Let’s get down to brass tacks ...

[Juror#8]

8 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Mostly false.

 

It was really easy to not like Hillary for President and Trump actually had policy positions on fiscal responsibility, national security, illegal immigration and the economy that were easy to support.  I don't think people knew very well where Hillary stood on these things and the positions she did express were garbage.  That and she was running as a continuation of Obama, not good. 

 

A really polished Republican (any gender or race) that would have opposed Hillary and ran on similar to Trump policies only better articulated would have beat Hillary by an even wider margin. 

 

Do you think that there is a demographic block of voting significance in this country that feels that there is has been cultural shift happening over the last twenty years away from a traditional demography to something that’s more sympathetic to a minority collective (blacks, women, Hispanic, gay, Asian, etc)?

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

" Trump understands the perceived suffering and devolution that is happening in the white male community.  "

 

This is attempting to have a reasonable discussion?

 

This is dreck. Like gatorman-level dreck unworthy of anything BUT mockery of the person who posted it.

 

 

Jesus.  Buck up, snowflake, and read what comes after that.

[Juror#8]

2 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

" Trump understands the perceived suffering and devolution that is happening in the white male community.  "

 

This is attempting to have a reasonable discussion?

 

This is dreck. Like gatorman-level dreck unworthy of anything BUT mockery of the person who posted it.

 

 

That was literally the conversation that I was having with a local politician and I thought it was interesting. 

 

It was also also the topic of an editorial published by in the Washington Times recently. 

 

Its worthy of discussion and very purposely mentioned as not a thesis. Some of the smarter political people I know post here and I’m interested in their thoughts.

 

If you don’t like it or it intimidates you, so noted. Please move on. 

[Tiberius]

6 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

" Trump understands the perceived suffering and devolution that is happening in the white male community.  "

 

This is attempting to have a reasonable discussion?

 

This is dreck. Like gatorman-level dreck unworthy of anything BUT mockery of the person who posted it.

 

He is WAY nicer than I am. You are just pissed because he has basically described you in the thesis of the thread, an angry white idiot with no clue about anything except for your hate. 

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

 

 

Grown-ups are talking.  Go be retarded somewhere else.

[Juror#8]

25 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

I'd get rowdy too, if I had to listen to that asshat Zack de la Rocha  sing. His voice grates on my nerves, and manages ruin the awesomeness of Tom Morello playing his guitar.

 

 

 

As for your OP, it's mostly bullSchiff. If it makes the left feel better at night that Trump winning was some kind of racist/misogynistic message, great. That's not even close to the truth, though. Hillary represented the 'swamp'; the same 'swamp' that people were sick of. When 'Hope & Change' turned out to be 'more of the same', a lot of people took notice.

 

It was also notable that she was even more unlikable than Trump (which is saying a lot.) People had decades of watching her positions shifting with the wind, and she could not escape the elitist, disingenuous, corrupt image that she cultivated by her words and deeds. She does not come across as charming, like Bubba or Obama. It really didn't help that she personally insulted a large percentage of the population as well. Couple all this with the fact that she took several states for granted and ignored them, and you have a recipe for the 'most qualified candidate ever' getting her ass handed to her by a chia pet.

 

Not sure it’s racist. What I’m interested in, though, is there a burgeoning type of identity politics and what impact could it have in 2020. 

 

The Dems have traditionally been the party of whistle blowing identity politics and leaning on traditional notions and affiliations between certain racial groups and their historical allegiances to the Democratic Party that it was interesting to hear someone say that there was an element of that from the other side in 2016.

 

I attributed Trump’s win to socio-economic pragmatism and a distancing from run-of-the-mill political paradigms and not to anything from an identity politics standpoint. Just wanted to know if that was a miss on my part and if anyone sees an philosophical shift that Republicans can advantage from. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Jesus.  Buck up, snowflake, and read what comes after that.

 

OK, I'll answer his asinine question:

 

The theories posited in his three points are patently ridiculous, and based on bogus racial/ethnic ideas instead of legitimate economic beefs.

 

Anyone that knows ANYTHING knows that trump won the blue-collar working class and that's what won him the election.

 

[Juror#8]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

Mostly false.

 

I think it was a matter of "identity politics," but too much focus is put on racial identity and not enough on socio-economic identity.  Fundamentally, this wasn't "white male anger," but a conflict between metropolitan and rural, or northeast and west coast liberalism vs. rural conservatism (note the small "l" and "c".)  I mean, you can't dismiss wide swathes of the country as "deplorables," pointedly ignore them while you campaign to your urban base, and expect them to believe you care at all about their interests.

 

To a large number of people, she was just "other people's candidate" that they were being told to choose.  Trump, though an !@#$, was at least a choice.

 

So do you feel that it was a turnout of the silent majority that basically saw this election as a choice between west/east coast liberalism and what? You mention rural conservatism but it’s hard for me to square that with Trump’s ethos. He strikes me as a lot of things but not “rural conservatism.” 

 

If you see that as the lines he was he was able to draw - coastal liberalism vs. rural conservatism, how did he fit himself into the latter?

 

Or was the vote for Trump in essence simply a vote against Hillary Clinton? 

Edited April 30, 2018 by Juror#8

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

Or was the vote for Trump in essence simply a vote against Hillary Clinton? 

 

This was the primary driver. Not identity politics. Sure, that fits the bill for a small percentage of people who pulled the lever for Trump but not the majority. 

 

(I say this as a west-coaster who wrote in for Gabbard because I couldn't vote for either)

[Juror#8]

3 hours ago, unbillievable said:

YOu forgot the #1 reason.

 

People everywhere hating SJW's. That includes other SJW's.

 

The Democrats really screwed themselves by getting on that train.

 

 

 

The “let queers with dicks and mascara use the women bathrooom crowd”? Or the ‘black lives matter’ why-are-you-!@#$ers-interrupting-the Martin O Malley-rally-that-I’m-enjoying, social justice folks? 

25 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

Whatever you say, jew-hater.

 

 

Great great great grandson of a cotton picker who came here on a boat and hopefully was getting some ‘yessum boss lady’ roleplay kitty on the side (and as such I’m still waiting on my 40 acres and a mule and handouts from the guv’mint) ... yes. 

 

Hater of anyone, nah. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

7 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

Great great great grandson of a cotton picker who came here on a boat and hopefully was getting some ‘yessum boss lady’ roleplay kitty on the side (and as such I’m still waiting on my 40 acres and a mule and handouts from the guv’mint) ... yes. 

 

Hater of anyone, nah. 

 

I see, well.

 

I think your question above with regard to trannies and BLM people holds SOME merit. Obama staked out some positions that were WELL outside the American cultural mainstream and Hillary's adherence to those positions hurt her in many precints.

 

That's a legitimate question to ask. But to base it on race? not so much.

 

[DC Tom]

10 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

 

So do you feel that it was a turnout of the silent majority that basically saw this election as a choice between west/east coast liberalism and what? You mention rural conservatism but it’s hard for me to square that with Trump’s ethos. He strikes me as a lot of things but not “rural conservatism.” 

 

If you see that as the lines he was he was able to draw - coastal liberalism vs. rural conservatism, how did he fit himself into the latter?

 

Or was the vote for Trump in essence simply a vote against Hillary Clinton? 

 

In essence, a vote against Hillary.  Trump has never been a conservative.

 

He did, however, market himself as a populist (and again, when has that ever been a conservative platform?)  Right or wrong, that plays well against a perceived urban liberal elitism - perceived doubly as strongly when the Democratic party has gone out of its way to confirm its elitism by swinging its primaries against another populist using "superdelegates."

 

And the very term "silent majority" is illustrative of the problem: are they silent, or are they simply ignored, and not represented by any source considered national or nationally representative?  This, of course, dovetails nicely into a discussion of "media bias," which is far less of the "great left-wing conspiracy" sort than it is the "national reporters need to get out of their northeast/west coast bubble and visit that mythical land of 'flyover country' they don't think really exists."

20 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

 

The “let queers with dicks and mascara use the women bathrooom crowd”? Or the ‘black lives matter’ why-are-you-!@#$ers-interrupting-the Martin O Malley-rally-that-I’m-enjoying, social justice folks? 

 

The "I'm right, and you're not entitled to an opinion because it hurts my feelings when you disagree with me, so I'm right" folks.  

[Commsvet11]

4 hours ago, Juror#8 said:

 

1. Straight white male voters were attracted to Trump out of fear that their social significance keeps dwindling.

 

2. The same voters felt that Trump was their best hope to stop other segments/demographics (blacks, women, gay, everyone else) in society from gradually displacing them. 

 

3. Trump understands the perceived suffering and devolution that is happening in the white male community. 

 

I’m not positing anything. There is no thesis here to discern. This is based on a conversation that I recently had with a republican state legislator and an article that I recently read. 

 

Just want to know if you think that of the three points listed above, the preponderance is mostly true or mostly false. 

 

*This is a question about identity politics and not an appraisal of his current economic record. 

 

Fear of social significance dwindling is not a new issue, for example White Irish immigrants were discriminated against as well as Italians, and even poles, they lived in their ghettos, and assimilated as time went on. The same thing will happen again, if anything the worry is those who won’t assimilate.

 

What is happening here is an idea old as time, is repackaged and sold to the gullible, to paint trump voters in a bad light. It doesn’t matter the demographic, people will still resist change at first, but eventually assimilation takes hold.

 

[Juror#8]

5 minutes ago, Commsvet11 said:

 

Fear of social significance dwindling is not a new issue, for example White Irish immigrants were discriminated against as well as Italians, and even poles, they lived in their ghettos, and assimilated as time went on. The same thing will happen again, if anything the worry is those who won’t assimilate.

 

What is happening here is an idea old as time, is repackaged and sold to the gullible, to paint trump voters in a bad light. It doesn’t matter the demographic, people will still resist change at first, but eventually assimilation takes hold.

 

 

If there was an effort by a demographic to coalesce around a candidate, I’m not sure that that would be any worse an idea than it would if you changed your money manager based on the direction you’d like to take your portfolio if you feel that that person has your best financial interest in mind. 

 

I guess for that parallel to be exact, the question comes down to are there political issues that advantage people largely along racial lines? 

 

That’s an interesting question that I think can be argued either way. 

 

But if there are certain interests that are endemic to a certain demography, why wouldn’t I want that someone to represent me? 

 

So I guess there is a related question here and that

is: “is identity politics a bad thing?”

38 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

In essence, a vote against Hillary.  Trump has never been a conservative.

 

He did, however, market himself as a populist (and again, when has that ever been a conservative platform?)  Right or wrong, that plays well against a perceived urban liberal elitism - perceived doubly as strongly when the Democratic party has gone out of its way to confirm its elitism by swinging its primaries against another populist using "superdelegates."

 

And the very term "silent majority" is illustrative of the problem: are they silent, or are they simply ignored, and not represented by any source considered national or nationally representative?  This, of course, dovetails nicely into a discussion of "media bias," which is far less of the "great left-wing conspiracy" sort than it is the "national reporters need to get out of their northeast/west coast bubble and visit that mythical land of 'flyover country' they don't think really exists."

 

The "I'm right, and you're not entitled to an opinion because it hurts my feelings when you disagree with me, so I'm right" folks.  

 

I think you summed it up nicely. I’m serious when I say that you should send this to a dem candidate with a note that says “here’s your platform; put a ground game around this and thank me later.” 

 

I’ve essentially been saying something similar for years. The dems have become an unabashedly coastal party. And that works when there are issues to galvanize behind or attractive enough candidates. I truly believe coastal penetration moves inward more than middle-American penetration extends outward.

 

They never happen together. It’s one or the other. And the bell weather for which it will be is typically evident during the primary season. 

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

 

 

I guess for that parallel to be exact, the question comes down to are there political issues that advantage people largely along racial lines? 

 

But the thing is, and I think its part of your basic question, is that there really were no "issues" that really helps any single racial group, though its being promoted that way. The stupid wall appeals to people along those lines but does nothing to really help. It's just Trump following his con-job salesmanship skills, just like in Trump University, to pull a fast one on the country. It's all just a con job. Ending Obamacare sure sounded to the right like they were sticking it to the black president, until many (or just enough) realized their local hospitals would be affected, too. And the repeal of it was only a way to cut taxes for the wealthy. Scam. 

[Juror#8]

1 hour ago, joesixpack said:

 

I see, well.

 

I think your question above with regard to trannies and BLM people holds SOME merit. Obama staked out some positions that were WELL outside the American cultural mainstream and Hillary's adherence to those positions hurt her in many precints.

 

That's a legitimate question to ask. But to base it on race? not so much.

 

 

Do you think there are political questions that uniquely affect one race over another? And if so, does that make them fair game in national

politics?

[Commsvet11]

8 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

 

If there was an effort by a demographic to coalesce around a candidate, I’m not sure that that would be any worse an idea than it would if you changed your money manager based on the direction you’d like to take your portfolio if you feel that that person has your best financial interest in mind. 

 

I guess for that parallel to be exact, the question comes down to are there political issues that advantage people largely along racial lines? 

 

That’s an interesting question that I think can be argued either way. 

 

But if there are certain interests that are endemic to a certain demography, why wouldn’t I want that someone to represent me? 

 

So I guess there is a related question here and that

is: “is identity politics a bad thing?”

I don’t think a republic works without identity politics. We elect representatives to speak for us, so of course these elected representatives have the constitutes best interests in mind. Of course it is never perfect, but if a candidate comes close enough then that candidate will win. 

Trump has an interesting case, you have Trump supporters and Trump voters, the latter voting the lesser of two evils, it is just my opinion but that is how Trump won.

[Juror#8]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

But the thing is, and I think its part of your basic question, is that there really were no "issues" that really helps any single racial group, though its being promoted that way. The stupid wall appeals to people along those lines but does nothing to really help. It's just Trump following his con-job salesmanship skills, just like in Trump University, to pull a fast one on the country. It's all just a con job. Ending Obamacare sure sounded to the right like they were sticking it to the black president, until many (or just enough) realized their local hospitals would be affected, too. And the repeal of it was only a way to cut taxes for the wealthy. Scam. 

 

Do you think that there are no national political issues that advantage or disadvantage one racial group over (or under perhaps) another? 

 

Not a a trick question. I’m asking to know. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

 

Do you think there are political questions that uniquely affect one race over another? And if so, does that make them fair game in national

politics?

 

I see things in economic terms over racial terms.

 

Race is used as a divider, especially among the poor. Poor whites versus poor blacks versus poor hispanics. Quite frankly, the issues that affect poor whites are similar to poor blacks. Family disintegration, drugs, violence and most importantly globalization that benefits business owners over employees.

And yet you never hear about those common interests, only about "divisions." Why is that?

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by joesixpack

[Tiberius]

Just now, Juror#8 said:

 

Do you think that there are no national political issues that advantage or disadvantage one racial group over (or under perhaps) another? 

 

Not a a trick question. I’m asking to know. 

Aside from the enforcement of civil rights legislation (which really isn't in dispute) and  DREAMER status (which isn't all hispanics) I would say not really. Most issues affect everyone, like health care, taxes, and national security. The divisive issues being used to divided us are mostly emotional and made to order to have people take sides in place of serious issues that most people can agree on.