Are all Trump supporters racists?

By what mechanism would this occur, though? The problem with repeatedly pointing out how close the results were is that it inherently validates basically any change in strategy.

The mechanism would be to play to the base. Play the GOP game. Get people excited. We saw it with Obama. We know it can happen again. Post-Trump, it'll probably be easier.


Democrats have happily courted gullible votes for decades. Failure to address their concerns once in power (courting the financial industry, championing 'free trade' agreements with wholehearted conviction) eventually leads to a festering atmosphere of resentment.

I completely disagree. Democrats have consistently worked for the weaker groups in society. The problem is that nobody can bring back the kind of industries these people used to work in to the US. It's not economically or environmentally feasible. The right wing capitalizes on this and fills the head of these under-educated people with how things should be, claiming that the Democrats are keeping them down, when in actuality it's reality doing it.

Turning around and saying 'well those voters are either irrational, gullible, or racist' is hardly a roadmap to victory under those circumstances.

Nope, again it's a description of reality.

Too generic. What messaging will be used, what narrative is going to be put forward? Organizing locally and building up grassroot movements requires a lot of recruitment. The success or failure of that recruitment hinges on how you try to attract those recruits.

Are you asking me to write down a national strategy for Democrats to organize grass-root movements? That's quite an ask.

I'll say this: The GOP managed it, and they're stupid. Look at the Tea-party movement as a reaction to Obama's melanin content. Right now we have a huge mass of people who are rightly pissed off at Trump's shenanigans. Add to that all the minority groups that will get more active as their existence in the US is threatened. You have the basis of a pretty huge popular movement right there.


Again, you can't refer to the closeness of the election as a reason why a couple of things might have changed it while simultaneously denying that numerous other factors also could have.

Sure. How about you speculate then. Given the fact that Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million people, that the FBI did what they could to get Trump elected, that a lot of Democrats were pissed that Bernie didn't get the nod and that three pivotal states were extremely close, what else could have happened to change the election?

This assumes that all people being called racist are in fact racist.

Nope. It assumes that the racists that are being called racists are racists.

There is a significant contingent out there who knee-jerk apply that label (or other forms of bigotry) to anyone disagreeing with them.

Name them.

ETA: In other words, I call BS. I don't believe there is any significant number of non-racists being called racists with any frequency.
 
Last edited:
You've encountered me and I support Trump and I'm not a racist. Trump says he wants to create jobs and keep jobs in America for American workers and never did he ever say this was for white workers only. I believe most of the alleged racism comes from Trump saying he's going to do something about illegal immigration but that's dealing with crime, not racism.

Most of the negative comments about Trump come from screaming liberals and poor liberal losers.

He literally proposed to treat people, across the US, differently based on skin color (ie: Stop and Frisk). That's the definition of racism.

ETA: it's specifically white supremacism, based on what he's said of other groups.
 
Last edited:
By what mechanism would this occur, though? The problem with repeatedly pointing out how close the results were is that it inherently validates basically any change in strategy.



Democrats have happily courted gullible votes for decades. Failure to address their concerns once in power (courting the financial industry, championing 'free trade' agreements with wholehearted conviction) eventually leads to a festering atmosphere of resentment.

Turning around and saying 'well those voters are either irrational, gullible, or racist' is hardly a roadmap to victory under those circumstances.



Too generic. What messaging will be used, what narrative is going to be put forward? Organizing locally and building up grassroot movements requires a lot of recruitment. The success or failure of that recruitment hinges on how you try to attract those recruits.



Again, you can't refer to the closeness of the election as a reason why a couple of things might have changed it while simultaneously denying that numerous other factors also could have.



This assumes that all people being called racist are in fact racist. There is a significant contingent out there who knee-jerk apply that label (or other forms of bigotry) to anyone disagreeing with them.

Do you remember the Republican reaction to the 2012 loss? I do. They held a post mortem, and their best advice was 'let's not be the stupid party any more.' Rather than follow that advice, they nominated Trump, of all people. They went all in on being the stupid party. And they won.

Do you really think that after such a tight race, one where Clinton actually got more votes than Trump, that the Dems need to radically change their plans?
 
<...>

Do you really think that after such a tight race, one where Clinton actually got more votes than Trump, that the Dems need to radically change their plans?



Given everything about Trump, how singularly unsuited he appears to be for the office, the fact that the election wasn't a Marianas Turkey Shoot blue victory should indicate that we (liberals as a whole) do in fact need to change a few things. I won't claim to have The Answer(tm), but I'm willing to bet that somewhere on the list is "engage with different opinions and don't simply call everyone who disagrees (even fractionally) with you a racist/sexit/whateverist".
 
Given everything about Trump, how singularly unsuited he appears to be for the office, the fact that the election wasn't a Marianas Turkey Shoot blue victory should indicate that we (liberals as a whole) do in fact need to change a few things. I won't claim to have The Answer(tm), but I'm willing to bet that somewhere on the list is "engage with different opinions and don't simply call everyone who disagrees (even fractionally) with you a racist/sexit/whateverist".

Yeah, nobody is simply calling people they disagree with sexist/racist/whateverist. I get that racists are upset when they are called on their racist acts and words, but the solution isn't to just roll over and let them be racist.

I don't get it, but a lot of people seriously dislike Clinton (my bet is that they bought into the decades long Republican smear campaign, but not for rational reasons), and Clinton was running for a 3rd Democratic presidency in a row (traditionally very difficult), yet she still won the popular vote by almost 3 million. This is not the time for abandoning the quest for equality.
 
Do you really think that after such a tight race, one where Clinton actually got more votes than Trump, that the Dems need to radically change their plans?

As Joe pointed out, it shouldn't have been close at all. The Dems should have walked away with a huge victory.

But that's not all. The Democrats didn't just lose the presidential race, they didn't get either house of Congress. And even that isn't all. They lost badly at the state level, both with governorships and state legislatures. It wasn't even close.

So yes, any rational examination of the situation would indeed indicate that a radical change of plans is needed.
 
Originally Posted by cmikes
Spin is universal, no matter which party does it. Remember Obama talking about how white people are just bitter about people different than themselves, clinging to their guns and religion? Or how about Obama's comments about how his grandmother was a "typical white person" who would cross the street to avoid black people? Both of those were explained away by the media as Obama not meaning what he said.

Actually, I remember neither of those. .

How convenient for you.

"Nothing is so admirable in politics as a short memory." - John Kenneth Galbraith
 
As Joe pointed out, it shouldn't have been close at all. The Dems should have walked away with a huge victory.

But that's not all. The Democrats didn't just lose the presidential race, they didn't get either house of Congress. And even that isn't all. They lost badly at the state level, both with governorships and state legislatures. It wasn't even close.

So yes, any rational examination of the situation would indeed indicate that a radical change of plans is needed.

And again, by the vote count, the Dems did walk away with a huge victory. Almost 3 million votes would be a large margin for a win.

Congressionally, there was never a shot at the House.

No, a rational approach wouldn't be to throw everything away. Again, the Republicans lost by larger margins, but rather than changing from the stupid party, they went full Trump. They won by doubling down on the racism, stupidity, xenophobia, etc. But they only won because 3 close states went their way by less than 1%. This is not the time for the Dems to approve of racism, or become racist themselves.
 
Yeah, nobody is simply calling people they disagree with sexist/racist/whateverist. I get that racists are upset when they are called on their racist acts and words, but the solution isn't to just roll over and let them be racist.

I don't get it, but a lot of people seriously dislike Clinton (my bet is that they bought into the decades long Republican smear campaign, but not for rational reasons), and Clinton was running for a 3rd Democratic presidency in a row (traditionally very difficult), yet she still won the popular vote by almost 3 million. This is not the time for abandoning the quest for equality.

I've been called sexist for not voting for Clinton (left president field blank in a state where she was down by double digits). So apparently people do, in fact, do that. Not saying you do, not saying a majority do, but it is prevalent enough to be a part of the conversation and does us no favors.

Pointing out the over-swing of the pendulum by some is not advocating "roll over and let them be racist", that's a false dichotomy (same applies to "abandoning the quest for equality"). In fact since I do advocate equality, it being presumed (by some) that my not supporting Clinton directly stems from my being a man is double frustrating. That said, I wouldn't remotely compare my occasional eye-roll moment with what oppressed minority groups face.

There's like 3 threads running concurrently right now basically jockeying over how the loss occurred and it's kinda tough to find anyone articulating a point about economics and the rust belt without a rebuttal along the lines of 'yeah, but they still voted for a racist and that makes them racist, too.'

A bit ignorant of impact? Sure.

Coming from a position of privilege? Absolutely.

Not realizing how their narrow self-interest is potentially harmful to others? Right on the money.

Didn't we forge all of these nuanced terms and ways of helping people see themselves from an external point of view for a reason? Yes, because saying 'racist/sexist' all the time as a blanket term to a person who doesn't see the the underlying mechanism is pointless.
 
I've been called sexist for not voting for Clinton (left president field blank in a state where she was down by double digits). So apparently people do, in fact, do that. Not saying you do, not saying a majority do, but it is prevalent enough to be a part of the conversation and does us no favors.

Pointing out the over-swing of the pendulum by some is not advocating "roll over and let them be racist", that's a false dichotomy (same applies to "abandoning the quest for equality"). In fact since I do advocate equality, it being presumed (by some) that my not supporting Clinton directly stems from my being a man is double frustrating. That said, I wouldn't remotely compare my occasional eye-roll moment with what oppressed minority groups face.

There's like 3 threads running concurrently right now basically jockeying over how the loss occurred and it's kinda tough to find anyone articulating a point about economics and the rust belt without a rebuttal along the lines of 'yeah, but they still voted for a racist and that makes them racist, too.'

A bit ignorant of impact? Sure.

Coming from a position of privilege? Absolutely.

Not realizing how their narrow self-interest is potentially harmful to others? Right on the money.

Didn't we forge all of these nuanced terms and ways of helping people see themselves from an external point of view for a reason? Yes, because saying 'racist/sexist' all the time as a blanket term to a person who doesn't see the the underlying mechanism is pointless.

Some few may be throwing around sexist or racist willy-nilly, but not many. Recall the 'basket of deplorables' comment? Clinton said half of Trump supporters were racist, sexist, islamophobic, etc, but to hear Fox News (and all the conservatives on my Facebook feed), Clinton called every single conservative, Republican, etc, deplorable. People love to feel that they've been called a name, it justifies their hatred. It justifies lashing out in a short-sighted, stupid, selfish manner and electing Trump.
 
Some few may be throwing around sexist or racist willy-nilly, but not many. Recall the 'basket of deplorables' comment? Clinton said half of Trump supporters were racist, sexist, islamophobic, etc, but to hear Fox News (and all the conservatives on my Facebook feed), Clinton called every single conservative, Republican, etc, deplorable. People love to feel that they've been called a name, it justifies their hatred. It justifies lashing out in a short-sighted, stupid, selfish manner and electing Trump.

Here's the big issue. Everyone hearing it hears it as themselves. It only takes 'some few' making the comments to be seen by 'more than a few' and suddenly that contingent that have actual economic distress in their lives are going to start seeing a social equality movement more as a 'disorganized band of spoiled brats' who apparently have really poor aim at who they are targeting, basically competing for socio-political mindspace with their own personal issues that seem a lot more real to them.

Even the 'only half' excuse doesn't help much. So there's 100% of Trump voters (or who may have been considering being a Trump supporter) who hear there is a 50% chance the other candidate thinks they aren't worth listening to based on things they personally may or may not have even done.
 
Here's the big issue. Everyone hearing it hears it as themselves. It only takes 'some few' making the comments to be seen by 'more than a few' and suddenly that contingent that have actual economic distress in their lives are going to start seeing a social equality movement more as a 'disorganized band of spoiled brats' who apparently have really poor aim at who they are targeting, basically competing for socio-political mindspace with their own personal issues that seem a lot more real to them.

Even the 'only half' excuse doesn't help much. So there's 100% of Trump voters (or who may have been considering being a Trump supporter) who hear there is a 50% chance the other candidate thinks they aren't worth listening to based on things they personally may or may not have even done.
May or may not? Yeah, if you go into it looking for any comment to be referencing you, may or may not covers it. If you actually read or listen to the words, the concept of 'may not' being applied to it is ludicrous.
 
Yeah, nobody is simply calling people they disagree with sexist/racist/whateverist. I get that racists are upset when they are called on their racist acts and words, but the solution isn't to just roll over and let them be racist.

I don't get it, but a lot of people seriously dislike Clinton (my bet is that they bought into the decades long Republican smear campaign, but not for rational reasons), and Clinton was running for a 3rd Democratic presidency in a row (traditionally very difficult), yet she still won the popular vote by almost 3 million. This is not the time for abandoning the quest for equality.


Okay, so admittedly this is an anecdote. That said.

I've considered myself liberal since pretty much my 20s, and the overwhelming majority of my meatspace friends are liberal. Back when Jenner did the change from Bruce to Caitlyn I was talking about the issue with a few friends and friends of friends. My contribution went something like this :

Feel like you're different than your traditional gender role? Cool!
Want to dress and act like a woman despite being born a man? Good on ya.
Want me to call you Cathy and not Carl? Will do my best to remember, honestly.
Want to be considered exactly the same as a woman born biologically female? Well, that's the one bit I stumble on.

At that point, one of the FoFs said I was in no position to judge and that I was no better than a hick who wanted to drag "a faggot behind his pickup truck for fun".

My experience was by no means universal, but by the same token it was not unique. I've seen far too much of it, mainly on line, but in meatspace as well. There's this razor-thin edge of acceptance these days which is pushing away far too many decent, reasonable people who are mostly on our side of things. No matter my feelings on marriage equality, no matter the small, personal contributions I made to the lives of a couple work-mates who were dying of AIDS - if I said that there was some possible way in which Jenner wasn't exactly as "woman" as someone born with a vagina I was an intolerant bigot.

This is the twisted irony of our times : gender is claimed to be a wide analog spectrum, but at the same time we still judge people on a simplistic binary scale : Good or Bad.

I remember having passionate, desperate conversations with people well before the elections even started about growing intolerance from 'our side'. We were supposed to be the good guys. We were supposed to be the compassionate ones, the ones welcoming of difference and diversity. But at some point we turned into our own brand of orthodoxy. I remember many years ago discussing in school how the ACLU defended the march through Skokie, and how that was a feather in our collective cap for embracing free speech even when the specific speech was (rightly) deplorable to us. Now? We desperately no-platform Christina Hoff-Somers for saying things we might not fully agree with.

That last bit alone makes me weep for liberalism in its current state. Beleive it or not there is a non-trival part of 'our side' calling anyone who doesn't toe an exacting party line some form of <x>-ist. You can say this comes mainly from academia/students/the media, and you'd be right, but that doesn't mean it's not there, or that it's not having a real-world affect on people (c.f. the *********** electoral map which SHOULD have been blue-er than the water in a tampon commercial).

Racists voted for Trump. So did sexists. So did homophobes. But not everyone who voted for Trump did so because they fell into one of those easy to flag/easy to feel superior to categories. I personally know 4 people who voted Trump, and while I can find loads of flaws in the decision making processes that lead to their vote, those flaws DON'T rely on a simplistic 'you're a <x>-ist' pronouncement (other than one woman who is simply a stupid bint, if we're to pull no punches).

If we're ever to have a hope of putting liberal ideals into seats of governance again we have to drop the 'with us or against us' knife edge we've become over the last decade, and try and understand that the reasons why people might disagree with us, even if they're objectively flawed, can't be simply reduced to a trending hashtag or clever bumper sticker.
 
Last edited:
Okay, so admittedly this is an anecdote. That said.

I've considered myself liberal since pretty much my 20s, and the overwhelming majority of my meatspace friends are liberal. Back when Jenner did the change from Bruce to Caitlyn I was talking about the issue with a few friends and friends of friends. My contribution went something like this :

Feel like you're different than your traditional gender role? Cool!
Want to dress and act like a woman despite being born a man? Good on ya.
Want me to call you Cathy and not Carl? Will do my best to remember, honestly.
Want to be considered exactly the same as a woman born biologically female? Well, that's the one bit I stumble on.

At that point, one of the FoFs said I was in no position to judge and that I was no better than a hick who wanted to drag "a faggot behind his pickup truck for fun".

My experience was by no means universal, but by the same token it was not unique. I've seen far too much of it, mainly on line, but in meatspace as well. There's this razor-thin edge of acceptance these days which is pushing away far too many decent, reasonable people who are mostly on our side of things. No matter my feelings on marriage equality, no matter the small, personal contributions I made to the lives of a couple work-mates who were dying of AIDS - if I said that there was some possible way in which Jenner wasn't exactly as "woman" as someone born with a vagina I was an intolerant bigot.

This is the twisted irony of our times : gender is claimed to be a wide analog spectrum, but at the same time we still judge people on a simplistic binary scale : Good or Bad.

I remember having passionate, desperate conversations with people well before the elections even started about growing intolerance from 'our side'. We were supposed to be the good guys. We were supposed to be the compassionate ones, the ones welcoming of difference and diversity. But at some point we turned into our own brand of orthodoxy. I remember many years ago discussing in school how the ACLU defended the march through Skokie, and how that was a feather in our collective cap for embracing free speech even when the specific speech was (rightly) deplorable to us. Now? We desperately no-platform Christina Hoff-Somers for saying things we might not fully agree with.

That last bit alone makes me weep for liberalism in its current state. Beleive it or not there is a non-trival part of 'our side' calling anyone who doesn't toe an exacting party line some form of <x>-ist. You can say this comes mainly from academia/students/the media, and you'd be right, but that doesn't mean it's not there, or that it's not having a real-world affect on people (c.f. the *********** electoral map which SHOULD have been blue-er than the water in a tampon commercial).

Racists voted for Trump. So did sexists. So did homophobes. But not everyone who voted for Trump did so because they fell into one of those easy to flag/easy to feel superior to categories. I personally know 4 people who voted Trump, and while I can find loads of flaws in the decision making processes that lead to their vote, those flaws DON'T rely on a simplistic 'you're a <x>-ist' pronouncement (other than one woman who is simply a stupid bint, if we're to pull no punches).

If we're ever to have a hope of putting liberal ideals into seats of governance again we have to drop the 'with us or against us' knife edge we've become over the last decade, and try and understand that the reasons why people might disagree with us, even if they're objectively flawed, can't be simply reduced to a trending hashtag or clever bumper sticker.



Well said, and I largely agree.

Nuance will not win elections for the foreseeable future, however. What will help is being able to point straight at the Republican failures. This will mitigate the effects you're describing regardless, but hopefully those will be addressed anyway.
 
When you're calling Cainkane1 racist just for voting for Trump, then YOU are the one casually dismissing things, not me.

His response seemed to be addressing every line of the post he quoted, except the one line you decided to leave in when cutting up that post.

Or did you not have criticism of Trump like you claimed, and you think Cainkane1 is right about who is critical of Trump?
 

Back
Top Bottom