Clinton Coverup Queen

[Riggerjack]

Ffj, I disagree. Shaming is a very effective tactic. It keeps the flock herded up right. It's not like she has charisma or leadership skills to fall back on. Queue the howling wolf track, please.

And, as recent elections have shown, popular vote doesn't elect a president. So alienating half, to keep half, is just fine.

And this is the Clinton Crime Family. We know it's not the votes that count, but who counts the votes.

And on that thought, I'm going to mail in my ballot today, one more for Johnson.

[workathome]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/secret-reco ... 1478135518

[BRUTE]

Shaming is a very effective tactic.

short term. shaming leads to suppression, slow cooking, eventual boiling over in an explosive fashion.

brute knows humans who, after 5-10 years of being shamed for everything, respond to "racist!" with "so what", and to "misogynist!" with a shrug. not sure if desired effect by perpetrators of shaming.

[Riggerjack]

brute knows humans who, after 5-10 years of being shamed for everything, respond to "racist!" with "so what", and to "misogynist!" with a shrug. not sure if desired effect by perpetrators of shaming.

Yes. But they weren't part of the flock to begin with, or periphery members.

The progressive flock, by capturing the education and indoctrination of our youth has at it's core, 99% of the youth. It is losing at it's periphery a constant stream to experience and disillusionment. The input is out of their control, but they are all about controlling the output.

That is the point of shaming. Outcast a periphery member who was likely lost soon anyway, to cause those nearby, to try harder to stay within the flock, rather than join the nearby wanderer. The constant inward pressure of those trying to escape the shaming on the periphery comforts those already inside the flock. (Everyone wants to be where I am, I must be doing things right. I should go get the newest i-phone and vote sensibly...)

Most people can discern, unless they choose not to evaluate the evidence, that Clinton lying to Congress and the FBI to coverup crimes and incompetence is more significant than Trump's general piggishness and demeanor. Most people can discern which is worse and it galvanizes them when someone calls them deplorable for having enough sense to differentiate important issues.

I think you are overestimating how much most people care about these things.

Most people, most of the time, are putting most of their energy into social positioning. And, oddly enough, not even necessarily into trying to gain social status, often, just in maintaining their current status. This is where they find comfort. Watching the right shows, so they can talk to coworkers about them. Driving the right car, balancing being seen staying late after work, against being seen at the church talent show.

This is why 40% on each side can just be assumed, regardless of candidate. People will do as they think their social group does, or in reaction to what their social group does. Being a known republican in a group of democrats, means you will vote republican, regardless of candidate, just to maintain your outsider position in your social group. You would have to overcome your habit of social positioning, to even really consider whether Hillary is falsely accused (over, and over, and over) or the personification of corruption; whether Trump is an obnoxious Oompa-Loompa, or the Anti-Christ.

This election will come down to who shows up, because it is much easier to discourage people from voting, than to change their minds. That is the reason for the negative campaigns. Outraged electorate show up. Each side needs us to vote against the other, because neither side could get us to vote them in on their own merits.

[Dragline]

Most people, most of the time, are putting most of their energy into social positioning. And, oddly enough, not even necessarily into trying to gain social status, often, just in maintaining their current status. This is where they find comfort. Watching the right shows, so they can talk to coworkers about them. Driving the right car, balancing being seen staying late after work, against being seen at the church talent show.

. . .

This election will come down to who shows up, because it is much easier to discourage people from voting, than to change their minds. That is the reason for the negative campaigns. Outraged electorate show up. Each side needs us to vote against the other, because neither side could get us to vote them in on their own merits.

Yeah, I have to agree -- copying one's peers generally takes precedence over thinking about policies. As for the election, I read an article recently that indicated that over 90% of the people made up their minds months ago, which I think is pretty typical (and probably why this whole thing seems so tiring). At this stage, it's all about getting your supporters to the polls on Tuesday if they haven't voted early or absentee yet. Looks like its coming down to FL, NC, NV and NH, though -- if Trump sweeps those, he wins, if not he loses.

As for shaming, it's really all just theater, with each side more than happy to wear the imputed shaming as a badge of honor among their own tribe. "Nasty Woman" or "Deplorable" t-shirts anyone?

More on the attraction of Shaming Theater from the archive: http://www.prospectingmimeticfractals.c ... ary-people

[jennypenny]

Trump will pardon her if Obama doesn't do it first. Fair or not, it's an olive branch he can offer democrats in exchange for their cooperation on legislation. Schumer would probably be willing to work that deal since it would make him look good as minority leader.

[Spartan_Warrior]

I think executive pardons would be pretty tone-deaf on the part of everyone involved, Republican or Democrat. That's exactly the kind of thing that Americans are protesting. If I were a legislator right now and I wanted to start actually paying attention to the populism taking hold, I probably wouldn't be eager to be seen as trading pardons for political expedience. Not that I don't think it could happen, mind you.

@FFJ: "That she was defeated rather handily gives me faith that Americans will not stand for such levels of utter corruption."

Technically, according to Google's latest counts, she still won about 200,000 more of the popular vote. Otherwise I find myself in remarkable agreement. I am relieved that she didn't win. Unfortunately, my relief is offset by my dread that Trump did win. Maybe I would have felt the same either way. Then again, I must say that Trump having both House and Senate now worries me, and was an outcome I hadn't even considered. I was coming around to the idea that he was the lesser evil in large part because I assumed he would be an ineffective lame duck whose insane policies would be mostly blocked. This could change things.

[Dragline]

Here are some stats by county on some of the demographics of Trump vs. Clinton voters:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graph ... trump-won/

And some others comparing to 2012:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11 ... emale-vot/