Trump General Discussion

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.


I sense a disparaging tone in your response to me being a Fraternity brother.

I can only speak for myself and what I did as a member of a Greek letter organization.

I was a member of Alpha Kappa Lambda at Penn State. Our fraternity had African-American, Indian-American, Jewish, Hispanic, Arab-American, and 2 openly gay brothers out of 43.

After serving a term as President of my chapter I continued my service as the first Greek cabinet member of the campus student government. The Greeks and Student Government were oil and water with very little integration. I listened to both sides, knowing there was a mutual benefit, and knew the Greek system had to evolve to stay relevant in the 21st century campus.

My sorority partner and myself increased Greek participation in the MLK Day of Service, ran voter registration drives, and brought LGBTA straight talks into fraternities for the first time. I'm proud of my legacy in planting the seeds that brought campus organizations closer together

Oh I didn't lose my virginity until after college so Rolling Stone ain't got shit on me.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
:up: will only hurt outreach for democrats


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

indeed. let's bitch about the Republicans vowing to obstruct Obama for eight years and then immediately cast the entire other side as universally scum the instant the shoe is on the other foot. i'm sure once they hear that they're all racist homophobes for the 1,754,927th time that they'll realize the error of their ways, tone it down and try to be conciliatory. this is going to be very helpful in preventing the right from being vengeful and punitive to minorities.
 
Last edited:
Democrats should undertake a lot of soul-searching and self-analysis in order to be more understanding and accommodating of conservative white America, just like the Republicans did when they were crushed a second time by Barack Obama in 2012. they should normalize his racist, demagogic language, and white supremacist appointments.

or they could grow a pair.

We are already hearing from Republicans and Democrats in leadership positions that it is incumbent on Americans to normalize and legitimize the new Trump presidency. We are told to give him a chance, to reach across the aisle, and that we must all work hard, in President Obama’s formulation, to make sure that Trump succeeds. But before you decide to take Obama’s advice, I would implore you to stand firm and even angry on this one point at least: The current Supreme Court vacancy is not Trump’s to fill. This was President Obama’s vacancy and President Obama’s nomination. Please don’t tacitly give up on it because it was stolen by unprecedented obstruction and contempt. Instead, do to them what they have done to us. Sometimes, when they go low, we need to go lower, to protect a thing of great value.

The seat that became vacant when Antonin Scalia died earlier this year was blocked by the Republican party for 9 months for reasons that were transparently false from the outset. At first the senators obstructed the president’s pick of moderate Merrick Garland because they claimed Obama was a “lame-duck president” with only a year remaining in his term, and the “people” should be allowed, for the first time in history, to decide for themselves. Later, the reasons for obstruction changed when Senate Republicans began to run on the promise to block any nominees put forward by a Democratic president. Virtually all of those senators won their seats back on the strength of that pledge. Smart guys.

For Republicans, keeping the Supreme Court conservative was more urgent than governance or leadership or an independent judiciary. To reward that by meeting President Trump halfway on his nominees is not sober statesmanship. It’s surrender. Senate Republicans are already crowing that they can have a Justice Ted Cruz named in the coming days and seated by February. They can. But it is not his seat.

The only proper response from progressives today must be that Donald Trump is a lame-duck president with only four years left in his term, and we must let the people decide the next justice for the Supreme Court. Less fatuously, it must be to obstruct the nomination and seating of any Trump nominee to fill Scalia’s seat. We will lose. But that’s not the point now. Democrats need to repeat Ted Cruz’s lie that eight justices will suffice. If Democrats can muster the energy to fight about nothing else, it should be this, because even if you believe the election was fair or fair enough, the loss of this Supreme Court seat was not. That seat is Merrick Garland’s.

What Democrats should do about the Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:
I sense a disparaging tone in your response to me being a Fraternity brother.

I can only speak for myself and what I did as a member of a Greek letter organization.

I was a member of Alpha Kappa Lambda at Penn State. Our fraternity had African-American, Indian-American, Jewish, Hispanic, Arab-American, and 2 openly gay brothers out of 43.

After serving a term as President of my chapter I continued my service as the first Greek cabinet member of the campus student government. The Greeks and Student Government were oil and water with very little integration. I listened to both sides, knowing there was a mutual benefit, and knew the Greek system had to evolve to stay relevant in the 21st century campus.

My sorority partner and myself increased Greek participation in the MLK Day of Service, ran voter registration drives, and brought LGBTA straight talks into fraternities for the first time. I'm proud of my legacy in planting the seeds that brought campus organizations closer together

Oh I didn't lose my virginity until after college so Rolling Stone ain't got shit on me.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


I suppose you took that a little more personally than I intended it to sound. That was a "right wing + fraternity doesn't shock me."

I perfectly acknowledge that not every fraternity is the same thing. But a large amount of them produce assholes. Even some of the frats with good faces still have some chip on their shoulder of 'better than thou.' But I think pretty much all of them have some 'fit in' cultish behavior that I don't like at all, akin to a religion.
 
this hysterical insistence that every single person who voted for trump is a racist gay-hating scumbag is getting really fucking annoying.

:up: will only hurt outreach for democrats


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

True. I find both sides to pretty vile right now.

One side is going to have to learn how to have the conversation without the blanket, but the other side is going to have to acknowledge it exists.

Oregoropa, you may feel some vindication right now, but remember you won with a small minority and the demographic that help you the most is dying off. You will have to have the conversation someday, you will have to learn that racism doesn't need a hood and that white nationalists don't carry id cards.

And I believe the left has to be careful when using such terms, otherwise they'll lose meaning. I seen a few instances during this election cycle when someone would use the term racist or sexist and then not be able to define or explain afterwards.
 
I sense a disparaging tone in your response to me being a Fraternity brother.

I can only speak for myself and what I did as a member of a Greek letter organization.

I was a member of Alpha Kappa Lambda at Penn State. Our fraternity had African-American, Indian-American, Jewish, Hispanic, Arab-American, and 2 openly gay brothers out of 43.

After serving a term as President of my chapter I continued my service as the first Greek cabinet member of the campus student government. The Greeks and Student Government were oil and water with very little integration. I listened to both sides, knowing there was a mutual benefit, and knew the Greek system had to evolve to stay relevant in the 21st century campus.

My sorority partner and myself increased Greek participation in the MLK Day of Service, ran voter registration drives, and brought LGBTA straight talks into fraternities for the first time. I'm proud of my legacy in planting the seeds that brought campus organizations closer together

Oh I didn't lose my virginity until after college so Rolling Stone ain't got shit on me.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

:up: all good stuff

Frat president? Have to say, didn't expect that. Did you make AKL Great Again Also?
 
I said I was going to step out of this thread, and mostly I am, but I want to make one thing clear:

Let's just use my family for an example. Do I think they're racists, homophobes, xenophobes and misogynists? Well... Some of them yes, but that's besides the point. Do I think that by voting for trump that made them all blanketly so? Absolutely not. What I do think, though, is that they were unable to step away from the party line enough to say, no, this is too much, and not vote for him. By voting for him, they said that political teams are more important than people's rights. By refusing to vote for him, especially in a state like Indiana, where the vote doesn't even really matter, they couldn't just say, maybe I'll abstain this time. Nothing. And as a result, while perhaps not necessarily being the hateful things he is themselves, they still voted for it. They still said with their vote, this is ok. That's what I can't accept, and that's what disturbs and disgusts me. That's what I can't wrap my head around, and that's what I can't envision reaching across the aisle for.

There are things that suggest that there is nothing to be afraid of, politically speaking. But the fact is, if he and his administration turn out to be everything we all feared, I will not be among the people who allowed it to happen. So, no, no interest in reaching across the aisle so that the people who voted for him can feel better about their decision.

Again, if he wasn't the candidate they wanted, how did he ever get past the primaries?
 
Yeah, what bono_212 said (including the need to step away from this thread).

this hysterical insistence that every single person who voted for trump is a racist gay-hating scumbag is getting really fucking annoying.

See, here's the thing I don't get. This statement implies that there is a subset of people that voted for Trump despite his racism/xenophobia/etc, and not because of it. Let's call this the non-deplorable part of the coalition.

Now, for this non-deplorable group to exist, you would also have to asume that they rank their political preferences in a way in which some other issues - say, opposition to international trade, abortion, or climate change - are higher than equality amongst human beings. Again, for the non-deplorables, it's not that they are against equality, just that other things were more important to them. The downfall of the middle class. The dysfunction in Washigton. Whatever you think is the rallying cry.

So here's my argument: it is not indefensible to call this group of people, at the very least, tacitly racist (or sexist, xenophobic, etc). They may not be KKK-sympathisers, but their individual preferences show that they were confortable with a candidate that was very clearly racist, as long as they shared other aspects of his agenda.

That doesn't mean you should give up on these voters. Or that you have to single-them out every single time. Or that you can't win them over. But you need to recognize the reality.

Edit: and by the way, every racist movement in the history of the world also included "looking the other way" members as part of the coalition. Eichmann in Jerusalem is a good study of this phenomenon.
 
Last edited:
:up: all good stuff



Frat president? Have to say, didn't expect that. Did you make AKL Great Again Also?


Oh I did. I invested in hot tub infrastructure. Brought in new pledges. And ushered in a new era of fun. Our national gave us a dry designation for insurance purposes. Our previous president was paranoid about but I understood the 'wink and the nod' from our National that it meant no big parties at the house. Under my presidency we had small invite only gatherings and strengthened alliances with neighbor houses to host combined functions at there place where we could afford 'alt-rock' bands. We had great parties. And our house wasn't covered in party mud the next morning.

I have great stories.




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I said I was going to step out of this thread, and mostly I am, but I want to make one thing clear:

Let's just use my family for an example. Do I think they're racists, homophobes, xenophobes and misogynists? Well... Some of them yes, but that's besides the point. Do I think that by voting for trump that made them all blanketly so? Absolutely not. What I do think, though, is that they were unable to step away from the party line enough to say, no, this is too much, and not vote for him. By voting for him, they said that political teams are more important than people's rights. By refusing to vote for him, especially in a state like Indiana, where the vote doesn't even really matter, they couldn't just say, maybe I'll abstain this time. Nothing. And as a result, while perhaps not necessarily being the hateful things he is themselves, they still voted for it. They still said with their vote, this is ok. That's what I can't accept, and that's what disturbs and disgusts me. That's what I can't wrap my head around, and that's what I can't envision reaching across the aisle for.

There are things that suggest that there is nothing to be afraid of, politically speaking. But the fact is, if he and his administration turn out to be everything we all feared, I will not be among the people who allowed it to happen. So, no, no interest in reaching across the aisle so that the people who voted for him can feel better about their decision.

Again, if he wasn't the candidate they wanted, how did he ever get past the primaries?


:up:


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
jesus.

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition operation plunged into disarray on Tuesday with the abrupt departure of Mike Rogers, who had handled national security matters, the second shake-up in less than a week on a team that has not yet begun to execute the daunting task of taking over the government.

In a statement on Tuesday, Mr. Rogers, a former congressman from Michigan who led the House Intelligence Committee, said he was “proud of the team that we assembled at Trump for America to produce meaningful policy, personnel and agency action guidance on the complex national security challenges facing our great country.” And he said he was “pleased to hand off our work” to a new transition team led by Vice President-elect Mike Pence.

In another sign of disarray, a transition official said on Tuesday that Mr. Trump had removed a second senior defense and foreign policy official from his transition team, Matthew Freedman, who runs a Washington consulting firm that advises foreign governments and companies seeking to do business with the United States government.

Mr. Freedman, who had been in charge of coordinating Mr. Trump’s calls to world leaders after his election, is a former business associate of Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former campaign manager, who once worked on the re-election bid of Ferdinand E. Marcos, the Filipino dictator ousted in the 1980s.

Mr. Pence took the helm of the transition on Friday after Mr. Trump unceremoniously removed Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, who had been preparing with Obama administration officials for months to put the complex transition process into motion. That effort is now frozen, senior White House officials say, because Mr. Pence has yet to sign legally required paperwork to allow his team to begin collaborating with President Obama’s aides on the handover.

Former Representative Mike Rogers, who had been advising the new administration team on national security issues, has resigned from the transition team.

An aide to Mr. Trump’s transition team who insisted on anonymity to discuss internal matters said that the delay was taking place because the wording of the document was being altered and updated, and that it was likely to be signed later Tuesday.

Still, the slow and uncertain start to what is normally a rapid and meticulously planned transfer of power could have profound implications for Mr. Trump’s nascent administration. It challenges the president-elect’s efforts to gain control of the federal bureaucracy and to begin building a staff fully briefed on what he will face in the Oval Office on Day 1.


Even as the president-elect worked to fill pivotal roles in his administration, the disarray caught the attention of some senior Republicans who criticized Mr. Trump during his campaign but said after he won that they would not necessarily rule out joining his administration or advising him.

Eliot A. Cohen, a former State Department official, said on Twitter that after having spoken to Mr. Trump’s team, he had “changed my recommendation: stay away. They’re angry, arrogant, screaming ‘you LOST!’ Will be ugly.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/u...p-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
 
i guess that since I voted for the conservative party in the 2011 federal election here despite them running an overtly anti-gay platform behind a reptilian career politician (because the other candidates in my riding were absolutely awful, and I felt that the liberal party leader was unfit to be prime minister), that means that i, an openly and proudly bisexual man, therefore tacitly approve of homophobia. cool.

this is lazy thinking.
 
Last edited:
No, it doesn't mean you tacitly approve it, but it does mean that, despite your feelings, you voted for a guy knowing full well he was running an anti-gay platform.

:shrug:
 
i guess that since I voted for the conservative party in the 2011 federal election here despite them running an overtly anti-gay platform behind a reptilian career politician (because the other candidates in my riding were absolutely awful, and I felt that the liberal party leader was unfit to be prime minister), that means that i, an openly and proudly bisexual man, therefore tacitly approve of homophobia. cool.

this is lazy thinking.

See, I don't buy this argument at all. The fact that 10 percent of African Americans and 20 percent of Latinos (I'm estimating) voted for Trump doesn't make him/his campaign less racist. The fact that a third of US Jews voted for him doesn't make him/his campaign less anti-Semitic. He won the women vote, for Christ's sake.

The great Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie has a very good point on this (at 1:55 in this video). "Every system of oppression has people who are in the group of the oppressed who somehow contribute to that oppression".

 
Last edited:
And as a result, while perhaps not necessarily being the hateful things he is themselves, they still voted for it. They still said with their vote, this is ok. That's what I can't accept, and that's what disturbs and disgusts me. That's what I can't wrap my head around, and that's what I can't envision reaching across the aisle for.

Yup. Speaking of Trump voters generally, this is the part that I can't get past. And maybe I shouldn't. Because if we all drifted into some sort of acceptance, what would the next thing be that we would hate, and then gradually learn to accept?

I know, slippery slope and all. But a year ago, I didn't think any of this was possible. I don't think any of us can bet against it not getting worse, at this point.
 
He won the women vote, for Christ's sake.



i found this really interesting:

Glick worked with Princeton University’s Susan Fiske to develop a groundbreaking assessment of hostile and benevolent sexism. (And of how those two attitudes combine, Voltron-like, to form the cognitively dissonant state of “ambivalent sexism.”)

Glick’s and Fiske’s work, along with two decades of social science research that has used and expanded on it, tells us a lot about why sexist bias against women is still so pervasive.

And it tells us why women themselves often buy into these ideas, too.

Male dominance actually requires a pretty delicate balance, Glick said. If men want to maintain the control over women they’ve enjoyed for thousands of years, and continue their species, and satisfy their desires for heterosexual love and companionship, they can’t just use brute force. They need women to actually like them and not resent their dominance.

And so a compromise emerged — or at least a “protection racket,” as Glick calls it, like when the Mafioso tells the businessman he’d hate to see his nice shop burn down, so why don’t they make a deal.

The basic agreement is that as long as women cater to men’s needs, men will protect and cherish women in return. If women have few good options for independent success, this is a pretty good deal — which explains why in more overtly sexist societies where women have fewer opportunities, cross-national studies show that women endorse benevolent sexism at even higher rates than men do.

This may also help explain why Trump maintained high levels of support among white women voters who don’t have a college degree — a group Trump won 62 percent to 34, and a group whose career opportunities are probably more limited. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton totally reversed 2012’s partisan gender gap among college-educated white women. (A demographic Clinton won by 51 to 45 percent, and Romney won 52 to 46 against Obama.)

But the most powerful gendered element of Trump’s campaign may actually lie in his fear-mongering.

“Trump's strategy was to ramp up anxiety about a dark, dangerous world,” Glick said. “When women are under threat, their benevolent sexism scores go up.”

Specifically, he said, showing women survey data about men’s hostile sexism makes women more likely to endorse benevolent sexism out of psychological self-defense. It may be ironic to turn to men for protection from male hostility, but it’s how the cycle works.

This also helps explain why so many women hold sexist biases against women, Glick said. If women themselves enforce gender norms and punish deviants, it reinforces the social order that guarantees them protection. And it separates them from the “bad” women who are deemed unworthy of that protection.


But that protection can still come with a cost, Glick said — which is also where sexist stereotypes about men factor in. The idea that men have to be providers and protectors, Glick said, goes hand in hand with the “boys will be boys” attitude that’s often used to excuse men’s bad behavior.

“Men are bad but bold. That’s the stereotype,” Glick said. “He’s not a very good protector if he can't beat up on other men.”

Glick said that Trump’s more positive masculine traits — boldness, change, willingness to defy tradition — may be seen as inextricably linked with his more negative ones, like his boorishness and cruelty. Trump may not be a nice guy, the thinking goes, and we may not like some of the things he says. But that just comes with the territory if you want a strong male leader.


You hear this rationale a lot from women who still supported Trump after the “pussy” tape leaked and more sexual assault allegations came out. They don’t like it, but they find ways to excuse it. “I do find the words offensive, but that’s locker room talk. That’s the boys club,” Michelle Werntz, a Trump supporter, told CNN.

Some of these excuses minimize sexual assault, or even endorse it. “Groping is a healthy thing to do,” Trump supporter Jane Biddick told the Cut. “When you’re heterosexual, you grope, okay? It’s a good thing.”

Comments like these are reminders of another dark truth research has revealed about benevolent sexism: its strong role in our culture’s tendency to blame victims of sexual assault. The higher a person scores on measures of benevolent sexism, the more likely that person is to blame women who are victims of acquaintance rape (as opposed to rape by a stranger), or victims who behaved in less than “ideal” ways before a rape (like cheating on their husband, or passively rather than actively resisting their attacker).

Sexual assault is the ultimate expression of hostile sexism. But the protection racket of benevolent sexism gives women a lot of incentive to either forgive men for it, or blame women.


The alternative — acknowledging that the system is broken, and that virtue can’t protect you from violence — can be too terrible to contemplate.

http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/11/15/13571478/trump-president-sexual-assault-sexism-misogyny-won
 
Yup. Speaking of Trump voters generally, this is the part that I can't get past. And maybe I shouldn't. Because if we all drifted into some sort of acceptance, what would the next thing be that we would hate, and then gradually learn to accept?



I know, slippery slope and all. But a year ago, I didn't think any of this was possible. I don't think any of us can bet against it not getting worse, at this point.


THIS is the area that we as a people need to figure out how to understand, educate, and be able to empathize with.

Maybe we should be careful with calling it 'acceptance'? Let's be fair Hillary had a lot of baggage, would we accuse all of her voters of being 'accepting' of this baggage? Now some of this baggage was real, some exaggerated, and some just plain made up, but Trump voters would say this about his baggage as well. And they wouldn't be completely wrong, they'd be wrong, but not 100%, which is why we have to be careful about what we focus on.

I think instead of 'acceptance' many are just turning a blind eye; some just because of the R, some because of their hatred towards Clinton, and some because of their feelings of disenfranchisement. And of course there's a lot of overlap, and/ or sexism that fills some of those gaps.

When it comes to Trump supporters within the FYM crowd I really don't believe there are any overtly racist individuals, there are some what I'd call latent or soft racist and there are those that are just so tunneled vision that they can "truly" not see it.

I believe Hillary voters were willing to look past a lot, but at the end of the day I heard many say "yes, this is an issue, but at least we know what we're getting and Trump is absolutely dangerous." Whereas we heard "Trump has his flaws, but..."

In here we see:

A. "well he should have said it this way" - they want it so bad they've convinced themselves it's not racist or sexist.

B. "It's all fabricated hyperbole made up by the media"

C. "deplorable, but he has an R and he's not Hillary"

Obviously you can't reason with them all.

But how do you engage A and B?

These are serious questions:

How do you engage with the person that doesn't trust msm, and probably grew up surrounded by latent racism? Can we honestly blame them for not believing the media? I can't. We can blame them if they choose the other extreme and don't question it, but I don't think we can honestly blame anyone for not believing the media.

How do you engage the A's? I think they are probably the most difficult AND the ones that could honestly have their eyes opened. I don't think these people have any ill intent and little to no latent racism, they just want it so bad that they have blinders on.

Sorry, just stream of conscience of what I'm dealing with right now...


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Democrats of FYM, do you think it is time to ditch Pelosi as House Minority Leader?


Not a Democrat, but yes, I believe the party as a whole needs to do some soul searching.

I will miss Obama, but I have been disappointed by most of the party other than him, Biden, and a handful of others.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom