The Trump Presidency – 2016

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I saw this exact sentiment on a FB post defending Trump for his treatment of McCain. Basically saying "Yeah he is a loud mouthed asshole, but I am too"

If dig doesn't mind me posting a bit of a conversation we had the other day...

digamma [12:23 PM]
i was in teh bay area over the weekend and went to a taco stand (incredible btw)

there were two 60+ dudes in matching red polos and "Keep America Great Hats"
they seemed so proud of themselves

digamma [12:24 PM]
yet, they're about to order street tacos from a bunch of brown people and then yell about building a wall
i truly don't get it

cuervo72 [12:26 PM]
no tacos for you!
wait, taco vendors are not the same as Christian bakers

digamma [12:28 PM]
it's very [difficult] to describe trump policy as anything other than appealing to racism and bigotry, and that's being generous
i know i'm preaching to the choir here.

cuervo72 [12:29 PM]
I'm not even sure it's always racism

I think people just want to be immature assholes w/o being called on it
they're middle-schoolers who don't want to have to keep up the adult face

digamma [12:34 PM]
the red hats?

cuervo72 [12:34 PM]
yeah

digamma [12:36 PM]
let's go to a rally, drink some beer and make fun of some people

cuervo72 [12:37 PM]
outside of the beer (for most, anyway) isn't that what middle-schoolers do?
"I'm going to wear this red hat because you said I couldn't."
they're really lame rebels
don't get me wrong, some of them are virulent racists

[cartman]

Just think. We could have had taco trucks on every corner. Instead we got this.

[JPhillips]

STATEMENT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE

President Donald J. Trump feels strongly that North Korea is under tremendous pressure from China because of our major trade disputes with the Chinese Government. At the same time, we also know that China is providing North Korea with...

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 29, 2018

Click through and read the whole crazy thing. It's hard to summarize all the bananas in it.

Also, if he's now admitting the twitter account is for official government statements, of course, he can't block citizens.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

STATEMENT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE

President Donald J. Trump feels strongly that North Korea is under tremendous pressure from China because of our major trade disputes with the Chinese Government. At the same time, we also know that China is providing North Korea with...

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 29, 2018

Click through and read the whole crazy thing. It's hard to summarize all the bananas in it.

Also, if he's now admitting the twitter account is for official government statements, of course, he can't block citizens.

Or delete tweets.

[Thomkal]

Geez now he's complaining about Google putting Obama's State of the Union on their front page, but not his.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I think a bigger question begs, how the fuck did we wind up with these two as our choices?

I don't ever vote straight party line (November may be the first exception to this) because I look for those closer to center. I am not a fan of the "protest" vote, but I had no choice but to go third party in 2016, because at the end of the day I have to have some belief in my choice beyond the lesser of two evils.

I could have lived with voting for HRC, Trump, never! But as that night played out I kept going back to my thoughts above. How are these two our choices?

Hillary got the nod because the Democrats sat on their laurels after Obama got elected and didn't build up other candidates. They stopped focusing on smaller races and put all their eggs in the Presiden't basket. Not to mention felt they needed to raise more money and thus got into bed with every big corporation just like the Republicans. That leads to a tough party to get passionate about.

Trump got the nod because the Republican Party has mostly been about racial politics since the Civil Rights era and they finally found a candidate who dropped the dogwhistles and just flat out said what they wanted to hear. It's decades of Fox News and right-wing radio molding the perfect candidate for that audience.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

STATEMENT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE

President Donald J. Trump feels strongly that North Korea is under tremendous pressure from China because of our major trade disputes with the Chinese Government. At the same time, we also know that China is providing North Korea with...

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 29, 2018

Click through and read the whole crazy thing. It's hard to summarize all the bananas in it.

Also, if he's now admitting the twitter account is for official government statements, of course, he can't block citizens.

Is this based off something he saw on Lou Dobbs or because he realized he got fucking owned by North Korea?

[molson]

There must be some real heroic stuff going on behind the scenes to keep things from completely going off the rails, and preventing Trump from doing what he'd really like to do in that office.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Trump got the nod because the Republican Party has mostly been about racial politics since the Civil Rights era and they finally found a candidate who dropped the dogwhistles and just flat out said what they wanted to hear. It's decades of Fox News and right-wing radio molding the perfect candidate for that audience.

The crowded field with no standouts really helped him. If it had been Trump, Cruz, and Kasich from the beginning I seriously doubt Trump gets the nomination. The never trumpers weren't able to get behind a single candidate, though, and Trump was given more targets to bully and make fun of. Which plays to his base perfectly.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Is this based off something he saw on Lou Dobbs or because he realized he got fucking owned by North Korea?

Probably something he saw on Fox News because he's already declared victory in North Korea and that's all his base remembers. His base is already championing the new NAFTA agreement.

[Thomkal]

U.S. denying passports to American citizens along Mexico border - The Washington Post

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Hillary got the nod because the Democrats sat on their laurels after Obama got elected and didn't build up other candidates. They stopped focusing on smaller races and put all their eggs in the Presiden't basket. Not to mention felt they needed to raise more money and thus got into bed with every big corporation just like the Republicans. That leads to a tough party to get passionate about.

Trump got the nod because the Republican Party has mostly been about racial politics since the Civil Rights era and they finally found a candidate who dropped the dogwhistles and just flat out said what they wanted to hear. It's decades of Fox News and right-wing radio molding the perfect candidate for that audience.

Obama's biggest failure was his refusal to see himself as the leader of a political party as well as a leader of the nation. The Democrats got killed over his eight years, in no small part because he never seriously advocated for the party.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Hillary got the nod because the Democrats sat on their laurels after Obama got elected and didn't build up other candidates. They stopped focusing on smaller races and put all their eggs in the Presiden't basket. Not to mention felt they needed to raise more money and thus got into bed with every big corporation just like the Republicans. That leads to a tough party to get passionate about.

Trump got the nod because the Republican Party has mostly been about racial politics since the Civil Rights era and they finally found a candidate who dropped the dogwhistles and just flat out said what they wanted to hear. It's decades of Fox News and right-wing radio molding the perfect candidate for that audience.

That was kind of a rhetorical question

But yeah, arrogance and racism

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Trump got the nod because the Republican Party has mostly been about racial politics since the Civil Rights era and they finally found a candidate who dropped the dogwhistles and just flat out said what they wanted to hear. It's decades of Fox News and right-wing radio molding the perfect candidate for that audience.

How? I cannot speak to Nixon, but Ford was essentially apologizing for Watergate, when he wasn’t falling down. Regan campaigned on taxes and being tough on the Soviets. Bush I ran on being an extension of Regan. Dole ran because it was his turn.Bush II was a compassionate conservative and the war on terror. McCain was another it’s my turn candidate. Romney was a moderate who was ridiculed for saying Russia and Putin are not nice guys. Trump is well Trump.

So where in any of that are the racial politics? Now if you want to say there was a wing of the party that was voting due to race during the Obama years? I’ll grant you that, but there were a lot who did the same thing in 08, but voted for him.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Reagan campaigned on taxes and being tough on the Soviets.

With the occasional welfare queen thrown in.

(Apparently, there WAS a real basis for his welfare queen story, and this lady was a real trip. And may or may not have actually been black.)

[JPhillips]

Reagan went to Mississippi and spoke about state's rights.

His campaign manager, Lee Atwater said this:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.…

There's Jesse Helms' famous campaign ad.

And Bush1's Willie Horton ad.

Bush2 started rumors about McCain's adopted child from Bangledesh.

And we could go on and on.

Now I don't believe all of them, or all Republicans are racists, far from it. But, as I've said for years, too many GOP electeds have been fine with ignoring or encouraging racists so as to get their votes. Trump doesn't happen in a vacuum. It's inconceivable that Ike would have been followed by Trump. The ground needed to be tilled and fertilized first.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

How? I cannot speak to Nixon, but Ford was essentially apologizing for Watergate, when he wasn’t falling down. Regan campaigned on taxes and being tough on the Soviets. Bush I ran on being an extension of Regan. Dole ran because it was his turn.Bush II was a compassionate conservative and the war on terror. McCain was another it’s my turn candidate. Romney was a moderate who was ridiculed for saying Russia and Putin are not nice guys. Trump is well Trump.

So where in any of that are the racial politics? Now if you want to say there was a wing of the party that was voting due to race during the Obama years? I’ll grant you that, but there were a lot who did the same thing in 08, but voted for him.

Nixon used the Southern Strategy and was one of the first to prominently use dog-whistle terminology. He touted "states rights" which was a way to appeal to those who didn't like the civil rights movement. He nominated two judges to the Supreme Court who were vocal in the anti-civil rights stance. Courted people like Strom Thurmond so he could get the segregationists that voted for Wallace in 68.

Both Reagan and HW used Lee Atwater as a strategist who in his own words explained their strategy:

“N-----, n-----, n-----.” By 1968 you can’t say “n-----”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N-----, n-----.”

This was one of the centerpieces to Reagan's campaign. He was going to cut your taxes because those black welfare queens were sitting around doing nothing with your hard earned money.

Heck, Reagan launched his campaign right outside Philadelphia, Mississippi. A tiny place that just so happened to be the spot where the KKK famously murdered 3 civil rights activists (Mississippi Burning). There he gave a speech to the white crowd about state's rights. A clear play to the audiences hatred of the Civil Rights Act (which Reagan opposed) and the return of Jim Crow segregation. The message was clear and even people involved with his administration admitted later on that the goal was to get those Dixiecrat voters.

In office he tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act, opposed MLK Day being a holiday, and tried to give private schools that racially discriminated their tax exempt status back. These were things he proudly campaigned on later on. Heck in 1984 he went back to that town in Mississippi and stated "The South will rise again!".

H.W. Bush had the famous Willie Horton ad. His son famously spoke at Bob Jones University which at the time had ban on interracial dating. Worth noting that Reagan, Dole, and a slew of other Republican candidates spoke at this school. And who could forget the infamous push poll in South Carolina that insinuated McCain's adopted daughter was an illegitimate love child.

When it comes to Obama's run, we can look to claims he wasn't born in the United States for the simple reason he was black. Claims he was taught in a radical madrasa. Or the veiled racial attacks Sarah Palin made in 2008.

As for Trump, I'm not sure how you can say race wasn't a role with a straight face. The biggest voice behind the Birther movement. The Central Park jogger case. Did you follow his campaign at all? Do you think his re-tweeting and expounding views of white supremacists were a rogue intern that got a hold of his Twitter account? Heck even in the primary he went after Jeb for having a Mexican wife.


All this shouldn't be new information. It was literally dubbed the "Southern Strategy". They understood they could get a large racist element of society on their side through these wedge issues.

Obviously campaigns have many issues they champion but there's also been a catering (overt or covert) to that racist demographic that makes up a large percent of the population.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Now I don't believe all of them, or all Republicans are racists, far from it.

That's the irony of it. Nixon for instance was actually a bigger supporter of Civil Rights than Kennedy. But he felt the best way to win was to get those Dixiecrats on his side.

It's worth noting that candidates in the modern era rarely go out and say stuff themselves anymore. It's what their surrogates are for. And the advances of media have allowed people like Limbaugh to do the dirty work for them.

I still think one of the things that made Trump stand out is that he didn't leave it to his surrogates. Sure Alex Jones and company led an important charge, but it was likely refreshing to that base to have someone just say what they believe. Someone who will say blacks, hispanics, and Muslims are inferior. To promote white supremacists and their conspiracy theories openly. It kind of gave him a "man of the people" aura which I think carried him to victory in both the primary and general election.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

What's the real difference? All three put a racist in charge.

I think this goes back to the binary lesser of two evils concept, which I consider a fallacy but let's remember that it's been consistently advocated by a majority of this board. Under that thought, all you are really doing is comparing Trump and Clinton. Nothing else matters. How objectively bad each is, is irrelevant. The only consideration is who is worse. And under that situation, it's not hard to get to a point where you can excuse voting for literally anything. There is no even consideration of 'I won't for them because they are a racist' or whatever. It's all a comparison, and when you starting talking about shifting SCOTUS for a generation, the people I work with who were predicting a civil war(and not at all being sarcastic or melodramatic) if Hillary won and took away their guns, etc. I mean if you take Jon's view that being a democrat is a bigger threat than being part of ISIS, the other candidate could be David Duke and you're still going to say 'well, at least they're not (fill in the blank)'

Originally Posted by Lathum

throw in a healthy dose of racism, xenophobia, and narcissism, plus grossly violating the first amendment and I can't envision us being worse off. That doesn't even factor in policy.

Others have said this kind of thing recently, I'm choosing only your statement soley for brevity's sake. I can think of a lot of ways it could be worse. Obvious one is he could have launched a simultaneous nuclear strike on half the globe. He could be more competent, and therefore more effective in implemented his bad ideas. He could have imposed martial law, declared himself emperor for life and created a full-on constitutional crisis in the process, shut down the media outlets he doesn't like instead of just blustering about them, etc. Trump's terrible, but he's nowhere near nightmare-scenario territory.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It was literally dubbed the "Southern Strategy". They understood they could get a large racist element of society on their side through these wedge issues.

The interesting thing to me about historical realities like this are the assumptions that go along with it. There's a lot of that still going on, including with Trump, as people try to divine the motivation behind what he says that's not included in the actual words. Years ago, when I was a conservative on economic issues, I asked on another forum how one could express those kinds of beliefs without using terms deemed racist codewords. Nobody could give me an example of how to do it. You can't just say things like 'disadvantaged through no fault of their own' or 'bottom end of the economic ladder' or whatever because a certain number of people are going to assume social darwinism, you're just racist against minorities, etc. even if it's just about believing that the welfare state destroys the family structure and having a different opinion on what policies are best for giving the most people to most opportunity. And of course the same issue is there for various perspectives on various issues; Kerry struggled with it as a presidential candidate vis a vis foreign policy and the war on terror. I don't think we have any chance for healthy civil discourse as long as such assumptions are made.

[RainMaker]

It's not an assumption. The people behind the strategy literally came out and said what they were doing. There is a famous interview with Atwater where he explains it.

The RNC came out and apologized for it in 2005.

What assumption is there when the party admits to it and apologizes for it?

[RainMaker]

Like do you think Reagan chose to give a states rights speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi to kick start his campaign randomly? Who do you think that speech was aimed at?

I mean I think people interpret things the wrong way a lot but I think his intention was pretty clear.

[Radii]

Don't forget that Reagan also worked extremely hard to push back on affirmative action and civil rights, beginning the "anti-white" movement that Trump is just making a lot more open. Reagan's War On Drugs has had enormous repercussions in the African american community and there were intentional measures taken in the early stages of the War On Drugs that made it intentionally dis-proportionally attack and impact blacks.


It just took awhile, as albionmoonlight said, for our politicians on the right to change from saying its about something else even though we can all see they're only attacking the poor and very often the poor inner city black person... to where we are now, where our president will openly say racist things and re-tweet literal nazi's and white nationalists, and many, many other politicians at a congressional level on the right may have the decency not to actively promote white nationalism, but they're very happy to go on their radio shows, to sit side by side at conventions and have public photo opportunities with the leaders of openly and actively racist movements across the country.

I try very hard not to pre-judge any individual trump voter. I attack the propaganda machine that is Fox News heavily but if I'm in an open mindset I'm not going to pre-judge any trump voter. I really try not to. At the same time I do make rants in other threads about how the things Jon says are moving scarily closer to mainstream and I stand by that.

I think the party and its platform, especially the far right wing of it that has taken so much control in the last 15'ish years, that party's leadership and top level members now feel comfortable being openly racist. Anyone who doesn't think that a lot of what we're seeing right now is a backlash against an election of a black president is naive imo.

[Brian Swartz]

I called it a historical reality, not an assumption. I'm not sure how I can be clearer on it. Are there better words I should use?

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think this goes back to the binary lesser of two evils concept, which I consider a fallacy but let's remember that it's been consistently advocated by a majority of this board

The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained - YouTube


I love this video, and followups that explain how other systems are better. I think its incredibly accurate for the US.

[Brian Swartz]

It is a well-done video, but I don't really swallow the main assumption. I think the last presidential primary on the Republican side is a great example of why. People had the choices of many candidates much different than Trump. They chose him. Not that Bush, Kasich, Cruz, Rubio, etc. were fantastic candidates, but as their fortunes waxed and waned there were a lot of opportunities -- and millions cast their votes for Trump again and again. Primary choice and the fact that it really isn't just math -- people have every option of picking differently than the video describes, they just choose not to -- end up with us where we are. I think the hard truth of modern American politics is not a broken system; that's a red herring IMO. It's that the electorate has exactly the government we/it deserve, which always happens in a society with free elections. As painful as it is to face, it's a reflection of who we have become.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I called it a historical reality, not an assumption. I'm not sure how I can be clearer on it. Are there better words I should use?

What I got from what you said was that "people assume you are a racist when you support policies that history has shown are racist". You also say that you can still be against those things and not be racist. Maybe that's true, but I don't find it disingenuous to label someone a racist that supports racist policies before I hear their reasoning.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

One major point of contention. I never said nor will I ever say, "I dont care if he's racist" I care deeply. Yet despite how much I care, Hillary's still worse.

And I think what a lot of other people are saying is how sad it is that such obvious racism isn't an automatic disqualifier for people.

It reminds me of Marge Schott talking about Hitler (I know, I'm sorry)... "he was good in the beginning, but went too far."

So Trump gave you a tax cut. Great, congrats. Does it really matter in the grand scheme? Is that what matters most to society now? That's the sad part. Saying "I'm against it, but not enough to not support him" is pretty hard to swallow when we're talking this level of overt racism. It is a virulent backlash to the perceived overrun of political correctness. It's like "if you guys thought we were assholes before, you ain't seen nothin' yet!" We are literally rolling back society to a point where it is ok to make 40+% of citizenry second-class citizens. If that's ok with you, that's fucked up.

Even if it is ok with you in the name of gun rights or government overreach or WHATEVER your top hot-button issue is. Human dignity should really trump all of that, but I guess it doesn't for a whole mess of people.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Butter

And I think what a lot of other people are saying is how sad it is that such obvious racism isn't an automatic disqualifier for people.

It reminds me of Marge Schott talking about Hitler (I know, I'm sorry)... "he was good in the beginning, but went too far."

So Trump gave you a tax cut. Great, congrats. Does it really matter in the grand scheme? Is that what matters most to society now? That's the sad part. Saying "I'm against it, but not enough to not support him" is pretty hard to swallow when we're talking this level of overt racism. It is a virulent backlash to the perceived overrun of political correctness. It's like "if you guys thought we were assholes before, you ain't seen nothin' yet!" We are literally rolling back society to a point where it is ok to make 40+% of citizenry second-class citizens. If that's ok with you, that's fucked up.

Even if it is ok with you in the name of gun rights or government overreach or WHATEVER your top hot-button issue is. Human dignity should really trump all of that, but I guess it doesn't for a whole mess of people.

Traveling this am and waiting on a plane to board thats already behind. SO Im not going to dive in as deep as I might otherwise would.


In short, my support of Trump was darn near solely for the SCOTUS posts that were likely to be filled in the next 4. Its not popular here, but I remain a Christian Im not a hard line hard edge literal doctrine guy, but it is still the guiding lamp post in my life. My fear around a Clinton election was primarily based upon the fact of whom she would appoint and the generational implications.


We can go line by line item by item, but from a theological standpoint that is still my basis of decision.


I'll also add this. I was unimpressed, admittedly, by Trump leading up to the election. But he's been even worse than I perceived in a number of areas since election. Yet still, here we are. I still prefer this devil I know to the only other option I was given.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

In short, my support of Trump was darn near solely for the SCOTUS posts that were likely to be filled in the next 4. Its not popular here, but I remain a Christian Im not a hard line hard edge literal doctrine guy, but it is still the guiding lamp post in my life. My fear around a Clinton election was primarily based upon the fact of whom she would appoint and the generational implications.

But if this is the thing that determines your vote, you would have voted for Trump over literally any other Democrat.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

In short, my support of Trump was darn near solely for the SCOTUS posts that were likely to be filled in the next 4. Its not popular here, but I remain a Christian Im not a hard line hard edge literal doctrine guy, but it is still the guiding lamp post in my life. My fear around a Clinton election was primarily based upon the fact of whom she would appoint and the generational implications.

I am baffled how someone can call themselves a Christian ( and you are far from the only one doing this) yet support someone who so obviously hates anyone that isn't a white male.

[Butter]

Abortion rights?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

In short, my support of Trump was darn near solely for the SCOTUS posts that were likely to be filled in the next 4. Its not popular here, but I remain a Christian Im not a hard line hard edge literal doctrine guy, but it is still the guiding lamp post in my life. My fear around a Clinton election was primarily based upon the fact of whom she would appoint and the generational implications.

So as a Christian, what does that mean to you? On, say, the subject of refugees?

Leviticus 19:33-34 says "When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt."

Trump's Administration has been working actively to deny refugee status to asylum supplicants, and has been indiscriminately separating children from their parents at the border. Trump's Administration has lost some of the children it took, and tried in court to put the burden on the ACLU to reunite the families.

Okay, so what about aid to the poor?

Matthew 25:37-40 says "Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’"

And, sure, okay, you're going to rules lawyer and say "BUT THE BIBLE DOESN'T SAY THAT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB." Regardless, those are programs that have been in place for generations; this year, Trump asked Congress to cut three billion in housing assistance, three billion in heating assistance, and to cut SNAP by 40% over the next ten years. At the same time, he asked for something like an extra $60 billion in FY 2019 military spending. Oh, and he signed a tax bill that gives individuals a temporary tax break so corporations could get a permanent one; ten years out, about half of all filers will pay more in taxes than they did last year, and whatever individual benefit remains, about 80% will be going to filers making more than $1 million.

How's Trump doing with the "least of these my brothers"?

Oh, but the jurists he appoints are probably going to side with a Christian's right to discriminate against people whose "lifestyles I don't agree with," even if that discrimination takes place within the context of government services (he's a big fan of Kim Davis, recall); is that the "generational implications" you were most worried about, then? Not how this nation treats the poor and the refugee, but whether or not religious freedom means "I don't have to follow the law if I don't like whose genitals you stimulate"?

It's a really breathtaking form of pick-and-choose hypocrisy for when "Christian" principles in government matter, don't you think? "Government has no business being involved in aid to the indigent when the faithful could do that" on the one hand and "but the faithful should be able to wield the power of civil service to punish those in 'living in sin.'"

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It is a well-done video, but I don't really swallow the main assumption. I think the last presidential primary on the Republican side is a great example of why. People had the choices of many candidates much different than Trump. They chose him. Not that Bush, Kasich, Cruz, Rubio, etc. were fantastic candidates, but as their fortunes waxed and waned there were a lot of opportunities -- and millions cast their votes for Trump again and again. Primary choice and the fact that it really isn't just math -- people have every option of picking differently than the video describes, they just choose not to -- end up with us where we are. I think the hard truth of modern American politics is not a broken system; that's a red herring IMO. It's that the electorate has exactly the government we/it deserve, which always happens in a society with free elections. As painful as it is to face, it's a reflection of who we have become.

I'm kind of confused by this response. The Republican primary seems to be perfectly illustrated in the video. Trump initially polled in the 20s and 30s in primaries and as candidates fell away his numbers increased because of a lack of additional choices. Call it math, strategy, circumstance, whatever, I wonder how a rank choice system may have changed things.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Butter

Abortion rights?

And yet, Ronald Reagan signed a liberal abortion bill as governor of California in 1967, and throughout the 60s and 70s, abortion not only wasn't a hot-button issue for evangelicals, but the Southern Baptists resolved [b]before[/i] Roe to work towards legislation that would "allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother."

Abortion as an issue for the religious right (Catholics, who have been pretty consistent on the issue, excluded) really only arose in the last 40 years.

Here's a fun read, if you're interested: The Real Origins of the Religious Right - POLITICO Magazine

[Radii]

I feel like the way that members of the GOP have handled the last 2 years have fully stripped away any pretense of being the party of family values. This is simply now about fear and oppression. Gays are scary. Transgender individuals are REALLY scary. Every single thing about Donald Trump screams godless heathen. He is so filled with hate, rage, hypocrisy. The man doesn't have an ounce of compassion in his body and he attempts to govern the same way he speaks and acts personally. He praises dictators, he makes fun of those that show compassion, those people are WEAK. He's paying off porn stars left and right, he's an adulturer (and before you point to clinton let me personally say I don't care about this personally but many claim to), "grab em by the pussy" and "of course he's said the n word and of course its on tape" ... what's left for Trump for those who claim to govern based on their christian principles?

The baffling thing for me remains - Mike Pence is RIGHT THERE. Everything about him screams Christian to an extreme degree. Why in the world did the party not impeach Donald Trump and run through all kinds of legislation with Pence? Why are so many people dying on this hill? Why are so many people throwing away their entire value set for this man?

Voting against Hillary doesn't land us here. But defending Donald Trump at every single turn does. "Family Values" is a sham. Trump voices the GOP's fear of people who aren't straight white males, and he makes them richer. The end.


disclaimer that I'm talking about the politicians running the show, I'm not assigning these traits to every Trump Voter.

[JPhillips]

My favorite poll from the election was one that broke down the electorate by religion. The most likely group to support Trump were self-described Evangelicals but within that group, the highest support for Trump came from those with the lowest self-reported church attendance.

edit: Then's there's this from Cook Political's most recent polling:

Trump approval among, white non-college evangelical women = 68%

Trump approve among white, non-college NON-evangelical women = 35%

Trump approval among white, non-college evangelical men = 80%

Trump approve among white, non-college NON-evangelical men = 52%

[PilotMan]

Some really good, logical, well thought out arguments from some people in here today. Really good points.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The most likely group to support Trump were self-described Evangelicals but within that group, the highest support for Trump came from those with the lowest self-reported church attendance.

Currently pinned to my Twitter profile...

I know I've got log upon log to get out of my own eye, so pray for me. That said, the deep-down truth is that I believe die-hard Trump-supporting "Christians" fall into 1 of 4 categories:

1, Cowards
2. Those with little/no Biblical understanding
3. Reprobates
4. All the above.

— Ben Lewis (@benelou) August 21, 2018

(To clarify #3, I didn't have enough characters to say "Unregenerate sinners," so I used reprobate in the Calvinistic sense.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola, and if #1 isn't clear...

By His Grace on Twitter: "NO! No no no no no no no NO!!! I have EVERYTHING I need in Christ, and because of that, I am afraid of NOTHING. Do NOT let fear control your vote EVER. Do what is right, and trust the rest to God...… https://t.co/KoehuF6ayH"


and this thread


Ben Lewis on Twitter: "I strongly suspect that the relentless pursuit of perceived “safety� (be it physical, economic, or otherwise) is the most pervasive idol/graven image that Americans (most Christians included) have worshipped in the 21st Century to date."

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Radii

The baffling thing for me remains - Mike Pence is RIGHT THERE. Everything about him screams Christian to an extreme degree. Why in the world did the party not impeach Donald Trump and run through all kinds of legislation with Pence? Why are so many people dying on this hill? Why are so many people throwing away their entire value set for this man?

I've been thinking about this A LOT over the past year. Why die for Trump when you can just get rid of him pretty easily, if you think about it. He has already done so much that any member of the opposite party would have been impeached for at this point, and rightfully so.

I think the reason is because when he does come crashing down, whether it is now or through election, the rest of the party can basically act like they were being held hostage for the previous years and then say they will get back to being what a "real" Republican is, which is back to the dog whistle politics and the entitlements grandstanding and whatnot... except being even less centrist than before because it is now proven that this will win you elections in some places under the right set of circumstances.

But the truth is it really doesn't matter, for 40% of the electorate. Trump has already blown well past whatever previously reasonable standards we had, and most have not only not just said nothing, but most have approved of his policy. I've gotten to the point where real societal upheaval with generalized violence seems more likely than not to me thanks to the rage and hatred that has been built up against "the system" that has now gone mainstream. People keep saying this is just the fringe that is being sensationalized by a press in search of ratings. But when you see otherwise rational people's reaction to things like the flag protests and caged children... you see how easily people can be brought over to one side. I just don't see how at some point there won't be some kind of reckoning. I just hope it's not too violent.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Curious about this as well.

How anyone with a brain ( and CUTiger does) can witness the daily tragedy that is Trump and think we are still better off blows my mind.

Originally Posted by Lathum

I am baffled how someone can call themselves a Christian ( and you are far from the only one doing this) yet support someone who so obviously hates anyone that isn't a white male.

I absolutely think we are better off with Trump than Clinton. I imagine your rage is real, I don't want to dismiss it, but since you asked...

Trump is Bull Connor. MLK and the desegregation movement was successful, in large part, because of Bull Connor. SNCC was unsuccessful in Albany because the local leaders were disciplined and avoided the media. Bull was seeking reelection so was doubling down on his hate to appeal to his fanatical base.

To me, Bush was Albany. Getting away with Patriot Act, torture, false wars, planting false info with press, cronyism with enron and fema, blowing up the debt and deregulating wall street.

Not sure what Trump has gotten away with. Only things passed were purely at the discretion of congress. No wall, no healthcare repeal, no jailed Hiliary

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Not sure what Trump has gotten away with. Only things passed were purely at the discretion of congress. No wall, no healthcare repeal, no jailed Hiliary

Russian manufactured asbestos with his picture on it, and a saying that says approved by the 45th President of the United States, and a loosening of EPA standards on asbestos use in manufacturing in the US. That's a good place to start.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Radii

The baffling thing for me remains - Mike Pence is RIGHT THERE. Everything about him screams Christian to an extreme degree. Why in the world did the party not impeach Donald Trump and run through all kinds of legislation with Pence? Why are so many people dying on this hill? Why are so many people throwing away their entire value set for this man?

One of the things I've seen proposed is that Republicans know that the loonies who are into all the Trump hate stuff are the fuel of the party, and that if they piss those people off, sure, they're not going to vote Democrat or anything, but they will vote against the anti-Trump offenders in the primaries and they will reduce their economic and general voting support for the party.

I don't think it's worth it. Republicans don't need to cater to the lowest common denominator, especially as the Democrat party moves further to the left. There's such a meaty middle who is afraid/turned off by Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez wing of the party (and a lot of the new names popping and making news are further to the left than Sanders.) I'd much rather go after those people than those who will turn on you if you're not racist enough. Though, from their perspective, that approach led to the failures to McCain and Romney and Bush I and Dole (though it worked for Reagan and Bush II). On the other hand, those remaining in the party with souls could sleep better at night, if that's worth anything.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Butter

I've been thinking about this A LOT over the past year. Why die for Trump when you can just get rid of him pretty easily, if you think about it. He has already done so much that any member of the opposite party would have been impeached for at this point, and rightfully so.

I think the reason is because when he does come crashing down, whether it is now or through election, the rest of the party can basically act like they were being held hostage for the previous years and then say they will get back to being what a "real" Republican is, which is back to the dog whistle politics and the entitlements grandstanding and whatnot... except being even less centrist than before because it is now proven that this will win you elections in some places under the right set of circumstances.

But the truth is it really doesn't matter, for 40% of the electorate. Trump has already blown well past whatever previously reasonable standards we had, and most have not only not just said nothing, but most have approved of his policy. I've gotten to the point where real societal upheaval with generalized violence seems more likely than not to me thanks to the rage and hatred that has been built up against "the system" that has now gone mainstream. People keep saying this is just the fringe that is being sensationalized by a press in search of ratings. But when you see otherwise rational people's reaction to things like the flag protests and caged children... you see how easily people can be brought over to one side. I just don't see how at some point there won't be some kind of reckoning. I just hope it's not too violent.

Based on the NRA stuff I think you have to consider the possibility that Russia is infiltrated in much of the GOP power structure. At best, there are a lot of people that don't know how deep the rot runs. When it comes crashing down they might be able to pin it all on Trump and move on, but that's a lot harder if it's someone like Pence.

There's also some prisoner's dilemma o this and nobody wants to go first and potentially get screwed.

[JPhillips]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Trump cancels pay raises for most federal employees set to take effect in January, citing budget.

— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) August 30, 2018

You are a shithead, Williamson.

[jct32]

As a disclaimer, I'm registered Republican but I'm not a vote R only kind of guy.

The most interesting observation I see from the fallout of the 2016 election is how the GOP became the "Trump Party" and I kind of expected it to be honest. However, I didn't expect the embrace to be as large as it was. I live in a red state and there are people who are running for Congress and their whole platform is "I support Trump." That is easily the worst platform to run on in my opinion. I'm sure guys like this will get good support in my state but I can't vote for someone who only stands behind a man, and that man only stands for himself. Trump has no principles and he only is out for himself. The fact that he has become the face of the Republican party and they have embraced him so much leaves me with the feeling that the Republican party doesn't stand for much these days and only goes along with Trump.

They need to have someone else run for President in 2020 and I don't see that happening. I'm curious to see if somehow we have a third party form because honestly I'm tired of the Republicans and the Democrats only move further towards the left each day.

Second disclaimer, did not vote for Trump if you couldn't tell.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Butter

What I got from what you said was that "people assume you are a racist when you support policies that history has shown are racist".

I really don't understand how you could get that from what I wrote. It's more along the lines of 'some people assume you are a racist for supporting policies that some people have supported for racist reasons'. I mean I guess you can call all of what is generally known in America as traditional conservative economic thought racist if you want to, but that's totally wrong and ignores a great many things, not the least of which is that it's been around a heck of a lot longer than the Southern Strategy. I'm open again to other ways I could express this kind of thing, but did it also seem that I was going to the 'all liberals are traitors' well with the Kerry example? The whole point is assumptions in policy areas where the ugly motivation assigned is most definitely not the case quite often.

[larrymcg421]

So for those saying it was about policies and/or distrust of Hillary, where is your line?

I mean, under your argument, if David Duke ran the exact same campaign as Trump, and was against Hillary, would you have voted for him? What type of person would it take for you to vote for Hillary or a third party?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by digamma

The Republican primary seems to be perfectly illustrated in the video. Trump initially polled in the 20s and 30s in primaries and as candidates fell away his numbers increased because of a lack of additional choices. Call it math, strategy, circumstance, whatever, I wonder how a rank choice system may have changed things.

For this analogue to hold, the next Republican primary would have significantly fewer choices as the options gradually dwindle with each cycle. Yet that's not what we are seeing happen. The point I was making with the primaries is that each time we have on of these(pretty much whenever either party doesn't have an incumbent), the 'owl', 'snake', etc. voters have a chance to convince the rest that their candidate is better. Every party evolves over time. Clinton isn't the same as Obama who wasn't the same as Kerry, same with Trump/Romney/McCain/Bush etc. There's always a full opportunity for people to decide to pick someone quite different than the person they picked last time around, and different aspects of the party gain/lose influence. It's not static like the video claims and choice is increasing, not decreasing.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's not an assumption. The people behind the strategy literally came out and said what they were doing. There is a famous interview with Atwater where he explains it.

The RNC came out and apologized for it in 2005.

What assumption is there when the party admits to it and apologizes for it?

Living in California at that time, and hearing a lot of the other items, I was on board with him. I did forget that he started his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, and have never listened to either of his speeches there.

I look at his cutting of taxes, tackling stagflation, being strong on the Soviets, as why I would have voted for him had I been old enough. Also, he changed the national psyche from what had come before, especially from the malaise of Carter.

With regards to cutting welfare, and the welfare queens, my experience with that in Memphis was that it was predominately a black issue, that said, I did know some whites on welfare as well. The neighborhood I lived in myself, had a roughly 50/50 split racially, but the back street which had not been redeveloped as it was supposed to be was poor (think $150k starter homes and then a road of primarily shacks), and that was 80% black. That street had a crack house, had a couple of gang or drug related killings, and the police regularly had a stakeout in the area trying to nail the suppliers.

My reason for not backing long term welfare has been the impact it has on people. My personal experience, when someone gives me something, it is not as important as something I have earned or worked for. College is a great example, I screwed around my first two years, not completely, but I did not buckle down as much as I could have. I offered to help pay for some of it, but my parents refused. It was not until my father had a cancer battle that I pulled up the boot straps and realized I had to get moving, I might have had to support my mother in the near future. I had also learned that when I relied on myself, whatever I was doing, it turned out much better than when I relied on someone else to help.

This was reinforced by my environment, in Memphis, what projects there were, were all run down and dilapidated. The minorities where I lived had well maintained yards, and acted more or less like I did. Of course, several of them were the children of former NFL players or major black entertainers.
One of my friends godparents was Isaac Hayes.

In California, most of my friends were minorities. My best friends were Argentinian, Filipino, mixed Mexican/Black, and mixed Black/White. In Memphis while in school, I was not as popular as I could have been because I had no issue interacting with what black students we had (the area I went to school from 4th grade through high school was 95% white).

What I learned from my time in Memphis was economics played a much larger role than race in how you were going to act. One of my friends from 6th grade on in Memphis wound up running the IT department for a major hospital in MN. He listened to Michael Savage and bought into a lot of what he had to say. He was much harder on other blacks than I was because he went through some of the same challenges as those less fortunate. His father walked out on the family when he was in 6th or 7th grade. He was smart enough to realize that he was possibly going to fall off the wagon after high school. So he enrolled in the military, did his 4 years, went to college, and got a CS degree. His stance, and one I had similarly arrived at previously, was for the less fortunate, going through the military, taking advantage of the GI Bill, would provide a great springboard for the rest of your life. It provides discipline and a middle class (granted, lower middle class for most) income as well as job skills that could set you up for the next stage of your life.

So I might be tone deaf, in part because I think people think similarly to the way I do. Of course, as you get older you realize this is not the case. When I was 27, I was put in charge of one of the inventory teams at work as an auditor. My entire crew was black. Whenever, I was doing spot checks, I was accused of being racist and making them do it because I was in charge. Rather than argue, I asked them to get out of the way, and did one or two of the recounts. When they realized I was just trying to get the job done as it was supposed to be done, they went ahead and did what was required. The problem was, there were other people there that during previous inventories jerked them around because they thought it was funny.

So when you have stuff like Willie Horton, etc., come up, I did not immediately think, ah, this is code to heighten my fear of blacks, I looked at it as Dukakis backed a poorly designed furlough system.

I did not vote for Obama because I disagreed with his policies.

The one person that I did not vote for because of who they were was Hilary Clinton. I did not like the job she did as Sec. of State, and I heard too many stories about her when I traveled in AR extensively from 98-2002. I was not a fan of how she handled Bill's infidelities. If you are with a serial cheater, either you do not respect yourself, or you are in it strictly for the

As I have mentioned before, I voted for Trump because he listed his Supreme Court short list, which was important to me. I also hoped that the devil we did not know, would be better than the devil we do know. In the next election, I have no idea what I am going to do. The problem is, I do not see the Democrats running a fiscal conservative. Then again, the Republicans have not either since '88.

Been pulled off this enough due to work and will probably continue to stray from the original intent, so I will post this and get back to doing what I need to.