2016 United States Election

[Voronwë the Faithful]

C_G is probably referring to Hillary's relationship with the late Senator Robert Byrd, who as a young man in the 1940's was a member of the KKK, although since he died in 2010 he obviously did not endorse her in this election, and later in his life renounced his earlier views regarding race and segregation.

[Inanna]

Both the leading candidates had a KKK endorsement, so the only way to vote for a candidate not endorsed by the KKK was to vote 3rd party.

False Equivalency.

[Cerin]

I find it very difficult that anyone can support a racist, sexist, bigot for the highest office in the land and then claim they are not racist, sexist, and bigoted. They are supporting it and condoning it. Not much difference.

This attitude is a recipe for utter disaster for our country going forward, imo. You're saying that the only legitimate way to react to Trump is the way you reacted to him; anyone who looks at the world differently than you do -- there is something wrong with them. What is bigotry? It's identifying a group of people without knowing them as individuals, making assumptions about them because they're members of that group, and deciding they're beneath you. There's only one place this attitude can lead -- to more polarization and more hatred. Do you even care to understand why vast numbers of your fellow countrymen voted for Trump? Or do you think you already know? Or doesn't it matter to you, because they're obviously scum, not human beings?

[yovargas]

Yes, this is most emphatically a rejection of the elite ruling order in this country. It is a thumb to the nose, a raised middle finger, an attempt to throw a spanner into the works that have smoothly been humming along for decades enriching those at the top and leaving the rest of the country behind.

Where does this idea that Trump supporters were (or are) angry at "those at the top" of the money pile come from? I keep seeing this and the more I think about it the less sense it makes. Are people confusing Trump for Sanders? Trump rallies weren't filled with changes about income inequality. They weren't chanting about the 1%. They weren't even chanting about big banks and Wall Street. What they were chanting was "Build the wall" and "Lock her up". That's what got them excited - absurd, base irrationality based on fear and conspiracy - and a man willing to indulge their desire to be base.

You yourself admit that this is ultimately little more than "a raised middle finger" and yet you expect something besides a contemptuous attitude? Give me a break.

[Cerin]

yovargas, you obviously didn't have the compete picture of what Trump was talking about around the country during the campaign.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

C_G is probably referring to Hillary's relationship with the late Senator Robert Byrd, who as a young man in the 1940's was a member of the KKK, although since he died in 2010 he obviously did not endorse her in this election, and later in his life renounced his earlier views regarding race and segregation.

Nope, I'm referring to Mr. Quigg. Even the attempts to use Snopes to say it is false actually say "unproven".

Since KKK membership isn't public record, we can't tell if Quigg really is the leader of the KKK in California or not.

Both the leading candidates had a KKK endorsement, so the only way to vote for a candidate not endorsed by the KKK was to vote 3rd party.

False Equivalency.

If one can condemn a candidate for unasked for endorsements, then one can condemn a candidate for unasked for endorsements. It is actually pretty equivalent.

[Impenitent]

Cerin, whatever the primary reason given be Trump voters for their choice, they can't deny they made the choice for the whole package.

On Facebook Jewel posted an excellent exposition on this:

"I think you can very easily make the argument that a lot people who voted for Trump are not and would not actively be racist to another person in their day-to-day lives. I live among Trump voters, and the ones I live among are lovely and kind and perfect neighbors. They are what nearly anyone would describe as good people, me included. As are, I think, the majority of the people who voted for Trump.

But the fact remains that in voting for Trump, they voted for racism: It was right there in the package deal, front and center, and hard to miss. They voted for it anyway. And you may argue that voting for racism as part of a larger package deal does not a racist make, and I wouldn’t necessarily disagree, as far as what people do to others in their personal and day to day lives. But voting for racism will make personal, day-to-day life harder for the targets of that racism. Two days after the election, we’re already seeing that."

The whole article:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2016/11/10/t ... of-racism/

Posting on phone via Tapatalk

[yovargas]

yovargas, you obviously didn't have the compete picture of what Trump was talking about around the country during the campaign.

Then please enlighten me. The only thing I hear people talking about is trade but I absolutely believe that Trump could have said literally anything or nothing about trade and it wouldn't have changed one single damn thing about what happened.

[Cerin]

Well then, there isn't much point in discussing actual facts with you, is there?

[yovargas]

Does that mean trade was the only thing you were going to bring up too?

[Frelga]

I don't recall you posting an actual fact in this thread, backed with a quote or link or ANYTHING other than your opinion. It is quite possible that I missed it, in which case I apologize.

[yovargas]

Ha. Wouldn't it be amazing if this could ever actually happen:

Electoral College: Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19

[Primula Baggins]

Cerin, it's perfectly reasonable to disdain Trump for his stoking of bigotry and racial/religious paranoia, before you even get to his attitude and actions toward women. I'm incapable of regarding any of this as a side issue. It is not something to be thoughtfully weighed in the balance with his statements on trade. Particularly for people like me who are much more likely to benefit from Trump's ideas on trade than to be harmed by his followers' bigotry.

[Faramond]

I was relieved that Clinton didn't win.

I was shocked and appalled that Trump won.

Not a very fun election for people like me. It was going to suck either way.

If I had lived in a swing state, I would have seriously considered voting for Clinton. Since I live in a very blue state, I could just vote for one of the single digit candidates.

***********

The thing about calling Trump voters racist is that it's counter-productive. Even if you can prove it. Feel free to imagine quotes around *prove*. Big scary ones.

Calling people racist won't shame them into voting differently next time. It will just make them defensive. It confirms the feeling that they chose the side that listens to their concerns over the side that thinks it knows better than them. It confirms the feeling that they indeed have just successfully rebelled against the elites.

It is also beyond doubt that a lot of people picked Trump for reasons that had nothing to do with race. A lot of these people might have been in play for Clinton if her message had been better, if she had spoken to their anxieties about the future.

Here's the thing, and I think most here will not believe it, but I think it's absolutely true. I think the explanation for Trump breaking through the blue wall and winning Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania is encapsulated in the first twenty minutes of the first debate. As I watched I thought he won those first twenty minutes -- resoundingly, easily. He had a resonant, populist message centered around trade and the decay of traditional blue collar jobs. He pretty convincingly tied Clinton to unpopular trade policies. And Clinton had no effective response to this. She had no populist message of her own that could appeal to people anxious about their economic future.

And then the next 70 minutes of the debate happened, which was the usual shitshow for Trump. He was baited into emotional, unfocused and sometimes offensive responses and he had no command of the facts. By the end of the debate Clinton had won overall. I thought so, and the experts thought so, and even the public, apparently, thought so. The poll movement after the debate seemed to confirm this.

And yet -- and yet -- it seems clear now, in hindsight, that this populist message of Trump's did resonate. It was implicit in his campaign slogan. It was implicit, also, in his promise to build a wall, since people who come to this country illegally would potentially be in the same job pool as them and their children, and harm their economic prospects. And then Trump was relatively disciplined over the final two weeks of the campaign, giving people who were turned off by his usual offensiveness an opening to come back to him. And many of them did. Clinton never gave them a reason not to. And that's why she lost.

[Faramond]

Ha. Wouldn't it be amazing if this could ever actually happen:

Electoral College: Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19

Third stage of grief is bargaining.

I don't know -- if the Trump campaign was as disorganized about picking their electors as they were about other things ( such as preparing for the debates ) then maybe a few could be flipped.

[Cerin]

Does that mean trade was the only thing you were going to bring up too?

It means that since you have declared that facts will have no impact on your beliefs, there would be no point in me providing links to articles, even if I were willing to spend time doing your research for you. Which I'm not.

[River]

Do campaigns pick electors? Or is it the job of the parties? Or, given that the Presidential candidates are effectively their respective parties' leaders, is there even a difference?

ETA: So I work for an American subsidiary of a German company. If trade deals get ripped apart to save American jobs, does that mean I lose my American job?

[axordil]

Okay, looking at the actual numbers: Trump got roughly the same number of votes Romney lost with, but Hilary got 5 million fewer votes than Obama did in 2012.

The results didn't come about because tons of people changed parties, or because rural voters were determined to send a message, or any other of the punditry being bandied about. Democrats simply didn't vote for Hilary, whether because they were meh about her, or GOTV failed, or they thought they had it won. Period, full stop.

[Cerin]

Cerin, it's perfectly reasonable to disdain Trump for his stoking of bigotry and racial/religious paranoia, before you even get to his attitude and actions toward women.

Yes, it is reasonable to disdain Trump for these reasons. I think it is dangerous and wrong to assume that everyone who voted for Trump is a bigot and/or condones bigotry, and therefore regard them with the same disdain. That could only mean that one considers one's own perspective to be the only legitimate one. This seemed to me to be what Rose was saying.

I'm incapable of regarding any of this as a side issue. It is not something to be thoughtfully weighed in the balance with his statements on trade.

That is well and good. Others are not you. They may react differently. Do we allow that others may react differently than we do, or don't we? That's what I'm wondering.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

In case you are not feeling angry enough or have any doubts what Trump's victory means
https://twitter.com/kayleighcat/status/ ... 4358536192

Bad example, and actually feeds into what Faramond was writing about, but even more so.

Police: Lafayette student lied about being robbed of wallet, hijab by Trump supporters