Not sure I follow your point, tintt. What I am saying is that "Stronger Together" does not appear to include the vast majority of people described in that article. Perhaps if Hillary (or any candidate) could speak to these voters, Trump would not be where he is today.
I would argue that Bernie was speaking to these voters. They may disagree with his politics, but he was speaking to them (and I would argue he was speaking to them persuasively).
w and d, what do you want Hillary to say? I grew up in a mostly blue family within the sea of red. Therefore, Hilary does speak to some of the "all americans".
WAD, your presumption is that the people that Hillary is "supposedly" not talking to, would listen. The people in that article largely believe that the sitting President is not legit. Full Stop. Jesus fucking Christ could walk down the street, save a leper, turn a water tower into the largest fucking wine cask in the world, and these douchecanoes would still believe that he was an ISIL terrorist.
Won, my answer would be because I think it is clear that both candidates say only what would get them elected. They only parrot different perspectives. The choice ultimately comes down to which do you feel has interests that more align with your situation. NOT WHAT THEY SAY BUT WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. What do you expect they will do in the future.
One has spent a life in public service. She has made money and created a great amount of power doing it but I truly believe that if the goal was money and power, public service is a horrible way to do it. I believe that Clinton ultimately acts out of an altruistic desire to do good for her country and fellow citizens.
One has spent their life in service of their name only. As a businessman, his entire persona has been about him. He has no support from people he has actually helped and all the support from people who are angry but not able to articulate why or create change.
the choice seems fairly clear. trump is the molitov cocktail. is that the answer you chose. I chose proven progress over vague uninformed promises.
Actually I don't expect the people in the rural areas to vote Clinton. I don;t think you can convince many of them, especially those blinded by rage and whatever personal injustice they have suffered. I can't convince my own family members. So I seriously doubt I or anyone is going to be able to sway these people through reasoned arguments when your fighting decades if not generations of ingrained division.
I do think Clinton will win though as a matter of math, the population of the electorate and the fact that trump has managed to alienate some of the republicans do live in big cities and favor an intellectual approach to the issues.
What I'm really worried about is the people who will actually "rise up" after they feel they were once again ignored and belittled during this election. Domestic homegrown terrorism will be a serious problem especially if nothing changes to acknowledge this divide
JL, rather than painting each state with a voting majority over 50% as either red or blue I'd like to see a map with proportionate shades of purple to more accurately portray America. I think you'd find that there is less real difference between the states as believed. For instance, my state is often deemed a Red state when in fact the votes are usually really close like 52%-48%. That's a pretty broad brush for such a close number. This red blue bullshit is used imo to cast more divisiveness on the people. Truth is, black, white, brown, rural, urban, etc is much less of a deciding factor of ones success in 2016 as economic class, family, education...is much more important. Those without are often the ones angry and feeling disenfranchised. Many of those people direct that anger the wrong way. Many even vote against their own interests for the canidate that appeals to their emotional state. The red blue map feeds into the whole us vs them thing imo. It's counter productive. Also, the blues in red states are often the most vulnerable ones. For example, Hispanic immigrants in Texas. To dismiss the whole state as Red is a sham. On the other end, Reds in a blue state are also often more vulnerable as they may belong to a working class who's been disenfranchised as the city's industries dried up...Overall, people are people, and most are not strictly red or blue. It may appear that way because those are the only options in the polls, but I suspect most people only slightly lean one way or the other. Except those wacky evangelicals...
Jla-x I totally agree it's a generalization, and not helpful. I heard a good quote on NPR on the walk home today.
We continue to try to do something completely unprecedented: to create a singular democracy to govern a large pluralistic society. There is no other country in the world with such a varied population of people with different cultural views. This means we must acknowledge those who are different, disfranchised and without a voice as we attempt to define their/our future.
This is the big problem with trump, he doesn't acknowledge tgis,
JL based on that article you posted the philosophical purpose of Trump is not to govern equally over a varied cultural population but rather to equalize the population culturally.........again, i am a rational bigot, technically a Democracy is not about the Minority but rather the Majority. But if the majority is oppressing the minority, then the minority will receive disproportional power to equalize the state of affairs. The Majority will agree to this disproportional power shift to equalize the population through a majority vote. This act in no way means equalization will happen, but that appears to be the rationale. What will ultimately happen are cycles of power and influence over culture definition. Balance is most likely not achievable. The governments goal is to maintain a manageable out of balance population. We are closer to a tipping point than the peak of a wave in the cycle, I would suggest.
Olaf - if we don't have a president for a term, do we call it a reformation? We reform as a Commonwealth and have someone as Lord Protector? That didn't work so well for the English.
Josh, going English is worse than redneck, their damn teeth look funnier than 2 hillbillies in Deliverance.....I say no president at all forever, just the House and Congress and throw in the Supreme court as the 3rd or something. Also, supreme court should be voted in and have terms......and free donut forever. the Donut Party, sign me up.
Trump surrogate Renee Ellmers on Sunday called the accusations of sexual misconduct against Donald Trump "a she said, he said situation."
CNN's Jake Tapper pointed out that nine women have now accused Trump of groping or kissing them without consent. Tapper then went on to say: "Just to correct you, I'm sorry -- it's a she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said situation."
never understood the relevance of sex scandals. so what if Bill Clinton got an intern to put a cigar up her...Trumps a wee bit creepy with barging in on women, Bill would have been smooth about it. don't all French politicans have a mistress somewhere? the media is so dumb in this country. lets talk about everything but whats relevant. what does a sex scandal have to do with the price of bread?
Olaf: The issue is consent. That's the only issue. What consenting adults do sexually is no one's business but theirs. If Hilary is a secret furry or if Donald likes to wear diapers, IDGAF, as long as they're doing it with other consenting adults it has no bearing on how they will run a country.
typo doh SM....so if ita consent then Bill Clinton is off the hook, slick willy surely made it happen consenually.....trump is creepy as noted. now in the big picture, again, what does this have to do with the price of bread? if it was non-consentual then prosecute the perp to the extent of the law and then the politician with a criminal record will have a hard being a public servant. i knew someone that made shit up all the time to cover her addiction, finding justice via media when it serves political agendas is classic American Journalism dumb. it only feeds fodder to conspiracy theories.
Olaf, not to diminish the accusations, but Trump's reaction and handling of these accusations is much more concerning. When (not if) some urgent situation arises, I have absolutely zero confidence in his ability to manage or control a situation. He is an expert at whipping up a frenzy, but I see no calmness to him at all. The markets will react to his emotions as president, and THAT will affect the cost of bread.
Puritanical left-wingers getting the vapors over a sex scandal is a new thing under the sun. Normally, you guys are the ones pushing for all the degenerate filth, not getting upset about it.
There is a good chance Hillary doesn't have a sex life at all. Not that it matters. Trump openly admits to committing sexual assault on an ongoing basis and there are many victims and witnesses. I like the suggestion to put him on trial in a court other than the media. Good idea, olaf.
Gwharton nice try, with your classic Jedi mind trick. Typical misunderstanding of the issues. Consent is one issue. Second is you douchecanoe Teapublicans have bent over backwards with your moralizing, and now you have the candidate you deserve. So choke, you fuck.
Consent would matter if this was an actual election,or an actual trial. But this is neither.
Trump has been handling the scandals with "the any news is good news" mentality. It has most assuredly cost him the election but helped his brand.
In terms of strengthening his following, they have only furthered the resolve that the media, truth, Clinton, left wing commies, city folk, facts, etc, are unfairly against them. Even Clinton herself said during the impeachment proceedings for her husband that they were the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy. These scandals, true or not elicit that emotion in believers. Trump happily retorts things that would be insane if you were concerned about actual damage control. but he is not. these scandals are working for him.
Couple that increased calls that the election is going to be illegitimate and he is creating a very very dangerous situation. the election for trump is purely about the trump brand. With Roger Ailes at his side he is poised to launch faux news 2.0. and bring true balance to the media by fighting lies with lies.
This election is sure just another salvo in the race to the bottom.
The facts are rigged against Trump. Many people feel the facts are rigged against them too. but rather then embrace that and evolve its easier to be upset. Hey look that guy shares my feelings. I like that.
Don't every tell someone their feelings don't matter. Now feelings are on par with facts.
It is a fact that people feel this way. - How can you agrue with that ?
gwharton: "Puritanical left-wingers getting the vapors over a sex scandal ......"
Hah, that's really funny, especially since faux-puritanical right-wingers has been lathered up about Bill's consensual peccadilloes since the mid 90s. Failing to recognize that Bill's not even on the ballot, the Trumpster-fire continues to flog that dead horse.
Actually gwharton, what I'm loving, absolutely loving, loving so much that my underwear gets wet thinking about it, is watching you moralizing Teapublicans wrapping yourselves in the Drumpf Kampf, finally, you've been exposed for all to see.
gwharton, that's a damn Trump fluff piece written by someone with no knowledge of architecture in a conservative paper. It's basically written fellatio.
You know the Trump support has gone too far among evangelicals when you start to see some of them praising the Mormons for voting their conscience (even if it is in the Huffington Post); Mormons’ Consciences Have Put White Evangelicals To Shame This Election. Could Utah actually go blue this November?
Thump the Trump
Not sure I follow your point, tintt. What I am saying is that "Stronger Together" does not appear to include the vast majority of people described in that article. Perhaps if Hillary (or any candidate) could speak to these voters, Trump would not be where he is today.
I would argue that Bernie was speaking to these voters. They may disagree with his politics, but he was speaking to them (and I would argue he was speaking to them persuasively).
w and d, what do you want Hillary to say? I grew up in a mostly blue family within the sea of red. Therefore, Hilary does speak to some of the "all americans".
WAD, your presumption is that the people that Hillary is "supposedly" not talking to, would listen. The people in that article largely believe that the sitting President is not legit. Full Stop. Jesus fucking Christ could walk down the street, save a leper, turn a water tower into the largest fucking wine cask in the world, and these douchecanoes would still believe that he was an ISIL terrorist.
So sell that shit to someone who is buying.
Won, my answer would be because I think it is clear that both candidates say only what would get them elected. They only parrot different perspectives. The choice ultimately comes down to which do you feel has interests that more align with your situation. NOT WHAT THEY SAY BUT WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. What do you expect they will do in the future.
One has spent a life in public service. She has made money and created a great amount of power doing it but I truly believe that if the goal was money and power, public service is a horrible way to do it. I believe that Clinton ultimately acts out of an altruistic desire to do good for her country and fellow citizens.
One has spent their life in service of their name only. As a businessman, his entire persona has been about him. He has no support from people he has actually helped and all the support from people who are angry but not able to articulate why or create change.
the choice seems fairly clear. trump is the molitov cocktail. is that the answer you chose. I chose proven progress over vague uninformed promises.
Like I said 5 pages ago, Trump is running to:
1. Blow up the GOP.
2. Get Hillary elected.
Actually I don't expect the people in the rural areas to vote Clinton. I don;t think you can convince many of them, especially those blinded by rage and whatever personal injustice they have suffered. I can't convince my own family members. So I seriously doubt I or anyone is going to be able to sway these people through reasoned arguments when your fighting decades if not generations of ingrained division.
I do think Clinton will win though as a matter of math, the population of the electorate and the fact that trump has managed to alienate some of the republicans do live in big cities and favor an intellectual approach to the issues.
What I'm really worried about is the people who will actually "rise up" after they feel they were once again ignored and belittled during this election. Domestic homegrown terrorism will be a serious problem especially if nothing changes to acknowledge this divide
3. Civil war. I predicit it will start in Arkansas.
JL, rather than painting each state with a voting majority over 50% as either red or blue I'd like to see a map with proportionate shades of purple to more accurately portray America. I think you'd find that there is less real difference between the states as believed. For instance, my state is often deemed a Red state when in fact the votes are usually really close like 52%-48%. That's a pretty broad brush for such a close number. This red blue bullshit is used imo to cast more divisiveness on the people. Truth is, black, white, brown, rural, urban, etc is much less of a deciding factor of ones success in 2016 as economic class, family, education...is much more important. Those without are often the ones angry and feeling disenfranchised. Many of those people direct that anger the wrong way. Many even vote against their own interests for the canidate that appeals to their emotional state. The red blue map feeds into the whole us vs them thing imo. It's counter productive. Also, the blues in red states are often the most vulnerable ones. For example, Hispanic immigrants in Texas. To dismiss the whole state as Red is a sham. On the other end, Reds in a blue state are also often more vulnerable as they may belong to a working class who's been disenfranchised as the city's industries dried up...Overall, people are people, and most are not strictly red or blue. It may appear that way because those are the only options in the polls, but I suspect most people only slightly lean one way or the other. Except those wacky evangelicals...
can we just not have a president for a term?
Jla-x I totally agree it's a generalization, and not helpful. I heard a good quote on NPR on the walk home today. We continue to try to do something completely unprecedented: to create a singular democracy to govern a large pluralistic society. There is no other country in the world with such a varied population of people with different cultural views. This means we must acknowledge those who are different, disfranchised and without a voice as we attempt to define their/our future. This is the big problem with trump, he doesn't acknowledge tgis,
JL based on that article you posted the philosophical purpose of Trump is not to govern equally over a varied cultural population but rather to equalize the population culturally.........again, i am a rational bigot, technically a Democracy is not about the Minority but rather the Majority. But if the majority is oppressing the minority, then the minority will receive disproportional power to equalize the state of affairs. The Majority will agree to this disproportional power shift to equalize the population through a majority vote. This act in no way means equalization will happen, but that appears to be the rationale. What will ultimately happen are cycles of power and influence over culture definition. Balance is most likely not achievable. The governments goal is to maintain a manageable out of balance population. We are closer to a tipping point than the peak of a wave in the cycle, I would suggest.
I Agree with that JL. Well said
Well, I guess if you have a sign it makes it real:
What a stupid looking hat ... but still, I guess it's better than this ...
Olaf - if we don't have a president for a term, do we call it a reformation? We reform as a Commonwealth and have someone as Lord Protector? That didn't work so well for the English.
Who would be our Oliver Cromwell?
You know what's most sickening about this whole election cycle - the race for 2020 will begin in earnest on November 9th. Makes me want to throw up.
At least hats don't kill.
http://prntscr.com/ctvpa4
I think I'll run in 2020. My only position will be that donuts are free forever. Since obesity is so rampant I'm sure I can court a majority vote.
^ you will have a large voting constituency
Josh, going English is worse than redneck, their damn teeth look funnier than 2 hillbillies in Deliverance.....I say no president at all forever, just the House and Congress and throw in the Supreme court as the 3rd or something. Also, supreme court should be voted in and have terms......and free donut forever. the Donut Party, sign me up.
Trump: "I'm a Victim"
Yeah, right ! What you are is a whiny little baby.
CNN's Jake Tapper pointed out that nine women have now accused Trump of groping or kissing them without consent. Tapper then went on to say: "Just to correct you, I'm sorry -- it's a she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said situation."
Wait, so Hillary can bring a Field of Dreams, with 9ine abused women, to her debate on Wednesday, and Drumpf can't even put a team on the court?
Hillary won't, but man, would that make for an amazing, Trump card.
never understood the relevance of sex scandals. so what if Bill Clinton got an intern to put a cigar up her...Trumps a wee bit creepy with barging in on women, Bill would have been smooth about it. don't all French politicans have a mistress somewhere? the media is so dumb in this country. lets talk about everything but whats relevant. what does a sex scandal have to do with the price of bread?
not my point beta. lets say Hillary was a mistriss of the S&D type, what does that have to do with the price of bread?
Olaf: The issue is consent. That's the only issue. What consenting adults do sexually is no one's business but theirs. If Hilary is a secret furry or if Donald likes to wear diapers, IDGAF, as long as they're doing it with other consenting adults it has no bearing on how they will run a country.
I'm saying that is bullshit.
typo doh SM....so if ita consent then Bill Clinton is off the hook, slick willy surely made it happen consenually.....trump is creepy as noted. now in the big picture, again, what does this have to do with the price of bread? if it was non-consentual then prosecute the perp to the extent of the law and then the politician with a criminal record will have a hard being a public servant. i knew someone that made shit up all the time to cover her addiction, finding justice via media when it serves political agendas is classic American Journalism dumb. it only feeds fodder to conspiracy theories.
too-long... not paying much attention here, but with all this sudden consent discussion, I must ask: Since when is Bill Cosby running for prez?
Olaf, not to diminish the accusations, but Trump's reaction and handling of these accusations is much more concerning. When (not if) some urgent situation arises, I have absolutely zero confidence in his ability to manage or control a situation. He is an expert at whipping up a frenzy, but I see no calmness to him at all. The markets will react to his emotions as president, and THAT will affect the cost of bread.
Puritanical left-wingers getting the vapors over a sex scandal is a new thing under the sun. Normally, you guys are the ones pushing for all the degenerate filth, not getting upset about it.
There is a good chance Hillary doesn't have a sex life at all. Not that it matters. Trump openly admits to committing sexual assault on an ongoing basis and there are many victims and witnesses. I like the suggestion to put him on trial in a court other than the media. Good idea, olaf.
Consent would matter if this was an actual election,or an actual trial. But this is neither.
Trump has been handling the scandals with "the any news is good news" mentality. It has most assuredly cost him the election but helped his brand.
In terms of strengthening his following, they have only furthered the resolve that the media, truth, Clinton, left wing commies, city folk, facts, etc, are unfairly against them. Even Clinton herself said during the impeachment proceedings for her husband that they were the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy. These scandals, true or not elicit that emotion in believers. Trump happily retorts things that would be insane if you were concerned about actual damage control. but he is not. these scandals are working for him.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2016/10/16/wolff-what-trump-win/92012282/
Couple that increased calls that the election is going to be illegitimate and he is creating a very very dangerous situation. the election for trump is purely about the trump brand. With Roger Ailes at his side he is poised to launch faux news 2.0. and bring true balance to the media by fighting lies with lies.
This election is sure just another salvo in the race to the bottom.
The facts are rigged against Trump. Many people feel the facts are rigged against them too. but rather then embrace that and evolve its easier to be upset. Hey look that guy shares my feelings. I like that.
Don't every tell someone their feelings don't matter. Now feelings are on par with facts.
It is a fact that people feel this way. - How can you agrue with that ?
gwharton: "Puritanical left-wingers getting the vapors over a sex scandal ......"
Hah, that's really funny, especially since faux-puritanical right-wingers has been lathered up about Bill's consensual peccadilloes since the mid 90s. Failing to recognize that Bill's not even on the ballot, the Trumpster-fire continues to flog that dead horse.
file: "especially since faux-puritanical right-wingers has been lathered up about Bill's consensual peccadilloes since the mid 90s"
Ah. There it is. You admit you're just concern-trolling.
Beta seems to have jumped in the puritanical deep-end head first though.
^ quite a stretch, gwharton, quite a stretch, even for you.
#grabembythepussy meow 2016
Beta looks to be close to the edge of completely losing his mind over Trump's political ascendancy.
Let's see if I can push him over.
You can't.
I. Own. Your. Sorry. Ass.
first time I see someone trying to push gold paint and ice swans in an architect's forum.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/us/politics/donald-trump-brand-reaction.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
gwharton, that's a damn Trump fluff piece written by someone with no knowledge of architecture in a conservative paper. It's basically written fellatio.
Can I get an "amen" ?
You know the Trump support has gone too far among evangelicals when you start to see some of them praising the Mormons for voting their conscience (even if it is in the Huffington Post); Mormons’ Consciences Have Put White Evangelicals To Shame This Election. Could Utah actually go blue this November?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.