Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, there is also the Central Park Five stuff.

And the housing discrimination stuff, it goes on and on - he's apparently managed to escape being caught on tape saying racist things, at least by anybody who's willing to release the recordings, but everything about Trump suggests that in private, he's got a vocabulary of racial slurs so extensive that it should be studied by anthropologists.
 
"Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes… Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else…Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that’s guy’s lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks." - Donald Trump, as quoted in a 1991 book by a former Trump casino boss. Asked about the book a few years later, Trump said it was "probably true>"

ok, but...exactly. then he'll go and appoint a rabid anti-semitist to his cabinet. he talks all kind of shit about women too, but his daughter is a proponent of women's rights and he clearly supports her and her goals. he's all over the place, spouting all kinds of nonsense I don't think he even takes the time to consider whether he believes or not. and please understand that I mean sincerely that this is WORSE in many ways or at least as bad as being covertly yet unwaveringly racist, sexist, whatever...because of the sheer carelessness of it all.
 
Last edited:
TBF, "I want a guy in a yarmulke counting my money" is grade-A anti-semitism anyway. I think Trump is unwaveringly racist and sexist and is the kind of person who says "Oh no, not him/her .. he/she's not like those others, the ones I'm talking about"

Sadly this kind of doublethink is common throughout society, in people who probably believe they're cool and tolerant and fair-minded because they know people who aren't like them (but who are actually just like them, they just don't look like them)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CRI
he's all over the place, spouting all kinds of nonsense I don't think he even takes the time to consider whether he believes or not. and please understand that I mean sincerely that this is WORSE in many ways or at least as bad as being covertly yet unwaveringly racist, sexist, whatever...because of the sheer carelessness of it all.

Yep, he's basically America's racist uncle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CRI
Ok, this is the thing though. There are literally dozens of really horrific (verified) quotes by both Clintons & a bunch of other liberal / Democrats etc spouting racist ideology. I honestly believe that the Clintons may be more racist, inherently, than Trump. Trump has been on camera most of his adult life and seems to have no filter whatsoever. If he regularly went around using racial slurs, etc, I think we'd know about it. he just seems to attack whoever and whatever is in his way at any particular moment.

I think what actually matters in this instance is the complete nihilism and lack of shame /remorse with which Trump espouses his random hate towards particular people / groups according to his daily whims. At least with actual racists stuck on one group or another there is some chance of them feeling shame and seeing the error of their ways. He's just a sociopath with no moral compass.
 
Thank you sweet Rutita1

I suppose I am lucky because I have a lot to distract me currently. But it does feel very surreal and scary, even while surrounded by like-minded people who are just as appalled and who feel just as helpless.
I hear you on the surreal and scary. I never thought I'd be so grateful that I left like 30 years ago (although the UK seems to be turning nearly as shitty :(.) All my family and a few friends I still keep in contact with live in the US. I don't even know what to say to them. I'm just glad my parents are dead and can't see what's happening.
 
The point of all this is that racism and ignorance have a long pedigree in the White House. Race is a big deal in the USA - starting at the top, and going down from there.
This is the bit that so many folks on the UK, particularly on the left, seem unable to countenance. They genuinely don't get how entrenched white supremacy is. It plays differently in different regions, contexts, structures, sure, but it is ever-present. They really just don't get it (and it's a different beast from the racism in Canada, btw.)

Maybe it's the same with Americans not "getting" what a big deal class is in the UK. Had a few convos years ago with the, "well surely if you just go to college, work hard, get to know the right people, you can work our way up and it won't matter what your dad did for a living?" sort of tone.
 
This is the bit that so many folks on the UK, particularly on the left, seem unable to countenance. They genuinely don't get how entrenched white supremacy is. It plays differently in different regions, contexts, structures, sure, but it is ever-present. They really just don't get it (and it's a different beast from the racism in Canada, btw.)

Anything here you would like to substantiate with anything specific or are you just going to continue to blunder and bullshit your way across another hundred pages?

I think you'll find that a lot of the contributions on this thread have contextualised Trump as very much part of a wider history of American racism, rather than as an anomaly that has suddenly appeared due to the intervention of the Russians or fake news or hacked elections or whatever. The fact that the Clintonite partisans on this thread have suddenly discovered that racism did not start with Donald Trump is great, but don't act as if you lot aren't well behind the rest of us.
 
This is the bit that so many folks on the UK, particularly on the left, seem unable to countenance. They genuinely don't get how entrenched white supremacy is. It plays differently in different regions, contexts, structures, sure, but it is ever-present. They really just don't get it (and it's a different beast from the racism in Canada, btw.)...

i gotta disagree with this, it's been completely obvious to me for quite some time.
 
i gotta disagree with this, it's been completely obvious to me for quite some time.

Glad to hear that. In real life, I've found people tend to scratch their heads, convinced I'm exaggerating. On this board, most seem to still be insisting Trump "won" because Democrats and Clinton in particular didn't listen enough to disaffected, white working class men who felt forced to support Trump because the Democrats didn't back Bernie. :rolleyes:
 
Glad to hear that. In real life, I've found people tend to scratch their heads, convinced I'm exaggerating. On this board, most seem to still be insisting Trump "won" because Democrats and Clinton in particular didn't listen enough to disaffected, white working class men who felt forced to support Trump because the Democrats didn't back Bernie. :rolleyes:
THIS IS WHY TRUMP
 
Glad to hear that. In real life, I've found people tend to scratch their heads, convinced I'm exaggerating. On this board, most seem to still be insisting Trump "won" because Democrats and Clinton in particular didn't listen enough to disaffected, white working class men who felt forced to support Trump because the Democrats didn't back Bernie. :rolleyes:

Anyone else remember arguing with Clintonites that Trump's base was NOT the white working-class while they argued that it was? Am I in a parallel universe?
 
Anyone else remember arguing with Clintonites that Trump's base was NOT the white working-class while they argued that it was? Am I in a parallel universe?
Yep. What you git called a racist for was truth all along you racist. Pointing this out when they try the flip only highlights your racism. And some stuff about white w/c men. You racist.
 
Ok, this is the thing though. There are literally dozens of really horrific (verified) quotes by both Clintons & a bunch of other liberal / Democrats etc spouting racist ideology. I honestly believe that the Clintons may be more racist, inherently, than Trump. Trump has been on camera most of his adult life and seems to have no filter whatsoever. If he regularly went around using racial slurs, etc, I think we'd know about it. he just seems to attack whoever and whatever is in his way at any particular moment.

I think what actually matters in this instance is the complete nihilism and lack of shame /remorse with which Trump espouses his random hate towards particular people / groups according to his daily whims. At least with actual racists stuck on one group or another there is some chance of them feeling shame and seeing the error of their ways. He's just a sociopath with no moral compass.
He's just a sociopath with no moral compass.

This, absolutely. He's building a kleptocracy by any means necessary. He'll spout anything that gets/keeps the right people on side and helping him achieve his goal of more power and wealth. The GOP see him as a vehicle for their right wing policies, even if they must be biting their tongues through from some of the shit he says and does. They've gladly sold their cold, dark souls in the hope of creating their particularly nefarious version of the American Dream.
 
Isn't it weird how when people who voted for Obama (who is black), don't vote for Clinton (reminder: not black) it is attributed to racism?
 
Also: compare Obama's current popularity level to that of Clinton, or for that matter Donald Trump.
 
Why did Obama win more white evangelical votes than Clinton? He asked for them.

The white evangelical vote has been a focus of post-election coverage, and for good reason. If you had told the average person that white evangelicals would account for more than a fourth of the entire electorate, they may not have believed you: After all, evangelicals are often imagined as a fringe population. But they represented more than a quarter of the electorate in 2012 and 2008, and again this year.

In the 2016 presidential election, 81 percent of these voters — voters that Democrats only remember exist every four years — voted for Donald Trump, and only 16 percent supported Clinton, well below the level of support of white evangelicals for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, when he won 26 and 21 percent of white evangelical votes respectively.

I am a white evangelical, but I could not support Donald Trump. This might not be surprising: I led religious outreach for Barack Obama’s reelection campaign. Even so, I saw Trump’s candidacy as uniquely disqualifying for evangelicals. Trump will be the most secular president America has ever had. His unabashed pursuit of money, sex and power represents the kind of disordered loves that are commonly preached about in churches around the country. And a number of evangelical leaders denounced his candidacy during the primaries.

So what happened?

First, it’s a disturbing fact that safe harbors in white evangelical culture for an acceptance of or willingness to overlook racism, misogyny, xenophobia and anti-Semitism still exist. These tendencies do not wholly define evangelicalism; nor do they summarize all white evangelical support for Trump. But they still plague evangelical communities, and it is the responsibility of evangelicals who supported the winning candidate to be open to these conversations for the unity of the church.

But there are also ordinary political explanations for how white evangelicals voted. Trump’s message to evangelicals was that the challenges they face require a suspension of their values in politics — that it is now time to stop playing nice and start busting heads and disrupting the entire system. For evangelicals who feel embattled, isolated and marginalized by the onslaught of cultural change from sexual liberation to same-sex marriage to the coarsening of culture, Trump promised that he would relieve the pressure. Perhaps many of the 81 percent of white evangelicals who supported Trump were uncomfortable with his approach to winning, but there was an even firmer sense that they could not afford to keep losing.

This was on stark display at the second presidential debate, for instance, when Anderson Cooper asked in regard to the now-infamous “Access Hollywood” tape: “You called what you said locker room banter. You described kissing women without consent, grabbing their genitals. That is sexual assault. You bragged that you have sexually assaulted women. Do you understand that?” To which Trump replied: “I apologize to the American people. Certainly I’m not proud of it. But this is locker room talk. You know, when we have a world where you have ISIS chopping off heads, where you have — and, frankly, drowning people in steel cages, where you have wars and horrible, horrible sights all over, where you have so many bad things happening, this is like medieval times. We haven’t seen anything like this, the carnage all over the world.” Trump framed concern with what he characterized as typical male speech as a luxurious distraction, basic morality as a weakness in the face of evil.

Trump’s outreach to religious people consisted of telling them he was the only one who could save them and the country from what was coming — terrorism, a loss of religious freedom, the ratification of abortion as a moral good — and that he would offer them not just protection, but power. His message was to affirm conservative Christians’ sense of isolation and vulnerability, and to offer himself as the only way out. The debate line Trump used to deflect from his “Access Hollywood” comments was not new. He used it at Liberty University:

…We’re going to protect Christianity, and I can say that. I don’t have to be politically correct. We’re going to protect it. You know, and I asked Jerry [Falwell Jr.] and I asked some of the folks because I hear this is a major theme right here, but II Corinthians, 3:17, that’s the whole ball game. Where the spirit of the lord, right, where the spirit of the lord is, there is liberty, and here there is Liberty College, but Liberty University, but it is so true. You know, when you think — and that’s really — is that the one? Is that the one you like? I think that’s the one you like because I loved it, and it’s so representative of what’s taken place. But we are going to protect Christianity. And if you look what’s going on throughout the world, you look at Syria where if you’re Christian, they’re chopping off heads. You look at the different places, and Christianity, it’s under siege.

You know who else spoke at Liberty University, gave a great speech and was really well received?



...but it wasn't just white evangelical voters, or union members in majority white areas, or any other group that the 2008 and 2012 Obama campaigns devoted so much time to. Or even just whites.

Clinton, who obviously decided the demographics are destiny stuff and thought she could win with a coalition of people who aren't white and the rich, failed to do anything like the sort of outreach that Obama did with black people or Hispanics.

Latino leader attacks Clinton campaign for taking Hispanic vote for granted

“Somewhere along the line they decided that they had the Hispanic vote in the bag and there was no need to worry about it,” he said, “but you have to ask today: did that strategy of blowing off the Hispanic vote work for them?”

The Clinton Campaign Was Undone By Its Own Neglect And A Touch Of Arrogance, Staffers Say | The Huffington Post

The more universal explanation, however, was that the data that informed many of the strategic decisions was simply wrong. A campaign that is given a game plan that strongly points to success shouldn’t be expected to rip it up.

“We all were blinded, and even at the end, we were blinded by our own set of biases,” said Paul Maslin, a Madison-based Democratic operative and pollster.

Which explains why, in a Midwest battleground state that the Clinton campaign’s data said would be closely contested, its ground game capacity was robust. Adrienne Hines, chair of the Democratic Party in Ottawa County, Ohio, just east of Toledo, said the Clinton campaign had a very active outreach and turnout operation. But the county, which Obama won twice, still went to Trump as his message ― however detail-free ― of bringing back jobs to the economically depressed area resonated.

Clinton was an exceptionally poor candidate, but even as that exceptionally poor candidate she should have won and won easily. The fact that she didn't just speaks to incredible levels of arrogance and incompetence. If you want people to vote for you then you have to ASK THEM TO VOTE FOR YOU.
 
If you want people to vote for you then you have to ASK THEM TO VOTE FOR YOU.

I'm not sure just asking them would be enough to convince the evangelicals, you'd need to promise things like banning abortions.

Totally agree that Clinton as candidate and with her arrogance lost it for her, but what does that make the figures if 25+% of the electorate vote are going to against you?
 
I don't trust any Democratic campaigners' opinions on why Clinton lost any more than I trusted them before the election about why she was going to win.
 
Fair point. What % of white evangelicals voted for obama/sanders?

From the article I just linked

In the 2016 presidential election, 81 percent of these voters — voters that Democrats only remember exist every four years — voted for Donald Trump, and only 16 percent supported Clinton, well below the level of support of white evangelicals for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, when he won 26 and 21 percent of white evangelical votes respectively
 
From the article I just linked

so that's say 84% clinton to 77% obama (although his support dropped in second term) that's 7% of 25% = 2% rise in total electorate versus 20% who weren't going to vote for her anyway.

I think

(i've been at the vodka)

How does that align with the rest of the vote?

Eta nearer 20%

I think
 
so that's say 84% clinton to 77% obama (although his support dropped in second term) that's 7% of 25% = 2% rise in total electorate versus 23+% who weren't going to vote for her anyway.

I think

(i've been at the vodka)

How does that align with the rest of the vote?

In a sense I don't think the actual statistics matter that much, it isn't as if we can falsify a campaign in which Clinton did campaign well with Evangelicals, given the narrowness of the Trump win though it is something worth pondering. It's just symptomatic of a wider arrogance and incompetence.

It's one facet of an incompetent campaign that failed to ask for votes from anyone, other than 'moderate' posh Republicans, a small number of people who voted Trump anyway, really.

Take for example how Obama campaigned in 2008 and 2012. This is an example of campaign literature coordinated with the AFL-CIO which was intended to appeal to white working-class voters. It looks a bit crude in a way but at least it shows that someone is at least pretending to care. Three big messages - Obama is going to protect your gun, your jobs and your union. Ignore for a minute that the Obama administration failed to deliver on the latter two to a great extent and concentrate on the politics of it all. It is unsaid in the poster but there is also an implicit assumption that Obama is for, amongst other workers, workers who are white - and why not? Most of the US working-class still is white, so if you are targeting different groups of voters with campaign material then it makes sense to do that.

Clinton failed to do any of this, on the assumption that the votes of Hispanic people, women and black voters, the rich meant that she no longer needed the votes of working-class whites. The problem was that the Clinton campaign outreach to those groups was very bad too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom