Appropriate reactions

[Farm Boy]

Problem faced, or problem with?

 

[metalhead]

Metalhead, I'm not arguing virtue here, I'm arguing understanding: and yes, they get the feeling of the encroachment of a culture they find barbaric and uncaring. Their children are overdosing and killing themselves at alarming rates. Which is why the less introspective think people are acting like spoiled brats. But why focus on those people? They're not particularly introspective. There are much better people to work with.

The threat is not only one of culture, though that's part of it, and I agree that that part of it, at least, is likely a point of understanding. But the rash of hate crimes, which were sadly predictable, is something else entirely. Part of what we are mourning is that even though there have always been racist idiots willing to hurt people of color, they are emboldened. Their children are emboldened to bully other children on account of their race.

I don't think there is understanding as to that aspect. I don't fully understand it myself, because I have the privilege of not having to worry about it, but I read and believe the accounts and that people are justified in feeling under attack. This is a step further than I think any of us can rightly claim a cultural shift has encroached, as unsettling as that can be.

So if I am being asked to try to understand cultural unsettling, the hopelessness of communities racked by drugs and unemployment, where everyone's kids who could got the hell out, my response is - fine. I am willing to. But then, let's run this both ways. When minorities complain of the same things, that they've suffered for far longer, understand their complaints are just as valid. When they say they are also physically threatened, understand that they, and us, aren't just victims of the media, these are real things happening to real people, affecting entire communities of people that live in justifiable fear of assault, or worse. That seen ever more justified when, say, a white supremacy peddler is given the head staffer job in the next administration.

 

[aelf]

Yup, FB has no answer. Your favourite demographic group is intent on screwing itself time and time again while blaming the rest of the world for it (minorities, liberals, city folk, etc). That's just too bad, I guess. Maybe one day they'll realise personal responsibility really applies to them too.

 

[Farm Boy]

No horsehocky.

You ride the bull you're on, not the pony you wish your granddaddy had left to you. I'd say we've been riding it better than usual for a while, and still are: but we've been effing up somewhere here now. It probably needs fixed. I'm not sure, "Screw off and die, jerks!" is actually a particularly adequate answer.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

That could actually be very good for the country, deficit spending for large-scale national infrastructure projects is not such a bad idea, depending on the circumstances.

What sort of infrastructure projects do people predict, though? Just a replacement of all the bridges and the building of sidewalks and stuff like that, or something more like high speed rail? Or is Trump anti-train and pro-car?

He could easily get the Republicans to pass an infrastructure bill. We have a ton of aging infrastructure that needs replacing and everyone knows it. The reason the Republicans wouldn't pass an infrastructure bill had nothing to do with any national budgetary priorities. They had to do with the political priority of destroying Obama. They succeeded in at least getting a shot to destroy his legacy so they'll likely pass it.

I doubt they will spring for anything considered non-traditional like high speed rail. It'll be mostly highway spending and maybe a bit of airport upgrades and a hugely disproportionate amount will be spent in rural and suburban areas. I wasn't joking when I said that I was happy to pay for bridges in Alaska. I wish more of it would be spent here but Californians have the resources to raise the money on our own; rural Mississippians don't. If my money makes life better for other people then I'm all for it.

I am sad to think that we probably won't be spending money developing newer infrastructure like HSR instead of just repairing/replacing the old stuff.

 

[metalhead]

No ****.

You ride the bull you're on, not the pony you wish your granddaddy had left to you. I'd say we've been riding it better than usual for a while, and still are: but we've been effing up somewhere here now. It probably needs fixed. I'm not sure, "Screw off and die, jerks!" is actually a particularly adequate answer.

Part of where I see a rather large disconnect, is that "Let's try something new and maybe our situation will improve!" nevertheless involves sending the same people back to Congress over and over again. Everyone goes on and on about how this is a "change election," how downtrodden people are striking back against the establishment that has let them down. But incumbents had a banner year in Congress. TWO incumbents lost Congressional primaries this year, and both were under indictment. All of 6 seats changed hands in a body that barely has a double-digit approval rating. All so these people could send back a party to power which has, in explicit terms, explained that the best tool they have come up with to help with all of these problems is - large tax cuts for wealthy people far, far removed from these communities.

The problem I keep running up against in my quest for a rational explanation for this voting behavior, is that concrete things like, "What are you going to do to help us?" lead to unsatisfying and contradictory places. And there are plenty of people in these communities who did NOT vote for Trump who asked that question and found no answer.

 

[BvBPL]

Have you considered that voter behavior this election vis-a-vis the presidential race was emotional and non-rational?

 

[Sommerswerd]

That's not a very good example though. Gay rights and abortion are both protected by Supreme Court decisions, which are much, much, much harder to get overturned than regular old laws passed by Congress.

I was thinking about this issue the other day, and it occurred to me that with the SCOTUS hobbled, and Congress at an impasse on replacing Justice Scalia... what would happen if say, California passed a statewide firearms ban? Not an outright, ban but as in some gun-grabbing law that seriously undermined the Second Amendment? So the police take your guns away, you sue, it goes to the liberal State Court, they uphold the ban, you appeal to the Appellate Court, then State Supreme Court, same result, then you appeal to the SCOTUS... then what?

You get a 4-4 deadlock and the State law stands, that's what. And that goes ditto for every controversial, party-line type issue. Mississippi de-facto ban on abortion? Deadlock, state law stands. Utah de-facto ban on gay marriage? Deadlock, state law stands. Rhode Island de-facto ban on anything they define as "hate speech"? Deadlock, state law stands.

I'm actually looking forward to seeing how some of these issue pan out with no SCOTUS to resolve them, at least from a philosophical standpoint.

 

[warpus]

Do American judges rule based on their own personal opinions and biases and not, you know, the law of the land?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Do American judges rule based on their own personal opinions and biases and not, you know, the law of the land?

Depends on the judge and the particular issue. I tend to find that plenty of judges are fine with embracing an interpretation of the law that allows them to rule in favor of their personal/political opinions. Judges are supposed to be apolitical theoretically, but they are human and in some cases elected, so expecting them to be apolitical is usually naïve.

If judges were simply objective, law-following robots, then the issue of SCOTUS nominees would be entirely non-controversial. However, its not, precisely because everyone knows that there are Republican Justices and Democratic Justices, and the side that has the most on the Court has a political advantage.

 

[metalhead]

Have you considered that voter behavior this election vis-a-vis the presidential race was emotional and non-rational?

I have. If we're going to run with that theory, though, then it kind of derails the entire discussion. I doubt I'm wrong in assuming that a large majority of people subscribe to the moral that it's inappropriate to lash out at others, put them in harm's way, or just make them feel bad when you feel angry, put upon, even desperate. Jesus was kind of big on that kind of thing. So then what, exactly, does it say if Trump is basically a heartland full of angry people lashing out at the rest of the country? Nothing good, in my opinion.

 

[Lexicus]

I have. If we're going to run with that theory, though, then it kind of derails the entire discussion. I doubt I'm wrong in assuming that a large majority of people subscribe to the moral that it's inappropriate to lash out at others, put them in harm's way, or just make them feel bad when you feel angry, put upon, even desperate. Jesus was kind of big on that kind of thing. So then what, exactly, does it say if Trump is basically a heartland full of angry people lashing out at the rest of the country? Nothing good, in my opinion.

I don't think it necessarily derails the discussion. I think the problem is sort of in assuming that rationality and irrationality can't coexist. Rationality is just a tool and it's always underlain by irrational postulates, emotional convictions,etc.

Since I think that Trump's victory basically is a heartland full of angry people lashing out at the rest of the country, I agree that it says nothing good.
The real danger is what happens when Trump fails to do what the heartland elected him to do.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't think it necessarily derails the discussion. I think the problem is sort of in assuming that rationality and irrationality can't coexist. Rationality is just a tool and it's always underlain by irrational postulates, emotional convictions,etc.

Since I think that Trump's victory basically is a heartland full of angry people lashing out at the rest of the country, I agree that it says nothing good.
The real danger is what happens when Trump fails to do what the heartland elected him to do.

They turn to a newly constituted DLC, created in response to the 2016 defeat... the rumblings have already begun... There was a Democratic Rep for Ohio on last night who is angling for Nancy Pelosi's leadership spot. He made his pitch, basically "Were gonna bring back manufacturing, just like it was before, to hell with 'retraining'/green jobs, were gonna reopen the factories and punish companies that ship jobs overseas etc" ... After he finished, the news anchor essentially said "Soooo you're going to make America great again"?

His response was (paraphrasing) "Yeah basically what Trump wants to do is fine as long as he doesn't touch social security or try to build that wall"... which are both strawmen because Trump has already said he's not doing either of those.

 

[Lexicus]

They turn to a newly constituted DLC, created in response to the 2016 defeat... the rumblings have already begun... There was a Democratic Rep for Ohio on last night who is angling for Nancy Pelosi's leadership spot. He made his pitch, basically "Were gonna bring back manufacturing, just like it was before, to hell with 'retraining'/green jobs, were gonna reopen the factories and punish companies that ship jobs overseas etc" ... After he finished, the news anchor essentially said "Soooo you're going to make America great again"?

His response was (paraphrasing) "Yeah basically what Trump wants to do is fine as long as he doesn't touch social security or try to build that wall"... which are both strawmen because Trump has already said he's not doing either of those.

So is your going assumption that Trump is not actually going to do (or even try) any of this other "make America Great again" stuff either?

 

[Lord of Elves]

You can react any way you damn well please. In no way do ordinary people wield power of any kind in the American political process. We're like test subjects that all the ad campaigns, all the policy decisions and occasionally the token referendums are unleashed on. How you feel about that and how you choose to express yourself as a result is your choice. The only inappropriate reaction is to identify with and suck up to the people doing the tinkering and toying with your [CENSORED] life.

 

[Sommerswerd]

So is your going assumption that Trump is not actually going to do (or even try) any of this other "make America Great again" stuff either?

I have no idea what Trump is going to do. My guess is he lets Pence run things, while he goes back to running his company, on the hush-hush/in his children's name of course. I think he may just become a figurehead. He doesn't even want to move into the White House apparently.

 

[Lord of Elves]

I have no idea what Trump is going to do. My guess is he lets Pence run things, while he goes back to running his company, on the hush-hush/in his children's name of course. I think he may just become a figurehead. He doesn't even want to move into the White House apparently.

Truly terrifying times.

 

[BvBPL]

I have. If we're going to run with that theory, though, then it kind of derails the entire discussion. I doubt I'm wrong in assuming that a large majority of people subscribe to the moral that it's inappropriate to lash out at others, put them in harm's way, or just make them feel bad when you feel angry, put upon, even desperate. Jesus was kind of big on that kind of thing. So then what, exactly, does it say if Trump is basically a heartland full of angry people lashing out at the rest of the country? Nothing good, in my opinion.

I’m not attempting to defend how people voted, but if you are seriously interested in trying to determine why people voted from Trump then your criteria for what a candidate shouldn’t do fits exactly in with Clinton’s behavior when read in a certain narrative. Clinton lashed out against Trump’s supporters by casting them as deplorable. She’s a war hawk and could be seen as placing people in harm’s way, whereas Trump has positioned himself as an isolationist. Trump also made security more of a touchstone of his campaign, which may make people feel safer with him. While Clinton might not have worked to make people feel desperate, her “stay the course” campaign was probably seen as failing to address the desperate straits many Trump may be experiencing. The takeaway being that a slight change in narrative and circumstance makes Clinton appear to have many of the qualities that you list as things people may not choose in their leaders. Which, again, is neither an endorsement of that narrative nor a denial that an equally compelling narrative revolves where Trump has more of those negative qualities than Clinton.

In this campaign, Trump has consistently been able to control the narrative largely through his own force of will and personal charisma. Clinton failed to make the narrative that supported her more compelling. Despite her technocratic virtues, Clinton really lack the charisma necessary to drive her own narrative home with voters.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Clinton really lack[ed] the charisma necessary

/thread

 

[Arwon]

She’s a war hawk and could be seen as placing people in harm’s way, whereas Trump has positioned himself as an isolationist. Trump also made security more of a touchstone of his campaign, which may make people feel safer with him.

Better to fight the evil moslem man at home rather than abroad, apparently.