Bernie has been dismissing "demographic stuff" for years. He believes class divisions are the important thing and race/gender/sex/religion are not. That's a classic socialist blind spot. It can even be seen when he's talking about political strategy or this past election. Clinton won the working class. She didn't win the white working class. That's not a coincidence. He claim that people (read: Hillary) are saying "I'm a woman, vote for me" is sexist bullshit. His presentation of the working class as equivalent to the white working class is racist bullshit. His desire to reduce focus on social issues, on racial issues and on anything that doesn't fit into his stilted, narrow, false worldview is bullshit. Its also shitty political strategy.
Wait, someone in here stated, all truthy and stuff, that Clinton is directly responsible for the rise in racist attacks? And based on someone else's opinion...on a blog to boot?
Everything is Clinton's fault from the beginning of the world until the end of time.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Wait, someone in here stated, all truthy and stuff, that Clinton is directly responsible for the rise in racist attacks? And based on someone else's opinion...on a blog to boot?
Everything is Clinton's fault from the beginning of the world until the end of time.
Everything was going hunky dory until Hillary Clinton used bleachbit on the tree of knowledge and deleted a whole apple computer full of emails
Wait, someone in here stated, all truthy and stuff, that Clinton is directly responsible for the rise in racist attacks? And based on someone else's opinion...on a blog to boot?
Everything is Clinton's fault from the beginning of the world until the end of time.
Wait, aren't we on the Blame Bernie part of this cycle again?
+1
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Wait, someone in here stated, all truthy and stuff, that Clinton is directly responsible for the rise in racist attacks? And based on someone else's opinion...on a blog to boot?
Everything is Clinton's fault from the beginning of the world until the end of time.
Wait, aren't we on the Blame Bernie part of this cycle again?
Anything Bernie says or does that people don't like can ultimately be tied back to the fact that Hillary made him do it, somehow.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Wait, someone in here stated, all truthy and stuff, that Clinton is directly responsible for the rise in racist attacks? And based on someone else's opinion...on a blog to boot?
Everything is Clinton's fault from the beginning of the world until the end of time.
Wait, aren't we on the Blame Bernie part of this cycle again?
Glad that you finally took the time to join us today, Frankie. I'm looking forward to your replies to my previous posts soon.
No, it isn't that "time" again. I was merely pointing out what Bernie's position in politics is right now, which is hardly tea and biscuits as you know.
+2
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Bernie has been dismissing "demographic stuff" for years. He believes class divisions are the important thing and race/gender/sex/religion are not. That's a classic socialist blind spot. It can even be seen when he's talking about political strategy or this past election. Clinton won the working class. She didn't win the white working class. That's not a coincidence. He claim that people (read: Hillary) are saying "I'm a woman, vote for me" is sexist bullshit. His presentation of the working class as equivalent to the white working class is racist bullshit. His desire to reduce focus on social issues, on racial issues and on anything that doesn't fit into his stilted, narrow, false worldview is bullshit. Its also shitty political strategy.
So I think that this is mostly bullshit -- more of the same venomous nonsense you've been spewing since the primary threads. The bolded, specifically, is pungent bullshit. Bernie Sanders certainly emphasizes class; this is a good thing, because class is almost always de-emphasized in our political discourse. He's banging that drum because basically no one else in positions of prominence bring it up. (Yes, you can point to some good policies that Hillary Clinton had on her website, but if you honestly believe she campaigned as an economic progressive you are viewing this election through a strange lens; her message focused on her own resume and Trump's odious character.) He has never framed the fight for justice as an either-or proposition between the rights of minorities and economic equality. He correctly sees that these things go hand in hand.
Why are we talking about these things as a choice? Why does it always come down to this false dichotomy? It is not Bernie Sanders's fault. He is never saying "not just X, but X plus Y." Yet the response is always, "How dare you suggest we forget about X?"
I am not sure what great evil you think is going to happen if the Democrats go ahead and run with a message emphasizing class politics. Just who exactly in the Democratic coalition is going to be turned off by that? Will better healthcare drive out feminists? Will stronger job protections turn off immigrants? Are young people going to stop turning out because of a more progressive tax code? Are queer people going to leave the coalition because it's easier to get social assistance? Will black people stop voting Democrat if we stop invading foreign countries?
Wait, someone in here stated, all truthy and stuff, that Clinton is directly responsible for the rise in racist attacks? And based on someone else's opinion...on a blog to boot?
Everything is Clinton's fault from the beginning of the world until the end of time.
Wait, aren't we on the Blame Bernie part of this cycle again?
Glad that you finally took the time to join us today, Frankie. I'm looking forward to your replies to my previous posts soon.
No, it isn't that "time" again. I was merely pointing out what Bernie's position in politics is right now, which is hardly tea and biscuits as you know.
Nah, I'm pretty much just ignoring when you make posts like that. You weren't looking for debate, you were doing that thing where you witch hunt and make it very personal and I have no desire to engage with that.
Wait, someone in here stated, all truthy and stuff, that Clinton is directly responsible for the rise in racist attacks? And based on someone else's opinion...on a blog to boot?
Everything is Clinton's fault from the beginning of the world until the end of time.
Wait, aren't we on the Blame Bernie part of this cycle again?
Anything Bernie says or does that people don't like can ultimately be tied back to the fact that Hillary made him do it, somehow.
That's quite uncharitable, but I will note I was trying to jest and lighten the mood. Perhaps too subtle on my part, apologies.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Bernie has been dismissing "demographic stuff" for years. He believes class divisions are the important thing and race/gender/sex/religion are not. That's a classic socialist blind spot. It can even be seen when he's talking about political strategy or this past election. Clinton won the working class. She didn't win the white working class. That's not a coincidence. He claim that people (read: Hillary) are saying "I'm a woman, vote for me" is sexist bullshit. His presentation of the working class as equivalent to the white working class is racist bullshit. His desire to reduce focus on social issues, on racial issues and on anything that doesn't fit into his stilted, narrow, false worldview is bullshit. Its also shitty political strategy.
So I think that this is mostly bullshit -- more of the same venomous nonsense you've been spewing since the primary threads. The bolded, specifically, is pungent bullshit. Bernie Sanders certainly emphasizes class; this is a good thing, because class is almost always de-emphasized in our political discourse. He's banging that drum because basically no one else in positions of prominence bring it up. (Yes, you can point to some good policies that Hillary Clinton had on her website, but if you honestly believe she campaigned as an economic progressive you are viewing this election through a strange lens; her message focused on her own resume and Trump's odious character.) He has never framed the fight for justice as an either-or proposition between the rights of minorities and economic equality. He correctly sees that these things go hand in hand.
Why are we talking about these things as a choice? Why does it always come down to this false dichotomy? It is not Bernie Sanders's fault. He is never saying "not just X, but X plus Y." Yet the response is always, "How dare you suggest we forget about X?"
I am not sure what great evil you think is going to happen if the Democrats go ahead and run with a message emphasizing class politics. Just who exactly in the Democratic coalition is going to be turned off by that? Will better healthcare drive out feminists? Will stronger job protections turn off immigrants? Are young people going to stop turning out because of a more progressive tax code? Are queer people going to leave the coalition because it's easier to get social assistance? Will black people stop voting Democrat if we stop invading foreign countries?
Generally when race stops being emphasized in policy, minorities "somehow" get left behind.
We arent blaming Bernie for anthing other than poorly chosen words right now.
Bernies underlying assumption that has some of us up in arms is that minority politicians need to prove themselves in some way, because the default assumption is that they have gotten to where they are on the backs of affirmative action.
MWO: Adamski
+3
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
We arent blaming Bernie for anthing other than poorly chosen words right now.
Bernies underlying assumption that has some of us up in arms is that minority politicians need to prove themselves in some way, because the default assumption is that they have gotten to where they are on the backs of affirmative action.
Bernie has been dismissing "demographic stuff" for years. He believes class divisions are the important thing and race/gender/sex/religion are not. That's a classic socialist blind spot. It can even be seen when he's talking about political strategy or this past election. Clinton won the working class. She didn't win the white working class. That's not a coincidence. He claim that people (read: Hillary) are saying "I'm a woman, vote for me" is sexist bullshit. His presentation of the working class as equivalent to the white working class is racist bullshit. His desire to reduce focus on social issues, on racial issues and on anything that doesn't fit into his stilted, narrow, false worldview is bullshit. Its also shitty political strategy.
So I think that this is mostly bullshit -- more of the same venomous nonsense you've been spewing since the primary threads. The bolded, specifically, is pungent bullshit. Bernie Sanders certainly emphasizes class; this is a good thing, because class is almost always de-emphasized in our political discourse. He's banging that drum because basically no one else in positions of prominence bring it up. (Yes, you can point to some good policies that Hillary Clinton had on her website, but if you honestly believe she campaigned as an economic progressive you are viewing this election through a strange lens; her message focused on her own resume and Trump's odious character.) He has never framed the fight for justice as an either-or proposition between the rights of minorities and economic equality. He correctly sees that these things go hand in hand.
Why are we talking about these things as a choice? Why does it always come down to this false dichotomy? It is not Bernie Sanders's fault. He is never saying "not just X, but X plus Y." Yet the response is always, "How dare you suggest we forget about X?"
I am not sure what great evil you think is going to happen if the Democrats go ahead and run with a message emphasizing class politics. Just who exactly in the Democratic coalition is going to be turned off by that? Will better healthcare drive out feminists? Will stronger job protections turn off immigrants? Are young people going to stop turning out because of a more progressive tax code? Are queer people going to leave the coalition because it's easier to get social assistance? Will black people stop voting Democrat if we stop invading foreign countries?
Generally when race stops being emphasized in policy, minorities "somehow" get left behind.
For example (and this is not Bernie specific) note how basically everyone in our political system used "working class" as shorthand for white working class during this election. America's fundamental divide is race, Europe's is class. I think we need to examine the politics of each through those respective lenses.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+13
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
In better Bernie news, he finally read the actual Trump infrastructure plan and not the idea of improving infrastructure he was discussing working with Trump on last week. He came to the same conclusion most liberals have.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Bernie has been dismissing "demographic stuff" for years. He believes class divisions are the important thing and race/gender/sex/religion are not. That's a classic socialist blind spot. It can even be seen when he's talking about political strategy or this past election. Clinton won the working class. She didn't win the white working class. That's not a coincidence. He claim that people (read: Hillary) are saying "I'm a woman, vote for me" is sexist bullshit. His presentation of the working class as equivalent to the white working class is racist bullshit. His desire to reduce focus on social issues, on racial issues and on anything that doesn't fit into his stilted, narrow, false worldview is bullshit. Its also shitty political strategy.
So I think that this is mostly bullshit -- more of the same venomous nonsense you've been spewing since the primary threads. The bolded, specifically, is pungent bullshit. Bernie Sanders certainly emphasizes class; this is a good thing, because class is almost always de-emphasized in our political discourse. He's banging that drum because basically no one else in positions of prominence bring it up. (Yes, you can point to some good policies that Hillary Clinton had on her website, but if you honestly believe she campaigned as an economic progressive you are viewing this election through a strange lens; her message focused on her own resume and Trump's odious character.) He has never framed the fight for justice as an either-or proposition between the rights of minorities and economic equality. He correctly sees that these things go hand in hand.
Why are we talking about these things as a choice? Why does it always come down to this false dichotomy? It is not Bernie Sanders's fault. He is never saying "not just X, but X plus Y." Yet the response is always, "How dare you suggest we forget about X?"
I am not sure what great evil you think is going to happen if the Democrats go ahead and run with a message emphasizing class politics. Just who exactly in the Democratic coalition is going to be turned off by that? Will better healthcare drive out feminists? Will stronger job protections turn off immigrants? Are young people going to stop turning out because of a more progressive tax code? Are queer people going to leave the coalition because it's easier to get social assistance? Will black people stop voting Democrat if we stop invading foreign countries?
Generally when race stops being emphasized in policy, minorities "somehow" get left behind.
Look at phenomena like Unite Here's victories in Nevada (a rare green shoot in this election), the Fight for 15 movement, and the recent victory of the Harvard janitor and kitchen workers strike. These are all vital working-class movements in which racial minorities are in the driver's seat. The idea that working class equals white is not an idea coming from socialists!
You don't know what identity politics actually means is the problem. Identity politics is appealing to people based on elements of their identity. It's not "vote for me because I look like you" it's vote for me because you're white/black/Hispanic/male/female/gay/whatever. The Trump campaign's not very implicit message was "America was great when whites were in charge." That's white identity politics.
We're for women's rights and gay rights and minority rights and the rights of children is also identity politics. It did not appeal as much to white people in the right places.
Except Trump did better with minorities than Mitt Romney.
Trump made gains among blacks. He made gains among Latinos. He made gains among Asians. The only major racial group where he didn’t get a gain of greater than 5% was white people. I want to repeat that: the group where Trump’s message resonated least over what we would predict from a generic Republican was the white population.
Nor was there some surge in white turnout. I don’t think we have official numbers yet, but by eyeballing what data we have it looks very much like whites turned out in equal or lesser numbers this year than in 2012, 2008, and so on.
Stop using the words “white nationalist” to describe Trump. When you describe someone as a white nationalist, and then they win, people start thinking white nationalism won. People like winners. This was entirely an own-goal and the perception that white nationalism is now the winning team has 1% to do with Trump and 99% to do with his critics.
Stop turning everything into identity politics. The only thing the media has been able to do for the last five years is shout “IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS!” at everything, and then when the right wing finally says “Um, i…den-tity….poli-tics?” you freak out and figure that the only way they could have possibly learned that phrase is from the KKK.
Stop calling Trump voters racist. A metaphor: we have freedom of speech not because all speech is good, but because the temptation to ban speech is so great that, unless given a blanket prohibition, it would slide into universal censorship of any unpopular opinion. Likewise, I would recommend you stop calling Trump voters racist – not because none of them are, but because as soon as you give yourself that opportunity, it’s a slippery slope down to “anyone who disagrees with me on anything does so entirely out of raw seething hatred, and my entire outgroup is secret members of the KKK and so I am justified in considering them worthless human trash”. I’m not saying you’re teetering on the edge of that slope. I’m saying you’re way at the bottom, covered by dozens of feet of fallen rocks and snow. Also, I hear that accusing people of racism constantly for no reason is the best way to get them to vote for your candidate next time around. Assuming there is a next time.
Stop centering criticism of Donald Trump around this sort of stuff, and switch to literally anything else. Here is an incompetent thin-skinned ignorant boorish fraudulent omnihypocritical demagogue with no idea how to run a country, whose philosophy of governance basically boils down to “I’m going to win and not lose, details to be filled in later”, and all you can do is repeat, again and again, how he seems popular among weird Internet teenagers who post frog memes. In the middle of an emotionally incontinent reality TV show host getting his hand on the nuclear button, your chief complaint is that in the middle of a few dozen denunciations of the KKK, he once delayed denouncing the KKK for an entire 24 hours before going back to denouncing it again. When a guy who says outright that he won’t respect elections unless he wins them does, somehow, win an election, the headlines are how he once said he didn’t like globalists which means he must be anti-Semitic.
By painting Trump as a racist as part of her campaign tactics, Clinton basically divided America, and is directly responsible for the rise in racist attacks.
Wow. The "You made me this way, Dad!" theorem? The innovative application of the transitive property here is simply breathtaking. A Nobel Prize in mathematics is surely forthcoming.
Trump is a racist. You don't get a free pass on blaming the people who call you a racist for you actually being a racist. Having to hear the word "racist" didn't make you a damn racist any more than the words "radical Islamic terror" sends jihadists scurrying out of the blinding sunlight like vampires.
The country was divided far before Clinton ran her campaign. The intransigence of the division may be a cause of common pundit concern but its perpetuation is solidly on the side of the party whose leader throws a shit fit on Twitter because a multicultural cast pleaded with a future leader not to be forgotten in a new regime.
What you are doing is seeking vindication for a previously held conviction that talking about race is tantamount to the harm done by racism. That divison per se is demonstrably worse than the hierarchies of power that mask inequality and oppression with peaceful, superficial unity. That racism is a weapon of interpersonal hatred only, and not the invisible, unemotional binds of institutional assumptions that allow you to say, without apparent irony, "I wasn't racist until YOU reminded me that IT EXISTS"
Edit: to be a little clearer I am using "you" as a rhetorical device and not necessarily you, but sometimes you. About to go bed bye now so pls be assured that I'm not saying you, frostwood, are a racist.
No problem, I don't take things personally, especially over the internet.
I don't see Trump as a racist-nationalist yes, islamophobe yes, but not a racist. The Clinton campaign deliberately framed Trump and his as a racists, so everything he did was painted as racist.
Just like Trump framed Hillary as a 'crooked' politician. Everything thing she did was seen as dishonest or hiding the truth.
One framing affected one person, the other, an entire nation.
- "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."
- "If you look at his wife, she was standing there," he said, "She had nothing to say... Maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me."
- Proposed killing/torturing the families of terrorist suspects.
- Retweeted an anti-Semitic image featuring a star of David and tried to pass it off as a "basic star" or "sheriff's star".
- Failed for two days to disavow former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, claiming he didn't know who he was, despite also claiming he has "the world's greatest memory".
- Proposed surveying and shutting down mosques.
- Mocked a disabled reporter.
- Repeatedly said Hillary and Obama are the "founders" of ISIS.
- Mistook a Black Supporter at His Rally for a Protester and Called Him a “Thug”
Nah, man, it was totally about the economy.
Exactly right. A lot of people held their nose and voted for Trump because they liked what he had to say about the economy. More people voted for him without holding their nose, though, because they either didn't care or agreed with what he had to say (details below). Notice that Hillary Clinton didn't say any of those things but touted a business-as-usual approach to globalization and was crushed. Jobs and economic security > everything else, every time. The Clintons got that right back in the 90s but they were late to the game this time and that really hurt Hillary's chances.
Also as a (rather unorthodox) right-wing voter, and from talking to (right-wing) friends, family, coworkers, random strangers in lines etc., a good many people (myself included) would take no issue/agree with the majority of the above statements. Sample size a little over 20, not including me.
- "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."
The majority of illegal aliens are economic migrants trying to leave poverty back home. Most of them do not have college degrees and are not well off. Poverty breeds crime no matter the nationality.
Viewpoints- some people I talked to expressed concern that Mexico was offloading its poor onto us- basically, they come over here, take our jobs, get free healthcare and education, and send the money back home. It didn't come up with everyone, but when I asked for an example or explanation of the "drugs, crime, rapists" part most people I brought it up with immediately said "cartels". A lot of them were worried about the cartels being freely able to operate on both sides of the border ("a shame", "makes us look weak if we can't secure our borders" etc) and hoped that the Trump Wall would put an end to to most illegal drug smuggling. Ex. The Trump Wall would "make it harder for (the cartels) to bring in drugs".
When I brought up the so-called "sanctuary cities" policy everyone I talked to thought it was bullshit. Mainly for fairness reasons- when they commit a crime, they face the consequences, but when an illegal commits a crime, they get a free pass from bleeding-hearts. (Most people also went on a tangent here about how they pay for education and healthcare but illegals "get it for free") The Kate Steinle murder was brought up more than once and one person brought up the murder two weeks ago of Kayla Gomez-Arozco, a 10-year old in Texas. Most people said that they were confused as to why sanctuary cities existed.
I know about 4-ish openly racist people who were all "yeah! they're all lazy too", if that's helpful
- "If you look at his wife, she was standing there," he said, "She had nothing to say... Maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me."
"That's how it is over there", "That's their culture- the husband beats the woman", "I saw that back when I was in Iraq", that sort of thing. Patriarchy to the extent of extreme misogyny is an integral part of many Middle Eastern tribal cultures and people pick up on that. A lot of people brought up hijabs and burkas as examples- "they make them wear them" was mentioned by several people. About half the people I talked to were angry that he criticized the family of a dead soldier "(their) son was one of the good ones".
- Proposed killing/torturing the families of terrorist suspects.
Most everyone was fine with killing (when brought up as a hypothetical drone strike). Like two people were ok with torturing. Again, fairness- they get to attack our families but we have to leave theirs alone (that was a big one), bring the war to them, make the cost of terrorism high, etc. One person brought up World War 2- "We did it to the Germans".
- Retweeted an anti-Semitic image featuring a star of David and tried to pass it off as a "basic star" or "sheriff's star".
A lot of "he didn't know"s here. Personally I think he was just lazy, found something that looked good, and retweeted it. When the star of David was pointed out to him he (out of reflex/branding) didn't back down or apologize.
- Failed for two days to disavow former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, claiming he didn't know who he was, despite also claiming he has "the world's greatest memory".
This came up about five times. A couple people said that maybe Donald genuinely didn't know who David Duke was, one person said that Duke was a politician and that proved Washington was hypocritical, and the rest viewed it as a cynical vote-grabbing scheme (as do I). "(Trump) wanted their votes but he didn't want to support 'em, so he kept silent like Obama did with Bill Ayers and the Weathermen".
- Proposed surveilling and shutting down mosques.
"We have to find out which ones are terrorist mosques", "shut down the jihad ones", "not all of them are bad but a lot of them hate us", "they teach the kids to hate us", "send the terrorist ones back overseas" etc. Some of the out-and-out racists I talked to wanted to shut down all mosques but everyone else was of the belief that there are good, peaceful mosques (a small amount) and bad, jihadist mosques (a somewhat larger amount) and that we need to find out which are which. Personally I'm fine with putting mosques of fundamentalist sects under surveillance and shutting down the ones that promote violent jihad. If nothing else it'd prove the lie when a Deobandi cleric (teaches the same stuff as the Taliban) gets up in front of the cameras and claims to be peaceful and loving after a parishioner is inspired to go out and commits terrorism. *cough* gay nightclub shooting *cough*
- Mocked a disabled reporter.
Interestingly, no one this came up with thought this was ok.
- Repeatedly said Hillary and Obama are the "founders" of ISIS.
The racists and like two other people thought this was true on its face. One of them thought Benghazi had something to do with it. Everyone else I talked to about it brought up things like pulling out of Iraq and various things to do with Syria- "should have stayed out" and "not our problem" were mentioned frequently. Several were bitter about Bush invading Iraq.
- Mistook a Black Supporter at His Rally for a Protester and Called Him a “Thug”
BLM was brought up a lot before I emphasized the "supporter", at which point the non-racists admitted Trump had made a mistake. The racists were all "well they're all thugs!" etc.
I'm glad you found some people who don't believe they are racists and misogynists. Maybe they aren't! It does not change the fact that voting for Donald Trump was a racist and misogynist act. They did a racist and misogynist thing. They empowered a man who courted racists and misogynists, used racist and misogynist language, proposed racist and misogynist policies, hired racists and misogynists to run his campaign, and is now floating and/or confirming racist and misogynistic people to positions of power in his cabinet. Some voters might rationalize that, for them, it was all about "THE ECONOMY", but they shoulder a portion of the blame for every act of racism and misogyny perpetuated or inspired by his campaign and presidency. Every swastika graffitied on a church, every woman yelled at on the street, every latino kid beat up on the playground and told he or she is gonna get deported, every transgender teen that has committed suicide, every homosexual that loses their marriage, every minority voter that gets disenfranchised, every woman who is forced to pay for a funeral for a miscarriage or perform an abortion by coat hanger, every family broken by deportation squads, that's all on their shoulders. They get to own that shit. They supported it, they enabled it, they raised their hands in the air and with their votes said, "YES, I APPROVE OF THIS HATE!"
"Oh, I don't agree with all this violent rhetoric about the Jews being the source of all the nation's ills, but I really think this Adolf guy is gonna kick-start the economy and get me my old job back."
Yeah. Sure.
As a side note, every time I type "THE ECONOMY", I hear Gilbert Gottfried loudly yelling "THE ARISTOCRATS" in my head.
- "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."
- "If you look at his wife, she was standing there," he said, "She had nothing to say... Maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me."
- Proposed killing/torturing the families of terrorist suspects.
- Retweeted an anti-Semitic image featuring a star of David and tried to pass it off as a "basic star" or "sheriff's star".
- Failed for two days to disavow former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, claiming he didn't know who he was, despite also claiming he has "the world's greatest memory".
- Proposed surveying and shutting down mosques.
- Mocked a disabled reporter.
- Repeatedly said Hillary and Obama are the "founders" of ISIS.
- Mistook a Black Supporter at His Rally for a Protester and Called Him a “Thug”
Nah, man, it was totally about the economy.
Exactly right. A lot of people held their nose and voted for Trump because they liked what he had to say about the economy. More people voted for him without holding their nose, though, because they either didn't care or agreed with what he had to say (details below). Notice that Hillary Clinton didn't say any of those things but touted a business-as-usual approach to globalization and was crushed. Jobs and economic security > everything else, every time. The Clintons got that right back in the 90s but they were late to the game this time and that really hurt Hillary's chances.
Also as a (rather unorthodox) right-wing voter, and from talking to (right-wing) friends, family, coworkers, random strangers in lines etc., a good many people (myself included) would take no issue/agree with the majority of the above statements. Sample size a little over 20, not including me.
Hillary has over a million and a half more votes than Trump. More of America was on board with her message; they just weren't in the right places to matter.
- "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."
- "If you look at his wife, she was standing there," he said, "She had nothing to say... Maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me."
- Proposed killing/torturing the families of terrorist suspects.
- Retweeted an anti-Semitic image featuring a star of David and tried to pass it off as a "basic star" or "sheriff's star".
- Failed for two days to disavow former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, claiming he didn't know who he was, despite also claiming he has "the world's greatest memory".
- Proposed surveying and shutting down mosques.
- Mocked a disabled reporter.
- Repeatedly said Hillary and Obama are the "founders" of ISIS.
- Mistook a Black Supporter at His Rally for a Protester and Called Him a “Thug”
Nah, man, it was totally about the economy.
Exactly right. A lot of people held their nose and voted for Trump because they liked what he had to say about the economy. More people voted for him without holding their nose, though, because they either didn't care or agreed with what he had to say (details below). Notice that Hillary Clinton didn't say any of those things but touted a business-as-usual approach to globalization and was crushed. Jobs and economic security > everything else, every time. The Clintons got that right back in the 90s but they were late to the game this time and that really hurt Hillary's chances.
Also as a (rather unorthodox) right-wing voter, and from talking to (right-wing) friends, family, coworkers, random strangers in lines etc., a good many people (myself included) would take no issue/agree with the majority of the above statements. Sample size a little over 20, not including me.
Hillary has over a million and a half more votes than Trump. More of America was on board with her message; they just weren't in the right places to matter.
So these are not partisan hacks. The U of M guy is a big deal and a very serious person. And they're saying they have circumstantial evidence that Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania need recounts.
538 Responded
[/spoiler]
I don't understand how to read those charts of his. But I am going to assume they are probably accurate.
Sadly the story just hit CNN's website so it'll stick around for a bit to make the left look desperate.
Voter suppression in North Carolina was real, at least. I wouldn't mind that being investigated and have a light shone on it.
Basically Bernie wants the Democratic coalition to be the Democratic Party coalition pre-JFK, based on blue collar workers, instead of the modern Democratic coalition which includes unionized labor, ethnic and religious minorities and social liberals. In that process, the coalition lost non-unionized labor largely because those people were white men, especially in the South, who didn't like the Civil Rights Act. He has said as much on many occasions. Ultimately Sanders is not a liberal, he's a socialist who caucuses with the liberal party. July 2015
“I look at these things more from a class perspective,” [Sanders] said.
“I’m not a liberal. Never have been. I’m a progressive who mostly focuses on the working and middle class.”
The difference between a liberal and a progressive focused on workers might seem slim, but it nonetheless shapes how he envisions the potential of the political coalition he hopes to assemble. He believes he can mobilize a working-class coalition spanning ideological divides.
“Ordinary people are profoundly disgusted with the state of the economy and the fact that the middle class is being destroyed and income going to the top 1 percent.”
Many of these people “may not be liberal” or may not “agree with me on gay marriage,” but “they want a fighter,” he said in the cordial conversation.
The issues that could potentially rally disaffected lower- and- middle-class voters “cross traditional liberal-conservative lines,” Mr. Sanders argued. He is in a good position to raise these issues, he said, citing his positions on trade, issues affecting older Americans and the minimum wage.
"Let me ask you," he says, his gangly frame struggling to contain itself to our couch, "what is the largest voting bloc in America? Is it gay people? No. Is it African-Americans? No. Hispanics? No. What?" Answer: "White working-class people." Bring them back into the liberal fold, he figures, and you've got your revolution.
...
Over the past two presidential-election cycles, Barack Obama has cobbled together a coalition of outsiders—women, minorities, yuppies, and young people. In 2012, he won the lowest percentage of white voters for a Democratic candidate in 20 years. Especially with the country’s Hispanic population increasing, many Democrats view the Obama coalition as one that will only grow stronger with time. But Sanders, and those around him, are not impressed. “The Obama way,” says the senator’s former chief of staff, Huck Gutman, now an English professor at the University of Vermont, “doesn’t build a lasting coalition. It wins you an election. Obama wins the election and then he runs into all this resistance. He does not have the country behind him.”
..
“How do you have a party that created Social Security lose the senior vote?” Sanders asks me. The answer, he believes, is that seniors have been distracted from the pocketbook issues that should matter most in politics. The Left, in turn, can win them back, along with other white working-class voters, by downplaying the culture wars—what Ralph Nader once called “gonadal” issues—and instead focusing on economic populism.
Of course, Sanders supports gay marriage and abortion rights; he just puts far less emphasis on those questions than he does on economics. “He has an overarching view that transcends our racial and gender differences,” says Tom Hayden, the Students for a Democratic Society hero and former California legislator. “It’s the older view of the socialists who thought class issues could unite all. To ask him to drop that is asking him to change his identity.”
...
I suggest to Sanders that his vision for a new progressive base of old white guys runs somewhat counter to the conventional wisdom, but he cuts me off. “Who told you that?” he scoffs. “I’m talking from a little bit of experience. I did get 71 percent of the vote in my state. And despite popular conception—with all due respect to my friends in California, Northern California, where you have wealthy liberals who support me and I appreciate that—Vermont is a working-class state. So I’m glad you raised that, because your analysis is incorrect. And I’m right and everybody else is wrong. Clear about that?””
But they do not see a party representing the working class of this country.
INSKEEP: When you say the working class, are you thinking about the white working class specifically?
SANDERS: I'm thinking about the working class in general. When you talk about unemployment, do you know what real unemployment is? In counting those people who have given up for looking for work and are working part-time, when they want to work full-time. For African-American kids, it is 30 percent. Who is fighting for these folks?
INSKEEP: Here's why I ask about the white working class. Of course, President Obama has assembled a coalition that depends heavily on minority voters. You have argued in the past that Democrats are losing too much of the white vote. There were states in Senate races in November where Democrats couldn't even get 25 percent of the white vote.
SANDERS: That's correct.
INSKEEP: Why have you been focusing on that?
SANDERS: Well, I am focusing on the fact that, whether you're white or black or Hispanic or Asian, if you are in the working class, you are struggling to keep your heads above water. You're worried about your kids. What should the Democratic Party talking about, Steve? What they should be talking about is a massive federal jobs program. There was once a time when our nation's infrastructure - roads, bridges, water systems, rail - were the envy of the world. Today, that's no longer the case.
INSKEEP: Haven't Democrats been raising some of these issues...
SANDERS: Yes.
INSKEEP: ...And weren't they raising them in the election that they just lost?
SANDERS: Some candidates did raise some of these issues. But I don't think you see the kind of forceful development of this idea and forceful need to raise the issue about job creation that we should be talking about. I would say, if you go out on the street and you talk to people and say, which is the party of the American working pass - class - people would look to you like you're a little bit crazy. They wouldn't know what you're talking about, and they certainly wouldn't identify the Democrats.
INSKEEP: Help me understand what's going on here though because you have mentioned the white vote in the past. The African-American working class has been voting for Democrats. If you looked at single women, who were often working class...
SANDERS: You're going into this - Steve, you're going into this demographic stuff, which I reject. That's not my cup of tea.
INSKEEP: Although, you talked about it.
SANDERS: Yes. Well, here's what you got. What you got is an African-American president. And the African-American community is very, very proud that this country has overcome racism and voted for him for president. And that's kind of natural. You got a situation where the Republican Party has been strongly anti-immigration. And you've got a Hispanic community, which is looking to the Democrats for help. But that's not important. You should not be basing your politics based on your color. What you should be basing your politics on is, how is your family doing?
And your point is well taken. In the last election, in state after state, you had an abysmally low vote for the Democrats among white, working-class people. And I think the reason for that is that the Democrats have not made it clear that they are prepared to stand with the working people of this country, take on the big money interest. I think the key issue that we have to focus on - I know people are uncomfortable about talking about it - is the role of the billionaire class in American society.
“I’ve been meeting with unionists, independents, progressive Democrats,” Sanders explained via satellite from Columbia, South Carolina. “And they are tired of being abandoned by the national Democratic party. They want some help, and they believe that with some help they can start winning in these conservative states.”
One cause for concern, Sanders explained to Schultz, was seeing many white, working-class voters in “low-income states” like Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina voting against their own best interest.
“These are guys getting hung up on gay marriage issues,” Sanders told Schultz. “They’re getting hung up on abortion issues. And it is time we started focusing on the economic issues that bring us together: Defending Social Security, defending Medicare, making sure that Medicaid is not cut, that veterans’ programs are not cut.”
No. I don’t think anyone thinks that. There’s no question that the Republican Party has become a far-right party, significantly controlled by the Koch brothers and a few others. But the Democratic party has moved, you know. It used to be a center-left party — Truman, Roosevelt — it was the party of the American working class. I don’t think there are many people who think that is the case now. It is far better [than the Republican Party], and there are some great people in the Democratic Party who spend an enormous amount of time and energy fighting for working people, and I work with those guys. But I don’t think anybody would say, as a whole, that the Democratic Party is the party of the American working class.
...
Q: It gets worse and worse, and more and more of our leaders think that’s okay.
Well, you have a situation where, for much of the media, the differentiation between the Democrats and the Republicans are: One party strongly supports gay marriage and gay rights, one party strongly supports the need to address climate change, one party strongly supports immigrant rights, one party has concerns about guns — and the other party is different. In fact, some things, like economics, is for some people not even relevant. The issue is abortion rights. You’re a liberal? You’re for abortion rights. He’s not. You’re a liberal. He’s a conservative. The fact that you voted, as a liberal, to deregulate Wall Street or to give tax breaks for billionaires, we don’t even consider that part of the political discussion.
So I think, and where I’m cautiously optimistic about the future of this country, I never believed in red states and blue states. I don’t believe that. Recently I was in North Carolina, South Carolina, and in Mississippi, and had nice turnouts. And if you talk about economic issues you find that in this country there is a lot more commonality than the inside-the-Beltway pundits understand.
For example, a couple of years ago I helped lead the effort to prevent cuts in Social Security. I worked very, very hard for that. You go out to conservative states, you go out to the Tea Party guys, and you say, “Do you think we should cut Social Security and Medicare?” And they’ll say, “Are you crazy?” And yet here, you have not only a Republican Party moving very aggressively [in that direction]. You have some Democrats.
...
So I am not a great fan of this. I understand demographics. But it has to do with what your political values are. And if your value is to expand the middle class of this country, provide healthcare to all people, educational opportunity for all people, it’s not just winning elections. It’s not just being better than another party, which is now an extremist party with racist overtones. You can’t go through your life saying, “Hey, you think we’re bad! You should see them! Vote for me! Yeah, we’re pretty bad, but they’re worse!”
edit
Added two more quotations. But this is what is going to be the question about the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders wants to change it to be a populist, leftist economic but socially moderate and "demographically" agnostic party, Obama/Clinton/et al want it to be a socially liberal, economically liberal party that is also strongly dedicated to diversity and equality along racial/ethnic/gender/sexuality lines
You don't know what identity politics actually means is the problem. Identity politics is appealing to people based on elements of their identity. It's not "vote for me because I look like you" it's vote for me because you're white/black/Hispanic/male/female/gay/whatever. The Trump campaign's not very implicit message was "America was great when whites were in charge." That's white identity politics.
We're for women's rights and gay rights and minority rights and the rights of children is also identity politics. It did not appeal as much to white people in the right places.
Except Trump did better with minorities than Mitt Romney.
Trump made gains among blacks. He made gains among Latinos. He made gains among Asians. The only major racial group where he didn’t get a gain of greater than 5% was white people. I want to repeat that: the group where Trump’s message resonated least over what we would predict from a generic Republican was the white population.
Nor was there some surge in white turnout. I don’t think we have official numbers yet, but by eyeballing what data we have it looks very much like whites turned out in equal or lesser numbers this year than in 2012, 2008, and so on.
Stop using the words “white nationalist” to describe Trump. When you describe someone as a white nationalist, and then they win, people start thinking white nationalism won. People like winners. This was entirely an own-goal and the perception that white nationalism is now the winning team has 1% to do with Trump and 99% to do with his critics.
Stop turning everything into identity politics. The only thing the media has been able to do for the last five years is shout “IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS!” at everything, and then when the right wing finally says “Um, i…den-tity….poli-tics?” you freak out and figure that the only way they could have possibly learned that phrase is from the KKK.
Stop calling Trump voters racist. A metaphor: we have freedom of speech not because all speech is good, but because the temptation to ban speech is so great that, unless given a blanket prohibition, it would slide into universal censorship of any unpopular opinion. Likewise, I would recommend you stop calling Trump voters racist – not because none of them are, but because as soon as you give yourself that opportunity, it’s a slippery slope down to “anyone who disagrees with me on anything does so entirely out of raw seething hatred, and my entire outgroup is secret members of the KKK and so I am justified in considering them worthless human trash”. I’m not saying you’re teetering on the edge of that slope. I’m saying you’re way at the bottom, covered by dozens of feet of fallen rocks and snow. Also, I hear that accusing people of racism constantly for no reason is the best way to get them to vote for your candidate next time around. Assuming there is a next time.
Stop centering criticism of Donald Trump around this sort of stuff, and switch to literally anything else. Here is an incompetent thin-skinned ignorant boorish fraudulent omnihypocritical demagogue with no idea how to run a country, whose philosophy of governance basically boils down to “I’m going to win and not lose, details to be filled in later”, and all you can do is repeat, again and again, how he seems popular among weird Internet teenagers who post frog memes. In the middle of an emotionally incontinent reality TV show host getting his hand on the nuclear button, your chief complaint is that in the middle of a few dozen denunciations of the KKK, he once delayed denouncing the KKK for an entire 24 hours before going back to denouncing it again. When a guy who says outright that he won’t respect elections unless he wins them does, somehow, win an election, the headlines are how he once said he didn’t like globalists which means he must be anti-Semitic.
By painting Trump as a racist as part of her campaign tactics, Clinton basically divided America, and is directly responsible for the rise in racist attacks.
Wow. The "You made me this way, Dad!" theorem? The innovative application of the transitive property here is simply breathtaking. A Nobel Prize in mathematics is surely forthcoming.
Trump is a racist. You don't get a free pass on blaming the people who call you a racist for you actually being a racist. Having to hear the word "racist" didn't make you a damn racist any more than the words "radical Islamic terror" sends jihadists scurrying out of the blinding sunlight like vampires.
The country was divided far before Clinton ran her campaign. The intransigence of the division may be a cause of common pundit concern but its perpetuation is solidly on the side of the party whose leader throws a shit fit on Twitter because a multicultural cast pleaded with a future leader not to be forgotten in a new regime.
What you are doing is seeking vindication for a previously held conviction that talking about race is tantamount to the harm done by racism. That divison per se is demonstrably worse than the hierarchies of power that mask inequality and oppression with peaceful, superficial unity. That racism is a weapon of interpersonal hatred only, and not the invisible, unemotional binds of institutional assumptions that allow you to say, without apparent irony, "I wasn't racist until YOU reminded me that IT EXISTS"
Edit: to be a little clearer I am using "you" as a rhetorical device and not necessarily you, but sometimes you. About to go bed bye now so pls be assured that I'm not saying you, frostwood, are a racist.
No problem, I don't take things personally, especially over the internet.
I don't see Trump as a racist-nationalist yes, islamophobe yes, but not a racist. The Clinton campaign deliberately framed Trump and his as a racists, so everything he did was painted as racist.
Just like Trump framed Hillary as a 'crooked' politician. Everything thing she did was seen as dishonest or hiding the truth.
One framing affected one person, the other, an entire nation.
Disingenuous bullshit.
I mean, I'm tryin here, but come the fuck on. This argument is transparently broken. lets take your claim for granted. This is what you're trying to connect: "Trump is a racist nationalist* and islamophobe" --> "Clinton calling him a racist unleashed the forces of violent racism"
Right, ok, square that circle for me in a way that doesn't rely on "anyone who is a racist nationalist islamophobe can not be a factor in unleashing the forces of racism" or "racism is unleashed when a racist nationalist and islamophobe is called a racist"
Or how about you actually provide a definition of racism that isn't a floating set of goalposts narrowing on an infinitesimal quantum particle similtaneously located in the "not racist" and "racist nationalist" positions at the same time
I am not letting history get rewritten where Trump is not really a racist and where speaking out against racism makes Clinton THE REAL RACIST.
So these are not partisan hacks. The U of M guy is a big deal and a very serious person. And they're saying they have circumstantial evidence that Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania need recounts.
don't tease me ebum
Doesn't really matter. Obama and Clinton are both too scared of violating the sanctity of "the peaceful transition of power" to allow any action that might change the outcome of the election.
I kinda wonder if they "know" something we don't, like the world is about to end, so fuck it, it doesn't really matter anyway, but watching them completely lose all fight on Nov. 9th was heartbreaking.
I think it's calculated, if anything. At this point, all the evidence in the world wouldn't convince the GOP base that the results in those states were manipulated. Jesus could not convince them. The only outcome is chaos in the streets. Then you get a galvanized GOP Congress and 4 years of gridlock into another election that's also a mess because they'll keep accusing her of stealing POTUS. It would also affect the midterms for sure. That said, it's a stupid calculation - the SCOTUS seat(s) trump everything, because they're the only thing in play that can actually stop local GOP fuckery like NC (and especially in light of what the NC GOP looks to be pulling...).
Could also be calculation of "can we even do anything about it" - from what it sounds like, the best case scenario is those states have to do the election over again - you'd have no way to prove it was all Hillary votes in a way that would hold up. There is no procedure to handle something like this established.
But if it's anything it's because optics, which is the same reason you never see libel and slander called out on the campaign trail. The bar may be absurdly high in the US (in this case), but you do see statements that clear even that. But suing your opponent looks awful even if you're in the right, and so it doesn't happen. I would love it if people could overcome human nature enough to flip that calculation, but I don't have any hope for it really.
Class based movements always collapse in this country because race is used to destroy them.
This has happened a lot. It is not the immutable destiny of society.
Does explain why racial minorities might be skeptical of them though.
First rule of post-CRA Democratic politics: you need the black vote enthusiastically behind you to win.
They didn't show up for her. Any analysis of this election that doesn't focus hard on the failure to turn out the minority vote is useless. Maybe Sanders didn't have the right formula to get them to turn out, but repeating the approach Clinton took certainly won't work next time.
Bernie has been dismissing "demographic stuff" for years. He believes class divisions are the important thing and race/gender/sex/religion are not. That's a classic socialist blind spot. It can even be seen when he's talking about political strategy or this past election. Clinton won the working class. She didn't win the white working class. That's not a coincidence. He claim that people (read: Hillary) are saying "I'm a woman, vote for me" is sexist bullshit. His presentation of the working class as equivalent to the white working class is racist bullshit. His desire to reduce focus on social issues, on racial issues and on anything that doesn't fit into his stilted, narrow, false worldview is bullshit. Its also shitty political strategy.
Okay, yes she did win the working class. 52-41. That's not that great. Obama in 2012 won it 60-38. It was about 60-40 in 2008. Clinton in 96 won it about 55-40. Hell even Kerry pulled 52-45 and Gore did similar
The last Dem to lose the working class was Dukakis and he lost everything, it's about the margin
- "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."
- "If you look at his wife, she was standing there," he said, "She had nothing to say... Maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me."
- Proposed killing/torturing the families of terrorist suspects.
- Retweeted an anti-Semitic image featuring a star of David and tried to pass it off as a "basic star" or "sheriff's star".
- Failed for two days to disavow former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, claiming he didn't know who he was, despite also claiming he has "the world's greatest memory".
- Proposed surveying and shutting down mosques.
- Mocked a disabled reporter.
- Repeatedly said Hillary and Obama are the "founders" of ISIS.
- Mistook a Black Supporter at His Rally for a Protester and Called Him a “Thug”
Nah, man, it was totally about the economy.
Exactly right. A lot of people held their nose and voted for Trump because they liked what he had to say about the economy. More people voted for him without holding their nose, though, because they either didn't care or agreed with what he had to say (details below). Notice that Hillary Clinton didn't say any of those things but touted a business-as-usual approach to globalization and was crushed. Jobs and economic security > everything else, every time. The Clintons got that right back in the 90s but they were late to the game this time and that really hurt Hillary's chances.
Also as a (rather unorthodox) right-wing voter, and from talking to (right-wing) friends, family, coworkers, random strangers in lines etc., a good many people (myself included) would take no issue/agree with the majority of the above statements. Sample size a little over 20, not including me.
- "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."
The majority of illegal aliens are economic migrants trying to leave poverty back home. Most of them do not have college degrees and are not well off. Poverty breeds crime no matter the nationality.
Viewpoints- some people I talked to expressed concern that Mexico was offloading its poor onto us- basically, they come over here, take our jobs, get free healthcare and education, and send the money back home. It didn't come up with everyone, but when I asked for an example or explanation of the "drugs, crime, rapists" part most people I brought it up with immediately said "cartels". A lot of them were worried about the cartels being freely able to operate on both sides of the border ("a shame", "makes us look weak if we can't secure our borders" etc) and hoped that the Trump Wall would put an end to to most illegal drug smuggling. Ex. The Trump Wall would "make it harder for (the cartels) to bring in drugs".
When I brought up the so-called "sanctuary cities" policy everyone I talked to thought it was bullshit. Mainly for fairness reasons- when they commit a crime, they face the consequences, but when an illegal commits a crime, they get a free pass from bleeding-hearts. (Most people also went on a tangent here about how they pay for education and healthcare but illegals "get it for free") The Kate Steinle murder was brought up more than once and one person brought up the murder two weeks ago of Kayla Gomez-Arozco, a 10-year old in Texas. Most people said that they were confused as to why sanctuary cities existed.
I know about 4-ish openly racist people who were all "yeah! they're all lazy too", if that's helpful
- "If you look at his wife, she was standing there," he said, "She had nothing to say... Maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me."
"That's how it is over there", "That's their culture- the husband beats the woman", "I saw that back when I was in Iraq", that sort of thing. Patriarchy to the extent of extreme misogyny is an integral part of many Middle Eastern tribal cultures and people pick up on that. A lot of people brought up hijabs and burkas as examples- "they make them wear them" was mentioned by several people. About half the people I talked to were angry that he criticized the family of a dead soldier "(their) son was one of the good ones".
- Proposed killing/torturing the families of terrorist suspects.
Most everyone was fine with killing (when brought up as a hypothetical drone strike). Like two people were ok with torturing. Again, fairness- they get to attack our families but we have to leave theirs alone (that was a big one), bring the war to them, make the cost of terrorism high, etc. One person brought up World War 2- "We did it to the Germans".
- Retweeted an anti-Semitic image featuring a star of David and tried to pass it off as a "basic star" or "sheriff's star".
A lot of "he didn't know"s here. Personally I think he was just lazy, found something that looked good, and retweeted it. When the star of David was pointed out to him he (out of reflex/branding) didn't back down or apologize.
- Failed for two days to disavow former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, claiming he didn't know who he was, despite also claiming he has "the world's greatest memory".
This came up about five times. A couple people said that maybe Donald genuinely didn't know who David Duke was, one person said that Duke was a politician and that proved Washington was hypocritical, and the rest viewed it as a cynical vote-grabbing scheme (as do I). "(Trump) wanted their votes but he didn't want to support 'em, so he kept silent like Obama did with Bill Ayers and the Weathermen".
- Proposed surveilling and shutting down mosques.
"We have to find out which ones are terrorist mosques", "shut down the jihad ones", "not all of them are bad but a lot of them hate us", "they teach the kids to hate us", "send the terrorist ones back overseas" etc. Some of the out-and-out racists I talked to wanted to shut down all mosques but everyone else was of the belief that there are good, peaceful mosques (a small amount) and bad, jihadist mosques (a somewhat larger amount) and that we need to find out which are which. Personally I'm fine with putting mosques of fundamentalist sects under surveillance and shutting down the ones that promote violent jihad. If nothing else it'd prove the lie when a Deobandi cleric (teaches the same stuff as the Taliban) gets up in front of the cameras and claims to be peaceful and loving after a parishioner is inspired to go out and commits terrorism. *cough* gay nightclub shooting *cough*
- Mocked a disabled reporter.
Interestingly, no one this came up with thought this was ok.
- Repeatedly said Hillary and Obama are the "founders" of ISIS.
The racists and like two other people thought this was true on its face. One of them thought Benghazi had something to do with it. Everyone else I talked to about it brought up things like pulling out of Iraq and various things to do with Syria- "should have stayed out" and "not our problem" were mentioned frequently. Several were bitter about Bush invading Iraq.
- Mistook a Black Supporter at His Rally for a Protester and Called Him a “Thug”
BLM was brought up a lot before I emphasized the "supporter", at which point the non-racists admitted Trump had made a mistake. The racists were all "well they're all thugs!" etc.
I'm glad you found some people who don't believe they are racists and misogynists. Maybe they aren't! It does not change the fact that voting for Donald Trump was a racist and misogynist act. They did a racist and misogynist thing. They empowered a man who courted racists and misogynists, used racist and misogynist language, proposed racist and misogynist policies, hired racists and misogynists to run his campaign, and is now floating and/or confirming racist and misogynistic people to positions of power in his cabinet. Some voters might rationalize that, for them, it was all about "THE ECONOMY", but they shoulder a portion of the blame for every act of racism and misogyny perpetuated or inspired by his campaign and presidency. Every swastika graffitied on a church, every woman yelled at on the street, every latino kid beat up on the playground and told he or she is gonna get deported, every transgender teen that has committed suicide, every homosexual that loses their marriage, every minority voter that gets disenfranchised, every woman who is forced to pay for a funeral for a miscarriage or perform an abortion by coat hanger, every family broken by deportation squads, that's all on their shoulders. They get to own that shit.They supported it, they enabled it, they raised their hands in the air and with their votes said, "YES, I APPROVE OF THIS HATE!"
"Oh, I don't agree with all this violent rhetoric about the Jews being the source of all the nation's ills, but I really think this Adolf guy is gonna kick-start the economy and get me my old job back."
Yeah. Sure.
As a side note, every time I type "THE ECONOMY", I hear Gilbert Gottfried loudly yelling "THE ARISTOCRATS" in my head.
I don't think that is fair. There are tons of people who voted Hillary who would object strongly to having that vote characterized as supporting her foreign policy or her ties to Wall Street. Two party systems suck.
So these are not partisan hacks. The U of M guy is a big deal and a very serious person. And they're saying they have circumstantial evidence that Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania need recounts.
I don't understand how to read those charts of his. But I am going to assume they are probably accurate.
Sadly the story just hit CNN's website so it'll stick around for a bit to make the left look desperate.
A quick & dirty overview: one factor that would predict shenanigans regarding electronic ballots would be if those ballots showed a distinct skewing towards one candidate whereas paper-only ballots don't. A review of the counts in Penn, Michigan & Wisconsin do show this trend.
HOWEVER!
That is only one factor, and 538 shows that this factor can trivially be explained by controlling for voter ethnicity & education. Whether or not voter fraud occurred, this is not good evidence for it.
Ugh, those p-values look pretty bad for it, yeah.
I couldn't evaluate it more without knowing what the actual columns of the data are (specifically, I'm not 100% sure what clintonshift is, the others are probably census data)
- "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."
- "If you look at his wife, she was standing there," he said, "She had nothing to say... Maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me."
- Proposed killing/torturing the families of terrorist suspects.
- Retweeted an anti-Semitic image featuring a star of David and tried to pass it off as a "basic star" or "sheriff's star".
- Failed for two days to disavow former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, claiming he didn't know who he was, despite also claiming he has "the world's greatest memory".
- Proposed surveying and shutting down mosques.
- Mocked a disabled reporter.
- Repeatedly said Hillary and Obama are the "founders" of ISIS.
- Mistook a Black Supporter at His Rally for a Protester and Called Him a “Thug”
Nah, man, it was totally about the economy.
Exactly right. A lot of people held their nose and voted for Trump because they liked what he had to say about the economy. More people voted for him without holding their nose, though, because they either didn't care or agreed with what he had to say (details below). Notice that Hillary Clinton didn't say any of those things but touted a business-as-usual approach to globalization and was crushed. Jobs and economic security > everything else, every time. The Clintons got that right back in the 90s but they were late to the game this time and that really hurt Hillary's chances.
Also as a (rather unorthodox) right-wing voter, and from talking to (right-wing) friends, family, coworkers, random strangers in lines etc., a good many people (myself included) would take no issue/agree with the majority of the above statements. Sample size a little over 20, not including me.
- "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."
The majority of illegal aliens are economic migrants trying to leave poverty back home. Most of them do not have college degrees and are not well off. Poverty breeds crime no matter the nationality.
Viewpoints- some people I talked to expressed concern that Mexico was offloading its poor onto us- basically, they come over here, take our jobs, get free healthcare and education, and send the money back home. It didn't come up with everyone, but when I asked for an example or explanation of the "drugs, crime, rapists" part most people I brought it up with immediately said "cartels". A lot of them were worried about the cartels being freely able to operate on both sides of the border ("a shame", "makes us look weak if we can't secure our borders" etc) and hoped that the Trump Wall would put an end to to most illegal drug smuggling. Ex. The Trump Wall would "make it harder for (the cartels) to bring in drugs".
When I brought up the so-called "sanctuary cities" policy everyone I talked to thought it was bullshit. Mainly for fairness reasons- when they commit a crime, they face the consequences, but when an illegal commits a crime, they get a free pass from bleeding-hearts. (Most people also went on a tangent here about how they pay for education and healthcare but illegals "get it for free") The Kate Steinle murder was brought up more than once and one person brought up the murder two weeks ago of Kayla Gomez-Arozco, a 10-year old in Texas. Most people said that they were confused as to why sanctuary cities existed.
I know about 4-ish openly racist people who were all "yeah! they're all lazy too", if that's helpful
- "If you look at his wife, she was standing there," he said, "She had nothing to say... Maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me."
"That's how it is over there", "That's their culture- the husband beats the woman", "I saw that back when I was in Iraq", that sort of thing. Patriarchy to the extent of extreme misogyny is an integral part of many Middle Eastern tribal cultures and people pick up on that. A lot of people brought up hijabs and burkas as examples- "they make them wear them" was mentioned by several people. About half the people I talked to were angry that he criticized the family of a dead soldier "(their) son was one of the good ones".
- Proposed killing/torturing the families of terrorist suspects.
Most everyone was fine with killing (when brought up as a hypothetical drone strike). Like two people were ok with torturing. Again, fairness- they get to attack our families but we have to leave theirs alone (that was a big one), bring the war to them, make the cost of terrorism high, etc. One person brought up World War 2- "We did it to the Germans".
- Retweeted an anti-Semitic image featuring a star of David and tried to pass it off as a "basic star" or "sheriff's star".
A lot of "he didn't know"s here. Personally I think he was just lazy, found something that looked good, and retweeted it. When the star of David was pointed out to him he (out of reflex/branding) didn't back down or apologize.
- Failed for two days to disavow former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, claiming he didn't know who he was, despite also claiming he has "the world's greatest memory".
This came up about five times. A couple people said that maybe Donald genuinely didn't know who David Duke was, one person said that Duke was a politician and that proved Washington was hypocritical, and the rest viewed it as a cynical vote-grabbing scheme (as do I). "(Trump) wanted their votes but he didn't want to support 'em, so he kept silent like Obama did with Bill Ayers and the Weathermen".
- Proposed surveilling and shutting down mosques.
"We have to find out which ones are terrorist mosques", "shut down the jihad ones", "not all of them are bad but a lot of them hate us", "they teach the kids to hate us", "send the terrorist ones back overseas" etc. Some of the out-and-out racists I talked to wanted to shut down all mosques but everyone else was of the belief that there are good, peaceful mosques (a small amount) and bad, jihadist mosques (a somewhat larger amount) and that we need to find out which are which. Personally I'm fine with putting mosques of fundamentalist sects under surveillance and shutting down the ones that promote violent jihad. If nothing else it'd prove the lie when a Deobandi cleric (teaches the same stuff as the Taliban) gets up in front of the cameras and claims to be peaceful and loving after a parishioner is inspired to go out and commits terrorism. *cough* gay nightclub shooting *cough*
- Mocked a disabled reporter.
Interestingly, no one this came up with thought this was ok.
- Repeatedly said Hillary and Obama are the "founders" of ISIS.
The racists and like two other people thought this was true on its face. One of them thought Benghazi had something to do with it. Everyone else I talked to about it brought up things like pulling out of Iraq and various things to do with Syria- "should have stayed out" and "not our problem" were mentioned frequently. Several were bitter about Bush invading Iraq.
- Mistook a Black Supporter at His Rally for a Protester and Called Him a “Thug”
BLM was brought up a lot before I emphasized the "supporter", at which point the non-racists admitted Trump had made a mistake. The racists were all "well they're all thugs!" etc.
I'm glad you found some people who don't believe they are racists and misogynists. Maybe they aren't! It does not change the fact that voting for Donald Trump was a racist and misogynist act. They did a racist and misogynist thing. They empowered a man who courted racists and misogynists, used racist and misogynist language, proposed racist and misogynist policies, hired racists and misogynists to run his campaign, and is now floating and/or confirming racist and misogynistic people to positions of power in his cabinet. Some voters might rationalize that, for them, it was all about "THE ECONOMY", but they shoulder a portion of the blame for every act of racism and misogyny perpetuated or inspired by his campaign and presidency. Every swastika graffitied on a church, every woman yelled at on the street, every latino kid beat up on the playground and told he or she is gonna get deported, every transgender teen that has committed suicide, every homosexual that loses their marriage, every minority voter that gets disenfranchised, every woman who is forced to pay for a funeral for a miscarriage or perform an abortion by coat hanger, every family broken by deportation squads, that's all on their shoulders. They get to own that shit.They supported it, they enabled it, they raised their hands in the air and with their votes said, "YES, I APPROVE OF THIS HATE!"
"Oh, I don't agree with all this violent rhetoric about the Jews being the source of all the nation's ills, but I really think this Adolf guy is gonna kick-start the economy and get me my old job back."
Yeah. Sure.
As a side note, every time I type "THE ECONOMY", I hear Gilbert Gottfried loudly yelling "THE ARISTOCRATS" in my head.
I don't think that is fair. There are tons of people who voted Hillary who would object strongly to having that vote characterized as supporting her foreign policy or her ties to Wall Street. Two party systems suck.
Likewise, minorities didn't turn out to support Hillary in the same numbers as Obama; doesn't mean they're in favor of Trump's horseshit, despite not trying to stop him.
- "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."
- "If you look at his wife, she was standing there," he said, "She had nothing to say... Maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me."
- Proposed killing/torturing the families of terrorist suspects.
- Retweeted an anti-Semitic image featuring a star of David and tried to pass it off as a "basic star" or "sheriff's star".
- Failed for two days to disavow former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, claiming he didn't know who he was, despite also claiming he has "the world's greatest memory".
- Proposed surveying and shutting down mosques.
- Mocked a disabled reporter.
- Repeatedly said Hillary and Obama are the "founders" of ISIS.
- Mistook a Black Supporter at His Rally for a Protester and Called Him a “Thug”
Nah, man, it was totally about the economy.
Exactly right. A lot of people held their nose and voted for Trump because they liked what he had to say about the economy. More people voted for him without holding their nose, though, because they either didn't care or agreed with what he had to say (details below). Notice that Hillary Clinton didn't say any of those things but touted a business-as-usual approach to globalization and was crushed. Jobs and economic security > everything else, every time. The Clintons got that right back in the 90s but they were late to the game this time and that really hurt Hillary's chances.
Also as a (rather unorthodox) right-wing voter, and from talking to (right-wing) friends, family, coworkers, random strangers in lines etc., a good many people (myself included) would take no issue/agree with the majority of the above statements. Sample size a little over 20, not including me.
- "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."
The majority of illegal aliens are economic migrants trying to leave poverty back home. Most of them do not have college degrees and are not well off. Poverty breeds crime no matter the nationality.
Viewpoints- some people I talked to expressed concern that Mexico was offloading its poor onto us- basically, they come over here, take our jobs, get free healthcare and education, and send the money back home. It didn't come up with everyone, but when I asked for an example or explanation of the "drugs, crime, rapists" part most people I brought it up with immediately said "cartels". A lot of them were worried about the cartels being freely able to operate on both sides of the border ("a shame", "makes us look weak if we can't secure our borders" etc) and hoped that the Trump Wall would put an end to to most illegal drug smuggling. Ex. The Trump Wall would "make it harder for (the cartels) to bring in drugs".
When I brought up the so-called "sanctuary cities" policy everyone I talked to thought it was bullshit. Mainly for fairness reasons- when they commit a crime, they face the consequences, but when an illegal commits a crime, they get a free pass from bleeding-hearts. (Most people also went on a tangent here about how they pay for education and healthcare but illegals "get it for free") The Kate Steinle murder was brought up more than once and one person brought up the murder two weeks ago of Kayla Gomez-Arozco, a 10-year old in Texas. Most people said that they were confused as to why sanctuary cities existed.
I know about 4-ish openly racist people who were all "yeah! they're all lazy too", if that's helpful
- "If you look at his wife, she was standing there," he said, "She had nothing to say... Maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me."
"That's how it is over there", "That's their culture- the husband beats the woman", "I saw that back when I was in Iraq", that sort of thing. Patriarchy to the extent of extreme misogyny is an integral part of many Middle Eastern tribal cultures and people pick up on that. A lot of people brought up hijabs and burkas as examples- "they make them wear them" was mentioned by several people. About half the people I talked to were angry that he criticized the family of a dead soldier "(their) son was one of the good ones".
- Proposed killing/torturing the families of terrorist suspects.
Most everyone was fine with killing (when brought up as a hypothetical drone strike). Like two people were ok with torturing. Again, fairness- they get to attack our families but we have to leave theirs alone (that was a big one), bring the war to them, make the cost of terrorism high, etc. One person brought up World War 2- "We did it to the Germans".
- Retweeted an anti-Semitic image featuring a star of David and tried to pass it off as a "basic star" or "sheriff's star".
A lot of "he didn't know"s here. Personally I think he was just lazy, found something that looked good, and retweeted it. When the star of David was pointed out to him he (out of reflex/branding) didn't back down or apologize.
- Failed for two days to disavow former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, claiming he didn't know who he was, despite also claiming he has "the world's greatest memory".
This came up about five times. A couple people said that maybe Donald genuinely didn't know who David Duke was, one person said that Duke was a politician and that proved Washington was hypocritical, and the rest viewed it as a cynical vote-grabbing scheme (as do I). "(Trump) wanted their votes but he didn't want to support 'em, so he kept silent like Obama did with Bill Ayers and the Weathermen".
- Proposed surveilling and shutting down mosques.
"We have to find out which ones are terrorist mosques", "shut down the jihad ones", "not all of them are bad but a lot of them hate us", "they teach the kids to hate us", "send the terrorist ones back overseas" etc. Some of the out-and-out racists I talked to wanted to shut down all mosques but everyone else was of the belief that there are good, peaceful mosques (a small amount) and bad, jihadist mosques (a somewhat larger amount) and that we need to find out which are which. Personally I'm fine with putting mosques of fundamentalist sects under surveillance and shutting down the ones that promote violent jihad. If nothing else it'd prove the lie when a Deobandi cleric (teaches the same stuff as the Taliban) gets up in front of the cameras and claims to be peaceful and loving after a parishioner is inspired to go out and commits terrorism. *cough* gay nightclub shooting *cough*
- Mocked a disabled reporter.
Interestingly, no one this came up with thought this was ok.
- Repeatedly said Hillary and Obama are the "founders" of ISIS.
The racists and like two other people thought this was true on its face. One of them thought Benghazi had something to do with it. Everyone else I talked to about it brought up things like pulling out of Iraq and various things to do with Syria- "should have stayed out" and "not our problem" were mentioned frequently. Several were bitter about Bush invading Iraq.
- Mistook a Black Supporter at His Rally for a Protester and Called Him a “Thug”
BLM was brought up a lot before I emphasized the "supporter", at which point the non-racists admitted Trump had made a mistake. The racists were all "well they're all thugs!" etc.
I'm glad you found some people who don't believe they are racists and misogynists. Maybe they aren't! It does not change the fact that voting for Donald Trump was a racist and misogynist act. They did a racist and misogynist thing. They empowered a man who courted racists and misogynists, used racist and misogynist language, proposed racist and misogynist policies, hired racists and misogynists to run his campaign, and is now floating and/or confirming racist and misogynistic people to positions of power in his cabinet. Some voters might rationalize that, for them, it was all about "THE ECONOMY", but they shoulder a portion of the blame for every act of racism and misogyny perpetuated or inspired by his campaign and presidency. Every swastika graffitied on a church, every woman yelled at on the street, every latino kid beat up on the playground and told he or she is gonna get deported, every transgender teen that has committed suicide, every homosexual that loses their marriage, every minority voter that gets disenfranchised, every woman who is forced to pay for a funeral for a miscarriage or perform an abortion by coat hanger, every family broken by deportation squads, that's all on their shoulders. They get to own that shit.They supported it, they enabled it, they raised their hands in the air and with their votes said, "YES, I APPROVE OF THIS HATE!"
"Oh, I don't agree with all this violent rhetoric about the Jews being the source of all the nation's ills, but I really think this Adolf guy is gonna kick-start the economy and get me my old job back."
Yeah. Sure.
As a side note, every time I type "THE ECONOMY", I hear Gilbert Gottfried loudly yelling "THE ARISTOCRATS" in my head.
I don't think that is fair. There are tons of people who voted Hillary who would object strongly to having that vote characterized as supporting her foreign policy or her ties to Wall Street. Two party systems suck.
I... don't care? You can object all you want, but yeah, in a two party FPtP system, you're voting for the package. Compromise sucks and all that. The adult thing to do is own that and try to work to voice your opposition to the parts of the package you disagreed with.
I'm not seeing many R voters taking a stand against the wave of hate crimes since the election. Prominent GOP elected officials like Ryan and McConnell are being spineless and evasive about Bannon. You can bet your ass I'd have stood up in opposition to anything my candidate might have done that I disagreed with; where's this from all these "it was just about THE ECONOMY" voters?
Of course, my candidate wasn't proposing a bunch of heinous, unconstitutional shit with the goal of punishing brown people for being brown, so perhaps it was easier for me to vote and expect to have a clean conscious about it later?
Nah, I'm pretty much just ignoring when you make posts like that. You weren't looking for debate, you were doing that thing where you witch hunt and make it very personal and I have no desire to engage with that.
Yes, I was looking for a debate. There was plenty meat there in my posts for you to dissect and refute if you were inclined. And you're not just ignoring my posts, what about others like Hakke? If you don't trust my opinion respond to hers. She, and many other posters, are the ones who are expects on this more than I'll ever be. Their views should not be ignored lightly.
How was I making it personal? I can't get an angle on what avenue it would be personal to you. If you were a minority I'd take it with greater interest, but as far I know you aren't.
I was trying to learn your circumstances and see whether your opinion held up under scrutiny. You haven't fulfilled this task too many times to count. If you truly believe in your claims now's the time to speak, instead all it looks like I was right for you to concede so easily - which is disappointing to say the least. I know you can debate throughly when you feel like it.
And if I was, it being personal is hardly a reason to disengage. When people are personally invested in subjects is when many posters put forth some of their best arguments in debates. Because they are passion about something they care about.
This is very odd statement to make when I've participated you in a few threads about censorship/sexism where you've chaffed under the conditions here as being far too restrictive. You've always seemed to be the guy on the side for "telling it like it is." Has this changed?
This doesn't explain your absences or lack of participation against the the right wing in political threads, which hasn't been un noticed. If we're wrong, please tell us. You're not doing yourself any favors with your silence on that front. One thing I like about D & D is that we're fairly open with discussions, and yes sometimes it can difficult because we don't like ourselves to be dissected. Not that this is the only place on the internet who does this. Communication isn't to be feared.
What did you expect to happen when you posted such a, shall we say, controversial post about race relations? You're not a newbie, you know us and it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the reaction was going to be combative. So, why end the conversation there?
Hillary Clinton was the best candidate on the ballot in the general election, so I voted for her.
It doesn't mean I thought she was the best candidate possible.
As has been observed - she would have made an excellent president, she makes a poor campaigner, because campaigns are not evaluated on ability to be president because humans.
- "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."
- "If you look at his wife, she was standing there," he said, "She had nothing to say... Maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me."
- Proposed killing/torturing the families of terrorist suspects.
- Retweeted an anti-Semitic image featuring a star of David and tried to pass it off as a "basic star" or "sheriff's star".
- Failed for two days to disavow former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, claiming he didn't know who he was, despite also claiming he has "the world's greatest memory".
- Proposed surveying and shutting down mosques.
- Mocked a disabled reporter.
- Repeatedly said Hillary and Obama are the "founders" of ISIS.
- Mistook a Black Supporter at His Rally for a Protester and Called Him a “Thug”
Nah, man, it was totally about the economy.
Exactly right. A lot of people held their nose and voted for Trump because they liked what he had to say about the economy. More people voted for him without holding their nose, though, because they either didn't care or agreed with what he had to say (details below). Notice that Hillary Clinton didn't say any of those things but touted a business-as-usual approach to globalization and was crushed. Jobs and economic security > everything else, every time. The Clintons got that right back in the 90s but they were late to the game this time and that really hurt Hillary's chances.
Also as a (rather unorthodox) right-wing voter, and from talking to (right-wing) friends, family, coworkers, random strangers in lines etc., a good many people (myself included) would take no issue/agree with the majority of the above statements. Sample size a little over 20, not including me.
- "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."
The majority of illegal aliens are economic migrants trying to leave poverty back home. Most of them do not have college degrees and are not well off. Poverty breeds crime no matter the nationality.
Viewpoints- some people I talked to expressed concern that Mexico was offloading its poor onto us- basically, they come over here, take our jobs, get free healthcare and education, and send the money back home. It didn't come up with everyone, but when I asked for an example or explanation of the "drugs, crime, rapists" part most people I brought it up with immediately said "cartels". A lot of them were worried about the cartels being freely able to operate on both sides of the border ("a shame", "makes us look weak if we can't secure our borders" etc) and hoped that the Trump Wall would put an end to to most illegal drug smuggling. Ex. The Trump Wall would "make it harder for (the cartels) to bring in drugs".
When I brought up the so-called "sanctuary cities" policy everyone I talked to thought it was bullshit. Mainly for fairness reasons- when they commit a crime, they face the consequences, but when an illegal commits a crime, they get a free pass from bleeding-hearts. (Most people also went on a tangent here about how they pay for education and healthcare but illegals "get it for free") The Kate Steinle murder was brought up more than once and one person brought up the murder two weeks ago of Kayla Gomez-Arozco, a 10-year old in Texas. Most people said that they were confused as to why sanctuary cities existed.
I know about 4-ish openly racist people who were all "yeah! they're all lazy too", if that's helpful
- "If you look at his wife, she was standing there," he said, "She had nothing to say... Maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me."
"That's how it is over there", "That's their culture- the husband beats the woman", "I saw that back when I was in Iraq", that sort of thing. Patriarchy to the extent of extreme misogyny is an integral part of many Middle Eastern tribal cultures and people pick up on that. A lot of people brought up hijabs and burkas as examples- "they make them wear them" was mentioned by several people. About half the people I talked to were angry that he criticized the family of a dead soldier "(their) son was one of the good ones".
- Proposed killing/torturing the families of terrorist suspects.
Most everyone was fine with killing (when brought up as a hypothetical drone strike). Like two people were ok with torturing. Again, fairness- they get to attack our families but we have to leave theirs alone (that was a big one), bring the war to them, make the cost of terrorism high, etc. One person brought up World War 2- "We did it to the Germans".
- Retweeted an anti-Semitic image featuring a star of David and tried to pass it off as a "basic star" or "sheriff's star".
A lot of "he didn't know"s here. Personally I think he was just lazy, found something that looked good, and retweeted it. When the star of David was pointed out to him he (out of reflex/branding) didn't back down or apologize.
- Failed for two days to disavow former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, claiming he didn't know who he was, despite also claiming he has "the world's greatest memory".
This came up about five times. A couple people said that maybe Donald genuinely didn't know who David Duke was, one person said that Duke was a politician and that proved Washington was hypocritical, and the rest viewed it as a cynical vote-grabbing scheme (as do I). "(Trump) wanted their votes but he didn't want to support 'em, so he kept silent like Obama did with Bill Ayers and the Weathermen".
- Proposed surveilling and shutting down mosques.
"We have to find out which ones are terrorist mosques", "shut down the jihad ones", "not all of them are bad but a lot of them hate us", "they teach the kids to hate us", "send the terrorist ones back overseas" etc. Some of the out-and-out racists I talked to wanted to shut down all mosques but everyone else was of the belief that there are good, peaceful mosques (a small amount) and bad, jihadist mosques (a somewhat larger amount) and that we need to find out which are which. Personally I'm fine with putting mosques of fundamentalist sects under surveillance and shutting down the ones that promote violent jihad. If nothing else it'd prove the lie when a Deobandi cleric (teaches the same stuff as the Taliban) gets up in front of the cameras and claims to be peaceful and loving after a parishioner is inspired to go out and commits terrorism. *cough* gay nightclub shooting *cough*
- Mocked a disabled reporter.
Interestingly, no one this came up with thought this was ok.
- Repeatedly said Hillary and Obama are the "founders" of ISIS.
The racists and like two other people thought this was true on its face. One of them thought Benghazi had something to do with it. Everyone else I talked to about it brought up things like pulling out of Iraq and various things to do with Syria- "should have stayed out" and "not our problem" were mentioned frequently. Several were bitter about Bush invading Iraq.
- Mistook a Black Supporter at His Rally for a Protester and Called Him a “Thug”
BLM was brought up a lot before I emphasized the "supporter", at which point the non-racists admitted Trump had made a mistake. The racists were all "well they're all thugs!" etc.
I'm glad you found some people who don't believe they are racists and misogynists. Maybe they aren't! It does not change the fact that voting for Donald Trump was a racist and misogynist act. They did a racist and misogynist thing. They empowered a man who courted racists and misogynists, used racist and misogynist language, proposed racist and misogynist policies, hired racists and misogynists to run his campaign, and is now floating and/or confirming racist and misogynistic people to positions of power in his cabinet. Some voters might rationalize that, for them, it was all about "THE ECONOMY", but they shoulder a portion of the blame for every act of racism and misogyny perpetuated or inspired by his campaign and presidency. Every swastika graffitied on a church, every woman yelled at on the street, every latino kid beat up on the playground and told he or she is gonna get deported, every transgender teen that has committed suicide, every homosexual that loses their marriage, every minority voter that gets disenfranchised, every woman who is forced to pay for a funeral for a miscarriage or perform an abortion by coat hanger, every family broken by deportation squads, that's all on their shoulders. They get to own that shit.They supported it, they enabled it, they raised their hands in the air and with their votes said, "YES, I APPROVE OF THIS HATE!"
"Oh, I don't agree with all this violent rhetoric about the Jews being the source of all the nation's ills, but I really think this Adolf guy is gonna kick-start the economy and get me my old job back."
Yeah. Sure.
As a side note, every time I type "THE ECONOMY", I hear Gilbert Gottfried loudly yelling "THE ARISTOCRATS" in my head.
I don't think that is fair. There are tons of people who voted Hillary who would object strongly to having that vote characterized as supporting her foreign policy or her ties to Wall Street. Two party systems suck.
I... don't care? You can object all you want, but yeah, in a two party FPtP system, you're voting for the package. Compromise sucks and all that. The adult thing to do is own that and try to work to voice your opposition to the parts of the package you disagreed with.
I'm not seeing many R voters taking a stand against the wave of hate crimes since the election. Prominent GOP elected officials like Ryan and McConnell are being spineless and evasive about Bannon. You can bet your ass I'd have stood up in opposition to anything my candidate might have done that I disagreed with; where's this from all these "it was just about THE ECONOMY" voters?
Of course, my candidate wasn't proposing a bunch of heinous, unconstitutional shit with the goal of punishing brown people for being brown, so perhaps it was easier for me to vote and expect to have a clean conscious about it later?
We're getting pretty firmly into "fuck those guys"/absolutes territory, and while I understand the sentiment, and I appreciate that it can be cathartic to express anger, I'm just not sure what good it does long-term. Obama didn't run on a campaign of "holy shit these people suck". He ran on being the President for everybody in these United States, and yes, that includes bigots.
Hillary gave us all the warm fuzzies when she did her "deplorables" comment but if you are of the opinion that it had anything but a negative effect on the people she actually needed to win over in order to be elected and craft policy, we were watching two different elections.
I'm not saying we can't fight bigotry. I'm saying we need to be smarter about it.
Hillary Clinton was the best candidate on the ballot in the general election, so I voted for her.
It doesn't mean I thought she was the best candidate possible.
As has been observed - she would have made an excellent president, she makes a poor campaigner in just enough states with inflated importance due to the Electoral College that she lost despite winning the popular vote by a historically large margin for a candidate that lost the election, because campaigns are not evaluated on ability to be president because humans.
Hillary could have won an Oscar, an Emmy, a GameFaqs poll and Jeopardy and she still wouldn't be President. The Electoral College blows, but if she wanted to win, she should have focused more on the Rust Belt, because those votes clearly mattered more in a practical sense than the millions of votes in places that don't win her any more EVs.
+2
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Hillary gave us all the warm fuzzies when she did her "deplorables" comment but if you are of the opinion that it had anything but a negative effect on the people she actually needed to win over in order to be elected and craft policy, we were watching two different elections.
It's going to take a lot more effort to convince one of the 55% people who voted to change their vote next time than it is to convince some of the 45% people who did not vote to actually vote next time.
The people included in the "deplorables" statement do not bear thinking about. As far as I'm concerned the strategy for the democrats should be to appeal with more passion to their own base to get them to get out and vote rather than stay home. Appealing to racist Trump voters is not necessary. They do not bear thinking about, their opinions are not worth considering, and as far as I'm concerned the only time we ought think about them is when we wonder idly how much longer it will take for them all to die and stop holding the country back.
if she wanted to win, she should have focused more on the Rust Belt, because those votes clearly mattered more in a practical sense than the millions of votes in places that don't win her any more EVs.
This is true only in the sense that she should have focused more on increasing Democrat voter turnout in those areas. Not in trying to change the votes of people who ultimately voted Trump.
Nah, I'm pretty much just ignoring when you make posts like that. You weren't looking for debate, you were doing that thing where you witch hunt and make it very personal and I have no desire to engage with that.
Yes, I was looking for a debate. There was plenty meat there in my posts for you to dissect and refute if you were inclined. And you're not just ignoring my posts, what about others like Hakke? If you don't trust my opinion respond to hers. She, and many other posters, are the ones who are expects on this more than I'll ever be. Their views should not be ignored lightly.
How was I making it personal? I can't get an angle on what avenue it would be personal to you. If you were a minority I'd take it with greater interest, but as far I know you aren't.
I was trying to learn your circumstances and see whether your opinion held up under scrutiny. You haven't fulfilled this task too many times to count. If you truly believe in your claims now's the time to speak, instead all it looks like I was right for you to concede so easily - which is disappointing to say the least. I know you can debate throughly when you feel like it.
And if I was, it being personal is hardly a reason to disengage. When people are personally invested in subjects is when many posters put forth some of their best arguments in debates. Because they are passion about something they care about.
This is very odd statement to make when I've participated you in a few threads about censorship/sexism where you've chaffed under the conditions here as being far too restrictive. You've always seemed to be the guy on the side for "telling it like it is." Has this changed?
This doesn't explain your absences or lack of participation against the the right wing in political threads, which hasn't been un noticed. If we're wrong, please tell us. You're not doing yourself any favors with your silence on that front. One thing I like about D & D is that we're fairly open with discussions, and yes sometimes it can difficult because we don't like ourselves to be dissected. Not that this is the only place on the internet who does this. Communication isn't to be feared.
What did you expect to happen when you posted such a, shall we say, controversial post about race relations? You're not a newbie, you know us and it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the reaction was going to be combative. So, why end the conversation there?
You have a tendency to make things very personal, and this has not gotten better since Clinton lost (I know you were pulling for her hard). Hell, look at your post here: "you haven't fulfilled this task too many times to count". OK lol. Looking for debate. Right. As to the rest, look at what you;re doing. The meat of your post isn't even about things I've said, it's about being the inquisitor as to my posting habits what threads I do or do not participate in.
If this was your first time doing this with me, I'd probably say something like I have a new girlfriend, it's been busy at work since the holiday season ramped up, I ahve a new hobby and started a new MMO, and so I haven't really participated much until the enormity of this election and its consequences drew me back in. But it's not the first time, it's you, looking for a fight again, and as such I was 100% happy to ignore it and let the thread carry on.
Other people managed to engage me in these threads without being geese about it, so all this indignation falls flat, Harry.
EDIT: I've argued my opinions for literally over 60 pages in some threads, I don't mind doing that when I have the time and I feel the other person isn't a brick wall to what I'm saying. If you feel I judged your post harshly in this instance for that I do apologize, but when I read it at work the first thing that came into my mind was "oh god, this dance again" and dropped it. If you're really want to get back into it, I'll see about writing something up here, or if the thread's moved too far forward PM can also work.
Posts
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Everything is Clinton's fault from the beginning of the world until the end of time.
Everything was going hunky dory until Hillary Clinton used bleachbit on the tree of knowledge and deleted a whole apple computer full of emails
Wait, aren't we on the Blame Bernie part of this cycle again?
Anything Bernie says or does that people don't like can ultimately be tied back to the fact that Hillary made him do it, somehow.
Glad that you finally took the time to join us today, Frankie. I'm looking forward to your replies to my previous posts soon.
No, it isn't that "time" again. I was merely pointing out what Bernie's position in politics is right now, which is hardly tea and biscuits as you know.
So I think that this is mostly bullshit -- more of the same venomous nonsense you've been spewing since the primary threads. The bolded, specifically, is pungent bullshit. Bernie Sanders certainly emphasizes class; this is a good thing, because class is almost always de-emphasized in our political discourse. He's banging that drum because basically no one else in positions of prominence bring it up. (Yes, you can point to some good policies that Hillary Clinton had on her website, but if you honestly believe she campaigned as an economic progressive you are viewing this election through a strange lens; her message focused on her own resume and Trump's odious character.) He has never framed the fight for justice as an either-or proposition between the rights of minorities and economic equality. He correctly sees that these things go hand in hand.
Why are we talking about these things as a choice? Why does it always come down to this false dichotomy? It is not Bernie Sanders's fault. He is never saying "not just X, but X plus Y." Yet the response is always, "How dare you suggest we forget about X?"
I am not sure what great evil you think is going to happen if the Democrats go ahead and run with a message emphasizing class politics. Just who exactly in the Democratic coalition is going to be turned off by that? Will better healthcare drive out feminists? Will stronger job protections turn off immigrants? Are young people going to stop turning out because of a more progressive tax code? Are queer people going to leave the coalition because it's easier to get social assistance? Will black people stop voting Democrat if we stop invading foreign countries?
Nah, I'm pretty much just ignoring when you make posts like that. You weren't looking for debate, you were doing that thing where you witch hunt and make it very personal and I have no desire to engage with that.
That's quite uncharitable, but I will note I was trying to jest and lighten the mood. Perhaps too subtle on my part, apologies.
Generally when race stops being emphasized in policy, minorities "somehow" get left behind.
Bernies underlying assumption that has some of us up in arms is that minority politicians need to prove themselves in some way, because the default assumption is that they have gotten to where they are on the backs of affirmative action.
MWO: Adamski
Is this a serious post?
For example (and this is not Bernie specific) note how basically everyone in our political system used "working class" as shorthand for white working class during this election. America's fundamental divide is race, Europe's is class. I think we need to examine the politics of each through those respective lenses.
This has happened a lot. It is not the immutable destiny of society.
Does explain why racial minorities might be skeptical of them though.
First rule of post-CRA Democratic politics: you need the black vote enthusiastically behind you to win.
Look at phenomena like Unite Here's victories in Nevada (a rare green shoot in this election), the Fight for 15 movement, and the recent victory of the Harvard janitor and kitchen workers strike. These are all vital working-class movements in which racial minorities are in the driver's seat. The idea that working class equals white is not an idea coming from socialists!
No problem, I don't take things personally, especially over the internet.
I don't see Trump as a racist-nationalist yes, islamophobe yes, but not a racist. The Clinton campaign deliberately framed Trump and his as a racists, so everything he did was painted as racist.
Just like Trump framed Hillary as a 'crooked' politician. Everything thing she did was seen as dishonest or hiding the truth.
One framing affected one person, the other, an entire nation.
I'm glad you found some people who don't believe they are racists and misogynists. Maybe they aren't! It does not change the fact that voting for Donald Trump was a racist and misogynist act. They did a racist and misogynist thing. They empowered a man who courted racists and misogynists, used racist and misogynist language, proposed racist and misogynist policies, hired racists and misogynists to run his campaign, and is now floating and/or confirming racist and misogynistic people to positions of power in his cabinet. Some voters might rationalize that, for them, it was all about "THE ECONOMY", but they shoulder a portion of the blame for every act of racism and misogyny perpetuated or inspired by his campaign and presidency. Every swastika graffitied on a church, every woman yelled at on the street, every latino kid beat up on the playground and told he or she is gonna get deported, every transgender teen that has committed suicide, every homosexual that loses their marriage, every minority voter that gets disenfranchised, every woman who is forced to pay for a funeral for a miscarriage or perform an abortion by coat hanger, every family broken by deportation squads, that's all on their shoulders. They get to own that shit. They supported it, they enabled it, they raised their hands in the air and with their votes said, "YES, I APPROVE OF THIS HATE!"
"Oh, I don't agree with all this violent rhetoric about the Jews being the source of all the nation's ills, but I really think this Adolf guy is gonna kick-start the economy and get me my old job back."
Yeah. Sure.
As a side note, every time I type "THE ECONOMY", I hear Gilbert Gottfried loudly yelling "THE ARISTOCRATS" in my head.
Hillary has over a million and a half more votes than Trump. More of America was on board with her message; they just weren't in the right places to matter.
Sadly, most of America didn't actually vote.
Voter suppression in North Carolina was real, at least. I wouldn't mind that being investigated and have a light shone on it.
July 2015 June 2014 behind a paywall 2014 2013 2014
edit
Added two more quotations. But this is what is going to be the question about the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders wants to change it to be a populist, leftist economic but socially moderate and "demographically" agnostic party, Obama/Clinton/et al want it to be a socially liberal, economically liberal party that is also strongly dedicated to diversity and equality along racial/ethnic/gender/sexuality lines
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Disingenuous bullshit.
I mean, I'm tryin here, but come the fuck on. This argument is transparently broken. lets take your claim for granted. This is what you're trying to connect: "Trump is a racist nationalist* and islamophobe" --> "Clinton calling him a racist unleashed the forces of violent racism"
Right, ok, square that circle for me in a way that doesn't rely on "anyone who is a racist nationalist islamophobe can not be a factor in unleashing the forces of racism" or "racism is unleashed when a racist nationalist and islamophobe is called a racist"
Or how about you actually provide a definition of racism that isn't a floating set of goalposts narrowing on an infinitesimal quantum particle similtaneously located in the "not racist" and "racist nationalist" positions at the same time
I am not letting history get rewritten where Trump is not really a racist and where speaking out against racism makes Clinton THE REAL RACIST.
*lol
NNID: Hakkekage
I think it's calculated, if anything. At this point, all the evidence in the world wouldn't convince the GOP base that the results in those states were manipulated. Jesus could not convince them. The only outcome is chaos in the streets. Then you get a galvanized GOP Congress and 4 years of gridlock into another election that's also a mess because they'll keep accusing her of stealing POTUS. It would also affect the midterms for sure. That said, it's a stupid calculation - the SCOTUS seat(s) trump everything, because they're the only thing in play that can actually stop local GOP fuckery like NC (and especially in light of what the NC GOP looks to be pulling...).
Could also be calculation of "can we even do anything about it" - from what it sounds like, the best case scenario is those states have to do the election over again - you'd have no way to prove it was all Hillary votes in a way that would hold up. There is no procedure to handle something like this established.
But if it's anything it's because optics, which is the same reason you never see libel and slander called out on the campaign trail. The bar may be absurdly high in the US (in this case), but you do see statements that clear even that. But suing your opponent looks awful even if you're in the right, and so it doesn't happen. I would love it if people could overcome human nature enough to flip that calculation, but I don't have any hope for it really.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
They didn't show up for her. Any analysis of this election that doesn't focus hard on the failure to turn out the minority vote is useless. Maybe Sanders didn't have the right formula to get them to turn out, but repeating the approach Clinton took certainly won't work next time.
Okay, yes she did win the working class. 52-41. That's not that great. Obama in 2012 won it 60-38. It was about 60-40 in 2008. Clinton in 96 won it about 55-40. Hell even Kerry pulled 52-45 and Gore did similar
The last Dem to lose the working class was Dukakis and he lost everything, it's about the margin
I don't think that is fair. There are tons of people who voted Hillary who would object strongly to having that vote characterized as supporting her foreign policy or her ties to Wall Street. Two party systems suck.
Ugh, those p-values look pretty bad for it, yeah.
I couldn't evaluate it more without knowing what the actual columns of the data are (specifically, I'm not 100% sure what clintonshift is, the others are probably census data)
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Likewise, minorities didn't turn out to support Hillary in the same numbers as Obama; doesn't mean they're in favor of Trump's horseshit, despite not trying to stop him.
It doesn't mean I thought she was the best candidate possible.
I... don't care? You can object all you want, but yeah, in a two party FPtP system, you're voting for the package. Compromise sucks and all that. The adult thing to do is own that and try to work to voice your opposition to the parts of the package you disagreed with.
I'm not seeing many R voters taking a stand against the wave of hate crimes since the election. Prominent GOP elected officials like Ryan and McConnell are being spineless and evasive about Bannon. You can bet your ass I'd have stood up in opposition to anything my candidate might have done that I disagreed with; where's this from all these "it was just about THE ECONOMY" voters?
Of course, my candidate wasn't proposing a bunch of heinous, unconstitutional shit with the goal of punishing brown people for being brown, so perhaps it was easier for me to vote and expect to have a clean conscious about it later?
Yes, I was looking for a debate. There was plenty meat there in my posts for you to dissect and refute if you were inclined. And you're not just ignoring my posts, what about others like Hakke? If you don't trust my opinion respond to hers. She, and many other posters, are the ones who are expects on this more than I'll ever be. Their views should not be ignored lightly.
How was I making it personal? I can't get an angle on what avenue it would be personal to you. If you were a minority I'd take it with greater interest, but as far I know you aren't.
I was trying to learn your circumstances and see whether your opinion held up under scrutiny. You haven't fulfilled this task too many times to count. If you truly believe in your claims now's the time to speak, instead all it looks like I was right for you to concede so easily - which is disappointing to say the least. I know you can debate throughly when you feel like it.
And if I was, it being personal is hardly a reason to disengage. When people are personally invested in subjects is when many posters put forth some of their best arguments in debates. Because they are passion about something they care about.
This is very odd statement to make when I've participated you in a few threads about censorship/sexism where you've chaffed under the conditions here as being far too restrictive. You've always seemed to be the guy on the side for "telling it like it is." Has this changed?
This doesn't explain your absences or lack of participation against the the right wing in political threads, which hasn't been un noticed. If we're wrong, please tell us. You're not doing yourself any favors with your silence on that front. One thing I like about D & D is that we're fairly open with discussions, and yes sometimes it can difficult because we don't like ourselves to be dissected. Not that this is the only place on the internet who does this. Communication isn't to be feared.
What did you expect to happen when you posted such a, shall we say, controversial post about race relations? You're not a newbie, you know us and it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the reaction was going to be combative. So, why end the conversation there?
As has been observed - she would have made an excellent president, she makes a poor campaigner, because campaigns are not evaluated on ability to be president because humans.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
We're getting pretty firmly into "fuck those guys"/absolutes territory, and while I understand the sentiment, and I appreciate that it can be cathartic to express anger, I'm just not sure what good it does long-term. Obama didn't run on a campaign of "holy shit these people suck". He ran on being the President for everybody in these United States, and yes, that includes bigots.
Hillary gave us all the warm fuzzies when she did her "deplorables" comment but if you are of the opinion that it had anything but a negative effect on the people she actually needed to win over in order to be elected and craft policy, we were watching two different elections.
I'm not saying we can't fight bigotry. I'm saying we need to be smarter about it.
It's going to take a lot more effort to convince one of the 55% people who voted to change their vote next time than it is to convince some of the 45% people who did not vote to actually vote next time.
The people included in the "deplorables" statement do not bear thinking about. As far as I'm concerned the strategy for the democrats should be to appeal with more passion to their own base to get them to get out and vote rather than stay home. Appealing to racist Trump voters is not necessary. They do not bear thinking about, their opinions are not worth considering, and as far as I'm concerned the only time we ought think about them is when we wonder idly how much longer it will take for them all to die and stop holding the country back.
This is true only in the sense that she should have focused more on increasing Democrat voter turnout in those areas. Not in trying to change the votes of people who ultimately voted Trump.
You have a tendency to make things very personal, and this has not gotten better since Clinton lost (I know you were pulling for her hard). Hell, look at your post here: "you haven't fulfilled this task too many times to count". OK lol. Looking for debate. Right. As to the rest, look at what you;re doing. The meat of your post isn't even about things I've said, it's about being the inquisitor as to my posting habits what threads I do or do not participate in.
If this was your first time doing this with me, I'd probably say something like I have a new girlfriend, it's been busy at work since the holiday season ramped up, I ahve a new hobby and started a new MMO, and so I haven't really participated much until the enormity of this election and its consequences drew me back in. But it's not the first time, it's you, looking for a fight again, and as such I was 100% happy to ignore it and let the thread carry on.
Other people managed to engage me in these threads without being geese about it, so all this indignation falls flat, Harry.
EDIT: I've argued my opinions for literally over 60 pages in some threads, I don't mind doing that when I have the time and I feel the other person isn't a brick wall to what I'm saying. If you feel I judged your post harshly in this instance for that I do apologize, but when I read it at work the first thing that came into my mind was "oh god, this dance again" and dropped it. If you're really want to get back into it, I'll see about writing something up here, or if the thread's moved too far forward PM can also work.