PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Not to put words in his mouth, but I suspect it's something like "stop telling people who disagree with you on public policy that the reason they disagree is that they're covertly sexist, racist, homophobic or otherwise morally compromised. Stop telling the public that the reason those people disagree with you is not because of their stated positions, but actually because they're bad people who hate black people, women, gays, or other identifiable groups."

Just my guess.

[photon]

Trump has said he will strongly consider appointing a Supreme Court justice that would overturn the ruling on same sex marriage (the intent is his words). He's also said he'd sign the First Amendment Defense Act which basically makes it legal for any person or business to discriminate against same sex couples.

[photon]

David Clarke for Homeland Security secretary?!? The guy who tweeted "Before long, Black Lies Matter will join forces with ISIS to being down our legal constituted republic. You heard it first here."?

They're making it difficult to wait and see.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Also, it just occurred to me that I would hate to be president. I bet he has to wear pants all the time even at home.

Not necessarily ....

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by photon

David Clarke for Homeland Security secretary?!? The guy who tweeted "Before long, Black Lies Matter will join forces with ISIS to being down our legal constituted republic. You heard it first here."?

They're making it difficult to wait and see.

He also called for an insurrection if Trump lost the election. But hey he might be better than having this ####er do it

ABC NewsVerified account
‏@ABC
Arizona's Sheriff Joe Arpaio touted as possible Homeland Security secretary candidate after losing bid for 7th term. http://abcn.ws/2g0gicT

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/796513222388043777

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Hah, okay, whatever, but you realize you're going to keep losing? I mean, there's no way this should have happened. People are find the social justice left so completely awful with its preaching and identity politics that they were willing to elect a deplorable lunatic who doesn't know anything about anything, and your reaction is, "let's try even more preaching and identity politics"?

I know, I know, it's an oversimplification. Lots of factors are at play here. Nor should people stop standing up against discrimination and bigotry. But there are ways to do that. Given what just happened, is it too much to ask to look in the mirror and see if there's a better way to approach these problems that doesn't give ammunition to an authoritarian Biff Tannen impersonator?

It's not like bigotry and racism were on the decline before groups like BLM showed. They showed up because progress had largely stalled. And, no, I'm not really that worried about "continuing to lose," whatever that means. The history of human rights and social movements have always ebbed and flowed and I don't particularly have a teleological view of either. The last decade has or so has seen a number breakthroughs for marginalized groups and their allies. There was bound to be some pushback and a reversal of fortune at some point.

Clinton may have lost the electoral college but she won the popular vote. Millennials are increasingly displaying different attitudes and cultural priorities than previous generations. Demographics are constantly shifting and changing. When the Alt+right doesn't provide the solutions their movement has promised, they'll eventually flame out.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Not to put words in his mouth, but I suspect it's something like "stop telling people who disagree with you on public policy that the reason they disagree is that they're covertly sexist, racist, homophobic or otherwise morally compromised. Stop telling the public that the reason those people disagree with you is not because of their stated positions, but actually because they're bad people who hate black people, women, gays, or other identifiable groups."

Just my guess.

agreed. I specifically avoid my posts in the brexit vote thread because I was guilty of this. Ugh. Simpler times.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Not to put words in his mouth, but I suspect it's something like "stop telling people who disagree with you on public policy that the reason they disagree is that they're covertly sexist, racist, homophobic or otherwise morally compromised. Stop telling the public that the reason those people disagree with you is not because of their stated positions, but actually because they're bad people who hate black people, women, gays, or other identifiable groups."

Just my guess.

Pointing to black crime and station in society as a result of the lack of a cohesive two parent household while giving ludicrous lipservice to 'the other factors' that contribute to that is bordering on racism, because the only argument left is predicated upon race.

In an abstract, without giving proper context to circumstances that might dictate behaviour, the subject is made inherently about race, because factors other than race are being dismissed as relatively unimportant.

If you want to talk about contributing factors that prevent Blacks from integrated in society as much as Asians that's great, but if you just want to point out that blacks are less likely to grow up in a 2 parent household without addressing any of the underlying sociological, economic or historical circumstances that may have contributed to that statistic, the only aspect left to discuss is the races that are being compared and their inherent desire to raise their children in a stable home.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Pointing to black crime and station in society as a result of the lack of a cohesive two parent household while giving ludicrous lipservice to 'the other factors' that contribute to that is bordering on racism, because the only argument left is predicated upon race.

In an abstract, without giving proper context to circumstances that might dictate behaviour, the subject is made inherently about race, because factors other than race are being dismissed as relatively unimportant.

If you want to talk about contributing factors that prevent Blacks from integrated in society as much as Asians that's great, but if you just want to point out that blacks are less likely to grow up in a 2 parent household without addressing any of the underlying sociological, economic or historical circumstances that may have contributed to that statistic, the only aspect left to discuss is the races that are being compared and their inherent desire to raise their children in a stable home.

It took one post. One. Congrats.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Not to put words in his mouth, but I suspect it's something like "stop telling people who disagree with you on public policy that the reason they disagree is that they're covertly sexist, racist, homophobic or otherwise morally compromised. Stop telling the public that the reason those people disagree with you is not because of their stated positions, but actually because they're bad people who hate black people, women, gays, or other identifiable groups."

Just my guess.

Yeah, except there are many cases when even if it's not outright racism, etc., it's steeped in those institutionally. Should we not be calling it out when that happens? I agree there's a difference between shouting "You're a racist!" and saying "That's racist because..." but the latter still needs to happen if we're going to accurately identify the root problems.

[icecube]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

agreed. I specifically avoid my posts in the brexit vote thread because I was guilty of this. Ugh. Simpler times.

If the worst you've had to deal with in your life is to be called out on white privilege and male privilege then I'd say you have little to complain about compared to those who are actually suffering daily from a system built on white supremacy.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, except there are many cases when even if it's not outright racism, etc., it's steeped in those institutionally. Should we not be calling it out when that happens? I agree there's a difference between shouting "You're a racist!" and saying "That's racist because..." but the latter still needs to happen if we're going to accurately identify the root problems.

As we've gone over before, we disagree on the scope of what qualifies as racism, considering the way it's defined and applied as a strike against a person's character. But without re-litigating that, yeah, that difference between "you're a racist" and "that policy negatively affects black people because..." is important. The way you talk to people and about people can either foster discussion, mutual understanding and ultimately cooperation even where disagreement persists, or it can do the exact opposite. The approach by the left has in many cases been far too much of the latter.

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's not like bigotry and racism were on the decline before groups like BLM showed. They showed up because progress had largely stalled.

I disagree. Bigotry and racism are on a steady decline and have been throughout my lifetime and it's never stalled. I did not think, eight years ago, that we'd have legal gay marriage or that the GOP nominee would vow to defend LGBT people during his acceptance speech and actually get cheers. Now, you can argue that they weren't declining fast enough for your liking, and I guess I'd agree, but the attempts to accelerate that rate of progress (including things like BLM) have now resulted in devastating blowback.

And, no, I'm not really that worried about "continuing to lose," whatever that means. The history of human rights and social movements have always ebbed and flowed and I don't particularly have a teleological view of either. The last decade has or so has seen a number breakthroughs for marginalized groups and their allies. There was bound to be some pushback and a reversal of fortune at some point.

I don't really think there was. And fine if you're willing to cut off your nose to spite your face, that it's all or nothing for you and you'll stand on the most absolutist principles. But I think that sort of uncompromising and adamantine stance leads to a failure to constantly re-examine and improve your principles, personally. It also leads to never getting the chance to put them into practice.

Clinton may have lost the electoral college but she won the popular vote. Millennials are increasingly displaying different attitudes and cultural priorities than previous generations. Demographics are constantly shifting and changing. When the Alt+right doesn't provide the solutions their movement has promised, they'll eventually flame out.

I think this attitude, which is very similar to what Michael Moore said yesterday - "don't back down, compromise or engage with the other side. Just stall them and fight them at every turn. They'll lose eventually, and we'll get to do it our way when our time comes" - is exactly the problem with what politics in the United States has become. It's a very Tea Party sort of approach, and I think it'll just make things much worse in the long run.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

It took one post. One. Congrats.

If you look hard enough in each post you're going to find what you're looking for.

Just re-read this post:

What argument is Cliff presenting here to account for the perceived difference in black communities and asian communities other than race?

He's acknowledging there are other societal forces that shape people's lives, but ultimately the differennce between black integration and asian integration in american society comes down to the internal community and their desire to 'take responsibility for their children' or to 'encourage black families to put a prermium on education.'.

If Cliff has a different argument here than the difference between Asian integration in society and Black integration in society isn't rooted in the inherent desires of the race-based community then he can go ahead and make that argument.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Pointing to black crime and station in society as a result of the lack of a cohesive two parent household while giving ludicrous lipservice to 'the other factors' that contribute to that is bordering on racism, because the only argument left is predicated upon race.

In an abstract, without giving proper context to circumstances that might dictate behaviour, the subject is made inherently about race, because factors other than race are being dismissed as relatively unimportant.

If you want to talk about contributing factors that prevent Blacks from integrated in society as much as Asians that's great, but if you just want to point out that blacks are less likely to grow up in a 2 parent household without addressing any of the underlying sociological, economic or historical circumstances that may have contributed to that statistic, the only aspect left to discuss is the races that are being compared and their inherent desire to raise their children in a stable home.

Especially when you throw in something about how one-parent families are a product of "black culture," as if "black culture" isn't shaped heavily by systemic forces exerted against it by the dominant class.

[photon]

German Chancellor Angela Merkel congratulates Trump but seems to be pretty carefully worded.

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/11/...-donald-trump/

[Canuck-Hater]

The collection of morons that are gonna make up this new cabinet horrifies me, not to mention Sarah Palin.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37931552

[icecube]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

It took one post. One. Congrats.

I believe the liberals would call this "white fragility"

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I disagree. Bigotry and racism are on a steady decline and have been throughout my lifetime and it's never stalled. I did not think, eight years ago, that we'd have legal gay marriage or that the GOP nominee would vow to defend LGBT people during his acceptance speech and actually get cheers. Now, you can argue that they weren't declining fast enough for your liking, and I guess I'd agree, but the attempts to accelerate that rate of progress (including things like BLM) have now resulted in devastating blowback.

Well okay, but what's fast enough then? How many deaths/year to police brutality should BLM accept before they protest? I know that's a ridiculous loaded question and I don't expect you to answer but try to see it from their perspective.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by icecube

If the worst you've had to deal with in your life is to be called out on white privilege and male privilege then I'd say you have little to complain about compared to those who are actually suffering daily from a system built on white supremacy.

I'm not being called out on that. I was calling others out. I was basically dumbing down the very complex issue of brexit on the fear of minorities. I was wrong. There's something else going on.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If you look hard enough in each post you're going to find what you're looking for.

Something everyone should keep in mind, indeed.