SCOTUS will increase to 11 or 13 Justices

[AMEHigh]

If you are going to slander a member on this forum, as well as 47% of the electorate, the onus is on you to provide a mountain of evidence to that fact.

Obviously there's going to be no way to truly get evidence.
However, as I typed previously there's a difference between having differing beliefs about taxes and supporting and being proud of trump's discriminatory and hateful views.

If you look at all the rallies that he had and would spout his racist, sexist, xenophobic, transphobic, etc language, there would be hundreds to thousands of people there loudly yelling and cheering when he made those statements. He had the biggest and best rallies!!!!!!

Now to me, the last time I checked if you're showing up and loudly yelling and cheering at specific statements, that means you support them, which means you have the same beliefs.

So I think that's about as close to the evidence as we can get to show that people believe his discriminatory thougths and policies. It's not like everyone was at home sitting on the couch going, well I guess I have to vote for this guy....no they were out in the streets yelling and cheering and marching and encouraging. That's pretty good evidence and about as close as I think we'll get to knowing that people believe the things that he was saying.
*also I don't follow him on twitter, but I believe a lot of his inflammatory and discriminatory tweets also get a lot of likes and retweets. Another thing for evidence to show that people agree with and think like him.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted875186]

so, lets recap here.

Again, I'm no psychiatrist, but in your pathologic worldview you split the Trump voter as either the R word or a cynic. At least that was your initial position. But when pressed, after sifting through your overly verbose diatribe, it reduces to the fact that they are really either the R word, or WORSE.

There is seriously some flawed logic here:
Trump is a racist -> You voted for Trump
therefore You are a racist.. or worse

If you are going to slander a member on this forum, as well as 47% of the electorate, the onus is on you to provide a mountain of evidence to that fact.

What I really think is happening here is that you are using a defense mechanism because the outcome of the elections weren't as convincing as you would have liked. The path of least resistance is to just say there must be something inherently wrong with that 47%. its a false conclusion. And I'll say it again, if you don't figure it out you should be really worried come 2022 and 2024.

And once more for the record, Trump has no redeeming qualities. There would could have been a thousand better choices (RUBIO!), doubtful any of them would have beat Hillary. He has used bigoted and xenophobic language. I'll stop short of the R word because they aren't equal, but he is ignorant. Ya, he is probably more narcissistic than most presidents. Never once haveI supported his continued efforts to maintain his grasp on the throne. There is no path forward. I standby the fact that there will be a peaceful transition of power. Everything else is political posturing and I wouldn't expect that to change much until after the dust settles in Georgia. But sorry, I'm going to stop short of groveling on my knees to make you feel better bud. Nor will I stand by in silence as you continue to push your narrative of the ignorant and racist republicans.

The argument is actually more cogent than you make it out to be.

1. Trump uses racism language (undeniable fact)
2. So trump is either racist himself, or is promoting racist language to gain followers.
3. if you vote for someone, you either believe in the person or believe in their policies.
4. If you voted for trump you either are racist and like him as a person, or you recognize what he is doing and look past it because you think other policies policies are more important than squashing racist rheteroic.

 

[doctalaughs]

Indeed, it's worse in many ways. Overt racists and red hats are usually pretty ignorant but should know better. Trump’s educated base and his enablers in the higher echelons of power do know better...

I have many highly educated republican close friends who voted for Trump. Universally their thinking is “I wish Trump didn’t say racist and stupid things. He’s a terrible human being. But I agree with 80% of his policies and only 10% of Biden’s. I’m going to vote with what people do rather than what they say.”

Some of them have changed their minds since the election fraud tantrum. Others do think the policy stuff that sounds the worst was twisted and overhyped in the media when you actually read the details/context (children in cages, muslim ban, etc).

But again, I think all these people would have preferred a Kasich or Romney 100%. It’s just that the primary process is so messed up that this choice was made 100% by the maga hat crowd, which I still believe is a small but vocal minority in the party (a little like the socialist/squad/AOC part of the dems who have not gotten control of their party’s primary yet - but you are kidding yourself if you think they couldn’t in the future).

 

[D P356]

The checks and balances of the branches of government makes the nation move en masse based on the majority of “votes.” Even when the machines counting votes were made in China.
Administrations continue or repeal the previous administration’s orders. Progression for better and worse are slow to occur.
Day to day, not much changes for the population.
I thought both presidential candidates sucked this year.

 

[Twiggidy]

I have many highly educated republican close friends who voted for Trump. Universally their thinking is “I wish Trump didn’t say racist and stupid things. He’s a terrible human being. But I agree with 80% of his policies and only 10% of Biden’s. I’m going to vote with what people do rather than what they say.”

Some of them have changed their minds since the election fraud tantrum. Others do think the policy stuff that sounds the worst was twisted and overhyped in the media when you actually read the details/context (children in cages, muslim ban, etc).

But again, I think all these people would have preferred a Kasich or Romney 100%. It’s just that the primary process is so messed up that this choice was made 100% by the maga hat crowd, which I still believe is a small but vocal minority in the party (a little like the socialist/squad/AOC part of the dems who have not gotten control of their party’s primary yet - but you are kidding yourself if you think they couldn’t in the future).

For the sake of argument, I disagree with that speculation. My argument being, that far-left "leaning" candidates didn't do well as well as they thought in they would in the first 3 primaries, with moderates winning Iowa, competing strong in NH, and winning SC. I think the who "the left is taking over the democratic party" is just a way to cause division among Democrats. The party is mostly moderate because it's strongest base is a pretty moderate voting block. I think candidates that get label as left wing, typically aren't. People like AOC/The Squad can do what they do because they know it wins their district but they could never be successful on a State/National level with those politics. Some of my Democrat colleagues on here may disagree with that, but I think it's true.

 

[doctalaughs]

For the sake of argument, I disagree with that speculation. My argument being, that far-left "leaning" candidates didn't do well as well as they thought in they would in the first 3 primaries, with moderates winning Iowa, competing strong in NH, and winning SC. I think the who "the left is taking over the democratic party" is just a way to cause division among Democrats. The party is mostly moderate because it's strongest base is a pretty moderate voting block. I think candidates that get label as left wing, typically aren't. People like AOC/The Squad can do what they do because they know it wins their district but they could never be successful on a State/National level with those politics. Some of my Democrat colleagues on here may disagree with that, but I think it's true.

I suppose. I don’t think it was a forgone conclusion though that Bernie was going to lose the primary in either 2016 or 2020 though. He had quite a lot of support and a strong showing.

To me it was just a flip of the coin that republicans went “off the deep end” to Trump, whereas dems didn’t for Bernie in one of those cycles. Things did pan out that way though- thus my vote.

 

[Twiggidy]

I suppose. I don’t think it was a forgone conclusion though that Bernie was going to lose the primary in either 2016 or 2020 though. He had quite a lot of support and a strong showing.

To me it was just a flip of the coin that republicans went “off the deep end” to Trump, whereas dems didn’t for Bernie in one of those cycles. Things did pan out that way though- thus my vote.

Dems always have to be mindful of their base, which are black folks, and more specifically black women. They’ll never win without them, and to be honest, it made it interesting why Kamala didn’t do better than she did in the primaries but it just shows that black voters are calculated and not monolithic voting block. I’d be shocked if there were ever a successful far-left candidate because most black voters aren’t far left which combined with many moderate Democrats in general, we’ll keep running mostly moderate candidates. If someone like Klobuchar gets her candidacy together and gets more appeal with black voters, she could be the first female President, unless someone like Nikki Haley can really find a way to reach out to black voters.

 

[AMEHigh]

I have many highly educated republican close friends who voted for Trump. Universally their thinking is “I wish Trump didn’t say racist and stupid things. He’s a terrible human being. But I agree with 80% of his policies and only 10% of Biden’s. I’m going to vote with what people do rather than what they say.”

Some of them have changed their minds since the election fraud tantrum. Others do think the policy stuff that sounds the worst was twisted and overhyped in the media when you actually read the details/context (children in cages, muslim ban, etc).

But again, I think all these people would have preferred a Kasich or Romney 100%. It’s just that the primary process is so messed up that this choice was made 100% by the maga hat crowd, which I still believe is a small but vocal minority in the party (a little like the socialist/squad/AOC part of the dems who have not gotten control of their party’s primary yet - but you are kidding yourself if you think they couldn’t in the future).

I agree the primary process in general sucks, but if you look at the numbers trump clearly won the popular vote and the number of delegates. It was a decisive win. So to act like most people don't agree with what he says seems false. I think people are saying that so they can feel better about themselves and about this country. The maga hat crowd is this country.

Again if people didn't believe what he was saying and his ideals then they wouldn't be cheering at his rallies.

Here are the results of the 2016 republican primary:

Results of the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[doctalaughs]

25 mill voters in the repub primary in 2016, 14 mill for Trump. While that sounds impressive if you compare it to the general elections in 2016, 2020 that means only about 15-20% of eventual voters who went republican actually thought Trump was the best choice.

Much better would be if everyone could vote in both primaries- allowing us to nominate less fringe, more moderate politicians. In that world both Trump and Bernie would behave absolutely zero chance.

 

[AMEHigh]

25 mill voters in the repub primary in 2016, 14 mill for Trump. While that sounds impressive if you compare it to the general elections in 2016, 2020 that means only about 15-20% of eventual voters who went republican actually thought Trump was the best choice.

Much better would be if everyone could vote in both primaries- allowing us to nominate less fringe, more moderate politicians. In that world both Trump and Bernie would behave absolutely zero chance.

I'm not sure your point. It seems as though you're trying to make a point that we don't live in "maga country."
Primary voting turnout is typically less than main elections all the time.
The fact still stands that people voted for trump over everyone else in a clear and decisive way.
And then 70+ million people voted again for him again this year. Not only that they go to his rallies, yelling in agreement with him, like his tweets and march in the streets for him. So that goes to show that many (most?) of the people that vote for him agree with what he says. If they didn't they wouldn't be attending his rallies and would've voted for someone else in the primaries back in 2016 or would've stayed home and not voted for him in 2016 and 2020 elections.
Republicans made their bed and now are laying in it, why the spin to act like his voters aren't "maga country" who disagree with what he says?

 

[vector2]

so, lets recap here.

Again, I'm no psychiatrist, but in your pathologic worldview you split the Trump voter as either the R word or a cynic. At least that was your initial position. But when pressed, after sifting through your overly verbose diatribe, it reduces to the fact that they are really either the R word, or WORSE.

There is seriously some flawed logic here:
Trump is a racist -> You voted for Trump
therefore You are a racist.. or worse

If you are going to slander a member on this forum, as well as 47% of the electorate, the onus is on you to provide a mountain of evidence to that fact.

What I really think is happening here is that you are using a defense mechanism because the outcome of the elections weren't as convincing as you would have liked. The path of least resistance is to just say there must be something inherently wrong with that 47%. its a false conclusion. And I'll say it again, if you don't figure it out you should be really worried come 2022 and 2024.

And once more for the record, Trump has no redeeming qualities. There would could have been a thousand better choices (RUBIO!), doubtful any of them would have beat Hillary. He has used bigoted and xenophobic language. I'll stop short of the R word because they aren't equal, but he is ignorant. Ya, he is probably more narcissistic than most presidents. Never once haveI supported his continued efforts to maintain his grasp on the throne. There is no path forward. I standby the fact that there will be a peaceful transition of power. Everything else is political posturing and I wouldn't expect that to change much until after the dust settles in Georgia. But sorry, I'm going to stop short of groveling on my knees to make you feel better bud. Nor will I stand by in silence as you continue to push your narrative of the ignorant and racist republicans.

I laid it out pretty extensively and your response before was a trite "So, yes?" without ONCE AGAIN addressing any specific points. Although I do recall you threw in a "well I'm sure I could put in context or say why the 15 obviously racist trump statements weren't actually racist," but you didn't. Because you can't.

And very simply, the trump voter does boil down to 1. Actively supports trump's racist rhetoric or policies or 2. Actively ignores or euphemizes trump's racist rhetoric and policies in service of something else, even though they know better. Number 2 is worse in some ways by nature of its cynicism and the way moral decision making works. As an example, @BLADEMDA in his own words said that he believes trump is a criminal and will likely be prosecuted once he leaves office....and he voted for him anyway. This is a different (and in some ways worse) moral choice than say Matty who genuinely believes in his heart of hearts that trump is squeaky clean and the second coming of mother Theresa.

The mountain of evidence of trumps racism already exists and it's called these last four years (and actually 40 yrs). You're welcome to bury your head in the sand because it deeply pains you to think that you're supporting a racist, but you are. And as I mentioned before (but of course you didnt respond to) an army of conservatives and Republicans have said the same thing.

"As he stumbled away, one couldn’t help but be reminded of Trump’s racist 2016 attacks aimed at Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. The then-candidate said he couldn’t trust Curiel because he was “Mexican,” but Curiel is an Indiana native; his parents immigrated there from Mexico before he was born. Republican politicians responded strongly to the Curiel attacks. Maine Sen. Susan Collins said they did not “represent our American values”; Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse said Trump’s comments were “the literal definition of racism”; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio declared that the words did “not [reflect] well on us as a nation; and then-House Speaker Paul D. Ryan called Trump’s attack on the Indiana judge a “textbook definition of a racist comment.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/12/trumps-racism-will-bring-his-party-down-with-him/?outputType=amp

As for your meanderings about "defense mechanisms" you should've stuck to your initial statement that you're no psychiatrist, because you really don't know what you're talking about. My position on the apparent support or ignorance by trump's base of his racism has been consistent since 2016. It's consistent now, and it'll be the same in 2022 or 2024 no matter what the political landscape looks like. What you don't get is that there is occasionally more to politics than just your side winning, which is why one of the taglines of all the McCain-fan nevertrumpers like Steve Schmidt is country before party. I honestly don't care a lick for Biden and the typical neoliberals that have come to dominate the democratic party, and I was prepared to write-in Bernie or Warren until just a few months ago. I didn't get to vote for my first choice because your choice was just so crushingly awful that a third party vote was not the best thing imo for the country. But don't take my word for it. Why don't you ask lean-libertarians or lean-conservatives like @pgg or @VA Hopeful Dr why they didn't vote for trump even though trump's policies likely aligned slightly more with their political interests.

 

[vector2]

I have many highly educated republican close friends who voted for Trump. Universally their thinking is “I wish Trump didn’t say racist and stupid things. He’s a terrible human being. But I agree with 80% of his policies and only 10% of Biden’s. I’m going to vote with what people do rather than what they say.”

Some of them have changed their minds since the election fraud tantrum. Others do think the policy stuff that sounds the worst was twisted and overhyped in the media when you actually read the details/context (children in cages, muslim ban, etc).

But again, I think all these people would have preferred a Kasich or Romney 100%. It’s just that the primary process is so messed up that this choice was made 100% by the maga hat crowd, which I still believe is a small but vocal minority in the party (a little like the socialist/squad/AOC part of the dems who have not gotten control of their party’s primary yet - but you are kidding yourself if you think they couldn’t in the future).

As a quick point, the details/context for family separation are worse than the headline

"
But the attorney general at the time, Jeff Sessions, made it clear what Mr. Trump wanted on a conference call later that afternoon, according to a two-year inquiry by the Justice Department’s inspector general into Mr. Trump’s “zero tolerance” family separation policy.

“We need to take away children,” Mr. Sessions told the prosecutors, according to participants’ notes. One added in shorthand: “If care about kids, don’t bring them in. Won’t give amnesty to people with kids.”

Rod J. Rosenstein, then the deputy attorney general, went even further in a second call about a week later, telling the five prosecutors that it did not matter how young the children were. He said that government lawyers should not have refused to prosecute two cases simply because the children were barely more than infants."

And let's not forget that 545 children are still separated from their parents and we have no idea how to reunite them. No matter your stance on immigration, this is not who we are as a country.



Regarding the Muslim ban, it seems strange that you talk so much about the value of judging an individual on his merits but yet you're willing to ban entire countries even when we have the tools necessary to do individual vetting. I was a fellow when the Muslim ban suddenly went into effect and I had residents who temporarily couldn't get back into the country because they were visiting home. That's how poorly thought-out and indiscriminate its implementation was.

 

[doctalaughs]

As a quick point, the details/context for family separation are worse than the headline

"
But the attorney general at the time, Jeff Sessions, made it clear what Mr. Trump wanted on a conference call later that afternoon, according to a two-year inquiry by the Justice Department’s inspector general into Mr. Trump’s “zero tolerance” family separation policy.

“We need to take away children,” Mr. Sessions told the prosecutors, according to participants’ notes. One added in shorthand: “If care about kids, don’t bring them in. Won’t give amnesty to people with kids.”

Rod J. Rosenstein, then the deputy attorney general, went even further in a second call about a week later, telling the five prosecutors that it did not matter how young the children were. He said that government lawyers should not have refused to prosecute two cases simply because the children were barely more than infants."

And let's not forget that 545 children are still separated from their parents and we have no idea how to reunite them. No matter your stance on immigration, this is not who we are as a country.



Regarding the Muslim ban, it seems strange that you talk so much about the value of judging an individual on his merits but yet you're willing to ban entire countries even when we have the tools necessary to do individual vetting. I was a fellow when the Muslim ban suddenly went into effect and I had residents who temporarily couldn't get back into the country because they were visiting home. That's how poorly thought-out and indiscriminate its implementation was.

Oh, I’m not saying it wasn’t racist or poorly thought out and executed. No doubt about that.

If Trump were smarter he would have said from the get-go that everyone who comes across the border illegally gets put back across Immediately with the children they brought, to apply for asylum there (ie the situation that he eventually worked out successfully).

Moreover, instead of blanket-banning certain countries he should have expanded legal immigration and travel visas greatly with requirements to pass educational, language and jobs-based extensive vetting. This would avoid racism, ensure we get high-value legal immigrants + workers and avoid (most) people who won’t integrate culturally or possibly cause harm (see france’s major problem).

Bottom line, we need to tightly vet and control who comes in this country, and keep a short leash on those who might overstay their welcome — but of course he messed up that too (not that dems have a good plan for other reasons).

 

[pgg]

I think y’all White men are scared. Been scared of losing power, status and money. Been scared that the left is trying to make an even playing field for the rest of us brown, black and women folk and that is taking away some of those God given American rights and entitlements that your ancestors took from the Indians and claimed as theirs then passed on to their future generations. Trump stokes and puts fire under that fear and wasn’t scared to put it out in the open for everyone to see.
Scared that now after the Obama presidency that black and brown folk from the US and abroad are coming for what has been given to y’all so easily simply because you won the uterus lottery. All the while the rest of us had to claw and work our way up through sheer hard work, determination and tears, enduring many doors shut in our faces, while having to prove that we are just as worthy because nothing was simply handed to us due to our wrong skin color and/or sex.
That fear of the average Joe living the American dream has been chipped away at for decades by “others” and Trump just came in at the perfect time with all his racist and mysogynistic rhetoric and many of y’all just slurped it all up and saw him as the savior that is going to save your “status” in America.

If I was a White man born and raised in this country, and my leverage was being taken away, hell who knows, I may have voted for him too. I don’t know.

Some are straight up racists for sure. Others don’t necessarily exhibit overt racism or even covert racism. But for sure, xenophobia and fear of the “others” taking what is rightfully yours.

Everything else is just pure old rationalization IMO.

Scared?

Here's a snippet of the latest from the "woke" at one of the hospitals where I work, with some specifics redacted to protect the innocent:

In an effort to eliminate disparaging language or references [...] has tasked all [facilities] to remove the word "slave" as part of any DEVICE (printer) name in [EMR].

To accomplish this, any device with "slave" in the name or mnemonic has been renamed to "local".
Example: If the user currently uses SLAVE to print to their local printer, they will need to use LOCAL after the renaming; if they use SLAVE132, after the device is renamed, they will use LOCAL132.

Some users may already be using MAIN for printing; this will remain in place as well. We will be completely removing all entries of “slave” on 30 Nov 2020. On this day any [EMR] command with “slave” in it will no longer work.

50 years of computer hardware naming conventions between primary controller devices and dependent accessory hardware need to change RIGHT NOW, and in about a week a bunch of people are going to come in to work to find their printers don't work.

No, my friend, I wasn't exactly "scared" when I read this email.

 

[chocomorsel]

Scared?

Here's a snippet of the latest from the "woke" at one of the hospitals where I work, with some specifics redacted to protect the innocent:



50 years of computer hardware naming conventions between primary controller devices and dependent accessory hardware need to change RIGHT NOW, and in about a week a bunch of people are going to come in to work to find their printers don't work.

No, my friend, I wasn't exactly "scared" when I read this email.

As sarcastic as you wanna be, (and I would know) you know damn well this is NOT what I am talking about.
But I am glad you aren’t scared. Don’t you have an ? Can’t you form a militia or something with the amount to metal and lead in your possession?

And I didn’t realize you were a Trumper.

Quite frankly, I don’t know where the SLAVE in computers came from.
But if it did come from slavery in the traditional American Black people tied to chains and beaten, killed, raped, removed from their families sense, then yeah, it does need a changing. And I don’t care if computers don’t work for a week. Because people are tired of this “it’s part of history” BS while not taking into consideration how things like this mentally affect other people. Like @AMEHigh eloquently put it earlier. The disregard for “other” human rights and feelings. Or something like that. I am on my second glass here.

 

[Splenda88]

I think both Biden and Cuomo should come out and say they will pardon Trump. If you watch and listen to conservative media, these people really think Trump did not lose. I think Trump in an effort to protect himself is doing a lot of damage to the country.

 

[Twiggidy]

Scared?

Here's a snippet of the latest from the "woke" at one of the hospitals where I work, with some specifics redacted to protect the innocent:



50 years of computer hardware naming conventions between primary controller devices and dependent accessory hardware need to change RIGHT NOW, and in about a week a bunch of people are going to come in to work to find their printers don't work.

No, my friend, I wasn't exactly "scared" when I read this email.

While I agree that given scenario is completely ridiculous, if this is the type of stuff that would make someone vote for Trump, that person is just as ridiculous as the policy.

Full disclosure, I connect the SLAVE to the echo machine everyday and have even made a “connect the indentured servant” joke under my breath (honestly because i don’t think my colleagues are quick enough to get the joke)

 

[Twiggidy]

Moreover.....

I don’t care about any statues.
It’ll always be Mrs Butterworth and Aunt Jemima as far as I’m concerned.
OJ did it.
And yes, Kaepernick should be in the league.

Now, someone take me hunting so I can shot some non-human stuff and afterwards we’ll have an edible and discuss the top hip hop albums of all time.....hot take, To Pimp A Butterfly = overrated

 

[pgg]

While I agree that given scenario is completely ridiculous, if this is the type of stuff that would make someone vote for Trump, that person is just as ridiculous as the policy.

Full disclosure, I connect the SLAVE to the echo machine everyday and have even made a “connect the indentured servant” joke under my breath (honestly because i don’t think my colleagues are quick enough to get the joke)

I wasn't talking about people voting for Trump.

I was responding to her ridiculous assertion that "y'all white men are scared" with some even more ridiculousness from this week that evoked an exhausted from me. It was an example of one of the things the woke left does and it is among the reasons I don't vote for Democrats.

It does not follow from that I vote for Republicans in general or any specific Republican in particular. And I'll just point out that despite the dozens of times I've explicitly noted in this and other threads that I would not and did not vote for Trump (either in 2016 or 2020), choco's response (knee-jerk as usual) was to call me a "Trumpist". Which is itself another bit of typical woke-left ad hominem antic that reinforces the correctness of my decision to not vote for anyone on that side of the aisle.


For the record, I laughed at your indentured servant joke. Dark humor is the best humor.

 

[vector2]

Oh, I’m not saying it wasn’t racist or poorly thought out and executed. No doubt about that.

If Trump were smarter he would have said from the get-go that everyone who comes across the border illegally gets put back across Immediately with the children they brought, to apply for asylum there (ie the situation that he eventually worked out successfully).

Moreover, instead of blanket-banning certain countries he should have expanded legal immigration and travel visas greatly with requirements to pass educational, language and jobs-based extensive vetting. This would avoid racism, ensure we get high-value legal immigrants + workers and avoid (most) people who won’t integrate culturally or possibly cause harm (see france’s major problem).

Bottom line, we need to tightly vet and control who comes in this country, and keep a short leash on those who might overstay their welcome — but of course he messed up that too (not that dems have a good plan for other reasons).

Lemme just address a couple points:

-I think asylum should remain the way it's always been- refugees should be able to stay in the US while their asylum proceeding is ongoing. But we must keep track of where they are while a decision is being made.

-Agree that legal immigration and travel visas should have been expanded. However, under trump it should be noted that *legal* immigration was cut by half. This is directly due to the racist intentions and policy of a one Stephen Miller.

-As far as "high-value" immigrants- we should be targeting these folks. Better if the brain drain affects other countries while we get their best talents. Buttttt, we have a TON of jobs here which immigrants with less education, both legal and undocumented, do which native Americans just don't. We at the very least need a robust guest worker program that builds on the various kinds of work visas available so we can get these people out of the shadows.

-Agree that ultimately we need strict oversight and control about who is coming in the country, no matter whether you are on the right or left



Regardless of where we disagree on these points, it's inarguable that trump and his crew literally picked the most racist, backward way to go about all of the right wing's immigration goals. Just like so many other things, they actually could've got more of what they wanted with different leadership at the top.

 

[chocomorsel]

I wasn't talking about people voting for Trump.

I was responding to her ridiculous assertion that "y'all white men are scared" with some even more ridiculousness from this week that evoked an exhausted from me. It was an example of one of the things the woke left does and it is among the reasons I don't vote for Democrats.

It does not follow from that I vote for Republicans in general or any specific Republican in particular. And I'll just point out that despite the dozens of times I've explicitly noted in this and other threads that I would not and did not vote for Trump (either in 2016 or 2020), choco's response (knee-jerk as usual) was to call me a "Trumpist". Which is itself another bit of typical woke-left ad hominem antic that reinforces the correctness of my decision to not vote for anyone on that side of the aisle.


For the record, I laughed at your indentured servant joke. Dark humor is the best humor.

I have read your posts on how you wouldn’t vote for the man.
But yet here you sit defending his voter base and calling out the “woke left.”

So it’s quite frankly confusing. And therefor needs clarifying in case something has been missed by my “woke self.”

And yeah, shut the SLAVES down if they stand for good old American black people slavery. I am glad some of us black people can laugh at it, but that is not all of us.

EDIT... Now that I am not multitasking in the kitchen and drinking my wine, why even address me? I am specifically addressing Trump supporters of which you claim NOT to be. My speech was my opinion on White men who voted for Trump and why I think they did.
So why are you even responding and getting pissed off on the subject if that ain't you?

 

[vector2]

I wasn't talking about people voting for Trump.

I was responding to her ridiculous assertion that "y'all white men are scared" with some even more ridiculousness from this week that evoked an exhausted from me. It was an example of one of the things the woke left does and it is among the reasons I don't vote for Democrats.

It does not follow from that I vote for Republicans in general or any specific Republican in particular. And I'll just point out that despite the dozens of times I've explicitly noted in this and other threads that I would not and did not vote for Trump (either in 2016 or 2020), choco's response (knee-jerk as usual) was to call me a "Trumpist". Which is itself another bit of typical woke-left ad hominem antic that reinforces the correctness of my decision to not vote for anyone on that side of the aisle.


For the record, I laughed at your indentured servant joke. Dark humor is the best humor.

To her point, when the left points to the inherent worry that many whites in the country have regarding changing demographics and power structures, I'm pretty sure they're not referring to white men fretting about corporate emails about primary controller devices or whether the hospital calls mobile computers WOWs instead of COWs.

Rather than watching you knockdown a strawman, I personally would be more interested in what you think about the rise of groups defending "Western chauvinism" or propagating white genocide conspiracy theories, or even the fact that one of our own posters a few pages ago analogized the so-called "woke left's" treatment of white men to the treatment of Jews by the Nazis or the treatment of the bourgeoisie by the Communists.

 

[vector2]

Like so many things on the right, the perception is usually worse than the reality

They jump over themselves to say that white discrimination is a problem, but when asked for specific examples they come up short. Kind of like massive voter fraud.

 

[doctalaughs]

Like so many things on the right, the perception is usually worse than the reality

View attachment 323632




They jump over themselves to say that white discrimination is a problem, but when asked for specific examples they come up short. Kind of like massive voter fraud.

Well... affirmative action is codified legal discrimination against whites (and Asians) in both schools and workplaces that’s gone on for 20+ years.... so I would say that’s the main example.

No matter how you argue, discrimination like that is on an individual level... even if you argue it’s for the greater societal good (which I don’t believe) or to correct/balance wrongs against groups.

 

[pgg]

To her point, when the left points to the inherent worry that many whites in the country have regarding changing demographics and power structures, I'm pretty sure they're not referring to whites fretting about corporate emails about primary controller devices or whether the hospital calls mobile computers WOWs instead of COWs.

What you're missing is that all of these stupid trivial little things are the raindrops that make the flood. I'm perplexed and mildly annoyed because some of the people steering the woke left are C R A Z Y. That one of the "action items" to come out of a series of focus groups and diversity meetings was to rename (and break, at least temporarily) a bunch of printers because of master/slave terminology that merely reflects their LITERAL relationship on the network is just a symptom.

And yeah, I'm kind of joking with the whole thing. Kind of an incredulous head-shaking laugh, but a laugh all the same.

Rather than watching you knockdown a strawman, I personally would be more interested in what you think about the rise of groups defending "Western chauvinism" or propagating white genocide conspiracy theories, or even the fact that one of our own posters a few pages ago analogized the so-called "woke left's" treatment of white men to the treatment of Jews by the Nazis or the treatment of the bourgeoisie by the Communists.

You didn't name them, but I'm going to assume by "western chauvinists" you're referring to the Proud Boys. I do basically agree with one of their fundamental position statements, namely that they are "proud and unabashed proponents of western civilization." I think western secular democracy is superior to the kind of theocratic or kleptocratic totalitarianism many parts of the world endure, and I don't feel the least bit ashamed to declare that the cultures that embrace those systems are inferior to mine. They are, by any objective measure of personal freedom, economic opportunity, physical security, you name it.

I think the only good Communist is one who was, moments ago, comfortably sitting in a helicopter. Nazis should be hung.

Now, many of those Proud Chums are obviously saying those words in a manner and context that includes some dog-whistley and not-so-subtle white supremacist meaning. And yeah, those guys suck. Racists and white supremacists are bad people. If you're a racist N-hating piece of trash looking for some like-minded pals, that organization is probably fertile ground to search.

All conspiracy theories are idiotic. I don't know what else to say about what I think about that.


As for Jew/Nazi/bourgeoisie/Communist analogies, yes, I think those analogies are strained. (Any analogy involving Hitler is more or less by definition at least a little hyperbolic.) However when it comes to the lived experiences of people who hail from such places and have endured such regimes, I'm inclined to look beyond the hyperbole for what wisdom of experience may lie behind it.

Why do you think Biden lost ground (compared to Clinton 2016) with the Cuban-American vote in Florida? Why did these brown people vote for a racist? Could it be that there's something in their lived experience that makes them wary of what the Democratic party says is good for America? Maybe they see something they've seen before.

 

[doctalaughs]

Lemme just address a couple points:

-I think asylum should remain the way it's always been- refugees should be able to stay in the US while their asylum proceeding is ongoing. But we must keep track of where they are while a decision is being made.

-Agree that legal immigration and travel visas should have been expanded. However, under trump it should be noted that *legal* immigration was cut by half. This is directly due to the racist intentions and policy of a one Stephen Miller.

-As far as "high-value" immigrants- we should be targeting these folks. Better if the brain drain affects other countries while we get their best talents. Buttttt, we have a TON of jobs here which immigrants with less education, both legal and undocumented, do which native Americans just don't. We at the very least need a robust guest worker program that builds on the various kinds of work visas available so we can get these people out of the shadows.

-Agree that ultimately we need strict oversight and control about who is coming in the country, no matter whether you are on the right or left



Regardless of where we disagree on these points, it's inarguable that trump and his crew literally picked the most racist, backward way to go about all of the right wing's immigration goals. Just like so many other things, they actually could've got more of what they wanted with different leadership at the top.

Those are your opinions. I’m saying you can be strictly anti-illegal immigration with ironclad policies, while not being racist. And it’s debatable that Americans “won’t do these jobs.” If we don’t have a nanny state providing for people, and the supply of illegals to do these jobs dries up— wages would have to go up and Americans would pick crops, do construction, mow lawns etc.

Too bad Trump couldnt eloquently execute policies like this without sounding like a racist.

 

[chocomorsel]

Those are your opinions. I’m saying you can be strictly anti-illegal immigration with ironclad policies, while not being racist. And it’s debatable that Americans “won’t do these jobs.” If we don’t have a nanny state providing for people, and the supply of illegals to do these jobs dries up— wages would have to go up and Americans would pick crops, do construction, mow lawns etc.

Too bad Trump couldnt eloquently execute policies like this without sounding like a racist.

I am sorry. I need to know what a good fair wage for a crop picker should be. According to what I am seeing online they are making $12-16 an hour in California. Minimum wage is $12 an hour. Did these jobs used to pay much better in the past and when the pay went down people started quitting?
What do Americans want to get paid for these jobs?
I do agree with the nanny state though. Welfare goes too far and there needs to be a time limit on it.

 

[Twiggidy]

Well... affirmative action is codified legal discrimination against whites (and Asians) in both schools and workplaces that’s gone on for 20+ years.... so I would say that’s the main example.

No matter how you argue, discrimination like that is on an individual level... even if you argue it’s for the greater societal good (which I don’t believe) or to correct/balance wrongs against groups.

Don’t forget men.....and rich people

I love when people want to argue against AA they conveniently neglected that it benefits white women the most, not to mention the poor folks in rural areas.

 

[pgg]

Those are your opinions. I’m saying you can be strictly anti-illegal immigration with ironclad policies, while not being racist. And it’s debatable that Americans “won’t do these jobs.” If we don’t have a nanny state providing for people, and the supply of illegals to do these jobs dries up— wages would have to go up and Americans would pick crops, do construction, mow lawns etc.

Probably.

Farm labor costs are a tiny fraction of retail food costs.

This article is almost 10 years old but it plausibly claims that a 40% increase in farm wages would result in a 3.6% increase in retail prices.

As always, the solution to illegal labor isn't to crack down on the poor people doing the labor. It's to levy fines against the people hiring that labor, and if the fines don't work, arrest prosecute convict and imprison them. They are committing crimes, after all. Now that weed's legal in CA there ought to be lodging available.

The average hourly wage for a nonsupervisory agricultural worker in 2018 per USDA was about $14/hr. Double it to $28/hr and Americans would do the job. Triple it to $42/hr and Americans would fight over the job. And worst case the cost of a head of lettuce would go up about 10%, a trivial amount.

 

[Twiggidy]

Those are your opinions. I’m saying you can be strictly anti-illegal immigration with ironclad policies, while not being racist. And it’s debatable that Americans “won’t do these jobs.” If we don’t have a nanny state providing for people, and the supply of illegals to do these jobs dries up— wages would have to go up and Americans would pick crops, do construction, mow lawns etc.

Too bad Trump couldnt eloquently execute policies like this without sounding like a racist.

The intersection of business owners and immigration reform would be a very interesting discussion because I'd make a small bet that many of those business owners that us undocumented labor (i'm so woke lol) also vote Republican so that intersection of Republican politics could be very interesting.

 

[Twiggidy]

Probably.

Farm labor costs are a tiny fraction of retail food costs.

This article is almost 10 years old but it plausibly claims that a 40% increase in farm wages would result in a 3.6% increase in retail prices.

As always, the solution to illegal labor isn't to crack down on the poor people doing the labor. It's to levy fines against the people hiring that labor, and if the fines don't work, arrest prosecute convict and imprison them. They are committing crimes, after all. Now that weed's legal in CA there ought to be lodging available.

The average hourly wage for a nonsupervisory agricultural worker in 2018 per USDA was about $14/hr. Double it to $28/hr and Americans would do the job. Triple it to $42/hr and Americans would fight over the job. And worst case the cost of a head of lettuce would go up about 10%, a trivial amount.

Nailing it right on the head right here, but it'll never happen, for the same reason that DUI's are mostly misdemeanors.

That last part is a total thread de-railer, I know.

 

[AMEHigh]

Well... affirmative action is codified legal discrimination against whites (and Asians) in both schools and workplaces that’s gone on for 20+ years.... so I would say that’s the main example.

No matter how you argue, discrimination like that is on an individual level... even if you argue it’s for the greater societal good (which I don’t believe) or to correct/balance wrongs against groups.

Huh? Affirmative action benefits white people, especially white women. How is that discrimination against white people?

 

[doctalaughs]

Huh? Affirmative action benefits white people, especially white women. How is that discrimination against white people?

Nah, I don’t buy that. I posted some tables earlier in this thread. It does not benefit rich people (who are going to have a leg up no matter what with resources). It penalizes poorer white and Asian people.

 

[doctalaughs]

Here’s an article that tries to “sum up” the evidence that AA has benefitted white women the most.

White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents

The willingness to erase white women from the story of affirmative action is part of the problem.

www.vox.com

I don’t see a shred of evidence in it - basically the argument is that white women have attained better representation in schools and workplaces in the same time period AA was implemented. We all know that’s a super-weak correlation. How about major changes in society since the 80s requiring 2–worker households? How about women seeing more role models and acceptance into multiple fields?

I want to see data showing that women score 1 standard deviation below on standardized tests compared to men, but are admitted at higher rates to schools because of AA.

 

[Ezekiel2517]

What you're missing is that all of these stupid trivial little things are the raindrops that make the flood. I'm perplexed and mildly annoyed because some of the people steering the woke left are C R A Z Y. That one of the "action items" to come out of a series of focus groups and diversity meetings was to rename (and break, at least temporarily) a bunch of printers because of master/slave terminology that merely reflects their LITERAL relationship on the network is just a symptom.

And yeah, I'm kind of joking with the whole thing. Kind of an incredulous head-shaking laugh, but a laugh all the same.



You didn't name them, but I'm going to assume by "western chauvinists" you're referring to the Proud Boys. I do basically agree with one of their fundamental position statements, namely that they are "proud and unabashed proponents of western civilization." I think western secular democracy is superior to the kind of theocratic or kleptocratic totalitarianism many parts of the world endure, and I don't feel the least bit ashamed to declare that the cultures that embrace those systems are inferior to mine. They are, by any objective measure of personal freedom, economic opportunity, physical security, you name it.

I think the only good Communist is one who was, moments ago, comfortably sitting in a helicopter. Nazis should be hung.

Now, many of those Proud Chums are obviously saying those words in a manner and context that includes some dog-whistley and not-so-subtle white supremacist meaning. And yeah, those guys suck. Racists and white supremacists are bad people. If you're a racist N-hating piece of trash looking for some like-minded pals, that organization is probably fertile ground to search.

All conspiracy theories are idiotic. I don't know what else to say about what I think about that.


As for Jew/Nazi/bourgeoisie/Communist analogies, yes, I think those analogies are strained. (Any analogy involving Hitler is more or less by definition at least a little hyperbolic.) However when it comes to the lived experiences of people who hail from such places and have endured such regimes, I'm inclined to look beyond the hyperbole for what wisdom of experience may lie behind it.

Why do you think Biden lost ground (compared to Clinton 2016) with the Cuban-American vote in Florida? Why did these brown people vote for a racist? Could it be that there's something in their lived experience that makes them wary of what the Democratic party says is good for America? Maybe they see something they've seen before.

Regarding the Cuban-American vote, I thought this thread from right after the election (by a Cuban American from Miami) provided good insight. Also, one thing to note is that many Cuban-Americans actually consider themselves to be "white". The US is just one of many countries throughout the world with a history of class systems deeply rooted in colorism and racism.

Read and Share Twitter Threads easily!

Thread Reader helps you read and share the best of Twitter Threads

threadreaderapp.com

 

[DocMcCoy]

I laid it out pretty extensively and your response before was a trite "So, yes?" without ONCE AGAIN addressing any specific points. Although I do recall you threw in a "well I'm sure I could put in context or say why the 15 obviously racist trump statements weren't actually racist," but you didn't. Because you can't.

And very simply, the trump voter does boil down to 1. Actively supports trump's racist rhetoric or policies or 2. Actively ignores or euphemizes trump's racist rhetoric and policies in service of something else, even though they know better. Number 2 is worse in some ways by nature of its cynicism and the way moral decision making works. As an example, @BLADEMDA in his own words said that he believes trump is a criminal and will likely be prosecuted once he leaves office....and he voted for him anyway. This is a different (and in some ways worse) moral choice than say Matty who genuinely believes in his heart of hearts that trump is squeaky clean and the second coming of mother Theresa.

The mountain of evidence of trumps racism already exists and it's called these last four years (and actually 40 yrs). You're welcome to bury your head in the sand because it deeply pains you to think that you're supporting a racist, but you are. And as I mentioned before (but of course you didnt respond to) an army of conservatives and Republicans have said the same thing.

"As he stumbled away, one couldn’t help but be reminded of Trump’s racist 2016 attacks aimed at Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. The then-candidate said he couldn’t trust Curiel because he was “Mexican,” but Curiel is an Indiana native; his parents immigrated there from Mexico before he was born. Republican politicians responded strongly to the Curiel attacks. Maine Sen. Susan Collins said they did not “represent our American values”; Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse said Trump’s comments were “the literal definition of racism”; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio declared that the words did “not [reflect] well on us as a nation; and then-House Speaker Paul D. Ryan called Trump’s attack on the Indiana judge a “textbook definition of a racist comment.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/12/trumps-racism-will-bring-his-party-down-with-him/?outputType=amp

As for your meanderings about "defense mechanisms" you should've stuck to your initial statement that you're no psychiatrist, because you really don't know what you're talking about. My position on the apparent support or ignorance by trump's base of his racism has been consistent since 2016. It's consistent now, and it'll be the same in 2022 or 2024 no matter what the political landscape looks like. What you don't get is that there is occasionally more to politics than just your side winning, which is why one of the taglines of all the McCain-fan nevertrumpers like Steve Schmidt is country before party. I honestly don't care a lick for Biden and the typical neoliberals that have come to dominate the democratic party, and I was prepared to write-in Bernie or Warren until just a few months ago. I didn't get to vote for my first choice because your choice was just so crushingly awful that a third party vote was not the best thing imo for the country. But don't take my word for it. Why don't you ask lean-libertarians or lean-conservatives like @pgg or @VA Hopeful Dr why they didn't vote for trump even though trump's policies likely aligned slightly more with their political interests.

I really want to let this ish go and move on it’s been like 3 days but...

Both of your views of the Trump voter implies racism. The onus isn’t in proving Trump is a racist. It’s proving your conclusion that me and the 47% are.

Or you can just say we aren’t and we can move on.

And since I apparently have to respond to your army of conservatives comment... Trump had had the overwhelming support of the GOP since 2016. And has had what only 2 sitting republican senators call him out on his election tactics? You’ve personally acknowledged this. Don’t act like Lincoln project never trumpers make up some huge slice of the GOP. again, all of this is irrelevant ie I don’t ******* care. If you think trump is racist I’m not going to fight you on that. But I’ll de da-m-d if I’m going to let you call me one.


*superfluous paragraphs.
*throw away opinion piece attached to vaguely prove my point
*charts and graphs
*snarky yet witty personal attack
*finishes beer

And scene.

 

[vector2]

I really want to let this ish go and move on it’s been like 3 days but...

Both of your views of the Trump voter implies racism. The onus isn’t in proving Trump is a racist. It’s proving your conclusion that me and the 47% are.

Or you can just say we aren’t and we can move on.

And since I apparently have to respond to your army of conservatives comment... Trump had had the overwhelming support of the GOP since 2016. And has had what only 2 sitting republican senators call him out on his election tactics? You’ve personally acknowledged this. Don’t act like Lincoln project never trumpers make up some huge slice of the GOP. again, all of this is irrelevant ie I don’t ******* care. If you think trump is racist I’m not going to fight you on that. But I’ll de da-m-d if I’m going to let you call me one.


*superfluous paragraphs.
*throw away opinion piece attached to vaguely prove my point
*charts and graphs
*snarky yet witty personal attack
*finishes beer

And scene.

You don't have to respond to anything, and indeed for the most part you haven't since that would've actually required engaging on a specific point instead of mostly responding with a general "nuh uh" and rolling your eyes like a petulant teenager.


I'll say it for you one more time as simply as I can. If one votes for an obvious racist like trump, for the most part it can really only imply one of two things about the voter:

1. You explicitly or implicitly support his racist rhetoric and actions

-As an explicit example, consider when Andrew Anglin, founder of The Daily Stormer says: “Jews, Blacks and lesbians will be leaving America if Trump gets elected—and he’s happy about it. This alone is enough reason to put your entire heart and soul into supporting this man.”​

​

-As an implicit example, consider the redhats who cheered trump on when he told suburban housewives that "Cory Booker and low income housing" were coming for them, or when he called African countries "****holes," or when he told four Congresswomen of color to "go back" to the countries they came from (ignore for a second the fact that three of them were actually born here). The "low income housing" or "****holes" or "go back" or even Obama birth certificate statements had no explicit mention of race or biology, but I think we're all pretty good at spotting dogwhistles by now.​

2. You are willfully choosing to ignore his racist rhetoric and actions

-You, forty-some cowardly GOP senators worried about their political lives, and a big chunk of that 47% are just looking the other way. I'm sure you find the support trump has from The Daily Stormer or David Duke horrific, but they're such a small percentage of trump's base that you probably don't think about them or their comments that much. And I would bet you think there are better or more effective ways for trump to address the squad (perhaps on the issues) rather than with coded language about their origins or ethnic heritage. And I bet you think the "Judge Curiel can't do his job because he's of Mexican heritage" thing - which you still have not even acknowledged - is a one-off, so you either have ignored or maybe just don't know that trump doubled down on it over and over again. And for all I know, perhaps you think that when trump goes around calling the coronavirus "KUNG FLU" it's friggin' hilarious and *just* a joke.​

​

It's great and all that you're appealing to trump's high approval rating within the GOP as if it's some kind of retort against my point, but I'm guessing you're only doing that because you're unaware of what an argumentum ad populum is. The number of people within the group of nevertrumpers or the Lincoln Project is irrelevant- their arguments and the fact that they're making those arguments against trump from a conservative perspective are what matters. Liberals get stereotyped as being too quick to call people racists, but it's a bit more difficult to apply that stereotype to former Northern FL GOP congressmen or John McCain's campaign manager. Again, I know it's hard to wrap your mind around the fact that 70 million people could hold quite despicable views or be able to so easily ignore the quite despicable views of our nation's leader, but America unfortunately has set this precedent over and over throughout her history.

But ultimately, is being in the second category listed above as bad as being Andrew Anglin? No. Is it synonymous with being a racist? No. What it is is a usurping of any kind of principles just to get what you want, or as @Mad Jack more eloquently put it: "a more calculated sort of awful"

 

[Mad Jack]

Dems always have to be mindful of their base, which are black folks, and more specifically black women. They’ll never win without them, and to be honest, it made it interesting why Kamala didn’t do better than she did in the primaries but it just shows that black voters are calculated and not monolithic voting block. I’d be shocked if there were ever a successful far-left candidate because most black voters aren’t far left which combined with many moderate Democrats in general, we’ll keep running mostly moderate candidates. If someone like Klobuchar gets her candidacy together and gets more appeal with black voters, she could be the first female President, unless someone like Nikki Haley can really find a way to reach out to black voters.

The trouble with Kamala is that she's a former prosecutor with a pretty horrific record that shows she values her career over justice. She may be black, but she essentially built a career out of destroying communities of color, and my bet is that didn't play all too well with black voters, but that's just speculation

https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article245213680.html

 

[Mad Jack]

You don't have to respond to anything, and indeed for the most part you haven't since that would've actually required engaging on a specific point instead of mostly responding with a general "nuh uh" and rolling your eyes like a petulant teenager.


I'll say it for you one more time as simply as I can. If one votes for an obvious racist like trump, for the most part it can really only imply one of two things about the voter:

1. You explicitly or implicitly support his racist rhetoric and actions

-As an explicit example, consider when Andrew Anglin, founder of The Daily Stormer says: “Jews, Blacks and lesbians will be leaving America if Trump gets elected—and he’s happy about it. This alone is enough reason to put your entire heart and soul into supporting this man.”​

​

-As an implicit example, consider the redhats who cheered trump on when he told suburban housewives that "Cory Booker and low income housing" were coming for them, or when he called African countries "****holes," or when he told four Congresswomen of color to "go back" to the countries they came from (ignore for a second the fact that three of them were actually born here). The "low income housing" or "****holes" or "go back" or even Obama birth certificate statements had no explicit mention of race or biology, but I think we're all pretty good at spotting dogwhistles by now.​

2. You are willfully choosing to ignore his racist rhetoric and actions

-You, forty-some cowardly GOP senators worried about their political lives, and a big chunk of that 47% are just looking the other way. I'm sure you find the support trump has from The Daily Stormer or David Duke horrific, but they're such a small percentage of trump's base that you probably don't think about them or their comments that much. And I would bet you think there are better or more effective ways for trump to address the squad (perhaps on the issues) rather than with coded language about their origins or ethnic heritage. And I bet you think the "Judge Curiel can't do his job because he's of Mexican heritage" thing - which you still have not even acknowledged - is a one-off, so you either have ignored or maybe just don't know that trump doubled down on it over and over again. And for all I know, perhaps you think that when trump goes around calling the coronavirus "KUNG FLU" it's friggin' hilarious and *just* a joke.​

​

It's great and all that you're appealing to trump's high approval rating within the GOP as if it's some kind of retort against my point, but I'm guessing you're only doing that because you're unaware of what an argumentum ad populum is. The number of people within the group of nevertrumpers or the Lincoln Project is irrelevant- their arguments and the fact that they're making those arguments against trump from a conservative perspective are what matters. Liberals get stereotyped as being too quick to call people racists, but it's a bit more difficult to apply that stereotype to former Northern FL GOP congressmen or John McCain's campaign manager. Again, I know it's hard to wrap your mind around the fact that 70 million people could hold quite despicable views or be able to so easily ignore the quite despicable views of our nation's leader, but America unfortunately has set this precedent over and over throughout her history.

But ultimately, is being in the second category listed above as bad as being Andrew Anglin? No. Is it synonymous with being a racist? No. What it is is a usurping of any kind of principles just to get what you want, or as @Mad Jack more eloquently put it: "a more calculated sort of awful"

Trump certainly has a lot of racist supporters, but they're not everyone that supports him. The average Trump voter isn't going home to hang out on The Daily Stormer or Stormfront. But Trump has not rebuked these acolytes of his, nor has he discounted the Qanon cultists. Those that have voted for him vote for him in spite of his history, generally, not because of it. White Evangelical Christians showed up in enormous numbers to support him on an unprecedented scale this election. Why? Because he's actually carried through on pushing to overturn RvW. They've made the calculated decision that his racism doesn't matter to him as much as what they view as innocent lives. Trump also got larger shares of minority voters by a good amount than last election. Why? Not because he's racist. Because they don't like the increasingly liberal policies of the Democrats. Most minority cultures in the United States are very conservative and patriarchal, and the Democrat's white affluent liberal playbook is getting a bit too culturally divisive for some of their taste. This is just based on the analysis I've read. The problem is, most of these people fail to see Trump as the serious danger he is to our democratic process and our nation's future, treating him as just another candidate when he is far, far more dangerous. The damage his current lame duck shenanigans are doing in sabotaging our nation's economy and international relations, as well as his bringing into doubt the entirety of our democratic process without any shred of tangible proof in a manner that would be called an attempt at a soft coup of any other nation's leader were doing it, should be proof enough that he only cared for himself and not this nation the entire time.

 

[chocomorsel]

Trump certainly has a lot of racist supporters, but they're not everyone that supports him. The average Trump voter isn't going home to hang out on The Daily Stormer or Stormfront. But Trump has not rebuked these acolytes of his, nor has he discounted the Qanon cultists. Those that have voted for him vote for him in spite of his history, generally, not because of it. White Evangelical Christians showed up in enormous numbers to support him on an unprecedented scale this election. Why? Because he's actually carried through on pushing to overturn RvW. They've made the calculated decision that his racism doesn't matter to him as much as what they view as innocent lives. Trump also got larger shares of minority voters by a good amount than last election. Why? Not because he's racist. Because they don't like the increasingly liberal policies of the Democrats. Most minority cultures in the United States are very conservative and patriarchal, and the Democrat's white affluent liberal playbook is getting a bit too culturally divisive for some of their taste. This is just based on the analysis I've read. The problem is, most of these people fail to see Trump as the serious danger he is to our democratic process and our nation's future, treating him as just another candidate when he is far, far more dangerous. The damage his current lame duck shenanigans are doing in sabotaging our nation's economy and international relations, as well as his bringing into doubt the entirety of our democratic process without any shred of tangible proof in a manner that would be called an attempt at a soft coup of any other nation's leader were doing it, should be proof enough that he only cared for himself and not this nation the entire time.

So.... are you now saying that you regret voting for this certifiable full blown narcissist? Based on your last two lines?

 

[AMEHigh]

Well Repub Senator Pat Toomey from PA has finally come to his senses and says that Biden is the president elect. He’s not running for re-election so I’m guessing that’s why. What are all these other senators going to say/do when it’s Jan and Biden becomes president? Pretend they didn’t just act like idiots?

 

[Southpaw]

Well Repub Senator Pat Toomey from PA has finally come to his senses and says that Biden is the president elect. He’s not running for re-election so I’m guessing that’s why. What are all these other senators going to say/do when it’s Jan and Biden becomes president? Pretend they didn’t just act like idiots?

Well that's the calculation they've made. And honestly it doesn't matter much whether they support(ed) Biden a week ago, today, or months from now. They'll face no repercussion with their electorate by not working with Biden at any point.

 

[Southpaw]

So.... are you now saying that you regret voting for this certifiable full blown narcissist? Based on your last two lines?

I can't figure out why you'd think @pgg or @Mad Jack would vote for Trump. Read their posts a little.

 

[chocomorsel]

I can't figure out why you'd think @pgg or @Mad Jack would vote for Trump. Read their posts a little.

Sorry. The back and forth that Vector had was with @DocMcCoy. I was thinking of him. Didn’t see who actually typed it and thought it was him.
And I already addressed the situation with @pgg already.

 

[FrontierPsychiatry]

Well Repub Senator Pat Toomey from PA has finally come to his senses and says that Biden is the president elect. He’s not running for re-election so I’m guessing that’s why. What are all these other senators going to say/do when it’s Jan and Biden becomes president? Pretend they didn’t just act like idiots?

Fake News. This ruling was all part of the plan. Checkmate liberals! NEW: The Trump campaign responds to today’s Pennsylvania court ruling: “Today’s decision turns out to help us in our strategy to get expeditiously to the U.S. Supreme Court ... We’re thankful to the Obama-appointed judge for making this anticipated decision quickly.” - TheDonald

 

[Southpaw]

The trouble with Kamala is that she's a former prosecutor with a pretty horrific record that shows she values her career over justice. She may be black, but she essentially built a career out of destroying communities of color, and my bet is that didn't play all too well with black voters, but that's just speculation

https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article245213680.html

Harris has no chance to win a presidential election in this country. I defended her a little when she was first picked, but honestly I think she was a bad choice. She didn’t help, and almost surely hurt, Biden in the swing states most of which he won anyway because Trump is so freaking awful. The honest truth is there appeared to be too much pressure from Democrats to pick a black female.

If the DNC plan, or Biden’s plan, is to support the current VP in the next election then Kamala was a bad, bad choice. She has no chance in WI, MI, PA, AZ, or FL. And in my opinion OH is firmly red unless Kasich runs as a Democrat.

Klobuchar would have been a better pick. She would’ve helped Biden in the blue wall, and she would at least have a fighting shot against Nikki Haley in 4 years.

In my opinion due almost exclusively to the actions of Trump we are in for a long, hard 4 years. The economy is on the verge of failure. More and more people are filing for unemployment. A Republican Senate will play politics and work against Biden to make things worse. It could get really ugly.

 

[AMEHigh]

Here’s an article that tries to “sum up” the evidence that AA has benefitted white women the most.

White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents

The willingness to erase white women from the story of affirmative action is part of the problem.

www.vox.com

I don’t see a shred of evidence in it - basically the argument is that white women have attained better representation in schools and workplaces in the same time period AA was implemented. We all know that’s a super-weak correlation. How about major changes in society since the 80s requiring 2–worker households? How about women seeing more role models and acceptance into multiple fields?

I want to see data showing that women score 1 standard deviation below on standardized tests compared to men, but are admitted at higher rates to schools because of AA.

Thanks for sharing the article, I read it.

To be clear, I didn’t say it benefited white women the MOST. I just said it also benefits white women. It specifically added gender as a factor back in the 70s. Increasing diversity also looks at things like disability and veteran status. Those all also benefit white people as well.

So I was specifically replying to your comment that "AA discriminates against white people" because that’s not the whole truth when it also benefits white people as well.

As far as your standard deviation "proof" from standardized tests, that data won’t be available. Jobs for example don’t often look at standardized tests scores for hiring. I’ve never actually worked for a federal contractor or subcontractor before but I have looked at jobs and applications and it didn’t ask for my SAT scores (that I don’t even remember since that was such a long time ago). So if that’s the only way you’ll come to an understanding that affirmative action has benefited white women, white disabled people, etc, then you’ll likely never understand.

 

[vector2]

 

[Mad Jack]

So.... are you now saying that you regret voting for this certifiable full blown narcissist? Based on your last two lines?

I never voted for Trump, he's always been reprehensible in my book. Rare is even the Republican I will vote for let alone him

 

[doctalaughs]

Thanks for sharing the article, I read it.

To be clear, I didn’t say it benefited white women the MOST. I just said it also benefits white women. It specifically added gender as a factor back in the 70s. Increasing diversity also looks at things like disability and veteran status. Those all also benefit white people as well.

So I was specifically replying to your comment that "AA discriminates against white people" because that’s not the whole truth when it also benefits white people as well.

As far as your standard deviation "proof" from standardized tests, that data won’t be available. Jobs for example don’t often look at standardized tests scores for hiring. I’ve never actually worked for a federal contractor or subcontractor before but I have looked at jobs and applications and it didn’t ask for my SAT scores (that I don’t even remember since that was such a long time ago). So if that’s the only way you’ll come to an understanding that affirmative action has benefited white women, white disabled people, etc, then you’ll likely never understand.

Thanks for reading the article and having an open mind. I’m also open to hearing this evidence people keep referencing that AA has significantly benefitted white women — is there anything beyond speculation or weak correlation of trends??

I think it’s almost impossible to argue AA doesn’t significantly penalize INDIVIDUAL poor whites and Asians. The argument is always that whites/Asians as a group are doing fine. However, if you look at the tables I posted that’s a pretty big individual barrier to overcome in hard numbers (especially for anyone who doesn’t have resources and is the wrong skin type).

I’m pretty sure if we said that blacks with WAY higher test scores (2-3 standard deviations) were admitted to schools at a lower rate than Asians, or that Harvard across tens-thousands of application rated black “personality” scores 25% lower than Asians, on average — this would be taken as pretty ironclad evidence of racism.