Showing posts with label Donald Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Donald Trump. Show all posts
2017-03-19
2017-02-02
2017-01-28
2017-01-24
2017-01-21
2017-01-20
Hillary Clinton Did NOT Lose Because Democrats/Progressives Did Not Turn Out To Vote - Rev. J.T. Smith
First, full disclosure: I am not a registered Democrat. Except for during the Primaries leading up to the 2016 Presidential Election when I officially changed parties to vote for Bernie Sanders, I am not now nor have I ever been a Democrat. I am registered as independent. I grant that I lean far more Democrat in general, but that's not the same thing.
And after the way the DNC treated Sanders from the beginning, from trying too keep him from getting any real press coverage even after he was clearly polling higher than she was against Trump to trying to claim he wasn't vetted against Trump even though Sanders withstood more directed attacks than Clinton and still managed to stay on the actual issues while calmly and cogently explaining things like socialism, I never will be a Democrat.
I do not hate Hillary Clinton nor do I think she's an idiot nor some version of the Antichrist. I never have. As noted in a prior posting, I simply cannot vote for her. That doesn't change the number of people that did vote for her. And if you buy into the (erroneous) notion that there's only two viable political parties, then Hillary Clinton makes a FAR saner choice than Trump. And the fact is that nearly 3 Million more people agree that Clinton was the better choice than those who supported Trump.
Now, I don't know if it's the actual upper echelons of the Democratic party or simply the supporting arms like the National Democratic Training Committee and PACs like the Progressive Turnout Project and Democracy for America that honestly believe the entire problem was that not enough Democrats voted in the 2016 election and that was why Clinton lost. What I do know is that if any of them or even any of the common Democrats honestly believe that then they're blind and stupid. Again, the fact is that nearly 3 Million more people agree that Clinton was the better choice than those who supported Trump.
But I keep getting emails with petitions (for causes that I support from things like the environment to getting Representatives and Senators to block Trump's appalling nominations to offices with real political power) that when you sign the petitions you're asked (pestered more like) to fill out a survey. Not only are the surveys realistically useless due to the questions having thoroughly leading answer choices, for example from the Progressive Turnout Project:
Official Research Poll
I did not vote.
They then follow up with another survey that both contains (usually though not always at the beginning) and reinforces the assertion of the erroneous assumption that turnout was the whole problem.
When 2.8 million more people vote for the candidate and that candidate still loses to
Then there's the media, like this article from the National Memo, that also completely misses the problem that allowed Trump to "win."
When you look back at the lead up to the election, the lion's share of the television adverts were for Hillary Clinton. Trump aired almost no adverts until the weekend before election day, just as he had done during the primaries. Considering the relative saturation levels, people would have been jaded on Clinton's adverts (including their overall lack of talk of the issues like the economy and her strengths in relation to those issues and focusing solely on Trump's numerous personal failings while ignoring all of his business failings or demonstrating clearly just how he's a con artist), which only allowed Trump's message of misinformation to resonate even louder. For all the harm the Citizen's United decision caused, it was Hillary's massive fundraising compared to Trump's stingy spending that hurt her. Still, while a facet of the problem, it's not the problem when you remember that Hillary dominated the popular vote by 2.8 Million more votes than
Considering that she got that many more votes overall, getting the people out to vote wasn't quite the problem. Though if you want to get more people out to vote, how about we end gerrymandering entirely as well as things like voter ID laws and other related barriers to voting. It's also rather telling how the GOP relies so much on those barriers instead of actually trying to win elections on the merits of their ideas.
No, there are two basic general reasons Hillary lost. The first is that within the Electoral College, Hillary lacked the votes of the whites in the Rust Belt. She forgot in her wealth that the economy matters, and the con man focused on the economy. That he did so with lies and misinformation is irrelevant when she ignores the economy so thoroughly. That's only if you think the Electoral College does anything remotely useful.
The biggest problem, even if all those other barriers are legally and constitutionally eliminated, is the Electoral College. The Electoral College has allowed the election to be stripped and flipped six times (in 1800, 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016) relieving the public will of their choice of leader.
That is the main problem, the reason Hillary Clinton lost the election. Science matters, but so does history. “'History,' it has been said, 'does not repeat itself. The historians repeat one another.'” - Max Beerbohm.
Now if we can just wake the corporate media up to these facts and shine a light on them. Then we need to break the notion that there are only two viable political parties.
First, we need to find a way to get corporate media's collective lips off of and their collective heads out of Trump's ass, though that may prove far more difficult than getting them to wake up and actually do their jobs of keeping the entirety of government honest.
by Rev. J.T. Smith
2017-01-10
Check Your -ism - Rev. J.T. Smith
First, we must all realize and understand that like trust, respect is earned; it's not a door prize. Just as I cannot tell you who to respect, you do not get to tell me who to respect. You can tell me why you respect whoever or whatever you respect, but that's the extent; and the same rules apply to everyone, including myself. And if you need to demand respect, then you don't deserve it. Another thing to keep in mind is that respect and "common courtesy/decency" are not the same thing. Too many people think that they're completely interchangeable terms when they're not. Everyone should be given common courtesy and common decency, that's why the word "common" is a part of those phrases. That is not the same as respect. Look it up.
These concepts are important as what I'm trying to say won't make any sense otherwise.
Now to narrow things down for this article. It's so easy to blindly label a person a [fill-in-the-blank]ist as it automatically has a negative connotation when -ist is added to the end of a word. It's part of the reason the word "feminist" has come to have negative association even though it simply means "recognizing that girls/women are actually people." For the record, I am a feminist. I not only believe in, advocate for, and otherwise support complete equality of the genders, I do my best to practice it by treating women and men the same (for better or worse).
But, one thing everyone needs to do before labeling anyone "sexist" or "misogynistic" is to in fact think things through more. It's that lack of thought, that knee-jerk reaction when they want to stop thinking that has led some to label me a sexist because they'd rather feel offended than fully engage their brains. Some examples (you'll need to read them through all the way) of what I mean (FYI, I have lived every last one of these):
1.
I've been asked if I think that there's ever a right or correct time for me (as a man) to hit a woman. My answer without hesitation is "yes."
First note that the question here includes the word "ever." This is very important.
I have self-defense training in my programming. In fact, all of my physical fighting is in terms of self-defense (though not using akido as that particular martial art is not a part of my programming). This is in no way referencing the adage that the best defense is a good offense. That adage is inherently hypocritical. I cannot ever throw the first punch or swing no matter how much I might desire to so because some idiot is desperately trying to goad me. As soon as I swing first, I am no longer physically defending myself. Period. In order to be physically defending, I (or those under my protection) must first be physically attacked. And my programming makes absolutely zero deference to age, size, or gender when I'm being attacked. Doing otherwise is just begging for you to have your arse handed to you. Meaning that if a woman physically attacks me, then yes I will hit her and do whatever I physically must to terminate the attack. And to anyone who automatically wants to tell me to just walk away, you're a complete moron to assume that the assailant will let you just walk away when you've just demonstrated a weakness to be exploited. I do not go looking for fights and will do what I can to diffuse the situation in order to avoid having to fight; but I will physically defend myself when physically attacked regardless of whether it is a male or female attacking me.
Still think I'm a sexist?
2.
In the infamous recording of Trump with talking to Billy Bush about "pussy grabbing", we could hear Bush laughing the whole time. When I saw the video, I was laughing too. NOT because I think what Trump was saying was funny, that wasn't funny at all. I was laughing at Trump just as I laughed at all the jocks in high school who talked like that because I realize a basic fact: The more a person carries on about how great they are, the more they feel the need to talk about sexual encounters like that, the less the person that's talking like that really is because in reality it blatantly demonstrates just how pathetic they really are! I wasn't laughing with Trump, I was laughing at the pathetic little boy who thinks this is in any way impressive. And since shooting him with extreme prejudice is still illegal, that leaves laughing at him or screaming. Laughing has always felt better as it further demonstrates that I will not be lost by these losers.
Still think I'm sexist?
3.
I'm a fan of the 1990s animated show Duckman. The absurdity of the humour still resonates in general, and while I still am not a fan of the misogynism of the main character, I still laugh knowing that Duckman is 1) covering for his feelings of loss from the death of his wife (that he accidentally caused) as she's the only woman he's truly ever loved, and 2) I know that he's going to get his arse kicked as a result of the misogyny.
Still think I'm sexist?
4.
I was once having a conversation with a male friend about the show that airs on TNT called The Librarians and how I especially like Lindy Booth's character, Cassandra Cillian. I've seen Lindy Booth in several other roles in numerous genres playing both good guys and bad guys equally well. Frankly, I'm a fan of the actress regardless of the role. (That part didn't come up as it wasn't germane to our conversation.) At one point, I verbalized that: "Cassandra is my favourite character. She's absolutely brilliant, really cute, and she's really sweet. What more could you ask for?" Since I was talking to an individual who knew what I was specifically referring to, I didn't feel the need to elaborate for others who weren't a part of the conversation but may have been listening. For those who don't get what I meant by my comment, I was referring to "what more could you ask for [in a character]?" I have always believed and done my best to express that women are people and not property. And characters in stories, regardless of gender, are never going to be truly be people because there are always some aspects that you'll mentally fill in on your own.
Still think I'm sexist?
5.
With all due respect, I cannot properly gauge the intelligence of an individual until I actually meet them and have a conversation with them. Any agreement with me by said individual is irrelevant, I care more about their thinking process than their specific conclusions as conclusions can always change with more information. In terms of celebrities, remember that they're typically (typically does not mean always) shown in a good light as there's more money to go around. I've worked with amateur actors/actresses who were great at their craft but there were times they couldn't find their head with both hands, and the inverse is also true.
In a similar vein, the thing to remember in terms of politicians is that the higher up the political food chain they are the more likely they are to have speechwriters and spin-doctors on their staff whose very job it is to make that politician look good. And actors/actresses learn scripts for a living, and scripts can be used in interviews just as easily as movies/television shows/stage plays. In both cases of politicians and actors/actresses, actually getting to meet them in person one-on-one and away from the spotlight is absolutely necessary, especially if you want a better feel of the real person as opposed to their public persona.
And the same goes for the people we come across in our daily lives. I admit that when I see a woman I find aesthetically pleasing I might say as much to my friends. This does not in any way mean that she is put on this Earth for my gratification; what it does mean is that her appearance is within the parametres of my personal aesthetic. I cannot ever properly speculate about their personality or intelligence simply from their appearance. Only a fool would believe otherwise. Sadly, it's become a social minefield to vocalize your opinion of a woman's appearance as there is now a push to talk about her intelligence when you have no way to know just what her intelligence is. That does not mean that I automatically assume she's an idiot, nor do I automatically assume that a man is somehow more intelligent.
So how am I to ascertain the intelligence level of a complete stranger when I've never met them? How am I to conclude whether or not a complete stranger's personality is really a nice person as opposed to a well camouflaged monster who's able to lure in the unsuspecting before engaging in hideous acts when we're not even within shouting distance of each other?
How many of you automatically assumed I was referring to a female in the first of those last two questions and a male in the second?
And how many wouldn't believe me when I factually state that both questions referred to both males and females equally?
Still think I'm a sexist?
2016-12-05
Donald Trump Must Never Become President! (Here's why) - Rev. J.T. Smith
Ever since November 8, we are left with a man the media keep incorrectly calling Trump the “President-Elect” (there will be no President-Elect until and unless a majority of the Electors select one when they meet on December 19), a man who lost the election by well over two million votes (a fact that is only very infrequently even mentioned in the media). Please read these articles: "Hamilton v. Trump: The Case That Could Save America" and "32 Nonpartisan, Non-Ideological Reasons The Electoral College Must Reject Trump (And these are only based on what has happened since November 8th)", and share them far and wide.
Trump must be stopped before he does become President-elect, let alone President!
Rev. J.T. Smith
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)