Why People Voted For Trump – For Those Who Don't Get It

[sts60]

I love American values of hard work, honesty, and love of one's country. Basically, all the things that people on this board look down on,...

I cordially invite you to perform anatomically inappropriate activities with your assessment.

... I embody.

You forgot "modesty".

 

[Mumbles]

Donald Trump called for ending illegal immigration, including potentially deporting illegals, and instead of debating whether or not that ought to be done, the general reaction was "Racist!"

*BZZT!*

What he actually stated was that Mexico was sending criminals and rapists to the US - and again, there's no reason they wouldn't use the legal immigration system to do so. This is both racist (or rather, ethnic-based bigoted) *and* an absurd conspiracy theory.

He also called for nation-wide stop-and-frisk, which means that police would harass, beat, and arrest people based entirely on it's skin color. It's long been shown to be ineffective as a means to lower gun violence, it's obviously racist and unconstitutional, and it actually *increases* anger and hostility towards police. And he was nice enough to take a page from Nixon's southern strategy by calling himself the "law and order candidate".

Also, he has white nationalist Steve Bannon as his "campaign CEO", and White House advisor, and nominated civil rights opponent Jeff Sessions to the Department of Justice, where he's free to dismantle the civil rights department that had been rebuilt under Obama.

Oh, and he forwards tweets from people like "@whitegenocide" showing laughably fake "black on white crime" statistics.

So yeah, much more evidence than what you claimed. It's like calling him a wannabe war criminal. It may not sound nice, but he did propose numerous war crimes, so it fits.

 

[mijopaalmc]

jesus. No they weren't.

They were explaining why Hillary was untrustworthy.

Everything else was a tu quoque fallacy as I have so expertly explained.

/not even going to try to explain to you uhow silly your ridiculously artificial attempt to create a separation between the act and the justification is because we only have so many years left.

Except that the essence of a tu quoque is questioning someone's reasoning with reference to their actions rather than worth reference to their reasoning. The posters in this thread have been questioning the justification for voting for Trump rather than the act itself. Therefore, their arguments are not a tu quoque.

 

[The Big Dog]

Except that the essence of a tu quoque is questioning someone's reasoning with reference to their actions rather than worth reference to their reasoning. The posters in this thread have been questioning the justification for voting for Trump rather than the act itself. Therefore, their arguments are not a tu quoque.

Except that the essence of a tu quoque is questioning someone's reasoning with reference to their actions rather than worth reference to their reasoning.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

One cannot argue with THAT kind of "reasoning."

That is utterly hilarious. Fantastic.

 

[Civet]

I don't know, are there any Democrats that espouse conservative values? If there were I would surely have considered them. However, I probably would have voted for Clinton before I would have voted for Sanders, again the whole ideology thing.

Depends on how you define conservative values. I'd need to know your preferred definition before being able to identify any Democrats who might fit the bill. Given what you've described liking about Trump, what convinced you to vote for Obama the first time he ran?

 

[Donal]

Generally speaking, voters don't have to agree with every position a candidate takes to support them. Voting involves selecting not the absolute perfect candidate, but the best candidate from the choices on offer, according to which political/social interests they deem most important.

But the more I hear from Trump supporters as individuals, it seems they didn't agree with any of his policies.

Trump's support comes from several different constituencies:

eh 3 at most

Blue-collar working class voters (esp in the "Rust Belt" and Middle America) who have been abandoned by both the globalized economy as well as by political parties.

Who voted for a born rich Ivy League school boy who got by on daddy's charity, used his money to get away from his obligations and drove people just like them into bankruptcy

Religious conservatives for whom issues like abortion are non-negotiable.

Who voted for a guy who is working on his 3rd divorce, has openly bragged about his affairs, including with married women, and was pro-Choice until the day before he declared his candidacy.

One of his larger constituencies are socially disaffected people sick of being stuck on the "piss on" end of Identity Politics. These are the cultural conservatives, men, traditional patriots, etc.

Snow flakes who have always been on the "right side" of things and aren't losing a damn thing other than being asked for some common courtesy towards others.

Each has had good reason to be pissed at "liberals", who have spent many years (going back pre-Obama btw) being told essentially to "sit down, shut up" while their interests have not only been ignored, but often times openly derided and worked against by the Democratic Party, who then turned around and expected their votes in elections.

That is nonsense. They have all been constantly pandered to. You can certainly make the case the DNC got too wrapped up in its celebrity friends and big donors, but this idea that these folks have been ignored is just not true.

Well, they finally had enough, You can only kick a dog for so long until he either just lies down and takes it or he turns on you. The "dog" turned, and it's going to be a frakking nightmare trying to get him to ever trust Democrats again.

Bull. These aren't some poor downtrodden folkss. They have always been pandered to and now that someone who doesn't loo kor pray like them is getting a say, they are freaking out.

To better understand at least part of the issue, I suggest this article:

https://www.thenation.com/article/w...eople-vote-against-their-interests-they-dont/

and the book "Listen Up, Liberal!" by Thomas Frank.

Or we can just take Trump supporters at their own words. Watch the Town Hall Sanders did in one of the counties Trump won as he speaks to folks. Listen to what they say and what they think of Trump's proposals. They keep admitting over and over they either didn't believe Trump or kept disregarding what he was saying. So, if they didn't vote for him on policies, didn't like him as a person and know he wasn't really a "blue collar" billionaire, why did they vote for him? The only thing left is fear of "Others".

 

[Donal]

heck of a strawman.

stick to calling people racist

Not a strawman. The OP was based on a false premise. Now, lets move on from the topic of words you don't understand. And back to "Trump supporters want a safe space"

 

[Brainster]

He also called for nation-wide stop-and-frisk, which means that police would harass, beat, and arrest people based entirely on it's skin color.

"It's?" Thank goodness Trump didn't write that, or you'd be claiming that he denied the humanity of non-white persons.

Also, he has white nationalist Steve Bannon as his "campaign CEO", and White House advisor, and nominated civil rights opponent Jeff Sessions to the Department of Justice, where he's free to dismantle the civil rights department that had been rebuilt under Obama.

Evidence that Bannon is a white nationalist? I tracked this down a month or so ago, and found it apparently originated in a column written by two of Bannon's Breitbart contributors (including Milo Yannoupolous) which referred to Richard Spencer as an "intellectual" in the white nationalist movement. As I pointed out, Spencer got his BA at the U of Virginia and his Masters at the U of Chicago. His views are odious, but it's hard to argue that he does not bring some intellectual heft to the mostly knuckle-dragging skinheads.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Here is the definition you posted:

Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwiː/; Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

(emphases added)

So far, you have only focused on the part and red and completely ignored the part and blue. This is highly problematic because there are plenty of reasons "to discredit the validity of an opponent's logical argument" solely on logical grounds, which is a perfectly reasonable and valid way of discrediting a logical argument. It is, however, invalid to attempt to discredit the validity of an opponent's logical argument solely by brute fact of their actions.

What other posters have pointed out is that some Trump voters are trying to justify voting for Trump by saying that some of Clinton's actions--actions which Trump also took--were what made her untrustworthy enough to them to preclude their voting for her. The question of why those actions made Clinton so untrustworthy but not Trump equally as untrustworthy go to the heart of the justification to vote for Trump, which is what is being questioned. Questioning the justification to vote for Trump based on Clinton's untrustworthiness is therefore not a tu quoque because the inconsistency is not being inferred from the action of voting for Trump, rather it is being outright stated in the justification for the vote.

 

[blutoski]

Wait a minute. Trump wasn't called "racist" for his stance on ending illegal immigration. He was called "racist" for characterizing the Mexicans who come to the US criminals, rapists, and "bringing drugs".

​

He throws that last line in, which mitigates it some, but as an assumption, it suggests that he hasn't actually seen any Mexicans that are good people.

That is why he is called "racist" in relation to Mexicans.

And the proposal to bar immigration of people from a specific religion, and maintaining a registry of citizens of a specific religion, as if they're all suspects. And his history of rejecting black tenants in his properties. He was a known racist before campaigning. I think there was some discussion upthread about why he wasn't repudiated when he was a Democrat contributor.

 

[sts60]

...Do you want to keep on waving your arms and yelling about something I didn't say, or would you like to address the actual issue?

The hilarious thing is that I am actually giving your argument more credit than it deserves.

I guess that's a "no", then. For example:

now you are arguing that it was merely name calling,

Nope. I'm saying that Trump supporters are being hypocritical in some of what they say. I also explicitly gave examples why. Hypocritical is a value judgment attached to the observation of inconsistency.

I repeat: if you don't like being called our for hypocrisy, don't say hypocritical things.

I at least am asserting it was a form of ad hominem.

Nope. It would be an ad hominem fallacy if I said, "Trump supporters are wrong in their assessment of Hillary Clinton because they are hypocrites." I haven't said that; I went to some lengths to point out that I was not saying that.

You keep mutating my arguments into something you can attempt to dismiss as a logical fallacy. I am upgrading your charge of Felony Assault on a Strawman to Aggravated Serial Felony Assaults on Strawmen.

Take a gander:

I don't need to. I've had plenty of practice identifying what is and is not such a fallacy by arguing with Apollo hoax believers, so I don't need you to cite URLs at me. More importantly, it doesn't matter what you can read off the Internet if you refuse, or are unable, to attempt to apply them to the arguments someone else is actually making.

You are at the name calling level,

"butt hurt hillary fanatics", etc. Pot, kettle, black.

I am explaining that you are one level above that

The suggestion that your "point" is that they are hypocrites is sheer name calling.

So you got that going for ya!

First of all, your explanations aren't much use because you aren't even arguing against what I'm saying.

Second, if people are being hypocritical, calling their actions "hypocrisy" is justified, even if it may hurt their feelings. <Insert reference to safe space here>

Third, I didn't just say people were being hypocritical, I explicitly identified why this was so. That is, I pointed out the inconsistency in their argument. You identified yourself as an exception to that assessment, but never answered my followup question probing that claim.

Finally, all of this is merely evading the issue I brought up in the first place: the hypocrisy of rendering an anti-Clinton, pro-Trump political choice based on the specific issue of emails. There is not a cloud of straw large enough to obscure that.

 

[Upchurch]

And the proposal to bar immigration of people from a specific religion, and maintaining a registry of citizens of a specific religion, as if they're all suspects. And his history of rejecting black tenants in his properties. He was a known racist before campaigning. I think there was some discussion upthread about why he wasn't repudiated when he was a Democrat contributor.

Yes. I was merely addressing the racism as pertaining to Mexicans in the US. There are many reasons to think Trump was, and continues to be, racist.

 

[Hungry81]

I dont understand.

So people voted for Trump because he doesn't mean what he says when he talks about his more extreme policies and are hoping he won't really implement anything they don't like and when he says he sexually assaulted people he is such a joker and its not true, but they wouldn't vote for Hillary because she is a liar.

It doen't make sense.

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

 

[Upchurch]

So people voted for Trump because he doesn't mean what he says when he talks about his more extreme policies and are hoping he won't really implement anything they don't like and when he says he sexually assaulted people he is such a joker and its not true, but they wouldn't vote for Hillary because she is a liar.

He also says what people think but are afraid to say. Except the racist/sexist stuff. Nobody thinks or says that stuff, especially Trump.

Simple, right?

 

[varwoche]

Don't bother refuting the points I have listed above – I don't need to prove that the claims against Hillary etc are true. This is how Hillary portrayed herself and this is what we see, regardless of what the truth of any of these issues actually is.

This part was, by far, the most informative of the wall 'o text.

Indeed.

 

[WilliamSeger]

mgidm86[/B]]
Don't bother refuting the points I have listed above – I don't need to prove that the claims against Hillary etc are true. This is how Hillary portrayed herself and this is what we see, regardless of what the truth of any of these issues actually is.

This part was, by far, the most informative of the wall 'o text.

I also got a clue from the section about, "Oh yeah, and while I'm here, let me tell you why I hate ****** Democrats."

 

[The Big Dog]

Not a strawman. The OP was based on a false premise. Now, lets move on from the topic of words you don't understand. And back to "Trump supporters want a safe space"

Own it man, it was a strawman, and that is fine, hell it can actually distract people from from realizing that you just want to keep calling people racist.

Say, it did not work out too well the last time the last said I didn't understand a basic logical concept. The guy ended up sputtering that it was about reasoning with reference and not about reference to their reasoning, which:

HILARIOUS!

 

[Trakar]

As a liberal Bernie voter, OP is spot-on.

As a hardcore progressive who would rather have had Bernie than either of the two general election options, I'd say the OP was about half and half.

Clinton was a horrible candidate and would have been a terrible president for most of the issues that matter most to me, Trump and his arch-conservative agenda and crony-capitalist cabinet, was a worse candidate and will likely be a worse president. There was nothing in either option that enabled me to vote for either. This is what America wanted and what we will all have to deal with over the next four years, while both parties absorb the damages that both will suffer.

Ultimately, progressives will gain the most from this turn of events, but there will be a lot of pain between now and then.

 

[The Big Dog]

First of all, your explanations aren't much use because you aren't even arguing against what I'm saying.

Second, if people are being hypocritical, calling their actions "hypocrisy" is justified, even if it may hurt their feelings. <Insert reference to safe space here>

Third, I didn't just say people were being hypocritical, I explicitly identified why this was so. That is, I pointed out the inconsistency in their argument. You identified yourself as an exception to that assessment, but never answered my followup question probing that claim.

Finally, all of this is merely evading the issue I brought up in the first place: the hypocrisy of rendering an anti-Clinton, pro-Trump political choice based on the specific issue of emails. There is not a cloud of straw large enough to obscure that.

First, whoa, you sound serious. I will pay attention.

Second, damn, they sound hypocritical.

Third, massive hypocrites. Gotta admit it, you are bringing it!

Finally, the issue you brought up in the first place.... gotta admit, I am little intimidated at this point.... "the hypocrisy of rendering an anti-Clinton, pro-Trump political choice based on the specific issue of emails"... Ok that was the tu quoque fallacy I have explained already at length.... here it comes:

"There is not a cloud of straw large enough to obscure that."

Huh, must be in the next post. ( mean it can't be that you think they are hypocrites because you already made that claim)

The guy is a SHOWMAN!

 

[sts60]

First, whoa, you sound serious. I will pay attention.

Glad to hear it.

Finally, the issue you brought up in the first place.... "the hypocrisy of rendering an anti-Clinton, pro-Trump political choice based on the specific issue of emails"... Ok that was the tu quoque fallacy I have explained already at length....

Nope. I thought you said you were going to pay attention.

The guy is a SHOWMAN!

Repeating yourself won't help. Appeals to ridicule won't help. Meta-appeals to logical fallacies, ascribed to arguments I didn't make, won't help. Attempts at diversion won't help. You can avoid the addressing the point of my original post, but it still stands. You're not arguing against the hypocrisy; you're defending it.

 

[The Big Dog]

Glad to hear it.



Nope. I thought you said you were going to pay attention.



Repeating yourself won't help. Appeals to ridicule won't help. Meta-appeals to logical fallacies, ascribed to arguments I didn't make, won't help. Attempts at diversion won't help. You can avoid the addressing the point of my original post, but it still stands. You're not arguing against the hypocrisy; you're defending it.

Actually I am having a bit of fun at someone who appears to believe that calling someone a hypocrite is an actual argument. It has never been and if you took a bit deeper dive into my posts, you would realize that calling your insults fallacious is a compliment they don't deserve.

Call someone a hypocrite, Hillary is still a god damn dishonest fraud who should not and will not ever be president

Drops mic

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I'm a first generation immigrant. I immigrated from an Islamic country. I love America. America is the greatest nation on earth as far as I'm concerned. I love American values of hard work, honesty, and love of one's country. Basically, all the things that people on this board look down on, I embody. And I value all these things precisely because I know full well what the alternative is. I don't like the direction the country was going in the last few years. Too much leftism, too much socialism, too much thought policing, too much islamic terrorism that no one wanted to face. Too much illegal immigration that no one wanted to face. Trump was speaking that language, so yeah, he appealed to me once I bothered to learn his platform outside of the OMGHITLER reportage.

Again, I find it hilarious that people ACTUALLY THINK he's a white supremacist nazi. Like for reals! a 70 something year old man who's been very much in the public eye, who's had a lot of success in business, TV, and other ventures, who has employed thousands of people, who has had to deal with thousands of people. You never heard ANYTHING about what a moron bigot he was....until he dared run against the left. Then all of a sudden he's the antichrist. Sorry, I'm smarter than that.

I'll come on this board every now and then and remind myself of how truly unhinged some people are just because we disagree idealogically, and then giggle because people ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS STUFF!

A remarkable series of words. Probably not in the way they were intended, however.

 

[CosCos]

Keep denigrating us folks. It's worked wonders so far!

 

[Meadmaker]

Wait a minute. Trump wasn't called "racist" for his stance on ending illegal immigration. He was called "racist" for characterizing the Mexicans who come to the US criminals, rapists, and "bringing drugs".

​

He throws that last line in, which mitigates it some, but as an assumption, it suggests that he hasn't actually seen any Mexicans that are good people.

That is why he is called "racist" in relation to Mexicans.

Ok. Let's run with that. He's racist. Well, at least he said something racist. So far, so good.

For so many people, that's the end of the debate. Racist. Done. Next. Never mind whatever he is saying, the conversation is over. He's racist.

Now, though, his supporters say, "But wait. He says he wants to stop illegal immigration. So do I."

The answer, all too often is, "He's racist." Sometimes, it goes even farther. Sometimes it's, "You must be a racist." When the only answer is "He/it/you are racist/sexist/homophobic/bigoted" you kind of lose people.

Example: He was on trial for fraud because he swindled people out of lots of money selling a phony bill of goods. What's the headline? "Trump makes racist remark about judge." You just lost the audience for the important thing.

We all kept waiting for "peak Trump" and with each supposed gaffe we figured this one would do it, but every time the reaction was, "See, he's sexist/racist/whateverist" It sounds like a broken record. Sure, he said something offensive again, but it always offended the same people. Moreover the reaction on the left offended different people. So as I listened to that commercial over and over and over on the weekend before the election, I knew that she was out of touch. By the morning of the election, as I listened to radio, I really began to doubt her chances. And then I watched the returns coming in from Virginia.....she blew it.

And the characters on the SNL skit concluded "America must be racist".

You can dismiss half the country that way if you want, but if you do, you won't get their vote, and it's kind of hard to win an election when you start out losing 46% of the audience.

 

[Minoosh]

One of his larger constituencies are socially disaffected people sick of being stuck on the "piss on" end of Identity Politics. These are the cultural conservatives, men, traditional patriots, etc.

This makes them as much a part of "identity politics" as anyone else. The article you cited goes back to Jimmy Carter, for heaven's sake. Their problems are the government's fault, yet government can rescue them?

It was a very interesting article, but I don't see a return to the days when being a white male high school graduate will land you in a job that will allow you to support a family. Depressed portions of the U.S. (not all rural or "Rust Belt") might benefit in the short term from pork-barrel projects and aggressive protectionism, but then we'll see (IMO) higher taxes, more expensive consumer goods and still no sustainable basis for economic prosperity.

 

[Upchurch]

Ok. Let's run with that. He's racist. Well, at least he said something racist. So far, so good.

For so many people, that's the end of the debate. Racist. Done. Next. Never mind whatever he is saying, the conversation is over. He's racist.

Now, though, his supporters say, "But wait. He says he wants to stop illegal immigration. So do I."

The answer, all too often is, "He's racist." Sometimes, it goes even farther. Sometimes it's, "You must be a racist." When the only answer is "He/it/you are racist/sexist/homophobic/bigoted" you kind of lose people.

Example: He was on trial for fraud because he swindled people out of lots of money selling a phony bill of goods. What's the headline? "Trump makes racist remark about judge." You just lost the audience for the important thing.

We all kept waiting for "peak Trump" and with each supposed gaffe we figured this one would do it, but every time the reaction was, "See, he's sexist/racist/whateverist" It sounds like a broken record. Sure, he said something offensive again, but it always offended the same people. Moreover the reaction on the left offended different people. So as I listened to that commercial over and over and over on the weekend before the election, I knew that she was out of touch. By the morning of the election, as I listened to radio, I really began to doubt her chances. And then I watched the returns coming in from Virginia.....she blew it.

And the characters on the SNL skit concluded "America must be racist".

You can dismiss half the country that way if you want, but if you do, you won't get their vote, and it's kind of hard to win an election when you start out losing 46% of the audience.

Please do not put words into my mouth. Intentionally or not, you presented an argument that wasn't being made. I was merely correcting.

 

[sts60]

Actually I am having a bit of fun at someone who appears to believe that calling someone a hypocrite is an actual argument.

You just got through telling me that I was saying the charge of hypocrisy was just "name calling". Now you're telling me that I'm saying the mere label is in itself some sort of argument. Will we decide what it is you're going tell me I'm saying anytime soon? We're up to the fourth or fifth term in this series and it shows no sign of converging.

It has never been and if you took a bit deeper dive into my posts, you would realize that calling your insults fallacious is a compliment they don't deserve.

I've been paying careful attention to your posts, Big Dog. In fact, I've done you the courtesy of paying attention to, and arguing against, what you're actually saying, not some substitute I find convenient.

Call someone a hypocrite, Hillary is still a god damn dishonest fraud who should not and will not ever be president

Drops mic

Feel better now? Nothing like letting it all out. But this could be a teaching moment; is that what an "actual argument" looks like?

 

[mijopaalmc]

The Big Dog still doesn't seem to understand that calling something hypocrisy isn't in itself a tu quoque . In order for it to be a tu quoque, a conclusion must be drawn from the fact that it is hypocrisy and the conclusion itself must be independent of the fact that the auction is hypocritical.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Keep denigrating us folks. It's worked wonders so far!

Nope, just marveling at the collection of words.

 

[Minoosh]

Example: He was on trial for fraud because he swindled people out of lots of money selling a phony bill of goods. What's the headline? "Trump makes racist remark about judge." You just lost the audience for the important thing.

You can say more than one thing in a headline. "Key decks" are a device that puts more information in big type.

Trump says judge's Mexican heritage might bias him
6,000 plaintiffs seek millions over "fake university"

The media's problem, IMO, wasn't so much bias as lazy and ineffective communication.

We all kept waiting for "peak Trump" and with each supposed gaffe we figured this one would do it, but every time the reaction was, "See, he's sexist/racist/whateverist" It sounds like a broken record. Sure, he said something offensive again, but it always offended the same people.

I thought he was steadily offending different groups, but so was Hillary at times. "Sexist" is bland and abstract, especially when a man agrees that he is a "sexual predator."

By the morning of the election, as I listened to radio, I really began to doubt her chances. And then I watched the returns coming in from Virginia.....she blew it.

I'm not quite caught up, I'm not sure which ad you're referring to. She did blow it with that "basket of deplorables" comment and other clunky focus-group phrases like "Trumped up trickle down economics..." Such tortured constructions did not sound natural coming from her and possibly could not sound natural coming from anyone.

You can dismiss half the country that way if you want, but if you do, you won't get their vote, and it's kind of hard to win an election when you start out losing 46% of the audience.

You could have said that of Romney in 2012. You might have applied it to Trump, if things had tipped slightly differently. Which they might have, if Democrats weren't being told Hillary had an obviously phony 98.1 percent chance of winning. And if she'd climbed out of the airplane more.

I'll get over this obsession, but probably not today.

 

[logger]

Keep denigrating us folks. It's worked wonders so far!

They will, they're so far into the wilderness, it will be years before they realize how to get out.

 

[Mumbles]

Ok. Let's run with that. He's racist. Well, at least he said something racist. So far, so good.

For so many people, that's the end of the debate. Racist. Done. Next. Never mind whatever he is saying, the conversation is over. He's racist.

Now, though, his supporters say, "But wait. He says he wants to stop illegal immigration. So do I."

And so do the dems. The difference is that Trump also believes in racist conspiracy theories.

The answer, all too often is, "He's racist." Sometimes, it goes even farther. Sometimes it's, "You must be a racist." When the only answer is "He/it/you are racist/sexist/homophobic/bigoted" you kind of lose people.

Example: He was on trial for fraud because he swindled people out of lots of money selling a phony bill of goods. What's the headline? "Trump makes racist remark about judge." You just lost the audience for the important thing.

Oddly, I heard a lot about how Trump University was a giant scam. And I wasn't slightly shocked, since Trump's a well known con man.

We all kept waiting for "peak Trump" and with each supposed gaffe we figured this one would do it, but every time the reaction was, "See, he's sexist/racist/whateverist" It sounds like a broken record.

Well, can't you take a hint?

Look, don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining. The simple fact is, Trump has endorsed state violence against minority groups. And I don't mean in the goofy "taxation is theft/working for money is slavery" sense, but rather the "police run up, toss you into a wall, scream slurs at you while they molest you, and beat you like a dog if you object, simply because you are black or brown" sense (ie. Stop and Frisk). For me, yes, there's no more to discuss. Since Trump voters are obviously not all that bothered by the idea, why don't they simply admit it, rather than do this silly "he's not racist" dance? If one is okay with violent racism, then one should least have the honesty to say so.

 

[Meadmaker]

I thought he was steadily offending different groups....

That's an interesting thought, and definitely part of why people didn't get it.

He said something offensive about blacks, so people thought blacks would be offended. He said something offensive about Mexicans, so Mexicans should be offended. He said something offensive about women, Muslims, disabled people....each of those groups should be offended. That's about 70% of the electorate, so that should do it.

Except that in each case, not all blacks, or Mexicans, or women or Muslims were offended. In each case, liberals were offended. He was offending the same group of people over and over and over. Meanwhile, as we have seen even here, there was a group of people who just ate it up. It wasn't even that they agreed with his opinion about whatever the target was. They just loved the reaction of the real target of those insults. The real target, in every case, was liberals. It was "political correctness". There were a bunch of Americans who just loved to shove attitude in their face. And too many people didn't catch on that that was what he was doing.

I'm not quite caught up, I'm not sure which ad you're referring to

She had an ad featuring Donald Trump quotes saying something bad about lots of groups. It had the quote where he mimicked the disabled reporter (it was a reporter, wasn't it?) , and he told Howard Stern he didn't really respect women, and he said he was going to bomb someone or another, and all sorts of strings of quotes we were supposed to be horrified by. I heard it many times in Michigan that weekend, because I spent a lot of time in my car.

It just rang hollow.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

But the more I hear from Trump supporters as individuals, it seems they didn't agree with any of his policies.

They disagree with him less than they do with actively offensive candidates like Clinton.

eh 3 at most

I believe I named 3

Who voted for a born rich Ivy League school boy who got by on daddy's charity, used his money to get away from his obligations and drove people just like them into bankruptcy

Who is telling them he will get the US out of the trade deals that stripped many of them of their jobs and will encourage "make in US to sell in US" policies. Which is more attractive to them that Elite Democrats like Clinton, et al offering snake oil like "education and retraining" while favoring MORE job-killing trade deals. They'll take the one who at least tries to be one of them to a degree over the one who looks down her technocratic nose at them.

Who voted for a guy who is working on his 3rd divorce, has openly bragged about his affairs, including with married women, and was pro-Choice until the day before he declared his candidacy.

Who is also saying "no abortion", who won't put up with schools working to dilute their religious influence on their children and who won't put up with attempts to pull down nativity scenes every Christmas.

Snow flakes who have always been on the "right side" of things and aren't losing a damn thing other than being asked for some common courtesy towards others.

As a white, Christian male who has never used a racial slur, never advocated physical violence on any innocent person even when I don't approve of their lifestyle choices, and who supports rights for ALL women, not just hyper-progressive feminists I can assure you that you are incorrect. I have been subject to countless slurs and verbal abuse simply for defending societal and cultural norms that have served us well for countless millenia.

That is nonsense. They have all been constantly pandered to. You can certainly make the case the DNC got too wrapped up in its celebrity friends and big donors, but this idea that these folks have been ignored is just not true.

Read the article and book I suggested and hear their own words. And understand the research that shows their feeling is justified.

Bull. These aren't some poor downtrodden folkss. They have always been pandered to and now that someone who doesn't loo kor pray like them is getting a say, they are freaking out.

The evidence says you're wrong.

Or we can just take Trump supporters at their own words. Watch the Town Hall Sanders did in one of the counties Trump won as he speaks to folks. Listen to what they say and what they think of Trump's proposals. They keep admitting over and over they either didn't believe Trump or kept disregarding what he was saying. So, if they didn't vote for him on policies, didn't like him as a person and know he wasn't really a "blue collar" billionaire, why did they vote for him? The only thing left is fear of "Others".

Having run an abrasive and offensive candidate, we will never know that for certain one way or the other. If we had run a better offering, the result would have been clearer.

 

[Meadmaker]

Look, don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining. The simple fact is, Trump has endorsed state violence against minority groups. And I don't mean in the goofy "taxation is theft/working for money is slavery" sense, but rather the "police run up, toss you into a wall, scream slurs at you while they molest you, and beat you like a dog if you object, simply because you are black or brown" sense (ie. Stop and Frisk). For me, yes, there's no more to discuss. Since Trump voters are obviously not all that bothered by the idea, why don't they simply admit it, rather than do this silly "he's not racist" dance? If one is okay with violent racism, then one should least have the honesty to say so.

And yet, that message didn't get out. And I'll bet you can't find a quote of Hillary saying the things you just said. You can find quotes saying Stop and Frisk is racist. You can find quotes saying it's unconstitutional. I think, although my memory is not so clear, that you can find quotes saying it's ineffective.

You can't find many quotes from Democrats and none from Hillary Clinton taking the libertarian position against stop and frisk. It's hard to find Democrats saying, "This is a violation of our fourth amendment rights." It's easy to find Democrats saying, "It's racist."

I can only assume that it is, indeed, racist. However, that's not what's really wrong with it. If they did that to a proportional number of white people, it wouldn't be good policy.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

This makes them as much a part of "identity politics" as anyone else. The article you cited goes back to Jimmy Carter, for heaven's sake. Their problems are the government's fault, yet government can rescue them?

No, their problems are Democrat's fault for abandoning them and becoming a group of left-wing Republicans instead of traditional modern Democrats.

It was a very interesting article, but I don't see a return to the days when being a white male high school graduate will land you in a job that will allow you to support a family. Depressed portions of the U.S. (not all rural or "Rust Belt") might benefit in the short term from pork-barrel projects and aggressive protectionism, but then we'll see (IMO) higher taxes, more expensive consumer goods and still no sustainable basis for economic prosperity.

You come across like the very sort of Democrat who has turned them against their party roots: "Get used to it, things can't bet better, keep 'chasing that cheese'.."

 

[Minoosh]

No, their problems are Democrat's fault for abandoning them and becoming a group of left-wing Republicans instead of traditional modern Democrats.

Per the report they seemed to be disillusioned by both parties.

You come across like the very sort of Democrat who has turned them against their party roots: "Get used to it, things can't bet better, keep 'chasing that cheese'.."

I'm not a Democratic, and the critique you posted said people felt snubbed by both major parties.

All I'm saying is, I don't know what any of these folks think they can expect from either major party. Can Trump really save them? And if he can't, is that still the Democrats' fault?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It's good that Trump apologists practice their art: they have their job cut out for them for the next 2 years or so.

Hint: the election is over, so blaming Clinton no longer works.

 

[Hungry81]

They disagree with him less than they do with actively offensive candidates like Clinton.





I believe I named 3



Who is telling them he will get the US out of the trade deals that stripped many of them of their jobs and will encourage "make in US to sell in US" policies. Which is more attractive to them that Elite Democrats like Clinton, et al offering snake oil like "education and retraining" while favoring MORE job-killing trade deals. They'll take the one who at least tries to be one of them to a degree over the one who looks down her technocratic nose at them.

You know just because an alleged scammer says something does not mean you have to believe him.

Who is also saying "no abortion", who won't put up with schools working to dilute their religious influence on their children and who won't put up with attempts to pull down nativity scenes every Christmas.

I'm sure you mean Christian religious influence. (BTW what does Jesus say about loving thy neighbour again?) More promises AND scare tactics. Nativity scenes in danger under Hillary OMG! Better vote for Trump

As a white, Christian male who has never used a racial slur, never advocated physical violence on any innocent person even when I don't approve of their lifestyle choices, and who supports rights for ALL women, not just hyper-progressive feminists I can assure you that you are incorrect. I have been subject to countless slurs and verbal abuse simply for defending societal and cultural norms that have served us well for countless millenia.

Well done, all those years and the only thing you have done is elected someone for president who campaigned on racial slurs and sexual violence, and made a bunch of promises without an actual plan or intention of honouring them. (Don't lies make baby Jesus cry?)

Read the article and book I suggested and hear their own words. And understand the research that shows their feeling is justified.



The evidence says you're wrong.



Having run an abrasive and offensive candidate, we will never know that for certain one way or the other. If we had run a better offering, the result would have been clearer.

Wow and you still voted for him. Couldn't let those dang Nativity hating liberals win.


Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[uke2se]

Keep denigrating us folks. It's worked wonders so far!

You deserve to be denigrated. We're just telling it like it is. Need a safe space?