To reinforce the point: Correcting the label from "racist" to "bigot" doesn't improve things any.
Or "xenophobe", a term I actually used the post he was responding to. But people like Ljoss are so intent on finding something - anything to avoid confronting racism that he was happy to ignore it and lead us down this farcical tangent.
My mistake, I should have included "quibble over what is and is not a race" in the list of behaviors used to excuse racism.
Well first of all it is different. And secondly, as usual, that doesn't actually answer the question, so I'm going to assume it's a yes unless you tell me otherwise. Now... do you think that a good amount of these kinds of people could have also voted for Obama in 2012 or would they have been too racist for that?
Or "xenophobe", a term I actually used the post he was responding to. But people like Ljoss are so intent on finding something - anything to avoid confronting racism that he was happy to ignore it and lead us down this farcical tangent.
You used the word racist right alongside xenophobic. You didn't have to, but you did. I don't know why you're so upset that I'm responding to the words you chose to use.
Did he actually say anything racist during the campaign trail, though? I could see chauvinist being a pretty appropriate word for him what with the way he treats women and all.
Let me try to put this in my own words and you tell me if this is what you mean. Do you mean that: he has been suspicious of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Muslims and, while Mexicans and Muslims aren't a race (so that you can't be racist against Mexicans or Muslims), they still have associations with "brownness" and that kind of talk triggered all the people that have a latent (or not latent, actually) hatred of brown people?
My mistake, I should have included "quibble over what is and is not a race" in the list of behaviors used to excuse racism.
To reinforce the point: Correcting the label from "racist" to "bigot" doesn't improve things any.
Incidentally, it does if you're talking about hating white people. You can't be racist against white people because... power. And therefore, there's nothing wrong with it.
But way, way more than that it needs to reform its voting laws so you don't have to vote on a ******* tuesday, because seriously what the hell is that. (I mean I know why but it does tend to disenfranchise people). Failing that, a national public holiday every four years.
Every year, actually. We do have elections in off-years.
Sure, have a PH every year then. Or just vote on a Saturday.
...and you need to get rid of the absurdity that is the electoral college.
Which part of the electoral college? Because one of the most important parts we've already gotten rid of. It was the part where the college was a deliberative body not beholden to the votes of the electorate, in a measure intended to protect the country from populist demagogues. A lot of people wish we still had that part right now.
The winner takes all part in each state, for starters. I'd also suggest that a popular vote would be a pretty good thing.
And, for preference, the states existing because I'd be willing to bet it is grossly ineffecient.
*spit-take* I'd take you up on that bet in a hot minute. Name one modern country of any size that doesn't use some sort of regional government set-up. Hell, most of them (including yours) are federal systems modeled to a greater or lesser extent on the United States. History is unequivocal on this point: overcentralization is what's grossly inefficient.
You can still have regional governance on some issues; strong states are what I'm suggesting are expensive for no real benefit. Having differing taxes and laws for a single country seems somewhere between dumb and idiotic.
Also, LJoss: non-hispanic whites will be a Majority for the next 3 decades or so at current rates.
Well first of all it is different. And secondly, as usual, that doesn't actually answer the question, so I'm going to assume it's a yes unless you tell me otherwise.
Gee, I thought I was being clear as day that that was not an accurate or productive summary of my point.
Now... do you think that a good amount of these kinds of people could have also voted for Obama in 2012 or would they have been too racist for that?
Surely some did. I don't think a "good amount" did. Clinton only received about 70k fewer votes than Obama, but surely there was also cross-over in both direction that make the real number in the low millions. I doubt that those people are the ones who like Trump for his giving voice to racism.
You used the word racist right alongside xenophobic. You didn't have to, but you did. I don't know why you're so upset that I'm responding to the words you chose to use.
You came up with two examples that you don't feel fit the category of racism, but which surely fit the category of xenophobia. If I had just said xenophobia, would you be in agreement with my assessment of Trump voters?
Is it, though? He's wasn't just the TV personality that he was before the election - nor was he Joe Populist. He came out and was as crazy as he wanted to be, maybe crazier than that. He said things that made you wonder whether the Democratic establishment was operating some kind of mind control device on him to get him to sabotage himself. He had no clue what he was doing before this started and he ran against a well-established politician. He spent less than her. He didn't have the appeal of being the first female POTUS. The Republican party itself turned on him - the most we've seen a party rebel against their own candidate in a century. The overwhelming majority of the media was in full attack mode against him.
Not only should he have lost, he should have been trounced. And he won. Barely or not... he won. Dude, how the hell did that happen?
You said you would vote for Trump as a second choice after Gary Johnson, didn't you? So, why would you have voted for Trump?
Apparently, whatever your other reasons were, one of them was because Trump not knowing what he was doing, and Trump being crazy - so much so as to evoke conspiracy theories that he was some kind of Democratic plant installed to ensure Hillary's victory - really didn't bother you all that much.
Evidently 63 million people really weren't bothered by it either.
Is it, though? He's wasn't just the TV personality that he was before the election - nor was he Joe Populist. He came out and was as crazy as he wanted to be, maybe crazier than that. He said things that made you wonder whether the Democratic establishment was operating some kind of mind control device on him to get him to sabotage himself. He had no clue what he was doing before this started and he ran against a well-established politician. He spent less than her. He didn't have the appeal of being the first female POTUS. The Republican party itself turned on him - the most we've seen a party rebel against their own candidate in a century. The overwhelming majority of the media was in full attack mode against him.
Not only should he have lost, he should have been trounced. And he won. Barely or not... he won. Dude, how the hell did that happen?
You said you would vote for Trump as a second choice after Gary Johnson, didn't you? So, why would you have voted for Trump?
Oh, the fact that you thought that explains a lot of our previous discussion. I believe I said that if it came to Hillary or Trump and I had to pick one, I'd vote Trump. But my voting preferences looked a little like this:
1. There are no libertarians? OK, Gary Johnson then.
2. Is there a Constitution party guy or something? Do I actually agree with the Constitution party? <researches>
3. Who is that guy from Utah?
4. Stay home, don't vote.
5. Trump for the LULz. He'll never win anyway.
Apparently, whatever your other reasons were, one of them was because Trump not knowing what he was doing, and Trump being crazy - so much so as to evoke conspiracy theories that he was some kind of Democratic plant installed to ensure Hillary's victory - really didn't bother you all that much.
Because it was funny. I was rooting so hard for Trump to win Florida and when he did it... wow, what a feeling. Never thought he would actually take it all. I might not have rooted for that if I knew. But again, it was him or Hillary so whatever really.
Evidently 63 million people really weren't bothered by it either.
I love that. I don't like Trump but yeah, this is why America is awesome. We just did something insane that is going to truly harm this country but really freak out leftists, the political elites in Europe, Canada, etc. We're doing this out of spite, for giggles, you know...
Why would you love that? Being self-destructive isn't remotely a good trait for a country to have, let alone one as big as the US. It's not going to just harm the country either, but the voters who voted for Trump are going to be hurt as well.
And I don't see any reason for the Democratic Party to drastically change. It had a shot, I still think with Bernie they could have pulled it off. One can only hope that they'll learn their lesson with Hillary and find someone who actually speaks to the people.
Also as far as voter turnout goes, I'm fairly sure most people this time were very disheartened. At least from what I noticed locally and online most people didn't feel like they were voting for anyone good, so they abstained from voting. That and a feeling that voting didn't matter, either generally or because they didn't think Trump could win.
I love that. I don't like Trump but yeah, this is why America is awesome. We just did something insane that is going to truly harm this country but really freak out leftists, the political elites in Europe, Canada, etc. We're doing this out of spite, for giggles, you know...
Apparently, whatever your other reasons were, one of them was because Trump not knowing what he was doing, and Trump being crazy - so much so as to evoke conspiracy theories that he was some kind of Democratic plant installed to ensure Hillary's victory - really didn't bother you all that much.
Because it was funny. I was rooting so hard for Trump to win Florida and when he did it... wow, what a feeling. Never thought he would actually take it all. I might not have rooted for that if I knew. But again, it was him or Hillary so whatever really.
This really doesn't seem like a productive attitude.
Evidently 63 million people really weren't bothered by it either.
I love that. I don't like Trump but yeah, this is why America is awesome. We just did something insane that is going to truly harm this country but really freak out leftists, the political elites in Europe, Canada, etc. We're doing this out of spite, for giggles, you know...
...And this seems like a resentful and malicious attitude.
Even better /s.
There are 270 electoral votes required to win the presidency. Hillary needed 38 more to make that total. Had she won the states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, states that normally lean blue but went red in this abnormal election, she would have won the election. Clinton lost by 0.3% of the vote in Michigan, 1% in Wisconsin, and 1.2% in Pennsylvania.
That is damn close.
It's why this narrative of a blue collar revolt, a revolution of the white working class is so ridiculous. Trump barely won the presidency, and even in the states he was able to wrestle away from the Democrats, he only was able to just barely scrape by. And certainly this notion of a landslide victory that Trump seems to think he achieved is ridiculous. Trump did not win by a landslide, he won by the skin of his teeth.
You are looking at the election results without much context. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are traditionally safe states for Democrats. The last time all three of those states went red was when Mondale got wiped out by Reagan in 1984. Speaking of Mondale, Democrats almost lost Minnesota as well. You brush off the results by thinking "oh, this isn't bad, this was damn close" but I see otherwise. Democrats should not be losing those states, but they did because they have become too cosmopolitan for the Rust Belt.
Second, and more importantly, Democrats have been getting clobbered in non-presidential races. Don't just focus on the presidential race. Republicans have won so many seats at the state and federal level that they are actually extremely close to being able to call a constitutional convention. They are only ~1-2 state legislatures away from having the power to amend the Constitution.
This is ridiculous.
I have already pointed out that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, rendering the narrative that this election is a result of the "silent majority" in this country speaking up an absurdity.
I have already pointed out how Trump only barely won this election, rendering the narrative that Trump represents a sort of white working class uprising an absurdity.
Yet here is an OP trying to create the same narrative, that Trump represents a landslide populist revolution against the wealthy elite, a narrative which is clearly absurd at this juncture now that the man has demonstrated his cabinet choices and the ineptitude exhibited therein. "That the voters expressly voted against?" On what parallel universe does Trump represent anything other than a wealthy elite out of touch with reality?
Have you seen what is happening with the West? There is absolutely a massive populist revolt going on in multiple countries. We had Brexit in the UK and Trump getting elected in the US. France and the Netherlands are likely going to be the next countries to go through this same "stick it to the man" wave. I fully expect Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders to win their respective elections now that they're energized by what has happened in the Anglosphere.
France and the Netherlands are likely going to be the next countries to go through this same "stick it to the man" wave. I fully expect Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders to win their respective elections now that they're energized by what has happened in the Anglosphere.
The next link in the chain was supposed to be Austria with them electing there first Right wing leader since the Second World war and a certain Moustached fellow. That didn't work out so well in the re-run of the election.
This has shown that they can be beaten if challenged correctly as the Austrians did by asking what sort of society people wanted and they rejected the myopic, simplistic views put forward by the populist right.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Second, and more importantly, Democrats have been getting clobbered in non-presidential races. Don't just focus on the presidential race. Republicans have won so many seats at the state and federal level that they are actually extremely close to being able to call a constitutional convention. They are only ~1-2 state legislatures away from having the power to amend the Constitution.
It's a little scary to consider since that could lead to a second civil war or worse. Though from the sounds of some of the alt-right rhetoric, they wouldn't mind that.
From a Southern Nationalist webpage (Occidental Dissent):
Southern Nationalists are ethnonationalists whereas White Nationalists are racial nationalists. We want Dixie to be an independent country like Ireland. We believe in staying put where we are, organizing and networking in the real world, and working toward the goal of Southern independence from the United States.
White Nationalists want to move somewhere, secede from the United States, and create a White ethnostate in North America. 20 years later, White Nationalists still haven’t decided where the White ethnostate will be located and there hasn’t been any mass migration of White Nationalists. The White ethnostate is an abstraction.
Second, and more importantly, Democrats have been getting clobbered in non-presidential races. Don't just focus on the presidential race. Republicans have won so many seats at the state and federal level that they are actually extremely close to being able to call a constitutional convention. They are only ~1-2 state legislatures away from having the power to amend the Constitution.
It's a little scary to consider since that could lead to a second civil war or worse. Though from the sounds of some of the alt-right rhetoric, they wouldn't mind that.
Oh, I've heard explicit talk of another civil war from white nationalist sort of people. There's definitely people who would make that happen if they could and similarly minded others who would allow it to happen.
You are looking at the election results without much context. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are traditionally safe states for Democrats.
No, they are states that lean Democrat. They are not, for example, California. And both Michigan and Pennsylvania went red in 1988.
You brush off the results by thinking "oh, this isn't bad, this was damn close" but I see otherwise.
Then maybe you should try looking at voter percentages.
Second, and more importantly, Democrats have been getting clobbered in non-presidential races. Don't just focus on the presidential race. Republicans have won so many seats at the state and federal level that they are actually extremely close to being able to call a constitutional convention. They are only ~1-2 state legislatures away from having the power to amend the Constitution.
And the Dems came into power after Bush with a filibuster-proof majority. People were declaring the GOP dead during that time. How many times, I wonder, does this need to happen before declaring a party dead is recognized as a premature reaction?
Have you seen what is happening with the West? There is absolutely a massive populist revolt going on in multiple countries. We had Brexit in the UK and Trump getting elected in the US. France and the Netherlands are likely going to be the next countries to go through this same "stick it to the man" wave. I fully expect Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders to win their respective elections now that they're energized by what has happened in the Anglosphere.
Yes, in reaction to an increasingly globalized world and the new challenges it brings, there are movements within many countries that represent a backlash against it in the form of a retreat towards nativism.
None of that makes the Democrats finished.
Hell, right now there's increasing concern amongst the "coal country" voters about whether or not they'll lose the health benefits granted to them by the Affordable Care Act. The Republicans' next move on the healthcare issue will play a major role in determining whether these voters will continue to support the Republicans or feel a sense of betrayal and actively oppose them.
Which brings us to the thing that really needs to be driven home: we are FIVE DAYS into 2017. So maybe, just maybe, it's a tad bit too premature to declare the Republicans the winners of the 2020 election when they're not even a week into this current presidency. Right?
You are looking at the election results without much context. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are traditionally safe states for Democrats.
No, they are states that lean Democrat. They are not, for example, California. And both Michigan and Pennsylvania went red in 1988.
You brush off the results by thinking "oh, this isn't bad, this was damn close" but I see otherwise.
Then maybe you should try looking at voter percentages.
Second, and more importantly, Democrats have been getting clobbered in non-presidential races. Don't just focus on the presidential race. Republicans have won so many seats at the state and federal level that they are actually extremely close to being able to call a constitutional convention. They are only ~1-2 state legislatures away from having the power to amend the Constitution.
And the Dems came into power after Bush with a filibuster-proof majority. People were declaring the GOP dead during that time. How many times, I wonder, does this need to happen before declaring a party dead is recognized as a premature reaction?
Have you seen what is happening with the West? There is absolutely a massive populist revolt going on in multiple countries. We had Brexit in the UK and Trump getting elected in the US. France and the Netherlands are likely going to be the next countries to go through this same "stick it to the man" wave. I fully expect Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders to win their respective elections now that they're energized by what has happened in the Anglosphere.
Yes, in reaction to an increasingly globalized world and the new challenges it brings, there are movements within many countries that represent a backlash against it in the form of a retreat towards nativism.
None of that makes the Democrats finished.
Hell, right now there's increasing concern amongst the "coal country" voters about whether or not they'll lose the health benefits granted to them by the Affordable Care Act. The Republicans' next move on the healthcare issue will play a major role in determining whether these voters will continue to support the Republicans or feel a sense of betrayal and actively oppose them.
Which brings us to the thing that really needs to be driven home: we are FIVE DAYS into 2017. So maybe, just maybe, it's a tad bit too premature to declare the Republicans the winners of the 2020 election when they're not even a week into this current presidency. Right?
I agree. This is just the democrats facing adversity, there's no reason to call that they are collapsing or something, at the VERY least, not yet.
I think the bit about globalisation is particularly important, especially when you look at similar issues- the world has changed quite a lot in the last century and it seems not everyone is on the same page about where exactly that leaves us. We are facing new issues and there's going to be confusion around them- I think that's part of what we are seeing with politics right now, especially on the audience side.
Most Americans agree more with Democratic policies, even the ones who vote GOP (when you do not say which policy belongs to which party).
Republicans simply are much much better to get voters to vote against their self interest. They're more shrewd at framing stuff. It's been proven time and again and again.
Do you have a source for this? It's possible, but I'm not necessarily sure if this actually applies to most Americans, especially given misinformation and low education rates.
In other news, Trump has now come out to say that he's going to make Congress pay for the wall, and then Mexico will pay us back.
Mexico will pay us back for building a border wall.
Yeah, this is a good time to note something that's been said already, but I feel bears repeating: Donald Trump is a CON MAN. And what threads like this one are basically doing is looking at how many people bought what the con man was selling, and then proclaimed, "Wow, everyone bought what the con man was selling! Looks like the other people who are selling X are out of business!" Except, the problem with that is you're only going by who bought it, and not who actually got what they ordered and was satisfied afterward. You're not looking into the people who never actually got anything despite ordering it, or the people who got something very different from what was advertised.
Another metaphor would be tipping your waiter before the food arrives, or in this thread's case, giving the restaurant three Michelin stars and declaring that it will drive all other restaurants out of business before the food arrives.
In other words, yes, a lot of people may have bought into what the con man was saying. A lot of people may have ponied up good money for what he was selling. But the Republicans' success, at least for the next election, is dependent upon a con man following through on what he promised.
Remember the part where he's a con man? Yeah. It's not likely.
Most Americans agree more with Democratic policies, even the ones who vote GOP (when you do not say which policy belongs to which party).
You can write those sorts of studies to show that most Americans agree with Democratic policies and you can write them to show that most Americans agree with Republican policies. "This bill would financially assist parents in sending their kids to the school of their choice - agree or disagree?""This bill would redirect funds from already-struggling public schools to affluent private schools - agree or disagree?" So how many Americans actually agree with school voucher systems? Depends on how you phrase the question. The real answer, of course, is that a lot of Americans don't pay that much attention and don't have an opinion until you ask them, and that both parties have policies which are well-intentioned and sound good to an undecided person when put to them sympathetically.
One observation I can make is that Americans tend to support Republican policies in the abstract and Democratic policies when they directly benefit. A.k.a. the "Slash government spending, but don't you dare touch my Social Security!" phenomenon.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think urbanization and voting Democrat are all wrapped up in a common third cause, which is intertwined and indistinguishable from the rest. Like one blogger called it - “Blue Tribe”. It tends to affect everything, from what we eat to what lies we believe, and accordingly, how we vote. If you are inclined to that you will get an education, move to an urban area where there is employment for people of education, so on. If you are not, you find yourself around the “Red Tribe”.
If the election has shown one thing, it’s that the Blue and the Red have become increasingly able to look past one another. So, they don’t feel accountable to one another at all. The Blue will only get more Blue, more anti-White, more anti-corporate nonsense such as Food Babe, more anti-nationalist. Because, the Blue is only accountable to the rest of the Blue. They’ve lost sight of anything else.
But, all of that is evidently true of the Red also. The only way to reconcile the apparent contradiction within a statement like “Keep your government hands off my Medicare”, is to examine the class of the recipients. The Medicare and VA benefits are awesome, because the old, the White and the veterans have “earned” them, while “Obamacare” is anathema because all the uninsured must be immigrants. The first candidate to come along that actually gave voice to what that really is had all the support from the base, and similarly, absolutely no check whatsoever from the other party’s base who thought he was unelectable because of it.
Just each side in its own echo chamber, talking where the other one can’t hear. I'd wager it will continue to get worse until one or the other either dies off, or is otherwise replaced and drops below the numbers necessary for the plurality it takes to win a Presidential bid.
It should be noted that the majority of whites making over $100k/yr still went to Trump and the majority of whites making under $50k/yr still went to Clinton. It just happens that they moved in opposite directions (whites making over $100k/yr moved net from McCain and Romney to Clinton, whites making under $50k/yr moved net from Obama to Trump). One may as well ask why literally every racial minority is moving toward the Republicans, since Obama outdid her with just about everyone except whites making over $100k/yr.
I know, there is a class of Democrat that likes to pretend otherwise, the McGoverniks of the 70s and the DLC of the 80s and 90s and now the Clintonistas. This same class of Democrat likes to pretend Clinton could inherit Obama's gravitas. (VPs inherit a bit of gravitas, or in Ford's case, scandal from their former bosses; perhaps the best exemplar of this is in fact another Democrat, Lyndon Johnson. Primary losers who don't become VPs don't.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
I'm not convinced that trying to take over the Democratic Party is worth it, not the least because the DNC is the party, so we're more likely to see something new instead.
Here you appear to be conflating what you think is right with what you think is likely.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I agree. This is just the democrats facing adversity, there's no reason to call that they are collapsing or something, at the VERY least, not yet.
I think the bit about globalisation is particularly important, especially when you look at similar issues- the world has changed quite a lot in the last century and it seems not everyone is on the same page about where exactly that leaves us. We are facing new issues and there's going to be confusion around them- I think that's part of what we are seeing with politics right now, especially on the audience side.
The Democratic Party is facing more than simply adversity, it's facing a struggle for what it should even represent. If the centrist leadership wins then the party will fade away.
That's a pretty bold claim to make with no data to back it up.
I'll be needing data personally.
I'm not convinced that trying to take over the Democratic Party is worth it, not the least because the DNC is the party, so we're more likely to see something new instead.
Everything people claim to be wrong with the DNC are mostly reasons to choose the democratic party- they have an established position of power in the larger sociopolitical environment- with the media, with voters, with businesses, etc. A new party would not have a well of support to fall back on.
An established position they used to; lose to Donald Trump. lmao. The Democratic Party's support among business and media hinges upon its function as a champion of capital while any name recognition and support among voters hinges upon its ability to do anything for them in any way. One of these has got to go and I'm figuring it'll be the latter.
I don't think the Democratic party has ever been what I would call a "champion of capital." That's more of the Republicans' realm. But social democracy and social liberalism works amazingly in many other countries, and jumping onto that, potentially with a rebranding of it into something that isn't considered a curse word by most of the country, might actually go further than relying on the establishment and history of the party.
Everything people claim to be wrong with the DNC are mostly reasons to choose the democratic party- they have an established position of power in the larger sociopolitical environment- with the media, with voters, with businesses, etc. A new party would not have a well of support to fall back on.
An established position they used to; lose to Donald Trump. lmao.
An established position they used to lose to another party with an established position that they have lost to in the past and still came back to win future elections. Yeah, clearly the party is collapsing.
Or "xenophobe", a term I actually used the post he was responding to. But people like Ljoss are so intent on finding something - anything to avoid confronting racism that he was happy to ignore it and lead us down this farcical tangent.
Well first of all it is different. And secondly, as usual, that doesn't actually answer the question, so I'm going to assume it's a yes unless you tell me otherwise. Now... do you think that a good amount of these kinds of people could have also voted for Obama in 2012 or would they have been too racist for that?
You used the word racist right alongside xenophobic. You didn't have to, but you did. I don't know why you're so upset that I'm responding to the words you chose to use.
Can you be bigoted against Scientology?
Sure, have a PH every year then. Or just vote on a Saturday.
The winner takes all part in each state, for starters. I'd also suggest that a popular vote would be a pretty good thing.
You can still have regional governance on some issues; strong states are what I'm suggesting are expensive for no real benefit. Having differing taxes and laws for a single country seems somewhere between dumb and idiotic.
Also, LJoss: non-hispanic whites will be a Majority for the next 3 decades or so at current rates.
Gee, I thought I was being clear as day that that was not an accurate or productive summary of my point.
Surely some did. I don't think a "good amount" did. Clinton only received about 70k fewer votes than Obama, but surely there was also cross-over in both direction that make the real number in the low millions. I doubt that those people are the ones who like Trump for his giving voice to racism.
You came up with two examples that you don't feel fit the category of racism, but which surely fit the category of xenophobia. If I had just said xenophobia, would you be in agreement with my assessment of Trump voters?
Apparently, whatever your other reasons were, one of them was because Trump not knowing what he was doing, and Trump being crazy - so much so as to evoke conspiracy theories that he was some kind of Democratic plant installed to ensure Hillary's victory - really didn't bother you all that much.
Evidently 63 million people really weren't bothered by it either.
Oh, the fact that you thought that explains a lot of our previous discussion. I believe I said that if it came to Hillary or Trump and I had to pick one, I'd vote Trump. But my voting preferences looked a little like this:
1. There are no libertarians? OK, Gary Johnson then.
2. Is there a Constitution party guy or something? Do I actually agree with the Constitution party? <researches>
3. Who is that guy from Utah?
4. Stay home, don't vote.
5. Trump for the LULz. He'll never win anyway.
Because it was funny. I was rooting so hard for Trump to win Florida and when he did it... wow, what a feeling. Never thought he would actually take it all. I might not have rooted for that if I knew. But again, it was him or Hillary so whatever really.
I love that. I don't like Trump but yeah, this is why America is awesome. We just did something insane that is going to truly harm this country but really freak out leftists, the political elites in Europe, Canada, etc. We're doing this out of spite, for giggles, you know...
And I don't see any reason for the Democratic Party to drastically change. It had a shot, I still think with Bernie they could have pulled it off. One can only hope that they'll learn their lesson with Hillary and find someone who actually speaks to the people.
Also as far as voter turnout goes, I'm fairly sure most people this time were very disheartened. At least from what I noticed locally and online most people didn't feel like they were voting for anyone good, so they abstained from voting. That and a feeling that voting didn't matter, either generally or because they didn't think Trump could win.
This really doesn't seem like a productive attitude.
...And this seems like a resentful and malicious attitude.
Even better /s.
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
You are looking at the election results without much context. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are traditionally safe states for Democrats. The last time all three of those states went red was when Mondale got wiped out by Reagan in 1984. Speaking of Mondale, Democrats almost lost Minnesota as well. You brush off the results by thinking "oh, this isn't bad, this was damn close" but I see otherwise. Democrats should not be losing those states, but they did because they have become too cosmopolitan for the Rust Belt.
Second, and more importantly, Democrats have been getting clobbered in non-presidential races. Don't just focus on the presidential race. Republicans have won so many seats at the state and federal level that they are actually extremely close to being able to call a constitutional convention. They are only ~1-2 state legislatures away from having the power to amend the Constitution.
Have you seen what is happening with the West? There is absolutely a massive populist revolt going on in multiple countries. We had Brexit in the UK and Trump getting elected in the US. France and the Netherlands are likely going to be the next countries to go through this same "stick it to the man" wave. I fully expect Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders to win their respective elections now that they're energized by what has happened in the Anglosphere.
The next link in the chain was supposed to be Austria with them electing there first Right wing leader since the Second World war and a certain Moustached fellow. That didn't work out so well in the re-run of the election.
This has shown that they can be beaten if challenged correctly as the Austrians did by asking what sort of society people wanted and they rejected the myopic, simplistic views put forward by the populist right.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
It's a little scary to consider since that could lead to a second civil war or worse. Though from the sounds of some of the alt-right rhetoric, they wouldn't mind that.
From a Southern Nationalist webpage (Occidental Dissent):
Oh, I've heard explicit talk of another civil war from white nationalist sort of people. There's definitely people who would make that happen if they could and similarly minded others who would allow it to happen.
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
Then maybe you should try looking at voter percentages.
And the Dems came into power after Bush with a filibuster-proof majority. People were declaring the GOP dead during that time. How many times, I wonder, does this need to happen before declaring a party dead is recognized as a premature reaction?
Yes, in reaction to an increasingly globalized world and the new challenges it brings, there are movements within many countries that represent a backlash against it in the form of a retreat towards nativism.
None of that makes the Democrats finished.
Hell, right now there's increasing concern amongst the "coal country" voters about whether or not they'll lose the health benefits granted to them by the Affordable Care Act. The Republicans' next move on the healthcare issue will play a major role in determining whether these voters will continue to support the Republicans or feel a sense of betrayal and actively oppose them.
Which brings us to the thing that really needs to be driven home: we are FIVE DAYS into 2017. So maybe, just maybe, it's a tad bit too premature to declare the Republicans the winners of the 2020 election when they're not even a week into this current presidency. Right?
I agree. This is just the democrats facing adversity, there's no reason to call that they are collapsing or something, at the VERY least, not yet.
I think the bit about globalisation is particularly important, especially when you look at similar issues- the world has changed quite a lot in the last century and it seems not everyone is on the same page about where exactly that leaves us. We are facing new issues and there's going to be confusion around them- I think that's part of what we are seeing with politics right now, especially on the audience side.
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
Do you have a source for this? It's possible, but I'm not necessarily sure if this actually applies to most Americans, especially given misinformation and low education rates.
Mexico will pay us back for building a border wall.
Yeah, this is a good time to note something that's been said already, but I feel bears repeating: Donald Trump is a CON MAN. And what threads like this one are basically doing is looking at how many people bought what the con man was selling, and then proclaimed, "Wow, everyone bought what the con man was selling! Looks like the other people who are selling X are out of business!" Except, the problem with that is you're only going by who bought it, and not who actually got what they ordered and was satisfied afterward. You're not looking into the people who never actually got anything despite ordering it, or the people who got something very different from what was advertised.
Another metaphor would be tipping your waiter before the food arrives, or in this thread's case, giving the restaurant three Michelin stars and declaring that it will drive all other restaurants out of business before the food arrives.
In other words, yes, a lot of people may have bought into what the con man was saying. A lot of people may have ponied up good money for what he was selling. But the Republicans' success, at least for the next election, is dependent upon a con man following through on what he promised.
Remember the part where he's a con man? Yeah. It's not likely.
One observation I can make is that Americans tend to support Republican policies in the abstract and Democratic policies when they directly benefit. A.k.a. the "Slash government spending, but don't you dare touch my Social Security!" phenomenon.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If the election has shown one thing, it’s that the Blue and the Red have become increasingly able to look past one another. So, they don’t feel accountable to one another at all. The Blue will only get more Blue, more anti-White, more anti-corporate nonsense such as Food Babe, more anti-nationalist. Because, the Blue is only accountable to the rest of the Blue. They’ve lost sight of anything else.
But, all of that is evidently true of the Red also. The only way to reconcile the apparent contradiction within a statement like “Keep your government hands off my Medicare”, is to examine the class of the recipients. The Medicare and VA benefits are awesome, because the old, the White and the veterans have “earned” them, while “Obamacare” is anathema because all the uninsured must be immigrants. The first candidate to come along that actually gave voice to what that really is had all the support from the base, and similarly, absolutely no check whatsoever from the other party’s base who thought he was unelectable because of it.
Just each side in its own echo chamber, talking where the other one can’t hear. I'd wager it will continue to get worse until one or the other either dies off, or is otherwise replaced and drops below the numbers necessary for the plurality it takes to win a Presidential bid.
It should be noted that the majority of whites making over $100k/yr still went to Trump and the majority of whites making under $50k/yr still went to Clinton. It just happens that they moved in opposite directions (whites making over $100k/yr moved net from McCain and Romney to Clinton, whites making under $50k/yr moved net from Obama to Trump). One may as well ask why literally every racial minority is moving toward the Republicans, since Obama outdid her with just about everyone except whites making over $100k/yr.
I know, there is a class of Democrat that likes to pretend otherwise, the McGoverniks of the 70s and the DLC of the 80s and 90s and now the Clintonistas. This same class of Democrat likes to pretend Clinton could inherit Obama's gravitas. (VPs inherit a bit of gravitas, or in Ford's case, scandal from their former bosses; perhaps the best exemplar of this is in fact another Democrat, Lyndon Johnson. Primary losers who don't become VPs don't.)
On phasing:
Here you appear to be conflating what you think is right with what you think is likely.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That's a pretty bold claim to make with no data to back it up.
I'll be needing data personally.
Everything people claim to be wrong with the DNC are mostly reasons to choose the democratic party- they have an established position of power in the larger sociopolitical environment- with the media, with voters, with businesses, etc. A new party would not have a well of support to fall back on.
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
Fascism, specifically? That's quite a statement. Can you back that up with some more direct evidence?
I don't think the Democratic party has ever been what I would call a "champion of capital." That's more of the Republicans' realm. But social democracy and social liberalism works amazingly in many other countries, and jumping onto that, potentially with a rebranding of it into something that isn't considered a curse word by most of the country, might actually go further than relying on the establishment and history of the party.
An established position they used to lose to another party with an established position that they have lost to in the past and still came back to win future elections. Yeah, clearly the party is collapsing.
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