2016 US Presidential Election Thread XIII

[namkcuR]

come on, dude. you're a smart guy. i don't understand why you're acting this way.

i'm super disappointed right now.

I hope you stay, the forum is as good as its posters and you're a good one.

I get as annoyed with BMP's schtick in FYM as anyone, but to be honest, I'm not sure I agree he should be thrown out or banned or whatever. I like to think we're a tolerant place open to all viewpoints. He clearly hates Hillary. He is often troll-baiting, yes, but I believe his basic viewpoint is genuine. I would be hesitant to silence an opposing viewpoint like that. What's next, we kick Oregoropa out because he's a conservative? We kick Deep out?

I'd just be very careful about going down that road. I understand your frustration, but I'm not sure I can get behind the solution you're proposing.

 

[iron yuppie]

It's not like BMP has been throwing around racial epithets or anything like that. Someone like Indy500 or whatever was openly advocating for discrimination against LGBT folks etc - BMP has not done anything of the sort. Having an unpopular opinion is not inherently trolling.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I don't think he's ever trolling. He's just "that guy." The one who supports far left progressives. The rest of us wouldn't understand.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

It's not like BMP has been throwing around racial epithets or anything like that. Someone like Indy500 or whatever was openly advocating for discrimination against LGBT folks etc - BMP has not done anything of the sort. Having an unpopular opinion is not inherently trolling.

I suppose you haven't been over to the racism thread in a while...

 

[BVS]

Yeah calling people pro-rape isn't trolling

He's not even far left.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Not far left, far left progressive.

You wouldn't understand.

 

[BVS]

I suppose you haven't been over to the racism thread in a while...

But he's nice enough not to use epithets.

Not far left, far left progressive.

You wouldn't understand.

so true



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[iron yuppie]

I suppose you haven't been over to the racism thread in a while...

Has he been throwing around the N word, or suggesting black people should be reduced to second class citizens or something?

Or is the suggestion here that he should be banned simply because his views on race aren't as nuanced as a lot of you like to think yours are?

Like Diemen said, the ignore function is easy to use. If you elect to keep engaging him over and over again on these issues, it's tough to see it as anything other than you getting a sense of superiority from shitting all over him ad fucking nauseam, which frankly is as tiring as his constant posting about Bernie.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

He's suggested that black people are inherently more violent, a handful of times. He tends to reject an socioeconomic-influenced theory as to why black people end up having a disproportionate amount of violence amongst one another. He tends not to back up these views with facts but instead cites his personal experience of watching black people during his public transit rides.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I don't think he should be banned, that's not fair. But boy, he should be mocked and/or ridiculed ?

 

[DaveC]

Has he been throwing around the N word, or suggesting black people should be reduced to second class citizens or something?

Or is the suggestion here that he should be banned simply because his views on race aren't as nuanced as a lot of you like to think yours are?

right, cause it can't be racist if you aren't calling people niggers and advocating for the return of jim crow laws. he just has a "nuanced" view on black people race.

I hope you stay, the forum is as good as its posters and you're a good one.

I get as annoyed with BMP's schtick in FYM as anyone, but to be honest, I'm not sure I agree he should be thrown out or banned or whatever. I like to think we're a tolerant place open to all viewpoints. He clearly hates Hillary. He is often troll-baiting, yes, but I believe his basic viewpoint is genuine. I would be hesitant to silence an opposing viewpoint like that. What's next, we kick Oregoropa out because he's a conservative? We kick Deep out?

I'd just be very careful about going down that road. I understand your frustration, but I'm not sure I can get behind the solution you're proposing.

there is an enormous difference between banning someone for being a troll, and banning someone for having an opposing viewpoint. i never came anywhere close to suggesting we should get rid of anyone for their political opinions. i don't care who anyone supports or doesn't support, everyone has the right to that kind of opinion for sure. this is about way more than just the bernie posts at this point.

but there is not, nor should there be, any place here for the kind of casually tossed-off racism and sexism that seems to be a constant from one user in particular. there are literally a million other forums online you can go to where people will be happy to read that kind of thing, and have a "discussion" with that kind of tone and context - this ain't it.

 

[iron yuppie]

right, cause it can't be racist if you aren't calling people niggers and advocating for the return of jim crow laws. he just has a "nuanced" view on black people race.

Which is not remotely what I suggested. There's racist insinuations that can be called out, disparaged, whatever, and then there are blithely, conspicuously racist comments that should get swifter action. By conflating the two you're putting Diemen or any other mod in an impossible situation.

 

[DaveC]

i don't really see how "don't be racist" puts any mod in an impossible situation, but okay.

 

[Bluer White]

mocked and/or ridiculed ?

If the smugness in the forum goes away I'm going to stop reading too

 

[LuckyNumber7]

See, if you ban BMP we will lose Bluer White.

Fight smugness with smugness ?

 

[Bluer White]

I'd like to say imho that BMP hasn't said things that should make *him* a thread topic.

 

[BVS]

We're really raising the bar on what's excepted behavior in here.

Congrats


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[DaveC]

exactly. maybe it's idealistic or naive but i'd like to think we have a bit of a higher standard here than the average internet cesspool.

 

[Diemen]

The problem is that there are certain topics that are instant derails every time, and continually bringing them up is intentionally disruptive and antagonistic.

While it might not technically be trolling to repeatedly voice a sincere opinion, it's not a healthy or productive way to engage with the forum when everyone is already well aware of your opinion, and that opinion is irrelevant to the current discussion.

 

[Irvine511]

I don't think he should be banned, that's not fair. But boy, he should be mocked and/or ridiculed ?

This is really the difference. He wants attention, which is different from actually trolling. If people want to bass their views on race based on their subjective experiences in a city that doesn't have many black people to begin with and on that time they were "mugged," by all means, I'd love for them to keep posting because of the opportunities it presents for discussion.

It is a bit akin to STING and the days of Resolution 1441, but while that's annoying, it doesn't seem to me that we'd want an annoyance-free forum. It's kind of a self-selecting forum these days, but 10-years ago if you ventured into other areas you'd see how articulate and generally courteous FYM posters were in comparison.

I wasn't around, but years ago I was directed by Melon to kind of shockingly homophobic comments that were reasonably commonplace in here during the ATYCLB-era. I'd like to think that exposure and discrediting of such opinions accomplishes much.

 

[DaveC]

[tweet]778016283342307328[/tweet]

[tweet]778442063398342657[/tweet]

 

[deep]

I expect Trump to get more African American votes than Romney.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

I do too at this point given the polling. I mean, there isn't a black person at the top of the ticket which is going to lead to lower turnout among the community, even if it's minor, which in turn would elevate the share of black conservatives. I mean, just from a logical perspective, why would a less likable white candidate who has been blamed for causing structural problems within the black community (such as mass incarceration) suddenly perform better than a well liked black candidate (and in 2012, an incumbent)? I mean, there's absolutely nowhere to go but down.

On the other hand, there's older, contrarian polling that shows he was getting literally 2% of the black vote and trailing Johnson and Stein by a wide margin...but things have shifted a bit. Regardless, the share he receives from them will be effectively meaningless unless he were to actually get a noteworthy amount, say 20% or so.

It's funny that for as much as we talk about rainbow coalitions and the importance of the minority voter, they actually aren't too important in most of the country. Black voters and their turnout can make a significant difference in some key swing stages, but as FiveThirtyEight has pointed out multiple times, Latino and Asian voters don't really make a difference because they're packed into states that lean heavily to the left or right. And that's a big plus for Trump because most of the people that are members of the groups he has offended the most can't really make much of a meaningful difference when it comes to the Electoral College.

 

[Popmartijn]

On the other hand, there's older, contrarian polling that shows he was getting literally 2% of the black vote and trailing Johnson and Stein by a wide margin...but things have shifted a bit.

No, not really. A lesson in how to misread a poll: Blip in black voter support for Trump comes and goes quickly - LA Times

And then, just as quickly as the line on the chart had turned upward, it turned back down. As of Wednesday, Trump's black support in the poll is back to the single digits, near where it had been all along.

I guess Trump's proposal for stop-and-frisk isn't popular in black communities. Then again, all this 'black outreach' talk from him hasn't been aimed at them, but rather white voters on the fence whether or not they want to vote for a racist bigot.

as FiveThirtyEight has pointed out multiple times, Latino and Asian voters don't really make a difference because they're packed into states that lean heavily to the left or right.

I haven't seen this statement by them (haven't followed the site lately, since the conventions more or less), but if they've really said this then I think they're quite wrong. Especially when it comes to Latino voters. Florida, New Mexico and Arizona are three important states where the Latino vote is quite important. And where the Latino population is still growing.

 

[BoMac]

Canada: The different voice - BBC News

 

[BigMacPhisto]

I haven't seen this statement by them (haven't followed the site lately, since the conventions more or less), but if they've really said this then I think they're quite wrong. Especially when it comes to Latino voters. Florida, New Mexico and Arizona are three important states where the Latino vote is quite important. And where the Latino population is still growing.

Here's a recent example:

"2. Hispanics/Latinos. According to the Census, only 48 percent of 23.3 million eligible Latinos turned out to vote in 2012, and the Pew Research Center estimates 27.3 million will be eligible this year. With Trump atop the ballot, Latinos could be poised to break records for turnout and Democratic support. But they’re woefully underrepresented in Electoral College battlegrounds and provide Clinton with millions of superfluous votes in California, New York and Texas.

Of the battlegrounds, Latinos exceed 15 percent of the likely electorate in only Arizona, Florida and Nevada. Trump doesn’t need Nevada, and by itself, a Latino surge likely won’t be big enough to erase the GOP’s 9 percentage point 2012 margin in Arizona. By far, Latinos are most potent in Florida. However, Florida was Obama’s narrowest win in 2012, and even if Trump were to underperform Mitt Romney by 5 points among Florida’s Latinos, he could flip the state by winning whites by an additional 3 points."


How Trump Could Win The White House While Losing The Popular Vote | FiveThirtyEight


Hadn't seen this piece until just now and it's important reading:

Black Voters Are So Loyal That Their Issues Get Ignored | FiveThirtyEight

 

[DaveC]

FiveThirtyEight now has a senate projection as well as the presidential one: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/senate/

 

[BigMacPhisto]

They've had that for a while now, feels like a week. I don't think the Senate races are really going to have too many surprises. Indiana, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Nevada feel like the only ones that could go either way.

If Clinton loses the Presidency, I would expect all four to go to the Republicans. If she wins, I'd expect all four to go to the Democrats.

Starting to now look like Wisconsin or Michigan would be the path of least resistance for Trump rather than winning Pennsylvania which he just can't seem to crack.

Romney States + Iowa + Nevada + Ohio + Wisconsin = 269 and he's elected President via the House. Add in an electoral vote from Maine and it is 270.

If he wins Michigan instead of Wisconsin, he can then afford to lose Nevada.


Seems like the smart move for that campaign would be to dump their resources into shoring up Nevada and Ohio (as Iowa and North Carolina are already looking strong enough) and then trying for Michigan and/or Wisconsin.

 

[PhilsFan]

https://medium.com/@kept_simple/the...progressive-candidate-219e4e8414e8#.71ej93vud

This is the argument Clinton supporters should be making. It is something Irvine has been pounding the table on now for many election seasons. It doesn't insult the intelligence of leftists by trying to carve every argument back into right-wing conspiracy nonsense or making us all seem like sycophants like BMP. It compares the Clinton's on reasonable grounds while also recognizing that they are two different people.

An article like this gets me focused on voting for Clinton again after nearly two months of my faith in that vote being slowly eroded by her incompetent campaign stunts and tone-deaf tsk-tsking from her center-left supporters. Yeah, I've always known the court appointments are important, but outlining it like this and reminding people that it's one thing she actually might not settle into the middle on like she does with everything else is crucial.

 

[Irvine511]

https://medium.com/@kept_simple/the...progressive-candidate-219e4e8414e8#.71ej93vud

This is the argument Clinton supporters should be making. It is something Irvine has been pounding the table on now for many election seasons. It doesn't insult the intelligence of leftists by trying to carve every argument back into right-wing conspiracy nonsense or making us all seem like sycophants like BMP. It compares the Clinton's on reasonable grounds while also recognizing that they are two different people.

An article like this gets me focused on voting for Clinton again after nearly two months of my faith in that vote being slowly eroded by her incompetent campaign stunts and tone-deaf tsk-tsking from her center-left supporters. Yeah, I've always known the court appointments are important, but outlining it like this and reminding people that it's one thing she actually might not settle into the middle on like she does with everything else is crucial.