(11-10-2016 02:05 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  It's almost comical, for example, how many white people think they get to decide what African-Americans are allowed to be upset about and how they are allowed to protest.

This sentence makes me wonder how those white people who are themselves actual African-Americans feel (there are quite a few), since you seem to be concerned about racism, although apparently not when you yourself are using racist language, perhaps because your racist language has been deemed politically correct and acceptable by the far left elites who know better than the rest of us rabble they look down upon. Are you including them in that term? If yes, then you have your answer. If no, then you are using the term "African-American" inaccurately and exclusionarily in a racist and bigoted manner, as do most people who use that term as a replacement for the perfectly acceptable and accurate words "black people," (if you can say "white people" as you did above, then one can equally and without malice say "black people, correct?) or, to quote Curtis Mayfield, "we people who are darker than blue" (WPWADTB) which is what I believe you mean. But then, perhaps the far-left elites also think that irregardless is an actual word.

It is the very need to separate people into color, especially when it comes to any and all demographic information, that really causes the problem. If I were in charge, I would remove the requirement to collect any racial information whatsoever from all government data and forms. I would severely frown upon it in the private sector as well. Any private sector activity that collected any racial information whatsoever or made any decision based upon it, would be ineligible for any government funding whatsoever. It would be a very good start to a post-racial society. But then, a lot of people would lose a lot of govt freebies, and some people want to perpetuate racism in order to keep paying out government dollars. The truth is, you really can't logically have both and keep a straight face. THAT is the true hypocrisy, isn't it?

(11-10-2016 09:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 08:58 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Bear in mind I was replying to a post that you have since deleted. A post wherein you stated "Yes, I have attacked Obama many times over the last 8+ years. ... To be fair, I think the racist allegations have been more prevalent on other boards, but there have been a few on here too."
Specifically, my response was to your suggestion that there have been "a few" on here, which roughly corresponds to the one that I remember. I thought we were in agreement.

In what language does "a few" = "one"?

This is really getting pretty silly.

We agree that the denominator is many verbalized disagreements with Obama from you over the last 8 + years. I counted a numerator of one suggestion of racial bias, you said a numerator of a few. Thus I noted that I thought our numbers roughly agreed with each other.

Those ratios are certainly much closer to each other than your original claim that _every_ time you publicly disagree with Obama you get called a racist.

Hey man, I hear your pain. It hurts that you've been called a racist so many times. But don't take it out on the Quad. This is your safe space, they don't call you those names here.

(11-10-2016 10:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 08:51 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 10:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  "...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.

Man, whatever happened, to the good old OptmisticOwl, who was willing to call a spade a spade? Y'know, this guy:

(10-31-2008 04:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think we saw plenty of racism in the Democratic primaries when the black Democrats would vote over 90% for Obama and the white Democrats would vote over 75% for Hillary. Racism must have played a part in that kind of disparity.

I know of two yellow dog Democrats who will be staying home rather than vote for a black man. This will be the first time since 1934 they haven't voted a straight democratic ticket. I doubt they are the only ones.

There are racists voting on both sides of this race.

IMO, basing your vote on race is racist, whether it is a vote FOR or a vote AGAINST a particular candidate, and whether the candidate in question is black, white, or other.

I have voted for a black man for president twice before, so I don't care a lot about "making history". I did not make it three times this election because of his policies, not his race.

Calling a spade a spade? Do I hear a dog whistle?

But to answer your question, AFAIK, I have not changed. I still see a lot of racism in the left side, which is not the same as saying I see none on the right, or that I see none anywhere. The racism from the left is not as overt, nor is it toward the same targets, but it is there. Leftist racism is kinder and gentler - almost paternal. But still, racism. That's my opinion, anyway.

Fun with language.

No, come on, what happened to the old you that was okay with calling racism what it it is? Even in your comment just now, you can't bring yourself to say that you do see racism on the right.

As an aside, digging up that old thread makes me wonder what happened to those racist Democratic friends of yours. Did they fall in line and vote for O, or did they hold firm? Did they stay Dems or did the experience push them out?

(11-10-2016 03:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 02:59 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 02:05 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Trump's rhetoric on Muslims has been extremely heated and hateful at times.

I probably didn't pay near enough attention to Trump's public pronouncements, in part because I didn't anticipate him being the nominee, much less the President elect.

I do know he was calling for an outright ban on Muslim immigration, which I suspect is unconstitutional, at least at some level.

Do you have examples of the heated and hateful rhetoric? I can well imagine rhetoric that matches that description, but want to get a frame of reference on what he actually said and what meets the 'heated and hateful' qualifiers.

As noted earlier, if someone has an unfavorable view of Islam (as a belief system) that doesn't automatically translate to bigotry, hatred or inappropriate behavior, and shouldn't be equated with racism.

As I noted earlier, we all understand there are secular/modern adherents of Islam, and more historic/fundamental adherents. There are nominal Muslims and there are the Sunni/Shia branches.

Given that there are governments that practice Sharia Law, and that 'honor killings' are condoned in many areas of the Muslim world, and that in order for the Pakistani government to allow someone to escape the death penalty for converting (of their own free will) from Islam to Christianity, the defendant had to be declared 'insane', the differing level of rights afforded non-Muslims in the Koran, combined with ISIS/Al Queda, terrorist acts in Europe

I think that it's not unfair to characterize some aspects of Islamic belief antithetical to our Constitution. And that's without addressing the restrictions on women's rights.

I don't believe the "Islamophobia" you're referring to has any similarities to racism in its genesis. I believe it has more to do with unfavorable views of the belief system.

To put it a little differently. I don't think anyone has an issue with Germans immigrating to this country. However, if someone is an avowed Nazi, IIRC we had definite restrictions on who we would let in the country after WWII.

Certainly neo-Nazi groups are not on the top of the list that most of us want to propogate and protect. They have rights here, but the party is outlawed in Germany.

Liberals seem to be concerned about the levels of non-college educated white, males supporting Trump.

I believe we need to treat Muslims the same as anyone else, that their rights, freedoms and safety should be guaranteed. I echo President Bush's sentiments that when sought out the perpetrators of 9/11, we needed to avoid the bigotry of tying over a billion people, the majority of whom are peaceful, with the actions of extremists. But the belief system itself does not by nature lend itself to 'freedom of belief' or 'equal treatment under the law' to non-adherents.

Based on your posts, I suspect you are concerned about potential rises in racism or neo-Nazism. Agreed that would be bad.

But given the above, how is your concern different than what you are labeling 'Islamophobia'?

I think your German example is a good one. No one should ban all Muslims from entering the country, just as all Germans shouldn't have been. However, it's perfectly acceptable to not allow people with ties to radical islam/terrorism to be screened out, just like with Nazis.

I think you both point out some relevant things here. Rick, I'd say that many have the view that you cannot ever get the development of a US Constitution, with its concepts of freedom and individual liberties regardless of religious affiliation from a muslim background. As your post points to, it just never would have even been acceptable to even think that way, much less develop a whole Constitution and governmental system based on it; islam is an old-testament religion of fear. fear and freedom and liberty as we have it clash like oil and water. Many people, including Trump, intrinsically sense this, even if they cannot articulately make the point with nuance.

Trump's biggest "flaw" here if you will, is that he is anything but a politician, and certainly not an attorney. While he has employed those types in order to get that aspect of his businesses done, he clearly has no love for those two professions, and a LOT of Americans, even many lawyers themselves, have that in common with him. I think he knows what he means and doesn't have the expertise and practice to always say things in anything but a blunt manner. He thinks of his manner of speaking as hyperbole, and wonders why many parse him so literally all the time when he is using what he apparently considers allegory.

Same difference from people who are biblical literalists, which at times comes across as truly insane, and those who understand the bible uses a ton of allegory, hyperbole, poetry, etc...and is most definitely NOT a scientific or a purely historical literal collection of works. Yet many of these 'enlightened and educated' people on the left (especially non-believers) wrongheadedly and ignorantly ascribe to all Christians the same literal ideology as the minority of Christians who actually are biblical literalists.

The fact is people just don't communicate with eachother in a purely scientific or legalistic manner. They just don't, and it is abnormal to be so demanding of it. Many of those people who voted for Trump understand this concept, and while to varying degrees are uncomfortable with some aspects of Trump's communications and communication style, they generally get what he really means, and are frankly weary of having to hold every leader to a ridiculous scientific and legalistic standard on literally everything they ever say or have said. It's plain folly to do so. Kind of like Reagan's "the bombing begins" comment, remember? That was a joke at a glorified mike-check, clearly, but many people who wanted to refuse to understand that got publicly bent out of shape to cause a false stir.

I will admit both sides do this regularly nowadays, and it perpetuates the problems.

Also, I would feel remiss if I didn't point out the islamic stances of Judaism and homosexuals. It has always defied me how folks can defend the Democratic Party and reconcile it's almost fanatical appearing love for islam over the American Constitution when at its core, islam seeks to destroy societies structured like America, and eradicate Jewish people and homosexuals from the earth simply because of who they are. Those positions, embodied in the very dogma itself, are what also gives pause to a whole lot of Americans.

Finally, assimilation. It is at its core never the goal of someone from islam to assimilate, if they are following the dogma of the religion, especially in a country and culture like America. One big difference in many different folks coming here these days seems to be the almost militant lack of desire to assimilate. The left (and some Christian churches as well) in the name of power, control and greed, has catered to enhancing and expanding this de facto apartheid. Apartheid wasn't good in South Africa, and it is not good in America. Those who come here should only do so if they are genuine and make an actual effort to assimilate into American society. To the extent we allow extreme cultures to keep their extremes, we threaten the very core of America. For many religions, peaceful co-existence and assimilation is possible and consistent with their underlying basic philosophy of belief. With islam, this is just not so. A "good islam" as you might be referring to above, is actual a bad muslim, and subject to death by people of their own faith, because their very faith says so, not because Americans or anyone else does. I don't think the same is true of a "good Christian" or a "good Jew." In addition, the treatment of women in that ideology is several degrees worse than anything Trump has ever said or done. (Not to mention their treatment of homosexuals and Jews.) By a longshot.

I am fascinated how the left seldom seems as outraged over genital mutilation by islams, (but is abhorred by Trump's private locker-room talk--again, words and male braggadocio and less-than-tactful one-upmanship versus actual actions (and as many here were athletes themselves, I wonder how many had past private or semi-private conversations that went over the line once in a while)) or about throwing homosexuals off buildings. Seems okay to many who lean left as long as they do it in their own countries. But the basic mission of islam is to spread not just their ideology or benign faith as with Christianity, but to spread sharia law to governments worldwide. European countries are already having major problems with this. Vigilance and caution are not unwarranted, especially in these dangerous times.

(11-10-2016 11:46 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 10:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 08:51 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 10:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  "...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.

Man, whatever happened, to the good old OptmisticOwl, who was willing to call a spade a spade? Y'know, this guy:

(10-31-2008 04:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think we saw plenty of racism in the Democratic primaries when the black Democrats would vote over 90% for Obama and the white Democrats would vote over 75% for Hillary. Racism must have played a part in that kind of disparity.

I know of two yellow dog Democrats who will be staying home rather than vote for a black man. This will be the first time since 1934 they haven't voted a straight democratic ticket. I doubt they are the only ones.

There are racists voting on both sides of this race.

IMO, basing your vote on race is racist, whether it is a vote FOR or a vote AGAINST a particular candidate, and whether the candidate in question is black, white, or other.

I have voted for a black man for president twice before, so I don't care a lot about "making history". I did not make it three times this election because of his policies, not his race.

Calling a spade a spade? Do I hear a dog whistle?

But to answer your question, AFAIK, I have not changed. I still see a lot of racism in the left side, which is not the same as saying I see none on the right, or that I see none anywhere. The racism from the left is not as overt, nor is it toward the same targets, but it is there. Leftist racism is kinder and gentler - almost paternal. But still, racism. That's my opinion, anyway.

Fun with language.

No, come on, what happened to the old you that was okay with calling racism what it it is? Even in your comment just now, you can't bring yourself to say that you do see racism on the right.

As an aside, digging up that old thread makes me wonder what happened to those racist Democratic friends of yours. Did they fall in line and vote for O, or did they hold firm? Did they stay Dems or did the experience push them out?

Oh, sure, there is racism and racists on the right, but they are not THE right. I thought the bolded part covered that, but I guess I was not explicit enough.

They both died, each at age 97, having never voted for a Republican in their lives. They were my (former) in-laws. She was a seventh grade drop out and picked cotton as a child, due to the poverty of her family. He was a CB in WWII. Blue collar all the way.

I don't know if they voted or not that year. I divorced their daughter in 1984, and saw them only sporadically after that. If they did, I am sure it would have been STD (Straight Ticket Democrat). They would have seen staying home as the only other possible alternative. He was in really bad health by then, so it could be either. He had previously told me he would stay home rather than vote for a (n-word).


True story: A few days before the Nixon-McGovern election, we were at their house, and there was politics on the news. Out of nowhere, my father-in-law said " I sure hope Nixon wins. He's the best man in this election." Amazed, I said 'Albert, I never thought you would ever vote for a Republican". He replied "Oh, I'm not going to vote for him." Being young and naive, I asked "But why not, if you think he is the best man?' he looked at me like I was the stupidest person in the world, and answered, in a tone of voice like he was talking to a dog, "Well, if I did that I couldn't vote a straight ticket, could I?"

When we visited, he and I could only talk sports. Politics and religion were to be avoided (very devout fundamentalist Baptists, and I was an atheist at that time).

(11-10-2016 11:38 PM)JOwl Wrote:  We agree that the denominator is many verbalized disagreements with Obama from you over the last 8 + years. I counted a numerator of one suggestion of racial bias, you said a numerator of a few. Thus I noted that I thought our numbers roughly agreed with each other.
Those ratios are certainly much closer to each other than your original claim that _every_ time you publicly disagree with Obama you get called a racist.
Hey man, I hear your pain. It hurts that you've been called a racist so many times. But don't take it out on the Quad. This is your safe space, they don't call you those names here.

We should probably both reread my first comment. What I said was that whenever i criticize Obama, "very quickly" some leftist plays the race card. That implies a few rounds back and forth, and then here comes the race card. The denominator isn't huge in this room because there haven't been many exchanges that lasted that long in here. This place has been pretty dead for 2-3 years, so most of my political discussions have been on other politically-themed boards.

But this whole exchange has sort of epitomized what I'm trying to say. You responded to my post by claiming that I have been "attacking Obama ceaselessly for the last 8 and a half years on this very Quad," and then pointing to there specific comments of mine as being either racially charged or otherwise ad hominem attacks. I have criticized Obama consistently because i think he's wrong, but not "ceaselessly." I've come far closer to criticizing David Bailiff ceaselessly than I have Obama, at least on the Rice board.

And the three comments have none of the meaning that you attempt to attribute to them. The street hustlers and drug dealers to whom I compared Obama's mannerisms and gestures were virtually all, if not all, white. Chance the Gardner was portrayed by Peter Sellers, who when last I checked was English (although I will concede IIRC had his skin darkened in the movie), and the comparison was to the very element that the movie satirized--the uncritical fawning with which followers responded to every word out of his mouth, no matter how wrong headed and stupid. And the "comparison to Hitler" (who was white) was a comment that the scene at Mile High Stadium reminded me of Nuremberg, which it did and still does.

It's this tendency to seize upon every critical comment and push it toward some sort of sinister ulterior meaning, mostly racism in the case of Obama or sexism in the case of Hillary, that pisses off people who offer well-intended criticism. You're responding to my comments by restating them to suit your narrative, instead of paying attention to what I actually wrote. I don't think you realize that you're doing it, and I certainly don't think you have any idea how badly that kind of arrogant condescension plays with those at whom it is directed. People are tired of these kinds of responses, and those people voted against your candidate on Tuesday.

Chance the Gardner could probably have come up with a better health care plan than Obamacare. But when anyone like me tried to point out the obvious problems, the response was, oh no, it's all going to work, Obama said so. Republicans just voted against it en masse because the black man proposed it. So far, virtually no part of it has worked as advertised. That's what I meant by the Chance the Gardner comment.

Do you really not believe that the staged setting at Mile High was a bit over the top? You could have responded with, yes, that was a bit much, but instead had to launch into the Hitler allegation.

I really don't think you get it. I hope the left doesn't get it for a while, frankly, because I don't like the direction that you would lead the country, and without the votes of middle America you're going to have a hard time pushing very far down that road.

This last comment does not imply in any way, shape, or form that I like where Trump and the republicans would lead the country.

(11-11-2016 01:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  True story: A few days before the Nixon-McGovern election, we were at their house, and there was politics on the news. Out of nowhere, my father-in-law said " I sure hope Nixon wins. He's the best man in this election." Amazed, I said 'Albert, I never thought you would ever vote for a Republican". He replied "Oh, I'm not going to vote for him." Being young and naive, I asked "But why not, if you think he is the best man?' he looked at me like I was the stupidest person in the world, and answered, in a tone of voice like he was talking to a dog, "Well, if I did that I couldn't vote a straight ticket, could I?"

Your story reminds me of a joke I like about a discussion between two farmers.
Farmer 1: "Why is your tractor so rusty?"
Farmer 2: "I leave it out in the rain."
Farmer 1: "Why don't you put it in the barn?
Farmer 2: "Barn's full of hay."
Farmer 1: "Why don't you build another barn?"
Farmer 2: "Don't need any more hay."

(11-10-2016 11:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  When do we start calling him Comrade Trump?

Weird news story to break: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2...paign.html

No, it's totally OK that our President-Elect's advisers are shot through with Russian stooges and outright agents, and his campaign worked with Mr. KGB and invited his intelligence apparatus to break into U.S. systems and commit espionage against political rivals, and for him to deny our own intelligence services said it was happening, and to deny he had anything to do with Russia even though his own son said it was their major businesss frontier, because, you know, Hillary said mean things about Trump's supporters.

That's the short, snarky version, but I never want to hear again about how the Democrats are "soft on Russia". And no, I am not a Democrat, although at this point I'm considering becoming one.

(11-10-2016 06:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:21 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  .

But your position is that I can't call out trump supporters or Trump himself if they make racist comments because I might hurt your feelings (even though you're not even a Trump supporter)?

Is that what I said? Surprises me.

Essentially, yes.

(11-10-2016 04:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You really don't get it. I'm amazed at how you constantly fail to grasp the point that OO and I and perhaps others are trying to make.

Try to understand this. If you keep calling Johnny a racist, and Johnny is not one, then when you call Jimmy a racist, Johnny is not going to believe you. When the standard reply to any criticism of Obama for 8 years has been, oh, you're just a racist who hates the black man, you're going to piss off mightily every non-racist who disagrees with Obama.

I'm neither Jimmy nor Johnny in the above. I'm observing from outside and telling you what I see. So don't go trying to argue by attributing things to me, particularly not falsely attributing them. You can't draw any inference about how I feel from what I am writing, because I'm not talking about how I feel.

OK, I will insert a bit about how I feel. Whenever I've disagreed with Obama in public over the last 8 years, very quickly some leftist has launched the racist allegation against me. Totally unsubstantiated and untrue, but that never counted for anything. And quite frankly, I'm pretty pissed off about it and tired of it. Now, I'm not going to express my anger by voting for Trump, primarily because I disagree with him on his three big issues--Muslims, Mexicans, and free trade. But I can understand how others can feel that way.

No, I understand. You are trying to argue that every time someone opposed Obama they were accused of racism. I even agree it's been overused. But a lot of the opposition was racist. I've heard people state their opposition in explicitly racist terms. Offering a substantive critique of Obamacare is not racist. Opposing it by passing around a photoshopped picture of Obama's face on an African tribesman with the caption "Obamacare" is. I could go on and on and on. Perhaps if more Republicans had spoken out against things like that, the accusations wouldn't have been so broad.

Trump himself got his political start with the explicitly racist "birther" BS. Now he's president elect.

Quote:And I don't know of many, if any, whites who think that they should get to decide what African-Americans can get upset about.

I take it you don't watch Fox news.

I guess here's a fundamental question that might reveal this whole thread to be pointless.

For those of you angry about the "deplorables" comment. I get that you feel it was unfairly applied to you.

However, do you agree or disagree that the Trump campaign intentionally appealed to and garnered support for:

racism
bigotry
Islamophobia
xenophobia
sexism
misogyny

(11-11-2016 11:29 AM)sts60 Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 11:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  When do we start calling him Comrade Trump?

Weird news story to break: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2...paign.html

No, it's totally OK that our President-Elect's advisers are shot through with Russian stooges and outright agents, and his campaign worked with Mr. KGB and invited his intelligence apparatus to break into U.S. systems and commit espionage against political rivals, and for him to deny our own intelligence services said it was happening, and to deny he had anything to do with Russia even though his own son said it was their major businesss frontier, because, you know, Hillary said mean things about Trump's supporters.

That's the short, snarky version, but I never want to hear again about how the Democrats are "soft on Russia". And no, I am not a Democrat, although at this point I'm considering becoming one.

or...it was a call for transparency by the right from the left, who often say they are the ones for it, except when they are not because it's them who are hiding the truth. Want to know what's in Huma's emails on her laptop? Why couldn't Hiliary just ask her to let people know? Why did she require the FBI to disclose what it knew so she could see how to respond/spin it? Sure, if Russia or anyone else had Hiliary's emails, port them up there for everyone to see. If Hiliary was telling the truth she should not have feared it. Of course, it turns our she wasn't. And lots of her supporters stayed home and did not vote in part because they were disgusted with her lying. And a lot of people on the other side, imperfect candidate and all, came out and pushed the lever for Trump because they believed they were being lied to by nearly everyone, from the Bushes, to Romney to almost every new media not owned by Sheldon Anderson to Hilary and Billary and Obamary, not top mention all the celebrities. Half the country is tried of this $#!t. They want to be left alone by the government, and they don;t want a socialist despot taking things over and grabbing what little they have left for themselves. They want their freedoms and liberties back, and they are fine trading the fact that they will have to be more responsible for themselves for it.

Now it is up to the Republicans and Trump to work together, but not to totally shut out the Democrats like Obama did, to see if they can finally move the country forward, reduce its debt, get the economy going again after 8 years, and get Americans back to work for America's interests first. THEN, we can see about helping out others where they live. Meantime, nothing stops anyone here from helping those they wish to get more help voluntarily, whether here or abroad. It is the involuntary part most people who voted Trump weer upset enough with to pull the lever for him over her no matter how they felt about his personality. In the end he's a successful businessman who knows how to run large organizations.

And I for one am d@rn glad he never released his taxes, and that he never does, and hope that helps bury that stupid practice of holier-than-thou started I believe by Nixon, to 'prove' he wasn't what he actually turned out to be, because that certainly didn't work and only set a bad precedent. Campaign finance disclosures provide more than enough. If they wish, they can add a few more blanks to those forms. Enough with taxes and taxes. Government revenues need to shrink because the country is doing well and because people will be doing more on their own and for themselves. And they should own it themselves, not the government and not their companies they may work for.

(11-11-2016 12:04 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I guess here's a fundamental question that might reveal this whole thread to be pointless.

For those of you angry about the "deplorables" comment. I get that you feel it was unfairly applied to you.

However, do you agree or disagree that the Trump campaign intentionally appealed to and garnered support for:

racism
bigotry
Islamophobia
xenophobia
sexism
misogyny

I'm not angry about the deplorables comment. It is only relevant in that it was emblematic of the problem that the Democrats had with the non-college educated white males that are the crux of the current discussion. There is only image that sprang to peoples minds when the deplorables comment was thrown out: white male, whether 50% or 100%. No one thought she was talking about an Indian-American software engineer, or a 2nd generation Mexican-American business owner, who may also have voted for Trump.

They haven't been concerned about them, they haven't courted them, they really haven't tried to include them in their vision for America. How could the ABC commentators have truthfully been lamenting "why, why, why do they believe the things Trump has told them? Do they really believe he can help them? What will they do in 3 years when nothing has changed with regard to their lot in life?", when the DNC hasn't aggressively addressed those issues with the same gusto they focus on the problems of the inner city poor? Have the last 8 years (and more obviously, to be fair) done anything to change their lot in life?

The soul searching articles/editorials I referenced in a separate thread finally acknowledge this.

I understand your fears and concerns about the six -isms, -obias, and - ys you list in your thread.

When people feel economically secure and not fearful, there's less room for those problems to fester. That was the answer to inner city problems: improve opportunities and quality of life.

As James Carville famously put it: "It's the economy, stupid."

I also asked you to elaborate on the hateful rhetoric Trump has used with regard to Islam. Not arguing, wanting to understand in detail, as you've brought it up several times. Is the only issue his ban on Muslim immigration? That is serious obviously, and may be unconstitutional.

I've tried to address the topic of Islamophobia separately and asked you how "Islamophobia" is fundamentally any different than your fears of racism.

I think you may be mischaracterizing that issue, since your lumping it in with racism. It's a belief-based issue, not gender or race. It's a cultural issue. And it's an issue that was involved in the Brexit vote as well.

But until you explain more specifically what you mean when you throw out those terms, I can't either agree with you or frame my discussion points differently to address your concerns there.

(11-11-2016 01:09 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 11:29 AM)sts60 Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 11:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  When do we start calling him Comrade Trump?

Weird news story to break: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2...paign.html

No, it's totally OK that our President-Elect's advisers are shot through with Russian stooges and outright agents, and his campaign worked with Mr. KGB and invited his intelligence apparatus to break into U.S. systems and commit espionage against political rivals, and for him to deny our own intelligence services said it was happening, and to deny he had anything to do with Russia even though his own son said it was their major businesss frontier, because, you know, Hillary said mean things about Trump's supporters.

That's the short, snarky version, but I never want to hear again about how the Democrats are "soft on Russia". And no, I am not a Democrat, although at this point I'm considering becoming one.

or...it was a call for transparency by the right from the left, who often say they are the ones for it, except when they are not because it's them who are hiding the truth. Want to know what's in Huma's emails on her laptop? Why couldn't Hiliary just ask her to let people know? Why did she require the FBI to disclose what it knew so she could see how to respond/spin it? Sure, if Russia or anyone else had Hiliary's emails, port them up there for everyone to see. If Hiliary was telling the truth she should not have feared it. Of course, it turns our she wasn't. And lots of her supporters stayed home and did not vote in part because they were disgusted with her lying. And a lot of people on the other side, imperfect candidate and all, came out and pushed the lever for Trump because they believed they were being lied to by nearly everyone, from the Bushes, to Romney to almost every new media not owned by Sheldon Anderson to Hilary and Billary and Obamary, not top mention all the celebrities. Half the country is tried of this $#!t. They want to be left alone by the government, and they don;t want a socialist despot taking things over and grabbing what little they have left for themselves. They want their freedoms and liberties back, and they are fine trading the fact that they will have to be more responsible for themselves for it.

Now it is up to the Republicans and Trump to work together, but not to totally shut out the Democrats like Obama did, to see if they can finally move the country forward, reduce its debt, get the economy going again after 8 years, and get Americans back to work for America's interests first. THEN, we can see about helping out others where they live. Meantime, nothing stops anyone here from helping those they wish to get more help voluntarily, whether here or abroad. It is the involuntary part most people who voted Trump weer upset enough with to pull the lever for him over her no matter how they felt about his personality. In the end he's a successful businessman who knows how to run large organizations.

And I for one am d@rn glad he never released his taxes, and that he never does, and hope that helps bury that stupid practice of holier-than-thou started I believe by Nixon, to 'prove' he wasn't what he actually turned out to be, because that certainly didn't work and only set a bad precedent. Campaign finance disclosures provide more than enough. If they wish, they can add a few more blanks to those forms. Enough with taxes and taxes. Government revenues need to shrink because the country is doing well and because people will be doing more on their own and for themselves. And they should own it themselves, not the government and not their companies they may work for.

Your mind works in mysterious ways.

Substantively, this is probably more fitting for the Trump Administration thread, but it's sort of snarky, so I figured I'd post here since we've all got our knickers in a twist here already.

It took me a long time to believe that Trump actually wanted to be President. Now, I am beginning to wonder if he's thinking *%&! What have I done?

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/donald-...1788862854

GoodOwl Wrote:or...

Thanks for neatly summing up just about every bit of avoidance, misdirection, Randian talking points, projection, and outright fabrication used to justify voting for or otherwise supporting Trump. You only left out the calling-mean-names and the there's-~no-racism memes.

It will take awhile to unpack everything you said, but I promise I'll get around to a more substantive reply sometime this weekend. In the meantime, thanks for tacitly endorsing Russian government subversion of our democratic process.

(11-11-2016 01:35 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Now, I am beginning to wonder if he's thinking *%&! What have I done?

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/donald-...1788862854

The thought has briefly crossed my mind as well. I have to dismiss it, as it doesn't matter now anyway. (I didn't check out the link, responding to your comment above only).

(11-11-2016 12:04 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I guess here's a fundamental question that might reveal this whole thread to be pointless.

For those of you angry about the "deplorables" comment. I get that you feel it was unfairly applied to you.

However, do you agree or disagree that the Trump campaign intentionally appealed to and garnered support for:

racism
bigotry
Islamophobia
xenophobia
sexism
misogyny

Intentionally appealed to: Disagree

Garnered support from: yes, not always welcome.

who the heck is xenophobic these days? A true xenophobe would be as fearful of Brits as Guatamalans. Or of people from the next county. It's not like 1204 or so, when anybody not from your village was viewed with fear and suspicion.

(11-11-2016 01:35 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Substantively, this is probably more fitting for the Trump Administration thread, but it's sort of snarky, so I figured I'd post here since we've all got our knickers in a twist here already.

It took me a long time to believe that Trump actually wanted to be President. Now, I am beginning to wonder if he's thinking *%&! What have I done?

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/donald-...1788862854

Schadenfreude is fine and all, but the effect was ruined by several pictures showing the smile on the face of the truly despicable Mike Pence, who was probably contemplating how he can set up a special division of the FBI to go after women who have miscarriages.

Of course, that last part is hyperbole. I think.

(11-11-2016 01:35 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Substantively, this is probably more fitting for the Trump Administration thread, but it's sort of snarky, so I figured I'd post here since we've all got our knickers in a twist here already.

It took me a long time to believe that Trump actually wanted to be President. Now, I am beginning to wonder if he's thinking *%&! What have I done?

here, we agree. (responding to what you said, not the link). I always thought it was at first either an ego trip or publicity stunt that just ran away from him. Sometimes when you ride the tiger it is hard to get off.

But I thought the same about Obama in '08. I thought he was just running to get his name out there and start laying the framework for a 2016 run. After all, it was expected then also that Hillary would be in office for eight more years. But for him too, it just took off.

Coincidental that both these men had it take off on them versus the same opponent?