Alright, who else here is voting for THE DONALD?

[Carrie Mathison]

 

 

I can't imagine someone who isn't racist voting for Trump. How could a non-racist justify that, even in their own mind?

Did you read even a single post of mine in this thread?

 

Yes, I have. But this thread is 11 pages long and I don't recall every single word you said.

 

Well, you could try the first two posts, on page 1. You know, the whole reason I created this thread.

 

Look, I'm not gonna repeat what pong said, since he's already argued the point and you don't seem to get it. If you can't understand why "things like abortion/health rights,

racism and the basic nature of a person are infinitely more important to me than economic policy" is NOT how everyone views the world, and that it's possible to disagree with your statement without being a racist, then we're just not going to get anywhere.

 

Not only that, but the view you take is, quite honestly, responsible for Trump. I'm serious when I say this- you created Trump. You've done it in the past, you will continue to do it in the future... in fact, you're doing it right now. And you don't even realize you're doing it.

 

Trump may not win the election, heck, he may not even win the GOP nomination. But people like you will lead to another Trump at some point. It is inevitable, unless you come to terms with this. I'm not even trying to be cheeky here, honest. I suggest you take a hard, long look at what pong is saying, really think it over, resist the urge to angrily start typing, and read it again. And maybe a third time. Really think about it for a moment.

 

Once you've done that, I'd be willing to discuss.

[The Kurgan]

'The same way a pro-life Catholic who votes for a pro-choice Democrat because they can't stomach Republican economic policy handles it."

Yeah, see, that makes no sense to me, either. Is it just that almost everybody but me has zero convictions? Things like abortion/health rights,

racism and the basic nature of a person are infinitely more important to me than economic policy. I simply don't understand how a person could

completely abandon their most closely-held, basic tenets, unless they are NOT and they're just mere whims.

I don't think anybody ever really does abandon their most closely held, basic tenets. It's just a question of what those tenets are for each individual voter and what issues are a priority to them. Race relations are obviously of great importance to you and a matter that you can't really compromise on. So you vote for the candidate closest your liberal views on social issues.

 

Contrast that with someone like myself. Social issues are not so significant to me, and I tend to be at odds with both ends of the political spectrum, I think largely for this reason. I don't get along with people with strong feelings either way on abortion or race because they come across to me as being overly preoccupied with people's personal matters. Economic matters, on the other hand, matter a great deal to me. The degree of inequality of wealth and access to power America tolerates, while simultaneously calling itself a democracy, simply astounds me. It sure isn't something that either Christian evangelists on the right OR champagne socialist theoreticians on the left have any business being a part of. Yet they are. And I can't help but wonder just how much of the despite that the megachurch pastor and the tenured social science professor alike have for one another doesn't ultimately come down to a projection of guilt?

 

Point is, values are relative. A non racist could easily vote for Trump if race relations were a minor issue for them, which they no doubt would more likely be if where they lived didn't have a significant population of ethnic minorities. Compound that with some of Trump's other points resonating with them - rust belt industrial decline, losing jobs to China or Mexico, or the like, and it's quite easy to see.

[Carrie Mathison]

Absolutely. How the hell do you pivot away from that in the general election? I mean, you know he is going to do his best to try, but is there any successful precedent in modern, Western democratic elections?

Are you asking when a pivot has been successful, or when Trump-style rhetoric has been successful?

 

Because the latter isn't that bizarre. Happens pretty regularly; in Europe, right-wing populism is at its highest level of support since WW2. See, e.g., UKIP, the National Front, Swedish Democrats, Alternative for Deutschland, Austria Freedom Party, Golden Dawn, Danish People's Party, and I could go on.

 

It's arguably the fastest growing movement in Europe. Here in Switzerland, the Swiss People's Party is actually the largest party right now.

[Pong Messiah]

Are you asking when a pivot has been successful, or when Trump-style rhetoric has been successful?

Pivoting away from it. It seems like right wing populism has always been just beneath the surface in Europe, then everybody (especially progressives in the U.S.) acts all shocked -- just shocked -- and horrified when a right-wing politician or party is successful. "How could this possibly happen!!?!1" But there it is.

 

But in the U.S., given how the larger population centers reflexively vote, I have my doubts that Trump-style right wing populism could succeed on a national scale. So I'm going forward on the assumption -- maybe wrong -- that Trump would need to majorly soften his rhetoric on the very positions that made him popular in primary voting after getting the nomination. Just wondering if anybody has ever done that and successfully pulled that off? I can't think of any examples.

[Carrie Mathison]

OK, I gotcha.

I guess I don't see him needing to pivot that much, so I'm not taken aback by it. I think it'd be one thing if he was actively and explicitly courting a certain type of voter (such as, e.g., announcing support for certain groups); that would require one hell of a pivot, and you're probably right that we haven't seen one in the modern era. But Trump hasn't done that so all he has to do is disavow and most middle-of-the-road folks are just not gonna care. On the contrary, the more he's pressed on it, the more likely people are gonna think he's being ganged up on/there's a media hit-job on.

 

Now of course, that isn't to say there isn't some dog-whistling going on.. but pretty much every candidate since Reagan (or even earlier) has done that, to varying degrees.

[Pong Messiah]

Very true. Justus still blubbers occasionally about Reagan's "states' rights" dog-whistling at Neshoba County Fair nearly 36 years ago -- and we know how poorly that turned out (LOL). Maybe normal people don't care as much about that stuff as much as MG and the media (and me) think?

[Carrie Mathison]

We'll see. We haven't seen anything to the extent of Trump either. At some point, everyday people will care, it's just a matter of how much is ultimately too much, and I don't think anyone has the answer to that.

[Ms. Spam]

Supah Tuesday Jr!

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

 

 

Did you read even a single post of mine in this thread?

Well, to be fair, you are a documented racist, aren't you?

 

But seriously, Trump seems OK with picking up the racist vote. I mean even you said he might as well, since no one else is grabbing it, right?

 

Thing is, even if Trump himself isn't racist, if he is going to court the racist vote, by default he becomes the one representing them. If he wants their vote, he has to accept the criticism that goes along with picking that vote up. It's guilt by association.

 

I don't disagree that Trump seems to be, at least implicitly, OK with picking up the racist vote.

 

But that's not what MG was arguing. MG was arguing that it's impossible for a non-racist to support Trump, which is incomprehensibly silly.

 

You make a valid point. However, so does MG, at least partially. It may not be the way MG put it, or even what she meant necessarily, but I think it is fair to at least question the motives of someone who goes to a Trump rally, waving an American flag in the face of counter protestors, and rabidly shouting how Muslims need to be barred from entering the US, and Latinos need to be sent home. You can't tell me that person isn't prejudiced somehow. And you know, it seems that is where much of Trump's support is coming from.

[monkeygirl]

Once you've done that, I'd be willing to discuss.

I'm not asking you to. Also, I did not create Trump, his parents did.

Your first 2 posts on this say nothing about racism. I've read them 3 times now.

 

"If you can't understand why "things like abortion/health rights,

racism and the basic nature of a person are infinitely more important

to me than economic policy" is NOT how everyone views the world, and that

it's possible to disagree with your statement without being a racist,

then we're just not going to get anywhere."

 

I must be saying this wrong because I'm not getting my point across. You

and Pong are addressing it wrong for what I'm trying to say.

But it's just not that important to me that anyone understand me on this,

especially internet-only people in my life. so, I"ll just say "whatever"

and get back to work. People will vote for whomever they wish and the world

will go on.

[monkeygirl]

"I don't think anybody ever really does abandon their most closely held, basic tenets.

It's just a question of what those tenets are for each individual voter and what issues are a priority to them."

 

Yes, this, I GET. Let me try one more approach: if a person labels herself as NOT RACIST, it's a sure bet that

this is a priority to her, no?

[Pong Messiah]

I must be saying this wrong because I'm not getting my point across. You

and Pong are addressing it wrong for what I'm trying to say.

But it's just not that important to me that anyone understand me on this,

especially internet-only people in my life. so, I"ll just say "whatever"

and get back to work. People will vote for whomever they wish and the world

will go on.

I've already been too hard on MG here, so I'll just let CM translate "whatever."

 

 

Yes, this, I GET. Let me try one more approach: if a person labels herself as NOT RACIST, it's a sure bet that

this is a priority to her, no?

Not necessarily.

 

If you are the type of person who makes a point of labeling yourself as "NOT RACIST," you are probably very sensitive about racial issues, being accused of racism, or a racist.

 

And there are people who don't label themselves at all who aren't racist but at the same time not overly concerned about and sensitive about those issues.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

 

 

If you are the type of person who makes a point of labeling yourself as "NOT RACIST," you are probably very sensitive about racial issues, being accused of racism, or a racist.

 

And there are people who don't label themselves at all who aren't racist but at the same time not overly concerned about and sensitive about those issues.

Well, aside from the fact there are people who accuse others of being racist for no other reason than to shout them down or as a political tactic, I think oftentimes someone who has to make a constant point of calling themselves "not racist" is like those who have to make a point of saying "I have a {fill in the blank} friend," to demonstrate their "non-prejudice," when they really are on some level.

[monkeygirl]

 

I must be saying this wrong because I'm not getting my point across. You

and Pong are addressing it wrong for what I'm trying to say.

But it's just not that important to me that anyone understand me on this,

especially internet-only people in my life. so, I"ll just say "whatever"

and get back to work. People will vote for whomever they wish and the world

will go on.

I've already been too hard on MG here, so I'll just let CM translate "whatever."

 

 

Yes, this, I GET. Let me try one more approach: if a person labels herself as NOT RACIST, it's a sure bet that

this is a priority to her, no?

Not necessarily.

 

If you are the type of person who makes a point of labeling yourself as "NOT RACIST," you are probably very sensitive about racial issues, being accused of racism, or a racist.

 

And there are people who don't label themselves at all who aren't racist but at the same time not overly concerned about and sensitive about those issues.

 

well-okay. I suppose that's true.

 

 

 

If you are the type of person who makes a point of labeling yourself as "NOT RACIST," you are probably very sensitive about racial issues, being accused of racism, or a racist.

 

And there are people who don't label themselves at all who aren't racist but at the same time not overly concerned about and sensitive about those issues.

Well, aside from the fact there are people who accuse others of being racist for no other reason than to shout them down or as a political tactic, I think oftentimes someone who has to make a constant point of calling themselves "not racist" is like those who have to make a point of saying "I have a {fill in the blank} friend," to demonstrate their "non-prejudice," when they really are on some level.

 

Disagree. But I do have white guilt. I think that's the only reason I'd label myself this way.

[monkeygirl]

If I'd never seen him speak, I'd assume he was very low-functioning Aspergers from just this interview. Good LORD, the man can't string an intelligent sentence together!

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/21/a-transcript-of-donald-trumps-meeting-with-the-washington-post-editorial-board/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b

[Pong Messiah]

Not a very kind way for you to talk about your next ruler.

 

Logged.

 

[monkeygirl]

PFFT.

 

QUit showing your dick to random wimmn

[Carrie Mathison]

Kasich out yesterday. And with that, Trump's officially the only candidate still running.

 

It's over folks.

 

Trump is the nominee. DEAL WITH IT.

[Ms. Spam]

New party!

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

Kasich out yesterday. And with that, Trump's officially the only candidate still running.

 

It's over folks.

 

Trump is the nominee. DEAL WITH IT.

Correction. Presumptive nominee. But it is ironic Kasich hung in there longer than Ted Cruz.

[Ms. Spam]

I really liked Kasich except when he was being an wet useless noodle. I wanted more ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK!

[Pong Messiah]

He's been presumptive nominee for like 15 minutes and Trump has already signaled a lurch to the left on minimum wage and taxes. What amazes me is hardly anybody seems to care or notice.

 

Sean Hannity was just fighting some of Trump's critics saying "Come on haters, name one position he's not conservative on." Wonder how that's gonna work out for him?

[Carrie Mathison]

He's been presumptive nominee for like 15 minutes and Trump has already signaled a lurch to the left on minimum wage and taxes. What amazes me is hardly anybody seems to care or notice.

Why does that amaze you?

 

A large faction of the GOP (if not a majority) never really cared about economic conservatism.

 

Just like most Dems don't particularly care about economic issues either.

[Darth Krawlie]

I only care about economic issues if they make life more affordable. ****ing expensive as shit out here. I'm ready to leave but family. Ugh.

[Pong Messiah]

Why does that amaze you?

It amazes me because politicians get hammered for modifying their positions as a means of showing how insincere-if-not-downright-dishonest they are. Especially during campaign season. It's how you tell voters "Don't trust this lying liar!" and brand said politician as a weasel.

Truthfully, I don't know how effective that tactic actually is, but shifts in one's campaign platform are usually at least radio pundit fodder for a few days. But while I'm sure Mark Levin ranted about it (assuming he didn't do us all a favor and hang himself after Cruz's campaign was suspended), it's been pretty darn quiet.

Maybe it's because we all expected a major shift? Maybe the lefties in the media don't want to advertise a position that makes him more palatable to working poor? Maybe the righties don't want to admit they were duped or that they don't really care about those issues? Idk, but it's pretty unique. I mean, gosh... one of the Republicans in my state's gubernatorial contest is regularly being attacked on TV right now just for working with/for Democrats earlier in his career without even specifying the politician's minor shifts in policy -- and if he'd actually had any major shifts (e.g. suddenly going from strongly pro to anti-sanctuary city), it'd be a bloodbath.

Trump, on the other hand, can go from, say, pro-choice with limitations on late-term abortion (2000) to "punish women" (2016) to walking it back a few hours later, and the only ones still jabbering about it are people who already hate him and would never vote for him anyway. You know, I will take this even further: when punishgate happened, I think it was on CNN, but there was a woman who didn't particularly like him who actually made excuses for the gaffe, explaining how he was still working through the issue yada yada but he'd get there. Since when do political antagonists give the benefit of the doubt on anything during an election year? It's just fascinating to me.