Glass Ceiling has been smashed!

[Badgerhoney]

i think many here need to brush up on their definition of the word "racism"  it's a label that is thrown around a little to loosely today and dilutes what racism really is.  it is a powerful word indeed and it's used more as a conversation stopper than anything

You could not be more right.   When I see people loosely throw around that term it sickens me.  They have totally devalued the word and the meaning.  If Trump was a racist, then he would not receive 30% of the Hispanic vote. People of color know what true racism is, and it isn't an assigned word to be used as weapon, which is what is has become by the media and left in this country.  These people do not know what real racism is, but they will attempt to tar and feather people.  Worse, try being called an Uncle Tom.

[Spotcheck Billy]

It is a bad thing, a horrible thing.  Did you not notice the amount of visits by both candidates to New Hampshire, tiny NH the last three weeks?  Or Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada?  That doesn't happen without the electoral college.

Clinton actually never visited WI after the primary. Oh wait, maybe ....

[Galway Eagle]

This is a nonsensical argument.  How many Republicans even bother to show up to vote in New York or California?  They don't, so that is why you see big victories in popular voting in those states.

What you should be looking at is the reliably presidential Democrat blue states that rejected 4 more years of Obama, rejected her completely.  Michigan. Wisconsin, Pennslyvania, almost Minnesota (can you believe that?).   Not only did he play the game better, but large swaths of your voting blocs said enough.  Blue collar especially.  Women didn't come home to her. Hispanic voting increased share for him.  African American voting increased share for him.     I'd add that if it was simply about him playing better chess, does that mean Ron Johnson did, too?  How about the predictions that the Democrats would take over the Senate?  Were they all outplayed in chess?  Or did people say enough?

You realize your argument can be made about democrats to... or are you just blind to the other side of your argument?

The point is you specifically said "American voters rejected her" that eliminates anybody who stayed home anyways and refers only to those that voted. You can't be talking about voters and then suddenly say "well what about those that didn't vote?!" That's not a thing. Those who voted did not reject her they voted for her, he just played the game better.

[HouWarrior]

Well this was civil up until the last two pages. Thanks for ruining a decent conversation boys.

Yup. lol

Maybe some saw Frank Luntz' focus group of voters on 60 Minutes this Sunday. He had a cross section voter group that argued, and spoke over each other with vitriol. When asked he said  this is worse than  its ever been before but common with voters of all leanings. Why?

The story suggested that with social media, tweets, blogs, boards, folks just texting each other etc....we all have....and control our own  outlets to be heard from our private digital islands...and many in the USA are simply intent on yelling out (figuratively ) their viewpoint. One could note a strong undercurrent in this election, ...on both sides,... of folks who were pressing just to have their views heard.

Is this all good?

Too soon to tell. The change I see is that where on many issues it seemed to me we were making steady progress over decades,... and now with the raw discourse and universal access to the debate...well,...it now seems maybe that such progress was more perception than ultimate reality. (Alternatively...the progress may actually be still occurring but all of us media chatting/arguing creates an inaccurate  impression things are worse, or more split among us,  than they actually are...Media has blurred and given me less confidence....not more ....that I accurately understand what progress is actually being made).
 

Regardless,...Civilized governance is dependent on continued discourse, and an ever evolving social contract (Burke) ....but it may be hard to currently see what is the status of our current general social contract (ie commonality of agreement) .

I am guessing we are in a technology adjusting anomalous time. We will adjust and survive.

 FDR could get on a radio and speak to all....there wasn't much media give and take ....so we got in line....admiring our unified accomplishments.
Three TV networks used to mostly say and report similar angles...and we nostalgically remember unified days post WWII and in 50s early 60s.
 Then Vietnam/race/Watergate had goverments/institutions saying one side and an energized rebellious populace was shown on the same media to be in opposite revolt. We passed some laws, stopped a war, and pushed out a president.....its never been the same....

media exploded, 24 hour news, the internet.....now media is everywhere....no one person or small group can or ever will be able again  to announce /sway our social contract....How and who will form/enunciate the social contract going forward?..it an unsolved evolving issue.

Today its pretty hairy to figure out how we'll continue discourse and any sense of social contract formulation with   hundreds of millions of us able to access and throw in our two cents instantly in the debate.

My guess history will note this period as an adjustment of technology/communication and we will figure it out. Now, its frustrating and like a teenager with a car....we are all enjoying the freedom and adventure of taking out mass discourse for a spin. Still...We are vested, connected, and concerned about our mutual future. We will get over the teenage need to scream....improve our listening and we will always eventually devise more workable methods to reach the common good of social contract (Optimism)....or it just all will get worse and eventually all kill each other (apocalyptic pessimism-- lol).

 I remain an optimist

[Badgerhoney]

Clinton actually never visited WI after the primary. Oh wait, maybe ....

Bill Clinton visited here.  Same thing as far as I am concerned. To the point that they were campaigning that you vote for one, you get both.  They didn't hide that at all. Two presidents for the price of one.  Bill was here in October.   Biden came here to Madison. 

[Vander Blue Man Group]

You do realize that other people have just as strong of opinions of Hillary as you do Donald.  They are both deplorable human beings.  They are both unfit to lead this country.  They are both lying, conniving, back stabbing elitists.

And yet, 96% of you (who voted) voted for one or the other.  Don't whine about how the other candidate is horrible and your candidate is God's Gift (actually, I don't think he's eligible yet).  You're all to blame in my book.  Except chick... I think she may be the only one here who actually voted on principle (I assume).  The rest of you have only lent credence to and perpetuated a system where this year will be the new bar for our presidential candidates.

If ever there was going to be a year where a third party could gain traction, not to mention the 5% necessary for federal campaign funding, this was it.  But instead of voting to improve our government, 96% of you voted for the two party system.  What is ruining this country is binary politics... nay, strike that.... what's ruining this country is the 96% of you who are too dumb, too arrogant or too greedy to understand what this country needs to heal and improve is the obliteration of the two-party system.

But no... instead of voting with your heads and hearts, 96% of you voted against fear, uncertainty and doubt, and in your shortsightedness, you failed to realize you were actually voting for more of it.

First, and this isn't directed to you specifically, I was wrong to generalize an entire voter base.

One of the comments you made is something I've seen quite often that I have a problem with.  My issues with Trump and those who voted for him does not make Clinton "my candidate".  I absolutely understand why people may find her deplorable, unlikable, or untrustworthy.  Too often people fall back on criticism of Clinton instead of substantive defenses of Trump.     

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Yup. lol

Maybe some saw Frank Luntz' focus group of voters on 60 Minutes this Sunday. He had a cross section voter group that argued, and spoke over each other with vitriol. When asked he said  this is worse than  its ever been before but common with voters of all leanings. Why?

The story suggested that with social media, tweets, blogs, boards, folks just texting each other etc....we all have....and control our own  outlets to be heard from our private digital islands...and many in the USA are simply intent on yelling out (figuratively ) their viewpoint. One could note a strong undercurrent in this election, ...on both sides,... of folks who were pressing just to have their views heard.

Is this all good?

Too soon to tell. The change I see is that where on many issues it seemed to me we were making steady progress over decades,... and now with the raw discourse and universal access to the debate...well,...it now seems maybe that such progress was more perception than ultimate reality. (Alternatively...the progress may actually be still occurring but all of us media chatting/arguing creates an inaccurate  impression things are worse, or more split among us,  than they actually are...Media has blurred and given me less confidence....not more ....that I accurately understand what progress is actually being made).
 

Regardless,...Civilized governance is dependent on continued discourse, and an ever evolving social contract (Burke) ....but it may be hard to currently see what is the status of our current general social contract (ie commonality of agreement) .

I am guessing we are in a technology adjusting anomalous time. We will adjust and survive.

 FDR could get on a radio and speak to all....there wasn't much media give and take ....so we got in line....admiring our unified accomplishments.
Three TV networks used to mostly say and report similar angles...and we nostalgically remember unified days post WWII and in 50s early 60s.
 Then Vietnam/race/Watergate had goverments/institutions saying one side and an energized rebellious populace was shown on the same media to be in opposite revolt. We passed some laws, stopped a war, and pushed out a president.....its never been the same....

media exploded, 24 hour news, the internet.....now media is everywhere....no one person or small group can or ever will be able again  to announce /sway our social contract....How and who will form/enunciate the social contract going forward?..it an unsolved evolving issue.

Today its pretty hairy to figure out how we'll continue discourse and any sense of social contract formulation with   hundreds of millions of us able to access and throw in our two cents instantly in the debate.

My guess history will note this period as an adjustment of technology/communication and we will figure it out. Now, its frustrating and like a teenager with a car....we are all enjoying the freedom and adventure of taking out mass discourse for a spin. Still...We are vested, connected, and concerned about our mutual future. We will get over the teenage need to scream....improve our listening and we will always eventually devise more workable methods to reach the common good of social contract (Optimism)....or it just all will get worse and eventually all kill each other (apocalyptic pessimism-- lol).

 I remain an optimist

Houston - Check the latest Atlantic with the story on How Social Media Got Weaponized.

[Badgerhoney]

You realize your argument can be made about democrats to... or are you just blind to the other side of your argument?

The point is you specifically said "American voters rejected her" that eliminates anybody who stayed home anyways and refers only to those that voted. You can't be talking about voters and then suddenly say "well what about those that didn't vote?!" That's not a thing. Those who voted did not reject her they voted for her, he just played the game better.

We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy.  She was rejected by the American voters.  There was no game played, the board has been laid out for over 200 years.  This is why I offered an example of the Senate races, which are pure popularity votes.  Americans rejected Democrats there, too. 

[Badgerhoney]

First, and this isn't directed to you specifically, I was wrong to generalize an entire voter base.

One of the comments you made is something I've seen quite often that I have a problem with.  My issues with Trump and those who voted for him does not make Clinton "my candidate".  I absolutely understand why people may find her deplorable, unlikable, or untrustworthy.  Too often people fall back on criticism of Clinton instead of substantive defenses of Trump.   

Obama's own brother voted for Trump.  So did millions of minorities and working class people.  Because you have a view point of the world, doesn't mean you get to transfer it to them. Or call them racist. Or uninformed.  Those votes from those people were accepted with open arms in 2012 and 2008, but now that they have chosen to pick a different path, they are uninformed, uneducated, racist, bigoted?   

You can do better than that.  Out of touch.

[Galway Eagle]

We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy.  She was rejected by the American voters.  There was no game played, the board has been laid out for over 200 years.  This is why I offered an example of the Senate races, which are pure popularity votes.  Americans rejected Democrats there, too.

Which means the voters rejected the senators. I'm honestly curious when you see that she beat him in popular vote does your head just not comprehend that? Do you go around in circles thinking "well voters stayed home... wait then they aren't voters... well democratic senators won so the people didn't vote for her... wait but she has more votes than Trump..." Jesus Christ.  I'm not arguing that he didn't win fair and square, I'm not arguing anything about the senate I'm simply stating a fact and that fact is of the population that voted in 2016 she received more votes thus making your statement that the majority of American voters rejected her invalid.

[Badgerhoney]

These are genuine, salt of the earth people.  Minorities, whites, former Democrats, independents.  Some are more educated than others, but their votes were loved when they voted for Obama, Kerry, Gore.  They were educated enough then.

Watch the number of former Democrats that turned away.  Bernie supporters upset.    On the GOP side, they should note how many of these people are voting for Trump, not the GOP.

Didn't see many of these videos by the mainstream press leading up to the election? Did you?  But we saw 1000's of people show up to rallies, very few to Hillary's.  Despite this, the media and pundits said Hillary in a landslide. 

Listen to these people.  You out of touch not to recognize this.


<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/Nxh6_yW8qo4" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/Nxh6_yW8qo4</a>

 

[rocky_warrior]

Alright folks.  This has served it's purpose.  Back to basketball...