|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
fsif posted:People focus on racism every election, but this one was notable because you had David Duke arise from his rathole to stan for Trump. You had a very visible rise in online white supremacy groups. You had a candidate that started his presidential bid by calling Mexicans rapists. This bit is bullshit. What Trump said was stupid, but entirely in line with the sort of thing Rule of Law types believe - that if you're willing to break one law, you're willing to break any law. quote:he refused to disavow the KKK, He refused to disavow the KKK... Until he disavowed the KKK. Here Trump was absolutely trying to have his cake and eat it too, but when you make blanket statements that are verifiably false, you're just making it easy for your political opponents to dismiss everything you say - even the stuff that's obviously true like quote:You had a candidate call for the banning of Muslims.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:33 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Yes, some people who voted for Obama were able to ignore racist rhetoric to vote for Trump because they are white. Therefore, racism isn't a factor. Good thing I never said that. Racism exists, racism is a factor, racism is not the only factor. Same with sexism. If a campaign/the candidate does poo poo right, it can be overcome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:This bit is bullshit. What Trump said was stupid, but entirely in line with the sort of thing Rule of Law types believe - that if you're willing to break one law, you're willing to break any law. No he called Mexican rapists, that's not bullshit. He didn't say the words "all mexicans are rapists" but he insinuated that many immigrants are rapists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
He said explicitly that Mexico was sending their worst offenders to America, and exploiting Americans in doing so. This means he clearly said illegal immigration is a purposeful tool for transplanting terrible criminals to America, regardless of how many other people come for benign reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:This bit is bullshit. What Trump said was stupid, but entirely in line with the sort of thing Rule of Law types believe - that if you're willing to break one law, you're willing to break any law. Any potential “political opponent” that would dismiss those statements on such pedantic grounds isn't an honest actor in the first place. Trump very clearly implied Mexican Americans are more likely to be rapists, despite couching it with a ridiculous, tepid “some, I assume, are good people.” He went through a protracted period where he would not disavow the KKK before finally, after immense pressure, he said "fine I disavow, whatever." This is dumb. (And if we're really doing this absurd literal read, my original statement re: his refusal is factually correct anyway. He was given the opportunity to disavow the KKK to Jake Tapper and he refused.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:It's not a solvable problem, but the US is a really loving racist place and it's a huge deal. Eh, I don't think the US is any more racist than any other Western (or non-Western for that matter) country. If anything it's probably less racist than many European countries. I mean, this is more a statement of how incredibly racist the rest of the world is than a statement about the US being less racist, but I think it's generally wrong to think the US is uniquely racist. Also, I think a big reason people don't keep focusing on this point is that there's jack poo poo we can actually do about it. For the people who have economic concerns, you can change your strategy as a political party to appeal to them, but you can't magically stop racists from being racist and voting. Like, do you think there should be some poll test quizzing people on whether they're racist? It's basically a dead-end as far as actually changing things for the better goes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Eh, I don't think the US is any more racist than any other Western (or non-Western for that matter) country. If anything it's probably less racist than many European countries. How do you stop people who have economic concerns because they are racist? Like the poor voted for Hillary the average Trump voter was a well off middle class person who thought the economy was collapsing because of Mexican Immigrants and Black people on welfare neither of which is true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
fsif posted:Race was all over this election. People might want to talk about it for a reason other than deflecting blame from their yaaas queen. NewForumSoftware posted:Sure it is. steinrokkan posted:For the second part - people are the product of their environment. Relying on people from areas with prevalent racist discourse to change themselves without an external actor effecting change is like expecting an inert liquid to escape its vessel. The solution is not to "end racism", which is a deliberately dumb way to talk about the issue, it is to replace the factors that attract people to racial bigotry with superior substitutes that fulfill the same social functions as the current parochialism, and / or to provide enough material incentives to outweigh the cost for an individual of breaking away from conformism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
twodot posted:Can you just say the reason out loud? I'm honestly not seeing it. Like I understand that a Republican candidate said a bunch of racist things, attracted racist voters, and proceeded to institute racist policies, but this isn't in any way unusual, or a departure from their broad strategy as a modern party. Say what out loud? Why would someone want to talk about racism? Because it's one of society's great scourges and we can't fight it if we can't identify it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I honestly don't understand the point of your posts. Have fun shouting at goons, I guess. My point is to disagree with things I disagree with by writing my disagreements in text form. It's called a forum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Eh, I don't think the US is any more racist than any other Western (or non-Western for that matter) country. If anything it's probably less racist than many European countries. I mean, this is more a statement of how incredibly racist the rest of the world is than a statement about the US being less racist, but I think it's generally wrong to think the US is uniquely racist. I don't think it's the only racist place, or even the worst. quote:Also, I think a big reason people don't keep focusing on this point is that there's jack poo poo we can actually do about it. For the people who have economic concerns, you can change your strategy as a political party to appeal to them, but you can't magically stop racists from being racist and voting. Like, do you think there should be some poll test quizzing people on whether they're racist? It's basically a dead-end as far as actually changing things for the better goes. People don't like talking about race because it's a thorny issue but I'd advocate the position that NOT talking about it has the potential to make it worse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Barbe Rouge posted:Good thing I never said that. Good thing I never said racism is the only factor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
twodot posted:How is "replace the factors that attract people to racial bigotry " different from "end racism"? Like I agree replacing the factors that attract people to racial bigotry is a great goal, but we don't need to repeatedly observe racist voters voting in support of racist policies to think it's a great goal. It would still be good even if Republicans didn't attract racists. If you want to call it that way, why not, but "end racism" is imho a pretty loaded phrase that implicitly outs its supporter as either terminally naive or not really caring about the full complexities of what racism is. We can't solve racism among current generations, but we can work to remove symptoms, and in doing so weaken the feedback mechanisms that would turn the coming generation into racists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:My point is to disagree with things I disagree with by writing my disagreements in text form. Here's a pro tip, try describing the position you disagree with and see if anyone actually holds it because you're just talking past people at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Here's a pro tip, try describing the position you disagree with and see if anyone actually holds it because you're just talking past people at this point. Pro-tip: I did this and yet people are having a strawman fest anyway because this thread eats itself
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Pro-tip: I did this and yet people are having a strawman fest anyway because this thread eats itself You actually didn't but don't let reality get in the way  Jaxyon posted:Hillary's problem wasn't "caring about economically disadvantaged white people". It's that Trump appealed to racism and rode a wave of it. Basically my issue with this idea is that it's not like Trump won a bunch of votes the GOP never has. He rode the same wave of racism the GOP has been riding for the past 60 years. Somehow Democrats have won in the past despite this racism. So I mean, do you think racism is actually getting worse in 2017 than it was in 2008 when Obama won? Why would Hillary get less votes than Obama if racism was such an issue? Do you think John McCain would have won in 2008 if he called Mexican rapists? It's just hard to follow the logic here. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Jun 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
I can't believe people are still desperately defending hillary. She's a sad excuse of a person who throws her allies under the bus to try to defend herself. Like how she's now blaming the DNC for her not being able to run a campaign: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ania-wisconsin/ She even has the temerity to suggest Obama had an easier path to the presidency than herself! https://twitter.com/theintercept/status/870707615810035712 Let's just face facts. Hillary is scum, and she was so obviously scummy that she couldn't turn out the base. And now she's becoming even scummier to try to cling to politics and power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Good thing I never said racism is the only factor. No, you just misrepresented the position of people who said that racism/sexism aren't the most important factors in an election.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
fsif posted:Say what out loud? Why would someone want to talk about racism? Because it's one of society's great scourges and we can't fight it if we can't identify it. steinrokkan posted:If you want to call it that way, why not, but "end racism" is imho a pretty loaded phrase that implicitly outs its supporter as either terminally naive or not really caring about the full complexities of what racism is. We can't solve racism among current generations, but we can work to remove symptoms, and in doing so weaken the feedback mechanisms that would turn the coming generation into racists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
twodot posted:Have we not already identified it? For the past like 50 years Republicans have been deliberately courting racist people, by say racist things and supporting racist policies. I feel like further identification can only be a distraction at this point. I'm losing you here. We should stop talking about issues once they are identified? This logic can extend to literally any issue. Income inequality, climate change, and access to healthcare have been identified as issues and Republicans have run against fixing them to varying degrees the past several election cycles. And a distraction from what? More important issues?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
How do you envision fighting something without knowing why or how it occurs. It is definitely helpful to know e.g. if a large portion of the electorate votes for racist politicians simply out of a need to conform with the people who surround them, and what functions of their social lives are addressed by being part of a racist community that could be better addressed by some progressive alternative. Without this knowledge, submitting one's self to racism will remain a social strategy for vast swathes of the population. Without the knowledge you will end up with completely ineffectual, or counterproductive efforts to eradicate racist thought by missing the purpose behind it (and all behavior is fundamentally purposeful). steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Jun 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
I mean, it's really sad that people are so devoted to a white person who is so terrible she thinks she was a larger target of racism than actual black person obama
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
fsif posted:I'm losing you here. We should stop talking about issues once they are identified? This logic can extend to literally any issue. Income inequality, climate change, and access to healthcare have been identified as issues and Republicans have run against fixing them to varying degrees the past several election cycles. Similarly, if all the discussion around income inequality was "Donald Trump captured the rich people vote by advocating for things that will reinforce the wealth and power of rich people" it would get really annoying too. edit: steinrokkan posted:How do you envision fighting something without knowing why or how it occurs. It is definitely helpful to know e.g. if a large portion of the electorate twodot fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Jun 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Constantly coming back to racism as the reason the white woman lost is also a really loving stupid thing idiots here like to do. Anything to avoid the truth that is right in front of you. Hilary loving sucked and losing is totally and completely her fault. She had 3 million more votes then D.Trump
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
twodot posted:If we're trying to reform society why the gently caress are we concerned about the electorate at all? Like half of the people eligible to vote, don't. A bunch of people aren't even eligible, I have no idea why you would constrain yourself this way. Society is people. You need to either understand people, or become a Stalin-like force of nature if you want to effect change. Since Dems can't even reach the heights of Jimmy Carter right now, I assume Stalin is out of the play.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:She had 3 million more votes then D.Trump Which is why she is the president.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Reminder that Hillary lost to a glorified Kardashian, and people are still trying to turn her into a genius.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Hilary will never be president and she will constantly be in denial for the rest of her life. To be fair, if you lost to Donald Trump, you would be just as much in denial and blaming everyone but yourself. Only way to not kill yourself. Still nobody likes losers in politics so she should keep her mouth shut and donate money to whatever causes to help "the Resistance". She's doing Democrats no favors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:She had 3 million more votes then D.Trump Not where they could have mattered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Society is people. You need to either understand people, or become a Stalin-like force of nature if you want to effect change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
twodot posted:Total vote counts in Florida went up election over election (and significantly between 2012 and 2016), and McCain got 48.22%, Romney got 49.13% and Trump got 49.02% of the vote. I can't find a definition of crushed that fits here unless you're just reading raw numbers regardless of context. Obviously Johnson, and to a lesser extent Stein, was a factor in Florida, but I feel like Johnson and Stein voters are weird enough it's hard to read their intentions. I want legal pot, less foreign military intervention, socialized medicine, a UBI, and Hillary has to move to Russia and share an apartment with Edward Snowden.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:I want legal pot, less foreign military intervention, socialized medicine, a UBI, and Hillary has to move to Russia and share an apartment with Edward Snowden. Her husband needs to have his fate decided by all people in the correctional system under three strikes sentences.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
twodot posted:Right society is people not the electorate, you are proposing to ignore >100,000,000 people in the US alone. Ignore what people? Politics isn't a zero sum game, paying attention to one group doesn't mean any detriment to other groups, if anything it's the opposite if handled by decent people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:No he called Mexican rapists, that's not bullshit. He didn't say the words "all mexicans are rapists" but he insinuated that many immigrants are rapists. More specifically, he suggested many illegal immigrants are racist. That may not be an important distinction to you, but it was to plenty of his supporters - particularly the Rule of Law crowd, who assume anyone willing to break one law is probably willing to break others. When people try to play that as "Trump said all Mexicans are rapists," it is, at best, disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
twodot posted:We should stop talking about issues once we've run out of productive things to say about the issues. A distraction from doing anything that could have any hope of possibly achieving any sort of productive change. Like steinrokkan thinks we can "we can work to remove symptoms, and in doing so weaken the feedback mechanisms that would turn the coming generation into racists", let's talk about doing that. That seems like a great thing to talk about. I really don't give a poo poo that for the umpteenth time Republicans managed to capture the racist vote by championing policies that racists think are good. We haven't run out of productive things to say about it. And I don't agree with your characterization that this election was business as usual. This year a lot of political norms about dog whistling were completely shattered and it's worth trying to figure out why. It's a more interesting conversation with more implications for the Democrats' future success than talking about a lovely washed up loser candidate who won't run again for the eighth straight month.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Health care or Russia? Democrats divided on 2018 focus
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Maybe, the fact that people are willing to listen to a populist demagogue promise their jobs back and then they turn their ears off to racism, while the few people who only care about race now also turn up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:How do you stop people who have economic concerns because they are racist? Like the poor voted for Hillary the average Trump voter was a well off middle class person who thought the economy was collapsing because of Mexican Immigrants and Black people on welfare neither of which is true. No one cares about "the average Trump voter" because such a concept is completely meaningless (and "the average Trump voter" is almost entirely the same thing as "the average Republican voter"). Also, the average Trump voter in the Republican primaries was less well off than the average primary voter for the other candidates. Republicans (and particularly Republican primary voters) in general are more well off than Democrats, so it isn't some hot take that the people who voted for a Republican president are, on average, more well off than Democrats. This is the case in literally every modern presidential election; it isn't something unique to Trump. But we do know that the faction of Republicans who supported Trump are less well off than the faction of Republicans who supported the other primary candidates. Also, a very large spread of millions of people voted for Trump (as they do for any president). The fact that they're more well off on average or believe X or Y doesn't matter; all that matters is if a big enough minority voted for various other reasons that are not specifically about racism (and that's not even getting into the fact that region needs to be controlled for; we don't care about Trump voters in California or Mississippi). For example, if just 10% of Trump voters were poor and voted for him for non-racism reasons, that would be very significant and important, particularly if that percent was greater than the percent who voted for past Republican presidents for the same reason. Jaxyon posted:People don't like talking about race because it's a thorny issue but I'd advocate the position that NOT talking about it has the potential to make it worse. I think that I should clarify a bit here, because I agree that it's dumb to not talk about race/racism in general. I think my issue is more with talking about it explicitly as a partisan issue where someone is either "a racist" or "not a racist." While Republicans are obviously on average more racist than Democrats, literally everyone in the country is racist to some extent, and it creates a dangerous blindspot to get an entire political party thinking of itself as "the ones who aren't racist." Also, I think there's a big difference between saying "these people are racist" and "these ideas/positions are racist." Ultimately everything is racist to some extent, so it doesn't make sense to randomly draw the line (which just happens to fall along partisan lines) in such a way that some people definitively "are racists" and others aren't. I 100% agree that we shouldn't hesitate in the slightest to say "this idea/policy is racist." But defining people as racist effectively turns it into an identity of sorts, and also carries a LOT of really dangerous implications when it just so happens that racist people are also more likely to be poor. edit: Also, the vast majority of people in this thread have openly acknowledged that racism was a big issue in the election, which kind of begs the question of what it is you're really hoping to gain here. My hunch is that this avenue of reasoning is usually used to score some sort of points as a political faction (in this case including leftist vs. mainstream Democrats as separate factions). The main reason I think this is the case is that you almost never see this focus on racism come out unless it's in the context of attacking political opponents. The fervor suddenly dies out when status quo racism (which the Democrats do nothing to fight) is the topic. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Jun 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
fsif posted:People focus on racism every election, but this one was notable because you had David Duke arise from his rathole to stan for Trump. You had a very visible rise in online white supremacy groups. You had a candidate that started his presidential bid by calling Mexicans rapists. You had a candidate call for the banning of Muslims. He questioned a Mexican judge's ability to do his job impartially, he refused to disavow the KKK, and all his language on jobs more explicitly spoke of foreigners stealing our jobs than recent Republicans past. I mean, you're not wrong, but think for a moment about the state of Democratic Party leadership, as it has existed for the last few decades. You'll get no argument from the DNC that racism played a role, and they need to put more focus and energy into protecting voting rights/expanding access. The Tom Perezes and David Brocks are all 100% onboard with that. But then bring up the need to focus on worker's rights and the social safety net, and that's when the centrists start clutching at pearls. That is where the principal opposition lies, in terms of Democratic messaging and policy making. We on the left are happy to talk about race. It's the JeffersonClays of the world who will stand for no discussion that suggests that the Dems need to move leftward on economic issues. e: To put it another way, the economic justice wing of the party are the ones fighting against decades-old inertia in Democratic messaging. That is why we are so relentless in calling for a course correction. Majorian fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Jun 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:33 |
|
|
Falstaff posted:More specifically, he suggested many illegal immigrants are racist. That may not be an important distinction to you, but it was to plenty of his supporters - particularly the Rule of Law crowd, who assume anyone willing to break one law is probably willing to break others. Racists love to use "illegal immigrants" as a synonym for "all Latinos". They don't assume that Mexican immigrants are more likely to break one law because they already broke another, they assume that Mexican immigrants are more likely to break the law because they aren't white, and that leads them to assume that all Latinos (even US-born citizens) are in the country illegally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 00:26
|
|
