HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2016, 3:52 PM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Quebec
Posts: 42,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
Which is why Sanders would have been a completely ineffectual President, imho.
No doubt. And so would have been Trump, for the exact same reasons. Hillary is also going to have a hard time because she's strongly (even irrationally) disliked by some half of Congress.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2016, 3:52 PM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
♒︎ Empirically Canadian
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 🍁 Canada
Posts: 11,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Yeah, but HRC says she has "public positions", meant for suckers to swallow at election time, and "private positions", meant to be actual policy orientation.

It's not just changing one's mind once, from older position A to newer position B, permanently.
Politics 101; and the lesser of two evils is still less evil. For instance, didn't Pence want to cancel gay marriage, and send applicants to jail?

Last edited by Architype; Nov 8, 2016 at 4:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2016, 3:54 PM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Quebec
Posts: 42,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by niwell View Post
I hate to break it to you, but you are describing virtually every politician, anywhere.
I might be too optimistic, but I continue to like to think it's possible to hope to have politicians who aren't total liars. Doesn't seem that much to ask.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2016, 3:55 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 68,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker View Post
It's just not worth it. The sexism, racism, and instability are the primary concerns for me. Tearing down the system and building something new, potentially even better, in its place is all well and good - but that end isn't justified by these particularly offensive means.

What world order would Trump's supporters possibly erect in its place? Feudal city states? Humvees for everyone?

That last poll of Canadians showed lots would support some of Trump's policies - ending NAFTA, for example - all of these things can be done by someone without the need for such overt sexism, racism, and instability. It is possible.

The reason it's not happening is because that's not what this is about. It's a dying gasp from angry, old, white men who are struggling to come to terms with the fact they're no longer solely in charge. "Running against the new America is not the way to win elections in the new America."

And as a gay man - Pence? Come on. You'd have to go to Africa to find a more dangerously homophobic politician near such a high position.

I'll take my chances with Clinton. I think she's a fantastic candidate and I love most of her positions. My only real concern with her is that she's a bit of a hawk and is likely to support American military intervention anywhere possible, but that worries me less than Trump.
Yup. I agree with the "dismantlers" that the old system is rotten to the core.

But if we let people like Trump tear it down... then what?

There is no plan or even a general outline of a plan to replace it. (A situation which I suppose some would see as a "plus".)

People talk about stuff like Brexit and Quebec independence in apocalyptic terms, but they're small potatoes compared to what we could be talking about here.
__________________
The Last Word.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2016, 3:58 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is offline
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Sin Jaaawnz, Newf'nland
Posts: 34,724
I took her point to mean that you have to make things palpable (I meant palatable, but that brainfart stays lol) for the masses, which often means diluting or dumbing down positions, introducing them over time, to get the public to the point where they - hopefully - can see and support your position, to which they'd have been opposed at first.

It's like how Obamacare is an imperfect step toward a universal healthcare system, because the American people would dismiss such a thing as socialist nonsense. So the politicians support Obamacare, get it in place, win LOTS of people over, and move one step closer to being able to realize their true, private position of universal healthcare.

I don't see it as opposites, or lying. Just smart politics, gradual, baby steps. It's the way things usually happen, like gay rights. Does anyone really think Clinton and Obama were ever actually opposed in private?

It's the same with her surname. She went by Rodham and voters threw her husband out of the Governor's office largely because of it. So she adopted Rodham Clinton, and had more success. When she's campaigning, she generally drops Rodham entirely and goes just with Clinton. This isn't evidence of some deep-rooted identity crisis, it's just smart politics because many voters are sexist idiots. By remaining still within reach of their minds, she can get SOME of them just interested enough to move them forward.
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2016, 4:01 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is offline
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Sin Jaaawnz, Newf'nland
Posts: 34,724
An aside, the 10 most shared videos of the campaign are all from Hillary Clinton's side. I think we're going to see a blowout, 350 electoral college delegates+ for her.

Video Link
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2016, 4:11 PM
niwell's Avatar
niwell niwell is online now
sick transit, gloria
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Roncesvalles, Toronto
Posts: 11,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
I might be too optimistic, but I continue to like to think it's possible to hope to have politicians who aren't total liars. Doesn't seem that much to ask.

It's not so much lying as constantly competing interests. Even devoted voters have a complex overlapping venn diagram of interests. Then you have to deal with actually getting things pushed through.
__________________
Check out my pics of Johannesburg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2016, 4:22 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 22,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stryker View Post
Eh what are you on?

immigration is a permanent subsidy for the GTA and Vancouver.
Subsidy? It's a curse that's making the region unaffordable and unlivable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2016, 4:41 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 23,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
Subsidy? It's a curse that's making the region unaffordable and unlivable.
I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between "subsidy" and "curse".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2016, 4:42 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 68,143
I highly doubt it will be enough to take him over the top, but I do expect Trump to get a small bump from discreet voters who are hesitant about expressing support for him amidst all of the anti-Trump circus down in the U.S.

They've seen this in France and some other countries where far-right politicians like Le Pen have on occasion posted decently higher scores than what the polls were predicting.
__________________
The Last Word.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2016, 4:50 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 23,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
I highly doubt it will be enough to take him over the top, but I do expect Trump to get a small bump from discreet voters who are hesitant about expressing support for him amidst all of the anti-Trump circus down in the U.S.

They've seen this in France and some other countries where far-right politicians like Le Pen have on occasion posted decently higher scores than what the polls were predicting.
I wondered about that the other day. On the other hand, Clinton supporters could have good reason to be discrete about their preference in some parts of the country. Overall, however, I think this is more likely to be a net benefit for Trump, if in fact it's real.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2016, 4:51 PM
flipv's Avatar
flipv flipv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
I highly doubt it will be enough to take him over the top, but I do expect Trump to get a small bump from discreet voters who are hesitant about expressing support for him amidst all of the anti-Trump circus down in the U.S.

They've seen this in France and some other countries where far-right politicians like Le Pen have on occasion posted decently higher scores than what the polls were predicting.
Given that many polls already have these two in their margin of error... it all depends on the minority votes. Trump really shat the bed on that one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2016, 4:52 PM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Quebec
Posts: 42,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker View Post
I think we're going to see a blowout, 350 electoral college delegates+ for her.
Overkilling one's victory in the Electoral College is absolutely pointless if not accompanied by downticket voting that results in a blue Senate majority for the next two years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2016, 4:52 PM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is offline
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by niwell View Post
I hate to break it to you, but you are describing virtually every politician, anywhere.
Hell, we all have public and private positions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2016, 4:53 PM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is offline
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
No doubt. And so would have been Trump, for the exact same reasons. Hillary is also going to have a hard time because she's strongly (even irrationally) disliked by some half of Congress.
Find evidence of that. her Senate career says it's not true.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2016, 5:00 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 23,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Overkilling one's victory in the Electoral College is absolutely pointless if not accompanied by downticket voting that results in a blue Senate majority for the next two years.
It would at least make the point, one would hope, that the Republicans have been led down the wrong path in these Tea Party years. A close result will only encourage the ideologues to hang in there, or even double down (if that's possible).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2016, 5:04 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 23,612
I've not been watching the news today - have there been any reports (yet) of irregularities/intimidation at polling stations, as some have alleged/feared?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2016, 5:04 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
How anyone could want victory for that vile Tronald Dump is beyond me. The most flawed Presidential Candidate from a major party in at least a century, and a truly despicable human being.
I imagine this is a pretty common sentiment, and what is striking to me is how it lacks empathy or any attempt whatsoever to see things from the other side of the aisle. It is an endemic attitude that is becoming more and more pervasive among politics, and reminds me heavily of the attitudes towards Stephen Harper. Chants of "there is no possible reason in the entire world to vote for this monster!", "if you support Harper you should be ashamed of yourself!", and similar sentiments trying to vilify even the thought of anyone having a political point of view different than your own.

Now, I don't expect many Canadians to be all that well educated on Trump, especially as most get their perspective on him through the eyes of the media. Many people outside America just like to point and laugh at American policies, spend very little time actually critically thinking about things, and can't wait to jump on the "those ridiculous Americans, look how stupid they are for voting for this guy!" bandwagon.

An important point is that people don't vote for a candidate for their flaws. Clinton, Harper, Trudeau, Trump. They are all flawed candidates. People vote for the candidate who gets the major things right.

People don't vote for Clinton because she used an email server and her campaign colluded to sabotage Sanders in the primaries. They vote for her because they generally want to see a continuation of Obama's policies.

People don't vote for Trudeau because of nepotism. They vote for him because they agreed with his platform.

That said, if people are actually interested in why Trump is so popular, I will try to explain in three reasons.

The biggest reason, I believe, is that this election is a referendum on free trade. It's important to note that Sanders was also loudly criticizing free trade, so Sanders and Trump actually have more in common than people like to pretend. For many, this is the number one economic issue and everything else is background noise. Economies in several states have been devastated by expanding trade, including notably Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, but it has affected every state in the country. Corporations, both large and small, have exploited lopsided trade deals to erode salaries, erode jobs, and have hung the sword of Damocles over state governments to operate virtually tax free by threatening to cut even more jobs.

Along with that, the massive outsourcing of labor to jurisdictions which have no minimum wage, low minimum wage, no worker protections, no unions, no health care has fueled unprecedented income inequality, such that the only individuals actually benefiting from these schemes are the owners of the companies, the executives who receive large bonuses for saving money by killing American jobs and outsourcing, and the people with enough money to invest in the stocks of these companies that continually outsource.

People are tired of it and desperately want to have a national conversation about free trade. It is also what made Sanders so popular. For many people, this is the signature issue of the election, and everything else is just background noise.

Another large reason I think Trump appeals to people is his foreign policy perspective. He talks in large strokes about this, but people are really tired of America's interventionist foreign policy, spending trillions of dollars on a myriad of wars. Foreign policy has been directed by Bush and Clinton administrations since 1988. People are desperate for a change of direction and Trump represents that change. This is an incredibly important aspect of the presidency that gets overlooked for sensationalized media distractions.

Finally, another large part of his appeal is that Trump represents being a political outsider. People may forget, but in 2008 Obama was largely elected on the platform of bringing change to government and being himself distanced from the establishment. Americans have been signalling for a long time they are tired of the status quo, and want a politician to stand up to corruption. Obama didn't really deliver that, but the popularity of both Sanders and Trump shows how much Americans desperately want to see this kind of change.

Of course Trump is a flawed candidate. Perhaps the most flawed in a generation. But people support him because they believe he gets the major things correct. And having this attitude that people who disagree with you should be ashamed of themselves, and trying to paint Trump as some incorrigible monster who would literally burn America to the ground is not only adding fuel to the fire of modern highly partisan political divisions, it is incredibly disrespectful to almost half the entire country that simply has a different political opinion than you.

Empathy. It's what is lacking in modern political conversations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2016, 5:08 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker View Post
It's just not worth it. The sexism, racism, and instability are the primary concerns for me. Tearing down the system and building something new, potentially even better, in its place is all well and good - but that end isn't justified by these particularly offensive means.

What world order would Trump's supporters possibly erect in its place? Feudal city states? Humvees for everyone?

That last poll of Canadians showed lots would support some of Trump's policies - ending NAFTA, for example - all of these things can be done by someone without the need for such overt sexism, racism, and instability. It is possible.

The reason it's not happening is because that's not what this is about. It's a dying gasp from angry, old, white men who are struggling to come to terms with the fact they're no longer solely in charge. "Running against the new America is not the way to win elections in the new America."

And as a gay man - Pence? Come on. You'd have to go to Africa to find a more dangerously homophobic politician near such a high position.

I'll take my chances with Clinton. I think she's a fantastic candidate and I love most of her positions. My only real concern with her is that she's a bit of a hawk and is likely to support American military intervention anywhere possible, but that worries me less than Trump.

good post.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2016, 5:13 PM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Quebec
Posts: 42,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
I imagine this is a pretty common sentiment, and what is striking to me is how it lacks empathy or any attempt whatsoever to see things from the other side of the aisle. It is an endemic attitude that is becoming more and more pervasive among politics, and reminds me heavily of the attitudes towards Stephen Harper. Chants of "there is no possible reason in the entire world to vote for this monster!", "if you support Harper you should be ashamed of yourself!", and similar sentiments trying to vilify even the thought of anyone having a political point of view different than your own.

Now, I don't expect many Canadians to be all that well educated on Trump, especially as most get their perspective on him through the eyes of the media. Many people outside America just like to point and laugh at American policies, spend very little time actually critically thinking about things, and can't wait to jump on the "those ridiculous Americans, look how stupid they are for voting for this guy!" bandwagon.

An important point is that people don't vote for a candidate for their flaws. Clinton, Harper, Trudeau, Trump. They are all flawed candidates. People vote for the candidate who gets the major things right.

People don't vote for Clinton because she used an email server and her campaign colluded to sabotage Sanders in the primaries. They vote for her because they generally want to see a continuation of Obama's policies.

People don't vote for Trudeau because of nepotism. They vote for him because they agreed with his platform.

That said, if people are actually interested in why Trump is so popular, I will try to explain in three reasons.

The biggest reason, I believe, is that this election is a referendum on free trade. It's important to note that Sanders was also loudly criticizing free trade, so Sanders and Trump actually have more in common than people like to pretend. For many, this is the number one economic issue and everything else is background noise. Economies in several states have been devastated by expanding trade, including notably Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, but it has affected every state in the country. Corporations, both large and small, have exploited lopsided trade deals to erode salaries, erode jobs, and have hung the sword of Damocles over state governments to operate virtually tax free by threatening to cut even more jobs.

Along with that, the massive outsourcing of labor to jurisdictions which have no minimum wage, low minimum wage, no worker protections, no unions, no health care has fueled unprecedented income inequality, such that the only individuals actually benefiting from these schemes are the owners of the companies, the executives who receive large bonuses for saving money by killing American jobs and outsourcing, and the people with enough money to invest in the stocks of these companies that continually outsource.

People are tired of it and desperately want to have a national conversation about free trade. It is also what made Sanders so popular. For many people, this is the signature issue of the election, and everything else is just background noise.

Another large reason I think Trump appeals to people is his foreign policy perspective. He talks in large strokes about this, but people are really tired of America's interventionist foreign policy, spending trillions of dollars on a myriad of wars. Foreign policy has been directed by Bush and Clinton administrations since 1988. People are desperate for a change of direction and Trump represents that change. This is an incredibly important aspect of the presidency that gets overlooked for sensationalized media distractions.

Finally, another large part of his appeal is that Trump represents being a political outsider. People may forget, but in 2008 Obama was largely elected on the platform of bringing change to government and being himself distanced from the establishment. Americans have been signalling for a long time they are tired of the status quo, and want a politician to stand up to corruption. Obama didn't really deliver that, but the popularity of both Sanders and Trump shows how much Americans desperately want to see this kind of change.

Of course Trump is a flawed candidate. Perhaps the most flawed in a generation. But people support him because they believe he gets the major things correct. And having this attitude that people who disagree with you should be ashamed of themselves, and trying to paint Trump as some incorrigible monster who would literally burn America to the ground is not only adding fuel to the fire of modern highly partisan political divisions, it is incredibly disrespectful to almost half the entire country that simply has a different political opinion than you.

Empathy. It's what is lacking in modern political conversations.
Great post.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:19 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.