.
You know what does need to be said? You're a spineless coward, Bernie, a loathsome opportunistic hack willing to throw the ideals of this party and this nation under the bus for the cheap and empty validation of an "I told you so". So I hope you can hear me when I say: Fuck Off. Get out of my party.
Jesus christers are you people high? Like, do all of y'all post with the mouse in one hand and a doobie in the other? I can't imagine a more clear-cut case of missing the point.
He's not saying that electing minority candidates is bad he's saying that they have to have something else to recommend them other than the color of their skin. "Vote for me because I'm X" failed. It's offensive to both voter intelligence and anyone who is not X, because it assumes being X is better than being Y, because why else would you make it your primary argument?
"Vote for me because I'm a woman!" Sounds great, right? We all want more women in politics. But that statement could be from both Elizabeth Warren and Ann Coulter. Policy matters immensely. Identity politics alone made Clarence Thomas a Supreme Court Justice.
Also if you're saying that calling for more progressive politicians is "throwing the ideals of the Democratic Party under the bus" then fuck the Democratic party. That attitude towards progressivism is why you lost and will continue to lose.
So, let me ask you this:
Who, on the Democratic Ticket, ran a "Vote for me because I'm X" campaign this year?
Sanders wasn't really talking about Hillary Clinton's campaign, or any other actually-existing campaign. He was talking about a hypothetical in response to a question written by someone in the audience. The question was, "I want to be the second Latina senator in U.S. history. Any tips?"
He answered that question by saying, "It goes without saying that as we fight to end all forms of discrimination, as we fight to bring more and more women into the political process—Latinas, African-Americans, Native Americans—all of that is enormously important, and count me in as somebody who wants to see that happen... But it is not good enough for somebody to say, 'Hey, I’m a Latina. Vote for me.' That is not good enough. I have to know whether that Latina is going to stand up with the working class of this country and is going to take on big-money interests."
His comment strikes me as obviously, uncontroversially true: it's a good thing to get more women and minorities into the political process, but they must also support good policies. This is something that pretty much everyone on this forum believes. Nevertheless the comment drove you ballistic because you were exceedingly eager to read it in the worst possible light and didn't bother to check the context.
Why do you think she ran away from her own position on TPP? It's electoral poison in the rust belt.
Why is fre trade a bad thing is the question I'm asking, since you say it in the same breath as the bullshit about deregulating Wall St.
It's bad insofar as it creates an incentive to relocate jobs out of the U.S. and, at least as implemented thus far, does nothing for the newly-jobless beyond empty promises of retraining. For the purposes of this thread, it's bad because supporting it hurts you in Wisconsin and Michigan.
But neither of those are necessarily true.
Well, the second is partially accurate in that free trade isn't specifically about retraining, that's a completely different policy issue. One that, oh look, Clinton addressed in her policy proposals. It's effectiveness is questionable, but that's again not related to free trade.
The main assertion is highly questionable though as it's unclear what that has to do with areas like WI and MI you mentioned since automation is just as obvious a source of their problems. And protectionism has little evidence for it's effectiveness from anything I've seen.
Like, you can argue we need to do better dealing with the effects of the changing economy but that doesn't make free trade a bad thing.
I'm not arguing for or against free trade. I'm saying her history on the issue and inability to pivot cost her lots of votes. This is from today's Washington Post:
YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio—Back in May, the longtime chairman of the Mahoning County Democratic Party sent a private memo to leaders in Hillary Clinton’s campaign warning that she was in grave danger of losing not just Ohio but also Pennsylvania and Michigan unless she quickly re-tooled her message on trade. His advice went unheeded.
“I don’t have to make the case that blue collar voters are, to put it mildly, less than enthusiastic about HRC’s positions on trade and the economy,” David Betras wrote in his 1,300 word missive, citing her struggles in recent primaries.
Donald Trump’s protectionist message was already resonating very strongly in this epicenter of the Rust Belt. Gov. John Kasich may have won Ohio’s Republican primary as a favorite son, but Trump whipped him in more than a dozen counties along the Ohio River. More than a quarter of the people who voted in the March Republican primary in Mahoning County were previously registered as Democrats. In fact, Betras had to kick 18 members off his own Democratic central committee for crossing over to back Trump.
“More than two decades after its enactment, NAFTA remains a red flag for area voters who rightly or wrongly blame trade for the devastating job losses that took place at Packard Electric, GM, GE, numerous steel companies, as well as the firms that supplied those major employers,” Betras, a practicing attorney, tried to explain to the Clinton high command. “Thousands of workers in Ohio … continue to qualify for Trade Readjustment Act assistance because their jobs are being shipped overseas.”
The local chairman feels very strongly now that Clinton could have won Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan if she had just kept her eye on economic issues and not gotten distracted by the culture wars.
“Look, I’m as progressive as anybody, okay? But people in the heartland thought the Democratic Party cared more about where someone else went to the restroom than whether they had a good-paying job,” he complained. “‘Stronger together’ doesn’t get anyone a job.”
What exactly is the evidence she wants to deregulate Wall Street? Especially given her policy proposals? Cause that was your original assertion.
You mean other than a literal vote to deregulate the financial sector as a US Senator? I probably can't answer the question to your satisfaction if you're not willing to accept that piece of evidence. All I will say is that if you want more information, read up on third way Democrats and the DLC.
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.
We can't go into 2020 writing off rural whites again; that's 100% how we lost this election.
We need to both find a way to appeal to those voters (at least the ones who can be appealed to), while at the same time appealing to minority voters who showed up for Obama but sat this one out. We might be able to win with one or the other; but putting all of our eggs in one basket is a bad idea, as we've seen.
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.
Hillary didn't "paint" Trump as anything except what he was, and she literally had a mountain of material to prove this.
America is already divided by racism, she merely acknowledged the elephant in the room. This is an odd argument as it relies on America naturally coming together by ignoring racism. Which is not a thing in any nation or culture I know, certainly not America.
If you have an argument how Trump, his campaign and his incoming administration isn't racist I'd like to hear the process how you came to that conclusion.
Acknowledging racism isn't what encourages racists to be embolden, having like minded politicians and figures and racism inclined policies gets them enthused. This has been what Trump has been doing from day one. And it's a huge reason he was able to be president. Stoking the fires of Racism is an age old tactic for politicians to get populations behind them.
Want to know a recent example? Post-Brexit UK. Two words: Nigel Farage.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, comrade.
Edit: When people vote in racists there are consequences for how people view them. And say I believe you they aren't racist, so what? They still held their nose and voted for him. You get all of Trump when he becomes president - he won't leave his racist opinions at the door.
Edit 2: if you don't think Trump is racist now, what does he have to do to change your mind? What's the litmus test here?
Trump doing well with minoritirs isn't proof he isn't a racist or white supremacist, they can like him for other reasons. They can be racist too, or seeing Trump as an obstacle for rivals groups or they might think they're safe because they're "One of the good ones."
I could Godwin this so easily with the Japanese in WW 2, as well. Or The Soviet Union before they joined the allies. Not everyone on the nazis side was a nazi, you know.
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.
80% of Hillary's attacks on Trump consisted of quoting him verbatim on video.
This increased the echo chamber of both sides, giving liberals a false sense of security while simultaneously preventing them from seeing the echo chamber on the opposite end which relied heavily on fake news sites.
And Hillary supporters weren't alone in that. Lots of Bernie supporters would complain that they couldn't name a single person who was pro-Hillary, for similar reasons.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, 2016 has also claimed both Poe and Godwin's Law. This fuckin year...
Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1"
I'd like to propose a new one.
Trump's Law: "As a democracy ages, the probability of devolving into Nazi-style fascism approaches 1"
Yeah.... no
Sorry but a sample size of barely 1 and not yet 2 does not a rule make. You're not that important
Sample size is growing daily: Brexit, Le Pen in France, Duterte in the Philippines, etc.
If it was about my ego, I'd have called it "Houn's Law" or some bullshit. I'm just looking at the world and not liking the trend I'm seeing.
So we're just calling everything Nazi and being done with it then.
Brexit was awful, but mapping that to a political system makes no sense beyond xenophobia motivating a portion of the campaign's base.
Le Pen hasn't won, and by most accounts doesn't seem to have great odds right now against the contenders.
Dutuerte is fucking horrid, but his philosophy is nothing like Nazism. There are plenty of murderous strongmen to look back at as precedence for him.
I don't know enough about France to comment. I know they have serious problems with integration for minorities and such but I don't know where the crazy right-wing base comes from or anything.
But I can comment on Brexit and Trump. And while their are similarities, they aren't related to Nazism, fascism or declining democracies.
I would say the real commonality is older people (or groups that skew older more accurately), in part 'victims' of deindustrialisation, lashing back against a changing social and economic climate by attacking the things they perceive as responsible for that: globalism, liberalism, multiculturalism, immigrants, minorities, etc.
Why do you think she ran away from her own position on TPP? It's electoral poison in the rust belt.
Why is fre trade a bad thing is the question I'm asking, since you say it in the same breath as the bullshit about deregulating Wall St.
It's bad insofar as it creates an incentive to relocate jobs out of the U.S. and, at least as implemented thus far, does nothing for the newly-jobless beyond empty promises of retraining. For the purposes of this thread, it's bad because supporting it hurts you in Wisconsin and Michigan.
But neither of those are necessarily true.
Well, the second is partially accurate in that free trade isn't specifically about retraining, that's a completely different policy issue. One that, oh look, Clinton addressed in her policy proposals. It's effectiveness is questionable, but that's again not related to free trade.
The main assertion is highly questionable though as it's unclear what that has to do with areas like WI and MI you mentioned since automation is just as obvious a source of their problems. And protectionism has little evidence for it's effectiveness from anything I've seen.
Like, you can argue we need to do better dealing with the effects of the changing economy but that doesn't make free trade a bad thing.
I'm not arguing for or against free trade. I'm saying her history on the issue and inability to pivot cost her lots of votes. This is from today's Washington Post:
YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio—Back in May, the longtime chairman of the Mahoning County Democratic Party sent a private memo to leaders in Hillary Clinton’s campaign warning that she was in grave danger of losing not just Ohio but also Pennsylvania and Michigan unless she quickly re-tooled her message on trade. His advice went unheeded.
“I don’t have to make the case that blue collar voters are, to put it mildly, less than enthusiastic about HRC’s positions on trade and the economy,” David Betras wrote in his 1,300 word missive, citing her struggles in recent primaries.
Donald Trump’s protectionist message was already resonating very strongly in this epicenter of the Rust Belt. Gov. John Kasich may have won Ohio’s Republican primary as a favorite son, but Trump whipped him in more than a dozen counties along the Ohio River. More than a quarter of the people who voted in the March Republican primary in Mahoning County were previously registered as Democrats. In fact, Betras had to kick 18 members off his own Democratic central committee for crossing over to back Trump.
“More than two decades after its enactment, NAFTA remains a red flag for area voters who rightly or wrongly blame trade for the devastating job losses that took place at Packard Electric, GM, GE, numerous steel companies, as well as the firms that supplied those major employers,” Betras, a practicing attorney, tried to explain to the Clinton high command. “Thousands of workers in Ohio … continue to qualify for Trade Readjustment Act assistance because their jobs are being shipped overseas.”
The local chairman feels very strongly now that Clinton could have won Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan if she had just kept her eye on economic issues and not gotten distracted by the culture wars.
“Look, I’m as progressive as anybody, okay? But people in the heartland thought the Democratic Party cared more about where someone else went to the restroom than whether they had a good-paying job,” he complained. “‘Stronger together’ doesn’t get anyone a job.”
What exactly is the evidence she wants to deregulate Wall Street? Especially given her policy proposals? Cause that was your original assertion.
You mean other than a literal vote to deregulate the financial sector as a US Senator? I probably can't answer the question to your satisfaction if you're not willing to accept that piece of evidence. All I will say is that if you want more information, read up on third way Democrats and the DLC.
Except we know there's lots of reasons Senators vote on things. The problem is you haven't demonstrated that she wants to deregulate Wall Street as a general policy.
And if you want to ignore what she wants to do or what she believes and instead focus on what she does, then we can again go back to her actual policy proposals which were for regulating Wall Street, as has been her rhetoric.
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.
Isn't this the blog that's been claiming Trump didn't run a racist campaign?
shryke on
+1
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
- "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.
scott alexander is hung up on the fact that we've been describing trump as "openly racist", when in fact he did make a few fumbling attempts to claim plausible deniability
It's almost like we need to collect all the racist shit that Trump said at his rallies into a nice, copy/paste format so we can just keep dumping it into the thread every few pages.
You say this as if people don't know about all those things he said. We all know about those things he said. Nevertheless, it is not only possible but quite easy to believe all of the following things simultaneously:
1. Trump is racist xenophobe.
2. Trump ran a racist, xenophobic campaign.
3. Somewhere between many and a majority of Trump voters voted for him in whole or in part because of racism and xenophobia.
4. A significant number of Trump supporters are not particularly racist or xenophobic and voted for him for other reasons.
5. Even the avowedly racist, xenophobic Trump voters had reasons alongside their racism and xenophobia to vote for Trump.
6. Trump did not win by finding a previously unknown cache of secret racists; he won the same voters Republicans always win.
7. The place to find the most dreadful effects of Trump's campaign of hate are not in the election data but in the streets.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
But I'd just like to point out that curiously only white people heard Trump's "economic" message even though minorities, especially blacks and Hispanics, have been hit hardest by the policies that have harmed the working class.
Trump did better than Romney in every minority group, and turnout for every group was lower for Clinton across the board.
But I'd just like to point out that curiously only white people heard Trump's "economic" message even though minorities, especially blacks and Hispanics, have been hit hardest by the policies that have harmed the working class.
Trump did better than Romney in every minority group, and turnout for every group was lower for Clinton across the board.
Racism and crab bucket thinking are a potent mix to the electorate, apparently.
It's almost like we need to collect all the racist shit that Trump said at his rallies into a nice, copy/paste format so we can just keep dumping it into the thread every few pages.
You say this as if people don't know about all those things he said. We all know about those things he said. Nevertheless, it is not only possible but quite easy to believe all of the following things simultaneously:
1. Trump is racist xenophobe.
2. Trump ran a racist, xenophobic campaign.
3. Somewhere between many and a majority of Trump voters voted for him in whole or in part because of racism and xenophobia.
4. A significant number of Trump supporters are not particularly racist or xenophobic and voted for him for other reasons.
5. Even the avowedly racist, xenophobic Trump voters had reasons alongside their racism and xenophobia to vote for Trump. 6. Trump did not win by finding a previously unknown cache of secret racists; he won the same voters Republicans always win. 7. The place to find the most dreadful effects of Trump's campaign of hate are not in the election data but in the streets.
Aren't his numbers up from Romney's in 2012? Especially in specific areas?
I would suggest Trump's message of open racism and bigotry certainly excited his base more and turned out previously inactive voters.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, 2016 has also claimed both Poe and Godwin's Law. This fuckin year...
Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1"
I'd like to propose a new one.
Trump's Law: "As a democracy ages, the probability of devolving into Nazi-style fascism approaches 1"
Yeah.... no
Sorry but a sample size of barely 1 and not yet 2 does not a rule make. You're not that important
Sample size is growing daily: Brexit, Le Pen in France, Duterte in the Philippines, etc.
If it was about my ego, I'd have called it "Houn's Law" or some bullshit. I'm just looking at the world and not liking the trend I'm seeing.
So we're just calling everything Nazi and being done with it then.
Brexit was awful, but mapping that to a political system makes no sense beyond xenophobia motivating a portion of the campaign's base.
Le Pen hasn't won, and by most accounts doesn't seem to have great odds right now against the contenders.
Dutuerte is fucking horrid, but his philosophy is nothing like Nazism. There are plenty of murderous strongmen to look back at as precedence for him.
I don't know enough about France to comment. I know they have serious problems with integration for minorities and such but I don't know where the crazy right-wing base comes from or anything.
But I can comment on Brexit and Trump. And while their are similarities, they aren't related to Nazism, fascism or declining democracies.
I would say the real commonality is older people (or groups that skew older more accurately), in part 'victims' of deindustrialisation, lashing back against a changing social and economic climate by attacking the things they perceive as responsible for that: globalism, liberalism, multiculturalism, immigrants, minorities, etc.
...Blaming old people for the alt-right does nothing to explain how it has a mostly online presence, is kind of gross in how broad a brush it paints with & does not seem borne-out by the evidence we have.
Trump did do better at the polls with older demographics... but young people didn't go to the polls. If we're going to fault older voters for having backwards opinions, the least we could do is holder younger voters to account for sitting at home.
But I'd just like to point out that curiously only white people heard Trump's "economic" message even though minorities, especially blacks and Hispanics, have been hit hardest by the policies that have harmed the working class.
Trump did better than Romney in every minority group, and turnout for every group was lower for Clinton across the board.
If we go by exit polls that even the people who ran them think are shitty at measuring minority views, sure.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+1
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
It's almost like we need to collect all the racist shit that Trump said at his rallies into a nice, copy/paste format so we can just keep dumping it into the thread every few pages.
You say this as if people don't know about all those things he said. We all know about those things he said. Nevertheless, it is not only possible but quite easy to believe all of the following things simultaneously:
1. Trump is racist xenophobe.
2. Trump ran a racist, xenophobic campaign.
3. Somewhere between many and a majority of Trump voters voted for him in whole or in part because of racism and xenophobia.
4. A significant number of Trump supporters are not particularly racist or xenophobic and voted for him for other reasons.
5. Even the avowedly racist, xenophobic Trump voters had reasons alongside their racism and xenophobia to vote for Trump. 6. Trump did not win by finding a previously unknown cache of secret racists; he won the same voters Republicans always win. 7. The place to find the most dreadful effects of Trump's campaign of hate are not in the election data but in the streets.
Aren't his numbers up from Romney's in 2012? Especially in specific areas?
I would suggest Trump's message of open racism and bigotry certainly excited his base more and turned out previously inactive voters.
Trump got about 1.1 million more voters than Romney, but keep in mind that the US population has been growing between 0.5 and 1 percent per year for the last decade. There are as many as 11 million more people in the country now than there were in 2012. Trump actually won a smaller percentage of the vote than Romney (Romney got 47.2 percent, Trump got 46.5 percent).
I've said it before and I'll say it again, 2016 has also claimed both Poe and Godwin's Law. This fuckin year...
Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1"
I'd like to propose a new one.
Trump's Law: "As a democracy ages, the probability of devolving into Nazi-style fascism approaches 1"
Yeah.... no
Sorry but a sample size of barely 1 and not yet 2 does not a rule make. You're not that important
Sample size is growing daily: Brexit, Le Pen in France, Duterte in the Philippines, etc.
If it was about my ego, I'd have called it "Houn's Law" or some bullshit. I'm just looking at the world and not liking the trend I'm seeing.
So we're just calling everything Nazi and being done with it then.
Brexit was awful, but mapping that to a political system makes no sense beyond xenophobia motivating a portion of the campaign's base.
Le Pen hasn't won, and by most accounts doesn't seem to have great odds right now against the contenders.
Dutuerte is fucking horrid, but his philosophy is nothing like Nazism. There are plenty of murderous strongmen to look back at as precedence for him.
I don't know enough about France to comment. I know they have serious problems with integration for minorities and such but I don't know where the crazy right-wing base comes from or anything.
But I can comment on Brexit and Trump. And while their are similarities, they aren't related to Nazism, fascism or declining democracies.
I would say the real commonality is older people (or groups that skew older more accurately), in part 'victims' of deindustrialisation, lashing back against a changing social and economic climate by attacking the things they perceive as responsible for that: globalism, liberalism, multiculturalism, immigrants, minorities, etc.
...Blaming old people for the alt-right does nothing to explain how it has a mostly online presence, is kind of gross in how broad a brush it paints with & does not seem borne-out by the evidence we have.
Trump did do better at the polls with older demographics... but young people didn't go to the polls. If we're going to fault older voters for having backwards opinions, the least we could do is holder younger voters to account for sitting at home.
This is ... not incongruent with anything I said?
Like, yeah, there are younger portions of this whole "movement" (as much as one could call it one). Racism and the like ain't gone among the young. It doesn't even seem to be diminishing much anymore actually. But the demographics of this whole Trump/Brexit crowd skew old. As I mentioned already. It's not "blaming old people" to point this out.
It's not about blaming anyone actually, since I wasn't trying to assign blame. So I'm not sure what you are saying here.
Anyway, I think the old skew of these groups is actually pretty important overall and for many of the reasons pointed out earlier in this thread (I think it was this thread anyway). In the ways that this isn't really the same as the facism of the 30s or around that time. This is a backlash to alot of things, many of which involve the world changing alot from the way old people had it and from how some not-old people wanted it to stay.
It's almost like we need to collect all the racist shit that Trump said at his rallies into a nice, copy/paste format so we can just keep dumping it into the thread every few pages.
You say this as if people don't know about all those things he said. We all know about those things he said. Nevertheless, it is not only possible but quite easy to believe all of the following things simultaneously:
1. Trump is racist xenophobe.
2. Trump ran a racist, xenophobic campaign.
3. Somewhere between many and a majority of Trump voters voted for him in whole or in part because of racism and xenophobia.
4. A significant number of Trump supporters are not particularly racist or xenophobic and voted for him for other reasons.
5. Even the avowedly racist, xenophobic Trump voters had reasons alongside their racism and xenophobia to vote for Trump. 6. Trump did not win by finding a previously unknown cache of secret racists; he won the same voters Republicans always win. 7. The place to find the most dreadful effects of Trump's campaign of hate are not in the election data but in the streets.
Aren't his numbers up from Romney's in 2012? Especially in specific areas?
I would suggest Trump's message of open racism and bigotry certainly excited his base more and turned out previously inactive voters.
Trump got about 1.1 million more voters than Romney, but keep in mind that the US population has been growing between 0.5 and 1 percent per year for the last decade. There are as many as 11 million more people in the country now than there were in 2012. Trump actually won a smaller percentage of the vote than Romney (Romney got 47.2 percent, Trump got 46.5 percent).
Where matters though. Like, we see serious swings in various counties across the US for both sides. Just because the numbers are similar doesn't mean it's the same people voting. That's how you get, as an example, things like Orange County swinging heavily from R to D this election compared to 2012. (at least, last I looked)
While we are still waiting for all the data to come in, I do seriously wonder if perhaps the NeverTrump movement did have more effect then many initially assumed. It's just the swings were all in places Democrats didn't need them and the opposite is true for Trump.
+1
Options
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
edited November 2016
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?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, 2016 has also claimed both Poe and Godwin's Law. This fuckin year...
Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1"
I'd like to propose a new one.
Trump's Law: "As a democracy ages, the probability of devolving into Nazi-style fascism approaches 1"
Yeah.... no
Sorry but a sample size of barely 1 and not yet 2 does not a rule make. You're not that important
Sample size is growing daily: Brexit, Le Pen in France, Duterte in the Philippines, etc.
If it was about my ego, I'd have called it "Houn's Law" or some bullshit. I'm just looking at the world and not liking the trend I'm seeing.
So we're just calling everything Nazi and being done with it then.
Brexit was awful, but mapping that to a political system makes no sense beyond xenophobia motivating a portion of the campaign's base.
Le Pen hasn't won, and by most accounts doesn't seem to have great odds right now against the contenders.
Dutuerte is fucking horrid, but his philosophy is nothing like Nazism. There are plenty of murderous strongmen to look back at as precedence for him.
I don't know enough about France to comment. I know they have serious problems with integration for minorities and such but I don't know where the crazy right-wing base comes from or anything.
But I can comment on Brexit and Trump. And while their are similarities, they aren't related to Nazism, fascism or declining democracies.
I would say the real commonality is older people (or groups that skew older more accurately), in part 'victims' of deindustrialisation, lashing back against a changing social and economic climate by attacking the things they perceive as responsible for that: globalism, liberalism, multiculturalism, immigrants, minorities, etc.
...Blaming old people for the alt-right does nothing to explain how it has a mostly online presence, is kind of gross in how broad a brush it paints with & does not seem borne-out by the evidence we have.
Trump did do better at the polls with older demographics... but young people didn't go to the polls. If we're going to fault older voters for having backwards opinions, the least we could do is holder younger voters to account for sitting at home.
This is ... not incongruent with anything I said?
Like, yeah, there are younger portions of this whole "movement" (as much as one could call it one). Racism and the like ain't gone among the young. It doesn't even seem to be diminishing much anymore actually. But the demographics of this whole Trump/Brexit crowd skew old. As I mentioned already. It's not "blaming old people" to point this out.
It's not about blaming anyone actually, since I wasn't trying to assign blame. So I'm not sure what you are saying here.
Anyway, I think the old skew of these groups is actually pretty important overall and for many of the reasons pointed out earlier in this thread (I think it was this thread anyway). In the ways that this isn't really the same as the facism of the 30s or around that time. This is a backlash to alot of things, many of which involve the world changing alot from the way old people had it and from how some not-old people wanted it to stay.
I don't at all agree. A very significant portion of Trump's activist base has been young people using online tools as a means of propagating campaign messaging, in places like 4chan & Reddit.
These aren't old people scared of change; they're young people who idolize figures like The Joker at best, engage in bald-faced proto-fascism at worst. The same young people have been actively involved in the recent spike of hate crimes post-election.
With Love and Courage
0
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
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.
The one thing I hope we don't take from this election is "America isn't ready for a female president" or that we need to run a white dude next time. I'm not going to say sexism ain't a problem in our country but a couple million more people voted for the female candidate than the male one.
His comment strikes me as obviously, uncontroversially true: it's a good thing to get more women and minorities into the political process, but they must also support good policies. This is something that pretty much everyone on this forum believes. Nevertheless the comment drove you ballistic because you were exceedingly eager to read it in the worst possible light and didn't bother to check the context.
This is unfortunately a consequence for the bridges Bernie burnt in the primaries. It's going to take a long time before he's build back up his
credibility for comments like this to be taken at face value again.
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.
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?
One more and we've got ourselves the golden trifecta of projection!
See, it was her fault for pointing out racism is bad. If we just pretended it wasn't, the racists wouldn't physically attack my boyfriend for being brown.
That's what a lot of this 'we need to appeal to these people to win next time' talks sounds like. I am trying to be practical about this, but it is difficult.
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
+17
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
His comment strikes me as obviously, uncontroversially true: it's a good thing to get more women and minorities into the political process, but they must also support good policies. This is something that pretty much everyone on this forum believes. Nevertheless the comment drove you ballistic because you were exceedingly eager to read it in the worst possible light and didn't bother to check the context.
This is unfortunately a consequence for the bridges Bernie burnt in the primaries. It's going to take a long time before he's build back up his
credibility for comments like this to be taken at face value again.
It is pretty amazing that you acknowledge that Sanders's words are being taken out of context in a misleading way and then blame Sanders himself for it.
+11
Options
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
edited November 2016
Let's be very clear, the only ones directly responsible for the rise in racist attacks are those that are actually doing them. What you mean to say, however wrong it actually is, is that she's indirectly responsible for them. However, at no point in her campaigning did she directly call on her base to attack, or harm, or anything of the sort.
If the reasons these attacks rose is because they didn't like being called deplorable and shit...maybe they should stop doing deplorable shit like attacking people based on race?
There's a direct link between Trump LITERALLY calling for violence and the violence that actually did happen.
So, I mean...if people are legit mad at being called racists, or deplorables, or whatever words make them real mad and stuff and then using that anger to, ya know, be racists and deplorables then it's not entirely incorrect, right?
His comment strikes me as obviously, uncontroversially true: it's a good thing to get more women and minorities into the political process, but they must also support good policies. This is something that pretty much everyone on this forum believes. Nevertheless the comment drove you ballistic because you were exceedingly eager to read it in the worst possible light and didn't bother to check the context.
This is unfortunately a consequence for the bridges Bernie burnt in the primaries. It's going to take a long time before he's build back up his
credibility for comments like this to be taken at face value again.
It is pretty amazing that you acknowledge that Sanders's words are being taken out of context in a misleading way and then blame Sanders himself for it.
This didn't occur in a vacuum, he's responsible for his own actions and people will react accordingly. And yes he definitely is to blame for his current Predicament.
Edit: this isn't the first time he's had problems with phasing either. Thanks to current climate his reputation isn't solid enough to cushion the blowback.
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.
His comment strikes me as obviously, uncontroversially true: it's a good thing to get more women and minorities into the political process, but they must also support good policies. This is something that pretty much everyone on this forum believes. Nevertheless the comment drove you ballistic because you were exceedingly eager to read it in the worst possible light and didn't bother to check the context.
This is unfortunately a consequence for the bridges Bernie burnt in the primaries. It's going to take a long time before he's build back up his
credibility for comments like this to be taken at face value again.
It is pretty amazing that you acknowledge that Sanders's words are being taken out of context in a misleading way and then blame Sanders himself for it.
This didn't occur in a vacuum, he's responsible for his own actions and people will react accordingly. And yes he definitely is to blame for his current Predicament.
His current predicament seems to be that he's assuming a position of leadership in the party.
His comment strikes me as obviously, uncontroversially true: it's a good thing to get more women and minorities into the political process, but they must also support good policies. This is something that pretty much everyone on this forum believes. Nevertheless the comment drove you ballistic because you were exceedingly eager to read it in the worst possible light and didn't bother to check the context.
This is unfortunately a consequence for the bridges Bernie burnt in the primaries. It's going to take a long time before he's build back up his
credibility for comments like this to be taken at face value again.
It is pretty amazing that you acknowledge that Sanders's words are being taken out of context in a misleading way and then blame Sanders himself for it.
This didn't occur in a vacuum, he's responsible for his own actions and people will react accordingly. And yes he definitely is to blame for his current Predicament.
His current predicament seems to be that he's assuming a position of leadership in the party.
That's his rank, it's not like every Democrat's memory of the primaries has disappeared over night.
He's done good trying to mend fences but you can't expect his reputation to be healed this quickly.
0
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
The one thing I hope we don't take from this election is "America isn't ready for a female president" or that we need to run a white dude next time. I'm not going to say sexism ain't a problem in our country but a couple million more people voted for the female candidate than the male one.
I am not a statistician nor a real political scientist but I have a theory that the higher minority vote percentage for trump over Romneys share is attributable to following possibilities:
1. Lower turnout / suppressed of minority groups (esp black) overall inflates relative percentage of consistent vote for the republican;
2. Sexism. It ain't relegated to white dudes, y'all. The attempt to marry the rhetorical and legal arguments against racial discrimination with the ones against sex discrimination have a long, fraught history. The cause of women's rights and ethnic minority rights against oppressions big and small is not naturally a common one, and it was--and continues to be--with great tension that black civil rights activism and the traditionally white feminists of the 60s linked arms against the twin tyrannies of white supremacy and patriarchy, only to come undone again in the conservative cultural counterrevolution of the 80s. However I acknowledge that this theory is entirely unsupported beyond anecdotal evidence. I would be interested to see how the minority demographic votes for trump break down across gender lines, and in what regions. I admit I wouldn't know how to crunch that data, though, and also I really must go to bed, lest I wither and wrinkle and lose my worth in Trump's America.
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
+8
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
His comment strikes me as obviously, uncontroversially true: it's a good thing to get more women and minorities into the political process, but they must also support good policies. This is something that pretty much everyone on this forum believes. Nevertheless the comment drove you ballistic because you were exceedingly eager to read it in the worst possible light and didn't bother to check the context.
This is unfortunately a consequence for the bridges Bernie burnt in the primaries. It's going to take a long time before he's build back up his
credibility for comments like this to be taken at face value again.
It is pretty amazing that you acknowledge that Sanders's words are being taken out of context in a misleading way and then blame Sanders himself for it.
This didn't occur in a vacuum, he's responsible for his own actions and people will react accordingly. And yes he definitely is to blame for his current Predicament.
His current predicament seems to be that he's assuming a position of leadership in the party.
That's his rank, it's not like every Democrat's memory of the primaries has disappeared over night.
He's done good trying to mend fences but you can't expect his reputation to be healed this quickly.
I wasn't just talking about ranks and titles. According to approval rating, Bernie Sanders may very well be the most popular politician in the United States. Why do you keep talking about him as if he is some kind of pariah?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, 2016 has also claimed both Poe and Godwin's Law. This fuckin year...
Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1"
I'd like to propose a new one.
Trump's Law: "As a democracy ages, the probability of devolving into Nazi-style fascism approaches 1"
Yeah.... no
Sorry but a sample size of barely 1 and not yet 2 does not a rule make. You're not that important
Sample size is growing daily: Brexit, Le Pen in France, Duterte in the Philippines, etc.
If it was about my ego, I'd have called it "Houn's Law" or some bullshit. I'm just looking at the world and not liking the trend I'm seeing.
So we're just calling everything Nazi and being done with it then.
Brexit was awful, but mapping that to a political system makes no sense beyond xenophobia motivating a portion of the campaign's base.
Le Pen hasn't won, and by most accounts doesn't seem to have great odds right now against the contenders.
Dutuerte is fucking horrid, but his philosophy is nothing like Nazism. There are plenty of murderous strongmen to look back at as precedence for him.
I don't know enough about France to comment. I know they have serious problems with integration for minorities and such but I don't know where the crazy right-wing base comes from or anything.
But I can comment on Brexit and Trump. And while their are similarities, they aren't related to Nazism, fascism or declining democracies.
I would say the real commonality is older people (or groups that skew older more accurately), in part 'victims' of deindustrialisation, lashing back against a changing social and economic climate by attacking the things they perceive as responsible for that: globalism, liberalism, multiculturalism, immigrants, minorities, etc.
...Blaming old people for the alt-right does nothing to explain how it has a mostly online presence, is kind of gross in how broad a brush it paints with & does not seem borne-out by the evidence we have.
Trump did do better at the polls with older demographics... but young people didn't go to the polls. If we're going to fault older voters for having backwards opinions, the least we could do is holder younger voters to account for sitting at home.
This is ... not incongruent with anything I said?
Like, yeah, there are younger portions of this whole "movement" (as much as one could call it one). Racism and the like ain't gone among the young. It doesn't even seem to be diminishing much anymore actually. But the demographics of this whole Trump/Brexit crowd skew old. As I mentioned already. It's not "blaming old people" to point this out.
It's not about blaming anyone actually, since I wasn't trying to assign blame. So I'm not sure what you are saying here.
Anyway, I think the old skew of these groups is actually pretty important overall and for many of the reasons pointed out earlier in this thread (I think it was this thread anyway). In the ways that this isn't really the same as the facism of the 30s or around that time. This is a backlash to alot of things, many of which involve the world changing alot from the way old people had it and from how some not-old people wanted it to stay.
I don't at all agree. A very significant portion of Trump's activist base has been young people using online tools as a means of propagating campaign messaging, in places like 4chan & Reddit.
These aren't old people scared of change; they're young people who idolize figures like The Joker at best, engage in bald-faced proto-fascism at worst. The same young people have been actively involved in the recent spike of hate crimes post-election.
A very significant portion of his base was also online sharing stories on facebook. Many of them old.
Like, you keep completely misrepresenting what I'm saying. I have never claimed there wasn't a chunk of young Trump supporters. But we know Trump's support skews old and always has. As did Brexit support. This is as close to a fact as you get on these matters. The Trump/Brexit crowd is primarily old people, even if the young set are some of the more obviously active on the internet.
This is alot of old people angry and scared of change. It's also alot of young people who are angry and scared of the same. The alt-right aren't people who idolise the Joker, they are people who long for the days when men were men and whites were on top and all that fantasy past malarkey. Actually look at their stuff, it all calls back to previous ages. It complains about the way women are these days and how they can't get laid because of feminism. Like all their neo-nazi, white supremacist tendencies, they try to dress it up but it's the same old shit.
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.
Posts
Sanders wasn't really talking about Hillary Clinton's campaign, or any other actually-existing campaign. He was talking about a hypothetical in response to a question written by someone in the audience. The question was, "I want to be the second Latina senator in U.S. history. Any tips?"
He answered that question by saying, "It goes without saying that as we fight to end all forms of discrimination, as we fight to bring more and more women into the political process—Latinas, African-Americans, Native Americans—all of that is enormously important, and count me in as somebody who wants to see that happen... But it is not good enough for somebody to say, 'Hey, I’m a Latina. Vote for me.' That is not good enough. I have to know whether that Latina is going to stand up with the working class of this country and is going to take on big-money interests."
Source: https://newrepublic.com/article/138921/bernie-sanders-meant-say-identity-politics
His comment strikes me as obviously, uncontroversially true: it's a good thing to get more women and minorities into the political process, but they must also support good policies. This is something that pretty much everyone on this forum believes. Nevertheless the comment drove you ballistic because you were exceedingly eager to read it in the worst possible light and didn't bother to check the context.
I'm not arguing for or against free trade. I'm saying her history on the issue and inability to pivot cost her lots of votes. This is from today's Washington Post:
You mean other than a literal vote to deregulate the financial sector as a US Senator? I probably can't answer the question to your satisfaction if you're not willing to accept that piece of evidence. All I will say is that if you want more information, read up on third way Democrats and the DLC.
Except Trump did better with minorities than Mitt Romney.
From slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/:
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.
We need to both find a way to appeal to those voters (at least the ones who can be appealed to), while at the same time appealing to minority voters who showed up for Obama but sat this one out. We might be able to win with one or the other; but putting all of our eggs in one basket is a bad idea, as we've seen.
Hillary didn't "paint" Trump as anything except what he was, and she literally had a mountain of material to prove this.
America is already divided by racism, she merely acknowledged the elephant in the room. This is an odd argument as it relies on America naturally coming together by ignoring racism. Which is not a thing in any nation or culture I know, certainly not America.
If you have an argument how Trump, his campaign and his incoming administration isn't racist I'd like to hear the process how you came to that conclusion.
Acknowledging racism isn't what encourages racists to be embolden, having like minded politicians and figures and racism inclined policies gets them enthused. This has been what Trump has been doing from day one. And it's a huge reason he was able to be president. Stoking the fires of Racism is an age old tactic for politicians to get populations behind them.
Want to know a recent example? Post-Brexit UK. Two words: Nigel Farage.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, comrade.
Edit: When people vote in racists there are consequences for how people view them. And say I believe you they aren't racist, so what? They still held their nose and voted for him. You get all of Trump when he becomes president - he won't leave his racist opinions at the door.
Edit 2: if you don't think Trump is racist now, what does he have to do to change your mind? What's the litmus test here?
Trump doing well with minoritirs isn't proof he isn't a racist or white supremacist, they can like him for other reasons. They can be racist too, or seeing Trump as an obstacle for rivals groups or they might think they're safe because they're "One of the good ones."
I could Godwin this so easily with the Japanese in WW 2, as well. Or The Soviet Union before they joined the allies. Not everyone on the nazis side was a nazi, you know.
80% of Hillary's attacks on Trump consisted of quoting him verbatim on video.
http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/
This increased the echo chamber of both sides, giving liberals a false sense of security while simultaneously preventing them from seeing the echo chamber on the opposite end which relied heavily on fake news sites.
And Hillary supporters weren't alone in that. Lots of Bernie supporters would complain that they couldn't name a single person who was pro-Hillary, for similar reasons.
I don't know enough about France to comment. I know they have serious problems with integration for minorities and such but I don't know where the crazy right-wing base comes from or anything.
But I can comment on Brexit and Trump. And while their are similarities, they aren't related to Nazism, fascism or declining democracies.
I would say the real commonality is older people (or groups that skew older more accurately), in part 'victims' of deindustrialisation, lashing back against a changing social and economic climate by attacking the things they perceive as responsible for that: globalism, liberalism, multiculturalism, immigrants, minorities, etc.
Except we know there's lots of reasons Senators vote on things. The problem is you haven't demonstrated that she wants to deregulate Wall Street as a general policy.
And if you want to ignore what she wants to do or what she believes and instead focus on what she does, then we can again go back to her actual policy proposals which were for regulating Wall Street, as has been her rhetoric.
Isn't this the blog that's been claiming Trump didn't run a racist campaign?
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.
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
"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".
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".
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.
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".
"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*
Interestingly, no one this came up with thought this was ok.
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.
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.
such are the pitfalls of being Logic Guy
You say this as if people don't know about all those things he said. We all know about those things he said. Nevertheless, it is not only possible but quite easy to believe all of the following things simultaneously:
1. Trump is racist xenophobe.
2. Trump ran a racist, xenophobic campaign.
3. Somewhere between many and a majority of Trump voters voted for him in whole or in part because of racism and xenophobia.
4. A significant number of Trump supporters are not particularly racist or xenophobic and voted for him for other reasons.
5. Even the avowedly racist, xenophobic Trump voters had reasons alongside their racism and xenophobia to vote for Trump.
6. Trump did not win by finding a previously unknown cache of secret racists; he won the same voters Republicans always win.
7. The place to find the most dreadful effects of Trump's campaign of hate are not in the election data but in the streets.
Trump did better than Romney in every minority group, and turnout for every group was lower for Clinton across the board.
Racism and crab bucket thinking are a potent mix to the electorate, apparently.
Aren't his numbers up from Romney's in 2012? Especially in specific areas?
I would suggest Trump's message of open racism and bigotry certainly excited his base more and turned out previously inactive voters.
...Blaming old people for the alt-right does nothing to explain how it has a mostly online presence, is kind of gross in how broad a brush it paints with & does not seem borne-out by the evidence we have.
Trump did do better at the polls with older demographics... but young people didn't go to the polls. If we're going to fault older voters for having backwards opinions, the least we could do is holder younger voters to account for sitting at home.
If we go by exit polls that even the people who ran them think are shitty at measuring minority views, sure.
Trump got about 1.1 million more voters than Romney, but keep in mind that the US population has been growing between 0.5 and 1 percent per year for the last decade. There are as many as 11 million more people in the country now than there were in 2012. Trump actually won a smaller percentage of the vote than Romney (Romney got 47.2 percent, Trump got 46.5 percent).
This is ... not incongruent with anything I said?
Like, yeah, there are younger portions of this whole "movement" (as much as one could call it one). Racism and the like ain't gone among the young. It doesn't even seem to be diminishing much anymore actually. But the demographics of this whole Trump/Brexit crowd skew old. As I mentioned already. It's not "blaming old people" to point this out.
It's not about blaming anyone actually, since I wasn't trying to assign blame. So I'm not sure what you are saying here.
Anyway, I think the old skew of these groups is actually pretty important overall and for many of the reasons pointed out earlier in this thread (I think it was this thread anyway). In the ways that this isn't really the same as the facism of the 30s or around that time. This is a backlash to alot of things, many of which involve the world changing alot from the way old people had it and from how some not-old people wanted it to stay.
Where matters though. Like, we see serious swings in various counties across the US for both sides. Just because the numbers are similar doesn't mean it's the same people voting. That's how you get, as an example, things like Orange County swinging heavily from R to D this election compared to 2012. (at least, last I looked)
While we are still waiting for all the data to come in, I do seriously wonder if perhaps the NeverTrump movement did have more effect then many initially assumed. It's just the swings were all in places Democrats didn't need them and the opposite is true for Trump.
I don't at all agree. A very significant portion of Trump's activist base has been young people using online tools as a means of propagating campaign messaging, in places like 4chan & Reddit.
These aren't old people scared of change; they're young people who idolize figures like The Joker at best, engage in bald-faced proto-fascism at worst. The same young people have been actively involved in the recent spike of hate crimes post-election.
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.
NNID: Hakkekage
This is unfortunately a consequence for the bridges Bernie burnt in the primaries. It's going to take a long time before he's build back up his
credibility for comments like this to be taken at face value again.
538 Responded
See, it was her fault for pointing out racism is bad. If we just pretended it wasn't, the racists wouldn't physically attack my boyfriend for being brown.
That's what a lot of this 'we need to appeal to these people to win next time' talks sounds like. I am trying to be practical about this, but it is difficult.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
It is pretty amazing that you acknowledge that Sanders's words are being taken out of context in a misleading way and then blame Sanders himself for it.
If the reasons these attacks rose is because they didn't like being called deplorable and shit...maybe they should stop doing deplorable shit like attacking people based on race?
There's a direct link between Trump LITERALLY calling for violence and the violence that actually did happen.
So, I mean...if people are legit mad at being called racists, or deplorables, or whatever words make them real mad and stuff and then using that anger to, ya know, be racists and deplorables then it's not entirely incorrect, right?
This didn't occur in a vacuum, he's responsible for his own actions and people will react accordingly. And yes he definitely is to blame for his current Predicament.
Edit: this isn't the first time he's had problems with phasing either. Thanks to current climate his reputation isn't solid enough to cushion the blowback.
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.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
His current predicament seems to be that he's assuming a position of leadership in the party.
That's his rank, it's not like every Democrat's memory of the primaries has disappeared over night.
He's done good trying to mend fences but you can't expect his reputation to be healed this quickly.
I am not a statistician nor a real political scientist but I have a theory that the higher minority vote percentage for trump over Romneys share is attributable to following possibilities:
1. Lower turnout / suppressed of minority groups (esp black) overall inflates relative percentage of consistent vote for the republican;
2. Sexism. It ain't relegated to white dudes, y'all. The attempt to marry the rhetorical and legal arguments against racial discrimination with the ones against sex discrimination have a long, fraught history. The cause of women's rights and ethnic minority rights against oppressions big and small is not naturally a common one, and it was--and continues to be--with great tension that black civil rights activism and the traditionally white feminists of the 60s linked arms against the twin tyrannies of white supremacy and patriarchy, only to come undone again in the conservative cultural counterrevolution of the 80s. However I acknowledge that this theory is entirely unsupported beyond anecdotal evidence. I would be interested to see how the minority demographic votes for trump break down across gender lines, and in what regions. I admit I wouldn't know how to crunch that data, though, and also I really must go to bed, lest I wither and wrinkle and lose my worth in Trump's America.
NNID: Hakkekage
I wasn't just talking about ranks and titles. According to approval rating, Bernie Sanders may very well be the most popular politician in the United States. Why do you keep talking about him as if he is some kind of pariah?
A very significant portion of his base was also online sharing stories on facebook. Many of them old.
Like, you keep completely misrepresenting what I'm saying. I have never claimed there wasn't a chunk of young Trump supporters. But we know Trump's support skews old and always has. As did Brexit support. This is as close to a fact as you get on these matters. The Trump/Brexit crowd is primarily old people, even if the young set are some of the more obviously active on the internet.
This is alot of old people angry and scared of change. It's also alot of young people who are angry and scared of the same. The alt-right aren't people who idolise the Joker, they are people who long for the days when men were men and whites were on top and all that fantasy past malarkey. Actually look at their stuff, it all calls back to previous ages. It complains about the way women are these days and how they can't get laid because of feminism. Like all their neo-nazi, white supremacist tendencies, they try to dress it up but it's the same old shit.
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.