Maybe Trump will not be such a terrible president.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by xjx388

I think there's something that many here miss:

What are the chances of Trump enacting policies and legislation that actually further bigotry? Pretty close to zero.

Really? With Pence and Cruz and these others in charge? You don't think that they'll do everything in their power to make it more difficult for gay couples to marry or for trans people to get equal protection or for women to buy contraception or get abortions, etc.?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

To be fair, she actually claimed that half of Trumps supporters were racist/sexist/homophobic, and collectively referred to them as "deplorables". She didn't specifically say "racists are deplorable". She said that half of Trump's supporters are "deplorables"...

She outright insulted a quarter of the entire country.

Setting aside the rather clear fact that "a quarter of the entire country" did not vote for him, she labeled people as deplorable who, in her view, exhibited deplorable behavior.

Don't want to be called a thief, don't steal.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I'm looking to *stop* people being dismissive of entire states, or entire groups of people for that matter.

Stop being dismissive of thieves, everybody!

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

Funny how the Left has falsely charged every single Republican President with being racist, stupid, homophobic etc. Don't you realize most Americans have known of the Left's departure from the truth on these issues for some time now? You guys really need to come up with a new attack strategy and go to words. Chris B.

Got a source for your claim?

Republican presidents of my lifetime:

Eisenhower - a product of his times, I never heard him accused of racism, stupidity, or homophobia. Generally considered a pretty admirable person.

Nixon - sleazy and crooked, but not particularly racist for his times and certainly not stupid.

Reagan - OK, you got me there - except for the 'falsely' part.

Bush 1 - certainly not stupid or racist or particularly homophobic.

Bush 2 - dumber than a box of rocks but not a racist.

Trump - by his own words has labeled himself. Don't see how you could claim this is 'falsely'.

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by xjx388

I think there's something that many here miss:

What are the chances of Trump enacting policies and legislation that actually further bigotry? Pretty close to zero. But, along with the Republican control of Congress, he can reform taxes, health care, immigration and trade. Those are important things to a large group of Americans whether you agree with them or not. Thus, many people were able to overlook his perceived bigotry (because he can't act on it) and vote for him anyway (because he can act on the things that are important to them).

He could use his presidency to incentivize further bigotry. He has certainly demonstrated that as a candidate. Not the passage, but the enforcement of policies and legislation is where bigotry is usually felt.

[Travis]

In my opinion voting for Trump is just unforgivable. It's like finding out your buddy raped a woman. There is no coming back from something so reprehensible. You just can't do something so vile and evil and continue to associate with me let alone stay my friend.

[lionking]

Emily's Cat, you may have posted this and I missed it. Which of Hillary's policies were going to make your life so unbearable that you couldn't vote for her?

Apologies if already answered, but this has been a fast moving thread.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by xjx388

I think there's something that many here miss:

What are the chances of Trump enacting policies and legislation that actually further bigotry? Pretty close to zero. But, along with the Republican control of Congress, he can reform taxes, health care, immigration and trade. Those are important things to a large group of Americans whether you agree with them or not. Thus, many people were able to overlook his perceived bigotry (because he can't act on it) and vote for him anyway (because he can act on the things that are important to them).

The highlighted is ridiculous. Furthermore, the regime can affect the political and cultural tone, possibly for a long time.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

The highlighted is ridiculous. Furthermore, the regime can affect the political and cultural tone, possibly for a long time.

Indeed. In his next sentence xjx388 points out that Trump can change immigration policy. This will surely encourage bigotry. I can see those Mexicans and Muslims "left behind" attracting violence from bigots.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by lionking

Emily's Cat, you may have posted this and I missed it. Which of Hillary's policies were going to make your life so unbearable that you couldn't vote for her?

Apologies if already answered, but this has been a fast moving thread.

I'd like to know just how despicable an opponent would have to be before EC wouldn't consider voting for him/her against Clinton? Buchanan? Duke?

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

Funny how the Left has falsely charged every single Republican President with being racist, stupid, homophobic etc. Don't you realize most Americans have known of the Left's departure from the truth on these issues for some time now? You guys really need to come up with a new attack strategy and go to words. Chris B.

It's been a while, but I don't recall claims that Bush Jr. was racist or homophobic (maybe the latter, but I don't recall it). He certainly was a bit dumb, but looks like an intellectual these days.

I sure don't think of McCain or Romney as racist or stupid. Not sure about their opinions regarding homosexuality offhand.

Bush Sr. was not racist or stupid. His views about homosexuality may be a bit dated today.

I'm not part of the left, I think, but I don't think that the left claims what you say it claims. As far as Trump goes, not sure I'd call him homophobic, but he certainly does seem stupid and his views seem to be compatible with racists' views, and this matters.

[trustbutverify]

For a guy who isn't a gay-basher, he sure seems to make common cause with a lot of them.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

For a guy who isn't a gay-basher, he sure seems to make common cause with a lot of them.

What common cause, exactly, does he make? Be specific. Cite his cause.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Kind of scary, isn't it?

Kind of scary, but also kind of liberating. Now that we know the US is full of racist bigots, we don't have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

This election was a test. An opportunity for republicans to repudiate their image of being racist bigots who will go to any length to stay in power. A way for conservatives to prove that they are reasonable human beings who do have a conscience, and were just misunderstood. A last chance for Americans to show the World that they really are good people at heart. All they had to do was not vote for Trump.

But they did. So the air is finally cleared, and now the whole World knows what they really are.

There was a time when I had hope for America, but this is now gone. Liberals need to realize that no matter hard they try, they will lose - for the simple fact that they are in the minority. And it's never going to get better because the majority of Americans either like what's happening, or they just don't care. There is only one solution:-

Move To New Zealand

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Aber

Having trouble linking, but Reuters poll 28 June 2016 should find it for you.

It was online but with a sample size of 16000.

An online poll tends to reveal nothing more than that people who participate in online polls don't take them very seriously.

For evidence, I cite: Boaty McBoatface

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

It is clear that Donald Trump is in touch with an awful group of Americans. The kind that hate people based on race, religion and county of origin. Americana that are ill informed if not just plain stupid and are easily sucked in by an authoritarian bully.

No doubt.

But among people who voted for him, what percentage meet that description? During the campaign, Hillary Clinton at one point said half of his voters were like that, though she later backed away from that estimate.

I think if she hadn't made that estimate in the first place, she would be president-elect right now. So it goes.

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Originally Posted by phiwum

It's been a while, but I don't recall claims that Bush Jr. was racist or homophobic (maybe the latter, but I don't recall it). He certainly was a bit dumb, but looks like an intellectual these days.

I sure don't think of McCain or Romney as racist or stupid. Not sure about their opinions regarding homosexuality offhand.

Bush Sr. was not racist or stupid. His views about homosexuality may be a bit dated today.

I'm not part of the left, I think, but I don't think that the left claims what you say it claims. As far as Trump goes, not sure I'd call him homophobic, but he certainly does seem stupid and his views seem to be compatible with racists' views, and this matters.

Every Republican Presidential candidate has always been labelled : Racist, Homophobic, stupid, etc. This is old news. It's the same during every single election. Ronald Reagan was branded a racist by the Left, Reagan! Likely the best example of polar opposite of a racist. It's kinda like crying wolf after awhile everyone simply refuses to believe it, however the charges remain and it happens in every Presidential election. Chris B.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

But among people who voted for him, what percentage meet that description?

80%. the rest just want to watch the world burn.

Quote:

I think if she hadn't made that estimate in the first place, she would be president-elect right now.

More people voted for Trump because Hillary underestimated how many of them agreed with his ideas? Or did they vote for him to punish her for daring to call them out? Either way it's pretty ****** up.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

Ronald Reagan was branded a racist... Reagan!

And Hillary Clinton was branded a racist by the Right. Hillary!

Quote:

the Left

It's kinda like crying wolf after awhile everyone simply refuses to believe it.

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

More people voted for Trump because Hillary underestimated how many of them agreed with his ideas? Or did they vote for him to punish her for daring to call them out? Either way it's pretty ****** up.

Or they realised that she really was a nasty woman.

[Darth Rotor]

Besides the amount of homophily creeping into this thread and the ISF forums, which gets more annoying with each passing month, some of you surprise me:

PT Barnum was right. It is 2016 and you believe that someone will fulfill campaign promises? I guess you believe in Santa Claus as well.
Sylvia Brown would welcome the lot of you with open arms.


PS: this guy has not yet taken office, and has yet to figure out his cabinet. I am disappointed in the amount of crystal ball gazing going on in a community of alleged skeptics. The only thing I see on the horizon, given the vast number of people he alienated during the last year and a half of campaigning, is that he has no mandate, and both the House and Senate will make his work to get anything done. (And I hear the GoP House leaders are looking at reversing the removal of earmarks ... a source of considerable trouble in Congressional deal making for about six years).

As I see it, Mr Trump has let his mouth write a bunch of checks he's going to have to cash, in terms of getting anything done, even small stuff, no less some of his more grandiose pronouncements.

Rather than waste time predicting, I'll be making popcorn. The floor show ought to be entertaining for the first 100 days, at least. (and in the mean time, the sky won't fall on your heads).

[Stacko]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I saw that on Huffington Post. The thing he's talking about went into effect after 9/11 and ended in 2011, per HuffPo. So it lasted 3 years into Obama's administration.

ETA: I am not defending the guy, but if you read further down in the Reuters story it confirms that.

Now they're citing the internment of Japanese Americans to defend it.

[Hlafordlaes]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

If you can provide compelling evidence that the assumption* you're making is true for ALL members of a given grouping of people, I'll nominate your for a nobel prize. Otherwise, yes, that is exactly what prejudice is.

*Excluding group definitions. For example, assuming that "all people who have red hair" have red hair would be leveraging a group definition.

There is merit to this argument. I would encourage you, however, to work it through: there are definitions for what ideologies stand for, and these become logically associated with those supporting or espousing them. While there are excuses that can be made for the misled and simple, none can be made for the vast majority of healthy adults acting with full command of their senses, if and when, they act to place in high office someone repeatedly and willfully promoting ideas such as those of Trump the candidate. Otherwise, adult responsibility loses all meaning.

Given that, it behooves Trump supporters in particular to now clearly promote the message that it was economic concerns and legitimate differences of opinion that drove their votes, and loudly disavow the rest. Ain't happening, and ain't gonna, not until there's some stark fact that sends even the most rank into fits of horrified rejection and fleeing back to a semblance of decency. Like after WWII. Humanity has been there before, and mostly was avoiding being there again.... through the very same multilateralism and security arrangements Trump kicked in the nuts, for a global public. Now, we will most likely need to learn the hard way, again. Seems history and other books are mostly for burning these days.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by xjx388

I think there's something that many here miss:

What are the chances of Trump enacting policies and legislation that actually further bigotry? <snip>

Depending on how you define bigotry, pretty high IMO:

• His closest advisors are pressing ahead with plans for a Muslim Register
• The GOP has a long history of enacting voter suppression legislation
• There are very clear noises coming from the GOP regarding allowing discrimination on religious grounds at a state level
• Defunding Planned Parenthood is a direct attack on those that use its services

Regarding the other stuff like economic reform, new trade deals and the like, its all pie in the sky apart from cutting taxes (and hence increasing the deficit).

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Besides the amount of homophily creeping into this thread and the ISF forums, which gets more annoying with each passing month, some of you surprise me:

PT Barnum was right. It is 2016 and you believe that someone will fulfill campaign promises? I guess you believe in Santa Claus as well.
Sylvia Brown would welcome the lot of you with open arms.


PS: this guy has not yet taken office, and has yet to figure out his cabinet. I am disappointed in the amount of crystal ball gazing going on in a community of alleged skeptics. The only thing I see on the horizon, given the vast number of people he alienated during the last year and a half of campaigning, is that he has no mandate, and both the House and Senate will make his work to get anything done. (And I hear the GoP House leaders are looking at reversing the removal of earmarks ... a source of considerable trouble in Congressional deal making for about six years).

As I see it, Mr Trump has let his mouth write a bunch of checks he's going to have to cash, in terms of getting anything done, even small stuff, no less some of his more grandiose pronouncements.

Rather than waste time predicting, I'll be making popcorn. The floor show ought to be entertaining for the first 100 days, at least. (and in the mean time, the sky won't fall on your heads).

Rather than make predictions... You'll just make your own predictions......

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Noztradamus

Or they realised that she really was a nasty woman.

What does that even mean, "nasty"?

During the campaign she was accused of being dishonest. When it was shown that she lied less than the others, it was criminal. When the FBI failed to produce evidence of that, she was corrupt. Now nothing's come out of that either, so it's vague terms like "nasty". What do you mean by "nasty"?

[Darat]

Being Hillary Clinton.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

This rhetoric is tiring.

There's more to it than this, yet you consistently boil it up to "Almost all trump voters are either bigots, or they are okay with bigotry". You've completely dehumanized your opponents, and have made them shallow and one-dimensional. The entire approach you use casts them all as caricatures of evil, and completely ignores their actual concerns. It is my opinion that this is largely what has driven them to vote for Trump.

I still maintain that most Trump voters are NOT bigots. I do not believe that half the population is bigoted, or tolerant of bigotry. Clinton's position failed to address the concerns these people have, and the discourse has been focused around insinuating that their concerns don't matter. It's been repeatedly said, both now and prior to the election, that Trump's supporters are all ignorant racist hicks, that they're stupid and bigoted, that they only care about bigoted stupid things, and that they shouldn't be given any consideration. The discourse, both then and now, has doubled-down on vilifying and dismissing half the country.

I do NOT believe that most of his supporters are bigots. I do, however, believe that most of them are frightened of terrorists.

And of course they see all muslims as terrorists but that is to be expected, it isn't like they have anything to fear from the Dylan Roofs of this country. And hell many of them support the Bundys so they clearly can not be terrorists even if they do bag themselves for feds.

Quote:

I suspect that many of Trump's supporters have nothing at all against gay people, and would happily have equal rights for GLBTQ people. But it's not something that directly affects them.

Which is why they don't care what happens to them with Pence in the white house.

Quote:

I suspect that many of them are quite supportive of equal rights for minorities and women. But it's not something that directly affects them. It's something they support in principle.

Until it requires them to do something or confront their own biases.


It is like how feminists tried to make a big deal over trump using the P word calling that rape culture and sexual assault. That causes them to stop listening and give up.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

It's hard to argue against the hilited bit. Trump's rhetoric made the bigotry pretty plain. Whatever else their reasons were for voting for him, they must have at least been okay with the bigotry because there's no denying that it was apparent.

Being okay with bigotry doesn't make you a bigot. But it does mean that accusing something or someone of bigotry isn't an effective argument on its own, because people'd just say "yeah, so?" THAT'S what the left needs to internalize.

And they get terribly insulted when called on their bigotry and totally shut down thinking.

These are plain americans they don't care what happens to muslims they care about non existent threats to their guns. Trying to make that sound like they don't care about what happens to muslims as some kind of bias against muslims just makes them stop listening to you.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by wareyin

I have already addressed this repeatedly, to you, so I wonder why you keep making the same incorrect statement? Half of Trump's supporters are not a quarter of the country. He got 61.3 mlion votes, half of that is 30.7million, or roughly 1/10 of the entire country.

On top of your faulty math, 40% of Trump supporters believe black people are more "lazy" than white people, and almost 50% think black people are more violent, according to a Reuters poll in June. That's about half of his supporters being racist, which makes her statement true without even adding in the homophobes and misogynists and Islamophobes.

But if you call them racist for that they just shut down and then their friends hate you for calling them racist and dehumanizing them for their opinions.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by marplots

This is simplistic and incorrect. It is perfectly possible not to be "OK with bigotry" and still vote for someone you think is a bigot.

Just like when you hang out with your friend who you know is a bit handsy with women it doesn't mean you condone sexual assault.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

What does that even mean, "nasty"?

During the campaign she was accused of being dishonest. When it was shown that she lied less than the others, it was criminal. When the FBI failed to produce evidence of that, she was corrupt. Now nothing's come out of that either, so it's vague terms like "nasty". What do you mean by "nasty"?

But that's the most insidious form of dishonesty/criminality/corruption

With Hillary there were a bunch of allegations that had just about enough circumstantial evidence to get some kind of traction as an allegation but not enough clear evidence of wrongdoing to actually form a case.

The Clinton Foundation is IMO a good example. There's no doubt that it has received substantial donations from foreign organisations which strong links to foreign governments. It's also clear that some of those foreign governments have had access to senior US figures and have had some decisions made by the US government go their way. There is no clear evidence that the latter is the result of the former. The decisions were beyond Hillary's ability to influence and those countries have enjoyed similar relationships with other US administrations. The problem is that there is just enough there to allow people to believe that there is something amiss and that it has been covered up. This is because we have been told again and again that almost all politicians are crooked

OTOH Trump leaves a blazing great trail of misdeeds, obvious lies and blatant contradictions which is why he is inherently trustworthy

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

But how else can you reduce the real complex and even at times at-odds motivations and priorities of a human being down to a single one-dimensional caricature to rail at (while claiming not to be dehumanizing them)?

That way leads to viewing as voting for someone as endorsing them and their positions.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Unless you specifically voted for Clinton, yes you did.

In the U.S. system, there are only 2 parties that realistically have a chance of getting their candidate elected. (There are actually advantages to that as well as disadvantages.)

If you voted for Clinton, that was the only decision that did not favor trump. But from what I've seen here, that's not what you did.

It's ok because like the vast majority of america her vote didn't matter at all.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by theprestige

What common cause, exactly, does he make? Be specific. Cite his cause.

Hiring them to write his policies.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

Every Republican Presidential candidate has always been labelled : Racist, Homophobic, stupid, etc. This is old news. It's the same during every single election. Ronald Reagan was branded a racist by the Left, Reagan! Likely the best example of polar opposite of a racist. It's kinda like crying wolf after awhile everyone simply refuses to believe it, however the charges remain and it happens in every Presidential election. Chris B.

So what was the skin color of his Welfare Queen?

[applecorped]

And no lessons were learned

[lionking]

Originally Posted by applecorped

And no lessons were learned

Oh plenty were. Among them were the almost total irrelevance of one line posts purporting to add anything to such a complex event as a US election, and the ridiculous use of emoticons without context.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by Noztradamus

Or they realised that she really was a nasty woman.

No, just salivated on cue after 25 years of bell ringing by their Republican masters.

[TubbaBlubba]

Here is what I see - Trump is appeasing Democrats and moderates and others who are unsure about his viability with his talk about the ACA, telling people to tone things down, etc.

At the same time, he is choosing his most radical surrogates and supporters as his satraps to appeal to the white supremacy vote.

What will he do? Who knows?