Donald Trump elected as America's 45th President.

[myosotis]

As a non-US citizen, I can only talk about what is true of areas that I know. I was born and brought up in what is now a 'rust belt'. The hard working people who worked in factories and mines wanted a better life for their children. They encouraged their children to work hard at school so that they didn't have to go down the mines, but could get 'better' jobs, away from heavy industry, in the cities with better pay and prospects and cleaner and more comfortable living and working conditions. Many countries in the West 'exported' their heavy industries and less pleasant work to countries where the wages are cheaper, and were glad to import the less expensive commodities, fashion and even farm produce to make their lives more comfortable. That seemed to work for a while, but now the West is badly in debt, and cannot support itself by manufacturing or building its own infrastructure. I wonder if the US has enough Civil engineers for all the infrastructure Trump plans. Certainly in Europe these skilled people are hard to find in quantity, as are builders and other workers who know how to get manufacturing going again. My parents' generation built the machines that make machines....those skills are not readily available in the West any more. Not everything can be created by computer.

I don't know what the answer is, but I've seen enough in developing countries to know that people in the West who complain that their benefits are too low, are living in 'billionaire' conditions compared with the families across the world that make their living from child labour, recycling rubbish and scrap, and breaking stones by hand to make roads. The problem is not a 'western' one, it is a 'whole world' problem of inequality, which is what drives immigration, deprived inner cities and a whole host of related problems in the first place. The solutions have to be 'whole world' solutions. It is no good Trump and his ilk just demonising people who are 'not like us', whoever 'us' happens to be.


http://[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/pn1fyeK2j][/URL]

 

[LindavG]

I don't know how true those stats are. It is a bit strange to me that once they say the Democrat voters are the more educated, more cultured, they are the ones living in the cities, the highly educated ones with good degrees etc. They say that when they want to emphasize how much smarter Democrat voters are than Republicans. Then in another article they will say they are poorer than the Trump voters when they want to rebuke "the myth" of Trump supporters being poor. There seems to be a dissonance to me there.

You are free to check out the methodology of how those stats were obtained, it's right there on the website I provided the link to. But if your gut tells you they must be wrong, feel free to dismiss them. After all, that's the age we live in now. Feeling over facts.

The Republican Party essentially consists of four different factions: libertarians, traditionalists, neoconservatives and the Christian right. If there seems to be a dissonance sometimes, it's because these factions can be on opposite sides of an argument (e.g. non-interventionist libertarians vs bellicose neocons). There are overriding forces that bind them together though, I will get to that in a moment.

The Republican platform includes many policies that are in favour of the wealthy: regressive income tax rates, lower corporate taxes, financial deregulation, for-profit schools and prisons, massive cuts in the social safety net, etc. The underlying argument is supply-side economics: if the top 1% do well, they will be encouraged to invest their wealth in the economy, which benefits the middle and working classes. It's no surprise that self-interested rich people are drawn to the Republican Party for this reason.

However, you can't win an election by appealing to the top 1% and a platform like that can be a hard sell to the rural working/middle class which forms the bulk of the Republican base. This is where religion and white identity politics comes in. The Christian right is arguably the most reliable voter base in the country. They will turn out for anyone with an [R] behind their name as long as they vow to overturn abortion rights and gay marriage and protect their religious right to discriminate against LGBT people. It doesn't matter if the [R] is a thrice-married philanderer who owned casinos and bragged about sexual assault as long as he is their ticket to power. As far as white identity politics is concerned, look up the Southern Strategy. Racial resentment has always been a huge component of Republican support. Trump just did away with the dog whistles and exposed the ugliness underneath. The article you quoted earlier alluded to this as well.

Obviously, no voting base is a monolith. Democrat voters have the highly educated elite with a good income as well as poor inner-city black people or immigrants. But the same can be said of Republicans. Maybe Trump has rich supporters that make the so called "average voter" appear richer, but that doesn't negate the argument that a lot of people who voted for him voted for him for the reasons named in that article I posted and not out of racism. Which is what I saw a lot of times claimed about Trump supporters in the media. And it also doesn't negate the very real problems listed in that article. Racism IS a problem too, but you cannot dismiss people's other problems with some blanket allegation of racism all the time.

Why are you ignoring the obvious? The average Trump voter is richer because the average Trump voter is white. There is an enormous racial gap in income and wealth accumulation in the US (see this for example). For all the talk of the "left behind" white working class in the Midwest, I don't hear much discussion about that.

Perhaps not all Trump voters are racist but they are at least proudly endorsing a racist - is that so much better? It bothers me that you dismiss the racist element of Trump's appeal so easily. Have we really blurred the boundaries of common sense and decency so much that it's not clear anymore when they have been crossed? If you do not harbour racist feelings, you should have been disgusted with Trump the moment he stepped off that elevator to announce his candidacy and declared that Mexicans are bringing drugs and crime and are rapists. Republicans had 17 candidates to choose from and this is who they picked. With every outrageous comment, Trump surged further in the polls.

And when I talk about the "elite" I don't only talk about the Democratic party. Obviously the Trump vote was just as much a message to the Republican establishment as he is somewhat of an outsider, not a real Republican. And the media, which IMO is a part of that elite and it's time for them for self-reflection as well.

I'm still not quite sure what people mean with the "elite" and the "establishment". Are scientists part of the elite? Experts of any kind? People with actual political experience?

And if the Trump vote is truly a message to the establishment, how is it possible that Republicans were re-elected in Congress with such ease? They ARE the establishment and they've been in power for much of the past 8 years.

Like I said, I don't think Trump is a good answer to the problems (although I think we should wait and see first), but there are problems that need to be addressed and not just dismissed with labelling 59 million+ people as "racists" and fascists and supporting Hitler. You said Democrats tried to address those problems. Maybe, but maybe those who it was targeted at weren't satisfied with the effort and the outcome. Maybe they don't want welfare but want jobs. Want economy and factories and businesses in their area. Of course, it is easier said than done. Trump definitely has a high mountain to climb if he wants to deliver to those groups of people. It would take a genius to solve this problem because the world economic trends just do not point to a direction where such a system is sustainable. So I am sceptical if he can solve it. But I guess these people felt at least they are finally being addressed. I have actually seen Trump supporters on CNN say they don't mind it if he doesn't deliver on all of his promises, but at least there should be something in that direction.

I never said Trump supporters were fascists and supported Hitler, that's absurd (if that comment was in response to me). I said we seem to be entering a new era in which countries, including the US, are descending into fascism. For some reason, you can't invoke the term fascism without people automatically dismissing it as way overboard. As if the only way fascism can work in practice is with a genocidal maniac at the helm. It's undeniable that Trump (and the Trump movement) displays many tendencies of fascism, even if I'm fairly confident that Trump won't take it to that level. The descent is what worries me and it should worry you too. We are becoming too complacent.

 

[jamba]

Interesting take on the election by Robert Reich, respected economist.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/10/democrats-working-class-americans-us-election

 

[HIStory]

Why are you ignoring the obvious? The average Trump voter is richer because the average Trump voter is white. There is an enormous racial gap in income and wealth accumulation in the US (see this for example). For all the talk of the "left behind" white working class in the Midwest, I don't hear much discussion about that.

No one said there aren't poorer people than the "average Trump supporter". What I said was that there are real problems and struggles these people experience and obviously their own problems and own struggles seem bigger to them than inner city black people's. And it is the same the other way around, by the way. Such is human nature that our own problems are more important to us than other's. But just because there are people who are poorer it doesn't negate these people's very real problems, so I am not sure what's your point in bringing up how there are black people who are poorer. Yes, there are. Does that negate rural America's very real problems though?

The article I quoted actually addressed that too:

And if you dare complain, some liberal elite will pull out their iPad and type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone has replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as a minority!" Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities is only used as a club to bat away white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit, at least politicians act like they care about the inner cities.

This type of come-back to problems that "look, someone has a bigger problem than you" is not an answer to the problems and in fact is very counter-productive. It only alienates people more because they feel like they are not being listened to they are just being told to shut up. And no, I am not saying Trump is the answer to the problems, in fact, I said I don't think he is.

If your point is that it is not some poor vs. rich thing because "see, poor black people didn't vote for Trump", you know it well that black people wouldn't have voted Republican in big numbers even if it had been a decent candidate running. That is just so historically. Moreover, you had Bernie Sanders in the Democrat primaries who is basically a socialist - possibly the best candidate for really poor people. Where do you think Sanders lost to Hillary? By black people's votes. Even when, as you said, black people are among the poorest in the US on average income, so Bernie should have been better for them. But many black people have a loyality to the Clintons. It shows that the emotional element does play a part on both sides and in fact, sometimes (or often?) in politics it trumps a rational argument.

Now, the question is what is that emotional element about Trump? You say it is racism. My difference with you is that I don't think you can put a blanket label of racism on 59 million people and say they are all racist and they all voted for Trump because they are racist. I don't think all of them had a racist motive to vote for Trump. Yes, they did ignore his racist comments (which is bad), but I don't think all of them voted for him because of those comments (or because he is a douche with women, for that matter) but there were many who voted for him despite of those. Because they are desperate and they see their solution in Trump. I do think these people experience real problems that they expect Trump's promises could solve. Yes, probably they are wrong and probably Trump won't be able to solve those problems. But this is how they see it - and that's all that matters when they go to vote, not whether they are right or wrong about that perception.

Why did they see that big hope in Trump? Because he was the one addressing those problems the most. He probably did that just to get in power and yes, he addressed their problems in a demagogue way - never offering the details as to how he plans to solve those problems. But at least he did address those problems. Hillary did it too in her own way, but she somehow was detached from them. Hell, she was even detached from a big segment of Democrat voters - since the turnout for her was a lot less than for Obama 4 and 8 years ago. She was simply uninspiring to people, it seems.

When you look at the election map and compare it to 2012, what's the difference that made it for Trump in comparation to Romney? The rust belt states. (The states around the Big Lakes with a struggling, dying industry.) Those states are exactly where these economical problems are the more prevalent. Those states voted for Obama in 2012. So do not tell me it is all about racism and the economical element and the hopelessness resulting from that is not a very important part of it.

I'm still not quite sure what people mean with the "elite" and the "establishment". Are scientists part of the elite? Experts of any kind? People with actual political experience?

Scientist are a part of the elite. Experts too. "Elite" is not in itself a negative term. What gives it a negative connotation the elite who doesn't listen (and even worse: who arrogantly mocks). Who is just too happy to sit in his ivory tower and make judgements about them, while he ignores their struggles. "Elite" in this context - and in these people's eyes - is also the journalist who lies and distorts facts. The comedist from the city who makes fun of them and their way of life. The liberal pundit who defends Islam tooth and nail and wants to ban any criticism of Islam out of protecting religious sensitivities, but doesn't seem to have the same sensibility when it comes to the mocking of Christianity - and in fact, he encourages it because then suddenly he is all for freedom of speech. The feminist who is critical about women's place in Christianity or the stance of fundamentalist Christianity on abortion, but stays totally mum when it comes to women's place and situation in Islam. The liberal activist who bashes fundamentalist Chrisianity for its stance on homosexuality but stays totally mum about Islam's. Or I have seen Rachel Maddow on MSNBC fear mongering about the prospect of nuclear war soon after Trump was elected. She played footage of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 when the US and the Soviet Union were close to a nuclear war, she played footage of nuclear rockets and explosions. You can be legitimely worried about many things regarding Trump, but c'mon this is nothing but ridiculous scare mongering. And so on and so forth. That's how these people perceive the "liberal elite": hypcoritical, with double standards and arrogant - and let's not pretend that is all just their imagination.

 

[MIST]

I think this is interesting about Trump and brexit in a historical perspective.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tobias-stone/history-tells-us-what-will-brexit-trump_b_11179774.html?

 

[Allusio]

I don't understand. Now I see some Clinton supporters calling Trump new Hitler and some complaining he's doing nothing to stop protests, when there is still Obama in the office... All I see is that people cause more division. The hate is growing. That's is very wrong.
I really thought that now when there are examples, people won't do the same mistakes ... But unfortunately, the controlled chaos seems to hit America too.

In all this, IMO, Barack Obama has to be real patriot of his country and to step in. But I guess he can't. He would do so already.

 

[RedMaryFlint]

Interesting take on the election by Robert Reich, respected economist.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/10/democrats-working-class-americans-us-election

This article just unintentionally underscores the absurdity of challenging the American power structure by electing a 1%-er.


All of those issues that Reich pinpoints as triggers for the white working class -- skyrocketing CEO pay, loss of manufacturing jobs, the crash of the economy in 2008 -- were perpetrated by people just like Trump. There is also a conflict between the protectionist legislation that Trump's supporters want and the goals of business, which has become dependent on lowering costs by using cheap overseas manufacturing. The impact of protectionist legislation on the high-tech industry alone, which is a huge economic engine for the US economy, would be crushing. The Republican establishment may not have been able to win an election on their own merits, but they have successfully used his movement as a springboard to power. They'll take Trump's 15% tax cut on business, but the manufacturing jobs aren't coming back, and given the deficit that will be caused by the tax cuts, I don't know where they're going to find anything left to help the working class.


I've read many similar analyses to Reich's in the wake of the election, and my impression is that the media are still simply flailing trying to get a handle on it. There's a lot of breast-beating over Clinton having been somehow the wrong candidate, and the failure to recognize the potency of white working-class discontent, but little insight over how their own tendency to march in lockstep also prevented them from lending much clarity or context to Clinton's alleged weaknesses versus just repeating them. The electorate also has an enormous responsibility during an election, and Democratic voters have an amazing ability to defeat themselves by sitting home on their hands when the world doesn't serve them up with the perfect candidate. Republicans, on the other hand, treat it as a civic duty to vote, and that is how they win when the numbers are against them.


What this election reminds me of more than anything is the spasm of stupidity whereby California voters elected Arnold Schwarzenegger governor a few years ago under the same rationale that he was an outsider that would shake up the political establishment. It was a disaster, because he was an actor with no political experience who made offensive comments, trashed the California economy with tax cuts that created a huge deficit, and whose non-orthodox initiatives were simply blown off by a Republican establishment in Sacramento that didn't give a damn about them. Voters then turned to a dyed-in-the-wool, Democratic career politician as governor to fix things. Which he did.

 

[LindavG]

No one said there aren't poorer people than the "average Trump supporter". What I said was that there are real problems and struggles these people experience and obviously their own problems and own struggles seem bigger to them than inner city black people's. And it is the same the other way around, by the way. Such is human nature that our own problems are more important to us than other's. But just because there are people who are poorer it doesn't negate these people's very real problems,so I am not sure what's your point in bringing up how there are black people who are poorer. Yes, there are. Does that negate rural America's very real problems though?

I brought it up because you questioned why the average Trump voter has a higher income than the average Clinton or Sanders voter. That's the main reason, most Trump voters are white (whether male or female, college-educated or not) and there is a large income gap between whites and blacks/Hispanics.

Most blacks don't live in the inner cities and they deal with the same economic struggles whites do. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.

This type of come-back to problems that "look, someone has a bigger problem than you" is not an answer to the problems and in fact is very counter-productive. It only alienates people more because they feel like they are not being listened to they are just being told to shut up. And no, I am not saying Trump is the answer to the problems, in fact, I said I don't think he is.

I agree but that's not what I said. Of course rural white Americans do have real grievances and they deserve to be taken seriously. Where we differ is that I don't think economic hardship is the main reason for Trump's appeal. I'll explain why further on in this post.

Moreover, you had Bernie Sanders in the Democrat primaries who is basically a socialist - possibly the best candidate for really poor people. Where do you think Sanders lost to Hillary? By black people's votes. Even when, as you said, black people are among the poorest in the US on average income, so Bernie should have been better for them. But many black people have a loyality to the Clintons. It shows that the emotional element does play a part on both sides and in fact, sometimes (or often?) in politics it trumps a rational argument.

Why do you assume black people have no rational arguments to prefer Clinton over Sanders? I haven't looked into this too much but I can imagine several reasons why Clinton may be more appealing to black people. One, they may feel that Sanders focuses on class differences too much and ignores the racial aspect of socio-economic inequality. Two, they may relate to Clinton/Kaine's openly Christian message more (black people tend to be very religious). Three, from a strategic pov they may think Clinton as a more 'mainstream' candidate had a better chance of winning in the general election. Four, perhaps they just don't like 'big government' too much and that's what people associate with socialism in the US. You said earlier about white rural Americans that they don't want welfare, they just want jobs. Why wouldn't it be the same for black people?

Now, the question is what is that emotional element about Trump? You say it is racism. My difference with you is that I don't think you can put a blanket label of racism on 59 million people and say they are all racist and they all voted for Trump because they are racist. I don't think all of them had a racist motive to vote for Trump. Yes, they did ignore his racist comments (which is bad), but I don't think all of them voted for him because of those comments (or because he is a douche with women, for that matter) but there were many who voted for him despite of those. Because they are desperate and they see their solution in Trump. I do think these people experience real problems that they expect Trump's promises could solve. Yes, probably they are wrong and probably Trump won't be able to solve those problems. But this is how they see it - and that's all that matters when they go to vote, not whether they are right or wrong about that perception.

Why did they see that big hope in Trump? Because he was the one addressing those problems the most. He probably did that just to get in power and yes, he addressed their problems in a demagogue way - never offering the details as to how he plans to solve those problems. But at least he did address those problems. Hillary did it too in her own way, but she somehow was detached from them. Hell, she was even detached from a big segment of Democrat voters - since the turnout for her was a lot less than for Obama 4 and 8 years ago. She was simply uninspiring to people, it seems.

Perhaps not all Trump voters are racist but the fact that they are willing to vote for someone who routinely insults and threatens the most vulnerable people in society just because it might get them ahead in their personal lives is just as bad to me. You kind of mocked my comment that we are descending into an era of fascism but I'm serious. We don't see what is right in front of us. The discourse has shifted so far to the right that a reasonable and kind person such as yourself is excusing behaviour that not too long ago was considered utterly disqualifying. You may roll your eyes at this, but the kind of argument you just used can be applied almost word for word to the rise of Hitler or Mussolini. No, that doesn't mean that I think Trump is just as bad as Hitler (sigh) but I also know that we are not so different from our grandparents' generation that something like that cannot possibly ever happen again.

When you look at the election map and compare it to 2012, what's the difference that made it for Trump in comparation to Romney? The rust belt states. (The states around the Big Lakes with a struggling, dying industry.) Those states are exactly where these economical problems are the more prevalent. Those states voted for Obama in 2012. So do not tell me it is all about racism and the economical element and the hopelessness resulting from that is not a very important part of it.

But Romney also refrained from stoking racial resentment. You treat economic struggles and racism as two separate issues whereas I see them as interlinked, with racism being the overriding factor in Trump's success. You see, Trump didn't just talk about free trade and currency manipulation and manufacturing. He framed it in a racial context. "The Mexicans are taking our jobs." "The Chinese are robbing us blind." "Hillary Clinton meets in secret with international banks to plot the desctruction of U.S. sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial powers" (if that dog whistle wasn't loud enough, he also retweeded a meme of Hillary with the star of David and a wad of cash behind her). That is what resonated with people. After all, as far as economic populism goes, Bernie Sanders has a lot in common with Trump (anti-free trade, anti-establishment, talk about a rigged system) but these people were firmly on the side of Trump anyway.

There is also data to back this up. Consider for example this survey by the Pew Research Center:

While economic issues are certainly a concern for them, the positions most strongly associated with Trump supporters are all related to race and immigration.

This article discusses the importance of race vs. economy for Trump supporters in more detail and provides various links to data and surveys, if you're interested.

 

[LindavG]

I don't understand. Now I see some Clinton supporters calling Trump new Hitler and some complaining he's doing nothing to stop protests, when there is still Obama in the office... All I see is that people cause more division. The hate is growing. That's is very wrong.
I really thought that now when there are examples, people won't do the same mistakes ... But unfortunately, the controlled chaos seems to hit America too.

In all this, IMO, Barack Obama has to be real patriot of his country and to step in. But I guess he can't. He would do so already.

Why are you so concerned about the protests? People have a right to free speech and assembly. Besides, I would guess Trump is rather sympathetic to the protestors since he's been talking for months about how the elections were rigged. It's estimated that Hillary could win the popular vote by up to two million votes (a lot of ballots from the coastal states haven't been counted yet) even though Trump won the Electoral College in a near-landslide. That's the second time in 16 years that Democrats get more votes but lose the election. Back in 2012, Trump said this on Twitter when he thought Obama had lost the popular vote (in fact, Obama won by more than 5 million votes):

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

​

<script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us.
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

​

<script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012


​

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the results should be called into question, I just think the hypocrisy is quite stunning. Don't think for a second there wouldn't be riots in the street if the situation had been reversed. In fact, I doubt Trump would have even admitted defeat.
<script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none;"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none;"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none;"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none;"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none;"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none;"></iframe>

 

[HIStory]

There is also data to back this up. Consider for example this survey by the Pew Research Center:

I think the word "racism" gets thrown around a bit too easily these days and even things are being called "racism" which aren't in themselves. (Along with people being called a nazi way too easily and Hitler being being mentioned way too often. When these things get so overused it loses its effect after a while.)

For example, I don't think being against illegal immigration is racism. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to oppose it or to be against people from other countries taking local jobs, and it doesn't have to mean that you hate other races. Nor do I think considering Islam a more violent religion than others is racism. It is an opinion on Islam, an ideology. Of course, Trump did more than that when he called all Mexicans rapists and criminals. That is racism, among others. But just because someone is against immigration or is critical of Islam and thinks it is more violent than other religions it doesn't mean he is a racist.

That issues like illegal immigration are also a lot more complex than "those white bastards are evil and racist again" is shown by the fact that even many black people in the US are against illegal immigration. In fact, I have just read a thread on another forum where several black people said the one thing they agree with Trump on is the issue of illegal immigration. Especially as black people they feel their jobs are threatened by illegal immigrants and they feel it is unfair - and they have a point. Here is the thread if you are interested, it is a predominantly Afro-American forum: http://www.lipstickalley.com/showth...-Build-a-Wall-but-We’ll-Just-Build-a-Tunnel’?

Rather than racism it is simply the natural instinct of protecting your own interests - which every nation and every community is entitled to IMO.

 

[LindavG]

I think the word "racism" gets thrown around a bit too easily these days and even things are being called "racism" which aren't in themselves. (Along with people being called a nazi way too easily and Hitler being being mentioned way too often. When these things get so overused it loses its effect after a while.)

For example, I don't think being against illegal immigration is racism. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to oppose it or to be against people from other countries taking local jobs, and it doesn't have to mean that you hate other races. Nor do I think considering Islam a more violent religion than others is racism. It is an opinion on Islam, an ideology. Of course, Trump did more than that when he called all Mexicans rapists and criminals. That is racism. But just because someone is against immigration or is critical of Islam and thinks it is more violent than other religions it doesn't mean he is a racist.

That issues like illegal immigration are also a lot more complex than "those white bastards are evil and racist again" is shown by the fact that even many black people in the US are against illegal immigration. In fact, I have just read a thread on another forum where several black people said the one thing they agree with Trump on is the issue of illegal immigration. Especially as black people they feel their jobs are threatened by illegal immigrants and they feel it is unfair - and they have a point. Here is the thread if you are interested, it is a predominantly Afro-American forum: http://www.lipstickalley.com/showth...-Build-a-Wall-but-We’ll-Just-Build-a-Tunnel’?

Rather than racism it is simply the natural instinct of protecting your own interests - which every nation and every community is entitled to IMO.

I agree with you on that, and you know from discussions we've had before that we largely share the same views on Islam and illegal immigration (re: the migration crisis in Europe) but Trump has gone waaayyy past that line into overt racism. I mean, you can be critical of Islam as a religion, as we both are, but to call for a ban on all Muslims entering the country is just bigotry.

And the thing is with Trump, a lot of people dismiss it as campaign rhetoric but it's not. He has a long history going all the way back to the 70s of racial housing discrimination, not letting black waiters near certain high-profile guests in casinos, taking out a full-page newspaper ad to call for the death penalty of five black teenagers who were accused of raping a white woman - and still insisting they must be punished even after they were acquitted, hiring illegal immigrants for construction work and then withholding pay and threatening them with deportation if they complained, fueling the birther conspiracy of Barack Obama and maintaining that he wasn't a legitimate American citizen long after Obama had produced his birth certificate, I could go on and on. If this is not racism then where do we draw the line?

Edit: by the way, I don't see racism as a uniquely white problem. Racism and tribalism can be found all over the world, from the Middle East to Asia to Africa. There is anti-white racism too. But we can only be responsible for ourselves and I feel we should always be vigilant to make sure we are not generalising or stereotyping people, which is an easy (and sometimes satisfying) trap to fall into.

Another edit I have to add this as well. When it comes to Islam being a violent religion, we can agree on that from an ideological perspective, purely focusing on scripture. But a lot of people take it further than that and apply it to Muslims as people. Christianity, particularly the Old Testament, is also a violent religion but that doesn't mean all Christians are violent. Islam is essentially what Muslims make of it, it can be a beautiful religion in the hands of one person and a hateful religion in the hands of another. I think we in the West lose sight of this sometimes. Imagine if someone unfamiliar with Christianity read the Bible for the first time and thought Christians take all this stuff literally, what would they think? So for me these are two separate issues, which is why the term "islamophobia" bugs me so much. Anyway, end of rant :blush:

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

Some interesting (and good) points are being raised in here from both sides of the debate. :yes:
I agree with some of the things both sides are saying.

Edit:In the end though, I don't think Trump should be President, but at this point the only thing we can all do is wait and see what he does and hope for the best.

 

[HIStory]

And the thing is with Trump, a lot of people dismiss it as campaign rhetoric but it's not. He has a long history going all the way back to the 70s of racial housing discrimination, not letting black waiters near certain high-profile guests in casinos, taking out a full-page newspaper ad to call for the death penalty of five black teenagers who were accused of raping a white woman - and still insisting they must be punished even after they were acquitted, hiring illegal immigrants for construction work and then withholding pay and threatening them with deportation if they complained, fueling the birther conspiracy of Barack Obama and maintaining that he wasn't a legitimate American citizen long after Obama had produced his birth certificate, I could go on and on. If this is not racism then where do we draw the line?

And no one defended Trump's own racism. My point was simply that his support and the vote for him is about lot more complex issues than just racism.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

Not surprising, considering Kim Kardashian is an empire

LOL, I just saw this comment, and I have nothing against Kim.
With that said, you're right though.

 

[LindavG]

LOL, I just saw this comment, and I have nothing against Kim.
With that said, you're right though.

About that, didn't Kanye say he was running for President in 2020? He might have a shot :lol:

 

[mjprince1976]

My sympathies for all you Americans, particularly those of you who voted for Hillary. Hillary was no saint, but she was at least human and humane. Donald Trump we decided was a piece of shit, who is racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic and seriously deluded. He shouted out White power racists and supremacists. When these IQ 70 rednecks see that Trump will be vetoed from building the wall and expelling groups of people.
.
The rise of Trump is the rise of the racist around the world, as right wing and racist parties in the world gain votes from the mouthbreeders and people who are jealous of people from other places and cultures getting ahead. I live in New Zealand, but the tragicomedy of Donald Trump has been played on the news every night for 18 months. Like most foreigners my faith in the American people has dropped. I honestly thought they would be intelligent enough not to vote for Trump, but you guys have let us down. We even have a racist political party here called New Zealand first, which has a racist platform that wants to get rid of the Asian migrants we have been getting since 1988 and many old white people and rednecks love them.

The party I support, the Greens are so anti Trump, they said they want nothing to do with him (The party has 14 seats and 12% of the popular vote). In New Zealand we have MMP, so any party that gets over 5% of the party vote or wins a seat gets seats in Parliament. No electoral colleges here.

America's lack of democracy is also disturbing, that the oligarchal Electoral College has the final say and the College is mostly pale, male and stale. Also I am annoyed only barely half of the electorate voted and many who did not, would have been Hillary voters who would have pushed her into Victory.


And finally, what would Michael say? He would be very upset I know.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

About that, didn't Kanye say he was running for President in 2020? He might have a shot :lol:

Yeezy for Prezedeezy. :rofl:

 

[Antwort]

Interesting take on the election by Robert Reich, respected economist.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/10/democrats-working-class-americans-us-election

Interesting article indeed, as was one of the comments bellow it

Democrats seem to have chosen the wrong priorities and the wrong people. Instead of protecting the rights of workers, they have been preoccupied with securing the support of Wall Street. By ignoring Bernie Sanders' movement they went with the potentially historical, but highly controversial choice, thus leaving a portion of their own electorate up for grabs for the Trump campaign. Furthermore, with their insistence on pushing an extreme left moral agenda on the entire country, they've managed to further galvanize the Christian right which found itself under siege.

Americans tend to be a rather pragmatic people, including the women. And no matter how appealing the idea of a first woman president may have been for many, there were plenty of men and women across America who decided that wasn't a strong enough motivation to vote for a candidate who seemed to be deeply entrenched in the quagmire of the establishment. If in 2008 people saw in Barack Obama a fresh, new hope not yet tainted by the Washington M.O., the same could not be said for Hillary Clinton this year. It seems to me that many people voted with their diminishing wallets, their tarnished dignity by being labelled in all kind of ways (&#8220;deplorable&#8221; being the kindest) and their family-centered moral values which were increasingly undermined and projected to be further threatened in a Clinton presidency.

I'd like to comeback now to a post respect77 made a few pages ago which I believe is most important and it deals mainly with the role of the media.

Fox News here or there, but most media is liberal leaning, including the news channels and the major news websites. So it is not like the liberal POV is somehow supressed. If anything the liberal POV is what you see in 90% of the world media, often representes as the unquestionable truth and everyone who disagrees being demonized and labelled, instead of trying to see where they are coming from as a true liberal would IMO.

That people do not trust the mainstream media any more? Well, the media have only themselves to blame. As MJ fans we know more than anyone else that being mainstream doesn't make anyone turstworthy, how agendas play a part in what you read in MSM media and how often blogs and grassroot journalism actually carry more truth than the MSM do. Of course, there is also a lot of BS that you may read from bloggers and grassroot journalists. But the point is, just because it is in the MSM it doesn't make it true, so people have every right to be critical and sceptical of the MSM. They too have their agendas, their leanings, their biases, their sponsors who pay them for certain bias. And like in the above quoted article, many people feel that the liberal snobby elites have their noses way up their asses to notice the real issues people struggle with and to hear their cries or even to acknowledge them.

Trump is not a good answer to that, but there IS a problem and there IS a segment of society that has been ignored and this is the kind of result you sooner or later get when you ignore large segments of societies and their problems. While he is not good, but I feel the comparation to Hitler and fearing that the US now will become fascist is a bit of an overreaction. (But I agree with Barbee that Mike Pence is more worrying than Trump.) This is a wake-up call though, in many ways to the political establishment and to the media. Hopefully they will learn from it.

However rare this next piece of media introspection may be, it leaves the tinniest room of hope that not everyone in the media is oblivious to their responsibility.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/michael-wolff-trump-win-exposes-medias-smug-failures-945733

And since I love not just to read articles with fresh perspectives, but also the comments bellow them, I couldn't help but note this particular observation which I believe sums up pretty well the mood of the people who voted for Donald Trump and so many of the things already pointed out by respect.

People tend to forget that between New York and Los Angeles there is an entire country; its real needs and many grievances have been ignored by the elite. Donald Trump has been astute enough to tap into all those differing seeds of discontent.

One can only hope that at least some people in the upper echelons have understood that it is not wise to ignore entire groups of the population and their concerns. And, worse yet, to paint them all with the horrid generalizing stroke of bigotry and all other invectives thrown around in rage and dismay, as I've seen throughout this thread as well. It is indeed true that some Trump supporters harbor racist and misogynistic feelings, but to dismiss all those millions of people as morally-illegitimate and racially-motivated voters does not truly help in explaining the complexity of the situation. I think that is also what respect had in mind with many of her posts.

Neither individuals, nor groups are monolithic entities to be easily placed in boxes and manipulated every four/five years. People's values, fears and priorities can change over time or they can stay the same. If the media and politicians in their overtly ambitious and at times dehumanizing quest of so-called progress don't pay attention to the items on people's agenda and not their own, they may end up being the ones left behind. I would hope those are worries closer to today's reality than historical parallels to the interwar years. I suppose time will tell which fears are more warranted...........

 

[HIStory]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/michael-wolff-trump-win-exposes-medias-smug-failures-945733

Interesting article and is echoed by this:

 

[LindavG]

Interesting article indeed, as was one of the comments bellow it

Democrats seem to have chosen the wrong priorities and the wrong people. Instead of protecting the rights of workers, they have been preoccupied with securing the support of Wall Street. By ignoring Bernie Sanders' movement they went with the potentially historical, but highly controversial choice, thus leaving a portion of their own electorate up for grabs for the Trump campaign. Furthermore, with their insistence on pushing an extreme left moral agenda on the entire country, they've managed to further galvanize the Christian right which found itself under siege.

You have it exactly backwards. The US is supposed to be a secular country. There is nothing "extreme left" about granting equal rights and protections to the LGBT community, for example. Why is it that the Christian right finds itself under siege when they can't impose their morals on everyone else? I've never understood this. If you believe gay marriage is immoral, that's fine, don't marry someone of the same sex then. If you want to talk about arrogance, this is the epitome of arrogance to me. This sense that the country belongs to you and when others aren't living by your particular moral code, even if they're not harming anyone else, they are evil and deserve to be punished and shamed.

The arrogance to proclaim yourselves as the party of "family values" while being just as flawed as everyone else. Refusing to sign marriage licenses for gay couples because traditional marriage is sacred while being married four times yourself. Lecturing people about the sancity of life while worshipping guns, militarism and the death penalty. Cherrypicking the parts of the Bible that are convenient while ignoring the vast bulk of it that doesn't suit your political needs. Pretending to be the protectors of the Constitution except when the Constitution gives power to the opposition (like when it's time to nominate a Supreme Court justice). Not even hiding the fact that you're suppressing the right to vote for large sections of the population that don't vote your way, as if their voice is worth less. Dismissing the overwhelming scientific consensus on a whole range of issues when it doesn't fit your preferred view of the world. All this talk of "taking our country back" as if you've been stripped of its ownership. Yet it's the left that is arrogant and condescending? Give me a break.

I'm guessing that whoever wrote the post you quoted is not part of a marginalised community herself otherwise she wouldn't be so cavalier about relegating social justice to "secondary objectives". It's not an either/or thing for me, there's no reason we can't do both.

(Just to be clear, I'm not talking about you personally but about the Christian right. You seem perfectly fine by me ;D)

And since I love not just to read articles with fresh perspectives, but also the comments bellow them, I couldn't help but note this particular observation which I believe sums up pretty well the mood of the people who voted for Donald Trump and so many of the things already pointed out by respect.

People tend to forget that between New York and Los Angeles there is an entire country; its real needs and many grievances have been ignored by the elite. Donald Trump has been astute enough to tap into all those differing seeds of discontent.

But how is electing a billionaire from New York and re-electing the obstructionist Congress of the past 6 years going to achieve that though? I would've understood that argument if it was about Bernie but Trump? The advisory committee for his transition team was announced the other day:

The 16-member advisory committee is made up of four women and 12 men. It will include several members of Congress; Rebekah Mercer, a top Republican donor; Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee; Peter Thiel, a founder of PayPal; Attorney General Pam Bondi of Florida; Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs executive; and Anthony Scaramucci, a hedge-fund manager and Trump supporter. Mr. Bannon will also serve on the committee. A political committee supporting Ms. Bondi received a $25,000 donation from the Trump Foundation, raising questions because it was around the time her office was reviewing allegations against Mr. Trump’s for-profit education programs.

Forgive me if I can't see that working class revolt against Washington insiders and Wall Street coming any time soon.

 

[SarahJ]

&#8220;I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy.&#8221;
&#8213; Daniel Webster

I think they'll apply the remedy but only after disillusionment and pain.

 

[Allusio]

Why are you so concerned about the protests? People have a right to free speech and assembly. Besides, I would guess Trump is rather sympathetic to the protestors since he's been talking for months about how the elections were rigged. It's estimated that Hillary could win the popular vote by up to two million votes (a lot of ballots from the coastal states haven't been counted yet) even though Trump won the Electoral College in a near-landslide. That's the second time in 16 years that Democrats get more votes but lose the election. Back in 2012, Trump said this on Twitter when he thought Obama had lost the popular vote (in fact, Obama won by more than 5 million votes):

The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

​

<script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

​

<script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012


​

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the results should be called into question, I just think the hypocrisy is quite stunning. Don't think for a second there wouldn't be riots in the street if the situation had been reversed. In fact, I doubt Trump would have even admitted defeat.
<script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none;"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none;"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none;"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none;"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none;"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none;"></iframe>

Because that is what it all begins with ... It is very tragic that people do not understand what they are doing. It is not about free speech. Those people are used against America.
There'll be some act of provocation, there'll be a point of no return. And you won't like the result.
I just hope that people who organise it aim on something less than civil war.

I know it's hard to believe but remember this post, that nothing good will come after those protests and Trump is the smallest problem.

 

[Psychoniff]

Respect77, Trump is a racist, why do people always try to find ways to NOT call someone who is clearly a racist a racist?

Obama cut white unemployment in half, them manufacturing jobs AREN'T coming back, what those folks who complain about their jobs being taken need to do is retrain. Did you not see the rally where white Trump supporters were shouting racial epithets and hailing Hitler? The people in America that should be complaining most about unemployment are black Americans who's unemployment rate has barely shifted during Obama's presidency.

 

[HIStory]

Respect77, Trump is a racist, why do people always try to find ways to NOT call someone who is clearly a racist a racist?

Obama cut white unemployment in half, them manufacturing jobs AREN'T coming back, what those folks who complain about their jobs being taken need to do is retrain. Did you not see the rally where white Trump supporters were shouting racial epithets and hailing Hitler? The people in America that should be complaining most about unemployment are black Americans who's unemployment rate has barely shifted during Obama's presidency.

I am not interested in discussing anything with you since you are a troll on this board since day one (and unfortunately for you most people can see that), so you can stop trying to poke me, you are going to be ignored.

But for the last time: you either have a reading comprehension problem or you deliberately try to twist my words. Never in this thread I said Trump wasn't a racist. In fact, I stated several times and in several forms that he was.

And no one defended Trump's own racism.

Yes, they did ignore his racist comments

Of course, Trump did more than that when he called all Mexicans rapists and criminals. That is racism, among others.

Another edit I have to add this as well. When it comes to Islam being a violent religion, we can agree on that from an ideological perspective, purely focusing on scripture. But a lot of people take it further than that and apply it to Muslims as people. Christianity, particularly the Old Testament, is also a violent religion but that doesn't mean all Christians are violent. Islam is essentially what Muslims make of it, it can be a beautiful religion in the hands of one person and a hateful religion in the hands of another. I think we in the West lose sight of this sometimes. Imagine if someone unfamiliar with Christianity read the Bible for the first time and thought Christians take all this stuff literally, what would they think? So for me these are two separate issues, which is why the term "islamophobia" bugs me so much. Anyway, end of rant

That's true and you know from the Atheist thread I have been as critical to Christianity as I am to Islam. Especially the Old Testament isn't any better in terms of violence than the Koran. The difference is, I think, that Christianity has a New Testament that somewhat tames it. That of course doesn't mean that some churches do not want to go back to Old Testament interpretations of rules, but at least in Christianity there is a theological basis to say that the Old Testament's violent passages are outdated. Islam doesn't have that. In fact, the rule in Islam is that if there are passages that seem contradictory then the one written later that is the one that is valid. And the problem is that as he grew older Muhammad became more violent and the Koran became less tolerant and more violent. Moreover, on contrary with Christianity, Islam isn't just a religion but also a political system and political ideology (Sharia and all). That too IMO makes it more dangerous than Christianity.

In any case, I don't want to start a religious debate here, the bigger point I was making is that it is perfectly legitimate to think Islam is the most violent religion and it doesn't mean someone who thinks so is a racist. Islam isn't a race, anyway.

My other issue in this thread regarding religion was the liberal hypocrisy of being all for free speech when it comes to criticizing and mocking Christianity but becoming all defensive about Islam. Excusing or ignoring the exact same things in Islam that they attack in Christianity. I have much respect for the likes of atheist thinkers like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins who are equally critical of Christianity and Islam - IMO that is the genuine and credible approach if you are a liberal thinker who wants to criticise religion. But you can often see liberal thinkers and the liberal media attempt to silence any criticism of Islam while they have no problem with bashing and mocking Christianity. My point was that to the "average Trump voter" this comes across as one example of liberal hypocrisy and bias. And they do have a point.

But I agree with you that the progress on gay marriage, abortion etc. is not a siege on anyone. It's people getting their due rights. Christians losing their power to dictate everyone else's life is not something I feel sorry for them. Live and let live. It's alright if you want to live your life according to the Bible, but you cannot force that on anyone else and you should never be allowed to force that on anyone else. Which brings us back to this current political situation and that I think Mike Pence is actually more dangerous than Trump. He is a fundamentalist Christian who will probably try to push across fundamentalist Christian ideals regarding gay marriage, abortion rights etc. I don't think Trump is a man of principles, nor do I think he has a strong interest in these kind of issues (also on gay rights he was kind of back and forth, like on so many things). He is more of an opportunist than anything who probably wouldn't lose much thought on these issues if he was an independent. Pence and that hardline Christian fraction of the Republican party however will probably push attempts at reversing certain rights. Would have been the same with Ted Cruz, though. It is not a Trump-specific problem in the Republican party.

And I do see why the media has become such an issue and another example of liberal hypocrisy and bias as well. The article Girl posted and the video I posted reflect on that. The media should go back and report about things - as objectively as possible - and not become cheerleaders for anyone as they were in this campaign, mainly for Hillary. I get it that certain channels have certain admitted political leanings. And yes, conservatives have Fox News. But most of the media has more of a liberal leaning and some of the bias and cheerleading just got too unashamed and too much.

Eg.

That's just one tiny example but you could sense the bias for Hillary all over the media. People do sense that. And for the "average Trump supporter" that only confirms that he is someone outside of the establishment and someone whom the establishment wants to lose and wants to destroy. And that's actually much of his appeal so when the media was so unashamedly cheerleading for Hillary, it backfired on them. And I have to say they deserved that lesson. Hopefully they will learn and go back to at least trying to report objectively instead of trying to manipulate people and cheerlead. Though I have my doubts. Some do seem to self-reflect now, but some still refuse to see what was the problem in their behavior and how it actually contributed to Trump becoming so popular. Which is the opposite of what they intended, but they did not read mass psychology very well.

 

[Psychoniff]

^I am no troll, that's an ad hominem fallacy.

Again, I'd like to know why you would justify his white supremacist campaign by saying that the 'liberal' media was biased against him?

Did you not see how the media for 18 months gave this man a pass? They did not scrutinise him enough, they gave him more airtime than Bernie during the primaries. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-great-news-for-the-tv-networks-a6941441.html

The media LOVE Trump because he brings them more revenue, so they play into his hands.

 

[LindavG]

That's true and you know from the Atheist thread I have been as critical to Christianity as I am to Islam. Especially the Old Testament isn't any better in terms of violence than the Koran. The difference is, I think, that Christianity has a New Testament that somewhat tames it. That of course doesn't mean that some churches do not want to go back to Old Testament interpretations of rules, but at least in Christianity there is a theological basis to say that the Old Testament's violent passages are outdated. Islam doesn't have that. In fact, the rule in Islam is that if there are passages that seem contradictory then the one written later that is the one that is valid. And the problem is that as he grew older Muhammad became more violent and the Koran became less tolerant and more violent. Moreover, on contrary with Christianity, Islam isn't just a religion but also a political system and political ideology (Sharia and all). That too IMO makes it more dangerous than Christianity.

In any case, I don't want to start a religious debate here, the bigger point I was making is that it is perfectly legitimate to think Islam is the most violent religion and it doesn't mean someone who thinks so is a racist. Islam isn't a race, anyway.

This is all true but we both know that for many people, "Islam is a violent religion" translates to "Muslims are violent people". This is a tempting generalisation to make considering all the violence that is committed in the name of Islam today but it's a dangerous one as well. You can't read the Quran and assume that this is what all Muslims literally believe, just as you can't read the Bible (even just the NT) and assume that all Christians support slavery and think gays must be put to death. Keep in mind that in many Muslim countries, particularly in the rural areas that tend to be the most conservative, a significant part of the population is illiterate and have never read the Quran for themselves. In Pakistan for example, the adult literacy rate is under 55% (source). Their practice of Islam is informed by the local preachers, who have their own interpretation of scripture, as well as the culture around them. There are many different sects in Islam just as there are in Christianity, but people in the West tend to take the most fundamentalist sects as the most representative of Islam - not necessarily out of malice but because this is what they're most familiar with.

Of course, there are some people who take it to the other extreme and say that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, which isn't true either. Most violence and intolerance committed in the name of Islam can be justified by a literal interpretation of scripture.

But the same is true for Christianity as well. For centuries, the Bible has been used to justify all kinds of barbarism, from slavery to witch hunts to marital rape to gay persecution. You can indeed find passages in the Bible that approve or even encourage all of this. In fact, there are Christian countries outside of the Western world where such barbarism is still common place. What is the typical response of a Christian in the West when you confront them with this? "Well, those people are not real Christians. That's just their backwards culture". See how that works? You mentioned hypocrisy on the part of liberals who use double standards for Christianity and Islam but that hypocrisy is there for conservatives as well. The same people who are panicking about Sharia law coming to Missouri are usually the ones pushing for prayer in public school, teaching creationism in science class and criminalising the LGBT community.

But I agree with you that the progress on gay marriage, abortion etc. is not a siege on anyone. It's people getting their due rights. Christians losing their power to dictate everyone else's life is not something I feel sorry for them. Live and let live. It's alright if you want to live your life according to the Bible, but you cannot force that on anyone else and you should never be allowed to force that on anyone else. Which brings us back to this current political situation and that I think Mike Pence is actually more dangerous than Trump. He is a fundamentalist Christian who will probably try to push across fundamentalist Christian ideals regarding gay marriage, abortion rights etc. I don't think Trump is a man of principles, nor do I think he has a strong interest in these kind of issues (also on gay rights he was kind of back and forth, like on so many things). He is more of an opportunist than anything who probably wouldn't lose much thought on these issues if he was an independent. Pence and that hardline Christian fraction of the Republican party however will probably push attempts at reversing certain rights. Would have been the same with Ted Cruz, though. It is not a Trump-specific problem in the Republican party.

Absolutely. This is why I said people shouldn't hope for a Trump impeachment because the alternative is even worse. I think Pence benefits from the fact that many people don't know much about him but once you look into his past and positions, it is some scary stuff. It amazes me that someone with such radical religious views can be elected in a Western country in 2016. That's what I mean with conservative hypocrisy, they are obsessed with the remote danger of Islamic law in the US while supporting someone whose main purpose is writing his own religion into law, with no regard for how oppressive this is to people who don't subscribe to that religion.

 

[barbee0715]

Absolutely. This is why I said people shouldn't hope for a Trump impeachment because the alternative is even worse. I think Pence benefits from the fact that many people don't know much about him but once you look into his past and positions, it is some scary stuff. It amazes me that someone with such radical religious views can be elected in a Western country in 2016. That's what I mean with conservative hypocrisy, they are obsessed with the remote danger of Islamic law in the US while supporting someone whose main purpose is writing his own religion into law, with no regard for how oppressive this is to people who don't subscribe to that religion.

And that's why I've been saying that Pence is much more worrying than Trump could ever be. My own state has been run by far right evangelistical Christians since Bush left to be President, and I personally think it's been run in the ground. Maybe 20 million people now have insurance and Medicaid with subsidies given by the federal government-but not in my state. No adults have Medicaid here-children do and their mothers get annual pap smears. Whoop de do. They've been fighting every single thing about gay marriage and transgender restrooms. Texas government has such a fear of the government that they actually sent the Texas National Guard to keep a "watchful eye" on our OWN military personnel when they recently were practicing military maneuvers. Our OWN military. They have absolutely no concept of the separation of church and state. (Ted Cruz is from here among others).

I have to admit that I thought this would be the outcome of the election-even though all my Republican friends thought the opposite. I really felt it when Brexit happened. Only Trump and Bernie had populist messages and paid much attention to the big issues that were hitting the disappearing middle class-jobs-Trump blamed the immigrants and Bernie blamed the corporations and the 1% (which is correct, and has been happening since the 80's Reagan years). Trickle down economics never did and never will work.

Hillary's team did her a disservice by not going and connecting with the rust belt states like President Clinton did years before. And the fact that a LOT of people disliked both candidates intensely didn't help-

50% of the registered voters didn't even go and vote. Thousands abstained from voting for anybody for president even while voting for senators, representatives and judges and thousands more wrote in names of unknown people or animals.

People that voted for Trump have been unhappy with the government for years and blame them for their dwindling finances-lack of jobs-lack opportunity-and lack of common social services and fell for his slogan "drain the swamp."

His list of people on his transition team alone is enough to strike terror in everybody's hearts. I read yesterday that he's "filling the swamp with gators" and that's true.

 

[Antwort]

The media should go back and report about things - as objectively as possible - and not become cheerleaders for anyone as they were in this campaign, mainly for Hillary. I get it that certain channels have certain admitted political leanings. And yes, conservatives have Fox News. But most of the media has more of a liberal leaning and some of the bias and cheerleading just got too unashamed and too much.

Eg.

[video=youtube;yg6sDWEKt20]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg6sDWEKt20[/video]

That's just one tiny example but you could sense the bias for Hillary all over the media. People do sense that. And for the "average Trump supporter" that only confirms that he is someone outside of the establishment and someone whom the establishment wants to lose and wants to destroy. And that's actually much of his appeal so when the media was so unashamedly cheerleading for Hillary, it backfired on them. And I have to say they deserved that lesson. Hopefully they will learn and go back to at least trying to report objectively instead of trying to manipulate people and cheerlead. Though I have my doubts. Some do seem to self-reflect now, but some still refuse to see what was the problem in their behavior and how it actually contributed to Trump becoming so popular. Which is the opposite of what they intended, but they did not read mass psychology very well.

The shock with which so many of them received the results points to the errors of their theories and, dare I say, an overestimation of their own importance. Accusations of collusion with the Clinton campaign and oversampling of Democrats, which may be more or less substantiated, paint an even more negative picture of the media and pollsters. If true, those allegations would put their contribution to the campaign well beyond the realms of simple incompetence and ignorance into an even more dangerous territory of willful obstruction of truth and mass manipulation. Irrespective of the cause, the media either couldn't or wouldn't accept the realities which were right there in front of their eyes. If only they would have had the curiosity and diligence to check beyond their own narrow sphere, they could have seen whether or not the rest of America truly reverberated to their calls.

Echo chamber and confirmation bias are two popular phrases these days, so much so they end up being abused, but I do believe they are accurate descriptions of those who tend to reach out mostly or only to people who reflect their own mindset. This can happen on either side of the ideological split, of course. I remember a President Obama quote which said that “he wouldn't have voted for himself either if Fox News was all he watched”. In this year's elections, the same could be said about many contributors and readers of the main stream media who, in their liberal intransigence, simply refused to acknowledge the arguments from the other side, let alone truly debate their merits.

Had they done some proper recognition, perhaps the next graph wouldn't have been quite as dramatic in its apparent reversal. I know Linda already mentioned that at the beginning of election night the New York Times had Hillary Clinton at an 85% chance of winning. But here is the graphical expression of this most flagrant gulf between liberal expectations and election results.

In the spirit of attempted fairness, I must say that not all polls showed a definite Clinton victory. If I remember correctly, the LA Times was one of the few outlets which had Donald Trump ahead in its polls. In spite of the seeming shock of many, for anyone who actually paid attention and sought the pulse of people, the results were not terribly surprising. If images such as this next one https://s15.postimg.org/mf8iapwm3/florida.jpg are remotely accurate descriptions of what actually took place at rallies and not mere propaganda, then it should have been obvious where the momentum was. Looking beyond the tone of words and the possible questions which could be raised about the angles and the timing of the two pictures, this could very well be an intriguing comparison of the degree of enthusiasm generated by the two campaigns.

Furthermore, the MSM refused to even entertain the ideas exposed by alternative outlets dismissing them swiftly as conspiracy theories or Russian meddling. It is quite true that a lot of the information exposed by Wikileaks in the infamous Podesta emails was made of basic political stratagems, but some of the true revelations were genuinely bothersome to many people and the outrage about them was obvious on social media. Obvious for anyone who bothered to check those dark, dark corners of Twitter anyhow.........

I could carry on with a few more lines, but I think it's high time I apologized for the length of this post and its extended focus on this one issue. Like the little hypocrite I can be I have some biases of my own due to which I insist so much on this particular dimension. I intent to comeback later with some thoughts which are meant to address the Christian right concerns raised by Linda, but I think for now you've all had moreeee than enough of my “precious” insight for one session

 

[LindavG]

Donald Trump has named former Breitbart News CEO Stephen Bannon as his chief strategist and senior counselor. For those not familiar with Breitbart, here's a sample of their headlines under Bannon's tenure: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/17/breitbart-news-worst-headlines/212467. But it's all about the economy -_-

As for Girl's post regarding the polls: how would the polls showing a decisive win for Hillary work in her favour? If anything, I think it's one of the main reasons she lost because a lot of Democratic base voters who weren't too enthusiatic about her (the Bernie-or-bust types) either stayed home or voted third party, under the assumption that Hillary had this in the bag anyway. I don't think it's some grand conspiracy, it's just the result of outdated polling methods and people not wanting to admit to pollsters that they were going to vote for Trump (called the Bradley-effect). I do think that the media relies on polls too much and places too much importance on them. I hope this election at least taught them a lesson in that regard.

And as for biased media reporting, Donald Trump received over a billion dollars worth of free advertising from the mainstream media. He would just call into morning shows on major stations like CNN and say his piece. The media handled him with kid gloves for the most part in order to keep access to him. If the media reported more on Trump's scandals, it's just because there was that much more to report on. There's no equivalence there. Just now, three of Trump's children are on his transition team while they are also in charge of handling his business afairs. His children will keep managing his business while Trump is President. This kind of conflict of interest is on a level usually only found in third world countries but there's nary a beep about it from the mainstream media. Imagine if Hillary Clinton did something like this, the outcry of "Corruption!! Nepotism!!" would be all over.

 

[mj_frenzy]

The rise of Trump is the rise of the racist around the world, as right wing and racist parties in the world gain votes from the mouthbreeders and people who are jealous of people from other places and cultures getting ahead.

I am afraid you are greatly mistaken.

Take for example European Union: EU people are not &#8220;jealous of people from other places and cultures getting ahead&#8221;, such as all those who come from Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan & similar other, non-European countries. All of these people are coming from non-democratic countries with almost non-existent (political) cultures.

It is especially important to understand that Europe has been in grave danger with all those migrants or refugees (or whatever else they are called in order to justify their applications for asylum in Europe). The dangers are not only about its political culture, but mainly about its safety issues.

Note that Greece burdens itself with most of them (by being Europe&#8217;s natural border), meaning it collects them but also distributes them (primarily through Balkans) to the rest of EU accordingly. Unfortunately, the current government of Greece (that lacks in effectiveness in general) has only exacerbated that problem.

Additionally, not only do I completely understand Hungarian Viktor Orban&#8217;s plans (about a fence against illegal immigrants), but also I fully applaud him.

So, the strengthening of right wing political parties (nationalists) should not amaze you at all.

Lastly, I cannot tell for sure if US&#8217;s new immigrations policies (after Donald Trump&#8217;s election) will eventually work well, considering that US began as a society of immigrants.