Uncensored Trump Rallies (NSFW)

Started by Shiranu, November 06, 2016, 07:11:47 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Shiranu

QuoteI hope that after the election is over, we can end this electoral war and no longer be at each other's throats.  We're not all going to agree, that much is certain, but we don't have to hate each other.

I really hope I am wrong, but I don't see us being anywhere near the tipping point where people either do anything about it or say, "Okay, this is getting ridiculous.".

I think partisanship is a growing reality of the modern world, which is not an encouraging sign given how that mindset has worked in the past.

But I'm 26 and honestly don't know all that much about how society changes over generations. Maybe this is a common trend, and just doesn't make the history books unless something important happens.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

AllPurposeAtheist

I guess we'll have to wait till tonight to find out if half of the nation is really as fucking stupid as CNN and the rest of the bullshit peddlers want us to believe or if HRC wins in a landslide so bad that nobody in their right mind would ever back someone so seriously unhinged as Trumpster fire again.
I've always believed that there is a certain amount of people nobody should trust to look out the window to tell us if it's raining or not, the type of person who thinks it's funny to shit in a public swimming pool and blame others for shitting in the pool. Fortunate that these are extreme minorities, but they do exist. If shitting in swimming pools came up on the ballot CNN would have us believe that it's just too close to call and 49.99% of people like swimming in a mixture of chlorine and shit.     
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

GSOgymrat

Quote from: Shiranu on November 07, 2016, 10:24:11 PM
I really hope I am wrong, but I don't see us being anywhere near the tipping point where people either do anything about it or say, "Okay, this is getting ridiculous.".

I think partisanship is a growing reality of the modern world, which is not an encouraging sign given how that mindset has worked in the past.

But I'm 26 and honestly don't know all that much about how society changes over generations. Maybe this is a common trend, and just doesn't make the history books unless something important happens.

The Hyper-Polarization of America-- This year's campaign might be the worst yet, but the anger and divisiveness didn't start with Trump and Clintonâ€"and it won't end anytime soon.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-hyper-polarization-of-america/

America’s satire show of record, Saturday Night Live, bid farewell to the 2016 campaign with a sketch that featured the actors who have played Hillary Clinton (Kate McKinnon) and Donald Trump (Alec Baldwin) feeling so soiled by the negativity of the campaign that they needed a cathartic hug fest in the microcosm of the U.S. body politic that is Times Square. Moving on from the rancor of this election season is something the nation as a whole will not be able to do so easily. This is because of the scope and nature of the partisan polarization that shapes the current moment in American politics.

In fact, the divisiveness and anxiety associated with the recent campaign is very much a product of this hyperpolarization. To understand this, it is important to recognize that ours is not necessarily a polarization characterized by cavernous ideological gaps or a pronounced bimodal issue position distribution. Recent scholarship on American politics tells us that we are a nation largely sorted into two teams, a people less and less able to understand or empathize with the other side. In “Affect, Not Ideology,” Shanto Iyengar, Guarav Sood and Yphtach Lelkes show that recent decades have seen a dramatic growth in the difference between how Americans feel about their own party and the other party. And, as Alan Abramowitz and Steven Webster emphasize, the real change has been in how negatively we feel about the other side.

My own research repeatedly shows that partisanship for many Americans today takes the form of a visceral, even subconscious, attachment to a party group. Our party becomes a part of our self-concept in deep and meaningful ways. This linkage of party and “self” changes the way we judge the parties and incorporate and receive new information. I and others have measured profound, nearly blinding, application of motivated reasoning on the part of voters when evaluating the actions of politicians and partisans from the two sides. Stephen Goggin and I show the pronounced boosting that occurs when voters are asked to rate a typical candidate from both parties on positive and negative traits. John Henderson and I find that selectivity produces a pervasive impulse to skip campaign ads from the other party. Relatedly, Leonie Huddy, Lilliana Mason and Lene Aarøe show that partisan identity fundamentally shapes levels of engagement in campaign activity.
Bringing all of this together in Why Washington Won’t Work, Marc Hetherington and Thomas Rudolph paint a picture of a nation overwhelmed by dislike and distrust of the other side and, consequently, a political process incapable of compromise and mired in gridlock. It is easy to see how this sort of distrust and dysfunction manifests itself in assumptions about the motivations (malice, greed, bigotry, moral bankruptcy, or most charitably, naiveté) of those on the other partisan team. Those on the other side no longer just disagree about the issues, they are bad people with dangerous ideas. This paves the way for efforts to delegitimize electoral outcomes and the leaders they produce by way of conspiracy theories and claims of fraud and rigging. Perhaps most dangerously, it also can be used to justify nearly any effort to thwart the opposition.

This hyperpolarization did not begin with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. It has been building for years. For hints of this transition, we can look to the colors of our electoral map in presidential elections over the years. For most of the last century, much of the map would swing wildly between red and blue from election to election. A Republican landslide would turn most states red. A strong year for Democrats would be nearly all blue. In 1984, for instance, Walter Mondale, a perfectly credible Democratic nominee, won only two places: his home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia. Four years later, Michael Dukakis did only slightly better. In the 1990s, though, the current map began to take shape. And, heading into Tuesday’s election there are 40 states (plus the District of Columbia) that have voted for the same party in every election since 2000. This sort of partisan electoral stability at the state level is historically anomalous and it reflects a, perhaps unprecedented, level of polarization in the electorate. This is the climate in which Hillary Clinton will have to govern.

But one particular feature of this polarization is especially important to understand heading into the next four years. In Asymmetric Politics, Matt Grossmann and David Hopkins show us that there are important qualitative differences between the two parties. The Democratic Party is best described as a collection of group interests and the Republican Party is unified by ideology. This finding may be either the cause of or the product of a phenomenon my research has shown in study after study. Over and over, Republican voters behave in more partisan ways than do their Democratic counterparts. They identify more strongly with their party. They show more bias in interpreting new information. They engage in more boosting of their party (and derogation of the other). And, they are more likely to select out of receiving messages from the other side.

I call this phenomenon of asymmetric polarization the Intensity Gap. This is a gap I believe has played an important role in President Obama’s administration and will likely be even more important heading into a Clinton Administration. The heightened partisan intensity among Republicans both frees and constrains Republican leaders. It can mean that they suffer a penalty among their base for appearing to compromise with Democrats, and that the consequences of obstruction may be minimal. This all foretells ongoing gridlock and division.

So, while Alec Baldwin and Kate McKinnon and may be able to scrub off the patina of unease and loathing that characterized Campaign 2016, the effects of this campaign and the hyperpolarization that produced it, are likely to linger into the foreseeable future.

Baruch

Enough navel gazing ...

"DECENCY, SECURITY AND LIBERTY ALIKE DEMAND THAT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS SHALL BE SUBJECTED TO THE SAME RULES OF CONDUCT THAT ARE COMMANDS TO THE CITIZEN. IN A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS, EXISTENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE IMPERILED IF IT FAILS TO OBSERVE THE LAW SCRUPULOUSLY. FOR GOOD OR FOR ILL, IT TEACHES THE WHOLE PEOPLE BY ITS EXAMPLE. IF THE GOVERNMENT BECOMES A LAWBREAKER, IT BREEDS CONTEMPT FOR LAW; IT INVITES EVERY MAN TO BECOME A LAW UNTO HIMSELF; IT INVITES ANARCHY." LOUIS D. BRANDEIS

It is up to the citizens to decide to keep a republic or lose it.

PS - those who didn't live in the 60s ... you don't know what polarization is ... you are only triggered
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Shiranu on November 07, 2016, 10:24:11 PM
I really hope I am wrong, but I don't see us being anywhere near the tipping point where people either do anything about it or say, "Okay, this is getting ridiculous.".

I think partisanship is a growing reality of the modern world, which is not an encouraging sign given how that mindset has worked in the past.

But I'm 26 and honestly don't know all that much about how society changes over generations. Maybe this is a common trend, and just doesn't make the history books unless something important happens.
In my experience, this is not a common thread.  Since I've had experience living in various places, including the South, I have learned that racism and bigotry has not gone away but is usually below the surface.  Trump brought out into the open and made viable this countries racism, bigotry, and the worst parts of Nationalism.  I don't see that part simply going away and hiding.  The Ted Nugents of this world feel vindicated by Trump--win or lose.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

SGOS

#20
Quote from: Baruch on November 08, 2016, 06:39:00 AM
PS - those who didn't live in the 60s ... you don't know what polarization is ... you are only triggered

This got me thinking.  Yes, it was bad in the 60s.  The Army National Guard shot and killed college students in a peaceful protest for Christ Sakes.  But there seems to be something slightly different going on now.  In the 60s, polarization was about an issue, Vietnam, that deeply divided the country.  Today, the polarization doesn't seem to revolve around anything in particular.  It just lingers there, like a thing in itself, almost waiting for something to nettle it, so that it can express itself.

Now it's about those "fucking liberals" (what does it even mean to be liberal?  Most people use the synonym, Democrat, but that's hardly accurate).  Or it's about those "dumb rednecks".  My point is that the terms, liberal and redneck, don't describe an issue.  They are just vague references to a general perception about a vague ideology. 

Rather than an objection to an issue, polarization today is more like a habitual indoctrination that lingers half way between consciousness and the unconscious.  In a way, that's worse than the 60s, because it seems more irrational.

Baruch

Perhaps.  Remember the Outer Limits episode, where the scientists had to invent an alien, to scare the humans into working with each other?  The Soviet Union formed that alien in the 60s ... and we don't have that now ... not even Terrorism seems to keep Americans together.  It may be time to split, unless you can get the British to burn down Washington DC again.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: SGOS on November 08, 2016, 08:54:56 AM
This got me thinking.  Yes, it was bad in the 60s.  The Army National Guard shot and killed college students in a peaceful protest for Christ Sakes.  But there seems to be something slightly different going on now.  In the 60s, polarization was about an issue, Vietnam, that deeply divided the country.  Today, the polarization doesn't seem to revolve around anything in particular.  It just lingers there, like a thing in itself, almost waiting for something to nettle it, so that it can express itself.

Now it's about those "fucking liberals" (what does it even mean to be liberal?  Most people use the synonym, Democrat, but that's hardly accurate).  Or it's about those "dumb rednecks".  My point is that the terms, liberal and redneck, don't describe an issue.  They are just vague references to a general perception about a vague ideology. 

Rather than an objection to an issue, polarization today is more like a habitual indoctrination that lingers half way between consciousness and the unconscious.  In a way, that's worse than the 60s, because it seems more irrational.

You are historicaly incorrect.  It used to be that there were Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats.  Now, everyone is so partisan in purity. 
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Unbeliever

God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Cavebear

Quote from: Unbeliever on November 10, 2016, 04:45:54 PM
Just what Nader's been trying to do for a while:

Ralph Nader Finds Common Ground to Unite Conservatives, Liberals

Nader prevented Gore from winning in 2000.  May he rot in an early Christian Hell.  The world would be much better had Gore won. 
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2016, 12:28:38 AM
Nader prevented Gore from winning in 2000.  May he rot in an early Christian Hell.  The world would be much better had Gore won.

Says a carbon credits/I invented the Internet ... supporter ;-)

The world would have been a much better place if the CIA had taken out Johnson instead of Kennedy.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Unbeliever

Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2016, 12:28:38 AM
Nader prevented Gore from winning in 2000.  May he rot in an early Christian Hell.  The world would be much better had Gore won. 
No, the SCOTUS prevented Gore from winning. That's why America is now a zombie nation.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

AllPurposeAtheist

I do think a civil war is coming. When?  That's anyone's guess, but about the only thing that might prevent it may just be an invasion by another nation and if Trump can't work with our military and it looks like he can't or won't it may just wind up with some other nation sensing that blatant weakness and decide to move.  Look, the military of this nation has a history of defending certain principles right or wrong and if they believe that the administration is teatering on extremism and putting us all in extreme peril they might just move to remove the incoming regime. There is a very real possibility of a military coup.
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Baruch

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 16, 2016, 02:17:05 PM
I do think a civil war is coming. When?  That's anyone's guess, but about the only thing that might prevent it may just be an invasion by another nation and if Trump can't work with our military and it looks like he can't or won't it may just wind up with some other nation sensing that blatant weakness and decide to move.  Look, the military of this nation has a history of defending certain principles right or wrong and if they believe that the administration is teatering on extremism and putting us all in extreme peril they might just move to remove the incoming regime. There is a very real possibility of a military coup.

That coup also works against the Left as well as the Right.  But a coup doesn't equal civil war.  The military not stepping in to restore order, or divided itself (thanks General Lee) ... then you get civil war.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Baruch on November 16, 2016, 07:34:16 PM
That coup also works against the Left as well as the Right.  But a coup doesn't equal civil war.  The military not stepping in to restore order, or divided itself (thanks General Lee) ... then you get civil war.
Even as a child, I never considered Lee to be a hero of any sort.  I regard him simply as a traitor.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?