Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

See, it's possible to trim this section out of the whinefest and it stands on its own.

And we're only talking Day One of Trump. Well, Day One of Trump and the GOP since it's the GOP threatening government watchdog agencies to back off and stop investigating/reporting or they'll be punished. This isn't a "Trump" thing, this is a "Party of Trump" thing.

Edited, Jan 21st 2017 1:46pm by Jophiel

Day One: Sworn in to anemic crowds after weeks of stories about Trump's inability to secure people to perform at his inauguration.

Day Two: Global protests against his presidency including massive rallies in US cities swamping expectations. Crowds in DC dwarf Day One crowd sizes.

Let's blame say the media lied (and lie ourselves!)

Well, if only she drew them in the right states. That millions more people voted for her isn't in question.

Now that the election is over, can I finally point out how incredibly flawed the electoral college is without being lazily accused of wanting to change the results.

It should be pretty obvious that a system where the proposition with the fewer votes wins has fundamental problems.

I guess it's "Not intended to be a factual statement" in the famous words of Senator Kyl. Party of Trump, kids.

No, I say that because pre-inauguration there were a lot of people were attempting to write off complaints about how awful the EC is as some sort of argument that Clinton should be the president. Now that excuse is gone.

Do you think the current system is absolutely perfect as is? There are no changes you;d like to see? I ask because I'm pretty convinced from our prior discussions that you don't so much support the EC as you like a system the unfairly boosts the power of groups you prefer. It's not that you just don't like a specific alternative, you seem against having the system be scrutinized for fear of it disrupting the status quo with which you currently quite happy.

To be fair, if I were giving an inaugural address, I would be counting every single person that was there because of me, whether it was supporting me or protesting me. At that level, I would probably have a huge ego, and would do anything to pad it.

Of course, I am no where near ambitious enough to work my way through politics to try to be president, so my view of my hypothetical inaugural address is purely anecdotal.

If I were giving an inaugural address, I'd also count birds. Who's to say that the birds weren't there to hear me speak?

Lol. This again. Well, you're correct. It is obvious that such a system would have fundamental problems. Um... But Trump did win the most votes. Or did you forget that Electoral College votes are what's used to determine the president? The system uses EC votes. The system grants victory to the person who gets the most votes. That's not broken, nor does it hand victory to the person who got the least votes. You're free to disagree with the system, but it would be nice if you would avoid misstating what exactly it is you disagree with.

Or they'll do things like write in Bernie cause he's awesome and that will show Trump and the GOP.

So I see trending now that Sean Spicer hates on Dippin' Dots. (Or some click baity title that made it seem like it was. I avoid actually clicking on them.)

I've always wanted to try Dippin' Dots. And strangely enough I spent about a year total time in a hotel about 1/2 mile from the factory that makes them in Kentucky. But I never actually tried them. I did try to find a store that sold them one day while there, but turns out everything in Kentucky is closed on Sundays. My only day I really had off.

So late February I think I have another trip planned. Maybe I'll try them then.

So what? The point here (which ties into the point I made in my previous post) is that it does not matter how large or small the crowd is. The media will find some way to downplay it. The crowds were smaller (really? To the first election of a black man to the presidency? I can't imagine that!). There were protests (yup. we incited them and then reported on them!). The speech was bad. The wind was blowing too much. He picked the wrong bible(s). He had the wrong people in attendance. This. That. The other thing.

There will always be a negative spin in the media to *anything* related to the political Right Joph. That's what you're not getting. And that's precisely what people on the right are increasingly pissed off over. The media dipping into the exact same pool that just inflamed people in the election is another case of doubling down on stupidity. Of course his people are making a big deal about this. Because it doesn't matter what the crowd size actually was. It's about the fact that the media had to make a point, any point, to downplay and dismiss this inauguration. Just as they do every other time there's a conservative leaning event, person, speaker, idea, etc. That's the pattern he's playing on here.

You're literally looking at the wrong part of the equation. The lesson the Left should have taken from this last election cycle is that they need to stop playing word games via media surrogates and actually start speaking honestly and "to the people". But it's like they just can't help themselves, and fall back to the same old tired methodologies. Let's get a bunch of poor people and bus them in to protest. Let's get a bunch of women and bus them in to protest. Let's get a bunch of out of touch celebrities to smash talk (and protest). It's like you weren't paying attention. The whole thing is about a rejection of the "planned protest", and the orchestrated outrage, and the big celebrity events, and all of the other tools that the left has been using for decades to browbeat people into accepting their narrative and worldview.

It doesn't matter what the crowd size actually was.



Honestly? The problem is that the Left lost its way about 40 years ago IMO. They don't seem to actually stand for anything. It's about pure momentum and opposition process. They aren't "for" anything, just "against" the evil bad conservatives. Their protests have been mostly astroturf for decades now (yet laughably that's the label they used towards the Tea Party, because they'd apparently forgotten what actual grass roots protests look like). They have hordes of followers who are emotionally invested in whatever movement of the day has been picked out for them, but almost none of them can even elaborate on what that movement is really about, or what they want to accomplish. They're involved because they are told they must be involved, and they're bad people if they don't, so they put on their t-shirts, pick up their protest signs, and get right into line.

The very fact that you're talking about the process of organizing speaks to this difference. Conservatives become active because they understand the ideology behind a given position or objective. Liberals become active because someone gathered their names, put them on a list, and they feel like it's their duty to support <insert cause here>. That's the whole process of such organizing. It's less about adopting an set of ideological positions and more about manipulating people into following you, regardless of where you are leading them.

Many on the left just don't get this. I remember laughing at some news reporter showing up at a Tea Party rally and literally walking up to people and demanding that they tell her what organization they were working for, a member of, or which bussed them in, etc, etc. She became increasingly upset when everyone told her that they just showed up after reading some posts on line talking about the event, and they weren't a part of any actual organization. She assumed they were all lying to her and just didn't want to admit who they were working for/with. That's just how ingrained the process is among liberals though. They've been doing this for so long, using these same methods, that they just assume that this is "how it's done".

The mocking of conservatives and their hand made signs (and the whole bad spelling meme too) is part of the same "not getting it". The thing they were mocking them for what what made their movement "real". But they're so inside the process that they could not see it. In much the same way that the media today is continuing to use the same methods to try to dismiss Trump and the GOP that they used during the election (and honestly, all the time). But the more they do that, the more they're just proving us crazy conservative conspiracy theorists right. They're just highlighting their own bias to a larger and larger number of people.