Were social justice warriors responsible for the election outcome?

[ReptilianPeon]

---

Not exactly.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obam...story.html

The vast majority of those border crossers would not have been treated as formal deportations under most previous administrations. If all removals were tallied, the total sent back to Mexico each year would have been far higher under those previous administrations than it is now.

The shift in who gets tallied helped the administration look tough in its early years but now may be backfiring politically. Immigration advocates plan protests across the country this week around what they say will be the 2 millionth deportation under Obama — a mark expected to be hit in the next few days. And Democratic strategists fret about a decline in Latino voter turnout for this fall's election.

Until recent years, most people caught illegally crossing the southern border were simply bused back into Mexico in what officials called "voluntary returns," but which critics derisively termed "catch and release." Those removals, which during the 1990s reached more 1 million a year, were not counted in Immigration and Customs Enforcement's deportation statistics.

Now, the vast majority of border crossers who are apprehended get fingerprinted and formally deported. The change began during the George W. Bush administration and accelerated under Obama. The policy stemmed in part from a desire to ensure that people who had crossed into the country illegally would have formal charges on their records.

In the Obama years, all of the increase in deportations has involved people picked up within 100 miles of the border, most of whom have just recently crossed over. In 2013, almost two-thirds of deportations were in that category.

---

Well okay, maybe I wasn't quite right. I still can't help but feel sorry for the many desperate people though. Hopefully the countries these people come from will continue to improve.

[Aroura]

Thanks to social media, everyone lives in an echo chamber no matter where you sit on the policital or social or economic spectrums.
It isn't recent that we cannot have productive conversations with "the other side", as people put it, it's just gotten more severe.  The squeaky wheels get the oil, and the most clicks.
I personally, and completely, blame FB, Twitter, and the media in general for taking our division and amping it up 1000% just for headlines.

No one likes to hear they are wrong, and there is a real phenomenon where telling someone they are wrong (even kindly, no SJW assholery needed)), and even with a ton of evidence only causes them to double down on their position.

My solution is to get off FB, and stop reading clickbait news.  And when you do read the news, check the sources, ESPECIALLY if the story is something you want to believe is true.
This election was fraught with hyperbolic disinformation, and once accepted, that kkind of disinformation is really, really hard to unlearn.  The vast majority of people aren't interested in correcting themselves at all, so good luck "fixing" any of this.

[Minimalist]

Obama is doing the work of Donald Trump, including, no doubt, deporting people from Honduras. Hilary turned Honduras into a shithole by encouraging a coup there (Hillary's foreign policy experience showing again!) and Obama expects the immigrants to go back there.

Democracy Now:
Hear Hillary Clinton Defend Her Role in Honduras Coup When Questioned by Juan González

"Earlier this week, the former secretary of state publicly defended her role in the 2009 coup in Honduras, when the military seized democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya in the middle of the night, deposed him and sent him into exile.  Since the coup, Honduras has become one of the most violent places in the world. Clinton was asked about Honduras during a meeting with the New York Daily News editorial board on Saturday. The question was posed by Democracy Now!’s Juan González."

So it's fine when Hilary interferes with the politics in other countries but when the Russians supposedly support Donald Trump there is outrage. Doesn't that make Hilary a massive hypocrite?

So you cleverly posted the question but can't be bothered with the answer.  Is that because her answer went on for 4 paragraphs and wasn't a curt "bomb the shit out of them?"

The situation is far more complex than you make out.  Perhaps that is your problem and not hers.

[Aristocatt]

I'd agree that the SJW probably played a small role in a series of interconnected events that made a Trump presidency possible. I guess my current thinking on the issue is that it was like a series of progressively larger dominos, one toppling the other until the final massive domino fell and created a Trump presidency.

Without the SJW rise, I'd wager that a Trump presidency was much much less likely to happen, but that to focus on it in the face larger ideological shifts in general, might make it a bit of a red herring.

[brewer]

I'd agree that the SJW probably played a small role in a series of interconnected events that made a Trump presidency possible.  I guess my current thinking on the issue is that it was like a series of progressively larger dominos, one toppling the other until the final massive domino fell and created a Trump presidency.

Without the SJW rise, I'd wager that a Trump presidency was much much less likely to happen, but that to focus on it in the face larger ideological shifts in general, might make it a bit of a red herring.

Hey stranger. It's been a coons age!

[Aristocatt]

I'd agree that the SJW probably played a small role in a series of interconnected events that made a Trump presidency possible.  I guess my current thinking on the issue is that it was like a series of progressively larger dominos, one toppling the other until the final massive domino fell and created a Trump presidency.

Without the SJW rise, I'd wager that a Trump presidency was much much less likely to happen, but that to focus on it in the face larger ideological shifts in general, might make it a bit of a red herring.

Hey stranger. It's been a coons age!

Howdy!
Yeah it's been a while.  Life got a little crazy, now it's calmed down a bit(then Trump won the presidency)

Edit: That smiley was really annoying.

[Brian37]

To the answer to the title of the thread NO that is fucking bullshit We lost because of voter apathy and a sick Trump who was evil in his tactics that rallied just enough bigots in the right places

[Neo-Scholastic]

I can't help but look at the election results and think, in hindsight, I can't be too surprised.  

Since about 2012 or so, the SJW's have been on the rise; the jerks who use progressive sounding, virtuous buzzwords to justify being jerks.  

---

Before, they were always on the fringe for everyone to laugh at their absurdity.  You can go to Tumblr and find them all over the place and they're increasingly getting more influential on twitter.  But lately, they've been getting more noticed, especially on college campuses.  

It feels like suicide for the democrats and even for the reasonable republicans.  I mean, seriously: white people, like it or not, are the majority here, but in this election cycle, these people turned "white male" into an insult in the name of progressivism.  I don't know how they think a democracy works, but you don't win elections by insulting the majority.  Not to mention, there's the boy-who-cried-wolf effect: we've gotten so used to bratty college kids calling everything racism that when Trump is saying or doing things that are genuinely racist, we ignore it.  Racism is a term that's so over-used that it lost its meaning, opening the doors for legitimate, serious racism.

And the kicker?  Hillary focused on them but ignored the rust belt states that used to be the backbone of the democratic party.  Yeah, the middle class factory workers in Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.  Their jobs are suddenly being outsourced to Asian sweatshops and they aren't exactly trained to work the jobs that are replacing them.  Yet, instead of talking about those issues, progressives are dismissing them because they're "white males."  Instead of listening to their concerns, their worries, their issues, they're being chastised for not memorizing a 19-year-old's ten sylable gender identity that he just came up with last week.  Trump, to his credit, actually showed concern for them, claiming he'll back out of Nafta and bring manufacturing back from China (I don't think he'll actually be able to do either, but at least he's showing concern).  You want to flip this election around, have Hillary address labor issues, manufacturing jobs, things like that, and don't just cater to a bunch of spoiled college kids.

---

That's just your white privilege talking.

[Edwardo Piet]

I think the social justice warriors are the so-called "regressive left", who aren't really Left, who think the problem is that people were't tolerant enough of the bigots.

The awful voters are responsible for the awful voting. Doesn't matter how much people hate Hilary the fact they think Trump was the better option may not make them bigots but it certainly makes them awful. The SJWs are the same people who say the reason why cartoonists get killed by Islamists is because we're not tolerant enough of their culture. Blame anyone but the people causing the harm, in other words. SJWs are all about taking offence and blaming the decent people instead of the indecent people, because all they want is drama.

[Aroura]

I'd agree that the SJW probably played a small role in a series of interconnected events that made a Trump presidency possible.  I guess my current thinking on the issue is that it was like a series of progressively larger dominos, one toppling the other until the final massive domino fell and created a Trump presidency.

Without the SJW rise, I'd wager that a Trump presidency was much much less likely to happen, but that to focus on it in the face larger ideological shifts in general, might make it a bit of a red herring.

Great to hear from you again!!  Hope you are doing well.