"Of course Trump fucking won! What's everyone so fucking shocked about?" - Jonathan Pie

Politics & Elections
281

I don’t accept that the terms “elitist” “patronising” “arrogant” are worthy of the term “demonisation”.
“racist” certainly is as it carries far greater weight and consequences

Yet they clearly are not of equal weight and that matters.

it is a poor tactic and I don’t like it when the right does it but I like it even less when my side does it because it is counter-productive.

To characterise the entirety of any group as a single.negative stereotype is unfair. I’ve been consistent in that view right through the Scottish referendum, EU referendum, 2015 GE and USA elections of 2016.
The rhetoric from both sides was problematic, polarising and, on the whole, negative. It has been a growing theme over the last decade and not one to be welcomed.

well quite, they are solid reasons for wanting to leave but unfortunately drowned out amid the accusations of racism.

And there in lies the problem. Judging by your language above and your informal division of “leave” reasons into categories of good and bad we can see how difficult it would be for a central voter to have a discussion on matters that concern them without an accusation either of racism, or supporting racism. They could well not have a racist bone in their body and yet be leaning towards the following opinions.
-Having control of the amount and type of migration is a good thing
-Turkey’s inclusion in the E.U. is a future goal and is not without problems

I’ll take you at face value, I can’t imagine that as a reasonable person you’d think someone holding those views is racist but in much of the debate surrounding the referendum any nuanced view on the above would be decried in exactly that manner. That means those issues are not properly discussed and the floor of the debate is handed over to the true racist idiots who stretch and distort those issues to their own ends.
I think if don’t tone it down and welcome the debate then we push people away.
We can’t change what the other side do, we can and should challenge them robustly and look to our own extremist language as well.

282

Cite, please. If you don’t have statistics, than this is meaningless. I don’t claim to have the answers, and I recognize that my own possible bias might cloud a reasonable view of which side’s extremists are more violent. Do you recognize that you might be biased about this?

283

What does the second sentence have to do with the first? He might be well meaning but still have worn a shirt with objectionable imagery. Not the end of the world, and all that happened was some writers wrote some reasonable criticism. No big deal, and then he apologized for it. Good for him!

Criticism isn’t “browbeating”. It’s just criticism. This guy took it to heart and gave a genuine apology – this whole situation reflects well on him, not poorly. He cared about other people and didn’t realize how the imagery on the shirt came across to many folks. That’s a good thing, not a bad thing. He was praised by the critics afterwards for giving such a warm and genuine apology.

284

That’s because you’re an arrogant patronising elitist who doesn’t understand ordinary people.

Kidding! Of course that’s nonsense. I kid to make a point - nothing about reading the above disposed you to listen to me, did it? Which is, I think, your point.

I don’t disagree with any of the above. But I think it’s important to examine the mechanisms by which that rhetoric is broadcast and amplified. One obvious one is social media, which, particularly on Twitter, seems to allow the formation of instant hate mobs to attack today’s Undesirable. But it also allows people to form their own echo chambers and reassure themselves of comforting myths. And I contend that one such myth (which is not to say it is made up from whole cloth) is that left-wingers / Remainers are shrieking elitists who won’t argue sensibly with people but prefer to hurl job-destroying insults at them. This myth is encouraged by mainstream right-wing/Leave campaigners and friendly press/media who whip up the behaviour of a few idiots and present them as some kind of culture war.

They weren’t drowned out - Leave won. Those arguments carried the day.

What language is that?

Absolutely a non-racist could lean towards those views. But the message that was presented about Turkey’s potential membership of the EU was scare-mongering (75 million Turks!), divorced from reality (by 2025!) and used racist tropes (coming over here and swamping our NHS, roaming the streets in rape gangs). And when mainstream political discourse starts using racist scaremongering, I think it needs to be pointed out for what it is.

Challenging people robustly while toning it down is something of a balancing act. In your view, what was the best way to respond to the Leave campaign point about Turkish accession?

285

And therein lies the problem. During the campaign any attempt to point out very real racism and xenophobia, much of which was being outright stated or promoted by the leaders of the Leave campaign, was answered by “you’re just accusing us of racism because you don’t have a better argument.” And now, post-campaign, the best we are offered is “well, okay, some people might have been racist but I wasn’t, so you can’t use that as a criticism.”

No, the Leave campaign was not entirely based on xenophobia and many supporters of Leave did so for non-xenophobic reasons. But xenophobia was front and centre in Leave’s campaign rhetoric and this denialism looked and looks suspiciously like deflection. If that xenophobia overshadowed more substantive reasons for leaving the EU, it was not the Remain campaign’s doing.

Funny how it always seems to be the people who point out bigotry whose fault it is that constructive dialogue breaks down, never the fault of the people engaging in the bigotry in the first place nor their innocent apologists. “I don’t see the bigotry, therefore you must be making it up” is neither a compelling rebuttal nor a constructive approach.

When you stop pretending that the anti-immigrant sentiment wasn’t a major factor in the Leave campaign, we can have a constructive conversation. I’m happy to discuss the myriad real problems that the Remain campaign had, but not imaginary ones.

Consider yourself challenged. I welcome debate, but not based on false premises.

286

Don’t have much time to play today, but wanted to leave you with this.
It was not just hardline leftist that suggested that Trump would muzzle the press, it was Trump saying that he was going to muzzle the press.

This is what I don’t understand.

There is so much false equivalence, where someone says “Clinton 15 years ago said she praised this court decision, and therefore, that means that she is going to take all our guns.” But then gives a pass to the things that Trump directly said.

You tell me how that is not muzzling the press. You tell me how that is not exactly like “When I’m elected, I’ll pass laws that address media imbalance”? Except, well, even more disgusting.

Oh, and BTW, this was back in february of 2016, a year ago, 9 months before the election. Anyone who did not know that Trump wanted to muzzle the press was not paying much attention to the things that Trump was saying he wanted to do.

287

How is Trump going to muzzle the press?

288

Please read the post previous to yours again-it’s stated quite plainly.

289

Well, there’s muzzling, and then there’s muzzling. You people make it sound like Trump’s going to muzzle the press through presidential fiat when in reality he was talking about opening up libel laws so as to make news outlets report things more honestly and responsibly or else face challenge by lawsuit. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. I’ve long thought it ridiculous on the face of it that the media can report anything it wants about anyone and be shielded by law and permitted by law to get away with it. This is one thing that Hollywood should be foursquare behind because celebrities come in for the worst of this kind of abuse. If news organizations don’t have enough faith in the veracity of the things they’re reporting to believe they would stand up to challenge in a court of law then they shouldn’t be reporting them in the first place.

290

Thank you for that…interesting…interpretation of what Trump said, but since he wasn’t speaking in a foreign language it wasn’t really necessary.

291

In what specific way(s) do you think that existing libel laws are inadequate in that regard? You know that libel laws already allow for suing media organizations if they knowingly or with reckless disregard publish false information, right?

Please explain exactly how you think the current system ought to be changed. And also what specific actions you think the Executive Branch, which isn’t in charge of lawmaking, can/should take in changing it.

292

Interpretation? Trump said in so many words that he want to ‘open up the libel laws’ in order to make the press report things more honestly. How does anything I said constitute some alternative interpretation?

Please see my post just above where I explain exactly that.

Yes, I’m aware that libel laws are on the books and that they allow such lawsuits. I also know they are so narrowly defined and restrictive in favor of the press as to make successfully suing them for libel virtually impossible. Broadening these laws so as to make the press more accountable is both just and long overdue.

Again, I have already. You might want to re-read the post you’re responding to.

By serving as a bully pulpit (and perhaps arm-twister) in promoting legislation to change it.

293

Who? :dubious:

294

If you are asking by what specific action, I do not know.

He may issue an executive order, he may negotiate with congress to pass it in return for him signing off on a bill, he may use being a little looser on the interpretation of the fist amendment as a litmus test for his SC pick.

He may do it through a different means that I haven’t thought of.

Will he success, I don’t know, it’ll be an interesting constitutional issue, whether or not the govt can censure the press when it says mean things about the president.

But is this something that he wants to do? Yes, it certainly is. More than once on the campaign, he has stated these comments, and since being elected and inaugurated, has declared the press to be part of his opposition and enemies.

Since you asked me how trump would muzzle the press, what actions do you think he has in mind, that will prevent the press from saying these mean horrible things, but will not be an effective muzzle?

295

What’s an example of a statement in the press made under current libel laws that you think ought to have been grounds for a lawsuit under “opened-up” libel laws?

No, you haven’t; you just vaguely asserted that libel laws ought to be “opened up”. To what extent? What specific changes are you advocating? See above query about a specific example of a statement you think ought to be considered libelous under the new standards.

I also think it’s kind of hilarious that just after you’ve been fuming about the alleged terrible “suppression” of free speech by “PC” complaining on the internet, you leap on board for increasing latitude to suppress free speech via lawsuit.

Careful what you wish for: it’s not just the dreaded liberal press that might get sued more under more draconian libel laws. Some of the remarks made by the people whom you denounce the “anti-free-speech PC left” for complaining about might end up being actionable too.

296

Probably this?

297

Jesus H Christ. This post is the Dope at it’s worst. Name calling, I’m Right, You’re Wrong because you are on the other side, and the continued lack of trying to self reflect. It’s propagation of what has been plaguing this country for years- we’re too busy fighting each other to understand that it’s not making things better for anyone.

I agree completely with the video in the OP, whether he is real, fake, personality, ghost, ghoul or alien, he has a good point. Hillary was a terrible candidate. She did nothing to speak to the lower middle class and the working poor other than spout rhetoric. She seemed to make minimal effort in states where she needed to be (rust belt), other than to work in her echo chamber. She was who many against Trump held their nose and voted for, instead of being someone who drove enthusiasm and hope. Sadly, in Ohio, we had the double dose of the wet gray rag, with both her and Ted Strickland running in the two major elections here.

There was no effort to speak to the hearts of those blue collar voters, other than to tell them about education and healthcare. But guess what? Not everyone wants to go to college. Some people want to open their own plumbing, landscaping, auto shop, etc. And not every person with a (D) behind their name thought the ACA was great. Just as Obama ran on a platform of Hope and Change for these people, Trump ran on a platform of Hate and Change. Trump captured hearts, because he appeared like he listened to people.

There are a couple of lessons from this election, and the party who listens and adapts will be better off because of it. First, people don’t like politicians. They want outsiders who will make things happen, who will shake things up. This was an appealing factor for Trump and Obama. Second, they want to be listened to, not talked to. They want to be told how the government can help them, not what the government thinks is best for them. Third, candidates have to be able to relate. I despise Trump, but I’d rather sit down and have a cup of coffee with him than I would Hillary, because he comes across as a real person, whether he actually is, or not. I would have felt this more with Sanders or Biden as well. Finally, people don’t want a “party” candidate. They want someone who will say that they’re not going to stick it to either side, they are going to stick it to BOTH sides, because they are tired of the endless bickering and bullshit that goes on between the two major parties. They want things to get better for them.

thanks for reading, Theodore (well educated, independent voter, for government reform, for single payer healthcare, for welfare reform, for education reform, anti-big government, pro-choice, but not por-abortion, etc, etc)

298

In what way are you suggesting that Obama came across as a non-politician “outsider”? He was a lawyer and law professor and a first-term Senator when he first ran for President. That kind of background is pretty typical for national politicians, most of whom are lawyers. Other than race, how was Obama an “outsider”?

299

This exactly. Trump thinks it’s just a stick he can use to muzzle media that have the audacity to publish anything that’s against his paranoid POV (as, apparently, does Starving Artist). I’d be waiting for suits against Faux News and Breitbart. I don’t advocate the policy in the slightest; I think it’s what is becoming one of my most-used phrases, anathema to democracy and clearly unconstitutional. But if it were somehow passed, I’d love to see the Bannons, Limbaughs, and Sean Hannitys of the world get hit in the pocketbook.

300

Why stop there? Let’s have folks like Rosie O’Donnell and Meryl Streep sue Trump directly. Are the things the press is saying about Donald Trump worse than what Trump said about Sally Yates?