PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't know why I've twice now ended up in the position of the guy trying to give a charitable interpretation to Girlysports's posts, but I don't think she was referring to that clip (correct me if I'm wrong).

You are correct. He is one of the most influential people in the communities. But he becomes a caricature on tv. He just a pawn.

He actually should be in government leading from the frontlines.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

More fearmongering. You guys realize the laws have not changed and that hate crimes today are tolerated no more than they were before the election. This immediate aftermath of the election is only a short term effect. It's not like a large portion of the US population that wasn't Aryan nations two days ago are all going to convert because Trump is president.

I think the concern is more that those neo-Nazis who were basically think, "Oh, the way I see the world is legitimate. I can be this way in public now and treat people horrifically without consequence". Moreover, the concern is that people who aren't Aryan Nation but are privately racist may think that they were wrong to have doubts and join up.

Personally, I think the former is more likely to materialize than the latter. I also think that sunlight is the best disinfectant for those types, and I'd rather they announce themselves so I know who to avoid.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I know I will probably be attacked for this. But anything I see on social media without video or pictures I take with a huge grain of salt. I personally think a lot of crap is just made up to get likes/comments/shares. Not saying a lot of stuff doesn't happen but I take social media crap with a grain of salt.

There's video too, but most are Facebook videos that can't be embedded in this forum (I assume without a lot of custom coding on the mods part).

Seek and ye shall find. The video of students marching through a high school chanting "White Power" and the Police statement regarding another white power march are pretty easy to find.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by kevman

I thought this article was pretty good.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...-out-of-touch/

eh.. the 'intellectual' argument has to stop.
There should be no college-educated or non college-educated voter. That's not a measurement.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

However, it's important to realize there's a subset of white people in America that today that share many of the disadvantages impoverished black people have; it's the group commonly called white trash.

I read an article on this about a year ago saying Trump would win and that's why. I've been trying to dig it up but haven't been able to find it yet. Anyway, it's a group of people that it's somehow completely acceptable to discriminate against. We blame them for being racist while being classist.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by kevman

I thought this article was pretty good.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...-out-of-touch/

Great article...thanks for posting.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

[Citation Needed]

EDIT: Also re-reading this post, that's pretty ####ing racist dude. The "no-father" narrative isn't even true and it's pretty sad to see you perpetuate it here.

57.6% of black children, 31.2% of Hispanic children, and 20.7% of white children are living absent their biological fathers.
Source - http://www.fathers.com/statistics-an...atherlessness/

72 Percent Of Black Kids Raised By Single Parent, 25% Overall In U.S.
Source - http://newsone.com/1195075/children-...-u-s-american/

Children in Single-Parent Families By Race:

Asian and Pacific Islander: 17%
Black or African American: 66%
Source - http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data...185,13/432,431

Probably no chance you'll apologize for calling me a racist, eh?

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

His plan for the first 100 days. Scroll down for the list.
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451...first-100-days

Well, at least you can't say he is coming in without a plan. But wow. See how much he can actually do. I'm not sure government works the way he thinks it works.

"At the end of October, Donald Trump spoke in Gettysburg, Pa., and released a plan for his first 100 days in office."

Did any of the media report on this plan around the time he made it, and I just missed it? Or is this just being brought to light now?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Automotive manufacturers still have to adhere to the EPA 2025 fuel economy standards so no this will not have an effect on the electric car industry or the current industry downsizing of engines.

For how long though? Trump once said he thought they should eliminate the EPA all together (though I believe he's softened his stance since). And both he and the guy running the transition team for the EPA have publicly expressed that they don't believe humans are impacting climate change, so why would they maintain rigorous efficiency standards? To them, that's probably just red tape and an unneeded regulation that's harming business. They probably think that the market should decide how fuel efficient cars should be.

[Schultzie]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

[Citation Needed]

EDIT: Also re-reading this post, that's pretty ####ing racist dude. The "no-father" narrative isn't even true and it's pretty sad to see you perpetuate it here.

So facts are racist. Got it.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

"At the end of October, Donald Trump spoke in Gettysburg, Pa., and released a plan for his first 100 days in office."

Did any of the media report on this plan around the time he made it, and I just missed it? Or is this just being brought to light now?

Policy is important during American political campaigns. Your average American doesn't care about specifics.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

eh.. the 'intellectual' argument has to stop.
There should be no college-educated or non college-educated voter. That's not a measurement.

Why not? When there are clear divisions in candidate preference between those with higher education and those without, why shouldn't it be a topic of discussion? You claim that there's no difference between the groups, but their voting patters suggest otherwise.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

eh.. the 'intellectual' argument has to stop.
There should be no college-educated or non college-educated voter. That's not a measurement.

So would it be better to go with "low to average income" voters and "average to high income" voters instead? Because that could be used as a substitute even if it means more or less the exact same thing.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by nik-

Pretty much the same ridiculous crap we saw after Brexit. I would say a majority of his voters likely didn't vote for the racist crap, but a large part still did.

I'm curious to know if the uptick in this stuff in the UK continued or died out quickly.

Most people just voted along party lines like usual.

It bothers me somewhat though that the usual party people just couldn't reject Trump this once knowing full well what he was doing and the type of people he was catering to. I hear a lot of Trump supporters saying that they know he is a sexist and bigot, but they write it off like it ain't no thing. They believe that they don't hold those views, but they have no problem electing a leader who does. It's the acceptance that I find troubling. It's like saying; "I am not a racist, but I empathize with them and accept their complaints...".

I mean sure, there are Democrat supporters that have questionable morals, but you never see the party just outright and transparently campaign directly to them. Trump said a lot of things that showed he wanted the racist vote. Like I said earlier, I am not convinced that he himself is full of hate, but he was more than willing to pander to them and a large number of people were OK with that as long as it means their party "wins".

[ernie]

Very few voters want to hear the truth. They don't want to hear that by and large the factory industry is dead or dying and can not be truly revived. They don't want to hear about the problems of climate change if it closes down the coal plant down the street. They don't want to hear that the working public is getting more and more educated and the economy has to change to accommodate that educational maturity. Not only are the factory jobs not coming back they CAN'T come back for the next generations to build and be successful. It's a hard truth but I believe it to be the truth (your blue collar jobs are now education based. Operators in our plant have gone from high school educated to needing a 2 year technical degree for instance).

Most voters don't want to hear what is best for the overall good of their country and neighbours. They only want to know how will it affect themselves and that's it. And if you think that way and are white the place you cast your vote is obvious.

Now I'm not saying everyone is racist or anything like that. But by the same token you don't get to talk about how it's not race when there is such a strict and obvious divide on who people vote for. Just because Trump got some very slightly surprising numbers among minorities doesn't change the fact this divide is massive and should be ignored.

The US likes to pretend it's the most mature democracy in the world because (they believe) it's the oldest. It's not mature. If it were mature it would look for ways to be inclusive rather than find ways to exploit the differences so some nominee can win. And it is fair to note that this has happened for a long time...the parties simply switched roles in this regard with the Southern deal.

Newsflash to the nominees...you aren't supposed to be the one winning. The population is supposed to be the one who wins. And that's what happens with a true mature democracy. Differences are expressed. Ideas some together from both sides and amalgamate somewhere around the middle. The US democracy is based on do whatever you want and say whatever you want to get the win. It's based on lobbyists be they industry or religious or other. It is not based on do what is best for the country and people as a whole.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by opendoor

For how long though? Trump once said he thought they should eliminate the EPA all together (though I believe he's softened his stance since). And both he and the guy running the transition team for the EPA have publicly expressed that they don't believe humans are impacting climate change, so why would they maintain rigorous efficiency standards? To them, that's probably just red tape and an unneeded regulation that's harming business. They probably think that the market should decide how fuel efficient cars should be.

The EPA is going nowhere. Trump thinking about eliminating it pre-presidency is totally different than him actually trying to get that accomplished as even the anti-climate change folk has to realize that given VW's latest follies that Automobile manufacturers need stringent regulations.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Probably no chance you'll apologize for calling me a racist, eh?

Yeah, that's just really toxic behaviour. How can anyone carry on a conversation when that happens? Can you imagine the response if you accused Pyscnet of being a pedophile that casually?

Originally Posted by ernie

Very few voters want to hear the truth. They don't want to hear that by and large the factory industry is dead or dying and can not be truly revived. They don't want to hear about the problems of climate change if it closes down the coal plant down the street. They don't want to hear that the working public is getting more and more educated and the economy has to change to accommodate that educational maturity. Not only are the factory jobs not coming back they CAN'T come back for the next generations to build and be successful. It's a hard truth but I believe it to be the truth (your blue collar jobs are now education based. Operators in our plant have gone from high school educated to needing a 2 year technical degree for instance).

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So would it be better to go with "low to average income" voters and "average to high income" voters instead? Because that could be used as a substitute even if it means more or less the exact same thing.

I think it would be better and different. non-college people can make a lot of money too. some college degrees never get used.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Most people just voted along party lines like usual.

It bothers me somewhat though that the usual party people just couldn't reject Trump this once knowing full well what he was doing and the type of people he was catering to. I hear a lot of Trump supporters saying that they know he is a sexist and bigot, but they write it off like it ain't no thing. They believe that they don't hold those views, but they have no problem electing a leader who does. It's the acceptance that I find troubling. It's like saying; "I am not a racist, but I empathize with them and accept their complaints...".

I mean sure, there are Democrat supporters that have questionable morals, but you never see the party just outright and transparently campaign directly to them. Trump said a lot of things that showed he wanted the racist vote. Like I said earlier, I am not convinced that he himself is full of hate, but he was more than willing to pander to them and a large number of people were OK with that as long as it means their party "wins".

It's not that they felt that it's ain't no thing, it's that they placed a higher value on their self interests, which was the economic return/anti-elites thing.

They'll find out soon enough how badly they were duped, but at least those people voted with their self interests first.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

57.6% of black children, 31.2% of Hispanic children, and 20.7% of white children are living absent their biological fathers.
Source - http://www.fathers.com/statistics-an...atherlessness/

72 Percent Of Black Kids Raised By Single Parent, 25% Overall In U.S.
Source - http://newsone.com/1195075/children-...-u-s-american/

Children in Single-Parent Families By Race:

Asian and Pacific Islander: 17%
Black or African American: 66%
Source - http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data...185,13/432,431

Probably no chance you'll apologize for calling me a racist, eh?

Uh I already addressed the Kidscount/Newsone study on the previous page. It's a bull#### study that doesn't count unmarried parents living together (blacks statistically have more children out of wedlock) and remarried parents, which are also higher in black communities.

The Fathers.org data pull is more accurate, but still misleading.

Read this,

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/5...ebunked-by-CDC

and the associated CDC study debunking the "absent black father" myth.

Also, I do apologize. "Ignorant" would have been a better word than "racist", but I'm hot blooded.

Originally Posted by Schultzie

So facts are racist. Got it.

BIOTRUTHS!