Trump :). One owned a small electronics company, and was highly intelligent but seemed to be drinking fake news with his Trump koolaid. Anecdotal, but you can see why there might be valid reasons to vote for Trump, or at least be lukewarm towards Clinton.

[Metric Mouse]

Ok, lets be honest here. This forum is about 45% left, 25% libertarian, 10% right, and 20% moderate. Perhaps I understate the moderates because they don't talk as much. If you think this forum is centrist you lean left. If you think it is the most liberal place on the internet you are towards the right. However, it does seem vocal righties are occasionally banned while vocal lefties generally persist.

A few weeks ago I went to my parent's Christmas party and met a lot of older people from out in the country. One was a retired college math professor from a Montana ranching family, this election must have been hard on him because he seemed like a member of the dying strain of classic northern liberal libertarian. One was a prospecting geologist trying to sell royalties for mining claims to rare earth elements in Illinois, zinc (I think) in Nevada, and gold and some others around. He did not seem especially conservative but I bet he went Trump :). One owned a small electronics company, and was highly intelligent but seemed to be drinking fake news with his Trump koolaid. Anecdotal, but you can see why there might be valid reasons to vote for Trump, or at least be lukewarm towards Clinton.

I think being lukewarm towards Clinton is being far more generous than most of the voting population felt on November 9th.

[plainjane]

I think being lukewarm towards Clinton is being far more generous than most of the voting population felt on November 9th.

"In the final count, Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote of the 2016 presidential election was nearly three million votes. According to the independent, non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton's final tally came in at 65,844,610, compared to Donald Trump's 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974."

time.com/4608555/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final/

[Metric Mouse]

I think being lukewarm towards Clinton is being far more generous than most of the voting population felt on November 9th.

"In the final count, Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote of the 2016 presidential election was nearly three million votes. According to the independent, non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton's final tally came in at 65,844,610, compared to Donald Trump's 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974."

time.com/4608555/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final/

Do you have a point? Are you suggesting she was wildly popular with the voting electorate? Or do you discount the fact that more people voted for someone other than Clinton than voted for her?

[plainjane]

I think being lukewarm towards Clinton is being far more generous than most of the voting population felt on November 9th.

"In the final count, Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote of the 2016 presidential election was nearly three million votes. According to the independent, non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton's final tally came in at 65,844,610, compared to Donald Trump's 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974."
time.com/4608555/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final/

Do you have a point? Are you suggesting she was wildly popular with the voting electorate? Or do you discount the fact that more people voted for someone other than Clinton than voted for her?

My point is that though Trump won the election, in fact, a larger number of people voted for her than for the winning candidate, so to imply that she did not take the majority of the vote is disingenuous.  It is a narrative which I am finding frustrating.

If instead you meant that the majority of the voters were less than lukewarm towards Clinton is because she got 48.2% of the popular vote (v.s Trump 46.1% and independent 5.7%), that is a different matter.  But then you could say that the majority of the popular vote was less than lukewarm for each of the candidates.  (Where by "most" and "majority" I am assuming we both mean 50% + 1.)

Alas for your second point, we do not have actual sentiment (neither "wildly popular" nor "less than lukewarm") but merely the actuality of voting on the date as recorded by various machines.  You started by saying that sentiment towards Clinton was lukewarm based on the voting (an understanding I am taking from your reference to the date of the vote).  I am pointing out that if you want to say that sentiment is reflected in the Nov 9 vote, that indeed, there are more US voters who are less than lukewarm about Trump than who are less than lukewarm about Clinton. 

[KBecks]

In my observation, internet message boards trend to the left.

As for the popular vote, if our president was chosen by popular vote, then Trump's campaign strategy would have been very different and focused to winning the popular vote.  His campaign focused on electoral votes.  Go figure.  You cannot say with any certainty that if we used the popular vote, it would have been Hillary.

[Metric Mouse]

My point is that though Trump won the election, in fact, a larger number of people voted for her than for the winning candidate, so to imply that she did not take the majority of the vote is disingenuous.  It is a narrative which I am finding frustrating.

If instead you meant that the majority of the voters were less than lukewarm towards Clinton is because she got 48.2% of the popular vote (v.s Trump 46.1% and independent 5.7%), that is a different matter.  But then you could say that the majority of the popular vote was less than lukewarm for each of the candidates.  (Where by "most" and "majority" I am assuming we both mean 50% + 1.)

I guess I still don't see your point. Sure more people voted for Clinton; but she did not receive a majority of the vote (as you defined as 50% +1). And since such large segments of the population couldn't be bothered to vote at all, I think it's quite clear that overall the population was less than lukewarm towards either candidate.

It could be argued that, since the polls and voter demographics so overwhelmingly favored Clinton, she 'lost' more support or than Trump gained; thus even though she received more votes; hence my 'lukewarm' comment.

[infogoon]

I've really been enjoying the Democratic response to this election, which has been a Seymour Skinner style "No, it's the voters who are wrong, we need to just stay the course." It's reminiscent of the Republicans after the Romney loss, when they generated an autopsy document with a lot of great insight and ideas and immediately threw it out the window.

[KBecks]

Quindnon?, even if you're not a troll, please feel free to leave us to our "hard-left" liberal ways. You clearly think you've found the truth and will not change your mind on anything for any reason, so there is nothing more for you here.

OMG, is the purpose of this thread to convert conservatives to liberal thinking?  Bwahahahahahah!!!!   Oh of course, it is the conservatives who are so clearly wrong and who must change their minds! 

I thought this thread was about understanding the rural, middle class voter's situation better. 

[hoping2retire35]

I think being lukewarm towards Clinton is being far more generous than most of the voting population felt on November 9th.

"In the final count, Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote of the 2016 presidential election was nearly three million votes. According to the independent, non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton's final tally came in at 65,844,610, compared to Donald Trump's 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974."

time.com/4608555/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final/

as was said here or another thread, take away california or just some parts of LA and she looses the plurality of the pop vote, substantially.

[Midwest]

I think being lukewarm towards Clinton is being far more generous than most of the voting population felt on November 9th.

"In the final count, Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote of the 2016 presidential election was nearly three million votes. According to the independent, non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton's final tally came in at 65,844,610, compared to Donald Trump's 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974."

time.com/4608555/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final/

If the popular vote were the contest (it's not), would Hillary have still won it?  How many conservatives in California and New York and similarly situated states don't even bother to vote because of their vote won't change the outcome?  Obviously liberals in conservative states (Montana), have a similar quandry, but those states are typically less populous.

Hillary lost the electoral vote (the one that matters).  Both campaigns ran to win the electoral vote and Hillary lost. 

[MrMoogle]

While we very obviously have quite a few conservative and libertarian posters,

Really?  Who might they be?  And if they are still members, why don't they post in the political threads anymore?  Doesn't that prove out my point?

Me, I'm conservative, semi-libertarian. 
If you look at:
https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/
I mostly agree with everything, but abortion (which I'm questionable on) and same-sex marriage (because the government shouldn't even be involved).