2016 Fall Off Topic Thread AKA Football or Politics

[Phil]

I'm now officially worried about the media's coverage of Trump backfiring spectacularly.

 

I live in a very blue district. Republicans are an endangered species here, so for the last month or so, the conversation has been very much anti-Trump. However, ever since that "leaked intelligence memo" story ran multiple news cycles, much of the conversation, while still anti-Trump, has revolved more around "fake news", "all media outlets are political megaphones", "at least he'll blow it all up", and stuff like that. Everyone can see through it now. It's almost as vehemently pointed as the criticism of Trump, which is still commonplace here but has lost emphasis.

 

Now, think about how Trump won. He defeated 17 well-funded opponents in the primaries, without spending a penny, and defeated the most prolific political machine in American history during the general election. This despite having the highest unfavorable rating of any candidate in history, despite his being caught on tape bragging about raping women, despite having dozens of women accuse him of rape, despite dozens of racist remarks, despite losing all three debates, despite having almost no ground operation(s), despite having both the republican and democratic machines against him, etc. How could he possibly have pulled this off?

 

It was the media. They've been playing right into his hand. The relentless negative, "big splash" type coverage of Trump reinforces his image as "not one of them". It distinguishes him. It reinforces his "bomb in the water" image. Americans' trust in the media was already under 35%, even before the "leaked memo" stuff came out. I can't imagine how low that number is now. It's just amazing to me that these folks continue to be oblivious as to the mistake they're making.

 

I'm telling you, if the media doesn't change tactics soon, Trump will win reelection in a landslide. I remarked a few days before the election that I'd seen more Trump signs than Hillary signs in this insanely blue district. This "change in public conversation" here is even more noticeable than that was. This is very significant.

 

I think we have to make Trump appear "normal". Paint him as a normal politician. It takes away his most powerful weapon...his uniqueness. He'll no longer be distinguished. Make him appear boring. Don't obsess over his tweets or his various outrageous statements. That's what he wants. Just my take here.

[Jesse]

I was also thinking on Friday as I listened to Trump's speech/evisceration of the D.C. status quo, I wondered how that speech would have been received if it was Bernie giving it? About 80% of it to me was right up his alley.

I was thinking the same thing actually. That's an important 20% remaining, though.

[Jesse]

The question is when do you get so far into the law of diminishing returns it begins to boomerang. The BLM already has seen this as I think blowback from said movement is one of the reasons there was just enough of a rip in the space-time continuum to allow Trump to win.

 

The right to lawfully assemble/protest is sacred and can be effective, just as the right to bear arms is a sacred right. Both are essential to our democratic republic but both can become detrimental to themselves when stretched too far. Repetitive protests with ambiguous messages which consistently become breeding ground for criminal behavior eventually leaves the masses focusing more on the event than the issue the event is supposedly denouncing. Just the same, everyone open carrying AR-15's would detract from focus on a real threat if one were to present itself.

This is all pretty reasonable. Do you think no one should have protested in the wake of the inauguration, then?

[Jesse]

I'm now officially worried about the media's coverage of Trump backfiring spectacularly.

 

I live in a very blue district. Republicans are an endangered species here, so for the last month or so, the conversation has been very much anti-Trump. However, ever since that "leaked intelligence memo" story ran multiple news cycles, much of the conversation, while still anti-Trump, has revolved more around "fake news", "all media outlets are political megaphones", "at least he'll blow it all up", and stuff like that. Everyone can see through it now. It's almost as vehemently pointed as the criticism of Trump, which is still commonplace here but has lost emphasis.

 

Now, think about how Trump won. He defeated 17 well-funded opponents in the primaries, without spending a penny, and defeated the most prolific political machine in American history during the general election. This despite having the highest unfavorable rating of any candidate in history, despite his being caught on tape bragging about raping women, despite having dozens of women accuse him of rape, despite dozens of racist remarks, despite losing all three debates, despite having almost no ground operation(s), despite having both the republican and democratic machines against him, etc. How could he possibly have pulled this off?

 

It was the media. They've been playing right into his hand. The relentless negative, "big splash" type coverage of Trump reinforces his image as "not one of them". It distinguishes him. It reinforces his "bomb in the water" image. Americans' trust in the media was already under 35%, even before the "leaked memo" stuff came out. I can't imagine how low that number is now. It's just amazing to me that these folks continue to be oblivious as to the mistake they're making.

 

I'm telling you, if the media doesn't change tactics soon, Trump will win reelection in a landslide. I remarked a few days before the election that I'd seen more Trump signs than Hillary signs in this insanely blue district. This "change in public conversation" here is even more noticeable than that was. This is very significant.

 

I think we have to make Trump appear "normal". Paint him as a normal politician. It takes away his most powerful weapon...his uniqueness. He'll no longer be distinguished. Make him appear boring. Don't obsess over his tweets or his various outrageous statements. That's what he wants. Just my take here.

I actually agree with most of this. What do you know?!

[Deweydog]

This is all pretty reasonable. Do you think no one should have protested in the wake of the inauguration, then?

I'm probably the wrong person to ask, being part of the majority of this country which either supported/settled for Trump or are looking at things on a case by case basis from the middle. Most people were not in an "I'm with her" state of mind going into the election, even if they voted for her.

 

Bottom line is the protesters essentially embarked on a massive exercise in self help. If it helped, awesome. If they move forward thinking it had prevented Trump from establishing a dictatorship with female internment camps, even better.

[Deweydog]

I was thinking the same thing actually. That's an important 20% remaining, though.

I just thought it was funny, though. It's a testament to just how powerful non-verbal communication and preconceived notions really are.

[ShawniganLake]

Well, sure looks like a good bet the Falcons will be Superbowl champs. I have a hard time seeing anyone being able to stop them.

Should be a close game at least. I usually cheer for the patriots but I wouldn't mind seeing a championship go to Atlanta and Ryan.

[Deweydog]

I really hope Tom finally gets a ring.

[Jesse]

I just thought it was funny, though. It's a testament to just how powerful non-verbal communication and preconceived notions really are.

I think any pre-conceived notions about Trump are mostly his fault. To be fair.

[Deweydog]

I think any pre-conceived notions about Trump are mostly his fault. To be fair.

True.

 

He is definitely his own worst enemy, but the meat and potatoes of that speech was pure anti-establishment and political revolution with the little man in mind. It's bullshit, just as it would have likely been with Bernie, but the Bernie supporters in my life were absolutely disgusted with every aspect of the speech. He could have come to the podium, cured cancer and dispensed unicorn vouchers to all Americans and been railed for it.

[Jesse]

True.

 

He is definitely his own worst enemy, but the meat and potatoes of that speech was pure anti-establishment and political revolution with the little man in mind. It's bullshit, just as it would have likely been with Bernie, but the Bernie supporters in my life were absolutely disgusted with every aspect of the speech. He could have come to the podium, cured cancer and dispensed unicorn vouchers to all Americans and been railed for it.

Sounds like you have some things to work out with the Bernie supporters in your life.

 

Believe it or not they are probably not a perfect representation of all of us.

[Phil]

I actually agree with most of this. What do you know?!

[Deweydog]

Sounds like you have some things to work out with the Bernie supporters in your life.

 

Believe it or not they are probably not a perfect representation of all of us.

Never said they were, but the irony still withstands. Sometimes it comes off as bitterness for the fact one party's outsider was able to slip all the way to the top while the other's was squashed like a bug and put in his place.

[Jesse]

Never said they were, but the irony still withstands. Sometimes it comes off as bitterness for the fact one party's outsider was able to slip all the way to the top while the other's was squashed like a bug and put in his place.

I'm sure you've got them all figured out.

[Deweydog]

I'm sure you've got them all figured out.

Touchy!

[Front Ranger]

I'm now officially worried about the media's coverage of Trump backfiring spectacularly.

 

I live in a very blue district. Republicans are an endangered species here, so for the last month or so, the conversation has been very much anti-Trump. However, ever since that "leaked intelligence memo" story ran multiple news cycles, much of the conversation, while still anti-Trump, has revolved more around "fake news", "all media outlets are political megaphones", "at least he'll blow it all up", and stuff like that. Everyone can see through it now. It's almost as vehemently pointed as the criticism of Trump, which is still commonplace here but has lost emphasis.

 

Now, think about how Trump won. He defeated 17 well-funded opponents in the primaries, without spending a penny, and defeated the most prolific political machine in American history during the general election. This despite having the highest unfavorable rating of any candidate in history, despite his being caught on tape bragging about raping women, despite having dozens of women accuse him of rape, despite dozens of racist remarks, despite losing all three debates, despite having almost no ground operation(s), despite having both the republican and democratic machines against him, etc. How could he possibly have pulled this off?

 

It was the media. They've been playing right into his hand. The relentless negative, "big splash" type coverage of Trump reinforces his image as "not one of them". It distinguishes him. It reinforces his "bomb in the water" image. Americans' trust in the media was already under 35%, even before the "leaked memo" stuff came out. I can't imagine how low that number is now. It's just amazing to me that these folks continue to be oblivious as to the mistake they're making.

 

I'm telling you, if the media doesn't change tactics soon, Trump will win reelection in a landslide. I remarked a few days before the election that I'd seen more Trump signs than Hillary signs in this insanely blue district. This "change in public conversation" here is even more noticeable than that was. This is very significant.

 

I think we have to make Trump appear "normal". Paint him as a normal politician. It takes away his most powerful weapon...his uniqueness. He'll no longer be distinguished. Make him appear boring. Don't obsess over his tweets or his various outrageous statements. That's what he wants. Just my take here.

 

This is not accurate. You're playing right into the media's hand here.

 

I've made it clear I'm no Trump fan. But accuracy matters.

[Phil]

This is not accurate. You're playing right into the media's hand here.

 

I've made it clear I'm no Trump fan. But accuracy matters.

When he says "they let you do it", in regards to ***** grabbing, doesn't that imply he's actually done it? How else would he know that?

 

You don't think calling Mexicans "rapists" isn't both racist and hypocritical, considering the above?

[Deweydog]

When he says "they let you do it", in regards to ***** grabbing, doesn't that imply he's actually done it? How else would he know that?

 

You don't think calling Mexicans "rapists" isn't both racist and hypocritical, considering the above?

If an illegal immigrant comes to the U.S. from Mexico and rapes someone, wouldn't that person be a Mexican rapist?

[Phil]

And obviously if/when Trump actually does make another outrageous, threatening statement, I agree he should be called out, and it should be covered by the media.

 

But when it comes to nonsense like fake memos, calling the Worldwide Women's March an "anti Trump march", and stuff like that, I think that needs to stop. It's just too obvious, and it plays into his hand.

[Phil]

If an illegal immigrant comes to the U.S. from Mexico and rapes someone, wouldn't that person be a Mexican rapist?

Yeah, they would. What's your point though?

[Deweydog]

Yes. What's your point here?

He didn't call Mexicans rapists. He called Mexican rapists rapists. Is that racist or accurate?

[Front Ranger]

When he says "they let you do it", in regards to ***** grabbing, doesn't that imply he's actually done it? How else would he know that?

 

You don't think calling Mexicans "rapists" isn't both racist and hypocritical, considering the above?

 

He implied sexual assault (although to be technical, if the women "let" him do it, it's not  ). That's if you take his words at face value.

 

As far as the calling Mexicans rapists thing, that's been covered on here pretty well. Saying that some of the illegals crossing the border into the U.S. are criminals, including rapists, is not the same as saying "Mexicans are a bunch of rapists". Anyone looking at the context of what he said can clearly see he wasn't making a racist remark like that.

[Phil]

He didn't call Mexicans rapists. He called Mexican rapists rapists. Is that racist or accurate?

It was, at the very least, a very insensitive statement with both racist and generally divisive undertones. No bueno.

[Phil]

He implied sexual assault (although to be technical, if the women "let" him do it, it's not ). That's if you take his words at face value.

 

As far as the calling Mexicans rapists thing, that's been covered on here pretty well. Saying that some of the illegals crossing the border into the U.S. are criminals, including rapists, is not the same as saying "Mexicans are a bunch of rapists". Anyone looking at the context of what he said can clearly see he wasn't making a racist remark like that.

Whatever. I don't feel like debating this crap. It was a terrible statement.

[Front Ranger]

It was, at the very least, a very insensitive statement with both racist and generally divisive undertones. No bueno.

 

That's debatable. 

 

But it was definitely misconstrued and taken out of context by a lot of people. Parroting those misrepresentations doesn't help anything. No bueno. 

[Deweydog]

It was, at the very least, a very insensitive statement with both racist and generally divisive undertones. No bueno.

His wording was terrible, nothing new there. But it's still pretty clear what he was trying to communicate, poorly.

[Jesse]

Touchy!

Not at all. I'm sure you think you do.

[Jesse]

That's debatable.

 

But it was definitely misconstrued and taken out of context by a lot of people. Parroting those misrepresentations doesn't help anything. No bueno.

At some point you need to realize you can't defend Trump at every turn (especially with things that shouldn't be defended) and then pretend to be in the "middle" the next moment. Can't have it both ways.

[Deweydog]

At some point you need to realize you can't defend Trump at every turn (especially with things that shouldn't be defended) and then pretend to be in the "middle" the next moment. Can't have it both ways.

Is he wrong?

[Jesse]

His wording was terrible, nothing new there. But it's still pretty clear what he was trying to communicate, poorly.

Do you honestly think that Trump wasn't intending to tap into some racism among his constituents with that comment? You do not strike me as a naive individual.

[Jesse]

Is he wrong?

Only Trump knows in the end. But I think he is.

[Deweydog]

Do you honestly think that Trump wasn't intending to tap into some racism among his constituents with that comment? You do not strike me as a naive individual.

So you think his constituents are racist because they support increased enforcement of existing immigration laws?

 

His comment was poorly worded and later clarified repeatedly. Seems like there would be better, more direct ways to appeal to the truly racist sliver of the pie while alienating the remainder of his support.

[Jesse]

So you think his constituents are racist because they support increased enforcement of existing immigration laws?

 

His comment was poorly worded and later clarified repeatedly. Seems like there would be better, more direct ways to appeal to the truly racist sliver of the pie while alienating the remainder of his support.

Whoa. What did you just do there? You did some sort of verbal trick. I never said anything about increased border enforcement being racist. I certainly think there is a distinct racist element to his core constituency, though. And he played/benefitted off of it, regardless of whether he himself is a racist person.

 

It doesn't matter how many times he "clarified" afterwards. He said what he did and it resonated with his core supporters. Then preceded to back away from it in a half-hearted, half assed sort of way. He got away with that sort of thing innumerable times throughout his campaign.

 

I can't even begin to wrap my head around how someone who I presume to be as intelligent as you are can defend this guy. Especially in regard to this sort of thing.

[Deweydog]

Whoa. What did you just do there? You did some sort of verbal trick. I never said anything about increased border enforcement being racist. I certainly think there is a distinct racist element to his core constituency, though. And he played/benefitted off of it, regardless of whether he himself is a racist person.

 

It doesn't matter how many times he "clarified" afterwards. He said what he did and it resonated with his core supporters. Then preceded to back away from it in a half-hearted, half assed sort of way. He got away with that sort of thing innumerable times throughout his campaign.

 

I can't even begin to wrap my head around how someone who I presume to be as intelligent as you are can defend this guy. Especially in regard to this sort of thing.

I'm not defending him. I'm seeing things from a perspective where I haven't made knee jerk assumptions about the vile nature of his core support. It's clear you are convinced you have an intimate knowledge about his base, the kind of presumptions you energetically denounced during your springtime love affair with Bernie.

 

By your rationale, you would have to assume a large enough contingent of his support was so racist as he would feel the need to blatantly call Mexicans rapists to make sure he has those individuals locked down should they later think "hmmm... maybe Hillary's amnesty r us approach is the way to go! White power!!!" I just don't see it. It's pretty clear to me what he was trying to communicate, he just did a terrible job doing it. The man is not a good communicator, unless he's communicating something about himself.

[Jesse]

I'm not defending him. I'm seeing things from a perspective where I haven't made knee jerk assumptions about the vile nature of his core support. It's clear you are convinced you have an intimate knowledge about his base, the kind of presumptions you energetically denounced during your springtime love affair with Bernie.

 

By your rationale, you would have to assume a large enough contingent of his support was so racist as he would feel the need to blatantly call Mexicans rapists to make sure he has those individuals locked down should they later think "hmmm... maybe Hillary's amnesty r us approach is the way to go! White power!!!" I just don't see it. It's pretty clear to me what he was trying to communicate, he just did a terrible job doing it. The man is not a good communicator, unless he's communicating something about himself.

You are giving him an awful lot of breadth here. More than he deserves in my opinion.

 

Again, do you honestly not think there was a xenophobic/racist element to his core supporters?Notice I say element. Obviously not speaking for all of them. But it is/was there.

 

I also find it interesting that you are so very hesitant to jump to any conclusions regarding Trump. But then at the same time attempt to psychoanalyze the pathos of every Sanders supporter until the cows come home. Seems a little one sided. At least I will generally admit my leanings, ( I think Sanders would have been a better Presidnt than Trump, highly controversial statement) rather than consistently pretending to be in the center while attacking from a solid right position again and again.

[Deweydog]

You are giving him an awful lot of breadth here. More than he deserves in my opinion.

 

Again, do you honestly not think there was a xenophobic/racist element to his core supporters?Notice I say element. Obviously not speaking for all of them. But it is/was there.

 

I also find it interesting that you are so very hesitant to jump to any conclusions regarding Trump. But then at the same time attempt to psychoanalyze the pathos of every Sanders supporter until the cows come home. Seems a little one sided. At least I will generally admit my leanings, ( I think Sanders would have been a better Presidnt than Trump, highly controversial statement) rather than consistently pretending to be in the center while attacking from a solid right position again and again.

I do not like Trump. I think he is out of his depth, ran an ego-driven campaign and displays a reckless inability to accept the type of daily criticism any high level public official has to endure. I still marvel at the fact she managed to the bed badly enough to allow him to win.

 

As for his supporters, the right is always going to have more of a racist dirtbag element. Just as the left is always going to have the apathetic sycophant element. Neither represent the masses however and the best of each political ideology.

 

I don't cater my opinions, observations to make sure you see me as perfectly centered. As I said, I lean right on fiscal and law/order issues but am pretty liberal from a social policy perspective.

[Jesse]

I do not like Trump. I think he is out of his depth, ran an ego-driven campaign and displays a reckless inability to accept the type of daily criticism any high level public official has to endure. I still marvel at the fact she managed to s**t the bed badly enough to allow him to win.

 

As for his supporters, the right is always going to have more of a racist dirtbag element. Just as the left is always going to have the apathetic sycophant element. Neither represent the masses however and the best of each political ideology.

 

I don't cater my opinions, observations to make sure you see me as perfectly centered. As I said, I lean right on fiscal and law/order issues but am pretty liberal from a social policy perspective.

Fair enough. Like usual, I feel like we agree more than we disagree overall. As far as this specific detail, we can agree to disagree.

[Deweydog]

Fair enough. Like usual, I feel like we agree more than we disagree overall. As far as this specific detail, we can agree to disagree.

I can live with that.

[Front Ranger]

At some point you need to realize you can't defend Trump at every turn (especially with things that shouldn't be defended) and then pretend to be in the "middle" the next moment. Can't have it both ways.

 

I'm not pretending anything.

 

I also don't defend Trump at every turn. I'm sure it honestly seems that way to you, but evaluating these things objectively is not your strong suit.

 

If something is misconstrued, it's misconstrued. The "Trump called Mexicans rapists" comment was inaccurate. I'm not pointing out that inaccuracy because I'm secretly a Trump supporter. 

 

Believe it or not, not every comment on here is politically motivated. I'd hope you can wrap your head around how that's possible.

[Jesse]

I'm not pretending anything.

 

I also don't defend Trump at every turn. I'm sure it honestly seems that way to you, but evaluating these things objectively is not your strong suit.

 

If something is misconstrued, it's misconstrued. The "Trump called Mexicans rapists" comment was inaccurate. I'm not pointing out that inaccuracy because I'm secretly a Trump supporter.

 

Believe it or not, not every comment on here is politically motivated. I'd hope you can wrap your head around how that's possible.

You're late. Everyone has already moved on.