PDA

View Full Version : Race and 2016



troung
17 Nov 16,, 17:44
The race myth within the election


Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are accusing one another of playing the race card


Donald Trump's campaign is undergoing a week-long effort to appeal to minority voters, and yesterday, he called Hillary Clinton a "bigot" in front of a predominately white crowd. Today, Hillary Clinton is preparing to give a speech accusing Trump of pandering to white supremacists and nationalists. Aug. 25, 2016. (CBS Miami)

By Anthony Marcavage


Op-ed: Data show that Donald Trump didn't win the election because of race, but that's why Clinton lost it.

November 16, 2016, 9:21 AM

"The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth: persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."

— John F. Kennedy


Last week's election shattered myths around the impact of data, money and organization in national politics. Yet Donald Trump's surprise victory has given rise to another myth, one that is persuasive at first glance, but false, and if left unanswered threatens to further tear our social fabric.

The myth predates Election Day, but was summed up and given legs by CNN's Van Jones, who, in disbelief at Mr. Trump's victory, stated that people of color had suffered a "white lash" from voters. It has now become conventional wisdom among many commentators and Democrats that Donald Trump won because white voters flocked to him due to animus toward minorities.

The National Election Pool's exit polls, however, tell a different story. First, contrary to conventional wisdom, Donald Trump got a slightly smaller share of white votes than Mitt Romney, his unsuccessful predecessor. He also received the same share as George W. Bush in 2004, and just three points more than John McCain in 2008 during President Barack Obama's landslide election. Second, Mr. Trump scored a higher Hispanic (+2), Black (+2), and Asian (+3) voter share than Mitt Romney. In short, Donald Trump's performance with white voters was average for a Republican, and he performed somewhat better than Mr. Romney among non-white voters.

The same is not true for Hillary Clinton, however. Ms. Clinton lost Hispanic (-6), Black (-5), and Asian (-8) voter share at rates more than double Mr. Trump's gains, meaning that these non-Clinton voters chose third-parties or left their choice for president blank more often than they voted for Donald Trump.

Turnout further challenges the myth. When the counting is done, Hillary Clinton will have received up to 4 million fewer votes than Barack Obama in 2012. Yet Donald Trump scored turnout very close to the GOP average over the past four cycles — about the same as Mitt Romney, slightly more than John McCain and slightly less than George W. Bush in 2004. The claim that Donald Trump turned out large numbers of newly registered disaffected white voters is not reflected in the numbers.

The myth also fades when we consider the white voters most maligned as xenophobic, namely those from "small city and rural" population centers, as designated on the exit poll. Importantly, this group as a whole made up 4 percent less of the electorate in 2016 than in 2012, once again challenging the notion that Mr. Trump inspired large numbers of new voters from the heartland. In 2016, Mr. Trump only gained three points of voter share with this diminished group over Mitt Romney in 2012.

Hillary Clinton was therefore not defeated by Donald Trump's increasing white support — there was none — but rather by Obama voters of all races who chose to stay home on Election Day or vote against her, often for third parties. Had Ms. Clinton achieved anything near President Obama's support in 2012 (never mind his massive 2008 totals), she would have won in a landslide.

Why does this matter? Because myth has potential to become reality. If discouraged Democrats continue to consider a vote cast for Mr. Trump as evidence of racism and xenophobia, Republicans will naturally respond with hostility to their accusers. This cycle of insult can only lead to increased division, unrest and dysfunction in Washington.

To be sure, the often incendiary rhetoric of Donald Trump and his slow rejection of extremist support are at the root of this false narrative. In this way the candidate did his tens of millions of well-meaning supporters an enormous disservice and exposed them to this attack. Yet the charge of racism, one of the most serious in our society, should not be leveled casually at millions. Democrats and many in the media are choosing an easy myth rather than hard analysis, and in doing so are degrading many of their fellow citizens, worsening division, and missing the fact that Hillary Clinton lost, not due to racism or xenophobia, but because millions of Barack Obama's voters did not support her.

Anthony Marcavage is a lawyer in Washington; his email is marcavage@gmail.com.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-race-myth-20161116-story.html

astralis
17 Nov 16,, 17:52
probably the best way to characterize it that i've seen is that while the vast majority of Trump supporters are not racist, they just -turned a blind eye- to Trump's racist outbursts.

if they did care, there should have been a significant drop in Trump's numbers as compared to "the average Republican".

Wooglin
17 Nov 16,, 19:39
Democrats and many in the media are choosing an easy myth rather than hard analysis, and in doing so are degrading many of their fellow citizens, worsening division, and missing the fact that Hillary Clinton lost, not due to racism or xenophobia, but because millions of Barack Obama's voters did not support her.

In other words, business as usual.


probably the best way to characterize it that i've seen is that while the vast majority of Trump supporters are not racist, they just -turned a blind eye- to Trump's racist outbursts.

if they did care, there should have been a significant drop in Trump's numbers as compared to "the average Republican".

You're right. They don't care. They're going to be called racists no matter what, so why give a shit? Maybe you're starting to catch on...

astralis
17 Nov 16,, 22:32
You're right. They don't care. They're going to be called racists no matter what, so why give a shit? Maybe you're starting to catch on...

and people wonder why minorities are flocking to the Democratic Party.

we're roughly 20 years out from the US becoming a "minority-majority" country. for context, it was roughly 20 years ago that the California Republican Party committed political suicide with Prop 187.

so Republicans had better start giving a shit pretty soon. as it is, Steve Bannon as "chief strategist". the new admin talking about a Muslim registry based off the legal principle behind Japanese-American internment. these aren't things people are likely to forget anytime soon.

tbm3fan
17 Nov 16,, 22:54
and it has now boiled to the surface.

With our new Minister of Propaganda not liking blacks, hispanics, muslims, gays, women and Jews he could be close to alienating 50% of the population. If the guy actually ran a retail business, with those views, he'd be out of business.

Wooglin
17 Nov 16,, 23:03
and people wonder why minorities are flocking to the Democratic Party.

we're roughly 20 years out from the US becoming a "minority-majority" country. for context, it was roughly 20 years ago that the California Republican Party committed political suicide with Prop 187.

so Republicans had better start giving a shit pretty soon. as it is, Steve Bannon as "chief strategist". the new admin talking about a Muslim registry based off the legal principle behind Japanese-American internment. these aren't things people are likely to forget anytime soon.

Well, ironically enough, as of last election that's a negative trend now, isn't it?

astralis
17 Nov 16,, 23:18
Well, ironically enough, as of last election that's a negative trend now, isn't it?

it reverted to roughly 2004 levels, which isn't terribly surprising considering the Dem candidate in question is not a young, charismatic, minority candidate.

but even if Dems continue to "just" take 2004-levels of minority support...the minority percentage of the electorate goes from 30% today to 50% in 20 years. don't think those odds favor the GOP.

Parihaka
18 Nov 16,, 02:05
Equally fitting in the "media bias" thread, but apropos of this conversation


If you get your “information” through Twitter, (http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=10254) mainline print/online publications, or the netwits, you probably think that Trump’s newly appointed chief strategist Steve Bannon is the love child of Nathan Bedford Forrest* and Leni Riefenstahl. Racist. Anti-Semite. Master propagandist.

One should always be suspicious of such tendentious portraits, and that suspicion is especially warranted here. Spengler (David P. Goldman) wrote a furious and effective rebuttal of the attacks on Bannon (https://pjmedia.com/spengler/2016/11/15/why-the-bie-lie-about-steve-bannon/?singlepage=true)which is worth a read, but do yourself a favor and read the man in his own words (https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.kkBj1WyamA#.vfWWRJLQq2)–and not the clip quotes attributed to him by his enemies on the left and among the #NeverTrump right. (One should be doubly suspicious when such disparate groups unite in an attack.)

In that 2014 speech and interview, Bannon comes off as bright, thoughtful, and articulate. Certainly he has strong views, but they are not the noxious brew that his attackers attribute to him. His main sensibility is religious. As for anti-Semitism, note that he stresses the Judeo-Christian tradition. He believes in capitalism, but he is not a “hard” libertarian or Objectivist. His brand of capitalism is of the Smith-Hayek-Friedman variety. He decries the devolution of capitalism in corporatism and crony capitalism. He attacks bailouts. He is stridently anti-jihadist. He is also a believer in national and cultural identity, and obviously a critic of globalism.

He spoke about Putin before Putin became a devil figure in the US campaign. His is a nuanced view. On the one hand, he slams Putin as a kleptocrat and ruler of an illegitimate form of capitalism–state capitalism. He also notes Putin’s deviousness and recognizes the threat he poses. But he does not exaggerate that threat, and appreciates that Putin has struck a chord among Russians by appealing to their patriotism and cultural identity.

He also discussed what is now referred to as the alt-right before it became a thing in the popular mind. He frankly admits that opposition movements like the Tea Party inevitably attract fringe elements, but believes in the end that these fringes don’t define these movements: they are free riders not drivers, and will eventually “boil off.” He is not uncritical of the European populist movements: “With all the baggage that those groups bring — and trust me, a lot of them bring a lot of baggage, both ethnically and racially — but we think that will all be worked through with time.” He draws distinctions between movements like UKIP or the Tea Party and continental European nationalist parties and groups, finding the latter more tinged with racism and anti-Semitism.

Reading the talk, and you will have an understanding of how Trump won. One of his key strategists had a very clear understanding of the discontent of the non-elites. He is genuinely sympathetic to the people that the left alternately scorns and claims to represent. All in all, Bannon clearly is not the man his enemies portray him to be. Methinks that the fury of their attacks reflects a deep fear that he is indeed a discerning thinker and able political strategist–and information warrior.

Spengler said that the attacks on Bannon are an example of the Big Lie. I take issue with that. What we are seeing with Bannon, and have seen and are seeing with Trump, is something different: it is the Lie Swarm.

The Big Lie is an effective propaganda tactic in a centralized, vertical media system dominated by a small number–and in totalitarian systems, basically one–of information channels. Radio or television with a small number of national stations either directly controlled by the state, or subject to substantial state pressure (e.g., the US in the days of the Fairness Doctrine). To oversimplify only a little: one message, one medium.

In the modern fractured information environment, with a proliferation of outlets and social media that allows free access to millions, coordinating on a single message is far more difficult in such a diffuse and fragmented system. But this technology is perfectly suited for unleashing a swarm of half-truths and lies that forms what can best be described as an emergent order. It is not consciously designed by anyone, but without central coordination design it does exhibit order and synergistic behaviors.

One swarm tactic that is becoming increasingly common is Six Degrees of Hitler/Putin/The KKK/etc. Target A has some connection to B who has some connection to C who has a connection with D who said something that could be interpreted as being vaguely fascist . . . so Hitler!

In some respects, it is harder to fight the Lie Swarm than it is the Big Lie in a society where there the media is not rigidly controlled. A single lie can be rebutted if the target of the lie has the ability to make the case and the access to enough eyeballs and ears to do so. It is almost impossible to swat every lie in the swarm, especially since the lies change and mutate from day to day, and since whenever you are in a position of rebutting a lie you tend to draw attention to it. But unrebutted lies are often as treated as facts, so if you don’t kill them all some damage is done.

Bannon, and especially Trump, are primary targets of the Lie Swarm, especially since Trump had the temerity to actually prevail in the election. Don’t get me wrong–there is much about Trump to criticize. But there has been a kind of Gresham’s Law at work here: the bad criticism has driven out the good. Screeching “racist!” “Anti-Semite!” “Fascist!” on the basis of the most twisted and biased interpretation of the flimsiest evidence has overwhelmed substantive argument.

And the Swarm really hasn’t figured out that their attack will do little to get Trump supporters to change their minds. If anything, it will do the opposite, because the “deplorables” know that they are being attacked and smeared as much as Bannon and Trump. Furthermore, the Swarm seems hell-bent on living out Einstein’s definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results. Hillary’s whole campaign was based on personal attacks on Trump and his supporters, and she enlisted the Swarm in this endeavor.

And it backfired stupendously. Why should they expect that doubling down on it will work any better?

So I have mixed thoughts about this. On the one hand, the Lie Swarm’s infestation of the current public discourse is disgraceful and dispiriting. On the other hand, it has proved a spectacular failure in achieving its objective, so if they want to double down on it, why stop one’s enemies when they are making a mistake?

* For those not familiar with Civil War or Reconstruction history, Forrest was the first Grand Wizard of the KKK. (It is beyond doubt that he was prominent in the KKK, but some dispute whether he was the Grand Wizard.) He also happened to be probably the only true military genius of the Civil War, in which he rose from private to Lieutenant General and earned (ironically) the sobriquet “Wizard of the Saddle.”

GVChamp
18 Nov 16,, 02:25
Roflmao, it's "political suicide" to deny public benefits to illegal immigrants. Fuck it. It may be a losing fight, but it's definitely better to lose on the right side of history than be a filthy Democrat willing to pimp out your own taxpayers for more votes.

I really hope I am not on any government registries. Oh SHIT THE IRS HAS MY INFO? GOD CONSPIRACY OMG FIRST AMENDMENT JAPAN INTERNMENT CAMPS WAHHH WAHH I AM A DEMOCRAT!

troung
18 Nov 16,, 03:26
Did Race or Class Doom Hillary Clinton?
It was both.
By Joan WalshTwitter
Yesterday 3:56 pm

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Print

Clinton rally

Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton attends a campaign rally in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, October 22, 2016. (Reuters / Carlos Barria)

The Hillary Clinton campaign has reportedly told its donors, staffers, and surrogates that the Democratic nominee was beaten not by Donald Trump, but by FBI Director James Comey. The timing of her slide in the polls came after Comey made a vague and unprecedented announcement that “new” e-mails (they turned out to be duplicates) relating to the investigation into her handling of classified information had been found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. Voters who made their choice in the last week went overwhelmingly for Trump.

We may never be able to conclusively prove whether that’s true. But pollster Stan Greenberg, a longtime Clinton ally, sees another factor. Perhaps partly because of Comey, the Clinton campaign stopped making a strong case for her populist economic policies in the closing weeks of the campaign, research by Greenberg’s Democracy Corps found. A poll of 1,300 voters—including 400 who are considered part of the rising American electorate of black, Latino, and other nonwhite voters plus unmarried white women (also known as the Obama coalition)—found they never heard her strongest economic pitches throughout the long campaign. (The poll was conducted on behalf of the Roosevelt Institute and Women’s Voices, Women’s Votes Action Fund.)

For Democrats, the most disturbing news in the Greenberg poll is that unmarried white women, whose support was crucial to Obama, voted for Trump 53–42, about the same as married women did. In 2008, this group went 60–40 for President Obama; in 2012, it was a narrower 52–48, while their married sisters went overwhelmingly for the GOP. Nancy Zdunkewicz of Greenberg Quinlan Rossler Research, the firm behind the poll, warns against Democrats freaking out about that shocking result; she says the comparatively small sample sizes of 519 voters means there’s a margin of error between 5.5 and 6.8 percent. She still thinks the findings are “interesting and newsworthy.”

At least three other pollsters I’m aware of have found a decline in white unmarried women’s support of Democrats (their numbers aren’t public yet), though none have seen as stark a drop as in as Democracy Corps poll. Geoff Garin, who polls for Priorities USA and Planned Parenthood, in fact saw the opposite: He found that Clinton did slightly better than Obama with unmarried women, 58–37, while slightly underperforming with married women. But Garin likewise cautions against drawing big conclusions from small samples: His firm polled 200 women voters on one night; Democracy Corps polled election eve, Election Day, and the day after, and included one and a half times the number of white women as Garin. Either way, Garin agrees with Zdunkewicz that whatever the ultimate result for white unmarried women, there’s evidence that Clinton’s economic message didn’t resonate—with many groups.

“You also have to realize: Increasingly there’s overlap between white working class women and white unmarried women,” says Page Gardner, president of the Democracy Corps poll-sponsor Women’s Voices, Women’s Vote Action Fund. Acknowledging there is some difference between the four or five polls she knows about on this issue, she says one thing is clear: “A strong economic message was not breaking through, especially at the close of the race.”

Indeed, white working-class women are another group that gave Obama a chance in 2008 and 2012; he lost, but more narrowly than other Democrats had with this group: by only 6 points in 2008 and 19 points in 2012, and much better than with their male counterparts. Democracy Corps found that Clinton lost this group by 26 points this time around. Yet Zdunkewicz notes that Clinton was neck and neck with Trump in their polling with these women at the end of October, trailing but only 43–39. What changed?

“When she was talking about the economy, she did well with this group; when she stopped, she lost a lot of them,” Zdunkewicz said.

In a fascinating but possibly overdetermined argument, the Democracy Corps report shows that Clinton’s peak poll standing with all groups came after the final debate, when she made a strong pitch for herself as an economic change agent. The report highlights her closing argument that night:

“I have made the cause of children and families really my life’s work. That’s what my mission will be in the presidency. I will stand up for families against powerful interests, against corporations. I will do everything that I can to make sure that you have good jobs with rising incomes, that your kids have good educations from preschool through college. I hope you will give me a chance to serve as your president.”

But at the campaign’s end, Clinton’s closing message was less punchy, more dreamy. In one of her final ads, Greenberg pointed out on a conference call, she asks: “Is America dark and divisive? Or hopeful and inclusive? Our core values are being tested in this election. But everywhere I go people are refusing to be defined by fear and division.” She offered no specifics about her economic plans in that particular ad.

LIKE THIS? GET MORE OF OUR BEST REPORTING AND ANALYSIS

Likewise, President Obama mainly stressed inclusion and tolerance in his final appeals, as well as the importance of protecting his legacy and finishing his work. His closing pitch involved highlighting the very real progress his administration made—but it was progress that perhaps didn’t resonate with voters who are still suffering economically.

“When [white unmarried women] only heard ‘unity, build on progress, acknowledge the recovery,’ and that didn’t speak to their issues,” says Zdunkewicz. She notes that of all the groups polled, white unmarried women were the most likely to say they did not have $500 to pay an unexpected bill. (White working-class men were the most likely.) “They’re in new economy low-wage jobs, maybe juggling two jobs, struggling with child care.”

But Clinton proposed to significantly hike the minimum wage, provide universal preschool, and vastly expand subsidized child care and other supports; policies that would have helped those women more than anything Trump’s policies will provide. Unfortunately, Democracy Corps found that Clinton’s very real progressive economic proposals just generally didn’t cut through the campaign noise. Among voters who did choose Clinton, the poll found, most did so because she had the right temperament, valued the country’s diversity, supported equal rights for women, and would be a strong commander in chief. Comparatively few cited her economic appeals. By contrast, Trump voters say they chose him because he was a successful businessman who would create jobs, cut taxes, and regulations to grow the economy, and repeal Obamacare—mainly economic issues.

And when polled on which Clinton proposals they knew about, voters were most likely to know about her plans to tax the rich and make college debt-free. One-third didn’t know about her infrastructure plan, and 45 percent didn’t know about her plans to protect and strengthen financial regulation.

Returning to the concerns of white unmarried women, the surprising defectors identified in this poll, anyway, a few more findings jumped out. Given a choice between explaining Trump as someone who spoke for working-class Americans who were “rightly frustrated,” vs. someone who “appealed to racial resentments more than working class problems,” those women overwhelmingly chose the first explanation, as did white non-college-educated women. Minorities and Clinton voters overwhelmingly chose the second one, believing racial resentments mattered more.

It’s certainly worrisome that Clinton’s economic appeal, and her concerns about working-class voters (of every race) didn’t come through. But there are a few obstacles to saying that if Clinton had simply preached her economic agenda louder, she’d have won over the white unmarried or working-class women who strayed from the Democratic coalition. When we look at the economic argument that Trump voters heard, as found in the Democracy Corps poll, it wasn’t mainly populist; in fact, cutting taxes, regulations, and Obamacare are explicitly the opposite. So it’s hard to argue that she might have lured a lot of Trump voters even with a louder progressive economic appeal.

On the question of the defection of white unmarried and, to a lesser extent, working-class women: Note that unmarried and working-class women of color most certainly did not drift to Trump this time around. Why did some of their white sisters go that way? We can’t leave race out of the equation. We know that the leading predictor of a vote for Trump is that a voter scores high on questions of racial resentment, such as denying that whites have advantages because of the color of their skin, or believing that black people are violent or lazy. In Trump, they finally got a candidate who spoke to the racial and gender resentments many of them feel. We have to face up to the fact that this is the first election in which many white voters voted as white people. That’s got to include white women too.

Another predictor of Trump support is gender bias: believing that women are exaggerating the discrimination they still face, or trying to use their power to get ahead of men, not pull equal. I’ve seen no polling of women alone on that question explicitly. It’s possible they’ve internalized misogyny; we all do. But it may be that struggling white women weren’t moved by complaints about Trump’s sexism; they’ve learned to deal with it. Acknowledging that is not the same thing as the Tina Brown argument: that “liberal feminists” never should have made it a big issue. The truth is the truth, even if economically struggling women may lack the time or energy to discern it, or have bigger problems to worry about.

But the muting of Clinton’s economic message matters, because it might have depressed turnout among members of the Obama coalition. Black voters ticked down from 13 to 12 percent of the electorate, while the Hispanic vote only rose from 10 to 11 percent, much less than expected. And while she won the Obama coalition overwhelmingly, her margin was down with millennials, African Americans, and Hispanics.

The media should be taking at least some of the blame for Clinton’s message not getting through, given the fact that they covered her e-mail controversy more than any policy. Nightly news shows gave it three times the attention it gave to policy issues, And in the week after the outrageous Comey letter, newspapers gave that story alone twice as much coverage as any Trump story in the closing week. Now, the media is bogged down with people tediously arguing whether the Democrats need to chase the votes of white non-college-educated voters, given Clinton’s historic loss with them, or shore up support with the Obama coalition—with way too much angst, in my opinion, going to the white-working class, especially given the suffering in store for women and people of color given Trump’s agenda.

But if this Democracy Corps poll is right, Democrats may not have to choose between them. A strong progressive economic appeal that cuts through the predictable campaign din ought to appeal to enough of both groups to pull off a win in 2020. In fact, the poll found strong support for the progressive agenda promoted by the Roosevelt Institute: Strong majorities of every group—including Trump voters—backed a massive investment in infrastructure (broadly defined; not just roads and bridges), investing in underserved communities, reforming markets, reorganizing our approach to trade, and overhauling corporate governance.

Still, now I have one more reason to wish James Comey had never sent his outrageous, ill-considered letter: The fact that these poll findings focus on the very same time period as Comey’s intervention makes it very hard to say the drop in her support was about her vague Kumbaya closing pitch, and not Comey. But either way, from a progressive point of view, the Roosevelt Institute’s recommendations are the right agenda for next time aroundhttps://www.thenation.com/article/did-race-or-class-doom-hillary-clinton/

InExile
18 Nov 16,, 05:11
In other words, business as usual.


You're right. They don't care. They're going to be called racists no matter what, so why give a shit? Maybe you're starting to catch on...

Will you stand up again 'real' racism, I mean the David Duke variety?

I am disappointed that so many thoughtful, decent people supported Trump inspite of all the things that he said and did. But, ofcourse its stupid to write off half the US as 'deplorable' as many on the left have been doing the past week.

I accept it as the new normal now, maybe its an over correction but I think it is somewhat fair to say that the left went too far in regulating political correctness

GVChamp
18 Nov 16,, 15:12
I don't think Donald Trump is a 1960s style segregationist. Donald Trump got a lot of votes in Louisiana, those people had the ability to vote for David Duke and didn't.

Triple C
18 Nov 16,, 15:28
Roflmao, it's "political suicide" to deny public benefits to illegal immigrants.

If it was that simple. The president-elect and his proxies had directed hateful rhetoric of every description at groups that are not white, and perpetuated complete falsehood about ethnic minorities. As of now, the Asian American community is wondering if they are next. With Bannon's comments that there are too many Asian CEOs in Tech Industry? the answer seems to be a resounding yes. The polarization and social conflict in the next 4-8 years would be very interesting from a safe distance.

bfng3569
18 Nov 16,, 15:35
Will you stand up again 'real' racism, I mean the David Duke variety?

I am disappointed that so many thoughtful, decent people supported Trump inspite of all the things that he said and did. But, ofcourse its stupid to write off half the US as 'deplorable' as many on the left have been doing the past week.

I accept it as the new normal now, maybe its an over correction but I think it is somewhat fair to say that the left went too far in regulating political correctness

and I am 'disappointed that so many thoughtful, decent people supported Clinton inspite of all the things that she said and did'.

will you stand up to the Bill Aires variety, the Sharptons, the BLM's, the Jeremiah Wright's etc etc etc. oh wait, that's been the past 8 years.

I think its a bit ironic that Obama ran on unity and bringing the country together, yet he has been one of the most divisive presidents racially in a long time, and now that divisiveness has come back to bite him and the dem's in the ass.

Triple C
18 Nov 16,, 15:58
will you stand up to the Bill Aires variety, the Sharptons, the BLM's, the Jeremiah Wright's etc etc etc. oh wait, that's been the past 8 years.

I think its a bit ironic that Obama ran on unity and bringing the country together, yet he has been one of the most divisive presidents racially in a long time, and now that divisiveness has come back to bite him and the dem's in the ass.

I am never going to be able to convince you that perhaps some of those hated ethnic minority figures may have point, but which of them had ever been offered a position in the Cabinet? Is spite for minority activists your defense for electing Trump?

Wooglin
18 Nov 16,, 17:38
and I am 'disappointed that so many thoughtful, decent people supported Clinton inspite of all the things that she said and did'.

will you stand up to the Bill Aires variety, the Sharptons, the BLM's, the Jeremiah Wright's etc etc etc. oh wait, that's been the past 8 years.

I think its a bit ironic that Obama ran on unity and bringing the country together, yet he has been one of the most divisive presidents racially in a long time, and now that divisiveness has come back to bite him and the dem's in the ass.

And yet they keep trying to play that card as if it's they're convincing anyone other than the choir, which just got smaller. It's like screaming racism has just become an automatic reflex, which is why the word has lost all meaning and effect and people just tune it out.

Wooglin
18 Nov 16,, 18:08
Will you stand up again 'real' racism, I mean the David Duke variety?

I am disappointed that so many thoughtful, decent people supported Trump inspite of all the things that he said and did. But, ofcourse its stupid to write off half the US as 'deplorable' as many on the left have been doing the past week.

I accept it as the new normal now, maybe its an over correction but I think it is somewhat fair to say that the left went too far in regulating political correctness

Was there something in my post that suggested 'real' racism is ok? What is it exactly that one of us missed?

GVChamp
18 Nov 16,, 18:19
If it was that simple. The president-elect and his proxies had directed hateful rhetoric of every description at groups that are not white, and perpetuated complete falsehood about ethnic minorities. As of now, the Asian American community is wondering if they are next. With Bannon's comments that there are too many Asian CEOs in Tech Industry? the answer seems to be a resounding yes. The polarization and social conflict in the next 4-8 years would be very interesting from a safe distance.

I don't buy this. Trump primarily attacked white people, particularly Hillary Clinton. I suppose you can say he attacked Obama a lot, but he's half-white.

Re: Bannon. If I say Silicon Valley does not reflect America's population, am I Bannon, or 99.9% of Democrats?

bfng3569
18 Nov 16,, 19:11
I am never going to be able to convince you that perhaps some of those hated ethnic minority figures may have point, but which of them had ever been offered a position in the Cabinet? Is spite for minority activists your defense for electing Trump?

go look up the numbers of times these people visited Obama's white house, or how much time he spent in their 'church'.

Spite has nothing to do with it for me, nor am I defending some of these appointments by Trump. (Bannon has me questioning quite a bit)

Did Spite for the majority allow you to look a blind eye in regards to racists activists for the minority?

do you disagree that Obama has been very racially divisive in his tenure?

that the Dem's as a party didn't run on that the platform that Trump is a racist and therefore anyone who supports him is a racist?

Is Bill Aires an ethnic minority figure?

Triple C
18 Nov 16,, 19:36
Obama had --not-- appointed any of those people in his Cabinet. None got onboard with the HRC train, except Sharpton, but who cares about him?

With regard to the "racist" activists, I was undecided on their merit of their arguments about white racism until the Trump election. The vocal minority's response to Obama and the activist is cast votes that put Bannon and Session in the Cabinet. Now I know that a large segment of the population considers protesting racism as racism against white people, and that it somehow justifies electing a despicable man into high office. I now fear for my personal friends' life and property doing their jobs, living their lives in the US.

In light of those clarifications, I have reached my decision. Does that answer your question?

bfng3569
18 Nov 16,, 21:38
Obama had --not-- appointed any of those people in his Cabinet. None got onboard with the HRC train, except Sharpton, but who cares about him?

With regard to the "racist" activists, I was undecided on their merit of their arguments about white racism until the Trump election. The vocal minority's response to Obama and the activist is cast votes that put Bannon and Session in the Cabinet. Now I know that a large segment of the population considers protesting racism as racism against white people, and that it somehow justifies electing a despicable man into high office. I now fear for my personal friends' life and property doing their jobs, living their lives in the US.

In light of those clarifications, I have reached my decision. Does that answer your question?

whether he appointed them to his cabinet or not is irrelevant to the question of impact or ability to affect policy or general outlook.

and no, that does not answer the question at all.

'Now I know that a large segment of the population considers protesting racism as racism against white people' and this statement makes no sense to me? I have no idea what you are trying to say here?

InExile
19 Nov 16,, 02:56
I don't think Donald Trump is a 1960s style segregationist. Donald Trump got a lot of votes in Louisiana, those people had the ability to vote for David Duke and didn't.

Duke ended up getting about 4% of the vote, if that's extrapolated to the rest of the country, that might mean a few million potential white nationalist voters. Ofcourse Louisiana is one of the reddest states.

Anyhow, I may not have been clear enough in my previous post. I dont think that Donald Trump crossed the line into outright racism although he skirted it a few times. The episode that came closest in my opinion was that retweet from a WN account about blacks being responsible for about 80% of crimes against whites. He later backed off from it by playing dumb.

What bothered me most about Trump was not his offensive statements, though there were many of them, but rather his cynical and shameless pandering to the prejudices and fears of a segment of voters regarding illegals, muslims and even the Chinese (on trade). In my opinion that was far worse than anything said or done by Hillary, whom I don't like. Nevertheless, many Trump voters disagreed, and that's how it is.

That said, I dont think that the US is much different a country than the one that re-elected Obama in 2012. And probably atleast half of Trump's voter would have gladly voted for some other Republican if they had the chance.

InExile
19 Nov 16,, 03:06
Was there something in my post that suggested 'real' racism is ok? What is it exactly that one of us missed?

This is what you said


You're right. They don't care. They're going to be called racists no matter what, so why give a shit? Maybe you're starting to catch on...

Thank you for the clarification.

Wooglin
19 Nov 16,, 03:59
This is what you said



Thank you for the clarification.

That's right. As in people are sick of the PC, trigger warning, hypersensitive, race baiting, identity politics culture, exacerbated by the media, and where all whites are basically racist. The word is thrown around so much you become numb to it. So when Trump says something very un-PC not only are thoughtful, decent people not throwing fits about it, many are saying it's about time.

Is that better?

InExile
19 Nov 16,, 04:06
That's right. As in people are sick of the PC, trigger warning, hypersensitive, race baiting, identity politics culture, exacerbated by the media, and where all whites are basically racist. The word is thrown around so much you become numb to it. So when Trump says something very un-PC not only are thoughtful, decent people not throwing fits about it, many are saying it's about time.

Is that better?

Being un-PC is one thing, and I agree the left has likely gone a bit too far in PC policing. But applauding a buffoon saying vulgar and offensive stuff? I don't understand that, however angry you are with the left.

Ofcourse many, perhaps a majority of Trump voters picked him only as the lesser of the evils.

tbm3fan
19 Nov 16,, 05:54
That's right. As in people are sick of the PC, trigger warning, hypersensitive, race baiting, identity politics culture, exacerbated by the media, and where all whites are basically racist. The word is thrown around so much you become numb to it. So when Trump says something very un-PC not only are thoughtful, decent people not throwing fits about it, many are saying it's about time.

Is that better?

Are you describing yourself? The poster doth protest too much, me thinks. My barometer for whether a person is hiding something is by seeing how long, wordy and virulent their denial is. Almost never fails. Brings to mind Nixon and Clinton. That was a long, wordy, and angry denial up there.

I recall an AP poll back in 2012 that found 51% of white Americans had explicit anti-black attitudes. I suspect the percentage is higher today. My guess is that you and many others will see no problem with racial attitudes being dragged back to the 1950s where blacks knew their place especially in the South. However, I'll be content to wait out the next four years to see if I am proven wrong.

Mihais
19 Nov 16,, 06:35
Are you describing yourself? The poster doth protest too much, me thinks. My barometer for whether a person is hiding something is by seeing how long, wordy and virulent their denial is. Almost never fails. Brings to mind Nixon and Clinton. That was a long, wordy, and angry denial up there.

I recall an AP poll back in 2012 that found 51% of white Americans had explicit anti-black attitudes. I suspect the percentage is higher today. My guess is that you and many others will see no problem with racial attitudes being dragged back to the 1950s where blacks knew their place especially in the South. However, I'll be content to wait out the next four years to see if I am proven wrong.


Man,if this isn't race baiting and a bit of ad hominem...

Wooglin
19 Nov 16,, 07:17
Are you describing yourself? The poster doth protest too much, me thinks. My barometer for whether a person is hiding something is by seeing how long, wordy and virulent their denial is. Almost never fails. Brings to mind Nixon and Clinton. That was a long, wordy, and angry denial up there.

I recall an AP poll back in 2012 that found 51% of white Americans had explicit anti-black attitudes. I suspect the percentage is higher today. My guess is that you and many others will see no problem with racial attitudes being dragged back to the 1950s where blacks knew their place especially in the South. However, I'll be content to wait out the next four years to see if I am proven wrong.

Sure, keep it coming. This strategy has worked so well for you guys, especially lately. You should definitely double down.

Triple C
19 Nov 16,, 09:27
Identity politics in America didn't being with 2008, mate. What a lot of people are enraged by isn't identity politics--it's minorities and women stopped playing nice with white male identity politics. So, Trump's election is received by the same quarter as comeuppance to the Democratic Party, to BLM and the rest of the foot long list of people they dislike.

Triple C
19 Nov 16,, 10:00
I don't buy this. Trump primarily attacked white people, particularly Hillary Clinton. I suppose you can say he attacked Obama a lot, but he's half-white.

Re: Bannon. If I say Silicon Valley does not reflect America's population, am I Bannon, or 99.9% of Democrats?

That's an attack on business interests. Bannon's comments is an attack on Asian Americans as a class.

One expect barbs at one's political opponent, low blows including. Trump and his supporters' well-documented verbal and physical assaults on racial minorities as a class is of an entirely different tenor; I still recall the GOP electorate freaked out with HRC's "basket of deplorables" comment aimed at a X% of Trump voters.

Compare what you "buy" and do not buy as a voter, with what my legal immigrant friends believe are the important issues of this election, is a pretty good illustration of my previous post. The backlash, euphemized as hostility against "identity politics" from the left, is an re-assertion of white identity politics under demographical stress.

Chunder
19 Nov 16,, 13:39
I still recall the GOP electorate freaked out with HRC's "basket of deplorables" comment aimed at a X% of Trump voters.


Half. Not x%, half.

Half of all Asians are bad people. Half of all Muslims are Bad people, 51% of whites have bad attitudes to black people.

pot, meet kettle.

Plenty of videos of Trump supporters being beat up - or did you miss that, or does that just matter less, because they are Trump supporters?

People vote the way they vote, because, for instance a mother has to weigh up what really matters - "Grab her by the pussy" or insuring her child, and does her op matter less because she's white and a trump supporter? Intersectional feminism declares yes. There isn't any racial identity in being unemployed. As is always - it's moderates in the middle that repudiate policies - the swing voter. Trust me, radicals both existent on the left and right are equally obnoxious. Plenty of College sanctioned media airtime for rants About CIS gendered straight White males needing to be exterminated out there.

Mihais
19 Nov 16,, 19:22
Triple C even so,is a legit cause.Whites voting as a bloc is not wrong.

InExile
19 Nov 16,, 19:23
Identity politics is poisonous whether its done by the left or the right. The democrats didn't run on an anti-white platform, but I am sure many whites who don't have a racist bone in their body felt uncomfortable with a party that coddled extremism in groups like BLM.

The democrats need to go back to the party that stands up for middle class and working class interests regardless of race, caste or skin color. When Trumpism crashes and burns as it most likely will, a moderate , center left party will the one that will be best placed to take its place.

Mihais
19 Nov 16,, 20:20
Good luck trying moderation in the age of growing extremism.This has to run its natural course.

What you propose is in effect a complete reversal of 50 years of leftist politics and policies.Eventually it will be gone,since it is a suicidal phenomenon,but is far from that,yet.Only then there will be no reason for counter-reaction.

I still wonder at the magnitude of vitriol directed at Trumpism.Theatrics aside,it is mostly common sense.Even the most hardcore rednecks from West Virginia understand that when standing for election is a time of boisterous claims.
I won't bet the farm on crashing and burning.I also cannot say it will be a resounding success.But I'd say is more likely to be a successfull presidency than a failed one.

GVChamp
19 Nov 16,, 20:58
That's an attack on business interests. Bannon's comments is an attack on Asian Americans as a class.

One expect barbs at one's political opponent, low blows including. Trump and his supporters' well-documented verbal and physical assaults on racial minorities as a class is of an entirely different tenor; I still recall the GOP electorate freaked out with HRC's "basket of deplorables" comment aimed at a X% of Trump voters.

Compare what you "buy" and do not buy as a voter, with what my legal immigrant friends believe are the important issues of this election, is a pretty good illustration of my previous post. The backlash, euphemized as hostility against "identity politics" from the left, is an re-assertion of white identity politics under demographical stress.

Democrats are explicitly attacking white men because whites are racist and not letting minorities into their Silicon Valley clubs. That's the message. That's the EXPLICIT message.
It doesn't even make sense, because the white proportion in these firms more or less mirrors the overall population. The over-represented group is Asians. That's the IMPLICIT message. The IMPLICIT message is that a huge chunk of Democrats are totally willing to sell Asians down the river to win more votes among Hispanics or blacks. Who do you think Affirmative Action hurts the most?
I don't know how you can categorize this as an attack on "business." It's an attack on individual people who are assumed automatically to be horrible racists. And guess what? Asians are right there with whites in these firms. Buckle up, this is only going to get worse.

Bannon's comment has NOTHING to do with demeaning Asians or attacking Asians as a class. It has to do with acknowledging that importing people from a different culture that's not American and not Western is going to fundamentally change the way America operates. A lot of people think if immigrants are "high-skilled" that we should let everyone in: this is incredibly naïve. Not wanting to let in 1 billion people from China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, India, and Pakistan does NOT mean Bannon hates any of those groups or thinks they are an inferior class of people. It's saying that America would cease to be America if you just let in a billion people, and that would happen REGARDLESS of whether they are illiterate peasant farmers or all Elon Musk.

Bannon has elements of the alt-right, but I am quite confident the media doesn't understand alt-right, because the media's shitty liberal arts education has history that starts with the 1960s. A large fraction of the pitiful numbers of the alt-right did not vote at all, because King Charles II was not on the ballot.

Since we talk about 19th Century immigration so much, America's immigration in the 19th century DID fundamentally transform the country, and the full effects weren't felt for decades afterwards. The impact of current immigrants, already felt somewhat, will not be fully felt for another 30, 40, 50 years.

Triple C
19 Nov 16,, 21:27
Half. Not x%, half.

Half of all Asians are bad people. Half of all Muslims are Bad people, 51% of whites have bad attitudes to black people.

pot, meet kettle.

Plenty of videos of Trump supporters being beat up - or did you miss that, or does that just matter less, because they are Trump supporters?

We're through the math of the deplorables. Half of trump supporters ain't half of white population. But go ask General Flynn being tapped for national security. He thinks you're at war with Islam to the hilt. Registry of Muslims pushed by Trump surrogates because the precedent of Japanese internment. That's not 25 percent, not 50 percent--of Japanese Americans--that's 100 percent. That registry is going to 100 percent of Muslims, supported by voters who think registering their guns is the prelude to confiscating them.

Sure, I seen Trump supporter being assaulted. I don't condone it. But I am not surprised. Ethnic minorities haven't been beaten at the rallies of white candidates for decades. That's how you lit the fuze for late-Weimar style violence.

InExile
19 Nov 16,, 21:28
I don't think there is an agreed upon definition on what the alt right is. Some consider it synonymous with the White Nationalist movement of the David Duke variety which certainly is on the fringe and most likely less than 5% of GOP voters.

On the other hand, if one considers the alt-right to be those who identify with America as a predominantly white Christian nation of mainly European descent and would like it to remain so as long as possible, the numbers would be much larger. By this definition people like Bannon and his followers on breitbart might be considered Alt right. This is not a racist movement generally speaking (even if it is a form of identity politics), as it recognizes the presence of minorities in America and their rights as citizens and even allows for a certain level of immigration.

The talk of letting in 1 billion people into the US is a strawman as non one is proposing that. The disagreement is over the current level of immigration, the status of illegals and pace of demographic change.

Triple C
19 Nov 16,, 21:34
Bannon's comment has NOTHING to do with demeaning Asians or attacking Asians as a class. It has to do with acknowledging that importing people from a different culture that's not American and not Western is going to fundamentally change the way America operates. ... It's saying that America would cease to be America if you just let in a billion people [!].

I see, and of course you believe that fundamental change by immigrants is necessarily for the worse. God forbid, you can't have those foreigners corrupting American cookery.

Damn near every highly-skilled STEM-educated immigrant from my country to yours who naturalized embraced American values and preached it when they travelled the their place of birth. About half of the first gen vote republican. Bannon's comment is an insult and a betrayal of trust.

See, when you start coming out to say cultural change introduced by minorities are bad, you are making the argument that all of the values they have, all of the culture they inherited--their identities--are a foreign, corrupting influence to some pristine, unchanging Americana that never was. Yet, you think the Left is responsible for identity politics. You wonder why the minorities are getting restless.

Speaking of that essential America. Does that include Irish immigrants? Germans? Italians? All of them came in immigration waves that incited the same of backlash. You saying America is going to be made better with less of them?

Btw, allegation of discriminatory practice is not an attack on all white men. It's a critique on white men doing the hiring. Your defense of Trump, Sessions, Bannon and Flynn as cultural vengeance for minority activism is the kind of behavior that the BLM should cut checks for.

InExile
19 Nov 16,, 22:03
I still wonder at the magnitude of vitriol directed at Trumpism.Theatrics aside,it is mostly common sense.Even the most hardcore rednecks from West Virginia understand that when standing for election is a time of boisterous claims.
I won't bet the farm on crashing and burning.I also cannot say it will be a resounding success.But I'd say is more likely to be a successfull presidency than a failed one.

There is a way to propose the common sense measures you talk of without coming off as offensive or bigoted

The vitriol directed at Trump is mainly because he is a jerk and offends basic standards of decency

Doktor
19 Nov 16,, 22:35
The vitriol directed at Trump is mainly because he is a jerk and offends basic standards of decency


Yep. Meanwhile...

42606

GVChamp
19 Nov 16,, 23:11
I see, and of course you believe that fundamental change by immigrants is necessarily for the worse. God forbid, you can't have those foreigners corrupting American cookery.

Damn near every highly-skilled STEM-educated immigrant from my country to yours who naturalized embraced American values and preached it when they travelled the their place of birth. About half of the first gen vote republican. Bannon's comment is an insult and a betrayal of trust.

See, when you start coming out to say cultural change introduced by minorities are bad, you are making the argument that all of the values they have, all of the culture they inherited--their identities--are a foreign, corrupting influence to some pristine, unchanging Americana that never was. Yet, you think the Left is responsible for identity politics. You wonder why the minorities are getting restless.

Speaking of that essential America. Does that include Irish immigrants? Germans? Italians? All of them came in immigration waves that incited the same of backlash. You saying America is going to be made better with less of them?

Btw, allegation of discriminatory practice is not an attack on all white men. It's a critique on white men doing the hiring. Your defense of Trump, Sessions, Bannon and Flynn as cultural vengeance for minority activism is the kind of behavior that the BLM should cut checks for.
Yeah, embracing American values by calling the vast majority of Americans who want to limit or reduce immigrants racist. Yep, real "American values" right there.

An insult is a presumption that all of your ideas are good and you can only possibly improve to a nation's constitution. I certainly don't go to Russia and insist that I would be nothing but positive and everyone who has skepticism about my presence is a downright no good racist that doesn't know a thing about true "Russian values."



There is a way to propose the common sense measures you talk of without coming off as offensive or bigoted

No there isn't. When offered a perfectly reasonable argument about why Americans do not want unlimited immigration from Asia, you said it was insulting. So whatever. Trump should just do whatever he wants, because he's never going to please you.

Hey let's have border security like we agreed to in 2007 on bipartisan terms! -Hitler
Hey let's restrict immigration from nations that export terrorists! -Hitler
Hey let's have some augmented security screening from nations that export terrorists! -Hitler
Hey let's not allow illegal immigrants to public benefits! -Hitler

InExile
19 Nov 16,, 23:53
No there isn't. When offered a perfectly reasonable argument about why Americans do not want unlimited immigration from Asia, you said it was insulting. So whatever. Trump should just do whatever he wants, because he's never going to please you.

Hey let's have border security like we agreed to in 2007 on bipartisan terms! -Hitler
Hey let's restrict immigration from nations that export terrorists! -Hitler
Hey let's have some augmented security screening from nations that export terrorists! -Hitler
Hey let's not allow illegal immigrants to public benefits! -Hitler

I didn't say any of that, I think you are mixing up posts

I said unlimited immigration, was a strawman argument, as no one is proposing to bring 1 billion asians. Even at current levels of immigration, the total population of the US mid century would be at most 500 million

Regarding the second part of your argument it kinda goes both ways.


Mass Deportation does raise concerns about humanness - You are calling me a racist!
A border wall is a dumb idea and infeasible - You are calling me a racist!
A religious test on immigration might be against American values - You are calling me a racist!

InExile
19 Nov 16,, 23:57
One of these statements sounds bigoted and inflamatory and one sounds like common sense



When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.


We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again. President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away.


http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/

Chunder
20 Nov 16,, 01:22
One of these statements sounds bigoted and inflamatory and one sounds like common sense

Whether or not it sounds bigoted isn't what matters, what matters is the point that border control matters because people like this do cross over.

In Oz, people are detained in less than ideal conditions that aren't satisfactory because these people need to be vetted - much like someone applying for a visa. In Oz, passport holders don't have prescribed offenses against them. You can't get a passport if you do. Rape is one of them.

In Mexico - an absolute shit hole with paramilitary drug forces, is at best a dangerous place for unaccompanied minors to pass through. Even the Huffington Post mentions as such. http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972

In Australia and New Zealand, you pass through smart gates that scan your face and do background checks.

In the U.S election cycle that sounds "bigoted".

Well, at least someone mentioned the border. It certainly wasn't Hillary. It seems as though the cry of "racist" should preclude any consideration of actual policy. It would seem that the vast majority of complaints against Trump supporters, revolve around shoving them into the white box.

Women shouldn't vote for Trump because of "Grab them by the pussy" Rather than the well being of their kids.
Hispanics shouldn't vote for Trump because he emphasised the bad and not the good of ethnic migration, rather than the problems that occur when you're perceived to have a lax border.
Military Vets knocking themselves off at astronomical rates is not an either issue, because it pales in comparison to "racist".

Imagine the pussyfooting PC crap one has to put across just to say you need a secure border, rather than just saying it crudely in terms everyone understands. No... there's no problem with political correctness in the U.S. at all.

Triple C
20 Nov 16,, 04:56
Hey let's have border security like we agreed to in 2007 on bipartisan terms! -Hitler
Hey let's restrict immigration from nations that export terrorists! -Hitler
Hey let's have some augmented security screening from nations that export terrorists! -Hitler
Hey let's not allow illegal immigrants to public benefits! -Hitler


It'd be helpful in your quest to combat an unfair label, if you would take time to reflect on where Asian Americans historically stood on those issues before start accusing them of imagined sins. Sensible border control and anti-terrorism were not unpopular policies among Asian American voters, until that became wedded to nativism starting with the Tea Party.


Yeah, embracing American values by calling the vast majority of Americans who want to limit or reduce immigrants racist. Yep, real "American values" right there.

Come on, calling people names are un-American now? Here I was thinking that's the national past time.

On a serious note: There was no wider Asian opposition to restriction on illegal immigration from Clinton to GW Bush. There's no real consensus on appropriate measures to combat terrorism. Trump's racism is what triggered real partisan alignment in that ethnic group.

You've just expanded your agenda from illegal border-crossers from south of the continent to staunching the flow of skilled legal immigration. Your stated reason is that now your new group of unlikable immigrants are diluting some unchanging Americanness outside of a knowledge of the constitution or obedience of laws. It's an entirely familiar script: identity politics masquerading as legitimate national security and legal concerns, but mobilized to serve cultural/political ends.

And that's why Asian voters are moving away from the GOP. If that's the hardball the President-elect wants to play during his administration, it's not just gonna be BLM.


An insult is a presumption that all of your ideas are good and you can only possibly improve to a nation's constitution.
It's not about following the laws, or affecting the income of blue collar Americans, then. It's about maintaining a cultural stasis in a configuration that keeps what ever you identify as "American," to the exclusion of others, in power.

InExile
20 Nov 16,, 06:37
Whether or not it sounds bigoted isn't what matters, what matters is the point that border control matters because people like this do cross over.

In Oz, people are detained in less than ideal conditions that aren't satisfactory because these people need to be vetted - much like someone applying for a visa. In Oz, passport holders don't have prescribed offenses against them. You can't get a passport if you do. Rape is one of them.

In Mexico - an absolute shit hole with paramilitary drug forces, is at best a dangerous place for unaccompanied minors to pass through. Even the Huffington Post mentions as such. http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972

In Australia and New Zealand, you pass through smart gates that scan your face and do background checks.

In the U.S election cycle that sounds "bigoted".

Well, at least someone mentioned the border. It certainly wasn't Hillary. It seems as though the cry of "racist" should preclude any consideration of actual policy. It would seem that the vast majority of complaints against Trump supporters, revolve around shoving them into the white box.

Women shouldn't vote for Trump because of "Grab them by the pussy" Rather than the well being of their kids.
Hispanics shouldn't vote for Trump because he emphasised the bad and not the good of ethnic migration, rather than the problems that occur when you're perceived to have a lax border.
Military Vets knocking themselves off at astronomical rates is not an either issue, because it pales in comparison to "racist".

Imagine the pussyfooting PC crap one has to put across just to say you need a secure border, rather than just saying it crudely in terms everyone understands. No... there's no problem with political correctness in the U.S. at all.

Missing the point. My post was in response to Mihais asking why Trump was subject to such a high level of vitriol. Basically, you can have a tough immigration policy without insulting Mexico and implying many of them are rapists. You can have a tough policy against terrorism without inventing lies about muslims dancing on the streets after 9/11.

In hindsight the democrat strategy of trying get voters disgusted by Trump's behavior was wrong. Essentially, as you say, they decided getting a handle on illegal immigration was more important then Trump saying 'grabbing them by the pussy'. It does not mean that Trump voters chose bigotry, however I think they overlooked the other serious concerns about Trump's fitness for the presidency.

Mihais
20 Nov 16,, 10:38
Buddy,you miss the point.Talking like this is a message in itself and clever planning.Opponents guarantee free publicity.Supporters get the guarantee that it is serious election issue.

Yes,you can talk about problems without shocking anyone.But with a normal,balanced population that can see eye to eye.The US electorate of today is not normal and balanced.So simply saying that the border needs to be secured is not enough.Leftists will cry "racism" anyway,while potential supporters will shrug it off.

If you recall the movie Idiocracy,the smartest man on Earth becomes POTUS at the end and he shows both middle fingers to the people,while they cheer.Is not the man that's vulgar,it's the electorate that's so debased it cannot any other mean of communication.

The public discourse that is decent,gentle,fact and reason based has been in good part replaced by a leftist narrative that shouts down anything resembling reason.
And reasonable people were in stupor after 20 years of being called evil for any pretext imaginable.They needed to woke up.

Parihaka
20 Nov 16,, 11:25
IPSOS releases a poll it had held over until after the election

http://ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=16157

astralis
20 Nov 16,, 16:57
this reminds me of a pollster question, "is discrimination against whites as big a problem as discrimination against minorities?"

hell, from the discussion above it seems more like "is accusation of discrimination as big a problem as discrimination against minorities?"

Doktor
20 Nov 16,, 18:02
this reminds me of a pollster question, "is discrimination against whites as big a problem as discrimination against minorities?"

hell, from the discussion above it seems more like "is accusation of discrimination as big a problem as discrimination against minorities?"

You are of Asian descent, so you have a side in this. :-D

drhuy
20 Nov 16,, 19:52
and people wonder why minorities are flocking to the Democratic Party.

we're roughly 20 years out from the US becoming a "minority-majority" country. for context, it was roughly 20 years ago that the California Republican Party committed political suicide with Prop 187.

so Republicans had better start giving a shit pretty soon. as it is, Steve Bannon as "chief strategist". the new admin talking about a Muslim registry based off the legal principle behind Japanese-American internment. these aren't things people are likely to forget anytime soon.


LOL "flocking"? then why the democrat still lost miserably?

why the "obama coalition" didnt bother to show up this time?

the left still doesnt get it.

blacks dont give a flying F about mexican immigrants. why should they?

latino dont give a rat a$$ about black. why should they?

both black and latino couldnt care less about muslim refugees. why should they?

the whole "minorities united" (against white) platform is just pure stupidity.


its even more stupid given the democrat party is still ruled by old white angry folks. Heck, even the gop had more diversity in their primaries.

astralis
20 Nov 16,, 21:11
drhuy,


LOL "flocking"? then why the democrat still lost miserably?

do try and learn a little bit about the electoral college, and the demographics of the states that won the election for Trump.

for the 2020 election, if dem support among minorities -remains the same- as 2016 and the republicans keep the exact same level of support among working class whites-- the latter of which i have my doubts about-- then just by demographic growth alone, the dems would have flipped the results.



the whole "minorities united" (against white) platform is just pure stupidity.

who says it is "against whites"? do you say working class white people are united as a bloc against minorities?

correspondingly, college-educated white voters as well as white women have shifted Dem over the last 20 years; they used to be Republican dominated demographics but is now a toss-up.

Doktor
20 Nov 16,, 22:30
correspondingly, college-educated white voters as well as white women have shifted Dem over the last 20 years; they used to be Republican dominated demographics but is now a toss-up.

Erm...

https://newrepublic.com/article/138754/blame-trumps-victory-college-educated-whites-not-working-class

Even Guardian sings this tune: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls

astralis
20 Nov 16,, 22:50
dok,


Erm...

https://newrepublic.com/article/1387...-working-class

Even Guardian sings this tune: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ump-exit-polls

i said over the last 20 years...

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

42632

Doktor
21 Nov 16,, 00:17
Looks the same as 1992 to me.

Wooglin
21 Nov 16,, 03:14
Buddy,you miss the point.Talking like this is a message in itself and clever planning.Opponents guarantee free publicity.Supporters get the guarantee that it is serious election issue.

Yes,you can talk about problems without shocking anyone.But with a normal,balanced population that can see eye to eye.The US electorate of today is not normal and balanced.So simply saying that the border needs to be secured is not enough.Leftists will cry "racism" anyway,while potential supporters will shrug it off.

If you recall the movie Idiocracy,the smartest man on Earth becomes POTUS at the end and he shows both middle fingers to the people,while they cheer.Is not the man that's vulgar,it's the electorate that's so debased it cannot any other mean of communication.

The public discourse that is decent,gentle,fact and reason based has been in good part replaced by a leftist narrative that shouts down anything resembling reason.
And reasonable people were in stupor after 20 years of being called evil for any pretext imaginable.They needed to woke up.

Well said

antimony
21 Nov 16,, 05:06
Well said

Yeah, only the leftists shout; the right is an epitome of decency
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441319/donald-trump-alt-right-internet-abuse-never-trump-movement
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/15/502042198/my-year-of-guards-and-guns-megyn-kelly-on-standing-up-to-trump-and-ailes

GVChamp
21 Nov 16,, 15:51
Probably will get to the rest of this later, but this element:

You've just expanded your agenda from illegal border-crossers from south of the continent to staunching the flow of skilled legal immigration. Your stated reason is that now your new group of unlikable immigrants are diluting some unchanging Americanness outside of a knowledge of the constitution or obedience of laws. It's an entirely familiar script: identity politics masquerading as legitimate national security and legal concerns, but mobilized to serve cultural/political ends.

And that's why Asian voters are moving away from the GOP. If that's the hardball the President-elect wants to play during his administration, it's not just gonna be BLM.

Has been in US politics since before the freakin' Civil War. It's also present in every single nation throughout essentially all of history. It's STILL the implicit US policy, which is why most immigrants to the US have a family connection, because the US system is set-up to prefer family connections.

This has never been understood as a way to keep America in a cultural stasis: The US hasn't been in a cultural stasis since the 1840s. As Americans, we have the right to determine what kind of change we want and who we want to allow in the nation. Again, this has always been understood to be a right of the Nation under the Nation-State configuration. It's only in the last 10 years that this has suddenly become "racist," and it's only in the last 10 years that supporting illegal immigrants became a principled stance.

Asians voting heavily Dem pre-dates Trump and the Asian voting bloc hasn't voted (R) since 1992, IIRC. Asians voting (R) is something of the Cold War and the Asian population of 2016 is NOT the Asian population of 1992 anyways: There's been substantial change in the demographics due to immigration the last 20+ years.

Also, yes, ethnic breakdown hasn't happened in the US with historical immigration. Great, that's awesome. Go tell the Soviet Union that ethnic nationalism is no big deal. Oh wait....

Wooglin
21 Nov 16,, 16:09
Yeah, only the leftists shout; the right is an epitome of decency

Yeah, that sounds about right.

astralis
21 Nov 16,, 16:48
GVChamp,


Has been in US politics since before the freakin' Civil War. It's also present in every single nation throughout essentially all of history. It's STILL the implicit US policy, which is why most immigrants to the US have a family connection, because the US system is set-up to prefer family connections.

This has never been understood as a way to keep America in a cultural stasis: The US hasn't been in a cultural stasis since the 1840s. As Americans, we have the right to determine what kind of change we want and who we want to allow in the nation. Again, this has always been understood to be a right of the Nation under the Nation-State configuration. It's only in the last 10 years that this has suddenly become "racist," and it's only in the last 10 years that supporting illegal immigrants became a principled stance.

from a historical standpoint this is not true. the US experienced significantly more immigration from the period 1860-1910 than in any period, including today. from european immigrants, this was largely regulation-free up until the 1920s-- even the much detested eastern/southern europeans and the irish weren't explicitly kept out, even though british and to a lesser degree french immigration was valued above others. asian immigration was banned starting in the 1870s-1880s. there was a very clear racial hierarchy designed to balance the views of business elites looking for cheap labor along with the nativists, anti-miscegenationists, and protectionists.

these laws WERE derided as racist, even at the time, and actually led to a number of foreign policy rows. ie when japan became a power, she began to badger the US about the racist nature of US anti-japanese immigration law.

moreover, the reason why nation-state quotas were banned in 1965 was because people finally came around to recognizing the racist aspect of quotas that encouraged European immigration at the expense of Asian immigration.

GVChamp
21 Nov 16,, 16:54
I don't see your point. Our ancestors kept out Asian immigrants because they didn't like Asians. That doesn't change the fact that immigration restrictions have been part of US history since before any of us have been alive.

Immigration policy has never been and never will be just about controlling illegal immigration. A major part is determining what LEGAL immigration should be.

astralis
21 Nov 16,, 17:26
GVChamp,


I don't see your point. Our ancestors kept out Asian immigrants because they didn't like Asians. That doesn't change the fact that immigration restrictions have been part of US history since before any of us have been alive.

i'm addressing this point here:


This has never been understood as a way to keep America in a cultural stasis: The US hasn't been in a cultural stasis since the 1840s. As Americans, we have the right to determine what kind of change we want and who we want to allow in the nation. Again, this has always been understood to be a right of the Nation under the Nation-State configuration. It's only in the last 10 years that this has suddenly become "racist," and it's only in the last 10 years that supporting illegal immigrants became a principled stance.


my point is that racism has been a part of the history of US immigration law. in fact, US immigration law was largely created in the first place as a response to -Asian- immigration in the 1870s-1880s. keeping cultural stasis is indeed one of the advertised features, with people having called this racist since its inception.

GVChamp
21 Nov 16,, 17:46
Yeah, some laws were actually racist, some laws are said to be racist and aren't. Immigration restrictions are still part of the American political tradition, and ALL political traditions.

Americans actually thinking the US could be in cultural stasis in the 1880s? After a Civil War, mass black enfranchisement, and the middle of the Second Industrial Revolution?

Triple C
21 Nov 16,, 18:19
Racial and cultural anxiety was the driver for the age of immigration regulation in the US, and they were written to insulate the status quo against cultural change.

In fact, the immigration "quota system" crafted in 1924 with the Johnson-Reed Act, which President Johnson's legislature would later repeal in 1965, was designed to keep the US demography in racial stasis as per the 1910 US Census, the last to be conducted before the law. By assigning immigration quotas to specific regions, the system pre-mixes the flow legal immigrants to the same racial composition of the US ten years ago.

Historians of immigration note that it was exactly rapid cultural and ethnic change that led to successive waves of immigration-restrictions/bans/nativism. Using Atsy's example--in the 1870s and 1880s, there was a massive immigration wave of "coolies" from China as a labor force to build railroads (appeared to have started during the ACW), as well as tending the proto-industrial farms in CA. There were substantial fears of "yellow peril" criminality, such as opium use and gangsterism.

Prior to the Exclusion Act there were other restrictions, such as laws prohibiting Asian women to be on US soil to prevent a naturally-increasing population of Asians. There was absolutely a concern about race and culture.

Going a bit back, in the US federal-level immigration restrictions were scant, if they could be said to exist at all. Free men and of good moral character was the benchmark for naturalization.

There were local levels of immigration control that was crafted in terms of shipping regulations and vagrancy laws at port of entry. Passenger Ships must dedicate a share its displacements for passenger compartments that was smaller than a maximum percentage, which reduced capacity and drove up the price of tickets, while vagrants were sent home on the next outbound ship. However, the effect was an economic selection.

Back to the 20th C. Wilson's presidency collided with the anti-German craze exacerbated by WWI. Germans were fleeing central Europe throughout second part of the 1800s. Many fled after Prussia annexed their old principalities, some to escape low-income farming, others wanted nothing of fighting the German Empire's wars. The same could be said of Central and Eastern European immigrants, such as Poles, Russians, Yugoslavs, Jews.

In the early 1900s, immigrants accounted for 1/3 of the urban population by some counts, with the Germans being one of the largest groups. During WWI, Local towns passed the first "English only" laws in public places, and began banning the teaching of German for children. Bach was banned by music halls. Don't remember how much of that survived post-war normalization. German ethnic association leaders were tried under the Sedition Act. In the aftermath of the war, Johnson-Reed passed, in order to roll back those changes to demography and to culture caused by immigration.

Note that list of laws reviewed here were nearly all of the big names in immigration law history. This long tradition is that of a concern to maintain--not to put to fine a word on it--"white" supremacy, though "whiteness" was variously defined as Anglo-Americans that latter incorporated Irish, Scots, Germans, Poles etc, mostly as a result of welfare policies that treated them as indistinguishable.

Today, German Americans are the biggest white ethnic group in the US.

Historically? In Europe, immigration was regulated by the countries that had an incentive in preventing the loss of peasant workforce and base of conscription, hence internal passports systems and the such like. I am less clear on comparing conferring citizenship status between the nations, but that was going to be enforced with great difficulty, without the modern regime of ID systems. But the fact that France and a large number of other countries were on a jus sanguinis system, there seems to have been a racial or cultural motivation.

The issue becomes, what exactly is the metric with which you judge immigrants? Productivity? Obedience to laws? Some amorphous and presumably American values that US citizens don't seem to entirely agree on? Political affiliation to a certain party? And how many of those concerns fit the aspirational principles that all men are created equal, and that there should be a free market of ideas as well as goods?

Doktor
21 Nov 16,, 19:54
It's futile to compare Europe or any country/region but Canada, Australia and NZ to US.

InExile
22 Nov 16,, 05:11
Well said

So you are justifying a man who implied a number of Mexicans were rapists, said he wanted to ban members of a religion from visiting the US, made vulgar comments about women caught on tap, mocked a disabled reporter and did and said many other outrageous things.

And you expect the rest of to care that some mean old lefties are calling you a racist.

tbm3fan
22 Nov 16,, 05:51
And you expect the rest of to care that some mean old lefties are calling you a racist.

Go figure, huh...

Parihaka
22 Nov 16,, 07:26
Meanwhile, back on topic, the Democrat media has been running 'racists take to the streets' since the election.


A Louisiana college student (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-student-who-reported-men-beat-her-stole-hijab-admits-she-lied/) has acknowledged she fabricated a report that she was assaulted and robbed of her wallet and Muslim headscarf by two men, one of whom she described as wearing a white “Trump” hat, police said Thursday.


‘Hang a n****r from a tree’: Police take action against sign promoting lynching over ‘equal rights’ (https://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/hang-a-nr-from-a-tree-police-take-action-against-sign-promoting-lynching-over-equal-rights/)

UPDATE: The Pittsburg Police Department released a statement on Sunday afternoon that said, “The homeowner is an African American male who has continued to display offensive signs. The legal effort is ongoing.”




42641
Flying a Nazi flag at his home in San Francisco’s Dolores Heights on Wednesday was Frederick Roeber’s attempt to make a social comment on President-elect Donald Trump.
But the 48-year-old quickly realized the display was misguided when neighbors spotted the ominous swastika and immediately confronted him in the street outside the house.
Roeber, who is retired and lives in the storybook-esque home on the corner of Sanchez and 21st streets, said he didn’t like Trump’s comments about Muslims and Mexican immigrants during the election. San Francisco homeowner’s Nazi flag protest of Trump backfires

Flying a Nazi flag at his home in San Francisco’s Dolores Heights on Wednesday was Frederick Roeber’s attempt to make a social comment on President-elect Donald Trump.
But the 48-year-old quickly realized the display was misguided when neighbors spotted the ominous swastika and immediately confronted him in the street outside the house.
Roeber, who is retired and lives in the storybook-esque home on the corner of Sanchez and 21st streets, said he didn’t like Trump’s comments about Muslims and Mexican immigrants during the election.
Frederick Roeber, 48, briefly flew a Nazi flag above his San Francisco home in what he described as a protest against president-elect Donald Trump. But neighbors soon spotted the swastika and confronted him.
“I am hoping people get that this is a political statement, and that I’m not a Nazi supporter,” Roeber said outside his home’s wrought iron gates and manicured garden. “I’m a little afraid that neighbors will get the wrong idea.”
But that’s exactly what happened


It turns out that some anti-Latino graffiti (http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/29937/) at Elon University is all a big hoax, perpetrated by a student of the very ethnicity the message targeted.

“Bye Bye Latinos Hasta La Vista” the whiteboard message read, and as you’d expect it led to immediate fierce denunciations from staff and students alike upon its discovery on Thursday.



**Social Media Report of Gas Station Incident** (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=984766144966912&id=158648917578643)
We are aware of the circulating post involving a woman who was allegedly harassed/menaced at a gas station. We can tell you that this incident, if it occurred in Smyrna Delaware, has not been reported to our agency. We understand that this person has stated via social media that she has filed charges against the perpetrators. We again want to stress that we, the Smyrna Police Department have no record of this incident. We ask that all questions/comments/concerns be addressed to the social media user who made this post, and/or the police agency she reported this incident to


In the latest case of a faked hate crime (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2016/11/man_admits_to_faking_hate_crime_in_malden), a 20-year-old man has admitted he made it up when he told Malden cops he was harassed by two men proclaiming it’s “Trump country now.”

The man, whose name police have not released, had filed a complaint saying when he got off an MBTA bus near Broadway Square in Malden at 10 p.m. Tuesday, at least two white men approached him.

The men used a racial slur, made a reference to lynching and warned him this is Donald “Trump country now,” according to the report he gave police. He was able to get away from the men and hid before calling police, officials said.

Investigators prioritized resources for the suspected “hate crime” incident and re-interviewed the alleged victim.

“As a result, it has been determined that the story was completely fabricated,” Malden police Chief Kevin Molis said in a statement. “The alleged victim admitted that he had made up the entire story,” saying he wanted to “raise awareness about things that are going on around the country.”


Eleesha Long said she was assaulted and called a racial slur, (http://www.13abc.com/content/news/BG-police-say-student-lied-about-politically-driven-attack-401814426.html) but BG police said she made the story up.

Long wrote a police complaint on November 9th that reads in part, "while walking down Crim St to ask for yard signs, three boys began to throw rocks at me."

Long continued to write the white males shouted profanity at her while wearing Trump shirts. She described how all three young men looked and what they were wearing.

Reports show she posted what happened to her on Facebook page, but never called 911.

BG detectives said her post got a lot of attention, including her father who told law enforcement he couldn't locate the 24-year-old after the alleged incident.

A BGSU officer took Long to the police station where she gave a statement.

However, throughout the investigation she changed her story multiple times.

Lt. Dan Mancuso with the BG Police Division said, "several times the complainant changed her story about what happened, where it happened, and when it happened."


Lt. Mancuso said they obtained a search warrant for her Facebook and Verizon history. Turned out, she wasn't where she said she was Lt. Mancuso added.

"Based on that information, it proved that she was not in the location that of when she said it occurred," Lt. Mancuso told 13abc.

Her text messages allegedly reveal her real motivation may have been frustration with friends and family who were Trump supporters.

Mihais
22 Nov 16,, 07:38
So you are justifying a man who implied a number of Mexicans were rapists, said he wanted to ban members of a religion from visiting the US, made vulgar comments about women caught on tap, mocked a disabled reporter and did and said many other outrageous things.

And you expect the rest of to care that some mean old lefties are calling you a racist.


Strictly speaking he agreed with me and I've said none of those "vile" words :) And I don't give a sh!t about being called racist.I'm even proud of that.It means I win and I don't care about lamentations :)

You still think it matters if he called Mexicans rapists or wanted to ban muslims(incidentally it would be good idea,but has since then discarded by Trump).Is election speech.It got him elected.It is proof that he understands the masses better than the "experts".Case closed.
Now is important to see his actions and their benefits.

Mihais
22 Nov 16,, 07:49
Yeah, only the leftists shout; the right is an epitome of decency
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441319/donald-trump-alt-right-internet-abuse-never-trump-movement
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/15/502042198/my-year-of-guards-and-guns-megyn-kelly-on-standing-up-to-trump-and-ailes

That is your best case? Nice then.Is good to know that the worst cases of mischief are 2 chaps complaining about being harassed.
Your side started and mastered this sort of crap.The number and severity of harassment is orders of magnitude above anything those guys said(which may be true threats or invented ones).Meanwhile a POTUS elect has received death threats,he was also assaulted during the elections,political gatherings and supporters were under violent attacks.Your side is the one that has lowered any logical debate to a mewling a -isms and now has tried to lower an election to the level of an African election.
Your chaps started this crap.Is about time they are spoken to in a language they understand.

InExile
22 Nov 16,, 08:08
Your chaps started this crap.Is about time they are spoken to in a language they understand.

So basically you are using the kindergarten argument to justify or dismiss any bad behavior by your side 'Teacher, he started it!'

Mihais
22 Nov 16,, 09:20
No.Is just a chronological order.I am not excusing vile acts by "my" side,for the simple reason I am not voting.I am putting the thing in perspective.Nobody is perfect.But it is relevant to the society and to the debate to put things in balance.
And yes,it is the a big difference between somebody trolling somebody during the election and organized violence.
Frankly speaking,I don't think I should understand how one can still support the Dems after this.They lost all legitimacy.
If this happens anywhere else and by anyone else,you'd see all the talking heads getting hysterical and strong condemnation by the State Dept for the scoundrels who attack democratic free election.And rightly so.

People who are insulted generally double down.Thus insults are not effective means of communicating ideas.Most Dems were not insulted,but they still double down on their failed(at elections at least) ideas.They miss a perfect opportunity for introspection.

Wooglin
22 Nov 16,, 14:10
So you are justifying a man who implied a number of Mexicans were rapists, said he wanted to ban members of a religion from visiting the US, made vulgar comments about women caught on tap, mocked a disabled reporter and did and said many other outrageous things.

And you expect the rest of to care that some mean old lefties are calling you a racist.

Really? You got all that from "well said"? I dont recall trying to justify it, could you quote me exactly? I do recall agreeing that people just don't give a fuck because asshats like you will use whatever mental gymnastics you need to try to justify what you already believe, and label them racist anyway, like you just did. Thanks for providing an example.

drhuy
22 Nov 16,, 14:55
drhuy,



do try and learn a little bit about the electoral college, and the demographics of the states that won the election for Trump.

for the 2020 election, if dem support among minorities -remains the same- as 2016 and the republicans keep the exact same level of support among working class whites-- the latter of which i have my doubts about-- then just by demographic growth alone, the dems would have flipped the results.



who says it is "against whites"? do you say working class white people are united as a bloc against minorities?

correspondingly, college-educated white voters as well as white women have shifted Dem over the last 20 years; they used to be Republican dominated demographics but is now a toss-up.

the 2016 election is not just about the WH, is it?

of course its always "the party of minorities against whites", you can only fool yourself. when you guys are too busy vilifying whites, you seem to forget that hatred, racism, bigot exist in ALL races. minorities care about other minorities as much as whites do.

Oh and spare me the "white voters shifted dem". People dont call you the self-loathing lefties for no reason.

the thing about identity politics is that it will turn around and bite you in your backside. "Vote for him, he's a minority just like you. Vote for him, he's young and fresh just like you are. Well, it worked. But guess what, the next time when you field just another old white angry candidate, those people just stay home. (the fact the black people have been doing even worse under 8 years of the first black president didnt help either).

drhuy
22 Nov 16,, 15:01
So you are justifying a man who implied a number of Mexicans were rapists, said he wanted to ban members of a religion from visiting the US, made vulgar comments about women caught on tap, mocked a disabled reporter and did and said many other outrageous things.

And you expect the rest of to care that some mean old lefties are calling you a racist.

What difference, at this point, does it make? - Hillary Clinton (1947 - 2016).

fewer and fewer people are gonna care what people like you think of them.

antimony
22 Nov 16,, 16:13
That is your best case? Nice then.Is good to know that the worst cases of mischief are 2 chaps complaining about being harassed.
Your side started and mastered this sort of crap.The number and severity of harassment is orders of magnitude above anything those guys said(which may be true threats or invented ones).Meanwhile a POTUS elect has received death threats,he was also assaulted during the elections,political gatherings and supporters were under violent attacks.Your side is the one that has lowered any logical debate to a mewling a -isms and now has tried to lower an election to the level of an African election.
Your chaps started this crap.Is about time they are spoken to in a language they understand.

You want to speak in a different language, be my guest. You are not the only ones with a "right to defend" yourselves

InExile
23 Nov 16,, 03:11
Really? You got all that from "well said"? I dont recall trying to justify it, could you quote me exactly? I do recall agreeing that people just don't give a fuck because asshats like you will use whatever mental gymnastics you need to try to justify what you already believe, and label them racist anyway, like you just did. Thanks for providing an example.

You are calling me a racist!

I knew that would be your response. I have never called anyone on this thread or forum a racist ever. My point was about the hypocrisy of right wingers making offensive and vitriolic statements against the left or muslims, or defending them when made by Trump, and then being quick to claim outrage or victimhood at allegedly being called a racist.

Wooglin
23 Nov 16,, 06:53
You are calling me a racist!

I knew that would be your response. I have never called anyone on this thread or forum a racist ever. My point was about the hypocrisy of right wingers making offensive and vitriolic statements against the left or muslims, or defending them when made by Trump, and then being quick to claim outrage or victimhood at allegedly being called a racist.

No, you just implied it by sticking words in my mouth. And your "point" was just an exercise in circular logic, along with a strawman. Thus, the comment about the mental gymnastics to justify what you already believe. Thanks for proving me right.

tbm3fan
23 Nov 16,, 22:33
Thanks for proving me right.

Well, at least in your mind anyway.

antimony
23 Nov 16,, 23:24
Well, at least in your mind anyway.

The echo chamber is strong in him

Wooglin
24 Nov 16,, 04:08
Well, at least in your mind anyway.

Well, that was convincing. Were you even paying attention or did you just feel the need to spout something off?