US Elections: Never Trust a Man with Orange Eyebrows

[MorgulisMaximus]

19 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

Do you disagree that Trump is the most effective person to make such an address to the base he stirred up, which is the cause of these protests by those against discrimination?

And I didn't argue Trump created bigotry in the country.   He made it mainstream and removed the taboo, emboldening self avowed racists as well as those who are "merely" anti-PC toward open bigotry.

The media has been quick to point out a rise in racist events after the election. But their reported events mostly come from school children. Ever read the graffatti on the bathroom stalls of a public school? School children say all kinds of irreponsible, naive, and extremely offensive things. It doesn't mean they actually understand what they are talking about. That's why they aren't allowed to vote.

Trump had close to 70 million votes. How many of those votes came from racists and bigots? If even 25% came from racists, then it would be justifiable to divide up the country.  In my opinion, the racists are probably less than 1% of Trump voters.

[butterbumps!]

To those people who claim to have voted for Trump for reasons other than manifest bigotry, who claim to have voted for him in spite of that, who claim to have turned toward him as a “fuck you” to the coastal elites for undeservingly calling them bigots:   what are you doing to actually counter the narrative that you’re bigoted?   What are you doing to mitigate the “bigotry footprint” you left by actively voting manifest bigotry to power?

If you resent being called bigots, what sense does it make to vote for the candidate riding the wave of white nationalism into power?  How does that make us trigger-happy elites believe you actually aren’t bigots?  How does this prove us wrong?   

Why aren’t you adding your voices to Harry Reid and the thousands of protesters who are speaking out against empowering bigotry?   Why are you letting Trump’s poll troll Kellyanne chastise Obama and Clinton for not silencing the thousands out there right now speaking against bigotry, who are calling for the bigoted candidate you voted for to renounce the white nationalism he incited?  Why aren’t you organizing yourselves to support the ACLU and other organizations designed to protect against the bigotry you elected into power?

[DaveSumm]

I asked a few threads back but I still don't fully understand; the Republican narrative seems to be that the party is weak and powerless and there was nothing they could've possibly done to stop Trump accosting their party. The Democrat narrative seems to be that the party is strong and all-powerful and there was nothing the public could've done to stop The Party foisting Clinton on them. So which is it? How hard is it to become your party's nominee?

There seems to a notion that it's the job of the public to fold your arms and do nothing for four years, then say "right, who have you got for me?" "Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton." "Nope, don't like either. See you in four years." To what degree can an American (I'm not one, FYI) get involved in the nomination process? Would it be fair to say that Hillary had to cosy up to certain people and 'play the game' as that's the only way you get to be nominee? I find it very easy to imagine a parallel universe where Sanders lost to Trump and we're all sat around discussing why on Earth we didn't pick the 'safer' choice of Hillary and went with the elderly socialist Jew (not that I have a problem with any of those things, but you know).

Is it possible the Democrats were just shit out of luck this year in that they didn't have a good candidate?

[LongRider]

7 hours ago, karaddin said:

Look I don't remotely agree with a certain poster in this thread, but it does no one any favours to dismiss the exploitation of inmates as a source of labor or to act they have a real choice and/or deserve it. Do some reading on how easily it is to get roped into the system in some states due to being too poor to pay a fine and having to work in there to pay off said fine. Oh and then you'll have late payment fees because it took you too long to earn enough to pay it off working in prison and wind up in there again when you can't pay THAT. It's a real class issue and a racial issue and it's fucked.

You don't have to agree with me, however, I have direct experience here, and not just what I've read.  Offenders in some systems have more rights than others in other systems, yes I understand that, I can't speak to outside my experience and I don't know what happens in Australia.

Are some incarcerations unfair?  Goddamn right they are and I have also mentioned on this thread that Trump has sent out his 'law and order' dog whistle as code for 'locking up the brown and black people and throwing away the key' something I don't support. Keep in mind, the people incarcerated here have gone through a lengthy legal process and have actually committed crimes.

Can long sentences be unfair?  Goddamn right they can.  In my state, the Governor and the voters have changed the laws and reduced sentences.  I do not in anyway support privatized prisons. With Trump in, I can see real pressure from the government and his supporters for long, unfair sentences again, and that troubles me.

The regulations controlling inmate labor in my state runs to about several pages and is available online. (scroll to page 368) I can support inmate labor that is fair to the inmate and tightly regulated.  I don't have a problem with them making very low wages, especially for violent offenders.  YMMV but the statement that all prisoners who are working are slaves is one I cannot accept.

 

[MorgulisMaximus]

Implying that 70 million Americans are racists is a very extreme stance. Similar to Hillary's "deplorables" comment and Romneys "47 percent" comment. Stereotyping at extreme levels.

Racists should be called out by their words and actions. Guilt by vague association is what the Nazis did. The Nazis had a law where if a single Russian citizen in a Russian town killed a German soldier, then all the townsfolk were guilty. Hence the Germans were required by law to wipe out the entire town. 

[butterbumps!]

39 minutes ago, MorgulisMaximus said:

Implying that 70 million Americans are racists is a very extreme stance. Similar to Hillary's "deplorables" comment and Romneys "47 percent" comment. Stereotyping at extreme levels.

Racists should be called out by their words and actions. Guilt by vague association is what the Nazis did. The Nazis had a law where if a single Russian citizen in a Russian town killed a German soldier, then all the townsfolk were guilty. Hence the Germans were required by law to wipe out the entire town. 

If this is a response to/ criticism of my post, it doesn't apply.

For example I'm pointing to the direct action taken by 70 million people to vote white nationalism into power.    This is a tangible action even if bigotry was not every single voter's rationale.    They created a bigotry footprint regardless of the precise motivation behind it by any given individual voter.   So what are they going to do now to mitigate that damage?     Especially those who don't want to be seen as bigots?

[The Marquis de Leech]

671,009 Louisiana people voted for David Duke in 1991 - a single state. Are you going to somehow pretend that they weren't racist?

[OldGimletEye]

27 minutes ago, MorgulisMaximus said:

Implying that 70 million Americans are racists is a very extreme stance. Similar to Hillary's "deplorables" comment and Romneys "47 percent" comment. Stereotyping at extreme levels.

Racists should be called out by their words and actions. Guilt by vague association is what the Nazis did. The Nazis had a law where if a single Russian citizen in a Russian town killed a German soldier, then all the townsfolk were guilty. Hence the Germans were required by law to wipe out the entire town. 

I don’t know if you live in the United States, but I think you don’t have a really good handle on how the politics of race works in America.

Most people in the US, that have race issues, don’t go around wearing white sheets or burning crosses in people’s front lawns anymore. No more likely they have resentments. They feel “those people” are taking from the system. Many of them would actually say it’s wrong in principle to discriminate against a minority for a job, but then take great umbridge at the suggestion that there may still be subtle forms of discrimination against minorities. Or they might take umbridge at the fact that the criminal justice system still treats some people unfairly, while adhering to the idea that a race should have nothing to do with criminal punishment or convictions.

It’s much more subtle and nuanced than you understand, I think.

And most politicians don’t go around supporting the Klan in public. Instead, they rely on subtle dog whistles which people with white grievance understand. Like say for instance suggesting the guilt of minority kids that were clearly innocent of any crime.

And there is a difference, of course, of making a statement about the aggregate versus the individual. If I meet some Trump supporter, I really don’t know if he or she is racist, although my good old conditional probability distribution will probably estimate that is more likely that person has some race issues. But, I certainly can not be sure.

But, I think in the aggregate we can say something about the Trump vote and the Republican vote. The fact that the Republican Party is such an overwhelming white party is exhibit A. And there is other data out there suggesting that Republicans overall have more negative attitudes towards minorities and women.

Ultimately, I cannot say with any certainty whether a random Trump supporter has race issues. What I’m fairly confident of though is that in the aggregate not all Trump supporters and Republicans are just “principled conservatives”.

[mormont]

33 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

I asked a few threads back but I still don't fully understand; the Republican narrative seems to be that the party is weak and powerless and there was nothing they could've possibly done to stop Trump accosting their party. The Democrat narrative seems to be that the party is strong and all-powerful and there was nothing the public could've done to stop The Party foisting Clinton on them. So which is it? How hard is it to become your party's nominee?

There seems to a notion that it's the job of the public to fold your arms and do nothing for four years, then say "right, who have you got for me?" "Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton." "Nope, don't like either. See you in four years." To what degree can an American (I'm not one, FYI) get involved in the nomination process? Would it be fair to say that Hillary had to cosy up to certain people and 'play the game' as that's the only way you get to be nominee? I find it very easy to imagine a parallel universe where Sanders lost to Trump and we're all sat around discussing why on Earth we didn't pick the 'safer' choice of Hillary and went with the elderly socialist Jew (not that I have a problem with any of those things, but you know).

Is it possible the Democrats were just shit out of luck this year in that they didn't have a good candidate?

This goes to what I think is a very important point, actually.

Not everyone has to take an active interest in politics. It's OK that some people only get interested every four years. But if you're genuinely upset and angry about this year's election, for any reason - whether you're so desperate for change you were willing to ignore all Trump's flaws, or whether you're fearful about what he'll do now he has power - the thing you need to do next is get involved. And that doesn't start with nominating Presidential candidates. It starts with local politics, because that's where good potential candidates cut their teeth and learn their stuff. (Yeah, Trump. But I did say 'good'.)

You need a healthy party to get good candidates and to get a healthy party you need people working for what they believe in at the ground level.

As for this cycle, I started it bemoaning the fact that there were only three Dem candidates (remember O'Malley? Me neither) and that's how I'm ending it. In the meantime, I did get won over to Clinton, and I still think she'd have been a decent President, but now we'll never know. What I do know is that her nomination was no certainty: if there'd genuinely been a good alternative, they'd have beaten her in the primary.

[Lord Flashheart]

4 minutes ago, mormont said:

 I started it bemoaning the fact that there were only three Dem candidates (remember O'Malley? Me neither) and that's how I'm ending it. In the meantime, I did get won over to Clinton, and I still think she'd have been a decent President, but now we'll never know. What I do know is that her nomination was no certainty: if there'd genuinely been a good alternative, they'd have beaten her in the primary.

Hey don't forget Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee..

[Fez]

I've seen some talk that Trump wants at least one Democrat in his cabinet as a good-faith sort of thing, much like Obama almost always had at least one Republican. If that's true, it'll be real interesting to see who he offers it to, who actually accepts, and what position it'd be. 

Presumably it'd be one of the more non-controversial, non-ideological positions, like Transportation Secretary (that's the one Obama nominated LaHood for) or Veterans Affairs Secretary.

[Dr. Pepper]

7 minutes ago, Lord Flashheart said:

Hey don't forget Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee..

Thanks for mentioning the names.  I was talking to a friend about them and their names were on the tip of my tongue so I just described them as the man whose war stories were even more boring than my grandfathers and the man who said he couldn't do the job well because he was new and faced a personal hardship.

[MorgulisMaximus]

10 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And there is a difference, of course, of making a statement about the aggregate versus the individual. If I meet some Trump supporter, I really don’t know if he or she is racist, although my good old conditional probability distribution will probably estimate that is more likely that person has some race issues. But, I certainly can not be sure.

But, I think in the aggregate we can say something about the Trump vote and the Republican vote. The fact that the Republican Party is such an overwhelming white party is exhibit A. And there is other data out there suggesting that Republicans overall have more negative attitudes towards minorities and women.

Ultimately, I cannot say with any certainty whether a random Trump supporter has race issues. What I’m fairly confident of though is that in the aggregate not all Trump supporters and Republicans are just “principled conservatives”.

Obama could never have won 2 elections without massive support from "white America". The Midwest solidly supported Obama during the last 2 elections. This time it went for Trump. Individual interviews show that some of the white Americans who previously voted for Obama twice, voted for Trump this time around. 

There is an enormous range of different opinions and values in America. The election system basically forces this enormous range to choose from 2 candidates. There is no possible way that the candidates can accurately represent the wide range of different thinking and beliefs.

Trump had more support from blacks and hispanics than Romney. This implies that the narrative that Trump voters are racist is highly misguided.

 

[Lord Flashheart]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Thanks for mentioning the names.  I was talking to a friend about them and their names were on the tip of my tongue so I just described them as the man whose war stories were even more boring than my grandfathers and the man who said he couldn't do the job well because he was new and faced a personal hardship.

Chafee is a local embarrassment for me (RI native) the man was somehow elected as an independent governor despite being completely inept.

[Dr. Pepper]

Just now, Lord Flashheart said:

Chafee is a local embarrassment for me (RI native) the man was somehow elected as an independent governor despite being completely inept.

I was previously unfamiliar with him.  But yeah, he's so inept that he couldn't help telling everyone exactly how inept he is.  

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, MorgulisMaximus said:

Obama could never have won 2 elections without massive support from "white America". The Midwest solidly supported Obama during the last 2 elections. This time it went for Trump. Individual interviews show that some of the white Americans who previously voted for Obama twice, voted for Trump this time around. 

There is an enormous range of different opinions and values in America. The election system basically forces this enormous range to choose from 2 candidates. There is no possible way that the candidates can accurately represent the wide range of different thinking and beliefs.

Trump had more support from blacks and hispanics than Romney. This implies that the narrative that Trump voters are racist is highly misguided.

 

No, what I think what is misguided here is a simplistic understanding of how race and economics might work and interact. With regard to the Romney election, yeah, I think it's possible that white voters that have some racial issues went for Obama because, all things considered, they believed Romney to be against their economic interest because he did come off as an out of touch elite.

Also the fact that Trump was able to move the Hispanic and African American vote a few percentage points, doesn't change the fact that the Trump relied upon the white vote, that the Republican Party is overwhelmingly white, and that Republicans, in general, tend to hold more negative views about minorities and that Trump often blew some pretty big dog whistles.

[butterbumps!]

11 minutes ago, MorgulisMaximus said:

Obama could never have won 2 elections without massive support from "white America". The Midwest solidly supported Obama during the last 2 elections. This time it went for Trump. Individual interviews show that some of the white Americans who previously voted for Obama twice, voted for Trump this time around. 

There is an enormous range of different opinions and values in America. The election system basically forces this enormous range to choose from 2 candidates. There is no possible way that the candidates can accurately represent the wide range of different thinking and beliefs.

Trump had more support from blacks and hispanics than Romney. This implies that the narrative that Trump voters are racist is highly misguided.

 

Studies have shown that racial anxiety grew during Obama's presidency, and there was an interesting piece this spring About how white people believed racism against whites grew over that period.      Whitelash does seem a prevalent trend here.    

That certain groups will vote for a candidate that seemingly goes their interests doesn't indicate an absence of racism/ misogyny.     People of any race and gender are fully capable of racism, misogyny and xenophobia.    And trumps support came overwhelmingly from a white base anyway.

I think a more salient issue is what these non- bigoted trump voters plan to do to offset their having directly voted for bigotry.    If they resist being labeled as bigots then they ought to take an active stand against it now.   

[DraculaAD1972]

What about Hillary's mentor who was a KKK member? If Trump had such a mentor we'd never hear the end of it. Yet people perpetuate this hysteria about Trump voters all being bigots.

[Lord Flashheart]

5 minutes ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

What about Hillary's mentor who was a KKK member? If Trump had such a mentor we'd never hear the end of it. Yet people perpetuate this hysteria about Trump voters all being bigots.

google Senator Byrd and NAACP to see the major difference. 

 

“Senator Byrd reflects the transformative power of this nation,” stated NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. “Senator Byrd went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country. 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/106189-naacp-mourns-byrds-death

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 hours ago, Jo498 said:

I think many are missing the point of Pie's rant. It's not that many who voted Trump would have voted for Clinton. It's that Clinton was a weak candidate for many reasons independent of Trump and most thought she would win anyway because Trump was not to be taken seriously. I don't see how the fact that apparently too many Democratic supporters stayed at home contradicts the rant. Doesn't their staying at home clearly show that Clinton was a very poor choice of a candidate? Why would one leaning democrat stay at home unless severely dissapointed by the candidate?

True, part of the problem ist that the US voting system is screwed and apparently the obsolete and fairly idiotic electoral college cannot be changed to a more modern system that would make a win without the popular vote (second time in only 16 years) very unlikely and avoid the focus on swing states.

But how bad must the shape of the center/left be if someone like Trump can win? (and even if he lost the popular vote, it was much closer there than most expected) And I think another point of the rant was that it does not help at all to keep screaming "racist, misogynist, deplorable" etc. because this does not help the left at all to realize how poor their shape is if they cannot easily beat a buffoon posing as racist, misogynist etc.

 

Clearing quote.