Not to mention, both sides view on racism; SJW pretend Racism is some sort of proplem that is exclusive to non-white people, and that human value is weighted according not only to your preference, but with what ethnicity you identify with. On the other hand the advocates of freedom say racism is almost non existant (or doesn't exists anymore) while fighting for the right to make offensive jokes and sicrarding every argument on it.
I relate and I don't know where the sensible middle ground has gone on race.***
***which is not to say that something being a middle ground or a moderate position necessarily makes it right, but I think in this case.
When talking about race here, I mostly spend my time going after the SJWs. I figure that's because this forum can be very left. But I've been on right-wing forums and I'll come across the other way. The thing with the SJWs and race/gender is that they say things that are fundamentally appalling, things that I would recoil at if a white or male friend said them about women or a non-white group. But when they say these disgusting, hateful things, it is not considered racist---and, prejudice + power nonsense aside, these things are not even considered wrong. For a sample, one might google the SJW vs. Stormfront game and see how similar the rhetoric of SJWs and white nationalists really is or what happens when you replace all instances of "men" with "black people" in the words of a feminist SJW or when Buzzfeed celebrates presentations with titles like "white people are a plague to the planet," "white people are crazy" or "white people are dangerous," etc.
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.
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.
We're already seeing the high school walkouts and the reports of white supremacist morons intimidating people. The media is going to live off this for months if not longer. What the media will not show is the violent protests or things like this or this. This will continue to be the narrative, the same one they have pushed all throughout election season. The one they dragged out every musician or actor or actress they could find to push. The one they pushed with their crappy polling data.
But you see, they don't have the power anymore. They're scared. Oh they're sooo scared because now they have to listen to the 'deplorables,' the ones that 'cling to guns and religion.' They told those people that this wasn't their country anymore, that their voices, thoughts, opinions and feelings didn't matter. They expected those people to just roll over and die before the great god of the demographic shifts. Now they're mad because those people actually bothered to fight back. They were playing the game just as much as Trump did, but they don't want to admit it. They cloak their hate in projection. This is why they don't talk about all the times Trump was threatened and chased from major U.S. cities in what was supposed to be a free, Democratic election. They cloak their hate in sanctimonious condemnation of obscure concepts they've invented like 'the patriarchy' and 'privilege.' They exclude, deny and belittle just as much as their opponents do - but they post "LOVE TRUMPS HATE" signs next to their burning Donald Trump effigies, so it's OK. Now they have to listen to the people they hate so much: the hicks, the hillbillies, the ones that go to brunch after church, the ones that can't take their dog for a walk at night because of the latin street gangs, etc. Now they have to sit down and listen. Now the media has to listen. Now the political establishment - including the Republicans - has to listen.
There are indeed aspects of this election that are incredibly disturbing. Those aren't among them.
Despite Trump being elected I still have a glimmer of hope. Young people overwhelming vote democrat. Eventually these young people will grow up and be the old people that always vote. Then, finally then, we can actually make some progress in this country. Until then, women, gays, minorities, pretty much anyone who isn't a white male, just try to hang in there. It's only going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
What do you plan to do with all the white males once you take control?
David Duke carried 3% of the vote in the Senate race in Louisiana. That's impressive in the sense that there were several candidates running but at the end of the day, it's just 3%. That's about 3% too much, but it gives you a good sense of how many of these people there really are. And within that 3%, many have no interest in taking action. The point is, dismissing 59,000,000+ votes as if they're all endorsing racism is ridiculous. The Democrats tried to do that and now they're paying for it.
David Duke got 3% of the vote in one of the least white states in America (only Hawaii, Mississippi, Maryland and Georgia are less white than Louisiana) - presumably his support is almost exclusively from the white portion of the voters, of which he won perhaps 5%. He did so without any significant funding. He did so as an actual former KKK grand wizard. He received over 50,000 votes, and even made it to the debate stage (perhaps a lesson in what happens when you lower that bar too much).
But you're right, there aren't 59,000,000 David Dukes out there. If we extrapolate his 58,581 votes in Louisiana to the US population, there are perhaps about 4,000,000 David Duke voters out there (Louisiana is perhaps more racist than the average, but also has far fewer white voters than the average). You then have many millions more who are perhaps unwilling to outright vote for a KKK grand wizard, but are still pretty racist. Beyond that you have those are probably not terribly racist, but are basically unbothered by racism. The type of people who look back at the 1950s and think that was when America was "great".
The most recent demographic info that I could find about Louisiana shows that it was about 65 percent white as of 2005. It has a large black population but a rather small hispanic population. Also we're talking about whites in Louisiana, not, say New Jersey.
Violent racism (e.g. Dylan Roof) is a problem. Non-violent racism (e.g. discrimination in housing) is a problem. Casual racism (e.g. being less friendly to a customer of color in retail) is a problem. They are not all the same problem. They fall under the same enormous umbrella, but they are not all the same in magnitude, nor of import.
The thing is, if someone wants to assign the "racist" characteristic to all whites as a means to disregard their interests and therefore their votes, then those people are just as bad as those that they criticize.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
They didn't do it this time. This may come as a shock to you, but Hillary Clinton is white.
The electorate disagrees with you. Hillary didn't spend enough time speaking to issues that concerned whites.
Dr. Ben Carson is black and a prominent Trump supporter. Does that prove that Trump isn't racist towards black people? I don't think so.
This will likely flush some of the morons out of their holes and that is terrifying but they're already there, and that's the problem.
Yeah, that is a large part of the problem. When someone who uses the tactical throwing-of-minorities-under-the-bus gets elected, that makes people with horrible bigoted ideas feel like they're welcome in society and can do what they want, leading to noticeable spikes in hate crimes and increased mobilization of hate groups. This always happens.
In 2008, in the middle of an economic crisis (which is the kind of thing that tends to stoke racial tension), the U.S. elected its first bi-racial President. Though recovering, the economy was still sluggish and, 4 years later, Americans went ahead and re-elected that same bi-racial President. After 4 more years and with a better economy (overall, not necessarily locally), that bi-racial President had good approval ratings heading into the 2016 election. Then, completely out of nowhere, Trump becomes President elect. Because racism?
Why did Trump fare better with blacks and hispanics than Romney did? What is responsible for this surge in what you call racism? Backlash against a bi-racial President that won convincingly in back to back elections, against a President who was still popular on the eve of the election? Backlash against a national economy that's in crisis? In short, where have these 59 million racists been for the past 8 years?
Hey, maybe you're right. Maybe whites are the enemy. But you know what didn't help the cause? Treating whites as the enemy. Maybe the Democrats have learned not to treat them as such next time.
Quote from Surging Chaos »
Way back ago in the Trump thread I told you about the silent majority and how it was a thing. You scoffed at the idea ignored me at your own peril. Who's laughing now?
This is hysterical. The meltdown is real. Embrace it.
My point being that I said nothing denoting slavery and the counter-point is to automatically say I'm implying slavery. This is the liberal attitude that lost them the election. They constantly call anyone who disagrees with them a racist and we non-racists got sick and tired of it.
The inevitable surge in hate crimes, and all associated deaths and woundings are on you and those who voted with you. That's what voting is: responsibility.
In the way that attending mosque makes you responsible for the San Bernadino or Orlando attacks, or voting for Jill Stein makes you responsible for an ELF bombing or voting for Hillary makes you responsible for the current violence in Oakland, etc. Which is to say not at all. Crazy people gonna be crazy. This will likely flush some of the morons out of their holes and that is terrifying but they're already there, and that's the problem.
David Duke carried 3% of the vote in the Senate race in Louisiana. That's impressive in the sense that there were several candidates running but at the end of the day, it's just 3%. That's about 3% too much, but it gives you a good sense of how many of these people there really are. And within that 3%, many have no interest in taking action. The point is, dismissing 59,000,000+ votes as if they're all endorsing racism is ridiculous. The Democrats tried to do that and now they're paying for it.
Quote from gum0nshoe »
There was zero anti-religous rhetoric in Clinton's campaign. So, yeah, you're making **** up.
I was a little uneasy with the suggestion that people like Murdoch are only Catholic because they desperately want to be Evangelical but can't admit it to others.
Quote from cranial_extraction »
My point being that I said nothing denoting slavery and the counter-point is to automatically say I'm implying slavery. This is the liberal attitude that lost them the election. They constantly call anyone who disagrees with them a racist and we non-racists got sick and tired of it.
IMO, that's a big aspect of this that is not being recognized. As a non-Trump voter in a relatively liberal area, I was surprised to find out how many of my white male (and even female) friends were Trump supporters. I even had a friend that was an avid supporter of Bernie and was contemplating whether Jill Stein or Trump was the right choice for him. None of these were the kinds of people that I've ever heard a racial remark from, nor a comment about immigration, radical Islam or anything of the like. The general feeling that I gathered from these people was that there was a sense that the Democrats really didn't care about them because they didn't fit into any specific special interest group.
I would urge the media and Democrats to stop with this narrative that we have 59,000,000 foaming at the mouth white racists (some of which are not white yet still white racists). Because if that's true, we're all screwed anyway. But if it's not true and you continue to ignore all those people then they are going to keep pooling in a block with the few who truly are 'deplorable.' Wake up.
Whelp, here's hoping both parties collapse, we get rid of the electoral college, and maybe create an election process that makes one iota of sense.
Won't happen, of course, but I need happy thoughts right now.
What's wrong with the electoral college? Without it, all the power in this country will be concentrated in just a few small places: New York, LA, Chicago, etc.
Is this perhaps reminiscent of what happened with John Kerry - where there were a lot of "anybody but Bush" votes out there for him but maybe not enough positive energy to get out more purely pro-Kerry votes?
Basically; I think like Kerry & Gore the dems went with a "safe" candidate that towed the line but was totally uninspiring. You've got to run for something. Barack showed us how to do that, and we ****** up.
I'd imagine that if you somehow slotted 2000 Al Gore or 2004 John Kerry into 2016 Hillary's spot, both Gore and Kerry would have won this election vs. Trump. While Gore and Kerry were both uninspiring (IMO, of course), I can't recall too many scandals attached to them. I believe it's the convergence of being uninspiring and the scandals.
Quote from GustavitoHouses »
It all starts with people born in the USA calling themselves "America". You are Americans but you are not "America". America is a continent not a country.
We call the country "America."
We call the continents either "The Americas" or "North America" or "South America."
That's what we do. You all go ahead and keep doing your own thing, no one is stopping you. But no one is stopping us, either.
her miscalculation was she ignored the rural voters, the ones who said they weren't being included.
No. That's not enough in presidential politics. I think the numbers already point to a huge number of people sitting out of the election. When that happens it doesn't take much for the rural vote to just kind of take over. Her problem was that she was quintessentially unexciting and mistrusted. Her inability to get people to vote for her to care that would normally have done so for an average candidate with her views is why she lost.
Is this perhaps reminiscent of what happened with John Kerry - where there were a lot of "anybody but Bush" votes out there for him but maybe not enough positive energy to get out more purely pro-Kerry votes?
So what were Hillary's miscalculations... what did she do wrong?
And why did the media get it so wrong?
Trump actually carried a higher % of the black and hispanic vote than Romney. The black vote is a little less surprising just because he wasn't running against Obama. But the hispanic vote is pretty interesting. I don't think those were big difference makers, but that's quite an accomplishment for a man that is literally Hitler.
I was so close to praising the left for not rioting yet, but yeah... predictable. People are worried that Trump is going to undermine our democractic institutions but then they go out and act all European and whatnot.
Trump is going to deport all the Mexicans, build a giant wall, and ban all Muslims from the country. And through all of this, I'm supposed to tell my son to not hate people because of the color of their skin...sad times.
He's going to deport people with American citizenship? How does that work?
Thanks troll, I'll specify. "Undocumented" or "illegal" aka people who are here because their own country is junk and they want a better opportunity for themselves and family
That's pretty darn different you know? Outrageously different, in fact. Maybe if the Dems and the media hadn't been speaking in a misleading way like that, they wouldn't have to deal with what just happened. It's a possibility.
Also: just the Mexican ones? Canadians, Belgians, Nigerians are fine?
And no, he's not going to do that anyway. He doesn't have the funds to do it.
I relate and I don't know where the sensible middle ground has gone on race.***
When talking about race here, I mostly spend my time going after the SJWs. I figure that's because this forum can be very left. But I've been on right-wing forums and I'll come across the other way. The thing with the SJWs and race/gender is that they say things that are fundamentally appalling, things that I would recoil at if a white or male friend said them about women or a non-white group. But when they say these disgusting, hateful things, it is not considered racist---and, prejudice + power nonsense aside, these things are not even considered wrong. For a sample, one might google the SJW vs. Stormfront game and see how similar the rhetoric of SJWs and white nationalists really is or what happens when you replace all instances of "men" with "black people" in the words of a feminist SJW or when Buzzfeed celebrates presentations with titles like "white people are a plague to the planet," "white people are crazy" or "white people are dangerous," etc.
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.
Who is this alleged 'open white nationalist'? Please don't tell me you're talking about Stephen Bannon.
But you see, they don't have the power anymore. They're scared. Oh they're sooo scared because now they have to listen to the 'deplorables,' the ones that 'cling to guns and religion.' They told those people that this wasn't their country anymore, that their voices, thoughts, opinions and feelings didn't matter. They expected those people to just roll over and die before the great god of the demographic shifts. Now they're mad because those people actually bothered to fight back. They were playing the game just as much as Trump did, but they don't want to admit it. They cloak their hate in projection. This is why they don't talk about all the times Trump was threatened and chased from major U.S. cities in what was supposed to be a free, Democratic election. They cloak their hate in sanctimonious condemnation of obscure concepts they've invented like 'the patriarchy' and 'privilege.' They exclude, deny and belittle just as much as their opponents do - but they post "LOVE TRUMPS HATE" signs next to their burning Donald Trump effigies, so it's OK. Now they have to listen to the people they hate so much: the hicks, the hillbillies, the ones that go to brunch after church, the ones that can't take their dog for a walk at night because of the latin street gangs, etc. Now they have to sit down and listen. Now the media has to listen. Now the political establishment - including the Republicans - has to listen.
There are indeed aspects of this election that are incredibly disturbing. Those aren't among them.
What do you plan to do with all the white males once you take control?
The most recent demographic info that I could find about Louisiana shows that it was about 65 percent white as of 2005. It has a large black population but a rather small hispanic population. Also we're talking about whites in Louisiana, not, say New Jersey.
Violent racism (e.g. Dylan Roof) is a problem. Non-violent racism (e.g. discrimination in housing) is a problem. Casual racism (e.g. being less friendly to a customer of color in retail) is a problem. They are not all the same problem. They fall under the same enormous umbrella, but they are not all the same in magnitude, nor of import.
The thing is, if someone wants to assign the "racist" characteristic to all whites as a means to disregard their interests and therefore their votes, then those people are just as bad as those that they criticize.
The electorate disagrees with you. Hillary didn't spend enough time speaking to issues that concerned whites.
Dr. Ben Carson is black and a prominent Trump supporter. Does that prove that Trump isn't racist towards black people? I don't think so.
In 2008, in the middle of an economic crisis (which is the kind of thing that tends to stoke racial tension), the U.S. elected its first bi-racial President. Though recovering, the economy was still sluggish and, 4 years later, Americans went ahead and re-elected that same bi-racial President. After 4 more years and with a better economy (overall, not necessarily locally), that bi-racial President had good approval ratings heading into the 2016 election. Then, completely out of nowhere, Trump becomes President elect. Because racism?
Why did Trump fare better with blacks and hispanics than Romney did? What is responsible for this surge in what you call racism? Backlash against a bi-racial President that won convincingly in back to back elections, against a President who was still popular on the eve of the election? Backlash against a national economy that's in crisis? In short, where have these 59 million racists been for the past 8 years?
Hey, maybe you're right. Maybe whites are the enemy. But you know what didn't help the cause? Treating whites as the enemy. Maybe the Democrats have learned not to treat them as such next time.
This is hysterical. The meltdown is real. Embrace it.
In the way that attending mosque makes you responsible for the San Bernadino or Orlando attacks, or voting for Jill Stein makes you responsible for an ELF bombing or voting for Hillary makes you responsible for the current violence in Oakland, etc. Which is to say not at all. Crazy people gonna be crazy. This will likely flush some of the morons out of their holes and that is terrifying but they're already there, and that's the problem.
David Duke carried 3% of the vote in the Senate race in Louisiana. That's impressive in the sense that there were several candidates running but at the end of the day, it's just 3%. That's about 3% too much, but it gives you a good sense of how many of these people there really are. And within that 3%, many have no interest in taking action. The point is, dismissing 59,000,000+ votes as if they're all endorsing racism is ridiculous. The Democrats tried to do that and now they're paying for it.
I was a little uneasy with the suggestion that people like Murdoch are only Catholic because they desperately want to be Evangelical but can't admit it to others.
IMO, that's a big aspect of this that is not being recognized. As a non-Trump voter in a relatively liberal area, I was surprised to find out how many of my white male (and even female) friends were Trump supporters. I even had a friend that was an avid supporter of Bernie and was contemplating whether Jill Stein or Trump was the right choice for him. None of these were the kinds of people that I've ever heard a racial remark from, nor a comment about immigration, radical Islam or anything of the like. The general feeling that I gathered from these people was that there was a sense that the Democrats really didn't care about them because they didn't fit into any specific special interest group.
I would urge the media and Democrats to stop with this narrative that we have 59,000,000 foaming at the mouth white racists (some of which are not white yet still white racists). Because if that's true, we're all screwed anyway. But if it's not true and you continue to ignore all those people then they are going to keep pooling in a block with the few who truly are 'deplorable.' Wake up.
2. People are overreacting.
3. No clue.
4. Yes.
Maybe Trump was a cosmic balancing effect because you guys have the anti-Trump in Trudeau.
What's wrong with the electoral college? Without it, all the power in this country will be concentrated in just a few small places: New York, LA, Chicago, etc.
I'd imagine that if you somehow slotted 2000 Al Gore or 2004 John Kerry into 2016 Hillary's spot, both Gore and Kerry would have won this election vs. Trump. While Gore and Kerry were both uninspiring (IMO, of course), I can't recall too many scandals attached to them. I believe it's the convergence of being uninspiring and the scandals.
We call the country "America."
We call the continents either "The Americas" or "North America" or "South America."
That's what we do. You all go ahead and keep doing your own thing, no one is stopping you. But no one is stopping us, either.
Is this perhaps reminiscent of what happened with John Kerry - where there were a lot of "anybody but Bush" votes out there for him but maybe not enough positive energy to get out more purely pro-Kerry votes?
And why did the media get it so wrong?
Trump actually carried a higher % of the black and hispanic vote than Romney. The black vote is a little less surprising just because he wasn't running against Obama. But the hispanic vote is pretty interesting. I don't think those were big difference makers, but that's quite an accomplishment for a man that is literally Hitler.
That's pretty darn different you know? Outrageously different, in fact. Maybe if the Dems and the media hadn't been speaking in a misleading way like that, they wouldn't have to deal with what just happened. It's a possibility.
Also: just the Mexican ones? Canadians, Belgians, Nigerians are fine?
And no, he's not going to do that anyway. He doesn't have the funds to do it.