Moderators: Shirley, Sabo, brian, rass, DaveInSeattle
travzilla wrote:Anyone looking to get out of the US and not immediately looking to Costa Rica and Panama (like Brian says) is doing it wrong. The requirements to move to Panama are ridiculously low.
I don't blame you. I'm feeling very hostile towards 50% of white people, too. Fuck, I seriously have the same feeling I had on 9/11, when I was thinking about how the world was about to change. Any previous candidate, I wouldn't be near this worried, but Trump has no clue, no care about anything outside of himself, no sense of self control, the temperament of a five year old and an enormous drive for adulation and ego boosts. He frequently praises the leadership style of history's worst despots, and I have no doubt he would love to rule as a dictator. I never thought I'd remotely fear that possibility, but with control of both Houses, 4 potential S.Ct. nominations and over 100 current judicial vacancies, it is possible.HaulCitgo wrote:For the first time in my life I feel like I would join a war effort, except against my own country. Was very uncomfortable at the bus stop this am. Feeling very hostile towards white folk. Bad day to so much as look at me funny.
Make that 58%. And 63% of white *men* specifically.The Sybian wrote:
I don't blame you. I'm feeling very hostile towards 50% of white people, too.
And, he has unleashed forces of resentment and hostility that cannot easily be re-leashed.The Sybian wrote:HaulCitgo wrote:Any previous candidate, I wouldn't be near this worried, but Trump has no clue, no care about anything outside of himself, no sense of self control, the temperament of a five year old and an enormous drive for adulation and ego boosts. He frequently praises the leadership style of history's worst despots, and I have no doubt he would love to rule as a dictator.
The horrible nature of the particular candidates we had to choose from is not even remotely the fault of "white people" or "men". Not even "white men".Moreta wrote:Make that 58%. And 63% of white *men* specifically.The Sybian wrote:
I don't blame you. I'm feeling very hostile towards 50% of white people, too.
We all have white people to thank for this mess.
Trump's well-publicized nastiness cost him votes, it didn't gain him votes. The vast majority of Americans don't want mass deportation, and support equal pay for equal work, abortion rights, and gay rights. Trump won despite his lack of liberalism on social issues. He won primarily due to these factors:Steve of phpBB wrote:And, he has unleashed forces of resentment and hostility that cannot easily be re-leashed.
Their control will be very short if they try to enact many of the things Trump campaigned on. They simply don't coincide with what most Americans believe in.Sure is great that even though American voters chose Hillary over Trump and Democrats over Republicans for the House (and probably Dems over Republicans for the Senate too), the Republicans somehow have unified control over the country.
Seriously? Trump's degrading of women, the handicapped, Muslims, and John McCain was what won him notoriety. He steamrolled said notoriety to win the GOP nomination, and then banked the country's loathing of all things Clinton, simmering racism and misogyny to win the White House.DC47 wrote:Trump's well-publicized nastiness cost him votes, it didn't gain him votes. The vast majority of Americans don't want mass deportation, and support equal pay for equal work, abortion rights, and gay rights. Trump won despite his lack of liberalism on social issues. He won primarily due to these factors:Steve of phpBB wrote:And, he has unleashed forces of resentment and hostility that cannot easily be re-leashed.
1. The perception that he would curb globalization and bring jobs back to the industrial upper-midwest.
2. The Democrats ran a candidate who was strongly linked to the two biggest promoters of global trade -- Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Her disavowal of the latest treaty was weak stuff compared to this, particularly given the widespread disbelief in her honesty.
3. The Democrats ran a candidate who was strikingly dishonest and corrupt.
Their control will be very short if they try to enact many of the things Trump campaigned on. They simply don't coincide with what most Americans believe in.Sure is great that even though American voters chose Hillary over Trump and Democrats over Republicans for the House (and probably Dems over Republicans for the Senate too), the Republicans somehow have unified control over the country.
At least this is true if the Democrats, for the first time in decades, actually clean their own stables of their failed establishment and become a genuinely populist party. That won't be easy for them given the careers that are at stake among the establishment. They care far more for their careers than any values and certainly more than "beating the Republicans."
Just my opinion, but it appeared that his poll numbers fell when he said things like that. He almost lost the election via tweets and off-script commentary that took attention away from his populist economic message and the multi-faceted corruption of his opponent.EnochRoot wrote:Seriously? Trump's degrading of women, the handicapped, Muslims, and John McCain was what won him notoriety. He steamrolled said notoriety to win the GOP nomination, and then banked the country's loathing of all things Clinton, simmering racism and misogyny to win the White House.
There are some like this. A small minority of Americans in my view.Don't for a second think Trump isn't a thing without him going postal. People are pissed off and they found the person willing to point fingers and blame others for their lack of vision to better themselves in a society that has been screaming Information Age for almost 40 years now.
In my view it's silly to talk about "codes." Nuclear war initiated by America is an extremely remote possibility. JFK was a far greater risk than Trump, due to circumstances (e.g., cumulative power of major power nuclear weaponry).The dude is unhinged. Are they going to give him a pretend set of codes? What the ever living fuck?
I'd like to see the evidence for this. He made his nastiness, at least toward immigrants and minorities and women and non-Christians, the center of his campaign. The voters (at least enough to win enough states for the electoral college) chose not only him, but also representatives from the political party that stands for mass deportation and opposes equal pay for equal work, abortion rights, and gay rights.DC47 wrote:Trump's well-publicized nastiness cost him votes, it didn't gain him votes. The vast majority of Americans don't want mass deportation, and support equal pay for equal work, abortion rights, and gay rights.Steve of phpBB wrote:And, he has unleashed forces of resentment and hostility that cannot easily be re-leashed.
The tidal wave of racists was getting more and more resentful because to them, Obama showed more concern for blacks and minorities than for them. When they were finally given a candidate who made it okay for them to vote racist, they voted racist.DC47 wrote:Where was the tidal wave of racists when he was elected twice, running against credible opponents and without the benefit of a third-party candidate who damaged them (e.g., as Perot did to the benefit of Bill Clinton, who won with only 43% of the vote in '92).
I know you're all about the contrarian takes -- and I don't disagree with your criticisms of Clinton's foreign policy -- but do you really think Trump's foreign policy is any less concerning? I mean, he's being advised by the likes of Giuliani, John Bolton, Michael Flynn and CIA torture architect Jose Rodriguez. I'm much more concerned about a truly disastrous foreign policy decision (like a shooting war with Iran) with those guys running things than I would be with Clinton.DC47 wrote:In my view it's silly to talk about "codes." Nuclear war initiated by America is an extremely remote possibility. JFK was a far greater risk than Trump, due to circumstances (e.g., cumulative power of major power nuclear weaponry).
As to the unleashing the mass destruction that comes from long-lasting major wars, only one of the two candidates had a strong history of destabilizing sovereign governments that caused wars and being intimately involved with war crimes. Not that I would put this past Trump, despite his less interventionist rhetoric. But only one candidate had an opportunity and aggressively seized it. There is little difference regarding international relations between Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney. Only liberal group-think prevents this from being an obvious fact to those who identify as oriented towards world peace rather than global empire building.
I tend to agree that Trump's bigotry helped his campaign, but I think those benefits mostly showed up in the GOP Primary where his xenophobia, Islamophobia and racism was shared by a large swath of the electorate. The story in the general election appears to be more nuanced. Clinton actually outperformed the polls and exceeded expectations in many parts of the country (particularly the west and northeast). But she did terribly -- as compared to Bill Clinton and Obama -- in the Rust Belt. I guess it's possible that Rust Belt voters are more racist than voters in places like Virginia, New Mexico or Colorado, but I doubt that explains it. Instead, I think that Clinton's team blew the election by largely ignoring the upper Midwest and allowing Trump to seize the mantle of populism through his criticism of free trade. Obama's 2012 campaign did a much better job of speaking to these voters, specifically through the brutal ads he ran against Romney's track record at Bain. I highly doubt that Obama would have lost to Trump, either in 2012 or 2016, and in suggesting as much, I think you're giving the Clinton campaign a pass for their strategic errors.Steve of phpBB wrote:The tidal wave of racists was getting more and more resentful because to them, Obama showed more concern for blacks and minorities than for them. When they were finally given a candidate who made it okay for them to vote racist, they voted racist.DC47 wrote:Where was the tidal wave of racists when he was elected twice, running against credible opponents and without the benefit of a third-party candidate who damaged them (e.g., as Perot did to the benefit of Bill Clinton, who won with only 43% of the vote in '92).
If Trump had run in 2012 instead of clean-cut respectful Mormon Mitt Romney, he would have won.
Trump's hiring policy: NO FAT CHICKS!Ryan wrote:Legit surprised that whatshername homophobic city clerk isn't part of this yet
Change we can believe in.DaveInSeattle wrote:Trump's hiring policy: NO FAT CHICKS!Ryan wrote:Legit surprised that whatshername homophobic city clerk isn't part of this yet
Hillary crushed him in the debates. Didn't make a difference.degenerasian wrote:i don;t think Trump could ever beat Obama in an election. Obama is a fierce and brilliant campaigner. Trump would have been crushed in the debates.
This country is more sexist than it is racist. And it's sure as hell racist.DaveInSeattle wrote:Hillary crushed him in the debates. Didn't make a difference.degenerasian wrote:i don;t think Trump could ever beat Obama in an election. Obama is a fierce and brilliant campaigner. Trump would have been crushed in the debates.
I think the only thing that Trump said this campaign that was correct...when he bragged he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any support.
What, you're going to talk about the polls? Come on man. The pollsters are all arguing over who was more right, like a couple of burnouts in the back of the classroom about who got the higher "F".DC47 wrote: Just my opinion, but it appeared that his poll numbers fell when he said things like that. He almost lost the election via tweets and off-script commentary that took attention away from his populist economic message and the multi-faceted corruption of his opponent.
Minorities came out in droves to vote Obama into office. He also had a healthy "it factor" to him. Cult of personality was strong in him. Of course, 8 freaking years of listening to a black man represent us as a country, and then it's, "I'll find my confirmatory biases on the internet, and yep, I'm fucking angry now!"DC47 wrote: There are some like this. A small minority of Americans in my view.
I think polls support this view. So does the relative popularity of Barack Obama. Where was the tidal wave of racists when he was elected twice, running against credible opponents and without the benefit of a third-party candidate who damaged them (e.g., as Perot did to the benefit of Bill Clinton, who won with only 43% of the vote in '92).
It is silly to talk about codes. I was being facetious. He'll be removed from office if it looked like that were a remote possibility. I'm not kidding: they'll order a medical exam and he'll get diagnosed unfit to serve if it ever went to shit like that.DC47 wrote: In my view it's silly to talk about "codes." Nuclear war initiated by America is an extremely remote possibility. JFK was a far greater risk than Trump, due to circumstances (e.g., cumulative power of major power nuclear weaponry).
As to the unleashing the mass destruction that comes from long-lasting major wars, only one of the two candidates had a strong history of destabilizing sovereign governments that caused wars and being intimately involved with war crimes. Not that I would put this past Trump, despite his less interventionist rhetoric. But only one candidate had an opportunity and aggressively seized it. There is little difference regarding international relations between Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney. Only liberal group-think prevents this from being an obvious fact to those who identify as oriented towards world peace rather than global empire building.
