Trump General Discussion

[BoMac]

if you enlist in the military, uh the possibility of going to war is kind of par for the course, no?

This.

But, also, throughout history the rise of ethno-nationalist movements have been enabled by people who, for a variety of reasons, decided to look the other way.

So, sure, many Trump voters voted for him for economic reasons or wanting to blow up the establishment, but they did so without really caring how it will affect minorities.

 

[BEAL]

But if we don't call out really bad behavior we risk normalizing it, and continue our march into the sewer of ethnonationalism.

I know it's uncomfortable, and I don't recommend the "you voted for racism!" as an actual political strategy. But when we think about what just happened, we can't excuse away the fact that a lot of people voted for some really deplorable things. And I think a lot of white men have difficulty understanding these things (because they have the unique opportunity not to be defined by their race and gender, as I've come to terms with my homosexuality I've seen my whiteness and maleness in a totally different light).

And then we have the actual deplorables: the KKK, Steve Brannon, Frank Gafney. I'm not the slightest bit concerned at calling deplorable people deplorable.

I agree with this. You have to call out bad ideas.

If someone says something racist, bigoted, or hateful. Those comments and ideas should be debated without resorting to attacking the person. While that person may be deplorable, it starts the dialogue off on the wrong track. It ends up becoming about the person versus the idea/statement.

Same thing goes for terrorism. We need to focus more on the ideas and actions that are being carried out by ISIS, by extremism without labeling an entire religion as EVIL. Call it Islamic Extremism, or whatever, but rather than just hammer Islam over and over, hammer the specific action or proposal that is being used. Just seems like if we ask questions like "Is this really what the scripture is asking?" versus "You're scripture is hateful and you need to disavow your religion now!" we'd have possibly better results?

People who make racist statements should have their words called out. Their actions should be judged by the law if necessary, but we're in such a state of conflict that all we do is focus on the character of the person making them. Rather than what is being said.

It feels like this country needs fucking marriage counseling.

 

[Hewson]

if you enlist in the military, uh the possibility of going to war is kind of par for the course, no?

and Trump will never go to war will he, nope, not in a million years

man, this is a guy who goes to war on Twitter every day!

Point missed completely.

 

[mama cass]

Point missed completely.

lol

 

[mama cass]

Point missed completely.

you do realise, in terms of international relations, that the chances of Trump teaming up with Putin and Assad are pretty high?

re. your original post then, so a worried fearful choice can be a completely irrational and disastrous choice... how is that ok? (with or without all the nasty stuff)

 

[Hewson]

you do realise, in terms of international relations, that the chances of Trump teaming up with Putin and Assad are pretty high?

re. your original post then, so a worried fearful choice can be a completely irrational and disastrous choice... how is that ok? (with or without all the nasty stuff)

I'm not arguing in favor of Trump in the least.
If you've paid attention over the past year, you'd know I didn't/don't support him.

I'm just saying, similar to Dave, that folks need to stop labeling his entire voting block as one. Each individual has their own reason for making the choice they made, that's the definition of a democracy.
There is an outrage amongst a lot of Clinton's supporters, and many are taking things to an extreme as a result, and frankly their behavior is no better than the folks they wish to condemn. (I'm not talking about folks in this thread, just to be clear cause I don't want you twisting my words yet again).

I've said enough on the subject.

 

[DaveC]

There's a difference between "missing" your point and disagreeing with your point. You aren't the only voice of reason, Dave, yours isn't the only viewpoint that matters.

nope, it was missed. i know there's a difference, and i didn't say anything like that, so thanks for putting those words in my mouth

 

[DaveC]

I agree with this. You have to call out bad ideas.

If someone says something racist, bigoted, or hateful. Those comments and ideas should be debated without resorting to attacking the person. While that person may be deplorable, it starts the dialogue off on the wrong track. It ends up becoming about the person versus the idea/statement.

Same thing goes for terrorism. We need to focus more on the ideas and actions that are being carried out by ISIS, by extremism without labeling an entire religion as EVIL. Call it Islamic Extremism, or whatever, but rather than just hammer Islam over and over, hammer the specific action or proposal that is being used. Just seems like if we ask questions like "Is this really what the scripture is asking?" versus "You're scripture is hateful and you need to disavow your religion now!" we'd have possibly better results?

People who make racist statements should have their words called out. Their actions should be judged by the law if necessary, but we're in such a state of conflict that all we do is focus on the character of the person making them. Rather than what is being said.

It feels like this country needs fucking marriage counseling.

this exactly was the point i was trying to make.

smart people fight against stupid ideas. stupid people fight against stupid people.

 

[mama cass]

I'm not arguing in favor of Trump in the least.
If you've paid attention over the past year, you'd know I didn't/don't support him.

I'm just saying, similar to Dave, that folks need to stop labeling his entire voting block as one. Each individual has their own reason for making the choice they made, that's the definition of a democracy.
There is an outrage amongst a lot of Clinton's supporters, and many are taking things to an extreme as a result, and frankly their behavior is no better than the folks they wish to condemn. (I'm not talking about folks in this thread, just to be clear cause I don't want you twisting my words yet again).

I've said enough on the subject.

yeah i understand what you're saying and get your sentiment

i think it's still the heat of the moment, and pretty much the whole world is viewing this as an utter disaster and very dangerous times (apart from Le Pen, Putin, Isis, and the voters lol), but unfortunately it does always just come down to two camps in these things, but i think dialogue is really essential - it's too easy to write people off as idiots, or nutters or wrong, doesn't help anyone in the end, just alienates each side further and widens the divide

a friend of mine here is a proper leftie, supports Melenchon, extreme left, but he feels it's really important to talk to people who support FN extreme right, rather than just call them assholes, to enter into dialogue, discuss issues - never does any harm to get people to look beyond slogans and think a little about things, and try and decipher valid concerns from the crap, but most of all to listen... here in France, philosophy is compulsory on the school curriculum - kids from all walks of life come into their first philosophy lesson with ideas often just learned from their parents, and it's a chance for them to learn new things, to learn how to analyze and think for themselves, discover new ideas, and it gives them such a wider outlook on life - i'm just hoping and praying that over here the Frenchies will get philosophical and think on things deeply and not just accept Le Pen's hateful slogans - will get back to you on that outcome in 6 months' time

although, when it comes to xenophobia, hate speech, any form of racism and abuse, maybe France differs from the US - we have such strict laws and values on that kind of thing - even those kind of words are prosecutable here and generally considered unacceptable in society (although there are elements which are trying to make these things acceptable again)... maybe it's due to our history, war and occupation memories are still very vivid here... will be interesting to see if Le Pen takes a leaf out of Trump's book and tries to push it

 

[bono_212]

nope, it was missed. i know there's a difference, and i didn't say anything like that, so thanks for putting those words in my mouth

You certainly seem to be suggesting that by disagreeing with you, we're missing your point, whereas, to me, it seems like YOU are the one missing the point of the people you're calling out in the first place.

 

[Oregoropa]

I'm not arguing in favor of Trump in the least.

If you've paid attention over the past year, you'd know I didn't/don't support him.



I'm just saying, similar to Dave, that folks need to stop labeling his entire voting block as one. Each individual has their own reason for making the choice they made, that's the definition of a democracy.

There is an outrage amongst a lot of Clinton's supporters, and many are taking things to an extreme as a result, and frankly their behavior is no better than the folks they wish to condemn. (I'm not talking about folks in this thread, just to be clear cause I don't want you twisting my words yet again).



I've said enough on the subject.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[DaveC]

You certainly seem to be suggesting that by disagreeing with you, we're missing your point, whereas, to me, it seems like YOU are the one missing the point of the people you're calling out in the first place.

well you misread what I was saying, then. so in other words, you missed the point.

anyways, moving on...

 

[anitram]

well you misread what I was saying, then. in other words, you missed the point.

anyways, moving on...

I haven't contributed to this fight you all seem to be having thus far.

I think that the question is, if you as an individual voter support a candidate who is running on a racist, xenophobic and misogynistic platform, at what point is it fair to label you a racist, xenophobe misogynist. I do think Dave that voting for the Canadian federal conservatives when you did is not really the same thing. I too have voted for all 3 of Canada's main parties, both on a federal and provincial level over my nearly 20 years of voting. At no point did any of them to my recollection actually run on a platform of -isms. The Conservatives have definitely had some streak of it running through their campaigns at different times (the stupid niqab issue, Ontario's curriculum, etc) but there has simply never been anything even remotely analogous to Trump.

Do I think every one of his supporters is an "ist" for sake of shortening the term? No. But I think of it a bit like my own experience of being a woman in a completely male-dominated (mostly white) subset of the corporate world. Are most men I worked with sexists? No, not in the classical sense of the word. But nearly to the last one they have participated in and contributed to keeping women from fairly competing or advancing. When a senior partner organizes a closing dinner that a team attends and then takes everyone to the strip club for the afterparty and the only two people who don't attend are the 2 women, then every other man who went has contributed to the issue. Yes, they did so for various reasons - some probably wanted to go, others felt they had to in order to keep advancing, but at the end of the day none of those justifications make a difference for the women. When the bankers throw a party to celebrate a deal closing and give out gifts to everyone who worked on the deal, which is common practice, and all the men get custom made silver cufflinks and the 3 women in attendance get nothing, but nobody says a word, then that's contributing to the culture. When a client invites all the male lawyers golfing but none of the women and the men go and nobody tries to invite the women or suggest to the client that they should, they contribute to that culture. So when you have a million and one small cuts like these and that decreases your ability as a woman to network and establish business relationship which then results in women not advancing to the upper echelons, it's all sexist. And you can take the view that most of these guys are not actual sexists, but I ask you how many times do you have to contribute to a system while all the while being able to wash your hands of it at the same time. Sorry, but no, because those men are advancing at the expense of a minority group and while for most of my career I didn't think of them as sexist it's coming to the point where cutting slack is becoming less appealing to me.

I don't think I'm missing your point at all, but I do disagree with it.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I haven't contributed to this fight you all seem to be having thus far.

I think that the question is, if you as an individual voter support a candidate who is running on a racist, xenophobic and misogynistic platform, at what point is it fair to label you a racist, xenophobe misogynist

I don't think that was his point.

I believe his point was (and correct me if I'm wrong) using a broad brush to paint a highly detailed picture doesn't work.

So many people want to simplify this very complex problem. You can't. It's not as simple as throwing your hands up and yelling prejudice at everyone. That doesn't mean the prejudice isn't very real, but it's just part of the mix. When you try to fix a complex problem with a simple solution, you sometimes exacerbate the problem.

 

[anitram]

I don't think that was his point.

I believe his point was (and correct me if I'm wrong) using a broad brush to paint a highly detailed picture doesn't work.

Maybe I'm being generous in assuming that people all understand that.

I interpret what he is saying as "you can't call ALL these people racists, etc because they voted for Trump for reasons a->z so labeling them racist when they may not be is not productive."

Fair enough and true. But why can it not also be true that at some point if you as an individual/voter behave in a way as to contribute to oppression EVEN IF you yourself may be doing so for other reasons may lead others to conclude that at worst you are a racist and at best you are indifferent to racism? Maybe it's not productive to scream it in people's face and it almost certainly won't have them change their approach, but if people want to look at such a person and think, ya know what, maybe they are racist, even a little, then I don't see that as necessarily way out there.

 

[BVS]

Even Glenn Beck is making sense again :facepalm: if we accept Bannon, we're racist.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BVS]

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[bono_212]

It would help, of course, if people were actually saying people who voted for him are "-ist", but speaking at least for myself, I've clarified several times that my problem is with supporting a person who is "-ist".

Also, I clearly just can't quit you guys

 

[Irvine511]

It would help, of course, if people were actually saying people who voted for him are "-ist", but speaking at least for myself, I've clarified several times that my problem is with supporting a person who is "-ist".

yeah, i don't get what's so hard to understand about that.

i think a lot of nuanced perspectives have been put forth, and trying to put the racism as represented by the Trump campaign in context and understanding it as one part of a larger puzzle. but it's difficult to get around what was voted for:

Immigration hardliner says Trump team preparing plans for wall, mulling Muslim registry | Reuters

 

[Diemen]

I guess my question to all of this would be: is there a (moral/social/ethical) line a political candidate could cross that would make justifying voting for that person unacceptable?

I get voting for someone with views you don't like when they're really the only viable alternative. But when candidate A has crossed so many lines that would sink any other candidate (explicit racism, sexism, xenophobia, religious bigotry, etc), and when Candidate B has not only put forth more substantial policy to deal with the issues that candidate A claims to be addressing, but does so without dipping into the (usually) taboo areas that candidate A has, at what point does the risk posed by candidate A's controversial and divisive positions (to put it extremely mildly) outweigh the potential benefits?

 

[Irvine511]

lol, remember this racist super bowl ad?



this guy is on the Trump transition team and rumored to be up for CIA director.

 

[LemonMelon]

this exactly was the point i was trying to make.

smart people fight against stupid ideas. stupid people fight against stupid people.

Don't demonize ignorant people, challenge their ideas.

 

[Dfit00]

Considering all the protests going on and the entire hostile environment against him, I don't know how bad this is going to get after he takes office in January.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

lol, remember this racist super bowl ad?



this guy is on the Trump transition team and rumored to be up for CIA director.

Are we sure these aren't what Trump considers *qualifications*?

This all is beginning to seem like a joke again.

 

[bono_212]

Don't demonize ignorant people, challenge their ideas.

I'd love to challenge ideas, but bringing it up gets me, "grow up, your team lost, get over it."

Huzzah. Teams! Sports! Wooo!

 

[LemonMelon]

Considering all the protests going on and the entire hostile environment against him, I don't know how bad this is going to get after he takes office in January.

As long as he's making stupid decisions and embarrassing the country, I hope it goes on for four years. Keep the pressure on and his approval rating in the tank.

 

[LemonMelon]

I'd love to challenge ideas, but bringing it up gets me, "grow up, your team lost, get over it."

Huzzah. Teams! Sports! Wooo!

After a certain point, some people are just a waste of time and need to be ignored. That will always be the case. Trump's destructive presidency will change their mind more than my words will.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I shudder to think of what a wounded Trump presidency might bring on.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I'd love to challenge ideas, but bringing it up gets me, "grow up, your team lost, get over it."

Huzzah. Teams! Sports! Wooo!

Lol you should see the extended family friend (ie fuck him I don't care about him) I'm picking at on Facebook who suggested "if you don't like the results, leave."

 

[Irvine511]

I shudder to think of what a wounded Trump presidency might bring on.

god save us all should there be a major terrorist attack.