5 ms·

Trump won because people are sick of SJWs. He won because people are sick of being called racists when they're not. He won because his opponent was objectively

Trump won because people are sick of SJWs. He won because people are sick of being called racists when they're not. He won because his opponent was objectively worse. Any other democrat running against him would have probably led to different results, but the bickering between the children turned out in Trump's favor. It's ridiculous that either one ran. All we can do now is hope Trump does well. It really wouldn't be that hard to do "well"; we haven't had a good president for quite many years.

mariodiana 10y ago
It's overall a very good opinion piece, but this little ditty didn't escape my notice: > We diagnose them as racists in the way Dark Age clerics confused medical problems with demonic possession. "Medical problems"? I don't know much about these things, but isn't this what some would call a "microagression"? Eh, I'm going to give the guy a pass. At least he's trying.
- douche 10y ago
  I think the thrust is, "we don't understand the real problem, lets call it something that we think we know about." All in all, I think it's a pretty solid article, and hits on a lot of the rural-urban disjunctions that I've experienced, as a redneck Mainer from up near the Canadian border having to move out of 1950s-throwback-world.
spiderfarmer 10y ago
According to the article, there is more to it than just hating sucial justice warriors. The fact that rural infrastructure is crumbling, jobs are lost and not returning and the fact that during 8 years with a democrat at the helm didn't change much for them. It is enough for a lot of people to seriously consider the alternative, especially if the (untrusted) establishment hates this alternative.
- Veen 10y ago
  > The fact that rural infrastructure is crumbling That's what I don't get. Do Trump voters think he gives a flying fuck about the state of rural infrastructure or the lives of poor people? I don't see it. Sure, the incumbent elite are feckless, tribal, irresponsible, greedy, and dishonest, but Trump is worse, obviously so. I guess that's the problem in a two-party system. Usually you choose the better of two bad options. In this case, all the options were so bad that people just said "fuck it".
  - christophilus 10y ago
    I know democrats who voted for Trump. One of the reasons is that he is planning on investing $500,000,000,000 in infrastructure, including rural infrastructure. So yes, I think economics played a large role in his win.
    - Veen 10y ago
      But I'd ask myself where is that half-a-trillion dollars going to come from, on top of the increases in military spending, the thousands-of-miles-long Mexico wall, the massively expensive roundups and deportations, and so on. Especially when taxes are apparently also going to be reduced. And asking myself that question, I'd think his promises somewhat empty and opportunistic.
    - tzs 10y ago
      Obama pushed hard for big spending on infrastructure from the start of his first term. Not only do we need it in general, but then it also would have greatly helped push the recovery from the recession along. Republicans in Congress were able to block it until they took control of both Houses, and then it was effectively dead. Do they really think Trump has a better chance of getting Congress to pass a large infrastructure bill? I haven't looked into it in great detail, but from what I have seen it doesn't look like the incoming Republican House and Senate are at all inclined to be looser with the pursestrings now. Also, Clinton's plan also called for large infrastructure spending, although only about half of what Trump's plan calls for. That makes it hard for me to understand why a Democrat who voted for Trump would cite infrastructure spending as a reason.
M_Grey 10y ago
And here I thought Trump won because of record low voter turnouts. Everyone has a theory.
- ascagnel_ 10y ago
  The current popular vote total stands at 127MM votes cast, and the Attorney General of California has already announced that they have at least 3MM absentee and provisional ballots to check, so it's expected that turnout will exceed 2012's 129MM votes cast.
  - Spare_account 10y ago
    Forgive me for going off-topic here but I'm curious about your reason for using MM to designate 'million'?
    - teh_klev 10y ago
      I think in the financial industry, particularly in the US, MM is often used to signify millions. MM is also one million in Roman numerals (1000(M) x 1000(M)). See also: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/181917/mixing-use-of-k-for-thousands-and-mm-for-millions https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/181917/mixing-us... I don't think there's any hard and fast rules globally how one specifies "millions": https://www.quora.com/What-should-be-the-abbreviation-for-million-M-or-MM?shared=1 https://www.quora.com/What-should-be-the-abbreviation-for-mi...
      - ddlatham 10y ago
        Wouldn't it be 2000 in Roman numerals?
        teh_klev 10y ago
        I thought that too, but there's an implied multiplier. I'm guessing it's one of those examples of borrow and abuse things.
acqq 10y ago
> his opponent was objectively worse If he really continues with global warming denial and make real effects based on that idea, I'd like to see who will dare to say that to his kids. Just this single issue is enough to make the whole difference. https://thinkprogress.org/trump-victory-climate-a0c595572299 https://thinkprogress.org/trump-victory-climate-a0c595572299 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees:_Our_Future_on_a_Hotter_Planet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees:_Our_Future_on_a_H... That's also the biggest issue that's still not clear in the confused heads of too much US citizens, and where the real action is needed. Misinformation paid by the oil companies sadly worked. The good proof than even the side that sees other manipulations isn't immune at all. As one thinker said: "when you look at somebody and hold your head and think how come the other side just doesn't see the facts, there's a simple answer: you're an idiot, and, by the way, the other side is too. People aren't rational. The proof: almost 50-50 opinions, even among the supposedly "smart" people, on some important subject -- how probable is that to be the reflection of the real rational state of the truthfulness of the issue in question. Effectively zero."
pjc50 10y ago
> objectively worse On what objective metric(s)? Answering this properly is extremely hard.
- pg314 10y ago
  There is one objective metric on which she definitely was worse: telling lies. And by worse I mean, he told many more of them.
GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
That's part of it, but I wouldn't put it at more than 20-30% of the total explanation.

mariodiana 10y ago

It's overall a very good opinion piece, but this little ditty didn't escape my notice: > We diagnose them as racists in the way Dark Age clerics confused medical problems with demonic possession. "Medical problems"? I don't know much about these things, but isn't this what some would call a "microagression"? Eh, I'm going to give the guy a pass. At least he's trying.

douche 10y ago
I think the thrust is, "we don't understand the real problem, lets call it something that we think we know about." All in all, I think it's a pretty solid article, and hits on a lot of the rural-urban disjunctions that I've experienced, as a redneck Mainer from up near the Canadian border having to move out of 1950s-throwback-world.

spiderfarmer 10y ago

According to the article, there is more to it than just hating sucial justice warriors. The fact that rural infrastructure is crumbling, jobs are lost and not returning and the fact that during 8 years with a democrat at the helm didn't change much for them. It is enough for a lot of people to seriously consider the alternative, especially if the (untrusted) establishment hates this alternative.

Veen 10y ago
> The fact that rural infrastructure is crumbling That's what I don't get. Do Trump voters think he gives a flying fuck about the state of rural infrastructure or the lives of poor people? I don't see it. Sure, the incumbent elite are feckless, tribal, irresponsible, greedy, and dishonest, but Trump is worse, obviously so. I guess that's the problem in a two-party system. Usually you choose the better of two bad options. In this case, all the options were so bad that people just said "fuck it".
- christophilus 10y ago
  I know democrats who voted for Trump. One of the reasons is that he is planning on investing $500,000,000,000 in infrastructure, including rural infrastructure. So yes, I think economics played a large role in his win.
  - Veen 10y ago
    But I'd ask myself where is that half-a-trillion dollars going to come from, on top of the increases in military spending, the thousands-of-miles-long Mexico wall, the massively expensive roundups and deportations, and so on. Especially when taxes are apparently also going to be reduced. And asking myself that question, I'd think his promises somewhat empty and opportunistic.
  - tzs 10y ago
    Obama pushed hard for big spending on infrastructure from the start of his first term. Not only do we need it in general, but then it also would have greatly helped push the recovery from the recession along. Republicans in Congress were able to block it until they took control of both Houses, and then it was effectively dead. Do they really think Trump has a better chance of getting Congress to pass a large infrastructure bill? I haven't looked into it in great detail, but from what I have seen it doesn't look like the incoming Republican House and Senate are at all inclined to be looser with the pursestrings now. Also, Clinton's plan also called for large infrastructure spending, although only about half of what Trump's plan calls for. That makes it hard for me to understand why a Democrat who voted for Trump would cite infrastructure spending as a reason.

M_Grey 10y ago

And here I thought Trump won because of record low voter turnouts. Everyone has a theory.

ascagnel_ 10y ago
The current popular vote total stands at 127MM votes cast, and the Attorney General of California has already announced that they have at least 3MM absentee and provisional ballots to check, so it's expected that turnout will exceed 2012's 129MM votes cast.
- Spare_account 10y ago
  Forgive me for going off-topic here but I'm curious about your reason for using MM to designate 'million'?
  - teh_klev 10y ago
    I think in the financial industry, particularly in the US, MM is often used to signify millions. MM is also one million in Roman numerals (1000(M) x 1000(M)). See also: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/181917/mixing-use-of-k-for-thousands-and-mm-for-millions https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/181917/mixing-us... I don't think there's any hard and fast rules globally how one specifies "millions": https://www.quora.com/What-should-be-the-abbreviation-for-million-M-or-MM?shared=1 https://www.quora.com/What-should-be-the-abbreviation-for-mi...
    - ddlatham 10y ago
      Wouldn't it be 2000 in Roman numerals?
      - teh_klev 10y ago
        I thought that too, but there's an implied multiplier. I'm guessing it's one of those examples of borrow and abuse things.

acqq 10y ago

> his opponent was objectively worse If he really continues with global warming denial and make real effects based on that idea, I'd like to see who will dare to say that to his kids. Just this single issue is enough to make the whole difference. https://thinkprogress.org/trump-victory-climate-a0c595572299 https://thinkprogress.org/trump-victory-climate-a0c595572299 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees:_Our_Future_on_a_Hotter_Planet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees:_Our_Future_on_a_H... That's also the biggest issue that's still not clear in the confused heads of too much US citizens, and where the real action is needed. Misinformation paid by the oil companies sadly worked. The good proof than even the side that sees other manipulations isn't immune at all. As one thinker said: "when you look at somebody and hold your head and think how come the other side just doesn't see the facts, there's a simple answer: you're an idiot, and, by the way, the other side is too. People aren't rational. The proof: almost 50-50 opinions, even among the supposedly "smart" people, on some important subject -- how probable is that to be the reflection of the real rational state of the truthfulness of the issue in question. Effectively zero."

pjc50 10y ago

> objectively worse On what objective metric(s)? Answering this properly is extremely hard.

pg314 10y ago
There is one objective metric on which she definitely was worse: telling lies. And by worse I mean, he told many more of them.

GunboatDiplomat 10y ago

That's part of it, but I wouldn't put it at more than 20-30% of the total explanation.