Why the left hates Trump so intensely

[imported_tajmahal]

but he won bigly...

The fat lady sang, it's over.

 

[dphantom]

This is false, we are absolutely a democracy. People frequently make a basic mistake where they think that constitutional republics are not democracies and that's wrong.

It appears you may be confusing a representative democracy with that of our system - a representative republic. An example of the former might be the British parliamentarian form. Madison's Federalist 10 goes into some discussion on this point.

 

[realibrad]

Which begs the question of how they came to hold such irrational beliefs in the first place.

Are you saying its irrational to dislike Hillary politically? I'm not talking about her being a woman, or Dem, but are there any policy or political things she did that you can see as to why someone might not think she is good?

Personally I found her better than Trump, but I can easily admit she was a horrible pick.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Electoral vote total was also historically low as well.

Yet, he won. All winners get to push forth their agenda.

 

[desura]

Let's talk about the OP. Jon Stewart himself got kind of tired of the Daily Show formula and so have I. Like, I honestly believe that the sanctimonious pithy tone of the Daily Show and kin is a big reason why Democrats have lost 1000 seats in the Obama years. Like, with the jester becoming so powerful and picking up on every little gaffe that someone makes, most people who have real flaws just figure it isn't worth the trouble getting into public service, leaving it to the obvious people. It is institutional cynicism.

 

[dphantom]

Quite true. OTOH, honest people who found themselves on the winning side even though an actual minority would temper their words & deeds out of respect for their fellow Americans.

Probably not, huh?

I would think all sides should practice temperance in both words and deeds.

 

[fskimospy]

It appears you may be confusing a representative democracy with that of our system - a representative republic. An example of the former might be the British parliamentarian form. Madison's Federalist 10 goes into some discussion on this point.

I am not, but it appears you are. A representative republic is a representative democracy. The term republic simply denotes that leaders are chosen by the public to represent them instead of direct democracy.

Both the U.K. and the US are representative republics and representative democracies. (The U.K. is technically a monarchy but in practice it is a republic as the Queen always picks the prime minister who wins a majority and wouldn't be allowed to do otherwise)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Let's talk about the OP. Jon Stewart himself got kind of tired of the Daily Show formula and so have I. Like, I honestly believe that the sanctimonious pithy tone of the Daily Show and kin is a big reason why Democrats have lost 1000 seats in the Obama years. Like, with the jester becoming so powerful and picking up on every little gaffe that someone makes, most people who haven't real flaws just figure it isn't worth the trouble getting into public service, leaving it to the obvious people. It is institutional cynicism.

Negative. I just read the Daily Show book and while he didn't tire of the formula, he wanted to bring new blood into it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Are you saying its irrational to dislike Hillary politically? I'm not talking about her being a woman, or Dem, but are there any policy or political things she did that you can see as to why someone might not think she is good?

Personally I found her better than Trump, but I can easily admit she was a horrible pick.

You know full well it never was about policy. It was about No Clinton Dynasty! Hillary's Emails! Corrupt Clinton Foundation! Wall St speeches! Cheating poor Bernie! Benghazi Moms! Bill's lovers! What's she hiding?! Can't trust Hillary!

She was overwhelmed by a Tsunami of slime. The fact that her detractors have to keep repeating the mantra even though they won tells us that they're not rational in the first place.

 

[dphantom]

I am not, but it appears you are. A representative republic is a representative democracy. The term republic simply denotes that leaders are chosen by the public to represent them instead of direct democracy.

Both the U.K. and the US are representative republics and representative democracies. (The U.K. is technically a monarchy but in practice it is a republic as the Queen always picks the prime minister who wins a majority and wouldn't be allowed to do otherwise)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

It may appear so today but we still are a republic. The key difference (I think) between a representative democracy and representative republic is how the latter places limits on the power of the majority. The distinction is blurred to be sure now, but I would suggest using our founding documents to understand what the difference between the two systems are. Those are the guide to follow.

 

[realibrad]

You know full well it never was about policy. It was about No Clinton Dynasty! Hillary's Emails! Corrupt Clinton Foundation! Wall St speeches! Cheating poor Bernie! Benghazi Moms! Bill's lovers! What's she hiding?! Can't trust Hillary!

She was overwhelmed by a Tsunami of slime. The fact that her detractors have to keep repeating the mantra even though they won tells us that they're not rational in the first place.

Except that is not true. Yes, there was lots of bullshit, but there were also real things. I asked you directly if you could understand why someone might have issues with her, and you did the same thing those on the Right do. You took a very simple question and gave a response about how your side was the victim of dumb people.

Realize this is the same shit that was said when Obama won. The not my president BS was done then too. I would argue not as much as it is now, but you are doing the same shit. She was not a good pick. She had real baggage and ruined her credibility. You can think the low voter turnout was for any number of things, but from what I saw, it was because of her real issues. Fox mainly reaches people that were not going to vote for her.

 

[Pens1566]

LMAO!!! Like Trump isn't going to believe he has a mandate due to number of states won and/or EC votes.

Well, he believes a shit-ton of things that don't actually line up with what most of us call reality.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Well, he believes a shit-ton of things that don't actually line up with what most of us call reality.

Reality is he will be President on Friday and can push forth his agenda just like every President before him.

 

[xthetenth]

This is false, we are absolutely a democracy. People frequently make a basic mistake where they think that constitutional republics are not democracies and that's wrong.

We Americans like to believe a lot of things. Some of them are true, and some of them, even some of the values we profess loudest, are blatantly false. Being a democracy is one of the latter.

This country is not a democracy. High School civics. It is a representative republic.

Correct. You acknowledge that, and yet you seem uncomfortable acknowledging that this is a system which opens the possibility of the majority being silenced, and I bet you'd object to me saying that Trump is our undemocratically elected president. Yet these are both true and both simple corollaries of the fact that a representative republic is not a democracy.

If the majority of votes mattered to anybody except butt hurt lefties, than Trump would have won those too. If approval ratings mattered to anyone except butt hurt lefties than Trump would win those too, but they don't.

I think the reason a lot of people on the left hate Trump so much is that him and everything about his campaign and preparations for administration are giant reminders of how easily led so many people on the right are, and how they exist in a delusional reality where as long as they hurt the people they don't like everything's going to turn out right. How do you propose Trump would get those extra votes? How do you propose he'd get those approval ratings? Would he still be the same candidate in any meaningful sense if he made those changes? Face it, your candidate could not get close to a majority vote, and you're gloating because you don't care. We have to share the country with you and yours. How could anyone not hate a reminder of that?

Reality is he will be President on Friday and can push forth his agenda just like every President before him.

Probably easier, considering that gerrymandering, voter suppression and some of the most blatant partisan hackery mean that he'll probably have a majority in all three branches, and the fig leaf of pretending to care about popular opinion is coming off.

 

[Thebobo]

Yet, he won. All winners get to push forth their agenda.

i·ro·ny
ˈīrənē/
noun

1. the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
   
   "“Don't go overboard with the Trump calling Obama's presidency in doubt for 8 years,” we rejoined with heavy irony" synonyms: sarcasm, causticity, cynicism, mockery, satire, sardonicism
   "that note of irony in Trumps birtherism still reminds us he us full of tripe"

Oh and by the to bad congress didn't understand that for the last eight years. Irony overload!

 

[dphantom]

Correct. You acknowledge that, and yet you seem uncomfortable acknowledging that this is a system which opens the possibility of the majority being silenced, and I bet you'd object to me saying that Trump is our undemocratically elected president. Yet these are both true and both simple corollaries of the fact that a representative republic is not a democracy.

Not at all uncomfortable. I am a huge champion of individual liberty. A Republican form of government provides for that; a Democratic form rarely does for any length of time. Your use of what you think might be "trigger" words such as undemocratic seems to be an effort to inflame the topic rather than deliberate.

Note: For those who do not understand types of government, the use of "Republican" and "Democratic" do NOT refer to our two primary parties.

 

[blankslate]

When do you quit blaming the victim?

Blaming a politician for not playing to the electoral situation and losing those votes despite winning more popular votes is not even near the same as blaming someone for walking down the street minding their own business then being assaulted...

To pretend otherwise is such a brazen exercise in disingenuousness that you have crossed into the realm of unreality.


____________

 

[Jhhnn]

Except that is not true. Yes, there was lots of bullshit, but there were also real things. I asked you directly if you could understand why someone might have issues with her, and you did the same thing those on the Right do. You took a very simple question and gave a response about how your side was the victim of dumb people.

Realize this is the same shit that was said when Obama won. The not my president BS was done then too. I would argue not as much as it is now, but you are doing the same shit. She was not a good pick. She had real baggage and ruined her credibility. You can think the low voter turnout was for any number of things, but from what I saw, it was because of her real issues. Fox mainly reaches people that were not going to vote for her.

Please, gentlemen. Highly effective right wing slime attacks on Hillary from at home & abroad permeated the news & the election. It never was about issues but rather about an astounding double standard as to character between Clinton & Trump. For his voters, Trump could do no wrong. For potential Hillary voters their trust was utterly undermined.

 

[realibrad]

Please, gentlemen. Highly effective right wing slime attacks on Hillary from at home & abroad permeated the news & the election. It never was about issues but rather about an astounding double standard as to character between Clinton & Trump. For his voters, Trump could do no wrong. For potential Hillary voters their trust was utterly undermined.

All of that is a deflection from the question I asked you. I expect those on the Right to deflect and never admit their problems. If the Left does not pull its head out of its ass then it will literally be the other side of the coin.

Also, how do you explain the double standard for outlets that are not Fox? We know their bias, but why would the other outlets hold that double standard. The media topics I remember were pussy grabbing, Trump racist comments about Mexicans ect. Clinton was, "she had a cough and was it really an illness or just a cough".

I'm assuming you wont or cant admit her flaws, so then answer that last question. How was the Right able to corrupt so many into missing the double standard?

 

[xthetenth]

Not at all uncomfortable. I am a huge champion of individual liberty. A Republican form of government provides for that; a Democratic form rarely does for any length of time. Your use of what you think might be "trigger" words such as undemocratic seems to be an effort to inflame the topic rather than deliberate.

Note: For those who do not understand types of government, the use of "Republican" and "Democratic" do NOT refer to our two primary parties.

And yet you're uncomfortable with agreeing with the statement that the majority has been silenced even though it's plainly obvious. I just want you to acknowledge it and go along with your party in giving up the pretense that you actually care about representing the people, rather than winning political power to use to ensure that everyone can live the way you want them to.

And frankly given the various forms of voter suppression in play these days, Republican referring to the party might actually be a useful description of our electoral system. Those sorts of manipulations are worrying in the extreme because more than an unfounded assertion that certain means of assigning representation fail quickly, steps away from pretending to care about popular will and the rules and conventions around the government are an absolute indicator of incoming tyranny. Voter suppression and Jim Crow went hand in hand, after all.

 

[Bowfinger]

Please, gentlemen. Highly effective right wing slime attacks on Hillary from at home & abroad permeated the news & the election. It never was about issues but rather about an astounding double standard as to character between Clinton & Trump. For his voters, Trump could do no wrong. For potential Hillary voters their trust was utterly undermined.

That's not wholly true. You're making a mistake in assuming all Trump voters are the same.

I talked to a lot of people before the election. Broadly speaking, I found two camps of Trump voters. First, there are the True Believers, the fools we mock for falling for the Trump con. They fully support Donnie boy. They don't care that he is human garbage. They are largely immune to fact and reason.

But, I also found a handful of ideological Trump voters. They agree he's garbage, but he's Republican garbage. They don't really support him, but they did vote for him. Why? They felt POTUS as a person was less important than the Supreme Court vacancies he would fill. They were very passionate about abortion or guns, and felt Clinton would select SCOTUS justices that undermined those causes. They were hopeful there are enough checks and balances in the system to keep Trump under control. While I do not agree with their priorities, I understand their reasoning and I recognize their choice was based on reality (unlike Donnie's cult-like followers).

 

[Jhhnn]

And yet you're uncomfortable with agreeing with the statement that the majority has been silenced even though it's plainly obvious. I just want you to acknowledge it and go along with your party in giving up the pretense that you actually care about representing the people, rather than winning political power to use to ensure that everyone can live the way you want them to.

And frankly given the various forms of voter suppression in play these days, Republican referring to the party might actually be a useful description of our electoral system. Those sorts of manipulations are worrying in the extreme because more than an unfounded assertion that certain means of assigning representation fail quickly, steps away from pretending to care about popular will and the rules and conventions around the government are an absolute indicator of incoming tyranny. Voter suppression and Jim Crow went hand in hand, after all.

Well, yeh, but Trump says that there were millions of illegal votes & the mesmerized believe every word. He's so dreamy! He set aside all his evil ways to become a champion of the people! Only he can fix it!

He just needs better song writers-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29Mg6Gfh9Co

 

[Bowfinger]

All of that is a deflection from the question I asked you. I expect those on the Right to deflect and never admit their problems. If the Left does not pull its head out of its ass then it will literally be the other side of the coin.

I agree. Democrats are going to keep losing elections as long as their focus is finding single-issue external factors to blame for Clinton's loss. Clinton lost (and Trump won) for many reasons, some external but many internal to Clinton, the DNC, and Democratic priorities.

Also, how do you explain the double standard for outlets that are not Fox? We know their bias, but why would the other outlets hold that double standard. The media topics I remember were pussy grabbing, Trump racist comments about Mexicans ect. Clinton was, "she had a cough and was it really an illness or just a cough".

I'm assuming you wont or cant admit her flaws, so then answer that last question. How was the Right able to corrupt so many into missing the double standard?

Perhaps I misunderstand your point, but I think you're way off base here. The mainstream media were relentless in hammering Clinton about her email, Wikileaks, and the Clinton Foundation, and they obediently reported almost every slime accusation raised by the right. Yes, they also breathlessly reported on almost every Trump outrage du jour, but it seemed to be more superficial coverage in most cases. That's in part because there were just too many Trump scandals to really dig into them all, but it's also because giving sensationalist coverage to Donnie's scandals was great for ratings. Depth, on the other hand, is boring to Americans' short attention spans.


Edit: punctuation

 

[dphantom]

And yet you're uncomfortable with agreeing with the statement that the majority has been silenced even though it's plainly obvious. I just want you to acknowledge it and go along with your party in giving up the pretense that you actually care about representing the people, rather than winning political power to use to ensure that everyone can live the way you want them to..

You have an amazing ability to determine comfort level and whether one cares about "X" or not over the Internet.

The election of the President of the United States is not determined by a plurality of the popular vote but by the plurality of the popular vote in the separate States via apportionment of the electoral college as determined by the States. The majority as recognized by our Constitution decided. There is no other majority with respect to Presidential elections.

If you want to continue to argue over who won the popular vote, then by all means do so. I cannot disagree as that is a fact. A fact that is completely irrelevant except in so far as any President so elected should probably be cognizant.

I do see you are upset a progressive/statist candidate lost and hence a return to a more conservative agenda. However, in four years you can try again.

 

[realibrad]

I agree. Democrats are going to keep losing elections as long as their focus is finding single-issue external factors to blame for Clinton's loss. Clinton lost (and Trump won) for many reasons, some external but many internal to Clinton, the DNC, and Democratic priorities.

Agreed. They have a window to realize this and get back to being progressives. I personally hope they take that road.

Perhaps I misunderstand your point, but I think you're way off base here. The mainstream media were relentless in hammering Clinton about her email Wikileaks, and the Clinton Foundation, and they obediently reported almost every slime accusation raised by the right. Yes, they also breathlessly reported on almost every Trump outrage du jour, but it seemed to be more superficial coverage in most cases. That's in part because there were just too many Trump scandals to really dig into them all, but it's also because giving sensationalist coverage to Donnie's scandals was great for ratings. Depth, on the other hand, is boring to American's short attention spans.

I think you have understood my point, but are viewing it from a different perspective. Trump is not a politician. That means all of his baggage is either personal or business. Personal has always been taboo unless its illegal. The business stuff which is what I think was important, and as you said had superficial coverage. All of his shady deals to me shows what he will try and do with other countries. That said, that got very little traction and we heard far more about racism, sexism, bigotry ect which was all very subjective. It sure seemed like the sites were going for the salacious or other dumb shit when there was more than enough to talk about.

I feel like the biggest mistake was thinking that people would not care about facts and details and wanted more sensationalism. Sensationalism gets ratings, but its entertainment, and not what people were going to vote on. The hardcore left and right already picked their side. Those in the middle saw Trump saying dumb shit, but not getting enough facts about how he would do policy. Hillary has been in politics literally longer than I have been alive. Much easier to dig up political baggage for her.