Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 503504)

Apropos of nothing, watching Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy on Netflix is an excellent idea.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 503562)

But the exit polling shows that people who hated both candidates broke for Trump. They disliked her more. [ETA: keep this in mind as you malign the PA Gary Johnson voters. ]And a lot of those people were women, and I think you'd have a hard case to show that those women hate all women.

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive (Post 503570)

So much of the hatred of Hillary Clinton has sexist roots, going back to her time in Arkansas and as First Lady. So saying women wouldn't have hated another woman candidate is unverifiable. Hillary had baggage. I don't dispute that (despite my strong admiration of her). I just no longer have faith that our country will in fact be willing to elect ANY qualified female candidate to be President. Do I think sexism was in play when people walked in a voted yesterday (including old 1990s era sexism along with our more modern, still thriving sexism)? HELL YES, I do.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 503541)

Keep telling yourself that. All 140,000 dumbass Gary Johnson voters in PA can tell themselves that bullshit before bed every night for the next 40 years.

"It wasn't just me. There are lots of fucking stooges just like me here in PA. Ah. I feel much better now."

TM

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 500938)

Don't be a tool.

Trump gets the same. I'd do it myself, but PJ O'Rourke did it better:

"Also typical of modern Americans is Trump’s bad taste. True, he doesn’t dress the way the rest of us do—like a nine-year-old in twee T-shirt, bulbous shorts, boob shoes, and league-skunked sports team cap. And Trump doesn’t weigh 300 pounds or have multiple piercings or visible ink. He puts his own individual stamp on gaucherie. And we like it. We’re a country that cherishes being individuals as much as we cherish being gauche.

Trump’s suits have a cut and sheen as if they came from the trunk sale of a visiting Bombay tailor staying in a cheap hotel in Trump’s native Queens and taking a nip between fittings. Trump wears neckties in Outer Borough colors. And, Donald, the end of your necktie belongs up around your belt buckle, not between your knees and your nuts. Trump’s haircut makes Kim Jong Un laugh."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...s-america.html

I'm going to insult hers and Trump's appearance, demeanor, etc., as are a whole lot of people here, during this cycle. They choose to look and act the way they do and run for President. It's all fair game.

Similarly, you can choose whether to be an officious commentary policeman for potential cultural slights. Or, you can choose not to be insipid.

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive (Post 503570)

So much of the hatred of Hillary Clinton has sexist roots, going back to her time in Arkansas and as First Lady. So saying women wouldn't have hated another woman candidate is unverifiable. Hillary had baggage. I don't dispute that (despite my strong admiration of her). I just no longer have faith that our country will in fact be willing to elect ANY qualified female candidate to be President. Do I think sexism was in play when people walked in a voted yesterday (including old 1990s era sexism along with our more modern, still thriving sexism)? HELL YES, I do.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 503571)

I've voted 10 times so far. 5 D 5 R. But in fact 7 times I voted against the other guy (once against Palin, so "guy" here is gender neutral). I always think of swing voters as deciding most elections, and I always think we mostly are voting against one of two candidates.

I think Hillary's gender was a positive for me, and I must say I got a little bit tired of people telling the world if you don't see how perfect Hillary is, you are simply sexist. That said, I cannot fathom how anyone could pick Trump as the lesser of two evils. Sexism had to play some role if you get to that decision? But who knows, I cannot imagine getting to that decision.

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 503567)

Which is another way of saying this was a "whitelash" at Democratic identity politics that ignored/excluded/offended blue collar middle class whites in supposedly solid Democratic states for decades all wrapped up in a life-long, grasping, super-slippery, Washington political insider. The Dems can also congratulate themselves.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 503562)

And a lot of those people were women, and I think you'd have a hard case to show that those women hate all women.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 503571)

I've voted 10 times so far. 5 D 5 R. But in fact 7 times I voted against the other guy (once against Palin, so "guy" here is gender neutral). I always think of swing voters as deciding most elections, and I always think we mostly are voting against one of two candidates.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 503576)

Are you serious? Democrats ignored/excluded/offended blue collar middle class whites more than Republicans? Free trade isn't an idea espoused by Democrats. Union busting isn't a Democratic value. Cutting taxes for the rich while pretending it will create jobs and benefit working class people isn't a Democratic principle. Fighting investment in job-creating and desperately needed infrastructure projects was not a part of the Democrat approach. Permitting companies to take jobs overseas while protecting that income from taxation is something all politicians permitted.

If you're talking about pretend issues like reverse racism and forced gay cake-selling, then yeah. They were completely ignored and excluded. But if all it takes is the siren song of a race-baiting bullshit artist who has spent his life shitting on the very people who voted for him in overwhelming numbers, the conclusion you drew above just doesn't make any sense.

TM

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 503576)

Are you serious? Democrats ignored/excluded/offended blue collar middle class whites more than Republicans? Free trade isn't an idea espoused by Democrats. Union busting isn't a Democratic value. Cutting taxes for the rich while pretending it will create jobs and benefit working class people isn't a Democratic principle. Fighting investment in job-creating and desperately needed infrastructure projects was not a part of the Democrat approach. Permitting companies to take jobs overseas while protecting that income from taxation is something all politicians permitted.

If you're talking about pretend issues like reverse racism and forced gay cake-selling, then yeah. They were completely ignored and excluded. But if all it takes is the siren song of a race-baiting bullshit artist who has spent his life shitting on the very people who voted for him in overwhelming numbers, the conclusion you drew above just doesn't make any sense.

TM

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 503576)

Are you serious? Democrats ignored/excluded/offended blue collar middle class whites more than Republicans? Free trade isn't an idea espoused by Democrats. Union busting isn't a Democratic value. Cutting taxes for the rich while pretending it will create jobs and benefit working class people isn't a Democratic principle. Fighting investment in job-creating and desperately needed infrastructure projects was not a part of the Democrat approach. Permitting companies to take jobs overseas while protecting that income from taxation is something all politicians permitted.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 503578)

You know that swing voters largely don't exist, right?

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 503583)

I think Eugene Volokh has your proxy - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ican-politics/