OptimisticOwl Wrote:I think there is a general attitude toward all conservatives, especially those in flyover states, and every once in a while the facade slips and theynsay what they really think.
Whether she said half, or 12%, or most, it is clear that the elite think of themselves as a cut above, and you subscribe to this also.
It's a good thing, then, that all those regular people have regular ol' Donald Trump, Working-Class Champion of the Downtrodden, in their corner, to set things back the way they used to be. Because the last thing the Founding Fathers would have wanted is elites running the country.
Look, railing against liberal snobbery is all well and good, but you elected an inherited-wealthy Manhattanite who during the campaign flew home every night in his own jet to sleep in his own bed in his own tower; who bragged incessantly about his wealth and about his trophy wives and how he was smarter than everyone else.
He also calls everyone who opposes him every insulting name under the Sun, and his rallies were packed with people proudly calling the former Secretary of State "b***h", "c**t", and so on; he and his cronies regularly retweeted white supremacists who happily threatened Jewish correspondents with death. Yet here his supporters, who love to mock the tender sensibilities of their politically correct critics, are clutching their pearls when his opponent calls this overtly racist and sexist subset of his fans "deplorable". May I escort you to the fainting couch?
The hypocrisy is staggering, and would be laughable if we weren't so busy using our great country's potential to buy tickets for a cheap carnival act.
I guess it is more democratic to fly home in somebody else's jet.
Look, do not equate negatives about Clinton with positives about Trump. I didn't like him either. But he never called me deplorable. he never made fun of my guns or religion by calling me a bitter clinger. I disagree with Trump on a lot of things. He may think he is smarter than me. But he has never indicated he is better than me. Hillary has, unless you think deplorable means equal. To borrow a phrase, I am mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore. Millions like me just told Hillary we are not deplorable just because we don't agree with whatever she says.
I didn't vote FOR Trump. I voted AGAINST Hillary. why should I vote for somebody who holds me in such low regard?
Just because somebody calls me racist, or sexist, or deplorable, or a bitter clinger, doesn't mean that I AM any of those things, but the snobbery of the left as they look down their nose is getting tiresome, and the leaders of the the left are the leaders in the snobbery, and the masses of the left are following their lead.
Nope, he just didn't rent to black people because they were black, assumed that a judge could not do his duty because he was Mexican, assumed a woman wasn't speaking because she was Muslim and her husband wouldn't allow her to, repeatedly perpetuated a myth about Obama's birthplace not being in the US, incorrectly called for vigilante style justice for the Central Park 5, and on, and on, and on..
So, here is what I find odd. The deplorable comment wasn't good, but given that the KKK, David Duke, and other white supremacist groups actively and vocally supported Trump, doesn't it have some truth to it? Since well, those groups ARE deplorable?
So why get so angered over the deplorable comment, but not the overtly racist statements about others that Trump made? Is it just because one comment could be about you and the others couldn't?
I know you didn't support Trump and didn't vote for him, but I'm just trying to figure out why the deplorable comment is so anger inducing, but what has Trump said over the years isn't.
OptimisticOwl Wrote:I think there is a general attitude toward all conservatives, especially those in flyover states, and every once in a while the facade slips and theynsay what they really think.
Whether she said half, or 12%, or most, it is clear that the elite think of themselves as a cut above, and you subscribe to this also.
It's a good thing, then, that all those regular people have regular ol' Donald Trump, Working-Class Champion of the Downtrodden, in their corner, to set things back the way they used to be. Because the last thing the Founding Fathers would have wanted is elites running the country.
Look, railing against liberal snobbery is all well and good, but you elected an inherited-wealthy Manhattanite who during the campaign flew home every night in his own jet to sleep in his own bed in his own tower; who bragged incessantly about his wealth and about his trophy wives and how he was smarter than everyone else.
He also calls everyone who opposes him every insulting name under the Sun, and his rallies were packed with people proudly calling the former Secretary of State "b***h", "c**t", and so on; he and his cronies regularly retweeted white supremacists who happily threatened Jewish correspondents with death. Yet here his supporters, who love to mock the tender sensibilities of their politically correct critics, are clutching their pearls when his opponent calls this overtly racist and sexist subset of his fans "deplorable". May I escort you to the fainting couch?
The hypocrisy is staggering, and would be laughable if we weren't so busy using our great country's potential to buy tickets for a cheap carnival act.
I guess it is more democratic to fly home in somebody else's jet.
Look, do not equate negatives about Clinton with positives about Trump. I didn't like him either. But he never called me deplorable. he never made fun of my guns or religion by calling me a bitter clinger. I disagree with Trump on a lot of things. He may think he is smarter than me. But he has never indicated he is better than me. Hillary has, unless you think deplorable means equal. To borrow a phrase, I am mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore. Millions like me just told Hillary we are not deplorable just because we don't agree with whatever she says.
I didn't vote FOR Trump. I voted AGAINST Hillary. why should I vote for somebody who holds me in such low regard?
Just because somebody calls me racist, or sexist, or deplorable, or a bitter clinger, doesn't mean that I AM any of those things, but the snobbery of the left as they look down their nose is getting tiresome, and the leaders of the the left are the leaders in the snobbery, and the masses of the left are following their lead.
Nope, he just didn't rent to black people because they were black, assumed that a judge could not do his duty because he was Mexican, assumed a woman wasn't speaking because she was Muslim and her husband wouldn't allow her to, repeatedly perpetuated a myth about Obama's birthplace not being in the US, incorrectly called for vigilante style justice for the Central Park 5, and on, and on, and on..
So, here is what I find odd. The deplorable comment wasn't good, but given that the KKK, David Duke, and other white supremacist groups actively and vocally supported Trump, doesn't it have some truth to it? Since well, those groups ARE deplorable?
So why get so angered over the deplorable comment, but not the overtly racist statements about others that Trump made? Is it just because one comment could be about you and the others couldn't?
I know you didn't support Trump and didn't vote for him, but I'm just trying to figure out why the deplorable comment is so anger inducing, but what has Trump said over the years isn't.
Straw that broke the camel's back. The last eight years, every time I voiced an opinion contrary to Dem/Obama policy, i was told the only reason i opposed (whatever) was because i could not stand a black man in the WH. I live in a rural area, and know a lot of ordinary people who might look out of place in DC or Manhattan, and I get tired of hearing them (and by extension, me) denigrated as ignorant rednecks. It wasn't the statement, it was and is the attitude. The holier-than-thou attitude is wearing mighty thin. Getting tired of the innuendo that KKK and I stand shoulder to shoulder, since those are the only kind of people who are against Hillary.
What Hillary said was directed at me, so it made me angry. She made it personal. I'm still mad, and it's still personal.
I think I may have brought the deplorable comment up initially in my 4-point summary of why Trump won and Hillary lost.
I didn't bring it up as THE point, but rather that it supported one of my points that the Democrats haven't made any discernible effort at reaching out to, or showing they are concerned with the non-college educated white males that overwhelming voted for Trump.
Ultimately the ABC talking heads asked repeatedly whether those voters believed Trump was really going to do anything for them. When one of them at least Trump was identifying with them and noting their problem, the talking heads responded with "well that may work for now, but in 2 or 3 years when they see that nothing has changed and they are no better off . . . ."
which essentially signaled that either (a) this constituency couldn't be helped and deserved whatever lot in life they have, or (b) in the talking heads minds there is not a solution to the economic problems the non-college educated white male deals with in the face of globalization.
Granted it wasn't Hillary saying that, but the deplorables comment (which frankly wasn't directed at any but his white, male constituency) were hers.
And the Dems for years dating back to LBJ have expressed concern about social programs and advancement programs . . . at least for most groups.
Again, the talking heads focused on what Trump was selling that constituency, and how long he could maintain their support. And not once did they ask the question of whether the DNC had offered non-college educated white males anything at all, much less the hope Trump was seemingly offering.
That's one helluva straw man you're beating up, OO.
But your argument seems focused on being looked down on by "the left". I admit I have only looked at the past couple of pages of this thread; maybe you have a similar problem with the the leadership of "the right", which holds the average American in contempt but uses words that sound more patriotic, like talking about family values and how Obama is going to take away our guns any second now and how persecuted we poor Christians are.
The solution, of course, is to give the keys to the trump, which is neither the left nor the right, but holds you in even more contempt than either one, and has the temperament of an unusually spoiled and ADD-ridden five-year-old, but one with thermonuclear weapons. Excellent.
I like to think I could have put this more eloquently, but it's 1 AM Eastern Effete Liberal Snob Standard Time, and I have a job. At least until our new President drives the economy over a cliff because somebody said something mean about him on Twitter. Cheers.
(11-10-2016 12:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I know you didn't support Trump and didn't vote for him, but I'm just trying to figure out why the deplorable comment is so anger inducing, but what has Trump said over the years isn't.
Who said that what Trump said over the years wasn't?
I find the tone deafness on the left quite incredible.
The last few posts by left leaning posters on here are full of exactly the same language that prompted flyover country to tell the ruling elite to go straight to hell on Tuesday. The longer and harder you cling to your notions that Hillary lost to a coalition of racists and misogynists and xenophobes, the more you are going to piss off the people who actually voted for Trump. I didn't, so you're not offending me, but I am mystified that you have so much difficulty picking up on what just happened.
People did not oppose Obama because he was a black man. They opposed him because his ideas suck. The only one he managed to get through congress was Obamacare, because even his own party knew that the rest of them sucked. When that didn't work, he tried to override the constitutional system of checks and balances with executive orders. And then it became obvious that even Obamacare also sucked. The one thing he had going for him was that a recession bottomed out just as he took office, so he should have had spectacular economic growth to show, at least statistically. But he managed to push through a "stimulus" that ground the recovery down to a slow crawl despite the injection of trillions into the economy.
Hillary was not the most qualified presidential candidate ever, not by a long shot. She was Forrest Gump. She stood around watching a lot of history being made over the years, but she didn't do much of the making. Except maybe the ridiculous "Reset" button incident.
Middle America got tired of the liberal elites pissing on their legs and telling them it was raining. That is all.
Bottom line. "Let them eat cake," is not going to work any more.
(This post was last modified: 11-10-2016 05:49 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
(11-10-2016 12:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I know you didn't support Trump and didn't vote for him, but I'm just trying to figure out why the deplorable comment is so anger inducing, but what has Trump said over the years isn't.
Who said that what Trump said over the years wasn't?
Well, you called the left's assertations hyperbolic, so the deduction was that the assertion's about Trump were hyperbolic and therefore not as bad as what Hillary said since they were over exaggerated.
(11-10-2016 05:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I find the tone deafness on the left quite incredible.
The last few posts by left leaning posters on here are full of exactly the same language that prompted flyover country to tell the ruling elite to go straight to hell on Tuesday. The longer and harder you cling to your notions that Hillary lost to a coalition of racists and misogynists and xenophobes, the more you are going to piss off the people who actually voted for Trump. I didn't, so you're not offending me, but I am mystified that you have so much difficulty picking up on what just happened.
People did not oppose Obama because he was a black man. They opposed him because his ideas suck. The only one he managed to get through congress was Obamacare, because even his own party knew that the rest of them sucked. When that didn't work, he tried to override the constitutional system of checks and balances with executive orders. And then it became obvious that even Obamacare also sucked. The one thing he had going for him was that a recession bottomed out just as he took office, so he should have had spectacular economic growth to show, at least statistically. But he managed to push through a "stimulus" that ground the recovery down to a slow crawl despite the injection of trillions into the economy.
Hillary was not the most qualified presidential candidate ever, not by a long shot. She was Forrest Gump. She stood around watching a lot of history being made over the years, but she didn't do much of the making. Except maybe the ridiculous "Reset" button incident.
Middle America got tired of the liberal elites pissing on their legs and telling them it was raining. That is all.
Bottom line. "Let them eat cake," is not going to work any more.
So I am confused here. I've explicitly stated that the reason Trump won was because the Dems stopped caring and addressing the concerns of the white, middle-class vote. However, here you go again accusing me of missing that point and thinking it was only because a bunch of racists came out of their hiding place.
Here is my question, if you state like in your previous post that no one is denying that Trump said and condoned a bunch of awful racist, misogynistic, and xenophobic comments, how in the hell is someone supposed to call him out on it, if every response we are going to receive is to have someone on the right smugly tell me that I can't do that because I am calling everyone on the right those things? If I eat chastised for calling a spade a spade and saying NOTHING about the majority of those on the right, is the assumption then that I can't and should not call out that bigotry? Or is it that I am using language that offends when doing it?
Because right now, it seems like I can't call out these horrible qualities of the candidate without you assuming that I am sitting in an ivory tower, looking down on the entirety of the Republican Party and thinking I am saying let them eat cake, which frankly I find incredibly snobbish in the same way you think that about me right now. But really, give me an example of how I can effectively call Trump a racist without calling the rest of the right the same thing, because I thought I was doing a good job at being clear that I wasn't doing just that.
In summary, Donald Trumo won because he addressed real and legitimate concerns that many Americans have. My problem, and what I found so deplorable, was that he preyed upon those fears by using bigoted and xenophobic rhetoric repeatedly and stoked the flames of racism and misogyny that are very real in our country. People are looking for someone to address their concerns and tell them they haven't been forgotten, and the route he took to do that used an awful lot of deplorable language and ideas on a regular basis, way more frequently than he should have, and I think it shouldn't be brushed under the rug or taken lightly.
For eight years, any attempt to say that Obama's policies sucked was met very quickly with accusations of racism. Obama had all these ideas that were so wonderful that the only reason for anyone could oppose them was because he was a black man. It was an easy way out without having to admit that Obama's ideas would do more harm than good. But people in the rust belt saw Obama's ideas doing more harm than good, and hurting specifically them.
Then along comes Hillary, and she's the most qualified person ever to run for president. Except she's not, she's Forrest Gump. But if you say that, it's only because you hate women.
So, attempts to engage in legitimate discussions of issues have constantly been met with attempts to marginalize those who questioned the elites by characterizing them incorrectly.
Here comes Trump, he's questioning everything. And guess what, instead of engaging him on the issues, the left starts name-calling--racist, homophobe, misogynist, xenophobe. And guess what, the names you call him when he questions things are the same as the names you call me when I question things. So maybe he isn't those things, not any more than I am, and maybe his criticisms are legitimate, just as mine are.
So in response to what you have to do to to call Trump out, it's vey simple. If you want to call him out without it coming across as calling me out, you have to quit using the same language to call me out when I want to engage in legitimate discussion of issues.
Now, Trump has three major boogeymen--Muslims, Mexicans, and free trade. I happen to believe that he is dead wrong on all three, and I hope to God that he doesn't get very far with any of his ideas about any of them. But I disagree on the issues, not because I think he is a racist. I don't think that he is, and the fact that he retweeted something from David Duke is hardly compelling. I do think he is probably a misogynist, but no more so than Bill Clinton, whom I consider to be a great president.
But as OO said, it's like the little boy who cried wolf. You call me racist for eight years, and I'm not, then you're not going to score many points with me by calling somebody else racist.
So I didn't vote for Trump because we have little in common on the issues. And I didn't vote for Hillary because we have little in common on the issues. But I understand why people did vote for Trump. And the longer you cling to the racist, homophobe, misogynist, xenophobe narrative, the more you are going to piss off the people who did.
(This post was last modified: 11-10-2016 06:48 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
To your last point - is your suggestion then that we don't call out people for abhorrent behavior?
I get the points in the rest of your post and agree with some points and think for others we are just talking pst each other a bit. Basically that it seems like you want to focus on policy implications and I didn't. Because based on his policy choices I completely understand why he garnered support. It's his frequent, abhorrent behavior that I can't square away as garnering support. The most brilliant person in the world still shouldn't run for office if they're a total ass who has backwards views on how to treat others.
OptimisticOwl Wrote:I think there is a general attitude toward all conservatives, especially those in flyover states, and every once in a while the facade slips and theynsay what they really think.
Whether she said half, or 12%, or most, it is clear that the elite think of themselves as a cut above, and you subscribe to this also.
It's a good thing, then, that all those regular people have regular ol' Donald Trump, Working-Class Champion of the Downtrodden, in their corner, to set things back the way they used to be. Because the last thing the Founding Fathers would have wanted is elites running the country.
Look, railing against liberal snobbery is all well and good, but you elected an inherited-wealthy Manhattanite who during the campaign flew home every night in his own jet to sleep in his own bed in his own tower; who bragged incessantly about his wealth and about his trophy wives and how he was smarter than everyone else.
He also calls everyone who opposes him every insulting name under the Sun, and his rallies were packed with people proudly calling the former Secretary of State "b***h", "c**t", and so on; he and his cronies regularly retweeted white supremacists who happily threatened Jewish correspondents with death. Yet here his supporters, who love to mock the tender sensibilities of their politically correct critics, are clutching their pearls when his opponent calls this overtly racist and sexist subset of his fans "deplorable". May I escort you to the fainting couch?
The hypocrisy is staggering, and would be laughable if we weren't so busy using our great country's potential to buy tickets for a cheap carnival act.
Hypocrisy goes two ways. Progressives seem to have a double standard. We have been regaled over the last half year or so of this fun loving Democratic base gang beating Trump supporters, violently interrupting Trump rallies, defacing or destroying cars with Trump stickers, stealing and destroying Trump signs, and now actively calling for the murder of Trump. You guys seem to view this is fun loving zany antics. If our side were to do the same to you, you would scream we are destroying democracy. If you looked fairly at your side, you would have to call them deplorable squared.
How about applying the same standards to your side as you do to ours.
Also, how about applying a more severe standard to reprehensible actions than to reprehensible words. One side may on occasion say reprehensible things, but the other engages in reprehensible actions, and the latter are far more harmful.
(11-10-2016 07:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: To your last point - is your suggestion then that we don't call out people for abhorrent behavior?
I get the points in the rest of your post and agree with some points and think for others we are just talking pst each other a bit. Basically that it seems like you want to focus on policy implications and I didn't. Because based on his policy choices I completely understand why he garnered support. It's his frequent, abhorrent behavior that I can't square away as garnering support. The most brilliant person in the world still shouldn't run for office if they're a total ass who has backwards views on how to treat others.
No, my suggestion is that you don't call out people unless they are actually exhibiting bad behavior. When you (and this you refers to the generic left, and not you specifically) call me a racist for 8 years because I disagree with Obama, and a misogynist because I disagree with Hillary, then when you start calling Trump a racist and a misogynist, then I'm going to take that with a grain of salt.
More specifically, what I have experienced in various discussions is that even if they start out exchanging differing policy positions, at some point if the other side thinks they are losing the argument, the racial allegations start. It's happened so often that I've had two joking posts that I use recurringly, "The good thing about online arguments is that you can tell you've won when the other side starts playing the race card," and my decoder ring quote, "the (poster name) decoder ring: Idiot = disagrees with (poster name), Right-wing nut = disagrees with Chairman Mao, Racist = continues to disagree."
I suspect others have had similar experiences. So if racist means that I won the argument on substantive terms so you are playing the race card, then when you call Trump a racist, there is at least some potential for that to say to me is that Trump just won the argument.
(This post was last modified: 11-10-2016 10:10 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
(11-09-2016 02:23 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: At this point the thing I can't get past is how do I explain to my daughters that a man who brags about sexual assault and clearly thinks of women as second class humans was chosen by their country to be our leader? I don't know the answer.
Perhaps you might simply explain to them that previously we had sexual predator and all-around creep towards women Bill Clinton as President for 8 years and you didn't have a problem with him, even though he committed adultery openly while in the White House, with evidence left on a blue dress that hangs in the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, D.C. and he later lied directly to the camera about it:
Then, I'd show her this video, to see how remarkably consistent Donald Trump has been all these years. Tell her that while clearly no one is perfect, on either side, the country has a chance to be in better shape if they all work together to make this a better country. We'll see.
I have a special-needs child as well. I am of the unequivocal belief that my special needs child will have a much better future, and a much better country to live in with Donald trump as President than it would have been with Hiliary. I am grateful that we have this opportunity. While Trump's comments were not ideal, I am much more concerned and confident in his ability to accomplish things as far as getting the broken areas that affect us all such as the economy, tax structure, heathcare, business climate and opportunity for all Americans, especially those long forgotten over the past 24 years fixed in much better shape than they have been. He was the superior choice of what we had to choose from this time. Not saying there would not have been better ones that either did or did not choose to run this time. While I do not like come of the things Bill Clinton did towards women, and his general attitude that women are second class objects to be used, I will say that things were much better and moderate for both sides under Bill Clinton that under Barak Obama, or than I believe they would have been under a Hiliary presidency. I also do not approve of some of the things that come out of Donald Trump's mouth. Clearly we are not voting for, nor do we have running, "saints" in most of these elections.
John F. Kennedy was a creep towards women, an alleged adulterer, as was Harding, Franklin Roosevelt, and the list goes on. I am not excusing their attitudes or behaviors, I am simply stating that in general, it has very little to do with their ability to be a good president and do the job.
I hope Donald Trump going forward appreciates the opportunity to be America's President and acts more Presidential, and eliminates the kinds of comments that clearly and rightly upset people in these matters. But it is completely dishonest to pretend to your daughters that past leaders who you might hold in high esteem for their accomplishments were in any way different or better in this regard. It is simply not true, though I would hope that it will be going forward. If you want to point to your daughters some Presidents who were better to women, you might start by pointing out we had Presidents, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, and Jimmy carter. That might reassure her that as many bad attitudes as we might have had as President, we have also has some very good ones.
(This post was last modified: 11-10-2016 10:29 AM by GoodOwl.)
(11-10-2016 06:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Now, Trump has three major boogeymen--Muslims, Mexicans, and free trade. I happen to believe that he is dead wrong on all three, and I hope to God that he doesn't get very far with any of his ideas about any of them.
I agree with all your points, but must say, in my view, he has no problem with Mexicans. he has a problem with illegal immigrants, most of whom are Mexicans.
(11-09-2016 02:17 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote: I don't particularly understand this paragraph, but it doesn't change the fact that quoting MLK to praise a racist is particularly twisted.
By your own definition, your perspective on this is, as you say, "particularly twisted," and racist. I'm hoping you just fail to see this, but what you said is about as bigoted as can be.
I'm sorry - I'm really trying to figure out what you're saying, but I just can't. The idea that MLK is for "everyone" doesn't have anything to do with the propriety of using MLK's own words to praise a racist. I'd also consider it perverse if, say, someone quoted the Emancipation Proclamation to praise David Duke.
Oh, I see. It appears your comments are just being pedantic and trolling. Forgive me for engaging. Have fun with that, David.
"...you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. "
Paraphrasing:
You could put half of Hillary's supporters into what I call the basket of "entitled snobs".
Right? The ones who think they are intellectually and morally superior, -you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that.
Well, if you think you are not an entitled snob who thinks he is intellectually and morally superior to those poor dolts who voted Trump, then ignore that. Clearly I wasn't talking about you, just those people standing with you.
(11-09-2016 06:27 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: Markets will drop at historic levels today I'm afraid. I hope it doesn't create too many layoffs but it might.
S&P 500
2,154.00 up 14.44 (0.67%)
Dow 30
18,495.18 up 162.44 (0.89%)
Nasdaq
5,211.78 up 18.29 (0.35%)
Sorry to burst your negative bubble.
Yeah I was surprised but I'm happy I'm wrong. I guess Trump's victory speech calmed down the stockbrokers quite a bit.
He's also expected to gut Dodd-Frank, which is ironic given that he railed against Wall Street and Clinton's ties to it in the campaign.
(11-10-2016 06:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Now, Trump has three major boogeymen--Muslims, Mexicans, and free trade. I happen to believe that he is dead wrong on all three, and I hope to God that he doesn't get very far with any of his ideas about any of them.
I agree with all your points, but must say, in my view, he has no problem with Mexicans. he has a problem with illegal immigrants, most of whom are Mexicans.
I think that is 100% clear, and the majority of Americans agree. I have two friends both men I know from my church who are Mexican natives who came to this country LEGALLY through the immigration system (one is my child's godfather, the other is an engineer and a sometime-mentor to my special needs child, who is very interested in bridges and buildings.) Both these men are educated, met and married their wives here AFTER they became US citizens the LEGAL way, and have families and contribute to our society. One has a special needs child of his own.
Both men have experienced the unfair association because of their backgrounds and accents with ILLEGAL people from Mexico (and other countries, Latin and non-Latin speaking) that many perceive of them if they do not really know them. BOTH these men of Mexican heritage highly and emphatically RESENT the millions of ILLEGALS who come here by breaking the law and expecting (and getting) handouts from the US government and draining our country's resources. Both these men of Mexican heritage who are here in the US LEGALLY want NOTHING to do with them, and both these men have expressed to me their position that ALL illegal people from ANY background, not just Latino, need to face the consequences of the laws they have broken, as they taint those who have followed the immigration laws as they are written and followed by those who come to the US LEGALLY. Oh, by the way, BOTH voted for Trump this time.
Journalists love mocking Trump supporters. We insult their appearances. We dismiss them as racists and sexists. We emote on Twitter about how this or that comment or policy makes us feel one way or the other, and yet we reject their feelings as invalid.
...
But much of that starts from the assumption that Trump voters are backward, and that it’s our duty to catalogue and ultimately reverse that backwardness. What can we do to get these people to stop worshiping their false god and accept our gospel?
...
This is all a “whitelash,” you see. Trump voters are racist and sexist, so there must be more racists and sexists than we realized. Tuesday night’s outcome was not a logic-driven rejection of a deeply flawed candidate named Clinton; no, it was a primal scream against fairness, equality, and progress. Let the new tantrums commence!
...
That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get in line.
(This post was last modified: 11-10-2016 10:57 AM by OptimisticOwl.)
/
Presidential Horse Race Thread
