My totally uninformed understanding of the situation was that Trump got elected because US couldn’t handle a woman president right after a black president. Too much progressiveness.
inb4 I don’t like Hillary
3 Likes
Meanwhile, in Sudan
All these conflicts in those same places, it feels like déjà-vu.
2 Likes
On the contrary. The Democrats electing Hillary for their nominee was the least progressive of their choices, since she was seens as the most establishment candidate imaginable.
If they had actually nominated Bernie Sanders and they got “the first ‘Socialist’(*) president” (as “Socialism” is used as a term there), now that would have been really risky and progressive as a move.
Even the democrats made fun of her about being so establisment that she was “inevitable” to win their nomination and that “the donors” were running the show.
Sexism was neither here nor there (remember, Hillary won the popular vote, so @gennan is correct that the skewed system played a big part in the result), but actually running a candidate that couldn’t connect with a lot of regular americans in crucial states was the real issue.
Trump had three things Hillary had not:
a) Populism - he said whatever people wanted to hear. Hillary didn’t even seem to understand what people wanted to hear from her.
b) An attitide of “yeah, I did that, so what?” which is the mark of a spoiled brat, but a lot of people confuse it with “power fuck YEAH!”
c) He was already filthy rich (or at least he claimed to be 
), thus he could claim far and wide that he is “anti-establishment” and didn’t care about money, donors, and about draining swamps and BS like that.
Where the people duped by a populist that shouted empty platitudes like “Mexicans will pay for the wall!” … sure, they were, but let us keep things close to what actually happened. It was not something that occured in 1918 so that we can say “hey, who knows what really went on a hundred years ago, eh?”
2 Likes
Not at all.
Society at large isn’t the same as political decisions.
2 Likes
That remark is so cryptic/general that it means nothing 
Yeah, sure it is true and by phrasing it the opposite way it is also true that political decisions are not always connected to the society’s needs. Ok, so? What do you mean by that?
1 Like
From conversations and the random online article, I was under the impression that a large part of conservative voters didn’t want her not because she was a woman, but because she was a “failed” woman and that if she can’t cherish her marriage and shut up to protect it, how can she cherish the nation. Also, that she was too diverse (I never saw it that way, from her speeches, but people seemed to believe so) and that Trump was closer to the ideal man (I guess they mean sleazy, racist and a thief in business ?)
Other people said she was disconnected from society and couldn’t pretend even in her candidate events, which is also my opinion of her.
From what I was reading and hearing during those times, my impression was that Trump got elected exactly because he represented what a lot of people wanted to be like and were ashamed to say out loud. Even if the opponent wasn’t a woman but any other candidate with less of a 50s mentality, Trump would get elected, because he promised less humanitarian rights and more racist rights than everybody else. Maybe the average citizen agrees with him more than us living elsewhere are prepared to believe.
As for Europe, some countries don’t exactly get to elect our representatives, we merely pick one from the menu 
We get the leaders we deserve, one way or another.
5 Likes
Code for “woman”.
Many people were saying “we gave you a black president, now it’s time to have a white man on top again”*. Now, you’re going to ask me about the exact article that says that, and we’ll have one of those discussions that I don’t enjoy at all, so I won’t be having it.
*A proper one, a rapist and a thief, not a risk to good ol’ values like Bernie.
There can be many factors in a situation. Hillary was a mistake, because she’s a void of charisma like I’ve never seen. Also, because she was superficially leaning to “vote me, women!” while really being a conservative in so many ways. You are appplying careful voter logic (but Bernie was progressive!), while you know people don’t vote with logic.
Many people will never vote Androulakis because rumor has it he’s gay. No matter who runs against him, what he says, which politics he supports, what party he’s in, people will not vote him for that and that only.
4 Likes
This is I think the third time now that a post is going to moderation because of the word gay.
What gives? 
2 Likes
Do they even want to win? If you don’t, you get to sit back, relax and complain.
If we’re pulling out the old…
1 Like
I guess this is a remnant of trying to automatically block the straight pride troll from a while back, I’ll remove the word from the filter.
5 Likes
I see similarities between the leader of our Liberal Democratic party (and vice prime minister) Sigrid Kaag and Hillary Clinton.
Many consider her not likeable at all (even cold), an elitist, a technocrat, embodying the establishment, while being disconnected from society.
Even though her party is generally in my voting range, I also cannot bring myself to like her much.
It seems to me that being an “unlikable” woman is more the issue with Sigrid Kaag (and Hillary Clinton) than being a women per se, because farmer party leader Caroline van der Plas did extremely well among conservatives in the latest elections.
4 Likes
That is very true.
I do not think that anyone ever accused Hillary of that. You cannot be “diverse” and “super-establishment” at the same time.
Let’s be reasonable here. It is logical to say that the crowd that goes “I ain’t voting for not black man president” overlaps with the crowd that says “I ain’t voting for no woman for president”. Those people that cannot see beyong skin or gender/sex, are the kind of extreme racists that do not change their minds, but they are not the majority in any US state.
Noone “gave” anyone a black president, you are very insulting at this moment to the voters of both parties and you are dehumanizing Obama reducing him with identity politics with some random black man with no other merit. He was RE-ELECTED for good reasons, if you are too lazy to look into them, at least refrain from being insulting.
Reminds me of the people that were so glad that we got “the first woman president” in Greece. A lot of them are hiding now, as she turned out to be a massive flop. Who knew that gender/sex isn’t really an issue if you are a moron? I remember your remarks about her with the train issue, I think you will agree with that, at least.
Of course, at the time, a lot of people pointed out that this woman was NOT good for the position and that she was set there as a reward for her services when she was in the judicial system, but, to the surprise of noone those people were accused of just not liking women.
Imagine having an ACTUAL reason to not like someone and people going “no, we know better on what YOU think” … that’s what you are doing again in the next case with Androulakis (more below)
They don’t? Oh, there is always a reason why people vote for what they vote for, just because you do not care for those reasons, that does not make them illogical.
First time I am hearing that, and I’ve heard a LOT of people that wouldn’t vote for him. And they have valid reasons against him:
- His record is shady (but then again, whose politician’s record isn’t shady, but hey)
- His words are always ambivalent (that’s a bigger sin than a shady record)
- He seems ready to jump on the chance to get a sliver of power at ALL costs
- His speeches are objectively bad
- He is the leader of a party that is ladden with a lot of bad past, bad members and 300+ millions euros in debt.
- and more … if you want me to continue, I can.
Yeah, people won’t vote for him because of rumors of what he does in his bed … suuuuuuuuuuuuuure.
And again, you are dehumanizing everything to fit a single narrative/excuse, while ignoring a PLETHORA of valid reasons to NOT vote for that person, in particular.
Giorgos Papandreou, leader of the same party, has the same rumor floating around for him (as well as being an atheist) and it his case there was actual policy to back up that rumor (it was him who even in the opposition was pushing the agenda for the LGBTQ). Here is the proof:
And he also had Valianatos as a private councilour (also an atheist) and the voters had no real problem with that:
So, what? Who cared or minded in practice? Noone really. Giorgos Papandreou, despite the rumors of those very same things, was voted Prime minister, as you very well know, though if we were to believe you, that would have been impossible. Yet, it happened, so maybe, you should reconsider your wanton flattening of people to just a single epithet, because it is not corresponding to reality?
In reality, people/citizens/voters have real problems and their vote is decided by those very real issues. If you denounce them all as moronic simpletons that only care for identity issues, that is your problem/perception, but please do not try to attribute that to all of us. A lot of us like to think and vote with reason, based on issues that actually matter. Thank you.
Exactly. Because people care about their real life issues. They do not really care how the politicial looks or what they do in bed, as long as they represent the voter’s issues with competence.
1 Like
No it is not, black sexist men exist.
What are you even saying, just because you haven’t heard those opinions they don’t exist???
Why am I dehumanizing someone by pointing out that there are stupid opinions out there that you haven’t heard of???
For some reason, you think this is an argument. Things exist that you don’t know of. I’ve heard many people admit to that, you haven’t, but somehow what you haven’t heard counts more???
About PASOK, those times were significantly more progressive, because the economy was different. Greece will not have a gay Prime Minister in the near future, or a woman one, and if you think one single Vallianatos proves the contrary you don’t know your country at all.
Just because stupid people exist that need everything spelled out: I AM NOT SAYING OBAMA WAS GIVEN A PRESIDENCY BECAUSE HE WAS A BLACK MAN, I AM SAYING RACIST PEOPLE USED THAT AS AN ARGUMENT TO PUSH FURTHER INTO CONSERSVATIVE VOTES AFTER HIM. PEOPLE ARE STUPID AND SUCH TRICKS WORK ON THEM.
You and your “I know everything” again. 
I’m out.
Black people are 12% of the USA. If you want to blame the fraction of those black people who are sexist and the fraction of those sexists who are SO sexists that they would vote against their own interest in order to not vote for a woman, that in the end WON the popular vote, then that is YOUR problem, as I said
You were very fast yesterday to joke about Greek men talking with confidence about stuff they have no idea about, but here you are doing the same
Stop cherry-picking. I said that even if that rumor exists, noone really gives it any value and that most people won’t vote for him for VALID political reasons (which I listed).
I also said that another person with the SAME rumor, leader of the SAME party and the added “atheist” rumor, was voted Prime Minister, which proves that the majority of people do not care about that stuff/rumors, as you seem to do.
Stupid opinions of stupid people that are one here and one there always exists. When you claim that those stupid opinions are the majority and they are actually the ONLY thing that matters in a whole election, then that’s were things are starting to get wild. Again:
Maybe you would like to rephrase things before you throw a tantrum and run out.
Saying “hey ok, I didn’t word this properly, let me rephrase that” is a very reasonable practice.
To this, I’ll say again:
“In reality, people/citizens/voters have real problems and their vote is decided by those very real issues. If you denounce them all as moronic simpletons that only care for identity issues, that is your problem/perception, but please do not try to attribute that to all of us. A lot of us like to think and vote with reason, based on issues that actually matter. Thank you.”
I do not know anything. I only wrote things that actually happened.
You can either take reality into account (e.g. Giorgos Papandreou really being elected prime minister despite worse rumors than Androulakis, Obama being re-elected on merit which could have been passed on to the next democratic candidate, had that candidate not been seen as an establishment stooge) or not.
I am just putting down some of the things that actually happened in reality, not what I imagine or what I would like to be real.
Are there a LOT more things that happened in reality, that were not mentioned and is this approach lacking in depth? Sure, we are neither political analysts not writing a thesis for a PhD. However, I can close this post by at least being certain that I was honest, accurate and factual. “Knowledge”, in this case, implies some sublime vantage point to objective truth which I do not possess.
1 Like
PS. I very clearly said “many people”. Now, how you saw that to absolutely include everyone, and you, I don’t know. Solve that yourself, thank you.
Also, it’s doubly funny because you yourself have pointed out that Anatolakis was voted into the Parliament. I guess all those moronic people who voted him because of the team he was playing for are a figment of my imagination.
I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but stupid people exist. And vote.
Fair enough, I will rephrase “all” to “most of them”. My actual point though stands.
And Patavoukas. I am well aware of it.
And isn’t being a member of the Olympiakos team a serious reason for them?
Don’t they chant in the field “The legend! Our GOD, Olympiakos!”? You think they are joking?
Seriously though, this can happen with Olympiakos and Panathinaikos and a couple of other teams, not really because they are the biggest football teams, but because there is a whole establishment behind those teams, with real/legit multimillion euro businesses and those people really own/run a good part of the country. Most of the people voting for them are not stupid, but there is a very solid block of voters that will vote for EVEN A ROCK, if that is what their side told them to vote, because they have no choice.
They are probably employed by those people.
They might be paying rent to those people.
Their lives depend on those people.
You think that simple families that live paycheck-to-paycheck and live in the middle of those turfs can say and do otherwise?
You honestly think that those people will say “no” to the mega-rich that own the football teams (and TV stations) and a good portion of the country?
Even in more minor cases, the fans do not vote blindly for whatever the team president is saying. They are given very specific promises (don’t believe me, ask around Ioannina about the known football-president lawyer that passed from PAS Giannena a few years ago), usually a new stadium for their team, which also means jobs, and the raising of the values of their houses and field and the upgrade of their neighbourhood and town. Isn’t that good enough to vote for a local parliament member? It might seem on the surface that it is just “stupid football fans voting whatever”, but those people are actually looking out for their own best interests.
Don’t go far, we almost voted for a mayor here, a couple of elections ago, for those EXACT same reasons. He really did take our small village team to higher divisions and promised that if elected he would take the team higher and upgrade EVERYTHING. The field, the town, build malls, bring jobs, etc etc. He was not elected, but those were very tangible promises.
If you look into the mayor in Volos, you will see that this is how he got elected and how he will keep getting re-elected. People that do not go there are aghast that the citizens vote for him and present that simplistic view that most of the citizens of Volos must be stupid football simpletons that got duped, however if you visit the town you realise that there are actual real projects with a lot of money that are rolling along. If he does improve their city, then the citizens are actually getting what they want.
There is no such bubble. I know that there are such people. I also know they are not the majority. What you deem as “stupidity” is, more often than not, a very narrow self-interest that they really have. You might think that it is stupid, but they know that it is either a very real interest (the aforemention new football field which will bring jobs and upgrades) or that they have no choice (e.g. they are actually employed by those people that own the teams).
So, YOUR view that people vote a certain way for interest or choice is legitimate, but MY experience that people vote a certain way because they’re stupid/ sexist/ racist is not?
Got it.
No you didn’t. As usual you are more interested in getting angry and feeling sidelined instead of actually reading what other people write. You find something to be outraged, raise the victim card and “problem and issue solved”.
Proof:
What experience do you have about the black voters which you labeled as “black sexist men”.
Have you ever met any of them?
Do you know how many they are?
Have ever even talked to any of them via the internet and you know, even one, anecdotaly, that fits the bill of your accussation, so it would at least make sense? (even if it is you who really hates anecdotal/experience arguments, but hey)
No. You don’t.
Yet you want to be outraged when someone just points out what you, yourself initially admitted, that you have no idea about this issue.
I haven’t met any Black american men voters either. But, unlike you, I did not say that I know what they do.
I only mentioned the facts that:
- Americans that are black are 12% of the USA population. (You want a source? Here)
- Around half of them are men
- A fraction of them are sexist
- A fraction of those sexists are SO sexists that they would choose to vote despite/against their interests just so that they wouldn’t vote for a woman.
- The remaining amount of people are negligible in any voting process of value considering that you have to fracture all those people even more, per state.
- Hillary won the popular vote so where on earth is even your problem with all the “sexists” that affected the outcome of the election?
All those are facts. An actual american can come in the discussion and read them, but they cannot say that they are not true. Because they are facts.
It is not about “experience”. We are not talking “opinions” in this case. At least I am not.
You claimed that “Many people will never vote Androulakis” because of rumors of his sexual preferences.
I proved that this does not matter as a whole because another man, leading the same party, was voted prime minister with the same rumors and worse (he also had the policies and he was a rumored atheist).
FACTS.
We were not comparing “experiences” in this case. Where on earth did you get that notion?
You said something that you “think”, I mentioned the facts.
There is noone in Greece that can say that this is not true which is probably why you are not even trying.
But instead of processing the facts and re-thinking your position, you just head for the hills and talk about your “experience”, as if your opinion alone would cancel the 2009 elections and the actual facts and, well, the “experience” we all had with that fellow as prime minister.
Well, it doesn’t.
History recorded what actually happened.
Either read what is being written and take into account the facts or, at least, please lay off the drama.
It doesn’t help when it’s endless walls of text with not enough substance to cover the mileage. 
Ah, the usual belittling tactic … whatever grapes the fox cannot catch, it proclaims them to be unripe. 3000 years old tactic. Very modern
1 Like