America Votes: 2016 Edition

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 19059
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by lunchstealer »

tr0g wrote:
Hugh Akston wrote:McCain is out
In fairness, Lindsey Graham did make me laugh recently when he made the comment "Look at these people! How am I losing to these people?" specifically referring to Trump and Carson. My immediate thought was "Well, because you're Lindsey Graham." He became much more entertaining as the slow realization he wasn't getting the nomination dawned on him and he quit giving any fucks about what he said.
Whoa, Graham outed McCain? Not cool, Lindsey, not cool. I mean, everybody knew what was going on with those two, but you still let him come out on his own terms.

And yeah, Graham's been playing the 'I'm the serious, sensible Republican' with McCain for a solid decade now. They were all, "Oh, the constitution doesn't allow the President to just try people in secret courts that have no legislative authority and provide no representation or safeguards against coerced testimony. See how concerned I am about good governance? Now let's make sure we give him the legislative authority to try people in secret courts that have legislative authority and provide no representation or safeguards against coerced testimony. He can't imagine why that doesn't automatically get him a seat at the big boy table. He eats his vegetables just like a big boy!.
"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

"That's just tokenism with extra steps." - Jake
User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 18719
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by dbcooper »

Slip inside a sleeping bag.
User avatar
Highway
Posts: 13896
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by Highway »

"Could some of Donald Trump's support actually be people's racism?" Is water wet? How much wishful thinking did it take if you got this far without thinking that a HUGE amount of Trump's support is people letting their racism flag fly?
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."
User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 26080
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by Jennifer »

Highway wrote:"Could some of Donald Trump's support actually be people's racism?" Is water wet? How much wishful thinking did it take if you got this far without thinking that a HUGE amount of Trump's support is people letting their racism flag fly?
Not necessarily "wishful thinking"; a lot of people genuinely did believe that white supremacy's heyday in America was over, and such ideologies relegated to forums like Stormfront.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b
User avatar
Highway
Posts: 13896
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by Highway »

I'm not talking about white supremacy. I'm talking about general everyday "I don't really like brown people" and "I'm not going there, there's too many black people around there" stuff. I think that's more of it, whether or not the known white supremacist groups are backing Trump. They're not the ones making up all the numbers supporting him.
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 30171
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by Warren »

I haven't been watching things too close. From afar it looks to me like openly racist is Trumps defining feature. What else is there?
Nobody, men included, wants a world where men treat women with the same respect they show to other men. - thoreau
User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 19730
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: Elev. 5280 ft

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by Hugh Akston »

Yeah, white supremacy's heydey is long over. Trump is appealing to garden variety xenophobia.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman
User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 26080
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by Jennifer »

Highway wrote:I'm not talking about white supremacy. I'm talking about general everyday "I don't really like brown people" and "I'm not going there, there's too many black people around there" stuff. I think that's more of it, whether or not the known white supremacist groups are backing Trump. They're not the ones making up all the numbers supporting him.
Might be merely a semantic quibble, but: practically speaking, I see no difference between "I"m a white supremacist" and "I'm a white person who doesn't like brown people, but I don't think they're, like, inferior to whites or anything." Bullshit. The only people I know of who pretend such distinctions are worth making are the white supremacists themselves, who insist that they're not white supremacists but white nationalists.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 20442
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

Jennifer wrote:
Highway wrote:I'm not talking about white supremacy. I'm talking about general everyday "I don't really like brown people" and "I'm not going there, there's too many black people around there" stuff. I think that's more of it, whether or not the known white supremacist groups are backing Trump. They're not the ones making up all the numbers supporting him.
Might be merely a semantic quibble, but: practically speaking, I see no difference between "I"m a white supremacist" and "I'm a white person who doesn't like brown people, but I don't think they're, like, inferior to whites or anything." Bullshit. The only people I know of who pretend such distinctions are worth making are the white supremacists themselves, who insist that they're not white supremacists but white nationalists.
I think there's a distinction, though it's been hinted I may just be an old guy misunderstanding racial progress. I've got relatives who are inarticulately afraid of racial minorities. I've never heard them utter a clearly racist statement other than, for example, being afraid to drive through black or Hispanic for fear the car would break down and they'd immediately be attacked, robbed, raped, etc.

Though Mo suggests this is changing among the young more rapidly than I, at least, am personally witnessing, middle-age to geriatric people tend still to socialize within their own ethnicity and, as always, lack of personal familiarity breeds a certain level of suspicion and discomfort. Would you call that racism? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.
User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25725
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by Mo »

I found this article by David Frum to be quite well written and illuminating.

I know, I'm as shocked as you are.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex
User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 19059
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by lunchstealer »

Jennifer wrote:
Highway wrote:I'm not talking about white supremacy. I'm talking about general everyday "I don't really like brown people" and "I'm not going there, there's too many black people around there" stuff. I think that's more of it, whether or not the known white supremacist groups are backing Trump. They're not the ones making up all the numbers supporting him.
Might be merely a semantic quibble, but: practically speaking, I see no difference between "I"m a white supremacist" and "I'm a white person who doesn't like brown people, but I don't think they're, like, inferior to whites or anything." Bullshit. The only people I know of who pretend such distinctions are worth making are the white supremacists themselves, who insist that they're not white supremacists but white nationalists.
There's a big difference between white supremacists who want whites to be dominant over blacks in a Jim Crow give-up-your-seat sense, and folks who just have garden-variety well-there's-good-ones-and-they've-got-rights-but-I-just-know-most-of'm-are-lazy-and-rapey. There's a little-better-than-animals thing to white supremacists.

Regular racists rationalize their policy preferences so they are nominally even-handed but give wide latitude to cops or employers to weed out 'the bad ones' on a case-by-case basis. They don't want different rules for blacks and whites, but they're just fine with nod-and-a-wink different applications of those rules. They think of themselves as wanting equality but just think they're telling it like it is as an exception to that equality.

White supremacists want actively racist rules, and make no pretense of equality.

This is my interpretation, anyway.
"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

"That's just tokenism with extra steps." - Jake
User avatar
Highway
Posts: 13896
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by Highway »

lunchstealer wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
Highway wrote:I'm not talking about white supremacy. I'm talking about general everyday "I don't really like brown people" and "I'm not going there, there's too many black people around there" stuff. I think that's more of it, whether or not the known white supremacist groups are backing Trump. They're not the ones making up all the numbers supporting him.
Might be merely a semantic quibble, but: practically speaking, I see no difference between "I"m a white supremacist" and "I'm a white person who doesn't like brown people, but I don't think they're, like, inferior to whites or anything." Bullshit. The only people I know of who pretend such distinctions are worth making are the white supremacists themselves, who insist that they're not white supremacists but white nationalists.
There's a big difference between white supremacists who want whites to be dominant over blacks in a Jim Crow give-up-your-seat sense, and folks who just have garden-variety well-there's-good-ones-and-they've-got-rights-but-I-just-know-most-of'm-are-lazy-and-rapey. There's a little-better-than-animals thing to white supremacists.

Regular racists rationalize their policy preferences so they are nominally even-handed but give wide latitude to cops or employers to weed out 'the bad ones' on a case-by-case basis. They don't want different rules for blacks and whites, but they're just fine with nod-and-a-wink different applications of those rules. They think of themselves as wanting equality but just think they're telling it like it is as an exception to that equality.

White supremacists want actively racist rules, and make no pretense of equality.

This is my interpretation, anyway.
And add in a "It would be fine if those people would just act the way I want them to." Or a "Well, they're so well-spoken." I think ultimately it's more of a cultural divide, it's just that the people who are part of the other culture all tend to look the same... (awwwwwww!!!!!)
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."
User avatar
Taktix®
Posts: 8039
Joined: 07 May 2010, 05:29
Location: The Caribbean

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by Taktix® »

Just happened across a list of Hillary's "accomplishments" which I would normally just keep scrolling past, except that this article presented them from the perspective of "hey, opponents, shut up, because Hillary really does have accomplishments!"

Nearly every one starts with "played a leading role in" or "was instrumental in" or "proposed", but very little are actual things she did. I just find it amusing that someone so pro-Hillary can only come up with this short, shitty, insignificant and misleading list.

Too bad she'll probably win anyway :( ...
"Guilty as charged. Go ahead and ban me from the mall." - Ellie
User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 7110
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 21:52
Location: Vale of Eternal Fire

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by Andrew »

Taktix® wrote:Just happened across a list of Hillary's "accomplishments" which I would normally just keep scrolling past, except that this article presented them from the perspective of "hey, opponents, shut up, because Hillary really does have accomplishments!"

Nearly every one starts with "played a leading role in" or "was instrumental in" or "proposed", but very little are actual things she did. I just find it amusing that someone so pro-Hillary can only come up with this short, shitty, insignificant and misleading list.

Too bad she'll probably win anyway :( ...
I admire their ability to make her involvement in the Clinton foundation sound like an accomplishment instead of a crime.
We live in the fucked age. Get used to it. - dhex
User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 26080
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by Jennifer »

lunchstealer wrote:
Jennifer wrote:
Highway wrote:I'm not talking about white supremacy. I'm talking about general everyday "I don't really like brown people" and "I'm not going there, there's too many black people around there" stuff. I think that's more of it, whether or not the known white supremacist groups are backing Trump. They're not the ones making up all the numbers supporting him.
Might be merely a semantic quibble, but: practically speaking, I see no difference between "I"m a white supremacist" and "I'm a white person who doesn't like brown people, but I don't think they're, like, inferior to whites or anything." Bullshit. The only people I know of who pretend such distinctions are worth making are the white supremacists themselves, who insist that they're not white supremacists but white nationalists.
There's a big difference between white supremacists who want whites to be dominant over blacks in a Jim Crow give-up-your-seat sense, and folks who just have garden-variety well-there's-good-ones-and-they've-got-rights-but-I-just-know-most-of'm-are-lazy-and-rapey. There's a little-better-than-animals thing to white supremacists.

Regular racists rationalize their policy preferences so they are nominally even-handed but give wide latitude to cops or employers to weed out 'the bad ones' on a case-by-case basis. They don't want different rules for blacks and whites, but they're just fine with nod-and-a-wink different applications of those rules. They think of themselves as wanting equality but just think they're telling it like it is as an exception to that equality.

White supremacists want actively racist rules, and make no pretense of equality.

This is my interpretation, anyway.
From what I've seen, reading Stormfront, VNN and similar sites, almost all of its members (save for the extreme ones considered fringey even within that fringe) actively avoid the labels "racist," "bigot" and "white supremacist" -- even if they absolutely espouse what those words traditionally stand for. (See also: "I am not a 'racist'; I am a 'race realist'.")For that matter, this is not exclusive to the race-obsessed bigots; think about all the anti-gay folks who adamantly oppose gay marriage and want anti-gay discrimination encoded into the law, yet bristle with offense at any suggestion they are anti-gay bigots. "I am not bigoted against gay people! I just think they're legally and morally inferior to straights and the laws should reflect their inferiority, but that's not bigotry!" Bigots these days are still bigots, but they get damned huffy if they're labeled as such.

As for the assholes who think Trump would be a great president because he'd ban all Muslims from the country and build a big wall on the southern border and has the "courage" to say that only rapists and other criminals come here out of Mexico ... these people aren't even going through the pretense of saying "Yeah, well, there's some good ones." Trump didn't promise to "only let the good ones in"; he's promising to keep them all out.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b
User avatar
Taktix®
Posts: 8039
Joined: 07 May 2010, 05:29
Location: The Caribbean

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by Taktix® »

Mo wrote:I found this article by David Frum to be quite well written and illuminating.

I know, I'm as shocked as you are.
No really, David Frum wrote:(...)the Tea Party movement of 2009 and 2010. They were not, as a rule, libertarians looking for an ultraminimal government.
I had to check the byline again to make sure this was still Frum. I never thought I would have seen the media give such a fair assessment of libertarianism vis-à-vis the Tea Party...
"Guilty as charged. Go ahead and ban me from the mall." - Ellie
User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by Sandy »

The biggest problem with his advice going forward is that there really wouldn't be a point to the Republican Party, unless it was to become a European center-nativist party. Mostly it would become what Republicans were under Eisenhower, which is "Uh, we'll do it slightly cheaper."

OTOH, the Establishment would probably love that.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren
User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25475
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by JasonL »

Mo wrote:I found this article by David Frum to be quite well written and illuminating.

I know, I'm as shocked as you are.
It is interesting. I think the elephantine do nothingism around healthcare and the broader lack of any kind of coherent policy vision has done this to the republican party. They spent too much time just being the We Hate Obama party. When the donkeys were the We Hate Bush party the campaign rhetoric was all about the war and arrogance and oops their guy is pretty much the same there, but they then moved on healthcare in a big way and that is what they are. What are republicans? Not really tax cutters. Repeal ACA and then what? Dems want to bomb ISIS too, so okay. There's nothing to grab onto.
User avatar
Taktix®
Posts: 8039
Joined: 07 May 2010, 05:29
Location: The Caribbean

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by Taktix® »

Sandy wrote:The biggest problem with his advice going forward is that there really wouldn't be a point to the Republican Party, unless it was to become a European center-nativist party. Mostly it would become what Republicans were under Eisenhower, which is "Uh, we'll do it slightly cheaper."

OTOH, the Establishment would probably love that.
Also, no mention of the 5th option (libertarianish policy) or Rand Paul (the picture doesn't count, similarly not chosen by the author like the headline). But, you know, I'm already used to that by now...
"Guilty as charged. Go ahead and ban me from the mall." - Ellie
User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25475
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by JasonL »

I mean, the thing is, you are doing the democracy thing and another way to say this is "we need to appeal to short sighted nativists if not racists who feel like they've lost the country and how do we counter just paying them to STFU which is the other team's Plan A?" Basically, everything these guys want is harmful to everyone else.
User avatar
Taktix®
Posts: 8039
Joined: 07 May 2010, 05:29
Location: The Caribbean

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by Taktix® »

Well, if there's anything positive to draw from 2016, it's that putting an exclamation point after your name will be mocked for the poor attempt to remain relevant it was for years to come. Thanks, Jeb!
"Guilty as charged. Go ahead and ban me from the mall." - Ellie
User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 26080
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by Jennifer »

JasonL wrote:
Mo wrote:I found this article by David Frum to be quite well written and illuminating.

I know, I'm as shocked as you are.
It is interesting. I think the elephantine do nothingism around healthcare and the broader lack of any kind of coherent policy vision has done this to the republican party. They spent too much time just being the We Hate Obama party. When the donkeys were the We Hate Bush party the campaign rhetoric was all about the war and arrogance and oops their guy is pretty much the same there, but they then moved on healthcare in a big way and that is what they are. What are republicans? Not really tax cutters. Repeal ACA and then what? Dems want to bomb ISIS too, so okay. There's nothing to grab onto.
They've got their increasingly out-of-touch social-conservative issues, but those are less popular with mainstream Americans every year and have the same problem that being "for" something ("traditional marriage," "the sanctity of embryos," etc.) still requires them to be against certain subsets of voters (gay people, pregnant rape victims, etc.).
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b
User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 4650
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by Painboy »

Sandy wrote:The biggest problem with his advice going forward is that there really wouldn't be a point to the Republican Party, unless it was to become a European center-nativist party. Mostly it would become what Republicans were under Eisenhower, which is "Uh, we'll do it slightly cheaper."

OTOH, the Establishment would probably love that.
Yeah it was decent enough until the last several paragraphs. It is Drum afterall.

My concern is the more freebies you give the more nativist people will become as they try to circle the wagons to keep out any additional perceived freeloaders. Europe is already grappling with the immense refugee population that is flooding in. Eventually whatever principles they have about social giveaways for everyone are going to crack and something is going to get changed. Given the historical track record I doubt it's going to be reducing welfare while keeping the borders open.

Right now the Dems can stand on the moral high ground and look down at the close-the-border crowd because they are an unwinnable constituency. However, as has happened before, today's immigrants are tomorrow's nativists. The second and third generations may have very different ideas when new immigrants continue to cut into the social welfare funds. Especially so if the economy grows slowly or is stagnant. At that point you might even see a significant shift in political bases. Close the border types are usually morally undercut because of their perceived racism, whatever their actual beliefs, keeping them a small if vocal minority. However if you have a bunch of people with darker skin tones start showing up to the rally that removes much of the racism perception and allows more "reasonable" people to start advocating all kinds of restrictions with whatever made up argument that justifies keeping people from pillaging their social programs.
User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 26080
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by Jennifer »

Painboy wrote:
My concern is the more freebies you give the more nativist people will become as they try to circle the wagons to keep out any additional perceived freeloaders. Europe is already grappling with the immense refugee population that is flooding in. Eventually whatever principles they have about social giveaways for everyone are going to crack and something is going to get changed. Given the historical track record I doubt it's going to be reducing welfare while keeping the borders open.
Good point about the "freebies," but even without those there would still be plenty of people who opposed immigration based on "took our jobs" arguments, not to mention just plain racism. And ethnicity/nationalism have always been bigger deals in European countries than in contemporary America, which got its start from immigrants (as opposed to "we're all descendants of the same tribe that's allegedly inhabited the area since Mesolithic times"). I recall reading that in many European countries, even before the refugee crisis, immigrants really weren't given the same assimilation options which (at least in theory) America has.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b
User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 4650
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: America Votes: 2016 Edition

Post by Painboy »

Jennifer wrote:
Painboy wrote:
My concern is the more freebies you give the more nativist people will become as they try to circle the wagons to keep out any additional perceived freeloaders. Europe is already grappling with the immense refugee population that is flooding in. Eventually whatever principles they have about social giveaways for everyone are going to crack and something is going to get changed. Given the historical track record I doubt it's going to be reducing welfare while keeping the borders open.
Good point about the "freebies," but even without those there would still be plenty of people who opposed immigration based on "took our jobs" arguments, not to mention just plain racism. And ethnicity/nationalism have always been bigger deals in European countries than in contemporary America, which got its start from immigrants (as opposed to "we're all descendants of the same tribe that's allegedly inhabited the area since Mesolithic times"). I recall reading that in many European countries, even before the refugee crisis, immigrants really weren't given the same assimilation options which (at least in theory) America has.
Europe has been awful about immigration for the most of its history (not that that's an exceptional thing as most countries don't like immigration). Their openness is a relatively new thing. It's unlikely to last though as they have no clue how to assimilate other cultures into theirs. America could because it was an expanding high growth state that had a voracious need for manual laborers. Whatever butt hurts a native had was cushioned by the wads of cash in their wallet. When some of the growth and expansion cooled is when you started seeing the first immigration restrictions being imposed. Not surprisingly those with the least similarities (like asians) were the ones first on the list.
Post Reply