Do you want me to link the interviews where Donald Trump said he'd torture enemies of the USA because even if torture doesn't work they probably deserved it? [link] Or the one where he wants the Geneva Convention repealed because he thinks it's stopping US soldiers from doing their jobs? [link]
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
I just noticed that most of the arguments against Trump in the past few pages are mostly just Republican platforms that people don't like and very few, if any, Trump being Trump.
I actually find that more troubling than people scared that Trump is Trump.
I mean... push-back against abortion/gay rights/environmental issues/immigration/Obamacare/etc are all things to be expected under a Republican Presidency.
This makes me wonder if the liberal response to, say, Cruz winning would be roughly the same as the response to a Trump victory.
I've posted about Trump's prospects on gay rights, since he had promised to be "so much better for the gays" it's important to not be fooled by that sort of language. On the other hand, I've also posted about his appointing a white nationalist as his chief strategist. I don't think I'd have that complaint about a Cruz presidency - that's Trump being Trump.
As a foreigner very interested in the USA politics, I can tell you I am greatly dissapointed by the outcome of the election. I can't believe that a capricious egomaniac billionaire for whom the presidency is the ultimate toy, could be elected as president of the msot powerful country of the world.
People simply do not vote. It's quite appalling. Additionally, people will believe just about anything they hear/read because it's too much effort to dig for the truth.
Indeed, we have an apathetic electorate, and it is a big problem.
Hopefully a Trump presidency will galvanize the populace into becoming active participants. Not to mention this is a tangible demonstration of just what a vocal minority that votes as a unified force can actually accomplish, for better or for worse or for much worse or for a whole lot worse than we could have ever imagined, time will tell.
Indeed, we have an apathetic electorate, and it is a big problem.
Hopefully a Trump presidency will galvanize the populace into becoming active participants. Not to mention this is a tangible demonstration of just what a vocal minority that votes as a unified force can actually accomplish, for better or for worse or for much worse or for a whole lot worse than we could have ever imagined, time will tell.
This is what I'm hoping. The response from my friends (especially from those who didn't vote) has been unprecedented. Many of them are in the middle of a very rude awakening.
One thing I just realized: most of Trump's supporters on twitter are people who were running with gamergate when that *****show started.
I didn't realize beforehand because I'd blocked them, but him appointing Bannon drove it home for me.
What I'm saying is, political journalists are gonna start getting death threats from eggs, and it's gonna be weird for everyone involved.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Trump is the troll president. The trolling generation that loves to create conflict and piss people off online are now old enough to vote en mass and have decided to bring their flamewars off the net.
Trump is the troll president. The trolling generation that loves to create conflict and piss people off online are now old enough to vote en mass and have decided to bring their flamewars off the net.
But Trump's voterbase are older people, not younger ones. Younger people mostly voted for Clinton.
I mean, these people exist, and they are a significant group. But they're not the mainstream of Trump's support.
Trump is the troll president. The trolling generation that loves to create conflict and piss people off online are now old enough to vote en mass and have decided to bring their flamewars off the net.
I read a ton of articles and responses to this, and I think a lot of Democrats missed some really crucial factors: A lot of people both Republican and Democrats have had a really *****ty time with Establishment politics. What I mean by that is the career politicians running Washington right now. The Democrats response to this is that people who want a Revolution, but support Trump are racist/sexist/xenophobic. I think what you have to remember is in a lot of rural areas (because even in places like Georgia, cities like Atlanta are VERY blue), blue collar people who are just trying to make end's meet at the end of the, don't give a ***** about social issues if they are on the verge of being homeless, or can't pay the bills. To them, the racism might be bad, but their needs are much more base than making sure groups not them are being voted.
And then you have people like Sarah Silverman, and other famous celebrities (who by the way, are INCREDIBLY well off) telling voters that a vote for Trump is immoral, vote for a candidate that pretty much will enforce the status quo? Or even running the gauntlet of "ists", it isn't surprising why a lot of Trump voters felt ostracized, without necessarily being racist or sexist themselves.
(Do note, I am not saying the "ists" didn't SWARM to Trump. I am merely stating the broad strokes used to paint Trump supporters, along with the fact that Clinton failed to excite her own base is what contributed to our situation now.
I guess I should rephrase and expand on that. Most of the people who voted for Trump are not internet trolls, but a lot of the tactics and methods of communication used by Trump is similar to how trolls operate.
And I acknowledge that there are a lot of older workers who are desperate and feels left behind and for them Trump is a protest vote. I don't condemn them and they are not the enemy coz if Trump don't deliver, they'll likely vote someone else next time. But trolls who just wants to burn everything down are still a significant group of Trump's coalition and they aren't likely to be swayed by economic reasons.
As for age of his troll supporters, how old do you guys think they are? 4chan has been around for more than a decade. I don't think these people are 20 somethings who's too cool to vote, but likely 30+ year olds who's been trolling and setting the internet on fire their whole adult lives. They've now found their flagbearer and discovered the joys of political activism.
So yeah, the trolls may not make up a large proportion of Trump's supporter, but they have definitely chosen Trump as their voice.
Trump had less votes than Romney though. It's a point I like to always come back to, because Romney lost with Republicans. This victory didn't come because a bunch of trolls came and supported Trump from out of nowhere. Trump didn't win, Clinton lost. The base that Obama took full advantage of was not present on election day and it showed.
And then I wonder how many would be young Clinton voter didn't turn up coz they kept seeing crap about her being spread on their facebook and twitter feeds. I just worry that they have a much stronger media influence than is suggested by their numbers.
And then I wonder how many would be young Clinton voter didn't turn up coz they kept seeing crap about her being spread on their facebook and twitter feeds. I just worry that they have a much stronger media influence than is suggested by their numbers.
The media definitely has problems, but considering both candidates were blaming the media for bad advertisement I don't really think I can hold the media responsible when it increasingly looked like Clinton's campaign approach was "we aren't as bad as those guys".
I just noticed that most of the arguments against Trump in the past few pages are mostly just Republican platforms that people don't like and very few, if any, Trump being Trump.
I actually find that more troubling than people scared that Trump is Trump.
I mean... push-back against abortion/gay rights/environmental issues/immigration/Obamacare/etc are all things to be expected under a Republican Presidency.
This makes me wonder if the liberal response to, say, Cruz winning would be roughly the same as the response to a Trump victory.
I would be crying doom a lot more, but there is no internet in my steel bunker.
Honestly though, I find that super troubling too. There were so many people I spoke to after the election that said this felt *exactly like* the 2000 election where Gore lost. I mean, really? Wake up. This guy said that he would torture suspected “terrorists”, jail political opponents, restrict press access, target people for deportation based on their race, not to mention his chief campaign promise – building a wall with our 3rd biggest trade partner based on the idea that everyone crossing the border is a rapist.
I mean, what did Bush say at this point that was even remotely similar?
Tough reality, I’ve had to conclude that to a lot of people honestly do think that issues like bathroom equality are of exactly the same importance as torture and internment camps. Evidently to them, the Republican party is as bad as the Nazi party.
And as it’s been mentioned here before to some amount of resistance, this kind of intransigence does contribute to a feeling of desperation on the part of anyone judged to be on the wrong side of the issue, to the point where they feel they don’t have any remaining obligation to reject the worst parts of their constituency.
Indeed, we have an apathetic electorate, and it is a big problem.
Hopefully a Trump presidency will galvanize the populace into becoming active participants. Not to mention this is a tangible demonstration of just what a vocal minority that votes as a unified force can actually accomplish, for better or for worse or for much worse or for a whole lot worse than we could have ever imagined, time will tell.
This is what I'm hoping. The response from my friends (especially from those who didn't vote) has been unprecedented. Many of them are in the middle of a very rude awakening.
I’d say that in the case of a lot of people, it’s the electoral college. Those areas where Trump’s proposals are anathema to the social culture (West Coast, New England, etc) are exactly those areas that were always going Democrat, regardless of who showed up. Take someone who didn’t vote in CA, for example, and dollars to donuts they would have showed up to the polls if they were still back home in Wisconsin. Those states that have the best voter turnouts are exactly those battleground states, while those that are historically decided one way or the other have the worst turnouts.
I mean, Clinton already won the popular vote by several million. Having more people turn out in the states she already won would have just racked up a higher popular vote, to exactly zero effect on the outcome.
Put simply, this is on the “rust belt” states and Florida. Something going on over there made them tip over to Trump. For those of us outside those areas, not to mention the New York/Washington/California based media, trying to understand it is based on speculation.
I just noticed that most of the arguments against Trump in the past few pages are mostly just Republican platforms that people don't like and very few, if any, Trump being Trump.
I actually find that more troubling than people scared that Trump is Trump.
I mean... push-back against abortion/gay rights/environmental issues/immigration/Obamacare/etc are all things to be expected under a Republican Presidency.
This makes me wonder if the liberal response to, say, Cruz winning would be roughly the same as the response to a Trump victory.
I would be crying doom a lot more, but there is no internet in my steel bunker.
Honestly though, I find that super troubling too. There were so many people I spoke to after the election that said this felt *exactly like* the 2000 election where Gore lost. I mean, really? Wake up. This guy said that he would torture suspected “terrorists”, jail political opponents, restrict press access, target people for deportation based on their race, not to mention his chief campaign promise – building a wall with our 3rd biggest trade partner based on the idea that everyone crossing the border is a rapist.
I mean, what did Bush say at this point that was even remotely similar?
Tough reality, I’ve had to conclude that to a lot of people honestly do think that issues like bathroom equality are of exactly the same importance as torture and internment camps. Evidently to them, the Republican party is as bad as the Nazi party.
And as it’s been mentioned here before to some amount of resistance, this kind of intransigence does contribute to a feeling of desperation on the part of anyone judged to be on the wrong side of the issue, to the point where they feel they don’t have any remaining obligation to reject the worst parts of their constituency.
Indeed, we have an apathetic electorate, and it is a big problem.
Hopefully a Trump presidency will galvanize the populace into becoming active participants. Not to mention this is a tangible demonstration of just what a vocal minority that votes as a unified force can actually accomplish, for better or for worse or for much worse or for a whole lot worse than we could have ever imagined, time will tell.
This is what I'm hoping. The response from my friends (especially from those who didn't vote) has been unprecedented. Many of them are in the middle of a very rude awakening.
I’d say that in the case of a lot of people, it’s the electoral college. Those areas where Trump’s proposals are anathema to the social culture (West Coast, New England, etc) are exactly those areas that were always going Democrat, regardless of who showed up. Take someone who didn’t vote in CA, for example, and dollars to donuts they would have showed up to the polls if they were still back home in Wisconsin. Those states that have the best voter turnouts are exactly those battleground states, while those that are historically decided one way or the other have the worst turnouts.
I mean, Clinton already won the popular vote by several million. Having more people turn out in the states she already won would have just racked up a higher popular vote, to exactly zero effect on the outcome.
Put simply, this is on the “rust belt” states and Florida. Something going on over there made them tip over to Trump. For those of us outside those areas, not to mention the New York/Washington/California based media, trying to understand it is based on speculation.
I am from Illinois, and spend quite a bit of time in Indiana and Michigan. I am telling you that lot of people there live simple lives and just want to keep working/their house. Social issues and Global Diplomacy in a president is not high in their priority list, a mistake a lot of Democrats tend to make.
Put simply, this is on the “rust belt” states and Florida. Something going on over there made them tip over to Trump. For those of us outside those areas, not to mention the New York/Washington/California based media, trying to understand it is based on speculation.
Not necessarily. Trump actually got less of the vote than McCain and Romney. The problem was that Clinton got a much lower turnout than Obama did, which allowed Trump's also mediocre turnout to overcome her in the midwest.
I think this is going to be a turning point for a lot of people who didn't vote or who voted third party based on the idea that Clinton would beat Trump, therefore their vote doesn't matter. Now that Trump has won, I've seen quite a few people come to the realization that the presidential election is not a ******* joke. I talked with a few people who voted third party and they said in hindsight that they would have voted for Clinton if they realized that Trump has won and that they are now definitely going to get out and vote in 2018. Hopefully it starts knocking down these ridiculous purity tests that progressives seem prone to. As long as they keep rejecting Democrats for not meeting all their standards they are going to continue getting Bushes and Trumps in the White House.
And then I wonder how many would be young Clinton voter didn't turn up coz they kept seeing crap about her being spread on their facebook and twitter feeds. I just worry that they have a much stronger media influence than is suggested by their numbers.
The media definitely has problems, but considering both candidates were blaming the media for bad advertisement I don't really think I can hold the media responsible when it increasingly looked like Clinton's campaign approach was "we aren't as bad as those guys".
I'm not even talking about the traditional media (which has their own massive profit-driven problems) but the wild west of internet media which has no gatekeepers and operates like a giant game of telephone and even obvious fake stuff gets retweeted and shared to millions of people.
So Kris Kobach has been named to Trump's transition team.
He created the "Papers Please" law, SB 1070. This law allows police to detain people on suspicion of them not being US citizens, and it's been called the most racist law in the modern USA. He's also got a history of trying to disenfranchise non-white and non-male voters, and worked for an anti-immigrant hate group before becoming secretary of state. [link]
For those of you keeping score, Trump's council now contains at least one open White Nationalist and two people who previously were members of hate groups.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
So Kris Kobach has been named to Trump's transition team.
He created the "Papers Please" law, SB 1070. This law allows police to detain people on suspicion of them not being US citizens, and it's been called the most racist law in the modern USA. He's also got a history of trying to disenfranchise non-white and non-male voters, and worked for an anti-immigrant hate group before becoming secretary of state. [link]
For those of you keeping score, Trump's council now contains at least one open White Nationalist and two people who previously were members of hate groups.
Who is this alleged 'open white nationalist'? Please don't tell me you're talking about Stephen Bannon.
So Kris Kobach has been named to Trump's transition team.
He created the "Papers Please" law, SB 1070. This law allows police to detain people on suspicion of them not being US citizens, and it's been called the most racist law in the modern USA. He's also got a history of trying to disenfranchise non-white and non-male voters, and worked for an anti-immigrant hate group before becoming secretary of state. [link]
For those of you keeping score, Trump's council now contains at least one open White Nationalist and two people who previously were members of hate groups.
Who is this alleged 'open white nationalist'? Please don't tell me you're talking about Stephen Bannon.
Yeah, I agree. These constant attempts at character assassination by HuffPost are almost as irritating as their persistence on the idea of “breaking the glass ceiling”. Which is to say, really irritating.
Are we to believe that the executive chairman of Breitbart is and has always been a neo-Nazi, but we are only finding out about it now that he’s taking government office? It seems to me that a major news organization being led by White Supremacists would have been newsworthy before now.
I mean, think for a few minutes, and I’m sure that camp can come up with some non-policy related objections to the appointment that are legitimate. How about the fact that he’s moving from chairing a news organization to white house strategist? Does that kind of move have any precedent at all? Anything other than the direction of his opinions that suggest he’s not qualified? I’ll bet there is, if the establishment R’s have all distanced themselves from Trump and he’s not doling out any forgiveness for that, as we’re told to believe.
Just really lazy, identity-based journalism, more of the same that led us to this point.
Who is this alleged 'open white nationalist'? Please don't tell me you're talking about Stephen Bannon.
Lemme guess, he doesn't wear a hood, so he can't be racist? Or maybe something something David Duke 3%?
CNN: White nationalists love Bannon, to the degree that they emailed us to celebrate.
The American Nazi Party: We love Bannon, because he'll make sure Trump follows our expectations.
The Southern Poverty Law Center: Bannon worries us, because he's openly racist.
Shapiro: While I was working for Breitbart, Bannon made sure that we pushed racist and sexist stories, and that's part of why I quit.
Oh yeah, I tried discussed the worries of a President essentially having his own private News organization on a previous page but no-one felt like responding.
Yeah, I agree. These constant attempts at character assassination by HuffPost are almost as irritating as their persistence on the idea of “breaking the glass ceiling”. Which is to say, really irritating.
Are we to believe that the executive chairman of Breitbart is and has always been a neo-Nazi, but we are only finding out about it now that he’s taking government office? It seems to me that a major news organization being led by White Supremacists would have been newsworthy before now.
Um, no? That's been clear ever since Bannon took over Breitbart. Just look at the stories he's run. Under his leadership, the site now runs stories straight out of the white supremacist playbook about how blacks, mexicans, muslims and others targets are violent, raping criminals. The old Breitbart was certainly far-right, but not white nationalist. Even it's former editor, Ben Shapiro, agrees that the site under Bannon has become, "a cesspool of the alt-right". https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/18/the-breitbart-alt-right-just-took-over-the-gop/?utm_term=.c9e047702396
I mean, think for a few minutes, and I’m sure that camp can come up with some non-policy related objections to the appointment that are legitimate. How about the fact that he’s moving from chairing a news organization to white house strategist? Does that kind of move have any precedent at all? Anything other than the direction of his opinions that suggest he’s not qualified? I’ll bet there is, if the establishment R’s have all distanced themselves from Trump and he’s not doling out any forgiveness for that, as we’re told to believe.
Just really lazy, identity-based journalism, more of the same that led us to this point.
We're now in the Twilight zone where pointing out that a white nationalist journalist is in the white house is "lazy, identity-based journalism". Amazing.
We're now in the Twilight zone where pointing out that a white nationalist journalist is in the white house is "lazy, identity-based journalism". Amazing.
These next four years are going to suck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
The electorate disagrees with you. Hillary didn't spend enough time speaking to issues that concerned whites.
You're moving your goalposts. It's a long way from "Clinton lost the white vote" to "Democrats treat whites as the enemy." You complain about people spinning the facts to match narratives, but have you taken a second look at your narrative? That the liberal elite are cynically demonizing "white people" as a group for some reason despite still being mostly white themselves? Could it possibly be that what was actually happening was very different, and you just can't see it because you're too wrapped up in your projected hate for and sanctimonious condemnation of them?
Let's look at just one example. You like so many others have fixated on the "deplorables" comment, but for all your fixation you missed what Clinton actually said in it. She was quite specific. And not in an obfuscatory after-the-fact "clarification" a la Trump, but right in the speech itself:
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that."
Not mentioned? White people. Neither explicitly nor in implication.
So she's saying that half of those 59 million people racist, xenophobes, Islamophobes, etc. and you're quoting the whole thing to me to show how it isn't ridiculous? When was the last time we saw such a generalization? Could it be when Trump called all Mexicans, all Mexican immigrants, all illegal immigrants from Mexico, most illegal immigrants from Mexico criminals, rapists, etc.?
And now I would like you to stop railing at your imaginary liberals and engage with these actual words spoken by the actual Democratic presidential candidate -- words cherry-picked not by me, but by her opponents seeking to condemn her. Tell me, ljossberer, as a libertarian, if there is a single word (aside from the infamous "half") with which you disagree.
You can't just take the 'half' away. 'Half' is kind of a big deal. Like as big as a border wall in Trump's own mind.
Are racists deplorable? Yes or no?
Yes, but people like Ellen DeGeneres do not fall under this category.
Are sexists deplorable? Yes or no?
Are homophobes deplorable? Yes or no?
Are xenophobes deplorable? Yes or no?
Yes.
Are Islamophobes deplorable? Yes or no?
If you attack random Muslims on the street or discriminate against them, yes. But in general I do not use this word.
Are there people like that? Yes or no?
Obviously.
But wait, there's more! She goes right on to say:
""But the other basket... are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change... Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."
You'd have to be pretty lost not to understand that.
So on the one hand we've got a woman saying that bigotry is deplorable and that we need to listen to people who feel like they're not being listened to. This woman, in your narrative, is treating white people as the enemy. And on the other hand we've got a group of people who are now proudly styling themselves "deplorables", avowing either that they really are bigots or that they're just ignorant of the context of the word. These people, in your narrative, are the blameless victims of liberal abuse.
Can you see the disconnect yet?
No. She ignored the midwest and all those deplorable hicks that "cling to God and guns." She's paying for it now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Art is life itself.
I've posted about Trump's prospects on gay rights, since he had promised to be "so much better for the gays" it's important to not be fooled by that sort of language. On the other hand, I've also posted about his appointing a white nationalist as his chief strategist. I don't think I'd have that complaint about a Cruz presidency - that's Trump being Trump.
People simply do not vote. It's quite appalling. Additionally, people will believe just about anything they hear/read because it's too much effort to dig for the truth.
Hopefully a Trump presidency will galvanize the populace into becoming active participants. Not to mention this is a tangible demonstration of just what a vocal minority that votes as a unified force can actually accomplish, for better or for worse or for much worse or for a whole lot worse than we could have ever imagined, time will tell.
This is what I'm hoping. The response from my friends (especially from those who didn't vote) has been unprecedented. Many of them are in the middle of a very rude awakening.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
I didn't realize beforehand because I'd blocked them, but him appointing Bannon drove it home for me.
What I'm saying is, political journalists are gonna start getting death threats from eggs, and it's gonna be weird for everyone involved.
Art is life itself.
But Trump's voterbase are older people, not younger ones. Younger people mostly voted for Clinton.
I mean, these people exist, and they are a significant group. But they're not the mainstream of Trump's support.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I read a ton of articles and responses to this, and I think a lot of Democrats missed some really crucial factors: A lot of people both Republican and Democrats have had a really *****ty time with Establishment politics. What I mean by that is the career politicians running Washington right now. The Democrats response to this is that people who want a Revolution, but support Trump are racist/sexist/xenophobic. I think what you have to remember is in a lot of rural areas (because even in places like Georgia, cities like Atlanta are VERY blue), blue collar people who are just trying to make end's meet at the end of the, don't give a ***** about social issues if they are on the verge of being homeless, or can't pay the bills. To them, the racism might be bad, but their needs are much more base than making sure groups not them are being voted.
And then you have people like Sarah Silverman, and other famous celebrities (who by the way, are INCREDIBLY well off) telling voters that a vote for Trump is immoral, vote for a candidate that pretty much will enforce the status quo? Or even running the gauntlet of "ists", it isn't surprising why a lot of Trump voters felt ostracized, without necessarily being racist or sexist themselves.
(Do note, I am not saying the "ists" didn't SWARM to Trump. I am merely stating the broad strokes used to paint Trump supporters, along with the fact that Clinton failed to excite her own base is what contributed to our situation now.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
And I acknowledge that there are a lot of older workers who are desperate and feels left behind and for them Trump is a protest vote. I don't condemn them and they are not the enemy coz if Trump don't deliver, they'll likely vote someone else next time. But trolls who just wants to burn everything down are still a significant group of Trump's coalition and they aren't likely to be swayed by economic reasons.
As for age of his troll supporters, how old do you guys think they are? 4chan has been around for more than a decade. I don't think these people are 20 somethings who's too cool to vote, but likely 30+ year olds who's been trolling and setting the internet on fire their whole adult lives. They've now found their flagbearer and discovered the joys of political activism.
So yeah, the trolls may not make up a large proportion of Trump's supporter, but they have definitely chosen Trump as their voice.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
The media definitely has problems, but considering both candidates were blaming the media for bad advertisement I don't really think I can hold the media responsible when it increasingly looked like Clinton's campaign approach was "we aren't as bad as those guys".
The GJ way path to no lynching:
I would be crying doom a lot more, but there is no internet in my steel bunker.
Honestly though, I find that super troubling too. There were so many people I spoke to after the election that said this felt *exactly like* the 2000 election where Gore lost. I mean, really? Wake up. This guy said that he would torture suspected “terrorists”, jail political opponents, restrict press access, target people for deportation based on their race, not to mention his chief campaign promise – building a wall with our 3rd biggest trade partner based on the idea that everyone crossing the border is a rapist.
I mean, what did Bush say at this point that was even remotely similar?
Tough reality, I’ve had to conclude that to a lot of people honestly do think that issues like bathroom equality are of exactly the same importance as torture and internment camps. Evidently to them, the Republican party is as bad as the Nazi party.
And as it’s been mentioned here before to some amount of resistance, this kind of intransigence does contribute to a feeling of desperation on the part of anyone judged to be on the wrong side of the issue, to the point where they feel they don’t have any remaining obligation to reject the worst parts of their constituency.
I’d say that in the case of a lot of people, it’s the electoral college. Those areas where Trump’s proposals are anathema to the social culture (West Coast, New England, etc) are exactly those areas that were always going Democrat, regardless of who showed up. Take someone who didn’t vote in CA, for example, and dollars to donuts they would have showed up to the polls if they were still back home in Wisconsin. Those states that have the best voter turnouts are exactly those battleground states, while those that are historically decided one way or the other have the worst turnouts.
I mean, Clinton already won the popular vote by several million. Having more people turn out in the states she already won would have just racked up a higher popular vote, to exactly zero effect on the outcome.
Put simply, this is on the “rust belt” states and Florida. Something going on over there made them tip over to Trump. For those of us outside those areas, not to mention the New York/Washington/California based media, trying to understand it is based on speculation.
I am from Illinois, and spend quite a bit of time in Indiana and Michigan. I am telling you that lot of people there live simple lives and just want to keep working/their house. Social issues and Global Diplomacy in a president is not high in their priority list, a mistake a lot of Democrats tend to make.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Not necessarily. Trump actually got less of the vote than McCain and Romney. The problem was that Clinton got a much lower turnout than Obama did, which allowed Trump's also mediocre turnout to overcome her in the midwest.
I think this is going to be a turning point for a lot of people who didn't vote or who voted third party based on the idea that Clinton would beat Trump, therefore their vote doesn't matter. Now that Trump has won, I've seen quite a few people come to the realization that the presidential election is not a ******* joke. I talked with a few people who voted third party and they said in hindsight that they would have voted for Clinton if they realized that Trump has won and that they are now definitely going to get out and vote in 2018. Hopefully it starts knocking down these ridiculous purity tests that progressives seem prone to. As long as they keep rejecting Democrats for not meeting all their standards they are going to continue getting Bushes and Trumps in the White House.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
I'm not even talking about the traditional media (which has their own massive profit-driven problems) but the wild west of internet media which has no gatekeepers and operates like a giant game of telephone and even obvious fake stuff gets retweeted and shared to millions of people.
He created the "Papers Please" law, SB 1070. This law allows police to detain people on suspicion of them not being US citizens, and it's been called the most racist law in the modern USA. He's also got a history of trying to disenfranchise non-white and non-male voters, and worked for an anti-immigrant hate group before becoming secretary of state. [link]
For those of you keeping score, Trump's council now contains at least one open White Nationalist and two people who previously were members of hate groups.
Art is life itself.
Who is this alleged 'open white nationalist'? Please don't tell me you're talking about Stephen Bannon.
Lemme guess, he doesn't wear a hood, so he can't be racist? Or maybe something something David Duke 3%?
Yeah, I agree. These constant attempts at character assassination by HuffPost are almost as irritating as their persistence on the idea of “breaking the glass ceiling”. Which is to say, really irritating.
Are we to believe that the executive chairman of Breitbart is and has always been a neo-Nazi, but we are only finding out about it now that he’s taking government office? It seems to me that a major news organization being led by White Supremacists would have been newsworthy before now.
I mean, think for a few minutes, and I’m sure that camp can come up with some non-policy related objections to the appointment that are legitimate. How about the fact that he’s moving from chairing a news organization to white house strategist? Does that kind of move have any precedent at all? Anything other than the direction of his opinions that suggest he’s not qualified? I’ll bet there is, if the establishment R’s have all distanced themselves from Trump and he’s not doling out any forgiveness for that, as we’re told to believe.
Just really lazy, identity-based journalism, more of the same that led us to this point.
The American Nazi Party: We love Bannon, because he'll make sure Trump follows our expectations.
The Southern Poverty Law Center: Bannon worries us, because he's openly racist.
Shapiro: While I was working for Breitbart, Bannon made sure that we pushed racist and sexist stories, and that's part of why I quit.
Like, come on son.
Oh yeah, I tried discussed the worries of a President essentially having his own private News organization on a previous page but no-one felt like responding.
Art is life itself.
Um, no? That's been clear ever since Bannon took over Breitbart. Just look at the stories he's run. Under his leadership, the site now runs stories straight out of the white supremacist playbook about how blacks, mexicans, muslims and others targets are violent, raping criminals. The old Breitbart was certainly far-right, but not white nationalist. Even it's former editor, Ben Shapiro, agrees that the site under Bannon has become, "a cesspool of the alt-right". https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/18/the-breitbart-alt-right-just-took-over-the-gop/?utm_term=.c9e047702396
The identification of Bannon as a white nationalist is not something we're just finding out about. The SPLC identified Bannon's site as such before he was even involved in Trump's campaign, let alone in government. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/04/28/breitbartcom-becoming-media-arm-alt-right
We're now in the Twilight zone where pointing out that a white nationalist journalist is in the white house is "lazy, identity-based journalism". Amazing.
These next four years are going to suck.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
So she's saying that half of those 59 million people racist, xenophobes, Islamophobes, etc. and you're quoting the whole thing to me to show how it isn't ridiculous? When was the last time we saw such a generalization? Could it be when Trump called
all Mexicans,all Mexican immigrants,all illegal immigrants from Mexico, most illegal immigrants from Mexico criminals, rapists, etc.?You can't just take the 'half' away. 'Half' is kind of a big deal. Like as big as a border wall in Trump's own mind.
Yes, but people like Ellen DeGeneres do not fall under this category.
Yes.
If you attack random Muslims on the street or discriminate against them, yes. But in general I do not use this word.
Obviously.
You'd have to be pretty lost not to understand that.
No. She ignored the midwest and all those deplorable hicks that "cling to God and guns." She's paying for it now.