has anyone else noticed

Saying "both candidates were terrible" is exactly the kind of false equivalency that got us into this mess. No, they weren't both terrible. Trump is terrible. He's a sexual predator, a failed businessman, he stiffs his employees and contractors, lies so consistently and confidently that he's lost any sense of the truth, has a hair-trigger temper, he praises dictators, he believes in authoritarianism and isolationism, he sees no value in minorities, the disabled, the poor, women who aren't beautiful, in fact the majority of people who voted for him, he probably wouldn't even consent to shake their hands. He's small-minded, petty, vindictive, exclusionary, self-aggrandising, with a short attention span and no interest in anyone other than himself.
 
Clinton is a politician, and as such she is more guarded than the average person and is skilled in bending the truth to suit her. She has said things that aren't true, but she is nowhere near Trump's level when it comes to lying. The FBI has investigated her time and again and has never found anything actionable. She's no more corrupt than anyone who acts in their own self-interest. She's a lifelong public servant with policymaking and diplomatic experience and loads of ideas for how to make the country better. She's a role model to a lot of women and girls. You may not agree with her policies, you may not like her as a person, you may not like how dodgy politicians all are, but that does not in any way make Clinton as bad, or even close to as bad, as Trump.

Saying that they're each as bad as the other is lazy thinking. Just like screaming "misandry" whenever any woman gets uppity and challenges white male hegemony.

I just read that if everyone who voted for Gary "What's an Aleppo" Johnson in Florida, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania had voted for Hillary, she would have carried the states and won. 

Saying "both candidates were terrible" is exactly the kind of false equivalency that got us into this mess. No, they weren't both terrible. Trump
Saying that they're each as bad as the other is lazy thinking. Just like screaming "misandry" whenever any woman gets uppity and challenges white male hegemony.

I was afraid that was the point of his "misandry" remark too.  I'm hoping that it's not.

I'll start with the following:

I first came to the UK when Margaret Thatcher had been PM for two years. I looked forward to it. I may not agree with all Nicola Sturgeon says, but IMHO she was by far the most effective politician post Brexit (I voted Remain). When Cameron chickened out, I welcomed Teresa May as his replacement. Angela Merkel has held the EU together throughout both the Greece problem (Grexit) and the influx of emigrants into the EU. I did not vote for Hillary, and I did not vote for Trump (or Johnson, Stein, and McMullin).

In fact, I did not vote. Before the lazy accusation comes, the decision not to vote was difficult, and was taken after a great deal of research, observation, and soul searching. I refuse to vote against someone without having a substantial reason to be for their opponent.

As Yvette Cooper said on Question Time last night, it's likely Hillary would not have won even if she had been a man. The vote was not about gender, it was about dissatisfaction.

IMHO, I do believe the US has the President-elect that the US deserves. I would have had the same opinion if Hillary had won. The US, at this particular point in history, does not deserve a respectable leader. It needs one, but it doesn't deserve one.       

Saying "both candidates were terrible" is exactly the kind of false equivalency that got us into this mess. No, they weren't both terrible. Trump is terrible. He's a sexual predator, a failed businessman, he stiffs his employees and contractors, lies so consistently and confidently that he's lost any sense of the truth, has a hair-trigger temper, he praises dictators, he believes in authoritarianism and isolationism, he sees no value in minorities, the disabled, the poor, women who aren't beautiful, in fact the majority of people who voted for him, he probably wouldn't even consent to shake their hands. He's small-minded, petty, vindictive, exclusionary, self-aggrandising, with a short attention span and no interest in anyone other than himself.
 
Clinton is a politician, and as such she is more guarded than the average person and is skilled in bending the truth to suit her. She has said things that aren't true, but she is nowhere near Trump's level when it comes to lying. The FBI has investigated her time and again and has never found anything actionable. She's no more corrupt than anyone who acts in their own self-interest. She's a lifelong public servant with policymaking and diplomatic experience and loads of ideas for how to make the country better. She's a role model to a lot of women and girls. You may not agree with her policies, you may not like her as a person, you may not like how dodgy politicians all are, but that does not in any way make Clinton as bad, or even close to as bad, as Trump.

Saying that they're each as bad as the other is lazy thinking. Just like screaming "misandry" whenever any woman gets uppity and challenges white male hegemony.

If you read my posts, you won't find my words to indicate "equally terrible". I personally think both were bad/terrible candidates.....but have always tried to indicate that Trump is worse.....and if you read all of my posts that is what I indicate.
I will not excuse lying/ignoring the rules etc as just to be "part of the job.....heck, they are a politician". That characteristic (at least to me.....others may differ) is part of what makes a terrible person.

Now.....if the above post wasn't "picking" on me......nevermind

I'll start with the following:

I first came to the UK when Margaret Thatcher had been PM for two years. I looked forward to it. I may not agree with all Nicola Sturgeon says, but IMHO she was by far the most effective politician post Brexit (I voted Remain). When Cameron chickened out, I welcomed Teresa May as his replacement. Angela Merkel has held the EU together throughout both the Greece problem (Grexit) and the influx of emigrants into the EU. I did not vote for Hillary, and I did not vote for Trump (or Johnson, Stein, and McMullin).

In fact, I did not vote. Before the lazy accusation comes, the decision not to vote was difficult, and was taken after a great deal of research, observation, and soul searching. I refuse to vote against someone without having a substantial reason to be for their opponent.

As Yvette Cooper said on Question Time last night, it's likely Hillary would not have won even if she had been a man. The vote was not about gender, it was about dissatisfaction.

IMHO, I do believe the US has the President-elect that the US deserves. I would have had the same opinion if Hillary had won. The US, at this particular point in history, does not deserve a respectable leader. It needs one, but it doesn't deserve one.       

And your remark about misandry?  What did that mean?

And your remark about misandry?  What did that mean?

Misandrist, like misogynist, have very specific meanings. Trump may be/(have been, let's hope) despicable in his attitudes, a male chauvinist, or have a propensity for ungentlemanly language, but the oft referred to 'misogynist' (both here and elsewhere) may not be entirely accurate.

He has severe alpha problems, as displayed in the public portrayal of one particular 'challenged' reporter. Will he select a woman as part of his cabinet? He had a woman as his campaign chair. And, what does the future hold in a Trump administration for Sarah Palin?   

Obviously,........others may have a different, and rightful to their way of thinking, disagreement with the above.   

You mentioned Sarah Palin.....twitch.....twitch.....I can see Russia....twitch.....Damn, now you've ruined my dinner. Well....at least you didn't mention Michele Bachmann. Oh God.....twitch.....twitch.......

You mentioned Sarah Palin.....twitch.....twitch.....I can see Russia....twitch.....Damn, now you've ruined my dinner. Well....at least you didn't mention Michele Bachmann. Oh God.....twitch.....twitch.......

Dude, we don't agree on some things but I'm with you on this.

Sarah will know what to do when Putin rears his head.

You mentioned Sarah Palin.....twitch.....twitch.....I can see Russia....twitch.....Damn, now you've ruined my dinner. Well....at least you didn't mention Michele Bachmann. Oh God.....twitch.....twitch.......

Exactly the problem. If he doesn't select either Palin or Bachmann, is he a misogynist?

There must be some highly qualified women he could select, and even better, not all Republican. I'm not particularly thrilled with Giuliani, Christie, and Gingrich. 

I am sooooo tired of seeing this Aaron Sorkin Newsroom clip, but yet parts may not have been more relevant than now, after the election (and after Sorkin's recent letter to his wife and daughter).

Misandrist, like misogynist, have very specific meanings. Trump may be/(have been, let's hope) despicable in his attitudes, a male chauvinist, or have a propensity for ungentlemanly language, but the oft referred to 'misogynist' (both here and elsewhere) may not be entirely accurate.

He has severe alpha problems, as displayed in the public portrayal of one particular 'challenged' reporter. Will he select a woman as part of his cabinet? He had a woman as his campaign chair. And, what does the future hold in a Trump administration for Sarah Palin?   

Obviously,........others may have a different, and rightful to their way of thinking, disagreement with the above.   

You still didn't explain why you used the word misandrist. Who do you think hates men?

My husband of 36 years is wondering this too.  And, btw, both of us believe that Trump is not a mere chauvinist or misogynist; he's a sexual predator, as evidenced by his own words.

Climate change is killing people right now. The US must lead on this, and act quickly and decisively. We make the carbon.

It is bigger than what the US wants/needs/deserves.

You still didn't explain why you used the word misandrist.

To prevent the debacle of the last 12 months from happening again people need to be involved in rational debate, and that means stepping outside the echo chambers of Facebook. If I had said "define misogynist", the shear continuance of the overused cliché would likely have been overlooked and possibly not have provoked your and  historyenne's (valuable) contributions to the debate.

In a recent rally, President Obama said "Don't boo - vote!". People did vote, and the expected outcome didn't happen. What will those disillusioned voters do now. Complain on UK Yankee? Banish Facebook friends (or whatever they're called on Facebook)? Let's rephrase President Obama's words to "Don't boo - get involved!".

We recently had a thread topic on this site, started by a student journalist, asking for the opinions of Trump supporters. The request resulted in that person being chastised, ridiculed, and insulted. That's not an attempt at political understanding, and that's not a two sided expression of opinions. It's bullying not unlike that we see from Trump.

What is sad is that this site must have some exposure in the UK. One would think the two major UK arms of the main parties might have attempted to post on this site and put forward the viewpoints of their candidates. Instead, and likely because this not an echo chamber, we heard nothing.

Not directed to you, orkneytime , but to all those following this thread: if you are truly upset by the outcome of this election - Don't boo - get involved in order to prevent it happening (starting) 3 years from now.

Participating in the US may be difficult, but there are UK arms of both parties (and for goodness sake, don't let the Republicans give us 17 candidates again, 16 of which don't have the political prowess to stop 1 clever manipulator). Voting a "like" on Twitter does not help the successor to Bernie Sanders where it really matters.

http://www.democratsabroad.org/uk

http://www.republicansoverseas-uk.com/

If everyone remains only a devotee of Facebook (and a recent BBC article claimed 62% of millennials receive all their information on current affairs [news] from Facebook) then the US will continue to have the candidates and Presidents it deserves.

My fear is 2020 will see Kanye West oppose Ivanka Trump. 


 

 

To prevent the debacle of the last 12 months from happening again people need to be involved in rational debate, and that means stepping outside the echo chambers of Facebook. If I had said "define misogynist", the shear continuance of the overused cliché would likely have been overlooked and possibly not have provoked your and  historyenne's (valuable) contributions to the debate.

We recently had a thread topic on this site, started by a student journalist, asking for the opinions of Trump supporters. The request resulted in that person being chastised, ridiculed, and insulted. That's not an attempt at political understanding, and that's not a two sided expression of opinions. It's bullying not unlike that we see from Trump.

I have asked you a very basic question in plain English -- who do you think hates men?  It has nothing to do with Facebook.  I am completely puzzled by your answer.  Please elucidate.

I don't recall at all that the student journalist who asked if any Trump supporters would meet with her in London was insulted or ridiculed.  Perhaps you can point to specific posts which ridiculed, chastised, or insulted her.

I wasn't picking on you, F4mandolin, just disagreeing with you when you say Clinton is a terrible candidate. She was certainly portrayed as such in the media, but there is very little basis for that. The e-mail thing was investigated, nothing actionable was found, but people still kept talking about it, and talking about it in a way that suggested it was equal to Trump's lies. Every impartial analysis shows that Clinton is orders of magnitude more truthful than Trump, but people still felt that the two candidates were both terrible? Even if you weren't saying they were equally terrible, using that adjective to apply both to a qualified, competent, intelligent career politician and a bloviating, hate-spewing, reality television "star" is a false equivalency that is reductive and dismissive of Clinton. It's one thing to disagree with a candidate's policies, and tbh there are several points on which I strongly disagree with her, but it's quite another to say they are a terrible candidate because you don't agree with their policies or because you don't like them for some other reason. I 've heard people say that Clinton was a bad candidate because she didn't get people excited like Obama did, but that is frankly outrageous. Since when did we decide that our leaders needed to be our entertainers? Clinton is never going to be as easygoing or as charismatic as Obama, but that doesn't make her a bad candidate. We are bad voters for demanding it.