PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Benched

Just a comment on the "Racist against Muslims".

Your point is valid, but it holds fairly true that people of the Muslim faith are often of a similar (specifically not white) race, so that's why it's often pointed out as such.

That, or lazy definitions. Of course everyone means a similar form of prejudice and hate, whether it be racism or bigotry, so I'm not entirely sure the valid point is one that's all that worth making.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

I think this is just someone looking for an answer because they can't accept that the majority of people are unintelligent, bigots, and superficial

I actually agree with Greenwald, and even posted a similar (albeit primitive relative to that article) thought on my Facebook wall before I even saw that. I was in the UK right before Brexit, and in the US right before this election. The parallels were striking.

It will be interesting to see how the people who opted for a little anarchy and carried Trump to the presidency will react when they realize that, as Locke noted, voting against something often has worse consequences than voting for something. Because they are going to realize that Trump doesn't actually stand for what they want him to.

[Flash Walken]

For as long as the the GOP has been using dog whistles, people have been saying they don't hear them.

It's the whole point of a dog whistle.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by accord1999

The DC metro area has the highest median income in the US, a lot of it from government and military spending/employees. It's like comparing Calgary of 2012 with the manufacturing heart of Ontario.

I live in a Richmond suburb. Not much of either of those industries here.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

For as long as the the GOP has been using dog whistles, people have been saying they don't hear them.

It's the whole point of a dog whistle.

You still just refuse to accept there could be other reasons huh?

Endemic of the reasons Clinton lost last night. Denigrate and dismiss.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Azure

Exactly, and regardless of what the unemployment rate is, if you dig down to the local communities, a lot of people are suffering because jobs have been sent overseas.

And their new Commander in Thief purchases his materials for his skyscrapers from those same people that stole their jerbs.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by nik-

Which county is that?

Chesterfield. We have a pretty diversified economy, with no real dominant industry. I'd suspect we're pretty comparable to a lot of areas across the country.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by nik-

This is wrong, and unfair.

The blame is on the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign who assumed there were more Clinton Supporters than there really were and continued to take an "attack the character" stance which clearly wasn't effective.

It took a disastrous video to even put the polling to where any reasonable candidate running against Trump would have been the entire time.

Poor candidate who rightly or wrongly, as a result of the primaries with Sanders, gave the impression, backed by the DNC, that it was her turn to be president now and would everyone please fall in line.

How badly does she lose last night if she wasn't running against a complete disaster?

Probably not much different in the electoral college, bigger loss margins in the swing states and losing the popular vote most likely. Don't see any GOP candidate who could have won more states. Maybe Virginia.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by nik-

You still just refuse to accept there could be other reasons huh?

Endemic of the reasons Clinton lost last night. Denigrate and dismiss.

Other reasons like, "they terk our jerbs!" ?

[Frequitude]

I get why the rust belt bought into the trade issue, but its kinda sad that they don't realize those jobs as they knew them aren't coming back without either a) $1/hr wages, or b) $80 toasters.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Chesterfield.

Pretty close for a suburban county though. 4000 vote difference. Slightly higher than average votes for Johnson too.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Benched

Just a comment on the "Racist against Muslims"

You can't be racist against an idea. Religion is an idea. It's perfectly valid to question the validity and reject an idea/religion.

"Deport all 'brown' people" is racist. It's based on their skin color nothing else.
"Islam is a bad idea and people who practice it are not welcome here" is not racist. It's a rejection of the idea in your society.

Not all people who practice Islam are 'brown', so it's a false equivalency.


Is it a good idea to deport people for X? LOL probably not. But saying a religion is not welcome is not inherently racist. Anyone of any region/color can practice or subscribe to the idea.

You're getting way too caught up on the work "race".
Lets call it discrimination instead of racism is that helps.

Discriminating an entire religion of people is immoral, stupid, unconstitutional and against what America claims to stand for.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by nik-

You still just refuse to accept there could be other reasons huh? Endemic of the reasons Clinton lost last night. Denigrate and dismiss.

It's totally predictable though, and there's no doubt it'll continue. Ideally the Democratic party would conduct an honest post-mortem self assessment with a view to winning next time, but people are pretty terrible at self-examination.

[burn_this_city]

Racism doesn't explain why white rural areas voted that for Obama twice flipped to Trump. A great many of us have settled into our echo chamber of righteousness throughout this election and missed the big picture. Trump told the down and out what they wanted to hear. We might believe we know its all bull####, but it worked on those who didn't think they have another option.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Drak

Did you see the where I said a mirage of one? Did I say the Clinton's held a higher family values ground? I think that is where you are missing the point. You are having a conversation on points I wasn't making. You immediately jumped to "But Bill Clinton!"

Mirage of a of a family value marriage?

In what desert does anyone think that?

If multiple affairs is okay to maintain a marriage acceptable in terms of the 'family values moral high ground' clause required to be president, then so would multiple divorces, as long as both are in functional marriages now, neither really has a leg up on the other. And spouses absolutely play a part in the family values issue that you want to bring up, so you can't say that this has nothing to do with Bill. It's asinine that you think you can bring up the presidential candidates families and not have Bill discussed. (EDIT: And of course I don't think a president needs to be happily married or anything like that, but those that do, an affair or a divorce probably have similar weight).

Michelle is a huge reason why the Obamas are looked up so favourably when it comes to "family values" as she should be.

Either way, I still think you need to change your attitude towards potential rape-victims.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Racism doesn't explain why white rural areas voted that for Obama twice flipped to Trump. A great many of us have settled into our echo chamber of righteousness throughout this election and missed the big picture. Trump told the down and out what they wanted to hear. We might believe we know its all bull####, but it worked on those who didn't think they have another option.

yup.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...rump-counties/

Of the nearly 700 counties that twice sent Obama to the White House, a stunning one-third flipped to support Trump.

Trump also won 194 of the 207 counties that voted for Obama either in 2008 or 2012.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Mirage of a of a family value marriage?



Either way, I still think you need to change your attitude towards potential rape-victims.

Ridiculous comment and off topic on my post to begin with. My entire point had nothing to do with Bill Clinton. You started bringing in Bill Clinton as though you were trying to pin me for some double standard. You really need reading comprehension.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I actually agree with Greenwald, and even posted a similar (albeit primitive relative to that article) thought on my Facebook wall before I even saw that. I was in the UK right before Brexit, and in the US right before this election. The parallels were striking.

It will be interesting to see how the people who opted for a little anarchy and carried Trump to the presidency will react when they realize that, as Locke noted, voting against something often has worse consequences than voting for something. Because they are going to realize that Trump doesn't actually stand for what they want him to.

Brexit was largely about bigotry and unintelligence too. Maybe people are generally disgruntled about social inequality and status quo, but doesn't mean they're not also unintelligent, bigots, and superficial

[bob-loblaw]

I thought I read that Nate Silver said a bunch of states passed some laws to effectively create a voting block in the Electoral College. Basically, those states pledged that if the winner of the overall popular vote lost the electoral vote, those states would vote for that person instead of the one that won the state.

Is this fact or fiction, and if fact, would it affect anything in this race? I assume not so much or everyone would be all over it.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's totally predictable though, and there's no doubt it'll continue. Ideally the Democratic party would conduct an honest post-mortem self assessment with a view to winning next time, but people are pretty terrible at self-examination.

The Republicans did their post-mortem in 2012, promptly totally ignored it...and still won this year. So maybe ignoring self-examination is the way to go.