[rmnka447]

 billw55, on 2016-November-16, 14:42, said:

Did they? The popular vote was won by Clinton, albeit narrowly. Also Ds gained seats in both house and senate. Perhaps we should say that the American electorate offered evidence that conservatives were too insulated in their bubble?

I would say neither. For practical purposes it was just about an even split; Trump won the presidency due to the system used.

Ok, whatever!

The Republicans were worried about losing the Senate because they had a lot of Senators up for reelection quite a few in tossup or normally blue states. Democrats were talking about picking up 20+ seats in the House, regaining control of the Senate, and winning the Presidency. None of those things happened.

Normally, in a change election which I think most people agree this election was, the side in power loses big time. That didn't happen this time. Republican politicians were shocked and happy. If you want to cast what happened as a small victory, fine. But there seemed to be a lot of glum Democratic politicians after the election.

All I can say is that whenever I'd discuss politics with my liberal/Democratic friends, they'd tell how well we were doing -- unemployment was below 5%, jobs were being created, we've got ISIS contained, etc. But I'd say "Working class people are really struggling and they're pretty upset." But my observations were dismissed out of hand as baseless.

Dennis Kucinich, a staunch Cleveland Democrat (he used to be a Congressman, not sure if he still is), had some astute comments the other night. He said that he and his wife liked to go to ethnic/folk festivals in Cleveland (huge central and eastern European population) and had noticed over the past couple years "a lot of real anger due to their struggles to just get by." So he saw it, too.

Then why didn't the Democratic pundits recognize the problem?

[PassedOut]

 rmnka447, on 2016-November-20, 02:12, said:

Ok, whatever!

The Republicans were worried about losing the Senate because they had a lot of Senators up for reelection quite a few in tossup or normally blue states. Democrats were talking about picking up 20+ seats in the House, regaining control of the Senate, and winning the Presidency. None of those things happened.

Normally, in a change election which I think most people agree this election was, the side in power loses big time. That didn't happen this time. Republican politicians were shocked and happy. If you want to cast what happened as a small victory, fine. But there seemed to be a lot of glum Democratic politicians after the election.

All I can say is that whenever I'd discuss politics with my liberal/Democratic friends, they'd tell how well we were doing -- unemployment was below 5%, jobs were being created, we've got ISIS contained, etc. But I'd say "Working class people are really struggling and they're pretty upset." But my observations were dismissed out of hand as baseless.

Dennis Kucinich, a staunch Cleveland Democrat (he used to be a Congressman, not sure if he still is), had some astute comments the other night. He said that he and his wife liked to go to ethnic/folk festivals in Cleveland (huge central and eastern European population) and had noticed over the past couple years "a lot of real anger due to their struggles to just get by." So he saw it, too.

Then why didn't the Democratic pundits recognize the problem?

I recall both democrats and republicans emphasizing the problem of income inequality for quite some time, acknowledging the fact that almost all of the gains of the last decades have gone to the super-rich. Putting forward an acceptable solution is the challenge. That challenge is magnified because in the US a political candidate depends upon financial support from the very people who benefit from income inequality.

Both Sanders and Clinton (the latter reluctantly) agreed with the republican about-face that it would help to rebuild buggy-whip factories. It's true that no democrat was willing to say that the solution to the problem was getting rid of Mexicans and stopping immigration -- simple, easy-to-explain, and completely dishonest.

In fact, Trump plans to pump up the economy with a massive increase in deficit spending, and that will succeed for a time. But that will lead to inflation, followed by greater and greater amounts being spent on debt service for an exploding US national debt. None of the other 16 republican candidates were willing to go that far, for good reasons.

Trump will then point to his immigration policies as the source of the better economy. He will point to the democrats as the source of the exploding debt.

[Vampyr]

 jonottawa, on 2016-November-19, 12:08, said:

Ok. (I'll pretend it doesn't sound like you're bashing motherhood and the monumentally vital role that women have historically played as homemakers and raising healthy and well-adjusted children.) I would imagine it took a lot of independence for countless historical figures to do what they did. I guess they had a lot of independence, some might have even had so much that they declared it!

I thought that the sexist stuff you have posted about Clinton was just because you didn't like her. I was unaware that you hate all women.

Quote

Let's acknowledge that women who choose NOT to enter the workforce, but to raise a family instead (while their husbands work & provide, as men have done for generations,) should be praised, not scorned or derided

If only it were a choice, which it isn't for most families. But in any case, why should people who do this be praised?

[y66]

 PassedOut, on 2016-November-20, 08:21, said:

I recall both democrats and republicans emphasizing the problem of income inequality for quite some time, acknowledging the fact that almost all of the gains of the last decades have gone to the super-rich. Putting forward an acceptable solution is the challenge. That challenge is magnified because in the US a political candidate depends upon financial support from the very people who benefit from income inequality.

Both Sanders and Clinton (the latter reluctantly) agreed with the republican about-face that it would help to rebuild buggy-whip factories. It's true that no democrat was willing to say that the solution to the problem was getting rid of Mexicans and stopping immigration -- simple, easy-to-explain, and completely dishonest.

In fact, Trump plans to pump up the economy with a massive increase in deficit spending, and that will succeed for a time. But that will lead to inflation, followed by greater and greater amounts being spent on debt service for an exploding US national debt. None of the other 16 republican candidates were willing to go that far, for good reasons.

Trump will then point to his immigration policies as the source of the better economy. He will point to the democrats as the source of the exploding debt.

Of possible interest: Infrastructure build or privatization scam?

One of the scariest things in all of this is how the private equity guys continue to slice and dice the world at whim. Yes there is a potential win-win there but that is not how this game works. Happy days are here again but not for the Archie Bunkers of the world who have done their jobs and can now be shown the door thank you very much. Service entrance please.

[y66]

Perhaps we can all agree that cleareyed reporting like the reporting in these excerpts from the 1992 campaign trail is something we all benefit from.

[Winstonm]

Donald and the Trumpettes are singing their same old song, I see:

Quote

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
I watched parts of @nbcsnl Saturday Night Live last night. It is a totally one-sided, biased show - nothing funny at all. Equal time for us?
7:26 AM - 20 Nov 2016

The Whiner-in-chief continues to complain about perceived slights to his ego - and all those voting Trumpettes gave this guy control of the military and the nuclear arsenal. Let's hope every nation plays nice-nice with Donald else he might hold his breath until the world explodes.

[Winstonm]

 andrei, on 2016-November-19, 13:02, said:

Pay attention to your spelling.
Correct is: WINNER

Btw, I did think this was a clever retort.

[PassedOut]

In this era of fake news, it's instructive to learn the ways that false information spreads. I asked JonOttawa earlier in this thread what the devil he meant by the phrase "Soros riots," something I'd never heard of and neither had Google. No response.

Seems now that he was simply exaggerating a fake news item that got some play in irresponsible blogs that, on principle, don't perform the simplest fact checking: How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study

Quote

Eric Tucker, a 35-year-old co-founder of a marketing company in Austin, Tex., had just about 40 Twitter followers. But his recent tweet about paid protesters being bused to demonstrations against President-elect Donald J. Trump fueled a nationwide conspiracy theory — one that Mr. Trump joined in promoting.

...

Nov. 9, shortly after 8 p.m. Eastern

Mr. Tucker, who had taken photos of a large group of buses he saw near downtown Austin earlier in the day because he thought it was unusual, saw reports of protests against Mr. Trump in the city and decided the two were connected. He posted three of the images with the declaration: “Anti-Trump protestors in Austin today are not as organic as they seem. Here are the busses they came in. #fakeprotests #trump2016 #austin”

...

Several hours later, the first important step occurred. Mr. Tucker’s tweet was posted to the main Reddit community for Mr. Trump under the heading: “BREAKING: They found the buses! Dozens lined up just blocks away from the Austin protests.” It quickly generated more than 300 comments, some of which blamed the protests on George Soros, the liberal billionaire philanthropist, who is a frequent target of the group.

...

Nov. 10, late morning through the afternoon

Sean Hughes, the director of corporate affairs for the bus company Coach USA North America, said he learned about the rumor involving its vehicles after receiving a couple of curious emails and hearing from a friend in New Jersey who had seen the claim on Facebook and wanted to know if it was true.

A reporter at the Fox television station in Austin contacted Mr. Hughes later that day, and he responded with a statement noting that “at no point were Coach USA buses involved in the Austin protests.” But that did little to stem the online furor.

“That reporter said, ‘You’re probably going to get a lot more phone calls because it’s all over the place,’” Mr. Hughes said in an interview on Thursday.

“You’re the second journalist to actually call me to see what was going on, no bloggers or anything, and we’re easily accessible on our website,” Mr. Hughes said.

He added, “I just kind of wish people looked into facts before they go ahead and do something like that, because it could be easily debunked based on a quick phone call or two, or a couple emails.”

...

Nov. 10, evening

Around 6 p.m., the conservative blog Gateway Pundit posted a story using Mr. Tucker’s images under the headline “Figures. Anti-Trump Protesters Were Bussed in to Austin #FakeProtests.” The post, which included a mention of “Soros money,” has been shared on Facebook more than 44,000 times, according to statistics on the website.

The story line became a prominent one throughout the conservative blogosphere, with other sites incorporating Mr. Tucker’s tweet into posts about paid protesters, referring to him as an eyewitness in Austin.

Then, shortly after 9 p.m., Mr. Trump sent this tweet:

Quote

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!
9:19 PM - 10 Nov 2016

So I guess I've gotten my answer about the "Soros riots" -- just more fake news. I should have known.

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2016-November-20, 18:26, said:

In this era of fake news, it's instructive to learn the ways that false information spreads. I asked JonOttawa earlier in this thread what the devil he meant by the phrase "Soros riots," something I'd never heard of and neither had Google. No response.

Seems now that he was simply exaggerating a fake news item that got some play in irresponsible blogs that, on principle, don't perform the simplest fact checking: How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study


So I guess I've gotten my answer about the "Soros riots" -- just more fake news. I should have known.

The truly spooky part is there are many who, when shown this article, would claim the original fake news was still the truth while this explanation is a creation of the "lamestream media".

[kenberg]

I think it has to do with our increasing interaction with non-humans. By non-humans I mean robots, I don't mean people who disagree with us. I have had two recent experiences along these lines. Neither has anything to do with the election, but maybe it has something to do with how the election went.

Experience 1: I got an email thanking for using a car ride service, giving the last four digits of a credit card it was charged to and offering a discount for a friend if I wanted to pass it on. I hadn't used the service, the last four digits did not match any card I had, but still, somehow this arrived in mu email. No problem, I will give them a ring. No, I guess I won't. No phone number that I could find. There were instructions on how to download their app. I did not want to download their app. Then I found a way to send a message from the computer.I explained that I did not have an account with them and I had not used their service. The reply came back that I should log into my account. I wrote back that I did not have an account. I figured since they missed that point the first tiem I should say it maybe three times in this new message, so I did. I got a message back thanking me for confirming that I had not used my account. But, they said, they had cancelled the charge. Well, the charge was not to my account so i suppose someone got a free ride.


Experience 2: I needed a refill f the toner for my printer, and I ordered it through the company I got the printer from. And again I was to get some sort of coupon usful for my next purchase. Becky tkes care of seeing people get paid and, after a while, she had not received a bill. And no coupon. This time there was a phone number. A robot answered. I listened to the choices and selected a number. The conversation went:
Robot: If you know your account number, enter it into the keypad.
Me: I don't know my account number:
Robot: If you know your account number, enter it into the keypad.
Me: I don't know my account number:
Robot: If you know your account number, enter it into the keypad.
Me: I don't know my account number:
Robot: If you know your account number, enter it into the keypad.
Me:Connect me to a human.
Robot: If you know your account number, enter it into the keypad.
Me, loudly:Connect me to a human.

I eventually got to a human, who took a lot of info, then had to connect me to someone else. A robot, as it turned out. And then a human. Etc. The robots and humans did not all agree on what happened.
After I think an hour or so, talking to several humans and either two or three robots, we got it all straightened out. I even got my coupon, including something extra to make up for the fact that I had not gotten a previous coupon. I had justlet the matter drop on the previous one, too much grief, but the same promised but not appearing coupon deal twice in a row had aggravated me.

We need human interaction. If I am speaking face to face with a human, I can generally tell whether or not he is telling it straight. Not always, but quite often. Even on tv, a picture helps. When I was 13 I came home from a boy scout meeting to see Joe McCarthy on tv saying Adlai Stevenson was a commie. I thought McCarthy was full of crap. Now we get stuff from somewhere, who knows where, on our computers. Barack Obama is gay, Michelle is a transvestite, the kids are stolen from anther family. Sure. Sounds right.


This message comes to you from your friendly neighborhood robot.

[helene_t]

I think you are spot on, Ken. The similarities between Chthonic's attitude to humans, and that of Trump's Twitter streams, can't be a coincidence.

[billw55]

 rmnka447, on 2016-November-20, 02:12, said:

Then why didn't the Democratic pundits recognize the problem?

Because they weren't looking for the truth. They were promulgating an ideology. Same as most pundits aligned with either party.

[jonottawa]

[PassedOut]

Good article and interviews in the Post today highlighting the young entrepreneurs behind a pro-Trump website: For the ‘new yellow journalists,’ opportunity comes in clicks and bucks

Quote

At a time of continuing discussion over the role that hyperpartisan websites, fake news and social media play in the divided America of 2016, LibertyWritersNews illustrates how websites can use Facebook to tap into a surging ideology, quickly go from nothing to influencing millions of people and make big profits in the process. Six months ago, Wade and his business partner, Ben Goldman, were unemployed restaurant workers. Now they’re at the helm of a website that gained 300,000 Facebook followers in October alone and say they are making so much money that they feel uncomfortable talking about it because they don’t want people to start asking for loans.

Instead, Wade hums a hip-hop song and starts a new post as readers keep reading, sharing and sending in personal messages. One comes from a woman who frequently contacts his page. “YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE I TRUST TO REPORT THE TRUTH,” is one of the things she has written, and Wade doesn’t need to look at her Facebook profile to have a clear sense of who she is. White. Working class. Midwestern. “And the economy screwed her.”

He writes another headline, “THE TRUTH IS OUT! The Media Doesn’t Want You To See What Hillary Did After Losing... .”

“Nothing in this article is anti-media, but I’ve used this headline a thousand times,” he says. “Violence and chaos and aggressive wording is what people are attracted to.”

“Our audience does not trust the mainstream media,” Goldman, 26, says a little later as Wade keeps typing. “It’s definitely easier to hook them with that.”

“There’s not a ton of thought put into it,” Wade says. “Other than it frames the story so it gets a click.”

“True,” Goldman says.

“We’re the new yellow journalists,” Wade will say after a day and night when the number of people following LibertyWritersNews on Facebook will swell by more than 20,000. “We’re the people on the side of the street yelling that the world is about to end.”

...

Writing for audience

There are times when Wade wonders what it would be like to write an article he truly believes in. “In a perfect world,” he says, it would have nuance and balance and long paragraphs and take longer than 10 minutes to compose. It would make people think. But he never writes it, he says, because no one would click on it, so what would be the point?

Instead, as 4,000 people are on the website one night, Wade and Goldman keep writing and feeding, writing and feeding.

Wade writes about a rumor he has seen on Fox News’s website, which says “the new batch of anti-Trump protesters has been bankrolled by individuals like billionaire liberal activist George Soros and groups like Moveon.org.”

“Dude,” Wade says. “The left has been, like, manufacturing the protest.”

Goldman, meanwhile, is typing a story — “It was a literal Hell Storm at DNC headquarters today” — and laughing at what he has written. “God, I just know everything about this statement is so wrong,” he says, and adds, still laughing, “What is a hell storm?”

He finishes it as Wade is putting an old headline on his story about Soros, one that has nothing to do with what he has written but once brought in a lot of page views. He shares it on their Facebook page and watches as readers stream into the website — first a few hundred, then nearly 1,000.

“Boom, dude, look at that,” Wade says. “That one is doing super well.”

Goldman scans through what Wade had written. “When are we going to go after this traitor!” it says. “It is time to take this traitor out! He should be pursued to the depths of hell and beyond.” He looks up and smiles nervously.

“Maybe there’s a less violent way to say that.”

“I’m going to change that one, actually,” Wade says, suddenly looking panicked as he grabs his laptop and moves to replace “take this traitor out” to “take this traitor down.”

“Down is so much better sounding than out,” Goldman says.

But the comments are already coming in fast. “Arrest and hang him for war crimes,” one woman writes of Soros. “This man should go straight to F@#KING HELL,” another woman posts. “I gladly volunteer to take this Traitor to America out,” another says. “Jail is way too good for him.”

...

One afternoon, Goldman has an idea.

“It would be a perfect time to open up a small liberal newspaper right now,” he says as he types a post with, “The Democratic party is finished! Just wait til you see what happened today... .”

“It would,” Wade says. “There is so much animus on the left right now.”

“You could get more traffic than we do now,” Goldman says.

Sure beats washing dishes, financially!

[blackshoe]

 Winstonm, on 2016-November-20, 09:51, said:

Let's hope every nation plays nice-nice with Donald else he might hold his breath until the world explodes.

Better he hold his breath than push the button.

[Winstonm]

 barmar, on 2016-November-19, 21:56, said:

I'm willing to believe that blacks commit more crime than whites, mainly because they're more likely to be poor and live in inner cities where crime, gangs, drug abuse and violence are rampant.

But it's also my understanding that the proportion of blacks in prison is far higher than just the proportion of crimes they commit. Blacks are far more likely to be convicted than whites for the same crimes. In many cases this is simply because white defendants tend to be more affluent and can afford better defense. Studies have also found unconscious bias among judges and juries -- when researchers control for all the other effects, they still find that blacks are more likely to be found guilty than whites.

A black crack addict is likely to be sent to prison, a white cocaine abuser will get sent to rehab.

It is more insidious than that. Blacks receive longer sentences for the same crime, and, I would bet, have to serve more time or are less likely to be paroled than whites.

Quote

There are significant racial disparities in sentencing decisions in the United States.1 Sentences imposed on Black males in the federal system are nearly 20 percent longer than those imposed on white males convicted of similar crimes.2 Black and Latino offenders sentenced in state and federal courts face significantly greater odds of incarceration than similarly situated white offenders and receive longer sentences than their white counterparts in some jurisdictions.3 Black male federal defendants receive longer sentences than whites arrested for the same offenses and with comparable criminal histories.4 Research has also shown that race plays a significant role in the determination of which homicide cases result in death sentences.5

Source: https://www.aclu.org...ubmission_0.pdf

[hrothgar]

 jonottawa, on 2016-November-21, 08:58, said:

Jon,

You keep posting cartoons with this same theme.
Are you aware just how stupid this makes you look?

For example, have you considered that there are more that a few types of people in the Hillary coalition?

1. Some of those people believed that Trump would protest if he failed to win the election
2. Others believe that it is appropriate to protest Trump's loss

Simply put, there are other explanations than hypocrisy that explain what you are observing.
Moreover, even if hypocrisy is being observed, is this real worth commenting so very very many times?

[Winstonm]

 blackshoe, on 2016-November-21, 10:09, said:

Better he hold his breath than push the button.

No doubt.

[jonottawa]

From what I'm reading in this thread, I think some folks believe that All in the Family was a documentary. Let's contrast criminals on a fictional TV show (with a regressive leftist political agenda) with criminals in real life, shall we?

[kenberg]

 jonottawa, on 2016-November-21, 14:05, said:

From what I'm reading in this thread, I think some folks believe that All in the Family was a documentary. Let's contrast criminals on a fictional TV show (with a regressive leftist political agenda) with criminals in real life, shall we?

Well, you have done it. I give up. It isn't that I am insulted, my feelings aren't hurt, but it has been years since I have encountered a more unrelentingly unpleasant person. I'm gone, and I suspect it won't be long before you can have this all to yourself. I am not saying you are right, I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying I am done listening to anything that you have to say.