Were social justice warriors responsible for the election outcome?

[Thumpalumpacus]

It cracks me up that I get called an SJW. I stand against bigotry wherever I see it, but PC isn't my style.

It ain't my circus ... ain't my monkeys. But slapping a pejorative label on me is not going to shut me up when I see bullshit.

Anymore you are either a bigot or a sjw. There is no in between.

Nah, it ain't that bleak.

[Ben Davis]

Indeed they did, Chad (or is it Neo now? ). Without Godwinning all over the thread, that's exactly the type of misclassification I'm talking about. The obfuscation of goals through adopting inappropriate labels is not a new tactic for political extremists at either end of the scale yet it's one that people are still falling for. How does anyone fall for the lie that Hilary represents the left? How does anyone fall for the lie that Trump represents the working classes? Because people don't understand classifications and how hey can be abused so they fall for the rhetoric. As per my previous post, bringing the conversation back to the issues helps make things more clear and means that the layperson doesn't need a deep education in politics to make sense of it all.

[Edwardo Piet]

Ooh, is this the part where you try to convince the persecuted minorities that we haven't just listened to Trump run the most bigoted, racist, hateful campaign so far this century, and that his policy outline doesn't offer protection for people who discriminate against the LGBT community, and nullify executive orders that protect transgender people? Because I never get tired of that!

Convince? No, you can think what you want. IMO your charge is hyperbole and is counterproductive to your goals, but if you want to hold yourself back in order to hold onto your hate, that's your business.

Gemini isn't a hateful person.

[Aristocatt]

One key difference between Hilary and Donald's campaigns is that while Hilary got her slaves to say "I'm with her!" Donald told is supporters "I'm with you!". Hilary's campaign was too much about her and her alone. The extent to which the "woman card" was played is shocking. Hilary was actively trying to create a cult of zombies trained only to repeat taking points

I've heard a vague argument similar to what you are saying, about how HRC was all about herself, and about how Donald was all about us and you and we a lot. Aside from just asserting that it is true, no one has really provided much of an argument to support the assertion. Last week I spent a few minutes looking at how I could quickly shed light on the issue.
https://wordcounttools.com/

I'd go ahead and put their speeches in that there website I linked.  Might be surprised what you find out about the language of the two 2016 candidates and how it relates to which race was about the people, and which race was about the candidate.

I did it with a few different speeches of theirs.
Trump consistently had I and Me as top 10 words in his speeches.  He never had You or Us or We.
HRC's results were, well, the opposite.

[Kosh]

Come on Aristocatt...

Of course a self proclaimed billionaire who doesn't pay taxes and doesn't give to charity (besides himself) has the back of the common man.

[John V]

I've heard a vague argument similar to what you are saying, about how HRC was all about herself, and about how Donald was all about us and you and we a lot.  Aside from just asserting that it is true, no one has really provided much of an argument to support the assertion.

Actually people have noted that Trump held rallies in places other than large cities, while Hillary mostly went to large cities and private fundraisers with the wealthy, thinking she could buy votes in the outlying areas with advertisers. The actions speak louder than the pronouns used.

[Aristocatt]

I've heard a vague argument similar to what you are saying, about how HRC was all about herself, and about how Donald was all about us and you and we a lot.  Aside from just asserting that it is true, no one has really provided much of an argument to support the assertion.

Actually people have noted that Trump held rallies in places other than large cities, while Hillary mostly went to large cities and private fundraisers with the wealthy, thinking she could buy votes in the outlying areas with advertisers. The actions speak louder than the pronouns used.

This is a pretty interesting perspective.  Thanks for the reply!

[John V]

The gamergate effort:
http://www.everyjoe.com/2016/11/15/polit...ree-world/

[Mister Agenda]

It seems to be really important to many Democrats to avoid addressing these economic concerns, to the point that they'd rather try to get a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Electoral College so they can ignore those parts of the country with more impunity going forward.

Since when is Green Jobs ignoring the issue?  But Trump, selling his invisible unicorn, said that would kill Coal jobs!  And it's about damn time Coal is killed.  It's dying anyway.  Might as well replace it with jobs that are sustainable.  Like... oh, I don't know, Green Jobs.  But no, let's keep coal alive a little longer.  Put it on life support, so that the people working in those jobs now can have some temporary reassurance--all at the cost of the future (in more ways than one)

And yes, it's time to abolish the Electoral College.  The house of representatives are already set up so that states have a voice.  Presidential Candidates only give a fuck about swing states.  Why try to gain votes as a Democrat in the state of Texas?  Why try to gain votes as a Republican in the state of New York?  For as much as a President is supposed to represent everyone, they fucking don't.

It's truly a mystery why Pennsylvanians wouldn't vote for wiping out one of their industries and replacing it with another that doesn't actually need to be in their state. It's really convincing, the way you put it. How could they not trust such a promise?

[John V]

Since when is Green Jobs ignoring the issue?  

Since Solyndra.