Regardless of your viewpoint, the way you express yourself makes you sound like one of those conspiracy theorists that pats other people on the shoulder saying "don't worry, you'll figure it out some day". Does not help with credibility at all.
"Predating Stonehenge by 6,000 years, Turkey's stunning Gobekli Tepe upends the conventional view of the rise of civilization"
Ha! It is hilarious to see west measure 'rise of civilization' against some dumb set of stones wedged by people who probably didn't know how to write. Plain fodder for insular minds.
Civilizations in the middle east (such as the now broken Syria) and even Indo-Srilankan subcontinent have been known to have practiced and even have written transcripts of things like heat sensing weaponry, a "nuclear standoff" and an equivalent of what we call theory of atoms -- read about brahmastra or brahmand, for example, in Mahabharat[1].
If we're going to argue that the Mahabharata is an account of nuclear war, we need to remember that it's extremely similar to the Irish Cattle Raid of Cooley. It's not an account of ancient Indian greatness; it's an account of the death of a previous civilization, which Proto-Indo-European-speaking peoples witnessed from the periphery, recording it in forms that became the garbled accounts surviving in India and Ireland.
> If we're going to argue that the Mahabharata is an account of nuclear war, we need to remember that it's extremely similar to the Irish Cattle Raid of Cooley.
Correct! I would rather measure up 'rise of civilization' against both texts than a stupid set of stones with nothing written on them -- which at best seems like a partial rise of civilization. Hence, the hilarity.
We're not... comparing? We're trying to put every event in history into a context, to understand and track humanity's slow trajectory. This isn't about India vs. West (and you're getting downvoted because you're putting it in that context). This is about our earliest roots.
Could be a great start for a Civilization game cheat/conspiracy theory edition with secret techs like neolithic atomic bomb or ancient aliens spacecrafts
How about a simple infographic timeline of estimated, claimed and measured history? Measure it along time and not some myopic view held by the west (or east).
"known to have practiced and even have written transcripts of things"
While I agree with your disdain of the overly western attitude that "civilization" didn't arise until agriculture and other myopic views, I also think you should not be so quick to use their myopia to justify your own, and in that sense, I think your use of the word known is too strong.
I think language and writing are a particularly strong indicator of "civilization", whatever the various definition. Now, the problem with the gathas you refer to is that they are supposedly the written version of an oral tradition that is much older, but like the hebrew torah, the veracity of how old that spoken tradition really is, is very much hard to verify and dubious. It is known that many of the spoken word traditions often claim to be older than they really are, for various reasons. The old avestan, which the first gathas were written in, only date to not much before 1000 BC. That doesn't inherently mean the claims of being more ancient are wrong, but it's something to take into consideration, and to be fair, indus-script, the proto-writing in the indus valley (including the proto-elamite) have been dated to ~3500 BC.
The point is that I have heard these types of claims, mostly from Indians, that the veda's, etc, are simply the written traditions of 12k+ year old oral traditions, and I find such claims to not be backed up by evidence and are often used as some sort of national pride instead of based on the science. So be careful about wanting to have a claim to the oldest writing which offers some great insight into the ancient world when that isn't verified or verifiable.
Because if you wanted to go there, the oldest proto-writings aren't from the indus valley civilization (including the only ~3000 BC sumerian/egyption), but from 7000 BC China, 6000 BC Central/SouthEastern Europe, and 6000 BC Greece, in the Jiahu, Vinca, and Dispillo respectively.
So, to summarize, I am just as skeptical of stories about indus valley vedas actually knowing about nuclear war as I am about cannanite stories about the time of the angels who mated with man to produce giants (which they mostly stole from the sumerians anyway).
Now, if you just want to talk about erected structural dating, thats a different discussion, which is still why Gobleke Tepe is so unique, because imagine that if the oldest proto-writing is in China around 7000 years ago, Tepe was built roughly twice as long ago as that (14000 BC)!
That's why I really like the research on Gobleke Tepe. I have yet to see any really good sources on any older human structures than that.
Now, my personal and unverifiable conjecture is that Gobleke Tepe was a temple, but not the kind imagined, and instead was a temple of death or temple of the underworld, but how I came to that conclusion is a story for another time.
It is a fact that Modi encouraged killing of Muslim families to catapult himself at centerstage politics. One of his cabinet ministers is even a convicted murderer!, of his own colleague in office: research on home minister Haren Pandya.
Supreme Court of India discharged Mr. Modi, that too under blood thirsty Congress government. What other proofs are required. Because of Gujarat governments support, free trial could have been conducted. Its own minister was convicted. Give me another such example. Ex-minister served the punishment under the government of his own political party.
It's nice you mention the supreme courts of India here. Notice, they also discharged(?) Salman Khan of Bollywood for his 2006 road kills! It's almost a joke when you use SC to say that your PM/candidate doesn't have a questionable past.
I'm fairly certain that you'll also fail to accept the fact that Modi was the mastermind of a series of murders including that of his own cabinet minister Haren Pandya following the events in 2002.
Yeah similar to how columnists with alternative views are called "outside columnists" -- us and them -- or sometimes deshdrohis. Many Indians fail to see the reality in chasm of words.
Oh man! The Big Lebowski reference is 200% accurate. On a serious note though, it feels almost certain that the Modi Government is going to lead India into another bloodshed, sooner or later. I hope not but that sinking feeling just doesn't go away given his track record.
It's already happened with the lynchings, killings and sporadic riots, but at scale of India, it just doesn't leave a big enough mark. It's kind of sad really. India rationalizes the most horrific acts of humanity, shrugs and moves on.
Have you lived through 80s, and the constant riots in India during that time ? India is a no where near being a fascist country, because for love of god, its not ONE country.
Calling RSS alt-right, completely makes the whole article laughable. RSS was the Right, BJP was the Right, Jan Sangh (BJP's predecessor) was the Right and they were the only game in town, in a mostly Fabian socialist India.
Please go read some History.
Here is a nugget. In Hyderabad riots only happened in INC regime, when TDP was in power no riots. Now both are Centre-Left populist parties.
Rejection of Neo-liberalism is not fascism and the Harvard-Soviet fragilistas of the world, summoning ghosts of Hitler when a country like India is not ONE race is amusing but also horrifying because these morons actually have a platform for their "fake news".
> Calling RSS alt-right, completely makes the whole article laughable.
RSS is alt-right of India even if you think it isn't. Anyone who claims otherwise simply because INC or TDP jokers did something wrong elsewhere is either stupid or simply insane. RSS is and always will be an alt-right outfit even if every other political party like INC/TDP/BJP cease to exist.
Go read the some history yourself. I can meanwhile eat some beef nuggets on the side. ;)
Another way of looking at it is every war before 1800 took place with a smaller global population than India has right now. Yes, a lot of bad things happen in India, but this is partly because a lot of things happen in India.
Can you explain the issues with Modi's government? As somebody who has never been there and get his news from the Caspian report, John Oliver and Al Jazeera, it looks like Modi is trying to do the right thing for the country.
Anu Rangappa is a senior DNC adviser is writing to DNC national fundraiser director Jordan Kaplan on September 22, 2015 saying:
"They aren't going to give us a price per ticket and do not want their party listed in any package we are selling to donors. If we let them know we have donors in town who will be at the debate, we can add them to the list for the party."
Kaplan then replies with: "Great - we were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it."
There are three groups of people opposed to network neutrality. 1) People who don't like government regulation in general, 2) Telecoms lobbyists and 3) People who don't understand what network neutrality is.
Obviously only the first are worth listening to, though the second are the loudest and the third are the most numerous.
And the issue with listening to the first group is that we have to do it in the right order. The principle of not having the government regulate is that the free market will take care of it, but there is currently no free market for telecommunications, in part because the government has given the incumbents access to eminent domain and a trillion dollars in government subsidies over the past century. So the order of things would have to be to first somehow have strong last-mile competition (e.g. more than 20 providers on average) and only then remove network neutrality.
The people who actually believe this also believe that last mile is not a natural monopoly. The proper way to answer it is to give them e.g. Nevada and let them prove it. Then once Nevada somehow has 20 independent last mile providers, we can do the same thing everywhere else and won't need network neutrality anymore. And if they're wrong and they fail, then we'll know for sure and the only people opposed will be the people no one should ever listen to.
In theory they could also fail because they're wrong about something else, but whose problem is that? Either they can figure out how to have competition without regulation, or they can't and we need network neutrality.
Not trying to get involved in the debate around net neutrality, but you'd have to have criteria around what is success and what is failure. Depending on how you measure it, there are very few government programs that couldn't be simultaneously cast as either a success or failure depending on which criteria were chosen after the fact.
Clearly, those in favor will point out its positives and discard its negatives, and vice versa.
The point, I think I'm making, is that for those opposed to net neutrality, maybe some would be less opposed if success and failure were clearly defined, and whatever regulations enacted were the least and most tailored amount of regulations meant to specifically prevent the previously defined failure states. Giving broad and ambiguous authority over something like "the internet" is fraught with both wonder and peril, and until and unless "good" and "bad" are quantified, it seems unfair to castigate "the other side" as shills, or ignorant (not that I'm suggesting that you've done that, but it's definitely been done).
I can actually give you a pretty good definition if you want one.
Competition sufficient so that no last mile ISP has enough market power to charge transit or content providers for access to their customers. That's the exact minimum amount of competition necessary so that you don't need network neutrality regulations -- enough so that the market does the job for you.
We asked you to stop posting like this, so we've banned the account. We're happy to unban accounts if you email us at hn@ycombinator.com and we believe you'll post civilly and substantively in the future.
As it turns out, it doesn't matter if you're against net neutrality, it's still probably in your interest. Exceptions might include if you're a telecom rentier or an authoritarian interested in policing content.
One of the foundations of democracy is "secret ballot". If it's possible to algorithmically deduce who you're going to vote for, a tyranny can easily take you down or try to influence* you in ways you shouldn't be.
I think you have no idea about what you're taking here. Other option being you benefitting off of surveillance in some form (Don't want to be rude, only addressing the concern.).
* We experienced this first hand in the 2016 elections -- which is why it always felt weird to most of us all the time.
It already is possible to algorithmically deduce who people are voting for.
I am not benefiting from surveillance. I am a game developer and engineer. I see things from that perspective.
We can't make compelling multiplayer games by hiding information from the server. We need as much information as possible to make sure everyone has as good a time playing the game as possible. We also need to know if some players are actively "griefing" to ruin the good time others are trying to have.
I think the mistake we make is in keeping this information to ourselves or selling it to third parties (that happens). The information should be broadcast to everyone, and if it's of some use, then it should benefit the people who the information is about directly, and by benefit, I don't mean they should be targeted for more appropriate advertising. I mean benefit, like get paid if they're having trouble paying bills, or get love if they're feeling down, or get food if they're hungry, or medical attention if they're sick.
Unfortunately, we are currently too culturally immature and litigious to be respectful of that kind of information, which is why developers don't broadcast it.
We just ceded our government to a guy who won by way of asymmetric information. We had his opponent's taxes and emails, but we didn't have his. How can candidates be judged fairly in a situation like that? One of the repercussions of this is that we now have Republican-controlled Legislative and Executive branches, and it sounds like the Judicial branch will be next. That's what asymmetric information does. It creates imbalances in power. If we can see what they're doing just as easily as they can see what we're doing, it becomes a lot harder to throw stones in our glass houses.
> It already is possible to algorithmically deduce who people are voting for.
YES, it is! Therefore, in all honesty, the foundations of democracy have already been eroded -- thanks Obama/Osama/Bush/Clinton/Trump/whoever -- it will take a few years for ordinary people to grok this.
While that happens it is our duty to make people around us understand this without getting them all hassled up or making anyone feel left out in the conversation.
> I am not benefiting from surveillance. I am a game developer and engineer. I see things from that perspective.
Good to hear that. There is nothing wrong if you were in fact. Smart entrepreneur et al. ;)
> We just ceded our government to a guy who won by way of asymmetric information. We had his opponent's taxes and emails, but we didn't have his. How can candidates be judged fairly in a situation like that?
Totally agree!
I'm glad that this discussion is even happening right now. Judgement of candidates (fair/unfair) is still due -- we're clearly in a bet right now. I believe that each comment here is a step towards making more and more people aware about where things really are today.
One reason to utterly and totally oppose mail-in and on-line balloting. That non-secret ballots also allow paid and coerced voting are other traditional reasons.
Oregon has had vote-by-mail for years and it's been nothing but a positive thing. Their turnout is consistently higher than the national average. There are simply no issues around access to voting (like long lines at polling places, people who can't get time off work, etc), because every registered voter gets a ballot and a couple of weeks to fill it in.
The claims and fears around voter fraud have been studied, and have been found to be entirely without basis in reality. Voter fraud and coercion simply hasn't been an issue in a vote-by-mail state.
It's also a lot of fun to take part in voting parties, where you get to hash out the issues with your friends and fill in your ballot as you do so.
You are aware that there are countries that manage to run elections on sundays and with sufficient polling places to not have any lines to speak of at all? That might be too advanced a technology for the US, but, unbelievable as it may sound, countries like that do indeed exist!
First of all, I didn't say that you should, I just pointed out that your argument didn't make a whole lot of sense.
But also, the reason why voting by mail is problematic is, as has been mentioned, the potential for pressuring people into voting a certain way, including buying of votes.
Now, you said that this had been studied and it had been found that it's not really been a problem. But that's completely missing the point. You cannot judge the security of a system against attacks simply by looking at how many attacks were successful in the past. A voting system being reliable is most important when shit hits the fan. That it works fine when stakes aren't (perceived to be) all that high isn't really all that surprising, the most easily corrupted voting systems would probably work fine, and it tells you absolutely nothing about how it would hold up under different circumstances.
Also, mind you, objectively giving an accurate result is not the only function that a voting system has in a democracy, equally important is that the public trusts the system and thus the result, and trust erodes really fast under the wrong circumstances, which is when you can consider yourself lucky if you have a voting system where fraud is not just not happening, but where you can demonstrate that it's not happening.
To maybe get an idea of how stuff that's not actually secured is going to be exploited once the incentives are there: In the US, the relevant laws generally don't specify how to divide the country into voting districts. Because nobody thought of that as a problem when writing the law. Nowadays, gerrymandering is a reality. It's obviously undemocratic (I suppose you would agree?), but it's not illegal, and the incentives are there, and so it happens. There is almost nothing that people don't do for power. Trusting that people will be responsible when there is an opportunity to gain power is essentially the recipe for every major disaster humanity has ever created.
There are theoretical problems with any system of voting, everything's a trade-off one way or the other. Vote-by-mail increases turnout, it's easier and more convenient, and the problems you're afraid of simply don't happen in practice.
At the end of the day, I'd much rather have the increased participation in the democratic process than cater to the unfounded/theoretical fears of a few folks.
It's not at all theoretical. Postal voting is heavily restricted in Northern Ireland due to past history of paramilitary organisations influencing voter behaviour.
One needs to provide an attested reason for not attending the polling station:
You must provide a reason why you cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person at your polling place on polling day. You must provide exact dates and locations (if applicable) or the application may be rejected on the grounds that not enough detail about the reason has been provided.
Oregon isn't Northern Ireland. They might have had problems with voter coercion. Oregon hasn't. Oregon has had problems with turnout. This improves them.
Absolutely! It is possible to deduce pretty accurately who somebody is going to vote for without even looking at the ballot or peeping into the booth box.
All actions people do online like sharing a newspiece on their Facebook walls, likes or dislikes, chats, mails, texts, add up to something that makes the person -- and that information is quite valuable.
The Snowden moment is only but a point in time when democracy realized it had been subverted. The "act" of takeover happened way earlier than that when the idea of secret ballot was compromised with complete erosion of individual privacy. Naturally modern day people will not realize the looming dangers of a tyranny until the tyranny itself manifests into some form that affects them individually.
Two examples in the world exist where a surveillance state has actually succeeded: Singapore and also in some ways China. It only depends on what percentage of people feel they're prosperous and doing well; which is an odd metric because there is, for example, a significant percentage of people in North Korea who will be happy to attack America at first chance. Despite the economic disaster they've been forced to live into.
> Rampant individualism probably emboldens all this.
It does complicate the matter. But even in a group it'd be very difficult -- nearly impossible -- to take down a surveillance state with sweeping coverage and the ability to surgically dissect and disable strategies of any such a group however large. In my opinion it is very much a feeling of going after a "lost cause" that most people seem to have internalized -- not necessarily a selfish stand which kind of alienates them even more.
"for example, a significant percentage of people in North Korea who will be happy to attack America at first chance. Despite the economic disaster they've been forced to live into."
Not really. ALL people in North America will gladly attack America, because hate to America(USA, America is a continent) is instilled to them since preschool.
They don't know they are in an economic disaster, because the media tells them other countries are in worse position. They are told that people form other countries wear nice clothes just like actors in order to make them believe they are rich. Most people believe the propaganda because they are surrounded by it.
It is not very different from the US, for instance since the US backed coup d' Etat to Ukrainian democratically elected Government, western media have told several lies that people just bought because all the media agreed:
1. That taking over a democratically elected Government was justified(from the country that usually invades countries for "democracy and freedom") because of corruption. Never mind the people that they put on place is as corrupt or worse.
2. Spending 6.500 million dollars to interfere in other country is totally ok, if you are the USA. Of course if someone else tries to influence US election it is a crime.
3. That Putin was a monster that wanted to "expand his Empire". This is the most ridiculous thing you could hear ever from the biggest country on Earth that has problems just defending his country.
But most (North)Americans bought it without a thought, because of things like "manufacturing consent".
Most people just naturally aligns with the majority. If you control the most watched media, you could tell people what is right to believe... Until it becomes so clear that they are being duped, that's it.
In Western countries you are free to watch or read whatever you want, but the media that is most watched is totally controlled. They don't care about a few guys knowing the truth because in a democracy the mass is king and you control the mass.
Is Singapore a surveillance state? I worked there last April and I loved the place. People seemed busy and prosperous. I was there a week before I saw any police what so ever, and then it was three young guys in uniform walking down the street and they seemed very friendly (as all police I have ever talked with in the US, BTW). I thought it looked like a great place to live!
Nope, it's a democratic constitutional republic, and people would do well to remember that is the correct term for our enshrined form of government (though it has veered from it largely).
You seem to be quickly concluding that democracy is dead in America because of surveillance. That surveillance may be illegal but it doesnt change how the officers of government are chosen. America is still a democracy, unless you truly believe that surveillance has already been converted into controlled brainwashing. (I do not believe that to be the case.)
I'd blame the democrats alone (the party, leadership, delegates, superdelegates and a section of voters + ~~liar~~ media) for giving away the presidency to Trump. For free, literally.
How is Peter Thiel or anyone else (Trump's supporters) responsible for what comes out of the man's mouth when at the same time the other party is clearly doing what's downright corruption/stifling a democratic nomination?
ICYMI, Peter Thiel did mention that he'd have preferred a race between Sanders and Trump instead (watch his interview to the press club) -- where he quotes: "because they get it" -- and that Trump gets the big things right even though his behavior isn't acceptable.
I don't see any reason for YC or any other organization to follow through with your advice. It is also mind numbing that a portion of democrats who made a joke of Trump when he said "he will accept the results only if he wins" are unable to accept the result of the election themselves.
Move on folks, open your ears and do your job.
On downvotes: I'm pretty sure downvoting over here is symptomatic behavior of a community that doesn't like to listen. Thank you for proving the point. I am happy that Trump is leading us and he is the elected premier for this country despite his weaknesses.
Each of us are responsible for their own vote. Nobody made you vote for Trump. I blame the people who voted for Trump for making him President. After all, we are all adults here, and although Trump never accepts any responsibility for his actions I think that the Trump supporters accept that they voted for him.
So yeah, blaming the Democrats for the Trump presidency is an oxymoron.
Clinton and her machine threw the only candidate who could beat Trump under the bus. She deserves her loss, and should apologize to the American people for prioritizing her selfish ambition over the good of the country.
Hopefully the Democrats learn about running someone electable before 2018. I have already prepared my donation fund for Bernie Sanders' or Tulsi Gabbard's 2020 presidential race (and I'll not vote again in 4 years if the Dems run yet another establishment candidate, learn your lesson already).
Your chance for your opinion to matter was when the primaries took place. Don't save your outrage for after it doesn't go the way you wanted.
More Democrats voted and caucused for her than for Bernie. I don't know where the notion that his nomination was stolen comes from other than maybe Trump himself.
Independents, needed to win the general, were not permitted to participate in several major Democratic primaries. Those Independents did not go for Clinton (clearly). Nor did Millennials, who also sat out for Clinton.
If you need people outside your party to vote for you, you don't restrict caucusing to just your party. Otherwise, you get the proverbial brick in the face. Must be a terrible legacy to lose to the person that makes up Trump in front of the entire world, that people said to themselves "Yes, he's a bigot, a xenophobe, a sexist; but he's not Clinton" as they voted.
@fatbird: I'm unsure why we're still arguing about this. Clinton lost because she did not have enough support, period.
Primary rules aren't decided on a case-by-case, election by election basis, and they're not a strategic tool for positioning oneself for the general campaign. They're an internal process that is supposed to be consistent and knowable beforehand--and the reason Obama was able to upset Hillary in 2008 was because his campaign bothered to learn the rules for all 50 primaries/caucuses, while hers didn't.
Of course they were: Bernie wasn't a Democrat until he ran for the nomination, why would they want to help an outsider become head of the party (aka the nominee?)
And it's not like we don't have an example of a candidate that rode popular outrage to a comfortable nomination victory with the entire weight of the party elites trying to sink him. It's clearly not that hard if you find the right message and the time is right.
But then nobody hacked the RNC's emails. Who knows what's in those.
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it but I disagree. Put Hillary in a balance with Trump and by far she is the better candidate. When people are willing to believe in the Father of Lies, even after you show them recorded evidence, they are a lost cause. It is really hard to cure willful ignorance. Hillary has also lied, I admit it, but it is not even on the same league of Trump.
The Democrats' fault (and mine too) was in believing that people of the United States were better than this.
Up to this point I used to honestly believe that justice always prevailed, some how. That the morality of the people of the United States was strong. Stupid, idealistic, naive me. I really hurts my heart but at least my eyes have been opened. You can do almost anything you want, lie with impunity, grab woman by the pus*y, assault them, defraud people, etc. etc. and as long as you have money and good connections it is very likely you will get away with it.
It is a hard pill to swallow, but at least I've learned my lesson and will live accordingly.
And of course, if the republicans again destroy the economy like Bush did in 2008 everybody will comeback crying to the Democrats to fix it and then blame them for everything once things are going OK again.
> Put Hillary in a balance with Trump and by far she is the better candidate
Then why am I dealing with "President-elect" Donald Trump?
> The Democrats' fault (and mine too) was in believing that people of the United States were better than this.
Nooooooo, your fault was not understanding what millions of Americans are going through that would force them to vote for the opponent. The blame lies solely with that mindset.
You expected people to put social issues ahead of their anxiety over economic survival. How ignorant is that idea? If you do not reflect, if you do not get comfortable with the idea of compromise and understanding those who did not vote the way you wanted, you will be doomed to fail.
> Then why am I dealing with "President-elect" Donald Trump?
Because the candidate who LOST the popular vote won the electoral college, so his fewer votes were better allocated, as it turned out. He won fair and square, but it's beyond idiotic to pretend that nominating Hillary was somehow a gift of the presidency to Trump. According to insiders, even Trump thought he was losing going into election night.
>>Then why am I dealing with "President-elect" Donald Trump?
Because half the people of the United States are hypocrites with no strong moral compass. It is not politically correct to say it but it is true. I didn't think so before this but I know so now.
>>Nooooooo, your fault was not understanding what millions of Americans are going through that would force them to vote for the opponent. The blame lies solely with that mindset.
That is a lie. A good chunk of the trump supporters are actually well off. [1]
> Because half the people of the United States are hypocrites with no strong moral compass. It is not politically correct to say it but it is true. I didn't think so before this but I know so now.
Prepare to lose a lot of battles in your life with this mindset.
EDIT (because HN throttling and I can't reply):
Don't waste the opportunity to grow as a person from this if it so strongly effects you. You don't say "fuck half of America, I'm right and they're wrong." You say, "Half of America voted for this person, this person who I strongly disagree with. Why? What motivated this? What can we do in the future to work together to ensure a better outcome?"
You ask questions. You collaborate. You compromise. In that order.
One of the reasons Trump won is that a lot of people in this country feel like they're being smugly dismissed every time they open their mouths. That the "elites" have no interest in getting to know them, understanding their problems, or building a society that is inclusive of them. They're used to being lectured by people who don't even know them, who think their entire community is insignificant and irrelevant and backwards and stupid. They're used to being called "white trash" and worse, just for existing.
I'm #NeverTrump. He's a horrible human being. I wish he had never sniffed the presidency. I fear for the safety of my transgender friends. But Trump won't be stopped if we lie to ourselves about why people support him, if we tell comforting but false stories about how everyone who supports him is just stupid, racist, sexist, or self-hating. The only way to stop him is to understand why we weren't able to stop him this time, which means understanding what the people who voted for him want that the "establishment" is failing to take seriously.
So, just to be clear, I agree with you completely, one hundred percent. But in the last couple of days, reflecting on the phenomenon you're observing, and trying to figure out why I become so frustrated, I've realized you could flip that around completely, with very negligible edits:
"... a lot of people in this country feel like they're being smugly dismissed every time they open their mouths. That the 'white trash' have no interest in getting to know them, understanding their problems, or building a society that is inclusive of them. They're used to being lectured by people who don't even know them, who think their entire community is insignificant and irrelevant and backwards and stupid. They're used to being called 'elites' and worse, just for existing."
The smugness of the liberal establishment bothers me, and is one reason I didn't vote for Clinton. But I find myself a recipient on the opposite end of that bigotry line all the time also. Not sure what to do with that observation, but it's very salient to me. Explaining it doesn't make it ok, I suppose, or something along those lines.
A partial answer comes from something I've sometimes heard said about racism (which I don't fully agree with, but I recognize as having some value): that when those with less power disdain those with more power, it's not as bad as when those with more power disdain those with less power.
Concretely: Tuesday is the first time in a long time that many "elites" have had their lives affected by "white trash". But "white trash" pretty much constantly live with the results of tax, trade, and health care policies enacted by "elites". IMO "and they don't like you very much either" hurts more in the second case -- it almost always hurts more for those on the losing end of the power dynamic.
I do not understand your logic. Why? The more you know the better. And this is something that I did not know before. As I already mentioned before, I was stupid and idealistic. This experience has made me a lot more cynical.
It has probably made me a bit worse of a person, unfortunately.
Trump has proven that you can say anything and as long as you have power or you tell people what they want to hear it does not matter so what are you talking about?
Here's an olive branch, it's a linear combination. Look at the numbers, yes a large portion supported Trump out of desperation, but Clinton got 6M votes less than Obama. That says it all, people couldn't be motivated to vote.
Please, for our sake that we can rebuild in 2020 from what little we have left of our country, do look around and realize that the DNC had alot to do with why Trump won.
I prefer to believe that half of the people of the United States want to come together to build a better nation.
Edit: Hello downvoters. At almost the very top of his speech Trump specifically said he was reaching out to people who didn't support him, for guidance and help in unifying and improving the country.
Trump's prepared to work with you on unity, are you prepared to work with him? For better or worse dismissing him will not get your views heard, neither will calling him and his supporters names.
Sanders issued a statement saying “To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.”
Obama and Hillary said, let's give him a chance and wait and see.
That does not seem unreasonable.
I'm sure there are at least a handful of Trump policies that you can support and agree with (see for example his ethics in government reform policy).
I know it's pedantic, but barely half the eligible electorate bothered to vote. And half of them elected Trump. We have no idea what the other half were doing or thinking, and can only guess they did not feel compelled to participate.
> Have you not been putting attention? He lies, lies, and lies to cover the lies and people do not care.
People don't care because they expect politicians to lie. Hillary had her fair share of lies also. So we need a different yardstick to judge candidates beyond he/she lies.
With regards to paying attention, I have been paying attention to this entire campaign and while paying attention I noticed that the version of Trump I saw in that speech was very different from the version of Trump that was portrayed in the media during the entire election campaign - from words to demeanor to tone.
It wasn't just a small difference either, it was a stark difference. This means one of two things:
1) After winning a mandate (presidency, house, senate) that validated his entire campaign message, he decided to switch tactics and tone and give up bigotry and hatred in favour of unity.
Or
2) The way he was portrayed by the media during the campaign was inaccurate, and his message has been one of unity and nation building all along.
There is significant amount of evidence to show the latter, but either choice bodes well for the future.
I'd put it at about 75% (1) (and we'll see how long that switch lasts; I really hope he manages to keep it up, although experience makes it difficult to be too optimistic) and 25% (2). The media really wanted stories about what a horrific boor Trump was. I expect they were good for clicks, and also I'm sure the vast majority of the college educated, urban members of the media honestly believed, as I do, that Trump wasn't fit for the Presidency, and wanted to convey that to others. A lot of the time he obliged; sometimes he didn't, and so they stretched to make it fit. ("Kicking out" the mother and baby from the speech was one of the most egregious examples.) Ultimately they did their own cause a disservice, as many people wrote off all Trump reporting as biased, and he ended up getting away with a great deal that he shouldn't have.
I watched his acceptance speech live and was mildly encouraged. I still have grave doubts, but since there's no going back, all we can do now is make the best of it.
> "Kicking out" the mother and baby from the speech was one of the most egregious examples.
That was one example of stretching things to make them fit, others included:
* Trump wants to build a database of Muslims (if you look at the transcripts it was actually the reporters suggesting this, not Trump, Trump moved on to talking about something else (the wall) and the reporter kept asking questions and took his replies as if he was talking about the database).
* Trump mocked a disabled reporter (the reporter's disability was completely different from the impersonation Trump did but coincidentally a freeze frame from the video had a pose similar to a picture of the reporter. So either he knew of the reporter's disability but was doing a completely different impersonation, or he didn't know of reporter's disability and was doing a completely different impersonation - either way he wasn't mocking the reporter's disability).
* Trump called for the assassination of Hillary Clinton and Supreme Court justices (transcripts clearly show the context was talking about exercising voting rights).
The list goes on, and on, and the more you look in to it, the more you see example after example where the media took something Trump said or did and applied a narrative to it that matched a narrative various email leaks have shown was the strategy to defeat Trump.
And now half the U.S. is scared because it seems one of the Clinton campaign's main strategies was to make people scared of a president Trump.
The strategy worked well in that many people now seem to be afraid of what's to come, but acceptance-speech Trump did not come off as scary. I think it's worth giving him a chance.
I don't disagree with you, and I especially agree that it's worth giving him a chance. That said, there are examples where what he said was just as bad as it sounds:
* Calling for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."
* "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families."
* I actually disagree with you on this one. Here's the quote: "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know." When I heard the audio of that, it sounded very much like he was talking about people taking matters into their own hands. It came across as a joke, but one in very poor taste. Still, I suppose it's conceivable that he's talking about something else, so give that one a pass.
* Then of course, "And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything… Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything." Sure, that's not a public statement, nor a statement of policy. It's also not something I can imagine myself or one of my friends saying though. It speaks to his character.
That's just a few. He's not as bad as the media or (obviously) the Clinton camp portrayed. But he still seems plenty bad. That said, maybe he can still govern effectively, and maybe some of the change he brings about will be positive. I hope so.
For nation building, his campaign slogan from day one: Make America Great Again.
For inaccurate portrayals in the media, Wikileaks/Guccifer leaks from the DNC pointing out deliberate strategy to brand Trump as a rascist, sexist, xenophobic, fascist bigot, along with evidence showing strong media collusion to do that, and then going to the source of his most controversial statements and finding out that many were taken out of context to push those exact themes.
But I guess the biggest is simply what I mentioned above. Throughout the campaign Trump has been painted as a bully, as hateful, as a bigot as someone who does things his way and doesn't listen to others. This is also someone with a highly inflated opinion of himself, who paints his name in giant gold letters on his planes and buildings.
He and his platform had just won 'bigly' - the presidency, the senate, the house. If anything the win would embolden someone with with the above characteristics and this speech was the culmination of his entire campaign and what he stood for.
And yet none of those things came through in his speech - no message of hate or divisiveness, no bullying, no messages of vindication or retribution, instead it was the opposite. Reaching out to people who opposed him, offering to work together regardless of race and religion and political affiliation, everyone coming together to build a better America.
That language and tone doesn't square with a narcissistic, bigoted, bully who says what he wants and takes what he pleases.
It just doesn't.
And when I'm confronted with a situation where reality conflicts with my perception of reality, the choice is either to update my perception to match the reality I'm seeing and hearing, or to further twist reality to match that already inaccurate perception.
In any event, Trump made it clear in that speech he wanted to work on unity and building the nation.
Is that something you can support?
If yes, I suspect you are likely to find common ground with many of his supporters. If no, that is on you more than on Trump.
I'll happily admit I was impressed with his conduct with Obama this morning, and the victory speech Tues/Wed. However, you cannot deny that it stands in contrast to the Trump of the campaign trail. It stands in contract to the Trump of later the same day:
> Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair! [1]
Let's not pretend his the victim of a vast media conspiracy to smear him. He has done patently divisive things: Promulgating birtherism, attacking Judge Curiel, attacking Megyn Kelly, the Muslim ban, the mexican-immigrants-are-rapists comment, the calls for mass deportation,...
The only prospect that gives me hope is a temperate, center-right Trump administration emerging from the miasma of this campaign, and working towards unity with his party, the democrats, and the country. I want that, I believe you want that, and I hope most of his supporters want that. For that to happen though, Trump has to be the one to work toward unity, to reach out to the groups he has inarguably alienated.
I saw that tweet, but also saw that many of the protests are being organized by the George Soros backed, MoveOn.org.
That's George Soros the billionaire backer of Hillary Clinton and also someone in opposition to Trump's anti-globalist agenda.
I have no doubt many of the protestors are genuinely protesting against what they believe Trump will mean for the nation. However I do also question the motives of people stirring that up, especially when protests become violent and cause damage to people and property.
> Trump has to be the one to work toward unity, to reach out to the groups he has inarguably alienated.
I agree and I think he made overtures to this in his acceptance speech. He does need people to meet him at the discussion table though, and violent protests, and burning effigies of Trump don't help achieve that aim.
Wait, aren't these the ones dems derided as uneducated non-college degreed voters? So, now that the election is over, we call them middle class? It's little wonder they felt disenfranchised and ridiculed and voted for the victor, including a number of democrats [1]
About 100,000 votes in the right states could have changed the entire outcome, right? But that doesn't really mean just 100,000 people who didn't vote for Hillary determined that Trump would win.
We vote for who we want, if we choose to vote at all. The next 4 years will be determined by a lot more than just this one vote. Political activism is a constant finger on the scales.
Okay, let's stipulate that anyone with an opinion that differs from yours has no moral compass. What next? Do we disenfranchise them? Kill them? Sterilize them and their children and wait it out?
Your attitude is disgusting on a number of levels, but my favorite one is how it leads to nothing useful at all.
Are you trying to equate my distaste for your reasoning with sexual assault? This makes me assume that you're trolling, but I can't imagine to what end.
Looks like you are good man with strong ideals. As they say Sxxx happens and one should be able to deal with it. You should be proud that majority voted for Clinton(25.6%) than Trump(25.5%). Sad part is, almost 46.9% of eligible voters didn't even vote. What Trump said cant be trivialized and you are quite aware that even republicans hated what Trump said. But at the same time, one should recognize that democracy works only when everyone participates. A few swing state voters don't represent all of USA. You can rest assured that this nation has enough good folks and strong institutions that wont let anyone including Presidents go against the constitution.
"Hillary has also lied, I admit it, but it is not even on the same league of Trump."
Come on, even as a liberal - when DWS resigned from the DNC for ethics violations related to the primaries, it was what ... thirty six hours before the Hillary Campaign announced that she was working on the campaign.
That was a "fuck you, we're corrupt and you can't do anything about it".
And in case there remained any doubt, we saw the same thing repeated with Donna Brazile. Fed debate questions to Hillary beforehand, left DNC ... to work for Hillary.
She won the popular vote, and lost the decisive states (MI, PA, WI) by 12, 68, and 27 thousand votes respectively. She did not beat Trump, but she could have, had anything gone even slightly differently.
>>blaming the Democrats for the Trump presidency is an oxymoron.
Not really. The dems sabotaged their only electable candidate. I'm not upset about the Trump presidency only because I had come to terms with it as soon as I realised Hillary was going to screw over Bernie and basically guarantee a Trump presidency. Never before has an 'I told so' felt so unsatisfactory. Besides I'm not even sure a Hillary presidency would have been more palatable given her track record.
So people from Brigade[1] say that among the electorate which used their app, 95% of Republicans pledged to vote Republican, among the Democrats only 55% pledged to vote for Hillary. So... who was it again who helped Trump win?
Hilarious, ha ha ha! And thus fodder continues… It's almost like the western linguists were there only yesterday:
"people with no granaries, no specialists, no taxes or central authorities." :-)