The perfect summary of my opinion of my party.

[RhinoRush]

Yes, this is a good reflection of the mindset of a lot of Republicans. If someone is rich (even if they inherited it), they must also be super intelligent.

Normal people just respect winners Jackie boy. And rightfully have contempt for losers.

 

[second sight]

good read ts.

i actually think facebook's attempt to have standards for their "news" posts is a good start. there are potential problems, of course. it will be interpreted as censorship, and if done poorly, thats what it could amount to.

if done well, and true journalistic practices are used to weed out the fake ass click bait that spreads like wildfire, that will do so much imo. people on the left and the right will be more protected from their shit critical thinking skills.

whats truly sad imo, is this issue of "fake news" was only brought up as a major issue AFTER this election. sad!

perfect more politifact/snopes bullshit fact checking

 

[HockeyBjj]

"
What they did buy into was the argument that this was a “binary choice.” No matter how bad Mr. Trump was, my listeners argued, he could not possibly be as bad as Mrs. Clinton. You simply cannot overstate this as a factor in the final outcome. As our politics have become more polarized, the essential loyalties shift from ideas, to parties, to tribes, to individuals. Nothing else ultimately matters.

In this binary tribal world, where everything is at stake, everything is in play, there is no room for quibbles about character, or truth, or principles. If everything — the Supreme Court, the fate of Western civilization, the survival of the planet — depends on tribal victory, then neither individuals nor ideas can be determinative. I watched this play out in real time, as conservatives who fully understood the threat that Mr. Trump posed succumbed to the argument about the Supreme Court. As even Mr. Ryan discovered, neutrality was not acceptable; if you were not for Mr. Trump, then you were for Mrs. Clinton."

This right here is why he won

 

[Gunny]

Well pan welcome to my life.

Another conservative who has had his branding changed by others lol.

As far as the article it's partially half right.

Trump won because the team sport view of politics kept many Rs in the camp, despite a real shitty candidate. It's was go team, no matter what. He also really got a part of the base that, despite what the author says, was always speaking trumps language anyway.

He also won because of the anger at the dems who it was felt had abandoned the working class to support globalization (the R s actually support globalization more but not trump).

And then we had a uninspiring candidate.

That sports team view of politics is a sword that cuts both ways. You can't say that's the reason he won because you can't quantify how much of Hillary's support was based on the same phenomena - actually, come to think of it, if you were to compare enthusiasm levels for the two candidates, I think you'd have to admit Trump had had far more earnest support that wasn't purely partisan in nature.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That sports team view of politics is a sword that cuts both ways. You can't say that's the reason he won because you can't quantify how much of Hillary's support was based on the same phenomena - actually, come to think of it, if you were to compare enthusiasm levels for the two candidates, I think you'd have to admit Trump had had far more earnest support that wasn't purely partisan in nature.

False.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-voters-arent-just-voting-against-trump/

A simpler method for determining positive or negative support is to ask people whether their vote is affirmatively for one candidate or in protest against the other. The latest ABC News survey reveals that, in fact, Clinton’s voters feel about as positively about their candidate as any candidate’s supporters have felt about their own preferred candidate since 1980. Trump voters are less enthusiastic about him: Since 1980, no group of supporters has been less affirmative in its support for its candidate.

Right now, 56 percent of Clinton voters say they are mainly for her compared with just 42 percent of the same voters who say they are voting against Trump. This 56 percent is the highest it’s been all year in the ABC News poll, and it’s been steadily climbing for Clinton since July. In the same survey, only 41 percent of Trump supporters say they are voting for him, while 54 percent say they are mostly voting against Clinton. Those numbers are about the same as they’ve been all year.

 

[MeatheadMike]

That sports team view of politics is a sword that cuts both ways. You can't say that's the reason he won because you can't quantify how much of Hillary's support was based on the same phenomena - actually, come to think of it, if you were to compare enthusiasm levels for the two candidates, I think you'd have to admit Trump had had far more earnest support that wasn't purely partisan in nature.

If that was the case, all of the people who voted for Obama in 2012 would have also come out to vote for Hillary. Many of them stayed home, which played a big role in Trump winning.

 

[LilMountain]

"
What they did buy into was the argument that this was a “binary choice.” No matter how bad Mr. Trump was, my listeners argued, he could not possibly be as bad as Mrs. Clinton. You simply cannot overstate this as a factor in the final outcome. As our politics have become more polarized, the essential loyalties shift from ideas, to parties, to tribes, to individuals. Nothing else ultimately matters.

In this binary tribal world, where everything is at stake, everything is in play, there is no room for quibbles about character, or truth, or principles. If everything — the Supreme Court, the fate of Western civilization, the survival of the planet — depends on tribal victory, then neither individuals nor ideas can be determinative. I watched this play out in real time, as conservatives who fully understood the threat that Mr. Trump posed succumbed to the argument about the Supreme Court. As even Mr. Ryan discovered, neutrality was not acceptable; if you were not for Mr. Trump, then you were for Mrs. Clinton."

This right here is why he won

And why the two parties will never allow ranked choice voting

 

[Gunny]

If that was the case all, of the people who voted for Obama in 2012 would have also come out to vote for Hillary. Many of them stayed home, which played a big role in Trump winning.

I said you can't quantify how many Hillary supporters were "team" voters. You can't. Are you saying that only republicans are partisan in their voting habits? And per your point you also can't quantify how many republican voters stayed home. I personally know more conservative voters who abstained or voted third party than who voted for trump.

 

[streets ahead]

So basically this guy talked himself out of a job and he's salty? I like how he preemptively labeled his critics as racist in tha article. I'm sure he'll be contributing to MSNBC or CNN in no time.

 

[dontsnitch]

I think you are missing my point. Trump appealed more to certain segments more but should have turned of others but did not because the team spirit nature of politics. The vast majority of establishment pro globalist republicans voted for trump.

Most Republicans voted for Trump as is evidenced by his crushing victory in the primaries, granted, but the point I disagree with is if it was truly a "go team" election, the nominee would have been an actual member of the team, that is, an actual Republican or conservative, of which Trump is arguably neither, and definitely not the embodiment of the GOP, I mean, half of them disavowed the guy and Jeb and Kasich, the definitive Republicans, were thoroughly embarrassed. It's telling that the second runner up was a pariah of the party.

On everything but paper the GOP lost just as badly as the Dems did, which is why they should, along with the Dems, step back and consider why people voted as they did by looking internally, not externally. Trump's victory is an indictment of both parties.

 

[MeatheadMike]

I said you can't quantify how many Hillary supporters were "team" voters. You can't. Are you saying that only republicans are partisan in their voting habits? And per your point you also can't quantify how many republican voters stayed home. I personally know more conservative voters who abstained or voted third party than who voted for trump.

In this election we saw many old school republicans come out and renounce Trump... stating outright they would not vote for him. But the results show they actually did end up voting for him. While on the other side, many of the 2012 Obama supporters stayed home for Hillary.

So while there were "team" supporters on both sides, at least for this election, the Team supporters on one side seem to have been more lopsided.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

perfect more politifact/snopes bullshit fact checking

what issue do you take with politifact?

 

[berimBOWLoh]

why do you have a party, TS?? Why not just go into every local, state or federal election with an open mind and hear each candidate out??


i never understand ppl who are with one party, hell or high water.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

why do you have a party, TS?? Why not just go into every local, state or federal election with an open mind and hear each candidate out??


i never understand ppl who are with one party, hell or high water.

the vast majority of people have a party, whether they like to think they do or not. ask anyone in this forum what they are, and 90% will say "im an independent." that stance is 100000% bullshit. the sooner people realize that about themselves, the sooner they can identify and check their own bias.

 

[second sight]

what issue do you take with politifact?

its just like an internet argument, they pull out part of the statement (that us ally has nothing to do with the point)
and pretend like that was they point being made

it will be the same shit with Facebook, people will read the headline false and then go to bat, never taking time to even figure out what was being discussed. its like people think they can get out of everything on some sort of technicality

 

[JonnyRingo84]

its just like an internet argument, they pull out part of the statement (that us ally has nothing to do with the point)
and pretend like that was they point being made

it will be the same shit with Facebook, people will read the headline false and then go to bat, never taking time to even figure out what was being discussed. its like people think they can get out of everything on some sort of technicality

meh. id probably have to see a specific example to be convinced of anything. they did win the pulitzer prize......though i suppose the pulitzer folks could be biased as well.

 

[Jack V Savage]

the vast majority of people have a party, whether they like to think they do or not. ask anyone in this forum what they are, and 90% will say "im an independent." that stance is 100000% bullshit. the sooner people realize that about themselves, the sooner they can identify and check their own bias.

Additionally, if you actually care about policy, party is what matters in elections. In Congress, the parties vote together almost all the time (and party membership determines committee leadership). The president picks a team from people in his party, works with his party in Congress, gets help from staffers in his party, etc. Trump is unusual in that he rhetorically rejected a lot of his party and was uniquely unqualified and unsuited (intellectually and temperamentally), though his cabinet and policy agenda is still looking like standard Republican stuff, plus some cronies and Russian stooges.

 

[dontsnitch]

the vast majority of people have a party, whether they like to think they do or not. ask anyone in this forum what they are, and 90% will say "im an independent." that stance is 100000% bullshit. the sooner people realize that about themselves, the sooner they can identify and check their own bias.

I think it depends on what you mean by have. People will agree with one party more than another, but they may not identify with either.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

I think it depends on what you mean by have. People will agree with one party more than another, but they may not identify with either.

but most will always come to the defense of one, and vilify the other. and then claim to be "independent."

 

[dontsnitch]

but most will always come to the defense of one, and vilify the other. and then claim to be "independent."

Are we talking party or spectrum? I'm a staunch social conservative, and defend everything that aligns with this, which is usually referred to as the Right, but I wouldn't vote Republican since I consider their views on humanitarianism to be fundamentally flawed. Of course, I'm not American, but I would have voted Trump, though it had nothing to do with party.

As a Canadian, I don't vote for either party because they're both flawed, though I came close to voting NDP in the last election.