American Politics

[Franckie]

Well, that's pretty much why Clinton lost, no? when her supporter being so smug about the average decency and intelligence and whatnot of USA, they'd underestimated the amount of silent Trump voters.

How to think about this election: white working class voters just decided to vote like a minority group. They're >40% of the electorate. People thought they were 33% of voters, not 43%. In particular, Trump made huge gains in rural America and Clinton suffered her biggest losses in the places where Obama was strongest among white voters. This is especially critical in swing states like Ohio, which solidly backed Trump.

There's more to the story here than Clinton supporters being smug. On the contrary, they believed it'd be a close race. What surprised just about everyone was Trump's unprecedented gains in states that haven't voted Democrat since 1992 (e.g. Wisconsin, which Trump narrowly won). It remains to be seen though whether this is an outlier or a permanent trend once 2020 hits, specifically whether Trump faces off against a strong Democratic candidate or not (which Hillary was evidently not) and how demographics look in key states like North Carolina and Florida.

 

[Doraku]

Well, the left does not criticize the right for their values of peace, love and respect and whatnot though. They criticize bigotry, racism and a number of other isms. Maybe I am missing some context but how is being critical of the conservative's wing attitude towards immigration and minorities the same as criticizing their values of love, peace and respect?

Not saying that your argument is invalid in anyway, there are plenty of truths to it, but keep in mind unironic SJW/regressive lefts do exist. Promoting diversity of skin colors yet hushing diverging opinions.

 

[Philia]

I hope Trump concentrates on America not on middle east. And his foreign policies are different from Bush's.

 

[Zehahaha]

Not saying that your argument is invalid in anyway, there are plenty of truths to it, but keep in mind unironic SJW/regressive lefts do exist. Promoting diversity of skin colors yet hushing diverging opinions.

Well you're right, but I do believe the SJW's speech is mostly on social media and are hardly visible outside of that (except Colleges maybe ?)
I definitely do hate how SJWs equate talking about immigration to being racist, having a controlled flow of immigration and from where is absolutely logical... I hear for example Muslims complaining about racism in Europe, yet the very same people would be annoyed if suddenly Chinese came in massive numbers to Morocco, or Christians to Saudi Arabia and started building churches, see the double standards ?

 

[Styx]

Well, the left does not criticize the right for their values of peace, love and respect and whatnot though. They criticize bigotry, racism and a number of other isms. Maybe I am missing some context but how is being critical of the conservative's wing attitude towards immigration and minorities the same as criticizing their values of love, peace and respect?

I think you are missing quite a bit. They aren't criticizing anything. They're attacking conservatives entirely by claiming they're all racist, ignorant, inbred xenophobic sexist lizard people from a hell they largely don't believe in. If they were more like "Trump's border plans is so and so" or whatnot that would be different, but take a step back and look at the responses of so many Democratic voters on Twitter, tumblr, facebook and the outrage on the streets. They aren't discussing his politics with any form of intelligence and means of proper criticisms, they are out on the streets spreading bigotry and hatred against millions of peoples based on what they think and fear. Forgetting sadly that a huge portion of Obama's votes came from conservatives, white even.

 

[Zehahaha]

I hope Trump concentrates on America not on middle east. And his foreign policies are different from Bush's.

I do hope so, frankly speaking fed up from American involvement there, and Russians too

 

[shionoro]

I hope Trump concentrates on America not on middle east. And his foreign policies are different from Bush's.

Trump won't concentrate on anything. Pence will, or another advisor.
America will not be of much use in foreign politics for at least 4 years, and that is a disaster.

They will focus on america, for example by making abortion harder or impossible or overthrowing roe wade.
Great times.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 9, 2016, Original Post Date: Nov 9, 2016 ---

I do hope so, frankly speaking fed up from American involvement there, and Russians too

So then let's have more saudi, iranian and terrorist involvement there.

 

[Doraku]

How to think about this election: white working class voters just decided to vote like a minority group. They're >40% of the electorate. People thought they were 33% of voters, not 43%. In particular, Trump made huge gains in rural America and Clinton suffered her biggest losses in the places where Obama was strongest among white voters. This is especially critical in swing states like Ohio, which solidly backed Trump.

There's more to the story here than Clinton supporters being smug. On the contrary, they believed it'd be a close race. What surprised just about everyone was Trump's unprecedented gains in states that haven't voted Democrat since 1992 (e.g. Wisconsin, which Trump narrowly won). It remains to be seen though whether this is an outlier or a permanent trend once 2020 hits, specifically whether Trump faces off against a strong Democratic candidate or not (which Hillary was evidently not) and how demographics look in key states like North Carolina and Florida.

But what makes previously Obama voters turned into Trump supporters though? Like don't get me wrong, but I think both candidates couldn't be more different ideologically. Unless they're just like another 11.000 people who fucking voted for a dead gorilla for the sake of being funny.

What I was surprised with how there are many people do think that Clinton dynasty is the greater evil in this 'choosing the lesser evil' election scenario. What makes her more unlikeable than Trump? Okay she's a woman, but she's white. Obama's presidency was more unlikely IMO

 

[Styx]

I do hope so, frankly speaking fed up from American involvement there, and Russians too

I'm tired of careless intervention or intervention made off of agenda, really. I don't think it's all that smart to abandon foreign interests.

edit

grammar.

 

[Zehahaha]

Trump won't concentrate on anything. Pence will, or another advisor.
America will not be of much use in foreign politics for at least 4 years, and that is a disaster.

They will focus on america, for example by making abortion harder or impossible or overthrowing roe wade.
Great times.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 9, 2016, Original Post Date: Nov 9, 2016 ---

So then let's have more saudi, iranian and terrorist involvement there.

Iranian involvement is logical, considering the US and its allies were quite hostile towards it, ofc Iran will try to defend its interests in Irak/Syria
As for terrorist involvement, all I have to say is that the Jihadis groups started with the US in Afghanistan... Obviously Saudis are involved in this as well, besides if the Saudian regime is fucking things up, it is because it is a despotic regime that receives help from the US, same as Egypt and others countries (aka Irak, which was backed by the US during Saddam's reign before removing him)

 

[Franckie]

Ya. They won't listen to reason and they also won't get better when democrats are nice to them.
Because even then, they have their pundits telling them how evil democrats are.

The key problem is that "reasonable Republicans" haven't existed for a long time now. Partisanship is especially strong among Republicans, and they seek out news that reconfirm their world views. In their mind, they are listening to reason.There is a great deal of resentment toward Democrats, Republicans, nonwhites, etc. in the rural area that I live in.

What hasn't helped though is that Democrats ceased having an effective counterweight to Republican pundits. Originally organizations like unions did the organizing and messaging for Democrats, but as Democrats abandoned unions over the years, Republican pundits filled in the void. I personally know from years of talking to Republican voters that they usually prefer Democratic policies, but it's difficult speaking to them when seething from resentment and wanting to blow up the system via Trump.

 

[Zehahaha]

I'm tired of careless intervention or invention made off of agenda, really. I don't think it's all that smart to abandon foreign interests.

There's a huge difference between defending foreign interests and just shitting up the place, the US were quite guilty of that especially during Bush's era

 

[shionoro]

But what makes previously Obama voters turned into Trump supporters though? Like don't get me wrong, but I think both candidates couldn't be more different ideologically. Unless they're just like another 11.000 people who fucking voted for a dead gorilla for the sake of being funny.

Because Obama ran a campaign based on hype and promise too.
Those were the kind of people who wouldnt vote usually unless a candidate comes arround which seems 'unestablished' to them, even if he only says nonsense.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 9, 2016, Original Post Date: Nov 9, 2016 ---

What hasn't helped though is that Democrats ceased having an effective counterweight to Republican pundits. Originally organizations like unions did the organizing and messaging for Democrats, but as Democrats abandoned unions over the years, Republican pundits filled in the void. I personally know from years of talking to Republican voters that they usually prefer Democratic policies, but it's difficult speaking to them when seething from resentment and wanting to blow up the system via Trump.

That is a fair point and i dont say democrats are not partially guilty in this.
But if half of your voters elect a man like trump, there is more to it than just mistakes democrats did.
Then there is something wrong with the whole system and society.

 

[Styx]

There's a huge difference between defending foreign interests and just shitting up the place, the US were quite guilty of that especially during Bush's era

In absolute agreement here. It would be nice not to be involved in the destabilization of foreign countries which later becomes an even bigger cesspool of terrorist violence and oppression.

 

[Zehahaha]

In absolute agreement here. It would be nice not to be involved in the destabilization of foreign countries which later became an even bigger cesspool of terrorist violence and oppression.

As much as Obama's foreign policy was not that great, that was the first time in a while I saw the US in a stance of protecting its interests as any country would do rather than actively screwing up things

 

[Doraku]

Well you're right, but I do believe the SJW's speech is mostly on social media and are hardly visible outside of that (except Colleges maybe ?)
I definitely do hate how SJWs equate talking about immigration to being racist, having a controlled flow of immigration and from where is absolutely logical... I hear for example Muslims complaining about racism in Europe, yet the very same people would be annoyed if suddenly Chinese came in massive numbers to Morocco, or Christians to Saudi Arabia and started building churches, see the double standards ?

Not really, at least within American context, First Amandment means almost nothing now. There are repulsive people out there, I'm aware of that too, but the way how the Left is handing this issue can be pretty misguided, to say the least.

Well the context of 'immigrants' depends on where you live, of course. Some people say expatriats are not immigrants *shrugs* . It's no surprise people at Home complain about the treatment of their 'brothers' abroad. Unless we are talking about Arab Muslims French complaining about Chinese immigrants in Paris, that's when I can agree the double standard you're trying to point out sounds absurd.

 

[shionoro]

Iranian involvement is logical, considering the US and its allies were quite hostile towards it, ofc Iran will try to defend its interests in Irak/Syria
As for terrorist involvement, all I have to say is that the Jihadis groups started with the US in Afghanistan... Obviously Saudis are involved in this as well, besides if the Saudian regime is fucking things up, it is because it is a despotic regime that receives help from the US, same as Egypt and others countries (aka Irak, which was backed by the US during Saddam's reign before removing him)

NO! They didnt. They have been arround before, and they would be arround without US are Afghanistan. This is a common held myth.
The US gave them weapons and training, yes, lots of years ago, but the ideology was there and it's not like they still use the weapons they got back then.

'Backing' is a very broad term. The US are not friends of Sissi. They give them some stuff and get some stuff in return, like with the saudis, but that's it.
Actually, the iranians are on the US side in this, even if no party admits this. The Iranians actually fight isis.
The problem is that they have no problem slaughtering other sunnis too, which the US is not exactly a fan of.

Thing is: If the US lets forces like that have the complete playing field, nothing good will come out of it.
Russia backs assad, assad gets his country back somewhat, but it is instable and that wont stop.
Turkey going full on dictatorship by now and plays in this game too.
It is a worse situation than it has ever been.
And Israel, without being SURE to have US back up, wont just sit idle and look at it.
That is insanely dangerous, and trump didnt exactly assure israel that he would back them up in time of danger.

Even if trump does not actually want this, his behaviour has made war in the middle east much more likely than it ever was.

 

[Zehahaha]

Not really, at least within American context, First Amandment means almost nothing now. There are repulsive people out there, I'm aware of that too, but the way how the Left is handing this issue can be pretty misguided, to say the least.

Well the context of 'immigrants' depends on where you live, of course. Some people say expatriats are not immigrants *shrugs* . It's no surprise people at Home complain about the treatment of their 'brothers' abroad. Unless we are talking about Arab Muslims French complaining about Chinese immigrants in Paris, that's when I can agree the double standard you're trying to point out sounds absurd.

Well it is absurd when you complain about European racism, yet you have no issues being racist towards Africans coming to your country (this is something I've seen many times in Morocco, like they complain about french people being racist yet have no problems being racist towards african immigrants here and I am talking about legal ones, don't lemme start about the illegal ones)

Many people also complain about not being able to build mosques and what not, and yet they would definitely complain about churches being built (not like there's many christians anyway)

Don't lemme start about poor Syrian refugees being discriminated by Moroccans in some cases even though we share same religion/culture/language to some extent

 

[Franckie]

But what makes previously Obama voters turned into Trump supporters though? Like don't get me wrong, but I think both candidates couldn't be more different ideologically. Unless they're just like another 11.000 people who fucking voted for a dead gorilla for the sake of being funny.

What I was surprised with how there are many people do think that Clinton dynasty is the greater evil in this 'choosing the lesser evil' election scenario. What makes her more unlikeable than Trump? Okay she's a woman, but she's white. Obama's presidency was more unlikely IMO

It remains to be seen how much of these voters stayed home and which ones switched parties, but for previous Obama voters (at least the ones I talked to in 2012 and 2016), the #1 reason is resentment. Resentment toward Democrats and Obama in particular for "doing nothing" to improve their lives. An example is Obamacare. I remember a conversation I had with a voter back in 2012 who had originally voted for Obama in 2008 but opted for Romney in 2012. For her, the main reason was perceptions over race relations, which is typical of US society. Whites tend to think government does too much, especially on matters of redistribution, and that Obama has made racial relations worse. What was annoying about the whole episode was that she agreed Republicans were cockblocking anything Obama wanted to do, but felt having a Republican president would get things done and quit spending taxpayer money on lazy blacks, white trash, and wetbacks (her words, not mine). Other reasons exist (lol @ people who think Obama is a socialist), but racial animosity is the most common trait I've observed over the years in people who ceased supporting Obama.

Clinton's main problem, besides being a woman, is that (1) she's a Democrat, meaning she likes nonwhites, (2) she's been in public for 20+ years (old news), (3) she's a Clinton (Jeb Bush got sunk partly because of Bush fatigue), and (4) she's a continuation of Obama's policies (to paraphrase one voter, "OBUMMER!").

 

[Zehahaha]

NO! They didnt. They have been arround before, and they would be arround without US are Afghanistan. This is a common held myth.
The US gave them weapons and training, yes, lots of years ago, but the ideology was there and it's not like they still use the weapons they got back then.

'Backing' is a very broad term. The US are not friends of Sissi. They give them some stuff and get some stuff in return, like with the saudis, but that's it.
Actually, the iranians are on the US side in this, even if no party admits this. The Iranians actually fight isis.
The problem is that they have no problem slaughtering other sunnis too, which the US is not exactly a fan of.

Thing is: If the US lets forces like that have the complete playing field, nothing good will come out of it.
Russia backs assad, assad gets his country back somewhat, but it is instable and that wont stop.
Turkey going full on dictatorship by now and plays in this game too.
It is a worse situation than it has ever been.
And Israel, without being SURE to have US back up, wont just sit idle and look at it.
That is insanely dangerous, and trump didnt exactly assure israel that he would back them up in time of danger.

Even if trump does not actually want this, his behaviour has made war in the middle east much more likely than it ever was.

That was a mistake in itself, do not give them weapons and training
Obviously the ideology was there not denying that, there's a lot of work that Muslim scholars need to do and there's no sign that it will happen anytime soon unfortunately

US are not the biggest friends of Sissi himself, but they're the biggest friends of Egyptian Military. Make no mistake, Egypt since the coup d'etat against King Farouq has been ruled by military, the US were not friendly with Gamal Abdel Nasser, but starting with Sadat they had good relationship, and with Mubarak it was even better


I am not saying the US should completely leave the Middle East, that's impossible... But fucking up Iraq/Afghanistan was a huge mistake, backing up dictators and despotic regimes is a big one as well, they need to be more careful about their involvement. Anyway, the situation in Syria is that it can no longer be called a revolution, it's not even a civil war but more of a proxy war where multiple countries are doing their things, the keys are with Russia/Iran/US

Turkey is not going full dictatorship, that would be calling turkish people idiots, not the biggest fan of Erdogan and the trajectory he's taking especially recently, but he's hardly a dictator